GOV0071

Written evidence submitted by Cass Business School City University London

Leading a Legislature: A Report on Findings

Introduction

1. The House of Commons Governance Committee was recently established to consider the governance of the House of Commons, including the future allocation of responsibilities for House services currently exercised by the Clerk of the House and Chief Executive. One of the concerns of the committee is likely to be discussion of how best to promote good working relationships between Members and House Staff. With Parliament in a state of transition, and recent events suggesting a growing tension in relationships, the establishment of this committee provides a timely opportunity to consider shared and discrepant views about what constitutes good co-operative working between Members and House Staff, and what can be done to facilitate such relationships in future.

2. These are the findings of a short confidential project that involved, observations and interviews with six House Staff and Members to: (1) explore what a ‘good working relationship’ means for Members and House Staff (past and present), (2) examine the factors that contribute to co-operative working and capture examples of good practice, and (3) draw synergies with complex leadership in other sectors (private, public and political), and suggest areas for further discussion.

3. This project was undertaken by Professor Jo Silvester and Professor André Spicer from Cass Business School. Both are experts in leadership, and have a particular expertise and interest in leadership in complex organisations and Parliament. Cass Business School is a leading UK business school, based in the City of London. It houses LEAD, a research network focused on leadership in knowledge intensive contexts as well as the Centre for Professional Service Firms. Recently, Cass has been working closely with the Industry and Parliament Trust to deliver a 'bite sized MBA' for senior Parliamentary House Staff.

Overview of Main Themes

4. This report describes eight emergent themes together with recommendations. Our overarching finding is that the House Service operates in a plural and complex environment. Simply importing models of leadership from public or private sector organizations with relatively unitary goals is likely to cause more problems than it solves. To properly operate the House Service, we recommend:

(1)   Improving the quality of governance provided by the Commission

(2)   Ensuring strong direction through a single head of the House Service. 

(3)   Developing clarity about the multiple goals of the House Service. 

(4)   Aligning members and house staff understanding of each other's roles.

(5)   Fostering a culture of service and stewardship.

(6)   Facilitating more open and honest communication across the House Service.

(7)   Change initiatives should be used to support valued traditions.

(8)   The House Service should develop a learning culture.

Emergent Themes

Governance: How should House services be governed?

5. Governing a complex organisation like Parliament is difficult. The working relationship between the House of Commons Commission and the Management Committee appears to vary.

6. There are times when they have been able to work together well. This is when there is open communication, a good relationship between the two, members of the commission who are experienced in the workings of complex organisation take a deeper interest in the administration of the House.

7. There are also occasions when the House of Commons Commission and the Management Committee often don't work well together. The relationship can descend into questioning and 'inquisition' – often through a focus on minor issues. Part of the reason is an imbalance of information and attention. Sometimes, members of the Commission do not know enough about House services. There is also some concern that some members of the Commission do not have experience of the difficulties of running a complex organization. There are also occasions when they do not take enough ongoing interest in the operation of the House.

8. Some interviewees suggested that the Commission needs to be much more independent. For instance by including some external members. At least Members who have experience and interest in administrative issues need to be included on the board. This proposition is backed up research on boards of directors. This work shows that boards which are diverse, experienced with the issues they are governing, and independent tend to provide oversight. It is now considered good practice both in the private and public sector to appoint boards which are made up of people with different backgrounds, who have a good degree of experience and interest in the issues being dealt, adequate time and energy are independent for the issues at hand and are regularly assessed.[1] It is questionable whether the current structure of the Commission reflects these needs.  

9. Recommendation: The membership and appointment of the House of Commons Commission be redesigned to reflect contemporary standards in governance. This would include ensuring independence, diversity, expertise and capacity of those appointed.

Leadership: Who should lead the House Service?

10. Although the main focus of our interviews was not on leadership or governance structure, it is worth commenting on the fact that everyone interviewed was unanimous in their belief that creating dual heads of service would lead to political conflict between the two positions, and significant scope for ambiguity and miscommunication. This point is backed by research evidence and practical experience: when dual hierarchies are created there is considerable scope for conflict and organizational drift. In this instance it is likely to mean that a governing body like the management committee would become a place for settling scores rather than providing strategic oversight.

11. Moreover, it was generally believed that someone deeply attached to the ethos and particular culture of this house would be an appropriate person to lead and manage the house staff. Again, this is supported by a significant amount of academic research, which shows that people who are deeply versed in the core practices of the organization they are leading are likely to perform better. For instance, universities led by highly regarded scholars perform better; as do hospitals led by clinicians and sports teams managed by ex-players perform.[2] 

12. Recommendation: There be a single head of the House Service, and that person be deeply steeped in the ethos and core practices of the House.

Strategy: What is the purpose of the House?

13. Our interviews as well as the submissions received so far show some interesting tensions around the purpose of Parliament. Although this sounds like a high level issue, many of the views that are being expressed about the structure of House services are premised on different assumptions about what parliament should do. Indeed one submission points out that 'there may be as many different views of (Parliament's) primary purpose as there are Members – indeed there are probably more'. 

14. From our research, we found there are some who assume that Parliament should have a somewhat limited purpose of improving legislation and holding the executive to account. On this view the central service in Parliament is the legislative process, which takes place in the Commons, the Lords and the various select committees. This is the 'core'. All services around this are strictly there to support this process. The closer you are to this process, the higher the status and importance that is accorded to your role. The Clerks are seen to be at the core, the library service at some remove, with services like IT and catering at an extreme distance.

