Cummings' Jobs Advert

[Sway]

Anyone else read the blog post and suddenly gain an interest in working in the public sector?

I did...

Not going to though, current job is too much fun. Definitely count as a weirdo and misfit without a "traditional" background that would typically be valued in the application stage.

Crikey it's appealling though.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blogs.spectator.co.uk...

[Sway]

Randy Winkman said:

It continues the current civil service obsession with qualifications which seems contradictory.

In some areas - but in a way that seems logical.

In others, he's specifically looking for people who don't fit a mould at all - and one category (the second I might fit in) he seems to be looking for companies, rather than individuals.

[Sway]

TheFungle said:

JPJPJP said:

I think his approach is fantastic

It is either doomed to fail if he doesn’t find and retain a sufficient number of those people quickly enough... or it will radically and positively transform the way government runs

I have my fingers crossed that he can make it work. I think he will.

fking hell that sounds like fun

Oh wait, it's the running of a country at a crucial time in it's history, is this really the time for such thinking?

At certain levels this all does feel like a giant game that the majority of us are unwittingly taking part in.

It really does.

Challenging times are exactly the best time to drive radical, constructive change.

When times are 'normal' it's impossible to get traction for organisational change - even if it's needed for the long term (and recognised as such).

An open mind during challenging times, and a willingness to consider ideas that would sound insane normally have lead to some of the greatest advances in human history.

The last major shift in 'government CS' approaches was I believe driven by Blair/Campbell - and not for the better, dispute how well those changes have stuck since.

This is a golden opportunity, as Cummings puts. Big mandate, no concerns really over short term policy, and a real identification of an urgent need to drive the foundation level changes that'll likely take this term to actually come to fruition.

In my living memory, the only PMs with that opportunity have been Thatcher and Blair.

[Sway]

KarlMac said:

Maybe they're finally having a clear out of all the Common Purpose drones (whatever happened to CP? Was all the rage before Brexit)

I've got a feeling that's what Cummins is referring to when he talks of seniors moving around a lot and not gaining any deep understanding of anything...

Isn't that CP's schtick - 'leaders that can cross boundaries'?

[Sway]

BlackTails said:

This sounds suspiciously like Cummings replacing a “people like us” recruitment culture with a “people like me” culture. Plus ça change...

Cummings may find his abrasive my-way or-the-highway/I’m-in-charge-do-as-I-say-or-get-out style works when there’s one of him, but works less well when there’s 10,000 of him.

He's saying he wants to make himself redundant within a year or two.

I think the "you'll be out in a couple of weeks" is more relating to those that can talk a good game in interview. Or play bullst office politics.

[Sway]

Kent Border Kenny said:

Application sent in.

There’s very little chance that I’m ready to change careers, but the day when I am is getting closer, and this could perhaps be interesting.

Good luck!

I'm genuinely thinking of doing the same - like you, not really ready to move, but then the best time to move is when there's still work left to do...

[Sway]

BlackWidow13 said:

Sway said:

He's saying he wants to make himself redundant within a year or two.

No one has ever said that, and at the same time wanted to leave successors in place who have a completely different approach to their own.

Approach, no. Style, yes...

So there's no need for 10k abrasive, my way or high way types. 10k unconstrained, intelligent free thinkers with a penchant for parallel adoption into unrelated fields however... Which is something the private sector success stories have often done (Ford applying abattoir lines to car production, for example).

[Sway]

Camelot1971 said:

princeperch said:

Good luck with this. He wants to recruit talented people, at the top of their game.

The problem is money. A grade 7 or grade 6 (which are fairly senior roles) earn between 50-70 ish at the moment. A senior civil servant can get promoted and get a ten pc pay rise from the G6 salary.

So the sums involved, especially if you are in London, are pretty small. I know spad roles can pay more (up to about 100k or so) but I doubt they will be recruiting at that level, the roles will be at g7/G6 level.

Pay really is a problem in the civil service. A lot of people simply can't stomach the money.

The money won't be a driver for those who are genuinely interested in shaping government. Anyone who wants to earn more than most ministers or even the PM is looking at the wrong place to work if they apply.

Yup.

I could very easily 'chase the money' - but for loads of reasons simply don't want to.

I'm the sole earner - disabled partner and two teens. Not worth the constant politicking in the 'name' companies within my field. Especially as it's all geared to screwing you over in order for them to advance.

I don't want the constant travel and stress any more.

The work bores me to tears, being able to be described as advanced painting by numbers.

Zero freedom of thought or innovation.

Etc.

So, I work for a firm that I quite admire in what they do.

The people are great, and very little bullst.

The work is varied, complex, challenging, emotionally and intellectually rewarding - oh, and fun.

I get paid around half of what I 'could', doing the same job for a different firm (or a known consultancy). Been there, didn't like it.

In many ways, within it's field, it's become the market disruptor that Cummings seems to be aiming for in Downing Street.

Which is why I'm struggling with this - I'd love to do what I do now, on a wider more important stage. However, the risks are huge personally, due to my circumstances. Probably a risk too far...

[Sway]

Camelot1971 said:

There is lots of opportunity to do things differently, but people need to be prepared for things to fail and go wrong when pushing boundaries. Private sector firms can hide all of that when innovating but the public sector can't. I agree with Cummings though, that its worth having a go at something different.

Whilst I understand the point, I'm not sure I agree.

I've worked in plenty of private sector organisations where things going wrong (either via 'routine' operational failure, or those driven by change/innovation) means plenty of people die, or have major lifechanging impacts to their lives.

What's perhaps different, is that the private sector (generally) simply must innovate and change constantly - whereas (generally!) the public sector, by virtue of no competition, can always choose to retain the status quo to avoid that risk.

[Sway]

paulrockliffe said:

There are, they get paid poorly to do clever stuff, though it's not too bad when you add 50% on for the value of the pension. To progress they move into roles that involve going to meetings all the time and stop doing the clever stuff they were good at. The amount of wasted talent is insane, the level of poor leadership is also insane.

Paying clever people more than thick people so that the clever people stay doing clever stuff rather than getting roles they can't do would make a huge difference, especially as it would open up leadership roles for people that can lead and manage. Too few senior CS roles end up being advertised externally, where there is the talent to do the jobs properly.

Does the Public Sector have career frameworks that have parallel (and equal) streams for 'professional/sme' and 'leadership'? In my experience, that prevents the pull into the 'wrong fit' progression role purely because that's the defined, sole, path.

[Sway]

El stovey said:

Seems like a few on here think they meet the requirements. I'd like to think so, and am entirely happy with my CV - but it's more that what's presented fits with my outlook on my work/career.

Obviously the vast majority of the government's work will be done by the same types as before, this sounds like Cummings inner chamber, his version of skunk works or Google’s jigsaw. I think he sees himself a bit like Bobby Axelrod from billions. Absolutely nothing wrong with that... Skunkworks and Jigsaw are well known for a reason!

Is it much different from Alistair Campbell or any other unelected spin doctor coming in and talking about making complex data driven changes with some new wky disruptive phrases and tough guy nonsense?
I think so - Campbell's reforms all seemed to be related to presentation and public perception, than delivery...
It does seem odd though that a population and in particular less well off people feeling disenfranchised and complaining about a disconnect with the political class will now somehow be satisfied by boffins banging on about a Model-Free Prediction of Large Spatiotemporally Chaotic Systems from data etc.

The 'Workington man' doesn't give a st how the changes have come about, but that things change/improve. Whether it's the application of modelling techniques in the field of physics into macroeconomics, or someone jotting down an idea on a post it in a brainstorming session - it's the result, not the mechanism, that these 'disenfranchised' people care about.

Edited by El stovey on Friday 3rd January 12:21

All IMHO, obvs.

[Sway]

princeperch said:

Kent Border Kenny said:

As above, I like the idea of giving something back after having a good career in finance.

That's all well and good, but it's the system we have at the moment.

A huge number of central gov depts employ ex city types in law, accountancy, IT, and national security, but that leads to the situation we are in at the moment. A workforce of already rich white middle class people, and a steam of grievances from bame staff members when they are passed over for promotion/bonuses or feel they are being harassed and victimised by their managers at work. I see it daily.

I can understand that - and I'd also posit that a decent chunk have come through one of the 'names' that are superb at taking the top grads then moulding them into identikit drones all thinking/acting the same way?

[Sway]

El stovey said:

I suppose he only needs a handful who would rather be involved in those positions than making more money outside Downing Street and it must be pretty intoxicating to be involved in the inner workings of government.

This.

Plus, a lot of disruptive free thinkers aren't going to get better money elsewhere - because they don't conform.

Certainly, for me there was simply no chance I'd have had any longevity or success at one of the 'names' - and yet I've had a fruitful and pretty successful career so far. I've focused on working for companies who do want someone like me - rather than becoming something I'm not (where all my innate USPs will by default disappear).

Plus, there's a huge amount of people who aren't motivated solely by the size of the paycheque - as long as the paycheque is, to quote old RR "sufficient".

[Sway]

The list of words considered "masculine coded" is fking hilarious.

How on earth would they deal with gendered languages such as French?!

[Sway]

berlintaxi said:

Sway said:

[b] The 'Workington man' doesn't give a st how the changes have come about, but that things change/improve.

He's going to end up massively disappointed then.

That's a shame.

Still, it seems you've found a decent crystal ball manufacturer and calibrator - fancy sharing? If I can get the euro millions numbers, I'll pay the £100k a year to Cummins just to get involved.

[Sway]

Tuna - fking ouch!

I'm currently having fun with our merger/"synergy" team in the States. All fking useless, operating from it seems an old Mckinsey playbook from the 90s.

They want me/us to completely bin the programme that's lead us turning from a loss making business with 15% market share, to a four times the size profit making business with 30% market share over the last few years - so that we can follow their very carefully designed, massively bureaucratic structure that's a painting by numbers, one size fits all scheme.

Yeah, fking right chaps.

[Sway]

Oh, it's not just Mckinsey...

As I mentioned earlier, there's a whole fking industry taking the best and brightest - and absolutely removing anything that made them any bloody good by turning them all into identikit drones working off the playbook...

I try not to hate the player. As I get older, it gets easier.

Dodged a few bullets when younger though, thanks to some sage advice from someone who's become a very good friend. With very little interaction, he twigged a lot about 'who' I am, and made me aware of some of the temptations that would likely fall in my path.

[Sway]

Countdown said:

Tuna said:

PSB1 said:

I don't claim that this is unique especially, but it really chimed in with my experience that organisations and programmes expend most of their time and effort navel gazing.

A nice counter example is an organisation I recently worked for, run almost exclusively by Oxbridge educated individuals, and advised by leading academics and experts. They have just had to write off a hundred million pound 'transformation' project - all carefully planned for and designed. The monoculture of thought and reliance on traditional organisational structures led to a protracted and very expensive complete failure.

You can recognise the same patterns in government every day.

What kind of projects have been successfully implemented which have been staffed by "wierdos, misfits, people who never went to University"?

Projects failure isn't restricted to just the Public Sector. It's possibly more noticed in the Public Sector because the size of the projects carried out tends to be so big). I'm not saying there isn't a place for wierdos and misfits somewhere in the CS, (our IT team is full of them) but it's not likely to improve the CS in any significant way.

Apollo.

Plenty of weirdos and misfits, as well as plenty who didn't go to uni as it was before uni was deemed necessary for absolutely everything.

Pretty sure the Manhattan Project was similar.

Both required doing things very differently to how they'd been done before - otherwise they'd have either taken too long, or not happened at all.

ARPA/DARPA?

Oh, and pretty much every properly successful project I've been involved in. Won a reasonably prestigious national award for my employer, using a team lead by me (no uni - dropped out after a year of Photography) and fifteen others who ranged from a couple of old Poles who were simply incredible at physical problem solving, a physio turned veg chopper, and a few middle aged farm hands...

[Sway]

jsf said:

Bletchley Park
The SAS
Motorsport teams.

I thought of BP straight after hitting submit.

The very definition.

Turing was absolutely shunned by society - yet the government were more than happy to utilise him for the war effort, before discarding like a wk rag.

[Sway]

Countdown said:

Sway said:

Apollo.

Plenty of weirdos and misfits, as well as plenty who didn't go to uni as it was before uni was deemed necessary for absolutely everything.

Sway said:

Pretty sure the Manhattan Project was similar.

Both of those were projects that had 10's of thousands of people working on them. A quick google (and from my own knowledge of history) most of them were well-known scientists and academics. Why do you say that the majority were weirdos and misfits?

I'd also suggest that the majority of Government work is administrative in nature not technical or scientific.

Most of the tens of thousands were well known scientists and academics?



The vast majority were time served tool makers, machinists, assembly workers, etc.

Also, the governance and decision making structure was massively different to anything that had come before - compared to the rest of the US public sector, they absolutely operated as misfits.