Corruption, Marketing,and Influence

Like most people, I have my own taste in music.  I like some of the current hits, dislike others, and mostly shrug and accept that taste is a personal thing and that not everyone will like the same things.

So when I was reading up on organized crime I found it interesting how they had a role in the jukebox industry, and in helping make some songs popular.  Now I had a second reason for why certain songs became popular, particularly from that era - someone with influence wanted to make it popular.

I brought this up because I wanted to discuss something with presidential elections, actually.  I wanted to go into more of what I meant by saying some people 'subvert the process'.  See - you don't generally get to those positions without a belief in your own locus of control.  That is, you are capable of influencing or controlling your fate.  There are all sorts of professionals out there willing to help (for a fee) make sure that you are marketed well.  Focus groups, political ads, consultants and speech writers...we all know politicians are practically a commodity in and of itself.  Kind of like music, or movies.  Except (just like with music and movies) it's very hard for an insider to know what is really going to work or not.

Movie history, in particular, is full of stories where directors thought something would be a hit and instead it failed miserably.  Or the reverse, where they make something nobody expected to be a hit.  Plus I think we've all had the experience of watching a movie when it first comes out, it's a big hit and we're super excited...and then when we watch it ten years later we wonder why the heck anyone thought it was that great to begin with.  I can watch a preview and know if the preview interests me or just makes me shrug, but how does the person creating the preview know?

Anyways, when you have people who are used to influencing opinion, creating opinion, waging a political battle for voters (and businesses) hearts and minds...how do you know when you're just playing the game of politics, and when you've crossed a line and subverted the system?

It's as easy for those of us on the outside to go "what were they thinking" when we see a horrible preview, as it is when we hear some story of corruption.  But the insider?  When they're in a business based on relationships?  How do they know when getting Vice President Biden's videotaped well wishes for a bar mitzvah is just a sign of friendship, versus the DNC chair putting her obligations to the Democratic Party in the backseat and drumming up support for her own re-election campaign?

Right now I'm not trying to say something was or wasn't corruption.  I just wanted to point out that something may not feel like corruption, may not seem to you as though it is affecting your judgment - and it still can be a problem.  My company's ethics training touched on this, with an example very similar to one I heard about in my undergrad years.  Someone offered tickets to a game...was that just two friends getting the chance to hang out together?  Or was it a bribe for helping the other guy out with a nice offer?

The thing is, lobbying, marketing, and sales reps all make money because what they do works.  And it doesn't necessarily work in an obvious fashion.  That is, a doctor doesn't say to him or her self "I'm going to prescribe this medicine to my patient because the sales rep gave me a really nice gift."  No...the doctor probably has a relationship with the sales rep, and thinks well of him or her.

Complaints about corruption come in part because average citizens can tell that what we want doesn't matter.  Like that study showing that economic elites and organized groups had an outsized influence on policy.  Trump is so radically different from the 'marketed' politician that many voters believe (foolishly, I think) that he's different.  That he's somehow more authentic, and not beholden to those interests.

Unfortunately, I think many political insiders convince themselves that there is no corruption, and that such charges are signs of naivety or foolishness. 

I have no idea who I'll vote for, can we have a do over?

Sometimes, on occasion, one of my employees will tell me about something another employee did.  Responding to that is kind of tricky, though some supervisors say you should discourage this entirely.  Too much tattletelling can create a work environment where everyone is suspicious of everyone else, and people may only tell on those they dislike...which lets personal issues get in the way of it.

On the flip side, I (as a supervisor) can not be everywhere at once.  And my people generally know when I'm around, and aren't stupid enough to do something wrong where I will see it.  So I won't really know there's an issue to address if I'm not told...

Stepping aside from those sorts of questions, however, is what happens if I do decide to address it.  First, I have learned to space things out from when someone talks to me and when I address it.  That's because one of the first things the employee does is to try and figure out who told on them.  To me, that's missing the point.  I'm addressing you because you did something wrong.  Something you should fix.  Who told me that you did something wrong is beside the point, and makes me feel like you don't really think you did anything wrong.  And probably aren't going to do anything to fix it or change it in the future.  (Or, at best, that you'll just try not to do it where you might get caught). 

Even worse, of course, is that whoever I'm addressing might try to take revenge or get back at someone if they figure out who did it.  And may even mistake the source, and make life difficult for someone who is completely uninvolved.  (I had someone at our mid-year review mention that she was mad at the HR person and me for a little while, because one of her co-workers claimed we had told the co-worker she'd said something.)

So anyways.  I generally try not to fill this blog up with work stuff.  I brought all that up more because I want readers to understand where I'm coming from when I say that I'm pretty disgusted with how the Democratic Party has handled a variety of issues over the last year.  Some of their arguments sound like something a five year old would say (i.e. "But everyone else is doing it!!!"), some of it is the response of my less mature associates (i.e. "Who gave you that information?!?  Was it the Russians?)...

and none of it actually addresses the wrong that was done.  It makes me think that they really don't see a problem with it, assume that this is just 'business as usual', and are more upset at having to deal with a media scandal than that they have any real belief that wrong was done.

