“Values based management”

Herewith today’s column in the Age and SMH.

George Orwell was a stickler for plain and simple English in public discourse. He argued that one could escape some of “the worst follies of orthodoxy” by simplifying one’s language.

“When you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Last week the OECD felt it was time for a bit of pure wind. It headed a media release “Structural reforms more important than ever for a strong and balanced economic recovery”. Really? Let’s invert the rhetorical body language and leave the literal meaning in tact. The OECD thinks that structural reforms have always been less important than they are today. Less important in addressing the economic ailments of the 1970s? Less important in the industrial revolution? Enough said.

This kind of verbal flatulence is everywhere. And it matters.

One of the South Australian Public Sector’s “core values” is “honesty in all that we do and say” Really? Like any modern public service, South Australia’s is necessarily part of the relentless spin that is eating our world. Government agencies are integral to ‘performing’ of government, helping politicians with tendentious sound bites proclaiming the wisdom of the government and, very often by implication, the folly of their opposition.

In doing so departments will gild the lily and routinely deploy managerialist euphemism. Arrangements will be ‘improved’ and ‘enhanced’. ‘Best practices’ will be adopted which, we will be told, will make us more competitive, whatever more sober reflection might suggest. This will frequently extend to the routine petty deceptions involved in ‘repackaging’ previously announced policy and the spinning of details which might otherwise invite scepticism. Not for them the candour of Billionaire Chairman of the American conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett who regularly confesses to his shareholders, the “colossal mistakes made by your Chairman”.

And the deceptions may not be petty. Where an officer is in possession of information of considerable import – as were senior defence officers during the ‘children overboard’ episode – they will often become complicit with the suppression of that information.

None of this is to gainsay the importance of honesty as a value both personally and for the public service. And indeed sanctions for inappropriate dishonesty are strewn throughout professional life. But that’s my point. The real story is that dishonesty is so bad it’s a criminal offence in some situations, and that it’s not just advisable, but required practice elsewhere. And typically the most senior officers – who are called upon to ‘embed’ the stated values – are those who’ve best learned that the clarion call for “honesty in all we do and say” is altogether more freighted with organisational imperatives than more naïve souls might imagine.

Lists of values mean next to nothing as bland, contextless assertions. Just as economists are trained to understand how much people value something, not by what they say but rather by what they do – that is how much of one thing they’re prepared to sacrifice to get something else – so people’s values emerge from difficult choices between alternatives. Should respect count for more than honesty? Should tolerance and diversity be more important than reliability?

Alas, even here we haven’t made much progress, because values don’t go into battle against each other as Platonic forms. They are demonstrated in a context. If I criticise a colleague’s performance, that might reflect disrespect or the very opposite depending on a whole list of variables, many of which may only be dimly evident to outsiders, and remain hotly contested between different parties. Yet where there’s disagreement, and some resolution must be found, it must often be imposed by those in authority, who will duly reference the official organisational values in their decision.

I suspect there’s real merit in embedding such decision-making, in so far as humanly possible, in a deliberately cultivated awareness of its ethical dimensions. The Australian Public Service Commission’s “Decision making model” offers a sensible guide of this kind. And the proposed values it proselytises to its charges seem more carefully hedged, less bumptious than the South Australian example referenced above.

Still, count me among the sceptics when it comes to any disembodied apex list of values from which appropriate behaviour is supposed to be deduced. For in our social and professional life we are forever trading off relative values, which live ultimately in the complex circumstances of individual actions, not in bland protestations, however bold. There’s something creepy about calls from on high for “honesty in all that we do and say” while the routine deceptions of everyday life, both petty and otherwise, proceed apace.

This entry was posted in Literature, Philosophy, Political theory, Politics - international, Politics - national. Bookmark the permalink.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Douglas Hynd
Douglas Hynd
9 years ago

In substantial agreement. “Values” language tends to function as a way of avoiding specification of what exactly our moral commitments as embodied in action and behaviour are.

TN
TN
9 years ago

great post, Nick – thanks.

nottrampis
9 years ago

Nicholas,

I agree and hope you realise his best essay was on how to pour tea!!

He made a boring topic interesting

JJ
JJ
9 years ago

The Cranlana programme puts this into effect and departments send staff to week-long guided discussions of philosophy and ethics, grounded in practice. This is the way to achieve real integrity in public service practice.

I can personally attest to its real worth (I won’t say ‘excellence’ or ‘value’ here)
http://www.cranlana.org.au/page/colloquia/

desipis
desipis
9 years ago

I share some of the cynicism about ‘values based management’. However I’ve always felt it was less about adding something positive and more about undermining negative attitudes. There’s often the assumption (by employees & managers) that the only thing important in managing a company is the short term bottom line, probably a cultural perspective arising from management developing in the factories of the industrial age. By actively promoting ‘values’ (whatever those values happen to be), it discourages people from being inclined to screw over customers, colleagues or the community to make a short term buck but screwing over the long term prospects of the company in the process.

The values promoted might not give any answers, but even having employees snidely rejecting them can help the right questions to be asked. It’s not so much about management providing top-down answers, but about creating a culture where people feel permitted to challenge the status quo. If you frame your views within wishy-washy company ‘values’ then it’s harder to criticism them as being combative rather than constructive. This intent is to have a company of active and independent employees, rather than one of mindless drones.

Of course, like any other management buzzwords, you could probably divide people into three different groups based on how they respond to the values. There will be those who dismiss them our of hand, those who treat them as some form of religious doctrine and those who will manipulate them to justify what they were going to do anyway.

murph the surf.
murph the surf.
9 years ago

I heard about this company on the BBC a few years ago and thought it may be of interest as a model of empowering employees to challenge their work in most facets.

JJ
JJ
8 years ago

Based upon my limited experience, there is an inverse relationship between talking about and practising ‘values’. The worse things get, the higher sounding the values become. Once you see those motivational posters on the wall of an office, you know things are bad. It is indeed the gap between the is and ought that counts.

trackback

[…] This is strategisation. The passage proposes a prefered action in the context of some overarching development of strategic significance. But if you pay careful attention, the desirability of doing the proposed thing doesn’t hinge on the strategic context at all. This is usually a feature not a bug of economic policy – it’s highly modular. Competition is generally speaking a Good Thing (though there are important exceptions to this which we leave aside for the sake of the argument here). But it’s rare that the desirability of strengthening competition depends on whether something is a growing market or not. 1 It’s a little unfair to pick on this report – the Draft Harper Review of Competition Policy as this is pretty standard stuff. 2 Another more comical form of this kind of thing is “MoreThanEvering” which I wrote up here and here. […]

trackback

[…] Another more comical form of this kind of thing is “MoreThanEvering” which I wrote up here and here. […]