IT's Kafkaesque

Have you experienced the crushing weight of bureaucracy?

In Kafka's novel, 'The Trial', made into a movie in 1962, a parable is told - 'bureaucrats, the system of administration and its power crush the individual. The individual becomes a choking victim of society when by chance - or misfortune - he is drawn towards the gear of its system.'

Here's Kafka's parable "Before the Law" (stills and text from the Orson Welles movie 'The Trial')

---

Before the law there stands a guard. A man comes from the country, begging admittance to the law. But the guard cannot admit him.

"Can he hope to enter at a later time?"

"That is possible," says the guard.

The man tries to peer through the entrance. "He had been taught that the law should be accessible to every man."

"Do not attempt to enter without my permission," says the guard. "I am very powerful, yet I am the least of all the guards. From hall to hall, door after door, each guard is more powerful than the last."

By the guard's permission, the man sits down by the side of the door and there he waits.

For years he waits.

Everything he has, he gives away in the hope of bribing the guard, who never fails to say to him, "I take what you give me only so you will not feel you have left something undone."

Keeping his watch during the long years, the man has learned to know even the fleas in the guard's fur collar. And, growing childish in old age, he begs the very fleas to persuade the guard to change his mind and allow him to enter.

His sight is dimmed, but in the darkness he perceives a radiance streaming from the door of the law.

And now, before he dies, all his experience condenses into one question, a question he has never asked.

He beckons to the guard. Says the guard, "You are insatiable! What is it now?"

Says the man, "Every man strives to attain the law. How is it then that in all these years no one else has ever come here seeking admittance?"

His hearing has failed so the guard yells into his ear. "No one else but you could ever have obtained admittance. No one else could enter this door. This door was intended only for you."

"And now I am going to close it."

The year that was 2012

For the year that the world is supposed to end, 2012 will bring a lot of memories. These will stand out to this white hair chronicler.

1. Prudential Plans Inc. closed shop early this year. Just three months before my son would have availed of his educational plan. When the other pre-need plan companies first experienced difficulties paying off claims, Prudential assured the more than 300,000 planholders that the company is stable.Then more than three years ago, they offered to buy back policies at cost. I opted not to sell, thinking that the company could actually rehabilitate itself. Today, I am one of the victims of the pre-need plans fiasco.

2. Habagat brought torrential floods ala Ondoy. But unlike Ondoy, which came and left, Habagat came, left, came back, left again, and threatened to come back again, all in a span of five days. But this time the local governments and the citizens were prepared.

3. In the IT front, nameless hackers, well, hacked into government websites exposing not just the vulnerabilities of websites but the lack of preparation to recover from such incidents. I've posted before that getting hacked is almost inevitable so the next challenge is how soon one can restore one's site.

In the social networking scene, some offices are still afraid of social networks. But there is reason to believe that those who are seemingly afraid will not be so afraid if top management will think that it is their idea and initiative.

4. Sources say frozen shoulder occurs in about 2% of the population. I belong to that 2% now. I realized how painful and inconvenient it could be. It is also said that it occurs to 10-20% of diabetics. I am not diabetic but my mother and grandmas are so it could be that I am pre-diabetic.

5. While Les Miserables will make its way to the big screen next year yet, I am again reminded this year that Javert and his types abound in the workplace. The Javerts are rigid, process-bound, and steadfast in their pursuit of ill-perceived goals. In short, typical bureaucrats.

In a less personal note, aren't we glad Pnoy is our president? The man has shown tremendous political will. He has booted GMA's Chief Justice, quixotically lashed at China, pushed for the sin tax, and signed the RH law. He has deftly maneuvered through fragile alliances in congress to get his pet laws enacted, unmindful of political and religious backlash. He is on his way to becoming the greatest Philippine president by just doing the right thing.

And for 2013, we all must do as Pnoy does.

We must. Just do it.

The Ten Most Hated Jobs

A recent article at CNBC draws on a survey of hundreds of thousands of employees which determined the 10 most hated jobs. Despite the hard job put in by teachers and nurses, it may be surprising that they didn’t make the list. The jobs in the list are not the low level jobs. The survey found that limited growth opportunities and lack of reward caused more dissatisfaction than the low pay, long hours, and thankless tasks.

The pain then, is psychological. It’s the lack of direction and meaning in what they do that is the problem. People know that they are capable of contributing more but the hierarchical bureaucracy prevents them from doing it.

