12/05/2012
Two reactions are provoked by Charles Moore today and his piece on
managerialism. The first is that, unlike many of his colleagues, he occasionally produces work of some little depth, which is actually worth reading.
The second is an intense sense of frustration, almost verging on despair, that only now, when the Great Charles More doth deign to reach out and grace us with the fruits of his vast intellect, do we get any serious discussion in the legacy media of this important phenomenon.
This is certainly an issue which has troubled us for some time, with
multiple references in diverse pieces. If I was to pick one piece, it would be
this, written in June 2006 by my erstwhile editor, referring to the managerial attitudes to governance which infect the EU.
We were, in fact, discussing managerialism its many forms right from the beginning of this blog, and many times since, but we would not even begin to claim paternity. The concept has its own
Wikipedia entry, where it is most closely associated with an American academic by the name of Robert R Locke, who
defined the term in 1996:
What occurs when a special group, called management, ensconces itself systemically in organizations and deprives owners and employees of decision-making power (including the distribution of emoluments) - and justifies the takeover on the grounds of the group's education and exclusive possession of the codified bodies of knowledge and know-how necessary to the efficient running of organizations.
On this side of the Atlantic, one of the more prominent British students of managerialism is academic and blogger Cris Dillow. He publishes the
Stumbling and Mumbling blog and, in 2007, wrote,
The End of Politics: New Labour and the Folly of Managerialism, a neglected book which deserves far greater attention.
Our modest contribution on this - arising mainly from my erstwhile co-editor, I hasten to add â is to point out that the European Union embodies much of the managerialist ideology, for which reason it is the antithesis of politics and democracy, and though which it does much of its damage.
Returning to the Moore piece, I have to admit that he also provokes a certain amount of irritation, as we see The Great Man addressing the issue of managerialism almost as if he was its discoverer. The sub-text is that only through his wisdom and knowledge are us mere mortals to be acquainted with such matters.
In fact, the Moore thesis is fairly pedestrian and laboured, as he argues that the defence services contractor QinetiQ has been over-run by managerialists, this intelligence being provided by "a man got in touch with me" who works for the organisation.
This provides The Great Man with his "hook", on which to complain that the ideology has spread throughout government â a point made in depth by Cris Dillow five years ago, and my many more besides.
Not to be outdone, Moore calls in aid Lord Slim, "who brilliantly led the British Army through the Burma campaign", using him to tell us that: "Managers are necessary; leaders are essential". Says The Great Man, "We now have unprecedented numbers of the former, not so many of the latter".
What Moore does not tell us â and it is an important omission - is that the Slim quote is culled
from a speech delivered in 1957, the same year as the Treaty of Rome which founded the EEC.
The problem, although newly discovered by Moore, has been with us a long, long time, with my erstwhile co-editor writing in
July 2007 that "the idea that managerialism rather than messy politics is the answer was the mantra of the sixties and seventies". It is a mantra that took root in the Monnet version of European political integration and has been driving it from the start.
However, we should not complain that, after all this time, The Great Man has finally noticed something that has been apparent to so many of us mere mortals for so long. To borrow from Boswell's
Life of Johnson, to have a journalist of Moore's stature preaching on the evils of managerialism is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.
But now that The Great Man has taken ownership of the problem, others of the great and the wise may take note of his discovery: "The inexorable march of the managerialists is creating resentment and social division". Clever boy Charlie! Nice spot! What do we do now?
