Ripped from the headlines! Friday's belated post

“The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Sampson said. "Some were asked to resign because they were not carrying out the president's and the attorney general's priorities. In some sense, that may be described as political by some people." Kyle Sampson as quoted in the following NPR story http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9213689

The Attorney General hearings on Capital Hill are quite the sideshow at the moment. A number of very important people have spent time explaining why this should or shouldn’t be a big deal, all of which sounded like more or less of the same posturing at which I routinely make rude noises. But the quote that you see above? That signals an entirely different take on the issue.

>It appears that Mr. Sampson’s contention is that socio-political behavior is part of the performance criteria for United States attorneys. My entire career has been spent in private sector, so I can’t comment directly on his premise. However, if you replace “United States attorney” with Director, VP or the like, I would say that he is right.

Depending on the company, they call them different things: business behaviors, leadership competencies, cultural fit. Really, what it comes down to is how well the bosses believe that you will proceed along the path that furthers their plans and interests with minimal fuss. No matter what skills got you the job or what you believe that you were hired for, at some point, it always comes down to what your boss thinks that you think about his plans.

There is no question that teams that share common values and goals accomplish many things. Little time is spent on socializing ideas or getting buy-in because consensus is omnipresent. That frees up time for action, which leads to results. Monoideistic teams are usually incredibly efficient - they do things right. The results that they achieve against a plan are impossible to refute.

What I question is if they are effective; or, to be blunt, do they do the right things? A single point of view leads to vision problems, including blind spots and depth perception issues. Most creatures have been give two eyes to counter that effect. A team with a single perspective is even less capable than its individual members in that regard. Without contrarians, there is no need to prepare rigorous defenses for ideas. Over time, this relaxation can lead to errors that will not be caught until they are exposed to the public eye.

Business settings breed events like these on a regular basis. It is natural to choose people that "think link me". Management, a difficult task in the simplest of teams, becomes more - well - manageable. With the added bonus (often literally) associated with completing tasks on time and under budget, it is actually more surprising that any other type of team exists. So when Kyle Sampson made this comment, I felt a twinge of familiarity. And that is why I'm worried.

Businesses that develop a monoculture can do some damage, but I can choose not to support them if I disagree with their obvious errors. In the case of my own government, I pay the salaries for these gentlemen but I can't fire them. Even if I vote to dis-elect every politician that appointed or confirmed these guys, the non-elected government infrastructure, that clearly has not discouraged this thought process, will still exist. How can I expect civil service employees to represent me while they conduct their business when my elected officials - who should have ONLY the job representing me - can rarely manage it?

I will be watching these continued discussions with great interest now. As a corporate problem solver and change maker, I am intellectually curious to see how this plays out. As a citizen and tax payer, I just want to know who I should be keeping an eye on next.