Last week, gubernatorial candidate Mitch Daniels unveiled his economic plan. What caught my eye, however, was not the plan itself, but the final sentence in the press announcement. After promising to populate the government with "new ideas and new people," Mitch reportedly concluded with the following sentence: "The what is not as important as the who." In other words, good people are more important than good programs or ideas.
Last week, gubernatorial candidate Mitch Daniels unveiled his economic plan. What caught my eye, however, was not the plan itself, but the final sentence in the press announcement. After promising to populate the government with “new ideas and new people,” Mitch reportedly concluded with the following sentence: "The what is not as important as the who." In other words, good people are more important than good programs or ideas.
That belief is widely shared. It is also dead wrong.
I do not mean to suggest that character and intellect are unimportant. They are exceedingly important. But they are not sufficient. Most of us don’t choose our doctors or lawyers solely because they are likable or smart; we also want evidence that they know what they are doing. Businesses certainly understand that it will take time for even a bright person with relevant training to “get up to speed”—that is why minimizing turnover is a priority.
I am confident that during his time at Eli Lilly Company, Mitch would not have suggested—or allowed—the employment of researchers with no prior laboratory experience. I am equally confident that he did not hire “good people” without budgetary background or fiscal experience to work at the General Accounting Office.
It isn’t just “my man Mitch” who is peddling this nonsense. Joe Andrew made similar statements when he was questioned about choosing Bren Simon to be his running mate and potential Lieutenant Governor. So she had no government experience, no background in agriculture or commerce or economic development—she was smart, she could learn. She was good people. Former Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, whose contempt for government was legendary, also liked to move “smart people” into positions unrelated to their competencies: an often-cited example was the environmental scientist who applied for a job with the city’s pollution control agency and was hired, only to be told when she showed up for work that she would be supervising planning and zoning instead. When she protested that she knew nothing about zoning, she was told that “smart people” can learn anything they need to know.
And so it has gone of late; California voters think Arnold Schwartzenegger is a good guy, so they make him Governor of a huge state and tell him to resolve its complex fiscal crisis. In 2000, voters told pollsters that they preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore, even though they considered Gore more qualified, because Bush was a “good guy.”
We wouldn’t choose our own employees using such criteria, but when it comes to filling government jobs, voters evidently prefer likeability to evidence of competence. We choose personality over professionalism, and then we complain when our public policies are incoherent and our public management inept.
I do want “good people” running my government. But I also want people who understand how to make government work. I want good people who have good programs and good ideas. I’m not willing to choose between the what and the who.
A jaundiced look at the world we live in.