Visa Grant Letter Canada

XXI century Hunters and officials

With autumn comes a discussion time seasonal hunting. In the arguments of the large and growing group of critics, the amateurs' leisure hunting always opposed the argument that practice hunting with restraint and consideration, far from damaging the natural environment contributes to the ecological balance of it. The excesses that are sometimes seen in forests and fields are the work of a small group of lunatics that far from being called to the honorable term of hunters deserve the appellation of riflemen. Of course, hunters abound in the debate, but the riflemen, is a species that is known only by hearsay.

For something similar happens when discussing the public when a non-regular season but any report or article in the media addresses the issue. Inevitably the arguments of those who defend the professionalism and involvement of officials remind me wielding hunters. El Pais newspaper recently published an article on the public. The biggest debate prompting concerned the growing, according to the article, number of staff, a recurring in other articles and reports, issue that feathers like Vicenc Navarro in the newspaper were accomplished Public reply.

Notwithstanding that I drew more attention the article in question were not the references to the number of staff, but the references to the impossibility of assessing the performance of these: be more or less productive of no consequence - the challenge is to evaluate the official . Here if I see a serious problem and this is where the hunters. In several replicas blogosphere and the related comments, the emphasis is on the defense of professionalism and involvement of officials when they are allowed to work in conditions of freedom and confidence. Somehow, he comes to say that the problem is not the staff themselves but a working environment that facilitates the involvement and productivity. I think they are right in the second statement but not the first.

Throughout my work in government I have seen that many employees committed to its role and improving it. But there are also other types. I am not referring to the classic indolent and irresponsible Forges jokes. Of these perhaps been: everywhere there are people like that. I mean more to people who are broadly competent in their jobs, carrying out their work corrected. But distrust of system changes, are reluctant to make the extra effort required transformations and are such as to avoid any conflict that disturbs your peace. Their daily work goes forward, but do not facilitate the improvement, modernization and innovation.

And the problem of the present civil service is that it is very difficult to reward workers and competent managers and committed to improving their business because there are no adequate tools to assess performance and act accordingly. In a post or comment mentioned the possibility of opening a disciplinary file to correct certain attitudes. In my view this is a tool for extreme cases does not serve to address the core problem: the correct, minimal involvement.

I also read an argument that has troubled me. Is the one that says that a performance evaluation effective passes by a factor of individual, subjective. But the problem is not that, the problem is ultimately the subjective assessment was in the hands of politicians. This argument reflects a stereotype of politicians as unjust as to all officials branded as irresponsible and indolent. It is very sad to see these accusations, I have also heard the opposite, including persons belonging to groups condemned to work closely for the common good.

And without removing responsibility for political office in the maintenance of the current situation of the civil service, some officials have also given it is the fear of his reaction to social unrest that could generate, the biggest barriers to early and significant changes needed in this area.

For this reason, the views of some workers and public managers I read on some blogs I have been disappointed because they cease to take any responsibility and a lack of self-criticism. Unlike the natural environment must be preserved against the actions of many hunters, the environment of the public requires a profound transformation, which is unthinkable without the involvement and commitment of staff.