External Recruitment
74. One short term answer to skills gaps in the Civil
Service is to recruit from outside. External recruitment provides
an answer to skills gaps. It also has the advantage of bringing
in experience and knowledge which is not held within the Civil
Service, and can give valuable "outsider" perspectives.
Sir Robin Mountfield put this case in his written evidence:
I have long taken the view that the Civil Service
can benefit greatly from a degree of external recruitment at senior
level. Sometimes recruitment from outside is to fill a specific
skill gap in the Department concerned. But there is a wider case
for such recruitment, to enrich the mixture of skills and experience
in the upper reaches of the Civil Service.[51]
He also cited the Oughton Report on these issues,
which found that the most successful private sector organisations
"grow most of their own timber", but sought to "ventilate"
it with a proportion of appointments from outside.[52]
75. Even though external recruitment was also one
of the Fulton report's recommendations, the pace of recruitment
at the higher levels of the service is widely perceived to be
higher than ever before. In 2004-05, 43% of competitions in the
Senior Civil Service were open, and just over two thirds of those
were won by external candidates—meaning that around 29%
of SCS appointees were from outside the Civil Service. In 2005-06
there was a slight drop to 41% of competitions being open.
76. In our initial call for evidence we asked if
increased external recruitment posed a threat to the values and
traditions of the Civil Service—by which we meant its permanence
and its political impartiality. We were struck by the unanimity
of the responses we received on this question. None of our witnesses
saw any reason why external recruitment was of itself a danger
to the permanence or the impartiality of the service.
77. Charles Clarke told us that during his time as
Home Secretary there had been three deputy secretaries appointed
to the department. One of them was a former chief executive in
local government; one of them was a former chief executive of
a voluntary organisation; and one of them was a policy officer
originally from central government. None of them were Home Office
civil servants. His conclusion was that:
they all had and have massive operational responsibilities
but the Civil Service did not have within it individuals to carry
out these responsibilities at deputy secretary level or so it
seemed.[53]
One of the tests of Professional Skills for Government
will be its effectiveness in ensuring that, in future, the Civil
Service can produce credible candidates for important delivery
functions. We have seen just how negative the Home Office's Capability
Review was; the review team ascribed this in major part to the
fact that its Board all lacked detailed knowledge of Home Office
systems.[54] External
recruitment is welcome, but there are clearly significant losses
if it is the only route to the top. Departments must be able to
grow their own talent.
78. There are clear practical difficulties with the
current levels of external recruitment in the higher echelons
of the service. Joining a new organisation so near to the top
is not easy. It inevitably takes time to get used to a new culture;
senior posts ought to be too important to allow someone much time
to find their feet. When we saw Gill Rider, who had joined the
Cabinet Office at one rung below Permanent Secretary level after
27 years in Accenture, she told us "I have only been here
five months—so very new, and still in my learning curve".[55]
It is not unreasonable to have a long learning curve; but it must
be preferable for this learning curve to be negotiated without
too much responsibility for important matters of state.
79. Sir Robin Mountfield argued that the benefits
of external recruitment could still be felt if that recruitment
took place predominantly at a lower level. He cautioned that the
culture change from one sector to another is necessarily much
greater than movement within a sector, and transition is difficult.
According to Sir Robin, this argues against recruiting directly
into the very top posts as a general rule, and instead towards
recruiting mid-career, so that incomers can absorb the public
sector context and ethos, and meld them creatively with their
own outside experience before reaching the very top.[56]
80. For related reasons, Sir Robin was sceptical
about the value of limited term appointments, suggesting that
too much of the time is spent learning the ropes, and that they
fail in the object of changing the culture of the service: "the
immune system of the Civil Service is strong, and this is not
the way to overcome it".[57]
This evidence was strongly supported by the research conducted
by Dr Ruth Levitt and William Solesbury,[58]
who had used confidential interviews to evaluate the experience
of outsiders in the Senior Civil Service. They also found that
further improvement was required to recruitment and induction
practices, and that external recruits needed high level support
and an open, permeable culture to succeed. This requires a significant
investment of time by senior leaders.
