MEETING OF THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT STRATEGIC BOARD: HELD ON THURSDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2009
Present
- Sir John Elvidge KCB (chair)
- Robert Gordon CB
- Stella Manzie CBE
- Philip Rycroft
- Alyson Stafford
- Richard Wakeford
- Kevin Woods
- Bill Bound
- Heather Logan
- Apologies: Andrew Goudie, David Fisher
In Attendance
- Norman McFadyen
- Sarah Davidson
- Elinor Mitchell
- Andrew Watson
- Robin Benn
- Rebecca Winterstein
- Nicola Paterson (For Paper SB(09)09 only)
- Ros Cockerell (For Paper SB(09)10 only)
- John Galilee (For Paper SB(09)11 only)
- Samantha Groessler (For Paper SB(09)11 only)
- Sara Davidson, Ipsos MORI (For Paper SB(09)11 only)
- Kate Sewel, Ipsos MORI (For Paper SB(09)11 only)
- Kathryn Watson (For Paper SB(09)12 only)
- Derek Steel (For Paper SB(09)12 only)
- Seema Shah, ORC International (For Paper SB(09)12 only)
- Katherine Myant, ORC International (For Paper SB(09)12 only)
- Mike Palmer (For Paper SB(09)13 only)
- Evie McLaren (For Paper SB(09)13 only)
Agenda Item 1: Minutes and Matters Arising
1. The Board agreed the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January. The Board noted the ongoing development of the action tracker, welcomed the progress being made and asked the Secretariat to provide an update of the tracker for each meeting of the Board. (Action: Cabinet and Corporate Business Secretariat)
Agenda Item 2: Public Sector Pay Policy 2009-10 (SB(09)09)
2. Alyson Stafford introduced paper SB(09)09. She said that the policy proposals set out in the paper had previously been considered by the Remuneration Group. UK policy on public sector pay for 2009-10 was expected to be announced on 23 February.
Part of the record of discussion under this agenda item is considered exempt from publication at this time and has been redacted.
Point made in discussion:
(a) The Strategic Board thanked Nicola Paterson, who would be moving to a new post shortly, for her work on Pay Policy and with the Remuneration Group, and wished her well in her new post.
3. The Strategic Board agreed:
That the Remuneration Group should consider and provide advice
Part of the record of discussion under this agenda item is considered exempt from publication at this time and has been redacted.
4. The Permanent Secretary welcomed the Scottish Government officials who joined the meeting at this point to observe the proceedings.
Agenda Item 3: Finance Director's Report (SB(09)10)
5. Alyson Stafford introduced paper SB(09)10 which reported on key financial developments, including a high level overview of forecast end of year outturn expenditure, informed by spending in the first 10 months of 2008-09.
Part of the record of discussion under this agenda item is considered exempt from publication at this time and has been redacted.
Agenda Item 4: Scottish Government Stakeholder Survey 2008 and PowerPoint Presentation (SB(09)11)
11. Sarah Davidson introduced paper SB(09)11 which informed the Strategic Board of the key results and forthcoming publication of the findings of the 2008 Scottish Government Stakeholder Survey. She said that the Survey had been delayed to ensure that the Scottish Government asked the right questions of its stakeholders. Evidence from the survey demonstrated that there had been a step change in the way in which we engaged with stakeholders. The time might be right to reflect on the extent to which this degree of engagement could be adopted throughout the policy development process. She said that Ministers recognised (and valued highly) the unmediated engagement that took place across the Scottish Government.
12. Sara Davidson and Kate Sewel, both of IPSOS Mori, used a PowerPoint presentation to summarise the results of the Stakeholder Survey. Dr Davidson said that the Stakeholder Survey, which had included both quantitative and qualitative elements, needed to be seen in the context of the recent internal restructuring of the Scottish Government. She said that 811 responses had been received as part of the Survey, of which 622 responses were by telephone.
13. Dr Davidson said that only 3% of respondents had not heard of the Scottish Government's Purpose and National Outcomes and 58% had a good level of familiarity with the Concordat. Scotland Performs was less familiar to respondents, and only 3 in 10 were familiar with the system at present. Satisfaction with the Scottish Government continued to improve - 84% in 2008 compared with 76% in 2005 and 72% in 2004 - and these rates remained high compared to like organisations.
