Try this on for size:
Having spent years attempting to fix broken projects and teams within the NHS and local government, and also in the private sector, what I have learned is this: a public service and a business are inherently different beasts and asking one to behave as the other is like asking a fish to ride a bicycle.
The clue is in the name: the primary aim of a public service is to provide a service to the public – to protect crucial social utilities from the instabilities of capitalism and to avoid negative social impacts.
Public services are democratic. If a service fails to deliver our needs, we can hold those responsible to account at the ballot box. Important matters such as wages, pensions and working conditions are the result of negotiation, and subject to internal and popular support.
No, no, don't agree or disagree a yet, add this from the same piece:
Businesses are hierarchical, not democratic, and wages, terms and conditions are set by the executive and subject to the market. This can be mitigated to some degree by collective bargaining through unions, but the private sector has historically delivered lower wages and poorer working conditions for its employees.
And piece the two together. A public service really, really, is only there to provide that service. Yet it also pays its workers better than a private business. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion must be that a public service is more inefficient than a private business. Because, of whatever available resources there are to provide said service more of them are lavished upon the workers rather than the service provision.
Kerry-anne Mendoza is a former management consultant in banking, local government and the NHS, who left her job to join the Occupy protest.
Probably a good idea eh, as we almost certainly don't want her running a public service, do we?