MAINTAINING

This posting is the last of a series of postings in which I am presenting a set of functions a group needs to fulfill in order for it to be a federated group.[1]  A federated group is a group that is made up of individuals or groups that come together and formulate a collective to accomplish stated purposes and to be united under the provisions of a covenant or compact.  For such a group to be viable and able to overcome obstacles that stand in its way, the group needs to meet certain functions.  I have, to date, identified four such functions:  producing, adapting, sophisticating, and liberating.  These first four functions were derived from the concerns expressed by Samuel P. Huntington;[2] the fifth function, which I am presenting in this posting, stems from my interest in civics.  The reason that civics is essential to our nation, our political system – a federated group – pertains to this function I am calling maintaining.

This fifth function is a concern that takes a group in a different direction from those of the other four functions.  The first four functions tend to point a group toward change.  Whether the effort is toward producing or becoming more sophisticated or seeking autonomy (liberating), the group dedicates energy toward looking for different ways of doing things, toward change.  But in the case of maintaining, the focus is dedicated toward keeping that which exists.  This bias is particularly true when it comes to basic values which determine a group’s structure, processes and, most important, ideals.  As such, there are two main processes in which the maintaining function is satisfied:  recruitment and socialization.

In order to maintain those key elements of a group, a group needs to have the right people in the right positions.  It needs these people to have the skills – both technical and social – knowledge, motivations, and energy to accomplish the roles the position demands.  Of course, this presupposes that the group has met the sophisticating function sufficiently well so that the appropriate roles have been identified and the structural elements have been put in place to begin with.  But given that this has been done, then a group needs the right type of person to fill the position.

The other process is socialization.  Here is where civics is so important.  A federated group needs to teach and promote those elements of knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and commitment that support the basic values of the group – values that are reflected in its founding covenant or compact.  This can be tricky in that federated groups will most likely be committed to progressing toward more equality and liberty.  Given the nature of social life, as social conditions change in a group’s environment, a group will be challenged to adapt to new demands.  Through these changes, a group will be tempted to change its basic commitments.  This makes it imperative to value, as a basic value, change itself, but without selling out and changing its founding values.  One can change, but one should not sacrifice who one is and this extends to groups.  If the demand is to make such a change, then it might be time for the group to terminate.

A teacher who wants students to analyze a group’s performance regarding the function, maintaining, might ask the following questions:

By which process are new members to the group identified and allowed into the group?

Does the group evaluate the performance of its members to hold up its basic commitments and take steps to shore up any deficiencies stemming from poor performances?

Are effective processes in place that accommodate unanticipated turnover in group membership?

Are members taught those elements of skill, knowledge, attitudes, and values central to the foundation of the group?  Is the group effective in teaching those elements?

Are members effectively encouraged to support the group’s basic values, beliefs, and commitments?

As with the other functions, these suggested questions are not meant to be an exhaustive list.  The reasons for such a study will probably determine what specific questions an educator will ask.

---

[1] I will in my next posting summarize the functions and reprint the questions associated with each function.

[2] Huntington, S. P.  (1968).  Political order in changing societies.  New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press.

COORDINATING

After a bit of a debate with myself, I am calling this next function coordinating.  The context of this debate is that I am in the midst of presenting through a set of postings a list of functions that I believe are useful to educators who want students to look at political activity from the perspective of groups.  Groups are, of course, collections of individuals who come together for a purpose.  Groups vary in importance, duration, formality, cohesiveness, and purpose.  All groups also vary in the matter of their health – how likely they are to be viable and to overcome any existing forces that might present the group obstacles or, even more ominous, dangers.  Experience tells us that any group we might have belonged to was concerned with these forces.  Take the experience that belonging to a family provides.

Over the years, families face many negative situations:  losing a job, being uprooted due to work or family challenges, partaking in infidelity, rebelling children, on and on.  We are told that most divorces are caused by financial problems.  In addition, our defining marriage as a contract as opposed to a covenant or compact has added to the disruptive forces facing families.  In order for a family to be viable, to be healthy, it needs to do certain things and if we analyze across groups, we can identify a list of activity types, functional behaviors, which increase the likelihood of a group succeeding. 

My list is a set of functions that political groups need to fulfill to some degree in order to be healthy.  Given that just about all groups have a political function, we can extend these functions beyond those groups whose primary reason for existence is political.  The other proviso is to point out that my list applies to a range of groups from those who are highly informal to those that are institutionalized and integral to our political landscape.[1]  My last few postings have identified the following functions:  producing, adapting, sophisticating, and liberating.  This posting will describe the function, coordinating.

I also debated about whether to call this function organizing or coordinating.  Since my functions are aimed at promoting successful federated groups, my choice of coordinating hopefully denotes a higher degree of interactivity between members, an interactivity that has a level of esprit and unity not captured by the term organizing.  Hence, I chose coordinating in the hope that it more closely describes a sense of partnership which is what a federation is.  Not only does such a group have a formal structure as exists in organizations, but an emotional commitment that exudes palpable loyalty.  This level of cohesion does not necessarily depend on friendship, although friendship could be helpful, but it does demand respect for each other – a respect of each member’s humanity and his or her role within the group.  If this function is met, a whole array of activities will not only be tolerated, but also be sought after.  Discussions and disagreements are seen as opportunities for improvement, not triggers for dissolution or other counterproductive actions.  In order for this to work, a federated group has to have a significant amount of trust among the membership.  This latter quality is not easily attained and it shouldn’t be.  Trust in a federated group should be seen as something that needs to be earned and not taken for granted – although at times it needs to be assumed.

All of this, of course, does not preclude the needs of all organizations.  Federated associations need a formal structure, well-defined authority relations, and all the physical resources necessary to fulfill their purposes.  But a difference that distinguishes federated associations is the bias they have for more horizontal power arrangements.  This feature is not born from trying to be trendy, but from a sincere attachment to an ideal of having each member contribute to the policy-making processes of the group.  Of course, this desire needs to be tempered by practical concerns, which includes needs for expertise and other technical and physical requirements.  But it does require that all of its, at least, participating members believe in and interpret sufficiently similarly the foundational ideals and principles of the group.

A teacher who wants his/her students to study a group and determine whether the group is meeting this function of coordinating might ask some or all of the following questions:

Does the group have clear lines of authority?

Does the group have a sufficient array of skills among its members to viably engage in activities that are meant to accomplish its purposes?

Does the group have problem-solving protocols that meet the challenges of the group’s internal and external environment?

Does the group encourage broad participation among its members in the established problem-solving protocols?

Do the members have a clear understanding of their individual roles and expectations?  Do they individually and collectively judge these roles and expectations as legitimate and proper?

Can you add to this list?

---

[1] I see groups ranging from haphazard gatherings to very important and essential collections of important people.  The progression goes something like this:  gathering, group, organization, association, institution.  An association is an organization that is made up of federated individuals or groups.  I don’t particularly like the term institution.  I like to reserve that term to identify established ways of doing things.  Since institutions – as I am defining them – rely on very healthy groups, the term institution – as a group – can be used reservedly.

LIBERATING

This posting is one of a series which presents a set of functions that a group, which might be at any level of institutionalization, needs to satisfy in order to be a federated collective of people or subgroups.  Prior to this entry, I have presented three functions:  producing, adapting, and sophisticating.  I now turn my attention to a fourth function, that of liberating.  My efforts are motivated by the goal to have civics teachers approach the study of government and politics from the perspective of collectives.  This, in turn, is based on the assumption that meaningful accomplishments in those realms of human endeavors are done by groups, organizations, associations, or institutions.  Individuals are important, but they are important as members of groups.  They have roles and there are the expectations that these roles are performed to varying levels of proficiency.  But the often misleading habit is to zero in on individuals and this gives the student an inaccurate picture of how politics works and functions.  A way to approach a study of government or politics from the perspective of groups is to analyze a group’s ability to meet essential functions.[1]

I use this term liberating with reservations; I don’t want to communicate that a federated group does whatever it wants or has the power to do so.  But it needs enough liberty to be able to be distinguished from other groups; that is, it has enough autonomy.  Without this autonomy, a group is merely a social gathering of people who get together by happenstance or for limited reasons – so limited that no one cares if the reasons are satisfied or not.  But for a group pursuing any more substance, it has to have enough authority, integrity, legitimacy, and the ability to set options and be able to choose independently which options it wants to pursue in its drive to be viable.  In order to do this, it has to be conscious of its environment and be able to establish its borders, be able to patrol those borders, and be able to meet any challenges other groups might use to thwart its liberty.  For some groups, this includes competition with other groups, especially if the group needs or wants limited resources that are needed or wanted by other groups – a condition endemic among political groups.  There is also the challenge of a group that is organizationally situated within a larger group, for example an individual school within a school district.  What is the appropriate level of liberty an individual school should have in running its affairs?  Policy determines this and policy makers who want groups to be successful need to give these liberating concerns a lot of thought.

Let me use this latter concern to illustrate what a group has to consider in meeting this function of liberating.  I worked in a high school in a large school district, Miami-Dade Public School District.  The district’s policy not only had “downtown” name each school’s principal but each of its assistant principals as well.  The consequence is that the principal – and therefore the school – was denied a very important option.  As an organization, this lack of authority interferes very seriously with the school settling in on an operational philosophy.  Without a single philosophy, the school cannot have anything resembling a curriculum toward which teachers can gear their efforts.  Students go from class to class with each class having a different view of what schooling is all about, what expectations will be kept, or what constitutes success.  I don’t want to give the impression that schools are unreasonably chaotic, but in some very important ways, they do not exemplify smooth running operations with clear senses of their missions.

In studying political or governmental groups, teachers can use the following questions when considering this function:

Does the group have a clear sense of what it is?  Does it have a formal organizational mission and philosophy?

Does the group have processes in place with supporting structural elements to review its policies, strategies, and operations to see whether they are reflections of the group’s guiding ideals?

Is the group respected by other entities?

Is the group suitably prepared and equipped to meet challenges from environmental forces whether they be social or natural in origin?

Are the limits of the group’s authority clear to the policy makers within the group and to members of other groups?

What sources of power are available to the group; that is, does the group have the ability to administer coercion, rewards, or legitimacy toward other entities?

As with the other functions, one can probably think of other questions, but these can start a study of liberating.

---

[1]  This series of postings is highly influenced by the work of Samuel P. Huntington.  See Huntington, S. P.  (1968).  Political order in changing societies.  New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press.

SOPHISTICATING

Yes, it’s a word.  But let me introduce its use.  To review:  I am in the midst of presenting a list of functions that an organization or group, including a polity, needs to satisfy in order to be classified as a federated collective.  The list is accompanied by a set of questions that a classroom civics teacher or a civics material developer might use to study such groups with the aim of being able to identify any problems or issues a collective might be facing due to any dysfunction.  To date, I have reviewed the functions producing and adapting – you are invited to click on those entries and become acquainted with my take on those functions.  In this posting, I will present a third function:  sophisticating.

As with the last few postings, I am using the ideas of Samuel P. Huntington.[1]  He uses the terms “complexity/simplicity” to capture the sophisticating function.  Simply stated, the sophisticating function refers to the need for a collective to sufficiently complicate its operations.  Reality offers complications or a group, in order to take on more ambitions, needs to match the complications it is facing.  This is in terms of its structures and processes.  Why:  in order to be able to act in a sufficiently sophisticated fashion so that it can meet its survival needs and perform in such a way to successfully attain its goals and aims.  Of course, this function is closely tied to its producing function.  In both cases, the functions focus on the group being able to produce those things, services, and/or environment that motivated its creation or formation.  But here the sophisticating function further emphasizes its makeup as an organized entity.  To make the point, let me share the example Huntington uses to illustrate the function.

From Aristotle, we have a simple classification of all polities.  There is the rule of the one, the rule of the few, and the rule of the many.  Each type leads to three different types of political systems or constitutions:  dictatorship (rule of the one), oligarchy (rule of the few), and democracy (rule of the many).  To choose one form to the exclusion of any of the others will lead to serious problems emanating from the fact that those in power will pursue their interests to the detriment of all other groups.  So a pure oligarchy will pursue only the interests of the few, the rich, to the detriment of the many.  If in charge, the many will do the same at the expense of the rich.  The solution is for the system to be complex enough so that the system can have elements of both a democracy and an oligarchy.  The system has to enhance its structures and processes in order to make sure it does not oppress and, in turn, give motivation for segments to pursue the system’s demise.  The term mixed constitution is used to describe this form of complexity.  But the need to sophisticate is not limited to political systems or governments; it is something all organized entities have to address.

My teenage years were during the sixties.  A lot of change took place during that decade and many families found it difficult to adapt to those changes.  One area of dysfunction was caused by attempts of families to maintain views and practices that were institutionalized during simpler times.*  For example, you could have a Methodist family who had fairly stable religious beliefs.  Then, due to an explosion of ideas and their popularization, you might have a son or daughter start questioning the firmly held beliefs.  The challenge is for the family to complicate their views to meet the new perspectives.  Many families failed to do this and instead assumed an authoritarian posture and insisted that what was believed was just the way the members of the family were to see things.  Relations could be strained and the family could fall apart; many did during those years.  So sophisticating or enhancing can be seen as a special form of adapting; one focused on the trend toward complication with a special concern for not so much what is done to meet change, but in how the group arranges itself, structurally and procedurally, to meet change.  This can include values and beliefs.

