I was making assumptions from a State public service. I am astounded actually to learn that SA has a less fossilised public service – or an anything really – than other places.

In June 2012 there werer 86 non-ongoing SES out or a total of 2873, just under 3% by my calculations.

In contrast, in the corporate world some years ago now I was merely interviewed (on personal recommendation from my previous boss) by a departmental head in a coffee shop and hired on the spot – a good professional writing job too. Now that is real flexibility and no bulldust either with no-one else’s time wasted. I didn’t have any qualifications whatsoever except a bit of experience, a lot of hide, energy and perhaps some talent.

The thing is, though, with most public services, the notion of promotion on merit has been openly disregarded in practice for yonks. Promotion is mostly about who you know, and not rocking the boat (by, say, raising silly questions about evidence in regard stupid policy proposals). Increasingly this includes perceived political sympathies.

The grapevine always needs to be consulted in considering whether to apply for any advertised (internally or externally; comparatively few are advertised externally anyway since this risks applications from highly qualified people other than the favoured candidate, whom it would be hard to ignore) vacancy. It will tell you whether the position is really available, or whether the appointee is already confirmed through the mateship criterion, and advertising is only for show, to pretend compliance with the merit principle.

In my experience, around half of alleged of vacancies are already done and dusted. Don’t waste effort applying.

Whether gender quotas significantly further fuck up this already fucked up promotion system is moot. There is a respectable argument to be made that it might actually make the selection process more open, not less, in these circumstances.

Incidentally, I think most if not all SES positions are 5 year contracts these days, so in theory (but as above almost certainly not in practice) it is more like a 20% turnover each year, not 5%.

Dot. Same thing happened to me working for a Labor government. I used to be a Statist. Seeing first hand just how bad governments are at doing things (and how full of progressive hypocrites government is) I changed my mind.

Another triumph of experience over ideology. Well done, Luke.

On women and consensus seeking:

Tried to write a sensible academic response here, but can’t. Nothing works. I just keep coming back to Mars and Venus, which underwrites the lot, even here on earth.

We’re different. Da Hairy Ape says I can’t accept rational disagreement (from him). I say he just doesn’t understand how I feel and that I am quite rational thank you. In a viable marriage, as in the workplace, accommodations are made so that each respects the other.

I think these things between men and women transfer to the workplace (how could they not?). He gets away with it by lashings of Irish charm and a blithe certainty in his own rightness. He’d never find himself having a teary time hiding in the toilet on occasions at work, as I did, stoking up for the next managerial battle. Perhaps women go for consensus because we like to be liked and we can certainly get piqued if we are not liked (but sensible women don’t try to cut people up for this). Men worry much less about being liked, but can be tremendously emotionally and directionally block-headed at times, to the point of embarassment (as with a certain singing Labor politician).

Generalisations however are always dangerous. I’d just say that given our disparities and the differential advantages and disadvantages accruing to the socio-emotional life and capabilities of both genders, and within individual characters regardless of gender, surely it is better never to quota by gender, but merely let the best of both arise to the leadership surface via an unbiased selection process? Settle on those who can do an effective, careful and innovative job.

I agree and I’ve heard the same from many women. In my experience it’s most women’s obession with consensus/agreement in a group. Which is touted as why women work better. The problem is when they don’t get agreement/concensus. They can’t just accept someone disagreeing with them. They have to then destroy that person, as if disagreement is some kind of attack on who they are as a person or something.

It means more men avoiding working with women (and women avoiding working with other women) because noone needs the extra stress of having someone out to get you everytime you can’t agree with them on something. Either that of people give in and agree on things they really shouldn’t, like rubbish policies.