One of my employees likes to talk politics, and he claims that the Democratic Party has always been corrupt, and that it's only this past year that's made it obvious to everyone.  Note: I am not looking for a "Republicans are just as bad" response, because that's just another way of looking away from the problem.

And is there a problem?  I think so.  The wikileaks e-mail dump about the DNC shows that Debbie Wasserman Shultz was playing favorites.  Howard Dean, who I presume ought to know as he was a DNC Chair himself, believed the DNC was supposed to be impartial.  If the Democratic Party can show that these e-mails were forged, then I would care more about Russian involvement.  (Their attempt to influence the election is disturbing, but it wouldn't have been possible if the DNC wasn't doing something wrong in the first place.  So to me this is a lesser problem than what the e-mails revealed.  Wikileaks allegations that there is more to leak is somewhat more disturbing, mainly because if they're going to leak it they should just get on with it.  This attempt to time when you release info shows that they aren't really about freedom of information so much as using an information  I get that loyalty is a prized trait in political circles.  So much so that they will value the loyal supporter over someone more talented (and this brings it's own issues, and has it's own implications, but that's a post for another time).  If Hillary wanted to take care of a loyal supporter - someone who wasn't supposed to act like a loyal supporter in the role she was in - than I'm sure she could have found an ally to hire Debbie.  The fact that Hillary felt no need to distance herself from Debbie, and hired her on (even if it's a token role), shows that Hillary really doesn't see anything wrong with what Debbie did.

All my arguments hold true, as well, for what I find disturbing about those defending Hillary's use of a private server. 

And the total lack of concern about this, the attitude that nothing wrong was done and it's all just conservative witch-hunting, kind of makes me mad.  I still think Trump is worse, but I just can't bring myself to say I would actually vote for Hillary.  Not when she, her staff, and the entire Democratic Party doesn't seem to realize that they're doing anything wrong.  In some ways I have more respect for the Republicans who are speaking out against Trump than for the Democrats who are willing to look the other way so long as their candidate wins.

And this ties in to another article I read, Politico's article discussing how Barack Obama decided Hillary should be his successor.  See, I get why he would want his legacy to continue.  I suppose there's reason to think Hillary's most likely to succeed.  Hell, according to a site I go to Hillary most closely matches my own views...and I guess I'm supposed to be a supporter.

But here's the thing.  How you get somewhere matters.  It's part of that whole "do the ends justify the means?" debate.  If the only way you can make your policies continue, if the only way to secure your legacy, is to do things that subvert the democratic process and basically take away our right to choose...

Than that's a pretty big problem.  Almost, but perhaps not quite, as big as Trump taking office.  It's presents a very different sort of problem, one not quite as big and bombastic, one that is perhaps even scarier in how quiet and subtle it is.

After all, nobody seems to think there's anything wrong with Hillary hiring the former DNC chair.

Metrics, Performance, CYA and more

I need to keep this short, because I've been working 12+ hour days and it's almost time for bed.

So here's something to think about.

Where I work, we normally have a way to assess our employees productivity with rates.  As someone in a leadership role once said - He loves it.  He hates it.

On the one hand, it's nice to have a metric that tells you who is performing well and who is struggling.  If you have to fire someone for performance, it's also nice to have something fairly straightforward to justify it.

But then you get people so concerned about their rates that they will fight over petty things.  Or people will be so concerned about rates that they will cut corners, and make work harder on everyone else.

While I could tie that in with my own issues/concerns about metrics, I wanted to take this a step further.

The reasons we like having that metric are similar to the reasons why technology gives us a false sense of omniscience, and similar again to why PhDs can find a job more easily.  (The metric makes us think we 'know' who is doing well, without necessarily digging deeper...leaving us open to people who know tricks for looking better than they are.  PhDs are easier to hire because nobody is ever going to say they are unqualified.  They HAVE A PhD!!!)  We can be inundated with information that makes us think we know, and yet we sometimes can miss major things because of that.  (This article coincidentally touches on that.)

But above and beyond the false sense of security metrics gives, is something I want to dig into when I have more time.  Which these days may mean in a month or so. :/

For most of us, we know we can't get the jobs unless we have the qualifications.  For exactly the reasons stated above.  We have to get the degree, or get the work experience, or what-have-you.

Which is why it is so frustrating, aggravating, mind-numbingly heart wrenching to hear stories like this.  Or this.

It implies that the rules are different for some of us.  Not because they are better, or more deserving.  But simply because they have connections.  What are we, a third world country?!?  Why would officials alter the records for someone, to make it appear they had a degree when they didn't?  If they were talented enough to get that job despite lacking a degree, then the people who hired them should have had the guts to say so.  And to help puncture this notion that only people with a degree are qualified.  And if they really, really want to insist on the degree then don't hire someone who doesn't meet that qualification.

But the issue isn't necessarily about this particular instance.  I don't claim to know whether the individual performed well or not.  It's about how the rules differ for some of us.  And all the things done to CYA when hiring or promoting (metrics, degrees, etc) can become a barrier for someone who can't afford college, or doesn't have the right experience...and yet are NOT barriers for others.