Why Org Charts Matter
June 21st, 2010 
21 Comments
It’s a given that understanding a situation improves your ability to respond to it. That’s the value of edumucation! That’s why understanding the structure of the City of LA is key to understanding how activists can motivate change, and improve the environment for cyclists. It follows that misunderstanding can lead to catastrophic failure, and waste precious energy on misguided campaigns.
In his post “Who’s the man behind the curtain of L.A. bicycling?” Ted Rogers shifts the blame for LADOT’s cycling failures off Michelle Mowery and onto a new target, John Fisher, Assistant General Manager of Operations at LADOT. He targets Fisher in part because he believes that Fisher is 2nd in Command at LADOT, and therefore in a position to stop the production of bike facilities. In doing so he insults Rita Robinson, the General Manager at DOT, alleging that she can’t manage her department.
Rogers, an LACBC board member, risks making two new powerful enemies for cyclists, and yet his post is not factually correct. In this post I will look at his belief that John Fisher is 2nd in Command, and show that it’s not correct. In another post I will look at the other failures of fact in Rogers’ post.
As Rogers spins it, John Fisher is the man behind the curtain. Rita Robinson runs DOT, the buck stops with her, but Rogers dismisses her on the basis that Robinson does not have a background in engineering. Rogers implies that, without a degree in engineering, Robinson cannot manage engineers. Therefore, if the failures are ones of engineering, the responsibility must fall on Fisher, since Fisher is 2nd in command to Rita Robinson and an engineer.
One problem with that, among others, is that there is no 2nd in command at DOT. There are three sorts of 2nd in command: the true 2nd in command, the almost 2nd in command, and the de facto 2nd in command. Fisher (and likely none of the Assistant General Managers at LADOT) does not fit the description of any of these 2nd in commands.
The True 2nd in Command:
The true 2nd in command is a person who is immediately below the boss, and has all the same powers as the boss, except that the boss can tell them what to do. As a Trekkie, the best example I can think of for this is Captain Picard and Commander Riker from Star Trek. Captain Picard has the ultimate decision making power on the Enterprise, and god’s gift to women Cmd Riker has it too. The only difference is, Riker has to defer to Picard – and does so readily cause he’s such a good guy. However, when Picard is away, Riker runs the show.
There aren’t too many true 2nds left in government, but when they do exist, they look like this in the org chart:
This is what an org chart looks like for an organization with a 2nd in Command
First the boss, then the 2nd, then everyone else.
Now, compare that with the LADOT org chart:
Offices and Assistant General Managers reporting directly to General Manager Robinson at LADOT
All of the Offices and Assistant General Managers circled in red report directly to Robinson. With multiple employees reporting directly to Robinson, no one fits the definition of a true 2nd in command.
Did I just use a Star Trek analogy? *wince* We better move on!
The Almost 2nd in Command
The almost 2nd in command is an employee who is immediately beneath the boss, but there are others who also report directly to the boss. However, this employee controls the vast majority of the resources or employees in the department, so that in all but a few instances they are in the next highest power position.
A good example of this is LAPD. Apart from the Police Commission, which oversees all police activity, and the Office of the Inspector General, Chief Beck sits atop the entirety of LAPD (LAPD org chart, pdf). Assistant Chief Paysinger reports directly to Beck. There are many staff who report directly to Beck – Chief of Staff, Director of the Office of Special Operations, The Special Assistant for Constitutional Policing, etc etc – and not to Paysinger, so Paysinger is not a true 2nd.
However, of all the staff who report directly to Beck, Paysinger controls most of the resources. He runs the Office of Operations, which houses the vast majority of the 9960 total sworn officers in LAPD. Almost everything that LAPD does runs through Operations, which means that almost everything that LAPD does falls in Paysinger’s office. Effectively, Paysinger is almost 2nd in command to Beck.
Is there an almost 2nd in command at LADOT? No, there isn’t. Rogers puts Fisher forward as 2nd in command, but Fisher’s Office of Operations at LADOT only houses 500 of LADOT’s 2000 employees. Controlling 25% of the department’s resources can’t be construed as controlling the department.
What about one of the other Assistant General Managers who controls a different office at LADOT? Well, if Fisher controls 25% of the department’s resources, that means the most in other Assistant General Manager can control is 75%, and that can’t be construed as being almost 2nd in command.
There’s no almost 2nd in command at LADOT.
De Facto 2nd in Command
The final possibility is that somebody reporting to the General Manager is not a true 2nd in command, and isn’t an almost 2nd in command, but dominates the department politically. They may not have the hard power to order around other people in the department, but because they have immense political power, they’re effectively a 2nd in command. De facto, they are the second in the command.
