public service decentralisation - ipa

Public Service DecentralisationGovernance Opportunities and

Challenges

Peter C. HumphreysOrla O’Donnell

CPMR Discussion Paper33

Public Service DecentralisationGovernance Opportunities and

Challenges

First published in 2006by the Institute of Public Administration57-61 Lansdowne RoadDublin 4Irelandin association withThe Committee for Public Management Research

www.ipa.ie

© 2006 with the Institute of Public Administration

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recordingor any information storage and retrieval system, withoutpermission in writing from the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the BritishLibrary.

ISBN-13: 978-1-904541-40-0ISBN-10: 1-904541-40-2ISSN: 1393-6190

Cover design by Creative Inputs, DublinTypeset by the Institute of Public AdministrationPrinted by ColourBooks Ltd, Dublin

CONTENTS

Foreword viiExecutive Summary ix

Chapter 1: Introduction and background 11.1 Background 11.2 Research approach 11.3 Paper outline 2

Chapter 2: Decentralisation and reform 42.1 Introduction 42.2 A diversity of meanings 42.3 Ireland: a small, highly centralised country? 5

Chapter 3: Decentralisation and public servicemodernisation in Ireland 73.1 Policy context 73.2 Forty years of geographical decentralisation 83.3 A complex mosaic 93.4 Policy implementation 113.5 A radical step 13

Chapter 4: An international perspective ondecentralisation 144.1 Learning from others 144.2 Limited precedence? 144.3 Irish approach unique? 15

Chapter 5: Good governance: effective leadership andpositive collegiality 165.1 Concepts and terms 165.2 Changing leadership and leading change 175.3 Collegiality and leadership 185.4 Collegiality and networks 205.5 Knowledge management (KM) 21

v

Chapter 6: Opportunities and challenges for leadershipand collegiality 236.1 Introduction 236.2 In-depth discussions with key informants 236.3 Corporate/service-wide opportunities and challenges 246.4 Interdepartmental opportunities and challenges 286.5 Intradepartmental issues and challenges 29

Chapter 7: Moving forward 327.1 Introduction 327.2 Key governance issues: leadership and collegiality 327.3 Opportunies and challenges 33

Annex 1 Details of the current decentralisationprogramme by department (including agencies) 37

Annex 2 Previous Irish decentralisation initiatives 44Annex 3 Examples of public service decentralisation from

other administrations 46Annex 4 Centre for Management and Organisation

Development (Department of Finance)/Department of the Taoiseach Networks 48

Notes 53

References 55

vi

This paper is the thirty-third in a series undertaken by theCommittee for Public Management Research. TheCommittee is developing a comprehensive programme ofresearch designed to serve the needs of the futuredevelopments of the Irish public service. Committeemembers come from the following eight departments:Finance; Environment, Heritage and Local Government;Health and Children; Taoiseach; Transport;Communications, Marine and Natural Resources; Socialand Family Affairs; Office of the Revenue Commissionersand also from Trinity College Dublin, University CollegeDublin and the Institute of Public Administration.

This series aims to prompt discussion and debate ontopical issues of particular interest or concern. The papersmay outline experience, both national and international, indealing with a particular issue. Or they may be moreconceptual in nature, prompting the development of newideas on public management issues. They are not intendedto set out any official position on the topic under scrutiny.Rather, the intention is to identify current thinking andbest practice.

We would very much welcome comments on this paperand on public management research more generally. Toensure that the discussion papers and wider researchprogramme of the Committee for Public ManagementResearch are relevant to managers and staff, we need tohear from you. What do you think of the issues beingraised? Are there other topics you would like to seeresearched?

Research into the problems, solutions and successes ofpublic management processes and the way organisationscan best adapt in a changing environment has much tocontribute to good management, and is a vital element inthe public service renewal process. The Committee forPublic Management Research intends to provide a service to

vii

FOREWORD

people working in public organisations by enhancing theknowledge base on public management issues.

Jim Duffy, ChairCommittee for Public Management ResearchDepartment of Finance

For further information or to pass on any comments pleasecontact:

Pat HicksonSecretaryCommittee for Public Management ResearchDepartment of FinanceLansdowne HouseLansdowne RoadDublin 4

Phone: (+353) 1 676 7571; Fax: (+353) 1 668 2182E-mail: [email protected]

General information on the activities of the Committee forPublic Management Research, including this paper andothers in the series, can be found on its website:www.cpmr.gov.ie; information on Institute of PublicAdministration research in progress can be found atwww.ipa.ie.

viii

BackgroundThis discussion paper identifies and analyses a number ofkey governance issues that are relevant to ‘decentralisation’as a concept in public sector reform. It explores,particularly within the context of contemporary Irishexperience, some of the key opportunities and challengesfor effective leadership and collegiality in a geographicallydecentralised Irish civil and public service: areas which mayhave been comparatively neglected, in both research andpolicy terms, in the past but which demand furtherattention for effective implementation of current initiatives.The research draws upon:

• an extensive review of the national and internationalliterature on civil/public service decentralisation, aswell as effective leadership and positive collegiality inthe commercial and non-commercial sectors;

• in-depth discussions with those engaged, at a seniorlevel, both in Ireland and elsewhere with developing andimplementing decentralisation programmes;

• in-depth discussions with the chief officers in a cross-section of Irish public bodies directly affected by thecurrent programme, as well as senior trade union rep-resentatives and senior private sector managers;

In this regard, it must be stressed that the geographicaldecentralisation programme currently in hand for the Irishpublic service will have a direct and/or indirect impact notjust on those specific bodies identified for decentralisationunder the current programme but will have an impactacross the public service as well as in other sectors. Indeedthe changes that are afoot are of a scale and character thatshould lead to a fundamental recasting of the Irish systemof public administration.

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Policy contextSince 1994, the Irish public service has been engaged upona long-term programme of public service modernisation,also known as the Strategic Management Initiative (SMI),broadly along New Public Management (NPM) lines. WhileIreland’s efforts at geographical decentralisation long pre-date the SMI and have not, until now, had significant,explicit implications for the modernisation agenda, aconsiderable sense of urgency has now been injected intothis gradually, self-modernising administrative system. For,into a previously consensual and gradualist policyenvironment, the Minister for Finance in December 2003announced the Irish government's commitment to thevoluntary decentralisation of over 10,300 posts in civilservice departments/offices and agencies to over fiftylocations across twenty-five counties throughout thecountry. Of this total, over 3,000 of the posts earmarked forrelocation are in state agencies. Additionally, thegovernment decided that, save in exceptionalcircumstances, any new agencies/bodies being establishedin the future should be located in areas compatible withthis new programme. While decentralisation has not formedan explicit plank of either current or past Irish publicservice reform initiatives and while Ireland's experience todate has demonstrated little devolution of fiscal and otherhigh-level decision-making functions from central to locallevels, the spatial decentralisation of Dublin-based publicservice employment and functions to non-metropolitanlocations has been a feature of Irish administrative re-organisation at least since the 1960s.

Broadly speaking, there have been two previous phasesof geographical decentralisation in Ireland: (a) dispersalduring the period 1967 to 1987; followed by (b) a complexperiod of dispersal, deconcentration and regionalisation(1988-2003). Thus, even before the new programme isimplemented, previous national-level initiatives, togetherwith the adoption of regional strategies by somedepartments/offices, have already resulted in a complexspatial mosaic of public service locations. Together withdispersed functional units, this complex mosaic includesregionalised and/or county-based offices supported bynetworks of branch, district and local offices. However,there is little doubt that, although it builds upon these

x

earlier initiatives, the current decentralisation programmewill present unprecedented management and operationalchallenges at the departmental/organisational and public-service wide levels. It will also be important to learn fromexperiences in the past regarding leadership and collegialityin a geographically complex civil service in order to help plotthe future.

The current proposals will not only mean that themajority of civil service, as well as public service, posts willbe based outside Dublin but no fewer than eightgovernment departmental HQs will be located away fromthe capital, while the government itself and many otherdepartments and stakeholder organisations will continue tooperate from the centre. As a consequence, an entirely newapproach to the governance of the service will be requiredand, in particular, new models of leadership and collegialitydeveloped. This dramatic policy initiative, in the short-term,has not only reverberated throughout the administrativesystem, but, in the longer term, has the potential to presenthitherto un-thought of opportunities for radical reform andimprovements in the way the Irish public service operates.

Learning from othersA number of other countries have implemented decentrali-sation initiatives in the past number of decades. Forexample, in the Netherlands and UK up to the end of the1980s the decentralisation of public service employmentaway from the capital had been used as part of a regionaldevelopment strategy to relieve long-term unemployment indeclining industrial areas. More recently, evidence fromsecondary sources indicates international experience ofrelocation and decentralisation in a wide range of countriesand/or other public administrations; e.g. France, Germany,Norway, Japan and Canada (British Colombia).Internationally, the geographical decentralisation of thecivil and public service is seen as an opportunity to secureimproved efficiency on the back of business process re-engineering (BPR), new working practices andmodernisation.

However, this research found that, although someuseful inferences can be drawn from a review of availableinternational evidence, it is difficult to identify in otherpublic administrations in OECD a direct comparator for the

xi

current programme of Irish decentralisation. This lack of acomparator relates to the scale of the current programme,its scope, timing and, above all, its inclusion of proposals torelocate entire organisations in locations away from thecapital city and centre of political life. For example, the UKapproach specifically excludes the movement of head officesof government departments away from London.

Leadership and collegialityAvailable research evidence suggests that both effectiveleadership and positive collegiality are key features of goodgovernance and the significance of both these qualities is ata premium within the context of a geographically complex,decentralised civil and public service. Such qualities of goodgovernance as leadership, effectiveness, participation,coherence, programme delivery and effective stakeholderengagement are particularly relevant in the context of thedecentralisation programme given the continuing locationof the Oireachtas and a number of departments in centralDublin and the particular challenges posed by thegeographical decentralisation of others. Indeed, it isimportant to note that, as early as March 2004, theDecentralisation Implementation Group was beginning toacknowledge the importance of these qualities in forming ‘a post-decentralised civil service’: ‘The geographicrelocation and dispersal of staff may help to reinforceexisting moves towards greater devolution of authority andresponsibility to, and within, organisations. There will be anonus on management at organisational and sub-organisational level to exercise greater de factoresponsibility for HR, finance and other organisationalmatters. A more geographically dispersed civil service needsto be balanced by sufficiently strong common values andculture to support effective system-wide co-operation anddecision-making. It will be necessary to reinforce, andinvest more heavily in corporate culture and ethos’ (FirstReport of the Decentralisation Implementation Group toMinister for Finance p.28). These opportunities andchallenges are explored in this research atcorporate/service-wide, interdepartmental and intradepart-mental levels

A review of the latest international literature and bestpractice management frameworks clearly highlights that

xii

not only is effective leadership the cornerstone upon whichorganisational excellence is built, it also:

• gives strategic direction: it develops and communicatesvision, mission and values;

• achieves change and focuses efforts on customerservice;

• develops and implements a system for organisationalmanagement and performance review;

• motivates and supports people, acting as a role model;• manages the relationships with politicians and other

stakeholders, acting in a socially responsible manner.

These qualities hold true across the public and privatesectors. Effective and visible leadership is required topromote an emphasis on co-operation, consensus,persuasion and the like. A key quality of leadership is alsothe capacity to operate in a collegial manner and to supportcollegiality between and within organisations. Together withpositive collegiality, these qualities of effective leadershipapply at three levels: the corporate or service-wide; theinter- and the intra-departmental. The key researchquestion for this study was to consider the extent to whichthese qualities of leadership and collegiality could beaffected by the geographical dispersal of the public serviceorganisations concerned and, specifically, to identify anddiscuss opportunities and challenges thus presented.

Opportunities and challenges There is little doubt that the current decentralisationprogramme will have a profound impact on structures,communication frameworks, networking fora and therelationship interface between the civil service, the politicaland stakeholder systems. How this is managed is vital interms of the effects on customer service and the efficiencyof business processes during the transition phase andbeyond. As such, if effectively managed and implemented, itcould represent a unique opportunity to fundamentallyrevisit and restructure the ways in which the civil and widerpublic services conduct their business.

