Business Opinion: Whatever about the strengths of the current administration, it is readily apparent that the list of policy errors grows longer by the week, writes Michael Casey.
The result is that, judged by appropriate international standards, and despite a strong economy, we are still far behind in the areas of health, crime, road safety and, of course, infrastructure.The mistakes are so frequent and egregious that chance or bad luck can be ruled out as possible causes. The problem has to be systemic.
Several possibilities of a political nature can be advanced. These include the competency of Cabinet members, coordination failure (often referred to as "lack of joined-up government"), the recurring need for a coalition to make compromises, growing clientelism, increasing numbers of political appointees to important boards and quangos, back-tracking on freedom of information, and a form of political opposition that sometimes appears half-hearted.
To what extent does the source of the problem reside also in the (non-political) public service? It is difficult to draw firm conclusions but it is arguable that several Government departments have become deskilled and demotivated, especially at middle and senior management levels.
Ministers tend to listen more to their personal advisers and it is strange that the much-vaunted Strategic Management Initiative did not even clarify the respective roles of adviser and secretary general. The resulting muddle must have made life difficult at senior levels.
The civil service also had to contend with programme managers, personal assistants, constituency workers and many powerful lobby groups all trying to influence ministers. Over the years, the civil service witnessed useful initiatives being abandoned for narrow political reasons. The advice of senior officials was often ignored by strong-willed ministers who partly modelled themselves on Charles Haughey.
Some recent events, such as decentralisation, were foisted on the civil service with little if any prior notification.
Poor morale can lead to deskilling. Why struggle to retain or recruit highly skilled people if their analytical work is going to be rejected by politicians and their close associates?
The other side of the coin is the tendency for officials to agree with their political masters rather than offer robust advice based on analytical work. A passive modus operandi such as this would weaken the effectiveness of the public service.
Deskilling is one of the reasons so many consultants are hired. There are other reasons too. Consultants can provide covering fire, can serve as flak-catchers and diffuse responsibility. Many managers believe that hiring consultants is a sign of good corporate governance. Actually, it is usually the opposite.
Now that the Government plans to increase expenditure on consultants to €100 million for the coming year in addition to €6-€7 million for personal advisers (all of this in addition to a €13 billion public service pay bill), it is reasonable to ask what value for money does consultancy provide. Bear in mind that the fees are on a par with those of barristers - about €2,000 per day per consultant.
There are situations where it might not be reasonable to expect expertise to be available in-house, e.g. specialised IT applications. But most projects are not arcane or technically complex and it is doubtful if these should be farmed out to consultants.
General management or organisational consultancy should be avoided if at all possible. What typically happens here is that the consultants come in as "facilitators" which means they know little about the core business of the organisation. They tie up a lot of management time in trying to learn about the organisation and fathom the "culture".
They usually set up a secretariat to do most of the work for them. They apply templates from other organisations and case studies - these are often irrelevant or unsuitable.
The organisation quickly finds itself embroiled in jargon: tactical and strategic visions, fully articulated mission statements, organisational values and ethics. Staff in most organisations know how difficult it is to change the mind-sets of the senior executives, especially if they have been in their positions for a long time. Things will continue much as before.
Suppose the person who will be signing the cheque for the consultants happens to be resistant to change and restructuring: will the consultants criticise him or her in their report and thus bite the hand that feeds them?
There is also an inconsistency between management theory and practice. The former stresses the development of the individual and the toleration of mistakes since these are part of the learning experience. The real world, in market-driven economies at any rate, is much less cosy and forgiving.
It is apparent, because policy errors continue apace, that consultancy has not filled the expertise gap in the public service. Bearing in mind that the pay bill for Irish public servants is now running at over € 13 billion a year, it is essential to carry out a skills audit for the entire public service to establish which skills can be harnessed, upgraded, dispensed with and which need to be acquired.
An interdepartmental committee should be able to do this work - without any help from consultants.
Michael Casey is former assistant director general of the Central Bank
