Last month the Institute for Government published a thoughtful report on the value of an impartial Civil Service. It is worth reading and contains much that I agree with. There are, however, some major elephants in the room that the IfG report doesn't add
There are areas where the civil service approach as a centralised controller are completely Dysfunctional despite the authodoxy of the views that drive it. Some of it is informed by copying business practices (beloved by Blair) which often don’t work in business either. E.g. “Lean”
A sort of business tourism spreads these ideas which are not understood and poorly implemented. Sometimes referred to as a cargo cult.
There are experts who understand these things, who have implemented systems that bring huge efficiencies. They are often unwelcome in business and always unwelcome in government because they challenge ideas firmly embedded in the status quo.
One such is John Seddon’s whose implementation of Edward’s W Deming’s ideas (developed on WW2 munitions factories and in Japan’s reconstruction) in sectors such as housing clearly improve customer service and lower costs. Despite these results and evidence his ideas are shunned because they question the foundational ideas of conventional leaders.
I agree it can be helpful for civil servants to hear informed critiques - amongst a range of balanced views.
I'd add the caveat though that external speaker talks held during the working day should pass the test of actively contributing in some way to staff performance: it's tax-payer funded time, not a university debating society. That means senior management should ensure they maintain ownership of any speaker programme to ensure it meets that test.
"Senior leaders need to speak up about it and stamp it out ..."
Well, that's not going to happen when the PUS at the Home Office and MoJ, to give just two examples, are fully signed up to the programme.
The sixth elephant is that project management, IT and procurement skills are not valued and people with them never make it to the top jobs. All the PUSs are policy wonks: policy-making is idolised and practical delivery skills disregarded when promotions are considered. It should be possible to find talented civil servants who can do both but the perceived high-achievers are moved into the fast-stream at an early stage and never get the opportunity to learn about delivery.
I think the article is well-intentioned, but seems overly generous.
To an outsider, I would say that your definition of 'groupthink' looks an awful lot like bias. If civil servants can't effect the policies of the elected people above them because they find them unconscionable, they should resign, join a pressure group and make room for someone who can. They don't just undermine the sense of impartiality of your profession, but also the idea that the rest of us should be compelled on pain of imprisonment to continue to pay for them.
It's also interesting that your examples of 'right leaning thinkers' wouldn't consider themselves as such, or be considered as such outside of the world in which you inhabit. They are centrists. Haidt helped to campaign for the Democrats. Goodhart was a correspondent for Prospect, the FT and Guardian (hardly right wing publications) and works at Policy Exchange, which is pretty leftie by conservative standards. Actual right leaning thinkers don't even get an airing in the post, which could be instructive of your own group-think (bias?!) If the civil service Overton window now classes the Democrats as right leaning because they advocate for freedom of speech approaches which were more or less universal ten years ago, it might be time to leave Westminster and do something a little less... rarified for a few months?
Is there also something surprising here about conservative mind-sets seeking to preserve alternate points of view, but the modern left being more religious in character (a crusade or it's nothing) and therefore less ideologically compatible with contrarian ideas. This has certainly changed over the course of my adult life (which more or less started with the election of New Labour).
Nice post.
There are areas where the civil service approach as a centralised controller are completely Dysfunctional despite the authodoxy of the views that drive it. Some of it is informed by copying business practices (beloved by Blair) which often don’t work in business either. E.g. “Lean”
A sort of business tourism spreads these ideas which are not understood and poorly implemented. Sometimes referred to as a cargo cult.
There are experts who understand these things, who have implemented systems that bring huge efficiencies. They are often unwelcome in business and always unwelcome in government because they challenge ideas firmly embedded in the status quo.
One such is John Seddon’s whose implementation of Edward’s W Deming’s ideas (developed on WW2 munitions factories and in Japan’s reconstruction) in sectors such as housing clearly improve customer service and lower costs. Despite these results and evidence his ideas are shunned because they question the foundational ideas of conventional leaders.
Highly paid? Procurement, IT and project delivery specialists are paid far more outside the civil service.
"Like Caesar's Wife, an impartial institution must be above approach."
It should be *reproach*, not *approach*.
Fixed!
Recent attempts by some Departments to “de-platform” experts who challenge government orthodoxy surely only reinforce “group think”.?
I agree it can be helpful for civil servants to hear informed critiques - amongst a range of balanced views.
I'd add the caveat though that external speaker talks held during the working day should pass the test of actively contributing in some way to staff performance: it's tax-payer funded time, not a university debating society. That means senior management should ensure they maintain ownership of any speaker programme to ensure it meets that test.
"Senior leaders need to speak up about it and stamp it out ..."
Well, that's not going to happen when the PUS at the Home Office and MoJ, to give just two examples, are fully signed up to the programme.
The sixth elephant is that project management, IT and procurement skills are not valued and people with them never make it to the top jobs. All the PUSs are policy wonks: policy-making is idolised and practical delivery skills disregarded when promotions are considered. It should be possible to find talented civil servants who can do both but the perceived high-achievers are moved into the fast-stream at an early stage and never get the opportunity to learn about delivery.
P.S. Lagnard? Really?
I think the article is well-intentioned, but seems overly generous.
To an outsider, I would say that your definition of 'groupthink' looks an awful lot like bias. If civil servants can't effect the policies of the elected people above them because they find them unconscionable, they should resign, join a pressure group and make room for someone who can. They don't just undermine the sense of impartiality of your profession, but also the idea that the rest of us should be compelled on pain of imprisonment to continue to pay for them.
It's also interesting that your examples of 'right leaning thinkers' wouldn't consider themselves as such, or be considered as such outside of the world in which you inhabit. They are centrists. Haidt helped to campaign for the Democrats. Goodhart was a correspondent for Prospect, the FT and Guardian (hardly right wing publications) and works at Policy Exchange, which is pretty leftie by conservative standards. Actual right leaning thinkers don't even get an airing in the post, which could be instructive of your own group-think (bias?!) If the civil service Overton window now classes the Democrats as right leaning because they advocate for freedom of speech approaches which were more or less universal ten years ago, it might be time to leave Westminster and do something a little less... rarified for a few months?
Is there also something surprising here about conservative mind-sets seeking to preserve alternate points of view, but the modern left being more religious in character (a crusade or it's nothing) and therefore less ideologically compatible with contrarian ideas. This has certainly changed over the course of my adult life (which more or less started with the election of New Labour).