Our business unit dealt with issues involving hundreds of millions of dollars – a scale that would make decisions about them be deemed to be major in an organization of any size – even one with an almost $100 million operating budget like the City of New York. The revenue in this operation was generated in a highly technical complex markets, and our staff had years of deep expertise as to the operations and regulatory environment of those markets. Some of the important questions with which we dealt rose to the level as having to be made by the Mayor. However, between the individual with the subject matter expertise on the problem and the Mayor there are five or more layers of intermediate executive levels.

First, we would be briefed by our staff on, and have to make an initial determination regarding, the decision. Often times, we would bring a level of knowledge, expertise and experience that the line supervisor lacked to the analysis, and we were able to add some value to the evaluation of the issue. That decision would then be required to work its way up through the layers above us in the Agency, ultimately going to the agency’s Commissioner for review and decision. Generally, the Commissioner would need to be fully briefed on the question, with which he or she frequently was previously unfamiliar.

            The Commissioner would then brief the Chief of Staff of the Deputy Mayor, who would in turn brief the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, who would then set up a meeting with the Commissioner and the Deputy Mayor to brief the Mayor. The Deputy Mayor may also consult with other effected agencies, particularly the Office of Management and Budget, when there are revenue implications, and the Corporation Counsel, when there are legal issues involved or there is a possible outcome of litigation to be considered, to both get their perspective and make sure they were on board with the recommended decision. The Mayor usually has a very limited amount of time to be briefed, has very little prior knowledge of the circumstances, and is required to make a decision before the conclusion of the meeting. Generally, a recommendation is brought to the Mayor; occasionally, the Mayor is forced decided between competing agency interests and views. 

            As the question percolates upward through the bureaucracy, ideally each level should bring a broader perspective and additional information to the analysis. At the Commissioner level, across the agency. At the Deputy Mayor level, across agencies, which may have competing interests. At the Mayoral level, the decision must be considered with a citywide view. The Mayor, being the only official in the chain of command actually elected by the voters, brings the very important political perspective to the process – assessing the impact on the City Council’s members, and the vast array of competing interest groups across the City. But at each level of review going up the chain, the decision maker gets further from the person with the deepest knowledge of the facts and probably the most subject matter expertise. 

            Generally, at each level a briefing memo is prepared for the decision maker. In the lower orders of review, often the subject matter expert is consulted to look over the memo prepared for each level as the decision moves up the chain. Once the decision leaves the agency, though, the analysts preparing the memos for the Deputy Mayor and the Mayor are within each of their offices, with a review by the Commissioner’s staff before being forwarded to the principal. Also, as the decision rises more closely to the Mayor, the briefing memos get shorter – as the higher up you go the more demands there are on the decision maker’s time. Often, the Mayor gets a “one-pager” that breaks the facts and interests down into a small number of bullet points. My understanding is that the Mayor is generally handed the “one-pager” at the beginning of the meeting at which the decision is made. 

            Sometimes, as a decision rises through the bureaucracy, there are briefing meetings for each decision maker, and up to the Deputy Mayor level all of the executives at the lower levels are present to answer questions. If multiple agencies are involved, each agency sends a number of subject matter experts to the meeting. Some of these “inter-agency” meetings can have as many as fifty people present – as no one wants the decision to be made without their at least being present, and better yet putting in their two cents. As cumbersome as these meetings can be, we believe they are certainly superior in informing the Deputy Mayor and her staff about the complexities of the issue than a two page, or even a longer memo. But at the meeting with the Mayor there are generally only the commissioners involved, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, an attorney or two, and on rare occasion the front line person with the most complete and sophisticated understanding of the facts.

            This is not a situation that is unique to big city government, as it occurs in all very large organizations; money center banks come immediately to mind as very large institutions with a wide range of operations. The challenges are to i) make sure that the final decision maker has access to the right set of information presented to them and ii) to determine at what level it is appropriate to be made, so as to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of that official’s time. To exaggerate, having the CEO of multi-billion dollar concern make decisions about which copier paper to buy is not a good use of that person’s time, and won’t necessarily result in the best decision outcome (as the CEO is unlikely to know much about copiers or copier paper unless the company is Xerox or International Paper). Also, optimizing the level at which decisions are made should improve the quality of decision making – maximizing the amount information available to the executive and the minimizing the use of more senior executive’s time. 

            What we have found in City government is that the authority to makes decisions tend to drift upward. At one time in our agency, the Commissioner’s style was to make the final decision on just about every decision. Why would this happen? The Commissioner is likely to think that this minimizes his or her downside risk. If he or she signs off on every issue, he or she will then know about everything that is going on in the organization. If they have confidence in their analytical abilities, they will feel assured that the right decision is being made in each case. Commissioners are often parachuted into agencies with which they have no prior relationship, even if they have deep subject matter expertise. They have no way to judge, particularly at the outset, the quality of staff members’ decision making, or the depth of their support for the new Commissioner’s agenda. Most often, “the outset” is all there is, as Commissioner’s tenure is probably usually about three years. But working in this manner may feel like it is in the political or short-term career interest of the official, but it is certainly not in the best interest of the agency or the City. 

This kind of thinking permeates City government – an unwillingness to delegate and a lack of trust in the decision-making capacity of other administrators. The result is that some more ministerial issues (but still important to government functions) get lost in a pile. More importantly, it means more time spent preparing memos to fully inform the executive who may have little to no knowledge of the context of what they are being asked to decide. Even with the best materials and extensive briefing, it also results in the person making the decision not necessarily being the one with the most relevant information to making an informed decision. The further up the chain unimportant decisions get, the more likely they are to get clogged in the system, and for the wrong decision to be made – as a lack of understanding of the facts and context. Managers need to feel that successful agency operations are in their personal interest – which is particularly difficult to do in the absence of the profit motive and flexible compensation systems. 

            Decisions finding the appropriate level at which they should be made is another issue that requires culture change. It’s a management issue and it has to come from the top down. Government officials, particularly those in elected office, need to work to push decision making down to the lowest possible level that has complete information regarding the content and context of the issue. This takes a long term view. Incentives have to be created to encourage high and mid-level managers to do the same. Getting decisions made at the correct level makes the process move faster and the outcomes better. Doing so, also makes the jobs of those in the lower orders more rewarding – as they have more control over their work and feel like their expertise and experience matter and are being appreciated. Devolving decision making authority within City bureaucracies would go a long way to unclogging the sclerosis that afflicts government. 

            We have been asked why this type of systemic managerial problem wasn’t solved during the administration of Michael Bloomberg. Mayor Bloomberg known to be a successful manager of a large organization. His administration drew heavily on appointees from the ranks of top-class management consulting firm McKinsey. Our sense is that Mayor Bloomberg made a very reasonable determination that these institutional problems were intractable – and that if his Mayoralty was going to be successful, his administration would have to work around these problems and avoid these structures to the greatest extent possible. As a result, though, these systems and practices remain, and become even more difficult to improve as they accrete further layers.