Trust v Control

Control is by far away the easiest option. Lay down your parameters, set up monitoring systems and then apply punitive measures on selected defaulters. In principle. In practice entirely a different matter. Parameters have to hit a broadband of human activity which, because it is human and we are all unique, has to cover a wide range nuances. Being human each of us will challenge the parameter as to why it does not apply to us because our own circumstance is different. As individuals we need to be differentiated from the crowd. By claiming that difference we assert our distinction from the crowd we are lumped into. Monitoring has to find that fine line between being too overt, thrusting control too upfront, challenging all comers to defy it or so covert as to be missed, encouraging mass defiance. Then punitive measures have to be applied to carefully selected defaulters, too broad a sweep and the administrative systems are overloaded, to few key representative defaulters and too many other defaulters will consider they have immunity. Being inventive and creative humans, long used to labouring under the choke of authority, we too apply our skills to evade, avoid, confuse, misrepresent or dissemble, anything other than just accept to being controlled by that parameter.

Trust is entirely another matter. Just a broad parameter is all that is needed then each person interprets it application to them within their own framework of experience. All those nuances reflecting individual difference are no longer needed. Maybe an occasional dialogue, indicating some extreme of interpretation, might have to be initiated to remove common misplace understandings. The beauty of trust is that each person does their own self-monitoring but there is the downside. Being people most will comply scrupulously, some will get away will as little restraint as they dare and a few will flout and exploit any apparent laxity. Any overt monitoring will quickly be seen as confounding the trust. If you are going to be checking up then there is no point in my restraint. Come on, lets see how far we can push this. Equally if abuse is too wide spread then dissatisfaction rapidly sets in. "Look they are all getting away with it why should I bother" become the norm of the day. So there has to be covert monitoring to pick out those most public and extreme abuses. Engage in dialogue and it can become almost self-policing. Complaints will readily identify where and almost inevitably the who of the more troubling abuses. Then it is either a matter of corrective dialogue or punitive measures to make a public example of non-compliers. Rather than over-loading the administration with large numbers of defaulters to be processed, all that is needed is a showtrial which has wide spread circulation picking out a blatant defaulter receiving just and equitable punishment.

In the end we do have choices, we do all decide which type of society we want to live in. Either by silent submission or by the clarity of our voiced wishes. What is your choice? Monitors at each and every street corner with ever more draconian rules or a relaxed society able to live with itself and adapt to change?

Who is in charge?

You are put in charge. Someone has selected you above other contenders, seen some quality and has placed their faith in you, you are in charge. Keen to justify that faith you want to show leadership, you want to be seen to make a difference, you want those under you to now raise their game to match your own performance. You are in charge so you direct, you issue instruction, you resolve conflict, you are in control. Those under you begin to appear to have lost all initiative, they no longer make their own  sound judgement calls, everything is queried or requires your confirmation. You begin to suffocate under all the calls on your decisions as you bewail the lack of initiative of those working under you. Sounds all too familiar?

We are social animals, we perform at our best within the herd and with the herd's approval. That is who we are. We are also lazy, prone to just follow the next person rather than take the risk extra work or failure by going our own way. The worst performing societies, knee-jerk respond to the first skitter of reaction. The whole herd dashing off to follow that first change of direction. Like lemmings dashing off without forethought, panicking in response to some ill-define threat until they all leap off the cliff edge, following blindly that frightened first alarm call. The best performing societies the herd balances it responses with a measured view drawn across all the whole range of reactions, from the flighty, skittish, to the philosophical, the thinking out of the box, to the been there done that, to the plain weary to the stubborn not changing until it has to change. Choosing a course out of that gamut of reaction may at times be ponderous but with the wealth of experiences that range of reaction brings, may more often make a sensible lasting judgement call than the knee jerking at the first signs of a hiccup.

As individuals we bring our own unique style, experience and judgements to the task at hand. Not one of us will set about skinning the cat the exact same way as another. The variation in technique matters not. What matters is that the cat is skinned. Management may want to raise targets of time or quality or cat welfare. How those in charge of the task set about achieving a better output is vital. If they issue orders and instructions, then those doing the work switch off and submissively follow the order or instruction. More expansive orders and instruction then have to follow because those doing the work have not read the mind or seen the work the same way as those issuing the orders. The alternative is to empower those in charge to do the task their way whilst encouraging and supporting them to raise their standards to those targets. Those in charge offering gentle suggestions or meaningful comparisons along the way. Those doing the work, in the absence of direction will share experiences amongst themselves, support each other and will find a collective way to achieve the required result. Those in charge being left free to attend to other matters with just the occasional light touch to adjust output. This is collective societies working at its best, working collaboratively but accepting accountability for your own input.

In the scale of things, just tosh. Except of course that governments act and work like simplified people. Our Political Leaders exhibit that need to show they are in control and are seen to be acting divisively. Government rush in to be seen to respond to the latest emotive outburst. Control, followed by ever more detailed prescription of what is permitted and which sanctions will be applied to what defaults. We teeter, with the best of intentions, remorselessly to Totalitarianism. The citizens slowly surrender their will to think for themselves, to question, to challenge and sink into despair of just doing what is required, no matter how illogical, just for a quiet life. We lose all round. No one wins.
We have to empower people to think and act for themselves. We have reform our society so people take responsibility for their own actions. Government has to restrain itself, guiding on the long term objections but easing up on the desire to control the now.

Surely when the person in the street is baffled by the logic of the bedroom tax, penalising of the destitute, requiring access to everyone's electronic communication, official encouragement of zero-hour contracts, commercialisation of core state functions, to name but a few, then it is past time for a sea change.

Fair Cop?

For the record I am underwhelmed by this whole Police Commissioner vote thing. The government advertising to whip up public interest really says it all for me. It is the classic 'which slice of the pie' do you want. Stop car vandalism or stop drunk louts or stop house thefts or stop speed abuse or stop drug pushers. The answer is of course all of the above and some more as well. The problem is there just is not enough pie to go round.

What I take exception to is that the government retains tight control of the permitted expenditure and manner and methods to be employed in policing our country. The Police Commissioner is just the 'locally elected' fall guy to take the heat of accountability off from the government decisions which make it impossible to attain the public's policing aspirations. As an aside, 'locally elected' of course equals a political parties nomination with first loyalty to the Party not the electorate.

Just yet another deliberate, cynical tactic by the government to divide to rule. Make someone or organisation 'accountable' at local level to take all the blame complaints and criticisms. Whilst retaining all meaningful control back at central government, preventing them for exercising and employing new innovative and structurally different ways of skinning the impossible cat. They were devised by government so government could escape public blame for failing to adequately source and fund an effective police force.