The best civil service leaders value trust, not grades

Written by Andrew Greenway on 1 April 2016 in Opinion

The civil service has always had great people, argues former senior Cabinet Office official Andrew Greenway – but it must get better at valuing trust over hierarchy

Creating the conditions for brilliant civil servants to work collectively, learn together and enjoy it enough to stay is not only a question of them sharing the right values. It is about the system and culture that binds individuals together. The civil service has always had great people – but there’s clearly more going on.

The most broken departments I’ve worked in were also the least trustful of colleagues, new or old. The biggest project failures crumbled on the basis of relationships that began with mistrust. If an organisation doesn’t trust itself, why would anyone else?

Our best hope, I think, is to combine great leaders with networks that reward trust.

What degree do you really need to make it to the top of the civil service?
DWP digital chief questions department’s "highly hierarchical" culture

The "Prisoner’s Dilemma", used in game theory, shows that rational people might not cooperate even when it is in their best interests to do so. In the dilemma, lags are kept in isolated cells, unable to talk with one another. To win the game, you have to create lines of communication. If you can’t manage it, you get a third party in to help you. 

When you play multiple rounds of the "Prisoner’s Dilemma", a tit-for-tat equilibrium sometimes appears. A screws B, B screws A, and so on*. And this happens quite a lot in the civil service.

Big organisations are full of isolated cells. We call them departments, arms-length bodies, units, professions, teams. At the moment, the best leaders should feel like they’re spending almost all their time scaling these walls. Not a minute of it is wasted. We need them to climb faster than the people building the walls.

Networks only get you part of the way though. Talking to your cellmate doesn’t mean they won’t shaft you later.

"At the moment, civil servants often default to mistrust"

And that’s where leadership comes in, because in a big organisation, you need your stars to flaunt their rules for trust. You need to know what the cultural default is — to trust or not. And you need a way of tailoring that defaults to fit circumstances.

At the moment, civil servants often default to mistrust. As for tailoring, many use grades. When you meet a civil servant, they will often introduce themselves as "I’m the Grade 5 from the Department of X". What they’re saying is: "You can trust my level of competence and decision-making power within this organisation you know nothing about."

Grades are a rubbish rule of thumb for trust. They tell you little about what a person has done or what they could do.

Taking the time to dig deeper is worth it, because life gets easier the more you default to trust and award it on the basis of competence. That means trusting the people in your team to deliver without looking over their shoulder. Trusting that your peers’ motives are honourable. Trusting your senior managers to come down hard if your peers turn out to be bastards. Trusting people to get ideas above their station and follow through on them.

I would love to see the next Government Digital Strategy explain how civil servants will create and maintain trust between one another. It is just as important as how they will build trust with citizens and suppliers. The complaint from certain quarters about the jeans-wearing, Post-it-totin’ digital monkeys is the kind of towering naivety I’m parading right now. 

"I’d like to see your Grade 6 Service Manager stand up in front of the Public Accounts Committee when it all falls over," they say. "I’d like to see the product manager of this cross-government bit be hung out to dry when my service relying on it breaks down."

I would too. It would be much better than having a cadre of people accountable for delivery they may play no direct part in. More importantly, it would put trust back in the hands of everyone who deserves it, at every level of an organisation.

Sometimes trust is misplaced. But if an organisation starts from the assumption it’ll be screwed over, even the best leaders will be scuppered from the start.

* The Prisoner’s Dilemma is more complicated than this

Author Display Name
Andrew Greenway
About the author

Andrew Greenway is a former senior civil servant now working as an independent consultant. His civil service roles included deputy director of data analysis and horizon scanning at the Government Office for Science, and a programme manager working on digital projects for the Cabinet Office. This is an edited version of a post that first appeared on Medium

Share this page
Editor's Pick
Promote as primary content
Not Promoted

Share this page

Further reading in our policy hubs


Please login to post a comment or register for a free account.



Submitted on 1 April, 2016 - 12:03
Mistrust is surpassed only by secrecy as a corrosive agent in the make-up of the Civil Service. There is a massive gap in the minds of interested observers outside the Ministry of Defence such as those in HM Treasury, the Cabinet Office, the National Audit Office, academic institutions and think tanks on how it supposedly functions on a day-to-day basis, as depicted in official UK Government publications, and how it actually operates in reality. In addition, the culture of intense secrecy within MoD has not only allowed its leadership to extend this discrepancy even further, but also conceal appallingly poor policy-making and huge failings in its defence procurement procedures from parliamentary select committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee and Defence Select Committee. What’s more, MoD discourages free thought and self-criticism of its internal business processes, and is consequently completely reliant on outsiders to identify, and point out shortcomings in its defence procurement policy. @JagPatel3 on twitter

Anonymous (not verified)

Submitted on 1 April, 2016 - 12:15
Andrew very rightly talks about trusting individuals. The more you trust your staff the more output you will get out of them. I have experience of working with a manager who would always doubt at what I said to her. This really disengaged me in my work and had very negative effect on my performance. The impact of not trusting individuals is very serious.

Anonymous (not verified)

Submitted on 1 April, 2016 - 20:35
I don't know much about the SCS, however in general I don't trust them. What do I know about the SCS? They have a trade union, the FDA, that appears exclusive. Yeah, very trust-inspiring. I would have thought that if someone was high up, they'd be happy, with no need to be concerned about their own interests, and no need for trade unionism. As I am wrong, I can't trust the SCS because I don't know that they will put the public interest above their self interest.

Cassandra (not verified)

Submitted on 4 April, 2016 - 10:59
I read this and got the feeling for the first time that someone is speaking my language. One of the most depressing aspects of my position, and that of many others, is that I am only allowed to contribute a small percentage of what I could (and have done in the past). Instead I'm expected to sit in a constricting box and shut up. The situation has been aggravated by runaway grade-drift over the last couple of decades, so that the expectation is lowered to the new norm. That's not only personally damaging, it's a total waste of taxpayers' money.

Contact the author

The contact details for the Civil Service World editorial team are available on our About Us page.

Related Articles

Related Sponsored Articles

A radical re-think for public sector transformation
2 November 2015

With the ‘low-hanging fruit’ exhausted, the public sector must approach new government saving...

Successful partnerships: working effectively with central government
26 August 2014

TCS is keen to contribute to the topic of successful partnerships between the public and private...