05 January 2007
The government's efficiency programme appeared to have an admirable aim – until it turned out to be a crude job-cutting exercise. But managers are ready to find real efficiencies, if only ministers would listen
Management expert Peter Drucker defined efficiency as 'doing better what is already being done', but public sector managers are not convinced that this accurately describes the government's efficiency programme.
It is only right that ministers should seek value for money from public services, particularly when they have increased investment to improve them. This is nothing new — reform and cost-cutting programmes have come and gone, with civil servants performing a balancing act between delivering high-quality services and minding taxpayers' pennies.
The difference with the current efficiency agenda is its focus on embedding modern business practices across government as a whole, such as central procurement, shared corporate services and freeing more time for staff to serve customers.
These goals are admirable and appear to make good sense. However, rather than engaging civil service managers on how best to achieve them, the government launched the efficiency programme as a cost-cutting exercise, with the aim of 'getting rid of waste' by cutting 80,000 civil service posts.
Drucker, who understood the importance of an engaged and empowered workforce to drive change within an organisation, would have been horrified.
One problem is the difficulty of quantifying any results, such as improved delivery or streamlined processes. Presentationally, it's simpler to announce job cuts and a war on bureaucracy. However, this has sent the wrong message to staff and made it harder for managers to sell it in their own departments.
A survey of FDA members in June last year revealed some home truths about the reality of efficiency implementation on the ground. A majority of respondents (62%) believed that securing £21bn in savings by 2008 would be unachievable. One in four cited lack of training as the largest obstacle to meeting the targets, closely followed by a lack of buy-in by top management.
The survey results also echoed the FDA's concerns that departmental restrictions on running costs would have perverse and unwelcome consequences. One in four respondents said that they thought their workplaces would become less efficient as a result of the efficiency programme. A significant majority also said that 'efficiency' had made their jobs harder. Why?
Administrative posts have been slashed under the notion that cutting 'back-office' functions would release extra resources to the 'front line'. Such distinctions are meaningless, as customer-facing services rely on smooth administration.
Managers have had to take on the extra work, with implications for their departments' efficiency, effectiveness and delivery. Senior civil servants are now doing finance and human resources work previously done by specialists, while middle managers are doing more administration. Others have no one to cover essential services if a staff member falls ill.
All this results in ballooning workloads, higher stress and longer hours, which have further damaged staff morale and productivity. 'There have been so many cut-backs we cannot do our jobs anymore,' was a sentiment echoed throughout the survey.
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the efficiency programme has been the influx of consultants. Headcount restrictions have forced departments to hire these for up to £2,000 per day from their programme budgets, which aren't subject to the same efficiency restrictions. In 2005, more than £2.1bn was spent on consultants, who often did the same work as the civil servants they replaced. This needs to be reviewed urgently.
The FDA believes that headcount reduction targets have no place in a coherent efficiency programme and should be scrapped.
Clearly, every opportunity must be taken to improve the efficiency of government and ensure that public money is well spent. However, the way this is being pursued in certain instances will not necessarily achieve this aim. Thus far, civil service unions have worked effectively with the Cabinet Office to avoid compulsory redundancies as a result of the programme. The FDA now wants to work with the Cabinet Office and Office of Government Commerce to improve training around efficiency and ensure that any reforms will deliver real results.
Our survey also revealed that civil servants believe more efficiencies can be made and have ideas on how these could be implemented. The FDA would like to work with the government to explore these.
Civil service managers have a responsibility to improve processes and identify areas for cost savings, just as ministers have a responsibility to listen to their managers' concerns. Only in partnership will we achieve the modernisation and the long-term efficiencies taxpayers expect.
Jonathan Baume is the general secretary of the FDA senior public servants' union
PFjan2007
