Interesting to learn about that Iron Law. Though what I find missing in the mini blog post is an explanation why the second group ("the pure institution for institution sake" mindset) tends to take over the organisation.
Is it because they are more invested in the organisational/administrative tasks versus the first group's actual goal archiving mindset ?
As these goals of the first group lie outside the organisation, the simple distance of goals within vs without might be one significant part. E.g. easier to achieve something within then outside, hence more power over time.
> why the second group ("the pure institution for institution sake" mindset) tends to take over the organisation.
Because they can focus 100% of their time and effort on controlling the organization, whereas the first group can only focus the time and effort on that that they can spare from getting the actual work done that they are in the organization to do.
Makes sense. I'm wondering now how a "safeguard" from this behaviour could look like. E.g. make a person's promotion within an organisation depending on achieving also "first-order" goals of the organisation.
The problem is that the institutionalists define "first-order" safeguards. They also often control key relationships like access to the board of directors
I would say that it’s because their job description and their KPIs are tied to it. HR is measured for doing HR things. HR’s sole purpose is to do HR things. The department becomes a sort of paperclip maximiser that is not concerned with things like the company’s goals.
Is it because they are more invested in the organisational/administrative tasks versus the first group's actual goal archiving mindset ? As these goals of the first group lie outside the organisation, the simple distance of goals within vs without might be one significant part. E.g. easier to achieve something within then outside, hence more power over time.