The Ten Most Hated Jobs:

1. Director of Information Technology 
2. Director of Sales and Marketing 
3. Product Manager 
4. Senior Web Developer 
5. Technical Specialist 
6. Electronics Technician 
7. Law Clerk 
8. Technical Support Analyst 
9. CNC (computer numerical control machines, e.g., lathes) Machinist 
10. Marketing Manager

I know a friend who though not from an IT department, performs IT tasks for his group. He can claim to perform four (maybe more) of the jobs listed above. He must hate his job, I thought. When asked about it, he said the respect of his peers and co-workers keep him going. The top heavy bureaucracy bears down on the staff and only the deep camaraderie and the common desire to contribute make the employees function. Wow, their director of IT must be hating his/her job more, I assumed. On the contrary, my friend says the managers love their jobs as much as the staff hate them. The clueless supervisors/managers can go on leave full time and it won't make a difference. My friend hopes they give it a try.

Facebook and Twitter in the PNoy government

With his presidential campaign successfully fueled by social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, PNoy will now try to tap those tools in his good governance campaigns. The first government unit to try to use them was the Supreme Court. It was also the first to deactivate its use. The Supreme Court is not giving up though on Twitter. It says it's still tweaking its account.

The Department of Finance today announced it will soon launch its own social media accounts. The department hopes to receive from the public some leads in its anti-tax evasion and smuggling campaigns.

These departments are definitely not the first to use social networking media to reach out to the public. It has been tried before but the rigid bureaucracy nipped it in the bud. Mid level bureaucrats are unable to explain to their superiors the utility of the social media in disseminating information although many of them use them personally. It is only now in PNoy's time, with new blood being infused in the top, that social media gets a second look. With the mid level bureaucrats' Malabanan mentality, expect many to suddenly like those tools now and suggest their use to management.

Didn't they know resistance is futile?

The bureaucracy for the bureaucracy is very-crazy!

Bureaucracy has been defined as the combined organizational structure, procedures, protocols, and set of regulations in place to manage  activity, usually in large organizations. It is often represented by standardized procedure (rule-following) that guides the execution of most or all processes within the body; formal division of powers; hierarchy; and relationships, intended to anticipate needs and improve efficiency (source: Wikipedia).

Has bureaucracy realized its intentions? Judging from the way the government sector is vilified by its public, the answer is an obvious no. Why so? The government bureaucrats get much obsessed with the rules, regulations, and procedures that they readily lost sight of what they were supposed to do in the first place.  The process becomes more important than the output supposed to be produced.

If bureaucracy is harsh on the public, it is much more so on the government employees themselves. Imagine a bureaucracy for the bureaucracy. It is very-crazy.
(images from http://www.powayusd.com and http://positivesharing.com/)

Man got paid for 5 years without working a single day

An Illinois man got US$469,000 in paychecks without working for a single day. Anthony Armatys of Palatine, Illinois, pleaded guilty Monday on one count of theft. He accepted a job with Avaya Inc. in September 2002, but later changed his mind. The company's computer system did not remove his name from the payroll. Paychecks were deposited into his bank account until February 2007, when Avaya auditors discovered the mistake.

Could this ever happen in the Philippine government sector? With contractualization of labor, employees are forced to take 6-months contracts, subject to renewal. But there are indeed 15-30 employees, those who show up only on paydays. There are many of these employees especially in the local government sector. In general the government workforce cannot deny that many get paid without working. All they have to do is show up. That is called management.

The Ant

From an email. Click on play to advance slides manually.

Ant - Management Lesson

The Ant
A Fable...
Or
May be not....

Every day, a small ant arrives at work very early and starts work immediately.

She produces a lot and she was happy.

The Chief, a lion, was surprised to see that the ant was working without supervision.

He thought if the ant can produce so much without supervision, wouldn’t she produce even more if she had a supervisor!

So he recruited a cockroach who had extensive experience as supervisor and who was famous for writing excellent reports.

The cockroach’s first decision was to set up a clocking in attendance system.

He also needed a secretary to help him write and type his reports and …

… he  recruited a spider, who managed the archives and monitored all phone calls.

The lion was delighted with the cockroach's reports and asked him to produce graphs to describe production rates and to analyze trends, so that he could use them for presentations at Board meetings.

So the cockroach had to buy a new computer and a laser printer and …

… recruited a fly to manage the IT department.

The ant, who had once been so productive and relaxed, hated this new plethora of paperwork and meetings which used up most of her time…!

The lion came to the conclusion that it was high time to nominate a person in charge of the department where the ant worked.

The position was given to the cicada, whose first decision was to buy a carpet and an ergonomic chair for his office.

The new person in charge, the cicada, also needed a computer and a personal assistant, who he brought from his previous department, to help him prepare a Work and Budget Control Strategic Optimization Plan …

The Department where the ant works is now a sad place, where nobody laughs anymore and everybody has become upset …

It was at that time that the cicada convinced the boss, the lion, of the absolute necessity to start a climatic study of the environment.

Having reviewed the charges for running the ant’s department, the lion found out that the production was much less than before.

