Autonomy in Civil Service Teams – what stops it and what to do about it?
Following The link between personal autonomy and project performance) by Sam Jefferies, I’ve been using my own experiences in the civil service to consider how we might apply that same thinking.
What are the advantages of increased personal autonomy in high performing teams?
I'm lucky enough to have worked in a few high performing teams and I’ve come to realise that these teams are often largely self-governing, self-managing and self-supporting, and yet know when to escalate a problem or a risk.
Autonomous team members will recognise when there’s a problem or a dispute that needs to be addressed long before the leader needs to step in to actively support it. What’s good here is that a team member will step up to lead the resolution to the problem by perhaps arranging a series of stand-ups to confirm what caused the problem and how best to address it. If it’s within their role delegation, they will then make a decision. If it needs to come to the Programme Board for verification as a ‘change’, it will be presented as an options analysis with a recommended option that ideally comes with the work done to show that all of the stakeholders already support it.
So, what stops that from happening?
Leadership style and mindset
These are the two biggest factors that can get in the way of the creation and maintenance of high performing teams that have autonomous members who also know how to work together effectively.
Autocratic leadership styles can still be found all too often in the civil service unfortunately. My personal experience of this is that the leaders involved typically aren’t aware that they’re in fact behaving in an autocratic manner at all!
There is often an organisational culture or ‘cultural inertia’ that underpins this.
What causes this?
- Out of date skills. Despite all the efforts of government and organisations like APM, there are some civil service leaders who seem to be able to avoid the personal development that would drive the contemporary behaviours and attitudes that organisations like APM do so much to promote. Maybe the result of their autocracy is that they have no work time available for any meaningful reflection?
- Fear of the implications of 'letting go'. Often stemming from personal mindsets of what drives their own status or promotion pathways. Perhaps they care too much? Complete control doesn’t facilitate effective deployment and delivery. The fear of ‘letting go’ can also be driven by a genuine lack of available change resources or fear of possible short-term chaos and the operational consequences of delays. Particularly where there is operational urgency required to get on with updating or replacing something.
- Mis-behaving stakeholders. Sometimes it’s necessary to address poor stakeholder behaviour first. And ensure team relationships with contractors and suppliers etc are supportive and inclusive.
- The 'ceremony' of project delivery might not support this. Linked to the previous three points. If there is a lack of professional project delivery skills or practice evident, this may limit opportunity for tackling the issue through the team (see below). If the Programme Governance, meetings, planning and risk management activities are strictly controlled by the leader, the 'ceremony' can become similarly autocratic.
Making things better
Good processes and procedures help
Good project delivery 'ceremony' helps by ensuring that all ideas are captured and analysed. In digital delivery, the use of Agile techniques and approaches like Discovery and Prototyping are a good way of inclusively developing, and then moving from a long list to a short list of options.
The use of techniques like SAFe are excellent at ensuring that related workstreams are aligned and that dependencies and constraints are recognised and built-in to the objectives for each delivery 'sprint'. Use available technology to facilitate project delivery ‘ceremonies’ and provide opportunities to feedback on individual and team behaviours.
In most corporate environments, the move away from an autocratic approach needs to be managed as a progressively introduced Business Change activity. Future team roles, responsibilities and expected behaviours need to be clearly defined in this.
Don’t underestimate the role of good line management
In large organisations, including the public sector, there are plenty of ineffective leaders who stubbornly won't change. The corporate strategic challenge is therefore as much about addressing this as it is enabling the work of those more enlightened leaders and their teams.
Ineffective and poor line management must be addressed as a part of the accompanying Business Change. The starting point is ensuring that there’s a means of quantitatively measuring the desired behaviours, so the worst culprits can be specifically targeted with re-training.
Tackle the issue through the team — build veracity and trust (create a psychologically safe environment)
The team's role in ‘living the change’ is often forgotten. Mentoring and coaching are vital to both team members and teams’ collective performance (which should both be measured). This is still relatively uncommon in government, but peer mentoring is one of the best ways of getting behavioural change embedded quickly. It’s an approach embedded in many Agile delivery methodologies like ‘Scrum’ and ‘SAFe’.
Increasing openness — let some light in!
Increasing openness also means increasing the inclusion of all stakeholders in delivery work.
Leaders often view what’s happening in their teams through a series of different 'lenses'. In fact, the People SIG encouraged this a few years back with the 'lens collective' where there may be stakeholder concerns, internal strategy changes and politics/policies to consider, financial worries, legal or operational implications. The important thing is that the leader, and the wider team, are as open about these factors as they can be in shaping the thinking and decision making that is needed when responding to actions arising.
You may also be interested in:
I have extensive civil service experience in the delivery, assurance and governance of many technical, ICT and scientific programmes and projects. Originally a scientist, I made a mid-career change to project delivery. I’ve worked for the Home Office since 2012, and am currently Deputy Programme Manager for the ‘Law Enforcement Community Network’ Programme. I am a Chartered Project Professional, Chartered IT Professional, Fellow of APM and qualified in multiple Waterfall and Agile delivery techniques.
2 comments
Log in to post a comment, or create an account if you don't have one already.
A really interesting take Rob, I found that helpful. You touch a few times on line management and autocratic styles. I don't know about you but I have observed that, done well, a kind of separation of duties can help here. For example - in some autocratic environments - making sure that pastoral care and personal growth line management duties are owned by a different person to the setting of priorities and tasks can help. Owning one's own autonomy can be psychologically risky, so it's important to feel safe in those conversations where you put yourself 'out there' more. Often this can need a little incubation in a safe and developmental space before trying it in front of the 'big bad boss'. Context is king, but I have seen this work well. Definitely not an advocate of matrix organisational structures in all cases! Working with people like internal organisational coaches can also promote this. Do you have any other thoughts on the line management aspect specifically? I agree we shouldn't underestimate it, but to your point about the stubbornness of the problem, I disagree that training is enough. Who we show up as, as leaders and managers, is more than a choice we make on the day. It's a systemic outcome of many factors including upbringing, professional experiences, experience of success and failure, capacity for self regulation, opinion of others and much more. There's so much wrapped up in our stories of who we are, that I worry training alone is not a sufficient tool for the job.. Have you seen any other good strategies in this space?
Sam, Expanding slight my LinkedIn response. This is a complicated and often deeply ingrained matter. Line management is very much affected by the organisation type and context, but there are some generic issues which apply across the piece. These relate to how busy the line manager is (and how do they manage that 'busyness' - do they make broad assumptions based on their previous experience - that might not apply in the current context?), how senior they are and how senior the folk working for them are - i.e. how confident are they in managing their more experienced staff? How experienced the line manager is in directly managing the organisation's staff (which is very different to how you might manage suppliers) matters - as does how aligned their personal values are with those of the organisation. On thinking about the delivery context, their experience and confidence of working with Agile ways of working might be relevant, particularly if that's not their core experience. How much visibility does the line manager have of their staff - particularly in remote or hybrid working? In other words, what is the line manager using to assess whether or not the attitudes, behaviours and values of their staff accurately represent those of the organisation (and these will vary considerably by industry type)? If a line manager is really busy - do they take this all on trust and 'manage by exception' (i.e. leave it until something has clearly gone wrong and they have to intervene?). Does the line manager have the skills (and time & opportunity) to observe and provide constructive behavioural feedback; in such a way that it can be both accepted and acted upon? Does the line manager have a coaching and mentoring approach to developing all of their staff, and the ability to provide developmental insight in accordance with contemporary delivery skills? And does the line manager effectively use all of the corporate and HR tools available to track, monitor and develop their staff? Strategy? The best organisations seem to use Lean Six Sigma techniques applied to Line Management development. And they also are the organisations that perform well (I guess there is a correlation). The hospitality sector often have a very contemporary approach to Leadership and Line Management. So do organisations like airlines and many in the construction sector. They tend to be organisations where 'mentoring and coaching' are embedded in both organisational and personal growth.
Take a look at this TUC page as well: https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/improving-line-management
Sam, Expanding slight my LinkedIn response. This is a complicated and often deeply ingrained matter. Line management is very much affected by the organisation type and context, but there are some generic issues which apply across the piece. These relate to how busy the line manager is (and how do they manage that 'busyness' - do they make broad assumptions based on their previous experience - that might not apply in the current context?), how senior they are and how senior the folk working for them are - i.e. how confident are they in managing their more experienced staff? How experienced the line manager is in directly managing the organisation's staff (which is very different to how you might manage suppliers) matters - as does how aligned their personal values are with those of the organisation. On thinking about the delivery context, their experience and confidence of working with Agile ways of working might be relevant, particularly if that's not their core experience. How much visibility does the line manager have of their staff - particularly in remote or hybrid working? In other words, what is the line manager using to assess whether or not the attitudes, behaviours and values of their staff accurately represent those of the organisation (and these will vary considerably by industry type)? If a line manager is really busy - do they take this all on trust and 'manage by exception' (i.e. leave it until something has clearly gone wrong and they have to intervene?). Does the line manager have the skills (and time & opportunity) to observe and provide constructive behavioural feedback; in such a way that it can be both accepted and acted upon? Does the line manager have a coaching and mentoring approach to developing all of their staff, and the ability to provide developmental insight in accordance with contemporary delivery skills? And does the line manager effectively use all of the corporate and HR tools available to track, monitor and develop their staff? Strategy? The best organisations seem to use Lean Six Sigma techniques applied to Line Management development. And they also are the organisations that perform well (I guess there is a correlation). The hospitality sector often have a very contemporary approach to Leadership and Line Management. So do organisations like airlines and many in the construction sector. They tend to be organisations where 'mentoring and coaching' are embedded in both organisational and personal growth.