Why and how do people move on from their civil service jobs? How should the “war for talent” across departments be addressed? How can the civil service hold on to good people, while bringing in the skills needed from outside? And what – if anything – can be done about the thorny issue of pay?
This is CSW 's breakdown of the second in a series of webinars from the Institute for Government, drawing on their latest Whitehall Monitor report.
Nobody wants a 'job for life' any more
These days, it seems, civil servants are always on the move. Some of this is internal movement from one department to another, and some of it is departure – people leaving the civil service entirely. So perhaps it's no surprise that turnover rates have risen overall, according to the figures for 2023-24.
Jack Worlidge, senior researcher at IfG, pointed out that this increase is down to internal transfers: “the result of the MOG changes, the new departments that Rishi Sunak set up”. He also made the point that “people moving around this much damages institutional memory and causes disruption to projects”.
This particular problem stems from turnover being highest at the centre of government: “Particularly in the Cabinet Office and the Treasury – where institutional memory is so important,” Worlidge said.
The true level of turnover is higher than the IfG data suggests, he added, because “it doesn’t capture officials moving within departments, which happens a lot”.
A new addition to the data this year gives an insight into people’s route to leaving the civil service entirely, with resignation emerging as the most common departure route. A “big proportion” of leavers chose retirement from the Department for Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs, according to this year’s data, whereas in small, policy-focused departments only 1.6% of leavers retired.
The IfG data shows that dismissals and voluntary exits/redundancies make up less than 10% of this year’s total leavers. “That’s something that Pat McFadden will be wanting to increase,” Worlidge said, referring to McFadden’s comments about making it easier to dismiss people in the civil service.
Alex Thomas, IfG programme director, noted the difference in turnover rates between the centre – where churn and staff turnover is a “real and significant problem” – and frontline delivery departments, where “possibly the opposite is true”. “Dismissals were pretty high in the big frontline delivery departments… but very, very low in the central departments,” Thomas said. "When Pat McFadden talks about performance, I suspect he’s not thinking about the frontline operational areas, where quite a lot of people are being dismissed. He’s thinking about those core departments.”
We need to talk about pay
The panel also discussed the connection between turnover, pay and grade inflation. Emma Norris, deputy director at IfG, pointed out that turnover is high because that is the only way to receive a pay increase. This creates problems with institutional knowledge and “departments cannibalising one another for talent”, she said. What can be done about it?
Worlidge said “we need a sensible conversation about pay, but we all know what the fiscal situation is”. He suggested that “management should have more of a say in stopping their staff from moving jobs if they think that turnover is damaging".
Norris raised the point – paraphrasing Lord Gus O’Donnell – that the civil service pays people most competitively when they no longer work for government, ie when they are drawing their pension. “Should we look at rebalancing that?” she pondered.
Alex Thomas, IfG programme director, agreed that this should be rebalanced, giving civil servants the choice about whether they would prefer a bigger salary or a bigger pension. “But this would cause a lot of upfront cost,” he said. Thomas said he’d also heard O’Donnell talk about “the London factor” – whether people who are building their careers can afford to live in London. Thomas acknowledged the success of the Darlington campus, but said that “getting civil servants out of London won’t solve the problem".
Incentives and rewards have become 'skewed'
The panel also considered why it’s taking so long to make a reality of the drive to recruit the best and brightest from outside government.
Worlidge said civil service job ads need to be “a lot clearer”. This would lift a barrier to “getting talented people into the civil service”, he said. McFadden made a commitment last year to overhauling civil service recruitment, which Worlidge said was “really welcome”.
An audience member asked how we can balance the need to hold on to staff – and protect institutional memory – with the need to bring in more people from outside.
Thomas said the “collapse of data management” has perpetuated institutional memory issues, and needs addressing. He suggested that external recruits can sometimes bring solutions which counterbalance problems, and “could introduce someone with depth of knowledge”.
There is also an internal struggle to find the right people, Tolcher suggested, referring to a “war for talent” between departments as the skillsets that are considered important change. “I’d love to see it becoming easier for people to develop into the professions for digital and data,” Tolcher said. “How do we make that easier and clearer for people?”
Tolcher also argued for more attention on “the future workforce and what they need and want”. Making the case for better progression routes, she referred to research from PA Consulting showing that “Gen Z are 40% of the population who are 1.5 times more likely to say that career progression is more important to them than salary”.
Expanding on this, Thomas argued for "giving people a sense of progression in their jobs so they can stay in those jobs for long enough to actually deliver something”. He said that “incentives inside the civil service have got skewed – you’re more rewarded for doing five jobs in one year than for doing one job for five years and really achieving some stuff”.
It’s also important to look at what it means to "achieve" in the civil service, Thomas said. There are “rewards for being a courtier and for being around ministers”. But, he added, these are not the only skills or experiences that deserve recognition: “People who can project manage and deliver things are important too.”