Select a region
When the Government was 'torn up' in 2018, a new job structure blueprint was meant to be in place by the next year - but that work is still not finished, and the process of having to effectively fight for their old jobs has left many staff feeling stressed, undervalued and downbeat.
From “change upon change” to issues with job descriptions and inconsistent HR practices, the so-called 'Target Operating Model' has caused “low morale” within the Government’s workforce and failed to achieve its goals, according to union representatives speaking on behalf of those who have gone through the process.
In March 2018, former CEO Charlie Parker unveiled the blueprint for ‘OneGov’, which would involve tearing up the current structure of Jersey’s Government, and creating a new ‘Whitehall’-style structure.
It would involve changing and creating a number of departments, and bringing them all together into one building, which we now know will be at the same site of the former HQ, in a bid to make things more “efficient”, get departments collaborating and stamp out “siloed” working – one of the main reasons he had previously diagnosed Jersey’s Government as “broken”.
Presented as a blueprint mapping out the new 'OneGov' hierarchy and the roles of every employee within it, the TOM was originally set to end at the end of 2019 but fell behind schedule.
Now, nearly two years after that initial deadline, the Government confirmed to Express that the process is nearing the finishing line.
All departments have now concluded their TOM, they said, apart from some teams in Infrastructure, Housing and Environment, who are currently undergoing the final stages of the consultation.
It is now expected that the final stages of the work will be concluded by the end of the year.
Pictured: Originally set to be concluded by the end of 2019, the TOM ran behind schedule and is now due to complete at the end of the year.
“There are no further TOM projects planned, although an organisation of this size will inevitably undertake organisational changes from time to time,” a Government spokesperson said.
“The TOM was designed to align departments and functions within the OneGov structure. This is now complete.”
But while the work is nearly complete, there are concerns among staff, not only about the effects of the programme on the workforce’s morale, but also over the fact the outcome is not what they were promised when the programme started.
Speaking recently to the Corporate Services Panel, which is currently reviewing the Government’s People and Culture strategy, Lyndsay Feltham, the Chair of the Civil Service Branch of Unite the Union said employees had been “very much impacted” by the top-down approach adopted in Government as well as by the Target Operating Model, which coupled with the workforce modernisation programme had caused “change upon change”.
“Generally, that’s led to a lack of morale, a very low morale within the general employees and also it has an impact on how managers treat their staff and how colleagues treat each other as well,” she said.
Pictured: The President of JCSA Prospect said the process of the TOM had been "stressful" for employees as they had to reapply for their own jobs.
Gary Davies, the President of JCSA Prospect, said the scope of both reviews had impacted on “everyone, certainly civil servants”, describing the TOM as “brutal” and as “ripping apart the organisation and rebuilding it”.
He explained how the process, which involved employees having to reapply for their position, had created a lot of stress for employees.
“If you have been in the States 20, 30 years to have to apply for your own job, go through the trauma of an interview - I can’t think of many people that love interviews - it’s extremely stressful, especially when the end result of this is are you going to have a job, or are you going to have a job that you want or are you going to have to go back and start again,” he said.
“Most people if you are going for a job, you are going from one job, apply for another and if you are not successful you stay in your existing job.”
Chris Hopkins, the Vice President of the Prospect, told the Panel about issues with the development of job descriptions, explaining that some are missing “the most obvious thing” in the role, giving rise to questions about who are the people writing them in the first place.
Mr Hopkins, who works within the new 'super-department' of Infrastructure, Housing and Environment (IHE), said that despite repeated requests he hasn’t been able to get answers about who carries out assessments on the roles as “such simple things” are missed.
A Government spokesperson explained that managers write the job descriptions which are then evaluated by an external assessor. They are then shared with employees and trade unions as part of a consultation period, at the end of which any feedback and changes are incorporated and the final grades are confirmed.
James Turner, the Regional Officer for Unite the Union, shared his surprise at the lack of engagement from the workers themselves and the unions during the grading and evaluation process, noting it should be a “collaborative process” which would avoid challenges in the later parts of the process.
“It gains the most beneficial outcomes to both sides because the members feels, if their union is represented then their roles are being represented correctly on those panels as well,” he said.
Pictured: "The whole ethos that was sold to us was that the entire States were going to be one company, equally treated across all pay," Mr Hopkins said.
But, as Mr Hopkins explained, the outcome of the programme is not what unions expected either.
“The whole ethos that was sold to us was that the entire States were going to be one company, equally treated across all pay but as has also been mentioned and is evident that totally depends where you are, who you work for and what department you work for, whoever is making the decisions clarifying the job descriptions, clearly isn’t the same people so one department are getting graded higher than maybe other departments with almost identical job descriptions and the whole point was meant to be one big company, everyone is treated the same but they are not.”
Ms Feltham also raised concerns with the new arrangements around human resources, noting that the fact some of the work has been “devolved” to managers has led the provision “lacking consistency across the board”.
She told Scrutiny some of the managers do not even know who their HR “business partner” is and that a lot of cases go through disciplinary “well before they should” which wouldn’t happen if managers had better experience of dealing with such matters or if human resources were “on the scene”.
Mr Parker always maintained that the process of change, he always maintained, was likely to be painful in some respects, but would ultimately make the civil service better run, and more customer-focused.
It was also set to be a more cohesive service, with much value being placed on working together - a £3.5m contract with UK consultants to change the culture of Government and create a 'Team Jersey' atmosphere was meant to ensure this. Team Jersey was meant to create pride in the organisation, and encourage civil servants to want to stay and progress up the ranks to ensure a stream of local talent.
As well as the intended 'boost' from the Team Jersey programme, staff should have perhaps also been buoyed by the island-wide praise – both inside and outside Government – for frontline workers and others crucial to keeping the island running during the pandemic. Yet this didn’t appear alleviate the feelings of many respondents to a Government-wide ‘Be Heard’ survey on their views of the organisation.
Around half didn’t feel ‘emotionally connected’ to the organisation. Wellbeing was a key issue, with more than half saying they felt exhausted upon finishing work most days.
Other concerns revolved around development opportunities, with around a quarter of surveyed staff falling into the ‘anxious’ category, while more than one in 10 were ‘bored’.
Perhaps most concerning, more than 10% of respondents said they would quit tomorrow if they found another job.
Unlimited power with limited accountability
'Jerseyness' and the OneGov legacy
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.