|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)|
|News||Bureaucracies||Best books about bureaucracy||Recommended Links||Absurdity of bureaucracies||Bureaucracy as a Political Coalition|
|Bureaucratic alienation||Bureaucratic inertia||Military Bureaucracy||Lysenkoism||The Fiefdom Syndrome||Bureaucratic Collectivism|
|The authoritarian personality||Micromanagers||Shadow IT||Meetings mania||The Peter Principle||Parkinson Law|
|Iron law of oligarchy||Learned helplessness||Groupthink||Conformism pressures in large organizations||Humor||Etc|
Bureaucratic ritualism is an excessive focus on rules and regulations to the point of undermining an organizations goals. In the part where unnecessary forms and reports are required it is often called red tape. This is a classic example how quantity turns into quality: excessive formalization undermines the value of the imposed rules and regulations to the extent that the situation again became anarchic. In other word extremes meet. Nowhere this phenomenon is more noticeable then in large corporation which are in most case are classic "theaters of absurd". See also Absurdity of bureaucracies
Now we can also add to this focus on security which when applied with excessive zeal can completely paralyze corporate IT.
Classic example of bureaucratic ritualism are hospitals were paperwork takes precedence over patient care. In fact any bureaucracies tend to stray from formal objectives of the organization and substitute them with the actions/activities related to ensuring of the survival of the particular bureaucracy and its elite (see Bureaucracy as a Political Coalition). This is one of many manifestations of the key controversy of bureaucratic organization -- the perversion of means and ends when means become ends in themselves, and the real goals and "greater good" are substituted by internal "clan" interests and first of all interest of the top layers of bureaucracy in survival and expansion of their influence. Any links to "greater good" and general, public interest are lost in this transition. Left uncontrolled, the bureaucracy eminently becomes increasingly self-serving and corrupt, rather than serving society. Bureaucratic ritualism is an essential part of game-playing, duplicity, ineptitude, wasted money, manipulation and ass-covering flourishing behind the facade of a typical "mature" corporate bureaucracy.
Decent into poor, sectarian judgment when "rules are rules" is especially sharp in technology firms and large corporations IT departments, where the behavior of the brass quickly became rigidly rule-bound and unwilling to try creative solutions to problems. At this point work on making rules correspond reality is replaced in blind following existing, often outdated rules. Which strangulates any remnants of initiative from rank-and-file dwellers of this madhouse.
This is reflected well in the following sarcastic definition of datacenter:
Computing Center [n], is an organization whose functions are
- To impede wherever possible the development and usefulness of computing in the company or University.
- To gain the lion's share of funding, spend it largely on obsolete, bloated and otherwise inappropriate IT Solutions, and convince the businesses/campuses wherever possible to spend funds on the same.
- To oppose vigorously any new, useful and popular technology for three years or more until nearly everyone on the business/campuses and elsewhere in the world is using it, then to adopt that technology and immediately attempt to centralize and gain complete and sole control of it [for example, Web hosting, Webmail, ssh, etc].
Bureaucratic ritualism is connected and is amplified by bureaucratic inertia -- the tendency of bureaucratic organizations to continue policies that became useless and to perpetuate themselves. This includes rules. For example, regardless of whether the threat of terrorism is still real and eminent, bureaucratic inertia will keep the so-called war on terror on auto-pilot for years to come. That's why organizations are seldom flexible and responsive to change as one would assume they should be. And that why bureaucratic organization that in theory supposed to be rational often engage in completely irrational behavior.
So in essence any bureaucratic organization with itself contains seeds of destruction of the principles of rationality or efficiency that are supposedly to be uniformly applied by bureaucracy both to the target area as well as internal administration of the organization. By its nature any bureaucratic organization tend to promote authoritarians and psychopath (or borderline psychopath) which in turn make this tendency toward ritualism worse. Rational design which is the essence of bureaucratic organization is easy perverted by bureaucratic ritualism and create modern theater of absurd.
|Rational design which is the essence of bureaucratic organization is easy perverted by bureaucratic ritualism and create modern theater of absurd.|
The apparent absurdity of some bureaucratic behaviors is the flip side of the investment in formalization the organization has made. Excessive regimentation turns into its opposite -- organizational anarchy. The latter is characterized by five conditions.
Bureaucratic ritualism has also uncanny resemblance to Cargo cult science. Here is how it is defined by Eric Lippert who popularized the term:
During the Second World War, the Americans set up airstrips on various tiny islands in the Pacific. After the war was over and the Americans went home, the natives did a perfectly sensible thing -- they dressed themselves up as ground traffic controllers and waved those sticks around. They mistook cause and effect -- they assumed that the guys waving the sticks were the ones making the planes full of supplies appear, and that if only they could get it right, they could pull the same trick. From our perspective, we know that it's the other way around -- the guys with the sticks are there because the planes need them to land. No planes, no guys.
The cargo cultists had the unimportant surface elements right, but did not see enough of the whole picture to succeed. They understood the form but not the content. There are lots of cargo cult programmers -- programmers who understand what the code does, but not how it does it. Therefore, they cannot make meaningful changes to the program. They tend to proceed by making random changes, testing, and changing again until they manage to come up with something that works.
It is characterized by the extreme adherence to the form instead of content.
One important role of bureaucratic ritualism is to suppress the internal conflicts by making activities more meaningless and thus less conflict prone. In a way bureaucratic ritualism results from obsess ional thinking and compulsive actions of the managers defending themselves from the anxiety of losing control. As such it is typical for autocratic managers and micromanagers. For the latter this is essentially the essence of their style.
Infected by bureaucratic ritualism brass confronted with the signals that something is wrong (danger signals) typically proceed as if nothing is wrong despite repeated evidence that something is very wrong (Challenger disaster). They effectivly ritualize thier responce so that actions looks acceptable (nothing beyong ordinary) while in reality they are damaging to the orgnization and the society. This process sometimes is called "normalization of deviance" which erode saftly mechanism and often the very survival of the organization.
Within rigid group at the top such a deviant, irrational behavior is construed to be normal. Organizational rituals became so powerful that means toward goals became goals in themselves. The stress of rules and procedures decrease the internal cohesion within the organization. In this environment the individual performers at the lower levels (trench solders of the organization) may become psychologically detached from the organization and its goals and in some case start acting against organizational interests by persuing their own and misusing organization resources. This process is called alienation and it is typical for organization with strict regimentation of employees behavior. In organization where workers are expected only implement rules or where they think there is little change of advancement despite best efforts alienation is a common malady. See Bureaucracy
It is one of the most common ramifications of impersonal bureaucracy.
Whereas some laud the technical efficiency of bureaucratic organizations, others view bureaucracy as a tool by which owners and managers control their workers. Barley and Perlow both examine control (one more explicitly than the other) in contemporary settings, thereby complementing the historical concerns of Edwards and Baron et al. while extending the worker control literature. Once again, Perrow offers a nice introduction to the topic.
Chester Barnard insists that bureaucratic organizations inherently are cooperative (read “normative”) systems. In a similar vein, the Human Relations model can be viewed as bureaucratic ritualism of an important side of organizational life bureaucratic life (intencinally excuding informal groups, cliques, dirrent leadership styles including sociopathic and autocratic). It operates in Potemkin village of formal factors and performance reviews that supposedly induces productivity and commitment among workers. Perrow provides an unflattering overview of the Human Relations model.
But this is not done without purpose. Despite aura of bureaucratic ritualism Humal Relation model is a pretty effective instrument of employees suppression and control. Roy provides an empirical critique of the Human Relations model and sets the stage for Burawoy’s case study. Burawoy and Barker both move beyond the Human Relations model and critically examine the worker control that results from normative inducements.
From the outside, organizations (especially bureaucracies) may appear tidy and efficient. From the inside, however, they often appear as messy struggles for control. The case studies of the 1940s and 1950s admirably depicted such struggles. These studies were journalistic in style and emphasized both the informal aspects of organizations and the larger environmental context. Often bureaucratic ritualism serves as a smoke screen for fierce internal struggle for control. It also serves as a catalyst for forming cliques and cooptation into them of key payers within the organization.
