As I mentioned in a previous blog, the bureaucracy in and around government (public service), could be considered another branch of government. In yet an even earlier blog, I mentioned the flaws of bureaucratic thinking stifling human judgment by an over-reliance upon regulations instead of using the rules as a guideline to determine the right course of action. There are some who believe that the primary purpose of any bureaucracy is to sustain itself and this is irrelevant to what the bureaucracy is mandated to do. For example, a department of social welfare which is mandated to help the non-working poor by providing a bit of cash for survival and some tools to help the non-working poor find some employment will have its mandate at odds with the self-sustaining aspects of the bureaucracy. If there is a decision that would be made to guarantee that the working poor would successfully find employment and no longer need the services of this bureaucracy, then this decision would take a back seat and another decision would be found to continue the same level of funding from the government purse or attempt to provoke an increase in funding.
Remember, this decision made by the career bureaucrat would solve a major societal problem and as a result cut his department by 50%. Who would make that kind of solution available to a politician in charge who will not be there in a few years? This bureaucrat would have spent 20 years in this department and is close with his colleagues who will continue on when the bureaucrat retires. The loyalty to the department is high, so a decision to sabotage the future of that department is not likely to be made or even offered to the politician in theoretical rulership.
Another flaw of the bureaucracy is the unnecessary secrecy or confidentiality on its procedures. For whatever reason, the bureaucrat keeps the mystique alive by not answering the client with the proper help that is needed unless the client uses the special jargon and procedures to get the help needed. The bureaucrat will not volunteer this information, because it is against the regulations to influence a client. The client will not know how to navigate this web of mystery unless he was a former bureaucrat, or has a personal relationship with another bureaucrat who has counselled the client as to what to ask for and when.
One of the first things that any bureaucracy will do is to have the new employee sign a non-disclosure form to keep everything confidential and to only allow the department of public affairs to reveal anything to the public through the media. Naturally, we have such public communications present a positive spin on any developments. So the public is never informed of the options available to them, the minister in charge who has just recently taken over the leadership of this bureaucracy does not know the internal structures and relies upon the opinion of the long-term public servant who may or may not have an agenda contrary to the public good.
When the man was tasered in a Vancouver airport by the RCMP and the man died afterwards, what do you suppose the minister in charge was told about the incident? About the same as what the public was told, the man was incoherent and violent and did not comply with the instructions given by the officers at the scene. We, the public believed the statement (why would we doubt them?), then the video taken by a witness was broadcast around the world, and we saw a completely different event than what was previously stated. This would be an example of a bureaucracy protecting its own interests above all else. Do not assume that other bureaucracies are immune to this kind of practice and that this situation with the RCMP was an exception to the day to day operations. This is an incident that caused the death of an individual and lucky for us that a video testimony was there to prevent the usual confidentiality of the bureaucracy.
Possible solution for bureaucrats to have more loyalty upon their mandate than to self-perpetuate the actual bureaucracy. Reward innovation, if the team of bureaucrats come up with a plan, and as a result of that plan it makes their department obsolete, reward them with lifetime salary benefits as if they had continued working there. Remember the department no longer exists so we save money on future recruiting and training and on equipment. The bureaucrat has the option to get into a new career or schooling or even retirement without loss of his reward.
Possible solution for the confidentiality problem, the culture of silence: again reward a legitimate whistle-blower. If there is a practice which is contrary to ethics and is deserving of public awareness for potential discussion. Encourage the bureaucrat to file a report about it to his manager while keeping a copy for himself. Then the bureaucrat allows a reasonable amount of time to correct the situation. If the situation is not corrected, then the bureaucrat has the duty to inform the public of this illicit or unethical practice. The whistleblower who does find a problem and a solution should be promoted or rewarded in some other way. Again, intelligence, judgment and innovation must be rewarded and not stifled (as it is in the current bureaucratic culture).
Bureaucracies seem to reward seniority or experience. Perhaps we should include innovation and judgment in the equation. You may find a brilliant innovator promoted before a 20 year experienced bureaucrat who only repeats the same technique blindly. Would this be so bad? Bureaucracy is the grease making the government machine working. It is in everyone's interest to have better scrutiny on this "grease" and reward this "grease" if it performs above its normal function.
No comments:
Post a Comment