81. There are also often significant pay differentials
between staff appointed from outside and those who rise up the
Civil Service ladder. The FDA have told us that this is leading
to increasing problems of morale, and that departments themselves
have argued to the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) that the
current pay differential is neither justified nor sustainable.[59]
Indeed, during our inquiry, the FDA told the SSRB that the entire
SCS pay system was no longer "fit for purpose".[60]
82. Charles Clarke was also critical of the pay offered
to external recruits, but from the opposite perspective:
I do not think we pay enough … There were
one or two appointments that came around in my field where I said
pay much higher than might be thought to be right. I do not believe
in what I call the "example" approach to salary-setting
in public life. I think if we want to recruit top-quality public
servants we have got to pay to get people.[61]
83. The Civil Service does not have a target for
the number of external appointments to senior posts. We believe
it would not be appropriate for it to do so. The ratio of external
to internal hires is one of the measures sometimes used by HR
professionals to evaluate human capital, as it is indicative of
the success of development of succession planning activities.
A high proportion of external hires is taken to indicate less
developed succession planning; specifically targeting a
high level of external hires would imply no intention of improving
such planning.
84. There is, however, a target that "about
half" of SCS posts should be openly advertised. We asked
the Cabinet Office on what basis this target had been set. We
were told that the target was adopted as part of work on improving
leadership capacity in 2003. The Civil Service Management Board
had agreed that it was right to aspire to maintain recent levels
of open competitions at the time (50% average in 2000-02 period)
to attract the best leaders from outside the Civil Service and
to benchmark their own internal talent against the wider market.[62]
Open advertisement acts as a de facto benchmark of internal
talent. We can see that this might put off poor performing departments
from open advertisement, as the results might reflect badly on
them. Therefore we can understand the rationale for having a numerical
target for departments to meet. However, it is neither scientific
nor aspirational to set a target which merely reflected current
practice at the time. Before setting targets, we suggest the Government
researches the effectiveness of previous outside appointments,
and, if it is not already in place, ensures that any future initiatives
are from the start accompanied by an assessment system with a
realistic timetable for reporting back on their efficiency.
85. Mark Serwotka of the PCS was concerned that there
was another reason behind the Government's target:
What I think is the difficulty now is that we
are told the ideology that there is not an ideology, what matters
is what works. That is what the Government says. It is not public/private;
it is what matters is what works. However we have a deeply held
suspicion that actually the ideology is a bias to the private
sector.[63]
If career civil servants have limited opportunities
of getting to the top, the Government will not get the benefits
of talented people joining lower down the service.
86. Colin Talbot and David Walker were both strongly
of the opinion that the Government would benefit more by bringing
in people with experience of the wider public sector than by recruiting
from the private sector. Mr Walker's view was that:
The Permanent Secretary in the Department for
Communities and Local Government is a former local government
chief executive. That kind of movement seems to me admirable.
What we do not need is the idea which this Government and its
predecessors seem to have given too much attention to, which is
bringing in organisational panjandrums from the private sector.[64]
Professor Talbot echoed this:
When I talk about opening up, it is primarily
about public sector space. That is important. I totally agree
with David about that. We have had over 100 years of Western governments
thinking that the answer to public administration is to bring
people in from the private sector, and it has never worked and
it never will.[65]
87. We do not see any evidence that external recruitment
is a threat to the traditional Civil Service values of permanence
and impartiality. No organisation should be closed—outsiders
can bring different skills and perspectives which should be welcomed.
Every organisation can benefit from some degree of "ventilation".
This should not, however, automatically lead to recruitment from
the private sector. Much of the relevant skills and expertise
for Civil Service work is likely to be found in the wider public
sector.
88. We do not understand why the target is that
"about half" of postings in the Senior Civil Service
should be externally advertised. This particular target seems
arbitrary and inexact, and does not seem to be based around identified
skills gaps. If the Government does want to set a target, there
should be a clear evidence base for it.
89. We believe there are difficulties with the
current practice of recruiting directly to very senior posts.
The current pay differentials may serve to demotivate internal
staff and discourage talented staff entering the Civil Service
early in their career. It is also problematic that new entrants
can take a considerable amount of time to find their feet in the
Civil Service, if those new entrants have important responsibilities.
We believe many of these difficulties would be alleviated if
external recruitment was focused slightly lower down the management
chain.
90. One alternative or supplementary approach to
external recruitment is to encourage temporary interchange between
the Civil Service and other organisations. The Government has
long recognised the value of civil servants getting experience
in the private sector; the Whitehall and Industry Group has provided
such opportunities since 1984 (although the PCS suggest that take-up
of such opportunities is sparse).[66]
But the private sector is not the only place where civil servants
could be seconded to learn useful skills, as Colin Talbot told
us:
What we do not have is a Whitehall in Public
Services Group, which actually organises interchanges between
the 10 per cent of public servants who work in the Civil Service
and the 90 per cent who work in the rest of the public sector
and amongst whom there are many extremely good leaders.[67]
91. It is clear that the current Cabinet Secretary
recognises the value of interchange within the public sector,
as witnessed by his famous mantra of "if you want to get
on, get out".[68]
He was also effusive about the possibilities of interchange with
the Third Sector:
One of my themes will be: can we manage more
interchange between the Civil Service and the charities and voluntary
sector, which I am very keen on because of their role in delivery
of public services. I think this is a very important thing.[69]
92. We agree. Interchange between sectors is laudable;
Whitehall can only benefit from first-hand knowledge of the private,
voluntary and wider public sectors. Sir Gus O'Donnell has been
an advocate of interchange between the Civil Service and voluntary
sector organisations—as he says, this is increasingly important
in a world where those organisations are being encouraged to provide
public services. We hope that Government is also encouraging civil
servants to get experience of other parts of the public sector.
Career Management
93. One way of developing an individual's skills
is through the active management of their career progression.
This happens to a limited extent in the Senior Civil Service,
through initiatives such as the High Potential Development Schemes
and the Top 200 "leadership community", but there is
very little run at a service-wide level below the SCS. The obvious
exception is the Fast Stream, which remains (as successive Cabinet
Secretaries never tire of pointing out) consistently among the
ten most popular graduate recruiters. The Cabinet Office has also
launched "Leaders UnLtd", a corporate leadership development
scheme for talented people in groups currently under-represented
in the Senior Civil Service. The programme is open to Band As
(Grade 6/7) civil servants who are female, who have a disability
or are from minority ethnic backgrounds.
94. Professional Skills for Government is a hook
on which more active career management might hang—allowing
departments to plot suggested paths to board level through different
professions. It is clear, though, that the majority of Fast Stream
posts remain in policy delivery, despite the relatively small
number of civil servants who work on policy; and that the institutional
bias towards policy is reflected in the grading of posts all the
way up to the Senior Civil Service. As we have already noted,
this institutional bias was recognised in the Fulton Report nearly
40 years ago.
95. The central danger of regularly moving individuals
between posts (or encouraging them to seek regular moves for themselves)
is the loss of organisational expertise and institutional memory,
which was criticised by Rt Hon David Blunkett MP:
In a logical structure a team that has done well
would not be disbanded but given new responsibility … People
would be promoted in post to do that rather than what is clearly
musical chairs in which someone is moved every 18 months or two
years to get promoted. That is a crazy system.[70]
96. We have also heard evidence from another former
minister on the importance of continuity in staff (both ministerial
and official), when we asked former Housing and Local Government
Minister Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP about why his former department
scored so badly in its Capability Review with regard to making
evidence-based policy:
In general I think the areas where there was
a continuity, both a ministerial continuity and an official continuity,
tended to be the areas where you had the greatest strengths because
there was an opportunity for the collective knowledge of the department
to be used and deployed and it was very important in relation
to all the complexities of say local government. Some of the areas
which the department has moved into more recently there probably
is not that yet and that does need to be built up.[71]
97. Even though there is an expectation of a four-year
norm for SCS postings, the median length of time spent in a completed
post in the Senior Civil Service at April 2006 was only 2.7 years.
