Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:40

Bureau-crazy

In Guest Writers, Main Stories, Top Story • 959 views • 14 Comments

Jack Sim / Guest Writer

If you are an innovator and you require government help (it is easier if you don’t), you may first need to prepare and train yourself to master “The Fine Art of Vomiting Blood”. You know what I mean. But don’t get angry with the bureaucrat. Here’s why.

Singapore is a model of how a non-corrupt bureaucracy with good leadership can efficiently transform a developing country without any natural resources (except its citizenry) into the prosperous and modern city-state that it is today. As one of Asia’s most important economic power-houses, we are the envy of the world.

Yet, you soon realise that while efficiency is our strength, creativity is not. Our top leaders in government set the direction and the bureaucrats translate these directions into simplified boxes and game-rules that are fair to all and which are easy for everyone to understand because they adopt the common denominator.

Everything works well if events unfold according to the system. However, if an idea is innovative and original, it becomes a problem. In such cases, the bureaucrat’s mind works something like this:

Step 1: Does this fall into any of my existing boxes?

If Yes: Process.

If No: Step 2

Step 2: Can I not handle this? Some options include giving FAQ answers, saying this is the wrong department, refer the matter to the superior who will then refer it to his superior who is usually not available, drain applicant’s patience, and if the applicant persists and insists that I take action, go to Step 3.

Step 3: What will my boss think? And even if my boss agrees, what will his boss think?

To be fair, we have to empathise with the bureaucrat in that we cannot expect him to work according to his organization’s mission. He works only on policies and procedures which have little built-in flexibility. And at the risk of sounding cynical, the bureaucrat is keenly aware that to keep his job, he can’t rock the boat.

When dealing with bureaucrats, lots of patience is needed. Otherwise, you should look for your own solution and don’t wait for their answers. This is where many people with great ideas give up.

The point is that you need to care enough about your country and the people not to care what the bureaucrats say or do to you. State the facts and do it for the sake of the nation’s progress. Besides, bureaucrats like to support winners. Show them early signs of success, and they’ll feel safer to support you.

Meanwhile, ministers and politicians tend to be mission driven, but they too are limited by their senior bureaucrats’ interpretation and implementation of their intention into policies and procedures. The result is usually a compromise where the main body of problems is solved efficiently, while unique and innovative solutions and ideas get lost in the lalang.

As we do not have a culture of creativity, foreign talents fill in the gap. We pay (because we can afford to) the world’s best brains as our consultants to design our IRs and monumental buildings and teach us best practices. Yes, the job gets done but we continue to lament that we lack local talents.

Innovators have to understand they might be partially-helped and partially-obstructed by bureaucrats. The ratio is directly proportionate to how innovative your idea is. The more out of the box your idea is, the more uncomfortable the bureaucrat becomes.

Ultimately, you have to survive by your own determination and belief. That, and say, at the end, to yourself that you survived despite the bureaucrazy. There’s just no point trying to judge bureaucrats as good or bad. They are neither. In their personal life, they are just as creative as you and me.  It’s just that he is often frustrated: he may agree with the proposed innovation, but he is restricted from doing so. Once he arrives at the office, he follows procedure.

That said, surely there must be a better way to give the bureaucrats some space for innovation? I would like to suggest “The Right to Mistakes” policy. This practice by large French corporations assumes that the only person who doesn’t make mistakes is the one who does nothing new. Perhaps, we should learn from the foreigners again. But the big wave has to be government-led.

Will this article create repercussions for me? No. It’ll only make things better.


The Mother of All Diseases

Poor Sanitation spreading diseases that kills millions annually, Polluted Water, Deforestation leading to Global Warming, Bio-fuels leading to Food Crisis, Unsafe Sex leading to AIDS, Wars and Conflicts, we live in a world of unresolved issues. From the World Economic Forum to a war-torn disaster zone, from the UN in New York to the child dying in a new slum , we know the issues, and you may be surprised here, we do know the solutions too. Yet, the best brains and highest powers could not solve these  problems. Instead, we carry on talking, one big conference following another. We risk becoming professional “Meeters” !

1. It is not that we don’t want to solve them. The intentions are  often so noble, it makes you say “YES” in support. But advocacy is  useless unless it turns into real term action.

2. It is not that we don’t know how to solve them. Lots of scientists,  academic researchers, NGOs, social workers, practitioners has been  successful but often, they work in silos and are fragmented from each  other. They are seldom supported to scale up, nor networked across industries or other communities.

3. It is not that we lack the money or resources to solve them. With  the World Bank family of banks, all the foundations giving billions and individuals donors, all the volunteers working for free, they are ready to help. If we use these resources to create efficient market economy that facilitate , train and finance the poor to help themselves, we can solve the problems sustainably in most cases. But the reality is quite ridiculous: after all the overheads, consultancies and meetings, each dollar of resources became only a few cents when it actually arrived at the village or slums.

4. It is not that irreconcilable differences are so large that they cannot be bridged. People of opposing sides often want the same thing : Peace, time with family and friends, happiness, an efficient economy, jobs and good governance.

The problem is Global Bureaucrazy and it exists in both public service, private businesses, NGOs and virtually at all levels of organizations.

Bureaucrazy defies logic because it is a monopoly. It facilitates the following traits in various levels of powers:

1. Self-preservation. Serving self instead of serving the public, thus they work in silos.

2. Inaction. Do nothing new, take no risks and make no mistakes.

3. Blame game: Blame others, claim their credits.

4. Arrogance and a superiority complex. Fortified positions beyond  reproach.

5. Diminished spirit of enterprise: Absence of a sense of mission.

6. Unnatural rule-based behavior in the rank and a willingness to  explain item is beyond their control.

7. An unnecessary sense of competition and comparison with those who  share their mission and who should be partners instead.

When bureaucrazy becomes a culture, people get used to it so much that it becomes invisible. Politicians and CEOs come and go. Bureaucraps may stay forever. Politicians speak, but bureaucraps write their speeches. The invisible hand rules quietly.

Bureaucrazy is the legal cousin of corruption. Its impact can be more devastating than corruption because of its ubiquitous nature. In many other countries, corruption thrives in an environment of heavy bureaucrazy which serves as its substrate for life.

In Singapore, it is different. Our obsession for clean governance has led to method of eliminating corruption that is equivalent to fumigation: it kills the good bugs ( creative innovations) along with the bad bugs( creative cheats), leaving us with a sterile squeaky clean society, but without space for new locally-bred ideas.

Bureaucrazy may involve a wide array of unproductive behavior like self-preservation, image profiling, unnecessary consultancies, office politics, innovation killing, and a great continuous loss of capacities and energy. The problem is it is legal, legitimate and can stay in power forever, even beyond the reign of a bureaucrap, it is a culture that self-perpetuates.

It is not against the law to do things slowly, block new ideas and  solutions, lose files, give FAQ answers that do not address the questions, simply ignore critical issues or to refer aggrieved customers to run in circles elsewhere. The politicians or corporate CEOs are quite powerless when this culture permeates the whole organization.

Take the example of a school.

Mission :To provide wholesome education to children to prepare for a better tomorrow.

Situation : X billions uneducated and X millions dropped out of schools. To get continued support from funders, school principals need to show results and so they do their best to look good. In Singapore, it has become a ranking race where some principals even advise lower performing students to transfer themselves to other schools in order not to spoil the school’s ranking. In this process, compassion and care-giving turns into indifference and self-preservation. An escapism mentality takes over their commitment to solve the problems. Eventually, the bureaucrap become a victim of the bureaucrazy he created too. When you measure with limited or wrong KPIs, your organization may end up working against the mission.

