The
Department of Information Services is set up to provide a centralized
clearinghouse of information for regional governments. It is “divided into
three sections. The Computer Systems Section looked after hardware and existing
system software and did any required ‘troubleshooting.’ The Operations Section
handled information input and routine tasks such as the copying and
distribution of computer-generated reports. On this section's payroll were the
clerks in the department's many branch offices, as well as the data processors
and computer operators at the central office. Finally there was the
Applications Section, which was charged with maintaining and periodically
upgrading the department's software.” (Case study, p. 1). The senior administrative officer supervised
all Sections and he reported back to the executive director. For the early part of its existence, the
Department’s central office maintained relatively tight control over the
information sent out to governments that requested information, because it
processed the forms filled out and sent them onto the Operations clerks who
actually gathered and disseminated the information. Long delays and a practical limitation of
only supplying data caused pressure (following an election centering on
efficiency in government) for the Department to upgrade its systems. Paul Jitney, the head of Computer Systems
recommended a proposal that would cut the operations staff in half and make the
Applications team develop software to speed up access times. Despite the Operations chief’s opposition to
the proposal, DIS accepted it and implemented it for five years. When Martha Dun, a relative newcomer to
government and bureaucracy, became head of Applications, she did so in the
midst of the micro revolution. Instead
of accessing applications through the central computer, many governments had
micros that replaced the need for the mainframe. Thus, the logon time, the measure by which
the Director gauged departmental sustainability, was drastically
decreased. At a meeting ran in a very
authoritarian fashion and based on seniority, the Director requested that
Jitney—who basically stated, over Dun’s objection, that DIS should ignore
micros—prepare a report on what could be done.
The head of Operations said that micros should be integrated into the
overall system, and Dun thought this proposal made sense.
Because Dun knew that Jitney’s report would be a death knell
for the organization, she and the head of Operations prepared a substantial
supplemental report and submitted it to the administrator. The administrator
threw it in the circular file and told Dun to keep her mouth shut.
Basically, we have a collision of interests and attempt to
concentrate power in the hands of bureaucrats who, in a shortsighted manner,
are unwilling to make changes for the good of the organization. The Director could control who spoke and when
they spoke, and like the chief of staff in the White House, the administrator
could control what the director saw. If
I were Dun, I would have tried to appeal to the Director in private following
the meeting. Otherwise, she did what she could by building a sort of coalition
with the head of Operations. Have you
ever worked for an executive like Brill before? What strategies did you find
were successful in getting your point across? How would you have used the
question period described in the meeting to make your point?
(Opener)
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot going on in this case study. In the beginning the Department was a semi-manual system that was slow and inefficient. This system brought long delays to the users. However, this gave the Department power. It could control how quickly a user's request could be processed. Under this system the Department was very important and was hard to mess with.
In 1975 the Department was ordered to reorganize to become more efficient with new technology. the Director Brill had the head of Computer Systems, Jitney report on how to reorganize. The reorganization made huge cuts to Operations and supplied new work to Applications. Jitney being selected to do the report put him in a position of power because he controlled resources, decision process on how to reorganize, controlled the technology to implement and was given formal authority by Brill to make the decisions. The Department implemented Jitney's plan, but made some modifications along the way. During the five year implementation, Jitney probably had a feeling of entitlement because he had the power.
In 1982, the Department was again under attack for being inefficient. At the same time, Dun became the new head of Applications. She was an outsider to the organization. At her first big meeting, the topic of microcomputers was the main subject. Dun was familiar with micros and knew they could help the organization. The meeting was structured to a set agenda and time limits to speak on each item. Dun was the newcomer, so was last. Brill used this format to exert his power over the section leaders. He controlled the most important resource in the meeting, this was the time and right to speak. Jitney and Cray both admitted to knowing little about micros, but gave their opinions that micros were not the solution to the problems. When Dun, the last to speak, finally got her turn, she insisted that micros needed to be a part of the solution. No one really seemed that interested in what she had to say. At the end of the meeting, Brill once again put Jitney in charge of reporting on how to reorganize and improve the Department. Jitney's report concluded that micros were not the solution and the main frame still needs to be the central hub.
