A State Effectiveness Council should be established to lead a comprehensive change programme, a new paper argues.
The Effective Government Forum paper aims to provide a “practical route map for the transformation of government so that it meets the legitimate expectations of the people”.
Authored by long-serving MP and former Liaison Committee and PACAC chair Sir Bernard Jenkin, and Professor Nada Kakabadse – professor of policy, governance and ethics at Henley Business School – it argues that the debate is no longer about whether reform to the machinery of government is needed, but how to do it and embed it in practice.
The paper calls for: a transformation in the culture of Whitehall and Westminster; more focus on leadership, management and delivery capability; improved public sector project management; and better financial management information across government.
It also calls for stronger performance management, pay and promotion systems; better use of technology and AI as part of wider reform; and the embedding of lessons from successful government programmes.
But it says there is “currently no body or structure within Whitehall that has the political authority or ambition to lead the necessary change programme”, describing the Civil Service Board and Senior Leadership Committee as both lacking "the mandate to manage transformation”. And it quotes a former cabinet secretary describing the CSB as “just another committee of the republic of the blob”.
Jenkin and Kakabadse argue that the current government's mission boards “had the right idea but failed because they pursued retail political objectives rather than strategic aims – and they lacked comprehensive political support from the PM and cabinet”.
The paper says a State Effectiveness Council must therefore be created, with responsibility for the vision, leadership, engagement and implementation of the change programme – working to a rolling five-year plan within a ten-year change programme.
The authors suggest it should be modelled on the National Security Council, with both ministers and senior officials as members, and the PM or chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should chair it, so that it carries the authority of the cabinet. Its members should include relevant government NEDs and it should “operate like the main board of a large company", they add.
The SEC should also have support from a dedicated secretariat, similar to the Joint Intelligence Committee, with its own capacity for independent analysis and assessment, and the ability to generate papers for approval, the paper says.
Implementation of the change programme should be delegated throughout the system to individual departments and public bodies, with each having a bespoke change programme and each having a bespoke board, the paper recommends.
But it says change programmes within individual departments will only be effective if they are part of, and consistent with, an overall change programme, and it says the SEC should monitor and report on progress within each department and public body.
The paper says the Cabinet Manual would need to be updated in order that procedures and practices across government reflect the change programme and its absolute priority, and similar revision of the Treasury ‘Green Book’ may be required.
However it adds: “Above all, the PM's personal commitment must never be in doubt. That absence of sustained highest level leadership and commitment is the single most consistent reason why previous reform initiatives have failed."
To supplement these recommendations, the EGF is preparing a detailed paper on the SEC's remit, modus operandi, composition and staffing, expected to be published this autumn.
Attitudes and behaviours ‘the key to lasting impact’
The paper says there have been 17 major attempts to reform government since the Fulton Report of 1968 and “none has had a lasting impact”.
It says they failed because they focused too much on structures and policies and “neglected the fundamental importance of embedded culture” – specifically the attitudes people adopt in their work and the behaviour they demonstrate.
Previous reform initiatives “failed to listen to, and to engage, those upon whom the change depends; underestimated the system's ability to resist change; and failed to develop effective leaders with genuine management capability", the paper says.
“Above all, they were a government afterthought, not one of its central policies."
Bad attitudes and behaviour "must be addressed directly, with the individuals concerned", the authors argue. “Without that, no amount of structural 'reform' will have any lasting effect,” it says. “Most reformers prefer to talk about easier things, new structures, and new policies, because attitudes and behaviour are uncomfortable to confront. That is why resistance to reform has proved so virulent.”
The paper adds that an array of issues – current employment conditions, job security, poor pay relative to the private sector, promotion practices that reward proximity to ministers over management ability, weak performance management, and disincentives to risk-taking – “all reflect and reinforce the existing culture”.
“None of these is a law of nature,” it says. “All can, and must, change, but that depends upon the quality of leadership from the most senior ministers and officials.”
To avoid past pitfalls, the paper sets out six “non-negotiable conditions”.
These are:
- There must be a clear, parliament-length change programme with total unity at the top and agreement that it is central to everything that the government does
- It must be the leadership's responsibility, not delegated to a junior minister or to junior officials (other matters must be delegated to make space for this programme)
- It must have the active support of every minister, special adviser, and official
- It must engage the many enthusiasts for change within the system, and bring along those who can be persuaded to embrace change
- Those who resist change must be removed
- Leaders must lead by their own, individual, personal example.
The paper also argues the term "civil service reform" should be avoided as it "carries negative connotations", implying "blame falls only on officials, when failed political leadership is at least half the problem".
"It sounds punitive rather than energising," the authors argue. "And it is too narrow: the problems span not just the civil service but parliament, the public services including the NHS, public bodies, and wider government."
Government success stories to learn from
The paper sets out a series of government success stories which the change programme could build upon: school reform; Universal Credit; Government Digital Services; the Vaccine Task Force; DVLA; Passport Office: CONTEST; the intelligence services; and the 60 years of maintenance of the Continuous at-Sea Deterrent.
To help learn from such case studies, the paper says a research programme to be conducted by Henley Business School with current and recently retired civil servants has been agreed to in principle with Cat Little, the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office.
Picking out Universal Credit as a particular model to learn from, the paper says the implementation of the benefits transformation “demonstrates that large-scale programme delivery is possible when the secretary of state and senior officials promote the right culture (attitudes and behaviour)”.
It notes that the minister for welfare reform at the time, David Freud, “had clear aims from the outset, stayed in post for six years, and fostered a culture of honesty in which officials were encouraged to surface problems rather than to conceal them”.
“He won the confidence of the permanent secretary, who then allowed him to help identify and promote capable, committed people, to bring in external talent where needed, and to introduce proper management of outsourced contracts,” the paper adds.
The authors note that Freud said the main conclusion from the programme was that the civil service should promote for management competence alongside policy expertise. “That lesson needs to be applied across the public sector,” they say.
Adapt best practice in the private sector 'with care'
The paper cautions that “while there is much to be learnt from best practice in successful change management programmes from elsewhere, great care must be taken in adapting them for the public sector”.
For example, it says private sector principles of efficiency, competition and profitability must be adapted into the public-sector context of accountability, policy constraints and public outcomes.
However, the paper sets ten key steps of successful change management programmes that it believes are applicable to government. These include: appointing strong, visible leadership, removing blockers and making timely decisions ; integrating delivery teams; cross-functional teams (policy, tech, ops) accountable for outcomes; and investing in the workforce through retraining, redesigning roles, and creating change champions at all levels.