The long overdue scrutiny of Ofsted is happening now amidst a great deal of 'smoke-and-mirrors' political activity. It is irresponsible for the comfortably-off older generation to play politics with the education of our young. If Ofsted had been doing its job properly, we would not be dealing with the sorry results of the OECD findings. Therefore, it is entirely proper that new leadership be sought for Ofsted. Competent leadership at Ofsted is part of the business of returning Education in this country to the very high standards of the past. Competent environmental management might have mitigated the dreadful scenes of flood devastation we are all witnessing. We can no longer rely on the many unaccountable and expensive Quangos that supposedly run things for us. These highly paid professionals are more concerned with "looking good" rather than "being good". Whether in Educational or Environmental management, at the moment, success seems to measured not by results, but by the persuasiveness of the rhetoric.
Michael Gove's plans for State Schools are idealistic; we need idealism, vision and courage to take on the advocates of the "low, one-size-fits-all curriculum and let's socially engineer University intake" ideology. That we still have top-class Universities shows the resilience of past high standards, as even our best Universities have been under pressure to select students based on perceived potential "poor thing she/he comes from a disadvantaged background" rather than actual achievement. If Michael Gove's plan comes to fruition, in future, it will allow all selections for University candidates to once more be based upon true merit and achievement rather than on nebulous judgements flowing from SAQ profiles that accompany UCCAS applications.
Longer school hours, more academic content in the curriculum, removal of soft wishy-washy subjects, a broad-based baccalaureate-type selection of subjects and a range of extra-curricular activities for all students is, I believe, the tried and tested way to ensure all young people in this country benefit from this country's first-world status. It isn't trendy I know, but other successful countries know that this solid approach works. The return to tried and tested maintenance of our rivers by dredging may not have the glamour of the trendy "let's preserve our wildlife", but it just may save livelihoods and homes by increasing the capacity of our waterways.
The question remains whether Mr Gove's vision can ever be implemented. As I look at the army of flood victims and weary volunteers who are doing their best in these dire circumstances, they remind me of concerned (pushy?) parents who have struggled over the years against a tide of low expectations and the contrary winds of professional indifference. These parents are just like flood victims trying to do their best for their families. The desire to survive and succeed cannot come from the top alone, no matter how well-intentioned. Ultimately, the job only gets done because individuals (salaried or not) simply roll up their sleeves and get on with the job.
PS Talking of salaries, on the 13th of March 2014, The Times Health Correspondent, Chris Smyth, has written a seriously depressing article about an NHS chief (HR manager) who has quit the NHS but will continue to get £310,000/- for the next two years from the NHS whilst also drawing a salary as an "organisational development consultant (whatever does that mean?)" to the University of Leeds. Her area of expertise is apparently HR, training, leadership development and communication which she is passionate about. Heaven help the poor put-upon conned taxpayer, who I am certain, in a crisis, will not be able to call upon these "passionate" over-valued individuals, paid huge double salaries to do public sector non-jobs.
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
Saturday, 1 February 2014
Public Service, Social Work, Charity & Goodness
I have been recently informed that people who make charitable donations are not "good" but only give to charity to avoid tax. This point of view was made known to me, during a lunch party last week, by a fully paid-up member of the Labour Party. The previous day, while having dinner with two young adults of ambivalent political inclinations, I was amused by their unfettered admiration for another individual who worked with autistic people and is paid handsomely by the government to do so, describing that individual as "good".
Is it possible that there is a general confusion about "goodness"? It is my understanding that when people give to Charity, they no longer have the use of that money for their own needs. This often means that they do without something; if the donation is small, it may be the sacrifice of a mere bar of chocolate. If the donation is big, it may mean doing without a holiday abroad. In contrast, when a person works with autistic people and receives a good salary for it, as this activity has entailed no sacrifice and indeed has been remunerated, it is clearly not an act of charity.
I believe that those who make sacrifices for others in Charity giving, have a greater claim to the description "good" than those who work for a salary in an area of public service that helps others. After all, if an individual has an inclination for working with the handicapped, the ill and the disadvantaged and does so at no sacrifice to themselves, then they are in fact doubly rewarded in finding a suitable niche and being well-paid to enjoy that niche. They cannot possibly be described as "good" as they are no different from any other person in the work-force and they are consumers of public wealth rather than the creators of public wealth.
