Discussion: View Thread

Hello all,

I would like to be as brief as possible, but with the complexity of issues it
may not be possible. My questions are probably more like observations on the
vagaries of public sector organisations, than they are seeking answers. But
here goes....

I work as a Senior Policy Advisor (in an operational area) for the State's major
road building Department. It is an engineering-focussed, public sector
organisation with an annual budget of AUD$1 billion and a staff of well over
4,000. I am completing a Masters in Organisational Communication/Management
this June so I'm very interested from an academic point of view about
organisational issues, including the strategic directions about how to best
place this Department for the new century.

I know its all very well to have lofty points of view when you're a fence sitter
(like me), but I find some of the strategic and organisational decisions made
about systemic matters to be bewildering. So I'm turning to this forum in an
attempt to make sense of my part of the world. Why is it that public sector
organisations continually preoccupy themselves with reorganisation? And why is
it they're hellbent on metamorphosing into some hybrid commercial structure to
satisfy the public that its user-pays? Public sector is not private sector and
never will be. Or am I wrong?

From my experience, public sector organisations are and will always be
bureaucracies, characterised by a well-defined heirarchy. Intrinsic to
hierarchies are, of course, well-defined organisational structures delineating
reporting responsibilities and spans of control. Also from my experience,
public sector managers are generally uneasy about groups of people supervising
themselves and directly reporting to senior management levels. There are often
myriads of entangled, confusing reporting structures designed to sanitise the
message so its fit for higher levels of management.

So my questions really come down to rhetoric and reality. Is it the case that a
little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Can public sector organisations ever
fully embrace the latest OD approaches such as learning organisation, knowledge
management and complex systems principles? Public sector organisations are tied
to Weber's bureaucratic paradigm, which reveres order, rationality, impersonal
administration, efficiency and political accountability through a
centrally-controlled system of rules. There is no room for edge-sitting here,
or is there? Staff are introduced to concepts such as diversity, leadership,
training, self-managed teams, open-door management, innovation etc etc through
various workshops. Papers are produced, but nothing ever changes. We support
the budget, spend the money, defend the policies and serve the electorate. I've
been here 5 years or so and the words used by managers may have changed (they
love using the latest buzzwords!), the same people sit in front of different
desks, but restructure after restructure, and another few million dollars later,
still nothing changes. The work remains the same, done by the same people at
the same level reporting to the same kind of middle management structure. I
guess what I'm saying here is probably not confined to this Department, this
State, or this country.

So in large public sector organisations, do you think its the case that change
is fragmented and incremental? Change that can only occur at the fringe? Can
this change be better managed? Are the entrenched historical values, past
alliances, and political structures too strong in public sector organisations to
support OD approaches that require a "radical" paradigm shift? In other words,
is it possible for public sector organisations to REALLY change?

Sorry about the long post folks. I also hope my musings aren't too boring, its
probably out of a sense of frustration that I feel the need to vent my speen
somewhat. Your superior knowledge and experience about this area will be most
welcome.

Thank you for your time.

Wendy Corfield





*************************************************************
Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads, or
of Queensland Transport. If you have received this electronic
mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender
and delete the message from your computer.

Wendy,
I see you are located down-under, and I know nothing of Australian politics.
If you lived in the U.S.A., I would reply to your e-mail as follows:

Speaking from the far side of 70 years of observation of the public sector
in action, I have concluded that any driving forces for change consist of
elected and appointed officials conducting business in a manner which
assures they remain in office. Government governs as if the taxpayer has
deep, pockets, and that no cost is too great if it assures re-election.

Your road-building department is most likely used as a political tool and
policy maker to support the governor's office rather than serve the public.
Which accounts for much of the problem you are seeing.

It hasn't changed here in over 300 years. In fact, it is getting much
worse.

Dick Montgomery
20th Century Cooperative

Email us if you would like to see
our monthly I.T. business-related
executive newsletter.

"Our mission is to increase your sales."
http://www.chemmgrs.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy L Corfield" <Wendy.L.Corfield@MAINROADS.QLD.GOV.AU>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 2:06 AM
Subject: Analysis Paralysis - long post


> Hello all,
>
> >
> I work as a Senior Policy Advisor (in an operational area) for the State's
major
> road building Department. It is an engineering-focussed, public sector
> organisation with an annual budget of AUD$1 billion and a staff of well
over
> 4,000. I am completing a Masters in Organisational
Communication/Management
> this June so I'm very interested from an academic point of view about
> organisational issues, including the strategic directions about how to
best
> place this Department for the new century.
>
>

Hopefully, this posting will go to the group ... I lost my directions on how to post .... if not, at least it will get to you, Wendy.

Offering the same caveat as Mr. Montgomery, my experience speaks only to life in the US ... and offers a perspective from working in both public and private entities ... FWIW ....

