The question is, is this uniquely dangerous, or just another thing that could become a factor in office politics?
I don't consider this "dangerous" as in the end of life as we know it. As someone who has, for a living, framed management practices in terms of what does and doesn't cross the line, it looks to me like this goes too far. It's hard to know without further info, but all my red flags are flying, If I worked for him, I would be cautioning him.
1. I think the fact that he is leading these sessions is important. The gay executive I mentioned yesterday participated in GLOBE as a regular member, not a leader. If Ashcroft wanted to have prayer meetings, at the very least he should have let one of his cronies to take the lead. The optics are so much better that way. There are twitching eyebrows now at EPA because the Administrator, Deputy Administrator nominee, Chief of Staff, and Deputy Chief of Staff are all women. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but those with the overactive eyebrows are going to be following things closely. Offices can get really chewed up by a proliferation of EEO or union complaints whether or not they are valid. If a leader wants to move his agenda forward, it's worth making the effort to avoid stoking any unrest among the troops.
2. Regarding Picasso, I think this is very different. Hanging prints in your office doesn't do you any good if the AG never visits your office, and he won't. He'll spend his time in a well guarded office suite with perhaps an occasional outing to the press room or the auditorium. Unless you walk around with your Picasso under your arm in hopes of encountering him in an elevator... The AG probably has a priviate elevator, anyway. I think that the opportunity to attend one of his prayer sessions is a unique opportunity to get face time, not in a class with your Picasso ploy, at all. Many new administrations are very wary of civil servants. The biggest hurdle is to get them to be comfortable with you the room. This gets you in the room. The objective is not to suck up but to be acceptable as wallpaper.
3. I cannot emphasize enough how fastidious the civil service is about not favoring or disfavoring any ethnic or gender or religious (or political) group. The bureaucracy has been on edge since the previous administration pushed ethnic and cultural diversity to the point of PC-itis. Adding religion to that pot right IMO is like smoking while pumping gas, particularly when the change appears to favor a group rather than to increase diversity. I won't take on the role of apologist for the bureaucracy, but one thing that's very good about it is its sense of evenhandedness both within the ranks and in interactions with the public. I don't think the public would benefit from losing that.
4. Agencies have rules for everything. Some of them are in statue and others are agency policy. Some are in lavor agreements. I'd be amazed if this practice didn't violate a few of them. Of course, as AG he is in a position to change many of those rules to allow whatever he wants to allow, but until he changes the rules, he should follow them, no? He is Attorney General, after all.
Yes, I think this is more than just office politics.
Karen |
