Agile Bureaucracy - All Comments

Virginia bianco | Topimages

Virginia bianco | Topimages — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:45:52 GMT

Pingback from Virginia bianco | Topimages

Introducing Me (The New Editor)

Agile Bureaucracy — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:52:25 GMT

Welcome. As The Public Manager’s new editor, I figured I should introduce myself. I wish I had

Strategic Workplace Learning in the Public Sector - Part II

The Official ASTD Blog — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:40:27 GMT

Strategic Workplace Learning in the Public Sector - Part II

Strategic Workplace Learning in the Public Sector – Part II

Agile Bureaucracy — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:07:56 GMT

My last post on this blog highlighted two recent public sector training efforts that demonstrated strategic

Strategic Workplace Learning in the Public Sector

The Official ASTD Blog — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:33:43 GMT

Strategic Workplace Learning in the Public Sector

Agile Bureaucracy — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:18:13 GMT

Strategic Workplace Learning in the Public Sector A little less than two years ago on this blog, I entered

re: Culture of Corruption

Warren Master — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:02:02 GMT

Thanks for your comment, Bob. While you cover lots of ground, let me key in breifly on just a few points at this time.

1) The money problem - As I see it, we live in the material world we do. And it's likely always been this way - even before we segued from barter economies to monetized societies and from smoke signals to TV and the Internet. I also suspect that there have been and are lots of highly ethical elected and appointed officials at every level of government who raise obscene amounts of money to compete in the electoral process because that's the way the world is - imperfect.

So...changing the system - not just the fund-raising aspect of electoral campaigns, but our American political culture as well - just doesn't seem practicable in our lifetimes. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the degree of difficulty shouldn't stop activists from working assiduously to reform it. Afterall, if people like Thad Stevens and Willaim Henry Dana, among others, hadn't hammered away at the political culture of slavery, we wouldn't have gotten around to electing Barack Obama as our 44th president - despite the record level of his backers' money he spent during the campaign.

2) The point you make that resonates strongly is the one about having "...a career commitment to integrity to the taxpayer and adherence to good process (that) is vital to success..." More about this later today or tomorrow.

Thanks again, Bob.

re: Culture of Corruption

Bob Fagin — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:10:54 GMT

There is a sense of entitlement that has crept into elective office. I track it to the degree of partisanship that is all too prevalent as well. The notion is: I won, which ENTITLES me to reward friends and punish enemies until I leave or am "unelected." As an aside, term limits only makes this worse. The logic becomes this is my time to make a name/fame/fortune. I only have to face the electorate for a fixed period of time. So, I must get what I can before term limits push me out of office.

I track much of this "acceptance" of bad acts generally to several central issues:

First on my list of villains is the impact of money in politics. It is obscene that Obama raised $600 million for his campaign. Similarly, that pols can keep funds in a war chest is wrong. It is seen as a deterrent to challengers who would have to raise huge sums to ante up for the game. As was the Supreme Court when it equated campaign spending with free speech. If you have a million and I have a dollar, we do not have free speech. We have your speech and not mine. During the fund raising scandal hearings during the Clinton Administration, one $300K contributor was asked what he thought he would get for his money. "I expect that when I call the Administration, I will get an audience and some action." I repeat, campaign contributions are not the equivalent of free speech.

Able people of character are not as able to run without access to money. Access to money is vital to win. Getting access, even if you have a lot, requires bending to the color of the money's source. Bill Bradley started his 2000 campaign with high ideals and interesting ideas. As his funds dwindled, his message became mundane, his popularity waned as his message lost verve; and he dropped out when he finally had lost his way entirely. John Corzine, in his campaign to be Senator in New Jersey, had huge billboards touting the "virtue" of his billion dollar fortune because, "I will not be accountable to anyone." That is even a worse situation, but it highlights the depravity we have slipped to. And Corzine is one of the better candidates in my estimate.

The point is that as long as money drives campaigns, the people lose control to lobbyists and industries with lots of it and great sums at stake. I don't have a solution, but I see the problem as being quite clear.

