The civil service must do more to improve its socio-economic diversity

The Social Mobility Commission’s (SMC) recent report on socio-economic background in the civil service prompted much commentary about how often Latin jokes came up in government meetings. Almost never, was my experience - with ancient languages more likely to be used by the prime minister than by his senior civil servants.

But the subject demands more serious analysis. The report concludes that there is a problem in the civil service – not just in recruiting people from varied socio-economic backgrounds (“getting in”) but in promoting them and offering equal career opportunities (“getting on”). It is a problem which needs to be fixed.

There are too few senior civil servants from lower socio-economic backgrounds

The percentage of senior civil servants from low socio-economic backgrounds is lower now than it was in 1967. ^[1] The problem is particularly acute in policy teams, in London, and in some departments like the Treasury and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Certain “accelerator jobs” that lead to bulging contact books and rapid promotion are more accessible to an elite, and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds say they find it hard to comprehend a civil service culture of “studied neutrality”, that prizes a shared sense of irony and measured distance from the issue at hand.

These are generalisations of course. Departments and teams differ, and it is important to avoid applying civil service clichés to an organisation that has done a lot to improve its gender and ethnic diversity, and its accessibility to those with disabilities (though there is still a way to go). The discussion can also risk patronising people from different backgrounds by suggesting that they are not sharp or focused enough to detect and use organisational cultures to their advantage. That is obviously nonsense.

But the testimony from civil servants themselves, quoted in the report, is compelling. One mid-ranking civil servant said that “I find the whole idea that someone needs to talk to the right people, and it’s not enough that I do a good job, really really hard”. Another felt that “I don’t really fit… part of the fact I haven’t got further is because I just don’t get it”. The problem is real.

Any civil service reform plan must prioritise diverse recruitment and promotion

The civil service deserves credit for commissioning and co-operating with the SMC’s work. There are not many private sector organisations who would take such a risk and the civil service is leading the way.

But for the work to lead to real change, addressing socio-economic diversity should be a core part of the civil service’s reform plan. It is a good moment to push ahead with reforms, and Michael Gove as the Cabinet Office minister responsible seems committed to change. Last summer he championed diversity of thought and background, recognising that “when you get a critical mass of people in any organisation who have got similar outlooks, biases and preferences the minority who may dissent become progressively more uncomfortable about doing so”.

The civil service should make the most of this political backing. The SMC report has taken the first step by raising awareness and holding a mirror up to the civil service as it is now, helping its leaders to understand its weaknesses and making the case for change.

Five reforms to improve socio-economic diversity

Then there are more concrete things to prioritise. Building on the action plan attached to the SMC’s report, here are five reforms to pursue:

• To rethink how “accelerator roles” and high-status jobs that give civil servants career exposure should work. Private office jobs working close to ministers and high profile roles leading on legislation are always going to exist but the civil service should ask whether a private office in 2021 needs to work in the same way as it did in 1981. Can private offices be located elsewhere? How can more job-shares and other new ways of working be encouraged?
   
• To open up more routes to the top for people who start in operational and project delivery roles and have built up those skills. The civil service should define and nurture leadership skills to complement its well-established policy fixers and ministerial courtiers.
   
• To collect more data. The report only exists because questions were added to the civil service’s internal staff survey. The civil service should do more to plug the gaps particularly on the background of senior civil servants and those who work in roles beyond the policy and operational core.
   
• To make sure talent schemes identify people from disadvantaged socio-economic groups. These schemes boost people’s skills but even more importantly are signifiers for promotion.
   
• To use the opportunity of civil service relocations to bring more people from different backgrounds into policy roles, while mitigating the risk that moving out of London might reduce ethnic and socio-economic diversity.

Changing the composition of the civil service is a long haul. Making progress on gender in the senior civil service has taken decades and there is still more to do. The statistics show that there is even further to go for the civil service to reflect the proportion of the population from ethnic minorities or who are disabled.

But the advances made show that with sustained leadership the civil service can change – and can be an exemplar to others by better reflecting the society it serves.

-------

1. The report acknowledges that these percentages are difficult to compare, particularly because of the significant expansion of professional and managerial jobs over the last 50 years. There is now a smaller recruiting pool of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds than in 1967.