The 10 Principles of Accountability
I fear this is going to be a boring essay. The fact that I am taking the
time to write it is because I obviously feel it is important in exposing
several errors. This essay evolved as I was writing it and is not as
linear and logical in format as I would like. However, I have spent enough
time on it and other interests are attracting my attention.
Before beginning my analysis, let me state my background. In the late 70's
and early 80's I became fascinated with a new model of psychology called
Neuro-Linguistic Programming developed by John Grinder, a professor of
Linguistics at the University of California (I think) located in Monterey,
California, the same campus where Gregory Bateson was in residence. John
Grinder had received his Ph.D. under Noam Chomsky studying Transformational
Grammar, which seeks to develop a model of the deep structure underlying
natural language patterns.
John Grinders contribution was to see the relationship between his
linguistic studies and the field of psychology. In this he was assisted by
an eccentric and probable genius, Richard Bandler a mathematics student at
the same University. With informal help from Gregory Bateson, Virginia
Satir and Milton Erikson and a range of bright graduate students, they
developed a very exciting model for quick and effective diagnosis of
dysfunction. I attended numerous seminars given by both founders and was
fortunate to have as a personal friend, one of the graduate students who
tutored me in some of the nuances of this model.
One of the prime thesis's of this system is called the Meta Model, which is
the identification of a series of language violations used by the clients
when speaking that indicate errors in their perception of reality. By
challenging these violations with specific questions, the client is
confronted with these distortions, deletions and generalizations which
prevent them from making accurate assessments. All language is a
representation of reality - the map is not the territory. To use language,
we generalize, delete and distort reality, it can't be helped, it is the
nature of language. It was their contention that much mental and behavioral
dysfunctions can be revealed by these observations and appropriate response
through specific questions that would lead the client to a more accurate
reflection of reality. Those new insights will eliminate dysfunctional
behaviors or lead to appropriate change techniques..
Now, to the subject at hand. The first posting of the 10 Principle Of
Accountability on FW was by Sally Lerner, who said she received them from
Terry Cottam. A later post indicated that this version was from Caspar
Davis and he acknowledged that he had made "a few minor changes" in which
he changed the "voice from declarative to mandatory" with the intent of
achieving more clarity. Sally Lerner in her post, either quotes Caspar's
version or has taken Caspar's version and made additional changes by
stating "For me, the mandatory form is easier to grasp than simple
statements, and I have converted them to that form. I have also massaged
the diction here and there in ways which seem to me to make them easier to
read."
When I read Sally's version, I saw these statements in the form presented
as representing everything wrong and dysfunctional with our present system
of analyzing problems. This led me to post my ideas in a series of
examples drawn from my studies of native culture. It was quickly done and
that was the end of it as far as I was concerned, in fact, I looked at my
response as sort of a flame against these statements. I have been
pleasantly surprised at the response.
However, I must tell you my shock and enjoyment of the posting by Henry E.
McCandless, the original author of these statements. I had assumed that
the changes acknowledged by Sally and later by Caspar as being fairly mild,
in the range of some grammatical and style improvements. The shock was in
the amount of distortion that had occurred between the original and the
version I reacted too. It reminds me of the old parlour game where the
group sitting in a circle initiate a statement that passes by whisper from
the initiator, around the circle and returns to him. There is always
distortions and they can be hilarious.
I am now going to do a linguistic analysis of several of these ten
statements to point out the distortions and apply some of the insights of
Chomsky, Grinder and Bandler. I do this with some trepidation as it has
been a number of years since I studied this model and I was never more than
a student. Asking indulgence from anyone more knowledgeable, I will make
the attempt.
The Original:
1. The principle of intentions disclosure. People in authority intending
action that would affect others in important ways tell those others
the
results or outcomes they seek to bring about. They state why they
think
the outcomes they intend are desirable and fair.
Sally's Posting:
1. Disclosure of intentions. People in authority who are intending action
that would affect others in important ways must tell those others the
results or outcomes they seek to bring about. They must state why they
think the outcomes they intend are desirable and fair.
