By guest contributor Peter Thistle.
First, let me say, there is a competency crisis (clickbait, sue me). But the reason for this crisis goes far beyond mere DEI. It lies at the root of managerial and bureaucratic systems themselves; there is a unique mechanism by which bureaucracies distribute responsibility to an asymptotic near-zero at the level of the individual, such that few within any given system are ever punished for their failures. This mechanism can be readily identified by those of us within such systems, and being able to identify and resist such mechanisms, either as a cog within bureaucratic systems or (more importantly) as the authors and builders of new systems, is a skill worth its proverbial weight in gold. It is not possible to design bureaucratic, managerial systems to run autonomously on “policy” without building into them a future of decay into incompetence. Without real command authority and serious consequences for failure (which can only be meted out by leaders who have both authority and responsibility), systems that run on “rules” or “policy” are doomed to fail. As leaders and builders, this is something we have to understand in the core of our being; we have to isolate the nagging liberal priors that would drag us back to rules-based and policy-based organizations.
The recent aviation disaster in Washington, D.C., was a tragedy. Naturally, many commentators pointed out that the reason for the crash will likely be determined as a lack of competency on the part of one or many individuals responsible for safety in aviation, caused in part by DEI policies and lax standards. This is, no doubt, true. However, the problem is not that individuals within the system failed; the problem is the structure of the system itself.
https://oldgloryclub.substack.com/p/its-not-a-competency-crisis
First, let me say, there is a competency crisis (clickbait, sue me). But the reason for this crisis goes far beyond mere DEI. It lies at the root of managerial and bureaucratic systems themselves; there is a unique mechanism by which bureaucracies distribute responsibility to an asymptotic near-zero at the level of the individual, such that few within any given system are ever punished for their failures. This mechanism can be readily identified by those of us within such systems, and being able to identify and resist such mechanisms, either as a cog within bureaucratic systems or (more importantly) as the authors and builders of new systems, is a skill worth its proverbial weight in gold. It is not possible to design bureaucratic, managerial systems to run autonomously on “policy” without building into them a future of decay into incompetence. Without real command authority and serious consequences for failure (which can only be meted out by leaders who have both authority and responsibility), systems that run on “rules” or “policy” are doomed to fail. As leaders and builders, this is something we have to understand in the core of our being; we have to isolate the nagging liberal priors that would drag us back to rules-based and policy-based organizations.
The recent aviation disaster in Washington, D.C., was a tragedy. Naturally, many commentators pointed out that the reason for the crash will likely be determined as a lack of competency on the part of one or many individuals responsible for safety in aviation, caused in part by DEI policies and lax standards. This is, no doubt, true. However, the problem is not that individuals within the system failed; the problem is the structure of the system itself.
https://oldgloryclub.substack.com/p/its-not-a-competency-crisis
In a recent essay, I wrote the following words:
"Institutions would integrate superpositional thinking I think in part by being less bureaucratic. Instead of delegating everything to rules and regulations, give people doing the work some flexibility to try to do the right thing. They can turn out to be wrong, but local decision making is likely going to be more beneficial than universal decision making."
So this article aligns deeply with that, and I like how it's constructed.
Modernism (which still permeates much of what we have left in our world) thinks it can find the perfect objective standards for anything and everything. Postmodernism (which eats away at our civilization) tries to tear down things by proving they are imperfect, and it is typically pointed at things the current bureaucratic powers want gone, not things such as bureaucracy itself. Postmodernism tears down culture which can tell people they're wrong without a rule to tell them so, and it makes everything relative so nobody's really to blame for anything ever so of course postmodern bureaucracy doesn't want to hold anyone responsible for their mistakes (and that doesn't mean firing everyone at the first sign of trouble)
A new way of thinking needs to happen that allows for the fact that things aren't always the same and leaders need responsibility and power to go with their title so they can wisely execute their function as leaders.
"Institutions would integrate superpositional thinking I think in part by being less bureaucratic. Instead of delegating everything to rules and regulations, give people doing the work some flexibility to try to do the right thing. They can turn out to be wrong, but local decision making is likely going to be more beneficial than universal decision making."
So this article aligns deeply with that, and I like how it's constructed.
Modernism (which still permeates much of what we have left in our world) thinks it can find the perfect objective standards for anything and everything. Postmodernism (which eats away at our civilization) tries to tear down things by proving they are imperfect, and it is typically pointed at things the current bureaucratic powers want gone, not things such as bureaucracy itself. Postmodernism tears down culture which can tell people they're wrong without a rule to tell them so, and it makes everything relative so nobody's really to blame for anything ever so of course postmodern bureaucracy doesn't want to hold anyone responsible for their mistakes (and that doesn't mean firing everyone at the first sign of trouble)
A new way of thinking needs to happen that allows for the fact that things aren't always the same and leaders need responsibility and power to go with their title so they can wisely execute their function as leaders.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0