Governance in the 21st Century: An Expanded View 9781032219486, 9781032223896, 9781003272373

Table of contents :
Cover
Endorsements
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
PART 1
1. Purpose of Text
2. Governance Defined
PART 2
3. Epistemological Paradigms
4. The Range of Governance Approaches
PART 3
5. Requisite Variety
6. Complexity
7. Reflexivity
8. The Integrated Governance Concept
PART 4
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Drug Review Program
10. Indian Affairs – Bureau of Indian Education
11. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
12. Integrating the Governance Concepts – Crosscutting Challenges
Index

Citation preview

“Morris Bosin’s extensively researched Governance in the 21st Century is an amazing, in-depth analysis of the dynamical challenges facing all of us. He explores the new roles for leaders, the challenges of boundary management, and the need to develop new thinking. He uses the ideas of requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity to integrate all the myriad of ideas into a framework for the governance processes to engage the future successfully. Congratulations on this fine work.” Richard N. Knowles, Ph.D. “Morris Bosin’s book, Governance in the 21st Century, is an important step forward in using ideas from systems theory and cybernetics to understand the governance process. I like that he uses the three ideas – requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity. These ideas are now widely known in the systems and cybernetics community but are not yet well known among managers and public administrators. His explanation of these ideas along with examples from several government agencies is a very important contribution. Thank you for writing the book.” Stuart A. Umpleby, Professor Emeritus, Department of Management, George Washington University “Making the important distinction between administration and governance, Dr. Bosin examines and broadens the definition of governance and its role in today’s society. Combining three important concepts from cybernetics, law of requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity, into an integrated approach allows for a new understanding of the requirements of governance. The case studies provide the needed examples of how this approach can be applied to real world scenarios. An excellent contribution to the study of governance.” Valarie C. Lamont, Ph.D. “Morris Bosin’s focus on requisite variety, complex adaptive systems, and reflexivity as applied to governmental actions would have been invaluable to us at Commerce’s Office of Program Evaluation and at Al Gore’s National Performance Review – and today throughout the Government Accountability Office, especially GAO’s Duplication and Cost Savings reports. Wherever and whenever any governmental body reviews situations perhaps needing intervention, considers taking action, or evaluates similar efforts at home or abroad, this book needs to be at hand – not only for in depth looks at requisite variety, complex adaptive systems, and reflexivity, but also for the overall perspectives provided.” Robert Knisely, Former Advisor on Vice President Gore’s ‘Reinventing Government’ Initiative

Governance in the 21st Century

In Governance in the 21st Century, Morris Bosin offers an integrated approach in addressing real world governance challenges. Divided into four broad parts, Bosin begins in Part 1 by introducing the nature of governance, its use in the public and private sector, and at different levels in our society. Part 2 covers traditional and emerging approaches to governance and reviews the various epistemological roots that frame our understanding of governance approaches. Part 3 includes a detailed discussion of the three components of his proposed approach to an expanded view of governance – requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity. Part 4 illustrates the application of this approach through the use of case studies targeted at selected Federal agencies as well as at specific societal issues including the FDA’s Drug Review Program, Bureau of Indian Education Program, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, COVID 19, and Police Department Strategies. Crossing traditional disciplinary lines, Bosin’s integrated approach will guide the academic community as well as practitioners toward a more holistic view of governance and offer generic solutions that can be adapted to any number of issues that portend transformational change for society. Morris Bosin is adjunct professor at the University of Maryland Global Campus and a part-time consultant working with various Federal agencies. He has also served in various managerial and executive positions in a number of Federal agencies during a 40 year career in government.

Routledge Research in Public Administration and Public Policy

Policy Making and Southern Distinctiveness John C. Morris, Martin K. Mayer, Robert C. Kenter & R. Bruce Anderson The Effects of Technology and Institutions on E-Participation A Cross-National Analysis Pragati Rawat & John C. Morris A Guidebook for City and County Managers Meeting Today’s Challenges James M. Bourey Modern Weights and Measures Regulation in the United States A Brief History Craig A. Leisy COVID-19 Pandemic, Public Policy, and Institutions in India Issues of Labour, Income, and Human Development Edited by Indranil De, Soumyadip Chattopadhyay, Hippu Salk Kristle Nathan, and Kingshuk Sarkar Governance in the 21st Century An Expanded View Morris Bosin Behavioural Public Policy in Australia How an Idea Became Practice Sarah Ball For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge. com/Routledge-Research-in-Public-Administration-and-Public-Policy/ book-series/RRPAPP

Governance in the 21st Century An Expanded View

Morris Bosin

First published 2023 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Morris Bosin The right of Morris Bosin to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this title has been requested ISBN: 978-1-032-21948-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-22389-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-27237-3 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373 Typeset in Times New Roman by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

Contents

List of Figuresix List of Tablesx PART 1

1

1 Purpose of Text

3

2 Governance Defined

8

PART 2

13

3 Epistemological Paradigms

15

4 The Range of Governance Approaches

23

PART 3

43

5 Requisite Variety

45

6 Complexity

58

7 Reflexivity

114

8 The Integrated Governance Concept

157

PART 4

161

9 U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Drug Review Program

163

10 Indian Affairs – Bureau of Indian Education

171

viii  Contents

11 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

178

12 Integrating the Governance Concepts – Crosscutting Challenges

200

Index

220

Figures

1.1 2.1 2.2 4.1 5.1 5.2 6.1 7.1 7.2 11.1 11.2 11.3

Integrating reflexivity, requisite variety, and complexity Three perspectives on enhanced governance Governance as management, learning, and reflection Iron triangle Three key steps in establishing requisite variety – scoping, modeling, strategizing Additional considerations that impact the design of the regulatory model Leadership roles in complex adaptive systems Relationship among interpretive modes The feedback loop connecting cognition, action, and outcome Immigration as a Complex Adaptive System Factors affecting immigration status in the United States Two perspectives on the border wall issue

6 9 11 32 47 50 107 148 153 186 187 197

Tables

3.1 Sociological paradigms 16 3.2 How governance approaches are manifested in different epistemological perspectives 19 4.1 Three criteria for framing governance approaches 24 6.1 Responses to requests for budget reductions in closed vs. open boundary systems 89 6.2 Leadership roles in complex adaptive systems 108 7.1 Metaphors used by FDA planning participants 119 7.2 Metaphors used in various planning phases 124 7.3 Relating planning metaphors to underlying values 125 7.4 Daft enactment models 135 7.5 Enactment models under varying environmental conditions 136 7.6 How different interpretive modes vary by role 147 8.1 Type 1 and Type 2 errors in applying the governance components158 8.2 Application of enhanced governance components at the FDA and Bureau of Indian Education 159 11.1 Governance responses to states of equilibrium and 189 disequilibrium in immigration rates 11.2 The multilevel nature of the border wall issue 195

Part 1

1

Purpose of Text

Administrators at all levels of government seem ill-equipped to address this century’s most complex and wicked issues that threaten the wellbeing of citizens around the globe. The contrast between the terms “administration” and “governance” starts to get at the fundamental problem. Administration is narrowly focused on getting today’s job done. Governance is the broader term that encompasses not only “doing the thing right” but also “doing the right thing.” I propose an integrated approach to governance in addressing this century’s most complex public issues. The three components of this integrated approach are (1) establishment of requisite variety (LRV) in addressing public issues by allocating resources to the areas of greatest need, (2) operating as part of complex adaptive systems (CAS), and (3) adopting a reflexive stance to enhance self-awareness of governance approaches. In this integrated approach to governance, the three components can be referred to in briefer terms as requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity – or in even simpler terms – manage, learn, and reflect. These concepts will be explained in greater detail as you proceed through the text. This “three-legged governance stool” is a proposed approach to governance that is rooted in three different epistemological frameworks – as opposed to solely the functionalist paradigm, which characterizes much of what is considered “good governance” approaches. When taken together the three components of governance, expand the “cognitive capacity” of the governance entity – regardless of how that entity is defined. The requisite variety component of the governance approach most closely conforms to legacy concepts associated with any executive or manager who allocates scarce resources to the areas of greatest need in order to achieve explicit or implicit goals of an organization or system. The complexity component expands the cognitive capacity of governance outward to encompass the broader landscape in which the governance entity operates. The reflexivity component expands the cognitive capacity of governance inward to account for the various lenses that are used by the governance entity to “make sense” of the landscape. DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-2

4  Part 1 The establishment of requisite variety is the administrator’s attempt to understand and cope with the complexity of the environment surrounding him/her. Awareness of the dynamics of complex adaptive systems informs the administrator that no matter how much information is available, he/she cannot lead the parade, but a nuanced understanding of complexity elements such as self-organization, emergence, and phase shifts allows a more realistic appraisal of the limits to governance. The reflexivity component of governance permits the administrator to increase awareness of alternative lenses through which to view the environment.

Relating Governance to the Three-Legged Stool Above, I have described how complex adaptive systems and reflexivity expand the cognitive capacity of the governance function beyond traditional approaches that assume a more hierarchical distribution of decision-making power. To enhance the understanding of what is meant by “cognitive capacity,” consider viewing each of the three legs – requisite variety, complex adaptive systems, and reflexivity – as critical components in carrying out the overarching task of making sense of and adapting to a complex and changing environment. Each of the three components is engaged in the process of matching the variety in the external environment with the requisite amount of variety within the entity necessary to survive and thrive in that environment. In a sense, Ross Ashby’s “law of requisite variety” holds true whether one is referring to an organization, a complex network, or an individual. The governance function, from this perspective, may be defined as the process of successfully navigating a complex environment in the pursuit of desirable outcomes. Further, the governance function applies at multiple levels of society – at the organizational level, as a complex adaptive system, and at the individual level. The scenarios below illustrate this point: •

•

Organization perspective: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is responsible for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of thousands of drugs that are produced and marketed by pharmaceutical firms. To develop a manageable regulatory regimen, the Agency groups these drugs into risk categories, and tailors the regulatory approach to each risk category. If they do a good job (establish the requisite number of risk categories to address real differences in risk), drug safety and efficacy will be assured without overwhelming the regulatory capacity of the Agency. Complex adaptive system perspective: The U.S. health-care system can be considered as a complex adaptive system that is attempting to ensure that every U.S. citizen receives the level of health care needed to enjoy a reasonably good quality of life. This is exponentially more

Purpose of Text 5

•

complex than the governance challenge faced by an individual organization that is attempting to carry out its mission. The U.S. health-care system encompasses many actors who are constantly interacting with each other, including individual health-care providers, insurers, a wide variety of health-care organizations, and governmental entities at local, state, and national levels. The variety of health conditions in this country is enormous. Conditions vary by age, gender, ethnicity, economic status, underlying conditions, and geographic location, to name a few variables. The job of the complex adaptive system is to effectively match the range of health conditions with an appropriate variety of health-care solutions. The potential capacity of the health-care system to provide health-care solutions is large, but the variety of health conditions is larger. To be successful, the U.S. health-care system has to establish the requisite variety of health-care solutions so that the health-care needs of all U.S. citizens are met. Too little variety in health-care solutions means that a portion of the U.S. citizenry will have their health-care needs unmet. Too much variety in health-care solutions means that the health-care system itself could collapse because it cannot be managed. There is a qualitative difference in how requisite variety is established within an individual organization, such as a Federal agency, and how it is established within a complex adaptive system. Within the individual organization, generally the decisionmaking apparatus is hierarchical with input from lower levels in the organization. The design of the appropriate regulatory approach is determined by the normal hierarchical decisionmaking process. In contrast, decisions about requisite variety within a complex adaptive system are widely distributed. The desired regulatory approach “emerges” from the interactions among the many actors within the system. Further, the nature and shape of the requisite variety solution constantly changes in response to environmental shifts. Individual reflexive perspective: Individuals operating within organizations, and/or as part of complex adaptive systems, make sense of their environment through the use of preconceived narratives, scripts, stories, or other cognitive frameworks. These paradigms provide an integrated picture of what otherwise would be a chaotic and unknowable environment. Such frameworks are reinforced by socialization and enculturation. They enable signals from the environment to be incorporated into a sense-making structure. The frameworks provide stability and work as long as they help the individual to survive and thrive in his/her current environment. In times of transformational change, existing narratives that formerly explained the world to the individual’s

6  Part 1

Figure 1.1  Integrating reflexivity, requisite variety, and complexity

Purpose of Text 7 satisfaction no longer work. What was once deemed to be an unequivocal rationale is reduced to equivocality. To illustrate, law enforcement officers who have been enculturated into a “good guy–bad guy” narrative may now find that the narrative is no longer an unequivocal formula for success in an era where many factors contribute to a citizen’s status as an offender. In instances where mental health status, impoverished economic conditions, and dysfunctional family circumstances are contributing factors, the traditional law enforcement responses are no longer viable. Figure 1.1 illustrates the integration of the three perspectives in developing a more robust view of governance.

2

Governance Defined

Central to the inquiry explored in this chapter is the definition of “governance.” First, it is important to distinguish “governance” from “government.” A simplified distinction is that governance is a process, or function, designed to achieve goals, while government is a formal structure established to carry out the governance process. However, there can be several less formal arrangements of people interacting with each other that carry out the governance function but are not considered as formal “governments” per se. The “me too” movement is an organization that acts to achieve goals but is not a formal government. The examples of governance in the below list coalesce around the observation that the act of governance, or the process of steering toward goals, can be carried out by both formal and informal governing bodies: •

•

•

•

“The need for governance exists anytime a group of people come together to accomplish an end. Though the governance literature proposes several definitions, most rest on three dimensions: authority, decisionmaking, and accountability. At the Institute on Governance, the working definition of governance reflects these dimensions. Governance determines who has power, who makes decisions, how other players make their voice heard and how account is rendered.”1 Governance  comprises all of the processes of governing – whether undertaken by the government of a state, by a market, or by a network – over a social system (family, tribe, formal or informal organization, and a  territory  or across territories) and whether through the laws, norms, power, or language of an organized society.2 It relates to “the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions.”3 In lay terms, it could be described as the political processes that exist in and between formal institutions. A variety of entities (known generically as  governing bodies) can govern. The most formal is a  government, a body whose sole responsibility and authority is to make binding decisions in a

DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-3

Governance Defined 9 given  geopolitical  system (such as a  state) by establishing  laws. Other types of governing include an organization (such as a corporation recognized as a legal entity by a government), a socio-political group (chiefdom, tribe,  gang, family,  religious denomination, etc.), or another, informal  group  of people. In  business  and  outsourcing  relationships,  governance frameworks  are built  into  relational contracts  that foster long-term collaboration and innovation. Governance is the way in which rules, norms, and actions are structured,4 regulated, and held  accountable.  The degree of formality depends on the internal rules of a given organization and, externally, with its  business partners. As such, governance may take many forms, driven by many different motivations and with many different results. For instance, a government may operate as a  democracy where citizens vote on who should govern and the public welfare is the goal, while a nonprofit organization or a corporation may be governed by a small  board of directors  and pursue more specific aims. In addition, a variety of external actors without decisionmaking power can influence the process of governing. These include  lobbies,  think tanks, political parties, non-government organizations, community, and media.

Frameworks for Analysis of Governance Prior to examining the challenge of governance in complex times, it is useful to review the various schema that can be employed to frame the challenge. Within the public policy and public administration literature, there has been a proliferation of frameworks used to enhance understanding of the public policy and governance milieu. Figure 2.1 illustrates three frameworks that can be used to characterize governance approaches: • •

Degree of control and predictability in the governance mechanism Epistemological approach – what is considered as legitimate knowledge in understanding the nature of governance

Figure 2.1  Three perspectives on enhanced governance

10  Part 1 •

Cognitive constructs – the lenses that are used to identify the scope of governance Degree of control and predictability: This framework covers a continuum of governance approaches that address the extent to which policies and strategies can be planned in advance, tightly integrated and for which the outcomes can be measured. Approaches range from comprehensive-rational planning at one end of the spectrum to disjointed incrementalism at the other end. Epistemological approaches: This framework covers four different perspectives on what is considered as legitimate knowledge. These perspectives are organized based on two criteria: (1) the subjective vs. objective nature of reality; and (2) whether the environment in which governance takes place is orderly and in synch, or essentially in perpetual conflict. This framework provides the underpinning for understanding how governance approaches are viewed. Cognitive constructs: This third framework examines the nature of the three lenses that, together, comprise the proposed model of an enhanced governance approach explained in this chapter. The concept of requisite variety stems from the systems and cybernetics literature, and addresses how policies and strategies are designed to model the environment in a way that simplifies its complexity, but is still able to address the most critical problems. The complexity lens views the governance task as operating within a network of interacting agents – all part of a complex adaptive system. The reflexivity perspective turns the lens inward toward the governance entity itself, and examines one’s frame of reference in making sense of the world in order to reveal other possible approaches to address issues.

The above frameworks will be described in detail in subsequent chapters. The epistemological framework will be discussed in Chapter 3, degree of control and predictability in Chapter 4, and cognitive constructs in Chapter 5. In Figure 2.2, the three approaches in Figure 2.1 are consolidated to present a synoptic view of governance that can be characterized by three basic functions. In the governance realm the three primary functions are to (1) manage effectively, (2) learn from experience, and (3) reflect on how leaders and managers view the landscape. The above frameworks will be useful tools in appreciating the full scope of governance approaches available to address the complexity of societal issues facing us in the 21st century. Each approach will be examined in detail in the remaining chapters of the text.

Governance Defined 11

Figure 2.2  Governance as management, learning, and reflection

12  Part 1

Notes



1 Institute on Governance (IOG) is a Canadian think tank, focused on developing better governance in the public sphere both in Canada and internationally. 2 Bevir, Mark (2012). Governance: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 3 Hufty, Marc (2011). “Investigating Policy Processes: The Governance Analytical Framework (GAF).” In Wiesmann, U., Hurni, H., et al. (eds.), Research for Sustainable Development: Foundations, Experiences, and Perspectives. Bern: Geographica Bernensia (pp. 403–424). 4 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/governance

Part 2

3

Epistemological Paradigms1

Epistemology is the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The concept refers to the approaches used to know and understand our world. What counts as legitimate knowledge? Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan (1979) offered a general framework for understanding the various perspectives from which knowledge of the world is acquired. The authors developed a 2 × 2 matrix to help classify and understand existing sociological theories based on four major epistemological paradigms (see Table 3.1). The matrix is based on four main epistemological debates: • • • •

Is reality given or a product of the mind? Must one experience something to understand it? Do humans have “free will,” or are they determined by their environment? Is understanding best achieved through the scientific method or through direct experience?

The authors coalesce these debates into two fundamental issues that form the axes of the 2 × 2 matrix: • •

social theories emphasizing regulation and stability vs. those emphasizing radical change subjective (individualistic) theories vs. objective (structural) theories

The four paradigms represented by the quadrants of the matrix are: Functionalist paradigm (objective-regulation) This has been the primary paradigm for organizational study. It assumes rational human action and believes one can understand organizational behavior through hypothesis testing. Interpretive paradigm (subjective-regulation) DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-5

16  Part 2 Table 3.1  Sociological paradigms Stability vs. Change

The Nature of Reality

Conflict and change Regulation and stability

Objective reality Radical structuralist Functionalist

Subjective reality Radical humanist Interpretive

This paradigm seeks to explain the stability of behavior from the individual’s viewpoint. Researchers in this paradigm try to observe ongoing meaning creation processes to better understand how individuals make sense of their world – which is assumed to be orderly. Radical humanist paradigm (subjective-radical change) Theorists in this paradigm are mainly concerned with releasing social constraints that limit human potential. They see the current dominant ideologies as separating people from their “true selves.” They use this paradigm to justify desire for revolutionary change. It is largely antiorganization in scope. Radical structuralist paradigm (objective-radical change) Based on this paradigm, theorists see inherent structural conflicts within society that generate constant change through political and economic crises. This has been the fundamental paradigm of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Why is it important to understand epistemological alternatives prior to reviewing governance approaches? It is because different ways of making sense of the world around us legitimizes different approaches to governance. To illustrate: •

If designers of governance strategies are rooted in a functionalist epistemology, they will assume that they can dispassionately separate their own biases in objectively defining problems and designing solutions to these problems. Further, they will assume that despite the complexities that exist in their external environment, given sufficient information, they will be able to see how all of the pieces in the puzzle fit together; and that relationships are sufficiently stable to predict outcomes. The justification for developing strategic plans that work – whether for counterterrorism, pandemics, or climate change – is grounded in a functionalist epistemology. To recall, the hallmarks of this epistemology are (1) the ability to separate the observer from objective reality, and

Epistemological Paradigms 17

•

•

•

(2) the belief that the environment is characterized by sufficient orderliness to predict outcomes. The “machine” metaphor – “if you press this button, then expect this outcome” – predominates in this epistemology. From an interpretive perspective, designers of governance attempt to focus on their own as well as others’ biases as they determine reasonable approaches to complex issues. Interpretive designers spend a large percentage of their time defining problems relative to the time dedicated to finding solutions. Strategic thinking is infused with the interpretive perspective. Basic assumptions are continually questioned, such as: “What business do we think we’re in; what business are we actually in; what business should we be in?” In order to authentically address such questions, participants must be willing to closely examine the lenses they use to make sense of the world around them. The radical humanist perspective on governance focuses on the uneven distribution of power within existing governance schemes. This epistemology is based partly on the assumption that reality is not only subjectively created but also socially constructed in a manner that perpetuates the dominant power base. The existing power base is simply a reification of a structure that has been built by those in power; and who, in turn declare that it is immutable… not able to be changed by its very creators who claim that they did not create the structure, but merely abide by it. The radical humanist approach to governance addresses change as not just adapting to a changing environment but also having the ability to redefine the environment itself…since all reality, including definitions of the adapter and the environment are subjectively defined. To cite an illustration, General Motors in the 1950s designed vehicles based on their views of what a vehicle should be – essentially a large, powerful car that exuded comfort. But they also defined the car-buying environment. They shaped demand by convincing consumers that large, luxurious cars were the preferred mode of transportation. This echoes Henry Ford’s pronouncement in the 1920s: “You can have any color of Ford you want…as long as it is black.” In the 1960s, Japan demonstrated that the reality of large comfortable and luxurious cars was a social construction, and because that reality was subjectively created, it could be changed through a redistribution of power in the automotive industry. The new reality for both car makers and consumers was the advent of economy cars. The redistribution of power made this new social construction viable. Radical structural epistemology serves as the basis for recognizing that structural change in power bases occurs on a cyclical basis. The inherent nature of conflict between dominant and challenging

18  Part 2 power bases and an eventual synthesis of ideas from both power bases are objectively observed phenomena. Designers operating from this epistemological perspective recognize this ongoing dynamic and incorporate its features into the design of governance approaches. The founding fathers recognized this dynamic and incorporated it into framing the U.S. constitution and associated amendments. Examples are baked into the document in several ways. The entire system of checks and balances is premised on the idea that there will be competing factions vying for dominance in how our nation is governed. That system is designed to “level the playing field” so that all sides are given an opportunity to advance their viewpoint. The provision of term limits establishes definitive time frames within which to muster and hold on to power. An astute designer of governance approach based on the radical structural epistemology recognizes the cyclical nature of globalist vs. populist thinking among nation states in the 20th and 21st centuries. When nations have moved to one extreme or the other, there has been an automatic heightening of resistance from the opposite extreme. This dynamic has been witnessed in such diverse issue areas as immigration, climate change, financial crises, and pandemics. In each instance, a push for global solutions is met with an opposite push toward national sovereignty in finding solutions tailored to each country. Currently, there is no existing design in place to recognize and accommodate both extremes, and to find the “sweet spot” that synthesizes the best ideas of global and populist/nationalist approaches. From the perspective of complex adaptive systems (CAS), the “sweet spot” emerges through self-organization and then continually morphs into new forms as the landscape changes. The “design” function, which is an inherent part of the CAS, may be facilitated by enlightened leadership. This role represents a distinct departure from the traditional view of command and control leadership from the top. Leadership in a CAS is exhibited by encouraging extensive and intensive interaction among agents in the system to ensure maximum opportunity for innovative thinking. Facilitative leadership in a CAS is also an astute observer of trends both in the external environment and in the mindsets of the various agents within the system. The idea is to capitalize on these trends in order to leverage the maximum outputs that lead to desirable outcomes.

Table 3.2  How governance approaches are manifested in different epistemological perspectives Epistemological Perspectives Governance Approaches

Interpretive

Requisite variety is established From the interpretive perspective, attention is by building a model of the given to the process by objectively defined which meaning is environment. From a constructed in assessing functionalist perspective, the the environment, and in model builder is associated with an individual regulator/ building a simplified model of the manager usually housed environment. Through within an organization, and self-reflection, deep-seated with the authority to implement selected strategies. narratives that guide sense making are made transparent. This reflexive process reveals alternative narratives that may shed new light on issues and their solution.

Radical Humanist

Radical Structural

This epistemological stance assumes that simplified models of reality (requisite variety) are built and legitimized by those in power. But there is also recognition that these models are social constructions; and because they are created and reified by people, rather than concrete realities, they can be altered by competing interests – who also have the capacity to construct an alternative model of reality.

This epistemology assumes that the establishment of requisite variety, as manifested in simplified models of the environment, occurs in cycles with the dominant model reigning for a period of time, to be challenged by an opposing model. The resulting synthesis between the two views of reality becomes the dominant model, and the cycle continues. This epistemology assumes that the thesis– antithesis–synthesis cycle is an objective reality, a basic truth about the nature of conflict and resolution. The models built by opposing forces, however, are subjectively created. (Continued)

Epistemological Paradigms 19

Requisite variety All four epistemological perspectives establish requisite variety in order to model, and thus simplify an environment of potentially endless complexity. This is required to address the most critical issues.

Functional

20  Part 2

Table 3.2  How governance approaches are manifested in different epistemological perspectives (Continued) Epistemological Perspectives Governance Approaches Complexity

Functional

Interpretive

From the interpretive From the functionalist perspective, the complex perspective, the behavior of adaptive system consists even the most complex of many agents adaptive systems can interacting both eventually be explained and extensively and intensively predicted, given sufficient as it adapts to time and information. Stephen Wolfram’s book – A environmental changes. Unlike CAS’s in the New Kind of Science – natural world, agents epitomizes the functionalist within a human CAS approach to complexity. His use of cellular automata, and enter the interactions with “mental models,” or other methodologies such as preconceived narratives agent-based modeling, grapple with the challenge of that each agent employs in order to make sense of predicting behavior of the his/her environment. CAS. However, this runs Successful adaptive counter to the concept of a behavior of the CAS CAS, which is rooted in the depends upon sufficient idea that solutions emerge harmonization of the through self-organization, various mental models so and cannot be predicted. that the system can engage in unified, or at least integrated adaptive behavior.

Radical Humanist

Radical Structural

From the radical humanist perspective, complex adaptive systems compete with each other for dominance in specific environmental niches. The rivalry between democratic and republican parties exemplifies such a rivalry. Different media platforms reinforce narratives that dominate each party’s version of reality. To a radical humanist, it is a question of which narrative can gain purchase with the U.S. voter, and hence influence social policies that are consistent with the dominant narrative.

From the radical structural perspective, complex adaptive systems compete with each other for dominance but in a cyclical fashion. This is similar to the radical humanist perspective in the sense that there is continuous competition among the different CAS’s, but from the structural standpoint, there is a predictable dynamic in which the dominant CAS prevails for a time period until it is replaced by the challenging CAS.

(Continued)

Table 3.2  How governance approaches are manifested in different epistemological perspectives (Continued) Epistemological Perspectives Governance Approaches Reflexivity

Interpretive

Radical Humanist

Radical Structural

There is an inconsistency in applying a functionalist epistemology in implementing a reflexive governance strategy. The premise underlying the functionalist perspective is that reality is objective, and the observer can set aside preconceptions and objectively study and draw conclusions about observable phenomena. This is in contrast to a reflexive stance, which requires the observer to be part of what is being observed. To take a reflexive stance is to consider the process of sense-making to be at least as important as the object being studied. Self-reflection makes transparent underlying assumptions, which permits new possible ways of making sense of the surrounding reality.

The interpretive epistemology is the natural perspective for being sympathetic with the reflexive component of governance. From this epistemological stance, the operational part of reality is the meaning that people attribute to objects and the process by which meaning is attributed. So it stands to reason that self-reflection is an appropriate prerequisite for formulating and implementing policy.

The radical humanist epistemology assumes that conflict between the powerful and the powerless is the natural dynamic, and because power is a human rather than a natural construction, it can be changed. A reflexive stance taken by both those in power and those out of power may reveal other possible ways to resolve conflict beside victory for one side and defeat for the other. Coalition governments, as seen in several European countries, are partially the result of all sides engaging in self-reflection in order to see opportunities for compromise.

The radical structural epistemology is compatible with an historical perspective that views many past cycles of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. This cycle is an objective reality rather than an interpretation. Assuming that one learns valuable lessons from a critical historical analysis, this leaves room for a self-reflective stance as part of the analysis. A contemporary example of reflexivity being applied in the context of radical structuralism is the current controversy about teaching critical race theory in U.S. schools. This enlightened approach to understanding how power is achieved and maintained, exemplifies a self-reflective inquiry. This is power questioning itself.

Epistemological Paradigms 21

Functional

22  Part 2 Table 3.2 summarizes how the four epistemological perspectives explained above is embedded within and elucidates each of the three legs proposed in an expanded governance approach.

Note 1 Burrell, Gibson and Gareth Morgan (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.

4

The Range of Governance Approaches

Prior to engaging in a full-blown discussion of my “three-legged” approach to expanding governance, it is useful to examine the range of governance frameworks that have historically guided solutions to complex public issues. Several of the concepts discussed in this chapter have deep roots in traditional governance approaches. In fact, two of the three legs – requisite variety and complexity – have drawn from insights gained in general systems theory and change management theory, respectively. The third leg of my expanded governance approach – reflexivity – has a more tenuous connection to traditional governance approaches. As a caveat, my use of the term “traditional governance” frameworks has a somewhat liberal or broad interpretation. A review of the governance literature (both theory and practice) has revealed a wide range of governance approaches. Many definitions of governance have been offered in the literature. Ansel and Torfing (2017)1 in their Handbook on Theories of Governance reviewed several perspectives on governance, including concepts, modes of analysis, and forms of governance. Based on this review, they have compiled an inclusive definition of governance, which can serve as a basis for establishing broad governance frameworks in this chapter. Their definition is as follows: …the interactive process through which society and the economy are steered towards collectively negotiated objectives. The implicit components of governance, based on this definition, include a decision making process (how are decisions concerning objectives and steering strategies made; and what is the structural arrangement among actors. This definition is sufficiently broad to accommodate both formal approaches seated within governmental entities; and informal approaches that involve multiple actors both within and outside of formal institutional settings.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-6

24  Part 2 Table 4.1  Three criteria for framing governance approaches Degree of Comprehensiveness and Integration Comprehensive-Rational Broad Governance – Incremental Adjustment Mixed scanning – Amati Agency-based strategic Etzioni planning Logical incrementalism – Government-wide James Quinn management reforms International governance approaches Degree of Centralization vs. Decentralization Hierarchy Limited Network Corporate model Iron triangle Command and control Interest group liberalism Formal government structures

Incremental Disjointed incrementalism – Charles Lindblom

Extensive Network Network governance Issue networks – Hugh Heclo Public choice theory – Ostrom

Degree of Adaptability to Change Leader-Directed Selective Organization-Centric Self-organized Adaptation Feedback Feedback Strong cultures Learning organizations – Adaptive governance Groupthink Chris Argyris, Donald Complex adaptive systems Mutual support systems Michael

To provide a coherent framework for this chapter, I have arranged governance approaches along three continua: • • •

Degree of comprehensiveness and integration in governance strategies Degree of centralization vs. decentralization in governance decisions Degree of adaptability to changing conditions

Table 4.1 provides illustrations of governance approaches that occupy each position on the above continua. It is important to note that the illustrations of concepts and authors identified in the table are representative examples – rather than a comprehensive accounting of all approaches. For each point on the spectrum, there are many authors and case studies that demonstrate each concept:

Degree of Comprehensiveness and Integration in Governance Approaches The first continuum refers to the degree of orderly and rational planning involved in the governance process. A hallmark of comprehensive-rational governance is a complete picture of how all the pieces of the governance puzzle can be pieced together at the outset of the governance initiative and the cause–effect relationships between each of the components. At

The Range of Governance Approaches 25 the far left of the continuum, governance approaches are systematic, with all options thoroughly evaluated and the optimum alternative selected. Outputs and outcomes can be measured and predicted. Comprehensiverational governance is firmly rooted in traditional private sector scientific management principles formulated by Frederick Taylor in the early 20th century. The comprehensive-rational approach was tailored to a production line business environment. The comprehensive-rational approach was further reinforced by the POSDCORB methodology (Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting) authored by Luther Gulick in 1937.2 This comprehensive approach was solidified in the later writings of such management gurus as Ralph Davis3 (Fundamentals of Management 1951) and Peter Drucker4 (The Effective Executive 1966). The scientific management approaches advanced by these 20th-century authors were geared to private sector situations, in particular, how leaders should manage their hierarchical organizations. The principle underlying these approaches, however, was that complex challenges could be solved through rigorous instrumental cause–effect logic, with all variables controlled, or at least accounted for. This is basically the reasoning that prompted public sector executives to import private sector managerial approaches in an attempt to address complex government-wide challenges. Under the rubric of comprehensive-rational planning, many management methodologies have been adopted by federal and state programs from the private sector. They include, but are not limited to: • • • • •

SWOT analysis Strategic planning Performance measurement Project management Risk management

The Federal Government also has a long history of incorporating management reforms from the private sector as a way to improve government accountability to the Public. These are often referred to as the alphabet soup of management reforms, and they include the Program Planning Budgeting and Execution System (PPBES), Management by Objectives (MBO), Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB), the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and the Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART). The Office of Management and Budget has been the primary agency responsible for guiding the government-wide implementation of each reform with mixed results. The far right end of this continuum is represented by the concept of “disjointed incrementalism” pioneered by Charles Lindblom,5 a political scientist writing in the 1950s. In public policy, incrementalism is the method of change by which many small policy changes are enacted over

26  Part 2 time in order to create a larger broad-based policy change. The normative criteria utilized by incrementalists include the following principles: • • •

Can you get agreement among all participants Can you minimize pain in your next steps Can you preserve overall stability in the situation

Lindblom pointed out the severe limitations in employing comprehensiverational governance approaches in public sector settings. He said that it is impossible to use the comprehensive approach for the solution of complex problems because it assumes intellectual capacities and sources of information that public administrators simply do not have. He goes on to say: “Of particular importance to public administrators is the fact the public agencies are, in effect, usually instructed to practice comprehensive-rational approaches in everyday settings. That is to say, their prescribed functions and constraints – the politically or legally possible – restrict their attention to relatively few alternative policies among the countless alternatives that might be imagined. It is the incremental method that is practiced. Curiously, however, the literature of decision-making, policy formulation, planning and public administration formalize the comprehensive approach rather than the incremental. This leaves public administrators who handle complex decisions in the position of practicing what few preach.” (Lindblom, 1959, p. 70) During the 1970s, Lindblom was further convinced that for most policy problems there is no alternative to disjointed incrementalism – a stratagem based on small steps, trial and error, and a limited consideration of consequences – as both a description of how policy is made and as a preferable strategy in the face of pervasive complexity. Disjointed incrementalism was proposed as the appropriate governance process for pluralistic societies, as opposed to the centralized planning of totalitarian societies. Good policy outcomes are the result of give-and-take negotiations among all relevant stakeholders. The measure of a good decision is the decision-makers’ agreement about it. Poor decisions are those which exclude actors capable of affecting the projected course of action; decisions of this type tend to be blocked or modified later. Partisan “mutual-adjustment” is held to provide for a measure of coordination of decisions among a multiplicity of decision-makers and, in effect, to compensate on the societal level for the inadequacies of the individual incremental decision-maker and for the society’s inability to make decisions effectively from one center. Incremental decision-making is claimed to be both a realistic account of how the American polity and

The Range of Governance Approaches 27 other modern democracies decide and the most effective approach to societal decision-making, i.e., both a descriptive and a normative model. The midpoint of the comprehensive-incremental continuum has been represented by governance theories that combine elements of comprehensive-rational and incremental approaches. These approaches have been advanced by scholars such as Amitai Etzioni,6 James Quinn,7 Herbert Simon,8 Henry Mintzberg,9 and Donald Schon10 among many others. As is the case with comprehensive-rational governance, most of the concepts advanced by these scholars were formulated as pragmatic approaches designed to assist managers – primarily in the private sector – to address complex issues in a realistic manner. Although many of these solutions were the product of management-consulting engagements with private sector organizations, the principles evoked by these concepts address the more general challenge of how to govern or steer organizations toward solutions in complex environments, and thus achieve organization goals. Thus, the approaches apply to organizations regardless of the sector in which they are located – public, private, or academic. More significantly, these concepts have served as catalysts for some of the most important ideas underpinning the interpretation of public issue governance as complex adaptive systems. These will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. Amitai Etzioni formulated a mixed scanning approach to decisionmaking. In his approach, Etzioni recommended using two perspectives in making decisions – a “wide angle” lens and a “detailed” lens. This approach combines the two-fold advantage of (1) acquiring a big picture view of issues as per comprehensive-rational governance and (2) focusing in on details as the situation warrants – as per the incremental approach. Etzioni illustrates this hybrid approach by citing a hypothetical worldwide weather observation system using satellites. If there were total reliance on a comprehensive governance approach, the system would be overwhelmed with data that would be too costly to analyze. Thus, those responsible for governance would have limited ability to translate data into actions such as seeding clouds to facilitate rainfall where it is needed. If there were total reliance on an incremental approach, there would be no ability to understand or predict overall weather patterns because data collected exclusively on an incremental, situation-bysituation basis would be unable to yield useful generalizable results. At its best, an incremental approach may be able to identify weather patterns in locally adjacent areas with similar conditions of aridity, and generate strategies that are applicable within that narrow range. However, the absence of a holistic view of how weather patterns generally affect arid conditions, local strategies will likely not be workable in more distant locations, nor in unanticipated changes in arid conditions. Etzioni illustrates how the mixed scanning approach would work in the weather example. Two “weather” cameras would be utilized. A broad-lens camera

28  Part 2 would cover all parts of the sky, but not in great detail. A second narrowlens camera would be used to focus on specific areas, revealed by the broad-lens camera, requiring further assessment. This second camera may not be able to capture the detail within a specific location afforded by an incremental approach, but with the combination of the two cameras operating in tandem there is less likely that a problematic area will be overlooked. A major challenge associated with the mixed scanning approach is the determination of what level of investment should be targeted at the broad-lens vs. narrow-lens effort. The mix of investments between broad and focused governance may be influenced by at least two factors: (1) Cyclical considerations: Those responsible for monitoring conditions and determining appropriate strategies may design into the planning process periodic shifts to a wide-lens approach for assessment and subsequent governance decisions, the results of which guide where the narrow-lens approach focuses efforts; (2) Sudden environmental changes: Discontinuous shifts in external conditions may warrant employment of the “wide-lens” camera in an effort to reevaluate whether a change in governance approaches is called for. The stock market crashes of 2008 and the 2020–21 COVID 19 pandemic are examples of such shifts. James Quinn proposed a hybrid protocol for decision-making termed Logical incrementalism – Quinn’s approach is based on the assumption that incremental processes are, and should be, the prime mode used for strategy setting, although there is a critical strategic component to his approach. Unlike traditional comprehensive-rational approaches to governance, the formulation of broad strategies emerges from the bottom up through incremental negotiations among stakeholders – rather than from the top down. Such a philosophy is also represented by Henry Mintzberg (Crafting Strategy – 1987) in his discussion of the relation between theory and practice and Donald Schon (The Reflective Practitioner 1984). Quinn describes how ten large companies actually arrived at their most important strategic changes. He argues that formal “rational” planning often becomes a substitute for control instead of a process for stimulating innovation and entrepreneurship. Quinn suggests that the most effective strategies of major enterprises tend to emerge step by step from an iterative process in which the organization probes the future, experiments, and learns from a series of partial (incremental) commitments rather than through global formulations of total strategies. This process is both logical and incremental. He recommends that incremental processes should be consciously used to integrate the psychological, political, and informational needs of organizations in setting strategy. According to Quinn, the total strategy is largely defined by the development and interaction of certain major subsystem strategies. Each of these subsystems to a large extent has its own peculiar timing, sequencing, informational, and power necessities. Different subsets of people are involved in each subsystem strategy.

The Range of Governance Approaches 29 Moreover, each subsystem’s strategy is best formulated by following a logic dictated by its own unique needs. Because so many uncertainties are involved, no managers can predict the precise way in which any major subsystem will ultimately evolve, much less the way all will interact to create the enterprise’s overall strategic posture. Consequently, executives manage each subsystem incrementally in keeping with its own imperatives. Effective strategic managers in large organizations recognize these realities and try to proactively shape the development of both subsystem and total-enterprise strategies in a logical incremental fashion. They do not deal with information-analysis, power-political, and organizationalpsychological processes in separate compartments. Instead, they consciously and simultaneously integrate all three of these processes into their actions at various crucial states of strategy development. Quinn argues that incrementalism is the most appropriate model for most strategic changes, because it helps the strategic leader to: • • • • • •

Improve the quality of information utilized in corporate strategic decisions. Cope with the varying lead times, pacing parameters, and sequencing needs of the subsystems through which such decisions tend to be made. Deal with the personal resistance and political pressures any important strategic change encounters. Build the organizational awareness, understanding, and psychological commitment necessary for effective implementation. Decrease the uncertainty surrounding such decisions by allowing for interactive learning between the enterprise and its various impinging environments. Improve the quality of the strategic analysis and choices by involving those people closest to the situation and by avoiding premature closure on the basis of potentially incorrect decisions.

The strategic leader is critical in the incrementalism process because he is either personally or ultimately responsible for the proposed changes in strategy and for establishing the structure and processes within the organization. Although each strategic issue will have its own peculiarities, a somewhat common series of management processes seems required for most major strategic changes. Most important among these are sensing needs, amplifying understanding, building awareness, creating credibility, legitimizing viewpoints, generating partial solutions, broadening support, identifying zones of opposition and indifference, changing perceived risks, structuring needed flexibilities, putting forward trial concepts, creating pockets of commitment, eliminating undesired options, crystallizing focus and consensus, managing coalitions, and finally formalizing agreed-upon commitments. Quinn’s approach incorporates an

30  Part 2 appreciation of the likely impact upon people and the culture, and pragmatically searches for a better way of doing things once the decision to change has been made. Herbert Simon advanced the concept of Bounded Rationality, which is the idea that rationality  is limited when individuals make decisions. Limitations include the difficulty of the decision problem, the cognitive capability of the mind, and the time available to make the decision. Decision-makers, in this view, seek a satisfactory rather than an optimal solution. They do not consider all possible options, but rather a limited number of options are pertinent to their particular situation.11 Simon used the analogy of a pair of scissors, where one blade represents “cognitive limitations” of actual humans and the other the “structures of the environment,” illustrating how minds compensate for limited resources by exploiting known structural regularity in the environment. Simon’s goal was “to replace the global rationality of economic man with a kind of rational behavior that is compatible with the access to information and the computational capacities that are actually possessed by organisms, including man, in the kinds of environments in which such organisms exist.” In short, the concept of bounded rationality revises notions of “perfect” rationality to account for the fact that perfectly rational decisions are often not feasible in practice because of the intractability of natural decision problems and the finite computational resources available for making them. Simon’s concept of “bounded rationality” and “satisficing” departs radically from a comprehensive-rational approach to governance, but the concept is primarily focused on limitations to individual rather than group or institutional rationality.

Degree of Centralization vs. Decentralization in Governance Approaches The second continuum addresses the degree to which governance decisions are centralized vs. decentralized. The focus in this continuum is a structural matter. It concerns how widely distributed decision-making, power, and influence are within the governance milieu. Hierarchical governance structures occupy the extreme left position on the continuum; widely distributed networks of actors represent the extreme right position on the continuum. There is a rich literature, rooted in historical principles of management, that expounds the advantage of hierarchical decision-making. Max Weber was an early advocate pointing out the advantages of the hierarchical bureaucracy. He contended that bureaucracy is the most efficient and rational way in which human activity can be organized and that “systematic processes and organized hierarchies are necessary to maintain order, to maximize efficiency, and to eliminate favoritism.” He cited six essential features of the hierarchical bureaucracy: (1) task specialization

The Range of Governance Approaches 31 (division of labor), (2) hierarchical management structure, (3) formal selection rules, (4) efficient and uniform requirements, (5) impersonal environment, and (6) achievement-based advancement (Max Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy and its Negative Consequences12). Although there have been many variations of the ideal bureaucratic model implemented in real world governments, a strong case can be made that the key features of the original bureaucratic model still predominate in most federal and state agencies. Woodrow Wilson’s original concept of a neutral competent and efficient federal executive branch was proposed as an alternative to the spoils system that held sway in the late 19th century. Those principles are consistent with the key features of the hierarchical bureaucracy established by Weber in 1920 and reinforced in the writings of the parade of scientific management experts from the 1920s through the 1950s – from Frederick Taylor to Peter Drucker. Criticisms of the hierarchical approach to governance have been well documented by several scholars. The most prevalent criticisms include the following: • • • •

•

Bureaucratic regulations and rules are not very helpful when unexpected situations arise. Hierarchical authority is notoriously undemocratic, and blind adherence to rules may inhibit the exact actions necessary to achieve organizational goals. Because of the time required to send recommendations through the hierarchy, crucial decisions may lag far behind the need to respond to critical situations. In hierarchical governance, specialization achieved through division of labor is appropriate in addressing tasks required for addressing current challenges. But in times of discontinuous change, specialization becomes an obstacle to changing course. In hierarchical governance there is minimal exchange of information horizontally across organizational components. This limits the ability to coalesce the necessary resources to successfully address complex problems.

As we move across the centralization–decentralization continuum, alternative forms of governance have emerged that address the shortcomings of hierarchical arrangements as outlined above. The middle range of the continuum is represented by governance arrangements that involve a limited number of stakeholders that extend beyond any specific organization. This also serves as a transition point between the concept of “government,” defined as formal agencies specifically vested with a mission to serve the public good, and the concept of “governance,” a broader term encompassing organizations and individuals that extend beyond any individual organization.

32  Part 2 At the “limited network” position, pluralistic forms of governance are represented. These forms of governance involve stakeholders who are most interested and most influential in achieving specific policy outcomes. They include, but are not limited to, the following arrangements. Iron Triangle In U.S. politics, the “iron triangle” consists of the relationships among the congressional committees, the executive bureaucracy, and interest groups for the purpose of achieving specific policy outcomes. The concept was advanced by Gordon Adams (1981)13, and was originally used to describe the relationships between key stakeholders in the Defense industry. Figure 4.1 provides a graphic illustration of the iron triangle. At one corner of the triangle are interest groups (constituencies). These groups wield their power to influence Congressional votes in their favor and can sufficiently influence the reelection of a  member of Congress in return for support of their programs. At another corner of the triangle are sitting members of Congress, who also seek to align themselves with a constituency for political and electoral support. These congressional members support  legislation that advances an interest group’s agenda. The third corner of the triangle is represented

Figure 4.1  Iron triangle Source:  Adams, Gordon (1981). The Iron Triangle: The Politics of Defense Contracting. New York: Council on Economic Priorities.

The Range of Governance Approaches 33 by executive branch bureaucrats, who often are pressured by the same powerful interest groups their agency is designated to regulate, and in some cases have close ties to the regulated industry. The result is a threeway, stable alliance that sometimes is called a sub-government because of its durability, impregnability, and power to determine policy. An iron triangle relationship can result in the passing of very narrow policies that benefit a small segment of the population. The interests of the agency’s constituency (the interest groups) are met, while the needs of the general public are passed over. That public administration may result in benefiting a small segment of the public in this way, may be viewed as problematic if the benefit of all citizens is sacrificed for special interests. Some maintain to the contrary that such arrangements are natural outgrowths of, and not discordant with, the democratic process, since they frequently involve a majority block of voters implementing their will – through their elected representatives in government. The concept of the iron triangle is considered a limited network form of governance because the participation of stakeholders, and the subsequent flow of influence, is confined to those who have a direct interest in particular policy outcomes. Interest Group Liberalism This interpretation of pluralism was advanced by Theodore Lowie (1979).14 It is a slightly broader interpretation of network governance than the more narrowly focused “iron triangle.” This concept is framed by three beliefs: • • •

Interest groups had grown to control nearly every domestic policy area in American politics by the 1960s. Interest groups were essentially democratic, represented by elected leaders who served the will of the people within that organization. Most politicking and bargaining over a policy happened between interest groups, congressional members from special committees, and mid-level administrators who carried the policies out. The job of government leaders, therefore, was just to approve the measures agreed upon by this coalition.

The iron triangle and interest group liberalism may be subject to both pejorative and optimistic interpretations, depending upon whether these phenomena are considered natural outgrowths of a democratic system, or a perversion of democratic principles. At the far right end of this spectrum are manifestations of governance that encompass a broader array of stakeholders who participate in the influence and decision-making process.

