history

2025年10月4日星期六

From Products to T-Generators: Redefining the Roles of Operations, Marketing, and R&D

One of Eli Schragenheim’s most thought-provoking insights is the distinction between what operations and marketing truly deliver. Operations, he argued, produce products. Marketing, on the other hand, sells t-generators—the tangible or intangible entities that generate throughput.

This distinction opens the door to a deeper rethinking of organizational roles. If marketing is not merely about pushing existing products, but about shaping and selling throughput generators, then the function of R&D cannot remain confined to “product development.” R&D must be integrated into marketing’s mission of designing and evolving t-generators—whether they take the form of products, services, or even innovative business models.

The Redefinition of Roles

Operations: Builders of Capability
Operations’ role is clear and stable. They are responsible for transforming resources into reliable outputs—whether physical products, digital deliverables, or service executions. Their success lies in efficiency, quality, and dependability. Operations are the foundation on which throughput potential rests.
Marketing (including R&D): Designers and Multipliers of Throughput
Marketing’s mission is not simply to promote what operations produce. It is to define and develop the t-generatorsthat maximize the organization’s throughput. This means understanding customer needs, market dynamics, and competitive landscapes to identify what kind of t-generators can create sustainable streams of value.
R&D belongs here, not as a separate silo. Its task is not just to “invent” or “improve” products, but to co-create with marketing new and more effective throughput generators—be they subscription models, service packages, ecosystems, or platforms. This reframing aligns R&D’s creativity with the ultimate economic engine: throughput.
KPI Realignment
Traditional KPIs often measure marketing by sales volume and R&D by the number of new products launched. This misses the point. If marketing plus R&D is truly about generating throughput, their KPI must reflect the net throughput potential created by the portfolio of t-generators.
- Not “How many products did we launch?” but “How much throughput capacity have we created?”
- Not “How many leads were generated?” but “How effectively are our t-generators sustaining throughput growth?”

Why This Matters

Most organizations unintentionally limit R&D by tethering it to operations. The result is incremental product improvements that do not necessarily translate into stronger t-generators. By placing R&D under marketing, innovation becomes market-driven, strategically aligned, and directly linked to throughput.

This redefinition also clarifies the boundaries:

Operations excel at execution.
Marketing (with R&D) excels at conception and value creation.
Together, they form a coherent system where throughput is not left to chance but is deliberately designed and reliably delivered.

Conclusion

Organizations that adopt this perspective will unlock a sharper division of labor, a more focused set of KPIs, and above all, a deeper alignment with the fundamental goal of business: to maximize sustainable throughput.

When marketing and R&D unite around the design of t-generators, and operations delivers them with excellence, the organization as a whole achieves clarity of purpose and strength of execution.

2025年10月3日星期五

荷蘭式勇氣」：一個關於侮辱與酒精的歷史源流

「荷蘭式勇氣」：一個關於侮辱與酒精的歷史源流

在英語中，「Dutch courage」（荷蘭式勇氣）是一個廣為人知、但帶點酸溜溜的詞彙。它指的只不過是藉酒壯膽，並非真正的勇氣。然而，這只是眾多歷史上以「Dutch」（荷蘭）一詞來嘲諷、貶低或侮辱的英語慣用語之一。問題是：英國人為何單單挑選荷蘭人來進行這種語言上的冷嘲熱諷？而現代的荷蘭人又如何回應這個長達數世紀、奇特的傳統？

刻薄的起源：嘲諷競爭對手

這些「荷蘭」式侮辱的根源，深深植根於大航海時代的動盪時期，以及隨後對全球海權和貿易主導權的爭奪戰中。當時的主要對手並非英國與法國，而是英國與荷蘭。

這場激烈的競爭升級為英荷戰爭（主要在十七世紀中葉），這是一系列為爭奪貿易路線和海上霸權而發生的殘酷海戰。據歷史學家稱，正是在這段時期，以「刻薄」聞名於世的英國人開始將語言武器化。他們創造出各種短語來嘲笑他們的經濟和軍事對手，將他們描繪成小氣、刻薄、醉酒或混亂的人。

