Entry 2125, on 2021-05-05 at 20:32:29 (Rating 4, Comments)
I have again been discussing the world's problems with my friend Fred (not his real name, but he is someone who works in a large organisation in a similar role to me). Specifically, we have been talking about the difficulties which seem inherent in introducing new ideas and innovations, or even getting simple things done, when a large bureaucracy is involved.
Fred's organisation often prides itself on its "progressive and innovative attitudes" and "efficiency and appropriate use of funding", but he claims nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the system makes it almost impossible to be innovative and vast amounts of funding are wasted on tasks which Fred is fairly confident would not be seen as worthwhile by the majority of people.
In fact, there are two categories of co-workers that Fred identifies: those who try to get things done (the doers), and those who specifically get in the way and prevent things from being done (the stoppers). So he claims that not only do many bureaucrats get paid quite substantial amounts for doing nothing, but they actually get in the way of the "lesser" classes. He says, the world would be better if they were literally paid their salary to sit in a room somewhere doing nothing.
So which professions are the main object of Fred's concerns? Well, I'm sure you now what I'm going to report here before I even do it, right? Yes, it is our old favourites: managers, accountants, and lawyers.
We are both fairly sure that these people don't see things this way. They probably genuinely believe that they are making the world better by imposing a lot of rules and regulations, and managing the simplest task through a complex hierarchy of administrators.
And that isn't an entirely implausible attitude. Often, a case could be made that there is a need for management, accounting, and law, but it is the extent to which these functions exist, and the disproportionate influence they are given, which is the problem.
Fred says that people who perform the primary function of his organisation often get great ideas but these are almost always destroyed by the "you can't do that" team. He thinks it is a mindset: instead of having an idea and finding a way to make it happen, they look for reasons why it can't happen.
Again, this is not always totally unreasonable. For example, some computer-based initiatives are probably best not pursued because of concerns with privacy, security, etc. But this seems to go far beyond what is reasonable to the point where it is either impossible to get anything done, or it takes twice as long and costs twice as much as it should.
And that's another issue: cost. Many projects could be done relatively cheaply if there weren't ridiculous constraints and additional tasks, but the cost escalates to cover all of the extra requirements. Ironically, it is usually "financial types" like accountants who impose these rules and force up the price of doing anything.
For example, Fred speaks of a charging system being used at his workplace where internet traffic was paid for by individual sections of the organisation. The problem was that, for every dollar paid for network traffic, 90% of it went to paying for the system which managed the payments and the remainder went to pay for the traffic itself, although there was not even any indication of how much of that genuinely went to the provider.
On another occasion an auditor demanded that the free coffee brewing in the office area should be stopped. What happened then? People went to a cafe for coffee instead of just pouring one and returning to their office. The department he worked for probably saved a few dollars a day on the cost of coffee, but lost hundreds of dollars in productivity when people spent more time in cafes.
It's hard to think of anything more short-sighted and just plain stupid than what Fred calls the "great coffee debacle". There was another aspect to this too: it made the staff resentful, and I'm sure that also reduced productivity. The ignorance and inflexibility of the accountant doing the audit is unbelievable. A friend of mine says this about accountants: they know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
So, this is efficient and financially expedient how, exactly?
Another example Fred gives involved mindless bureaucracy in a different form. He was asked to help with a database system necessary for a project to proceed. But the management bureaucracy wanted some involvement involving "business cases", discussion of who the appropriate person to do the project might be, how numerous other "experts" might get involved, etc. In the end it was just put into the "too hard basket" and the project had to be abandoned.
Did the management feel bad about this? Apparently not, because they had lost interest by then, and had moved on to another project they could mess with. Fred thinks that if they did realise the project had failed they would blame it on insufficient organisation by the people involved, rather than any fault of their own.
So, the management involvement in this project added value how, exactly?
Fred didn't have any specific issues where lawyers had caused problems, but I'm sure I could find examples from elsewhere easily enough.
In summary, these are all obvious examples of where the people who prevent progress cause harm, but it goes far beyond this, because even in projects which do go ahead with some input from the "stoppers" there is rarely any additional benefit involved. The bureaucracy tends to impose useless requirements, insists on unrealistic schedules, assesses progress and quality in very simplistic ways, and generally just gets in the way of the "doers".
Fred often works on projects by going "under the radar" and with no input from the bureaucracy it is surprising how quickly, cheaply, and well he gets things done. His clients often comment on this and prefer his work because he avoids input from managers and other undesirables (his words). Of course, sometimes he gets into trouble over this, but he has a good employment lawyer.
Yeah, even lawyers can be useful some times, but usually only to fight against other stoppers!
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2021-05-18 at 13:47:25:
Your post might convince some people, but it is very one-sided. What about the positives of the people you have condemned?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-05-18 at 16:40:29:
Well, if you have any specific examples or views which contradict what I said, Im happy to consider them. I mean, you're probably right that I only show one side, but this is a blog which presents specific opinions on selected subjects. It really isn't meant to fully present both sides of the issue, although I do try to offer some token gesture in terms of balance!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE