The Spider and the Starfish precisely describes the correct context for delegation, in its description of how to set a balance between leaderless and hierarchical organizations. HUD needs suborganizations that are leaderless, and task-focused. The difference between the hierarchical predecessor to Wikipedia, which had all of 70 articles before it shut down, and Wikipedia, shows the power of such task groups. There are many people who care and know a lot, in HUD, who would jump at the chance to spend even 1/2 hour per day in a task group like this. The Apache server concept is kept up by volunteers. There are many other examples of this.

These questions need to be flowing out of the Risk Management Plan, first. Otherwise, piecemeal decisions are made, with little consideration of risk. It is more and more necessary to consider inter-relating factors, in the context of risk management.

I suggest that the Department post its Risk Management plans for each program area, with an area where people can post the decisions that are made- and which should be done centrally, which locally, and which uniformly- in the context of risk management. These questions need to be answered in a context where anyone interested can offer input, not in a vacuum, or piecemeal.

Which decisions will benefit most from being made in the field?

- Which decisions require consistency across locations and/or programs and should be made centrally?

- How can managers delegate based on strengths of staff?

You have some broad goals, that reach across program lines. OK, some numerical goals would be appropriate. What about letting field staff determine a few extra measures? You might learn something, and those measures might be so useful that you'd want to adopt them nationwide. I know you have local goals. They are no different to staff than what comes down from HQ. I'm saying what about going down to the employee level, and working there. If staff took on one task a year- like the Community Day concept somebody else talked about- something they chose- you would learn a lot about what is possible. Right now, that kind of initiative is punished, effectively, and often in fact. Punishing initiative doesnt make a lot of sense, does it? Good teams play to people's strengths. If staff could play to their strengths, in some goal, something they loved to do anyway, and thus already had a lot of experience, that would be interesting.

Even though the handbook says that supervisor can reward their deserving staff members....there is often 3-4 levels of approval to give minimal cash awards or time off. Some of the approvals required are in additional to the spaces for approval on the form. Require that everyone uses Hihrts for awards with no other additional paperwork or approvals required. This process is demotivating to the supervisors as well as the staff because the more people you have involve it increases the chances of getting lost or denied. This is all about motivating and encouraging employees and getting the feedback need to recharge the batteries!

You know, I feel so safe when somebody else makes the decisions. They take the risk. They can sit and never make a decision. It's out of my hands. What is really risky is making a decision oneself, because then one owns it. Why don't people do this? A magic word called CYA. How many people have been burned here for going outside the box? I'm not sure how you go outside the box when you work in one all day, but ok. If you seriously want to delegate, you have to think about how you punish. If you punish people for making mistakes, they will avoid making mistakes. The easiest way to avoid making mistakes is to do as little as possible, and to pass on responsibility. Entrepreneurs win because they make mistakes. They win because they know that there are no mistakes, there is only feedback, and learning. Staff actually have a good idea of what they can do, and not do. You could let staff sign their own letters, for example - with a written justification of why the decision was made that way. Maybe 1 in 30 staff would make bad decisions. Well that's why we keep files of letters, some people can't handle that kind of authority, so you take it away from just those people. Problems are best fixed right on the ground, with the person right there. Ivory Tower people are typically overwhelmed, and unable to understand the situation. You could actually set up a web based system, or even just use e-mail, where staff propose an action, and give HQ staff a week to review and naysay. After a week, if there is no objection, the action is done. That way you've shared the responsibility for the decision. You could introduce the "Unless otherwise directed, we will do .... to deal with this problem" concept, for anything not prohibited by legislation or CFR's, requiring a written justification. Most staff will not embarass the Department, or cause serious risk, intentionally. Who would want to? If you get into the modality of forgiving mistakes, where justification was adequate, rather than forcing staff to have written permission, you open up most of the bottleneck of CYA.

because it's so much easier for everyone when they don't. There is no worse taskmaster than yourself. If other people set your goals for you, they will always aim low, because they can never know all your abilities, strengths, and so on. We need to aim at the average, and not think big at all. We need to be mediocre, and there is no better way to stay mediocre than to throttle people with energy and big ideas. Let's keep HUD Dilbert-compliant. Just like Wally says, "just let the caring drain out, that's it, it's so much easier just being a robot". I love the Dilbert cartoons where they show the motivation and drive being drained right out of new employees. That's all staff are- machines of flesh, given goals that often aren't meaningful, but require lots of wasted time. We wouldn't want to scare managers, now, with the possibility that the peasants in the manor might actually have brains, and might actually be able to do some truly productive things beyond pulling the plow. No, no, peasants are by definition stupid, so there's no need to listen to them, because they are stupid. That's the message staff have gotten for 40 years. Why upset a good thing?

If management of procurement of capital items was delegated to local PIH Hubs, local and regional products could be favored to promote sustainable practices. Given the vast amount of money spent on capital replacement items in public housing units (cabinets, carpets, etc.) local delegation would also enable leadership to favor, if not require, durable sustainable products such as recycled steel cabinetry (Dwyer), smart strand carpeting (Mohawk, made from corn 25 year stain warranty), stainless steel countertops (last forever and easy to clean). The lifespan of each of these products is 50+ years, even under extreme use conditions.

Local offices do not currently have the auhority to mandate such features to their respective Public Housing Authorities. Although, such a mandate would greatly decrease operating costs and improve the indoor environmental quality for the people benefiting from HUD assisted housing.