The new physics teacher was equally frustrated, but mostly for other reasons. Having proudly obtained a degree in physics but without the hunger for a career in research, he didn't know what to do with himself and therefore thought he would try teaching until some better idea sprang to mind.
It is curious that since New Year many commuters can be seen on the subway wearing t-shirts sporting the slogan
(It never did !).
Watching all this from above were the great icons of our Scientific Age; long-deceased boffins like Newton, Faraday and Hooke whose great discoveries were either fairly or unfairly attributed to them or to someone else, but in any case, great leaps of learning which can now be conveniently compressed into a 45 minute lecture delivered by a bored teacher to a class of horny toads who were overdosing on their own hormones.
 |
| St Trinians - the antidote to physics lessons every time |
In one such class the teacher would have explained the Second Law of Thermodynamics, describing the tendency of every system to adjust itself to achieve the lowest possible state of energy. For example, a round fruit released into a bowl will roll around the bowl until it comes to rest at the very bottom, thereby achieving the lowest state of energy. From this point the fruit will never move up the side of the bowl to a higher state of energy. In Korea the same principle applies to blame; every person, group or organisation continuously adjusts its position, coming to rest only when each is satisfied that they have minimised their responsibility. From this point, nobody will take any further action - even if there are clear advantages to doing so - if such action might increase responsibility or the risk of being blamed.
Here follows an actual real-life example. During a management meeting of a complex project already facing huge financial losses due to under-estimated challenges, it was explained that a particular draft subcontract contained many flaws which would incur additional heavy losses. The Project Manager replied that fortunately the contract was drafted by the legal department, which would be blamed for the flaws and the losses. Project Management would not revise the draft contract, even to avoid the losses, because by redrafting, the Project Management would assume responsibility for the subcontract. Basically it was ok to use a knowingly flawed contract because the flaws could be blamed on another department. This example is typical of the conflict of interest running at every level; how to achieve the best overall result when individual teams are focused only on minimising their own responsibility and deflecting blame.
This mind-set is so indelibly ingrained that the only scenario which will prompt some action is if the blame for inaction might outweigh the blame for taking action. An interesting case in point being emergency management plans. For more than a year it was impossible to convince the Human Resources management of a certain high-rise office building to prepare an emergency plan, to practice staff evacuation and to coordinate the response of the emergency services. Excuses were made that the necessary cost, time, resources, etc just couldn't be "justified". The subtext was that since no emergency had occurred before and was therefore thought unlikely, there was minimal risk of being blamed for not having an emergency plan in place. However if an emergency plan was prepared, then somebody would have to take responsibility for preparing it along with any imperfections which might subsequently come to light. All things considered it was simply safer to keep looking the other way.
Here follows an actual real-life example. During a management meeting of a complex project already facing huge financial losses due to under-estimated challenges, it was explained that a particular draft subcontract contained many flaws which would incur additional heavy losses. The Project Manager replied that fortunately the contract was drafted by the legal department, which would be blamed for the flaws and the losses. Project Management would not revise the draft contract, even to avoid the losses, because by redrafting, the Project Management would assume responsibility for the subcontract. Basically it was ok to use a knowingly flawed contract because the flaws could be blamed on another department. This example is typical of the conflict of interest running at every level; how to achieve the best overall result when individual teams are focused only on minimising their own responsibility and deflecting blame.
This mind-set is so indelibly ingrained that the only scenario which will prompt some action is if the blame for inaction might outweigh the blame for taking action. An interesting case in point being emergency management plans. For more than a year it was impossible to convince the Human Resources management of a certain high-rise office building to prepare an emergency plan, to practice staff evacuation and to coordinate the response of the emergency services. Excuses were made that the necessary cost, time, resources, etc just couldn't be "justified". The subtext was that since no emergency had occurred before and was therefore thought unlikely, there was minimal risk of being blamed for not having an emergency plan in place. However if an emergency plan was prepared, then somebody would have to take responsibility for preparing it along with any imperfections which might subsequently come to light. All things considered it was simply safer to keep looking the other way.
 |
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil This meaning of proverb varies around the world. Sometimes it encourages a person to be of good mind, speech and action. In the West it refers to those who deal with a problem by simply ignoring it. |
Some people finally woke up in April 2014 with the tragic sinking of the Sewol ferry during which passengers were told to remain in their seats as crew quickly abandoned ship. The ferry crew, operators and owner were later charged with the negligent homicide of 304 people, mostly school children, suddenly bringing into focus the duties of those responsible for large groups of people. The national outrage over the ferry disaster was so acute that the blame for having no emergency procedure could now be worse than the blame for having one which is imperfect. Overnight a previously uninterested Human Resources rapidly demanded emergency management plans, building evacuation drills, coordination with emergency services, etc, etc; in fact everything which they had previously refused. In other words; soon as there became a need to deflect blame, suddenly everything that couldn't previously be justified was immediately possible.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-ferry-disaster-new-report-announces-sewol-ferry-was-licensed-through-false-documents-and-9594188.html
 |
| The Sewol ferry disaster, 16 April 2014 |
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-ferry-disaster-new-report-announces-sewol-ferry-was-licensed-through-false-documents-and-9594188.html
It is curious that since New Year many commuters can be seen on the subway wearing t-shirts sporting the slogan
"Making mistakes is better than faking perfections"
Let's see how long it takes to put the concept into practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment