Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  (Fwd) Analysis Paralysis - Gov't vs. Private rules

    Posted 02-20-2000 14:07
    John,

    The quote I think you're referring to is:
    We train hard…but every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we
    would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any
    new situation by reorganizing…and a wonderful method it can be of creating
    the illusion of progress while producing inefficiency and demoralization

    Petronius Satyricon, First Century AD

    Sincerely,

    Edward Ferris

    At 11:03 AM 2/20/00 -0600, johno@cameron.edu wrote:
    >Hope this makes it to digest. First forwarding failed.
    >
    >JPO
    >
    >------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
    >From: Self <Single-user mode>
    >To: Wendy L Corfield <Wendy.L.Corfield@MAINROADS.QLD.GOV.AU>
    >Subject: Re: Analysis Paralysis - long post
    >Reply-to: johno@cameron.edu
    >Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:50:26 -0600
    >
    >Dear Ms. Corfield,
    >
    >Your letter reminded me of one of those stellar quotes that I
    >encountered a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, I didn't clip it
    >out and save it.
    >
    >It was attributed to an ancient Roman (?) general, and the jist of it
    >was:
    > "We never really solve problems, we just reorganize."
    >---------------------------------------------------------------------
    >The problem involves the differences between public-sector and
    >private business organizations, the realities of political
    >environments, and the need to sort out the good from the bad of
    >bureaucracies.
    >
    >My musings on this come from the experiences of my first two
    >career tracks in life: military (regular and later reserve), then
    >newspaper journalist // and the studies and limited experiences of my
    >third: college professor. (And hopefully last track).
    >------------------------------------------------------------------
    >Private vs. Public Sector
    >
    >Private business operates under the profit model, generally involving
    >a buyer and a seller involved in a voluntary relationship.
    >
    >Public-sector organizations operate under the public goods model
    >(maximize the benefits to be derived from Org. X's public goods).
    >The recipient and deliverer of these goods are often involved in an
    >INVOLUNTARY relationship, mandated by law.
    >
    >The "public goods'' concept appears to have little salience in
    >the mind of the average US citizen. Hence, many US citizens are
    >reluctant to embrace, for example, municipal public transportation -
    >because it doesn't "pay for itself." They then fail to realize that
    >the private automobile proliferation doesn't "pay its own freight"
    >either - it is subsidized by highway construction funds paid for with
    >tax dollars.
    >
    >Also, the US citizen needs to pay more attention to the roadways. A
    >lot of the infrastructure build during the 1950s interstate highway
    >system boom is now breaking down, and needs to be replaced.
    >
    >In Western Europe, the "public goods" concept is more talked about
    >due to the prominence of the social democrat political philosophy
    >(whether they're in power or not). I'm not sure how much the
    >British and Australians think about it.
    >
    >
    >Political Realities
    >
    >Public organizations theoretically exist to maximize the benefits of
    >public goods for use in their particular area. Private-sector
    >organizations, conversely, are governed by the profit motive. But,
    >the average US citizen - and I suspect many other nation's citizens -
    >fail to realize this.
    >
    >Thus, economic pressures control poorly performing private-sector
    >firms (they go broke), whereas political pressures control
    >public-sector firms. Your basic public-sector organizations, such as
    >police and road departments, have a rather rigid hierarchy. This is
    >in part a defense against the political pressures for the public
    >sector org to somehow "turn a profit", which according to my theory
    >is an impossibility. But, the debate on maximizing benefits (what?)
    >to the citizens (which ones) is a valid one, and can get heated.
    >
    >The bureaucracy and its procedures are designed in part to create the
    >trappings legitimacy in terms of stewardship of the public goods.
    >More coherently put, is there systematic "due process" in how
    >decisions are made in using these goods.
    >
    >Also, how do we decide which members of society deserve access to the
    >benefits of Org. X's public goods? (The political economists and
    >conflict management people call this area "distributive justice." I
    >only done a little reading in this area myself, although it is
    >interesting). ****************
    >
    >
    >Bureaucracy to the Rescue
    >
    >So, bureaucracy gives orderly (and hopefully reasonably efficient)
    >process to govern our public goods/benefits system. Bureaucracy came
    >originally as a response to the evils/inefficiencies of nepotism and
    >cronyism as ways to run organizations. As mentioned in your letter,
    >bureaucracy was supposed to be, in part, a meritocracy where the
    >employees would be trained in the system, and the best performers
    >promoted.
    >
    >But, "performance" becomes a touchy term in the public sector, in
    >part because of the difficulties of determining this in a non-profit
    >motive arena. (I'm leaving this thought underdeveloped... sorry).
    >
    >In bureaucracies, true reform and improvement takes place usually
    >within given departments. Rarely does major reform take place
    >bureaucracy-wide. Part of the problem comes from what the Marines
    >call the "Crisis of the Month", similarly known in the Air Force as
    >the "Deal of the Week." People endure, year after year, a flood of
    >half-baked initiatives which are supposed to solve problems, but
    >never really do.
    >
    >Some organizational researchers tout Empowerment as a way to achieve
    >major change. It involves top management support to really
    >restructure the organization. Even if everyone has true "buy in" to
    >empowerment, it often takes 5 to 7 years to really make the cultural
    >leap to the new system.
    >
    >------------------------------------
    >
    >So, (ASSUMING YOU HAVEN'T FALLEN ASLEEP YET)
    >read up on Empowerment and Distributive Justice, and you should come
    >upon a few public-sector success stories. Public sector success
    >really does happen - it's just that many journalists ignore it while
    >looking for stories on embezzling department heads going to prison.
    >
    >JPO
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >--------------------------
    >John P. Orr, Ph.D. (Management)
    >Dept. of Business, Rm. 314
    >Cameron University
    >2800 W. Gore Blvd.
    >Lawton, OK 73505
    >Phone: 580-581-2367


    ----------
    Plus Ultra Incorporated

    Telephone: (215) 230 0248
    Email: edward.ferris@plusultrainc.com

    http://www.plusultrainc.com


  • 2.  (Fwd) Analysis Paralysis - Gov't vs. Private rules

    Posted 02-20-2000 16:03
    I have the same quote but show it attributed to Petronius
    Arbiter, 210 BC.

    Can anyone confirm?

    Christie Mason

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Edward Ferris" <edward.ferris@PLUSULTRAINC.COM>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
    Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 1:07 PM
    Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Analysis Paralysis - Gov't vs.
    Private rules


    John,

    The quote I think you're referring to is:
    We train hard.but every time we were beginning to form up
    into teams, we
    would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we
    tend to meet any
    new situation by reorganizing.and a wonderful method it can
    be of creating
    the illusion of progress while producing inefficiency and
    demoralization

    Petronius Satyricon, First Century AD

    Sincerely,

    Edward Ferris

    At 11:03 AM 2/20/00 -0600, johno@cameron.edu wrote:
    >Hope this makes it to digest. First forwarding failed.
    >
    >JPO
    >
    >------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
    >From: Self <Single-user mode>
    >To: Wendy L Corfield
    <Wendy.L.Corfield@MAINROADS.QLD.GOV.AU>
    >Subject: Re: Analysis Paralysis - long post
    >Reply-to: johno@cameron.edu
    >Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:50:26 -0600
    >
    >Dear Ms. Corfield,
    >
    >Your letter reminded me of one of those stellar quotes that
    I
    >encountered a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, I didn't
    clip it
    >out and save it.
    >
    >It was attributed to an ancient Roman (?) general, and the
    jist of it
    >was:
    > "We never really solve problems, we just
    reorganize."
    >-----------------------------------------------------------
    ----------
    >The problem involves the differences between public-sector
    and
    >private business organizations, the realities of political
    >environments, and the need to sort out the good from the
    bad of
    >bureaucracies.
    >
    >My musings on this come from the experiences of my first
    two
    >career tracks in life: military (regular and later
    reserve), then
    >newspaper journalist // and the studies and limited
    experiences of my
    >third: college professor. (And hopefully last track).
    >-----------------------------------------------------------
    -------
    >Private vs. Public Sector
    >
    >Private business operates under the profit model, generally
    involving
    >a buyer and a seller involved in a voluntary relationship.
    >
    >Public-sector organizations operate under the public goods
    model
    >(maximize the benefits to be derived from Org. X's public
    goods).
    >The recipient and deliverer of these goods are often
    involved in an
    >INVOLUNTARY relationship, mandated by law.
    >
    >The "public goods'' concept appears to have little salience
    in
    >the mind of the average US citizen. Hence, many US
    citizens are
    >reluctant to embrace, for example, municipal public
    transportation -
    >because it doesn't "pay for itself." They then fail to
    realize that
    >the private automobile proliferation doesn't "pay its own
    freight"
    >either - it is subsidized by highway construction funds
    paid for with
    >tax dollars.
    >
    >Also, the US citizen needs to pay more attention to the
    roadways. A
    >lot of the infrastructure build during the 1950s interstate
    highway
    >system boom is now breaking down, and needs to be replaced.
    >
    >In Western Europe, the "public goods" concept is more
    talked about
    >due to the prominence of the social democrat political
    philosophy
    >(whether they're in power or not). I'm not sure how much
    the
    >British and Australians think about it.
    >
    >
    >Political Realities
    >
    >Public organizations theoretically exist to maximize the
    benefits of
    >public goods for use in their particular area.
    Private-sector
    >organizations, conversely, are governed by the profit
    motive. But,
    >the average US citizen - and I suspect many other nation's
    citizens -
    >fail to realize this.
    >
    >Thus, economic pressures control poorly performing
    private-sector
    >firms (they go broke), whereas political pressures control
    >public-sector firms. Your basic public-sector
    organizations, such as
    >police and road departments, have a rather rigid hierarchy.
    This is
    >in part a defense against the political pressures for the
    public
    >sector org to somehow "turn a profit", which according to
    my theory
    >is an impossibility. But, the debate on maximizing
    benefits (what?)
    >to the citizens (which ones) is a valid one, and can get
    heated.
    >
    >The bureaucracy and its procedures are designed in part to
    create the
    >trappings legitimacy in terms of stewardship of the public
    goods.
    >More coherently put, is there systematic "due process" in
    how
    >decisions are made in using these goods.
    >
    >Also, how do we decide which members of society deserve
    access to the
    >benefits of Org. X's public goods? (The political
    economists and
    >conflict management people call this area "distributive
    justice." I
    >only done a little reading in this area myself, although it
    is
    >interesting). ****************
    >
    >
    >Bureaucracy to the Rescue
    >
    >So, bureaucracy gives orderly (and hopefully reasonably
    efficient)
    >process to govern our public goods/benefits system.
    Bureaucracy came
    >originally as a response to the evils/inefficiencies of
    nepotism and
    >cronyism as ways to run organizations. As mentioned in
    your letter,
    >bureaucracy was supposed to be, in part, a meritocracy
    where the
    >employees would be trained in the system, and the best
    performers
    >promoted.
    >
    >But, "performance" becomes a touchy term in the public
    sector, in
    >part because of the difficulties of determining this in a
    non-profit
    >motive arena. (I'm leaving this thought underdeveloped...
    sorry).
    >
    >In bureaucracies, true reform and improvement takes place
    usually
    >within given departments. Rarely does major reform take
    place
    >bureaucracy-wide. Part of the problem comes from what the
    Marines
    >call the "Crisis of the Month", similarly known in the Air
    Force as
    >the "Deal of the Week." People endure, year after year, a
    flood of
    >half-baked initiatives which are supposed to solve
    problems, but
    >never really do.
    >
    >Some organizational researchers tout Empowerment as a way
    to achieve
    >major change. It involves top management support to really
    >restructure the organization. Even if everyone has true
    "buy in" to
    >empowerment, it often takes 5 to 7 years to really make the
    cultural
    >leap to the new system.
    >
    >------------------------------------
    >
    >So, (ASSUMING YOU HAVEN'T FALLEN ASLEEP YET)
    >read up on Empowerment and Distributive Justice, and you
    should come
    >upon a few public-sector success stories. Public sector
    success
    >really does happen - it's just that many journalists ignore
    it while
    >looking for stories on embezzling department heads going to
    prison.
    >
    >JPO
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >--------------------------
    >John P. Orr, Ph.D. (Management)
    >Dept. of Business, Rm. 314
    >Cameron University
    >2800 W. Gore Blvd.
    >Lawton, OK 73505
    >Phone: 580-581-2367