Dun was furious with the report and reached out to Cray for support. In their discussions Dun convinced Cray that micros were important. Dun and Cray formed a coalition to create their own support document. This coalition is similar to that of a union where those who are not in charge seek to balance the power. Dun and Cray took their report to Wells (senior administrative officer). Wells would not read or pass on the report because it was not asked for. Wells in was in a position of power because he could control what information that was seen and considered. Not only was Wells in power of Dun and Cray, but also Brill. He acted similarly to Nixon's aides mentioned in Images.
Dun was unhappy with the outcome so she voted the only way she could. She voted with her feet by looking for a new job.
I believe Dun acted appropriately. She did what she thought was in the best interest of the organization. She sought out equality when she felt too much power was given to someone without the proper information. Once she realized she could not change the organization, she did what she felt was necessary for her career interests.
I probably would have acted similarly to Dun. I would have created my version of the report on my own time, as it was a task that she was given as part of her job. Once it became clear that I could not function with the direction the organization was going, I would have looked for new employment.
I believe everyone's effort should be put toward the set direction of an organization, even if they disagree with the direction set by the leaders. Off the clock they should feel free to do whatever they want. What does everyone else think? Office politics are what they are. They just shouldn't prohibit production and growth.
I would have been tempted to act as Dun did at one point in time, and in some situations I probably still would. My office has, over the past five years, hired several younger employees (of which I am one) who are new to the federal service. We have all been frustrated in times with the bureaucratic nature of our system and the fact that there seem to be so many agendas which predetermine the course of decisionmaking. Although opinions may be solicited, it often seems at the end of the day that the course of action has already been determined or, at the very least, one course of action is much favored. However, it is often the case that using a bit of 'political savvy' can influence the course of action. I believe that, if I were Dun, I would have attempted coalition building in order to align the views of others with my view of what was best for the department's future. If one can make others believe that their points of view are compatible or at least complimentary, a unanimous opinion is much more likely to be achieved.
Delete(Searcher)
ReplyDeleteThis case lead me to research a tremendous example of discrimination. I noticed many overtones of a male dominated culture and a bureaucratic system that was unwilling to change. A case that magnified these attitude and behavior lead to an African American female officer enduring several years of intense emotional distress, humiliation and unfair treatment. Because of the well documented incidences of remarks, treatment and video footage,, Renatta Fraizer formerly of Springfield IL, victoriously left the hostile environment of the Springfield Police Department with over 829,000.
A very brief summary about the case is as followed : After more than two years the City of Springfield, Illinois has settled a racial discrimination lawsuit with one of its former police officers, Renatta Frazier. Frazier's case was settled on March 30, 2004, and was formally accepted by Springfield City Council on April 6, 2004. This unprecedented settlement includes $829,000 in damages, Frazier's attorney's fees and other undisclosed agreements.
The harassment culminated in a conspiracy to get Frazier off the police force. The scandal led to Frazier's lawsuit, and caused the resignation of several senior officials in Springfield, including the Chief of Police. On October 31, 2001 Frazier was accused of not following proper procedure on a suspicious persons call which the SFPD claimed led to the rape of a white female by two black men; the white female being the daughter of a fellow officer. Frazier was immediately placed under investigation as news of the allegations became public. Frazier, a wife and mother of five children, maintained that she followed proper procedure, but became the subject of public scorn in Springfield
(http://business.highbeam.com/152499/article-1G1-168828653/profile-renatta-frazier-experiences-racial-discrimination).
