An Intimate glance at the Administrative Prerogative
The most characteristic trait of human nature is its problem-solving capability. Because, day in and day out, a person strives to survive. Along the way, the human must also make life simpler, healthier, more convenient, and prosperous. The mission is to pursue it singly, nonetheless, as a matter of necessity.
The human not uncommonly would seek collective efforts of other-selves; by nature, humans are social beings. In the process of problem-solving, there exists a much inherent challenge when it arrives at a collective crisis unraveling; that is the cycle of coordination, synchronization, and simplification of the process.
Masterminds of the domain of a given issue have often been victorious in many ways. They have enforced protocols, strategies, and procedures to enhance the fluidity and simplicity of operating forenamed problem-solving instruments. They have smoothly combined efforts between individual contributors. And within the historical trend and context of delivering efficient synchrony, coordination, and simplification, the style of choice has shifted as it has predominantly been unity and consolidation prelude.
The ordain of Leadership
In a typical appointment, pact compels leadership, and sometimes a leader must make decisive choices. On behalf of any team, leaders chronologically have utilized an adequate understanding of elements of the society parallel to the actual problem. Then comes the next challenge; that is understanding those components.
Unfortunately, the larger the community, the more difficult it is to be acquainted with every aspect of that environment. The best example refers to the use of ordinance within the context of large business forces, associations, and government administrations.
Maintenance of the Organizational Process
To maintain the corporate process, the system, by default, utilizes consolidative effort partaking via organizational hierarchy, which inclines to constrain every member under the network by the one set of ordinances produced by a few at the top of the administrative chain of command. The use of a consolidative undertaking is easy to manage, does not require robust education of the constituents. Perhaps it is less costly in the short run; still, less flexible and expects strict obedience of its subordinates.
On the other end of the spectrum, the power of collaborative efforts sums up where all partakers of the given solution independently function towards the same goal. Latter is in discrepancy to the pendant nature of consolidation; anyhow, it requires honoring the autonomy of its elements within the grassroots. It compels comprehensive education and maintenance of decentralized operations with independent hierarchical oversight. But, unlike uniting, it is deemed extraordinarily flexible and motivating to its players.
Simplicity is a Virtue
There comes another impediment, as amidst problem-solving to curb over-simplicity, and mistakenly confused between simplicity and making shortcut; or for any distinct reason.
In other words- while trying to simplify the assignment, resultantly, we end up over-simplify the act of problem-solving itself. The latest is not only counterproductive but also has the potential to yield unfavorable aftermaths. For instance, it is not extraordinary for administrations worldwide to duplicate solutions for identical problems of another system or country.
To make the most usage of the adapted protocols, the inheriting administration must analyze and make minor adjustments to ensure its adaptability to the new hosting system.
In technical terms, it is nothing but ‘reverse engineering’ for problem-solving efforts in another domain. Such an outline exists for every industry and purpose; is generally impacted by economic and political factors.
It is not an overlooked fact that everyone banking on time, place, and environment embraces the spectrum of selections to tackle the same dilemma.
The strategy decision is inevitably influenced by an individual’s attitude depending on their role within the system. Each element holds the potential to change the policy and tactical approach to that specific challenge.
Consolidation, the dominant influence of the majority, is frequently overridden through attitudes. Hence the decisions of few at the top of the hierarchical ladder. And- with collaboration, the view of every member and element of the system are recognized, honored, and considered influential.
For instance- today’s Medical practice through top-down reversely engineered solutions has evolved into a byproduct of unyielding applied science-based solutions. That is in contrast to the discipline of humanity that inherently engulfs the best of all scientific and technological innovations within the confines of its core individual human values.
Treating the patient as a person is the driver of medical science and not correcting test results and protocols.
Administrations utilizing centralized and organizational consolidation structures, by nature, tend to adapt the problem-solving mechanism that entails reverse engineering phenomenon. This is commonly referred to as; Top-down strategy. Also known as autocratic leadership, the top-down is the process of upper management, reaching independent decisions that may or may not improve system efficiency.
Policies can affect all employees or only one division. Pros of the Top-Down approach are those decisions made by the executive team, design, and rolled out fast; still, the choice is predictable. The Cons of Top-Down includes the dissatisfaction of members and constituents. The program implementation is error-prone and may not meet the needs of its subordinates.
In technical terms, the top-down approach begins with a large image of a problem. It continues to break down from there into smaller components. It is also known as a stepwise method or” decomposition” that virtually involves the crumbling of a system into its elemental state. The strategy merely gains insight into the compositional subsystems in a reverse engineering fashion.
In a top-down approach, a synopsis of the system is formulated, specifying but not detailing any first-level subsystems. Each subsystem is cultivated in yet greater detail, sometimes in many additional subsystem levels, until the entire specification is reduced to base elements.
A top-down criterion is often restricted with the aid of “black boxes,” which renders it susceptible to manipulation. Black boxes tend to fail to elucidate elementary mechanisms and are not detailed to sufficiently validate a prototype. Comparing the decomposition model in policies and the technical sphere, any observer must easily comprehend why some of the large-scale healthcare solutions have flunked historically.
A bottom-up attitude is the piecing together of networks to give rise to more sophisticated schemes, thus compelling the subsystems of the first system of the new system.
Bottom-up policy and procedure is a type of processing based on the direct participation of elemental constituents within the immediate environment through perception.
Architects of the Bottom-up model proceed with the execution of strategy with the target communities. Because the target groups are the original implementers of any policy. Moreover, bottom-uppers argue that the system will likely cease to function if local implementers are not authorized discretion in the enactment process relating to their particular circumstances. Accordingly, goals, strategies, and actions must deploy with specific notoriety to the culture the policy will influence. Thus, evaluation based upon the street-level administrator would be the best practice. Such Grassroots efforts are necessary to maintain the effectiveness of any undertaking.
Now, imagine what would yield if we scale the Variance of approach to the immense large setting, such as society or country.
A collaborative bottom-up morality that originates within the grassroots of a society stimulates precision of solution, hence the satisfaction of citizens and the equitable outcome.
The consolidated top-down strategy, even though successful, may only be reasonably achieved at a smaller scale. Parallel, the error and failure will exponentially increase with the increasing size of the community as well as the expansion of the project scope.
There are a variety of administrations with various constitutional frameworks. Their fundamentals can confirm the spectrum of the decentralized sovereign republic to a fully authoritative system of governing; and some pattern of social democracy in between. Whenever someone uses the phrase-” By the people for the people,” It merely implies a governing scheme that holds the primary responsibility of surveillance of individual local small sovereign governing bodies that retain the responsibility of creating and managing their solutions based on their perspective perception.
Some societies wield the Social Democratic approach as the political, social, and economic philosophy that favors economic and social interventions. It tends to facilitate the top-down approach to the problems of its dependents, given the framework of a liberal democratic state and a capitalist-oriented ordinance.
In the overdue scenario, the emphasis is on the majority vote through a populous referendum and less on the grassroots interest.
The problem with top-down morality is its propensity to become reproduced conveniently. It benefits from the efforts of others and tertiary resources. Yet, it can be modified at the grassroots (reverse engineering), which is extremely difficult to validate to precision.
Top-down is convenient, cheap, and authoritative. On the other end of the spectrum, the problem with the bottom-up approach is that it requires personal independent thinking. Nevertheless, it is reliable and autonomous.
The answer rests within the intention!
Top-down is central, easy to control, and authoritatively governed. It is efficient, fast, and probably most effective in the context of smaller, passive, and those of lower overall schooling.
The bottom-up, decentralized system is liberating to the elements, therefore, less attractive to the populous and the authoritarian administration. It merely takes complete control of micromanagement out of the leadership agenda.
Just like described earlier, the answer is within the choice between individual vs. entities.
Corporate medicine exemplifies a sound system of top-down strategies; only applied to the medical field. It is easy, cheaper, and, most of all, susceptible to manipulation by the hands of the executive chain of power.
For an entity striving to maximize the revenue stream, the stepwise approach is well aligned with its strategic mission; however, it comes at the expense of its actual tactical expedition.
The decomposition or top-down solutions aim to incorporate social and popular values. In contrast, the bottom-up scheme respects the Values of the individual persons and the society. That is why the population health model deems desirable for most entities. But the bottom-up approach is always definitive due to its respect for individual reign.
The argument against the grassroots approach is its cost. In fact, it may be somewhat costly in the short run but still fiscally efficient and practically error-proof in the long term.
The smaller the size of the community where the problem is dealt with, the more successful is the solutions. That can only be attained at the grassroots through a bottom-up approach. Contrariwise, we would be coercing local citizens to submit to a one-size-fits-all solution formulated by others across the globe at the expense of distinctive liberties.
#collaboration #grassroots #management
This is original content from NewsBreak’s Creator Program. Join today to publish and share your own content.