COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE BRITISH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE
BRITISH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
Sylvia Horton, University of Portsmouth
(1) INTRODUCTION
The British civil service embarked upon a competency approach to HRM during the early
1980s. It was one of the first civil services to do so. The election of a Conservative
Government in 1979, which was committed to radical reform of the role of the state and the
civil service, was followed by major restructuring of government departments. Using New
Public Management (NPM) ideas, the government proceeded to introduce performance
management and measurement to achieve economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The reforms
saw the emphasis move from a concentration on inputs to outputs which called for new skills
amongst civil servants. Ideas about competencies and competency management were being
disseminated through the management literature and promoted by management consultants
influenced by developments in the United States (Farnham & Horton, 2002).
The then Office of Public Service, working with private consultants and government
departments identified the core competencies required for senior civil servants. Profiles of the
personal qualities and skills for each level of the higher civil service were used in the
selection of candidates for each particular job or for entry to the service as administrative
trainees. They were also used for career development and training. In 1987, influenced by the
Management Charter Initiative 1 and its National Vocational Qualification framework2 for
managers and working with outside consultants, Price Waterhouse, the Civil Service College
developed a competency-based training programme for the top seven grades of the service.
All courses at the college were linked to core competencies and were a combination of job,
role and personal criteria reflecting a mixture of the British standards referenced approach and
the American behaviour anchored approach to competencies (Farnham & Horton, 2002).
Similar competency based training frameworks were developed in other parts of the civil
service for lower level staff. By the 1990s, most agencies and departments were showing
interest in competencies and some had developed comprehensive competency frameworks.
Clear evidence also existed that competency frameworks were being used in many areas of
HR practice. There was, however, no uniform introduction of competency management across
all departments and agencies. A study of civil service departments and agencies in 2000
revealed that 80 per cent has competency frameworks and the remainder were in the process
of developing them (Farnham & Horton, 2002).
1
The Management Charter Initiative was spearheaded by a number of leading British companies who were
committed to the development of the chartered or professional manager. The aim was to encourage training and
accreditation or recognised management skills using a NVQ framework
2
The NVQ framework was developed by the National Vocational Council and leading employers within each
industry. ‘The NVQ framework covers five levels from the basic competency required to undertake elementary,
routine and predictable work activities (Level 1) through intermediate skills and competences required for
supervisory work (Level 3) to competences involving the application of complex principles in unpredictable
contexts associated with responsibility for substantive resources (Level 5) (Winterton & Winterton, 1999)
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 1
This brief early history of competencies in the British civil service indicates that by the year
2000 it was widely practiced throughout central government organisations and this has been
extended since then. However, competency frameworks must relate to the work of
organisations and the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to achieve their current goals
and objectives. They must also reflect the appropriate culture. In a period of rapid change and
a commitment to modernising government (Cabinet Office, 1999) there is evidence that
competency frameworks are being continually reviewed in the British civil service and
replaced or adapted.
Competency management was clearly a vehicle for organisational and cultural change in the
British central government and for the development of a more strategic SCS. The introduction
of performance management and performance related pay were also significant drivers.
Furthermore, the reform movement and reforms of HRM stimulated its extension and the
movement towards a holistic use of the framework (Horton, 2009).
(2) HOW DOES THE BRITISH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MANAGE ITS COMPETENCIES?
2.1 Competency model
2.1.1 Competency Models in Departments and Agencies
The use of competency frameworks is widespread across British civil service organisations.
Although there is no standardised or common framework in the departments and agencies,
their competency frameworks generally consist of a combination of core and specialist
competencies. The first frameworks tended to concentrate on higher levels of management but
eventually covered all staff. Very few, however, have competency frameworks for manual
staff, but most clerical, administrative and managerial civil servants are covered (Farnham &
Horton, 2002).
2.1.2 Core Values
In the UK, civil servants are expected to commit to the core values of government: integrity,
honesty, objectivity and impartiality. These values are also supported by the Four Ps. Pride,
pace, passion and professionalism should apply to all aspects of a civil servant’s work (The
Civil Service, 2009).
2.1.3 The Senior Civil Service Competency Model
The only part of the civil service that has a single competency framework common to all
departments and agencies was the Senior Civil Service (SCS). The SCS consists of
approximately 4000 civil servants in the top three levels of the service and they are spread
across all government departments and most agencies. The original competency framework
was developed by Price Waterhouse in 1993 for the then top three levels. There were minor
revisions to accommodate grades 4 and 5 when the SCS was created in 1996. The present
competency framework was introduced in 2001 to reflect the priorities of the new Labour
Government and to change the SCS culture. This competency framework consisted of only
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 2six core competencies and 53 behavioural indicators which could be used to assess
performance (figure 1) (Farnham & Horton, 2002). This competency framework was
introduced at the same time as a new pay and performance management system and was used
holistically across all the major personnel functions including payment and rewards.
The present SCS competency framework is based entirely on behaviours. It consists of only
six competencies, which are considered to be key competencies and critical for the effective
performance of all staff within the SCS. These are: thinking strategically, getting the best
from people, learning and improving, focusing on delivery, giving purpose and direction, and
making personal impact. Each of the competencies has a list of effective behaviours and
ineffective behaviours; which are the criteria used in assessing performance.
Noticeable is the absence in the framework of any reference to political, ministerial, or
parliamentary relationships or to public stewardship. The political competencies, which are
perhaps the most generic of all in the civil service, do not feature in the common framework
at all. The framework that has been produced for the SCS is organisationally ‘neutral’ and
could be applied and used to evaluate and develop people in top management positions in any
private or public organisation (Farnham & Horton, 2002).
Figure 1 – The 2001 SCS Competency Framework
THINKING STRATEGICALLY
Harnessing ideas and opportunities to achieve goals
EFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR INEFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR
Sensitive to wider political and rganization l priorities Works only from own perspective or assumptions about the
Assimilates and makes sense of complex or conflicting data world
and different perspectives Fails to make connections between ideas and people
Finds new ways of looking at issues Focuses solely on detail
Homes in on key issues and principles Focuses on intellectual debate at expense of action
Considers the potential and impact of technology Fails to consider the needs of the diverse community
Identifies opportunities to improve delivery through
partnership
Anticipates and manages risks and consequences
Gives objective advice based on sound evidence and analysis
Communicates ideas clearly and persuasively
GETTING THE BEST FROM PEOPLE
Motivating and developing people to achieve high performance
EFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR INEFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR
Gets to know individuals and their aspirations Works only with the most competent people
Adapts leadership style to different people, cultures and Writes rather than speaks
situations Has fixed management style
Identifies and brings on talent, especially amongst under- Does not delegate challenging or interesting work
represented groups Is uncomfortable working with people from diverse
Knows when to step in and when not to backgrounds
Listens and takes account of diverse views Blames others
Gives and expects frequent constructive feedback Wields the red pen
Coaches individuals so they give their best performance Avoids giving bad news
Tackles poor performance or inappropriate behaviour
Praises achievements and celebrates success
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 3LEARNING AND IMPROVING
Drawing on experience and new ideas to improve results
EFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR INEFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR
Aware of own strengths, weaknesses and motivations Can’t see things from other people’s perspectives
Applies learning from own and others’ experience Assumes at the outset different perspectives need not be taken
Builds productive relationships with people across and outside on board
the organization Does not listen
Understands, values and incorporates different perspectives Sticks to outdated methods
Seeks new or different ideas and opportunities to learn Unwilling to be exposed to risk or uncertainty
Readily shares ideas and information with others
Encourages experimentation and tries innovative ways of
working
Works with partners to achieve the best practical outcomes
Adapts quickly and flexibly to change
FOCUSING ON DELIVERY
Achieving value for money and results
EFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR INEFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR
Organises the work to deliver to time, budget and agreed Commits to delivery regardless of impact on team or self
quality standards Focuses on the process rather than getting results
Negotiates for the resources to do the job Avoids dealing with difficult problems
Rigorous in monitoring and reviewing progress and Continually fire fighting
performance Takes sole credit for achieving results
Puts customers first Does not manage risks
Is not deflected by obstacles or problems
Shifts resources as priorities change
Seeks continuously to improve performance
Makes best use of diverse talents, technology and resources to
deliver results
GIVING PURPOSE AND DIRECTION
Creating and communicating a vision of the future
EFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR INEFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR
Is clear what is needs to be achieved Looks to others to provide direction
Involves people in deciding what has to be done Takes an overly cautious approach
Communicates a compelling view of the future Assumes people know what is required of them without
Sets clear short and long term objectives being told
Creates practical and achievable plans Loses sight of the big picture
Establishes standards of behaviour and promotes diversity Allows culture which is tolerant of diversity
Agrees clear responsibilities and objectives to deliver
results
Initiates change to make things happen
MAKING PERSONAL IMPACT
Leading by example
EFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR INEFFECTIVE BEHAVIOUR
Visible and approachable to all Says one thing and does another
Acts with honesty and integrity Takes contrary views as a personal criticism
Is valued for sound application of knowledge and Fights own corner, ignoring wider interests
expertise Accepts the status quo
Resilient and determined Aloof and arrogant
Challenges and is prepared to be challenged Aggressive not assertive
Says what people may not want to hear
Takes difficult decisions and measured risks
Accepts responsibility for own decisions
Takes personal responsibility for making progress in
equality and diversity
Implements corporate decisions with energy and
commitment
Source: Horton, 2009
2.1.4 Professional Skills for Government
Since 2003 the Professional Skills for Government (PSG) has been developed collaboratively
by employers, employees and wider stakeholders in central government in partnership with
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 4Government Skills and its predecessors. Government Skills is the Sector Skills Council (SSC)
for central government and is a guardian of the framework on behalf of the sector.
The Professional Skills for Government (PSG) competency framework (figure 2) is a
structured way of thinking about jobs and careers for civil servants at all grades. It sets out the
skills they need to do their job well as a member of the civil service, no matter what grade
they are or where they work. For civil servants at grade 7 or equivalent or at SCS pay bands 1
and 3, the PSG frameworks sets out common skills requirements.
The UK civil service is a diverse organisation and the range of skills required below grade 7
reflects this. For civil servants below grade 7, the department determines how the PSG
framework applies to them in line with its own skills needs. To aid transferability of skills
both within the civil service and across the wider economy, Government Skills, in partnership
with departments, has developed a common framework for below grade 7. This framework
was launched in July 2008 and should be embedded in departmental frameworks by 2012.
Figure 2 – Professional Skills for Government Framework
Source: The Civil Service, 2009
The PSG competency framework is divided into four separate but supporting areas:
leadership, core skills, professional skills, and broader experience. Civil service leadership
qualities sit at the centre of the framework. These are to provide direction for the organisation,
to deliver results, to build capacity for the organisation to address current and future
challenges, and to act with integrity (cf. infra: leadership framework). Furthermore, every
civil servant needs certain core skills to work effectively. The four core skills at Grade 7 are:
people management, financial management, analysis and use of evidence, and programme and
project management. In addition to these skills, those in or aspiring to the SCS need to
demonstrate skills in communications and marketing, and strategic thinking. The department
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 5determines how the PSG framework applies to civil servants below Grade 7. A third PSG area
are the job-specific professional skills. Everyone in the civil service requires some
professional skills to do their job, whether they work in policy development, operational
delivery or corporate services, or provide expert advice. This area of the PSG competency
framework is supported by heads of profession, who set standards for all professions in the
civil service. Finally, for SCS members and those aspiring to the SCS, both depth and
breadth of experience are important. Deep professional knowledge is valuable, but as civil
servants progress in their civil service career, breadth of experience becomes increasingly
important. This experience could be gained within your profession, within another part of the
Civil Service or in other sectors (The Civil Service, 2009).
Developing leadership skills is a key priority. That is why the leadership framework (figure
3) sits at the heart of the PSG framework. It sets out what's expected of our senior leaders in
terms of delivering business results, building capability and setting direction. It also highlights
what individuals can do to improve their leadership skills (The Civil Service, 2009).
Figure 3 – Leadership Framework
Source: The Civil Service, 2009
2.2 Development of competency management
In the beginning, the development of competency frameworks in the departments and
agencies relied heavily on management consultants. By the 1990s there was enough
experience internally for departments to develop their own although the norm was still a joint
project involving internal HR and management, and external consultants. A variety of
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 6methods was used, including repertory grids, critical incident techniques, focus groups, brainstorming techniques and benchmarking. The importance of a high level of participation in the development process was emphasised both to get the framework right and to gain staff and management support for it (Farnham & Horton, 2002). In the case of the 2001 SCS competency framework, a private consultancy firm was contracted to develop the framework, pilot it and benchmark it against good practices. In constructing the SCS competency framework, again a variety of methods was used: interviews with top managers and key stakeholders in the SCS; critical incident interviews with SCS staff; workshops involving staff below SCS level; group sessions with HR practitioners; interviews with top managers of external organisations; an analysis of 360 degree feedback in the SCS; and benchmarking. The consultancy firm produced a draft framework, which was accepted as a basis for further consultation. The validation process involved several pilot tests, specific workshops and an individual consultation of SCS staff. All members of the SCS were given the opportunity to comment on the newly developed framework. Based on the results of this process, changes were made to the draft framework. Finally, the competency framework was approved and came into operation at the same time as the new pay and performance system in 2001. Employers, heads of profession and employees worked together to design the PSG framework, which is widely used across government for career development, recruitment and performance management. It helps our businesses make sure their staff have the skills they need and helps our employees understand what skills they need now and in the future to gain the most from their career. 2.3 Organisation of Competency Management In 1979, a Conservative Government was elected, which was committed to radical reform of the role of the state and the civil service. The government embarked on a programme of re- engineering central government creating more than 100 agencies headed by chief executives under contract to manage and deliver targets set down by their parent departments. This fragmentation or balkanisation of central government was accompanied by extensive decentralisation of HR functions. Each department and agency could determine its own structure, reward system and HR policies including whether it adopted a competency approach. The approach to introducing competency management in the UK central government was therefore ad hoc and pragmatic with discretion left to local management. Quarterly meetings of HR managers are vehicles for sharing information and good practice. The SCS and its competency framework, however, is centrally managed from the Cabinet Office. 