Joe Linton alleged that Fisher is the de facto 2nd in command at DOT:
Fisher, as the head of Transportation Operations, is tied for the #2 slot. Given his seniority and the relative power between him and the other AGMs (whose roles are more administrative, and less directly responsible for LA’s streets), it’s clear to me that Fisher is #2.
It’s a more subjective argument, because there’s no org chart of political power. In my opinion it’s not the case.
Amir Sedadi is the Assistant General Manager of the Office of Parking Management and Regulation at LADOT, better known as Parking. Like Fisher, Sedadi reports directly to Robinson. Typically, Operations is a powerful in a department. However, at LADOT the Office of Parking operates all of the city’s public parking structures, all of the cities parking meters, and issues all of the parking tickets. That means two things; first, that much of what would normally fall in Operations actually falls in Sedadi’s department, weakening the power of Operations.
Second, it means that Sedadi’s office generates revenue. In the last fiscal year, Sedadi’s office generated $134 million in parking fines, and $84 million in parking use taxes (City of LA Budget, p. 375.) A government entity that spends money, like Operations, is at a disadvantage to one which generates money, like Sedadi’s Parking. Entities that spend money are always fighting for scraps to maintain their budget. Entities that generate money are power brokers. Particularly now, where two years in a row the City has nearly on gone bankrupt.
Interestingly, an anonymous source says that Fisher is rarely seen with Robinson in City Hall. The same source says Sedadi is frequently seen with Robinson.
On the whole, Sedadi, not Fisher, appears most likely to be 2nd in command. However, it can’t be ignored that Fisher has a great deal of power, as do other office and bureau heads at DOT. It’s my guess that there is no de facto second in command at LADOT; LADOT looks to me like a balanced department politically. Certainly though, it is not Fisher.
Wrap:
Some might argue that there are other reasons why Fisher is the problem. For instance, any bikeway facility design must ultimately pass through Operations, before passing to the Bureau of Street Services – a separate department which is in charge of implementation - which does the actual striping and surfacing. Someone might argue that Operations is refusing to approve bikeways designs that are submitted to it. It’s an allegation that raises more questions: could responsibility lie with the Bikeways Section for not designing bikeways? Or with the Bureau of Street Services for not striping approved facilities? These are possibilities that don’t get serious attention in Rogers’ post – the possibility isn’t even mentioned.
Regardless, Rogers’ allegation that Fisher is 2nd in command doesn’t hold water, which calls the whole post into question.
Rogers wrote:
So is John Fisher the one responsible for the department’s overwhelming focus on automotive throughput and the massive failure to implement the 1996 bike plan — let alone virtually anything else to support bicycling in Los Angeles, including the woefully watered-down first draft of the new bike plan intended to replace it?
The jury’s still out.
But it doesn’t look good.
Using the language of judges and juries, Rogers passes judgment on Fisher. He asks the reader a leading question, then scolds the reader for rushing to judgment, writing “the jury’s still out”. Finally, he informs the reader that it doesn’t look good, confirming the readers earlier suspicions, but now with the higher tone of withholding judgment. Rogers condemns Fisher while leaving himself an out: “I didn’t actually say Fisher is responsible, I just asked the question.”
I object. Commit to the opinion or don’t ask the leading question. Otherwise, drop the leading tone, and just write that you don’t know.
In Rogers’ own style:
Did Ted Rogers write a post attacking a powerful bureaucrat as responsible for the City of LA’s cycling failures, without doing solid research?
The jury’s still out.
But it doesn’t look good.
Author Info
Whether John Fisher is officially literally exactly “2nd in command” or whether he’s just a very powerful person at the top of the LADOT is, as you state, a subjective debate. The case can be made that he’s the #1 in command… or just the engineer with the most influence over accomdating bikes on Los Angeles roadways.
John Fisher has a lot of power in the LADOT and he has a long track record that doesn’t favor safety for bikes and pedestrians.
What are the other “critical facts” that you assert that Ted Rogers “gets… wrong” on that initial post about John Fisher?
It appears to me that all Ted Rodgers was saying is that it appears to him that John Fisher might be responsible but he’s not certain (“the jury’s still out”) and that he was soliciting others’ opinion about what they thought (“So is John Fisher the one responsible…”). Unfortunately, now this is just turning into a one-sided: I’ll show you who has the bigger… org chart. I can’t help but believe that you have more important contributions to make to the biking community than just bad mouthing a fellow biking advocate.
I kept scanning and scanning for a ‘ready aim fire’, only to find that your piece was about Ted Rogers. He has no power at LADOT. Is it Rita? Do we go back to demonizing Michelle (because that’s been so productive in the past 5 years)?
I support Bikeside: the 501c4 lobbying structure, the sass Bikeside can dole out, and that they are doers–like with the Backbone network.
I’ve never met Ted Rogers. It appears to me that a bunch of people have a big problem with him. But he can’t make a change, he can just write about stuff.
