Post #2: Experience in Organizations

Back when I was in high school, I volunteered every summer for a camp known as National Youth Leadership Training (NYLT) which was primarily associated with the Boy Scouts of America. This week long course (two weeks for staff) turned complete strangers into an efficient organization so that they may gain experience in team-building and goal-setting for use in future situations. This teaching would come about in the form of both seminar-styled lectures, led by assigned junior and adult staff, and the practical application of the aforementioned lectures.

The organization was structured as follows:

The participants were randomly separated into groups of six or seven. For training purposes, a new leader was selected each day so that they may experience the position firsthand. With the position came responsibilities such as attending certain daily meetings, reporting on the progress of the team, and delegation to subordinates.

The next level up included the junior staff (which I belonged to) which had a hierarchy within itself. With the exception of the junior staff leader and the assistant junior staff leader, both of which were selected by the adult staff in advance, junior staff members were randomly paired with a team of participants. This person’s responsibility would be to monitor and guide the assigned team very closely at first but to become increasingly indirect as the teams became more effective. They would also act as intermediary between participants and higher-level staff.

The adult staff had limited power. Responsibilities mostly included guiding junior staff members, logistics and communications for the camp as a whole, and assisting in cases of emergency.

What governed all members of the camp was the guidelines set forth by the higher and higher levels of the national program which eventually reported to the Boy Scouts of America somewhere up the chain of command. These guidelines addressed what should be taught and performed by the staff essentially outlining the ideal way to operate.

That being said, the organization of this camp mostly included systems of monitoring and guiding from the staff members. As the week went on, and participants became more confident and competent, the power shifted more and more into their favor.

While we were required to adhere fairly closely to the NYLT guidelines, the success or failure of the program was ultimately based on the participants. The staff had to conduct seminars and activities and otherwise present the tools for success. Occasionally, they had to ensure certain things would get completed. Other than that, success could be defined by the participants. This was something they were unused to, yet they consistently outperformed expectations by the end of the week. Many would choose to come back for the next year and onwards as junior staff.

So why did this work? Governance. Without the hierarchy, policies, and guidelines, the camp would fail. Through monitoring, motivation, and intermediaries, participants stayed focused and on track. In other words, there were transaction costs. In this particular instance, the staff was intrinsically motivated. They volunteered and found joy in fulfilling these responsibilities. Nevertheless, this system required governance and, by extension, transaction costs. The Boy Scouts of America had to monitor the NYLT program. The NYLT program had to monitor each subordinate position within itself down to the level that monitors individual camps. Finally, we reach the hierarchy described above.

The bottom line is that it works in this situation. The transaction costs are enormous, but there is an enormous number of volunteers who find enjoyment in it. Not to say wages have never come up. If the program continues to grow faster than the volunteer count does, additional incentive may be required to fulfill responsibilities. To my knowledge, this is not yet the case.