2.4 Competency Management as a Basis for Various HR Processes According to Sylvia Horton (2009), competency management is used in several HR processes in the British central government: recruitment and selection, training and development, performance evaluation, remuneration, workforce and succession planning, and career guidance. Competency management is also useful in supporting cultural change and reform programmes, and in ensuring diversity. K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 7
Although the ways competency frameworks are being used in different departments and agencies vary and no comprehensive research has been undertaken to answer these questions, competency frameworks are used in job evaluation and constructing job descriptions and person specifications (Horton, 2009). Since 2001 each member of the SCS has to agree an annual performance plan identifying four or five objectives, two of which relate to SCS competencies. The annual performance appraisal assesses and reviews performance against the goals and objectives set, and allocates individuals into one of three tranches - exceptional, satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance. A system of performance related pay (PRP) operates and those in the top tranche receive bonuses while those in the lower two tranches do not. Unsatisfactory performance involves line managers establishing performance improvement plans, which are reviewed after six months. All other staff have performance development plans which may involve training, secondment or other development strategies (Horton, 2005). In addition to its use in the pay and performance system, the SCS competency framework is used by senior managers as cues on how to go about doing their own work and to identify leadership potential. Some 100 individuals are invited each year for a series of challenging leadership workshops, which are complemented by psychometric assessments designed to give the selectors a better idea of the match between competencies and the individuals. The aim is to develop a leadership profile for each candidate so that individual-specific trajectories and development interventions can be made. To what extent this has resulted in a more competent SCS than in the past remains an open question (Hondeghem et al., 2005). The PSG framework is now widely used across government for career development, recruitment and performance management. By using the PSG competency framework, civil servants can find out what skills they might need to gain to change role or seek promotion. They can also seek opportunities to develop their skills at any time, though it makes sense to think about the framework in line with the appraisal cycle. Mid-year reviews, end-of-year appraisals and discussions of objectives are all great times to look at what skills civil servants have and what skills they need to develop. This leads to a development plan (The Civil Service, 2009). The PSG framework is a valuable tool for civil servants to plan their civil service career. In the future, opportunities will depend increasingly on a civil servant’s ability to demonstrate his/her skills. For example, by 2012, to enter the SCS, civil servants must be able to demonstrate that they have gained broader experience during their career in line with the requirements set out by their head of profession (The Civil Service, 2009). 2.5 Horizontal and Vertical Integration At the SCS level, the competency framework has been aligned with the governments overall strategy for civil service reform which in turn has been linked to the Labour Government’s modernisation strategy. The most recent movement to using the PSG framework indicates a similar integration as PSG was promoted by the head of the civil service, accepted by the Management Board of Permanent Secretaries, and is being cascaded down throughout the civil service. For example, Government Skills has provided a range of advice to departmental K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 8
HR to help them incorporate the PSG competency framework into relevant HR processes and
procedures. However, how careful that is being monitored, remains to be seen.
Because of the highly decentralised system of HR it is not possible to give detailed
information on the 27 departments and nearly 100 agencies. Responses to research in 2000
indicated limited horizontal integration and use of competency management was ad hoc and
pragmatic. That appears to be the case in 2009. Horizontal integration is not formally
structured and similarities between departments and agencies will come from networking, and
policies set down by the Cabinet Office such as undertaking capability reviews and policies
on diversity.
2.6 Difficulties, Advantages and Key Success Factors
In many of the departments and agencies, there were problems in identifying competencies
and getting agreement on the frameworks That was not the case in the SCS, where they
adopted a very open and participative process with full information to all senior civil servants.
Some of the problems that were mentioned are (Farnham & Horton, 2002):
- Poor understanding among staff
- Lack of commitment by line management
- Lack of ownership and support by senior management
- Resistance by trade unions
- Difficulties in identifying competencies
- Problems associated with the content of frameworks, such as lack of clarity and
difficulty in applying competency criteria
However, early problems have been largely overcome as competency management has
become embedded.
In spite of the problems experienced with competency management, there is a widespread
support for its many benefits. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development (CIPD, 2003; 2007) confirmed the earlier findings of research on the civil
service (Horton, 2000a) that competency management and competency frameworks:
Enable a common language and standard criteria to be applied across a range of HR
functions (holistic approach to HRM)
Assists both managers and employees in identifying training and development needs
Enables the organisation to promote its values, goals and objectives
Assists in the management of change
Enables employees to know what is expected of them (transparency)
Is a corollary of performance management
CIPD also found that competency frameworks are of central importance in providing a
framework for the civil servant to take responsibility for their own learning. A recent report
for the European Academy of Business Strategy into Leadership Qualities and Management
competencies for Corporate Responsibility (2006) found that most world class organisations
use competencies to define and drive high performance. That certainly is true in the UK
where competency frameworks are used within systems of performance management. NASA,
the American Space Agency argues that “competency management allows you to
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 9systematically measure and monitor the knowledge base of the workforce”, thus enabling you to staff the right people with the right skills at the right time (NASA, 2004) These claims made for competency management are impressive and often the reason why public and private organisations adopt this fashionable idea. The claims, however, are often anecdotal with limited evidence to verify them or to measure their value added. (Emery, 2002). In order to successfully implement competency management, communication and information from the outset and regular reports on progress are some of the key success factors. Furthermore, they include commitment of strategic management, commitment of line management, training of staff in the use of competency frameworks, and integration of HRM. Finally, the proposed competency framework should be reported and comments and suggestions invited from those who will have to operate it and those who will be affected by it. Information, communication and participation are the key. (3) REVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART PRACTICES According to Sylvia Horton (2009) there are three elements that can be considered as recent developments in the British government’s competency management. First, there are continual reviews on capability within 17 government departments. Second, there is the impending report on a workforce strategy. Third, as stated above, there is the introduction of a new competency framework, the so-called Professional Skills for Government (PSG), and the development of skills frameworks within departments and agencies assisted by the Government Skills Council. 3.1 Professional Skills for Government During the second Labour government 2001-2004 there was a review of civil service reform and how effective the service had been in implementing the government’s modernisation agenda. The current emphasis on ‘delivery’ has led to a review of many competency frameworks including that of the SCS. Government Skills, a new body appointed to work with the government to implement its Skills Agenda, produced a framework called Professional Skills for Government (PSG). PSG is a structured way of thinking about jobs and careers for civil servants at all grades. A common framework was launched in July 2008. It was initially intended for Grade 7, and above but it is currently being rolled out over the rest of the service on a departmental and agency basis. The aim is to embed this framework in departmental frameworks by 2012. It is likely that the PSG competency frameworks will replace some, if not all of the existing competency frameworks. It is significant that the PSG framework is linked to skills and knowledge more than behaviours. This is in line with the traditional British standards approach rather than the American behaviour/excellence approach (Farnham & Horton, 2002), which became more popular in the 1990s. Skills and knowledge have been reinstated but in the context of continuing professional development. K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 10
(4) ANALYSIS OF THE FUTURE COMPETENCIES The UK needs a skilled workforce at every level if it is to compete and succeed in a dynamic world economy. In the race to be competitive, skills will play a vital role in enabling the UK economy to meet the demands of the global marketplace (Government Skills, 2008). The lead is coming from the central government which is reviewing the type of civil service needed to support governments in the 21st century. Today, priority is being given to innovation, imagination and entrepreneurship, flexibility, social and interpersonal skills and transformational leadership. The Head of the Civil Service Sir Gus O’Donnell has introduced a new mantra of the 4 Ps- Pace, Pride, Professionalism and Passion. He is continually emphasising the need for the civil service to be prepared for the future. He has introduced new procedures for creating a more collegiate top leadership, is supporting the PSG, the reform of the National School of Government and the development of workforce planning. However most things are on hold at the moment pending the 2010 election. 4.1 Skills Strategy and Professional Skills for Government Skills are critical to all employers. The British civil service is no exception. Government Skills, as the Sector Skills Council for central government, has initiated the Skills Strategy, which is its Sector Skills Agreement (SSA). An SSA maps out exactly what skills employers need their workforce to have and how these will be supplied. The Skills Strategy plans how central government employers will step up to meet the skills challenge over the next three years to 2011. Strategic in its vision across government and into the future, it outlines a coherent programme building on the PSG competency framework. In 2004, the Government commissioned Lord Sandy Leitch to carry out a UK-wide review to identify the optimal skills mix in 2020 to maximise economic growth, productivity and social justice. The Leitch Review Prosperity for all in the global economy – world-class skills, published in December 2006, recommended challenging new targets on qualifications to help the UK become a world leader in skills by 2020. To address the skills need in the workforce, Government Skills has initiated a coordinated programme to put in place a more structured approach to skills acquisition and development. This began in 2005 with the introduction of the Professional Skills for Government (PSG) programme, which included the PSG competency framework. The PSG framework is an important part of the Skills Strategy, designed to meet the current and future skills challenges of central government. The framework identified for the first time the set of core and leadership skills which civil servants need to be effective in any role. This has developed into a common language on skills which is now used across departments. The Skills Strategy, with the PSG competency framework at its core, sets out the collective action needed to equip government's present and future workforce with the skills it needs. The objective is to raise standards and enhance individual performance, improve organisational capability, and ultimately the quality of public services (Government Skills, 2008). 4.2 A Future Workforce Strategy The Cabinet Secretary, supported by Permanent Secretaries, has been developing a vision of the future civil service and work has begun in the Cabinet Office on producing a workforce strategy for the civil service. Led by Government Skills, every Department is developing a K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 11
skills strategy within an overall framework defining skill needs across the whole of
government. A long term workforce strategy for the civil service, will inform future policies
for recruitment, retention and development both for the lower levels of the civil service and
the SCS. In turn a pay and reward strategy for the SCS must derive from, and contribute to
this overall strategy and the same applies to all departments and agencies.
