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