A Question Of Bureaucracy

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.

My questions are:

• 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?

Did you know?

Here is a short (5 minute) slide show that may give you some food for thought.

We live in a world that is changing so rapidly that even these facts will be out of date by the time you see this, but invest the 5 minutes anyway.  (updated for 2012)

A Few Inconsistent Words

Consistency has become a hallmark of our society. We place a high value on consistency in our laws and legal system, our public figures, our politicians, our religious leaders. We expect it from our parents, our children, and even expect it from ourselves.

A well placed emphasis on consistency is one of the things that make our society predictable, safe, fair and just; it is an important part of a civilized society.

However, while we depend on consistency to create stability in our lives, we must remember the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and make room in our lives for learning and change.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) Essays – First Series, Self
Reliance

"The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.  Speak what you think now in hard words and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.--'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.'--Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."

The Role of Government

The drama that takes place every day in governmental chambers across the nation deals with the interface of the individual and the community. Each debate, discussion or dialogue has its own tone, hopefully a civil one (see two earlier postings in this blog), all dealing with this sensitive space between the individual (or groups of individuals in association: see the works of John McKnight, Northwestern University) and the community that is created when people come together.

The role of government in the creation of civil society is something that gets daily attention in the press, however this attention is usually focused at the surface, or the visible actions taken by government, not the deeper roots of government, why it exists, or how the government we see relates to the government that was created by the founders of our nation.

There is a huge amount of material available to anyone interested in the role of government ranging from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to the more philosophic works of John Locke and Edmund Burke.

If you are interested in some perspectives on government and its role in our society, here are a few thoughts from some of the great thinkers of the past 350 years.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was one of the early proponents of a small, limited government that received its powers from the law, or a written constitution, and where sovereignty remained with the people rather than a political or royal leader. In addition, Jefferson believed that the government was responsible to the will of the majority, but as the following passage shows, he was aware of the need for the government to respect the rights of the minority as well:

"...that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." Quoted from Jefferson's first inaugural address provided by Wikisource.

This recognition of the majority while understanding government's responsibility to the minority has become one of the central tenets defining the role of government in this country. 

John Adams (1735-1826) felt that the government's role was to ensure happiness, but added a few defining words to clarify what happiness would mean:

"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best." (From John Adams "Thoughts on Government" published April, 1776, provided by Wikisource).

In Adams' view, government was to provide comfort and security to the greatest number of persons. He goes on to say in other writings that the legislative body that represents the people should model the makeup of the community. It should think and act as the community would think and act.

Jefferson and Adams give us a picture of a government that acts in the best interest of the majority to provide comfort and security to the community, and that represents the will of the community in its actions and decisions. (The terms "comfort" and "security" invite greater investigation and definition, however that will be saved for a later blog entry.)

Among the many philosophers that have penned opinions of government, Locke (1632-1704) stands out as one of the more controversial figures. Without going into great detail, for the purposes of this entry it is sufficient to say that Locke gives us two important concepts. The first deals with the Social Contract Theory. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Locke believed that:

...legitimate civil government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed. Those who make this agreement transfer to the civil government their right of executing the law of nature and judging their own case. These are the powers which they give to the central government, and this is what makes the justice system of civil governments a legitimate function of such governments.

From this point of view, the community has given the government the right to develop and implement laws that create the type of society that Jefferson and Adams were describing. 

This is the foundation of a social contract between the government and the governed where the government is given the responsibility for creating a system that will result in the type of society that the members of the community want to achieve. The logic may seem a little circular, however it is interesting that in the end, if the government does not meet the needs of the community, the community has the right to change the government (in Locke's view this change could include revolution).

A second, less complex, but long lasting concept promoted by Locke was that:

"...no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or
possessions..." From the Project Gutenberg eBook of Two
Treatises of Government, by John Locke.

This simple statement found in the writings of Locke worked its way into the constitution of the United States, and has become one of the foundations of government. The statement sounds simple on its face, but when a governing body is weighing competing ideas that affect a community's future the complexities of the concept become very clear.

Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a classic political thinker and philosopher, was a supporter of representative democracy and the principle that elected representatives should act broadly, not in the narrow interests of their supporters. Burke "...was noted for [his] defense of the principles of representative democracy against the notion that elected officials should act narrowly as advocates for the interests of their constituents." (Wikipedia)

Today, the concept of elected officials avoiding (or failing to avoid) special interest entanglements is part of the daily news.

