Organisational Review Report of Findings · Organisational Review Report of Findings February 2014 Prepared by 17 Corstorphine Road Edinburgh, EH12 6DD ... It leads and supports the

Organisational Review

Report of Findings

February 2014

Prepared by

17 Corstorphine Road Edinburgh, EH12 6DD

Tel: 0131 316 1900 Fax: 0131 316 1901

Email: [email protected] Main Contact:

Sarah Ainsworth

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

CHS Organisational Review

2

Table of Contents

Background and Objectives .......................................................................................... 3 Method........................................................................................................................ 3 Sample Qualitative Stage ............................................................................................. 4 Sample Quantitative Stage ........................................................................................... 4 Research Findings ........................................................................................................ 4 Competence................................................................................................................. 4 Resource ...................................................................................................................... 5 Values.......................................................................................................................... 6 Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................ 6 Leadership ................................................................................................................... 7 Line Management ........................................................................................................ 7 Training, Development, Support................................................................................... 8 Communication............................................................................................................ 9 Engagement and Morale ............................................................................................ 10 Overall ....................................................................................................................... 10 In the future............................................................................................................... 10 Appendices ................................................................................................................ 11


3

Background and Objectives

CHS is a non-departmental public body established in July 2011 under the Children’s Hearings

(Scotland) Act 2011 and became fully operational on 24th June 2013. It leads and supports the Children’s Panel with the objective of improving outcomes and experiences for children and young people who may be at risk. It was established in July 2011, and operated in shadow form until taking up its full powers in June 2013.

CHS has approximately 15 staff with a budget of £3.3m (2013/14). There are 2,700 lay Panel members in the national Children’s Panel, managed and supported by Area Support Teams (ASTs) at local level, with 22 Area Conveners and 32 Lead Panel representatives.

The Chief Executive Officer role also carries a number of statutory functions as National Convener for the Children’s Panel.

After 4 months of operation, the Board of CHS received feedback from the staff and a small number of the Children’s Panel stakeholder groups which gave some cause for concern. As a result it sought an assessment of the health of the organisation, and how CHS performs for all of its stakeholders.

The Board commissioned Progressive to:

Design a robust Organisational Health Check tool

Undertake an independent assessment of CHS’s functioning using the tool

Provide Weekly Interim Progress verbal reports

Analyse the results from the Health Check Present a full report to the Board on conclusions

CHS wishes to regularly sample the views of its key stakeholders and staff and as a result Progressive designed a tool that can be reused in the future. This year provides a benchmark measure against which yearly comparisons can be made.

The Health Check was required to gather views on the following areas:

– Leadership

– Culture

– Communications: external and internal

– Operational processes

– Strategic Planning

– Partnership working

Method

Progressive combined qualitative and quantitative methods. The research was led by Sarah Ainsworth, joint Managing Director and Leah Turner, Research Manager. All fieldwork was conducted and research tools designed by Progressive Partnership. Only by commissioning a third party professional research agency could respondents be assured of their complete anonymity and CHS of absolute objectivity.

Progressive was not able to record the qualitative interviews as respondents were nervous about maintaining their anonymity. We were able to take notes and quotes from individuals on the promise that any quotes are not attributed.


4

Sample Qualitative Stage

The process began with a full briefing session with CHS board members. This was followed by face to face and telephone interviews with staff and panel members alongside group discussions with panel members. 1:1 Interviews lasted between 45 minutes to over 1.5 hours. Group discussions lasted up to 2 hours. We interviewed a total of 39 people in-depth.

Sample Quantitative Stage

Progressive designed a questionnaire that was based on the outcomes of a workshop with the board and sense checked against a prototype questionnaire that was previously designed in-house by CHS. This was then loaded onto Progressive’s secure server in the form of an online questionnaire. All members of each of the stakeholder groups who had an email account available to CHS were sent a link to the questionnaire online. Those who didn’t have a link (100 in total) were sent a paper version of the questionnaire. Progressive received 24 paper replies and 618 online completions.

Progressive is confident that the sample is robust and that findings are truly representative. Please see the sample section in the appendix for full details of sample composition.

Research Findings

The following report comments on findings from both stages of worki. The appendix contains all of the statistics derived from the quantitative research that were produced from the qualitative stage. We have sectioned this report into different areas of concern. For ease of reference the sections in the appendix correspond to the main body of this report.

