Next
year will mark 50 years for me of “close encounters” with “state structures” or (more emotively expressed) with “bureaucracy”. Except
that I am a political “scientist” and was trained in the 1960s in the Weberian
tradition – to understand that term in a more analytic way as
“the exercise
of rational-legal authority”.
Weber – like most classical philosophers and sociologists – was intrigued a hundred years ago by the source of social obedience. Why do people obey the rulers? And he produced the most satisfactory answer – with a famous three-fold classification – traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority…..
Weber – like most classical philosophers and sociologists – was intrigued a hundred years ago by the source of social obedience. Why do people obey the rulers? And he produced the most satisfactory answer – with a famous three-fold classification – traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority…..
By 1945 the world had had its fill of charismatic authority and settled amicably in the 1950s, for the most part, for “rational-legal” authority – although, in the 1960s, clever people such as JK Galbraith started to mock it and such as Ivan Illich and Paole Freire to critique it. Toffler’s “Future Shock” (1970) was probably the real warning shot that the old certainties were gone – and “change” has been non-stop since then.
I’ve
operated at the community, municipal, Regional and national levels of public
management – in some ten countries in Europe and Central Asia and have tried,
over this half-century, to keep track of the more important of the texts with
which we have been deluged (in the English language) about the efforts of
administrative reform.
I
do realize that I am a bit naïve in the faith I still pin on the written word –
in my continual search for the holy grail. After all, it was as long ago as
1975 – when I wrote my own first little book - when I first realized that few
writers of books are seriously in the business of helping the public understand
an issue – the motive is generally to make a reputation or sell a particular
world view….
Still
I persist in believing that the next book on the reading list will help the
scales fall from my eyes!
So it’s taken me a long time to develop this little table about patterns of writing about admin reform……
So it’s taken me a long time to develop this little table about patterns of writing about admin reform……
Communicating
administrative reform
Source
|
Activity
|
Who they write for
|
In what format
|
With what “Tone”
|
Academics
|
Too
many!
|
One
another – and students
|
Academic
journal articles; and books
|
Aloof,
qualified and opaque
|
Journalists
|
Fair number
|
The
public – and professionals
|
PR
handouts generally; more rarely an article
|
Breathless;
More rarely critical
|
Politicians
|
A few
|
The
electorate
|
PR
handouts; more rarely a pamphlet
|
Critical
of past; optimistic of the future
|
Think-Tankers
|
A lot
|
Opinion-makers
|
Booklets;
and PR material
|
Ditto
|
Consultants
|
Even
more!
|
Senior
civil servants
|
Confidential
reports; very rarely booklets and even a few books
|
Celebrating
their “product”
|
Officials
|
Few
|
One
another; OECD wonks
|
Descriptive
papers and reports
|
Ditto
|
Global organs (eg World Bank, ADB,
WHO
|
More
than we think
|
A
global network inc Cabinet Offices, Ministers, think-tanks; journalists;
|
well-researched,
well-produced reports and websites
|
Omniscient,
dry
|
Mugwumps – sitting on fences
|
Very few
|
The
poor middle-ranking official who is expected to achieve the required change
|
Toolkits;
manuals; roadmaps; notebooks
|
Open,
humorous
|
The
fads and fashions of organizational “reform” include “reengineering”,
“transformation”……even “revolution” and we no longer know who to believe or
trust – let alone obey…..
From time to time I try to make sense of this avalanche of material eg in the early part of the In Transit – notes on good governance book which I wrote in 1999 for young Central European reformers – or The Long Game – not the log-frame - where I tried to capture a sense of the various organisational models with which consultants were trying to entice central European policy-makers.
From time to time I try to make sense of this avalanche of material eg in the early part of the In Transit – notes on good governance book which I wrote in 1999 for young Central European reformers – or The Long Game – not the log-frame - where I tried to capture a sense of the various organisational models with which consultants were trying to entice central European policy-makers.
More recently I’ve tried to incorporate such texts with relevant blogposts in a draft book about “Crafting Effective Public Management” – but have had to accept that it didn't read well....too scrappy certainly,,,,but something else too....
But,
as I said, a few weeks back, someone with my experience of straddling all these
worlds must (and does) have something distinctive to say about all this
organisational effort.
And I think I have perhaps cracked what’s been wrong – I’ve been using the wrong “tone” in those efforts…the text is too abstract – for the most part “writing about writing”!!
And I think I have perhaps cracked what’s been wrong – I’ve been using the wrong “tone” in those efforts…the text is too abstract – for the most part “writing about writing”!!
In the last few days I've been experimenting with a
different approach to my reflections about the experiences of organisational change .... It consists of -
…..“telling a story”…..of the times when a few of us came together and, through a combination of imagination, discussion, networking and sheer inspiration, were able to raft something (a project) which gave the system a bit of a jolt…..
Most
of the writing about reform cuts out that human factor – so what you get is a
profound sense of inanimate concepts and forces……And to be fair, a lot of
changes are like that – a few people at the top think something is a good idea;
announce it; and expect to see it implemented and working. Effective change,
however, requires not hierarchy and obedience - but open dialogue and
negotiation. There was a time when we thought we had learned that ….eg from the
Japanese…. But that memory faded and, in these autocratic days, too many people
in organisations still act like the couriers in Hans Christian Andersen’s story
about the Emperor’s New Clothes …..developing the groupthink and suspension of
disbelief to be able to ignore the Emperor’s actual sartorial condition!
But,
at my level, all effective changes I have seen have come from a few individuals
coming together to explore deeply how they can improve a problematic situation -
and then developing a constituency of change around a vision which emerges as
consensual. Never by one person at the
top imposing a fad or idea!
Perhaps
that’s why charlatans like Michael Barber have been able recently to make such
a global impact with his “deliverology” – for which Justin Trudeau is the
latest to fall prey…..A new central Unit….reporting to the boss….a few simple
messages….a few targets…..big data crunching…..sticks and carrots……..and hey
presto…we’ve solved the perennial problem of implementation!!
No comments:
Post a Comment