A recent report (Normington Report, 2008) set out what it saw as The Senior Civil Service of
the Future stating that “demands on senior leaders in the civil service will grow as the issues
facing governments grow more complex, and public expectations increase”.
A lot of work has been done to map the strengths and weaknesses of the SCS currently, and to
tease out how it needs to improve in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Work by
IPPR, the Foresight Leadership Roundtable and the findings of the first round of departmental
capability reviews3.
4.2.1 As Individuals
Skills that mattered in the past will continue to matter. Working with Ministers, handling
legislation, crisis management, media relations, policy development and operational skills
continue to have an important role to play. Financial skills, people management and target
driven performance management of systems will continue to be really important.
New skills or ones that need to be developed more fully include:
- sociological and psychological skills to understand why societies and individuals
behave in the way they do and help formulate plans to change behaviour;
- marketing skills, really understanding customer types, in depth in order to be able to
tailor services and messages;
- campaigning skills to achieve change in behaviours through changing culture;
- communication and technological skills that keep us in touch with younger
generations and enable us to make the most efficient use of resource.
Tomorrow’s leaders will be recognised by the fact that they are addressing tomorrow’s
problems by putting into practice this mix of traditional and new skills in the right
combination for the task at hand.
The focus of Government on really challenging, outward facing and cross departmental
objectives also gives some clues as to the appropriate leadership behaviours for the future:
- the need for a collaborative mindset and an ability to live with uncertainty;
- preparedness to seek out alternative viewpoints and encourage ethnic, social,
3
The capability reviews were introduced by the Head of the Civil Service in 2008 and were designed to identify
areas where departments needed to improve and target support. The capability studies were carried out with the
help of independent experts. After capability reviews each department drew up detailed plan to address the
points from each review. In particular they had to deliver a step plan to develop the professional skills of the civil
service in policy and strategy, operational delivery and corporate services to ensure that the department is
flexible enough to enable the department to respond to changing circumstances and demands. Details of the
changes and intentions following the capability studies can be found in the civil service website capability
reviews.
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 12professional and academic diversity in the workforce;
- emotional intelligence;
- building trust and genuine engagement with stakeholders;
- understanding the end user of public services and their needs;
- always listening, asking and learning;
- spotting and nurturing talent.
4.2.2 As a Collective
Evidence from the first round of capability reviews suggests that departmental Boards lack, or
need to develop further, the following skills and capabilities:
- teamwork (modelling collaboration for the rest of the organisation);
- change management (seeing it through to the long term);
- staff engagement (especially SCS);
- people management (especially dealing with poor performance);
- workforce planning (ability to predict skills gaps);
- project management disciplines and continuous improvement systems;
- system and process design skills (right through the delivery system);
- relationship management.
If these are the skills that tomorrow’s civil service leaders need to have, how can those skills
be acquired? Which skills can be developed in house? Which skills can be taught/developed
through tailored programmes and which skills cannot be generated in sufficient numbers and
need to be “bought in” either permanently or temporarily? That is the role of a workforce
strategy to decide.
4.2.3 The Corporate Centre
In terms of specialist skills and the corporate centre, there is evidence that the civil service in
general is failing to generate sufficient numbers or adequate quality to meet the current
demands. A lot of senior finance posts are recruited from outside government; and the
capability review findings suggest quite widespread problems with HR functions. In the short
term these competencies can be bought in but in the longer term there is a need for a
workforce strategy that helps to grow leaders of corporate services, for reasons of efficiency
and cultural fit. There is at the moment an investigation into the causes of the current
problems which could be poor recruitment into these areas, poor training and development
opportunities or are too many generalists moving in and out? The current view is that too little
attention has been given to the corporate centre and the PSG framework is responding to that.
It could be that the skills these professionals develop are so marketable that the civil service
can’t hold on to good people. In this case it becomes an issue of appropriate rewards or
development opportunities to access the very top posts.
4.2.4 Policy and Policy-Delivery Functions
External recruitment into policy roles is less common, but can still arise for a number of
reasons. It may be that there is a need for a specific skill or set of experiences to do a very
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 13particular job; it could be that the department hasn’t in practice, been able to develop enough
people with the skills and experience needed or it could be that they have decided they need to
inject some new blood.
There is a need to differentiate external recruits into different career trajectories which would
help facilitate clearer expectations, induction and support.
One category is secondments. These developmental postings are designed to broaden the
experience of the individual and strengthen capacity when they return to their original base.
The purpose here is often to build knowledge and experience of delivery issues whilst in the
department. These tend to be short fixed term secondments. Individuals should be identified
through talent management processes.
