Tag Archives: connectivity

The one with the taxman

Back at the end of September I attended a conference hosted by Hodes called “Connectivity: the competitive edge”. I had fully intended to a write a few posts about the content and then time passes, you know…

One of the people presenting was Mike Falvey, Chief People Officer for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. So in answer to the question who’s the person who’d most like to hate? The only answer that beats “the taxman” is “the taxman’s HRD”. Mr Falvey however, was not what I expected. He was energetic, charismatic and, dare I say it, fun. And here is a man who is facing a challenge that would make most people want to curl up in a ball and cry for mummy. The other interesting thing about him as an individual is that he is not a ‘lifer’ in the civil service and has worked both in the corporate sector and run his own business.

Due to the delightful combination of economic downturn and Messrs Cameron & Osborne, the civil service was in a position where in November 2009 they were obliged to commit to reducing HR spend by 50%… yes 50%. Now i’ve been on the receiving end of some challenging budget calls but 50% is a monster. That said what were they starting with?

Before commencing the “Next Generation HR Programme” (as they dubbed their initiative) there were 8000 HR people in the Civil Service with 6000 of those servicing what he referred to as ‘the big 7’ (DWP, MOD, HMRC, Home Office, MOJ, DfT, Defra). There was very little if no collaboration, very different systems and processes operated across departments and shared service or centralised resources were not high on anyone’s agenda pre-2009. Therefore maybe 50% wasn’t a monster but the culmination of the all the incremental budget cuts the civil service *could* have made when the sun was shining rather than making hay. It must also be said that Mr Falvey didn’t go into detail of the staff numbers of the big 7 at that same point but it seemed there was a lot of opportunity to do things differently and better.

If you ever sit with a friend, colleague, advisor, coach, head-hunter, etc, and talk about having challenging stakeholders imagine being an HRD in the Civil Service. Think about having politicians, senior civil servants, unions, the press and the employees themselves as stakeholders at a time when every other part of the public sector is also trying to make cuts and significant cuts of that. Then think about your stakeholders and breathe out. That’s political with both a small and big P.

All that aside, the main point that really landed with me came almost as an afterthought fairly near the end of his session, when in an almost off the cuff remark, Mr Falvey said something along  the lines of “due to the age of austerity, we were not able to use consultants and it all had to come from within”. Coming back to the time pre-Lehman’s when the world was rosier; I imagine a commitment to save 50% of Civil Service HR would have been accompanied by a hefty commitment to one of McKinsey, Accenture, BCG, LEK or similar but due to the controls on spending they HAD to do it themselves.

The question I keep on coming back to (and unfortunately there’s no way to test it) is would the outcome have been any different/more or less successful with the consultants?

I am not a management consultant hater by any means. I know some great management consultants and they are bright and can add significant value IF USED APPROPRIATELY. However, it does seem they have become the defacto validators of plans and in the case of what the civil service were doing, they weren’t reinventing the wheel.

So the other question I am left with is this: are management consultants brought it by ‘the business’ because they don’t have the answer or are they demanded by ‘the masters’ who won’t back a plan without a consultancy rubber stamp? Is the only reason the senior HR team at the Civil Service ‘got away’ without using consultants was because their stakeholders knew it would be unpalatable to ask for the rubber stamp when the cupboard was bare?

More questions than answers I’m afraid but it was an interesting session and if you get the chance to hear Mr Falvey or one of his contemporaries speak I would advise you doing so. It definitely smashed my expectations of ‘the taxman’s HRD’….



Filed under Uncategorized

The one with silos and turf wars

Last week I attended a conference entitled “Connectivity: The Competitive Edge”. It was organised by Hodes and had some great content and some really interesting attendees (me for one!) I’m sure with further reflection a few more posts will appear from this event but the first revolves around a session which was focussed at presenting back some research on Silos in organisations.

The survey was of 210 HR professionals – 25% HRDs, 25% HRBPs, and 50% HR Managers in UK businesses of which 75% had over 250 employees. The research was commissioned by Hodes for the conference and carried out by Personnel Today online (credit where it’s due and all that!) and Rebecca Holland from Hodes and Noel O’Reilly from Personnel Today did an admirable job of presenting back the results.

Some summary outtakes from the research

When asked how prevalent silos were in their organisation, the responses were:

45% said either extremely widespread or fairly widespread whilst 47% said exist in places. Only 8% answered either fairly rare or extremely rare.

Highest instances were functional silos, geographical silos, hierarchical silos, cultural silos and when compared for their presence versus how challenging they are then functional and geographical were the highest

The lists of impacts (in order with %s shown in brackets)

  • Effort duplicated across the business (80)
  • Cross functional opportunities not exploited (80)
  • Lack of knowledge sharing (71)
  • Lack of employee engagement on companywide initiatives (63)
  • Poor internal comms (53)
  • Increased bureaucracy (48)
  • Systems functioning poorly (42)
  • Low employee engagement with corporate brand (35)
  • Restriction to career progression (27)
  • Low productivity (22)

Changes to improve: (in high/low order for will be attempted/are being attempted)

  • Internal comms strategies
  • Structured reform and change
  • Information sharing
  • Measures of collaboration and engagement
  • Engaging employees across the org in prod/process development
  • Implementing shared systems
  • Cross departmental sales/working incentive programmes
  • Cross company mentoring


So in summary (non-scientific):

  • We’ve all got ‘em
  • They make the business be less than it could be

Obviously there was a lot more information contained in the presentation and would imagine a begging e-mail to either Hodes or Personnel Today may just get you a copy but for my part I was surprised at some of the things that didn’t appear.

Let me give that some context, having worked in several organisations of different cultures and sizes the things I would have expected to appear in terms of changes to improve would be:

  • Singular focus on customer/service/output of the organisation
  • Shared and complimentary performance targets (KPIs don’t conflict)
  • Whether top down or bottom up: all objectives ‘speak’ to the singular focus
  • Leadership is anti-silo
  • Cross functional projects/groups are common/encouraged/defacto

One of the businesses I worked in had very few silos and in reflecting on why I think the honest answer is silo mentality was unacceptable. If you were ‘caught’ demonstrating silo mentality it was frowned upon and in escalation the support would always be for the cross functional solution – when it came down to it the CEO believed the organisation was better by working together and would metaphorically ‘bang the heads together’ of those that didn’t.

Any other reactions to this data? Any other stories to share – either positive or horror?


Any errors or ommisions in the data are mine in transcription from the conference pack and not in the original work



Filed under Uncategorized