Sunday, 24 October 2010

What's in a Name?

There was a time when life was simple. Electricity came from the electric board, gas from the gas board and probation was run by a Chief Probation Officer, ably assisted by Assistant Chief Probation Officers. It irritated me when they became Chief Officers and Assistant Chief Officers, but of course they're now all called Chief Executives and Assistant Chief Executives. I thought this was just about status or ego's but to my amazement there is much more to it because I see a police officer is now running probation in South Devon. Yes really, a former Superintendent and most recently Business Improvement Commander for Devon and Cornwall Police is now line managing probation professionals. Maybe he's on a fast track to Chief Exec?

I find this utterly bizarre and wonder what the hell he knows about probation? Why on earth would a Probation Service do such a thing? Is it designed to wind people up or just look really trendy and 'business-like'? But then I seem to recall reading something about Fire Services not having to be run by Chief Fire Officers anymore, rather Chief Executives instead. Look what the Chief Fire Officers Association said in 2005:-


"Increasingly senior positions in fire and rescue service are being taken up by competent managers who have not come through the fire and rescue service ranks. Their backgrounds and experience expand our outlook and add to even greater professionalism in the service at all levels. This ultimately improves our service to the communities we serve."
When I first read this I honestly thought it was a joke. It must surely have been said through gritted teeth or with a heavy hint of irony? To me it represents not just another example of the inexorable rise of managerialism over professionalism, but also some sort of perverse mixture of political correctness and tokenism. Call me old fashioned, but I'd feel rather more comfortable knowing that fire, police and probation services were all run by time-served practitioners than bureaucrats.  
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. hallam.jon24 October 2010 at 10:53

    Hey,

    An example from the world of transit. A key skill for bus or train drivers is to be able to keep the same schedule, without variance, each and every day. The very best of those guys (or gals) will be the one who gets promoted into operations management... where that experience can be entirely unhelpful in considering potential network redesigns to serve the needs of today's population, not the population of five or ten years ago.

    In other words, once you're into the bureaucratic level, the skills of a professional manager or bureaucrat may be
    exactly what are required. Conversely, its
    not good to have a mismatch of communications
    at any level, so there should be a smooth transition from top level managers to operations staff, usually by mixing professional managers and operations staff in the intermediate levels. Of course, there's no reason an 'operations' person can't become a pro-bureaucrat, especially given the likely transfer of skills in the intermediate levels.

    Historically, there was probably a selection effect for the best bureaucratic-managing types from the operations staff as they rose through the levels.

    Anyway, you might be right and it's a ridiculous thing to have a manager or non-professional probation officer at the top of the probation service (I don't know enough details to make an informed decision). But it's not obvious in the general case that this should be so.

    Jonathan

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)