A telling excerpt from a document released under the Official Information Act quotes Foreign Affairs CEO John Allen telling staff:
I understand the impact on morale of the challenges that staff have faced in the past year. I understand that the decisions that have been made are tough and they impact on people, on organisational identity, and on staff morale. It is legitimate for people to have strong feelings and views on these issues. Given that these decisions are unpopular and impact on morale then why have they been made? Cabinet mandated a change from a stand alone agency to closer integration with the Ministry….Allen goes on to explain the changes.
Morale is low at the aid programme formerly known as NZAID. In what was once an energetic and innovative organisation staff now spend their time trying to stay out of the Minister’s way and repackaging work so it fits within the Minister’s narrow prescription for economic development.
They are embarrassed by his continuing campaign against the NGOs. By all but ending the $900,000 a year funding to the NGO umbrella group Council for International Development. By changes to the funding arrangements for NGO projects made without consultation. And by the recent cut to the excellent Wellington-based Global Focus which provides information resources on development issues.
The latest casualty of the Minister’s red pen is a Pacific regional programme doing village-based disaster risk-reduction work in four countries. It helps communities reduce the impact of cyclones, floods and tsunamis through preparedness training and working with local government. It is run by the Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific out of Suva.
The three-year $2.5 million effort was set up in close collaboration with NZAID, with a commitment of $500,000 a year from New Zealand. McCully has pulled the funding after one year, with no assessment of its impact.
No wonder MFAT aid staff are suffering from low morale. They are the ones who have to deliver this sort of news.
NZAID are going to need aid at this rate
Oh dear we cant have decisions made that effect staff morale.
Maybe give them a 100% pay rise , suerly that will help the morale problem.
Phil , hard decisions that are unpopular sometimes have to be made.
Making populist decisions got us where we are now.
hmmm. pet projects in a govt agency get chop becuase new government has different ideas. Morale drops in said agency. Big surprise.
Remind me why this is of any concern. Public servants are paid to put in place government policy. I wonder how much Labour worried about morale in Treasury or CHFA or other organisations it merged/changed policy on?
insider, Mark M – Im not for a minute advocating that staff morale should get in the way of the right policy decisions. But in this case, staff morale is low because of lousy policy, poor development practice, and staff being made to carry the can for decisions apparently made on the basis of the Minister’s prejudice or whim and usually without any policy basis and often without anything written down.
Phil
All fair (political) points. Maybe you should have included them in the original post, along with John Allen’s rationale for change. Instead it came across more as ’staff don’t like govt decisions, boo hoo’.
Mark Em said:
I am impressed how the business oriented Right Wing actually proves over and over again that they don’t know much about business or about creating and maintaining a high performance team of workers.
(1) Yes you can have decisions which affect staff morale. Which boost it, boost productivity, boost performance, boost motivation. Which seeks to retain your best performing staff in an excellent and effective work environment.
Or you could just drive your staff away (if not physically, then mentally and emotionally, turn them into clock watchers) and not give a **** about all of the above. In turn you get this nice predictable result of your staff returning you the favour and not giving a **** about the work either. (way to catch up with Australia!)
I guess you’re fan of the latter approach to people management.
(2) I must say, RWNJs are sorta amusing, just because they are primarily motivated by money as the goal of life and happiness they figure everyone else is as well.
Sadly, reality has a clear left leaning bias.
Management science has known for decades that people are motivated by much more in a work environment than simple dollars.
Let me think, things like
- Being valued and respected.
- Having your professional opinions heard and taken into account.
- Receiving the opportunity and the resources to do the best job that you can.
- Being recognised for good performance.
- etc
But look if this stuff is an alien language to you, go on and pick up any first year management text book and knock yourself out. You might learn something.
Loota
Given this group was quite deliberately merged and their programmes axed, I’d say govt has a ‘mixed’ view of whether they are a high performing team worth retaining. Their inability to cope with changes in govt policy seem to demonstrate that.
“I am impressed how the business oriented Right Wing actually proves over and over again that they don’t know much about business or about creating and maintaining a high performance team of workers.”
A sweeping generalisation Loota, or just applicable in NZ to this shower in power? I’ve worked for a company owned by a right winger in the UK that is the best in the business, in fact the biggest and best of its kind in the world, with extremely happy staff, at all levels.
the 1.5b for SCF covered by the guarantee and those not covered has to come from somewhere.
Mark M I had to chuckle about your suggestion populist decisions got us “here”, the NACT government is also driven by populist decisions.
It is a pity that the respondents to this blog could not stop passing snide remarks at each other and highlight the National Party ’s neo colonial foreign policy which means that aid is only given when the donor actually benefits more than the recipient.Small regard is paid to providing local solutions to local problems and faciiting local people to take charge of the process.Instead our governmentis intent on imposing its will on the recipients of our aidand will be surprised at the reaction. [By the way our government gave less than 60c per head of New Zealand population to Pakistan for flood relief]
McCully also strikes me as a bit of a tyrany… If he’s handled NZAID in the same manner he handled Auckland’s waterfront, by sticking his nose into things and acting like his **** comes out pure white, I’m suprised everyone hasn’t left in disgust…
An organisation takes on the personality of it’s leader…