The State is getting bigger

[Groucho]

And look at how efficient his organisation became as result of his leadership.

There’s no incentive for senior public servants to highlight, much less address, inefficiencies when they’re ultimately castigated for doing so by the political classes.

It may be efficient but it's still massively overstaffed (over 3,000 in Local Authorities who refuse to transfer) and 825 in IW itself. The numbers in the LAs are falling very slowly due to natural attrition but, as in the HSE, the PS Unions are still calling the shots - and the taxpayer picks up the tab.

 

[Salvadore]

It may be efficient but it's still massively overstaffed (over 3,000 in Local Authorities who refuse to transfer) and 825 in IW itself. The numbers in the LAs are falling very slowly due to natural attrition but, as in the HSE, the PS Unions are still calling the shots - and the taxpayer picks up the tab.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

You’re absolutely right. An organisation that’s massively overstaffed to this level is hugely inefficient.

It’s shows the extent of the problem where a CEO, who identifies a problem, doesn’t have the authority to do anything about it.

It happens throughout the PS (and perhaps in many private organisations). People are given responsibility but not authority. It’s an impossible predicament.

 

[Purple]

My commiserations to your family and both of your friends. (I think you have two?)

I'll pass them on, thanks. It's my family that I feel most sorry for.

 

[Purple]

There’s no incentive for senior public servants to highlight, much less address, inefficiencies when they’re ultimately castigated for doing so by the political classes.

That's an interesting point. Have you an example of what happening? I'm sure it does but a specific example would be informative.

The numbers in the LAs are falling very slowly due to natural attrition but, as in the HSE, the PS Unions are still calling the shots - and the taxpayer picks up the tab.

It's easy to blame the Unions, and they certainly are a cancer within the State sector, but they shouldn't be allowed to have the power they have.

It’s shows the extent of the problem where a CEO, who identifies a problem, doesn’t have the authority to do anything about it.

It happens throughout the PS (and perhaps in many private organisations). People are given responsibility but not authority. It’s an impossible predicament.

I've no doubt that many private organisations are just as bad, and not just Banks, but the State and the services it provides is more important so a "yea well those guys over there are worse" defence doesn't stand up.
Giving people responsibility but not authority is the ultimate poisoned chalice.

 

[Salvadore]

That's an interesting point. Have you an example of what happening? I'm sure it does but a specific example would be informative.

The Irish Water example is as good as any. A new CEO, filled with enthusiasm, might assume that increasing efficiency and reducing costs and staff numbers might go down well with his employers.

Maybe it would but, more likely, the political classes are indifferent. They have no skin in the game. There are no votes in well-run public bodies.

What would trouble politicians is if, say, attempts to introduce redundancies led to industrial relations problems that provided fodder for the opposition.

The real role of public CEOs is to keep the ship steady until such time as there’s a controversy. Then their role is to provide a distraction from government and to be the focal point for public ire (see Patrick Neary).