Letters

It's Simply Evolutionary

In "Survival of What Fits," (Aug. 1), writer Shane Harris approvingly quotes Professor Robert Wheelersburg on the similarity of bureaucratic change and human evolution.

But the claim of changing government departments can be addressed in a much less contentious manner using information theory. Evolution requires the addition of new information. In general, however, change does not exhibit the effects of new information, just the reorganization or loss of existing information. With new information, change is beneficial, defined as and leading to a better fit between something and its environment. Without new information, there can be no beneficial evolution and we see only decay. The successful cases of agency reorganization are not examples of pseudoscientific ape-to-man evolution, but the successful exploitation of new information in a dynamic environment.

Bureaucracies are imperfect reflections of public will, created through an imperfect political process; they are not cancerous growths serving no other purpose than self-replication. Thus, by definition, agencies change to meet changing expectations imposed by the taxpaying public, via elected officials, and to better position themselves to successfully complete their myriad missions within a dynamic environment. As a consequence, we must conclude that the seeds of change are not solely found within the organization. Rather, to retreat to the imperfect language of evolution, we must consider the nature as well as the nurture of our agencies. Leadership in response to environmental challenges lies at the heart of any good explanation of how agencies adapt, not the invisible, uncontrollable, unpredictable forces of selfish agency genes.

I loved your article on change management. I'm a business transformation consultant and be-lieve the statement that people resist change is a total myth. People love change and are constantly changing. The things that stop them are crass organizational straightjackets. That's why front-line staffs are easily able to identify what makes sensible change. The issue here is front-line people are rarely asked for their input on proposed change-they are considered too junior in hierarchies. People at the top of organizations-far removed from front-line work-suggest or champion changes that have little relevance to the day-to-day operation.

I agree that successful change management is just good management. Good managers and leaders spend time finding out what their people do, as Government Executive pointed out with the Veterans Health Administration's Kenneth Kizer. Ensuring that managers and leaders want to listen to their staffs, are able to take in what they say, and respond appropriately and respectfully to what they hear would go a long way to making for more efficient and effective organizations.

Correction

In the Aug. 1 issue, "From the Ground Up" misstated the increase in program costs for the C-130J aircraft as cited by Sen. John McCain at a recent hearing. McCain said the price for the aircraft escalated from $33 million per plane in 1995 to $67 million in 2004. The story gave the figures in billions.