Being ethical and socially responsible is all part of the public sector ethos – but is the business world corrupting the public sector just when business ethics and the role of extravagantly rewarded business leaders are being questioned? Being ethical and socially responsible is all part of the public sector ethos – or it was before business people were parachuted on to NHS boards, schools were sponsored by commercial organisations and prisons were taken over by private sector security firms. Traditionally, leadership in the business world has focused on profit and maximising shareholder value. In recent years, large-scale financial mismanagement, questionable labour practices, environmental disasters and massive tax avoidance have discredited multi-nationals and provoked international protests. The role of individual leaders has come into the spotlight after high-profile events such as the global banking collapse, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the exploitation of child labour in developing countries in the manufacture of luxury goods. We don't like and don't trust big business so why are we opening up the public sector to them? And how do we ensure our leaders don't adopt their ways? Some might say it's too late because chief executive pay in the public sector as compared to public sector pay in general is already excessive. Chief executives and directors have become obsessed with budgets and performance at the expense of the wellbeing of staff and the safety/care of patients. The pressure to deliver efficiency savings, implement restructurings and hit demanding performance targets has led to questionable labour practices, avoidable deaths, fiddling the figures and bankrupting services. Those on salaries measured in the hundreds of thousands can afford to say they are not motivated by the money, but generally speaking the public sector still attracts people who want to make a difference to the lives of others and who do accept the need to look at the interests of the wider community. So what happens to teachers, social workers, nurses, doctors and housing officers when they go into management? When these professionals with a background in the public sector become senior managers and leaders, why do some of them start fiddling the figures? Why do they say one thing and do another? Why do they claim changes will improve services when they must know patient care will suffer? Why do they say people will be consulted when they know the decision has already been made? Why do they try to gloss over failings and treat any dissent as disloyalty? In Stalin's Soviet Socialist Republic they reported year-on-year record bumper harvests when those who worked the land were starving. The response from the authorities was to pull the blinds down on the trains so journalists could not see the emaciated bodies. If you set the targets at an impossible level, if you name and shame those who fail, then people will simply fiddle the figures. If change is ideologically driven, then it becomes a question of loyalty not professional integrity/ethics. If success is measured in finance and performance then the impact on the wider community is of little consequence, a PR exercise. If reducing costs and outsourcing services is seen as the measure of leadership then this will only add to a culture of bullying. In other words, public sector leadership is corrupted by the fear of failure. If we want our public sector leaders to act ethically, show social responsibility, have integrity and uphold a set of values then we need to judge them by their behaviour, not simply by financial results. This means the management style they model, the way they work with partner agencies, the fairness of their contracting and commissioning arrangements, the relationship with trade unions, politicians and community leaders and the local media. An individual chief executive or director should be able to voice their concerns to the board or cabinet without fear of retribution. Former senior managers should not be gagged from speaking about their concerns. Professional bodies should be able to challenge government policy proposals if they believe it will put service users at risk or undermine best practice. They should be able to spell out the implications as part of the public debate.Blair McPherson is an author and commentator on public sector management and leadership www.blairmcpherson.co.uk