Networked Solutions

To break the bureaucrap syndrome requires a new way of measuring wholesome and longer-term sustainable performances (having only a few KIPs may create limitation and unnatural behavior), new networked organization structures (instead of hierarchy), new incentives schemes ( measuring results and not effort), removal of dinosaurs (identifying them by peers’ check & balance system) , a new generation of mission-driven people, and the recognition of the doers regardless of positions through auto-reporting (this eliminates distorted reports by bureaucraps). Can it be done? Yes.

The new enlightened generation of politicians/ people who wants to serve regardless of whether they are in or out of office. A new breed of people who demand excellence of  themselves and their organization. An organizational structure that appreciates the value-creating bureaucrat and exposes the value-destructing bureaucrap.

It all boils down to intention. If bureaucrats are trained to find solutions rather than to follow rules, they’ll become mission driven rather than stifled by rules.

To be sure, there is a bit of bureaucrap in each of us. We defend our tuft and sometimes do things we never should. Knowing it exists is the first step to eliminating self-interest and opening ourselves back to drive our mission.

As a die-hard optimist, I believe bureaucrazy can be defeated. The universal demand for Goodness will eventually lead us to accelerate the reduction of grand scale wastage by installing natural & healthy organizational systems that facilitates and appreciates talents and innovation at all levels of our society. Simplify the filtration system and there’ll be less chokages.

In an efficient marketplace, demand drives supply because there is a choice element for the consumer. If we break the monopoly of bureaucrazy and add a dimension of competition inside it, we can create transparency and efficiency. Privatization of public services is one way. But the change requires a whole cultural revolution in the way we appreciate everyone as a changemaker.

Already, there is now a trend of preference for conferences that are action work-shops rather than talk-shop.

About the author:

Jack Sim

Founder, World Toilet Organization

Schwab Foundation’s Outstanding Social Entrepreneur of the Year 2006

Ashoka Global Fellow 2007

———————

Picture from Infocomm Gallery.

———-

Related posts:

  1. Disappointed with NTUC chief’s top 3 priorities
  2. Constance Singam: “That trust is gone.”
  3. Rethinking welfare
  4. Reducing the cost of living – the Lean way
  5. Fear, apathy – and being interested



14 Comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

rock^star
Sep 17, 2008 11:19

Well said! We are efficient but at the expense of creativity and compassion, among many other factors.

Why do our Chinese lose out to the Malaysian and Indonesian Chinese in terms of entrepreneurial ability. What about the Hongkies and China Chinese? Taiwanese too?

Singapore under PAP, has evolved into an efficient but dumb nation of people.

percevale
Sep 17, 2008 12:13

Here’s an idea for schools, set their KPI against Percentage % improvement over current results.

That is to say, your school only moves up in rankings if you have helped a student in a tangible way (i.e. improvement in grades, increased activity in community service, early discovery of a documented talent, etc)

Ganga
Sep 17, 2008 12:25

Wow, for a ‘toilet guy’ the man’s incredibly profound. I have only heard about him and the fact that he was actively involved in the sanitation industry. But I brushed it off as a gimmick of sorts. With this one article, I have a newfound respect for the man.

Mr Jack Sim, sir, you are fighting within the system and working towards solutions rather than fight against the system and lose your motivation. You are truly an inspiration and I thank you for that…

To dear Ganga
Sep 17, 2008 13:31

“3) Ganga on September 17th, 2008 12.25 pm
you are fighting within the system and working towards solutions rather than fight against the system and lose your motivation.”

Not a lot of people are like Mr. Sim. Sometimes, you need to fight the system for the system to change so that even more people like Mr. Sim can shine.

If you put nails across a 100 meter track, not a lot of people can safely make it. If you clear the track, almost all can make it. If the nails are the problem, try to take away the nails. Why have the nails there and still make it sound it is alright for the nails to be there and then pat people who are able to take the arduous & tedious route to reach the finish line.

What say you ? The flawed system is the problem or the people trying to change a flawed system is the problem. Somehow, Mr. Sim has stated his views albeit in a nice diplomatic manner.

“As we do not have a culture of creativity, foreign talents fill in the gap.”

But then, foreign talents may not have been be hindered by the same type of Bureau-crazy that we have.

