Dealing with Dysfunction

Innovative Problem Solving in the Public Sector

Jorrit de Jong

• Publisher: Brookings Institution Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780815722069
• eBook ISBN: 9780815722076
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Human Resource Management
• Index: Business

How can we intervene in the systemic bureaucratic dysfunction that beleaguers the public sector? De Jong examines the roots of this dysfunction and presents a novel approach to solving it. Drawing from academic literature on bureaucracy and problem solving in the public sector, and the clinical work of the Kafka Brigade—a social enterprise based in the Netherlands dedicated to diagnosing and remedying bureaucratic dysfunction in practice, this study reveals the shortcomings of conventional approaches to bureaucratic reform. The usual methods have failed to diagnose problems, distinguish symptoms, or identify root causes in a comprehensive or satisfactory way. They have also failed to engage clients, professionals, and midlevel managers in understanding and addressing the dysfunction that plagues them. This book offers conceptual frameworks, theoretical insights, and practical lessons for dealing with the problem. It sets a course for rigorous public problem solving to create governments that can be more effective, efficient, equitable, and responsive to social concerns.

De Jong argues that successfully remedying bureaucratic dysfunction depends on employing diagnostics capable of distinguishing and dissecting various kinds of dysfunction. The "Anna Karenina principle" applies here: all well functioning bureaucracies are alike; every dysfunctional bureaucracy is dysfunctional in its own way. The author also asserts that the worst dysfunction occurs when multiple organizations share responsibility for a problem, but no single organization is primarily responsible for solving it. This points to a need for creating and reinforcing distributed problem solving capacity focused on deep (cross-)organizational learning and revised accountability structures. Our best approach to dealing with dysfunction may therefore not be top-down regulatory reform, but rather relentless bottom-up and cross-boundary leadership and innovation. Using fourteen clinical cases of bureaucratic dysfunction investigated by the Kafka Brigade, the author demonstrates how a proper process for identifying, defining, diagnosing, and remedying the problem can produce better outcomes.

1

Introduction

Bureaucracy has a rational character; rules, means, ends, and matter-of-factness dominate its bearing.

MAX WEBER, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 1922

A bureaucratic organization is an organization that cannot correct its behavior by learning from its errors.

MICHEL CROZIER, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, 1964

In Terry Gilliam’s movie Brazil (1985), a low-level civil servant is confronted with a problem that is not being solved through the regular business processes of his organization. The protagonist, Sam Lowry, works at the Ministry of Information, which is responsible for processing information requests from other government agencies, archiving government documents, and keeping citizen records. The problem that Lowry tries diligently to solve is the immediate result of a technical failure of a government printer brought about by a literal bug: an insect falls into the printer at the moment that the printer is processing arrest warrants. The insect causes a stain on a form, changing “Mr. Tuttle” into “Mr. Buttle” by smearing the first “T.” This splotch goes unnoticed by the people in charge of the printer; as a result, an innocent man, Mr. Buttle, is arrested and the (presumably) guilty Mr. Tuttle gets away. An activist on behalf of the unfortunate Buttle family attempts to bring the case to the government’s attention, but she is routinely stonewalled by front desk officials.

Because he has personal feelings for the activist, Lowry attempts to intercede with the relevant agencies. The initial response of the government is to deny the error because, after all, the whole system was designed to be impervious to error. To acknowledge an error would be to suggest a design flaw in the state apparatus. In addition, because the base assumption is that no mistakes are possible, no redress procedures exist. The activist helping Mrs. Buttle discovers this fact first, as she is sent from one office to the next with a dismissive “It’s not our problem.” Lowry goes beyond his job description in his efforts to help the activist and the Buttles—behavior that upsets his superiors—and he endangers himself by trying to remedy the dysfunction. In fact, for siding with the victims of a government mistake, Lowry himself is declared an enemy of the state.