So what’s the plan, Bikeside? How do we get the right person(s) installed in the right place(s) to make these changes.
You are using semantics to prove your point which seems to me a case of one opinion vs another. John E. Fisher is certainly a more appropriate target than the Parking or Finance general managers. Who is left? No one can be number 2? That may be the case. There are many organizations with Flat organizational structures so your LAPD example is just that, one example. But lets get to the brass tax of your argument. Who is Number 2? And why does it matter?
i appreciate your need to pick apart another blogger’s article, but i feel at a certain point you need to decide whether you are going to be LACBC’s watchdog organization or an advocacy organization.
i wish that the Bikeside Watchdog Blog was a separate entity, because I would like to be able to just unsubscribe to that one.
Oh Alex, did you have to bring Star Trek into it?
Evidently, you haven’t looked at page five the newly revised bike plan, which lists Amir Sedadi and John E. Fisher as Assistant General Managers, directly below Rita Robinson.
It’s entirely possible that I may be wrong about Fisher. However, the research I’ve done over the last 6 months suggests otherwise, as does the abysmal lack of infrastructure on L.A.’s streets.
However, I do thank you for changing the tone from that of your previous post. But what, pray tell, does the LACBC have to do with anything? Does the fact that I’m now a board member preclude me from having and expressing my own opinions?
Sigh, this is such a one-sided nerd war you’re waging against nobody in particular right now.
Fisher’s office is the principal department in the city for making decisions on what will, or won’t, happen with the roads.
I too read the LADOT organization chart, their budget(s), their internal newsletters, their council files, their traffic counts, and anything else I can get my hands on. I read them to use them to change things for the better, not go geek-crazy on people I’m working with.
This is like arguing vi vs emacs.
love the stark trek analogy – i’ll go with it.
maybe fisher is like beverly crusher? i think she had three dots on her collar, just like number two? but, she was just a doctor, though i do remember her having to take command on the rare occasion.
maybe there are no three dots, only two dots? so maybe sedaddi and fisher are more like Data, Worf, and Geordy?
in that case, i say Fisher is like Data (or his evil twin Lor) calculated, strong, but ultimately – emotionless. responds to logic. favors automobiles, because most angelenos do.
down with Data!
@Joe – I wrote that the extent and nature of one’s political power is a more subjective argument. I have not seen an argument presented yet that would indicate to me that John Fisher is the 2nd in command at LADOT. You say that “The case can be made that he’s the #1 in command…” – no it may not be made. #1 is Rita Robinson.
You write that:
“John Fisher has a lot of power in the LADOT and he has a long track record that doesn’t favor safety for bikes and pedestrians.”
Where’s the track record?
I’m happy to discuss these things with you if you provide actual concrete facts. You ask what other critical facts Rogers gets wrong . . . this is what I said above:
In another post I will look at the other failures of fact in Rogers’ post.
and that is what I will do.
@Kevin – discussing what officials at the most important agency for bikes are responsible for failur isn’t a worthwhile contribution?
@Kenefick – if you want to know what strategy I think is most appropriate . . . well I don’t share that with everyone. But I will be discussing at more length who I think should be held accountable.
You write that “Do we go back to demonizing Michelle (because that’s been so productive in the past 5 years)?” That’s not really true – firstly some organizations and individuals have been very easy on Mowery, and to some extent still defend her. Kent Strumpell still supports her, and now Ted Rogers is shifting the blame off Mowery. So the “we” is not historically accurate. Just because bike activists have failed thus far to remove Mowery dose not mean she’s not a problem, and it does not mean that highlighting her failures has not worked as a strategy. In fact, I think that strategy is partly responsible for the improvements in the bike plan.
@The Dude Abides – aka Foldie: There is no 2nd in Command at LADOT. Also – “brass tacks.”
@Iain Marjoribanks aka numerous forms of EN: The two aren’t mutually exclusive. It is fair and reasonable for organizations to comment on each others conduct, particularly when that conduct is in public. It is fair and desirable for bloggers to comment on each others posts. The lack of serious commentary on both is bad thing, not a good thing. It leads to an environment where critique is rare, people are thin skinned, and orgs and bloggers don’t receive important negative feedback.
@danceralamode – Star Trek is always on my mind.
Finally, @Ted Rogers (bikinginla):
Ummm, I don’t get it. Yes, Amir Sedadi and John Fisher are both Assistant General Managers. As is Selwyn Hollins. None of them are 2nd in Command to Rita, as no one of them dominates the department formally or informally.
You say that “the research I’ve done over the last 6 months suggests” Fisher is a problem. Ok, if you’ve got 6 months of research, lets see it. It wasn’t present in your post. How you did 6 months of research and concluded wrongly that Fisher is the 2nd in Command at LADOT I don’t understand.
