3 ms·

The thing that strikes me about this is how much less formalized things used to be - the fire happened on 12/24, a contract was awarded for the repairs on 1/4,

The thing that strikes me about this is how much less formalized things used to be - the fire happened on 12/24, a contract was awarded for the repairs on 1/4, and work was complete and the executive branch moved back in on 4/14.

Aloha 5y ago
I sorta wonder where the line on organizational formalization ought to be. I'm part of an organization that functioned well for many years with little internal structure, but now, many of the original principals are aging out of the org, and things are just not working as well without those strong personalities to guide things. Formalization allows you to swap people out like interchangeable components, but it also acts as strictures that can reduce or in some cases completely eliminate flexibility and dynamicism. I personally advocate for policy and structure as guidelines, but not as law, it gives folks a seed as to how an organization ought to function - but not so rigid as to act as a girdle to prevent the organization from dynamically responding to changing situations. You want a some critical path areas to be written down as law, but everything else should be lose convention that can be changed at dynamically as conditions suit. This analogy even extends to programming, somewhat obviously. It's an interested and relevant discussion for corporate culture, how we govern, and how we organize non-profits. I long ago concluded that the largest cause of failure for startups with an otherwise marketable product, was failing to create a self-sustaining organization, and organizational culture.
pvg 5y ago
Isn't this more rather than less formalized? A modern executive would not have to immediately go to congress to deal with such a problem. It might have to engage later to sort out whatever financial issues arise but it could and would act immediately. To put federal disaster response in a bit of context - in 1929, the president of the United States wasn't entirely convinced the federal government had much of a role in dealing with the Great Depression.

Aloha 5y ago

I sorta wonder where the line on organizational formalization ought to be. I'm part of an organization that functioned well for many years with little internal structure, but now, many of the original principals are aging out of the org, and things are just not working as well without those strong personalities to guide things. Formalization allows you to swap people out like interchangeable components, but it also acts as strictures that can reduce or in some cases completely eliminate flexibility and dynamicism. I personally advocate for policy and structure as guidelines, but not as law, it gives folks a seed as to how an organization ought to function - but not so rigid as to act as a girdle to prevent the organization from dynamically responding to changing situations. You want a some critical path areas to be written down as law, but everything else should be lose convention that can be changed at dynamically as conditions suit. This analogy even extends to programming, somewhat obviously. It's an interested and relevant discussion for corporate culture, how we govern, and how we organize non-profits. I long ago concluded that the largest cause of failure for startups with an otherwise marketable product, was failing to create a self-sustaining organization, and organizational culture.

pvg 5y ago

Isn't this more rather than less formalized? A modern executive would not have to immediately go to congress to deal with such a problem. It might have to engage later to sort out whatever financial issues arise but it could and would act immediately. To put federal disaster response in a bit of context - in 1929, the president of the United States wasn't entirely convinced the federal government had much of a role in dealing with the Great Depression.