VCS

Vincere, crescere, servare. I suppose I have nailed the blue and gold to the mast again. Ah well, there is never any getting away from the Hand or Hound of Heaven. Think Jonah, think Tarshish, think Nineveh.

And so, here I am again.

Public Service

I realised not too far back that I made a big mistake more than a decade ago. It's not easily recognisable as such, which perhaps explains why I made it and never felt I had made a mistake for so many years.

It is said that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it (or at least, some of its more horrible iterations). I have realised that those who know history might still not learn their lessons in time. (Think Trotsky and Stalin, and how old Stalin was obsessed with Trotsky all his life, even after getting him icepicked to death.)

My grandfather had five sons (four and one adopted). One died young, but the other four flourished. Three became civil servants, in two of the great areas of altruistic service: health and education. One took a more direct approach to service, and went into an area that all would recognize as God's work.

I look at my students, and I look at myself. And I see that if you begin with the premise that the chief end of man is to love God and serve Him forever, then your career must be the movement from one act of service to another. It is not a trajectory to be plotted by men, nor a plan of self-aggrandizement to be plotted by you; although you might not see either of these coming, they are common traps.

My grandfather died in harness, working to the last dregs of his full consciousness as a medical man and a churchman. His career was not one of endless promotions and what others might consider milestones, although his sons, in time, eventually were granted such honours.

It's not wealth or honour, but the life of service that is the key. My mistake was when I left the service of the larger community to become a servant to an institution that kept tempting me with promotions in exchange for integrity. Fortunately, God granted me amelioration through service that could make use of my gifts. I might have served better elsewhere, amongst the less affluent and those who needed more of my time.

But I am free now, and I will try to serve. For those of my students who might chance across this sad little post, I hope that you too will remember that the service comes first and the honours and stuff come later. If you hear your relatives tell you, "Look at Uncle So-and-So, he drives an Aston Martin Lagonda now!" and try to con you into adopting a career that allows for such a lifestyle, remember that you must first choose a career that will allow you to serve and change lives for the better.

The other trap is a more insidious one. It's the one where you label yourself 'Doctor' or 'Teacher' or 'Lawman' and feel good that you are serving God. Remember, you only serve God as much as you are serving others. It isn't given to you to rule over others or to be proud that you have the role you have. It is given to you to work out a life of service, regardless of the label hung around your neck. If people label you, you might reply, "And so I am," but you are also more than that.

We are all more than what labels convey. We are children of the Highest, born for service and for mutual survival against the might of the Enemy, the blandishment of the World, the weakness of the Flesh. And because we are more than what labels convey, words are not enough to say it all — but they will serve, and so must we.

A Survival Guide to the Old Place (and Other Places)

Before we begin, realise that there is a fundamental difference between being a client and being a service provider. In the Old Place, or indeed in any other Place, it is quite likely that the service provider is more easily removed than the client.

This means that there is a delicate balance between service providers and clients. Ideally, the service provider should provide sufficient service such that the client doesn't feel stiffed. Similarly, the client should respect the service providers that provide sufficient service (or at least attempt to) and should be publicly annunciative (as opposed to denunciative) of both good and bad service providers.

There are a few problems, though.

It is clear that those who provide service providers have power over the service providers and do not necessarily provide useful services themselves, although they might delude themselves into thinking they do. Most times, they do, because they have made themselves useful. This is a good thing.

It is sometimes unclear as to who the real clients are. Are the clients the direct consumers of services, or the suppliers of direct consumers who hope that the direct consumers will be improved by consumption? If we were talking about a school, we'd be asking, "Are the students the clients, or their parents/guardians, or their states of origin, or the places which will benefit from their education?"

The worst problem really is that the definitions of what constitutes good service provision are not made as obvious in some institutions as they are in others. In some institutions, the clients are told things like, "If our [service provider designation] fails to carry out [service task designation], you should [perform client report function that notifies institution of service failure]." This is seldom true in educational circles, but catching on in healthcare circles and the civil service.

Currently, some service institutions are obliged to take in anyone who requests service (like hospitals) and some are allowed to pick and choose their clients (as in schools that are private or have occult recruiting practices or are allowed some discretion in student selection). This of course does not level the playing field. However, the intention was always to create an uneven playing field so as to concentrate resources appropriately according to market supply and demand. This in itself is not a problem until you stumble over the word 'appropriately' and wonder how this is determined.

The cure for enduring (if not solving) all such problems is to keep your head low and walk around vaguely smiling at everyone. This makes you look like a benign sort of tortoise, and like the tortoise, you are likely to have greater longevity. Remember to eat spicy noodles every morning, washed down with hot black coffee. This will boost your cognitive powers, sharpen your sense of danger, and make you realise that life is good even when the specifics fail.