14. Dr Davidson said that areas where the Government was performing well included: providing accurate and reliable information; having knowledgeable staff; and understanding what the Government was trying to achieve. Most respondents said that officials treated them as their equal and demonstrated commitment to equalities. Areas for improvement included: being more "joined up"; improving stakeholder involvement in policy making; basing policy and decisions on sound evidence; and understanding the constraints faced by stakeholders. She said that it was proposed that the next steps should be to identify areas of excellence and learn from these.
15. Points made in discussion:
(a) The Survey was in some areas very positive, and it would be important to recognise success and maintain and build on this;
(b) In the 2008 Stakeholder Survey, respondents had been asked to focus on their day-to-day interaction with the Scottish Government. They would thus have focused on inter-personal relationships rather than information the Government provided through other channels such as digital media;
(c) Responses to the Survey had highlighted that stakeholders thought that staff within the Scottish Government changed posts too frequently. Scoping interviews prior to the main Survey had indicated that respondents thought that there had, in previous years, been some improvement in this factor, but that "churn" was once again becoming a problem. Although it was necessary and beneficial for staff to move between posts (both to ensure that practices and procedures were subject to regular review and to provide staff with fresh challenges), an effective induction and handover protocol would ensure that regular turnover of staff did not impact negatively on stakeholder relationships;
(d) It should be noted that the Scotland Performs tool had been launched only two months before the Survey had been undertaken. In these circumstances, the fact that 30% of respondents had already heard about the tool could be regarded as a positive outcome;
(e) Consideration should be given as to how the information brought out in the Survey should be disseminated through out the organisation. Analysis by stakeholder type would be particularly helpful in determining areas where more work would be necessary. It was planned to roll out this information in the next 2 to 3 months, along with a good practice guide;
(f) One suggestion arising out of the Survey was that the Scottish Government should put more effort into explaining the rationale behind Ministerial decisions to its stakeholders; and
(g) Quicker, more regular surveys could be an effective tool to gauge stakeholder views of the Scottish Government.
16. The Strategic Board agreed:
(a) To identify excellence and take forward lessons learned at the level of DG Families; (Action: All Directors-General)
(b) Further advice should be provided on how a more regular flow of stakeholder data could be maintained; (Action: Communications Directorate) and
(c) More analysis should be made into the effects of staff movements, and consideration should be given as to how any negative impacts should best be managed. (Action: Change and Corporate Services Directorate)
Agenda Item 5: Employee Survey 2008: Priorities and Actions to Improve Employee Engagement and PowerPoint Presentation (SB(09)12)
17. Seema Shah from ORC International and Kathryn Watson of the Employee Engagement Team introduced paper SB(09)12 which provided an update on the results of the 2008 Employee Survey and invited the Strategic Board to commit to a number of proposals designed to strengthen employee engagement across the Scottish Government and its agencies. Ms Shah used a PowerPoint presentation to summarise the results of the survey.
18. Ms Shah said that the response rate of 62% was lower than that achieved in 2007 (69%) and lower that other Central Government organisations (67%), but it was still in line with the average across all UK organisations (63%). The Scottish Government's overall employee engagement index had risen to 66%, an increase of 1% compared with 2007. Ms Shah said that the engagement index level among Core Directorates was relatively uniform (68% on average, with a range of 59% to 72%). The index levels recorded for the different Agencies and Associated Departments included in the Survey varied more widely (63% on average, with a range of 33% to 92%). Engagement rose by band but diminished marginally with length of service. Engagement was also higher for staff in the main Scottish Government buildings.
19. Among the key drivers for engagement identified for 2008, priorities for improvement included: senior management and leadership; perceptions of the total reward package for performance; and perceptions of positive actions from the previous Employee Survey (only 26% positive responses). Among positive points, 82% of respondents understood how their work contributed to the Scottish Government's Purpose, an increase on 2007.
20. Ms Shah said that responses to the majority of questions remained in line with the 2007 Survey, although progress was apparent in some key areas which had been identified as opportunities for action. The Scottish Government's strengths included: job security and satisfaction; good team working; relations with line managers; perceptions of work objectives and skills; commitment to diversity; and respecting differences. Performance management was identified as an area for improvement, and only 28% of respondents felt that poor performance was dealt with effectively; this was in line with comparable findings from the 2007 Survey.