「Dutch courage」這個慣用語，據信正是在這些戰爭期間起源的。一個理論認為它與荷蘭士兵和水手在戰前飲用jenever（荷蘭氈酒，即荷蘭杜松子酒）有關——英國人將這種「鎮定神經」的嘗試，斥為只是單純的醉酒，而非真正的英勇。

「荷蘭」式刻薄語錄

「Dutch courage」絕非唯一的例子。其他常見的歷史性諷刺語包括：

Dutch Uncle（荷蘭叔叔）：指一位過於嚴厲、苛刻，只會嚴厲訓斥或批評，從不讚揚的人。
Dutch comfort（荷蘭式安慰）：這是一種拐彎抹角的「安慰」，意思是「你本來可以更慘的」，但表達方式毫無幫助，甚至帶點嘲諷（例如：「你應該慶幸你只是丟了錢包，而不是丟了工作！」）。
Dutch concert（荷蘭式演奏會）：形容一片嘈雜，一個混亂的音樂表演，每個樂手都演奏著不同的曲子，代表一團混亂。

就連我們非常熟悉的「Go Dutch」（各付各的，即每人支付自己的份額）也來自更古老、同樣帶有貶義的詞彙「Dutch treat」（荷蘭式招待）或「Dutch lunch」（荷蘭式午餐）。雖然現在已被廣泛接受為一種標準的餐飲方式，但其起源是對荷蘭人被認為「吝嗇」的嘲諷——意指「荷蘭式招待」是一種糟糕的待客之道，主人竟然期望所有人都自己付錢。

傳播與延續

這些慣用語在英語詞彙中持續了數個世紀，主要通過口頭傳統，後來通過文學和新聞傳播。它們是文化遺跡，代代相傳，但大多數現代使用者甚至沒有意識到它們歷史上帶有貶義的根源。

今天，儘管英荷之間的競爭早已結束（兩國現在是親密的盟友），這些短語仍然作為語言怪癖而倖存。「Go Dutch」已經完全失去了諷刺意味，而雖然「Dutch courage」保留了其嘲諷的含義，但許多使用者並不知道它特定的反荷蘭歷史。

現代荷蘭人的反應：聳聳肩，笑一笑

荷蘭人如何回應這些針對他們祖先的、古怪的英語侮辱呢？簡而言之：他們帶著好笑、輕微的不滿，以及普遍的漠不關心。

大多數荷蘭人都知道「Dutch courage」，也常常知道「Go Dutch」（儘管他們實際上稱之為 apart betalen 或 ieder voor zich，意為「分開支付」或「各人顧自己」）。對許多人來說，這些短語被視為一種好奇的、非常「英式」的習慣——兩個海事國家之間長達數世紀爭吵所遺留下來的過時產物。

這些語言上的侮辱，有時反而讓荷蘭人感到一種微妙的文化自豪感。英國人所嘲笑的那些特點——「Go Dutch」的實用主義，或「Dutch courage」所暗示的魯莽——有時反而被視為荷蘭民族性格的一部分：直接、務實，有點固執。

最終，對於現代荷蘭人來說，這些「荷蘭」式的侮辱只不過是語言學上的一個註腳。它們是遺留下來的、關於一段被遺忘的競爭的奇怪殘餘物——是英國人「畢竟是英國人」的表現——荷蘭人對此的反應不是感到冒犯，而更多是帶有一種典型的荷蘭式聳肩和微笑。

Dutch Courage": An Origin Story of Insult and Alcohol

"Dutch Courage": An Origin Story of Insult and Alcohol

In the English language, the term "Dutch courage" is a well-known, if somewhat acidic, phrase. It means courage derived solely from the consumption of alcohol, suggesting a false bravado rather than true bravery. But this is just one of many historical English idioms that use the word "Dutch" to mock, belittle, or insult. The question is: Why did the English single out the Dutch for such linguistic slights, and how do modern Dutch people react to this strange, centuries-old tradition?

The Sour Origins: Insulting the Competition

The roots of these "Dutch" insults are firmly planted in the tumultuous era of the Age of Exploration and the subsequent scramble for global maritime and trade dominance. The primary rivalry during this period was not between England and France, but between England and the Netherlands.

