What`s in a name: reputation & expertise.

   The Dutch Government is often in the needless business of changing
   names and reorganizing offices under new names.

   There exists a need to handle unemployment and unemployability.
   Naturally one would create two offices, since they are different
   subjects, give them an obvious name, and then build up the expertise
   and reputation. The people also build up expertise in relating with
   these Government functions. The reputation of the office will be
   communicated back to that office over time, hopefully improving its
   functioning if needed. Over time this could change its reputation.

   In practice it works most efficiently (or exclusively) if the name is
   maintained. Someone having had to deal with the "Unemployment office"
   in his twenties, could offer some advice at the age of 70 when he
   hears his grand son is having to deal with "the Unemployment office."
   The name is recognized, and that opens up a potentially worthwile
   wealth of public experience. Likewise someone having had to deal with
   the "unemployment office" in her twenties could push for needed reform
   when she is in her 40s and ended up in a Government position of
   influence.

   The constant and needless changing of obvious functions, particularly
   changing the names, breaks this chain of building up experience.

   The result is a Government which is less well known by the people, the
   people constantly feeling a sense of being lost and having to start
   over in their relation to "the system." The Government which is
   constantly and needlessly changing the names of its offices is like
   trying to evade its own potentially negative reputation, avoiding
   pressure to improve itself, and creating for itself an extend of
   autonomy which it should not try to seek. Instead the Government
   should stand up and own its own potentially negative reputation, try
   to learn from it, give the public the change to get familiar with the
   Government offices and their names. By constantly changing to new
   names the Government seems to attempt to gain a sense of anonimity in
   their relation to the people. Creating a divide between "us and
   them,"  "us"  who work daily with the fad of the day in the Government
   offices, and " them the public" who are constantly outmanouvered and
   put on the wrong leg by the eternal reorganizations of the Government
   offices.

   Pick a name and stick with it, through the centuries. Pick a name that
   make sense, for a function that makes sense. Even a complete
   reorganization is no reason the change a name. Quit the love
   for incompetend leadership, lead with eternity in mind. Like the
   Lakotah say: think about the 7th generation. What Government
   politician or bureaucrat today thinks about "the 7th generation"  ? 7
   * 30 means 210 years into the future, if this is 2009 it would be
   2219. As far as we can predict we will probably have a trade economy
   then. As far as we can predict it is possible people will at some
   point be out of work, others might be handicapped. If that is likely,
   we will probably need Government offices for them. Transparency
   dictates offices should have an obvious name, so why not "unemployment
   office." Sounds like a good name to have in the year 2219. So why not
   start now with that name, keep it for the next 210 years and have it
   build a reputation of being useful. The other office can be the
   "unemployable office," it is another obvious name, good to have in the
   year 2219.

   Over time expertise will build up in all directions, that should have
   the chance to do its work.

   First it was "arbeidsbureau" (`workoffice`) then "centrum werk en
   inkomen" (`centre for work and income`) then "UWV werkbedrijf"
   (`institute employee insurance - work-company`).

   posted on Monday, April 06, 2009 12:49 PM

   Comments
   No comments posted yet.