Today we've learned that the administration plans to appoint yet another czar. What's that make, four, five or six czars? There's the Car Czar, the energy Czar, the education Czar. Didn't we learn anything from the Russian revolution?
Seriously, let's think this thing through. The notion of placing one person, one figure head to solve a thorny or intractable problem often makes a lot of sense. In some instances a problem is difficult to solve because of a deadlock between interested parties and a person "in charge" of the problem can break a deadlock. Other times a person assigned to solve a problem can bring fresh eyes or a new perspective to help solve a problem. At other times a stern task master may be able to bring resolution to a problem by forcing the parties at play to get on with it already. However, none of the Czars the administration has put into place faces the kind of problem that one figurehead can change, and most of them face problems that are highly distributed, with many different players, and that have a wide range of political interests and sacred turf at stake. So, what we've most likely done is set these folks up to fail.
Let's take one at random. Carol Browner was named as the Obama adminstration's energy Czar in January, nominally taking the role of Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Now, the Obama adminstration also has a person in Stephen Chu who is the Energy Secretary. One might wonder why there are two people with what seem to be clearly overlapping priorities. Now let's also factor in Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, the two members of the US House of Representatives who are pushing the cap-and-trade bill forward. All of these people, and many more, are involved in establishing the adminstration's stance on Energy and Climate Change. Yet not long after Browner was appointed, she apparently disappeared from public view and comment. Why? Who knows, but perhaps the problem was so interesting and so politically challenging that EVERYONE in Washington DC and elsewhere has an opinion, and turf to defend or take from someone else. Have we gotten our money from the Energy Czar? In fairness, it's too early to tell.
However, looking at this from a management point of view, it doesn't make sense to add another level of bureaucracy to issues that are already well understood, especially since Browner doesn't control the levers of power (funding and appointments) that might help this problem get solved faster. In fact, the problem of global warming is going to be "solved" by Congress with or without Carol Browner.
If we're going to have Czars, then let's either give them the authority they need to make the decisions that need to be made, or let's name them what they really are - figureheads. Either allow Steve Rattner the ability to dictate to Government Motors what it should and shouldn't do, or don't call him a Czar. This half-in/half-out model of management meddling is not good for the government and not good for the companies. After all, even Czars need something to do with their time.
The adminstration seems to have learned its lesson with the "Pay Czar" although it is an easier problem to solve with fewer constituents and a group that is held in very low esteem. Managing how much compensation firms that took federal dollars can pay is an obvious problem that can be easily solved and the results can be documented. Now all we need is a Czar for the ports - hopefully called the quay Czar.
Comments