What the Great British Bake Off (GBBO) can teach us

I stumbled on the Great British Bake Off television show quite by accident.  The apparently legendary (in Britain) series is on Netflix.  Without shame, I admit to watching all three seasons and trying a Victoria sandwich, a lemon drizzle traybake, and even a kouign amann.

There is something quintessentially British about a "reality television" show where the contestants are polite, mutually supportive, and gracious.  Make no mistake--the home bakers are passionate  competitors.  The intensity shines through most clearly in the emotional moments caught on tape, though I suspect Mel and Sue keep the cameras from being too intrusive, a stark contrast with American television where every expression and comment is framed to maximize (or even invent) drama for the audience.

So what can public administrators learn from the Great British Bake Off?

There is something praiseworthy in every effort.  Some of the "bakes" fail rather spectacularly.  The inestimable Mary Berry may say that the decorations "look a bit sad," but she does so with unmistakable warmth.  She also invariably finds something kind and generous to say.

The other GBBO judge, Paul Hollywood, is more technical (and critical), but there's a sense among contestants and viewers that his critiques are fair.  Integrating two or more perspectives can be a valuable technique in delivering feedback.  There also is value in providing criticism with warmth and gentleness.

The sugar glue holding the show together are Mel and Sue, a duo who provide a wonderful example of humor and empathy.  Watching the show, I felt the two comedians genuinely care about the participants.  In an amusing episode, Sue accidentally leaned on a contestant's bake, crushing it.  She was aghast and took full responsibility before the judges.  A good-natured humility and a keen sense of humor are important ingredients for any successful manager.

In America, reality television generally has nothing to do with reality.  On the few occasions I have caught a glimpse of the "real housewives" from some place or other, I was left feeling that the collapse of civilization could not be far off.  Bake Off is an excellent antidote to the cynicism and manipulation we so often find on American TV... and in the American workplace.

Bill O'Reilly

Over the past few weeks, a great deal has been written about Bill O'Reilly's alleged sexual harassment at Fox News.  I'm using "allegedly," in no small part because O'Reilly was allegedly paid $25 million on his way at the door from Fox News and can clearly afford far more attorneys (real or alleged) than I can.

I'll take a slightly different tack on the scandal by referring to a statement O'Reilly allegedly made last year:

"If somebody is paying you a wage, you owe that person or company allegiance," said O'Reilly. "You don’t like what’s happening in the workplace, go to human resources or leave."

For someone who has written multiple books about leaders, this statement demonstrates a stunning ignorance of how leadership works.

Loyalty is not something a company buys by handing out paychecks (no matter the size).  Leaders earn trust, and eventually loyalty, by treating employees fairly and by maintaining a safe and respectful working environment.  We earn loyalty when we lead well.

What happened at Fox News--from Roger Ailes to Bill O'Reilly--was more than alleged personal failings by outsized egos.  They failed as leaders.  Sexual harassment isn't a problem to be relegated to the HR department.  Leaders at every level in an organization must address toxicity--no matter its shape or size.  The feudal lord attitude of "adapt or die" didn't work in the Middles Ages and it doesn't work now.

I doubt O'Reilly will ever see this but on the off chance he does, I have a suggestion for his next book:

"Killing Fox News."

Miami Vice

Local governments have become battlegrounds between entrenched economic interests (like hotel owners and taxi cab companies) and participants in the sharing economy.

This is a policy issue where city/county administrators should inform the discussion without putting a finger on the scales.  One of our responsibilities is to encourage robust public participation.  This is why I read a recent Miami Herald news article with a mix of concern and alarm.

The lede:

“We are now on notice for people who did come here and notify us in public and challenge us in public,” said City Manager Daniel Alfonso. “I will be duly bound to request our personnel to enforce the city code.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article140472723.html#storylink=cpy

Unless I am misreading this news story, the City of Miami plans to use information provided by citizens engaged in the democratic process to target enforcement.  How would Mr. Alfonso feel if he complained about a particular tax policy and found himself the subject of an IRS audit?  Yes, there might be a delicious moment of schadenfreude hearing an IRS agent tell him, "I was duly bound to enforce the tax code," but it would be wrong.

Public hearings are an opportunity for civic engagement and civil discourse... not data collection.  A person testifying in favor of an urban chicken ordinance shouldn't have to worry about a code enforcement officer peeking over his or her backyard fence the following day.  Whatever the public interest in the specific code or ordinance, I'm confident there is a larger interest in protecting a cornerstone of the democratic process.

CAO - Cultural Advocacy Officer

Gonzaga University men's basketball team earned its first "Final Four" berth.  As a proud alumnus, I enjoyed seeing the Bulldogs finally break through.  In the aftermath, coach Mark Few said,

“This was a culture win, a culture statement, and I couldn’t be prouder.”

Few is a remarkably successful basketball coach.  More importantly, he is a leader who understands the importance of culture to organizational success.  What we do is a reflection of who we are.  Who we are begins with who we think we are.  And who we think we are can and does change over time.

One of my most important responsibilities as a chief administrative officer (CAO) in a local government is cultural.  And one of the first tasks is actually using words like "culture, "milieu," and "ethos" in management discussions.

Responsible leaders need to do more than simply exist within a given culture; they must shape it to better achieve the goals of the mission... whether that mission is winning basketball games or providing core public services.

Almost every organizational (and social) culture has some positives.  The journey begins with recognizing the positives.  The work comes in identifying and changing elements where we need to evolve.

Congratulations to Mark Few and the Gonzaga Bulldogs for figuring out how to do more than just win basketball games.

International Women's Day

Thank you to the countless women who gave our granddaughters a better future.

Jonathon Turley testimony regarding the Chevon Doctrine

Professor Turley's testimony before Congress on the Chevron Doctrine is super wonky, the kind of subject normally interesting to only the geekiest of public administration geeks.  Turley's comments are certainly more restrained and cerebral than breathy conspiratorial whispering about "The Deep State."

The vast and intractable administrative state is a problem.  But equally so is the abdication of power by the judicial and legislative branches.  Most know from 7th grade social studies that the Founding Fathers created three branches of government (arguably two, with the third emerging in the aftermath of Marbury v. Madison). 

The "checks-and-balances" of this system have always been imperfect, but never so flawed as the last half century.  There has been a massive shift of power to the executive branch and its administrative agencies, beyond the wildest dreams of even the most imperial former presidents.  Federal agencies create de facto laws (in the form of regulations), enforce them, and adjudicate them, often with no meaningful public or legislative oversight.

In his testimony, Turley said:

"I come to this issue as someone who often agrees and supports the work of federal agencies.  Indeed, law professors have a natural affinity toward agencies, which are usually directed by people with advanced degrees and public service values. The work of federal agencies is critical to the preservation of our health and security as a nation.  This is not a debate about the importance of the work of the agencies, but rather the accountability of agencies in carrying out that work.  The agreement with the work of agencies – or for that matter with this Administration as a whole – should not blind us to the implications of the growing influence and independence of federal agencies."

I like this.  Public service is honorable work; public servants are usually honorable people.  Supporting the work and the individuals, however, should not allow public administrators to turn a blind eye to the dangers posed by the leviathan administrative state and a debasement of the separation of powers.

Mother should I trust the government

On my office wall is a Pink Floyd concert poster.  The poster art is a graffiti-covered section of the Berlin Wall, fitting since the concert occurred on July 4, 1988, in West Berlin.

The most prominent piece of graffiti on the poster is a Pink Floyd lyric, "Mother, should I trust the government." A new staff member noticed the poster and asked if I was a Pink Floyd fan.  "I am," I said, "but I also really like the irony."

One of the single most important (and disturbing) trends in American public administration is the public's loss of trust in government.  The Pew Research Center has charted this long decline.  Quoting from the PRC,

"Fewer than three-in-ten Americans have expressed trust in the federal government in every major national poll conducted since July 2007 – the longest period of low trust in government in more than 50 years. In 1958, when the American National Election Study first asked this question, 73% said they could trust the government just about always or most of the time."

Colleagues often are quick to argue that public opinion of state and federal government is lower than that of local government.  That's a bit like a business saying Comcast and the IRS have lower customer satisfaction ratings.  Not being the worst doesn't make one good.

What does it say about the profession of public administration that during the past half century, we have come to a point where less than 20 percent of Americans think "the government is run for the benefit of all"?