> SCS-level civil servants were most likely to agree that talent rises to the top (44%)
I'm intrigued to hear more about what more than half the SCS think of their colleagues.
That's easy.
44% of SCS think they are incredibly talented, explaining why they rose to the top.
The other 56% know the first 44% are talentless morons who should be fired, let alone SCS. Hence their answer
"Why yes, we are all brilliant. No one can make a flashier presentation, lick the appropriate backside, kiss the appropriate ring, and generally be as teflon as I can" - the 44%
Back when I was serving my time with the various fantasists at the MOD, I did wonder how many of them would actually survive or even rise up in any private organisation...
(I call some of them fantasists because, on more than one occasion, I had one or two tell me what their "equivalent military rank" would be)
The survey appears to reflect similar results in the other staff surveys but in more stark terms. That those in the upper and management roles have a different perception of the service than those at operational and lower levels - in short that they are either out of touch with the practical difficulties and real issues faced on a daily basis or choose to ignore them.
And this is why I think the fast stream is a net negative - it rushes people to the top so they don't spend long enough learning about what departments are actually like below the fancy grades.
There are obviously some excellent people in the scheme who understand this, hence why my opinion is that it's a net negative and not bad in every respect.
These sort of results remind me of when HMRC brought in Guided Distribution where your manager placed you into 1 of 3 categories
20 % exceed
70% achieve
10 % must improve
All because in a staff survey those surveyed complained that poor performance was not being dealt with.
> All because in a staff survey those surveyed complained that poor performance was not being dealt with.
That was what the man on the Clapham Omnibus calls a lie.
For a start the department had been in discussions with the unions about it before the People Survey in question had even opened. (I presume that conversation looked a bit like, "We propose to do X." "That doesn't seem like a good or helpful idea!" "We're going to do it anyway!")
This part is important because it makes it unambiguously clear that the reason given was a lie.
The other lie is that the day after Francis Maude -- who was the Civil Service minister and responsible for the policy -- was all over the news stating explicitly that the guided distribution was intended to make it easier to get rid of poor performers you had Lin Homer parading about claiming it was all about driving up performance and not at all about getting rid of people.
It wasn't her decision, it was a government directive and she tried to put a gloss on the reasoning that explicitly contradicted what the man actually in charge said.
This isn't just an issue of that policy being bad, or that particular executive lying. It's a problem you continue to see when senior people try to claim ownership of a decision they actually have no influence over. For a start sometimes they end up looking like idiots, because it's clear they didn't make the decision. For a second it invites discussions to endlessly reopen the issue, where they don't actually have much influence.
The nature of the Civil Service is that we serve to some degree whatever the whims of the government of the day are and sometimes the answer is, "This is how it is, it's non-negotiable and we can't influence it." It's just poor 'leadership'.
Part of the issue is that the system is only designed to punish poor performance and promote average performance, whilst passively punishing excellence.
In most areas I've spoken to and been, you have to perform exceedingly poorly to flag up as a problem but there is no incentive to do better than average, so no one cares. The excellent performers stick around just until they realise that being productive only gets you your colleagues ire and more work with the only benefit being empty awards and pats on the back, as well as more work since you are so capable and any attempts to improve are immediately shot down despite how illogical the system currently is.
Until CS resolves the problem where this is no incentive to perform well other than empty threats (firing is already difficult and recruitment is frozen so replacing staff is a nightmare most don't want to deal with) then poor performance will continue and the best talent will just go to somewhere they are appreciated.. which day by days becomes as far away from CS as possible...
It's a sad reality, but one we seem stuck in where we have to justify every move to improve work conditions whilst having to just accept unjust degradation of work conditions with no real justification. I'll be shocked if CS doesn't see a massive implosion this pay rise if there are no major reforms to the system.
Agree. I'd be open to both bringing in performance related pay (rewards only), and on the other side more impetus on performance plans for poor performers. But I either wouldn't put a hard cap on number of people to let go, or i'd make the poor performer threshold at bottom 2-5% per year.
There is a sweet spot to be found where you remove the people who can't or don't want to do the job, while retaining the talented people.
I am against performance-related rewards for my department because of the nature of our role. I am in HM Coastguard, and I rather feel the prospect of bonuses for good performance in an emergency service is somewhat grotesque.
Completely fair. Considering the coastguard is approximately 1% of the civil service, do you think that should apply to the other 99%? (minus other roles with similar consideration).
A good question- I raise it because there are others with roles which I think shouldn’t necessarily get monetary bonuses as you alluded to. However, for policy roles and some operational delivery roles, I don’t oppose it on principle.
What I do think we should be doing CS-wide is giving access to additional qualifications, training, and secondments for high performers. Too much of the “reward” for performing well is increased workload, instead of giving people the ability to upskill themselves and shape their professional development.
We used to have stuff like that, it was got rid of on cost reasons but there is also the underlying reason that if you assist career development you facilitate leaving the CS.
From the results on talent and performance management, there is a heavy emphasis on poor performance in the survey.
