Local Government Utopia

Two hundred (or so) opinions, essays and observations

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Long reads
    • ‘What matters and what works’. Why feasibility is important in local government.
    • Classic paper – ‘Managing Government, Governing Management’. Henry Mintzberg.
    • Classic paper – ‘Managing the public service institution’. Peter F. Drucker.
    • Classic paper: ‘Forget your people – real leaders act on the system’. John Seddon.
    • Managers as designers in local government.
    • Three recent local government leadership pieces from ACELG, MCC and IBAC.
    • Understanding the customer experience in local government.
  • Most popular posts
  • Syntopicon
    • A to D
    • E to N
    • O to Q
    • R to Z

Tag Archives: Keith Breckenridge

183 – ‘Power without knowledge’ – local government leadership?

Posted on October 15, 2015 by lancingfarrell

Posted by Whistler                                                                                          530 words

trickle

I was reading a paper about colonialism and the use of power, in this case violence, to coerce people into compliance. There is no need to understand people and negotiate when you have power, and the people subjected to the power soon stop trying to negotiate when they are being hit with a large stick. It crossed my mind that this is an extreme version of what happens periodically in local government.

The revolutionisation process brings in new leaders with positional power, which they often use to impose their will on the organisation. They know what needs to be done and what is best, that is why they have been put in charge. Through their actions it is apparent that they don’t believe the current organisational management has much to offer.

The recent post by Colin Weatherby suggesting that new CEO’s could hold a summit to gather ideas about how to improve the organisation before acting ignores this reality. CEO’s don’t have to engage or ask and they usually don’t.

I am sure they would say that they are ultimately accountable, therefore they need to do what they think is required. I don’t disagree with this view – they are accountable. But they don’t have to make these decisions without engagement with the rest of the organisation.

A colleague was recently talking to me about discussions occurring in their council about ‘strength-based’ management. It is picking up on a community development approach that focuses on the ‘assets’ that the community has available from each other, and their ability to meet their own and each other’s needs without relying on the council. It is premised on the idea that it is more sustainable for people to figure out how to help themselves than it is for government to make service consumers out of community members and create dependencies. Within an organisation, this idea could be mimicked by recognising that everyone has something to offer and tapping into it through meaningful engagement.

It would be the opposite of treating the organisation as a blank sheet that just needs someone cleverer from outside to come in and draw on it with their cronies. The colonial powers took this view with indigenous people and set about controlling them through the use of power. A ruling elite made all of the decisions without recourse to the general populace – many of whom were ‘contracted’ into a form of slavery anyway – and the potential for progress was limited by the ability of the ruling group.

Someone said to me recently that ‘ideas are like water’ at their council – they only move downwards – in a trickle and they are drought stricken.

At the end of the day, the CEO and top management will exercise power as they see fit and with little control. Councillors cannot see into the organisation and CEO’s are careful to make sure that their every need is met. The leaders of dysfunctional councils are often held in high esteem by their councillors and peers.

However, if power is used without the knowledge required to effect change that is positive, sustainable and creates community value, they will just perpetuate the cycle of ‘revolutionisation’ and be replaced by the next lot. It may have served their career well (every day top management who are failing leave for more senior roles elsewhere) but it will have done little for the organisation or the community.

Just like the colonial powers.

Breckenridge, Keith, 2008. ‘Power without Knowledge: Three Nineteenth Century Colonialisms in South Africa’, Journal of Natal and Zulu History, 26.

Posted in leadership / Tagged colonialism, council, councillors, Keith Breckenridge, leadership, local government, organisational engagement, power, revolutionisation, ruling elite
graeber quote

Search this site

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Stats

  • 87,201 hits

Recent Posts

  • 236 – Organisation design in local government
  • 235 – My experience of management thinking in local government – Part 3: The frustrating years.
  • 234 – My experience of management thinking in local government – Part 2: The wasted years.
  • 233 – My experience of management thinking in local government – Part 1: The formative years.
  • 232 – Coronavirus and local government – Financial Impact

Archives

Top posts – last 48hrs

  • 189 - Essay No. 2 – Local government, effectiveness and efficiency.
  • 137 - EPM, PMO or JACI. What are our CEO’s talking about now?
  • 194 - Essay No. 4 - Local government and customer service.
  • 70 - What does ‘meeting expectations’ really mean? A performance appraisal story.
  • 203 – ‘Systems Thinking for Social Change' by David Peter Stroh.

Theme tags

accountability book books budgeting business model Captain Council CEO change management Christopher Stone complexity council councillors Council Plan councils culture customer customer experience customer service customer variability dashboard decision making decisions design thinking Executive Farrell high performance high performance jobs design high performance organisation John Seddon Jon Kolko Kano leadership local government Mark H. Moore middle management middle managers Nigel Slack operational capability operations management Parkinson performance performance appraisal performance improvement performance indicators performance management performance measurement Peter R. Scholtes planning processes productivity prototyping public value public value scorecard purpose question rapid prototyping rate capping recruitment revolutionisation Richard B. Chase risk appetite risk management Rummler and Brache service design services shared services strategic decision making strategic planning strategy strategy execution strategy implementation Sull Homkes and Sull systems systems thinking the Executive value value proposition Vanguard Method Weatherby Whistler

Links

  • Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government
  • Flip Chart Fairy Tales
  • John Seddon – the Vanguard Method
  • Pannell Discussions
  • Squire to the Giants
  • Thinkpurpose.com
Blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Local Government Utopia
    • Join 132 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Local Government Utopia
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...