I have for some time, been trying to raise some alarm over
the fact that the APS is run by a good ol' boys club.
Without much success.
I have been doing some internet research on "good ol' boys"
in preparation for writing this essay. I have found the words
to a Willy Nelson song, and not much else.
"Good ol' boys" is a concept that apparently means
something to everybody, but perhaps not the same thing
to anybody.
There are generally two meanings. In the south, its
meaning is positive. To be referred to as a good ol' boy
would be a compliment.
The other meaning is more sinister, but shares a
fundamental aspect; good ol' boys likability.
What ever else gets one into a good ol' boys club,
you don't get in if people don't like you.
A lot of people liked APS' Tom Savage. He was a very
likable guy.
So when one suggests that Tom Savage was a good ol' boy
who put the interests of other good ol' boys before the
public interests, you run up against the "friends of Tom"
who may in fact know very little about the specifics of the
allegation, but will vigorously defend their friend.
There are people who call me a lot of names.
To some, I am a "crazy old fart."
Not because of the lack of substance to my criticisms of
good ol' boys, but because I am criticizing their friend.
Beyond that, what characterizes a "good ol' boys club"
and what difference does it make?
The most important characteristic of a good ol' boys club
is that the "rules" that would bind them, were they not
good ol' boys, do not bind them.
Good ol' boys are accountable only to other good ol' boys.
Self exception to the rules, is the real problem with
good ol' boy organizational structures.
For the most, the rules are appropriate and should be
followed, how ever personally inconvenient. If we allow
privileged people to self except themselves from the rules,
what is the point of the rules?
It is at least statistically possible that you might be able
to find a good ol' boys club that puts the public interests
above their own.
But your discovery would fly in the face of human nature.
Human nature is such that we have found an irrefutable
need for rules, and for honest accountability to those rules.
You cannot file a complaint against any member of the
leadership of the APS which is guaranteed a principled
resolution; an impartial adjudication based on agreed
upon principles.
Every complaint is heard by another member of the
good ol' boys club. Even if one takes their complaint
to the legal system; one finds only a different good ol' boys
club, with the same disregard for accountability to the rules
as one finds in the leadership of the APS.
Any one who picks a fight with a good ol' boy,
has picked a fight with all of them.
If the leadership of the APS is not a good ol' boys club,
they would be able to show stakeholders;
- meaningful standards of conduct and competence, and
- an impartial system that guarantees their accountability to those standards, even against their will.
The leadership of the APS can show you neither.
Because the APS is run by a good ol' boys club.
And if you are looking for the most fundamental cause of
all of the failures of the APS, you have found it.
Product quality falls in institutions where good ol' boys
except themselves and their friends from accountability
to meaningful standards of conduct and competence;
as surely as night follows day.
The organization of good ol' boys needs to be dismantled.
It needs to be replaced by an organization that will hold
itself honestly accountable to meaningful standards of
conduct and competence.
If you want to know if a particular APS administrator or
board member is a member of the good ol' boys club;
ask them if they will support an immediate full scale
forensic audit of the entire leadership of the APS.
If they say, yes; they are not a good ol' boy.
If they answer no; they are a good ol' boy.
Any answer except yes, means, no.
The change will not take place, except past the vigorous
resistance of those who's careers will end upon an audit;
the only real proof that they can offer to stakeholders
to prove that they are actually willing to be held accountable
for their records as public servants.
2 comments:
At StrategyDriven, we believe organizations act in accordance with the shared values of the people that comprise them. What an organization values is represented by the rewards sought in return for its products and services, the organizationally defined acceptable methods of reward pursuit, and the manner in which benefits realized are parsed to the organization’s members. Therefore, organizational accountability, the timely and consequential pursuit of mission goals, is driven by the ability of the organization to quantifiably measure earned rewards and the culturally determined method of assessing and recognizing employee performance.
Time, Title, and Tenure
The fallacy associated with time, title, and tenure based value assessments is twofold. First, these types of assessments assume time necessarily equates to experience. The error in this reasoning is best illustrated by the law of diminishing marginal returns. As suggested by this rule, the amount of learning and proficiency gained from repetitive performance of an activity diminishes to a point where no additional benefit is realized. Subsequently, after a given number of repetitions, an individual gains no more value adding experience, negating the premise that total time is directly and proportionately related to experience. Second, these assessments assume an individual is capable of perfectly synthesizing and translating their experience into job performance. As is evidenced by the differing grades of school children participating in the same class, no two individuals experiencing the same event will translate the learnings from that event into equal job performance.
Performance-based assessments eliminate a time, title, and tenure assumptions and their associated fallacies. Subsequently, performance-based personnel evaluation against predefined measures of performance helps establish the meritocracy that serves as the foundation of organizational accountability.
StrategyDriven contributors believe the ole boys club does more harm to an organization than good and always recommend against such value and reward systems. To read more on what we call Organizational Accountability Fundamental Drivers, please visit our website at www.StrategyDriven.com and specifically our Organizational Accountability topic area.
All the Best,
Nathan Ives
Principal Contributor and
co-Host, StrategyDriven Podcast
StrategyDriven
www.StrategyDriven.com
At StrategyDriven, we believe organizations act in accordance with the shared values of the people that comprise them. What an organization values is represented by the rewards sought in return for its products and services, the organizationally defined acceptable methods of reward pursuit, and the manner in which benefits realized are parsed to the organization’s members. Therefore, organizational accountability, the timely and consequential pursuit of mission goals, is driven by the ability of the organization to quantifiably measure earned rewards and the culturally determined method of assessing and recognizing employee performance.
Time, Title, and Tenure
The fallacy associated with time, title, and tenure based value assessments is twofold. First, these types of assessments assume time necessarily equates to experience. The error in this reasoning is best illustrated by the law of diminishing marginal returns. As suggested by this rule, the amount of learning and proficiency gained from repetitive performance of an activity diminishes to a point where no additional benefit is realized. Subsequently, after a given number of repetitions, an individual gains no more value adding experience, negating the premise that total time is directly and proportionately related to experience. Second, these assessments assume an individual is capable of perfectly synthesizing and translating their experience into job performance. As is evidenced by the differing grades of school children participating in the same class, no two individuals experiencing the same event will translate the learnings from that event into equal job performance.
Performance-based assessments eliminate a time, title, and tenure assumptions and their associated fallacies. Subsequently, performance-based personnel evaluation against predefined measures of performance helps establish the meritocracy that serves as the foundation of organizational accountability.
StrategyDriven contributors believe the ole boys club does more harm to an organization than good and always recommend against such value and reward systems. To read more on what we call Organizational Accountability Fundamental Drivers, please visit our website at www.StrategyDriven.com and specifically our Organizational Accountability topic area.
All the Best,
Nathan Ives
Principal Contributor and
co-Host, StrategyDriven Podcast
StrategyDriven
www.StrategyDriven.com
Post a Comment