Are we replacing management of people (which is difficult) by management of production units (which is easier)?

I was talking to someone I know (who will remain nameless) about the increasing bureaucratization of their job (which I won't specify) and it began to dawn on me that they experience similar problems to those that I have in my corner of the world, and it got me thinking - are we dumbing down the management of public services in particular to a point where we have lost control of the impact of the delivery of those services on those most affected by them?

When I started my career, at a point when the computerization of services was still a radical prospect, I was trained in the key aspects of my job in a classroom environment, alongside similar people, and was then encouraged to deliver those services, using my discretion to judge how best they could be delivered, with an element of sampling to check that the outcomes I was delivering were in accordance with a) the law (and we were pretty hot on that) and b) the quantity and timeliness of the delivery.

Yes, the quality of the management data wasn't very high, but what that meant was that, if you were a manager, you really needed to work closely with your staff to get the best out of them, passing on your experience, supporting them when you needed to, training them when new situations arose.

The main concern of central management was to make sure that you answered the post within a reasonable time and that all the required jobs got done. How that was managed was not so important, in that the outcome was what mattered.

Over time, that has changed, to the point where how things are done is more important than the outcome, and the importance of measurable results has become heightened. In short, a 'tick box' culture has taken over, with process mapping and standardized instructions replacing discretion and personalized risk assessing. As long as you have carried out the specified actions in the specified order at the appropriate time, the failure to achieve an outcome which might be defined as desirable is entirely excusable. The fact that, in doing so, you might have missed something otherwise obvious, or delivered a sub-optimal result, is therefore less of a personal problem than it should be - "I've done everything that I was supposed to do, so how can this be my fault?"

Individual contributors (and there's a depersonalized piece of management jargon that deserves putting down) quickly learn that a key part of their job is to document that they have carried out the specified actions in the specified manner and their process becomes almost mechanized. Fine when you're manufacturing widgets, perhaps not so good when you're a social worker, or any number of professional roles in the public sector dealing with vulnerable people.

So, why do this? Well, if you assume that the best of any cohort have highly developed informal systems to ensure that tasks get done, based on the experience gleaned over time, informal risk assessment and innate ability, you still have to deal with the rest. And the catch is that individualized management of people is difficult. They're all different, for one thing, with a spectrum of personalities, motivations, intellect and circumstances. So, it might be easier to design a process and make everyone do it the same. That way, you ensure that everyone should reach the same basic level of capability, thus protecting you from risk in the event that something goes wrong.

And, if you have a group of people who just aren't much good, this is easier than training them one on one, or disciplining them if they are genuinely irredeemable (and some people just aren't equipped to do the job they currently have). The problem is, the organisational scaffolding that supports your weakest links serves to constrain your high-flyers - they have to fill in the same forms, record the same activities, even if they do nothing to improve performance or enable greater output.

Worse still, by imposing such a straitjacket on your brightest and best, you tell them that, despite their apparent ability, you don't really trust them. You also deprofessionalize your people, because if all they're doing is following a process, they will know that virtually anyone can do that with enough practice.

The outcome? A public sector which loses the ability to apply discretion when it would achieve better outcomes than those resulting from a slavish adherence to process, a deskilling of those who deliver the services that grease the wheels of society and a steady deterioration of the human link between government and those it is supposed to serve.

You'll pardon me for saying this, but I can't help but feel that none of those outcomes are intended for delivery. But then again, I am a rather liberal bureaucrat... 

Thoughts from the Train - public versus private?

I spend quite a lot of time on trains, some of it entirely voluntarily. After all, I like trains. Berlin to Bratislava, Brussels to Copenhagen, Stuttgart to Zagreb are just three of the journeys I've made in recent years. And, when Ros was Party President, we spent a lot of time on trains. So, I do understand a bit about our railway system, and about how other ones work.

And, as my own local franchise is currently in the bidding phase, it is of keen interest to me how the system works.

So, as we're in that week, once a year, when fares go up and people grouse about it, the claim is that the best solution is to renationalise the whole system (as proposed by Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party), either piecemeal, by not renewing franchises when they expire, or as a 'big bang'. Frankly, the 'big bang' option is a financial absurdity, so it isn't worth serious consideration.

