SILVER LINING: A story about a former Bradford police chief
being fired has made the pages of a new book.

Why was his dismissal so noteworthy? The book says he was let go
for having a messy desk.

The silver lining in that cloud is that he was probably a pretty
creative guy.

That’s the conclusion readers might draw from a new book titled,
“A Perfect Mess,” by Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman. It’s
billed as the manual that explains “the hidden benefits of being
unorganized and cluttered.”

Information on the new book was passed along to us by a reader
who found it reviewed in an article titled “Is a Messier Desk
Better” on the careerbuilder.com Web site.

The answer to that question is “yes,” the authors argue, since a
messy desk frequently indicates that an efficient worker sits there
– in spite of the towering stacks of paper on, and possibly under,
his or her desk.

Randomness must be present in order to qualify a person’s desk
as “messy.”

Efficiency isn’t the only quality that workers with less than
neat desks seem to have. Timeliness, leadership ability,
communication skills, strategic thinking and ability to get things
done are also cited by the authors.

But what about that old belief that links neatness with success
– and messiness with chaos and disorder?

Not always the case, the authors say.

“A messy desk can be a highly effective prioritizing and
accessing system,” they write. The more important, urgent stuff is
usually on top of the piles, with the less crucial work below or in
the back – where it should be.

“The various piles on a messy desk can represent a surprisingly
sophisticated informal filing system that offer far more efficiency
and flexibility than a filing cabinet.”

Albert Einstein was messy, the authors say.

They also cite findings from the behavioral profiles of more
than 240 presidents, CEOs and chief operating officers that show
these successful people to have – you guessed it – cluttered
desks.

“Neatness and organization can exact a high price, and it’s
widely unaccounted for,” the authors note. Being too neat, they
say, can also reflect a rigidity that closes off people to new
discoveries.

So our question, of course, is who exactly is the police chief
cited in the article? We have a guess, but don’t want to say.
Readers?