|
Micro management OR Set policy & navigate by Build consensus OR use power |
|
We have a choice of governing philosophies. Our philosophy is reflected in and reinforced by the actual physical processes that we follow in doing the job of "governing".
Autocratic, military styled hierarchies generally govern by one of two philosophies: 1) micro-management, in which the "leaders" reserve responsibility for decision making and judgment to themselves, perhaps relying on reports by staff; or 2) the "leaders" will choose a less hands-on style, preferring to set down general policies and let people fill in the blanks. Like bureaucratic organizations that choose the second track, organizations that embrace the emerging paradigm - diverse, customer-oriented, learning organizations - also choose option 2. However, for the former, choice of policy is heavily influenced by power issues. In the latter, policy is formulated largely through consensus-based processes. The interest approach (flashing) tells us that these consensus-based policies are more likely to be actually implemented and supported by the rank and file in the long term, because by definition it meets stakeholders’ primary interests. For the same reason, consensus-based policy may invite less challenge. Elected boards and local governments are frequently inclined to micromanage rather than set policy. Perhaps they are afraid that people will disobey their mandates in the absence of strict control. Yet the interest approach tells us that if we show people how they are advantaged by supporting a decision (especially if they had a hand in making it) they are more likely to support that decision than if they were coerced into it. In sum, if we choose to set policy, our methodology has a significant impact on the organizational culture. If we choose to set our policy course by exerting power, it feels just like we are micromanaging! We must learn to set our policy course by building consensus around principles and then devising policies according to those principles. |
|
|
micro management > set policy and navigate -- navigate by... exerting power Þ building consensus
Quality Community The Quality Community school of thought applies the interest approach to community decision-making, in which consensus forms the basis for new solutions to age-old problems of crime, finances, education, homeless, supplying public services, conserving public resources. An interest-based community process is diverse, participative, and inclusive. Ideally, principled dialogue leads to consensus on creative, "win-win" solutions which are then faithfully implemented because everyone has invested in them. Practically, community dialogue may not lead to shiny new solutions in each case, but they have the distinct advantage of preserving healthy relationships among community members - even among those who traditionally disagree - whereas legal and political solutions often lead to acrimony and rifts in the community. The quality community movement takes the organizational lessons of quality, participation, consensus, trust, and learning to the next level. Limiting our commitment to values and principles to our work makes no sense. As "job" becomes equated with "life’s work" rather than just livelihood, we realize that quality community is really what our "job" is about in the first place. |
|
Ronald Heifetz, ON LEADERSHIP
Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, GETTING TO YES: NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITHOUT GIVING IN (2d ed.), Houghton Mifflin Co. (1991). Marvin R. Weisbord and Sandra Janoff, FUTURE SEARCH: AN ACTION GUIDE TO FINDING COMMON GROUND IN ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMUNITIES, Berrett-Koehler Publishers (1995). Daniel A. Tagliere, HOW TO MEET, THINK, AND WORK TO CONSENSUS, Pfieffer and Company (1992). Marian J. Thier, Create success out of chaos, JOURNAL FOR QUALITY AND PARTICIPATION (Sept. 1995) at 6. Control can act as a barrier to true learning; why setting others free within principled boundaries is the best form of leadership. Five principles for leaders who want to implement a learning atmosphere. ON THE QUALITY OF COMMUNITY Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Thriving Locally in the Global Economy, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW (Sept./Oct. 1995) at 151 (adapted from her book WORLD CLASS: THRIVING LOCALLY IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, Simon & Schuster [1995]). Capitalizing locally on the global economy: facilitating public sector participation and market share in the international markets requires defining and emphasizing resources unique to each community and implementing a collaborative paradigm that values people and opportunity. JOURNAL FOR QUALITY AND PARTICIPATION, volume 17, no. 5 (Sept. 1994). Issue includes several intriguing articles on community quality in America. |