Personality differences - public vs private sector

esperanza

In my opinion, in the private sector, you are indispensable and there is a lot of superficiality, as I've found out from personal experience. In the private sector, I have almost always come across people who are not interested in culture and only interested in having a good time and spending money, while in the public sector I have always seemed to have more intelligent and interesting coworkers.

Is this just me, or are there two different kinds of people in each sector? I need to make a decision in the next year or so, which sector I want to work in. I've had so many bad experiences with the private sector, primarily the superficiality and the 'disposable' attitude, that I am discouraged from making my career in the private.

Anyone got any advice?

kluivert

Whats the difference between private and public.

Am just being thick now but i cant get it straight in my head.

seamus

I've found completely the opposite tbh. I've found in the private sector you generally find more people enthusiastic about their work, and interested in being social.

I've found in the public sector that more people are intelligent and interesting as you mention, but not in the good way, in the "Highly intelligent, but socially warped weirdo" way. In the public sector you tend to find people who are apathetic about their job, and generally disinterested in anything but obsessing over how nobody understands them, and how they're much better than their job implies.

These are just general observations. The volume of "normal" people in both sectors far outweighs those I've mentioned above.

ccd

Just because someone dosent have a degree dosent make them uncultured. What I have found from exsperiance with both sectors. Is that in the public sector most people have a degree, the sector is top heavy and bloated with Very little productivity, tanacity is not rewareded and you are judged primarliy on lenght of service. In the privae sector people dont get top jobs unless they have some degreeof intellegence. The copanies are leaner more productive and hard work is rewarded the way it should be

DublinWriter

I've found that in the public sector, people are less ambitious because of the bizarre ranking system employed by the Civil Service. Those at the lowest rung in the ladder (CO's) are usually put off by the examination and interview process needed to get up to the next level (EO). Most CO's are happy to stay put and just clock up service and overtime.

When looking at the private sector, it's a bit impossible to analyse the entire sector as a whole. The attitudes in big organisations are worlds apart from small to medium sized companies.

In big companies, again, it's more like the public sector. Either people are very unambitious and happy to be 'the grey man', or either uber-ambitious and would saw there own mum's arm off to get a promotion.

In small to medium sized companies, the atmosphere is more 'dynamic'. It's impossible to be a slacker in that kind of organisation as it's impossible usually to hide away in a corner. Structure is more informal in a smaller organisation and promotion is usually soley based on performance.

...and politics always comes into play in every organisation equally in the public/private sectors.

nesf

My only experience working in the public sector has been in a city library. Tbh I found the people working there to be both very intelligent and very interesting. Then again, librarianship is almost a vocation, the love of books and learning gave me something quite fundamental in common with most people there, so I wouldn't consider it to be typical of the public sector.

Raiser

I've alway found the Public sector people to be drones, shuffling paper with a large grudge only surpassed by the chip on both shoulders. They refuse to employ qualifed personnel and fall back on using 5 people who are each one fifth qualified to do every job - who cares as the taxes are their to foot their preposterous bills.

Only the Public sector drone could have invented green form E8851a - its the form that no matter how carefully its filled in, or how many stamps, signatures or accompanying pieces of supporting documentation are provided alongside it, a drone can always return it to you for being incomplete......

Eoin

esperanza wrote:

In my opinion, in the private sector, you are indispensable and there is a lot of superficiality, as I've found out from personal experience. In the private sector, I have almost always come across people who are not interested in culture and only interested in having a good time and spending money, while in the public sector I have always seemed to have more intelligent and interesting coworkers.

Is this just me, or are there two different kinds of people in each sector? I need to make a decision in the next year or so, which sector I want to work in. I've had so many bad experiences with the private sector, primarily the superficiality and the 'disposable' attitude, that I am discouraged from making my career in the private.

Anyone got any advice?

That's quite a generalisation about both sectors. I have worked in IT in the private sector and for a semi-state and have found big differences in the working environment alright.

The private companies tend to be a lot more dynamic and able to change with the times. New technologies are generally considered and/or implemented much quicker. Processes tend to be there to aid the end goal, not to justify the jobs of some red tape merchants. Yes, you are "disposable" - but to me this means that you have to prove your worth to the company, and there is nothing wrong with that.

The public or semi-state companies have lots of people who know that it is close to impossible for them to be fired, and behave accordingly. Wages and promotions are often based on years service, not ability or work ethic.

