Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By Frank DiGiammarino
We have Bureausclerosis
An old American proverb states: “You can’t leap a twenty-foot gap in two ten
foot jumps.” The current organizational culture of federal government has
always emphasized reliable delivery of service over speed and efficiency.
Most agencies are heavily constrained by rigid organizational hierarchies and
stovepipes across organizations, all while pursuing narrowly-tailored
The result has been a tangled web of organizational charts and appropriations
accounts that, in many cases, bureaucrats themselves cannot decipher.
Unclear accountability and fragmented processes result in too many points of
contact for customers. Managers often lack any clear sense of how to
incorporate new mandates into existing operations, let alone what delivery of
those services should cost.
Different agencies may face different constraints to varying degrees, but the
overall effect they have almost always takes the same recognizable shape:
ideas, vision, and leadership emanate from the top, but data, experience, and
institutional knowledge accrue at the bottom. A hundred thousand front-line
employees can not provide the singular vision and leadership required to
manage a large bureaucracy, but the experience they bring to bear remains
inaccessible to those who are in positions of leadership. Managers are forced
to dictate change and do their best to filter it downwards.
Meeting the challenges of tomorrow requires closing the gap – not just
between present and future states, but between leaders and employees,
stakeholders, and citizens. It requires closing the gap between the leadership
necessary to provide the vision of transformation, and the on-the-ground
experience that informs successful leadership. It requires a transformation in
the way government views and conducts business - moving leaders out of a
paradigm that forces them to push potentially valuable contributors out of the
process, and instead begin to pull them in. It requires closing the gap
between ideas and data.
For most managers, that’s a tall order because it requires them to go against
the natural preference for the status quo. For this reason, when
transformational change does happen, it’s usually involuntary. It happens
when the incremental adjustments we naturally favor just aren’t enough to
stay ahead of the game, and we are overtaken by events.
across the public sector: What if this paradigm isn’t good enough anymore?
The federal system that was born in the wake of Roosevelt’s call for “bold,
persistent experimentation” has grown timid over the years and now faces, for
the first time, a host of threats, challenges, and trends that threaten the
viability of the public sector as we know it. American government itself
headed for an overhauling moment. How do we change our course?
The graphic below outlines a very simplified series of steps that move an
organization from failure to success and if not diligently managed, back into
failure.
Step 3: Here your actions have paid off and you are now back in control –
you have a higher level of comfort and low pain. You are proud of your
accomplishment, reward the organization, and feel pretty good about your
work. Your organization goes into maintenance mode. You stop seeking
innovative solutions and take comfort in the fact that all is working well.
High Pain
Limited Control
Response &
Impact
Step 2
The Game
Changes
Failure
Step 4
High Pain
No Control
employees time to carefully select solutions that meet not just the immediate
challenge but extrapolate to address future challenges as well.
There are leaders stepping out across government to change the game and
break this cycle. They are forcing both themselves and their organizations to
exist in steps 1 and 2. The following are three examples that illustrate some
innovative models.
After taking office in 2005, Kip Hawley, the Administrator & Assistant Secretary
of Homeland Security for the Transportation Security Administration, quickly
recognized the need to improve TSA’s relationship with its front-line
employees. The benefits of reaching out to the organization’s 43,000
transportation security officers (TSOs) were obvious; no one in the
organization would be better positioned to evaluate the on-the-ground efficacy
of TSA’s various policies and procedures and offer innovative suggestions.
But Hawley was at a loss for how to tap this massive community in a way that
harnessed their expertise to inform high-level policy decisions and produce
durable institutional change.
Why does collaboration work? Simply put, it allows leaders to connect with
innovative thinking without physically upending their organizations in the
process. Instead of reorganizing his agency – a complex bureaucracy – Kip
Hawley used collaborative technology to transcend it. The result was real,
durable organizational change that gains almost automatic buy-in from front-
line employees. With IdeaFactory, ideas don’t come down from the top; they
come up from the bottom. And the search for ideas is constan. There is no
comfort in the norm – the organization is constantly looking for its pain points
and proactively moving into Step 1 to seek out of the box thinking to make the
organization better.
A Networked Approach
In July 2004, the 9/11 Commission released its final report which focused on,
among other things, a “series of barriers to information sharing that
developed”2 among the 16 separate agencies that make up the United States
Intelligence Community. Confronted with the startling possibility that the
intelligence which could have prevented the attacks of September 11th might
have been wedged into a binder on a dusty shelf in an FBI field office, the
President worked with Congress in 2004 to create the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI), a 1,500-person organization charged with
overseeing the Intelligence Community.
