Process, protocol & the problem with the Civil Service

Dominic Raab’s resignation as Secretary of State for Justice and Deputy Prime Minister has led to intense discussion about the relationship between Ministers and the Civil Service.  This follows similar controversies around the conduct of Priti Patel when she was Home Secretary.

In January this year, I completed a 4 year secondment into the Civil Service.  I was one of a team of Advisers who joined the Rough Sleeping Initiative (RSI) team in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. 

Demanding and memorable

It was a fascinating experience during a time of social crisis and political turbulence.  In 4 years I worked under 4 different Prime Ministers and 6 different Homelessness Ministers. During the pandemic, being part of the team coordinating the national effort to end rough sleeping, known as Everyone In, proved to be one of the most demanding but memorable experiences of my life.

After 25 years working for charities, I relished the opportunity to directly influence the government’s approach. I worked alongside many great colleagues but as a secondee, I never considered myself a ‘proper’ Civil Servant. And the wider working culture of the Civil Service was a source of continual fascination, and frustration, to me.

Values and ethics

In my first few days I joined an induction day with about 100 others where we heard presentations about Civil Service values and ethics. A Senior Civil Servant gave a talk and referred to the recent resignation of Home Secretary Amber Rudd relating to the Windrush immigration scandal.

In the Q&A after the talk, I put up my hand and asked:

‘There must have been lots of senior people involved in these policies. How many Civil Servants were sacked or disciplined due to Windrush?’

The response in the room to my question felt like I had blasphemed. The previously erudite speaker spluttered out a response saying:

‘Well…er…I don’t think any Civil Servants were dismissed…but er…I know some were certainly moved into other roles.’

Perceptions and profile

This encounter illustrated the key demarcation and tension between politicians and civil servants. 

As politicians, Government Ministers live or die on public perceptions of their work.  They operate in a world where their personal profiles are central. They win public plaudits but also ultimately carry the can when there is major failure. They have virtually no job security and can be sacked or forced to resign almost instantly.

Therefore it is no surprise that their political advisers manage their communications incredibly tightly. And all public announcements from across government are centrally coordinated into ‘grid slots’ by Number 10 Downing Street. In politics, how things look is fundamental.

Process and protocol

In direct contrast, Civil Servants work in the background and actively avoid a high profile.  Instead, their work is strictly guided by process and protocol. Success is marked by delivering their work in a timely, calm and well-ordered way.

The Civil Service has developed into a system of immense bureaucracy, all built ostensibly to deliver on the elected Government’s commitments. But its scale and culture provide a unique insulation from the realities that affect most businesses and employers, and a rare form of job security.  

It was probably the most polite working culture I have ever experienced, far more genteel than any of the charities I have worked for. Problems or performance issues were rarely tackled head on and in 4 years I hardly heard any heated debates or arguments. Where problems did exist, you would find that colleagues left abruptly or were shuffled into different roles.

The key problem

The key weakness of this demarcation is that neither side is focused enough on practical impact.  Neither are institutionally designed to care enough about the actual difference that is being made on the ground.

Time and again announcements for the start of initiatives were delayed due to ‘waiting a grid-slot from No10’ due to the central coordination of communications.  This led to farcical situations where weeks would elapse between Ministers agreeing funding and it being allowed to be communicated. This put huge pressure on those delivering the frontline work. The desire to manage publicity compromised operational effectiveness.

Wherever you work, good communications and strong process are important aspects of any initiative. But in successful businesses and charities both are subordinated to operational effectiveness.

If your operation does not work, businesses go bust and charities run out of money. But this does not happen in government. It shows how both publicity and process are good servants, but bad masters.

Yes Minister

The dichotomy between politician’s desire for profile and publicity and the Civil Servant’s focus on process and protocol is the core axis of the brilliant 1980s BBC comedy Yes, Minister. 

In one memorable scene, the Minister Jim Hacker is arguing with his senior civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby about British weapons falling into the hands of foreign terrorist groups.  The Minister wants ‘to do something’ and Sir Humphrey is urging him to do nothing. It leads to a discussion about good and evil and what the point of government is.

Like all the best comedy, it is a scene of genuine depth and weight:

Jim Hacker: ‘Humphrey: have you ever known a Civil Servant to resign on a matter of principle?’

Sir Humphrey: ‘I should think not! What an appalling suggestion.’

Jim Hacker: ‘For the first time I fully understand that you are purely committed to means and not to ends.’

Sir Humphrey: ‘As far as I am concerned Minister, and all my colleagues, there is no difference between means and ends.’

Jim Hacker: ‘If you believe that Humphrey, you will go to hell.’

And like all good satire, it exaggerates reality to expose truth (watch the full scene).

Harnessing tensions

In my 4 years working for the government, almost everyone I worked with wanted to make a real difference but I was also continually struck by the intransigence of the system which mitigates against genuine change.  I think this is a key factor in fueling the frustrations which are played out in public disputes between Ministers and their senior Civil Servants.

It is easy to analyse and criticise, but what should be done to manage this tension better? 

Well, the good new is that a model exists and it’s the one I experienced through being seconded into the Civil Service.

Mixed teams

All Government departments should take the example from the Rough Sleeping Initiative and develop mixed teams of experts who work alongside the civil servants. Those with frontline experience of managing the work ‘in the real world’ are needed to focus and target resources in the right way.

For example, the Civil Servants working on improving building safety should draft in experts from construction companies who understand the issues and what needs to be done. Rather than be politicised, the Civil Service should be operationalised.

Sure, a mixed team such as this creates clashes of culture – but these are the tensions which are necessary.  This is how change happens in the real world. In my experience the civil servants appreciated having colleagues who knew the business from the sharp end. The bubble in which the Civil Service operates needs to burst.

The most important thing

The involvement of those with senior experience of managing change would bring a vital emphasis on the most important aspect: the practical impact of policies and initiatives.

And this is the focus needed to manage the dysfunctional tension and intransigence between political profile and bureaucratic process. Good policies lead to positive change. The ‘means’ must be focused around the ‘ends’ they produce. As someone wise once said:

“Wisdom is proved right by her actions”

The practical impact should be the guiding principle around which everything is managed.  This is the way to rebuild trust and confidence in both politicians and the Civil Service.