Category: organizational effectiveness

On this day in 1951, the 22^nd Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified — but it stopped short of doing the most good. Number 22 limits the tenure of the presidential office to two terms but allows members of Congress to serve indefinitely if re-elected. I believe the country would have been better off if there were term limits for those members as well as for the president.

It becomes a vicious cycle in politics as well as organizations that the more people stay, the more power they amass and, all too frequently, the less in tune they become with what is really happening on the front lines. People who are in leadership roles for too long naturally become comfortable with the perks and privileges that power provides and, even if subconsciously, become invested in preserving that status for themselves.

It’s hard for a president, elected official, board member or officer of an organization to step down from their role. If things are going well, there is no incentive to leave. If things are going poorly, it feels like jumping ship. And, especially if it’s your full-time job, it is even more difficult to voluntarily forfeit a paycheck and benefits and cast yourself into transition — which is exactly why policies should be in place to remove the decision-making from the equation.

Do your organization a favor and set the parameters now for the future and support those attempting to create term limits for Congress. The system works better if, after X years, a term ends, and the service is finished without a debate.

It’s easy to shake hands, smile for the cameras and proclaim that you’re partners with another organization when you think that you will benefit from the arrangement. But it’s a whole different story when your partner needs something from you.

Such is the case with our “sister city.” In 1983, the governor signed a formal agreement with a city in China, hoping to “bolster U.S.-China relations.” I’m sure people thought it would benefit us, and maybe it has, but now that city is asking us to send large quantities of medical supplies to help control the coronavirus in their area.

This poses many interesting questions. Should we do it? Who should pay for it? How would we even get them there since many carriers have temporarily stopped traveling to the country? We have a medical supply company in town and everyone looks there first, but I’m sure their demand has skyrocketed and they are able to garner premium pricing – why should they be expected to make a donation? The same is true for the hospitals; should they be held responsible for meeting the obligations of the whole city?

I am not sure how this will be resolved, but it serves as an interesting lesson when considering partnerships in the future. You shouldn’t sign an agreement because of what you think you can get if you’re not willing to retain the partnership when it’s time to give.

When I went to mail a package, the clerk quoted a price of $24 instead of the $15 flat rate that I was expecting. I had used an official Post Office box and couldn’t understand why it did not qualify for the “one rate, any weight” postage. It turned out that I had unknowingly used the “mailing box” instead of the “flat rate box”.

As a result, I experienced bureaucracy at its worst.

Both boxes are distributed at the Post Office. They are so similar that they remind me of those “find the differences” pictures – where everything is exactly the same except for the most minute details. These boxes are less than ½ inch different in dimensions: 13.375 vs. 13.625 by 12.125 x 11.875 (yes, they list the size to three decimal places!) – so alike that the only real difference is the name the Post Office gives them.

Because of my egregious error, I got out of line, discarded the incorrect mailing box and repackaged the same exact contents in the clone of a box — and paid $9 less as a result.

What would it have taken for the Post Office to use one box where the clerk could just check off the flat rate option or to have crossed off the wrong title and used it anyway? I wonder if the duplicity isn’t intentional deception: how many people mailing a box even know that there is a flat rate and instead pay whatever price they are quoted.

Don’t let this kind of nonsense happen in your organization. Designate one day to do some “bureaucracy-busting” in your area. Offer incentives for people to point out ridiculous practices like three-digit measurements on a box or twin packaging at different rates. Celebrate those who are brave enough to question your status quo or who make things easier for the user. Maybe you could even mail them their prize – using the proper box, of course.