By John Boothman
IT’S a conundrum, and no mistake. As we grow older, we grow wiser; yet the world becomes a more puzzling place. And many of these puzzles emerge from the citadel of government.
Let’s start at, or near, the top. We have recently said farewell to the States chief executive, Suzanne Wylie, after little more than a year in post. She took over from interim chief executive Paul Martin in February 2022; he in turn replaced Charlie Parker in March 2021. Mr Parker had served only three years of a five-year contract, though the government generously paid him the balance of his salary anyway. He was the successor to John Richardson, who retired in 2017. That’s four chief executives in six years, and, if all goes according to plan, by the end of 2024 it will be six in seven years, since another interim appointment has just been made, with a permanent successor to follow. (I use ‘permanent’ in the broadest sense, since any incumbency exceeding three years seems to be something of a marvel.)
The well-oiled revolving door at 19-21 Broad Street poses some pressing questions. First, why did they all go? Different reasons were given in each case, yet disaffection on one or both sides seems to have been an underlying theme. This surely reflects badly on both the appointment process and the employer. The recruitment and termination of a chief executive are costly, disruptive and time-consuming exercises. Except for Mr Richardson, all the recent appointments have been external, involving expensive head-hunters, advertisements, long-listing and short-listing of applicants, tests, references, interviews and final selection. Severance is equally tortuous. Only a masochist would wish to submit themselves to such an exhausting ordeal more often than is essential.
Having had so much practice, you might think that our government would by now at any rate be well-versed in the process itself. Yet their approach seems to beg more questions than it answers.
Why the need for an interim appointment? Apparently, the Chief Minister and her colleagues want more time to debate what the role should entail. Yet another rethink? There are two documents that should precede any senior recruitment. The job specification lists the key aims and responsibilities of the position; the person specification sets out the attributes that are likely to be required to discharge them. Over the years, I have drafted and signed off on quite a few of these. For a chief executive it is often simpler than it sounds, as the role is all-encompassing: to lead the organisation and implement the policies and strategy of the board or, in the case of government, the Council of Ministers. More specialised jobs need more specific (and more detailed) definitions.
Of course, if the Council of Ministers isn’t sure what its requirements are, that complicates matters; but surely after so many iterations since 2017 ministers must by now have some idea? If not, small wonder that the incumbents haven’t lasted long.
Then again, why does a stopgap appointment have to go through the same laborious process as a permanent one? And why are all the successful candidates external? Is our bureaucracy so lacking in talent that not a single official can without all this palaver take the helm even for a few months until the next hopeful skipper clambers aboard? It would seem so. How very depressing for all those ambitious departmental heads; and surely a serious indictment of what passes for succession planning at the highest level of the civil service.
Following what looks from the outside to have been another exhaustive process, yet was supposedly streamlined, Dr Andrew McLaughlin has been chosen. He does at least have the advantage of living here, and therefore presumably understands what he has let himself in for. Unfortunately, though, I have some misgivings. Until July last year he was a director of Royal Bank of Scotland International, the parent of NatWest Jersey of which (as I understand it) he remains a senior executive.
I, and other members of my family, have been customers of NatWest for many years, with few interruptions to what has otherwise been a smooth-running relationship. Since 2020, however, service quality has gone rapidly downhill. (Maybe we’ve just been unlucky, but I don’t think so.) There have been long, and sometimes costly, delays in processing what should be routine instructions. One of these involved a close elderly relative who died before the matter was finally resolved. An even older friend has had difficulty in obtaining copy statements of his account, the originals having gone astray. Other requests are mishandled or ignored altogether. Hapless (and mostly blameless) frontline staff find themselves forced to defend the indefensible – no wonder morale seems poor. Overall, the impression created by NatWest is that its customers are a tiresome distraction from whatever vital, yet inward-looking tasks senior managers have entrusted to their harassed subordinates.
If you aren’t a NatWest customer, but this has an unpleasantly familiar ring, that might be because the same malaise seems, on a much grander scale, to have settled over the provision of many States services. So, while I am not for one moment suggesting that Dr McLaughlin is personally responsible for these lapses – nor doubting that he is a man of distinction in his field – the parallels are sufficiently ominous to question the wisdom of picking someone from a bank that has seemingly failed to surmount challenges reminiscent of those in the public sector. Still, I suppose at least the culture won’t come as a shock to him.
While we’re on the topic of heavy hitters in the civil service, another recent appointment that caught my eye was that of Professor Hugo Mascie-Taylor as head of the new independent Health and Care Board. Like Dr McLaughlin, he has a most impressive record of qualifications and career highlights.
The professor had previously submitted a damning report on clinical governance in the Island’s health service, and it is this indictment that seems to have clinched his appointment. Among its many findings were bullying, a ‘not-invented-here’ syndrome and the prevalence of vested interests over best practice, sometimes posing threats to patient safety.
In medical terms, it clearly makes good sense to commission the doctor who examined the patient and made the diagnosis to carry out the remedial treatment; but I wonder whether the same applies to organisational turnarounds. Professor Mascie-Taylor now tells us a leisurely five years may be needed to complete the assignment.
Really? When lives are at risk, morale is low, processes are clearly inadequate and the whole system threatens to buckle under the strain, can we afford to wait that long? Notwithstanding the impressive work done in trying circumstances by dedicated frontline staff, the failure of this crucial department to meet modern standards stains the reputation of the whole States organisation – and should be a source of shame to past health ministers and officials who have let things come to this sorry pass.
Rectifying the situation is surely now a matter of urgency. If the professor can’t get results in less than five years – a lot less – I wonder whether he’s the right person for the job.