Change and implementation of organizational development practices can and does occur in the public sector. While elected and appointed officials certainly do drive much of the surface change and influence policies, etc. emerging from governmental entities, "bureaucrats" keep the machine running. Civil servants are the individuals who can truly affect change within the system because they are the ones that keep it running through the political winds and storms. The question becomes whether or not the civil servants have the skills to formulate it (professional expertise, persuasion skills) and the commitment to make it happen.

The well-defined hierarchy that exists within the public sector can actually benefit the core group trying to affect change. While it often doesn't make sense to people outside the walls, civil servants understand how the system functions and who drives what aspects of the operations ... it can be a very well-run machine.

Many of the observations offered by Ms. Corfield (re: constant restructuring, commercial hybridization, etc.) aren't limited to the public sector. Over time, the public sector seems to be losing ground with people (potential employees and "customers"). Public sector never will be private sector - the motivations are different and the purpose is not the same. But there will be many similarities and many opportunities for shared learning among entities on both sides of the fence.

Public agencies must fulfill the agenda of the elected officials, but effective ones do so with "the public need" as one component of plans to meet that agenda. I've witnessed and been a part of change efforts to infuse OD principles into a government agency (a transportation-related one at that), and while it takes a GREAT deal of time (as it would anywhere), the rewards can be even more satisfying.

Change in the public sector (and elsewhere) requires an effective advocate or core group of advocates who have the drive, the passion, the respect and the perseverence to take things one at a time and demonstrate success along the way ... baby steps ....

-Melanie Schmidt
melanieschmidt@alliant-energy.com



>>> Wendy.L.Corfield@MAINROADS.QLD.GOV.AU 02/16/00 01:06AM >>>
Hello all,

I would like to be as brief as possible, but with the complexity of issues it
may not be possible. My questions are probably more like observations on the
vagaries of public sector organisations, than they are seeking answers. But
here goes....

I work as a Senior Policy Advisor (in an operational area) for the State's major
road building Department. It is an engineering-focussed, public sector
organisation with an annual budget of AUD$1 billion and a staff of well over
4,000. I am completing a Masters in Organisational Communication/Management
this June so I'm very interested from an academic point of view about
organisational issues, including the strategic directions about how to best
place this Department for the new century.

I know its all very well to have lofty points of view when you're a fence sitter
(like me), but I find some of the strategic and organisational decisions made
about systemic matters to be bewildering. So I'm turning to this forum in an
attempt to make sense of my part of the world. Why is it that public sector
organisations continually preoccupy themselves with reorganisation? And why is
it they're hellbent on metamorphosing into some hybrid commercial structure to
satisfy the public that its user-pays? Public sector is not private sector and
never will be. Or am I wrong?

From my experience, public sector organisations are and will always be
bureaucracies, characterised by a well-defined heirarchy. Intrinsic to
hierarchies are, of course, well-defined organisational structures delineating
reporting responsibilities and spans of control. Also from my experience,
public sector managers are generally uneasy about groups of people supervising
themselves and directly reporting to senior management levels. There are often
myriads of entangled, confusing reporting structures designed to sanitise the
message so its fit for higher levels of management.

So my questions really come down to rhetoric and reality. Is it the case that a
little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Can public sector organisations ever
fully embrace the latest OD approaches such as learning organisation, knowledge
management and complex systems principles? Public sector organisations are tied
to Weber's bureaucratic paradigm, which reveres order, rationality, impersonal
administration, efficiency and political accountability through a
centrally-controlled system of rules. There is no room for edge-sitting here,
or is there? Staff are introduced to concepts such as diversity, leadership,
training, self-managed teams, open-door management, innovation etc etc through
various workshops. Papers are produced, but nothing ever changes. We support
the budget, spend the money, defend the policies and serve the electorate. I've
been here 5 years or so and the words used by managers may have changed (they
love using the latest buzzwords!), the same people sit in front of different
desks, but restructure after restructure, and another few million dollars later,
still nothing changes. The work remains the same, done by the same people at
the same level reporting to the same kind of middle management structure. I
guess what I'm saying here is probably not confined to this Department, this
State, or this country.

So in large public sector organisations, do you think its the case that change
is fragmented and incremental? Change that can only occur at the fringe? Can
this change be better managed? Are the entrenched historical values, past
alliances, and political structures too strong in public sector organisations to
support OD approaches that require a "radical" paradigm shift? In other words,
is it possible for public sector organisations to REALLY change?

Sorry about the long post folks. I also hope my musings aren't too boring, its
probably out of a sense of frustration that I feel the need to vent my speen
somewhat. Your superior knowledge and experience about this area will be most
welcome.

Thank you for your time.

