Irregular channels

From Regular and Irregular Channels by David Foster.

Some of the witnesses at the ongoing Congressional hearings seem quite disturbed at the use of “irregular channels” for decision-making and implementation, supplementing and bypassing the “regular” channels. (here, for example) Reminds me of a Churchill story…

In February 1940, Churchill was not yet Prime Minister but rather was First Lord of the Admiralty. He received a letter from a father disappointed that his son had been turned down for a commission, despite his qualifications and his record. Churchill suspected class prejudice and wrote to the Second Sea Lord, saying that “Unless some better reasons are given to me, I shall have to ask my Naval Secretary to interview the boy on my behalf.”

The Second Sea Lord, unhappy with the meddling from above, responded to the effect that it was inappropriate to question the decisions of “a board duly constituted.” To which Churchill replied:

I do not at all mind “going behind the opinion of a board duly constituted” or even changing the board or its chairman if I think injustice has been done. How long is it since this board was re-modeled?… Who are the naval representatives on the board of selection? Naval officers should be well-represented. Action accordingly. Let me have a list of the whole board with the full record of each member and his date of appointment.

General Louis Spears was present when Churchill, after taking the above hard-line, saw the candidates. After chatting with the boys, Churchill explained the matter to Spears:

“They have been turned down for the very reason that should have gained them admission. They are mad keen on the Navy, they have it in their blood, they will make splendid officers. What could be better than that they should rise higher than their fathers did? It is in their fathers’ homes that they grew to love the Navy, yet they have been turned down because their fathers came from the lower deck,” and he pouted and glared with fury.

Wonderful story.

Foster is correct that in all places, in all times, in all governments, businesses, enterprises, and institutions, there is the formal and the informal. The channels, and the back channels.

One of the glories of the old Bell system was that they were almost military in their pursuit of talent. People could rise from a lineman to the very highest levels of the business. One of the rarely voiced consequences is that everyone was more honest in their opinions. No matter who you might be speaking with, you could not easily anticipate the range and nature of their internal network. The grizzled old first level lineman you are interviewing might have mentored the young turk sixth level executive who checks in with him from time to time to keep a finger on the pulse of the business.

Churchill is a great example to Foster's point. The organization which abides completely and solely by the rules is likely a hidebound, maladaptive totalitarian enterprise bound to fail eventually because it cannot evolve.

An institution which relies solely on personal contacts and work-arounds might be highly adaptive but is also chaotic and unpredictable. Also likely bound to fail.

There is a happy median which cannot be quantified between too hidebound or too informal. We know it is between the extremes but it is frequently difficult to pin down exactly where is the optimum balance.

The example with Churchill is telling. Churchill was of the old guard but he was a younger son reliant on his own skills. He knew the constraints of the old but was also frequently too daring with the new.

World War II in Europe is a catalogue of hair-brained Churchillian schemes which not infrequently came to grief. Time after time he wasted money on weapons systems which were doomed, he wasted lives on disastrous raids, some of the Special Operations seemed almost clownish. But innovation constantly fails until it succeeds. Churchill's failures were many but his policies led to victory. Were they the most efficient policies to win? Who can tell? It was chaotic and unpredictable war.

On the other hand, he goaded his generals to be braver in their thinking and more willing to take risks. Had the establishment of military and political leaders at the beginning of the war continued, the war would likely have been shorter but also to have ended in compromise and longterm failure.

Churchill was his own boisterous, daring character, seemingly heedless of experts and costs. But he won where they almost certainly would have lost.

Breaking the sclerosis of the establishment is never costless and there are always victims. But you cannot engineer your way to such reform and you cannot optimize on a prospective basis. Sometimes the obviousness of victory is only such in hind sight.

It is much like the law.

Those of constipated and totalitarian mindset always see perfection on the horizon, simply requiring one more law, one more policy one more effort to engineer human perfection. Sometimes that is true. Usually that is a prelude to tragedy.

There is a limit to the law. When you are attempting to legislate manners and opinions and hurt feelings and speech, you are way beyond the effectiveness of the law.

The law extends so far and then it becomes fragile or rejected. Past a certain point, manners and culture enter into the equation. We need a buffer between the hard inflexibility and uniformity of law and the massive, churning volatility and variance of people. A gap cushioned by manners, customs and culture.

Foster is correct. Those claiming that Trump, or whomever, did not follow protocol or procedure or establishment customs, are probably right. Trump seems to be goal oriented in a fashion uncommon in the institutionalized government. For them, success is adherence to policy. For Trump, and other mavericks, success is achievement. The two cultures are virtually incompatible.