The future success of the Irish economy is dependent on attracting foreign direct investment, and manufacturing and selling our products on international markets in the face of stiff international competition.
While our success to date in attracting and retaining foreign manufacturing companies is a matter of record, our public services have not kept pace with the trends in ‘leadership’, ‘adaptability’ and ‘flexibility’ required to survive in these sectors. There are, of course, examples of excellence in some areas – the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social Protection and the Public Appointments Service for their innovation, Mayo, Fingal and Meath County Councils for best national practice in certain work areas, Temple Street Hospital for its consistent showing in the best companies to work for survey, but the concern is that there are not more and that the system does not have the capacity to replicate best practice when it is identified within the system.
Recent reports on our system of public administration suggest that alongside examples of excellence there are practices which could be classified as ‘sheltered’, proven over recent years to be incapable of changing or adapting fast enough to stay up with the best practice required.
While we can look to other systems of public administration within the OECD and say we compare well we must ask if this is good enough. In fact the IPA’s most recent report on Public Sector Trends would suggest that our public service is average compared to other OECD countries. Who could be satisfied with being average when it is possible to be excellent?
Obviously, we cannot have two sub economies – the ‘international economy’ and ‘the public service’ economy, operating to different standards and practices. The challenge is how can we bring the best managerial, governance and technological experiences of our ‘international economy’ to bear on our ‘public service’ economy? The Public Service Reform Plan announced by Minister Howlin sets out some actions to deal with the problem.
The plan is impressive and includes some useful new ideas. The proposed examination of grading structures across the system, for example is new, radical and necessary. It also includes ideas to address some of the failings identified from other reform initiatives – for example it provides for cabinet support and monitoring , it includes specific actions with timelines, it identifies individuals for reporting progress and it has a central change office.
One of the main failing in other change initiatives has been a lack of capacity within the system to implement change. This is evident from change initiatives like the performance management and development system which when introduced in three sectors of the public service – civil service, local government and the health service surfaced key deficits in leadership and management skills. The skills gaps which have been identified more generally are: a lack of rigour in policy formulation and evaluation, limited joined up thinking on cross-cutting issues and poor accountability systems. Recent reviews of Government Departments have identified leadership skills, dealing with underperformance and improving productivity as the key skills deficits.
We have evidence therefore that the system is poor at implementing change because of a lack of capability in certain key areas. John Kotter a Harvard Business School professor who has studied dozens of organizations in the midst of upheaval pointed out that “the central issue is never strategy, structure, culture or systems. The core of the matter is always about changing the behaviour of people.” This is echoed by the OECD report of 2008 which states that change is about working ouside institutional boundaries and it recommended the establishment of networks on the lines of the National Children’s Office to achieve this.
The proposals in the Plan to deal with capacity issues are surprisingly very light. For example one of the actions is to ”support HR units in strengthening management capacity in Departments” and another is to provide appropriate training and coaching to members of the Senior Public Service. Given current budgetary constraints and the practical disappearance of the Civil Service Training and Development Centre the plan is silent on how these minimal initiatives are to be funded and delivered. The requirements to develop staff “changing the behaviour of people’ require much more serious attention. The possibility of establishing a leadership pipeline using the whole of the public service as the “pool” should be considered, work needs to be done on how to place value on leadership competencies as opposed to valuing individual contribution, the changes required in the behaviour of people need to be much more clearly articulated and systems introduced to monitor and assess progress.
Some other ideas and questions which could be usefully considered as the plan is being implemented are:
1) When to extend the membership of the Senior Public Service and who is to be responsible for its management need to be considered. A role for the Public Appointments Service in this area should be considered and its strength in the network of public sector human resources managers should be used in the development of strategic human resource policies.
2) The recommendations of the OECD on new ways of working by introducing a more networked approach to avoid “silos” need to be used in the implemented of the Plan
3) Consideration should be given to including on the Management Board of each Government Department both internal and external members, in keeping with best corporate governance practice applying to boards, representing best public sector as well as private sector practice. This is hinted at in the Programme for Government but has not been followed through.
Another issue for consideration is whether the deliberations of Management Boards should be opened to greater public scrutiny. Should all public service managers be required to demonstrate ongoing ‘fitness to practice’ annually, demonstrating and delivering certain key reforms? Compare the onus on a senior public servant to commit to ‘ongoing personal development’ with the obligations on an accountant or solicitor or a doctor.
How will leaders across the public service who are not delivering fast be brought to account? What are the consequences for them?
Those responsible for public sector reform initiatives have been likened to Sisyphus a figure in Greek mythology who was condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain only to see it roll down again. The boulder will only go over the mountain if there are binding commitments to the future – like the pact of Odysseus with his men in overcoming the power of the Sirens.
Declan Kearney, General Manager Declan Kearney Consulting and member of the Public Policy Advisors Network
