Systems thinking, politics vs. government LO9349

Debbie Broome (debbieb@linux.plano.gov)
Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:27:11 -0500

Replying to LO9303 --

This is in reply to three different messages which I think are related to
the politics v. government theme.

Dr. Blanco writes:

>Those organizations that blindly follow the main stream tendancies tend
>to...you are probably describing government divisions...

Ben Compton writes regarding politics and government:

>The average person gets worked up over insignificant issues...but, issues
>which they feel need immediate attention. This is a very near-term view...

and Ben further writes about organizations:

>Over the years I've come to a very simple conclusion: Happiness in
corporate >America is achieved when one develops the ability to stare into
the abyss of >stupidity without being disturbed!"

To Dr. Blanco and in defense of many government employees and goverment
organizations (particularly at the local level-one which I am intimately
familar with). Government organizations are not typically given to blindly
follow main stream tendancies. I have found that in 15 years of serving
local government, and partnering with the corporate sector that an
astounding number of organizational issues are similar between the two
sectors, if not exactly the same. Ben Compton's quote above regarding
stupitidy very aptly describes public service as well as corporate
employment. The stories I have read on this list parallel my own and those
of my friends in the field of city management. I would suspect that this
may be even true of a number of areas of the federal government. There are
bright, creative and frustrated people trying to crack old entrenched
systems and in part what keeps that change from occurring is Ben Compton's
statement regarding insignificant issues.

Obviously, the major difference between the public sector and the private
sector is the profit motive. But look deeper at what drives that motive.
In the private sector, decisions are made based on the preferences of a
large number of people (i.e. the more people buying the product the more
profit--product discontinued if no profit). In the public sector decisions
are driven based on the preferences of a small number of people. As Ben
puts it...politicians respond to seemingly insignificant issues. I have
watched many a public meeting where the squeaky wheel did indeed get the
grease. From a systems standpoint, the decision may have made sense in the
short-term for that particular group or individual, but in the long-term it
is not a good decision and in fact may thwart many progressive attempts by
management (government management)and elected officials to streamline and
reduce programs or outsource programs in order to become competitive. My
point is this: the fact that government responds to small groups on
relatively "insignificant issues" is all of our responsibility. Government
leaders rarely if ever hear from the public when things are going well. Why
are we not participating? Even at the local level where it is still
possible to make a difference...Speaking as one government employee, we'd
sure like to hear from the masses once in a while versus the squeaky wheel.
We might be able to address some of this fragmentation.

Thanks for listening.

-- 

Debbie

Debbie Broome | P.O. Box 860358 Assistant City Manager | Plano, Texas 75086-0358 City of Plano | e-mail: debbieb@linux.plano.gov FAX: 214-423-9587 |

"A fish always starts rotting at the head"

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>