Questions an educator could use to analyze the enhancing function are:

Is the group’s structure complicated enough to accomplish its mission?

Are the processes practiced by a group complicated enough to accomplish its mission?

Is the environment of the group becoming more complicated?  If so, at what pace?

Does the group have the values that either fight or accommodate complications?

Do the attempts by a group to become more sophisticated cause disruptive tensions between members of the group or with those people with whom the group interacts?

You might be able to think of more questions; I believe these are a good start at analyzing whether a collective is enhancing – sophisticating – its capabilities or setting itself up to do so.

*By simpler times, I am not making the claim that we live in more complicated conditions across the board.  Times vary in terms of the complexity of specific areas of concern.  In terms of some concerns we live in simpler times, yet in others, we live in more complex times – it depends on what one is considering.

---

[1] Huntington, S. P.  (1968).  Political order in changing societies.  New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press.

OF TWO MINDS?

Change begets change.  Even those who are conservative and attached to the way things are, when confronted with change will have to initiate their own change in order to keep things as they were, at least, as best they can.  In my last posting, I identified the function of adaptability as essential to polities – and other collectives.  Polities need to adopt to changes either in their environments or within their internal organizations.  In order to analyze whether a given group is adapting, one needs to study the group and I suggested, in my last posting, a list of questions one could ask of the group.  In this posting, I want to add several more questions to this list that focus on the challenges a group confronts in dealing with its own change efforts.

These added questions are based on a concern over the challenges that purposeful change causes.  That is, when a segment of the group takes it upon itself to institute change, there are factors and issues that should be accounted for.  I will discuss this topic in future postings.  Let me just state that there exists a whole literature about this topic.  I will review some of that work, but here I want to limit my concern about an often overlooked human deficiency.  It is usually assumed that people do what they believe to be best, that they follow their beliefs in what is true and behave in accordance with those beliefs.  But what is overlooked is that what one knows or believes to be true can be and often is in conflict with either the “facts on the ground” or unaccounted for emotional ties and biases.  In other words, a person can develop a rational course of action and yet behave in another way.  As I wrote in the past:

This distinction between what is espoused and what is done I have been somewhat aware of for a long time, but it wasn't until graduate school that this duality became clear. In an interesting article by Chris Argyris and Donald A. Schon,[1] the authors present a model for organizational planning and action. In the model, they distinguish between “espoused theory” and “theory-in-use.” Espoused theory corresponds, more or less, with what I have termed domain of the ideal – those values and goals we hold as preferable at a time away from the actual implementation of those values and goals. Theory-in-use is the dominant beliefs [and I will add here, unaccounted emotions] we hold when it comes time to act. For example, let us say an organization decides to perform an activity that will be held with some disfavor by the pupil, client, or customer population the organization serves. Those promoting the activity believe that in the long run this action will be best for their charges despite the short term annoyance or even hatred it will engender. The staff commits to it and each person knows that there will be a negative response. They might even begin their efforts in a way congruent with the plan, but as the predicted response increases, they cave-in and, in order not to be disliked, revert to the previous courses of action.[2]

This distinction between an espoused theory and a theory-in-use leads me to add to my list of questions over adaptability.  The added questions are:

How well can a group’s policy-makers determine what is true?

How realistic are a group’s espoused views of reality?

How much are a group’s espoused theories in accordance to the group’s theory-in-use?

To the degree a group’s espoused theories are in conflict with their theory-in-use, what level of tension is created within the group and how well do they manage this tension?

What happens to the group’s ability to adapt if the chasm between espoused theories and theory-in-use is of a meaningful level?

To remind you, this whole concern over adaptability stems from this blog’s emphasis to promote federalist theory as a guiding construct by which to study civics.  With this posting, I continue looking at how civics instructional materials can analyze group efforts from the perspective of that group implementing the action that will insure its viability to do those things it was formed to do.  That is, how does a group meet requisite functions?  To date, we have looked at two functions:  producing and adapting.  I am relying on the work of Samuel P. Huntington[3] to identify the functions that a federated group needs to satisfy to be viable and even survive.

