Qan,
IMO the primary benefit was to finally get control over the multiple changes, the diffusion of responsibility, and start holding people accountable when they make changes. But from the sound of it people will still be able to make changes THEY see fit to make and without anyone knowing if they so choose. In fact, this could set the table for the council up to be the ‘fall guy’ for failures. Think about it, if you happen to be a person who currently has control over many of the zone changes, you can still work unfettered and pretty much do what you want. In this situation the council is, at best, going to be reactionary. You would also be in a position to undermine some changes made by the council, basically staying under the radar with a series of minor changes. Why would anyone want to have ‘partial responsibility’ or a system that supports this? That is like being told you are responsible for the cash drawer at a store but that some of managers will also be using it.
I do not advocate a system that causes huge decision overhead, I advocate a system where responsibility is delegated in equal parts with the autonomy. Any system where someone is responsible and they do not also have equal parts of autonomy will eventually fail. I don’t know that this can be a ‘transitional’ thing, it seems to me that either current staff is willing to delegate the responsibility/autonomy package or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then this isn’t going to turn out well.
Of course no one is saying turn over the running of the zone to a new council. IMO the correct approach is to delegate parts/sections of it at first. A single council (as opposed to a council and a staff) where people are assigned specific responsibilities and control. Development is a good example. Obviously we don’t want some clueless guy being assigned to something as important as this; and in fact it should be have either a leadership hierarchy or a small subset of the council who are responsible and have control. We don’t need the entire council micromanaging development; but we don’t want someone who retains a staff position and can change shit at their will and under the radar. (Casting no stones here, simply an example.) Thoughts?
eph
IMO the primary benefit was to finally get control over the multiple changes, the diffusion of responsibility, and start holding people accountable when they make changes. But from the sound of it people will still be able to make changes THEY see fit to make and without anyone knowing if they so choose. In fact, this could set the table for the council up to be the ‘fall guy’ for failures. Think about it, if you happen to be a person who currently has control over many of the zone changes, you can still work unfettered and pretty much do what you want. In this situation the council is, at best, going to be reactionary. You would also be in a position to undermine some changes made by the council, basically staying under the radar with a series of minor changes. Why would anyone want to have ‘partial responsibility’ or a system that supports this? That is like being told you are responsible for the cash drawer at a store but that some of managers will also be using it.
I do not advocate a system that causes huge decision overhead, I advocate a system where responsibility is delegated in equal parts with the autonomy. Any system where someone is responsible and they do not also have equal parts of autonomy will eventually fail. I don’t know that this can be a ‘transitional’ thing, it seems to me that either current staff is willing to delegate the responsibility/autonomy package or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then this isn’t going to turn out well.
Of course no one is saying turn over the running of the zone to a new council. IMO the correct approach is to delegate parts/sections of it at first. A single council (as opposed to a council and a staff) where people are assigned specific responsibilities and control. Development is a good example. Obviously we don’t want some clueless guy being assigned to something as important as this; and in fact it should be have either a leadership hierarchy or a small subset of the council who are responsible and have control. We don’t need the entire council micromanaging development; but we don’t want someone who retains a staff position and can change shit at their will and under the radar. (Casting no stones here, simply an example.) Thoughts?
eph
Comment