How we have changed

Moving from roles to relationships

It wasn't so long ago that much of our activity was role-based. And this worked well for linear systems (input->process->output). Our respective roles determined who did what, when, how, and with what authority and responsibility. There are pluses in such arrangements. For example, such systems can be very efficient and effective for simple, well defined tasks and standardised activities. At the personal level, if the system fails but we have "done our job" then "we are not to blame". Great!!

But there minuses as well. If the roles are poorly designed and/or some functions are omitted or fail then we may fail to fulfil our role and/or the whole system may fail. Rigid linear systems tend to give the impression of being robust while being inflexible, vulnerable to change, and to lack resilience. A strong focus on roles can promote "either-or" and "us-them" thinking, result in silos and mindless fundamentalism. Not so great!!

But things have changes anyhow. Consider how many of our key activities, ones that make a real difference for us and for those around us, are not role-based. Rather the interactions involved are likely to be based on common interests, purposes, responsibilities, needs...

Rather than being designed, or predefined, our relationships emerge and fade according to the needs of those us involved. Social media provide some of the tools and opportunities that enable and support many of these relationships. Twitter and Facebook (and Google+ ?) are good examples - we use these tools to establish and utilise relationships without any role prescription being placed on any of us.

Relationships can be much more flexible and more resilient than standardised roles. The parties involved adjust their interactions as their needs are met and/or contexts change. In periods of rapid and significant change (including crises) it can be very effective to utilise and reconfigure existing relationships and nuture the emergence of new relationships as the opportunities emerge. In everyday situations, it is common for co-workers to collaborate to in order to save save a system from its inherent shortcomings by developing work-arounds.

• Case Study: The recent government proposal to close 10% of Tasmania's schools is a good example. The government imposed very strict role constraints on staff. But the small, mainly rural school communities, distributed across the state, responded quickly and easily. With a central Facebook site and individual school Facebook sites, they quickly established a coherent network with effective working relationships and forced the government to back down in just 18 days. The role-based government, Education Department, teacher union and Parent and Friends Association were unable to match the relationship-based initiatives of the school communities. The school communities now have a new site and a well developed set of on-going relationships and associated knowledge and proven strategies that will serve them well as Tasmania continues to struggle with it budgetary difficulties. Current score: Roles = 0; Relationships = 1.

It is time for the government to understand that the world has changed and that we are co-evolving with the world. It is not just Gen Y and Gen X who place such a high value on relationships. We have all changed because role-based linear systems are working less and less well as the world becomes more complex and interconnected (a tautology?).

It is not a matter of choosing roles or relationships (an "either-or" choice). We need both. When relationships fail badly it can be helpful to have some key roles available to address urgent situations. For example, police interventions may be necessary under certain circumstances.