PROCEDURES provide structure. PROCEDURES include our shared purpose, policy statements, rules and roles of reporting via organization charts. Procedures include the statements defining our problem solving process(s).
We can use procedures to define the cues, actions, results, payoffs, and reinforcers for our people.
If a mature organization (with long durations of repeating patterns) uses updated procedures then the persons performing as per the procedure are more likely to act in a useful manner. This means more people know who does what by when and where.
If a start-up organization (without long durations of repeating patterns) uses a shared purpose
statement (results statement) then the persons performing the actions are more likely to act in a useful manner. Thus, the action and the results are pulled into the future by our shared purpose statement.
A start-up organization with a shared purpose has a higher chance of success.
A mature organization, with updated procedural statements, has a higher chance of success.
If procedures are ignored then an organization will likely get more action and less results. It will waste time on too much training. Training consists of cues. Leaders often overuse cues and underuse results to solve problems.
People may get trained and be unwilling to act on obsolete procedures (cues). Thus, old leaders get fired. And, new leaders get hired. Uuuggghhh. More cues.
If our procedures are not refreshed to improve our performance then our new leaders get
fired -- also.
Organizations divide work to create a variety of special roles, actions, and groups. Solid
procedures align our organizational strategies to adapt to our external situation.
Our external situation (universe of complex systems) changes at the speed of thought. Our
personal ability to both compete and cooperate in our external situation depends on our personal world view and the world view of our own organization.
If our own world view is accurate then we improve our chances of competing successfully. And, ditto for our organization.
A simple organization in a simple situation can repeat (without a mid-course correction) old
patterns of authority, rules, and policies to organize the work.
In contrast, the top leaders in a highly centralized organization can get overwhelmed in a fast
changing external situation. If a simple organization, with a long duration of success, is suddenly dumped into a new external situation then old leaders are likely unwilling and unable to rapidly
adapt to the disorder.
Organizations, comfortable operating in chaos, know how to use processes of thought and action to reduce complexity to simplicity.
Thus, as a follower, I can align my actions with my organization.
And, as a leader of an organization, I can help create procedures to work for the purpose of my organization and myself.
Leaders, teachers, managers, followers, learners and performers are just people. People act within some 'rule base' or set of procedures. In the last analysis, we (the people) organize our organizations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Standard #1 describes the principal creating a shared vision and clear goals for their school. I believe a new principal will face many challenges directing their building into various changes. I think gradual changes will allow those teachers and staff members who express difficulty with change to ease into it rather than being thrown into the situation all at one time.
This standard is specific to organizational strategies...I conquer with this argument and believe it is important to establish building procedures to be an effective leader. The statement that impacted me the most, "If procedures are ignored then an organization will likely get more action and less results," is key in educational systems. We often spend more time adjusting results or "wasting time" on matters that could have been avoided if procedures we adhered to properly. I do feel that we must also adjust strategies as needed to promote continuous improvement and alignment with external situations.
test
test 2
I feel organizational goals are well and good, but often times in education we find ourselves at odds with an "organizational goal" of a certain percentage passed on a state test, or a certain score on the report card. However important these goals are, they seem a little too finite for a system based on growth and development. Goal statements within an organization need to allow for the freedom of thought that each unique group has. Utilize those techniques that have worked, and not be afraid to try something new with the support of your staff. In the field of education, there are always leaders and followers, but everyone in education is a thinker, and goals that forego thinking for results are goals that allow the sort of action without result mentioned in the post.
At the elementary level, I feel the goal is a bit more simple: Every student achieving a minimum of one year's growth. I agree that the goal of OGT passage at the high school level is not effective because we have different students every year.
I personally like the comment in the book about authority. "It works best when authority is both endorsed by subordinates and authorized by supervisors." I feel that this statement is critical.
Post a Comment