Extracted from an article by Theodore Dalrymple:

***

Let us return to his resignation from the ministry of justice. Let us
grant for the sake of argument that it was entirely honorable; but I was
mildly troubled by the question of whether it would have been just to
require him to resign had he not done so of his own accord.

The man at the head of an organization of any size cannot know every
last detail of what his staff are doing. It might be said that he should
know it, but there cannot be a moral obligation to do what it is
impossible to do. At what point is a dysfunction within an organization
so great that the head of it can be held responsible?

It might be said that the head person is paid more than anyone
else—sometimes pharaonically more than anyone else—precisely because he
is expected and willing to take the responsibility for all that the organization does or fails to do. He accepts the potential injustice of
being held responsible for things that he did not know about, or could
not have known about, as part of the bargain. This still does not answer
the question of whether it is just for someone to be obliged to take responsibility for something completely beyond his control. He might
have signed a contract, but is a potentially unjust contract rightly enforceable?

There are practical disadvantages to holding the head of an organization responsible for all that the organization does or for whatever happens
within it. It encourages that person to interfere constantly with the
work of his staff, since he will automatically be held responsible for
it. Such interference paralyzes everyone with fear; the staff are
reluctant to do anything that does not come as an order from on high.
This is because the exercise of initiative is seen by the head as
potentially dangerous. The head should, of course, engage trustworthy
staff; but in a large organization he cannot possibly be responsible for
the appointment of everybody. The head therefore becomes mistrustful and
even paranoid.

But the opposite is dangerous too. If a chief remains chief whatever his organization does or whatever happens within it, he acts with impunity.
When something goes wrong, the search is not for explanation or remedy,
but for the lowest person in the hierarchy to whom blame can plausibly
be fixed. The grossest faults of management are thus reassigned to the
humblest employee, the bottom-feeders of the organization, so to speak.
I have seen this many times in the organizations for which I have worked.

Sometimes it seemed to me that elaborate procedures were devised
specifically with this in mind. A procedure was so complicated and ill-understood that it was inevitable that it should not be followed to
the letter. The person lowest in the hierarchy who did not follow the
procedure exactly can then be blamed for what went wrong, because
procedures often carry with them the implicit promise that if they are followed, nothing can go wrong. Something did go wrong, therefore the
procedure was not followed correctly.

Several times I have been in coroner’s court or in an inquiry where the
main question was whether the forms were filled correctly. By correctly,
I do not mean truthfully; I mean often enough or at the right time.
Truth didn’t enter into it.

So should the Belgian minister have resigned? Justice (possibly) says
no; honor says yes. It is not often that honor wins when the two collide.

***

From my experience with human nature, this seems right on the money.
The part about holding the head of an organization responsible for all
actions of subordinates is an excellent description of Japanese
corporate culture. This results in paralysis and it's why Japan is
slowly sinking into irrelevancy.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 13:17:00 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:

Extracted from an article by Theodore Dalrymple:

***

Let us return to his resignation from the ministry of justice. Let us
grant for the sake of argument that it was entirely honorable; but I was mildly troubled by the question of whether it would have been just to require him to resign had he not done so of his own accord.

The man at the head of an organization of any size cannot know every
last detail of what his staff are doing. It might be said that he should know it, but there cannot be a moral obligation to do what it is
impossible to do. At what point is a dysfunction within an organization
so great that the head of it can be held responsible?

It might be said that the head person is paid more than anyone else—sometimes pharaonically more than anyone else—precisely because he is expected and willing to take the responsibility for all that the organization does or fails to do. He accepts the potential injustice of being held responsible for things that he did not know about, or could
not have known about, as part of the bargain. This still does not answer
the question of whether it is just for someone to be obliged to take responsibility for something completely beyond his control. He might
have signed a contract, but is a potentially unjust contract rightly enforceable?

There are practical disadvantages to holding the head of an organization responsible for all that the organization does or for whatever happens within it. It encourages that person to interfere constantly with the
work of his staff, since he will automatically be held responsible for
it. Such interference paralyzes everyone with fear; the staff are
reluctant to do anything that does not come as an order from on high.
This is because the exercise of initiative is seen by the head as potentially dangerous. The head should, of course, engage trustworthy
staff; but in a large organization he cannot possibly be responsible for
the appointment of everybody. The head therefore becomes mistrustful and even paranoid.

But the opposite is dangerous too. If a chief remains chief whatever his organization does or whatever happens within it, he acts with impunity.
When something goes wrong, the search is not for explanation or remedy,
but for the lowest person in the hierarchy to whom blame can plausibly
be fixed. The grossest faults of management are thus reassigned to the humblest employee, the bottom-feeders of the organization, so to speak.
I have seen this many times in the organizations for which I have worked.

Sometimes it seemed to me that elaborate procedures were devised specifically with this in mind. A procedure was so complicated and ill-understood that it was inevitable that it should not be followed to
the letter. The person lowest in the hierarchy who did not follow the procedure exactly can then be blamed for what went wrong, because
procedures often carry with them the implicit promise that if they are followed, nothing can go wrong. Something did go wrong, therefore the procedure was not followed correctly.

Several times I have been in coroner’s court or in an inquiry where the main question was whether the forms were filled correctly. By correctly,
I do not mean truthfully; I mean often enough or at the right time.
Truth didn’t enter into it.

So should the Belgian minister have resigned? Justice (possibly) says
no; honor says yes. It is not often that honor wins when the two collide.

***

From my experience with human nature, this seems right on the money.
The part about holding the head of an organization responsible for all actions of subordinates is an excellent description of Japanese
corporate culture. This results in paralysis and it's why Japan is
slowly sinking into irrelevancy.

since when is Japan sinking into irrelevancy? they're still the biggest economy in the world except for the USA and China, is it that they don't let any migrants in, so they don't have wonderful diverse vibrant areas like San Francisco, Chicago or
Portland??

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Iceberg <[email protected]> Wrote in message:r

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 13:17:00 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:> Extracted from an article by Theodore Dalrymple: > > *** > > Let us return to his resignation from the ministry of justice. Let us > grant for the sake of argument that it was entirely

honorable; but I was > mildly troubled by the question of whether it would have been just to > require him to resign had he not done so of his own accord. > > The man at the head of an organization of any size cannot know every > last detail of what his
staff are doing. It might be said that he should > know it, but there cannot be a moral obligation to do what it is > impossible to do. At what point is a dysfunction within an organization > so great that the head of it can be held responsible? > > It
might be said that the head person is paid more than anyone > else—sometimes pharaonically more than anyone else—precisely because he > is expected and willing to take the responsibility for all that the > organization does or fails to do. He accepts
the potential injustice of > being held responsible for things that he did not know about, or could > not have known about, as part of the bargain. This still does not answer > the question of whether it is just for someone to be obliged to take >
responsibility for something completely beyond his control. He might > have signed a contract, but is a potentially unjust contract rightly > enforceable? > > There are practical disadvantages to holding the head of an organization > responsible for all
that the organization does or for whatever happens > within it. It encourages that person to interfere constantly with the > work of his staff, since he will automatically be held responsible for > it. Such interference paralyzes everyone with fear; the
staff are > reluctant to do anything that does not come as an order from on high. > This is because the exercise of initiative is seen by the head as > potentially dangerous. The head should, of course, engage trustworthy > staff; but in a large
organization he cannot possibly be responsible for > the appointment of everybody. The head therefore becomes mistrustful and > even paranoid. > > But the opposite is dangerous too. If a chief remains chief whatever his > organization does or whatever
happens within it, he acts with impunity. > When something goes wrong, the search is not for explanation or remedy, > but for the lowest person in the hierarchy to whom blame can plausibly > be fixed. The grossest faults of management are thus reassigned
to the > humblest employee, the bottom-feeders of the organization, so to speak. > I have seen this many times in the organizations for which I have worked. > > Sometimes it seemed to me that elaborate procedures were devised > specifically with this in
mind. A procedure was so complicated and > ill-understood that it was inevitable that it should not be followed to > the letter. The person lowest in the hierarchy who did not follow the > procedure exactly can then be blamed for what went wrong, because

procedures often carry with them the implicit promise that if they are > followed, nothing can go wrong. Something did go wrong, therefore the > procedure was not followed correctly. > > Several times I have been in coroner’s court or in an inquiry

where the > main question was whether the forms were filled correctly. By correctly, > I do not mean truthfully; I mean often enough or at the right time. > Truth didn’t enter into it. > > So should the Belgian minister have resigned? Justice (possibly)
says > no; honor says yes. It is not often that honor wins when the two collide. > > *** > > From my experience with human nature, this seems right on the money. > The part about holding the head of an organization responsible for all > actions of
subordinates is an excellent description of Japanese > corporate culture. This results in paralysis and it's why Japan is > slowly sinking into irrelevancy. since when is Japan sinking into irrelevancy? they're still the biggest economy in the world
except for the USA and China, is it that they don't let any migrants in, so they don't have wonderful diverse vibrant areas like San Francisco, Chicago or Portland??




Sawfish seems to be on crack?


https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/japan/summaries/


Population
123,719,238 (2023 est.)

Ethnic groups
Japanese 97.9%



Japan is dominating. They're masters.



--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)