Re: Theory of Perverse Government Tangents
> 3) To make it appear that the overseer is pursuing a remedy rather than > simply criticizing, the overseer institutes new procedures that in no > real way improve the root concern, > Walt Warnick But why does he get away with this? There must be a permissive and supportive superstructure providing funds and supporting the outcome? THAT is the real source of the problem. Your overseer is just exploiting the system. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Theory of Perverse Government Tangents
Those of us who have been in Business a long time note that, repeatedly, Business goes off on perverse tangents, just like Government does. The Undis Corollary to The Warwick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents explains that perverse tangents are created and grown in Business using the same 5-stage process used in Government. The Corrolary also points out that the number of perverse tangents a Business creates is positively related to the size of the Business, and that a Business and a Government of equal size will have perverse tangent creation rates that are equal. The Corollary further points out that the "death rate" of perverse tangents created by a Business varies inversely with the square of the size of the Business (with "death" defined to mean the failure to complete any of the 5 stages memorialized in the Theory). According to the Corrolary, a Business equal in size to any actual Government has a "death rate" of zero. When discussing aspects of the Corollary in any circles, one should speak of Undistinguised Warwickian motives, Undistinguished Warwickian overseers, Undistinguished Warwickian remedies, and Undistinguished Warnickian awards. Dave Undis Original Message Follows From: "Warnick, Walter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Theory of Perverse Government Tangents Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 16:00:29 -0400 The Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents: Those of us who have been in Government a long time, note that, repeatedly, Government goes off on perverse tangents. Perverse tangents are tasks that Government line organizations are directed to pursue at all costs and under tremendous pressure, independent of any real need or benefit. Such benefit, if it exists at all, is typically tiny. For example, for many organizations like mine, the Y2K effort was such a perverse tangent, as all of our software used four digit year codes, so that Y2K problems, which were caused by software that used two digit year codes, were unimaginable for us. Despite this fact, we were directed to devote large resources to show the obvious--we did not have a Y2K problem. The Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents explains how such perverse tangents are created and grow. The Theory involves five stages. 1)In response to a concern that has some tiny germ of truth, a top leader appoints an overseer to deal with the issue, 2) To justify his existence, the overseer finds some procedural pretext to lambaste line organizations, 3) To make it appear that the overseer is pursuing a remedy rather than simply criticizing, the overseer institutes new procedures that in no real way improve the root concern, 4) To make it appear that the new procedures have worked, the overseer declares the root problem solved when the new procedures are implemented by the line organizations, and 5) The overseer receives large monetary awards. When discussing aspects of the Theory in I/O or Public Choice circles, one should speak of Warnickian motives, Warnickian overseers, Warnickian remedies, and Warnickian awards. While it may appear that the Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents has thus been born full grown, it is nevertheless recognized that improvements or amplifications may be possible. They are welcome. Walt Warnick _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Theory of Perverse Government Tangents
> While it may appear that the Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents > has thus been born full grown, it is nevertheless recognized that > improvements or amplifications may be possible. They are welcome. > Walt Warnick Sorry, Walt. You've been beaten to the punch: Read Meyer and Rowan's 1977 article "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony" in the American Journal of Sociology. The point of their article is that you should think of a lot of bureuacratic behavior as a signal of legitimacy. The behavior may have no obvious benefit and it's done only to satifsy legal regulation, noisy interest groups or "public opinion." Since then, they've scaled down their claims (they originally claimed most behavior was a legitimacy signal) but the basic point is well taken, especially for public administration. Fabio
Re: Theory of Perverse Government Tangents
My only trouble with the Warnick theory is whether it holds up under empirical scrutiny. As a senior career official in the Office of Management and Budget and two or three cabinet agencies, I witnessed the success and durability of many tangents including PPB (Program, Planning, and Budgeting), MBO (Management by Objectives), ZBB (Zero Based Budgeting), and currently PBM (Performance Based Management). There was one other during Bush 1 but I can't remember the acronym. Maybe Dr. Warnick does. Rodney Weiher "Warnick, Walter" wrote: > The Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents: > > Those of us who have been in Government a long time, note that, repeatedly, > Government goes off on perverse tangents. Perverse tangents are tasks that > Government line organizations are directed to pursue at all costs and under > tremendous pressure, independent of any real need or benefit. Such benefit, > if it exists at all, is typically tiny. > > For example, for many organizations like mine, the Y2K effort was such a > perverse tangent, as all of our software used four digit year codes, so that > Y2K problems, which were caused by software that used two digit year codes, > were unimaginable for us. Despite this fact, we were directed to devote > large resources to show the obvious--we did not have a Y2K problem. > > The Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents explains how such > perverse tangents are created and grow. The Theory involves five stages. > > 1)In response to a concern that has some tiny germ of truth, a top leader > appoints an overseer to deal with the issue, 2) To justify his existence, > the overseer finds some procedural pretext to lambaste line organizations, > 3) To make it appear that the overseer is pursuing a remedy rather than > simply criticizing, the overseer institutes new procedures that in no real > way improve the root concern, 4) To make it appear that the new procedures > have worked, the overseer declares the root problem solved when the new > procedures are implemented by the line organizations, and 5) The overseer > receives large monetary awards. > > When discussing aspects of the Theory in I/O or Public Choice circles, one > should speak of Warnickian motives, Warnickian overseers, Warnickian > remedies, and Warnickian awards. > > While it may appear that the Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents > has thus been born full grown, it is nevertheless recognized that > improvements or amplifications may be possible. They are welcome. > > Walt Warnick
Re: Theory of Perverse Government Tangents (fwd)
Not sure if this made it... fabio > While it may appear that the Warnick Theory of Perverse Government Tangents > has thus been born full grown, it is nevertheless recognized that > improvements or amplifications may be possible. They are welcome. > Walt Warnick Sorry, Walt. You've been beaten to the punch: Read Meyer and Rowan's 1977 article "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony" in the American Journal of Sociology. The point of their article is that you should think of a lot of bureuacratic behavior as a signal of legitimacy. The behavior may have no obvious benefit and it's done only to satifsy legal regulation, noisy interest groups or "public opinion." Since then, they've scaled down their claims (they originally claimed most behavior was a legitimacy signal) but the basic point is well taken, especially for public administration. Fabio
