Loyalty Part II
Last week I introduced Loyalty and how loyalty interrelates with friendship and honesty and asked the question, “Where are the lines between them?”
It’s a timely topic. Many people have strong feelings about it-me included. So, I wanted to delve a little deeper into the topic.
As it relates to local government
Richard Clay Wilson, Jr. wrote an interesting article in Governing.com. In his 38 years in local government, 29 as a city manager, he relates that he never had a loyalty issue. He never asked about loyalty, never asked for loyalty, and never even had it come up in any personnel evaluation. I can say the same. In my 30 years as a Director of departments in cities across the U.S., some with staff sizes of hundreds of employees, I never even thought of loyalty as a benchmark during an evaluation process. Nor was it ever brought up by my bosses regarding my performance during that time. The only exception was the one and only time I was released from employment for no reason and with no explanation. However, by definition, there was no reason and no explanation. Therefore, I suspect my willingness to ask questions and offer alternatives was not appreciated. But even then I was not branded as disloyal.
Mr. Wilson references Les White, a former city manager in San Jose, CA, who had written an article in Public Management listing 38 traits of successful managers. Loyalty is not one of the 38 traits.
Personal vs. Institutional
Peter Beinart, in his article There is No Such Thing As Honest Loyalty, talks about loyalty being an outward-directed trait whereas honesty is an inward-directed trait. Mr. Wilson says much the same: “The idea of loyalty is personal as opposed to institutional.”
Local government Leaders (with a capital L) who focus on performance rarely if ever think about it. Those cowardly leaders whose focus is to insure that all allegiance is to them will unflinchingly replace capable managers. NOT because they are underperforming, but because they are not loyal enough.
This occurs most often in highly charged political governmental systems. This starts at the Presidential staff level. It includes large cities across the country with a patronage system, all the way down through small towns and counties with strong mayor or county executive governments. When the chief elected official has the authority, under the charter, to hire and replace who he/she chooses based on loyalty, rather than capability, the citizens will be the ones who suffer. As Richard Wilson states, “…it is a given that those who work on political staffs are duty-bound to promote the political standing and interests of the politicians they work for. And it is widely understood and accepted that staff members who want to take exception to that standing and those interests must go to work elsewhere. But…demands for personal…loyalty have long proven problematic.”
The sad, inefficient result
I experienced a demand for loyalty firsthand. I apparently did not display enough of it, and was told I was no longer needed. However, a work atmosphere of loyalty over ability almost never is successful. Each time a controversial issues arises, politicos expect staff to further ignore doctrine, policies, and longstanding operational procedures. Mollifying a constituent is more important the long-term consistency of good governance. As Wilson puts it, “Loyalty becomes the most salient criterion in the hiring process, performance evaluations, meetings and everyday operations. The path to success becomes one of displaying loyalty, not ability.”
Many of us live and work in cities and counties with political forms of government. Pay attention to the times values and common sense are ignored in favor of appeasing a wealthy donor or incumbent running for re-election.
You will see Loyalty in all it’s ugly, degrading glory.
II-40
