The Unaccountability Machine: Difference between revisions

The Unaccountability Machine (view source)

Revision as of 18:35, 1 May 2024

1,657 bytes added , 1 May

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,057

edits

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 One creates an accountability sink by delegating the administration of a human process to a [[playbook|rulebook]] and then not giving anyone direct power to override it. Airlines, banks and online retailers of course have no access to anyone whatsoever. But the crushing stasis that anyone who works in financial services will know is a variety of the same thing.
-And it explains exactly why noone saw, or appreciated the significance of or stopped to consider the implications of, the potentially incendiary advice they were receiving. ''it was not their job to second guess a process that had been set on rails well before they were involved''. They were like those furious ice-sweepers in the sport of curling — the policy having been set and launched, it had momentum, and their job was to purely ''facilitate its prosecution''. It was no part of their role to impede its stately progress. From an immediate career path perspective the ''last'' thing they would want to do is be creating ructions further up the chain. There is a presumption, not lightly rebuttable, that others in the organisation know what they are doing. This is its own accountability sink. Individuals are positively discouraged from raising their hands.
+And it explains exactly why noone saw, or appreciated the significance of or stopped to consider the implications of, the potentially incendiary advice they were receiving. ''it was not their job to second guess a process that had been set on rails well before they were involved''. They were like those furious ice-sweepers in the sport of curling — the policy having been set and launched, it had momentum, and their job was to purely ''facilitate its prosecution''. It was no part of their role to ''impede'' its stately progress. From an immediate career path perspective, the ''last'' thing these drones would want is to create ructions further up the [[line manager|chain of command]].
+In organisations over a certain size there is a presumption, not lightly rebuttable, that others in the organisation know what they are doing. This is its own [[accountability sink]]. Questioning a decision that appears to have been made elsewhere — whether by application of rigid policy or the exercise of someone else’s discretion — is to sell a ''personal'' [[put option]] whose benefit, if there is one, accrues to the organisation, but whose loss allocates solely to you. If you turn out to be right, someone else carries the can, if you’re not, you will. Either way, you have lost a friend.
+Your only upside is avoiding an unthinkably remote tail risk: that some day, years from now, the entire shabby affair will be exposed and all participants held to public account before the watching eye of the internet. Even then if you end up at even money you will be lucky.
+Bear in mind, too, that these people are paid partisans. Litigation in the common law world is an adversarial process. It is not a fact-finding enquiry. Yes, there are standards of disclosure and honesty required of witnesses but, upon finding weakness in a witness, the litigants instinct is not to instantly concede defeat but to find a better witness. The theory of the case rarely
+A special mention of the ultimate flimsiness of [[legal professional privilege]] here. Some people who ''really'' ought to know better put in writing some ''extraordinary'' things. The misjudgment seemed so total until you realise that, normally , this class of communications ''would never see the light of day'', barred from view by the deep magic of [[litigation privilege]].
+Individuals are, therefore ''positively disincentivised'' couraged from raising their hands.
+We should not underestimate the overwhelming power of ''[[plausible deniability]]''.