Too Big to Succeed

We’ve all seen how bureaucracies seem to be the least effective when most needed and I can’t help but wonder why this is the case? Are they destined to fail? Are they infiltrated with incompetents? Just crazy enough to be true, but I doubt it.

Let’s start a business, you and I. OK, now we need some employees. Who’s going to oversee them? Well, I guess we’ll need a manager for that cuz you and I are involved in the frying of bigger fish. Payroll? We need an accountant and office manager. Oops: someone got hurt and is filing a workman’s comp claim. We need to get an insurance guru that knows how to handle that. And, before you know it, we’ve got us a bureaucracy! Each of those main players we’ve brought on will, in time, need their own main players and the corporate layers will grow accordingly.

Further dilution and separation of responsibilities will occur as a matter of course and in the name of “efficiency”. You and I are happy because our company seems to operating at its fullest potential. Our organizational chart is a thing to behold, what with its universe of divisions and departments. Life is good.

Until the operation goes very much awry and decisions are needed now so actions can follow immediately thereafter. A fire? No problem: who’s got the key to the fire extinguishers? Well, let’s check with the Fire Prevention Unit. That guy’s on vacation, though. Who’d he place in charge? Can’t tell by looking at the chart. Hell, let’s break the lock. Who authorizes the breaking of corporate property? Don’t know. Where’s the crash axe? We stored them with the fire extinguishers. It made sense at the time.

The Keystone Kops would have been proud to play a part in our little skit. But this kind of comedic catastrophe plays itself out every day yet the bureaucracy survives. We have a panel to study what went wrong and why, rearrange or realign the departments, maybe fire a few scapegoats, and then proudly proclaim that the system is now safe and ready for anything. Until that “anything” occurs, of course. Does it come as a surprise to anyone why we have come to distrust a bureaucracy? I wouldn’t think so and it follows that our distrust flows surely to our governments (local, state, and federal) because they seem to have perfected the art of bureaucratization. So what do we do about it?

Accept it. “What?”, you shout. Well, with some exceptions, but the nature of a bureaucracy is no different than that of a scorpion or rattlesnake. Sooner or later, when dealing with one or the other, you are likely to be bitten. It is simply the nature of the beast in question. A bureaucracy, though, is man-made and can be altered (over time) to provide a more streamlined and timely response to problems. That involves the elimination of many departments and their associated personnel and is precisely why it will not occur overnight. Shrinking through attrition is the most equitable solution, I’d say, and, in the meantime, I’d suggest that every bureaucracy has a Disaster Czar with ultimate authority and control. And even then, problems would arise, but hopefully fewer and smaller ones.

No one can deny that corporate and governmental ne’er-do-wells use a bureaucracy for political or professional cover when things go wrong on their watch. Conversely, many good folks with honorable intentions get chewed up in the same grist mill. And we just can’t tell one from the other, can we? All we can do is try to simplify the structure that leads to such undesirable conclusions. In the meantime, however, we are left with debacles similar to the current BP mess in the Gulf of Mexico. We have a corporate bureaucracy trying to co-exist with a political one. It’s like watching two teenagers learn to waltz: countless missteps and bruised toes.

Many conglomerates in the financial crisis were labeled as too big to fail and were subsequently offered public assistance. I submit that many of our bureaucracies are too big to succeed and must be simplified and allowed to atrophy so as to reach a size that lends itself to greater success. (How about starting with the IRS?)

Bayou Bewilderment

As I write this, the Louisiana shore is awash with oil and more is to come over the next several months. Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida are also affected with fouled beaches and wetlands as experts tell us that even the Carolina shores may be subjected to a similar fate should ocean currents act as predicted. Anger is as abundant as the oil spilling from the doomed well and just as crude. And who can blame those most affected by this disaster? From business owners to property owners to tourists. Perhaps more perilous and long-lasting is the loss of wildlife and habitat. The future of the Gulf Coast is bleak.

British Petroleum is no more successful with damage control than it has been in stopping its leak. Whether a mile below the ocean’s surface or three inches from a microphone, attempts to stem the flow of oil or turn the tide of public opinion have failed. Who do we blame? BP? Halliburton? Transocean? Washington regulators? To be sure, there’s plenty to go around and only time will tell if the truly guilty parties are brought to justice.

In the meantime, collective hearts go out to those living in close proximity to the damage. What with the scope of the oil slick, can there be any surprise at a moratorium on further deep water drilling? How else can we get our proverbial ducks in a row and try to prevent any replays? Well, I guess Louisiana’s Governor Bobby Jindal is surprised. He is as angry at this prospect as the spill, maybe even more so. It seems that his rationale centers on the fact that the oil industry and its associated drilling are essential parts of Louisiana’s economy. And without the drilling, folks will go broke.

I’m confused: first heard are screams of outrage at the sight of unleashed crude oil washing up on barrier islands and beaches. Then, when a timeout is declared to review, rewrite, and re-implement deep water drilling procedures and regulations an even louder scream arises from the same group! Can they be serious? Apparently they are and their demands bring this attempt to have it both ways into sharp focus.

Who doesn’t want their cake and then eat it, too? We were all taught that such dreams are simply that: dreams. Unattainable goals. But our local, state, and federal governments have spent the past several decades convincing us that such dreams can be found in a political reality where boons are provided absent the banes of payment. A quid without a quo, if you will. And we’ve been more than happy to buy into this flimflammery. So why not apply the same reasoning to the BP fiasco? Make ‘em pay, make sure it never happens again, but keep drilling so I can keep my job.

It seems that, as a country, we are finally coming to terms with the concept of paying the bill for what we get. Unfortunately, it also seems that only the other guy should pay for what the other guy gets. Our stuff is important and we really need it, but that other stuff used by that other guy is wasteful and must be stopped or he must find a way to pay for it. Social Security, Medicare, subsidies, you name it: all “programs” offered by our political institutions have come with a price tag long ignored. Many think that our continued spiral into ever-increasing deficits may prove to be our undoing. Your guess is as good as mine, but one thing I do know: don’t ask for my prayers, my pennies, or my “pitching in” if you’re expecting your cash flow and the conditions that contributed to your misery be allowed to continue unabated.

If the consequences of Louisiana’s decision to continue deep water drilling were to remain within their state borders, I’d have little to say about it. But the BP disaster will have far-reaching ramifications. The Pelican State is in danger of losing its pelicans plus countless other assets and the fallout of this event will carry far beyond her confines. Much must change and the change must begin with a reappraisal of past practices regardless of the short term economic impact.

Contemptuous Familiarity

The vacation is over at the Minerals Management Service. No more trading resumes and job applications with the folks you’re inspecting. No more coming to work under the influence. And Elizabeth Birnbaum has resigned. Or was she fired? Sorry, but in today’s corporate or political America, no nabob gets fired. They resign so as to “seek other opportunities” or to “spend more time with family”. No public execution for the citizenry to relish. Rather, a quiet hanging in the back room.

Who cares, anyway? She’s gone and we can finally get back to overseeing those that require constant supervision. Should you think that it is that simple, boy do I have a deal for you! Remember the folks at the SEC? You know, those charged with keeping an eye on our interests within the financial sector? They were watching porn on their computers and god knows what else while our economy slid steadily towards the brink.

When problems (disaster?) like this arise, a scapegoat is always located and the public is led to believe that all will now be well. And it never seems to turn out that way, does it? And you know what? I’m mad...no, I’m pissed off at those seemingly selfless public servants that routinely throw us under the bus for their own gains. And if you’re not pissed, too, you’re not paying attention.

I’ve always espoused smart government over smaller government and believe that its chief role is to protect the general population from those that would pick another route that maximizes personal agendas at the expense of our overall quality of life. I no longer believe that such an arrangement is possible without a complete overhaul of our system of checks and balances.

