Ignore: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
====Ignorance as a data-defeat device==== | ====Ignorance as a data-defeat device==== | ||
Then there is run-of-the-mill organisational ignorance, as a strategy for forcing one’s own agenda whilst giving the impression of consultation and collaboration. There is no better example of this that {{poh}}, wherein countless smoking guns were levelled at implicated | Then there is run-of-the-mill organisational ignorance, as a strategy for forcing one’s own agenda whilst giving the impression of consultation and collaboration. | ||
In a world where every communication is tracked, kept, logged, stored and discoverable, where “[[what you see is all there is]]” and on-record communications are an indelible, implicating record, do not underestimate the perfidious power of ''saying nothing''. Of not rising to it. Of ''[[ignore|ignoring]]'' things you wish had not been said. | |||
There is no better example of this that {{poh}}, wherein countless smoking guns were levelled at implicated personnel in the executive who, through the simple expedient of ''ignoring'' them on the record, were able, in ensuing years, to plead ignorance to them. The cloak of [[plausible deniability]] — “I did not see it”, “I did not read it that way”, “''I just don’t recall''” — could fill volumes. | |||
[[Daniel Kahneman]]’s “What you see is all there is” owes a debt to Terry the chef, from ''Fawlty Towers'', for it was originally [[Terry’s law]]: “[[What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with]]”. There is a real premium for the executive who knows how to “leave a ball outside off stump”. | |||
Here, the misbehaver — the one who ought to be our hero — sows the seeds for her own downfall. For communications that do not comply with the unspoken guidelines for [[performative]] politeness — that are blunt, candid, uppity; that exhibit frustration or justified ''anger'' — offer an ''excuse'' to ignore them. {{br|No One Would Listen}} to {{author|Harry Markopolos}} as he laid out, in painstaking detail, to precise method of Bernie Madoff’s crimes, because he was an awkward Bostonian outsider with a penchant for hyperbole — though of course it ''wasn’t'' hyperbole. Paula Vennells could disregard Tim McCormack’s repeated, blunt, predictions of her future because they were aggressive and rude, notwithstanding that they were ''spot on''. | |||
The other kind of ignorance is the through demurral and compliance with the requirements of [[unhealthy peace]] in a dysfunctional organisation. Here discontented misbehavers discouraged, on pain of censure, from even raising their objections, so they don’t, whereupon ''there is no need for ignorance as a strategy'' because no complaint even ''arises''. | |||
The plausible deniability afforded by silence therefore informs a ''culture'' of silence. It becomes an attribute of advancement — knowing where your off stump is; mastering the art of the ''judicious leave''. | |||