Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?

andyrm

Asprilla wrote:

Just because things can be measured doesn't mean they should (speaking as a six sigma black belt; the epitomie of process measurement). One of the biggest critisisms is of the NHS in particular is that frontline staff spend more time completeing reports than they shuld and that meeting targets is placed above primary care.

I've worked in private sector jobs where bonuses were target based. The targets were easily met providing you didn't care about quality. Quess what?

That's why performance monitoring and reporting should be done by someone other than the person doing the task being measured. A (as we have seen in the NHS): people will invent ways of skewing their data and B: the reporting detracts from the task being undertaken.

My revenue targets and resultant commissions are not only revenue linked (ie Gross Margin) but are actually linked to Net Margin, in other words the overall profitability of the project, meaning that it’s in my interest to ensure quality is spot on and there are no client issues that result in extra costs. Anyone building in a performance based bonus/remuneration package should always include quality caveats to prevent shortcuts.

cee

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

cee wrote:

surely the octopus would just have to turn the shark upside down...thus putting it into a tonic immobility state.....

then it could get jiggy with its beak......wait...octopuses do have beaks right??

Oh, for goodness sake! Do try to keep up at the back!

TWH made it clear several pages ago that the turning upside down trick doesn't work on great whites.

Tsk, tsk...

TSK + 1

But yes they have beaks.

ahem.

wikipedia wrote:

In an interesting eye witness case in 1997 around the Farallon Islands off the coast of California, a female orca was seen purposely inducing tonic immobility in a great white shark. The orca held the shark upside down to induce the tonic immobility, and kept the shark still for fifteen minutes, causing it to suffocate to death. This was the first recorded eye witness case of predation on a great white shark in the wild by a species other than humans

So although scientists have said great whites are not as responsive as other sharks...they can still be put in a tonic state....

methinks that there was some amatuerish tonic immobility research done previously.

Clever Pun

just saying

simonaspinall

This thread couldn't be more random

asprilla

andyrm wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Just because things can be measured doesn't mean they should (speaking as a six sigma black belt; the epitomie of process measurement). One of the biggest critisisms is of the NHS in particular is that frontline staff spend more time completeing reports than they shuld and that meeting targets is placed above primary care.

I've worked in private sector jobs where bonuses were target based. The targets were easily met providing you didn't care about quality. Quess what?

That's why performance monitoring and reporting should be done by someone other than the person doing the task being measured. A (as we have seen in the NHS): people will invent ways of skewing their data and B: the reporting detracts from the task being undertaken.

My revenue targets and resultant commissions are not only revenue linked (ie Gross Margin) but are actually linked to Net Margin, in other words the overall profitability of the project, meaning that it’s in my interest to ensure quality is spot on and there are no client issues that result in extra costs. Anyone building in a performance based bonus/remuneration package should always include quality caveats to prevent shortcuts.

So you'd need additional management layers in order to set and monitor targets. It's these additional layers and the skewing of patient care by targets that has been the subject of much crtisism of public services and has often been decried as an area of great waste.

Measuring quatity is easy, unfortunately many of these services are about quality and that is substantially harder. Improving the quality of parient care will not improve profitability and will actually increase cost so linking one to the other, as you suggest will have a detrimental effect surely.

greg66_tri_v2.0

cee wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

cee wrote:

surely the octopus would just have to turn the shark upside down...thus putting it into a tonic immobility state.....

then it could get jiggy with its beak......wait...octopuses do have beaks right??

Oh, for goodness sake! Do try to keep up at the back!

TWH made it clear several pages ago that the turning upside down trick doesn't work on great whites.

Tsk, tsk...

TSK + 1

But yes they have beaks.

ahem.

wikipedia wrote:

In an interesting eye witness case in 1997 around the Farallon Islands off the coast of California, a female orca was seen purposely inducing tonic immobility in a great white shark. The orca held the shark upside down to induce the tonic immobility, and kept the shark still for fifteen minutes, causing it to suffocate to death. This was the first recorded eye witness case of predation on a great white shark in the wild by a species other than humans

So although scientists have said great whites are not as responsive as other sharks...they can still be put in a tonic state....

methinks that there was some amatuerish tonic immobility research done previously.

Bloody TWH! Unreliable fecker, he is!

simonaspinall

Asprilla wrote:

andyrm wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Just because things can be measured doesn't mean they should (speaking as a six sigma black belt; the epitomie of process measurement). One of the biggest critisisms is of the NHS in particular is that frontline staff spend more time completeing reports than they shuld and that meeting targets is placed above primary care.

