Thread by @JonathanRL

Today's topic will be not about naval history but about people who sometimes operate ships. That's right, another @Greenpeace thread. Today, we will discuss the origins of the poor management at almost every level of the organisation.

#greenpeace

You seen them across town. People with the Greenpeace pullovers, trying to talk you into donating a monthly sum to the organisation. They are canvassers; not volunteers. It is a paid position and it is not a job for everyone. Most quit or are fired within weeks.

Why people quit this job is understandable. Endless waiting outdoors or knocking on doors, constant rejection, abuse and purposefully being ignored - or engaged in bad faith arguments.

People who are fired are usually considered to be under-preforming. How many you are to sign up varies between different countries but I seem to recall you had to sign up 3 or 4 a week. Your "entrance exam" was getting ten people to give their e-mail address.

A few of the people I met at the @greenpeaceSE office started out as canvassers; usually before or after becoming volunteers for the organisation. Having started in the organisation this way is considered a good thing; you worked you way up so to speak.

The problem with this route into the organisation being easy is twofold. One, to try and raise money for Greenpeace leads to constant rejection and daily harassment where the organisation becomes supportive and a safe space. Your appreciation for the organisation increases.

This means that the person is more likely to be a very engaged Greenpeace member. They will work for the organisation, they will volunteer their time and usually hope to be able to serve on the organisations ships.

Now @Greenpeace rewards this. People who essentially dedicate their lives to the organisation will find themselves promoted or being listened to. They will be treated as equals by others who have the same history.

And here is the second problem. At @greenpeaceSE there was a huge difference if you just worked there or if you gave a lot more of your time and effort. But the organisation had to hire people for their skills; esp for IT, Economy, Office Management and such.

This creates problems when the "lifers" (as I will call them from now on) becomes managers over the "workers" because the latter needs to be competently managed. They can't just have a boss who got the job due to being a organisation brown-nose.

This creates problem. First, the "lifers" tend to treat the workers poorly. Bullying, poor conditions, sexist remarks lower pay, inadequate job security and other mistreatment are common. Rotation of staff is thus very high.

Second, lifers will consider themselves better than the workers. And the workers will resent the lifers who they - usually completely justified - consider to be bad at their jobs because they never had to compete with skills; just opinions.

Right now, @Greenpeace can handle this strain. The name of the organisation is enough to draw in new workers and enough workers are converted into lifers to sustain the efforts for now. But Greenpeace makes basic mistakes, such as trying to force Workers to volunteer.

This is a classic misconception of a person who is blinded by their loyalty to the cause. They think everyone should be happy to volunteer for Greenpeace and thus think making it mandatory will increase the numbers.

Out of all the things Greenpeace does, this habit of promoting lifers is what is going to end the organisation someday. The lack of competent direction is unsustainable.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a neutral party. I worked at @Greenpeace Nordic Office and was bullied out by staff that did not want to keep me on the payroll due to their personal misconceptions about people with Asperger's Syndrome and Autistic People in general.