Nominalizations (Distortions)
Nominalizations, are words used as nouns, but are actually verbs. A noun,
we are taught is a name of person place or thing and in metaphor, we are
told that if it can't be placed in a wheelbarrow, it is not a noun.
"Disclosure" is used as a noun (nominalization of the verb disclosing) in
Sally's version. As a therapist, my question would be "How are you
disclosing these intentions? In Henry's statement, "disclosure" is used in
it's proper form which is as an adverb, therefore it does not make
"disclosure" a thing, rather as one of the many adverb options that could
be available.
Modal Operator of Necessity (Deletions) {Modal - an auxiliary verb used to
express the mood of another verb}
The word "must" has been identified as a Modal Operator. When a client
uses modal operators, it is an indication of rigidity or inability to see
any other way. Reality is not so limited. So as a therapist, I would ask
the question, "What would happen if those in authority didn't tell you the
results?" You see, you are stating that they "must" so another appropriate
question would be, "What prevents them from stating their intentions?"
These questions open up options that your linguistic representation does
not allow. This error is not made in the original statements leaving the
reader options on how to achieve the intent of the principal.
The Original
2. The principle of performance visibility. Actual performance is
disclosed through adequate public answering by those with the performance
responsibilities. Those in authority answer publicly and promptly for the
results of their actions and for the learning they applied from it.
Sally's Posting"
2. Performance visibility. Actual performance must be disclosed through
adequate public answering by those who have the performance
responsibilities. Those in authority must answer publicly and promptly for
the results of their actions and for any learning they have applied from
them.
"who have" determines a statement of cause and effect. Those "who have"
the authority are acting upon someone who doesn't have the authority. The
question a therapist would ask is, "How, specifically do they have these
performance responsibilities?" This violation does not occur in the
Original. Note also the "modal operators of necessity" again.
It was at this point, when I realized that the analysis was giving the real
situation a technical or scientific discipline type of proof, but that it
did not provide deeper answers that I stopped writing for two days and
reflected on what was causing my unease. The answer hinged around the word
"principles."
Principles are something I am a lay expert on, having thought deeply and
read widely. The obvious question to answer is, "What is a principle and
what is it's purpose. In the way I see principles, they represent the
verbal intuition of a cept or ideal. Many things can be called principles.
Let me quote several; "Government has a continuing responsibility to take
action to enhance the economic well being of all Americans." This was
quoted by a noted constitutional expert, Arthur Selwyn Miller, in his book
The Modern Corporate State. "All men are created equal.", from the
American Constitution. Today, Oct 11, 1997 in the Ottawa Citizen, Page B4,
Canadian Ambassador to Mexico who resigned as a result of his quotes in a
magazine interview, "There are two concepts in English that do not exist in
the Mexican system: 'empowerment' and 'accountability.' These are two
principles that are paramount in the development of a democratic society."
Now, the way I've come to see that the effectiveness of principles is that
they can be used as a guide to choosing actions that lead you to the goals
you would like your actions to solve. Reality, on a macro and micro scale
is constantly presenting us humans and all life with a series of problems
to solve, for food, for shelter, for safety, for survival, in governance,
in relationships, etc. No man or woman can avoid this constant and ongoing
challenge from reality. Each problem begs a solution, but how can you pick
a solution - out of the many choices available? The answer is that you
must have a criteria, a standard to evaluate against. This is the role of
principles. Principles don't tell you what to do. They ask of you whether
your choice of answer satisfies the ideal behind the principal.
So let us briefly look at my examples. Miller's principle indicates a set
of problems that governments have in relationship to the wealth or lack of
wealth of their populace. This principle indicates what range of choices
will satisfy this idea. From this, governments develop rules in Acts and
Laws that determine how they are going to achieve the action implied in the
principle. When all the rules support the idea of the principle, then
there is a much better chance that the result will be a government that
creates rules that support citizens in many ways to fulfil that ideal. If
for example, the government followed the principle of individual self
sufficiency and personal independence, they might make an equally effective
set of rules to achieve the those ideals.
