Management in the Public and the Private Sector

 A feisty start to a Sunday morning: is Archie Norman's piece anti-union, anti-public sector? Both? Neither?

 I suspect the latter - although, it is tinged with the sort of right-wing rhetoric that might make it seem both. The real issue is management - and it is an interesting read. However, I quibble with some of it.

The Public Sector Needs To Learn From Business

In the first instance, I think that it is quite difficult to quantify management: we are quick to look for anthropomorphic explanations (i.e. attributing things to human activity) for things and this gives an inflated view of managers.

Secondly, the success of any manager is contingent upon the work of his team and yet the manager is the highest paid. I suspect that lots of people could manage larger organisations with excellent staff; it's just that they never get the chance.

Thirdly, success in management is one-way street - there's a very real moral hazard issue here, are managers held as responsible for failure as they are for success?

However, in the context of the article, I take issue with the use of the Olympic organisers as an example of the possible success of the public sector. As Mr.Norman admits:

"Special-purpose public institutions were set up to deliver a result drawing on the best of private-sector expertise. No one quibbled about who was paid what and the unions were left out of it. On the day, volunteers delivered the most extraordinary service."

I can't see many public sector institutions (a) either having the ability to engender Olympic style support from their employees - for heaven's sake even ordinary Londoners became polite on the Tube for the duration of the games (b) relying on volunteers to deliver services. I'm certainly sure that Archie Norman does little for free - I wonder what his fee for this article was?