What is often forgotten is that communities are not just a collection of individuals, they are the aggregation of people who have joined together into associations (see the works of John McKnight, Northwestern University), many of which could be considered special interests. Whether it is the Chamber of Commerce, the Sierra Club, or an oil company, communities include groups with narrow interests that wish to gain the favor of elected officials. Burke would argue that those who are elected to represent the public must maintain a broad perspective, and not be guided by supportive special interests.

Today, most citizens take our system of government for granted. Community's members have generally been born and raised in a country that has a reasonably good system of government. Citizens do not have to expend a considerable amount of time monitoring their local governments because in the vast majority of cases the services the government provides, and the comfort and safety provided by the government are sufficient.

Most governments carry out their role, as conceived by the founders of our political systems, in relative peace and harmony. However, when citizens feel that their comfort and safety needs (including fairness, equity, and justice) are not being met it is necessary for a dialogue to occur between the governed and the government. This dialogue, to be effective, needs to take into consideration the role that each party plays.

In this entry we have scratched the surface of the government's role. Perhaps a future entry will deal with the citizen's role; for the role of the citizen is as important to the success of a community as is the role of the government.

Civil Dialogue - Making a Representative Democracy Work

Although it is true that we live in a democratic country, it is also true that the form of democracy that is practiced in the majority of the communities across this the United States is Representative Democracy.

In a true democracy all citizens have an equal vote or voice in shaping policy. And, although this is a noble thought, as the numbers of citizens increases the efficiency of a pure democratic model decreases, eventually reaching the point where there are too many voices to be heard, and too many varying opinions to be considered, bringing the system to a grinding halt.

It is for these reasons that most democratic nations and states in the world today have chosen a form of representative democracy. In this system, the citizens elect representatives to participate in the setting of policies, and governing the community.

A representative democracy requires that citizens have access to their government. This gives the citizens an opportunity to have a dialogue with their elected representatives about issues that affect the community, and gives the representatives a chance to connect with the community to hear local concerns. This keeps communication lines open between the representative and the electors.

But it is in this critical communication process that today's democracy appear to break down. Good communications depends on what is called “Civil Dialogue”. In this case, civil means a respectful, polite (based on the norms of society) exchange, that provides common courtesy to both the citizen and the representative. Dialogue implies both the act of speaking of meaningful community issues, and listening to both the meaning and the concern of the other party. This is a two-way process. Both the citizen and representative must participate is this civil dialogue.

In today’s society American’s have been taught that communication with their representatives must be loud, sarcastic, demeaning, disrespectful, pointed, and full of sound-bites. Shakespeare would have called this “…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

John Cavanaugh, of the Kettering Foundation, in an article titled Understanding the Nature of Representation in a Democracy (Connections, July 2003) described the difficulties of a representative democracy this way:

The most obvious and perhaps largest disconnect between citizens and institutions is the one that separates “We, the People” from what is perceived as “They, the Government.” The public’s generic dissatisfaction with their relationship with government officials strikes at the heart of the Kettering Foundation’s key research questions in the Public-Government Program area: How can citizens and officeholders relate more productively in addressing public policy issues?


Our research to date shows that the means officials and citizens typically use to interact with each other (public hearings, for example) are often quite unsatisfactory, to the point of making a bad relationship even worse. Hence our studies have attempted to identify the causes of the poor working relationship. One root cause seems to be the inability of citizens to appreciate the problems facing officeholders in their sworn duties as political representatives.

Good government starts with good communications between the people and their representatives. It will be strengthened by high quality civil dialogue based on mutual respect. And, it is reinforced by an understanding that the governmental systems we have created require both citizens and representatives to carry out their respective duties.

It is common to think of the duties of the representative to the citizen, but it is equally important to remember that a well informed, educated, participative citizenry is part of the formula for success. Neither can shed the mantle of responsibility. If one fails to perform, the entire system will fail.

Next time you want to communicate with your elected representatives, keep these thoughts in mind. Your participation is critical to the success of our democratic system.

Making a difference - How to work with your City Council

There are thousands of cities and towns in this country (and in democratic nations around the world), the majority of which operate under what is called the "Council - Manager" form of government. In each of these cities and towns the citizens elect a group of people to act as their board of directors - their City or Town Council - that is charged with running the operation of the local government in a way to serves the needs of the people who live, work and play in the community.

In the vast majority of cases, the council member's position is a part-time endeavor, a concept that the founders of this country found most agreeable. The idea that people from a community would take up the responsibility for governing themselves was a hallmark of democracy.

Typically the part-time council members will hire a professional manager who is responsible for carrying out the Council's policies and directions. The City Manager is similar to the CEO in a private company.

Every day the business of government is carried out by councils and managers across the nation. Sometimes the public is happy with the results, and sometimes it is not.

However, regardless of how happy (or not) the public may be, there are times when it is necessary for an individual or group to approach the local government to seek help that only the local government can provide. This is when having some knowledge of how to work with the leaders of your community will be most valuable. Getting the relationship off to a bad start can result in the individual or group setting up an adversarial relationship that clouds the issue at hand. Many times, the relationship becomes the problem, taking all energy and focus off of the original issue that brought the parties together in the first place.

With this in mind, here are a few tips on how to work with your local City Council that will improve the odds of gaining positive support, and accomplishing the result you are trying to attain.

1. Be clear on what you want before starting the conversation. In many instances, what appears to be obvious to one person is not to another. Being sure that you understand what it is you need from the local government, and what role you are going to ask the council to play is an important first step. Identifying a need and running to the council without good facts and background will slow progress to a solution.

2. Think broadly - not narrowly. If you have identified a need that benefits one person, or perhaps a small group, at the expense of the community, you need to think about how you can broaden the benefit. Remember, the council is there to represent the community. Putting them in a position where you are asking them to help you at the expense of the larger community is not a strong position.

3. Meet with your council members early and often. If the first time you have met your council members is when you stand up at a council meeting to ask for help, you are starting from a very weak position. These are people, just like you. They are your neighbors. They need to know who you are, what you want, and why the thing you are asking for is good for the community. Meet with your council members before you show up to ask them for help.

4. Write to your council members. Putting your thoughts in writing is a good way to put your case before the council members. Do this before you show up at a council meeting asking for help. A letter to the council gives them a chance to ask the city manager to look into an issue before having to discuss it in a public meeting. Sometimes the city manager can resolve the problem without even needing to get the council involved. And, be sure to copy the city manager on any correspondence that you send to the council.

5. Create a meaningful, broad based support group. Which do you think is stronger: A) you and the Sierra Club, or B) you combined with the Sierra Club, Chamber of Commerce, the PTA, the local youth sports league, and the senior citizens association? If you answered B, you are correct. Broad based support will win every day. Your job is to find how to bring these diverse people together into a position of support for your proposal.

6. Avoid special interest groups with narrow "me at the expense of you" views. Special interest groups, no matter how important their causes may be, are still special interest groups. The narrower the group, the more likely that they will cause a problem by advocating a single, no compromise, position. This will delay, if not totally kill whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. Think broadly. (See #5 above.)

7. Bring suggestions and solutions, not criticism and problems. Standing up in front of a council and berating them for not solving a problem is not the way to gain their trust and support. Start at suggestion #1 above, cultivate your relationship with the council, and bring them solutions. Yes, describe the problem, but also describe the broad based solutions that will help achieve the desired result.

8. Meet with the city or town staff to be sure you understand the nuances and complexities of the issue. Everyone views the world through their own set of mental filters. Our experiences, our heritage, and our culture all contribute to how we see the world, and, of course, how we identify the obvious solutions. If you have ever had the experience of seeing a political body make a decision and asking yourself "What were they thinking!”, then you have experienced the observation of life through your particular set of filters. The political body was acting from a set of values, norms, or data that you didn’t share. This points out the need to fully understand an issue, from all perspectives, before approaching the council with a request. This takes research, unbiased thought, and a willingness to listen.

9. Talk with Council members again. If you are following the concepts outlined here, you can probably see the value in meeting with your council members again. Once you have a good understanding of the issue, you are prepared to talk with the council in more depth about your concerns, and how the council might be able to help. These meetings should be one-on-one type meetings between you and the council members. The council member may want to have the appropriate city staff member attend. That is fine, and probably helps, so don't object. This gives you a chance to have a dialogue with the council member, not a public debate. Remember, council meetings are not set up for meaningful dialogue. They are business meetings usually governed by Roberts Rules of Order, or some other legal procedure. You can’t have a meaningful dialogue at a business meeting. You need some one-on-one time.

10. Don't surprise the City Council. Your cause will start off on shaky ground if the first time the council hears about it is at a public council meeting. You don’t like to be surprised, and neither do they.

11. Include the City or Town Manager in your correspondence and conversations. The no-surprises rule applies to the city or town manager as well. This person can help you through the maze of governmental process. Help the manager help you by including him or her in your conversations and correspondence. You may also find that starting your conversation with the city manager before going to the city council members will speed you on your way to a solution.

12. Be positive. Eliminate snide, sarcastic, negative comments and humor. When people stand up in public and use cutting, sarcastic humor to make their point, we all think it is very funny. Or do we? If you are trying to get someone to work with you, belittling and demeaning comments will not be particularly helpful. Sarcasm doesn't work. It only makes things worse. You should consider sarcasm as the last refuge of the incompetent. Make your point, be positive and constructive, and work with the council. Do not think that attacking the council in this way will move them into a position of support? If they don’t help you, fine. Run for office. Government needs good citizen representatives to make it work well. But don't chase them away by bringing bad behavior into the process.

13. Cultivate your relationship with the City Council and staff. Don’t just talk to the council and staff when you need something. They are people, just like you. They will be better able to help you when you need it if they know and trust you because of existing relationships. Volunteer to help the library or recreation department. Attend public meetings, and be involved.

14. Don't assume that you know the motivation of a Council member. Many times, usually in frustration over some issue, a citizen will stand up in a public meeting and say something like "I know why you voted the way you did. You secretly want (fill in something bad here) to happen! Your have a hidden agenda!” It may be true that council members have hidden agendas; it happens. However, more than likely, they don’t. And, the assumption on your part that you know their agenda without having talked with the council members away from the public meeting arena, is just that – an assumption. Don’t imply motives to the actions of others. If you have first hand knowledge, then you can act on that. If you do not, keep your assumptions to your self. Remember, you may be back in front of these same people asking for something in the near future. Don’t burn the bridge between you and city hall.

15. Speak for yourself. Don't put words in the mouths of others. Say your truth, but do not speak for others. It is tempting to say that “this is what so-and-so thinks.” It is better to have so-and-so there to speak for her or himself.

16. Stick to your point. Don't try to argue with someone  who is not in the room, or who was previously at the microphone. In a public setting it is very easy to be drawn off point by people who come before the council prior to your turn. Do not be tempted to argue with someone who is no longer standing before the council. This is your time to make your point, and your time is short. Stick to your points, don’t get off track, thank the council for their attention, and be ready to answer questions. The council heard the other person, but this is the time for them to hear you; not the time for them to hear you talk about what someone else said.

17. Attend Council Meetings If the first time you go to a council meeting is when you need something, you have already lost ground. Go to council meetings; watch them on TV or on internet feeds. Get used to how the meeting agenda works. Understand the rules that govern how items are brought before the council. And, be comfortable in the council meeting environment before standing at the podium to ask for help. At a minimum, talk with the city staff prior to the meeting about how the meeting will be run so you can be prepared when the time comes for you to speak.

18. Inflammatory words don't help when speaking from the podium (see sarcasm). Angry people tend to use angry words. There are certain words in every language that, when used in a public forum, generate feelings in the listener that may not help your cause. For example, calling the Mayor a “little Hitler” just before asking the council to approve some request, might not be a good idea. (I’ve seen it done.) If you chose to use emotionally laced words, or words that generate deep feelings in others, be ready for the responses you will get. You will have far more success if you stay to the high road. Be professional. And, follow these recommendations.

19. Speak the truth. Identify opinion for what it is. Use caution when determining what the truth is, it is not always easy to find. Don't let bias cloud the real truth. Truth should be universal, right? Well, not always. When you state facts, facts that you can support by good, unbiased research, name them as facts. When you state conclusions, or opinions based on those facts, name them as such. This eliminates the arguments that invariably follow over what is fact and what is not. This sounds easy, but it is not.

20. Act with courage. Develop a clear vision. Recognize reality. Show your ethics through your care for others. Dr. Peter Koestenbaum, a philosopher, author, lecturer, and leadership mentor (and, in my opinion, one of the wisest people on the planet) talks about the characteristics of greatness. Community leaders, and I am not talking just about the people on the council, are people who can help others see a clear vision of the future, and how that vision is the preferable state of things for the community. They understand the realities of the world: economic, cultural, environmental, just to name a few. They do not propose action irrespective of the realities that the community faces. They acknowledge the realities that exist, and look for ways to deal with the challenges that the real world brings. They show their ethics, their concern for others, through the vision and actions that they propose for the community. And, they have the courage to take on the challenge of making a difference in this world. These characteristics will help you in dealing with elected leaders. It is difficult to say no to someone who has painted an enticing vision of the future and enabled the council to find the path.

Good luck in your dealings with your city and town councils.