Proposals to shed 40,000 civil service jobs

Reform of the civil service, including substantial job cuts, is deliverable, but the Government must learn the lessons from best practice in the private sector, according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), the professional body for all those involved in the management and development of people.

Dr John Philpott, Chief Economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, offered the following thoughts:

A case for reform
*Reform on the scale outlined by the Chancellor is deliverable, but if the Government wants to deliver on its overall objectives for the public services it is important to get the reform process right. The private sector has demonstrated how to make efficiency savings, and there is plenty of expertise on how to achieve these successfully.

The pace of change
*However, nowadays the private sector goes through ongoing and measured processes of change. They do this for a reason. The popular downsizing model of the early 1990s was designed to deliver major efficiency savings. But many doubts now exist over the effectiveness of crude downsizing.

*Downsizing was often too rapid, and not strategic enough. Companies lost the people who were easiest to get rid of, then often discovered theyíd lost the wrong people, either because they were good enough to be mobile, or older, but at the same time some of the most experienced people in the organisation. By contrast, CIPD research into organisational change suggests continuous change, based on genuine consultation, delivers greater efficiency savings and genuine performance improvements.

*The ípsychological contractí between employer and employee also needs to be considered. When undergoing major change it is important to win hearts and minds in order to ensure that the remaining workforce is supportive and motivated. In the public sector, where the pace of change is traditionally slower than in the private sector, this will need particular attention.

Bash the bureaucrat, laud the front-line
*No-one wants to keep unnecessary administrative roles. But the íbureaucrat bad / front-line goodí approach is too simplistic. There is a need for some administrative roles, in order to allow the front-line to operate effectively. Indeed, some new investment in certain administrative change management expertise may be necessary to manage the scale and type of reform desired. The Chancellor, in his response to the Lyons and Gershon reviews, has talked about considerable investment in IT to allow objectives to be achieved. Investment in the human resources needed to deliver effective change should also be prioritised if the Chancellorís objectives are to be delivered.

*The talk is of people losing íbureaucraticí jobs being transferred to the front-line. Once again, this is too simplistic. Many of the people in question may not have the basic skills or personal aptitudes necessary. In practice, there may be many redundancies, and new people may still have to be trained up for the new roles. This could end up costing a lot more than expected.

People and performance
*There is a trade-off between cost-savings and performance. Too much change, too fast, could undermine the Governmentís core objectives and delivery agenda. The big lesson from past private sector experience is that the people element in processes of change is what really matters. If the Government fails to get this right, things could go badly wrong.