Succession Planning in the States of Jersey.

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (11/02/2008) regarding: Succession Planning in the States of Jersey.

Decision Reference: MD-C-2008-0005
Decision Summary Title :	DS - Succession Planning in the States of Jersey		Date of Decision Summary:	11 February 2008
Decision Summary Author:	Ian Crich Director of Human Resources		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	WR - Local Appointments, Succession Planning, Leadership and Management Development.		Date of Written Report:	February 2008
Written Report Author:	Ian Crich		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Succession Planning in the States of Jersey
Decision(s): The Chief Minister, acting in accordance with a recommendation of the States Employment Board, agreed that the report entitled, Succession Planning in the States of Jersey’ should be presented to the States Assembly as an ‘R’ on Tuesday 12th February 2008.
Reason(s) for Decision: The States Employment Board having received a report from the Director of Human Resources on succession planning and having supported all the recommendations therein wish to present that report to the States for information.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Report to be forwarded to the Assistant Greffier of the States.
Signature:		Position: Chief Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Succession Planning in the States of Jersey.

Report to the States Employment Board

8 th February 2008

Local Appointments / Succession Planning / Leadership and Management Development.

Introduction

A small group of States Members (Deputies Le Herrisier, Gorst, Egre and, more latterly, Le Fondré), supported by the Director of Human Resources, met on a number of occasions during 2007 to consider the above topics.

The underlying consideration of the discussions held was how best to ensure that the pool of locally qualified candidates for the more senior posts within the States is maximised. A key understanding reached by the group was that any proposed work on any or all of these areas was not necessarily intended to ensure that all senior jobs in the States were in future filled by local candidates. It was considered more important to ensure that local candidates were much better prepared to be in a position to more positively compete for such roles as they arise. This should have the effect of enabling them to more likely be “first amongst equals” in selection processes.

Discussions centred mainly on issues of Succession Planning within the States, and Management and Leadership Development, but also considered how candidates external to the island can be best assessed to ensure that they have the necessary attributes to operate in a small jurisdiction.

Findings

Succession Planning

The group considered the existing States wide HR policy on Succession and Career Management. It became evident on examination, that this policy, introduced in circa 1998, is not being universally or effectively applied across the States. Where succession planning is taking place it is clear that the stimulus for doing so is not necessarily the adherence to this policy but more the positive initiative of local management.

The policy and its associated procedures are very comprehensive and not overly “user friendly” for managers and it is probably in some part due to this that the policy is not generally actively pursued. The policy also probably suffers from the fact that it was introduced well before either the HR community was brought together as one and well before Departmental Chief Officers were brought together as a collective Corporate Management Board (CMB) who now oversee the effective implementation and usage of such policies.

Similarly, until 1 January 2006, each individual departmental committee was the legal employer whereas now the States Employment Board act as a single employer for all States employees and can thus better ensure that policies such as this are more effectively executed. To date therefore there has been little incentive to apply the policy (or disincentives not too).

In short, the document is a well intentioned, comprehensive and highly professional piece of work which has, over the past 10 years not being comprehensively pursued across the States.

Recommendations

The working group recommend that the policy should be simplified, brought up to date, approved by the States Employment Board and re introduced via the Corporate Management Board who should be accountable for its renewed implementation and successful application.

The group also recommend that, to facilitate their monitoring of the application of the policy, the States Employment Board receive a quarterly report identifying those senior posts (first second and third tier) which in the previous quarter had been subject to external appointment and the reasons for this (with particular reference to succession plans and why they had not been successful).

The group also recommend that, in updating the policy as described above, this should take account of the role of the Appointments Commission (which was not in existence when the policy was introduced) and that the Director of Human Resources liaise with the Appointments Commission to ensure that its policy of “open competition” is compatible with a more structured approach to succession planning.

Work is well underway to simplify the policy as proposed by the working group and it is expected that it will be re launched, with CMB approval by no later than the 31 March 2008.

Management and Leadership Development

The group considered the provision being made by the States in respect of Management and Leadership Development recognising that proficiency / strong ability in these are key determinants of success in applications for more senior roles within the States.

