In an article entitled “C’mon and Be a Bureaucrat,” a U.S. national weekly magazine discussed the importance of recruiting new U.S. government bureaucrats. The article noted:
When an interest group wants to torpedo a government initiative, it simply invokes the “bureaucrat” as an emblem of ineptitude. “We saw a slight change during the ‘West Wing’ era,” says Pat McGinnis, president of the Washington-based nonprofit Council for Excellence in Government. “But otherwise it’s just been nonstop portrayals of the bungling bureaucrat. It takes a toll.”
Bureaucrats need to develop a thick skin and the ability to focus on doing their jobs. They also need to develop confidence in their own importance. Max Stier, president of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, observed:
“It’s not about what you can do for government. We need to convey what government can do for you.”
The Carnival of the Bureaucrats aspires to convey what bureaucrats can do for you, not just in government, but also in the many different organizations in which they work.
Occasionally critics acknowledge their mistakes. Steve Thurston at The Buckingham Herald Tribblog called a woodpecker stupid for banging his head on a metal electrical tower. But as Louis Quay explained, the woodpecker was not attempting to peck wood, but was making noise to mark territory. Pecking on a metal pole does that effectively. Readers should think about this example next time they feel inclined to use the phrase “stupid bureaucrat.” Thurston appropriately acknowledged his mistake.
Last month the Carnival of the Bureaucrats discussed sacrificing people for the organization and cited the superb example of Duke’s actions in the Lacrosse Rape Hoax. Subsequently, the law firm representing the plaintiff in the civil suit against Duke filed an amended complaint. One point of many from the amended complaint directly addressed this issue:
454. In response to a plea for Duke to show some measure of support for the students who were being framed in plain view of the University’s leadership, the Chairman explained, “sometimes individuals have to be sacrificed for the good of the Organization.”
Bureaucrats regularly sacrifice themselves for the good of the organization. Note, however, that such sacrifice does not include being sent to prison for decades on false charges.
M. B. Herrera discusses leadership. He states:
Albeit leaders are oriented to their work (and not to their self-exaltation), they are a symbol of the group, which may easily mean that they are a symbol of your company.
We believe that this statement applies generally to bureaucrats.
David at DirtFromTexas submitted a post entitled, “Texas Gestapo To Perform DNA Test on FLDS Kids.” He remarked in his submission, “Why is the State on Texas hell bent on ripping this kids from their Parents all the while violating their Constitutional rights?” Answering that questions is not our responsibility at the Carnival of the Bureaucrats. David should contact the Texas state government office in charge of providing reasons.
Edith Yeung documents and compares the Obama and Clinton campaigns’ Web 2.0 functionality. How these metrics relate to the candidates’ bureaucratic credentials are not clear. As innovative technology, Web 2.0 is a bureaucratic negative. But as a symbol used mainly for discussion and creating documents, Web 2.0 is a bureaucratic positive. Perhaps the Obama and Clinton campaigns could form a joint committee to explore standard metrics for evaluating the bureaucratic merits of Web 2.0.
That’s all for this month’s Carnival of the Bureaucrats. Submit your blog article to the next edition using our carnival submission form. Submissions should conform to the Carnival’s regulations. Past editions of the Carnival of the Bureaucrats can be found on the Carnival’s category page.
“Bureaucrats regularly sacrifice themselves for the good of the organization.”
This is true, I’ve found, in small, micro-environments as well as the greater sacrifice of a life given over to bureaucracy. A good bureaucrat will, I believe, endeavor to take on bureaucratic tasks that might otherwise have fallen to more operationally directed co-workers. In this way, he accrues to himself tasks for which he is the best prepared, and spares his fellows from having to work outside their range of experience. In effect, he becomes a bureaucratic attractor. Without his efforts, many others would be distracted by bureaucracy than is the case now.
It may be much more efficient, on a macro level, to have one dedicated bureaucrat, as opposed to 10 non-bureaucrats whose time is 10% consumed by bureaucracy.
Bureaucratic skills are important for everyone. As the economy continues to develop, I expect that most persons will be engaged in bureaucracy most of their time, at work and outside of work. But I agree that there are highly attractive bureaucrats.