Institutional school offer great insights in this area, especially in the area of cliques and cooptation. Perrow offers an overview of the institutional school, and Scott describes how institutionalists compares to other groups. Merton's classic piece calls into question the operational efficiency of bureaucracy, while Zald and Meyer detail the dramatic transformation of a particular organization. Both Blau and Dalton cleverly show the difference between an organization's "official" and "unofficial" chain of command.
Busy work is a term for work or assignments that are time consuming, but not useful. It is typically used to refer to schoolwork which is time consuming for students but not educationally valuable, but can also refer to procedures or paperwork in a bureaucracy which is unnecessary. The term is generally pejorative.
Restoring the Meaning of Education is a nonprofit organization that wants to eliminate busy work and replace it with practical work.
Busy work in academics
Within academics "busy work" can refer either to classwork assigned for the purpose of keeping students busy, so that they do not cause trouble, or to time consuming homework which is assigned as practice, but is of little educational value. Students are often forced to complete busy work in the form of maps and scales. Busy work includes things like Machado's vocabulary, notes, questions, and timelines.
Research Management Science Today - August 2008
Inside the "garbage can": agent-based models help explain well-known dysfunctions in managers' decision-making processes.
Both real-life managers and teachers of management stand to benefit from recent research in organizational decision-making. What began as a whimsical, almost tongue-in-cheek characterization of how organizations decide - or, more often, fail to decide - now offers a promising basis for both new theory and improved practice.
Every manager has experienced the problem: deadlock, confusion and bickering, with important items seeming to take forever to get considered, let alone resolved Sometimes when a decision does get made, it seems not to be the one preferred by most of the people who supposedly collaborated in making it.
In turn, experienced managers who have tried to teach management have encountered the difficulty of conveying to students just how much real management typically differs from theory. Managers usually don't optimize, they muddle through, simply trying to stay one jump ahead of the issues that threaten immediate disaster. As C. Northcote Parkinson, renowned both as a historian and as a satirist, explained, "Many of the decisions in real management are like the one a person faces when, while crossing the street, he becomes aware of a runaway truck bearing down on him. It doesn't matter much which way you jump; the important thing is to choose one and do it quickly." Most management textbooks neglect to convey the proportion of the time many organizations spend deciding how to decide, sometimes accomplishing little else.
In a classic 1972 article, Cohen, March and Olsen argued that many organizations' decision process resembles throwing all the problems and all the solutions into a garbage can, where only chance meetings of problems and solutions produce anything of value. While this is a rather pessimistic view of performance and of the potential contribution of management, the predicted level of chaos and confusion appeals to many knowledgeable people as far more accurate than the characterizations most formal theories yield.
In all too many organizations, what we see is:
- They don't make good use of the information they have.
- Management seems unaware of what information subordinates have.
- They alternate between indecision and impulse.
- Internal divisions and factional conflict cause oscillation.
- Organization-wide commitment to decisions is hard to achieve and maintain.
- The focus often is not on the most important matters.
- Resources are mis-allocated relative to likely benefits.
- Some participants in the process seem to be favored over others although the favorites' recommendations work out relatively badly.
Management theories taught in business schools generally attribute such effects as these to failures of leadership, but rarely focus on the decision-making structure as the culprit. Thus, the would-be manager often emerges knowing how to recognize some signs of poor decision-making, but without much insight about how to improve it. To students, the ideas embodied in the garbage can model are abstractions that do not connect with their experience. Now, with the model available in a form easy to learn and modify, some teachers may find it easier to engage students, most likely through term projects, in learning how decision-making processes work and how they can be improved.
... ... ...
The work to date generates a few suggestions for managers:
- Manage your attention as a critical resource. Good managers are already acutely sensitive to potential wastes of time, but even good managers can do better at allocating more of their time to the problems whose resolution would be most valuable. This usually means devoting more time to setting clear goals, providing appropriate resources and managing relationships ... and less to supervising task activity.
- Teach and encourage your subordinates to present their recommendation with sufficient supporting information to make your decision quicker and simpler; that is, promote Winston Churchill's concept of "completed staff work." This means rewarding people more for how well they supported their recommendations and less for how closely their recommendations resembled what you would have done anyway.
- Make more effort to align tasks with the skills and interests of the people responsible for doing them.
- Reorganize your agendas to allow due consideration of those nagging, not-quite-the-most-important problems. Don't keep letting the urgent crowd out the important.
- Don't let anyone paralyze decision-making by adding uncertainty to issues her or she has some reason to want to remain unresolved. When you have found indications of some unexplained process that hinders decision-making, consider yourself the most likely culprit.
Acceptable Risk?: Making Decisions in a Toxic Environment, Lee Clarke, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 220 pp.
This Book Summary written by: T.A. O'Lonergan, Conflict Research Consortium
Acceptable Risk?: Making Decisions in a Toxic Environment will be of interest to those who seek an understanding of the decision-making process amid the chaos following a toxic contamination accident. The first chapter considers creating risks. The chapter is an explanation of the events leading up to the point when a transformer coolant breached containment in the state office building in Binghamton, New York. The transformer contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which, when burned at high temperatures, produce highly toxic substances (dioxins). The remainder of the book is an examination of the management of the clean-up and the identification of workers and inhabitants exposed.
Chapter two examines the organisation of decontamination efforts and medical surveillance in the midst of organizational chaos. It examines what the author terms 'organizational anarchy' wherein each state, federal and local organisation goes about its self-selected responsibilities without the benefit of an overall organizational effort. Chapter three is an examination of the need for constricting the field of organisations involved in the decontamination project. The author addresses the involvement of: local, county, state and federal agencies in the Binghamton clean-up.
Chapter four examines the resolution of organizational dilemmas in a discussion of the Broome County government's risk. Clarke offers a systematic examination of the process of making decisions about the Binghamton clean-up project. The first phase of such an effort is to define the problem, followed by assessing the consequences. This is followed by the ordering of alternatives and the constructing of acceptable risk assessments. The final phase is the acceptance of risk. Chapter five is devoted to the organisation of medical surveillance. The author offers a discussion on assessing the problem and the initiation of surveillance. The problem of malleable science is addressed prior to a discussion of the division of labour which emerges during the process of medical surveillance.
Chapter six is devoted to the organising efforts required to begin the decontamination process. The author offers an attempt at a solution to the chemical problems. The chapter closes with a discussion of symbolic risk: the decision whether to decontaminate or destroy the Binghamton state office building. This is followed by a discussion of the treatment of exposed workers and the need to organize their dissent activities. The final chapter is devoted to the organisation of risk. This chapter examines: the disruption of routine, the structural basis of individual dissent, symbols and organizational dissent, and theories of choice. The author discusses the two phases of clean-up efforts. The first phase is the undirected efforts which multiple agencies made toward clean-up. Many of these efforts were not only misguided, but needlessly exposed more workers to high levels of contamination. The second phase is the State of New York's assumption of the risk and their role as organising agency for the decontamination efforts. The text is followed by two appendices: the first identifying the players and the second offering a methodological accounting.
Acceptable Risk?: Making Decisions in a Toxic Environment is a careful examination of a single case of the creation and assessment of risk and the resultant medical surveillance and decontamination efforts. While addressing a particular incident, the overall approach is applicable to other incidents of toxic contamination.
Sturmtruppen's success spurred two cinema adaptations. The first one, Sturmtruppen (1976), was co-written by Bonvicini and directed by Salvatore Samperi. In 1982 a sequel, Sturmtruppen II, was released, again directed by Samperi and featuring Renato Pozzetto, Massimo Boldi and Teo Teocoli.
Bonvi had a small part as a German officer. The quality of the two movies was uneven, albeit some ideas and situations (such as the Captain abusing a life-size plush toy with Karl Marx features -- only to be assaulted and bitten by it -- or the Pope offering a poisoned wafer to the angelic soldier who came from heaven to usher in a new age of Peace) are very biting and sarcastic, on par with the best strips.
On August 16, 2006, Miramax moved forward with plans to create a live-action movie based on Sturmtruppen. It is not known if a script has been written, or who is slated to direct the movie.
The inefficiency of bureaucracy has always been blamed for all the ills which have been facing the country. Perhaps even rightly so, as the bureaucratic ritualism and red tape surrounding each and every activity of the public and government organization has deterred them from taking any firm initiative. In Pakistan the government machinery and its everyday working is run by bureaucracy and even we depend on them to manage everything. But over the years the civil servants and public officials have stepped away from the basic job description, of serving the public and have adopted the approach of applying their authority over the citizens, whom they have vowed to serve. This unchecked and most of the times unlawful use of authority, can be observed to have increased every time a democratic setup has been replaced by a dictatorial rule. This has also resulted in large scale corruption and nepotism, as they realize that they are answerable to no one.