So he recruited the owl, a prestigious and renowned consultant to carry out an audit and suggest solutions.

The owl spent three months in the department and came up with an enormous report, in several volumes, that concluded: “The department is overstaffed …”

Guess who the lion fires first?

The ant, of course, because she “showed lack of motivation and had a negative attitude".

You must have seen so many ants and you may be one among them

NB:
The characters in this fable are fictitious; any resemblance to real people or  facts within the Corporation is pure coincidence…

The end
Adapted from Portuguese by PR. Obrigado Mário.

Autonomy + Mastery + Purpose = Real Change

The above video shows Dan Pink talking about motivation and rewards at the TED conference. He argues that the traditional carrot-and-stick approach is only suitable for defined tasks with a clear set of rules to follow. However, rewards do not work for tasks that require any kind of thinking.

He says that for real change to occur employees need to have a sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose. Autonomy is the urge to direct our own lives; mastery refers to the desire to get better at something that matters; and purpose is the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.

"...There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And here is what science knows. One: Those 20th century rewards, those motivators we think are the natural part of business, do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances. Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity. Three: The secret to high performance isn't rewards and punishments, but that unseen intrinsic drive. The drive to do things for their own sake. The drive to do things cause they matter...

"...The science confirms what we know in our hearts. So, if we repair this mismatch between what science knows and what business does, If we bring our motivation, notions of motivation into the 21st century, if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology of carrots and sticks, we can strengthen our businesses, ... and maybe, maybe, maybe we can change the world."

Just do it.

The passivity and incompetence in Philippine bureaucracy can be partly traced to its segurista attitude. The tendency of upper management to be aristocratic and dictatorial together with their underlings' sipsip ways (unhealthy managing up) likewise lead to the lethargy. Many are unwilling to take initiative outside of what upper management hints, wary of their bosses' capacity to hold grudges.

So risk-aversion is ever the order of the day. Maybe the workforce should revisit the Grace Hopper quotations "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" and "A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what a ship is built for."

We need to remember that "winners take imperfect action while losers are still perfecting the plan" (Gina Graves).  Or as the commercial says "Just do it".

Signs of incompetent managers

Incompetence - When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can do.

.o0O0o..o0O0o..o0O0o.

There is an article by Margaret Heffernan for FastCompany.com which lists the traits of incompetent managers. Her list includes:

Bias against action: There are always plenty of reasons not to take a decision, reasons to wait for more information, more options, more opinions. But real leaders display a consistent bias for action. People who don’t make mistakes generally don’t make anything. Legendary ad man David Ogilvy argued that a good decision today is worth far more than a perfect decision next month. Beware prevaricators.

Secrecy: "We can’t tell the staff," is something I hear managers say repeatedly. They defend this position with the argument that staff will be distracted, confused or simply unable to comprehend what is happening in the business. If you treat employees like children, they will behave that way -- which means trouble. If you treat them like adults, they may just respond likewise. Very few matters in business must remain confidential and good managers can identify those easily. The lover of secrecy has trouble being honest and is afraid of letting peers have the information they need to challenge him. He would rather defend his position than advance the mission. Secrets make companies political, anxious and full of distrust.

Over-sensitivity: "I know she’s always late, but if I raise the subject, she’ll be hurt." An inability to be direct and honest with staff is a critical warning sign. Can your manager see a problem, address it headlong and move on? If not, problems won’t get resolved, they’ll grow. When managers say staff is too sensitive, they are usually describing themselves. Wilting violets don’t make great leaders. Weed them out. Interestingly, secrecy and over-sensitivity almost always travel together. They are a bias against honesty.

Love of procedure: Managers who cleave to the rule book, to points of order and who refer to colleagues by their titles have forgotten that rules and processes exist to expedite business, not ritualize it. Love of procedure often masks a fatal inability to prioritize -- a tendency to polish the silver while the house is burning.

Focus on small tasks: Another senior salesperson I hired always produced the most perfect charts, forecasts and spreadsheets. She was always on time, her data completely up-to-date. She would always volunteer for projects in which she had no core expertise -- marketing plans, financial forecasts, meetings with bank managers, the office move. It was all displacement activity to hide the fact that she could not do her real job.

Addiction to consultants: A common -- but expensive -- way to put off making decisions is to hire consultants who can recommend several alternatives. While they’re figuring these out, managers don’t have to do anything. And when the consultant’s choices are presented, the ensuing debates can often absorb hours, days, months. Meanwhile, your organization is poorer but it isn’t any smarter. When the consultant leaves, he takes your money and his increased expertise out the door with him.

Long hours: In my experience, bad managers work very long hours. They think this is a brand of heroism but it is probably the single biggest hallmark of incompetence. To work effectively, you must prioritize and you must pace yourself. The manager who boasts of late nights, early mornings and no time off cannot manage himself so you’d better not let him manage anyone else.

