Comments

1. Chris - was thinking the same thing the other day regarding effectiveness of USA State department.

2. Madeline [not so] Albright - most give her a 'D' during her Clinton tenure - and Condoleeza [chicken with] Rice is a 'C' at best. Egads - heresy @ TPC all things women!
They can take it as failures - I mean what have they negotiated anywhere that was an effective deal for the free world?

3. Cool part to me is to private sector contract out many State functions - in other words their payment is based on RESULTS only - whereas State career people & political employees are NOT accountable for results apparently!

4. Classic example of civil servants gone insane - is looney bin of UK National "Health" Service "managers" - with its satanic Islamic jihadist medical "professional employees" ... how many "infidel" children abused or worse over the decades?

Posted by Sean at July 25, 2007 11:04 AM

An important first step is to recognize this behaviour is occurring. Second, we must admit that we are all humans, and yes, we all evaluate "what's in it for me" on any decision. But we must then ask - how do we make it in a human's best interest to cooperate to a common goal?

This is where the Systems Thinkers have been toiling over the recent years. Alfie Kohn points out that we are raised from children to compete, not cooperate. Every childhood game is a game of competition, not cooperation. We confuse capitalism with the need to personally compete with everyone and everything. So, we need to understand this way we are raised to think.

MBA's are trained to manage pieces-parts. Manage the pieces and the whole will take care of itself, they think. Systems Thinkers look at that is is the Interactions that must be managed. Government bureaucracies are especially stove-piped. It is more important to manage the interactions between the parts, only then will the whole be more than the sum of the parts. In today's bureaucracies, we are likely if the whole is even the sum of the parts. Usually it is less.

Personally, I'd say we need to encourage management of interactions, not the parts. "Jointness" was a phrase in the military in the 80's.

I like Tom's predilection to action, but I don't see much theory as to the means. If we can get a bureaucracy off it's posterior with Re-Imagine, then I'd love to see that bureaucracy use Dr. Ackoff's Idealized Design and Systems to get to a new state, and use Dr. Deming's methods to continue to monitor, refine, and act (the PDSA cycle).

- Steve Prevette
Fluor Hanford
ASQ CQE

Posted by Steve Prevette at July 25, 2007 12:00 PM

Two words: "Term Limits"

Posted by Kraig at July 25, 2007 12:37 PM

Part of this is about accountability Chris. When I started work as a 16 year old in my NHS career I was told by a senior boss that I had a job for life as long as I didn't pinch the petty cash or rape the matron. Neither was particularly attractive option for me at 16. The problem with many civil servants in the public sector is – they think the job is all about them and not about the people they provide the service for. I suggested in one moment of madness that Chief Executives in healthcare should have their pay bonus linked to how many patients’ problems they solved the previous month – and they would have to prove it. Needless to say that went down like a lead balloon. There are many thousands of great folks working as civil servants who are very busy cutting down trees …. but they are in the wrong forest. Accountability is the key – looking in the mirror and asking the person you see ‘did I do my best?’ is the only real accountability. I know that now very powerfully. By the way, bad practice and middle management 'stoppers' exist outside the public sector too – I hope we don’t believe this is an illness of public sector alone. A great topic – thanks for raising this Chris.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 25, 2007 1:07 PM

The question is what should they be accoutable for?

Is accountability the key or integrety?
Accountability depends on who you are acountable too and what you are accontable for.

Intergrety is about doing the right thing in order to make progress?

In many ways business is no better than government on that score. The lack of integrety in business is epidemic.

The question I see on terorism is this...is fighting fire with fire working? No.

Maybe we should devise a completly different strategy, one that would metophoricly douse the terrorist flames with water instead.

After all this is an effective method for fighting fires.

It is clear that an eye for a eye approach is just not going to work.