34  Part 2 Issue Networks Issue networks are an extension of the iron triangle to include larger coalitions of stakeholders who share an interest in a common policy outcome. These networks are characterized by the following features: • • • • • •

Loose association of participants who share knowledge and interest in particular policies. Large populations who move in and out of the networks. Motivated by intellectual or emotional commitment rather than along party lines. Experts in issue networks are those who possess a wide range of specific knowledge and know the players involved. Leaders in issue networks are policy politicians – experts at using experts. Examples – NRA, abortion, same sex marriage, climate change, etc. (Hugh Heclo 1978).15

Issue networks are not the same as iron triangles for several reasons. One of the main differences between iron triangles and issue networks is that issue networks are generally free-forming groups of people in the public sector who form a coalition together, not through a congressional committee, or a Federal agency but are bound together to accomplish a task at hand. These groups, most often, once the goal has been accomplished either A, break up and only form if the issue is brought back up, or B, find another issue similar in scope which they want to tackle. Another difference between iron triangles and issue networks is that sometimes they can be at antagonistic with one another. Referring back to the paragraph above, if we take an iron triangle that wants to build a pipeline, an issue network can form as a group of citizens who oppose it. They may oppose it for various reasons, but what brings them together temporarily is to not allow it to be built. If the issue network is successful in blocking the fossil fuel pipeline, then the issue network may dissolve because the task has been accomplished. Another example is the case in regards to environmental issue networks that disagree with the lax environmental standards pursued by private energy companies. It is important to note that often different issues can also compete with one another, as in the case of pro-life and pro-choice sides of abortion Network Governance The term “network governance” is a broad rubric that encompasses several forms of social interaction. The common principle is that such networks represent a social or communal form of social organization in which interpersonal relational aspects such as trust, reciprocity, and the

The Range of Governance Approaches 35 pursuit of mutual benefit interact to forge jointly agreed and achieved outcomes (Powell, W.W. 1990).16 The feature that provides network governance its unique strength is its “relational” quality. Relationships among network members are even more critical than the expertise of its individual members. The “gestalt” created by the sum of these relationships creates a holistic outcome that cannot be achieved by adding up the individual expertise of each member. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Networking has become ubiquitous in our society, and thus has also had an overarching impact on all societal institutions including modes of governance. Network governance is contrasted from the two other major modes of governance – state controlled and market controlled. Whereas, administrative orders is the central organizing principle of the state and price coordination is the organizing principle of the market, trust and cooperation drive decisions in the network form of governance. Interpersonal relationships based on trust, reciprocity, and mutuality are strengthened over time and become the social lubricant that enables the network to overcome temporary obstacles and conflict, and allow the achievement of mutually agreed upon goals. Essentially, network governance prioritizes horizontal over vertical approaches to decision-making. Network governance that is characterized by extensive communication among network members, knowledge exchange and continuous dialogue means a greater ability to adapt under conditions of uncertainty, complexity, and crisis (Kickert et al. 1997),17 and when there are unique issues that require expertise from multiple disciplines and creative approaches (Baker 1992).18 Despite its intrinsic strengths of trust and relationship building, there needs to be a managerial aspect in order for network governance mechanisms to succeed. Network effectiveness is bolstered by rules, standards, or agreed ways of working. Such overarching guidance provides the foundation upon which productive network relationships can be sustained over time. Network management practices that establish a framework for operations encourage flexibility in responding to unique challenges, rather than stifling it. The concept of network governance is closely associated with the idea of “collaborative governance.” The latter concept applies more specifically to the relationship among public agencies and their nonstate stakeholders in a process that aims to formulate and implement public policy decisions for the greater public welfare. It is important to note that in the public sector, network governance mechanisms coexist with more traditional hierarchical governance arrangements. In many Federal agencies, public–private partnerships are formed to ensure that citizens and other stakeholders have an opportunity to provide input to the policy-making process. To cite one example, regional marine fishery councils were established in the 1970s. The

36  Part 2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the main law that governs fishing in U.S. federal waters, ranging from 3 to 200 miles offshore. First passed in 1976, the MSA established a 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and created eight regional fishery management councils to manage our nation’s marine fishery resources. This unprecedented management system gives fishery managers the flexibility to use local level input to develop management strategies appropriate for each region’s unique fisheries, challenges, and opportunities. Council members include representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Federal agency responsible for managing the nation’s fishery resources), commercial and recreational fishery interests, private citizens, state government officials, and State Department representatives.19

Degree of Adaptability to Changing Conditions The third continuum examines the degree to which governance approaches are designed to respond to continuous or discontinuous changes in the internal or external environment. Central to this examination is the analysis of feedback mechanisms that serve the purpose of providing information to governing authorities to indicate whether a change in course is warranted. From a systems perspective, negative feedback indicates that the current course of action is still appropriate, only minor adjustments, if any, to current strategies are necessary. Positive feedback indicates that a major course correction is needed. The classic cases of industries that misread feedback signals from the environment were the railroads and domestic automobile manufacturers. The railroad industry misjudged the business that they were in. They thought they were in the railroad business; they actually needed to define their business more broadly as the transportation business. Because they misread the feedback being received, they suffered a major decline in passenger traffic after the 1920s. The U.S. automobile industry in the 1950s misread the feedback from consumers, who were beginning to express a preference for small, lower cost, higher per mileage cars – rather than the large luxurious cars prevalent on the production lines of U.S. manufacturers. The error that both industries made was to only accept feedback that was consistent with the preconceived notions of what business they were in. As a result, they were poor adapters to major changes that were occurring in their respective environments. The importance of correctly reading feedback is just as relevant to broader governance mechanisms as it is to individual organizations or entire industries. The extreme left of this continuum is represented by traditional hierarchical governance arrangements that are still dominant in public, private, and academic sectors of our society. The very nature of the

The Range of Governance Approaches 37 hierarchy lends itself to a unified and integrated approach to achieving organizational goals. As discussed under the centralization– decentralization continuum above, hierarchical bureaucracies are built on such principles as unity of command and compliance with overarching organizational goals. Digital technology and widespread availability of information are contributing to flatter management structures. However, traditional hierarchies – particularly those with strong embedded cultures – still tend to reward those employees who express viewpoints that are consistent with the company “party line.” At the extremes of coherent behavior there is the danger of “groupthink,” where alternative viewpoints are sanctioned. The transition from a “government” to a “governance” orientation increases the likelihood of constructive adaptive behavior. This is because external stakeholders with varying perspectives are more prone to examine alternative approaches in light of significant changes in the environment. A second approach to increasing adaptive responses is the concept of the “learning organization.” This concept is positioned at the mid-range of the adaptability continuum. In this chapter, I use the term “organizational learning” to refer to the set of theories which extend beyond a focus on the instrumental, means-end problems which occur within organizations and between organizations. Learning can be seen as an essential element of effective governance, for without learning it is difficult for those involved in the governance process to understand complex public issues. Engaging in a learning frame of mind means to be open to alternative policies posed by conflicting interests, and to be in a better position to resolve conflicts. Much of prior learning theory is focused on the individual organization. But the principles of a learning system apply equally to individual organizations as well as governance systems that are composed of both multiple organizations and individuals. Learning can be applied to an individual-level psychological process as well as a collective process involving many actors. Organizational learning encompasses contingency theory and open systems theory, both of which view the organization as a system of interrelated elements which are subject to influences from their environment, and which in turn can influence that environment. Many authors have viewed the organizational–environment milieu as a dynamic process of mutual adjustment. A few representative names include Lawrence and Lorsch (1970),20 Emery and Tryst (1972),21 J.D. Thompson (1967),22 and Karl Weick (1979).23 Each of these authors focused on the need to understand and manage the boundary between the organization and its environment. All of these theories operate on the assumption that the organization–environment relationship needs to be understood because it is “good” that the organization in question survives.

38  Part 2 A separate but related branch or organizational learning addresses the process by which organizations “learn” at a level beyond the instrumental level. Three authors from varying disciplines are representative of such a view. Chris Argyris (1972),24 Ross Ashby (1976),25 and Gregory Bateson (1980) have each provided explanations of how organizations learn and survive. Argyris used the term “double loop learning” and Bateson, “deutero-learning,” to refer to the process of learning to learn. Ashby advanced the concept of “ultra-stability.” Both Argyris and Bateson posed the need for a greater amount of second order or contextual learning on the part of both individuals and organizations. They raised this need in light of the predominance of instrumental learning in the world. Both authors indicated that this instrumental perspective is a formidable obstacle to overcome. For example, Argyris asserts that organizations tend to create learning systems that inhibit double loop learning. The inhibition occurs because double loop learning calls into question an organization’s norms, standards, and basic policies. Thus, Argyris has stated the success of double loop learning as being problematic – the problem goes beyond one of mechanism and involves issues of organizational politics and power. As another exponent of a noninstrumental orientation, Donald Michael (1973)26 repeatedly stresses the need for organizations to acknowledge that conditions in the world are accentuating the need and urgency to move from within a traditional paradigm of social organization to a between-paradigm orientation. Bigger and more complex world problems are forcing organizations to abandon traditional ways of dealing with social problems. Organizational learning provides a useful opportunity to complement the more traditional comprehensiverational, incremental, public choice, and organizational development paradigms in providing a more complete explanation of how actors in organizational settings behave. These management paradigms, taken together, can enhance understanding by using these various perspectives to explain actors’ achievement orientation, the nature of interpersonal relationships, the rational behavior of decision-makers, and finally to explain how slow and painful progress might be when various stakeholders are tugging in opposite directions to satisfy their respective self-interests. Pluralistic models; public choice: Major advocates of this approach to governance include Vince and Eleanor Ostrom 27 and James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock.28 Public choice theory rests on the foundation of positive economic theory. Three key characteristics of public choice theory are (1) the use of the individual rather than collective or aggregate groups as the common decision unit, (2) the use of market mechanisms as the primary vehicle for making aggregate policy decisions, and (3) the self-interested nature of all individuals within the political system.

The Range of Governance Approaches 39 Adaptive Governance and Complex Adaptive Systems At the extreme far right end of the adaptive continuum are the closely related concepts of adaptive governance and complex adaptive systems. A detailed description of complex adaptive systems and their relation to expanded governance will be covered in Chapter 6. This discussion will focus on the concept of adaptive governance. Toddi Steelman (2017)29 divided adaptive governance into three branches – socioecological, institutional, and the policy sciences approach. The socioecological branch focused on governance approaches to address the world’s ecological systems and ensure their resilience. The institutional branch addresses the multilevel decision-making process, which should be coordinated to achieve effective governance of complex issues. The policy sciences approach focuses on empirical examples of how adaptive governance can be effective at local levels. The common theme across all three branches is that effective adaptive governance requires structures and processes that support a broad range of actors operating at different levels of society in order to deal with uncertainty and unexpected surprises. All three approaches recognize the limitations of centralized, command-and-control governance. Adaptive governance also repudiates the narrow focus of scientific management, which loses relevance when it comes to addressing “wicked issues” that cannot be tamed by instrumental methodologies. Ostrom (1990) described institutional adaptive government as a nested rule structure consisting of three levels of decision-making that must be coordinated. These levels are: • • •

Operational rules that structure day-to-day decisions Collective rules that affect policy and management decisions Constitutional rules that determine who can participate in the governance process30

Adaptive governance requires a paradigm shift in the way issues are defined, evaluated, and addressed. All relevant stakeholders and a wide range of knowledge sources must be included in each phase of the process – from problem definition through agreement on outcomes. It is important to note that it is not sufficient for agency managers to incorporate participative decision-making in one phase of the governance process and label the entire approach adaptive governance. Adaptive governance includes features that are also characteristic of complex adaptive systems in general. Both concepts consider the network as the “engine” that drives effective governance. Both concepts also require extensive and intensive communication among stakeholders within the network. The quality and frequency of information sharing enhances the ability of the network to adapt to discontinuous changes in

40  Part 2 the environment. Finally, both adaptive governance and complex adaptive systems call for a facilitative type of leadership rather than traditional command-and-control leadership. Network leadership sets broad standards for operation and is responsible for establishing an environment that maximizes opportunities for creative thinking, which is necessary to address unique and surprising changes. The complex adaptive system (CAS) differs from the adaptive governance approach in a few respects. There is more emphasis on the power of self-organizing in a CAS. Solutions arrived at by a CAS are emergent as a result of intensive interaction, whereas in adaptive governance the solution may have a greater degree of guidance and steering by leadership. This difference may be more a matter of degree rather than type. Also, in the CAS there appears to be a greater focus on how adaptations are made at “the edge of chaos” where basic structure and innovative thinking must coexist.

Summary and Conclusions This chapter has provided a roadmap to guide a high-level understanding of governance approaches that have been applied to address complex issues in both the private and public sectors. Many of the governance concepts covered in this chapter provide a basis for understanding the central features of an expanded governance approach, which will be covered in subsequent chapters. The framework used to organize these approaches includes three dimensions of governance and a continuum that demonstrates the range of governance approaches in each dimension. These dimensions are (1) the degree of comprehensiveness and integration addressed in these approaches, (2) the extent to which decisions, power, and influence are centralized vs. decentralized, and (3) the degree of adaptive responses to environmental changes. Governance approaches have generally trended toward more decentralized structures with a greater emphasis on the need to adapt to discontinuous changes in the environment. These are indicated by examples shown in the second and third continua. Whether governance approaches generally become more comprehensive or incremental (first continuum) is a matter for debate.

Notes

1 Ansell, Christopher and Jacob Torfing (eds.) (2017). Handbook on Theories of Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2 Gulick, L. H. (1937). “Notes on the Theory of Organization.” In L. Gulick and L. Urwick (eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration (pp. 3–45). 3 Davis, Ralph Currier (1951). Fundamentals of Top Management. New York: Harper. 4 Drucker, Peter (2002). The Effective Executive. New York: Harper-Collins. 5 Lindblom, Charles (1959). “The Science of Muddling Through.”  Public Administration Review 19: 79–88.

The Range of Governance Approaches 41 6 Etzioni, Amitai (1967). “Mixed-Scanning: A ‘Third’ Approach to DecisionMaking.” Public Administration Review 27 (5): 385–392. 7 Quinn, James L. (1967). Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism (The Irwin Series in Management and the Behavioral Sciences). 8 Simon, Herbert (1991). “Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2 (1): 125–134. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.125. 9 Mintzberg, Henry (1985). “Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent.” Strategic Management Journal 6 (3): 257–272. 10 Schon, Donald (1983). The Reflective Practitioner – How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith. 11 Strategic Management: Formulation and Implementation. https://www. strategy-implementation.24xls.com/en116 12 Weber, Max (1978). Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. 13 Adams, Gordon (1981). The Iron Triangle: The Politics of Defense Contracting. New York: Council on Economic Priorities. 14 Lowi, Theodore J. (1979). The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States, 2nd edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Co Inc. 15 Heclo, Hugh (1978). “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In A. King (ed.), The New American Political System. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute. 16 Powell, W.W. (1990). “Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network forms of Organizing.” Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 295–336. 17 Kickert, W.E., H. Klij and J.F.M. Koppenjan (eds.) (1997). Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage. 18 Baker (1992). The Network Organization in Theory and Practice: Structure, Form and Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 19 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Peters, Gerhard; Woolley, John T. “Gerald R. Ford: Statement on Signing the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.” April 13, 1976. 20 Lawrence, P. and J. Lorsch (1967). “Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 12: 1–30. 21 Emery, F.E. and E.L. Trist (1972). Towards a Social Ecology. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 22 Thompson, James D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw Hill. 23 Weick, Karl E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading: Addison Wesley Publishing. 24 Argyris, Chris (1972). “Double Loop Learning in Organizations.” Harvard Business Review 55: 115–125. 25 Ashby, Ross (1976). Design for a Brain. London: Chapman-Hall. 26 Michael, Donald (1973). On Planning to Learn and Learning to Plan. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 27 Ostrom, Vincent (1971). The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. Alabama: University of Alabama Press. 28 Buchanan, James and Gordon Tullock (1965). Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 29 Steelman, Toddi (2017). Handbook on Theories of Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 30 Strategic Management: Formulation and Implementation. https://www. strategy-implementation.24xls.com/en116

Part 3

5

Requisite Variety

Law of Requisite Variety and Its Relevance to Federal Administrators This approach is rooted in the works of Ross Ashby.1 His two seminal works were “Design for a Brain” and “An Introduction to Cybernetics.” He coined the term “law of requisite variety.” The essence of the law is that any regulator must contain sufficient variety in its regulatory mechanism to match the variety in the problem being regulated. Ashby’s Law was framed in the context of his interest in self-regulating biological systems, but it was rapidly seen as having a relevance for other kinds of systems. The British cybernetician and operational research practitioner Stafford Beer, for example, used it as the basis for his concept of a viable system in organizational design. In colloquial terms, Ashby’s Law has come to be understood as a simple proposition: if a system is to be able to deal successfully with the diversity of challenges that its environment produces, then it needs to have a repertoire of responses which is (at least) as nuanced as the problems thrown up by the environment. So a viable system is one that can handle the variability of its environment. Or, as Ashby put it, only variety can absorb variety. The “law of requisite variety” (LRV) bears a strong resemblance to the concepts underlying risk management. Both concepts are based on the premise that a regulator or any organization has a finite amount of resources to address challenges that are unlimited in scope. To cite two examples from Federal agencies that I have worked with: •

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not have a sufficiently large inspection workforce to stand watch over every food processing establishment to ensure that food is being processed in a safe manner. They use the law of requisite variety to focus on those establishments that historically have represented the highest risks to food safety. DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-8

46  Part 3 •

U.S. Customs and Border Protection does not have a sufficiently large workforce to ensure that every mile of border is guarded to prevent illegal entry. They use the law of requisite variety to focus on border areas that historically have been the location of the most egregious problems.

Federal administrators face increasingly complex challenges in meeting the public needs of U.S. citizens. They must design programs that successfully address these needs in virtually every aspect of a citizen’s life – including health care, education, the environment, national security, and the economy to name a few. Within each of these arenas the crux of this challenge is to design programs with a sufficient variety of strategies to accurately match the varied needs of those citizens that are impacted by the Federal response. Insufficient variety does not effectively meet citizens’ needs, while too much variety poses fundamental challenges in managing the program. Ross Ashby, a pioneer in the field of cybernetics, captured the Federal administrator’s dilemma in his LRV, introduced in the 1950s. LRV prescribes a generic solution to program design that enables a manager to achieve a desired end state in the most cost-effective manner possible. The solution, in essence, is designing a program that is not so complex that the program itself cannot be managed, but contains sufficient variety and nuance to match the complexity of the problem being addressed. In sum, the solution cannot be overly complex or simplistic. LRV offers a generalized solution to the fundamental challenge faced by Federal program designers. The Backpacking Dilemma To bring this concept “down to earth,” I explained the idea of “requisite variety” to my son, who is an ardent backpacker and hiker. To apply the idea in his terms, I offered the following scenario: I am packing for a one week trip this winter on the Appalachian Trail, which extends from Georgia to Maine. My goal is to survive, and in good physical, mental and spiritual condition. My backpack should contain a sufficient variety of appropriate materials to assure that I meet my goals. If I pack inappropriately (which could mean not having the right gear or insufficient gear) I may get hungry, frozen, lost or attacked by a bear. If I pack for every possible eventuality the backpack will weigh 90 pounds and I will not be able to stand up. So I have to choose the contents of the backpack carefully. Although correctly packing for a hike on the Appalachian Trail does not approach the complexity of public sector issues that are faced by

Requisite Variety 47 our Federal leaders, the illustration does capture the essence of the challenges; leaders must design programs with sufficient variety to match the complexity of problems they are addressing. I propose three generic steps required to establish requisite variety in the design of a program or intervention in order to achieve the goals of an organization in a cost-effective manner. These steps are universal and apply to any situation in which a manager is attempting to regulate or manage a condition external to the program. Next, I will identify factors that are prevalent in the public sector, and that pose unique challenges to a Federal administrator who is attempting to design effective solutions to complex public issues. Three Key Steps in Establishing Requisite Variety – Scoping, Modeling, Strategizing Figure 5.1 illustrates the three key steps involved in establishing requisite variety in the design of programs. The first step is scoping, in which a program designer identifies the stakeholder environment in all of its complexity. The scoping process can be viewed as a subjective enterprise. One’s world view, and how one pays attention to his/her surroundings, strongly influences the shape of the “relevant” universe in which one engages. As Karl Weick explained: “we act first, and then form our ideas and opinions (of the relevant universe) based on our actions (within that universe), rather than vice versa.”2

Figure 5.1  Three key steps in establishing requisite variety – scoping, modeling, strategizing

48  Part 3 Step two is modeling, in which the program designer constructs a representation of the stakeholder environment, highlighting features of the environment that are differentiated because they embody significantly different aspects of the problem or issue at hand. The model is a simplification of the complexities in the real world. Each different aspect of the model provides guidance to the program designer, who then must tailor strategies (step three in the requisite variety-creation process) that address each unique aspect of the problem. To illustrate, a police department constructs a model of the universe of possible crimes that may occur within its jurisdiction. Key differentiators that warrant different strategic responses in this milieu may include personal crimes, property crimes, attempted crimes, and statutory crimes.3 Step three incorporates tailored strategies in the program design that address each key differentiator in the constructed model. To extend the police department analogy, law enforcement program designers differentiate the policies and protocols that are used to address personal crimes as opposed to property crimes, intended crimes, or statutory crimes. Factors That Complicate the Establishment of Requisite Variety in Federal Programs Initial applications of the LRV were concerned with mechanical or information systems. For example, the mapping of input bits to output bits in a piece of computer software or hardware can produce an estimate of the minimum hardware or software components necessary to produce the desired control behavior. Unlike computer systems, the design of Federal programs is impacted by several factors which complicate the design process. Key factors include: •

Varying decision-making models that may be encountered depending upon the specific Federal programs. These may include: • • •

• •

Centralized command and control models with a small cadre of decision-makers dominating the decision-making process Pluralistic models involving key internal and external stakeholders in industry, Congress, and the executive branch Emergent models that work through self-organization and involve vast networks with solutions evolving through creative discourse among nodes of influence that are richly connected through information channels

Multilevel perspectives required to address problems – e.g., technical, managerial, political, and cultural High-velocity operating environments

Requisite Variety 49 •

Varying degrees of “reflexivity,” or self-reflection by actors – regardless of the LRV approach taken

Although each of the above factors is not exclusively the province of the public sector, they nevertheless complicate the program design process. Varying decision-making models: The decision-making approach prevalent in Federal agencies ranges across the full spectrum from centralized command-and-control programs (usually internal programs that are isolated from stakeholder influence) to self-organizing networks surrounding programs that collectively arrive at an emergent solution (the U.S. healthcare challenge is an example of an issue that has been percolating for years through self-organizing networks with no emergent solution in sight). Strategies for implementing the LRV must be sensitive to the relevant decision-making model. Multilevel perspectives required to address problems: Since Federal programs deal simultaneously with citizens, experts, organizations, institutions, the body politic, and the larger culture, they must be designed to address concerns at each level. Holistic solutions that integrate each of these perspectives are necessary. These include technical issues that require subject matter expertise; managerial issues associated with allocating resources in the most cost-effective manner possible; political issues that may vary both across the stakeholder spectrum, and through time, for example with the change in administrations; and cultural issues which can occur within organizations or in the larger society, and which may prove the most chronic and most resistant to change. High-velocity environment: Federal programs must be sufficiently nimble to accommodate rapid changes occurring at all levels in our society. To illustrate a few, new generations of technology in the information and medical fields are succeeding each other at warp speed. The economy is taking unexpected twists and turns – spurred on by prevailing political inclinations to embrace or refute globalization. Sustainability of the global climate is on an accelerating downward trajectory. The demographics and tastes of the U.S. population are experiencing major shifts. As a result, Federal program designs must be sufficiently flexible in order to keep pace with such environmental changes. Reflexivity: The concept of reflexivity, or self-reflection, refers to the lens through which actors in the decision-making process view the world around them. How participating actors understand and implement the LRV process in all of its complexities is shaped by each actor’s perspective. It is useful for actors to include themselves and their predispositions as an integral part of understanding the scope of problems addressed and the strategies implemented to address these problems. Recognition of one’s internal stances opens the door to see other possible ways of viewing and addressing the situation at hand. Edmund Husserl (1931) described the processes of “phenomenological reduction” (epoche) and “imaginative

50  Part 3

Figure 5.2  Additional considerations that impact the design of the regulatory model

variation” as methods for breaking one’s embedded frame of reference in order to see new possible solutions to problems. Phenomenological reduction involves suspending judgments, or preconceived notions, about observed phenomena. It is, in essence, attempting to start with a “blank slate.” Once reduction is achieved, the task of imaginative variation enables the observer to seek new possible meanings through the utilization of imagination, varying the frames of reference, employing polarities and reversals, and approaching the phenomenon from divergent perspectives, different positions, roles, or functions.4 Figure 5.2 illustrates the influences that each of the above factors exert on the fundamental LRV process:

Organizing the Governance Environment – Binary, Categorical, Continuous One way of characterizing governance approaches to complex issues is to divide the approaches into three types: • • •

Binary Categorical Continuous

Requisite Variety 51 The above three modes of organizing the governance environment represent alternative strategies for establishing requisite variety in order to make sense of issues administrators face. The particular approach used in a given situation depends upon a wide range of internal and external factors, which will be examined further as we proceed through this chapter. First, below is a generic description of each governance approach. •

•

•

A binary orientation to the world is the one in which phenomena are perceived as being in one of only two states. This is a way to simplify the variety or complexity of the world around us. Phenomena, however, seldom exist in a natural binary format; rather, we construct them to be so. It is a way for our cognitive machinery to deal with ambiguity. The capacity and willingness to understand phenomena in any more complex manner than binary is situational, and may vary among individuals based on differences in neural network wiring, information processing ability, and/or personality and cultural orientation. A categorical orientation is also a method for simplifying complexity. However, the capacity for handling complexity is somewhat greater in this mode. Rather than establishing a dichotomous world, sufficient information is known to establish several categories – each one representing a different state. As is the case with binary strategies, phenomena seldom exist in natural categorical states. We construct a categorical world to represent the phenomena that most directly affect our enterprise. A continuous orientation is the one which de-emphasizes rule-based, boundary-dominated thinking. The focus turns to such concepts as “flow,” “process,” and dynamic relationships. A continuous orientation amplifies complexity in the short run, but creates the potential to deal more effectively with complexity in the long run. Much of complexity science rests on a continuous orientation in understanding how phenomena behave in both the natural and man-made world. The complex adaptive system (CAS) lies at the heart of complexity science, and is the embodiment of a continuous orientation in governance.

Each of the above orientations reflects administrators’ attempts to construct models, or microcosms, of the world which they are attempting to manage. The difference, essentially, lies in the complexity of the models. Binary models simply bifurcate the world, and elicit only two different kinds of reactions from administrators – one for each state. Categorical models are more complex, but still treat the world as existing in only one of a few possible states, with the states themselves being insular from each other. East state requires a different governance response. Continuous models are more complex because the various states of variables affect

52  Part 3 each other. All is in flux. In a continuous model, the responsibility for establishment of requisite variety begins to diverge from a centralized governance source and toward a widely distributed responsibility among agents in a network. The Food and Drug Administration – Binary, Categorical, and Continuous Approaches FDA provides a robust example of an agency that utilizes all three models for organizing their approaches to governance. The emphasis, however, changes depending on the circumstances. Also, a case may be made that the entire agency, regardless of particular situations, may generally be moving toward the continuous model. If this is the case, there are substantial implications for the way the Agency is oriented in the future. Below are some illustrations of how all three approaches are employed in FDA. •

Binary • • • • •

•

Drugs, medical devices, and biologicals are either approved or disapproved for marketing. Firms are either in or out of compliance with a product or process standard. The Agency either wins or loses court cases against industry or consumer litigation. Agency program goals are achieved or are not achieved. FDA officials consider certain activities to be appropriate for the public sector, while others are appropriate for the private sector. There has traditionally been great discomfort in blurring that line. OMB Circular A-76, dated May 29, 2003, established a competitive process between public sector agencies and private sector companies to determine which sector was the most efficient organization (MEO) for performing certain tasks. Prior to conducting the competition, Federal agencies were required to develop an inventory of activities that they considered to be “inherently governmental” and hence would not be subject to competition with the private sector. The creation of this inventory is a concrete example of how binary thinking set the rules for the competition.5

Categorical •

Risk categories are established for products that are subject to premarket review and approval. Example: Medical devices are categorized as Class I, II, and III on the basis of potential risk to the public, and review protocols are tailored to each risk level.

Requisite Variety 53 • • •

Employees’ performance is judged by degrees of competence – e.g., outstanding, excellent, fully satisfactory, and less than satisfactory. Regulations proceed through several categories of review – proposed rules, tentative final rules, and final rules.

Continuous •

• •

Drug development – FDA scientists and drug reviewers work on a continuous basis with pharmaceutical firms to facilitate the development of promising new therapeutics that can reach the market as quickly as possible while assuring that they are both safe and effective. FDA scientists work seamlessly with scientists across the globe in sharing research results, thus accelerating the process for discovering new molecular entities. Negotiating new legislation, such as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA),6 entailed ongoing interaction among key members on the FDA staff, Congressional staff, and industry representatives. This kind of three-way negotiation has been referred to as the “Iron Triangle.”

Several factors determine the extent to which each model is used in formulating governance strategies. Three of these factors are: (1) the impact of technology developments, (2) economic conditions, and (3) political calculations. •

Technology developments: New diagnostic technologies allow regulatory scientists to make finer discriminations in determining the level of contaminants in foods and drugs. This enables risk assessors and risk managers to differentiate more categories of contamination – or perhaps to correct inaccuracies in the prior categorization of product risk. As an example, the Delaney Clause of the Food Additive Amendments passed in 1958 stated that “…no food additive is deemed to be safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animals.”7 This clause established a politically driven, dichotomous world of carcinogens. Based on the Clause, a product had to contain zero carcinogens to be legally marketed. The definition of “zero,” however, was proscribed by the limits of technological capacity to detect small carcinogenic particles. As this capacity increased, scientists’ ability to detect micro-constituents graduated from parts per million to parts per billion. This technology advancement resulted in moving some products from a noncarcinogenic to a carcinogenic status. In a sense, the Agency absorbs complexity in the environment via two different kinds of strategies. The first is to move toward fewer categories, and eventually to a binary mode. This strategy becomes

54  Part 3

•

•

•

•

strained, however, when the agency’s management/regulatory apparatus is not adequately responsive to the real needs of the constituency. A second strategy is for the agency to increase its technological, human capital, and managerial capacities so that greater environmental complexity can be reflected in the agency’s response. In this way, constituency problems can be more accurately assessed and effectively managed. Increasing these kinds of agency capacities moves the agency toward a more complex categorical and even continuous approach. Increased technological and managerial capacity, for example, allows managers to build sophisticated dynamic models of their environments, and these models are more effective variety absorbers than simpler binary or categorical approaches. Economic pressure: It would appear that limited resources could cause two kinds of managerial reactions. The first would be to move away from continuous or categorical approaches, and toward a binary approach to management. Thus, limited resources would likely be allocated among broader categories, rather than across more detailed choices. The second kind of economic-scarcity-induced reaction would be for managers to integrate their own resources with those of other organizations. This kind of movement would strengthen capacity to deal with complexity, and perhaps move the agency back in the direction of categorical or even continuous approaches. Political forces: FDA’s constituency interests, like those of many other Federal agencies, are numerous and diverse. Outside of government consumers, industry, health professionals, and academia relate to the agency in different ways – as enforcers, coaches, umpires, partners, and educators. Inside the public sector, FDA must often walk a delicate line between conflicting agendas of the Administration and Congress. This fragmentation in interests makes it difficult, if not impossible, to take strong yes–no decisions in areas of product safety and efficiency. The saccharin example of several years ago demonstrated the difficulty of declaring that substances are carcinogenic. FDA is pushed away from a binary stance by politics, as well as more sophisticated technologies. The art of coalition-building and political compromise are continuous-process models – not binary models. The law: Legislation and regulation would appear to provide a firm platform for upholding the binary model in FDA actions. The laws, as well as lawyers, are rooted in a yes–no culture. But the scientists that they work with emanate from a probabilistic or continuous-accretionof-data culture. These binary and continuous cultures must be mutually accommodating in order for regulatory agencies such as FDA to carry out their mission successfully. Boundaries: An agency’s boundaries can also be treated as binary, categorical, or continuous. FDA’s enforcement arm appears to be in much more of a binary relationship with the regulated industry. A

Requisite Variety 55 firm is either in or out of compliance; the firm is either a good or bad actor; this activity is either appropriate or inappropriate public sector behavior. FDA’s premarket review function manages its boundary with the outside world from a categorical model. When product applications enter FDA’s respective review programs in drugs, biologicals, and medical devices, they are generally categorized according to the risk that the product poses for society. Each risk category is associated with a different regulatory regimen. The Agency’s science function operates from more of a continuous model. Collaborative solutions to scientific problems are iterative, incremental, and probabilistic. None of these characteristics lends themselves to a binary approach to problem solving. Environmental pressures have forced FDA to begin thinking about the notion of distributed risk management. This is the idea of shared responsibility for understanding and taking decisions to manage the health risks encountered by consumers. Environmental pressure to distribute risk management arises from a number of factors, including: 1 Deteriorating economic conditions – e.g., increasing health-care costs and increasing Federal deficit, which places impetus on downsizing Federal domestic programs such as food and drug regulation and delegating risk management pressures to other entities – including state and local government and the private sector; 2 Technology improvements such as more powerful and portable diagnostic capability (artificial intelligence diagnostics), which facilitates decentralized decisions about personal health care; and 3 More widely available health risk information, spurred on by social networking and the internet. In ideal circumstances these lead to increasingly enlightened and proactive consumers. In one sense, distributed risk management is a categorical model of governance. The categories are represented by the various areas of risk management responsibility assumed by FDA, health professionals, consumers, etc. Increased cooperative efforts among institutions – international harmonization of food and drug regulations is an apt example – may operate from a continuous model until the effort reaches a level of consensus. In the case of international harmonization, this consensus could one day be reached on minimum safety standards for drugs, foods, biologicals, and medical devices. When this consensus is reached, the participants may then resort to a categorical or even binary view of product safety. Products from various producing nations either do or do not meet the harmonized standard. The movement between binary, categorical, and continuous models of governance may be cyclical and have something to do with

56  Part 3 accumulations and assortments of such resources as information, cooperation, and systematic understanding. If information is data that makes a difference, then whenever sufficient information becomes available, decision-makers move into either a categorical or binary mode of governance. An example of categorical decision-making is the establishment of a risk framework that identifies different risk management strategies for each product’s risk level. An example of binary decision-making is the decision to either approve or disapprove a premarket application for a new drug. Police Department Illustration – Binary, Categorical, and Continuous Approaches The difference in the above three approaches is illustrated in how the issue of racism in U.S. police departments may be addressed. The issue can be framed using each of the above categories. A “binary” approach to the issue is to determine whether racism in police departments can be characterized as systemic or, alternatively, the case of a few bad apples. A categorical approach to the issue may identify each police department in the country as being high risk, medium risk, or low risk in terms of demonstrated racism. A continuous approach may frame the issue as one of the degrees of racism being in a state of ongoing flux; the degree of racism at any given time is subject to a variety of internal factors (e.g., local department recruitment, training and monitoring policies, and personality profiles of police officers); and external factors (e.g., crime rates, economic conditions, health status of the population, etc.). As the approach to addressing racism progresses from binary to categorical to continuous, the cost and difficulty of implementing effective strategies increases, and between categorical and continuous approaches the cost and difficulty increases exponentially. Complicating this issue resolution is the pragmatic realization that the responsibility for addressing police racism is divided among several levels of governance – national, state, municipality, and even precinct. An even further exacerbation is the stark difference between policy formulation and policy implementation and enforcement. The tight connection between political interests and the media’s interest in offering simplified views of issues often results in issues such as police racism being addressed and debated at the binary level. To wit, police racism is either systemic or the case of “a few bad apples.” As the capacity to absorb additional nuance surrounding the issue increases (prompting one to move on to a categorical or even continuous approach), unfortunately the cost of actually formulating and implementing a solution to racism also increases. Ironically, while the cost increases the solutions may also be more effective. It then becomes a cost–benefit calculation. Quite a conundrum!

Requisite Variety 57

Notes



1 Ashby, W.R. (1958). “Requisite Variety and Its Implications for the Control Of Complex Systems.” Cybernetica (Namur) 1 (2): 83–99. 2 Weick, Karl (1979). “The Social Psychology of Organizing.” Management 18 (2): 189. 3 http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-are-the-differenttypes-of-crimes.html 4 Husserl, Edmund (1962). Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Translated by W.F. Boyce Gibson. New York: Collier Books. 5 OMB Circular A-76, dated May 29, 2003, Subject: “Performance of Commercial Activities.” 6 The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was created by Congress in 1992 and authorizes FDA to collect fees from companies that produce certain human drug and biological products. Since the passage of PDUFA, user fees have played an important role in expediting the drug approval process. 7 Merrill, Richard A. (1997). “Food Safety Regulation: Reforming the Delaney Clause.” Annual Review of Public Health 18: 313–340.

6

Complexity

Introduction – The Concept of Complexity Complexity science is the study of order creation. It focuses on how complex adaptive systems adapt to change through self-organization. Solutions to environmental challenges emerge through intense interaction among agents within the system. Solutions cannot be predicted in advance because the very nature of the interaction based on local decision rules drives the outcome. The concept of complex adaptive systems is patterned after biological systems behavior in the natural world. The field of complexity science is interdisciplinary in nature. As such, it draws from several theoretical constructs that combine to shed light on systems behavior. Complexity science concepts can offer new insights in addressing the challenge of governance in tumultuous times. As will be shown, complexity concepts such as self-organization and emergent solutions run counter to long-standing assumptions about the role of leadership in tackling complex societal issues. The traditional managerial and leadership roles carry the responsibility of planning or designing solutions to complex problems. Essentially, leaders plan and followers implement. Leadership styles vary depending upon the situation encountered as well as the personality of the leader and the implementers. The styles of leadership may range from command and control to participative, but the common theme, regardless of style, is that design decisions are the province of leadership. This implies that the design function occurs external to the implementation. There is both “managerial space” and “time” between the design decision and implementation. “Space” is defined as the managerial layers between designers and implementers. “Time” is the lag between design decision and implementation. The existence of space and time lags constrains the ability of the organization to react and respond promptly to environmental change. In contrast, complex adaptive systems respond to change by self-organizing. Solutions “emerge” without the need for an external designer or any form of centralized control. It is useful to employ the metaphor as a way of grasping the difference between traditional governance, buttressed by the notion of external DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-9

Complexity 59 design, control, and predictive capability, and governance from a complexity perspective. The metaphor of systems, as a machine with interlocking pieces that lead to predictable outcomes, underpins traditional approaches to physical sciences and social sciences – including the study of organizations and how they are governed. In contrast, complex adaptive systems are best understood by employing the metaphor of living, biological systems rather than mechanical systems. Three key areas in complexity science that are particularly relevant for public administration include dynamics, self-organization, and coevolution. Dynamics refers to the nonlinear relationships among variables within the province of governance and, in particular, the use of negative and positive feedback loops to understand downstream outcomes. Self-organization refers to the spontaneous interaction of agents within a system, and seems to have particular relevance to governance challenges, as agents will have their own distinctive dynamics and react to the environment in their own, specific ways – ways that are beyond the scope and predictive capability of traditional hierarchical governance arrangements. Coevolution refers to mutual dependence upon two entities – whether they are individuals, organizations, or institutions – for continued survival and thriving. It is a pertinent phenomenon to governance strategies as the governance perspective focuses on improving interorganizational coordination to improve policy proposals and their implementation, and to tie important actors to the policy process.1 Understanding and Navigating Complexity Legacy governance approaches work well in delivering public goods and services to constituencies when conditions are stable, but governance models fall well short of successfully addressing complex issues that defy instrumental approaches. The need for collaborative governance solutions to address complex public issues has never been greater, but this need is unfortunately coinciding with an increasing trend toward tribalism. Global public issues such as climate change, wealth inequality, infectious diseases, and the terrorist threat are growing exponentially, while governance responses are at best linear and at worst completely stalled out. (Thomas Friedman’s point in “Thank You for Being Late.”2)

The Dynamics of the Complex Adaptive System Each term in this phrase “complex adaptive system” (CAS) has a distinct and important meaning. “Complex” implies diversity – many

60  Part 3 connections among many elements. “Adaptive” suggests that there is the capacity to change – to learn from experience. A “system” is a set of interconnected, interdependent things. The “things” may be molecules, individuals, firms, etc. The generic name for these things is “agents.” A CAS consists of a densely integrated web of agents. Each agent acts based on its own “schema” or local knowledge, decision rules, and conditions; in human systems these schemas are mental models that individuals use to make sense of their environment. In the following sections, the role of complex adaptive systems in elucidating governance approaches is explored from several different standpoints. • • •

Complexity’s alternative views of governance Trade-off between connectivity and resilience How information is shared in a complex adaptive system

Complexity’s Alternative Views of Governance Elizabeth Anne Appel from Victoria University’s School of Government has done a good job of summarizing how various authors have viewed the impact of complexity theory on governance.3 Her article summarizes conclusions reached by authors who contributed articles to a special issues of Public Management Review published in 2018 (Vol. 20, No. 7). The author’s conclusions are organized by the following categories: • • •

Alternative perspectives Alternative institutions Alternative practices

Alternative Perspectives A complexity perspective entails the rejection of assumptions of predictability and control in public management, and the adoption of assumptions of multiple, interacting self-organizing entities that learn and change over time. While there are periods of stable behavior and features of the system that function as constraints on elements of the system, the diversity and adaptation of entities creates the possibility for both evolutionary and unpredictable, sudden change. Complex solutions to complex problems emerge through a selforganizing process in which many independent agents interact with each other based on a few local decision rules that determine how each agent interacts with its closest neighbor. There is no “leader of the pack” or overall manager of the process. Fitness landscapes are evolutionary models that capture how the behavior and characteristics of independent

Complexity 61 agents operating in a shared context result in individual and system-wide outcomes. Philip Haynes makes use of complexity theory to focus on multiple levels of public administration systems. He extends the conceptualization of the public administration complex system to include the behavior disposition of the individual in relation to their public and personal values, to conclude that the multilevel capacity in complexity theory is, in part, bounded by public service values. Further, he uses the complexity concept of attractors to explain how public service values at different levels (individual, family/community, professional, and political) can play a role in constraining (or indeed enabling) system change over time.4 Alternative Institutions Alternative institutions are those that can influence the actions of interdependent, autonomous agents as they iteratively explore alternative solutions to wicked problems, such as distributed authority arrangements, multisector for a decision-making and multichannel feedback arising from new communication technologies. Alternative Practices Traditional scientific methodologies that attempt to establish cause– effect relationships lose meaning in the context of complex adaptive systems. In CAS, patterned solutions emerge through self-organization and intense interaction among agents. But a causal pattern cannot be traced to the emergent solution. In this chapter we will review several complexity concepts and their relevance to governance approaches. These concepts include: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Fractals Nested structures Dissipative structures Self-organization Emergence Coevolution Path dependence Fitness landscapes Attractors Network relationships Trade-off between connectivity and resilience Heterarchy Role of leadership Case studies Edge of chaos and boundary management

62  Part 3 Fractals Fractals are repeating patterns that occur at both higher and lower levels of organization. In nature this can be seen in the recurring patterns of snowflakes, trees, coastlines, etc. This is the principle of “selfsimilarity.” The fractal can be a useful conceptual tool to study how power and influence are distributed both vertically and horizontally throughout the “governance” space, ranging from local to global levels. Recognition of repeating governance patterns can be used to leverage their use in addressing complex issues. Nested Structures Complex adaptive systems are nested, i.e., each CAS is not only an entity in itself but also part of a larger CAS. Attempts to implement change at a technical level must consider the connectivity between technical, managerial, political, and cultural levels. Each of these represents CAS’s that are dependent upon higher level or deeply embedded CAS’s. The concept of nested structures is a fundamental feature of complex adaptive systems that bears relevance to the governance challenge. Complex adaptive systems are nested within larger systems, much as the famous Matryoshka Doll in Russian culture. The “nesting” concept as applied to governance challenges can be viewed in two contexts: (1) levels of governance structures and (2) levels of the challenges themselves. From the first perspective, governance structures can be arrayed along a continuum from local government through global government (panarchies) efforts. Each level of governance may be viewed as a CAS embedded in a parent governance CAS. To illustrate, separate complex adaptive systems for education exist at each level of governance. Educational STEM proficiency standards for K-12 students may be established at county, state, national, and even global levels. U.S. student STEM proficiency levels are regularly compared with proficiency.5 The different CAS levels are linked through two-way information flows, often in the form of guidance or standards from the parent CAS’s downward and feedback from the “child” CAS’s upward. The second context for viewing nested structures concerns the level of the challenge that governance is attempting to address. The ability to respond to needed governance change involves a multilevel adjustment. Each response level generally requires a progressively longer time to successfully adapt. The levels, from shortest to longest adaptation time include: • • • •

Technical Managerial Political Cultural

Complexity 63 Two observations about the above components of governance change are: (1) they represent four complex adaptive systems that are constantly interacting with each other, as well as adjusting to changes in the external landscape; and (2) adaptation times in each of the above systems invariably are not in synch and therein lies the crux of the governance challenge. The global issue of climate change illustrates the dynamics of these four complex adaptive systems. At the technical level of the challenge, billions of dollars have been invested in alternative energy sources – e.g., solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, biothermal. Even the leading fossil fuel companies are engaged in extensive research to determine the technical feasibility of producing these sustainable energy sources at scale. The search for technological solutions represents a complex adaptive system in itself. Solutions within this CAS are constantly evolving, but could be implemented in a relatively short time frame if this CAS were not embedded in the other three CAS’s necessary for a comprehensive governance solution. The managerial CAS involves planning, coordination, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation – all traditional management functions, but the difficulty in coordinating a global solution at the managerial level appears to require a longer time frame than that required for technically feasible solutions. Both technical and managerial CAS’s are embedded within a dynamic political CAS. Technical and managerial challenges will not be successful unless they are implemented within the context of a political frame of reference. To address the climate change issue at a global level from a political perspective is a daunting task because of the very different geopolitical stances taken both by nation states and regional blocks such as the European (EU), The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the Middle East and Africa  Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The political machinations among these groups are constantly evolving and shape the contours of both managerial and technical solutions to such issues as climate change. The political solutions generally require an even longer time frame than both technical and managerial challenges to be addressed. Technical, managerial, and political CAS’s are ultimately embedded in a cultural context. Cultural change is the most intransigent to achieve because it is integral to the very identity of nations. The combined complexity of technical, managerial, political, and cultural systems and their continual adaptation to change begins to explain why global governance challenges such as climate change seem to be insurmountable at times. From the complexity perspective, it becomes increasingly understandable why emergent change takes precedent over any attempt at deliberate and directed change by a governing body at any level. A major governance challenge in dealing with complex, often global issues, involves achieving a delicate balance between maintaining program stability and making appropriate adaptations to environmental change. In cases of incremental change, balance is more easily achieved.

64  Part 3 Adaptation to incremental change can be anticipated and planned for without seriously disrupting current program structures and functions. In relatively stable environments, predictive models can be built using clear baseline trends and durable past relations between significant variables that can be expected to continue in the future. Strategies can then be formulated to address predicted future states. To illustrate, under stable conditions, federal agencies formulating workforce plans can develop models that show a strong relationship between recruitment rates and external unemployment rates. As unemployment rates decrease, recruitment becomes more difficult. If unemployment trends show clear patterns of either upward or downward movement, associated recruitment trends can be predicted and appropriate recruitment/retention strategies can be formulated. When change is discontinuous, a whole new set of challenges emerge for public administrators. The art of balancing stability and change becomes trickier. In complexity science these discontinuous changes are referred to as phase transitions. In complexity science the term “edge of chaos” is used to describe a transition space between order and disorder – a class of behaviors in which the components of the system never quite lock into place, yet never dissolve into turbulence, either. These are the systems that are both stable enough to store information, and yet evanescent enough to transmit it. These are systems that can be organized to perform complex computations, to react to the world, to be spontaneous, adaptive, and alive. The governance function becomes ritualized, institutionalized, and reinforced in government agencies, and that works well under stable conditions. But during transitions, phase shifts or discontinuous changes the governance function as carried out by government agencies is not sufficiently resilient to adapt to these major changes. New forms of governance evolve to address major change. Governance in these situations is fluid, which increases the ability to develop innovative solutions to complex issues. Dissipative Structures A dissipative structure is characterized by the spontaneous appearance of symmetry breaking (anisotropy) and the formation of complex, sometimes chaotic, structures where interacting particles exhibit long range correlations. Examples in everyday life include convection, turbulent flow, cyclones, hurricanes, and living organisms. Less common examples include lasers, Bénard cells, droplet cluster, and the Belousov– Zhabotinsky reaction. Dissipative structures in human affairs, including governance initiatives, entail exchanging matter and energy with the external environment in order to create new adaptations to the environment. A dissipative structure, in essence, is a temporary “organizational”

Complexity 65 solution to a survival challenge. In general systems theory, dissipative structures create a pocket of “negentropy” as a temporary counter to the long-term inevitable movement toward entropy in the universe (2nd law of thermodynamics). Prigogine’s dissipative structures model provides the basis for this thinking.6 Self-organization For self-organizing movements in the human realm, local decision rules are not easy to discern. But there is ample evidence that human agents do manage to form movements without the benefit of explicit leadership. The concepts of “governance” as defined in earlier chapters, and “selforganization,” should be examined in juxtaposition with each other. To the extent that governance is a steering mechanism designed to facilitate movement toward desired outcomes, it can be viewed in two contexts as related to self-organizing movements: (1) as an external guidance system to aid the self-organizing system in achievement of goals or (2) as an integral component of the self-organizing system itself. In both instances, the self-organizing system may be viewed as a complex adaptive system that exhibits all the characteristics of a CAS described in this chapter.7 The dilemma facing several current attempts to govern, or steer, society toward solutions to existential challenges such as climate change determines which context is the appropriate one from which to proceed. Global agreements on establishment of goals for temperature rise may be viewed as an external attempt to guide (govern) the complex adaptive system of energy use toward favorable societal outcomes. In the second context, the governing bodies at local, state, national, and international levels are agents interacting with many other agents who are on equal footing with the regulators. The self-organizing CAS encompasses both regulator and regulated. In the absence of “local decision rules” on behavior, it is difficult to get the entire “flock” flying in the same direction. Emergence Emergence refers to the spontaneous formation of a pattern or solution at a collective level, based on the interactions of many individual agents who operate based on simple, local decision rules. The emergent pattern cannot be explained by adding up the behavior of each individual agent. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A classic example of emergence in humans is the formation of a conscious thought that emanates from the interaction of billions of neurons in the brain but cannot be explained by assembling a “cause–effect” mapping of all the neurons firing that leads to an explanation of consciousness. The governance challenge in addressing the “emergence” phenomenon is two-fold: (1) what steps can be taken to foster the emergence of

66  Part 3 favorable outcomes; and (2) what steps can be taken to prevent the emergence of outcomes that are harmful to society (e.g., irreversible impacts of climate change). This is closely related to the facilitative role of leadership as a complex adaptive system evolves toward outcomes that cannot be predicted in advance. Coevolution Coevolution occurs when, in adapting to their environments, two or more organisms evolve together. To “make the best of” where they live, organisms make use of other organisms by eating them, living on or in them, and/or building a “partnership” with them. Organisms coevolve with many species at the same time, because an environment includes many different types of organisms.8 The principles of coevolution can be applied to human and societal systems, and to the governance of these systems. The social world is replete with examples of coevolutionary processes that alternatively result in productive partnerships, parasitic relationships, and relationships where one entity consumes or incorporates the other. The role of governance is to determine which of the coevolutionary relationships best serve to achieve favorable outcomes for the complex adaptive system. When the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), or the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice rules on cases, their primary criterion for evaluating these cases determines whether industry actions result in restraint of trade. Mergers between two large companies within an industry represent an instance of coevolution through productive partnerships. Both companies achieve benefits in the form of increased profitability and market share. The role of the regulatory agencies is to determine whether this form of coevolution results in restraint of trade – which is presumed to be antithetical to the best interest of the U.S. economy. Path Dependence Path dependency explains the continued use of a product or practice based on historical preference or use. A company may persist in the use of a product or practice even if newer, more efficient alternatives are available. Path dependency occurs because it is often easier or more costeffective to continue along an already set path than to create an entirely new one. Legacy governance approaches are rooted in traditional hierarchical arrangements, often adapted from private sector management principles. These principles were developed in the industrial age when production lines dominated managerial thinking. Hierarchical governance persists in most government agencies despite radical changes in the governance landscape. This tendency to rely on historical practices embodies the concept of path dependence.

