Originally published: . Volume 13, No. 7. Source pages: 2.
Seeing Beyond the Administrative Nose on Our Face by J. Nelson
I found a kindred spirit with Dr. Tom Hannie who always reminded me that he approached every new forensic case like a research study. There’s a certain humility to that, and a comfort in knowing our judgments emerge from a scientific process.
I am thankful for the Louisiana Legislative auditors’ critique of our state Board. (See story page 1.) It is a good start at much needed reform. The auditors, very politely, pointed out multiple inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Complaints Committee processes. These problems would have otherwise remained invisible because the data is not accessible to any form of public records request.
The auditors’ suggested solutions—more fines and more regulations—are premature. The auditors, as would be expected, have one level of analysis, an administrative, tactical, and/or bureaucratic level. They had no way to look at the total system, the way psychologists can by using the tools of our science.
From an organizational psychology perspective, the complaints committee can be viewed as an intervention. We can see it as containing causal, intervening, and outcome variables. With adequately measured (scaled) variables we can assess reliability, and then validity. We can find out if we're actually accomplishing anything meaningful. We might even eventually assess utility, the cost per unit of outcome.
The auditors' review found that the complaints process lacked even minimal efforts at scaling, what they called a “matrix.”
Matters such as utility cannot be addressed from a narrow administrative perspective. This is why many government agencies, and also many business organizations, grow their bureaucracy and continue with poor outcomes and cost overruns.
We might be looking at the same bureaucratic mindset when it comes to Dr. Greg Gormanous' request for ADA accom- modations. (See page 1.) He is being refused virtual attendance because of open meetings laws. But there is no real evidence the virtual participation would inhibit the public's rights. It might just promote transparency.
Group dynamics tell us that the Board can either be productive, accomplishing valid, real work, or it can protect its own self- interests. A set way of doing things and costly, ineffective programs are often the result of the latter.
I am not nearly as polite or diplomatic as the auditors. The Board has been sorely mismanaged, and needs both structural and process reforms. There is an invisible toll being taken on those unlucky enough to get caught in the complaints process. And the licensees are the ones who also pay the bill for a problematic complaints program with skyrocketing costs.
So thank goodness for the auditors, as far as it goes. Now, more is required from psychological scientists.
One interesting side note from the auditors' report––You can now have an allegation that you are "rude." The hypersensitive culture has reached all the way into board complaints.
[Julie Nelson is a licensed psychologist, journalist, and publisher of the Times. She also holds other positions in the community. However, her opinions here are those of her own, and do not represent any group or association. She and the Times receive no compensation other than paid advertising. Email her at drj@drjulienelson.com, ––she welcomes feedback.]
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.