“Will this article create repercussions for me? No. It’ll only make things better.”

Mr. Sim has made it, we have the good fortune to hear his story.

Other people who may have even better ideas could have been frustrated and may have to live with the fact they will never see their ideas bear fruition in their life. And they have similar stories to tell also. In life, the same story but told by a winner will somehow invite more accolades by people like Ganga.

Ganga
Sep 17, 2008 14:23

Looks like my ‘fan’ (from another post on my blog) has struck again, hahaha.

The purpose of my accolade to Mr Sim bore out of my long-held skepticism of the ‘toilet man’. I had dismissed his actions as mere gimmicks and this article has served to correct the erroneous perception I had of the man.

I agree fully that ’stories coming from winners’ are certainly more heard out, and also with the notion that there must be fighters to complement the ‘quiet infiltrators’ (excellent analogy by the way).

However, if the fighters do not persevere and instead stop along the way to start whining and complaining, then they are no longer serving the larger purpose. Also, a person who ‘fights within the system’ needs specific skills, tactics and patience to achieve such a feat and therefore such efforts/accomplishments should not be callously dismissed.

Either fight directly or indirectly but don’t stand around watching the world go by and then blame everything under the sun – this is what I have learnt personally. I used to blame the system and then do nothing myself until recently.

How we ‘fight’ is immaterial, but the fact of the matter is we should never give up fighting – even if we know failure is unavoidable. Once we give up, we have no one to blame but ourselves and should just shut up, suck it up and live with it. The bigger crime is taking the easy way out and deflecting blame unto the system – and doing nothing else about it.

And to set the record straight, my unreserved appreciation of anyone or anything is extremely rare and is only forthcoming where I feel it is extremely due. As anyone who knows me will easily attest to – I do not cheaply throw compliments around.

Daniel
Sep 17, 2008 14:30

That is a great piece of article. Provocative and straight to the point. The points are exactly how our gahmen works. It is very unbelieveable that the gahmen can try to inspire others to be innovative and creative where they themselves exhibit none of the aptitude and action.

Instead of solving problem creatively, they solve it using money over and over again. Not giving money but taking money from citizen in every opportunity they can.

I see that you are a innovator in Toilet, and hope some day you invent a toilet bowl that flush the ministers and the money-minded regime down the TOILET.

Daniel
Sep 17, 2008 14:34

“As we do not have a culture of creativity, foreign talents fill in the gap. We pay (because we can afford to) the world’s best brains as our consultants to design our IRs and monumental buildings and teach us best practices. Yes, the job gets done but we continue to lament that we lack local talents.”

Now I know why everything here is about money because there is no FT holding minister’s post ! We should have FT in high position to come out creative solution instead of money solution. To our gahmen, money solve all our problems, of course, we know it better as it only applies to Singapore because the gahmen who hold absolute power and naiton’s wealth are so disconnected with reality.

To dear Ganga
Sep 17, 2008 15:00

“5) Ganga on September 17th, 2008 2.23 pm
The bigger crime is taking the easy way out and deflecting blame unto the system – and doing nothing else about it.”

And why should the “fighting’ be skewed in favour of leaving the system alone and a negative connotative label being assigned to people trying to change the system for the better.

“Once we give up, we have no one to blame but ourselves and should just shut up, suck it up and live with it.”

Easier said if it is not your LIMITED resorces (could be your own personal money & long time involved) that are at stake. Certain groups live by taxing people by enforcing rules & regulations here & there which may already be outdated while certain groups have to risk huge sum of money & effort to test out their ideas.

Now tell me Ganga, who is doing the real value creation work and who is living by the creation work of others. You need both to moderate one another however you need to change moderating agent if it is not doing its job well.

Internet is really confusing – I never posted in your blog so far. You do have a lot of fans, it seems.

Ganga
Sep 17, 2008 16:03

It certainly seems like you might not be the person I am talking about after all. That person would not be as civil. My apologies then for the mistaken identity and thank you for your kind comments.

We should fight the system that stifles our creativity and opportunity and I do not dispute that at all. But when we choose to fight against the system, we must be prepared to suffer the consequences and continue with our struggle. My grouse is that when the going gets tough, more than a handful of such ‘fighters’ tend to stop actually fighting and start whining and complaining instead.

Such criticism without offering solutions helps no one at all. One must either outwardly rebel against the system productively (not just for the sake of rebelling), fight from within the system objectively (not just be disgruntled), or actively seek to leave the system altogether (ie. migrate). Certainly, it might not be easy for the majority of Singaporeans to embark on any of these options, but then, success does not come easily to most anyway.

One of these options must be chosen and the difficult journey must be endured until success comes – or till death. That should eb the mentality. Otherwise, they should just live with the default chocie of being in this imperfect system – without complaining.

Gerald
Sep 17, 2008 21:53

As a former bureaucrat myself, I would say the biggest impediment to civil servants being innovative (or rather facilitating innovation) is the culture of fear in the Civil Service. Everyone is fearful of incurring the wrath of their bosses and Ministers.

This wrath could come in several forms. It could be a rap for making a silly mistake, or more commonly, a rap for “not thinking through enough”. The latter is more common.

“Not thinking through” could be a result of being too idealistic, not pragmatic enough. That is the biggest black mark a Div 1 officer could have to his/her name, for it signals a lack of “helicopter vision”.

In any case, for most people, there is greater reward for not screwing up than for doing something out of the box.

Daniel
Sep 17, 2008 22:18

” a rap for “not thinking through enough”.
This I agree and widely found in authoritarian management style. In fact, its real usage is to protect the incompetent boss and to make the boss look superior and smart and the rest feel stupid and dependent. How does this work ? It works by been ambiguous. I presume in this case the staff is smart and know what to do but unfortunately work under a insecured and incompetent boss. First, it creates the impression that one must think thorough in order to suggest ideas in order not to look stupid, and on the other hand, it allows the boss to downplay you by telling you off that you lack common sense because you take too much time to decide over matter. The trick is that whether the matter requires much thorough thought is not up to you, it is up to the boss, and you have to second guess him. He will tell you the answer so to confuse you. If your boss don’t like you or want to show off who’s the king, they just shoot you down through “not thinking through enough” or just lack common sense. So head you lose, tail you also lose just because the boss lack security and doesn’t want you to outsmart him.

I can’t say it is wrong as it is just human nature.

Vacuum State
Sep 18, 2008 4:34

My friend who worked for the European Commission (a large bureucracy) was to start 10 leading edge technology projects.

He did that and 3 of them failed. As he apologised to his boss, he was surprised to hear that it is ok to fail 3 out of 10, because if all 10 had passed, that would likely mean that he had only taken ’safe’ ideas and was not creative and revolutionary enough.

However, if 6 out 10 failed, that would have meant that he was too daring.

Perhaps our ministers and bureaucrats should learn something from this. Without the dare to fail and learn, we will never discover new things.

dodo
Sep 22, 2008 17:40

i worked for the government in my early days. i put up papers after papers testing the irrationalities of rules that affected real people. one day, my immediate boss told me that the man at the top was getting irritated by my increasing number of “special” cases that required his time/approval for deviation. after that, i was history. my colleagues stayed on by “following the rules” and they also got promoted/earned more – doing same things all these years. so the true story is “bureacracy does pay off”. you have to work smart, not hard.

Daniel
Sep 22, 2008 20:09

“Perhaps our ministers and bureaucrats should learn something from this. Without the dare to fail and learn, we will never discover new things.”

Why should they take risk of losing millions if they have KPI that depend on results. Just achieve the result through proven standard ways to meet the KPI. Now you know why our system never reward innovation, they only reward what’s work. And now you know why our gahmen want you to innovate and take the risk ? Because the let you take the risk and they claim the credit. Is that relevation new to us ?

Leave a Reply

Comment


theonlinecitizen on Facebook