Bureaucracy: Process vs. Principles and Results

David and I participated in an interview yesterday which reminded me of this devastating piece about the ability of bureaucracies to overlook or dismiss glaring problems. Functionaries in these bureaucracies often seem unable to "think outside the box" because their job is defined by filling in forms and following procedures. They concentrate on process rather than on results. Sometimes they can see a problem which is outside their particular box, but can't think of a way to help.

We also ". . . recognize, as Orwell did, that the advantages to saying nothing at all in a bureaucratic world are very great. If you say nothing, no one can blame you for anything. It used to be the case that only macroeconomists were allowed to make deliberately ambiguous statements. But today it is a general virtue to be like Sergeant Schultz. I know nothing, I see nothing."

In our case, a degraded, corrupt government institution takes the place of a depraved "family" as the first problem in the story described by Richard Fernandez in the link above. I can't get into details. In both our case and the case described by Fernandez, agencies which should exert oversight seem remarkably adept at not seeing or responding to the "big picture" or at seeing problems as someone else's responsibility or as insoluble dilemmas.

Without standard procedures, many agencies would be plagued by confusion and favoritism (even more favoritism than currently exists). But I believe that laws, regulations and standardized procedures often set agencies up to miss what is important, especially when the problems they face change form even a little. As Stephen R. Covey suggests, it's important that your ladder is taking you up the right wall. This is one reason not to leave "the authorities" to deal with all our societal problems.

Back to the Fernandez piece: He links a couple of articles by Theodore Dalrymple on the dismaying recent changes in British family life. If I recall correctly, Dalrymple is not a religious man, having been disillusioned at a religious school when young. But he still recognizes the importance of religious traditions in a formerly stable society:

". . . As the liberal newspapers’ response shows, the problem with British childhood is by no means confined to the underclass. Our society has lost the most elementary common sense about what children need.

More than four out of ten British children are born out of wedlock; the unions of which they are the issue are notoriously unstable. Even marriage has lost much of its meaning. In a post-religious society, it is no longer a sacrament. The government has ensured that marriage brings no fiscal advantages and, indeed, for those at the lower end of the social scale, that it has only disadvantages. Easy divorce means that a quarter of all marriages break up within a decade.

The results of this social dysfunction are grim for children. Eighty percent of British children have televisions in their bedrooms, more than have their biological fathers at home. . . . "

Usually, government bureaucrats are addressing real problems and have good intentions. Often, they actually make a positive difference, especially when an agency is small, new and flexible. But over time, just as in private business, many government bureaucracies become bigger, more rigid, more expensive, more controlled by special interests and less helpful. Lawrence M. Miller describes two types of problematic bureaucrats, the unresponsive and the overly aggressive or controlling. In private business, these bureaucrats tend to develop aristocratic attitudes which help lead to the downfall or painful shake-up of many organizations. In government, dysfunctional institutions and bureaucracies afflicted with the same types of bureaucrats and "aristocrats" tend to survive much longer in a degraded state, propped up by taxpayer money and government clout - they're often just too big and powerful to challenge.

I tend to see the growth of government social programs as a sign of failure in society. And sometimes, those social programs end up causing social problems in their own right. I would like to concentrate more on getting things right to begin with, so some government agency doesn't have to pretend to fix problems by filling in forms or by handing out money (often not to the people who need help). I am going to put more energy into living and teaching timeless, basic principles as a way to avoid (as well as solve) problems. Here's one place to start. I have not been diligent in my New Year's program (can't really call it a resolution) to work through this book more carefully. Time to get going.