predictability is considered a relevance of political theory . predictability means
Answers
Mark me as Brainleast
Explanatio
In the beginning, life was uncertain, brutish, and short. Was the creature behind the bush the hunter’s lunch, or was it looking for lunch? A moment’s hesitation, and the hunter went hungry or satisfied another hunter’s appetite. Over time, the hunter was able to predict, just by watching the creature’s shadow, whether it was suitable prey. Bands of hunters put their individual experiences to collective use: If some people flushed and chased prey, and then others ambushed, the probability that everyone would eat increased. Being part of a group offered physical protection, which the solitary hunter didn’t have, and gave the hunters confidence in their ability to predict the outcome of their expeditions. Without such confidence, the members of the first organizations might well have starved.
As people turned from hunting to farming, then to manufacturing, the link between organizations and the need for predictability became more complex. People joined organizations to make their lives more predictable, and those organizations depended on other organizations to perform certain activities in a predictable manner. Consider Adam Smith’s pin maker. He went to work with other pin makers because trying to earn a living by making and selling pins on his own would have been even riskier than hunting on his own.
Membership in an organization gave the pin maker economic security, but think about the degree of predictability that his activities required: Coal and iron had to be mined, the iron had to be turned into steel, and the steel had to be delivered to his workplace. The pin maker’s ability to get his job done depended on a complex sequence of events over which he had little control, but the events were predictable enough that he needed to concentrate only on creating a sharp point on a steel wire and cutting it as many times as possible during the hours allotted to work. In turn, milliners, who needed pins to fashion hats, were able to concentrate on their work without having to worry about what went on in the pin makers’ workplace or in the steelworks.
Fast-forward to the 1960s, when global organizations—many the size of small countries—promised their employees not only economic security but also personal fulfillment and respect from fellow employees and the community, in return for performing a handful of clearly delineated activities. Like the pin maker, each individual depended on the predictability of other employees with whom he or she had little contact. And most members of such organizations could work with the same assurance that the pin maker had: Other people understood what they were supposed to do, would do it, and all would be rewarded for a job well done.
Leaders of global organizations—indeed, leaders of all organizations—have focused on increasing predictability for their subordinates and thus for the organization as a whole. Recall Frederick W. Taylor’s turn-of-the-century theory of scientific management, according to which the manager’s job was to set clear standards of performance. Later generations of gurus urged managers to develop a strong, clearly defined corporate culture and involve employees in managerial decision making. As a result, managers learned to help employees calculate the consequences of their actions and gauge which activities would improve their standing in the company. Predictability in the workplace led employees to make sacrifices today, confident that they would be rewarded tomorrow. It led managers to invest in training, secure in the knowledge that their employees would remain with the company long enough to pay back some of that investment. In sum, predictability built the trust that allowed people to synchronize their actions in mutually productive ways.
What is happening to predictability in an intensely competitive, rapidly changing global economy? It is being destroyed. The practices that leaders are adopting to make their organizations more competitive are ignoring the human need for predictability. Consider the effects of the tonics now being taken in the name of competitive well-being: Reengineering throws out all the old procedures and rules of thumb by which an organization has operated. Continuous-improvement programs promise only that an organization’s rules will continue to change. Matrix management requires that two (or more) managers, who need not agree with each other, judge employees’ work and determine their future in the company. “Rightsizing” sheds people, often regardless of their individual skills or performance.