    ----------
    Plus Ultra Incorporated

    Telephone: (215) 230 0248
    Email: edward.ferris@plusultrainc.com

    http://www.plusultrainc.com


  • 3.  (Fwd) Analysis Paralysis - Gov't vs. Private rules

    Posted 02-20-2000 17:43
    In a message dated 02/20/2000 1:04:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
    clmason@ESSEX1.COM writes:

    << I have the same quote but show it attributed to Petronius
    Arbiter, 210 BC.
    Can anyone confirm? >>

    I've seen the quote attributed to both Petronius Arbiter and to Petronius
    Satyricon, so I did a quick check on "AskJeeves," which yielded the following:

    "Gaius Petronius (~27-66 A.D.), the author of "The Satyricon," was the
    emperor Nero's advisor in matters of luxury and extravagance (his unofficial
    title was "arbiter elegantiae). As befitted his office, he slept days and
    partied nights. He was a lover of style, manners, and literature, and his
    personality was characterized by freedom, a lack of self-consciousness, a
    loose tongue, ad an attitude. A rival's jealousy turned Nero against
    Petronius, and he was forced to commit suicide. However, before his death,
    he lampooned Nero in his will and sent the emperor a copy."

    I have not been able to find anything which actually confirms the quotation,
    but my guess is that "Petronius Arbiter" and "Petronius Satyricon" are the
    same person.


  • 4.  (Fwd) Analysis Paralysis - Gov't vs. Private rules

    Posted 02-23-2000 08:53
    In a message dated 2/20/00 5:43:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, Raughley@AOL.COM
    writes:

    > I have not been able to find anything which actually confirms the quotation,
    > but my guess is that "Petronius Arbiter" and "Petronius Satyricon" are the
    > same person.

    And you are unlikely to see anything verifying the quotation. See
    http://www.research.att.com/~reeds/petronius.html for some cites of the lack
    of cites.



    Frank Bell
    Technical Trainer
    Checkpoint Systems (www.checkpointacpg.com)
    101 Wolf Drive
    Thorofare, N. J. 08086
    email: frankwbell@aol.com
    http://members.aol.com/frankwbell