Oversight of the Institution

In a developed liberal society, there is constant innovation, growth of knowledge, and ever more functional specialization. So institutional change is a constant.

While rational and conventional management-control of these spontaneous changes is impossible, it is evident that there are different dimensions of oversight intrinsic to institutions. These vary from level to level.

L1: Promoted Interests : Oversight of Values

The foundation of any institution is that it potentially serves the interests of all who are recipients of the service, as well as those who work within a component social body. When changes flout current values or cease to meet shared needs, there is an outcry.

Those who work within the institution are expected to be most attuned to its social function and intrinsic values. The biggest danger appears to be powerful vested interests introducing changes that suit themselves but not the public interest.

L2: Discussed Remedies : Oversight of Failings

When changes lead to needs not being met, recipients of the service are the first to experience that. The issue might show up variously as inadequate training in a new technique, or environmental damage, or inappropriate facilities. Whatever the issue, people demand solutions and, because it feels like shared values are being flouted, demands are usually direct and forceful.

The desired remedy may end up being ineffective or make things worse over time, but this is often either not considered or ignored. The same harmful remedy may be repeatedly applied by government if it seems to generate popular approval that translates into votes.

L3: Topical Analyses : Agenda Oversight

Analysis of issues that are raised by L1-promotion and L2-advocacy generate an agenda for change. Reports based on in-depth investigations are the primary systematic sources of knowledge. Recommendations in such reports hope to inform changes.

Analyses relate to a small aspect of institutional functioning. Bodies commissioning analyses are usually distant from the public and the investigator may be biassed, but until a better report comes along, they are all that exists. Analyses get especially activated if an institution seems to be changing as a response to new circumstances or new governmental policies.

L4: Constructed Narratives : Orientation Oversight

Public awareness of institutions is primarily provided by narratives. Most people are not deeply engaged with the institution, do not campaign, and do not study factual books and reports. They need reassurance that changes causing them irritation, distress and even suffering are to be tolerated because the institution is "on the right track".

Narratives may subtly shift but they do not alter unless and until there is widespread anxiety or an obvious disaster. At that point, there may be a radical revision, in which case the previous narrative becomes irrelevant and ignored. Highlighting errors in that narrative could suggest the present narrative is also faulty which would interfere with the desire to use it to reassure and reorient the public.

L5: Highlighted Statistics : Satisfaction Oversight

Generally bombarding the public with multiple figures is a common official strategy which has little effect on dissatisfaction. However, altering the single shocking statistic that the public has become fixated upon is likely to produce satisfaction. Unfortunately, that statistic often reflects severe cultural bias, power imbalances, or ingrained neglect so that progress is difficult or impossible.

Example:  Pollution in Northern Thailand

The PM 2.5 count reveals that Chiang Mai commonly scores as the most polluted city in the world during February-April. There are severe health and economic impacts on ordinary people. However, taking action to reduce this would involve, among other things, confronting the activities of CP Foods, the world's largest animal feed producer, and Dhanin Chearavanont, the most powerful tycoon in Thailand. That is something no Thai politician would dare do.

Still, specific critical counts could be used as targets to demonstrate to an unaware or angry citizenry or sceptical industry or refractory government that a problem exists and change will or must occur sooner or later.

L6: Challenged Perspectives : Diversity Oversight

In the nature of things, society will contain several factional camps battling to get benefit from an institution. Each factional camp possesses some merit and should be able to make some contribution to improving an institution. If a camp is inappropriately ignored or devalued, the institution will likely suffer.

So the simultaneous presentation of views from sharply different perspectives is useful. By subjecting any view to confronting and challenging questioning, everyone gets the chance to appreciate a variety of valid proposals. The reality of social diversity is brought to the fore, ideally to be tolerated and accepted as natural.

L7: Demanded Transparency provides Responsibility Oversight

Severe institutional failure indicates that natural evolutionary change has not delivered a results that the public finds adequate. The public is ultimately responsible but the reasons for failure are typically obscure. In trying to understand what has happened, who (if anyone) acted wrongly, and what might be done, investigators find that they cannot access information. Those who know do not speak and those who speak do not reveal.

Organisations, who may well be culpable, hide information claiming privacy and commercial confidentiality. Governments, where corruption and incompetence are deeply embedded and who fear embarrassment, stamp security classifications on mountains of information.

The public then demands transparency so as to know why and to get trustworthy answers as to what can and should be done to make matters better. Freedom of Information laws while designed to compel are typically of only limited value because the government bureaucracy does not respond at all or claims the time and cost is far too great or redacts large chunks.

In the end, only a government can actually compel transparency as occurs, for example, in Royal Commissions held in Australia.

---

This completes an outline of the types and levels of work involved in impacting a societal institution.

• Continue to the Spiral framework that shows how pressure builds for evolutionary development.
• Jump ahead to the Tree of Consent revealing influences between the different levels.

Originally posted: 19-Nov-2022. Latest update: 30-Apr-2023.