smarter than the average goals

[tim_maroney]

Today I read keith418's pieces on SMART goals for the OTO. The SMART formula seems workable enough, although I am always wary of smarmy, over-marketed planning models. We might ask why we should concentrate on goals and strategy rather than on requirements, whether a matrix organization or a traditional hierarchy would better fit the organizational goals,

Comments

Assorted Thoughts

[royalbananafish]

I'm with you on the financial commentary. While I cannot pinpoint precisely what happens to my national dues, I know that they subsidize things from which I benefit, such as internal publications. Most of the money I have given to the OTO has been given to my local body (much more than I have paid to national). I see the financial report once a month, and know exactly what happens to my contributions. I also know exactly what happens to my in-kind contributions.

As for leadership, I'd say the OTO has done much better than the other quasi-hierarchical organization with which I am most familiar, CMA. (And CMA is a democracy, which the OTO is definitely not.)

Re: Assorted Thoughts

[tim_maroney]

Any OTO member can get its financial statement and see where the money (such as it is) goes on a higher level as well. I have yet to see a financial complaint against or critique of the OTO that was based on specific figures

you sniveling lapdog of the bourgeoisie

[phygelus]

Hey, thanks Tim, this made my afternoon.

Re: you sniveling lapdog of the bourgeoisie

[tim_maroney]

Only God can make an afternoon. This was understood by the Hyperboreans. If you would bother to think about the roots of the problem, then you would see that it is clearly stated in what I have said. The puerile "leaders" who pretend to govern us are no more than the very same egalitarians and other opponents of the clear-thinking which I intend to record elsewhere if I am allowed to do so and not stoned to death by my critics who resent this "Sin" of inquiry with which I challenge the leaders and other counter-revolutionaries. They must be eradicated at any cost.

"...at night, the ice weasels come." --- Saint N.

[phygelus]

If you'd read Heinz F. von Obergrombach's Unverfuegbare Selbstverlagene Gesamtwerke, particularly the notes to the 1952 edition (be prepared to dig a little), you'd know that the Hyperboreans stood in direct opposition to the values I keep seeing espoused by the Thelemic community. I wonder if no one but me is willing to do the back-breaking work involved in reading this important and highly relevant work carefully. It directly applies to the implicit conflict I see between the position you espouse here and the true meaning of the core material of Thelema.

That said, I'm glad to see that someone else is finally beginning to get it. Serious investigation into the deeper issues presented in my critiques is unfortunately all too rare these days. And if we are not serious, what are we?

Re: "...at night, the ice weasels come." --- Saint N.

[tim_maroney]

Thank you very much for your efforts. Few can even understand you or me, so we know that we are very wise. How many could even grasp the reference you make? You are too kind to spell out the name -- I prefer to say simply HFvO and laugh at the fools. Their pampered liberal minds have gone soft with sentimentality and ressentiment, and they would only fall back to such politically correct arguments as quibbling over HFvO's (!) pamphlet of recipes for the flesh of the nibelung, as he referred to inferiors and degenerates. And how many more could overcome their inner weakness and short-sighted belief in "evil" and actually sample these recipes, discovering they showed extensive insight into the subtleties of the ingredients, which the bourgeois could never hope to grasp, raised as they are on vegetables and pudding? Their faltering indecision demonstrates their basic conflict over such core materials as III:11: "be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!" No, my friend, my cartoon sidekick, my love, only you and

[thiebes]

Well said! I agree that Keith's vitriol is difficult to wade through and that many of his points are vacuous.

Regarding the acronym particulars, I think Keith's rendering makes the most sense. "Specific" is only an elaboration on "measurable," and "attainable" and "achievable" are only synonyms for "realistic." "Action-oriented" might be a suitable compound word for the A, but anything that is accountable is implicitly action-oriented.

As far as your critique of Keith goes, as I said I agree with your overall assessment of his modus operandi. One thing that I would point out is that SMART should be a diagnostic tool used to examine goals, not people. My impression has been that Keith is not criticizing the leadership for not being SMART - he's criticizing them for not having goals which are. OTO leadership unquestionably has goals. But are they SMART? It's difficult to know, being outside the relevant e-lists and discussions. I have not yet seen a SMART goal presented by Grand Lodge, but that doesn't mean that they do not exist, and

[tim_maroney]

Thanks for your thoughts, Joe!

I acknowledge that SMART goals is a workable formulation within the limits of goal-directed approaches to organizational problem-solving. I also think it is overmarketed, that the title indulges in a shameful pandering to the audience's vanity, and that it can be (and often is) used in a way that suggests an argument from authority. I don't think aligning a plan with a SMART model could be anything more than a quick first look at its overall sanity, and I also think there are inherent problems in applying a short-term-goal-directed approach to a spiritual and cultural endeavor.

One of the good points I thought Rubin made in his Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology piece was that SMART goals survive and remain useful despite the seemingly debilitating mutation of the acronym because "part of the value of SMART goals is that it focuses people on the act of setting goals and prompts discussion of these goals with others -- which in and of itself holds merit." I suggest that any reasonable

[rodneyorpheus]

Some time ago I was consulting for a (nameless) corporation when they had a SMART presentation. It was given by a sweaty, fat, awkward middle-aged man in a remarkably shapeless suit, and his "past-her-prime-and-attempting-vainly-to-cover-it-with-too-much-makeup" assistant. I unashamedly and unapologetically laughed loudly throughout; since it was clear that they were completely clueless on

[tim_maroney]

A Google search will turn up plenty of men in bad suits trying to sell you something with SMART. As I discuss above with Joe, I don't think it's bad as a basic sanity check goals in applicable domains. It overdresses a simpler method in which the actual effectiveness lies, which is having measurable goals and discussing them. It's good to do that but it's sad to see that so many organizations actually need to be told something that basic

nice

[ex_suti233]

While I disagree with just about every other thought you seem to have on Crowley, O.T.O., E.G.C., and Thelema, I must applaud you for this one. Well done and you raise some good points my brother. :) In particular, your comments about the 'strategic vision" of O.T.O. are right on mark in my book.

Re: nice

[tim_maroney]

Nothing wrong with disagreement. Our dialog is that of the mystic and the skeptic, in which there is another inherent tension. I'm glad that we come together on some points such as the strategic vision of the OTO in terms of a crucible of initiation and a vehicle for tending its Mystery through the generations. Of course, neither of us is actually a member of the Areopagus so for all either of us knows, that might be quite different from their private goals. I based my assertion on statements I have seen in public writings by people I believe to be Areopagus members but I don't speak for OTO on the question -- I'm just saying that from my perspective, I don't see the vision gap that Keith does.