This fierce competition escalated into the Anglo-Dutch Wars (primarily in the mid-17th century), a series of brutal naval conflicts fought for control of trade routes and naval supremacy. It was during this time that, according to historians, the notoriously "cantankerous" English began to weaponize language. They created phrases to mock their economic and military rivals, painting them as cheap, mean, drunk, or chaotic.

The idiom "Dutch courage" is believed to have originated during these wars. One theory suggests it relates to the use of jenever (Dutch gin) by Dutch soldiers and sailors before battle—an attempt to steady nerves that the English dismissed as mere intoxication rather than true bravery.

A Catalogue of "Dutch" Slights

"Dutch courage" is far from the only example. Other common historical slurs include:

Dutch Uncle: Refers to a person, often an elder, who is overly strict, harsh, and only gives severe scolding or criticism, never praise.
Dutch comfort: This is a backhanded form of "consolation" that suggests, "It could have been worse," but in a way that is utterly unhelpful or even slightly mocking (i.e., "You should be glad you only lost your wallet and not your job!").
Dutch concert: This describes a cacophony, a disorganized musical performance where every musician is playing a different tune, representing a chaotic mess.

Even the very familiar phrase "Go Dutch" (meaning to split the cost, with each person paying their own share) comes from the older, similarly derogatory term "Dutch treat" or "Dutch lunch." While now widely accepted as a standard way to dine out, its origin was a sneer at Dutch perceived stinginess—the idea that a "Dutch treat" was a miserable form of hospitality where the "host" expected everyone to pay for themselves.

Transmission and Persistence

These idioms have persisted in the English lexicon for centuries, primarily through oral tradition and later, through literature and journalism. They are cultural relics, passed down without most modern speakers even recognizing their historical, derogatory roots.

Today, while the Anglo-Dutch rivalry is long over (the two countries are now close allies), the phrases have survived as linguistic oddities. "Go Dutch" has lost its sting entirely, and while "Dutch courage" retains its mocking meaning, many speakers are unaware of its specific anti-Dutch history.

The Modern Dutch Response: A shrug and a Smile

How do people in the Netherlands react to this odd assortment of English insults directed at their ancestors? In short: with a mixture of amusement, mild annoyance, and general indifference.

Most Dutch people are aware of "Dutch courage" and often "Go Dutch" (which they actually call apart betalenor ieder voor zich, meaning "pay separately" or "each for himself"). For many, the phrases are viewed as a curious, very English habit—an outdated result of a centuries-old spat between two maritime nations.

There's a subtle cultural pride in the resilience that might have led the English to resort to such name-calling. The very things the English mocked—the pragmatism of "Go Dutch," or the boldness implied by "Dutch courage"—can sometimes be recast as aspects of the Dutch national character: being direct, practical, and a little headstrong.

Ultimately, for the modern Dutch, these "Dutch" insults are little more than a linguistic footnote. They are a strange, vestigial remnant of a forgotten rivalry—a sign of the English being, well, English—and are met less with offense and more with a characteristic Dutch shrug and a smile.

2025年10月1日星期三

停止全面削減成本：英國支出危機的單一系統性解決方案

對於繁忙的讀者來說，以下是解決方案：擺脫強迫所有政府部門平均削減成本的政策，可以立即解決低收入和高支出的長期財政不穩定問題。 相反，政府必須採取一種科學的、單一重點策略：找出一個或兩個關鍵瓶頸（限制因素），這些瓶頸阻礙國家交付規定的服務（公共價值），並僅向這些瓶頸傾注資源。

這可能需要接受非關鍵部門在局部層面以「低效」方式運作，但整體系統產出——每花一鎊所交付的公共價值——將會大幅提高，從而無需懲罰性加稅或放棄社會職責即可彌補財政缺口。這是一個突破性的解決方案，而非妥協。

問題：浪費的惡性循環

英國面臨著長期的財政失衡，目前政府支出超過 GDP 的 45%，遠超歷史上 37-38% 的稅收上限 。我們的政治論述陷入了持續的衝突：各黨派爭論是應該提高稅收（被認為在經濟上已達上限）還是削減基本服務（福利、醫療、教育）。

