Archiv der Kategorie: English

Seeing is believing

For good reason have religions the tendency of demonizing pictures. The faith is threatened by information. Figurative representations have the strength to convince people that what they see is the reality. It began with symbols and drawings, which were painted on the wall in the darkest corners of caves, probably by torchlight. It continued with depictions of gods and holy stories, which could only be seen at magic locations. Then the painting entered the private households. Since each picture was an original piece of art, only a few people could afford this luxury. With the printer press and the photography all people could benefit from this new look at the world. Eventually picture and tone became easily receivable for many people with the film and television. In parallel the conviction evolved that what you see actually is – “Seeing is believing”.

The picture is however determined by conditions, which prevent that you really get a look at the reality. The three following aspects play thereby a large role.

  • Image composition
    A photo squeezes the motives from its multisensual world into a two-dimensional frame. Outside of the image margin, on the right or the left, above or below, is no component of the picture and thus invisible. The use of a wide-angle lens tears relationships apart. The telephoto compresses distributed objects and produces the impression of proximity. The film type (black-and-white or color) produces additional tendencies. The appropriate orange hue creates the impression of the seventies. In the end the picture maker does not show the reality, but he produces it with its formal possibilities.
  • Context
    The environment, where the picture is presented, creates additional meaning. The image of a driving tank in an article about the invasion in a country or in a report on liberating a region elicits a corresponding impression. Although it is the same photo, it is evaluated differently. Similar motives are likewise differently interpreted. A group of people, who walk a dirt road with suit-cases and children by the hand, can awaken different feelings – depending on whether they are refugees from Syria or the former GDR.
  • Censorship
    At the end the control bodies of a country or a newspaper determine, what you van see – or not. As soon as a decision is required for a publication, the monitoring begins. The criteria does not matter thereby, since the decision gets removed from the potential viewers – for reasons of picture quality (e.g. awkward perspective or blurring), missing importance of the photo, assumed lack of interest, or to hide undesired facts, like critical points of view, messages, or truths. The censorship is already accepted practice. It starts with the rules for good journalism and certainly does not end with embedded journalists, who report on a military action – nobody is irritated by the influence of the military on the publication.

The changeability of pictures is not an achievement of today’s Photoshop age. Pictures were always falsified. The illustration shows for example, how Stalin dealt with comrades, who were fallen in disgrace. He simply let them retouch from the pictures. The media suggests neutrality, if it speaks of the filter bubble and populist reporting. If you look and listen closer, then you hear the tendentious tone in each newscast. So-called neutral fact checking does not help any more.

Bottom line: What you see in a photo is always the result of filtering one or several aspects. This happens consciously or unconsciously, with the best hidden agenda or bad-willingly, supporting or obstructing the viewer. In any case filters are impacting, which falsify the reality. In changing a well-known saying: One cannot not falsify pictures. An indicator, which can only be checked with difficulty, is the origin of pictures – if you can find it. Thus, there is no reason to believe something, as soon as you see it.

If we regulated, what we regulate

In retrospect, it was always difficult to recognize the valid set of rules in large enterprises. In the best case there was a list of officialized guidelines. In the respective list the first guideline was always the explanation of how to make a guideline. In some cultures it is crucial for the declaration that they are only obeyed, if they are integrated into the official list and are accepted in a meeting with a ritual by the concerned people. However, these regulations are only the tip of the iceberg. Besides, there are a vast number of additional conventions. Wouldn’t it be practical to make all rules visible to everybody? By regulating, what we regulate.

Regulations are continuously revised and simplified. But somehow people forget to abolish the outdated regulations. As a consequence the bureaucracy explodes. Autonomous actions have not enough elbow space, since a violation of existing rules leads quickly to contract termination. How could the regulations of an enterprise become more effective?

  • Clear definition of the rules
    Actually all involved people should have access to all relevant regulations, which they have to follow. That begins with laws, which have the strongest legally binding character. In large companies, which act globally, it is important it to clarify, which laws are valid in which country. Beyond that, the law with the ultimate binding nature has to be defined. The official company guidelines are the next level of bindingness – even if some people believe that they could override the laws. It should be clarified that the laws stand above everything. Anything else is illegal. The next stage is formed by the work instructions, which are specified by the individual areas following their strategy. They must fit to the superordinate ones. However this is rarely checked due to the absence of an overview. The simplest regulations are the algorithms, which are part in IT-programs and operational sequences. The longer they exist, the fewer people know the actual regulations, which are specified by the procedures. In these cases is no more transparency. At the end some programs run like a black box, without anybody being able to change anything.
  • A comprehensive register of all rules
    Today only a few rules are attainable in one directory. If you consider the many levels of specifications, it becomes clear that you act in a bureaucratic corset that you do not have under control. For this reason a first step is to describe them as good as possible and to make all relevant laws, guidelines, work instructions and algorithm available for all employees. At least the laws and company guidelines should be reachable at any time. A smart register of the work instructions is the next step. The algorithms you can only control, if the respective programs are switched off. Anything else would be guessing without guarantee of correctness.
  • Accessibility of the rules
    The accessibility of the rules should be no problem via the appropriate company network, the Intranet. It will be more difficult for the particular user to correctly interpret the rules without an appropriate consultation. At the same time you should be aware that rules, which someone does not understand, do not result in the desired effect. As soon as the employees do not begin to give attention to rules you loose. Compliance remains in this case an unfulfillable desire.
  • Consistency of the rules
    The valid rules should be consistent. No guideline should be written that contradicts a law. No work instruction should violate laws or guidelines. No software should operate algorithms, which contradict the entire set of rules. In principle the top management is responsible that all employees comply with the rules. Since the observation of all employees is not possible, in practice it became generally accepted to publish an instruction that asks the subordinated areas to follow the rules. That way managers feel relieved. But the rising number of law cases between enterprises and its top management shows that this is a fallacy. Therefore the companies should increase their efforts concerning the regulation of their rules and to ensure that the valid rules are consistent.
  • The agile way out
    The unsatisfactory effect of a bad leadership results in the attempt of sneaking out of responsibility by proclaiming agile approaches. That way the responsibility for acting is delegated to the employees. The areas have to become more flexible with self-organization. The fatal consequence is thereby overseen. As soon as the employees take over the control and find their way autonomously, the managers become obsolete – at least the middle levels. And thus the agility works smoothly at all; it needs a platform that makes the valid regulations available in a directory (see above).

Bottom line: The bureaucracy is an interconnected system, whose components become over time invisible, since too many rules were and are developed, without ever abolishing some. In order to be able to act really compliant, it is necessary to describe the existing set of rules, to check its meaningfulness and consistency, and, if somehow possible, to reduce them to what is really needed – regulating, what regulates.