Sections:

• Home
• ABOUT DFID
  • History
  • Mission statement
  • Ministers & organisation
  • Millennium Development Goals
  • How DFID works in the UK
  • Who DFID works with
  • Development activities
  • Performance & expenditure
  • Key achievements
  • Evaluation
  • Diversity & equality
  • Expenditure statistics
• FIGHTING POVERTY
• COUNTRY PROFILES
• NEWSROOM
• PUBLICATIONS
• CASE STUDIES
• PROCUREMENT
• CONSULTATIONS
• POLICY AND RESEARCH
• FUNDING SCHEMES
• RECRUITMENT
• DISCOVERY ZONE
• GET INVOLVED

Management Board | Development Committee | Audit Committee | Human Resources Committee

DFID Management Board

Membership | Terms of Reference | Minutes of Meetings

In working towards the delivery of the Public Service Agreement the Management Board will aim to:

• communicate the vision, role, direction and priorities of DFID to staff and other stakeholders;
• ensure DFID's financial resources and staff are allocated and managed effectively;
• monitor and improve DFID's performance;
• protect and enhance DFID’s reputation as a highly effective international development organisation.

Meeting on 23 November 2005

15:30 - 17:30  

Headcount (restricted session)

1. Headcount trajectories had changed since the initial projections had been put together in March as secondees now need to be to included. At the Leadership Group Directors were asked to go away and reformulate their headcount trajectories. The Board were now presented with revised figures which were more robust. Liz Davis asked the Board to:

• note the trajectories submitted by Directors and the aggregate position for March 2008;
• agree the handling of the ‘secondments to country governments’;
• agree the targets for Directors noting increases and further reductions as appropriate;
• note the assumptions relating to declared vacancies;
• agree that headcount be monitored through the QMR and be supported by regular validation exercises.

2. In discussion the Board:

• thanked the Divisional cabinets and HR teams for all their hard work in putting together the revised figures;
• noted that we now meet the target for 2008 (we will only be 1.46 people over). There will be some back loading with headcounts exceeding milestones by 60 in 2006 and 38 in 2007. This is a result of the timing of posting round cycles and the numbers of staff due to move on in different years. The Board were happy in principle with the back loading, subject to any further feedback Mark gets from the centre ;
• welcomed the progress HRD had made in managing down the unallocated category.

3. In conclusion the Board:

• confirmed that our secondments to developing country governments should not be included in the target as this is part of our business rather than Departmental administration. It was agreed we should create a separate line for monitoring and forecasting (but not control) purposes with DG Regions acting as the owner, rather than including these figures in totals to be controlled by regional Directors;
• confirmed they were happy with the revised numbers for Africa, Asia, Knowledge, and HR Divisions, and for ISD and TMG;
• asked the relevant DGs to discuss further with Directors the numbers on EMAD, ETID, UNCHD, PD and FCPD.

Ten Point Plan on Diversity: What does it mean for DFID?

4. Kamaljit Kerridge-Poonia asked the Board to:

• give feedback and comment on the diversity delivery plan;
• note the importance of the strategic role of the Management Board in the delivery of the plan.

5. In discussion the Board:

• noted that the 10 point plan only covers the SCS. The Department of Work and pensions (DWP) and the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) are the only other departments to have submitted their Delivery Plans to date. Their targets are more ambitious on gender than ours but not in other areas;
• agreed on the need to broaden accountability for this agenda in the organisation. There needed to be greater ownership across the Department, particularly at Heads of Office/Department level. It was proposed that accountability could be broadened by commissioning diversity plans for every country office. There was concern that this could result in us focusing too much on plans rather than on outcomes and action. It was agreed that reporting of diversity could be included in the QMR without adding an additional planning layer;
• asked what lessons can we learn from the Ten Point Plan;
• were pleased with the increase in women in the SCS. There will be three SCS promotion boards before 2008. These will be the critical points for maintaining progress towards these targets;
• requested more work on what the obstacles to progress on meeting the women in the SCS target were. The importance of overseas postings which may be difficult for those with families, was cited as a possible obstacle;
• emphasised that diversity makes us more efficient as an organisation. We need to get rid of obstacles that standing in the way of groups or individuals in performing to their full potential;
• were content to meet the target either by promoting internal DFID staff or those recruited externally. The priority was to get the best people for the job;

6. In conclusion the Board:

• agreed diversity targets in the people strategy should again be included in Directors’ and Heads of Departments’ objectives in April;
• were content with the target to get 37% women in the SCS by 2008;
• stressed that mentoring feeder grades will be key. We need to work to get more women in the feeder grades to ensure the momentum towards the 37% target is sustained.

Egon Zehnder Review of the Management Board

7. Simon Page and Alison Beckett from Egon Zehnder gave a presentation setting out the process for and findings from their recent review of the Board. They said the review was overwhelmingly positive. They concluded that the Board is “more effective than most public and private sector boards they have reviewed”. It was also the only Board which they have seen with observers. They highlighted the Board’s strengths as being:

• high quality of board members;
• good balance of skills;
• genuine collegiality;
• strong focus on real management;
• strong decision orientation.

Areas for attention were:

• the quality of presentations made to the Board;
• succession planning;
• the level of challenge from the Board to the organisation.

8. In discussion the Board:

• thanked Egon Zehnder for their work. Board members noted that, based on their own experiences of other Boards, the findings rang true. A number of Board members had sat on “baronial Boards” where everyone fiercely defended their turf rather than acting collegiately. The DFID Board was too small to tolerate baronial behaviour. It was noted that once numbers get higher members tend to get more territorial;
• agreed that the small size of the Board meant succession planning was much more important than it would otherwise be. On succession planning, the Board stressed that they are trying to manage it but this review has helped inform thinking. They will keep in mind how potential new members would affect the balance of skills. Remaining small and tightly focused was important, but if it proved necessary, in order to maintain the right skills mix, the Board might in future consider a third Non-Executive;
• noted that having observers also encouraged a more collegiate approach and encouraged the Board members to avoid putting individuals on the spot and avoid personalisation of the issues.
• agreed that it would be useful to meet informally from time to time;
• agreed that more work is needed on getting the Committee structure right and presentations of a consistently high quality.

9. In conclusion the Board agreed:

• the Chairman should prepare a draft response to the report to discuss at the Board dinner on 5th December; and
• the review and response would then be circulated to the Leadership Group and placed on Spotlight.

Anna Morgan
Management Board Secretary