System vs Human Governance
Posted on 03. Jun, 2009 by Franz in Management
If you’re in the corporate sector, you probably would’ve heard about this thing called corporate and human governance - Where discussions speak of “Corporate governance is manifested as an external, outside-in rules and regulations to legislate the corporations whereas human governance is an inside-out values-based conviction to guide the human where the human is viewed essentially as a non-material soul embodied in the physical being rather than as machine.” — Quoted from MIA’s Embracing Human Governance.
No, I’m NOT talking about this thing, actually. I can’t think of a better term to ‘governance’ than itself as for the topic I’m about to discuss at this particular moment. Hopefully I’m not confusing, and if you have any doubts or comments, you can leave me a comment on this post.
What I’m implying here in particular is simple – System disciplines (the straight-forward, no holds barred structured framework) and human disciplines (influential, changeable structures as deem fit). If you’d like to relate this subject to continuous improvement of corporate activities, go ahead by all means. I’d like to implement a very soft approach towards this topic and bend laws (or lies that benefits a system) in this post.
The situation I’m about to talk about relates to: The standard job interview process, which includes both the interviewer and interviewee.
This article is written as in a note to businesses in Malaysia such as recruitment agencies, headhunters, human resources management companies and miscellaneous industries in the career industry.
The Context
System governance defines a set of standard criteria or discipline in a framework which reflects a simple idea: What do you want to achieve and what should you do to achieve this. A standard is applied, a flow is created and all you need to do is execute and measure. Now, this is a simple and straightforward way of talking about robots, in particular: Things that are programmed to serve each and every calculated input and/or function, deriving from its creator(s).
Human governance on the other hand defines a set of (again) standard criteria or discipline in a framework which reflects a simple idea, but allows change through influence factors; affecting change of justifications, methods or standards in which leads to change of end results. When a system is executed and measured, human governance allows room to tweak, rectify or modify functions and derivatives that are deemed incompatible, less compliant or effective; resulting in numerous possibilities of an ending as compared to system governance where the ending is set.
Note: If you play computer games, you’ll get what I mean. Computer games like Fallout and Final Fantasy has game endings that are set – Whether there are 10 or 20 different endings and factors influencing a particular ending’s trigger.
So, what does these have to do with Job Interviews or Marketing Practices?
I believe that the subject I’m speaking of CANNOT be applied in all situations, but CAN be applied in some situations – Especially when it comes to specific cultures that are implicated in our society. We humans are made to adapt – Our mind can bear extraneous amount of environmental distinction. Ignore psychological challenge factors – That is a topic I will not discuss further in this article.
General Views
In a job interview process, the applicant submits a prolific explanation of experiences, education, personality and knowledge – Portrayed ‘as-is’ in what you know as the résumé and/or CV (Curriculum Vitae). The interviewer then takes one step further to identify (through the papers first) if the candidate has the potential and outcome of benefiting the applied company through interaction between what’s written and what’s interpreted.
Education, being one of the most emphasized element in enticing an interviewer, plays a huge role in many different corporations from almost all sectors of industry for a long time now. This has been pinned in my head from my parents since I was young till the very day I left school and part-times to venture into full-time.
Environmental experience, is basically what you call ‘hands-on’ reflects a person’s experience at work in the industry practicing numerous functions, methods and patterns that serves a set of objectives. This ‘act’ is viewed as the bearer of knowledge through actions over time.
Experience through knowledge is the act of experiencing a particular group of subjects through a medium. In certain industries, this is viewed as ‘good but not good enough’, since hands-on knowledge is portrayed as the prevalent one.
Life profile is basic personal information that may display a person’s traits, personalities, attitude and sometimes, judgments. Who knows, a person who loves listening to Jazz is a deeper thinker (I have no substantial proof on this).
Still, in many people’s mind today, general acceptance of a possible candidate for a job is viewed in a very systematical, shallow and industrial approach, which is why and how system & human governance relates to this particular situation. Examples of these views are:
- An experienced 15-year veteran MUST BE better than a 5 year newbie/noobie.
- A BSc. Hons holder MUST BE more credible in all aspects compared to a Diploma holder.
- An industry-jumper (like me; I was originally from Culinary Arts/F&B) is AUTOMATICALLY LESS CREDIBLE IN ALL INDUSTRIAL ASPECTS than a non-jumper.
- A 32 year old is AUTOMATICALLY MORE STABLE in terms of knowledge, industrial practices and perspective than a 25 year old.
- Company hoppers (candidates constantly jumping from one company to another in a short period of time) MUST BE a bad thing – Either he’s not getting along well in these companies or he’s being forced to resign too many times.
- Elder candidates’ MINDSETS ARE HARDER TO CHANGE as compared to young ones.
- Bad historical profile (schooldays) candidates PERFORM INTELLECTUALLY WORSE THAN excellent profiled ones.
- A candidate’s last drawn salary DETERMINES an intangible perception of direct measurement towards his competence.
There are reasons to why these job ‘requirement’ systems are placed – To allow access only to qualified candidates. “Don’t waste time interviewing under-qualified or unqualified candidates.” ; “So that the candidate performs well to benefit the company.” ; “So that we don’t waste additional costs on experimentation and trying.” ; “Because my (interviewer) job scope allows me to only walk this path.”
Measuring Against System Governance
Simply put “governance” means: The process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). It’s a set of rules that defines a particular function (in a framework) to only execute in a strict manner. But what impact can it make and new concepts can it generate if human governance complements (or overrides) certain functions of a system? A breach. This will make endless possibilities POSSIBLE.
Measuring against system governance allows bigger risks to errors, lies and unnecessary concoctions of problems. If mishandled, a system can be detrimental partly or in whole to a framework, which might break other systems that amalgamate, depend and rely on each other to process a set of activities that leads to objectives. Many are not willing to take the risk – Yet they worship the saying, “With big risks, comes big returns.”
In the actual human governance contexts (relationship with corporate governance), it has being said by UNESCAP in this article that “Good governance has 8 major characteristics. It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law.”
A concept; in which only organizations are as good as their concepts are.