Contrast this with creators of public wealth who regularly give to Charity; any excess money left over to such individuals can only be taxed up to a maximum of 45%. If these individuals choose not to give to Charity, then the 55% still remains available for personal consumption and enjoyment once 45% has been surrendered to the taxman/woman. Please also note that wealth creation happens in the private sector, with all the stresses of risk-taking and fearfully long hours of work; this is in stark contrast to the comfort and security of the wealth-consuming public sector
My blog-posts are usually about educational and academic matters. Could it be a sign of a defective education (might it be a subtle form of brain-washing?) when the fundamental differences between the true goodness of Charity-giving and shrewdness of well-paid employment in the "caring" part of the Public sector get confused? To go back to my starting point, all the three individuals who have prompted this blog are highly educated. I find worrying that, despite being so well-educated they may be mistaking shrewdness for goodness.
Is it possible that there is a general confusion about "goodness"? It is my understanding that when people give to Charity, they no longer have the use of that money for their own needs. This often means that they do without something; if the donation is small, it may be the sacrifice of a mere bar of chocolate. If the donation is big, it may mean doing without a holiday abroad. In contrast, when a person works with autistic people and receives a good salary for it, as this activity has entailed no sacrifice and indeed has been remunerated, it is clearly not an act of charity.
I believe that those who make sacrifices for others in Charity giving, have a greater claim to the description "good" than those who work for a salary in an area of public service that helps others. After all, if an individual has an inclination for working with the handicapped, the ill and the disadvantaged and does so at no sacrifice to themselves, then they are in fact doubly rewarded in finding a suitable niche and being well-paid to enjoy that niche. They cannot possibly be described as "good" as they are no different from any other person in the work-force and they are consumers of public wealth rather than the creators of public wealth.
Contrast this with creators of public wealth who regularly give to Charity; any excess money left over to such individuals can only be taxed up to a maximum of 45%. If these individuals choose not to give to Charity, then the 55% still remains available for personal consumption and enjoyment once 45% has been surrendered to the taxman/woman. Please also note that wealth creation happens in the private sector, with all the stresses of risk-taking and fearfully long hours of work; this is in stark contrast to the comfort and security of the wealth-consuming public sector
My blog-posts are usually about educational and academic matters. Could it be a sign of a defective education (might it be a subtle form of brain-washing?) when the fundamental differences between the true goodness of Charity-giving and shrewdness of well-paid employment in the "caring" part of the Public sector get confused? To go back to my starting point, all the three individuals who have prompted this blog are highly educated. I find worrying that, despite being so well-educated they may be mistaking shrewdness for goodness.
Sunday, 5 January 2014
The New "Boy" Network in Academia
I think that there is a network in operation in this country, which I call the New "Boy" Network. "Boy" is in inverted commas because it is really a network of men and women. Having duly railed, ranted and stood against the Old Boy Network of "toffs" and public school gentlemen for decades, we now have, in its place, a much more pernicious network which I believe is willing to be anti-meritocratic in order to achieve certain social engineering ends. It is my observation, (and here, I will be delighted to be proved wrong), this network exercises freely, the last allowable form of political incorrectness, where it is acceptable to discriminate against people who have the appearance of coming from a certain so-called "posh" background. In a bizarre reversal of snobbery, such so-called "posh" individuals are the new social lepers and the very whiff of this background is sufficient to exclude the individual.
My blog-posts are invariably linked to academia and I specifically write about University academia. The proliferation of professors and senior academics in the last decade or so, draws candidates exclusively from the New "Boy" Network pool. Having sat on interview committees, I recall being embarrassed by the after-interview banter amongst those of us on the interview board, where I noted the impolite and scornful comments, the distaste, the clear prejudice and resentment that automatically eliminated people (men and women) who came across as "posh". Whether these people possessed the requisite qualifications or not, the moment they presented themselves and opened their mouths, speaking with what used to be called RP, there was not the slightest chance that these so-called "posh" people would be allowed to move onto the next stage of the application process.
In any true meritocracy, there will be a spread of ability amongst people of all backgrounds. It is logical then to expect that the recognition and reward of true meritocracy ought to lead inevitably to diversity in all organizations. It is my observation, however, that this diversity is no longer found in Academia. I have anecdotal evidence that certain other Public Service professions also suffer from this lack of diversity.
It is significant that Public Sector organizations have quantities of information and vast resources ploughed into Equality and Diversity Policies and Dignity at Work Protocols. Is it possible that the existence of these policies and protocols allows an organization to convince itself that it is in reality practising Equality and Diversity and showing Dignity to all? I feel that when an organization needs vast quantities of documentation to set out in detail what constitutes discrimination, and how to exercise fair-play, such an organization has conceded that it is, in fact, made up collectively, of people who are not merely immoral ((i.e. possessing a defective moral compass) but in fact amoral (i.e. possessing no moral compass at all).
The end result of the parochial and sometimes vengeful conduct of the New "Boy" Network, is that, this country as a whole, will lose out rapidly in the international race, relative to other countries who are hungry for global success. This will happen because, although a little of this sort of New "Boy" Network mentality can be safely absorbed throughout the country, once the subverted motives in candidate selection reaches a certain critical mass, (and I believe we are at that point now in Academic and Educational establishments in this country), we have set in motion, events that will lead to a downward spiral away from excellence throughout the whole country.
When uber highly-paid public servants, occupying the highest offices in our academic institutions, respond resentfully, with depressing regularity, in a "Pavlovian" fashion (recall Pavlov's dog experiment) to the sound of an RP accent, I cannot help wondering whether there is any point to Education in a moral vacuum. If the Old Boy Network was accused of cronyism and the much more destructive New "Boy" Network is most certainly guilty of both anti-meritocracy and cronyism, what are we going to do? Should we not be concerned about the urgent need to dismantle the New "Boy" Network for the greater good of this country's global academic standing?
My blog-posts are invariably linked to academia and I specifically write about University academia. The proliferation of professors and senior academics in the last decade or so, draws candidates exclusively from the New "Boy" Network pool. Having sat on interview committees, I recall being embarrassed by the after-interview banter amongst those of us on the interview board, where I noted the impolite and scornful comments, the distaste, the clear prejudice and resentment that automatically eliminated people (men and women) who came across as "posh". Whether these people possessed the requisite qualifications or not, the moment they presented themselves and opened their mouths, speaking with what used to be called RP, there was not the slightest chance that these so-called "posh" people would be allowed to move onto the next stage of the application process.
In any true meritocracy, there will be a spread of ability amongst people of all backgrounds. It is logical then to expect that the recognition and reward of true meritocracy ought to lead inevitably to diversity in all organizations. It is my observation, however, that this diversity is no longer found in Academia. I have anecdotal evidence that certain other Public Service professions also suffer from this lack of diversity.
It is significant that Public Sector organizations have quantities of information and vast resources ploughed into Equality and Diversity Policies and Dignity at Work Protocols. Is it possible that the existence of these policies and protocols allows an organization to convince itself that it is in reality practising Equality and Diversity and showing Dignity to all? I feel that when an organization needs vast quantities of documentation to set out in detail what constitutes discrimination, and how to exercise fair-play, such an organization has conceded that it is, in fact, made up collectively, of people who are not merely immoral ((i.e. possessing a defective moral compass) but in fact amoral (i.e. possessing no moral compass at all).
The end result of the parochial and sometimes vengeful conduct of the New "Boy" Network, is that, this country as a whole, will lose out rapidly in the international race, relative to other countries who are hungry for global success. This will happen because, although a little of this sort of New "Boy" Network mentality can be safely absorbed throughout the country, once the subverted motives in candidate selection reaches a certain critical mass, (and I believe we are at that point now in Academic and Educational establishments in this country), we have set in motion, events that will lead to a downward spiral away from excellence throughout the whole country.
When uber highly-paid public servants, occupying the highest offices in our academic institutions, respond resentfully, with depressing regularity, in a "Pavlovian" fashion (recall Pavlov's dog experiment) to the sound of an RP accent, I cannot help wondering whether there is any point to Education in a moral vacuum. If the Old Boy Network was accused of cronyism and the much more destructive New "Boy" Network is most certainly guilty of both anti-meritocracy and cronyism, what are we going to do? Should we not be concerned about the urgent need to dismantle the New "Boy" Network for the greater good of this country's global academic standing?
Thursday, 12 December 2013
GPs vs UK Vice-Chancellors:- Is It All About Money?
Today, the UK news reports about GP failings. We need to think about Publicly Funded Services a little more deeply. In the October 2013 issue of Chemistry in Britain,(RSC Publication p. 13), there is an article about slashing Croatian University Chancellors' pay by 30% because Mico Tatalovic says "...chancellors are, in reality, people bored with their primary scientific & educational work, whose main motive for staying at their function- sometimes longer than is allowed by law- is a big salary".
Did you know Vice Chancellors in British Universities earn much larger salaries than GPs? At the non-Russell group University where I used to work, our Vice Chancellor earns £205,000/-ish per annum. In her safe and risk-free job, there is no possibility of litigation, because she does not deal with life and death. Her role is administrative and ceremonial, complete with robes, processions and trumpet fanfares at Congregations. Under her management, the University has dropped, internationally, 17 places in one year (2012-2013), amongst the subset of newer Universities (see Telegraph article by Edward Malnick; "Modern Universities are Losing Out to their Rivals in the Far East"). The drop would be even larger if all Universities were taken into account. Despite this disgraceful performance, there is no requirement for public accountability and the trumpet fanfares, honorary accolades, robed processions, expensive wining and dining continue unabated, courtesy of the public purse.
In the UK, GPs, face life and death decisions several times a day for long hours and can face litigation for iatrogenic events and inadvertent malpractice. Even though we have a free Health Service, people in the UK feel they are entitled to an US-type accountability from the NHS. The question is whether this expectation is reasonable. Do we have the money to deliver defensive medicine? A little intelligence applied to this issue will tell us that the NHS in 2013 is required to deliver a several-fold increase in public service compared to the NHS that was created 60 years ago. In 1950, it was tax-payer funded penicillin and bandages. Now it is tax-payer funded cancer drugs, well-person clinics, screenings of all sorts, extremely expensive cutting-edge technology applied from cradle to the considerably-delayed grave.
Basic Economics 101 teaches us that we have "unlimited wants and limited means". It is foolish to expect perfection from all GP surgeries. Mathematics & statistical treatment of data teaches us that there is a normal Gaussian bell-shaped distribution curve for most things. Some GP surgeries will statistically fall under the left lower part of the curve; they are the less good ones. There will be excellent ones that fall under the right side of the curve. The Media needs to learn what balanced reporting is. It is NOT describing the groups of GP Practices that lie on the left or right of the Bell-curve, but instead the ones that fall under the middle i.e. the majority. If the majority (and here we need some percentages derived from raw data) do fall within the dome of the curve, then there is no story and the temptation to create one should be resisted at all costs, because it lays bare what we already know, courtesy of the OECD findings; i.e. that we in the UK, are not so great academically, at Mathematics.
Given any nation's limited means and the people's unlimited wants, a day will come, when we may all have to pay privately for medical treatment & University education; when that happens, Vice Chancellors in non-Russell group Universities will earn a whole lot less and GPs will earn a whole lot more.
Did you know Vice Chancellors in British Universities earn much larger salaries than GPs? At the non-Russell group University where I used to work, our Vice Chancellor earns £205,000/-ish per annum. In her safe and risk-free job, there is no possibility of litigation, because she does not deal with life and death. Her role is administrative and ceremonial, complete with robes, processions and trumpet fanfares at Congregations. Under her management, the University has dropped, internationally, 17 places in one year (2012-2013), amongst the subset of newer Universities (see Telegraph article by Edward Malnick; "Modern Universities are Losing Out to their Rivals in the Far East"). The drop would be even larger if all Universities were taken into account. Despite this disgraceful performance, there is no requirement for public accountability and the trumpet fanfares, honorary accolades, robed processions, expensive wining and dining continue unabated, courtesy of the public purse.
In the UK, GPs, face life and death decisions several times a day for long hours and can face litigation for iatrogenic events and inadvertent malpractice. Even though we have a free Health Service, people in the UK feel they are entitled to an US-type accountability from the NHS. The question is whether this expectation is reasonable. Do we have the money to deliver defensive medicine? A little intelligence applied to this issue will tell us that the NHS in 2013 is required to deliver a several-fold increase in public service compared to the NHS that was created 60 years ago. In 1950, it was tax-payer funded penicillin and bandages. Now it is tax-payer funded cancer drugs, well-person clinics, screenings of all sorts, extremely expensive cutting-edge technology applied from cradle to the considerably-delayed grave.
Basic Economics 101 teaches us that we have "unlimited wants and limited means". It is foolish to expect perfection from all GP surgeries. Mathematics & statistical treatment of data teaches us that there is a normal Gaussian bell-shaped distribution curve for most things. Some GP surgeries will statistically fall under the left lower part of the curve; they are the less good ones. There will be excellent ones that fall under the right side of the curve. The Media needs to learn what balanced reporting is. It is NOT describing the groups of GP Practices that lie on the left or right of the Bell-curve, but instead the ones that fall under the middle i.e. the majority. If the majority (and here we need some percentages derived from raw data) do fall within the dome of the curve, then there is no story and the temptation to create one should be resisted at all costs, because it lays bare what we already know, courtesy of the OECD findings; i.e. that we in the UK, are not so great academically, at Mathematics.
Given any nation's limited means and the people's unlimited wants, a day will come, when we may all have to pay privately for medical treatment & University education; when that happens, Vice Chancellors in non-Russell group Universities will earn a whole lot less and GPs will earn a whole lot more.
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
Forgiveness, Mandela & Future Conduct
I wonder whether there is a global competition underway amongst world leaders, to wear the most uncomfortable hair shirt, in repentance for Nelson Mandela's lost years? Yes, he is iconic, a giant of the 20th century, a legend, but can anything we say or do now make the slightest difference to him?
He is on Another Shore. I am certain he is far too busy having the most fabulous "knees-up" in a Grand Reunion with friends and family who have gone before him, to care about the solemn speeches and the fulsome tributes raining down upon him. In this life, he was allowed 23 years of freedom following the 27 years in prison. Those 23 years of freedom came to him after he turned 70-something. Imprisoned in his prime, for what was, in effect, a charge of being "racist against white men" and having the cheek to ask for the right to vote, I believe, that it is so very convenient for all of us that he forgave those who injured him. The consequence of his forgiveness now allows room for a repeat of what happened; after all, if Mandela could forgive, we can all learn from him, and forgive, should we similarly suffer. It is also useful for us to be able to inflict suffering on others and then say to them, "Look at Mandela; he could forgive. You should forgive too."
We ought to remind ourselves that people today are still being wronged, deprived of their freedom, treated brutally, subject to a "disciplining" by so-called "authorities". The universal knowledge of the Holocaust did not stop Nelson Mandela from facing 27 years in prison. I very much doubt that after today, we will become better people; indeed, raising monuments, verbal and concrete, in Mandela's honour, may actually liberate us to once more commit the same evil offences.
I recall the irony of a particular UK academic institution where I worked, in proud possession of a student union building named after Nelson Mandela, displaying the identical conduct towards ethnic minority staff that Nelson Mandela suffered; i.e. administrating cruel punishment for the cheek of suggesting some sort of representation for overseas (n.b full fee-paying) students. Couched in language and monuments that attempt to hide the ugliness of intransigent human nature, sometimes it would appear that the tributes "doth protest too much".
He is on Another Shore. I am certain he is far too busy having the most fabulous "knees-up" in a Grand Reunion with friends and family who have gone before him, to care about the solemn speeches and the fulsome tributes raining down upon him. In this life, he was allowed 23 years of freedom following the 27 years in prison. Those 23 years of freedom came to him after he turned 70-something. Imprisoned in his prime, for what was, in effect, a charge of being "racist against white men" and having the cheek to ask for the right to vote, I believe, that it is so very convenient for all of us that he forgave those who injured him. The consequence of his forgiveness now allows room for a repeat of what happened; after all, if Mandela could forgive, we can all learn from him, and forgive, should we similarly suffer. It is also useful for us to be able to inflict suffering on others and then say to them, "Look at Mandela; he could forgive. You should forgive too."
We ought to remind ourselves that people today are still being wronged, deprived of their freedom, treated brutally, subject to a "disciplining" by so-called "authorities". The universal knowledge of the Holocaust did not stop Nelson Mandela from facing 27 years in prison. I very much doubt that after today, we will become better people; indeed, raising monuments, verbal and concrete, in Mandela's honour, may actually liberate us to once more commit the same evil offences.
I recall the irony of a particular UK academic institution where I worked, in proud possession of a student union building named after Nelson Mandela, displaying the identical conduct towards ethnic minority staff that Nelson Mandela suffered; i.e. administrating cruel punishment for the cheek of suggesting some sort of representation for overseas (n.b full fee-paying) students. Couched in language and monuments that attempt to hide the ugliness of intransigent human nature, sometimes it would appear that the tributes "doth protest too much".
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
The OECD Verdict on UK Education
As the old saying goes, " the proof of the pudding is in the eating...". Globally, our academic pudding is clearly not that great. I am at this very moment listening to the Shadow Secretary say something about unqualified teachers teaching in classrooms and that somehow the decade preceding 2012 is irrelevant to the OECD's very disappointing findings on Education in the UK. As an academic all through that period, the one thing I do know is that throwing money at this problem will not solve it. Indeed, success in imparting knowledge to our young now appears in inverse proportion to the level to which Educational institutions and their staff have been indulged.
I believe that each teacher must possess a passion for teaching coupled with a desire to see young people succeed in life. If either of these guiding principles is absent in our educators, failure is inevitable. My experience at Teaching College was that it was, first and foremost, political in its outlook. Later as an University Academic, I found amongst my policy-making, meeting-attending, course-gerrymandering colleagues, a complete absence of any ethos apart from, a loyalty to the narrow type of people who now preside over virtually all academic institutions in this country. Educators and Academics now function as a pack rather than as intelligent individuals.
It is a matter of fact that there has been a systematic "cleansing", in Academia & Education, of the type of old-fashioned, highly qualified individual who possesses a love of knowledge and a zeal to share that love of knowledge with others. These old-fashioned (now contraband) teachers of the past, vocationally drawn to the teaching profession, accepted a lesser financial reward for the privilege of Public Service. I remember being inspired and motivated by such individuals amidst battered desks, old laboratories (free from the sometimes tyrannical foolishness of Health & Safety), dark libraries filled with dog-eared books, scintillating ideas, sparkling conversation and enthusiasm. Such individuals are now deemed seditious and dangerous, because their commitment is to Education rather than to the very highly paid "big-wigs" in our sterile & newly-refurbished Educational Institutions.
I have pontificated, at length, in previous blog-posts about the many, many things that are so very wrong in Education and Academia. With the large amount of wealth provided to now make them solvent, the money is being used to aggrandize the self-importance of those institutions. Our educational establishments will remain mired in their self-promoting & self-righteous armour as long as their failure does not hit academics and educationalists in the pocket. In the meantime, their attitude is that, globally, our young people will "just have to lump it....".
I believe that each teacher must possess a passion for teaching coupled with a desire to see young people succeed in life. If either of these guiding principles is absent in our educators, failure is inevitable. My experience at Teaching College was that it was, first and foremost, political in its outlook. Later as an University Academic, I found amongst my policy-making, meeting-attending, course-gerrymandering colleagues, a complete absence of any ethos apart from, a loyalty to the narrow type of people who now preside over virtually all academic institutions in this country. Educators and Academics now function as a pack rather than as intelligent individuals.
It is a matter of fact that there has been a systematic "cleansing", in Academia & Education, of the type of old-fashioned, highly qualified individual who possesses a love of knowledge and a zeal to share that love of knowledge with others. These old-fashioned (now contraband) teachers of the past, vocationally drawn to the teaching profession, accepted a lesser financial reward for the privilege of Public Service. I remember being inspired and motivated by such individuals amidst battered desks, old laboratories (free from the sometimes tyrannical foolishness of Health & Safety), dark libraries filled with dog-eared books, scintillating ideas, sparkling conversation and enthusiasm. Such individuals are now deemed seditious and dangerous, because their commitment is to Education rather than to the very highly paid "big-wigs" in our sterile & newly-refurbished Educational Institutions.
I have pontificated, at length, in previous blog-posts about the many, many things that are so very wrong in Education and Academia. With the large amount of wealth provided to now make them solvent, the money is being used to aggrandize the self-importance of those institutions. Our educational establishments will remain mired in their self-promoting & self-righteous armour as long as their failure does not hit academics and educationalists in the pocket. In the meantime, their attitude is that, globally, our young people will "just have to lump it....".
Thursday, 28 November 2013
Respect or Grovelling To Bullies?
Key Thought
Respect must be earned. Those who demand respect are usually bullies who very rarely show the respect they themselves demand. Collective bullying against one individual is a documented characteristic of a social phenomenon known as "Identification Based Fellowship".
I have been following the sorry "Andrew Mitchell Plebgate" saga since it started 14 months ago. The thing that has suddenly struck me for the first time is that Mr Mitchell actually apologised for not "showing respect to the Police". The whole issue of "Respect" is interesting. We have the Human Rights Act 1998, whose purpose is ultimately to safeguard society's Respect for the individual. Mafia bosses (please see "Some Like It Hot!") demand Respect with a capital "R" or else.......! Apart from situations where we demand respect for our loved ones, such as in hospital care or for children in school, why do organized groups demand so much respect for themselves?
The inevitable pursuance of this question leads us to ask, when does an Organization's demand for respect become a demand for a certain amount of grovelling tantamount to bullying? Sometimes, an Office commands respect, but, the incumbent office-bearer does not deserve respect for perhaps not fulfilling the requirements of that Office. Are we then bound to show respect simply because of the Office and regardless of the conduct of the office-bearer? Similarly, if an Organization deserves respect, but is conducting its affairs in a way that cannot possibly command respect, does it deserve to be respected? Is it entitled to demand respect regardless of its own conduct?
We need to ask what the difference is, between commanding respect and demanding respect. Some people command respect by virtue of their character, knowledge and/or ability, regardless of their Office. Indeed, they may not even hold an office; for example, in certain cultures, the oldest member of an extended family is accorded a very special place of respect in deference to their life experience. Sometimes, an individual commands respect for demonstrating unusual courage under fire, such as that shown, right through history, by PoWs; they would not however, have been given any respect from the enemy side.
In organizations, the hierarchical set-up implies the lesser must respect the greater. In our present hierarchy, here in the UK, is a Cabinet Minister above or below the Police? Is the Cabinet, made of elected Ministers of the UK, placed above or below an unelected Police Force? In institutions, such as Universities, is Human Resources (HR)& Management expected to have respect for Academics or is it the other way around? What criteria determine Hierarchy? For example, in a University (an institution of Learning), is it about educational qualifications, training & experience or is it about who possesses, regardless of intellect & education, the administrative muscle of the University? If there is an inability to command respect for proper reasons, will Conduct morph into a pitiless, bullying demand for Respect?
I have always thought, that, like the Electromagnetic Spectrum for Energy, there is a Spectrum of Conduct that ranges from Nazi-type control(NTC) to Gentle Consensual Decision-making (GCD). This Spectrum of Conduct is non-political and its elements therefore cannot be classified as ideologically Left or Right. It is, in fact, about respect for the individual human being, regardless of political affiliation. With the Mafia, it is reasonable to suggest that it draws on the NTC end of the Spectrum of Conduct for its Rules on Governance. We know the criteria for Mafia/Nazi leadership (H) must be in inverse relationship to a capacity for pity (P).
H = 1/P
This is a logical inference, since, should Respect be perceived to be lacking, the Head must be able to order violence against the offender. Any background compassion (k), must be kept to a minimum and the ability to be severe, (s), must be in proportion to the perceived lack of Respect; to be effective in demanding Respect, (s) must be substantial i.e. large. This gives us the equation for the right Mafia boss:-
H = k + s(1/P)
We can go on adding in various factors to refine this basic equation, but this simple equation will suffice for a mere blog. I wonder whether the Mafia Model of Governance, with its ruthless efficiency, isn't the one employed by Human Resources (HRs) in various supposedly non-Mafia institutions? The way to assess that would be to look for certain characteristics. I mention only one characteristic in this blog; it is a loyalty to a "Band of Brothers".
In the December 2012 issue of Scientific American, Michael Shirmer's article "The Alpinists of Evil" provides empirical evidence that it is not individual political inclinations that cause people to collectively attack one person or group of people. Instead, it is a unity to a Band of Brothers, in a phenomenon described as "Identification-based Fellowship". This loyalty is the driving force behind collective bullying. Lead by the biggest unconscionable bully, i.e. the person with the largest value of (H) in my equation, such Identification-Based Fellowship groups function to protect the group by demanding Respect for it. On p.65 of the article, Lt Col David Grossman is quoted as saying "On Killing", ".....the soldiers primary motivation.......was not to politics or ideology, but a devotion to his Band of Brothers. There is a powerful process of peer pressure in which the individual cares so deeply about his comrades and what they think about him,....".
This must mean that, if an individual appears different from this Band of Brothers, that individual is an "outsider". It is therefore essential to the pride of the group that the individual acknowledge the existence of the Band of Brothers by showing Respect. If Respect is not shown, the individual, deemed an outsider and consequently a lesser form of life, must be severely dealt with, and destroying that lesser form of life is acceptable. Destroying the individual's life, reputation, career and family-life is merely "collateral damage" in the business of upholding the honour of the Band of Brothers. In "Plebgate", what exactly was this huge lack of Respect that demanded such extreme punishment? It was the alleged use of the word "pleb". A word that may or may not have been said.
Is it decent or civilized that we, in this country, consider it acceptable to allow a Band of Brothers to set upon one individual, confiscate his career, kill his reputation, subject him to prolonged abuse with the ultimate object of completely destroying him for one alleged word? Just like a cat playing with a mouse before it kills it?
Personally, I would not worry or be offended if someone calls me a "pleb" or "chav" or "oik" etc... ; after all, "a Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.......".
Respect must be earned. Those who demand respect are usually bullies who very rarely show the respect they themselves demand. Collective bullying against one individual is a documented characteristic of a social phenomenon known as "Identification Based Fellowship".
I have been following the sorry "Andrew Mitchell Plebgate" saga since it started 14 months ago. The thing that has suddenly struck me for the first time is that Mr Mitchell actually apologised for not "showing respect to the Police". The whole issue of "Respect" is interesting. We have the Human Rights Act 1998, whose purpose is ultimately to safeguard society's Respect for the individual. Mafia bosses (please see "Some Like It Hot!") demand Respect with a capital "R" or else.......! Apart from situations where we demand respect for our loved ones, such as in hospital care or for children in school, why do organized groups demand so much respect for themselves?
The inevitable pursuance of this question leads us to ask, when does an Organization's demand for respect become a demand for a certain amount of grovelling tantamount to bullying? Sometimes, an Office commands respect, but, the incumbent office-bearer does not deserve respect for perhaps not fulfilling the requirements of that Office. Are we then bound to show respect simply because of the Office and regardless of the conduct of the office-bearer? Similarly, if an Organization deserves respect, but is conducting its affairs in a way that cannot possibly command respect, does it deserve to be respected? Is it entitled to demand respect regardless of its own conduct?
We need to ask what the difference is, between commanding respect and demanding respect. Some people command respect by virtue of their character, knowledge and/or ability, regardless of their Office. Indeed, they may not even hold an office; for example, in certain cultures, the oldest member of an extended family is accorded a very special place of respect in deference to their life experience. Sometimes, an individual commands respect for demonstrating unusual courage under fire, such as that shown, right through history, by PoWs; they would not however, have been given any respect from the enemy side.
In organizations, the hierarchical set-up implies the lesser must respect the greater. In our present hierarchy, here in the UK, is a Cabinet Minister above or below the Police? Is the Cabinet, made of elected Ministers of the UK, placed above or below an unelected Police Force? In institutions, such as Universities, is Human Resources (HR)& Management expected to have respect for Academics or is it the other way around? What criteria determine Hierarchy? For example, in a University (an institution of Learning), is it about educational qualifications, training & experience or is it about who possesses, regardless of intellect & education, the administrative muscle of the University? If there is an inability to command respect for proper reasons, will Conduct morph into a pitiless, bullying demand for Respect?
I have always thought, that, like the Electromagnetic Spectrum for Energy, there is a Spectrum of Conduct that ranges from Nazi-type control(NTC) to Gentle Consensual Decision-making (GCD). This Spectrum of Conduct is non-political and its elements therefore cannot be classified as ideologically Left or Right. It is, in fact, about respect for the individual human being, regardless of political affiliation. With the Mafia, it is reasonable to suggest that it draws on the NTC end of the Spectrum of Conduct for its Rules on Governance. We know the criteria for Mafia/Nazi leadership (H) must be in inverse relationship to a capacity for pity (P).
H = 1/P
This is a logical inference, since, should Respect be perceived to be lacking, the Head must be able to order violence against the offender. Any background compassion (k), must be kept to a minimum and the ability to be severe, (s), must be in proportion to the perceived lack of Respect; to be effective in demanding Respect, (s) must be substantial i.e. large. This gives us the equation for the right Mafia boss:-
H = k + s(1/P)
We can go on adding in various factors to refine this basic equation, but this simple equation will suffice for a mere blog. I wonder whether the Mafia Model of Governance, with its ruthless efficiency, isn't the one employed by Human Resources (HRs) in various supposedly non-Mafia institutions? The way to assess that would be to look for certain characteristics. I mention only one characteristic in this blog; it is a loyalty to a "Band of Brothers".
In the December 2012 issue of Scientific American, Michael Shirmer's article "The Alpinists of Evil" provides empirical evidence that it is not individual political inclinations that cause people to collectively attack one person or group of people. Instead, it is a unity to a Band of Brothers, in a phenomenon described as "Identification-based Fellowship". This loyalty is the driving force behind collective bullying. Lead by the biggest unconscionable bully, i.e. the person with the largest value of (H) in my equation, such Identification-Based Fellowship groups function to protect the group by demanding Respect for it. On p.65 of the article, Lt Col David Grossman is quoted as saying "On Killing", ".....the soldiers primary motivation.......was not to politics or ideology, but a devotion to his Band of Brothers. There is a powerful process of peer pressure in which the individual cares so deeply about his comrades and what they think about him,....".
This must mean that, if an individual appears different from this Band of Brothers, that individual is an "outsider". It is therefore essential to the pride of the group that the individual acknowledge the existence of the Band of Brothers by showing Respect. If Respect is not shown, the individual, deemed an outsider and consequently a lesser form of life, must be severely dealt with, and destroying that lesser form of life is acceptable. Destroying the individual's life, reputation, career and family-life is merely "collateral damage" in the business of upholding the honour of the Band of Brothers. In "Plebgate", what exactly was this huge lack of Respect that demanded such extreme punishment? It was the alleged use of the word "pleb". A word that may or may not have been said.
Is it decent or civilized that we, in this country, consider it acceptable to allow a Band of Brothers to set upon one individual, confiscate his career, kill his reputation, subject him to prolonged abuse with the ultimate object of completely destroying him for one alleged word? Just like a cat playing with a mouse before it kills it?
Personally, I would not worry or be offended if someone calls me a "pleb" or "chav" or "oik" etc... ; after all, "a Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.......".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)