Our public bureaucracy is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is the machinery that enables the functioning of the state, making it indispensable for governance and the delivery of public goods. Its hierarchical structure and procedural basis enable it to establish order and achieve efficiency. On the other hand, its default solution to almost all challenges and problems is to expand itself – a process that ultimately causes disorder and inefficiency.
The Growth of Bureaucracy: Hammering Away
The nature of public institutions is such that their initial design aims to address the complexities of public administration. Within their bureaucratic structures lie well-defined roles, strict regulations, and clear chains of command that ostensibly streamline operations. However, when faced with a new issue, the instinctive reaction is often to create additional layers of bureaucracy, under the premise of gaining more specialized control and oversight.
This phenomenon echoes the adage, "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail," reflecting a scenario where the default mode of problem-solving is singular and self-perpetuating. When every problem looks like a nail, all new or perpetuating problems look like clear justifications to get more hammers.
Take, for example, a recent ERO report into the troubling decline in classroom behaviour. It made six[i] recommendations for action.
Have a national approach: “a more national approach to support all schools”, “a more consistent set of expert supports and programmes for schools” aka. work for education bureaucrats
Increase accountability and set clear expectations: "ERO to include a sharper focus in its reviews", "provide national guidance to school boards on clear minimum expectations" aka. work for education bureaucrats
Greater prevention: "increase support that identifies and addresses underlying causes of behaviour", "examine school size and structures within larger schools", "support schools to monitor behaviour...", "support schools to adopt evidence-based practices" aka. work for education bureaucrats
Raising teachers’ capability: "increase the focus on managing behaviour as part of Initial Teacher Education... and within the Teaching Standards", "increase recruitment of [potential teachers] better able to manage behaviour", "consider nationally accredited professional learning and development" aka. work for education bureaucrats
Greater investment in effective support: "increase availability of specialist support", "identify and grow the most effective programmes and embed these consistently in all schools", "review the learning support workforce and funding models", "prioritise support for schools with the largest behavioural issues" aka. work for education bureaucrats
Effective consequences: "provide clear guidance to schools on what the most effective consequences for challenging behaviour are and how to use them to achieve the best outcomes for students", "ensure suspensions remain a last resort and that they trigger individual behaviour plans" aka. work for education bureaucrats
Ask education bureaucrats for solutions to a problem and their consistent, comprehensive answer is “education bureaucrats”. This is why we have MOE staff growing at 11x the rate of teacher numbers. And so it goes across the public sector.
The Spiral of Complexity: More Hammers, Not Better Solutions
The hammer-and-nail metaphor illustrates the fundamental flaw in bureaucratic thinking – the use of a single, familiar tool (itself) to address multifaceted problems (the real world). The prevailing belief is that more hammers, or more bureaucracy, equates to a potent solution no matter what. It leads to the creation of new committees, departments, rules, and procedures aimed at tackling specific issues.
Consequently, as the collection of hammers grows, so does the complexity of the bureaucracy, often resulting in a tangled web of red tape that hinders, rather than helps, functionality. The addition of layers not only increases administrative burden but also often fosters an environment of duplication, inefficiency, and sluggish response times. Decision-making becomes cumbersome, innovation is stifled, and the original issue may remain inadequately addressed despite the expanded bureaucratic body.
The Efficacy Dilemma: When More Is Less
The irony is that the proliferation of bureaucratic measures aiming to enhance control and precision can frequently lead to a decline in overall efficacy. This occurs because the accumulated layers dilute accountability, obscure transparency, and complicate communication. Such bureaucracy can evolve into a self-serving entity, where process trumps purpose, and the means to an end become an end in themselves. Does this sound familiar? This is the Wellington bestowed upon us by the previous government.
Breaking the Cycle: The Need for Nuanced Tools
To avoid the pitfall of endless bureaucratic accumulation, public sector organizations must adopt a more nuanced toolbox. Varied and flexible problem-solving approaches that assess issues on a case-by-case basis are essential. This requires a shift from the default setting of creating more bureaucracy towards empowering individuals with decision-making authority, fostering collaboration across departments, and encouraging innovation that can streamline, rather than inflate, organizational processes. In other words, hard work.
A Mess to Fix
While bureaucracy can bring order and efficiency, it has the potential to become its own nemesis when wielded unwisely. Bureaucracy was wielded very unwisely by Labour over the last six years. Being of the bureaucracy, Labour led for the bureaucracy. Hiring bureaucrats was the default solution, and the more that were hired the more work they were able to carry out to design solutions to problems, and those solutions were to hire more bureaucrats, and so on.
To mix in another metaphor at the last minute, the new government has recently tapped the brakes on what had become a runaway train and the loudness of the screech vastly exceeds the actual deceleration delivered thus far.
Our bureaucracy’s inflation into uselessness is not going to be solved overnight, but must be solved.
[i] Actually 16 recommendations with 15 combined into five headline recommendations and one left ungrouped so… I’m just gonna say six.