The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
When I came across this quote I was reminded of one of my undergraduate psychology classes. Our professor was venting about how university professors were not selected because they were excellent teachers, but because they were good researchers. He explained that researchers are the one's who make the school money and bring it prestige. That explained why some professors I had, simply sat at thier tables passionlessly reading their notes for what seemed like an eternity. In fact, I later discovered that University professors are not even required to complete any training on "how to teach."
It is situations like these that I find truly bothersome: Systems where the process and the goals the process are supposed to reach are not aligned properly. Usually the result is some kind of detriment to those who are part of the system and are just trying to make progress (e.g. the students).
As this quote points out, the same is true for those in government positions. Surely, as their are good professors in every university, their are also effective politicians that make it to office, but the point here is to look at the selection system in place. How do politicians get elected? Is it based on their talent for "business of government" or more so their "talent for getting and holding office?" Are they elected because they will do a good job or they simply carry an image of someone we'd like to see represent us?
You see, in other organizations people are selected for jobs based on a variety of factors. They are interviewed repeatedly, their references are checked, and they are given a variety of assessments that evaluate a wide range of things (e.g. intelligence, personality style, etc.). And who decides whether to bring the person being evaluated on? Usually an expert of some kind, who is very knowledgeable about the person's role. Unfortunately, we as voters don't have the opportunity to test and evaluate politicians. We are presented with a shortage of trustworthy, meaningful information, and we are not experts in politics or the "business of government." How can we be expected to make effective decisions on who to vote for? We end up selecting the individuals who get the best feeling from, or whom supports a key piece of policy we support.
What I'm pointing out here is a flawed system; one where the plan is not aligned with the desired outcome. Recognizing these kinds of inconsistencies teaches us valuable lessons, improving our understanding of the world we live in so we can better manage our modern lives. At any given point we will be in a position where we can help plan a process that we hope will lead to a specific goal. With this kind of knowledge we can attempt to do this effectively, creating an effective system - doing what it is supposed to do.
When I came across this quote I was reminded of one of my undergraduate psychology classes. Our professor was venting about how university professors were not selected because they were excellent teachers, but because they were good researchers. He explained that researchers are the one's who make the school money and bring it prestige. That explained why some professors I had, simply sat at thier tables passionlessly reading their notes for what seemed like an eternity. In fact, I later discovered that University professors are not even required to complete any training on "how to teach."
It is situations like these that I find truly bothersome: Systems where the process and the goals the process are supposed to reach are not aligned properly. Usually the result is some kind of detriment to those who are part of the system and are just trying to make progress (e.g. the students).
As this quote points out, the same is true for those in government positions. Surely, as their are good professors in every university, their are also effective politicians that make it to office, but the point here is to look at the selection system in place. How do politicians get elected? Is it based on their talent for "business of government" or more so their "talent for getting and holding office?" Are they elected because they will do a good job or they simply carry an image of someone we'd like to see represent us?
You see, in other organizations people are selected for jobs based on a variety of factors. They are interviewed repeatedly, their references are checked, and they are given a variety of assessments that evaluate a wide range of things (e.g. intelligence, personality style, etc.). And who decides whether to bring the person being evaluated on? Usually an expert of some kind, who is very knowledgeable about the person's role. Unfortunately, we as voters don't have the opportunity to test and evaluate politicians. We are presented with a shortage of trustworthy, meaningful information, and we are not experts in politics or the "business of government." How can we be expected to make effective decisions on who to vote for? We end up selecting the individuals who get the best feeling from, or whom supports a key piece of policy we support.
What I'm pointing out here is a flawed system; one where the plan is not aligned with the desired outcome. Recognizing these kinds of inconsistencies teaches us valuable lessons, improving our understanding of the world we live in so we can better manage our modern lives. At any given point we will be in a position where we can help plan a process that we hope will lead to a specific goal. With this kind of knowledge we can attempt to do this effectively, creating an effective system - doing what it is supposed to do.
1 comment:
Great Job! A lot of interesting stuff here. I will be back again.
Post a Comment