tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post2244858687891703562..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: We need a management revolutionJim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-14840841562363158262011-02-03T11:19:07.962+11:002011-02-03T11:19:07.962+11:00You may well be right, Winton, about the mandarins...You may well be right, Winton, about the mandarins. <br /><br />I remember how critical I was of Commonwealth Public Service "management" when I first joined. It actually ignited my interest in management as a discipline and sent me off on a reform path. Now, all these years later, I seek to unwind those things that I played a small role in bringing in! <br /><br />With management, there are no right and wrongs, simply things that work best at a point in time.Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-20062529272866398792011-02-03T09:59:43.925+11:002011-02-03T09:59:43.925+11:00I agree that all this managerialism is dreadful. B...I agree that all this managerialism is dreadful. But I would like to see what you are proposing to replace it with.<br /> <br />Perhaps we should bring back the Mandarin system and let the 'permanent heads' run things their way. The virtue of that system, as I remember it, was that for the most part people just got on with their work and often took professional pride in doing a good job. <br />Perhaps bring back 'permanent heads' would also help solve the problem of politicization of the public service.<br /><br />Making management of the public sector more simple and flexible and reducing administrative load seems to me to be a good objectives.Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-54903728334824965752011-02-03T08:41:36.042+11:002011-02-03T08:41:36.042+11:00Yes, Winton, I do generally favour incremental app...Yes, Winton, I do generally favour incremental approaches. Of itself, that's kind of revolutionary today! <br /><br />Focusing just on management and on the public sector, we need to make things simpler, more flexible, reducing administrative load. To this end I would abolish corporate plans for most Departments of state; abolish or greatly modify perfomance setting arrangments to reduce the current cascade lock-in; greatly restructure or even abolish the use of so-called key performance indicators; modify the way standards based approaches are used to bring them back to the original concept and in some cases abolish them entirely; increase delegation including delegation to the states; change people management approaches to reduce the time spent on administration. And that's just a start!Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-65732178490112866842011-02-03T06:57:36.317+11:002011-02-03T06:57:36.317+11:00Hi Jim
I was just wondering how revolutionary you ...Hi Jim<br />I was just wondering how revolutionary you might be these days. <br />The only public policy revolution that I can think of that might have been worth supporting at the time was the American Revolution. But my knowledge of history is limited.<br />In terms of public policy I expect both of us would tend to favour incremental changes that individually do not seem particularly revolutionary, but add up to something substantial over time.Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-62108909692439535302011-02-02T15:56:37.170+11:002011-02-02T15:56:37.170+11:00Not quite sure about the logic chain there, Winton...Not quite sure about the logic chain there, Winton! But then, maybe mine is off too. Certainly, I put different things together in my own muse.<br /><br />I have no doubt that Julia's heart is in the right place on this issue. I just doubt the outcomes.<br /><br />There are two quite separate if interconnected problems.<br /><br />The first is the way policy is formed. The second is the way organisations are managed. <br /><br />The two are connected because the idea sets, the way of looking at the world, that guide each, come from a common pool and are interconnected. <br /><br />Julia Gillard's attempts to solve underemployment sit in the area where the two overlap in terms of advice and administration. <br /><br />I accept that her heart is in the right place. It may be that she can drive something positive. I would love to think that she might. I just think that the dice are weighted against her.<br /><br />In an event, we will know quite quickly. In public policy, it's pretty easy to forecast what won't work and why. You just have to look at the likely dynamics.Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-59365280504965793372011-02-02T12:42:22.884+11:002011-02-02T12:42:22.884+11:00Hi Jim
The implication of what you are saying abou...Hi Jim<br />The implication of what you are saying about management seems to me to be that it is sometimes better for a failing firm to go out of business than to attempt a turn-around.<br />Then, following your references to our discussion of the welfare pedestal, I come to your rather pessimistic comments about the prospects of the PM's latest proposals being implemented. It seems to me to be a symptom of a failing firm when the CE makes pronouncements about future plans which actually lead nowhere. So, are you implying that the federal government should clean the slate and rebuild?<br />Don't worry, I'm just trying to be provocative. <br />(By the way, I actually have some respect for Julia Gillard's capacity to make things happen - and in this policy area I think she might actually have her heart more or less in the right place.)Winton Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07383561940886657594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-7294191136523943082011-02-02T10:11:16.394+11:002011-02-02T10:11:16.394+11:00Bless you, Lynne. You have perfectly captured one ...Bless you, Lynne. You have perfectly captured one element of the stuff I am talking about. It's just dumb!Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-72889155701593043802011-02-02T10:07:33.022+11:002011-02-02T10:07:33.022+11:00Jim, I have been looking for some studies on the i...Jim, I have been looking for some studies on the impact of the compulsory " volunteering " for over 55 year olds who are in receipt of Centrelink benefits. The client is required to 'volunteer' for 15 hours unpaid work a week. The Voluntary Organisations are restricted to Centrelink approved and do not include family activities such as care of grandchildren. Health doesn't seem to be taken into much consideration and nor does the expense of participating. The previous qualifications and achievements of the Client also seem to count for very little. <br /><br />I am also interested in the flow on effects to the organisations which are often flooded with unwilling or untrained " volunteers' and on positions which would once have provided paid employment. <br />I have seen the polished versions of why this is a good scheme and of how well it is working but have not really seen that in the reality of the unemployed over 55 year old. Yrs Lynne. <br />Once again , just another musing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11741603681438028575noreply@blogger.com