Jordi At one point we were asked us to do a little reflection, no more than five minutes on an item on the transformation of government. After giving a couple of laps, I took up a thread of a conversation he had shortly before and reflected on the risk. I will try to reflect the same reasoning here more than anything to continue thinking about it, display it in a more structured and expose it to debate.
remember a previous post that dealt with the generation of ideas and the need to produce a lot of bad to be any good. What happens is that we only know that an idea is good or bad once set in practice. In this sense, risk is an intrinsic component to any process of transformation / innovation.
both government as in any other organization, when we make a transformative approach, although it is only a very small scale, we found two profiles of people. On the one hand we have those who are immediately able to show in detail all kinds of barriers and risks. Then there are those that provide clues and paths to follow.
Both types of responses are necessary for proper decision-making process as it highlights a recent article in McKinsey . But to me I have no doubt that Second we provide much more than the first, if only for the spirit that comes through. Because the first condition for a change is to try.
The government is very particular subgroup within the first profile: They are those to which current legislation prevents them from doing anything that involves a minimal change on the procedures, habits and customs in force. The law is the perfect excuse to discourage any kind of transformation.
And curiously those who resort to the law are not in many cases specialist training or individuals with legal issues, such taboos, once made more or less discretion spread with surprising ease and are firmly seated in the minds of people. But even for people with legal training, there is a worrying lack of laws like the 11/2007 on electronic access to public services, which allow to do things differently with full legal protection.
addition to ignorance, one of the most common reasons to invoke the law as a brake on proposals to change is the fear of making a mistake causing the disapproval of heads, auditors, parliament and, if necessary, of divine justice. That continues to be a reluctance to abandon the personal comfort zone. The truth is that the current culture functioning of government, and generally any large organization, this behavior prompts a conservative.
is necessary to introduce a cultural change to make workers understand the administration that the law is flexible and need to find their limits to further processing. That a correction by a higher court is simply a difference of opinion. That is precisely the contrast of different views and visual what will lead to a tight turn and advanced application of the law.
needed to influence the training and continuous updating of knowledge workers and managers of public especially those who perform work for legal or related to the development and interpretation of rules, so they can adopt innovative positions, which though controversial, are strictly based on law.
But above all, it is necessary that public let their employees think sufficient autonomy to find new interpretations without the possible discrepancy with other entities is understood as an indicator of ignorance, incompetence or lack of rigor.
In short, a real change to government workers need to take the risk and responsibility as a necessary component of his work, even and especially when it comes to issues with legal implications.
0 comments:
Post a Comment