Keith, There is magic in secrecy but the drive to uncloak, to make transparent will bring great changes.
Transparency will affect all institutions: business and government alike. A recent issue of The Economist asserted that the new book "The Naked Corporation: How the Age of Transparency Will Revolutionize Business" provides the first "big idea" since management books slumped a couple of years ago. Comparing Tapscott to management gurus Hamel, Peters and Christensen, the article notes that Tapscott argues that greater transparency is an unstoppable force: "It is the product of growing demand from everybody with an interest in any corporation -- what he calls its 'stakeholder web' -- and of rapid technological change, above all the spread of the Internet, that makes it far easier for firms to supply information, and harder for them to keep secrets." (Economist 16 Oct 2003) http://www.economist.com/ arthur -----Original Message----- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Status and Honours 211. Status and Honours The importance of status can hardly be exaggerated. In hunter-gatherer times, the patrilocal instinct of girls leaving their group or tribe at puberty and seeking sexual partners in a neighbouring group would mean that they would preferentially select the alpha male, or at least as high-ranking a male as possible that she found there. An extremely good example of the modern survival of this practice is to be found in Michael Palin's book, Sahara (and the BBC TV documentary) where the young women from several different groups of the Wodaabe tribe select their lifetime partners from the young men who dress up, wear lashings of kohl and stibnite make-up on their eyes and lips, and prance about (in what, to us, is an amusing way). Here, the girls are making their selection not on the basis of status per se but on the looks, the imagination of the men's dressage and bearing -- to them, as highly correlated with status and likely future life-success of the males as modern girls are able to assess by going to a night club and dancing and talking with possible future boy friends. Every group, every institution, and every country develops clear visible signs for status -- statues, memorials, rankings (civil service, army, university), decorations, letters after their names, honorary prefixes, medals, ribbons, lapel badges, hats and uniforms and so on. In England, such rankings, formally initiated by William the Conqueror in 1066 after the invasion, when he chose those who should be his barons (in exchange for military services), have evolved ever since. Lloyd George, when prime minister early last century, used to (privately) sell peerages. Prime ministers ever since have sold peerages to those who contribute to party funds (and perhaps to pirvate pockets). People, and particularly the males (for instinctive reasons) are desperately eager for signs of status. For most people, status is indicated in the goods they buy and, of course, the notion of status goods is a central theme in my evolutionary economics hypothesis. But for a minority in England, we have the honours system -- whereby titles and decorations are given by the Queen on her official birthday and at the New Year. As with so many state functions, the business of choosing who should receive honours has been taken over by the civil service and, in particular, by a small group of very senior civil servants, usually the heads of departments, or Permanent Secretaries. The minutes of the meetings in which they discuss those who should receive honours on these occasion are normally considered state secrets. Even political leaders -- even the prime minister -- are not allowed to attend these deliberations or read these minutes, though the civil servants concerned will take notice if a prime minister has particular preferences. The records are normally kept secret well beyond the usual 30-years limits for state documents. However, someone has ratted on this secrecy a few days ago. A recent set of minutes has been leaked to the press. There we have read the reason why this person or that was chosen for this or that rank of decoration. Many of these reasons are revealed to be quite trivial -- indeed, insincere. This has caused a tremendous furore and will dynamite the secret procedures that have applied hitherto. There are those who affect to believe that status is not very important, particularly Americans who tried to overthrow all this royalty-derived business when they set up their republic. Even now, an American who receives an honorary knighthood from the British Queen is not allowed to put "Sir" in front of his name -- but this doesn't reduce his enthusiasm to go to Buckingham Palace and be tapped on the shoulder with the Queen's sword while he kneels before her (on a comfortable cushion it must be said). Incidentally, over here, honours are affectionately called "gongs" by those senior civil servants who affect not to take the matter too seriously -- but who would kill if they were left out when their age and status qualified them for a honour of the appropriate grade. Keith Hudson <<<< SEVEN CENTURIES OF THE GONG SHOW Robert Winnett and David Leppard The roots of Britain's honours system can be traced back to the 14th century when Edward III created the Most Noble Order of the Garter, an order of chivalry that was available to only 25 knights. By the end of the century, King Richard II was handing out honours in the form of gifts or gold n6ck chains as a reward for loyal service. Chains of honour went to certain officers of the crown as a special mark of distinction. Until the beginning of the 19th century, honours in the form of appointments to the order of chivalry in England were restricted to members of the aristocracy and high-ranking military officers. From then on, those to be honoured were selected by the prime minister of the day and came from wider backgrounds. Nowadays, the so-called "gongs" are supposed to recognise individuals who have excelled in their professional lives or made a valuable contribution to society. They are awarded twice a year, in the Queen's birthday honours in June and at the new year. Some 1,500 awards are made each time, including nominations from the armed services and the diplomatic service. Michael De-la-Noy, the author, once described the British honours system as "the most complex, class-ridden and -- to all but a handful of civil servants, courtiers and snobs -- the most baffling" of its kind in the world. The structure of the system is reviewed every five years. John Major, the former Conservative prime minister, was the last to make significant changes to encourage more nominations from ordinary members of the public. Tony Blair also vowed to open up the system and make it more representative of the wider population -- for example, by giving higher honours to teachers and nurses. MPs from the public accounts committee are attempting to scrutinise how and why honours are awarded. Cabinet Office papers released to the committee and published last month suggest a number of options for radical reform. These include giving the system "greater transparency" such as extending membership of the vetting committees to more people from outside Whitehall. Members of the public can nominate outstanding individuals -- usually from their fields of work or local communities. Those nominations eventually produce 43% of the successful candidates, although most of these come at the lower levels of honours. Each government department also has its own honours unit which