Summary: Require public officials, starting with Government Ministers, to demonstrate effective decision-making Competencies at the level defined in the Civil Service’s published Framework prior to taking up office. Ministers lacking graduate level education in a logic-based subject such as maths, science or engineering are likely to require a period of training to reach this level of competence.
Rationale:
I am happy to report that the Civil Service have already done the underpinning legwork here in developing their excellent competency framework. Particularly pertinent to the above challenge is the ‘Setting direction: Making effective decisions’ section which tells us that
‘People who are effective are likely to:
• Navigate and balance a range of political, national and international pressures
• Involve the right stakeholders and partners in making recommendations or decisions early on and continue to engage them
• Identify and evaluate risks and options and develop strategies to manage and mitigate
• Make unpopular decisions and defend them at the highest level when required’.
The document goes on to specific some features of ‘People who are less effective’ which resonates remarkably with particular failings evidenced amongst English politicians during the Covid crisis:
• Struggle to provide clarity of thinking when faced with complex and ambiguous data, constantly call for more information rather than make decisions
• Provide recommendations or decisions without full and proper consultation
• Provide advice without full evaluation of risk, scenarios and options
• Constantly change decisions based on new opinions, information or challenge.
The scientific method is defined as ‘making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions’. Whilst no one expect all public servants to be competent scientists, an understanding of the principles of logic and risk assessment are intrinsic to the high-level decision making required by those in leadership. Yet they may have absolutely no training in such principles in any part of their education- indeed, no education at all is required to enter public office. Many professions have developed workplace-based competency assessment as a core entry requirement in recent years, in recognition of the critical remits undertaken in that profession and, consequently, the critical impact of substandard practice. Requiring a minimum benchmark means practitioners with sub-optimal competencies are excluded from entry and this protects the public. These competencies need to be demonstrable live ‘in practice’, not just from a written test- i.e. similar to a driving test.
For example, in the Royal College of GP’s curriculum, competence in decision making is defined via ‘word pictures’ to allow assessors to identify and evidence emerging/evident competencies. By the final year of training the doctor must be able to demonstrate overall competence in each field while working with real patients. This is assessed by a highly trained (PGCE level) GP ‘trainer’ in the workplace, based on observation of genuine consultations in joint surgeries and/or videoed consultations, and case discussions (cross-reference with written records and other tools such as audit and multi-source feedback). It is further benchmarked by the College in a live simulated surgery where each patient’s care is assessed by an independent examiner against specific thresholds of competence, alongside written assessments. Below are examples of decision-making competencies that would be equally relevant to MPs, and arguably should be ‘excellent’ in Government Ministers:
-Excellent- No longer relies on rules or protocols but is able to use and justify discretionary judgement in situations of uncertainty or complexity
-Competent- Thinks flexibly around problems, generating functional solutions and taking ownership; keeps an open mind and is able to adjust and revise decisions in the light of relevant new information -Not yet sufficiently competent- Makes decisions by applying rules, plans or protocols.
Further relevant competencies can be found within the ‘managing medical complexity’ part of curriculum as shown below- the word ‘patient’ has been changed to ‘public’ to demonstrate relevance to Government ministers:
#Excellent- Anticipates and employs a variety of strategies for managing uncertainty; uses the public perception of risk to enhance the management plan
#Competent- Is able to manage uncertainty, including that experienced by the public; communicates risk effectively and involves public in its management to the appropriate degree.
For public officials, it would seem feasible that new entrants could be asked to pass a ‘simulated’ assessment of their decision making which could include formats such as:
• Chairing a simulated meeting which includes decision making on complex and conflicting statistical data (with appropriate statisticians/experts in the room to advise)
• A written prioritisation scenario- which could be based on a disease outbreak, for example!
Such an entry assessment could then be coupled with a probationary period, during which key competencies would need to be demonstrated ‘on the job’, for example during:
• Interaction with the public (in MP surgeries)
• Interaction with colleagues
• Written communications e.g. with the press
• Management of risk scenarios.
It is my assertion that had such an assessment been undertaken on the Covid Cabinet prior to their appointment, many would not have been in post. A more suitably skilled cohort could have avoided much of the weak decision making- and deaths- that ensued. Can we really afford to put people’s lives at risk by entrusting these crucial decisions to individuals selected on basis of popularity, without reference to competence? Covid has shone a light on a critical gap to address and the tools are readily available – all that is required is the political will.
1959-11