Diversity in the Civil Service

Earlier this week the Cabinet Secretary appointed four new diversity advisers – high-profile figures from business and sport – to provide advice and challenge for ministers and senior officials as they try to make the Civil Service more representative of the country it serves. These appointments are the most recent manifestation of Whitehall’s attempts to improve the diversity of its workforce. A look at the experience of women over the last thirty years shows that there are some deeply ingrained cultural issues that Whitehall still needs to face. The Civil Service as a whole is 53% female. But it has not seen the same balance at the top, as Dame Ursula Brennan, a former Permanent Secretary, pointed out: “We still have not achieved the level of diversity that you would expect if you look at the diversity of the talent that is available. So I am afraid that we have not fulfilled the promise of gender parity at the most senior levels of the Civil Service that those of us who joined the Fast Stream in the mid-1970s thought would be a reality for the new generation of officials.” For our report Women and Whitehall: Gender and the Civil Service since 1979 we interviewed current and former officials, inevitably those who survived and thrived from the early 1960s to today, who talked about what it felt like to be a woman in Whitehall across the period. What this brought out was that, despite many women talking positively about the opportunities they felt the Civil Service provided, many still struggled to reach the top. Whitehall has come a long way. We heard examples of everyday sexism that would trigger disciplinary action today. Former Permanent Secretary Ursula Brennan told us that in the mid-1970s there were “bottom-pinchers…people you knew to keep away from”. Dorothy Brown, later Director of HM Revenue and Customs, recalled a male manager who asked to look at her hands to see if she wore an engagement ring and was therefore likely to get married and have children – and thus not be suitable. Whitehall was sometimes also described as clueless: former civil servant Kate Jenkins recalled an occasion in the 1970s, while working on legislation for maternity leave, when she had to convince a parliamentary counsel (and father of four) that pregnancy lasted 40 and not 36 weeks. Whitehall gradually recognised that its traditional working patterns and career pathways were obstacles for women. Some barriers were more tangible: the Foreign Office, for example, kept its ‘marriage bar’ – which forced women to resign upon marriage – until 1972. (Most departments had given up the bar in 1946.) Flexible working became increasingly accepted through the 1990s and 2000s, but some roles remained the preserve of those who could manage long days and weekends. However, for most of the period studied, the very top of Whitehall was almost exclusively male. The first appointments of women permanent secretaries (the most senior officials in Whitehall) were made in living memory (Evelyn Sharp in 1955 and Mary Smieton in 1959). But there was then a 20-year gap until the appointment of Anne Mueller in the 1980s and few were appointed in the 1990s. Today, women comprise only 38% of the Senior Civil Service (SCS) and less than 20% of permanent secretaries. This trouble at the top highlights the importance of culture when it comes to encouraging diversity in gender, ethnicity and disability, especially when Whitehall has tried to bring people in from different sectors or with different backgrounds. Our interviewees talked about expectations of being ‘the right sort of chap’ and it being easier for women with the ‘right’ educational or socio-economic backgrounds. As one current official described it “You could be a ‘female chap’ quite easily but if you didn’t want to compromise in that way there was a challenge”. There was a sense of ‘fitting in’. In the earlier period some talked about the importance of cricket and classics; for others it was a similar kind of socio-economic or educational experience. Nuances of language and ‘understanding the rules of the game’ have often been a barrier for those coming from outside. Many women enjoyed the demanding and intellectual atmosphere of Whitehall, but others talked about how at times it was aggressive, particularly at the top. Some women chose to opt out rather than continue in an atmosphere they felt didn’t allow them to succeed. At the heart of the issue is the concept of the ideal ‘mandarin’ and how this has evolved over time. The question today’s would-be reformers need to ask is whether the aim is to get women to be 'better men' – the early 1990s saw a spate of sending women on assertiveness training – or actually achieving change in what it wants and rewards in top leaders. Assuming the latter, will the new advisers consider the role of ministers in this? Many of our interviewees talked about how important ministers could be in terms of career advancement and setting the tone of the department. Despite advances, women are still finding it hard to access the very top networks: since 1983, all of the 12 principal private secretaries to the Prime Minister have been men, and only one has not come from the Treasury. And these two factors are linked: many of our interviewees stressed the difference in feel between departments that had significant numbers of women and the more macho Treasury, which has only recently begun to become a genuinely female-friendly environment. Today’s Whitehall needs to be mindful of its past if it is to preserve and expand on the progress made by previous generations. There are many good examples to draw upon, but also deeply-ingrained cultural factors that need to be understood. In this respect, properly appreciating Whitehall’s history is just as important as bringing in advice from outside.