Race and Redemption: Renatta Frazier's Story :Former Illinois Cop Settles Suit Claiming Police Cover-Up
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1814053
Morgan states, "Often, the quest for control of information in an organization is linked ti questions of organizational structure" (175)
http://business.highbeam.com/152499/article-1G1-168828653/profile-renatta-frazier-experiences-racial-discrimination
The Department of Information Service
ReplyDeleteIn this case Martha Dun had many things working against her although she was obviously qualified and impressive enough to have secured the position as head of the Application Section upon the retirement of one who may have held that position for quite some time.
The article stated that huge data base were built up to keep track of various essential government information and the present system was failing to fulfil the requests made in a timely manner. Therefore the organization was considering the option of utilizing micro systems that could give increase computer power and revolutionize their efforts.
She was faced with opposition. The executive director consulted Paul Jitney to report on ways to recognize and improve the department which was contrast to Dun’s views. Perhaps he could have asked the two of them to work together rather than creating competition.
Duns tried to form a coalition with MIke Cray who was willing to learn more and develop a connection of the two systems after she saw during the meeting that he had a more open tone toward change. Being the new player on the team and a “woman” she had to come hard or stay at home if she wanted to play with the big boys. This was the attitude i perceived.
Cam held a stereotypical attitude toward Dun implying that young people are most-likely quick to make decisions by stating that he and Mr Brill had been there for a long time and that they weren't going anywhere soon. Dun interruption during the meeting may have reinforced this attitude.
If Duns chose to stay in her position it appears she would constantly have to fight to prove herself by overworking herself, facing rejections, and enduring criticism. She could also remain there and become a submissive puppet going along with programs and ideas of mindsets that feared change and innovation.
The situation seems to be a parallel metaphore- older males - older stand alone mainframes which do not produce the required information or save the information effectively opposing a younger fresh idealist and new micro technology that could possibly do the work of two or more individuals.
The “gatekeepers” game was apparent. Control over knowledge and information was clearly demonstrated when Dun learned Wells did not share the documentation with senior directors. Cams systematic influenced the outcome of this situation.
The question asked is: if i were Dun would i have behaved any differently? IF so how?
During the meeting i would have observed a bit more carefully. Dun’s interjection perhaps marked her as acting without thinking which may have come across as a sign of immaturity to some rather than a sense of eagerness to share information and become a part of the team. Secondly, i would have carefully took notes and pointed out only the bare facts of how things could be more effective if the systems were integrated. I would have tried to appeal in an interpersonal manner by stating that change is necessary for growth.
Through this incident Dun saw that she was not an access to this organization. She learned that her intellectual ideas, creativity and passions may become oppressed and disregarded. Thus, like Duns, i would have been looking for another job, however i would not have quit. I would have waited until i found something or operated assertively but within my job description to find others with whom to expand the coalition.
In addition, in this technological world, I would have email a copy of the proposal to William Brill and carbon copied certain individual stating that a team (those who would have agreed) and i simply wanted to offer concrete feasible recommendations. I think because she was new she did what she could but she was feeling and finding her way. What she found was a male dominated authoritarian culture .
If you look at the situation of a top executive having complete control over a situation, you can see it every day. My current employer is exactly this way and you have to know how to deal with her. She gets ideas into her head of a way she would like complete a project. She will ask for help amongst the employees and try to get as much feedback as possible. She does this only as a way of letting her underlings believe they are playing a part in the project. She knows that she will not be taking any of their ideas into consideration because she has her mind made up. She evens goes to the extent of asking for you to research different ideas and present them to her. Again, trying to make it look like you are involved. If you present an idea that is actually better for the organization, she asks for all the information and trashes it.
DeleteShe has done this on multiple occasions and it has cost the organization a lot of money.
Administartors like this cause problems through out the ourganization. Too many times the people are allowed to continue operating this way because they are connected to a higher person. This case was from a time where commubication was not as great. As Letrice explained, there could have been emails back and forth to show a record of what was happening. Now a days, we do not have such problems because everything is done electronically and you can not hide anything from anyone.
