The Unaccountability Machine: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 14: Line 14:
{{drop|T|he epic judicial}} processes of 2024 have been Tom Hayes’ appeal against [[LIBOR rigging]], about which we have had much to say [[LIBOR rigging part 2|elsewhere]], and the [[Post Office Horizon IT scandal]]. Both are resolving to the question: to what extent can we put this absolute shower down to the nefarious, or just bone-headed, interventions of [[Operator|individual operators]]?
{{drop|T|he epic judicial}} processes of 2024 have been Tom Hayes’ appeal against [[LIBOR rigging]], about which we have had much to say [[LIBOR rigging part 2|elsewhere]], and the [[Post Office Horizon IT scandal]]. Both are resolving to the question: to what extent can we put this absolute shower down to the nefarious, or just bone-headed, interventions of [[Operator|individual operators]]?


Yet, much modern of modern business management — you hardly need an advanced degree in operations research to know these days, there’s a lot of it — exists specifically to prevent [[bad apple]]s, or [[stupid apple|''stupid'' apple]]s, subverting our complex modern systems.  
For much modern of modern business management — you hardly need an advanced degree in operations research to know these days, there’s a lot of it — exists specifically to prevent [[bad apple]]s, or [[stupid apple|''stupid'' apple]]s, subverting our complex modern systems. Its record catalogues a singular failure to achieve that basic end. Our [[roll of honour]] refers. [[LIBOR rigging]] and the [[Post Office Horizon IT scandal|sub-postmasters débâcle]] are but pinnacle examples. 


Its history is a catalogue of the singular failure to achieve that basic end. Our [[roll of honour]] refers. [[LIBOR rigging]] and the [[Post Office Horizon IT scandal|sub-postmasters débâcle]] are but pinnacle examples. 
With all that infrastructure, superstructure and supervision how were a band of relatively lowly trading staff able to run riot? 


The [[LIBOR rigging|LIBOR]] conundrum: with all that infrastructure, superstructure and supervision how were a band of relatively lowly trading staff able to run riot?
With all its infrastructure, internal and external legal advice, consultancy, and, er, second sight, how did ''no-one'' stop to think something must be wildly, catastrophically, wrong with the [[Post Office Horizon IT scandal|Post Office]]’s basic theory of the situation? How did no-one, even once, applied [[Otto’s razor]]?


The [[Post Office Horizon IT scandal|Post Office]] conundrum: With all its infrastructure, internal and external legal advice, consultancy, and, er, second sight, how did ''no-one'' stop to think something must be wildly, catastrophically, wrong with the [[Post Office Horizon IT scandal|Post Office]]’s theory of the situation? How did no-one, even once, applying [[Otto’s razor]]?''Where were all the barking dogs? ''
''Where were all the barking dogs? ''
==== Rogue apples, middle England and the grace of God ====
==== Rogue apples, middle England and the grace of God ====
{{drop|E|ither these are}} peculiar, localised problems — rogue gangs of [[Bad apple|bad apples]] plague the innocent houses of commerce — or the prevailing [[paradigm]] is in crisis and we need a new theory of the game. “Bad apples” are always the preferred diagnosis. They relieve earnest executives of responsibility, leaving at most a deniable residue of blame for hiring the bad apples in the first place.   
{{drop|E|ither these are}} peculiar, localised problems — rogue gangs of [[Bad apple|bad apples]] plague the innocent houses of commerce — or the prevailing [[paradigm]] is in crisis and we need a new theory of the game. “Bad apples” are always the preferred diagnosis. They relieve earnest executives of responsibility, leaving at most a deniable residue of blame for hiring the bad apples in the first place.   
Line 55: Line 55:


====In-house counsel is not a moral compass====
====In-house counsel is not a moral compass====
There is an argument, unstated in much commentary on the case, that the primary role of [[Inhouse counsel|in-house counsel]] — of not just the [[GC]] when preparing briefings to the board, but all lawyers in the organisation — is to act as the organisation’s moral compass. They, even more than their [[compliance]] colleagues, are ideally positioned to sit above the fray, from where they can interrogate the organisation’s baser commercial instincts, at least insofar as they manifest in legal work product.
{{Drop|T|here is an}} argument, unstated in much commentary on the case, that the primary role of [[Inhouse counsel|in-house counsel]] — of not just the [[GC]] when preparing briefings to the board, but all lawyers in the organisation — is to act as the organisation’s moral compass. They, even more than their [[compliance]] colleagues, are ideally positioned to sit above the fray, from where they can interrogate the organisation’s baser commercial instincts, at least insofar as they manifest in legal work product.


That’s a plausible theory of the game, but it hardly reflects current practice. For one thing, in-house [[legal is not in the operational stack]], so doesn’t see the great pitch and yaw of BAU activity that animates the firm’s mortal sinews. You wouldn't, situate your moral compass behind the fire extinguishers in the drawer with old chequebooks, broken torches and dead batteries if you had a real intent to use it. At most it would be an exceptional function at times of crisis. But it is not even that.
That’s a plausible theory of the game, but it hardly reflects current practice. For one thing, in-house [[legal is not in the operational stack]], so doesn’t see the great pitch and yaw of BAU activity that animates the firm’s mortal sinews. You wouldn’t situate your moral compass behind the fire extinguishers in the drawer with old chequebooks, broken torches and dead batteries if you intended to ever use it. At most it would be an exceptional function at times of crisis. But it is not even that.


JC has a tongue in cheek [[history of in-house legal]] which charts the growth of the in-house legal function from a gray fellow in a cardigan behind a desk next to the photocopiers who, wordlessly managed the firm’s powers of attorney, to the weaponised, operationally supported 1,000 strong battle unit we know today.  
JC has a tongue in cheek [[history of in-house legal]] which charts the growth of the in-house legal function from a gray fellow in a cardigan behind a desk next to the photocopiers who, wordlessly managed the firm’s powers of attorney, to the weaponised, operationally supported 1,000 strong battle unit we know today.  
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=The_Unaccountability_Machine"