The group noted the success of the Modern Manager Programme (MMP) which has been introduced to equip middle managers with those competencies and skills necessary to perform as effective managers in the States of Jersey. The group further noted that the MMP was a specifically tailored programme to the needs of the States (i.e. was not simply an “off the shelf” standard management development programme). They also noted that assessment of competency was based on application of learning back in the workplace evidenced through completion of States of Jersey workbooks and assessed by the training provider. In addition, the majority of participants had also elected to work towards obtaining a professional management qualification through the Programme. This required them to submit additional work in order to obtain verification from the Awarding Body that the required standard had been achieved. To date, there have been 8 cohorts of managers who have commenced the Programme (which spans 11 modules over 18 months). The first 4 cohorts will complete the Programme in March, 2008. A total of 200 managers will have completed the Programme over the next 2 years.

The group were concerned to understand how the success or otherwise of the programme would be assessed i.e. to ensure that the skills and competencies of local managers were enhanced by the programme and thus be better positioned to progress further within the organisation. The Director of HR advised that much anecdotal evidence of improved managerial performance was being received from the line managers of the participants but confirmed that he had commissioned work to ensure that more formal assessments of individual progression and development and also of wider organisational benefits be undertaken as each cohort completes the programme.

Recommendation

The group recommended that the outcomes of the reviews of the effectiveness of the Modern Manager Programme be reported to future meetings of the States Employment Board (via CMB) as they are completed, who will consider any future actions and the further publication of the outcomes.

The working group also welcomed the introduction of a “Future Leaders Programme”. This programme is specifically designed to take up to 12 of the brightest and most able “rising stars” from within the States and give them a high quality leadership development programme , again designed very much around our local needs, with a view to preparing them to be very well positioned to compete, in the future, for the most senior jobs within the States.

The programme will be delivered by the University of Warwick Business School over a period of 2 years. A comprehensive selection centre, facilitated by Warwick and carried out by all the members of the Corporate Management Board, was completed in late November and 11 candidates were successfully accepted onto the programme. The programme was launched on the 15th January 2008 and will, as well as being centred around high quality leading edge input from Warwick, involve the group working on States wide issues as a collective, working with and alongside the Corporate Management Board and will, in the second year most probably include off island placements to further enhance the breadth of the participants experience. Also, as well as receiving support and guidance from Warwick, each participant will be coached / mentored by a member of CMB.

The Appointments Commission have been consulted over the development of this scheme and programme and are fully supportive of the initiative.

Senior Management Development

The group noted that training for the development of other senior managers (i.e. those not on the Modern Manager Programme or the Future Leaders Programme) would be developed and introduced during 2008. Given the general raising of skill and competency levels of those undertaking the Modern Manager Programme it is believed important that those more senior managers, who in some cases may have been in post some time, are afforded the opportunity to further develop their own skills and in doing so become even better equipped to support and further develop those of their staff who are participating in the Modern Manager Programme.

The members of the Corporate Management Board will also be undertaking a programme of collective and individual development (also facilitated by Warwick Business School and very much cross referenced and tied in with the Future Leaders Programme content). It is important that the senior managers referred to here (ostensibly the direct reports to Chief Officers – known as the “Leadership group”) enjoy similar developments to both the Modern Manager and Future Leader participants on the one hand and the Corporate Management Board on the other.

In conclusion the working group noted, welcomed and supported these significant and coordinated efforts being made in the area of management and leadership development recognising the significant improvement this should make to the readiness of local candidates to compete more effectively for more senior roles across the States.

Assessing external candidates

The working group spent some time discussing how best candidates external to the island could be assessed to assess their competence in working in small jurisdictions in general and within the States of Jersey in particular. The group accepted that it was not feasible nor necessarily desirable, for all appointments to senior roles within the States to be made from local candidates.

So, given that appointments from outside the island will continue to be made, the group were concerned to ensure that where those appointment are made, that they are as successful as possible and do not, as is perceived to be the case in the past, sometimes fail because the appointee had been unable to operate effectively in our environment.

Recommendation

The group recommend therefore that the processes of assessment and selection in senior recruitment be enhanced to further ensure that the ability of candidates to both understand and to operate effectively “within the Jersey context” be fully tested.

The Director of HR has commissioned work to develop the existing assessment process to ensure this key area is given an increased profile in the future. He has also consulted the Appointments Commission on this issue and will agree any final proposals with them to ensure they sit comfortably within the Appointments Commissions Guidelines on Senior Recruitment. It is expected this work will be completed and signed off by the end of March 2008.

Ian Crich

Director of Human Resources

3 February 2008.