A Formal Review of Partnership in the Civil Service

Executive Summary

In this executive summary we present a synopsis of the main findings of the review.  We outline the identified impediments to the development of partnership and the opportunities and strengths on which to develop the process further. We also present a summary of our conclusions and recommendations.

Summary Of Key Findings

In the sections outlined below we describe the key findings of the review.

Role of Partnership 

• There is a high degree of common understanding regarding the role of partnership in the civil service among the initiators of the process i.e. Department of Finance and general secretaries of trade unions. This understanding however does not appear to have percolated down through the organisation to the extent that might be expected. 

• Partnership has not yet established a clear identity as a process for doing the real business of the civil service and, in many cases, it is seen as emanating from the centre and as not arising from locally perceived needs or problems. Nonetheless, most participants said that they would choose to retain it rather than see it ceasing.

• There are mixed views regarding the effectiveness of partnership. In the main, management and unions regarded partnership as having been somewhat effective, in particular in relation to the introduction of Strategic Management Initiative related changes. In some departments many issues of concern to staff and management have also been dealt with successfully through partnership.

• There is a perception that partnership is a slow process and that decisions reached in partnership are frequently slow to be implemented.

Definition of Partnership

• There is a high level understanding of the definition of partnership in terms of structures, agendas and methods of operation among management, union and staff participants.
  
• At a deeper level, however, there is a pervasive sense of difference between and among management and unions as to what partnership actually means.  In particular there is confusion regarding the relationship between partnership and industrial relations and between partnership and management decision-making. 

Partnership Structures 

• All departments/offices have introduced partnership committees in line with Report No. 1331.
  
• While some departmental committees have been very innovative and advanced in using sub-groups and local committees, many have not established more than a small number of sub-groups and most committees have not established any local committees.
  
• The structure of a central committee, supported by sub-groups and permanent local committees is well understood by those taking part and is working reasonably well.  However, there is a significant body of opinion that there is a need for a central structure to promote, co-ordinate and monitor the development of partnership.
  
• Notwithstanding the scope provided in Report No.1331 there is a widely held view that departments should have greater freedom to develop partnership structures more appropriate to the departmental structure and the needs of the organisation.  In some departments the structure is seen to be a limiting factor, while in others, it has been developed innovatively.
  
• There are significant differences between management and unions on a number of committees regarding the involvement and role of staff representatives in the partnership structures.

Operation of Partnership Structures   

• The secretary general or other head of office chairs almost all partnership committees. A majority of trade union participants expressed a strong view that the chair should be rotated within committees. 
  
• There is a wide variation in the total number of committee meetings held to date. The majority of partnership committees met either monthly or bi-monthly. 
  
• A significant minority of committees - thirteen out of twenty-eight - had quite short meetings of an hour or one to two hours. 
   
• All partnership committees are provided with some level of secretarial/administrative service by departments/offices.
   
• All participants are finding it difficult to meet the time commitments of partnership committees, sub-groups and local committees. 

There is a high turnover of committee members and this is creating difficulties, for example regarding continuity and committee development.

The Partnership Agenda

• Most committees have discussed the main issues recommended in Report No.1331, especially the issues relating to the Strategic Management Initiative (SMI).
• Management provided most agenda items for departmental committees.
• The agendas of partnership committees, sub-groups and local committees contain a high proportion of issues that are particular to departments/offices.
• Handling complex issues such as detailed strategy statements and business plans presents logistical and other difficulties for some participants.
• Participants have identified a range of factors that can help and hinder the successful discussion of the partnership agenda and the successful operation of sub-groups.

PartnershipCulture

• There is a common view among management, union and staff participants that for partnership to be effective it must permeate the culture of departments/offices and not be confined to the partnership structures.
  
• There is also a common view that a partnership culture has not yet been developed and that it may not fit comfortably into the organisational culture of the civil service, nevertheless some departments have demonstrated that this is possible.
  
• There are important differences of emphasis between management and trade union representatives as to what constitutes a partnership culture and in particular how this should affect the nature and degree of involvement of staff and union representatives.
  
• Many perceive that partnership is running out of energy and needs to be revitalised if it is to become a standard ''way of doing things around here''.

Partnership as a Process

• Generally, the participants welcomed the opportunity to engage with one another in a non-confrontational forum and many staff and union representatives expressed the view that this was their first opportunity to have an input to strategy and to influence what was happening in their departments.
  
• Partnership is not just a new structure; it is a new and different process that creates challenges for all those taking part but especially for management and trade union representatives who have traditionally engaged with each other through the industrial relations process.  It also involves staff who have not traditionally had access to any meaningful forms of involvement in joint problem solving and decision-making at a high level.  The extent and scope of this change in approach does not appear to be fully understood or accepted across the civil service.
  
• The use of the full range of available joint problem solving, decision-making and group development processes varies significantly between committees, with some being very advanced and innovative and others considerably less so.  Generally these new processes are quite under-developed and under-used.

Training and Facilitation

Training

• Most partnership committees have received at least one day's training and committees that are to the fore in the development of partnership have invested significantly in the development of participants.
  
• A majority of sub-groups and local committees have also received some training. 
  
• Given the high turnover of committee members there are now many participants on partnership committees who have not received any training at all.
  
• Overall the level of training is low and some of the apparent weaknesses in the partnership process, such as the absence of clear-cut agreed objectives, a lack of openness, conceptual or definitional differences and the avoidance of conflict, suggest certain training needs. 

Facilitation

Many participants considered that the use of facilitators could be very helpful in developing processes and advancing partnership in the civil service.

• No partnership committee used facilitators regularly; the majority have not used facilitation at all as part of the development process; and eleven out of twenty-eight committees said that they occasionally used facilitators.
  
• The use of facilitators is lower in the case of sub-groups and local committees than in the case of partnership committees.

Communications

• While some partnership committees are making significant efforts to communicate with the wider organisation and are using a variety of methods to achieve this, there is little evidence of a communications strategy in most departmental committees.
  
• Partnership has provided a very useful opportunity for communication between management, union and staff representatives within the formal partnership structures.
  
• Communications between representatives on committees and sub-groups and their broader constituencies are weak and lack systems.
  
• There is little or no communication between committees in different departments/offices and many participants would like to see systems for ensuring such communications.