By Richard Marton *
Governments place great store in various management prescriptions to improve the performance of Local Government authorities (competitive tendering, best value, customer service rankings, and the like), but pay scant attention to what is critical to achieve successful Councils. The top management teams – cores of Councils – play a crucial role in coordinating the politics, policy and administration domains of Councils
Is there a management best practice for cores to follow? How useful are the typical management best practice prescriptions? Perhaps not as much as some might think according to a recent analysis of cores in Melbourne Local Government authorities. These findings have significant implications for cores and for Councillors.
The study examined the performance practices of cores at three high performing and three struggling Melbourne Councils, selected by a Melbourne Local Government expert panel.
Performances were assessed against 19 management best practices as described in the literature – leadership, strategic planning, teamwork within and between units, empowerment, devolution, comprehensive performance monitoring, benchmarking, resource sharing, process improvement, system upgrades, lobbying, networking, marketing, and so on.
Getting the politics right
The research found that only political management at the Council level is critical for cores to achieve successful Councils or management ‘best practice’ (not immediately evident from government management prescriptions).
While not critical for success, the results suggest that it is important for cores to also do well in financial monitoring and teamwork within business units – the management ‘basics’ – as well as in political management. These were the only practices to rate well across the six Councils. What, then, of the other non critical management practices?
Many different paths to success
There were considerable performance variations among the cores of all Councils on the other management practices. That is, there is no one path for cores to achieve successful Councils or best practice, political management and the management ‘basics’ aside.
Indeed, among the three successful Councils, two of the cores performed markedly better than the remaining one, including on political management.
The two top performers in the successful group were in effect the high order benchmarks for other cores to achieve management best practice.
The relatively poor performer of the successful Councils suggests that best practice in most management practices can be delayed and progressively achieved over an extended period without necessarily jeopardising a Council’s status as a successful Local Government.. This is provided that a core’s political management effectiveness at the Council level remains relatively high.
Indeed, the worst performer in the successful camp performed little better than the best performer of the unsuccessful Councils, disregarding political management and management ‘basics’.
The key difference is that it was better at managing at the boundary of politics and administration. So, despite comparatively weak performances in other areas, it had in effect snatched success from the jaws of failure.
The top performing core in the unsuccessful camp, however, appears to have snatched failure from the jaws of success simply by falling down on political management at the Council level.
Finally, the operating effectiveness of a core was fundamental to the fortunes of the Councils.
The core’s effectiveness at the struggling Councils was compromised by significant Councillor infighting and ‘attacks’ from Councillors, and upward pressures from the organisation, stemming from, for example, poor management of purchaser-provider arrangements. Flaws in the core’s own design and management – skills mix, leadership, individual roles, handling of internal disputes, and the like – also weakened its effectiveness.
Some implications
It is critical that cores have effective political management skills to achieve successful Councils. The top performing core in the unsuccessful group of Councils underscores its importance.
Cores must have the capacity to help Councillors, usually through the Mayors, to work as teams to avoid debilitating Councillor infighting and/or mistrust of managements, and to continually and effectively negotiate changing policy positions and actions with the Councillors.
At least as much effort should therefore be given to the systematic development of the cores’ political management skills as is afforded to other management techniques in the search for a Council’s success or best practice.
Cores, in turn, should give considerable time and effort to the systematic development of individual Councillors and the Councillors as a group so that they are well equipped to ‘make a positive difference’.
Finally, there needs to be a general acknowledgment of the cores’ key role in coordinating the politics, policy and administration domains of Councils, and that this reflects the basic nature of Local Government and its fundamentally different structure from State and Federal Governments.
* Richard Marton is a public management consultant and researcher with over 15 years in senior management positions with Melbourne Councils and in consulting. He recently completed PhD research into management best practice and executive management groups. For further information email rmarton@iaa.com.au
