Comfortable: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|work|
{{a|work|
[[File:Comfortably numb.png|450px|frameless|center]]
{{image|Comfortably numb|png|An inhouse lawyer, yesterday.}} }}{{D|Comfortable|ˈkʌmftəbəl|}}
}}{{D|Comfort|ˈkʌmfət|n}}
 
1. (''[[Outhouse]]''): A state of nonchalance towards a contingency that will never happen that an agent may reach upon payment of a suitable fee.
1. (''[[Outhouse]]''): A state of nonchalance towards a contingency that will never happen that an agent may reach upon payment of a suitable fee.


2. (''[[Inhouse]]''): Reluctant acquiescence, by means of a tacit acknowledgment that your immovable object really doesn’t have a prayer against the other guy’s irresistible force.
2. (''[[Inhouse]]''): Acquiescence to a palpably poor idea, by means of tacit acknowledgment that your immovable object doesn’t have a prayer against the other guy’s irresistible force.  
 
The beauty, for an agent, of the raging [[the victory of form over substance|war between form and substance]] is the invitation it provides to ''stand on ceremony''.
 
So, we implement process A, to deal with malign contingency X, but processes being only simplified models — derivatives — of the worlds they represent,<ref>We take it as axiomatic that, the “real world” being analogue, fractal and complex, a process ''cannot'' perfectly map to a target contingency: to believe it might is to mistake [[the map and the territory|a map for the territory]].</ref> process A’s shadow will inevitably fall across ''benign'' contingencies Y and Z: circumstances not needing any process, but which “it won’t hurt” to subject to Process A anyway.
 
(The alternative would be a Process A', drawn wholly ''inside'' the boundary of contingency X, and whose shadow therefore didn’t fall across ''any'' benign contingencies, but which also did not quite cover all instances of malign contingency X. A process like this, which fails to address tail risks, is a ''bad'' process).


We should expect process A to get in the way every now and then, when a contingency Y or Z comes about. The options are (i) to run process A anyway, even though everyone knows it isn’t needed, or (ii) to waive process A, invoking process B (the “process A waiver process”). Either option has a cost: option (i) being marginally preferable because it is already costed in. Justifying option (ii) involves demonstrating the cost of obtaining the waiver will be less than the cost of running process B and so will result in a saving. This will trigger process C (the “justifying the cost of new business initiatives process”) which will, of course, increase the cost of process B, and make process B more likely to fail.
The beauty, for an agent, of the raging [[the victory of form over substance|war between form and substance]] is the invitation it provides to ''stand on ceremony''. This manifests differently for [[Inhouse counsel|those whose salaries represent an operating cost]] compared with [[private practice lawyer|those whose are deducted from the revenue they earn]].


There is another way of doing things, of course: a [[subject matter expert]] — which we define as “one who understands the territory and therefore the map’s limitations” — can apprehend that it is contingency Y, make the substantive judgment that, while formally applicable, Process A is not relevant, and thereby ignore process A.  
A suitably [[protestant]] organisation will erect any number of [[formal]] barriers to doing things, however simple, which present entail a large amount of ''notional'' risk. (''Notional'' risks are risk which ''look'' big to those — [[administrator]]s — who, while having executive ''responsibility'' for them, don’t really ''understand'' them. Compare with ''critical'' risks, which are risks that ''don’t'' look big to people who ''do'' understand them, but ''are'' big. They don’t recognise them because they’ve never seen then before.)


This will upset two categories of people: [[administrator]]s — that class of people who are not subject matter experts, therefore  don't understand the territory, fetishise the map, and suffer whenever the map is diregarded and (ii) those who stand to be gain by rigid application of the map, many of whom will be the same people.
These barriers will aggravate [[subject matter experts]], who will understand them to be ''meaningless'', but not [[administrator]]s, who will regard them as ''vital'', and the ''impasse'' can only be resolved by reference to an independent arbitrator of some kind — usually an [[outside counsel|external law firm]], but sometimes an accounting megalith — who can write the cheque the [[administrator]]’s butt won’t cash, for payment of a suitable fee. (The great irony is that, were it ever presented, that cheque — in the form of a [[legal opinion]] — would most likely bounce, but that is another story.)


