Entry 2357, on 2024-07-24 at 19:47:48 (Rating 4, Politics)
Summary
The issue of bureaucratic overgrowth in Western countries is becoming more prevalent. Examples like Health New Zealand, with 14 layers of bureaucracy and excessive middle management, highlight the problem. The government's decision to replace the board with a commissioner may be drastic but necessary. Inefficient organizations waste money on unnecessary management while demanding more funding. A potential solution could be implementing a commissioner model, as seen in Health NZ, to streamline operations. Simplifying management structures, setting clear goals, and fostering real leadership are essential for effective governance in large organizations. Replacing ineffective leaders may be a challenging but crucial step towards efficiency and accountability.
Full Text
A common problem with many countries in the Western world currently seems to be what I call "the rise of the bureaucrats". We see government organisations trying to implement their own agendas, ignoring government policies, and enhancing their own influence through overreach of their intended functions. Additionally, these organisations often become infested with large numbers of managers who don't always provide any positive benefit, in fact, in general I would be tempted to say that the more managers you have, the more poorly the organisation will run, although that probably isn't always true.
A recent example of this phenomenon here in New Zealand is Health New Zealand, the large bureaucracy which replaced district health boards through the previous government's policy.
Here are a few worrying facts about it: there were 14 layers of bureaucracy between the board and the clinicians "at the coal face", about 2500 new middle managers were hired in recent years, and it spends $130 million per month over its budget.
I must admit, the 14 layers thing sounds insane, but no one has contradicted that so far, including the leader of the opposition when he was defending the new structure, so I guess it must be true. If we are going to have a management structure at all, surely a "flatter" one would be better. Maybe, for an admittedly quite large organisation, 5 layers would be more appropriate.
And what could those 2500 middle managers possibly be doing? Assuming they are paid at a fairly typical rate could we not have hired a substantial number of clinicians instead for the same price, or maybe just saved the money we are wasting on them?
And that overspending has not been justified and there seems to be no gains in core capabilities. The logical conclusion is all that extra expense is going to those managers. Considering the new structure was supposed to reduce wasteful spending on non-core functions, this seems problematic.
So seeing that the current organisation is rotten to the core the government decided to sack the board and appoint a commissioner instead. In general I don't approve of this sort of move, because depending on who you put in as commissioner you can get whatever agenda you want put in place, but sometimes even a move like this, which seems too controlling, is necessary.
A person I heard interviewed who works in health (and I mean works, not manages) said that impractical reforms were being pushed through, that there were no targets or specific measures of success, that there was no real accountability at the top, and that the more effective co-workers just ignored the bureaucrats and got on with job.
I have little doubt that almost every large organisation suffers from exactly the same problem. Other ministries and government institutions seem to be victims of the same issues: that is overbearing, incompetent, arrogant "leadership". Note that I put that last word in quotes because these people aren't leaders in the true sense, they are petty dictators prepared to use the system they have created (HR departments, etc) to crush resistance.
And it's even worse than what I have portrayed so far, because the same inefficient, dysfunctional organisations affected by this plague are crying poor and demanding more money so they can keep running. Well, if they want to run within their budgets, don't complain about your funding, or shut down core services, just get rid of those extra managers instead!
Unfortunately, that is unlikely unless a major intervention, like a commissioner, is used. But I would suggest we could use Health NZ as a test case and, if the commissioner can make major improvements in say a year (we would need to define what success actually is, of course, but in the case of Health NZ I believe it is to save $1 billion) then use the same method for similar institutions, like social welfare, universities, the ministry of education, etc.
I've used this example before, but remember in previous posts where I said that when Elon Musk took over at Twitter (now X) he fired 80% of the staff and the place seems to be working better than ever? Yeah, we need more of that.
Let's find all the corrupt and incompetent boards, committees, and management structures and sack them all!
Comment 1 by Dad on 2024-07-25 at 14:19:40:
Strange you have had no comments. I would not go as far as to call them corrupt. However I would recommend sacking them all. What we need is to reinstate Health Boards, for major Hospitals or districts. I would suggest that there be a senior Doctor appointed as Medical officer in charge of each Hospital or district. The government would appoint six of those Medical Officers to advise Government on what health standards and requirements were required to be set up.
Once a set of standards were approved it would be over to the Medical Officers to implement those standards. Obviously some non-medical administration personnel would be required and I would think their cost would have to be capped.
Otherwise I do not believe any Government should apply any budget requirements on the boards in providing the overall standards that are set in place. As far as health is concerned I do not believe that any monetary restraints should be placed on the provision of Health to the Citizens of New Zealand to a standard that is recommended by a Professional Medical Team and approved by Government.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2024-07-25 at 17:03:39:
Yes, I should be more clear about what I mean by "corrupt". I don't necessarily mean in the legal sense, although that is possible, but I generally mean more in a moral way, like "evil or morally depraved" (Oxford English Dictionary) although even that seems a bit harsh, now that I look at it! :)
Comment 3 by EK on 2024-07-28 at 15:13:21:
Who wouldn't agree with your general gripe about the rampant growth of the bureaucracy - a global phenomenon by the way. Whether Musk is a desirable antidote is something one can argue about.
On another level the computerisation of bureaucratic functions is probably more dangerous than the paper-pushers themselves. What do your vested interests say about that?
Comment 4 by OJB on 2024-07-28 at 20:00:10:
Well there are people who think more bureaucracy is a good idea: the bureaucrats themselves, for example. They really seem to think their roles are valuable and essential. It's either unbelievable arrogance or the Dunning-Kruger Effect!
I'm not saying Musk himself is an answer to any particular problem, although I admire him myself, I was just using what happened at Twitter as an example of how bureaucracy can be reduced with no apparent negative consequences.
I don't see the computerisation of these functions as a major problem, because computers don't try to justify their existence and increase the number of other computers they have as underlings. On the other hand, once we have artificial intelligence involved, who knows? :)
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