There is little doubt that the movement of public servicebodies away from Dublin will provide an unprecedented

xiii

opportunity for a fundamental overhaul of work done andthe way it is done, through the use of business process re-engineering and other techniques. Concerns from the pastregarding blocked career progression for those in dispersedand regional civil service offices could be ameliorated byadopting a regional approach to facilitate promotion acrosspublic service bodies. Otherwise, a move away from Dublinwould very definitely become a one-way journey. Because ofthe travel imperative for contact with the minister andmeetings with other public servants, while the burden oftravel will be greatly increased, especially when engaged inEU and other international work, it is very likely that boththe frequency and management of meetings will becomesubject to stricter discipline. The use of ICT will helpcommunication but it is expected to be only a limitedsubstitute for face-to-face collegiality.

The discussions that took place during this researchalso suggest that it could be timely to re-explore thepotential benefits of a Senior Civil Service. Such anincremental step could support the development ofleadership skills training and help sustain collegiality at theservice-wide level. Respondents frequently expressedconcern that local pressures could lead to a parochial mind-set developing. For instance one respondent said:‘Leadership has not historically been considered as a skillthat can be learned − it has been regarded rather asChurchill described ‘greatness’: you can be born with it,achieve it or have it thrust upon you. Yet recent thinking inboth the private and public sectors sees the development ofthe skills of leadership as essential to the effective deliveryof any programme of change − and that all efficientorganisations are in a state of ordered change’.

It was outside the scope of this research to suggest oreven less to prescribe firm recommendations for furtheraction. That needs to be on the national agenda for anotherday. However, although no organisation is scheduled todecentralise before the end of 2006, there is little doubtthat, if the current decentralisation programme is to riseabove the very considerable logistical issues (aroundstaffing/training and physical infrastructure) that haveunderstandably pre-occupied the implementation agenda todate, then serious consideration of the governanceopportunities and challenges arising from this programme

xiv

need to rise up that agenda. Only two of these issues havebeen initially reviewed and discussed in this paper: namelyeffective leadership and positive collegiality. However, it isclear from this research that, if Ireland is to retain its hardwon and justified reputation for first rate civil and publicservices, as well as its international standing, positiveaction is required across a wide front to turn leadership andcollegiality challenges into opportunities.

On the basis of this research evidence, such actionshould include constructive, informed and positive supportbeing given to a wide range of issues, including:

• Giving urgent attention to the development of a service-wide Knowledge Management initiative to minimise lossand open up new opportunities for knowledge sharingon a collegial basis, within, between and across thosepublic service bodies significantly affected by the decen-tralisation programme. Allied to this is the need to mapmore clearly, and understand better, current formal andinformal networks within the service. These will need tobe significantly recast. Resort to ICT and large amountsof travel appear to only offer partial solutions.

• Implementing a coherent, service-wide changemanagement programme, which recognises andempowers leadership within and across the civil andwider public services. Again models appear to exist,based upon international best practice, which couldinform this process, as could the more systematic in-depth analysis of private sector experiences. It wouldappear also that the timing could be opportune for arevisiting and reassertion of core public service valuesthat could help to maintain consistency in theconsiderably more geographically complex and youngerservice of the future. Allied and supportive of thisapproach could be the further examination of theimplications for Ireland of the explicit development of asenior civil and public service.

In summary, there is little doubt that the currentleaders of the Irish public service have had decentralisationthrust upon them, even though it may be up to theirsuccessors to fully operationalise the resultant changes

xv

from new and diverse localities. While issues of staffing andinfrastructure are understandably pre-occupying mindspresently concerned with implementation, action will needto be commenced soon to rearticulate, and sustain, thevalues of the Irish public service and to cultivate theleadership skills necessary for the next generation ofsecretaries general and chief executives so that themodernisation programme set in motion a decade ago issustained and re-invigorated. In a decade from now, a newgeneration of leaders should be leading an entirely recast,modernised civil and public service, in diverse places butwith shared values.

xvi

1.1 BackgroundThis discussion paper seeks to identify and analyse anumber of key governance issues that are relevant to‘decentralisation’ as a concept in public sector reform. Itexplores, particularly within the context of contemporaryIrish experience, some of the key opportunities andchallenges for effective leadership and collegiality in adecentralised civil and public service: areas which may havebeen comparatively neglected, in both research and policyterms, in the past but which demand further attention foreffective implementation of current decentralisationinitiatives.

1.2 Research approachMethodologically, the research upon which this discussionpaper is based draws upon:• an extensive review of the national and international

literature on civil/public service decentralisation, aswell as effective leadership and positive collegiality inthe commercial and non-commercial sectors;

• in-depth discussions with those engaged, at a seniorlevel, both in Ireland and elsewhere with developing andimplementing decentralisation programmes;

• in-depth discussions with the chief officers in a cross-section of Irish public bodies directly affected by thecurrent programme, as well as senior trade union rep-resentatives and senior private sector managers.

Drawing upon this range of sources, it has beenpossible to obtain a distinct view of some of the significantgovernance opportunities and challenges presented by theIrish decentralisation programme and the broader drive forpublic service modernisation. This discussion paper is

1

1

Introduction and background

PUBLIC SERVICE DECENTRALISATONGOVERNANCE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

intended to encourage and stimulate informed discussionand debate amongst those affected by, or interested in, thecurrent programme.

In this regard, as will be seen later, it must be stressedthat the decentralisation programme currently planned forthe Irish public service will have a direct and/or indirectimpact not just on those specific bodies identified for decen-tralisation under the current programme but will also havean impact across the public service as well as in othersectors. In combination with research and other studiesbeing undertaken to support the roll out of the decentrali-sation programme, this research is intended to add valueand make an original contribution to understanding andresponding constructively to some of the specificgovernance opportunities and challenges arising from thecurrent governmental initiative.

1.3 Paper outlineThe discussion paper is structured in the following manner:

a) Following this brief introduction, some of thediversity of concepts relating to ‘decentralisation’ areintroduced and explored, including their relevanceto Ireland.

b) The key features of the current Irish public servicedecentralisation programme are then outlined andthis programme placed within the context of pastinitiatives.

c) Irish experience is also placed in the wider contextof relevant international decentralisation initiatives.

d) The key governance concepts of public serviceleadership and collegiality are then discussed indepth.

e) Some of the potential implications of large-scaledecentralisation for effective leadership and positivecollegiality in the civil and public service are thenexplored.

2

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3

f) Based upon Irish experience, opportunities andchallenges are identified that are germane to otherresearchers and policy makers in this field.

Detailed supporting material is annexed together withaccompanying notes and a full bibliography.

2.1 IntroductionDecentralisation has been implemented in many countriesto move decision making for public services closer to thecitizens and to increase the effectiveness andresponsiveness of public authorities. However, the term‘decentralisation’ is used in a variety of contexts and it isimportant to capture some of this diversity of meaningbefore proceeding further.

2.2 A diversity of meaningsThe OECD (2005) broadly defines ‘decentralisation’ [ordevolution] as comprising a transfer of ‘public functionsfrom higher tiers to lower tiers of governance. It can beadministrative (transfer of civil servants and publicfunctions to local level), fiscal (devolution of fiscal resourcesand revenue generating powers), political (devolution ofdecision-making powers) or a mixture of these’ (p.1). Assuch, the concept of decentralisation is often perceived inhierarchical terms, involving the top-down/verticalmovement of administrative, fiscal and/orpolitical/decision-making functions. Such functionalmovement can be intra-organisational (e.g. withingovernment departments) or inter-organisational incharacter (e.g. from central to local administration).

However, functional decentralisation can also behorizontal or diagonal in direction, for example through‘agencification’ or the transfer of powers/competencies fromcentral departments to ‘autonomous’ agencies1. To add tothis diversity of typologies, ‘decentralisation’ can also begeographical or spatial in form: characteristically involvingthe movement or relocation of the entire/partialadministrative functions of agencies and/or the headoffice/other functions of civil service departments from the

4

2

Decentralisation and reform

DECENTRALISATION AND REFORM 5

political capital/centre to non-metropolitan locations.Given Ireland's past experience and future plans, it isgeographical decentralisation that is the primary focus ofthis discussion paper.

2.3 Ireland: a small, highly centralised country?At this stage, it must be acknowledged that Ireland isfrequently perceived as a small and highly centralisedcountry. If, as the OECD (2005) argues, ‘decentralisation’requires the transfer of public functions from higher tolower tiers of governance, so as to be closer to the citizens,then Ireland is perhaps unfertile ground for such a study.As Callanan (2003) has recently noted, ‘Centralisation isstrongly imbued within Irish administrative culture’ (p. 477). Unlike other EU countries, Irish local governmenthas only limited involvement in social provision (housing)and its principal services are in the areas of local planningand development control, the maintenance of local roadsand drainage schemes, refuse collection and the provisionof parks, libraries and other community facilities. As aconsequence, health, social welfare and education are notsignificant local government functions in Ireland.

However, plotting the balance of power between centraland local government in Ireland is not the main concern ofthis discussion paper. Rather, its primary focus is uponbetter understanding past, present and planned Irishapproaches to geographical decentralisation and, inparticular, drawing governance lessons of wider applicationin terms of leadership and collegiality within the civil andwider public service. For, in this sphere, changes are afootthat are of a scale and character not only to challenge ourexisting understandings of the significance or otherwise ofgeographical decentralisation but that should lead to afundamental recasting of the Irish system of publicadministration.

As a consequence of previous civil service-wide anddepartmental decentralisation initiatives over the past fourdecades, approximately 14,000 or 47 per cent of total civilservice staff are already located outside Dublin (see Boyleand Humphreys, 2001)2. As will be seen later, as a result of


the new government programme, over half of all civil serviceposts, including some of the most senior, will soon belocated away from Dublin. Not only will such radical changeraise significant leadership and collegiality opportunitiesand challenges for the effective running of ‘Ireland Inc’, theinitiative, which is unique in European terms, couldchallenge existing preconceptions of a centralised civilservice and a small, highly centralised country.

6

3.1 Policy contextSince 1994, the Irish public service has been engaged upona long-term programme of public service modernisation,also known as the Strategic Management Initiative (SMI),broadly along New Public Management (NPM) lines (see, forexample, Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004). However, it can beargued that, in many ways, Ireland's approach tomodernisation to date has been somewhat unremarkable.As Pollitt (2005) has recently observed, ‘the case of Irelandis not a very interesting one, in the sense that the headlinereforms are absolutely in the international mainstream’.

Nevertheless, some aspects of Ireland’s approach havebeen distinctive, particularly the ways in which theseheadlines have been implemented. For example, at leastuntil now, modernisation has been primarily driven bysenior officials themselves, rather than at cabinet orparliamentary levels, and has been taken forward withinthe context of national-level partnership agreementsbetween government and the social partners (seehttp://www.bettergov.ie/). Ireland has also pioneered theintroduction of strategy statements by governmentdepartments and their accountability to the Oireachtas(National Parliament) (see Boyle and Fleming, 2000). Anumber of independent reviews have indicated that whileprogress has been slow, significant advances have beenmade in the modernisation agenda over the past decade, forexample in the area of quality customer service (QCS) (seeBoyle and Humphreys, 2001; PA Consulting, 2002).

It will also be seen later that Ireland’s efforts atgeographical decentralisation long pre-date the SMI andhave not, until now, had significant, explicit implications forthe modernisation agenda. However, as a consequence of arecent government decision, a considerable sense ofurgency has now been injected into this gradually,

7

3

Decentralisation and public servicemodernisation in Ireland


self-modernising administrative system. For, into apreviously consensual and gradualist policy environment,the Minister for Finance in December 2003 announced theIrish government’s commitment to the voluntarydecentralisation of over 10,300 posts in civil servicedepartments/offices and agencies to over fifty locationsacross twenty-five counties throughout the country. Of thistotal, over 3,000 of the posts earmarked for relocation arein state agencies (Budget 2004, p. A.7). Additionally, thegovernment decided that, save in exceptionalcircumstances, any new agencies/bodies being establishedin the future should be located in areas compatible withthis new programme. Details of these proposals asoriginally outlined are in the Annex 1. While it would be fairto say that statements of intent regarding a new programmeof decentralisation had been trailed in political andadministrative circles during the late 1990s, the scale anddramatic character of the programme announced in late2003 have reverberated throughout the Irish publicservice3.