Complexity 67 Fitness Landscapes This concept is drawn from evolutionary biology. It is a graphic description of a system’s attempt to survive and continue reproducing by making the best adaptation possible in given circumstances. The “best adaptation” is graphically represented by a peak within a broader landscape. Adaptive systems continually strive to ascend to a nearby peak. Improving adaptations climb higher toward a peak. The height of each peak represents the degree of adaptation required in that particular circumstance. Poor adaptations descend the slope of a peak. The distance between peaks represents the degree of similarity between different kinds of adaptations. If a system adapts poorly relative to a given peak of fitness, it will gravitate toward a nearby peak that requires minimum adjustment, and attempts to ascend the adjacent peak. Governance approaches can be viewed as complex adaptive systems that strive to design initiatives that best suit the conditions that are necessary for success. Regulatory agencies design rules that they deem appropriate for current conditions. They ascend a given peak of regulatory competence that matches current conditions. For example, EPA establishes regulations for air quality standards based on the amount existing pollution levels. A good regulatory fit is equivalent to ascending to a peak within the fitness landscape. If there is a drastic increase in pollution levels due to major increases in fossil fuel consumption, the current regulatory standards are no longer sufficient and the governance approach begins a descent down the current fitness peak. A new regulatory standard that matches the emerging pollution levels represents a new peak that the Agency must ascend by altering its regulations to match the new environmental conditions. A fitness landscape (FL) perspective on complex social systems offers useful insights for both theory and practice in public administration. The concept of fitness landscapes, drawn from the biological body of knowledge, provides the potential for explaining the adaptive moves of agents within a complex adaptive environment who are in search of a better “fit” with their environment. Fitness landscapes are a relevant way of understanding how diverse actors in the health-care arena behave as they negotiate with one another to gain a differential advantage. Health-care providers, insurers, patients, and regulators all strive to achieve “peak fitness” in terms of their ability to survive and thrive.9 Attractors An attractor is a set of states toward which a system will naturally gravitate and remain cycling through unless perturbed. We can create a “state space” or a “phase space” within which also possible states can occur. A phase space can be defined by two parameters represented graphically,

68  Part 3 respectively, on a horizontal and vertical axis. The behavior of the system will tend toward a particular pattern, rather than occupying all possible states in the “phase space.” The pattern that typifies system behavior is called the “attractor.” In a simple system, an agent will continue to cycle through that pattern because of the attractor. In a complex adaptive system, bifurcation occurs. Agents may split into different patterns of behavior because new attractors appear. Bifurcation may continue through the process of dissipation, and end up with many different patterns of behavior, each drawn to a different attractor. This dissipative state occurs at “the edge of chaos.” It is in this intersection that creativity is maximized and discontinuous change occurs. Attractors that have led to multiple bifurcations in our society explain the challenges facing those who attempt to govern or guide the society toward outcomes that will benefit all. Even within a highly bifurcated society such as exists in the United States currently, the dynamic of self-organization does lead to emergent solutions. Patterns emerge out of random and even oppositional behavior. They are just not predictable. Network Relationships – How Information Is Shared in a Complex Adaptive System Paul Herzog describes scenarios that explain how information is shared and amplified in a complex adaptive system.10 The basic logic that Paul Hertzog uses is as follows: Complexity + Small − World Networks + Perpetual Contact = Unpredictability As Hertzog states: “…the complexity of our social system, composed of many interacting individuals, that conforms to the pattern of organization known as a small-world network, is being propelled by communicative technologies from a norm of occasional interaction to one that is characterized by constant interaction, or perpetual contact.” The small-world network, which describes the real world, consists of numerous highly interlinked clusters connected to distant clusters by means of bridges. The bridges that serve to bring distant clusters closer often go unnoticed. As Duncan Watts11 describes it, the small-world network “is a global phenomenon, yet individuals are capable only of local measurements. You only know who you know, and maybe most of the time, your friends know the same sort of people you do. But if just one of your friends is friends with just one other person who is friends with someone not like you at all, then a connecting path exists,” it is the bridges that provide the crucial inroads for the arrival of new ideas and information.

Complexity 69 It is this unique structure, how it affects perceptions of proximity and how those perceptions shape behavior, that are of concern. Thresholds and Cascades The structure and identities of agents in social networks determine the network’s threshold with regards to effects that cascade throughout part or all of the network. Agents have their own thresholds as well, but network connectivity is what makes cascades possible. Social networks utilize threshold models of decision-making that take into account two factors: the number of connections and their weight, or likelihood of influence. Paralleling complexity’s “edge of chaos,” individuals are poised between too few connections and too many. Too few connections and an individual are less likely to be influenced, but counterintuitively too many connections produce the same result because the relative influence of each connection is smaller. In addition, individuals, in general, are more influenced by those socially “near” to them than by those that are socially “distant.” Nonetheless, how an individual’s threshold is calculated is irrelevant, since once it has been crossed, it may have repercussions for the population as a whole. Because social bridges reduce “distance” between clusters, they increase the “closeness” of all nodes, and thus, increase the likelihood that they will have an influence. The essence of organizational change is this constant exchange of information within and between clusters. An understanding of the critical thresholds that exist within the complex adaptive system may provide some degree of insight concerning how rapidly information will cascade through the system. Generally, however, this extremely complex dynamic will result in an inherently unpredictable social system. The availability of information and communication technologies has provided the fuel for this dynamic. J.N. Rosenau states: “the Information Revolution has reduced the barriers to interaction among processes that were previously isolated from each other in time or space.”12 As a consequence, political order must pursue a corresponding policy shift from predictive and anticipatory governance to rapid-response networks, and must learn to act as a complex adaptive system. Multiscaled governance is suggested as an appropriate governance model. The model presents the characteristics of a complex adaptive system. Governance as a complex adaptive system would resemble a network. In such a governance system there would be optimal network connectivity, i.e., a balance between control and autonomy. A lower threshold exists where a network has too little connectivity, as well as an upper threshold where the network exhibits too much connectivity. Axelrod and Cohen13 suggest that organizations can learn to explore and exploit the governance landscape between these two thresholds, and Watts suggests a network model of multiscale connectivity.

70  Part 3 Theorists are encouraged to think about governance systems “as networks of information processors, where the role of the network [is] to handle large volumes of information efficiently and without overloading any individual processors.” When communicative groups are required to pass information upward through hierarchies before that information can reach other groups in distant sections of the hierarchy, the result is information congestion in the core (top) of the hierarchy and information delay at the periphery (bottom).14 The solution is to reroute communication from nodes to other nodes on all levels of the hierarchy. Trade-off between Connectivity and Resilience Homer Dixon offers insights on the dynamics of complex adaptive systems. He speaks of the trade-off between connectivity and resilience in a complex adaptive system.15 Public administrators are increasingly operating in a world of interconnectedness, with multiple stakeholders at local, state, regional, national, and international levels. Two features of this trend toward connectedness are (1) density – a greater number of connections and (2) tightness – increasing strength of the connections. Both features provide administrators with greater potential for innovative solutions to challenging problems such as climate change because more stakeholders and their associated resources are devoted to the solution. An extensive and tightly connected network can produce a “gestalt” or holistic solution that is more potent than solutions arrived at independently by stakeholders acting on their own. However, as Homer-Dixon indicates, the degree of integration can grow to the point that the solution begins to lose resilience in its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. This is particularly the case when challenges reach a “phase shift” or transformation in the nature of the challenge. At this critical point, referred to by some systems thinkers as “the edge of chaos,” the density and intensity/tightness of connections begin to act as a constraint on resilient thinking, and such resilience is critically important in changing orientation in order to deal with a transformative situation. This dynamic situation can be observed in several historical scenarios in which the current inter connected structures actually prevent adoption of transformative strategies to address phase shifts in problems. A few examples are given below: •

Inability to address climate change – The world’s reliance on fossil fuels, which is reinforced by dense and tight connections between fossil fuel stakeholders – producers, policy makers, consumers, etc. This integrated network makes adjustment to the new challenge formidable.

Complexity 71 •

Accelerating income and wealth inequality – Dense and intense connections between Wall Street, Congress, and the Executive Branch are mutually rewarding, and prevent a transformative approach to reducing inequities.

Panarchy Panarchy is a transdisciplinary investigation into the political and cultural philosophy of “network culture.” The primary fields of relevance for panarchy are world politics (international relations), political philosophy/ theory, and information technology. Panarchy also draws on insights from information/communications theory, economics, sociology, networks, and complex systems.16 Panarchy is a useful lens from which to view the broad perspective that governance must take in order to address complex global issues such as climate change, pandemics, and immigration. Role of Leadership In legacy governance systems, the degree to which power and influence are distributed may vary, but ultimate governance decisions rest with centralized leadership. The role of leadership in a human complex adaptive system is facilitative in nature and includes the following functions: 1 Creating incentives for agents within the CAS to consider new ways of understanding the world around them. 2 Establishing conditions that create diverse perspectives and intense interaction. 3 Setting the tone that encourages inclusion and consensus. 4 Recognizing the preeminence of emergent over leadership-directed change, and being a good reader of trends and mindsets within the CAS. 5 Establishing broad standards and coordination mechanisms to facilitate efficient and effective information sharing. Several authors in the complexity literature have offered viewpoints on how leadership should behave in the context of a complex adaptive system. Here are some of the insights drawn from these authors. In a human complex adaptive system, there is no “leader of the band” that aligns with the traditional concept of “great leaders” sitting atop of a hierarchy and leading charge toward a solution. Rather, the organizational mindset must shift from the industrial age to the knowledge era at the edge of chaos. In complex adaptive systems, leadership is understood as a dynamically evolving influence pattern that includes elements of

72  Part 3 administrative, distributed, and emergent leadership. Leadership functions to influence the context of individual interactions and the content of those interactions. It is an interactive and interdependent process from which learning, innovation, and adaptation emerge. “A leader is best when people barely know he exists. When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will all say ‘we did it ourselves’.” (Lao Tzu). The role of leadership and planning in a human CAS represents a clear departure from the traditional concept of leadership and planning in a hierarchical organization. Governance, as has been mentioned, is embedded in the nature of interaction among agents; leadership departs from a vision-driven bold director with a clear picture of future directions – to a facilitator that establishes conditions that promote rich exchange of information that lead to innovative solutions. The strategic plan transforms from a noun to a verb. To the extent that planning is possible, it must be an extremely resilient function. In the complexity body of knowledge, the role of governance and leadership is acknowledged – even in the context of complex adaptive systems. But the appropriate role of leadership bears little resemblance to legacy views of leadership that is featured by a “command and control” approach. Rather, leaders play three critical roles: (1) establishing conditions that create diverse perspectives and intense interaction within the system, and that allow emergent change to occur; (2) setting the tone that encourages inclusion and consensus among all agents to support the change that has emerged through selforganization; and (3) establishing broad standards and coordination mechanisms to facilitate efficient and effective information sharing. Perhaps the most difficult challenge facing leadership in a complex adaptive system is creating incentives for agents within the CAS to consider new ways of understanding the world around them. Deep-seated narratives that are driven by cultural imperatives lock agents into viewing their environment in ways that are consistent with the narrative. Narratives form a powerful basis for maintaining stability – particularly in times of discontinuous change. Narratives provide agents with their self-identity. These strongly held narratives provide the engines that sustain tribalism in our society. To challenge these narratives destabilizes agents and threatens how they define themselves. Nevertheless, effective leadership in a CAS must create a sense of “equivocality” for agents – sufficient for them to question the legitimacy of the narrative that they use to organize their attention to the world around them, and to enhance their awareness of alternative legitimate narratives. What forms of leadership work well in complex adaptive systems when the system is continually adapting to a changing environment? Robert Blomme17 asserts that traditional forms of leadership are inappropriate when organizations are faced with both continuous and discontinuous change. Blomme identifies three dimensions of change: content, process, and context. Content refers to which specific changes are needed

Complexity 73 or desired; process refers to the tactics and methods used to bring about change; and context refers to the conditions under which change is made. For example, is the change taking place in the early, middle, or late stages of an organization’s life cycle? Command-and-control approaches to leadership are more appropriate in times of stability but not appropriate in times of major change. Blomme differentiates between transactional, transformational, and self-regulating or emergent leadership. In transactional leadership the style tends toward command-and-control. Influence on followers is exerted by imposing rules, by using extrinsic stimuli, by carefully monitoring outcomes, and by rewarding those whose outcomes are the result of behavior that is in line with the goals of the organization. In transformational leadership approach the focus is on the ability of visionary leaders to inspire followers to the extent that they contribute voluntarily to the goals of the organization and identify themselves with the identity of the organization, which forms an important part of their self-concept. Both transactional and transformational leaderships are based on the premise of predictability, i.e., it is based on a recognizable world, a predictable social system, and predictable results in the organization, all of which result from the behavior of leaders and the reactions of followers. In emergent leadership a manager does not change the organization. The manager’s actions are the result of the change process which the manager him- or herself has brought about because as an agent the manager is part of the change context itself. Hence, the traditional perspective of change and the change manager is not applicable anymore when it comes to bringing about change effectively in organizations. Emergent change will take place when the existing structures, strategies, and processes in an organization cannot help in dealing with an exogenous change that results in a decline in performance to an unacceptable level.18 Emergence is the result of self-organizing processes in an organizational system that can be considered to be closed, that it is free of external interventions, and that it produces unpredictable outcomes. In a complex adaptive system, emergent change comes about through selforganization. It is generally triggered by an exogenous factor threatening the existing state of the system. Change that occurs naturally through self-organization is termed “remedial” change, as opposed to “developmental” change. This type of change is initiated by agents within the system who are willing to change their structure. Blomme states: “As agents, managers are always participants in this system and none of them is able to step out of the system to obtain an overview of the system as a whole, let alone have any idea about the evolution of the system. The essential point about self-organization is precisely that none of the agents—either as individuals or as members of the group—can plan or shape the evolution of the system in any other

74  Part 3 way than by their local interaction. Point attractors and latent attractors are responsible for this shaping process. Although the agents’ shared interaction contributes to the evolution of the system, none of the agents organizes the interaction, the self-organization across the system as a whole. No single agent (such as a manager or leader) determines the rules for the other agents to subsequently “allow” them to organize themselves. The question remains of how managers as administrative leaders should act to make change happen and what the nature of their interventions should be.”19 Based on the works of Karl Weick, Blomme asserts that in order for conditions to be ripe for emergent change, the organization must be in a state of high uncertainty. The uncertainty applies to the wealth and multiplicity of meanings we can apply to a situation that an organization has to deal with. This is referred to as a state of “equivocality.” Equivocality only becomes apparent when people are preoccupied with the world around them, when they attempt to grasp it, study it, and fashion it. A high degree of equivocality indicates a receptiveness and readiness to entertain change. Blomme identifies six implications for administrative leaders’ roles in complex adaptive systems. These roles are a radical departure from the traditional leadership roles that operate within a hierarchical, command-and-control, stability context. The basic assumption underlying each of these roles is that the end state of emergent change is unpredictable. Traditional leadership cannot steer an organization to an end state that cannot be predicted. Implication One – Understanding the linguistic domain: Managers should know how agents within the system interpret and make sense of the symbolism of their behavior and interactions. As such, an important notion is that the manager has to consider that what he or she is doing is not that important. It is the symbolic value of the actions in the perception of the agents that counts. In practice, managers should know what deep-seated narratives drive how agents act and interact on a symbolic basis. Implication Two – Emergent change drives deliberate change: This means that changes initiated by management (deliberate) will not be successful until or unless there is sufficient disruption of the status quo to motivate a change in current structures, strategies, and processes and at a deeper level changes in the organizational culture’s beliefs and narratives that organize their understanding of the world. This disruption creates a higher level of ambiguity about how to interpret the world and act upon the interpretations. Blomme refers to this as a state of equivocality. This state of affairs is a prerequisite for emergent change through selforganization to occur. The drivers of equivocality are numerous. However, there are two primary drivers: (1) incorporating a diversity of viewpoints

Complexity 75 into the organization/system and (2) outside shocks to the system which provide evidence that maintaining the current course of action is antithetical to the goals of the organization/system. Deliberate change will be successful only if the following conditions are met: • •

•

A state of equivocality is created; this is partially within the control of leadership, who can encourage diversity of viewpoints within the organization. There is intense and frequent interaction among agents both within and outside of the organization. This interaction is the engine that drives emergent change. Leadership can also play a role by creating an environment that encourages interaction. The deliberate change desired by leadership is sufficiently aligned with the emergent change that results from agent interaction.

Implication Three – The reduction of equivocality is a key to change: Leaders play a central role in reducing equivocality within the organization. Once organizational change emerges from the interaction of agents, leaders can help to build coherence within the organization to support the new direction. By combining implications Two and Three, leaders play two critical roles: (1) establishing conditions that create diverse perspectives and intense interaction within the organization, and that allow emergent change to occur; and (2) Setting the tone that encourages inclusion and consensus among all agents to support the change that has emerged through self-organization. Implication Four – Power is located in relations – not with persons: Emergent change fostered by agent interactions shifts the power from the traditional leader/change manager to other informal leaders who have been instrumental in fomenting emergent change. Traditional organizational leaders can play an additional role in supporting emergent change by acknowledging the shift in power from themselves to multiple agents who played key parts in facilitating emergent change. Implication Five – Three leadership functions are the keys to change – administrative, adaptive, and enabling: Administrative leadership is necessary to maintain organizational stability if change is minimal. Adaptive leadership is necessary to steward emergent change. Enabling leadership provides a bridge to maintain communication between the administrative and adaptive leadership function. The combination of the three leadership functions constitutes effective change management leadership. Implication Six – Reducing equivocality by empowerment: In order to reduce equivocality, administrative leaders should recognize the sources of equivocality – e.g., differences in perspectives in such areas as organizational goals, ambiguity in the effectiveness of existing processes, and uncertainty concerning the distribution of power within the organization. It is incumbent upon administrative leaders to empower other

76  Part 3 agents with adaptive and enabling leadership authorizations to help other agents in reducing equivocality and the emergence of a new order of behavior.20 As Steven Johnson describes in The Myth of the Ant Queen, humans have traditionally looked for “rulers” in ordered systems, “pacemakers” that are responsible for the maintenance of order. In addition, we look for such primary causers in other systems, from terrorist networks to fads to mass demonstrations to peer-to-peer file-sharing. However, “we know now that systems like ant colonies don’t have real leaders, that the very idea of an ant ‘queen’ is misleading. But the desire to find pacemakers in such systems has always been powerful.”21 In complex adaptive systems, though, organizers are entirely unnecessary when the structure of the system follows certain parameters. In highly interconnected systems, when conditions permit, order can emerge spontaneously. The system itself is the organizer of order. It is important to make a distinction between the role of leadership in an organization that behaves as a complex adaptive system, and the depiction of governance, itself, as a complex adaptive system. Because the emergence of a global information society leaves us with “a Byzantine mishmash of overlapping networks, organizations, systems, and governance structures, mixing private and public, economics, politics, and society,” our governance systems must learn to embrace chaos, and become a complex adaptive system, which means focusing on responsive adaptation over predictive avoidance. D.J. Watts observes: “One of the great mysteries of large distributed systems – from communities and organizations to brains and ecosystems  – is how globally coherent activity can emerge in the absence of centralized authority or control.”22 Brief Case Studies Illustrating Complex Adaptive Systems in Action Viewing the COVID 19 Crisis from the Perspective of Complex Adaptive Systems The COVID 19 pandemic of 2020–21 is a fertile ground for exploring the behavior of complex adaptive systems (CAS). This crisis saw the interaction of several kinds of complex adaptive systems. Each of these systems self-organize, with no apparent traditional leadership; and through intense interaction among agents, arrive at emergent solutions that facilitate the reproduction and survival of the CAS. These include both biological and human CAS’s. The COVID 19 virus is a biological CAS, as is the human immune system. Both biological CAS’s continually self-organize into different configurations dependent upon the behavior of the other. The DNA structure of both the virus and

Complexity 77 the human system’s protein configuration represents information that guides the emergent behavior. Human CAS’s respond to the COVID 19 CAS by behaving in a similar manner – e.g., through self-organization, intense interaction among agents, and continually emergent solutions based on the behavior of their counterpart biological CAS’s – all for the purpose of facilitating continued survival and reproduction of the human race. Two prominent human CAS’s are (1) the global search for vaccines among the science community to address the virus and (2) the technical, political, economic, and cultural systems that deliver preventive and therapeutic solutions to the general population. Whereas, biological systems’ behavior is driven by the information contained in the structure of DNA, human systems’ behavior is largely influenced by scripts or narratives that guide the behavior of individual agents within the system. Both biological and human CAS’s behavior are driven by predetermined scripts. For biological CAS’s the script is encoded in the DNA structure. For human CAS’s the script is in the form of life narratives that drive behavior – at the individual, group, and cultural levels. The ability to alter scripts based on environmental change is a leading indicator of survivability and future reproduction. Since it is presumed that biological CAS’s DNA structure is not based on cognitive characteristics, changes to the DNA structure are not subject to resistance based on prior cognitive states. In short, DNA structure changes when it needs to. In contrast, the narrative scripts that drive human behavior are reinforced through cognition. Resistance to change is bolstered by repeated behavior that aligns with predetermined scripts, and continues to reward the individual, group, or culture for remaining true to the script. The role of governance in a biological vs. a human CAS warrants further examination. In biological CAS’s, governance of the system is embedded in the distributed interaction among biological entities and driven by the coded information contained in DNA structures. In human CAS’s, governance is also embedded in the nature of interaction among agents, and these interactions are also driven by a combination of predetermined narratives/scripts and the occurrence of transformative change in the environment. As is the case with biological CAS’s in human CAS’s, there is no overarching power that governs the behavior of the system. The act of governance lies in the nature of the interaction among agents, and solutions to governance challenges are emergent. Solutions cannot be arrived at based on analyzing the many interactions among system agents. The holistic solution does not equal the sum of its parts. This leads us to examine how governance, leadership, and planning occurred during the COVID crisis. There has been a hue and cry among critics that the Trump Administration did not have a clear plan for attacking the virus, nor demonstrated a clear leadership role. Many of the critics may be operating from a narrative that envisions a

78  Part 3 strong, charismatic leader and a comprehensive plan of action. If only these characteristics were present, the pandemic would have been solved much more effectively. The question is whether the traditional views of governance, leadership, and planning – formulated during an era where Newtonian thinking dominated the management literature – would have been appropriate in improving the behavior of the human complex adaptive systems we have been discussing above. To evaluate the effectiveness of leadership exhibited by the Administration in power during the onset of the COVID pandemic, it would be appropriate to judge that leadership based on the above criteria. It would not be appropriate to evaluate the Administration’s leadership based on traditional “command-and-control” criteria formulated in the era of hierarchical mass production systems. Those criteria would include such characteristics as strong, visionary leadership; comprehensive planning, assignment of authority and responsibility; and clear lines of accountability through a highly structured reporting system. This may require deconstructing traditional management narratives for advocates of legacy management theory that was more suitable for a production-line environment. Further, traditional management theories are primarily applicable to leadership within a given organization – whether the organization is located in the public, private, nonprofit, or academic sectors. The human complex adaptive systems discussed above transcend individual organizations. These human CAS’s involve a myriad of interacting agents in multiple sectors of our society – public, private, nonprofit, and academia. CAS’s also encompass multiple levels of organization – including local, state, regional, and global entities. They also involve multiple problem-solving avenues – including technical, managerial, political, and cultural. This multiperspective approach is essential in addressing the complex challenge facing us – as exemplified by the COVID pandemic. COVID 19 Vaccine Distribution Effectiveness Varies by States – Is This Variance Explained by the Very Different Characteristics of Simple vs. Complex Adaptive Systems? As of January 13, 2021, there was a large variation among states in the percentage of their populations that had received at least one COVID 19 vaccine. At the top of the effectiveness list were states such as New York and Vermont with 72% of the eligible population fully vaccinated. In contrast, Alabama and Mississippi with 48% fully vaccinated were at the bottom of the list. Although these differences may be explained by cultural and political factors, from a system’s perspective further research is warranted. Several factors should be examined. A key consideration to analyze is the variation in centralized vs. decentralized rules for vaccine distribution. An initial hypothesis might be that decentralized rules would

Complexity 79 be more effective under conditions of discontinuous change. This would be because complex adaptive systems exhibit greater resilience as a result of the collective intelligence of the system. Highly centralized systems would tend to operate less efficiently under these conditions. Complex adaptive systems may work best when many more actors are involved in the process, where the nature of the population is more diverse and where conditions are rapidly changing. In the latter case, solutions emerge through self-organization rather than being directed by a centralized governance approach. Solutions in a complex adaptive system may also take longer to emerge than in a simple centralized system. Further research may indicate that the different states range along a continuum from extremely simple centralized systems to extremely complex adaptive systems. Each point on the continuum would indicate different governance approaches based on the degree of complexity in the state system. The Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Presidential Election – Complex Adaptive System in Action An article by Molly Ball in the February 15–22, 2021 edition of Time Magazine provides a useful contemporary illustration of a complex adaptive system in operation.23 In 2019, more than a year ahead of the 2020 presidential election, there was a widespread awareness among a diverse array of progressive groups that the validity of 2020 election results would be seriously questioned by President Trump and his supporters. The President had forewarned his backers that the prospect of rampant fraud was a looming reality. Many left-leaning groups were poised to launch nation-wide counter protests to fight back against the right wing’s charges of election fraud. This would likely result in protracted tribal warfare over the legitimacy of the vote, and the country would have descended into prolonged chaos. However, according to Ball’s article, “there was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes that both curtailed the protests, and coordinated growing resistance from CEO’s” who had formerly been major contributors to Republican campaigns. This conspiracy developed into a “shadow campaign” with the objective of ensuring free and fair elections. To be clear, this was not a campaign to promote the election of the Democratic candidate Joe Biden. Rather it was a diverse and broad coalition of interests dedicated to ensure the preservation of the democratic process, and the institutions that support the process. A key player in this shadow campaign was Mike Podhorzer, who for a quarter of a century was a senior advisor to the president of the AFLCIO. But Podhorzer became increasingly alarmed that an assault on the democratic voting process was under attack. In July 2019, he initiated a series of zoom meetings with broad participation from groups across the

80  Part 3 progressive end of the political spectrum. These groups included, among others, the labor movement, Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood, resistance groups like Indivisible and Move On; state-level grass roots organizers, and racial justice groups. These groups were not always aligned in common purpose, but Podhorzer established the environment that facilitated intensive and extensive communication among the groups. The group that met via zoom had no official name, no leader, and no hierarchy. But they temporarily combined forces to achieve the common goal of free and fair elections. Simultaneously, other movements were afoot. Dick Gephardt, the former Democratic House leader, spearheaded the formation of a bipartisan group of former elected officials, cabinet secretaries, and military leaders. Their aim was to communicate with local election officials to ensure them that the group wanted to help them maintain the integrity of the election process at their levels, and to solicit funding from the Federal coffers. Several other bipartisan groups formed – one of which was the national Council on Election Integrity. The Council consisted of 22 Democrats and 22 Republicans. Rabid Trump supporters as well as progressives populated the Council, but their messaging was consistent. They wanted to do everything possible to ensure that election results were valid and represented the will of the people. An important piece of the shadow campaign also involved an unusual alliance between the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. Although both organizations claim to be bipartisan, the Chamber historically is a major contributor to Republican campaigns, while the AFL-CIO traditionally funds Democratic campaigns for the most part. What brought the two factions together was the common fear that widespread political protests during the prior two years on both left and right threatened the stability of the economy. Both organizations also feared that a public that distrusted election results would continue destabilizing the economy long after the election concluded. The alliance was broadened just prior to election day to include The National Association of Evangelicals and the National African-American Clergy Network. A joint statement was issued by the four groups on election day. Excerpts from the statement include the following: It is imperative that election officials be given the space and time to count every vote in accordance with applicable laws… We call on the media, the candidates and the American people to exercise patience with the process and trust in our system, even if it require more time than usual. Although we may not always agree on outcomes up and down the ballot, we are united in our call for the American democratic process to proceed without violence, intimidation or any other tactic that makes us weaker as a nation.

Complexity 81 The informal alliances across the political spectrum exhibited all the earmarks of a complex adaptive system. Just as any CAS, these multiple organizations were interacting to achieve an overall common goal – to ensure a free and fair 2020 election. There were many agents interacting and sharing information over a broad landscape. There was no hierarchical leadership structure. They were a self-organizing system. You could not predict the outcome ahead of time by adding up each of the component pieces of the system. There was no “engineered” solution. The CAS was operating at “the edge of chaos” based on two formidable discontinuous changes in the election environment: (1) The rapid spread of the “fake election” narrative across a major section of the population, reinforced by messaging broadcast by right-wing media; and (2) the rapid spread of the COVID 19 pandemic. The “free and fair election” CAS had to continuously adapt to changing conditions throughout the election landscape. To draw on the “fitness landscape” concept from complex theory literature, there were several peaks to demonstrate “fitness” in achieving the CAS goal. The “free and fair election” CAS attempted to achieve each peak through the interaction of agents. Molly Ball identified these “fitness peaks” as the pillars of the “free and fair election” plan. Success was defined by achieving peak fitness for each pillar. They included: • • • • • •

Encouraging vote by mail – maximizing this mechanism, which included convincing skeptics of the legitimacy of this voting method Extended voting periods – enhancing public awareness (among both state legislators and potential voters) that this was a legitimate and accessible method for voting Neutralizing “disinformation” – pressuring social media outlets to disallow misleading posts about “fake voting” Modulating social justice protestors – turning the temperature down by convincing social activists that counter protests would only inflame and make more visible the “fake voting” narrative Legal strategies – Marshalling lawyers to present rational arguments that debunked the many frivolous lawsuits on election fraud presented by Trump loyalists before and after the Nov. 3 election Encouraging business buy-in – to ensure that they vouched for the legitimacy of the voting process

The challenge for the “free and fair election” CAS was to achieve peak fitness in each of the above areas. This was an ongoing process of attempting to make progress toward achieving each peak outcome and preventing downward movement away from each peak. Simultaneously the alternative narrative of “election fraud” was operating as a counter CAS. Ironically, the outcome desired by the “election fraud” CAS was also the achievement of free and fair elections. The

82  Part 3 fitness peaks in their landscape were the mirror opposites of the “free and fair election” peaks – e.g., discouraging voting by mail, limiting voting periods, amplifying misinformation, publicizing the danger of social justice protestors, mounting their own legal arguments, and calling in favors owed by big business actors in return for policies that would be in their best interest. Leadership driving the “free and fair election” CAS was widely distributed among the many interest groups that spanned virtually the entire spectrum of political thought. It ranged from the social justice activists to the entrenched CEO’s representing big business. There was, however, basic agreement among leadership in all organizations on how everyone would operate. These included: 1 Establishing conditions that create diverse perspectives and intense interaction within the system, and that allow emergent change to occur; 2 Setting the tone that encourages inclusion and consensus among all agents to support the change that has emerged through selforganization; and 3 Establishing broad standards and coordination mechanisms to facilitate efficient and effective information sharing. Was the overarching goal of “free and fair elections” achieved in 2020? It appears that the overwhelming judgment of our combined democratic institutions is in the affirmative. This judgment has been made regardless of who won the 2020 presidential election. The process was fair – equitable. This, however, is not the end of the story. There are still strong voices resonating from the Republican that the election process was far from free and fair. To a large extent this conclusion has been reinforced by the false narrative generated by the Trump Administration. There are two additional observations: (1) it is also true that improvements can be made to the process. Initiatives have been launched by several state legislatures to determine lessons learned from 2020, and how the process can be made even more equitable; (2) there will be perennial areas of disagreement among competing factions regarding what constitutes a free and fair election process. These are being continuously played out in specific issue debates such as the following: 1 Should ballots be mailed only to those requesting them, or mailed out to all registered voters? 2 What is an appropriate length of time to extend voting deadlines? 3 What is the most efficient process for comparing registered voters’ addresses with those presented at the polls? 4 How long must residence in a state be established before voting is allowed? As long as these decisions are made to accommodate-specific state and local conditions, it will be virtually impossible to declare a national standard that defines a free and fair election.

Complexity 83 The above observations about the 2020 election process, drawn from Molly Ball’s article, illustrate how a complex adaptive system operates to achieve its intended outcome. The process described is in sharp contrast with the traditional approach to strategic planning and management long advocated by business schools across the country. There was no individual leader; no centralized comprehensive strategic plan; no detailed implementation plan; no clear lines of authority, responsibility, or accountability; and no definitive end point. The only goal common to all of the interacting agents was a free and fair election. How that goal is attained cannot be engineered like a clockwork mechanism. The solution has to emerge through a process of intense communication, connectivity, and self-organization. Even the goal itself (free and fair elections) is continuously being redefined and improved based on the evolving definition. Edge of Chaos and Boundary Management The edge of chaos has been characterized as a transition space between order and disorder, a class of behaviors in which the components of the system never quite lock into place, yet never dissolve into turbulence, either. These are the systems that are both stable enough to store information, and yet evanescent enough to transmit it. These are systems that can be organized to perform complex computations, to react to the world, to be spontaneous, adaptive, and alive.24 Complex adaptive systems are the appropriate vehicle for governing federal programs at “the edge of chaos.” CAS approaches to governance are particularly crucial in addressing global issues such as: • • • •

Climate change Terrorism Wealth inequality Disease pandemics such as COVID 19

Relationship between edge of chaos and boundary management – The “edge of chaos” describes the space in which entities undergo change, or are in the process of transitioning from one state to a new state. Boundary management refers to the full range of functions that are performed to mediate between two states in a way that ensures the survival of an entity. A more complete examination of boundary conditions sheds additional light on the range of adjustments made by a CAS in response to conditions that are external to the system. Public Administrators as Boundary Managers Boundaries present special management challenges because they are the locus of activities which both threaten and defend the equilibrium

84  Part 3 of the organization. Boundaries present a host of potential problems: They appear to shift rapidly and in a bewildering manner; they are often blurry, leaving the limits of an administrator’s responsibility quite uncertain; boundaries divert attention and resources from the internal performance of the organization; and decisions on how to manage boundaries are unstable and often in conflict. Remedies to boundary management problems may be more forthcoming if a fuller understanding of “boundary” is achieved. In this section such an understanding is broadened by explicating various aspects of the boundary milieu: • • •

the multiple dimensions of boundaries – tangible, conceptual, and temporal; the perspective from which boundaries may be defined – e.g., objective and subjective; and the several functions of boundaries.

When boundaries are examined from each of these standpoints, public administrators can more fully capitalize upon them as means for organizational survival, enhancement, and effective service delivery to the public. The above statement may be as applicable to organizations as to individuals. Organizations, after all, are created by people and in their images. The problematic nature of organizational boundaries is the subject of this section of the text. A framework is proposed in it for understanding effective boundary management in the public sector. Boundaries encompass a wide variety of phenomena in the world of the public administrator. Although they generally refer to the demarcation between an organization and its environment, boundaries actually mark off the organization in several dimensions simultaneously; they are legitimized in different ways; and they perform several functions. Why offer a framework? Essentially, because the boundary management role has become particularly prominent in today’s permanent “white water” conditions, when clear “edges” of responsibility and action seem to be changing and sometimes disappearing altogether. Under these conditions, effective boundary management is critical to the survival of the organization. A fuller understanding and selfconscious utilization of boundaries by administrators can help their organizations to thrive. What differentiates boundary management from other management situations? Simply put, the majority of management concerns focus on activity that is within well-prescribed limits and is relatively routinized. However, because routine organizational activity is rapidly becoming the exception rather than the rule, the importance of boundary management becomes apparent.

Complexity 85 In the following sections, some major boundary dilemmas are first reviewed. A framework is then outlined for explicating boundary dimensions, perspectives, and functions. Finally, recommendations are offered for addressing boundary management problems. Administrators’ Dilemmas Most public administrators must manage several kinds of boundaries simultaneously. Some of the most visible and pressing boundaries include the politics/administration intersect; the line between appropriate public vs. private sector roles; the areas in which different agencies, as well as programs within the same agency, compete for both policy and resource preeminence; and the interfaces between agencies and their various constituencies, including consumers, the media, Congress, and their watchdog agencies (such as GAO), outside interest groups, and higher level organizations in the Executive Branch. Boundaries present special challenges to administrators because they simultaneously define and call into question the organization’s existence. Boundaries reflect this ongoing tension in several ways. They change frequently, which in turn alters how an organization defines itself. They are often blurry – with organizational and external roles and responsibilities mingling. Their maintenance utilizes much of the organization’s resources. And there may be significant conflict among managers on boundary policies. These issues are addressed below. Boundary Shifts Can Be Bewildering A number of public sector boundaries are subject to frequent change. This shifting of organizational limits reduces administrators’ ability to establish predictable, and thus reliable relationships with the external environment. Some of this change is cyclical, but still not predictable in its details. The appropriate division of political and administrative roles is, for example, a critical boundary that must be periodically reinterpreted by career practitioners and politically elected officials alike (Dresang 1991).25 How far and how explicitly should the political “will” extend into the Executive Branch? Another changeable, but cyclical, boundary is the line between public and private sector roles. The ascendance of privatization during the 1980s as a viable alternative to the performance of many traditional public sector functions was just one Administration’s interpretation of public– private sector boundary policy. Each new administration places different weights on the criteria used to determine the limits of appropriate public sector behavior. To what extent, for example, should the outer limit be dictated by law, political power, or situational need? (Moe 198726 and 1988, Bozeman 198827).

86  Part 3 In other instances, boundary changes are more rapid and much less predictable. These changes may be driven by new technologies, new legislation, or unexpected crises in the constituency served by the Agency. Each of these changes could result in individual programs or entire agencies expanding or contracting their policy, programmatic, or resource boundaries. Each new law passed gives agencies only general guidelines for the new areas of responsibility. The boundary must be defined in detail as agencies hammer out the specifics of legislative implementation. FDA during 2020 and 2021 was in the midst of just such a boundary redefinition process vis-a-vis consumers, health professionals, and industry, respectively, as they define precise agency roles in carrying out their responsibilities related to the COVID 19 pandemic. Regardless of whether the change is cyclical or unique, administrators often meet with strong resistance to the change from those who are responsible for managing the “bread-and-butter” programs of the agency. Boundary changes (even if they result in an expansion of Agency responsibility) often represent threats to traditional ways of doing business. Newly acquired activities that fall within an organization’s purview as a result of boundary change are often fraught with uncertainty, and may not be related to the Agency’s core competence, where its greatest strengths lie. Certainly, another reason for resistance to change at an Agency’s borders is that these boundary activities compete with the Agency’s core for resources, and in times of resource constraint that issue is exacerbated. Boundaries Are Blurry Boundaries also present problems for public sector practitioners because they are often blurry. The idea of “blurriness” goes beyond change. It refers to a lack of distinction between realms. This forces both administrators and their employees to live in an ambiguous world – one in which constructs such as laws, ideas, disciplines, and organizational roles do not retain their integrity, but “bleed” into their surroundings. The politics– administration debate can be revisited to demonstrate this situation. Woodrow Wilson’s 1888 treatise on “The Study of Administration” was perhaps the most directed statement, to that date, on the importance of establishing and reinforcing the dichotomy between politics and administration. He stipulated a clear boundary between the two realms, and saw public administrators as being responsible for the domain that their name suggests. However, events over the past 50 years or so have demonstrated that the boundary is not as clear as Wilson envisioned. Actions within the Executive Branch have also confounded – not clarified the politics–administration separation. A pertinent example of this confusion occurred with the creation of the Senior Executive Service (SES). The SES was established by Title IV of the Civil Service Reform

Complexity 87 Act (CSRA) of 1978 (P.L. 95-454, October 13, 1978) and became effective on July 13, 1979. The SES was intended to serve as a bridge between Executive Branch appointees and careerists – not as a reinforcement of the distinction. This placed them in a position of intertwining, instead of separating the formulation of policy from its implementation. This lack of clarity in role boundaries left many SESers and others quite frustrated, and even ready to declare the entire SES experiment as a venture gone wrong (Huddleston 1991).28 Boundary ambiguity has also occurred at the public–private sector intersect – particularly in the 1980s and early 1990s. In this period there were many calls for joint ventures, demonstration projects, multisector commissions, and committees, all of which joined public and private sector organizations in a common effort to solve societal problems. While such joint undertakings have shown much potential for tackling troublesome public problems, the arrangements have sometimes bred suspicion and resistance among public officials who have for years operated with a clear distinction concerning the proper roles for government and industry (Musolf and Seidman 1980).29 Boundaries Divert Attention and Resources Regardless of how often they change, and how blurry they may seem, boundaries must be managed. Administrators have diverted much of their attention away from internal programs, and toward the boundaries. Agency administrators devote significant resources to engaging in tasks that “tend to” the relationship between the organization and its outside environment. Today in most agencies, several external affairs offices have been created to manage boundaries between the agency and each of its constituencies – e.g., Congress, consumers, the industry being assisted or regulated, and other key interest groups. In addition to these specially designated offices, agency planners address boundary concerns as an integral component of planning processes. Effective strategic planning requires that managers assess the future relationship between outside forces, and their program’s response to these factors prior to establishing future goals and objectives. Assessment of external trends and implications for organizations’ future directions are conducted using a variety of methodologies. Two such widely used assessments are (1) PESTEL (political, economic, societal, technical, environmental, and legal) and (2) SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). Both methodologies focus the organization’s attention on changes that may occur in the external environment and implications for the organization’s future directions. The process of adjusting to changes may be described as operating on “the edge of chaos.” This is characterized as a spatial and temporal interregnum in which stable responses are challenged and opportunities for

88  Part 3 creative change are presented. At the “edge of chaos,” sufficient order exists to prevent the organization from descending into completely random responses. Such environmental scans have become part of the arsenal of many federal agencies’ planning capacities. In some instances, agency planners solicit the views of their stakeholders regarding agency priorities prior to establishing goals and objectives. During the 1980s, FDA solicited annually the views of some 3,000 outside constituents prior to deciding on Agency planning priorities. Both agency planners and budgeters must also manage a very important organizational boundary as they justify program resources to “higher ups” in the Executive Branch and to Congress, as part of the budget cycle. Taken together, these boundary management activities represent a large portion of total agency expenditures, and in all likelihood, a disproportionate share of managements’ deliberations. Boundary Policy Decisions Are Unstable and Often Conflict Administrators often disagree on boundary policy. Two common areas of policy dispute are (1) the extent to which boundary activities should be used to shape or respond to outside environmental forces and (2) the extent to which boundary activities should be used to protect the organization from outside encroachment or to reach to outside sources for joint effort and exchange. When administrators adopt a responsive stance at the boundary, significant resources will be devoted to collecting and analyzing information about the environment, and designing policies and programs that match environmental directions and needs. Forecasting, planning, and monitoring activities will be strongly supported in this type of policy climate. On the other hand, a proactive-stance assumes that administrators can spend more of their time shaping their environment, rather than responding to it. Such a stance would require increased emphasis on persuasive, educational, and image management activities. A decision to use the boundary as a protective instrument would place administrators in the position of emphasizing differences, conflicts, and power struggles at the boundary. Administrators who use the boundary as an inducement to cooperation and exchange would emphasize similarities and common need between organizations, more so than differences. Neither of the above policy questions are totally an either-or choice. But administrators can be quickly frustrated by working with associates who have sharp differences in these policy areas. Further, just when some administrators have learned the boundary policy stances of his/her organizational culture, new administrations or top management regimes sweep into power and can easily reverse such policies. The following example serves to illustrate this point.

Complexity 89 A request comes into an agency planning office from planners at a higher level in the executive branch hierarchy. “We are operating in an austere budgetary climate. Your agency needs to establish a clear set of priorities so that resources dedicated to lower priority activities can be reallocated to higher priority ones.” Agency planners weigh which strategies should be used to respond to this request. In this situation, the planning office is performing a key boundary activity, but needs to decide which role to play – e.g., how open vs. protective, and to what extent should the agency respond to the outside “agenda” as opposed to shaping that agenda. The Agency administrator is given four different recommendations from four of his staff members. These options are outlined in the table below based on the two broad kinds of boundary policy decisions discussed. The dilemma is not just one of choosing the most appropriate option but also anticipating what kind of boundary policy choices are being made by the outside planners, and adjusting accordingly. Whatever decision is reached, there is little doubt that the process of debate and compromise over appropriate strategy will utilize significant resources. In these circumstances, most planning staffs have the ability and most likely would prefer to conduct “rational” analysis to determine best use of limited resources. However, in most cases, policy decisions on how to “play the boundary” will override analysts’ logic. Table 6.1 illustrates the difference in responsive vs. proactive responses to requests to identify low priority activities for purposes of potential budget reductions. The table illustrates how both responses might vary in closed vs. open boundary situations. Table 6.1  Responses to requests for budget reductions in closed vs. open boundary systems

Closed

Open

Responsive

Proactive

Minimalist response – identify legitimate low priorities, but indicate that agency is already operating at bare bone, and that even cutting low priority programs can result in disastrous results. Enlist political allies to fight the cuts. Identify low priority programs; indicate how the Agency intends to “make do” with the cuts. Work with the planning hierarchy to help the agency adjust to the lower budget level.

Resist identifying low priority activities, or identify “Washington Monuments” that will surely provoke political reaction from the outside.

Indicate that any identification of low priorities in a budgetary process is likely to provoke negative reaction. Suggest that the best way to tighten belts is through attrition, not program cuts. Offer to have brainstorming session with the planning hierarchy to come up with constructive approaches to cutback.

90  Part 3 Some observers of public bureaucracies have concluded that the very ambiguity of boundaries and boundary policies have led to the emergence of institutional arrangements that can deal adequately with such uncertainty. Heclo (1989),30 for example, offers the concept of issue networks as a means of administrators reducing uncertainty for public bureaucracies. These networks are essentially webs of influence that provoke and guide the exercise of power. They are largely shifting, fluid, and anonymous. It is almost impossible to say where a network leaves off and its environment begins. Norton Long (1949)31 argued that because administrative institutions such as bureaus are in a continual battle for political survival, they must mobilize political support by building a wide range of activities designed to secure enough “customer acceptance” to survive. Heclo and Long described trans-boundary coalitions which have formed in order to keep attention focused on important issues in amorphous environments. The notion of “boundary” takes on a distinctly different meaning in a networking environment, as compared to a formal organizational setting. Even in light of these adaptive mechanisms, some organizing framework would seem useful for explaining the range of adaptations available to administrators – whether their boundaries be fortresses, or loose permeable structures. In the next section, such a framework for understanding is presented. A Proposed Boundary Management Framework The framework outlined in this section covers three aspects of boundaries: First, the multiple dimensions of boundary are explored. Second, the issue of boundary perspectives is assessed. That is, from whose standpoint are boundaries defined? Finally, several key functions of the boundary are outlined. The Multiple Dimensions of Boundaries Boundaries, first and foremost, serve to define an organization’s existence and differentiate it from its outside environment. The phenomenon of bounding organizations, places, things, etc. is grounded deeply in human nature. We tend to impose boundaries that make physical phenomena discrete just as we are as humans. Lakoff and Johnson explain it as such: “This is because we are physical entities, and we experience the rest of the world as outside us. Each of us is a container with a bounding surface and an in–out orientation.” (Lakoff and Johnson 1980).32 We extend this physical projection of boundaries onto social phenomena as well. Organizations are a case in point. We actually bound organizations in several dimensions simultaneously. Limits are designated in a tangible, conceptual, and temporal sense. Tangible limits are defined in

Complexity 91 terms of the production factors (people, materials, equipment, facilities, etc.), production functions (activities, programs, and the like), and production outputs (products and services). Conceptual limits are defined by the extent to which an organization’s legitimizing laws, regulations, policies, ideas, and influences are distributed throughout the environment. Conceptual boundaries define the limits of common ground as it applies to a group of people agreeing upon a given, cohesive set of concepts. These boundaries are powerful because they unite people in action who have similar aims. Temporal limits separate an organization’s past, present, and future. Administrators must oversee each of these limits, and the problem is exacerbated because they seldom coincide. One tangible limit of an organization comprises the physical facilities which house employees. Another tangible limit is the extent of activities undertaken by its employees – which may occur far outside of its physical limits. FDA inspectors, for example, conduct a large portion of their activities at the physical sites of firms within FDA’s regulated industries. FDA’s conceptual boundaries are even broader, particularly when they are defined by the range of the Agency’s influence. For example, FDA can influence the quality and direction of pharmaceutical research in industry by offering inducements, such as special “fast track” review status, when it wants industry to produce needed therapeutics for life-threatening diseases. The boundaries which define the tangible organization may, in fact, encompass parts of several conceptual organizations – with the total conceptual organization, in each case being partially within and partially outside of the tangible organization. In FDA, for example, the conceptual boundary which encircles all of those scientists who define and act upon a health crisis such as COVID as the number one health research priority not only lies partially within FDA but also extends into NIH, academia, and many private sector firms. Finally, temporal definitions of boundaries pose a unique dimensional problem for administrators. Whereas tangible and conceptual distinctions mark the difference between the real or perceived organization and its outside environment, temporal distinctions mark potential changes in the organization itself. A great challenge for administrators – not one often recognized as boundary management – is mediating between an organization’s past, present, and future. In this sense, public sector planning is a temporal boundary management function – one which attempts to help the organization prepare for the future. Some portion of FDA’s planning resources have been devoted to assessing the status of environmental forces and factors which could influence the future program directions of the Agency. Technological forecasts conducted by FDA in the 1980s revealed a virtual cornucopia of new biotechnology-based products that would enter the market by the turn

92  Part 3 of the 21st century. These new products had major implications for the type of professional capability FDA needed in order to assess the safety and efficacy of these new products. In fact, some of the Agency’s internal boundaries shifted to accommodate these new products. Managers are probably not as successful in creating a self-conscious dialogue between an organization’s present and its past. To learn from the past and make adjustments in the present is a different and more difficult enterprise than to simply repeat the past. In sum, the administrator must be able to orchestrate several organizational boundaries simultaneously – tangible, conceptual, and temporal. Each of these dimensions would appear to require different approaches, and perhaps different kinds of managerial talent. Who Defines Boundaries A second element of the boundary framework concerns who controls the legitimate definition of the boundary? Are boundaries objectively real, aside from anyone’s conception of the boundary? Or are boundaries essentially social constructions that are developed, altered, and destroyed by those who are in power? From the “social construction” perspective, organizations are primarily “sense-making” institutions which construct their own boundaries. This view is held by authors such as Carl Weick (1984),33 Charles Daft (1984),34 Gareth Morgan (1986), and David Silverman (1971).35 Stafford Beer argued that a system (including the system’s borders) is not something given in nature, but something defined by intelligence. According to Beer, to say that an agency has coherence, pattern, and purpose is to acknowledge acts of mental recognition – not physical things (Beer 1974).36 Gareth Morgan drew a clear connection between boundaries as sense-making mechanisms, and the use of these mechanisms by those who are in power. By monitoring and controlling boundary transactions, people can amass great power. This may happen by becoming knowledgeable about critical interdependencies that one can gain control over. Or one gains unique access to information to allow interpretation of what’s really going on in the outside world. In this way, the person can help to define the “reality” that will guide organizational action (Morgan 1989). In FDA, the boundary activity which specifically defines the limits of acceptable behavior often rests with interpretations ascribed by the individual FDAer who directly interfaces with the regulated industry. In this case, the boundary function that differentiates acceptable from unacceptable roles and responsibilities is diffused among all of the individuals who deal directly and regularly with industry. In the 1980s, improprieties associated with the generic drug industry reflected an interpretation of role boundaries by a small minority of FDA and

Complexity 93 industry employees, which were deemed totally unacceptable under the law. But the incident does point out the difficulty of broad laws or agencylevel policies being able to define organizational boundary with impunity. There will always be individual interpretation of acceptable limits. Different administrators have varying views on the concreteness of organizational boundaries. At FDA, some commissioners have acted as if the Agency’s tangible, conceptual, and temporal boundaries were immutable, immovable barriers. Other commissioners have acted out of a belief that FDA’s boundaries were shaped by such outside forces as constituent views, and the health crisis of the week. There have also been commissioners who have believed and acted much more forcefully in shaping the Agency’s agenda and in determining boundary configurations for FDA. There is most likely a correlation between the degree of subjectivity with which administrators view boundaries, and the diversity of boundary functions that managers are willing to utilize. If administrators feel they have the power to redefine boundaries, they are less likely to be captive of them, and see them functioning only as definitional limits. The perceived power to shape boundaries is coincident with the perceived capability to employ them in different capacities. In the following sections, some of these alternative uses of boundaries are explained. Boundary Functions Although many of the attitudes within public bureaucracies focus on boundaries exclusively as definitions of limits, they can, in fact, serve several useful functions. Thus far, the focus in this chapter has been on their initial function – e.g., boundaries define and differentiate one organization from other organizations and the rest of the environment. They protect the organization from entropy. However, several additional needs are served beyond this baseline survival instinct. • • • • •

Boundary activities can protect one organization’s territory from outside encroachment. Boundary activities can regulate the flow of resources flowing both ways across the border. Boundary activities can deal with the complexity and variety of the environment by establishing requisite variety in the organization’s management mechanisms. Boundary activities can facilitate change, creativity, and a new gestalt between parties on either side of the border. This boundary function closely resembles the concept of “edge of chaos.” Boundary activities can create external representations of how the organization wishes to be perceived by the outside world.

