Steve Escrow wrote:
>>I find the distinction between "governance" and "management" shifting and
>>fuzzy, but I am clear on one thing: both set limits on my freedom.
>>Nor is it clear to me that one is "top down" and the other "bottom up"
>>Both, it seems to me, allow me zones of freedom and impose zones of
>>constraint on me.
>>And both can penalize me when i fail to conform in those areas where the
>>governors and the managers have been granted or assume power.
If I catch what Rick was describing, the "governance" system does not have
people or groups consciously deciding how the limits will work, but the
limits will evolve naturally, and will probably be pretty simple. For
example, in a "managed" system the rules of the game may include "let me
know what you're doing so that I can coordinate with other managers," or,
"don't make decisions without my approval." In Rick's "governed"
organization, behavioral patters will emerge and, if it is healthy, the
patterns may include rules such as "spread information freely" and "always
collaborate." They are much simpler, less bureaucratic, reflect open
values, and may be completely unspoken or even unrecognized. The
constraints may be say "you can't horde information" or "you can't go off
on your own without working with others."
In a more managed environment, there is a greater chance that the rules
and constraints will be more complex and restrictive and reflect the
values of an entrenched power structure.
Bob Stone (I think is his name), the first director of President Clinton's
reinventing govenment office, used to be the assistance secretary of
defense (or maybe the army) for bases. He was in charge of all of the
facilities in which soldiers live. He was able to create "managed" rules
which moved the culture towards openness and risk-taking. My favorite
example was the waiver process. When repair work needed to be done ahead
of schedule, a base commander needed a waiver - approval could come only
from the assistanct secretary. The rule, therefore, was to avoid asking
for waivers or anything out of the ordinary. Bob Ston changed the rule so
that he was the only one who could deny a waiver request. That put in
motion an army of bureaucrats in the Pentagon trying to approve waivers
left and right, and ended up changing a great deal of the mindset. The
more knowledge-based, open and flexible an organization, the more likely
rules will actually be less constraining and more liberating.
Sorry of this rambled.
Barak Rosenbloom
Troublemaker
US Dept. of Labor
Employment and Training Admin.
Seattle, WA
206-553-4543 x8030
--BARAK ROSENBLOOM <BROSENBLOOM@DOLETA.GOV>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>