3.2 Forty years of geographical decentralisationAs previously indicated, decentralisation, in any of itsvaried forms, has not formed an explicit plank of eithercurrent or past Irish public service reform initiatives.However, while Ireland's experience to date hasdemonstrated little decentralisation of fiscal and other high-level decision-making functions from central to local levels,the spatial decentralisation of Dublin-based public serviceemployment and functions to non-metropolitan locationshas been a feature of Irish administrative re-organisation atleast since the 1960s (see Humphreys, 1983). In reviewingpast experience, Joyce, Humphreys and Kelleher (1988)argue that the geographical decentralisation of publicservice functions (and functionaries) from the centre to thelocal, in Ireland, has had two main (but not mutuallyexclusive) variants: • Dispersal occurs when parts of a centralised

organisation are relocated away from the capital, to oneor more regional locations. There is no transfer of power

8

DECENTRALISATION AND PUBLIC SERVICE MODERNISATION IN IRELAND 9

to the local area; the nature of the work to be done iscentrally determined.

• De-concentration (or regionalisation) takes place whenan organisation delegates discretion to its managers atsub-national levels. For instance, a regional structurefor service delivery is set up, with each regional managerhaving discretion as to the precise mix of services to beprovided under his or her aegis, subject to generalcentral budgetary and policy guidelines.

Joyce et al (1988) also note that, up to that time, neitherof these forms of civil service decentralisation hadincorporated a significant degree of devolution4.

Broadly speaking, there have also been two previousphases of geographical decentralisation in Ireland: namely(a) dispersal during the period of 1967 to 1987; followed by(b) a complex period of dispersal, deconcentration andregionalisation (1988-2003). Further details of theseprogrammes are provided in Annex 2. During the latterperiod, as part of their modernisation drive, the Departmentof Social and Family Affairs and the Office of the RevenueCommissioners in particular engaged upon a concertedregionalisation strategy, linked to Information andCommunication Technology (ICT) enabled, internal reforms(organisational restructuring) to improve the quality ofservice delivery (see Humphreys, Fleming and O’Donnell1999).

3.3 A complex mosaicThus, even before the new ‘decentralisation’ programme isimplemented, previous national-level initiatives, togetherwith the adoption of regional strategies by somedepartments/offices, have already resulted in a complexspatial mosaic of public service locations. Together withdispersed functional units, the picture includesregionalised and/or county-based offices supported bynetworks of branch, district and local offices. Withoutworrying unduly about the detailed geography, someimpression of the resultant complexity of this mosaic can be


given for two departments by way of illustration.

• Department of Agriculture and Food already has six maindepartment offices, located in Dublin, Cavan, Castlebar,Maynooth, Portlaoise and Johnstown Castle.Nationwide, there are also eleven laboratory locations(Raphoe, Sligo, Athlone, Back Weston, Dublin −scheduled to move to Back Weston in 2005, Kildare,Kilkenny, Knockalisheen, Limerick, Cork, Middleton)and forty local offices (Letterkenny, Raphoe, Donegal,Sligo, Ballina, Claremorris, Tuam, Galway, Carrick-on-Shannon, Castlerea, Roscommon, Longford, Monaghan,Ballybay, Dundalk, Drogheda, Navan, Naas, Tallaght,Wicklow, Mullingar, Athlone, Tullamore, Loughrea,Ennis, Nenagh, Limerick, Thurles, Tipperary, Clonmel,Waterford, Enniscorthy, Carlow, Kilkenny, Tralee,Killarney, Clonakilty, Cork, Mallow, Dungarvan.Under the current decentralisation programme, it isplanned to move (a) the Department’s head office andICT staff to Portlaoise, (b) its Cork City laboratory staffto Macroom, and (c) local Cork City and Mallow staff toFermoy. Additionally, its is planned to move a numberof its associated agencies, Bord Bia and Bord Glas toEnniscorthy and Teagasc to Carlow Town.

• Department of Social and Family Affairs: In addition tooffices providing national-level services in Dublin, Sligo,Letterkenny, Longford, Waterford and Dundalk, thedepartment’s regional structure means that delivery ofservices is structured on ten regional offices, inWaterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Longford, Sligo,Dundalk and three in the Dublin area. Within theseregions there is a network of fifty-eight Social WelfareLocal Offices and sixty-nine branch offices.Under the current decentralisation programme, it isplanned to move (a) the department’s head office andICT staff to Drogheda; (b) Client Eligibility Services toBuncrana; (c) General Benefits to Donegal Town; (d)Client Identity, Employment Support, InformationSystems (IS) and Control to Carrick-on-Shannon; (e)

10


Internal Audit, Freedom of Information (FoI),Training/Development and Supplementary Welfare toSligo Town. Additionally, its is planned to move anumber of its associated agencies as follows: Comhairleand Reach to Drogheda and Combat Poverty Agency toMonaghan Town.However, there is little doubt that, although it builds

upon these earlier initiatives, the current decentralisationprogramme will present unprecedented management andoperational challenges at the departmental/organisationaland public-service wide levels. It will also be important tolearn from experiences in the past regarding leadership andcollegiality in a geographically complex civil service in orderto help plot ways forward for the future.

3.4 Policy implementationAlthough the detailed governance arrangements for theimplementation of the new programme are outside thescope of this discussion paper, it is still helpful tosummarise them here for contextual purposes. At thestrategic level, a Decentralisation Implementation Group(DIG) has been established, which reports directly to aCabinet Sub-Committee, comprising the Taoiseach (PrimeMinister), Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister), Minister forFinance as well as Minister for the Environment, Heritageand Local Government. In each of the departments/officesdirectly affected by the new programme, DecentralisationLiaison Officers (DLOs) have been appointed and dedicateddecentralisation units established that report to themanagement advisory committee (MAC) and the minister.The Office of Public Works (OPW) has developed anAccommodation Acquisition Strategy, with a Public PrivatePartnership (PPP) approach being preferred. There havebeen a number of other significant developments in relationto the programme as a whole, most notably:

• the publication of the Reports of the DecentralisationImplementation Group in March, July, November 2004and June 2005 respectively (http://www.decentralisa-tion.gov.ie/)


• in May 2004, the launch of the Common ApplicationsFacility (CAF) operated by the Public AppointmentsService (http://www.publicjobscaf.ie/)

• additionally, departmental/agency implementationplans have been prepared, within the context of the DIGReports.

From the outset, it was acknowledged by the DIG that a‘big-bang’ approach to implementation would neither bedesirable nor feasible. Accordingly, in November 2004, theDIG recommended eleven departments/bodies as ‘earlymovers’ to fourteen locations. These ‘early movers’ total2,130 staff and include the head offices/headquarters of:

• Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism (Killarney, Co.Kerry): 300 km from the Oireachtas (Parliament) inDublin.

• Department of Defence (Newbridge, Co. Kildare): 42 kmfrom Dublin

• Office of Public Works (Trim, Co. Meath): 43 km fromDublin

• Prisons Service (Longford Town, Co. Longford): 123 kmfrom Dublin and

• Social and Family Affairs (Drogheda, Co. Louth): 49 kmfrom Dublin.

In addition, a further 1,362 potential ‘early movers’ havebeen identified, involving five departments and sixlocations, together with seven ‘state agencies’ totalling 723staff. In its most recent Progress Report (30 June 2005), theDIG treats all the departments in this phase as ‘earlymovers’ but adopts a more individualised approach to theagencies.

While in international terms, these linear distancesfrom Dublin may not appear lengthy, they need to beinterpreted within the context of improved, but still limitedroad, rail and internal flight connectivity particularly for‘cross-country’ journeys.

12


3.5 A radical stepThe current proposals will not only mean that the majorityof civil service, as well as public service, posts will be basedoutside Dublin but that no fewer than eight governmentdepartmental HQs will be located away from the capital,while the government itself and many other departmentsand stakeholder organisations will continue to operate fromthe centre (see Annex 1)5. There is no doubt that both thesize and character of the programme envisaged have thepotential to transform radically many aspects of the way thecivil and wider public service conducts its business. As aconsequence, an entirely new approach to the governanceof the service will be required and, in particular, newmodels of leadership and collegiality developed. Thisdramatic policy initiative, in the short-term, has not onlyreverberated throughout the administrative system, but, inthe longer term, has the potential to present hitherto un-thought of opportunities for radical reform andimprovements in the way the Irish public service operates.

4.1 Learning from othersA number of other countries have implemented decentrali-sation initiatives in the past number of decades. Forexample, Joyce, Humphreys and Kelleher (1988) reviewedexperience in the Netherlands and UK up to the end of the1980s. In both these countries, the decentralisation ofpublic service employment away from the capital had beenused as part of a regional development strategy to relievelong-term unemployment in declining industrial areas.More recently, the Lyons Review (2004) presents evidencefrom secondary sources on international experience ofrelocation and decentralisation in a wide range of countriesand/or other public administrations; e.g. France, Germany,Norway, Japan and Canada (British Colombia). Fullerdetails of the current UK-wide and Scottish Executive’sdecentralisation initiatives are given in Annex 3.

4.2 Limited precedence?While available international evidence is limited, thegeographical decentralisation of the civil and public serviceis seen as an opportunity to secure improved efficiency onthe back of business process re-engineering (BPR), newworking practices and modernisation. Drawing upon theinternational analysis provided by the Lyons Review (2004),evidence suggests that the benefits of relocation are seennot just in terms of delivering savings in operating costs butmore choice for the customer (Norway) and better deliveryof services. There was also some explicit recognition of theneed to address perceptions of remoteness and policymaking dominated by the capital (Japan, Scotland, France).Germany is an interesting example of a highly devolvedcountry, which is still decentralising at the regional level(Lander) to promote economic growth within the Land. At

14

4

An international perspectiveon decentralisation

AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON DECENTRALISATION 15

the same time, the administrative capital is being movedfrom Bonn to Berlin. In addition to previous moves ofadministrative capital (e.g. in Australia to Canberra andBrazil to Brasilia), both Japan and Korea are currentlyplanning to move their political and administrative capitalsaway from Tokyo and Seoul respectively. It is not howeverproposed to move the Irish seat of government from Dublin.There is also some evidence, for example in theNetherlands, that administrations that had previouslygeographically decentralised are now transferring functionsback to the capital. The picture is therefore mixed.

4.3 Irish approach unique?Although some useful inferences can be drawn from areview of available international evidence, it is difficult toidentify, in other public administrations in OECD, a directcomparator for the current programme of Irish decentralisation6. This lack of a comparator relates to thescale of the current programme, its scope, timing and,above all, its inclusion of proposals to relocate entireorganisations in locations away from the capital city andcentre of political life. For example, the UK approach,specifically excludes the movement of head offices ofgovernment departments away from London. The analysescontained in both the Lyons (2004) and the associatedExperian (2004) reports also suggest that proposals of thescale and character currently envisaged in Ireland wouldboth present governance opportunities and raise significantchallenges for the public service. These governance issuescan now be explored more substantively by drawing upon adetailed literature review of public and private sectorsources.

5.1 Concepts and termsAvailable research evidence suggests that both effectiveleadership and positive collegiality are key features of goodgovernance and the significance of both these qualities is ata premium within the context of a geographically complex,decentralised civil and public service. A number ofdefinitions of good governance make that clear. Forexample, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) statesthat, ‘Broadly speaking, corporate governance generallyrefers to the processes by which organisations are directed,controlled and held to account. It encompasses authority,accountability, stewardship, leadership, direction andcontrol exercised in the organisation’ (1999, p.1).

The definition of governance cited by the Commission ofthe European Communities (2001) is also relevant. Here,governance has been defined as ‘rules, processes andbehaviour that affect the way in which powers are exercisedand particularly as regards openness, participation,accountability, effectiveness and coherence’ (p. 8). In thiscontext, Stoker’s work (1998) is particularly appositebecause of its emphasis on the role of stakeholders oractors beyond government and the significance of effectiverelationships and networks [collegiality] for goodgovernance. Such references to leadership, effectiveness,participation, coherence, programme delivery and effectivestakeholder engagement are particularly relevant in thecontext of the decentralisation programme given thecontinuing location of the Oireachtas and a number ofdepartments in central Dublin and the particularchallenges posed by the geographical decentralisation ofothers (see also OECD, 1995).

Understandably, since the announcement of the currentdecentralisation programme in late 2003, implementationactivity, both centrally and for those organisations most

16

5

Good governance: effective leadershipand positive collegiality

GOOD GOVERNANCE: EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND POSITIVE COLLEGIALITY 17

directly involved, has focussed upon logistical and otherpressing operational issues, such as property management,communications infrastructure, HRM and industrialrelations7. Thinking ahead, however, less high-profile butnonetheless significant governance opportunities andchallenges need to be addressed by the decentralisationprogramme if the momentum for public servicemodernisation is to be strengthened not dissipated. Thisbody of literature can now be reviewed to assist inidentifying some of these governance opportunities andchallenges.

5.2 Changing leadership and leading changeThere is already an extensive body of private sectororientated literature on effective leadership that can bedrawn upon for this purpose. For example, Kelly (2004)identifies three such essential ingredients: namely, a clearand unambiguous emphasis upon (a) standards ofperformance; (b) values and organisational design thatengage people and (c) a clear path and direction. Inconsidering the key role of effective leadership, however, itis important not to over-emphasise the ‘great’ person idea ofleadership. In this context it should be recalled that Tosi etal (2004) found that charismatic leadership style was moreclosely allied to CEO remuneration than firm performance!Storey and Mangham (2004) also note disenchantment withthe charismatic/transformational leadership approach andthey suggest that collective or distributed leadership shouldbe favoured.

Drawing once more primarily from experience in theprivate sector, Storey and Mangham (2004) stress thateffective leadership operates within a ‘constellation’ ofinterlocking factors including industrial and organisationalcontext, perceived need, behavioural requirements,development methods, stakeholder priorities/ideologicalcontext and outcomes. They state that a more collective ordistributed style is more in tune with organisationalcultures and structures that lean towards empoweredteams, distributed responsibility, network forms, and whichextol the value of knowledge workers. A more


collective/distributed leadership style would certainlyappear to be more appropriate and flexible in the complexenvironmental settings within which many Irish publicservice bodies will be operating both now and in the future.

Indeed, this point is even more pertinent when morepublic-sector leadership approaches are considered. For,although Pollitt (2003) has noted that in many countriesthere have been intensive efforts to manage publicorganisations and public programmes in new ways, andthat ‘the boundaries between the public sector, thevoluntary sector and the commercial sector seem to havebecome considerably more complex and ambiguous’ (p.ix),a number of authors have questioned the appropriatenessof transferring culturally and/or private-sector specificexamples of effective leadership uncritically to a publicsector context. For example, Alimo-Metcalfe et al (2002 and2004) argue against adopting inappropriate models ofleadership (like the ‘great’ person) available readily fromprivate sector orientated literature. Comparing andcontrasting US and UK experiences, they stress thatleadership is fundamentally about engaging others aspartners in developing and achieving the shared vision,and, as such, it relates to distributed leadership − ‘how else,one might ask, can the daunting challenges of deliveringmodern public services be achieved?’ (2004, p. 179).

5.3 Collegiality and leadershipSo, if the preferred style of leadership in a decentralisedcontext is to be distributive, what implications does thishave for collegiality? Kotter (1995) notes that, whilemanagement is the key task in making hierarchies functionwell, leadership is needed to deal with the changes requiredin networks. Handling relationships between thoseinvolved in policy and service delivery requires thatunderlying cultural norms are questioned and changedwhere necessary. Leadership is required to promote anemphasis on co-operation, consensus, persuasion and thelike. A key quality of leadership is, therefore, the capacity tooperate in a collegial manner and to support collegialitybetween and within organisations. Within this context, the

18


particular quality of ‘collegiality’ is relevant. However, theconcept of ‘collegiality’ is sometimes seen exclusively withinthe academic context and is capable of ambiguousinterpretation. It therefore does deserve clarification withinthe context of this discussion paper.

In simple terms, colleagues may be regarded as thosesharing a common purpose and respecting each other’sabilities to work toward that purpose. Thus, the term‘collegiality’ involves respect for another’s commitment tothe common purpose and an ability to work toward it, e.g.through a leadership role. In more formal terms, Waters(1989) defines collegial structures as ‘those in which thereis a dominant orientation to a consensus achieved betweenthe members of a body of experts who are theoreticallyequal in their levels of expertise but who are specialised intheir areas of expertise’ (p. 956). Collegiality can, of course,be either positive or negative in its orientation. For thepurposes of this research, the focus is on positivecollegiality. Within the context of a distributive leadershipstyle, positive collegiality therefore requires a commitmentto a common purpose and an ability to work towards it. Aswill be seen later, within the context of a geographicallycomplex civil and public service, new measures may benecessary to sustain national/international rather thanlocal core values.

Such a point is emphasised elsewhere in the literature.While often cited in the academic context (see, for example,Bennett, 1998 and Bess, 1988), collegiality is frequently,though not exclusively, associated with ‘professionalisation’(see Rose, 2004). Positive collegiality is inextricably linkedwith shared organisational values and high ethicalstandards. Recent research by Gerring, Thacker andMoreno (2005) also explicitly links good governance andcollegiality. For example, they argue that effectiveleadership depends upon the bringing together of keystakeholders and inducing them to reach agreement. In sodoing they identify qualities of good governance such ascooperation, solidarity and reciprocity, i.e. collegiality.Langhorst (1999) also explores the concept of ‘virtualcollegiality’. ‘Virtual collegiality is the extension of collegial


behaviours through computer-mediated communicationand other technological means … Virtual collegiality doesnot replace or substitute for face-to-face and othertraditional forms of collegiality; rather it augments themthrough additional opportunities for communication. Thesimple premise is that collegiality and communication arekindred activities, and that an increase in one should effectan increase in the other’ (p. 32). Within the context of ageographically decentralised service, the support of ‘virtualcollegiality’ could be a helpful way of developing furtherexisting models which rely upon regular face-to-facecontact.

5.4 Collegiality and networksFrom a conceptual point of view, the civil service can alsobe regarded collegially as a ‘social network’: i.e. a set ofactors that exchange resources that tie them together.Resources may include data, information, goods andservices, financial or other forms of support. Each kind ofresource exchange is considered a social network relation,and individuals who maintain the relation are said tomaintain a tie. The strength of their tie may range fromweak to strong depending on the number and types ofresources they exchange, the frequency of exchanges, andthe intimacy of the exchanges between them. Additionally,combining an adequate knowledge base with appropriatenetwork connections provides the means for diffusion ofinnovations as well as setting the stage for their adoption(Rogers, 2003). It will be seen later that the informal andformal networks have had, and are likely to continue tohave, a key role in Irish public service modernisation.

From a public service perspective, therefore, analysis ofnetworks to assist in understanding the effectiveness ofexisting collegial arrangements should not just be focusedupon task-oriented work [formal] groups. Learning groups,whether in work (e.g. research and development;brainstorming groups) or educational settings, also benefitfrom exposure to a wide range of ideas and opinions offeredby collegial networks. The literature suggests thatexchanges among all members of a group are important for

20


broadening an individual’s learning experience, exposingthem to facts, ideas, approaches and opinions differentfrom their own. Accordingly, the effective sharing ofknowledge/knowledge management (KM), both within andbetween organisations, is of vital importance within thecontext of the current decentralisation programme.

5.5 Knowledge management (KM)According to the OECD (2003a), KM involves usingestablished management tools (e.g. performancemanagement tools, human resources and incentive tools,new information technology etc.) with the objective ofimproving knowledge sharing within an organisation andwith the outside world. However, as the OECD (2003b)emphasises, government organisations have differentincentives, strengths and weaknesses compared to privatecompanies in relation to the management of knowledge. Onthe one hand, the pressure of competitiveness and theincentives to lower costs are traditionally less important. Inaddition outcomes are typically less clear and lessmeasurable. Finally, management structures tend to bequite hierarchical which, it is suggested, provide fewerincentives for innovation and teamwork. However,conversely, the activities of governments are frequentlyknowledge intensive, with the need to maintain a whole-of-government perspective an important consideration. Thiswill be especially important to maintain and further developwhen head, as well as operational, offices are distributedacross the country.

Within the context of KM best practice, Knight andHowes (2003) stress that ‘Nothing happens withoutleadership: those responsible for running the organisationmust inspire and encourage all staff through the changeprogramme, continuing on after implementation to ensurelasting change’. O’Riordan (2005) argues that knowledgemanagement matters because it enables organisations to bemore efficient and effective. Companies like IBM havequantified the impact of knowledge management in terms ofthe opportunity cost of time savings. The parallel for thepublic sector is that knowledge management supports the


optimal use of resources, enhanced level of customerservice and, consequently, improved value for money.However, O’Riordan (2005) also argues that this is not toimply that KM does not require considerable effort andchange on the part of organisations. Experience has shownthat developing a good knowledge management strategysystematically encompasses all of the management tools atthe disposal of top management or the organisationalleadership. Such issues are of particular urgency andrelevance within the context of the proposed decentralisa-tion programme.

22

6.1 IntroductionWithin the context of this discussion of key governanceissues, it is important to note that, as early as March 2004,the DIG was beginning to acknowledge the importance ofthese qualities in forming ‘a post-decentralised civil service’.‘The geographic relocation and dispersal of staff may help toreinforce existing moves towards greater devolution ofauthority and responsibility to, and within, organisations.There will be an onus on management at organisational andsub-organisational level to exercise greater de factoresponsibility for HR, finance and other organisationalmatters. A more geographically dispersed civil service needsto be balanced by sufficiently strong common values andculture to support effective system-wide co-operation anddecision making. It will be necessary to reinforce, and investmore heavily in corporate culture and ethos’ (First Report ofthe Decentralisation Implementation Group to Minister forFinance, p.28). There is little doubt that the challenges andopportunities presented by the programme with regard toleadership and collegiality are considerable but notinsurmountable.

6.2 In-depth discussions with key informantsWithin the context of the current Irish decentralisationprogramme, these issues were examined in this research atthree levels by way of in-depth interviews with a range ofkey informants:

• Corporate/service-wide: Discussions were held withsenior officials in the Departments of Finance and theTaoiseach, members of SMI Implementation and otherservice-wide groups/networks, as well as senioremployer, trades union officials and senior managers inthe corporate sector.

23

6

Opportunities and challenges forleadership and collegiality


• Inter-departmental: Discussions were held with thoseworking in leadership roles in order to lead servicedelivery and/or develop policy initiatives acrossorganisations (e.g. in moving forward cross-cuttingissues).

• Intra-departmental: Discussions were held with seniormanagers/leaders in a small number of departments/offices and agencies to explore the implications of thedecentralisation programme for the effective operationof the senior management team or MAC. The bodieschosen included both those that had been previouslyengaged in relocation and/or decentralisation, as wellas those included for the first time, to a significantdegree, in the current programme.

The aims of the in-depth discussions were to:

• establish current arrangements regarding corporate,inter- and intra-departmental leadership andcollegiality;

• identify examples of and/or opportunities for good/bestpractice in relation to effective leadership or collegialityissues that would be relevant to the adoption ofdecentralised structures.

6.3 Corporate/service-wide opportunities andchallenges

In summarising views at the corporate or service-wide level,a number of opportunities and challenges were identified byrespondents, which it will be important to analyse furtherand address for effective implementation of the currentprogramme:

• Improving leadership and collegiality: Time and again, itwas acknowledged by respondents that the current (i.e.pre-decentralisation) arrangements for leadership andcollegiality were perceived as being sub-optimal. In thatrespect, decentralisation, while offering considerable

24

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR LEADERSHIP AND COLLEGIALITY 25

challenges, could offer real opportunities for recastingcurrent arrangements in a more effective format. It wasfelt that effective implementation of the decentralisationprogramme would offer a real and dramatic opportunityto address some of the persistent challenges remainingwithin the modernisation programme. On numerousoccasions, and despite the acknowledged advances thathave been made to date to facilitate more effective cross-departmental working as part of the public servicemodernisation programme, points were made byrespondents that exemplified, in their mind, the verystrong ‘silo’ mentality still evident in the Irish civilservice. The radical nature of the decentralisationprogramme could help break that mould once and forall.

• Need to maintain international perspective: Particularlysince EU entry in 1973, but also as a result of activeengagement at UN and OECD levels, there is a strongsense, within the civil service, of Ireland being able to‘punch above its weight’ internationally. For example, inrelation to the leadership and management of EUPresidencies, Ireland has gained an acknowledgedreputation for success (see Humphreys 1997). At apractical level, it was strongly felt that concrete effortswould need to be made to ensure that representation of‘Ireland Inc’ internationally would not be jeopardised byany complications resulting from the decentralisation ofsenior staff to provincial locations.

