On the contary, I find US and UK military officers highly comfortable with dicussing concepts and ideas, while asian officers are just too eager to find some application for the concept before they fully understand or explore it.

Hi Dave

I think that you would find this situation far worse than you could imagine in public services in England. Sadly, I would estimate that almost all public sector organisations in England are 10 years behind the private/commercial sector. The 'order paradigm/machine metaphor' is virtually unshakeable amongst Chief Officers and senior managers of public services - despite all information available to them about the many uncertainties/complexities inherent in providing services for local populations who live in diverse circumstances and present diverse behaviours. The outcome is a suffocating environment where everyone (staff and 'service users') is predicated to behave in highly ordered/machine like ways. The response to this is one of implementing receipes from the book - the vast tracts of highly detailed procedures, 'best practice', evidence based practice and 'what works'

This is compounded when public services are inspected by external bodies - who stick rigorously to 'the book' as their nostrum/ philosopher's stone. An example of such an approach was Lord Laming's Inquiry into the death/murder of Victoria Climbie back in 2001/2001. Of the 118 recommendations in the report of the Inquiry intended to prevent yet another child death/tragedy only 2 concerned the system - the other 116 focussed on the deficiencies of, and blame to be attributed to, managers for failing to predict this little girl's death.

The operating environment engendered by Government targets, league tables and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators is one of almost pathological risk aversion and anti-intellectuallism. It is an environment of high personal risk for any Chief Officer in public services to state that they are not certain - they absolutely must have the answer, or know someone who claims to have that answer.

Best Wishes,

Dave

Hi Dave

I wonder if people are suspicious of 'intellectualism' when expressed in unfamiliar language? Maybe it's a necessity, maybe not.

When I was a management skills trainer (many years ago) one of our pieces of advice was "eschew obfuscation". It usually raised a laugh, but made a serious point.

See you next month.

David

10 years behind the private/commercial sector. The 'order paradigm/machine metaphor' is virtually unshakeable amongst Chief Officers and senior managers of public services - despite all information available to them about the many uncertainties/complexities inherent in providing services for local populations who live in diverse circumstances and present diverse behaviours. The outcome is a suffocating environment where everyone (staff and 'service users') is predicated to behave in highly ordered/machine like ways. The response to this is one of implementing receipes from the book - the vast tracts of highly detailed procedures, 'best practice', evidence based practice and 'what works'

Go take a look at their work design, job measurement (size of job, pay scale rationales), competency models and performance management schemes. All will reinforce, in some key way or other, the reduced role of intellect, imagination, enquiry, creativity and innovation in the course of doing knowledge-based work.

I can virtually guarantee what you will find there - and I think the assumptions from which, and the methodologies used to design and implement - the work structures, roles and accountabilities are to blame for the situation you describe.

I wonder if we are being a bit presentist when we draw these conclusions. I wonder how my parents would have thought about these issues during the work days of the 50s and 60s? Did they feel they had conditions that allowed creativity, etc.?

I do know that in 1985, when I interviewed with what was then Douglas Aircraft, I was told that work started at 7:47am (Or something as bizarre) since that is what the union contract stated. Lunch was 28 minutes (I think), etc. A persons office was defined by their pay grade. A Senior Engineer was recognizable by the fact that they had a filing cabinet of their own.

So are we just finding more modern ways to express things that having always found expression in the past? Wrapping control and management in the same phrase and giving "enlightened" jargon to justify what we have always seen done?

Just curious.

Somewhat off topic - Richard Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" is an interesting (though a bit dated) view of how this type of thinking has manifested itself in the US over the many years.

The corporate model of measuring “Key Performance Indicators” as a management tool that somehow will tell the truth about the talent within an organization is truly a Procrustean Bed situation. It is an interesting paradox in a legal environment where on the one hand, attorneys must operate “by the book” and on the other, find their most interesting and successful work to require innovative thinking about a legal matter. It is extremely difficult to define “knowledge” in words that make sense to those who want to “manage it” because there is little tolerance for abstract thought…..it has to “fit into a database” and “isn’t it a form file?” To talk about knowledge as know-how that flows on demand and cannot be “captured” in a form file is to get a deer in headlights stare. Concrete thinking vs. abstract thinking and it seems at times that the two shall never meet. Wayne, your point about your parents and their generation just reminds us that the human condition is a constant. For any man or woman to free themselves from the prison of their own mind is an on-going challenge generation after generation. Being comfortable with “not knowing exactly” takes emotional maturity.