"All men are created equal" is considered one of the primary principles of
democratic government. However it illustrates for us the power of a
principle in that it can be adequate in many times and places and answer
many questions. In 1778 when this was written in the Constitution, it was
a guarantee that the nobility of Europe would not be able to impose their
order in this new country. That was revolutionary in the sense of denial
of the principle of "divine right of kings" which allowed Europe to have
nobility - a set of rules that "kings" could make because by the very fact
of their kingship being considered proof of God's will, therefore to deny
"royalty" was to deny God. One of the reasons for the British Empire
Loyalist's in leaving the new US state and moving to Canada was their
belief that God's will had been violated and they were God respecting
people.
At first, the "equal men" were men of property, no women, coloureds or
unpropertied citizens, aboriginals and immigrants. As time went on, the
constant call to choose from reality caused Americans, in fits and starts,
to use this principal to include slaves and later women and finally
individuals without property but having citizenship.
In my final example, empowerment and accountability are described as
principles which the Mexican government is not using while making
decisions. Because these two principles are basic to Canada but not used
by Mexico, there is a conflict with how the problems of current reality are
interpreted.
The concept of a "man of principles" indicates a man/woman who when faced
with problems and choices has a personal code composed of a set of
principles which he/she uses when choosing a course of action. Now,
principles can be very slippery, for instance, one may hold the principle
of "expediency" which in certain circumstances may allow for ruthlessness
and uncaring actions against others. This persons rationale is defended on
the grounds of the need for expediency. So we can see, that we often use
principles to defend our actions even if they have negative consequences.
Now, as Mr. McCandless has noted, these were originally a series of
statements postulated as principles that those devising the MAI agreements
should apply when making the rules which will be written in the final
Agreement. Mr. McCandless's idea was that if these Principles were
embodied in the rules, then perhaps this would be a good agreement to
provide world-wide regulation of trade. Conversely, if the MAI group was
not willing to follow these Principles, they should at least state the
Principles which they are using while making these sweeping rules.
Principles indicate the effect desired and then Rules are written -
hopefully in congruence with the Principles stated. It is therefore
important to read the preamble to an Act, as that is where a declaration of
the Principles which guide the Rules is spelled out. This is often the
problem that courts have to deal with in interpreting an activity against
the rules.
Now to the issue at hand. Those who changed the statements of Principles
to the so called mandatory form, were in essence making Principles into
Rules. These Rules then become edicts without the guidance of Principles -
a recipe for disaster. Part of the problem started from the explanation
provided by Mr. McCandless following his statement of Principle. In most
cases the Principle should stand as a simple statement embodying an ideal.
As problems requiring actions occur in the real world, the solutions should
be compared to the statements of Principle to see if they are congruent.
As a body of rules are challenged in the Courts, it is up to the Courts to
find and flesh out the boundaries of these Principles - this is commonly
known as Precedent. Courts are not perfect and often apply a meaning to
Principles that are in step with the original intent but out of step with
the current situation - as demonstrated in the statement, "All men are
created equal" which I previously analyzed.
Well, having bored you all to tears, I will stop writing and ask you to
consider the following statements in both their original and modified form
to see if I have made any sense. The possibility exists that I am not
making any sense, which goes to one of my principles, "failure is a
worthwhile result for solving problems."
3. The principle of identifying the directing mind. In every government,
corporation or other organization there is a "directing mind and will" to
be identified as the body publicly accountable for what people in the
organization or set of organizations intend to do, actually do or fail to
do.
3. Identifying the directing mind. In every government, corporation or
other organization there is a "directing mind and will" which must be
identified as the body publicly accountable for what people in the
organization or set of organizations intend to do, actually do, or fail to
do.
The shift from "to be" as a statement of possibilities to "which must be"
to a statement of imperative or else. The therapists question, "What would
happen if they couldn't be identified or held accountable."