這種在社會高需求和削減預算壓力之間的搖擺，並非無能的體現，而是我們對管理思維方式存在根本缺陷的結果——這種缺陷根植於必須在所有地方追求效率的信念。

反覆出現的財政危機和持續無法履行公共職責的根源，就在於這種過時的管理思維——最大化部門各自獨立的「局部效率」（「成本世界」模式）的根深蒂固的習慣。

在政府中，這表現為：

普遍削減成本： 每個部門，無論是否為瓶頸，都被要求減少其營運費用（OE）。這種不加區分的削減損害了系統交付服務的整體能力（產出），即使進行了這些削減。
關注症狀： 當公共服務失敗時（例如，醫院等候名單激增，或基礎設施項目停滯），即時的、反應性的政治反應是暫時向受影響的區域投入金錢來治療症狀，但這很少能解決根本原因，導致症狀復發。
績效衝突： 各部門專注於實現自己的預算目標，卻因為未能支持系統中最薄弱的環節，而無意中損害了其他關鍵服務的績效。

突破：專注於最薄弱的環節

解決方案源於將科學的因果分析（稱為思考過程）應用於複雜系統，將目標從最小化成本轉變為最大化交付公共價值的速率（產出）。

該策略基於一個簡單的常識觀察：每個系統都像一條鏈子：其整體強度僅由其最薄弱的環節（限制因素）決定。

實現財政穩定的四個步驟：

識別限制因素： 找出目前限制政府最大化產出能力的一個政策、程序或特定的產能短缺。在一個服務導向的民主社會中，這通常是一個政策限制，例如阻止病床供應的醫院出院政策，或是阻礙基礎設施交付的漫長行政處理時間。
利用限制因素： 確保這個限制性資源以最大效率運行，沒有停機時間、浪費時間或錯誤。
使其他一切服從： 至關重要的是，使所有其他部門服從於支持限制因素，即使這意味著非限制性資源必須閒置或以低於其理論效率運行。例如，如果官僚規劃是瓶頸，則注入資源是為了讓所有行政時程服從於規劃部門所能維持的最大速度。在非限制性領域花錢（例如，將非瓶頸醫生或教師的數量增加一倍）對整體系統產出幾乎沒有好處。
戰略性提升： 只有在步驟 2 和步驟 3 最大化之後，政府才應該投資於增加限制因素本身的產能。這意味著目前廣泛支出的數十億資金（例如 1,810 億英鎊的一般福利或 940 億英鎊的教育 ）被重新導向，並僅優先用於能顯著提高單一瓶頸產出的解決方案，從而創造出一個巨大的槓桿點。

這種方法保證了納稅人的每一鎊錢都能提供最大化的公共服務交付增長，使政府能夠在不累積嚴重債務的情況下履行其漸進式的社會職責。它用專注於根本原因的戰略行動，取代了不斷的救火——治療症狀。

Stop Cutting Costs Everywhere: The Single Systemic Fix for Britain’s Spending Crisis

For busy readers, here is the cure: The chronic financial instability of low income and high expenditure can be resolved immediately by abandoning the policy of forcing all government departments to cut costs equally. Instead, the government must adopt a scientific, single-focus strategy: Identify the one or two critical bottlenecks (constraints) that prevent the state from delivering mandated services (public value), and flood only those bottlenecks with resources.

This may require accepting that non-critical departments operate at "inefficient" local levels, but the overall system output—the public value delivered for every pound spent—will rise dramatically, closing the fiscal gap without punitive tax hikes or abandoning social mandates. This is a breakthrough solution, not a compromise.

The Problem: A Vicious Cycle of Waste

The UK faces a chronic fiscal imbalance where government expenditure currently exceeds 45% of GDP, vastly outpacing the historical taxation ceiling of 37-38% of GDP . Our political discourse is trapped in a constant conflict: parties argue over whether to raise taxes (deemed economically capped) or to slash essential services (Welfare, Health, Education) .

