Lectern

By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

The Lectern: Control freakery

I noticed something interesting in yesterday morning's edition of Today's Acquisition News, the indispensable daily email summary put together for the procurement community by Acquisition Solutions, the procurement community's sort of government-in-exile that has on its staff many outstanding, results-oriented retired civil servant contracting professionals.


Yesterday's report contained 11 items. Six involved general government news, with some version of a procurement connection, such as passage of the defense and intelligence authorization bills and the Senate confirming the new VA secretary. One was a procurement story involving a whistleblower on the Coast Guard Deepwater contract.


However, all the other four procurement/government management-related stories -- in other words, four of the five specifically procurement/government management stories -- were about some report or other document alleging inadequate "controls" in some feature of procurement-related government management: "DOE IG finds homeland security equipment goes astray because of lack of property controls" or "GAO finds weak controls for improper reporting for DOD travel," for example.


The headlines in Today's Acquisition News reflect, sadly, the current environment for government management. The words we use reflect our thoughts and our approaches. While the word "control" is out there in every nook and cranny, there wasn't a single article in Today's Acquisition News using other words that might also represent features of government organizations -- words such as "initiative," "innovation," "creativity," "empowerment," "commitment," "results," or "mission." The dominance of the word "control" speaks volumes.


Of course, organizations need, among other things, controls to work well, particularly to avoid abuses. But they also need -- arguably even more -- committed and empowered employees who take initiative, particularly to create results on behalf of agency missions.


We're not doing much these days to bring forth such behaviors. The language of "controls" is the language of the fear industry. It is the language that gives employees in procurement organizations these days the feel of working on a chain gang. It is not the language of public-sector excellence. It is not the language that will attract young people into public service.


The Brits have a nice phrase, "control freakery," that they use slightly differently from the way I'm talking about controls here, mostly to refer to politicians (such as, allegedly, Tony Blair) who insist on keeping an eye on everything to ensure it comes out exactly as they intend. Yesterday's edition of Today's Acquisition News provides further evidence that we currently suffer from a case of runaway control freakery in the management of the federal government.

Posted by Steve Kelman on Dec 18, 2007 at 9:41 AM


Reader comments

Thu, Dec 20, 2007 Michael Del-Colle

For me the missing word is "discipline" - an attribute that is as important to an innovator as it is to a strict constructionist of the rules. You, Steve, have rightfully pointed out the fear factor that has stolen into town like a heavy, blanketing fog. It's impact to make all levels of the organization shy away from opportunities to do things differently [and to make the point - different is permitted by the FAR but not by staff, managers or organizations managed by or thru fear]. Control freakery is delegation with chains; a customer focused support function is delegetion with boundaries. This isn't inspirational stuff - its what can be done every day by each person doing their job and supervisors managing. Most staff isn't waiting for a Second Coming.They're hoping for the Grand Departure - when Hurrican Procurement Anxiety & Policy [an over-reaction to a recognized singular event that seems to require changes to everything normal]no longer is the reason for the restrictions and oversight [600+ auditors ?]. I would hope that managers encourage delegated COs to work wonders within the rules, assure and prove that they will and do give them air cover, and confront the criticism with successes that force a balanced debate on what changes are really needed. With discipline all this can be accomplished.

Wed, Dec 19, 2007 John Monroe

I always find Michael Lent's comments thoughtful and interesting, and I appreciate the dialogue. I guess I do disagree with the view that innovative/creative thinking should be left to a few people at the top, while the worker bees just keep their nose to the grindstone and apply the rules. This is a view very much associated with the famed turn-of-the-(last)-century industrial engineer Frederick Taylor, who argued exactly the same thing, and with the industrial practices associated with that era. It is one thing to apply that view to the very uneducated workforce of that era -- although the view was widely criticized even at the time -- and another to give that message to the workforce of today, particularly younger, better educated workers who want to be able to think for themselves. I fear this is a recipe for, at best, mediocrity.Steve Kelman

Wed, Dec 19, 2007 Michael Lent

It’s probably worth considering why a fed-wise firm like Acq Sols, full of former govt acq experts, selects a particular mix of news items. It’s notable that they didn’t key on the “environment,” so much as a set of (depressingly persistent) management issues.Working these issues is probably going to be more productive in even the short run than pecking away at the atmospherics in the acquisition space. We all know the environment is very important—and a constant issue. But it’s wispy and hard to grasp, and that’s largely the job of leaders, not the vast majority who are followers, however thoughtful. The same conditions exist in big companies and even universities; bureaucracy and suboptimal leadership will snuff out the flames of innovation and creativity, or just quash the motivations and productivity of the workforce.We’d be better off worrying less about the atmospherics and the extra-inspirational wish for creativity, innovation, and the like. We can’t be waiting for the Second Coming or some other big-bang, and we know the latter almost always fail.Incremental, continuous improvement works, and we don’t have to wait for a Congressional action or a new administration to benefit from it. We don’t need the vast majority of employees to be creative or innovate; we do need them to focus on operations with an adequate level of quality to be successful. (The capacity issue—acq workforce—is being addressed, but that will take time.) We’d do better attending to the basic blocking and tackling under today’s rules, mixed bag that they are. Some people need to think with laser diagnostics stoked with great ideas to find creative and innovative solutions for today’s problems and to chart a path of progress. But only a very small number of acq professionals need to do that. The rest should be focused on getting work done under the conditions at hand—and grasping improvement opportunities when they arise.

Post your comment here

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above
John Monroe

FCW Insider

Federal Computer Week eNewsletters

  • Subscribe to Newsletters Subscribe

    Federal Computer Week's eNewsletters deliver the latest policy and management news to your inbox.

eSeminar

Current Issue of FCW