Office politics are a huge part of everyday life, but when decisions are being made that effect the public and could cost the public money, then it is not okay. Public Administrators are required to act in the best interest of everyone, not just themselves. I am not naive in thinking that this is the case because people always have personal agendas, but for the most part, they should be thinking about the greater good.
You even see the argument being made on a national scale with the government shutdown. The argument is very clearly being made now that one party is causing the shutdown as they hope to it to their advantage in the elections.
ReplyDeleteDoes email really prevent something from being hidden? Why can't they just converse about it in the office and commit nothing to writing, or if Dun submitted something by email, could they not craft a careful response?
Yes it is true. I saw the shut down of our government.
DeleteEmail is a way to carbon copy or blind copy individuals as reports are shared. People can still review an email and craft what they want or even state that they never receive an email; however, it is still a way to communicate and include all parties in a conversation.
(Respondent)
ReplyDeleteThe inefficiency of the semi-manual operation of the Department of Information Services over the years, its delay of providing requested data, has rang the bell for new innovation. However this new innovation, in the form of micro technology would not go unchallenged. Such is the nature of organizational politics, as each department struggles to maintain the status quo as it favors them. tasked with upgrading the Department's technology, Jitney the head of Computer Systems proposed a decentralization of the access to data. This is supported by the Applications Section but strongly opposed by Operations. The head of Operations sees this new move towards micros and technological advancement as infringing on his powers as the dissemination of these computerized reports remained their responsibility and they had a lot of power over timely delivery. This highlights a typical example of organizational politics as one department strives to maintain the status quo because it keeps them in control.
Another major premise of the power struggle in organizational politics is the control of technology.The need to move towards more efficient technology, micros in this case, has a major impact on power relations as the attempt to change existing technology often creates conflicts between the different stakeholders groups in the organization. This is evident in this case as Dun is repeatedly put in her place despite her seemingly brilliant ideas
I think one of the biggest points you touch on is "change." People do not want change and want to keep doing things the way it has always been done. I am in the middle of a similar situation with the implementation of a new automated time clock system and new inventory control systems. I have employees who want to keep the old way. One reason is because they know the old way and they do not want to change. The old way was simple but time consuming. The other reason some people do not want the change is because responsibilities will be shifting to other people and the people that used to have control will no longer be involved. This is where the biggest push back comes from because people want to play a role and feel like they are the only ones qualified to do so. People like having that job security, but unfortunately, redundancy is necessary in all roles. I think in a lot of organizations you see issues with people not wanting to let others know what they do because they feel like they could replaced or eliminated. This is a common reaction but people need to feel confindent in their job and roll with the changes.
DeleteFurthermore, with regard to Dun's attitude in the DIS case, her young, ambitious and technologically inclined mind pushes her to pursue her career and extramural interests in making a difference in the Department of Information Services as her predecessor did. She does so by co-writing a supplementary report with Cray, who also holds somewhat similar beliefs as hers. This move is ambiguous as it can be interpreted in different ways. On the one hand, Dun's writing of a supplementary report to complement the officially requested report by Jitney can be viewed as a good initiative on her part because her ultimate goal is to improve the services of DIS. On the other hand, bureaucracy has it that as a subordinate you do not take matters into your own hands without a go-ahead from your senior and this was certainly the premise that Senior Administrative Officer leaned towards as he offered her advice to stick ho her job and leave the matter with the more experienced.
ReplyDeleteDun should have been more cautious in her intervention because it was perceived as meddling. Her interjections during the meeting thereby interrupting Jitney's speech and also talking beyond her time limit of ten minutes also imply a seemingly low regard for formal authority because it is bureaucratically inappropriate to speak in meetings when you are not asked to or beyond the time allocated to everyone else.
She had brilliant ideas which would have not only improved efficiency through the installation of micros in all branch offices of DIS, but would also enhance capacity building as operators would be trained on the use of this new form of technology. If I were in Dun's shoes, I would have first of all made a better impression in the first full scale meeting and then gradually share my support for micros in a more professional way. An ideal approach would have been having a one-on-one discussion with the other heads as well as the Senior Administrative Officer. This way, she could better put her point and probably convince them to see her idea as the best practice to adopt and also try to measure the impact on an individual scale.
Group, great job so far! Be sure to address the following questions raised by David: Have you ever worked for an executive like Brill before? What strategies did you find were successful in getting your point across? How would you have used the question period described in the meeting to make your point?
ReplyDeleteAlso, try and incorporate some of the concepts from the interests, conflict, power model given to us by Morgan. Specifically, the conflict between different task and career interests.
Also, do you notice the conflict between a bureaucratic - rules driven culture and source of power held by Brill and the countervailing technocratic - knowledge driven source of power held by Dunn.
Along with some of Letrice's comments about male domination, are there any unconscious factors at play that might help explain the resistance to change?
When thinking about the unconscious factors that explain the resistance to change, you have to think about job security. People feel threatened with the idea to change if they believe that they will not be able to deal with the changes. Some people have trouble with new policies and programs because they have been doing them the old way for so long and they cannot adapt. The ability to adapt is a huge player in all organization and is looked for in the hiring process. There also rises a concern with employees that feel they are the only ones that can do certain things. If they feel like the new program is going to make the knowledge they have know to everyone, they might feel like they are not needed. I see this a lot in municipalities when people retire and no one knows how to handle certain things. People try and justify their jobs by being the only one that can do something, which is bad for the organization. There always needs to some redundancy in place to prevent issues when people leave or retire.
DeleteI concur with Eric that the 'silo mentality' factors heavily into situations such as the one described. This seems to be particularly common in bureaucratic organizations. Employees have very specifically defined areas of responsibility and tend to be fiercely territorial around them, as no employee wants to become obsolete. This seems to often occur when particular employees or departments have held responsibility for the function for years or even decades. These employees' task interests predominate and take precedence over larger career interests.
DeleteMy organization has recently hired a number of young employees for whom career interests often take precedence over task interests. When this occurs, 'big picture' thinking tends to come in conflict with the 'we've always done it this way' mode of operation. If I were in Dun's position (albeit with more foresight than could probably occur in reality), I would have attempted to use my presentation combine my vision for the future of the department with a heavy dose of coalition building. By emphasizing ways in which my vision would also be to the advantage of other divisions, it could be possible for the positions to become more unified and influence the future of the department. Instead, the result seemed to be that which often occurs when conflict occurs in bureaucratic organizations: the proposed solution is dropped into the circular file. If consensus can build around a vision or idea, it seems to be much more likely that those in power will seriously consider moving it into the implementation stage.
Fortunately, I have never had a direct supervisor who was like Brill. If i Had been Dun, I probably would not have interrupted the others turn to speak. When it got to my turn, I would have given the facts regarding micros. I also would have used the Q&A periods to question the others on why they did not agree that micros were the solution.
DeleteThere was an obvious clash of organizational philosophies between Brill and Dun. Brill, a long tenured executive was set in his way of controlling the organization how he saw fit. He controlled everything, whether it was in the best interest of the organization. Dun disagreed with this approach as a young knowledgable newcomer. She felt those with the knowledge of the situation should have the power.
I have had a situation in which a division head and supervisor from a different division in our department disregarded regulations. In a meeting they continued to ignore the regulations and insisted they controlled the situation. In the meeting we discussed the regulations and I provided the facts. This meeting included 2 additional division head and another supervisor. When I presented the facts, it was decided the department would comply with the regulations and I (as a non-supervisor) would take the lead on implementing the new processes. I think this case represented the whole "we have always done it this way" attitude.
