How best to manage large organisations and successfully drive change is a challenge that has lined the pockets of many a management consultant and frustrated the most dynamic of corporate leaders. Add to this the complexity of a delegated civil service structure, plus the unique overlay of a power dynamic based on political swings and roundabouts, and you have a pretty significant challenge in the new role of chief executive of the civil service.
She or he will not be short of advice. I’m sure keyboards are already rattling in a dozen think tanks, producing page after page of advice. My management career in the civil service extended to running the public counter in a social security office, so I’m not best placed to proffer ultimate wisdom on running a service with around 400,000 staff. But as someone who’s been at the centre of the civil service for nearly two decades – albeit from the perspective of representing the interests of civil servants – I do have my own twopenneth to throw in.
At the heart of the debate on the structure of the most senior leadership of the civil service appears to be a dilemma that the role needs both clout – which comes with being cabinet secretary – and the time to manage the service, which is certainly in short supply for the cabinet secretary. The new system returns the ultimate responsibility as head of the civil service to the cabinet secretary, but gives them a permanent secretary-rank official who can use the cabinet secretary’s authority to get things done – and it seems a sensible way to address the problem. So far, so CEO.
Unfortunately, the change was coupled with indefensible anonymous briefings to the press and personal attacks around Sir Bob Kerslake’s retirement
(see news). Just what those that indulge in this sort of behaviour think this will do to the prospect of attracting talent to the civil service is beyond me; never mind the fatal undermining of trust between politicians and civil servants. This is often the single biggest complaint we get from members, and has long term and far-reaching consequences.
My concern about the recruitment, however, is that when the announcement was made, much of the focus was on the person spec rather than the job spec. The subtext appears to be that if only we get the right person – preferably a private sector bruiser who will knock a few heads together – then all will be well. If only government was that simple.
The recent Public Accounts Committee hearing and correspondence on the role of the centre of government had at its heart this dilemma. PAC chair Margaret Hodge wanted to see a stronger centre, but a set of top officials insisted that under the current settlement secretaries of state – and, therefore, their departments – must enjoy autonomy subject to collective ministerial responsibility.
One of the frustrations with the current system appears to be that departments can potentially act against what is viewed by some as in the best interests of the entire service – particularly, but not exclusively, those agendas around driving efficiency and closer cooperation between departments. I make no judgement around whether this is actually the case, but it is clear that this is a strongly held view in some quarters. And the reality is that it is not only officials who can be seen to have an interest in slowing or sidestepping cross-government reform agendas. Whilst some might like to imagine that ministers work to one single political agenda in government, the potential for conflict between them arises whenever it’s felt that a centrally-driven initiative could create consequences, complications, or interference with thepower dynamic of who’s in charge in a department.
This is not simply a coalition issue: it has always been the case, and was exacerbated by the introduction of the delegated model of government. What
may be viewed as a priority of one minister in the Treasury or Cabinet Office may not be seen in the same light by a departmental secretary of state, whatever the public pronouncements, if it is felt that it interferes with his or her priorities.
Departments and governments work best when they have clear and unambiguous political direction. It is said that all governments are coalitions, involving ministers from different wings of the party with different political and personal agendas. So to make government work better – to get the best out of the delegated authority model, whilst simultaneously reaping the benefits of coordination – we’ll have to address these issues at a political as well as a civil service level. A change of personnel will not do the job.
Whoever the successful candidate is, they will have the full support of the FDA. Like most civil servants, we simply want to make public services work better and more efficiently for those who rely on them, the taxpayers who fund them, and the staff who deliver them. But no matter how well they fit the person spec, their task will be a difficult one until we can fix the problems that make the job spec such a complex one.