The fact that Ms Birnbaum is no longer leading the MMS has nothing to do with the underlying culture within our civil servants and corporate sycophants. No one seems to care about the reasons for their position, but rather concentrate on extracting the maximum rewards at any cost. And who can blame them? Corporations outsource manufacturing and other functions to foreign (cheaper) operations so as to make the most money. It matters not to them that the middle class of America is left to languish and eventually die on the side of the commercial highway. Political gamesmanship is centered on getting the most from another while ceding the least. The fallout and future ramifications on the constituents is better left for the next administration, anyway.

So how can we blame the inspector for following the lead of the higher-ups? We will, you know, and we’ll probably fire a few and ask the appointed scapegoat to “retire”, but it’s all for show to convince you and me that all is now under control. In truth, it will take much more effort to truly clean house. How about hiring environmentalists to monitor offshore drilling? And how about bringing on some forensic financiers to keep an eye on the banking industry. Basically, we ask folks who abhor the activity of those they monitor to make sure they do it right. As an airline pilot, the FAA has inspectors to keep an eye on me. I can’t help but think that most of these folks are frustrated airline pilot wannabe’s and their perfect day includes busting me on a check-ride. And that’s how it should be, don’t you think? Would you prefer some lackey in my jump-seat schmoozing me for a job with my airline instead of holding my feet to the fire should I fall below a pre-set standard? No, we need some friction, albeit civil, between the hen-house and whomever is guarding it.

And we need something long missing and little seen in today’s everyday world: ethics. Doing the right thing is easy when the spotlight is trained in your direction, but that has nothing to do with ethics. No, ethics (or integrity, if you prefer) is doing the right thing when no one is watching. Unfortunately, this course correction must begin at the top of whatever framework we’re talking about, be it the White House or the boardroom. It’s hard to maintain anonymity in today’s Facebook, Twitter, and open-mike environment and that’s a good thing, at least within this discussion.

Regulators are nothing more than law enforcement personnel without a gun. And society condemns a crooked cop. The same attitude must be maintained towards all the inspectors and regulators out there and when misconduct is uncovered heads must roll. A tall order, to be sure, but until changes like this come about, don’t be too surprised when our regulators fail to adequately regulate.

They say that familiarity breeds contempt. This usually refers to matters of the heart, but in the case of our regulatory agencies falling far short of their mandates, I’d say it’s fair to equate their familiarity with their corporate counterparts equally contemptible.

Signs

Blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind. Or so the song goes, anyway. No one can argue that signs are abundant, be it a city center or the hinterlands. Traffic signs and advertising signs make up the majority and those we must deal with, I suppose. There are other signs, though, that are similar to weeds in that they provide little benefit and last way too long. These types I’d like to explore further.

It is common to find signs announcing some event that lies in the not-too-distant future: county fairs, fun runs, bake sales. The list goes on and the spreading of the word is a good thing. Right up until the date of the event, though, and then, literally overnight, the sign represents an intrusion into our visual world. While an upcoming event may be of use to some people, absolutely no one has an interest in yesterday’s bake sale, last week’s fun run or, god forbid, last month’s county fair, do they? I didn’t think so. Why is it, then, that all these signs linger on our roadsides and store windows long after they have served their purpose? Laziness? A good bet, for sure. The zeal of publicizing quickly wanes when it comes to the clean-up duties.

And this year we have a bumper crop of signs. It is election year and the true menace to our pastoral scenery is the sign urging support for who’s-its and what’s-its. “VOTE FOR.....” signs dot every yard, store, vacant lot, and any other available space. They are repetitive and, much like Christmas lights, are exhibited far too long. And for the next six months we will be inundated by them. Primary season is in full swing and the fall elections will soon be cranking out their vinyl and cardboard as soon as the candidate’s name is decided. Where the hell do they come from, anyway? Supporters, I’d guess, but where are these folks on the Wednesday morning after election day? Celebrating or mourning, perhaps, but, win or lose, they owe the rest of society a speedy removal of the signs that are no longer relevant.