• Localism: At the other end of the spectrum, it wasstrongly felt that, especially based upon past experiencewith the dispersal of smaller operational units tocountry areas, it would be essential for officials to behelped not to lose the wider view. There were concernsthat, unless countered, localism and narrowness ofperspective/ambition could develop at the cost of asense of national and international service. One of thecritical success factors they identified in relation to thiscorporate-level leadership role was the very effective,task orientated ‘can do’ spirit of collegiality which


enables the comparatively small team of largely Dublin-based staff to deliver the country’s national andinternational objectives effectively and which has beenadopted as a model by other EU Member States.

• Face-to-face contacts: Quite apart from the formalstructures that are in place, for example, throughoutthe Troika phase of a Presidency, it is a widely held viewamongst experienced civil servants that high levels offace-to-face contact between knowledgeable and trustedcolleagues is an important contributor to such successas has been achieved to date in the public servicemodernisation programme. Such quality interaction willneed to be sustained in the new, geographicallydecentralised environment.

• Networking: It was felt that, in many ways, this‘communicative’ and often informal style of working,which supports, sustains and underpins formalrelationships, has been facilitated by the geographicalproximity of senior staff in central Dublin. Activenetworking, ‘en marge’ discussions and face-to-facemeetings are an established pattern of working forsenior civil servants (not to mention more juniorgrades). It was felt that they added significantly to theopportunities not only for policy development andproblem solving but, even a stage before that, for policyformulation and problem prevention. Formal andinformal networks were seen as ‘the glue’ that held thenational civil service together. Some of these areidentified in Annex 4 for illustrative purposes. Given thedegree of geographical decentralisation now envisaged,it was felt essential by respondents that innovativesolutions be developed to allow new mechanisms bywhich such networking could continue to flourish.

• Corporate and specialist knowledge: Most decentralisingorganisations felt that decentralisation would involve avery large turnover of staff across the public sector,raising concerns about potential corporate memory loss,e.g. in terms of knowledge of how the civil serviceoperates. Such ‘churning’ of staff would affect not just

26


decentralising organisations, because staff moving tothe new provincial locations will be drawn not just fromacross the public service in Dublin, but also fromlocations already outside Dublin. Expert knowledgecould be difficult to replace as people moved postsand/or found that areas in which they had developedspecialist knowledge were to move without them. It willbe essential to adopt a strategic approach withinorganisations, as well as across the service, to minimisethe risks of such losses and, looking forward, to use thedecentralisation programme as an opportunity torespond to some of the key issues raised by O’Riordan(2005).

• Leadership accountability: Even more significantly,regular communication and interaction with thepolitical domain is a key aspect of a civil serviceleadership role. Effective ministerial contact with thedepartment and departmental contact with the ministerare key aspects of good governance. While ministerialstyles vary, productive face-to-face contact between theminister and senior civil servants is a critical successfactor for the smooth running of central government.Indeed, following as they did the recent publication ofthe Travers Report (2005), all the interviews with seniorcivil servants for this study re-emphasised the crucialrole of secretaries general as accounting officers fortheir departments. Accordingly, mechanisms wouldneed to be developed to ensure that this accountabilityrelationship, which had been a key feature of publicservice modernisation to date, could be strengthened aspart of the new arrangements being developed underdecentralisation.

• Political interface: From the perspective of the currentdecentralisation programme, there were frequentlyexpressed concerns raised in terms of the impact oncommunication between secretaries general andministers given that cabinet meetings are normally heldmid-week in Dublin. As a consequence, it wasanticipated that, for some departments, most of the


senior management team (together with somepolicy/planning staff) would need to remain in Dublinfrom Tuesday to Thursday. Counter-balancingmeasures would need to be put in place to ensure thatthis did not result in a negative impact on theadministrative and operational sides, resulting in apotential ‘aloofness’ of senior management in adepartment with decentralised offices. Solutions in thisarea would also require a whole-of-governmentapproach to facilitate regular ministerial contact withthe decentralised office, e.g. through the scheduling ofDáil business in Dublin to optimise such opportunities.

• Career progression: It was felt by respondents that,given the perceived correlation between involvement inpolicy work, exposure to the political domain and careerprogression at senior levels within the service, stepswould need to be taken, service-wide, to ensure thatdecentralisation would not be detrimental to collegialitythrough the development of a ‘two-tier’ civil service. Onetier could be largely Dublin focused with enhancedopportunity for ‘high-level’ work and one tier largelylocated away from Dublin focused on operational work.It was felt that a perceived ‘pecking order’ already existsbetween departments and steps would need to be takento ensure that this was not accentuated, e.g. for thosedepartments whose head offices are to be relocatedaway from Dublin.

6.4 Interdepartmental opportunities and challengesIn taking forward corporate or service-wide issues, such asthe modernisation programme itself, it has been seen thatthere are already a significant number of cross-departmental high-level teams (see Annex 4). Such asituation is replicated, at policy level, where crosscuttingissues are addressed and improved co-ordination is sought(see Boyle, 1999). At the moment, many departments areactively developing cross-departmental working. Forexample, the Department of Social and Family Affairs isinvolved in cross-departmental committees covering issues

28


such as lone parents, poverty, pension issues,homelessness, education issues etc. These are not in thesocial welfare domain alone but involve a number ofdepartments. Such fora allow departmental people to gettogether and discuss issues in a holistic way in terms of allaspects of services. As previously indicated above, it wasalso felt that these committees enable department staff toget to know other department personnel on a personalbasis, with a number of side meetings held on other issues.It is felt that personal contact and problem solving areinextricably linked. Given the likely newness of many of thestaff in policy areas, after decentralisation, it was feltcritical by many respondents that the opportunity wasgrasped to ensure new structures were in place toguarantee regular cross-departmental contact.

Additionally, it was felt that senior staff are subjectleaders in specific policy areas. The issue of corporatememory within departments, particularly at principalofficer (PO) level, in policy areas and on the service deliveryside, is invaluable when implementing new procedures orpolicies. Such individuals have an organisational memoryand tacit knowledge of whether an approach succeeded inthe past or not, which is invaluable in terms of efficientimplementation of proposed policies and services. It wasalso anticipated that in both departments and agencies ear-marked for decentralisation, a higher proportion ofspecialist and professional staff would opt to stay in Dublinthan those in ‘general service’. Once more, the need toadopt a strategic KM policy initiative was particularlyreinforced by such concerns.

6.5 Intradepartmental issues and challengesIt was noted, by some respondents, that collegiality at themost senior level within the civil service can be limited, atpresent, because of the nature of the secretary general’sposition. It was felt that secretaries general ‘run their ownbusinesses’ and this does not always encourage a sense ofpositive collegiality. Concerns regarding accountability hadbeen further prioritised in the light of the Travers Report.


It was felt, within departments, that the successfulimplementation of decentralisation would depend oninternal and external factors such as length of transitionperiod to set up new offices and settle staff (new and old)into the new location, the commitment of management(heading up the decentralised offices), career progressionand the extent of interaction with networks, communicationtools and the maintenance of positive collegiality. In thefuture, the effectiveness of new offices was felt to depend oninteraction with and between senior managers and theirstaff at centre and local levels, the effective use ofsystematic information and communication technology(ICT) tools and the development of effective collegiality andnetworking responses. It was felt that having ministersvisiting decentralised locations would encourage localmanagers to gain more access to the political system andraise issues with the minister. It was felt that lessonslearned from previous decentralisations emphasised theneed for care in maintaining effective, collegial contactbetween decentralised offices and the centre. Theimportance of local management commitment to run thebusiness at decentralised locations and support from thesenior management team is important, particularly havinga senior person (e.g. assistant secretary) to report to on theMAC regularly. It was felt to be important to have strongcommunication between Dublin and decentralised officesdriven by the motivation and commitment of the localmanagement team.

Respondents believed that decentralisation would affecteverybody at every level in the organisations relocating. Atsenior management level (MAC), over the next ten years,there was also felt to be a natural order of change whenmany MAC members in departments would retire8. But,decentralisation could speed up this process and it was feltthat, to an extent at least, the pace of demographic changewould depend on how fast decentralisation is implemented.Some departments are initiating reviews of their MAC andstructures, and assessing the possibility of ‘mobile’assistant secretary (AS) posts. In terms of advances in ICTsystems assisting with any problems that may emerge in

30


decentralised locations and other locations, the majority oforganisations felt ICT was a useful tool to network andcommunicate but no substitute for face-to-facecommunication or to gauge the mood of a meeting or toensure participation by all members at that meeting. It wascertainly not a panacea, although the potential for improvedvirtual collegiality could not be overlooked.

Finally, a number of decentralising bodies expressed aconcern that they would need to be supported centrally intheir efforts to continue effective stakeholder engagement.While they would be moving away from Dublin, many otherorganisations (including representational groups) would bestaying in the capital. Again, the SMI has seen considerableimprovement in consultation by public bodies with theircustomer bases (see Humphreys, 2002). It was felt stronglyby respondents that such consultation and widerengagement could not be allowed to suffer as a consequenceof the decentralisation programme.

Overall, respondents felt, without exception, that thedirect and indirect changes resulting from the currentdecentralisation programme were of such a scale andcharacter as to be the most radical introduced into the Irishsystem of public administration in living memory. Althoughon occasion critical of the way the programme had beenembarked upon, respondents could see, and were keen tograsp, the opportunities thus presented.

7.1 IntroductionThis research study has shown that, broadly speaking,corporate governance refers to the processes by whichorganisations (departments/offices/agencies) are directed,controlled and held to account. The term encompasses anumber of key qualities or characteristics, such asauthority, accountability, stewardship, leadership,direction and control exercised in the organisation (ANOA,1999). Other important qualities of good governanceinclude: openness, participation, effectiveness andcoherence (CEC, 2001). As best practice in public andprivate sector organisations indicates, effective leadershipand positive collegiality are cornerstones upon whichorganisational excellence is built. In turn, all of thesegovernance factors are influenced by the effective utilisationof geographical and other locational factors by theorganisation concerned. Additionally, it is important toappreciate that the scale and character of the decentralisa-tion currently being implemented by the Irish public serviceis such as to have a direct and/or indirect impact not juston those specific bodies identified for decentralisationunder the current programme but will also have an impactacross the public service as well as in other sectors.

7.2 Key governance issues: leadership and collegialityA review of the latest international literature and bestpractice management frameworks clearly highlights thatnot only is effective leadership the cornerstone upon whichorganisational excellence is built, it also:

• gives strategic direction: it develops and communicatesvision, mission and values

• achieves change and focuses efforts on customer service

32

7

Moving forward

MOVING FORWARD 33

• develops and implements a system for organisationalmanagement and performance review

• motivates and supports people, acting as a role model• manages the relationships with politicians and other

stakeholders, acting in a socially responsible manner.

These qualities hold true across the public and privatesectors. Effective and visible leadership is required topromote an emphasis on co-operation, consensus,persuasion and the like. A key quality of leadership is alsothe capacity to operate in a collegial manner and to supportcollegiality between and within organisations. Together withpositive collegiality, these qualities of effective leadershipapply at three levels: the corporate or service-wide; theinter- and the intra-departmental. The key researchquestion for this study was to consider the extent to whichthese qualities of leadership and collegiality could beaffected by the geographical dispersal of the public serviceorganisations concerned and, specifically, to identify anddiscuss opportunities and challenges thus presented.

7.3 Opportunities and challenges There is little doubt that the current decentralisationprogramme will have a profound impact on structures,communication frameworks, networking fora and therelationship interface between the civil service, the politicaland stakeholder systems. How this is managed is vital interms of the effects on customer service and the efficiencyof business processes during the transition phase andbeyond. As such, if effectively managed and implemented, itcould represent a unique opportunity for fundamentallyrevisiting and restructuring the ways in which the civil andwider public services conduct their business.

There is little doubt that the movement of public servicebodies away from Dublin will provide an unprecedentedopportunity for a fundamental overhaul of work done andthe way it is done, through the use of business process re-engineering and other techniques. Concerns from the pastregarding blocked career progression for those in dispersed


and regional civil service offices (see Humphreys et al, 1999)could be ameliorated by adopting a regional approach tofacilitate promotion across public service bodies. Otherwise,a move away from Dublin would very definitely become aone-way journey. Because of the travel imperative forcontact with the minister and meetings with other publicservants, while the burden of travel will be greatlyincreased, especially when engaged in EU and otherinternational work, it is very likely that both the frequencyand management of meetings will become subject to stricterdiscipline. The use of ICT will help communication but it isexpected to be only a limited substitute for face-to-facecollegiality.

