Empowerment: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|devil|}}Less in the sense of touchy-feely [[yogababble]] about how we should all be actualised to [[Be the best version of yourself|be the best versions of ourselves]], but in the sense of having the autonomy and authority to make pragmatic decisions to move an organisation on.  
{{a|devil|
[[File:Disaster-girl.jpg|450px|center|thumb|What happens when you let the staff make decisions.]]
}}When that [[inter-affiliate ISDA negotiation]] has been going so long there are sizeable parts of your risk management team who were still in school when it began, and others, then in the primes of their careers, have since retired, we wonder whether the crux of the problem really is the scope of the requested [[sovereign immunity]] [[waiver]], or whether it hasn’t got more to do with how your own organisation is ''organised'', and how it fails to ''[[empower]]'' — or ''trust'' — those it puts in the front line of the [[negotiation]].  


In any commercial collective, there is an enduring tussle between the (sadly) resistible force of [[subject matter expert]]ise — wielded limply by those who know what they are doing, understand the proximate ramifications of their actions and derive professional pride and no small amount of job satisfaction from ''the very act of exercising small nuggets of authority'' — and the hardly moveable object of [[policy]], process, [[precedent]] and sclerotic infrastructure that trusts no such executive agent further than she can be thrown, and is stout in the resistance of any kind of risk, however theoretical or academic.  
“Send people authorised to make a decision” is a management truism that seems well out of fashion.


Those two forces — of [[substance]] and of [[form]] — wrestle in any organisation; the bigger and older the firm is the more likely the thrusting young executive is to lose. She may want little more than the opportunity to stand on the deck, in the sun, blowing wistfully into the sail, an action that, by itself, will vouchsafe ineffable ''meaning'' in her grim working life even if it doesn’t noticeably propel the vessel, but even that will be denied her.  
Here we are talking about “[[empowerment]]” not in the sense of [[yogababble]] about how we should all be actualised to [[Be the best version of yourself|be the best versions of ourselves]] — [[HR]] will be all over that, and they can have it, frankly but in the sense of having the ''[[autonomy]]'' and ''authority'' to make pragmatic decisions on the spot to make your own organisation ''go''.  


She will be institutionalised, worn down and broken. Her fresh blue eyes will cloud, her shoulders will sag, she will mutter distractedly, using the world “[[leverage]]” when she means “use” — all these deteriorations in the service of descent towards the same fate we all share: a lifetime nosing boulders back up that very same slope.
The immutable trajectory of management orthodoxy favours ''policy'' over ''judgment'', ''process'' over ''insight'', ''evidence'' over ''intuition'' — fundamentally [[La Vittoria della Forma sulla Sostanza|''substance'' over ''form'']] — and in so, doing pushes each enterprise towards ultimate ''stasis'' which will only collapse when the firm does, as a result of some [[non-linear]] chain reaction the learned authors of its [[risk taxonomy]] somehow didn’t foresee.


We all know the feeling: the [[credit department]] policy that requires [[cross default]] in a spot contract; the [[clearing house]] which demands an unlimited [[indemnity]] for losses it might suffer — but that it cannot articulate even in the hypothetical — whilst carrying out a trade-matching service; the absurd contractual [[disclaimer]] of liability for losses arising from ones’ notwithstanding normal or even [[gross negligence]].
Any commercial collective is a tussle between the resistible force of [[subject matter expert]]ise — wielded by those who know what they are meant to, why, and what will happen if they don’t do it, and derive pride and satisfaction from thereby improving things — and the immovable object of [[policy]], [[process]], [[precedent]]: the sclerotic infrastructure that trusts no such person further than {{sex|she}} can be thrown, and is stout in its resistance of any kind of risk, however theoretical or academic.  


In each case, we ''know'' these terms to be preposterous, but we know just as thoroughly that the prescribed process for winning a derogation from them is so monstrous as to be unthinkable, so we externalise our suffering and pass it to our clients. This really doesn’t seem an especially commercial way to go about business.  
The forces of [[substance]] and of [[form]] wrestle in any organisation: the bigger and older it is, the more likely the [[subject matter expert]] who yearns for a crumb of authority to conduct its affairs will be disappointed. She may want little more than the opportunity to stand on the deck, in the sun, blowing wistfully into the sail — an action that, by itself, will vouchsafe ineffable ''meaning'' in her career, even if it doesn’t really move the vessel — but even that will be denied her.  


She will be institutionalised, worn down and broken. Her fresh eyes will cloud, her shoulders will sag, she will mutter distractedly, saying “[[leverage]]” when she means “[[use]]” — all these deteriorations in the service of a descent towards the same fate we all share: a lifetime nosing boulders back up the same slope we have just slithered down.


And spare a thought for your client’s [[negotiator|negotiation team]]. Will they be any more empowered than you? They will not. These poor souls have their own policy crosses to bear, many just as palm-faced as yours, only different. Presented with ''your'' enstilted nonsense, they will have no choice but to object to it and perhaps even counter it with ''theirs''.  
We all know the feeling: the [[credit department]] policy that requires [[cross default]] in a [[spot contract]]; the [[clearing house]] which demands an unlimited [[indemnity]] for losses it might suffer but that it cannot, even in the hypothetical, articulate; the [[disclaimer]] of liability for ones’ ''own'' misperformance, notwithstanding normal or even [[gross negligence]].


It is the [[legal eagles]]’ sacred covenant ''to make sure their firm does not endanger itself by reckless [[contract]]''. Their domain being of law and not fact, it is ''theoretical'' reckless ness and ''juristic'' endangerment they must identify: that no merchant would be so misguided to take such protections to their logical legal conclusion can form no part of the calculus.
In each case, we know these terms to be preposterous, but we know just as well that the prescribed process for winning derogation from them is so monstrous as to be unthinkable, so we externalise our suffering and pass it to our clients.  


And so it is we find bald men fighting over combs no-one wants in micro-soap operas across the city, because other bald men, with barely any more interest in them, have made a policy that ''men must have combs''.
And spare a thought for your client’s [[negotiator|negotiation team]]. Will they be any more empowered than you? They will not. These poor souls have their own policy crosses to bear, many just as palm-faced as yours, only ''different''. Presented with ''your'' enstilted nonsense, they will have no choice but to object to it and perhaps even counter it with ''theirs''.
 
It is the [[legal eagles]]’ sacred [[covenant]] ''to make sure their firm does not endanger itself by reckless [[contract]]''. Their domain being of law and not fact, it is ''theoretical'' [[recklessness]] and ''juristic'' endangerment they must root out: that no-one would be so misguided to try to use these protections ina live-ammunition environment can form no part of the calculus.
 
And so it is we find bald men fighting over combs no-one wants in micro-soap operas across the city, because other bald men, with barely any more interest in them, have made a policy that ''all men must have combs''.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*The [[Inter-affiliate ISDA negotiation]]
*[[The Victory of Form over Substance]]
*[[The Victory of Form over Substance]]
*{{br|Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us}}
*{{br|Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us}}
{{Friday Philosophy|11/12/2020}}

Latest revision as of 09:30, 11 May 2021

What happens when you let the staff make decisions.
In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights.
Index — Click ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

When that inter-affiliate ISDA negotiation has been going so long there are sizeable parts of your risk management team who were still in school when it began, and others, then in the primes of their careers, have since retired, we wonder whether the crux of the problem really is the scope of the requested sovereign immunity waiver, or whether it hasn’t got more to do with how your own organisation is organised, and how it fails to empower — or trust — those it puts in the front line of the negotiation.

“Send people authorised to make a decision” is a management truism that seems well out of fashion.

Here we are talking about “empowerment” not in the sense of yogababble about how we should all be actualised to be the best versions of ourselvesHR will be all over that, and they can have it, frankly — but in the sense of having the autonomy and authority to make pragmatic decisions on the spot to make your own organisation go.

The immutable trajectory of management orthodoxy favours policy over judgment, process over insight, evidence over intuition — fundamentally substance over form — and in so, doing pushes each enterprise towards ultimate stasis which will only collapse when the firm does, as a result of some non-linear chain reaction the learned authors of its risk taxonomy somehow didn’t foresee.

Any commercial collective is a tussle between the resistible force of subject matter expertise — wielded by those who know what they are meant to, why, and what will happen if they don’t do it, and derive pride and satisfaction from thereby improving things — and the immovable object of policy, process, precedent: the sclerotic infrastructure that trusts no such person further than she can be thrown, and is stout in its resistance of any kind of risk, however theoretical or academic.

The forces of substance and of form wrestle in any organisation: the bigger and older it is, the more likely the subject matter expert who yearns for a crumb of authority to conduct its affairs will be disappointed. She may want little more than the opportunity to stand on the deck, in the sun, blowing wistfully into the sail — an action that, by itself, will vouchsafe ineffable meaning in her career, even if it doesn’t really move the vessel — but even that will be denied her.

She will be institutionalised, worn down and broken. Her fresh eyes will cloud, her shoulders will sag, she will mutter distractedly, saying “leverage” when she means “use” — all these deteriorations in the service of a descent towards the same fate we all share: a lifetime nosing boulders back up the same slope we have just slithered down.

We all know the feeling: the credit department policy that requires cross default in a spot contract; the clearing house which demands an unlimited indemnity for losses it might suffer but that it cannot, even in the hypothetical, articulate; the disclaimer of liability for ones’ own misperformance, notwithstanding normal or even gross negligence.

In each case, we know these terms to be preposterous, but we know just as well that the prescribed process for winning derogation from them is so monstrous as to be unthinkable, so we externalise our suffering and pass it to our clients.

And spare a thought for your client’s negotiation team. Will they be any more empowered than you? They will not. These poor souls have their own policy crosses to bear, many just as palm-faced as yours, only different. Presented with your enstilted nonsense, they will have no choice but to object to it and perhaps even counter it with theirs.

It is the legal eagles’ sacred covenant to make sure their firm does not endanger itself by reckless contract. Their domain being of law and not fact, it is theoretical recklessness and juristic endangerment they must root out: that no-one would be so misguided to try to use these protections ina live-ammunition environment can form no part of the calculus.

And so it is we find bald men fighting over combs no-one wants in micro-soap operas across the city, because other bald men, with barely any more interest in them, have made a policy that all men must have combs.

See also