The context of the project may sound very specific, but the outcome is a brilliant resource for any person facilitating processes of exchange, dialogue and discussion anywhere in the world!

The study was commissioned by the German Technical Cooperation Organisation (GTZ) in support to the HIV/AIDS Programme of the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

You may wonder what the work of Mandela’s foundation against AIDS has to do with dialogue. Well, promoting dialogue has been and remains one of the prime goals of the foundation’s HIV programme.

“Maintaining public interest in HIV and AIDS has proven to be a key to beginning to challenge individuals and organisations on an increasing and significant scale to help those who are affected and infected.”

It is in the framework of this thinking that an excellent toolkit on dialogue was produced which introduces itself by quoting the author of Sophie’s World and Norwegian intellectual, Jostein Gaarder:

“An answer is always the part of the road that is behind you. Only questions point to the future.”

The introduction continues to set the ground for the publication by observing that our modern world loves answers and quick solutions to problems, which we love to pass on to others through writing, teaching and lecturing. The authors continue to state, and I could not agree more, that this approach — while being useful in some situations — is problematic when addressing the challenges of our time – social and human, economic and political.

Why is that so?

Pioneers of Change and the GTZ have two reasons to give to the answer-craving audience:

Firstly, we live in a world of increasing complexity, where answers have a short life-span and problems are characterised by three types of complexity: dynamic complexity, social complexity and generative complexity.

Secondly, people seem to have an inherent desire to solve their own problems, which is why universal, formulaic responses imposed from the outside often fail — producing even more simplistic “solutions”.

So, dialogue is the ultimate solution then?!

Well, not so quickly! Let’s have a closer look at the two reasons and see where this takes us.

The idea of threefold complexity stems from Adam Kahane and his book «Solving tough problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities» about which Nelson Mandela said:

“This breakthrough book addresses the central challenge of our time: finding a way to work together to solve the problems we have created.”

In his book Kahane typifies complexity and in doing so differentiates between

• dynamic complexity, meaning that cause and effect are distant in space and time and suggesting that a systemic approach is needed to address this type of complexity and underlying problems,
• social complexity, meaning that there is no singular truth or ownership of an issue but rather many different and usually conflicting opinions and assumptions about the problem in question, suggesting that a participative approach is required to deal with this kind of complexity,
• generative complexity, meaning the problematic situation is constantly and unpredictably changing and therefore old solutions to previous problems are not working any longer, suggesting that a creative approach is necessary to cope with this form of complexity.

In other words, Kahane claims that today’s problems can only be solved by processes which are holistic, democratic and imaginative.

And how could you better combine these approaches than through shared experience and exchange? How could you better stimulate new ideas and utilise the wisdom of crowds than through genuine dialogue?

So here it is then, the spirit in which this handbook critically explores different tools and methods to engage in processes of authentic dialogue. Excitingly, the authors have not just described a couple of tools. They have done much more in looking at the stories behind the approaches and asking where they come from to put each approach into a context.

It is because of this contextualisation and historicisation that the book can also provide unique space for constructive and critical reflection by showing limits or pointing out weaknesses of the approaches described. At the same time, the publication gives hints on how to creatively combine different methods and strategies to best respond to the situation at hand.

Let me give you an example to illustrate the publication’s approach and my point. You all know very well the circle as a method of engaging in dialogue with groups of up to 30 people or so. Well, the book has something important to say on the circle:

“For many who are not used to the circle, the slowness of the conversation and thinking can be frustrating… It’s worth noting that social science research has actually been done to show that the first person to speak can have a large influence on what is said and the direction the conversation takes. The circle seems particularly prone to this dynamic. This can be useful, but it can also be problematic.”

To cut a long story short: In doing these things it is so much better than most toolboxes out there. Actually, by doing these things it is much better than most toolboxes out there.

So what exactly are you waiting for?
Right click, save as, print and read!

And obviously: try out and explore in practice, and if you have something to say
please do give feedback to the authors – it will surely be appreciated…

∞

I was just strolling around my inbox to confirm that the past year has been particularly concerned with bureaucracies. Of any kind, really: from universities or schools to city administrations, and European, even world-wide organisations of any kind; the White House and non-governmental associations included.

This, then, must be an appropriate moment to dig deep in the past of humanity and re-introduce some crucial thinking on bureaucracy along the principles of Peter and Dilbert.

(If you don’t like Dilbert, or Peter, go here. If you like Dilbert and know his principle as well as Peter’s, get your mind boggled. If you don’t know Dilbert, descend into the eternal grounds and go here and here before you return.)

Bureaucracy is a sociological concept often associated with public administration, even though it describes a hierarchical form of organising the execution and enforcement of rules that is also widely applied in economy, civil society, religion and elsewhere.

The word has its etymological roots in the French «bureau», referring to a public office, and the Greek «kratos», meaning «power» or «rule», and basically means «office rule» or «official power». Already in 18th-century France discourses — that we know all too well from our days — existed:

«We have an illness in France which bids fair to play havoc with us; this illness is called bureaumania».

Jean Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay, French economist (1712-1759)

Gournay is considered one of the first major critics of bureaucracies which he often referred to as the fourth or fifth form of government. Since then, the controversy about bureaucracy has mainly remained the same in suggesting that, left uncontrolled and unchecked, bureaucracies are bound to become increasingly perverse, corrupt and self-serving, rather than serving society and the common good.

«[...] indeed the public interest appears to have been established so that offices might exist.»

Friedrich Melchior Baron von Grimm, German writer and diplomat (1723-1807)

Until today, the connotation of «bureaucracy» is overwhelmingly negative — who wants to be called a «bureaucrat»? Administrator, civil servant, public servant, city clerk, director general: yes, bureaucrat: never!

Bureaucracies are condemned as (choose your own set): anti-liberal, undemocratic, totalitarian, hostile to liberty, paralysing, inefficient, wasteful, unfriendly, unethical, unfair, overly complicated, pedantic, rigid, slow and slack. And who hasn’t encountered an unjust ruling of administration, based on a rule that makes little or no sense? Yet:

«Such rules are indispensable if public administration is not to slip out of the hands of the top executives and degenerate into the supremacy of subordinate clerks.»

Mises, L. (1944): Bureaucracy. University Press, Yale. Page 126. (pdf)

This is what Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises in 1944 suggested, a claim vividly supported by Günter Verheugen not too long ago.

But what are bureaucracies?

According to Merriam-Webster, bureaucracy means

«1: a) a body of nonelective government officials
1: b) an administrative policy-making group
2: government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
3: a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation.»

BTW: MW claims that «cratie» stands for «cracy»

In contrast, have a look at the definition provided by MSN Encarta (in particular point 4):

«1. administrative system: an administrative system, especially in a government, that divides work into specific categories carried out by special departments of nonelected officials
2. officials collectively: the nonelected officials of an organization or department
3. state or organization: a state or organization operated by a hierarchy of paid officials
4. frustrating rules: complex rules and regulations applied rigidly»

Karl Marx suggested that bureaucracy controls, co-ordinates and governs the development, production, distribution and consumption of wealth and is maintained by the surplus of such wealth production. It has, in other words, very little interest in changing the system it protects and is protected by (a problem seemingly rising to the surface of modern discourses).

Max Weber has studied the sociology of politics and government and in particular the bureaucratisation of society extensively and described the ideal bureaucracy by a set of seven conditions, which are:

1. official business is conducted on a continuous basis
2. official business is conducted with strict accordance to the following rules:
• the duty of each official to do certain types of work is delimited in terms of impersonal criteria
• the official is given the authority necessary to carry out his assigned functions
• the means of coercion at his disposal are strictly limited and conditions of their use strictly defined
3. every official’s responsibilities and authority are part of a vertical hierarchy of authority, with respective rights of supervision and appeal
4. officials do not own the resources necessary for the performance of their assigned functions but are accountable for their use of these resources
5. official and private business and income are strictly separated
6. offices cannot be appropriated by their incumbents (inherited, sold, etc.)
7. official business is conducted on the basis of written documents

Criticism of these principles are wide-ranging and suggest that, crucially, real bureaucracies could never be as ideal as Weber’s model and thus it is not adequate to describe bureaucracies with all their problems ranging from conflicts of competence, unclear responsibilities, impersonalisation of staff, corruption, nepotism, oligarchic behaviours, overspecialisation, missing flexibility to deal with exceptions, lack of critical thinking, zealotry… to name but a few.

To many, the (mis-) interpretation of Weber’s thinking in the development of modern public service has led to a Catch-22: As bureaucracy creates more and more simplistic rules to deal with new or different situations one-dimensionally, very legalistically and with little common sense, the complexity of the spiderweb of rules increases without the capacity to deal with the rising complexity of reality at all — consequently, coordination and overview diminish, contradictory rules develop, and essentially administration becomes chaotic, arbitrary and discriminating.

So let’s have a look inside this system of bureaucracy at the people who work there:

According to Weber, a bureaucratic official is personally free and appointed to his position on the basis of conduct; exercises the authority delegated to him in accordance with impersonal rules; enlists his loyalty on behalf of the faithful execution of his official duties; is appointed and placed dependent upon his technical qualifications; does administrative work as a full-time occupation which is rewarded by a regular salary and prospects of advancement in a lifetime career.

