How Structural Conflicts Stymie Reinvention

Abstract

Government is in the throes of reinvention. Managers proceed through results-based strategic planning, processes, and other such means to identify innovative ways to provide services. Then they attempt to implement the plans. Often, however, agencies are thwarted by a little-known condition called (Fritz, 1989; 1996). This article analyzes structural conflicts in the federal government, showing how efforts are likely to be stymied until new, appropriate structures are created. If those who genuinely desire change in government could transcend these structural conflicts, they would be more likely to create the desired change. article shows that, when structures leading toward resolution are in place, organizations achieve their goals more readily. framework illustrates how highly effective organizations begin with anticipatory need (Wade, 1989) or vision and move toward the desired ends, employing tension (Fritz, 1996). concept of structural conflict explains much of what occurs when organizations move forward in a determined and vigorous manner, then move away from the target, oscillating and often ultimately giving up on their goal (Fritz, 1994). When organizations initiate change, other forces are often simultaneously working to maintain the existing situation, causing the organization to oscillate back to the status quo. In this situation several deep structural elements are in conflict with each other. These elements include the cognitive focus, organizational structure, and actions of the various participants. A resolving structure, on the other hand, is designed to lead to the accomplishment of the desired results. These notions of oscillation and resolution can easily be applied to the efforts to reinvent government. Reinventing Government federal government's effort to reinvent government is driven principally by the Government Performance and Results Act (P.L. No. 103-62, August 3, 1993), and the National Performance Review (Gore, 1993). act introduced a number of measures to improve government's way of doing business, including mandatory strategic planning and performance measurement tied to outcomes. Pilot agencies were selected and have already begun the process; others are beginning early, both in order to get a head start and also to initiate activities that they perceive as beneficial. As Vice President Gore writes, The National Performance Review is about change--historic change in the way government works. Clinton administration believes it is time for a new customer service contract with the American people. Such a shift would move government from tape to (1993, i). If enacted, the recommendations are estimated to produce savings of $108 billion and reduce the size of the civilian, nonpostal work force by 12 percent over five years. This change would bring government employment to below two million for the first time since 1967. Nonessential staff and unnecessary layers of management would be eliminated including supervisors, headquarters staff, personnel specialists, procurement specialists, budget analysts, accountants, and auditors. Central control functions that stifle creativity and cost billions would be eliminated as well (Gore, 1993, iv). To meet this hefty challenge, organization teams of federal employees from throughout government examined what works, what doesn't work, and how things should be changed (Gore, 1993). Citizens and leaders of organizations, businesses, and other levels of government were consulted. Reinvention teams were charged to lead departmental transformations; transformation labs were challenged to experiment with different ideas. reinventing government summit brought thinkers together to explore ideas. recommendations of the National Performance Review had four characteristics: (1) cutting red tape and making people accountable for results rather than rules; (2) putting customers first by placing maximum emphasis on satisfying those people who receive benefits from specific programs; (3) empowering employees to get results through decentralizing authority; and (4) cutting back to basics in order to produce better government for less through re-engineering, re-examining programs and processes, eliminating duplication, abandoning obsolete programs, and ending special interest privileges (Gore, 1993). …