Comments

Your very interesting post sent me scurrying to find what I believe are two very pertinent quotes from E.F. Schumacher's
Small is Beautiful. The first;

"Once a large organization comes into being, it normally goes through alternating phases of centralizing and decentralizing, like swings of a pendulum. Whenever one encounters such opposites, each of them with persuasive arguments in its favour, it is worth looking into the depth of the problem for something more than compromise, more than half-and-half solution. Maybe what we really need is not either-or but the one-and-the-other-at-the-same-time."

And the second, my favorite:

"Without order, planning, predictability, centreal control, accountancy, instructions to the underlings, obedience, discipline - without these nothing fruitful can happen, because everything disintegrates. And yet - without the magnanimity of disorder, the happy abandon, the entreneurship venturing into the unknown and incalculable, without the risk and gamble, the creative imagination rushing in where bureaucratic angels fear to tread - without this , life is a mockery and a disgrace."

Posted by Ciaran McCabe at September 15, 2005 2:22 PM

I'm a babe in the woods in my industry (15 years/ IT) and I've seen IT companies centralize and de-centralize at breakneck speed during that time.

But what I've noticed - and Tom, you taught me this - no matter what the org chart sez, it's the leaders with passion (make that PASSION) that make a company (government, school, baseball team) what it is.

I call your attention to a recent article in Fast Company that profiles Arlene Blum - talk about Leadership!!!!

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/17/tothetop.html?partner=rss

Posted by Jim Cooper at September 15, 2005 3:16 PM

Yes - the thought of a Washington based politically motivated group chills the heart - but what's the alternative? A New Orleans based political/criminal enterprise let loose with our billions of dollars?

These people have made a mess of Louisiana and you expect better with more money? Get Real.

Posted by Fred at September 15, 2005 3:31 PM

isn't the issue here that there is NO best practice - whether you should be centralised/decentralised/process driven/innvovative depends so hugely on your industry, your organisation, your culture and its circumstances that trying to dictate that for each and every scenario is a worthless task. That is not to say that there aren't trends that might be desirable given economic or other realities (and TP is one of the great soothsayers on trends that might be impt).

However, whatever the general picture a stricken ship will sometimes need a strong captain and obedient crew. At other times it is the initiative of someone down the food chain who is the person that saves the day.

Just my thoughts (after a couple of English pints of beer!).

Posted by Freddie Daniells at September 15, 2005 3:43 PM

Being a doubting Thomas myself of absolutes, I tend to think that there is no champion of this debate. As in management styles, which evolve as an employee evolves, from initial direction (explaining, instructing) all the way to empowerment (setting free to be), our systems must evolve as necessary. Ideally, our systems (be they governmental or corporate) would be flexible enough for such give and take, to bend like a willow rather than be rigid like an oak. Because we change, because our environment changes, because history unfolds in unpredictable ways, the most frictionless approach requires flexibility. To be the water in the stream, flowing in one direction, but allowing ourselves to rise and ebb and even cut new paths when needed.

The best approach is human. In every situation, what is the best that can be done for the sake of my fellow man? And because my fellow man changes like myself so often in the day, our 'systems' or approaches or methods or responses must change, adapt and flex to accommodate his change and yours and mine.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at September 15, 2005 4:10 PM

Love the post by the way Tom! You must have either had a good breakfast today or been fasting for a while. You reached a deep place and found focus in its expansive recesses.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at September 15, 2005 4:12 PM

And Ciaran, I love the quotes from Schumacher. Spot on in this dialogue!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at September 15, 2005 4:14 PM

Tom Peters said "It's always easier to restrict freedom than to reclaim it after restriction."

I apologize for taking such a narrow quote from your comprehensive and well rounded post, but this idea is very much in tune with some concerns I have been having lately.

We are raised with our freedom taken for granted with the result that we very often do not know how lucky we are. I have had the very good fortune to have spent my formative years in an American home outside the States. It made me a sort of domestic import in the different countries I grew up in, in that I was put on a pedestal simply because I was an American even though I didn't come to live in the States until I was 11. It was always very awkward when that inevitable question would come, “What is it like in America?” to have to answer as tactfully as I could without dashing their joy at having met a real live American, “Uh, I don’t know. I’ve never been there.” This bizarre experience gave me something that I will cherish for the rest of my life. I grew up to see America as outsiders see her. I grew up listening to my mother’s and my father’s stories about their childhood and I also absorbed the dreams that people of other nations associate with America. I grew up loving the idea of freedom. When I first came to the States I was dazzled by the fact that my dreams had come true and for the first year I saw her as through the lens of a 1940's romance. After a time I realized that many of the children I was going to school with did nothing but criticize America, constantly. I would try to bring perspective into conversations by reminding everyone how lucky they were to be raised in a country where everything is possible and where the ordinary person really does have the chance to make a break for themselves and their family.

