Assess risk
awardprogram articles

Award Organisations

picture of two website pages

It is amazing how many award givers join award organisations these days. Or perhaps not so amazing. Seeking external accreditation has become important for award givers. It is seen as independent validation of hard work, time, trouble and even money involved in the creation of a service.

There are a growing number of organisations that all seek to provide advice and support to those within the awards community. The benefits of such organisations are expounded clearly by the organisations themselves and their supporters. They include the provision and sharing of information...the establishing and setting of standards...the collating and publishing of external and internal resources.

However, have you ever been invited to a party being thrown by someone that you vaguely know? You discard your comfortable sandals and lederhosen and put on your suit and tie because this is what is expected. You meet new people, admittedly enjoying the company, the heady atmosphere, the conversation and wallowing in the knowledge attained. As a result you are invited to successive parties. But a year later you begin to realise that the people who attend the parties are the same people..the same faces expounding almost identical views...with very little variation.

No, this is not a scene from the Stepford Wives! This analogy relates to what can be perceived as a negative aspect of award organisations....the compromises that an award giver may need to make.

^ top of page

At this point it is important to make a distinction between standards and criteria or rules. The standard is the framework which sets the boundaries. The criteria or rules are the meat on the bones. So it is possible for many award programs to adhere to universal standards whilst taking entirely different approaches to meeting those standards. This results in production of diverse award programs.

One of the problems is that in attempting to gain outward recognition for their efforts, sites giving awards may feel a need to conform to the criteria set by award organisations. Although many of these organisations establish or adopt standards that most objective observers would consider sound, it is often felt that the criteria itself leaves little room for compromise. As a consequence, sites feel under pressure to follow this criteria to the hilt in order to gain the highest recognition that the organisations allow. This often results in 'Dolly the Sheep' like sites, each one a clone of others that came before.

Could this be a case of conformity stifling originality; Individuality giving way to the acceptance of imposed criteria?

^ top of page>

Of course there is nothing compelling people to join award organisations. I have often heard people shout out " be an individual " and "remember the maxim ' to thine own self be true' ". But this is admittedly easier said than done. Certainly such a statement thrust in the direction of a new award program that is seeking to promote itself, would be comparable to telling a perspective traveler " if you don't like our ship then you have the option of swimming the ocean to your destination!" and then smiling contentedly because you have made their choices clear to them. Ok, so this may not be quite the 'Hobson's Choice' portrayed, but in reality can be perceived as being very close to it.

Things are perhaps not quite as black and white as all this. It could be argued that the structure of some of the awards organisations positively encourages individuality. Such organisations lay down a framework and offer various awards or badges, each award/badge reflecting the degree of conformity. Such organisations may state what they feel to be the elements of a perfect awards program but are not dictatorial. Sites that do not conform to this notional view of the perfect awards program are still admitted into the fold, their individuality in tact. They receive a badge/award that reflects this. The problem with this is that if an organisation offers a rating system of 1 to 10 then the natural inclination of most people is to achieve the 10. And to do this, compromises and sacrifices may need to be made.

How many times have you been aware of award programs that have removed certain aspects from their site or included other aspects in order to conform to some requirement of an awards organisation?

I may have given the impression that award organisations are some monstrous institutions, authoritarian Big Brothers of Orwellian dimensions, that watch your every move and sit in judgement. This of course is not only nonsense, but far from the truth.

Consider again for a moment one of the main purposes of award organisations ..the establishing and promoting of standards. It may be suggested that requiring compliance with a set of standards is in some way reprehensible or manipulative. In fact, would there be any point of having an organisation without a set of standards to follow? Without enforced standards any organisation would lose its focus and its relevance. Noone could respect an organisation that was so fluid that it changed its stance at the drop of a hat. As long as the standards in question are objectively reasonable and a reflection of good practice, rather than the product of the thoughts of an elite, then there can be few objections to the standards.

It is not the existence of standards that is the problem. It is the inflexibility of rules and criteria established in an attempt to meet standards, that cause the problem. It is the failure to remember that in the final analysis the criteria exist to serve people not the other way around. Philosophies and standards can be used as a yardstick but should not, through the criteria, be used as a stick to beat award givers.

^ top of page

So how do we resolve this problem of on the one hand, fearing the conformity that rules bring but on the other hand realising that without rules to shore up the standards, the award organisation ceases to function? I would suggest that if you accept the principle that standards are important, the award giver should examine the organisation's rules and measure those rules against their program. They should then pursue one of three options:

If the award giver has a site that does not meet the organisation's criteria, and does not wish to change his program, then he should not join. Simple. This is the moralistic approach.
If the award giver has a site that does not meet the organisation's criteria, but wants to join the organisation then they should change their program to meet the criteria. This is the lemming approach.
If the award giver has a site that does not meet the organisation's criteria, but feels there is room for compromise, without detrimentally affecting either the spirit and intent of the program, then compromise should be sought. Acceptable criteria can be met, and the unacceptable dismissed. The pragmatist approach.

Incidentally as someone that believes in the importance of award organisations, I lean towards the third option. However this option (and indeed the other two options), presupposes some degree of proactively on the part of the award giver. It presupposes that the award giver will actually take the time to find out about the award organisation they are going to join before they sign on the dotted line and press that submit button.

So what advice would I give to individuals seeking to join an awards organisation?

Research the organisation before submitting your details. Check that the standards that this organisation lays down are ones that you can live with.
Seek an organisation that rates sites rather than a blanket pass or fail. That way you can retain this individuality while being part of the organisation.
Be prepared to compromise a little.
Ensure that you are aware of the hierarchy of the organisation and that the hierarchy is accountable to its members. If complacency is the disease, then accountability is the cure.
Look for evidence of participative discussion - e.g. Organisations with forums that allow individuals to participate in discussion and to air dissenting voices without being shot down, ridiculed or gagged.

And for goodness sake, participate in the organisation....

One final thought. If the award givers allow the retention of their badge or award to become more important than the reasons for seeking that badge or award in the first place, then the results for their program and for the award organisation will be the same...stagnant mediocrity.

Comments?

^ top of page

Site Details

The Safety Zone

Award Program

About Me

Assess risk awardprogram articles

Award Organisations

Assess risk
awardprogram articles