82,882
edits
Performative governance: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
With — perhaps — a spin. You “perform” governance, generally, by ''approximating'' it: creating crude, two-dimensional stick-figure illustrations of a four-dimensional<ref>Yes: ''four'', and I don’t even need to exceed Euclidean geometry to get there: governance propositions mutate over ''time''.</ref> reality which is genuinely ineffable: with social systems there is never the necessary information, nor boundaries, for any simplistic representation to work. | With — perhaps — a spin. You “perform” governance, generally, by ''approximating'' it: creating crude, two-dimensional stick-figure illustrations of a four-dimensional<ref>Yes: ''four'', and I don’t even need to exceed Euclidean geometry to get there: governance propositions mutate over ''time''.</ref> reality which is genuinely ineffable: with social systems there is never the necessary information, nor boundaries, for any simplistic representation to work. | ||
Modern administration is not “performative” in the sense of being ''fictional'', but irresponsibly ''representational'': the [[modernist]] | Modern administration is not “performative” in the sense of being ''fictional'', but irresponsibly ''representational'': the [[modernist]] sees calamity as a function of low-level human failure: as ''[[The Field Guide to Human Error Investigations|operator error]]''. If the errors, inconstancies and misapprehensions of human frailty could only be excised, then orderly good governance would surely follow. Thus; administrators are never to blame: it’s the [[meatware]]. But then, why pay the big bucks to middle managers? This kind of administration is easy: you just have to weed out the bad apples. If you don’t you’ve failed; if you do, your administrative role is reduced to one of [[human resources]].<ref>Thinks: ''waaaaaaaait a minute.''</ref> | ||
The contrary view is this: administration is ''hard''. Avoiding [[system accidents]], designing processes and products; aligning incentives, reacting to subtle, and sudden, shifts in the business environment; fixing conflicts of interest: these are ''ongoing'' tasks that need constant attention, [[interaction]] and adjustment, and these are solely the responsibility of management. If there is a calamity at the coal face, that is ''[[prima facie]]'' indication that ''management'' has failed, because it has put the wrong person, with the wrong tools, in the wrong place. | The contrary view is this: administration is ''hard''. Avoiding [[system accidents]], designing processes and products; aligning incentives, reacting to subtle, and sudden, shifts in the business environment; fixing conflicts of interest: these are ''ongoing'' tasks that need constant attention, [[interaction]] and adjustment, and these are solely the responsibility of management. If there is a calamity at the coal face, that is ''[[prima facie]]'' indication that ''management'' has failed, because it has put the wrong person, with the wrong tools, in the wrong place. | ||