94  Part 3 Protection Boundaries protect an organization’s resources from encroachment by others, and in some cases simply prevent access to the organization itself. Prime examples of this boundary function are security systems and all of their artifacts – identification procedures, locks, guards, etc. Maintenance of security is certainly a most visible boundary management function. But there are other, less physical forms of boundary protection. Organizations exert considerable effort defending both their policy and resource “territory” – from usurpation by other agencies. Competition for bureaucratic turf is probably the closest analogy to the competitive marketplace that exists in the public sector. Anthony Downs (1969)37 summarizes this function in his discussion of “territoriality.” He suggests that agencies have clear dominance in their “heartland” or core functions. But at their peripheries, vigorous competition occurs for both resources and responsibilities. In times of turbulence and resource constraints, agencies must choose what portion of their efforts they wish to allocate for defense of their heartland vs. defense of their peripheral areas. Agencies may choose alternative protection strategies. One choice would be to strengthen the emphasis on its heartland function. A second strategy would be to defend every function equally by demonstrating how all agency responsibilities are integral parts of the Agency mission. Regardless of the approach selected, the choice should be recognized by management as a boundary protection strategy. In most Federal budget cutting initiatives, such as the sequestration cuts of 2013, agencies will reduce funding for support functions that may not be directly associated with the agency mission. For example, when faced with a prorated budget reduction, regulatory agencies may target nonregulatory functions for reduction, such as management support activities in order to preserve current funding for mission-critical regulatory activities. Preservation of mission-critical functions is an example of the first boundary protection function. An example of the second protection strategy is the Social Security Program. Politicians have long been reluctant to cut any portion of the Social Security Program – which is referred to as the “third rail” because no one wants to touch any part of the Program for fear of adverse political consequences. Resource Regulation A key boundary management function involves those activities which facilitate and regulate the flow of resources between an organization and its outside environment. The concept of resource regulation as a necessary boundary function is grounded in open systems theory, and in contingency approaches to planning. Open systems exchange both information and energy with the external environment. Organizations can be more or less

Complexity 95 open, but there is always a certain degree of interchange. Stafford Beer (1966) observed that any viable system, whether it be a plant, an animal, or an organization, must act richly and continuously with its environment. Otherwise, it loses its bearings, loses its facility to adapt, and, in brief, goes mad. Contingency planning theory is also based on the view of organizations as open systems. Contributors to contingency theory – see for example, Emery and Trist (1965), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967),38 Kast and Rozenzweig (1973),39 Burns and Stalker (1961) 40 – contend, however, that there is no one best way of organizing this relationship. The appropriate form depends on the kind of task the organization is performing and the kind of environment in which the organization operates. Management must first and foremost be concerned with achieving good fits. And a critical element in achieving such matches lies in effective regulation of resource flows as they flow in and out of the organization. Regulation involves translation, transformation, and modulation of various resources, thus making them more valuable to interests on both sides of the boundary. This is an all-encompassing function because so many different kinds of resource flows must be regulated in order for the organization to be effective, and at the same time meet environmental needs. Such resources include information, people, money, and equipment. Translation occurs when information flowing both inward and outward must be encoded and decoded so that it is understandable to the respective receivers. Aldrich (1979)41 refers to this boundary function as information processing. He characterizes these activities as (1) being the points of contact with the environment for information monitoring and intelligence-gathering, and thus absorbing uncertainty and preventing information overload; and (2) making information relevant to the rest of an organization’s members. Transformation involves reconfiguring resources such as people, equipment, facilities, and material so that they have greater value to the organization – e.g., training of new employees can be considered a boundary transformation activity. Modulation involves controlling the rate and timing of resources flowing across organizational boundaries. Agencies expend substantial resources to translate, transform, and modulate resources as they cross its borders in both directions. To take FDA as an example, the agency’s premarket review of new drugs, biologicals, and medical devices is illustrative. Product applications must be decoded from the language and context of the submitting firm, and encoded into the language and context of the Agency. When FDA reviewers study industry drug applications, the applications must be in a format that satisfies agency requirements and facilitates the review process. They must be in a reviewable form. If they are not, the industry sponsor

96  Part 3 may be asked to modify its submission to conform with review requirements. FDA also performs a boundary translation function when they communicate the intent and operational meaning of FDA regulatory standards to industry – particularly to new and/or small firms, which are not familiar with the regulatory protocols. The Agency also transforms both human and information resources in conjunction with new product review activities. New recruits to the agency must be adequately trained (transformed, if you will) before they can conduct well-informed reviews of new products that are often based on state-of-the-art technology. Information associated with product applications may also undergo transformation from print to an electronic medium and back to print on its route from sponsoring firm to FDA reviewer. Modulation of resource flow is necessary for an organization to adjust its capabilities to the problems being addressed by the organization. For example, FDA can partially control the volume of product applications entering the agency. In the medical device area, FDA can regulate the flow of high risk (Class III) medical device product applications into the agency by first issuing a notice of classification on a product categoryby-category basis. This notice signals that particular industry sector that they have a specified period of time before they must submit product applications to the Agency. However, the Agency can control this workload by its timing of the notice of classification. Requisite Variety A boundary function closely related to resource regulation is that which creates “requisite variety.” The term requisite variety originated in the discipline of cybernetics – the science of control in machines and men (Ashby 1952).42 The law of requisite variety, simply stated, is that only variety can destroy variety. As covered in previous chapters, an organization must build sufficient or requisite variety in its management system to “deal with” the variety, or complexity, that exists in the environment it is attempting to control. Creation of requisite variety is considered a boundary management function, because it is at an organization’s perimeters that the interface with the environment occurs, and where outside complexity must be addressed. Organizations characteristically make one of two kinds of mistakes in establishing requisite variety – they create either too much or too little variety in their management mechanisms. An illustration: Administrators of educational systems throughout the country attempt to establish programs which meet the needs of its students. However, each student is an individual with different needs and capabilities. An administrator might try to tailor different programs to meet the needs of each student. However, imagine the complexity involved in trying to run several thousand different programs. In this

Complexity 97 case, the system would be creating far too much variety, and the management mechanism would collapse under its own weight. At the other extreme, an administrator could choose to design and run a “one-sizefits-all” program, regardless of individual needs. This strategy, however, would be strongly resisted by the constituency because it would be unresponsive to a large segment of educational needs. The solution lies somewhere between the two extremes, where the educational system establishes requisite variety. In this case the answer has been to establish separate programs to address categories of needs – e.g., mainstream students, gifted and talented, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, etc. FDA’s most critical management problem as a regulatory agency is to reduce the complexity of overseeing a vast and rapidly growing array of products under its jurisdiction. And it does so by establishing requisite variety in its regulatory mechanism. One way of doing this is to classify products according to the degree of potential risk to the public, and then employs different regulatory approaches to match the degree of risk associated with each category. Boundaries as Areas of Change and Gestalt Creation Boundaries can be areas of uncertainty and even anxiety for organization, particularly when they are constantly questioned and pressured to change. However, they can also represent opportunities for new ideas, and mutual creation of solutions to problems which are unsolvable when they are addressed by single organizations. To illustrate, dynamics of today’s marketplace with buyer and seller interacting, results in new product development that would not have occurred without lively interaction across the buyer–seller boundary. A reflection of the boundary creativity role in the public arena has been the formation of innovative public–private sector arrangements. Private corporations, multisector advisory committees, regional commissions, and special task forces have been utilized to tackle public problems that neither government nor industry, alone, could have adequately handled (Tierney 1984). However, creative boundary conditions also create conditions of great uncertainty, and perhaps less efficient use of resources – particularly in the short run. Some illustrations of public–private partnerships include: Parks: Private maintenance and operations agreements for federal, state, and local parks. The U.S. Forest Service in Arizona turned over operations of the Crescent Moon/Red Rock Crossing Recreation Area in Sedona, Arizona to Recreation Resource Management (RRM) in 1994. RRM operates the park under a public–private partnership with the U.S. Forest Service. Education: Leveraging private real estate for public schools. A collection of interesting examples exist around repurposing existing

98  Part 3 private real estate for use as classrooms for public schools or building new mixed-use construction that houses both private businesses as well as public school classrooms. Transportation: Operations of public roads and highways. In 2006, private companies Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners were awarded a project to operate a 157 mile stretch of Indiana’s public roadways. The partnership of private companies paid the state a one-time fee of $3.8 billion for a 75-year agreement to operate the roadway in exchange for the revenue from the tolls. Gaming: State lottery operations. Illinois transitioned its state lottery system to a partnership program in 2011. The change was revolutionary and has since caused other states to consider similar initiatives around their lottery programs. Information technology: High-speed internet access for America’s cities. Over the last few years, there has been rapid growth in high-speed internet and wireless infrastructure in U.S. cities spurred by an increase in public–private partnerships with IT providers. In 2012, the City of Seattle announced a deal with Gigabit Squared to provide ultra high-speed fiber connections to residential and commercial customers, an infrastructure upgrade that will “help bring 21st century infrastructure to Seattle” according to the city’s mayor. Many managers in the public sector feel reluctant to experiment with an “open” participative environment at the boundary in return for what is perceived as the vague possibility of greater returns in the future. This is understandable if one accepts the premise that boundaries are created in the first place to permit organization’s stability and predictability in their actions. To suspend boundaries, regardless of purpose, is to also suspend stability and predictability of activities. And yet, it is this very suspension of the normal, lived-in assumptions that permits the seeing of new, gestalt-creating possibilities. Although there has been some resistance, FDA has fruitfully utilized their boundaries with public, private, and academia sectors as creative “estuaries.” In these interstitial areas, exchanges of energy and information results in “gestalts” that would not have been realized if the separate sectors had acted independently. AIDS, health problems of the elderly product tampering crises, and exponential growth in the variety of drugs have all require “breakthrough” thinking at FDA – in both science and management. Each of these actual and/or potential threats to the American peoples’ health has demanded concerted action on the part of public and private sectors as well as academia. When boundaries are viewed as opportunities – and even enticement – for institutions joining forces, rather than emphasizing differences, creative solutions are more likely to occur.

Complexity 99

External Representation This particular boundary activity is based on Aldrich’s concept of external representation as a key boundary spanning function. It encompasses all of those activities which help the organization to present itself to the outside world. The presentation may be for purposes of resource acquisition, maintaining sovereignty, or influencing others’ actions. The annual federal budget cycle affords a sterling opportunity for agencies to portray themselves as indispensable public institutions which could create great benefits for the society if adequate funding were available. Agencies expend great behind-the-scenes effort in rehearsing and preparing for their public presentation. The purpose is to create a desired effect, and may or may not accurately portray the essence of the organization to the outside world. Goffman (1959)43 refers to the process of first rehearsing and then displaying, as back-stage preparation vs. front-stage presentation. The boundary function of external representation has two connotations. In the first sense, it refers to activities of organizational components which are directly responsible for maintaining strong communications with key external constituencies such as Congress, consumers, and the regulated industry. These outward-facing activities provide transactional services that consist of responses to requests from the various stakeholder groups, and which help to maintain an organization’s boundaries intact – as opposed to mission-critical activities which are devoted to keeping the internal functions of an organization running smoothly. In the second sense, external representation refers to the profile, or silhouette of the organization created by external image makers – a profile which may or may not be an actual representation of what the true profile of the organization is. The difference between the first and second depictions of external representation is illustrated in the following examples. When an agency provides timely answers to Congressional inquiries, they are depicting the agency as a responsive organization that is sensitive to Congressional concerns. This is external representation in the first sense. When the Agency’s budget presentation to OMB or Congress portrays the organization as playing the unique role of preventing rising mortality rates due to environmental degradation, this is external representation in the second sense. At FDA, several high-level offices are dedicated to the creations of external representations, including the Office of Public Affairs (dealing with the media), the Office of Legislative Affairs (Congress), the Office of Health Affairs (health professional associations), and the Office of Consumer Affairs. In the case of each office, the task of the administrator is to portray the Agency in a light that will receive favorable response from the respective constituency groups, but at the same time ensure

100  Part 3 that the representation is not too far removed from the actualities of the organization. The preceding paragraphs have provided a brief glimpse of some major functions that boundaries perform for organizations. To gain an appreciation for the full range of boundary management concerns, it is instructive to array examples of how boundary management functions perform within tangible, conceptual, and temporal dimensions. The following section provides such examples. The illustrations have been drawn from the author’s experience at FDA. But readers are invited to determine how the framework might fit in their own organizational settings.

Illustrations of Boundary Management Functions and Dimensions Protecting Tangible Boundaries Lock Doors in Buildings Develop strong budget justifications to demonstrate the negative impacts that would result if resources were cut from a program under fire. Protecting Conceptual Boundaries Enlist inside and outside political support to preserve the idea of grass roots, participative planning as an important organizational attribute. This initiative may be activated by a new management regime that prefers a top-down, authoritarian approach to planning and priority setting. Protecting Temporal Boundaries Minimize reliance on pat organizational approaches in designing current program strategies. Preserve the stability of current program operations by assuming the future will essentially be like the present. Interpret indicators of future environmental movements in a way that reinforces the status quo. Regulating Resource Flow across Tangible Boundaries Assure that new recruits into the Agency receive appropriate orientation and training so that they can be productive employees and support the Agency’s mission. When the Agency receives its appropriated funds for the current year, apportion these funds to the various programs based on prior management agreements.

Complexity 101 Regulating Resource Flow across Conceptual Boundaries There often appears to be a conceptual barrier between the world of management and the world of professionals working in the bureaucracy. For example, medical doctors or scientists sometimes have difficulty in understanding the value of using their time to participate in agency planning and priority-setting processes. The planning staff could use medical or scientific metaphors as translation devices to help doctors and scientists recognize and appreciate the value of planning. Perhaps to understand planning activity as a series of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions applied to an organizational, “patient” will facilitate communication across conceptual boundaries. Regulating Resource Flow across Temporal Boundaries Upgrading the ability of agency employees to understand and better utilize the computer technologies of the future is a way of improving an agency’s interface between present and future activities. Controlling the pace at which new computer technologies are purchased and implemented is another way of improving this interface. The pace of new computer technologies entering the agency should match the rate at which new employees are trained to understand and utilize these new technologies. Establishing Requisite Variety at Conceptual Boundaries An agency’s planning office receives many diverse resource requests from organizational components as part of the annual planning and budgeting process. In order to communicate these requests effectively to the next higher level in the Executive Branch hierarchy, the Office categorizes the requests into a few major themes. The number of categories chosen must be large enough to capture the full range of high-priority increase requests, but small enough to be understood and successfully digested by the audience. Establish Requisite Variety at Temporal Boundaries To facilitate agency preparation for the future, planning staffs can collect and analyze large quantities of information about environmental factors that might affect the agency, and how these factors are likely to change. To assist management in making decisions about desirable courses of action for the agency, many environmental factors may be grouped into two or three plausible scenarios that managers can address and effectively use to focus on “Wat if…” questions and answers.

102  Part 3 Creating “Gestalt” at Tangible Boundaries FDA, the FBI, and the industry combined enforcement and surveillance resources to create a total safety net which prevented a health and safety crisis – product tampering – from growing out of control. Similar results could not have been achieved if each organization were working on its own. Creating “Gestalt” at Conceptual Boundaries Scientists began with two separate concepts: (1) Organisms create antibodies to defend against various invasive antigens, but the process develops multiple antibodies that are often not produced in great enough quantities to efficiently fend off a threatening antigen; (2) there is a mechanism in cancer cells which enables them to multiply at extremely high rates. These two concepts were merged into a “gestalt” solution when a cancerous tumor cell from a mouse was fused with an antibodyproducing cell to create a hybrid cell (termed a hybridoma) which could produce virtually unlimited amounts of a specific antibody to target against a unique antigen. Creating “Gestalt” at Temporal Boundaries The evaluation and control function in organizations provides a clear illustration of a temporal gestalt. This function in the drug review areas involves comparing planned vs. actual review times; analyzing the reasons for variance; predicting numbers and complexity of future drug applications; and then making adjustments in the allocation of drug review resources, taking into consideration past performance and future workload. Developing External Representations at Tangible Boundaries Each year during the planning and budgeting cycle, considerable agency resources are devoted to creating compelling arguments for the Agency receiving additional resources. Representations of the Agency are developed by creative staffers, and then presented to outside audiences who will hopefully respond by supporting funding requests. Developing External Representations at Conceptual Boundaries New approaches to carrying out FDA responsibilities are being continuously developed by professionals throughout the agency – and in many cases, imported from outside sources. Each breakthrough must be effectively marketed if its benefits are to be realized. Several years ago,

Complexity 103 a new approach to ensuring safety at food processing establishments was presented to potential funders in the Administration. The new concept involved delegating responsibility for day-to-day inspection to the companies themselves, rather than requiring FDA food inspectors to be continuously onsite. The new concept was referred to by the acronym (HACCP), which stood for “Hazard Assessment at Critical Control Points.” This was a distinct departure from traditional agency inspection approaches. In this scenario, the FDA role involved assuring that the right safety protocols were put in place by the food processor, and were being followed. This required a cultural shift in the way traditional FDA inspectors viewed their responsibilities. How can broadened boundary perspectives help administrators? An underlying theme throughout this discussion of boundaries is that public sector managers should recognize the multiple functions of boundaries. The tendency is for managers to view boundaries as definers and even protectors of activities which can then be stabilized, normalized, and managed more easily. When boundaries are viewed as definers and protectors of current thinking and acting, then managers will emphasize maintenance of current boundaries in order to protect the status quo. However, when boundaries can be viewed as a mechanism for relating in various ways with the external environment – e.g., through resource regulation, variety reduction, gestalt creation, and external representation – then boundary management becomes an entirely different enterprise. The goal of management becomes one of establishing mutually beneficial relationships between the organization and the outside world. Some of the problems managers have with boundaries, as noted in the first section of the chapter, are based on the premise that boundaries should be used exclusively to maintain the organization in its current equilibrium. To the extent that boundaries are constantly changing, vague, and subject to policy conflicts, challenges management’s assumption that boundaries should be stable in order to protect the status quo. The observation that boundaries are expensive to administer may be a reflection of managers’ attempts to maintain boundary stability, when in fact boundaries must change, be fuzzy and also be subject to policy conflicts in order to have the organization establish useful and real dialogue with the external environment. The notion of boundary change and fuzziness is, on the other hand, quite compatible with the other boundary functions of gestalt creation, external representation, and even resource regulation and variety reduction. For each of these latter functions the acceptance and management of change is part of the boundary function, itself. Gestalt creation opportunities unfreeze boundaries and leave management somewhat open to new possible problem solutions. At FDA, the willingness to temporarily suspend jurisdictional differences with some other agencies in regulating biotechnology products, allows

104  Part 3 new potential joint regulatory solutions that could not have been solved by Agency alone. In this sense, vague boundaries become part of the administrator’s solution – not part of the problem. Resource regulation at the boundary can help to control the pace of change somewhat, and thus make it a more manageable situation. Some examples serve to illustrate this point: Advances in communication technology, social networking, and cloud computing continue to confront public agencies at an increasing rate each year. Recruitment and training of employees is a boundary function which transforms human resources to adapt to the new technologies so that the agencies can keep pace with and wisely utilize each new generation of computer technology. When there is a turnover of top management at an agency, the channels of communication between the new regime and careerists can become problematic. The boundaries between appointee and careerist policy roles are subject to renegotiation and redefinition. Agencies which can establish an effective translation function between the new managers’ goals and careerists’ concerns, stand a better chance of not only “weathering” but effectively managing this boundary change as well. Public administrators who devote extensive resources to managing boundaries establish requisite variety as a way to minimize such expenditures. FDA import inspection strategies provide a good example of how requisite variety is used to keep the costs of boundary management down. The United States imports FDA-regulated foods, drugs, and medical devices from over 100 nations. The number of import transactions are well over a million. The complexity of determining import compliance with FD&C Laws must be substantially reduced, given the limited number of inspectors available to the Agency. The Compliance Staff utilizes a two-stage screening process whereby all import manifests (paper) are first reviewed. Shipments with questionable reports are physically inspected, and those shipments that remain suspicious upon physical examination are subject to sample analysis. Policy Conflicts A deeper appreciation of boundary functions, dimensions, and epistemologies will not eliminate conflicts about how aggressively to shape, defend, or open one’s borders. But this understanding will shed light on the basis of these conflicts. A new agency director may be predisposed to resist outside forces that attempt to shape the agency’s agenda. He may prefer, instead, to depart from predecessors, and attempt to steer the agency much more autonomously. However, influential elites from the outside may still choose to “have their way” with the agency as they have done in the past. Further, internal managers may also balk at

Complexity 105 the notion that they do not have to be responsive to important outside constituents. The temptation is to view such conflicts as a frustrating impasse about what the boundary should represent – one that is inherently unsolvable. But with some perspective on the epistemological basis for viewing boundaries, the issue focuses on different frames of reference, rather than matters of right or wrong. Administrators may have some success at reaching compromises in frames of reference. On the other hand, obtaining agreement on what is absolutely correct boundary behavior is a much more difficult task. The Total Boundary Approach The purpose of this section has been to show how administrators can take a total look at dimensional, epistemological, and functional perspectives in attempting to understand and manage boundary situations. A strong case can be made that all of these elements are often operating simultaneously in any given boundary scenario. As we have seen, for example, when FDA reviewers are interfacing with industry sponsors on a new drug application, all functional elements of boundary management are needed. There needs to be clearly defined differences in responsibilities between FDA and sponsoring firms. FDA must also protect the drug formulations of a submitting firm from being revealed to other competing firms. So, appropriate security provisions must be designed into the review process. To be allowed to continue the Agency’s drug review process relatively unimpeded, that agency program must have an effective external representation of that process – an image that projects the efficacy of FDA’s current way of reviewing products; an image that will create a favorable impression to such important constituencies as Congress, the White House, and industry trade associations. The drug review boundary between FDA and industry must also be flexible enough to allow for creative cooperation to occur when needed. For example, both industry and FDA scientists join forces to determine an acceptable research protocol for industry to produce a life-saving biotechnology-based drug product. We have seen that boundary regulation functions are also important in drug review. Information about new drug products must be effectively encoded and decoded – across industry, FDA, health professional, and consumer borders in order for the product to be a medical success. The Agency must establish requisite variety at its borders by differentiating risk categories for new products requiring premarket approval. This is necessary to manage the onslaught of these new products – products that must pass through FDA’s gateway before their potential benefits can be realized by the U.S. consumer.

106  Part 3 •

Unpredictability: Since no one at the top is in charge, and new solution patterns spontaneously emerge during phase shifts, it is difficult to predict when new solutions will occur and in what shape they will appear. And yet solutions do emerge. One example of an emergent solution is the election process. The outcome of an election is the result of several agents (voters) choosing a candidate based on available information, including internal predispositions (cultural, political, psychological, etc.) as well as external influencers. The voting process possesses some of the characteristics of a complex adaptive system (CAS). The outcome of an election may be more predictable when the CAS is operating within a stable environment. In the midst of a phase transition, however, the outcome of a voting process is much less predictable. The 2012 election of President Obama and the 2016 election of President Trump provide recent examples of a predictable voting outcome in a relatively stable environment vs. an unpredictable voting outcome in an environment undergoing a phase transition. FDA and the pharmaceutical industry must also be good temporal boundary managers. FDA and the pharmaceutical industry must also be good temporal boundary managers. That is, the balance between presently commercialized products and the future potential of the industry must be carefully monitored. If this balance is not achieved, short-term actions (in both government and industry) may foreclose on long-term future potentials. For example, an inadequate emphasis on baseline, long-term research may reduce the industry’s ability to continue producing commercially profitable products in the future. Finally, the public administrator in the drug review milieu realizes that the permanence and openness of boundaries – be they tangible, conceptual, or temporal – are viewed quite differently by important actors in the same situation. These are not issues of right or wrong – rather ones of frame of reference. And frames of reference can be influenced, and compromises reached. Public Administrators in agencies such as FDA can benefit from viewing the utility of viewing boundaries as multidimensional and multifunctional phenomena. As such they can be capitalized upon as an asset for future organizational survival and enhancement.

Viewing the Aspects of Complexity from the Perspective of Governance and Leadership The previous sections of this chapter have illustrated the broad array of concepts associated with complexity science and characteristics of complex adaptive systems. Governance solutions in the midst of this complexity be based on an understanding of the dynamics associated with each complexity concept. Figure 6.1 illustrates the scope of this challenge.

Complexity 107

Figure 6.1  Leadership roles in complex adaptive systems

There is little doubt that traditional hierarchical approaches to governing complexity are designed to address challenges in stable environments where solutions are both predictable and repeatable. The role of governance, and in particular leadership, must be reevaluated in light of complex and dynamic situations. Each aspect of the complex adaptive system calls for a corresponding governance and leadership adjustment. These are summarized in Table 6.2. Illustrations of leadership responses to complex adaptive system characteristics are provided below. Discontinuous Change The state of New Jersey’s Office of Innovation provides numerous examples of how innovative solutions to difficult public challenges can be facilitated through strategies such as crowdsourcing, collaboration, and cocreation. Their office offers numerous courses on how to leverage the public’s collective intelligence to create these innovative solutions. The office responded rapidly to the onset of COVID 19 by generating several innovative projects, including a COVID 19 information Hub, a COVID 19 symptom checker, and a benefit eligibility to tool that helps individuals to find and understand available support programs. While encouraging innovative solutions to challenges such as the COVID 19 pandemic, the Office of Innovation also provides guardrails to organize innovative efforts. These guardrails are in the form of a recommended

108  Part 3 Table 6.2  Leadership roles in complex adaptive systems Complex Adaptive System Characteristic Discontinuous change Layered structure Network characteristics Dynamics of movement

Emergent solutions through self-organization

Suggested Leadership Role Create space for innovative thinking that challenges the status quo, but establish guardrails and standards that guide the search for solutions Expand vertical scope of problem identification and solutions Achieve balance between connectivity and resilience Recognize and capitalize on attractors that motivate movement on the fitness landscape; balance reliance on past behavior (path dependence) and incremental movement toward achievable fitness peaks Recognize and leverage trends in emergent patterns; engage in strategies that amplify positive trends and neutralize negative ones. Provide opportunities and methodologies to share information that sheds light on potential solutions to complex problems

fairly standard process for designing an open innovation project. Steps include defining a clear and compelling goal, identifying participants, defining the tasks to be accomplished by the “crowd” of participants, determining appropriate incentives to participants, developing assessment criteria, and developing a timeline for accomplishments. Layered Structure Virtually, all major societal issues that require governance solutions occur at multiple levels of society. The concepts of panarchy, fractals, and nested systems all refer to the interconnectedness of issues and governance solutions at local, state, national, and global levels of organization. When this interconnectedness is not recognized, and fragmented governance approaches are implemented, the negative societal impacts are often exacerbated. Climate change and the COVID 19 pandemic are prime illustrations of problems that are interconnected at multiple societal levels. In the case of climate change, resistance to transitioning to sustainable energy sources in the United States represents an existential threat to countries such as South Sudan which contributes an infinitesimal fraction of global pollution compared to the United States. In the case of the COVID 19 pandemic, antivaccination population segments in one country create conditions in which variants can much more easily mutate and spread to all parts of the globe. Because of situations such as this, we can ill afford to focus too narrowly on governance efforts. Partial governance solutions such as requiring mask mandates in one state, while adjacent states have no such restrictions will do little to prevent the spread of the virus.

Complexity 109 Network Characteristics Leaders must be cognizant of network dynamics in terms of the degree of connectivity among agents as well as the pathways through which information is disseminated. As discussed in earlier chapters, increased connectivity among agents in a complex adaptive system enhances the potential for innovative solutions through the amplifying effect of collective intelligence. The intensity of connectivity can reach an inflection point, however, when the system begins to lose the ability to be resilient in times of discontinuous change – precisely because connectivity locks in certain behaviors. Thomas Kuhn, in his landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions illustrates the dynamic of increasing connectivity among members of a scientific community that leads to greater potential for innovation.44 Continuing innovation occurs within the context of a given scientific paradigm. The paradigm is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field (Source: Wikipedia). The dominant paradigm is continually reinforced by prioritizing and funding research that fits within the parameters of the paradigm. This strengthens the connections between theories and practice, and the overall coherence of the paradigm. In essence, the paradigm provides a narrative that is used by its adherents to make sense of the scientific world. This increasing connectivity and coherence within the paradigm also strengthens the resistance to any competing scientific views of the world, and thus this complex adaptive system decreases its resilience to change. Paradigm shifts occur when sufficient evidence is compiled to refute the “truths” espoused by the dominant paradigm. Leaders in this situation must maintain a delicate balance between capitalizing on the innovations that are occurring within the dominant paradigm while allowing the tight connections between paradigmatic elements to be sufficiently uncoupled to accept alternative views. This role may involve identifying and creatively employing “influencers” that are embedded within the dominant paradigm, but may be open to considering countervailing evidence. Kuhn’s thoughts on the formulation and disposition of scientific paradigms have applicability to nonscientific realms where dominant narratives can be the source of both innovative solutions, and at a certain point be obstacles to change. Leaders in these nonscientific arenas perform the same delicate balancing role. A current example of tightly connected narratives that are resistant to change is the current polarization that exists between political parties in the United States as well as in many nations around the globe. The strength of connectivity within each opposing narrative is reinforced by the media which tailors its content to buttress the ideas central to each narrative. The role of leadership within each political party in these divided times appears to oscillate between

110  Part 3 strengthening their respective narratives with supporting actions such as appointing members to the judiciary who are sympathetic to the narrative, and finding ways to open the dialogue and find common ground. If past is prologue, opposing narratives are only deconstructed when there is an external shock to the status quo of sufficient magnitude to force rethinking the logic of each narrative. Events such as 9/11 exemplify such a shock. Whether and when global climate change fits this description remains to be seen. Dynamics of Movement This aspect of complex adaptive systems focuses on the natural tendency for organizations as well as complex adaptive systems to (1) perpetuate past behavior (path dependencies) and (2) move incrementally in making improvements (seeking the most accessible fitness peak). Leaders must be cognizant of the degree of “change readiness” present in the particular situation they are facing. This involves understanding the nature of the factors and forces which cause organizations to maintain momentum in a given direction. It requires identifying the “attractors” that cause organizations to gravitate to a fixed way of operating. A current example of this is to be found in geographical areas that are dependent upon coal mining as their primary source of economic vitality. Coal mining serves as the point attractor, and is embedded at the technical, economic, and cultural levels of the local society. This point attractor is further reinforced at the political level by congressional representatives who support legislative initiatives that maintain the coherence of a coal-dependent geographic area. Enlightened governance should also be concerned with the “downstream” actions that are necessary to ensure survival and prosperity of the geographic area over the longer term. There is virtually no likelihood that a coal-dependent area will be able to transition away from coal and toward a more sustainable energy source as their economic engine in the short term. That would be a “bridge too far,” or in complexity science terms, a fitness peak that is too far removed from current conditions in the fitness landscape. The job of enlightened governance is to focus on more adjacent fitness peaks that will move the geographic area closer to long-term survival, but at the same time be a peak that is achievable given current resources. Movement toward an achievable fitness peak may be in the form of job retraining combined with monetary incentives – both positive and negative – that help to reverse the momentum toward the current attractor (the coal industry), and redirect efforts in a direction that increases the prospect of long-term survival. To summarize, effective governance finds the appropriate balance between acknowledgment of current path dependencies driven by strong

Complexity 111 point attractors, and taking steps to transition to achievable fitness peaks that increase prospects for survival. Emergent Solutions through Self-organization •

The leadership function in complex adaptive systems has been discussed in previous sections of this chapter, but to recap, traditional hierarchical leadership or governance approaches do not work well in a self-organizing complex adaptive system. The leadership role is more facilitative than command-and-control in nature. An effective leader will establish baseline conditions that encourage the self-organizing process to capitalize on collective intelligence in order to accelerate toward an emergent solution. Baseline conditions include establishing guardrails that set broad parameters within which the self-organizing process takes place, providing venues that allow innovation to flourish, maximizing interaction and information exchange among agents, and using analytics to predict environmental trends.

The New Jersey Office of Innovation illustrates how leadership can facilitate governance solutions to public issues, using the strategies outlined above. The Office offers three approaches to capitalizing on the collective intelligence of the system through (1) crowdsourcing, (2) collaboration, and (3) cocreation. The Office of Innovation provides guardrails in the form of planning process guidance to aid in the formulation and implementation collective intelligence projects, be they crowdsourcing, collaboration, or cocreation. An example of how the Office uses collective intelligence is their “Smarter New Jersey” initiative. This is an open government forum that allows New Jersey residents to weigh in on public policy issues that affect them personally. One of these projects is the Innovation Enjine Challenge. This is run as a competition among residents who submit ideas for improving the operation of New Jersey government. Improvements include: • • •

Direct cost-savings for the State; A more efficient process that results in a reduction of staff time; or A more effective outcome that increases the positive impact of an existing service or program

The Office of Innovation also facilitates governance solutions by providing data modeling and predictive analytics. In partnership with leading data scientists and epidemiologists, the Office of Innovation has used these tools in identifying and predicting patterns in COVID 19 prevalence, hospital capacity, and PPE usage.45

112  Part 3

Notes 1 Hans Klijn, Erik (2008). “Complexity Theory in Public Administration – What’s New.” Public Management Review 10 (3): 299–317. 2 Friedman, Thomas (2016). Thank you for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 3 Eppel, Elizabeth Anne and Mary Lee Rhodes (2017). “Complexity Theory and Public Management: A ‘Becoming Field’.” Public Management Review 20 (7): 949–959. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1364414. 4 Haynes, Philip (2015). Managing Complexity in the Public Services. Milton Park: Routledge. 5 Desilver, D. (February 15, 2017). U.S. Students’ Academic Achievement Still Lags That of Their Peers in Many Other Countries. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. 6 Prigogine (1955) and Prigogine and Stengers (1984). 7 Friederici, Peter (2009). “How a Flock of Birds Can Fly and Move Together.” Audubon Magazine, March–April 2009. 8 New England Complex Systems Institute (2000). “Unifying Themes in Complex Systems.” In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Complex Systems, Yaneer Bar-Yam and Ali A. Minai (eds.). Colorado: Westview Press. 9 Rhodes, Mary Lee and Conor Dowling (2017). “What Insights Do Fitness Landscape Models Provide for Theory and Practice in Public Administration?” Public Management Review 20 (3): 1–16. 10 Hertzog, Paul (2004). “21st Century Governance as a Complex Adaptive System” In Proceedings of PISTA 2004. International Institute. 11 Watts, D. J. (2003). Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. New York: W.W. Norton (p. 51). 12 Rosenau, J. N. (2003). Distant Proximities: Dynamics Beyond Globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press (p. 88). 13 Axelrod, R. M. and M. D. Cohen (1999). Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York: Free Press (pp. 43–50). 14 Ibid., pp. 278–284. 15 Homer-Dixon, Thomas (May 5, 2010). “Complexity Science and Public Policy.” Manion Lecture for the Canada. Ottawa: School of Public Service. 16 Hartzog, Paul B. “Panarchy: Governance in the Network Age.” Also Archived 2007-09-28 at the Wayback Machine, Master’s Essay, University of Utah at Panarchy.com. 17 Blomme, Robert (2012, April). “Leadership, Complex Adaptive Systems, and Equivocality: The Role of Managers in Emergent Change.” Organization Management Journal 9 (1). DOI:10.1080/15416518.2012.666946. 18 Mezias, S.J. and M.A. Glynn (1993). The Three Faces of Corporate Renewal: Institution, Revolution, and Evolution. Strategic Management Journal. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250140202. 19 Blomme, Ibid. 20 Bloome, Ibid. 21 Johnson, Steven Berlin (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities. New York: Scribner. 22 D. J. Watts, Ibid. 23 Ball, Molly (2021). “The Shadow Campaign That Saved an Election.” Time Magazine, February 15–22, 2021.

Complexity 113 24 Waldrop, M. Mitchell (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster. 25 Dresang, Dennis (1992). Public Personnel Management and Public Policy. New York: Longman Press. 26 Moe, Ronald C. (1987). “Exploring the Limits of Privatization.” Public Administration Review 47 (6): 453. 27 Bozeman, Barry (1988). “Exploring the Limits of Public and Private Sectors: Sector Boundaries as Maginot Line.” Public Administration Review 48: 672–674. 28 Huddleston, Mark W. (1991). “The Senior Executive Service: Problems and Prospects for Reform.” In Public Personnel Management, Carolyn Ban and Norma M. Riccucci (eds.). New York: Longman Press. 29 Musolf, Lloyd and Harold Seidman (1980). “The Blurred Boundaries of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 40: 124–130. 30 Heclo, Hugh (1988). “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In Public Administration – Concepts and Cases, Richard J. Stillman II (ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 31 Long, Norton (1949). “Power and Administration.” Public Administration Review 9 (4): 309–313. 32 Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 33 Weick, K. (1979). Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: McGraw Hill. 34 Daft, Charles and Karl E. Weick (1984). “Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems.” Academy of Management Review 9: 284–295. 35 Silverman, David (1971). The Theory of Organizations. London: Heinemann Educational Books. 36 Beer, Stafford (1966). Decision and Control. London: John Wiley & Sons. 37 Downs, Anthony (1969). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown and Co. 38 Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch (1967). Organization and Environment. Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. 39 Kast, E. and J.E. Rosenzweig (1973). Contingency Views of Organization and Management. Chicago: Science Research Associates. 40 Burns, Tom and G.M. Stalker (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. 41 Aldrich, Howard (1979). Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc. 42 Ashby, Ross (1952). Design for a Brain. New York: John Wiley. 43 Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City: Doubleday. 44 Kuhn, Thomas (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 45 Noveck, Beth Simone (2021). Solving Public Problems: A Practical Guide to Fix Our Government and Change Our World. New Haven: Yale University Press.

7

Reflexivity

Explaining the Concept of Reflexivity and Its Applicability to Governance The concept of reflexivity, or self-reflection, refers to the lens through which actors in the decision-making process view the world around them. How participating actors understand and implement the LRV process in all of its complexities is shaped by each actor’s perspective. It is useful for actors to include themselves and their predispositions as an integral part of understanding the scope of problems addressed and the strategies implemented to address these problems. Recognition of one’s internal stances opens the door to seeing other possible ways of viewing and addressing the situation at hand. Edmund Husserl (1931) described the processes of “phenomenological reduction” (epoche) and “imaginative variation” as methods for breaking one’s embedded frame of reference in order to see new possible solutions to problems. Phenomenological reduction involves suspending judgments, or preconceived notions, about observed phenomena. It is, in essence, attempting to start with a “blank slate.” Once reduction is achieved the task of imaginative variation enables the observer to seek new possible meanings through the utilization of imagination, varying the frames of reference, employing polarities and reversals, and approaching the phenomenon1 from divergent perspectives, different positions, roles, or functions. The role that reflexivity plays in enhanced governance is discussed in the following sections: • • • •

The use of metaphor in Public Sector Planning An Enactment Model of Governance A Constructionist Perspective on Governance George Soros’ take on reflexivity

The Use of Metaphor in the Public Sector Planning Environment – A Discourse on the Power of Reflexivity This section focuses on public sector planning to illustrate how metaphors are employed to make sense of our environment. Metaphorical DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-10

Reflexivity 115 thinking is relevant to elucidating the concept of “reflexivity” primarily because a reflexive approach to governance enhances an administrator’s awareness of metaphors that he/she uses, often subconsciously, to frame issues and formulate solutions. It is important to distinguish between three uses of metaphor: (1) as a figure of speech, (2) as a conscious analogy used to transfer ideas from one realm to another, and (3) as a “lived in” script that becomes a rather permanent guide to understanding and acting in the world. The first two uses of metaphor are at a self-conscious level. Examples: (1) You walk into your son’s bedroom and things are strewn all over. So you comment: “This place is a zoo!” This is the use of metaphor as a figure of speech. (2) You are a highway engineer who is trying to formulate a strategy to reduce major traffic jams at rush hour. You use the metaphor of fixing clogs in a plumbing system to transfer solutions from the plumbing world to the traffic world. This is the second use of metaphor as an aid to problem-solving. (3) Your world view is shaped as an ongoing battle between the powerful and the powerless. This battle shapes the lens through which you make sense of the world, and it operates at a subconscious level. A reflexive approach to governance – or any aspect of governance such as planning – enables the administrator to become more aware of this more insidious use of metaphor, and in the process open the possibility for viewing and solving issues from a different and possibly more relevant way.

The Use of Metaphor in Public Sector Planning This section summarizes the results of a research project conducted at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The research revealed the pervasiveness of metaphorical thinking that occurs in designing and implementing a public sector planning process. As various phases of the planning process are put into place, different metaphorical interpretations of reality compete for dominance. Individual designers may experience dissonance between their interpretation of planning as it should be (their prescriptive metaphor) and their interpretation of planning as it is (their descriptive metaphor). When this tension occurs, a number of factors affect an individual’s ability and willingness to switch metaphorical referents. This section describes how metaphorical thinking provides the foundation for planning activity in a public sector agency. Specifically, light will be shed on how individuals who are involved in the design and implementation of planning processes apprehend and organize their working environment through the use of metaphors. It also explains how varying metaphorical interpretations of reality compete for dominance. The ideas presented in this section result from a research project which was conducted at the FDA. The prime target for research was the Agency’s planning process, and the source of my information was

116  Part 3 selected individuals on the Planning Staff at the FDA. Although conversations and interviews were conducted with 20 planning participants, in-depth analysis focused on eight individuals. FDA’s planning process is a multiphased activity which requires a full calendar year to complete, and encompasses the following functions: annual evaluation of the Agency’s program structure, long range/strategic planning, identification of program priorities, establishment of specific proposed objectives or accomplishments, and integration of plans with the Agency’s budget request. The purpose of the planning process as stated in the Agency’s official documentation is: To assure that the Agency’s key executives are working together toward common goals and adequately considering the changing environment when making current decisions. In addition, it provides perspective in agency-wide policies and philosophies.2 The day-to-day activities that compose the grist of the process include such items as schedules, meetings and agendas, face-to-face interactions, information flows, planning concepts, and planning documents. Participants in the study are responsible for designing and implementing various phases of the Agency’s planning process, though they do not engage in the planning activity per se. By virtue of their design function, however, they do exert strong influence by shaping the direction and flows of planning activity. Thus, it was deemed important to capture their frames of reference – particularly their interpretation of planning. This research effort may be classified as an interpretive approach. Numerous authors have elaborated on the advantages of taking an interpretive, subjective stance when studying the social world (see e.g., Burrell and Morgan,3 Geertz,4 Ricour,5 and Weick6). The interpretive approach is an attempt to understand and explain the social world primarily from the perspective of the actors directly involved in the joint production of “social reality.” In order to understand in a meaningful way what is happening, it is necessary to suspend complicity in the everyday world and let the social world “speak.” The history of interpretive thinking is based on concepts from the German Idealist School, which held that the mind and ideas generated by the mind constitute the essence of the social world. Interpretive thinking is contrasted with the scientific image, which has its roots in a functionalist epistemology. This approach, for the most part, has become the domain of social as well as natural scientists. The scientific world rests on the assumption of a “clockwork” universe where every phenomenon can be explained by algorithms that map causes to effects. The relation of cause to effect is achieved through application of the scientific method and the use of abstract models. In building and using these models, scientists tend to assign

Reflexivity 117 the properties of the models to that portion of the world under study, and then consider those assigned properties as the properties of the world itself. In the process of building and utilizing explanatory and predictive models, the social scientist lays aside, often purposely, the taken-for-granted structure of the lived-in world. Even though aspects of the everyday world most certainly come into play even in the scientific enterprise, these are often viewed as antithetical to the scientific method. The attempt is made to systematically eliminate these “extraneous noises.” In contrast to the image of the “objective scientific investigation,” a study of the everyday world attempts to reawaken the basic experience of the world of which science is the second order expression. A person’s consciousness exists first, and forms a world around her/him which then begins to exist for her/him. From the interpretive perspective, one is sympathetic with the idea that the reality one experiences in the social world is a product of interaction among social actors. Interpretive researchers have attempted to how that the ostensibly hard, immutable fact of the social world are constructed by people. Interpretivists are interested more in the processes of objectification and reification (see Berger and Luckmann) than they are in the objects themselves. Contextual analysis of meaning and significance is regarded as a more appropriate focus for research than the scientific search for knowledge of general laws. Designing the FDA Planning Process – An Exercise in Social Construction The design of a planning process is, in itself, a process of social construction. Based on interviews with, observations of, and written materials produced by several Agency planners, a number of factors were identified which helped to shape the socially created reality which becomes the planning process. These include: 1 The background, value systems, and general attitudes of the key participants; 2 The rites, roles, values, and rituals that, when taken together, constitute the FDA planning culture. This culture has been enriched historically through the evolution of the planning process, and from the broader context of the FDA culture; 3 The situational factors surrounding the construction of the planning process. These factors include the nature of the job as perceived by participants, e.g., design, implementation, evaluation, etc., and the physical characteristics of the working environment; and 4 The metaphors that key participants utilize to understand, analyze, and communicate various aspects of the planning process.

118  Part 3 Although each of the above factors plays a relevant role in shaping planning, the use of metaphor has provided a rich source of insight. Metaphors and Their Use Human beings in their normal, everyday life are constantly attempting to develop simplifications, or abstractions, of the world that surrounds them. In a broad sense, all language and concepts are ways of seeing the world that is meaningful in some sense to their creator. Metaphors, according to Gareth Morgan7 (1980), are fundamental to the production of social knowledge. He states that all conceptions of reality are primarily metaphorical. Morgan distinguishes between the use of metaphor as a communication tool between people, and metaphor as a basic way of constructing reality. He argues that in order for a metaphorical process to work effectively, there has to be a substantial difference as well as similarity between the perceived situation and the metaphorical explanation of that situation. Thus, for example, by saying that a planning process is like a factory production line, one is using selective features of the production line to emphasize important aspects of the planning process such as orderliness, sequential steps, and division of responsibility. Obviously, other characteristics of the production line do not fit. For example, planning processes do not contain smokestacks or electrical outlets. The use of the production line metaphor reflects the fact that the uses of the metaphor de-emphasize certain characteristics and emphasize others. Recognition of the significant difference between metaphor and new situations that are being described metaphorically is crucial. In this way, metaphors that are recognized as half-truths create a discontinuity in our normal perspectives on events and allow us to “see” in a new light, and perhaps bring about needed change. However, when one buys completely into a metaphorical referent as being synonymous with the “world out there,” he/she loses sight of the essentially metaphorical interpretations of the world in organizational life, which is emphasized by the research of Alan Meyer. He depicted organizational decision-making as a series of scenarios where differing metaphors skirmish for dominance (Meyer 1984).8 The Proliferation of Metaphors Used by Planners Planners in the Federal sector face an extraordinarily complex environment in which they must deal with several constituent groups simultaneously. These include the hierarchies within their own agencies, the broader Executive Branch Administration, Congress and their staffs, and various private sector client groups. To further complicate the planning environment, frequently planners in staff positions are not

Reflexivity 119 directly associated with any single agency program. Outputs of these generalists’ efforts are often abstract. Whether one is doing a good, bad, or indifferent job in facilitating a planning process is difficult to determine because the generalist staff jobs are not directly associated with the primary mission of the agency. Since passage of the Government Performance and Results Act in 1993, Agency programs now have performance measures that indicate how effectively that program is servicing public needs. But the connection between an effective planning process and successful program outcomes is tenuous at best. Because of this complexity, there is a particularly strong inclination among planners to resort to simplifying metaphors in order to make sense of situations. Even a casual scan of participants’ views reveals a startling array of metaphors that are used to organize the various environments within which participants operate, and which relate to the planning enterprise. Each person has employed different metaphors to try to understand different aspects of the planning environment. Metaphors are used to make sense of the following milieus: • • • •

FDA’s social function FDA as an organization Planning Staff Planning process

Table 7.1 identifies a sample of metaphors that were used by planning participants to navigate each of the above milieus. Metaphors of the Planning Process Of particular interest to this investigator were the rather distinct metaphors that study participants used to describe the planning process. The depth and consistency of metaphorical use varied from individual to individual, but the following distinct metaphorical images were used with sufficient frequency to warrant attention.

