I have a couple of thoughts buzzing around in my head this morning, so I thought I'd share them with you and see what you might have to say about these topics.These thoughts grow out of a statement made by Jim Collins in the book Good To Great.
In summary, Collins says that bureaucratic cultures arise to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline, which arise from having the wrong people "on the bus" in the first place. Most companies build their bureaucratic rules to manage a small percentage of the wrong people, which in turn drives away the right people.
What I am wondering is this:
- When you look at the history of government, what you see is the constant creation of bureaucracy. From the earliest governments to today, there has been a constant creation of bureaucratic systems and rules; rules have been piled upon rules - laws on top of laws - systems built upon systems.
- Unlike a company that can, as Collins puts it, "invite people off of the bus", governments must exist within a society that is made up of the "right people" and the "wrong people". Some governments have tried to "invite the wrong people off of the bus." This is often seen as ethnic or cultural cleansing, or other socially unacceptable actions.
- When governments cannot invite the "wrong" people off of the bus, they make laws to prevent the wrong people from behaving in ways that are perceived as wrong by those with the power to make rules.
- If it is true that a company's success is dependent upon having the right people on the bus (having the right people on the team), is it also true that a society's success is dependent upon having the right people within the society? And, if this is true, how does the successful society identify the "wrong" people, and what does the society do with these people who do not contribute to the success of the society?
- Also, if a bureaucracy is the result of incompetence and lack of discipline, which arise from having the wrong people "on the bus"; and a society cannot invite the "wrong" people off of the bus, is every society doomed to have a government and a bureaucracy that develops rules to manage a small percentage of the wrong people, which in turn drives away the right people?
3 comments:
I find this fascinating dialogue. As many of you know, prior to joining the city of Carlsbad I had not worked in government. I attended an OD meeting last night in which a VP of Qualcomm gave a presentation on Change Management. One thing he said was 'if the people won't change, change the people'.
In response to your question: ...'is it also true that a society's success is dependent upon having the right people within the society?' I think that a company or an organization has a charter/mission and this is different than society as a whole. I would question why can't we 'invite people off the bus' and strive for high performing organizations that are also a great place to work. Why can't Government do this? To some extent, should we hold ourselves to a higher standard than private industry? After all, the people don't choose to invest in our company, we require them to contribute their hard earned dollars to us. Shouldn't expectation of the ROI be fairly high?
I'm still learning...
Great points Donna - for the record I am no longer learning... ;)
OK here I go; (Part 1)
My thought on these great questions is that an organization, which I define as a Company or Government organization (non-elected), has a Mission statement and a set of goals that are unique to it. That Mission means that there is a goal that is pursued and people working there need to be acting in a way that gets the goal done. Because a specific goal is identified then I believe it makes sense to only have those on board that are moving toward that goal – any organization with a goal should not put up with people that are not focused on the goal. They can go find a different organization that has a Mission/Goal that they can work to achieve.
Now a Society I believe is a different animal. First of all “society” can be defined in many different ways such as a religious, benevolent, scientific, etc. society. I believe you are referring more to the macro society like the country or world community in this case. In the case of our American society we are a democracy with a constitution and basic rights that we subscribe to. The “mission” that is laid out in these documents is all encompassing and essentially includes everyone within the country – we are all on the bus so to speak. I don’t think we have any desire to kick anyone off of our society bus, or have any latitude to declare someone “right” or “wrong” as we all have our individual freedom. We have a declared value in looking after all members of the society including criminals who we care for at the public’s expense in jails.
So to carry these thoughts to government I would say that our Political wing of the Governmental organization is closer to the “society” model which is all things to all people, inclusive and accepting of all ideas and goals and will reflect the steaming fruitcake of the electorate that they represent. The politician needs to listen to the changing voice of all of society and attempt to meet their needs. Now the Politicians do oversee their governmental organizations but I believe there can be a line drawn between the politics and the organization they oversee if a strong Mission and set of Goals is identified.
I think a governmental organization can determine a set of goals and mission that is a smaller sub set of the broader mandate that a society requires. This exclusive mandate can then be clearly identified in a clear Mission statement with a set of supporting goals which creates a clear direction and defines what actions employees of the organization should be. Therefore there can be a bus for the right people and an exit for those that are not acting appropriately. I agree with the statement Jim made that a bureaucracy is the result of incompetence and a lack of discipline. Often this plays out when an organization does not have a clear mission and set of goals and they react to every political wind that floats through the air. Having discipline to have the political leaders clearly state their Mission and goals is important. Also having the government staff be strong in demanding results to achieve those goals should be part of every governmental organization. People who don’t work toward the goal need to move off the bus.
See Part 2
Part 2
From my years of working at the Federal, then State, and now City level of Government I have seen very positive results when an organization set a clear set of goals and moved people off the bus that were not contributing. I have also seem the drag that happens in organizations that try and run the organization like a society where all people are accepted no matter what actions they do. As Jim mentioned if the wrong people aren’t moved out then rules are created to manage them that strangle the good people.
In our City we do not have a mandate to provide all services to all people no matter where they live or how they act. For example we don’t provide family social services or transit or welfare or legal aid or thousands of other services that society demands. We have an exclusive mandate that is much smaller than that. If we have clearly laid out what we are doing as a mission and have clear goals to get that mission done then I can’t see why we would want to entertain anyone who doesn’t want to work towards those goals.
My question is;
Do we have people on the bus that we think shouldn’t be there? And if so why haven’t there been steps to address this?
Lack of clear Mission and goals to judge a lack of performance by? Or a conflict avoidance culture? Or you are coming to speak to me right now?? :)
Post a Comment