Understanding performances in organisations

At the moment the country has no way of understanding what is a high performing organisation(s). A criterion has not been developed and the statement, by word of mouth, is all that has been warranted and made available.
From the very time that one entered public service, one saw the weaknesses in the system, but despite the effort, there has been no decisive moment when one can say that matters have been taken to their logical levels and there is a way to determine regulatory organisations abilities and the abilities of a development organisation and within that, the ability of the research organisation.
One sees the waste and the time markers that are available, that have not done anything to contribute to the welfare of the federation. The entire effort in the public service has been to be as innocuous as one can and in the private sector, to fleece this country and the taxpayer to the maximum.
At a recent meeting, one witnessed this shameless performance of the private sector where they had promised the world, if only the entire competitive strategy was revamped and the import of goods banned. That is indeed a funny way to run a monopoly and pervert what little is left of the market. Others were looking for ways and means to seek subsidies and incentives as they had stated and they too had offered the world.
So I was a little surprised at the way the governments had moved since the last time one had witnessed public interest and private perversions. Public interest had receded and private pervert ideas had been established. Why had the WB and IMF the conscience-keepers of the developing world kept quiet on the systemic changes that they had seen? Is it because the beneficiaries included the MNCs? The question had better not be answered.
How then to identify the better performers since one would be slightly better off in the relative world? Do they have a set of objectives? If they do, then are they trying to meet the exigencies of public life or not? What are the structures of the government like? Irrespective of the functional needs, do they operate at the same kind of rigidity? And is that the best way to organise the regulatory systems and/or the development systems or even research?
Is industry to be hierarchically organised, just as government is? The colonial system desired a certain amount of control and command structures, do we need the same? If a distinction is to be made between the various delivery systems, how should these be done? A number of questions come to mind and the statement of Pope also stands out 'that what is best administered is best administered' meaning thereby, that it is the mind that is more important and not the structures. If that be so, does the mind play any role in this?
Then is the decision-making process to be scrutinised? How does the influence-factor work? Is there a power structure that works in the system and then whose power? The power of the democratic structures is different from the power of the tyrannical system-the former is thinking of the constituency, while the latter is only worried about themselves and how to build assets.
Personal benefits versus public interest, you take your choice. Every time someone from these sectors indicates their preferences, the difference is realised as to why the democratic system is so important and necessary. There is a world of a difference between the two systems. The one is selfish the other democratic one is based on unselfish behaviour.
People might scoff at that because ultimately there would be black sheep in both systems. How to handle these black sheep then becomes imperative. If the source of influence is important, is the influence in terms of even-handed distribution, or is it utilised by the upper levels for the sake of the institution and the federation, or for the sake of messing up the organisation. Is there freedom to independent work or is it tightly controlled.
The controlling of the system is dependent on the simplicity or the complexity of the organisational rules and procedures. Thus, if one has a research organisation that is required to have independence then the regulatory functions are to be differently worked out and there is no point in having a research institution that is managed by rules and procedures that are at best governmental or that are meant for different kind of organisational structures.
What then happens is that there is a mismatch between the rules and procedures that are meant for one kind of an organisation and are being utilised for a different kind of work. In research, the relationships between colleagues are of vital importance. The nature of work thus determines the organisations inner strengths and weaknesses too.
The relationships should have some kind of synergy with one researcher helping another. If there is a low level of co-ordination, the system fails to deliver and very soon the acculturation process sets in. This process indicates that the stronger culture loses out to the weaker culture, as the weaker culture is more based on the pleasure and desire systems while the enculturation process is where the weaker culture imbibes what is in the stronger culture and thus improves itself.
In a research organisation, the time-orientation is more long term and therefore the commitment is of a different nature. It is not as if the nature of research undertaken is esoteric, but that research-factors can have too many variables. The natural systems in agriculture research for instance have to take into consideration ecological zones and these ecological zones have different interventions for the same research.
Balochistan would be different from Punjab, Sindh would be different from NWFP agriculture research and that is why research in this subject is more site-specific and more person specific. At the coastline, it would be different and up in the mountains, the zoning and the effort would be different. So the nature of work would be different in different sites. Even in the mountains, it would be different for the leeward side as against the windward side. There are considerable amount of niceties to cater for.
That makes for an exciting life, for it does mean that the agriculture oriented person has to be more flexible. Flexibility calls for some different aspects in life. Along with independence, it means the exercise of judgement and the laws of probability. The job for an agriculture research institute is more task-oriented and less with people, though one cannot entirely ignore that aspect.
The exercise of judgement has been reduced by the force and the threat that is exercised in a power structure, where the legitimate are replaced by the illegitimate in the governance structures. Let me conclude by saying that when there are so many variations, then the time horizons keep on changing and the absoluteness of an imprecise science stares you in the face. The market structures in agriculture play the market differently, for these have direct bearing on productivity.
The distance from the market plays a significant role in the marketing of head loads of surpluses. The disposal of these head loads is critical for the farmer with very small land holdings. In fact, every human system that differs between themselves will give a different orientation. Such is the nature of agriculture research. It has to be responsive and responsible and its responsibility is dependent on the exercise of free will. Freedom is not an unfettered license to do as one pleases.