Plutocrats, Meritocracy, Etc.

I read this article with interest, and it captures much of what I believe in.  It's just that, since I'm not one of those wealthy 1%, I feel like I'd come across too much as though what I'm trying to say is just sour grapes.

Still, if you look throughout history I think the signs of decline are rather consistent.  A group of elite gain control, and they use that power unwisely...to their own advantage.  They alienate the have nots, who eventually get angry enough to rise up and overthrow the elite.  Rinse, recycle, repeat.

Easy to look at the French aristocrats and see their role in the French Revolution.  Less easy to see it today, in ourselves.  (It doesn't help that a system on the verge of collapse can linger.  How long has North Korea stood?)

Signs of decline?  When talented people are stifled, and have little chance to succeed.  (Supposedly part of why Napoleon won so many battles.  The Revolution allowed talented commoners to advance, where before they were stuck following less talented aristocrats.)  When people start justifying the situation, claiming that they deserve (or are entitled) to being in those top roles.  (i.e. claims that the nobility is naturally better and more deserving.) 

What's funny is that we consider ourselves a meritocracy, at least the ones at the top do.  Probably don't consider any of this as applicable. 

Yet that's what all the stories about the squeezing of the middle class, the growing costs of college, the shifting of college aid to those already wealthy rather than to the smart but needy...all of that sums up to a change.  You can't really claim that the people on top are deserving, when so many people never even got the chance to compete.

For me, personally?  I've known too many extremely smart people who couldn't afford to go to college, too many regular people working extremely hard just to stay afloat, and too many  mediocre people who think they deserve to be in charge, to believe the cream always rises to the top.

Yet in a way, that isn't what bothers me the most.  It seems in any society, some group manages to come out ahead.  What bothers me is tied up with good decision-making, or the lack thereof.

First - my favourite, groupthink.  When too many people come from the same types of backgrounds, they think so much alike that they are more likely to make the same leaps in logic...and convince themselves that they've thought it all out.  We have far too many examples of 'the best and the brightest' coming up with poorly vetted plans and I think part of it is the similar training and backgrounds of all our elites. 

Second - it's too easy to convince themselves that they are somehow wiser, or better.  That they don't have to worry about the appearances of favouritism or bias, because of course they are too smart or wise to be influenced like that.  That nice, cozy, friendly relationship may not seem bad to the ones involved.  Heck, that's part of what everyone looks for in life...and can probably even seem good.

Just - not when it creates a good ol' boys network that marginalizes or neglects others.  Or makes it appear that who you know is more important than what you're capable of.
 

On National Strength, Morals, Etc.

I talked about realpolitik in my last post, and probably made it sound negative.  I wanted to go into more detail here, because I don't think that it has to be.

Realpolitik is tied up with the belief that good politics are what's best for the nation (whether that means ensuring a good source of oil, or building alliances against threats, or what-have-you).  The problem, I think, is that people can justify almost anything.


I have to admit, realism seems to reflect international politics more than any other model.  The notion that democracies don't fight seems silly, considering we did go to war with England in the 1800s.  The belief that globalism and the interconnectivity between nations will make war disappear has some merit.  It means there are more severe disadvantages for fighting.  But if the issue seemed important enough, I think nations would overlook that, as well.

But realism sometimes seems harsh and cold, and I think most people associate it with a cynical, pessimistic and negative view of human nature.  One I disagree with rather strongly.

If you look at who people admire and respect, it's generally NOT the ones seen as master manipulators.  Nor the game players.  (If you want to go the Christian route and consider the Bible - when Jesus tells his disciples that he will make them fishers of men, he was telling them that he would make them leaders.  How?  By teaching them to serve others, and to be good shepherds, not by giving them 48 Laws of Power.)

To bring this back to the title above - I think policies that make our nation stronger are ones that would expand our options, build off a strong base of support, and stay true to our national values rather than cynically giving lip service to them.

I sometimes think of a book I'd read, years ago, on the Ottoman Empire.  From what I remembered, the Ottoman Empire (before becoming "the sick man of Europe") was pretty smart about how it operated.  It offered better governance than its neighbors, so much so that Christians in the Balkans preferred Ottoman rule.  It's been a while since I read the book, and I know the details were not as simple or nice as that...but the principle seemed sound.  Besides, it resonates with the American concept of a "city on the hill" trying to lead by example.

We have a lot going for us.  We have enormous resources, a large and capable population, wide oceans to our east and west, and only two nations (Canada and Mexico) on our immediate borders.  We're too large to pretend we can't or don't have an influence on the rest of the world, we just have to figure out how to do so wisely.  Intervene, and people will criticize you for meddling.  Don't intervene, and people will criticize you for doing nothing when you could have made a difference.  For better or worse, we have an effect on the outcomes of current events.  The question is, what outcomes do we want to pursue?  And how capable are we of making those outcomes a reality?

We are weaker, in that we seem rather incapable of making things happen the way we profess we want them to.  Iraq has hardly lived up to our rhetoric.  Nor has Afghanistan.

In the last decade, it seems like we, as a nation, grow more and more constrained.  Even worse, the influence of business on our foreign policy (both somewhat isolated from the average American) means that we have done things in the past that make it harder to operate in the present.  If you read about our history in South American and Latin America, for example, you find that Hugo Chavez's ridiculous conspiracy claims were not as far fetched as they sounded.  Our past actions made it easier for someone like Hugo Chavez to oppose American interests.

(The CIA has a reputation that can be used against us, as much as for us.  Want to claim that what you are doing isn't really a bad thing?  Claim that 'the West' is stirring up trouble and supporting your opponents.

Iraq

I'd told myself I wasn't going to write about Iraq.

Honest.

I'd spent over three years thinking about the place, blogging, searching for answers...

And one of the reasons I stopped was that I was beginning to feel like an armchair quarterback.  I wasn't the one out there making the call.  And it started to feel silly to think my posts would make much of a difference.  (And if I'm wrong, and you want to read more from me, then please put a little something in the tip jar I've added.  This is not my full time job and it'd be nice to know my  hobby means something.)

Despite my original inclination, I decided to type up a blog post anyway.  There are a lot of good articles out there discussing the situation.  Some not so good ones as well.  I think you all can read them the same as I can.  What I would like to point out is that the people arguing for intervention seem to believe they are playing a game like risk.  Move one colored square here, take this spot, try to keep a Shiite crescent from developing or war between Saudis and Iranians, or what-have-you.

Very realpolitik.  Very strategic.

Only thing missing is this - people are not little colored squares that you can move around at will.

The Iraqis deserve to be more than just victims of some geopolitical upheaval.

And for Americans, the past decade has left practically NO appetite for further involvement. 

I haven't heard a single argument from the ones suggesting involvement that addresses the fact that some of the exact same thinking has left us weaker as a nation.

We have less credibility.  Less capacity to exert our influence.  Less support from our own people.

If we were to get involved, how do we know we won't just overreact, then give up and pull out and wind up even worse off than before?  Or underreact, do too little, and look even weaker?


Why won't we wind up in the same situation seven years later?

Metrics, Performance, CYA and more

I need to keep this short, because I've been working 12+ hour days and it's almost time for bed.

So here's something to think about.

Where I work, we normally have a way to assess our employees productivity with rates.  As someone in a leadership role once said - He loves it.  He hates it.

On the one hand, it's nice to have a metric that tells you who is performing well and who is struggling.  If you have to fire someone for performance, it's also nice to have something fairly straightforward to justify it.

But then you get people so concerned about their rates that they will fight over petty things.  Or people will be so concerned about rates that they will cut corners, and make work harder on everyone else.

While I could tie that in with my own issues/concerns about metrics, I wanted to take this a step further.

The reasons we like having that metric are similar to the reasons why technology gives us a false sense of omniscience, and similar again to why PhDs can find a job more easily.  (The metric makes us think we 'know' who is doing well, without necessarily digging deeper...leaving us open to people who know tricks for looking better than they are.  PhDs are easier to hire because nobody is ever going to say they are unqualified.  They HAVE A PhD!!!)  We can be inundated with information that makes us think we know, and yet we sometimes can miss major things because of that.  (This article coincidentally touches on that.)

But above and beyond the false sense of security metrics gives, is something I want to dig into when I have more time.  Which these days may mean in a month or so. :/

For most of us, we know we can't get the jobs unless we have the qualifications.  For exactly the reasons stated above.  We have to get the degree, or get the work experience, or what-have-you.

Which is why it is so frustrating, aggravating, mind-numbingly heart wrenching to hear stories like this.  Or this.

It implies that the rules are different for some of us.  Not because they are better, or more deserving.  But simply because they have connections.  What are we, a third world country?!?  Why would officials alter the records for someone, to make it appear they had a degree when they didn't?  If they were talented enough to get that job despite lacking a degree, then the people who hired them should have had the guts to say so.  And to help puncture this notion that only people with a degree are qualified.  And if they really, really want to insist on the degree then don't hire someone who doesn't meet that qualification.

But the issue isn't necessarily about this particular instance.  I don't claim to know whether the individual performed well or not.  It's about how the rules differ for some of us.  And all the things done to CYA when hiring or promoting (metrics, degrees, etc) can become a barrier for someone who can't afford college, or doesn't have the right experience...and yet are NOT barriers for others.

Individualism, Cowboys Saving the Day, and More.

I've heard it said that the East is more community oriented, and that the West is all about individualism.

I'm Western enough that, for the most part, I prefer individualism.  That Eastern orientation sounds a little bit - creepy.  Like the caricature of a 'perfect' woman, the one who is always giving for the sake of the family, and who is doing it by suppressing their own needs and desires.  It makes you wonder when the dam is going to burst, and when they're finally going to crack.  Plus that communal orientation sounds like individuals have a big incentive to stay quiet and support the consensus, even when the consensus is wrong.  That means groupthink would be a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem, since who is going to rock the boat?  After all, sometimes boats need rocked.

Of course, I also know that we all seem to need some sort of community.  Nothing gives a sense of well-being and fulfilment like being part of one.  So many people today seem nostalgic for that small town environment for exactly those reasons.

But I didn't actually want to get into all of that today.

I wanted to talk about some of the flaws, though I love it so, in our individualistic society.

We have these archetype stories.  Like the person who "pulls themselves up by their own bootstrap", a "self-made man" who managed to succeed all by him or herself.  We glorify them, put them on pedestals.  We look at the Bill Gates of the world, or the Steve Jobs.  We lay credit (or blame) on individuals like David Petraeus or George W Bush.  Or Barack Obama.

And, to be fair, sometimes one key individual can make all the difference.  But as Good to Great and other such works show, the individuals who make that difference are rarely the ones who are creating hype about themselves.  The ones that really do lead well, or create a lasting success, are often the ones who work hard to build other people up.  To make the whole stronger than the sum of its parts.

And that's part of what bothers me about 'selling myself' for my career.  It's not all about me.  It's about creating the work environment and giving my people the tools for them to succeed.  I don't want to be judged on my ability to create metrics.  Especially when metrics can be so misleading, and have little or nothing to do with how good of a work environment I create.  (Though there should be SOME correlation.  Good work environments should make more productive employees.  Just saying toxic work environments can appear to have good metrics as well.)

The military teaches this rather well, I think.  It takes a company, a battalion, a brigade...and an army.  If you had an army full of generals, you would probably lose the war.  You still need privates and sergeants, lieutenants and captains.

Yes, a general is important.  And can make a decisive difference.  But so can people at all sorts of levels within the organization. 

Hello World

Hello World.  It's been a long time since I've posted anything, and that was on another site.

For one reason or another, I decided I wanted a fresh and clean slate of blogging.  And then I got busy, and haven't blogged at all.

Why am I back?  Well, dear rhetorical reader, my head was going around in circles about an issue and I wanted to blog it out.  I finally got the push to try writing again.

I'll try to explain it like this.

Most of the people I know despise politics.  Office politics, national politics, it all smacks of dirty self-interest, one-upmanship, and ego gratification.  Games done to get ahead, pretending to like people you don't, stabbing people in the back, etc.  Oh, I know a lot of people who have strong political views, will vote, etc.  But running for office?  Not so much.

Plus, most of us just aren't the 'cool kids'.  We don't win popularity contests, and it seems somehow wrong to be one of the ones who do.  Shallow and superficial, sacrificing who  you are just to stay on top of the ladder.  I like to point people to the book Hope for the Flowers, because it captures that issue so well.  People are trying to climb to the top of a pillar, when true fulfilment and happiness comes from learning how to build a cocoon and become a butterfly.

Which is scary.  There are no rules.  No set path to follow.  In fact, if people are telling you that you 'ought' to follow a certain path to success, it will probably lead you off track.

There is a whole genre of success stories where people do that.  They ignore the naysayers, do their thing, and make it big.  Live the life.

And yet.  How many failures for every success story?  As one of my friends said, you get this idea that your life is like a movie.  You'll have a montage of scenes showing that you're training, or learning, or facing setbacks and challenges.  But the montage quickly fades and there you are, where you want to be.

Real life is scarier.  More uncertain.  Maybe you will wind up getting there.  Maybe you won't.  You can't believe that your life is a movie...

But if it isn't, then where are you?

Or, in this case, where am I? 

The details probably don't matter.  Suffice to say that I feel pressure to 'play the game', to create the numbers to show that I'm a good candidate for a better position.  (I'm getting itchy feet.  Been here two years, done good work, but beginning to feel like I should seek something more.)  I know I did well.  I know I'm a good candidate.  But I absolutely HATE having to sell myself by coming up with some amazing metric on how awesome I am.

Especially when the numbers my boss is recommending don't feel like they capture what I contributed the most to.  I think I helped with fuzzier things that On-Time-Ship statistics...though ultimately I'm sure I did help the bottom line.  I helped give our people the tools and training they needed for the massive system change we just went through.  I helped provide our operational experience to decisions they were making, so that the system was modified more in line with what we would need.

Granted, in a massive project like this I have also seen myself make mistakes.  Some of it because of the long hours, and the stress we're all under (we all are getting a little loopy when we've been working 12+ hr days and Saturdays.  Yes, I know...not too different from what I worked when I was deployed.  Which also led to this post, because this project made me realize I kind of missed that.  Not deploying.  Just - being involved with a big project where what I did could make a difference.)

So.  To get to that next step, do I have to do something I'm not all that comfortable about doing.  Sell myself as a good candidate?