In his first article as a regular contributor to The MJ, Stephen Taylor says that a focus on improving the performance of less productive staff will help councils maintain services during budget cuts
An academic survey once revealed that the top 15 employees in 100 delivered 19 to 48% more than the average, depending on the complexity of the job.
The differences at the extremes were much greater – the highest performer in 100 delivered an astonishing 12 times more than the lowest.
But why should academics’ findings of this kind be of any interest to local government? Because we are not only the largest employer in the UK, we are also one of the most labour-intensive. So, a small shift in productivity delivers a big benefit.
Suppose, for example, a council employing 1,000 people lifted the performance of its average staff member no more than one-quarter of the way towards that of its top 150? That delivers about 6% more output.
In other words, you get the same amount of work done with just 940 staff.
If you choose to take the benefit the other way, you add the equivalent of 60 people to the workforce without a penny on the payroll. When it is expected that council finances will face a ‘perfect storm’ two years ahead, this kind of opportunity is too good to miss. But, how to do it? The beauty of this is that two years is enough to achieve it.
Let’s assume you have recruited basically-competent staff. Let’s also assume you have some means of setting objectives and appraising people’s performance which lets you – and more importantly them – know how well they are doing. Local government can make a terrible meal of this. The best appraisal system is an ongoing conversation between people who trust each other.
Finally, let’s assume that you have acted on the results, at least to the extent of helping or removing the weakest performers.
Now what you’re looking for is the discretionary effort – the contribution people can choose to give or withhold, depending on how they feel about their work, their manager and their employer.
It looks like small differences in practice – returning that phone call today rather than tomorrow, taking a few minutes off the lunch break to finish a report, squeezing in an extra visit on the way home. But it all adds up to a big difference in results.
We know what the five ingredients of discretionary effort are, because they are universal. First, people want to know that what they do is intrinsically worthwhile, that it has meaning. That should be no problem in local government, with its very visible connection to the wellbeing of the citizen. But we often obscure that connection with bureaucratic language. Second, they want a challenge, to be taken beyond their comfort zone, but not their coping zone. Boredom debilitates, stretch expands. Third, they want freedom. Over-supervision, micromanagement, has been proven to be the biggest demotivator of all. Fourth they want recognition – and not just for a job well done. Constructive criticism is recognition because it says, ‘You’re important, so it matters if you don’t do things well’. And lastly, they want belonging, to feel wanted and accepted for who they are.
Discretionary effort is why the best leaders in local government care so much about the culture of the organisation. Talk to Rob Whiteman at Barking & Dagenham LBC, Katherine Kerswell at Northamptonshire CC, Stephen Hughes at Birmingham City Council, and many others.
They want their people to be happy, but they want, even more, for them to be productive. They will tell you about the connection between ‘the soft stuff and the hard stuff’. They know that success and morale go hand in hand, and reinforce each other – everybody benefits.
In my three-and-a half-years at the Leadership Centre, I visited almost 100 councils. I didn’t need a star rating or a staff survey to tell me which ones were winning. I could sense it in the smile in a corridor, the mood of a meeting, the buzz in a room.
That’s not just about being nice to people, it’s about being tough and tender at the same time – expecting a lot and doing everything you can to help people meet the expectation. Get that right, and the performance follows. n
Stephen Taylor is director of Taylor Haig and former chief executive of the Leadership Centre
The differences at the extremes were much greater – the highest performer in 100 delivered an astonishing 12 times more than the lowest.
But why should academics’ findings of this kind be of any interest to local government? Because we are not only the largest employer in the UK, we are also one of the most labour-intensive. So, a small shift in productivity delivers a big benefit.
Suppose, for example, a council employing 1,000 people lifted the performance of its average staff member no more than one-quarter of the way towards that of its top 150? That delivers about 6% more output.
In other words, you get the same amount of work done with just 940 staff.
If you choose to take the benefit the other way, you add the equivalent of 60 people to the workforce without a penny on the payroll. When it is expected that council finances will face a ‘perfect storm’ two years ahead, this kind of opportunity is too good to miss. But, how to do it? The beauty of this is that two years is enough to achieve it.
Let’s assume you have recruited basically-competent staff. Let’s also assume you have some means of setting objectives and appraising people’s performance which lets you – and more importantly them – know how well they are doing. Local government can make a terrible meal of this. The best appraisal system is an ongoing conversation between people who trust each other.
Finally, let’s assume that you have acted on the results, at least to the extent of helping or removing the weakest performers.
Now what you’re looking for is the discretionary effort – the contribution people can choose to give or withhold, depending on how they feel about their work, their manager and their employer.
It looks like small differences in practice – returning that phone call today rather than tomorrow, taking a few minutes off the lunch break to finish a report, squeezing in an extra visit on the way home. But it all adds up to a big difference in results.
We know what the five ingredients of discretionary effort are, because they are universal. First, people want to know that what they do is intrinsically worthwhile, that it has meaning. That should be no problem in local government, with its very visible connection to the wellbeing of the citizen. But we often obscure that connection with bureaucratic language. Second, they want a challenge, to be taken beyond their comfort zone, but not their coping zone. Boredom debilitates, stretch expands. Third, they want freedom. Over-supervision, micromanagement, has been proven to be the biggest demotivator of all. Fourth they want recognition – and not just for a job well done. Constructive criticism is recognition because it says, ‘You’re important, so it matters if you don’t do things well’. And lastly, they want belonging, to feel wanted and accepted for who they are.
Discretionary effort is why the best leaders in local government care so much about the culture of the organisation. Talk to Rob Whiteman at Barking & Dagenham LBC, Katherine Kerswell at Northamptonshire CC, Stephen Hughes at Birmingham City Council, and many others.
They want their people to be happy, but they want, even more, for them to be productive. They will tell you about the connection between ‘the soft stuff and the hard stuff’. They know that success and morale go hand in hand, and reinforce each other – everybody benefits.
In my three-and-a half-years at the Leadership Centre, I visited almost 100 councils. I didn’t need a star rating or a staff survey to tell me which ones were winning. I could sense it in the smile in a corridor, the mood of a meeting, the buzz in a room.
That’s not just about being nice to people, it’s about being tough and tender at the same time – expecting a lot and doing everything you can to help people meet the expectation. Get that right, and the performance follows. n
Stephen Taylor is director of Taylor Haig and former chief executive of the Leadership Centre
