Annual Infarction (Part III): Ways Of Unknowing

A few readers pointed out that my last post on this subject didn't seem to give much advice to the 'young civil servant' who was supposed to be learning from this series of posts. On reflection, I've realised that this is true; this post will therefore attempt to give more such advice.

The previous post concentrated on how the organisational knowledge base can be either corrupted or lacking in terms of how it handles staff, strategy, or the sanctified principles (or 'flag', to use a naval metaphor) under which the organisation supposedly sails. I suppose the advice for an aspiring civil servant to be gleaned from all that should be: a) treat staff as individual and valuable, and if you ever reach the point when you cannot (because, for example, there are too many of them), you should get out of the place; b) work with a detailed strategy in mind, based on a clear vision of what should come to pass; and c) remember the basic principles under which your vocation operates, which make it a calling rather than a pastime, occupation, or profession.

I say 'should be' because the fact is that, for a young civil servant to thrive in many institutions, it is often more convenient to a) treat staff as units which contribute various things to your comfort and/or success; b) work tactically based on whatever your superiors seem to require (some call it a retrograde defensive position, or 'covering your rear'); and c) do whatever seems to work and have no sense of mission besides the missions you are sent on. I am not advocating any of these convenient approaches, but merely noting that this is what about 80% of civil servants (the percentage is often larger and varies depending on country, system, institution and leadership) seem to practice.

The remaining 20% (often, in practice, a much smaller percentage) actually drive reform and positive change, work towards a mission, and end up doing their own thing in the private sector. Ha, got you there. You probably think I'm being cynical. Well, I'm not. In a free-market and reasonably prosperous country, this is exactly what happens; in the majority of nations, this is not an option and so it doesn't happen.

The reason for all this is that in order to survive and thrive in the global era, two extremes may be practised. One is much easier; the other is much more fiddly and difficult. I am writing, of course, about approaches to knowledge.

The second approach is all about knowledge management. I delivered a workshop on this in June 2002; in the seven years since, I regret to say that the material has become more relevant and yet less widely accepted. I will save all that for my next post. Instead, for today, we'll look at the much easier way: avoiding the issue of knowledge management altogether.

Here are some possibilities which I've seen in action:

1. Handle data and spin its presentation, so that it doesn't amount to real information but has enough coherence to fake it.
2. Ignore the reality of human experience and stick to buzzwords as the main pillars of a constructed reality.
3. Neglect the careful use of language and stick to platitudes, non sequiturs and banalities.
4. Debase and denigrate the complexities of the abstract by demanding the simplicity of the concrete.
5. Micromanage at a level that requires too much information and fake it when you realise you can't handle it.
6. Macromanage at a level that allows you to play golf or take many overseas trips while letting someone else do your job.
7. Throw money at a consultant so that your staff don't have to think.
8. Spend money on statuary and other physical trimmings so that it looks as if you are doing something impressive.
9. Manage history so that you can obliterate inconvenient facts with a sweeping statement such as, "My predecessors spent years doing nothing, so let's begin with 19xx, the year that I first accepted this appointment."

The problem with these approaches is that anyone with half a functioning brain and the functions that come with such a brain can see what is happening, or at least intuit that something is not happening. Quite often, the results will keep showing up as strong positives right up to the day that everything collapses; this is the lesson of the 2008 financial crisis and many other such events.

So what is a young civil servant to do about these ways of unknowing? Well, as usual, here are two kinds of advice.

The harder course is to relentlessly but carefully weed out such practices as far as you can. You may not be powerful enough to take on your superiors, but you certainly have some scope: use it. Be authentic, be caring, maintain standards. That will lead to my next post, which I suppose should cover 'how not to be unknowing'.

The easier course is to become an expert at the practice of unknowing. It is easy. Take one of the practices, say 'debase and denigrate the complexities of the abstract by demanding the simplicity of the concrete'. Here's an example: you go up to your boss and say, "Errm, I think that we need to give poor people more money." He replies, "That's very caring of you, it is a visionary idea, but I tell you, it's all about details! How much can you give a person before he becomes dependent on the state? How can we tax people fairly? Where do we get all that money? Go and do the research and find out all the details, and then come back and talk to me! Maybe the poor are not so poor and the rich are not so rich! Give me facts, not ideas!"

Notice, the boss is very competent. Nowhere has he said he will do anything about it, and he seems to have told you that it's your job to implement an entire policy starting with research and information-gathering. Actually, it's not your job. It's his job to accept or reject your idea and help you work it out in conjunction with other people. He's called the Chief Executive Officer, not the Chief Executioner or the Chief Let's-Not-Execute-Anything-Unless-It's-My-Idea Officer.

So, my hypothetical young civil servant friend, just remember that you have choices. You can do many things. You can make life a lot better for others, remembering that 'administration' means 'provision of service', just as 'minister' is Latin for 'one who acts on authority from above'. The opposite of the Latin minister is magister ('master' or 'great one'); a minister or administrator is not the master, but the servant of all.