class 4-2 PA

00:00:43.760 --> 00:00:46.180

Thomas O'Toole: All right. How's everyone

00:00:47.100 --> 00:00:52.370

Thomas O'Toole: looks like it's got a great day out to discuss public administration. It's gonna be a storm today or something.

00:00:53.160 --> 00:01:06.650

Thomas O'Toole: So those of you that weren't here? Hopefully, you saw the title slide from this point out, I'm going to be taking attendance at the beginning of each session. There'll be an attendance sheet up here. It's an old fashion, I'm sure there's probably some

00:01:06.720 --> 00:01:23.040

Thomas O'Toole: technological solution for this, but it's going to be an old-fashioned attendance sheet right up here on the front table. It's for academic and visa compliance. We have to make sure that everyone enrolled in the course is taking the course in person.

00:01:23.110 --> 00:01:33.720

Thomas O'Toole: Obviously, if things come up, you know that I'm recording each session right? Just in case somebody has to miss if they're sick, if you want to revisit class discussion, whatever.

00:01:33.750 --> 00:01:43.670

Thomas O'Toole: I also, you know, if if you are sick and I know Covid is going around right? You can always sink into the session if you're feeling up to it, or you can visit the

00:01:43.950 --> 00:02:13.819

Thomas O'Toole: The asynchronous recording afterwards. Once it's processed, they usually post those things fairly quickly. Sometimes if the system is backed up, it takes longer than others to to process these things. But usually I get them posted by the evening following the class. Right? So but if you do wind up getting sick, you can always sync in for a session or 2. It's yes, can't become a pattern, which is why we have. We have to take attendance. so I'll I'll be putting that sheet up front at the beginning of class. If you miss it during the beginning of

00:02:13.820 --> 00:02:23.830

Thomas O'Toole: class, see me after class, and I'll take the sheet outside. I just don't want this, you know. Log jam during, you know the end of the session, so that the next class

00:02:23.840 --> 00:02:30.250

Thomas O'Toole: is having to wait for us to leave, so if you don't, if you don't hit it at the beginning. make sure that you hit it at the end.

00:02:30.670 --> 00:02:46.370

Thomas O'Toole: And again just reinforcing do not sign peers into class. Okay? That's an academic integrity violation. So if I if I find out you've been doing that, then I'll have to. I'll have to report it. Okay, so please don't do that.

00:02:46.650 --> 00:03:01.360

Thomas O'Toole: I know your memos were due last night. I've taken a peek at a few of them. Seems like most of you are on track. We're gonna try to get these turned around to you fairly quickly. Just because, you know, you'll you'll want that feedback quickly for the next assignment.

00:03:01.490 --> 00:03:28.399

Thomas O'Toole: well, so I believe Molly is going to run a session that covers some some things that she's seeing in common across a lot of the memos related to citation, passive and active voice. And and you know these kinds of things. It'll be an optional session between my course and Professor Lam's course. You can attend if you have time, otherwise we'll be recording it. So you can revisit it later we'll post it on on both of our canvas sites. Okay, but

00:03:28.400 --> 00:03:32.939

Thomas O'Toole: nothing to panic about. They look fine. So no anxiety there.

00:03:32.950 --> 00:03:41.500

Thomas O'Toole: One favor that I'll ask, and this is sort of my idiosyncrasy. Don't assume this is the case for for all instructors

00:03:41.630 --> 00:03:45.100

Thomas O'Toole: at the beginning of class when I'm getting set up.

00:03:45.300 --> 00:04:14.569

Thomas O'Toole: That's not the best time to ask me stuff because I don't have a Ga. In the room helping me set everything up, and there's like a lot of bells and whistles, and I'm getting, you know. Those of you that are have been teachers before know what I'm talking about. There's like a lot of set up. You have to kind of get into your your mode. So there's always a good amount. I mean, I usually show up around 10'clock. Just give me a few minutes to get myself together and and get all the technology running cause. What happens is that like, if if people come up to me with questions.

00:04:14.570 --> 00:04:39.509

Thomas O'Toole: I stop and ask, and then I forget to turn the recording on, or or I forget to to, you know, pop up a Youtube link or something that I was gonna show. And so then, things kind of kind of fall apart. So just give me a few minutes to get set up, and then I'm happy to take questions, I'll let you know, like you know, cause. Usually, you know, today I got done by a quarter after. So I was able to go back questions. But just give me a few minutes to get set up, and then I'm happy to to answer questions. Okay.

00:04:39.510 --> 00:04:51.370

Thomas O'Toole: that's just me, though, so don't feel like every every instructor you need to like that space, but I'm just asking that just for a few minutes. Give me some space to make sure, like I've got myself set up, and then I'm happy to answer questions. Okay.

00:04:52.060 --> 00:04:53.720

Thomas O'Toole: okay,

00:04:53.870 --> 00:05:19.619

Thomas O'Toole: let's get into some of the material for this week. Cause. I know we have a couple of cases to look at for today. And we also have some readings on organizational structure and some readings on power right? The way power works in public administration. So Kettle begins this chapter by reviewing. A few classic theories of organizational structure. Right structure is is one of the nucleotides of organizational DNA.

00:05:19.620 --> 00:05:42.450

Thomas O'Toole: That we looked at at the beginning of the course. And if you think back to our discussion of waiver, these classic theories rely heavily on the notion of power being distributed. Within an organization via a what's called a scalar chain, right? Meaning from the highest to the lowest level of authority. Right? And the emphasis here is that power flows

00:05:42.450 --> 00:06:00.830

Thomas O'Toole: within an organization right? Because if the power dynamics of an organization were influenced by authority outside of the organization. It would disrupt that scalar chain authority. Right? That a lot of those theories rely on in other words, there's no possibility of independent bases of power.

00:06:00.830 --> 00:06:12.869

Thomas O'Toole: Right? So along comes Northern long with this essay on Power and administration. This is another one of those essay where I mentioned this is just me, because I'm a public administration, or but it's really beautiful, beautiful writing.

00:06:12.890 --> 00:06:14.250

Thomas O'Toole: right? So he says

00:06:14.280 --> 00:06:41.649

Thomas O'Toole: there's no more forlorn spectacle in the administrative world than an agency in a program possessed of statutory life, armed with executive orders, sustained in courts, yet stricken with paralysis, and deprived of power, an object of contempt to its enemies and despair to its friends. The lifeblood of administration is power. That's the classic line. From this article by long right. The lifeblood of administration is powerful.

00:06:41.650 --> 00:06:53.089

Thomas O'Toole: I would probably add sort of a a caveat to that that. The lifeblood of administration is power and money. But this is in my article right? And later, even these islands of the blessed

00:06:53.280 --> 00:07:22.239

Thomas O'Toole: are not immune from the plague of politics. So it sounds like unlike Wilson. Long is grudgingly acknowledging that there is this interconnectedness of politics and administration right? He's not happy about it, but he's acknowledging it right? And he says that to stay healthy an organization is really obliged to monitor and cultivate these power relationships right? And so he says, to stay healthy. One needs to recognize that health is a fruit.

00:07:22.240 --> 00:07:33.309

Thomas O'Toole: not a birthright. Right? Beautiful power is only one of the considerations that must be weighed in administration. But of all, it's the most overlooked in theory and the most overlooked in practice.

00:07:33.330 --> 00:08:00.880

Thomas O'Toole: The power resources of an administrator or an agency are not disclosed by a legal search of titles and court decisions, or by examining appropriations or budgetary allotments. All that formal stuff, right, legal authority, and treasury balance are necessary but politically insufficient bases of administration. Right? So we have to look beyond kind of the institutional legal structure of an organization. To all of these independent bases of power.

00:08:00.880 --> 00:08:22.320

Thomas O'Toole: these pushes and pulls that are affecting your organization's work. And so here's the punchline. Administrative rationality requires a critical evaluation of the whole range of complex and shifting forces on whose support acquiescence, or temporary impotence the power to act depend. So he's really claiming that these classic theories of

00:08:22.320 --> 00:08:40.170

Thomas O'Toole: organizational structure. Take for granted this notion that the only source of power, the only source of influence, right? Impacting a public administrator's work. Is flowing from the chief executive flowing from the top down through that scalar chain of authority. Right?

00:08:40.497 --> 00:08:57.210

Thomas O'Toole: So in the Federal Government. That's the Presidency. In State government. It's the Governor, municipality, the mayor that doesn't even make sense to us on an intuitive level. Right? Because, as Long writes, says, a structure of interest, friendly or hostile, vague and general, or compact and well defined.

00:08:57.310 --> 00:09:18.170

Thomas O'Toole: Encloses each significant center of administrative discretion. Right? This structure is an important determinant of the scope of possible action, and, in other words, all those forces are push or pull that defines the parameters of our decision making as manager managers right? So he says, as a source of power and authority, it's a competitor of the formal hierarchy.

00:09:18.210 --> 00:09:37.850

Thomas O'Toole: right? Meaning that if we have independent bases of power. If we have power that's not just flowing top down in your organization, but from the side that means we have to constantly be aware right of what these independent bases of power are. Who our key stakeholders are right? So what does all that mean? What are the implications of

00:09:37.890 --> 00:09:42.950

Thomas O'Toole: what long is telling, I mean, can you think of any examples or any concerns we should keep in mind?

00:09:45.450 --> 00:09:46.230

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah.

00:09:46.480 --> 00:10:01.829

Thomas O'Toole: what I was understanding was that he was expressing that, like politics, will find his way. So, having those checks and balances of power within the structure would be helpful.

00:10:02.070 --> 00:10:02.920

that, like.

00:10:03.250 --> 00:10:09.040

Thomas O'Toole: you, would always find a way like, Ask students and ask administrators to like enact your political will.

00:10:09.110 --> 00:10:28.599

Thomas O'Toole: So I couldn't tell if he was for more structure, and just like condemning the whole thing. Well, he's raising an observation right? So it's it's hard to tell from from like right. So so he's raising an observation of a practical reality, right, but sort of bridging your point back to our discussion of accountability. What's what's the concern there?

00:10:29.600 --> 00:10:36.189

Thomas O'Toole: I found that it was like concern. That power will be imbalanced on one side versus the others, like the same way.

00:10:36.240 --> 00:10:39.069

Thomas O'Toole: executive branch, for all these things that, like

00:10:39.080 --> 00:10:45.649

Thomas O'Toole: you have to have it, you know, evened out, or there has to be like someone to check the administrative.

00:10:45.750 --> 00:10:49.959

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, so that number one, there's someone to check the administrator. But what's the other concern?

00:10:50.660 --> 00:11:09.599

Thomas O'Toole: So if you have all these independent bases of power, right? What's the concern connecting to this point about accountability, all the means of control that we're thinking about right? So it means that public administrators are potentially beholden to interest beyond their organization. Right? So if you think about all these concerns with.

00:11:09.600 --> 00:11:28.099

Thomas O'Toole: you know lobbyists or issue networks or things like that. Right? The concern is then that this is sort of like a permeable surface. Right there. There are. There are stakeholders out there, right that might have some degree of influence over public administrators, right, perhaps even beyond

00:11:28.100 --> 00:11:43.079

Thomas O'Toole: the chief executive or the party they represent. So again, he has this famous quote, not only does political power flow in from both the sides of the organization, and it, as it were, it also flows up the organization to the center from its constituent parts. So he's essentially arguing that.

00:11:43.080 --> 00:12:05.759

Thomas O'Toole: not understanding the internal and external power dynamics of an organization will severely cripple a public administrators work right? So we not just have to understand kind of how our organization is structured. The organizational DNA of our organization, how that affects the parameters of our decision making. We also have to understand what's going on in our external environment, because.

00:12:05.760 --> 00:12:15.750

Thomas O'Toole: there are. There is this concern that there are independent bases of power over there that might capture our authority, or that might constrain our decision making in some way right?

00:12:15.750 --> 00:12:39.900

Thomas O'Toole: So it's not an inspiring enterprise. From. That's why it's hard to get a sense of like where his his stand is on this. He's just sort of like observing a practical reality. He's just saying, like power is not as simple as most pre scholars and practitioners think, as most of these classic theories of organizational structure believe right? So it's not an inspiring enterprise for him as it is for Nobachi Godel and Pepper. Right? So they have this very.

00:12:39.900 --> 00:12:53.390

Thomas O'Toole: you know, progressive and empowering and dynamic understanding of what we should do as public managers. He's making sort of the cynical observation that like look, there are independent bases of power out there, and if we want to be successful as of managers.

00:12:53.390 --> 00:13:22.769

Thomas O'Toole: we have to understand them, and we have to figure out how to either leverage them to our advantage, or neutralize them if they're a disadvantage, or third adversarial right? So for Nobachi Godel and pepper for them, the democratic ethos is some kind of a higher calling. Right? It's something aspirational nor long is somewhat more cynical. Right? Managing political relationships is kind of a grudging but necessary task for public public managers. And if you subscribe to that argument.

00:13:22.770 --> 00:13:37.249

Thomas O'Toole: that internal and external stakeholders matter right to public administration, then the next task becomes determining. Who those stakeholders are right specifically, who who are those stakeholders who are the key stakeholders in our environment?

00:13:37.310 --> 00:14:02.259

Thomas O'Toole: How much leverage they have over our organizations work because, again, one of the biggest concerns with Long's argument is, it's that it's just a starting point, right? We know that these internal and external power dynamics exist. We know these stakeholders are out there, either out there or in here. Right? But we have no idea how to differentiate them. We have no idea how much weight they have or how much impact they might have

00:14:02.260 --> 00:14:28.810

Thomas O'Toole: over our decision making right? Which means. We have no idea how to strategize. We have no idea right? Because we have no idea how stakeholders might align either with or against what we're trying to do. And if we have no idea how to strategize then we run this very real risk of ignoring key stakeholders. To the detriment of our organization's mission, right? And to the detriment of the overall level of trust

00:14:28.810 --> 00:14:42.459

Thomas O'Toole: right? That our clients or beneficiaries have in what our organizations are trying to do. Right? So I'll give you this example. So this is this Youtube clip that I'll I'm gonna try to play right sometimes. The techno. I never understand technology at Cornell.

00:14:42.460 --> 00:15:05.739

Thomas O'Toole: You know, Cornell, we help put robots on Mars. But sometimes, like the Powerpoint Projection, it's it just doesn't work for us. So this is Robert Whelan. He's founder of a nonprofit organization called 13 to Avenue funding which is an organization that that seeks to provide equity as an alternative to debt, for students to finance, college education.

00:15:12.330 --> 00:15:19.739

Thomas O'Toole: My training in my prior life would be to go to the top of any organization or school

00:15:20.030 --> 00:15:24.309

Thomas O'Toole: and build a relationship with the President. The board

00:15:24.550 --> 00:15:35.180

Thomas O'Toole: and I thought from there to the waters report, we'd be off and running issues that we did not anticipate started with

00:15:35.520 --> 00:15:44.110

Thomas O'Toole: trust and relationships. We didn't have the relationships with community based organizations or others.

00:15:44.170 --> 00:15:53.139

Thomas O'Toole: there are racial implications for what we're doing. So we would walk into neighborhoods that we did not come from, and there would be an immediate.

00:15:53.640 --> 00:15:55.830

Thomas O'Toole: Who are you? And why are you here?

00:15:56.090 --> 00:16:09.970

Thomas O'Toole: So there are built in biases that we did not really anticipate. Our first pilot site is a community college in Central Coast Coast coast coast coastal area of California. It's called Santa Maria, California.

00:16:10.100 --> 00:16:13.299

Thomas O'Toole: So it's migrant farm country, largely Hispanic.

00:16:13.380 --> 00:16:24.500

Thomas O'Toole: So we founded a community college called Alan Hancock Community College. where we built a trusted relationship with some of the administrators and the President

00:16:24.880 --> 00:16:34.669

Thomas O'Toole: that took about a year. So once they realized that we were not toxic, we were not radioactive, that indeed. we had something to offer

00:16:35.060 --> 00:16:53.239

Thomas O'Toole: to the students. That's when they allow us access to their students, and from there it became a relationship with students which certainly took some time. So we've had to build trusted relationships at the top and the bottom, and it doesn't necessarily go from top to bottom. It could go from bottom to top.

00:16:53.660 --> 00:16:56.019

Thomas O'Toole: which is a very new experience for us.

00:16:58.620 --> 00:17:05.149

Thomas O'Toole: Now, did you hear how long it took him? To build that that sense of trust with key stakeholders?

00:17:06.349 --> 00:17:28.130

Thomas O'Toole: Did you catch that? It took about a year right for this organization. So stakeholder engagement is not something that happens in short order? Right? So a lot of times when you see strategic planning processes documented on the page. It looks very hygienic. But in reality, and those of you that have done stakeholder engagement or strategic planning in the past. You know that it takes a long time.

00:17:28.130 --> 00:17:50.970

Thomas O'Toole: to build up the conditions of trust where you can actually engage stakeholders in a meaningful way. So in this case it took about a year for them to go through the entire stakeholder engagement process. So for today, I just wanna cover 2 frameworks that will hopefully start us thinking about how to sort out the forces that are in our environment right? And also who these stakeholders are.

00:17:50.970 --> 00:17:58.229

Thomas O'Toole: And how we might think about beginning to engage them right. And we'll cover this in more detail later on in the course when we get to strategic planning

00:17:58.230 --> 00:18:10.380

Thomas O'Toole: because this will actually be a key part of your final project. Right? Your final project in the course is a strategic planning deliverable. So you have to incorporate some consideration of stakeholder engagement in that deliverable. So

00:18:12.330 --> 00:18:23.049

Thomas O'Toole: so this is Grover Starling's Force field of stakeholders in the environment of a typical public administrator right? It might be hard for you to see

00:18:23.060 --> 00:18:47.370

Thomas O'Toole: and you might recall this from one of the mini lectures that I gave in this module. So essentially, I'm not gonna cover these in detail again, because I cover them in that mini lecture. And the course is kind of scaffolded in in kind of zeroing in on each of these stakeholders to it to a certain extent. But essentially what we're looking at here are the major forces of push and pull that a public administrator has to contend with.

00:18:47.370 --> 00:18:58.690

Thomas O'Toole: In the United States. Right? So I want to qualify that very, very carefully right. And I want to qualify that carefully, particularly in relation to the 2 cases that we assign for today.

00:18:58.690 --> 00:19:28.049

Thomas O'Toole: Because again, we're using these frameworks, we're using these approaches. These are these are lenses that we're using to try to understand what's going on in each of the cases, or to try to understand, you know, scenarios or challenges that we're encountering in practice. But when Starling came up with this model right? He's trying to give you a snapshot of what the environment looks like for a typical public administrator in the United States. And you have to remember that caveat. Remember Doll's concern

00:19:28.130 --> 00:19:37.910

Thomas O'Toole: right? The context factors that shape administrative experience. So when we migrate this to South Korea, when we migrate this to China.

00:19:38.400 --> 00:19:40.420

Thomas O'Toole: this might change completely

00:19:40.720 --> 00:19:56.919

Thomas O'Toole: right. And so one of the tasks that you'll have to undertake as an analyst is thinking about. You know, how does this change? How does the environment change the internal environment of an organization change when you migrate this to South Korea or China, how does the external environment change?

00:19:56.920 --> 00:20:18.149

Thomas O'Toole: When you migrate to South Korea or China? Right? For example, nonprofits and advocacy groups play an instrumental role in public administration, in shaping public administration and public policy in the United States. I've mentioned before that nonprofit organizations have a deeper legacy of social service provision in the United States and government.

00:20:18.210 --> 00:20:45.270

Thomas O'Toole: Right? So nonprofits. It's sort of typical for us to engage them as key stakeholders. Right? It. It signals to us kind of the strength of support, or or opposition to something that we're trying to do it provides us as administrators with information, we might not necessarily have right. So this is kind of the the constructive or proactive role that nonprofit organizations play in the United States

00:20:45.320 --> 00:20:50.239

Thomas O'Toole: migrating to other contexts. In some countries nonprofits are illegal.

00:20:50.610 --> 00:21:13.810

Thomas O'Toole: right? So it doesn't make sense to include them as a key stakeholder in this force field because they don't have that kind of pronounced role in shaping public administration and public policy. Right? So you really have to think about this. You know, these are kind of the forces of push and pull and I love that force field right? I mean, so cause I'm again. I'm a science fiction

00:21:13.810 --> 00:21:29.929

Thomas O'Toole: fan. So like Force fields. Right? You get this like Star Wars or Star Trek, like pulling and pushing, or that sometimes you feel like that right? And some of you that have have experience before you feel that like pulling on you. Right? This is what this is meant to describe. These are the forces. This is you.

00:21:30.030 --> 00:21:56.369

Thomas O'Toole: Once you graduate at the center, and all of these forces right, that are pushing and pulling that are sort of clamoring for your attention, that have a stake in something you or your organization is doing right. But the caveat you always have to keep in mind is context right? When you move this analysis to another country, you have to think about. The context factors of that country and how that might change. You know what this force field looks like. Okay, so just keep that caveat in mind. Alright.

00:21:56.510 --> 00:22:15.230

Thomas O'Toole: So force field analysis was a concept that was developed by, and you might cover this in project management as well. Sometimes Professor Brenner and I cover similar concepts. But we we sort of think about these things from a different way. So this was a concept that was developed by Kurt Lewin, who was an organizational psychologist in the 1940 s.

00:22:15.230 --> 00:22:28.510

Thomas O'Toole: And essentially, Lewin proposed that culture including organizational culture, exists in a constant state of equilibrium. Right? So he writes, a culture again, more beautiful, beautiful language.

00:22:28.510 --> 00:22:35.660

Thomas O'Toole: A culture is not a painted picnic. It's a living process composed of countless social interactions. Again, this comports well.

00:22:35.660 --> 00:22:59.350

Thomas O'Toole: with Long's article right? All of these interactions, all this flow of power, right like, get ready for this one, like a river whose form and velocity are determined by the balance of those forces that tend to make the water flow faster, and the friction that tends to make the water flow more slowly. The cultural pattern of a people at a given time is maintained by a balance of counteracting forces right? To bring about any change.

00:22:59.350 --> 00:23:05.599

The balance between the forces which maintain the social self-regulation at a given level has to be upset.

00:23:05.810 --> 00:23:28.579

Thomas O'Toole: Right has to be disrupted in some way. Right? So this is kind of what that looks like right now to maintain the status quo in an organization. The forces that are driving change and the forces restraining change have to remain in equilibrium, and sometimes from a managerial perspective. That's a desirable outcome. So, for example, those of you that are interested in consulting

00:23:28.620 --> 00:23:51.970

Thomas O'Toole: you might have a case interview that requires you to apply force field analysis to some change. The organization is considering right? And as public administration students sometimes where our students get shipped up as opposed to Mba students is that they are always looking for transformative change. Right? That's why you're all here, you all progressive. You wanna take action. You want to see something happen right?

00:23:51.970 --> 00:24:01.519

Thomas O'Toole: And Mba students are a little bit more conservative, and they understand that sometimes the most advantageous decision is doing absolutely nothing.

00:24:02.070 --> 00:24:23.600

Thomas O'Toole: So for those of you that go into that are thinking about going into consulting when you're thinking about case interviews. Always keep that. Do nothing option on the table and keep that. Do nothing. Option on the table. When you think about problems in this class as well, right? Sometimes maintaining the equilibrium in an organization given the context, right or the risks

00:24:23.600 --> 00:24:34.659

Thomas O'Toole: might be advantageous rather than affecting change. Right? So you do have to keep that impulse towards transformational change in check as you evaluate the range of decision options that you have right

00:24:34.660 --> 00:24:49.490

Thomas O'Toole: to facilitate change, though something has to disrupt that equilibrium right. That means either enhancing forces, driving change. Right? So you have to do something in the internal and external environment to facilitate, shrink, change.

00:24:49.490 --> 00:25:05.600

Thomas O'Toole: to kick that change or weakening forces restraining change. That's where I said before, it's to figure out a way to neutralize those forces that are constraining, or what you're trying to do right. So fortunately, we have a perfect case to kind of flesh out. You know how that would work in practice.

100

00:25:05.600 --> 00:25:26.169

Thomas O'Toole: I want you to just sort of like pair up for 10 min and think back to that. This is like sort of back of the napkin stuff, right? You don't. I mean, I know we talked about this case on Monday. But the race and Social justice initiative case. And it's a case where it's very obvious what they're trying to do. It's very obvious what the outcome of their work was meant to be.

101

00:25:26.170 --> 00:25:50.460

Thomas O'Toole: And it's also very obvious what the driving forces and the restraining forces are right. So, partner, up for about 10 min, and you know, back of a napkin, draw one of these 4 steel diagrams and think about. You know with your partner what were the forces that were driving change? What were the forces that were restraining change? And what were the forces that were maintaining the status quo. In that case, right? So just 10 min back of the napkin.

102

00:25:51.070 --> 00:25:51.940

Thomas O'Toole: go ahead.

103

00:25:53.740 --> 00:25:55.850

Thomas O'Toole: Okay, so

104

00:25:56.320 --> 00:26:07.280

Thomas O'Toole: that's fine. Yeah.

105

00:27:08.220 --> 00:27:09.310

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. Okay.

106

00:27:15.700 --> 00:27:18.249

Thomas O'Toole: that appears. Yeah, we don't know

107

00:27:46.860 --> 00:27:52.520

Thomas O'Toole: personally. human disparities regulating. That's what I mean.

108

00:27:53.220 --> 00:27:53.970

Most likely

109

00:28:01.000 --> 00:28:05.850

Thomas O'Toole: I understand. I don't remember.

110

00:28:06.980 --> 00:28:11.500

Thomas O'Toole: Oh, good!

111

00:28:44.260 --> 00:29:33.240

Thomas O'Toole: Let's say I'm willing to speak.

112

00:30:46.830 --> 00:30:52.160

Thomas O'Toole: Some people actually did have a desire to change

113

00:31:00.270 --> 00:31:04.949

Thomas O'Toole: my friend.

114

00:31:05.170 --> 00:31:22.140

Thomas O'Toole: Oh, my God!

115

00:31:22.510 --> 00:31:25.990

Thomas O'Toole: Lobby! And so

116

00:31:56.840 --> 00:32:16.749

Thomas O'Toole: I don't care.

117

00:32:16.790 --> 00:32:18.670

Thomas O'Toole: All right. So who wants to share out.

118

00:32:22.610 --> 00:32:23.460

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah.

119

00:32:24.710 --> 00:32:30.120

Thomas O'Toole: So no, no, let's let's go to the whiteboard. I can't.

120

00:32:30.660 --> 00:32:35.060

Thomas O'Toole: I can't either. I'll go ahead, go for it.

121

00:32:36.340 --> 00:32:56.249

Thomas O'Toole: I literally can't write so like I. So this is actually public administration in action. Right? So here in New York State, when I was a kid, they ran this experiment where they taught us to use cursive before block printing. And so now I don't know how to do either, because it was just a complete failure. So, anyway.

122

00:32:56.430 --> 00:33:00.800

Thomas O'Toole: oh, can I? What's the is the market? Or you're using actually drivers?

123

00:33:00.980 --> 00:33:05.079

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah.

124

00:33:07.050 --> 00:33:10.900

Thomas O'Toole: you passed the point and over to her uncomfortable.

125

00:33:11.930 --> 00:33:31.030

Thomas O'Toole: okay. So so first, I mean, let's think about the change that we're trying to effect in the case. Right? I mean, it can kind of, you know, this is one of those cases where it's it's pretty obvious what the what's the change that they're trying to facilitate in the case.

126

00:33:32.810 --> 00:33:36.080

Thomas O'Toole: am I? Oh, I'm contributing man right in. You're you're you're in

127

00:33:36.370 --> 00:33:47.319

Thomas O'Toole: so you've got you've got the dry erase marker. So you're in control like a very, very like big. And then a very specific kind of okay. So

128

00:33:47.320 --> 00:34:10.679

Thomas O'Toole: our our vague one was basically combating racism, public administration, Seattle, right? And then we have a list of particular mechanisms that perpetuate that. So what's the status quo like? What is? What is? What are we looking at right now? What is the status quo? What's going on in Seattle City governments. Right? Okay.

129

00:34:10.679 --> 00:34:20.639

Thomas O'Toole: and so that's that's the center block that we're looking at. Right? So we're we're trying to undo racism in Seattle City. Government. Right? That's the overall objective of the race and social justice initiative. Right?

130

00:34:21.909 --> 00:34:23.720

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, everyone agreed.

131

00:34:23.900 --> 00:34:46.869

Thomas O'Toole: Yes, they they literally say that right in the case like that pretty straightforward. Okay, so what are some of the driving forces? And what are the restraining forces like? What are the forces that are trying to, you know, move that objective forward. And so what are the restraining forces that are trying to, you know? Keep the status quo, or push against that work being moving forward.

132

00:34:47.810 --> 00:34:57.949

Thomas O'Toole: Well, so for for driving courses we have Mayor Mayor Nichols, right? Mickey Byrne, who is the new director of the department. That is there? Okay?

133

00:34:58.130 --> 00:35:02.110

Thomas O'Toole: So you have champions. Right? They're actually champions elected officials.

134

00:35:02.190 --> 00:35:13.980

Thomas O'Toole: go ahead and hear us. Yeah, help them out. Just get to be like a passive observer. Here. Come on.

135

00:35:22.360 --> 00:35:24.990

Thomas O'Toole: And there's coming business for those yeah.

136

00:35:28.350 --> 00:35:29.070

Part.

137

00:35:29.450 --> 00:35:38.530

Thomas O'Toole: Okay. So you've got champions. You've got a good group of champions that are kind of driving forces right? And moving this work forward. Right? What else? Yeah.

138

00:35:38.670 --> 00:35:42.129

Thomas O'Toole: public reaction or outrage of the situation? Yeah.

139

00:35:45.270 --> 00:35:58.179

Thomas O'Toole: you've got kind of a catalytic event, right? Remember, I mentioned last time that you know, even though this is a tragedy, right? It's still sort of a catalytic event that you know you can sort of take advantage of in driving this work forward. Right? What else?

140

00:36:02.220 --> 00:36:10.120

Thomas O'Toole: What about from an accountability perspective? Right? That they have some idea of how to hold department heads or departments accountable for this work.

141

00:36:17.560 --> 00:36:18.300

Thomas O'Toole: Oh, my goodness.

142

00:36:19.510 --> 00:36:36.120

Thomas O'Toole: it may also be like the department heads directly responsible. Yeah. Yeah. So they tied the performance. Evaluation right, the annual performance, evaluations of department heads to race and social justice, initiative, progress, right so outcomes related to the race and social justice, initiative, right

143

00:36:37.810 --> 00:36:45.319

Thomas O'Toole: accountability, agreements right? Right?

144

00:36:45.670 --> 00:36:49.569

Thomas O'Toole: So they've got some motivators in place that are driving change right?

145

00:36:51.440 --> 00:36:52.580

Thomas O'Toole: Anything else.

146

00:36:54.580 --> 00:37:15.610

Thomas O'Toole: So we're talking about a couple of things that are internal, right. We've got internal champions. We've got internal processes that are linked to the outcomes of Rsji. And externally, we've got kind of public opinion. Opinion that's kind of galvanizing around. A tragedy and and kind of driving change. Okay, so what about restraining? What about opposing?

147

00:37:16.300 --> 00:37:31.159

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, right? So there's this issue of. You know, there are some key stakeholders in the case, namely, a lot of city government personnel that are refusing to acknowledge the existence of racism. Right?

148

00:37:38.750 --> 00:37:45.530

Thomas O'Toole: What else? Yeah. Racial justice initiative.

149

00:37:45.710 --> 00:38:06.010

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. So you have these neighborhood associations. Remember the beginning of the case. There's all this discussion of you know, Seattle. Nice that there's kind of this veneer of progressivism in Seattle. But beneath that veneer there's kind of like this endemic racism that's perpetuated again through these neighborhood associations which

150

00:38:06.010 --> 00:38:24.979

Thomas O'Toole: you know, we we talked about kind of the roots of redlining being in these kinds of neighborhood associations, right? So there's also the public and sort of this inauthentic progressivism that's out there. That's kind of you know, it has the potential to inspire a backlash right against some of this work. Right? So that's that's definitely a restraining force.

151

00:38:25.230 --> 00:38:26.150

Thomas O'Toole: What else?

152

00:38:26.490 --> 00:38:52.529

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, can another just be that it's hard to talk about race. Yeah, then it's it's just hard to talk about race, right? I mean. And a good example of that is, when they tried to have this structured dialogue. And it was. It was a catastrophe, right? It was a disaster. It fell apart because of poor facilitation. Right? There's also that restraining force right and overall skepticism around whether or not, they can actually do this. In an authentic and and enduring way. Right?

153

00:38:53.610 --> 00:39:16.809

Thomas O'Toole: What else? Anything else? Yeah, lots go ahead. Yeah. A lot of the departments within Seattle. Their job description. Yeah, exactly. So like this doesn't doesn't apply to me. Right? I mean, this is something that other departments that are more, you know, invested in social justice. You know, this is this is kind of their thing, not our thing. Right?

154

00:39:17.840 --> 00:39:36.069

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. There was also like a lack of understanding when they were given like that accountability. A lot of them were just slapping diversity or culture onto like an initiative. And it wasn't actually getting out to move the problem. Yeah, kind of like addressing things in a perform into their performative way. Right? It's kind of the style versus substance issue. Right?

155

00:39:37.200 --> 00:39:43.609

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah.

156

00:39:45.300 --> 00:39:55.580

Thomas O'Toole: actionable. So like the notion of undoing racism, right? Like, how do you measure progress towards that like, how do you actually know whether or not you're actually making progress. Right? Yeah, exactly.

157

00:39:56.070 --> 00:40:08.309

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. Current institution statutes, policies. Yeah. So kind of the embeddedness of existing policy. Right?

158

00:40:08.910 --> 00:40:32.679

Thomas O'Toole: On the other hand, we do have a best practice case in that. There was a department that had revamped their entire contracting protocol to support women and minority own businesses. Remember that. And they were using that as kind of a template. For, you know, thinking more clearly about their procurement practices right? So on the driving force. You can actually list that there's a best practice case in in procurement that

159

00:40:32.740 --> 00:40:35.650

Thomas O'Toole: is aligned with Rsji. Goals

160

00:40:37.630 --> 00:40:39.770

Thomas O'Toole: can actually get a lot out of this? Right?

161

00:40:42.100 --> 00:40:44.450

Thomas O'Toole: Okay? Anything else? Yeah.

162

00:40:44.550 --> 00:40:51.720

Thomas O'Toole: A lot of the people who attended the train were actually engaged in it. They were kind of reluctant to participate sort of went there the next day.

163

00:40:51.860 --> 00:40:54.120

Thomas O'Toole: I'm sort of anything learning the dialogue.

164

00:40:54.140 --> 00:41:20.600

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, they weren't sort of like motivated right? I mean, let's let's all. Let's bring it back to this vocabulary that they're building right? So in from a motivator's perspective, they really didn't see the value in it, right? It was hard. So, okay. So now, once you've documented all these forces right? That's for the driving forces and the restraining forces. As a manager, you can start to think clearly and like, what do you do about all this right? Which which of these forces are you gonna try to address? Right? So the idea is that

165

00:41:20.600 --> 00:41:38.970

Thomas O'Toole: once you've documented all these forces, you can think about approaches where you can enhance those driving forces or neutralize those restraining forces. Right? So what are some. What are some approaches that you might think of? Think of when you know when you look at kind of like this breakdown of of forces. Right.

166

00:41:39.690 --> 00:41:42.380

Thomas O'Toole: What would you do? Where would you start?

167

00:41:43.500 --> 00:41:44.300

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah.

168

00:41:45.120 --> 00:41:58.079

Thomas O'Toole: And there's no right or wrong, it's not. You know what I mean like, this is sort of your prerogative as a manager, I mean, the important first step is documenting all these forces right? And then thinking where you want to start and what's reasonable from a resource deployments perspective. So yeah, go ahead.

169

00:41:58.360 --> 00:42:12.640

Thomas O'Toole: what we need to do is fire advice.

170

00:42:12.710 --> 00:42:20.120

Thomas O'Toole: And I think.

171

00:42:20.140 --> 00:42:31.720

Thomas O'Toole: timeline.

172

00:42:32.200 --> 00:42:55.770

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, absolutely especially going back to this point where it's really difficult to measure progress toward a goal as ambitious as undoing racism. Right? In a city government. That's that's had racism at its roots, since it's founding right? So you know, so demonstrating some of these short term wins would probably have the effect of engaging these stakeholders who are skeptical about this work. In the first place, right? What else? Yeah.

173

00:42:55.790 --> 00:43:03.839

Thomas O'Toole: Well, I thought it was really interesting that the reading doesn't actually mention a demographic breakdown of the workforce within city government, because

174

00:43:04.080 --> 00:43:14.949

Thomas O'Toole: personally, as a manager, I think that would greatly influence how I respond to the situation. Yeah. And I mean, I don't know what Seattle looks like in the early 20 first century, but I would

175

00:43:15.050 --> 00:43:19.180

Thomas O'Toole: either way. I think that trust building amongst departments

176

00:43:19.320 --> 00:43:37.269

Thomas O'Toole: personally is really imperative to any of this being successful. And so how would you go about doing that? So for sure. But like then, how do you? Especially on on sort of neutralizing some of those restraining forces, all those stakeholders, you know, both within and outside of the organization, right? That are skeptical.

177

00:43:37.500 --> 00:43:39.859

Thomas O'Toole: you know. How would you go about doing them? Well.

178

00:43:40.160 --> 00:43:44.009

Thomas O'Toole: it's complicated. That's not easy, I think.

179

00:43:44.210 --> 00:43:47.999

Thomas O'Toole: I mean, I feel like one of the first things is

180

00:43:48.160 --> 00:43:52.770

Thomas O'Toole: preparing people to talk about race like the language that's appropriate.

181

00:43:52.810 --> 00:44:07.369

Thomas O'Toole: maybe more of like historical analysis. How redlining and white flight continues to play out in local administrative policies. And then, I think, internally, maybe, organic spaces for people to connect and not just talk about race.

182

00:44:07.370 --> 00:44:34.100

Thomas O'Toole: But I think that there needs to be a relationship built on the basis of many other topics and other connections that don't just have to do with diversity. Yeah, yeah, absolutely building trust. Right? I mean, and it goes back. I mean, this is not one of those areas where you might get one of those short term wins right? I mean building trust, especially, you know, within a system where this kind of racism is so deeply embedded. It's gonna take a lot of time right? So it's not something where you can necessarily get some of those short term wins.

183

00:44:34.180 --> 00:44:35.090

Thomas O'Toole: It'll get

184

00:44:35.320 --> 00:44:38.890

Thomas O'Toole: so I think, in the public demonstration my approach would be to

185

00:44:40.050 --> 00:44:44.599

Thomas O'Toole: make a priority list in terms of neutralizing posts

186

00:44:45.240 --> 00:44:47.800

could be.

187

00:44:47.820 --> 00:44:49.140

Thomas O'Toole: apply that person

188

00:44:50.190 --> 00:44:56.219

Thomas O'Toole: download session discussions will be one to reduce the the issue. This limitation, or talk about

189

00:44:57.210 --> 00:45:01.070

Thomas O'Toole: later on, then to the other structural problems that the organization might have

190

00:45:01.860 --> 00:45:17.860

Thomas O'Toole: taking a step back. And they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're they're

191

00:45:17.860 --> 00:45:32.300

Thomas O'Toole: that has to happen first, I mean, when I hear town halls. I mean, I think about you know the these town halls that we've seen that are kind of unstructured and and open, and you know, and that's there's one way of facilitating a Town Hall that that sort of

192

00:45:32.300 --> 00:45:56.160

Thomas O'Toole: yeah, that that would be useful. That kind of approach would be useful, because, you know, you don't want constraints on what anybody's saying, but at the same time I could easily see that kind of approach evolving if people weren't initially, you know, educated, or they built that literacy or that maturity to talk about race in a constructive way. So I feel like that might be the second step in the process before this first step of really building trust

193

00:45:56.160 --> 00:46:02.750

Thomas O'Toole: among all stakeholders, but also building a sense of literacy right? And maturity. And how to talk about rates. Right?

194

00:46:02.860 --> 00:46:15.020

Thomas O'Toole: Alright. Thank you sounds great.

195

00:46:16.110 --> 00:46:24.470

Thomas O'Toole: Okay? So you can see that force field analysis can be a really useful high, level starting point. In thinking about strategic planning. Right?

196

00:46:24.470 --> 00:46:48.509

Thomas O'Toole: Particularly in the midst of organizational change, when you're trying to facilitate transformational or disruptive change. 2 problems with force, field analysis, right? And you might be thinking about this. Sometimes they can be too high level. When more granular mapping of stakeholders might be necessary. Right? And second, they only document, prominent forces, driving a restraining change, which means that

197

00:46:48.570 --> 00:46:57.349

Thomas O'Toole: there's a potential for inequity. And who or what the organization responds to or incorporates in their change management processes. Okay.

198

00:46:58.750 --> 00:47:28.119

Thomas O'Toole: okay, so for if you're a public administrator that's looking for a more granular assessment of stakeholders, you might utilize some of the approaches that are suggested by Bryson and Alston, in their chapter on identifying stakeholders and developing mission values and vision, which, if you have the Bryson and Alston book. Fine. Again. No quiz on this. I'm gonna be going through this with you. But if you go back you have Bryson and Alston. This is kind of the the step step 3 in their overall strategic planning framework. Right?

199

00:47:28.310 --> 00:47:42.199

Thomas O'Toole: So here they're defining an internal or external stakeholder as any person, group, or other entity, either inside or outside of an organization respectively, that can make a claim that has a state

200

00:47:42.200 --> 00:47:58.709

Thomas O'Toole: on the organization's attention, resources or output, or is affected by an organization's output. Right? So examples of internal stakeholders think back to that force. Field Starling's force field of push and pull right that I just presented so personnel

201

00:47:58.710 --> 00:48:14.110

Thomas O'Toole: groups or departments. In the case of a nonprofit specific board members. Examples of external stakeholders might include the organization's clients or beneficiaries. A service partner, a regulatory entity. A union?

202

00:48:14.110 --> 00:48:41.939

Thomas O'Toole: It's really important when you think about these kinds of analyses to keep internal and external stakeholders clear or separate. Because your strategy with for dealing with internal stakeholders will obviously look very different than your strategy for dealing with external stakeholders. Right? There's just more informal and formal tools. For dealing with internal stakeholders than there are for external stakeholders. Right? And they ask you to do a fairly straightforward exercise. Right?

203

00:48:41.940 --> 00:48:56.199

Thomas O'Toole: So for external stakeholders this is worksheet 19 page 99, for internal stakeholders, assessing first the stakeholders. Relationship? To your organization. But type of stakeholder, they are right. So are they a client?

204

00:48:56.200 --> 00:49:25.119

Thomas O'Toole: Are they a customer? Are they a partner? Are they something else? They may ask you to assess the criteria that the stakeholder is using to assess your performance or your organization's performance right? When we think back to the 3 E's. I mean, are they understanding our performance? The outputs of our work from an efficiency and effectiveness and equity? Perspective? Is it accountability? If so, what aspect of accountability are they most concerned within our work? Right? Are they thinking about fiscal process or program?

205

00:49:25.120 --> 00:49:31.049

Thomas O'Toole: Then they ask you to think about how each stakeholder currently understands your organization's performance. Right?

206

00:49:31.050 --> 00:49:54.289

Thomas O'Toole: Do you have capital to spend on that stakeholder? Or is the relationship fragile? Right? Then for each stakeholder, you document they ask you to ask 2 basic questions. Right? So first, how does the stakeholder affect your organization? Right? How do we affect that stakeholder? What's the nature of that relationship? Right? And then, second, what do we need from that stakeholder?

207

00:49:54.290 --> 00:50:24.069

Thomas O'Toole: Right? And what does that stakeholder need from us? So in effect, you can think of these kinds of exercises as starting to flesh out some of the gaps. That might be present when you do the kind of high level analysis that's that's present in force field analysis, right? It also helps you think about you know, as a means of understanding where you need to invest your time as an administrator where you need to invest your energy managing political relationships. You can think back to Long's argument. Right?

208

00:50:26.610 --> 00:50:55.469

Thomas O'Toole: So once you document those key, internal and external stakeholders. You could further refine that analysis. With empirical research. Right? So let's say, for example, once you've documented all of these stakeholders right internal external. Once you've built that force field, right? You understand? Who who is who is actually out there, who's in here? Right? That can, that it could affect your organization's work. The one thing that's missing is what's important to them

209

00:50:55.540 --> 00:51:24.440

Thomas O'Toole: like, what do they care about? Right, I mean, how do you know? Like if you don't know that you don't know, you know how to. How do you know what your decision options are? Right? So let's say, for example, you were, you know, implementing a new drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. For you know, an outsourced you know, from an outsourced stakeholder perspective. So after you identify stakeholders in your environment, their relationship to your organization, their current assessment of your organization's work.

210

00:51:24.440 --> 00:51:40.330

Thomas O'Toole: You might survey those stakeholders on issues. They find important. Right? This is why we're constantly getting surveys. Right? They wanna understand what's important to you as a stakeholder. Right? So here, it's just sort of a simple one through 5 liquor scale, right? I mean, we all know what this is.

211

00:51:40.330 --> 00:51:52.220

Thomas O'Toole: one through 5 assessment of issue priority. You might come up with a stakeholder issue matrix that looks something like this. Right? So here I've identified stakeholders. There are 5 stakeholders. I identified

212

00:51:52.220 --> 00:52:15.510

Thomas O'Toole: patients, personnel, city government, elected officials and media and you can see, kind of, like the composite of how they're weighting key issues that I've asked them about. So success rates of the program. Are they interested in the program outcomes? Are they interested in the service quality? And actually the quality that patients experience in the program which is distinct from success rates right?

213

00:52:15.610 --> 00:52:44.950

Thomas O'Toole: And then, are they interested in financial return. Right? What's the return on investment for this kind of program? Right? You can think about any organization you might run right and sort of like the the factors that might be relevant and important for each stakeholder in your internal and external environment. And then, once you understand what those critical success factors are that can also help flesh out. You know how you can leverage them as a stakeholder, right? Or how you can neutralize them as opposition.

214

00:52:46.180 --> 00:52:56.240

Thomas O'Toole: power versus interest grids. Right? So this is another way to think about some of these dynamics. Right? So like force, field analysis, power versus interest grids

215

00:52:56.240 --> 00:53:21.180

Thomas O'Toole: articulate key stakeholders in an organization's environment. But that it includes the additional dimensions of first of all, the stakeholders interest or stake in the organization or the issue at hand. And second, the the stakeholders power to affect the organization or issue at hand right and by power. Bryson and Alston. If you've read the text. How are they? Understanding power? They understanding power.

216

00:53:21.180 --> 00:53:23.079

power, has political power.

217

00:53:23.080 --> 00:53:40.290

Thomas O'Toole: right, which is kind of a very conventional understanding of power. And it's the understanding of power that Long is thinking about in his essay right? And they suggest that where stakeholder blues fall on this 2 by 2 matrix. Determines you know how your organization should engage them. Right? So players.

218

00:53:40.290 --> 00:54:04.600

Thomas O'Toole: players have both interest and significant power. Right? They have a high potential to affect a strategic planning process, and it's outcome right? So they, these stakeholders might include C-suite executives. Might include department heads, legislative counterparts. They might either have decision making authority or you might want to collaborate or partner with them. Right

219

00:54:04.680 --> 00:54:20.309

Thomas O'Toole: subjects. Subjects have high interest, but they have very little power. Right? So these might, for example, be the clients or the beneficiaries of your organization. Depending on the nature of your work. You might want to give them decision, making authority right?

220

00:54:20.310 --> 00:54:39.519

Thomas O'Toole: As in the case of a participatory budgeting process. For example, or you might want to collaborate, involve, consult, or inform them. It depends on how participatory the work of your organization is right. Keeping in mind that more participation usually means a more time and labor, intensive decision making process.

221

00:54:39.520 --> 00:55:03.590

Thomas O'Toole: Contact setters have high power, but they have very little interest, right, so it might be important to increase the interest of these stakeholders if you determine that they might pose opposition to your organization through their disinterest, or, if you need to capture their interest to achieve your objective right? So, for example, appropriation staff.

222

00:55:03.680 --> 00:55:15.609

Thomas O'Toole: okay, so, or legislators that you might need to secure of a key vote for your organization. You probably wouldn't want to give them decision making authority right? Nor would they likely want that degree of involvement.

223

00:55:15.610 --> 00:55:39.289

Thomas O'Toole: But if your goal is to raise awareness to capture their awareness, you might want to collaborate, involve, consult, or inform them, and finally the crowd. The crowd consists of stakeholders with very little interest or power. So if you're a nonprofit, for example, the general public might be the crowd for fundraising purposes. Right? You wouldn't want to collaborate, involve, or consult them, because that

224

00:55:39.290 --> 00:56:08.619

Thomas O'Toole: would probably be really time consuming and likely wouldn't generate strong return but you might wanna inform them if the overhead is low, right? So building on Long's assertion that public administrators and the organizations they work, for by necessity operate in the midst of this really politically charged stakeholder environment, a few tools to sort things out, and we'll be using these tools more throughout the courts, you know. It's not like, you know, you're not gonna get a quiz on this in 5 min. Right?

225

00:56:08.670 --> 00:56:35.419

Thomas O'Toole: Force field analysis, external and internal stakeholder analyses stakeholder matrices and power versus interest groups. Again, this is setting the table for thinking about how to map stakeholders and how to engage them right? These are frameworks that can be applied in any context. Right? And they're meant to kind of inform the conversation of how an organization should shape its strategic relationships and begin thinking about the process of organizational change. Right?

226

00:56:35.420 --> 00:56:51.690

Thomas O'Toole: But again, and here's the caveat. I want you to think really critically about these frameworks. So, as I mentioned on Monday. you know, these frameworks are really are great right? Because they're tools for allowing us to better digest and interpret

227

00:56:51.690 --> 00:57:15.389

Thomas O'Toole: the world around us. And they're meant to provide us with decision making shortcuts. Right? That's what we use them for. That, you know, because the environment around us is so complex, we need something to kind of break that environment down. So it's easier to analyze. And it's easier for us to make decisions right, which is particularly useful in public administration, because, there are so many factors, and there are so many stakeholder interests to balance.

228

00:57:15.390 --> 00:57:25.140

Thomas O'Toole: But there's always an opportunity cost paid in anything that simplifies the world around us. I mean, you might think about what are some of the opportunity costs that you see in these frameworks

229

00:57:26.340 --> 00:57:28.879

Thomas O'Toole: anybody just sort of like off the top of your head.

230

00:57:31.240 --> 00:57:39.189

Thomas O'Toole: I mean, one of the opportunity costs is that you know they rely on establishing the priority or worth of stakeholders by

231

00:57:39.190 --> 00:58:02.180

Thomas O'Toole: political power. So the normative question we should ask ourselves is the following, simply because the crowd in our power versus interest. Grid has very little political power. Does that mean they shouldn't have a seat at the table? Should we reconsider what it means to privilege only those stakeholders with political power, ignoring the context that's deprived them of that power. Right? Think about the subjects.

232

00:58:02.180 --> 00:58:08.869

Thomas O'Toole: These are the stakeholders in your environment that have the most stake in what your organization is doing, because they're likely benefiting from that work.

233

00:58:08.870 --> 00:58:32.270

Thomas O'Toole: Yet they don't have a seat at the table. Right? So it's not just taking these frameworks and applying them in this sort of like, you know, dehumanized, uncritical way. You really have to think about like, what are the opportunity costs? And using these things like, what are the caveats that we should keep in mind and using these things, and then think about what it would take for you as a manager, to move subjects to players

234

00:58:32.470 --> 00:58:37.349

Thomas O'Toole: right, or to move some of these stakeholders from one quadrant to another

235

00:58:37.430 --> 00:58:40.380

Thomas O'Toole: right to balance out equity concerns. Yeah, leader.

236

00:58:40.800 --> 00:58:48.289

Thomas O'Toole: opportunity, resource allocation that we apply this framework and help our research.

237

00:58:48.400 --> 00:58:51.879

Thomas O'Toole: high interest, high power stakeholder. We're gonna end up like.

238

00:58:52.190 --> 00:59:19.459

Thomas O'Toole: exactly right? So that's what they, these frameworks are trying to do right? They're trying to shortcut decision making. They're trying to make our work more economical, more efficient right? But remember what Doll told us, why is efficiency always the paramount concern? Sometimes it shouldn't be. And in this case, if we prioritize efficiency, which is what these frameworks were all about. Then we might be sacrificing equity right? We might be leaving stakeholders.

239

00:59:19.620 --> 00:59:24.759

Thomas O'Toole: you know, private sector, the public sector

240

00:59:25.850 --> 00:59:38.509

Thomas O'Toole: thinking about the people aspect from the little guy. Smaller towns? No, absolutely. And one of the things you have to keep in mind is that a lot of these frameworks are being imported into the public sector from the private sector.

241

00:59:38.670 --> 00:59:54.969

Thomas O'Toole: That's why a lot of you, when you again, when you go on the case interviews for your consulting jobs. All of these frameworks are fair game to use in those kinds of interviews, because a lot of them were originated in the private sector. That's what we're thinking about how to make our work most efficient.

242

00:59:55.000 --> 01:00:24.389

Thomas O'Toole: right when we import them into the public sector, though there are concerns other than efficiency that we have to be conscious of right? So it's incumbent on us to think about. Not only okay. What is the status quo, what is the status quo look like from a power versus interest perspective? But then there's that next step that we have to take right going back to Nabachi. Go to Pepper's argument like, how do we move? How do we move stakeholders from the subjects? Quadrant to the planners? Quadrant right? What what is it gonna take for us to do that right? All right. So let's

243

01:00:24.750 --> 01:00:37.289

Thomas O'Toole: let's go abroad right South Korea. South Korea is a country that I know and love. I've been there probably about about 10 times at this point through the summit. Other that I teach on comparative public administration, right?

244

01:00:37.320 --> 01:01:05.469

Thomas O'Toole: So unlike the United States South Korea doesn't have that anti status tradition. They don't have that algae to government that we have in the United States. Right? They have a long tradition of strong central government hierarchy defined by strict scalar chain authority. Right? And you can see some of that coming out in this case. It's bolstered by a Confucian political culture. Right? It reinforces deference to seniority. Collective trust in government

245

01:01:05.470 --> 01:01:29.190

Thomas O'Toole: and strong central government in Korea. Was threaded through Chinese, Japanese American occupation. Right? Democracy is also a relatively new experiment in South Korea. It's only been established since 1948 and the South Korean brand of democracy is distinctly authoritarian right? Although it's usually

246

01:01:29.190 --> 01:01:35.879

Thomas O'Toole: invisible again, because we always think about their distinctly more authoritarian Nor Northern neighbor. Right?

247

01:01:35.880 --> 01:01:43.890

Thomas O'Toole: They're also a much more surveillance society than the United States right? And so they tend to tolerate information gathering

248

01:01:43.890 --> 01:02:11.389

Thomas O'Toole: to a far greater extent than in the United States. As in most of East Asia the nonprofit sector is emergent in South Korea. It's actually emerging and at a very accelerated pace. But it's still sort of embryonic right? You're just starting to see the emergence of a stable nonprofit sector, civil society organization. So there's consequently not this really long history of government collaborating with the social sector. Again, though you're you're seeing some signs of change.

249

01:02:11.390 --> 01:02:22.799

Thomas O'Toole: So this brings us to Mr. Kim. I love the opening of this case. Because who is Mr. Kim? And what is he stressed about? So the first line of the case is kind of like, Mr. Kim is trust. Right? So what? Who's Mr. Kim? And why is he stressed?

250

01:02:27.210 --> 01:02:28.020

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah.

251

01:02:29.050 --> 01:02:32.410

Thomas O'Toole: this. The key department.

252

01:02:33.340 --> 01:03:08.759

Thomas O'Toole: yeah. Yeah. So so, Mr. Kim is the head of this agency called the Department of Living Safety right, which is part of the Korean National policy agency. Knp, and one of the things that Knpa oversees are programs that help identify the whereabouts of missing run and runaway persons. Which is actually a really significant problem. In South Korea. So

253

01:03:08.820 --> 01:03:32.300

Thomas O'Toole: Mr. Kim identifies as this key problem in reducing the number of missing and runaway persons. He is concerned about one particular nucleotide of organizational DNA, right? And that is information. He's concerned that due to this rigid, hierarchical, organizational structure of South Korean Government. The lack of collaboration and information sharing across agencies is kind of diminishing

254

01:03:32.300 --> 01:03:42.329

Thomas O'Toole: right. The effectiveness of Kmpa's efforts around identifying and recovering missing and runaway persons. And so who does he ask for help undertaking some of the changes that he wants to make?

255

01:03:46.550 --> 01:03:49.150

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. And so who's that director of

256

01:03:50.910 --> 01:04:01.479

Thomas O'Toole: division of women. Right? So she's the the head of the direct. She's the director of the division of women, youth, and children at campaign. How does she kind of react to to Mr. Kim's request.

257

01:04:07.410 --> 01:04:09.280

Thomas O'Toole: Somebody else? Okay.

258

01:04:16.710 --> 01:04:45.659

Thomas O'Toole: yeah. So she's not so sure. Right? So she's she's a bit unsure of how to proceed right? So first, most of the work that her division currently does entails preventing violence and abuse. Right? So their information on missing and runaway persons was very limited. Right? Which is always the case. Frankly right? I mean, this is, this is sort of commonsensical. Okay? Because by their nature. These cases are, you know, the case mentions this right? It's they're rife with like false leads and misinformation and accuracy. So on.

259

01:04:45.660 --> 01:04:54.000

Thomas O'Toole: At the same time referring back again to this very rigid scalar change structure of the South Korean Civil Service.

260

01:04:54.000 --> 01:05:17.420

Thomas O'Toole: There is this predisposition to try to make Kim's initiative work, even though she knows that it will fall on her to convince her divisions. Personnel. That these types of collaborations around information sharing are worthwhile. So the last thing she's worrying about worried about is identifying potential stakeholders right? As collaborators. Right? So understanding who would actually be interested in collaboration because

261

01:05:17.460 --> 01:05:46.400

Thomas O'Toole: she had no idea what information was actually retained by other agencies. She had no idea whether their information was accurate. And there were actually legal obstacles right? To sharing some types of personal information. So now, fortunately for Kim and Clark there was another more powerful stakeholder. That was pushing for interagency collaboration right at around the same time. Who was that stakeholder, and how useful was that stakeholder to their efforts?

262

01:05:46.870 --> 01:05:47.540

Thomas O'Toole: Okay.

263

01:05:50.160 --> 01:05:53.800

Thomas O'Toole: was it the represent that the Board of Audit?

264

01:05:54.040 --> 01:06:02.580

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah. So the Board of Audit inspection, right? So the bar board of Audit and Inspection what was their? What was sort of their role, like what was their

265

01:06:03.170 --> 01:06:04.919

Thomas O'Toole: what was their mandate, I guess.

266

01:06:05.370 --> 01:06:18.170

Thomas O'Toole: Oh, yeah, I was like like

267

01:06:18.230 --> 01:06:48.260

Thomas O'Toole: trying to find a way out. Collaborate the information with us at sharing across the yeah. So so Bai is, is kind of, I would understand, is the functional equivalent of the government accountability office here in the United States. Right? So and they had actually started a broad spectrum initiative to promote more information, sharing across government agencies as a means of identifying hidden sources of taxation. Right? They were concerned that information gaps were actually leading to lower tax collection. Right?

268

01:06:48.510 --> 01:07:01.119

Thomas O'Toole: So it's like, I said, it's about power, but it's also about money. That's my, that's my little contribution to Long's essay. Right? Bai is also kind of a different be a very different visa and parks division. What made it different.

269

01:07:01.500 --> 01:07:06.519

Thomas O'Toole: like, so think about this from an organizational DNA perspective, right from a decision rights perspective.