Posted by MLM at July 25, 2007 4:40 PM

Tough one Chris. I suppose the two biggest issues I have run into in my work with the Feds are the entitlement culture of the Civil Service and government employees making decisions based on a narrow value system rather than one that reflects the whole of the population. Full disclosure here, I have worked extensively with the intelligence community and the military in my years with tpc! By and large, the leaders of these organizations were (are) remarkable professionals. One left when he spoke an inconvenient truth to Congress that Rumsfled didn't like. Seems he thought his agency should be independent of the Dept of Defense. Rumsfeld is gone, he is back, giving me a renewed faith that someone recognizes we need his talent in the intelligence community. Below the leaders is a civil service built on the idea that longevity leads to privilege. Results are not held in as high of regard. Having said that, I have seen and experienced that in private corporations as well. I do think the tide is turning however. A large majority of the actual work is being conducted by contract employees, not protected by civil service policies and practices that have clearly outlived their usefulness. What can business leaders do? I am not sure we can do much other than be active responsible citizens and let our views be known. And we might stop the self serving lobbying that runs counter to the common good. I would like to see government employment practices, benefits, and retirement plans tied more to what is prevalent in private industry. It kills me that so many in the federal service are scared of government run health plans, even though they are the primary benefactors of it. You know, I can't be too tough on those that have chosen government as their employer. Being at an undisclosed location (intelligence community :) ) working with the folks there doesn't feel remarkably different than my days at the GM building. I am just not sure we can teach them much.

Posted by Mike Neiss at July 25, 2007 9:20 PM

Interesting that these problems does not seem to be a problem for the terrorists.

They seem to be able to operate in a decentralised, highly motivated fashion. I suspect that a strong set of values and principles is at the heart of what they do (warped, perverse and criminal principles and values but that's not the point they are very powerful and hard to counter).

What can we learn from them to destroy them?

Posted by PaulH at July 26, 2007 2:09 AM

It seems to me the problem isn't civil service / civil servants per se... the problem is the various departments, agencies, organizations and administrations are too dang big.

I'm a vocal critic of the "male, pale and stale" status quo, and of the self-serving, self-protective attitudes that tend to accompany large, entrenched bureaucracies. But one thing I often point out is that Dilbert is based on the corporate world - in other words, these are not just problems within the government.

Posted by Dan Ward at July 26, 2007 8:15 AM

Things are often worse in the government compared to the private sector because they are BIG. Bureaucracy's main output is more bureaucracy. The simple answer is all over these pages. They need a TP revolution. Training the mandarins at all levels. Making it smaller, more accountable, eliminating silos, creating centers of innovation, building bridges with partners etc. etc.
Unfortunately , there is simply very little leadership in the "culture of contentment".

Best of luck

Posted by Steve at July 26, 2007 8:54 AM

1. Mike - I agree with redesign rift of federal government - esp. Defense & Health & Education - $$$zillions could be saved.

2. 30+ years for me as civil servant - now with a 25,000 employee natural resource agency - Smokey Bear & Woodsy Owl & 200 million acres of national forest - a loved agency - seriously underfunded though - am amazed at how dedicated people are esp. @ national & regional offices.

3. Terrorism solutions per Senator Slade Gorton - Seattle [CSPAN paraphrase - he of the 9/11 Commission]:

a. since 1683 Vienna defeat of Ottoman Empire & esp. after WWI partitioning of last Islamic lands - Islam governance has been rejected every time.

b. Islam defeats itself with enslavement of 50% of population - women - so its development & learning curve is very slow.

c. it is Islam internal strife & power struggle - 100+ years to remedy.

d. now & future must kill terror faster & before it kills us.

e. must develop freedom & free world 'fanatics' more fanatic than terrorists to kill it - in other words we all are watchful soldiers - praying/acting out 5 times per day so that it dies early & often.

f. free world freedom fighters must police their own communities - example - acquaintences busted/informed on an Islam money launder ring hiding in 'tolerant' Ashland, Oregon!

g. 75% of Arabs in USA are Christians - massively convert Islamists worldwide to Christianity.

Posted by Sean at July 26, 2007 9:27 AM

Government solved the biggest problem
the world has ever seen - or didn't we win world war II?

Energy is currently the worlds biggest problem -
There would be no terrorism if we had a souce of energy other than middleastern oil -

We need a government lead moon program for energy independance - Jimmy Carter wanted us to think of energy indepenance as the moral equivalent of war and he was right - he 'got it'
to use that phrase in a non-trivial context for once -
Our largest problem in this part of the 21st century is energy independence and we can only get there if government leads the way -
Free enterprise can provide the economic engine to get there, but unifying leadership to solve a problem as large as energy independence can only come from government - a government at least as big as the one that got us to the moon -

Posted by frank at July 26, 2007 12:38 PM

Frank, Great Point!

Islam does not want to play the free Market Capitalist Game, if it wasn’t for their oil, the rest of the world just would not care, and their power would disappear as desert sand in the wind.

When it comes to replacing fossil fuel business has an inept track record. If it is not something that can be implemented and see a return in the next quarter’s profit it just isn’t going to happen.