Table 7.1  Metaphors used by FDA planning participants FDA’s Social Function

FDA as an Organization

Planning Staff

Planning Process

Policeman Educator Scientist

Machine Living organism Territorial animal Military Warehouse

University Fraternity Consultant Company Town Theatre troupe

Strategic game Think tank Production line Consensus-building family Theatrical performance

120  Part 3 The Planning Process as Consensus-Builder This metaphorical construct is based on the premise that, although the process should lead to decisions that need to be made, at least an equally important feature is that people have gone through a consensusbuilding approach and have established a better understanding of where each other is coming from. The real value added is not the plan that is produced, but the process that participants go through in order to produce the plan. It is important to pay constant attention to the process because it is the process that links planning activities to the agency mission. In this metaphor, line managers in the agency must do the planning and the thinking, and they must remain open and trust each other. Images that come to mind include that of a commune or a very closeknit family. Within this kind of metaphor, relationships are usually based on trust, mutual support, and the importance of the survival of the unit – perhaps a more important consideration than what the unit produces. Different line managers may differ from each other to varying degrees on issues at the beginning of the process, but a major function of the process, using the consensus metaphor, is to bring participants closer together and strive for mutual agreement, or at the least a clearer understanding of each other’s positions. The Planning Process as Think Tank The planning process from this metaphorical perspective is primarily for the purpose of generating new and better ideas. The process is a thought generator. Creative problem-solving, particularly in times of major change, is more important than consensus building. Closely associated with the metaphor of process as a think tank is the idea that the process is a mode of truth-seeking, scientific inquiry. The process is viewed as a search for ever-closer approximations of the truth. Values such as uniformity, timeliness, and appearance are deemphasized in favor of boldness of approach, meticulousness, and comprehensiveness of the investigation. In this metaphor, the process designer needs to do little more than provide a venue for discussion, ensure that the appropriate participants are present – either live or online – and summarize findings. This version of a planning process is a poor match for other requirements of the Federal bureaucratic establishment, such as on schedule completion of planning outcomes. The Planning Process as a Production Line A reciprocal relationship exists in this metaphor. First, the components of the planning process influence the nature and shape of the information that flows through the process. However, the nature and type of information that is demanded by clients of the process – in this case by agency

Reflexivity 121 managers – also ideally influences the design of the process itself. The process can in the short run accommodate small changes in the demand for information. However, large-scale, long-run changes in the demand for information would require correspondingly large changes in the process itself. And process designers operating out of this metaphor appear to be somewhat reluctant to make such big knob, fixed plant changes because modifications of that magnitude may constitute a threat to the stability and perhaps survival of the process as it currently exists. The production line metaphor of the planning process is geared toward the creation of tangible products such as planning matrices, priority lists, and printed documents. Schedules, structured agendas, and explicit assignment of responsibilities are all components that fit comfortably within the production line metaphor of planning. Organization, coordination, and control are also earmarks of a production line orientation toward planning processes. Since the focus in the metaphor is on the creation of products, the criteria for a successful process is concerned with the acceptance of the final product by its intended clients. The Planning Process as Strategic Game Playing – Or a Poker Game Participants in this study who had any bureaucratic seasoning viewed the planning process, for at least a portion of the time, as a game of strategies – a war of nerves – a poker game. A good percentage of the discussion that goes on is concerned with managing or engineering the moves that will be made in an ostensibly open planning environment. Human engineering and people management – particularly when those people work outside of the Planning Staff – require one to have the perception at least that they are a good judge of human nature and of likely reactions by certain participants under different conditions. Those who spend at least a part of their time operating out of the “poker game” metaphor must feel that they can successfully anticipate likely moves by participants two, three, and four steps ahead of time. Use of the “poker game” metaphor also implies that the users had a vested interest in seeing certain outcomes predominate. Conceivably, a poker game metaphor could be employed in an attempt to guarantee that (1) some participants or organizations gain an advantage, (2) other participants who are more sympathetic with the process designer’s own values get more of an opportunity to share their views, or (3) the stability of the planning process is maintained. In a poker game there are winners and losers. People who view their environment as a game of strategies must also view the world largely in terms of winning and losing hands. Chips played in these games can represent very different kinds of value systems. In most cases we think

122  Part 3 of economic values. Thus, people who design planning processes with a poker metaphor in mind may view winners and losers in the process as gaining or losing resources for their programs. However, chip may also represent support for one’s philosophies or basic values. The Planning Process as Theatrical Performance In this metaphor a central feature is the notion of front stage performance and backstage preparation. Erving Goffman writes extensively on this concept in Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959).9 When applied to planning, the front-stage performance is equivalent to the playing out of the process. The process is staged in many ways including (1) the performances that are conducted at planning meetings, (2) the published and publicized planning documents that are marketed with flair, and (3) such rituals as public presentation of priorities, and symbolic decisions made in open participative forums. Backstage preparation in this metaphor incorporates all of the orchestration that is carried out by planning process designers in advance of the performance. Such backstage preparation includes script writing, casting, set decoration, and rehearsal. Script writing refers to the design of agendas for the publicly presented planning meetings. Casting involves deciding which agency actors will be present and what roles they will play in the planning performance – e.g., who recommends, who decides, and who remains silent and takes notes. Set decoration includes deciding on the planning venue, arrangement of chairs, determining layout of planning documents, and their marketing strategy. Finally, rehearsals as part of backstage preparation involve conducting “dry runs” of planning presentations, preparing “draft” plans, and “polishing” the performance through the critique process. One prominent aspect of the theatrical performance metaphor is the reciprocal relationship between the actor’s self-definition and the role that he/she is assigned. The dynamic that operates in this situation is that both the writer and the actor collaborate to shape the way the role is played. When the actor plays the role for an extended period of time, the role and the actor’s self-definition begin to merge. A different but related phenomenon occurs when the process designer categorizes participants in the planning process in terms of their management philosophy and world view. Based on this predisposition on the part of the process designer to “type” participants, roles are written into the script to allow for a participant to play the expected role. The process designer selectively looks for behavior that reinforces the preconceived typing of the participant. When all participants play their expected roles, the integrity of the entire planning process is reinforced.

Reflexivity 123 Dynamics of Metaphor Usage in Planning Process Design and Implementation Aside from the observation that metaphorical thinking dominates the planning environment, this study revealed several additional insights regarding the dynamics of metaphor usage: • • •

•

Some metaphors tend to predominate in certain phases of the planning process, while in other phases, competition is intense for metaphorical dominance. One set of characteristics that distinguishes metaphors in a meaningful way are the sets of values that appear to provide the foundation for the metaphor. People utilize both prescriptive and descriptive metaphors to apprehend the planning environment that surround them. More dissonance is felt by the individual as the difference between prescriptive and descriptive metaphor increases. The ability of an individual to switch metaphorical referents is a function of a number of factors including: • • •

The proximity of the environment one is trying to make sense of; The purpose for employing the metaphor, e.g., understanding vs. control; and Familiarity and experience with alternative metaphors.

Each of these insights is discussed below. Relating Metaphors to Components of the Planning Process In some segments of the planning process, there appear to be natural metaphorical monopolies which become activated in making sense of and organizing the tasks at hand. For example, the portions of the planning process that are involved with overall administrative coordination and scheduling are generally carried out as a production line operation. On the other hand, there are phases of the planning process where different metaphorical contexts compete for the correct interpretation of the environment. In designing the agenda for a top management meeting where the main business is to present and discuss program priorities, competition for the dominant metaphor may be between the “poker game” and the “family” metaphor. In the poker game, metaphor design of the agenda is a negotiation about which participants get more or less “air time.” Staff work consists of furnishing information to all participants, and as poker hands are played there is explicit acknowledgment of who are the winners and losers. If the “family” metaphor dominates, the emphasis will be placed on consensus building. More deliberate measures will be taken to ensure that conflict is avoided, compromises are reached, participants are physically comfortable, and that all participants explicitly commit to the greater good and mission of the agency.

124  Part 3 Table 7.2  Metaphors used in various planning phases Planning Process Metaphors Planning Phase

Family Think Tank Production Line Poker Game Theater

Overall process design Forms and format design Scheduling Agenda design Meeting facilitation Premeeting liaison with participants Decisions on priorities Resource allocation Decision validation and verification

x

x

x

x

x x x x

x x

x x

x

x x x x x x

x x x

x x x

x x

x

Table 7.2 identifies the degree of metaphorical consensus and conflict that this study revealed in different phases of the planning process. To illustrate, a single “x” along the row labeled “Overall Administrative Coordination” and under the “Production Line” column indicates that all study participants resorted to the production line metaphor in designing and implementing that particular phase of the planning process. In the phase associated with the “Design of Meeting Agendas,” several “x’s” along the row indicate that study participants had multiple metaphorical versions of reality competing for dominance. Most formal training in public administration and business administration, in particular, is rooted in a functionalist epistemology and a view of planning as a “clockwork” process. Based on this instrumental perspective, the planning process is orderly and predictable. The steps in the process follow logically and produce rational decisions. The “production line” metaphor aligns with this perspective. Results of this study, however, indicate that participants are unanimous in using the production line metaphor for only selected steps in the process – i.e., forms and format design, scheduling, and validating planning decisions. For more substantive steps in the planning process, participants use competing metaphors to organize their attention to what is transpiring. A diverse set of value orientations drives this difference in metaphorical interpretations. Metaphors and Values Table 7.3 connects the planning metaphors to the underlying values that may influence the use of each metaphor as a way of understanding the planning environment. The “H” symbol in the table indicates a value

Reflexivity 125 Table 7.3  Relating planning metaphors to underlying values Planning Metaphors Underlying Values Consensus Decisive Logic Clarity Stability Survival Imagery Equity Efficiency Escape Mutuality/love Creativity Direction Independence Winners/losers Pleasure/comfort Beauty/aesthetics Coherence

Production Line

Think Tank

M-L H L H H H L L H L L L H L M L L H

H L H M L M L L L M L H H H L L M L

Theater Family Poker Game Production H L M M M-H M-H L H L L H M M L L M M H

L M-L H M-L H H M=H L L L L H L H H M-H L H

-M-L L M-H H H M=H H L L H L H L M M M H H

that is highly supportive of a particular metaphor, the “M” symbol indicates a moderately supportive value, and the “L” symbol indicates little or no support. These judgments are subject to alternative perspectives, but the larger point is that underlying values shape participants’ tendency to view the world from different metaphors or scripts. It is important to note, however, that the relationship is much more tenuous between metaphors that a participant may utilize to interpret the world, the apparent values which underlie these metaphors, and the values espoused by participants. The extent to which an individual’s selection of metaphors reflects his/her own value set is a topic for further discussion. Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Metaphors The metaphors that a person relies on may be descriptive, prescriptive, or both. This inquiry has revealed evidence that there are usually differences between the metaphorical scripts that people use to describe the existing world and the scripts that define the ideal world. The further removed descriptive metaphors and their underlying values are from prescriptive metaphors and their associated values, the greater dissonance participants will feel during the planning process. Some of an individual’s prescriptive metaphors arise out of his/her experience in dealing with a perception of the world as it exists. In these instances the

126  Part 3 prescriptive metaphor is a reaction formation based on a world that is not consistent with the individual’s value set. It is important to keep in mind, however, that both descriptive and prescriptive metaphors are constructs of reality – at least from the interpretive perspective. The former reconstitutes and simplifies what is perceived to be, and the latter reconstitutes and simplifies what should be. The Ability to Switch Metaphorical Referents A moderating influence on the dissonance felt within and among individual designers and implementers in planning processes is the ability for these same participants to transfer among differing metaphorical descriptions and prescriptions of what is and what should be the critical elements of planning processes. The ability to unfreeze and break out of a given metaphorical script enables participants to consider new ways of addressing issues that are not amenable to solution given the default metaphor. There are some factors that seem to indicate the ease with which planning process designers and implementers can change frames of reference. These include the following: •

Proximity/urgency of the issue: Participants may be less willing to switch metaphorical referents if the issue being addressed is one where decisions need to be made in the short run in order to avoid serious consequences. Two contrasting planning exercises illustrate the difference in willingness to switch metaphors. In the first instance, Agency leadership needs to decide the level of funding that must be diverted from traditional but mandated activities, such as inspection of drug manufacturers, and reallocated to a new initiative to address a critical health issue, such as a pandemic involving a highly contagious infectious disease. In such cases, planning participants find strength and certainty in relying on the prevailing metaphor that they use to make sense of the environment. The “think tankers” will tend to remain “think tankers,” and the “poker gamers” will remain faithful to their paradigm of choice. In the second instance, participants may be involved in a strategic planning exercise that is designed to examine the bedrock roles that the agency plays now and in the foreseeable future. In the case of FDA, past planning retreats have addressed the importance of various FDA roles. Should FDA be considered as the Nation’s public safety police? Or is it more critical to be viewed as the neutral voice of science? What about the role of educator? During such low-pressure sessions, participants are more willing to alter their frames of reference. Strategic discussion about the Agency’s appropriate roles does not pose a threat to their own integrity or their sense of clarity about the world surrounding them. They can juggle and alternate various

Reflexivity 127

•

•

agency roles in order to gain multiple perspectives without having their personal metaphors seriously questioned. Understanding vs. control: An additional factor that appears to influence the ease with which participants in this study are able or willing to switch metaphors of the planning process concerns the nature of their motivations at any given point. If they are attempting to understand (or in Sir Geoffrey Vicker’s words – appreciate) their immediate surroundings, they seem to be more willing to experiment with alternative metaphors than if they are trying to control or manipulate the situation. If a group of managers, for example, are attempting to make sense of a new piece of drug legislation passed by Congress, they are more apt to consider different frameworks of meaning to see if they can match the framework to the events that are happening. To wit, do the sponsors of the new legislation view it as a railroad train, a menagerie of special acts, or a morality play? In the situation where planning process designers are attempting to manipulate or engineer their immediate environment, the use of metaphors appears to take on a different character. Once a decision, explicit or implicit, has been made to control the situation, people lock in on a blueprint, and then follow the blueprint in order to maintain control. Once process designers are in an instrumental mode with respect to any phase of the agency planning process, it becomes counterproductive to reassess even a few variables which define the elements of the process – let alone to reconsider the appropriateness of the entire framework. Familiarity/experience with alternative metaphors: The facility a person develops for switching frames of reference is also apparently a function of conditioning. The more often planning designers or participants are given the opportunity to break planning process molds, the more comfortable they are in engaging in the process of conceptual ice-breaking. However, managers often find themselves in the position of having to maintain a sometimes precarious balance. On the one hand, they would like to inject creative juices into planning processes by considering creative metaphorical alternatives. And the years of experience and exposure to varying work and life situations put many top managers, particularly, in a good position to switch frames of reference. On the other hand, perceived institutional constraints, such as the necessity to have a planning staff fit in with a stable line organization, inhibit the willingness to switch metaphorical referents.

Understanding through Metaphor: Applications for Public Administrators The conscious use of metaphor is symbolic, albeit often rich description. As such, it is not suitable in all managerial situations. However, an

128  Part 3 appreciation of metaphorical dynamics lends itself to a more in-depth understanding of settings, particularly in the planning sphere. •

•

•

•

Considering planning alternatives: Whether planners are considering alternative future scenarios for the agency, planning options, or policy options, metaphorical analysis enriches the discussion by including an assessment of how planners tend to organize their planning environment. Once ordinary dimensions of seeing are explicitly discussed, other alternatives and perhaps new dimensions are seen as possibilities. By studying metaphors or models of alternatives, the most essential differences in these alternatives are perceived. Planners can know, through the use of metaphors, if they are discussing two alternatives that make a real difference to them, or whether they are talking only about small variations on the same metaphorical theme. Understanding planning alternatives at a metaphorical level allows greater facility in manipulating and reconfiguring alternatives at a conceptual level. Dealing with situations of conflict and conflict resolution: An understanding of individuals’ basic differences in the way they organize their environment (the metaphors they utilize) will be more likely to get at the underlying reasons for the conflict. An appreciation of metaphorical dynamics will enable arbitrators of a conflict to avoid conflict situations when possible and to moderate them if they cannot be avoided. Definitions of problems, issues, situations: Metaphorical analysis allows more intensive and extensive variation in the way planners see problems and alternatives. This expansion of variety will provide a greater set of differences from which to determine if there are shared meanings among planners in a given situation. This will raise the probability that common definitions – if they do exist – will be reached. Responsible decision-making: Metaphorical analysis exacts a deeper sense of responsibility from the decision-maker for the full ramifications of these decisions, but it also provides him/her with the realization that he/she more fully owns direction of his/her decisions and can more easily change that direction than he/she might have previously been aware.

A Constructionist Perspective on Governance in the Public Sector When Robert McNamara brought his whiz kids into the federal government from Rand Associates in 1961, it ushered in an era of comprehensive rational approaches to planning, implementing, measuring, and

Reflexivity 129 evaluating federal programs. The Program Planning and Budgeting System (PPBS) developed by Alain Enthoven and Jack Carlson, among others, was the centerpiece of this thinking. Although PPBS was certainly not the first attempt to take a rational approach to evaluating government program effectiveness, it was probably the most visible at the time.10 PPBS was followed by a series of the now-famous alphabet soup of management reforms – Management by Objectives (MBO), Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB), and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The common link among the alphabet reforms is the belief that government should be accountable to the taxpayer. Further, there are managerial protocols that can be instituted to hold government accountable to the people. There are basic assumptions underlying these management reforms which give them their legitimacy. The first is that government managers can achieve a certain level of objectivity and thus neutrality with respect to the programs they oversee. This means that they, essentially, can set aside the predetermined mental constructs or scripts they used to understand and deal with the world. There is also a presumption that the government environment is at least sufficiently stable and orderly to establish quantitative relationships among important variables affecting their programs. Their world “holds still” long enough to make valid and reliable probabilistic (if not deterministic) predictions about the impact of actions on outcomes. This is, essentially, a recapitulation of the comprehensive-rational approach to policy-making, planning, and implementation in the public sector. This approach has a strong advocacy in many areas of management theory and practice. There are, of course, other views concerning how possible it is to engage in orderly planning, implementation, and evaluation in the public sector. At the opposite extreme from comprehensive-rational planning is the disjointed incremental theory of Charles Lindblom. He believed that it was neither possible nor desirable to engage in the type of management reforms advocated by the “alphabet soup” of management reforms. In his view the world was entirely too complex and politicized to successfully do anything in the long run or with the big picture in mind. Public sector managers made real decisions at the margin. Thus, the only realistic alternative for government managers was to take small steps, avoid pain, and build consensus along the way. Occupying the middle ground between comprehensive rational planning and disjointed incrementalism are a range of theoreticians and practitioners who advocate keeping one eye on the horizon and being very flexible in the short run. Amatai Etzioni referred to this approach as “mixed scanning.” James Quinn used the term “logical

130  Part 3 incrementalism” and Robert Behn referred to it as “management by groping along.” Behn’s characterization of this position is stated as the following: Public managers do and should grope along. They need to have a clear sense of mission for their agency. But they will never know precisely how to realize these purposes. Every new management task confronts even the most experienced manager with a new organizational, political, and cultural situation. Consequently, the public manager cannot develop the perfect plan from the beginning. Rather, he or she must experiment with various initiatives, trying to determine what works and what does not. Meanwhile, the successes that result from some of these initiatives move the manager closer to his goal, create new capabilities for his organization, and help motivate his staff by demonstrating that they can be successful. There are thousands of management principles, and it is never obvious which ones apply in a particular managerial situation. Thus, every public manager must grope along.11 The classification of government managers’ approaches along a spectrum from comprehensive-rational to disjointed incremental fits comfortably within a functionalist epistemological framework, in which the underlying assumption is that: phenomena can be objectively defined. A constructionist perspective, however, is embedded in an interpretive epistemology, and offers different insights into how planning occurs in the public sector. The Constructivist Perspective in Understanding Public Sector Planning Constructivism refers to a belief that in the social world the only meaningful reality is that constructed by the actor in the social situation. Constructivism examines meanings to people, and the processes by which these meanings are created. The act of planning is, in itself, a process of meaning construction. Meanings unfold during a planning process and the end result of the process is an enactment in the form of planning documents or artifacts. The strategic plan and the action plan are examples of sedimented social constructions intended to convey a set of meanings to various audiences – both inside and outside of the originating organization. Planning as a labor of social construction can be a dynamic and invigorating experience. If common meanings resonate among planning participants, the process can be a source of strength and reaffirmation for all. If meanings conflict, the process can serve to create dissonance at both an organizational and individual level. If the process reinforces meanings that are total inconsistent with participants’ world views (or organizational culture views), participants will disengage from the process of meaning creation and to them it will become an empty exercise.

Reflexivity 131 Regardless of whether the process generates mutual support or antagonism among participants, from a constructionist perspective, it is useful for designers of such processes to view the scenario as a meaning construction enterprise. This would allow a deeper appreciation of the dynamics involved, and perhaps point to strategies that lead to outcomes that are beneficial to all participants.

An Enactment Approach to Governance Enactment, in the conventional sense, is a rule of conduct or action laid down by a governing authority and especially a legislature (Thesaurus). For purposes of explaining a reflexive view of governance, we may view enactment as the process by which people create their own reality as they experience it. The focus of interest is on how participants in governance settings construct their own realities in gaining support for certain shared meanings. Support is enlisted by the creation of a credible text – one that when interpreted by others will uphold the legitimacy of the socially constructed reality. The process of text development is fueled by the use of various interpretive modes to gather information, analyze it, and make sense of it. All participants in the governance process – whether they are within institutions designated as governments (national, state, local) or are stakeholders of governance outcomes – utilize these interpretive modes iteratively and interchangeably in order to build a text that will support the desired enactment. Once text is created it is continuously reinterpreted, and in the interaction between text and interpreter, new social constructions are created. A peak inside the internal negotiations that take place in a Federal agency during a planning and budgeting process illustrates “enactment” in action. Consider the following scenario: Fred, the manager of an environmental research program frequently works with Joe from the agency’s planning staff, on the development of program plans and an accompanying budget required to fund the plan. On this particular occasion, Fred is meeting with Joe and his staff in order to determine the best way of representing the work of environmental scientists in the regional offices. How they portray the scientific staff is important because it becomes an integral part of an agency planning document that will be circulated to a variety of influential stakeholders within and outside of government – including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Congressional appropriations, and oversight committees, as well as the industry that will be impacted by governmental environmental policies. Fred begins: “Listen Joe. I can be very flexible. I can characterize the environmental scientists in regional offices as carrying out any combination of important functions. What is grabbing attention these days with

132  Part 3 the Administration? Fred responds: “My impression of what sells in the environmental area is the concept of a ‘strike force’ approach in solving environmental problems. To what extent are your scientists engaged in baseline research as opposed to targeted problem-solving such as concentrating on determining the impacts of a particular oil spill?” Joe answers: “The line is difficult to draw. A good part of our research could be construed as problem-oriented. How do you want to ‘play’ it?” Fred replies, “I don’t want to interfere with, or misrepresent the essence of your environmental program. It is really your call. But I do think that we can get a lot of mileage if we are careful in the particular labeling we choose to describe what appears to be a great deal of flexibility in how you characterize your program.” At the end of the session, both Fred and Joe leave with a sense of uneasiness and ambivalent feeling concerning what has transpired. Joe wonders what Fred’s scientists are really doing. To what extent will this planning document represents images as opposed to hard reality? Fred’s speculation goes in another direction. Why must the front office continue to conduct these planning exercises that do not result in increased funding for the program, or help him do the job better? On the other hand, prudence dictates that it will not be wise to represent one’s programs in a manner that would be opposed those in by positions of influence. Through a slow, iterative process, an environmental research plan does get developed – one that is reasonably acceptable to both parties. However, throughout the process there is a high level of frustration and suspicion between planners and program managers as they grapple with varying interpretations of how environmental research should be represented. At the same time, at least one and perhaps both, parties are not at all certain to what degree the representation correlates with the reality planners and managers often go through in constructing a representation of environmental research that is acceptable to stakeholders of all stripes. This example from the planning arena can be extended to governance challenges in general. There is a stark contrast between the “functionalist” view of governance as a rational, orderly process, and the governance process as viewed by participants as one of great complexity and uncertainty. The concept of governance as “enactment” may more closely resemble governance as actually experienced by involved stakeholders. The “enactment” model of governance is based on the premise that there are several legitimate ways to interpret what transpires during the governance process. When and if a more balanced interpretive approach to governance will lead to an increased probability of public problems being addressed and solved is unknowable from the perspective of governance as a complex adaptive system. The dynamics of self-organization and emergence do not lend themselves to predictable outcomes at the outset.

Reflexivity 133 An enactment model, however, can provide insights into how and in what forms interpretation takes place as adaptations to changing conditions occur. The enactment process stems from the interpretive school of organizational theory. This school holds that organizational and environmental reality are, essentially, social constructions. That is, people in the process of interacting with each other develop shared meanings that are reinforced through time. Such a view has been supported by several organization theorists. For example, Friedman (1973)12 held as central what he termed – the adaptive approach to organization theory – the ability of organizations to question organizational reality. Krieger (1974)13 has explored the idea of planners structuring their world. Argyris and Schon (1974)14 and Schon (1976)15 consider the interpretation function as an essential activity. Through the concept of “theories in use,” they see social actors as grounding their actions on interpretations, or maps, that are used to make sense of their environment. Daft and Weick (1984)16 and Weick (1969, 1979)17 also conceived of those in positions of governance as interpreters of the environment. The Enactment Model The enactment model has three primary features: 1 The recognition of “enacting” as being the predominant dynamic in the governance process; 2 The concept of text development and interpretation as the foundation of enactment; and 3 The use of interpretive modes as the text guiding governance is developed Enactment is the central organizing activity. Enacting is essentially experiencing and constructing one’s reality by reacting to that experience as if it were independent of the author. The experiencing and interaction with experience to create a new meaning continues in an iterative fashion. There are numerous examples of this dynamic as governance systems attempt to tackle today’s critical societal issues. The climate change crisis provides an illuminating example. Global attempts to reduce the rate of global warming consist of many actors taking various actions to achieve the goal of limiting temperature increases by no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade by 2050. Their combined actions or experiences may or may not result in the desired rate reduction. The participants often react to the result as if it were independent of their combined actions. But the new result contributes to a revised meaning associated with the crisis, which in turn leads to new actions to contain global warming.

134  Part 3 Smircich and Stubert (1985) and Smircich (1983)18 suggest that those in governance positions enact, or create, both their organization and their environment through social interaction. To quote from Smircich and Stubbert: In an enacted environment model the world is essentially an ambiguous field of experience. There are no threats or opportunities…just material and symbolic record of actions. But a strategist – determined to find meaning – makes relationships by bringing connections and patterns to the action.19 The concept of text development and interpretation provides a foundation for understanding the enactment process. A text can be any written work – the U.S. constitution, the Bible, the Quran – or a comprehensive plan of action to address any major societal issue. A recent example is the document that emerged from the COP26 climate conference in Stockholm, Sweden in November 2021. The agreement was signed by over 200 nations and outlined the necessary steps to reduce the rate of global warming.20 Texts such as these were created by authors whose intent was to establish certain meanings, or enactments, in the minds of readers – meanings that would serve the authors’ interests. With each successive reading of the text, new interpretations are formed and meanings created. The reader of a text approaches the document with a set of preunderstandings about the reader him or herself and the world surrounding the reader. Upon reading the text, an interpretation process ensues in which this self-understanding and making sense of the world is altered somewhat. Thus, the new meanings created are a result of the interaction between the reader and the text. New meanings lead to actions which affect other people, creation of new texts which take on a life of their own, and reinterpretation of those texts. The “enactment” view of governance rejects the idea that the development or understanding of a written governance agreement, such as a major piece of legislation such as the 2021 infrastructure bill, can be an objective process. Rather, it implies a preconceived understanding by the reader of him or herself, his/her work, and the world around him/her (Ricoeur 1981).21 It also points to governance as being a circular, iterative, and interpretive process, as opposed to a process in which there is a gradual aggregation of more and more truth about the world. A third feature of the governance-as-enactment model concerns the kinds of interpretation processes, or modes, that individuals use in developing governance approaches. Daft and Weick (1984) described organizations as interpretation systems. This description can be applied to complex adaptive systems as well. This suggests that

Reflexivity 135 governance systems first scan the environment for data, then interpret the data through differing modes, and finally take appropriate action (called learning). Their concept of differing interpretive modes is applicable and relevant to the depiction of governance systems as an interpretive enterprise. The essence of the Daft and Weick model is described in the next section.

The Daft and Weick Model in Brief Daft and Weick characterize organizations as being clearly in one of alternative modes – enactment, undirected viewing, conditioned viewing, and discovering. The four modes have been differentiated by classifying organizations according to (1) whether they think the environment is analyzable and (2) how likely organizations are to intrude in the environment to make a difference. To be in an enactment mode assumes that the environment is unanalyzable and that organizations aggressively intrude into that environment to make a difference. An undirected viewing mode assumes the environment is unanalyzable, but the organization takes a passive stance. Conditional viewing assumes the environment is analyzable, but in this instance the organization tends to rely passively on institutionalized sources of data about the environment. Finally, a discovering modes assumes the environment is analyzable and the organization intrudes into that environment to gather, analyze, and interpret objective data (see Table 7.4). An important assumption which helps to frame Daft and Weick’s model is that the organizational interpretation process is something greater than the simple aggregation of interpretations made by individuals within organizations. They contend that organizations have their own cognitive systems and memories. Perceptions are shared by managers, and become institutionalized beyond the tenure of ay one manager. Thus, their entire model appears to be directed toward understanding organizations as interpretive “gestalts.” As such, organizations tend to be in all four modes of enacting, discovering, conditional viewing, and undirected viewing simultaneously. Table 7.4  Daft enactment models

Environment is analyzable Environment is unanalyzable

Passive Stance Toward Environment

Intrusive Stance Toward Environment

Conditioned viewing

Discovery

Undirected viewing

Enactment

136  Part 3 Adjusting the Daft and Weick Model to Governance Systems Daft and Weick’s enactment model focuses on the dynamic interpretations that occur within individual organizations. The concepts, however, apply equally to governance systems. These systems are adaptive, and may encompass many organizations in multiple sectors as well as the individuals within the organizations. Governance systems may adopt any of the four stances in the Daft model, depending upon a number of factors including: • • •

The degree of stability in the surrounding environment; The availability of baseline information that has enabled the establishment of verifiable relationships between governance efforts and outcomes; and The scope and scale of the governance effort

Some general observations can be made based on the state of the above factors: •

•

•

Greater stability within the environment supports governance efforts based on past institutionalized practices; less stability requires greater adaptation and resilience in considering alternative approaches. Established and verifiable relationships between governance efforts and outcomes support a status quo approach to governance because outcomes can be predicted. Lack of established relationships opens the playing field for governance systems to try new approaches. Narrow scope and scale of governance efforts tend to limit their ability to make major changes in the surrounding environment. Broader scope and scale of governance efforts involves more stakeholders and enhances the capacity to make major changes in the surrounding environment. Table 7.5 identifies how Daft’s model might apply given different environmental conditions.

Table 7.5  Enactment models under varying environmental conditions Broad Narrow Stable Unstable Predictable Unpredictable Governance Governance Governance Scope Stance Scope Environment Environment Relationships Relationships x x

x x x

x

x x x

x

x x

Conditioned viewing Discovery Undirected viewing Enactment

Reflexivity 137 Below are brief descriptions of governance systems that operate in each of the four quadrants of Daft’s enactment model. Conditioned Viewing The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an example of a Federal agency that operates under a conditioned viewing perspective. The agency carries out its mission using standard institutionalized practices that are generally repeated each year. Tax schedules and rates are predictable. Although tax laws change, the changes are generally smoothly incorporated into the Agency’s practices. The determination of taxes owed is driven by algorithms that are repeatable. Reliance on institutional data satisfies the “analyzable” criterion as part of the conditioned viewing perspective. IRS normally does not adopt an intrusive approach to the external environment. Their primary focus is on maintaining stability rather than addressing or shaping disruptive environmental change. Thus, the Agency satisfies the “passive stance” toward the environment criterion as well. In most cases, the IRS operates in the conditioned viewing mode. In times of major legislative or policy shifts, however, the Agency is responsible for implementing these shifts and occupies a more intrusive stance with respect to the external environment. An illustration of such a policy shift is a major revenue initiative advanced by the Biden Administration in November 2021. This initiative provided additional funding to the IRS in an attempt to more aggressively target individuals and corporations that owed taxes to the U.S. government but have avoided making the necessary payments. The additional revenue collected was intended to offset a portion of the $2 trillion Build Back Better Bill that strengthened the social safety network for working people and families who were trying to make ends meet.22 Undirected Viewing The U.S. Department of Education would be an example of an agency operating in an undirected viewing mode, particularly as it applies to addressing emerging issues that have not been in existence long enough for analyzable data to be gathered in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation. A recent emerging issue has been the question of whether “critical race theory” should be part of secondary and elementary school curricula. The two criteria defining “undirected viewing” are met in this situation – unanalyzable environment and a passive approach to shaping the external environment. Critical race theory is an intellectual movement and a framework of legal analysis according to which (1) race is a culturally invented category used to oppress people of colour and (2) the law and legal

138  Part 3 institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, political, and economic inequalities between white and nonwhite people. (Encyclopedia Britannica, June 14, 2021) Critical race theory became politicized during the Trump administration. President Trump issued an executive order prohibiting Federal funding for any educational programs that taught “white privilege” or critical race theory. Although President Biden rescinded the executive order in 2021, the issue was used as a campaign talking point by conservatives during state election campaigns in 2021. As of July 2021, 10 U.S. states introduced bills or taken other steps that would restrict teaching critical race theory, and 26 others were in the process of doing so.23 Although critical race theory has become a political hot topic, there is little or no evidence that it is being taught in elementary or secondary schools. But the rhetoric surrounding the issue has caused confusion in much of the general population as to what the concept means. The U.S. Department of Education governance approach meets the “passive stance on environment” criterion because curriculum decisions on critical race theory have been made at the state or local level, and the Department of Education has little influence regarding such curriculum decisions. Although President Trump attempted to exert Federal influence on local school programs by withholding Federal funding if critical race theory were taught – President Biden rescinded that executive order. The U.S. Department of Education governance approach also meets the “unanalyzable” criterion because the issue of critical race theory being taught in public schools turns on values rather than data driven evidence. Discovery To recall, the two characteristics of the discovery mode are (1) an analyzable external environment and (2) an intrusive approach to making a difference in that environment. As a general rule, both discovery and enactment modes are positioned to shape major changes in the external environment. In both instances, the governance system must be broader than the efforts of a single government agency in order to muster the collective intelligence necessary to facilitate such change. The most apt illustrations are depicted by complex governance systems attempting to address equally complex societal issues. A governance system in the discovery mode utilizes analyzable data as a basis for addressing these issues. The global initiative to address climate change fits the two criteria that define the discovery mode. In terms of analyzability, data on the cumulative impacts of man-made climate change have been collected as early as the late 19th century, when scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate. Based on extensive data

Reflexivity 139 collection, it is the consensus of over 99% of the world’s climate scientists that major shifts in the world’s energy sources must be made in order to ensure the survival of civilization. The series of Convention of the Party (COP) meetings to address global climate change has been sponsored by the United Nations. The first convention was held in Bonn, Germany in 1995, and the most recent COP26 conference was held in Stockholm, Sweden in November 2021. Over 200 nations have participated in these conventions with the aim of slowing the global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade by the end of the 21st century. The entire effort is the quintessential complex adaptive system attempting to arrive at outcomes that guarantee the survival and quality of life for citizens of this planet. This mass governance effort meets the criterion of attempting to exert a major intrusion on, and disruption of, the existing dominant mode of energy creation through fossil fuels. Enactment The last quadrant of Daft’s model focuses on enactment as a mode of governance. The two features of enactment are (1) an intrusive approach to changing the environment and (2) unanalyzable data. The current attempts to regulate social networking meet both of these criteria. The recent debates that focus on the responsibilities of social network companies, such as Facebook and Google regarding the trade-off between protecting free speech and protecting the public from violent rhetoric, involve extensive participation by agents representing all sectors of our society. These include Federal regulators, companies, the media, citizens, and Congress. The potential collective intelligence to arrive at a reasonable solution is massive. This broad governance system attempts to find reasonable adaptations to ensure that both goals of free speech and public protection are optimized. The issue has come to the fore since social media platforms have amassed tremendous power to reach large audiences. Essentially, social media platforms enabled by internet technology have grown at an exponential rate, while the tools of governance necessary to ensure these platforms do no harm are still calibrated to regulate communications from an earlier era. The novelty and newness of this issue means that there is little historical precedent nor analyzable data that can be used to make sense of the current situation. In the absence of empirical evidence that supports rational governance policy, the collective governance system enacts policies “on the run.” The collective stakeholders are shaping the social networking environment in a continuous process of self-organization and emergent solutions. The boundary between the social networking environment and the governance mechanisms to steer toward favorable outcomes becomes indistinguishable. In essence, the environment is created as the governance system evolves. This concept is similar to Karl Weick’s three-step process of organizing the following: (1) individuals take action in a portion of the

140  Part 3 environment that is most proximal to them; (2) they pay attention to, or select, that portion of the environment that they have been active in, and note the impact on the individual; and (3) the individual retains or makes a record of that impact as a guide for how to act in the next cycle. In the above three illustrations, the enactment model was applied at two levels: (1) at an agency level – e.g., the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Education and (2) at a societal level – e.g., climate change and social networking. Daft’s enactment model is sufficiently flexible to be applied at a process level within an organization. In the next section, we illustrate how the enactment model can be applied in gaining a fuller understanding of how meaning is created a specific decision-making process within an organization. Budget Reductions as an Enactment Process Although planners and program managers have frequent occasion to interact with each other in conducting a variety of planning tasks, the particular area selected for an examination in this section concerns how planners and managers deal with possible future reductions in resources (dollars, people, equipment, etc.). The federal program manager, particularly in a constrained economic environment, is increasingly faced with the dilemma of carrying out the program’s mission with fewer resources. In this section, Daft and Weick’s four interpretive modes are applied to a budget reduction process in the public sector. Undirected Viewing Mode This mode of interpretation assumes that the organization operates within a relatively unanalyzable environment, and assumes a passive stance in intruding on the environment and make a difference. In this mode of interpretation, the program director may attempt to gather opinions from personal contacts in the budget office concerning the seriousness of this budget reduction effort. Those who are familiar with planning and budgeting in the public sector learn that there is a distinction between budget reduction exercises that are being carried out as part of a routinized, periodic planning process, and those requests for information on resource reduction candidates which are critical to an imminent resource allocation decision. As a part of the routinized planning process of many federal agencies, program managers are often asked to identify which program activities would be sacrificed if a budget cut were made. The budget reduction offered by program managers during this process may be quite different than those identified if an urgent, unscheduled request was made of latter request might managers to identify candidates for budget cuts. This latter request might very well be

Reflexivity 141 perceived as a significant threat to the program manager’s resources, and as such, would evoke a different response. It is through informal, personal sources that a program manager learns to differentiate which program activities might be identified for resource reduction as part of routinized planning/budgeting processes, and which should be identified in cases where an actual budget reduction may be imminent. Because the routine process probably does not pose an immediate threat to the resources of a program manager, the manager may be willing to single out a clearly identifiable portion of his program a good faith move, and to state what the impact of a resource reduction may be. If, however, a budget reduction were actually in the offing, the more likely response would be to only agree to a prorated budget cut across a broad range of activities – where no aspect of the program would be significantly hurt. The program manager, who is using the undirected viewing mode in order to interpret the budget cutting environment, will want to learn from those individuals whom she knows and trusts, whether or not it is advisable to surface certain program activities as candidates for budget cuts. Her decision, for example, to surface a “Washington Monument”24 may be dependent upon her informal contacts, indicating how knowledgeable budget reviewers really are about the intricacies of her program. The program manager may also learn from contacts outside the normal hierarchical channels what the Administration’s views are on a particular activity that she is considering as a candidate for reduction. If the activity conflicts with top managements’ view of what the program should be doing, the program manager may be well advised not to surface that activity as a candidate for reduction. A planning operation in the undirected viewing mode might attempt to determine through informal sources just how important the activity offered as a candidate for budget reduction really is in the total context of the program. As extensive experience is gained with a particular program, a staff planner – using the undirected viewing mode – will be more able to clearly distinguish the Washington Monuments from the non-Washington Monuments. Planners and managers find it advantageous to operate in this informal mode because negotiations between the two parties can occur regarding which “realities” will be promoted in subsequent formalized planning documentation that is presented to others outside of the program and the agency. The informal mode permits frank discussions to take place – unhampered by the heat and light of public scrutiny. Despite the utility of the undirected viewing mode, it would be impractical for organizations to remain in that mode predominantly. Agency planners and managers do not fare well in the budgetary process if they rely only on information gained as a result of informal knowledge about the “system” and the intuition about the feelings of interested parties when it comes to their programs. They need to demonstrate that objective data

142  Part 3 have been compiled and analyzed via a rational process before planning and budget decisions are arrived at. In this way, credibility is built for the programs. If a logical case is not presented and supported with adequate documentation, the program will not be supported by those external to the program – particularly in public forums such as Congressional hearings. Support will not be forthcoming regardless of the intuitive sense that the program is a good one and should survive. Conditional Viewing In the conditional viewing mode, the environment is interpreted through traditional, routinized systems of information. This mode of interpretation assumes a stable, analyzable environment in which the status quo of the program and the organization is defended and protected. To show the impact of budget reductions on activities, program managers will rely heavily on existing accounting mechanisms and management reporting systems. These systems yield information concerning the financial status and efficiency-oriented performance of each program activity. Impacts of budget cuts will be described in terms of lost efficiencies, but the systems, themselves, will act as constraints on how impacts are reported. Since the systems were designed by those whose prime motivation is to have the program survive, impacts of budget cuts will be described in terms that show the program in the most favorable light. These systems have been designed to surface manageable deviations from planned accomplishments. Any antiestablishment views about the program shared informally among employees that signals major problems – e.g., “maybe it would not be so bad to sustain a budget cut because we are in the wrong business anyhow” – will not be raised in formal, documented processes. Thus, if one were to examine official documents, they would find that passive reporting systems continue to justify the activity. From the staff planner’s perspective, conditioned viewing in the case of prospective resource reductions implies the establishment and maintenance of planning, budgeting, and management control processes and documents that provide periodic information concerning the status of activities. These processes quite often represent an institutionalize way of dealing with prospective budget reductions. Often, one can quickly locate in office data systems information that documents the impact of budget reductions on each program in the agency. No doubt, these passive systems would be a starting point for planners and program managers to access in communicating the impact of resource reductions. If planners and managers in an organization were to rely predominantly on the conditioned viewing mode for interpreting events surrounding them, their planning documents would very shortly be perceived as being unresponsive to needed changes. Questions would likely be raised by budget reviewers at higher levels in the Administration about the need

Reflexivity 143 for closer scrutiny of program budgets to determine if resources should be reallocated. Routinized information systems would perpetuate traditionally performed tasks because the information is organized to support specific budget increases or reductions. These would only be applicable to maintenance of existing program activities. An organization using existing information in its budget reduction exercise may be perceived as purposive – in the sense that the past would dictate the future but not purposeful in that no one would set goals or budget strategies outside of the context of what existing information systems shaped. Enactment In this mode of interpretation, organizational members attempt to organize, make meaningful, and predictable, the conduct of others and interactions among themselves and others. These activities may be called “enactments.” A by-product of enacting is a social construction of reality. In enacting, organizational members conduct themselves in ways that they believe will result in others sharing their meanings. These shared meanings provide the basis – the stock of knowledge – to be used in future enactments. In the case where candidates for budget reductions are being identified, both program managers and staff planners have vested interests in enacting realities that benefit the program. The program manager has a vital interest in ensuring that the program survives intact. The manager would like significant stakeholders to believe the programs is so valuable that even the most vulnerable features of the program, if eliminated, would result in significant negative consequences. Hence, the concept of the “Washington Monument” becomes meaningful. If, in fact, the program manager’s enactment were truly successful – if the shared meaning were held and supported by all relevant parties that all aspects of the program were indispensable, then no “Washington Monument” would be required. The staff planner also interprets organizational and environmental reality from the enactment mode. One of the realities is that the planning office conducts practical, realistic planning activities. One important way that a planning staff – particularly at an agency level – establishes and maintains credibility is through the publication of a coherent-appearing agency plan, and through the use of the plan by others – especially by congressional committees and other significant publics. In the final analysis what really matters is how often the document is accepted as an unquestioned text for a constructing and interpreting social reality. Planners also want to be viewed as insightful, critical thinkers. They help to accomplish this enactment by creating a context in which others can see the planners as protecting the organization. This is often accomplished when a “Washington Monument” is identified and eliminated from a planning document. Planners contend

144  Part 3 that had the “Washington Monument” been left in the plan, it would have jeopardized the entire text, and the agency’s reputation (since significant others such as the Appropriation Committee chairman would have uncovered the real intent). Paul Ricoeur’s treatment of “text,” as a socially constructed document that is continually reinterpreted by people in the context of their current environment, is relevant to conceptualizing what goes on when a program manager and a planner participate in creating a planning document. See also Mohan and Wood (1975)25 and Heidigger (1962)26. In a sense, program managers and planners enter into a collaborative agreement to create a text that will be sufficiently believable to support their desired multiple enactments. The text must be accepted as a social reality in order for other desire enactments to transpire – e.g., continuation of the program. The text, itself, is created as a result of planners and managers utilizing the fourth of Daft and Weick’s interpretive modes – the discovering process. Organizations cannot be perceived as operating exclusively in a single enacting mode, even though the dominant enacting mode drives the other three. If one’s desired enactments were made plainly visible to others, i.e., what one really wanted out of an interaction, including more resources for one’s own personal use, status, etc., then the process of constructing shared meanings could not work. A situation would most likely arise in which there are conflicting and countervailing attempts to construct realities – i.e., agreements upon which to develop planning texts. Discovering Daft and Weick’s assumptions underlying the discovering mode of interpretation are that problems and opportunities are objectively defined by organizations, and can be uncovered and analyzed using data from the environment. In this mode one can intrude on the environment and discover relationships among variables which can lead to predictable results. To illustrate, the discovering mode may lead an analyst to conclude that the ideal relationship between support staff to scientific researchers in a laboratory is 5 to 1. Thus, if you reduce support staff by 50% you will only be able to conduct half of the research. Many managers and planners in organizations support their actions using ratios, and other quantitative approaches that take for granted that social reality consists of objective and quantifiable factors. People in organizations who operate from this mode often find themselves working side by side with others who utilize the same discovering mode and the same “facts” to create texts that support different desired enactments of reality. The economist, for example, who conducts an analysis of the costs and benefits of a particular regulatory action is often frustrated and perplexed to find that the analysis

Reflexivity 145 is actually being used to terminate the regulatory activity – a reality that a policy-maker wants to construct. To the extent that the analysis reinforces a desired enactment, the analysis becomes text to support the credibility of a given position or desired enactment. To the extent that the analysis refutes the desired enactment, it becomes suppressed information; that is, it is only addressed in the undirected viewing mode; and it is only considered in this mode to assure that potential weaknesses in the planning text may be recognized and eliminated from the final document and from public view. In the case of budget reductions, extensive data may actually be collected, analyzed, and interpreted to show the costs and benefits of reducing various aspects of the target program. However, the cost– benefit analysis is often used in a way that will lead outside observers to share the enactment, or shared meaning that is intended by the authors. For example, planners and managers may wish to demonstrate that a given research facility should remain open rather than be forced to close because of budget cutbacks. “Appropriate” figures can be brought to bear so that the benefit–cost equation and supporting evidence will reinforce the desired enactment. Information collected and analyzed in the discovering mode is laid out in the planning documentation that results from the planning process. There, the benefits and costs of reducing various program activities are compared. The process is made explicit for establishing criteria to rank budget cuts, and then applying those criteria in order to set priorities. Planned budget reductions are systematically “revealed,” as criteria are applied. Both program manager and planner benefit from the demonstration of an analytical process utilized to arrive at reduction priorities, because it shows the purported value-neutrality of their decision-making process. The planning document becomes the text that presents, hopefully, an open-and-shut case for the legitimacy of the program. However, it is the role of the documentation, or text, to show convincingly and rationally the adverse impact of reducing any activity – regardless of its priority. Program managers may sometime take the view that formal planning processes and documentation are essentially mechanistic – almost mindless at times. They may acknowledge that real decisions (those decisions concerning what reality people want to enact and support) get made virtually entirely outside of the formal planning processes and documentation, and yet, program managers do participate in these processes and provide selected information to be included in planning documents. They do this because they recognize that a rational appearing document and process will perhaps help to preserve the enactment that they wish to have widely shared. Some managers and planners carry out their jobs with the full expectation of uncovering objective truth about the subject matter of their

146  Part 3 program – be that health, science, education, defense, or housing. However, their desired enactments, such as the image of a scientific staff conducting state-of-the-art research, drive the discovery mode in certain directions and into certain configurations. In short, it is difficult for any manager or planner to “discover” truth that is different from the truth that one desires to exist. One is constantly making choices about what data to emphasize or include, when to stop gathering data, how to organize the data in the report, and what relations to show among variables in the final planning document. The sum of these choices and the subsequent interpretations and reinterpretations of their meaning becomes a very subjective process that results in multiple enactments. If organizations utilized primarily the discovering mode of enactment, they would be handicapped by viewing the world only in terms of what explicit, rational logic could reveal. Unique and personal experiences of significant others in positions of power exert strong influences on outcomes of such bureaucratic processes as planning and budget formulation. To remain in the discovery mode is to miss the fuller perspective of value judgments which fall outside of the realm of objective, quantifiable data, and instrumental logic. Interaction among Interpretive Modes The material, thus far, described how the four different interpretive modes are used iteratively by an organization in the planning and management arena. In the particular case cited, both program manager and planner are faced with the problem of how to interpret or make sense of budget reductions. Planners and program managers can occupy all four interpretive modes in making sense of the request for a budget reduction. Table 7.6 summarizes the various interpretive positions that can be taken by planners and managers – all on the same issue. As Figure 7.1 illustrates, the proposed enactment model addresses the dynamic interaction of these four interpretive modes. The desired enactment of reality drives the other three modes of interpretation. A desire to create particular shared meanings is already present in both program manager and planner. In order to enact their realities it is necessary to create a text of believability that, when interpreted by others, will influence them to buy into the enactments of both planner and program manager. In the above model, the discovery mode of interpretation helps to build a logical, analytical-appearing text in support of whatever enactment is desired. Undirected viewing detects – through informal information sources – any particular threats or opportunities that might hinder or facilitate the enactment process. Finding out, for example, through undirected viewing, who are one’s allies and enemies on a particular issue, is

Reflexivity 147 Table 7.6  How different interpretive modes vary by role Interpretations of the question: “If you were faced with a 10% budget reduction which activities would you target?” Interpretive Modes

Planner

Program Manager

Undirected viewing

How can I find out where the program’s real weak spots are? What are the “hidden agendas?” Who has the inside information and how can I get to the? How are program resources actually being used? Where are the “Washington Monuments” likely to be? I can begin my analysis of possible reduction impacts by looking at data from the Agency’s budget execution database. This will not reveal anything startling – only that the program in question is generally stable. When I am through with this analysis, management will recognize the competence of the planning staff, which will lead to increased reliability on our work, and possibly increased funding for the staff. We need to gather data to make as rational a case as possible to support any conceivable budget reduction decisions. A thoughtful process has been implemented in which criteria were established and then used to define priorities for budget reduction.

