Great Western Coffee Shop

The Times diary was having fun today with DfT recruiting a Head of Uncertainty. And it really is - or, less uncertainly:
Head of Uncertainty and Scenarios
Department for Transport (https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1819843)

I won't bore you with the actual job description, as that would risk sounding almost sensible. And it is defined as a job for an economist, obviously. But do note that the location is "Birmingham, Leeds, London" - or somewhere.

There are huge benefits to be gained by quick and positive reaction to unexpected things, so, yes, it could make sense.

I got to the pub tonight 20 minutes early because a train was late  :D. - no, really!   The fact I had told Lisa "half an hour" and it's now two hours because of the party I joined there is another story

I hope Mr Heisenberg applies…   ;D

Paul

I've sent off (or should that be sent in?) my application and I'm now looking forward to the interview. In a dreading sort of way. It should be fun. Type 3 fun maybe.

"Tell us about a time you dealt with uncertainty in your career. How did you deal with it and what were the outcomes?"
"Well, there was that time in the office cafeteria when I couldn't make up my mind whether to have the soup or the pasta. No, hang on, I think it was a salad. Or was it fish and chips? Well anyway, the outcome was that I went hungry... "

The selection process looks scary, though maybe that's now normal for the Civil Service (and other big employers):

To fit in with the tone of the recruitment literature, should it continue-

"Fluency in incomprehensible jargon will be required, but not any knowledge of when to use capital letters"

From the three criteria listed it is evident that none of the recent Secretaries of State or Junior Ministers would qualify as DfT employees on account of their restricted and narrow view of investment, their ineffective decision making and dilatory working.

Hmmm

OTC

I am not going to dispute the personal matters of ministerial qualifications, but isn't one of the points of employing a specialist being to widen the skills and knowledge base in the organisation for its greater good?   So that (in this case) ministers who have decisions to make can be more certain that they are informed on things that are uncertain and make better judgement as to what risks they should take?

I would, perhaps, have been up for a role like this is the past - sounds fun - but these days I'm uncertain if I could commit to 40% of my world time in London, or Leeds, or Lampeter, or Liverpool.  And of course in the Civil Service it's so much about qualifications (that I lack) that opportunities for a few motivated free thinkers in key roles just aren't there.  (Just in case any civil servants at the DfT are reading this - there are some excellent people there; I have been very impressed by some of you - however, it would be good to be more inclusive of wider thought and not just the formally educated channel)

You are confirming to me what I have long suspected; that most modern administrators, whether in the public or private sector have little understanding of the  internal operation of the concerns that they manage. They can operate financial systems and external compliance but beyond the admin building they're stumped, so bring in consultants.

I think that they need more than an MBA; competence in the basic activities of the business is also essential. Hence the UK's continuing failures.

OTC

I'd have thought the job would be better defined as "Head of 'S—t Happens'", but I'm not sure the Times would like that either...