Entropy In Organizations

I have a bag of dice in my classroom. There's probably 50 dice in a blue velvet pouch with a drawstring that wait in the closet for some down time or a decision that has to be made. The drawstring doesn't hold the bag closed very well, so every time I take it out, it seems, the opening of the bag will burp out 5 or 10 dice. They immediately spatter out of sight on the linoleum floors and I have to chase them down like a freshman losing at beer pong. 

In the bag, they are ordered. In terms of the universe, it's incredibly unlikely that they would be bundled together and in a container. It is much more likely that they would spread out in a chaotic way, distributed throughout the world. Indeed someday the bag will break or deteriorate and the dice will begin to move toward their most likely arrangement: far apart from each other, chaotically distant. Highly entropic. 

Organizations begin, usually, in states on low entropy. Everything clustered and associated. Organized. Slowly though, things spread out and the scope increases. The original function and purpose of the organization is amended, expanded. Eventually you might have a hard time figuring out what this organization does when standing on the outside. 

I remember when Apple made 2 things: computers and iPods. There was one computer and one iPod, with small variations in storage or color. Today, Apple makes hardware (laptops, screens, iPhones, watches) and software (Maps, Safari, multiple operating systems) and maintains services (iCloud, music streaming, health monitoring). At one time, you could clearly see that Apple was a technology company. Today? It's not so simple to encompass the function and purpose of the company in a short description. 

Is that wrong or bad? Not necessarily, but it is different for 2 important people. Imagine the difference as a new hire. When someone joins a company with low entropy it's easy to gauge whether or not they are contributing to the overall organization. In this situation, new hires feel connected to the organization overall and a part of the team. With a broader scope and high entropy new hires cannot as easily see how their role contributes to the whole. This can lead to situations where different departments never have a reason to collaborate or interact because they serve unrelated functions within the group. 

The other person to whom this matters is the administrator or manager. In places with low entropy it is easy to see what should be prioritized and what can be set aside. Most or all decisions can be based on serving the purpose of the organization rather than preferences, style, or individual needs. Compare that to managing a broad and amorphous organization with high entropy. Different managers might disagree about similar decisions because there are multiple purposes that they are trying to fulfill. Managers will recognize that decisions must be based on something objective, so this is when metrics come in and tracking of employee performance is critical. Managers are much more strict about timeliness and adherence to policy because these are easily tracked and can be used as a basis for choices rather then referring to the unfocused purpose of the company. 

---

Enough avoidance. Of course I'm speaking about schools, and my school in particular. It's my belief that HTH started as a low entropy organization with a clear purpose, stated in 5 values (Personalization, Adult World Connection, Common Intellectual Principles, Teachers as Designers, Access and Challenge for All Students). From these values one could ask of different paths or choices "Does this serve to personalize a course for students? Does this give teachers more control over the design of the school?" and act. I remember being hired as a new teacher and being advised to always ask "Will this make the project better?". I was also told that if I wasn't giving students worksheets, tests or homework then I was probably doing ok. From those two simple guidelines I had the agency to make choices for myself and use my autonomy to improve every semester. 

Let's compare that to now. In my experience, every new teacher will believe that the purpose of the school is something different. One entropic idea that has become incorporated into our identity is that we are meant to counteract racial, social and economic injustices. That's not to say that we should counteract those injustices as a result of progressive, project based education, but actually to explicitly counter those ideas with whatever method of teaching one likes. Units on identity and prejudices abound. Our mission statement is 3 paragraphs long and separate from our statement of purpose. 

Here's my question: if schools cut out all the bullshit (accessory goals and scope) and focus solely on what remains, would they still have a school?