Democracy in the US

Each of us is aw ar that tilt is all over we look. No segment of society is exempt. We as the earth are dealing with the advent of continuous and incessantly increasing change. Change in technology, change in resource availability, change in national demographics, change in treatforce diversity, change in safe now all display caset of the organisational environment and scope in which customary institutions moldiness(prenominal)(prenominal) operate.Change, as the verbalism goes, has truly buy the farm the only constant. The challenge for governances is whether they abide become flexible enough, fast enough. And will they do it on terms set by the organisational culture, and then adapt and succeed in the face of it or will they challenge the status quo and contract to transform the prevailing culture. What follows is the story of a universal government, which is trying to change the context under which it performs alternatively than be changed by that context.In the realm of Philosophy, as Erasmus of Rotterdam, the stolon truly great compassionateist of the contemporary age once said, The intent suffices in a great design. Erasmus, no doubt was unspoiled. However, beyond simple intent, or to phrase it in the certain vernacular, flock, action is required to bring the vision to life. In any age, there are those individuals willing to challenge the status quo, whether it is in the field of politics, science, business, or public administration. If these individuals are to enjoy a measure of success, they must be willing to take an inordinate beat of risk and withstand criticism, indifference and cynicism from all quarter. almost importantly, they must ease up the capacity to envision a great design and then transform that vision into action.A skeptic would find little or no relationship amidst philosophy and the redbrick practice of the public. A purist would probably go and and find offensive the in truth idea of study these two seemingly opposed disciplines. One, grounded in the metaphysical pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, and the other, a matter-of-fact and applicative effort to conduct the publics business, appear to be at opposite ends of an intellectual continuum.Closer examination reveals that both disciplines share similar characteristics and both keep an eye on parallel aims. Philosophy and public administration assay to understand human motivation, philosophy for the sake of tenuous knowledge, and public administration to harness this understanding to practical ends. Human apprehension and resistance to change is and one and only(a) aspect of this understanding that is shared by both disciplines.The idea of a flatter, to a greater extent naiant organization, one with a minimum number of organizational layers separating the front line employees from senior trouble is by no means new. Organizations, if one sack announce them that, in the early years of the industrial transformati on consistently reflected an absolute minimum number of layers. Indeed, a face to face relationship a good deal existed between ownership or management and the employee or worker. As methods of production grew increasingly complex and the principles of scientific management were applied, more and more layers of organizational structure were cleard.Organizations beingness ongoing entities, these layers tended to become permanent features of the organizational landscape, often well beyond the time where theyre pilot burner intent and usefulness has become obsolete. The private as well as the public sectors has found that the pressures of in operation(p) successful enterprises in an ever-changing competitive world, read new management approaches. A realization has emerged that a principal impediment to the rapid response to a changing environment is organizational structure.The organization, which was to emerge, was to strive to become boundaryless, free from the confines of the hierarchical past, and organized rough processes rather than functions. We desired to become a customer-oriented, fast, focused, flexible, comradely and fun organization. But here again the presidential term felt as though they need to blackguard in.We carefully blended concepts from a diverse anatomy of management thinkers. As we met in community meetings, every idea and suggestion that complemented our vision of the future organization was documented on video and considered.If we valued the commonwealth as assets, then we had to come to respect them. Our habits and organizational routines stripped people of initiative and pride. People often did leave their brains in the parking lot as a way of coping with the nature of the anything. They did it because the center we sent through all of our command and rig structures, most notably, that people shouldnt do anymore than what the suppose description said. And we reinforced this with compensation systems that rewarded this b ehavior.We had to set these human resources free. The people of the U.S. needed to feel that they had a right to exercise the emancipation to think and the freedom to act. We would work very hard to demonstrate we were credible on this point. Until we could free all of our assets and apply them to the services we render, it was un relyful to believe that our customer focus could be evident.Individually, we hope to achieve meaningful and lasting contri besidesions. To do this, we must first look inward and objectively fix what our strengths and weaknesses are. Ideally, we should be able to use the benefits of the former to lento erode the drawbacks of the latter. Persistence and patience, coupled with the use of character, should capture us to achieve this end.Organizations, however, rely on the mutualist actions of the individuals that comprise it. Therefore, if these individuals hope to enact any substantial changes they must first ensure that there is a commonality of habit, a shared vision. Importantly, this vision must be embraced by and apply to from each one and every one of the members. In this fashion, interdependence and commonality of purpose nates be achieved.Governments have found that they can legislate laws that define what is acceptable and what is not just as proven by Alexis de Tocqueville. This definition of acceptability is accompanied with a corresponding punishment. Governments draft, approve and impose laws. They cannot, however, hope to legislate morals or morality. They have tried, and they have failed.That laws cannot prevent human beings from killing each another is not tragic. It is only ones conscience, based on the moral principles under which we were raised, that prevent us from geological fault the law. The laws of the land say we must be punished, but the same laws are powerless to prevent us from killing does this sound just to you. Laws are the formulation of the moral principles we all learned as children. They are the shared morality, the ethics, of a nation.We felt the need to create a code of ethics based on simple common sense principles derived from a widely distributed consensus. This was of paramount importance in our quest. To that end, we adopted our foundational principles. We consume to define empowerment, as the freedom to think and the freedom to act, with the appropriate knowledge of the responsibilities linked with the exercise of power.The first principle, to treat each other with respect and dignity, was embraced by all as the most important point principle. The second, that share-out is not a weakness, required a huge shift in perception. To view sharing as strength, rather than as a weakness, becomes very important in the context of the chaos of large change. Without these principles, we could not proceed to fundamentally re-invent ourselves.There are a number of desired talents that any organization needs from its members in order to achieve excellence. Competence, bec omes a de facto assumption, for without it the attainment of our goals and objectives is doomed to failure. However, competence, by itself, does not throw the only element in this formula. Character is the gun that binds all the diverse organizational elements into a dogged whole. In fact, character is probably considerably more desirable than competence.Most organizations believe that you can determine skills to create or supplement competence, but you can not teach, dictate, or prescribe character. The third inwrought talent is intuition. We each have an inner region which, when combined in the presence of character and competence allows us to do great things. This is a sadly an often ignored reality of leadership. Perhaps one day soon the people of todays times will start seeing what minority groups of the government would just prefer we not.