I’ve read the previous contributions with interest and would agree (and sympathise) with many of the frustrations expressed. My background is public and voluntary sector, so I cannot offer any personal comparisons on the private/public sector issue. I would suggest, though, that the picture is not as black and white as some contributions have suggested. Veredus are probably better placed than any of us to view the landscape, but my impression is that there are a number of markets within both the private and public sectors between which it is hard to move. A previous contributor mentioned Financial Services, which seems to be almost hermetically sealed to outsiders, and Professional Services seem also only to look for their own. In the Public Sector, the NHS and Central and Local Government maintain that they are looking for external experience but often don’t ‘walk the talk’. The voluntary sector may be more open-minded and certainly have a tradition of importing experience from outside, often because they attract experienced people who want to “put something back” having gained experience elsewhere.

Rather than rail against the shortsightedness of the public sector, I would like to suggest that it is more productive to speculate why they are as they are. Think, for example, of the Chief Executive of an NHS Trust who is making an appointment to his/her senior team. They will be very conscious of the impact that the individual will make to the Trust’s success, especially as measured by external stakeholders such as the Care Quality Commission. He/she is faced with an ‘outsider’ (i.e. non-NHS) candidate and an experienced NHS candidate. Which is the less risky choice? You may not agree with the decision, but it is easy to understand why the NHS candidate looks a safer bet. I am sure that this phenomenon is not unique to the NHS. While it sounds depressingly negative, recruitment is often a process of deselection rather than selection, i.e. you find reasons to eliminate candidates until you have only one (or, sometimes, none!) left. I am sure that there are honourable exceptions, but public sector managers generally don’t reach senior posts on the basis of their propensity to embrace risk-taking. Other contributors have commented on the differences between the spirit/atmosphere/ethos of the public and private sectors, and this seems to be a key one.

But the rules of the game may be about to change. Certainly, whoever comes out on top after the next general election, it is hard to believe that there won’t be a dramatic change in public sector finances. I heard the Chief Executive of Swindon Borough Council recently cite some work by PwC who were estimating an overall reduction in public finances of 25%-30%. Even allowing for some exaggeration in that projection, reductions on the scale which will be experienced in the next two years can’t be achieved by ‘salami-slicing’ budgets. So new (or at least different) thinking will be at a premium. Those without sector-specific experience but with a demonstrable ability to achieve change in different circumstances will look very attractive. I am not suggesting that private sector candidates should offer themselves as experts in ‘slash and burn’ initiatives to drive down costs at any price, but a different perspective from the home-grown variety might be more welcome in the future. Current objections to change may no longer be sustainable in the new financial austerity. Certainly the balance between risk and benefit may change in incomers’ favour.

Or are public sector habits too engrained to change?