This is too big a subject for typing really, especially on a Saturday afternoon after two games of rugby, however….
>>Quinqueniall
Why use that word? I know what it means, but not everybody will. And even those that do will not easily manage it in conversation. Why not say "5 year"? I have my own, possibly uncharitable, view.
>> To me, as somebody who's been through the process as an incumbent relatively junior
>> staff member it looks a bit harsh and/or over cynical.
I was absolutely driven to force myself to the top exactly because I thought the people there t the time were incompetent with no understanding. I was determine dot get there and do it properly.
It is not cynical. It is pretty much never cynical To be cynical is not to be objective. And beyond all else one needs to be objective. In my experience the people most likely to throw accusations of cynicism are those who are trying to protect their own position and whose excuses are challenged.
>> In 1999 I was a 'coal face worker' (there's a phrase you need to explain
>> to youngsters)
Then don't use it.
>>doing a form of casework that felt like a vocation.
Again, in my experience saying it's a vocation is usually, though not always, an excuse for doing it inefficiently.
>> review (QQR) many felt was a set up and a mauling from the National Audit
>> Office Minsters decided something must be done.
This is the price of different goals.
I am sure that your goal was to do the best you could by your customers. No doubt the goal of your reviewers/auditors was to spend less money. Those two things are incompatible. One of many reasons why this is easier in the commercial world.
e.g. may times I have heard politicians say they want an efficient Police Force. I don't, I want an effective Police Force. All too often that difference matters.
>>A Change Director was appointed...………………..
It is all a disaster from here on in. There is no agreement on goals, philosophy, strategy etc. etc. A force comes in determined to spend less money and meets a force which is determined to maintain their current approach which they believe to be customer focussed. Both are fundamentally wrong.
>> As I'm sure Mark will acknowledge responses to a change like that are a bit
>> like grief or perhaps a terminal diagnosis.
It is certainly shocking. Mostly because it is managed badly.
It is rare, perhaps unknown, that any organisation is crap because it's workforce is crap. It is almost [perhaps actually] always because it's management is s***.
Making changes in your workforce without making changes in your management is simply an utter waste of time.
Without going through it in detail there is much truth in the rest of what you say. But fundamentally it comes back to the fact that the goals of the workforce and the goals of the management are incompatible and neither understand the other, or is willing to try.
Compounded by the fact that most consultants are awful. Truly awful. All they do is come in and spend a fortune coming up with an idea that they know the management will like. It is a rare consultant that will tell management the truth. Though they do exist.
No disrespect to the rest of your post, much of which I agree with, but the fundamental problems lie above.
And protection of the clique will not help, it just makes it more harmful.
But honestly, if you get someone like me in, who has no ulterior motive, no need of a career, not preconceived ideas but does have clearly understood goals, then you are far, far better to work with them.
Because if it comes to a bun fight, management and consultants rarely lose in the short term.
|
