The system of managing people in the administration has "long" tradition. So long that the "gap" between the needs posed by the times and the solutions it provides such a system is increasingly untenable.
The management function is very well what I'm saying. The complexity of the issues facing Authorities require a specific professional profile, with expertise and skills different from those that traditionally have been in the "boss" in the bureaucratic apparatus. The system of posts and career that rules in favor Administrations over what I call the "chief of bureau syndrome" : When accessing the Administration will successively occupying leadership positions in organizational units are changing the name (service section, area, sub ...) and size, but the characteristics of its leadership remain constant over the years.
The passage of official (in either their bodies or scales) a manager with a suitable retraining to new functions not only possible but even desirable but not as commonly happens in our private authorities where such recycling does not occur and we have the aforementioned "leaders negotiated" acting as such but with the title of managers, high budget and much greater responsibility.
The effects of this practice are devastating: the approach to the task, the mechanical treatment processes, people and little guidance on results of the "chief of bureau" are incompatible with the role of motivator of people, manager political and administrative environment and focus on objectives that must characterize the manager. This leads to a stagnation of both the organization itself as a disaffection and alienation of public professionals committed to their charge.
This mismatch and the proliferation of "heads of business" in the administrative leadership of the various public organizations explains much of the problems besetting them and why they sometimes are so difficult to meet the increasingly complex social needs.
0 comments:
Post a Comment