Current example, Ethanol (“Green” energy) It takes more oil to produce enough fertilizer, needed to produce enough corn, in order to produce enough ethanol, than it does to just burn the fossil fuel in the first place. But, by God it sure is a great PR spin to say “look how GREEN my company is, invest in me I'm solving the problem.”

It will take government with a long-range view for the future to crack this nut.

Sean: as far as forcing the rest of the world to Christianity… that tactic has been tried and it failed dismally. Your thinking is NOT of this Century, in fact it’s stuck back in medieval times. Are you not aware of the Crusades?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

Posted by MLM at July 26, 2007 3:02 PM

Somehow commuting from Frederick MD to DC to solve national security issues seems to undershoot our best chances of matching the passion of our terrorist foes - I think the only way to fire up the talent pool is with a dramatically different recruitment structure.

Incentives. Like everything else, talent tends to follow the money (Silicon Valley, Wall Street, entrepreneurial PSFs). Create "stock options" for federal agencies - better pay/money incentives tied to a market value that should attract better rank & file civil servants and create a better talent pool at the top of federal government.

Posted by bamjenks at July 26, 2007 4:37 PM

The problem with Civil Services often goes back to governments, as they have to administer the legislation the government gives them. So they sit there saying, We're just the administrative arm" - while the government hands down the legislation and then walks away thinking its done its own bit.

It seems to me that instead of focusing so much on the process, we should be focusing on the outcome. It has become rather untrendy in public administrations but I still think we should set target and objective for all sorts of things: reducing coronary illness or illiteracy or domestic burglaries or whatever. Getting the accountability and authority issue between Government and the Civil Service is not an easy one but we need to define them and then hold them accountable.

BTW, I agree on the energy issue. Look too at France: it's quietly built a large nuclear infrastructure and is pretty much energy independent. Oh how I wish the UK had the guts to follow suit.

viagra for sale cheap

Posted by Mark JF at July 27, 2007 2:43 AM

1. Nuclear & electric/nuclear powered vehicles too ... a nuclear muscle car/Harley extraordinaire!

2. 'Crusades' weren't known as that when they happened - key deal is Islam by sword or conversion - whereas Christians [like Jews] wanted to take back their lands & were/are willing to encourage other peaceful faiths.

3. Amazing that even "educated" Islamists feel Mossad [Israel] did the deeds of 9/11 & 7/7. Kill those fantasies early & often.

4. Gaza Strip Palestinians yearn for Israel governance again now that Fatah, Hezbollah, et al are @ war ... Islam always low-IQ late to the party.

Posted by Sean at July 27, 2007 8:10 AM

Just a suggestion for everyone: writing sentences without subjects tends to obscure your meaning. If you write good content without making it easy to read, people are going to simply move on to something else. If you want me to pay attention to your ideas, make the accessible.

I am referring to the comments, not the original post, which was quite readable.

Posted by David at July 28, 2007 5:29 PM

We, as business folks, can only point out the facts governing any large mass of individuals. Either you trim the mass down so that an effective leader can inspire it to go in the right direction or you rely on a culture possessing the proper values. Systems can only minimize degradation

Posted by Scott at July 30, 2007 10:14 AM

Tom Peters has been on a 25 year campaign to
instill into businesses the very things needed to
motivate the people in government agencies to do
what needs to be done.

Can Tom Peters' and related methods work in
government?

prescription viagra prices in canada viagra at discount prices

C. Jackson Grayson, Jr., when Dean of the School
of Business Administration at Southwestern
Methodist University, wrote:

" In the university, I have seen similar responses
— in both human satisfaction and increased
productivity — when I placed responsibility and
accountability at the lowest possible levels and
rewarded people accordingly. As chairman of the
Price Commission during Phase II of the Economic
Stabilization Program, I found the same to be true
in the governmental arena. I delegated important
responsibilities to people at almost unheard-of
lower civil service levels throughout the Price
Commission. People who had never before felt such
pride and involvement in the federal service
became turned-on to their work, took tremendous
pride in what they did, and produced results that
astonished both them and the most critical
observers. Like Vough, I used no special tricks —
just responsibility, accountability, and rewards."

(In the Forward to Productivity by Clair
Vough and Bernard Asbel)

Many other methods such as changes in civil
service and union rules and such as contracting
out would be helpful. But as C. Jackson Grayson
experienced, much can be improved simply by using
methods Tom Peters has taught and practitioners
like Grayson and Vough have used.

Posted by Shakespeare's Fool at August 29, 2007 11:14 PM