270

01:07:06.990 --> 01:07:17.479

Thomas O'Toole: What made it different. The case says that Bai had the constitutional authority to mandate policy implementation. So that's what makes it distinct from the Gao. So in terms of it at its activities.

271

01:07:17.480 --> 01:07:46.479

Thomas O'Toole: You know. It's oversight. It's investigative function is very similar to go. Geo, responds to direction from Congress. In this case they actually can mandate policy implementation, right? So decision rights right? Whereas Park would have had to use persuasion to further Kim's initiative. Right? Which Kettle suggests as par for the course and public administration. Vi. Can actually use their legal authority to mandate, change right? And from an informal tools perspective, they actually have the ear of the President.

272

01:07:46.480 --> 01:08:04.390

Thomas O'Toole: right? Which matters obviously because they were one of his chief watchdog agencies. So with Vi support, there's this general sentiment across government, that more interagency collaboration was necessary, right? And they mentioned that a survey that was conducted at the time found that about 80% of Government employees

273

01:08:04.390 --> 01:08:28.619

Thomas O'Toole: felt that a change in organizational culture was needed to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Right? So think about that as one of your driving forces, right? Connecting that to some of these frameworks that we're looking at. That's a key driving force, right? So you have your champions, just as in the Rsji case, one of whom has the ear of the President and the ability to mandate policy implementation. Right?

274

01:08:28.740 --> 01:08:43.939

Thomas O'Toole: And then you have this general consensus across government. That change has to occur and that more interagency collaboration around information sharing should occur. Right? So you're starting to see driving forces around this case fleshing out right. Okay.

275

01:08:44.520 --> 01:09:00.509

Thomas O'Toole: So Bai's brokerage of collaboration between Parks Division and the National Health Insurance Agency allowed for the identification of almost 9,000 missing and runaway persons by again cross referencing with medical and hospital data. Right?

276

01:09:00.520 --> 01:09:21.670

Thomas O'Toole: But having Dai serve as lead agency in this was really essential in a success right? Especially given again South Korea's very scalar change structure. It's not clear from my perspective whether Park would have been as successful as she was without intervention by Vi. What's very clear is that

277

01:09:21.670 --> 01:09:32.420

Thomas O'Toole: without strong leadership from park right? And strong leadership from Vi. The outcome might have been very different, right? In fact, a survey of inter agency collaboration around these efforts

278

01:09:32.420 --> 01:09:43.599

Thomas O'Toole: found that almost a quarter of respondents felt that it was leadership's championing of these efforts that led to his success right? And thinking about steps in transformational leadership. Again.

279

01:09:43.600 --> 01:10:08.580

Thomas O'Toole: this is one of those things we can think about if you know when they're going through the this, these efforts that transformational change? So this is Cotter's from John John Carter is a is an instructor at Harvard Business school right? So the he articulates these steps. In transformational change. Right? And think about these steps against some of the steps that Fernand Covington took in the Rsji account

280

01:10:08.580 --> 01:10:33.170

Thomas O'Toole: and some of the steps that Park and Kim took in this in this interagency collaboration case. Right? So cotter essentially identifies 8 steps. And transformational change that leaders have to kind of progress through. If they want to be successful. Right? So establishing a sense of urgency. And you can see, you know, in the force field analysis that we did around Rsji

281

01:10:33.230 --> 01:11:02.199

Thomas O'Toole: that sense of urgency is there. Why is it there? Because you had champions, you had a catalytic event right? You can see that sense of urgency in this case. You have a huge gap. And information that's exacerbating this problem of missing and runaway persons. Right? Creating powerful coalitions right? Think about all of the coalitions all the collaboration that had to occur. For these 2 initiatives to be successful. Right? Having vision. What was the vision that was communicated by

282

01:11:02.200 --> 01:11:26.819

Thomas O'Toole: champions. And how did they communicate that vision throughout the organization and ensure accountability to that vision? Right communicating that vision? How did they open up lines of information. Right? How did they report out on progress? Removing obstacles to the vision? There's neutralizing those restraining forces, and you can see kind of the barriers that have to over had to be overcome in both cases to facilitate change right?

283

01:11:26.820 --> 01:11:39.449

Thomas O'Toole: Planning for and creating short term wins right even coming to a consensus on the need for interagency collaboration. In this case is sort of like progress. It's it's demonstrating short term wins.

284

01:11:39.450 --> 01:12:04.390

Thomas O'Toole: Not declaring victory too soon. There's the concern we raised before, especially when you have these big, ambitious goals like undoing racism, like facilitating counter cultural administrative change in the case of South Korea. Right? Not declaring wins too soon. Right? Because that can lead to sort of skepticism and cynicism right? And anchoring changes in organizational culture. And how do you do that? You do that by spending a good amount of time building

285

01:12:04.390 --> 01:12:24.569

Thomas O'Toole: trust? You do that by ensuring that there's a sense of readiness of key stakeholders in sort of, you know, participating in that change. And you do that in making sure that there are formal steps and accountability that have been taking to, you know. Make sure that the legacy of some of the changes that you're you're making will be sustainable, right?

286

01:12:24.640 --> 01:12:37.590

Thomas O'Toole: And if you think back again to both of these cases, you know, which did involve leading transformational change under different circumstances and within different force fields. You can almost perfectly map

287

01:12:37.660 --> 01:13:04.009

Thomas O'Toole: Cotter's model of transformational change onto these case protagonists step by step. Right? You can also think about this from, you know, a force field and power versus interest analysis. Right? So we don't have time to get into another breakout. But if you were thinking about how to do this, you you would ask yourself, you know what are the dynamics of the case look like from a force, field and power versus interest perspective. And again, we're moving from the United States. What? Which is what Starling had in mind?

288

01:13:04.010 --> 01:13:16.050

Thomas O'Toole: To South Korea. Right? So it's a different force field that we're operating right? Are there any stakeholders you would recommend moving from one power versus interest quadrant to another? And if so, how would you affect that change.

289

01:13:16.050 --> 01:13:38.789

Thomas O'Toole: So, for example, subjects in the South Korean case might be missing, and runaway persons right? If they are directly benefiting from the work that Parking Kim are doing. It makes sense to actually bring them into the decision making process to help them. You know they will power them with some, you know, co-creation or decision making authority right to have them shape policy itself. Right?

290

01:13:38.880 --> 01:13:54.059

Thomas O'Toole: If you were advising Kim or Park, you know. How would you apply Cotter's model of transformational leadership to develop relationships with other stakeholders? How would you demonstrate those short-term wins? Right? How would you ensure. You know that you're communicating vision.

291

01:13:54.060 --> 01:14:16.610

Thomas O'Toole: you know, throughout the organization to sustain change. Right? So you can see, like, sort of what I'm trying to do is is think about. You know how these frameworks connect to each other. How they might map on to some of the cases that we've been looking at and then how those frameworks might change right, or how we can manipulate those frameworks in a way. That accounts for cultural context, but that also accounts for some.

292

01:14:16.610 --> 01:14:21.249

Thomas O'Toole: you know, non efficiency benefits that we might be trying to promote through our work like equity.

293

01:14:21.250 --> 01:14:42.530

Thomas O'Toole: Right? So don't take these frameworks at first face value, and again I know I moved through them very quickly. In class you'll be able to go through the video again. You'll see the Powerpoint decks. We'll be revisiting them throughout the course, their tools right? But you shouldn't be applying them in sort of this uncritical way. Right? You have to think about. You know. What are the risks of using each of them who's left out

294

01:14:42.530 --> 01:15:05.529

Thomas O'Toole: right? That's what I'm trying to to drive. Okay, we won't have time to get to the case from China today. We'll start on Monday with that. You'll have the next module open up and then the next assignment will open up. We will try as best we can to turn around feedback on your assignments as soon as possible, so that again. We curb some of your anxiety. You know how to think about your next round of of assignments. Okay, alright, thank you.

295

01:15:05.660 --> 01:15:06.340

Thomas O'Toole: And

296

01:15:23.570 --> 01:15:28.060

Thomas O'Toole: oh, yeah, wake up.

297

01:15:28.190 --> 01:15:45.130

Thomas O'Toole: Yeah, if you haven't signed the attendance sheet, make sure you do that before he leaves.

298

01:17:20.270 --> 01:17:24.560

Thomas O'Toole: Once you're happy and send it back.

299

01:17:26.570 --> 01:17:28.530

Thomas O'Toole: and I also want to tell you how to

300

01:17:58.680 --> 01:18:26.590

Thomas O'Toole: awesome. II really appreciate it. And

301

01:18:51.430 --> 01:19:02.860

Thomas O'Toole: experience that. So

302

01:19:26.750 --> 01:19:43.180

Thomas O'Toole: thank you so much.

class 4-2 PA

推荐阅读更多精彩内容