Title

Are we equipping the next generation of chief executives with the proper skills they need to run a local authority. Matt Hobley reports on an IDeA/The MJ round table event during the recent SOLACE conference which considered succession planning. As councils grapple with the effects of the current economic crisis, the demands of finding innovative solutions to service delivery are even more pressing. But, with a demographic timebomb ticking among senior professional ranks in councils, who will be at the forefront of delivery as councils navigate a path through these uncertain times and look to the future? It's a question that will continue to occupy the minds of chief executives and corporate directors as they seek fresh talent and outlook in their organisations. It also proved fertile ground for a round table discussion organised by The MJ and the IDeA at this year's SOLACE conference in Belfast. The panel was given the following proposition: ‘Are the next generation of chief executives prepared for the challenge?' But rather than simply fielding a panel of top officers, chief executives and senior IDeA representatives were joined by graduates of the National Graduate Development Programme (NGDP). This provided an opportunity to discover if common ground existed on the issues between chief executives and the graduates, and whether the NGDP is adequate preparation for those seeking to step up to the challenge. President of SOLACE and round table chair, David Clark, opened the debate with the results of a simple, unscientific survey of its members, which sought the key issues occupying the minds of chief executives. The results were, perhaps, not surprising: * Declining resources for councils * Credit crunch and the impact on the community * Climate change and flooding – its unpredictability and impact on councils. Although there was widespread agreement among chief executives around the table on these issues, there was surprise among all that the issues of workforce development and fostering a culture of innovation, and community leadership and empowerment had not made the top three. Specifically on the challenges posed by the current economic climate, there was consensus that the effects of the slowdown were going to be felt deeply and painfully by local government. Indeed, one chief executive had a laconic assessment for the emerging challenges for councils: ‘Over the next five years, we will be doing what we have to do rather than what we want to do.' Services will inevitably feel the pinch, and one chief executive expressed concerns that many councils were existing in ‘some kind of parallel universe'. In these organisations, the senior team was aware of the impending economic challenges, but this message was not filtering down to the rest of the staff. This would ultimately make the problem worse. ‘In my organisation, none of the directors talk to the staff without mentioning the effects of the recession. They have to get teed up and begin to appreciate what their role is,' he said. ‘If your staff are not on board, then they are going to be against it.' The consensus around the table was that this would inevitably result in job cuts, as the ‘tax pound' would not support the number of people working in some organisations. This would be further complicated by current relations with some of the public sector unions, which appear to have reverted to a ‘1970s attitude'. An era of testing industrial relations was pending, one chief executive claimed. Conversely, one graduate welcomed the squeeze, as it would force councils to become more efficient. A leaner organisation would see the removal of those ‘bed blocking' senior staff, and encourage people ‘to work as they should'. With some chief executives accepting that the ‘boom period of the last 10 years' had allowed councils to ‘carry the excess', one highlighted another concern where senior officers had become tired. ‘How do you reinvigorate these people?' This was a pressing issue, given the poor response to recruitment campaigns for senior officers, the chief executive added. Many felt a robust performance-management framework, where staff members are given the right incentives and empowerment, was needed. However, the panel still felt local government as a whole struggled to provide this. So, with the pressing need for further innovation and flexibility within councils, an opportunity had presented itself for bright, capable graduates to succeed in a local government career? Not entirely. Although the NGDP had many strengths – not least, the regional networks of officers which have emerged as a result – the graduates said the apparent benefits of the programme depended heavily the organisation the candidates worked for. A graduate working for a smaller unitary authority might be able to exert his or her influence more effectively than, say, in a very large metropolitan or county organisation. For one graduate, the difficulties encountered in challenging the accepted norms of council service had boiled over into widespread frustration with the local government sector as a whole. It appeared that the only way one could influence how a council operated was to work for a consultancy, since authorities were ‘more likely to accept the advice of consultants than their own officers'. The graduate added that challenging the status quo and trying to bring about genuine innovation in service delivery was very difficult from the inside. ‘And so much can be achieved by challenging the current perception of councils and getting people to understand what local government really is,' the graduate added. But the lack of a clear career path in local government was also hampering progression of the brightest candidates. Chief executives bemoaned the loss of the step-by-step careers ladder in councils, which had been complicated further by the contracting out of services and the externalisation of many posts. This could be addressed by a common careers structure between private sector partners and the council. The broad range of professional and political skills required by chief officers also required ambitious staff members to be prepared for ‘sideways' job moves from time to time, to broaden their skills base. The chief executives expressed caution that the NGDP would deliver a generation of policy officers. However, as one pointed out bluntly, many communities do not want ‘empowerment from their councils, they want reliability and accountability'. Good strategic thinking and innovation should be allied by strong pragmatic skills acquired running a service, they added. This should also give aspiring officers seeking to fill the ‘leadership void' sufficient credibility within an organisation. On this area alone, the NGDP could not deliver, one chief executive said. For local government to reap the real rewards of the NGDP, there has to be clear commitment throughout the organisation to allow these, and other ambitious professionals, to thrive. One chief executive sounded a note of caution, though. Although wanting to develop the graduate pool with the organisation, he said it would be difficult to go to elected members requesting resources for graduate programmes when they were focused on the ‘next election, rather than the next 10 years'. In the meantime, the NGDP continues to be over-subscribed. Debate participants l SOLACE – David Clark l IDeA – John Hayes l LocalGov.co.uk – Matt Hobley l Graduates – Dominic Campbell – Barnet LBC Cohort 1 – class of 2004; Heather Young – Tower Hamlets LBC Cohort 5 – class of 2007; Dan Jackson – South Tyneside MBC Cohort 8 – class of 2008 l Local authority chief executives – Jeanette McGarry, chief executive, East Staffordshire BC; Ruth Bagley, chief executive, Slough Council; Tony McArdle, chief executive, Lincolnshire CC; Kevin Crompton, chief executive,Luton BC

Title

WHITEHALL

The next generation of chief executives

By Matt Hobley | 05 April 2011

Popular articles by Matt Hobley

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING

Popular articles by Matt Hobley