Inertia not initiative prevails in bureaucracy

This quotes Bob Nelson, author of the best-selling book, 1001 Ways to Take Initiative at Work, ISBN: 076111405X

[start of quote]
"Taking the initiative" can mean many things--tapping inner creativity, tackling a persistent problem, capitalizing on opportunities, or creating ways to improve customer services or current work environment. By taking initiative in any of these ways, employees can elevate their visibility in the organization and greatly enhance their chances for recognition, learning, advancement, pay raises and bonuses, as well as have a more meaningful and exciting time at work.

Here are some ways any employee can take greater initiative in his or her job, voiced in a way that you could give directly to your employees or managers. It's one thing to tell your employees to take greater initiative, but another to provide them with easy and clear ways to do it.

Ways To Take More Initiative In Your Job

Thinking Outside the Box: Innovation--thinking outside the box--is the spark that keeps organizations moving ever onward and upward. To think outside the box, look for new combinations, ask "what if" or develop "what-if" scenarios, consider approaches you've never considered before, brainstorm with others, and be a champion of new ideas.

Doing Your Homework: Preparation is often the key to success in any endeavor. You will be more successful in convincing others that what you believe is the right thing, if you are armed and ready with the facts. Taking the initiative to do your homework means doing the basic research necessary to back up your claims, such as obtaining necessary information, determining costs and benefits, making calculations, and/or gaining buy-in from others who will be affected.

Taking Action--Capitalizing on Opportunities: Taking action can often be a scary proposition. It would be much easier to wait for your boss to make the decision and take the responsibility to tell you what to do and when to do it. However, progressive companies realize that they need employees at all levels who are willing and encouraged to take chances and to make decisions--and be willing to take responsibility for their actions.

Making Improvements: One of the easiest--and most effective--ways for employees to take initiative is to be on the lookout for ways to improve the work processes, products, services, and systems that are a vital part of how the organization does its business. In fact, the closer you are to an organization's actual product, the greater the chance is that you have more daily contact with its real business--its customers, clients, products, and services--than do those who are higher up the ladder.

Perseverance and Persistence: Employees who excel at taking initiative usually must also persist in the support of the ideas and actions in which they believe. This type of initiative can, at times, include overcoming the resistance of higher-ups or of entrenched policies and systems that work to ensure the maintenance of the status quo. It often takes a certain degree of courage to take initiative in the first place. But to persist--even over the objections of your manager or others--takes even more commitment and courage.

Taking initiative can be as simple as asking "what if." So, the next time you're doing a routine task, remember that it's the person who does the job who is in the best position to know how to do the job better--whether this improvement means identifying new ways to cut costs, how to make improvements to the way products are developed in your company, how a process might be streamlined, or how to enhance the level of services your customer receives.
[end quote]

---

More from the book:

"All progress is made in defiance of management." - Bob Woodward, Reporter, The Washington Post

"New ideas... are not born in a conforming environment." - Roger von Oech, President, Creative Think, Inc.

"Be Proactive, Not reactive.... Asking for forgiveness is easier than asking for permission. If you know what needs to be done, do it now and explain yourself later."

"Our people...are responsible for their own product and its quality. We expect them to act like owners." - Gordon Forward, President, Chaparral Steel

---

"The four cornerstones of character on which the structure of this nation was built are: Initiative, Imagination, Individuality and Independence."  - American war hero Eddie Riclenbacker. Do we have those to rebuild this nation? Ever wondered why despite all the new idealistic graduates that enter the Philippine bureaucracy each year, the bureaucracy remains the way it is - sluggish, bloated, stagnant, so full of itself? It is because the well entrenched bureaucracy does not understand what initiative is as pointed out by Nelson. The bureaucracy is too mindful of itself defending the status quo. To them the only initiative that matters is the initiative that preserves the present order. Inertia prevails. I call it INERTIATIVE - the readiness to preserve the current comfort level.

The fresh graduates brimming with idealism are slowly gnawed up by the system. They mature into zombies themselves gobbling up succeeding idealists that come. It is a vicious spiraling cycle with no end in sight unless we start to care and be heroes.

The Peter Principle proven

People who perform well at one level get be promoted on the assumption that they will also do well at another level. Common sense tells us so - a worker who is competent at a given level will also be competent at a higher level of the hierarchy. So it may well seem a good idea to promote such an individual to the next level. Or is it? The problem is that common sense can be counterintuitive. A new position requires different skills, thus the competence at one level may not necessarily mean equal competence in doing another task. We remember in Management 101 this seeming paradox known as Peter's Principle, after the Canadian psychologist Laurence Peter who succinctly described it thus:

"All new members in a hierarchical organization climb the hierarchy until they reach their level of maximum incompetence."

This could lead to the spread of incompetence throughout an organization. But is there a better way of choosing individuals for promotion?

Lately mathematical models are used to take into account collective behavior to discover features often counterintuitive and difficult to predict following the common sense. Scientists study the Peter Principle process within a general context where different promotion strategies compete with others for maximizing the global efficiency of a given hierarchical system.

Alessandro Pluchino, et al, Italian physicists/scientists, have simulated the Peter Principle practice with an agent-based model. Their results (02 July 2009), contained in a paper submitted to Elsevier Science, indicate that the Peter Principle indeed leads to a significant reduction in the efficiency of an organization, as incompetency spreads through it.

So is there a better way of choosing individuals for promotion? Pluchino and co. say there may be better ways.  Their model shows that two other strategies outperform the conventional method of promotion. One is to alternately promote first the most competent and then the least competent individuals. Another way is to promote individuals at random. Both of these methods improve, or at least do not diminish, the efficiency of an organization.

Their simulation showed that what Peter said in 1969 can happen. What the new study does not show is the potential decrease in morale (not just efficiency) due to the Peter Principle. The lower morale can have a multiplier effect in further bringing down efficiency. On the other hand, the study also did not take into account the possible decrease in overall morale if the competent ones are not promoted at all and if promotion was random or given to the least deserving. That defies the reward system and is heartless. As it is, promotions should be made regardless of the probable Peter Principle backlash. If and when the Peter Principle manifests itself, top management should be able to counteract. Top management surely does not want the Peter Principle to happen, but when it does, it must do something about it.

Bureaucracy: Red Tape and Other Negative By-products

This post is lifted entirely from Busting Bureaucracy, a website that attempts to eliminate the crushing, demoralizing and innovation-sapping torments of too much bureaucracy. I'll add  experiences recounted to me by some friends in future posts.

Bureaucracy: Red Tape and Other Negative By-products
Inside the organization, employees live with the red tape and some very negative by-products of the bureaucratic form.

When employees are asked to give examples of things they think of as being bureaucratic, they frequently cite the following:
• Each department has its own agenda, and departments don’t cooperate to help other departments get the job done.
• The head of a department feels responsible first for protecting the department, its people and its budget, even before helping to achieve the organization’s mission.
• There is political in-fighting, with executives striving for personal advancement and power.
• Ideas can be killed because they come from the "wrong" person. Ideas will be supported because the are advanced by the "right" person.
• People in their own department spend much of their time protecting their department’s "turf."
• People in other departments spend so much time protecting their "turf" that they don’t have time to do the work they are responsible to do.
• They are treated as though they can’t be trusted.
• They are treated as though they don’t have good judgment.
• They are treated as though they won’t work hard unless pushed.
• Their work environment includes large amounts of unhealthy stress.
• The tendency of the organization is to grow top-heavy, while the operating units of the organization tend to be too lean.
• Promotions are more likely to be made on the basis of politics, rather than actual achievements on the job.
• Top managers are dangerously ill-informed and insulated from what is happening on the front lines or in "the field."
• Information is hoarded or kept secret and used as the basis for power.
• Data is used selectively, or distorted to make performance look better than it really is.
• Internal communications to employees are distorted to reflect what the organization would like to be, rather than what it really is.
• Mistakes and failures are denied, covered up or ignored.
• Responsibility for mistakes and failure tends to be denied, and where possible, blame is shifted to others.
• Decisions are made by larger and larger groups, so no one can be held accountable.
• Decisions are made based on the perceived desires of superiors, rather than concern for mission achievement.
• Policies, practices and procedures tend to grow endlessly and to be followed more and more rigidly.
• Senior managers become so insulated from the realities of the front line that they may use stereotypical thinking and out-of-date experience in making decisions.
• Quantitative measurements are favored over qualitative measurements, so the concentration is on quantities of output, with less and less concern for quality of output.
• Both employees and customers are treated more as numbers than people. Personal issues and human needs are ignored or discounted.

The Lucifer Effect in Life, Not for Nothing

The story of 4th episode/2nd season of my new favorite TV drama, Life (episode title Not for Nothing)(CS-Origin, Ch31 Destiny Cable) is loosely based on the Phillipi Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971. In the experiment the subjects (college students) were given roles either as guards or as prisoners. Zimbardo wanted to see how much the uniform and the stereotypical role affects normal people. Under minor pressure from their "warden," the "guards" quickly and inventively became abusive and sadistic. The "prisoners", who could have walked out at any time, showed extreme passivity and depression and put up with the abuse. The experiment was cut short because of the to brutality put upon on the "prisoners". In the Life episode a student-"guard" mysteriously got killed (remember that it is a crime drama).

The "guards" merely thought themselves to be "doing their jobs." The "prisoners" quickly came to see themselves as "helpless." Until consultant Christina Maslach condemned it and caused the end of the experiment, Zimbardo, the "warden," did not realize the abuse he was indirectly causing, thinking it was a voluntary behavior of students under contract to participate.

Zimbardo chronicled the experiment in his book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil”.  He uses his findings to explain what makes good people do bad things, how moral people can be seduced to act immorally, where the line is that separates good from evil, and who is in danger of crossing it. He then uses his theories to explain some of the worst examples of man’s inhumanity to man -- the Rwanda massacre, and even more recently, the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

Zimbardo says that the right “situational” forces and group dynamics can work in concert to make decent men and women abandon their moral scruples and cooperate in oppression and violence - bringing out the worst in them. Thus, the Lucifer Effect. The situational forces need not be of an extraordinary nature: wearing a uniform, or dressing in ways that conceal identity, and insecure individuals acquiring new found petty powers. We are reminded of Lord Acton's "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

There is a thin line line between good and evil. Every man has the potential for engaging in evil deeds despite a generally moral upbringing. There is also the “evil of inaction”, a new form of evil that supports its perpetrators, by knowing but not acting to challenge them. Which in turn reminds us of Edmund Burke's "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Winnie Monsod looks at what is happening in the Philippines from a Lucifer Effect perspective. With non-stop news of corruption, military and police cruelty or indifference, there is a tendency to go with the flow. This may explain what some call the People Power fatigue.

Are we then hopeless? No, not at all. Zimbardo argues that not only are we capable of resisting evil, but that we can even teach ourselves to act heroically. We can resist unjust authorities, we can break corrupt systems - we can be heroes. Zimbardo gives us some tips on how to defy the Lucifer Effect. Here are rules 18-19.

 18. Rules are abstractions for controlling behavior and eliciting compliance and conformity – challenge them when necessary: ask, who made the rule? What purpose does it serve? Who maintains it? Does it make sense in this specific situation? What happens if you violate it? Insist that the rule be made explicit, so it cannot be modified and altered over time to suit the influence agent.

19. When developing causal attributions for unusual behavior – yours or others – never rush to the dispositional, always start by considering possible situational forces and variables that are the true causal agent, and seek to highlight them and to change them where possible.

Being an ordinary hero by defying the Lucifer Effect is doing the right thing when it is much easier to keep quiet. We need to have the stuff of which ordinary heroes are made of. There is hope. Be a hero.

Little things I learned about working in IT in the government

A blog/forum I frequent listed 10 dirty little secrets you should know about working in IT. I experienced some of the things in the list. Here's my own:
The salary grade in IT is better compared to many other positions. The pay for IT professionals is better than the ridiculously low salary grade they give to other positions. In the Philippine government, Information Technology Officers are 1-2 salary grades higher than other officers, although they are still paid lower than those in the private sector.
It will be your fault when users make silly errors. This will happen often. It is human nature (or public sector nature) to blame others for their own "kapalpakan".  This happens often when you introduce a new  hardware or software system that is beyond their comfort zone.
You will go from goat to hero and back again multiple times within any given day. When you are able to fix the silly error they make (see previous) - you are instantly a hero, that is until their next silly mistake.
Your co-workers will use you as personal tech support for their home PCs. Your co-workers will treat you as their personal technical support personnel for their home PCs. They will ask you about how to deal with the virus on their personal PC; ask you how to upload photos and videos, etc. A sufficiently higher officer on the pecking order can even ask you to install wi-fi in his home.
Managers and consultants are quick to take all the credit when things work well and will blame you when things go wrong. Like in the blog/forum, consultants here will try to put the blame on you by arguing that their solution works great elsewhere so it must be a problem with the local IT infrastructure. Managers, on the other hand, curiously, are often on the consultants' side and will try to adjust local processes to accomodate the consultants. Managers always try to save face and their hide before the really big bosses.
You’ll spend far more time babysitting old technologies than implementing new ones. This is related to the next one. The Philippines, despite the onset of technological advances, still maintain a lot of legacy systems. IT personnel spend a lot of time maintaining established technologies than implementing new ones. One reason is the budget, there is simply no new money to acquire the newer technologies. Another reason is some older people do not want to wander away from their comfort zones.
Veteran IT professionals are often the biggest roadblock to implementing new technologies. Sometimes, upgrading or replacing software or infrastructure is more cost effective. However, one of the largest roadblocks to migrating to new technologies is not the budget; it’s the veteran techies in the IT department. Once they have something up and running, they are reluctant to change it. You can't teach old dogs new tricks. Specially when they are downright and comfortable where they are.
Some IT professionals deploy technologies that do more to consolidate their own power than to help the business. When they don't want to wander off their comfort zone, they secure it further. Some IT managers implement technologies based on how well those technologies make the agency dependent on them.
IT pros use jargon to confuse nontechnical managers and hide the fact that they screwed up. All IT pros screw things up once in a while. However, not all IT pros, as the blog suggest are good at admitting when they make a mistake. Much more the Filipino. Given that many top managers are not techie enough, IT pros use jargon to confuse them (and cover up the truth) when explaining a problem. The irony is the jargon is equally confusing to the older (veteran) IT pros who use them. A perfect case of the blind leading the blind.

Five mistakes managers make most often

My guest blog, from TechRepublic:

Author: Toni Bowers
Some management mistakes are so common that you can actually compile them into a list. If you’re a manager struggling to find out why your team is dysfunctional, take a look at the behaviors in this list and see if any look familiar.

1. Not communicating with the team. I know, I know, you’ve seen the advice for communicating so often you want to smack someone. I want to smack myself for saying it so often. But you know what? Unless you’re on the front line heading into a military battle, you have to take time to communicate with your team members. You don’t have to pass on every shred of information you’ve gotten from upper management on a new initiative, but you have to give them enough information to know why they’re being asked to do what they’re being asked to do. The more information your team members have, the more ownership they’ll feel in the process, and the better they’ll perform.
2. Continually focusing on the negative. Thinking in negative terms is a common result from working in a reactive environment, which IT tends to be. In that environment, IT spends most of its time keeping the negative to a minimum with goals such as decreasing network downtime or putting out fires. A good leader has to make an effort to recognize the positive. (How about mentioning increased uptime?) Recognize your people for the forward progress they make and not just for their efforts to keep things from getting worse.
3. Changing policy due to one person. The term “team” makes some managers think they have to treat everyone the same way. This is true in many cases, but if one person has a performance issue, don’t take across-the-board measures to correct it just because you’re afraid of confronting that one team member. If one team member is failing to complete some duties in a timely manner, don’t introduce a policy forcing the whole team to submit weekly progress reports. Deal only with the one with the issues.
4. Not understanding the needs and concerns of your team. Some IT leaders find it virtually impossible to tell their bosses that something can’t be done. The team’s bandwidth or overall state of mind takes a backseat to real or imagined glory of being the guy who “gets things done.” Good managers don’t over-promise on their team’s behalf.
5. Never admitting you’re wrong or never taking responsibility. There’s risk involved in being a manager of a team. And that risk is, if your team fails at something, you should and will be the one held accountable. It doesn’t matter if one team member screwed something up; your job was to manage the overall process of all the team members, and you didn’t do it. So suck it up and own up to that. On a related note, if one of your actions caused a kink in a project, admit it. It’s ironic but not owning up to a problem damages your credibility with your team more than simply saying, “I was wrong.”

The difference between leader and manager

Abraham Zaleznik wrote in an article from the Harvard Business Review in 1977:
"The difference between managers and leaders, he wrote, lies in the conceptions they hold, deep in the psyches, of chaos and order. Managers embrace process, seek stability and control, and instinctively try to resolve problems quickly - sometimes before they fully understand a problem’s significance. Leaders, in contrast, tolerate chaos and lack of structure and are willing to delay closure in order to understand the issues more fully in this way, Zalenznik argued, business leaders have much more in common with artists, scientists and other creative thinkers than they do with managers. Organizations need both managers and leaders to succeed, but developing both requires a reduced focus on logic and strategic exercises in favour of an environment where creativity and imagination are permitted to flourish."

Warren Bennis, in his book "On Becoming a Leader", writes what he considers the differences between managers and leaders:

-The manager administers; the leader innovates.
-The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.
-The manager maintains; the leader develops.
-The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.
-The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
-The manager accepts reality; the leader investigates it.
-The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.
-The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.
-The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his or her eye on the horizon. The manager imitates; the leader originates.
-The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.
-The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.
-The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

I showed my friend an article on Bennis' book and we both agree that work involving developmental, creative processes need leaders; while work that go by set standard procedures require more management. My friend is now a bit enlightened though he still wonders how their management can steer their projects full steam ahead from their drifting position.

Management leadership

I have a friend who has resolved not to call the attention of his boss on anything because it always either meets inaction or worse he gets blamed for it. He thinks his bosses are too concerned with processes and control, (purposely or unwittingly) failing to provide project directions. That's why, my friend concludes, their projects never go far from the planning stages. To my mind, my friend's managers fail as a leader. Clearly there's a difference between leading and managing.

Gen. Colin Powell, in a leadership primer, said that "The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership." Here's the primer.

Quotations from Chairman Powell: A Leadership Primer

1. Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off.
2. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.
3. Don't be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often possess more data than judgment. Elites can become so inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death as soon as they are nicked by the real world.
4. Don't be afraid to challenge the pros, even in their own backyard.
5. Never neglect details. When everyone's mind is dulled or distracted the leader must be doubly vigilant.
6. You don't know what you can get away with until you try.
7. Keep looking below surface appearances. Don't shrink from doing so (just) because you might not like what you find.
8. Organization doesn't really accomplish anything. Plans don't accomplish anything, either. Theories of management don't much matter. Endeavors succeed or fail because of the people involved. Only by attracting the best people will you accomplish great deeds.
9. Organization charts and hence titles count for next to nothing.
10. Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position goes, your ego goes with it.
11. Fit no stereotypes. Don't chase the latest management fads. The situation dictates which approach best accomplishes the team's mission.
12. Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.
13. Powell's Rules for Picking People" - Look for intelligence and judgment and, most critically, a capacity to anticipate, to see around corners. Also look for loyalty, integrity, a high energy drive, a balanced ego and the drive to get things done.
14. Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand.
15. Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired." Part II: "Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut.
16. The commander in the field is always right and the rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise.
17. Have fun in your command. Don't always run at a breakneck pace. Take leave when you've earned it. Spend time with your families. Corollary: Surround yourself with people who take their work seriously, but not themselves, those who work hard and play hard.
18. Command is lonely.

A long awaited revolution: Our own fight against the “fannulloni”

An Italian economist and cabinet member (the equivalent of our Civil Service Commission), Renato Brunetta started a 'revolution' within the their public administration. He started a personal war against the fannulloni – sluggards – of the Italian workforce: “In a few months there has been an almost 50% drop in the number of sick days and I’m no magician”, he said during a press conference. On a yearly base, that means 60.000 workers were added to this sector, without spending a dime.

The civil service is there to help citizens in their interactions with the government and make things easier for everyone. But in many places the government service is some sort of safe haven for people who don’t like working. This leads into endless queues in public offices and an enormous waste of public money. Governments, in fact, allocates billions to public sector wages but still productivity level has been consistently less than the private sector. Government employees tend to produce less than private workers do.

In order to reverse this trend of inefficiency, Brunetta revised the Italian public sector pay scheme. The salary is now made up of two parts, one is fixed while the other is linked to productivity, usually between about 10 and 15 euro. Brunetta made it clear that, if a public worker is at home due to illness, the second part will be reduced.

Journalists contend that “It is too early to tell if Mr. Brunetta's reforms have revolutionised national behaviour. Italians have a tendency to react swiftly and prudently to draconian new laws, but then to slide quietly back into their traditional ways when vigilance slackens and the immediate danger has passed”.

That may be true, but Brunetta’s predecessor, Luigi Nicolais, raised the wages of over 200,000 ministerial employees by 101 euro per month. He also introduced a new productivity based system which recognized the hours of overtime work, by increasing the salary, without any guarantee that the workers would actually increase their level of productivity. This, however, proved to be a rash move that did not result in any improvement.

Here in the Philippines, we have the Salary Standardization Laws. Some agencies even implement automatic 1-step annual pay increases and pay for overtime work. But overtime pay is counterproductive and accounts for greater inefficiency as more resources are infused to achieve the same output. We need our own revolution against our own sluggards.

Two wrongs don't make a right: Hypocrisy on the ides of March

Moral education taught us that two wrongs don't make a right. One should never assume that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. One cannot justify a wrong action by pointing to another wrong action of the accuser.

Why? Doesn't the two negatives (wrongs) cancel each other out? Isn't it a mathematical fact that multiplying two negative numbers produce a positive number?  The two wrongs don't cancel out beause this isn't math.

Text book logic tell us that tu quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. Tu quoque, Brute, fili mi, by the way, is what Caesar said before he was assassinated. Literally it means "you too?". Shakespeare wrote "et tu?".

However, not all tu quoque arguments are fallacious. They are also used to show inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge.

The ever reliable Google brings us to the Wikipedia page, and I quote:

A legitimate use of the you-too version might be:
    A makes criticism P.
    A is also guilty of P.
    Therefore, the criticism is confusing because it does not reflect A's actual values or beliefs.

Example: "You say that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances, but support killing in self-defense; you are either being inconsistent, or you believe that under some circumstances taking a human life is justified."

Immediately ascribing an argument as tu quoque may be just a ploy to hide the original wrong. If a wrong has not been tolerated early on, the succeeding wrongs might not have happened. This inconstency, or uneven and selective application of moral standards, is pure and plain hypocrisy.

Equal application of policy is akin to equal application of the law. The US Supreme Court, in a case about an unconstitutional application of the law due to violation of the guarantee of equal protection, reasoned: “Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discrimina­tions between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of rights is still within the prohibition of the Constitution.”