|
|
|
Jamie LaRue Speaks
November 14, 2006: - Dynamic Organizations Stay Supple
A young friend of mine
recently moved to California.
She's been sending
back thoughtful and astute
observations about the public library she
works for out there.
Not surprisingly, that
library is different from ours in ways both large
and small. For instance, we
are an independent library district -- the
only kind of public library
that is directly accountable, not to some
other governmental entity
with its own concerns (such as a county or
city), but directly to the
people it serves. My friend's library is
within a city with lots of
its own problems.
Yet, responding to her
observations reminded me that organizations, like
the people who make them,
are more alike than not.
I've often said about the
Douglas County Libraries that we follow a
distinct rhythm: 2 years
out, 2 years in. It's like breathing.
For 2 years, often around a
building project, we have intense and
probing discussions with the
public. That's how we figure out what
people want from us. Breathe
out!
Then, for 2 years, we put
our plans into practice. More often than not,
they are successful, often
wildly so. That ramps up our business.
And that's when we find out
that the new level of activity requires us
to change the way we do
things. Breathe in!
Any dynamic organization --
make that "any organization," because an
organization that isn't
dynamic doesn't last very long -- finds that
"changing the way we do
things" falls into two broad strategies.
First, you centralize. This
happens when you find that there's a lot of
inconsistency in the system.
There's duplication of effort, some major
or minor squandering of
resources through inefficiency and lack of
standards.
Second, you decentralize.
Too much focus on standards and predictability
results in, well, too much
predictability. To some, it looks like a loss
of creativity, or
stagnation. (Although predictability in getting the
right things done is no
vice.) It may indeed result in a lack of
responsiveness, particularly
when things are changing rapidly in the
environment around the
organization.
Which is best? Like so many
other black or white choices, the answer is,
"it depends." It
depends on which set of problems your organization
faces at the moment. It
depends on the people in key spots, and what
their own strengths are. It
depends on what's happening in the context
of your organization.
One of the strengths of our
library has been our distinct local
connections. That's largely
a decentralized process -- our staff
responding to a unique
community.
But an honest assessment of
our operations told us that there were a lot
of ways we could give the
public a better bang for its buck. We moved
our book ordering into fewer
hands, and managed to get a lot more
efficient with our time --
and therefore get more materials faster.
We established some
standards for graphics, taking our program
promotions up a notch, and
increasing the number of people who came to
them. We've worked hard to
coordinate a unified strategy for the use of
phone and computer
equipment.
This year, as we go into our
final budget adoption, we're working hard
to institute that mysterious
quality called "alignment" -- where all the
rowers in the boat are
pulling in the same direction and at the same
time. We're also using more
centralized measures of accountability --
benchmarks that tell us
what's working, and what isn't.
Breathe out; breathe in.
Centralize; decentralize. Flexibility is a sign
of life; rigidity is the
distinguishing feature of death.
©
2006, James LaRue. |
Article
Options:
 Printer
Version
 PDF Version
|
