management blog

Dame Anne Owers, the Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, said today that a number of prison managers had moved out “difficult” inmates because they were worried that their presence would negatively impact their inspection.

It seemed especially farcical because, apparently, it would have had no impact if the prisoners had stayed.

“The presence of those prisoners wouldn’t have affected our inspectors assessment at all,” said Dame Anne.

“Sadly for the many staff and managers who had worked hard to improve the two prisons, their efforts will inevitably be overshadowed by these events,” she said.

“This is deplorable, not only because of the effects on individuals, but because of the underlying mind-set that prisoners are merely pieces to be moved around the board to meet performance targets or burnish the reputation of the prison.”

What really struck me about Dame Anne’s comments was her concern that this would have a damaging impact on moral for the staff and lower level managers, and provide a negative example to them.

Management in the public sector throws up a whole set of different issues to business but many of the underlying challenges remain the same. And one of the reasons put forth by some prison governors – that they are being forced to hit overly ambitious performance targets – sounds familiar.

I don’t buy this argument. Yes, targets are supposed to be hit and if implemented correctly that can be motivating. From the sports field to the office, we can all be driven to hit a number if correctly steered by a coach or manager. It isn’t easy but it is part of being a leader.

But surely this case comes down to poor management. First, how did the they think they would get away with it?

Second, Dame Anne makes the case that it wouldn’t have made a difference to their report if they had been in the prison. So, why bother risking it? Not only is it bad managment but it’s a case of shooting yourself in the foot given that these prisons had apparently made great strides in improving their overall performance.

Third, and perhaps most important, it embeds a negative way of doing your job in the minds of junior staff that could have long lasting implications. Assuming that the governors in question were generally trying to improve their prisons, which seems to have been the case, that can’t be a good legacy to bequeath to your organisation and its staff.