The idea that the public sector attracts more cultured or intelligent people is absolute nonsense to me. From a practical point of view, the public sector is a good bet because it is one of the few areas where you are pretty much guaranteed a job for life, barring a major transgression, but if you base your decision on the premise that the people there will be more intelligent and cultured than the private sector, I think you may be in for a bit of a disappointment.

esperanza

DublinWriter wrote:

I've found that in the public sector, people are less ambitious because of the bizarre ranking system employed by the Civil Service. Those at the lowest rung in the ladder (CO's) are usually put off by the examination and interview process needed to get up to the next level (EO). Most CO's are happy to stay put and just clock up service and overtime.

When looking at the private sector, it's a bit impossible to analyse the entire sector as a whole. The attitudes in big organisations are worlds apart from small to medium sized companies.

In big companies, again, it's more like the public sector. Either people are very unambitious and happy to be 'the grey man', or either uber-ambitious and would saw there own mum's arm off to get a promotion.

In small to medium sized companies, the atmosphere is more 'dynamic'. It's impossible to be a slacker in that kind of organisation as it's impossible usually to hide away in a corner. Structure is more informal in a smaller organisation and promotion is usually soley based on performance.

...and politics always comes into play in every organisation equally in the public/private sectors.

Thanks dublinwriter for making the distinction between different-sized companies. It was wrong of me to paint all companies with the same brush.
I have noticed that in big companies, it is more like the public sector. I think there may also be more job stability. I've come to the conclusion that the private sector is a good way to start one's career, but as one gets older and needs more stability and needs to start a pension plan, the public sector is a better bet.

It is probably true that there are more weirdos in the public sector, because in the private you generally have to be seen to "get on" with all your colleagues, or else superiors begin to get suspicious and regardless of your work, private sector employers do place a lot of emphasis on interpersonal skills...sth, which personally is not my strong point. I've always been good at exams though and don't mind hierarchy once those above me are more intelligent, and well, they must be "intellectually" more intelligent if they've had to pass exams to get to that position, mustn't they?

seamus

esperanza wrote:

they must be "intellectually" more intelligent if they've had to pass exams to get to that position, mustn't they?

Well not necessarily. I'm better at my job than my Manager would be, but he's better at his job than I would be. That doesn't make either of use more intelligent than the other

Eoin

esperanza wrote:

Thanks dublinwriter for making the distinction between different-sized companies. It was wrong of me to paint all companies with the same brush.
I have noticed that in big companies, it is more like the public sector. I think there may also be more job stability.

Probably a little more stable alright, though it also depends on what field you work in.

esperanza wrote:

I've come to the conclusion that the private sector is a good way to start one's career, but as one gets older and needs more stability and needs to start a pension plan, the public sector is a better bet.

This is assuming you can get into the public sector at this stage. It is a hugely competitive process from what I have heard.

esperanza wrote:

It is probably true that there are more weirdos in the public sector, because in the private you generally have to be seen to "get on" with all your colleagues, or else superiors begin to get suspicious and regardless of your work, private sector employers do place a lot of emphasis on interpersonal skills...sth, which personally is not my strong point. I've always been good at exams though and don't mind hierarchy once those above me are more intelligent, and well, they must be "intellectually" more intelligent if they've had to pass exams to get to that position, mustn't they?

I would think that the number of "weirdos" is really more relevant to the field of work, than sector - although these two distinctions may not be mutually exclusive. E.g. You will find pretty much the same type of person in IT whether they work for the government or a private company.

Hierachy should not be based on exams or intelligence. You seem to consider yourself intelligent, but by your own admission your interpersonal skills are not the strongest. This indicates to me that you should not be in a management position. Managing people is a skill that a lot of people take for granted, and assume that once they are in a position of authority they will be good managers.

Of course, this all depends on what area you wish to work in. If you are somewhere like the IT sector, then people skills are very important if you are a manager because
1) there is a good chance that the manager does not have the technical skills of his/her subordinates
2) some of the people working for you are likely to be very clever but somewhat introvert and not the most outgoing.

If, however, you are working as a manager in a supermarket, then the same people skills are not really needed to the same degree.

nesf

Hierarchy based on intelligence has little place in a management structure. You don't need to be smart to be a good manager. It helps a lot but it's not essential. And being intelligent definitely does not make you a good manager. I've seen many guys being promoted and suffering because while they were excellent at their old job, dealing and managing people is not something they were good at.