@AT
From the LADOT website about us section:
“As a voting member of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, he advises the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans, respectively, on innovations in traffic controls that should be adopted to improve traffic flow and safety. He has authored several national and local articles on transportation.”
That statement right there indicates he is a highly influential person not only in LA but at the state and federal levels.
So why is he not a good target? Why should he not be responsible for the crappy Sharrows? Are the ulterior motives from you an your gang? Do you have a special relationship with John?
Actually son, while my conclusions are fair game, who I talked to and how I did my research is none of your business. However, if you want, I’ll be more than happy to tell everyone why I began that research, which you know as well as I do, and which would reveal far more about you and your tactics than it would about me.
As I stated in my comment, if I got Fisher’s position wrong, so did the people who wrote the new bike plan. And so does LADOT’s own website, which list him second behind Robinson and only lists two AGMs, along with one acting AGM — for Finance and Administration, not engineering.
Oh damn, I just revealed some of my research.
David P,
Okay, you went full nerd first, (I was gonna bring up Crusher too, but thought that would reveal too much of my Trekkiness). Dr. Crusher does have the power to relieve Captain Picard from duty (which she had just done in the episode I was watching while first reading this article). I don’t think Fisher is like Data, although Data has taken over command on several occasions, sometimes to save the crew, other times because he has been induced by some kind of homing beacon, like in the episode where Dr. Soong dies and gives Data his emotion chip. So who is in power or in command doesn’t always relate to an org chart. Sometimes an org chart is just a chart.
Anyways, my point is (yes, I actually do have one) that there are leaders as defined by an organizational chart, and then there are “perceived” leaders within an organization. People who, due to seniority or rank or based on relationships they have built, are perceived by their peers and/or the public as having leadership power. There is an article I would like to reference on this–if I can find it I will link it.
Still, I don’t believe even that matters. I think that we should be targeting as many people as possible to influence them to become supporters of bike and pedestrian projects. In fact, we should be targeting everyone to be supporters of these projects, from the Mayor down. I don’t think it has to be one target or the other.
I’ve heard an apocryphal story that somewhere in the not so distant past there was a LADOT report titled…. ‘Pedestrians, the number one impediment to free flowing traffic in the City of Los Angeles………….”
Yet it seems so possible.
Okay, here is the link I referred to. This blog post from Rosetta Thurman discusses the idea of emergent leadership. http://www.rosettathurman.com/2010/02/5-ways-to-emerge-as-a-nonprofit-leader/
@TheDudeAbide:
So why is he not a good target? Why should he not be responsible for the crappy Sharrows?
Fisher might be worthwhile to target in the sense that he may be able to do positive things for cyclists, and seeking his attention could be worthwhile. However, to frame him as responsible for the failures of the City of LA on biking is simply not in line with the facts. Mowery’s title is Bicycle Coordinator, and has been for 14 years, so a lack of production or coordination of facilities falls on her.
Re the sharrows – documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request show that Michelle Mowery was the lead for DOT on the sharrows study, for the $50k they received. Jen Klausner was the lead for LACBC who received $35k. These are the two entities responsible for writing the documents which guide the implementation of sharrows, and so these are the responsible party. Bikeways is not part of Operations, so if Bikeways makes a mistake in instructing the Bureau of Street Services on sharrows implementation, that’s not on Operations, it’s on Bikeways.
@Ted Rogers aka BikinginLA:
Actually son, while my conclusions are fair game, who I talked to and how I did my research is none of your business.
Wilco Tango Foxtrot!
Anyway, the point is Ted, there’s more than one Assistant GM, each has substantial power, and neither is second in command. 2nd in command is an exclusive thing, if one person is 2nd in command, another cannot be. It’s not shared. You used the notion that Fisher is 2nd in command to explain that the responsibility ultimately rests with him. I’m saying he is not 2nd in command, and that breaks your argument.
The idea that only an engineer can manage engineering decisions, and that only people with engineering degrees and certification are engineers – that notion is rhetorically and factually flawed.
@Danceralamode – it may be that Fisher is a perceived leader. But again, if he doesn’t have authority over the Bikeways department (and he doesn’t), short of a smoking gun, how can you hold him responsible for Bikeways failures. Rogers is shifting responsibility off Mowery onto Fisher, but with no evidence to support the exoneration, partial or complete, of Mowery.
part 2 in alex’s self destructive descent.
your focus on semantics in the quest to discover “who/what is number 2?” wreaks of spending too much time with stephen box. while it may be a good academic exercise, you have failed to confront the important question, “Why has Fisher (whether #2 or not) consistently blocked the advancement of bicycling in Los Angeles?”
even when you almost arrive at that inquiry, the piece reverts its attention to needle another advocate.
ted rogers is not holding back bicycling in los angeles. john fisher is. your continuation on this malignant path is blocking progress as well.