Know the Difference between Objectivity (or, indeed, Reality) and Aspiration

Another post from late 2006 (see also http://janetmackinnon.blogspot.com)

Know the Difference between Objectivity and Aspiration

I often wonder why organisations and individuals willingly submit themselves to being mercilessly ripped off. My guess is that their abililty to distinguish objectivity and aspiration is temporarily, and in some cases permanently, suspended. The phrase “willing suspension of disbelief” comes to mind.

 To explore my theory, I’m going to use two “case studies” : the Private Finance Initiative (PFI); and horse purchase.

The word “aspirational” first properly entered my psyche when I had an unplanned meeting with a senior army officer – unplanned because he’d planned to be elsewhere but bad weather prevented this – regarding a project in which the army took an interest. This gentleman’s use of the word “aspirational” had a particular resonance for me on two counts. Firstly, it was clear that aspiration was a core value for him, personally and professionally, and, secondly, I intimated that my own proposals (and person !) might be insufficiently aspirational.

A few years passed and I had occasion to “revisit” the same army establishment, which in the meantime had recieved substantial investment under a PFI scheme. In my opinion, this scheme had all the hallmarks of a typical PFI project. There had indeed been substantial capital investment ie new construction. However, this had brought with it new and equally substantial operating costs. Various new initiatives were now being contemplated to cover these costs, and additional funds sought for further capital works.

This kind of situation is familiar to (?) the majority of local health trusts who have embarked upon major new hospital (re)construction using the PFI in recent years. The Worcestershire Royal Hospital, a new facility on the outskirts of the city of Worcester, is a classic example of what can go wrong.

PFI is now widely regarded as a “bad deal” for the public sector, and particularly for the National Health Service. It was conceived under the previous Conservative administration to “get around” public spending constraints. However, under New Labour it has been a key component of “the building boom” on which the wider ecomony is now so dependent. We have a construction industry which is hungry for more PFI projects, regardless of whether these are in the best interests of potential “clients” for such projects, or the general tax payer.

Yet PFI has fulfilled the aspirations of the public sector for new infrastructure, and the new hospitals, schools etc that have sprung up, notwithstanding their frequently poor design (for purpose), are hailed as one of the great successes of aspirational New Labour.

The zeitgeist of the present time is aspirational, and there is a Mephistopheles around every corner, or so it seems, with whom to enter into a Faustian pact.

Horse purchase is another case in point. There is nothing new in the tendency for new (or newer) comers to horse purchase to acquire animals which are too energetic and/or big for them, and to find that the ongoing resources (time, money etc) required to maintain a horse are more burdensome than the capital outlay. The horse world, like that of PFI, also has a plentiful supply of professionals to complicate matters, and – although some do provide a genuine good service – many “trade” on the aspirations of their clients, sometimes with serious consequences.

So my message to potential horsebuyers and procurers of other major capital projects is know the difference between objectivity (including objectives) and aspirations, it may save you alot of money (and possibly your life). Also know that – as someone once said – “there are as many certified charlatans as uncertified ones” out there to part fools from their money.

Common Sense Consulting

Some thoughts on Business, Management and Consulting from a couple of years ago. The highlighted section of the final paragraph is particularly relevant to the present time !

Common Sense Consulting (December 2006)I am neither particularly accommodating nor tolerant of other people. Therefore it always comes as something of a surprise to me to say that I have never worked with anyone whom I would regard as stupid. Indeed, I have often stood up for people whom others have regarded as incompetent because I knew that with the right supervision – and sometimes training – these individuals could perform well (and often as well if not better than the people who were regarded as good at their jobs). Equally surprising to me is the constant whinging from employers about the problems of younger (and older) ,workers and the lack of people available to do particular jobs, whether skilled or unskilled, amongst UK nationals. As something of a networker (a highly skilled one in fact) I know there are plenty of people around for all manner of work, provided you aren’t prejudiced against, for example, people with too few or to many qualifications, and with too little or too much experience, or those who “don’t seem to fit” a particular context : something which seems to be more important these days for some reason.

In my professional and working life, I tend to view people objectively. Everyone has their strong and weak points. Equally, people whom I would not seek out as friends make perfectly good work colleagues (and vice versa). This is not to say that I do not have good friends amongst people with whom I also have professional relationships, but one type of relationship need not assume another. In fact, some of my most enduring and successful business relationships are with people I know little of personally. Friendship is inevitably subjective and, lets face it, friends often fall out over subjective things. The good thing about professional and working relationships is that they generally occur within an enterprise (whether commercial, social or some combination of the two) which gives them some objective structure and, indeed, objectives.

As mentioned earlier, I have noticed a growing pre-occupation amongst employers, and also workers, with recruiting people who “fit in” with them. This may have something to do with the New Labour administration which has “cascaded down” into the wider community. The need for people to “fit in” has certainly, from my perspective, gained momentum in recent years, and, I would argue, is a often a more important requirement – for consultants as well as employees – than hard skills and experience. At the higher level of decision-making, I will call it, this “fitting-in” often accompanies a certain requirement for “group think” when major investments with an equally major public interest dimension, for instance, are being embarked upon. On the office or shop floor, “fitting in” often has more to do with shared life circumstances and/or outlook. On balance, there is a strong presumption in favour of family-orientated people (even amongst the young and “gay”) of conventional values – which may be one reasons why Polish workers are so well regarded – who attach considerable importance, consciously or unconsciously, to group “equilibrium”.

Is this all a good thing ? Not from my perspective, professionally and, for that matter, personally. One of the most worrying trends I have observed is what could be described as “a requirement for the willing suspension of common sense”, or put another way, organisations of all types increasingly require a certain aptitude for stupidity. Let me provide an example. Someone recently described to me the “brainwashing” (their words) process which recruits to the call centre operations of a highly reputable company in this country are required to undergo. As it happened, I knew a young man with joint United Kingdom-United States citizenship who had recently been recruited to the organisation in question. A lovely – and by no means stupid – chap, he could perfectly fulfil the requirement for common sense suspension. It came as no surprise to me therefore, that recent callers to a radio phone-in about call centres should complain, almost unanimously, about the “stupidity” of the call handlers at these centres. Personally, I don’t use them !

The woman – a very sharp lady in fact – who described the “brain washing” of call centre recruits had, as it happened, just recruited the young man mentioned to the centre described above. Like many people, she possesses a strong aptitude for Orwellian “doublethink” which forms an increasingly important part of the personal and professional tool-set for “getting on” these days. By “doublethink”, I mean a recognition that something may be, for wont of a more elegant expression on my part, “a load of old cobblers” but you buy into this nevertheless, particularly if doing so means alot of money could be coming your way, either organisationally, personally or both. Indeed, it is almost certainly the case that the greatest instances of both doublethink and the willing suspension of common sense occur at the higher levels of organisations, decision-making and salary scale (not to say bonuses) which is rather worrying, I feel, both professionally and personally. For herein lies the two of the main conditions for great disasters amongst private sector corporations and public institutions.

Therefore, I’m sticking with common sense consulting, even if some clients won’t buy it !