Is the MoD a reflection of Government as a whole?
Anyone with an interest in the British Military will welcome General Sir Mike Jackson's comments yesterday. I am sure the naysayers will be asking why he wasn't making the same case whilst he was CDS, but he answered that point admirably when he said:
"It's not a question of whether I say things or not, it's a question of whether you say things publicly or not".
If he had spoken out publicly, he would have lost his job and British troops would have lost a champion at the top echelons - and he was a champion.
He quite rightly questions whether the MoD at the centre truly understands the ethos of Armed Forces and the importance of the team. He is right to make that point, because the constant rejigs and re-organisations that the MoD has suffered from top to bottom since 1997 (and to a lesser extent before) harm that fundamental ethos. As soon as a team is established and starting to knit after one reorganisation, they teams are ripped apart and reshuffled once again.
This also creates an empire building culture (the single biggest failing of Civil Servants), where people build and develop power bases through organisational structures in order to better position themselves for the next reorganisation.
But this is a reflection of what Government does as a whole. Govenment bodies are never given the opportunity to bed down, to make the corrections that a command structure in its infancy needs to allow itself to bed down, because of the dreadful belief that re-organisation is the only route to improvement.
The shame is that it is what more and more of our money is being spent on. Less and less getting to the people that need it on the ground and more and more on heirarchies. The culture is made worse as Ministers increasingly justify re-organisation as progress.
"It's not a question of whether I say things or not, it's a question of whether you say things publicly or not".
If he had spoken out publicly, he would have lost his job and British troops would have lost a champion at the top echelons - and he was a champion.
He quite rightly questions whether the MoD at the centre truly understands the ethos of Armed Forces and the importance of the team. He is right to make that point, because the constant rejigs and re-organisations that the MoD has suffered from top to bottom since 1997 (and to a lesser extent before) harm that fundamental ethos. As soon as a team is established and starting to knit after one reorganisation, they teams are ripped apart and reshuffled once again.
This also creates an empire building culture (the single biggest failing of Civil Servants), where people build and develop power bases through organisational structures in order to better position themselves for the next reorganisation.
But this is a reflection of what Government does as a whole. Govenment bodies are never given the opportunity to bed down, to make the corrections that a command structure in its infancy needs to allow itself to bed down, because of the dreadful belief that re-organisation is the only route to improvement.
The shame is that it is what more and more of our money is being spent on. Less and less getting to the people that need it on the ground and more and more on heirarchies. The culture is made worse as Ministers increasingly justify re-organisation as progress.
Labels: MoD, New Labour
posted by Martin Curtis at 10:21 AM
1 Comments:
Interesting viewpoint and you are right about reorganisation but this has been a problem since time began. The MoD should understand the military as it is packed to the gunnels with military personnel. They are not visible to the public as everyone is in civvies. As an aside, Jackson was CGS not CDS.
Post a Comment
<< Home