ODNI quickly realized that they were staring directly at a classic data/volume
challenge: Advances in technology had allowed them to accumulate data
faster than ever, but their power to analyze the data and connect disparate
dots into meaningful patterns hadn’t caught up. As Dale Meyerrose, the
ODNI’s Chief Information Officer, put it, “Intelligence is about looking for
needles in haystacks, and we can’t just keep putting more hay on the stack.”3
As a result of Andrus’ essay, ODNI’s own wiki, Intellipedia, went live in April
2006.4 An internal intranet with several levels of security – users are granted
access based on their security clearance levels – Intellipedia allows users to
read postings, contribute to the discussion, or add and edit content.
Viewpoints are attributed to the agencies, offices, and individuals participating,
with the hope that a consensus view will emerge. The site gives analysts from
across the Intelligence Community a forum for sharing breaking news,
Proprietary and Confidential February 20, 2009
Page 7
critiquing each others’ analysis, and letting users sort through volumes of
information and decide, together, what to keep and what to throw away.
Today, the site has over 90,000 users 5and 132,000 articles on various
individuals, places, and situations across all three security levels of the
application. Analysts across government are harnessing collaborative
technology to sort through a stack of hay faster and more efficiently than ever
before – and they’re finding the needles. In testimony presented to Congress
on September 10th, 2007, DNI Admiral Michael McConnell stated that
Intellipedia has “enabled experts from different disciplines to pool their
knowledge, form virtual teams, and quickly make complete intelligence
assessments…The solution does not require special networks or equipment
but has dramatically changed our capability to share information in a timely
manner.”6
The Challenge took the form of a symposium where participants were invited
to share the best information resources, tools, ideas, and contacts in their
arsenal to inform the protection of the Puget Sound. The result was a web
site known informally as the Puget Sound Mashup,7 where users could submit
requests for information, comment on each others’ data sets and
methodologies, share best practices and lessons learned, and use innovative
tools like Google Earth, social bookmarking, RSS feeds, and even YouTube to
pool and analyze their data intelligently. Over the course of 48 hours, the site
received over 175 contributions of ideas, data and applications, and over
18,000 page views. The Puget Sound Information Challenge is one of a
growing number of examples of the federal government successfully enlisting
stakeholders and citizens in tackling a critical issue.
Examining the success stories and talking with their leaders offers a few clear
lessons.
Today, many public leaders see blogs, wikis, and other collaborative
platforms, and feel immense pressure to do…something. But it is still
fundamentally true that people only show up when you give them a reason.
Simply deploying collaborative technologies doesn’t mean that people will use
them.
It is important to note that there needs to be a “safe fail” sandbox for people to
experience and become comfortable with these tools. It is critical to
experiment with them on both a personal and professional level in order to be
comfortable with how they are used and to come up with creative ideas on
how to use them.
Increasingly, it seems like the only thing easier than finding a reason to deploy
collaborative technology is finding a reason not to. In an era that demands
massive change we consistently call on our “inner lawyer” to slow innovation
and empower the status quo.
The very attributes that make collaboration a powerful catalyst for change –
low cost and complexity, widespread availability of data – also make it easy
for normal citizens to bring about extraordinary change. This is a paradox of
collaboration: Any technology that allows government to “go around” its
normal bureaucratic constraints also has the potential to let citizens “go
around” government itself. Inaction by government, in the face of a desire for
change, contributes to public disenchantment with the formal mechanisms of
public governance. Government must understand that mass collaboration
represents not just an exciting opportunity to engage citizens, but also a
responsibility to draw the public into the process and ensure that public
deliberation is fueled by accurate data and realistic expectations about what
government can and cannot achieve.
Even the best public managers must work within a bureaucracy that is
designed to be fine-tuned – not transformed. The paradigm that government
has grown used to is one in which threats and challenges reach across
agencies and sectors, but solutions don’t. The result is a kind of artificial
“ceiling” on how effective government can be – no matter how successful any
individual player is they can only ever win the one game they’re playing.
Public-sector leaders like Kip Hawley, Calvin Andrus, and Molly O’Neill had
played this game before, and they knew the rules had to change. Agencies
like TSA, ODNI, and EPA are adopting a networked approach to public
governance, leveraging collaborative technology to play “3-D chess” – to
implement solutions that reach across barriers and sectors. They are
avoiding system failures and Step 3 by finding innovative ways to tap new
audiences as resources and solicit feedback, transcend rigid hierarchies,
bring vision and leadership together with data and experience, and become as
agile and adaptable as the threats and opportunities they face.
Acknowledgements: