Means and ends
Thinking about the decline of trust in institutions and how to reverse it, I argued yesterday that behind organisational wrongdoing often lies a culture which combines self-interest and self-pity. But what might organisations do to avoid and escape this mind set?
As Max Weber argued there are two distinct types of rationality to be found in organisations – zweckrationale (instrumental rationality) and wertrational (value based rationality).
In a healthy organisational culture there will tend to be a lively, open, tough but nuanced conversation not only about ultimate ends but about the relationship between means and ends. In the RSA and other organisations that undertake research, for example, we discuss not only our purpose and mission but also the principles that should guide us when being offered sponsorship. For without such principles the short term temptation – for both the individual and the organisation – to take the money and not ask difficult questions can be close to overwhelming.
But these conversations can be effortful and lead to difficult conclusions either for the whole organisation or for powerful interests within it. This is where self-pitying organisational discourses play their role. Such assumptions and narratives provide an excuse for these conversations either not to take place or to become bland and vacuous: ‘why should we give ourselves a hard time over ethical standards when we face such a difficult environment and such unfair external perceptions?’
An acknowledged example of this phenomenon lies in the invariable summoning by authoritarian national leaders of the spectre of external threat to legitimise their abandonment of democratic and legal means in what they claim is the pursuit of national security.
These are not new issues; Weber was writing a hundred years ago when the power and legitimacy of large organisations was on the rise. What has changed?
A combination of factors including institutional under-performance, rising public education and declining deference have meant more critical scrutiny of what organisations do and how they do it. Technology in particular has shifted power; where once only big organisations could afford sophisticated computers now the internet and social media puts information and power in the hands of the public and often leaves the institution flat footed. Secrecy is harder to protect and self-serving rationales harder to sustain.
The implication is clear: modern institutions – especially those which people believe should be expected to act in the public interest – must seek to make decisions as if they are operating in a glass box. (NB: This is not the same as arguing for total transparency. Indeed greater openness is more likely to be the consequence than the cause of more ethical organisational behaviour).
If an organisation which claims to be ethical is making decisions on a basis which the public would not understand or condone then it is ever more likely, sooner or later, that these decisions and the dodgy thinking behind them will be exposed, further eroding trust in institutions.
But how do organisations pursue legitimate self-interest while also making it less likely that they will revert to a culture which permits externally unjustifiable decisions to be made? This will be the topic of the next post in this short series.
Comments
2 Comments on Means and ends
-
Ben Gibbs on
Tue, 12th Mar 2013 6:11 pm
-
Tom Brookes on
Tue, 12th Mar 2013 6:13 pm
It’s really interesting encouraging schools to apply this glass-box approach to their iron-cage rationality. It doesn’t sit easily with them, and I’m not yet sure why. At first I thought that it was because they felt it was no-one else’s business, but it appears to be because they don’t want to risk being seen doing things ‘wrong’. We talk about institutions needing to earn the public’s trust. I spend some of my time encouraging the schools I work with to trust the public!
I take it then, that in the healthy culture of the RSA, it matters not the seniority or the authority of an objector to a source of sponsorship – or indeed how far along the process is, or what the ‘competition’ are doing – because the principles come first. And indeed having specific rules, an authority as it were, rather than going case by case on your principles, would probably ruin it.
I think this show the modern organisation must flatten out its hierarchy to as large a degree as possible – faith in institutions may only be restored through their becoming much less like institutions. As you say, technology is teaching everyone – and I would argue making folks a shade more anarchist. I quite like some institutions, don’t mistake me, but I do think that the very nature of institutional organisation and association will change dramatically as this century progresses – for the reasons you postulate and then some, chiefly environment and as resources like oil decline. I think the current banking, tax and (misguided) benefits debates foreshadow a larger shift, wherein the primacy of unbalanced self interest will become anathema to many.
I’m occasionally guilty of thinking wishfully. But who knows!
As an aside; I wonder what authoritarian leaders you had in mind – the use of external threats, real or imagined, is quite a can of worms throughout history; the biggest ones probably being Gods and different nationalities.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- The internet fridge: how technology will (and won’t) change retail
- Can behavioural insights help to close the attainment gap?
- Fellow’s response to the RSA’s recent report Disrupt Inc
- Want to create more entrepreneurial schools? Then give someone in DfE the responsibility to work on it
- How much for a free banana?
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.