---

[1]Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A. (1985). Evaluating theories in action. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change, Fourth edition, (pp. 108-117). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

[2] This quoted material is taken from a posting, The Possibility of Incongruence, March 19,2012.  The posting has been deleted from this blog site, but it can be seen through request.  See the blog site, GravitasArchives.blogspot.com for directions on how to get a copy.

[3] Huntington, S. P.  (1968).  Political order in changing societies.  New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press.

CHANGING TIMES

With the last posting of this blog, I began what will be a series of postings which presents a set of functions that every organization needs to satisfy in order to be a federalist organization or an association.  That posting focused on the function of producing; an organization, be it a business, a family, a church, a social group, or an athletic enterprise, has, to some minimum level, produce the goods, service, and/or environment it was formed to produce.  A car company has to produce cars; a nightclub has to produce an entertaining environment and so on.  Of all the functions, this is probably the most straightforward.  But it is not enough to just produce that thing; an organization has to meet other functions.

Samuel P. Huntington,[1] among many social scientists, developed a list of these functions.  His list is adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence.  As promised, using Huntington’s list, I want to suggest a list of such functions that might be useful to guide an educator in teaching civics and government.  The guidance is geared to steering students’ attention to relevant issues associated with the creation and maintenance of federalist unions – associations of individuals who allow themselves to be federated.  Federated memberships are characterized by a common commitment toward federalist values or moral code.  As I have written before in a previous posting:

The proposed code [of liberated federalism] not only holds a particular value as a trump value, but also presents a hierarchy of values. There are three levels of values: trump value, key instrumental values, and operational values. Here is a list of these values:

•                     Trump Value: Societal welfare (as experienced through societal survival and/or advancement)

•                     Key Instrumental Values: constitutional integrity (liberty), equality, communal democracy, democratic pluralism and diversity, compacted arrangements, critical and transparent deliberation, collective problem-solving, earned trust, loyalty, patriotism (in the case of a national federated union), expertise

•                     Operational Values (partial listing): political engagement, due process, legitimate authority, privacy, universality of human rights, tolerance, non-violence, teamwork, consideration of others, economic sufficiency, security, localism

As can be noted, lower level values are logically derived from higher level values. These values, other than the trump value, are not presented as a definitive set of values, but the code is fairly tied into the trump and instrumental values as central to its theoretical base – federalist theory.

These values are not unique to liberated federalism, but they, as a set, comprise what federalists aspire to keep in the operation of their union with other members of the group and with the outside world.

This posting will now focus on a second function, that of accommodating change – adaptability.  The world changes and all organizations or groups have to meet those changes with modifications in what they do both in terms of internal operations and how they act with others.  This oftentimes means changes in not just actions, but in how members of the group or organization feel.  This can take time, and often the stress which just about always accompanies these changes can be heightened if the internal or external changes occur in a fast pace.  Changes not only vary in terms of a time factor, but also in terms of how intrusive they are.  Both of these factors, time and seriousness, have to be managed if the entity will satisfy the adaptability function.  Probably the most significant example of an issue associated with this function in the recent news has been our changes regarding race relations as illustrated by the events of Ferguson, Missouri this past year.

Here is a list of questions that an educator can use to analyze a political or social situation that addresses the adaptability function:

What are the major prevailing values and biases of the people in a given group?

What communal, regional, national, and/or global events have taken place that promise to affect the group in question?

Has the membership of the group gone through changes in its attitudes, values, and/or biases either among all of its members or among key members?

Has the membership of the group gone through a turnover due to unmet problems or due to generational aging?

Has the need for the group’s existence been satiated or its priority changed so that the concern over its importance has either been heightened or diminished in such a way that the group’s viability has come into question or its ability to perform efficiently has been compromised?

Have the relations between members grown inappropriately estranged or become too close so as to create stress among those members directly affected and/or by others within the group?

Are authority arrangements clear and appropriate given the current challenges of the group?

Have the members of the group effectively changed their skills and knowledge to meet changing demands?

These questions will also be pertinent in the consideration of other functions I will review in a future posting.  For now, let me just state that some level of change is always on-going.  This is ever truer as the society in which the group exists becomes more complex and developed.  It seems that in the post-Cold War era, one of our biggest challenges on the global stage is to deal with societies that seem to be stuck in a traditional, lesser developed mode of being.  I think our problems in the Middle East have a lot to do with this gap between modernism and traditional value orientations.  For example, many of our assumptions that led to our invasion of Iraq have to do with poor adaptability on our part in dealing with traditional mindsets and where strong authoritarian regimes are either being challenged, as in Syria, or overthrown, as in Iraq.  We seemed to think we could impose a modern political polity on a people who were not able or willing to make the necessary accommodations that our policy was calling for.  We have to be concerned not only with one’s own group’s ability to adapt, but also that of others.