Competence

Some panel members are of the opinion that process and procedures at CHS get in the way of getting things done. Whilst this doubt exists in the minds of some panel members, the majority of CHS staff members have a strong sense of achievement. They feel as though they have succeeded in pushing through major projects such as:

– National standards published

– Practice and procedure manual for panel members complete

– Training now in place with national training unit

– National accredited qualification in Professional Development

That said the scores for competency are not very high. In some areas such as: ensuring that panel members’ practice is consistent across Scotland, over a third (36%) of the sample gave a negative score. A further 40% gave a negative score for Building respect for, and trust in, the children’s hearing system and those who work within it.

Panel members warmly praised the efforts of CHS staff but criticised the organisation, in these terms:

“As individuals the staff are absolutely great. They are dedicated, helpful and enthusiastic but half the time they can’t tell you what is happening because they do not know themselves. They are under pressure and under resourced.” (Clerk)


5

Some were especially critical of the recruitment campaign, described as ‘an absolute shambles’. The following quote encapsulates a sentiment commonly expressed:

“They so need to get this organisation sorted. We need to be at least competent. It’s volunteers who are picking up the slack.” (LPR)

Findings from the qualitative work indicate that panel members believe tasks are being carried out but that process and procedures are often ‘a hindrance rather than a help’. Some complained that the system had been running ‘perfectly well before’ the reforms but that:

“Now my workload has doubled due to endless emails, jumping through hoops and ironing out issues.” (Area Convener)

The following quote echoes this:

“The new training set-up has just added layers rather than making it simpler and consistent. You need to go through so many hoops to get agreement just to buy printer cartridges for the training room. It is ridiculous!” (LPR)

Resources

During the 1:1 interviews staff at CHS made many comments about lack of resource. Staff claim to see “huge” failures in management and report that they are “battling against the odds”. Many of them feel under resourced and poorly managed. Findings from the online survey show that only 7% of the sample agree strongly that they have the resources to carry out their role effectively and 11% strongly disagree.

Many staff claimed that they were working long hours and some couldn’t carry their hours forward and so lost them. Only 13% of the sample agree strongly that they have a good work/life balance whereas 17% strongly disagree with this statement.

Other comments made in relation to lack of resource included:

– “ No IT to support CHIRP/not all panel members are IT literate” (staff)

– “ Lack of Panel Practice Advisers” (panel)

– “ Strangled on budget for training, cut budget from £28 to £20 per head” (panel)

– “ Cancellations from CEO on trainin!”(AST)

– “No background information for induction training in January for brand new panel members” (panel)

– “ Temps not replaced & staff having to take on more admin work” (staff)

– “ Maternity cover not in place” (staff)

– “ No visible HR” (staff)

It was suggested that the CHIRP system, despite being the main administrative portal, was not running to capacity and that people had not been sufficiently trained on it.

Use of consultants is resented by Panel members because of their perception of how costly they are and panel member’s beliefs that the necessary skill could probably be found within the panel community, examples given include: engagement strategy, organisational review, negotiate with Local Authorities on training & mediators.


6

Values

Just over half (51%) of the sample claim that CHS lives the core values of the organisation. Just under half of all respondents (49%) claim that CHS acts in a way that corresponds with their personal values. These figures are quite low and should get better as improvements to the organisation are made. It is encouraging to see that the majority of respondents believe that CHS portrays the values of Child-centred, Respectful and Fair. Respondents were less likely to see it as Open, Challenging and Creative.

Roles and Responsibilities

While the majority of respondents (77%) are informed of their role, less than half (46%) of the sample feel their role is appreciated by CHS. This score is low and one would expect at least 60% to 70% to claim they are appreciated. Clerks and AST members were least likely to feel appreciated. Findings from this question set indicate that CHS could do more in terms of informing people about their role and could do more to make people feel they can contribute to the way things are done. As illustrated by the following quote:

“I have a lot to offer the organisation and nobody ever asks me for my opinion or help.” (Panel member)

There were several other comments about lack of appreciation, for example:

“Panel members and family are now at the bottom of the pile. Before, Panel members were right at the heart of things. I understand the need for national standards but CHS is so remote from reality.” (LPR)

and

“If you want me to use my own computer, phone, broadband then ask me nicely. Don’t assume that a) I have that resource or b) that you can take advantage of it. Rude assumptions are made that shouldn’t be.” (Panel member)

The roles of Senior Management and the Board are not widely understood by Panel members and it is to be expected that a large and diverse population of volunteers might have differing views about the role of senior management but it is surprising that CHS Employees are the least satisfied with defined roles and fulfilled responsibilities (2.82).

Some respondents commented on the functioning of the CHS Board. A commonly heard question was why the Board “gets involved in day-to-day stuff like this survey. Is it because the Board isn’t comfortable with CHS to do the job it needs to?” Some felt that “there is huge confusion over what they do; and you know why? Because they don’t know themselves”.

