Endless Knots

Kamensky: "Using czars and commissions to govern"

Encouraging everyone to click right on over to John Kamensky's post, "Using czars and commissions to govern." John, who's a Senior Fellow at the IBM Center for the Business of Government, has been keeping tabs on new thinking in government for a long time.

We first met in 1993 when we were advising Vice President Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing Government, where John served as deputy director.

In the post I'm referencing here, John talks about the use of alternative appointments, such as czars, and organizations, like commissions, to cut through some of the government morass - and shines a little light on (disclosing self-interest) OrgScope and its use to track recovery funds, as per a couple of posts here over the past few days. Thanks, John!

Transparency and open government - Obama's midnight memos

At the stroke of midnight on January 21, 2009. five "Presidential Actions" went into force (see White House press statement), establishing a clear foundation of organizing values and principles for the new Obama Administration. The "Midnight Five," with their links, are:

Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government

Presidential Memorandum on Freedom of Information Act

Executive Order on Presidential Records

Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel

Presidential Memorandum Regarding Pay Freeze

The capstone action is the one we list first, the memo on "Transparency and Open Government," a remarkable document that lays out the fundamental reason we need openness and how to achieve it. This understanding of the central role of transparency is vital at this extraordinarily critical moment in the still-accelerating economic crisis. Transparency is both necessary and beneficial. To paraphrase Judge Brandeis again, things get better with sunlight.

The president doesn't mince words in his preamble to the memo:

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

How are these open government benefits of efficiency, effectiveness, and a stronger democracy to be achieved? The memo outlines three imperatives ("shoulds"):

• Government should be transparent.
• Government should be participatory.
• Government should be collaborative.

Lest you think transparency and openness apply just to government, listen up all you leaders in organizations of every size in every sector who are feeling and dealing with desperate challenges. We can only get out of this mess by all of us being smarter and contributing to the overall solution.

We are posting the whole transparency memo after the break below, inserting in brackets words that indicate its applicability to all organizations, thus, the revised title and what follows. Please take a read and see if you might be able to endorse the same statement in your organization.

-- Jeff Stamps

Transparency and Open Governments [Organizations]

Reorganization fever at the White House

Peter Baker has a great reorganization story in today's NY Times' Week in Review section, "And Now Let the Jockeying Begin." It neatly combines attention to the power of the position with the power of the person--twin dynamics that we've been writing about when discussing organization structure. Baker's story recaps many of the reorganization changes we've noted in posts over the past few weeks, and nicely platforms (stayed tuned) tomorrow's post, "Organizing at the Edge of Chaos." The Baker piece and those that we're adding here are not just about the Obama administration but also point to valuable insights for any organization facing redesign themselves in uncertain times, meaning now.

The Times piece notes, as have we, that Obama's government is becoming more complicated, with the appointment of "czars," special envoys, and task forces, which Baker describes as "overlaying an additional set of actors upon a bureaucracy already scratchy about who's in charge. Mr. Obama concluded that new high-powered figures are needed to force change but they pose a delicate management challenge."

These formal organizational overlays are precisely the virtual reorganization forms emerging to transform traditional bureaucracy. They represent a necessary "complexification" of government to match the complexification of problems we face. They also reflect the need for a more "leaderful" structure, a hallmark of the new networked organizations, whether hierarchies or more informal groupings. Such enterprises are, of course, more difficult to manage, but they're smarter. If there's one thing we need right now, it's intelligent organizations. Really, we have no choice.

The article notes the same new White House offices that we described in our recent "Reorganizing the Executive Office of the President"--offices to coordinate climate change and energy, urban policy, technology, and health. Vice President Biden's task force on the middle class is a great example of a coordination overlay that you can see in US Gov + Task Force map. We've also blogged about the unusual two-hatted organizational role assigned to the incoming HHS Secretary, who will also serve as an insider in the Exec Office of President, leading the Health Care Reform effort. This dual role is now threatened by a tax mess with an uncertain confirmation ahead.

According to Baker's article, John Podesta, who co-headed the transition effort, is an architect for many of these design changes. "There are things that cut across agency lines that needed real powerful White House cohesion, direction, and leadership," Mr. Podesta said.

These cross-cutting networks overlaying the hierarchy require new types of leaders who can operate in more complex environments. Thus, the choice of leaders follows the design requirements. "The structure that was built was done with due regard for the fact that there would be conflict. But the team we built was done with the idea that these people could work together," Podesta explained.

-- Jeff Stamps

Reorganizing the Executive Office of the President

While he has not used the word, President Obama's very first act, even before being sworn in, was to reorganize. As Jessica said yesterday, at the stroke of noon, January 20, 2008, the White House website changed, and with it a new, reorganized Executive Office of the President went into effect.

