Failing
Adequacy: Policy problems abound
Samuel
Warren
IS464-Policy
Professor
Ryan Gunhold
City
University
February
20, 2012
Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 3
Incomplete Phases............................................................................................................................ 3
No Ownership................................................................................................................................... 4
Social Awareness of Intentions.......................................................................................................... 5
References........................................................................................................................................ 6
Adequacy
is a term that denotes meeting standards. While adequacy in and of itself is
just above mediocrity, it is something that has to be attained along the way to
greatness. During the development, deployment, and enforcement of policies,
there are often problems when lack of completeness, lack of ownership, and lack
of awareness of the reasons behind the policy are present. To be sure, these
issues are not the only issues that could arise; however, they are three of the
most commonly occurring issues in policy creation today.
When
policies are created, they go through three separate, yet interconnected
phases. Development, deployment, and enforcement need to be taken seriously if
one is to create effective policies. During the creation process, there are
many critical points where a policy can fail at any attempt at adequacy. Three
such points are when the phases are not fully completed, when no one takes
ownership over the policy, and when there is little to no awareness of the
intentions behind the policy. Any one of these points could spell disaster for
a new policy if left uncorrected; so it is imperative that the policy control
group is watchful for their signs.
During
the aforementioned phases, there are points at which it may seem appropriate to
skip ahead, but that is dangerous. The most common reason development,
deployment, and enforcement go to an incomplete state is the workload factor.
When policy is created, it most often comes in the form of “blue sky” or ideal
scenarios. When a large amount of workload is pushed onto this policy it is akin
to putting stress on a load-bearing wall. If the wall is not built correctly,
the pressure will cause it to fracture, crack, and fall apart. If enough of
these load-bearing walls are compromised, the entire structural integrity is at
risk.
For
these situations, where available resources are already constrained and a
decision is riding on the risk assessment, it is recommended to stop all other
work and assign all the resources to risk management activities. (Peabody, 2010)
When developing,
deploying, and enforcing policy, it is crucial that time is set aside to
monitor the effectiveness of the phase prior. If time is not given, the weight
of the workload, as Peabody indicated, runs additional risks. Furthermore,
Peabody recommends a complete work stoppage prior to doing any risk assessment.
While he is speaking strictly of risk assessment, the idea holds weight with
policy creation.
Another major issue that could arise during development,
deployment, and enforcement of new policies is no one claiming the policy and
taking ownership. Taking ownership of a policy is a scary thought to some
because it requires a modicum of responsibility. Owning up to the idea of allowing
all employees to wear jeans in private, or to one’s team, is one thing. However,
as soon as it is brought up to the level of an entire organization, that idea
could come under scrutiny. While some accept this, there are those who will
never be comfortable with the idea of owning a policy. Therefore, the
management of each group should be the authorizing party for any new policies.
They should help to craft the policies and bring guidance in order to be the
owner of any new policy.
The final issue that needs to be mentioned is the lack of
social awareness as to the intention of the policy. If there is a dress code
policy that states “all employees must wear business casual clothing,” but no
employees understand the reason for it, then it becomes almost impossible to
manage perception when there is an enforcement issue relating to the policy.
The intention of the policy is not to inhibit comfort, but rather to provide a
more professional appearance to the many visitors that show up at the
organization. However, if every employee understands the policy and their
interaction with it, the understanding aids in what Michael McKinney describes
as “ownership thinking” (2011). He adds:
When
people understand the business, their role in it, and are informed of what is
going on and take responsibility for the outcomes, then they become better
stewards of the company’s resources and help to create wealth. (McKinney, 2011)
Not only does this aid in the understanding of policy, but
also as indicated, employees actually assist in capital increases,
efficiencies, and resource management. That kind of buy-in cannot be bought, it
must be caught. The only way to do that is to create a culture that is
transparent with intentions and shares readily the intentions behind everything
being done, including policy.
McKinney, M. (2011, September 13). Ownership
thinking. Retrieved from Leading Blog:Building a community of leaders:
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadingblog/2011/09/ownership_thinking.html
Peabody, J. &. (2010, August 8). Final
Report: Rushing Risk Management. Retrieved from MIT.EDU:
http://jo18926.scripts.mit.edu/JohnPeabodyJr/wp-content/uploads/Peabody+Pietrzyk_RushingRiskManagement.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment