So in the words of the fictional Dr Gregory House “Everybody Lies”, and yes we all do it but most of us restrict this to social lies, you know the “does my bum look fat in these” type of lies (the answer not the question) or the “I love it just what I wanted” option. We all know that sort of stuff that makes for an ability to operate in a social group without offending everyone. What’s more when we hear these potential lies (sometimes you really do love the gift) we understand the rules and accept the practice.
On the other hand there are lies we do not find so acceptable and these are generally of the self serving kind that have the potential to damage others. The “I didn’t break the window, he did” type of lies. The motivation for these lies is of course obvious, we wish to avoid the consequences of our actions or perhaps even worse persuade others to action for our own benefit. The “buy this perfume and be instantly desirable” type lie.
Now I understand personal motivations for actions that benefit you, we are after all pretty selfish organisms it is the process by which we ensure our survival. But there is another form which I really don’t understand at all and that is when you lie for no obvious personal benefit.
So once upon a time I was on a flight from Dunedin to Auckland which lands at Wellington on the way to put down some passengers and pick up others. The flight was running late (as usual but that is another story) and so the Auckland bound passengers were asked to remain on the plane. After a while an announcement was made telling us that the plane had encountered an “engineering issue” that needed rectified and there would be a delay. Duly the situation was sorted and the Wellington passengers joined the plane, however they reported that the plane was delayed due to “crew change problems”. Now I neither know nor care which one of these options was correct but clearly one group had been lied to and for no good reason, which ever option was the truth was just as useful a reason as the other option. Potentially neither was the truth and there was a third reason but that would have been ok too I suppose. So why did they do it.
My thought on this little incident is that the marketing “spin doctoring” is so out of hand within Air New Zealand that they now find it difficult to tell the truth. They are too worried that they will “look bad”. You see attendance to an engineering issue might make them seem careful and caring. Not having the right staff in the right place potentially makes you look sloppy and careless. Maybe it is that sort of thinking that drives this sort of behaviour.
A current example that is more serious than a mildly interesting anecdote is the continual lies that swirl around the new Stadium here in Dunedin, the recent statements regarding the $5M of “extras” is a prime example, no doubt some of what was said was true but other things beggar belief.
So none of these are actual quotes but for example, internal signage was the responsibility of the naming sponsor but this has failed to come to fruition. Really? Well if it was agreed with them why not sue them for performance rather than revert to the rate payer. How about this as a reason, it wasn’t agreed. I have no knowledge of the agreement but I bet if it was agreed the rate payers would not be paying.
How about, the catering contractor is contributing $3M to kitchen fit out but a further $2.5M is required. Really? Are you trying to tell me it costs $5.5M to fit out a kitchen, that is an awful lot of pots pans and plates etc. Again I have no actual knowledge but this statement doesn’t ring true with me.
And what about, when the stadium was designed large replay screens were not in use in stadiums and are now common place. Now this is definitely wrong as Carisbrook has had one for years or did they never look at Carisbrook before deciding it was a no go option.
You see that is the big problem with “spin doctoring” the truth, eventually we doubt everything corporate’s say be it the truth or otherwise. And what’s in it for the spin doctors, just as with my Air NZ example often the truth would have done just as well and eventually we would believe you and trust you. Isn’t a trusted brand what marketers strive for? Corporate truth telling would be a useful start.
Random thoughts on Random topics sparked by my travels through life and the things I see or hear on the way
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Rule Victoria..
Victoria was Queen of England from 1837 to 1901, from the age of 18 to 81 which has a nice symmetry about it, this is of course the formative years of our nation (the treaty was signed in 1840) and other commonwealth nations. These years are known as the Victorian era and were an unprecedented period of industry, trade and conquest as Britain surged ahead on all fronts.
Many of the values, ideas and institutions that have sway today owe a great deal to this period of change and advancement and at times I wonder if we aren’t still living in a version of that same era. It was Queen Victoria and her rather prudish ideas about sex that gave us separate male and female toilets rather than the uni-sex arrangements common on continental Europe as an example of her direct influence but mostly it was the driving engine of the industrial revolution that made this time one of such change and influence rather than the queen herself.
It was a time when science was hitting its straps and dabbling in science became a popular pastime amongst the gentry. One of the things of interest became the past or perhaps more particularly antiquity. While Britain was charging around the globe grabbing countries it was also doing a bit of looting on the side. Not that the Victorians would have thought of it that way but the British Museum is not filled with priceless artefacts like the Elgin Marbles because they were presented as gifts, they were mostly taken as of right. (although in the case of the Marbles there was some doubtful paper work associated with them that might have given Lord Elgin permission, not withstanding that the Greek government would now like them back) The “desecration” or destruction of historic sites was not of much concern to these folk provided that bagged a mummy or two to show the folks back home how the trip went.
Another popular pastime were Barrow parties, and it did not involve moving the food in a wheelbarrow it was when the group would identify an ancient burial mound (known as a Barrow) and dig it up for a days entertainment and see what if anything was buried in there. This was done with no scientific rigour much less respect for the fact that the barrow was destroyed in the process.
Along side this sort of “fun” was wholesale development of Britain and many of the grand buildings to be seen in various British towns today were built in the Victorian era (including the British Museum building). This sort of thing lead to the enactment of The Ancient Monuments Act of 1882 which appointed an inspector who had little power other than to ask land owners nicely if they would mind awfully not desecrating the countries heritage. A short time after the act was passed a few individuals established the National Trust in 1884, which was a charity that tried to buy properties to protect them from redevelopment.
It is from these roots that our own Historic Places Trust and our ideas on preserving heritage spring from and as we can see it is a relatively modern idea that old buildings have some sort of value other than economic. Can you imagine the spluttering that would have erupted if you told a Victorian Gent that he couldn’t alter the look of his house because it was of “cultural or historical” significance?
Given the age of our country a lot of the buildings that have suffered structural damage in the recent Christchurch earthquake will owe some of their look to that great period of British expansion. They are also a product of that thinking when things were valued for their utility and the historic importance idea was still in its infancy, but that idea has now been thrust to centre stage as the powers that be consider saving or demolishing these "significant" buildings.
Significant above is in quotes because there are clearly arguments to be had, one mans trash and all that and none of this blog is an argument for the retention or destruction of these buildings but the generalised hand wringing that has accompanied the “red stickering” of many “historic” buildings in Christchurch is an interesting example of the ongoing clash between aesthetics, history, economics and land owners rights.
Which Victorian view will we adopt, progress and modernity or the preservation of history. Because in this case we have up to 50% (in terms of building numbers) destruction I suspect economics and progress will win out.
Many of the values, ideas and institutions that have sway today owe a great deal to this period of change and advancement and at times I wonder if we aren’t still living in a version of that same era. It was Queen Victoria and her rather prudish ideas about sex that gave us separate male and female toilets rather than the uni-sex arrangements common on continental Europe as an example of her direct influence but mostly it was the driving engine of the industrial revolution that made this time one of such change and influence rather than the queen herself.
It was a time when science was hitting its straps and dabbling in science became a popular pastime amongst the gentry. One of the things of interest became the past or perhaps more particularly antiquity. While Britain was charging around the globe grabbing countries it was also doing a bit of looting on the side. Not that the Victorians would have thought of it that way but the British Museum is not filled with priceless artefacts like the Elgin Marbles because they were presented as gifts, they were mostly taken as of right. (although in the case of the Marbles there was some doubtful paper work associated with them that might have given Lord Elgin permission, not withstanding that the Greek government would now like them back) The “desecration” or destruction of historic sites was not of much concern to these folk provided that bagged a mummy or two to show the folks back home how the trip went.
Another popular pastime were Barrow parties, and it did not involve moving the food in a wheelbarrow it was when the group would identify an ancient burial mound (known as a Barrow) and dig it up for a days entertainment and see what if anything was buried in there. This was done with no scientific rigour much less respect for the fact that the barrow was destroyed in the process.
Along side this sort of “fun” was wholesale development of Britain and many of the grand buildings to be seen in various British towns today were built in the Victorian era (including the British Museum building). This sort of thing lead to the enactment of The Ancient Monuments Act of 1882 which appointed an inspector who had little power other than to ask land owners nicely if they would mind awfully not desecrating the countries heritage. A short time after the act was passed a few individuals established the National Trust in 1884, which was a charity that tried to buy properties to protect them from redevelopment.
It is from these roots that our own Historic Places Trust and our ideas on preserving heritage spring from and as we can see it is a relatively modern idea that old buildings have some sort of value other than economic. Can you imagine the spluttering that would have erupted if you told a Victorian Gent that he couldn’t alter the look of his house because it was of “cultural or historical” significance?
Given the age of our country a lot of the buildings that have suffered structural damage in the recent Christchurch earthquake will owe some of their look to that great period of British expansion. They are also a product of that thinking when things were valued for their utility and the historic importance idea was still in its infancy, but that idea has now been thrust to centre stage as the powers that be consider saving or demolishing these "significant" buildings.
Significant above is in quotes because there are clearly arguments to be had, one mans trash and all that and none of this blog is an argument for the retention or destruction of these buildings but the generalised hand wringing that has accompanied the “red stickering” of many “historic” buildings in Christchurch is an interesting example of the ongoing clash between aesthetics, history, economics and land owners rights.
Which Victorian view will we adopt, progress and modernity or the preservation of history. Because in this case we have up to 50% (in terms of building numbers) destruction I suspect economics and progress will win out.
Monday, March 7, 2011
First The Good News...
The courts have overturned Wanganui’s ill advised by-law banning “gang patches” from the CBD.
So firstly the usual disclaimers, I don’t agree with the illegal activities of gangs, nor do I find their generally life style attractive, however....
Like them or loathe them they are members of our society and should therefore be afforded the same protection under the law as the rest of us. More importantly an attack on the civil liberties of this group is an attack on the civil liberties of us all.
There is no particular difference between a gang member wearing his “colours” and me walking down the street in my team’s rugby jersey. They both indicate affiliation to a certain group and presumably identification with whatever that group represents. The only difference is that the council has decided they don’t “like” gangs.
Well over and over in history we have seen examples of groups deciding they don’t like other groups and it seldom works out well. This is why we tolerate others in society and among other things allow them to dress as they please. Admittedly there are limits to the dress as you please rule, not wearing enough could get you into trouble and wearing clothing that is regarded as offensive also but these laws apply to all not just to a select group. If you want to try and use these laws to pick on gang patches be my guest but passing a specific law targeting a minority group, no matter how much you might dislike them leaves me nervous.
The other thing that interests me is, How is this going to help? Nobody in their right mind would imagine that gangs will suddenly fade out because they aren’t allowed to wear their patches in Wanganui’s CBD. They are even unlikely to disappear from Wanganui. One of the reasons people join gangs is no doubt a sense of isolation or exclusion from society and this rule is going to reinforce this rather than change anything. There are now “youth gangs” in Auckland modelled on The Bloods and Crypts who do not have patches but they are still a gang.
If you don’t like gangs how about you work on youth employment or tackle family violence or whatever else drives gang membership. As I have opined before simply banning stuff doesn’t work.
The other sighted reason is that people find the patches intimidating? Really? Personally I find the people inside the patches intimidating and I am confident that they can be plenty violent and intimidating without the patch if they choose to be. This is another example of a silly idea up there with micro chipping dogs to stop them biting people, actually why don’t we just micro chip gang members that should sort them out.
So in words much sharper than mine
First They came.. - Pastor Martin Niemoller
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Now the bad news.
As I understand it the court said that the process in creating the by-law was flawed not that the council couldn’t do it. So stand by for a potential further attack on your civil liberties by the Wanganui Council. Or feel free to email them at wdc@wanganui.govt.nz and tell them you object.
So firstly the usual disclaimers, I don’t agree with the illegal activities of gangs, nor do I find their generally life style attractive, however....
Like them or loathe them they are members of our society and should therefore be afforded the same protection under the law as the rest of us. More importantly an attack on the civil liberties of this group is an attack on the civil liberties of us all.
There is no particular difference between a gang member wearing his “colours” and me walking down the street in my team’s rugby jersey. They both indicate affiliation to a certain group and presumably identification with whatever that group represents. The only difference is that the council has decided they don’t “like” gangs.
Well over and over in history we have seen examples of groups deciding they don’t like other groups and it seldom works out well. This is why we tolerate others in society and among other things allow them to dress as they please. Admittedly there are limits to the dress as you please rule, not wearing enough could get you into trouble and wearing clothing that is regarded as offensive also but these laws apply to all not just to a select group. If you want to try and use these laws to pick on gang patches be my guest but passing a specific law targeting a minority group, no matter how much you might dislike them leaves me nervous.
The other thing that interests me is, How is this going to help? Nobody in their right mind would imagine that gangs will suddenly fade out because they aren’t allowed to wear their patches in Wanganui’s CBD. They are even unlikely to disappear from Wanganui. One of the reasons people join gangs is no doubt a sense of isolation or exclusion from society and this rule is going to reinforce this rather than change anything. There are now “youth gangs” in Auckland modelled on The Bloods and Crypts who do not have patches but they are still a gang.
If you don’t like gangs how about you work on youth employment or tackle family violence or whatever else drives gang membership. As I have opined before simply banning stuff doesn’t work.
The other sighted reason is that people find the patches intimidating? Really? Personally I find the people inside the patches intimidating and I am confident that they can be plenty violent and intimidating without the patch if they choose to be. This is another example of a silly idea up there with micro chipping dogs to stop them biting people, actually why don’t we just micro chip gang members that should sort them out.
So in words much sharper than mine
First They came.. - Pastor Martin Niemoller
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Now the bad news.
As I understand it the court said that the process in creating the by-law was flawed not that the council couldn’t do it. So stand by for a potential further attack on your civil liberties by the Wanganui Council. Or feel free to email them at wdc@wanganui.govt.nz and tell them you object.
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Wisdom of Crowds
I have a book called “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” by Charles Mackay. The book talks about the follies that crowds seem to indulge in. He covers a wide range of historic events and activities such as The South Seas Bubble, Tulipmania, The Crusades, Witch Mania, Alchemy and Fortune Telling among other things.
The book was originally published in 1841 and was reprinted as recently as last year so it has some level of popularity. It is written in the language of 1841 which makes it a difficult read for a modern reader such as myself. If you are unfamiliar with any of the topics listed above I suggest you have a look at Wiki at the least as all of them are interesting topics.
The over arching theme is of course that crowds are dumb. The words delusion and madness in the title sort of give the game away as to what Charles thinks of crowd behaviour. My personal experience of crowds seems to mirror Charles view that groups of people acting mostly in dumb ways and in ways that they as individuals would probably not.
One kind of example springs to mind, when I was at university the lectures were timetabled to finish around lunch (I forget the exact time now) and hordes of hungry students would head to the cafeteria leading to a crowd shuffling forward to enter through the main doors. To the left of the main door by approx 5m was a single door leading to the same space as the main doors. No one ever used the single door despite myself and others repeatedly walking past the crowd and through the single door. For some reason the people in the crowd were unable to observe this behaviour and modify their own to take advantage of this fact. The pull of the crowd was greater than their hunger it seems.
This propensity for crowds to act in dumb ways has always bothered me because crowds vote and my worst fears are borne out every time they elect a left wing government or a single issue candidate.
However what is up with the crowds at the moment? The break out of popular uprisings in Egypt and now Libya are examples of crowds acting for the good. (assuming you agree the countries should not be run by dictators for their own benefit) Although I guess I could argue that they are still being a bit dumb, I mean a number of people have been and continue to be killed as part of these protests. Turning up to a protest rally where you may go home dead may not be the smartest thing you ever did but clearly an example of several crowds acting for the good.
But the current crowd action which is perhaps the most interesting is what is happening around Christchurch at the moment with so many stories of spontaneous actions by groups of individuals acting in a positive and unselfish way to help those around them who are worse off. And while the likes of the Student Volunteer Army grab the headlines the little stuff of neighbours forming up to hold group BBQs or the bloke that happens to have a spring in his yard and is supplying water and the thousands of other acts of kindness that I will never hear about.
With all this good stuff about let’s hope that we can maintain our focus on the positive members of the community, the clear majority, and the media can resist the temptation to highlight the complainers who will surface shortly. The “why isn’t the government doing more brigade” who are out there waiting for their moment in the spotlight.
I also wonder why it takes a crisis to bring out the best in people?, or does it? is it just that I get to hear about it in a crisis?
So despite ample evidence that crowds are dumb, sometimes they produce fantastic results and probably this mostly speaks to us being social beings at heart. I am still a bit worried about crowds voting but clearly I should retain my faith in the human condition which in the majority is a force for good.
The book was originally published in 1841 and was reprinted as recently as last year so it has some level of popularity. It is written in the language of 1841 which makes it a difficult read for a modern reader such as myself. If you are unfamiliar with any of the topics listed above I suggest you have a look at Wiki at the least as all of them are interesting topics.
The over arching theme is of course that crowds are dumb. The words delusion and madness in the title sort of give the game away as to what Charles thinks of crowd behaviour. My personal experience of crowds seems to mirror Charles view that groups of people acting mostly in dumb ways and in ways that they as individuals would probably not.
One kind of example springs to mind, when I was at university the lectures were timetabled to finish around lunch (I forget the exact time now) and hordes of hungry students would head to the cafeteria leading to a crowd shuffling forward to enter through the main doors. To the left of the main door by approx 5m was a single door leading to the same space as the main doors. No one ever used the single door despite myself and others repeatedly walking past the crowd and through the single door. For some reason the people in the crowd were unable to observe this behaviour and modify their own to take advantage of this fact. The pull of the crowd was greater than their hunger it seems.
This propensity for crowds to act in dumb ways has always bothered me because crowds vote and my worst fears are borne out every time they elect a left wing government or a single issue candidate.
However what is up with the crowds at the moment? The break out of popular uprisings in Egypt and now Libya are examples of crowds acting for the good. (assuming you agree the countries should not be run by dictators for their own benefit) Although I guess I could argue that they are still being a bit dumb, I mean a number of people have been and continue to be killed as part of these protests. Turning up to a protest rally where you may go home dead may not be the smartest thing you ever did but clearly an example of several crowds acting for the good.
But the current crowd action which is perhaps the most interesting is what is happening around Christchurch at the moment with so many stories of spontaneous actions by groups of individuals acting in a positive and unselfish way to help those around them who are worse off. And while the likes of the Student Volunteer Army grab the headlines the little stuff of neighbours forming up to hold group BBQs or the bloke that happens to have a spring in his yard and is supplying water and the thousands of other acts of kindness that I will never hear about.
With all this good stuff about let’s hope that we can maintain our focus on the positive members of the community, the clear majority, and the media can resist the temptation to highlight the complainers who will surface shortly. The “why isn’t the government doing more brigade” who are out there waiting for their moment in the spotlight.
I also wonder why it takes a crisis to bring out the best in people?, or does it? is it just that I get to hear about it in a crisis?
So despite ample evidence that crowds are dumb, sometimes they produce fantastic results and probably this mostly speaks to us being social beings at heart. I am still a bit worried about crowds voting but clearly I should retain my faith in the human condition which in the majority is a force for good.
Friday, February 18, 2011
When is Sleeping Working ?
So the so called “sleep over case” is in the news.
First up let me declare a conflict I am effectively the employers representative for an organisation that employees people to do sleep-overs. Nothing I say here represents the views of my employer and are my own personal opinions which may or may not be reflected in my working role.
So to answer the question it is when you are sleeping on your employers premises and have your freedoms curtailed to a sufficient extent. To be more specific the courts talked about your inability to leave, your inability to say have friends over (in other words certain activities are banned) and be available to work at any time.
If we reframe this to say a shop assistant waiting for a customer we still recognise them as “working” while waiting and it is principally because the same tests apply, they can’t leave, can’t do certain things and have to work at any time when a customer arrives. The only difference they have to have their eyes open versus shut.
So I am convinced you are working when doing a sleep-over, in fact in reality despite the legal arguments all the employers were convinced which is why they paid people to do this task. What is mostly at question is the value of the work.
Having decided that the activity is work you then have to abide by our old friend the Minimum Wage Act and this is really what the decision is about, the payment of the minimum wage and not really an argument about work or not work.
Problem is we run into my gardening argument, The government and by extension the employers that it funds do not value this work at the minimum wage level (or they would already be paying it presumably). They value it at a lower level, (as best evidenced by the government threatening legislation to make this issue go away and making specific reference to not paying the amount asked for) now this lower level varies across those employers and as an aside I suspect that if IHC had valued it a bit higher it never would have gotten to this point.
I also find it interesting that despite the Union and Employees agreeing to various payments over time all this is going to be overturned which is effectively the government (via legislation) saying you are not competent to make a bargain between yourselves as we know better. Admittedly in the case of IHC the Union have apparently been discussing this for some time so they may dispute that they agreed, however they did sign up for what they have now one way or another.
But in the case of my employer this has never been an issue but we are now suffering the same outcome.
I am also interested that this is potentially not in the best interests of the employees as there are a number of definite and potential consequences stemming from this but without going into my theories on what might happen next they all amount to one thing. The amount of work available is going to reduce as the cost has now increased. Now in the best case we will find equilibrium from the status quo where the total amount paid will be the same, however there is a real risk that there will actually be a reduction in the overall amount.
Another quick reaction from some of the providers is that they are going to erode the quality of the service they provide (by grouping people into higher numbers) something that has been rightly deplored by the Disability Sector, however it is one of the predictable responses to a need to reduce costs.
So given that the total amount paid to workers will likely stay the same or reduce how did this help anyone other than high priced legal counsel, not the workers and not the vulnerable members of society that they are doing a fantastic job caring for. Oh I remember it is all part of the process.
First up let me declare a conflict I am effectively the employers representative for an organisation that employees people to do sleep-overs. Nothing I say here represents the views of my employer and are my own personal opinions which may or may not be reflected in my working role.
So to answer the question it is when you are sleeping on your employers premises and have your freedoms curtailed to a sufficient extent. To be more specific the courts talked about your inability to leave, your inability to say have friends over (in other words certain activities are banned) and be available to work at any time.
If we reframe this to say a shop assistant waiting for a customer we still recognise them as “working” while waiting and it is principally because the same tests apply, they can’t leave, can’t do certain things and have to work at any time when a customer arrives. The only difference they have to have their eyes open versus shut.
So I am convinced you are working when doing a sleep-over, in fact in reality despite the legal arguments all the employers were convinced which is why they paid people to do this task. What is mostly at question is the value of the work.
