Continuing in the theme of “ROI in Community” and spurred by a comment the other day I began to think about the concept of “Grass Roots”. Now according to Wikipedia “Grass Roots” is…
A grassroots movement (often referenced in the context of a political movement) is one driven by the constituents of a community. The term implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it is natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures. Often, grassroots movements are at the local level, as many volunteers in the community give their time to support the local party, which can lead to helping the national party. For instance, a grassroots movement can lead to significant voter registration for a political party, which in turn helps the state and national parties.
So when I see or hear people referring to “organizing” or “starting” a committee or group for a “Grass Roots” movement my first reaction is to cringe, my second is to sit back and think about whether or not that means it’s a “Grass Roots” movement or if that is simply someone doing what needs to be done and using a popular and simple label to ensure proper understanding by everyone involved?
Is it OK to “reuse” labels when we need or when it seems fitting to ensure a proper understanding of the actions taking place? As we move through our global environment and continue to break down barriers and the world continues to shrink in upon itself is this perhaps the way forward? Re-appropriate a label, re-factor it to fit a need?
I’ve been labeled a maverick, rebel, disrtupter, team player, loner, skunk works freak, geek, nerd and all sorts of other things over the past several years and each and every time it was given to me with the same sincerity and affection as my first “title” within the SAP Ecosystem “Guiding Light for all Newbies” (SDN circa 2004) so I’m opt’d to think that this method of “re-factoring” labels is a good and acceptable thing, you?
Back to a more general question, when is a “Grass Roots” movement actually needed to invoke change? Within an organization if you already have several members of management and the workforce involved and everyone seems to be on the same page does that not indicate that you have already advanced to the next stage beyond “Grass Roots”? Can a group within an organization simply go forward and say “we are doing this, help us iron out the wrinkles or simply get out of our way!”
At what point should a corporate, enterprise or other organization put the breaks on their folks when change is trying to be invoked? Should it happen at the general level or morale? Brand? Bottom line? Personally I think that any serious group within an organization will do what they can to ensure brand, morale and the bottom line are not involved or if they are they are respected. I also don’t think that a group will attempt to harm the company or it’s customers and partners which means that and in my experience politics seem to be the only culprit to change happening. Perhaps that is harsh as there are several reasons for change not to take place but if a group is truly trying to improve the stance of the company and they are stopped what other reason could there be, given they did everything in their power to ensure compliance to the items I mentioned above?
Where do “politics” even fit into the mix?