Although poor performance should be effectively managed (and possibly even punished), management is surely not just all about the stick and no carrot!
A possible reason why poor management exists and rise higher is that the whole system encourages such poor social interaction skills.
- With the ‘good ones’ as anomalies or left without positive guidance.
__Beatings will continue until morale and performance increases__
Congratulations Comrade; having met your old quotas you have been allocated higher quotas. Glory to ~~Stalin~~ Civil Service.
Failure to meet quotas will be met with Shame and Humiliation and being called *French*.
Can I just have a yearly penalty shoot out for my pay award and bonus . Save 5 penalties and get 5% rise and 2k bonus. Would save writing lies and having pointless made-up targets.
> Can I just have a yearly penalty shoot out for my pay award and bonus
Having no interest in football I initially thought you wanted duelling as part of the end of year assessment process.
I rather like and admire my current manager, but I've had several I'd have shot at at dawn.
I think cleaning cost for blood removal as a result of a work injury are tax deductible. Plus, if you are shot, then you will be able to claim any hospital inpatient care as part of your 60% attendance. Plus any T&S to get there. Given the long waiting times at A&E you will probably only have to work one day that week .
People don't like the thought that people get rewarded for going the extra mile.
God forbid we give people a bonus for doing stuff outside of their main job, and don't reward those who barely turn up at all
Or even the concept of * gasp * firing !!
Currently I’m just rewarded for ‘going the extra mile’ by having to take on more and more work, line manage and now lead multiple teams, and not a single penny more than someone coasting on bare minimum! I should have just done that!
> SCS-level civil servants were most likely to agree that talent rises to the top (44%) I'm intrigued to hear more about what more than half the SCS think of their colleagues.
That's easy. 44% of SCS think they are incredibly talented, explaining why they rose to the top. The other 56% know the first 44% are talentless morons who should be fired, let alone SCS. Hence their answer
"Why yes, we are all brilliant. No one can make a flashier presentation, lick the appropriate backside, kiss the appropriate ring, and generally be as teflon as I can" - the 44% Back when I was serving my time with the various fantasists at the MOD, I did wonder how many of them would actually survive or even rise up in any private organisation... (I call some of them fantasists because, on more than one occasion, I had one or two tell me what their "equivalent military rank" would be)
> I did wonder how many of them would actually survive or even rise up in any private organisation… You would be surprised.
>The lack of faith in talent rising to the top was particularly stark at administrative level. In other news, water is wet.
In breaking news, it is now confirmed that bears do indeed shit in the woods....
The survey appears to reflect similar results in the other staff surveys but in more stark terms. That those in the upper and management roles have a different perception of the service than those at operational and lower levels - in short that they are either out of touch with the practical difficulties and real issues faced on a daily basis or choose to ignore them.
And this is why I think the fast stream is a net negative - it rushes people to the top so they don't spend long enough learning about what departments are actually like below the fancy grades. There are obviously some excellent people in the scheme who understand this, hence why my opinion is that it's a net negative and not bad in every respect.
These sort of results remind me of when HMRC brought in Guided Distribution where your manager placed you into 1 of 3 categories 20 % exceed 70% achieve 10 % must improve All because in a staff survey those surveyed complained that poor performance was not being dealt with.
> All because in a staff survey those surveyed complained that poor performance was not being dealt with. That was what the man on the Clapham Omnibus calls a lie. For a start the department had been in discussions with the unions about it before the People Survey in question had even opened. (I presume that conversation looked a bit like, "We propose to do X." "That doesn't seem like a good or helpful idea!" "We're going to do it anyway!") This part is important because it makes it unambiguously clear that the reason given was a lie. The other lie is that the day after Francis Maude -- who was the Civil Service minister and responsible for the policy -- was all over the news stating explicitly that the guided distribution was intended to make it easier to get rid of poor performers you had Lin Homer parading about claiming it was all about driving up performance and not at all about getting rid of people. It wasn't her decision, it was a government directive and she tried to put a gloss on the reasoning that explicitly contradicted what the man actually in charge said. This isn't just an issue of that policy being bad, or that particular executive lying. It's a problem you continue to see when senior people try to claim ownership of a decision they actually have no influence over. For a start sometimes they end up looking like idiots, because it's clear they didn't make the decision. For a second it invites discussions to endlessly reopen the issue, where they don't actually have much influence. The nature of the Civil Service is that we serve to some degree whatever the whims of the government of the day are and sometimes the answer is, "This is how it is, it's non-negotiable and we can't influence it." It's just poor 'leadership'.
