http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ors--good.html
Printable View
That is just sickening.
I mean ... uhm ... If you're not behaving oddly, you don't have anything to worry about. Why does this concern you? Just get back in line, and everything will be OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastree
It is MY nature to behave "ODDLY".......
I'm not sure I understand your concern. These types of experiments have gone on for years. This actually goes back the the early 1900s. Google "Hawthorne Effect" and you'll get all sorts of hits. Behavioral studies and experiments have been going on in the government and private industry for at least 100 years. Probably even much longer but they were never given an actual name. While you're at it, google Henry A. Landsberger. He did some ground breaking work in the 1950s on these types of studies. They are often used in concert with "Time and Motion" studies.
Just one more day in the fun house.
I think it's alright that they're trying to keep the sheeple in line. The more Kool Aid they drink, the better. Meanwhile, I can quietly do my own thing...
Although I do agree with you, it's a waste of tax payer dollars, however if they're not wasting money on this, they'll be wasting it elsewhere.
Actually, you don't really know that. You might be correct or you might not be. There simply isn't enough information in the article to make a judgement. If their study improves performance and/or productivity within the listed departments then they can drive down the cost of government. That would not be waste of money but a really good thing. On the other hand, I've seen these things fail miserably and the cost of the exercise is a waste. You just can not make any kind of determination based only on the information in the article or before hand even if you have the parameters of the study along with the intended goals.
And if I read the article correctly it has nothing to do with the people as citizens. It has to do with performance within various departments. So the term Sheeple is misplaced.
Agree, but one should never waste an opportunity to use that word, misplaced or not. It telegraphs so much without having to spell it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
I don't care one way or the other I guess. I just tried to understand why someone would be concerned if they simply read that article and didn't understand the history of these kinds of exercises. That's why I offered up the information on Hawthorne Effect, et. al. It's pretty normal stuff but if you don't know that history then I guess you could walk away with a completely different conclusion.
Our government doesn't need anymore studies to improve performance. What it needs is ACCOUNTABILITY.
It needs to FIRE incompetent employees. It needs to FIRE employees who are low-performers. It needs to ABOLISH programs and departments that are unnecessary and/or no longer relevant. It needs to hire individuals based upon qualifications and not because of quotas or political favors or loyalties. It needs to establish valid JOB PERFORMANCE STANDARDS and hold every employee at every level to those standards. It needs to require government employees to treat the public in a reasonable and respectful way. It needs to require managers to identify, honestly document, counsel, and TERMINATE (if necessary) poor employees that don't perform according to standards and expectations. It needs to TERMINATE managers that can't manage. It needs to PROSECUTE every government employee that misuses, abuses, or does not deliver honest performance in his/her employment. It needs to PROSECUTE every employee that violates anyone's Constitutional rights or any law under the color of authority. It needs to PROSECUTE every employee that commits perjury or attempts to mislead the public. And finally, it needs to relearn the fact that government exists to serve the people and that the people do not exist to serve the government.
That's exactly what these kinds of studies help identify. You can walk away with three sets of data points if you conduct the study correctly. You can identify those above the norm (high performers), those at the norm and those below the norm (low performers). If the end goal is to improve performance then you can review those same individuals at the end of the study/experiment (whatever you care to call it) period. The whole goal should be to improve any employee. We have invested a lot of tax dollars into training those employees. That should be, as you pointed out, the last thing to happen. But you have to be able to evaluate/identify, then document their performance, attendance or whatever you are looking at.
GS/union employees have to be treated differently even in right to work states. It's just part of the process. If my company wanted me gone they could just walk in one morning and say adios, it's been fun. However, we couldn't do the same with union employees and you can't do the same with GS employees unless the grievance is pretty substantial like threat of violence or theft. If it's just performance related then you have to have your ducks in a row.
The article came from the UK?.......
Don't suppose it was kinda tossed against the wall?..... for grins, and see it would stick?
Where there is smoke, must be fire, right?
I'm still thinking the old .."If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS"....and enough BS with cover up the real problems?...
Just a thought.
You are 100% right, Ken, not a thing I disagree with.
I am not being facetious when I ask, why don't you run for office? Seriously. You're pretty much doing all you can from where you are...you, no doubt, care...wouldn't an office of some influence be the next step?
Here's another article that explains how these policies can be applied using these kinds of studies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/new...ll-richer.html
We encounter these same things in our everyday world. It's the reason grocery stores pipe the bakery smells to the front door, the reason they put milk in the back of the store, the reason they put high dollar items at eye level on the shelves, the reason they stack items at the end of an aisle even though they are not on sale. But you think they are. Those are all examples of results that came out of these kinds of studies.
Ken - I know you studied these in college. Giving this some more thought I'd bet the you use the results of these kinds of studies every day to determine who you want and don't want on a jury. All based on how specific profiles of individuals can be expected to vote on a given crime. Maybe not but I'd sure be surprised if you don't scour over the jury pool to determine who's in and who's out based sex, age, ethnic origin, social beliefs, religion, etc. all tied to the crime being tried and how they relate to your client.
B, I've been there and done that. Two terms (6 years) as the chief elected official of my community of almost 20,000 residents before I decided to not seek re-election. We delivered services that other communities in the area dreamed -about (for example, we were the only town in the state that did not have a sewer fee or tax) and our tax rate was in the lowest 25% of the state. When I left office, we had no unfunded liabilities and over $5 Million in Stabilization Funds and another almost $5 Million in undesignated surplus funds. That translates into savings accounts of $10 Million.
We implemented curbside waste and recycling programs with a "pay as you throw" system, completed a major wastewater treatment plant expansion with a sewage solids composting facility, reconstructed a municipal park/playground/playing field/beach recreational area, restored a gas light historic district, paid off our municipal reservoir and water treatment plant bonds, renovated ball fields, opened a historic museum in a former elementary school, consolidated school buildings, and enjoyed a school system that ranked in the top 10% in Massachusetts. We had one of the lowest crime rates in the state as well as an unheard of full time fire and ambulance department (most towns relied primarily on volunteers) and I personally enjoyed the endorsement of the police and fire unions in both of my election bids.
The downside was having very little time with the kids - except for Sundays, which belonged to them - and absolutely no privacy or down time when we were in public. I'll never forget the day we were having dinner over 200 miles away in New Hampshire, and two teachers in town felt it necessary to spend almost an hour standing beside our table making sure that I was aware of all of the issues facing the school department, LOL.
I don't regret the time I spent in office, but I prefer the private life by far.
Rick, my first contract as a banking consultant was to perform an efficiency study for the Bradford Trust Company in Boston prior to building a new mutual funds processing system for the bank.
Jury selection, LOL? I took a course at Harvard on jury selection as well as on how to present yourself before a jury. No three piece suits in a jury trial - jurors think of a vest as a cloaking device and have less trust in those lawyers who wear them. A two piece suit with an unbuttoned jacket was the best way to go.
While this program sounds innocuous enough, and in theory IF applied as presented can improve some things --- there are potential problems with it. As with many administrations that preceded this one - what they say is not always what they mean (could that be nudging). Toward the bottom of this article there are a few concerns raised. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...hape-behavior/
Personally I have bigger concerns than those raised in the article. They are political in nature so this is not the place I will discuss them.
I can't disagree with anything either of you said. As I said above, "I've seen these things fail miserably". Even if they have the best of intentions they can sometimes have very unexpected results and/or waste a bunch of time and money.
A new government? isn't that what our founding fathers said?
What she is describing is the psychology of addiction.