Prof. Naman,
My thoughts on your questions:
Given that organizations have a formal and informal component, clarity
about expected outcomes and general direction tend to resolve conflicts
that emerge when the formal and informal components try to move in
different directions. My experience shows that you generally have one
of three outcomes: standing conflict or cognitive dissonance, the
formal moves to the informal (tough on management) or the informal moves
to the formal (desired). I would agree that while goal agreement
necessary for the formal organization, it is not critical for the
informal. However, Jim Kouzes' work on values strongly indicates that
the more you get the informal (values) structure aligned, the more able
the organization tends to be.
Goal agreement/clarity also increases the likelihood of cooperative
versus competitive behaviors.
To illustrate the importance of goal clarity, I do an exercise that is
especially powerful with intact work groups. I start with a blank piece
of butcher paper or chalk board. I tell them their purpose is to be
creative. I intentionally do not give them any clear outcomes, only
this vague purpose. I tell them that all I need is for them to explain
to me, as a group what they have made. I don't allow time for thought
and immediately tell them to each make mark on the paper/board and give
them one minute to do so. In other words, I leave put them in a process
mode. I have done this for over 10 years. 98% of the groups will react
with each person immediately making a mark, i.e. act independently.
Only 2% will agree to make something collaboratively, a house, a car, a
face, a star, etc. In other words, the lack of a clear, agreed upon
goals causes most groups act incidentally (aimlessly) versus
intentionally. It certainly causes inefficiency. (There are other
variations that enable the exercise to bring out insights into impacts
of ownership, applying Chaos Theory, and leadership that are not germane
to this discussion so I will not bring out those aspects.)
So, I would say "no" to your question "Does lack of agreement about
outcomes and clear functions automatically insure failure...." but I
will say it does increase the chances of confusion and inefficiency that
greatly increases the chances of failure. Likewise, I would answer "no"
to your question regarding "Is agreement a necessary, but not
sufficient, condition for success". However, while agreement is niether
necessary nor sufficient, it is certainly a very nice thing to have.
Hope this helps.
Ed
Drive On!
P.S. I believe thoughts about the necessity of agreement on goals
really came in to vogue with the Management by Objective movement, which
I think was largely rooted in thoughts arising out of operant
conditioning (the goal was the reinforcing stimulus that compelled and
oriented behavior arising out of the stimulus situation) and
motivational theory, especially Staw's Expectancy Theory and the Operant
Model ((Organ and Hammer, 1982).
>>> "John L. Naman" <naman+@PITT.EDU> 02/02 2:01 PM >>>
Where is it written that the whole group must agree on what is expected
as an
outcome or be clear about the direction we are heading? For a very
market
responsive organization, isn't it possible that a group need only agree
on
process, how things are done, and let the outcomes and direction take
care of
themselves?
Does lack of agreement about outcomes and clear directions
automatically insure
failure (survival, standard of living)? Is agreement a necessary, but
not
sufficient, condition for success?
--
Prof. John L. Naman naman+@pitt.edu