GovernmentExecutive.com

When people talk about making government run like a business, they often point out that federal agencies are so wound up in red tape that it's hard to get their core work done. Get rid of the red tape, the argument goes, and you can get down to the actual business that needs to get done.

The pro-business argument takes many forms. Loosen the procurement rules so it doesn't take six months to get the equipment federal employees need to do their jobs. Exempt bosses from civil service restrictions so they can hire the best people to do the work. Waive the rules on government meetings with outside interests so managers can get good advice from experts.

Experiments with such flexibilities have revealed several lessons over the past couple of decades. One is that even if you get rid of one set of rules, you still need another set. The rules for any aspect of an operation exist because people need processes. Well-structured rules are fair, clear and transparent. People like structure.

Indeed, some of the agencies that have dropped standard civil service rules have developed arguably more complex and burdensome human resources policies in their stead. Managers like the new rules better because they are their own, and not something handed down by the Office of Personnel Management. But they are still rules.

A second lesson is that changing the rules can have unintended consequences. When the Internal Revenue Service started ranking field offices on collections a few years back, it created a perverse incentive for managers to lean on employees to come down hard on taxpayers, even those who might have made innocent mistakes.

When the Clinton administration sought to eliminate layers of management in the federal government and ordered agencies to reduce supervisory ratios, agencies simply reclassified supervisors as "team leaders," a bureaucratic waste of time.

A third lesson is that a bigger problem than onerous rules is agencies' failure to follow reasonable ones. The Justice Department had a thorough evaluation system for U.S. attorneys, but last year, headquarters officials decided to use an ad hoc process instead in determining who should stay or go for the remainder of the Bush administration. Ask those officials now, in the wake of the scandal that ensued, whether the shortcut was worth it. The National Zoo also found itself on the hot seat after a slew of animal deaths several years ago. An investigation revealed that the zoo failed to follow its own protocols.

Rules are cool. Rules are good. We need them. They must be updated as times and technologies change, but it's a mistake to think that rules aren't needed at all, or that changing or eliminating them would solve government's efficiency problems.

Perhaps the biggest lesson of all is that it's best to quickly comply and then get down to the agency's core work, rather than waste all that time tinkering with the rules.

COMMENTS

• I have worked civil service for 23 years and what I know about rules is that there is always a way around them. Good managers know how to use cumbersome rules to their advantage, and how to legally get around the others. We live in a sea of rules; the best swimmers rise to the top. The one worst rule the government has is the "use it or lose it" budget requirement at the end of the fiscal year. This rule creates a powerful incentive to use up a budget and more often than not the money is wasted. Eliminating this rule would save billions of dollars. martin schroeder Posted August 15, 2007 1:44 PM
• Yes...rules are cool, so are laws, and so are accountabilities. All the same. The issue is the disparate application and perverse manipulation by Union agents that simply want to protect their position and not the rules. The biggest violator of the rule of common decency and basic professionalism is the ROAD employee (retried on active duty) who is untouchable or bent on being a minimalist because they've "given their time" to the federal government and are now free to skate. The entitlement culture that has been created by rules that hamstring capable managers in the process of getting rid of deadwood is the biggest travesty and the reason more onerous rules and policing have to take place. I love it when people give examples of a handful of businesses that collapsed due to integrity issues as an explanation of bad management. I can tell you that line employees at these companies enjoyed it when the company was riding high and they were making 30-40% more than their same-job peers at other companies. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Sage advice. No one is "entitled" in life...that's why there's "work"...earn it. WKNJ Posted July 25, 2007 8:09 AM
• When did the idea that government should be run like a business take on the aura of axiomatic truth that now puts it on a plane with motherhood and apple pie? Government should run like a government. Who'd want to be governed by ENRON or TYCO or Boeing or Halliburton (oops, danger, danger, analogy breaking down). When I started, the government aspired to be an employer of choice by being an enlightened model employer in its employment practices through the careful observance of transparent rules (yeah they were complicated). Now it's degenerated into the annual peanut scramble in the dust for nickels and dimes that is pay for performance. But, if your looking for rulemaking taken to its decadent extreme, look no further. You'll find no rules more turgid, obtuse or obfuscatory than those designed conceal and protect managers from accountability as they exercise their discretion in these appraisal and compensation processes. Mike Posted July 11, 2007 1:44 PM