11. Organisational management system operations
Basic elements of organisational life which are described in organisational management systems include:
- doing what we said we would do,
- checking whether what your organisation is doing is what was planned, and whether it is achieving what was intended,
- correcting what is being done to bring it into line with intentions, as needed, and
- reviewing and revising definitions of 'what the organisation should be doing' (e.g. management plans, procedures) as needed.
Everyone in organisations has some responsibility for these matters. They are the particular responsibilities of managers and supervisors.
If you are working to get your organisation to change how it does things, these basic elements of organisational life are very important:
- When the plans embody changes that you are championing, but the people in the organisation are not yet familiar with or not yet committed to the new way of working, the checking and correction functions are particularly important. It makes sense to put a lot of time into them.
- When the plans do not embody what you are championing, then it is important to draw attention to the gaps between underlying organisational intentions or interests, and what is occurring in practice, with a view to triggering revisions of the plans.
If your agenda is catalysing change, focusing on an organistion's implementation of its management commitments - and more generally on the operation of its formal organisational systems - is important when the organisation has committed to doing a lot better than it actually is.
The effectiveness of holding your organisation (or a part of it) accountable is also a function of how seriously it takes its formal commitments. This varies. It is useful to test whether cash flows (or other substantive expressions of commitment) are aligned with rhetoric. The more they are aligned, the more useful management system tools are to advocates of change.
Operating and evolving systems
Operating an organisational management system is a matter of
- doing what the system commits you to do
- checking that your group and others in the organisation are, for example by
- ongoing evaluation by line managers
- audits of environmental outcomes
- audits of compliance with organisational management systems (see Reviewing operation of a stormwater management system (doc)
- audits of compliance with legislation
- correcting operational procedures when problems emerge.
This is not conceptually difficult. However bringing sufficient awareness to actual operations, so that organisational action is aligned with intent is often surprisingly difficult - even when an organistion's "intent" is quite clear.
Running organisational management systems is not just a matter of mechanically acting according to an organisational system design however. These systems don't specify the details, and they need to evolve.
Effective practice involves ongoing sensitivity to whether a particular approach to 'checking and correction' is in fact aligned with overall change mangement and environmental management objectives. Issues to consider include:
- whether strict use of formal systems is helpful or unhelpful in practice,
- how the designs of checking processes (audits, reviews, ...) can evolve,
- whether formal systems are picking up what you are learning through informal networks (and vice versa).
Feeling the pulse(s) of your organisation
Formal organisational systems provide windows on organisational life. They should be used to support your efforts to 'feel the pulse(s) of your organisation' - not to squash other information flows.
Informal networks are always operating and can be very helpful on getting a reading on what is occurring in other parts of a large organisation. A team (with manager and staff) can maintain links at multiple levels across an organisation. If one combines three sources of information - feedback from formal management systems, feedback through informal management channels, and feedback through informal professional officer channels - one can get quite a rich reading on an organisation's behaviour.
Coordinating the activities of staff in large organisations is difficult. Management systems of some sort are a necessity.
So since they will exist in some form, and since there will be a gap between what an organisation says and what it does, holding it accountable will always be a lever available to change agents. The potential of this lever varies greatly however. So rather than 'focusing on accountabilities because they're there', it makes sense to explore in practice whether these accountabilities are a powerful lever in the circumstances you are in. If they are, it usually makes sense to use them - in a courteous, collegial way.
