
This book was recommended to me by Professor Hyde, who teaches my Intro to Public Administration course in the Master's in P.A. program that I started this Spring. Considering that Dr. Hyde is one of the few people I have ever met who reads more than I do, I was inclined to follow his suggestion, and am glad that I did! Though the book itself is really only a collection of anecdotes gathered from a career in the Public sector combined with a request for submissions, the stories themselves are so interesting that the reader is going to have some sort of a reaction - whether pro or con would depend on the reader.
My reaction to stories of public servant passive and active resistance was, WHAT??? YOU CAN DO THAT??? From my HR lady perspective, the news that my coworkers in the public sector are deliberately undermining their coworkers, are free to practice insubordination, and are committing gross acts of disloyalty is truly shocking. As a taxpayer, the news that a few government employees, through passive resistance, are able to scuttle an initiative painstakingly voted into law is just plain disheartening. This explains a lot about how government truly works.
When people talk about "the government", we tend to speak of it as an emotionless monolith that knows everything and follows one all-encompassing set of rules and regulations. Instead, government is a wide assortment of units, divisions and bureaus made up of hundreds of thousands of people with a vast assortment of educational backgrounds and personal beliefs. One passionate individual really can make a difference! The question is, is that a good thing? Personally, I'm inclined to say no.
Even the stories which were presented as positive examples of guerrilla government, such as the resistance to an EPA regional administrator, seemed more like examples of group dynamics gone wildly awry. Where is the loyalty that an employee is expected to show to an employer? Or is that expectation present when the employer is the people of the nation, including oneself? Are there cases where a higher loyalty supersedes that of the employer? What about the Forest Ranger who sued the Forest Service? Personally, I found that a case of poorly managed organizational dynamics. The fact that this guy used to be the head of the station and then voluntarily stepped down meant that he was extremely likely to resist the direction and vision of his replacement through completely natural feelings of competition and resentment. This employee should have been transferred to a new location when he was demoted. Also, the presence of the previous incumbent, who was slightly hostile, would of course polarize the new director and encourage him/her to dig in to his/her position to a greater extent that he/she would have without the presence of a critical and vocal former supervisor who still commanded the loyalty of the other employees. That was a recipe for disaster completely aside from the actual issue of whether recreational vehicles should be permitted on national park lands.
As you can see, I am one of the people who reacted strongly to this book. It also helped crystallize for me some general principles of recruiting. Namely, the dangers inherent in hiring a high potential employee who is passionate about the purpose of the organization. You want to hire someone who is at least willing to pretend to care about making sprockets, but do you really want a whole organization made up of people who desperately, sincerely care about every aspect of sprocket production, pricing and marketing? How many visionaries can one organization have?
I highly recommend this book to anyone working in the public sector, anyone working in a hostile organization (it has some excellent evil ideas), or anyone curious about how government policy is actually enacted at the ground level. I think that it'd also be a good book for a non-fiction book club, due to the strong reactions that it elicits.