Taking a similar view to Chomsky, I view the blatant disregard for public sector standards in regards to selection and recruitment as manufacturing consent. That is manufacturing consent for dodgy selection practices equal to workplace cronyism.
When you promote people into jobs without established processes, you are basically endorsing their status within the confines of a department or business unit. This is a case of accepting corrupt selection practices whilst manufacturing consent for public sector abuses.
Whilst Chomsky writes about right-wing media concentration, I ask, what is the difference between left-wing public service jobs allocation for pre-selected mates and acquaintances? Are they both not manufacturing consent, albeit in differing circumstances?
I am a huge believer in merit selection, the best candidate is awarded the position free from nepotism, cronyism, personal influences and favouritism. I believe applications should be lodged without a name, an anonymous code or prefix is generated with physical interviews held anonymously via electronic means.
These requirements would heavily restrict departmental influence, then and only then would the best person be hired for the job and while I am sure there are some that would try to influence decisions this would greatly limit their abilities to make dodgy appointments.
Government agencies should require all selection and recruitment process be undertaken by independent recruitment agents contracted to government departments. Whilst the head of department should be on the selection panel, the chair should be independent so no interference is registered.
Furthermore, with a clause inserted in the contract that results in breach of contract including both termination of contract and financial costs, there would be a heavy disincentive to collude in candidate selection. Maybe one day we can rid the public sector of the corrupt practices that hinder public services.
No comments:
Post a Comment