It was not uncommon to hear respondents stress the need for CHS to understand the work that is done at local level and that local delivery is required.

Respondents were asked to give a measure of how important they consider defining roles and responsibilities and following this they were asked to give an overall rating for satisfaction. This way, we could measure the gap between importance and satisfaction. The gap was largest for CHS Employees.


7

Leadership

The mean scores for Board level Leadership are very low with over a third of respondents giving the two lowest scores for effectiveness, setting a good example and motivation. Only 12% of the sample agrees that Board members are sufficiently visible. Less than a quarter (22%) of the population has met a member of the board.

Confidence levels are very low for the Chair of the CHS board, the NC/CE and the Board as a whole. Little more than a quarter (27%) agree that they have confidence in the National Convener/ Chief Executive.

Scores for the Senior Management Team1 are also very low with a third or more of the Employees, AST members & Sponsors giving the two lowest scores2 for:

Listening (31% strongly disagree that SMT listens)

Open (32% strongly disagree that SMT is open)

Visible (35% strongly disagree that SMT is visible)

Effective (34% strongly disagree that SMT is effective)

Set good example (39 strongly disagree that SMT sets a good example)

Motivating (39% strongly disagree that SMT is motivating)

In all cases over half of the sample gave negative scores (that is scores of 3 or less out of 7) for the criteria above.

This indicates a serious lack of confidence. Because of a lack of consistency with other organisations across question design and method, it is difficult to benchmark this against other potentially comparable organisations (for example, charities with both paid staff and volunteers). However, it

would be fair to assume that acceptable satisfaction ratings should reach 70% or higher3, meaning that a minimum of 70% should agree or agree strongly that SMT are motivating, effective, set a good example and so forth.

Line Management

While the overall satisfaction levels for Line Management are markedly better than for Leadership they are still below the 70% satisfaction levels that are found in well-running organisations. Moreover, there are large percentages who disagree that their line managers have the requisite skills. This is very unusual and wouldn’t be found in well-running organisations.

Has well developed management skills

Motivates me to be more effective

Have confidence in my line manager

Acknowledges when I have done work well

(41% strongly disagree)




Deals with wrong decisions in a constructive manner Encourages me to make my own decisions

(30% strongly disagree) (24% strongly disagree)

1

SMT comprises the Directors and the Chief Executive 2

That is a score of 1 or 2 which is in the strongly disagree category 3

Based on findings from corporate employee satisfaction studies and extracts from reports such as Do It Volunteering made easy Volunteer satisfaction survey 2012


8

Poor management and a lack of good leadership have resulted in a growth of a culture of “fear and uncertainty”. The CEO and Directors have been criticised and poor management tactics exposed. It is inevitable that their behaviours are affecting line managers and the overall culture of the organisation.

CHS is operating under a veil of trepidation. There was mention of a ‘blame culture’ operating at several levels. Contributing factors include:

Poor Direction

– Not an open culture – Ideas knocked down before they are listened to – Panel & Area Support and Corporate Services not working together or by similar

systems (e.g. flexi time) – Lack of unity in the SMT

Uncertainty – Contracts not renewed until last minute – Roles not being replaced – Poor day to day management – Lack of strategic direction

Tension in the office

– Staff feel overworked and under-resourced – Lack of recognition of hard work staff are putting in (especially administrators) – Team cohesion is breaking – Members of staff at loggerheads

No leadership

– No strategic leadership – Leaders perceived as out of touch and not fully understanding of operational issues

No HR – This is a less mentioned but contributory element; not having a person in the

building to turn to has a negative effect

Staff members reported feelings of frustration, particularly in relation to a lack of forward planning, for example for maternity cover. There was concern that responses given to panel queries could sometimes be inconsistent. It was said that there was no clear direction, and that the organisation lurched from one crisis to another.

Training, Development, Support

Just over a third (36%) of AST, Panel Members and Clerks disagree that they feel well supported by CHS. A third (34%) disagree that they are satisfied with the information and resources that CHS provides. They are however; more encouraging about the quality of training they have received with the vast majority (84%) agreeing that they have received adequate training. It should be noted, however, that the responses to questions on training will mainly reflect experience of training provided under the previous training arrangements, since very little training had taken place under the new contract when the survey work was done. Commenting on the new training arrangements, some respondents said:

“Not impressed with the way the training has been handled. It is obvious it is a cost cutting measure which doesn’t benefit us.” (LPR)


9

Nearly a third (29%) of CHS employees disagree that they feel well supported by their line manager. While 38% strongly agree that they have had adequate training to do their job effectively, 26% disagree.

