TPS Reports and Government Bureaucracy

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Michael R. Ford
September 9, 2024

I will never forget the first time I was exposed to Max Weber’s observations about the dehumanizing nature of bureaucracy. I was working as a lobbyist dealing with the intricacies of the Wisconsin state budget process by day, while completing coursework for my master’s degree at night. I did not totally agree with Weber, but I could understand where he was coming from. Bureaucracies in general, and government bureaucracies in particular, can be challenging to navigate. And I do find, in my experience, that the frustrating parts of working in a bureaucracy are consistent with Weber’s work.

I refer to these frustrating activities, at least in my own mind, as TPS reports. If you are familiar with the cult-classic Office Space, you know that in the movie TPS reports were a task that seemed to only exist for the purposes of an employee being disciplined for doing it incorrectly. In my university bureaucracy, I refer to a TPS task as anything that that is trivial, pointless or soul-crushing.

I will begin with the trivial. A trivial task is one of little importance. It may not be pointless, but the connection with the larger goals of the university, college or department, are not clearly defined. Trivial tasks often fall under the realm of compliance theatre. Someone, at some point, thought it was a good idea for reasons that are no longer understood. An example of the trivial are things like annual performance reviews for faculty. Now, it is important that faculty are reviewed, which is why tenure, post-tenure review and annual assessments exist. Annual reviews in my bureaucracy are designed for non-academic employees, but administered to all. The result is few take it seriously, but  all must take the time to do it.

Pointless tasks are those that are truly without any identifiable purpose. Examples include belt and suspender exercises where digital processes are created to boost efficiency, but identical paper-based processes still exist. So, the result of an innovation is actually more work for reasons nobody can explain. Another example are forms that must be filled out prior to student graduation. Rather than being able to submit a transcript showing the student’s coursework, an advisor must pull a transcript and copy the information from the transcript to a separate form that requires layers of approval to verify the information, which already exists in university databases, to be verified. The truest indicator of a pointless task is the lack of consequences if it does not get done.

Now the worst are the soul-crushing tasks. Soul-crushing tasks are often really important, but the process to complete the task is needlessly complex or ill-defined. In my experience outdated forms are a problem here. It is not uncommon for me to follow instructions on a university document, only to be told no, I should not be following those instructions. But the worst example of a soul-crushing task is any that requires an unreasonable number of approvals. Any hierarchical organizations is going to have layered systems of approval for certain tasks, but when simple things like buying office supplies requires eight or nine approvals it sends a message to employees that they are not seen as competent professionals. From a more practical standpoint, it means simple tasks take an exorbitant amount of time to complete.

The examples I provided are not unique to my institution nor academia. Complex bureaucracies, especially government bureaucracies, evolve over time. Funding changes, new mandates, changes in society and culture, are a reality faced by organizations over the life cycle. New policies and processes are often needed. At times old processes are used to deal with emerging realities and they do not quite do the trick. So employees find ways to get by. They triage their work and focus on what is important while avoiding what is deemed to be trivial, pointless and soul-crushing.

But TPS tasks have consequences. They require professionals to spend less time doing their actual jobs in order to focus on compliance theatre. TPS tasks can erode organizational cultures by making employees feel everyday tasks are too complex, or too confusing, to be done properly. The use of workarounds to avoid TPS tasks make an organizations less equitable and transparent. So what can organizations do about it? Per usual, I have no easy answers, but I do know efforts to simplify bureaucratic operations need to begin by asking rank and file employees what is and is not working. Clear annual goals related to simplification of processes can go a long way. A large organization will always have TPS tasks, but the fewer there are, the more efficient and effective an organization can be.

---

Author: Michael R. Ford is an associate professor of public administration at the University of Wisconsin  Oshkosh, where he teaches graduate courses in budgeting and research methods. He frequently publishes on the topics of public and nonprofit board governance, accountability and school choice. He formerly served as an elected member of the Oshkosh, WI Common Council. 

(5 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...