Institutional building can be a tricky affair. Much depends on the type of institution, the age of the institution, the extent of formalisation of the system, the processes that has taken place in the institution, the environment in which the institution is embedded, and above all, the kind of periodic reviews the institution has undergone. This list can be added to, and it is not necessary to attempt to be exhaustive.
The truth is that many people in a large number of institutions believe that the system plays favourites, makes demands, and does not adequately recognise the need for competitive compensation. Many employees also believe that they need to be on the right side of the power to be to get what they need, or else the system, doesn’t always give them what is due. In other words, the process of institutionalisation leaves much to be desired. This leaves the overall atmosphere of any institution somewhat less than optimally happy.
Indeed, none of the statements made in the earlier paragraphs can be universally true, but even if they were true to some people for some time, enough damage has been done, to the institutions concerned.
The quest has always been to find the ideal, while realising that much of it is feasible with difficulty. Nevertheless, hitting the bull’s eye remains the objective. This text is devoted to looking at some of the issues which can mitigate some of the failings in the efficient and fair running of institutions and what can be done to raise the overall quantum of satisfaction with the state of affairs. The attempt is also to be realistic and look at the feasibility of the aspiration to have “perfect institutions.”
Also read: Navigating the First 90 Days: A Guide for Senior Leaders
One of the biggest failings of institutional efficiency is the failure to realise that all institutions need systems and procedures that are clear, actionable, and futuristic. There cannot be a situation where the powerful are allowed to get away with what they want from the system without some accountability. In fact, any institution of this variety is bound to come to grief sooner than later. Ultimately, what will make an institution run is the power of its inner members to keep the system going and operational. This could be broadly termed as “institutional culture.” The basic truth is that those who allow the powerful to take advantage of the institutional system are as responsible for the aberrations as much as the ones who take advantage of the institutional resources.
It is popularly believed that those who take financial advantage of the institution or its resources are the ones who are really guilty. This may be partially true, but the truth has other components. Any institution which has individuals without some kind of judgement or concern about the use of institutional resources and decision-making develops its own antithesis, which may manifest itself in dissent, loose talk, and worse. Gradually, the institutional capacity to handle the weaknesses, likes, and passion for power emerge. Mutual competitiveness and fault-finding become the hallmarks, and what is popularly referred to as institutional politics emerges. Powerful people become common place.
There can be many laments on this score, and most of them are valid. However, solutions are more difficult to find because there is a latent approach with powerful dependencies: “What can they do to me?” The answer to this question determines the course of action. However, there are other, more enigmatic truths.
There is a general lack of belief in the absoluteness of the correctness and viability of accuracy and truth.
Many people have a resentment of full-proof thoroughness and believe that fool-proof thoroughness is an index of rigidity; an unnecessary source of nuisance to the workings of the organisation. They believe in advocating a certain level of tolerance and acceptability for what they would like to term “flexibility.” In the final analysis, the danger of this approach is that no boundaries can ever be drawn.
This is a palpable situation because if there are no boundaries that can be drawn, then there are no limits to where the lines of tolerance can be drawn. This system then runs into danger.
It is true that life requires a certain tolerance for the shifting of boundaries and a certain ability to put up with inconsistencies. But then the important question remains: where are the boundaries to be drawn?
Thus, institutional efficiency remains an aspiration and forever an attempt at approximation.
But there are other limits, and one of them is that a true pursuit of 100% organisational efficiency often leads to near equal grief. Hence, it becomes Hobson’s choice to accept inefficiency and or come to grief.
The answer lies in sound judgements. This may, indeed, be the final question: how does one design a programme for developing judgement?
Stay connected with us on social media platform for instant update click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
