Context 159 - May 2019

56 C O N T E X T 1 5 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 9 having the capacity to be the subject of debate, and debatable in the other sense, of having a quality of content that might stretch any conclusions beyond the limitations of ordinary logic. Therein, we hoped, might lie the source of the most constructive guidance on the imponderables faced in our own future. To spur both takes on the debateable, and in turn help resolve our own imponderables, we took as a model the statement: ‘Was Philip K Dick’s best work done after he died?’ Any answers to that faced the self-evident dubiousness of equating Dick’s own creativity with both major manifestations of his inspired imaginings: his acceptance of the ‘pulp’ template within which his actual writings were cast, and the derivative but extraordinarily effective on-screen commercialisation of those templates, with films such as Blade Runner and Total Recall. With those latter probably among the best creative – albeit no less avowedly pulp-ish – work to originate after Dick’s demise, might they still fairly qualify as part of his opus and, in comparison to his actual writings, a superior part? The answers to such imponderables should be as moot as the issues raised, invariably and inevitably. But for that very reason the model of the imponderable is the perfect embodiment of how we could challenge Council+ delegates to bring their own experience and learning to the table of their professional body,the IHBC, and its governance. Indeed, what organisation could be better prepared to digest and take leadership from the thoughts and opinions of its members than one that has evolved into its current form without help from outside? For our December meeting of Council+, we drew up questions that ranged around four broad areas of IHBC operations occupying our forward planning: multi-tasking plans reflecting our multidisciplinary membership a professional body; a charity; a membership organisation; and a corporate body. Anyone sufficiently challenged to be familiar with the history of our corporate planning will remember that our first ‘modern’ corporate plan, of 2007, identified no less than nine separate roles for the institute, so consolidation to four headline areas is in itself a remarkable achievement. Even thus reduced, the challenge was how to interrogate those areas meaningfully, without the aforementioned distractions and confusions, and in the few hours available. As the context of this column suggests, the focus was on generating thoughts and opinions uncluttered by the distractions of personal predisposition or collective presumption through the discussion of the imponderable. So we devised four statements as imponderables for discussion, each corresponding with one planned area of operation and accompanied by a ‘vote with feet’ (delegates moving to tables to show personal support or objection for each imponderable), and with (in parentheses below) the objects of the imponderable identified to help contextualisation: •• The IHBC as a professional body: ‘Professional bodies should focus first on regulating standards of practice, and only second on ethical principles.’ (Helps clarify priorities in resources.) •• The IHBC as a charity: ‘Who knows best how to deliver what a charity should do: its volunteers, or the people whom it ultimately benefits.’ (Helps clarify roles on the board.) •• The IHBC as a membership body: ‘As a volunteer in my professional body, the skills and experience I get in volunteering should be as important as the good I do as a volunteer.’ (Helps focus priorities on CPD.) •• The IHBC as a corporate body: ‘I would rather the body that looks after my interests were led by people who agree with what I believe in than by those who are skilled in looking after organisations.’ (Helps clarify skills on the board.) The benefits of our collective discussion of these imponderables – and the real opportunities the process creates – are in the encouragement of a positive critique to help generate solutions, unsullied by predisposition. People focus on the interrogation of the recognisably obtuse, setting aside the entrenched and established to aid the process of examination. The conclusions – and the lessons themselves – were naturally too intangible to characterise here, or even as yet. However, at the very least, the simple scrutiny of the imponderable both enhanced core conservation skills in the delegates and guided your officers in shaping the next steps in our corporate evolution. Seán O’Reilly, director@ihbc.org.uk