The Final Report

Myself, a friend of Doug, and a couch from South Fremont High all had to write a investigation into a local group. And we chose the SW group as it would be the most interesting. Now judging from the reports of the other groups, I was completely right.

The report below was turned in for our grade, and delievered to the class roundtable style. We gave our opinion of the group, showed them the survey, showed them the newspaper article from last year, and ran the SW Fan Film Awards that showed our movie.
In all modesty, the class liked ours the best.

I tried to gloss over Doug and Eric's unquenchable thrist for power as best I could, so be nice. (And if I got any dates wrong, so be it. Thats not life threatening). And this was supposed to be warts and all, so no one get harassing about me being a traitor or anything. You guys came off like gangbusters at the presentation and more than one person asked how they could join (info which I happily supplied in a handout).

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Leadership Description Paper
ADED 581
Dr. Karen Wilson Scott
April 29, 2003
Barry Finnigan, Roger Smith, Jim Winn


Leadership Description:
The Idaho Falls STAR WARS Alliance

The IFSWA was formed around 2000, the brainchild of a pair of individuals who met on an internet message board based a thousand miles away but connected two Star Wars fans a mere 20 miles apart. Doug Atwood is an Idaho Falls resident and professor at Eastern Idaho Technical College. He is the co-founder of the fan club along with Erik Nielsen, a former student of film and now a journalist living in Sugar City. The original charter members included at first only the families and close friends of Doug and Eric, but has now reached 40 members, with some recipients of the email list as far away as Texas. The group is based on mutual appreciation of the Star Wars movies of George Lucas and the expanded universe that has grown up around it. They meet to participate in activities as simple as watching the movies and as complicated as honing all their respective skills and talents into the creation of short films of their own which are submitted to national contests.
The club?s proudest accomplishment occurred last year when a short movie they produced was deemed a finalist for an international competition. It was highlighted on the Sci Fi Channel and screened by George Lucas himself. The film was shot entirely within Idaho Falls and starred the membership of the group.
Since its inception up to only a few months ago, the club had had only one President in Doug Atwood. Doug recently resigned and handed the leadership over to Eric, for reasons of ?It was just time to have someone else.? The group has officers other than president, in mostly volunteer positions. The office of Presidency had not ever needed to be rotated before as the responsibilities of the group are fairly well divided up amongst the group, which has various pools of talent in a variety of areas.
Now as for future leadership trends, three respective points of view can be offered. The three authors and observers of the Idaho Falls Star Wars Association each came to respectively view the club from a different perspective. Barry Finnigan is deeply engrained into the group and knows each of the members. Jim Winn is quite well acquainted with the group?s former president, Doug Atwood, but has only passing knowledge of the Star Wars Movies. Roger has young children who appreciate Star Wars, but did not know anyone in the group. Each viewpoint provides a different facet of understanding. In addition, the current and former presidents were both interviewed for this project, and the group membership who attended the meeting of February 13 were given a leadership survey, polling their own thoughts of the leadership (see attached). With these various windows into the club, the following observations were made:

Barry?s view:
The IFSWA past and present fits the ?Group Theory? of Leadership. The officers and talented people would proceed to

 

Hmm, I hope Roger's a COACH, not a COUCH...

Very interesting reading. Perhaps we can take some cues from this to better the group.

I am a bit disappointed that there aren't some "recommendations" to improve the group. Any ideas anyone?

Here are some immediate things I pick up on:

- We need an ACTIVE secretary that will be dedicated to taking minutes and reading them at the next meeting. The minutes also need to be posted here in the I.F. forum for reference.

- I need to back down at the meetings, let Erik run the show.

- Other members need to "step up to the plate" and take charge a bit more. It's your club!

Perhaps this should be the topic at the next meeting?

Doug

 

Yes; a secretary is crucial to have in a group like this, so we can archive the topics that are discussed at the monthly meetings, and look back at them; in case we lose focus. This keeps us motivated, and lists us some goals that we wish to accomplish.

Posting them on the board lets everyone see them at any time they want, and thus, people don't forget what's going on. Next meeting, we should decide on a Secretary; if you ask me. What are other people's thoughts?

 

Who said couch? Damn speel chek. Oh well, one can be called worse things.