Having decided that the activity is work you then have to abide by our old friend the Minimum Wage Act and this is really what the decision is about, the payment of the minimum wage and not really an argument about work or not work.
Problem is we run into my gardening argument, The government and by extension the employers that it funds do not value this work at the minimum wage level (or they would already be paying it presumably). They value it at a lower level, (as best evidenced by the government threatening legislation to make this issue go away and making specific reference to not paying the amount asked for) now this lower level varies across those employers and as an aside I suspect that if IHC had valued it a bit higher it never would have gotten to this point.
I also find it interesting that despite the Union and Employees agreeing to various payments over time all this is going to be overturned which is effectively the government (via legislation) saying you are not competent to make a bargain between yourselves as we know better. Admittedly in the case of IHC the Union have apparently been discussing this for some time so they may dispute that they agreed, however they did sign up for what they have now one way or another.
But in the case of my employer this has never been an issue but we are now suffering the same outcome.
I am also interested that this is potentially not in the best interests of the employees as there are a number of definite and potential consequences stemming from this but without going into my theories on what might happen next they all amount to one thing. The amount of work available is going to reduce as the cost has now increased. Now in the best case we will find equilibrium from the status quo where the total amount paid will be the same, however there is a real risk that there will actually be a reduction in the overall amount.
Another quick reaction from some of the providers is that they are going to erode the quality of the service they provide (by grouping people into higher numbers) something that has been rightly deplored by the Disability Sector, however it is one of the predictable responses to a need to reduce costs.
So given that the total amount paid to workers will likely stay the same or reduce how did this help anyone other than high priced legal counsel, not the workers and not the vulnerable members of society that they are doing a fantastic job caring for. Oh I remember it is all part of the process.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Rome Wasn't Built in a Day...
And certainly not by a committee.
I have been listening to the radio and in quick succession I heard two articles about a failure of leadership, or at least that is what I took from the articles.
The first one was about the Australian Navy having made some bad decisions about what ships to buy or what design to use or from whom. The upshot of this is that because ships take a long time to build they are now short of the needed equipment as the old ships are now end of life and the new ones are yet to be built due to some or all of the reasons above. The Australian Navy’s issues with its ships isn’t that interesting it is what the Minister said in response to this, he said “we must ensure we have a more rigorous process when it comes to these decisions” and he will be “insisting that officials review all of their process” In other words he was going to have a stern word to the committee that stuffed things up. I mean give me a break in times past if the Navy ran out of ships the minister would have resigned and several admirals would have been keel hauled or shot. There would not have been a discussion about any process or committee, the leaders would have been held accountable.
So the next one was closer to home where there have been complaints from Principals about the quality of recently graduated teachers, specifically they do not have adequate literacy or numeracy skills to teach at a primary school level. (begs the question if they can’t read write or do arithmetic what can they do but we shall ignore that for today) When the head of the teachers college in Christchurch was asked about this, she responded that if this was the case then these individuals would have their practicing certificates tagged accordingly and this would reduce their employment chances. (note for any parents out there she didn't say eliminate) The interviewer asked the obvious question, why were these people graduating at all and why wasn’t the college teaching them this stuff to bring them up to standard. Response “we don’t teach literacy and numeracy because all our students have University Entrance which shows that they have reached the required standard in these subjects.”
So here we go again, the answer to a problem is more process, i.e. we will tag the practice certificates rather than actually fix the problem. And when challenged on the fundamental issue we get more process, i.e. "well they have UE so how is this my issue", was essentially what she said. In other words I followed the process. It is at this point where I have the urge to track this person down and say to them (very slowly no doubt so that they get it) “never mind the process you failed to achieve the outcome”
These are just two examples of how the world seems to work these days, we no longer care about outcomes we just care about following the process. I believe that this is because we no longer allow strong leaders to lead, everyone wants to have a say and nothing of any consequence was every achieved by a committee.
We need to retreat from attempting to systematise everything and begin to place a bit more trust in leaders.
The big objection to a leadership / outcome focused model is that sometimes leaders get it wrong and you get failure. (which seems unacceptable these days as well) Well to me a few more failed student teachers wouldn’t seem to hurt (rather than the stupid PC rubbish of no one failing) and as the Australian Navy will tell you lots of process doesn’t guarantee success either.
I have been listening to the radio and in quick succession I heard two articles about a failure of leadership, or at least that is what I took from the articles.
The first one was about the Australian Navy having made some bad decisions about what ships to buy or what design to use or from whom. The upshot of this is that because ships take a long time to build they are now short of the needed equipment as the old ships are now end of life and the new ones are yet to be built due to some or all of the reasons above. The Australian Navy’s issues with its ships isn’t that interesting it is what the Minister said in response to this, he said “we must ensure we have a more rigorous process when it comes to these decisions” and he will be “insisting that officials review all of their process” In other words he was going to have a stern word to the committee that stuffed things up. I mean give me a break in times past if the Navy ran out of ships the minister would have resigned and several admirals would have been keel hauled or shot. There would not have been a discussion about any process or committee, the leaders would have been held accountable.
So the next one was closer to home where there have been complaints from Principals about the quality of recently graduated teachers, specifically they do not have adequate literacy or numeracy skills to teach at a primary school level. (begs the question if they can’t read write or do arithmetic what can they do but we shall ignore that for today) When the head of the teachers college in Christchurch was asked about this, she responded that if this was the case then these individuals would have their practicing certificates tagged accordingly and this would reduce their employment chances. (note for any parents out there she didn't say eliminate) The interviewer asked the obvious question, why were these people graduating at all and why wasn’t the college teaching them this stuff to bring them up to standard. Response “we don’t teach literacy and numeracy because all our students have University Entrance which shows that they have reached the required standard in these subjects.”
So here we go again, the answer to a problem is more process, i.e. we will tag the practice certificates rather than actually fix the problem. And when challenged on the fundamental issue we get more process, i.e. "well they have UE so how is this my issue", was essentially what she said. In other words I followed the process. It is at this point where I have the urge to track this person down and say to them (very slowly no doubt so that they get it) “never mind the process you failed to achieve the outcome”
These are just two examples of how the world seems to work these days, we no longer care about outcomes we just care about following the process. I believe that this is because we no longer allow strong leaders to lead, everyone wants to have a say and nothing of any consequence was every achieved by a committee.
We need to retreat from attempting to systematise everything and begin to place a bit more trust in leaders.
The big objection to a leadership / outcome focused model is that sometimes leaders get it wrong and you get failure. (which seems unacceptable these days as well) Well to me a few more failed student teachers wouldn’t seem to hurt (rather than the stupid PC rubbish of no one failing) and as the Australian Navy will tell you lots of process doesn’t guarantee success either.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Mary Mary Quite Contrary
How does your garden grow goes the rhyme and ignoring any issue Mary might have the garden at my house grows too much for my time or interest to keep under control. What I really need is a gardener but I don’t have one because.... potentially for a number of reasons but for now I want to look at the cost or put another way the wages I would have to pay.
New Zealand (as with a number of social reforms) was the first country in the world to introduce a minimum wage rate. This week has seen the government raise the adult minimum wage from $12.75 to $13.00. which produced the predictable claim and counter claim by the vested interest groups of unions and employers. My reflex response was to side with the employers who were running the standard supply and demand argument.
This is where my garden comes in, if I was allowed to pay someone $1 per hour and could find someone willing to work for such a paltry amount there is no doubt that I would employ a full time gardener (and likely as not a cook and housekeeper) but at $13.00 per hour I am not going to do that so there you go case proven. The artificially higher wage rate clearly limits employment opportunities and while the dollar example is not realistic somewhere along the line between $1 and $13 is the point at which I change my mind. Potentially before I reach that point someone may have been willing to do my garden but we will never know.
However I realised I was not well versed in the contrary point of view (the union commentator didn’t help he was operating strictly in sound bites and slogans) So I looked it up and here is a handy table I found on Wikipedia
Supporters of the minimum wage claim it has these effects:
1. Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society and raises average.
2. Motivates and encourages employees to work harder (unlike welfare programs and other transfer payments).
3. Stimulates consumption, by putting more money in the hands of low-income people who spend their entire paychecks.
4. Increases the work ethic of those who earn very little, as employers demand more return from the higher cost of hiring these employees.
5. Decreases the cost of government social welfare programs by increasing incomes for the lowest-paid.
6. Encourages the automation of industry.
7. Encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing money through illegal means, e.g., selling illegal drugs
So looking at each of these in turn
1 Seems doubtful to me as wages are a relativity exercise a 2% increase for the lowest paid is likely to trickle up to the best paid making the relative standard of living static. If you won’t buy that argument then you would have to agree that wage inflation feeds into general price inflation making the increase payment merely a compensation for inflation at best or the driver of inflation at worse.
2 Nope, not going to buy that one. People don’t work harder if you pay them more, time and time again studies have shown little correlation between pay and performance unless it is a direct system such as piece work.
3 OK I will accept this one as it is more or less my argument in rebutting number 1, but I am not sure this is a benefit for the low paid, it sounds more like a benefit for shopkeepers.
4 Err really? So every time you get a rise your boss finds ways to make you work harder (and in the process needing less of you presumably) Well I am not sure that is true for a start but this cycle between increased productivity and increased wages is the classic economic cycle and doesn’t need the government to intervene.
5 I have no real knowledge of this as a truth or otherwise but it sounds doubtful to me. Most welfare in this country is directed at non workers, not low paid workers.
6 This one I believe, as it is a substitution of labour for capital but it is really at odds with number 4. However regardless of all that how does that help the low paid, now they have no jobs, which if you recall is the argument put forward by the employers, finally it seems both sides are in agreement.
7 In the immortal words of the Tui campaign Yeah Right. People don’t sell drugs to earn $13 an hour, there are different reasons people get involved but I don’t believe for a second they are going to give it up for a $13 an hour job, especially with those nasty bosses in number 4 finding ways to make you work harder all the time.
So I remain unconvinced to say the least. While government intervention in the employment market may be useful for eliminating the worst employment practices, such as low paid child labour, it seems to become increasingly doubtful in its usefulness the closer it moves into the centre of the bell curve of employer behaviour and potentially an infringement on the "right to work" at some times.
As an aside here is the history of the Mary Mary rhyme, have a look. http://www.rhymes.org.uk/mary_mary_quite_contrary.htm
New Zealand (as with a number of social reforms) was the first country in the world to introduce a minimum wage rate. This week has seen the government raise the adult minimum wage from $12.75 to $13.00. which produced the predictable claim and counter claim by the vested interest groups of unions and employers. My reflex response was to side with the employers who were running the standard supply and demand argument.
This is where my garden comes in, if I was allowed to pay someone $1 per hour and could find someone willing to work for such a paltry amount there is no doubt that I would employ a full time gardener (and likely as not a cook and housekeeper) but at $13.00 per hour I am not going to do that so there you go case proven. The artificially higher wage rate clearly limits employment opportunities and while the dollar example is not realistic somewhere along the line between $1 and $13 is the point at which I change my mind. Potentially before I reach that point someone may have been willing to do my garden but we will never know.
However I realised I was not well versed in the contrary point of view (the union commentator didn’t help he was operating strictly in sound bites and slogans) So I looked it up and here is a handy table I found on Wikipedia
Supporters of the minimum wage claim it has these effects:
1. Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society and raises average.
2. Motivates and encourages employees to work harder (unlike welfare programs and other transfer payments).
3. Stimulates consumption, by putting more money in the hands of low-income people who spend their entire paychecks.
4. Increases the work ethic of those who earn very little, as employers demand more return from the higher cost of hiring these employees.
5. Decreases the cost of government social welfare programs by increasing incomes for the lowest-paid.
6. Encourages the automation of industry.
7. Encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing money through illegal means, e.g., selling illegal drugs
So looking at each of these in turn
1 Seems doubtful to me as wages are a relativity exercise a 2% increase for the lowest paid is likely to trickle up to the best paid making the relative standard of living static. If you won’t buy that argument then you would have to agree that wage inflation feeds into general price inflation making the increase payment merely a compensation for inflation at best or the driver of inflation at worse.
2 Nope, not going to buy that one. People don’t work harder if you pay them more, time and time again studies have shown little correlation between pay and performance unless it is a direct system such as piece work.
3 OK I will accept this one as it is more or less my argument in rebutting number 1, but I am not sure this is a benefit for the low paid, it sounds more like a benefit for shopkeepers.
4 Err really? So every time you get a rise your boss finds ways to make you work harder (and in the process needing less of you presumably) Well I am not sure that is true for a start but this cycle between increased productivity and increased wages is the classic economic cycle and doesn’t need the government to intervene.
5 I have no real knowledge of this as a truth or otherwise but it sounds doubtful to me. Most welfare in this country is directed at non workers, not low paid workers.
6 This one I believe, as it is a substitution of labour for capital but it is really at odds with number 4. However regardless of all that how does that help the low paid, now they have no jobs, which if you recall is the argument put forward by the employers, finally it seems both sides are in agreement.
7 In the immortal words of the Tui campaign Yeah Right. People don’t sell drugs to earn $13 an hour, there are different reasons people get involved but I don’t believe for a second they are going to give it up for a $13 an hour job, especially with those nasty bosses in number 4 finding ways to make you work harder all the time.
So I remain unconvinced to say the least. While government intervention in the employment market may be useful for eliminating the worst employment practices, such as low paid child labour, it seems to become increasingly doubtful in its usefulness the closer it moves into the centre of the bell curve of employer behaviour and potentially an infringement on the "right to work" at some times.
As an aside here is the history of the Mary Mary rhyme, have a look. http://www.rhymes.org.uk/mary_mary_quite_contrary.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)