Scott Simmerman, writing about banning games on government computers:
>This cited the recent government edict (as proposed by Lauch Faircloth,
>another of the North Carolina Republicans) that made it against the law to
>use a computer for "games" while at work in Federal Government. This
>little bit of PR got reported worldwide - I gave a copy of an article from
>the Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia newspaper to my friend Mike Robinson who is
>planning to run against this guy.
I don't think the ban will accomplish anything, but I have a hard time
seeing how Faircloth's opponent can make it a campaign issue. Would he
argue in _favor_ of games on government computers?
I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Simmerman's view that bureacratic rules
are a liability and that work ought to be fun. But I don't see how
changes along those lines would accomplish anything in government
work--much as I have wished for them when working on govt contracts.
A fundamental problem in government work is that individual performance
counts for next to nothing. It's nearly impossible to fire anyone for
non-performance and income and rank have more to do with tenure than with
achievement. For every hard-working and effective employee, there seem to
be several others who literally accomplish nothing.
I would welcome the day when Mr. Simmerman's principles could be applied
to budget-based goverment agencies, but I think much more fundamental
changes will have to happen first. In the meantime, they apply very well
to the mean old profit-base private sector.
--"William Buxton" <wbuxton@hns.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>