When progressive ideals in everyday life are suddenly just decoration

Communication culture: Open to everything as long as it doesn't bother anyone?

An open organizational culture should actually thrive on different opinions being tolerated, conflicts being resolved sensibly and decisions being made transparently. In theory this sounds obvious. In practice, however, it often turns into a rather strange circus.

As soon as things become uncomfortable, objective communication suddenly no longer seems to be a top priority. Then personal sensitivities, underlying tensions, informal groups and social power games take over. Instead of solving problems together, people prefer to evade, remain silent or sort out behind closed doors who still belongs and who doesn't really fit into the picture anymore.

It becomes particularly absurd when access to internal information or communication spaces becomes an instrument of social power. After all, participation on paper is a pretty empty event when people are effectively cut off from relevant information and decision-making processes.

Grassroots democracy does not mean that everyone can participate as long as they do not endanger harmony. And the ability to deal with conflict does not consist of simply sweeping unpleasant topics under the carpet until the carpet needs its own zip code at some point.

Anyone who promises real participation must also be able to cope with contradiction. Everything else is democracy in trial mode.

Inclusion and equality: Values ​​bingo does not replace an attitude

Hardly anything seems more contradictory than organizations that externally value openness, diversity, solidarity and anti-discrimination, while these values ​​obviously do not always enjoy the same importance internally.

The problem is not that people have different opinions or occasionally clash. This is completely normal. What matters is how it is dealt with.

After all, an attitude critical of discrimination is not only evident when you use the right terms at events or represent socially expected positions. It especially shows up when things get unpleasant: with criticism, with differences of opinion, with people who don't fit into the usual social mold, and with conflicts that can't be moderated with three nice catchphrases.

Openness that only applies to views that have already been accepted is simply not real openness. Using diversity as a pretty badge while different personalities and uncomfortable perspectives push up against invisible boundaries in everyday life is also a pretty specific form of double standard.

You cannot constantly preach solidarity and at the same time act as if respectful treatment were a voluntary additional option. Nobody wins the value bingo just because the right terms are repeated often enough.

Participation and personal initiative: Commitment is apparently not always desired

Free media projects could actually be fantastic places to try out creative, editorial, technical and organizational skills. The combination of journalism, broadcasting, digital infrastructure, media production and social issues offers an enormous number of possibilities.

Theoretically, there is a lot of potential in it: better digital offerings, modern websites, functioning editorial processes, modern broadcast planning, clear archives and new technical solutions. It's actually a pretty exciting playing field for people with different skills and interests.

However, this requires a culture in which personal initiative is not perceived as noise. Technical suggestions, new ideas and constructive criticism should be an enrichment - and not a threat to established processes or informal vested interests.

Because sometimes established structures seem surprisingly allergic to change. It is better to stick to the well-known situation, even if it has long had room for improvement right up to the ceiling. And as soon as someone questions something or contributes their own ideas, what was supposed to be a desirable commitment can quickly turn into a social challenge.

What a film. You look for creative participation and end up in an operating system whose administrator password no one knows since 1998.

A sustainable culture of participation requires clear responsibilities, transparent decisions and the willingness to take good ideas seriously even if they do not come from the usual sources. Otherwise, at some point all that will be left of the much-vaunted initiative is a nice paragraph in the mission statement.

Interpersonal interaction: Not a harmless club drama

Exclusion, lack of appreciation and unresolved conflicts are not just a bit of interpersonal jitters that can be chalked up to “that’s just how people are”.

Such dynamics can place considerable strain on people. Anyone who repeatedly feels that they are not being taken seriously, that they are being thwarted or that they are being excluded from social contexts will eventually lose trust. And not necessarily just in individual processes, but possibly in the entire community and its understanding of values.

If communication breaks down, conflicts are not dealt with and opportunities for participation are actually limited, an environment arises in which belonging can quickly become an uncertain matter. This can go far beyond ordinary differences of opinion and can be very psychologically stressful for those affected.

Organizations that are committed to solidarity, social responsibility and the protection of marginalized people should therefore take a closer look at what is happening in their own store.

This includes understandable complaint and conflict procedures, independent contact persons, respectful communication and serious protection against social exclusion.

Because solidarity is not a merchandise item that you put on your website. It has to show itself in the actual interaction with each other. Even and especially when things get uncomfortable.

Overall picture: progressive on the outside, still room for improvement on the inside

The idea of ​​free, non-commercial media and cultural projects is fundamentally worth supporting. They can make social perspectives visible, bring people together and create spaces that function outside of classic commercial structures. This is important and has enormous potential.

But a good idea is not enough to automatically create a good organizational culture.

The crucial sticking point often lies in the discrepancy between public self-image and everyday life. Democratic participation, inclusion and solidarity sound fantastic - but they quickly lose credibility if transparency, the ability to deal with conflict and respectful interaction are not consistently taken into account internally.

An organization does not prove its values ​​by integrating as many progressive terms as possible into its external image. She proves it by how she deals with people who collaborate, contribute their own ideas, ask uncomfortable questions or simply don't fit into any existing social dynamic.

And this is where the beautiful claim sometimes separates from the less glamorous reality.

An open media project needs more than just an open broadcast area. It also requires an organizational culture that is actually open: transparent, open to criticism, respectful and solidarity.

Everything else ends up being a lot of progressive packaging for an interior that urgently needs an update.

web address: http://www...License of article and all embedded media: Public Domain (cc0): Continued use without restrictions. Public domain in the sense of the public domain