I've worked in private sector jobs where bonuses were target based. The targets were easily met providing you didn't care about quality. Quess what?

That's why performance monitoring and reporting should be done by someone other than the person doing the task being measured. A (as we have seen in the NHS): people will invent ways of skewing their data and B: the reporting detracts from the task being undertaken.

My revenue targets and resultant commissions are not only revenue linked (ie Gross Margin) but are actually linked to Net Margin, in other words the overall profitability of the project, meaning that it’s in my interest to ensure quality is spot on and there are no client issues that result in extra costs. Anyone building in a performance based bonus/remuneration package should always include quality caveats to prevent shortcuts.

So you'd need additional management layers in order to set and monitor targets. It's these additional layers and the skewing of patient care by targets that has been the subject of much crtisism of public services and has often been decried as an area of great waste.

Measuring quatity is easy, unfortunately many of these services are about quality and that is substantially harder. Improving the quality of parient care will not improve profitability and will actually increase cost so linking one to the other, as you suggest will have a detrimental effect surely.

So is the best way simplfication of the management structure? - Having a direct line manager like in the private sector who holds you to account? That and the three strikes and you're out dismissal as well as performance related reward, not necessarily financial, but if you've done a good quality job in less time than allocated you get errr the rest of the day off, the achievement put down on your record, that sort of thing.

MonkeyMonster

simonaspinall wrote:

This thread couldn't be more random

You say that but...

gtvlusso

MonkeyMonster wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

This thread couldn't be more random

You say that but...

He said random - not silly.

cee

Clever Pun wrote:

just saying

aint no way kimbo would beat a great white shark....

considering he was TKO'd by both Roy Nelson and Matt Mitrione

MonkeyMonster

Its a divergent tangent both random and silly...

Tbh it wasn't random at all. We had two topics spiralling around each other. Private v Public organisations and superhero/beast battles.

simonaspinall

Maybe one is a metaphor of the other

andyrm

simonaspinall wrote:

So is the best way simplfication of the management structure? - Having a direct line manager like in the private sector who holds you to account? That and the three strikes and you're out dismissal as well as performance related reward, not necessarily financial, but if you've done a good quality job in less time than allocated you get errr the rest of the day off, the achievement put down on your record, that sort of thing.

Sounds sensible to me.

Clever Pun

cee wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

just saying

aint no way kimbo would beat a great white shark....

considering he was TKO'd by both Roy Nelson and Matt Mitrione

yeah Kimbo is rubbish, signed on the strength of you tube clips

DonDaddyD

andyrm wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

So is the best way simplfication of the management structure? - Having a direct line manager like in the private sector who holds you to account? That and the three strikes and you're out dismissal as well as performance related reward, not necessarily financial, but if you've done a good quality job in less time than allocated you get errr the rest of the day off, the achievement put down on your record, that sort of thing.

Sounds sensible to me.

Does sound sensible.

In some jobs where you are basically saving a life or improving the quality of someones life, its hard to provide a reward that reflects the effort put in.

Three strikes, is similar to performance management and performance based reviews that assess not only the work being done, but also the competency and skills needed.

I do believe that managers aren't without fault and some staff who are capable simply aren't due to not being managed properly. This itself could be a result that the manager is more concerned about meeting their targets and don't see developing/training staff as part of or if fact helping to meet their targets.

But then we go down the road we are already at.

I was taught that investing and developing people is key to ensuring that quality is continually delivered and improved. It is not always a quantifiable or visible target when hard numbers rule. There are managers who have lost sight of that and crumbled under the pressure of meeting cold numerical targets.

Aspects of the NHS (at least) needs a culture change.

simonaspinall

DonDaddyD wrote:

andyrm wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

So is the best way simplfication of the management structure? - Having a direct line manager like in the private sector who holds you to account? That and the three strikes and you're out dismissal as well as performance related reward, not necessarily financial, but if you've done a good quality job in less time than allocated you get errr the rest of the day off, the achievement put down on your record, that sort of thing.

Sounds sensible to me.

Does sound sensible.

In some jobs where you are basically saving a life or improving the quality of someones life, its hard to provide a reward that reflects the effort put in.

Three strikes, is similar to performance management and performance based reviews that assess not only the work being done, but also the competency and skills needed.

