IEEE as "Bottom Up" or "Top Down" Management—
The Choice Is Yours
Rabab Ward
President, IEEE Signal Processing Society
The constitutional change amendment
currently proposed by the IEEE is a
matter of deep concern for so many
of us. It affects some key factors that are
critical to the future of the IEEE as we
know it, and for which we have respect,
devoting endless hours volunteering to
its betterment.
The IEEE, as a nonprofit association
run by volunteers, has very successfully
operated for many years as
a "bottom-up" confederation of technical
Societies and geographic units,
collaborating together in the spirit of
our scientific and engineering culture.
Where uniform direction is needed,
or highest-level resource allocation is
required, decisions have been escalated
up to higher-level boards, such as the
Technical Activities Board (TAB), with
representation from every IEEE Society
and Council, or the Member and
Geographic Activities (MGA) Board,
with representation from every IEEE
geographic Region. If needed, further
escalation then occurs to the level of the
IEEE Board of Directors (BoD).
Contrast this with most for-profit
commercial companies, which operate
from the "top down." That is, corporate
executives, under guidance from their
BoD, direct strategy and operations.
Their employees, under various tiers of
management, are responsible for executing
these operations and policies. Increasingly,
there have been signs that the IEEE BoD,
for whatever reasons, wants to become
more of a top-down organization, concentrating
greater power at the top, and
diminishing the role of its technical and
geographic units. As evidence, resources
generated by Societies are increasingly
redirected without Society control for
use elsewhere in the IEEE, including for
overhead purposes. As a result, remaining
Society resources have either become
stagnant or decreased, limiting what
Societies can do for their members.
The latest move to more top-down
control is occurring with this year’s ballot,
where members are asked to vote
on a constitutional amendment that will
abandon dedicated seats for technical
Societies and geographic units on
the BoD in favor of a smaller number
of board members meeting "diversity"
requirements that have not been defined
and which can be changed at any time
according to whomever happens to be
serving on the BoD then.
Proponents of the change claim that
a smaller board will be more nimble.
Opponents claim that the checks and
balances of the widely represented
board that we have today are more
important and have served us well. Proponents
argue that the current board
takes too much time to run the IEEE.
Opponents argue that more decisions
should be delegated to existing boards,
like TAB and MGA, and empowered to
make resolutions independently.
Many of us joined the IEEE due to
the strength of its many diverse Societies.
The combined effort of 45 technical
Societies and Councils is responsible for
75–80% of IEEE revenues. To diminish
the various Societies’ visibility and
role in running the IEEE is unwise and
shortsighted. If volunteers find that their
ability to control the destiny of their
Society is greatly reduced, many volunteers
will no longer feel that they truly
belong to a self-empowered Society,
and it will adversely affect the morale,
motivation, and enterprising spirit of the
volunteers.
The recent intense effort to change
the IEEE’s fundamental constitution is
distracting us from solving our immediate,
high-priority challenges. Further, it
is hard to believe that we are asked to
vote on this constitutional change before
we know what the final new structure
would be, and without knowing the new
bylaws that will govern the IEEE in the
future. The new bylaws are to be written
later by the BoD, however, none of the
new bylaws will require member vote,
or even prior notification. The proposed
amendment gives power to the BoD to
implement any changes they wish to
make, without requiring approval from
us, the IEEE Members.
More than half of the governing
boards of the IEEE’s Societies and
Councils have already spoken against
the amendment, including the Computer; Communications; Power and Energy;
Circuits and Systems; Electron Devices;
Robotics and Automation; Solid-State
Circuits; and, of course, our own Signal
Processing Society. But, their decisions
do not matter—only yours does, as a voting
member of the IEEE.
I urge you to become more familiar
with the pros and cons of the amendment,
and exercise your right to vote in this critically
important juncture for the IEEE.
You can learn more about the amendment
at https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/election/2016_constitutional_amendment.html.
The rationale for opposition
to the constitutional amendment and
proposed restructuring can be found at
https://ieee2016blog.wordpress.com.
For background, the IEEE governing
documents, including the Constitution
and Bylaws, are available at http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/index.html.
TAB has formed a TABin2030 Committee
to consider the amendment’s
implications. Additional materials to the
pros and cons and the TABin2030 webinars
and analyses can be found by visiting
http://ta.ieee.org/strategic-planning/tab-in-2030.
You may need to log in with your
IEEE account to access the materials.
|