OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Serenity, Courage, Wisdom

Entry 2228, on 2022-07-27 at 17:31:28 (Rating 2, Philosophy)

Being idealistic is fine. If you truly believe in something, it is important to pursue that belief even when there is significant resistance to it. This seems like a reasonable perspective, but there are two factors which need to be considered in this situation.

First, is the subject of the idealistic fervour rational, fair, and true?

For example, I would not approve of someone engaging in activism in order to promote their religion. If an Islamic activist wanted to make studying the Koran compulsory in New Zealand schools (don't laugh, the way things are here now with this government, it isn't impossible) I would not support that, no matter how committed the activist was to his objectives.

And second, is there any real chance of success from the activities the person is engaging in while pursuing those aims?

For example, if a person wanted to eliminate all misinformation on-line I would question how possible this is, and whether it is even a good idea anyway, given the difficulty in defining exactly what misinformation is, and the likely vigorous objections to that ideal which could easily turn bad for the person involved.

There's an old saying about this, that many people probably know. It is this: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." - Reinhold Niebuhr

Obviously, as an atheist, I interpret the "God" part metaphorically and would say the serenity, courage, and wisdom has to come from within (now I'm sounding very Zen!) rather than from a deity, but the essential intent of the statement remains, even when that part is removed. Niebuhr was an American theologian, ethicist, and commentator on politics, and professor at Union Theological Seminary for more than 30 years, so the "God" component is not surprising.

The reason I mention this subject at all is because of a recent situation my friend Fred (not his real name) endured. He has been a rebel for years, and has found various ways to circumvent the bureaucratic rules at the organisation he works for, in order to work more efficiently, and to help his clients more quickly and thoroughly.

But the organisation has become more and more draconian, inflexible, and bureaucratic as the years have passed, and Fred has found himself more and more under threat from the management, and under more stress after being forced into roles which really shouldn't be part of his job. Fred is a geeky type person, who is most at home when tackling tricky technical problems, and he freely admits to not being organised enough to be good at the mundane yet convoluted administration tasks he was told he had to take on.

Unfortunately, Fred did not have the wisdom to know the difference between the things he could and couldn't change, and it eventually came to a point where he suffered from severe stress after being persecuted (as he saw it) by management, while not managing the administration tasks he was asked to perform well, leading to anxiety.

Some people might also claim that he failed on my first criterion too, in other words, was the idealistic path he was following rational? He claims that using his unofficial and informal approach he got a lot more work done, and a lot more people helped, than he ever could by following the rules, but others might suggest that the negatives of that approach would outweigh the positives.

But, as I said above, it eventually reached a point where the pressure became too much, so Fred decided a "reset" was necessary. He thinks of it as "Fred version 2.0"; the latest version with many changes over the previous one. Anyone who uses a computer knows that new versions of software are often less useful than older ones, at least initially, but sometimes change is forced rather than chosen.

So Fred now has the serenity to understand that there are things which he cannot fix. In no way is he saying that the bureaucrats were right, and he still thinks his older way of working was better, but his greater wisdom has told him that this is a battle he cannot win.

Because, in most workplaces, there is a huge power imbalance between the workers and the management. The people at the bottom of the hierarchy have to do the actual work but have very little say in how that is done, and have to justify any small divergence from the ordained path. The people at the top do nothing (arguably) but still get to say how other people should work, and have little need to justify anything.

But that is just the nature of large, bureaucratic organisations, which Fred should have already understood. If he chose to work in an environment like that there should have been no surprises when his attempts to forge his own path were opposed by the management.

In his defence, Fred has worked at the same organisation for many years, and initially there was a great deal of freedom to work in a way which suited the individual best; an attitude which has slowly changed over the years. So it is possible that Fred - like the frog in the pot of water which slowly gets hotter until it boils him alive - didn't notice the slow changes which eventually become so significant. Luckily he jumped out of the pot before the water really did start boiling!

There is both truth and delusion on both sides, of course. Many workplaces impose rules to control the staff who aren't self-motivated enough to get a fair amount of work done, but these rules are applied universally. So while they might force some less enthusiastic people to work to a reasonable level, they also de-motivate others and result in lesser levels of performance from them.

But that is just an apparently inevitable outcome for large organisations, and there really isn't anything that can be done about it, hence the need for humility in not trying to force that change.

Fred's advice in the end was to either find a job in a smaller company where excellence is actually celebrated, or to just accept the mediocrity necessary to fit in to a large organisation. Idealism has its place, but pragmatism is a more useful attribute to have in most situations we encounter in our everyday lives.

In the end, be courageous when you can, but also be wise, and accept the serenity necessary for self-preservation in those situations where mediocrity is celebrated.

Comment 4 (7246) by OJB on 2022-07-28 at 21:55:22: (view earlier comments)

Yes, Fred and Trev sound very similar in many ways. No one ever achieves anything beyond the ordinary by following the rules. In fact, a theme of a future blog post might be rule followers are more of a problem than mavericks.

Comment 5 (7261) by Anonymous on 2022-08-11 at 12:17:28:

Trev can fix my fridge/freezer any day. It's been my experience that good managers work out who needs managing, and who doesn't. They trust individuals who are worthy of trust, and monitor those who don't perform...

Comment 6 (7262) by Anonymous on 2022-08-11 at 12:20:04:

Oh - and although Fred may not have encountered good managers in his life, they do exist. Trev's manager sounds like a good one.

Comment 7 (7263) by OJB on 2022-08-11 at 14:12:55:

Re comment 5... Yes, I would prefer that managers didn't exist at all, of course, but I guess there are cases where people who are poorly organised or not self-motivated might need a bit of "guidance". On the other hand, I have found that guidance coming from colleagues is more effective than coming from managers.

Comment 8 (7264) by OJB on 2022-08-11 at 14:15:31:

Re comment 6... Yes, I'm sure you have a completely unbiased opinion about Trev's manager! :) You are probably right though, some managers might be very effective, but I think the negative aspects of the profession far outweigh the occasional positives. Nothing personal about managers: in general I find them to be nice people, when they're not managing!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.