Your first point on vetoes assumes that it is the job of a civil servant to pursue their own policy ideas. In my experience, much of the reason doing so is hard is that ministers do not act in ways that they expect officials will have ideas. Instead they bring their ideas from outside and expect the CS to be merely an implementation function, with the policy function there to advise on implementation. Or ministers ask "how can we do more" rather than "how can we do differently". Which, given all the budget is allocated to stuff already happening, means it's very hard to promote ideas. Nor are the ministers asking for a rethink on spending existing funds
Thanks Robin. This is a very fair challenge. I was in a role where there was more freedom to source and develop initiatives, so it is a good point that it is not the norm that everyone has that sort of responsibility.
I definitely recognise the ‘how can we do more/faster’ ask, though that might require some actual ideation from the officials themselves!
I still think in many instances, if we equivocate ‘your idea’ with ‘your ministers’ idea’ then many of these veto points or incentives to push back still do exist, but perhaps sit with slightly different groups of people.
I had initially put in a section on the ‘write round’ process to this effect, but I didn’t think I had the most interesting stuff to say there.
Good article, Tom. To your point about churn - all the reasons I left the civil service.
Welcome the conclusion. See too many arguments that the answer to the problem is targeted exceptionalism - adopting different ways of working to the norm on the most important issues (think Henry de Zoete argued this recently). That of course will never solve the global problem of civil service dysfunctionalism that means 95%+ of the State is failing to deliver to an adequate level.
Nice piece and echoes many similar dynamics in California. I'd be very curious to your thoughts on protocol shifts to make these heroic tactics less necessary.
Such a good piece, Tom. And very descriptive of why very little gets done despite the screaming urgency for action. I think back to Thatcher and her conviction politics. For good and for bad, her absolute grip on detail and her battering personality did get the UK state to do dramatic things, some were good and some cast a long negative spell. This determination from the top surely has to be one of the key conditions for change - channeling the inner Trump without the far right agenda. I’m far from convinced this describes many people around today’s cabinet table which is part of our malaise but there are politicians both inside and outside Parliament who might have the burning ambition to change UK for the better. And secondly, I wonder if we did something like halve the civil service headcount in a performance-based RIF but didn’t cut the budgets (or by much) that such politicians could clear away the process sludge and promote/appoint people who got rewarded on working in close tandem with them to achieve clearly set objectives.
Thanks Stan. Really interesting. Would love to draft something more solid on what is to be done, but perhaps not the best use of my time given we are building U.K. PLC through Fractile! ;)
Your first point on vetoes assumes that it is the job of a civil servant to pursue their own policy ideas. In my experience, much of the reason doing so is hard is that ministers do not act in ways that they expect officials will have ideas. Instead they bring their ideas from outside and expect the CS to be merely an implementation function, with the policy function there to advise on implementation. Or ministers ask "how can we do more" rather than "how can we do differently". Which, given all the budget is allocated to stuff already happening, means it's very hard to promote ideas. Nor are the ministers asking for a rethink on spending existing funds
Thanks Robin. This is a very fair challenge. I was in a role where there was more freedom to source and develop initiatives, so it is a good point that it is not the norm that everyone has that sort of responsibility.
I definitely recognise the ‘how can we do more/faster’ ask, though that might require some actual ideation from the officials themselves!
I still think in many instances, if we equivocate ‘your idea’ with ‘your ministers’ idea’ then many of these veto points or incentives to push back still do exist, but perhaps sit with slightly different groups of people.
I had initially put in a section on the ‘write round’ process to this effect, but I didn’t think I had the most interesting stuff to say there.
Good article, Tom. To your point about churn - all the reasons I left the civil service.
Welcome the conclusion. See too many arguments that the answer to the problem is targeted exceptionalism - adopting different ways of working to the norm on the most important issues (think Henry de Zoete argued this recently). That of course will never solve the global problem of civil service dysfunctionalism that means 95%+ of the State is failing to deliver to an adequate level.
Thanks James! Agree that the ‘taskforce model’ only goes so far!
Nice piece and echoes many similar dynamics in California. I'd be very curious to your thoughts on protocol shifts to make these heroic tactics less necessary.
Such a good piece, Tom. And very descriptive of why very little gets done despite the screaming urgency for action. I think back to Thatcher and her conviction politics. For good and for bad, her absolute grip on detail and her battering personality did get the UK state to do dramatic things, some were good and some cast a long negative spell. This determination from the top surely has to be one of the key conditions for change - channeling the inner Trump without the far right agenda. I’m far from convinced this describes many people around today’s cabinet table which is part of our malaise but there are politicians both inside and outside Parliament who might have the burning ambition to change UK for the better. And secondly, I wonder if we did something like halve the civil service headcount in a performance-based RIF but didn’t cut the budgets (or by much) that such politicians could clear away the process sludge and promote/appoint people who got rewarded on working in close tandem with them to achieve clearly set objectives.
Thanks Stan. Really interesting. Would love to draft something more solid on what is to be done, but perhaps not the best use of my time given we are building U.K. PLC through Fractile! ;)
Wonder what the "particular failing organisation" was – I have my guesses...