The strange bureaucratic concern with "process"

By -
The people of Newtown, Connecticut are considering what to do about Sandy Hook Elementary School. They have had a group studying the issue: should the school be repaired and reopened where it is? Should it be moved? If so, to where?
The study group has reached some preliminary conclusions.

Some locals have objected. The head of the study group responded (I quote from memory): "I am worried that these objections are coming from people who haven't gone through the process that we have."

If he just means these people don't know what they are talking about, why not just say that, if perhaps more diplomatically? What does "the process" have to do with it? Could not someone outside of the study group have gone through their own process of, say, living in the town for 50 years, and have reached a different conclusion than did the study group after they went through their process? Why is her conclusion worse than that of the study group simply because it emerged from a different process?

No, I think that this talk of "the process"is a way for bureacrats to tell non-bureaucrats "piss off, hey?"

Comments

  1. Ken B2:03 PM

    Yup.

    Part of standard organizational bafflegab, like "best practice." You can get everyone in a meeting to agree to boil their first born if you tell them it's a "best practice" recommended by the relevant "centre of excellence" in accordance with the "process".

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more