Schlagwort-Archive: Cohesion

Mortar – the ideal metaphor for the purpose of Governance

Enterprises are always looking for new ways, in order to set themselves up in the best way by smartly distributing the tasks. In the past the tasks were divided into as small parts as possible and provided with goals that unfortunately did not always fit to each other. As a result there are the corporate areas research & development, production, sales and so on. Today everybody makes efforts to reverse this development and to implement holistic solutions with process orientation and agile organization. No matter how you set up yourself, you need a connecting element between the parts – the governance. In order to explain the purpose of governance, mortar that joins building blocks to a stable whole is a good metaphor.

The interactions of many functions, units and employees within enterprises must be ensured. The following attributes of the Governance should enable this interaction.

  • Leveling
    Without mortar, it is very difficult to build a custom-fit masonry. The unevenness of the stones corresponds to the blurring of the components of a company. The adaptable mortar compensates for unevenness and connects the blocks in the right plumb line.
    Accordingly, the governance provides answers, which are not so critical within the individual areas, but ensure the accuracy between each other by balancing the scope of action across all areas.
  • Cohesion
    After the stones are piled up with the moist mortar to the desired wall, the whole dries to a stone-like mass. The walls hold together as if they were made of one stone. At the same time, the joints are designed to absorb climatic fluctuations.
    Governance must be prepared to cope with fluctuations in business requirements, e.g. through a common set of values that provides a framework for difficult times.
  • Stability
    You cannot simply put stones together with mortar. An overall statics is required for the wall to fulfill its tasks. The overall plan provides the basis for this. If the static of the building is OK, i.e. if there are no imbalances that let the wall collapse over time, then the build-up will likely last for a long time.
    Accordingly, it is not enough to introduce governance. The building blocks must also be meaningfully aligned to each other, e.g. through a shared vision and long-term goals.

As the mortar is the binder between stones, the jointly decided governance holds the enterprise together and ensures that everybody is aligned to the same direction.

Bottom line: There are rarely walls that work without mortar. The same applies to companies that do not function without governance. Therefore, to convey the purpose of governance, mortar is a good example, as it allows any   sizes of walls and stabilizes buildings. The crucial thing is to connect the parts of the company in such a way that they stick together and perform their tasks in a stable way. In this sense, mix your mortar and ensure that way the cohesion of your area.

P.S.: See also the elements of Governance.

Evaporates the public opinion?

We all have our look at the conditions of the world. Currently http://ow.ly/GeMxx billions of people lives in the world. Unfortunately it is difficult from the perspective of political and economical decision makers to deal appropriately with this incredible number of views. For this reason, one considers the view points of groups, e.g. government, enterprise, lobby and other groups of interests. A universal point of view is the public opinion that represents the majority of the society. These attitudes and behaviors are detected through representative surveys. Whereas in former times people were shaped by common upbringing, education, books and mass media, today an enormous amount of channels and institutions stand equal side by side. As a consequence everyone seeks heaven in his own fashion. Does the public opinion still exist? Or does the public opinion evaporates as a practical tool from the public discourses?

WirsinddasVolk

If the commonalities of a society dissolve, the resilience is at risk, …

  • … because common sense is no longer seizable
    In the past, people were influenced with news by common channels, e.g. the local daily papers as well as the public radio and TV stations. This created a common state of knowledge and convictions. With the emergence of special-interest channels and the Internet today everyone is in the position to select ones sources. Thus, the commonalities get lost. Each perspective is cultivated and evolves in its respective direction. Therefore a common sense of the smaller groups emerges. The large, social common sense is lost thereby.
  • … because culture dissolves more and more
    Through the advancing fragmentation of the society it becomes more difficult to recognize the core elements of culture (more here: http://www.memecon.com/cultural-aspects.html). Languages, actions, attitudes, experiences and the identity are increasingly scattered across different groups. Over time incompatible groups evolve that are in competition with each other. In order to come to a common direction, for all parties’ acceptable compromises have to be concluded. The call for a common culture becomes stronger.
  • … because social cohesion disappears
    As a consequence, people orient themselves increasingly towards their group. This leads to a developing delimitation from others and a stronger emotional binding to the values of the own group. The existing energy for the common tasks is consumed in favor of petty disputes. The general problems remain unresolved and the societal commonalities get lost.
  • … because the large parties dissolve
    Even the Grand Coalition of Germany represents only 48% of all voters, considering a polling of 71,5% http://ow.ly/GeSHe. The CDU/CSU (18.3 million voters) received together just little more votes than the non-voters (17.6 million). Democracy created itself rules, in order to remain functional with such circumstances. The consequences are more and more parties and ever more populists.
  • … because the basis for governmental decisions evaporates
    With the political voting results, the parties govern without the support of the majority of the voters. This leads to a rising discontent and more public demonstrations. The new culture of protest is practiced by all segments of the population. The malicious way that the established parties show the various activists understanding is an indication for their lack of ideas of how to grapple with these groups.

The gaps that arise create the room for groups that promise to the public, what they want to hear. Populist forces already exploited in the twentieth century the weakness of many small parties. The consequences were horrifying. Without an extensive consent between the citizens that becomes visible in a convincing public opinion, we spin into an undesirable, well-known direction. Did decision makers learn something from it? Which measures do they take? Do we have to accept that history repeats itself? And afterwards again nobody knew something?
In the meantime the public opinion becomes so little meaningful that on its basis only a few commonalities can be found – except for the xenophobic developments.

P.S.: The same mechanisms can be found in corporations within their framework of the Corporate Identity.