I guess my point is this: Freedom is a wonderful thing which should be cherished. It should never be treated lightly or used to bargain with, and it must never be taken for granted. Throughout most of history the majority of the world’s population have had no say and no rights; the lay of the land settled by much more powerful forces. When it comes to the issues surrounding the intrusion into our lives by an impersonal, centralized bureaucracy, please, before we make up our minds, let us think very carefully about what a precious thing our freedom is and not give up any part of it without a fight.

Posted by Cassandra Helm at September 15, 2005 4:24 PM

While of course no system is perfect - that human factor will always find a "point of failure" even the best planner didn't anticipate - a good disaster prevention and recovery plan is possible, particularly when the points of failure, such as in the case of Katrina are so well documented and to a large extent physical (levees, power plants, etc.) A plan could be designed that wouldn't be reliant on the abilities of whomwever was in power locally or at the federal level.

It's worthwhile to note that while the nabobs are nattering about rebuilding - the "little people" are already doing so (and some in fact never left. For example - Molly's in New Orleans somehow scrounging - ahem - finding ice and beer and staying open through it all. Perhaps not a sterling clean-living example for the more conservative amongst us, but you have to admire their moxie.)

One definitive answer: As well illustrated and discussed above, there isn't one. But, that doesn't mean we can't do much, much better and we each, as American citizens have to take part of the responsibility in doing so.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at September 15, 2005 5:24 PM

Interesting that we've (the U.S) been focusing on centralization when Al Qaeda's "successes" (it hurts to use that word) around the world have been due to their decentralized structure. Seems we may be running in the wrong direction.

All this talk of centralized big government sparked some thoughts I've had recently about China's conundrum. Can they have their cake (centralized communist government) and eat it too (capitalist economic model)? The announcement this week that they would no longer keep news of their own natural disasters was refreshing, but it seems they have some hard decisions ahead of them.

As for Wal-Mart, Molly's, et al: Implementation beats planning 9 times out of 10!

Posted by Russ Seagle at September 15, 2005 10:03 PM

What does a leader do? Does she tell people how to their jobs? No, she tells them what the goal is and lets the people who are doing the job figure out the best way do it. They are the ones who understand what will work and what won't. Does she just let them do whatever they want or do nothing? No, they have to show that they have a plan and that it will achieve the goal. Washington doesn't need to do everything themselves. They need to make sure that local agencies have a plan and the means to carry it out. They need to provide guidance and information. They need to provide whatever resources are lacking. Just like a leader would do.

Posted by Marianne Powers at September 15, 2005 11:14 PM

Centralisation = detachment = an ever-loosening grip on reality.

Could a football coach content himself to receiving a report of his team's latest game, played out whilst he was in meetings about the new stadium he'd like to see built or the possibility of a franchise move? Could he be willing to have a subordinate endlessly rationalise the reasons for defeat, having denied himself the opportunity to observe and act as defeat was unfolding? Could he think the way forward was to be found in a conference room, rather than on the practice field?

The coach on the sidelines isn't longing for a plush office in the administrative building; he wants to be in the huddle.

Posted by Phil Lynch at September 16, 2005 2:49 AM

The centralised or decentralised, process or innovation points are valid but I think the heart of this debate is PEOPLE. Marianne makes a good point about leadership but it's also about having great followers: people who are motivated, flexible, realistic and with a can-do attitude. Whichever regime you work in, if your focus is on processing paper and getting home as quick as possible, we have a problem. If your focus is on delivering a service and you think about each issue you work with, we're getting there. Easy to say, harder to do: leaders need to develop, encourage, motivate, reward and cheerlead such followers wherever they work.

Posted by Mark JF at September 16, 2005 3:47 AM

Take a look at this 'Risk Taking - What Risks' http://simplicityitk.blogspot.com/

Tom just asked me to post this link to TP.com - I think those of us of a certain age will enjoy :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 16, 2005 6:17 AM

Interesting post !! Seems your mind is in the zone of "coulda/shouda" leadership style suddenly !!

