Re: The Decline Of Moral Within The Rail Systems

["John Kerley" <deaftech@ozemail.com.au>]

BEE EFF <mcreely@pnc.com.au> wrote in message
3A6ABC9F.D9EC218D@pnc.com.au">news:3A6ABC9F.D9EC218D@pnc.com.au...
> Only one problem John, obviously you would have heard of people being
promoted
> to their level of incompetence, ie: promoted to get them out of the road
>
> John Kerley wrote:
>
> > Mal Bigg <parkdrive@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > 94ak5i$dr2$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:94ak5i$dr2$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > State Rail, like many other government utilities is only now paying
the
> > > price for adopting the promotion by merit system.
> >
> > The trouble is "merit" is a very subjective concept and does not equate
with
> > being competent.  In reality "merit" is usually interpreted as being a
> > silver tongue, or a brown tongue or having the right handshake or
knowing
> > the right people.  It very rarely means being competent although
> > occasionally people promoted on "merit" do coincidentally turn out to be
also
> > competent.

Yes, I have read "The Peter Principal" and it is quite and an amusing read
but I would argue that this is more of a problem under the so called "merit"
system, where competence is often not the main criterion upon which
appointments are made in the first place.  If you are an outsider it is
usually your silver tonguing ability, i.e. interview performance, which is
the main determinant.  If it is an internal appointment,  the even less
desirable criteria mentioned above come into play.

Once in place these incompetents often retain their positions by toeing the
party line etc. and making sure that they are not seen as a threat to those
above them.  In others words, the "merit" system positively promotes
incompetence.

In my own working life I experienced both systems. In my younger days like
many young bucks I wished there was promotion on "merit" so I could by pass
the "old farts" up the seniority ladder - such is the arrogance of youth!  I
then moved to England where there was, in my profession, promotion on
"merit".  Fortunately for me, once in a position you had tenure but I began
to see how corrupt the so called "merit" system was when it came to internal
appointments.  Indeed I began to realise that  the Australian "competence
plus seniority" system had its good points.

When I returned ten years later, the "merit" disease was starting to infect
Australia.  In my profession, in Victoria, not only was the promotion on
"merit" but tenure was for only one year in many cases and five at the
maximum.  The corruption and unprofessionalism that resulted was manifest,
particularly during the Kennett years.

Thus, on balance, I believe the "competence plus seniority" system to be the
far superior system.

Cheers,

John Kerley