Jersey and the Culture of Closeness

I've been reviewing various comments made by Frank Walker and Stuart Syvret about Syvret's being voted out of office.

One thing that is clear is that Syvret is right in one point. The Sharp Report makes it plain that collusion in a policy of concealment, for the sake of appearances, took place at Victoria College by all the officials - school and governors - involved (""The handling of the complaint was "more consistent with protecting a member of staff and the college's reputation in the short-term than safeguarding the best interests of the pupil."). To be too close to people, to socialise with them, and then to take on  criticisms of them is extremely difficult for anyone to do. Too much "glad-handing" is a bad thing. That is a clear and valid criticism.

 

On the other hand, being so aloof that you never even visit staff is also problematic. It certainly seems to give the message that you don't care, and I think that in trying to avoid what he had seen so often, Syvret may have fallen into the equal and opposite error of not communicating enough with his team.

 

How does this impasse get resolved? How does one safeguard against too cosy a relationship with high officials, and yet work well with them? I think one of the basic tenets of counselling is certainly a good one: you should not counsel people whom you know personally. That is because it is all too easy to have a conflict of interests, between friendships and the professional relationship, and that will damage both. The "no socialising" rule would also be a good one to adopt between politicians and their chief officers, because it would ensure that the relationship was strictly professional. The problem is really with politicians, who often want to be liked by their officials (much as they also want to be liked by the general public), and want to short-circuit the more difficult task of working with people and knowing them through the workplace by socialising with them instead.

 

The other thing I think Syvret should have done, which would probably not have endeared him to his officials, would have been to have made spot checks to the various children's homes etc, unannounced, preferably with people trained to spot anything untoward. It is all to easy for people to prepare for a check, and present the best possible side of things for an inspection. A random check makes this more difficult, and really, if they are doing a good job, after making allowances for the fact that everyone at any workplace has bad days, there can really be no problems with this practice. After a while, people will become used to it, and it will not be such a shock.

 

Regarding the allegedly bullying content of his emails to his officials, I would offer few excuses except to say that it would be interesting to see if his officials were being deliberately obstructive, to the point that he lost his temper, as he claims; what were their relies? Or what prompted his outburse? Unfortunately, emails are often sent with extremely little thought ( the appalling "lenny henry" one springs to mind), are easily - and selectively - leaked by mischevious people for their own political ends, and the culture in which the quick email is dashed off is antithetical to closely reasoned argument.