Thursday, 12 June 2008

Beaurocracy - An Operational Guide

I am about as straight-laced as they come, but despite this, I really love reading a blog called Boing Boing. I imagine it is populated by hash-smoking, tattooed, free-wheeling libertarians, and while I am not exactly in that demographic, there is always a few articles there every day which I find interesting, and I also like the viewpoints of the commentators there.

Today there was an article on something called the 'Simple Sabotage Field Manual' from the U.S. Strategic Services, basically a guide created in 1944 teaching people how to sabotage their workplace. In reality, it is what I have to deal with every day in virtually every meeting I am in, a guide on how to never make any decisions at all. Even so, it is amusing to see such behaviour described explicitly in point form, designed as a way of disrupting your group, and funny to identify people who behave exactly like this (sub)consciously:

Insist on doing everything through "channels", never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.

Make "speeches". Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate "patriotic" comments.

When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration". Attempt to make the committees as large as possible - never less than five.

Bring up irrelevant issues asfrequently as possible.

Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes and resolutions.

Refer back to mattterdecided upon at the last meeting and attempt to reopen the question of the adviseability of that decision.

Advocate "caution". Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarassments of difficulties later on.

Be worried about the property of any decision - rasie the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies wthin the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.

No comments: