As an ex-senior civil servant of 35 years experience I agree with almost every word of this. A key issue in my mind is the need for cross-party consensus on major change. An example. My last role was as a project manager on a programme that would take 10 years fully to complete. Everyone involved knew that the next incoming Government would cancel it. (They did.) Consequently it was, as you’d expect, impossible to gain strong commitment to the programme. from the people who needed to deliver it. And the fact that Ministers had lost interest and moved on to the next initiative after the grand announcement of course didn’t help. Much of my career was spent closing down as many half completed projects as I managed to finish as Governments, or sometimes just individual Ministers, changed.
I run a benefits service for a London borough. It’s the definition of bureaucratic. Sometimes it makes me tear my hair out as I try to change things. Sometimes it’s for very good reasons.
I was going to make a comment about strategic direction (none), tenure (as discussed, limited at political level) and basic project management skills (weak) in the civil service, but actually, the problem is democracy and the game of politics. As long as announcements and comms and positioning and ribbons to cut and progression to bigger & better are the yardsticks of success, operational grunt work will not be the priority.
And then, politicians that do emphasise this (eg Keir Starmer before the current debacle) are repeatedly characterised as grey and lacking vision and told that “deliverology” isn’t enough.
While I think your suggestion that smaller successful outfits take on larger lumbering behemoths has merit , it will still take a horizon of years to achieve modest change because of all the personnel rules and interlocking decision making processes.
I agree but I wouldn’t exempt Starmer from this. Despite his emphasis on delivery, he has blamed previous governments for failing instantaneously to solve long term structural problems which he has found equally intractable (eg house building), and taken credit for initiatives put in place by those same predecessors when it suited him (eg the extension of subsidised childcare). Despite his protestations to the contrary, he has IMO proved no more serious than his opponents.
As an ex civil servant (admittedly from another age) who then went to the private sector and continued to work with civil servants for more than 35 years, I agree with all of this.
One aspect of private sector practice that I would import is the freedom to pay someone more for doing their current job very well. It has long struck me as perverse that the only way to be better rewarded as a civil servant is to get promoted. This exacerbates the constant churn, leads frequently to verification of the Peter Principle, and means that expertise built up over years can be lost overnight. In the private sector it is common for the highest paid person to be the subject matter expert, not the boss (in consultancy, IT, law etc) and there is a strong incentive to stay put and become more experienced and skilled, rather than move on as quickly as possible.
Very interesting. Just one minor quibble, doesn't the 'newco' suggestion at the end directly contradict issue 8, that the skills required to run small/ new and large/established organisations are quite different?
On your point 8, I add, the skills to work your way up a large organisation are totally different to the skills needed once in charge. It's why good leaders are so rare.
I think you may be being unfair to Team Mass Redundancy. Part of the staffing challenge is that redundancies in the CS are always voluntary exit first, and it is well established that voluntary exit schemes typically lead to talent leaving first. Moving from voluntary first to compulsory first and giving managers considerable latitude to weed out poor performers would improve performance overall.
I have recently come across this “newco”framing from a few celebrants and I must say I find it repugnant.
It smells of “spin outs” and “carve outs” and corporate incentives which don’t feel right for public service and public servants.
Too often gvt functions are spun out to the benfit of a few who go on to become highly profitable companies with unparalleled access to gvt and end up being acquired by foreign rent seeking corporate entities.
As an ex-senior civil servant of 35 years experience I agree with almost every word of this. A key issue in my mind is the need for cross-party consensus on major change. An example. My last role was as a project manager on a programme that would take 10 years fully to complete. Everyone involved knew that the next incoming Government would cancel it. (They did.) Consequently it was, as you’d expect, impossible to gain strong commitment to the programme. from the people who needed to deliver it. And the fact that Ministers had lost interest and moved on to the next initiative after the grand announcement of course didn’t help. Much of my career was spent closing down as many half completed projects as I managed to finish as Governments, or sometimes just individual Ministers, changed.
💯 agree Polly. This is spot on.
I run a benefits service for a London borough. It’s the definition of bureaucratic. Sometimes it makes me tear my hair out as I try to change things. Sometimes it’s for very good reasons.
I was going to make a comment about strategic direction (none), tenure (as discussed, limited at political level) and basic project management skills (weak) in the civil service, but actually, the problem is democracy and the game of politics. As long as announcements and comms and positioning and ribbons to cut and progression to bigger & better are the yardsticks of success, operational grunt work will not be the priority.
And then, politicians that do emphasise this (eg Keir Starmer before the current debacle) are repeatedly characterised as grey and lacking vision and told that “deliverology” isn’t enough.
While I think your suggestion that smaller successful outfits take on larger lumbering behemoths has merit , it will still take a horizon of years to achieve modest change because of all the personnel rules and interlocking decision making processes.
Sorry to be glum
I agree but I wouldn’t exempt Starmer from this. Despite his emphasis on delivery, he has blamed previous governments for failing instantaneously to solve long term structural problems which he has found equally intractable (eg house building), and taken credit for initiatives put in place by those same predecessors when it suited him (eg the extension of subsidised childcare). Despite his protestations to the contrary, he has IMO proved no more serious than his opponents.
As an ex civil servant (admittedly from another age) who then went to the private sector and continued to work with civil servants for more than 35 years, I agree with all of this.
One aspect of private sector practice that I would import is the freedom to pay someone more for doing their current job very well. It has long struck me as perverse that the only way to be better rewarded as a civil servant is to get promoted. This exacerbates the constant churn, leads frequently to verification of the Peter Principle, and means that expertise built up over years can be lost overnight. In the private sector it is common for the highest paid person to be the subject matter expert, not the boss (in consultancy, IT, law etc) and there is a strong incentive to stay put and become more experienced and skilled, rather than move on as quickly as possible.
Our voting system of FPTP means governments swing from left to right. In the 21st century building anything of real importance takes decades.
Very interesting. Just one minor quibble, doesn't the 'newco' suggestion at the end directly contradict issue 8, that the skills required to run small/ new and large/established organisations are quite different?
On your point 8, I add, the skills to work your way up a large organisation are totally different to the skills needed once in charge. It's why good leaders are so rare.
I think you may be being unfair to Team Mass Redundancy. Part of the staffing challenge is that redundancies in the CS are always voluntary exit first, and it is well established that voluntary exit schemes typically lead to talent leaving first. Moving from voluntary first to compulsory first and giving managers considerable latitude to weed out poor performers would improve performance overall.
Thank you for sharing your insights and ideas.
I have recently come across this “newco”framing from a few celebrants and I must say I find it repugnant.
It smells of “spin outs” and “carve outs” and corporate incentives which don’t feel right for public service and public servants.
Too often gvt functions are spun out to the benfit of a few who go on to become highly profitable companies with unparalleled access to gvt and end up being acquired by foreign rent seeking corporate entities.
The theme tune was by Hans Zimmer, of Interstellar, Gladiator and The Lion King etc etc