Curiously, I find myself in a position where I don't really care who runs the trains. What I care about is the level of service and affordability, not the label on the train. So, what are the pros and cons of the current system?

On the plus side, once a franchise is granted, government can't interfere too much. A contract to supply a certain level of services is agreed, and it is up to the train operating company to meet that requirement within the financial package offered at the time of the bid. If subsidy is needed and thought desirable, then the government provides it. If the service is expected to be profitable, then government receives a share of the expected profit. So far, so good. The operating company has an incentive to do better than that, either by attracting extra custom above and beyond that predicted in the initial tendering process, or by charging more.

The trick is getting the franchise agreement right, which tends to be where government falls down. When National Express walked away from the East Anglian franchise, having made a thoroughly awful job of it, they were able to do so on rather beneficial terms due to the weaknesses of the agreement. Frankly, I would have barred them from even bidding for a franchise for at least a decade, but then I haven't forgiven them for stealing my breakfast service...

On the down side, fares have gone up faster than inflation, primarily because government deliberately allowed them to, and capacity hasn't kept up with demand on a number of routes, partly because the train operating companies have to rent rolling stock, rather than own it themselves.

Railway historians will tell you that government ownership is not, in itself, a panacea. One of the things that caused British Rail to perform so badly was the fact that, in government hands, the temptation was to interfere, to cheesepare, to meddle in the proper running of a railway for reasons of politics rather than efficiency or demand. Throughout the fifties, sixties and seventies, our nationalised railway became something of a joke, one that was only really funny if you didn't have to use it. Politicians denied the railway the funds it needed to renew by restricting fare increases in the search for popularity whilst failing to provide alternative funds to allow investment in infrastructure, rolling stock and services.

It need not be so, and I'm sure that those who call for renationalisation have only the best of intentions. But government isn't generally very good at running things where the customer has a choice. We don't approve of paying the sort of salary to someone in the public sector that they could earn in the private one, thus we don't necessarily attract the best people. Innovation and responsiveness to customer demand tend to be sluggish as the various levels of decision-making have to be gone through. And, in truth, if you're going to cut budgets as this government is doing, the temptation to substitute public support with higher ticket prices is awfully tempting, especially if you've promised to ringfence other spending areas.

In my view, sensitive franchise agreements is the key. Incentivise the train operating companies to increase passenger numbers and split the resultant profits, link infrastructure investment to regional policy (assuming, of course, that you have one of those as opposed to a phrase to be repeated when you need to convince people that you care, even if you don't much). Next, allow local government or public bodies to bid for franchises too. If they can do it better, they should be allowed to. And, ultimately, Government shouldn't be afraid to run a franchise itself, if that is the best option.

And one other thing. The Government should be pushing for an opening up of the railway market across Europe. If State-run and controlled entities such as Nederlandse Spoorwagen (Abellio) or Deutsche Bahn (Arriva) can run trains here, we should be able to run services there on an equal basis. There should be a genuine market in providing passenger services, both national and international.

In the end though, sometimes, you just have to understand that running a service costs money, regardless of where that money comes from. In the case of the railways, it either comes from the State, or it comes from the customer. And, if it comes from the State, it comes from the taxpayer anyway, regardless of whether or not they use the service. The question is, how efficiently can you run it, and what are you willing to pay for?

Matthew Hancock calls upon the Civil Service to show some empathy. Does he understand the concept of irony?

Matthew Hancock MP

I am not a huge fan of Matthew Hancock, the MP for West Suffolk. He gives every impression of being lucky that George Osborne is his sponsor.

It is probably a sign of his closeness to George that he has become a Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, and it was in that capacity that he gave a speech to the Institute for Government on Monday, as part of a series entitled "Where next for Public Sector Markets?" (one might argue that the first problem is in the title).

In his speech, he set out three principles for harnessing ingenuity - empathy, curiosity and openness. So, let's see...

Empathy

Civil servants are expected to show empathy with those they serve. Frankly, most of the best public servants I have encountered show empathy in spades, But, when your pay is being cut year on year, your workload is increasingly process-driven and tickbox directed, and your colleagues increasingly noticeable by their absence whilst you chase targets seemingly designed to draw you away from the desired goals in pursuit of things that can be measured rather than outcomes, there is little reward for demonstrating such a personality facet.

