Perhaps it is easier to find meaningful metrics for the agency's responsibilities going outward, vs. responding to solicitations coming inward.
The best example I can think of right now (but I agree it is not an exact science):
We can gage that the border is or is not secure by how many people we assess have gotten through, the "plugging" of which is the outward responsibility of HLS, such that no entries are made without being controlled.
Conversely, how many of the legitimately allowed entrants are properly tracked as to their location, administrative status in court or elsewhere, deported for overstays or illegal activity, etc. becomes a measure of responding to incoming "forces" or stimuli.
And that would correspond to what metrics for the individuals in the agency? All measured under the same, or would there be different ones depending on the role of the employee?
A business (even one heavily bureaucratized as all large corporations are) has profit as ultimate metric; all the subsidiary ones in every department and for every individual don't matter if profit is tanking. Alas, there is no public corollary.
I may have been curt with my statement, but not facile. It is a real problem, even with your example. A good incentive can wreak real havoc if it isn't well aligned to what the organization needs to accomplish. We don't even have a political consensus on what (or who) has responsibility for border security, let alone dealing with the conflicting priorities arising from the political maelstrom in DC. The frontline disillusion of Border Patrol means nothing to the next three levels of management, let alone the appointee ranks.
I fully agree the private sector profit/loss criteria works in a big picture way, regardless of the qualities and performance of lower level employees, who may have helped or hindered achieving the end result.
I suspect we could dialog about this all night and not solve the issues :-).
As with Lorenzo, I have no special expertise in organizational theory or bureaucratic mgmt.
I do have some ideas - that might or might not survive exposure to reality. But a major element remains getting a suitably oriented Congress that will dismantle excessive agency scope and radically reform the Civil Service criteria and processes for scope, personnel, promotion, accountability, etc.
I am probably excessively optimistic that that will happen within my lifetime.
It is the reality that faces Milei, and Trump (if he wins again), and you rightly point to the difficulty in getting a radical agenda change through the legislative branch that has little to no interest in doing so. Jimmy Carter wanted to bring zero-based budgeting to DC as he had gotten implemented as governor in Georgia; his own party (on the hill) hung him out to dry.
The paper on purchase or patronage was an interesting perspective, but both would seem to be limited to smaller scale governance. Once you get an organization to a strong process focus (which is going to be typical at some scalar tipping point) you are on the road to bureaucracy. The only question is how long it takes to cripple the organization (absent some feedback mechanism like profit that can prune bureaucratic excess).
Yes, RC, that is rather curmudgeonly.
Perhaps it is easier to find meaningful metrics for the agency's responsibilities going outward, vs. responding to solicitations coming inward.
The best example I can think of right now (but I agree it is not an exact science):
We can gage that the border is or is not secure by how many people we assess have gotten through, the "plugging" of which is the outward responsibility of HLS, such that no entries are made without being controlled.
Conversely, how many of the legitimately allowed entrants are properly tracked as to their location, administrative status in court or elsewhere, deported for overstays or illegal activity, etc. becomes a measure of responding to incoming "forces" or stimuli.
And that would correspond to what metrics for the individuals in the agency? All measured under the same, or would there be different ones depending on the role of the employee?
A business (even one heavily bureaucratized as all large corporations are) has profit as ultimate metric; all the subsidiary ones in every department and for every individual don't matter if profit is tanking. Alas, there is no public corollary.
I may have been curt with my statement, but not facile. It is a real problem, even with your example. A good incentive can wreak real havoc if it isn't well aligned to what the organization needs to accomplish. We don't even have a political consensus on what (or who) has responsibility for border security, let alone dealing with the conflicting priorities arising from the political maelstrom in DC. The frontline disillusion of Border Patrol means nothing to the next three levels of management, let alone the appointee ranks.
I fully agree the private sector profit/loss criteria works in a big picture way, regardless of the qualities and performance of lower level employees, who may have helped or hindered achieving the end result.
I suspect we could dialog about this all night and not solve the issues :-).
As with Lorenzo, I have no special expertise in organizational theory or bureaucratic mgmt.
I do have some ideas - that might or might not survive exposure to reality. But a major element remains getting a suitably oriented Congress that will dismantle excessive agency scope and radically reform the Civil Service criteria and processes for scope, personnel, promotion, accountability, etc.
I am probably excessively optimistic that that will happen within my lifetime.
Thanks for your feedback.
It is the reality that faces Milei, and Trump (if he wins again), and you rightly point to the difficulty in getting a radical agenda change through the legislative branch that has little to no interest in doing so. Jimmy Carter wanted to bring zero-based budgeting to DC as he had gotten implemented as governor in Georgia; his own party (on the hill) hung him out to dry.
The paper on purchase or patronage was an interesting perspective, but both would seem to be limited to smaller scale governance. Once you get an organization to a strong process focus (which is going to be typical at some scalar tipping point) you are on the road to bureaucracy. The only question is how long it takes to cripple the organization (absent some feedback mechanism like profit that can prune bureaucratic excess).