Many years ago, when I first went to work for a government vocational agency, a colleague advised me on how to do my job. We were both out-stationed at a psychiatric hospital where she took me aside to inform me about the organization’s facts of life. Never forget, she said, “CYA.”
At the time, I was an innocent and had no idea of her meaning. What she was telling me, however, was that first and foremost I must cover my posterior. If I hoped to get along in my new position, I had to go along. Rocking the boat would only make trouble.
What she did not tell me was how to be an effective counselor. This was not at the top of her priority list. Nor did it take precedence for the other counselors I was later to meet. Much higher among their vocational considerations was personal security.
This is a widespread bureaucratic phenomenon. Indeed, before I was hired, my favorite uncle repeatedly recommended a government job because it would be easy and reliable. I would not have to worry about being fired and in the end would wind up with a top-notch pension.
Nobody, except some of my liberal high school teachers, ever suggested that a government job would be a good place to innovate. Neither had I been informed that I should work hard in order to move ahead. The primary goal was to keep one’s head down and avoid trouble.
But me, in my naiveté, I wanted to excel at my work. I actually hoped to develop new techniques for assisting clients. My assumption was that if I achieved this, I would be performing a valuable service for others.
To this end, I created a therapeutic modality I called Resocialization. So far as I could tell, it was working rather well. But after I explained it to one of my supervisors, he told me to stop using it. When I asked why, he said it was because he didn’t understand it. Whether it was effective was irrelevant.
Soon thereafter I published my first book to explain, and advocate, for my methodology. This put me deeper in the doghouse with my bosses. My job, as I had earlier been advised, was to refrain from producing discomfort. Making changes, however advantageous, was not welcome.
Bureaucracies, as I discovered, are not hotbeds of invention. They are not even especially concerned with benefiting their clients. Their number one objective is stability. Keeping the organization alive and growing counted for more than anything else.
One of the means of achieving this is public relations. Glowing reports about how much good has been accomplished are periodically issued. Whether these are true matters less than whether they are believed. At my agency, we therefore bragged about how we converted tax users into taxpayers.
Nonetheless, bureaucrats are not risk takers. They are not interested in progress, but stasis. This is why in places like the old Soviet Union they copied ideas from the West instead of developing them at home. It is why Khrushchev’s boast about burying the United States was never a serious threat.
Socialism and communism are about CYA. They may brag about helping the poor and downtrodden, but are really about maintaining control by their elites. These systems claim to be run by—and for the benefit of—the working classes, whereas bureaucratic imperatives decide what gets done.
For all the talk about collectivism promoting social justice, the proletarian regimes they promise cannot be implemented without huge bureaucracies. This dictates rule driven operations that discourage innovations as detrimental to organizational stability.
Capitalism, in contrast, is dedicated to Schumpeter’s creative destruction. Like Andrew Carnegie, this policy tears down perfectly operational steel plants in order to erect more efficient ones. This produces havoc among those who are comfortable in their jobs, but it is also the main source of economic progress.
If this is true, we have to ask ourselves what we want. Do we crave a growing economy that is forever introducing new and improved products? Or are we willing to settle for modest comfort. Likewise do we hope to increase our incomes or is what we currently have sufficient?
Socialist security is not about doing better. Nor is it about complete equality. Its central concern is CYA. In protecting us from risks, it thereby prevents us from improving our situations. Dreams of progress are sacrificed on the altar of the status quo. Is this what we dream of?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment