324. Perverse control
In the absence of trust, in present society,
professional practice is widely plagued by perverse, excessive,
counter-productive control. Oversight is often necessary, but it has gone too
far, become perverse, locking professional workers, including teachers, medical
doctors, scientific researchers, etc. into protocols, with the goal of
preventing accidents, malpractice, cheating, incompetence, and opportunism.
That has perverse effects of failing to achieve the
stated objective of efficiency and quality, and indeed achieving an opposite
effect, in high costs, decline of motivation, inevitable loopholes, loss of a
sense of own responsibility, strategic conduct ‘to beat the system’, resulting
in less quality, and lack of room and incentive for experimentation needed for
innovation.
In the business literature there is a stream on
‘communities of practice’. There, it is a received wisdom that professional
practice is too rich, i.e. too complex, context-dependent and variable, due to accumulating
experience and innovation, to be caught in fixed protocols.
Here I aim to dig a little deeper, using the preceding
items in this blog. In those terms, the argument against rigorous, formalized,
top-down control is that they entail the pretention that practice can be
governed by scripts, while in fact it should be seen more in analogy to
narrative. The script constitutes the canon, and remains guiding, but should allow
for individual variation in interpretation, depending on context and experience.
In other words, work should be conducted according to the spirit, not the
letter of a script, taking the script as a platform for deviation even if it
looks like deviance.
This does not entail full release of control, but room
for deviance, subject to argument and subsequent demonstration of success.
There is nothing new in this. It is found also in
legal litigation, where law is to be interpreted with allowance for special
circumstances and varying perspectives.
In philosophy one finds it in the practical wisdom,
‘phronesis’, proposed by Aristotle.
Earlier in this blog (item 75) I pleaded for
‘horizontal control’, where vertical, top-down imposition of protocols is
replaced by debate and negotiation between controller and controlled, where the
latter can bring in experience and evidence of deviations from rules that work.
By taking part in this, the controller deepens its insight into what works, and
thereby becomes an increasingly attractive partner in debate. The aim also is
to reduce controls to a minimum, to reduce costs of control, and to ensure that
they are feasible and functional, in line with practice.
This yields a concrete form of the otherwise perhaps
remote notion of narrative as opposed to scripts. This also connects with the
role of ‘voice’ in relationships, mentioned several times in preceding items in
this blog.
So, the excess of top-down control is explained, in
part, by a misapprehension of the nature of professional work.
Another part of the explanation is cultural, in an
excess of risk avoidance, due to lack of resilience, inability to absorb disappointments,
setbacks, to fall and get up to go on. A lack of adaptiveness, to connect with
a previous blog: lack of flexibility, robustness. Hence the lack of trust.
Trust is giving room for action, and that carries risk. Without risk life is
lifeless, society stagnates, without trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment