Gainako Newspaper

I consider organizational goals as the optimistic future domains wanted by those
in the dominant coalition. Interdependent individuals who collectively have
satisfactory control of organizational or party resources establish organizational
goals. For this fundamental reason, individuals in exceptionally discretionary jobs
have a strong motivation to avoid decisions, which would hopefully end their
spheres of action. This motivation contributes to the inflexibility that hinders many
organizations. Unfortunately, an average expectation of the emergence of the
omnipotent individual is consistent with the Western rational model of organizations, nevertheless,
conditions which are compatible with the natural system model may now be readily occurring as the
complexity of technologies and globalization exceed the comprehension of any one individual and the
organization or party faces more contingencies than one individual is able to keep under surveillance
anywhere in a competitive environment.

The necessary variables of precise decision are beliefs about cause/effect and preferences regarding
outcomes, determined by societal or organizational culture of any given party. Where there is certainty
regarding causation and outcome preferences, as in traditional Western bureaucratic systems, a
computational strategy is used for decision-making, in other words, decisions are 'programmed'
according to a pre-established scientific formula. Where outcome preferences are clear but
cause/effect relationships are uncertain, a judgmental strategy is used which is most often described as
traditionally non-scientific decision-making. When there is certainty regarding cause/effect but
uncertainty regarding preferred outcomes because cultural values are in question or personal party
hidden agenda, as is the case in many modern societies , a compromise strategy is used for
decision-making. When there is uncertainty in both dimensions because societies are moving toward
social chaos, people rely on inspirational strategies for decision-making by purposely creating new
religions, positive future of a country or by returning to old ones.

Organizational or party change is superbly accomplished by a small committee which meets informally
and individually with each member of the organization or party until the necessary series of
compromises appear to mesh. That is when each party leader's agenda are no longer priority then hope
for a sustained coalition will be the top priority. When this has happens, consensus has been skillfully
achieved. At this particular point, a vote is not a decision but rather, a formal acknowledgement or
ratification of the consensus that has been laid as the needy foundation for all involved even party
supporters. In a highly complex organization or party, a powerful individual can, by the exercise critical
leadership, come to represent the organization or the party. He or she can only do so with the consent
and approval of the dominant coalition. Therefore, leadership rests on consensus, which rests on values
inherent in organizational or party culture.

For the rapid, abrupt adaptation of an organization to a new set of precise circumstances, a flag bearer
or party leader must first challenge shared assumptions and then substitute one decision premise for
another by re-arranging the priority of preferred outcomes by putting away his or her personal own
beliefs and values. With the critical modification of organizational or party culture by the use of cultural
forms, he or she is able to indoctrinate and enforce a new organizational or party paradigm, which will
inform discretion and thus, behavior. I view this as being a vibrant and superb politician.

CO-ALIGNMENT: THE BASIC ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION OF ANY
ORGANIZATION OR PARTY

In a living organization such as organism, which is simply a natural interconnected system, spontaneous
processes such as natural selection handle change. In an artificial organization such as a computer, or
any other machine, after it is designed and manufactured, it automatically adjusts to change, given the
strict limitations of its design. Therefore, for Party leaders to successfully instantly bring positive change
in a country has to continuously adopt to change. In contrast, I am convinced that, subtle complications
which face complex social organizations Parties call for something more than closed-logic practical
solutions. Organizational or party survival depends on the co-alignment of technology, people and task
environment with a viable domain, and of organizational or party design and structure appropriate to
that domain. Timing is a crucial administrative matter because as environments change, the
administration must deal with not just domain but further, how and how fast to redesign the structure,
align people and technology of the organization or party, in other words, negotiate a sharply revised set
of operational rules. I believe that, the configuration necessary for survival does not come from yielding
to environmental pressures but rather, from finding the strategic limits variables, such as organizational
or party culture, available to be manipulated in such a way that interaction with elements in the
environment will result in a viable co-alignment."

The fundamental task of the administrative process is the comprehensive search for flexibility because
this is what will sustain a coalition or party. To skillfully achieve flexibility, the administrative process is
not something done at one level in the organization or party, but spans and links all levels. The
administrative process does not absolutely flows down from one level to the next, but informs the
interaction of all levels and units of the organization or party. All involved have to dance to the same
tune and speak the same language so that there will be no misunderstanding. Complex organizations or
parties must utilize organizational or party culture principles to diligently accomplish this. Organizational
or Party culture is appropriate for this task because "outcome preferences are specified by the
institutional level of the organization or party, while specification of cause/effect relationships is
generously provided by the managerial level which controls the different kinds of resources inputs
constantly obtained and the welcome kinds of interdependence reflected in organizational or party
structure. Organizational or Party culture can provide the managerial level with what it requires to
obtain long term commitments from the institutional level which permit technical achievement while at
the same time, obtain commitments from the technical core which provide sufficient capacity and slack
to permit administrative discretion and commitment of resources when organizational or party change is
demanded by the environment and supporters.

When administrative processes seek to solve organizational or party problems, more often than not
they use simple concepts of causality which direct them to 1) search for solutions to symptoms, 2)
search for realistic solutions based on currently available alternatives, and 3) search for solutions in
organizationally vulnerable areas (finger pointing). I comply that this propositions regarding
organizations in action describe but one of at least two styles of organizational action. It is possible to
conceive of monitoring behavior which scans the environment for opportunities - which does not wait
to be activated by a problem and which does not therefore stop when a problem solution has been
found. I expect opportunistic surveillance to be found at the institutional level of the organization or
party. Yet, what accounts for the relative scarcity of opportunistic surveillance? I am puzzles. I believe
the answer to this question can be found in the personal attributes of administrators, leaders, party
supporters and in the organizational or party structures they operate. Perhaps, this behavior is not
commonly found because it constantly requires the creation of a new type of organizational or party
culture, calling for a different type of leadership and new forms of organizational or party design and
strategic operation.

I blame the widespread bias toward certainty which shows up as a preference for short-term rather
than long-term considerations, quantitative rather than qualitative data, and precedent rather than
innovation. I believe that intolerance for ambiguity causes an administrative, leadership, party
supporters bias toward certainty. I note, if the powerful inner circle is composed solely of individuals
with responsibilities in the managerial or leadership level, we would expect problematic search, not
opportunistic surveillance to prevail. The conversion of administrators from managerial and leadership
to institutional responsibilities entails a shift in attention from all levels of our organizations or parties. I
recently convinced that for us to successfully succeed in this endeavor we must first change our lifelong
attitude, practice and behavior towards each other as well as our country and parties and government
involved so that we can instantly bring a positive change for all to enjoy. We need each other
regardless of our political or religious affiliation to purposely create a better organization, party,
government or country.

Michael Ba Banutu-Gomez, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Rowan University
William G. Rohrer College of Business
Department of Management & MIS
2001 Mullica Hill Road
Glassboro, New Jersey 08028-1701
Tel. 856-256-5425
Banutu-gomez@rowan.edu

� Copyright, 2006-2007: Gainako On-line Newspaper. Site Maintained by Gamway Computers