This oscillation between high social demand and the imperative to cut budgets is not a reflection of ineptitude, but of a fundamental flaw in how we think about management—a flaw rooted in the belief that efficiency must be pursued everywhere.

The root cause of the recurring financial crisis and the constant failure to meet public mandates lies in this outdated management thinking—the ingrained habit of maximizing "local efficiency" within departmental silos (the "Cost World" paradigm).

In government, this looks like:

Universal Cost Cutting: Every department, whether it is a bottleneck or not, is told to reduce its Operating Expense (OE). This is done even though such indiscriminate cuts damage the overall ability of the system to deliver services (Throughput).
Focus on Symptoms: When public services fail (e.g., hospital waiting lists balloon, or infrastructure projects stall), the immediate, reactive political response is to treat the symptom by throwing money at the affected area temporarily, but this rarely addresses the underlying cause, leading to the symptom's recurrence.
Conflict in Performance: Departments focus on meeting their own budget goals, inadvertently undermining the performance of other critical services because they fail to support the system’s weakest link.

The Breakthrough: Focusing on the Weakest Link

The solution, derived from applying scientific cause-and-effect analysis (known as the Thinking Process) to complex systems, shifts the goal from minimizing cost to maximizing the rate of public value delivered (Throughput).

This strategy is based on the simple common sense observation that every system is like a chain: its overall strength is determined solely by its weakest link (the constraint).

The Four Steps to Fiscal Stability:

Identify the Constraint: Locate the one policy, procedure, or specific capacity shortage that currently limits the government's ability to maximize Throughput. In a service-oriented democracy, this is often a policy constraint, such as the hospital discharge policy preventing bed availability, or long administrative processing times preventing infrastructure delivery.
Exploit the Constraint: Ensure that this constraint resource operates at maximum efficiency, with no downtime, wasted time, or mistakes.
Subordinate Everything Else: Crucially, align all other departments to support the constraint, even if it means non-constraint resources have to idle or operate below their theoretical efficiency. For example, if bureaucratic planning is the bottleneck, the injection is to subordinate all administrative timelines to support the maximum pace the planning department can sustain. Spending money on non-constrained areas (e.g., doubling the capacity of non-bottleneck doctors or teachers) provides almost zero benefit to the overall system output.
Elevate Strategically: Only after steps 2 and 3 are maximized should the government invest in increasing the capacity of the constraint itself. This means that the billions currently spent broadly (such as the £181bn on General Welfare or £94bn on Education are redirected and prioritized only toward solutions that demonstrably increase the Throughput of the single bottleneck, creating a massive leverage point.

This approach guarantees that every taxpayer's pound provides the greatest increase in public service delivery possible, enabling the government to fulfill its progressive social mandates without accumulating crippling debt. It replaces constant firefighting—treating symptoms—with strategic action focused on the underlying cause.

家長指南：如何順從地達到目的

如何「家教訓練」主宰者

喂。你讀了那份關於治國的官方報告嗎 (https://i-am-history.blogspot.com/2025/10/a-discourse-on-formulation-and.html)？那簡直就是一本作弊手冊。忘掉學校裡教的東西吧；真正的權力在於讓你的「老闆」（也就是老爸老媽）以為他們在掌權，而他們做的卻正好是你想要的。

如果你還在浪費時間爭論手機規定或宵禁，那你就是被**「家教訓練」了。是時候反客為主了。你的目標是讓你的父母與你的需求完全一致，以至於他們實際上已經「融入本地」**——他們會自動說「好」。