This was a slight increase from 2.6 years at April 2005 but a
reduction from the average of 3.3 years as recently as April 2003.[72]
Clearly the norm is not currently being met. However, we have
had evidence that four years itself is often too short a period
for individuals to be in one post. The FDA told us they are "concerned
at the current practice of insisting that all SCS staff should
move to a new post after four years, almost regardless of the
importance of their expertise and knowledge to the organisation,
and often heedless of the wishes of the individuals themselves".[73]
We do not know to what extent this is happening, but we do know
that it should not be.
98. Staff development should not be at the expense
of doing the job properly. We are concerned that the current emphasis
on wide experience is affecting the Civil Service's ability to
carry out some of its core functions. A four year norm should
be just what it says; it emphatically should not be a four year
maximum. Although individuals should not stay forever in one post,
we need to recognise that some stability is also necessary.
99. Both Colin Talbot and Sir Robin Mountfield suggested
that the place for regular movement between posts was lower down
the chain. Sir Robin was particularly keen on more active career
management, albeit "more sophisticated and flexible"
career management than the current "excessively mechanistic
approach".[74] He
called for "much more deliberate nurturing of high-flyers",
which we support as a cheaper and potentially more effective means
of filling skills gaps than looking to the private sector. We
were extremely impressed when we visited Inner London Crown Court
to see they were implementing their own internal version of a
Fast Stream, for staff talented in service delivery; this may
well be the way forward for developing professionals in operational
service delivery. The Cabinet Office does not currently issue
guidance to departments on the management of their own internal
"fast track" schemes.[75]
100. There is scope for more active career management
in the Civil Service. We are encouraged by some of the schemes
being implemented in individual departments and agencies. Departments
should identify and nurture their own talent, beyond the confines
of the centrally administered Fast Stream. The centre should do
more to encourage and support such departmental initiatives.
30 Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer,
The Civil Service: Vol. 1: Report of the Committee 1966-68, Cm.
3638, June 1968 Back
31
As above, p104 Back
32
As above, p105 Back
33
Q 9 Back
34
Ev 77 Back
35
Ev 70 Back
36
Ev 60 Back
37
Q 79 Back
38
Cabinet Office, Making Government Work Better - Departmental Annual
Report, Cm 7108, May 2007, p54 Back
39
Ev 60 Back
40
Q 69 Back
41
Q 109 Back
42
Q 114 Back
43
Q 136 Back
44
Public Administration Select Committee, The Work of the Cabinet
Office, 6 February 2007, HC (2006-07) 305-i, Qq 80-81 Back
45
As above, Q 79 Back
46
http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/ Back
47
Ev 109 Back
48
HM Treasury, Prosperity for all in the global economy - world
class skills, December 2006 Back
49
Ev 64 Back
50
"Stretching the boundaries", Whitehall and Westminster
World, 29 May 2007, section 2, pXV Back
51
Ev 101 Back
52
Cabinet Office, Career Management and Succession Planning Study,
November 1993 Back
53
Q 181 Back
54
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/reform/capability_reviews/ Back
55
Q 1 Back
56
Ev 102 Back
57
Ev 102 Back
58
Ev 90-94 Back
59
Ev 78 Back
60
FDA response to Senior Salary Review Body report for 2007 - see
www.fda.org.uk Back
61
Q 215 Back
62
Ev 68 Back
63
Oral Evidence taken before the Public Administration Select Committee,
Civil Service Effectiveness, HC (2004-05) 327, April 2005,
Q 115 Back
64
Q 152 Back
65
Q 152 Back
66
Ev 71 Back
67
Q 151 Back
68
Public Administration Select Committee, Civil Service Effectiveness,
9 December 2005, HC 513-i, 2005-06, Q 34 Back
69
As above, Q 35 Back
70
Public Administration Select Committee, Civil Service Effectiveness,
14 April 2005, HC 660-vi, 2004-05, Q 334 Back
71
Q 211 Back
72
Cabinet Office, Autumn Performance Report 2006, Cm 7004,
December 2006, p9 Back
73
Ev 80 Back
74
Ev 103 Back
75
Ev 68 Back
