Agenda item

This report provides an update on the results of the Staff Survey and useful comparison data against last year.

Declarations of interest:

None

Witnesses:

Rachel Crossley, Chief of Staff and New Models of Delivery Lead

Lavern Dinah, Strategic OPD Manager

Amy Bailey, Employee Engagement Lead

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    Members probed the difference between leader and manager, given that “my manager” was one of the highest scoring factors and “leadership” was one of the lowest.. The Chief of Staff explained that throughout the survey, “leadership” was considered to be the Chief Executive and the Extended Leadership Team, whilst “my manager” referred to line management level.

2.    The Chief of Staff explained that scores relating to values and behaviours had improved slightly, however there was an ambition to improve these further.

3.    Members noted that the visibility of the leadership team was important to the staff, and that an over-reliance on digital communication had potentially meant that staff do not often see senior leaders face to face.  The Chief of Staff acknowledged this point, and stated that work had been done to achieve a balance between digital communications and face to face interaction between leaders and staff.

4.    Members noted the significant improvements in response rates within the Adult Social Care and Children, Schools and Families directorates and the Chief of Staff explained that in both of these areas, the leadership teams had invested time in visiting the teams to listen to their views.

5.    Members stated that there appeared to be a disconnect between senior leaders and staff members, and that staff needed to feel engaged.  The Chief of Staff explained that work had been done to develop the appraisal process in order to help with engagement.  The officer stated that the appraisal form had been improved along with the behaviours framework to allow for a meaningful discussion.  It also enabled a clearer link to be made between personal objectives and those relating to the objectives of their service.  It was thought that this led to a different conversation to ensure that individuals felt proud to be contributing to the objectives of the service.

6.    Members enquired on the impact of the High Performance Development Programme (HPDP) on the staff survey results.  The Chief of Staff informed Members that the HPDP was a training programme for leaders and senior managers and that approximately 700 officers had been on the programme.  The purpose of the programme was to develop managers behaviours and their engagement skills to ensure they engaged with their teams.  There was evidence of this in the scores relating to open and honest conversations which had remained high and the scores for listening had also increased.

7.    The Chief of Staff explained that once the HPDP training had been delivered, the expectation was that the principles were then implemented.  There were action learning and coaching sets in place to ensure managers were able to continue working on their personal development.  Members were informed that the management training offer was due to be reviewed.

8.    Members enquired whether the data from the staff survey allowed for comparison with similar organisations.  The Employee Engagement Lead explained that many of organisations using the Best Companies survey were private or not-for-profit charities and housing associations, not local authorities.  There were however, five other councils to benchmark against.  The officer indicated that although the other councils were smaller than this council, the benchmark would still be relevant and allow for comparisons to be drawn.

9.    Members enquired as to whether there were any talent programmes in place to develop leaders of the future. The Chief of Staff explained that there was a Shaping Leaders programme in operation that currently had two cohorts of candidates, 20 in total, who were identified for the programme based on their performance within their service with the use of 360 degree feedback tools.  Members were informed that the programme provides the opportunity to develop new skills in different areas at assistant director or head of service level.  Members also noted that there were two talent programmes in operation within Orbis, and that there was an opportunity for the council to scale up their programme.

10.  Members noted the total cost of the three year programme of Best Companies staff surveys was £71,304.  The Chief of Staff explained that there were options for additional reports and data that could be added on for additional cost.

11.  Members noted the comparison data for “My Team” provided in annex 2 was worse in all but one directorate in comparison to last year.  The Employee Engagement Lead explained that this was due to the introduction of a new question, “power struggles in my team have a negative impact”, which seemed to pull all the scores in the category down as a result.

Recommendations:

·         That the Scrutiny Boards should consider reviewing service specific staff survey results relevant to their Board.

·         That the Council Overview Board requests a report following the next results of the 2017 staff survey.