Consensus Building

70 – The Annual, 2010-2011

by Dr. Gareth Morgan-Jones

Before I proceed to the meat of this end-of-another-year essay please allow me to make one or two things perfectly clear. As has been the case during the course of the past eighteen years, during which I have been contributing monthly articles to The Canine Chronicle, my purpose here is not to promote any personal agenda nor to advocate a particular point of view nor to advance a specific, individually-held opinion, nor even to indulge in constructive criticism for its own sake. On the contrary, the aim, as it has always and invariably been, is to give some account of what are believed to be the sentiments held by the body politic of the sport at large. How we do things and how the leadership, in particular, conducts business is a subject which is always worth visiting, and reflecting upon, especially in this day and age when our guiding beliefs and values are sometimes seemingly held hostage to raw pragmatism where the practical, as opposed to the idealistic, takes precedence. There is ample room for healthy discussion and debate here and this is something to be surely encouraged. What is written herein is meant as a positive contribution. If some find an element of the provocative in my words, so be it. Sometimes our priorities of importance do seem to get twisted sideways and back to front. As yet another year comes to a close, some thoughts on the condition of our culture are surely in order. During the course of these past twelve months we have experienced, once again, some discontinuities between the way decisions are made and delivered to the Fancy by the powers that be and what might be described as a more ideal modus operandi. I’m choosing my words carefully here! There have been various developments, of varying significance and consequence, which has led to occasional dissatisfaction and disquiet, some probably justified, some undoubtedly not. So what’s new, you might well ask. Some of the changes brought about have been seen to threaten our distinguishing character, our moral nature, and our very ethos. Our customary values have been tested and come under increased scrutiny. Witness the judges now summarily allowed to solicit assignments bit. Whatever happened to dignity, some are asking. Why, all of a sudden, this rather startling change? Was this just a case of moving with the times or was there more to it? Our philosophies and priorities, in terms of the way we conduct ourselves, have now become the subject of considerable interest.

The question of pragmatism-at-what-cost becomes relevant and has not really been adequately answered. An ostensible explanation, that which is plausible rather than that, which is demonstrably true or real, is given to create an outward appearance. And so the ease of present-day electronic communication is suggested as a valid reason and adequate justification for a change in a long-held philosophy. Unfortunately, some of the factors which have had a deleterious effect upon governance, including the impact of a certain corporate mentality, and widely different views as to what it will take to prosper, and even survive, have also severely compromised tradition and the historical harmony characterizing the sport. Or was this a delusion all along? Specifically, a significant disconnect between the thinking and priorities of the leadership, in case after case, and the collective sentiment held by what is assumed to be the majority (mostly silent, up to a point) of the rank and file, have led to situations where reversals or retractions have become rather commonplace. An interesting but unsettling and tormenting scenario to many. Hence we have had our uproars and our tempestuous reactions and even our cries of foul play. Think of the Petco fiasco (not my word), the unfortunate (in the view of some) and aborted Group-reformatting proposal, the move to charge an annual approval (licensing, although it’s not called that) fee for judges (presumably still simmering on the side or back burner and awaiting resolution). Have I missed any? Then there are the decisions to establish the Grand Championship program and, more recently, the assignments solicitation matter alluded to above. Not surprisingly, attempts to justify untenable positions, brought about by less than adequate consultation with the constituents most directly affected, have resulted in the erosion of confidence and trust. Rather remarkable when you think about it. All rather complicated and, in some instances, perhaps even disturbing. Building a sound consensus, a judgment arrived at by most of those concerned and impacted, as a solid foundation before going ahead has not, regrettably say many, been something which has characterized the way those in current authority operate. Hence the now common pattern of proposal, even after adoption, is revisiting. As I say, it really isn’t at all surprising that many are now seriously questioning this way of doing business.

So are there some salutary lessons, those that produce a beneficial effect, to be learned from all of the shooting from the hip which we have witnessed in recent years, the acts taken without full consideration being given to the probable, if not totally predictable, consequences? Without due regard, moreover, being paid to the likely fallout. How about the knee-jerk, readily predictable reactions? Is it really unexpected that the power of long-held societal values and the democratic process, where consensus opinion plays such a pivotal role, ultimately prevails? Group solidarity must never be underestimated. This, at least, has been made perfectly clear during the course of this past decade. One of the big questions confronting the thinkers among those participating in the sport of the pedigreed dog now is as follows. To what extent are influences seeping in from outside, albeit surreptitiously, negatively impacting the well-being of our culture? Is there indeed some trickle-down effect, which leads to partial dysfunctionality or at least to an inability to be cognizant of what might or might not be acceptable? Are pragmatic considerations, such as how to deal with highly serious revenue shortfalls, affecting some of our basic values and dictating unpalatable changes? Failure to come up to expectations or need always poses a challenge but are we making the right choices, proposing the right solutions? Something clearly has to give. When an organization can be accused, rightly or wrongly, of creating its own problems things get quite messy. The judges’ fee matter again comes readily to mind. Why the initially unilateral thinking and decision-making in this regard? Are the lack of sensitivity and jaded values extant in the country at-large, some of which may be incompatible with our tradition, now irrevocably influencing the direction in which we are headed? Not to mention the mercenary aspect of things. Now it is perfectly obvious that there exists a certain conflict or incompatibility between that which is narrowly corporate in nature and a broader interest. Hence we have decisions that impact many made by a few without appropriate consultation and adequate consensus building. This is always a sure prescription and recipe for discontent and discord. It inevitably polarizes into an us/them type context and divide, which can be difficult, if not impossible, to effectively bridge, at least in the short term. Ultimately nobody really gains by such a scenario. Ideas have to be well-conceived, adequately discussed, and successfully marketed. Failure in one or other of these areas can potentially lead to an embarrassment.

Just how far off course and out of orbit we sometimes seemingly get in this day and age is, of course, very much a matter of opinion. There are those who feel that we are moving right along relatively smoothly with only the occasional bump in the road, with an occasional large pothole of our own making encountered. There are others who firmly believe that this is delusionary, that those who think everything is hunky-dory and quite satisfactory are in denial. Take your pick! We saw just how ridiculously absurd things can get earlier this year in the irrational reactions which the Grand Championship program engendered. Now that the dust has more or less settled, all of the negativity looks, in retrospect, at least somewhat misplaced. This was an instance where a pattern of thought was generated by habit, irrespective and independent of reason. There was also a follow-the-herd type effect in place. The ease of electronic communication made matters far worse. A kind of spillover effect was evident and there existed an inability to distinguish between a good thing and a bad thing. There was a whole lot of obtuse thinking on the subject doing the rounds, lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility and intellect. Misinformation and disinformation became de rigueur and seemingly most of the chronic malcontents among us readily jumped on the bandwagon. Some pretty damaging things were said and we clearly saw the cynicism which exists out there. This, perhaps, was partly the legacy of previous ill-advised decisions coming home to roost and, by default, tarnishing something which was not in itself intrinsically and necessarily devoid of value. Who knows? One thing leads to another and false assumptions are readily made. And so there is always a price to pay for missteps; they can so easily come back to haunt an organization. An impression of drifting along and reacting, rather than making sure of getting it right in the first place, does not a reputation for effectiveness make?

The matter of approval to judge, and the implementation procedures associated with it, is now back on the stove, perhaps even the front burner. A committee of experienced and highly respected individuals has been appointed to take a fresh look (if that’s even possible) at this whole subject. The leader of one judges’ organization has already forcefully and justifiably made a strong case for constructive consensus building. If ever there was a need for adequate and thorough input from all interested and potentially impacted parties this is surely it. Quite obviously a whole lot is at stake here in terms of morale, if nothing else. Representation is essential. This has been a volatile and unstable area of governance these past several decades, for a number of reasons. There have been aberrations. Appropriate consultation and opinion gathering will be vital here in order to ensure that revisionary recommendations carry the substance and weight of across-the-board acceptance. This is a difficult area but surely one of vital importance and significance to the sport. There is an opportunity here for the leadership to repair some of the damage by being seen to respect the collective wisdom of the constituency. It should not be missed. Granted, not everyone is going to necessarily agree with whatever position is finally taken and there may be need for compromises (isn’t this what’s in fashion these days?) but in the final analysis there has to be some feeling of satisfaction generated among the fraternity which forms the very foundation of what our sport is all about. A failure in this regard will not augur well for the future.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=1754

Posted by admin on Jul 10 2011. Filed under Editorial, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.