Howard, did you see my latest blog posting. It's entitled: The
Non-Strategic State of Workplace Learning (http://thepublicmanager.org/cs/blogs/
I note that over the past decade or so, government at all levels
has begun requiring short- and long-term plans, including strategic
goals, measurable objectives, a system for assessing outcomes, and
periodic reporting on results. More recently, decision makers have
attempted to tie budget and other resource
decisions to agency performance. (Ah, other resource decisions -
Ironically, this shift to a more results-oriented management system
hasnt yet made a noticeable dent in public sector organizational
culture. I say this because for such a transformation to have
occurred would have surely nudged most culture bearers out of their
silos and bureaucratic stovepipes. To illustrate, lets consider one
of the most prosaic examples of this phenomenon the non-strategic
state of training and development, or workplace learning.
Theoretically, in a post-silo organizational
culture, Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCOs) and/or Chief Learning
Officers (CLOs) would be fully involved in the organizations
strategic planning and management systems. Moreover, these
activities would be part of a transparent, integrated, 360 process
aimed at harnessing all agency assets to meet priority challenges.
I then proceed to highlight some of these
challenges at this point in time. if you want to know more, read
the blog posting.
Howard, you should have some insights on this matter - including
some comparative feel for how things differ in this area between
the public and private sectors. Which got me to thinking about your
e-forum on pay and performance in the public sector. My
gut tells me that one way to get public sector
executives and managers interested in the
topic of pay and performance might be to take the spotlight off of
the compensation side and focus more on the "urgency of
performance." First, offer compelling examples of high
performance in both the public and private sectors and
discuss how such behavior is recognized. What do you think
are relevant management criteria
for rewarding high performance (e.g., with respect to
fairness, incentives, etc.)? Next, offer compelling
examples of poor performance in both the public and
private sectors and discuss how such behavior is
"compensated." What do think are relevant criteria
for recognizing poor performance, using
the same criteria?
By shifting the discussion from compensation (which to many comes
across as the end) and focusing
more on pay - and other tools -
as means of respecting and implementing these universal
criteria (or values) for dealing with differing levels of
performance, you may have a better chance of penetrating the
cultural resistance to this highly polarized and polarizing topic -
especially in the public sector.
I hope this generates some reactions - including yours?
Just one old bureaucrat's opinion.