---

[1] Huntington, S. P.  (1968).  Political order in changing societies.  New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press.

THE NEED TO PRODUCE

On January 14, 2011, I posted “Requisite Functions” on this blog.  It reviewed a model of politics known as the structural-functional model by Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr.  In a nutshell, the model claims that in order for political systems to deal with stress and lead a healthy existence, it needs to act in such a way that certain functions are met.  They identified five functions:  rule making, rule application, rule adjudication, interest articulation, and interest aggregation.  Since the Almond and Powell model was published, there has been a slew of “function” models, each with its own set of functions and all claiming that it is imperative for systems to meet these requisites and that to the extent that they don’t, they will face stress even to the point that their very existences can come into question.  My take is that these models are useful and the exact list of functions one wants to use is dependent on the aims an analyst or student has in his/her study.  If one is an educator charged with teaching secondary students the nature and workings of our political and governmental realities, is a functional approach helpful?  Does it guide that educator to ask insightful questions that students can use to study their political and governmental world?

Of course, this blog adds another concern:  is there a list of functions that reflects a concern for federalist systems?  Is there a set of questions that has students analyze a group, be it a social group, an organization, an association, or an institution, as to whether that entity encourages and/or expects its membership to federate among themselves and pursue federalist values?  I want to suggest such a list of questions, beginning with this posting and continuing in the postings that follow.  In this effort, I want to use the ideas expressed by Samuel P. Huntington.[1]

Central to Huntington’s concern is how viable political systems are dependent on how well the various systems under their jurisdiction develop into institutions.  Viable political systems and the societies they represent need stable institutions.  Huntington writes: 

Political community in a complex society thus depends upon the strength of the political organizations and procedures in the society. … Institutionalization is the process by which organizations and procedures acquire value and stability.  The level of institutionalization of any political system can be defined by the adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence of its organizations and procedures.[2]

And with this, Huntington offers his own set of functions.  While I will use this list of functions as overall concerns that my list will address, I will change the terminology so that classrooms will find it more adaptable to their needs.

This posting will focus on a function that is not directly identified by Huntington, but is alluded to as he describes the above list of functions, particularly adaptability.  I believe the most basic of all functions is that a social group or organization needs to produce the good, service, or environment it is created to produce.  For example, a government is created for many reasons; among them is to maintain social stability – a society can’t have havoc and chaos breaking out.  Any social/political system has, to some degree, to fulfill those aims and goals that motivated people to form that social entity.  I call this function the producing function.  As with any production, certain activities have to be accomplished.

These activities lead to questions as to whether they are/were done and to what level of viability they are/were done.  These questions can include the following:

Has the entity identified and defined the product it is created to produce?

Has the entity acquired or secured the resources needed to produce the product(s) it was set up to produce?

Is the process of production a viable use of resources?

Does the entity use the resources in a reasonably efficient mode?

Is the process of production effective?

Is the product distributed in a way that meets the aims and goals of the entity?

Are the recipients of the product sufficiently satisfied with the quality, viability, and efficiency of the product?  Do they have a method of evaluating the product and the ability to communicate their judgment of the product to those who are responsible for it and to other interested parties?

Are there in place evaluation protocols over any of the above concerns and ways to communicate the results of these evaluations?

These questions can be used by students to investigate any political organization.  That would include their own schools that, like or not, are political entities.  In the case of public schools, they engage in providing a governmental service and, as such, have to answer the concerns of a constituency:  the community they serve, particularly the parents of the students who attend them.  But here’s another idea:  have students pick one of the formulating presidential campaign organizations that we hear about; for example, Rand Paul’s people.  These organizations’ aim is to elect a particular candidate to the presidency.  That is what they want to produce.  Note:  a teacher need not use all of the above questions and they can be geared to the appropriate level of sophistication that is suitable for the students in question.

In the following postings, I will add additional functions and the questions I associate with each.  The producing function is probably the most basic of these functions and assignments limited to just this function are sufficient to lead students to discover a great deal about a political or governmental entity, be it a political campaign, a part of the government (like their school), or any other politically active entity.

---

[1] Huntington, S. P.  (1968).  Political order in changing societies.  New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press.

[2] Ibid., p. 12.