 |
Earlier
we recommended seeing major change undertakings as "extended
journeys." When done wrong, they can have you going in
circles, or headed for the ditch. When done right, they are
transformational -- though anything but smooth and direct. Transformational
journeys are characterized as much by baffling circumstances,
unexplained events, curious behaviors, and obscure motives as
they are by clear agendas, obvious implications, understandable
interpretation, and logical extrapolations.
Whether it's installing a new curriculum in just one elementary school, or the current
drive to assemble parts of 22 federal agencies into a new and
big "one," the journey will never go the way the printed
"guide" says. Indeed, when it comes to the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), there is no procedures manual. The
job is mind-boggling in its scale, urgency and importance.
What would you liken it to? The mergers that brought us Exxon-Mobil,
Texaco-Chevron, or Boeing-McDonnell-Douglas in recent times?
Hardly. Even HEW (under President Eisenhower in 1953) and the
creation of the Department of Defense (1947) were relative cakewalks
when put up against DHS. In each of those mergers, the cultures
were far more aligned, the time constraints more relaxed, and
the end game less significant.
The DHS story formally begins in early June 2002...
On Thursday the 6th, the President goes on TV, sets the right
urgency, doesn't put too much blame on the status quo, or make
excuses for it. He nicely distinguishes the role of personnel
from structure. And his people had already allowed about the
right amount of time for media coverage of FBI and CIA mishaps
to show the country why a new set-up is necessary.
Some six months after that presidential speech, the bill is
signed. The legislative and partisan struggle has been immense,
but it was well-covered by the media -- giving citizens the
impression that much of the hard work is past. With the bill
finally signed, the legal formalities have been firmed up or
farmed out. Lots of movement, yes -- but how much progress?
What we have just described is an announcement along with a
sales talk about the intent to accomplish a needed goal. "Here's
what we are committed to...." Well and good. Now, what
about delivering on that goal? At best, the signing ceremony
making the proposal part of the U.S. Code can be viewed as the
installation "event" of this particular change effort.
Many executive-branch leaders contend that passage of the implementing
legislation is the delivery, the realization. No, it's simply
the "delivery" of the intent into the law, which leaves
the question: How will the responsible officials -- who by now
number in the hundreds if not thousands -- bring about a largely
new organization delivering at least 120% of the performance
of the original (mostly separate) components?
As daunting as that is, we can draw hope and tools from the
private sector. As the information technology revolution swept
through business -- everything from inventory-management to
outsourcing predictable functions -- corporate leaders found
slipshod methods and trial-and-error too expensive. No CEO likes
to be surprised. Not only did they bring much better hardware
and software, they looked to professional help in learning about
how and why large groups of people change. How do we cause a
productive merger between top management's strategic logic and
the psychological realities of everyone else in the firm?
That question has been answered in enough different places that
we know some of what works. But the governmental version of
that question is hardly even asked. How does the public sector
make similar advances? How do governing bodies and policy practitioners
turn unpleasant surprises, or conscious decisions to modify
behaviors, into a process of productive change?
In the public sector, different lessons have been learned. Especially
in periods of peace and prosperity, the average Member of Congress
has been rewarded for good intentions. Absent war, civil strife
or a serious recession, officeholders can pick and choose the
issues on which they want to devote time and energy. And they
have to say something about all of the big issues. Unlike a
company serving a defined market with a distinct product line,
an elected official at the national level is expected to sound
purposeful and serious about matters they barely have time to
monitor seriously.
But what about their few chosen priority issues? The political
leader's coalition will usually applaud as they "fight
the good fight" and "make the last effort." The
goal is to hold a sensational hearing, trigger a probe, and
ideally pass a major bill. But this is not enough -- not now,
not for an America whose whole culture of governance will be
facing stresses worse than anything since the 1930s.
In wartime, with the focus on effectiveness, the Administration
and Congress will be evaluated on the results of DHS -- which
shifts the critical question away from what ought to happen
and over to how will it happen.
First, let's ask: What do we see happening right now? Not in
the White House or Congress (perceived sponsors of the change)
or in the editorial pages (advocates and critics of the change),
but among the implementers and "targets" of the change.
We mean the managers, agents and rank-and-file workers. What
are they doing? Well, what would you be doing if faced with
a workplace upheaval?
Employees, from GS-15s down to clerks and programmers, are studying
the ramifications of the new law. They're talking with colleagues,
checking in with the unions, auditing congressional happenings
and updating their résumés. Things being tended
are those that come with visible measures or are related to
the transformation into DHS. Some of the more tenured, experienced
heads are looking to see how they can jump ship within their
known (departmental or agency) worlds as opposed to being forced
into new, undefined DHS alignments.
Most workers want to help, but not if it means being mangled
or marginalized.
So? The Administration operatives charged with building DHS
as it "lifts off" need emergency tools to make the
change happen. This isn't the same thing as administrative flexibility
-- for example, changes in work rules or innovations in funding.
Such things matter, but they will be decided upon (ruled in
or out) by the legislation itself. By "tools to make the
change happen," we mean the measures and methods that comprise
Leading Public-Sector Change(TM). and lead
to “realization” of the true intent behind the DHS.
You simply cannot turn this big a group -- roughly 170,000 individuals
-- on a dime. Instead, make use of the proven methods for measuring
change-readiness, change-progress, and for identifying the natural
points of resistance. In the end, the citizens of America will
endorse the concrete results that come when officials apply
this kind of thoroughness.
<< Previous
| Next >> |
