Reply to 2008 Report

This document is intentionally very brief. It is an initial assessment of information reviewed and as such is more related to first impressions rather than an in depth study. It is also not intended as a critique as there is no doubt in the quality of the work completed to date of the Structural Review Committee. The effort to engage as many diverse views as possible from the Fekdenkrais community has been intense and sensitive to the history and culture that is shared by all. The output has been detailed and wide-ranging. From the quick assessment, the motions of the 2007 IFF Assembly in Bordeaux reflect not only how much has been done but also the need to undertake further work. In order to provide an independent approach, it is also important to understand what has not been clearly done and articulate some of the road blocks that have clearly hindered progress.

Reference Framework

To assist in understanding the key issues, a derivation of the McKinney 7-S model will be used as it well describes the current environment. [a google search can provide background] The 7-S framework is based on the theory that an organisation is not just “Structure” and all factors contribute in an interdependent way. The 7-S model is widely used as both a diagnostic and prescriptive framework for organisational alignment and offers a more holistic approach.

Source: Peters and Waterman (1982) 

Assessment

From the material provided, it can be seen that the problems outlined are not exclusively related to Structure. To maintain brevity, an individual allocation to an organisational aspect will not be provided, however, by way of example, the cost of meeting in a global organisation is more related to Systems than Structure. This does not mean that an alternate structure is not warranted as the current structure is inhibiting the ability to create effective Systems. Systems in this context, is not just use of technology but the process of decision making. For example, how many meetings there are and who is consulted.

The model also shows the need to articulate the Shared Values and it can be said that no real progress without consensus. This may be in part the historical core of the difficulties to date. For this reason the importance of the “Purposes and Principles” document should not be underestimated. Similarly, dealing with the training aspects without sufficient consideration of the whole international relationship may lead to a sub-optimal outcome.

The model also suggests that some problems relating to the need to protect individuality while maintaining consistency reflect the natural tension between “Non Shared Values” and “Shared Values”. These individual values that are not shared include the all the contextual aspects of culture and law. They are additional to the values of the Method that includes recognition of the uniqueness of the individual.

The information provided suggests that the Structural Review Committee will not only need to recommend an acceptable improved structure but also a strategy for change and some system improvements. Although there is strong consensus for change, for success, some of the key questions to be resolved are:

Structure

• What is the final nature of that structure
• Roles and responsibilities
• Is there a compelling case for change to this structure
• How does it solve the identified problems (benefits)
• What risks there are for new problems
• What will not be addressed

Strategy

• What has to happen to bring about this change
• What kind of effort will be required
• What interim arrangements are required
• Process for changing the rules – ongoing strategy for growth
• Creation and maintenance of value associated with the international environment

Systems

• Intellectual property
• Legal systems
• Methods of compliance
• Local versus international accreditation
• Accreditation approaches and processes for local organisations, individuals, course content and syllabi
• International Communication and Knowledge Sharing

Style

• Distribution and delegation of decision making

Staff

• Articulation of freedom of individuals (and groups)
• Practical processes such as dispute resolution

Skills

• What skills other than the Method can be utilitsed or need to be considered. Such as teaching skills and approached.

Recommendations

It is recommended that: -

1. A succinct list of shared values be derived via the vehicle of the Purposes and Principles document
2. The Study Group consider using the model outlined in this paper and recast considerations in this light, so that a set pragmatic and straight forward proposals can be developed.
3. If the above approach is taken to consider the key questions outlined above along with any other core issue
4. The Study Group should focus on most likely acceptable outcomes in the short term, while noting that a more ideal result may be required in the long term.
5. It should be remembered that although very powerful, the Method should not be considered exclusively in areas beyond its core application. For example, in organisational management and imparting information.