|A bizarre restructure?|
1. Should such a serious thing as a restructure be undertaken by an acting CEO? It was done very very quickly after the acting CEO started in the job. Who else was consulted about whether this was a good idea? I am showing my ignorance of processes here but, just how much power does an acting CEO have to make such changes? Would it be better done under a properly installed CEO? There is no guarantee that the acting CEO will get the job of CEO and what if the new CEO does not like the structure? Could they then restructure the restructured restructure? The haste seems indecent.
2. WHY NOW? CIT are apparently in the thick of dealing with the recommendations of the Kefford enquiry into bullying at CIT. I wonder how these two very important things can be done at the same time and be given the attention they deserve?
3. If the purpose of the restructure is to deal with the bullying, then why oh why don't CIT say so? Don't their staff have a right to know? Don't the bullied have a right to know? Don't the public whose money they are spending have a right to know? Transparency as promised? Ha! I think not!
4. What about the cost of a restructure ? The last one was undertaken by Colin Adrian in 2007/2008 a tiny five years ago. Did Adrian Marron have a hand in the current restructure before he left, and if he did, why do CIT not say so? It would certainly make the whole thing more plausible.
5. The previous restructure itself caused many problems still not ironed out to this day. Some of the most serious were that many people were it appears, appointed into management positions they were unqualified for, not experienced in, and although asked to express interest in, apparently did not go through a proper interview process (they would have just been interviewing each other numbers were so thin in the 'inner management crowd' anyway).
6. Is the restructure an attempt to move people around, perhaps move poor managers out of command and given less responsibility under someone else? Does it after all amount to a whitewash? Will these people be reinstated after a 'decent' amount of time - time enough for people to forget?
7. With so many senior people now 'acting' in higher management positions at CIT who is doing the Education Management? More actors? How qualified are these people? As we have seen in the past and the question was asked by Steve Doszpot in the ACT Estimates Committee earlier this year - have unqualified people been habitually employed at CIT and WHY?
8. There are some good names in management positions on the restrucure chart but as good as they are, some have also had very very little management experience and I wonder have they all gone through the mandatory Advanced Diploma in Teaching required for management at CIT?
9. Have the 'acting' seniors also added management qualifications in an area that has shown to have so obviously failed for CIT before? - that is, unqualified and inexperienced people jet propelled into positions they should never have been. The power went to the heads of many - they bullied, and were not themselves managed properly and voila! we had the bullying epidemic.
10. As usual, current staff have reported that they themselves are confused and scratching their heads - not knowing who is who and what is what. Is everyone so busy feeling threatened and afraid of the changes that their attention is well off the bullying issues?
11. Is this confusion all by accident inefficiency or design?