Having kept a close eye on the various Executive Branch charts over the past few months, I can now report on the major changes as I perceive them, including promotions, additions, and deletions to the president’s core staff structure. These reorganizations reflect profound changes in emphasis and priorities, adaptations to the external environment (literally), and a respect for the complexity of the job. All of this comes through in a number of new functions focused directly on the importance of organization itself.

Until today, our digital US Government organization chart used the Executive Office/White House structure of the Bush Administration as its basis. Each time, Pres-elect Obama made appointments and nominations, we entered those new names into existing positions, as we did when Larry Summers was named director of the National Economic Council. When a new position, such as Carol Browner’s remit to connect energy and climate, we engaged in some guesswork, trying to figure out how these new posts would hook together. Now we know.

President Obama's first appointment was Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff to the President, who now runs the Executive Office. From what we can tell, Emanuel has 19 people reporting directly to him--ranging from senior advisors such as David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to James Jones, Director of the National Security Council. One of those 19 positions is that of the "White House Office" itself, which, in turn, is run, we think, by one of two Deputy Chiefs of Staff, either Mona Sutphen or Jim Messina. (This use of dual deputies is already a departure from the apparent Bush rule of one deputy.) While we can't quite determine yet whether Sutphen or Messina has this job, one of the two deputies has 23 people on staff, comprising a second group of advisors, offices, and councils that are two steps below the root of power.

Both the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff, with 19 and 23 direct reports respectively, are what we call “hub” positions in the US government, which we discuss extensively in our report and blog post on “Analyzing the Organization as a Network.”

Meanwhile, five organizations have been "promoted," their org-chart boxes having been moved up a level in the White House Office:

·        Domestic Policy Council (Melody Barnes);

·        National Economic Council (Summers);

·        Office of National AIDS Policy;

·        Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; and

·        White House Military Office.

Then there are nine new boxes representing official functions that simply were not there before:

·       Chief of Staff's Office;

·       Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy (Browner);

·       Office of Management and Administration;

·       Oval Office Operations;

·       Office of Presidential Personnel;

·       Office of Urban Affairs Policy;

·       Office of Social Innovation (!); and

·       A splitting of the position of Advance and Appointments into two functions

And two organizations have been eliminated:

·        Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives; and

·        USA Freedom Corps.

Missing from the list (so far as I can tell) and unaccounted for is the announced, and highly unusual, Office for Health Care Reform and its Director, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Daschle.

Based on press releases from the Obama-Biden change.gov site and the newer, but not complete, list of Nominations & Appointments on the whitehouse.gov site, we've been able to map about 50 positions in the Executive Office of the President. This means that we've got about half of them as press accounts of the President’s January 21 briefing for his staff, (the one announcing a pay freeze and emphasizing transparency), indicate that the staff as a whole numbers around 100.

To carry transparency the next step and to set a good example for other government departments and agencies to follow, we believe that President Obama should immediately publish the org chart of his office. In our view, such a chart should include names and responsibilities, indicating where jobs have been filled and where there are empty spots still awaiting appointments. Although all the departments publish org charts (you can see these charts on our site), the Bush White House's chart never went deeper than the two-level structure we just discussed.

--Jeff Stamps

Jeff Stamps on today: From polarity to complementarity

Barack Obama becomes the Chief Hierarch today. What is uniquely different about President Barack Hussein Obama is that he is the Chief Complement as well. This is his genius.

Like presidents before him, he occupies the root position of the Executive Branch of the US government tree.  His position stands for the whole executive function, but is a part of a larger whole, whose genesis is the US Constitution. These United States are themselves a whole, comprising states, counties, localities, neighborhoods, and residencies such as ours where people gather on January 20 to witness an inauguration. Hierarchy, nested whole-parts, is a universal organizing principle.

Everyone knows about hierarchy. Few are familiar with its complement.

 Complementarity is the second great universal organizing principle, bringing opposites together into one process. Like red states and blue states, the whole "tao" process is stirred by yin-yang opposites of dark and light, yielding and firm, female and male, receptivity and creativity. Each opposite includes and interpenetrates the other.

Neils Bohr, who proposed the wave-particle solution in quantum physics, adopted the yin-yang symbol for his coat-of-arms along with the inscription “Contraria sunt complementa,” opposites are complementary.

From the beginning of his quest, Obama has been the voice of complementarity amid the din of dualism. Black and white. Liberal and conservative. Listen and act. Be firm and be open. He embodies both-and, not either-or.

