|
It takes a lot of effort to form, make paper-work and achieve organization objectives. Some people can be successful with project formulation, but fail at implementation –due to a number of factors that maybe; financial, legal, technical, environmental or political, among others.
But, even at implementation, like at every other developmental stage, there exists challenges ranging from administrative to financial accountability. Common in the administration department could be disagreements, role ambiguity, and formation of antagonistic groups –each working hard to suffocate progress under each other’s roles and responsibility (if any). Some people call it office politics.
Because administration is centralized, with powers entirely falling on the director’s shoulders, each of the groups will want to compete hard to win the directors favor and indispensability. And the director, with limited or no knowledge and skills in conflict resolution, is in many cases bases on rumors to make decisions.
Attempts to solve conflicts will only feature him carrying the rumor to the targeted person –from where tempers ensue, since the rumor might not have truth. The accused, thereon, develops a grudge on the rumor-monger. The organization head, on his part, will only walk away having made a statement to the accused, but without reaching a consensus.
It is in such state of affairs the organization head will seemingly flourish, which in a long run affects progress and quality of reports that have to be made. But, since himself is the head of monitoring and evaluation, he will always cook his reports for whoever needs them.
Noting that centralization of power makes organization boss very busy, never does he find time to make inquiries into raging conflict among his or her work force. Himself can be a source of conflict –when he crosses his boundaries to briefly manage and make reports for affiliated projects –whose heads are left with no powers, no confidence, and at times no work.
Being the founder, actual chairperson of the board of directors and director leaves no one to offer accountability to or make administrative checks and balances. He or she is only accountable to himself.
No one advises him on matters of policy and decision making. Uncertainty soon crops in as the founder and director lacks the capacity to run organizational programs, yet claiming to trust no one.
Since most of his time so far has been spent on resource mobilization since project formulation, it becomes the best skill possessed by the organizational director. Beyond that, he has to either hire unskilled and semi-skilled labor that never help much, exploit skilled labor without wage pay or partner with existing organization –with whom to share technical knowledge and skills.
The mismanagement on his or her part can be a disappointment to project partners –who eventually lose confidence in the director’s ability to run the organization. Funny enough, instead of accepting the weaknesses of his management style, he displaces self-inflicted frustration on project partners.
Hiring labor, according to him or her can never entail preparing guidelines and agreements or contracts that must be signed by hired worker. He applies verbal agreements whilst sure that they will be broken anytime –where verbal termination of work will not judge him in the way that disrupts his motive and prior decisions based on suspicion.
The project partners, on the other hand, use their bitterness to discourage other partners –including donors to bury their confidence in the director and his organization. This deepens the conflict –to even create psychological scars.
This, in future, affects new partnerships, as he will nurse suspicion and mistrust that whoever seeking to partner with him are likely to cause similar negative scenarios as previous encountered in fallen relations.
In case a new project partner, with whom he has mixed feelings (e.g. trust-mistrust) found his way to working with the traumatized director, entry initiation would be organized –involving telling stories about past negative experiences with ex-partners and setting expectations reviewable almost weekly.
Whatever program created by a project partner, upon rumor sent regarding it, could be called off until the planned activities are discussed and approved by the director. This is how far his or her sensitivity can be to whoever works with him.
Whilst in the field, his “spies” will report to the organization head every movement, action and words spoken by the project officer or business partner. The information carried to him is repackaged in the way that discredits the dynamic project officer before the organization head. It can be as though the spy-master’s preference is passiveness or idle-talk at work.
Decisions made are emotionally triggered (i.e. when happy, or fearful). Without having to consult anyone or make further inquiries, fear or anxiety-based decisions would be made against staff qualifying for it.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Jacob Waiswa
A qualified community psychologist with professional packages in community participation & intervention/prevention, mental health assessment, change management, HIV/AIDS & Mental Health, project planning & management, research & presentation, stress management, basic counselling, forensic science, and organization health.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
