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.