awatson | Recent Entries

I've created this journal as a space to be able to talk about my work for the Organization for Transformative Works (OTW). If you know my fan name, please don't link them together.

Disclaimer: anything I say in this journal is my own opinion and does not represent the opinions of anyone else on my committees or in the OTW.

My personal OTW history:
2009 - volunteer tag wrangler
2010 - Accessibilty, Design & Technology Committee, Tag Wrangling Committee
2011 - Tag Wrangling Co-Chair
2012 - Tag Wrangling Co-Chair, Volunteers & Recruiting Committee
2013 - Open Doors, Tag Wrangling and Volunteers & Recruiting Committees

Some abbreviations I may use:
TW - Tag Wrangling committee
Volcom - Volunteers & Recruiting Committee
wranglers - tag wrangling volunteers

Hey so 2012, that was a year, right? I had grand plans to update regularly, but with one thing and another, I didn't.

This is mainly a note to say that I'm not sure this year will be any different, updating-wise, simply due to how busy I am. While my two-year term as tag wrangling chair has ended, I took the opportunity to join another committee I've been interested in for a while, Open Doors. Is three committees too ambitious? I'm hoping it's not - but mainly right now I'm getting my head around OD, whilst working on existing projects/work for TW and VolCom.

I'm really excited by the planning all three of my committees are doing for the work we need to do to accomplish our goals. I do see a lot of documentation and training in my future, but I'm not afraid of that - just proud we recognise and are working on these supporting structures.

This week I worked on a lot of small things - sometimes that happens, the larger projects and ideas get put behind the day-to-day things we do to keep things going. Sometimes the things we're doing may be very tiny parts of the larger projects, so small that it looks like we're not moving at all. Sometimes the things we want to do are dependent on other people.

I kept up with my email and followed up on some outstanding items. I set up a few new volunteers with their tools. I helped solve a problem for a volunteer who couldn't access one of hir tools. I wrote a project plan. I gave some feedback on some training docs. I attended two and a half meetings (and read the other half of the transcript when it wasn't 1am). I talked to other staff.

Lots of talking, though that's normal for any place that I've worked. In my day job, I spend a lot of time talking to my boss and my team - not because I need to, because 99% of the things that I do I can definitely do without help or reassurance if I'm alone (and most of the time so can they, that's the point!), but because it's good to have that support, that you know you're not all by yourself with any problem or any success.

So I find the real time conversations I participate in the most valuable of our communication, I think. Often in the otw it's hard to find time to talk to others this way, though- offline life and timezones get in the way. But for me, the times when I work with a chat window open with someone else (whether it's working simultaneously on different tasks, or working through a to-do list, task or project together) are the most productive. If only the usual suspects would just move to my timezone.

I've had a few topics for posts percolating in my head this week but nothing that really wanted to come out coherently. So let's talk about wrangling (no promises about coherency).

What's Tag Wrangling

So wrangling, as you may or may not know, is a thing that happens on the Archive of Our Own. When a user creates or bookmarks a work, they have the option to add tags to the work/bookmark.

Tag wranglers assess each of the new tags in the archive, and see if they can be linked to something else with the same meaning, whether they should become the tag which other tags can be linked to, or whether they should be left alone.

The idea behind wrangling is that users can use whatever tags they want to describe a work, but users are still able to find works under a common heading.

It's not a perfect system - sometimes we can't link things together, often because tags have been entered without commas between them, because a tag describes more than one concept, or because a tag is in a category it doesn't seem to belong to. Sometimes we can't determine the meaning of a certain tag. Some fandoms have specific tagging standards that don't quite fit into our current system. There are a number of ideas (and some more concrete plans) about how to make the system clearer to users, and also to improve it, but on the wrangling side those are the chief reasons why we can't wrangle something.

Sustainability of Wrangling

A statement I've seen around a lot is "Wrangling is not sustainable." It's a statement that annoys me every time I hear it because I think it underestimates the dedication of fans. I think it also depreciates the current efforts of tag wranglers by saying that what they’re doing is not going to be enough, that it's a waste of time in the long run.

Wrangling is something that if you like it, you like it. There are quite a few wranglers with library backgrounds; I believe it appeals to people who like sorting, filing and organising. Both of these apply to me. It’s fun, at times it can be challenging, but it’s very satisfying knowing that works can be found under a single tag because of something that you’ve done.

It's a fandom activity that you can do without being a writer, artist, vidder or podficcer. I don't write, I don’t art, I have made a couple of vids but don't consider myself a vidder, and I don't podfic either. I occasionally craft fandom related items but those are generally for my own or friends' benefit, not for fandom at large. Wrangling is something that I can do, as someone who is generally a fandom lurker, that benefits fandom.