 

There are (IMO) some significant flaws with the final report on the club. I don't think it is necessary to pick apart every word in the report but I want will pick on one section. Barry said, "The minutes were not read at either of the two meetings. During the conversation of the first meeting, the ex-president's wife suggested that having a secretary would allow them to be more organized and better informed. Everyone nodded their heads in agreement,yet no one volunteered and no one was nominated. The next month there was uncertainty and confusion over what was discussed the month before." When I compare the events of the May 9th meeting each of the above concerns were addressed and solved. My impression of the workings of the club is quite different from the report. There are some working assumptions in the report on what makes for a successful club, that are not fully revealed. Now I pick on Barry specifically because he has the opportunity to respond, whereas the other two authors might not. However, considering the limited number of visitations by the other authors, how seriously can we take their opinions? Personally I am not offended by what was written just annoyed by one consequence of it. Doug felt an apology was necessary for his actions within in the club. I feel his actions in and for the club have been in the best interest of the organization, therefore no apology was necessary.

 

This year, the club has been going through a transaction; with Doug transferring his position to Erik, and like in any transaction, the "New President" has to be "guided" by the "Past President" in making decisions.

To me, this club is a lot like a democracy. It is the club as a whole who make decisions, and the officers just serve as positive role models, and motivators. Heh, heh.. as far as Tyranny goes, this club has NONE of it. Everyone has a right to be heard; they just need to tell us what is on their minds!

 

Thanks for your support guys! Without members, there would be no club!!!!!

 

::nods, and smiles::

Yes! Thanks goes out to EVERYONE here!

 

I let those other two authors write it as they saw it, without revision by me (as that is the whole point of another point of view). Roger was always very excited to show up and took his observations very seriously. Now I personally dont tend to remember the details of meetings like who read what, so I cant confirm or deny what happened.

About Doug's "apology", I wouldnt have used quite that strong a word, and certainly dont think Doug is hogging all the attention out of insidious manipulation. Erik is John Adams with George Washington still in the room. There is nothing going on that is not expected during a transition. Doug had two years (or more) and all that habit and authority can not possibly transfer completely in a mere few months.

Jim's take on Doug as a "my way or the highway" kind of guy certainly took me by surprise, and whether it is true or not for the rest of us, it is nonetheless an interesting observation to confirm or deny as one sees fit.

 

The "my way or the highway" observation, not to belabor the point, is neither interesting nor accurate. The guy was apparently present at only one meeting. As a chemist, one datapoint does not make a trend. My advise to others in the group is to ignor the report because it is a cursory examination with little substance. I may sound heavy handed in my evaluation, however my educational background demands a critical eye towards academic efforts.

 

Jim's observation of "my way" was based on his interactions with Doug at work, as they have known each other for a while. I think his point was to see if Doug had the same personality at work vs at home (which is interesting as I certainly dont), and if his unique viewpoint of seeing Doug in two different environments produced any insights.

The point of the two guests only being present for 3 meetings between them has a some weight, as does the very real possiblity of tunnel vision on our part, being too close, too accustomed to the problem to see it right in front of us. In such a case, a naive outsider is indeed the only way to break out.

 

I think the thing about this is that two of the three analysts had biased opinions: Barry is a member of the group, and Jim was biased based on his experiences with me regarding work. I've racked my brain trying to determine what gave him that opinion at work, and I can't really come up with anything except the following: Jim was a recipient of a grant that I was responsible for in this area, and the grant spelled out specifically how each local academy (high school) was to do things...I stuck to the rules and made my academies do what that grant required. In addition, he has taken some Cisco high school instructor training classes from me, and in the classroom it is indeed "my way or the highway"....especially when it comes to my Cisco local academies...

Doug

 

It has taken me a while, but now I would like to respond to the report written by Barry, Roger, and Jim.

First of all, I want to say upfront that I was glad someome wanted to do a "study" of our group. It is always interesting to see what others think of you! Also, having done a number of these kinds of reports myself throughout the years of my schooling, I want to add that these things are never easy to do. You are always struggling with time restrictions, professor's requirements, reluctant subjects, too much to do in too little time, etc. I always take these factors into consideration when reading the final analysis.

