It will take time and patience to reach a sensible, orderly outcome following HR survey, writes Ken Mann
You’ve probably read, heard, seen or clicked on the news that about a third of the total workforce of the recently region-merged Police Scotland intends to quit the Force within the next three years. It follows an independent survey.
Headlines and news pieces have a natural and understandable attraction to these informational aspects; they are not primarily intended as timeline investigative features. Consequently, a full examination of all survey data is discounted. You won’t get it in this column, either. But I will tease out a few additional facts as food for more considered thought on an HR dilemma with impact for us all.
One or two papers and broadcast outlets went further by noting that its employees – and that also means support roles, not just serving officers, a fact some may have overlooked during the mild hysteria that frequently clouds facts in similar scenarios – will be playing a professional game of follow my leader. Glaswegian (in spite of his anglicised accent) Chief Constable Sir Stephen House has announced that he will step down after giving notice of three months, ending in December. My interest in all of this is the part played by structural change and its management in affecting the attitudes of staff, comparing the benefit of relative privacy enjoyed by the private sector to the public sector spotlight.
Time and room to manoeuvre are the real enemies when large organisational change is occurring. The task of re-modelling eight former police authorities into one is similar to maintaining traffic flow on a busy motorway when a major new intersection is being constructed around it. Difficulties arise, obstructions occur, user expectations are unmet and consequential mistakes can be made as the vastness of the project unfolds. Sometimes incompatibilities, overlooked at original design stage for whatever reason, are exposed. Experience shows it takes cross-party co-operation – and an investment in time – to reach a sensible, orderly outcome producing something better than went before it.
Experience also suggests that patience is an element public stakeholders, in common with motorway drivers, are too rarely in the habit of allowing. For all staff in Police Scotland, notwithstanding the internal issues with which they need to grapple in a change process, that adds another unhelpful daily dimension.
The current structure – whether viewed as good in part, bad across the board or just ill-considered – is still very new in terms of a large entity; it was formed on April 1, 2013. Indeed, this is the first joint organisation-wide survey, informally dubbed a “temperature test” in corporate HR circles, carried out by Police Scotland and governing body, the Scottish Police Authority (SPA).
Judged purely in a worker-employer relationship context, is there really a crisis punishable by what has the feel of permanent denunciation from sections of the political spectrum and media? Is there systemic management failure, complicated by underfunding?
True or not, it is beyond doubt that the rules of appraisal are more weightily stacked against reason and justice when it involves an organisation with the highest possible profile feeding from the glass fish tank of public funding.
That makes the change process more challenging because the public sector is more visible and accountable to a wider range of onlookers. It further impairs the ability of staff to embrace altered practices by presenting a steeper learning curve.
You can’t ignore the slew of well-publicised issues arising during Sir Stephen’s watch. An administrative error leading to a three-day response time to a tragic fatal accident when a car careered from the M9 down an embankment, controversy over armed officers appearing on routine patrols, the policy over stop-and-search of juveniles and allegations of unlawful spying on journalists’ sources make for unsavoury reading in an early report card.
The survey certainly has rigour. Around 12,000 Police Scotland staff made responses, or about half the total headcount, according to the available information. As samples go, that’s large. And as figures go for people contemplating a move, it’s also large, even for a period of change.
Work needs to be done filtering information cascaded to staff; 78 per cent underlined an over-reliance on email and nearly half of the respondents felt “overloaded” with information. There are exemplars everywhere on how to do that one.
Fewer than 10 per cent of staff feeling the organisation is interested in their wellbeing is admittedly alarming, particularly when assessed against a typical serving officers’ duties.
Concentrating on some of the other data from that survey, however, uncovers a parallel personnel story. Strong team working is evident; 73 per cent feel their team work well to improve services. And 78 per cent of respondents expressed trust and respect for their line managers and strong relationships with colleagues.
For me that represents a basis for renewed effort towards further improvement. Suffocating these levels of employee goodwill will diminish existing morale. A campaign of criticism will serve no purpose.
Learning lessons is implicit; there will be another survey in 12 months and the SPA has acknowledged a need to address issues raised. A month-long staff engagement programme has already started. The matter will be a burning topic for Sir Stephen’s yet to be announced replacement. But whether robust improvements take 12 months or double that time, we should note that haste is the enemy of outright speed in finding lasting solutions – and retaining high quality staff.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article