The discussions that took place during this researchalso suggest that it could be timely to re-explore thepotential benefits of a Senior Civil Service (see EIPA, 1998,the XVI International Congress on the Training andDevelopment of Senior Civil Servants 2001 and OECD,2003c). Such an incremental step could support thedevelopment of leadership skills training and help sustaincollegiality at the service-wide level, where respondentsfrequently expressed concern that local pressures couldlead to a parochial mind-set developing. ‘Leadership has nothistorically been considered as a skill that can be learned -it has been regarded rather as Churchill described‘greatness’: you can be born with it, achieve it or have itthrust upon you. Yet recent thinking in both the private andpublic sectors sees the development of the skills ofleadership as essential to the effective delivery of anyprogramme of change − and that all efficient organisationsare in a state of ordered change’ (Simpson, 2005).

It was outside the scope of this research to suggest oreven less to prescribe firm recommendations for furtheraction. That needs to be on the national agenda for anotherday. Likewise, not one organisation is scheduled todecentralise before the end of 2006. However, there is littledoubt that, if the current decentralisation programme is torise above the very considerable logistical issues (aroundstaffing/training and physical infrastructure) that haveunderstandably pre-occupied the implementation agenda to

34

MOVING FORWARD 35

date, then serious consideration of the governanceopportunities and challenges arising from this programmeneed to rise up that agenda. Only two of these issues havebeen initially reviewed and discussed in this paper: namelyeffective leadership and positive collegiality. However, it isclear from this research alone that, if Ireland is to retain itshard won and justified reputation for first rate civil andpublic services, as well as its international standing,positive action is required across a wide front to turnleadership and collegiality challenges into opportunities.

On the basis of this research evidence, such actionshould include constructive, informed and positive supportbeing given to a wide range of issues, including:

• Giving urgent attention to the development of a service-wide KM initiative to minimise loss and open up newopportunities for knowledge sharing on a collegial basis,within, between and across those public service bodiessignificantly affected by the decentralisationprogramme. Allied to this is the need to map moreclearly, and understand better, current formal andinformal networks within the service. These will need tobe significantly recast. Resort to ICT and large amountsof travel appear to only offer partial solutions.

• Implementing a coherent, service-wide changemanagement programme, which recognises andempowers leadership within and across the civil andwider public services. Again, models appear to exist,based upon international best practice, which couldinform this process, as could the more systematic in-depth analysis of private sector experiences. It wouldappear also that the timing could be opportune for arevisiting and reassertion of core public service valuesthat could help to maintain consistency in theconsiderably more geographically complex and youngerservice of the future. Allied to and supportive of thisapproach could be the further examination of theimplications for Ireland of the explicit development of asenior civil and public service.


In summary, there is little doubt that the currentleaders of the Irish public service have had decentralisationthrust upon them, even though it may be up to theirsuccessors to fully operationalise the resultant changesfrom new and diverse localities. While issues of staffing andinfrastructure are understandably pre-occupying mindspresently concerned with implementation, action will needto be commenced soon to rearticulate, and sustain, thevalues of the Irish public service and to cultivate theleadership skills necessary for the next generation ofsecretaries general and chief executives so that themodernisation programme set in motion a decade ago issustained and re-invigorated.

As one Irish private sector interviewee observed, ‘Thepublic service must embrace this decentralisationprogramme as an opportunity to improve service and to useICT and other forms of communication effectively. In theshort-term, it will divert attention but the challenge is tolook at this as an opportunity to improve services and tomodernise. Otherwise it will be seen as an intractableproblem’. Perhaps some concluding words from CharlesHandy (1995) are appropriate here. ‘As in the Renaissance,it will be an exciting time, a time of great opportunities forthose who can see and seize them, but of a great threat andfear for many. It will be difficult to hold organisations andsocieties together. The softer words of leadership and visionand common purpose will replace the tougher words ofcontrol and authority because the tough words won’t biteanymore. Organisations will have to become communitiesrather than properties, with members, not employees,because few will be content to be owned by others’. In adecade from now, a new generation of leaders should beleading an entirely recast, modernised civil and publicservice, in diverse places but with shared values.

36

The following table outlines the departments, agencies andjobs it is proposed to transfer out of Dublin. It also showsthe target number of jobs for each location. The governmentmay make further adjustments to the detailed provisionsbelow where necessary to ensure continued effectivedelivery of public services.

37

ANNEX 1

Details of the current decentralisationprogramme by department

(including agencies)a

Department Organisation/Agency Location Approx.Nos.

Agriculture andFood

Arts, Sport andTourism

Cork City laboratorystaff

Department HQ

Bord Glas

Bord Bia (Food)

Local Cork City andMallow staff

ICT Staff

Sub-total

Department HQ

Arts Council

Fáilte Ireland (Tourism)

Sports Council

Sub-total

Portlaoise

Fermoy

Macroom

Enniscorthy

Enniscorthy

Portlaoise

Killarney

Kilkenny

Mallow

Killarney

400

70

75

100

10

880

125

140

45

200

25

410

Teagasc Advisors(Research)

Carlow 100

a These totals include the 835 IT and 500 health sector jobs not geographically

assigned in the original announcement. The table also includes numerical andgeographical changes subsequently announced.


38


Communications,Marine andNatural Resources

Community, Ruraland GaeltachtAffairs

Defence

Seafood/Coastal ZoneDivisions and BordIascaigh Mhara(Fisheries)

Department HQ

Central Fisheries Board

Sustainable EnergyIreland

Sub-total

Department HQ

Foras na Gaeilge*

Department Staff

ADM

Sub-total

Cavan

Clonakilty

Carrick-on-Shannon

Dundalk

KnockAirport

Na Forbacha

Clifden

Gweedore

425

150

40

654

39

140

220

10

40

30

Department HQ (incl.Coiste an Asgard) Newbridge 200

300

500

CurraghDefence Forces HQ

Sub-total

ANNEX 1 39


Education andScience

Higher EducationAuthority

Enterprise, Tradeand Employment

Department Staff

Department HQ

National EducationWelfare Board andNCAA

Sub-total

NQAI/HETAC/FETAC(Qualifications)

Companies RegistrationOffice, Office of theDirector of ConsumerAffairs, Work Permits,Labour Inspectorate,Employment Rights(Information),Redundancy andInsolvency

Enterprise Ireland

FÁS (Training)

Mullingar

Athlone

Portlarlington

Athlone

Edenderry

Carlow

Birr

Shannon

300

100

70

75

250

590

220

300

Health and SafetyAuthority

Thomastown 110

140

1,050

ArklowNational StandardsAuthority

Sub-total

45


40


Environment,Heritage andLocal Government

Finance

EnvironmentInfrastructure andServices

Department HQ

Local government,Heritage and Planning(parts of),Accommodation, PPPand IT

Local GovernmentComputer ServicesBoard (LGCSB)

Housing (part of)

National BuildingAgency

Sub-total

Centre for Managementand OrganisationDevelopment, NDP,Finance Directorateand Information

Wexford

New Ross

Waterford

Drogheda

Kilkenny

Wexford

Tullamore

270

130

200

60

90

55

805

130

Department IT Kildare 35

300

50

Athy

Kilrush

Revenue Staff (incl.Operations Policy andEvaluation)

Debt Management

ANNEX 1 41

Debt Management Listowel 50

Foreign Affairs

Revenue IT

Debt Management

Office of Public Works(OPW) HQ

OPW Staff

OPW Staff

OCS and LAC (CivilService Commission)

Ordnance SurveyIreland

Development Co-operation Ireland

Valuation Office

Sub-total

Sub-total

NewcastleWest

Kildare

Trim

Claremorris

Kanturk

Dungarvan

Youghal

Youghal

Limerick

50

380

275

100

100

150

300

130

100

1,970

130

Health ServiceExecutive

Naas 300

50

350

CorkInformation andQuality Authority

Sub-total

Health andChildren



42


Justice, Equalityand Law Reform

Equality Tribunal

Social and FamilyAffairs

Data ProtectionCommissioner

Asylum andImmigration

Equality Authority

Garda ComplaintsBoard

Garda HQ (incl.civilians)

Land Registry

Prison Service HQ

Department HQ

Probation and WelfareService

Sub-total

Client EligibilityServices

Tipperary

Portarlington

Roscrea

Roscrea

Portarlington

Longford

Roscommon

Buncrana

Navan

Drogheda

200

20

40

40

230

20

130

120

100

980

300

General Benefits Donegal 230

225Carrick-on-Shannon

Client Identity,Employment Support,IS and Control

Thurles 200

Department IT Drogheda 225

ANNEX 1 43


Transport

Combat Poverty Agency

Internal Audit, Freedomof Information (FoI),Training andDevelopment,Supplementary Welfare

Comhairle (Citizens’Advice)

Sub-total

Reach

Road Haulage Division

Irish Aviation Authority

Bus Éireann

National RoadsAuthority

Sligo

Monaghan

Drogheda

Drogheda

Loughrea

Ballinasloe

Mitchelstown

Shannon

100

25

85

15

1,325

40

90

200

100

National SafetyAuthority

Loughrea 10

20

460

BallinasloeRailway SafetyCommission

Sub-total

Overall total 10,324

*The relocation of Foras na Gaeilge will require theagreement of the North/South Ministerial Council

Phase One: Dispersal (1967-1987)It was originally envisaged in 1967 that the entireDepartments of Education and (then) Lands would bemoved from Dublin to Athlone (County Westmeath) andCastlebar (County Mayo) respectively. However, thisoriginal plan was scaled down, due mainly to managementand staff opposition, and in 1971 it was decided that onlyselected sections of each of the two departments would berelocated. The departments concerned identified sectionswhich were relatively self-contained and which comprised ahigh proportion of younger staff at lower grades. In 1974, asimilar plan to relocate the entire Department of theGaeltacht to Na Forbacha (Furbo) in County Galway met thesame outcome.

In its Programme for National Development 1978-1981,the government announced a programme for the transfer ofat least 2,000 officers in general service grades to abouteight medium-sized urban areas in the provinces. Inaddition, all new government sector services were to belocated outside Dublin, unless there were compellingreasons to the contrary. It was announced that the newVehicle Registration Unit of the Department of theEnvironment was to be located at Shannon, County Clare.The unit was located in Shannon in November 1982, with astaff of approximately seventy, about thirty of whom hadbeen recruited locally. A programme for the relocation ofapproximately 3,200 civil servants to twelve differentprovincial towns was announced officially in October 1980.Yet, following a review of the ‘decentralisation’ programmein 1981, the government deferred further action because ofcost considerations.

44

ANNEX 2

Previous Irish decentralisationinitiatives

ANNEX 2 45

Phase Two: Dispersal, Regionalisation andDeconcentration (1988-2003)A second phase of decentralisation was commenced in 1987whereby 2,380 staff would be transferred to eight regionalcentres. The first tranche involved the relocation of about850 staff to Cavan (150), Galway (200), Ballina (200) andSligo (300), from, respectively, the Departments ofAgriculture, Defence, Environment and Social Welfare. Asecond tranche transferred nearly 2,500 staff to a furthereight provincial centres: namely Athlone (180), Dundalk(300), Ennis (170), Killarney (140), Letterkenny (190),Limerick (800), Nenagh (200) and Waterford (400). Whenthe two phases were completed, a further 10 per cent(approximately) of civil service posts were relocated outsideDublin. It is clear from the scale of some of these relocationsthat they went beyond the previous dispersal of small,functional units. In the case of the Office of the RevenueCommissioners, it involved the movement of the Office ofthe Collector-General to the Mid-West Region accompaniedby a major programme of business process re-engineeringand modernisation. As in the case of the (now) Departmentof Social and Family Affairs, a concerted regionalisationstrategy was developed linked to internal reforms toimprove the quality of service delivery (see Humphreys,Fleming and O’Donnell 1999).

