Call me naive, but I don’t think it’s a requirement for people to necessarily like each other to work together to get things done.
I say this after reading a Morning News story about the new Dallas City council members getting together at a ranch in Paradise (no further comment needed) to, as the headline on the story said, build camaraderie and prioritize focus areas. The story talked some about the touch-feely stuff the council members did to get to know each other better; who among us hasn’t had to do something like that at some point in our business careers. And they apparently agreed on six focus areas (they’re listed in the story but they’re so general, you can just about guess them without reading it). And then there were the obligatory comments about the importance of working together, blah, blah, blah.
Having the focus areas is an OK idea, I guess, so that at least the ship is pointed in some direction. But council members can be just as productive, and maybe more so, if they disagree all along the way about the best paths to reach the focus goals. The freshest ideas and best new paths often come about from ideas bantered back and forth. We lose sight of the value of that process, though, when the inevitable and inexcusable name-calling and professional dissing starts to occur, and the media invariably jump on the personalities involved.
How much better would it be for all of us if, after a couple of weeks of intense debate and differing viewpoints and maybe even a couple of heated but civil exchanges in the council chamber, our council members actually voted on the best option to solve a problem rather than the one that allows everyone to sing cum-bay-yah together? I don’t mind a mess, as long as it makes the meal better and everyone pitches in to help clean up.
