Be Like Rowan

“If you work for a man, in Heaven's name work for him. If he pays wages that supply you your bread and butter, work for him, speak well of him, think well of him, and stand by him, and stand by the institution he represents. I think if I worked for a man, I would work for him. I would not work for him a part of his time, but all of his time. I would give an undivided service or none. If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness.” - Elbert Hubbard

I saw this passage on the wall of a School Principal I once worked for. I found it interesting but could not locate it again for many years. I wish I had and learned its lesson earlier in my life.

"A Message To Garcia is an inspirational essay [that] celebrates the initiative of a soldier [Rowan] who is assigned and accomplishes a daunting mission. He asks no questions, makes no objections, requests no help, but accomplishes the mission. The essay exhorts the reader to apply this attitude to his own life as an avenue to success… It was wildly popular, selling over 40 million copies, and being translated into 37 languages. It also became a well-known allusion in American popular and business culture until the middle of the twentieth century… It was given to every U.S. Navy enlistee and U.S. Marine in both world wars, and often memorized by schoolchildren. A copy of it is often given to Marine Non-Commissioned Officers upon their promotion. It is estimated to be one of the highest-selling books in history, essentially due to American employers purchasing copies in bulk to distribute to their employees." (from Wikipedia)

While this essay is dated, if you take it in the cultural context of the times it still bears a relevant message. It also tells us a lot about the mindset of Americans of the first half of the 20^th century. It’s worth reading.

Service at Change.Gov

I just signed up on Change.gov to let the Obama-Biden Transition Team know I'm interested in service and volunteer opportunities. I thought you might be interested, too:

http://change.gov/service

Thanks.

Find out more about the proposed service plans at http://www.change.gov/agenda/service_agenda/.

Let’s make sure these campaign promises are realized.

What, Why and How?

Does your bureaucracy have a Mission? Do you have a Mission/Values Statement? Does anyone know about it? Does anyone act on it?

Many bureaucracies cannot answer these questions in the affirmative. Most businesses of any size have them and no good manager can plan and implement without one. If you don’t know where you are going you don’t know where you will end up. Everyone should have a mission.

When I first sat down to develop my personal mission statement I came up with “respect.help.grow.” I’ve been working on it ever since. I recently sat down with my unit which until now didn’t have a mission statement. Now we do. Here it is:

Mission Statement

Our Purpose:

Our mission is to help employers meet the reporting responsibilities that are necessary to enable the State to provide unemployment and disability programs for its citizens.

Our Values:

· Respect

· Service

· Growth

Our Method:

We ask:

· What do we do?

· Why do we do it?

· How do we do it?

· Can we do it better?

· What else can we do?

We act on the answers.

We need reasons to do what we do, reasons better than “That’s just how we do it here” or “That’s how we’ve always done it.” Everything we do should be able to be explained in terms of the mission. Anything else is expendable.

Bureaucratic Counterpoint

Yesterday I went on a bit of a rant on the problems of bureaucracy. Then, today, I read The Case FOR Bureaucracy. I don’t usually recommend articles with a strong political bias, particularly one different from my own, today I’ll make an exception.

Disclaimer: The author, Douglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College, concludes with “The negative stereotypes of bureaucracy that we have looked at in this article contribute to a political atmosphere that legitimizes the right-wing attack on government.” Further indications of a certain bias include:

· 20 negative uses of conservative, conservatives, Republicans, right-wing

· 0 uses of the terms liberal, liberals, Democrat or left-wing

· 3 criticisms of the Bush administration regarding Hurricane Katrina

· And 2 positive mentions of Al Gore’s National Performance review

Despite Professor Amy’s partisan tone, there is much good to be gleaned from this article. It examines and tries to refute many commonly held ideas:

· Bureaucracies Are Immensely Wasteful

· Business is Always Better than Bureaucracy

· We Want the Government to Act Like a Business

· Bureaucracy is a Major Cause of Government Growth

· Bureaucracies Usually Provide Poor Service

· It’s Bad that Agencies Don’t Treat Us as Individuals

While there is much material that is debatable, it certainly demonstrates that these ideas should not be taken without question, there are reasonable alternative arguments.

It also offers support for the points of view that there is much good about bureaucracy and that some bureaucrats are true heroes. It briefly discusses needed reforms (serving as a prelude to another article on the site called Revitalizing the Public Sector) and the need to get past stereotypes.

Both of these articles are thorough and well worth reading, regardless of your political stripe. The author and I may disagree on many of the reasons for the universal distain of bureaucracy, but we agree in many areas. Appreciate and develop what it does well and why it does them well. Consider what it does poorly and why and then decide if it needs reform or another structure entirely. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Professor Amy wisely states:

“… it is important to see that the case for bureaucracy is about more than what those agencies can do for us as individuals, it is about the crucial role they play in creating a better society for all of us. As Charles Goodsell has noted, government bureaucracies form the public infrastructure that is essential to maintaining a free and prosperous society:

‘A good bureaucracy is indispensable to a free society, a democratic polity, and a capitalist economy. The freedom to wander the streets at night, for example depends on competent law enforcement. The ability to vote governments out of office without disruption requires a reliable administrative apparatus. A prosperous business community demands good schools, highways, health departments, post offices, and water and sewer systems.’ - The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic

So if you feel that America is a good place to live, at least part of the credit for that must be given to government bureaucracies. Literally, the good life as we know it in the United States could not exist without the numerous and various essential tasks being performed by these public agencies on all levels of government.”

But we will need ways, fair and honest ways, to make the government run more efficiently and frugally so that “good life” can be passed down to future generation without bankrupting them.

Spitting Into The Bureaucratic Wind

Now you know I try to be a positive thinking guy, but do you mind if I complain a little bit about bureaucracy? No? I didn’t think so. Most people don’t mind. However, most people agree that it is useless. Why is that?

Bureaucrats don’t play by the rules. Well not by the rules the rest of the world plays by, and certainly not the rules of most other businesses. Bureaucrats have their own rules, for their own reasons. Unless we can define and change these rules they may go on forever, or at least until bureaucracies come crashing down under the weight of their own outdated system.

Notice I said bureaucracy was outdated. That actually implies that at one time it served a timely purpose. It did. It was a reform movement to correct horrible abuses. But its time is past. Its purpose is to perpetuate itself, like the shark in Jaws who lived only to swim, eat and make little sharks. Part of the solution is to redefine its purpose.

The purpose of business is to make a profit. It appears to me that the purpose of bureaucracy is to survive and grow larger, if possible. Bureaucrats measure success in larger budgets, larger gross revenues without the need to show profit. Secondarily bureaucrats value bodies, the more people working in your agency the better, regardless of need or efficiency. But budgets always trump bodies. Whoever has the bigger budget is the more important bureaucrat. Efficiency and frugality are not valued for their own sake as they are in business, because there is no profit motive.

Performance must become our goal, performance not profit. There is a growing movement among some local and state branches of government called “citistat” or “statestat” (now being attempted in Maryland) that does just that by rewarding agencies that can statistically show improved performance. This first came to prominence in the reformation of the NYC police department in the 1990s called CompStat.

I also believe that, on a personal level, an attitude of respect, helping and growing is essential.

I have one other complaint today. The lack of a flatter organization. The whole world has accepted the 21^st century need for flatter organizations. Flatter means managers are responsible for more people directly, eliminating the many levels of sometimes needless middle management found in bureaucracies. Even the largest multinational businesses have accepted this model as more efficient and frugal, so why are bureaucracies any different. Actually, in many instances, bureaucracies are becoming taller, not flatter, due to a reduced number of workers. Managers have fewer direct reports because of attrition, yet no management levels are being eliminated. Why? Deniability, lack of responsibility. With all those levels, it is always easy to pass the buck up or down and no one ever has to be totally responsible for anything. It’s worked great for 100 years, why change it now?

It is a recipe for disaster, and I honestly believe a disaster is inevitable unless taxpayers, legislators, workers and unions see the tsunami coming and change course. There are alternatives out there, we need to try and find more. Bureaucracy will fall and it would be good to have a 21^st century system in place before it does.

Lions and Tigers and Benefits, Oh My!

Although I have subtitled my Blog “Working for Positive Change in Ourselves and Government Bureaucracy. Working for the Public in the Public Sector.” I have addressed most of my posts to the topic of personal change. Today I want to address a much more controversial topic – government employee benefits.

Taxpayers and government workers have every right to be concerned about the future of benefits such as pensions, healthcare and particularly medical benefits for retirees. Our representatives have let us down, by not confronting the hard financial realities and settling for expedient short-term solutions.

The taxpayers representatives are legislators who have no need to find solutions that extend past the next election cycle. The government workers representatives are the unions who continually accept the legislators promises, even when previous promises have been ignored and distorted and were mathematically unworkable from the start. Legislators and unions play a political game and the taxpayers and workers suffer. Legislators and unions are openly distrustful and antagonistic, that’s politics. If ever there was a time for bipartisanship, this is it. Taxpayers and workers need to understand that this game cannot last forever, it’s time to do the math.

Benefits are just that, benefits, not entitlements. Benefit programs were started as perks to attract workers. Benefits are needed to bring workers into the government, however government workers can not expect taxpayers to fund benefits far in excess of what they receive in the private sector. Government benefits are still based on a 50 year old model developed by big manufacturers. Those companies, even the ones that are still unionized, are radically changing their programs. And 21^st Century companies have adopted totally different models. How can government workers expect taxpayers to continue to finance outdated plans that do not account for current financial realities. Both sides need to work together. The taxpayer has a vested interest in bringing good people into government service and compensating them fairly. And the government employee (who is also a taxpayer) has to accept reality that health care costs skyrocket and underfunded pensions will have to be addressed soon. Fair compromise is necessary but that will probably only happen if legislators and union leaders can stop playing politics long enough to do the long-term math and accept that major changes are necessary.

I am not an economist but the most reasonable solutions I have seen come from Girard Miller. His suggestions will probably upset both sides. He writes for the bureaucrats in charge, who have the unenviable task of being in the middle of the legislators and unions, all the while trying to preserve their own fiefdoms. Check out:

A Taxpayer’s Benefits Bill of Rights

Stop Spiking the Pension Punch

Rx for Sick Leave

Girding for Benefits Battles

How to Audit and Avoid Pension Spiking

Free To Be... You And Me?

“Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property”. - Benjamin Rush

That is not a popular sentiment anymore. We are a very individualistic people. Our individual rights are felt to be paramount, even if the law or society says otherwise. I blame it all on Marlo Thomas and Free to Be ... You and Me. For those of you who were not a child or a parent in the 70’s, that was “a record album and illustrated songbook for children featuring songs and stories from celebrities… Using poetry, songs, and sketches to salute values such as individuality, tolerance, and happiness with one's identity.” It seemed a good idea at the time, but I’m afraid we have taken it too far.

I was once teaching one of those “Free” youngsters in the 80’s. She was a high school freshman and for some long-forgotten reason, one day at Band Camp she lost it. She became furious, cursing, screaming and threatening violence over some perceived slight. She had to be sent home and suspended. That was not the problem, that can happen anywhere, or anytime.

What happened next scared me. I sat down with the rest of the group, including her sister, and explained that it would be all right, the young woman would be able to return and that it would be forgotten as long as it did not happen again. They explained that was just the way she was, that was who she was. I explained, reasonably I thought, that that was fine, but that in school or any social situation that was not tolerated. Then one of them looked directly at me and asked sincerely, “You mean you want her to CHANGE?” That’s when I first knew we had a real problem.

There has to be some middle ground for the individual, somewhere between being “public property” and “free to be me.” We must consider that we live among others and that requires certain adjustments.

Lynn Truss is an extremely entertaining professional complainer. She achieved fame with
Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. Then she wrote Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Everyday Life (or Six Good Reasons to Stay Home and Bolt the Door.) Lynn is not a very positive person, she earns her living complaining about how bad things are. She is very insightful, but she just doesn’t extend her research or opinions into the world of solution. She is more inclined to “stay home and bolt the door.” However there is a typical Truss paragraph I would like to quote:

“Whatever happened to consideration?” we cry. Well, the prerequisite of consideration is the ability to imagine being someone other than oneself, and that is a bit of a lost cause.

I think she gives up too easily. We need to encourage and teach that concept. We need to try to understand what the other person is thinking and why they are thinking it, before we assert our individuality. That is consideration. I believe we have an obligation (social and moral) to be considerate in this way. It is an extension of the Golden Rule.

“Walk a mile in my shoes is good advice. Our children will learn to respect others if they are used to imagining themselves in another's place.” - Neil Kurshan

“Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us!” – Robert Burns

Resilience

I sit here tonight waiting for the 2008 Presidential Election results to start being announced. I know one thing. Tomorrow there will be a lot of disappointed people. Only one candidate can win and the supporters of the loser will have to cope with that fact.

What will the losing party do? What it always does, starts the next campaign. Let me be the first to welcome you to the 2012 Race for the White House.

When my candidate lost the first election I voted in I was crushed. I have always taken these things very seriously. My parents were active in local politics and I learned a lot about the political process in my childhood. For instance, I learned that it was hard to get a hot meal at our house on election day because the kitchen table was filled with charts of all the registered voters in the district and my parents were very busy getting their constituents to the polls. I also learned that you sometimes lose even when you are on the side of the angels. And I learned that next year my parents would be at it again because if you want to do good you have to be resilient.

Author Diane Coutu did a review of research on resilience for the Harvard Business Review in her article, “How Resilience Works.” She said there were three common characteristics of the resilient.

A staunch acceptance of reality

Resilient people are not overly optimistic, they see things as the really are, good and bad. You can’t bounce back and make things better unless you have a true and clear understanding of the problems. Happy thoughts may make us feel better, but they don’t make things better. Know your enemy, the good and the bad. “The truth is out there.” But the truth is not easy to find, you must look hard and be objective.

A sense that life is meaningful

Victor Frankl was a World War II concentration camp survivor who went on to be a famous psychiatrist. He believed that those who survived the camps found a way to make some meaning from the horror about them. He personally imagined that in the future he would lecture on the psychology of the concentration camps, as he did after he wrote his famous book, “Man’s Search for Meaning.” He was able to create goals and make decisions in an environment where he had almost no choices or power. Still, he was able to chose his reactions to this environment, aided by a strong preexisting values system.

An ability to improvise.

As a musician, I am familiar with improvisation. Being creative on the spot, under pressure, is exhilarating and terrifying. But improvisation does not mean lack of preparation. Improvisation can be learned, it involves constantly collecting and practicing the musical elements that go into a performance, scales, intervals, chords, and melodic fragments. When a musician can call them up almost without effort then creativity can take over. Frankl writes of prisoners who would collect any little piece of wire or string they could find, never knowing when they might mean the difference between life and death. Collect ideas, opinions and options, make up your own, write them down, save them, put them in a blog. You never know when you will need them, but someday you will. “Opportunity comes to the prepared mind.” How do you get to improvise at Carnegie Hall? Practice.

Resilience. A staunch acceptance of reality, a sense that life is meaningful, an ability to improvise.

Got it.

OK, I guess I’ll turn on the news and find out who won.