,
15 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Not sure how long this thread will be, or whether I'll do it right (I'm on my phone) but here goes...
Imagine you have a job that needs done, and you have two employees, Nate and Chris. You need to choose one of them to do the job, not both.
(purely Fiction; no relation to anyone named Nate or Chris among my friends)
In this story, Nate has the reputation of an inefficient mess. He tries his best, but things move slowly. Resources get wasted.
In the same story, Chris simply refuses to do half of anything he's given to do. Won't do it. Has reasons but you're tired of hearing them.
You have no other options. It must be Nate, or it must be Chris. This is quite the quandary.
If you go with Nate, the job might get done, or it might not get done. If it does it'll be slow and it'll cost more than you think it should
If you go with Chris, the job simply won't get done. Not completely. You'll spend most your time sitting in your office hearing excuses.
Hearing about why this or that doesn't need to get done, or why it shouldn't be done. These reasons won't make sense and you'll get angry.
Nate will look at Chris and think "why does the boss still have him around? Useless!"
Chris will look at Nate and say "everything he touches is a mess. Boss shouldn't trust him with a job like this!"
Anyway, there you have it. The nightmare of charity work between public and private agencies.
We like to point at government programs and call them disorganized and inefficient but we also need to consider...
Private organizations (especially Christian ones) simply refuse to serve certain people.
It's a catch 22. Both result in things not getting done, but for different reasons.
