A smaller civil service headcount would save money and do a better job
Straight-talking common sense from the front line of management
QHaving recently read about the 900 HR roles that exist in the Cabinet Office and our Prime Minister’s keenness to curtail government spending, I wonder whether the civil service can learn from industry when it comes to controlling expenditure?
A
Every civil service manager should read Parkinson’s Law. The book takes less than two hours to read and the important message is found in the first 15 pages. Parkinson explains, in simple old-fashioned language, why organisations inevitably grow in size, without any increase in their responsibilities or what they do. Parkinson spotted that “work expands to fill the time available for its completion”. He also found that busy managers appoint subordinates to cope with their workload. The extra colleagues inevitably make work for each other, bigger teams cause more work and, consequently, the size of the team continues to grow.
Parkinson pointed out that, in the 1930s, the Admiralty’s headcount went up, while the size of our Navy’s fleet decreased. The average increase in personnel was 5.75pc a year, a figure mirrored in the Colonial Office, which continued to employ more officials while the Empire declined. So a bloated civil service really isn’t anyone’s fault. Indeed, Parkinson’s 5.75pc rule applies to everyone, including us at Timpson. That’s why we run a cost-cutting exercise every three years and Boris Johnson’s recently proposed cuts are long overdue.
But the growth of our public service cannot simply be explained by Parkinson’s law. Every Queen’s Speech brings new laws and all governments introduce extra directives, publish more guidelines and enforce new regulations. Much is driven by the mistaken belief that government departments run the country. Not true! We, the citizens, run the country. Government should be there to support us and remove any obstacles.
Once, I spent time in what was then
‘At Timpson we run a costcutting exercise every three years – Johnson’s proposed cuts are long overdue’
called the Department of Trade and Industry. During a fascinating week, I discovered, among other things, that their training department had yet to create a course on trade and industry – instead their training concentrated on how to be a senior civil servant.
One day, over a cup of tea, I asked three department heads what they did. They agreed their job was to produce policies, which led to processes that guaranteed the policy was put into practice. In other words, the administrators believe in telling us what to do and how to do it. When I wrote my High Street Report in 2018, I slipped in a new phrase, “upside down government”. I believe the regeneration of our town centres will have the greatest chance of success if local inspirational leaders are trusted to use their initiative and legal obstacles are cleared from their path. It’s a form of government designed to make life less complicated, which in turn should lead to slimmed down departments and a saving of taxpayers’ money.
You won’t be surprised to hear that I haven’t had much success in persuading the public sector to adopt my “upside down government” approach. Civil servants are preoccupied with making sure nothing goes wrong and lack the courage to leave day-to-day decisions to those citizens who deliver the end product.
About four years ago, I spent an hour with a change management team at one of the key government departments. The team of three was having a brainstorm about delegation and had already filled two large whiteboards with diagrams demonstrating how empowerment would work. We spent an hour discussing how “upside down government” could make life easier and save lots of money. They suggested more discussions the following week. I said I would join them, as long as I could talk to the permanent secretary (without whose involvement I knew the idea would fail) – I was never asked back.
Surprisingly, I had more success with the NHS, getting as far as a constructive conversation with Matt Hancock, a dialogue that was cut short by Covid. Initially, the pandemic proved my point. With events moving too fast for the NHS administrators to produce new guidelines and pathways for Covid, doctors and nurses were free to use their initiative and received national acclaim. But eventually more office-based managers were appointed. Bureaucracy took back control and NHS overheads have reached a new high.
I hope for better from the children’s social services sector, where less than 20pc of social workers’ time is spent meeting children and families – the rest is dedicated to administration. If social workers are given more trust and central administrators stop producing policies and procedures, central costs would reduce and social workers could help many more families.
The same principle applies right across Whitehall. By cutting the headcount our public services won’t just save money, they will probably do a better job.