Seeing Red
Yesterday there was a 'high-priority' request for a generator installation at a water treatment facility. A team had been sent but no one could confirm if the generator was up and running. The team that was sent could not be reached and the state, FEMA, and the men in green were asking us every 10-minutes if the generator had been installed.
For some reason, it did not occur to anyone to call the point-of-contact who actually worked at the water-facility. That was always someone else's job. So I called. And the guy called me back an hour later and confirmed that, yes, the facility was up and running.
It's so typical. You're important enough to demand the information - but you're too important to actually call the person you are supposed to be helping.
Anyway, I received this congratulatory email from the deputy of the General:
Thank You!!! This was a really good save. Tomorrow we will be able to hold our heads high @ the State meeting and maintain our credibility as the Nation's Engineer. I appreciate your work.
Now, if he had just not written the heavy-handed sacchrine third sentence, I would have reacted more positively to this email. But, the longer I work in the government and especially in the past few months, it seems like the word credibility is associated with telling people what they want to hear rather than anything that has to do with reality, truth, and integrity. 'Credibility' rings hollow.
Everyday I fight small battles along these lines. Just two days ago I locked horns with a guy from the Department of Energy (DOE) over a map depicting power outages in the eastern-most counties of
“This map doesn’t reflect known outages in along the LA border. Some how we need to incorporate that into this map if it is being used for planning purposes.”
“Well, a power outage for 1 million people in
“I’ve talked to people in these counties. The outages are widespread. The county judges for these counties think a county-wide power outage is pretty significant. Even if your data doesn’t show it – for whatever reason – we’ve got to incorporate known outages in this map. It’s being used for planning purposes.”
"There are power outages every day. A squirrel can knock out a transformer and there’s a reported outage.”
“I don’t think these outages are caused by SQUIRRELS knocking out transformers. There was a hurricane.”
“But if we show all the counties with outages, there’s going to be a lot of RED on that map. It’s not good to show a lot of RED. It looks bad.”
At that point I chose not to continue the conversation lest I rip off his head and let him see red.
After he left, I turned to the gal who was worried about making the map with inaccurate information and said, “Look, this is your map. It’s akin to journalistic integrity. Don’t represent something you KNOW is wrong. If you’re not comfortable with the map he wants to produce, then don’t produce it. You’re making the map. Not him. If he doesn’t like it, he can make his own map.”
(I also mumbled to myself, "It's
I guess that is why that email I quoted at the top of this blog entry just didn’t sit with me very well. It seems as if credibility is maintained by telling people what they want to hear – and if it’s convenient, good news will align with facts, truth, reality. And if it isn’t convenient, facts, truth, and reality is easily expendable for the sake of maintaining the appearance of credibility.
I face that issue so many times a day. If you can’t provide the ‘good-news’ answer, there is a feeling of personal failure even when the situation contains 1001 factors beyond your control or knowledge. It seemed as if the DOE guy thought that it would reflect badly upon his agency to report the widespread power outage as if they could have done something to prevent the winds from knocking down the major transformer lines...
I don't want to depict myself as the lone oasis of truth and sanity out here in Federal disaster land. But one of my pet peeves is sloppy thinking and misrepresentation of information (see the work of Edward Tufte). If something needs to be done for 'political reasons', fine. But don't hide your political reasons behind data/information that you willfully misinterpret. Hmmm. Happily, I’m getting a massage tomorrow and going shopping.