The distortion of goals that arises from over-measurement of some aspects of the organization’s output to the detriment of others is one of larger category of distortions that arise in the relations of organizations to their goals.
High Schools which measure the
quality their curricula by the number of students who pass the WASC
examinations (stressing here one component of effectiveness) find that some
teachers neglect the character development of their students to 11 them for the
tests.
If a pastor is frequently surveyed by his superiors as to how much money
he has raised for a new cathedral or v many children attend Sunday school in
his parish, he soon becomes more occupied with fund raising and class size than
with the ritual guidance of his parishioners.
How to
account for the differences between official and real goals? Even the most
successful people and organizations do not accomplish all their goals all the
time because of several reasons.
The stated goals may be in conflict with one
another. They might be idealistic and there is the likelihood of generating
expectations that cannot be achieved, leading to frustration and
disillusionment. In order to reduce the ambiguity, participants at each level
supply operational meaning to goals.
Clarity and specificity are accomplished
by each manager applying his own set of interpretations and biases leading to
goal distortions. Goal distortions result in, when there is misunderstanding
and misapplication of stated goals. When goals are distorted to an extreme
level, the organization is forced to displace them. The reasons for goal
distortion may be catalogued thus:
(i). Organizational distance: People at
lower levels cannot see the “big picture”. Every piece of information has to
travel a distance in most of the present-day organizations. As a result,
participants at each level indulge in filtering, short-circulating and
window-dressing of message received depending on their personal preferences.
(ii). Sub-unit goal internalization: Departments
constantly fight for power and influence in organizations. The long-run
interests of the organization are sacrificed in attempt to build empires,
create enclaves of power and influence, and thus, sub-unit goals take
precedence over organizational goals.
(iii). Over-commitment: It is possible for the
managers to be over- committed to a particular goal or set of goals, seriously
hampering the performance in other areas.
(iv). Bureaucratic difficulties:
Bureaucracy entails the distortion of democratic values and goals. According to
R.K. Merton, adherence to rules, originally conceived as a means, becomes
transformed to an end in itself, and there occurs familiar process of
displacement of goals whereby an instrumental values becomes terminal values.
Although little actual research has been done on disagreements among individuals or units of an organization concerning goals, it is obvious that different interpretations of goals can create conflict, So can an organizational units desire to gain resources or to preserve its powers and freedom of action conflict over interpretation of goals, however, may raise the quality of decisions, while conflict over resources may lower it. In truth, organizations do not have objectives; people in organizations have objectives stemming from their own views and motivations.
Thus organizational goals are really shifting and uneasy, compromises among the individuals within the organization and the changing demands made by the outside environment. As the social psychologist Robert Katz remarked, every strategic action must strike a balance between so many conflicting values, objectives and criteria that it will always be sub optional from any single view point. Every decision of choice affecting the whole enterprise has negative consequences for some of the parts.
Although little actual research has been done on disagreements among individuals or units of an organization concerning goals, it is obvious that different interpretations of goals can create conflict, So can an organizational units desire to gain resources or to preserve its powers and freedom of action conflict over interpretation of goals, however, may raise the quality of decisions, while conflict over resources may lower it. In truth, organizations do not have objectives; people in organizations have objectives stemming from their own views and motivations.
Thus organizational goals are really shifting and uneasy, compromises among the individuals within the organization and the changing demands made by the outside environment. As the social psychologist Robert Katz remarked, every strategic action must strike a balance between so many conflicting values, objectives and criteria that it will always be sub optional from any single view point. Every decision of choice affecting the whole enterprise has negative consequences for some of the parts.