The case study of the Department of Information Services (DIS) is a common one for employees moving from the private sector to the public sector. Martha Dunn came into a managerial position in which she didn't have the institutional knowledge of who were the DIS "power players", what were the dynamics of the relationships among those players as far as influence in the decision making process and what are the "keys" to activate the sphere(s) of influence to achieve her organizational agenda(s) and goals. Morgan would describe the process in which sources of power are exercised at DIS in several terms. 1) Formal Authority (ED Brill as the ultimate decision maker in the decision making process); 2) Control of the decision process (ED Brill inviting his management team to meeting in which he requests recommendations for the issue of allocation of long-term scarce resources as a response to "efficiency upgrades" of using micros although he has decided what method will be used to address the issue before the meeting convenes); 3) Interpersonal alliances, networks, and control of "informal organization" (ED Brill "selecting" Paul Jitney to produce a report and make recommendations about a topic he has little knowledge about and his previous reform report has proved to problematic as far as addressing the current long-term issues DIS is facing); 4) Use of organizational structure, rules and regulations (Senior Administrative Officer Cam Wells blocking a report generated by Dunn and Cray due the report not being "requested" by ED Brill); and 5) Gender and the management of gender relations (ED Brill being insensitive during Ms. Dunn's report by "pointing towards his watch" which she presented her recommendations, cutting her off during Jitney's presentation when she asked a questions and his condescending attitude toward her role in the decision making process as a new member of management. These approaches pushed Ms. Dunn toward becoming more aggressive in order to get her voice heard).
ReplyDeleteMs. Dunn responses to her workplace was appropriate, yet ineffective. It is reasonable to expect to your recommendations to be valued when you are a member of the management team and are invited to be part of what appears to be a "pluralistic" decision making process. Ms. Dunn was placed in a position in which she expected her recommendations to be considered due to her experience with the topic and the topic being under division's authority. She may have been more effective if she would have typed her ideas out before hand and passed them out during the meeting. Also, she could have requested an one-on-one meeting with ED Brill to discuss the recommendations from herself and Manager Cray.
Personally, I have been in similar situation to Ms. Dunn. It is often extremely difficult trying to figure out the Agency culture, the center(s) of power and who will be your allies and who will oppose you all at the same time. Being flexible throughout any process is key yet you have to make sure you are considered an 'expert" in your area and a resource for all on your topic in which you have the authority over.
Excellent discussion, Grade 20 points.
ReplyDeleteHas Dun behaved appropriately? How could she have behaved differently?
She is rather clumsy in reading the power structure and gives the impression of being a brash newcomer charging in. Clearly, a more sensitive view of the politics of organization would help her appreciate the dominant bureaucratic culture and that technical know-how has lower priority. In being more aware of the power base of the department, she would have a much more appropriate reading of the situation on which to base her detailed actions.
She builds a coalition with the least powerful member. Cray has already lost great influence in the department and is in no position to be a powerful ally. If the nature of the department was such that the technological changes were perceived as critical to its success, there would have been an opportunity for a minor faction to receive and increase in power by developing this kind of coalition, provided that it was supplemented with appropriate action. But given the entrenched bureaucracy, there seems to be no way that Dun is providing an appropriate base for action within this organization. She could have built a different coalitional structure, perhaps by talking more directly with the hierarchy and seeing what sort of leeway there was for getting allies.
She could have been more tactical in the way she prepared reports and submitted them. For example, she could have done more to canvas support in advance of her proposals to seek opinion and so on. The report that she produces with Cray has merit politically in that it seeks to integrate the different sets of interest by holding on to the “mainframe,” thus giving Jitney, Brill, and others a sense of the status quo—trying to get to the middle ground rather than seeking a perfect solution. But tactics, given the entrenched power relations, could have been improved.
The situation is very difficult for a get-ahead person like Dun, for she has to change the environment in which she works. Most people with any ambition would get frustrated in this kind of organization and would leave, unless they want a cozy job. A condition of membership is that one plays the game. If Dun is truly motivated to get highly involved in the new technology, then she may have taken the wrong job.