Short-term engagement

What would I do auditing in an environment that didn't value equity and human rights. Guess I wouldn't last long.

Savoring the Results

This has been a crazy summer so far. At first it seemed like it would never warm up. We planted our garden and then there was 2-3 weeks of hard rain. Seeds didn't sprout and existing plants suffered. Now we have had several weeks of sunshine and things are looking better, although getting to harvest is slow. What are the lessons here?

• You can't always predict when hard rain will come.
• Results might not happen on schedule.
• Sunshine always heals frustration and makes things grow.

I like the last bullet. Could be an analogy for transparency and organizational change.

Auditing by Processing

My thought process too. Like pulling a string or auditing.

Guerrilla Warfare

Thinking about a recent hiring process I was reflecting on possible differences between generations. My motivation in working for government has always been to make it more accessible, accountable and respectful to citizens. It brought to mind a book that spoke to me many years ago, Guerrillas in the Bureaucracy. I think I still have a copy in my office. I googled it and found this interesting book. I also found this article about how do deal with guerrilla bureaucrats. "Create an organization culture that accepts, welcomes, and encourages candid dialogue and debate." Yes!!

Definitely about outliers

I have always been an outlier. From a small town and yearning to be in a city. Coming from an environment that was fairly conservative, but having ideas that were not. Entering the world of art, but not fitting in. Moving on a career path that is not a straight and logical course but one with sharp turns and bumps. But definitely an outlier.

I am working on an audit right now that is also about outliers. But we are looking for outliers because this will provide evidence to evaluate whether management has done its job. What is managements' job? Is it managements' job to make employees all conform?

The real measure for an employer is the quality of the work. Employees may have differing work styles but the work quality may be worth accommodating those styles. That is why an audit should focus on effect. If accommodating different styles does not create a negative effect or actually increases effectiveness, than auditors should be tolerant of outliers in their analysis.

Outliers can also be a symptom of a problem that needs to be addressed. Rather than try to control the outlier, management instead should use it as information about organizational health. When an auditor finds this type of outlier, she can use the information to describe the effect of an organizational problem. Recommendations then would focus on the real problem, not employees who are outliers.

Communicating Results

The nature of audit work is to be methodical. That is our strength. We plan how to analyze whether services are efficient or effective, we execute the plan, we tie our analysis to the plan, and our report to the analysis. And then we write our report.

At that point, the fact we are methodical becomes our weakness. Readers, the public, management, and leadership do not want a recounting of how we got to our conclusions. They want to know what our conclusions are.

Not that they don't want to know that we methodically approached this work. They do. They rely on our professionalism. But they would prefer we keep the details to ourselves.

When writing a report, our job is to communicate clearly and effectively what the problem is, why it is occurring, and at what cost to the agency. To move to this level of communication is always a struggle. But it is our job.

Not statistically significant

The Fair Housing Council of Oregon conducted audits from the citizens' point of view to determine if housing discrimination existed. In Ashland and Beaverton, when African American and white testers were sent to the same location, two-thirds of the black testers faced discrimination in Ashland and 78 percent in Beaverton. Management response in Beaverton was that the testing sample was too small to be statistically significant. But one wonders what the tolerance level is. Even though it was not a large enough sample to generalize to the full population, is it then okay to have some discrimination?