ANU are claiming to have the answers to transforming the Public Service!
The ANU Crawford School, the University of Canberra and the University of New South Wales have joined forces with the Australian Public Service Commission in a new project which will strengthen staff performance.
Together they will develop a strategy to build a high performance culture, and better manage underperformance. The project will address some of the major findings of the Australian Public Service’s Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for Reform report released in 2010 by bringing together the expertise of the Australian Public Service and academics.
Associate Professor Janine O’Flynn from the ANU Crawford School will be one of three academics working to trial and recommend change to the public service staff performance model over the next three years.
“We know that a one-size fits all approach to performance management is not an effective model,” said Associate Professor Janine O’Flynn. “This collaboration will use management diagnostics to determine organisational capabilities then develop a model to provide best-fit frameworks.
“This is not about designing new forms to be filled out. What we need to do is work together with the Australian Public Service to discover what works, where, and when. This will help to drive a high performance culture in the Australian Public Service, and enable public sector organisations to deliver on the goals of government.”
We wish them the best of luck.
Loading ...
What’s Your opinion?
ANU to bring a high performance culture to the Public Service?
AG Canberra said :
“We’ll ask a few mates what they reckon they can do and then we’ll come up with a two-pager.”
“This collaboration will use management diagnostics to determine organisational capabilities then develop a model to provide best-fit frameworks.”
This whole sham is summed up in that line. What the f does that sentence actually mean?
Change the system as much as you like, its not going to change the fact that every manager I ever worked fro in the APS across 5 different agencies never addressed underperformance as there are no penalties to enforce. You practically cannot be fired for unperformance, and the professional bludgers (of which there are many) know this. Some throw up so much inteference the manager lets them sit there and takes on the work themselves or lets the other worker take up the slack. If a manager actually does want to address this, they have to spend a majority of their time monitoring this problem person/s constantly pushing them to just do their job, but I’ve never seen this happen, as it’s ‘too much work’. I’ve seen managers try through performance feedback sessions, but these are usually just a minor speedbump for these bludgers. What ends up happening is anyone decent in the team gets fed up picking up the slack or putting up with their crap, so it becomes a crappy area to work for and good workers are lost. I’ve seen this happen to so many areas, as there’s no repercussions and not incentive to work hard. When there’s no fear of being fired whatsoever, this leaves it open for people to abuse the system.
What utter crapola.
I work in a very capable private sector organisation. We’re very very good at what we do, and we have a reputation for getting the job done. A few weeks ago, one of my senior staff spent a couple of days dealing with some APS people. The major conclusion she drew from this activity was that she would never, ever wish to work in the APS.
And tonight I had dinner with a recently retired EL2 who mentioned in passing that “There are good departmental secretaries, but there are a lot who shout at their staff, and some even throw things. There’s no comeback, so they keep doing it”.
My wife works in the APS, and she’s been on the end of bullying and abuse.
My brother and his wife have both been driven to nervous breakdowns as a result of long and distinguished careers in the APS. My sister suffered mental illness as a result of working as a senior APS officer, and had to quit to save her sanity.
A hugely capable and experienced engineer of my acquaintance joined the APS and found himself employed in a warehouse counting stock items. His APS career lasted around 3 weeks.
I also had an appalling but luckily brief experience in the APS myself many years ago.
Given these stories, and all the others I’ve heard over the last 30 years in Canberra, I assess the whole operation (ie the APS) as a dysfunctional goatf*ck, and applying a load of academic bafflegab and bloviation to the copulating goats isn’t going to make a bit of difference.
Well after reading that Crawford School was crowing in the media during March about the fact that they’d trained 13 of the senior managers involved in the Fukushima meltdown, I really worry about what this means for the APS:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/praise-for-anu-trainees/story-fn84naht-1226024314148
NoImRight said :
Is a first hand account hard core enough?
A few years ago, I assisted my manager in moving a person who they no longer desired to be in the section. A position was identifed elsewhere in the organisation where it was felt they would be more appropriately employed (in other words, the EL1 and EL2 I reported to didn’t like the ELs in that team very much), and I assisted the applicant in writing their EOI. I also penned a glowing referees report for them, at the direction of my manager.
Was it the right thing to do? No, it wasn’t. It was one of the things that left me somewhat disprited about serving in that organisation.
I once heard that Google only employs the top people and they are very careful to keep everyone else out.
The theory goes that lower grade people feel threatened by successful people. The see high performers as a threat and obstruct them. Then they hire other low grade people.
I guess in the you could say there are a lot of low grade people in the public service who resist improvement.
gospeedygo said :
What do you mean? This makes perfect, straightforward, sense and is bound to sort things out:
“This collaboration will use management diagnostics to determine organisational capabilities then develop a model to provide best-fit frameworks.”
Hahahaha! Jargon gold! 🙂
And the citizens of Lower Gurlargambone did rejoice, for they would benefit mightily.
HenryBG said :
Well with hard core evidence and detail like that who could argue. Lots of urban legends around the PS. It surely would be a first on the internet for someone to justify their ill founded views with a “one time at bandcamp” approach.
NoImRight said :
A good sweeping generalisation is one which reflects a general truth.
In this case, the “sweeping generalisations” were pretty good ones.
How do you get rid of somebody who is incapable in the Public Service? There’s only one way – put them up for promotion (to somebody else’s team/department) and give them a glowing reference. Thus the problem snowballs as the most incapable rise to the top the fastest. And these are people who just cannot be employed in the private sector so the APS is stuck with them for life.
I bet even they don’t know what hell they’re talking about.
devils_advocate said :
I see what you are saying and agree in part but making sweeping generalisations about why people join or leave the PS doesnt really help to provide answers. Even in private enterprise large companies suffer the same issues. Its not solely because its PS.
I totally agree this will be as useless as all the similar projects in the past.
The irony is, building a high performance culture and managing underperformance are the two main things the APS could do to make massive improvements – but nobody has the guts to do it.
RE: Managing underperformance, it is virtually impossible to get fired in the APS unless you actually engage in some serious misconduct, ie view innappropriate material on internet, misappropriate money etc. However, in the private sector, the meaning of underperformance is just that – not performing to the required level. So this might include not meeting deadlines, not bringing in clients, etc etc. In the private sector people can and do get fired for simply not doing a good enough job.
This in turn creates an adverse selection problem for the APS – the type of people who are attracted by “job security” are those who value the fact that no matter how incompetent they are, it’s near impossible to be fired. Changing the procedures for firing people in the APS would cure about 80 per cent of the problem.
The other problem is not retaining good staff. I attribute this problem to the fact that, despite its claims, the APS is not merit based, it is tenure based. Being capable is a neccessary but not sufficient condition for promotion – you have to have been in the seat long enough and ‘done your time’. It’s ridiculous. Again, because the private sector selects based on capability, there is an adverse selection process – the good people go to the private sector and flourish, the detritus remain and ‘do their time’ because they have no better option. Start promoting based on merit – rather than just paying lip service to the merit principle – and I reckon that would solve the remaining 20 per cent.
“The project will address some of the major findings of the Australian Public Service’s Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for Reform report released in 2010 by bringing together the expertise of the Australian Public Service and academics.”
Wow, bringing together public servants AND academics! That’s gotta be the most productive group ever!! Hahahaha!