Discussion: View Thread

I think John makes very interesting points as have others in this thread.
However, I suggest that too much credit is being given to private
enterprises. Consider the possibility that the key is not public vs.
private but Objective vs. Subjective. As Prof. Adizes clearly illustrates
in his Corporate Lifecycles model, private enterprises can become so
in-focused that they swing their efforts toward preserving and sustaining
the institution rather than serving customers or employees. When the
orientation of objectives swings from serving others to serving self then
the problems start to occur (unless, of course, you are the monarch).
True, public institutions have fiduciary responsibilities that gives them a
stronger "preserve the institution" vector but that does not say that
public institutions have any excuse for not being good places to work and
places of which we can be proud.

Although denizens of the bureaucracy can't be fired (aka tenure) they can
be held up to public awareness and, if necessary, ridicule. The power of
the pen is mightier than the sword.

None of the above should be taken as support for OD, most of which simply
illustrates that there is a significant difference in outcomes between
innovation, creativity and mental masturbation.

Don't get a PhD in OD. Get a life. ;-)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 "johno@cameron.edu" wrote RE: Gov't vs. Private rules
[...]
>The problem involves the differences between public-sector and
>private business organizations, the realities of political
>environments, and the need to sort out the good from the bad of
>bureaucracies.
>
>My musings on this come from the experiences of my first two
>career tracks in life: military (regular and later reserve), then
>newspaper journalist // and the studies and limited experiences of my
>third: college professor. (And hopefully last track).
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Private vs. Public Sector
>
>Private business operates under the profit model, generally involving
>a buyer and a seller involved in a voluntary relationship.
>
>Public-sector organizations operate under the public goods model
>(maximize the benefits to be derived from Org. X's public goods).
>The recipient and deliverer of these goods are often involved in an
>INVOLUNTARY relationship, mandated by law.

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
Office) 480-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax) 480-488-4616
"The secret of success is changing the way you think.-- Jack Welch, CEO,
General Electric

Jack Ring writes:
>...As Prof. Adizes clearly illustrates
> in his Corporate Lifecycles model, private enterprises can become so
> in-focused that they swing their efforts toward preserving and sustaining
> the institution rather than serving customers or employees. When the
> orientation of objectives swings from serving others to serving self then
> the problems start to occur (unless, of course, you are the monarch).

I don't think this criticism should be associated just with private
enterprises. It is true of any human endeavor. Once you have lost clarity
of purpose and measures of achievement, all there is left is perpetuation of
the institution. I see it all the time.

What is the cause of this? Any number of things, but more than anything is
the human pension for security and safety. In order to fight this dilemma,
it requires institutions to constantly reconceptualize themselves, not
reorganize, but reconceive what their mission or purpose is. It takes
courage to constantly ask those difficult questions. But they must be asked
if the operational structure and practices of the institution are to serve
those who are the focus of the organization.

I believe it was Vince Lombardi who said that "Fatigue makes cowards of us
all." I think the same could be said for success. It, too, can lull us
into a false sense of confidence, and the next thing you know, boom time is
over, and we are clinging to a misconceived structure that cannot sustain a
mission that has lost its focus and vitality.

I think what Porras and Collins identified in their research, offered in
Built To Last, is testimony to the reality that attention to the Core
Mission and Values of an institution are what sustain an organization over
time. And with each passing month of service to clients, I'm more and more
convinced of this truth.

Ed Brenegar
Community of Leadership, Inc.
Hendersonville, NC