If you create an appropriate framework, people can understand what to do when you haven’t told them the details.
All too often, organisations define rules that do not need defining. They may choose to set criteria for approvals, or host panels in order to evaluate submissions. A better approach in many cases is to create a suitable framework and devolve the authority to those who need it.
How would we know whether a framework is suitable
- What to do under what conditions
- What to do when those conditions aren’t met
- Guidance on what to do when the conditions do not make sense/do not apply
- Guidance on what to do when the process cannot be followed
Let’s have a look at Bobby Mcferrin and how he is presenting the scale.
- He creates a framework, defining how we are meant to respond based on the presenting condition in front of us (i.e. where he stands)
- He indicates that we’re only interested in the semitones – i.e. we’re not meant to respond to every slight step or assess the accuracy of where he has landed in order to produce microtones.
- The framework he has created allows to very quickly infer what the proper response should be when presented with a new condition (i.e. he steps outside of the boundary).
He builds on our already existing knowledge (e.g. what we’ve learnt in our early years, what we’ve observed from watching other musicians such as pianists, etc) and combines that with what he’s defined so far, so that the audience can infer the next note. Even though he hasn’t actually told us what that note is.
What could you take away from that?
Are there set (often regular) meetings within your organisation? Look at them and see what could be devolved either to smaller groups (even down to one person) if the rules can be defined.