John writes...
>One the one hand, taking a simple view, I cannot but agree with Fred Nickols
>when he writes:
>
>>In point of fact, schools have no goals, people do. So, when we speak
>>and write of school's goals, we are really talking about one or more
>>perspectives of schools and one or more persons who hold those
>>perspectives, not the schools per se; the schools themselves are
>>incapable of holding any view or perspective.
Thanks, John. I try to keep things as simple as I can.
>But, on the other hand, if one makes distinctions among:
>(1)"Stated" (or sometimes "intended") goals
>(2)"Implicit" goals -- i.e. goals implied by actions
>(3)Individuals' beliefs about (1) or (2)
>
>I think it is the case that one can say that schools, themselves, have
>goals. It is very clear to me that schools, as institutions, have
>implicit goals -- I can look at the collective results of what a school
>does and infer them. It is also clear that schools, as institutions, have
>stated goals. Here the only confusion is that sometimes they have
>different stated goals stated by different groups with different
>perspectives. But having different stated goals is not the same as having
>no goals.
Here, I think we part company. It is common enough to refer to an
organization's action but organizations don't do anything; people do.
Organizations don't have any intended or implicit goals; people do. When
we speak of an organization's implicit goals, we are referring to exactly
what you say above: our own inferences. It is certainly easy enough to
poke around and find a set of stated goals and objectives for an
institution but these are goals and objectives that have been hammered out
and expressed by people; the institution had nothing to do with their
formulation or their expression. As you note above, all this complicated
by the fact that we often encounter situations where different people with
different perspectives, goals and objectives speak on behalf of an
organization and claim that their goals and objectives are those of the
institution -- but they're not. Any such goals and objectives are those
of the people who pronounce them (or of other people who are operating
behind the scenes).
>I also think it is common practice to say that institutions or groups have
>goals -- and it certainly makes sense to me to infer implicit goals from
>the actions of groups or institutions. In fact, it is quite a useful way
>to talk about institutions and to try to understand them as
>purposeful/goal-seeking entities.
I agree that it is common practice to say that institutions or groups have
goals and it also makes sense to me to infer goals from actions but I make
it a point to keep in mind that any actions I am observing are either the
actions of other people or abstractions I've constructed to account for
observed events. Again, organizations don't do anything, people do. So,
I don't try to understand organizations or groups as purposeful,
goal-seeking entities -- I reserve that attribute for people.
>Businesses and other organizations certainly take a lot of trouble to
>define and state their goals. These goal statements are used (very
>consciously or not so consciously, very purposefully or not so, etc.) to
>guide decision making and daily behavior or the individuals constituting
>the organizations.
Again, to pick the same nit, organizations don't take a lot of time and
trouble to do anything, let alone define and state their goals. Certain
people, members of the organization, do this, but the organization doesn't.
Often enough, the people who are doing this are the so-called leaders of
the organization or their subordinates. I agree with you as to the use of
these goal statements but I don't agree with you as to their origins.
>To say that not all constituencies share the same
>goals for an organization (a fair statement) is not to say that the
>organization, in its functioning, does not act as if it had a goal.
Well, when you look at the patterned actions of people, I think you can
divine/intuit/infer their goals from their actions. There are no
corresponding actions on the part of an organization; instead, there are
events, in which we see patterns and from which we infer actions and
goals.
But these are our constructions, not attributes of the organization.
Indeed, the organization itself is an abstraction.
>I
>think it is fair, and good language practice, to say that when an
>institution acts in such a way so as to reach a particular set of
>outcomes, those outcomes are the institution's (implicit, actual) goal.
I think it is commonplace to do as you say above, John, and I don't know
that "fair" applies or not, but I hold fast to my view that organization's
don't do anything, least of all set goals and objectives.
A word of explanation. I'm such a pest on this score because I've seen
far too much of people hiding behind "the organization." Unwilling to lay
claim to their own goals and objectives, they pronounce and promote them
as "the organization's." That's nonsense! And, frankly, I've had enough
of it.
--Regards,
Fred Nickols Distance Consulting http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm nickols@worldnet.att.net (609) 490-0095
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>