{"id":72337,"date":"2010-10-04T05:59:24","date_gmt":"2010-10-04T05:59:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/10\/04\/anatomie-de-la-bureaucratie-de-moby-dick\/"},"modified":"2010-10-04T05:59:24","modified_gmt":"2010-10-04T05:59:24","slug":"anatomie-de-la-bureaucratie-de-moby-dick","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/10\/04\/anatomie-de-la-bureaucratie-de-moby-dick\/","title":{"rendered":"Anatomie de la bureaucratie de Moby Dick<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Anatomie de la bureaucratie de Moby Dick<\/em><\/h4>\n

Commentant le m\u00eame article de William Pfaff du 30 septembre sur l’emprisonnement de BHO par le Pentagone (voir dans cette rubrique le 2 octobre 2010<\/a>), Franklin C. Spinney donne, le 3 octobre 2010<\/a> sur CounterPunch<\/em> quelques-uns de ses propres avis, venus de sa propre exp\u00e9rience (Spinney, qui fit partie du groupe des r\u00e9formateurs du Pentagone originel des ann\u00e9es 1970 et 1980, dont deux autres survivants encore tr\u00e8s actifs sont Winslow Wheeler et Pierre Sprey, a \u00e9t\u00e9 officier de l’USAF et a travaill\u00e9 au Pentagone).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSpinney estime que Pfaff ne donne que l’un des aspects de la situation de cet emprisonnement par la bureaucratie. Il d\u00e9crit le processus plus en d\u00e9tails, pour montrer qu’en fait tout le monde est prisonnier de tout le monde dans la cha\u00eene de l’information. Il rend ainsi mieux compte du caract\u00e8re automatique du syst\u00e8me, avec son absence d’orientation pr\u00e9cise sinon les int\u00e9r\u00eats imm\u00e9diats, hi\u00e9rarchiques et corporatistes, des acteurs, et selon un processus bureaucratique allant de la base vers le sommet<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abPfaff looks at the game playing from only President Obama’s perspective. In Washington, the game is played at all levels, all the time. I have seen, over and over, how a Secretary of Defense gets set up by the bureaucracy just, like the Generals set up Obama. Also, when serving as low ranking officer on the Air Staff, I saw many cases where lower ranking generals using the same tactics to set up senior generals, especially the AF Chief of Staff who was always considered the least informed guy in the room. If fact, I was once ordered by a two star general to lie to a three star general [Wheeler note: Spinney did not also say that he refused]. Colonels are always trying to maneuver generals into promoting their agendas. This is the way the real world operates, and the name of the game in this kind of staff work is always the same: remove all reasonable alternatives to your agenda to insure the decision goes your way. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe Pentagon is a rat’s nest of military-industrial factions, factions inside factions, and ever shifting alliances all competing with each other. The information game is easily played at all levels which is one reason why this behaviour is so intractable. Mafias inside the AF are hosing each other as well as the AF Chief of Staff, ditto for the Army and the Navy, the different services are hosing the Secretary of Defense as well as each other; the Secretary of Defense is hosing the President. All are working the press and the Congress … this is going on all the time at all levels, all the time. It is simply the human condition in large government bureaucracies where billions of dollars are at stake, and leaders ignore it at their peril.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe key to playing this game successfully is to make a leader dependent on formal communications channels and the chain of command, then you can use the bureaucracy to filter what flows up to him\/her. This is known as the mushroom treatment keeping the boss in the dark and feeding him\/her bullshit<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tComment peut-on se sortir de cette situation, conjurer la mal\u00e9diction de la bureaucratie et de ses automatismes ? Spinney expose une solution, dans tous les cas en th\u00e9orie, qui est, pour le chef qui re\u00e7oit les informations, d’\u00e9tablir ses propres canaux d’information et, \u00e9ventuellement de le faire savoir, de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 ce que la bureaucratie qui se trouve face \u00e0 lui sache qu’elle ne constitue pas la seule source d’information<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe only way a leader, whatever his level in the bureaucratic hierarchy, can do this is to carefully cultivate alternative informal back channel communication loops to trusted people scattered throughout the lower echelons of his organization. By discretely accessing a multiplicity of views, as well than bureaucracy’s preferred solution, a leader can determine when he is getting the mushroom treatment, and more importantly, gain the leverage needed to pry open the door to real alternatives<\/em> [] <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBack channel access to alternative views also gives a leader leverage over his subordinates. Once his subordinates appreciate that they can not control all the information flowing into their boss’s brain, the game opens up and the leader can do some broken field running. Indeed, a subtle leader quickly learns that the best results often occur when he makes it clear he knows when subordinate is setting him up by tailoring the information, but chooses to give the subordinate a second chance (in bureaucratic jargon, this is known as appealing to his patriotism). That subordinate will never forget the experience, particularly if the leader has already established his cojones with a couple of ruthless well-timed career executions for similar behaviour.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Anatomie de la bureaucratie de Moby Dick Commentant le m\u00eame article de William Pfaff du 30 septembre sur l’emprisonnement de BHO par le Pentagone (voir dans cette rubrique le 2 octobre 2010), Franklin C. Spinney donne, le 3 octobre 2010 sur CounterPunch quelques-uns de ses propres avis, venus de sa propre exp\u00e9rience (Spinney, qui fit… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[2623,7921,6521,3194,1131,8151,4057],"class_list":["post-72337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-bureaucratie","tag-dick","tag-moby","tag-pentagone","tag-pfaff","tag-reformistes","tag-spinney"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72337","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72337"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72337\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}