When I mentioned the phenomenon of asking Colonels (and, in fact, Majors) to do the front line job, you may not notice it brings along a critical problem:
Do they need supervision?
I must say there is a schizophrenia of opinion even amongst soldiers of the middle grade (if I may use this term). On one hand, they are reasonably seasoned soldiers and wish to do things in their own way. And, contrary to the belief of many people, there is actually little evidence that further supervision by a senior (and senile) General would make things better - it could be quite the opposite. (I discussed this topic some years ago in this site. Go read http://ccszeto.blogspot.hk/2009/06/experience.html)
However, most Majors and Colonels know their own limit and would be eager to seek advise from the senior rank when they face a challenging task. Many new Colonels also feel anxious and insecure if asked to take up a troop as a stand-alone unit in a new stronghold. After all, the life so short, the craft so long to learn. There is much to master even after becoming a Colonel.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Ponzi
You may not notice there is actually a fourth way that, at least for a good while, may appear to get around the problem.
It goes like this: The three solutions that I described yesterday were based on the critical assumption that the system is stable, or, in other words, the number of staff is constant.
But that’s not always true. Many a time, the system is expanding and new senior posts keep coming up, and the system would appear smooth and happy. There is no need for premature leaving of the system for either seniors or juniors, and there is no nominal seniors who are actually doing junior tasks.
Unfortunately, nothing can grow indefinitely, and a system that depends on expansion is not healthy. Once there is no new means of expansion, the system collapses.
In essence, it is another kind of Ponzi scheme.
PS. The fallacy of indefinite growth also applies to the economy - China and worldwide all the same.
It goes like this: The three solutions that I described yesterday were based on the critical assumption that the system is stable, or, in other words, the number of staff is constant.
But that’s not always true. Many a time, the system is expanding and new senior posts keep coming up, and the system would appear smooth and happy. There is no need for premature leaving of the system for either seniors or juniors, and there is no nominal seniors who are actually doing junior tasks.
Unfortunately, nothing can grow indefinitely, and a system that depends on expansion is not healthy. Once there is no new means of expansion, the system collapses.
In essence, it is another kind of Ponzi scheme.
PS. The fallacy of indefinite growth also applies to the economy - China and worldwide all the same.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Maintain
Let’s take aside all humanistic considerations and ask the simple mathematics question: In that military system, how to maintain a senior-to-junior ratio as one-to-one?
Very simple. There are limited number of ways to make such a system sustainable:
Sounds logical eh? The very point to note is these three are not solutions to the problem, but consequence of the system. It goes without saying that all three of them contribute to the stability of the staff-mix; all that matter is which one is more likely.
And, the sobering truth is, if those in senior grade have little intention to leave (as they have all the benefit), and neither do the juniors (because their prospect of promotion is secure), the inevitable happening is to ask those less senile seniors to do junior tasks.
Very simple. There are limited number of ways to make such a system sustainable:
- When those in the senior grades leave the system well before the age of retirement. (The serious arithmetic answer is if all seniors resign from the army at the age of around 48.)
- When a substantial proportion of those in the junior grades leave the system without becoming seniors. (Once again, the accurate numeric solution is if half of the juniors resign from the army after 12 years in the system, i.e. just before they get a promotion.)
- When you change the configuration of the system and ask all Colonels to do junior duty. (If you follow the calculation so far, it would be immediately obvious that the system would be stable if all Colonels continue to serve as a junior for 6 years.)
Sounds logical eh? The very point to note is these three are not solutions to the problem, but consequence of the system. It goes without saying that all three of them contribute to the stability of the staff-mix; all that matter is which one is more likely.
And, the sobering truth is, if those in senior grade have little intention to leave (as they have all the benefit), and neither do the juniors (because their prospect of promotion is secure), the inevitable happening is to ask those less senile seniors to do junior tasks.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Ranks
Let's consider the scenario of an army:
Say, a soldier joins the army as an Lieutenant (少尉). If he passes the promotion board examination, he will be become a Captain (上尉) 3 years later. After another 4 years, if his performance is reasonable, he will be advanced to be a Major (少校). With another 5 years, if nothing goes (seriously) wrong, he will be appointed as a Colonel (上校). Further promotion to a General (將軍) is more tricky and depends on a lot of political factors.
The mathematical question is: How many officers should there be in each rank?
There are actually two aspects of this question. The more simple consideration (but with a wider implication) is to divide the officers into junior (Major or below) and senior (Colonel or above) ranks. If soldiers graduate from the military school at the age of 25, they will become Colonels at the age of 37. If the age of retirement is 60 and no one leave this system prematurely, the inevitable consequence predicted by simple arithmetic is the senior-to-junior ratio of this system is two-to-one.
Say, a soldier joins the army as an Lieutenant (少尉). If he passes the promotion board examination, he will be become a Captain (上尉) 3 years later. After another 4 years, if his performance is reasonable, he will be advanced to be a Major (少校). With another 5 years, if nothing goes (seriously) wrong, he will be appointed as a Colonel (上校). Further promotion to a General (將軍) is more tricky and depends on a lot of political factors.
The mathematical question is: How many officers should there be in each rank?
There are actually two aspects of this question. The more simple consideration (but with a wider implication) is to divide the officers into junior (Major or below) and senior (Colonel or above) ranks. If soldiers graduate from the military school at the age of 25, they will become Colonels at the age of 37. If the age of retirement is 60 and no one leave this system prematurely, the inevitable consequence predicted by simple arithmetic is the senior-to-junior ratio of this system is two-to-one.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Opinion
On several recent occasions, I was asked by a number of my friends to give my opinion on some complicated business.
As you expect, my standard answer is I do not need to have an opinion on this matter.
Of course, the flaw of this statement is, like medical knowledge, we have a whole lot of opinions that we don't actually need, and, for this very topic, I have several and probably conflicting ideas. I shall explain them in the coming days by my usual convoluted way, and, by doing so, I suspect I could achieve the impossible mission of offending all parties.
And, following Baruch Spinoza, who tried to solve ethical and metaphysical questions by mathematical means, I shall begin by considering our in-house problem by simple arithmetic.
PS. If you do not know what topic I'm referring to, just sit back and consider my discussion from a metaphysical point of view.
As you expect, my standard answer is I do not need to have an opinion on this matter.
Of course, the flaw of this statement is, like medical knowledge, we have a whole lot of opinions that we don't actually need, and, for this very topic, I have several and probably conflicting ideas. I shall explain them in the coming days by my usual convoluted way, and, by doing so, I suspect I could achieve the impossible mission of offending all parties.
And, following Baruch Spinoza, who tried to solve ethical and metaphysical questions by mathematical means, I shall begin by considering our in-house problem by simple arithmetic.
PS. If you do not know what topic I'm referring to, just sit back and consider my discussion from a metaphysical point of view.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Minutes
While I was wondering what a good leader is and what brings people together, I attended another gangsters' meeting.
I shall not describe what happened. In fact it is rather difficult to figure out what actually happened. When some of my colleagues sat down together afterwards and recollect the event, I had a deja vu feeling of watching Rashomon (羅生門) because everyone seemed to be giving a somewhat different account and it is impossible to determine what the truth is - if there is one.
Nonetheless there are lessons that we could learn.
For example, meeting is not meant for discussion or making decisions, but for documentation of decisions and announcing them. Critical discussion should take place well in advance of the meeting in order to arrive at the conclusion. The doctrine is, if you have not finished with the minutes of a meeting, don't call one.
You may ask: Aren't all these taught by Humphrey Appleby?
True. But, as Andre Gide said, everything has been said, but nobody was listening.
I shall not describe what happened. In fact it is rather difficult to figure out what actually happened. When some of my colleagues sat down together afterwards and recollect the event, I had a deja vu feeling of watching Rashomon (羅生門) because everyone seemed to be giving a somewhat different account and it is impossible to determine what the truth is - if there is one.
Nonetheless there are lessons that we could learn.
For example, meeting is not meant for discussion or making decisions, but for documentation of decisions and announcing them. Critical discussion should take place well in advance of the meeting in order to arrive at the conclusion. The doctrine is, if you have not finished with the minutes of a meeting, don't call one.
You may ask: Aren't all these taught by Humphrey Appleby?
True. But, as Andre Gide said, everything has been said, but nobody was listening.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Cohesive
You may think it is immaterial to think about how a country hold its people together.
I beg to disagree.
It is not (only) because I try to be patriotic, but the basic idea has a much wider application in our daily life.
For example, what keeps twelve divisions a department, or nineteen departments a faculty, or nine faculties an institute? There must be something in common amongst all of them – a religion, a belief, a motto, or whatever. It is obvious that religion or belief is not something that could be created from thin air and implanted into (adult) human brain within days. For that reason, a charming leader is invaluable. Just like the relation between language and thinking, a good leader could express a belief, hide the problem of lacking a belief, or, more often than not, replace a belief.
And, if you need to hold people together but have neither a religion nor a good leader, all you could do is to create a sense of belonging. Unfortunately, this very feeling could not be cultivated by holding a yearly weekend retreat or Christmas party.
I beg to disagree.
It is not (only) because I try to be patriotic, but the basic idea has a much wider application in our daily life.
For example, what keeps twelve divisions a department, or nineteen departments a faculty, or nine faculties an institute? There must be something in common amongst all of them – a religion, a belief, a motto, or whatever. It is obvious that religion or belief is not something that could be created from thin air and implanted into (adult) human brain within days. For that reason, a charming leader is invaluable. Just like the relation between language and thinking, a good leader could express a belief, hide the problem of lacking a belief, or, more often than not, replace a belief.
And, if you need to hold people together but have neither a religion nor a good leader, all you could do is to create a sense of belonging. Unfortunately, this very feeling could not be cultivated by holding a yearly weekend retreat or Christmas party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