You don't need to be particularly creative; you just need to be familiar with a fandom or be able to research and know how to follow guidelines. Depending on the fandoms you're wrangling, you can do it as a regular activity every day, or weekly, or check in less frequently. It can be a team activity - it's not uncommon for there to be wrangling parties in the chatroom, where a group of co-wranglers will get together to work on a tricky or busy fandom. Or it can be a solo activity - you don't have to talk to anyone else unless you've got a question or your fandoms overlap.

In December 2011, our numbers stood at 109; it's currently 160. Occasionally people do lose interest or get too busy with their other tasks and they leave us, and that’s fine. However, other people sign up in their place - for example, even though OTW non-technical recruitment is officially closed, we have still had a few new people join us in the last month.

An increase in fandoms and works in those fandoms doesn't necessarily correlate to a proportionate need for wranglers. My experience has been that new tags in existing fandoms often plateau off - either the fandom dies down, or people opt to use tags which appear in the autocomplete rather than overtyping and creating new ones. Many of the fandoms on the archive, while listed as not having a wrangler assigned, are small enough (and will likely remain small enough) that there is no need for a regular wrangler. I'm not saying that we won't welcome (or need) more help (whether it's simply more hands to help out, or someone with a type of fandom knowledge that hasn't been represented in our team before), just that I don't think the situation is as dire as I feel has been implied.

Alternate solution?

What are the alternate solutions for archives? That their fandoms, characters, relationships and any other tags (or categories) are set by the administrators of the archive? That users have to make a request if they want something new added? I don't believe that's any less sustainable than wrangling - someone still has to handle the questions and do the work. At the moment, we occasionally get requests via Support for a new fandom or character to be added, but these are relatively infrequent - the power of adding new work descriptors belongs directly to archive users.

Yesterday we had an Org-Wide meeting - this is a meeting that happens every month, that everyone in the Organization for Transformative Works can attend, be they board member, staffer or volunteer. (Provided they're awake, of course, as it alternates timezones - yesterday was the optimised for Asia/Australia time.) In it committees can talk about upcoming things they're going to be working on, ask for help, acknowledge people's contributions, and anyone present can ask questions. There is also usually a general discussion topic; yesterday's was burnout.

Before I started this post I didn't really have a clear understanding of what burnout was, I just saw people leaving the OTW and citing burnout. So I did a bit of research, aka sticking the term into a search engine and reading some likely results.

Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (cited in "Job Burnout", n.d.) describe burnout as having 3 aspects: overwhelming exhaustion, feelings of cynicism/detachment/depersonalization, and a sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment.

How can we recognise it?

Burnout is associated with negative effects on job performance (absenteeism, intention to leave, turnover, lower productivity, lower effectiveness, reduced job satisfaction and reduced commitment) and stress-related physical illnesses.

(Job Burnout)

Sound familiar? I'd be surprised if anyone who volunteers for the OTW (particularly in a staffer or above role) doesn't know at least one OTW person with at least one of these symptoms, if not more. (More symptoms, or more people, take your pick). Which is pretty awful, right? I'm glad we had an opportunity to talk about this topic in public, to make us think about how to prevent it, to take better care of ourselves, instead of sitting in silence.

What contributes to it?

Job characteristics that contribute to burnout include workload, time pressure, role conflict, role ambiguity, an absence of resources (especially social support from supervisors and co-workers), and a lack of information, control and autonomy.

(Job Burnout)

I think a lot of us suffer from a lot of these. My previous post touched on role ambiguity (which is sadly not limited to the roles I described), and many of us are doing several roles within the Org, balancing these with a day job, family or other commitments, so there's the workload. A lot of our work is time sensitive - we often have a pressure on us to complete tasks and projects within a certain amount of time (whether that's imposed externally, internally, or personally). As for absence of resources and social support - we don't always have the tools and information we need. We're an online organisation, a lot of us have never and will never meet face to face, and we can't always recognise when someone needs extra support. Lack of information, control and autonomy - this probably speaks for itself.

What can we do?

In the meeting we discussed some strategies that people use, chiefly
* taking a break
* talking to others about our feelings

These are individual coping strategies and someone asked, what can we do as an organisation? Considering that Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter (2001) say that research on the topic suggests that situational and organisational factors have a bigger role than individual factors, it's an important question. The authors suggest that it's best to both educate people on individual coping methods, and, as managers, change how people, and the organisation, work.

There are 6 areas of worklife that can be focused on for these changes:

* Workload - The extent to which work demands spill into personal life, the social pressures, as well as the physical and intellectual burden of job demands.
* Control - The opportunity to make choices and decisions, to solve problems, and to contribute to the fulfillment of responsibilities.
* Reward - Recognition - financial and social - you receive for your contribution on the job.
* Community - The quality of the social context in which you work, encompassing your relationships with managers, colleagues, subordinates, and service recipients.
* Fairness - The extent to which the organization has consistent and equitable rules for everyone, or the quality of justice and respect at work.
* Values - The focus of this section is the consistency between the personal values you bring to your profession and the values inherent in the organization where you work.

(Leiter & Associates (2011))

Organsiational change takes time - there is no instant fix for our problems, much as I'd like there to be. But the first step is identifying the areas where we can improve. I don't yet have a plan for how to directly address these in the committees I work in. However, we are actively working on, and planning projects that are designed to support our volunteers and ourselves, and as a consequence of that support I think they will improve those worklife points. Now we just need to create the time to work on them.

References
Job Burnout (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.mindmatters.edu.au/resources_and_downloads/staff_matters/about/useful_information_job_burnout.html

Leiter & Associates (2011). The six areas of worklife. Retrieved from http://workengagement.com/6awls

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). C. How do we deal with burnout? In Job Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52, 397-422. Retrieved from http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/burnout_qt/howdowedeal.pdf

Each week for the Tag Wrangling committee we (tw chairs) post a what's called a "databurst" on basecamp. In the databurst there's a question where we ask everyone to tell us briefly what they've been doing this week. It's meant to keep the whole committee, as well as the chairs, up to date with what each of us have been working on (or might need help on), but each week I find it really hard to remember what I've done, even though I track all my org work using Toggl. I imagine this journal will be much the same...

One of the things I did this week was draft something I've been thinking about for a while: a position description. This one is for the role of liaison from another committee to tag wrangling. We currently have three liaisons, from what we call our two sister committees (those we theoretically work most closely with): AD&T and Support, and Internationalisation & Outreach. A liaison is a point of communication between the committees but unfortunately there's nothing in writing about what they are actually required to do and what they're responsible for. I was really happy when a new liaison asked what was expected of hir because it gave me a reason to start tackling this task.

What's a position description, and why are you writing one?

A job description is a statement of duties and responsibilties which identifies simply and clearly what the person performing the job will be doing. It thus becomes a guide to the staff member about what they are required to do, and to some extend how, when and where they should be doing the job. It is also an aid to performance evaluation.

(Sanders, 2004, p. 145).

One thing I don't want, as a committee chair, as a person who has been confused about what she was supposed to be doing, is for my staffers and my liasions to be confused about what I expect of them. How can someone meet my expectations, unless I tell them what I want from them?

A good position description clarifies the responsibilities and support arrangements for a volunteer. It helps volunteers to be clear about what is expected of them and feel confident in their role. A position description also outlines how the role fits in with relation to the broader goals of the organisation.

(Volunteering Australia, 2007, p. 4).

I want everyone to feel confident that they're doing the right thing. I don't want to micromanage them; I want them to be able to get on with their tasks without wondering what their tasks should be. I want it to be clear that their position is needed, that they are needed.

That's why I'm starting to write these, because I don't want anyone to be confused or uncertain. I want everyone to have the support they need from me, from each other, from the Org. I want us all to fulfil our roles, and I want us, as a committee, as OTW volunteers, to achieve our mission. I want to be able to give a good performance review of my staffers at the end of the term. You can't say exceed expectations until you define those expectations.

What's in the position description you're writing?
Most of the examples I looked at have things like : title, reports to, responsibilities, etc, so that's what I've drafted, along with requirements, resources and some confidentiality expectations. Once my co-chair and I are happy with our draft, we'll be providing it to our current liaisons (and their chairs), for feedback. There shouldn't be anything in there that they're not already doing: this is just writing it down, both so that they know they're doing the right thing, and so that any future liaisons know what they're in for before they accept the position. When everyone is happy, it'll go on the OTW's internal wiki so anyone in the Org can access it, and it'll be reviewed at least annually so that it remains current.

References
Sanders, R. (2004). Australian library supervision & management (2nd Ed.) Wagga Wagga, N.S.W.: Centre for Information Studies.

Volunteering Australia (2007). Toolkit: Designing volunteer roles and position descriptions. Available from http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/files/MJBTHZ476B/VA_Volunteer%20Roles%20Toolkit%20final.pdf