A second issue is derivative of the money problem, and that is the mentality of instant gratification that our society has adopted as its holy grail. My sense is that this driving force derives its momentum from the Cuban Missile Crisis. With the threat of imminent nuclear war that could end life as we know it for the first time in history, a light switched on that said we may not be here tomorrow so we better get in NOW! Don't save. You may not live to spend it. Don't delay sex, you may not live to have it. Don't stay in a job you are not happy in because there is a better one across the street for a few dollars more. Retirement? Who cares, you may not live that long.

The point is that virtue rarely provides instant gratification. Reputation is built over time. Temptation is a flash in the pan. Who needs integrity if you have to give up tickets to the Redskins from a contractor?

When I was at the University of Virginia, we had an honor code. It was simple. "I will neither lie, nor cheat, nor steal; nor will I accept the same in the academical village." Because the community at large accepted this standard in its daily actions, many other virtuous things were possible.

You could leave your possessions anywhere on campus. You didn't lock your dorm door. Exams were largely unproctored. You signature on the code in your bluebook was your bond that you had not taken any advantage. You could even leave a poker table confident that your cards and money would be undisturbed.

I do not assert that I am a better person than others or that I live a perfect life or am at all naive about the world and how it functions. I do assert that with this experience of the tangible virtues of living according to a credo of integrity, one's existence is freer and enriching in a much more rewarding way than trying to beat the system or "get over" on those I deal with. It has been true for me.

Further, I was able to do things that others were not able to do because my bosses knew that I would operate within the agreed upon parameters or I would come back for more authority/approval. If I committed to something it got done, or I was back to the person to whom the commitment was made and worked on the problem and the alternatives.

As a result, allies and opponents respected and trusted me. They were not naive either, but they were willing to trust me more than others. It made me more effective. When I wasn't in the room, people were willing to defend me when otherwise my interests would be trashed. In short, it is far easier to conduct oneself in this manner than to attempt to fool others. They are not as stupid as they would have to be for that deficient strategy to work. And those who were interested in doing something improper knew not to ask me to participate or condone their actions.

Justice may be slow, but as my father used to say to me, "Justice will prevail. One need only have patience." When someone does something unethical or seems to get away with something, one need only be patient. Because before long they will either get caught or befall some worse consequence. Someone will refuse to do something reasonable because they cannot trust the person. Someone will turn them in when they think they can do so with impunity at least.

Deputy Secretary Steve Griles at Interior is now in jail for his involvement with Abramoff. I suspect a career official blew the whistle anonymously, but effectively. The most famous example is "Deep Throat of Watergate, who turned out to be Mark Felt at the FBI, who lead Woodward and Bernstein to their revelations about Watergate.

So what to do. Ethics training is not doing it and won't. For those so disposed, such training only serves to define the boundaries to be avoided, tunneled, or overcome. Don Zauderer and I have discussed this on many occasions over the years.

At a minimum, we need a clarion call in every forum (The Public Manager, ASPA, Public Administration programs nationally) we can think of for greater visibility for virtue. Beacons of integrity need to be championed and publicized.

Another set of actions we can take revolve around less emphasis on politicalization of routine governmental functions. This is NOT to suggest that only career employees can be honest or that non-career folks need to be watched. There is a balance.

When I started my Federal career in 1970, many of the Assistant Secretaries for Administration and all of the Deputies were career. Under Nixon, this was changed. Basic processes that are the glue of representative democracy and its rule of law depend on sufficient support for their existence that long term experience and commitment are necessary to succeed.

This is not to suggest that a "career-reserved" and lifelong appointment/tenure are necessary. A bureaucracy distanced from those they serve is a malady as evil as corruption. But a career commitment to integrity to the taxpayer and adherence to good process is vital to success on these fronts.

The IG's that have been created have not been effective in my view. The unavoidable "gotcha" mentality so dominates their actions, it has them driven to find noncompliance rather than outright malfeasance. My experience, with few exceptions, is that more bad actors were forced out of office because they filled out a travel voucher incorrectly than that the corruption they were engaged with was detected or charged. I can give many examples, but one makes the point.

When I was at the Office of Surface Mining at DOI, I got into a contest with the IG. And I am a big supporter of internal audit properly administered. A jealousy had developed by the IG with an audit staff that I supervised to oversee the collection of mine reclamation fees from coal operators. Somehow the IG staff were threatened by an independent capacity not under their control.

In their audit they found that we had not audited some number of the 28,000 entities who are engaged in this business. I had some 50 auditors to do this work. When I confronted the lead IG auditor with this inconsistency between mission and resources, he repeated his finding that we had not found $1.4 million of potential funds.

I asked if he thought we could effectively audit 28,000 entities with our staff. He said, "Of course not." Then, isn't the question really, how good was the targeting process we employed to choose those we did look at? I stipulate that we did not find $1.4 million and probably more."

What would have been useful to me as a manager would have been a good evaluation of how we targeted across the dimensions of collections, deterrence, and publicity for enforcement and fairness. Just cherry-picking somebody we didn't visit helps me not at all. I couldn't even get his boss to understand the point I was making.

I have suggested in the past that we need to find one poor *** who screws up and hang him/her in a public square with a sign that says this is what happens to Federal employees and their accomplices for cheating, stealing, betraying the public trust. About once every six months or so will do. Of course this is an exaggeration, but the idea is that giving publicity to those who do right and consequences to those who do wrong -- in a timely and public way -- will do more for honor and integrity than all the IG reports and commissions combined.

Whistleblower laws are appealing but don't seem to work. I can't name another whistleblower after Ernie Fitzgerald at Air Force, and more importantly, he was put through hell to do right for his country.

I, myself, sent three 3-inch binders of activities at my agency that I thought were wrong to MSPB through an investigator. I was told they found nothing prosecutable. If that is the test, let's fold our tents and all go home. Is that the standard we want to hold forth for our democracy?

Mere process will not get it done. I think Obama has an opportunity to make a difference and a change, but his early steps do not bode well. (And I am an ardent supporter!) Geittner, as bright as he is, should not have been put forth for Treasury with his tax issues. He oversees IRS in that job. The sense of irony is argument enough to support the argument. The same holds for Daschle, who as a former US Senator should certainly know better and so should those doing the vetting for the President.

The taxpayers expect all of us who toil in their service to do better. Much needs to be done.

re: Genocide and the Ethics of Public Management

Arnold Leder — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:37:50 GMT

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

San Marcos

I have read your blog entry on genocide & Krueger's book. It is very good - informative, thought provoking, and it raises important questions. You will likely get a number of comments.

At the moment, the one thought that comes to mind is one we briefly spoke about. This is the "dark side" of management, that is the bad actors whose purpose, perhaps facilitated by "public management" skills is, in fact, genocide or something akin to genocide. No doubt, I am led to think along these lines by my work with the Holocaust/Shoah materials in the course that I teach. [ arnoldleder.com/4328.htm The Holocaust/Shoah] There is also, in my view, a philosophical or ethical issue which you raise that needs more attention. Reconciliation may be fine in some instances but there is also the matter of evil and addressing it even after the atrocities have been committed. Witnessing is another dimension of genocide and here the Kreugers, in their own fashion, appear to have done their best to serve as witnesses. This is connected to the important issue of history, getting the story right, as opposed to memory where over time different narratives may emerge serving different, often conflicting ends.

Your essay raises many questions and that is as it should be. Asking or raising important questions is the heart of the matter in critical issues and genocide is certainly a critical issue.

re: The Non-Strategic State of Workplace Learning

mbrum — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:34:28 GMT

Overall I concurr with most of the comments made. I would encourage the author (or others) to follow-up with perspectives on these inquiries.

Also, in many cases "results-based management" has shown to be somewhat counter-productive, as seen in the impact of commisioned sales on customer service. How does this relate to training and learning?

Thanks for the insightful post!

re: April 28 - Agile Bureaucracy

Scott — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:15:41 GMT

Warren,

This is an interesting and important discussion. I am a career federal employee (26 years) and currently work as an Industrial and Organizational Psychologist for the government. Several agencies ago I worked as the Program Manager for Culture Transformation and thus worked as a practitioner in this area. I maintain my profound interest in culture transformation in the federal government through dissertation research I am currently completing as a part of my Ph.D. degree program in Organizational Psychology. Essentially my research is examining the relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance (e.g., customer satisfaction) in the federal government. I am hoping to eventually publish my dissertation research in peer-reviewed journals and journals such as yours, to help begin closing the gap in federal-sector culture research.

I believe there are several important reasons that more hasn’t been done in the area of culture change in the federal government (or even in the private sector for that matter)—one is external to the federal government, the others are internal.

First, organizational culture is a deep, thick, complex area; as such, there is still considerable disagreement and debate in the academic community on how to even define organizational culture in addition to whether or not it can or should be assessed quantitatively (which Schein opposes), what it’s true link to organizational performance is, etc. So it is no wonder that organizational leaders and OD practitioners alike are at a complete loss on what to do relative to culture change since there is such discord in the research community.

Second, the federal government itself has done a poor job of selecting and preparing transformational leaders (as opposed to transactional) to manage (or I should say lead) the government of tomorrow. Without astute, transformationally-driven leadership, any type of change initiative (culture or otherwise) is virtually impossible without such an orientation toward change and the future.

Finally, the Office of Personnel Management which is the federal government’s lead in the area of Human Capital, has done a poor job of conducting federal government-wide, organizational culture-related research with which to develop and provide agency senior executives and practitioners with tools and solutions for culture change. Without a true lead in the federal government in culture transformation, there remains extreme difficulty in establishing sound research (such as what I am conducting) to develop solutions to “move the giant” forward.

I can say one thing has immerged from the research and work I have done “down in the trenches” in government thus far: organizational culture has a profound impact on federal agency functioning and performance and a “force to be reckoned” with and it should be taken seriously.

My two cents worth :-)

Scott

re: April 28 - Agile Bureaucracy

millergm — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:46:15 GMT

The creation of this discussion forum is a tremendous idea and, ultimately, asset to practitioners and scholars of public administration alike. As a scholar who has both researched culture in public administration and taught public management for a number of years, I would like to provide some basic food for thought with regard to the knowledge that we currently hold on this topic.

Warren Masters points out that much of what we know in our field is borrowed from the world of business. That isn’t really surprising since a good deal of the foundation of public administration was built originally from the ideas borrowed by early scholars such as Frederick Taylor, Wood Wilson, Frank Goodnow, from the world of business. In the early attempts to define and structure the field of public administration, these folks and others like them, helped to characterize the culture of the arena with a heavy business slant. However, as later scholars began to realize that public administration is its own unique entity, separate and distinct from the world of business, the behavioral aspects of the arena became of greater importance. Understanding the hybrid culture that exists, today, in public administration is no easy task. In the world of public administration, culture extends beyond the simple definition of a system of shared values and beliefs.

Anne Khademian points out in her work, “Working with Culture: The Way The Job Gets Done in Public Programs,” the common understandings, beliefs and values manifest themselves in the commitments that the practitioners bring to bear on their work. She argues that when they apply their commitments they help to define how the job gets done. She also provides a set of strategies for understanding and working with culture that can assist practitioners in their efforts to shape and/or change existing cultures in which they find themselves that may be inhibiting them from accomplishing optimal performance. The six strategies are as follows:

1. Identify the commitments that form the existing culture;

2. Identify the connections between the roots of culture and commitments;

3. think about what needs to change and articulate that change;

4. Understand the management of cultural roots as an inward, outward, and shared responsibility;

5. Relentlessly practice and demonstrate the desired changes in culture; and,

6. Capitalize on incremental change and institutionalize it.

Khademian delves into the reasoning behind each of these six strategies and provides examples of each at play in the arena. It is a work well worth reading and certainly provides a base on which to form discussion. I, highly, encourage all interested in this topic to read this work. It was published in 2002 by CQ Press.

re: April 28 - Agile Bureaucracy

breena.coates — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:41:51 GMT

Warren this is a most useful blog for exchanging ideas on bureaucracies. Here is what I am currently working on....

CULTURE & COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS: The Military Bureaucracy

At the United States Army War College, where I serve as Professof of Management, my colleague Colonel (Retired) Rich Meinhart and I have been doing research on how cognition effects culture. Most especially, we are interested in how a person's cognition patterns effect thinking for military personnel in their globalized workplaces. An important related issue is the need for greater understanding, firstly, of one's own cultural constructions and shared meaning, and secondly, of how others construct meaning.

Any ideas or examples of interaction with military personnel, or your own experiences in the military would be helpful to this research.

Thanks!

Breena E. Coates, Ph.D.

Professor of Management

United States Army War College

breena.coates@us.army.mil