Rephrased, that KPI could read “Not deliberately obstructing justice in an enquiry into our own awful conduct”. Possible replacement KPI would give senior management a bonus for “Number of kittens not thrown into a canal”
The KPI itself is clearly stated including the statement that all information had been supplied on time, had allowed the inquiry to finish on time inline with expectations and this was agreed by the Chair of the Inquiry. It is hard to see how anyone at the Post Office involved in the preparation of the Accounts, the Remuneration Committee and those receiving the award could believe that not one of those statements was false. At the least, no document on the face of the earth will tell us that the inquiry has completed
I can (just about) understand how the metric had been set up, and its terms settled, in advance of the Inquiry taking place. What I simply cannot understand is how Achieved could ever be added to this by anyone at Post Office who knows of this saga, and that must be a good many employees as well as all of the Board.
If I have correctly understood the correspondence published by Nick Wallis on this (link below to the first of two articles), the suggestion is that an early draft of the document had the Achieved mark added by the drafter in anticipation, some way ahead of time, that the criteria had been met. Subsequently, it is alleged that that error, as it was by the time of publication, was not noticed by anyone who "checked" it pre-publication.
That this could be so suggests to me that this document may have been considered to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for the paying of bonuses to the higher-ups to whom it applied and that a proper consideration of the document was never likely to take place. In the circumstances where the whole bonus structure was supposedly designed to bring about a transformation of the culture of the company, the irony is almost off the charts, is it not?
Never mind the irony, feel the organisation incompetence. Any structure where the drafter can of him/herself determine if a metric has been achieved without any internal checks deserves to be shot down in flames!
I think it was less sinister than that - the drafter marked the final columns in advance to save doing so later on, presumably assuming the requisite boxes would be ticked. One can imagine a disinterested junior administrator doing so. I don't imagine the drafter actually made a conscious determination of any metric. The greater significance, imho, lies in the fact that no-one with responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the completed document did a meaningful check of it before it was submitted, hence the second paragraph of my original reply. On organisational incompetence, I think i agree with you.
Perhaps the Post Office Investigations unit will turn up tomorrow morning and lock up the offices & suspend all those involved pending a search for possible criminality. But then again, perhaps it won't.
I completely agree with the sentiments expressed. The Post Office scandal is a glaring example of hubris and a lost moral compass within the organisation leadership. The decision to create a performance metric tied to the inquiry, despite the Post Office's history of wrongdoing and mistreatment of innocent people, is not only shocking but also reflects a profound arrogance and worse. It is clear that the Post Office's leadership failed to recognise the need for culture change and instead perpetuated a toxic environment. This scandal serves as a reminder that organisations must prioritise ethical conduct and humility in their leadership to avoid disastrous consequences.
It makes you feel unclean just reading about it. Again. Time for persons to be locked up. Time for money, rewards and awards, to be pulled back with force and fanfare. Nothing less will clear the smell of more than 20 years.
Rephrased, that KPI could read “Not deliberately obstructing justice in an enquiry into our own awful conduct”. Possible replacement KPI would give senior management a bonus for “Number of kittens not thrown into a canal”
The KPI itself is clearly stated including the statement that all information had been supplied on time, had allowed the inquiry to finish on time inline with expectations and this was agreed by the Chair of the Inquiry. It is hard to see how anyone at the Post Office involved in the preparation of the Accounts, the Remuneration Committee and those receiving the award could believe that not one of those statements was false. At the least, no document on the face of the earth will tell us that the inquiry has completed
I agree. And that's very damaging
I can (just about) understand how the metric had been set up, and its terms settled, in advance of the Inquiry taking place. What I simply cannot understand is how Achieved could ever be added to this by anyone at Post Office who knows of this saga, and that must be a good many employees as well as all of the Board.
If I have correctly understood the correspondence published by Nick Wallis on this (link below to the first of two articles), the suggestion is that an early draft of the document had the Achieved mark added by the drafter in anticipation, some way ahead of time, that the criteria had been met. Subsequently, it is alleged that that error, as it was by the time of publication, was not noticed by anyone who "checked" it pre-publication.
That this could be so suggests to me that this document may have been considered to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for the paying of bonuses to the higher-ups to whom it applied and that a proper consideration of the document was never likely to take place. In the circumstances where the whole bonus structure was supposedly designed to bring about a transformation of the culture of the company, the irony is almost off the charts, is it not?
Sorry - link to Nick Wallis: https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/venal-incompetent-mendacious/
Never mind the irony, feel the organisation incompetence. Any structure where the drafter can of him/herself determine if a metric has been achieved without any internal checks deserves to be shot down in flames!
I think it was less sinister than that - the drafter marked the final columns in advance to save doing so later on, presumably assuming the requisite boxes would be ticked. One can imagine a disinterested junior administrator doing so. I don't imagine the drafter actually made a conscious determination of any metric. The greater significance, imho, lies in the fact that no-one with responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the completed document did a meaningful check of it before it was submitted, hence the second paragraph of my original reply. On organisational incompetence, I think i agree with you.
The term / condition "cognitive dissonance" springs to mind
Perhaps the Post Office Investigations unit will turn up tomorrow morning and lock up the offices & suspend all those involved pending a search for possible criminality. But then again, perhaps it won't.
I completely agree with the sentiments expressed. The Post Office scandal is a glaring example of hubris and a lost moral compass within the organisation leadership. The decision to create a performance metric tied to the inquiry, despite the Post Office's history of wrongdoing and mistreatment of innocent people, is not only shocking but also reflects a profound arrogance and worse. It is clear that the Post Office's leadership failed to recognise the need for culture change and instead perpetuated a toxic environment. This scandal serves as a reminder that organisations must prioritise ethical conduct and humility in their leadership to avoid disastrous consequences.
It makes you feel unclean just reading about it. Again. Time for persons to be locked up. Time for money, rewards and awards, to be pulled back with force and fanfare. Nothing less will clear the smell of more than 20 years.