By the way, for the purposes of this discussion, I'll be working with the following specific definition of the term, as it applies to processes within ANY organization, not just the government:She believes, as I'm sure that so many do, that such complex processes are inherently problematic (and perhaps valueless) because they easily become unproductively cumbersome. In other words: "Bureaucracy bad."
"The administrative structure of a large or complex organization," specifically the processes that make up the structure of such organizations.
In my opinion, what's commonly referred to as "bureaucracy" has unfairly gotten a bad rap in much the same way the word "semantics" has (and some of you know how I feel about that). There can certainly be bad processes, but that doesn't mean that processes are unnecessary... unless you believe in anarchy, which I do not.
Government and other organizational processes, much like a math formula, a cook-book recipe, or driving directions, are necessary guidelines that get us from a starting point to a desired goal. If you get the wrong answer, a bad souffle, or the wrong house, that's either due to poor a process or a poor application of the process.
If the process is sound (a big "if," I admit), then the problem is with the application of the process. In other words, the problem is the user.
In my social and professional experience, the best plans fail because the people who are supposed to carry them out are unwilling or unable to do their parts to achieve the desired results.
Whether it's planning the family reunion, a dining event, or report which requires input from multiple employees, it's usually the people, not the process, that fall short of the glory.
Too many times, at work, I've seen decent processes come and go, while the same employees stay and choose to ignore their obligations to the organization and the process.
I'm sorry, but 2+2=4. If you're getting another result, the problem isn't with math, it's with you (or your calculator).
I'd love to see people accept responsibility for this and hold themselves (and each other) accountable for the times when "you" fail "the system" (but not, of course, when "the system" fails "you").
What do you think?