“The way I see it, if
you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain.” – Dolly Parton
THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS
about power tactics that have come to my attention in recent months.
Two questions that bear directly on recent ASEP events are “Who is
in control of our profession?” and for “What reason is a strategy
necessary to persuade other exercise physiologists or organizations to
take ASEP seriously?” Who is in control is an interesting question
because it suggests that there is a power figure(s) in control.
It may be that the assumption is untrue. Organizations are not necessarily
organizations of power. The two may not correlate, and yet they generally
do to some degree. It is usually fair to say that organizations do
have power and, therefore, the affiliation with another organization is
considered a good thing.
The second question is even
more complex because the “control” or the “power” within an organization
is often the person or board members with the ability to persuade or to
force the members in the organization to meet certain of their needs.
However, it may not be a person or board per se but the power of position
or the assumption of a specific view of authority. Before confronting
the power of an organization, it may be necessary to decide if the effort
to change the organization or to influence the organization towards meeting
certain needs is the right strategy to use. It may be just as important
to avoid the organization or, perhaps, with some politeness simply discount
the fact that the organization exists.
Why is it a logical consideration
to dismiss an organization or, where contact is made, not pressure the
power structure of the organization to meet certain needs? The answer
may be in the fact that those who are assumed to be in power must act in
accordance with the position of the organization. They are, therefore,
even when asked politely, likely to consider a phone call or a letter from
another organization an act of pressure. In short, the organization
that is requested to do “whatever” is generally unwilling to give in or
to agree that the request is fair or reasonable.
So, what is the answer?
What should be done to bring about a more certain and more effective communication
between two organizations? Does the organization that is requesting
something from the other organization stop the request? Or, does
the organization increase the pressure on the power structure of the organization
that isn’t willing to engage in communication? If the pressure is
increased, is there a likelihood of a break through in communication?
Or, will the pressure simply lead to more negative feelings and/or increased
polarization between the two organizations?
Obviously, this brief essay
is about ASEP and ACSM. While the ASEP Board Members have communicated
directly with the power structure of ACSM on at least two occasions, the
letters and phone calls have resulted in no serious communication.
The impression that ASEP Board Members get is that ACSM is unwilling to
recognize that ASEP exists. So, again, what is the answer?
Perhaps, it is little more than the decision-makers of ACSM and not the
members of ACSM. If so, why is it that the authority is reluctant
to recognize ASEP? There is no reason why both organizations can’t
benefit from a positive relationship on behalf of all exercise physiologists.
Instead of progress in this
area, there is a division in thinking and thus camps of views regarding
what to do. Unfortunately, it is too obvious the exercise of traditional
power tactics that include the following: (1) I don’t have the authority
to make changes without the Board’s approval; (2) While sympathetic, my
job is to keep the organization as it has been for decades; (3) Your requests
are unfounded because this organization is the organization for exercise
physiologists, not your organization; (4) Your requests are unreasonable,
unprofessional, and irresponsible; (5) I wish that I could help but there
is very little I can do; and (6) Its against regulation.
No doubt all of us have heard
these responses in one way or another at our jobs. Those in power
are convinced of their need to exercise these tactics. In the end,
it is generally more than obvious that the need to exercise power is a
waste of time. It abuses professional relationships, and sets the
stage for punitive action. To avoid a confrontation between two individuals
or two organizations, and thus to avoid the request from backfiring, the
request should be legitimate. If, for example, the representatives
of one organization should request from the representatives of another
organization that their goals and objectives should be the same, then the
request will end up in the trash. Every organization has the right to their
own direction and philosophy. On the other hand, if an organization
should appeal to another to be recognized as an organization of exercise
physiologists (which has already been acknowledged by exercise physiologists
as members), then the appeal should not backfire on the organization and
the members should not be made to feel as though they have done something
wrong or unprofessional.
The question is “Why has
ACSM refused to acknowledge the vision, goals, and objectives of ASEP?”
Since this is exactly the situation between the two organizations, is it
possible that the power structures felt and reacted as though they were
being threatened? If so, while the ASEP Board has no reason to back
down or to feel that the request for recognition is inappropriate, we publicly
state that to “threatened” isn’t even remotely a possibility on our behalf.
Consequently, the pressure not to work with ASEP must be more of a miscommunication
and, if so, the question is, “What can be done to resolve the negative
feelings?”
