Consultants love to have a stock of memorable phrases and quotes to illustrate the points they make, and if no-one has said the right thing at the right time, then they’ll simply invent one. So the following quote, generally attributed to the Roman Consul Gaius Petronius in AD66, was probably invented by a consultant in the 1950s.
“We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.”
It’s a pity that it wasn’t said that long ago, but nevertheless it has a certain feel to it. Like all the best made-up quotes, it has credibility, which is probably why it appears on the staff notice boards of so many organisations facing reorganisation.
The idea that a reorganisation can or will solve the problems of an organisation is nothing new. But for a reorganisation in itself to resolve a problem, the problem usually has to be one caused by the current organisational structure in the first place. And it is rarely the case that the structure is what is causing the problems – they’re usually more, much more, to do with the people in the structure or the processes and policies being followed.
It’s in that context that I wonder whether the ‘radical’ solution to Wales’ under-performing education system announced by Leighton Andrews yesterday is really the right one. That we have a problem is indisputable. That there is too much duplication of effort by having 22 education authorities is less certain, but is the subject of widely-held consensus. But I’ve seen no clear evidence that the one is the cause of the other.
And if the under-performance isn’t caused by the duplication of effort across 22 authorities, then in what way is it suggested that removing the duplication will rectify the performance? I suspect that the problem is more around the processes, policies, and personnel on the institutional side, and the lack of aspiration and application, resulting from inequality and lack of opportunity, on the part of the pupils. And I don’t immediately see how moving from a structure of 22 LEAs to one of four consortia does anything to address that.
It does, though, appear to be decisive and tough, and enable the government to claim to be acting. And it’s something which can be implemented during the term of a single minister, leaving his successor to deal with the unresolved performance issue at some future date.
It’s what Petronius never actually called the ‘illusion of progress’.
Posts
5 comments:
"And I don’t immediately see how moving from a structure of 22 LEAs to one of four consortia does anything to address that."
Anicdotal warning - Council CEO states "we could take over adjoining Council LEA duties without any need for extra staff" names witheld to protect the guilty.
Reducing the overhead might benefit the process if the monies saved were invested in said process. Not guaranteed but possible.
Glyndo,
"Council CEO states 'we could take over adjoining Council LEA duties without any need for extra staff'"
If a council CEO said that to me, I'd be asking why (s)he had so many staff, since they are obviously grossly underemployed...
"Reducing the overhead might benefit the process if the monies saved were invested in said process. Not guaranteed but possible."
Far from guaranteed, in fact - because there's no evidence that spending extra money will improve performance either.
I'd entirely accept that reducing overheads and cutting duplication might - and I'd stress the might, given past experience - reduce costs and thus release more money for use elsewhere. But if the problem isn't actually lack of money in the first place, then the solution is addressing the wrong problem.
"I'd be asking why (s)he had so many staff, since they are obviously grossly underemployed..."
I think that reinforces the anecdote?
For the rest of your comment, I think I conceeded that point in my post.
Glyndo,
Agree - didn't intend to imply otherwise.
Excellent post.
If Little Leigh thinks that this is radical – Oh dear!!
In fairness to him his past life before being elected does not equip him for anything much than being the voice of his Department Heads.
You are right that procedure change rarely brings about a change in outcomes but human behaviour does, but that is far more difficult to do, especially in the tax funded sector.
I always like to think that that well know phrase was scratched on a tablet by Little Gaius, but alas it has not been found, just like the saying attributed to Little Bertie Einstein “one definition of human madness is to do the same thing and expect different results”
Post a Comment