120. I heard from a number of people that the DPM is 'inconsistent' or 'unpredictable', either in the sense that having offered criticism on one occasion, he may offer praise at the next, or vice versa, or in the sense of his 'steer' changing from one occasion to the next (and without any acknowledgment that it had). Having considered these points in light of all the evidence, I do not find that these particular criticisms are well-founded. The available evidence did not enable me to make a finding as to the DPM changing his 'steer'. In relation to the question of variable criticism and praise, while there may be an issue as to the way in which he provides critical feedback, what became apparent to me is that the DPM does not, after an occasion of criticism, then keep track such that on the next occasion the same official will be disadvantaged. The DPM tends to 'wipe the slate clean' from one occasion to the next; he will neither expect to offer criticism nor necessarily offer it. What is, however, also apparent is that some officials, not used to the DPM's approach, may reasonably anticipate that one occasion of criticism from the DPM will necessarily lead to another. The anticipation of criticism may well be inhibiting to good performance.
(5) The use of physical gestures
121. I heard a good deal of evidence about the DPM's use of physical gestures in communication. At the most extreme, and which would have been unacceptable, this was put as extending his hand directly out towards another person's face with a view to making them stop talking. Another example of such an allegation was loud banging of the table to make a point. At the opposite end of the spectrum, which would be regarded as acceptable, suggestions were made of the use of a defensive gesture to suggest that a person should hold off from speaking further, accompanied by a verbal explanation, or the use of a finger extended downwards to make a particular point.
122. It seemed to me that there was, and is, significant scope for misunderstanding in relation to the use of physical gestures as part of communication. I was not convinced that the DPM used physical gestures in a threatening way, although those unused to this style of communication might well have found it disconcerting. I did not consider that there was any basis for legitimate criticism in this respect. The 'hand out' gesture was not in my view nearly as emphatic as the allegation suggested. Nor did I consider that any 'banging' of the table was such as would be likely to cause alarm.
28