My plea goes out to the friends, neighbors, supporters, and publicity folks working on campaigns or fundraisers or community events. Someone has to put up these signs and that same someone needs to remove them in an equally expedient manner. Is that too much to ask? There’s more than enough out there to block our scenery and break our mind. Take down the damned signs!

The Other Wars

It’s been said that war is hell and who could argue with that? The “war” refers to military campaigns. It is bloody and many lives are lost in an attempt to achieve specific objectives. There are, however, other kinds of war that have been waged within this country over the past forty years, or so. These are social wars and most notable among them are the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terrorism. Let’s take a few minutes and see how those campaigns have gone.

In January of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty. This declaration ushered in programs such as Head Start, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. These programs exist to this day yet, while the rates of poverty declined initially, they have remained steady since the 1970’s. What happened? Why did things start out so good and then level off? We can start with the bureaucratic beasts of fraud, waste, and abuse. For every multi-layered organization, within the government or outside of it, these creatures will lurk. Money meant for good purposes ends up in the wrong pocket to the disadvantage of those intended. Political will slackened over the years and big government foes whittled budgets and limited resources whenever the opportunity presented itself. This more than likely culminated in Ronald Reagan’s 1988 State of the Union Speech when, in referring to the War on Poverty, he said, “Poverty won.”

In 1971, President Nixon declared a war on drugs. This war has raged ever since and our current drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, recently conceded that it has not been successful. Over a trillion dollars has gone into the fight, thousands of lives have been lost, and, according to Mr. Kerlikowske, the problem is “if anything, magnified, intensified.” Once again: what happened? Not so much a bureaucratic mess and lack of political consistency, but perhaps the wrong strategy. Much like prohibition showed, a government cannot legislate the desire for a substance and, if the desire exists, one will find a way to fulfill it. (President Reagan’s “Just say no” campaign was naive, at the very best.) Incarceration has only resulted in a prison system bulging at the seams and crimes associated with drug use continue seemingly unabated.

The war on terror is our latest social declaration and it was instituted by George W. Bush. While we do not have decades of experience on this front, I think that we can say that bureaucratic malfeasance and political inconsistencies are sure to arise and the idea that repeated bombing, strafing, and the like will change the hearts and minds of would-be terrorists is misguided. Yet another war to ultimately fall short of its objective.

So do we give in to poverty, drug use, and evil-doers? Of course not. But a change in strategy seems long overdue. How about admitting that there will always be a hard core, unemployed, welfare-supported segment of our society and concentrating on those on the cusp of success? How about legalizing and then controlling drugs? (California has such an initiative slated for November.) And how about admitting that being #1 inspires many to resent us. Terrorism will never be defeated. It may be minimized or localized, but a shock and awe approach seems only to exacerbate the problem.

In the meantime, keep in mind that these “wars” were thought up in the marketing department. They make great campaign slogans and stir up the emotions, but generally fall short on substance. Much is spent, lives are lost (in one way or another), yet a failed strategy survives. The outcome of any war ultimately relies on the those in the trenches (you and me) rather than the generals and an indifferent of society is as much to blame as anyone or anything else.

The Messenger

Of all the thankless jobs in the world, the messenger must be the worst. Simply because messengers are many times the bearers of bad news or represent an obstacle to progress. They are not to blame for the ill tidings or labyrinthine procedures they prescribe, but they take the brunt of the heat from us and that just ain’t right.

The “bad news” messenger is generally a spokesperson of some sort or an intermediary that is removed from the decision making process, but nevertheless must pass the information on to those affected. Your repair bill for the roof or the car or the furnace or the you-name-it is not the doing of the messenger (cashier or repairman). Yet that is the individual who gets a dose of your outrage. The corporate mouthpiece has nothing to do with downsizing or outsourcing, yet once again, that face becomes the target of malice and threats. A high school classmate of mine was recently in such a position. Her company was involved in a corporate take-over and she was the designated spokesperson. The news was not good for a good number of employees and their reaction to her announcements created the need for bodyguards and other heightened security measures.