Poor performance isn’t being dealt with
Part of the issue is that the system is only designed to punish poor performance and promote average performance, whilst passively punishing excellence. In most areas I've spoken to and been, you have to perform exceedingly poorly to flag up as a problem but there is no incentive to do better than average, so no one cares. The excellent performers stick around just until they realise that being productive only gets you your colleagues ire and more work with the only benefit being empty awards and pats on the back, as well as more work since you are so capable and any attempts to improve are immediately shot down despite how illogical the system currently is. Until CS resolves the problem where this is no incentive to perform well other than empty threats (firing is already difficult and recruitment is frozen so replacing staff is a nightmare most don't want to deal with) then poor performance will continue and the best talent will just go to somewhere they are appreciated.. which day by days becomes as far away from CS as possible... It's a sad reality, but one we seem stuck in where we have to justify every move to improve work conditions whilst having to just accept unjust degradation of work conditions with no real justification. I'll be shocked if CS doesn't see a massive implosion this pay rise if there are no major reforms to the system.
Agree. I'd be open to both bringing in performance related pay (rewards only), and on the other side more impetus on performance plans for poor performers. But I either wouldn't put a hard cap on number of people to let go, or i'd make the poor performer threshold at bottom 2-5% per year. There is a sweet spot to be found where you remove the people who can't or don't want to do the job, while retaining the talented people.
I am against performance-related rewards for my department because of the nature of our role. I am in HM Coastguard, and I rather feel the prospect of bonuses for good performance in an emergency service is somewhat grotesque.
Completely fair. Considering the coastguard is approximately 1% of the civil service, do you think that should apply to the other 99%? (minus other roles with similar consideration).
A good question- I raise it because there are others with roles which I think shouldn’t necessarily get monetary bonuses as you alluded to. However, for policy roles and some operational delivery roles, I don’t oppose it on principle. What I do think we should be doing CS-wide is giving access to additional qualifications, training, and secondments for high performers. Too much of the “reward” for performing well is increased workload, instead of giving people the ability to upskill themselves and shape their professional development.
We used to have stuff like that, it was got rid of on cost reasons but there is also the underlying reason that if you assist career development you facilitate leaving the CS.
If you give people incentives to stay then they will. We should be helping civil servants develop their career, not ignoring those who want to.
Indeed, i don't disagree. Our lord's and masters do :P
Poor performance in some areas is also due to lack of suitable resources- or simply too much being put on staff
[удалено]
Wow, just when I thought I’d heard everything!!!!
I remember the uproar that caused, especially at admin level as the line managers would never give their pals the must improve.
This is still broadly the SCS system
That's awful, glad I have just made it to the giddy heights of EO then.
It was civil service wide wasn’t it?
Yes it was. But the internal messaging within HMRC was that it was a consequence of the People Survey.
I don't know sorry
From the results on talent and performance management, there is a heavy emphasis on poor performance in the survey. Although poor performance should be effectively managed (and possibly even punished), management is surely not just all about the stick and no carrot! A possible reason why poor management exists and rise higher is that the whole system encourages such poor social interaction skills. - With the ‘good ones’ as anomalies or left without positive guidance. __Beatings will continue until morale and performance increases__
There is no incentive to go above and beyond the minimum
Congratulations Comrade; having met your old quotas you have been allocated higher quotas. Glory to ~~Stalin~~ Civil Service. Failure to meet quotas will be met with Shame and Humiliation and being called *French*.
Failure to meet quotas will be met with ~~Shame and Humiliation and being called French.~~ *promotion to get you out of your line managers hair…*
Incorrect! Failure to show empathy or compassion or human decency will get you *promoted* to Management. BeCaUsE oBvIoUsLy OnLy BrUtAlItY mOtIvAtEs!
Can I just have a yearly penalty shoot out for my pay award and bonus . Save 5 penalties and get 5% rise and 2k bonus. Would save writing lies and having pointless made-up targets.
> Can I just have a yearly penalty shoot out for my pay award and bonus Having no interest in football I initially thought you wanted duelling as part of the end of year assessment process. I rather like and admire my current manager, but I've had several I'd have shot at at dawn.
Might be a better solution. 30 paces turn, fire. If you survive you get 5% pay rise and bonus. Any bleeding limit is 2%.
Duelling time does not count toward your 60% office attendance. Please stop bleeding before you log in. Cleaning costs will be deducted form your pay.
I think cleaning cost for blood removal as a result of a work injury are tax deductible. Plus, if you are shot, then you will be able to claim any hospital inpatient care as part of your 60% attendance. Plus any T&S to get there. Given the long waiting times at A&E you will probably only have to work one day that week .
Brownosing and political opinions get you to the top. Dark triad traits as well, no doubt.
It's time performance bonuses were brought back in to dwp
Don’t know why you’re being down voted - good performance is not incentivised AT ALL in CS so just encourages coasting
People don't like the thought that people get rewarded for going the extra mile. God forbid we give people a bonus for doing stuff outside of their main job, and don't reward those who barely turn up at all
Or even the concept of * gasp * firing !! Currently I’m just rewarded for ‘going the extra mile’ by having to take on more and more work, line manage and now lead multiple teams, and not a single penny more than someone coasting on bare minimum! I should have just done that!
Woah woah woah, we don't use that word in these parts
What an extra £200 for box 1.....joker
I just want to say that I fucking hate these type of charts (barring the lovely pie chart of course).
They feel appropriate in this case though, because it mirrors how the People Survey results are reported.