What do civil servants really think about their working environment? That’s what we at Re:State, in partnership with Civil Service World, set out to find out earlier this year. We wanted to go beyond the carefully managed People Survey, which provides a helpful but limited view of life in the civil service – the result is our Alternative People Survey (APS), published today.
This self-selecting survey, which ran between 31 January 2025 and 3 March 2025, asks questions the official Civil Service People Survey does not. We are clear that it is not a representative sample, but an attempt to give voice to a group who can rarely speak up. It is a small, selective voice, but an important one. We would, of course, be delighted if the Cabinet Office chose to include some our questions in their next, official survey. In the meantime, here’s what we found.
As part of our ‘Reimagining Whitehall’ programme, we have the privilege of speaking to serving and former civil servants week in, week out. The insight we gain from those conversations shapes our thinking. And one topic comes up more than any other: performance management. That’s why last year we decided to dedicate a paper to the subject. ‘Making the grade’ looked at the extreme ends of performance, exceptional talent and poor performers. As part of the research for that paper, we, again with CSW, ran a short survey to see what civil servants thought of the current regime.
It was not good: just 29% of respondents agreed with the statement “the civil service takes talent and performance management seriously”. We asked the same question this year, and got exactly the same result.
If the strength of an organisation lies in their people – attracting, rewarding and retaining top talent, and swiftly moving on those who do not perform – the civil service is failing. Just a quarter of respondents to the APS agreed that “talented people rise to the top of the civil service” (down from 29% last year), and a truly shocking 8% agreed that “the civil service in general manages poor performance well” (2 points up on last year). These two findings are definitive and damning.
The good news is the government knows the model is broken and is committed to reforming it. The not so good news is that the jury’s out on whether they will go far enough. Our APS findings should give them the confidence to take radical action, knowing they have the backing of those within the machine who are deeply frustrated with the status quo. As one respondent put in the final free text box of the survey: “Talent and poor performance management are the single biggest things holding the civil service back.”
Building out from the question of performance management, we also wanted to better understand the degree to which civil servant work practices and incentives are aligned with the government’s ambition to ‘rewire the state’. The answer is not very well.
Innovation has been the watchword for successive administrations – the thing that will transform how government works. And that will, we’re told, be underpinned by data and evaluation, AI, speeding up processes and, for this government, being mission-led.
Yet a full 70% of respondents agreed with the statement “I often feel that processes get in the way of me performing my job”, and just 18% agreed that “My department consistently evaluates policies and projects and then consistently applies these lessons to future policymaking and implementation”. On innovation specifically, a paltry 24% agreed “My department actively encourages and rewards civil servants who try to innovate”.
And when it comes to clarity of purpose – or mission – while 74% of respondents overall agreed with the statement “I am clear about what my department’s priorities are”, within that only a third strongly agreed. Which indicates room for improvement.
On AI, while just 30% say they are using AI tools in their work, of those 78% say they “help me to do my job better”. Given just 48% agree that “My department provides me with sufficient access to data and technology, including AI, to do my job”, addressing this could boost both productivity and satisfaction.
Identifying the misalignment of intentions and behaviours is key to understanding why Whitehall reform has consistently failed. And while, again, we do not claim the survey is representative, it does show that many of those within the civil service see the flaws, are fed up with the system, and want to see real change. Those minister and officials charged with rewiring Whitehall should be concerned by our findings, but they should also be boosted by this appetite for action.
Charlotte Pickles is the director of think tank Re:State (formerly Reform)