Communication

The findings point to communications gaps with only a third (31%) of CHS Employees, Board Members & AST Members saying they feel well informed about what is going on in CHS. The results show that changes have not been communicated in a timely or resonant way. They also indicate that change has not been managed well, with nearly half (46%) of the sample giving a negative score for change management.

Nearly half (47%) disagreed that it was easy to communicate with the SMT. A Further 66% said it was difficult to communicate with the CHS board. The following quotes illustrate this:

“The Board members should get themselves out and about to meet people. I have waited for two weeks for a response from a member of staff and it’s not their fault: they just don’t have the answers from above. (AST)

“Communication is the major problem. I either get no information or 6 documents all together or they never reply.” (Clerk)

While 39% of the whole population agree that the website is informative and useful, 14 % do not use it and 26% disagree that it is useful and informative.

While 59% of the population understand to a greater or lesser degree why changes have been made a quarter (25%) do not.

There was scepticism on the part of some respondents about the need for extensive change to the previous system. Typical comments were:

and

and

“We had a system that worked well: we just needed someone with clout to sort out the problem areas. No need for this major upheaval.” (Area Convener)

“They have brought in an expensive sledge hammer to crack a nut.” (LPR)

“They are making changes for the sake of change. If they just asked us – who have experience – we could tell them what has worked and what hasn’t. (Area Convener)

Looking to the future, an Area Convener observed:

“We all need to work together to improve, rather than sit picking holes.” (Area Convener)


10

Engagement and Morale

Three quarters (75%) of CHS Employees and Board Members agree that they are proud to work for or be associated with CHS. However, 42% disagree that they are satisfied with CHS as an employer. And 42% disagree that CHS will act on the results of this organisational review. This was partly based on the view that there was a lack of recognition for achievements, exacerbated by an absence of formal appraisal arrangements. It was also suggested that there was a ‘blame culture’ or a ‘culture of fear’.

The most encouraging statistics in the report are around the pride of association that Panel and AST members have with the Children’s Hearing System, with 92% strongly4 agreeing that they are proud. However, this figure drops to 39%5 when it comes to being associated to CHS the organisation.

Morale is not particularly good amongst Panel and AST members with less than half (43%) giving a positive score. As with Employees, 42% of Panel and AST members disagree that CHS will act on the results of this organisational review. The following quotes illustrate this:

“You have three Area Conveners in this room and three of them have considered leaving.” (AST)

“Morale is low. I am trying to keep how bad things actually are contained from the front line so as not to make it worse.” (Area Convener)

Overall

Overall less than half (44%) of the total sample gave a positive rating for satisfaction with CHS as an organisation. CHS Employees gave the lowest ratings followed by AST members and Clerks. The biggest gaps between respondents’ perceptions of the importance of a particular factor and their satisfaction with the reality lie in line management, good working relationships and defining roles and responsibilities. Leadership gained the lowest satisfaction rating.

In the future

Whilst these results paint a fairly negative picture of the overall health of CHS as an organisation, they have nonetheless provided invaluable information on which to build solutions for the problems.

The Board will wish to use the tool that has been developed to track progress in the key areas for improvement, so the survey will be re-run at appropriate intervals for that purpose and the results will be published.

4 Giving top scores of 6 or 7

5 Giving top scores of 6 or 7


11

Appendices

Sample Qualitative

Sample Quantitative


12


13

Competence


14

Resources


15

Values of CHS


16

Roles and Responsibilities


17

Understanding Roles

Understanding Roles


18

Importance and satisfaction of defining Roles Responsibilities


19

Satisfaction with defined roles and responsibilities


20

Leadership

Have you met a Board Member?


21

Board and NC/CE Leadership

Senior Management Team Leadership


22

Importance and satisfaction of Leadership

Line Management


23

Importance and satisfaction with line management

Training, Development and Support


24

Training, Development and Support


25

Importance and satisfaction of training and development


26

Communication


27

Information received

Communication on the Website


28

Importance and Satisfaction with Communication


29

Relationships and Teamwork


30

Working Relationship

Managing Change


31

Engagement and Morale


32

Overall Satisfaction

Overall importance and satisfaction

i The main body of this report was circulated in February. Slight amendments were made to this report on 02.04.2014

Documents

Organisational Review Report of Findings · Organisational Review Report of Findings February 2014 Prepared by 17 Corstorphine Road Edinburgh, EH12 6DD ... It leads and supports the