The end of the civil service generalist is welcome

At a time when the ability of the civil service to deliver is under scrutiny, the knowledge and skills civil servants need is a question of real importance. At a recent IfG panel event Tamara Finkelstein, head of the civil service policy profession, was joined by science minister Patrick Vallance and Aaron Maniam of the Blavatnik School of Government to find answers. They concluded that the longstanding conception of the generalist civil servant was no longer useful. We agree.

Understanding how to get things done in government is a specialist skill

In her opening remarks, Finkelstein acknowledged the case for the generalist. If defined as someone with a broad range of knowledge in a variety of areas, they are valued in the civil service, for the ability to be a “fixer in a complex political and policy context”. The generalist is also a “systems thinker” – one that thrives in the world of policy, “where all interesting problems are systems problems”.

This is right. But in the context of the civil service, as Finkelstein also pointed out, the generalist has always had a more specific set of skills. Knowledge of the intricacies of parliament, an understanding of ministers’ needs and goals and the ability to navigate a complex institutional environment are all the preserve of the traditional generalist. They are now at the heart of the ‘democracy’ and ‘strategy’ parts of the policy profession’s standards – the criteria which are supposed to guide policy professionals’ development and career progression. ⁷ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policy-profession-standards  

Lord Vallance agreed that “there really is such a thing as being a professional specialist in policy and we should recognise that”. Aaron Maniam pointed out that, in Singapore, administrative officers (there, senior civil service leaders), while sometimes painted as “generalists”, are actually “specialists in the business of government”. ⁸ https://www.psd.gov.sg/faq/  Policy officials in the UK should think of themselves in the same way.

Finkelstein is right to move away from “disembedded” generalists

Clearly identifying the skills of the generalist allows the civil service to more deliberately and strategically cultivate them in the policy profession. Historically, the generalist was “disembedded” from any professional community that would provide a structured environment for learning and set expectations about professional development. As Finkelstein said, learning “on the job” is not enough – and efforts to improve the policy profession’s training and development are important and should go further. 

There are other benefits to demystifying the generalist’s skills. Generalists, Finkelstein said, “are often regarded as practising a ‘dark art’” – one that cannot be easily mastered by outsiders or the uninitiated. That impression does not help efforts to diversity the civil service and address the persistent imbalance in socio-economic backgrounds in the civil service. Being more open about the role of policy officials and offering pathways to develop the necessary skills would be a step in the right direction.

The policy profession needs less churn and more domain expertise

Identifying and developing skills is not enough to improve the performance of the civil service, however. The problems with high staff turnover in the profession were a prominent theme in the panel discussion. 

When turnover becomes excessive, as we showed in the latest edition of our annual Whitehall Monitor, the harms outweigh the benefits. As Finkelstein rightly observed, at more senior levels – where turnover is highest – moving roles too often prevents officials from developing deeper subject matter expertise and stronger relationships with experts. Discussing changes in the Singaporean Administrative Service that led to longer postings for top officials, Maniam said that “stakeholders have actually loved this”. Reducing churn would help solidify the networks spanning government, industry and academia, leading to greater openness and more constructive engagement in the policymaking process.

There are benefits to movement across the civil service. Vallance argued that “moving around a bit” can be useful, offering officials the chance to do different things and “see what’s out there”. Maniam pointed out that healthy levels of churn also have system-wide benefits by acting as “a very useful corrective against much more turf-minded decision-making”.

Too little movement brings the risk that overspecialisation undermines the kind of systems thinking, flexibility and openness that is central to good policy making. But a balance is needed. The volume of evidence and complexity of most policy areas means that a greater depth of understanding is needed. In making the most of the opportunities brought about by artificial intelligence, too, policy officials need domain expertise to ensure they can effectively “sense-check” LLM outputs. Finkelstein’s plan to develop sub-professional communities as ‘policy anchors’, including the emerging climate and environment community within the policy profession, is one to watch.

It is time to call time on the old conception of the generalist

The panel made clear that we need to call time on the old conception of the generalist – not part of any professional community, practising something that can only be learnt “by doing”, who has insufficient in-depth understanding of their policy domain. The skills of the good policy civil servant will remain crucial, but they need to be defined, developed and exercised with more focus and discipline.