Complacency in our most cherished laws and essential purpose of existence as a people leaves the door open to erosion of these values that act as a guide to our lives and institutions. Change is the one thing we can count on in any institutional development strategy and without change we may find such systems become costly and increasingly ineffective. Our nation has survived this long because it has put as its center certain principles such as opportunities for meaningful work, human/civil rights, and a sense of fairness through individual consideration (social contracts). We also expect people to have similar values and perceptions of what our society looks like and in turn provide support for enlightened values during the process of national development.
Problems When Misalignment of Purpose are Discovered:
Problems can arise when we become confused as to what we look like as a nation and which values are most important for the longevity of that purpose. Most want to ensure our central values guide the rest of the ship for the benefit of the whole. At times some people may want to steer those institutional benefits for groups we didn't sanction as a collection of individuals (i.e. social corruption). Where this happens we have a responsibility of the highest calling to correct to ensure alignment between professions of values and outcomes of those values.
What happens when either the processes or administrators are out of alignment with our greater values and purpose as a nation? Naturally, I think most people would reasonably conclude ("Reasonable" being the key word here.) we need change to ensure the institution stays relevant to the needs of the people. Realignment around core vision helps the entire institution refresh itself to societal needs so as to maintain a shared perception of an institution's purpose. It is that shared perception and alignment of outcomes that creates long lasting support. Talking about values on one level and failing to follow through with those values on the other end does more harm than good.
Thoughtful change can be a good opportunity to improve the system as a whole to influence beneficial impacts on society. Those who oppose change often do so because they believe things are running well and/or they have something to lose by making the system more reflective our American values. Yet insightful 'over the horizon' thinking by as many people as possible is necessary to maintain a national competitive edge. If science can show change is needed but there is no will to change then we must double our commitment to purity of purpose. Is Your Organization Strategically Aligned?
An Extreme Example:
An example meant to be a little extreme and hopefully unlikely. Yet it still highlights some of the risks of complacency of values and lack of commitment to our American ideals.
Connected group (clan) warps local institutions through homogeneous social connections designed to benefit clan members. This group creates in-group and out-group divisions in the community and is accustomed to coordinated bullying. Almost any behavior is acceptable as long as one views the out-group members as less worthy of institutional outcomes. The problem is so widespread that it creates pseudo-second-class citizens who are seen as less worthy of certain rights. Worse, some may feel they should be blocked from societal contributions (Slavery may have ended but segregationists continue to dehumanize others). Prior community complaints were ignored and while behaviors are repeated and in some ways grotesque, there are few to no backstops.
No one is spared from misbehavior of the clan when one or more of the members are upset or wants something (Historically there are similar underlining mechanics shared by such clans that engage in group behaviors without critical thinking. Tulsa Massacre). Not children, not parents, not elderly, not the sick, not vets, not the vulnerable, no one is immune from the clan's unchecked rampage. Behaviors go on for years and in some cases, decades, and perpetrators are given consistent free passes that further embeds a toxic culture that erodes our liberties and undermines our sense of togetherness. There appears to be intentional protection for criminal behaviors and circumventing community member's rights for political, racial, religious and ideological justifications. The victims of the past are discounted and there is little attempt to protect the victims of the future due to this complacency in values and outcomes. Corrupted acts, any protection thereof, or failure to fix the problems such acts create are immoral and illegal when the needs of the nation or its people are not put first.
(It is meant to be an extreme example for learning purposes only.)
Closed Systems:
One might call the example above a closed system where certain people are beneficiaries of poor administration and good old boy networks. In such systems social connections may influence how people make decisions and therefore if someone (or people) is/are deemed subhuman/second class citizens (by the false but encouraged perception of others) each of the interconnected homogenous group members (i.e. "local as a racial or religious difference) make decisions to target people or circumvent our federal laws by misusing the power entrusted in them through our institutions. Those who are beneficiaries (in group) who receive extra protections are going to feel different when compared to those who may not be direct beneficiaries of such local institutions (out group). There are many reasons that people foster closed systems despite obligations to become more universalized in their approach. An interesting article Causes of Corruption.
Two General Outcomes:
Here are the two broad possibilities that we can consider for thoughtful discussion. Let me say that when it comes to proof-in-the-pudding outcomes there is little moral room for technicalities when larger more fundamental laws and values have been violated. Ensuring outcomes are oriented to the intent of the law and what one would expect from basic moral outcomes is important for supporting the viability of such systems in the future. The choice between striving for the ideal and accepting intentionally misaligned performance outcomes develops the soul of the institution, how it functions and how it is seen in history. Rigidity in solutions where strategy and values would have been more helpful puts a burden on society through non-optimal functioning that compounds problems. They same can be said for changing too quickly without thinking about how those changes align to the long term needs of the nation.
Poor Outcome: No change, little respect for civil/human rights, preferred religions, encouraged races, no avenue of handling issues, reasonable community concerns silenced, misuse of power, political aggression, continued corruption, and so on and so forth. Behaviors are repeated as a pattern of response to stimuli and fear of accountability. The worst outcome is when people know that the laws are intentionally applied disparately to help some at the expense of the whole. In such situations, poor actors are rewarded and good actors are punished leading to further embedded corruption through reinforced social expectations. Encouraged criminality through free passes. Lack of commitment to the institution's core mission and variance in outcomes lead to a decline in public trust. Power over is the preferred tool of people management. The people who made self-serving and biased decisions and fail to correct are not worthy of public trust and should be removed. Patriotism is an exclusive and shallow lens.
Positive Outcome: The system changes adjusts and improves based on strategic logic and the greatest alignment of American values. There are appropriate feedback loops from various societal members. The system becomes more accurate, more helpful, better able to fulfill its purpose, and more efficient use of resources. Poor actors are removed and good actors are rewarded leading to a culture of professionalism and higher performance. Corruption is unlikely and criminality is dissuaded. Support by the young is high due to the inherent societal quality of outcomes. People naturally support the good that such institutions can do and commitment to mission and purpose moves the local institution from "management" to "striving" as more benefits to society are maximized. Power with is a common tool to encourage consensus building and open dialogue. The people who made appropriate decisions did their best with the highest moral, ethical and unbiased manner they could and are deserving of public support. Patriotism is an inclusive lens.
What are Your Thoughts?
Which one do you think will have the most positive influence on the health of the whole, the health of the institution, and the flourishing of those within and touched by the institution? I would put my money on the latter. However, the truth is somewhere in the middle and it is the striving for the ideal that is more important than the ideal itself. Thus such institutions may function most of the time but sometimes they make major moral mistakes based on the poor values of some administrators and thus should be open to change when warranted. We have a growing problem if layers of administrators are unable to see the need for change if general performance and trust declines on a collective level. Thus, good management and moral practices are needed in every system. Most do the right thing and such behaviors are applauded for their professionalism and commitment to a higher calling. While more moral people with critical thinking skills should move to the top that doesn't happen where partisanship is a primary concern over quality of character.
Nations become defined by their processes and thus patriotism can include the concept of loyalty to higher values and the development of institutions for the benefit of a universal society. Genuine patriotism is a serious issue and it has deep implications. Maybe inner values are not as shinny as outward displays of symbolic glittery or lip service but certainly much more helpful in supporting national values. As one matures in their values they also see the difference more clearly and encourage alignment of strategic action with strategic purpose and moral development. Yet if you cannot see the possibilities, nor the edges, then one might double check the plotting of the course.
It is important that we do recognize that we make choices, people make choices, leaders make choices, etc. Our collective choices come to define us and has influence on institutional functionality and trust. Having a culture that encourages pro-American, pro-civil/human rights, pro-human advancement and pro-universal values provides a sense of unwritten guidance for the widest breadth of people who make decisions everyday. We are all the sum of our collective thoughts through the trillions of micro choices we make everyday. Let us choose that which is most healthy for the whole through preserving and gazing at our social contracts (Constitution, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Oaths, Pledges, history, Human/Civil Rights, etc.) as a navigable northern star.
*This article is meant for learning purposes only and encourages deeper thinking about freedom of religion, speech, and shared collective values.
References:
Mittal, V., Piazza, A. & Malshe, A. (May1, 2023). Is Your Company as Strategically Aligned as You Think It Is? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2023/05/is-your-company-as-strategically-aligned-as-you-think-it-is
Treisman, D. (2000). Causes of Corruption a Cross National Study. Journal of Public, 76 https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/131389/original/Treisman2000.pdf
Tulsa Historical Society (2024). 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. https://www.tulsahistory.org/exhibit/1921-tulsa-race-massacre/
No comments:
Post a Comment