The relationship between senior Defence Forces leadership and their civil service counterparts has been “extremely strained” in recent times, according to an internal Government report.
The assessment of the Department of Defence voiced concern about tensions in its dealings with Defence Forces officers in areas such as the division of powers, pay and conditions and a perception that civil servants are “micro-managing” military affairs.
Relations between the civil and military side [and] between lower-level officials are generally “cordial”, but the report noted that middle management sometimes lacks the autonomy to make decisions.
The unpublished report — compiled by the Department of Public Expenditure (Dper) in April as part of the Organisational Capability Review programme — noted that staff complained about “widespread negative and at times hostile media coverage” of the department, “especially on social media which has involved personalised attacks on some named senior officials”.
This negative and critical media coverage has contributed to tensions in the military-civil relationship, it said. In response, the department has started its own Twitter account and is more proactive in “getting its message out there”, the report noted.
The civil-military relationship is also affected by “a palpable sense of frustration” among Defence Forces members about a perceived failure by the department to represent their interests and concerns to the Government, particularly in the areas of pay and conditions, recruitment and retention.
The report stated that “in reality” the department frequently engages with Dper on these issues. It says it sometimes struggles to get its voice heard with Dper but that this does not mean it is not engaging as it should.
The Dper is frequently “overly cautious”, said defence officials, which leads to the perception that defence civil servants are not supporting their military colleagues. At the highest levels, the relationship between senior officers and civil servants “has been extremely strained in the relatively recent past”, noted the report.
There are “strong indications” this is improving, it stated, referring to the recent appointments of Lieut Gen Seán Clancy as chief of staff and Jacqui McCrum as secretary-general. But “there is nonetheless a need for diligence and leadership to achieve fully the goal of a civil/military relationship that is built on mutual respect and trust.”
Defence policy document
While it praised the knowledge, dedication and experience of department staff, the report indicated that the focus on defence policy is disparate and diffuse. The vision of defence is set out in multiple different forums but there is no single, readily available defence policy document, it noted.
It also raised concerns that external communications by the department and Defence Forces “are not appropriately aligned” and stated there is no appetite on either side for a joint press office.
It found there is a problem of “grade drift” in the department, where problems which should be dealt with at lower levels are being referred up to management, which is diverting time and energy. This is exacerbated by military officers insisting on dealing with civil servants of equivalent grades to their rank, it said.
Defence Forces officers complained of micro-management of military matters “where the need is neither apparent nor proportionate”. This includes having to get departmental permission to send personnel on overseas training. However, the report notes this is a legal requirement and that the secretary-general is the accounting officer for the Defence Forces.
A Department of Defence spokeswoman said it welcomes the report and has accepted its recommendations. The report has been shared with the chief of staff and the two organisations will work together to implement the recommendations, she said.
