CRUcial Times Issue 23 - Editorial

Jane Sherwin

Over the past two decades there has been a rise in a style of management known as technocratic managerialism. This style of management is easily recognised in large bureaucracies and corporations, but its influence and dogma are not simply the domain of large organisations; there is evidence that smaller organisations are under pressure to operate in this way. This edition of CRUcial Times is devoted to encouraging people to find ways of coping with the onslaught of technocratic managerialism.

In a regime of technocratic managerialism, ’professional managers’ can be found - that is, people who do not have knowledge or experience of the field in which they work. For example, the manager of a national freight company might become the manager of a human service organisation, without having any knowledge of that field of work. The person relies on processes rather than on a depth of knowledge about what that person is managing. In the absence of practice wisdom, there is a reliance on processes that will deliver outcomes, which are measured in a disembodied way. Processes are put in place to deal with intakes, outputs, assessments, decision-points, guidelines, checking mechanisms and performance indicators. The processes are enshrined as policies, as if having data and documentation will ensure that the right thing will be done. But what do we mean by the ’right thing’?

While we might wonder whether managerialism is capable of delivering good things to ordinary citizens, our specific concern is whether technocratic managerialism can deliver good things to people with disabilities and their families. Can this form of management deliver enduring commitments to people with disabilities, when this type of management erodes responsiveness, individualisation, personalisation, support that is based on relationships, the personal qualities of all the people involved, and decision-making that is kept close to the person who is served by an organisation. Person-to-person commitment, personal networks, informality and intuition cannot co-exist with technocratic managerialism, nor are they valued by that style of operation.

In a regime of technocratic managerialism, authority rests with the organisation rather than with the people who are served by that organisation. Decision-making resides in the relationship between the funding body and the service organisation, instead of being located in the relationship between the people in the service organisation and the person who is served by that organisation. Technocratic managerialism typically intrudes into private domains. Its processes invade people’s lives through an insistence on formal processes, rules, impersonal lines of communication, assessments, data collection, and adherence to regulations. Applied to human services, technocratic managerialism tramples on the sensitivities of people by ignoring the importance of relationships between the person that the service supports and the relationhips that might be present in that person’s life, both paid and unpaid.

An alternative approach to technocratic managerialism is one where the nature of the human relationship between the served and the server is central to transactions between the service and the person with a disability, or that person’s family. The relationships are based on personal interactions that share a sense of purpose, have constant dialogue, and an enduring commitment to a shared vision.

In the absence of sound personal relationships, organisations can resort to processes. Critical thinking and strong leadership in organisations are necessary if services are to withstand the onslaught of technocratic managerialism.