How serious is this budget exercise? Will someone follow up? Who influences decisions in the budgetcutting arena? Who must I route my justifications to? Who are my allies and enemies? Who knows the “ins and outs” of my program? Data to support planning text can be extracted from my existing database. This will show that program activities are stable and improving in efficiency and effectiveness.

Conditioned viewing

Enactment

Discovering

My program performs an indispensable function for society, and my entire program should be permitted to stay intact.

We need to gather data ad furnish it to planners in a form that will show we have undergone a thorough benefit–cost analysis to identify the impact of budget reductions.

useful in determining just what should go into the development of the planning text. Conditioned viewing provides the enactors with an institutionalized source of information which may enhance (at little cost) the text that is being prepared to support the enactment. The text results from a combination of inputs from all four interpretive modes. The text, itself, encompasses the formal, presented planning documents as well as

148  Part 3

Figure 7.1  Relationship among interpretive modes

the audit trail of information and processes which can be reproduced upon request by both planner and program manager. Reinterpretation of text makes the enactments, or social constructions, continuously subject to change. These reinterpretations lead to new enactments for which planners and program managers seek shared meaning and support from those people they consider as being relevant in their setting. Thus, most desired enactments are not permanent. However, the overriding enactments that do not change are those that both planner and program manager want outsiders who are in positions of influence to have sufficient faith in the credibility of their efforts to allow them to continue their respective activities, unless of course one wants to sabotage the process. The planner specifically wants to be perceived as a competent planner from a professional point of view – e.g., he wants to demonstrate a facility with state-of-the-art planning techniques, and be able to show skill in using planning language. Recommendations When viewing the process through the enactment model, one’s awareness concerning the different modes of interpreting a given social situation becomes more attuned to the subjective realities, meanings, and interpretations of the parties involved. Individuals adopt multiple perspectives in interpreting what occurs around them. Planners and program managers strive for different types and levels of enactment that often result in stand-offs and conflicts in the budget reduction and planning

Reflexivity 149 efforts. Some specific suggestions are provided to both practitioners and theoreticians. •

Advice to practitioners – Recognize that your work requires employing multiple perspectives It is expected that practitioners of public administration are quite aware that they are in the sense-making business. Many may even be sympathetic, at times, to the idea that they enact, or create, the organization and environment that they live in. However, they may be less aware of the several differing orientations taken by participants in the planning process, and just how these differences can have a profound impact on what takes place during planning, and what is created as a result of planning efforts. Three observations are offered below for the benefit of practitioners; each refers to the multiple perspectives involved in planning, and points out the importance of participants being aware of these multiplicities. •

Multiple enactments Planners and program managers may often find themselves in the curious predicament that they know what the next instrumental steps in the planning process are, but are not necessarily in agreement as to the kind of “realities” they would like to enact. Are they, for example, protecting a research laboratory from budget cuts, because they feel that research is a sacred national resource that will advance the world’s knowledge base on a particular subject? Or is the research laboratory critical because of scientists’ inability to mount quick and responsive initiatives against health crises? Regardless of the language utilized in planning documents, it is necessary for participants to understand what meanings are important to them, and which ones they would like significant others to remember and share. Practitioners may want to consider that many enactments can and do coexist when a planning text is published. This coexistence of planner and program manager enactments opens up a new panoramic view of the planning process. The process may be viewed as a matrix of meanings and shared understandings much like a quilted pattern, with parties agreeing where meanings intersect and reinforce each other. The integrity of that quilt depends upon the strength of the common understandings and shared meanings, and the ability of the matrix to be used as a prediction of ongoing reality. Practitioners should be sensitive to the fact that the integrity and utility of a text created as a by-product of competing attempts at enacting meaning is at best only one facet of what is actually occurring in the planning process. The kernel of

150  Part 3 reality – the competing enactments – seldom appears in the final text. •

Multiple modes of interpreting Planners and program managers often become enveloped by one particular mode of interpretation when attempting to make sense of their situations. For example, when they are in the “discovering” mode, they are interested in ordering the “facts” about several candidates for a budget reduction and establishing a “logical set of priorities” for reduction. On the other hand, when planners and program managers are in an “undirected viewing mode,” their time is totally consumed with finding out how serious, say, a new OMB budget examiner is about the idea of deregulation and whether his hostility toward a particular program comes from a previous bad experience with the agency, or is simply a characteristic of the person’s personality. If two participants are engaged in the same task, but are utilizing different modes to interpret what is going on, the process does not run smoothly; it may be the main reason why planners and program managers often do not see eye-to-eye on a specific budget cut. The realization that one may use different interpretive modes should serve to reduce frustration. Also, in determining what mode the other is operating from, one can be more understanding and capable of seeing the budget cuts from the others perspective. This will reduce conflict, emotions, etc. and enable the participants to engage in more constructive planning.

•

Multiple aspects of planning The dynamics of planning involves several processes occurring simultaneously: (1) the enactment that planners and program managers strive to create and gain support for; (2) the text development process – i.e., the planning documents and documentation; and (3) the problems or opportunities that are perceived to exist, external to the program, and what happens to them. To appreciate the full dynamic of planning, practitioners should be attuned to at least these three levels – not just one. It is crucial to be cognizant of the possibility that planner and program manager enactments are being realized simultaneously, and a planning text is being developed and sold as a coherent document of shared meanings. Just the same, the planner and program manager would be well-advised to ensure that perceived problems in health, defense, the economy, etc. are also being addressed. In the fanfare of achieving their own enactments, the real organizational or public problems may go unaddressed or addressed by ineffective programs. The integrity of a shared system of meaning, i.e., a planning document or a budget reduction, becomes doubted when

Reflexivity 151 unpredicted events result in real costs or catastrophes to the planning participants and their constituencies. An example of a breakdown in a shared system of meaning in the Challenger Rocket accident, which occurred in January 1986. In this case, the shared meanings constituted a credible view of reality. Most of the engineers, planners, and managers predicted a successful launch and reentry. Reality as it unfolded, however, did not correspond to the reality constructed by members of the space mission. When practitioners become more aware of the distinctly different interpretive modes that planners and program managers are using, more care can be devoted to assuring that there is a strong connection between enactments, text building, and attention to perceived problems. •

Advice to theoreticians – Public administrators are not as committed to given epistemologies as you may be Many practitioners undergo an initial paradigm shift on being socialized in the everyday work world – from viewing social reality as hard and objective to viewing social reality as being subjectively constructed and continually created through a process of enactment. Further, after the initial paradigmatic shift, they make the transition quite regularly, without excessive difficulty. For theorists with an interpretive slant, enactment may be seen as the driving force in the construction of social reality. Other theorists with an objective orientation see social structure and the relations between people, and structure as the main organizing and driving force in the process of maintaining a sense of social reality. Public administrators do not feel compelled to take either stand. They are still comfortable with the prospect of using Newtonian tools in an Einsteinian universe and vice versa. If the tool works then use it, they say. Administrators are doers – interested in getting the job done, and in most cases they are interested in getting it done their way.

George Soros’ Theory of Reflexivity George Soros, the famous hedge fund manager, developed a framework underpinning his perspective on reflexivity. The essence of his framework was the relationship between thinking and reality. Although Soros became a rich man through his hedge fund activities, his passion was philosophy. His early mentor was the Viennese philosopher Karl Popper, whom he studied under at the London School of Economics. Popper speculated that the biggest mistake made by social scientists was the attempt to apply the scientific method drawn from the natural sciences to solve social science problems.27 The natural sciences can be pursued without having to consider the impact of conscious, thinking individuals

152  Part 3 on inanimate objects. Popper argued that the empirical truth cannot be known with absolute certainty. Even scientific laws cannot be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt: they can only be falsified by testing. He believed that ideologies claiming to espouse the ultimate truth were operating under a false premise. Their version of the truth could only be propagated through force or powerful persuasion. His theories are in line with Berger and Luckmann’s concept of the “social construction of reality”28 and with Thomas Kuhn’s description of how scientific paradigms grow in stature, only to be replaced by succeeding paradigms.29 Popper’s views influenced Soros to adopt a more skeptical view of classical economics. The notions of “perfect competition” and “rational man” did not stand up to scrutiny because both concepts assumed (1) the availability of perfect knowledge and (2) that the observer could be separated from the observed in order to access this knowledge. This violated both Popper and Soros’ view that there was a tight connection between thinking and reality. Soros’ belief in the relationship between thinking and reality evolved into two principles: 1 The principle of fallibility – in situations that have thinking participants, the participants’ view of the world is always partial and distorted. 2 The principle of reflexivity – these distorted views can influence the situation to which they relate because false views lead to inappropriate actions. All of us, including those who are in positions of responsible governance, are faced by a reality of extreme complexity. In order to make sense of this complexity, we resort to various methods of simplification – generalizations, dichotomies, metaphors, decision-rules, moral precepts, to mention just a few. These narratives take on an existence of their own and serve as a guide to further action. Soros’ concept of reflexivity comprises two functions that explain the dynamic between the thinking individual and the world that he/she interacts with: (1) the cognitive function and (2) the participating or manipulative function. The cognitive function enables an understanding of the world in which we live. The participating or manipulative function serves to change the world to the advantage of the individual. When the two functions operate simultaneously a feedback loop occurs. The notion of independent and dependent variables – necessary for precision and predictability in both natural and social sciences – becomes subservient to the circular feedback that occurs between cognition, action, and outcomes. In Soros’ words: The two functions connect thinking and reality in opposite directions. In the cognitive function, reality is supposed to determine the

Reflexivity 153 participants’ views; the direction of causation is from the world to the mind. By contrast, in the manipulative function, the direction of causation is from the mind to the world, that is to say, the intentions of the participants have an effect on the world. When both functions operate at the same time they can interfere with each other. How? By depriving each function of the independent variable that would be needed to determine the value of the dependent variable. Because, when the independent variable of one function is the dependent variable of the other, neither function has a genuinely independent variable. This means that the cognitive function can’t produce enough knowledge to serve as the basis of the participants’ decisions. Similarly, the manipulative function can have an effect on the outcome, but can’t determine it. In other words, the outcome is liable to diverge from the participants’ intentions. There is bound to be some slippage between intentions and actions and further slippage between actions and outcomes. As a result, there is an element of uncertainty both in our understanding of reality and in the actual course of events.30 This dynamic is illustrated in Figure 7.2. This figure illustrates the relevance of Soros’ reflexivity model in situations that involve policy decisions that can have significant impacts on societal outcomes. This specific illustration focuses on the issue of climate change and policy-makers’ attempts to address the issue of global warming. The sequence begins at the bottom of the loop with policymakers’ awareness of factors and facts that are indicative of global warming. Further, the received evidence which indicates that the global warming pattern is attributable to human activity. Based on Soros’ theory, policy-makers use various types of mental constructs that attempt to simplify a world that is too complex to ingest in its entirety. These

Figure 7.2  The feedback loop connecting cognition, action, and outcome

154  Part 3 constructs often take the form of narratives that are internally coherent and are intended to be a representative, although simplified model of that portion of the real world that is being examined. The narrative is a “sense-making” device. Without such a narrative it would be impossible to navigate the dense complexity of reality. However, as Alfred Korzybski expressed, “the map is not the territory.”31 By definition, despite policy-makers’ best attempts at constructing reasonable narratives, they are operating with partial information. The choices of what to include in or exclude from the narrative are judgments rather than objective facts. A prime example in the climate change arena is the decision on where to draw the boundary between man-made and natural cyclical occurrence of global warming. Policy decisions are based on the narratives that have been constructed. Policy decisions that are implemented will have some level of impact on global warming, but the impact is difficult to predict for two reasons: (1) The decisions are based on partial information because the narrative by definition is a simplification of real world complexity and (2) The rate of global warming may be impacted by factors that are beyond the control of policy decisions. The resulting change in global warming, due to multiple causes including policy decisions and other factors, will present the next iteration of complexity that policymakers will be cognizant of, and which may either reinforce the existing narrative or cause changes in the narrative based on new information. The feedback loop in the above figure can be characterized as negative or positive. A negative feedback loop is one in which the cognitive function creates a narrative that is a continuously closer match to reality, and the subsequent policies would tend to have the desired impact. As a result, the gaps between cognition, action, and outcome would become increasingly narrow – creating stability or a state of equilibrium. In the case of climate change, an accurate reading of the status of global warming and its potential impact would lead to informed policies that would reduce the rate of global warming and the reduced rate would result, perhaps in less stringent global warming policies. A positive feedback loop would occur when the cognitive function creates a narrative that is successively further removed from the reality of global warming, and the policies formulated based on an increasingly fallacious narrative would have minimal impact on global warming or perhaps exacerbate the situation. As the gaps between cognition, action, and reality widen, the system is driven further from equilibrium, and eventually will result in a major shock that drives the system into a new state. The current global discussion on which policies are most appropriate to contain global warming can be characterized as a struggle to determine which narratives and subsequent policy decisions are most likely to maintain this planet in a state of equilibrium. Soros’ larger point is that because of the phenomenon of fallibility (partial information) and reflexivity (actions based on partial information

Reflexivity 155 that lead to unintended consequences), all individuals should become more self-aware of their own mental constructs. This self-awareness opens the possibility of seeing new and perhaps more promising approaches to problem-solving. Referring back to the climate change issue there is a continuing global movement toward achieving a temperature rise of no greater than 1.5 degrees centigrade by the end of the 21st century. The rate of progress toward this goal will depend upon the degree to which the climate change narratives constructed by different decision-makers at local, regional, national, and global levels will converge so that the portfolio of policy decisions are somewhat in synch.

Notes 1 Husserl, Ideen au einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie (1913), translated as Ideas. General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. New York: Macmillan, 1931. 2 Excerpt from FDA’s FY 84 Master Planning Calendar. 3 Burrell, Gibson and Gareth Morgan (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann. 4 Geertz, Clifford (1979). “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.” In Paul Rabinow and William Sullivan (eds.), Interpretive Social Science. Berkeley: University of California Press. 5 Ricoeur, Paul (1981). Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6 Weick, Karl E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Co. 7 Morgan, Gareth (1983). “More on Metaphors: Why We Cannot Control Tropes in Administrative Science.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (4): 601–607. 8 Meyer, Alan (1984). “Mingling Decision Making Metaphors.” Academy of Management Review 9 (1). DOI: 10.5465/amr.1984.4277746. 9 Goffman, Erving (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City: Doubleday. 10 The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PPB System. A Compendium of Papers Submitted to the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States. 3 vols. United States Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Economy in Government. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 11 Behn, Robert (1988). “Management by Groping Along.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 7 (4): 643–663. 12 Friedman, John and Barclay Houston (1974). “Knowledge and Action: A Guide to Planning Theory.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 40: 9–16. 13 Krieger, Martin H. (1974). “Some New Directions for Planning Theories.” Journal of the American Institute for Planning 40: 157–163. 14 Argyris, C. and D. Schon (1974). Theory in Practice; Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 15 Schon, Donald A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

156  Part 3 16 Daft, Richard L. and Karl E. Weick (1984). “Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems.” Academy of Management Review 9 (2): 284–295. 17 Weick, Karl E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading: Addison Wesley Publishing Co. 18 Smircich, Linda (1983). “Organizations as Shared Meanings.” In Louis R. Pondy, Peter J. Frost, Gareth Morgan and Thomas C. Dandridge (eds.), Organizational Symbolism. Greenwich: JAI Press (pp. 55–65). 19 Smircich, Linda and Charles Stubbart (1985). “Strategic Management in an Enacted World.” Academy of Management Review 10 (4): 724–736. 20 United Nations Climate Compact, October 31–November 12, 2021. https:// www.un.org/en/climatechange/cop26 21 Ricoeur, Paul (1981). Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 22 “The Build Back Better Act’s Investments in the IRS Will Substantially Reduce the Tax Gap,” November 17, 2021. https://www.americanprogress. org /article/the-build-back-better-acts-investments-in-the-irs-willsubstantially-reduce-the-tax-gap/ 23 Greenfield, Nathan M. (June 12, 2021). “Why Are States Lining Up to Ban Critical Race Theory?” University World News. Archived from the original on June 13, 2021. Retrieved June 14, 2021. 24 In planning and budgeting circles, “Washington Monument” is a term used to describe those program activities that a program manager says she is willing to sacrifice in response to a request for a resource reduction, but by selecting an aspect of the program that is perceived as being of great importance to the public, the program manager is hoping that others external to the program will agree that it would be too great of an adverse impact to cut the program at all. Or, if higher levels in the executive branch are willing to go for the cut, then external, often provincial constituencies will bring pressure to bear on the federal bureaucracy to protect the activity because of vested interests. 25 Mehan, Hugh and Houston Wood (1975). The Reality of Ethnomethodology. New York: John Wiley and Sons (pp. 192–204). 26 Heidegger, Martin (1962). Being and Time. New York: Harper and Row. 27 Bartley, William W. (1964). “Rationality versus the Theory of Rationality.” In Mario Bunge (ed.), The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Section IX. 28 Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City: Doubleday. 29 Kuhn, Thomas (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 30 Soros, George. Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve. John Wiley and Sons, August 1995. 31 Source: Paper presented by Alfred Korzybski at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in New Orleans, Louisiana on December 28, 1931.

8

The Integrated Governance Concept

In this text I have integrated several of the above frameworks into three overarching perspectives: managerial, learning, and self-reflection. Each of these broad perspectives incorporates three features that form the constituent parts of the perspectives: (1) the degree of control or predictive capacity, (2) the epistemological stance used to legitimize knowledge, and (3) the cognitive lens through which governance issues are viewed. Figure 2.1 illustrates the three constituent components and optional approaches contained in each component. Figure 2.2 illustrates how approaches within each constituent component combine to form the three overarching perspectives. The challenge is to integrate these key cybernetic concepts into a synoptic approach for enhancing governance. I am referring to governance as any system designed to achieve societal goals – as opposed to solely formal governmental agencies. The concepts of requisite variety, complex adaptive systems, and reflexivity can be incorporated into an enhanced approach to governance that will address complex social issues more effectively than traditional government-based attempts to deal with these issues. The overarching governance challenge is the ability to successfully address complex societal issues in order to achieve agreed-upon goals, which leads to favorable outcomes. The establishment of requisite variety, the existence of complex adaptive systems, and the ability to engage in reflexive thinking – represent strategies designed to come to grips with complex situations in order to achieve favorable outcomes. Establishing requisite variety is the attempt to present a simplified model that is representative of the complex environment, but highlights the most significant elements of that environment that require attention. Complex adaptive systems expand the cognitive capacity to govern outward by utilizing the resources of many agents in order to match a complex environment with appropriately complex responses through the process of self-organization. Reflexivity expands the cognitive capacity to govern inward in order to deconstruct deep-seated narratives so that new possibilities of DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-11

158  Part 3 viewing the situation emerge. Taken together, these three aspects of governance employ three different focal points in order to gain a more comprehensive perspective in addressing tough issues. •

• •

Organizational focus: The establishment of requisite variety is a governance function that is associated with a regulator, usually housed within an organization; thus the focus is at an organizational level. Network (outward) focus: In complex adaptive systems the focus of governance is distributed throughout a network of agents who interact continuously in order to generate an emergent solution. Narrative (inward) focus: In considering a reflexive stance the focus of governance is embedded within the prevailing mental constructs of decision-makers. Preexisting narratives or scripts that shape one’s understanding of the world around them are the lenses through which those responsible for governance decisions view issues.

Case studies will be used to determine if and how each aspect of this enhanced governance approach is being embraced by agencies that I have worked with as an employee or as a consultant. The establishment of requisite variety generally mirrors the basic function of governance Table 8.1  Type 1 and Type 2 errors in applying the governance components Governance Aspect Type 1 Error

Type 2 Error

Requisite variety

Too much variety in governance mechanism; becomes difficult to manage the mechanism Increased density and frequency of communication among system agents locks in default system responses; innovation and flexible response to unanticipated change is reduced

Insufficient variety in governance mechanism to address variety/complexity of the issue being addressed Complex adaptive Overreliance on centralized system governance approach; limited awareness of the dimensions or parameters of the CAS, or how power and influence is distributed throughout the system; unfamiliarity or resistance to the facilitative role of leadership in a CAS; inadequate understanding of agent mindsets within the system; and trends emerging in the operating environment Reflexivity Unaware of the lenses through which one views and makes sense of the world.

Overreliance on subjectivity in framing problems and solutions limits ability to agree on necessary moves.

Table 8.2  Application of enhanced governance components at the FDA and Bureau of Indian Education Case Study Requisite Variety

Complexity

Reflexivity

FDA

The Integrated Governance Concept 159

FDA drug reviewers establish categories for FDA drug reviewers represent one FDA drug reviewers and drug inspectors new drugs based on the degree of risk and of several agents that comprise a have established stable protocols for potential for positive outcomes. Each complex adaptive system. Agents reviewing new drug applications, and for category of drugs is subject to a different include government regulators, inspecting drug manufacturers. The review process that is tailored to the degree Congressional representatives, regulators “learn” the appropriate of risk or promise presented by the new drug. pharmaceutical firms, academic protocols, which become stable This is the Agency’s attempt to establish researchers, consumers, etc. The components of their job. A number of requisite variety in the drug review process to drugs that eventually make it to developments such as new technologies match the variety of new drugs submitted for market are the result of dense may make existing protocols obsolete. agency review. If the agency attempts to and frequent communications This leaves regulators in a position of establish different review protocols to match among all agents. Through “trained incompetence.” Some level of any difference in new drug risk, the regulatory self-organization, the successful self-reflection is necessary to break mechanism would collapse because it would drugs emerge. context in order to be open to new be impossible to manage. If the agency approaches that may be more establishes too few drug categories, they appropriate for reviewing new drugs and would miss addressing important differences inspecting drug manufacturers. in risks among various drugs. Bureau of Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), Many stakeholders are involved in Barriers to constructive dialogue between Indian implemented under the George W. Bush the determination of educational tribal and nontribal stakeholders Education administration, all schools, including Indian curricula and standards for – particularly those in Washington DC schools under the oversight of the Bureau children enrolled in both BIA and – exist in the form of narratives that are of Indian Affairs (BIA), were classified as Tribal schools. Power and used to stereotype tribal and nontribal having made adequate yearly progress or not. influence is widely distributed stakeholders. Tribal leaders tend to view The evaluation was based on the percentage among Federal, state, and local administrators in Washington as of students who scored proficient or higher officials, and throughout the tribal bureaucrats who are out of touch with in English and math tests. A case can be community. Education solutions realities in Indian country. made that the NCLB initiative did not generally emerge through Administrators in Washington often establish sufficient variety to accommodate self-organization throughout the operate from a narrative that differences in learning environments, network. Outcomes are generally characterizes tribal leaders as recalcitrant particularly in Indian schools. not predictable. negotiators who are resistant to change.

160  Part 3 as seen from the perspective of an organizational leader. It is basically the process of designing solutions to problems that have sufficient variety to match the inherent variety in the problem. Insufficient variety will not adequately address key aspects of the problem. Too much variety will strain the organization’s ability to manage the solution. Viewing complex adaptive systems and reflexive stances as additional governance strategies may be seen as challenges to traditional governance approaches. Table 8.1 identifies shortcomings associated with how each aspect of governance is implemented. Table 8.2 provides very brief synopses of how each aspect of enhanced governance can be applied in two such agencies: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the Department of Health and Human Services and the Bureau of Indian Education within the Department of the Interior. The examples do not yet include steps that these agencies have taken or might take to improve each aspect of the governance system. Such improvements are an ongoing part of each agency’s leadership agenda. These cases will be examined in detail in Chapters 9 and 10.

Part 4

9

U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Drug Review Program

To illustrate how requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity concepts are applied in the Federal environment, the FDA’s New Drug Review Program and the Generic Drug Review Program have been selected. The Office of New Drugs (OND) is responsible for providing regulatory oversight for investigational studies during drug development and making decisions regarding marketing approval for new (innovator or nongeneric) drugs, including decisions related to changes to already marketed products. The Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) reviews generic drug applications (known as abbreviated new drug applications or ANDAs) to ensure patients receive safe, effective, and high-quality generic drugs. Together, these offices receive around 100 to 200 new drug applications, of which 20 to 25 comprise new molecular entities, and 40 to 50 generic drug applications annually.1 Although safety and efficacy is FDA’s mandate, the Agency is surrounded by stakeholders with varied goals and interests.

FDA’s Application of Requisite Variety – Scoping, Modeling, and Strategizing The scope of FDA’s new drug environment has been defined in various legislative mandates, beginning with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.2 As public and political sensitivities to drug issues increased, the scope of FDA’s responsibilities in overseeing drug safety and efficacy has also expanded through a series of legislative amendments to the original Act. Today, FDA has modeled this increasingly complex drug environment by major kinds of drug challenges they must regulate. Separate offices have been established to address each key drug challenge. These include investigational new drugs, new molecular entities, generic drugs, and nonprescription drugs. FDA has tailored strategies to address each unique drug challenge. For investigational new drugs their strategic approach is to require that drug manufacturers submit an investigational application based on animal research to ensure safety prior to clinical testing on human subjects. For new molecular entities the DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-13

164  Part 4 Agency requires an exhaustive new drug application process based on clinical trials with human subjects, to ensure efficacy and a fast track for breakthroughs. For generic drugs the approach is a paper review process once patents have expired. And for nonprescription drugs FDA ensures that drug monographs exist to explain over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. The essence of requisite variety is embodied in the process of categorizing drug challenges based on major perceived differences in the nature of the challenge, and the subsequent design of tailored strategies to address each different challenge. If FDA attempts to adopt different regulatory approaches to match each new technology breakthrough in the drug industry, it will overwhelm the Agency’s ability to manage its own regulatory programs. One result may be slower drug review times and a backlog of drug applications, thereby preventing life-enhancing or life-saving drugs from reaching the market. Oversimplifying the drug regulatory model can also present threats to the health and safety of U.S. citizens. If the Agency is not sufficiently agile in adapting the regulatory model to address emerging diseases requiring attention, they will be unresponsive to critical needs. This was illustrated during the 1980s when the AIDS epidemic was reaching its peak. At that time, FDA did not have a “fast track” to accelerate drug review and approval for critically needed products. Activists protesting the absence of a fast track approval process, surrounded and temporarily closed the FDA building that housed the Office of New Drug Review. These protests, in part, influenced the establishment of an accelerated review process for AIDS drugs.3 FDA’s Offices of New Drug Review and Generic Drug Review are in a continuous mode of achieving a delicate balance between simplistic and overly complicated drug review strategies. This is the heart of the requisite variety challenge. Designing programs to achieve this balance is a dynamic process, and one that is subject to ongoing scrutiny by consumers, industry, Congress, and the scientific community.

Integrating Requisite Variety, Complexity, and Reflexivity – The Drug Review Example FDA’s new drug review process provides a clear example of how the establishment of requisite variety, as outlined above, is enriched by considering both the complexity and reflexivity perspectives. The complexity perspective is characterized by (1) the distributed nature of decisionmaking and goal divergence, (2) multilevel perspectives required to design effective drug review strategies, and (3) the high-velocity nature of the drug review operating environment. The reflexivity perspective is illustrated by the different narratives used by participants in the drug review process that frame their interpretation of reality, and which must be resolved in order to arrive at drug review decisions. In the sections below I provide examples of the specific challenges associated with each

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 165 perspective and offer some plausible solutions – many of which have been adopted by FDA. 1 Distributed nature of decision-making and goal divergence The challenge: FDA’s drug review programs are surrounded by 360 degrees of stakeholders. Although all stakeholders have the same general aims in mind – availability of safe and effective drugs – there are sharp differences in how the Agency role is viewed, the legitimacy of scientific conclusions that underpin drug review decisions, and in the pace at which drug review should occur. Unlike a company CEO, there is a de facto distribution of power and influence, although putatively FDA makes the final decisions on whether or not to approve a drug for marketing. Differences in opinions and associated political influence concerning such drugs as the “morning after” pill have delayed decisions for years and even decades. One might make the case that the “de facto” approach to making drug decisions is gravitating toward the “self-organizing” emergent model. The advent of medical information websites (WebMD to name a predominant one) and online social networking are two drivers that are accelerating the distribution of information about drugs, their benefits, and side effects. A consumer is the ultimate “decider” in whether or not to resort to a cholesterol reducing drug. FDA made the decision on approving five different statins that are safe and effective, but the self-organizing online social networks and medical information websites may have a stronger influence on the emergence of a “statin solution” for consumer X. Plausible solutions: Collaboration among stakeholders in arriving at solutions is essential. FDA drug reviewers must serve as “coaches” as well as “referees” in reviewing industry drug applications. Prior to submission of investigational or new drug applications, FDA officials consult with the industry early in the drug development process to recommend research protocols that are acceptable to the Agency. In other cases, the Agency partners with industry to solve immediate crises that cannot be addressed by either party alone. In 1982, several deaths occurred in Chicago as a result of cyanide being injected into Tylenol capsules. Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturer of Tylenol, worked with FDA officials to introduce a new tamper-proof package, which included features that signaled to a consumer if tampering was evident. These packaging protections soon became the industry standard for all OTC medications.4 2 Multilevel perspectives required to design effective drug review strategies The challenge: Drug approval decisions are a composite of multilevel perspectives. An effective decision must be considered from technical/scientific, medical, legal, managerial, political, and cultural standpoints. At the technical/scientific level, risk assessment

166  Part 4 is necessary to determine the nature, incidence, and distribution of risk. Decisions on acceptable levels of risks associated with new drugs must also be considered within the existing regulatory framework. Management must determine the risk–benefit trade-off, and allocate resources appropriately to address the highest priority risks. At the political level, views on the role of FDA vary, dependent upon the Administration in power. Cultural factors at both the agency and societal level must also be considered in making final drug review decisions. To illustrate at the organizational level, FDA lawyers and scientists operate from within different paradigms. Essentially, scientific conclusions are probabilistic in nature. In contrast, legal decisions are binary – the agency approves or disapproves of a drug being marketed commercially. At the societal level, drug approval decisions may be strongly influenced by the prevailing – e.g., views on birth control. Plausible solutions: Several mechanisms have been established to facilitate drug review decisions by mediating among these different perspectives. Although FDA has maintained a stance of political neutrality in light of competing interests, the following mechanisms institutionalize a balanced approach: •

•

•

•

FDA advisory committees have been established to provide a neutral perspective in drug review decisions. In general, each committee includes a chairperson, a consumer representative, an industry representative, and often a patient representative. Additional experts may be added for specific meetings, as needed. Committee membership typically includes ethnic, gender, and geographic diversity. Members have recognized expertise and judgment in a specific field.5 User fees paid by the regulated industry for drug reviews drive accountability by establishing performance metrics that monitor the timeliness of drug review decisions. Such accountability necessitates the galvanizing of different perspectives in order to meet review commitments. Standard protocols have been established that define specific roles for scientists, managers, and lawyers in the drug review process. Although scientists “weigh in” with risk assessments, their role is proscribed. Managers and lawyers also maintain roles within their own spheres. FDA has established a structured framework for evaluating risks vs. benefits associated with new drugs. The framework operates at the intersection of science, medical, policy, legal, and managerial judgment, and forms the backdrop for drug review decisions. The benefit–cost framework was authorized by The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 167 of July 9, 2012. The Act required FDA to “implement a structured risk-benefit assessment framework in the new drug approval process to facilitate the balanced consideration of benefits and risks, a consistent and systematic approach to the discussion and regulatory decision-making, and the communication of the benefits and risks of new drugs.6” 3 High-velocity operating environment The challenge: FDA operates in an environment characterized by continuous science and technology advances. The emerging world of new drug development bears little resemblance to the drug development world of even 20 years ago. Innovative breakthroughs include the use of precision medicines to tailor drug treatments to a patient’s genetic makeup; health sensors that can monitor key indicators via devices such as smart phones; 3D printing of drugs that can more accurately construct appropriate dosages; nanotechnology that enables microscopic particles to be introduced into the human body for both diagnosis and treatment; and computers with learning capabilities such as IBM’s Watson, which can assimilate and understand millions of pages of scientific research in order to accelerate and focus new drug developments.7 These new developments pose a regulatory challenge for both FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. From both a resource and talent perspective it is increasingly difficult for Agency drug reviewers to keep pace with continuous changes in the technologies driving new development. When new drugs arrive at FDA’s doorstep, the reviewers must be in a position to make approval decisions based on an understanding of the emerging technologies that is sufficient to guide research protocols and review criteria. In the absence of sufficient understanding, the reviewer’s only realistic alternative is to defer decisions until the appropriate review protocols can be established. For example, evaluative tools to test the chemical, physiological, and medical integrity of the new drug may not yet be in place. This delays the entry of needed medicines into the marketplace. The drug industry is also handicapped because new drugs will not be allowed on the market until a regulatory framework and appropriate evaluation tools are in place. This also becomes an investment challenge for the industry, the regulatory uncertainty surrounding the new technologies provides little guidance to the drug firm on where to focus research efforts. Plausible solutions: Steps can be taken that would enable FDA’s Drug Review Program to keep pace with new innovations in the industry. The Agency could invest resources in forecasting emerging trends in new drug developments well before they arrive in the form of a drug application awaiting review. A concerted forecasting effort can provide FDA with signals about the technical, economic, and societal feasibility of

168  Part 4 these new developments, and a prediction about when they will emerge. Advanced notice of the more realistic likely developments will enable the Agency to be better positioned to make drug review decisions. This will be possible by (1) focusing recruitment and training of chemists, physicians, and pharmacologists on the more promising trends in new drug development and (2) developing the testing protocols that are necessary to evaluate products that emerge from the new technologies. Other strategies to keep pace include consultation with and guidance to drug manufacturers early in the drug R&D process to ensure quality applications, online reviews of drug applications to accelerate drug review process, and computer simulations to test impact of new molecular entities on the human body, which reduces the need for time consuming tests using animals. 4 Reflexivity The challenge: If you ask any professional working at FDA about the fundamental mission of the Agency, all will agree that it is to ensure the safety and efficacy of the Nation’s foods, drugs, biologicals, and medical devices. This is not just a slogan to them. They “live” the mission on a day-in and day-out basis. FDA subcultures, however, tend to have different worldviews when it comes to approaches for how to accomplish the mission. Two of the primary subcultures are the Agency’s scientists and its lawyers. Scientists tend to view all health and safety risks as probabilistic in nature. Every drug, for example, is not entirely risk-free. There are always side effects – which is the reason for the labels that accompany the sales of these products. Scientists virtually never see hazards in black and white, 100% or 0% terms. This is because science results are not completely predictive. Lawyers, on the other hand, must establish regulations that clearly establish “yes” or “no” constraints. You are either in compliance with regulations or you are not. Clearly, scientists and lawyers must work together to arrive at safety and efficacy decisions that will protect the U.S. citizen, but the challenge is in finding common ground between two different world views. Plausible solutions: The establishment of multidisciplinary advisory groups within the Agency and advisory committees external to the Agency both serve as forums that, at least in theory, enable the two subcultures to view safety and efficacy challenges from each other’s perspective. Based on such exchanges, compromises in decisions concerning drug safety and efficacy are arrived at.

Remedies to Enhance Federal Agencies’ Capacity to Absorb Variety Federal program managers can resort to a range of variety-enhancing strategies that will increase their capacity to address complex public sector issues. Although the illustrations below apply to FDA, they are

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 169 generic in nature and potentially applicable to any Federal program. One caveat is that these strategies should be carefully evaluated and selected to match the specific characteristics of the Program’s operating environment. •

•

•

•

•

Form partnerships with other stakeholders who have a vested interest in the Program’s mission, and whose capabilities complement those inherent in the Federal program. The result can be synergistic and create a “2+2=5” effect. FDA’s collaboration with Johnson & Johnson to develop tamper-proof packaging is an illustration of this synergy. Johnson & Johnson provided the packaging expertise and FDAcontextualized realistic packaging solutions within a realistic regulatory framework. Achieve economies of scale by joining with other stakeholders to maximize utilization of available capacity. FDA has established a Food Emergency Response Laboratory Network (FERN). FERN cooperative agreements target state, local, and tribal laboratories to provide increased sample analyses in the event of food outbreaks or other large-scale food emergency events requiring surge capacity testing of implicated food samples. Such a strategy leverages limited resources and spreads fixed costs while expanding overall capacity to deal with a wide variety of food safety threats.8 Transfer core competencies. This is a strategy for expanding limited available expertise throughout a larger network of multiple stakeholders who have a common vested interest in addressing a public sector challenge. When FDA provides guidance to drug manufacturers early in the drug R&D process to ensure quality applications, they are transferring core competence and, as a result, expanding the capacity of the pharmaceutical industry to provide needed medicines on a timely basis. Prioritize risks. This variety-reducing strategy would seem selfevident. However, institutional resistance, often embedded in statute or cultural precedent, poses formidable obstacles to implementing a risk-based strategy. In FDA, there is a statutory requirement to inspect all drug firms at least once every two years.9 This statue runs counter to a risk-based strategy. It potentially diverts limited resources from focusing on the highest risk firms in favor of inspecting all firms at the required two-year intervals. Capitalize on information technology to enhance variety absorption. Virtually, every Federal program has at least potentially increased its capacity to absorb variety in addressing public sector issues. At FDA the drug review process can potentially be accelerated by allowing drug firms to submit online drug applications. However, having more rapid access to information may also expand a program’s reach rather than its grasp.

170  Part 4 •

Improve process design. Business process reengineering can be a powerful tool in accelerating the throughput of a process such as drug review. The Drug Review Program has designed its review process so that steps, which were once carried out in sequence, can now be performed in parallel operations.

Summary Federal managers instinctively employ the law of requisite variety (LRV) in managing complex public sector problems, although they may not be familiar with the theoretical construct. Nevertheless, they “model,” or build a representation of, their universe of issues in order to simplify a very complex situation. The process of modeling is an exercise in interpreting the most critical differentiators. Even when an Agency’s mission is anchored in statute, interpretation of the law is part of the modeling process. The manager’s challenge achieves a delicate balance between simplistic and overly-complex management approaches. Unlike closed mechanical systems, the LRV approach encounters extenuating circumstances when applied in the dynamic open system environment of a Federal program. Strategies are available to assist in reducing complexity and enabling successful problem management, if not resolution. FDA’s Offices of New Drug Evaluation and Generic Drug Evaluation have done a commendable job of establishing requisite variety in their program design. Because of the open system nature of these programs, the offices are kept in check by their many stakeholders if they err in oversimplifying or overcomplicating the programs.

Notes

1 Source: FDA.gov website. 2 “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).” 3 “FDA. Pressed to Approve More AIDS Drugs.” New York Times, October 11, 1988. 4 “How the Tylenol Murders of 1982 Changed the Way We Consume Medication.” Dr. Howard Markell, PBS News, September 19, 2014. 5 “What is an FDA Advisory Committee?” Source: FDA website – https:// www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/what-fda-advisory-committee 6 Source: US Food and Drug Administration. “Structured Approach to Benefit-Risk Assessment in Drug Regulatory Decision Making.” Prescription Drug User Fee Act Implementation Plan, February 2013. 7 Ying Chen,  J.D. Elenee Argentinis,    Griff Weber. “IBM Watson: How Cognitive Computing Can Be Applied to Big Data Challenges in Life.” National Institutes of Health National Medical Library, April 21, 2016. 8 Source: https://www.fernlab.org/ 9 CPMG Regulation Stipulating Frequency of Drug Manufacturer Inspections. https://www.fda.gov/media/75167/download

10 Indian Affairs – Bureau of Indian Education

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is located within the U.S. Department of the Interior and reports to the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. BIE is responsible for overseeing 366 Indian elementary and secondary schools, consisting of 183 Bureau-funded schools, 53 BIEoperated schools, and 130 tribally controlled schools under BIE contracts or grants. The mission of the BIE is to provide students at BIE-funded schools with a culturally relevant, high-quality education that prepares students with the knowledge, skills, and behaviors needed to flourish in the opportunities of tomorrow, become healthy and successful individuals, and lead their communities and sovereign nations to a thriving future that preserves their unique cultural identities.1 In this chapter, the three components of enhanced governance will be used to evaluate the success of an educational initiative that was launched under the George W. Bush administration, entitled “No Child Left Behind (NCLB).” This was a comprehensive federally-led effort that affected students and teachers in every Indian community. The purpose of NCLB was to close student achievement gaps by providing all children with a fair, equal, and significant opportunities to obtain a high-quality education.2 NCLB was the product of a collaboration between civil rights and business groups, as well as both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill and the Bush administration, which sought to advance American competitiveness and close the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their more advantaged peers. Since 2002, it had an outsized impact on teaching, learning, and school improvement – and become increasingly controversial with educators and the general public. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2001 and was  signed into law  by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002, was the name for the most recent update to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-14

172  Part 4 The NCLB law – which grew out of concern that the American education system was no longer internationally competitive – significantly increased the federal role in holding schools responsible for the academic progress of all students. And it put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance of certain groups of students, such as English-language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peers. States did not have to comply with the new requirements, but if they did not, they risked losing federal Title I money. Under the NCLB law, states had to test students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. And they had to report the results, for both the student population as a whole and for particular “subgroups” of students, including English-learners and students in special education, racial minorities, and children from low-income families. States were required to bring all students to the “proficient level” on state tests by the 2013–14 school year, although each state got to decide, individually, just what “proficiency” should look like, and which tests to use. (In early 2015, the deadline had passed, but no states had gotten all 100% of its students over the proficiency bar.) Under the law, schools are kept on track toward their goals through a mechanism known as “adequate yearly progress” or AYP. If a school misses its state’s annual achievement targets for two years or more, either for all students or for a particular subgroup, it is identified as not “making AYP” and is subject to a cascade of increasingly serious sanctions: • • •

A school that missed AYP two years in a row had to allow students to transfer to a better-performing public school in the same district. If a school missed AYP for three years in a row, it had to offer free tutoring. Schools that continued to miss achievement targets could face state intervention. States could choose to shut these schools down, turn them into charter schools, take them over, or use another significant turnaround strategy.3

The law also required states to ensure their teachers were “highly qualified,” which generally means that they have a bachelor’s degree in the subject they are teaching and state certification. Beginning with the 2002–03 school year, all new teachers hired with federal Title I money had to be highly qualified. By the end of the 2005–06 school year, all school paraprofessionals hired with Title I money must have completed at least two years of college, obtained an associate’s degree or higher, or passed an evaluation to demonstrate knowledge and teaching ability. States are also supposed to ensure that “highly qualified” teachers are evenly distributed among schools with high concentrations of poverty and wealthier schools.

Bureau of Indian Education 173

Indian Country Issues with NCLB4 In 2005 the National Indian Education Association conducted a broad-ranging hearing that was intended to solicit the views of representatives in Indian country regarding the impact of NCLB on Indian education. Although many of the witnesses at the hearing agreed that holding teachers and students accountable for results was a positive feature of NCLB, there were many less favorable views of the legislation’s impact. Among these were the following: • •

• • •

•

•

• • •

There were widely varying perceptions about the purposes of education for Native students and communities. Profound changes were underway in Native education. There was a lack of the “Native voice” in expressing their views on these changes or their intended and unintended impacts of NCLB on Indian country. NCLB needs to accommodate curricula that reflect the social cultural and linguistic heritage of the Native communities. Many areas of the statute do not fit or respond to the unique situations of Native communities and schools, particularly those communities and schools located in rural areas of the country. The focus on testing and accountability combined with insufficient funding has in the opinion of witnesses eliminated the ability of schools to focus on the broader public purposes of education. The focus on testing and little else had resulted in an educational environment that had become increasingly boring and disconnected from student lives and a sense of future connected to being in school. The impact of NCLB has also affected what is known as the liberal arts including such traditional subjects as music, literature, and the arts. The focus on testing and accountability combined with insufficient funding has in the opinion of witnesses eliminated the ability of schools to focus on the broader public purposes education. The effect of NCLB was driving teachers and educators out of the field increasing the teacher turnover rates – which was already a problem in Indian schools – particularly for schools located in remote rural areas. The accountability system is flawed by focusing on year to year school results on standardized tests rather than focusing on individual student’s continuous progress. Indian children are internalizing the (school) system’s failures as their personal failure. The implementation of NCLB did not appear to consider the interconnected nature of Indian education. Many elements are involved, including the public purposes of Native education, the role and value of tribal government and local control of education, and the role

174  Part 4 of parents, community members, and teachers in the education of Native students as well as the impacts upon teachers, students, and standards-based school reform. The paragraphs below describe how the three components of enhanced governance can help to identify a broad range of issues faced by education leaders and students in Indian country, and suggest how this enhanced approach to governance can successfully address the issues.

Requisite Variety Under the No Child Left Behind Act, implemented under the George W. Bush administration, all schools, including Indian schools under the oversight of the Bureau of Indian Education were classified as having made adequate yearly progress or not. The evaluation was based on the percentage of students who scored proficient or higher in English and math tests. A case can be made that the NCLB initiative did not establish sufficient variety to accommodate differences in learning environments, particularly in Indian schools. If the NCLB had gone to the other extreme and tailored educational standards for each individual tribal environment, it would have been virtually impossible to manage the entire effort – at least from a central vantage point. The challenge was choosing the “sweet spot” between one standard fits all and tailored standards for each conceivable tribal educational scenario. Perhaps regional standards would have been an appropriate compromise. An alternative solution would have been to establish two sets of standards – one for BIE-owned and operated schools and another for tribal-owned and operated schools. The NCLB statute was intended to provide a stable and enduring framework to further educational outcomes throughout the nation, but that very framework limits resilience and adaptability within the various educational components – including in Indian country.

Complexity From the complexity perspective the entire Indian education environment is reframed. The focus of governance changes from a centralized-driven approach to a network approach. Key features of a complex adaptive system become the dominant drivers. Educational solutions emerge through self-organization and intense interaction among agents within the system. Many stakeholders are involved in the determination of educational curricula and standards for children enrolled in both BIE and Tribal schools. Power and influence is widely distributed among Federal, state and, local officials, and throughout the tribal community. Outcomes are generally not predictable. As a complex adaptive system the tribal

Bureau of Indian Education 175 educational milieu is evolving to adjust to a continuously changing landscape. This landscape is in constant flux, driven by such developments as remote learning, new data technologies – e.g., artificial intelligence and machine learning, and dealing with new health crises. The surge in methamphetamine and opioid addiction has had a major impact on family life in Indian country. A survey comparing drug use among Native American youth living on or near reservations to a national sample of American youth found that Native American youth reports substantially higher use of alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes, and other illicit drugs.5 More recently, the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic has dealt Indian country a severe blow. Taken together as a complex adaptive system, the Indian education system under the oversight of BIE has taken several adaptive steps, including: • • • •

Developing a plan for both school closures and data-driven reopening plans based on local evidence of the pandemic status Coordinating cross-tribal connectivity and supporting IT infrastructure to enhance remote learning under new social distancing rules Coordinating with the Indian Health Service to provide mental and behavioral health support Implementing strategies to maintain students’ access to their native language emersion opportunities, which have been challenged because COVID 19 has disproportionately affected tribal elders – a fundamental link between tribal tradition and Indian youth.6

In viewing Indian education as a complex adaptive system, it is useful to apply the concept of “nested system.” One may view Indian education as one large complex adaptive system, or as several interacting systems that connect both vertically and horizontally. From the vertical perspective, Indian education can be viewed at the tribal, state, regional, and national level. Solutions to educational challenges can emerge from the tribal levels to higher levels of organization. Solutions can also emerge horizontally through sharing across tribes, states, and Federal agencies – e.g., the Bureau of Indian Education coordinating with the Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) when dealing with student’s mental health issues. By adopting a complex adaptive system perspective, positive Indian education outcomes are enhanced by capitalizing on both vertical and horizontal interactions. In this way, the cognitive capacity to adapt to environmental changes such as pandemics is increased. A significant challenge in adopting a complexity perspective is in reassessing the role of leadership. Leadership styles in traditional organizations begin with the basic assumption that leaders direct strategies from atop hierarchies. The styles may vary from command and control at one end of the spectrum to participative or servant leadership at the other

176  Part 4 end, depending upon local conditions. But the underlying principle is that decisions are made by the leader in charge of the organization. This is an organization-centric view of leadership. The leadership role in a complex adaptive system changes drastically – from “preacher in the pulpit” to “guide on the side.” Leadership responsibilities in a complex adaptive system can be characterized in two ways: (1) the leader as a facilitator of overall CAS effectiveness and (2) the leader as one of several leader/ agents within the system that follows local decision rules in the march toward emergent solutions. In the first instance, the leader can help guide the CAS in four ways: first, by initiating processes that will lead to consensus on CAS goals; second, by establishing minimum “guardrails” or decision rules that keep interactions among agents within certain accepted parameters; third, by designing processes that maximize the opportunity for innovative solutions to emerge; and fourth, being a good reader of trends and changes in trends in the environment, as well as in the mindset of participating agents. The ability to be a good reader positions the leader to leverage both external and internal momentum in order to move the system in desired directions, and to change directions when appropriate. The Indian community of interests has demonstrated some of the key characteristics of a complex adaptive system. This is illustrated by the conduct of numerous listening sessions in which BIE leadership provides the opportunity for diverse voices in Indian country to express their concerns and make recommendations on improving education outcomes for Indian youth. The Bureau of Indian Education is currently in its third year of implementing its Strategic Direction for 2018–23. In each instance the bureau has scheduled public listening sessions to enable all stakeholders an opportunity to provide input to these future directions.7

Reflexivity Barriers to constructive dialogue between tribal and nontribal stakeholders – particularly those in Washington DC – exist in the form of narratives that are used to stereotype tribal and nontribal stakeholders. Tribal leaders tend to view administrators in Washington as bureaucrats who are out of touch with realities in Indian country. Administrators in Washington often operate from a narrative that characterizes tribal leaders as recalcitrant negotiators who are resistant to change. A sample of a few of the dominant narratives that may be in play include the following: • • •

Teachers alone can improve educational outcomes Washington bureaucrats are out of touch with tribal educational needs Tribal leaders want to maintain cultural traditions at the expense of advancing the educational needs of their students.

