In the last couple of weeks I've read some articles and listened to interviews with Judith Curry and Steven Pinker. Their areas of expertise are different from one another's and they have different ways of looking at things, but it struck me that in their own, very different ways they both question the prudence of basing policies on what ifs. That's an interesting question for a start-up organization to consider. Should it set its agenda based on the state of things as they are, or on the state of things as the organization projects that they will be at some point in the future? For an on-going concern on the other hand, the answer should be apparent from its bold vision, clear mission and thoughtful strategic plan.
That question, however, led me to its cousin: live for the moment? plan for tomorrow? While most people prefer to plan for the future, it turns out that people who live in the moment tend to be happier. In fact, a wandering mind often is the cause, rather than merely a consequence, of unhappiness. Since, as humans, our goal is to be both happy and prepared, I think we can reconcile these two axioms. But how do you strike the right balance for a mission-driven organization?
As an organization the right balance is decidedly unbalanced. Plan for the future. Resist the temptation to apply for grants and accept funding that is available in the moment, but distracts the organization from its core purpose and strengths. Make the difficult decision to temporarily trim programs, rather than to spend down reserves to an unreasonable level. In the end, the goal of an organization is to get results. So for the sake of sustainability and results (and so the living beings that the organization ultimately serves will be happy) remain coherent and committed to your core purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment