Public: Workplace reform + Comment | Public

How will the inevitable spending cuts in the public sector be managed?

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:00:00 GMT

Quangos and regional development agencies could be the first to go when it comes to slimming down the public sector

Regardless of the hue of the next government, organisations the length and breadth of the public sector are bracing themselves for cuts. Maintaining service quality with less resource is likely to be the biggest challenge facing the sector in the coming years.

Services like the NHS are unlikely to be cut into drastically at the front line, although some have suggested that significant savings could be made in what has been coined the "corporate overhead."

Developing better management and leadership skills can help rationalise the service away from the coal face, without leading to a decline in service. It's an approach already being done well by some foundation trusts, and one many believe can be effectively replicated throughout the rest of the NHS.

Outside essential services, most recognise that quangos and regional development agencies are under the spotlight. David Cameron has been adamant in his belief that this area of the public sector harbours a significant degree of waste, and Gordon Brown has stated that 129 quangos could be either abolished or merged without significant impact on service.

Pensions have been suggested as another target for cuts, with some feeling they are the "sacred cow" of the public sector. Reducing public sector pensions could indeed help to cut deficits and save capital, but there's a real fear that it would also significantly harm organisations' ability to attract and retain the talent needed to maintain and improve service levels.

One interesting idea that we've seen gain some support among the senior managers to whom we have spoken with is the concept of zero-ased budgeting. Distinct from incremental budgeting, this involves all parts of the public sector needing their entire budget approved every year rather than simply any increases.

Even if done on a three-yearly basis, many have said they feel it would help to target inefficiencies in all areas of the public sector, going a long way to dealing with spending cuts.

A common theme running through many of the conversations we've had has been getting the right people into the right places. Recruitment has never been a more important issue - it will be vital to find inquisitive people who are unafraid to ask the right procurement questions and develop answers to deliver services with fewer resources. That means looking seriously at how you attract people, getting as much advice as you can on where to look for the best talent and how to recruit them.

There one unavoidable fact – spending cuts are coming to the public sector. Understanding how to manage them and continue to deliver the services that are needed is the big question facing the entire sector. Informed debate will help us arrive at answers, as will ensuring the public sector remains home to intelligent, motivated professionals.

To see some of the conversations we held earlier this year with public
sector figures about this issue, visit Market Talk.

Nicola Linkleter is public sector executive director at recruitment consultancy Badenoch & Clark

A more ruthless approach

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:00:00 GMT

Due diligence must be the starting point of any merger but public leaders have to toughen up when it comes to making unpalatable decisions

The recent National Audit Office report, Reorganising Central Government, revealed an estimated 51 government reorganisations had cost more than £780m, with technology being one of most significant expenses alongside people and property. The conclusion: little evidence of 'value for money' returned on the investment.

UK politics' addiction to change is generally based on positive motives. Driving greater public sector efficiency should win public support. However, high profile failures dampen public appetites and, as the NAO report clearly illustrates, further failures are inevitable without strong business cases and clear objectives.

Whatever 6th May's outcome, the incoming government is unlikely to be able to kick the restructuring habit. To gain real savings, the technology, people and property elements need careful structuring.

The NAO paper prompted Xantus to commission Sourceforconsulting.com to write a report, Public Sector M&A?, which is based on interviews with independent restructuring experts. It indicates that the public sector can learn key lessons from private sector mergers. I should add that research shows only 30% of private sector mergers actually succeed, while there is also clear evidence that not every public sector restructure fails.

Ofcom is a prime example from the public sector. In fact, in 2006, the NAO praised the process that formed Ofcom from five independent regulators. The whole approach of creating a new entity from scratch was, in my view, critical to the project's success. Had the merger followed the traditional path and fused five pre-existing bodies into an amorphous mass, the outcome may have been very different.

There are also lessons from less successful mergers. HMRC, for one, was recently subjected to a Cabinet Office Review after seven years of underperformance following the merger between the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.

So, what are the lessons?

Technology is often the catalyst for restructure success or failure. Here, private sector lessons are invaluable: due diligence at the outset; fearless decision-making; and rapid execution of the agreed plan even if it requires unpalatable job losses at all levels.

Due diligence must be the starting point of any merger decision. Private sector projects have clearly stood or fallen by the research, or lack of it, undertaken in advance. Assessing the capability and compatibility of departmental IT is as essential as evaluating the whole organisation.

Public sector departments are protective of their ways of working. This extends to the IT and database systems they run, the governance and processes that run them and often the external suppliers involved in providing and supporting the infrastructure.

As well as establishing whether genuine efficiencies can be made, due diligence will also determine which systems need to be retained or removed. An early understanding of the complexities of information management will ensure a vital system is not switched off only to emerge as pivotal to new organisation. Equally, if overall costs appear greater than long-term savings, then why restructure?

Next comes fearless leadership. Change is never easy and half the people involved aren't going to like the decisions made! There is little place for public sector diplomacy or 'silo mentalities' in driving effective change, with many experts even suggesting a more dictatorial approach is needed once the merger decision has been taken.

This fearless approach needs to extend to smarter working with suppliers. Often long-term IT service contracts and technologies are securely embedded. Clear assessment of need, long-term goals, and an ultimately ruthless approach to systems selection is essential in avoiding headlines trumpeting another public sector IT integration disaster.

Finally, decisions should be just that – decisive. Decide which IT systems to use; decide what departmental structures are needed; and decide the cost savings to target. Planning must be careful but acted on quickly, decisively and fearlessly. Politics has no place in successful restructures and faint hearts never win.

David Yip is director of Xantus Consulting

Problems and solutions to trustee recruitment for small charities

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:00:00 GMT

Small charities need skilled leaders to guide them through difficult economic times but finding and recruiting the right people can be problematic. A new specialist trustee recruitment service could help

Small voluntary and community organisations never fail to impress me with their ability to instinctively know how to get more "bang for their buck" when it comes to stretching money for frontline services. Their passion and enthusiasm for their cause means they consistently deliver high quality services under the most challenging of circumstances.

While funding is obviously important, the success of any voluntary and community organisation, regardless of its size, is down to the way in which it is governed and led. Funders are increasingly expecting voluntary and community organisations to demonstrate their impact and accountability and expect to see business plans and diversity strategies as part of funding applications.

The recession and impending public sector cuts mean we are facing lean years as a sector and all organisations will need skilled leaders, more than ever, to guide us through this difficult period.

More than a million people are already charity trustees, responsible for everything their organisation does. Yet the role of charity trusteeship is sorely under recognised and many charities – particularly smaller ones – have problems finding and recruiting the right people.

Almost half of all voluntary and community organisations say they are finding it more difficult to recruit now than they did five years ago.

For smaller organisations with few or no paid staff, this can place even greater demands on individual trustees who may be expected to take on a number of roles beyond that of governing the organisation.

NCVO, together with law firm Bates, Wells & Braithwaite and interim management recruitment consultancy Russam GMS, has now launched a specialist trustee recruitment service for small charities, through company Trustees Unlimited. The service enables organisations to tap into candidates with a wide range of backgrounds and experience, filling skills gaps and thereby strengthening boards.

Our advice is that voluntary and community organisations need to take trustee recruitment as seriously as they would staff recruitment. Organisations should look beyond their immediate networks and reach out to a wide group of people as potential trustees.

Historically, many organisations have relied on "word of mouth" to recruit their trustees and this obviously limits the pool of interest for trustee roles and can mean they do not recruit people with the skills and experience they require to govern effectively.

This, of course, poses particular issues for smaller organisations where budgets are extremely tight and spending money on anything other than direct delivery of services can appear to be wrong.

One London-based voluntary organisation told us: "We don't really have a budget line for governance. We've got one for trustee meetings – for sandwiches and so on – does that count?"

If as a sector we want to ensure that we speak with even greater authority when representing our most marginalised communities, we need to invest in trustee recruitment and recognise that finding and keeping trustees is a vital task for all voluntary and community organisations.

I hope that our new service is an affordable way of making this process easier for smaller charities, that have so much to gain from getting leadership right.

Ben Kernighan is deputy chief executive of the National Council for
Voluntary Organisations

For more information visit Trustees Unlimited

Skills for growth white paper needs more work

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:09:00 GMT

While commitment to apprenticeships and the employer-led sector skills councils can only be a good thing, the removal of support for schemes such as 'non-first' qualifications are a glaring mistake

The new skills strategy white paper, Skills for Growth, is a positive move forward, but there is still significant room for improvement in the proposals, particularly in regard to the implications for the companies represented by Proskills and the wider manufacturing sector.

We welcome the strategy's commitment to giving industry, through the employer-led sector skills councils (SSC), a voice in the skills system, to help develop the British economy for the future.

The paper also increases the amount of investment in apprenticeships, which will help tackle youth unemployment and train people for real jobs.

However, the strategy also suggests that this investment will see the withdrawal of support for other, equally important vocational qualifications.

I find it hard to understand the decision to withdraw funding from qualification units, and the removal of support for additional "non-first" qualifications that can be used to "multi-skill" people in the workplace.

Our research shows that these are precisely the training options that will be of most benefit to companies and people in our industries as we move out of the recession.

The vital need to simplify

The strategy recognises the vital need to simplify the skills system and Proskills welcomes the plans to reduce the number of regional bodies with overlapping responsibilities.

I am concerned though, that the suggested changes will serve only to simplify the system for the government and stakeholders rather than for industry.

If changes are not made with employers in mind they will not benefit the economy or the people who work in this country.

To keep employers engaged with the skills system it is vital to use a sectoral approach but the white paper gives the strategic lead to the regional development agencies, rather than the sectoral bodies who know the needs of their industries.

As Stephen Falder, the chairman of Proskills and director of HMG Paints commented: "employers will welcome the commitment to continuing investment in vocational education but there is a view that many previous government promises have been hollow especially as the funding promised to the manufacturing sector through Train to Gain was not delivered".

The findings of the recent review of Train to Gain by the National Audit Office highlighted significant inefficiencies and my concern is there will continue to be considerable wastage in the system after this strategy is implemented.

Proskills and other SSCs have achieved more efficient results through sector compacts. These agreements helped to assign funding directly where it was needed and we believe that this approach is the right one for the future.

Quantity over quality

The "quantity over quality" approach to training still seems to form a central part of the process by which funding is allocated. We should be placing public money where it can generate the best results. It seems incredible that there are 14 times as many publically-funded apprenticeships awarded annually in hairdressing than manufacturing, despite the turnover per head generated in manufacturing being more than 7 times as high as in hairdressing.

Clive Bowers, chairman CPI Corrugated Sector and chief executive of Smurfit Kappa Corrugated UK, has added his backing to this argument, recently saying, "public money should be invested in skills where it can generate the best results for UK PLC. Manufacturing has to be supported as it is the fundamental source for the future prosperity for UK PLC".

If we're to increase productivity and competitiveness in the UK, it is essential that we have support to upskill and multiskill our current workforce as well as investment in young people.

The "picking the winners" approach implied by the recent New Industries, New Jobs paper doesn't cover key parts of the UK economy and significant parts of manufacturing and industry are likely to continue missing out on much-needed government funding and support.

A wider vision of the future, identifying priorities for investment based on real employer demand through sectoral bodies, would be more successful and would ensure true value for money in the skills system.

Terry Watts is chief executive of Proskills UK

Viewing information as a strategic asset

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:00:00 GMT

Recognising data as a strategic asset and not a toxic liability requires a step-change in information strategy

There's a plethora of Government-produced papers and media-hype about the importance of information management within the public sector and how data needs to be used and seen as a strategic asset.

Many of these reports risk subverting public sector organisations away from the operational efficiency programme. A rush to cut costs could make these organisations lose sight of their need to be forward-thinking.

Private sector businesses already use business analytics to gain useful customer insight, develop new revenue streams and scrutinise their business models. As these businesses become more agile and innovative, they become more successful.

The same business analytics tools will also enable public sector organisations to implement a proactive approach by using information management as a strategic asset, which will help enable operational efficiency and effectiveness across government – from preventative health and welfare services through to public safety and security.

Most public sector information management strategies are still in the early stages of the 'information evolution' cycle. Organisations that focus only on compliance with legal and regulatory requirements are condemned to a continual cycle of reactive "fail-and-fix". Cultures should change to use existing data for insight and enable the sector to "predict-and-prevent."

Public sector bodies require a step-change in their information management strategies if they are to continue their overall transformational agenda.

There is a mounting pressure for the public sector as a whole to reduce its costs. However, any cost-cutting efforts cannot be made at the expense of public service delivery. These organisations need to work smarter – both more efficiently and effectively.

Identifying good costs and bad costs

The Government's Operational Efficiency report on public spending and reporting in May suggests that too many public sector organisations cannot differentiate between essential 'good costs' and the expendable 'bad costs'.

Good costs can be investments in technologies that address underlying problems, for example, and are the building blocks of a true information management strategy and the foundation of citizen-centric services.

The gap between increased demands and reduced budgets in the public sector is growing, and the only way for organisations to bridge it is to transform the way they manage their most under-utilised asset: information.

Visibility in information management: go beyond efficiency

Visibility of data and processes is essential for any government organisation to successfully transform and is a theme running through the many government reports this year, including:

* Audit Commission - In the Know

* Knowledge Council - Information Matters

* Transformational Government Review – Central Government

* The Cabinet Office - The Power of Information

* National Audit Office - Strategic Procurement / Procurement Capability Review

* Operational Efficiency Report – Central Government

Lessons from best practice

Increasingly, private sector organisations are taking their core data, integrating it across existing silos of information and then analysing it to gain insight into their business and customers. This insight helps them understand past performance and customer behaviour amongst many other trends and will help them communicate the right messages to the right audience. These practices are positive steps towards helping elevate organisations to positions of excellence and leadership.

One example is Vodafone. The company needed a central reporting system, which brings together measurement data from a wide range of sources. Business Analytics makes the necessary information available to the relevant people, on which they can base sound business decisions. Government departments use business analytics to make evidence-based decisions.

Business analytics – the public sector possibilities

There are beginning to be a number of visionary uses of business analytics solutions in the public sector – one of which is the NHS Information Centre (NHS IC), England's authoritative, independent source of health and social care information. Business Analytics is enabling the NHS IC to clean, manage and analyse information held on disparate systems more efficiently.

It also automates information management and sharing across the different trusts around the country, which informs better local decision-making.

London Fire Brigade (LFB) uses business analytics to decrease the number of fire incidents and save the lives of London's residents. Predictive analytics helps the LFB to prioritise the allocation of fire prevention resources because it can predict and pin-point specific households most at risk of fire to prevent fires before they occur.

Business Analytics has allowed the London Fire Brigade to move away from allocating resources based purely on historical data.

Predict-and-prevent is a sustainable method for on-going improvement benefits, but business analytics can also improve best practices for internal compliance in the short-term. It can help report against benchmarks and targets; detect and stop fraud; and comply with a range of regulations that govern public sector operations.

Business analytics provides a quick return on investment – it can provide analysis and insight in a short time frame. In addition, there is no requirement to rip-and-replace, because business analytics works across any application, hardware or operating system.

The need for a cultural shift

A culture that values information as highly as people, property and pounds could have a significant difference: Data Connects estimates that poor customer data quality costs each Local Authority on average more than £1m every year – so fixing this data quality imbalance could have a significant financial benefit, for example more effective debt management, debt collection, and reducing avoidable contact (NI14).

In addition to financial benefits, better information management could help to prevent future social costs, such as Baby P, Victoria Climbie, Soham and Shipman.

A positive cultural transformation will stop information being locked away and not used. Once data is viewed as a strategic asset, not a toxic liability, organisations can finally navigate with 20:20 vision and foresight. The more sustainable approach of valuing information must be embedded into an organisation's strategy and DNA – from the top-down.

To achieve this, the excellent approaches developed by organisations such as the Knowledge Council and the Audit Commission must be widely and rapidly deployed throughout the public sector.

Richard Broad is head of public sector at SAS UK

Sizing up the workplace

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:00:00 GMT

Outlawing workplace discrimination against aspects of personal appearance would mean employment tribunals
establishing the attractiveness of claimants

On 19 October 2009, the Size Acceptance Movement staged a demonstration in front of the mayor of London's office, calling for the introduction of legislation outlawing workplace discrimination against the overweight.

The mayor's office and the government are yet to comment on the demonstration but it raises some intriguing questions that are worthy of consideration.

Current legislation prohibits discrimination against employees or prospective employees on grounds of sex (including marital status, civil partnership and gender re-assignment), race (including colour, nationality and ethnic origin), disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief, and age.

However, it does not cover less favourable treatment or victimisation on grounds of weight (so-called 'size-ism') or other aspects of personal appearance (commonly known as 'look-ism').

In some circumstances, it may be possible for individuals to bring claims relating to issues of size-ism or look-ism using existing employment laws. For instance, there has recently been a well-publicised case involving a one-armed employee whose trendy retail employer took her off customer-facing duties, on the basis that her appearance might be off-putting to customers.

Equally, a female employee who considered herself to have been less favourably treated than a slimmer comparator might also be able to show that an overweight male employee would not have been treated in the same way, in which case she could bring a sex discrimination claim on this basis.

Alternatively, an employer who (consciously or subconsciously) treats a younger employee who falls short of its employee image expectations less favourably than it treats fuller-figured or aesthetically-challenged older employees could face an age discrimination claim. Nevertheless, an employer engaging in size-ist or look-ist practices is generally unlikely to be found guilty of unlawful discrimination under the current statutory regime.

Despite SAM's efforts to highlight the issue, it is probable that this will remain the case for the foreseeable future, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the government has recently proposed major new anti-discrimination legislation in the form of the equality bill, which is likely to come into law during the course of 2010. This will replace current legislation with a single Act dealing with all types of unlawful discrimination, as well as introducing measures to address the gender pay gap.

If there had been any appetite to extend the remit of discrimination legislation to cover size-ism and look-ism, this would presumably have been done during the preparatory stages of this bill, before it was introduced to parliament.

Secondly, even if the government did have a desire to introduce legislation to prevent less favourable treatment on grounds of weight or appearance (or, perhaps more probably, was required to do so by the European Union), drafting such legislation would be problematic.

Defining the point at which an overweight person becomes entitled to employment protection would be extremely subjective and, even if an objective measure (such as Body Mass Index) was used, this could produce some fairly arbitrary results. For example, BMI does not take body type into account and the scores of short and/or muscular individuals tend to be disproportionately high.

Defining the remit of the legislation would be even more of a minefield if it was extended to cover look-ism. It is difficult to see any objective standards that might be used to assess personal appearance and, in the absence of such guidelines, employment tribunals would be required to make a finding as to whether a claimant was sufficiently unattractive to benefit from statutory protection. It is not a prospect one would expect them to relish.

Finally, public policy considerations would also neeed to be taken into account and there would clearly be some conflict between the introduction of such measures and the National Health Service's 'fight against obesity'. Current disability legislation specifically excludes alcoholism and drug addiction from the definition of a disability to ensure that those who might be seen as contributing to their condition are not provided with greater protection than others.

It is not impossible to see similar approach being taken so that the overweight are not 'rewarded' to the detriment of their thinner and (it would be argued) healthier colleagues.

Although SAM's protests are unlikely to result in any change in the law or widen the potential liabilities faced by employers, they nevertheless raise some thought-provoking issues. Unlawful or not, there is no doubt that size-ism and look-ism go on in workplaces across the country, with the result that many decisions relating to the recruitment and promotion of staff are being taken on grounds other than merit.

Although research has suggested links between employees' weight and productivity/absenteeism levels, these only become statistically significant in the case of clinical obesity. It therefore appears that many employers are losing out on talented and hard-working individuals as a result of lazy sterotyping, which, in today's competitive marketplace, seems unfortunate and surprising.

James Williams is a partner at Archon Solicitors LLP

Holding up the mantle of diversity

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:14:57 GMT

Diversity for women in the civil service has come along way since the "disappointed fiancee" letters of the 1940s but the service isn't becoming complacent

Not long ago The National Archives unearthed a rather unusual file. The so-called "disappointed fiancees" file was full of letters from female civil servants, who many decades ago had resigned so they could get married, only to then find themselves left at the altar.

Keep delving through those archives and you may even come across a report from 1946 looking at the effectiveness of married women in the workplace. It is no surprise it found that their usefulness had "in no way been impaired by marriage." What these documents show is how different things used to be: although it was only in 1972 that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office lifted its rule that married women had to resign from the service! But, look at today's civil service and the figures tell a very different story.

The civil service has been transformed into a modern and diverse employer. More than half of all civil servants are now women. The latest figures published this week show the proportion of women at senior levels has almost doubled since 1996 – hitting 34%. While many private sector companies are still struggling to boost the numbers of women on their boards, a quarter of our top management positions are held by female staff. Compare this to FTSE 100 companies, where just 11.7% of directorships are held by women. What is more, on current trends, by 2020 the most senior levels of the civil service will be majority female.

This isn't the only way the civil service has set itself apart from other employers. The proportion of staff from a black and minority ethnic background continues to increase. Today they represent one in 12 of our staff and over the last 10 years the proportion of disabled people in the civil service has doubled.

But, we are not complacent and we have no intention of stopping here. The economic downturn has shown that in difficult times our work to deliver important public services to all parts of society is more critical than ever. To make sure we're doing this to the very best of our abilities, the civil service needs a diverse workforce that fully reflects our increasingly diverse society. Not least, because the innovation in thinking and delivery that diversity brings us will enable us to do more with less.

That is why I and a number of my permanent secretary colleagues have formed a Diversity Delivery Board so we can make sure improving diversity is a priority for all department leaders. The Promoting Equality and Diversity strategy, which was launched in 2008, sets out the civil service commitment to diversity and to meeting challenging targets. We have also put in place schemes to try to encourage people from a wide range of backgrounds to join the civil service and to develop the potential of existing staff. Every year we run annual summer internships for black minority ethnic and disabled graduates and our Leaders UnLtd scheme, which is aimed at women staff from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and those with a disability, provides the necessary skills to help talented staff move up to senior levels.

The future is also looking promising. The diversity of our graduate fast stream programme continues to improve. Last year 48% of successful applicants were women and since 1998 the number of applicants from an ethnic minority background has trebled.

But, there is of course a story beyond the figures and that is what tonight's civil service equality and diversity awards are all about. The awards will honour all those dedicated civil servants who do amazing work in communities across Britain and overseas. The work they do ranges from a groundbreaking initiative to increase prosecutions of crimes against women; a hostel project to help the homeless back into work and improving access at a local railway station for older people, disabled people and parents with pushchairs. These examples show that every day civil servants up and down the country are making a real difference to people's lives, including to some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our society.

Bill Jeffrey has been civil service diversity champion since 2005 and is permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence

Senior civil servants resist diversity

Tue, 26 May 2009 11:17:51 GMT

In the 16 years since Clara Arokiasamy first investigated the poor showing of black and Asian managers at the highest echelons of the civil service, little has changed in management practice to encourage true diversity and cohesion

Over the past decade there has been a small but welcome increase in the number of black and Asian middle managers in both the public and private sectors. But this trend is not reflected in the higher echelons of public sector management and there remains a disturbingly low level of black and Asian representation in senior management posts in both the civil service and in local government
In the civil service as a whole, the percentage of minority ethnic civil servants rose from 5.7% in 1997 to 8.3%% by 2007 and the present figure of 8.5% is regarded by the civil service as being "broadly representative" of the population as a whole. The main aim is to increase the stark under-representation in the Senior Civil Service to 5% by 2013. But over the same decade, the figures for senior black and Asian managers have remained at a dismal 3.5% and the figures for local authorities are even worse, with only 2.7% of all officers from an ethnic minority and an even lower figure for chief executives and executive directors.
Despite the uphill struggle, a few black and Asian candidates do make it into senior management. But at what cost?
Sixteen years ago, I researched black and Asian employees' perceptions of racial conflict at work in a London local authority. The key findings made grim reading. It was a common perception among respondents that their skin colour was sufficient to produce discriminatory responses from their employers, that they were consistently being overlooked for promotion in favour of less qualified white peers or sub-ordinates, and were not being given opportunities to lead on high profile projects. Other complaints included the marginalisation of their seniority and intellectual contributions; the undermining of their status by politicians, senior bureaucrats and sub-ordinates; hostile response to their attempts to challenge institutional racism; isolation and burn-out; and a lack of support. Management procedures were widely deemed ineffective in managing complaints of racism and discrimination and there was widespread use of the "divide and rule" tactic, favouring of one minority group over another, which encouraged inter-ethnic rivalry and the division of minority managers into the"acceptable" minorities: those willing to legitimise the organisation's status quo; and the others perceived as change agents, who were able to challenge those practices deemed racist.
So what has changed since then? I recently renewed connections with a number of people either directly involved in my research or employed in local government at that time. I also met a number of black and Asian senior managers, human resource executives,and independent advisers who contacted me with their perceptions and personal stories following the publication of my article on the exclusion of women of colour from the cultural sector (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/11/government-female-minority-appointments).
Sadly, all of them echoed the previous findings and most felt the situation had worsened. Many feel the 2000 amendment to the race relations act was limited to creating policies, leaving the practice and culture of organisations unchallenged. More dangerously, a culture of complacency among politicians and employers is perceived to have replaced the urgency for change witnessed in the 80s and 90s.
One person I spoke to parted company with the Senior Civil Service and is now a freelance consultant; but feels similar problems exist in the consultancy world. Another individual was considering taking formal action. These are not isolated incidents. There are many other similar stories which are not made public because employers choose to settle out of court.
Of course there are those, albeit fewer in number, keen to counter this negative perspective with positive tales of success. They dismiss the accusation that they are compliant or tokenistic by arguing that change can only be attained by being part of the system, even if it requires condoning poor race equality performance.
Four years ago, at a seminar about the state of minorities in the public sector, I heard an Asian senior civil servant whisper: "This is after all their country - we need to be grateful that we have these jobs". Perhaps she had forgotten that she was British too.
No one objects to those who have had positive experiences or wants to dismiss their achievements. But what many oppose is their collusion with politicians and employers in being presented as the ultimate voice for black and Asian managers, used to dismiss experience and evidence of racial inequalities.
Successive national and local governments which have tinkered with race equality and cultural diversity need to wake up to the fact that no amount of recruitment drives, rhetoric about community cohesion, workforce surveys, or parading selective role models, will create a racially diverse workforce until public sector employers are made accountable and action is taken to change management practices which feed invisible and overt discrimination against visible minorities, and develop new models responsive to the needs and talents of all citizens.

Clara Arokiasamy, director of Kalai, an international consultancy in organisation development, writes and comments on cultural diversity and human rights.

Going to work in the 21st century

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:59:00 GMT

Despite reports to the contrary, job tenure is increasing

New Capitalism? The Transformation of Work, by Kevin Doogan, Polity, £16.99

The basic idea that change at work has been systematically oversold is now widely accepted. We were told of the erosion of long-term commitments at work. In place of the traditional full-time job a host of "contingent" forms of labour were taking their place - temporary, casual, self-employed, part-time.

And it was not just excitable journalists and futurologists with their eyes on the turning of the century who helped the story on its way. Some of the leading social scientific minds of our generation - Sennett, Giddens, Beck, Castells - have contributed a set of narratives that Kevin Doogan bundles together as "new capitalism" before ransacking them with impressive mastery of both data and theoretical literature.
Together these narratives amounted to a message of fear. Whizzing information flows, footloose capital and accelerating technology created instability and deteriorating conditions that no structure, institution or nation state was capable of withstanding. Manpower, the temping firm, was held up as the largest employer in the US (though as Doogan points out, it depends how you count employees and in truth the claim is baseless).

It was always hard to square many of these visions with the statistical evidence. Countries supposedly at the forefront of the purported "transformations", such as the US and UK, had low rates of temporary and self-employed work; arguably they remain the exemplar job-holding societies. Doogan's great service is to challenge so comprehensively such dominant theories, even suggesting job tenure is lengthening in some developed nations.

The difficulty is in explaining why people feel greater insecurity than seems warranted by the evidence - why "discursive reality" and "material reality" have parted company. Doogan accuses leading commentators who are instinctively sympathetic to the plight of working people as being, in effect, stooges for neo-liberalism by overstating the powerlessness of workers. The "postmodern turn" in sociology has led the discipline to see instability, fragmentation and thin air wherever it looks.

If new capitalism has long been awaiting this damning critique, what is missing is a fresh description of what it is like to work in the 21st century.

Stephen Overell is associate director of the Work Foundation

O'Donnell's pride in public officials

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:58:00 GMT

The recession may put huge pressures on public finances, but it is also a great opportunity for the civil service. That may sound like a bad case of the Pollyannas, but it is cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell's heartfelt conviction.

O'Donnell spelled out his vision of these opportunities (and challenges) in a lecture to Lancaster university students at the Royal Society of the Arts last month. He acknowledged that the pace of change presented problems, but was adamant the civil service was well-equipped to deal with them.

Jobcentre Plus is coping admirably with the extra demands on its services, O'Donnell said. "What other organisation, public or private, could cope so well with so substantial an increase in its workload over a period of just a few months?" he said, pointing out the service was conducting around 400,000 new jobseeker interviews a month.

The cabinet secretary also dismissed fears the recession would erode the commitment to reduce emissions. "We must also make sure that decisions we take now do not damage our long-term objectives in areas like climate change."

But the competing and increasing demands of the public, at a time of fewer resources, means the civil service will have to be ever nimbler.

Building trust remains an issue, too. "Whilst public trust in civil servants has increased over the years - almost doubling since 1983 - we will struggle to improve this further if we are stuck with Sir Humphrey stereotypes," he admitted. All civil servants must behave with honesty, objectivity, integrity and impartiality, and not tolerate any violations of these values.

O'Donnell dismissed the furore over corporate hospitality. "Senior civil servants are more transparent about the hospitality they receive than in any other sector. It is a vital part of the job of running BERR [the business department], for example, to build relationships with businessmen and women."

The cabinet secretary said he was "proud" Whitehall permanent secretaries had volunteered to forego their bonuses. But he acknowledged the need to improve leadership further. While the capability reviews had been a success, with departments showing a marked improvement on their previous scores, there were still weaknesses. The global downturn has forced the pace of collaboration between Whitehall departments: the civil and diplomatic services are having to work together even more closely to ensure domestic and international initiatives to reinvigorate markets are as co-ordinated as possible. But this is just the beginning.

"Departments will need to get better at collaborating with others. And we need to bring capability and delivery together more explicitly in the overall performance management framework."

Whereas in 2006, too many of the top 200 civil servants spent all their time on narrow policy areas, now their workload is much more evenly split, with departmental and civil service-wide issues taking up more of their time.

Pamphlets on economic downturn, regions, skills and care

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:57:00 GMT

The economic downturn, regions, skills and care

Economic downturn

As the recession tightens its grip, organisations are getting down to the weighty issues of presenting their take on how to deal with it. Nesta, the arts and technology organisation, unsurprisingly perhaps believes science and innovation is a way to mitigate its effects. In Attacking the Recession, the organisation calls for the government to deliver a "new economic deal" focusing on long-term economic goals as well as the short-term stimulus of the economy through measures announced in the pre-budget report.

These include the rollout of a £15bn ultra-fast broadband network, a national economic strategy to set up and support sectors such as low-carbon technologies, and fostering a new, more entrepreneurial approach to public services, as well as social and business networks to help people find work. It argues that this investment will help Britain grow its way out of a recession but says it can also be an opportunity to address social challenges. For example investing in environmental technologies could generate £12bn in revenue by 2020.

Hard Labour from the Work Foundation argues that the economy needs a fiscal boost of 1% of GDP or £15bn. It suggests financial measures such as a higher tax rate of 75% for annual bonuses. It urges a more positive approach to regulation, a scaling back of the government's welfare to work targets to 80% of lone parents and other benefit claimants into work and warns that with unemployment rising, either Jobcentre plus services must be expanded or more private sector and voluntary providers have to be brought in. Investment in skills must be maintained.

The pamphlet calls for employer placements such as subsidised employment and training through the New Deal, particularly in the public sector, should be expanded. The government must also help kickstart the construction sector, bringing forward as many projects as possible, and giving more funding to organisations such as the Housing Corporation and local authorities. It emphasises that the public sector can play a stabilising role during a recession and warns against reductions in public expenditure in the regions.

Nine meals from Anarchy from the New Economics Foundation looks at the big picture and says things are even worse than we thought. On top of the economic meltdown, we have food, energy and climate systems that are on the verge of collapse. It calls for a green new deal, "a decarbonisation diet", and massive infrastructure investment in the environment which can create new jobs and skills. It also says we should learn from previous times of global instability and reduce our dependence on imported goods.

Regions

Local Government Association research, From Recession to Recovery, looks at patterns of employment during a recession and concludes that it could result in huge variations in performance, with London most likely to underperform in a recession, and the south-west least likely. Big cities such as Newcastle, Leeds and Manchester are likely to do better, however. As a result, it concludes that the current policy of devolving decision making to the regions becomes "more obvious and more urgent".

However, the Centre for Cities gives a mixed review of Regional Development Agencies' achievements so far and says that something needs to be done to reform England's "muddled system of regional governance". Its paper, The Future of Regional Development Agencies calls for the restructuring of the present system of devolution to the regions, including setting up a single development agency for the north of England from the present three agencies and streamlining or abolishing RDAs elsewhere. It says that power should be moved down to the city-region or sub-regional level, which corresponds more closely with "real economies".

Skills

The Skills Paradox from Demos addresses the polarisation between Britain's high skills culture and those people who lack even basic skills - estimated to be one in six people who don't have the literacy of an 11-year old - and who are less likely to receive job-related training than those who have qualifications.

This is condemned as a "moral crime" by Demos director Richard Reeve. While applauding some of the work that's gone on around skills, such as the Leitch review, this pamphlet calls for a rethink of skills strategy. It focuses on three main areas: construction, IT and children's services. It concludes that while there is an economic need for better skills, it is also about creating a fairer, more equal society.

A whole labour market strategy is needed, not just a skills strategy, to incentivise all employers to provide learning opportunities. But on top of this, there needs to be more learning and those within large bureaucracies should be encouraged to come up with their own ideas. This will be hard to achieve but goes hand in hand with the development of more flexible, personalised public services, argue the authors, Duncan O'Leary and Kate Oakley.

Care

Adult care services need to work better with children's services in order to avoid a repeat of a tragedy such as Baby P, according to Families Matter, from the New Local Government Network.

They say that while children's services may be joined up following the Climbié inquiry, integration in single services is not enough. Case workers should have access to information about everyone in a household.

And the common assessment framework for children at risk should be extended to the rest of the family. More information sharing between services, such as schools, GPs and other agencies, should also establish a set of "flags" or "triggers" of a child at risk.

Government climbs down from 2% pay target for public sector staff

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:49:00 GMT

'There was no 2% limit' officials say

The government has climbed down from its 2% pay target. Last month, the cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell wrote to Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of civil service union the PCS, to inform him that Whitehall departments were free to award staff more than 2% salary rises. It follows a similar letter from Yvette Cooper, the chief secretary of the Treasury, in September to the public sector unions.

Both letters claim "there is no 2% limit on public sector pay" and that there never has been, but that's a question of semantics. It is true that the government's pay policy states that increases should "reflect the recruitment and retention situation of a particular labour market", be affordable and value for money and "consistent with the Bank of England's 2% inflation target". It is also true that as such, the guidance does not specify 2% as a target for pay rises.

But a number of settlements in the 2007 pay round belie this view. For the NHS, the police and the Prison Service, there was a clear target of 2%. In each case, the pay review body (or arbitration committee for the Prison Service) recommended settlements above 2%, but the government staged the payments to bring down the increases below 2%. According to Ken Mulkearn at Incomes Data Services, this is evidence that in reality, there was a specific 2% target.

Either way, the perception was that there was a pay cap and is supported by guidance to departments from Dusty Amroliwala, director of civil service workforce at the Cabinet Office, which says there was a limit in the 2008-9 pay round. "This means that the level of revalorisation ... or the increase to pay range maxima ... is limited to no more than 2%," his guidance notes. But departments could pay more, "provided that the average remains no higher than 2%".

The implication is that the government regards its line on 2% pay rises as a mistake. "The government has moved away from a policy of confrontation to conciliation," says Mulkearn and points to the fact that a number of the settlements in 2008 were well above 2%.

Of course, there is some evidence that the government needed to relax its stance. With the consumer prices index reaching over 5% in autumn and at one point being higher than the retail prices index, continuing to insist on 2% when the Bank of England had failed to meet this inflation target was embarrassing. And with some economists talking darkly of deflation, the government may feel it can afford to allow more leeway in pay awards.

Departments will also be able to use efficiency savings for paying staff. The Treasury says this is "a very limited measure" for next year's pay round. They will only be able to "recycle" savings in this way, if the money goes on workforce reform - addressing pay differences between departments, adopting shorter pay ranges and improving support (ie bonuses) for good performance.

How this will work in practice is opaque. Will there be a single pot that can be used right across the public sector or will it be done on a department by department basis? If the latter, those departments which haven't made as many savings as others will be at a comparative disadvantage.

There may also be movement on the unions' long-held wish for a more fundamental reform of civil service pay arrangements. The Cabinet Office may consider the unions' case that having in excess of 200 bargaining units in the civil service is not the most efficient way of doing things. "We would be willing to consider evidence-based proposals to support any arguments that you may have for change," Amroliwala told the FDA union.

But proposals will have to go past the powerful permanent secretary employee relations group, a committee of permanent secretaries and senior civil servants, who may be resistant to change.

These measures do not herald much wriggle room. "Expectations amongst unions and staff around pay increases for staff at the top of their pay ranges should however be dampened," Amroliwala warned colleagues. "The strong likelihood remains that departments' budget constraints will continue to limit consolidated increases on the pay range ceiling for staff."

Book review: why public services reform doesn't work

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:00:00 GMT

A target-hating approach to public services

Systems Thinking in the Public Sector - The Failure of the Reform Regime and a Manifesto For a Better Way John Seddon, Triarchy Press, £20

Public management is inherently pluralist. Public services are too diverse to be crammed into any single framework. A school can be compared with a surgery, but there are manifest differences in culture, styles and expectations between them. The Forestry Commission does not do the same things as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and while hoping they share values and a public service orientation we should celebrate diverse ways of working. Let's beware managerial monotheism.

Unfortunately John Seddon wants to be a messiah. He hates targets as a way of motivating public sector workers and says some of their advocates have been dogmatic. That's true, but his book is gratingly dogmatic too, except in his case the true faith comes from the Far East, from wise Japanese car makers. A well known figure on the consulting landscape, especially in local government, Seddon is an advocate of the "lean" techniques pioneered at Toyota and of something he never quite explains, systems thinking. His plan is simple - abolish all target setting and regulation and inspection. Trust public managers to get on with it and deliver "free from the obligation of compliance". Rely on their pride in performance and abandon external controls. The problem with the book is that those propositions are baldly stated but never explicated. Can we rely on innate professionalism; what's the balance between financial and "ethical" incentives; are all workers motivated to give their best all the time?