I agree with a few points in the report. I feel that many members are in the group primarily for socialization (which is fine), and that many times they do not participate in meetings or outside activities. They may not say much during the meetings or vote on the important issues. I also agree that the leadership of the group is comprised of a core unit of dedicated members, and that without their persistence and guidance, the group may not be able to sustain itself as it is currently organized far into the future (although I could be wrong about this.) In addition, I agree with the point that this group of leaders has been able to get more people involved by delegating certain responsibilities and jobs to others who may not have ordinarily volunteered to do them. There were a few other comments that I agreed with (group seems friendly, welcoming to strangers), and I felt that overall the report had a positive slant to it.

That being said, however, I disagree with or question other elements of this report. I hope that my comments are not taken as harsh criticisms but rather as comments from a student who has done several of these studies herself (and who is also a member of the group.) Besides - what kind of a study would it be if it didn't illicit comments (both negative and positive) from those who were studied?!?!

First of all, the questionnaire was too short, too confusing, and repeated itself in the few questions it did ask to formulate an accurate picture of our group's leadership style(s). To gain a better picture of how we (the group) see ourselves, open-ended questions would have been better. (That's where we fill in the blanks.) Some of the choices were not known to all respondents, and if you're forced to choose from 5 or 6 choices, you will choose the best response from that list, which may not necessarily be the best choice for you if you could have listed it yourself. Also, the researchers decided what each choice meant (Vader=fear and pain), instead of letting us define what the characters meant. (There may have been similar conclusions, but you never know.)

Second, I'd be interested in learning more about the theory used in this report. Is this an established, academic theory, or one the research group came up with itself?

Third, I'd also like to know how the research group (or each member of the team) defined a "successful" group. Again - is there a body of literature out there that defines what a "successful" group is, or was this the researchers' definition(s)? In addition, were we compared to other successful groups? What is the baseline for your analysis on this point?

Fourth, and this really is no one's fault, considering it was a school assignment with all the limitiations listed above, the researchers should have had more time to attend more meetings. That way a more accurate description of our group could emerge. (And I do feel that even if you're not a fan, you'd still be welcome. You may be a bit lost or confused, but you'd still be welcome! ) In addition, 2 of the 3 researchers were familiar and/or involved with the group (which was addressed in the report), and certain efforts need to be made to lessen the effects of such a familiarity on a report. (In other words, even if you are familiar with the group, as a researcher you should take pains to make yourself as objective as possible. Maybe this was done, maybe not, but it

 

OK, I've read all of the responses and I've read the report yet again...I've held my tongue for weeks now, but I must now speak my mind:


First of all...I am NOT a professor at EITC, we do not have professors. I am an instructor, that is all...I'd like to state for the record that I have NEVER introduced myself or portrayed myself as a PROFESSOR...I've got a measly associate degree for crying out loud (and LOTS of industry certifications)...

Second, I'd like to say that I am a bit upset about the fact that my association with EITC was even mentioned in this report...what's that got to do with anything?

The more I read this report, especially "Jim's View", the more it torques me off. Jim's view is, for the most part, nothing more than a personal attack on me. How dare someone come observe the group for ONE meeting, and decide that I'm a power-hungry S-O-B that won't yield. How dare he indeed? Jim stated "Even before we started our study of the leadership of the Idaho Falls Star Wars Alliance, I knew the former president, Doug Atwood, through other dealings with my work. So from this perspective I had already experienced his leadership style. Doug can be very strong-willed and opinionated.". Is this a statement that an un-biased observer would make? I think not. Jim was very unprofessional in allowing his previous experiences with me bias his opinion.

Jim also stated "...I wondered what would happen if a person joined who had his/her own agenda and vision for the organization. How would the leader handle this situation."...implying that I will not allow new ideas from other members be introduced to the club. How can he be sure of this after attending one meeting?

In my own defense, the club is really a great deal different than my original vision. If I were to have it "my way or the highway", every member would be REQUIRED to have a screen-quality costume, be a major collector, read the books, etc. The problem is that there would only be two members. I'm not saying that I'm displeased with the direction the club has taken (in fact I'm very happy with it), just that it's different than what "my way" would have been originally.