Bogging down with time and memory problems, I will leave the interested
reader to compare the remaining statements. What I would say is that if
the original statements had been presented first, my response and answers
would have been much different. The original statements are given as
principles under the meaning of the word "guidelines", with rules being
developed to follow these guidelines rather than a fixed code of procedure.
As given as principles, their proper form is present tense. The
explanations given are only one of several possibilities that could be
derived from a statement of principle. Sally and others revisions are a
quick attempt at making them into "rules" as in an operating procedure.
4. The principle of answering for precautions taken. Decision-makers in
authority having a duty to inform themselves adequately about significant
risks to people's safety, social and legal justice and the environment,
meet the intent of the precautionary principle in their decision-making.
They answer publicly for having obtained reasonable assurance that it is
safe to proceed and, if in doubt, for erring on the side of safety. (The
U.S. Challenger space shuttle disaster is a well-known example of directing
minds waiving the precautionary principle).
4. Responsibility for taking precautions. Decision-makers in authority have
a duty to inform themselves adequately about significant risks to people's
safety, to the environment, and to social and legal justice. They must meet
the intent of the precautionary principle in their decision-making. They
must answer publicly for any failure to obtain reasonable assurance that
it is safe to proceed or, if in doubt, for failure to err on the side of
safety. (The U.S. Challenger space shuttle disaster is a well-known
example of directing minds waiving the precautionary principle).
5. The citizens' precautionary principle. Citizens apply to justice,
equity and the preservation of community the same precautionary principle
they must apply to safety and environmental protection. In appropriate
forums they set the public answering standards for the intentions of
decision-makers in authority and hold them fairly and publicly to account.
5. The citizens' precautionary principle. Citizens must apply the
precautionary principle to justice, equity, and the preservation of
community as well as to safety and environmental protection. They must, in
appropriate forums, set the standards for decision-makers-in-authority to
meet in publicly answering for their intentions, and they must hold them
fairly and publicly to account.
6. The principle of audit. Important answering is validated by
knowledgeable public interest groups or by professional practitioners, or
both.
6. Audit. Important answering must be validated by knowledgeable public
interest groups or by professional practitioners, or both.
7. The right-roles principle. The public answering for intentions and
results is given by those accountable. The answering obligation is not
shifted to external inspectors, commissioners, auditors, ombudsmen or other
examiners.
7. Right-roles. Those who are actually accountable must answer publicly for
their intentions and results. The answering obligation is not to be shifted
to external inspectors, commissioners, auditors, ombudsmen or other
examiners.
8. The corporate fairness principle. The directing minds of corporations
answer publicly for serving the public interest when, in decision-making
within their power, a significant difference is likely to exist between
serving the public interest and serving the wants of corporation owners and
management. The reporting by those responsible for oversight of
corporations includes the extent to which their supervision meets the
intent of the precautionary principle.
8. Corporate fairness. The directing minds of corporations must answer
publicly for serving the public interest when, in decision-making within
their power, a significant difference is likely to exist between serving
the public interest and serving the wants of corporation owners and
management. Reporting by those who are responsible for the oversight of
corporations must include the extent to which their supervision meets the
intent of the precautionary principle.
9. The principle of governing body and citizen responsibility. To ensure
continued answering, those legitimately holding to account act fairly and
responsibly on answerings given in good faith. This applies to both
governing bodies and public interest groups.
9. Governing body and citizen responsibility. To ensure continued
answering, those legitimately holding responsible parties to account must
themselves act fairly and responsibly on answerings given in good faith.
This applies to both governing bodies and public interest groups.
10. The wages-of-abdication principle. To the extent that citizens
abdicate their responsibility to decide standards of public answering and
hold fairly to account, they create civic incompetence and give tacit
authorization of the abuse of power.
10. The wages-of-abdication principle. To the extent that citizens
abdicate their responsibility to decide standards for public
answering and fail to hold responsible parties fairly to account, they
create civic incompetence and give tacit authorization of the abuse of
power.