Bureau of Indian Education 177 To the extent that narratives such as these exist, they should be questioned and deconstructed. The deconstruction of narratives requires extensive self-examination. This process can involve extensive examination of the narrative by the captive of the narrative, by others and/or both. The Tribal listening sessions conducted by BIE have provided a forum for examining these frames of reference. It is important, however, for BIE to engage in authentic listening rather than viewing these sessions as an opportunity for tribal leaders and members to vent.

Notes

1 Source: Bureau of Indian Education mission statement. https://www. bie.edu/ 2 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. The act was passed by Congress with bipartisan support in December 2001 and signed into law by Pres. George W. Bush in January 2002. 3 “Adequate Yearly Progress.” Education Week, September 10, 2004. 4 Recommendations from the National Indian Education Association Report on No Child Left Behind in Indian Country – 2005. https://narf. org/nill/resources/education/reports/29.23.NIEANCLBreport_final2.pdf 5 “Higher Rate of Substance Use Among Native American Youth on Reservations.” NIH, National Institute of Drug Abuse, May 31, 2018. Press release. 6 Testimony of Tony L. Dearman, Director. Bureau of Indian Education, US Department of the Interior hearing on Indian Affairs, US Senate, April 28, 2021. 7 Bureau of Indian Education Strategic Direction 2018–2023. August 16, 2018. https://www.bie.edu/sites/default/files/documents/idc2-086443.pdf

11 U.S. Customs and Border Protection

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) is an agency located within the Department of Homeland Security. The Agency’s mission is to “Protect the American people, safeguard our borders, and enhance the nation’s economic prosperity.” The Agency’s vision for the future is: “Enhancing the nation’s security through innovation, intelligence, collaboration, and trust.”1 Although the prevailing public impression of CBP may be “guardians of our border,” a substantial proportion of their resources are devoted to promoting lawful trade and travel among nations. This is elucidated in their number four and five priorities and their list of mission priorities below: Counter terrorism: Anticipate, detect, and disrupt the threat of terrorists, their weapons, and actions to protect the people and economy of the United States. Combat transnational crime: Detect, deter, and disrupt transnational organized crime that threatens U.S. national and economic security interests at and beyond the border. Secure the border: Protect the homeland through the air, land, and maritime environments against illegal entry, illicit activity, or other threats to uphold national sovereignty and promote national and economic security. Facilitate lawful trade and protect revenue: Enable fair, competitive, and compliant trade and enforce U.S. laws to ensure safety, prosperity, and economic security for the American people. Facilitate lawful travel: Enhance, enable, and transform the travel experience by anticipating, detecting, and intercepting threats prior to and at ports of entry.2 CBP’s FY 21 budget totaled $18 billion. CBP’s major divisions include Office of Field Operations, U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), Air and Marine Operations, Office of Trade, Enterprise Services, and Operations Support. These divisions collectively are responsible for monitoring DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-15

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 179 5,000 miles of border with Canada, 1,900 miles of border with Mexico, and approximately 95,000 miles of shoreline.

Applying Enhanced and Integrated Governance to CBP The governance challenge at CBP has come into sharp focus over the past 20 years, covering the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The Administrations’ policy positions on immigrants crossing the border, for example, have cycled between restrictive and welcoming, and virtually all points along this continuum. Several major shocks to the U.S. economy, including climate change and the COVID 19 pandemic, have exacerbated the governance challenge. CBP has the potential to utilize the three enhanced governance components of requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity to enhance their cognitive capacity to govern, and as a result to match the complexity of such issues as the immigration phenomenon with the robustness of their governance approach. To an extent, CBP has capitalized on this expanded approach to governance, but there is significant room for improvement. We discuss each of these governance realms in the paragraphs below. Establishment of Requisite Variety CBP establishes requisite variety in their governance approach by classifying the status of immigrants crossing the border, as well as the location of the border crossing. After establishing the classification scheme, the Agency differentiates strategies that are appropriate for each classification. To illustrate, the following are the categories: U.S. citizens: These are people who were either born in the United States or who have become “naturalized” after three or five years as permanent residents. Legal permanent residents (LPRs) are those who have a “green card.” A green card holder, or lawful permanent resident, is someone who has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. Conditional residents are those who have been married less than two years before they received their green card. This type of residency also requires that you and your spouse jointly file to remove the condition within two years of receiving your green card or the card will be terminated and you will face deportation. Nonimmigrants: People who fall into this category are in the country legally, but only on a temporary basis – e.g., students, business visitors.

180  Part 4 Undocumented: People who are in the country without permission, or illegally, are called undocumented. This means they do not have permission to live in the United States. They are not authorized to work and they have no access to public benefits like health care or a driver’s license. The challenge that CBP faces is to establish sufficiently robust categories of immigration to address unique situations. Too few categories may result in not addressing critical issues. Too many categories may result in an inability to successfully implement all of the strategies. Contemporary issues associated with immigration reflect both over- and under-management of this environment.3 The surge in number of immigrants crossing the Southwest border of the United States in FY 2019 is a vivid example of the importance of establishing requisite variety to manage a rapidly changing situation. In FY 2019, 970,000 illegal aliens attempt to cross the Southwest border. This was more than double the number from the previous year. In prior decades the number of illegal immigrants was considerably smaller, and their makeup was different. They consisted primarily of adult males from Mexico looking for employment. In the past, border patrol agents built a series of stations that could be used to quickly process these immigrants and either admit them to the United States or return them to Mexico. Given both the size and composition of the immigrant population at the time, the Border Patrol solution matched the complexity of the immigration challenge. Requisite variety was established. For the most part, adult workers seeking employment were classified into three categories: • • •

H-2A – Temporary agricultural worker H-2B – Temporary nonagricultural worker Undocumented – returned to home country4

Hypothetically, if the USBP had simplified the rule for illegal alien admissibility to simply denying admission, there would have been inadequate variety in the strategy to address the problem. The one-rule strategy would have left both the immigrants and potential U.S. employers in a quandary. Immigrants would be faced with severe economic hardship in their home country, and U.S. employers would lose a cost-effective solution to their labor problems. If, on the other hand, there had been a much finer classification of immigrants – e.g., establishing a more detailed classification of the migrants’ economic status and corresponding need for the particular kind of skill offered – and a different strategy to determine disposition of migrants falling in each category, the scheme would have been very burdensome to manage. Although establishment of requisite variety is not an exact science, particularly when applied to the social sciences, the concept does provide broad guidelines that signal

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 181 when a management scheme is erring on the side of nonresponsiveness to problems presented, or too difficult to implement. Prior to 2019, CBP’s classification strategies seemed to be working well. Requisite variety – for the prevailing conditions – had been established. With the surge of immigrants, CBP’s requisite variety strategy has been challenged. The huge increase was driven by both push and pull factors. Push factors include violence, insecurity, and famine in various parts of the Northern Triangle countries of Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Pull factors include an expanding U.S. economy and outdated immigration laws. Exacerbating the situation were court rulings that created loopholes in the U.S. immigration enforcement system, and transnational smugglers who received compensation from immigrants in return for easy admission to the United States. This constituted one component of a multi-billion-dollar criminal enterprise. These changing circumstances created increased complexity for CBP to address. The composition of immigrants that were part of the 2019 surge radically changed. Although adult males still constituted a small portion of the immigrant population, most of the immigrants were families and unaccompanied children.5 Both the significant increase and changing composition of the immigrant population forced border patrol agents into new and unfamiliar roles. Agents were now attending to the care and feeding of families, consoling children, and rescuing over 4,000 aliens that smugglers placed into dangerous circumstances.6 The surge also caused many border patrol agents along the Southwest border to sacrifice their primary border security role in order to care for immigrant families. “Up to 60% of Border Patrol agents’ time was diverted to care for the humanitarian needs of the illegal aliens apprehended. Agents taking migrants to a hospital, for example, are not available to stop drug smugglers or other illegal crossings when large groups are encountered.”7 In addition, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention capacity, designed to hold illegal aliens for extended periods of time, were overwhelmed. This caused border patrol agents to hold aliens in short-term detention facilities that were not designed for the purpose of holding families and their children in comfort over long periods. In response to the surge of immigrants, CBP established temporary structures in Arizona and Texas to house families over longer periods of time. Most of these families were not trying to avoid capture. In fact, many were attempted the border crossing because they became aware that the United States would provide a safe haven for them for an extended period of time. This was because the U.S. court system was also overwhelmed with a long backlog of cases to be adjudicated. This created long delays between the time of apprehension and the date that a case would be heard. Under the Flores Settlement of 1997, minors should not be detained for longer than one month except in

182  Part 4 emergencies. (The Flores Settlement Agreement is a court settlement, in place for over two decades, that sets limits on the length of time and conditions under which children can be incarcerated in immigration detention.) Although Federal laws and regulations can be confusing, and sometimes contradictory, the impression that asylum seekers may have is that it may take months or even years for the courts to hear their case, while U.S. laws prohibit these families from being held for longer than a week or two. Smugglers capitalize on this impression to motivate migrants to make the journey to the United States. The combination of factors and forces that has transformed the border environment in recent years provides ample evidence that CBP’s traditional approach to managing border risks may no longer be the appropriate model. In systems terms, they have not established “requisite variety” in their approach that balances responsiveness to the most critical border risks against the ability to successfully manage a very complex set of strategies. It is characteristic of governance responses to changing circumstances to go through a period of adjustment that cycles between overly simple and overly complex strategic solutions. Examples of overly simple responses would be to return all illegal immigrants to their country as soon as they are apprehended. This would be a straightforward strategy to manage, and the one easy to implement, but it would not be responsive to the issues faced both by the immigrants themselves, nor to the thousands of employers in the United States that would benefit from having access to a cost-effective labor solution. The tendency toward simplistic solutions may also be prompted by the perceived urgency of the situation. When the sudden surge of immigration occurred in the spring of 2018, President Trump went active on his twitter account with statements such as the one below: The big Caravan of People from Honduras, now coming across Mexico and heading to our “Weak Laws” Border, had better be stopped before it gets there. Cash cow NAFTA is in play, as is foreign aid to Honduras and the countries that allow this to happen. Congress MUST ACT NOW!8 Conservative media amplified this message to add to the perceived sense of urgency. In essence, drastic times call for drastic measures. The simplistic solution was to work an arrangement with Mexico so that illegal immigrants would be detained in Mexico until their case could be heard. This strategy was not sufficiently robust to address the complexities of the situation. It merely transferred responsibility for addressing the immigrant surge from the United States to Mexico. Initial responses to discontinuous changes, such as the surge in immigrants on our Southwest border, can also be met with overly complex governance strategies, which are very difficult or impossible to implement.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 183 To begin with, immigration policy, with its myriad of laws and regulations covering several Federal agencies, is inherently complex. Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill described immigration policymaking as “political death.” The policy game becomes infinitely more complex when a country feels threatened, physically or culturally.9 The Department of Homeland Security is primarily responsible for implementing immigration policies. The three major agencies involved are: • • •

U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

In addition, these Homeland Security agencies must coordinate closely with The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a program of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), an office within the United States Department of Health and Human Services. In stable times, these four agencies can work seamlessly to process migrants that are classified into the following major categories: • • • • • •

Family-based immigration Employment-based immigration Per-country ceilings Refugees and asylees The Diversity Visa program Other forms of humanitarian relief: • • •

Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Humanitarian parole

In stable times, immigration policy, despite its inherent complexities and multiple agency involvement, reaches a homeostasis of sorts – another way of stating that requisite variety has been established. There is sufficient variety among the various immigration laws, regulations, and strategies to match or absorb the complexity presented in the immigration environment. Relative risks are prioritized and resources are allocated based on the severity of the risk. To illustrate, CBP distributes its border patrol agents based on historical data that points to geographical locations with the highest percentage of apprehensions. As a result, the lion’s share of border patrol agents are located along the Southwest border of the United States. This is despite the fact that the longest border by far is the one that exists between the United States and Canada (8,893 kilometers vs. 3,155 kilometers between the United States and Mexico). As the immigration environment increases in complexity, as happened in the 2018–19 surge of immigrants along the Southwest border, there are

184  Part 4 available steps that can be taken to expand the capacity of Federal strategies to address an increase in complexity. These include: •

•

•

Forming partnerships with other countries, Federal and state agencies who have a vested interest in the Program’s mission, and whose capabilities complement those inherent in the Federal Program. To illustrate, CBP’s strategic plan for 2022–26 identifies strategic partnerships as an objective. “Create sustainable international partnerships and strategic alliances through information sharing, training, joint and integrated operations, and stability strategies.” (CBP strategic plan 2022–26). CBP has worked closely with Mexico in sharing information about the status of migrant populations as they make their way from Northern Triangle countries across Mexico.10 Achieving economies of scale by joining with other stakeholders to maximize utilization of available capacity. CBP’s Reimbursable Services Program has provided more than 907,000 additional processing hours at the request of CBP’s partners – accounting for the processing of more than 14.9 million travelers and more than 2 million personal and commercial vehicles.11 Prioritizing risks – risks should be categorized by: • • • •

Probability of occurrence Size of impact Timing – near term, medium term, long term Degree of difficulty in addressing

This has been demonstrated by CBP’s deployment strategy – focusing border patrol agents at points that have historically recorded the largest number of apprehensions. •

•

Capitalizing on information/detection technology: CBP has implemented an array of new tools and technologies that have enhanced Border Patrol’s surveillance capabilities and efficiency along the Southwest border. These technologies include integrated fix towers that can communicate key information about border crossings, remote video surveillance systems, mobile video surveillance systems, innovative towers, small unmanned aerial surveillance, and team awareness kits which give individual agents the capability to transfer information via smartphones. In addition, telematics devices have been installed in many of the vehicles that patrol U.S. borders. These devices enable rapid transfer of information about vehicle usage and border coverage to data bases that can facilitate rapid analysis of how mobile assets are deployed. This analysis can be used to inform decisions on more cost-effective vehicle deployment. (HHS Office of the Inspector General)12 Improving the design of the immigration process: The challenge in implementing this recommendation is the determination of what

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 185

•

constitutes an efficient and effective process. To illustrate, designing an efficient pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants makes patent sense if the primary goal is to provide humanitarian relief for immigrants who have no alternative in their country of origin. However, if the primary goal is making immigration decisions based on more restrictive criteria – e.g., prioritize immigration based on degree of self-sufficiency and potential contribution to the U.S. economy – establishing an efficient pathway to citizenship regardless of potential economic contribution runs counter to the goal. Transfer core competencies: CBP has transferred core competency from seasoned border patrol agents to new recruits through their border patrol training academy. Each Border Patrol Agent trainee must complete a 940-hour (117 training days) paid, resident course of instruction in U.S. law, Border Patrol operations, physical training, firearms instruction, driving, law enforcement and Border Patrol tactical training, and Spanish. (Source: CBP Information Center)

Despite the above efforts to increase variety in CBP’s strategies in addressing complexities in the immigration environment (requisite variety), there have been further complicating factors that made it extremely difficult to successfully implement these strategies. Primary among these factors has been the widening gap between the political parties concerning how to implement the strategies. The very nature of the disagreements has had a paralyzing impact on the ability to move ahead with any consistency. This phenomenon is tantamount to establishing an overly complex set of strategies that cannot be successfully managed in order to address the issues. There have been sharply divided views on the appropriate approaches to address each of the immigration categories. The diametrically opposed positions are illustrated by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) debate. The DACA initiative has been a disputed issue between the two parties since former President Obama introduced the policy in 2012. Most democrats have long advocated for a path to citizenship for the so-called “dreamers” – children of immigrants who were born in the U.S. Republican Lindsey Graham in August of 2021 reflected the views of most of the Republican caucus. “I’m not willing to provide legal status to anybody with a broken porous border because it will create more problems. Everybody will come and want to be the next generation of DACA.”13 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as Part of a Complex Adaptive System CBP’s attempt to address multiple immigration issues – particularly along the Southwest border – may be more clearly understood in light of their role as one agent interacting with other agents as part of one

186  Part 4

Figure 11.1  Immigration as a Complex Adaptive System

complex adaptive system (CAS) focusing on the status of immigration. The dynamic picture of migrations across the Southwest border may be seen as the combined result of several separate agents attempting to maximize their ability to survive and thrive as an organization, a nation and a population (see Figure 11.1). Each of the above agents views the status and dynamics of immigration across the United States from a different perspective. The pattern of migration that emerges at the Southwest border is a phenomenon that is the cocreated result of individual agents pursuing their own interests and gravitating to point attractors that encourage following the path of least resistance – or in complexity terms, path dependencies. The border situation may also be viewed from the perspective of a dynamic model with feedback loops that may lead to a temporary equilibrium or, alternatively, a situation that is far from equilibrium. Figure 11.2 demonstrates this situation with the use of a causal loop diagram. The previous bubble chart identified many of the significant agents that play a role in shaping the U.S. immigration environment. This causal loop diagram sets the immigration complex adaptive system in motion. Each item in the diagram is a variable, which means that the value of the item changes over time. For example, the level of Congressional funding for immigration judges changes based on a variety of factors. The diagram presents a dynamic picture of the interactions among variables – which variables affect others and in which direction the impact is felt. Arrows denote that there is a relationship between two variables. The

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 187

Figure 11.2  Factors affecting immigration status in the United States

direction of the arrow indicates which variable is having an impact on the other. To illustrate, Congressional funding for immigration judges is related to the U.S. capacity to adjudicate asylum seekers. The direction of the arrow indicates that the level of funding will affect the amount of U.S. capacity available to adjudicate asylum seekers. Adjacent to each arrow is a “plus” or “minus” sign. The plus sign indicates that the affected variable will move in the same direction as the affecting variable. In the above example, as Congressional funding for adjudication judges increases, the capacity to adjudicate asylum seekers also increases. Conversely, as Congressional funding for adjudication judges decreases, the capacity to adjudicate asylum seekers also decreases. The minus sign indicates that the affected variable and the affecting variable will move in the opposite direction. To take an example from the diagram, as family asylum seekers as a percent of total legal immigration increases, the holding capacity for asylum seekers decreases, and as that percentage decreases holding capacity increases. This kind of dynamic analysis is helpful in determining where there is stability vs. instability within the system. Although it is difficult at first glance to determine the extent to which the entire immigration system is in a state of equilibrium or disequilibrium, it is possible to examine selected sections of the system to determine the degree of stability. In the diagram, two such sections have been highlighted. In the upper right-hand section of the diagram, four variables have been isolated: (1) Congressional funding for border detection technology, (2) sophistication of the technology, (3) number of illegal apprehensions, and (4) number of illegal immigrants crossing the border. An examination of the dynamics indicates a situation of equilibrium. Assuming a closed

188  Part 4 loop among the four variables: As Congressional funding increases the sophistication of the technology increases. Increased sophistication leads to an increase in the number of illegal apprehensions, which in turn leads to a lower number of illegal immigrants. A lower number of illegal immigrants leads to lower Congressional funding for detection technology, and the cycle repeats. The nature of this dynamic limits the ability of any single variable to increase or decrease indefinitely. A state of equilibrium is reached. In the lower right-hand section of the diagram, three variables have been isolated: (1) the flow of immigrants with skills that are in high demand, (2) receptivity to immigrants in high-tech industries, and (3) number of H-1B visas issued. In this closed loop, all signs are positive. Within this subsystem there is no variable to dampen the flow of these immigrants into the United States. Because of this dynamic, this particular subsystem is in a state of disequilibrium. It is an inflationary or runaway loop. A reliable indicator to determine if a system is in a stable or unstable loop is to count the number of negative signs in the loop. If the number of negative signs is odd – e.g., 1, 3, 5, 7, etc. – the system is in a state of equilibrium. If the number of negative signs is even – e.g., 0, 2, 4, 6, etc. – the system is in a state of disequilibrium. A dynamic analysis of system stability or instability provides useful inputs to informed governance decisions. The exhibit below indicates how such an analysis might lead to different governance initiatives. As the exhibit shows, being in a state of equilibrium can be a desirable position if the equilibrium is aligned with governance goals. In the illustration the equilibrium state maintains immigration flows within reasonable parameters that can be managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. An equilibrium state can also be undesirable if the status quo situation is not consistent with governance goals. In the illustration, a state of equilibria gridlock occurs when successive Administrations issue executive orders that are consistent with their immigration goals, only to be countermanded by the succeeding Administration, who issues executive orders that support different goals. This results in a state of perpetual confusion and uncertainty for immigrants. A state that is not in equilibrium can be both desirable and undesirable. In Table 11.1, the continued increase in flow of highly skilled immigrant labor represents a state not in equilibrium because the flow of highly skilled workers continues to increase, driven by demand from high-tech domestic industries in the United States. An undesirable state of disequilibrium occurs when the flow of families seeking asylum to the United States continues to increase, driven by a combination of unstable economic conditions and crime in their countries of origin, and receptive U.S. immigration policies. The continued growth in demand for illegal drugs in the United States, and U.S. resistance to provide significant financial assistance to Northern Triangle countries, exacerbates instability in those countries and continues to fuel the flow of asylum seekers.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 189 Table 11.1  Governance responses to states of equilibrium and disequilibrium in immigration rates Equilibrium

Disequilibrium

Desirable state

Flow of illegal immigration Accelerating increase in flow remains within reasonable of highly skilled workers parameters. into high-demand industries. Governance action Establish agreements with Continue issuing H-1B visas; Mexico and Northern work with Department of Triangle countries to Labor to maximize effective provide surge enforcement placement of high-skilled capacity to address seasonal immigrants into industries surges in illegal with the greatest need. immigration. Undesirable state The Administration in power Increasing flow of asylum issues executive orders seekers, pushed by unstable consistent with its economic conditions and immigration goals. When crime in countries of origin, the opposing and pulled by receptive U.S. Administration gains immigration policies. The power, they rescind the United States may reinforce previous Administration’s these unstable conditions by executive orders and representing a growing replaces them with domestic market for illegal executive orders that are drugs and by resisting the consistent with its goals. provision of significant This gridlock keeps the financial aid to these status of immigrants in a countries – which in turn perpetual state of continue to fuel the flow of uncertainty. asylum seekers to the United States. Governance action Establish a bipartisan Develop a multifaceted congressional working immigration plan that group to develop addresses both the push and comprehensive immigration pull factors that continue to legislation with a feature fuel the flow of asylum that addresses major seekers. concerns of both parties. Once in statute, the level of uncertainty should decline.

What may be missing from the immigration CAS is the existence of local decision rules or broad parameters that all agents can agree upon. In the absence of overarching standards and decision rules, the outcomes of integration may not be optimized from any agent’s perspective. An interesting parallel exists between immigration activities that ensue at the Southwest border and the concept of “edge of chaos.” This is a boundary condition between complete order and stability, and complete random behavior. Boundary conditions at the “edge of chaos” establish the potential for producing creative solutions while

190  Part 4 still maintaining sufficient order to facilitate the implementation of actions that can result in positive outcomes for all participants. The “edge of chaos” is a transition space between order and disorder. It encompasses a class of behaviors in which the components of the system never quite lock into place, yet never dissolve into turbulence, either. These are the systems that are both stable enough to store information, and yet evanescent enough to transmit it. These are systems that can be organized to perform complex computations, to react to the world, to be spontaneous, adaptive, and alive. Boundaries represent phase shifts that deconstruct dominant narratives which served to maintain stability in organisms and organizations when operations occurred far from the boundary. Boundaries – whether geographical, physical, conceptual, or temporal – present difficult governance challenges. The immigration environment at the U.S. Southwest border in recent years has represented phase shifts from conceptual, geographical, and temporal perspectives. From the conceptual perspective, immigration laws and regulations have undergone sweeping changes during the period from 1990 to 2020. To illustrate, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990 to liberalize the immigration of skilled workers and increased the number of green cards issued annually to 675,000. The bill also allocated 55,000 immigration visas to a  Diversity Visa program that awarded visas to nationals from countries with low levels of immigration to the United States. The 1990 Immigration Act triggered a long series of actions and reactions that produced a continuous buffeting back and forth between pro- and anti-immigration laws, regulations, and executive orders that extended through the Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations. For example: • • • • •

The Clinton administration attempted to reduce illegal immigration administratively via border operations such as Operation Hold the Line in 1993 and Operation Gatekeeper in 1994.14 Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996.15 In 2000, Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush appealed to Hispanic voters by supporting expanded legal immigration and legalization for illegal immigrants. The Patriot Act of 2001 reduced the rights of immigrants by expanding deportation powers to suspected terrorists and allowed the attorney general to detain aliens without charge or recourse to due process.16 Congress passed the H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004, which provided 20,000 additional H-1B visas to high-​skilled temporary workers with advanced degrees from American universities.17

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 191 •

•

•

In 2012, President Obama announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which granted a  two-​year work permit and a reprieve from deportation to illegal immigrants who met many of the latest DREAM Act requirements.18 In 2014, President Obama issued the Immigration Accountability Executive Action, which granted three years of temporary revocable relief and work authorization to four to five million illegal immigrants by expanding DACA to cover the parents of U.S. citizens.19 Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016 – beating Republicans who held more traditional positions on immigration – by calling for a  wall on the southern border, ending birthright citizenship, banning Muslim entry into the United States, and terminating DACA.

Each of the above actions had the effect of destabilizing the immigration environment by keeping overarching policy positions in a constant state of flux. The boundaries between policy changes represented “edge of chaos” conditions in that there was sufficient stability governed by institutional standards, to proceed in a relatively orderly manner from one policy position to the next, but simultaneously there was sufficient turbulence in negotiations among the political parties that allowed solutions, although often temporary, to emerge. Given “edge of chaos” conditions, which governance functions might be useful? The following are some illustrations of useful governance functions in guiding the immigration complex adaptive system toward positive outcomes for all stakeholders: •

•

Setting broad parameters and standards for interaction among system participants. Examples from the immigration environment would include bilateral agreements between the United States, Mexico, and the Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua) on rules of engagement for migrants traveling across national borders. Accurate reading of trends in immigration. The U.S. border patrol’s Office of Immigration Statistics conducts periodic analyses of immigration trends. These analyses help CBP to predict when surges might occur, and the composition of each surge. Many factors must be considered in making such a prediction, including: • • • •

Past seasonal, cyclical, and trend patterns of immigration Economic conditions in countries of origin The level of civil strife and criminal activity in countries of origin Economic conditions in the United States and degree of demand for low-cost labor

192  Part 4 • •

•

•

Changing immigration laws, regulations, and policies – both in the United States and in countries of origin

Creating opportunities for innovative thinking in adapting to major changes in the immigration environment. Because there is no one distinct command-and-control leader making decisions and formulating policies that impact immigration patterns at the Southwest border, the responsibility for creating such opportunities for innovation rests with the collective intelligence of all agents within the system. Recognizing that emergent change in the immigration pattern takes precedence over deliberate change. The best that the collective intelligence of the system can do is to use whatever leverage is available to amplify change that appears to lead to positive outcomes, and attenuate changes that appear to lead to undesirable outcomes. A good example of amplifying positive trends is offering special visa status (H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004) to immigrants who desire to come to the United States and whose talents can contribute to a stronger U.S. economy in sectors where such talent is needed. The three largest fields of employment cited in H-1B petitions between fiscal years 2007 and 2017 were custom computer programming services, computer systems design services, and higher education.20 Since individuals in specialty occupations also represent a potential talent drain from their country of origin, it may be expected that agents within the immigration system representing source countries may take steps to attenuate what they perceive to be a harmful trend from their perspective. To illustrate, India is rapidly becoming a global hub for R&D outsourcing and is doing so, in part, by leveraging the knowledge and skills of returnees. In the pharmaceutical sector, a number of Indian companies have significant product development or basic research contracts with major multinational drug companies.21 Promoting information sharing and interaction among agents within the immigration system. USBP is engaged with several information-sharing initiatives. To illustrate, CBP maintains active relationships and information-sharing arrangements with state and local law enforcement agencies and, in particular, those at critical nodes relevant to CBP’s missions to secure the border. In 2020, CBP implemented the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) supporting White House goals, along with launching the USMCA Center to serve as a central communication hub for CBP and the private sector community. CBP also implemented a counter-network approach to coordinate whole-of-government actions that identify and fight cross-border threat networks using a multitude of resources, including agency authorities, data

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 193

•

holdings, the Intelligence Enterprise, and interagency partnerships (CBP 2021–26 strategic plan). Maintaining resilience within the system so that adaptations to major changes can be made. In assessing the immigration challenge from CBP’s perspective, cases can be made that demonstrate both lack of resilience and increased resilience. When the surge in migrations occurred along the Southwest border in 2020, border patrol agents were overwhelmed. The combination of inadequate housing facilities and agents being thrust into unfamiliar roles provided evidence that the system was not sufficiently agile to successfully address this phase shift. In contrast, CBP has demonstrated resilience in protecting information and sustaining operations in light of unexpected events. For example, the Agency improved network resiliency for agents and officers by implementing direct connections to cloud services, connecting 300 sites to 2 Interconnection Points, and providing 145 sites with 4G wireless backup. In 2020, they also achieved 100% power resiliency across all physical data center components to ensure that the mission can continue to operate and recover faster from power disruptions (CBP strategic plan 2021–26).

To summarize the view of immigration as a complex adaptive system, the following observations can be made: The pattern of immigration into the United States (both volume and composition) emerges as a result of the widely divergent goals, narratives, and practices of many interacting agents – e.g., economic, cultural, political, regulatory, and crime climates of the countries of origin, several Federal agencies and their associated missions (CBP, ICE, HHS), state and local enforcement agencies and the local populace, U.S. industry that depends upon immigrants to bolster their workforce, the immigrants themselves with widely ranging stories, etc. The many intersections among these agents produce a collective intelligence that generates the immigration patterns we observe. The configuration of immigration at any given point in time represents the collective intelligence attempt at adaptation to changing conditions. Within these intense interactions among agents, both negative and positive feedback loops coexist. Example of negative loop: surges in immigration lead to more restrictive policies, which lead to declines in immigration. Example of positive loop: immigrants with specialized skills are given H-1B visas, which allows them to work in U.S. industries where their contributions are highly valued, leading to further increases in H-1B visas being distributed. In this situation, the design role is a shared one. It is not the province of any single nation, agency, or other entity. The role may include: •

Setting broad parameters and standards for interaction among system participants

194  Part 4 • • •

• •

Accurate reading of trends in immigration and in the mindset of participants Creating opportunities for innovative thinking in adapting to major changes in the immigration environment Recognizing that emergent change in the immigration pattern takes precedence over deliberate change. The best that the collective intelligence of the system can do is to use whatever leverage is available to amplify change that appears to lead to positive outcomes, and attenuate changes that appear to lead to undesirable outcomes. Promoting information sharing and interaction among agents within the immigration system Maintaining resilience within the system so that adaptations to major changes can be made

This raises the question:  To what extent are the design roles, themselves, deliberate vs. emergent? These are not roles that anyone assigns to specific participants.  Reflexivity – The Border Wall Example During the Trump Administration the border wall issue became increasingly unsolvable, as each side of the debate dug in their heels. The Democrats refused to negotiate a solution until the partial government shutdown imposed by the President ended. The Republicans and their President refused to open the government until a deal could be struck, which included $5.7 billion for the border wall. Over the weekend of January 19–20, 2019, President Trump proposed a solution, which included his border wall money plus a few “sweeteners” for the Democrats. These included a three-month extension for current DACA recipients to stay in the country, increased funding for drug surveillance technology at checkpoints, and funds for more immigration judges. For Democrats this proposal was a nonstarter, because (1) it included money for a border wall, which Speaker Pelosi considered as “immoral” and (2) the proposal still held 800,000 unpaid Federal workers hostage until a negotiated agreement could be reached that met the President’s approval.22 Why did this issue become so intractable? And what would have been a reasonable path forward? In this section I suggest an issue framework that will hopefully shed light on why the border wall issue was and is such a “wicked” problem. I also suggest some methodologies that might have helped participants find their way out of the wild jungle that surrounds this issue. The Border Wall Issue Is a Multilayered Problem A fundamental reason that the border wall issue appeared so inscrutable is that the issue is a multilayered problem. Stakeholders are operating

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 195 at every level of the issue, with little or no communication among the levels. The multilayered nature of the border wall issue is not unique to that specific issue. It is characteristic of all public policy issues. Table 11.2 identifies the key features of each level. Table 11.2  The multilevel nature of the border wall issue Issue Level

Description

Applied to the Border Wall Issue

Technical

Data-driven, analytical solutions to the issue; application of the scientific method. Requires extensive subject matter expertise

Managerial

Data-driven analysis to support most cost-effective solutions, using risk management, cost–benefit analysis to support allocation of scarce resources to highest priority needs

Political

The negotiation process to resolve stakeholder differences in ends and means

Develop in-depth technical understanding of border security issues and strategies. One aspect of border security is establishment of barrier structures. Technical analysis would evaluate feasibility of alternative structures based on such criteria as scalability, ability to be breeched, engineering feasibility, and cost. Analysis of each mile along the Southwest border to determine the most effective combination of border security strategies (barrier, technology, manpower, intelligence) to achieve outcomes. Definition of outcomes in terms of performance metrics Republicans and Democrats were engaged in a protracted discussion about the most appropriate border security strategy. Political stances adopted by each side were informed by the opinions of their respective bases and the intensity of those opinions. The dialogue about the border wall is subject to competing motivations: (1) their desire to reach an accommodation in order to fulfill their responsibilities as legislators; (2) loyalty to their base, which raises the probability of their future electability; and (3) preexisting narrative that informs and organizes the way each side views the issue (Continued)

196  Part 4 Table 11.2  The multilevel nature of the border wall issue (Continued) Issue Level

Description

Applied to the Border Wall Issue

Ideological/ A paradigm of beliefs and epistemological values embedded in a coherent narrative. How one pays attention to, organizes, and gains knowledge about the world. System 1 thinking is characterized by a dominant narrative, which is invoked because of “cognitive ease.” System 2’s deliberate approach relies on data and statistics to confirm the nature of both the issue and the solution. But implementation of System 2 thinking requires much greater cognitive effort and time.23 Most of us rely heavily on System 1 narratives to navigate our world because of the cognitive ease in doing so The dynamics Solutions to issues emerge of complexity through a self-organizing process, which involves intense interaction among many agents using a few simple organizing principles. Coherent solutions eventually emerge, but are very difficult to predict. No one is leader in driving the solution, but insightful leaders look for ways to anticipate when a coherent solution emerges after many random failures, and then claim credit for the solution

Protecting U.S. citizens from bad things crossing the border is the organizing theme of the Republican position. Seeing the United States as a welcoming nation is the organizing theme of the Democratic position. These are both System 1 products and are resorted to as a first impulse in paying attention to the border wall issue. The ideological/epistemological level of this issue deals with the dynamics of “framing.” System 1 scripts frame the nature of the issue and the solution. “Facts” that support each respective narrative are used to reinforce the narrative

The dynamics of complexity, in the case of the border wall issue, may be seen in two respects: (1) the ongoing deliberations among members of Congress in seeking a solution, which no one can predict in terms of timing or substance and (2) in the spontaneous movements that are springing up in the country – on both sides of the issue.

Suggested Solutions Engage in Extensive Problem Definition and Framing Attention should be paid to how different stakeholders define the border challenge. Obtaining agreement on the nature of the problem is critical in order to propose unified solutions. Differences in problem perception

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 197

Figure 11.3  Two perspectives on the border wall issue

likely stem from varying interpretations concerning the purpose of a border between two countries. Figure 11.3 identifies the border as consisting of different concentric rings – with each ring performing unique functions. Differences in problem definition among stakeholders depend upon the perceived importance of each function. The two spheres in the diagram represent System 1 and System 2 thinking as explained in Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking Fast and Slow. The smaller sphere describes broad narratives that inform border strategies. These narratives consist of viewing the border as: (1) a physical barrier (a wall for example), (2) in broader terms as a boundary to ensure border security (which includes several strategies involving people and technology), and (3) in still broader terms as a boundary to be effectively managed for the best interests of the U.S. citizenry. The larger sphere deconstructs those broad narratives, via System 2 thinking into greater detail, that require further deliberation to operationalize strategies. Strategy discussions among border stakeholders should begin with an agreement on the problem being addressed. One of the reasons for policy conflicts regarding the border may be because opposing sides are framing the issue differently. If one side is framing the immigration challenge as preventing large numbers from immigrants from crossing into the United States, the narrative that depicts the U.S. border in physical terms will be receptive to physical solutions – e.g., building an insurmountable physical border. If the other side is framing the immigration challenge as ensuring that immigrants are provided a pathway to citizenship, they are

198  Part 4 operating from a totally different narrative that views the border as an opportunity for creative exchange. Adopting a reflexive stance in governance makes deep-seated narratives about the purpose of a border more transparent and opens the possibility for all sides of an issue to view the border from multiple narrative perspectives. This approach also improves the likelihood of reaching accommodation, rather than remaining entrenched in opposing narratives that only support facts that align with the dominant narrative.

Notes







1 CBP mission and vision statement from the CBP website: https://www.cbp. gov/about 2 Enduring mission priorities from the CBP website: https://www.cbp.gov/ about 3 “Immigrant Classes of Admission.” Homeland Security website: https:// w w w.dhs.gov/im m igration-statistics/lawful-per manent-residents/ ImmigrantCOA 4 Employment-Based Visa Categories in the United States, US Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. https://www.americanimmigration council.org/research/employment-based-visa-categories-united-states 5 CBP webpage, October 2021. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/nationalmedia-release/cbp-releases-october-2021-monthly-operational-update 6 Statement of Brian Hastings, chief of law enforcement operations for the Border Patrol to the House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 2021. https:// www.cbp.gov/frontline/border-crisis-cbp-s-response# 7 Statement of Patrol Agent Rodolfo Karisch, the sector chief in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, April 2021. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/ unprecedented-migration-at-the-us-southern-border-perspectives-fromthe-frontline 8 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump). April 3, 2018. 9 James F. Hollifield, SMU Professor of Political Science, Director of the John Goodwin Tower Center at SMU, and a Global Fellow at the Wilson Center in “The Catalyst” – a publication of the George W. Bush Institute, Winter 2018. 10 CBP Strategic Plan 2021–26. https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/ documents/2020-Dec/CBP-Strategy-2021-2026.pdf 11 “CBP Expands Its Capacity to Process Incoming Travelers Through Their Reimbursable Service Program.” CBP website, April 2021. 12 “CBP Has Improved Southwest Border Technology, but Significant Challenges Remain.” HHS Office of the Inspector General, February 23, 2001. 13 Statement by Lindsey Graham in article: “Steep Obstacles for US Congress Effort to Legalise ‘Dreamer’ Immigrants.” International News, August 2021. https://w w w.thenews.com.pk /print/874648-steep-obstacles-for-uscongress-effort-to-legalise-dreamer-immigrants 14 Operation Hold the Line in 1993 and Operation Gatekeeper in 1994. https:// oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/9807/gkp01.htm 15 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996. https://cliniclegal.org/ node/571

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 199 16 The Patriot Act of 2000. https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutesregulations/usa-patriot-act#:~:text=To%20strengthen%20measures%20 to%20prevent,to%20whom%20such%20assets%20belong 17 H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004 – Xie, Jeff (December 21, 2004). “H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004 – H.R.4818.” 18 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). https://www. americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/deferred-action-childhoodarrivals-daca-overview 19 Immigration Accountability Executive Action. 20 USA Facts, October 7, 2020. 21 Wadhwa, Vivek (2009). “A Reverse Brain Drain.” Issues in Science and Technology 25: 45–52. 22 McFadyen, Jennifer (2021). “Weighing the Pros and Cons of US–Mexico Border Barrier.” Thought Co. Updated on June 2, 2021. https://www. thoughtco.com/us-liberal-politics-4133009 23 Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

12 Integrating the Governance Concepts – Crosscutting Challenges

A holistic view of the enhanced governance approach described in this book is based on two fundamental assumptions: (1) societal problems, such as climate change, emerging pandemics, immigration, and growing inequality among different population segments are exceedingly complex; and (2) effective governance marshals sufficient cognitive capacity to match the complexity of the issues. Expanded cognitive capacity does not mean a governance approach that is an isomorphic replication of the issue’s complexity; rather, the approach is sufficiently robust to address the most critical aspects of the issue. To illustrate, policies governing the treatment of immigrants should be sufficiently diverse to address different immigrant statuses that represent significant differences in their impact on U.S. citizens. However, the governance policies do not have to address each individual immigrant’s unique circumstances. Such a detailed set of governance policies would be impossible to manage. Most current policy-making approaches apply this principle of requisite variety at the organizational level. For example, the Department of Homeland Security has established several distinct categories of immigrants, as discussed in previous chapters and has formulated policies that are tailored to each immigrant category. In this book we suggest that the cognitive capacity to govern such complex issues as immigration can be enhanced in two ways: (1) expanding cognitive capacity outward by capitalizing on the collective intelligence generated by all stakeholders as part of a complex adaptive system and (2) expanding cognitive capacity inward by closely examining the narratives used by those involved in governance decisions to determine if there are other, possibly more useful ways of organizing their attention to the issues. This inward examination is characteristic of reflexive (self-reflective) approaches discussed in earlier chapters. In the case of immigration policies, the Department of Homeland Security can expand their cognitive capacity to govern outward by capitalizing on the collective intelligence of other federal agencies (e.g., the Department of Health and Human Services); law enforcement agencies in border states such as Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California; foreign governments in the source countries where most DOI: 10.4324/9781003272373-16

Integrating the Governance Concepts 201 immigration originates ( e.g., Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras); and immigrants themselves. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can expand their cognitive capacity inward by conducting a self-reflective assessment of the dominant narratives used to make sense of the immigration environment, and which drive how problems are defined and solutions formulated. For example, DHS’ dominant narrative explaining the rationale for a border between nations, as evidenced by their mission statement, is to prevent “bad actors” from entering the country and to encourage “good actors” to enter. A self-reflective analysis could reveal alternative conceptions of boundary functions, as outlined in earlier chapters, e.g., as a zone of creative solutions to intransigent problems. How would such an integrated approach to governance look in practice? Two options are discussed below: (1) an organizational perspective and (2) a targeted initiative.

Organizational Perspective This perspective takes an institutional approach. It assumes that an enhanced governance approach can be implemented at the level of an organization. The concept “organization” encompasses public sector agencies at the global, federal, state, or local level; private sector companies; academia; and nonprofits. Many societal issues have traditionally been primarily within the province of a single Federal agency to govern based on their respective missions. The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for ensuring clean air and water quality, the Labor Department’s Employment Training Administration leads the way in addressing unemployment issues, and the Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for air safety. Enhanced governance approaches can be built into the structure of any of these agencies. All Federal agencies, for example, have in place components that perform in a rudimentary fashion, the three governance functions of requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity. As will be seen in the below descriptions, several factors are enabling organizations to establish more powerful requisite variety models to address complex issues. However, the complexity and reflexivity components of enhanced governance are not practiced in a way that capitalizes on the full cognitive capacity of these approaches. •

Requisite variety: The establishment of a regulatory model that is used to address the most consequential issues facing an organization or program is an embedded characteristic of any decision-maker that is faced with allocating scarce resources to address the most critical needs. This governance function occurs at all levels of an organization, from individual projects to enterprise-wide initiatives. The ability to absorb complexity of a public issue and build a more robust

202  Part 4

•

•

set of strategies is enhanced through such steps as the compilation of evidence-based data enabled by technological advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning, etc.; the use of partnerships to leverage greater scope and scale and more efficient process design. Complexity: Virtually all government agencies have established offices to deal with various stakeholder groups. These include, but are not limited, to offices of legislative affairs to deal with congress, public affairs to manage media relations, and consumer affairs to address concerns of the agency’s direct clients. Regulatory agencies are also required by the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 to share proposed regulations with the general public in the Federal Register and receive input before finalizing regulations.1 These outreach offices recognize the importance of considering stakeholder input to agency governance decisions. But there is a stark difference between considering input from stakeholders prior to making policy decisions and recognizing that the agency is one of many stakeholders who have a vested interest and an equal say in the outcomes that are fundamental to the agency’s mission. Neither are these outreach offices exhibiting the behavior of a complex adaptive system that solves public issues through self-organizing processes. Agency decision-makers may consider advice from many stakeholder groups, but final governance decisions are arrived at and implemented, for the most part, through traditional hierarchical structures. To more fully capitalize on the innovative potential of complex adaptive systems, outreach offices might consider establishing more opportunities for innovation and information exchange among stakeholders. This requires reimagining the role of an outreach office – from a central compiler of input from stakeholders to a facilitator of broader information exchange. Reflexivity: This aspect of enhanced governance is probably the least institutionalized approach. Offices that are responsible for strategic planning and in some cases organizational development exercises may occasionally touch on self-reflective initiatives that are designed to take a deeper look at the culture of the organization and the dominant narratives that drive decisions. But such reflexive evaluations are the exception rather than the rule in most cases. When such evaluations are conducted, the likelihood that insights developed through this process will result in new ways of doing business is uncertain at best.

In order for a comprehensive approach to enhanced governance to be implemented across an entire organization or agency, an office of governance integration should be established. That office would be responsible for formulating solutions to specific public issues from all three perspectives simultaneously. Such an office would establish a protocol

Integrating the Governance Concepts 203 for addressing complex societal issues that covers all three perspectives of governance. Below is an illustrative protocol that contains questions which should be answered in order to address the subject issue. For illustrative purposes I have selected a contemporary issue that is a cause for rising concern throughout the United States. Issue Conflict over the teaching of critical race theory in public schools. Although the focal point of governance over this issue varies considerably among different areas of the country, for purposes of this illustration I am assuming that decisions involving curriculum design for public schools ultimately rest at the county level, as opposed to Federal, state, school board, or school level. The county administration may receive input from a broad range of stakeholders, but the ultimate decisions rest with them. Thus, the county administration is also presumed to be in the best position to design a governance system that effectively the issue. Background Critical race theory is an academic concept that has its origins in the 1970s, created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.2 The basic concept is that race is a socially constructed phenomenon. It goes beyond the idea of individual prejudice against particular races. It is institutionalized in our various societal systems, policies, and practices. A good example of systemic racism is the practice of “redlining” that involved the real estate industry identifying certain geographical areas as poor financial risks for home loans. These were areas with disproportionately high percentages of minority populations.3 Many state legislatures have introduced bills that ban the teaching of critical race theory in grades K-12. There is major disagreement among stakeholders about the definition of critical race theory, if and how its principles should be taught to students, and who should make such decisions. There is a wide spectrum of culturally relevant topics that could be taught to students – ranging from greater sensitivity to differences and similarities in cultural practices among minority groups to explicit awareness of historically inequitable treatment of minority populations. The challenge is in identifying how to draw the parameters that define critical race theory. A major complicating factor is the widely disparate narratives that different stakeholders bring to the discussion. Two opposing such narratives are: (1) “I don’t want my child to be taught that he or she comes from white privilege and thus suffers guilt for being a racist.” (2) “My child is being taught about presumably factual history that

204  Part 4 excludes any mention of the long history of unequal treatment in this country. This perpetuates the feeling of being a second class citizen.” How would county administrators begin to address this contentious issue using the three aspects of governance covered in this text? A good starting point is to engage with the appropriate stakeholders by posing fundamental questions about the nature and parameters of the problem. Suggested Questions To Be Addressed in Designing an Enhanced Governance Approach •

Establishing requisite variety • • • •

•

•

How are county resources organized to address the different manifestations of this issue across districts? Are strategies tailored to address the different concerns? Is funding distributed based on the severity of the concerns? What steps have been taken to increase the capacity of the county to address the highest risk concerns – e.g., using data analytics to support evidence-based policies, improving process design, leveraging capacity through partnerships, etc. Has an evaluation process been established to provide feedback on outcomes and recommendations on policy/strategy improvements?

Complexity •

• • • • • •

Have forums been established that allow stakeholders to weigh in on this issue? Stakeholders would include, but not be limited to, parents, teachers, students, school administrators, state, county, and district administrators, and nonparent citizens representing different demographic categories. Have feedback vehicles been established that enable all stakeholders to benefit from each other’s views? Have county administrators conducted a stakeholder analysis to determine which groups are supportive of or resistant to the teaching of critical race theory? Have county administrators developed a stakeholder management and communication plan? Has sufficient time and space been allocated to allow innovative contributions from each stakeholder group? Are there training opportunities that allow stakeholders to become more proficient in defining and addressing public issues such as critical race theory? Do county administrators have sufficient information to understand trends in stakeholder views of critical race theory, how mindsets vary by stakeholder category, and emerging factors that could impact those trends?

Integrating the Governance Concepts 205 • • • •

Has information on the history and context of critical race theory been provided to all stakeholders? Which vehicles are used to disseminate information on critical race theory to stakeholders? Have country administrators established guidelines for defining public issues, developing an action plan, and evaluating results?

Reflexivity • •

Is there a process in place to examine the parameters of critical race theory. This would include which concepts are included in and excluded from the definition. Has a self-examination been conducted to determine preconceived views of racism in and outside of the education environment? Numerous methodologies have been used to increase self-awareness in an organizational setting. The field of organizational development is replete with methods that aid in the self-discovery process. Popular methods to determine personality types include the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator, Kiersey’s temperament sorter, and various personality color tests. Other methods probe more deeply to determine schemes that people use to make sense of the world around them. Three of these methods are identified below: –– Johari’s window – This is a methodology to increase self-awareness in an organizational setting. It consists of a four-grid matrix to identify what we know about ourselves but others don’t know, what we know about ourselves and others know, what we don’t know about ourselves that others know, and what we don’t know about ourselves and others don’t know.4 –– The Cycle of Intelligence – This is a nine-part methodology developed by Richard Knowles, intended to explore in-depth problems in an organizational setting. It begins with a discussion of how participants identify problems, intentions, and issues, and continues with an examination of relationships among participants, operating principles, the work involved, information required, learning opportunities, and the overall structure and context of the problem.5 –– Phenomenological reduction (bracketing). This concept and methodology was introduced by Edmund Husserl. Essentially, it is the act of  suspending judgment  about the natural world to instead focus on analysis of experience. In practice, the process of bracketing can be extensive and time consuming, but it can reveal deeply embedded narratives that guide how we make sense of the world.6

206  Part 4 •

Have methodologies been explored to resolve differences among stakeholder narratives regarding the nature of critical race theory – its opportunities and challenges? Three possible approaches to reduce polarization among different stakeholders are: –– Listening to neutral experts on the topic. –– Ensuring that a system of checks and balances exist, which entails preserving the integrity and independence of the three processes of legislation, execution, and interpretation. These processes exist at every level of governance. –– Deliberative polling – direct discussions between opposing viewpoints that establishes a framework to allow contentious parties to use the phrase: “I was wrong,” as the situation warrants.

Based on the research conducted for this text, no such organization exists that currently facilitates tackling complex issues such as the teaching of critical race theory, by addressing the above set of questions. The inquiries, however, provide a roadmap for designing an enhanced governance approach for addressing such issues.