There is of course the big issue of your "team" needing to respect you. In some fields this is very hard to achieve if you are not intelligent/knowledgeable of the industry. You can't just pluck a manager from sales and shove him into the same job in IT and expect it to automatically work. If he has no idea of IT then it is going to be tough for him to gain the respect of his workmates.

Then again, if a manager shows a keen interest in learning about the field and has no qualms or delusions about his own lack of knowledge then it is quite possible that his workmates will respect him. Being willing to learn and listen to your workmates is possibly one of the most important traits a manager needs. Imho.

Eoin

Probably going a bit OT, but it was OP who brought up the whole Hierarchy / Intelligence thing.

nesf wrote:

There is of course the big issue of your "team" needing to respect you. In some fields this is very hard to achieve if you are not intelligent/knowledgeable of the industry. You can't just pluck a manager from sales and shove him into the same job in IT and expect it to automatically work. If he has no idea of IT then it is going to be tough for him to gain the respect of his workmates.

I agree, but the important thing to remember is that unlike industries like banking or accountancy etc, in a lot of cases an IT manager does not need to be able to do whatever their subordinates can do. e.g. if there was a bank strike tomorrow, the manager of a branch would probably be well able to carry out the same functions as the tellers at a push. A lot of IT managers would not be able to this, as their expertise is in specifically managing IT staff.

nesf wrote:

Then again, if a manager shows a keen interest in learning about the field and has no qualms or delusions about his own lack of knowledge then it is quite possible that his workmates will respect him. Being willing to learn and listen to your workmates is possibly one of the most important traits a manager needs. Imho.

IMO as well

nesf

eoin_s wrote:

Probably going a bit OT, but it was OP who brought up the whole Hierarchy / Intelligence thing.

It's a general kind of thread anyways imho.

eoin_s wrote:

I agree, but the important thing to remember is that unlike industries like banking or accountancy etc, in a lot of cases an IT manager does not need to be able to do whatever their subordinates can do. e.g. if there was a bank strike tomorrow, the manager of a branch would probably be well able to carry out the same functions as the tellers at a push. A lot of IT managers would not be able to this, as their expertise is in specifically managing IT staff.

To an extent I agree, but an IT manager still needs to know a fair bit about IT. He doesn't need to know how exactly you code a feature into a program but he should know if it's feasible and a rough timeframe within it can be done. He'd also need to have enough knowledge of IT to be able to know how best to "direct his people". i.e. knowing what each person's strenghts are and how best to maximise them etc. I don't think you can really do that if you have little to no knowledge of the industry.

Ideally in my mind, an IT manager should be someone who has a strong background in IT but who's best skills lie in managing people.

Eoin

nesf wrote:

Ideally in my mind, an IT manager should be someone who has a strong background in IT but who's best skills lie in managing people.

That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking, just didn't say it very well.

esperanza

DublinWriter wrote:

In small to medium sized companies, the atmosphere is more 'dynamic'. It's impossible to be a slacker in that kind of organisation as it's impossible usually to hide away in a corner.

I've seen a few slackers in these companies, lots in fact.

DublinWriter wrote:

...and politics always comes into play in every organisation equally in the public/private sectors.

I would have thought that there was less politics in the public sector, as you need to pass exams to get promoted, so it's based on "what you know, and not who you know", while in the private sector, it's hard to judge performance, as it is related to results, and from what I've experienced, how well-liked you are by others in the company. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure everyone's experience is different.

esperanza

nesf wrote:

Hierarchy based on intelligence has little place in a management structure. You don't need to be smart to be a good manager. It helps a lot but it's not essential. And being intelligent definitely does not make you a good manager.

Do you think the same applies to political hierarchy?To take two opposing examples, the US and Germany. In the US, the president is not intelligent, in an intellectual sense, and in Germany, the (current!) president is. I'd certainly have much more respect for, and more confidene in, Schröder than Bush.

seamus

esperanza wrote:

Do you think the same applies to political hierarchy?To take two opposing examples, the US and Germany. In the US, the president is not intelligent, in an intellectual sense, and in Germany, the (current!) president is. I'd certainly have much more respect for, and more confidene in, Schröder than Bush.

I personally would judge a man on his actions, not on his intelligence. You can be a intellectually intelligent person and make some very stupid choices.

nesf

seamus wrote:

I personally would judge a man on his actions, not on his intelligence. You can be a intellectually intelligent person and make some very stupid choices.

I agree completely with you. People seem to confuse intelligence and wisdom a lot these days.

RicardoSmith

I've worked in both. I would say that you can get both types of peope in both sectors. Just depends on the group of people you end up working for and how good the manager is. I've had good and bad in both sectors.

esperanza

seamus wrote:

I personally would judge a man on his actions, not on his intelligence. You can be a intellectually intelligent person and make some very stupid choices.

That may be, but generally the wider read someone is and the more in touch (s)he is with the people, a better and fairer decision is made at the end of the day. I don't like the American model of promoting those solely based on performance and hard work (meritocracy). They should also have the qualifications to back it up. That's my opinion.

I don't see anything wrong with civil servants being paid according to their years of service, it makes perfect sense to me. I also think it's wonderful that for each qualification you have you get paid more. In the private sector, a degree holder can earn more or less the same as someone who has leaving cert level. Now that doesn't seem fair. Yes, I know you have to negotiate your salary at the outset, but I recently worked in a company where negotiations were out of the question. It was like communism! So, I worked my butt off and was getting the same salary as someone who didn't pull their weight. Not all companies are like this, I'm sure, but they are out there.

RicardoSmith

esperanza wrote:

... So, I worked my butt off and was getting the same salary as someone who didn't pull their weight. Not all companies are like this, I'm sure, but they are out there.

I'd say its very common to be honest. They fact that people can do this points to bad management.

Eoin

esperanza wrote:

That may be, but generally the wider read someone is and the more in touch (s)he is with the people, a better and fairer decision is made at the end of the day. I don't like the American model of promoting those solely based on performance and hard work (meritocracy). They should also have the qualifications to back it up. That's my opinion.

I don't see anything wrong with civil servants being paid according to their years of service, it makes perfect sense to me. I also think it's wonderful that for each qualification you have you get paid more. In the private sector, a degree holder can earn more or less the same as someone who has leaving cert level. Now that doesn't seem fair. Yes, I know you have to negotiate your salary at the outset, but I recently worked in a company where negotiations were out of the question. It was like communism! So, I worked my butt off and was getting the same salary as someone who didn't pull their weight. Not all companies are like this, I'm sure, but they are out there.

You know, I think there are two quite different arguments going on now.

1) Qualifications V Experience.
I do not have a degree or qualification in my field of work, but I feel that I am at the very least as qualified to do my job as a recent graduate due to my experience. In certain industries a 3rd level qualification is essential (law, accountancy etc) however this is not true for other industries where practical experience is more valuable.

2) Promotions in the Public Sector v Private sector.
One major difference I have noted in the public and private sectors is that a promotion in the private sector generally means that increased responsbility and probably leadership of a team comes along with the promotion. However, in the public sector, you may go up a grade, but you are doing exactly the same job - it's just that your extra year of service has been rewarded.

I just can't understand how hard work and your performance and personality in general can not be seen as the primary factors in a promotion. If it is just based on years service, then there is no incentive to work harder.

Anyway, like I have said it depends in what industry you work in, and the chances are that I am not comparing like with like.

Zaph0d

I've worked in one govt department. My narrow experience of the public sector was that it attracted people who sought job security (insecure or neurotic people who doubted their ability to hold down a steady job).

Also there wasn't much incentive to work. So you had a lot of slightly nutty people with a lot of time on their hands which they put to use nurturing their eccentricities and wrecking each others' heads.

One of the worst things about the govt job was that the effect of the actual work they were doing was of little interest to anyone. There was a huge lack of purpose about the whole thing. And if there was a character in the office who was outrageously useless and irritating you just had to work around him. Kind of demotivating.

After a while I started doing sod all, but the days seemed to last forever and it was very depressing. I was surrounded by small-minded, resentful conservatives with little joy in their lives.

After that I left for the private sector and found a variety of different working environments.

I don't see anything wrong with civil servants being paid according to their years of service, it makes perfect sense to me. I also think it's wonderful that for each qualification you have you get paid more. In the private sector, a degree holder can earn more or less the same as someone who has leaving cert level.

In other words, a chap with two PhDs in theology and butterfly mating, and 20 years experience of drawing a salary while sitting on his hands should be paid more than a guy with a leaving cert who every year exceeds the expectations of his manager in performing his job?

RicardoSmith

In the places I've worked public and private you meet the same types of people everywhere. People make the place. The place does not make the people.