Advice Line | Bob Lewis » Six Stupid and the nature of adulthood

May 14, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Six Stupid and the nature of adulthood

TAGS: General

Dear Bob ...

I think that Six Stupid ("Six Stupid process controls," Keep the Joint Running, 4/30/2007) makes overly broad assumptions as to who an adult is. But then, the definition of an adult varies with the profession that is trying to define it.

"They'll also figure that when whatever it is does happen, grown adults can probably figure out reasonable ways to handle the situation ... if they're encouraged to do so."

A large bureaucracy, be it government or corporate, will not give the appropriate authority or responsibility to people. There also seems to be this view that any sort of criticism is really negativity and should be discouraged so as not to "rock the boat".

Also, there is the issue of denial. If one accepts the definition of an adult as someone who accepts responsibility for one's actions, then denial (and deception) should not even enter into the picture. If this is so, then we would not need Sarbanes-Oxley, all the video and web usage monitoring security measures we seem to be embracing with much too much enthusiasm in public and private settings, as well as the data recorders that are finding their way into cars.

Should the process not only take into account the complexity of the tasks, as well as the exceptions, but the fallability of the human as well? After all, the police are trained to be suspicious of every one and they accept that people are flawed. Your six stupid is the opposite. The assumption they make is that people can't be flawed or ignorant, or worse, that the customer is flawed and ignorant and deserves what they get (Enron and the California energy market).


- Skeptical

Dear Skeptical ...

If we can't trust the majority of citizens over the age of 21 to be adults, we might as well give up on the whole concept of a democratic republic. If we trust everyone, we need neither laws nor police. As is the case with just about every subject, neither black nor white describe much of the world very well.

When leaders interact with those they lead, one of the most basic principles I know of is that most people, most of the time, will live either up or down to your expectations of them. If you make it clear that you expect employees to rob you blind when you aren't keeping an eye on them, and to slack off when you aren't riding herd on them, I can predict what you'll get: Employees who do their best to rob you blind and to slack off.

If you make it clear that you expect employees to work hard, do their best, show good judgment and take responsibility, most will do exactly that within the boundaries of their knowledge, skills and aptitudes. Some won't, and you have to deal with them accordingly, but they are the exception, not the trend.

I generally do view criticism as negativity, if it isn't accompanied by a suggestion for what will work better. That's because criticism without suggestion has no value. If you accept the premise that nothing anyone does is either perfect or perfectly bad, then everything that exists has both flaws to criticize and virtues to extol. So what is criticism, except the blinding insight that something has flaws. Big deal - if the critic can't come up with a suggestion about how to address the flaws without impinging on the virtues, there's no value to the exercise.

As to your comments about the bureaucracy, we're saying the same thing. I describe a bureaucracy as an organization that focuses on following the steps without caring about the results. You're telling me bureaucracies don't let employees focus on the results, just on the steps.

Glad we agree!

When it comes to the operation of publicly held corporations, we're dealing with a more complicated situation and one I've written about from time to time ("What corporations and spleens have in common," Keep the Joint Running, 5/5/2003): The best way to think about a publicly held corporation is that it's a different species with which we have to coexist - one we created, but a different species nonetheless. A corporation isn't simply a person only bigger. It has different motivations, drives and cognition than individual human beings, and no moral sense of its own.

Sarbanes/Oxley and other regulatory requirements aren't just about keeping an eye on wayward CEOs. They're about trying to govern the behavior of this species. Not an easy task.

- Bob

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted by Bob Lewis on May 14, 2007 05:14 AM

RATE THIS ARTICLE: