Management levels criticised

Press, 12 September 1980, Page 17

Management levels criticised

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

“I have seen examples of poor management and areas where management could be improved substantially. It seems surprising that if good management in the public service is so important that there are so few sanctions against bad management or, indeed, rewards for good management.” Many complaints and criticisms have been heard about the level of management competence within the public service over the years. What makes the comments quoted rather different is that they were made by .the deputy tehairhan of the State Services Commission (Dr Mervyn Probine), and that his is the department responsible for the efficient management of the public service. In an address to a seminar on the accountability of the executive, run by the Institute of Public Administration, he put

forward the view that sound, management in government requires that permanent heads of departments should be held accountable in a systematic and coherent way for programme management and departmental administration. i Chief executives of private companies are held accountable by boards of directors and the performance of directors, in turn, is appraised by shareholders. Departments such as the Treasury and the State Services Commission tend to review the performance of the department, but not necessarily in the form of a formal “pee?’ review of performance. In the United States and Canada there are regular methods of peer appraisal, and the performance of permanent heads is evaluated annually through a peer appraisal process by an eight-person committee. A recent review recommended retaining this system. In Canada performance goals must be developed for the Minister’s approval by the permanent head in his capacity as chief administrative officer. The achievement of these programme and performance objectives is monitored. In the United States, ex-

cept for “career reserved” positions, the top positions in departments go to political appointees — the “spoils of victory” system. However, a "senior executive service” (S.E.S.) has recently been formed there which contains the “career reserved” departmental headships and the most senior people in departments that, have politically appointed heads. The number of positions is limited by law to 10,778, plus 517 high level, non-manage-ment, scientific and professional positions. Dr Probine says the United States system is designed for both career and non-career executives, but non-career positions are limited by law to. 10 per cent of the total capital “senior executive service” strength, govern-ment-wide.

The novel thing about this proposal is that the performance of these sen-

ior executives is evaluated and, if they are proving successful, they qualify to receive lump sum performance awards of up to 20 per cent of their year’s salary. The total. number of performance awards granted in any year may not exceed 50 per cent of the total of the S.E.S, positions. An advisory Board has been set up by the Cabinet comprising Mr Frank Dixon, General manager of the Canterbury Savings Bank; Mr Bruce Cole, chief executive of L. D. Nathan, Woolworths and McKenzies; Mr Jim Francis, formerly, head of Challenge Finance and a member of the Challenge Corporation board; Mr Ted Kennedy, former Deputy chairman of the State Services Commission; and Mr Neville Ainsworth, former head of .the State Insurance Corporation. “It may be that the concept of having permanent heads report to a board of directors for the management of their departments should be given more thought,” Dr Probine says. “It is clear, however, that if such boards are established they should consist of high calibre directors and not political hacks who are there as a reward for political service.”