\"\"

My professor of behavioural science at George Washington University was the late Jerry B Harvey. Jerry was an awesome and fearsome professor; meaning that students and professors alike respectfully feared him for all the right and good reasons.

He had a very critical mind and was a truly astute teacher of organisational psychology. He told me frankly and forcefully that my English (Oh My English) was not good enough to handle ‘dignity studies’. Nevertheless he was my adviser until I asked him to leave the committee after my proposal defence; when he still disagreed with some of my ideas. His exit was also my chairperson’s advice to me.

His favourite topic was his final term course for graduate students called, ‘Ethical, Moral, and Spiritual Issues in Organisational Life’. His core thesis, ‘The Abilene Paradox’, captures much of the core issues discussed in that course and will remain his permanent legacy in the Organisational Behaviour and Development field. His book was not out when I took his course but was in fact his doctoral student and researcher.

Harvey’s claim to global fame was when this concept, ‘The Abilene Paradox’, was adjudged as one of the most popular concepts in organisational life even when compared to others like Maslow’s Hierarchy or McGregor’s two-factor theory of motivation.

Jerry lived, breathed, and now died premised upon his theory. I count him one of my teachers. Dear Jerry, it was my privilege knowing you and will still seek to collect my ‘wager’, as you called it, in Heaven, when I see you next.

You truly were a Southern Baptist but with some personal twists and turns premised on your psychology theories and your keen heart and mind with your brilliant command of the English language. Thankfully, we learned to agree to disagree, disagreeably. I am also glad I visited you at home the last time. May the Good Lord be your presence and joy until we meet again.

Abilene Paradox

In an Abilene paradox a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many (or all) of the individuals in the group. It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group\’s and, therefore, does not raise objections.

A common phrase relating to the Abilene Paradox is a desire not to ‘rock the boat’. This differs from groupthink in that the Abilene paradox is characterised by an inability to manage agreement. (Wikipedia)

Now, an Abilene trip is when, in a live organisation or group, the participants make hard choices about life and death issues but do not later accept responsibility for having ‘colluded to make the decision, even if by keeping quiet and taking the trip to Abilene’.

Therefore, Dumno’s trip to Abilene, as the title for this column. Dumno, as I call Umno today, is facing its worst ever political crisis of survival but they do not feel it yet. Its former president and their longest serving one has spoken against the current leadership which he brokered into power, as a return of an equal earlier favour.

My former boss and former leader of their women’s movement has also raised some important questions, but all these seem to fall on deaf ears. It is like water on a duck’s back.

My argument, as this column piece seeks to honour and remember my former teacher is, that Dumb Umno is now on a trip to Abilene; and not one of them will later tell their grandchildren they supported Dumno’s final collapse!

The insecurity syndrome

I call the latest bill in Parliament the Insecurity Bill. Dumno has tabled this bill and it truly and surely does reflect the psychological insecurity of the proposers. The so-called minister who tabled it is well-known in the Administration and Diplomatic Service (PTD) circles as a failure as one.

Therefore, I see faulty policy reasons and arguments for this bill. His entire governance experience is limited to the size of one small district in Pahang; although it was called a state.

The insecurity is evident because the root cause of the inability of our police and other enforcement agencies to instil security and safety of our geography is because of corruption at the heart and core of all government departments. The minister has failed to point this out as a root cause. Therefore my question is what kind of policy analysis did he do?

My first question to the minister is: what is the problem you are trying to address? Do you know the difference between security and insecurity and between symptoms and root causes? Please define the policy gap you are trying to address.

My second question is what are the potential causes you already identified and rejected? For example, Sir, in Intan Management 101, we teach people the Fish Bone Analysis. Did you do that? If so, what factors did you come out with as major root causes which explain Pareto 80 percent of the problem?

My third question Sir, will you agree to commission Merdeka Center to undertake a study of my root cause analysis and let us together identify each root cause and whether people agree that they are the ‘felt security or insecurity’ reasons?

Finally, did you really and seriously undertake a ‘content analysis’ of other existing laws and bylaws which already can prevent and address any such security threats?

You see, Sir, my alternative analysis and resultant hypothesis suggests that the proposed laws are based on the current insecurity of the Dumno leadership and has nothing or very little to do with the lack of laws or inability of the police and other enforcement agencies and their legal capacity for action to reduce insecurity.

Therefore Sir, I conclude that you are taking the cabinet on a trip to Abilene and in your hurry you have also invited the Members of Parliament and the Upper House to take the same trip. You see, Sir, I was taught, anything worth doing, is worth doing well.

Therefore, I give notice, Sir, that I will do everything in my capacity and within my control to get this bill kicked out of Parliament, and if I fail, to work to kick all MPs who elected in favour of this bill out of Parliament at the next general election. That is my fervent promise. I can only fail, but would have at least failed trying, which is better than agreeing with the insecurity thesis, which denies the dignity one. May God bless Malaysia.

(This column is dedicated to my professor and teacher, Jerry B Harvey, from whom I learnt a lot.)