Oh No, Not The Dreaded "B" Word. . .
By David S. Orr
Thursday, August 20, 2009
According to the Washington Post (and reported here in FedSmith), President Obama hasn't been taking the advice of his own appointee, OPM Director John Berry.
Berry has been crusading against the public denigration of federal employees, or "bureaucrats," saying that such terms as "out of touch, unaccountable, lazy and bloodsucking" have been bandied about when describing the work of feds.
Unfortunately, his patron, Barack Obama, has been tossing around the term "government bureaucrat" (in a negative connotation) in his campaign for healthcare reform - as in "we will make sure that no government bureaucrat will come between you and the care you need," leading many to fear that some lazy, out of touch GS-9 will decide if you need an appendectomy, as opposed to someone who actually went to medical school. And I for one especially do not want one of the "bloodsucking" types on my death panel.
Obama is certainly not the first president to insult his own employees - for years, presidential candidates have "run against Washington," and had some success doing so. But it seemed to intensify with Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; Reagan was much more successful at it, being a two-termer - many political observers credit Carter's refusal to learn the ways of Washington with his reelection loss; peanut farmer Carter instead relied on the advice of a coterie of Georgia folks who knew Augusta and Atlanta, but couldn't find their way from the Capitol to the Washington Monument. Bush I wasn't too bad, having been a "bureaucrat" himself, but Clinton/Gore "Reinvented" us while riffing us, and Bush II, well, we just won't go there.
Having worked in Washington, D.C. for Uncle Sam for some thirty-three years, I have been called most of those terms, and much worse (well, maybe not "bloodsucking") - in my experience, the term "bureaucrat" is usually preceeded with the modifiers "mindless" and "faceless." I mean, some plain old bureaucrat might not be so terrible, but take away their face and their mind and we've got a real problem.
JUST WHAT IS A BUREAUCRAT, ANYWAY?
In my apparently sole, one-man quest for truth and justice on this issue, I recalled Casey Stengal's line, "you could look it up," so I did. One of the better definitions of bureaucrat comes from the Random House Dictionary - it defines the term as "an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment."
Speaking of bureaucrats, I doubt that OPM's position classification folks would agree that a GS-15 level manager "works without exercising intelligent judgment" but that's what some bureaucrat at Random House says.
The American Heritage Dictionary is more to the point - "an official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedures." To which to American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy chimes in with "Someone who works in or controls a bureaucracy. The term is often used negatively to describe a petty, narrow-minded person." I stopped my research at this point, afraid that the next one would say "a government official who drowns kittens and other small cuddly animals."
AND WHO IS MAX WEBER?
It all goes back to Max. Maximilian Carl Emil Weber, born in 1864, was by various definitions a lawyer, politician, scholar, economist, political scientist and sociologist. (My two years of grad school sociology are starting to come back to me - but very slowly - after all, it was the early seventies.) Weber didn't invent the bureaucracy (that achievement reserved to ancient Sumeria or Persia, depending on who you believe.) But he became an expert in analyzing, studying and writing about bureaucracies. Weber identified seven basic principles of bureaucracies:
- jobs specifically detailed with responsibilities and authorities
- a structure with supervisors and reporting relationships
- unified command
- written policies and documentation
- training
- use of consistent rules and policies
- employees hired and assigned based on competence and experience
Even though a product of turn-of-the-century (the 19th) thinking, these criteria should sound familiar. And they're not too bad, are they? It's important to understand that years ago, the bureaucratic model was looked upon in a positive sense - as by far the most efficient form of organizational structure, applicable to everything from armies to meat-packing companies. It provided a rational structure based on mission, and produced consistent, predictable results.
Per Weber's view, in a well-run bureaucracy, appointments and promotions were based on demonstrated merit, not personal favoritism or nepotism. Kinda sounds like the Pendelton Act, passed in 1883 and the statute that replaced the spoils system with a competitive civil service, doesn't it?
WELL, WHAT HAPPENED?
In short, human nature stepped in (This is why psychology and sociology are sometimes referred to as the "soft sciences" - people don't behave as predictably as a chemical compound.) Politics interfered, policy disagreements arose; cliques formed, people sidestepped the rules and the chain-of-command, sometimes for heroic reasons, sometimes for personal aggrandizement. Or incompetence crept in; labor strife raised its ugly head - you name it, it probably happened. The miracle is that the basic bureaucratic model remains today, but without the positive spin. The bottom line is that the bureaucracy, like democracy, is the worst system ever, except for all the others.
WHOSE OX, etc.
And yes, sometimes it all depends on where you're sitting. Most of us hate those bureaucratic tax collectors, but cheer when they catch some million-dollar tax evader. That stupid ALJ who denied your disability claim is worse than faceless, but those SSA folks who get Grandma's Social Security check out on time are doing a great job.
The seemingly perpetual problem is one of image and exploitation - most "bureaucrats" aren't in a position to defend themselves. Millions of those checks go out timely and to the right person each month, but it's the one that was sent to a dead guy from Sun City, AZ that we hear about.
Kudos to OPM Director Berry for his efforts, but it would be a lot better if this President had resisted the temptation that so many of his predecessors had succumbed to. It's nice to have your boss praise you in public, and when he does the opposite, even as part of the great political theatre, it hurts.
Just my opinion.
© 2009 David S. Orr. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from David S. Orr.
|
Readers' Comments
Posted: October 14, 2009 7:46 PM
Posted: August 26, 2009 1:48 PM
Posted: August 26, 2009 6:21 AM
View All Comments »