What you describe sounds like any large organisation anywhere - public or private. The fetish of efficiency you demonstrate - as if there is a perfect organisation with a perfect structure and perfect staff that just needs to be carefully sculpted out of the imperfect stuff of humanity (by you, of course) is fantasy. This is humanity. It is imperfect, not always focused, not necessarily expert, often mistaken, sometimes confused, rarely completely committed. People have lives and flaws and strengths and weaknesses, and stuff happens - all the time. I can absolutely guarantee that there is some dude in Singapore making pretty much the same complaints right now.
People who go on about this are people with very little self awareness, because they always imagine they are a manifestation of the sort of excellence they crave. But...they aren't. They are just someone with some anecdotes, a lot of opinions, and a hustle. What most organisations don't need is someone coming along every five minutes reorganising them according to their latest pet theory. Organisations work because of the people in them. They also fail because of that. But, it is not either or. It's a continual mixture of both. The trick is to try to make sure the first outweighs the second. That is it.
The original post did not contain any anecdotes, but did have a lot of data, all of which suggest some serious problems - useless performance management systems, unsuitable people getting promoted, almost impossible to fire people, very probably bogus claims under the Equalities Act. Maybe you can address those things, which I'd guess most readers would find dispiriting and in need of addressing, not by reorganisations, but by effectively managing people and reducing civil service numbers.
I am gratified to see that the US doesn’t suffer from this phenomenon alone. The nature of the US government system “can” provide a certain level of “flexibility “ however it is locality and level dependent. At the federal and state level the vast percentage of employment is considered a social program. Competency or employment preparedness is not generally considered just demographic factors. As there is to some degree a need to get things done, a small percentage of the opportunities are competent. The primary connection between performance and management happen at the locality level, and that is situation dependent. In a practical sense, performance management is a social process not a competency one.
From a legal rather than procedural perspective, is the civil service subject to different employment law than the private sector? Ie) Does it require ""just"" cultural, or in fact also legal changes to change outcomes?
What you describe sounds like any large organisation anywhere - public or private. The fetish of efficiency you demonstrate - as if there is a perfect organisation with a perfect structure and perfect staff that just needs to be carefully sculpted out of the imperfect stuff of humanity (by you, of course) is fantasy. This is humanity. It is imperfect, not always focused, not necessarily expert, often mistaken, sometimes confused, rarely completely committed. People have lives and flaws and strengths and weaknesses, and stuff happens - all the time. I can absolutely guarantee that there is some dude in Singapore making pretty much the same complaints right now.
People who go on about this are people with very little self awareness, because they always imagine they are a manifestation of the sort of excellence they crave. But...they aren't. They are just someone with some anecdotes, a lot of opinions, and a hustle. What most organisations don't need is someone coming along every five minutes reorganising them according to their latest pet theory. Organisations work because of the people in them. They also fail because of that. But, it is not either or. It's a continual mixture of both. The trick is to try to make sure the first outweighs the second. That is it.
The original post did not contain any anecdotes, but did have a lot of data, all of which suggest some serious problems - useless performance management systems, unsuitable people getting promoted, almost impossible to fire people, very probably bogus claims under the Equalities Act. Maybe you can address those things, which I'd guess most readers would find dispiriting and in need of addressing, not by reorganisations, but by effectively managing people and reducing civil service numbers.
I am gratified to see that the US doesn’t suffer from this phenomenon alone. The nature of the US government system “can” provide a certain level of “flexibility “ however it is locality and level dependent. At the federal and state level the vast percentage of employment is considered a social program. Competency or employment preparedness is not generally considered just demographic factors. As there is to some degree a need to get things done, a small percentage of the opportunities are competent. The primary connection between performance and management happen at the locality level, and that is situation dependent. In a practical sense, performance management is a social process not a competency one.
From a legal rather than procedural perspective, is the civil service subject to different employment law than the private sector? Ie) Does it require ""just"" cultural, or in fact also legal changes to change outcomes?