An organization can have many
factors that contribute to its inherent culture. However, every organization
has the idea of success at its core and is the very reason of its
existence. In an idealistic world this
would translate into every member of the organization working equally hard to
contribute to its success. An
organization’s past is very important in influencing its present and shaping
its future. I believe how an organization, especially its leaders, uses the
lessons from its past determines its degree of success. Although there are many
factors that contribute to the success of an organization, I would like to
discuss the idea of symbolic artifacts, stories from organization’s past and
leadership and would like to present some of my personal observations.
When any organization recruits new
people, they are told to delve into its history. They will be told to look at the founder of
the establishment or understand the reasoning behind naming a building after someone,
or read and listen to the stories of its heroes and heroines. They might even
be asked to understand certain rituals and ceremonies associated with them
(Bolman). New recruits are told to
understand ways that have been tried and tested, and have contributed to the
overall success of the organization. The purpose of this tradition, according
to Bolman, is to bring uniformity, motivate for success and understand the deep
rooted traditions of the establishment. Many times new recruits may not
understand the symbols and it may take grounding into the establishment before
this happens. (Beach) When I was hired
for employment at my school, I was given a similar talk and introduced to our
school mascot: the fighting bear. Coming
from an education system that did not employ this idea, I failed to grasp the
symbolism. I, however, eventually came
to understand that the founder of the school had ensured the survival of the
school through some tough times, hence the mascot. The story of the founder and
the symbol of the mascot serve multiple purposes. For the students, it is a
reminder that even during hard times, one must persevere. For the faculty it is
a reminder that the school survived through tough times and it is the duty of
everyone to ensure its continuous survival and success. This symbol binds the members of the
organization. Sometimes symbols of the
past are important to motivate people to continue contributing to the success
of the organization.
Sometimes leaders who do not value
the input of all the members of the organization, or who rely too heavily on
the success stories of the past, can become a hindrance to success. The
unfortunate cases of Columbia and Challenger at NASA are a testimony to
this. While Bolman & Deal and also Beach
agree that stories of the past are an intrinsic part of the culture of an
organization, Hall’s observations clearly show how this can be dangerous. When an organization becomes path dependent
(Hall), it opens itself to errors. NASAs management relied too much on the
success of its previous explorations and did not take into account deviants
which could alter due to external factors. The top management believed it knew
best and so did not take into account the concerns of the engineers. Similarly when No Child Left Behind was
introduced, many educators and legislators felt the act was flawed (Mier, Kohn, Hammond, Sizer and Wood 2004, Many
Children Left Behind) Like the upper level management at NASA, the creators of NCLB based their
standards on the success of previous small scale research. The application of
those standards to a wider field (every state,) and without the input of people
in the frontline (the teachers), proved to be disastrous in many cases. Schools
that had Limited English Proficient students felt this variable had not been taken
into account when the standards were set. And so when the state measured school
for Adequate Yearly Progress, it seemed some schools had failed in their
‘mission’. Just as the top managers at
NASA had failed to listen to its engineers, many felt congress had failed to
listen to its teachers. The result, in both cases, failed missions and
disgruntled workers. It can be concluded
then that if any organization wants to be successful then its leadership needs
to honor its past but listen to the concerns of the members of the organization
for maximum success.
If the past can serve to be
inspirational but also be the cause of hindrance, is it possible to find a
middle ground? My belief is that it is absolutely necessary for the continued
success of the organization. Take the
case of BMW (Bolman and Deal) and how the company learnt from its past mistakes
to improve its future. The leaders in the company valued the contribution of
all its members and so were able to yield successful results. The organizations
past must help in creating its future and so this may mean making new and diverse
changes. This is the basis of American
Society. Wasn’t it deemed necessary to make changes to the constitution through
the amendments to ensure the success of the American people? What would
American society look like today had it continued with the ways of the Founding
Fathers? If all the members in an organization feel valued, shouldn’t changing
the culture be easier? Had the leaders
at NASA listened to the engineers could the disasters of Columbia and
Challenger have been prevented? Had congress listened to educators would NCLB
have created so much controversy? These
are questions that warrant further study.
Mier D,
Kohn A, Hammond L, Sizer T and
Wood G 2004, Many Children Left
Behind. (2004 )Massachusetts , Beacon
Press
No comments:
Post a Comment