On fraud and its causes
"The government is always obliged to tell the truth, even if this truth does not always deliver positive emotions."
D. Medvedev. Russian newspaper. 11 September 2016
D. Medvedev. Russian newspaper. 11 September 2016
Almost all of us were witnesses or participants in the fraud. What is this about? Probably, most of us saw old collapsing houses hidden behind panels with beautiful bricks painted on them and glamorous windows along the road, where the highest officials of the country are planning to travel. This also includes fresh asphalt on the road before the arrival of important bosses, and peculiar rehearsed performances with well-known high-level questions to bosses. Examples of fraud are reports on the implementation of the plan on 100%, when this is not true, on the high performance in schools and universities, on the disclosure of all crimes by law enforcement agencies in a particular territory, on voting, in which 100% of the population took part, etc. .
In the explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language the following definition of fraud is given: it is an intentional deception in order to present something in a more favorable light than it actually is. Eyewear is based on the embellishment of reality, i.e. in presenting it to another person in a more advantageous position than in fact, in obscuring or keeping silent about shortcomings. The essence of "rubbing points" - in opposition to the shown and the real. The fraud is manifested in the form of window dressing, i.e. action, calculated on the external effect.
In this case, lies in the reports can be expressed not only in the form of deception, distortion of real data, but also in the form of silence. L.N. wrote about it. Tolstoy: "Not only not to lie directly, you must try not to lie negatively - silent." Protruding one side, silencing the other is a typical way of misinformation.
In all such cases, the specific characteristic of this type of deception is clearly visible - the deliberate misrepresentation of officials or the public.
Why is this happening?
To begin with, many officials have an obligation to prepare and send to higher and controlling bodies various kinds of reports and reports with a certain frequency. These documents must contain real, objective information. When signing an official document, the official must be responsible for his signature.
The information received in such reports is necessary for the senior manager to exercise control. Reports of subordinates to the top are feedback on management performance, informing managers about the compliance of the actual performance with the expected or desired. Otherwise, the power without a mechanism to control the implementation of its decisions is divorced from reality and loses the meaning of existence, the system “goes racing. The manager needs to know how well or poorly he works. Therefore, reporting is necessary for the manager to increase his management level. Another thing is that sometimes the reporting itself turns into the main activity of the official, in comparison with which everything else fades.
What causes lies in the reports? Let us explain by example.
The commander of the regiment in the report indicates that all the equipment available in the regiment is fully operational, complete and combat-ready. Accordingly, the chief officer, studying such reports, decides that it is not required to allocate funds for the repair of the armament and equipment available in the regiment, for retrofitting with the equipment or its write-off. However, if there is a faulty equipment in military units, then the combat readiness of the military unit is endangered, the military unit may not cope with the tasks set, respectively, plans for the combat use of the interacting military units, etc., may also not be fulfilled.
In the military environment, eyewash is even more dangerous than in ordinary life, as it is directly tied to the lives of people and the independence of the state. The mistakes of the military administration are scarcely seen in peacetime. They really, and not on paper, will be visible only in a combat situation. I will give examples from stories Great Patriotic War.
This is how K. Sukhiashvili, commander of the 3 Guards Marine Brigade, described the harm of deception in reports: “The elements of fraud and false reports go unpunished. , 8 GSD (8-I Guards Rifle - the famous Panfilov division), bypassing the fortified node of Sichev, gives me the situation: the road is open, Sichev is taken. Expecting that the road is free, I suddenly stumbled upon a strongly uk Captive knot, where the enemy was defending. My unexploded brigade suddenly came under heavy machine-gun and machine-gun fire, and then mortar fire. The desire to report that, they say, I quickly move forward, forced, apparently, the division commander to deceive the higher command and me as a neighbor ; as a result, there are extra victims, but not with him, but with a neighbor.
With impunity goes the case against the perpetrators of large losses. From practice, I became convinced that if the army commanders report: "The order is being fulfilled, slowly moving forward in small groups," this means that the neighbor is standing still and wants to deceive the non-shot neighbor, and reports to his subordinates: " what is coming. " Opponent attaches first to one, the most active, and the most active are new, unshown parts.
The fraud and the wrong report of the younger should be more afraid than non-execution of the order. For non-compliance with the terms of the circle of scare shooting, and the wrong report, I stretch the time. To say that I can not attack, it is impossible, but not to attack and report: "We carry out the order, slowly crawling forward in small groups," it is possible, and no one will shoot. "
What has changed since then? Our country is not in a state of large-scale war, because of the fraud, people are probably not dying, but the style of work of many leaders remains the same.
This is how the well-known writer and defector, the participant of this inspection Viktor Suvorov himself describes the post-war delivery of the final check in the regiment:
“In the 5 Company, the commission examined the training of armored personnel carriers. Everyone in the regiment knew that the drivers had mostly theoretical training. Nevertheless, all ten coped with driving an armored personnel carrier over rough terrain and everyone got excellent marks. Only much later I learned a secret. The company commander was preparing not ten, but only a couple of drivers. And only their preparation was spent all the fuel. During the test, the drivers took turns getting into the armored personnel carrier, where one of the two aces was already hiding. As soon as another driver closed the hatch, the ace sat in his place. That's the whole solution. If fuel and service life were split equally among all drivers, then all ten would receive satisfactory and some well trained. But this is not enough for us! Come on, good students! And they were given. It turned out that the company was completely incompetent. ”
In all the above examples, it is clear that on the basis of inaccurate and late information it is impossible to make decisions that are adequate to the situation. Therefore, of course, it is necessary to fight this phenomenon. Moreover, if you leave such cases unpunished, then this management style can be applied by the same people in emergency situations: in the context of hostilities or a state of emergency.
Considering the above, it is necessary now, in peaceful conditions, to identify the causes of this harmful phenomenon, as well as the conditions that contribute to it.
According to the author, there are many reasons (the desire to curry up and make a career, to comply with the behavior of a certain circle, etc.), but the main one is the fear of punishment, which will be applied to the official for a truthful report. Moreover, the author of the report is not necessarily himself to blame for faulty equipment, unrepaired houses, poor academic performance, objective reasons are also possible (lack of funding and time, physical impossibility to fulfill the requirements of legislation, other persons guilty actions, etc.), but the punishment still threatens the reporting person with flaws. Therefore, the officials lie. Therefore, it is not only such an unscrupulous official who is to blame for universal lies, but also his superiors, and this kind of practice that has already been around. And according to the laws of behaviorism, getting into the team, a person adopts the rules of conduct, which are accepted in this team, even if he hadn’t previously been going to engage in fraud. Life in a bureaucratic management system sets a subordinate standard of behavior.
We explain this position.
The activity of any boss is evaluated according to certain parameters. Ideally, it should be judged by the skillful leadership of its subordinate organization and depend on the effectiveness of the organization’s activities.
The main purpose of any military organization is constant readiness to repel enemy aggression, armed defense of the integrity and inviolability of the territory, as well as the fulfillment of tasks in accordance with international treaties. It means that it is according to these criteria that the functioning of this organization must be assessed, according to the criterion: it is ready or not ready to carry out the combat mission.
Similarly, the head of any military organization needs to be assessed - can he complete the task at his post. Pay attention: it is the official mission of the serviceman, it is his official duties (and not general, special, freelance, etc.) that have the greatest influence on the effective performance of their combat mission by the military formation. Consequently, it is the knowledge, skills and abilities of the position, his ability to lead subordinates and should be the main criterion for assessing a soldier, and not square drifts and freshly painted fences on military objects assigned to him.
However, the existing system of inspections of military units is structured in such a way that a remarkably knowledgeable officer of his specialty can still get a deuce or even be dismissed from service. Thus, during any inspection and verification, the appearance of the personnel, drill techniques, passing with a song, etc. are necessarily checked. That is why the commanders are focusing on appearance and on line inspection, spending precious hours on training these events to the detriment of planned exercises and combat training. In the 21st century, when modern wars are no longer conducted by bayonet attacks and by gunfire, the program of combat training of any officer of the internal troops includes the fulfillment of standards from a Makarov pistol, and the overall assessment of the officer’s readiness is not higher than that for this subject. Such examples can be cited further.
But it's not so bad. The system of socialist competitions that was formed back in the USSR, with the establishment of the best platoon, the best company, the best battalion, regiment, brigade, etc. so far valid. According to the results of each training period, the year, the orders among senior commanders determine the places among subordinate units for military discipline, military service, injury, etc. Such a system inevitably puts every commander in front of a regrettable fact: no matter how prepared the unit or unit entrusted to you is, it is important how you manage to throw dust in the eyes of the commission, checking how you can trick or smite them in order to gain a place in the ranking, and preferably one of the first. After all, the commander, who was in last place, is scolded at meetings and in orders, takes him under additional control, which can easily lead to his removal from office.
You can compare the work of the commander of a military unit and not with someone else, but with the same period last year, and again find a decrease in performance results. And for this negative dynamic, too, scold him, demand explanations, raise at meetings as the worst, etc. Objective difficulties in the explanations of such a leader are little taken into account, because regardless of them he has the duties to skillfully lead, constantly support, take measures and be responsible, be responsible for everything.
According to the author, the commander of a military unit has practically impossible obligations in full. And with strict control, there is always, for what, for not fulfilling what kind of duty, it can be punished.
The regiment commander is subordinate to about a thousand soldiers. But, unlike the head of a civil enterprise (institution) with the same number of subordinates, the regimental commander is always responsible for them: when the subordinate is on vacation, during off-hours. Injuries and offenses of a subordinate received even not in service will still be taken into account in summaries and reports on the security status of the military service of a military unit.
How do commanders survive and even make a career in conditions when they cannot fulfill all of their duties even with diligence? They try to establish informal relations with the senior manager, who also understands that if he wants, he can always find flaws in his subordinate and punish him. But this subordinate is trying hard, working hard, taking measures to ensure that there are fewer deficiencies in his military unit. And although there are always flaws, you can ignore them. For the time being, until such a commander falls into disfavor. Then he can strictly and fundamentally find many flaws, and such a commander quickly and legally removed as unable to cope with the duties of his post.
Why, in such conditions, should the commander himself provoke the senior commander to the negative and show him in the reports absolutely truthful, but hardly well-received information at the top about the shortcomings that can be hidden at his level?
Senior managers also arrange rainbow reports without flaws, even if they know that the reports are untruthful. After all, when everything is great in the subordinate units (judging by the reports), this is also the merit of the most senior commander. It was he who organized the work of his subordinates, he, with his orders, sent their activities in the right direction, he would, on the basis of the brave reports received from his subordinates, compile his report to an even older chief that he was fine. And for the skillful leadership of a military team, for the lack of deficiencies in the entrusted area of work, you can receive encouragement, senior position, bonus, etc.
But such a system of information exchange is detrimental to the military command and combat readiness of military formations (in peacetime), and the performance of combat missions (in wartime).
Summing up, I consider it necessary to offer my vision on the elimination of fraud in the reports of military leaders:
1. Since the principle of unity of command is very tough in the military environment, and democratic principles are impossible because of the secrecy regime and the duty of a soldier to execute an order even under the threat of his life, it is only possible to change the situation from above. This requires the political will of the top leadership of the country and the military departments.
2. If the subordinate knows, feels that his biased information and flattery are perceived by the boss without any verification, and vice versa - the truthful information causes a negative reaction in relation to its author, then the subordinate will almost always lie to the boss. To avoid this, it is necessary to build a system for monitoring the objectivity of reports, to punish the false reports of commanders (chiefs) for this, and report them to other military commanders of the corresponding rank.
3. So that commanders are not afraid to tell the truth, to show it in reports, it is necessary to reconsider the duties of the main officers of the military unit. These duties are necessary, firstly, to formulate more precisely - so that the commander does not answer "for everything". The responsibility of any leader should come only in accordance with the principle of his guilt and given the fact that he has the actual ability to fulfill the duties assigned to him. The fear of punishment for objective shortcomings should not induce the commander to lie in reports. And secondly, when defining the duties of commanders (chiefs), it is necessary to take into account their time and human resources. Ideally, it is necessary to calculate the labor costs for performing specific duties, performing general and special duties, daily schedule activities, etc. and match them with the 40-hour work week. In addition, I believe that the duties of the main officers of the regiment in the Charter of the internal service of the RF Armed Forces should be considered typical, while the specific duties should be developed by the senior commander for each of the commanders.
4. Evaluation criteria for servicemen, and especially commanders, must be determined on the basis of staffing, and not as often practiced, by the ability to walk and level snowdrifts by forces of subordinates.
Information