Golf Logic

I went to a wedding yesterday. The reception wasa at the "Three Rivers Golf and Country Club". During a lull in the proceedings I took a stroll to the first tee where I found a large sign-board with the rules of the club painted up for all to see. They must have been devised by a professor of logic because, apart from all the expected ones about not using buggies in wet conditions or in certain areas, there was this interesting request. "Maintain your position on the course by keeping your place directly behind the game in front of you, NOT directly in front of the game behind you." Unless you happen to be the last game of the day, I can't see how you can do one without the other being an automatic corollary. Maths much have changed since I did it at school! - or perhaps I've just never understood the rules of golf (which must obviously supercede the normal rules of logic for those concerned).

Negative Management

I have never been much of a follower of management jargon. To me, good management is a matter of common sense but with the increasing rarity of that commodity I have turned to thinking about the theory of management - Journeyman style!

I have come to the conclusion that there are three basic types of management:
(1) Positive management - actions taken by managers which improve the situation.
(2) "Laissez Faire" - basically "do nothing and let the workers sort themselves out". Depending on the calibre of the workers, this may actually result in better results than (1).
(3) Negative management - actions taken by managers to interfere with the normal working of the organisation which results in worse results than if they had done nothing.

Sadly, I have to report that Follyville, which has so far generally exercised option 2 with reasonable success has now descended to Option 3 - Negative Management. I don't suppose it is intentional but it comes from not considering the outcomes or consulting the workers before decisions are made. The management and burghers of Follyville have always had a very blinkered "one issue" approach and the latest developments follow in this trend. The issue at the moment is saving money. It's the same everywhere in Local Government - Follyville is no different. But instead of asking the question "how can we sensibly save money", the word "sensibly" is left out. Result - negative management. Let me illustrate with a recent example.

Two officers of Follyville had been booked on a course in London. It was assumed that admin. would order them train tickets (as pre-ordering results in a saving on the full price). However, the day before they were due to go they were informed by management that there was no money in the training budget. There was, however, money in the mileage budget. Rather than going by train Officer 1 should therefore drive to Officer 2's house and then drive the two of them to Newbury Park underground station. From there they could get the underground train to their course.

Let's analyse this scenario:

Cost under normal arrangements -
2 x Train fare (including Travelcard) @ £50.20 = £100.40 (N.B. this would have been cheaper if tickets ordered in advance).

Cost under Negative Management arrangements -
97 miles mileage reimbursement @ £0.40 £38.80
Car Parking at Newbury Park £ 4.50
2 x Tube fare to Holborn £20.00
2 x 1.5 hours extra journey time @ £17.76 £53.28
______
Total cost £116.58

So a misguided attempt to save Follyville some money actually resulted in spending £16 extra plus considerable increased aggravation for the officers concerned in having to drive back in the rush hour, in the dark, in the pouring rain with all the hazards of road water and spray. Not a nice journey at all.

Americans are mad too!

Just to demonstrate that it is not just the British that are quite mad and that Americans too seem to have abdicated all responsibility for common sense, I attach the following snippet, gleaned from an E-newsletter.

A mother of two in Sacramento, California has filed a class action lawsuit against McDonalds because they use toys to unfairly market their Happy Meals to under 8's. It is stated that "Children eight years old and younger do not have the cognitive skills and the developmental maturity to understand the persuasive intent of marketing and advertising."

Quite so - but unless things are significantly different on the other side of the pond, how often is a child of eight or less going to be going into McDonald's on their own and ordering a Happy Meal? It doesn't happen here. If a child that young is in Mcdonald's they will be with an adult or older sibling who will understand the point of marketing and advertising and should have the necessary willpower to say "No" if they don't consider the Happy Meal to be appropriate.

Clearly American women either have no willpower at all or are negligent in allowing their young children to go roaming unaccompanied. To blame McDonalds for this scenario is quite ridiculous. It would be like someone here taking legal action against a car manufacturer for advertising the fact that their car goes from 0 - 90 in 10 seconds, knowing full well that you are not allowed to drive more than 70 mph. The individual is expected to excercise a bit of common sense and responsibility.

Unfortunately - being America - there is a reasonable prospect that she will win her case. I look forward to the result with bated breath. If I hear the result I will report back in this blog. If she wins, that will probably be my last entry before I go off and slit my wrists!