Entry 2104, on 2021-01-25 at 10:09:51 (Rating 4, Comments)
OK, it has happened again. I have been talking to my friend Fred (not his real name) about the frustrations of his work environment (an unspecified large organisation). While these discussions are often depressing, because nothing ever gets better, I think he makes some good points. So I would like to paraphrase Fred's thoughts here, minus the swearing, cussing, and abuse!
When battling mindless bureaucracy there are many points where debate is stymied by the bureaucratic side, and this often takes the form of meaningless catch-phrases, for which there is no good answer, because there is no real question. As well as this, points are often phrased in a way which prevents any real push-back, not because of the underlying reality or truth of the statement, but because of the disingenuous way it is phrased.
A classic example of this is the statement that "you can't see the big picture". This implies that the individuals near the top of the hierarchy have an all-encompassing view of the totality of the issue under discussion, and that "lesser" individuals just wouldn't understand the "grand plan".
Superficially this actually makes a certain amount of sense, because a top-level strategy formulated and administered by one level of management, and then used to guide the lesser components being run by lower levels does sound sensible.
But the problem arises when the top level management implements this strategy as an inflexible system without seeking or appraising feedback from the lower levels. Often the world looks very simple from a great height. The nasty little details of how things really work at ground level are often forgotten, or never even understood or acknowledged in the first place.
Also, depending on the innate biases, personal preferences, and past experiences - which are attributes that everyone has - different "big pictures" might arise. They say that when your only tool is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail. Is it reasonable to insist that people use a hammer when they find a bolt and want to use the spanner they have always used in the past?
So the phrase "you cannot see the big picture" is dangerously misleading. What it should be is "you don't *like* *my* big picture", because there are as many big pictures as there are people creating them.
Notice that I emphasised two words in that phrase above. The first is "like" as a substitute for "see". Many people can see, and even understand, the big picture which is being proposed; they just don't think it is a very good one. The second is "my" as a substitute for "the". If we talk about *the* big picture the implication is that there is only one, but in reality everyone has their own.
So, let's try re-wording that phrase. Instead of "you can't see the big picture" I would say "some people don't like this particular master-plan I have devised".
If we use that new wording it becomes far easier to criticise any big picture a senior person might present. But that's what they don't want, of course, because big picture thinking is more a matter of ideology and simplification rather than dealing with real situations.
And in addition to the inherent dishonesty of the phrase I have been discussing, there is an additional issue which prevents real progress. That is the power imbalance between senior and junior individuals. The junior person has to justify their thoughts at every turn, but the more senior person just has to use the correct catch-phrase to prevent any further discussion which might obstruct their plan.
Now, it might be that despite the problems I have listed here, the system of having a "big picture" is still a good one. After all, it might be preferable to have a flawed overall plan rather than not having one at all. I am quite prepared to concede this, but we should be aware that is what we are doing, and realise that using the words "the big picture" can lead to poor outcomes which might be easier to circumvent if we used a more honest phrase.
There is one last point I should clarify here: big pictures do exist in the real world. For example, fundamental physics theories do describe the big picture in relation to the physical world. Relativity and quantum theory both provide an underlying theoretical framework for physics. But that only works because there is constant feedback from lower level empirical research, and if that new research doesn't fit the more all-encompassing theories, then we don't say the big picture isn't being seen, we say it might be wrong.
And that is the fundamental difference between science and other fields of human endeavour. It indicates a level of both humility and honesty which is conspicuously lacking elsewhere. But we need more of it. People just can't see the "big picture" in regards to their ideas of the "big picture"!
Comment 1 (6284) by Anonymous on 2021-01-26 at 10:46:33:
This is really annoying when encountered. Of course, proper management would include you in the "big picture" rather than hoisting a so called master plan on you. I've found that managers in some institutions fear exposure of their own failings by deliberating not consulting (in a genuine way) the people working "under" them. This is particularly common in NZ universities.
Comment 2 (6286) by OJB on 2021-01-26 at 11:34:12:
My hypothesis is that bad management in large organisations is almost guaranteed. There are two reasons for this (according to my idea): first, large organisations have a lot of people and communications between them is always going to be less effective than for a smaller team; and second, as an organisation gets bigger, more specialised managers become involved, and they (according to me) are the source of the problem (more of them leads to more problems).
Comment 3 (6287) by Anonymous on 2021-01-26 at 13:16:51:
Maybe, but I think depth of hierarchy is the root cause in large organisations. The more you slice up an organisations into fiefdoms, the more those managers think they own their space. Flat organisations tend to have better staff engagement and involvement.
Comment 4 (6288) by OJB on 2021-01-26 at 16:38:41:
Yes, I think I would agree with that. When there are 5 to 10 layers (or more) of bureaucracy between the people doing the work and the people who see "the big picture" then you are going to have issues.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, 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.
BLOG PAGE