Bureaucracy and Bureaucratic Dysfunction

There is something about bureaucracy that is profoundly unsettling. As a type of organization, it is all around us and we are familiar with its workings. At the same time, we find bureaucracies to be alienating and frustrating institutions. We are generally quite content with the bureaucratic process and the substantive outcomes accomplished through bureaucratic organizations, yet we are quick to dismiss the entire enterprise when something goes wrong. While we encounter public sector bureaucracies primarily as clients, our expectations and standards are also informed by our roles as taxpayers, voters, employees, employers, concerned citizens, and so forth. The claims that we make about the performance of bureaucracies are often incomplete and contradictory; like the blind scholars in John Godfrey Saxe’s poem “The Blind Men and the Elephant,” we stumble upon the phenomenon and exercise judgment based on limited information and our personal perspective. As a public, we often are inarticulate and incoherent in expressing our values, interests, and preferences with regard to public sector bureaucracies.

For that reason, bureaucratic dysfunction in the public sector is a practical as well as a theoretical problem. If there is no clarity or consensus about what we expect from well-functioning bureaucracies, figuring out whether and how bureaucracies are dysfunctional will be an intellectual and a practical challenge. As it seeks to produce actionable knowledge to deal with bureaucratic dysfunction, this book addresses both of those challenges. By constructing conceptual frameworks, discussing theoretical perspectives, and conducting an empirical inquiry into the phenomenon, I develop a novel and hopefully more adequate approach to an age-old, untamed problem.1 In so doing, I aim to make a contribution to social science as well as to public problem solving in practice.2 But first it is necessary to take a step back and ask what the nature of the problem is and why it needs solving.

The Blind Men and the Elephant (John Godfrey Saxe—1816–1887)

In the case of Mr. Buttle’s tragically mistaken identity, one may answer that the problem was simply a matter of technical failure caused by the malfunctioning printer. After all, without the jammed printer, there would have been no further trouble. Another answer could be that because of their negligence, the individuals operating the printer were the problem. If they had exercised better quality control, the problem would have been solved right there. However, a more advanced analysis of the problem suggests that all organizations should anticipate some technical failures and human errors. Therefore, in Mr. Buttle’s case the blame should have been placed not on the printer or its operators but on the management and oversight of the entire Ministry of Information. Better monitoring and accountability mechanisms could have prevented the tragic course of events that unfolded.

Yet another line of reasoning could be that the root cause of the incident was an overall lack of responsiveness, flexibility, and problem-solving capacity, which turned a small problem into a big problem. However, that assessment implies that the underlying problem could not have been solved with the resolution of the Buttle case alone. After all, simply fixing the printer, reprimanding individuals, or adjusting business processes would not have guaranteed against similar future problems. Instead, one would have had to investigate patterns deeply entrenched in organizational culture and dysfunctional mechanisms innate to the institution, such as a punitive accountability structure that systematically pushed blame onto low-level workers. Then again, some people may dismiss all of these answers entirely: “Don’t make too much of this—it was just a bug!”

It is difficult to pinpoint where problems begin and where they end, and any decision on the matter depends very much on how far one is willing to pursue the discussion. But pinpointing is exactly what we need to do if we want to take public problem solving seriously—and if we want to get better at it. This chapter begins the book by defining the problem and offering the rationale for the research presented.

Encounters Gone Wrong

Bureaucratic dysfunction is experienced most directly in actual encounters between clients and bureaucracies in the public sector.3 By “public sector clients” I mean people who in one form or another engage in transactions with the government.4 Clients take on different roles because their relationships and interactions with the government vary in nature. When the government is a direct provider of services and benefits, clients encounter the state as beneficiaries or as customers—in general terms, in the role of recipient. When the government regulates social and economic behavior and enforces its regulations through licensing, inspections, and other means of control, clients encounter the state in a different role: they do not receive services or goods; instead they are subject to requirements with which they must comply, in the role of obligatee (Sparrow 1994; Moore 1995; Alford 2009).

If clients experience the consequences of bureaucratic dysfunction in their role as recipient, they may have trouble accessing services or obtaining benefits. In their role as obligatee, they may for one reason or another find it difficult or costly to comply. Problems may vary from minor misunderstandings to major conflicts between officials and clients. Waiting times might be long, procedures cumbersome, and paperwork incomprehensible. Sometimes client and government may not encounter each other at all because one could not locate the other. In addition, encounters may last too long because the parties could not effectively conclude their transaction.5 When encounters go wrong and clients and governments cannot complete their business, losses are incurred (Howard 1994; United Nations 2008; World Bank 2009; OECD 2007, 2010). Clients may suffer material losses (opportunities, benefits, money, and time) as well as immaterial losses (energy, hope, dignity, and respect for government). If that happens infrequently and inadvertently, it may be a simple matter of bureaucratic flaws or errors. Human beings make mistakes, and since organizations are designed, managed, and populated by human beings, so do bureaucracies.

In the case of Mr. Buttle in Brazil, determining whether the losses are the result of simple human error or deeper bureaucratic dysfunction raises the question of whether the problem is an exceptional or a fundamental issue. In other words, is the Buttles’ predicament an extraordinary case or the result of a structural problem within an organization? At first glance, it appears to be the former. After all, the chances of a bug falling into a printer and causing a smear resembling another letter in the alphabet are not very high.

Many “bugs” are not easily detected in bureaucratic organizations. In addition, it is conceivable that many small undetected problems can culminate in exceptional problems, with serious consequences. Moreover, problems may not be the only exception to the rule. The fact that the Buttles’ difficulties came to the attention of a civil servant may be the exception—not the bug in the printer. When bureaucratic encounters go wrong frequently, flaws appear to be systemic, and errors seem to follow a pattern, then something more serious might be happening. When bureaucracies fail to notice and address structural problems in their encounters with clients, they enter the domain of bureaucratic dysfunction.

Loss of Value

Bureaucratic dysfunction often is evaluated in terms of loss of value to the client. In problematic encounters, the negative consequences are experienced first and foremost by clients. Clients define government performance to a large extent in terms of the government’s ability to construct productive encounters.6 I argue, however, that the public also loses, if indirectly. By “the public,” I mean the citizenry at large, which as a collective has mandated the government to act on its behalf. In liberal democracies, the public expects the government to carry out its tasks efficiently and effectively and in accordance with the rule of law. These tasks include delivering public services to clients and imposing duties on clients. But the expected results of government activities go beyond client satisfaction (Moore 1995). The public is interested in the social outcomes accomplished through encounters with clients. For example, in the case of public services, such as income support, health care, and education, the public hopes to achieve a fair distribution of wealth and increased public health, well-being, and economic potential. In the case of regulations, such as food safety standards, traffic laws, and rules governing business transactions, the public hopes to protect itself from harms.7

So if government bureaucracies become dysfunctional and fail to establish constructive and productive encounters, they do more than just dissatisfy clients: they fail to improve social outcomes. In such cases, the public has reasons for concern. It has legitimized government intervention through elections and paid for it through taxes. If the government is not delivering services adequately, the question arises of whether it is using tax money effectively and efficiently. If it is not implementing or enforcing regulations adequately, concerns arise regarding the use of law: is the government using its authority carefully and in proportion to its task? While disgruntled clients may ask these questions in their roles as recipients and obligatees, the public can ask them from a different perspective, for different reasons. If bureaucracies are dysfunctional, government fails the public in at least two ways: it is not using its authority and fiscal resources responsibly, and it is not achieving optimal social outcomes.

Who Cares?

Does the public care whether the government uses its authority and fiscal resources responsibly and achieves optimal social outcomes? Do people care if some people or groups of people are having significant trouble with government red tape while they are not? When does red tape become a serious problem for the public? While the perspective of the individual public sector client may seem straightforward, the general public does not always articulate its preferences or concerns well. It does, of course, comprise a diverse body of people who have different values, interests, positions, and opinions; moreover, competing values and contradictory positions may exist even within an individual member of the public. The public may care about optimal social outcomes but also about the responsible use of tax money. It may have concerns about easy access to services and benefits: for example, it may subscribe to the notion of employment benefits but worry about moral hazard among recipients if it is too easy to get a government handout. In fact, the public may implicitly endorse policies that make encounters cumbersome, unpleasant, or simply impossible as a means of rationing services (Lipsky 1984, p. 3; 2008, p. 137; de Jong, and Rizvi 2008). As a result, what appears to be dysfunction to a certain group of clients may be seen by the public at large as an effective way t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Foundational Concepts
• 3. Theories of Bureaucratic Dysfunction
• 4. Inquiry and Action: The Kafka Brigade Method
• 5. Kafka Cases I: The Pilot Phase
• 6. Kafka Cases II: The Consolidation Phase
• 7. Emerging Issues and Lessons
• 8. Conclusions
• References
• Index