Targeted Initiative A targeted initiative approach to enhanced governance differs from the organizational perspective in several respects: •

• •

The scope of the public issue being addressed spans both vertical and horizontal dimensions. From a vertical standpoint, the issue is manifested simultaneously at global, national, regional, state, and local levels, with interrelated impacts at each level. From a horizontal standpoint, the issue and its potential solution may stretch across public, private, nonprofit, and academic sectors. The focus of governance is more widely distributed, rather than being centralized within one organization. The issue is not the sole responsibility of any single agency or organization. Lines of responsibility for addressing the issue are not clearly defined, and stakeholder may have divergent views on defining the issue and its likely solution.

The cases below illustrate how a targeted approach to enhanced governance has been implemented, often with mixed results. Integrated Governance – Addressing COVID 19 The 2020 COVID 19 pandemic provides an apt illustration of how requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity must all play a role in addressing this

Integrating the Governance Concepts 207 public and global crisis. First, the COVID 19 crisis has exhibited each of the three characteristics, as described in the above paragraphs, of a public issue that warrants a targeted, enhanced governance initiative to address: •

•

Issue scope: The COVID pandemic has affected all population levels, from local through state, regional, national, and global. Further, the rate of viral infections at any given vertical level affects the rate of infections at every other level. Both people and the virus itself travel across vertical boundaries without respect to jurisdiction. Focus of governance: Unlike the organizational perspective, the responsibilities for identifying the COVID 19 virus and containing spread of the COVID pandemic have been widely distributed among public, private, non-profit, and academic sectors. In the U.S. public sector, both research and guidelines for prevention and containment of the virus have been promulgated at the Federal level, with several Federal agencies involved, including NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Presentation (CDC), the Surgeon General’s Office, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At state and local levels, prevention and containment guidelines have been issued, but have been inconsistent among different jurisdictions. The private sector has partnered with Federal and state officials in making both the vaccine and personal protective equipment widely available. But the distribution has been uneven at best. Similar distribution of governance responsibilities has been observed in different countries, although the degree of centralization vs. decentralization in governance also varies widely among nations. Highly centralized governance efforts in countries such as Switzerland are contrasted with more decentralized approaches in countries such as Germany. The degree of centralization vs. decentralization also depends upon factors such as: • •

The economic, political, and cultural characteristics of the country; and The stage of the pandemic itself – there appears to be a more centralized approach to addressing the pandemic in initial stages, which are involved in identifying the nature, scale, and scope of the virus, and a more decentralized approach in determining prevention and containment strategies. This appears logical because identifying the nature of the risk is based on a common body of scientific knowledge, whereas identifying prevention and containment strategies is dependent upon local conditions – e.g., how widespread the virus is in different locations, demographic differences in the population, and the availability of resources to address the problem.7

The composite of the above conditions presents a complex portrayal of the many different governance mechanisms that have been put in place to address such a global problem as the COVID 19 pandemic.

208  Part 4 Given the widely distributed nature of both the pandemic and the myriad of institutions involved in governing outcomes, how can the three governance enhancement approaches – requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity – be employed to improve outcomes? In the paragraphs below, we will explore examples of efforts being implemented in each of these areas, and suggested opportunities for improvement.

Requisite Variety National and state governments have distributed both vaccines and personal protective equipment as prevention measures based on the degree of risk facing different population groups. Generally, the elderly, those with compromised immune systems and health-care workers have been given priority status in receiving vaccines and personal protective equipment. The prioritizing of risk and allocating resources based on risk status is an example of establishing requisite variety – e.g., build a model of risk distribution that mirrors the actual risk distribution in the population, and tailor strategies to match each level of risk. There have been varying judgments on the efficacy of the requisite variety model of risk that has been constructed to inform how vaccines and PPEs should be distributed among the population. A major constraint in implementing the risk distribution model is the decentralized approach to governance that is embedded in the very nature of U.S. democracy as documented in the “Reserved Powers” clause in the tenth amendment of the Constitution. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Guidelines on priorities for vaccine and PPE distribution issued by the U.S. surgeon general at the federal level have been interpreted and implemented in different ways by the various states. Models have been tailored to address both demographic and political differences in each jurisdiction. The efficacy of federal vs. various state models of risk profiles and concomitant vaccine and PPE distribution priorities can be measured in terms of process, output, and outcome measures. Some examples are provided below: • • •

Process measures: Percentage of high-priority target populations for which vaccines and PPE are available and accessible Output measure: Percentage of high-priority target populations who have been vaccinated and use PPE Outcome measures: Infection rates, hospitalization rates, mortality rates

The use of big data and advanced analytics such as dynamic modeling, artificial intelligence, and machine learning has enabled administrators

Integrating the Governance Concepts 209 of such requisite variety models as vaccine and PPE distribution based on risk profiles to get a better handle on the impact of such models. However, the distributed nature of governance in addressing public issues such as COVID 19 has given at least the appearance of an uncoordinated approach to finding solutions. Calls for a unified approach that is centrally coordinated by a national government conforms to the traditional view that leadership in addressing complex societal issues must start at the top of a hierarchy. This view is inconsistent with the realities that there are wide variations in how these issues manifest in the general population. A single approach to a risk management strategy is not sufficient to address variable situations. “One size does not fit all.”

Complexity At first glance the concepts of “governance” and “emergence” seem to be at odds. Governance involves steering a course of action toward desired outcomes. Emergence, a central feature of complex adaptive systems, is a dynamic that results in favorable outcomes that are not governed by a central source of leadership. In the case of the COVID 19 pandemic, both dynamics are in play. Those institutions responsible for addressing the pandemic reside in multisectors of society and at every level of governance – from local through international bodies. Alongside of these multiple governing bodies, the dynamic of self-organization and emergent solutions coexist. Administrators at all levels would do well to recognize that they are operating in the midst of multiple complex adaptive systems that have a dynamic of their own and are simultaneously searching for solutions that ensure their survival. There are several kinds of CAS’s operating simultaneously, and several are working at cross-purposes. These include, but are not limited to: • •

• •

The virus – a CAS that adapts to changes in its environment, such as new vaccines and preventive and therapeutic measures taken by the human population, by mutating to ensure its own survival The scientific community – a CAS that works across public–private– academic boundaries to exchange research information that will lead to emergent prevention and therapeutic responses to protect the population The vaccine and PPE supply chain – a CAS that attempts to provide the necessary preventive measures based on risk profiles State, national, and global holistic coordination efforts – these are CAS’s that exist in nested structures. At times they work toward common goals, and at other times they are work in opposite directions. For example, the World Health Organization’s Covex initiative, in cooperation with UNICEF, GAVI (a global vaccine alliance), and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI),

210  Part 4 attempts to equitably distribute vaccines and therapeutic treatments across the globe. Their goal is to ensure that at least 20% of all country populations receive vaccines.8 In other instances, CAS’s work at cross-purposes. For example, each state in the United States may be viewed as its own CAS, attempting to adapt to changing conditions within their respective jurisdictions. States with conservative populations, such as Wyoming, Mississippi, and Texas have taken a “hands-off” approach to mandates requiring mask wearing, testing, and vaccinations. This is in direct opposition to the approach taken by states with more liberal populations such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey – who are more comfortable with mandates in order to quell the pandemic. To summarize, this is a bewildering governance environment in which COVID 19 as a complex adaptive system evolves in parallel with several different complex adaptive systems engaged in addressing the virus; sometimes collaboratively, and often at cross-purposes. Decision-makers who are in a position to take steps to address the pandemic face three challenges: • •

•

The phenomenon of self-organization and emergent solutions will occur simultaneously with deliberate governance attempts to “steer” toward a favorable outcome. Regardless of the governance entity, there must be recognition of the interconnectedness of efforts and outcomes among the many CAS’s. Stove-piped approaches will have unintended consequences. A systemic understanding of the dynamics within and among CAS’s is recommended. Decisions in addressing the pandemic are distributed rather than centralized. Those in decision-making roles may overstate the degree of control they can exert over outcomes.

The Dance between Governance and Emergence Leaders at all levels in the fight against COVID 19 must be good readers of emergent trends occurring in the various CAS’s of which they are a part and those to which they are connected. Although leaders may not be able to single-handedly change the direction of the fight against the pandemic nor predict outcomes in advance, they can take advantage of and leverage trends that are already occurring. For example, if there is rising concern among parents about keeping children out of the classroom to prevent the spread of COVID, and there is an opposite trend among teachers unions who do not want teachers to be present in a risky environment, by understanding these two trends, leaders can propose a compromise solution in which students

Integrating the Governance Concepts 211 are required to attend in-person classes, while teachers can appear virtually and concerned parents can be used as in-class monitors to assist in managing the classroom environment. Leaders can also create forums that allow parents and teachers to exchange views and arrive at innovative solutions in a nonthreatening environment. Leaders can govern intelligently in these situations by establishing an environment that encourages information exchange and maximizes the opportunity to innovate. Leaders can also establish an agenda that provides a set of “guardrails” to facilitate the process of innovation to occur. The agenda would include such process steps as problem definition, desired goals, strategies to achieve goals, implementation roles, monitoring, and evaluation mechanisms. Despite these efforts at facilitation, leaders must also recognize that emergent solutions can also occur outside the formal processes established. Leaders must maintain the flexibility to incorporate such solutions even though they are not part of the formal deliberative process. This resilience is a concrete demonstration of how governance and emergence can coexist to produce desired outcomes. Connectivity among Complex Adaptive Systems The COVID 19 pandemic provides clear examples of how the actions in one CAS can impact outcomes in other CAS’s, which in turn can have reverse effects on the original CAS through feedback loops. These impacts can occur both vertically and laterally. Attempts to govern approaches to ameliorating impacts of the pandemic must be undertaken with awareness of these interconnections and their unanticipated consequences. The vertical connections among CAS’s are illustrated by recent attempts to implement national guidance on mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccinations. The national portfolio of preventive measures represents an overarching complex adaptive system that encompasses state prevention systems. Preventive guidance at the national level impacts state level prevention guidance in at least two possible ways, depending upon the cultural, political, economic, and health factors present in each state: (1) national guidance can reinforce and strengthen state guidance – creating an inflationary feedback loop that leads to continual increases in compliance with guidance at both national and state levels and (2) national guidance can be in conflict with state level guidance (e.g., national guidance may recommend mandatory proof of vaccinations for employees prior to entering workplaces that are subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] regulations, which may exacerbate high unemployment levels and depressed economic conditions in the state). In this instance, the feedback loop is negative, meaning that stronger attempts to implement national standards will result in stiffer resistance to compliance at the state level.

212  Part 4 The horizontal connection among CAS’s is illustrated by the dynamics of vaccine distribution in countries across the globe. This begins with the assumption that each country’s attempt to protect its population from COVID 19 represents a complex adaptive system operating at a national level. The predominant approach to ensure protection against the virus is to increase the percentage of the eligible population that is fully vaccinated. This would reduce the number of targets that the virus has to attack and fewer opportunities for the virus to mutate to new and possibly more dangerous variants. If governance policies in nations with abundant vaccine supplies result in inadequate distribution of vaccines to countries with low vaccination rates, this presents the vaccine with an increasing number of targets to attack and fertile ground in which to mutate. Because the world is so interconnected, these new variants have an opportunity to spread to all countries and present new risks to populations that were previously protected through vaccination protocols but are now newly vulnerable. This is an illustration of the connectivity among lateral complex adaptive systems, and how governance strategies in one country can not only impact other systems but also can reverberate through feedback loops to impact the original CAS. In both instances of vertical and lateral connectivity among CAS’s, those in governance positions must be sensitized to the systemic nature of their decisions. Their decisions have consequences that are unforeseen and unintended in the absence of proactive consideration of “downstream” effects. Much of the thinking among policy-makers is grounded in the clockwork, cause–effect paradigm exemplified in a Newtonian universe. A system’s approach represents a departure from this model by considering the criticality of feedback. In simple terms, the connection between cause and effect is a two-way street. They have mutual impact on each other. Distributed Governance The hallmark feature of complex adaptive systems is distributed governance. In the case of the COVID 19 pandemic, there is ample evidence that steering toward a solution to the pandemic involves decision-makers at all levels and in all sectors of a society. Perhaps the biggest hurdle to overcome by government officials is the ability and willingness to set aside traditional hierarchical, command-and-control models where power is concentrated at the top, and accept the increasing reality that the power and influence of any single administrator is limited. The collective governance power of a complex adaptive system is the preferred approach – particularly in addressing complex societal issues that emerge in a discontinuous fashion. Solving the pandemic crisis has been and will continue to be messy, nonlinear, and often unpredictable. But it is more important to accept the necessity of network governance than to cling to outmoded hierarchical governance approaches.

Integrating the Governance Concepts 213

Reflexivity A major difficulty in reaching consensus on how to proceed in addressing COVID 19 has been deeply divided and divisive views of protagonists regarding acceptable approaches. These differences are deeply rooted in narratives that inform the respective adversaries’ approach to making sense of the world around them. Narratives underpin not only approaches to addressing the pandemic but have more far-reaching influence on how the entire panoply of societal issues are addressed by each faction. Narratives are mental constructs that help people simplify what otherwise is an almost incomprehensible environment to navigate. When a narrative is broadly accepted, it transitions from an individual mental construct to a “social” construct that is reinforced by intensive interaction among like-minded people,9 and further buttressed by social media who shape their messaging so that it aligns with the dominant narrative already accepted by their target audience. Closely related to the concept of a narrative are other forms simplifying an otherwise complex world. These include scripts, stories, models, metaphors, and paradigms. The two common features among each of these concepts are: (1) they are simplifications of reality and (2) they are internally coherent – that is, the components of the narrative are sufficiently integrated to make holistic sense. Prominent among the competing narratives interpreting the meaning of the COVID pandemic and how to address it are: • •

The libertarian approach – prominent values include personal freedom, independence, self-sufficiency, small government, and the first amendment right of free speech The public good approach – prominent values include security, responsibility for others, concern for equity and interdependence, and government playing a major role in affairs that affect the public interest.

Groups embracing the libertarian narrative are generally against government mandates for preventive measures such as wearing masks, vaccinations, and testing, assuming that these decisions are the province of responsible individuals. Groups embracing the public good narrative are in favor of government mandates if it is in the public interest. Rather than leaving decisions on prevention to the individual, they assume that it is the government’s responsibility to intervene when the actions of one person have consequences for other people. As mentioned, both narratives are supported and reinforced by sympathetic media that amplify the tenets of the respective narrative. Both groups accept the “facts” that reinforce their respective narrative and reject the “facts” that support the opposing narrative. The science that explains the

214  Part 4 nature of COVID, its impact on the population, and the effectiveness of preventive and therapeutic measures is an ongoing process of discovery and adjustment. In this dynamic environment, “facts” can be elusive and ephemeral. Guidelines for mask wearing, school openings, social gatherings, etc. can shift from day to day depending upon new data. This places those in the position of governing approaches to address the pandemic in a difficult position. Scientists are comfortable operating from a position where results are probabilistic at best, tenuous, and often equivocal. The “truth” evolves. In contrast, policy-makers and regulators are in a position where they must make yes or no decisions. This is an historical conflict between science and law – where science operates on probabilities and legal decisions must rest on certainty. The groups respectively embracing libertarian and public good narratives are also basing their decisions on “facts” or certainties that are in alignment with their respective narratives. The challenge for those in governance roles is to build sufficient consensus among groups with competing narratives that enable them to craft a coordinated set of strategies in attacking the pandemic. This is sometimes referred to as “political will.” That concept must be broad enough to encompass both agreement in theory as well as practice, or implementation. Building such a consensus is no guarantee, particularly in a bitterly divided tribal environment, such as exists in the United States in 2020–22. But some suggested approaches to decrease such polarization are given below: •

Establish equivocality: Take steps to reduce the unequivocal allegiance that adherents pledge to a given narrative. This is accomplished by establishing conditions that allow adherents to see other possible ways to view the situation – in this case the pandemic. One approach is to identify influencers among the population of adherents. Influencers should be selected based on two criteria: (1) they are individuals who are trusted by the adherents, most likely local people who occupy respected positions in the community – e.g., doctors, clergy, educators, etc.; and (2) they are more open to alternative interpretations of the pandemic and how to address it than adherents that are more closely bound to the dominant narrative. This is, indeed, a difficult “needle” to thread. A second approach, which is not within the control of governance, is to experience a shock to the community that is sufficiently large to cause adherents to question the legitimacy of the dominant narrative. An example related to the pandemic would be an outbreak of the virus that is so severe that a majority of the community who previously refused vaccine mandates based on principles of individual freedom and rejection of government overreach – becomes infected and begins to seriously impact family members and friends. This may be sufficient to cause adherents to at least consider the wisdom of government mandates under certain circumstances. Those in governance positions might use these shocks to leverage further consideration of alternative approaches.

Integrating the Governance Concepts 215 •

Use deliberative polling: This is an idea advanced by Professor James Fishkin of Stanford University in 1988.10 It is a useful tool used to debate public policy issues among the citizenry, and arms them with information on both sides of an issue when they may ordinarily take opposite sides of an issue with little or no information to support their position. In the absence of such information, opponents will tend to only accept “facts” that are aligned with their dominant narrative. The deliberative polling process is described below, in an excerpt from the Stanford Center for Deliberative Democracy: A random, representative sample is first polled on the targeted issues. After this baseline poll, members of the sample are invited to gather at a single place for a weekend in order to discuss the issues. Carefully balanced briefing materials are sent to the participants and are also made publicly available. The participants engage in dialogue with competing experts and political leaders based on questions they develop in small group discussions with trained moderators. Parts of the deliberative events are often broadcast on television, either live or in taped and edited form and/or through social media and other mediums. After the deliberations, the sample is again asked the original questions. The resulting changes in opinion represent the conclusions the public would reach, if people had opportunity to become more informed and more engaged by the issues.11

•

Encourage self-reflection: This is a strategy that cannot be externally imposed, but would be a voluntary action undertaken on the part of narrative adherents. Those in governance roles may have a role in establishing conditions that are conducive to self-reflection. Examples would include promoting forums with the expressed intention of examining and possibly deconstructing strongly held narratives. Several methodologies have been recommended in earlier chapters. Occasionally, individuals can provide vivid examples of how preconceived notions about the virus, coupled with cultural context, can weave a revealing and reflexive narrative that could shed new light on the topic. Xiang Zhao was a researcher in Klagenfurt, Austria, who originally came from China. He provides a selfreflective narrative about his initial encounter with the virus when he was traveling from Austria to China to celebrate the Chinese New Year in January of 2020. The value of the narrative is that it provides a first-hand account of both his experience and how he was feeling about his experience each step of the way. The act of self-observation begins to reveal the lenses through which one makes sense of the world, and that reflexive act opens the potential for seeing the world through different lenses or narratives.12

216  Part 4 •

•

Ensure a system of checks and balances: In the absence of an inability or unwillingness for narrative adherents to engage in self-reflection, those in governance roles can strive to ensure that a system of checks and balances exist to counter strongly held narratives. This has to be an institutional approach – at local, state, and national levels. At the state level, for example, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies are positioned to mediate and, if necessary, moderate the policy stances that each adopts. In the case of the COVID pandemic, if a state governor bans mandates on vaccines or mask-wearing via executive orders, those orders can be challenged in state courts by those who are operating from a “public interest” narrative. In turn, the state congress could pass legislation that reinforces the ban on mandates, and the cycle could repeat. The genius of “checks and balances,” conceived by the founding fathers, was that through this process there would be no “runaway” dominant narrative – which would be inimical in adjusting to discontinuous changes such as the onset of a pandemic with little knowledge of its ultimate impact. Rely on the experts: Ideally, disputes on how to address COVID 19 stemming from competing narratives could be resolved by relying on evidence-based facts that are confirmed by experts in the field. As discussed above, however, the tendency among adversaries is to accept only facts that support their respective narratives. Those in governance roles could take steps to bolster the legitimacy of expert views by ensuring that timely and comprehensive information is made available to citizens who reinforce expert views. Recent events, however, indicate that the scientific community may need further training in messaging and communicating with the media. Conflicting guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in January 2022 reduces confidence in expert opinion.

Integrated Governance – Policing Illustration These three components of effective governance achieve their full potential when considered as an integrated, holistic approach. To explain further: Managers at any level of governance deal with a complex and ambiguous environment by creating a simplified model of the environment that makes sense to the manager in terms of his/her goals. This is the “requisite variety” component of the integrated governance model. To illustrate, a police department’s primary mission is to protect the safety of the community it serves. The community is comprised many institutions and stakeholders engaged in a complex array of interactions. The police department will create a model of how public safety risks are distributed throughout the community. They will then focus their limited resources to fund strategies that target areas which are perceived to present the greatest threats to public safety. If the model is too simple (contains insufficient variety to address

Integrating the Governance Concepts 217 different risk categories), strategies will be inadequate to protect the safety of the community. If the model attempts to tailor different strategies for each conceivable public safety threat (too much variety), the strategic approach will be impossible to manage because of its own complexity. The sweet spot will be to establish a sufficient variety of strategies (requisite variety) that will enable the Department to successfully implement a set of strategies that reduce the most serious threats to public safety. How does the concept of requisite variety tie in to reflexivity, the second component of the governance model? A key phrase in the “requisite variety” example is “perceived risk.” It is this phrase that links requisite variety to reflexivity. The concept of reflexivity, or self-reflection, refers to the lens through which actors in the decision-making process perceive the world around them. In the police department illustration, participating actors within the policing milieu establish a model of public safety risks that is shaped by each actor’s predisposed ways of defining and experiencing risk. These predispositions are based on a combination of personality, organizational, and cultural inputs. Thus, various types of public safety threats – e.g., gang-related violence, homelessness, poverty, drug trafficking – are likely to be interpreted differently depending on the participant in designing public safety strategies. The reflexivity component of governance is essential because it enables participants to include themselves and their predispositions as an integral part of understanding the scope of problems addressed and the strategies implemented to address these problems. Recognition of one’s internal stances opens the door to seeing other possible ways of viewing and addressing the situation at hand. The complexity component of the governance model expands the “playing field” in constructing models that define the relevant environment. Continuing with the police department illustration, several new dimensions are introduced with the complexity component. First, the network of actors now includes much broader participation. Second, the connection among actors becomes more frequent and dense. The concept of “public safety governance” itself spreads throughout the network rather than being confined to those formally responsible for public safety as part of policing institutions. Third, the self-conscious reflexivity aspect of governance does not disappear, but instead is also spread throughout the network. Multiple predisposed ways of modeling the public safety environment are now vying for prominence as the preferred way to prioritize public safety threats and corresponding strategies to address the most severe threats. From the complexity perspective the public safety response becomes a complex adaptive system (CAS). The establishment of requisite variety in modeling risks and reflexivity in self-consciously considering alternative approaches for defining and addressing risks are both still viable components of governance, but are now played out on a much broader landscape. Through the process of self-organization fostered by extensive interaction among agents, solutions to public safety threats may appear random and ineffective for

218  Part 4 extended periods of time. But through extended interaction, effective solutions will periodically emerge. These periods of emergence occur during “phase shifts” that collectively redefine public safety risks and reinvent public safety solutions. This is precisely what began to emerge, triggered by the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in June 2020.

Summary Observations Each of the three cases covered in this chapter represent a wide range of governance strategies. These strategies have been implemented to address what Rittel and Webber would call “wicked” problems that do not lend themselves to solutions where the variables can be controlled under laboratory conditions.13 Each of the cases is being addressed in a highly politicized and tribal environment in which deeply seated narratives held by adversaries drive problem definitions, solutions, and even the “facts” that support solutions. Further, the opposing narratives are reinforced by social media outlets that provide a continuing stream of messaging confirming the correctness of the dominant narrative. It is a difficult challenge to integrate the three components of an enhanced governance approach – requisite variety, complexity, and reflexivity. Approaches to managing public problems are rooted in traditional management practices formulated in an era where the industrial economy dominated. Hierarchical approaches to solving complex issues remain a dominant paradigm in both the private and public sectors. This approach assumes that a good percentage of the intelligence necessary to solve problems resides in the corporate boardroom or in the office of a cabinet secretary. The hierarchical approach to problem-solving also requires a good deal of consensus building and support for the policies formulated at the top, and a minimum of “second-guessing” those in power. Such questioning may be interpreted as an obstacle to progress. Much of the focus on public problem-solving centers on the first component of enhanced governance – establishing requisite variety. This component essentially addresses the problem of how to allocate scarce resources to address the highest risk issues. Improved information technologies and process design have enhanced the ability for those in governance positions to develop more elaborate models of issues and strategies to address the issues. This increases the ability to absorb greater complexity and implement strategies that more accurately address high-risk issues. Implementation of the second two components of governance is more challenging. The acknowledgement that power and influence is widely distributed among stakeholders – particularly in addressing complex issues – is contrary to the traditional assumption that power and decision-making is concentrated at the top. The added value of collective intelligence produced by a complex adaptive system over “corporate”

Integrating the Governance Concepts 219 intelligence is difficult to accept by those who have been steeped in legacy command-and-control management approaches. Implementation of the third component of enhanced governance – reflexivity – is also difficult for the reasons discussed throughout this text. It is an arduous task to deconstruct a narrative that has been used to make sense of the world and is closely associated with the very identify of those in positions of governance. The successful integration of the three components of governance requires overcoming two challenges: (1) willingness to cede power and influence to a network of stakeholders, to acknowledge the effectiveness of collective intelligence, and to recognize the importance of interaction and information sharing among agents; and (2) willingness to examine the lenses through which those in governance positions view the world, in order to view other possible ways of organizing their attention and solving problems in nontraditional ways.

Notes 1 Summary of the Administrative Procedure Act Quick Links APA, from the National Archives, The official text of the APA is available in the United States Code from the US Government Printing Office 5 USC §551 et seq. (1946). 2 Fortin, Jacy (2021). “Critical Race Theory: A Brief History.” New York Times, November 8, 2021. 3 Sawchuk, Stephen (2021). “What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?” Education Week,  May 18, 2021. 4 Luft, J. and Ingham, H. (1995). “The Johari Window, A Graphic Model of Interpersonal Awareness.” In Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development. Los Angeles: University of California. 5 Knowles, Richard (2013). The Process Enneagram: Essays on Theory and Practice. London: ISCE Publishing. 6 Husserl, Edmund (1977).  Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands (pp. 20–21). 7 Decentralization against COVID-19 DIPLOCAT AGORA 6 | EN Digital debate organized by DIPLOCAT and the Catalan Center for Contemporary Studies on June 25, 2020. https://www.cativitra.ucsb.edu/ 8 https://cepi.net/covax/ 9 Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin. 10 Fishkin, James S. (2012).  “Deliberative Polling: Executive Summary.” CDD. Retrieved November 10, 2012. 11 “What is Deliberate Polling.” Stanford Center for Deliberative Democracy. https://cdd.stanford.edu/what-is-deliberative-polling/#The_Process 12 Zhao, Xiang (August 2, 2020). “Experiencing the Pandemic: Narrative Reflection about Two Coronavirus Outbreaks.” Health Communication 36 (14): 1852–1855. 13 Rittel, Horst W. J. and Melvin M. Webber (1973). “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.

Index

Note: Italicized page numbers refer to figures and bold page numbers refer tables. Page numbers followed by “n” refer to notes. abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) 163 ACF see Administration for Children and Families Adams, G. 32 adaptive approach to organization theory 133 adaptive governance 39–40 adaptive leadership 75, 76 adequate yearly progress (AYP) 172 administration vs. governance 3 Administration for Children and Families (ACF) 183 administrative leadership 75 administrative leaders’ roles in complex adaptive systems, implications for 74–76; deliberate change 74–75; equivocality by empowerment, reduction of 75–76; equivocality, reduction of 75; leadership functions 75; linguistic domain, understanding 74; power 75 Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 202 Aldrich, H. 95, 99 “alphabet soup” of management reforms 129 alternative institutions 61 alternative perspectives of governance 60–61 alternative practices of governance 61 ANDAs see abbreviated new drug applications Ansel, C.: Handbook on Theories of Governance 23

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 190 Appel, E. A. 60 Argyris, C. 38, 133 ASEAN see Association of Southeast Asian Nations Ashby, R. 4, 38, 45, 46 Ashby’s Law 45 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 63 attractors 67–68 Axelrod, R. M. 69 AYP see adequate yearly progress backpacking dilemma 46–47 Ball, M. 79, 81 Bateson, G. 38 Beer, S. 92 Behn, R. 130 Bell, D. 203 Berger, P. L. 152 BIE see Bureau of Indian Education binary orientation 51; Food and Drug Administration 52; police departments 56 biological complex adaptive systems 76–77 Blomme, R. 72–74 border wall issue, multilevel nature of 194–196, 195–196, 197 boundary management 83–85, 88; areas of change 97–98; boundaries, defining 92–93; boundary functions 92–93; conceptual boundaries, protecting 100; external representations at conceptual boundaries, developing

Index 221 102–104; external representations at tangible boundaries, developing 102; framework 90–98; functions and dimensions of 100–106; gestalt at conceptual boundaries, creating 102; gestalt at tangible boundaries, creating 102; gestalt at temporal boundaries, creating 102; gestalt creation 97–98; multiple dimensions 90–92; policy conflicts 104–105; protection 94; requisite variety 96–97; requisite variety at conceptual boundaries, establishing 101; requisite variety at temporal boundaries, establishing 101; resource flow across conceptual boundaries, regulating 101; resource flow across tangible boundaries, regulating 100; resource flow across temporal boundaries, regulating 101; resource regulation 94–96; tangible boundaries, protecting 100; temporal boundaries, protecting 100; total boundary approach 105–106; unpredictability 106 bounded rationality 30 bracketing 205 budget reductions, as enactment process: conditional viewing 142–143; discovering 144–146; enactment 143–144; undirected viewing mode 140–142 Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) 160, 171–177; complexity 159, 174–176; Indian country issues with NCLB 173–174; reflexivity 159, 176–177; requisite variety 159, 174; Strategic Direction for 2018–23 176 Burns, T. 95 Burrell, G. 15 Bush, G. W. 171, 190 Carlson, J. 129 cascades 69–70 CAS see complex adaptive systems categorical orientation 51; Food and Drug Administration 52–53; police departments 56 cause–effect relationships 24, 25, 61, 63 CBP see Customs and Border Protection agency

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 216 CEPI see Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978, Title IV 86–87 climate change 16, 18, 63, 65, 70, 83, 108, 110, 133, 138–140, 153–155, 179, 200 Clinton, B. 190 Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) 209 coevolution 59, 66 cognitive capacity 3, 4 cognitive constructs 9, 10 Cohen, M. D. 69 command-and-control approach 72–74, 78, 111, 175, 212, 219 complex adaptive systems (CAS) 3–5, 18, 20, 27, 39–40, 51, 58, 175–176, 209–210; attractors 67–68; biological 76–77; boundary management 83; cascades 69–70; case studies 76–83; coevolution 66; COVID 19 crisis 76–78, 211–212; COVID 19 vaccine distribution effectiveness 78–79; Customs and Border Protection agency 185–194, 186, 187; dissipative structures 64–65; dynamics of 59–98; edge of chaos, the 40, 64, 68–71, 81, 83, 87, 88, 93, 189–191; emergence 65–66; fitness landscapes 67; fractals 62; human 77, 78; leadership, role of 71–76, 78, 106–111, 107, 108; nested structures 62–64; network relationships 68–70; path dependence 66; public administrators, as boundary managers 83–90; self-organization 65; shadow campaign, in 2020 presidential election 79–83; thresholds 69–70; trade-off between Connectivity and Resilience 70–71; type I and II errors 158; see also individual entries complexity 3, 6, 20, 23, 58; alternative views of governance 60–61; Bureau of Indian Education 159, 174–176; COVID 19 crisis 209–212; Drug Review Program 164–168; enhanced governance approach, designing 204–205; external representation 99–100; in governance 106–111; in leadership 106–111; organizational

222  Index perspective of 202; policing 217; science 58; theory 61; understanding and navigating 59; see also individual entries comprehensive-rational governance 25–28, 30, 129 conceptual boundaries: establishing requisite variety at 101; external representations at, developing 102–104; gestalt at, creating 102; protecting 100; regulating resource flow across 101 conceptual limits 91, 92 conditional residents 179 constructionist perspective: on governance in public sector 128–131 constructivist perspective: in understanding public sector planning 130–131 content 72–73 context 73 contingency theory 37 continuous orientation 51; Food and Drug Administration 53; police departments 56 control vs. understanding 127 Convention of the Party (COP) 139 COP see Convention of the Party COP26 climate conference (2021), Stockholm, Sweden 134, 139 COVID 19 crisis 86; addressing 206–208; and complex adaptive systems 76–78; complexity 209–212; connectivity among complex adaptive systems 211–212; dance between governance and emergence 210–211; deliberative polling 215; distributed governance 212; equivocality, establishment of 214; reflexivity 213–216; rely on the experts 216; requisite variety 208–209; self-reflection, encouraging 215; system of checks and balances 216; vaccine distribution effectiveness 78–79 Crenshaw, K. 203 critical race theory 137–138; in public schools, conflict over teaching of 203–204 customer acceptance 90 Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) 178–198; applying enhanced and integrated governance to 179–196; capitalizing on information/detection technology

184; complex adaptive systems 185–194, 186, 187; design of immigration process, improving 184–185; divisions 178–179; economies of scale 184; extensive problem definition and framing 196–198; FY 21 budget 178; mission priorities 178; partnership formation 184; reflexivity 194–196, 195–196; Reimbursable Services Program 184; requisite variety, establishment of 179–185; risks, prioritizing 184; transfer core competencies 185 Cycle of Intelligence, The 205 DACA see Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Daft, C. 92 Daft, R. L.: enactment model 133–151, 135, 136 Davis, R. 25 DED see Deferred Enforced Departure Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) 183, 185, 191, 194 Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) 183 degree of adaptability to changing conditions 24, 36–40 degree of centralization vs. decentralization in governance decisions 24, 30–36; interest group liberalism 33; iron triangle 32–33, 32; issue networks 34; network governance 34–36 degree of comprehensiveness and integration in governance strategies 24, 24–30 degree of control 9, 10 “Delaney Clause of the Food Additive Amendments, The” 53 Delgado, R. 203 deliberative polling 215 deutero-learning 38 discontinuous change, in leadership 107–108 disjointed incrementalism 25–26, 129, 130 disjointed incremental theory 129 dissipative structures 64–65 distributed governance 212 distributed nature of decision-making and goal divergence: challenge 165; plausible solutions 165

Index 223 Diversity Visa program 190 double loop learning 38 Downs, A. 94 DREAM Act 191 Drucker, P. 25, 31 Drug Review Program (FDA) 163–170; complexity 164–168; reflexivity 168; remedies to enhance Federal agencies’ capacity to absorb variety 168–170; requisite variety 164–168 dynamics 59; of metaphor usage in planning process design and implementation 123; of movement 110–111 edge of chaos, the 40, 64, 68–71, 81, 83, 87, 88, 93, 189–191 EEZ see Exclusive Economic Zone Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 171 emergence 65–66, 73–74, 209; COVID 19 crisis 210–211 emergent leadership 73–74 Emery, F.E. 37, 95 empowerment, reduction of equivocality by 75–76 enabling leadership 75, 76 enactment approach to governance 131–135 enactment model of governance 132–135, 135; conditioned viewing 137; discovery 138–139; recommendations for 148–151; unconditioned viewing 137–138 Enthoven, A. 129 environmental issue networks 34 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 67, 201 EPA see Environmental Protection Agency epistemological approaches 9, 10 epistemological paradigms 15–22 equivocality 7, 72, 74, 75; by empowerment, reduction of 75–76; establishment of 214; reduction of 75 Etzioni, A. 27–28, 129 EU see European Union European Union (EU) 63 evolutionary biology 67 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 36 external representation 99–100 fallibility, principle of 152, 154–155 familiarity/experience, with alternative metaphors 127

“family” metaphor 121 FDA see Food and Drug Administration FDASIA see Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act FD&C Laws 104 Federal Aviation Administration 201 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 163 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 66 feedback mechanisms 36 FERN see Food Emergency Response Laboratory Network Fishkin, J. 215 fitness landscapes (FL) 67 FL see fitness landscapes Flores Settlement of 1997 181–182 Floyd, G. 218 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4, 45, 86, 88, 91–100, 102–106, 115, 116, 126, 160; binary orientation 52; boundaries 54–55; categorical orientation 52–53; complexity 159; continuous orientation 53; Drug Review Program 163–170; economic pressure 54, 55; Food Emergency Response Laboratory Network 169; Generic Drug Review Program 163; law 54; planning process, designing 115–116; political forces 54; reflexivity 159; requisite variety 159; technology developments 53–54 Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) 166–167 Food Emergency Response Laboratory Network (FERN) 169 fractals 62, 108 Friedman, J. 133 FTC see Federal Trade Commission functionalist epistemology 16–17, 19–21 functionalist paradigm (objectiveregulation) 15 “functionalist” view of governance 132 GAVI (a global vaccine alliance) 209 GCC see Middle East and Africa Gulf Cooperation Council General Motors 17 Generic Drug Review Program 163

224  Index Gephardt, D. 80 German Idealist School 116 gestalt 35, 70; at conceptual boundaries, creating 102; creation 97–98, 103; at tangible boundaries, creating 102; at temporal boundaries, creating 102 Goffman, E. 99; Presentation of Self in Everyday Life 122 good governance 3 governance: administration vs. 3; analysis, frameworks for 9, 9, 11; approaches, criteria for framing 24; approaches, ranges of 23–40; complexity in 106–111; complexity’s alternative views of 60–61; components of 219; definition of 8–9, 23; distributed 212; enactment approach to 131–135; entity, cognitive capacity of 3; environment, organizing 50–56; fight against COVID 19 crisis 210–211; function 4, 8, 64, 158, 191, 201; good 3; hierarchical 30, 31, 35, 36, 59, 66, 212; legacy 59, 66, 71; multiscaled 69; network 34–36; in public sector, constructionist perspective on 128–131; responses to states of equilibrium and disequilibrium in immigration rates 189; to threelegged stool, relating 4–7; see also individual entries Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 25, 119, 119, 129 GPRA see Government Performance and Results Act Graham, L. 185 great leaders 71 group rationality 30 Gulick, L. 25 H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004 190, 192 HACCP see Hazard Assessment at Critical Control Points Handbook on Theories of Governance (Ansel and Torfing) 23 Haynes, P. 61 Hazard Assessment at Critical Control Points (HACCP) 103 Heclo, H. 90 Heidegger, M. 144 Hertzog, P. 68

hierarchical bureaucracy 30–31 hierarchical governance 30, 31, 35, 36, 59, 66, 212 high-velocity environment 49 Homer-Dixon, T. 70 human complex adaptive systems 77, 78 Husserl, E. 49–50, 114 IBM: Watson 167 ICE see Immigration and Customs Enforcement Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 190 imaginative variation 49–50, 114 Immigration Accountability Executive Action 191 Immigration Act of 1990 190 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 181, 183, 193 Indian Health Service 175 individual reflexive perspective 5–7 innovation 9, 28, 72, 108, 109, 111, 167, 178, 192, 202, 211 Institute on Governance (IoG) 8, 12n1 institutional approach to adaptive governance 39 institutional rationality 30 instrumental learning 38 integrated governance concept 157–160 interest group liberalism 33 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 137, 140 interpretive modes, interaction among 146–151, 147, 148 interpretive paradigm (subjectiveregulation) 15 interpretive perspective 17, 19–21 interpretive thinking 116 IoG see Institute on Governance iron triangle 32–33, 32 IRS see Internal Revenue Service issue networks 34 Johari’s window 205 Johnson & Johnson 165 Johnson, S. 90; Myth of the Ant Queen, The 76 Kahneman, N.: Thinking Fast and Slow 197 Kast, E. 95

Index 225 Knowles, R. 205 Korzybski, A. 154 Krieger, M. H. 133 Kuhn, T. 152; Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The 109 Lakoff, G. 90 Lao Tzu 72 law of requisite variety (LRV) 3, 45–50, 114, 170 Lawrence, P. 37, 95 layered structure, in leadership 108 leadership 18; adaptive 75, 76; administrative 75; discontinuous change 107–108; dynamics of movement 110–111; emergent 73–74; emergent solutions through self-organization 111; enabling 75, 76; layered structure 108; network characteristics 109–110; participative 175; role in complex adaptive systems 71–76, 78, 106–111, 107, 108, 175–176; servant 175; styles 58, 175; transactional 73; transformational 73 learning 11; organization 37 legacy management theory 78 legal permanent residents (LPRs) 179 legitimacy 72, 79, 81, 129, 131, 145, 165, 214, 216 Lindblom, C. 25–26, 129 logical incrementalism 28–30, 129–130 Long, N. 90 Lorsch, J. 37, 95 Lowie, T. 33 LPRs see legal permanent residents LRV see law of requisite variety Luckmann, T. 152 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 36 management 11; boundary see boundary management; project 25; risk 25 Management by Objectives (MBO) 25, 129 managerial space 58 MBO see Management by Objectives McNamara, R. 128–129 Mehan, H. 144 MEO see most efficient organization metaphor 58–59; as communication tool 118; as conscious analogy 115; as figure of speech 115; prescriptive vs. descriptive 125–126; in public

sector planning environment, use of 114–128; relating to components of planning process 123–124, 124; usage in planning process design and implementation, dynamics of 123; and values 124–125, 125 metaphorical referents, ability to switch 126–127 Meyer, A. 118 Michael, D. 38 Middle East and Africa Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) 63 Mintzberg, H. 27, 28 mixed scanning approach 27–28, 129; cyclical considerations for 28; sudden environmental changes in 28 Morgan, G. 15, 92, 118 most efficient organization (MEO) 52 MSA see Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act multilevel perspectives required to design effective drug review strategies: challenge 165–166; plausible solutions 166–167 multiscaled governance 69 mutuality 35 Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator 205 Myth of the Ant Queen, The (Johnson) 76 narratives 213; inward focus 158 National Indian Education Association 173 National Marine Fisheries Service 36 NCLB see No Child Left Behind negative feedback 36 nested structures 62–64 nested systems 108, 175 network: characteristics 109–110; culture 71; focus 158; governance 34–36; relationships 68–70 New Jersey Office of Innovation 111 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 171–172; Indian country issues with 173–174 nonimmigrants 179 noninstrumental orientation 38 Obama, B. 106, 179, 185, 190, 191 objective scientific investigation 117 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 211 Office of Consumer Affairs 99

226  Index Office of Generic Drug Evaluation 170 Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) 163, 164 Office of Health Affairs 99 Office of Innovation 107, 111 Office of Legislative Affairs 99 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 25, 99, 129, 150 Office of New Drug Evaluation 170 Office of New Drug Review 164 Office of New Drugs (OND) 163 Office of Public Affairs 99 Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) 183 Office of the Inspector General 184 OGD see Office of Generic Drugs OMB see Office of Management and Budget OND see Office of New Drugs O’Neill, T. 183 open systems theory 37 Operation Gatekeeper 190 Operation Hold the Line 1903 organization: and environment, relationship between 37; learning 37; most efficient 52; self-organization see self-organization organizational focus 158 organizational learning 37, 38 organizational perspective 4, 201–208; complexity 202; conflict over teaching of critical race theory in public schools 203–204; reflexivity 202; requisite variety 201–202; targeted initiative approach 206–208 ORR see Office of Refugee Resettlement OSHA see Occupational Safety and Health Administration Ostrom, E. 38, 39 Ostrom, V. 38, 39 OTC see over-the-counter drugs over-the-counter (OTC) drugs 164 panarchy 71, 108 paradigm shift 39, 109, 151 PART see Program Assessment and Rating Tool participative leadership 175 “passive stance on environment” criterion 137, 138 path dependence 66 Patriot Act of 2001 190

PDUFA see Prescription Drug User Fee Act Pelosi, N. 194 perfect competition 152 performance measurement 25 PESTEL (political, economic, societal, technical, environmental, and legal) 87 phase shift 4, 64, 70, 106, 190, 193, 218 phase space 67, 68 phase transitions 64 phenomenological reduction (epoche) 49, 50, 114, 205 planners, proliferation of metaphors used by 118–119 planning process: components, relating metaphors to 123–124, 124; as consensus-builder 120; design and implementation, dynamics of metaphor usage in 123; metaphors of 119–122; as production line 120–121; as strategic game playing 121–122; as theatrical performance 122; as think tank 120 pluralism 33 pluralistic models 38 Podhorzer, M. 79–80 “poker game” metaphor 121–123 police departments: binary orientation 56; categorical orientation 56; continuous orientation 56 policing: complexity 217; reflexivity 217–218; requisite variety 216–217 policy conflicts 104–105 policy sciences approach 39 political will 214 Popper, K. 152 POSDCORB (Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting) methodology 25 positive feedback 36 PPBES see Program Planning Budgeting and Execution System PPBS see Program Planning and Budgeting System predictability 9, 10 Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) 53, 57n6 prescriptive vs. descriptive metaphors 125–126 Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Goffman) 122

Index 227 process 73; planning see planning process; budget reductions, as enactment process 140–146 Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) 25 Program Planning and Budgeting System (PPBS) 129 Program Planning Budgeting and Execution System (PPBES) 25 project management 25 proximity/urgency of issue 126–127 public administrators: conflict resolution 128; definitions of problems, issues, situations 128; epistemologies 151; planning alternatives 128; responsible decision-making 128; situations of conflict 128; understanding through metaphor 127–128 public administrators, as boundary managers 83–90; attention and resources 87–88; blurriness of boundaries 86–87; boundary management framework 90–98; boundary shifts 85–86; dilemmas 85; policy decisions 88–90, 89 public choice theory 38 Public Management Review 60 public–private partnerships 35 public sector: constructionist perspective on governance in 128–131; planning, constructivist perspective in understanding 130–131 public sector planning environment, use of metaphor in 114–128; FDA planning process, designing 115–118; planners, proliferation of metaphors used by 118–119, 119; planning process 119–122 Quinn, J. 27–30, 129–130 radical humanist paradigm (subjective-radical change) 16 radical humanist perspective 17, 19–21 radical structural epistemology 17–18, 19–21 radical structuralist paradigm (objective-radical change) 16 Rand Associates 128 rational man 152 reciprocity 34, 35

reflection 11 reflexivity 3, 4, 6, 21, 49–50, 114–155; Bureau of Indian Education 159, 176–177; COVID 19 crisis 213–216; Customs and Border Protection agency 194–196, 195–196; Drug Review Program 168; enhanced governance approach, designing 205–206; Food and Drug Administration 159; governance and 114–115; metaphor see metaphor; organizational perspective of 202; policing 217–218; power of 114–115; principle of 152; selfconscious 217–218; theory of 151–155, 153; type I and II errors 158 Reimbursable Services Program 184 requisite variety 3–5, 6, 10, 19, 21, 45–56; backpacking dilemma 46–47; boundary management 96–97; Bureau of Indian Education 159, 174; at conceptual boundaries, establishing 101; COVID 19 crisis 208–209; Customs and Border Protection agency 179–185; Drug Review Program 164–168; enhanced governance approach, designing 204; in Federal programs, factors complicating 48–50, 50; governance environment, organizing 50–56; law of 45–50; modeling 47, 48, 161–162; organizational perspective of 201–202; policing 216–217; relevance to Federal administrators 43–48; scoping 47, 47, 161–162; strategizing 47, 48, 161–162; at temporal boundaries, establishing 101; type I and II errors 158 resource flow: across conceptual boundaries, regulating 101; across tangible boundaries, regulating 100; across temporal boundaries, regulating 101 resource regulation 94–96 Ricoeur, P. 144 risk management 25 Rittel, H. 217 Rosenau, J. N. 69 Rosenzweig, J. E. 95 satisficing 30 Schon, D. A. 27, 28, 133

228  Index self-organization 18, 48, 58, 132, 157, 165, 202; complex adaptive systems 60, 65, 68, 73, 76, 77; emergent solutions through 111 self-reflection 49, 114, 157, 200, 201, 215–217 self-similarity 62 Senior Executive Service (SES) 86–87 servant leadership 175 SES see Senior Executive Service shadow campaign, in 2020 presidential election 79–83 Silverman, D. 92 Simon, H. 27, 30 “Smarter New Jersey” initiative 111 Smircich, L. 134 social networking/social networks 55, 69, 104, 139, 140, 165 Social Security Program 94 sociological approach to adaptive governance 39 sociological paradigms 16 Soros, G.: theory of reflexivity 151–155, 153 space 58; managerial 58; phase 67, 68; state 67 Stalker, G. M. 95 state space 67 Steelman, T. 39 strategic planning 25, 87 Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The (Kuhn) 109 Stubert, C. 134 sub-government 33 sustainability 49 SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis 25, 87 system of checks and balances 216 tangible boundaries: external representations at, developing 102; gestalt at, creating 102; protecting 100; regulating resource flow across 100 tangible limits 90–91, 92 targeted initiative approach 206–208 Taylor, F. 25, 31 temporal boundaries: establishing requisite variety at 101; gestalt at, creating 102; protecting 100; regulating resource flow across 101 temporal limits 91, 92

tenth amendment of the Constitution: “Reserved Powers” clause 208 text development and interpretation 134 “theories in use” 133 Theory of Bureaucracy and its Negative Consequences 31 Thinking Fast and Slow (Kahneman) 197 Thompson, J.D. 37 thresholds 69–70 time 58 Torfing, J.: Handbook on Theories of Governance 23 total boundary approach 105–106 trade-off between Connectivity and Resilience 70–71 transactional leadership 73 transformational leadership 73 Trist, E.L. 37, 95 Trump, D. 77, 79–82, 106, 138, 179, 182, 190, 191, 194 trust 34, 35 ultra-stability 38 understanding vs. control 127 undocumented residents 180 UNICEF 209 United States (U.S.): automobile industry 36; citizens 179; Congress 99, 105, 118, 127; Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) 46, 178–198; Department of Education 137, 138; Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 160, 175, 183, 193, 200; Department of Homeland Security 178, 183, 200, 201; Department of Justice 66; Federal Aviation Administration 201; Federal Trade Commission 66; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4, 45, 86, 88, 91–100, 102–106, 115, 116, 126, 159, 160, 163–170; health-care system 4–5; Labor Department’s Employment Training Administration 201; radical structural epistemology 18; State Department 36; U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) 180, 192; U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) 183 unpredictability 106 U.S. see United States

Index 229 USMCA see U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) 192 values, metaphors and 124–125, 125 Vicker, Sir G. 127 Watts, D. J. 68, 69, 76 Webber, M. 217 Weber, M. 30; Theory of Bureaucracy and its Negative Consequences 31

Weick, C. 92 Weick, K. E. 37, 47, 74; enactment model 133–151, 136 wicked problems 218 Wilson, W. 31; “Study of Administration, The” 86 Wood, H. 144 World Health Organization: Covex initiative 209 ZBB see Zero-Based Budgeting Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) 25, 129 Zhao, X. 215