RE: Criteria for policy effectiveness/success

[Michael Glaab <michaelglaab@worldnet.att.net>]

Greetings Fellow Citizens :

Please pardon my somewhat affected and histrionic salutation but it seems appropriate to the topic.

Mr. David James apparently stated the following :

"Public involvement will be more effective once the vastly different members of the American public become more truly tolerant of the diversity of opinion present. A good place to start civil dialogue is at the point at which you presume good will even among folks who you disagree with."

Personally, I agree with the above statement. It is absolutely essential to the successful continuance of our democracy that the right of the individual to formulate and / or express his or her own views be both respected and protected. One may disagree with another person's opinion but the right of that other individual to have that opinion must be assured. This is necessary even if the other person's views are not currently perceived to be popular or appropriate  - whether by the majority of the populace or by the majority of the current opinion makers.  

In addition, it may be both counter productive and unfair to ascribe a hostile intent to another individual without sufficient facts to justify the same. Of course, as Mr. Puchalsky seems to imply in the following statements it is obviously foolish to naively ignore that some individuals or entities truly do harbor hostile intent: 

"It's like saying that people should be truly tolerant of the mugger's desire to rob people as well as other peoples' desires not to be robbed. Some members of the public do not have good will towards others, and it is difficult to make real progress until this is generally recognized."

However, let us please not forget that it is sometimes simply not easy to distinguish the "muggers" from the rest of us. In fact, it has been my observation that environmental activists reflect an extraordinarily wide variety of diverse
viewpoints and political affiliations. 

Mr. Puchalsky also makes the following insightful statement which I believe has been echoed by several other participants in this dialogue : 

"There is sometimes a tendency, among those who work with public participation, to start to substitute the goal of having a good public participation process for that of having a good outcome."

His statement compels me to consider an oft mentioned maxim that if diverse specialized resources are properly and effectively coordinated such that the individual elements complement one another to achieve a synergistic whole then the sum total will be more capable than its individual parts. That when a TEAM of qualified and diverse specialists, selected on the basis of their ability to meaningfully contribute to the achievement of the proposed task, is synergistically committed in a determined and vigorous manner ( which adheres to a flexible and appropriate strategy ) then the end result is often eventual success. Such a TEAM usually requires at least one individual to maintain its coherence, to assure that minority opinions of merit receive their due attention and to maintain the course of the TEAM. Ideally each member of the TEAM should be able to satisfy these requirements. But, if necessary these functions must be fulfilled by the TEAM leader or some outside entity. Key to maintaining the integrity and cohesion of a TEAM is the striving by that TEAM for general - if not complete - consensus when determining its course of action. The consensus issue can be either the undoing or the saving grace of a TEAM. 

An excessive concern for the maintenance of a TEAM's coherence and direction has potential pitfalls. The commendable and practical desire to achieve consensus can unfortunately degenerate into "Group Think" tendencies. A TEAM which suffers from "Group Think" blindly sacrifices its objectivity in a slavish desire to avoid internal disagreement. Internal dissent is then stifled. This restricts the efficacy of any TEAM precisely because the development of a successful strategy in almost every arena of human activity requires an objective evaluation of facts - no matter how unpleasant the facts may be perceived to be. The capacity to effectively respond to the unforeseen requires flexibility and objectivity. Therefore as "Group Think" tends to ossify a TEAM that TEAM tends to become rigid and even more ineffective. As the TEAM's effectiveness diminishes "Group Think" tendencies prompt defensive psychological attitudes within the TEAM. Such an afflicted TEAM also tends to become intellectually isolated from outsiders who remind it of its failures. Outside input which does not conform to the TEAM's cherished illusions are rejected. The TEAM then tends to focus its activities on areas which are deemed by that TEAM to be consistent with its cherished illusions. The process of ossification and the tendency to decline in effectiveness mutually support each other. This results in the "Group Think" afflicted TEAM experiencing a downward spiral of diminishing achievement and also of expectations. 

Frankly, I am not in a position to definitively declare whether or not the USEPA is afflicted with "Group Think" tendencies however I do believe that Mr. Puchalsky's concern does merit consideration and that it behooves any organization to be alert to the possibility of it being afflicted with the "Group Think" rot.  

To sum up, I most heartily concur with the following statement from Mr. Puchalsky : 

"The good outcome that I have in mind is that the environment and peoples' health are protected."


Please pardon this lengthy monologue about topics from Management 101 which you are probably familiar with. 

Michael