Let’s talk about interim executive recruitment in Local Government. But without ignoring the overall context of the national landscape – LGR, 114s, workforce and succession planning.
It certain isn’t all a mess, far from it, there are a great many things going very well in Local Government right now. But perhaps upmost in the minds of many senior leaders Neil Lupin speaks to is the small matter of succession planning.
Who is going to be tomorrow’s Chief Executive, 151, MO, DCS, DAS? But let’s not continue down that road. Those roles have changed beyond all recognition even in very recent years, and the pool of individuals ready to take these roles on next, or in the years to come, is rapidly diminishing. But why? Afterall, Local Government is hugely diverse and it isn’t going anywhere. Sure, it continues to evolve, adapt and modernise, but it is fundamental to society.
Speaking to people who’ve done these roles for years and in some cases for decades, it is not surprising that these roles have changed and evolved, but for many they are barely recognisable. Take the role of Director of Finance for example. In an era of shrinking grants, budgets that don’t balance and section 114 notices, who would want to be the Section 151 Officer of a Council? Many have had very public struggles, have secured exceptional funding or are on the verge of the unthinkable. If Local Authorities were listed companies with shareholders, their financial circumstances would all too often be daily headline news, even if it isn’t their fault.
But what of MOs or other leadership positions? While some roles may not be radically different to previous years, it is safe to say that the pools of people willing and able to take them on is dwindling, and it is disappearing more rapidly at the top than it is being replenished at the bottom. Simply put, there aren’t enough qualified individuals choosing to stay the course in Local Government and as a result, there simply aren’t enough people to go round.
And what about LGR
Although that’s up in the air at the moment, with the exception of Surrey. With Ministerial changes, and rumours that only a certain number of areas will see reorganisation in this Parliament, and with business cases in awaiting decisions it’s anyone’s guess what will actually happen. At present, who Councils partner with will ultimately be dictated by Government. But when it might happen and how much time Councils will actually have before vesting day is a big unknown. LGR will only exacerbate the pressures felt across the country around succession planning. While certain roles will be ringfenced, plenty of others will go to open competition. Arguably, in some cases there ought to be a surplus of people available for roles – eg where services merge, but where multiple new unitaries replace a single county the reverse may be true.
Which begs the question about adult and children’s social care as well as education. As things stand there aren’t enough people to go around. And if for every affected leadership team, there will ultimately be two or three, where are those people coming from to fill those roles? The sector spends its time “robbing Peter to pay Paul” as it is, and matters will only get worse. Naturally some services will come together reducing leadership headcounts, however I expect competition for those roles will be fierce.
.What’s changing?
For years, permanent executive search and interim management have been treated very differently in Local Government. The gulf is only widening. Even as permanent roles become harder to fill for all the above reasons and many others, the approach towards the commoditisation of interim management is stark. Best value is not simply lowest cost. Frameworks and RPOs abound and while quality of service is chief among their selling points, the reality is they can push good suppliers away and prioritise price over substance. It’s fully appreciated that they do a lot of good, particularly for volume recruitment, but there is no denying they often do more harm than good when it comes to senior appointments.
It seems strange that the approach to permanent executive search is so different to the approach to appointing senior interims. If anything, interim roles can be more critical and nuanced, with candidate supply at an even greater premium. It means that the usual approach of multiple agencies vying for a small number of candidates simply fails the Authority and disenfranchises those same candidates. It is counter-productive to a positive candidate experience and far from guarantees that the Authority secures the best possible candidate. It reverts to price as its lowest common denominator. There are better ways to secure the best possible candidate at the right price while also ensuring that these senior and influential candidates have a positive experience of the Authority in question.
While there is nothing wrong with working with a small and carefully selected number of agencies, nor is there anything wrong with fixing pricing in advance, agencies ought to approach interim management with the same rigour as executive search, although for weeks read days if not hours. The highly competitive nature of interim management means that providers will work very hard for you with no reward unless they secure an appointment.
For example. We recently put in a mini-tender to a London Borough for an interim Director role. They went to four carefully selected providers for those bids and NSCG was determined to be the best. We have now run an exclusive process for them with fixed, transparent pricing with executive search rigour and interim timeframes. This has resulted in them hiring a nationally recognised interim Director.
In another case, we have picked up a very hard-to-fill interim role with a Met after it has been with two other agencies for two months. Within 3 days we had candidates forward and interviews booked.
The common themes here are that the Authorities in question have chosen us by reputation, rigorously tested us, allowed us to take a detailed brief and have been incredibly responsive to organising interviews, feeding back and confirming appointments. It enables us to enthuse the right candidates about the opportunity. Neither has commissioned us via a framework, although we can be direct-awarded via ESPO or LGRP once appointments are made. While neither is subject to LGR, there is no doubt that LGR itself will put a strain on executive-level workforce and succession planning in a sector where candidate supply is already on the decline.
It means that Local Authorities are likely to get the best out of executive interims that work hard for and with them. Keeping your supply chain at arm’s length may feel like the right thing to do (and in every Authority there are those who will tell you it is the only way to commission) but it rarely produces the best results. Working with interim service providers like NSCG in the same way you work with your permanent executive recruitment partners is the way forward.