What is the true -- or best-value-for-money -- role for a political minister? With the recent stuff-up of insulation installations there were calls to sack the minister. With the blow-out of Perth Arena project costs, there are calls to direct blame at the minister. Who should really be made to carry the can for failed government projects?
email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
In Saturday's West (20 Mar 2010), Zoltan Kovacs continues the theme of blaming political ministers for the failings of their agencies:
"However, there is a powerful argument that if there were significant failings in the department, these were also the failings of any minister whose job it was to supervise it on behalf of the people. Otherwise, what is the point of having a minister with overriding authority?" (The peril of the buck that will never stop anywhere, The West, 20 Mar 2010)
At first glance, that makes sense. The minister runs the department, the department stuffs up, the minister should have prevented the stuff-up. But is that right?
Politicians -- including ministers -- come and go. They are not selected for their managerial ability, nor even for their knowledge of an agency's area of responsibility. A politician is elected as an indication of support for the policies of a political party. A politician may then be selected to be a minister but the selection pool contains only politicians -- none of whom have been elected on the basis of their ability to manage an agency.
How can we expect a politician to have the ability to manage a government department?!
A politician represents a party which has, or makes, policies. A minister has a department which is managed by career public servants. The minister should set policies and leave departmental management to the paid public servants. If departmental management -- or project management -- is stuffed up -- it is the public service management team which should carry the can.
Of course, that doesn't really work...
A minister sets policy; public servants implement policy. Public service promotion should be based on ability... If a departmental employee stuffs up then the public service promotion process is at fault.Yet when the minister interferes in the public service selection process -- by parachuting in their own political ally -- the minister is taking responsibility for the work of that ally. If the ministerially-appointed ally stuffs up, the minister is to blame. If a minister appoints an incompetent project manager then that minister should wear the blame.
The minister also has power. A departmental head may upset a minister; that minister may force a change. Is that true? After all -- we've all watched Yes, Minister and seen the public service ignore the minister... We also all know, that mud sticks. If you disagree with the minister, you will lose favour with all of your boot-licking fellow workers. More importantly, your disagreement will be noticed -- and remembered -- by managers. You will be identified as "an independent thinker", " a trouble-maker". Your promotional prospects will be reduced.
It is in the interests of every public servant, to be seen to agree with the minister.
With that sort of boot-licking mentality -- perhaps reinforced by an ignorant and short-tempered minister -- no-one wants to disagree. No-one wants to be the bearer of bad news. Worse yet: no-one wants to be associated with a "bad" decision.
If you are asked to make one hundred decisions, the odds are that at least one will lead to negative consequences. It is best to make no decisions at all. Pass all decisions to someone else. The easiest direction for decisions is up.If the public service wishes to protect all of its members -- every decision must be made by a minister.
So who is to blame for a bad decision? "Definitely not me..." "Not me..." "Not me, either." "My manager..." "My manager's manager..." "The minister agreed..." Aha! The minister "agreed".
Amongst the hundreds of decisions passed up to the minister, the minister failed to see what no-one else will admit to having seen, that this one particular decision could lead to a stuff-up. So sack the minister!
Here's a better answer
Be clear on the relative responsibilities of the minister and the public service. If there were "significant failings" in the department -- talk to the head of that department. Talk to the CEO. That person was selected for their alleged ability to manage a department. If they are incapable -- sack them.The minister has been elected to implement government policy. Let's look at an example:
The government policy is, to pay for houses to be insulated. (Policy? Tactic? Decision? Wish? Whatever...) This is what the minister says must be done: Pay to have houses insulated.
The role of the public service is, to make it happen. Is it not possible? Say so -- and explain why not. Too expensive? The minister may say, have some more money. Too expensive? The minister may say, restrict the number of houses. Too expensive? The minister may say, okay, don't do it.
If the minister is a total fool, they may simply say, Do it anyway. In which case, yes, the minister is responsible for subsequent stuff-ups.
In a competent world, the minister will set the direction. The public service will suggest limits and caveats. The minister will select a preferred compromise. After that, the public service will make it happen.
Should we expect the minister to say, Don't kill anyone? That should go without saying. Do we expect the minister to specifically say, Only pay people who have actually installed insulation? No, that should go without saying. Must the minister state clearly, in writing, Spend no more than the money that is allocated? Again, that goes without saying.
If the department has no person who understands the points which go without saying -- then they are not competent to manage the project. So hire someone! If a public service manager cannot recognise the limitations of their staff -- then employ more competent public service managers.
Employ public servants to do things. And let the minister take care of the policy.
What is the extent of the minister's authority?
Zoltan Kovacs writes, "what is the point of having a minister with overriding authority?"If the minister does have "overriding authority" -- does that mean that they can hire and fire, promote and demote? Those are the basic rewards and punishments available to a manager. If the minister can hire & fire, promote & demote -- then the only safe option for a public servant is to agree with the minister. Who will then have no time for "policy".
We must maintain the "independence" of the public service -- separate the powers of the minister and the public service. Allow the minister to set broad directions. Expect the public service to perform, competently.
If the policy is wrong -- blame the minister. If the implementation is wrong -- blame the public service.
A minister is elected on the basis of stated party policies. If the policy is wrong -- change the government at the next election. A public servant is selected on the basis of perceived competency. If the perception is wrong -- remove the incompetent public servant.
Give the minister authority to set policy. Give the public service authority to implement projects to support that policy.
Separate the authority, responsibility and duties. And when it all goes horribly wrong -- point the finger at the correct person.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment