This election I’ve heard the term ‘lanyard class’ being thrown around. The term has been used by the ACT Party and by Sean Plunket as a derogatory statement for civil servants that they believe are a waste of taxpayers dollars. However, in the case of Sean it was more in reference to members of the elites who are completely isolated from the struggles of the rest of the population while making judgements and decisions – for the rest of the population.
This certainly matches up with a Princeton study that suggested a complete difference between the concerns of the political and economic elite and the average citizen in America. However, as someone who is part of the lanyard class, I think it is important to set the record straight and to share my observations of this group
The term ‘lanyard class’ only appears once in academic literature, and that is an essay penned by a Marxist who uses it in reference to social workers who use what he perceives to be an oppressive system to elevate the underprivileged and reduce inequalities. But I would argue that it is more than that.
I will have to answer the obvious question. Why did I join? It was because the public sector could afford to invest in my development while bearing the costs of my mistakes. Nobody in the private sector should or could hire me because I have no skills from which they can profit. Plus, it provides good job security in the middle of a recession.
This is what I have observed so far: The lanyard class is not a monolith. There are many distinctions within the class: union and non-union, service delivery and policy, fanatics and pragmatics, frontline versus corporates. I will go through each.
First, there are union and non-union members. Not everyone in this class is part of the PSA. Some of us do not like paying dues and having to follow an organisation that fundamentally we disagree with. While it does negotiate a fairer wage it also demands that its members adhere to its woke principles including advocating for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ in the workplace.
The second lanyard class distinction is between those in policy and those in service delivery. What I mean is that the class can be divided between those who advise on how a ministry should do its duties and the people who act on those duties. The policy types all have university degrees, but what sets them apart is that they all volunteer for various ‘community organisations’, the approved ones that the political class deem to be acceptable.
These are organisations such as Amnesty International and Red Cross, despite these organisations being accused of corruption. These policy types live in Wellington, separated from the rest of the country, and usually have the minister’s ear. They are qualified to be experts on how the country should be run and are usually the ones who set the agenda for the different ministries. Below them are the service delivery people who have the job of enforcing or carrying out these writs from the policy types. Unlike the policy types, the service delivery types have the unfortunate job of dealing with the public, while the policy types deal with ‘academics’ only and approved ‘experts’, which explains why public opinion almost never makes it to policy.
The third lanyard class division is between pragmatics and fanatics. Fanatics truly believe in the mission of the organisation. They believe in whatever the political class tells them to be reality. Therefore they will use their positions to enact establishment issues which means delivering on the policies they agree with and slowing down policies they don’t agree with. The pragmatics are those who continue regardless of who is in government. Whatever new policies come out they try to interpret and utilise them in order to help the public.
Finally, there are corporates and there are frontline workers. The corporates are the CEOs and those in the leadership team, who make decisions for the ministry. They are the ones who decide how the policies and ideas of the minister should be implemented. They are the ones that represent the organisation, marketing its benefits to the public and to the minister to maintain confidence and trust in the organisation. They do this by ordering ambitious projects and by constantly trying to celebrate the organisation’s achievements while ignoring all of its problems. Frontline workers are the ones stuck with dealing with the day-to-day of the organisation. Ensuring that policies are enforced and having to deliver on the projects ordered by corporates. They are well aware of the problems of the organisation. These are your average firefighter, police officer, paramedic and nurse who have to deal with public issues every day.
Ministers are not in control of the government. They may implement different policies and different bills but ultimately it is up to the lanyard class to decide how the ideas of the minister are implemented and it is not always what the minister intended.
The lanyard class reflects what Dwight Waldo coined ‘the administrative state’, a public bureaucracy with the power to decide which ideas of elected members of government are accepted and which ones are rejected. They also decide what information makes it to the minister about their organisation or portfolio, which means issues and problems the public voices may not make it to the agenda.
However, there are many in the lanyard class who are not the lapdogs of the political class. Ordinary people like you are doing this job to bring about positive change or to provide for their families. Some such as myself do not always agree with everything the organisation does, so next time you attack the lanyard class, just remember there is a human being wearing that lanyard.
