Love this piece, Jen. The 'cascade of rigidity' is not confined to the public sector--I've seen it in spades across multiple Fortune 500 companies.
This happens because managers at each level see their role as, well, managing. And if you press a typical manager to explain what that means, they'll ultimately arrive at 'control.' They exercise this control in two key ways: first, by reducing ambiguity when passing down guidance, eliminating room for misinterpretation; second, by making supervision more tractable through detailed requirements. In theory, this makes performance more 'legible,' though it often achieves the opposite.
With 3-4 layers, the problem remains manageable (pun intended) since feedback loops are faster and more direct. But it grows exponentially worse as layers multiply. Most large organizations operate with 10+ layers, so the distortions are significant.
There's a compounding effect in hierarchical systems where influence depends on rank rather than value added. These organizations select for and promote people who excel at ensuring compliance and being compliant. Over time, the chain of command eventually fills with risk-averse, micromanaging administrators. The "irregular" people who are most likely to drive positive change through initiative and off-script ingenuity are marginalized or end up leaving.
So the fundamental issue lies in the "cascade" itself. Exhorting people to be more outcome-oriented or more empowering leaders might work in isolated cases but won't fix the structural problem. The only lasting solution is eliminating multiple layers while finding alternative ways to achieve control and performance: through incentives, direct customer accountability, transparency, and equipping front-line teams with the skills and information to make sound decisions.
Choices we make around an organization's core management systems, processes, and structures have an outsized impact on culture.
Yes. Exactly. And there are ways this dynamic manifests differently when there isn't a CEO, but multiple bodies to be held accountable to. But it is the same dynamic.
That's an excellent question, and one I get a lot. From what I see from others, it depends enormously on how strong the will of the team and the leadership is to change course. Some teams are willing to honestly assess, and if it's clear the current path is not working, reboot the plan. In the UK, they took the Universal Credit team down from several hundred to about 12, half from the existing team and half new, and started over entirely. (more about that here: https://options2040.co.uk/the-radical-how/)
But that takes significant support. Eager to hear others' stories.
Excellent post, Jen. Much of the rigidity would be relieved by a principles-based framework in which people on the ground would have the flexibility (and the responsibility) to do what’s needed to achieve the public goal.
The mortar that props up this rigid framework is distrust. What if the official is an idiot, or on the take…? The far better protection is human oversight, also based on judgment not rigid rules.
The rigidity of the current system is inherent in the premise of specifying how to do things
I agree and, at the risk of adding an unnecessary political argument, reading this made me very concerned about the effects of the _Looper Bright_ decision removing the presumption that agencies should be allowed to make those decisions.
This is of course vital reading for people like me that still believe in govt. being a good vehicle for improving the lot of the commons.
So please educate me: is the primary, overarching goal and intent of some particular law or regulation not spelled out in a preamble? Granted, even in the case of Decl. of Independence and Constitution the interpretation(s) routinely ignore those respective Preambles, but there they are, just in case someone wants to know the "original" intent.
Does the ACA begin with something along the lines of "this is intended to facilitate as much health insurance coverage for as many as possible for as low a cost as possible"..? Apparently not. But why not?
Incentives are fundamentally anti rigidity because they push in the direction of getting things done. If a manager is worried they are going to lose their job if their team doesn’t launch a product this year, and there’s some regulation that could be interpreted two ways, they are incentivized to interpret it in the more flexible way, to achieve their product goals.
Love this piece, Jen. The 'cascade of rigidity' is not confined to the public sector--I've seen it in spades across multiple Fortune 500 companies.
This happens because managers at each level see their role as, well, managing. And if you press a typical manager to explain what that means, they'll ultimately arrive at 'control.' They exercise this control in two key ways: first, by reducing ambiguity when passing down guidance, eliminating room for misinterpretation; second, by making supervision more tractable through detailed requirements. In theory, this makes performance more 'legible,' though it often achieves the opposite.
With 3-4 layers, the problem remains manageable (pun intended) since feedback loops are faster and more direct. But it grows exponentially worse as layers multiply. Most large organizations operate with 10+ layers, so the distortions are significant.
There's a compounding effect in hierarchical systems where influence depends on rank rather than value added. These organizations select for and promote people who excel at ensuring compliance and being compliant. Over time, the chain of command eventually fills with risk-averse, micromanaging administrators. The "irregular" people who are most likely to drive positive change through initiative and off-script ingenuity are marginalized or end up leaving.
So the fundamental issue lies in the "cascade" itself. Exhorting people to be more outcome-oriented or more empowering leaders might work in isolated cases but won't fix the structural problem. The only lasting solution is eliminating multiple layers while finding alternative ways to achieve control and performance: through incentives, direct customer accountability, transparency, and equipping front-line teams with the skills and information to make sound decisions.
Choices we make around an organization's core management systems, processes, and structures have an outsized impact on culture.
Yes. Exactly. And there are ways this dynamic manifests differently when there isn't a CEO, but multiple bodies to be held accountable to. But it is the same dynamic.
Here's a question: what can you do with you come into a rigidly planned, doomed-to-fall IT project halfway through?
That's an excellent question, and one I get a lot. From what I see from others, it depends enormously on how strong the will of the team and the leadership is to change course. Some teams are willing to honestly assess, and if it's clear the current path is not working, reboot the plan. In the UK, they took the Universal Credit team down from several hundred to about 12, half from the existing team and half new, and started over entirely. (more about that here: https://options2040.co.uk/the-radical-how/)
But that takes significant support. Eager to hear others' stories.
I think DOGE would benefit from your insights on regulatory efficiency, maybe now that Elon knows about you they may be open to hearing from you.
If Jennifer were in charge of DOGE I'd be very excited
Excellent post, Jen. Much of the rigidity would be relieved by a principles-based framework in which people on the ground would have the flexibility (and the responsibility) to do what’s needed to achieve the public goal.
The mortar that props up this rigid framework is distrust. What if the official is an idiot, or on the take…? The far better protection is human oversight, also based on judgment not rigid rules.
The rigidity of the current system is inherent in the premise of specifying how to do things
I agree and, at the risk of adding an unnecessary political argument, reading this made me very concerned about the effects of the _Looper Bright_ decision removing the presumption that agencies should be allowed to make those decisions.
Just add: "Ignore any of this if the result is doing something really stupid." :)
Seriously, shouldn't laws and regulations at each stage allow for waivers/discretion to avoid doing something really stupid?"
As Orwell said in _Politics and the English Language_, "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. "
HIPAA is another. the privacy aspect went out of control and greatly diminishes transfer of information among patients and providers.
Indeed. How could I forget HIPAA!
This is of course vital reading for people like me that still believe in govt. being a good vehicle for improving the lot of the commons.
So please educate me: is the primary, overarching goal and intent of some particular law or regulation not spelled out in a preamble? Granted, even in the case of Decl. of Independence and Constitution the interpretation(s) routinely ignore those respective Preambles, but there they are, just in case someone wants to know the "original" intent.
Does the ACA begin with something along the lines of "this is intended to facilitate as much health insurance coverage for as many as possible for as low a cost as possible"..? Apparently not. But why not?
This is exactly it. Let's lose all these cascades of rigidity in the 20th century and embrace agency, dynamism, and lose some traceability in the 21st
Incentives are fundamentally anti rigidity because they push in the direction of getting things done. If a manager is worried they are going to lose their job if their team doesn’t launch a product this year, and there’s some regulation that could be interpreted two ways, they are incentivized to interpret it in the more flexible way, to achieve their product goals.