Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:48:07 -0500 
From: David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Group activity, 1650, Tangent, etc.

Greetings good gentles,

Tibor writes (first, quoting me...):

> Bertram wrote:
>  Tibor asks why the 'requirement' that groups host an event to demonstrate
>  they're active exists.  The answer, I believe, lies in a simple fact of
>  history.
>  
> Which begs the question, "Why did Sedalia recently introduce the concept
> into kingdom law?"
>

It's in LAW now?  See what happens when you nap for just an hour or two?

This transformation of perfectly good customs into laws
has got to stop.  What good are white-haired old fogeys
with canes going to be if we can't at least be fonts of
custom and tradition?  Next thing you know they'll 
start _printing_ law books so the *common* people can
read them and start getting ideas.  Grumpf grumpf grumpf.

Seriously, though -- this is yet another example of
the common bureaucratic practice of painting oneself
into a corner in the name of efficiency.  Now the
powers that be will not only be *able* to dissolve 
groups that haven't held events in the specified 
period--they'll be *required* to.

It seems much of the modern management revolution
has left the Society behind.  Modern notions of
management would say:

   1) Listen to the people you serve

   2) Give them the tools and resources
      they need to be successful

   3) Stand back and let them learn from
      their own mistakes

   4) Give them the lion's share of the credit

How do our kingdoms implement any of these bits of advice?

Max Weber, the social scientist famous for "The Protestant Ethic
and the Sprit of Capitalism," said one of the major successes of 
the modern era was the tranformation of administration by *patronage* 
systems into administration by bureaucracies.  In the former, which 
typified most systems in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, what was key
to getting things done was *relationships* -- who you know and
how you're connected to them.  In the latter, personal connections
are replaced by formal job descriptions based on technical skills
and rigid application of a hierarchy of authority based on the power
of the *position* rather than the person filling the position.

We have an odd amalgam of both systems, since the outgoing office 
holder in an office that's part of the modern bureaucratic hierarchy
of the Society gets to pick his or her own successor -- and that's
often done on a 'patronage' basis.  No value judgements implied here
folks, simply an observation on a theoretical level.

I know that Carolyn and a few others might be interested in discussing
the SCA in light a various management philosophies.  Would anyone else
like to add their comments?

Many thanks for your time and attention, good lords and ladies!

My best -- Bertram

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
+------------------------ PREME * Press On * PREME ---------------------+
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..." 
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca