|
Welcome
to Paper World
So, not being a manager, I
coped using the old techniques of box and cox and improvisation, and
all went well until I had to supply data on my teaching at the end of
term. The
problem was that my data were actually too complicated and the
spreadsheet
could
only handle simple entries, where a particular cell was occupied for
the entire
term. So I resorted to the official timetable and declared
that both Egyptology and Scuba-Diving
students were both taught on Tuesday afternoons from two to four, or
whatever
it was. That was no good either, however, since the spreadsheet
rejected such a
double entry. I now found myself being asked to cope with the anomalies
of
Paper World as well, including being asked if I knew how to enter a
suitable formula into the spreadsheet so that it could allow double
entries (I didn't). Indeed, I spent more time with management coping
with the
recalcitrant spreadsheet than I had in solving the real problem of
dealing with
two groups wanting me to teach them both at the same time! Bugger the
proper monitoring of resource usage! They hadn't even monitored the
usage of the device that was supposed to help them monitor resources. Case
study 2 -- The Endless Extension
of Extenuating Circumstances
A
high-powered committee was
convened, and immediately set out to establish a new settlement in
Paper World.
They didn't bother to ask anyone with any experience, or to find out
the most
common kinds of requests for extenuating circumstances, or to
investigate
practices elsewhere (except with a view
to plagiarising useful preambles from materials already on the Web).
Instead,
they immediately launched into one of their favourite activities and
began
making
lists. No
doubt using one of the famed management techniques like
'brainstorming', or its refined version 'forming, storming and
norming', they managed to make a list of all the circumstances which
would justify an extension to a deadline. It was easy really
because medical
conditions, accidental injury, or recent bereavement could all be
established objectively (that is, with another piece of paper). They
drew up the list and announced that from now on, they would deal with
extenuating circumstances as the only 'qualified' body. The
actual list of cases that year overwhelmed them, however, and
they found
themselves having to stray far from the nice simple list. There was not
the slightest interest in why so many people were claiming extenuating
circumstances, or whether the deadline or marking systems might need
looking at. There were
people reporting mental stress caused by apparently trivial injury, or
people who had not been bereaved exactly but whose long-term
significant relationships with others had ended, which felt like
bereavement. People reported feeling sick with worry over debt, or of
feeling upset because family friends had died, some of whom were
'honorary kin'. One or two had even lost pets and had felt too upset to
be able to concentrate on exams. Lots of them seemed genuine. Some
presented accompanying letters from counsellors, GPs, priests,
kin. Some had no supporting evidence and seemed unable to believe
that they needed it -- the mugs thought we would trust them to tell the
truth, or that their sincerity would become clear once they had
explained themselves properly. Many had been far too busy coping with
their
crises to bother to actually get any supporting evidence, at least not
until afterward. Managers had to use judgments and make decisions, and
all that in the absence of the usual information that those of us who
knew students could provide. Managers found it very stressful. They
were consumed with worry and
tired by emotionally difficult work. They resolved never to be in that
position
again. The
first response was to amend the list. For example, a 'close relative'
was defined as someone
who was no more than one generation removed from the applicant.
Honorary kin were excluded, but step-kin were included (managers had
few of the former but lots of the latter). Only properly
married partners were to count or the offspring thereof.
Bereavement was permitted as long as it was 'recent' (within three
weeks -- surely plenty of time to 'draw a line under' the event) or if
the deceased was a 'close
relative' (as above -- not meaning close emotionally). No non-humans
were included, unless these were
officially-defined 'companion animals' such as guide dogs or hearing
dogs. Mental stress was allowed as long as it was serious enough to
require a medical note. Medical and other notes would be allowed post hoc as
long as they were gained no later than five working days after the
deadline. Acute conditions were listed but not chronic ones, because
there are no long-term or unsolvable problems in Paper World The
list grew to a substantial document of some 30 pages. Meetings lasted
longer as the document needed to be consulted for each case. As in
managerial documents everywhere, there were lots of bullet points
rather than numbered lists and no index, which led to much
page-searching. Some of the applicants, or
their solicitors, knew the document better than did the members of the
panel and found all sorts of ambiguities, contradictions and omissions
.The list still didn't cover all the eventualities. Maybe further
additions and amendments would be required, perhaps with legal advice
this time? Managers,unusually, began to worry about time and cost. The
final solution was actually a step of unusual managerial brilliance.
The
Extenuating Circumstances Committee decided not to make any decisions
at all. They decided to accept only cases accompanied by expert
supporting
documentation. A template was devised to issue to GPs,
priests or counsellors which invited a yes/no response in answer to the
question 'Are these circumstances serious enough to count as
extenuating circumstances?'. Forms could be collected by students
applying for extenuating circumstances. Those forms which
were ticked 'yes' led to the applicant being awarded an extension or
re-take. This
worked well for a
year, even though some GPs simply refused to do anything as vulgar as
tick a box. Nevertheless, time and anxiety were considerably reduced.
Then
problems emerged. How could the supporting experts judge the issue when
they
knew the client but did not know what the regulations were? Obviously,
what was needed was a list of cases which qualified.... Case
study 3 -- So Mote It Be Management
wanted to close down a course, and proceeded in the usual way by
deciding first then offering consultation. At the consultation
stage they lost the argument as usual, mostly because they were
badly informed about the basic details like recruitment,
retention,staffing
and the
like. So they had to resort to Plan B -- make the course unviable,
demoralise the staff, whisper among the students, starve the thing of
resources, until it really did match the picture they had of it in the
first place. Part
of the plan included harassing the staff. Expenses claims were minutely
scrutinised, managers crept along corridors and listened at doors to
make sure teaching was really taking place, the course leader was
summoned to account for expenditure on books over the last five years,
External Examiners were invited to criticise and their remarks
minutely scrutinised for use as ammunition. One remark mentioned a
delay in returning marked essays. The course leader was summoned and told she was to ensure that all essays were returned promptly. She was given a deadline. This was actually closer than the agreed practice (four working weeks), and the course leader objected. She was told it was quite reasonable to expect 23 essays to be marked and returned in a fortnight. She replied that, even if this were so, there were 62 essays to be marked. She was scornfully rebuked and told there could not be 62, since her course was losing students and was now down to 23. The figures proved it. She produced the official figures showing 62 enrolled. But this did not allow for drop-out, was the reply. But there had been no drop-outs she argued. There must have been because she was now down to 23 students! It was her fault for designing such a poor and ill-suited course! No wonder it had a dubious future! The
course leader returned home almost convinced. Then she counted the
essays waiting to be marked -- there were 62. The next day a letter
arrived
reminding her that she was expected to have marked all 23 essays in a
fortnight's time, and that failure to do so would be regarded as a
disciplinary matter. She offered to bring in the pile of essays so the
manager could count them. This was refused as evidence of continued
prevarication and insubordination, and she was warned again to
produce a mark list in a fortnight. Presumably,
the figure of 23 had the superior ontological status of existing in
Paper World, perhaps even in a private region of EXCELsior, and
represented the number of students that was desired following the run
down. Perhaps it was the target for the next year? It is possible that
it played a major part in persuading any doubters of the
unviability of the course. It had clearly been so well-established that
it must be true, regardless of any minor inconveniences like a pile of
62 vulgarly and brutally actual essays.The counter-arguments of
the course leader only confirmed what was already known -- she was
wily, prone to lying, outrageously hostile to management to the point
of being unmanageable, and thus quite unsuitable for continued
employment.
|