It's precisely the proliferation of regulation, (managerial) bureaucracy and other hoops you have to pass through which I'm talking about. It's a giant system of interlinked nodes presenting itself as a sort of rigorous quality assurance/necessary multidisciplinary involvement and evaluation, but is really a specifically designed and convoluted paradigm (for lack of a better word) that demands years of effort to be 'initiated' into and then exerts pressures downward to sustain itself and keep all newer entrants in production-focused positions which are necessary to generate actual output.
I've worked in strategic govt. policy for a while. To illustrate: if I wish to inform parliament about X topic I first have to conform to the writing format, specific/idiosyncratic use of language and a strict hierarchical route of managerial approvals that have been instituted as a norm in this professional arena. For the actual content of the letter I'll have to involve at least 20+ colleagues, apart from subject matter related people this includes legal and communication professionals, each of whom are to contribute to or evaluate my writing based on their own area of expertise (which often just ends up being subjective comments of a semantic nature). Then there's some 4 more layers of managerial approval before it lands on the minister's desk, and my route is shorter than most. If you're in bad luck the subject matter is relevant to other state departments/ministries which means you'll have to at least double the number of managerial approval layers (as their minister must agree as well) each of whom can return the letter with more subjective and semantic 'improvements'.
For any new or updated policy plan or document with (inter)national implications, I'll have to involve several committees of involved policy professionals, heads of departments, directors etc, possibly/probably private sector as well, academics, regional and local counterparts and authorities in the writing process + them and all aformentioned managerial layers and legal checks (in committee form) for the final approvals. Several hundreds of people will have commented on the policy content, several times, with maybe 4-5 people in my team actually doing all the editing work, stakeholder management etc. - which ends up being a far more intense affair than the actual research and writing with often minimal real improvements as a result. Our (digital) communication advancements have also only worsened this dynamic rather than improved work efficiency.
As you can imagine it takes a lot of time to first understand this system and then to pass through it, with each set of stakeholders having their own preferred way of working, legal position, needs/wants with respect to your policy area etc. Coordinating a new policy plan can take upwards of 2 years. If you wish to progress in your career, you're then expected to have coordinated several of these sweepingly huge policy initiatives and to have done so like a well-functioning robot that doesn't complain and which delivers. After 4 years maybe you'll be offered the opportunity to apply for a new vacant position 1 rung up the ladder, and be given a modest raise. First though you'll have to pass a couple selection boards, maybe an intelligence test or two. After 6-10 years maybe you'll be offered the opportunity to apply for a 'high potential' class, so that you too can one day be one of the mid-40s unit managers.
And yet the boomer at the top of the totem pole got there in his mid 30s, somehow.
It's all a little kafkaesque.
I've worked in strategic govt. policy for a while. To illustrate: if I wish to inform parliament about X topic I first have to conform to the writing format, specific/idiosyncratic use of language and a strict hierarchical route of managerial approvals that have been instituted as a norm in this professional arena. For the actual content of the letter I'll have to involve at least 20+ colleagues, apart from subject matter related people this includes legal and communication professionals, each of whom are to contribute to or evaluate my writing based on their own area of expertise (which often just ends up being subjective comments of a semantic nature). Then there's some 4 more layers of managerial approval before it lands on the minister's desk, and my route is shorter than most. If you're in bad luck the subject matter is relevant to other state departments/ministries which means you'll have to at least double the number of managerial approval layers (as their minister must agree as well) each of whom can return the letter with more subjective and semantic 'improvements'.
For any new or updated policy plan or document with (inter)national implications, I'll have to involve several committees of involved policy professionals, heads of departments, directors etc, possibly/probably private sector as well, academics, regional and local counterparts and authorities in the writing process + them and all aformentioned managerial layers and legal checks (in committee form) for the final approvals. Several hundreds of people will have commented on the policy content, several times, with maybe 4-5 people in my team actually doing all the editing work, stakeholder management etc. - which ends up being a far more intense affair than the actual research and writing with often minimal real improvements as a result. Our (digital) communication advancements have also only worsened this dynamic rather than improved work efficiency.
As you can imagine it takes a lot of time to first understand this system and then to pass through it, with each set of stakeholders having their own preferred way of working, legal position, needs/wants with respect to your policy area etc. Coordinating a new policy plan can take upwards of 2 years. If you wish to progress in your career, you're then expected to have coordinated several of these sweepingly huge policy initiatives and to have done so like a well-functioning robot that doesn't complain and which delivers. After 4 years maybe you'll be offered the opportunity to apply for a new vacant position 1 rung up the ladder, and be given a modest raise. First though you'll have to pass a couple selection boards, maybe an intelligence test or two. After 6-10 years maybe you'll be offered the opportunity to apply for a 'high potential' class, so that you too can one day be one of the mid-40s unit managers.
And yet the boomer at the top of the totem pole got there in his mid 30s, somehow.
It's all a little kafkaesque.
