DECISIONS AND EXPLOSIONS

Life is not fair.  It is merely interesting.  Accept that and your universe will begin to unfold splendidly.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Here are two related anecdotes in support of this philosophy.

The Commander of the Canadian Forces in Korea during that conflict was Brigadier (later General) John D Rockingham.  To his fans, and there were many, he was referred to reverentially as "Rocky" and his troops were called "Rocky's Army".  To his numerous detractors he was known as J. Roaringham Frozenballs, the biggest self-adulating jackass ever to accept the Queen's shilling.  Polarizing, he was.

Long after Canada was done with Korea and I had begun my military career, Rocky was fond of making the rounds of military units to reconnect with "his boys", the still serving Korean vets, drink a lot of scotch and tell wondrous tales.  He happened upon my unit one night as we officers were having our monthly formal dinner.  In he came in scarlet jacket and three decks of medals, looking like an Hungarian Bandmaster or a refugee from a Village People concert.  He bellowed bonhomie.  He drank and told his stories.  Eventually, he cornered Lt. "Libby", an over-the-hill vet with his own impressive rack of decorations.  As Rocky soon discovered, Libby was a charter member of the "Frozenballs" contingent.  He called Rocky on his over the top stories, failed to laugh at his clumsy witticisms and finally wondered aloud about Rocky's acquaintance with the truth.  Rocky took a swing at him and missed.  Libby didn't miss.  Rocky ended up on his ass behind a couch.  The Rocky fans rushed to the aid of their comatose hero.  The Frozenballs gang locked Libby in a storage closet with some beers and a bucket to pee in.  Libby saw the wisdom in this - it is never a good idea to punch out a General, whatever the provocation.

Rocky awoke and couldn't remember who whacked him.  Libby remained incarcerated until Rocky departed.

This Libby saga actually goes somewhere - bear with me.

Libby thought that he would like to retire as a Captain or maybe a Major - better pension etc.  Accordingly, he kept trying (and failing) his written promotion exams.  Now, incoming mortar bombardments and small arms fire he could handle with aplomb but a written exam?  Pure terror time.  The last time he tried I was writing for the first time.  The big question in the three hour marathon (60% of the total marks) was to find and document an elegant solution to a complex, time sensitive tactical dilemma.  So, there is this bridge being defended by an armoured regiment while the tattered remains of an infantry battalion limps to safety across the wide river.  Approaching at speed is a Fantasian mechanized brigade intent on crossing the river to lay waste our crops and ravage our womenfolk.   The problem posed:  As commander of a smallish force of infantry, armour, demolitions guys and artillery on the safe side of the bridge, how do you get the retreating infantry and armour to safety and concurrently delay the Fantasian advance until heavy re-enforcements or a tactical nuke arrive to drive them back?

We were given lots of stuff to work with - maps, situation reports, intel on the Fantasian capabilities and equipment etc.  In the silence of the examination hall there was only the rattling of maps and the tap-tap of calculators as we estimated targets, calculated movement speed, inventoried demolition supplies and otherwise pondered myriad possibilities.  Libby fretted.  He sweated.  Threw pencils on the floor.  Took pee breaks.  Mumbled.  Then, the solution came to him.  He shattered the quiet of the hall with a roar,

"BLOW THE GODDAM BRIDGE!" 

 He then scribbled furiously in his exam booklet until the closing bell.

Those of us who passed, Libby among us discovered after a fruitless search for an "elegant" solution that there wasn't one to be had.  The good, or at least adequate course of action was to get some of the retreating troops to safety riding on tank decks then curse the gods and take out the bridge.  In an odd way, Libby's winning solution was like the one he chose when Rocky took a swing at him.  They both had serious down sides and ethical implications.  In short, they were just plain nasty decisions that in a just and fair world would not arise.  And both involved dropping pursuit of the perfect to achieve a good or at least the passable outcome.

Dilemmas like these abound in our personal and work lives.  Organizational leaders face them frequently and how they respond often predicts how well the whole organization does on its perilous pursuit for survival.  Two examples come to mind, both of them involving excellent social service enterprises.  

