Yesterday I gave a lecture at Middlesex University on Leadership. They asked me to compare my experiences and understanding of leadership in the public, private and charitable sectors.
<a href=’http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/picture1.jpg’ title=’Elizabeth I’><img src=’http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/picture1.jpg’ alt=’Elizabeth I’ /></a>
I did not approach the question from an ideological standpoint. I have visited enough bad private sector companies with poor employee relations to know that it is not always private sector good. No-one watching the bravery and professionalism of many in our armed forces could also say it is always public sector bad. I do, however, think there are serious problems with management in important parts of our public sector, which need careful analysis leading to reform and improved performance.
I do not for one moment believe Labour Ministers want our hospitals to be prey to such serious infection and hygiene problems as they currently experience. I do not think they wanted productivity to fall by as much as 10% when they decided to inject so much extra spending into the NHS. I have heard Ministers go hoarse explaining they are sorry and have learned the lessons from countless losses of laptops, CDs and other data from public offices.
Their response is always the same. They issue new instructions. They make changes to procedures. They issue a press release, and appear on the media. Their spin doctors let it be known how cross, upset or concerned they are. We are told the lessons have been learnt, that it is unlikely there will be another outbreak of MRSA or that data will be better protected in the future. We sit and wait for the next incident to occur.
There has to be some set of reasons why the best of the private sector does not infect its customers or lose its customers private data whilst the worst of the public sector does. At its best the public sector has a public service ethos which would be horrified at the idea that it had a part in the death of a patient or was responsible for putting someoneâ€™s bank account or personal security at risk. Yet all too often today things go wrong.
Let us take one recent example of how wrong things can go if leadership is lacking. Network Rail undertook major rail improvement works over the Christmas and New Year holiday. Its senior management chose to carry these works out through private contractors. They supervised the work of their staff, who designed the specifications, decided how much work could be achieved, let and supervised the contracts. It is a company wholly owned by the state, with access to substantial state subsidies to do its job. We now know they miscalculated how much work could be done, did not realise how few engineers would be available to turn up, and failed to motivate or supervise their contractors to do the job to time. We were then told that in future things would be different because they would do more in house! The problems were in house.
At the very least the Directors of Network Rail failed to assess the risks and to motivate the people involved. If you want engineers to give up their holiday period to go and work outside on railway lines, you too have to make an effort, to persuade them it is something worth doing, and to make it worth their while doing it. I donâ€™t recall the Directors giving up part of their holiday to appear at the sites and to give encouragement to those working for them. There was no leadership by example.
Great leadership is about expressing a vision, telling people why they matter, getting them to believe the thing is worth doing and they can do it. Great leadership produces success and satisfaction. The satisfaction is not just or always a good financial reward â€“ although that can help â€“ but a feeling of a job well done, an important challenge surmounted.
In this governmentâ€™s public sector they have aped some of the techniques of the private sector â€“ targets, mission statements, bonuses, performance pay, use of consultants and external contractors â€“ but in too many case they have not used them in a disciplined and convincing way. You use consultants for something you cannot do in house, precisely defining the task and ensuring the consultant or contractor can perform it for you. You set a limited number of targets that are stretching but possible to hit â€“ not 200, many of which are contradictory or marginal. If you offer bonus you tailor it to the main issue that needs resolving. It should be easy to measure and the value of hitting it to the organisation made clear. Instead the public sector all too often uses consultants too often for vague assignments, fails to get the best out of external contractors, sprays targets around in a bizarre way, offers performance pay for poor performance and writes endless mission statements and documents on what is required that are too general and imprecise.
Above all great leadership requires great commitment. It requires leadership by example. Do not expect your staff to do things you would not do yourself. It often seems Ministers lecture the rest of us to behave in ways they do not themselves match. At its finest, in the case of the best of our military, the public sector in the UK is still good. At its average it is mediocre, offering too little for too high a cost, exploiting its monopoly position and its considerable powers.
<strong>Click on the link below to download John Redwood’s Middlesex University lecture on leadership.</strong>
<a href=’http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/middlesex-university-leadership-180108.ppt’ title=’Click here to download John Redwood’s Middlesex University lecture on leadership’>middlesex-university-leadership-180108.ppt</a>