21. Ms Watson said that areas for priority attention should include: improving internal communications; increasing the visibility of the Strategic Board; emphasising the role of line managers in improving levels of engagement for staff in Bands A and B; recognising personal effort (building on the evaluation of the Excellence Awards); and raising the visibility of actions taken to respond to the Survey, notably by increasing employee involvement in any follow-up action.
22. Points made in discussion:
(a) It was noted that the Survey questions used for Agencies and Associated Departments had been tailored for local circumstances, but nonetheless, that Agencies and Associated Departments would require different handling from the Core Directorates, as local factors might have influenced Survey responses;
(b) In interpreting the results, it should be borne in mind that only around 40% of the respondents worked in Core Directorates in the main Scottish Government buildings. This factor presented particular issues for DG Environment, which had historically lower engagement scores than other Directorates General, some of which (for example: visibility of senior management) could be attributed to the challenges presented by remote working in a large number of small local offices across Scotland;
(c) Care would be needed when interpreting the engagement index scores for particular agencies and Directorates, as response rates varied greatly;
(d) Given that the Survey had been conducted while PCS remained in dispute with management over the pay agreement, it was hard to judge whether the result would have been better in the absence of the dispute or whether staff responding disregarded the dispute;
(e) The follow-up conversations which formed part of the Stakeholder Survey had been useful. It would be helpful to see the comments that had been made by respondents to the Employee Survey, broken down by building; by Directorate / Agency; and by band;
(f) Practical ways would need to be found to address the issue of managing poor performance: this might take some time, as "quick fix" solutions were unlikely to be effective. This should form part of a broader piece of work on corporate strategy which the Director-General Finance and Corporate Services was taking forward;
(g) Although the Strategic Board's final responsibility for the employment experience of all Scottish Government staff was not in doubt, practical actions to address the findings of the Survey might more appropriately lie with the senior management of Agencies or Associated Departments, who had first-line accountability and responsibility for managing their staff. Disaggregated data would help assign responsibility in this regard;
(h) In the past, the Strategic Board had relied on local management to devise and implement suitable responses to the Survey findings. As only 26% of respondents believed that effective action had been taken in response to the 2007 Survey, this approach might need to be revisited. Significant management efforts had been made in some areas to address the issues arising from the 2007 Survey, and it would be particularly important to recognise and celebrate good progress which had been made locally.
(i) It would be important to label follow-up actions as responses to the satisfaction survey. Communication would play an important role in assuring staff that the messages contained in the survey have been taken seriously and acted upon; and
(j) It would be important for Directors-General to consider, with their Directors, the detailed results for individual business areas, in order that responses can be tailored to the local employee experience. It would also be helpful to consider actions arising from the Employee and Stakeholder Surveys in parallel. It would be important to ensure that momentum was maintained, particularly with regard to the headline findings: the longer it took for management to respond to the Survey, the less confidence staff would have in senior management's commitment to resolve the issues they had raised.
23. The Strategic Board agreed:
(a) To endorse the recommendation set out in paper SB(09)40, but with some amendments to the timetable for communication, as set out below;
(b) That greater recognition should be given to the different findings and perceptions in Agencies and Associated Departments as opposed to the Core Directorates. Directors-General and their DG Families should digest the Directorate/Agency reports before they were communicated more widely. Appropriate action would be taken both at the corporate level and locally, recognising the variety of different contexts in which employees worked;
(c) That the headline messages from the Strategic Board should be communicated by means of a Saltire article in the Permanent Secretary's name within one week, including details of next steps; and
(d) That an action plan outlining the corporate response should be presented to the Strategic Board in April for approval. Local plans should be developed in parallel to this work. (Action: Office of the Chief Researcher; Employee Engagement Team)
Agenda Item 6: Scottish Government Substance Misuse Policy (SB(09)13)
24. Mike Palmer introduced paper SB(09)13 which invited the Board to consider recommendations to change the Scottish Government's substance misuse policy.
Part of the record of discussion under this agenda item is considered exempt from publication at this time and has been redacted.
Agenda Item 7: Any Other Business
25. None.
Date of Next Meeting
26. Thursday, 19 March at 9am.
Cabinet and Corporate Business Secretariat
March 2009