Answering the last question
isn’t an easy task. It might be better to simply consider an alternative
approach. For example, it might be good to communicate with other
key figures of the organization who have positive relationships with some
of the members of the power structure. That person is then in position
to influence the power structure, assuming of course h/she agrees with
the basic beliefs of both organizations. Or, that person may help
set the stage to negotiate certain specific concessions to bring the two
organizations closer together.
If the power structure can’t
be convinced and, thus refuses to make concessions, then there are two
considerations left for the organization that wishes to be recognized.
They are: (1) Simply drop the matter and go about the business of developing
the organization as any professional group has the responsibility to do;
and (2) Apply pressure to the organization that isn’t interested in making
any concessions. The first option has its advantages. The second
option is more consistent with the study and practice of power tactics.
Let us suppose that the second
approach is seriously considered and, if so, what would be the “application
of pressure”? First, allow me to state what it isn’t likely to be,
that is, members of ASEP are not going to march in Indianapolis or have
mass meetings in the city. Picketing is out, too. The ASEP
protest will instead take on a different but equally effective measure.
That power tactic is “determination, will power, and belief in the deliberate
action to fulfill the rights of all exercise physiologists (regardless
of their degree status). It is natural, right, and makes economic
sense to achieve the same rights of employability and respect for the non-PhD
practitioner as is granted the academic professor. It is about influencing
the public sector to provide decent wages and working conditions that interlock
the exercise physiologist with other healthcare professionals.
So, as you get closer to
a serious reflection on the ideas in this brief article, it is important
to consider the role of the exercise physiologist in the public sector.
Please remember the non-PhD exercise physiologist deserves the same respect
and good pay as the doctorate prepared exercise physiologist. So,
don’t be too hard on those of us who believe in the transition that is
taking place (even should some of our colleagues continue to look the other
way). Look for the positive side of what is happening, and all exercise
physiologists will benefit in the long run.
In closing, I’ve heard it
said that “A person’s mind is like a parachute. To work, it first
has to be open.” Where possible and appropriate, consider working
on behalf of all exercise physiologists by meeting with, discussing, and
where necessary, collectively bargain an agreement among the members of
both organizations to rectify their differences so all exercise physiologists
can say to the world, here we come ready or not! Ready or not bears
repeating because, if you think about it just for a moment, we really don't
have a choice. ASEP is our reality. It is essential to effective
interactions with the public sector, including the healthcare industry.
We must, therefore, continue to focus our attention on the basic components
of professionalism.
There are many ways to be
a professional. As has been stated before in several PEPonline
articles, exercise physiology meets the criteria, as cited by Becker (1970),
including the fact that exercise physiology: (1) Is intellectual, that
is, based on critical, relfective knowledge and not just routine activities;
(2) Is organized internally, that is, it has its own professional organization;
(3) Has elements of caring for the public sector; (4) Has its own Code
of Ethics, scope of pracitce and, thus accountability; and (5) Has a strong
research base. Very likely, the most important criterion to meet
the definition of being professional is the "control over their own profession".
Hence, it isn't something that should be taken lightly that the establishment
of ASEP is probably the most significant step exercise physiologists have
taken during the past several decades.
The earlier questions about
power isn't in regards to who is more powerful, but that the power structure
of an organization often controls its members. The question, however,
should be "What is right for exercise physiologists?" and not "What is
right for the organization per se?" While the founding of ASEP is
absolutely critical to an emerging profession, it exists only so that the
members can benefit from it. The members of the organization are
always more important than the abstractness of an organization. This
is clearly no difference than the people in a house are more important
than the house. So, it is in this context, that while ASEP is important,
it is the shell or structure only. The members should represent the
power base of the organization, and it is that the members of any organization
should define what is right the members and not what is right for the organization
per se.
The question shouldn't be
"Which organization should I join?" because if there is only one
professional organization by "name" that speaks to an individual's professional
interests, then that organization should be the one. It is only logical
that an exercise physiologists would join an exercise physiology organization,
isn't it? This is especially true if that professional organization
is responsible for credentialing the profession. So, it is within
the context of the members of the organization that they collectively define
professionalism via specific documents such as certification, licensure,
and academic accreditation. Such thinking isn't knew!
In closing, it very likely
in the not too distance future that in order for the exercise physiologist
to work as a "professional exercise physiologist" in the United States,
he/she will have to successfully complete the ASEP National Exercise Physiology
Certified (EPC) examination. After successful completion of the EPC
exam, the academically prepared exercise physiologist may then use the
title "Exercise Physiologist Certified" and the initials EPC after his/her
name.
