Exactly right. Time and the freelancer. Hmmm. Sounds like a topic….

“I do know that a few organizations I belonged to when I had other professions used those types of people mercilessly, running them ragged because they were the only ones who had time to work for the organization.”

The other people that get run ragged are the ones who can’t bring themselves to say “No” to a friend or acquaintance, even though they’ve already got an overloaded work and volunteer schedule. If it goes on long enough, their health is jeopardized from the stress.

I’ve been a volunteer coordinator in the past, and I find it helps to privately let that person know, “It’s okay to take care of yourself. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Go rest before you get severe burnout and can’t function. If such-and-such activity is SO important to the organization, someone else will pick it up to keep it going if you stop doing it.” There’s something about hearing this from another human being that makes it easier for the “can’t say no” people to feel less guilty about taking care of themselves.

Also, I’ve noticed a perception problem of how the self-employed are viewed as volunteers. “Control of one’s time” is seen as being the same as “having lots of free time.” So for those preparing to freelance for the first time, be aware that you’ll run into this attitude on occasion.

Are there links to the articles, Angelia? They’d be fascinating to read.

Carolyn

Actually, Jay, the histories of SFWA & RWA aren’t lost. They’re just lost to me. I haven’t researched them much. Your article is a grand idea, something members of organizations should do more often.

Very engaging piece, as usual. You mentioned the lost history of SFWA and such, and the relative value of different writing organizations.

I did a short piece on two of the “Founding Fathers” of the Horror Writers Association, Joe Lansdale and Robert McCammon (the other father is Dean Koontz, who did not respond to my request for an interview, and the founding mother is Joe Lansdale’s wife, Karen). My initial desire was to know why neither men were full time members of an organization they helped create. The answers were a lot more revealing about the organization as it developed from idea to reality, though they must be considered as only two perspectives on the HWA of yesteryear. You might find it interesting:

http://www.irosf.com/q/zine/article/10501

JSR

Good addendum, Russ. Thank you. Brad, nice insights. And Deborah, thank you!

“Keep your involvement to a minimum. Remember that you’re in the group to help your business, not to help the group. If you keep that rule firmly in mind, you’ll stay out of 90% of the problems that come up inside the group.”

My view differs slightly. I have been a member of several groups over the years and have found value from being invovled for a while (having a defined time predetermined by me) for several reasons:

1. networking is difficult unless the members of the group see you as a member. Groups tend to create walls around themselves to keep out the casual members.
2. if I am receiving value then I feel I have to pay the group back for what they’ve done for me.
3. groups are part of my social networking and I’ve generally been blessed to meet some very fine people.
4. personalities within groups (even those difficult ones we all know) make excellent fodder for the story mill.

I think the key is knowing when to reduce your involvement and being able to manage our natural human tendency to become zealots. You have to be willing to say no and stick to it no matter what. Some of the zealots won’t like it, but if your not a zealot what do you care?

I know myself pretty well and I know when something reeks of politics and those things I stay well clear of. You are spot on about being smart and being politic, this cannot be understated if you want to be successful in a group and get the most value.

My thinking if anyone wants to get involved in a group be aware of your strenghts and weaknesses and your personality type. If you for one second think you’re going to turn into a zealot or stupid crap that’s going to waste you’re time is going to get under your skin do not get involved.

I’ve had that happen once or twice, in non-writing groups. I was in charge, two members were upset with each other, it clearly wasn’t going to get any better unless one of them left — and I had to make the call, because if the fight continued it might ruin the entire group as a whole. I hated doing that, because each time I felt like the two participants were valuable and I actually happened to agree with each of them — to an extent.

In the end, I opted for what I felt was the healthiest option — for the group as a whole. And I sent one person packing. Not because I thought they were wrong, I was actually more sympathetic to their “side” of things, than not. But because I knew keeping the other person would be a better thing for the group’s long-term functionality.

On the flip side, having just joined another group as an “entry” person, it became apparent that I was stumbling across several unwritten ‘tripwires’ in the group’s long-established social heirarchy. Ergo, shooting my mouth off and being outspoken about things that were controversial — because I’m new and I kind of don’t get to say certain stuff without taking heat from the established members as a result.

Sometimes I have to conclude that I’m just not good “group” material in many instances, because I like informal language and informal talk, and I have a contrarian streak that tends to get me in hot water with those possessed of a bit more, shall we say, natural born propriety?