Current UK public service approachAt the outset, it is important to appreciate that, as inIreland, the current proposals for the dispersal of publicservice employment in the UK build upon past experiences.In particular, the Hardman Review (1973) led to the transferof ‘self-standing’ business units away from London to pre-ordained locations in the interests of regional policy. AsLyons (2004) observes ‘They helped give rise to a narrowand mechanical conception of ‘relocation’ − a kind of chessgame played within the machinery of government’ (p. 5). Incontrast to previous UK approaches, Lyons (2004) adopts astrongly business driven and regional development focus tothe current programme. He maintains that the evidence isclear that organisations that have dispersed activities fromLondon and the South East of England enjoy significantcost savings, reduction in staff turnover and improvementsin the quality of service they deliver. Specifically on theissue of civil service leadership, Lyons advocates thatLondon as capital needs a governmental core supportingministers and setting the strategic policy framework. Inevery other respect the status quo is open to challenge. Tosupport his work, Lyons (2004) was informed by studiesundertaken by an extensive consultation/informationgathering exercise, as well as commissioned studiesundertaken by King Sturge (2003) and Experian BusinessStrategies (2004).

Scottish ExecutiveWhile the above approach would also apply directly to UKcivil servants located in Scotland, the Scottish Executive’sRelocation Policy covers the executive’s departments andagencies, non-ministerial departments and the sponsoredpublic sector (Public Service Reform Group, 2005). The

46

ANNEX 3

Examples of public servicedecentralisation from other

administrations

ANNEX 3 47

overarching objectives of this policy are to (a) ensure thatthe government of Scotland is more efficient anddecentralised; (b) provide cost-effective service deliverysolutions; and (c) assist areas with particular social andeconomic needs. The policy relates to bodies throughoutScotland and not just those currently based in and aroundEdinburgh. When the executive establishes a new unit,agency or public body or where an existing one is merged orotherwise re-organised, this triggers a location review andthere is the presumption against locating in Edinburgh.Where a significant ‘property break’ is reached, e.g. throughthe termination of an existing lease, this also triggers areview and location options are considered that couldinclude Edinburgh. The Scottish Executive’s relocationpolicy covers 30,000 public sector jobs of which two-thirdsare currently Edinburgh based. Over the past three years orso, thirty-two bodies (representing 4,445 posts) have beenreviewed, with 1,424 posts moved to date. So far relocationshave included Aberdeen, Dundee, Falkirk, Inverness andlocations in the Highlands and Islands.

48

ANNEX 4

Centre for Management andOrganisation Development

(Department of Finance)/Departmentof the Taoiseach Networks

Network

AssistantSecretary (AS)Network: CMOD

Description

The aim of the network is toestablish a forum where seniorcivil servants can activelyparticipate in informationsharing, stimulating debate andsolution brokering in a collegiategathering. The provision of asafe space to promoteconstructive interaction betweenthose at assistant secretary andequivalent level contributes to theembedding of strategic changeacross the civil service. Thenetwork host’s developmentaland instructive events on a rangeof strategic issues as identified bythe executive committee and thewider membership.

Membership

AssistantSecretary (AS)

DepartmentalTraining OfficersNetwork: CMOD

The objective of the network is toprovide a forum to shareinformation and address issues ofcommon concern. The networkoperates through a series of half-day meetings, with presentationsand discussion on topicaltraining issues.

Higher ExecutiveOfficer (HEO)/AssistantPrincipal (AP) level

ANNEX 4 49

Principal Officer(PO)/ AssistantPrincipal (AP)level

The aim of the network is to providea forum for personnel officers todiscuss issues in relation to theimplementation of HR policies andother initiatives coming from theDepartment of Finance and toprovide input into the policyformulation process. It is also anopportunity to make contact and toshare experiences in relation toHRM issues at local level. Thenetwork meets on a quarterly basis.

PersonnelOfficersNetwork: CMOD

PerformanceManagementandDevelopmentSystem (PMDS)Network: CMOD

A network of PMDS coordinatorswith responsibility for the rollout ofPerformance Management andDevelopment to staff at all gradelevels in government departments.The objectives of the network are toprovide a forum for those engaged inthe rollout of PMDS to shareinformation and to address issues ofcommon concern, such as trainingof staff, rollout of individualisedfeedback and evaluation of PMDSacross the civil service. The networkholds meetings with presentationsby members and external expertsand also meets in workshop style todiscuss specific topics.

AP level

WomenManagers’:Network CMOD

The Women Managers’ Networkprovides training and developmentand networking opportunities forwomen managers across the civil

Over 500members fromacross allgovernment


50

service. The network has over 500members and meets quarterly.Membership is open to womenmanagers from HEO/AO upwards.

departments andoffices. HEO/AOupward.

QCS OfficersNetwork:Department ofthe Taoiseach

The QCS Officers Network was setup in October 2000 to provide aforum for QCS Officers to discussitems of interest, to be kept up todate on new developments and toshare best practice on all aspects ofcustomer service. The network hasan important role in discussing howto implement initiatives agreed bythe Quality Customer ServiceWorking Group and is responsiblefor supporting and promoting theQCS initiative at local level. Thegroup is also involved inhighlighting customer service issuesthat could be addressed to theQuality Customer Service WorkingGroup. The chief executive officer ofthe Public Appointments Servicechairs the network and membershipis drawn from governmentdepartments/offices and stateagencies. The group meets regularlyat two monthly intervals.

Membership atHEO/AP level.

ANNEX 4 51

DepartmentsParticipatingAgriculture andFood, Arts, Sport andTourism,Community,Rural andGaeltacht Affairs,Defence,Education andScience,Enterprise, Tradeand Employment,Environment,Heritage andLocalGovernment,Finance, ForeignAffairs, Healthand Children,Justice, Equalityand Law Reform,Social and FamilyAffairs, Transport,Taoiseach,AttorneyGeneral’s, PublicAppointmentsService, CourtsService, Houses ofthe Oireachtas,Prison Service,Land Registry,Legal Aid Board,Director of PublicProsecutions,Office of Public

The Change Management Network wasestablished in July 2002. AssistantSecretary, Department of Transport,chairs the network and itsmembership comprises seniormanagers representing some thirtydepartments and offices from acrossthe spectrum of the civil service.Theorigins of the Change ManagementNetwork can be traced back to the PAEvaluation of the StrategicManagement Initiative/DeliveringBetter Government ModernisationProgramme published in 2002. Thislandmark report reviewed progressachieved to date under themodernisation programme. As part ofits findings, the report highlighted aparticular need to extend the range ofsupports available to departments andoffices with a view to enhancing theimplementation of the modernisationprogramme. It also identified a needto strengthen networks as a tool forsharing ideas and best practice. Thenetwork meets at regular intervals andits primary role is to: (a) provide avaluable forum for discussion and thesharing of experience and best practiceamong senior civil servants chargedwith overseeing the modernisationprocess; (b) provide a channel foreffective and timely dialogue betweenthe central departments and managersin line departments and offices withresponsibility for implementation ofthe modernisation agenda; and (c)assist and support the integration of

ChangeManagementNetwork:Departmentof theTaoiseach


52

the various strands of themodernisation programme indepartments and offices.The network’smeetings usually comprise a mix ofpresentations and focussed discussionregarding a variety of differentcomponents of the modernisationprogramme. Topics recently discussedby the network have included issuesassociated with risk management,performance indicators, businessprocess improvement and regulatoryreform and the new recruitmentframework for the civil service.

Works, RevenueCommissioners,Ordnance SurveyIreland, StateLaboratory,Valuation Office,

Membership atPO/AS level

1 Indeed, there is already a growing corpus of cross-nationalresearch in this area to parallel the growth in such agenciesthemselves (see http://www.publicmanagement-cobra.org/)(see also Pollitt et al, 2004). Results from Ireland indicate thatany resultant decentralisation of decision-making powers canbe uneven. McGauran, Verhoest and Humphreys (2005)estimate that of the +600 commercial and non-commercialagencies currently operating in Ireland, almost 60 per centhave been established in their present form since 1990.Superficially, this could be seen as significant horizontal ordiagonal ‘decentralisation’. However, in reality, while suchbodies may have significant policy autonomy, their HRmanagement and financial autonomy is often much lower.

2 Within the wider context of the public service, it must also beborne in mind that approximately 68 per cent of localauthority staff and 61 per cent of health staff are alreadylocated outside Dublin. Ireland’s system of publicadministration is already geographically decentralised.

3 While the outcome of this new programme should be an Irishcivil service that has been significantly re-engineered in shapeand space, the expressed policy rationale remains firmlygrounded in terms of economic and social development, ratherthan public service modernisation per se (see FitzpatrickAssociates, 2005). Of course that does not mean that it willnot also have important implications for the SMI. From aregional policy perspective, there is continuing concern, bothat the political and popular levels, about the spatial imbalancein economic development within Ireland, resulting incongestion and other related problems in the greater Dublinarea and more limited employment and economic developmentopportunities away from the larger urban areas. Within thissetting, it is not perhaps surprising that the spatialdistribution of public service jobs has once again come underscrutiny. ‘Although Dublin remains vital to economicdevelopment, the Government’s National Spatial Strategyrecognised that Ireland also needs a more even spread ofdevelopment. Unbalanced development is not sustainable inthe longer term, economically, socially or environmentally.More balanced regional development will contribute tosustainable long-term economic growth to the benefit of allcitizens’ (Budget 2004, p. A.8). While the degree of detailed fitbetween sites chosen for the decentralisation of public serviceorganisations under the current programme and the NationalSpatial strategy is limited, and has been the subject of adversecomment (see McDonald, 2005 and Walsh, 2004), the basicpolicy rationale remains unchanged.

53

NOTES

NOTES

4 Devolution involves the transfer of power from the centre to thelocal area. Resources, discretion and responsibility aretransferred to local bodies, usually subject to some form ofdemocratic control.

5 Departments largely unaffected by decentralisation in terms ofthe majority of their ‘core businesses’ and central policyfunctions include: Enterprise, Trade and Employment;Finance; Foreign Affairs; Health and Children; Justice,Equality and Law Reform; Taoiseach and Transport, togetherwith the Office of the Attorney General and Comptroller andAuditor General.

6 For example, an essential driver for the current UK initiative isthe economic imperative stimulated by the Gershon EfficiencyReview (2004) requiring public service bodies to achieve 2.5per cent annual efficiency targets. Such an imperative placesthe potential savings from office relocation and differentialsalary rates in non-metropolitan locations at a premium fororganisations. There is no such driver in Ireland. The UKapproach also specifically excludes the movement of headoffices of government departments away from London. Thechoice of UK regional locations for inward movement is alsostrongly influenced by the opportunities offered by specificlocales and has to be justified in business terms.

7 See the Reports of the Decentralisation Implementation Groupreferenced in the Bibliography.

8 While these data do not specifically relate to senior managementgrades, recent analyses by the Department of Finance suggestthat the proportion of staff aged over fifty is projected toincrease from 25 per cent presently to around 45 per cent inten years’ time. The CPMR is currently undertaking furtherresearch in this area.

9 For example, O’Riordan (2005) points out that large multi-nationals like IBM Ireland maintain a knowledge managementteam of approximately 100 staff to co-ordinate KM activitiesglobally. ‘Emphasis is placed on understanding businessprocesses, how people work, what they do, in order to providethe most effective support. This high level of understanding iscritical to developing knowledge management systems andsupports that are relevant and therefore used’ (p. 48).

54

Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, J. and Briggs, I. (2002),Leadership: Time To Debunk The Myths And Face The RealChallenges, London: Public Management and PolicyAssociation.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B., and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2004) ‘Leadership inpublic sector organisations’, in Storey, J., (ed.) (2004)Leadership in Organizations, Current Issues and Key Trends,London: Routledge

Australian National Audit Office (1999), Principles and BetterPractices: Corporate Governance in Commonwealth Authoritiesand Companies, ANAO Discussion Paper, Canberra.

Barrington, T.J. (1991), ‘Local Government in Ireland’, in Batley,R. and Stoker, G., eds. (1991). Local Government in Europe.Basingstoke: Macmillian

Bennett, J.B. (1998), Collegial Professionalism: The Academy,Individualism and the Common Good, Phoenix (Arizona):American Council on Education and Oryx Press.

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders, New York: Harper Row.Bess, J.L. (1988), Collegiality and Bureaucracy in the Modern

University: The Influence of Information and Power on Decision-Making Structures, New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Boyle, R. (1999), The Management of Cross-Cutting Issues, CPMRDiscussion Paper No.8, Dublin: Institute of PublicAdministration

Boyle, R. and Fleming, S. (2000), The Role of Strategy Statements,CPMR Research Report No. 2, Dublin: Institute of PublicAdministration.

Boyle, R. and Humphreys, P.C. (2001), A New Change Agenda forthe Irish Public Service, CPMR Discussion Paper No. 17,Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

Budget 2004, Department of Finance, Dublin: Stationery Office.Callanan, M. (2003), ‘Where stands local government?’, in

Callanan, M. and Keoghan, J.F. (2003) eds., Local Governmentin Ireland: Inside Out, Dublin: Institute of PublicAdministration

Commission of the European Communities (2001), EuropeanGovernance A White Paper, Luxembourg: CEC.

Decentralisation Implementation Group (19 November 2004),Decentralised Office Accommodation: Procurement Methodologyand Financial Assessment, Report to the Minister for Finance,Dublin.

55

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Decentralisation Implementation Group (30 June 2005), ProgressReport to the Minister for Finance, Dublin.

European Institute of Public Administration (1998), The SeniorCivil Service: A comparison of personnel development for topmanagers in fourteen OECD member countries, Maastricht:EIPA.

Experian Business Strategies (2004), The Impact of Relocation: AReport for the Independent Review of Public Sector Relocation,UK: Experian.

First Report of the Decentralisation Implementation Group toMinister for Finance (30 March 2004).

Fitzpatrick Associates (2005), Securing Maximum Positive Benefitfor Local Communities from the Public Service DecentralisationProgramme, April, Department of Finance: Dublin.

Gerring, J., Thacker, S. and Moreno, C. (2005), ‘CentripetalDemocratic Governance: A Theory and Global Inquiry’,American Political Science Review, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 567-581

Gershon, P. (2004), Releasing resources to the front line:Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency, London:Stationery Office.

Handy, C. (1995), Beyond Certainty: The Changing World ofOrganisations, London: Arrow.

Hardman, H. (1973), The Dispersal of Government Work fromLondon, Cmnd. 5322, London: Stationery Office.

Humphreys, P.C. (1983), Public Service Employment: AnExamination of Strategies in Ireland and Other EuropeanCountries, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

Humphreys, P.C. (1997), The Fifth Irish Presidency of the EuropeanUnion: Some Management Lessons, CPMR Discussion PaperNo. 2, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

Humphreys, P.C., Fleming, S. and O’Donnell, O. (1999), ImprovingPublic Services in Ireland: A Case-Study Approach, CPMRDiscussion Paper No. 11, Dublin: Institute of PublicAdministration

Humphreys, P.C., Drew, E. and Murphy, C. (1999), GenderEquality in the Civil Service, Dublin: Institute of PublicAdministration

Humphreys, P.C. (2002), Effective Consultation with the ExternalCustomer, CPMR Discussion Paper No. 23, Dublin: Institute ofPublic Administration

Ireland: National Development Plan (2000-2006), Dublin:Stationery Office.

56

REFERENCES 57

Joyce, L., Humphreys, P.C. and Kelleher, A. (1988),Decentralisation: the Civil Service Experience, Dublin: Instituteof Public Administration

Kelly, J. (2004), ‘Corporate Leadership: Reflections of a CEO andCEO Advisor’, Long Range Planning 37, pp. 389-398.

King Sturge (2003), Independent Review of Public SectorRelocation: Comparative Assessment of Locations, London:King Sturge.

Kelleher, D. and Levene, S. (2001), Knowledge Management: AGuide to Good Practice, British Standards Institute: London

Knight , T. and Howes, T. (2003), Knowledge Management: ABlueprint for Delivery, Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford.

Kotter, J.P. (1995), The New Rules, New York: The Free Press,Simon & Schuster.

Langhorst, S.A. (1999), Relationship of Computer-MediatedCommunication Usage and Collegial Behaviors of Faculty atResearch Universities: Constructing Virtual Collegiality, Ph. D.thesis, http://www.vccs.edu/collegial/virtcoll.htm, VirginiaCommonwealth University.

Lyons, M. (2004), Well Placed to Deliver? Shaping the Pattern ofGovernment Service, Independent Review of Public SectorRelocation, London: H.M. Treasury.

McDonald, F. (2005), ‘Using public servants like political pawns’,Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants (AHCPS)Newsletter, June 2005, pp. 12-14.

McGauran, A-M., Verhoest, K. and Humphreys, P.C. (2005), TheCorporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-commercialNational Agencies, CPMR Research Report No. 6, Dublin:Institute of Public Administration

National Spatial Strategy for Ireland 2002-2020, Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin:Stationery Office.

OECD (1995), Governance in Transition, Paris: OECD.OECD (2003a), Knowledge management in government: An idea

whose time has come, GOV/PUMA/HRM (2003) 1.OECD (2003b), Conclusions from the results of the survey of

knowledge management practices for ministries/ departments/agencies of central government in OECD member countries,GOV/PUMA/HRM (2003) 2.

OECD (2003c), Managing Senior Management: Senior Civil ServiceReform in OECD Member States, Paris: OECD.

REFERENCES

OECD (2005), ‘Decentralisation and Poverty Reduction’, PolicyInsight No.5, Paris: OECD.

O’Riordan, J. (2005), A Review of Knowledge Management in theIrish Civil Service, CPMR Discussion Paper No. 29, Dublin:Institute of Public Administration

P.A. Consulting (2002), Evaluation of the Progress of the StrategicManagement Initiative/Delivering Better GovernmentModernisation Programme, Report presented to theDepartment of the Taoiseach, Dublin: PA Consulting Group.

Pollitt, C. (2003), The Essential Public Manager, UK: OpenUniversity.

Pollitt, C. (2005), International Experiences of Public ManagementReform: Lessons Which we can learn? Presentation to theDepartment of the Taoiseach, 19 January, Dublin.

Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004), Public management reform: acomparative analysis (2nd edition), Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress

Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J. and Smullen, A. (2004)Agencies: how governments do things through semi-autnomousorganizations, Basingstoke and New York:Macmillan/Palgrave

Programme for National Development 1978-1981, Dublin:Stationery Office.

Public Service Reform Group (2005), The Relocation Guide,Scottish Executive Finance and Central Services Department,Relocation Policy Team, Edinburgh.

Report of the Decentralisation Implementation Group, 31st March2004

Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press: NewYork.

Rose, J.A. (2004), Maintaining Collegiality and AccountabilityAmong Partners,http://www.joelarose.com/articles/collegiality.html.

Simpson, J. (2005), ‘Teaching Leadership in Local Government’,Public Service Director, March, pp. 4-5.

Stoker, G. (1998), ‘Governance as theory: five propositions’,International Social Science Journal, Vol. 50, Issue 155, pp.17-28.

Storey, J. (ed.) (2004), Leadership in Organizations, Current Issuesand Key Trends, London: Routledge

Storey, J. and Mangham, I. (2004), ‘Bringing the StrandsTogether’, in Storey (2004).

58

REFERENCES 59

Third Report of the Decentralisation Implementation Group toMinister for Finance: Selection of organisations/locations forinclusion in the first phase of moves (19 November 2004).

Tosi, H.L., Misangyi, V.F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D.A. andYammarino, F.J. (2004), ‘CEO charisma, compensation andfirm performance’, The Leadership Quarterly, 15.3, June, pp.405-420.

Travers, J. (2005), Interim Report on the Report on Certain Issues ofManagement and Administration in the Department of Healthand Children associated with the Practice of Charges forPersons in Long-Stay Care in Health Board Institutions andRelated Matters, Houses of the Oireachtas: Dublin.

Walsh, E. (2004), Public Service Relocation: Optimising theOpportunity, Keynote address to the Annual DelegateConference of the Association of Higher Civil and PublicServants, Dublin.

Waters, M. (1989), ‘Collegiality, bureaucratisation and profession-alisation: a Weberian analysis’, American Journal of Sociology,94(5), pp. 945-972.

Wolf, A. (2000), ‘Trends and themes in public management today’,Paper presented at 1st Quality Conference for PublicAdministrations in the EU, Ministério da Reforma do Estado eda Administração Publica, Lisbon, 10-12 May.

XVI International Congress on the Training and Development ofSenior Civil Servants (2001), The Role of Senior Civil ServantsLeading and Managing at the Start of the 21st Century,Warsaw: Krajowa Szkola Administracji Publicznej.

Discussion Paper 1, Evaluating Public Expenditure Programmes:Determining A Role For Programme Review, Richard Boyle, 1997

Discussion Paper 2, The Fifth Irish Presidency of the EuropeanUnion: Some Management Lessons, Peter C. Humphreys, 1997

Discussion Paper 3, Developing An Integrated PerformanceMeasurement Framework For the Irish Civil Service, Richard Boyle,1997

Discussion Paper 4, Team-Based Working, Richard Boyle, 1997

Discussion Paper 5, The Use of Rewards in Civil ServiceManagement, Richard Boyle, 1997

Discussion Paper 6, Governance and Accountability in the CivilService, Richard Boyle, 1998

Discussion Paper 7, Improving Public Service Delivery, Peter C.Humphreys, 1998

Discussion Paper 8, The Management of Cross-Cutting Issues inthe Public Service, Richard Boyle, 1999

Discussion Paper 9, Multi-Stream Structures in the Public Service,Richard Boyle and Michelle Worth-Butler, 1999

Discussion Paper 10, Key Human Resource Management Issues inthe Irish Public Service, Peter C. Humphreys and Michelle Worth-Butler, 1999

Discussion Paper 11, Improving Public Services in Ireland: A Case-Study Approach, Peter C. Humphreys, Síle Fleming and OrlaO’Donnell, 1999

Discussion Paper 12, Regulatory Reform: Lessons fromInternational Experience, Richard Boyle, 1999

Discussion Paper 13, Service Planning in the Health Sector,Michelle Butler and Richard Boyle, 2000

Discussion Paper 14, Performance Measurement in the HealthSector, Michelle Butler, 2000

Discussion Paper 15, Performance Measurement in LocalGovernment, Richard Boyle, 2000

Discussion Paper 16, From Personnel Management to HRM: KeyIssues and Challenges, Síle Fleming, 2000

Discussion Paper 17, A New Change Agenda for the Irish PublicService, Richard Boyle and Peter C. Humphreys, 2001

Discussion Paper 18, A Review of Annual Progress Reports,Richard Boyle 2001

60

DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES

DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES 61

Discussion Paper 19, The Use of Competencies in the Irish CivilService, Michelle Butler and Síle Fleming, 2002

Discussion Paper 20, Career Progression in the Irish Civil Service,Joanna O’Riordan and Peter C. Humphreys, 2002

Discussion Paper 21, Evaluation in the Irish Health Service,Michelle Butler, 2002

Discussion Paper 22, Promoting Longer-Term Policy Thinking,Richard Boyle, Joanna O’Riordan and Orla O’Donnell, 2002

Discussion Paper 23, Effective Consultation with the ExternalCustomer, Peter C. Humphreys, 2002

Discussion Paper 24, Developing an Effective Internal CustomerService Ethos, Joanna O’Riordan and Peter C. Humphreys, 2003

Discussion Paper 25, E-Government and the Decentralisation ofService Delivery, Virpi Timonen, Orla O’Donnell and Peter C.Humphreys, 2003

Discussion Paper 26, Developing a Strategic Approach to HR in theIrish Civil Service, Joanna O’Riordan, 2004

Discussion Paper 27, The Role of the Centre in Civil ServiceModernisation, Richard Boyle, 2004Discussion Paper 28, E-Government and OrganisationDevelopment, Orla O’Donnell and Richard Boyle, 2004

Discusssion Paper 29, Civil Service Performance Indicators,Richard Boyle, 2005

Discussion Paper 30, A Review of Knowledge Management in theIrish Civil Service, Joanna O’Riordan, 2005Discussion Paper 31, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Lessons from thePilot Exercise, Richard Boyle, 2005

Discussion Paper 32, Performance Verification and Public ServicePay, Richard Boyle, 2006

Copies of the above discussion papers are available from:

Publications DivisionInstitute of Public AdministrationVergemount HallClonskeaghDublin 6.

Phone: 01 240 3600 Fax: 01 269 8644email: [email protected]

public service decentralisation - ipa

Documents