The first one is a multi-faceted not for profit shop serving a large urban community.  Its clients are individuals who for various reasons are homeless or hungry or unemployed or suffering mental health problems or are among the working poor or all of the above.  The organization's driving ethic is that of unconditional acceptance of and respect for all of the people it serves.  This ethic has worked wonders over the years because it gives its clients a place of safety, support and genuine encouragement.  In response, the clients find the resolve to tackle their grinding problems in creative ways and in many cases become productive, contributing citizens after years of fruitless wheel-spinning or worse.  It is not just a happy accident that the organization employs a number of former clients.

But all is not well in Camelot.  The grand and laudable ethic has become for some senior members of the organization an ideology that invites no questioning.  This rigidity has consequences, among them exhaustion and burnout among front line workers who feel that to give up on clients because of their intransigence, inability to accept a shred of personal responsibility or in some cases their malevolent and potentially dangerous behaviour is to break the faith or earn the disapproval of the leaders.  And so they invest huge gobs of time and psychic energy in these hard cases, often to the neglect of other clients.  Alternatively, they confront their hard cases and say, "Enough" - in effect, they throw a punch or, "blow the goddam bridge" but are then fearful that they will face censure for having done so.  Equally troubling, the organization's ideology subtly  but effectively inveighs against confrontation of any kind.  For some of the client hard cases that is received not as acceptance and respect but as license to do whatever they goddam well please.  And they do.  Finally, the unspoken injunction against confrontation constipates and distorts internal communication and applies a layer of misleading moral treacle to most internal discussions.  In short, folks learn that there are some things best not said.  In this organization, throwing a punch or "blowing the goddam bridge" is an absolute no-no.

The second organization serves similar clients but province-wide through a close affiliation of independent operations oriented to their local communities.  Their services are specialized but they work in close harmony with organizations like the one described above.  With their client first ethic and strong community orientation they value cooperation, trust and fair play.  No-one could accuse them of intransigence or militancy.  Their modest funding comes from a single provincial agency that traditionally was responsible for championing their work, getting maximum bucks together, distributing them fairly and thereafter auditing to ensure that they were being spent with caution and fiscal prudence.

Something changed over the years.  The funding organization through a succession of increasingly power hungry CEOs and increasingly compliant boards of directors began to meddle in operations under the guise of ensuring financial probity.  Demands for elaborate reports grew.  Cost-cutting directives flowed out to operations already on tight, controlled budgets.  Salaries for front liners went unchanged for years and they were skinny to begin with.  Meanwhile, the funding organization hired additional highly paid help and cranked up managerial salaries over the six figure level while crying poor.  At first, the community organizations responded in good faith by questioning some directives and offering creative solutions to the calls for economies and cost reductions.  Their responses went largely ignored and unanswered except for veiled and not so veiled threats about forced amalgamations, salary reductions and demands to find cheaper accommodation.  Their Association went to bat for them on a province-wide basis and came away with similar results.

Now, folks are getting seriously irritated and feeling threatened.  As much as they would rather tend to their clients and communities and as much as they favour conciliation over confrontation, they are coming to realize almost too late that there comes a time to throw a punch or "blow the goddam bridge". They desperately do not want to take the risk of losing but are accepting the need to confront and live with the marginally acceptable result they may achieve.

I believe that both of these fine organizations will survive and grow but I believe equally that both will need to suffer their palace revolts and redefine themselves in specific ways.  Both will have their equivalents of Libby's night in a storage closet with a bucket of pee for company.  Both will have to incorporate into their thinking and actions the ugly truth that life is not fair and that noble pursuit of ideal solutions without accepting the messy reality of confrontation and marginally OK results is ultimately an exercise in futility.

Organizational psychologist Douglas MacGregor once offered a subtle, insightful aphorism as a guide to effective managerial behaviour.  He declared simply that, "People will behave in about they way you expect them to."  He went on to caution that this was a guide and not an ideological absolute.  While most folks and organizations will respond to courteous, trusting behaviour by being trustworthy and respectful, some will not.  For that troublesome minority I suspect that MacGregor would agree that you have to throw a punch or blow the goddam bridge if you hope to survive with your integrity intact.