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 - like compensation?)
Ironically, this shift to a more results-oriented management system hasn’t 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, let’s 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 organization’s 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.
Cheers,
Warren Master