During World War II Germany and Japan were fighting against the production methodology of Ford and General Motors. This was the modern form of the economic corporation constructed by loosely tied and decentralised managerial units. Central to managerialism is accountability - something that politics, for its own selfish reasons, tries to step outside.

Organisational technologies are not new: empires in the past have had to innovate in this area to maximise the efficiencies under new burdens of materials, capital and military forces. Bureaucracy, for instance, grew out of the need for Britain to manage its capital intensive and resource gulping Royal Navy.

More recently Statistical Process Control [SPC] as a management technique, usually applied under the banner of Total Quality Management [TQM], has enabled production to become entirely unrelated to geography, labor laws and culture. SPC has made globalisation a reality. It is an American technology, which ironically, was ignored by American companies. Japanese industry took to the technology with zeal.

Managerialism often carries a bad name for process for the sake of it - especially in technical industries where managerial specialists make managerial decisions without any technical background. These are valid concerns. However the benefits of small groups of performance oriented and accountable units makes large organisations possible. Done well it can improve their efficiency.

In terms of large organisations - government is one of the biggest. Australian government has changed to managerial concepts which are focused on outcomes and service delivery. Allan Gyngell and Michael Wesley wrote that one of the changes in the foreign policy bureaucracy has been to managerial concepts of performance. The Department of Foreign Affairs (now DFAT) used to be highly bureaucratic due to its specialised workforce.

One of the problems with politics is that it avoid accountability in the world of managerialism. The politicians enforce managerial accountability, then divorce themselves from being the necessary centralised arbiter of performance. This has been a constant component of modern politics which unanchors managerialism from its most useful attributes.

Australia has had many examples of politicians avoiding their managerial role as heads of ministry - often using political advisors as the point of disconnect between a managerial based civil service and a political based policy of hear no evil, see no evil - the Tampa Affair, the AWB scandal to name two large ones. This makes managerialism headless and defeats the purpose of that organisational technology.

I was interested to see that the US Army Secretary resigned over the Walter Reed scandal which was exposed by journalists. This is a good example of managerial accountability, though, true to politics, it suggests that either the managerial process was headless or faulty - as the poor performance and condition of the hospital would have been brought to light by good and accountable managerial processes.

Politics played its part in the resignation of the Army Secretary. One: the management of the hospital was in opposition to the political message of the Bush Administration. Not their managerial directive, but their political message.

Two: It tried to avoid the lack of accountability in the managerial process by blaming outwardly, "Two articles in your paper have ruined the career of General Weightman, who is a very decent man, and then a captain . . . and the secretary of the Army. If that satisfies the populace, maybe this will stop further dismissals." That sentence is in total opposition to the concepts of managerialism and accountability at the top of each managerial unit.

In government the ultimate managerial unit is the ministry. Without managerial accountability and responsibility being taken by ministers - who in Australia are representatives - then the whole purpose of managerialism as an organisational technology is meaningless, headless and without purpose. If politicians are going to avoid managerial accountability then we may as well go back to bureaucracy and have the departments purely staffed with specialists.

cam

I recall Andrew Norton saying something similar about John Howard. Politicians are elected to govern, not to be social commentators on all aspects of human life. These is an inherent assumption when this occurs that politics is all encompassing and nothing beyond the reach of political regulation and interference.

It was probably naivety on my part but I can recall being surprised when I learnt that the Republican Party in DC would manage meetings that met weekly which would hash over the media messages of the next week. I can understand Karl Rove doing it in the White House, but this meeting included the media - as opposed to political operatives. Producers from TV, radio and the researchers for op-ed writers would be present at the meeting. This was how the Republican Party managed media discipline and had Americans hearing the same thing over and over no matter what their preferred media for information.

So we have political pundits, or opinion makers, who are little more than performers. I do not know how they can just surrender their conscience in such a manner and say completely opposite things to what they may feel or believe. I don't have the personality to do that kind of thing. I have great difficulty not being me.

So I have issues understanding how political performers like in these videos can just do what they do.

First was the open mic video where Chuck Todd, Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan gave their non-performed opinions. It was honest enough that Noonan decided she had to make a rebuttal to herself and that she didn't really mean what she said when the cameras and mics were supposedly off.

Then there is this video of Republican mouthpieces happily contradicting themselves over a period of time. The Daily Show first made this piece of breathless hypocrisy visible when they did the debate between Governor Bush and President Bush. I suspect to sleep straight in bed at night these people would either need to be amoral or treat it as a performance - and not real. Then again maybe they can surrender their ego, morality and conscience to a group dynamic where consistency and honesty no longer matter.

Once you accept public money your actions come under political, and ultimately public scrutiny. Citibank is being told by the US Treasury to cancel an order for a 50 million dollar private jet. It is obscene for a company on public support to be doing that - they obviously have no understanding of politics and a massive sense of entitlement. I remain convinced these banks should have been allowed to fail. Unrepetant actions such as this and the bonuses given out show that only complete failure at the hands of capitalism and free markets will reform such behavior.