Sir Philip Rutnam

[JQH]

But similarly if the CEO comes out with a "new" policy and someone says "We tried that in 2005 and [Bad Thing] happened", the rebuttal needs to be a little more nuanced than "No negative thinking!" and preferably contain reasons why [Bad Thing] won't happen this time.

Otherwise you finish up with the CEO surrounded by a bunch of yes-men and women; and gov/business can't operate that way either.

[TopBadger]

There is of course an entrenched attitude of "we've always done it this way". Change is hard and difficult. But it doesn't have to be wrong or hard, but it does require all staff all the way down to the bottom to be prepared to accept it. Nothing I've heard about PP indicates this was the case, but some of the posts above strike very close to 'we've always done it this way' and that's not how gov/business needs to operate.

"We've always done it this way" without countenancing the new is simply refusing to try new methods. That I agree is not acceptable.

It is however different to '"we've tried this before and it didn't work because X and X is still the same so we're going to get the same result".

Its also different to "we do it this way in order to comply with X laws which your proposal won't comply with"

I guess I'm sensitive about this because I've experienced similar recently... new boss from adjacent field came in with a wonderful idea and I became 'sh.t of the week' for pointing out that the new idea that he was so excited about because "no one had ever tried it before" had actually been tried three times before in the industry he was now in, and had failed each time.

And yes, I bought it up gently. In fact I think he may still be pissed with me.

[Pucksoppet]

There is of course an entrenched attitude of "we've always done it this way". Change is hard and difficult. But it doesn't have to be wrong or hard, but it does require all staff all the way down to the bottom to be prepared to accept it. Nothing I've heard about PP indicates this was the case, but some of the posts above strike very close to 'we've always done it this way' and that's not how gov/business needs to operate.

"We've always done it this way" without countenancing the new is simply refusing to try new methods. That I agree is not acceptable.

It is however different to '"we've tried this before and it didn't work because X and X is still the same so we're going to get the same result".

Its also different to "we do it this way in order to comply with X laws which your proposal won't comply with"

I guess I'm sensitive about this because I've experienced similar recently... new boss from adjacent field came in with a wonderful idea and I became 'sh.t of the week' for pointing out that the new idea that he was so excited about because "no one had ever tried it before" had actually been tried three times before in the industry he was now in, and had failed each time.

And yes, I bought it up gently. In fact I think he may still be pissed with me.

Good to see a return of "It's Friday, so no need to return from the pub at lunchtime."

[bolo]

But was it really about "we tried that and it didn't work"?

I haven't read much about this case (unsurprisingly it has not been prominent in the US media) but the little I've seen seemed to imply it was about bullying / bad behavior / mismanagement.

In a political context, even if it was a policy disagreement, I would expect that more often to be about ideology, or different policy priorities, than genuinely about whether a proposed policy is known not to work.

But perhaps I am just ignorant of the details of this case.

[Martin Y]

And that attitude, frankly, is unhelpful and would get most people moved sideways into a dead end job.

We don’t know the details of the conversations Patel had with Rutnam but I’d imagine he spent a lot of time explaining why things couldn’t be done, and Patel thought ‘sod that, I’m the home f.cking secretary’.

It's not clear to me that "explaining why things can't be done" is necessarily more unhelpful than "sod that, I'm the home f.cking secretary".

One can imagine a scenario in which Rutnam is the villain, obstructing any efforts to shake things up, but we can equally imagine him as the voice of reason, staying the ministerial hand about to unleash predictable disaster.

[murmur]

Perhaps if you want to be in charge then go for the promotion. If you don't, then don't make your boss's life a misery with all your "that'll never work" b.llsh.t.

Interesting that you keep pushing this line. I never had you pegged as an obsequious, bootlicking yes-man.

Or just arguing for the sake of arguing, as rthe content of many of the counter-arguments remain unaddressed...bit like trying to discuss things with some of the "boss"-types I'm talking about.

[murmur]

It's the opposite of "unhelpful", in that it stops a lot of time and resources being wasted on things which have been tried before and failed or were replaced with something which works better...

Yebbut, does the boss share that view? Because the flip side of this is when the new boss joins your organisation with all of these wonderfully exciting "new ideas" only to find out they're not new in the slightest and were tried in year X and didn't work then and the fundamentals haven't changed... well, what are they to do now?

In my experience the 'organisation learning' piece be can be cast aside, along with those that speak of it, and the new boss presses on regardless because they've got to demonstrate "something" to their boss / board / whomever. The old hand who knows it's a poor idea because they've seen it tried before quickly becomes an obstacle to be removed rather than a helpful source of lived experience.

The higher up the org chart the boss is the worse it gets because there is less likelihood of someone 'above them' also having lived the experience and calling a halt to the idea. When the top person comes in and has new ideas that are old ideas that don't work - it's an utter minefield and you can become unpopular really rather quickly through no fault of your own other than being honest and transparent.

It's sh.t. But there you are.

I'd say it is entirely legitimate to ask exactly what the "bosses"/"managers" are actually there for. I'd expand on this, but we are straying a long way from whatever is going on between Patel and a number of civil servants.

[murmur]

Perhaps if you want to be in charge then go for the promotion. If you don't, then don't make your boss's life a misery with all your "that'll never work" b.llsh.t.

As a staff nurse in around 1991 I applied for the NHS graduate management scheme, having already equipped myself with a degree. I didn't have any great hopes of even getting a first interview, as I told the truth on my application, including how I'd persuaded, with facts'n'that, managers to cough up more money so we could have more staff.

During the interview, which I somehow got, I offered a sound argument for why certain spending decisions in Newcastle were flawed and could easily lead to biiiiiig problems for one hospital if some pretty damn' obvious things happened. And, lo, it came to pass that I didn't get a secind interview...And, lo, it came to pass that what I'd said could easily happen did happen...Did I mention that one of the interview panel was one of the geniuses who had come up with that "plan"?

When our last but one "manager" was appointed in around 2008 I did consider applying (the next grade up from where I was): the job description wass the single most unintelligible document I read in 30 odd years in the NHS, to the point that neither I nor The Bread Goddess (who is a trained proof reader among other things) could make sense of it; and it made absolutely no mention of the post-holder being responsible for running a clinical service...


Tl;dr much management is a closed shop, folk who don't adopt the prevailing ideas or who might challenge are excluded.

And if I ever said "That won't work", I could and would explain why, with rteferrences and graphs and everything, so you can sod off with calling it b.llsh.t.

[Bird on a Fire]

Tl;dr much management is a closed shop, folk who don't adopt the prevailing ideas or who might challenge are excluded.

I recently went to my six form 10-year reunion, from a very posh school I attended on a scholarship amongst a lot of people who made me very aware of the British class system (purely unintentionally, while being good friends).

Several of them are now "management consultants".

They're my age (29) and I know for a fact that none of them have ever managed anything (in that sense). But companies are paying them for advice, which can only reflect parroted learning.

I asked them how the f.ck they know what they're doing, and they joked that they don't and they just tell everyone to "consider making an app", confidently.

So that's why there's so many apps now, anyway.

[Nero]

One day, I'll write a book or perhaps just a considered post on here.

I started working in the mobile telco space at the start of the boom. Late 1990's. None of us, from the network engineers, to the IT bods to the senior-senior mgt had a Scoobby-Do how the industry was meant to play out. None of these tech arcs, or even business arcs had been played out before. There were no previous case studies to work through. We were playing it by ear. But with huge amounts of money rolling in.

The "consultants", mostly Arthur Anderson (as they were then called), were more than happy to help out with our cash burden. They were without a single doubt a bunch of cheating shysters. However senior (CTO level) mgt had no fall back position, or prior knowledge on how to manage the business.

In hindsight I wish I had opened up a senior mgt telco consultancy company. Hey ho.

[murmur]

Tl;dr much management is a closed shop, folk who don't adopt the prevailing ideas or who might challenge are excluded.

I recently went to my six form 10-year reunion, from a very posh school I attended on a scholarship amongst a lot of people who made me very aware of the British class system (purely unintentionally, while being good friends).

Several of them are now "management consultants".

They're my age (29) and I know for a fact that none of them have ever managed anything (in that sense). But companies are paying them for advice, which can only reflect parroted learning.

I asked them how the f.ck they know what they're doing, and they joked that they don't and they just tell everyone to "consider making an app", confidently.

So that's why there's so many apps now, anyway.

Have a read of Matthew Stewart's The Management Myth: scary stuff, in addition to taking apart most mangement "theory".

[Opti]

Tl;dr much management is a closed shop, folk who don't adopt the prevailing ideas or who might challenge are excluded.

I recently went to my six form 10-year reunion, from a very posh school I attended on a scholarship amongst a lot of people who made me very aware of the British class system (purely unintentionally, while being good friends).

Several of them are now "management consultants".

They're my age (29) and I know for a fact that none of them have ever managed anything (in that sense). But companies are paying them for advice, which can only reflect parroted learning.

I asked them how the f.ck they know what they're doing, and they joked that they don't and they just tell everyone to "consider making an app", confidently.

So that's why there's so many apps now, anyway.

Heh. Scholarship kiddies. Didn't we get educated alongside some f.cking thickies?

[plodder]

Perhaps if you want to be in charge then go for the promotion. If you don't, then don't make your boss's life a misery with all your "that'll never work" b.llsh.t.

Interesting that you keep pushing this line. I never had you pegged as an obsequious, bootlicking yes-man.

Or just arguing for the sake of arguing, as rthe content of many of the counter-arguments remain unaddressed...bit like trying to discuss things with some of the "boss"-types I'm talking about.

That's not fair. Comments along the lines of "I don't see what bosses are for, anyway" are making my point for me. Disgruntled smash-the-system types don't tend to get promoted very far but can often be resentful and need careful management to keep them happy. The case of Patel and Rutnam is about the very top of the tree, with the boss demanding that things are done their way. It's not an unreasonable ask. If the senior adviser disagrees how it works is that they say so, have a frank conversation, the boss makes a decision, and they get on with it.

It's not often apparent what the best course of action is, but it's only the boss's job to really worry about that philosophical stuff. Everyone else is a doer.

Also agree that management consultants are utter parasites. I once went to a meeting at PwC and the meeting room had its own waiter. These f.ckers charge too much.

BoAF, your mates are referred to as "kids with laptops" and people like me know we can be rude to them with utter impunity. When they've asked me to fill in a spreadsheet they can then rebrand as their own work I always give them the maximum runaround, and so does everyone else. It's a sh.t job.

[bjn]

If the boss’s way involves sacrificing infants to Yogsothoth and the minion says that this probably won’t pass several legal hurdles, the minion isn’t in the wrong, the boss is.

Ministers/CEOs are not totally unconstrained in what they can do legally, nor as to what they do practically. Having an experienced minion push back on dumb ideas is part of their job.

[plodder]

If the boss’s way involves sacrificing infants to Yogsothoth and the minion says that this probably won’t pass several legal hurdles, the minion isn’t in the wrong, the boss is.

Ministers/CEOs are not totally unconstrained in what they can do legally, nor as to what they do practically. Having an experienced minion push back on dumb ideas is part of their job.

Specifically, which human sacrifices was Patel asking of Rutnam? Which instances of illegality?

[JQH]

We'll find out at his tribunal hearing.

Unless Johnson closes the courts to prevent the spread of Covid 19.

[cvb]

If the boss’s way involves sacrificing infants to Yogsothoth and the minion says that this probably won’t pass several legal hurdles, the minion isn’t in the wrong, the boss is.

Ministers/CEOs are not totally unconstrained in what they can do legally, nor as to what they do practically. Having an experienced minion push back on dumb ideas is part of their job.

It's hard to tell due to the lack of detaill, but she doesn't seem to mind breaking the law as it is. Didn't she illegally deport people despite being told it was illegal? I would think in that case a senior civil servant might have infirmed of the fact and having beee told to stfu. She doesn't come across as a nice person.

[Bird on a Fire]

BoAF, your mates are referred to as "kids with laptops" and people like me know we can be rude to them with utter impunity. When they've asked me to fill in a spreadsheet they can then rebrand as their own work I always give them the maximum runaround, and so does everyone else. It's a sh.t job.

That's quite reassuring to hear, to be honest

[murmur]

Interesting that you keep pushing this line. I never had you pegged as an obsequious, bootlicking yes-man.

Or just arguing for the sake of arguing, as rthe content of many of the counter-arguments remain unaddressed...bit like trying to discuss things with some of the "boss"-types I'm talking about.

That's not fair. Comments along the lines of "I don't see what bosses are for, anyway" are making my point for me. Disgruntled smash-the-system types don't tend to get promoted very far but can often be resentful and need careful management to keep them happy. The case of Patel and Rutnam is about the very top of the tree, with the boss demanding that things are done their way. It's not an unreasonable ask. If the senior adviser disagrees how it works is that they say so, have a frank conversation, the boss makes a decision, and they get on with it.

It's not often apparent what the best course of action is, but it's only the boss's job to really worry about that philosophical stuff. Everyone else is a doer.

Also agree that management consultants are utter parasites. I once went to a meeting at PwC and the meeting room had its own waiter. These f.ckers charge too much.

BoAF, your mates are referred to as "kids with laptops" and people like me know we can be rude to them with utter impunity. When they've asked me to fill in a spreadsheet they can then rebrand as their own work I always give them the maximum runaround, and so does everyone else. It's a sh.t job.

If only I'd said that...The bolded bit...But I didn't: "I'd say it is entirely legitimate to ask exactly what the "bosses"/"managers" are actually there for." is what I said. And it is legitmate to ask that, same as it is for anyone in any organisation. Do I need to trot out my (many) stories about how long various services I worked in functioned without a manager (up to and including trusts functioning without CEOs) as opposed to how quickly we noticed the loss of a clinician or secretary.

A lot of the time we end up with "bosses" and "managers" because that's how it's always been done, not from any properly articulated decision-making process.

[Bird on a Fire]

If the boss’s way involves sacrificing infants to Yogsothoth and the minion says that this probably won’t pass several legal hurdles, the minion isn’t in the wrong, the boss is.

Ministers/CEOs are not totally unconstrained in what they can do legally, nor as to what they do practically. Having an experienced minion push back on dumb ideas is part of their job.

Specifically, which human sacrifices was Patel asking of Rutnam? Which instances of illegality?

Do we actually know the details of this case yet? Everybody seems very sure about what has happened, presumably based on a mix of Patel's past form (and possibly the long history of illegal actions taken by recent Tory Home Offices) and the prejudices their bringing with them from their own workplaces, but reference to actual detail seems very scant.

[murmur]

Further to my previoius post-

And the points that several of us have made about professional responsibilities and obligations remain unaddressed...To spell it out, I was professionally accountable for what I did at work, no-one else, thus if someone tried to order me to do something which was agin my professional code of conduct I would be the one held accountable and responsible, not them, and being ordered would not be a viable defence. So anyone trying to order me to do something agin that or other guidelines and the like would and should be met with a "Oh, you really think so?" (like the time one "manager" tried to get us to speed up autism assessment and diagnosis, not by filling all the vacant staff posts but by cutting corners in the process - breaching NICE guidelines, several professional codes of conduct, trust policies...).

[plodder]

Here’s the irony murmur. All those useless managers that had to manage you being difficult got kudos from their peers for having such a handful in their team, and it probably helped their careers.

BoAF: we don’t know *exactly* what Patel and Rutnam were bickering about, but a fiver says she didn’t make him do human sacrifice or anything illegal.

nb politicians can change the law to suit their policies. That’s their job.

[Bird on a Fire]

BoAF: we don’t know *exactly* what Patel and Rutnam were bickering about, but a fiver says she didn’t make him do human sacrifice or anything illegal.

It could have been simply a strong ideological opposition. I wouldn't be surprised.

However, there have been clear cases of misconduct from the Conservatives recently, including at the Home Office, and their new majority is surely emboldening. Patel has already revealed she cuts corners with stuff like her Israel holiday-plus-meetings so I wouldn't be surprised if she'd asked for something at least dodgy either.

[Gfamily]

BoAF: we don’t know *exactly* what Patel and Rutnam were bickering about, but a fiver says she didn’t make him do human sacrifice or anything illegal.

It could have been simply a strong ideological opposition. I wouldn't be surprised.

It could equally have been PP behaving in a bullying and unprofessional manner to more junior Civil Servants, and Sir PR was protecting his permanent staff.

Given reports, this doesn't seem to be out of character for her.

[murmur]

Here’s the irony murmur. All those useless managers that had to manage you being difficult got kudos from their peers for having such a handful in their team, and it probably helped their careers.

BoAF: we don’t know *exactly* what Patel and Rutnam were bickering about, but a fiver says she didn’t make him do human sacrifice or anything illegal.

nb politicians can change the law to suit their policies. That’s their job.

And still you ignore everything said about professional responsibility and accountability...Why is this?

And still you impute "difficulty" to genuine arguments about the validity of a course of action...Why is this?

FYI a whole set of managers (our service manager, the divisional manager and the director) were sacked over a variety of things they did, some they didn't but should have and for covering up some very dodgy stuff in another - nothing to do with me and my bit of the forest - service. These were involved in several of the things I refered to. Kudos, my arse...Dole queue more like