While other politicians have promised to “bridge the gap,” for Obama it is simply part of who he is. In her excellent NY Times page one piece, “From Books, New President Found Voice,”  Michiko Kakutani links the power of voice, the love of learning and thinking, and the “quest to understand his roots.” This quest of a “divided child” for self-creation, lies at the “intersection between the private and the political, time present and time past,” themes elaborated by his inaugural poet, Elizabeth Alexander.

Self-creation at the intersection of opposites is emergent. From a polarized nation to a complementary one is a transformational step. This will be Obama’s theme this inaugural day. Bringing together while respecting differences. Finding synergies and creativities in new collaborations. Hope and hard work. You and me, working together.

This is the essence of networks: me and we, independence with interdependence.

-- Jeff Stamps

Inaugurate: to make a formal beginning

Why Barack won't break our hearts

Sitting in the warmth of my home, a fire burning, a house that's been here since 1723, since before there was a United States of America, miraculously watching Barack give his address on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Mac on my lap, hubby with his machine on the old pine chest, watching the TV...and thinking about the future.

We all share the concern that the aspirations we hold at moments of change will run into reality, float away in anger and dust. We're all in love with the future (when it isn't frightening us) but there's a way for this relationship with possibility not to end in heartbreak.

How? Because it's up to him, of course, to do what only presidents can do but it's never been more up to us. Without going all preachy on you, I truly believe that this is our time, our moment to do everything we can. To perform our own jobs as if they are the most important in the world, to come up with new ideas and execute them as fast as we can, and to help everyone we know who's hurting as much as we can. (Anyone need a house or office cleaner? I have a great referral for you!)

There are these inflection points in history, brief moments when grand vistas appear before us, ours for the decorating with our great visions.

What's yours?

Take a look at our website today

In honor of what's coming...

NetAge Report #3: Virtual Reorganization

How can we create better organizations that make it easier for us to get things done with superior results? One approach is "virtual reorganization," which avoids the pain of moving, merging, and splitting boxes on an org chart. So-called "physical reorganization," where groups are moved from one function to another, sometimes without the benefit of understanding the implications of the realignment, can be disruptive. While it sometimes makes for smoother operations, all too often it doesn't -- and it's hard to do. This proves particularly true in those organizations that are governed by rules, regulations, tenure, and a plethora of other bureaucratic restraints.

Yet swamped by a common crisis, nearly everyone, in nearly every sector, is in the process of reorganizing. No choice but to change, but how?

This series of reports on reorganization reflects our recommendations for how to do this easily and effectively in three steps.

First, visualize the organization. Produce a clear and comprehensive picture of the existing organization, visible to everyone involved (NetAge Report #1: The Digital Reorganization Chart).

Next, analyze what you've got by carefully examining the existing organizational design (NetAge Report #2: Analyze the Organization as a Network).

Finally, reorganize on the basis of thoughtful study. As changes are proposed and made, visualization and analysis go hand in hand, giving people both right brain and left brain ways to grasp both the whole and the details.

In NetAge Report #3: Virtual Reorganization, which we're posting here, we offer three strategies that help bureaucracies become more like networked organizations, gaining the benefits of reorganization without enduring the pain. These "virtual reorganization" strategies complement rather than replace hierarchy. They allow organizations to flexibly address pressing issues, improve results, and reduce costs as alternatives to or together with physical reorganization.

A good example of a virtual reorganization has just come up with the establishment of the new White House Task Force on Working Families led by Vice-President-elect (only six more days) Biden. This new network layer connects existing hierarchical positions into a new configuration. You can see this task force, and the DNI, in this version of our US Gov + Task Force map. 

Here, then, NetAge Report #3:

Virtual Reorganization

At the end of December, 2008, President-elect Obama’s pick for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made two critical picks of her own, naming dual deputy secretaries. James Steinberg, who served in the Bill Clinton administration as deputy national security adviser, will oversee foreign policy issues while Jacob Lew, Office of Management and Budget Director in the same administration, will have responsibility for day-to-day operations.

The decision to create two deputies signals a reorganization of the State Department. Naming two deputies is not only a departure from the current organization at State, but it is highly unusual with regard to all the current departmental org charts. Notably, however, two deputy chiefs of staff in the Executive Office of the President, Mona Sutphen and Jim Messina, were in the first wave of staff picks in mid-November. These actions are part of the impending “physical reorganization” of government, changes made by adding, moving, and merging boxes on an org chart. And that’s the way most reorganization happens—by rearranging the boxes.