Wendy Corfield

Hello. I am sorry to reply to this message, but am unable to unsubscribe to this message. If someone could send me the address of where to send the message, I would greatly appreciate it. Nothing seems to work. Thanks. Shirley Fedorovich

Melanie Schmidt wrote:

> Hopefully, this posting will go to the group ... I lost my directions on how to post .... if not, at least it will get to you, Wendy.
>
> Offering the same caveat as Mr. Montgomery, my experience speaks only to life in the US ... and offers a perspective from working in both public and private entities ... FWIW ....
>
> Change and implementation of organizational development practices can and does occur in the public sector. While elected and appointed officials certainly do drive much of the surface change and influence policies, etc. emerging from governmental entities, "bureaucrats" keep the machine running. Civil servants are the individuals who can truly affect change within the system because they are the ones that keep it running through the political winds and storms. The question becomes whether or not the civil servants have the skills to formulate it (professional expertise, persuasion skills) and the commitment to make it happen.
>
> The well-defined hierarchy that exists within the public sector can actually benefit the core group trying to affect change. While it often doesn't make sense to people outside the walls, civil servants understand how the system functions and who drives what aspects of the operations ... it can be a very well-run machine.
>
> Many of the observations offered by Ms. Corfield (re: constant restructuring, commercial hybridization, etc.) aren't limited to the public sector. Over time, the public sector seems to be losing ground with people (potential employees and "customers"). Public sector never will be private sector - the motivations are different and the purpose is not the same. But there will be many similarities and many opportunities for shared learning among entities on both sides of the fence.
>
> Public agencies must fulfill the agenda of the elected officials, but effective ones do so with "the public need" as one component of plans to meet that agenda. I've witnessed and been a part of change efforts to infuse OD principles into a government agency (a transportation-related one at that), and while it takes a GREAT deal of time (as it would anywhere), the rewards can be even more satisfying.
>
> Change in the public sector (and elsewhere) requires an effective advocate or core group of advocates who have the drive, the passion, the respect and the perseverence to take things one at a time and demonstrate success along the way ... baby steps ....
>
> -Melanie Schmidt
> melanieschmidt@alliant-energy.com
>
> >>> Wendy.L.Corfield@MAINROADS.QLD.GOV.AU 02/16/00 01:06AM >>>
> Hello all,
>
> I would like to be as brief as possible, but with the complexity of issues it
> may not be possible. My questions are probably more like observations on the
> vagaries of public sector organisations, than they are seeking answers. But
> here goes....
>
> I work as a Senior Policy Advisor (in an operational area) for the State's major
> road building Department. It is an engineering-focussed, public sector
> organisation with an annual budget of AUD$1 billion and a staff of well over
> 4,000. I am completing a Masters in Organisational Communication/Management
> this June so I'm very interested from an academic point of view about
> organisational issues, including the strategic directions about how to best
> place this Department for the new century.
>
> I know its all very well to have lofty points of view when you're a fence sitter
> (like me), but I find some of the strategic and organisational decisions made
> about systemic matters to be bewildering. So I'm turning to this forum in an
> attempt to make sense of my part of the world. Why is it that public sector
> organisations continually preoccupy themselves with reorganisation? And why is
> it they're hellbent on metamorphosing into some hybrid commercial structure to
> satisfy the public that its user-pays? Public sector is not private sector and
> never will be. Or am I wrong?
>
> >From my experience, public sector organisations are and will always be
> bureaucracies, characterised by a well-defined heirarchy. Intrinsic to
> hierarchies are, of course, well-defined organisational structures delineating
> reporting responsibilities and spans of control. Also from my experience,
> public sector managers are generally uneasy about groups of people supervising
> themselves and directly reporting to senior management levels. There are often
> myriads of entangled, confusing reporting structures designed to sanitise the
> message so its fit for higher levels of management.
>
> So my questions really come down to rhetoric and reality. Is it the case that a
> little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Can public sector organisations ever
> fully embrace the latest OD approaches such as learning organisation, knowledge
> management and complex systems principles? Public sector organisations are tied
> to Weber's bureaucratic paradigm, which reveres order, rationality, impersonal
> administration, efficiency and political accountability through a
> centrally-controlled system of rules. There is no room for edge-sitting here,
> or is there? Staff are introduced to concepts such as diversity, leadership,
> training, self-managed teams, open-door management, innovation etc etc through
> various workshops. Papers are produced, but nothing ever changes. We support
> the budget, spend the money, defend the policies and serve the electorate. I've
> been here 5 years or so and the words used by managers may have changed (they
> love using the latest buzzwords!), the same people sit in front of different
> desks, but restructure after restructure, and another few million dollars later,
> still nothing changes. The work remains the same, done by the same people at
> the same level reporting to the same kind of middle management structure. I
> guess what I'm saying here is probably not confined to this Department, this
> State, or this country.
>
> So in large public sector organisations, do you think its the case that change
> is fragmented and incremental? Change that can only occur at the fringe? Can
> this change be better managed? Are the entrenched historical values, past
> alliances, and political structures too strong in public sector organisations to
> support OD approaches that require a "radical" paradigm shift? In other words,
> is it possible for public sector organisations to REALLY change?
>
> Sorry about the long post folks. I also hope my musings aren't too boring, its
> probably out of a sense of frustration that I feel the need to vent my speen
> somewhat. Your superior knowledge and experience about this area will be most
> welcome.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Wendy Corfield