This leads the JC to offer two models of operation
In any case, no risk is taken, a handsome fee is paid, all implicated backsides are covered, and the world moves [[protestant|Calvinistically]] along.We have an essay about this [[protestant and catholic|Protestant and Catholic division]], if you are interested.


Usually expressed in the [[subjunctive]]: You ''could get comfortable'' by being [[inclined]] to be [[supportive]] [[at this stage|at this point in time]] — proverbial broomsticks propping up any number of escape hatches, barn doors, and manholes through which you ''could'' scarper, bolt or drop, were the circumstances to recommend it — there goes that [[subjunctive]] again — but through which you know you won’t have to, because should this whole thing turn to mud, ''so many other people'' will be put in the stockade before you that those lovely portals — still propped up by your trusty broomsticks, if you’ve played it right — will give your sorry behind all the shelter it should need from the forthcoming [[The tempest]].  
An  [[in-house lawyer]]’s “comfort” is usually expressed in the [[subjunctive]]: she ''could'' get comfortable, by being ''[[inclined]] to be [[supportive]] [[at this stage|at this point in time]]'' — proverbial broomsticks propping up any number of escape hatches, barn doors, and manholes through which she ''could'' scarper, bolt or drop, were the circumstances to recommend it — there goes that [[subjunctive]] again — but through which she knows she won’t have to, because should this whole thing turn to mud, ''so many other people'' will be put in the stockade before she is that those lovely portals — still propped up by those trusty broomsticks, if she’s played it right — will give her sorry behind all the shelter it should need from the forthcoming [[The tempest|tempest]].


So — get ''comfortable'' in there.
So — get ''comfortable'' in there.
Line 28: Line 22:
*[[Subjunctive]]
*[[Subjunctive]]
*[[The map and the territory]]
*[[The map and the territory]]
*[[Protestant and catholic]]
*[[If in doubt, stick it in]]
{{Ref}}

Latest revision as of 20:32, 2 September 2023

Office anthropology™


Comfortably numb.png
An inhouse lawyer, yesterday.
The JC puts on his pith-helmet, grabs his butterfly net and a rucksack full of marmalade sandwiches, and heads into the concrete jungleIndex: Click ᐅ to expand:
Work anthropology

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Comfortable
ˈkʌmftəbəl ('.)

1. (Outhouse): A state of nonchalance towards a contingency that will never happen that an agent may reach upon payment of a suitable fee.

2. (Inhouse): Acquiescence to a palpably poor idea, by means of tacit acknowledgment that your immovable object doesn’t have a prayer against the other guy’s irresistible force.

The beauty, for an agent, of the raging war between form and substance is the invitation it provides to stand on ceremony. This manifests differently for those whose salaries represent an operating cost compared with those whose are deducted from the revenue they earn.

A suitably protestant organisation will erect any number of formal barriers to doing things, however simple, which present entail a large amount of notional risk. (Notional risks are risk which look big to those — administrators — who, while having executive responsibility for them, don’t really understand them. Compare with critical risks, which are risks that don’t look big to people who do understand them, but are big. They don’t recognise them because they’ve never seen then before.)

These barriers will aggravate subject matter experts, who will understand them to be meaningless, but not administrators, who will regard them as vital, and the impasse can only be resolved by reference to an independent arbitrator of some kind — usually an external law firm, but sometimes an accounting megalith — who can write the cheque the administrator’s butt won’t cash, for payment of a suitable fee. (The great irony is that, were it ever presented, that cheque — in the form of a legal opinion — would most likely bounce, but that is another story.)

In any case, no risk is taken, a handsome fee is paid, all implicated backsides are covered, and the world moves Calvinistically along.We have an essay about this Protestant and Catholic division, if you are interested.

An in-house lawyer’s “comfort” is usually expressed in the subjunctive: she could get comfortable, by being inclined to be supportive at this point in time — proverbial broomsticks propping up any number of escape hatches, barn doors, and manholes through which she could scarper, bolt or drop, were the circumstances to recommend it — there goes that subjunctive again — but through which she knows she won’t have to, because should this whole thing turn to mud, so many other people will be put in the stockade before she is that those lovely portals — still propped up by those trusty broomsticks, if she’s played it right — will give her sorry behind all the shelter it should need from the forthcoming tempest.

So — get comfortable in there.

See also

References

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Comfortable&oldid=77867"