Another category is specialist recruits – these are recruited for a very specific skill set which it
is not reasonable to ‘grow’ in the civil service, or where the practitioner credibility is
especially important. These may be fixed term, long term or permanent appointments.
Finally there are generic recruits - recruited because of a lack of capacity at senior levels or
skills that the service does not have. These appointees should be capable of making the
transition to any SCS post with proper support should be expected to make further transition.
Because of the hierarchical structure of the civil service, the SCS has been fed largely by
internal promotions. A future that requires leaders to have a much better understanding of the
world they are seeking to influence means that narrow, civil service only careers are unlikely
to be sufficient. There needs be a conscious strategy of developmental postings in the wider
public service and beyond, for those with leadership potential. There are risks associated with
this, because of the tendency for pay to be higher, not just in the private sector but in other
parts of the public sector and one way to manage that would be to provide broadening
experiences much earlier in a civil servant’s career.
However, many of the skills needed today and tomorrow in the SCS are generic skills that
should be developed within the civil service. In some of the newer areas, related to customer
insight and campaigning perhaps, there may be lessons to be learned from the way that project
and programme management techniques have increasingly been embedded in departments:
beginning with rare expertise being bought in, via consultancy approaches, followed by the
development of core teams with an advisory/training role and then increasingly embedding
those principles and practices into the core business and core skills set.
4.2.5 Summarising Where the Future Talent Will Come From
The Normington Report (2008) concludes that the vision of the future has profound
implications for the way the civil service recruits and develops its talent. They recommend
that senior leadership should continue to be drawn from a mix of internal and external
appointees stating that “there will never be a time when all the skills and capabilities needed
in the Senior Civil Service can be drawn from inside”. However, the civil service must
develop a cadre of future leaders who are high performing, well motivated and skilled, with a
deep commitment to the values of the organisation from within its own ranks.
Government departments are increasingly looking to external recruitment to fill its most
senior posts and to find professional skills that it believes it does not have inside. As many as
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 1443% of current Directors General have been recruited from outside the civil service, and
external candidates are the main source for many Finance, HR and Commercial Directors.
Often a substantial market premium has been paid to attract these recruits and this has caused
criticisms from civil service unions (SSRB, 2009). Individuals in the lower grades can
become de-motivated by a perceived lack of opportunity.
The new workforce strategy should therefore aim to:
- supply a greater proportion of senior professionals from within the service;
- aim to drive up leadership capabilities so that internal candidates are better able to
compete for the most senior jobs
- reduce dependency and spend on contingent worker
There is evidence that work has already begun on this. Improved succession planning at
senior levels and an impressive suite of senior leadership programmes have been developed.
‘Professional Skills for Government’ is an important commitment to the development of
professional skills throughout the civil service although the pace and scale of this work needs
to grow. The new workforce and skills strategies need to give it greater impetus and drive.
4.3 Planning for Future Competencies
In terms of Lavelle’s (2007) evolutionary path of workforce planning the UK has/is
identifying skills gaps and is in the process of workforce analysis and a formal workforce
model is planned for 2010/11. It is highly unlikely that a comprehensive skills audit will be
undertaken as there is no evidence to date that it is an activity carried out by HR departments
and certainly not by the Capability Unit in the Cabinet Office. Given the highly decentralised
and fragmented system of HR it is unlikely there will be an overall workforce model or one
size that fits all. However, there may be some general guidelines set down by the Cabinet
Office. With the impending election there will be little done until the outcome of the election
is known. Both parties are committed, however, to major cuts in expenditure and reductions in
staff, reform of the civil service pension system and the payments system in the SCS. There
is no evidence that any action is planned to review the value added by the competency based
systems of management.
In the UK Skills Strategy (2008) there is evidence of workforce segmentation. Workforce
segmentation is defined as “grouping employees into segments with common characteristics
such as function, expertise or location”. Segmentation is not seen as an end in itself. Rather, it
is a means to enable more tailored workforce planning. The aim within the public sector is to
create a more capable workforce that is better placed to deliver government’s goals. In the
Skills Strategy, the benefits of workforce segmentation to both employers and employees are
highlighted.
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 15Employer benefits Employee benefits
Employers can benefit from this approach Segmentation also has benefits for
because it becomes: employees, notably:
- more straightforward to recruit - clearer career paths
suitably skilled staff, as a result of - greater internal and external
focused talent management, and marketability, and
- easier to retain capable staff due to - closer engagement with their own
the opportunities provided by professional communities.
employee development and enhanced
cross-sector mobility.
Although some form of workforce segmentation is present in the UK civil service, there is no
evidence of a difference between mission-critical and non-mission-critical functions, which
Lavelle describes.
(5) EVALUATION OF COMPETENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE UK GOVERNMENT
Sylvia Horton’s (2009) prediction is that competency frameworks will go the way of MBO,
TQM and PPB, but incrementally and unnoticed as incremental changes of name and content
are slowly adopted. Like all ‘new ideas’, competency management is likely to have a shelf
life. Criticisms made earlier of competency frameworks and competency management have
largely been dealt with, but some remain and are the basis for continuing reviews and
revisions.
The major criticisms within the British civil service were: lack of understanding by staff; lack
of commitment by line management; lack of ownership and control by senior management;
difficulty in using competency frameworks and applying the competencies; resistance of the
trade unions and management; and the slowness in implementing frameworks. The most
concerns were, however, with the lack of clarity of descriptors which meant they were “too
complicated to construct, too difficult to measure and too subjective” (Farnham & Horton
2002).
Another criticism was the over-emphasis on behaviours to the detriment of knowledge and
skills and the absence of policy skills and political skills and behaviours in the SCS
framework. This of course reflected the managerialist ideology underpinning government
reforms at the time. A concession has now been made in the new PSG framework which
acknowledges three career strands – policy advice, implementation and professional functions
including finance, HR and IT. No mention however of the political skills required of the SCS.
In the UK, there is now nearly 20 years of experience with competency management.
There is, however, no research to assess its added value, but there is a widespread belief
amongst HR staff that it does. It has clearly had an impact on HR practices, on the way in
which people are selected and in performance management systems. It has helped individuals
to identify development needs and has influenced the types of management and leadership
development training. The approach to introducing competencies appears to be ad hoc and
pragmatic and left to the discretion of local management. It confirms that there has been no
‘big bang’ approach with the exception of the SCS where there is a uniform system, common
to all departments and agencies, managed by the Cabinet Office. Whether there is a real
integration (horizontal and vertical) of competency management in the British central
government, remains relatively unknown. In some departments, a holistic approach will be
present, but it needs research to confirm how extensive this is now. Regarding the future of
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 16competency management in the UK, there is some indication that there is a return to emphasising knowledge and skills more than behaviours in the context of the need for new skills, and continuing professional development in the context of a knowledge economy. K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 17
References
Cabinet Office (1996) Development and Training for Civil Servants, London: HMSO.
CIPD (2005) Competency and Competency Frameworks, London: CIPD.
CIPD (2007) Learning and Development Survey, London: CIPD.
Emery, Y. (2002) “Added value in Human Resources Management: An Analysis of the
Competency Management Process” in Horton, S., Hondeghem, A. & Farnham, D.
(2002) Competency Management in the Public Sector, Amsterdam: IOS.
Farnham, D. & Horton, S (2002) “The Competency Movement” in Horton, S., Hondeghem,
A. & Farnham, D. (2002) Competency Management in the Public Sector Amsterdam:
IOS Press.
Government Skills (2008) Government Skills – Skills Strategy for Central Government
[online] (accessed October 2009). Available online: http://www.government-
skills.gov.uk/skills-strategy/index.asp
Hondeghem, A., Horton, S. & Scheepers, S. (2005) “Modèles de gestion des compétences en
Europe”, Revue française d’administration publique, 16, pp. 561-576.
Horton, S. (2000a) “Competency Management in the British Civil Service”, International
Journal of Public Sector Management, 13 (4), pp. 354-368.
Horton, S. (2000b) “Introduction: the competency movement – its origins and impact on the
public sector”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13 (4), pp. 306-318.
Horton, S. (2005) Performance Management in the British Senior Civil Service. Paper
presented at the Irish Institute of Public Administration, Dublin, January 2005.
Horton, S. (2009) Questionnaire on Competency Management in the Public Sector – Answers
from Sylvia Horton.
Lavelle, J. (2007) “On Workforce Architecture, Employment Relationships and Lifecycles:
Expanding the Purview of Workforce Planning and Management”, Public Personnel
Management, 36 (4), pp. 371-385.
NASA (2004) NASA Competency Management System [PowerPoint Presenation] Briefing to
the Management Systems Quarterly Status Review, August 24, 2004.
Normington Report (2008)
Prime Ministers Office (1991) Citizens Charter Cm 1599, London: HMSO.
Samuels, M (1998) Towards Best Practice: An Evaluation of the first 2 years of the Public
Sector Benchmarking Project 1996-98, London: Cabinet Office.
SSRB (2009) Review of pay, pension scheme and allowances, 29 June 2009, Senior Salaries
Review Body.
The Civil Service (2009) The Civil Service [online] (accessed October 2009). Available
online: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/
Wilson, A., Lessen, G. & Hind, P. (2006) Leadership Qualities and Management:
Competencies for Social Responsibility, A report for the European Academy and the
European Academy of Business in Society, Hertfordshire: Ashridge.
Remarks
Report prepared by Sylvia Horton from theUniversity of Portsmouth.
K.U.Leuven, Public Management Institute, 2010 18You can also read
