Executive Director Carl Griesser explains changes in MKP’s international structure
To enhance understanding of how The ManKind Project is changing as an international organization, MKP executive director Carl Griesser responded to questions about the structural shifts now planned.
Freed: How is the structure of The ManKind Project changing?
Griesser: There are two main changes in the structure of MKP.
One of them took place last February in downsizing the Project Council from 61 to 29 members. The Council meets once a year to make important decisions about organization policies and to approve our budget.
Previously, the Council had seats for every full center and multiple seats for most constituency. Many believed scaling back the size of the Council would lead to more effective governing of MKP.
That change has already been accomplished, but the Council has yet to meet in its new form so it’s too soon to assess the impact.
The other change is more complex, which is to separate MKP USA from MKP.
Centers in the regions outside the U.S. (OUS) have been saying for years that we in the US can’t see the difference.
At the meeting last February at Glen Ivy in California, a decision was made to create MKP USA and a separate International Operating Council (IOC) as separate groups within MKP. The ultimate goal was to move the management of international functions from the existing Executive Committee (ExCom) to the IOC.
When the ExCom and IOC met together at Glen Ivy last May [see related story in the June edition], the members of the IOC decided they did not want to take on that breadth of responsibility for managing MKP worldwide or to continue as part of an international Project Council. Instead, the ExCom and IOC decided together that MKP USA would hold the intellectual property (IP, such as the protocols for the trainings) to license the IP to the OUS regions.
Since then, there’s been a major shift. The OUS centers decided they want to be remain a part of the international organization which will hold the intellectual property and license it to each of the regions, including MKP USA.
Freed: How did that shift come about?
Griesser: Members of MKP UK took a strong stance that, as a full center for well over a decade they had as much right to hold the IP as MKP USA. In addition, some of us were concerned about the impact of giving up an international governing body.
As it is now, if there are disagreements about fees for example, the Project Council has the power to decide what’s fair. Who would make those decisions between MKP USA and the other regions? And if we decided two years from now that the restructuring wasn’t serving the organization, we would no longer have an international organization to consider what should change.
There’s a great book called the Starfish and the Spider by Brafman and Beckstrom that looks at the differences between decentralized and centralized organizations. They also describe hybrid organizations which blend the strengths of each style, and I think hybridization holds the best hope for MKP. Giving up our international body would have limited our options.
Freed: So why is this structural change necessary?
Griesser: Understanding this is important. Until now, because MKP began in the United States 25 years ago, MKP and MKP USA have been essentially synonymous. We currently have one umbrella organization that governs the regions, and we’re continuing that, despite the detour last May.
The OUS centers have been saying that MKP and MKP USA have been laminated together, and they need to be pulled apart, so there is more space for the OUS regions in the overarching organization. They’ve been telling U.S. leaders that they will not see how much MKP and MKP USA have been stuck together until they get unstuck.
Whenever we came to Project Council or ExCom meetings, for example, much of the talk was about U.S. issues. The OUS leaders have wanted these U.S. issues taken off the table at the international meetings. It’s like going to a family reunion and expecting your cousins to devote their time to solving the internal family problems you’re having with your own daughter.
Freed: What will be the benefits from this change?
Griesser: We hope that this separation will mean much more clarity about the roles of MKP USA and MKP International. Ending the enmeshment ought to make it clear what each should be doing. At the same time, this will mean more autonomy for the OUS regions, which is what they’ve been wanting. My hope is this will also lead to growing awareness of the need for greater management competence on the boards of both organizations.
Among the questions yet to be resolved is whether the existing MKP corporation will become MKPI with MKP USA being newly incorporated, or vice versa. We need more input from our attorneys to answer that question
Whichever way it goes, they will be incorporated separately, and for many reasons MKPI will likely be incorporated in the U.S.
Freed: What’s at risk in making this change?
Griesser: One of the risks being voiced is a concern about losing our sense of international brotherhood. I’ve also heard fears about lowering the quality of the training programs and lack of consistency from region to region.
Another risk is the existing staff being stretched too thin from working for two entities, MKP USA and MKPI.
And making complex financial changes when we’re experiencing reduced enrollments in the face of a global recession is risky.
Freed: What is the process and timeline for implementing the change?
Griesser: We will probably have a special meeting of the Project Council by phone in the next two months to approve the incorporation of MKP USA and MKPI, which I hope to accomplish by year’s end. By the first week of December the restructuring proposals and draft annual operating plans and budgets for both organizations will be posted. They’ll be considered at Project Council meeting in February at Glen Ivy.
Freed: What are the lessons in this change for MKP as an organization?
Griesser: The biggest lesson is a deeper understanding of the differences between cultures and nations. For us Americans, I think this will broaden how we view ourselves as members of a global organization.
One of the models we’ve been using to understand our process is called Spiral Dynamics, which says that effective organization and cultural change depends on both including and transcending.
In our case, that means including the best practices we have learned in the past, like making space to deal with interpersonal relationships within our business meetings, while transcending our history to step into greater transparency, more regional autonomy, and more effective nonprofit management.
Freed: Finally, how might this change affect MKP’s impact in the world?
Griesser: A metaphor we used at Glen Ivy last May is that the OUS centers are a bit like teenagers who need to move out of the house. At that stage, neither the parent nor the teenager may know what’s ahead – they have to trust that clarity will emerge from the process. But first the kid has to walk out the door.
When the New Warrior Training Adventure was begun 25 years ago, Tosi, Kauth, and Herink really had no idea where it would lead. My belief is that this reorganization is similar. We need to step forward, even though we don’t know quite where it will lead.
In this case, we’ve been offered some exciting glimpses of our potential by the Stanford consulting team. The audacious goals they’ve suggested, such as having a million men in MKP circles withiin 25 years, seem almost impossible to reach from here. My belief is that our restructuring will enable all our regions, including the US, to focus more effectively on ways to share our work with men who need it.
For too many years, MKP has been the best kept secret in the human potential movement.
Now more MKP centers are offering open circles as a service to the public. Northern California and Greater Carolinas, for example, are using Meetup.com as a very effective way of stepping into public view.
My belief is that our world is dying from a lack of effective and empowered men. At its simplest, our mission is to make better men, and I think these structural changes will help us get out of our own way so we can fulfill that mission.
– is a deeply personal issue that everyone decides for himself. Sometimes the price is high, sometimes low. But this is not very important for life. Life is an interesting thing. And the price on Viagra – too.