The “obstructionist” messenger is generally a clerk. Given little or no training and no authority whatsoever, it falls upon this poor soul to inform you that the outcome you desire must be accompanied by letters, copies, and other seemingly random requirements if you hope for any chance of success. Is the clerk your enemy? No. Does the clerk enjoy the redness in your face and the bulging of your veins? Well maybe, but only because it is probably the only enjoyment this position provides. Regardless, orders are orders and this is just one of the many stupid things a clerk is ordered to say with the hope from higher-ups that you will simply give up, go away, and leave them to their business of maximizing profits while minimizing customer service. But not before the clerk suffers yet another rip in the backside.

Shooting the messenger has always been a pastime for many of the ill-informed, but the practice has spread to those that should know better. Why is that, do you think? I think it is due largely to the ever increasing frustration with poor customer service and the economic pressure of staying even with the cost of living. Add to that the perception of working for a faceless corporation that cuts employees off at the knees while trotting out a spokesperson assigned to describe the heart-wrenching decisions that led up to the amputation. In other words, we’re pissed off and we need to vent to someone who we connect with the current injustice being foisted upon us. And, generally, that someone is the messenger.

Whichever type of messenger you encounter, they each have their own problems with a whole new set of messengers. The “bad news” types are trying to hang on to a job just like the “obstructionists” and expecting them to simply up and quit their position because of their unenviable assignment is naive. We can always detour around the obstructor by asking for a supervisor, but we’re simply stuck with the bad news bearer and must try to avoid shooting (figuratively speaking, of course) in that direction.

If you stop and think about it, each one of us is a messenger at one time or another and many times our messages are not filled with welcome news. With that thought in mind, it might well be easier to avoid taking undue umbrage towards the unfortunate person tasked with passing on information that is all too often less than that for which we had hoped. Call it empathy, call it consideration. At the very least, call it humane.

The Ultimate Flip

Switching party affiliation is nothing new in the world of politics: Democrat to Republican, visa versa, or from one party to the “hallowed” Independent status. Charlie Crist is only the latest example as he has bolted from the Republican Party to become an Independent in the Florida’s upcoming senatorial primary.

I can see valid reasons for changing one’s party affiliation: the evolution, over time, of a person’s priorities or political philosophy. Likewise, a party’s priorities or philosophy may become too much of a dichotomy for a once-loyal member to remain in the fold. The timing is the thing, I’d say, and Crist’s timing speaks of things more important than those voters and their priorities that might send him to the Senate.

Approaching an election, be it a primary or the general election, is not the time to suddenly experience the epiphany that leads to a change of party affiliation. Could it happen? Sure, but no one’s going to believe it. Theoretically, anyway. History shows that sudden, last-minute flips sometimes result in victory. And therein lies my incredulity.

Anyone switching political horses late in the race does it for one thing: they see a loss on election day and are willing to do anything to keep (or gain) the seat at the trough in Washington. Their politics have not changed nor has their old affiliation become so abhorrent that they can no longer abide it. It is simply self preservation. Period.

So why should we reward them with a vote? They’re twisting in the wind and hoping that we won’t notice their desperation. Some go so far as repaint themselves as “outsiders” or “independents”. You know how I feel about these terms if you drop in regularly. Pure, unadulterated crap. There is no long-time politico that is an outsider and independents simply do not exist as every member of a political body is beholden to someone. It is the nature of the beast.

So what is a voter to do when faced with a born-again candidate running under a new banner? Many think, “Well, I like him (or her, of course), so I’ll vote for him”. Hold on a moment: here’s a candidate that dumps his affiliation to get a better chance of being elected and now pontificates on honesty and integrity and changing the system. The only mea culpa I find acceptable as election day draws near and a candidate flips is, “Hey, I’m trying to get elected here”. I can’t argue with the honesty although I may take issue with the timing and the overall viability of the new, improved seeker of public office.

We shouldn’t vote for anyone based on likability or familiarity. We should vote on issues and believability. Any candidate that flips allegiance as the election draws near should be looked on in the harsh light of skepticism. Otherwise, we encourage the continued manipulation of the electorate in the name of simply getting elected.