I would also like to say that I have put two and one half years of my spare time and my own money into this organization. We ran this group for over a year with no dues. Guess who paid for room rentals then? Guess who bought the snacks? Yes, a few members pitched in every month, but we never broke even.

Your damn right I'm going to be reluctant to just "hand over the reins". I trust Erik, but it's been difficult to hand over something I've nurtured from a few guys sitting around my kitchen table to where we are now.

You don't know how many nights Erik and I have stayed up until 2am, discussing ways to get more members to be involved, to participate in discussions, etc. We've lost sleep over this group, worrying whether or not we're taking it in the direction members want it to go.

I find it interesting that (unless Barry provided them) the group performing the study never asked if we had by-laws in place.

Reading a report like this, especially Jim's portion, is like a slap in the face.
There are some facts pointed out in the report I must agree with, many of which were not news to me...I was just glad to see that someone else could see them. But the personal attack is unwarranted.

Some of the points I agree with:

-the limiting of the core group and potential leaders to the founding members due to the unintended apathy of the newer members bodes ill for the group?s survival.

True, true true! If we are to thrive, other members need to get more-involved.

-some people are seemingly embarrassed by the label ?Star Wars Fan? and seek to remain incognito in their fandom....A club like this can brook no apologies for what it is, and the shy members need to step up to the plate.

I agree. Some members seem to be embarassed about being a fan/member. I've heard members say "If I had a costume, I wouldn't want anyone to see

 

O.k. I've been monitoring this for weeks, and I've finally decided to put my two cents in. And my two cents is this:

Can we please just get past this? This happen when, last month? I understand Doug's point of view. If some jack*** that I kind of, sort of knew showed up to the club and then wrote a critique saying I was running the show like Dr. Doom runs Latveria, I'd be cheesed off, too. But, whatever the guy said, no matter the guy's education level, is just his opinion. It means about as much as a Roger Ebert movie review. The bottom line is that if anyone has a problem with the way the club is run, I'm sure they'd approach the leadership. Hell, I know I would. We've got more important stuff to devote our thoughts to, like a kickin' ROTJ party. I think if we let it go, it'll be for the best.

Sorry, I felt like I had to say something.

 

Adam has raised some good points. We should look at the report and take it for what it is - a report for a class assignment. Frankly, there are bigger fish to fry right now - picking apart a school assignment perhaps should not be a big concern for any of us.

That being said, however, I feel that as subjects of this study, we have the right to discuss and/or complain about the results of the report if we want to. We agreed to be observed, but we do not have to agree with the researchers' conclusions.

I should also point out that it is the ethical obligation of the researchers to present their report to their research subjects (which they did) just so this type of discussion may occur. Researchers may not want to hear their subjects disagreeing with their conclusions, but the knife can cut both ways.

Sorry to sound like a professor, but I've done this myself too many time to know better.....

 

I've kind of been avoiding this thread for sometime. Mainly, I wasn't sure what to do about it. As the guy who is suppose to be watching over this board for the regional administrator I figured I better speak up, say my piece and hopefully end it.
I think everyone involved has had a chance to speak their mind and a lot of good points were made.
I agree that one visit to one of our meetings can't sum up the dynamics of the club and what has gone on for the past two and a half years. I also don't think using past dealings with those evaluated was very fair and shows a personal bias in the report. As a journalist, I would be blasted for that.
I really don't want to be Big Brother or rule over the board with an iron fist. But, no matter what the report says, I don't think it was such a good idea to post it for the whole club to see. Barry, I'm sure you figured we'd be curious what it had to say, but I really wish Doug and I had a chance to see it before being put up for the whole club to read.
It looks like most of the club is in agreement about the validity of some of the claims made in the report and I think the best option is to end the discussion and move on. I don't see how anything else constructive can come from discussing it.
If depending on the nature of the posts from here on out, I will talk to the RSA about killing the thread. I really hope we can let this pass.

 

Based on the fact that the majority of the club apparently feels that this report is an in-accurate representation of the club and the way it operates, I hereby request that this thread be blocked/locked. Remember, this forum is PUBLICALLY accessible, and if potential members read this report, they may indeed get the feeling that this organization is not one they wish to be a part of. I don't think it's good for the health of the club...

Doug