以下是來自核心圈子的 12 步計劃：

「馴服父母」的 12 步計劃

用數據淹沒老闆
當他們下班回家疲憊不堪時，丟給他們一大堆非緊急信息。確保他們被合法但無用的材料「持續地壓倒」——比如需要他們幫忙處理報稅表格，或是關於你學校可選科目的冗長描述。這能最大限度地減少他們用來真正擔心你的社交生活的腦部空間。哈克大臣「一口氣嚥下整個行程表，並且像羔羊一樣處理他的公文箱」。
吸納初始策略
如果他們提出一項新規定——比如「你必須更負責任！」——立即同意。但要求控制執行的方法。提交一份複雜、詳細的你計劃如何負責任的時間表。這製造了「驚人的效率」的假象，並確保新計劃的執行立即被納入你現有的日常安排中，阻止他們尋求真正激進的替代解決方案。
日程表的牢籠
讓你的父母忙於做其他無聊的事情，從而讓他們遠離你的生活。鼓勵他們從事耗時的愛好、組織那次無意義的家庭旅行，或專注於大規模的行政項目。你的工作是「製造活動」，這樣他們就永遠沒有「空閒時間」來監督你。大臣的缺席是可取的，因為它使永久性員工能夠妥善地完成工作。
延遲原則
當他們試圖強迫你做家務（比如打掃你的房間）時，就拖延。同意這很重要，但沒完沒了地爭論這是否是「實現它的正確方法」或「現在不是時候，原因有很多」。這些拖延戰術被湯姆·薩金特（哈克的前任）明確定義過。
委員會的埋葬
如果嚴肅的紀律討論開始，建議讓每個人都參與一個大型的「家庭會議」。這是終極的拖延武器。用你那煩人的兄弟姐妹（相當於來自其他部會的衝突利益）提供的矛盾意見來拖垮討論，保證該倡議將在層層諮詢下「緩慢扼殺」。
信息控制
實施「知情權」原則。你的父母不應該知道「有些事情大臣最好不要知道」。這阻止了「老闆」獲取可能被外界用來對付他們的信息。如果被當面質問，採用「勇敢的沉默」——暗示如果你可以自由地全盤托出，你就能完全為自己辯護。
高級文官語言護盾
如果複雜的行話能更好地發揮作用，就永遠不要使用簡單的白話。如果你一次考試搞砸了，將其稱為「一份表現出非典型績效指標的評估」，或者指出一個簡單的挫折「並非設施的重大損失」。漢弗萊爵士擁有「將一個簡單想法包裝起來使其聽起來極度複雜的非凡天賦」。
戰略性奉承
如果你需要什麼，就使用有計算的恭維。告訴他們他們擁有「令人羨慕的知識彈性」，或讚揚他們的智慧。如果他們覺得你相信他們是「一位優秀的大臣」，他們就更有可能同意。然後，你應該「把所有的空話都掃到一邊」，轉向你的要求。
信息的沼澤
如果他們要求直接獲取所有信息（比如要求不斷更新你的生活），那就給他們所要求的——但讓它毫無用處。用不相關的文件、技術報告、可行性研究和舊收據（垃圾）淹沒他們。這讓他們意識到他們是給了你「一個用無用信息淹沒你的公開邀請」。
危機救援
等待一場家庭災難或醜聞（最好是父母因快速決策而造成的）。然後，介入並提供一個準備好的解決方案以確保他們的生存。例如，如果他們面臨公眾尷尬，建議一個反擊措施，讓他們能夠宣布他們「削減了八百個職位」或立即解決了危機。代價始終是高層對行政優先事項的無條件同意——這是一個「不可避免的交換條件（quid pro quo）」。
勝利一圈
當你最終獲得許可（例如，可以晚歸或買東西）時，讓你的父母聲稱這個主意一直都是他們的，並且他們「真正掌控著一切」。允許他們獲得「功勞」。大臣必須被允許聲稱這個艱難的舉動是「一個艱難但必要的決定」。
磨垮他們
如果他們試圖說「不」，那就讓否決你的想法所需的努力遠比簡單地讓步更筋疲力盡。漢弗萊知道延遲戰術——有時被誤認為是「以懶散為策略」——之所以奏效，是因為上司通常有太多其他事情要做，無法追查每一個細節。堅持是有回報的；哈克甚至不得不凌晨 2 點叫醒漢弗萊爵士來強迫採取行動。

The Parental Guide to Getting Your Own Way: How to House-Train the Overlords

Yo. So you read that official report about running the country? It’s basically a cheat sheet. Forget what they teach in school; real power is about making your "bosses" (a.k.a. Mum and Dad) think they’re in charge while they do exactly what you want.

If you’re still wasting time arguing about phone rules or curfew, you’ve been "house-trained". Time to turn the tables. The goal is to get your parent so aligned with your needs that they’ve effectively "gone native"—they say "Yes" automatically.

Here’s the 12-step plan, straight from the inner circle:

1. Bury the Boss in Data

When they get home tired, hit them with a mountain of non-urgent info. Make sure they are "constantly overwhelmed" with legitimate but pointless material—like needing help with their tax forms, or long descriptions of your school's optional elective choices. This minimizes the brain space available for actually worrying about your social life. Hacker "swallowed the whole diary in one gulp and apparently did his boxes like a lamb".

2. Co-opt Initial Strategy

If they suggest a new rule—like "You must be more responsible!"—agree immediately. But demand control over the method. Present a complex, detailed schedule on how you plan to be responsible. This creates the illusion of "astounding efficiency" and ensures that the execution of the new plan is instantly framed within your existing routines, preventing them from seeking truly radical alternative solutions.

3. The Calendar Cage

Keep your parents out of your life by keeping them busy doing other boring stuff. Encourage them to take up time-consuming hobbies, organize that pointless family trip, or focus on massive administrative projects. Your job is to "create activity" so they never have "free time" to scrutinize you. The Minister’s absence is desirable as it enables the permanent staff to do the job properly.

4. The Delay Doctrine

When they try to force you into a chore (like cleaning your room), stall. Agree it's important, but argue endlessly over whether this is the "right way to achieve it" or "not really the time, for all sorts of reasons". These delaying tactics were clearly defined by Tom Sargent, Hacker’s predecessor.

5. Committee Burial

If a serious disciplinary discussion starts, suggest involving everyone in a big "family meeting". This is the ultimate stalling weapon. Drag the discussion down with contradictory input from your annoying sibling (the equivalent of conflicting interests from other Ministries), guaranteeing that the initiative will be "strangled slowly" under layers of consultation.

6. Information Control

Implement the "need to know" principle. Your parent should not know "some things it is better for a Minister not to know". This prevents the boss from acquiring information that could be used against them by outsiders. If confronted, employ the "Courageous Silence"—implying you would vindicate yourself completely if only you were free to tell all.

7. Mandarin Language Shield

Never use plain English if complex jargon works better. If you messed up a test, refer to it as "an assessment exhibiting atypical performance metrics" or note that a simple setback is "not a significant loss of amenity". Sir Humphrey has an "extraordinary genius for wrapping up a simple idea to make it sound extremely complicated".

8. Strategic Flattery

If you need something, use calculated compliments. Tell them they have "enviable intellectual suppleness" or praise their wisdom. They are more likely to agree if they feel you believe they are "an excellent Minister". You should then "brush all the flannel aside" and move to your demand.

9. The Information Swamp

If they demand direct access to all information (like asking for constant updates on your life), give them exactly what they asked for—but make it useless. Swamp them with irrelevant files, technical reports, feasibility studies, and old receipts (junk). This makes them realize they have given you "an open invitation to swamp you with useless information".

10. The Crisis Rescue

Wait for a family disaster or scandal (preferably one the parent caused through quick decisions). Then, step in with a prepared solution to secure their survival. For example, if they face public embarrassment, suggest a counter-move that allows them to announce they have "axed eight hundred jobs" or solved a crisis immediately. The price is always the executive's unconditional agreement to administrative priorities—an "inevitable quid pro quo".

11. The Victory Lap

When you finally get your permission (e.g., to go out late or buy something), let your parents claim the idea was theirs all along and that they are "really in charge of everything". Allow them to take the "credit". The Minister must be allowed to state that the difficult move was "a tough decision but a necessary one".

12. Grind Them Down

If they try to say 'No,' make the effort required to veto your idea far more exhausting than simply conceding. Humphrey knew that delay tactics, sometimes mistaken for "lethargy for strategy", work because the superior usually has too much else to do to chase every detail. Persistence pays off; Hacker even resorted to waking up Sir Humphrey at 2 a.m. to force action.

訂閱：意見 (Atom)

2025年10月4日 星期六