proposes its own names -- people in the professional fields overseen by their department. In addition it "vets" applications from members of the public. A provisional list of names is then forwarded by the honours units to one of eight sub-committees, each chaired by a senior civil servant, covering different areas from sport to medicine and local services. The departments also forward a special "reserve" set of names, known as the "blue list", to the relevant honours committee. The subcommittees have set quotas for the number of people they can nominate for each of the five levels of honours. In ascending order of merit they are: Member of the British Empire (MBE); Officer of the British Empire (OBE); Commander of the British Empire (CBE); Knight/Dame of the British Empire (KBE/DBE); and Knight/Dame Grand Cross (GBE). Each subcommittee sends lists of candidates for each level of award to the main honours committee. This committee, chaired by the cabinet secretary, then approves and amends the final list of more than 1,000 names which is sent to the prime minister and the Queen. Changes after this stage are a rare occurrence. The Queen has no power to alter the list. The Sunday Times -- 14 December 2003 >>>> <<<< HOW GRANDEES PICK A WINNER IN SECRECY Robert Winnett and David Leppard They are the gatekeepers of the Establishment. Twice a year, 10 of the most powerful civil servants in Britain meet amid great secrecy to decide who joins the honoured elite of British society. Led by Sir Andrew Turnbull, the cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, these "great and the good" of Whitehall choose who will be granted knighthoods and other titles, and who will be rejected. Though the system is secretive, the public is given the impression that honours recognise merit and confer reward for achievement. This weekend leaked minutes of the most recent committee meeting reveal just how far the system is manipulated for other purposes. They show that who gets a gong depends, quite apart from merit, on celebrity, timing. Buggins' turn, political spin and how the insiders want the overall list to be seen. Officials within the system claim the leaked memo provides the first hard evidence of how, under Labour, manipulation of the Queen's honours has reached new heights. As well as revealing that Tim Henman, Britain's top tennis player, has been recommended for an honour to "add interest" to the list, the document reveals other, if not arbitrary at least contentious methods. It says that efforts will be made to give an honour or peerage to the academic Anthony Giddens, one of Tony Blair's mentors. In one telling note, the committee considered the award of a CBE in Scotland. A candidate called Susan Whyte was "held back" in order to make way for Ross Lorimer. Why? Because it became apparent that Lorimer was retiring as president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. If he did not get his gong now it would be difficult to give it to him later. In another case the, committee considered a candidate called Bates. ."He had certainly delivered more than might be reasonably expected" in his achievements, the committee noted. So why should his name not go forward for an honour? Because it did not fit with other plans. "The committee could not agree that he should receive a G [an elevated knighthood] at the expense of a Kt [knighthood] to someone else." In another case, the desire to give two rival football teams equal billing took precedence over individual merit. Lady Cooksey, a former British fencer who is now a high-profile charity volunteer and author, was in line for an honour but the committee tried to reject her. Why? Because it was already awarding an honour to a candidate from Celtic football club and it was felt that, instead of Cooksey, it would look better to give an honour to someone from Rangers, the arch rivals of Celtic.In the event. Rangers were unable to come up with a "suitable alternative". The gong-giving mandarins also seem to look after their own. The longest section of the document deals with civil servants, and their chance for honours seems to be expanding. The committee noted that "for future reference 2nd Permanent Secretaries [those just below the head of a government department] would be considered for a Kt [knighthood]". It noted that John Taylor, the outgoing director-general of UK Research Councils, was being pushed forward by Turnbull for the erroneous reason that "all previous holders" of his office had been knighted. The committee approved a proposal, too, that "those who were likely to achieve higher levels should be held back to make way for those who were unlikely to go further". In other words, give lesser civil servants a gong now while they have the chance. In all, the note reads like a discussion overheard in a London gentlemen's club or the Kremlin: a small group of omnipotent grandees bat about names, promoting some and exiling others as if they are mere pawns. When Labour came to power it made much play of making the system more open to ordinary people. Instead, the most notable change has been "spinning" to make the most of celebrities receiving honours. A whistleblower reveals how the process is dominated by the need to generate good headlines and flatter the government -- rather than to simply acknowledge outstanding achievement. The source said: "When the honours team discusses names, they are aware that they need to find high-profile people. If the list hasn't got that many news-worthy names then [a senior official] would look at the list and say that more names were needed. "Newsworthiness is really important. The reason Mick Jagger got put forward was to make Blair look cool. "Political searches form part of the biographical checks..This is really about saving face for the government. People are not put forward if, for example, their political thoughts and actions were anti-Labour." There is increasing pressure for reform. The main committee consists entirely of senior, middle-aged civil servants. As well as Tumbull, the "gong masters" include Sir Hayden Phillips, permanent secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and William Chapman, secretary for appointments in the prime minister's office. Other members are thought to include Sir Richard Mottram, the permanent secretary at the Department for Work and Pensions. The group was recently criticised by a parliamentary report for lacking diversity. Whitehall insiders who have spoken to The Sunday Times hope that the disclosure of the internal workings of the system will help lead to its reform. They point out that other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand have recently made their honours systems much more open and accountable. Fraser Kemp, a Labour MP and government whip, has previously called for a radical overhaul of the system. He wants to see''a single honour -- the Order of Britain -- given to all suitable candidates. However, Blair has publicly rebuffed all proposals for radical reform. Instead, departmental honours units have privately been given "quotas" to increase the number of women to 50% of the list and ethnic minority candidates to 5%. More awards should also be made to disabled candidates. The Whitehall source said: "The system should be fairer and doesn't need to be so cloak and dagger. "It should be like the Oscars, where people know who else is being considered." The Sunday Times -- 14 December 2003 >>>> Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org> _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
