System transformation or people vs. systems and structures

One of the things that has bugged me for 20+ years within government, including universities, is a focus on people or jobs rather than systems and structures. E.g., as an involved student, for some reason it always bothered me that the administration office for the Office (or Division) of Student Services was labeled "Office of the Vice President of Student Services," rather than the Office of Student Services.

Similarly, the announcement yesterday(?) that the new State Board of Education is being labeled the Office of the State Superintendent of Education -- again, a focus on the person in the job, albeit the title, rather than on the system and office.

I think there is a belief within the local government that agencies (systems) are so flawed that transformational leadership (amazing people) is required. But too often, leaders don't understand how to truly bring about and implement change.

I think that is an issue in DC Government today. True, the issue is in part about leaders, but more importantly it is about getting thousands of people committed to creating and implementing change. This is true for any government agency.

My interest, especially lately, is in creating robust systems and structures and processes that transcend individual leaders. Otherwise, you don't have much in the way of fundamental improvement.

Of course, I am bringing this up in regards to the appointment of a new Chancellor of the DC Public School System. See:

-- "Janey Leaves With Plans Unfinished," subtitled "After Less Than 3 Years on the Job, Schools Chief Is Negotiating for a Buyout" (Post)
-- "More Criticism Over Fenty's Secrecy," subtitled "Rhee's Selection as Schools Chief, a Shock to Many, Draws Scrutiny" (Post)
-- "Fenty's Picks Have Ties to System, And Its Reforms" (Post)
-- "His own boss, Fenty names a chancellor" (Examiner)
-------------
This entry, "Stultified vs. Flat Organizations, Democracy vs. Autocracy," is reprinted from last month.
-------------
There is an interesting article in a back issue of the National Journal comparing Gov. Schwarzenegger to President Bush. ("Yes, He's Back," by John Maggs in the 2/17/2007 issue.)

The major thesis is that Arnie focuses on a flat organizational structure--promoted by business types such as Jack Welch--and capturing the knowledge and leadership within (in the case of politics, regardless of political stripe, at least to some extent), while President Bush believes in democracy and participation as far as the election is concerned, and then autocracy afterwards.

This comes closest to describing my discontent with how government and civic engagement works in Washington, DC at the local level. Democracy during the election cycle; autocracy afterwards.

So a lot of ability and insight ends up being ignored, and the achievement of excellence, best practices, innovation, and transformation appears to be more and more remote.

From the article:

...the nature of leadership shouldn't change just because of the size and complexity of an organization... As organizations become vastly more complex, the need for flatness actually increases... To avoid being strangled by bureaucracy, complex, "networked" organizations must simplify management. (34)

According to the prevailing management theory, two conditions are crucial for running a large organization through delegation--fostering debate and holding subordinates responsible. (35)

There is an article in the New York Sun about the Community Education Councils, like DC's Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, but for the school system, and how it is proving to be difficult to find people to participate. From "Community Education Councils Struggling To Attract Parents" :

Many council members say they are often consulted only after major decisions are made and have little influence on policy-making. Others complained that the training they receive is not sufficient for even experienced members to grasp the procedures and analysis — often of complicated policy — required of the councils.

"We're asking ourselves now, Where do we come in? And there's not a real complete picture," a member of District 14's council in Brooklyn, Mario Aguila, said. "I think people don't really see the role of the CEC."

This doesn't surprise me. Without allowing for substantive, real involvement, people don't participate. On the other hand, an ANC like ANC6A proves that able, committed people can make a difference.

The thing is that people need to be trained in order to be able to get the most out of their participation. The reason that many ANCs fail in DC is that fundamentally, there is no training infrastructure at all--even though there are many examples across the United States of best practice citizen training in civic affairs.

From the National Journal article:

But the trend in management theory is to exalt process over policy. Put another way, modern management says that without the right process, you won't be able to implement any policy, and you might even choose the wrong policy. Get the process right, and you'll end up with the right policy. Welch [Jack Welch, Chair and CEO of General Electric] delivered spectaular profit numbers, but most of his time was devoted to an endless quest to improve management at GE. He spent more time teaching at GE's famous management academy than he did attending board meetings... (34)

Also see the books Empowered Participation and Deliberative Democracy, authored or co-authored by Archon Fung, and the Neighbourhoods & Social Capital blog from the UK (among others -- I have dozens of links on civic engagement in the right sidebar).

From Arnstein, Sherry R. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35: 4, July 1969.
----------------
Also see this blog entry from March, "Personalization vs. systems and structures in government."