Curiosity

I am indeed curious. My job requires me to be extremely curious, in a way that makes my customers somewhat nervous. Most Civil Service managers would probably like to be curious too, but given that they appear to spend most of their time gathering in, and reporting statistics that add little to the sum of human knowledge and distract them from the perhaps more useful task of enabling staff to achieve the desired outcomes, there is little time for that.

And, given that our overlords don't want too many questions to be asked - and I mean Government, not the mandarins - about the workings of government, it does seem that they offer us a contradiction.

Openness

I am intrigued that, whilst wanting the Civil Service to operate in an open and transparent manner, moves to limit the right of the public to pry into the workings of government through restrictions on freedom of information are being considered, courtesy of a packed committee tasked with looking into 'reforms'.

In truth, I'm relaxed about openness in government. It is, after all, your government, and if government is being done to you, you should at least understand why I'm doing it, as well as the context within which I am operating. I've always been happy to explain - it makes for a more honest relationship between governing and governed.

So, Matthew Hancock might be advised to go away and read the speech that, I suspect, someone else wrote for him. He might learn something about empathy, curiosity and openness, and how they might be best applied in seeking to reform public services.

I am not holding my breath though...

HMRC still not that good at answering the telephone, politician comes up with soundbite...

Shabana Mahmood, Labour's shadow
Exchequer Secretary

Yesterday, I touched upon Ed Balls and his proposals to cut the deficit to nil by the end of the next Parliament. He is, he claims, counting on his colleagues to come up with savings and reforms to make this possible.

At the same time, his colleagues are putting their best foot forward. Here's Shabana Mahmood, Labour's shadow Exchequer Secretary, responding to the news that HM Revenue & Customs have published disappointing data on waiting time for callers to its helplines;

At a time when people are paying more in tax and have seen their tax credits cut, it simply isn’t good enough.

Long waits and poor service are particularly frustrating when many people are facing difficult times for the personal finances.

Ministers need to get a grip on this chaos and ensure HMRC is providing a decent service for taxpayers. The government shouldn’t be leaving people hanging on the telephone.

Well, yes, she has a point. However, given that the long term trend, established under both recent administrations, has been to cut costs by 5% per annum, the inevitable loss of staff that has resulted does mean that choices have had to be made. What, might one reasonably ask, do politicians want of HMRC and how badly do they want it?

And, given that she might reasonably be expected to be the responsible minister in the event of a Labour victory, what does she propose to do about it? Would she;

a) employ more staff, or

b) simplify the tax system to reduce the number of calls from confused taxpayers, or

c) blame management, or;

d) nothing much.

And, you see, as a senior figure of a credible party of government, she needs to have a strategy for addressing the problem. Yesterday, Ed Balls appeared to be ruling out employing more staff, so that doesn't seem like a likely solution.

Simplifying the tax system is unlikely too - its very complexity, combined with the view that the tax system offers an avenue to change behaviours, makes that quite difficult. That leaves blaming management or nothing. Civil servants are dispensable, and politicians don't appear to like them very much, so I fear that she may be headed in that direction.

It's a pity, because there is an opportunity here to rethink the way a key public service is run and managed, and it is quite possible that Ms Mahmood has some ideas along that line. The problem is, if she's going to stick to the usual strategy of attacking something we all agree to be sub-optimal without offering possible solutions, we, the voters will just assume that she's just another politician.

Turning around something that Ros often says about Facebook, you can't change things by just saying that they're bad, you actually have to make choices. And you'd like to think that politicians would take a little more care before attacking the very people who raise the revenue that is spent on all of those things that said politicians want to take credit for...

Jeremy Hunt may need some better comparators for the NHS...

Reading my morning newspaper, I note that Jeremy Hunt is suggesting that the NHS must copy banks and budget airlines by using the internet to give a better service whilst cutting costs. And yes, there is no doubt that the internet does offer opportunities to increase efficiency and open up new possibilities for patients, but are banks and budget airlines really the sort of organisations that you'd want to see the NHS aspire towards?

One envisages a Ryanair-style website, where you start off with what looks like a simple transaction and then you find yourself confronted with a plethora of choices, do you want an anaesthetic for your surgery, or extra convalescence time, or clean surgical instruments, that sort of thing. Perhaps, taking a cue from the banks, you could be offered spare body parts that you don't need because you've already got one, and when you do try to use them, they tend not to be compatible with you.

And it is ironic that, as Jeremy makes his suggestion, elsewhere in my copy of The Times, there is news of a report from the Financial Ombudsman Service, noting that the number of complaints made to it about banks last year reached record numbers.

However, he makes a point which exposes a slight lack of understanding of how public services work, in that he notes that retail banks have cut a third of their costs by persuading us to do the work they used to do themselves. He is right, but he misses the point that, by doing so, the economic costs of transactions have not necessarily fallen, as the work, instead of being done by a trained professional, is being handled by an inexperienced, untrained amateur, who is likely to spend rather longer doing it.

I'm also not necessarily convinced that I have benefited financially from the arrangement either, as fees haven't fallen and senior employee salaries have increased.

So, yes, encourage the NHS and, for that matter, the rest of the public sector, to use the internet more intelligently by exploring new ways of operating by all means. But just don't forget that it's not the same as a retail transaction, in that most dealings with public services are seldom voluntary, and there's seldom a choice, because, ultimately, you're dealing with human beings with all of the irrationality and foibles that come with them...

Thoughts from the Train: is a loss of respect for public service fatal for the 'Big Society'?

I've been dwelling on the question of public service this weekend, and as someone who celebrated twenty-four years as a civil servant in the past week, mostly on the front line, I'm more prone than most to wonder about the morals and ethics of government and governance.

For a long time now, I've argued that government is there to enable as far as is reasonable whilst encouraging initiative and personal responsibility. In my day job, I try as far as possible to adhere to that philosophy, but it is made harder by the increasingly strained relationship between administration and the public.

You see, over the best part of a quarter century, I've had a front row seat as first deference and then respect have been eroded. The loss of deference was undoubtedly a good thing, as it encouraged that curiously British notion that the bureaucracy knew best. It didn't but, unchallenged, it tended to take the view that intervention was a good thing, and that public concern would go away if left for long enough. On the other hand, civil servants were generally well trained, supported by a hierarchy of management who knew more than the person below them in the food chain, and steeped in a ethos of public service as a contribution to civil society.

When I started at London North West Collection in October 1986, my senior manager still clung to a hierarchical model of management that reflected an almost military sense of order. Managers were referred to by their title and surname, duties were clearly delineated, and one knew one's place. There were books of manuals, defining what you would do in any given circumstance, and a proper training system.

Those whom we dealt with, referred to as taxpayers, knew the 'rules' too. They knew what our approach was, arguments were rare (although excuses for non-payment were anything but!), and there was an understanding that, whilst we weren't popular, we were doing a job that needed to be done. But as the years unfolded, the corrosive impact of market-based reforms, years of ideology-based abuse from senior politicians and the media, and a dismantling of the professional core of the civil service had an effect.

And now we are where we are. My colleagues struggle to handle callers, now referred to as customers, who believe that their interpretation of tax law is far superior to that of people paid to deal with tax professionally, even where they have actual knowledge. They believe that if they tell us something, with sufficient emphasis, we will quietly accept it, regardless of the prescriptions of legislation. Accountants, especially from the Big Four, increasingly seem to communicate on the basis that any junior member of our staff is stupid and feckless, and the idea that we might work post in the order that it reaches us is a notion that only applies to other people. It might depress me, if I let it. It does depress some of my colleagues...

As the devaluation of public service continues, cutting professional training, turning consistency into rigid process that does not reflect the individuality of circumstance, there is a price to be paid. The demand for performance data creates an army of public sector staff who count things rather than doing anything, adding to the cost of service delivery, frustrating those on the front line who, instead of acting, are reduced to justifying. The relationship between public and the public sector becomes more fractious, again increasing costs.

If we are serious about increasing community involvement in the delivery of public services, we have to rebuild that respect. If volunteers experience for themselves the low regard in which social workers, tax officials and railway staff (to name but three generally maligned groups) are held, their sense of altruism and community spirit might well be lost. If that happens to the extent where the voluntary sector is unable to function, forcing society to fall back on the 'man from the council/Government', we will all lose something potentially precious, the idea of a vibrant civil society, where people take part because it matters to them.

And with that will come the final triumph of the notion that there is no such thing as society, only men and women...