I do believe that managers aren't without fault and some staff who are capable simply aren't due to not being managed properly. This itself could be a result that the manager is more concerned about meeting their targets and don't see developing/training staff as part of or if fact helping to meet their targets.

But then we go down the road we are already at.

I was taught that investing and developing people is key to ensuring that quality is continually delivered and improved. It is not always a quantifiable or visible target when hard numbers rule. There are managers who have lost sight of that and crumbled under the pressure of meeting cold numerical targets.

Aspects of the NHS (at least) needs a culture change.

Good points.

So how do you implement a culture change? It takes time. You need the leadership aspect as mentioned earlier to take what is the NHS where it is now to a new vision - A clearly defined vision based on principles with the simplest structure possible and good leaders who are prepared to marshall the team, instill confidence and to inspire.

This is where ministers need to be accountable - they are the sort of people who should be doing this, however when you hear the term "5 year plan" or similar you start to worry as everyone is either replaced, has moved or their is a new short-term political gain which takes place before the whole cycle starts again.

My vote - Digby-Jones for Manager of the Health service. There'd be some teacups across the boardroom, but at least things would start to move in the right direction.

I know it's not completely representative as it's an edited programme but when Gerry Robinson went into the NHS he went through one hospital with a toothcomb and found all sorts of problems - A lot of great stuff too, but so little leadership.

The one question that couldn't be answered was - Who's in charge of the hospital? There were about 20 different responses so there was no head of the organisation setting the direction, setting out a plan, holding people to account, keeping people in line, praising when necessary, noone walking the floor asking 'why is x like that', 'why are you doing that?' etc.

Quality leadership is the fundamental aspect to a successful organisation. Unions have been successful because they have a figurehead such as Bob Crow and they feel confident to have him there - What the public sector needs is a classic head teacher old skool figure who has power and accountability and the authority to discipline, fire, hire and manage his own budget. In other words, more localism.

simonaspinall

Just another example - I'm not sure if you watched the programme last night on a mixed gender class being seperated into seperate boys/girls sessions to see if certain practices aimed at certain gender groups make a difference to their behaviour and performance. I think it was with the guy who did some sort of choir thing on the BBC a while back.

The boys showed real improvement with the teacher taking them outside, doing practical and energetic learning techniques - really impressive stuff - Taking a look at an environment, learning objectives, pupil development and coming up with a cracking solution - It also worked for the girls too.

This was great out of the box thinking by an outsider coming into an organisation.

When the new teacher went to get feedback on how the classes were when the genders were combines they reported the boys weren't behaving - Arguing they had spent all year trying to get them to improve and this teacher was sending their behaviour backwards. This may be true, but they did not consider the wider picture that what the regular teacher had been doing all year might have been ineffective and forcing all the children into the environment they had been learning in might have been wrong.

Instead they just sort to place blame on him rather than thinking "Oooh he's made progress with him where I haven't. Maybe I should take a look at my teaching and incorporate this". But no.

This programme wasn't trying to highlight the inefficiencies of the school, but rather how to treat pupils appropriately and recognise that boys don't necessarily fit into the education system as girls do and they underachieve because their socialisation and psychology is different.

The choir guy/teacher person took an innovative approach with a kind of scout/1950s public school style and the regular teachers at this school just couldn't handle that degree of change - You could clearly see it on their faces.

Sums it up perfectly

Paulie W

simonaspinall wrote:

Just another example - I'm not sure if you watched the programme last night on a mixed gender class being seperated into seperate boys/girls sessions to see if certain practices aimed at certain gender groups make a difference to their behaviour and performance. I think it was with the guy who did some sort of choir thing on the BBC a while back.

The boys showed real improvement with the teacher taking them outside, doing practical and energetic learning techniques - really impressive stuff - Taking a look at an environment, learning objectives, pupil development and coming up with a cracking solution - It also worked for the girls too.

This was great out of the box thinking by an outsider coming into an organisation.

When the new teacher went to get feedback on how the classes were when the genders were combines they reported the boys weren't behaving - Arguing they had spent all year trying to get them to improve and this teacher was sending their behaviour backwards. This may be true, but they did not consider the wider picture that what the regular teacher had been doing all year might have been ineffective and forcing all the children into the environment they had been learning in might have been wrong.

Instead they just sort to place blame on him rather than thinking "Oooh he's made progress with him where I haven't. Maybe I should take a look at my teaching and incorporate this". But no.

This programme wasn't trying to highlight the inefficiencies of the school, but rather how to treat pupils appropriately and recognise that boys don't necessarily fit into the education system as girls do and they underachieve because their socialisation and psychology is different.

The choir guy/teacher person took an innovative approach with a kind of scout/1950s public school style and the regular teachers at this school just couldn't handle that degree of change - You could clearly see it on their faces.

Sums it up perfectly

As you pointed out, a good deal of what he did was actually based around long established educational approaches. Partly they went out of fashion as society changed but partly they were judged not to work.

It may be as you've said that these teachers were reluctant to embrace change or it could be that they felt this was a short term experiment the long term outcomes of which were far from clear or it could be that they had a much broader awareness than was apparent from the programme about different learning and teaching styles and of the questions that surround this kind of approach.

What your post reflects to me is rife in this thread: a generalised, partially informed characterisation of huge swathes of the working pratices and attitudes of those in the public sector.

simonaspinall

Paulie W wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Just another example - I'm not sure if you watched the programme last night on a mixed gender class being seperated into seperate boys/girls sessions to see if certain practices aimed at certain gender groups make a difference to their behaviour and performance. I think it was with the guy who did some sort of choir thing on the BBC a while back.

The boys showed real improvement with the teacher taking them outside, doing practical and energetic learning techniques - really impressive stuff - Taking a look at an environment, learning objectives, pupil development and coming up with a cracking solution - It also worked for the girls too.

This was great out of the box thinking by an outsider coming into an organisation.

When the new teacher went to get feedback on how the classes were when the genders were combines they reported the boys weren't behaving - Arguing they had spent all year trying to get them to improve and this teacher was sending their behaviour backwards. This may be true, but they did not consider the wider picture that what the regular teacher had been doing all year might have been ineffective and forcing all the children into the environment they had been learning in might have been wrong.

Instead they just sort to place blame on him rather than thinking "Oooh he's made progress with him where I haven't. Maybe I should take a look at my teaching and incorporate this". But no.

This programme wasn't trying to highlight the inefficiencies of the school, but rather how to treat pupils appropriately and recognise that boys don't necessarily fit into the education system as girls do and they underachieve because their socialisation and psychology is different.

The choir guy/teacher person took an innovative approach with a kind of scout/1950s public school style and the regular teachers at this school just couldn't handle that degree of change - You could clearly see it on their faces.

Sums it up perfectly

As you pointed out, a good deal of what he did was actually based around long established educational approaches. Partly they went out of fashion as society changed but partly they were judged not to work.

It may be as you've said that these teachers were reluctant to embrace change or it could be that they felt this was a short term experiment the long term outcomes of which were far from clear or it could be that they had a much broader awareness than was apparent from the programme about different learning and teaching styles and of the questions that surround this kind of approach.

What your post reflects to me is rife in this thread: a generalised, partially informed characterisation of huge swathes of the working pratices and attitudes of those in the public sector.

What we see is results - The poorly laid road, the frustrating appointment booking system at a doctor's surgery, unions threatening strikes, incredibly stressed out pupils doing exams, poorly implemented HMRC computer systems, local councils spying on parents trying to get their child into a good school....

Yes there are assumptions, lots of smoke and lots of fire.

rolf_f

andyrm wrote:

If I got into power (which doubtless the trade unionists would never allow!!) one of the first things I would implement would be performance monitoring at every level in the public service, with pay commensurate to KPIs rather than bands that only serve to create laziness and demarcation of roles.

KPIs - rofl...... You'd fit into Public Sector management perfectly

Paulie W

Genuine question - what is the public sector?

simonaspinall

Paulie W wrote:

Genuine question - what is the public sector?

State owned and run organisations which specialising in services for the good of the public and which the public need.

asprilla

Paulie W wrote:

Genuine question - what is the public sector?

That which is paid for by the public purse; the state.

andyrm

Rolf F wrote:

andyrm wrote:

If I got into power (which doubtless the trade unionists would never allow!!) one of the first things I would implement would be performance monitoring at every level in the public service, with pay commensurate to KPIs rather than bands that only serve to create laziness and demarcation of roles.

KPIs - rofl...... You'd fit into Public Sector management perfectly

Oh god!!! That's a scary thought! In all seriousness, I doubt my capitalist, results driven, give 150% at all times approach would be at all well received in any part of the public sector......and if I made it, no doubt there would be some wannabe strikers ready to drop a lump of concrete on me just like those miners did to a strike buster!!!

Just got my weekly email through from the Napoleon Hill Foundation (which every professional should look into) and interestingly, there was a very apt quote for all those who are moaning about cutbacks/efficiency savings etc:

"Do not expect something for nothing. Be willing to give an equivalent value for all that you desire, and include in your plans a definite provision for doing so" – Napoleon Hill

W1

simonaspinall wrote:

What we see is results - The poorly laid road, the frustrating appointment booking system at a doctor's surgery, unions threatening strikes, incredibly stressed out pupils doing exams, poorly implemented HMRC computer systems, local councils spying on parents trying to get their child into a good school....

Yes there are assumptions, lots of smoke and lots of fire.

Spot on. You don't need to understand anything about how the public sector operates to know that when you pay x in tax and receive y in service whether or not that is "value" or not. When you add to that numerous examples of inefficiency or government waste (both in the media and through anecdotal evidence) it's perfectly legitimate to form an opinion.

andyrm

We've had an awful lot of rebuttal from various quarters in this discussion, but so far not one explanation as to why the public sector is so full of unmotivated and change resistant people. Yes they are about to face a tough time, but we've had the same in the private sector for quite some time and still get on with things and actually fight to survive.

Any takers?

asprilla

andyrm wrote:

Just got my weekly email through from the Napoleon Hill Foundation (which every professional should look into)

Dale Carnegie has a lot to answer for.

andyrm wrote:

We've had an awful lot of rebuttal from various quarters in this discussion, but so far not one explanation as to why the public sector is so full of unmotivated and change resistant people. Yes they are about to face a tough time, but we've had the same in the private sector for quite some time and still get on with things and actually fight to survive.

Any takers?

Cultural persistance. It's the way the organisation is and so anyone joining it sooner or later becomes of the same opinion. Given that every 5 years some one attempts to 'reshape the future' of these organisations without every seeing the job though (it's too large and by the time the job is halfway there the government, economy or public opinion has changed) and so the members see regular half hearted attempts that don't produce results.

Its a spiral of decline.

simonaspinall

andyrm wrote:

We've had an awful lot of rebuttal from various quarters in this discussion, but so far not one explanation as to why the public sector is so full of unmotivated and change resistant people. Yes they are about to face a tough time, but we've had the same in the private sector for quite some time and still get on with things and actually fight to survive.

Any takers?

A complete disconnection from doing anything better and the point in doing it?

Change fatigue

Cynicism of 'management'

Constant batterings from the press

Pessimitistic view of the future

Those who went from education straight into public sector work and constantly had the same crushing structure overhead?

No competition for their services so no drive to improve or go out of business - There's always the comfort blanket of a budget next year

Private businesses have consumers who can take their purchase elsewhere, public sector provides and allocates services and the consumer has to put up or shut up - So why try harder?

andyrm

simonaspinall wrote:

andyrm wrote:

We've had an awful lot of rebuttal from various quarters in this discussion, but so far not one explanation as to why the public sector is so full of unmotivated and change resistant people. Yes they are about to face a tough time, but we've had the same in the private sector for quite some time and still get on with things and actually fight to survive.

Any takers?

A complete disconnection from doing anything better and the point in doing it?

Change fatigue

Cynicism of 'management'

Constant batterings from the press

Pessimitistic view of the future

Those who went from education straight into public sector work and constantly had the same crushing structure overhead?

No competition for their services so no drive to improve or go out of business - There's always the comfort blanket of a budget next year

Private businesses have consumers who can take their purchase elsewhere, public sector provides and allocates services and the consumer has to put up or shut up - So why try harder?

Very good points there - I'm trying to think how it could be changed if the culture of waste and laziness is so ingrained?

Paulie W

andyrm wrote:

Oh god!!! That's a scary thought! In all seriousness, I doubt my capitalist, results driven, give 150% at all times approach would be at all well received in any part of the public sector......and if I made it, no doubt there would be some wannabe strikers ready to drop a lump of concrete on me just like those miners did to a strike buster!!!

Just got my weekly email through from the Napoleon Hill Foundation (which every professional should look into) and interestingly, there was a very apt quote for all those who are moaning about cutbacks/efficiency savings etc:

"Do not expect something for nothing. Be willing to give an equivalent value for all that you desire, and include in your plans a definite provision for doing so" – Napoleon Hill

Do you find that your grasp of basic maths, things like percentages say, holds you back in your 'capitalist, results driven' world?

By the way I hope you were alive and working in the 80s, you'd have loved it!