An official must exercise his judgment and his skills, but his duty is to place these at the service of a higher authority.

(Source)

In 1968, the hierarchiologist Laurence Peter formulated the «Peter Principle»:

«In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.»

Peter, Laurence and Hull, Raymond (1968): The Peter Principle: Why things always go wrong. Souvenir Press, London: Reprint 1994.

This principle has been widely quoted and satirised, and often been misunderstood: Peter and Hull are not suggesting that every civil servant is incompetent. They are merely claiming that due to the wide-spread practice of promotion based on success in the current (soon: previous) task, people tend to get stuck in positions for which they are not fully competent any more. After some time, this principle leads to a «Hierarchy of the Incompetent» — if you leave all other processes and influences on promotions and positions aside (some of which may speed up this process, others delay it).

With the «Peter Pyramid», Peter continued his work by expanding the «Peter Principle» (which applies to individuals in bureaucracies) to organisations and the system itself. (Peter, Laurence (1986): The Peter Pyramid: Or, Will We Ever Get the Point? William Morrow & Company, New York.)

Related to the work of Peter and Hull is the thinking of the German sociologist Robert Michels who invented the «Iron Law of Oligarchy» by observing that «all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies.» In consequence, Michels claims, large organisations and democracy are incompatible. The now dysfunct «International Typographical Union» is one of the few (apparent) exceptions to this iron rule.

Scott Adams took a combination of the «Peter Principle» and the «Iron Law of Oligarchy» one step further and invented the «Dilbert Principle» which suggests that:

«Companies tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to management, in order to limit the amount of damage that they’re capable of doing.»

Adams, Scott (1996): The Dilbert Principle. Harper Business, New York.

Clearly: BOCTAOE! Yet: How many examples do you know?

According to my inbox: too many.

∞

Bath, Columbine, Erfurt and the Amish School are just a few shootings on the horrid list of school massacres, now extended by another shoot-out in Germany.

Sebastian B., an 18-year-old school student, ran amok in his school in the Northwestern town of Emsdetten on Monday, November 20 and injured 37 people before killing himself. With three guns, 12 pipe bombs, several smoke bombs and a knife he seemed rather fully equipped for what could have easily become another shooting spree.

According to claims by some of his former schoolmates, the young man was a fanatical player of “Counter-Strike.” According to Wikipedia, with more than 200.000 users the game currently is the most widely played tactical first person shooter in the world.

Absurdly, German politics and media are wildly debating a presumed relation between users of violent computer games and individuals resorting to violence. The Christian Democrats in particular insist on violent computer games being banned – yes, not regulated: banned.

In an interview with the German media, Brandenburg Interior Minister Jörg Schönbohm (CDU) scapegoated computer gaming by saying that “killer games” do encourage violent behaviour and are contributing to an escalating rate of brutality among young people.

Counter-Strike is violent alright, no question about that. On the other hand, the vast majority of counter strike players do not go out to shoot their fellow school students. That common-sensical truth seemingly does not irritate German politicians in their moronic crusade:

“If it really is true that the perpetrator played such killer games over a long period, then lawmakers finally have to do something,” said the deputy chairman of the Christian Democrats, Wolfgang Bosbach.

Isn’t this argument so daft that it qualifies for ‘one beer short of a sixpack’? Let me brush it aside with Sociology Professor Klaus Hurrelmann of Bielefeld University, who leaves no doubt in a recent interview that “a causal relationship between video games and violence does not exist.”

Thank you.

But where from here?

Apparently Sebastian left a message on the internet suggesting the mayhem was retaliation for being mocked at school according to the English edition of “Spiegel Online.” One of his letters is quoted to say: “The only thing I learned intensively at school was that I’m a loser.”

Is society to blame?

Nothing justifies a revenge rampages, whether in Emsdetten, Erfurt or any place else. Yet, Sebastian’s manifest frustration with his school does suggest that something with our education system is fundamentally wrong.

I admit:

I have no idea how to open up the box of societal responsibility for this tragedy. I really don’t.

The education system can clearly not be blamed for everything. And yet:

As long as

• our school and university system considers young people like modelling material which can be formed arbitrarily into any shape as is considered best at a given moment in time,
• young people remain the playdoh of a system with distorted power relations in which physical and mential violence is normal and abuse is regular,
• ten percent of school students are thrown out of school with no degree, doomed to never get anywhere in this society,

Emsdetten will not be the last entry on the most disgusting list I had to look at in a long time.

What we need is not a ban of computer games, we need a fundamental change in the way in which we allow ourselves to be treated – in school and outside.