The SNAFU Principle

Ever wonder why the bureaucracy always fouls up everything. Here's an explanation floating on the web.

The SNAFU Principle

In the beginning was the Plan.

And then came the Assumptions.

And the Assumptions were without form.

And the Plan was without substance.

And darkness was upon the face of the Workers. And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of shit, and it stinks."

And the Workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung, and we can't live with the smell."

And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."

And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."

And the Directors spoke among themselves, saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."

And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."

And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company with very powerful effects."

And the President looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good.

And the Plan became Policy.

And this is how shit happens.

“Pag gusto may paraan, pag ayaw may dahilan”

The word ‘bureaucratic’ has a negative connotation. I bet Weber did not intend it to be that way. When something with a positive connotation is described as bureaucratic, it becomes an oxymoron. So we have oxymora like “bureaucratic wisdom”, “bureaucratic efficiency”, and “bureaucratic intelligence”.

Just like in basic math, the negative connotation of bureaucracy gives a neutral word a negative connotation when described as such. So “bureaucratic procedure” and “bureaucratic layer” have negative connotations.

But unlike in math, when something with a negative connotation is described as bureaucratic, the double negative does not resolve to a positive connotation. On the contrary, the double negative resolves to a negative. It affirms even more the negative connotation. So we have “bureaucratic mess”, “bureaucratic idiocy”, and “bureaucratic snafu”, which brings to mind a terrible mess, tremendous stupidity, and monumental foul-up .

Bureaucracy is characterized by the system of control based on rational rules--that is, as Weber nobly thought, rules meant to design and regulate the whole organization on the basis of technical knowledge and with the aim of achieving maximum efficiency.

But why has the bureaucracy come to this negative connotation? First let us understand how bureaucracy works. Bureaucracy works like this – if you are given a job/task, get an assistant to delegate that task to. If there is no assistant or deputy at the moment, create one or better yet a task force to study how to give you one. The bureaucracy grew leaps and bounds because of this.

With the increasing complexity and bureaucratization due to insatiable appetite for expansion of the workforce, all power is concentrated at the top, in the hands of an organizational elite. The organizational elite always has as its primary aim the consolidation of its own power position. Whenever this aim clashes with other goals of the workforce, the elite will sacrifice the others rather than jeopardize its own privileges. Kaya uso ang laglagan, at kaya hindi nagkakamali ang boss.Organizational elites have a common interest – maintain the status quo, thus they form a strong power group determined to oppose any demand for change.

Sociologists observe that while Weber thought that rules and control of all actions would mean reliability and predictability, the rules and control also lead to lack of flexibility and the tendency to turn means into ends. The emphasis on conformity and strict observance of the rules induces the one to internalize them. Instead of simply means, procedural rules become ends in themselves. The goal becomes the adherence to rules. The instrumental and formalistic aspect of the bureaucratic role becomes more important than the substantive one, the achievement of the main organizational goals. The predictability and precision envisioned by Weber becomes dysfunction.

A government corporation I am very familiar with is led by an Administrator. The Administrator has two deputies. They also have four assistant administrators; the first three administrators handle the three main functions of the agency: licensing, technical services, and marketing. The fourth assistant administrator handles corporate administration. This means the bureaucracy grew so large that it now needs a full time assistant administrator to handle it alongside the core business functions. Another example is the government financial institution tasked with policy creation and supervision of institutions. It has two deputies to the top boss; one deputy for policy and another for supervision. But wait, there’s more. It has another deputy, again for corporate resources.

Organizational elites are primarily interested in the pursuit of their narrow interests and the consolidation and improvement of their own power position, even at the expense of wider organizational interests. There is a saying: “Pag gusto may paraan, pag ayaw may dahilan”. Organizational elites can manipulate the rules in order to enhance its own prerogatives. Because rules obviously can never cover everything, "areas of uncertainty" always emerge that constitute the focal points around which collective conflicts become acute and instances of direct dominance and subordination develop. The group that, by its position in the occupational structure, can control the "unregulated" area, has a great strategic advantage that it naturally uses in order to improve its power position and to ensure a greater share of organizational rewards. (some material from the Encyclopedia Brittanica).

Arnel Pineda with Journey sings at SuperBowl XLIII

I am pleasantly surprised to learn that Journey featuring Arnel Pineda performed at the pre-game concert of the SuperBowl 43. The SuperBowl is one of the most highly anticipated sports events in the US. With this exposure, the comebacking band is once again at the limelight and back in the consciousness of the American fans. Never mind if the pre-game show is not as talked about as the half-time show. The half-time concert featured the Boss, Bruce Springsteen. Arnel can now claim that he 'opened' for the Boss. From the dingy bars in Manila to being watched by millions in a mega event, what a Journey!

Nadal's wedgie is his lucky charm

I knew it. I knew that Rafa's equal-to-double-marathon semifinal win will serve him in good stead in the finals. I also knew that Roger's easy semifinal drubbing of Roddick is not the best way to prepare for the championship. I also thought that tonight's game will be anticlimactic. It wasn't. It had enough drama and it also affirmed Rafa's status as no. 1.

Nadal has definitely matured a lot. He is poised to stay as no. 1 for a long time. Federer's hopes of matching Sampras' record lies on him not facing Nadal in the finals. For Nadal is simply tougher mentally. He wills himself to win. Roger is simply too cool and emotionless. He needs to show more angst if not 'angas'.

He needs to be hungry again.

I believe that what gets Rafa ever on the edge is his perpetual wedgie. He is obviously uncomfortable with it, orever adjusting it. The process keeps him on his toes, not giving him time to relax. His wedgie keeps him on the move.

Australian Open

San Miguel Beer is not fighting for the crown, something that is sadly consistent with Siot at the helm. The Phoenix Suns lost to contrapelo Spurs. My favorite teams are again losers. So I turn to tennis for that sports watching thrill. I was rooting for Verdasco (who he? against Rafa) because I want the Fed to have an easy road to matching Pete's record. I was watching a live streaming feed at the office because I had to stay late due to bureaucratic wisdom (an oxymoron). I did not mind the wait for some minor functionaries to do their job because the match was close and interesting.

The match was still on by the time I got home. Rafa by then was ahead 2 sets to 1. After my dinner, Verdaso has managed to even up at 2 sets apiece. The match has been on for over 5 hours. It is a classic for the ages. Just when Rafa seemed to be shade tougher, Verdaso took risks with some magic shots to pull even. Verdasco, seeded 14th, took chances to hold serve although it was apparent that Rafa had an easier time to hold his own.

The tennis world better be ready for Verdasco. He is strong and mentally tough, something that Novak the Joke is proving he is not. But then Rafa did not get to be the world's number one for nothing. He is unrattled, he was more bothered by the perpetual wedgie he got. I wonder why he does not switch to more conventional tennis shorts. In the end, I think Verdaso produced more winners but also had more unforced errors. He had 2 double faults in the last game and the last one cost him the match. It was a brilliant, nerve wracking match. It is unfortunate that somebody has to win. This classic will undoubtedly toughen up the two even more. Rafa will recover physically in time for Sunday's finals. He will be much tougher after facing through adversity and winning.

I now doubt the Fed's chances to catch up with Pete's record but I will still be rooting for him this Sunday. After this 5-set thriller the championship game can be anticlimactic.