I think a strong leader is one who aspires to make other people seccessful. I think "its easier to let the cat outa the bag then to put it back in" - Jack(??)

Anyhot, the point is that leaders are there to help people do what they dream of doing. Either one is a piller and light for them or not. Period.

Posted by /pd at September 16, 2005 9:07 AM

Trevor - brilliant! Add to the list: "And when we grew up, we made (and were expected to make) decisions based on judgement as well as analysis. If we saw a problem or an opportunity, we were expected to act. We didn't need 87 Excel spreadsheets to prove it and 4 commitees to vet it, nor did we go into CYA mode and ask for umpteen signatures to sign it off. If we got it grossly wrong, we either got stuck into sorting it out or we resigned."

Posted by Mark JF at September 16, 2005 9:12 AM

Superb response Mark - I love that!

Some of my best friends are healthcare accountants and some of my arguments with them are legendary. In their view of course I am a non-numbers man concerned with all that ‘soft and fluffy stuff.’

So be it BUT!!!!

I still do not understand why two hospitals in the same town have to send bills to each other when it is all NHS (Government) money. Both hospitals have a finance member of staff employed to send and receive the bills..... All paid from the same NHS ‘purse’ … crazy crazy crazy!!! Or am I missing something I ask myself!

When I ask such questions I am told I do not understand the technical financial issues involved ... TOO RIGHT I DON'T!!! – ‘technical financial issue’ baffles brains ...just like B******T in my book.

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 16, 2005 10:26 AM

Centralization has never has worked effectively in large organizations. Certainly cases can be made for economies of scale and diminishing returns and other appropriate applications with regard to manufacturing and distribution processes but they don’t really address the HUMAN side of things. For things to work on a human scale, things have historically seemed to run best when individual incentive and reward is there. (There is a Thoreau quote bouncing around somewhere in my mind that I can’t currently access that makes reference to all progress being dependent upon an unreasonable individual.)

One can look at the centralization issue and the disaster response issue in terms of a ship. Big ships are typically comprised of many watertight compartments that can be closed off and help the ship maintain buoyancy in the event one or more of them are compromised. If the U.S. is a ship comprised of 50 watertight compartments (states), think of how much safer that ship is than one with a single compartment. If you create additional watertight compartments (counties, cities, and towns) within each of the 50 (states) then how much better are your chances of surviving a collision with an occasional iceberg.

Did management theory fail us? I don’t think it did Tom. I think much of the theory is sound I just not sure it was applied in the best way. This really is a case of efficient versus effective as was already noted in an earlier post. Much of management theory is comprised of making things efficient – especially in centralization theory. I think there is a natural tendency towards symmetry. We like to create systems where everything fits, is all the same type, requires the same processes, etc. In many management problems, this type of thinking often works. When faced with a 25 foot surge you have little time to make decisions going up and down a chain of command or consult the policy and procedure manual. After the surge rolls through (destroying many of your assets you had planned to use in response) and you have thousands of incidents to respond to over a 90,000 square mile area you have to shift your thinking from efficient to effective. You have to respond to what you have in front of you with whatever you have available. It is a time of chaos, and the systems you had planned to use are no longer available. This is a time for WOW thinkers who can work outside of centralized management structure. To me this is the metaphor of the ship and the compartments. The very fact that is not one system is what creates its strength. That is why I think an effective solution is not solely or primarily federal – it is at every level in the system.

A further point to keep you leaning left of centralization. I don’t think you need to rethink this central tenant in an age of terrorism. I would submit that one needs to maintain it all the more vigorously because of the very reason you had the belief in the first place (restricting freedom is easier than regaining it). Benjamin Franklin summed it up for me when he said, “They that give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Centralization simply has never worked well for any long term - in our government nor any other. Thankfully, our founding fathers had the foresight to create a system that decentralized our federal government by creating separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches. There was a reason they did that. I think we should take their advice.

Posted by walter white at September 16, 2005 4:52 PM

I understand that tension between centralization and decetralization as the state of being on the flow, constant adaptation, constant change. Was at any time different?

"In enterprise as in government the truth is that there is not truth". I am sure Mr. Peters used the word truth without capitals because there is a Truth with capitals; that point where no one will add a word more, in the path of high values and principles.That Truth has been always represented like a quiet and almost ignored character and it still continues being the hardest and more valuable thing to find too. Now please, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just would like to make this clear.

Posted by Omara at September 16, 2005 5:30 PM

Tom:
I think your response was unusually lame. The purpose of us "fixing" the government after 9/11 was so that we would do a better job "next time." Well, we did a worse job. So it's not about centralization or localization. It's about creating a process that works. How hard is that? Well, let's see. If a hurricane comes into town, what needs to be done? Who needs to do it? Who can organize that? Let's see, are there any levees to fix before the hurrican arrives? These are things we can plan for. If we don't, then we pay a heavy toll. It's not about centralization or decentralization. It's about careful, thoughtful planning. It's about caring about the people who live in this country, whether they are rich white guys or poor black women. Of course, if you cared about people, you might hesitate to bomb them in other countries as well. That does not seem to high on the governments agenda. They just didn't care. And they still don't.
Bob Niederman

Posted by Bob Niederman at September 18, 2005 1:23 AM

Tom and Trevor and even Dawson, et. al: the new BusinessWeek makes a point to declare that many many of Katrina victims are being hired away from GULF status by [evacuee and other] states that need their labor and talent!

Places where there is extremely low unemployment and higher productivity - new people delighted to be in Salt Lake City, Seattle, Dallas, Phoenix [perhaps even LA]!

The USA migration continues - the NEOmania that drives its citizens to optimize even while recovering from tragedy! Now we must get the liberal Democrats to move out of the way of revamping education in the USA so citizens can compete with the NEW Chindia wave of free enterprise.

http://www.businessweek.com/

Posted by Sean at September 18, 2005 9:52 AM

That is fascinating Sean - thank you my friend.

In my experience, people in crisis come up with creative and practical survival and coping skills. I am in awe of the folks affected by this hurricane. So sad to see so much mayhem and personal tragedy but uplifiting to see so much pragmatism and vision from ordinary people. As a Brit I do not like to offer many comments about your current tragedy – I do not feel it is in my place. Your people have enough to deal with at this time. I have always said the time for finger pointing is when things have settled down and more measured comment can be made. I am so pleased I have got to know so many wonderful American people through Blogging. I guess I may also be an old romantic but I genuinely it is a very special relationship that Britain and America enjoy.

Posted by Trevor at September 18, 2005 3:25 PM

Marianne - thank you very much for your kind comment - much appreciated. Those 4 points are the basis of a chapter I am writing for a new book as co-author with two friends. I have decided the following 3 will be my Simplicity mantra for 2006!

1 Staff at the front line know ALL the answers ALL the time

2 If managers have a job at all in 2006 it is to make it easy for front line staff to do their job with freedom.

3 Give all the money – YES ALL THE MONEY to front line staff.

Posted by Trevor at September 18, 2005 3:58 PM

Sean, I totally agree with on "of revamping education in the USA so citizens can compete with the NEW Chindia wave" - by 2008 America's need apporx 3M , yes 3 Million Scenice Grads with a high level of maths skills. This calls for approx 256K teachers who can teach those skills. There are hardly approx 100K avialable in the market today.. so the Educational system is actually suddenly waking.. Yup I just read the report this weekend.

To boot, the American student stands 27th in the list of maths skills. Finland, China, India are the buggers who head the list.. !!

Posted by /pd at September 19, 2005 8:21 AM

Tom I disagree and I think that you do too – down inside your heart. Don’t let set backs make you waver (easy to say as I am wavering myself on another issue). You argue for decentralisation to allow for freedom and innovation. But without limits don’t we just descend into chaos (and NO is just another example how chaos is interested in us)? I would argue that we don’t need centralisation of power, we need the power of centralisation to be harnessed by a network of individuals – aka the community.
When chaos is at hand, communications start to break down. People who are “engaged citizens” stand up and take charge. If they believe, they will act accordingly. As I former infantry officer I would have exercises where I would simulate being knocked out of action, and then the rest of the normal decision makers and then see what happens. The results was often not efficient, but effective.
Centralisation stagnates creative thinking and results in preparedness against “non-chaos” events. As we often “plan for the last war”, we finally get blindsided down the road (who would have thought in Moscow that the US would wage an economic war against them – until it was too late).
Unfortunately this might be pie in the sky – but this is why I come to you Tom. With forklifts for the mind, passion and freedom we can build the networked community for our children.

Posted by Steve Robert at September 21, 2005 9:43 PM

Hello. I realy like your site. is best of best

Posted by ME at October 1, 2005 11:48 AM

Hello. I realy like your site. is best of best

Posted by ME at October 2, 2005 1:26 PM

Hello. I realy like your site. is best of best

Posted by ME at October 2, 2005 2:13 PM