Less than one in four civil servants think poor performance is dealt with effectively in their department, according to survey data published for the first time by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr). The survey of senior civil servants was obtained by ippr following a Freedom of Information request and paints a damning picture of frustration with performance management in Whitehall.
In the survey, senior civil servants identify key strengths in: confidence that they and have the skills to do their jobs, in the treatment of their staff, in encouraging teamwork and in the availability of training and development opportunities.
But asked whether poor performance is dealt with effectively in their own department, only officials in the Treasury scored more than one in four (with 32 per cent). The worst departments, where less than one in ten believe poor performance is dealt with effectively, are:
- DfT (5 per cent)
- Home Office (6 per cent)
- DEFRA (9 per cent)
- DCLG (9 per cent)
- MoD (9 per cent)
- DTI (10 per cent)
- FCO (10 per cent)
When asked whether performance appraisal systems were efficient, only the Department for Constitutional Affairs scored higher than one in three (with 44 per cent). The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (with 6 per cent) and the Department for Transport (with 9 per cent) have the least efficient appraisal systems, according to their own senior civil servants.
When asked whether civil service leaders manage change effectively, less than one in three senior civil servants in some of the most important departments in Whitehall agreed:
- DCMS (18 per cent)
- Home Office (23 per cent)
- DTI (23 per cent)
- DfT (25 per cent)
- DEFRA (26 per cent)
- DfID (27 per cent)
- DCLG (27 per cent)
Nick Pearce, ippr Director said:
“We can’t let politicians off the hook. But the civil service needs systemic reform. It will never achieve consistently high performance without external accountability and effective performance management.”
Notes to editors
The full report of the Senior Civil Service Leadership and Skill Survey was obtained by ippr under a Freedom of Information request and is available on request from the ippr press office.
ippr’s report on civil service reform, Rethinking Whitehall by Guy Lodge, will be published in July. ippr researchers conducted over 65 stakeholder interviews including 10 Permanent Secretaries and 8 ministers. It will show that recent failures in policy and administration are the result of an “accountability-deficit” in an unreformed civil service. It will argue that the central doctrine of ‘ministerial responsibility’ – which holds that ministers, and ministers alone, are accountable for everything that happens in their departments – is no longer relevant. It quotes ministers who feel increasingly frustrated with civil service performance and the way it ducks accountability, as well as civil servants who recognise the need for change.
ippr’s report will recommend that:
- Ministers should be accountable for policy and resources and civil servants should be accountable for their operational performance. In so doing the roles and responsibilities of minister and civil servants will be greatly clarified, making it clear who is responsible for what. This would make both ministers and civil servants more genuinely accountable.
- A Civil Service Commission (similar to the one in New Zealand) should be created to appoint Permanent Secretaries with review their performance with their Secretaries of State. The Commission would also set the strategic direction of the civil service, performance management of permanent secretaries, and other core capabilities like information technology and human resources across Whitehall. The Civil Service Commission would be empowered to remove poor performing permanent secretaries from post and to reward high performers.
- Parliamentary Select Committees should be strengthened and given the power to hold civil servants and ministers to account. The rules protecting civil servants should be abolished and committees should have the additional resources needed to scrutinise minister’s policy decisions.
- There should be a Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as there is in Australia and New Zealand, which provides a strong centre but which is also open, transparent and accountable to Parliament.