I remember reading or hearing a principle stating soemthing to the effect that “All organizations have, in addition to their stated objectives, secondary objectives of their own survival and growth as organizations; frequently, these take over as the primary objective, so that nearly all organizations will continue to exist even after their primary objectives have been achieved, often seeking to expand on or change the original purpose of the organization.” In other words, most successful organizations will outlive their usefulness.
This was stated as “the law of X” or “the X principle” and it was implied that this was a well-known idea in the field. Does anybody know what I’m talking about and what this is called?
Yes, I believe I understand what you’re talking about. No, I don’t know a name for the theory. Many people have written about the cases in which the means ultimately become more important than the ends. This happens in organizations and in other systems, such as, for example, public education - at many levels. One aspect of this circumstance is that it is often vested interests that subvert the original ends of such organizations, by attempting to capitalize on the means. I fear the entire concept is often part of much larger theoretical frameworks, such as systems theory, macro economics, and political theory, about which I know virtually nothing. That’s my one cent’s worth. xo C.
Well… I can’t tell you what its called, but I can give you a good example- US-based environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, tend to follow a fairly predictable path:-
Founding by idealist, uncompromising grassroots organizers.
Gains prestige and influence, and makes inroads into existing power structure.
Becomes more and more globalist in approach and ignores regional campaigning.
Leadership becomes the elite- MBAs take over the positions that scientists or merely interested individuals once held.
Continuation of organization’s own existence becomes priority #1- compromise becomes more and more acceptable to ensure continued influence, and therefore, donations.
That would be a perfect illustration, too; though the example I had in mind would have been more along the lines of a group founded to clean up river X largely succeeds, but faced with extinction, exaggerates the remaining threat, and insists that it still needs more money, etc.
What got me thinking about it was a wait in the Post Office (the one at Colonial and Alafaya, actually, dutchboy208,
seeing as you’re in Orlando). In the electronic age, they are slowly becoming obsolete, but I doubt they’ve ever given a thought to voluntarily looking for ways to downsize.
You’ll notice, though, that from about 10 am to well into the afternoon its bloody impossible to find a parking spot there…
(I live across from UCF)
Interestingly, the USPS is the only US government office that actually turns a profit, although I think they have lost money for the last couple years, so perhaps downsizing shouldn’t be on the cards for 'em just yet.
I too am unable to remember the name of this theory, but I remember learning in it at the same time as planned obsolense ( I KNOW that I spelled that wrong).
There is one goverment agency that put itself out of business, it was the original agency that was responsible for aviation.
A prime example of what you are talking about it Jerry’s Kids. If I am not mistaken it was originally raising money for kids with polio. Now that polio is no longer a real threat, they raise money for kids with MS.
mare - I think you’re a bit confused about this. It was the March of Dimes that originally set about to eradicate polio, a direct response to having a president who suffered from it (FDR). When a vaccine was developed to control this once-dread disease, the March of Dimes changed its mssion to focus on birth defects. Jerry and his telethon were about Muscular Dystrophy. While their focus is a bit broadened now, to include a range of dystrophic disorders, it’s still pretty much about its original topic.
My career-long acquaintence with the edu-biz leads me to the conclusion that it is rife with the conditions that the OP framed - a system, and systems within systems, that function and regulate themselves in response to their own procedures, rather than in reference to their purported goals. e.g. - schools are probably the most rules-intensive setting any of us has experienced. There are all sorts of rules of behavior, etc. that are, for the most part, directed at issues related to established routines. as opposed to the overall ends of public education - namely, education. The paperwork, alone, betrays any attention to the ends - it’s about the means. Ok, I’ll step down, now.
:smack:You are correct CC. It is the March of Dimes. As I was hitting post I was thinking Maybe it was another group…hmmm But thanks to your quick response, the mis-information was not allowed to continue
Now if I only could remember the name of the Federal Agency that allowed and organized its own demise
You wouldn’t be thinking of the law of entropy, would you? When applied to organizations, they generally mean losing focus on one’s distinctive mission and just mutating into a firm that’s just like all the others. I think. Which is probably not quite what you meant.
Let me go slink back to the wussier forums where I belong.
The USPS is a bad example, they are constitutionally mandated to exist. There have been noises for years to significantly reduce/change/eliminate the post office, but as long as that dern constitution’s hanging around…
Cranky - I think that invoking the law of entropy here is a little off from the OP’s issue. The organizations don’t so much lose order as much as they change the functions of the order and the types of structures within the organization. I agree that many organizations and systems do become more disordered, too, but his (her?) concern had to do with the purposes of the systems themselves. I see it as a little different, but maybe the OP doesn’t, and maybe you’ve answered the question. xo C.
Oooh this is getting creepy … I’m on Napier circle, which is back behind the Thai restaurant that used to be a Pizza Hut … are we neighbors?
And I know the USPS is a bad example, as you and muttrox pointed out (and as I guessed someone would). But the thread was sliding down … thanks for the bump.
Are you thinking of NACA? If so, it didn’t really put itself out of business; it became NASA as the scope of its activities grew. I know some old guys at NASA labs who were originally in NACA, and the transition from one to the other was relatively seamless at their level, just a change of letterhead. Or was there an organization that preceeded NACA?
On the OP, most bureaucracies are filled with examples. I know of several organizations (universities, corporations, etc.) where there are intense political fights at the VP level as administrators try to hang on to functions which give them power even when a reorganization would eliminate those positions or put them in another chain of command. Sorry, I don’t have a name for it.
I’ve only been to Colonial and Alafaya P.O. once or twice during business hours…but never had a problem parking.
(Woodbury/Waterford Lakes area here, btw.)
I see this phenomenon with a lot of groups, and as well as many other posters, think I once knew what it was but have forgotten. I just don’t think the P.O. is a good example.
I, too, know exactly what you are talking about …. Except for the name. The same management and social sciences and psychology books that discuss this use the phrase “closed circle of deceit.”
There seem to be some links to “The Scientist,” but it requires free registration and, today, I don’t trust the hamp-hamp hamsters enough to take the time from this site.
What we are talking about is the reflex/tendency that leads upper-level management to become so concerned about maintaining upper-level management ness that they refuse to listen to worker complains. Which is the same factor that can lead workers to become so short-sighted about workerness that they refuse to listen to upper-level management calls for change.
At the beginning of dot-comism, this peculiar aspect of human nature was cited as the reason so many were afraid to adopt the new. Toward the end, it was cited as the reason so many were so eager to adopt the new. In both cases, I think, an apt assessment.
