DFID Human Resources Committee
Human Resources Committee - Record of meeting 4 April 2006
Present:
Mark Lowcock (Chair) |
Presenting Papers Ian Ballantyne, Lynnette Carrington, Jim Higgins, Anne MacKinnon Observers: |
Desmond Bermingham |
|
Liz Davis |
|
Andrew Felton |
|
Dave Fish |
|
Joy Hutcheon |
|
Ian McKendry |
|
Charlotte Seymour-Smith |
|
Sharon White |
|
|
|
Ed South (HRC Secretariat) |
Apologies
1. Apologies were received from John Anning, Hans Boehmer and Richard Calvert.
Matters arising and the approval of the minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2006
2. Liz provided the Committee with an update on two of the issues discussed at recent Human Resources Committee (HRC) meetings:
- Performance Management System: Human Resources (HR) is having an on-going dialogue with the Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS) following the indicative ballot. The latest meeting is due to take place later this afternoon. In discussions, HR is working towards reassuring DTUS colleagues. Throughout April, staff at Band A1 and below should continue to work upon their objectives for reporting year 2006/07 and prepare themselves for their appraisal discussion with their Line Manager.
- Early Departure Scheme: 20 staff were offered early departure through the ‘fast track’ arrangements. As announced on inSight, the closing date for estimates for the main 2006 Early Departure Board was 3 April 2006. If an estimate is requested after this date there is no guarantee that it will be received by the closing date for applications (30 April 2006). Mark acknowledged that the ‘fast track’ arrangements were particularly well done and he congratulated both Employment Practice Unit and Staff Pensions Unit on their brilliant efforts.
3. The record of the meeting held on 7 February 2006 was approved without comment.
Welcome to Obbservers
4. Mark welcomed observers to the meeting. Observers are invited to provide any feedback on the meeting to Ed South - HRC Secretariat.
Investors in People: the Road to Reaccreditation
5. Ian Ballantyne noted that he had received a good response to the IiP paper circulated out of committee in December 2005. In introducing this latest paper, he reminded the Committee that since DFID had last secured reaccreditation, the IiP standard had become more challenging. He noted that we aim to secure reaccredition between December 2006 and March 2007.
6. He invited the committee to consider the following proposals set out in his paper:
- Mainstreaming IiP (including a mandatory IiP objective for all Directors);
- Raising awareness of IiP throughout the office by having lunch time seminars;
- Launching a high profile communication through inSight and a Poster campaign;
- Every Line Manager to link their management objective to IiP evidence;
- Double the number of planned mini reviews to at least 14;
7. In discussion the Committee:
- Noted that an IiP strategy group had been established;
- Acknowledged that communication was a key issue;
- Commented that historically mini reviews had been successful;
- Suggested that all offices in Africa are included in the mini reviews
- Asked for clarification on the link between IiP reaccredition and the new White Paper and the Comprehensive Spending Review;
- Emphasised the importance of cascading the IIP message to the whole office;
- Supported the idea of seminars, but noted that they be held during office hours – not at lunchtime;
- Proposed that Seniors Managers lead the seminars;
- Noted that Heads of Profession had a key role;
- Noted that this is an office wide issue not something HRD was imposing;
- Asked what has changed in the last two years;
- Questioned the creditability of using internal assessors;
8. Liz reminded the Committee that IiP is aimed at organisations that are changing and that both the new White Paper and the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 were significant changes. The IiP process will provide strong evidence of how we are coping. On the issue of mini reviews, it was important that we look at “hot spots” (for example those identified in the 2005 Management Environment Survey). In welcoming the response from Directors to date, she requested that if there are any other areas for “mini review” Directors should alert Learning and Development Services (LDS). She noted that the Business Partner Team is a key resources in the IiP process and that LDS was considering how it will support those parts of the business that do not have a business partner
9. On the issue of the mandatory SCS IiP objective, Ian said he would circulate proposals to all Directors in the next couple of days. In response to the Committee’s concerns about using internal assessors, Ian noted that it was perfectly normal for organisations to use internal assessors. LDS had received 25 nominations for the internal assessors. They would require around 3 weeks training. Ian noted that the process of training each internal assessor is very thorough and it includes signing off by an external organisation. He noted that the internal assessors would not be assigned to carry out reviews within their own division. While one lead assessor would carry out each review they would be support by 2 to 3 other internal assessors.
10. Mark concluded:
- The Committee was happy with the proposals outlined in the paper
- LDS to take forward mini reviews and communication process
- All Directors were content to have an IiP objective
Management Environment Survey 2006
11. In introducing this paper, Lynnette Carrington advised the Committee that the Cabinet Office had issued central requirements on management surveys. Consequently we are obliged change the timing of the survey, use a different scoring system and to include the Cabinet Office’s questions.
12. In response to a question from the Committee, Lynnette noted that it is planned to have approximately 28 questions in this year’s survey – this is less than the number in the 2005 survey – but is higher than the number of questions imposed on us by the Cabinet Office
13. In discussion:
- Asked why don’t we use the Cabinet Office Survey;
- Accepted proposals on timing;
- Stressed the need to reduce transaction costs;
- Requested that HR keep the transactional costs of completing the survey to a minimum;
- Noted that the survey was a key way of identifying hotspots within the office;
- Accepted the proposal to publish an update of actions taken following the 2005 Survey;
- Acknowledged that it is useful to have relative ranking between Divisions and within Divisions
14. In response, Lynnette noted that the Cabinet Office questions do not capture “stress indicators” and will result in us being unable to do any year-on-year tracking to highlight progress. She speculated that after their initial set of questions, the Cabinet Office might perhaps issue a second set of questions
15. In conclusion Mark noted
- The committee endorsed the timing of this year’s survey;
- Supported the idea of publishing a note on inSight highlighting what action Divisions had taken following the 2004 Management Environment Survey;
- It was useful to be able track results year-on-year;
- The committee was concerned about the number of questions. HR to review questions and aim for between 12 and 28 questions. Sue Owen to sign off questions before issue.
Revising the promotion system
16. Jim Higgins introduced this paper. He reminded the Committee that following changes to the Performance Management System, HR planned to carry out a detailed review of the posting and promotion system as part of the HR Transformation Programme. However, as DFID wishes to run promotion boards this year, HR had carried out an interim review. The main proposals in his paper are
- A self assessment by applicant linked to 5 achievements;
- A Line Manager assessment supported by a Quality Assessor;
17. In discussion the Committee:
- Noted that the SCS promotion process worked well and questioned why it was not being adopted for use across all sub bands;
- Acknowledged that there was a link between the promotion process and Talent Management Matrix;
- Suggested that the Line Manager be given the option of saying that the applicant is only suited for a limited number of jobs at the higher level;
- Asked if the application form would give a rounded view of the applicant – for example what about people who had recently moved jobs;
- Queried why there was no longer a link between the Performance Management System and the Promotion System;
- Asked for clarification on the Quality Assessor role and who would carry out this function;
- Suggested that more work is done around promotion within processional groups
- Supported the delinking of the Promotion and Performance Management System;
- Noted that more work and discussion needs to be done on streamlining promotion rounds;
18. In response, Liz said that promotion into the SCS (and promotion at Band A1 and below) are significantly different to merit taking a different approach. At SCS level, DFID is assessing against one set of generic skills for promotion into one band. At Band A1 level and below, the generic skills vary depending upon the sub band. Line Managers have an important role in shifting applications - making sure that only potentially valid candidates go forward for promotion.
19. She stressed, for the Committee’s information, that it was unhelpful to use the term “relative appraisals” and reminded the Committee that there is no relative appraisal in the Performance Management System. With regard to the Quality Assessor role, this is the Line Manager’s Line Manager. Directors should take an interest but, as they do not have an oversight of requirements at all grades, Line Managers were in a much better position to do assessment. She acknowledged that these proposals will not produce a shortlist of those to be promoted - that is the function of the promotion board.
20 With regard to professionals, HR would continue its separate discussion outwith the HRC.
21. In summary Mark:
- Said that the decision to delink annual appraisal from promotion had already been taken;
- Important that only those candidates who have a realistic chance of being promoted are encouraged to apply;
- Agreed to the proposal to develop examples of a good and bad application;
- Asked HRD to reflect further on other points made in the meeting.
Any Other Business
HRC Annual report to the Management Board
22. There were no substantive comments on the HRC Annual Report. It can now go forward to the Management Board.
Next HRC
23. Mark noted that Sue Owen would take over as HRC chair from the next meeting.
24. Liz noted that the key item at the meeting was Work Force Planning and she hoped all Directors would attend this meeting.