Article 19-A introduced in the 18th Amendment of the 1973 Constitution presents a silver lining in the clouds. The article directs the public institutions to share the required information of public interest with the citizens. This has been called as the Right to Information (RTI). According to the Freedom of Information (FOI) law, which governs the rules and regulations of RTI, this information is not only to be shared on demand, but periodical publications are also required to disseminate information. This can be termed as the first step of truly empowering the people, in contributing towards the governance of the country. Unfortunately although almost everyone knows the political aspects of the 18th Amendment, but there is no awareness regarding RTI or FOI. Either the people have been deliberately kept in the dark over the subject or the aspect has been overshadowed by the political perception of the amendment.
Still there are citizens who are aware and there are organizations, who have been working on freedom of information in Pakistan since a long time. There have been information requests filed under the article, by certain individuals and organizations. Recently nine information requests have been filed with various departments in Baluchistan. These requests are queries on developmental work and other civic issues and demand no information on any sensitive issue. This has been initiated with the hope that once precedence has been set and a habit has been developed in the citizens, to engage and question the government machinery, perhaps there will be an improvement in the prevalent situation. But it has been observed that the filing of the information requests with the relevant departments has been ignored. Where the law clearly states that a response to the applicant should be given within 21 working days, the application seems to be lost somewhere in this complex bureaucratic setup. Although there is a way to file complaints over non-compliance of these requests by the public departments, but this process also takes a common citizen through a complex set of procedures. The complaints have been filed with the Provincial Mohtasib by the concerned citizens and it is hoped that as the office of Mohtasib is there to resolve the complaints of the public, it will also take concrete measures in this regard.
This withholding of information in the backdrop of bureaucratic ritualism and red tape is unacceptable. The public demands to know what is happening in the state apparatus, why there is so much corruption, where and how are the funds for various projects being utilized, why is there a shortage of resources and energy, who or what is responsible for the deteriorating security situation? It is understandable that this is a nascent democracy and of course it will take time to brush aside the mindset present in our institutions, nurtured by dictatorial regimes. In the end, it will all come down to the insistence of the citizens to hold accountable the public officials and pressurize them in giving the answers to the questions, which concern every Pakistani. Just as the state machinery has been forced to reveal the Kharotabad incident report, which had been initially decided to be kept a secret, but under considerable public outcry was released; the institutions will also have to be pursued into the habit of sharing information with the public.
The withholding of information, only points to the fact that there is something wrong and the picture that is being painted to the masses is not an accurate one. The mindset and perception present in our public sector departments has no place in a democratic setup. The lowest ranking official to the highest seat of power are answerable to the people. The institutions and officials have declared and vowed to serve the public and not their own vested interests. It has to be realized by the officials and the public also that, times have changed and democracy demands the active participation of the citizens in the governance of the country. The country is no longer run by a junta, where the citizens have been kept at the bottom of the pyramid. The concept of democracy values the opinion of each and every individual and these opinions will only be generated if proper information is available to them. Right to information is a tool which serves the purpose of not only disseminating information, but also strengthening the institutions in the long run.
The term purple crocodile (Dutch: Paarse krokodil) originates from a 2005 television advertisement by the Dutch insurance company OHRA promoting their lack of red tape. The purple crocodile has since become a more general mascot for bureaucracy in the Netherlands
Description of the advertisement
The advertisement consists of a single sketch where a mother and her daughter appear at the reception of a public swimming pool. The mother explains to the receptionist that her daughter has forgot her inflatable purple crocodile in the swimming pool.
The receptionist hands the mother a form which must be filled in on both sides and handed in the following day between 9 and 10 a.m, all while the purple crocodile forgotten by her daughter is seen standing in a corner of the reception cubicle. The mother then mentions that the purple crocodile is indeed in the cubicle. The receptionist agrees but takes no action.
Sir Humphrey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon), is a fictional character from the British television series Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. He was played by Sir Nigel Hawthorne. In Yes Minister, he is the Permanent Secretary for the Department of Administrative Affairs (a fictional department of the British government). In the last episode of Yes, Minister, "Party Games", he becomes Cabinet Secretary, the position he retains during Yes, Prime Minister. Hawthorne's portrayal won the BAFTA Award for Best Light Entertainment Performance four times: 1981, 1982, 1986 and 1987.
 Character and history
Sir Humphrey is a master of obfuscation and manipulation, often making long-winded statements such as, "In view of the somewhat nebulous and inexplicit nature of your remit, and the arguably marginal and peripheral nature of your influence within the central deliberations and decisions within the political process, there could be a case for restructuring their action priorities in such a way as to eliminate your liquidation from their immediate agenda." He is committed to maintaining the status quo for the country in general and for the Civil Service in particular, and will stop at nothing to do so - whether that means baffling his opponents with technical jargon, strategically appointing allies to supposedly impartial boards, or setting up an interdepartmental committee to smother his Minister's proposals in red tape. Throughout the series, he serves as Permanent Secretary under the ministry of Jim Hacker at the Department of Administrative Affairs; he is appointed Cabinet Secretary shortly before Hacker's elevation to the role of Prime Minister.
Sir Humphrey won a classical scholarship to Winchester College before reading Classics at Baillie College, Oxford, where he got a First (a possible allusion to Balliol College, Oxford; he is shown wearing a Balliol tie in the first episode of Series 3, 'Equal Opportunities'). After National Service in the Army Education Corps he entered the Civil Service. From 1950 to 1956 he was the Regional Contracts Officer, an assistant principal in the Scottish Office, on secondment from the War Office (where he was responsible for a serious mistake that was revealed in "The Skeleton in the Cupboard"). In 1964 he was brought into the newly-formed Department of Administrative Affairs, where he has worked until his appointment as Cabinet Secretary. He is recommended for the KBE early on in the series in "The Official Visit".
Sir Humphrey represents, in many ways, the perfect technocrat. He is pompous, arrogant, elitist and regards his less-well-educated minister with some contempt. He frequently uses both his mastery of the English language and even his superb grasp of Latin and Greek grammar to perplex his political master and to obscure relevant issues under discussion. However, his habit of using language as a tool of confusion and obstruction is so deeply ingrained that he is sometimes unable to speak clearly and directly even in circumstances in which he honestly wishes to make himself clearly understood. He genuinely believes that the Civil Service knows what the average person needs and is the most qualified body to run the country, the joke being that not only is Sir Humphrey, as a high-ranking Oxford-educated Civil Servant, quite out of touch with the average person but also that the Civil Service identifies whatever is 'best for Britain' as being 'best for the Civil Service'. Jim Hacker, on the other hand, tends to regard what is best for Britain as being whatever is best for his political party or his own chances of re-election. As a result, Sir Humphrey and Hacker often clash.
He still holds women to be the fairer sex and is thus overly courteous, frequently addressing them as "Dear lady". Like Hacker, Sir Humphrey enjoys the finer things in life, and is regularly seen drinking sherry and dining at fine establishments, often with his fellow civil servant Sir Arnold Robinson, who was Cabinet Secretary throughout Yes Minister. Sir Humphrey is also on the board of governors of the National Theatre and attends many of the gala nights of the Royal Opera House. His interests also extend to cricket, art and theatre.
According to the foreword (dated 2019), of the book The Complete Yes Minister: The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister by the Rt. Hon. James Hacker MP, a novelisation of the series, he spent his last days in St Dympna's Hospital for the Elderly Deranged, after the "advancing years, without in any way impairing his verbal fluency, disengaged the operation of his mind from the content of his speech." This contradicts the date of death given in Politico's Book of the Dead.
In a Radio Times interview to promote the first series of Yes, Prime Minister, Nigel Hawthorne observed, "He's raving mad of course. Obsessive about his job. He'd do anything to keep control. In fact, he does go mad in one episode. Quite mad."
In Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey maintains a friendly and (outwardly) deferential but adversarial relationship with his new minister, Jim Hacker. When keeping the Minister busy is not sufficient to prevent him from proposing new policy, Sir Humphrey is not above deceiving or even blackmailing him. He has a slightly more amicable relationship with his subordinate, the Minister's Principal Private Secretary, Bernard Woolley. He frequently lectures the naïve Woolley in the realities of political matters. When Woolley's loyalty to the Minister is inconvenient to Sir Humphrey's plans, he readily makes oblique threats about Woolley's job prospects should he defy Sir Humphrey. However, he is equally quick to defend Woolley from outsiders. His closest on-screen friendships are with Sir Arnold Robinson, Cabinet Secretary during Yes Minister; Sir Frederick "Jumbo" Stewart, Permanent Secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and the banker Sir Desmond Glazebrook. He is married, although his wife plays virtually no role in either series and is only seen once: next to him in bed in the Series One episode "Big Brother".
 Real-life references
Sir Humphrey has become a stereotype associated with civil servants, and the phrase "Bowler-hatted Sir Humphreys" is sometimes used when describing their image. Satirical and investigative magazine Private Eye often refers to Sir Humphrey with the definite article 'the' to indicate someone in the civil service the magazine considers of similar character, e.g. "[name] is the present Sir Humphrey at the Department for Rural Affairs". In the 1930s "Sir Horace", after Sir Horace Wilson, a senior official close to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, became a soubriquet for a civil servant with delusions of grandeur; this is thought to have influenced the choice of the name "Sir Humphrey".
A spoof obituary for Sir Humphrey appears in Politico's Book of the Dead, written by his creators, Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. This is the source for some biographical details above, including the dates of birth and death, which he shares with Nigel Hawthorne, the actor who portrayed him.
Sir Humphrey was voted the 45th greatest comedy character in Channel 4's 2007 "The World's Greatest Comedy Characters" poll. He was also voted 31st in a poll of "100 Greatest TV Characters", also on Channel 4.
Upon Nigel Hawthorne's death, the following appeared on the Editorial page of The Ottawa Citizen under the heading 'No, Minister':
"It is sadly that we report on Sir Nigel Hawthorne, elsewhere referred to as Sir Humphrey Appleby. While it would be premature to commit ourselves to a definitive position on his merits or even his existence, a committee is being struck to consider the possibility of a decision, in the fullness of time, to regret his passing, if any."
The character was resurrected for the 2010 general election campaign in a series of short sketches on BBC Two's late evening current affairs programme Newsnight. The sketches were written by Jay and Lynn, and Sir Humphrey was played by Henry Goodman.
Henry Goodman also played the part of Sir Humphrey in the 2010 stage production of Yes, Prime Minister.
- ^ 
- ^ Radio Times: 4–10 January 1986
- ^ D.R.Thorpe (1996) Alec Douglas-Home, p69
- ^ channel4.com - one hundred greatest tv characters
- ^ "Chicester Minister Bound for Gielgud, 17 Sep". Whats On Stage website. 2010-06-11. http://www.whatsonstage.com/news/theatre/london/E8831276247171/Chichester+Minister+Bound+for+Gielgud%2C+17+Sep.html. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
Paperwork Reduction Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 of the United States Code, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 through 44 U.S.C. § 3521, is a United States federal law enacted in 1980 that gave authority over the collection of certain information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Within the OMB, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) was established with specific authority to regulate matters regarding federal information and to establish information policies. These information policies were intended to reduce the total amount of paperwork handled by the United States government and the general public. A byproduct is that it has become harder to track internal transfers to tax havens in Consolidated Corporate Income Tax returns.
The PRA mandates that all federal government agencies must obtain a Control Number from OMB before promulgating a form that will impose an information collection burden on the general public. Once obtained, approval must be renewed every three years. In order to obtain or renew such approval, an agency must fill out OMB Form 83-I, attach the proposed form, and file it with OIRA. On Form 83-I, the agency must explain the reason why the form is needed and estimate the burden in terms of time and money that the form will impose upon the persons required to fill it out.
The process created by the PRA makes OIRA into a centralized clearinghouse for all government forms. Thus, it is able to assess the overall impact of the government bureaucracy on American citizens and businesses. This is done in an annual document called the Information Collection Budget of the United States Government.
Google matched content
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least
Copyright © 1996-2016 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) in the author free time and without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info|
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
Last modified: September, 12, 2017