At the same time, you should realise that you can't stay at the old place forever. We all move on, hopefully to better places. When you get to a new place, check out the noodles. If the food is bad, shake off the dust of your feet at their doorstep and keep moving. If the proprietor is shady, don't turn your back on him. But remember that life is often what you make of what you have been given; naked we came from our mothers' wombs, naked will we return to our peace, and so in all things give thanks to God.

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.

Annual Infarction (Part I): What Is Known

In every human appraisal system, a complex net of checks and balances must be woven so that a fair appraisal is guaranteed. This is not as easy as it seems.

Here are a few questions that a young civil servant should ask before being appraised.

1. Do I get to know everything that is said about me?
2. Do I have the right to publish a reply to what is said about me?
3. Can I take legal action for defamation of character if my appraisal looks as if it defames my character?
4. What is the theoretical basis for this method of appraisal?
5. Does it work when converted into a ranking system?
6. Do the practitioners of this appraisal system understand a) the difference between qualitative and quantitative data, and b) the idea of reification leading to loss of accuracy?
7. If the data about me are presented to a neutral third party who uses this appraisal system, will the same grade be awarded?
8. If my reporting officer presents the complete appraisal to the countersigning officer, will amendments be made?
9. If I present an argument for adjustment of my appraisal, will it be answered point by point before a neutral arbiter and will it be taken into account if it cannot be rebutted?

The first three points speak about social validity, the next three speak about scientific validity, and the last three speak about the reliability of the system.

There are a lot more questions, but these will do for Part I of this interesting subject. In fact, this part is titled 'What Is Known' because the only thing about an appraisal system that is known is the documentation produced about it and produced by it. The exact thought processes that go through the mind of the appraiser or reporting officer are never recorded and impossible to access. The final outcome is never in doubt. This falls far short of the rigour which is obtained, for example, in mathematics or good science, where the working-out of the process leading to a conclusion can be examined step by step for error.

In fact, although many systems have tried to compensate for it, the only system that can be said to really work for social situations is one of massive peer review, or so-called 'open appraisal'. In such a system, everyone gets to debate the outcome, and their thinking is recorded for posterity. When the final appraisal is produced, the signatories are clearly identified along with their comments. In addition, contrary opinions which arose in the minority population are also recorded in full. This is the system used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

One might argue that this is too much a burden of time and effort. Yes, I agree.

Why do I agree? In my previous employment, I realised that such a system indeed takes up too much time and effort if the people administering the system have one or more of the following problems (not necessarily in order of importance):

1. Limited resources: that is, insufficient processing power, time, clerical assistance and/or administrative ability.
2. Mediocrity: that is, an insufficient interest in a just outcome, lack of intellectual rigour, lip-service to excellence while not actually being concerned about it.
3. Lack of transparency: that is, an incidental or a deliberate need to conceal a) a minority opinion which cannot be defended, b) interests which ought to be irrelevant to the case but are influencing the outcomes, c) personal ideology or other traits which cannot be publicly enunciated, d) a ranking outcome which looks invalid despite the validity of the appraisal, and/or e) irregular manipulation of reward systems (such as bonuses and awards).

These are not the only problems, but they are the more common ones. I have seen with my own eyes the maladministration of appraisal systems to take into account any or all of these factors.

So what advice, at this stage, do I have for a young civil servant? Well, to be honest, if you want to succeed you will need to work like a dog, remain civil at all times, show unswerving loyalty, never speak your mind no matter how much people claim they value your opinion or intellectual approach, and remember that you are a servant first and foremost. Even when they tell you that you are a leader, remember that you are also a follower of some other leader. Remember that you can be head of the civil service, but unless you have strong personal ties with many other nodes of power, you will merely be chief servant.

As such, your duty (even though it does not make me happy to have to say it) is to be perfectly obedient and close-mouthed. Before you come up with an opinion, make sure at least one superior will also have this opinion in mind. Before you write anything, remember that exceptional brilliance is a threat to your superiors and will catch their eye. Above all, never try to take credit for your own work if credit is due. That will come much later; for now, it is all to your superiors' credit that they have cleverly employed you.

I've heard many times at very high levels the exact opposite of all this. Very senior and powerful people have said that this kind of civil service behaviour is reprehensible and slows progress. They are right. But unfortunately, the majority of civil servants will need to behave this way in order to survive and prosper in their jobs.

For me, I have always tried to be my own man. I am not beholden to special interests or the need for whatever dangly bits have been offered to me as incentives. I don't travel gratuitously overseas at government expense or place personal considerations foremost when dealing with colleagues. I have never bothered with attempting to manipulate my appraisal, and for whatever appraisals of my subordinates have been manipulated against my intention, I have kept copious notes in a sealed archive. Since those notes constitute my own opinions and contain no official documentation, I think they are happy to remain sealed up.

If you, a young civil servant, have read all this carefully, then you can probably figure out that 'what is known' is a rather hazy and ill-defined construct. You may well be someone to whom all these ideas of mine do not apply. You may be right as well. The history of mankind shows that the wisest of thoughts may have the most unintended of outcomes, and that no one is really wise. One of the ancients had this opinion. It makes a good conclusion, and I'm sure he intended it that way.

Day 004

Today is Good Friday, and it is the day to lay to rest what is over and done with, and yet prepare for what Bishop Oldham called "all the after life." I saw a fantastically efficient group of young men finish packing my life up and drive around distributing it to three different locations: the home I bought when I was young, the home I visited when I was younger, the high-security depot where the chrysalis awaits.

Through all these things, I have pondered how fortunate I have been to have two excellent wingmen in all my life – the Argonaut and the Elvish Historian. Both are so very different from me, and yet so very different from each other as well. I am glad for them; they have been my comfort and strength most among all my friends in these days.

I must also thank the men of the High Hall who, with the assent of their most puissant Lady, gave me a farewell raucous and powerful enough to raise the dead. They directed it across the sea of green, although I told them this was not wise. I said that I had to go, that I was grateful for this opportunity to build anew, and that I would try my best to serve in my new field of endeavour. I told them essentially that they must not only be good and excellent, but great in the world for the sake of service to all. I hope they remember this.

I am very tired, but it is like the recovery after a long illness. I am alive again.

Word of the Day: Devoir

This is a rare word in English. The idea of devoir stems from medieval French, in which it connotes a duty to be carried out as a token of respect, whether from a superior to an inferior or vice versa. Perhaps one of the more common contexts in which I have seen this word is the motto, "Simple dans ma vertu, forte dans mon devoir." It is the motto of several religious orders, and can be found emblazoned on the crests of many Catholic schools and convents.

The phrase is often translated, "Simple in virtue, steadfast in duty." This translation is pretty good, as such things go, but I think it sometimes hides three key elements. The first is that 'simple virtue' is not as simple as it seems; the 'simple' here means 'without artifice or complication'. Perhaps the best way to think of it is to read Ecclesiastes 7:29, which says as if in counterpoint, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

The second is that 'forte' does indeed imply a kind of staying power, but it also can imply dynamic strength. 'Forte' has been translated as 'strong' in many texts, and 'strong in my devotion' is as good a translation as any – which brings us to the third point, and back to devoir.

Devoir is that service which is owed for reasons of respect. It is as much the duty of the inferior to serve the superior as it is the reverse. What irks me a great deal is to see this balance destroyed by superiors who forget that 'administration' means 'service'. To speak of an 'administrative service' is to speak with redundancy, for what else should administrators do but serve? I can only say that if the Golden Rule is a statement of eternal justice (or even if it is merely one of ethical philosophy), then many who act as lords and masters have a lot of unpleasantness coming their way.

This is because those who fail in devoir will fall into calumny for their gross negligence. Best then, that we all learn to respect one another, with that sense of devotion that comes from every person's human duty. For the third point really is that the motto makes it personal: it is my virtue, it is my devoir — mine, yours, and that of every blessed one of us all.

Service

My lineage has served the old institution since 1886. But the terms of our service go back, in some historical sense, to 11 August 1755. On that day, in a French church at Spitalfields in London, John Wesley led a mass dedication to the service of God. Tonight I was listening to a somewhat pared-down version of that great dedication. I compared this in my mind with the original words:

Christ hath many services to be done, some are more easy and honourable, others more difficult and disgraceful: some are suitable to our inclinations and interests, others are contrary to both; in some we may please Christ and please ourselves, as when he requires us to feed, and clothe ourselves, to provide things honest for our own maintenance, yea, and there are some Spiritual duties that are more pleasing than others; as to rejoice in the Lord, to be blessing and praising of God, to be feeding ourselves with the delights and comforts of Religion; these are the sweet works of a Christian.

But then there are other works, wherein we cannot please Christ, but by denying ourselves, as giving and lending, bearing and forbearing, reproving men for their sins, withdrawing from their company, witnessing against their wickedness, confessing Christ and his Name, when it will cost us shame and reproach: sailing against the wind, swimming against the tide, steering contrary to the times; parting with our ease, our liberties, and accommodations for the Name of our Lord Jesus.
Sometimes, it seems to me that there is not so much service as acquiescence to slavery. A genteel and civilised slavery, to be sure, but one nevertheless – and inextricably linked to the modern democratisation of the intellect. How so? By offering service to all and sundry just because service is seen as an end unto itself, we are debasing the idea of deliberate and considered service. Service is an active act of bending the knee to receive a load; it is not the act of bending the knee alone (which oddly enough is called lip service), and neither is it the mere act of bearing a load.

Service is a fierce defence of the right to act for another, for that other's good. Service is a terrible pleasure, in which you may not necessarily (and often will not) please yourself. Service can be a disgrace, in which you might yet be surprised by grace. And service is not something in which you begin by making your own terms and conditions. If it is to serve, it is to serve without hedge or constraint. One modern reading can be found here.

In a later post, I will write about those who serve with me – my friends and colleagues. Tonight, I will be alone in the chapel of my head.