During the same pre-Christmas news cycle, the transition team announced another kind of reorganization, naming a new White House Task Force on Working Families to be led by Vice President Biden. This coordinating body includes the secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Commerce, along with the directors or chairs of the National Economic Council, Office of Management and Budget, Domestic Policy Council, and the Council of Economic Advisors. The task force connects existing leadership positions—and by extension their organizations—into a new configuration, an example of the “virtual reorganization” of government. Instead of moving boxes, virtual reorganization connects them.

NetAge Report #2: Analyzing the Organization as a Network

In 2009, organizations have become reorganizations. Change is coming to, or already has arrived at, an organization near you, whether by force of sudden downsizing or by choice in an effort to adapt to the global economic crisis. If done properly and intelligently, reorganization promises to be a low-cost, high-performance improvement strategy. And we have a prescription, a three-step program: (1) visualize, (2) analyze, (3) reorganize.

NetAge Report #2: Analyzing the organization as a network is the second in our reorganization series. In it, we expose three prevalent myths about hierarchy, replace them with three realities, and turn our analytic skills on the US government to illustrate new thinking about how to design a great enterprise. This analysis shows what can be done to reveal the intelligence and power hidden within the organizational structure itself.

We have mapped the top levels of the US government using publicly-available org charts from the Bush administration (putting the new names and faces into the top jobs as Prez-elect Obama has named them). With simple network metrics, we've:

1. "Calculated" which of the government's most senior positions are the most heavily loaded, and

2. Compared and contrasted the organizational designs of different agencies.

Our key finding is that there seem to be "hubs in the hierarchy," a small number of highly connected, and very vulnerable, positions. This is consistent with our analysis of other hierarchies and findings from a broad range of physical, biological, and social networks. We have repeated Figure 3 of this report here to illustrate the distribution of reporting spans among the government's most senior executives. It is not normal, which in statistical terms means that it is not evenly distributed. In this chart, most managers ("# Managers" on the y-axis) have very few people reporting to them ("# Reporting Links" on the x-axis) while a few have a really huge number of people reporting to them. A "normal distribution" would have most managers having approximately the same number of people reporting to them.

As you read this, please keep in mind that we're operating without a license here. We don't have access to any special information about the government or the incoming Obama administration. And, what we do have is by its nature incomplete. Even so, we think there's some valuable information here for those very people who soon will be running our government. If you happen to know any of them, please direct them here. We deeply believe that better organizational designs lead to greater transparency and that we can work considerably better when we're operating in bureaucracies have intelligent configurations. If ever there has been a need for government to be more intelligent, it's now.

Click here for the first installment in our reorganization series, NetAge Report #1: The Digital "Reorganization" Chart. Also blogged it here.

Analyzing the Organization as a Network

If, in this difficult, resource-strapped, and uncertain environment, you have just been hired, elected, nominated, or appointed to lead a large, complex organization of hundreds, thousands, or, in Barack Obama’s case, millions of people, you face considerable challenges.

You must get up-to-speed very quickly, putting names to faces and matching those to responsibilities, become familiar with each of the sub-units and what their special missions are, and getting an overall feeling for the spirit and meaning of the whole organization. At the same time, you, as the one in charge, will certainly start thinking about how to improve things—by reducing expenses, improving performance, setting priorities (which also can mean considerable triage), and ultimately reorganizing.

It’s a truism to say that you don’t know what you can’t see. But, as we’ve seen in countless situations, the unseen can hurt you. This proves especially true when you reorganize, when you set out to deliberately change underlying organizational dynamics without clear views of what it is that you’re reorganizing.

Imagine that the standard mental model of organizations that most of us hold is actually wrong. Imagine that the quick cartoon in our heads of how organizations work is in fact an epidemic distortion of reality. If this is true, it’s no wonder that our large organizations don’t function very well, that bureaucracies rapidly grow out of control, and that frantic steering from the top seems to have so little effect.

We’ve spent most of this decade looking at, analyzing, and interpreting how our institutions actually are organized. We’re here to report that most of us hold a distorted view of organizations.

While people like to think the hierarchy is irrelevant, it is nevertheless unavoidable. If you doubt this, try to collect your paycheck without the hierarchy. Although many do in fact earn their living from networks, most people on earth are paid by formal structures.

Reorganization is particularly dangerous when blindness shrouds the real organizational design. Here, simple approaches, while laudable in many contexts, are sure to cause more harm than good. Take, for example, the recent report from a client: his company was going through a reorganization exercise prior to layoffs. In the new design, every manager would have approximately ten people on staff—regardless of function, level, or experience. Ten people per manager. Before smashing the hierarchy and/or issuing such one-size-fits-all reorganization edicts, we encourage you to look at the realities of your own organization.