15. Others propound a more extended purpose of Parliament. According to this view, Parliament should improve legislation and hold the executive to account, but also help develop participative democracy. Building on this view, a central function of the House becomes reaching out to the public. Moreover, according to this view, the legislative process is only one process at work in Parliament alongside a number of other processes designed to reach out to the public. Parliament becomes both a mechanism for improving legislation and a means of building democratic engagement. Proponents of this view point out that as Members’ time is increasingly spent on constituency issues, this public engagement function is likely to become even more pressing. Taking this view gives a very different understanding of which roles are at the centre of the Parliamentary world. There are multiple functions , with the legislative process being one and the public engagement and outreach function being another. 

16. These contrasting views of the purpose of Parliament can give rise to people talking past each other during decision making processes, thereby rendering them less effective. It is important to recognise that goals and purpose in complex organisations like Parliament are often ambiguous. However, there needs to be at least some clarity about (a) the existence of multiple purposes, (b) what those purposes are (c) reflection on allocation of resources and leadership capabilities around these goals, and (d) mechanisms for continually checking the balance of these goals.[3] For instance, if it is affirmed that encouraging broader public participation in politics is an important goals, then it would mean a new leader’s role would not just be to ensure the smooth running of the legislature and delivery of service, a vital part would be to act as an external advocate for Parliament. This partly external facing function would be in line with that of many senior leaders in business, and the chief executives of local authorities, who devote significant amounts of their time to providing a public face for their institution. They would become a non-partisan embodiment of the parliamentary tradition. 

17. Recommendation:  There needs to be clarity about the purpose(s) of Parliament. Is it to improve legislation, hold the executive to account, reach out to the public (or which mix?) Having established this, senior leaders focus and organizational resources needs to be aligned in accordance. They also need mechanisms for creating dialogue and balancing multiple goals.

Collaboration: How should Members and House staff work together?

18. Our interviews revealed no single view of what the role of House Staff is or should be; with different stakeholders holding very different views about what they thought was required of Staff and how relationships with Members should be managed. For example, from the perspective of House Staff, Members represent '650 small businesses', each of which can have very different needs and aims. They described themselves as 'handlers'. One even talked about the role as being that of a 'lion tamer'. There was also a subtext that many of these small businesses were idiosyncratic in the way they operated, and that as they are under huge pressure from multiple sides, they often get upset about rather insignificant things. Issues that had sparked conflict included Members’ concerns about things like coffee cards. One person we talked to mentioned that concerns about the quality of champagne in the Commons had stymied attempts to amalgamate the Lords and Commons catering services. Other issues which are particularly important for Members are often about status and symbolism, for example, difficult decisions about the renovation of the Palace of Westminster are avoided because Members want to remain in the Palace – as the physical environment gives them significant legitimacy with their constituencies. 

19. In contrast Members were more likely to describe House Staff as 'service providers'. While historical references were made to how house staff used to be 'servants' (i.e., looking at the floor when Members passed by in the corridor), an increased emphasis on efficiency in Parliament has re-emphasised the idea that House Staff provide a service to Members and, by doing so, to the public at large. This perception of House Staff as service providers is likely to be further strengthened by the introduction of a service focused strategy in Parliament for 2015-2020. While there remains continuous notes of disappointment among some Members that the service levels they receive are not high enough, there are broader underlying tensions about who House Staff are primarily there to serve – Members or the Public.

20. What this points to is a tension between two ways of seeing the relationship between Staff and Members. On one side, House Staff see themselves as 'handlers' having to deal with '650 small businesses' whilst protecting the integrity of parliamentary processes. On the other side, Members see themselves as 'customers' having to deal with a sometimes sub-standard 'service'. Inevitably these different perceptions make it more difficult to manage expectations and relationships. For example, good service may vary for different customers (i.e., Members, Parliament and the public), and there appears to be little clarity about how to resolve potential conflicts between the needs of different stakeholder groups. Importantly, it is unclear what constitutes good performance (in relation to service or other role areas) for House Staff. While different understandings of leadership are typical in complex organizations,[4] the best organizations are at least aware there are different understandings and are able to work across these intellectual boundaries. In political contexts, a democratic process has been used to elicit similar and different perceptions of particular roles from different stakeholder groups in order to build a consensus and shared understanding of what is expected of role incumbents and what constitutes good collaborative working[5]. This has the benefit of building an agreement that can be communicated to others (e.g., via induction and development activities).

21. Recommendation: The committee should consider developing a shared agreement and understanding of what constitutes good collaborative working between Staff and Members.

Culture: What is the way we do things around here?

22. A related issue that arose from interviews concerns questions about the culture. Several interviewees commented on the need to facilitate a culture change in Parliament. There is an overarching discourse concerned with the need to introduce a 'service culture'. Indeed, the current strategy focuses on the issue of service, and a theme of increasing service levels is likely to continue in future strategic plans. This is partially due to the theme of 'customer service' being wide promoted in other aspects of the civil service.

23. Many of the submissions point out that significant progress has been made in improving levels of service. However, there is uncertainty about progress. One interviewee commented that a 'can’t do' culture operates, citing examples of attempts by Members to introduce a coffee card scheme and a covered smoking area. In a submission, a Member refers to a 'culture of aloofness' in the Clerks Office. In another submission, reference is made to the service being dominated by 'distant bureaucrats'. Yet another submission admonishes the house service for not adopting typical aspects of customer service culture such as House Staff wearing name badges on their lapels.        

24. There does appear to be an acceptance among House Staff of the importance of a service ethos. However, it is easier to see how a service culture might operate in some of areas (e.g., catering) rather than others where there is a closer relationship with the political functions of Parliament (e.g., DCCS). Some interviewees described house staff as ‘stewards’ rather than ‘service providers’, particularly in relation to aspects where clerks were required to support, but not advise or direct Members.

25. We came across some clear limitations to a through-going service culture. First, in a highly political environment, the need for staff to be impartial sometimes clashes with the need to provide service. For example, a Clerk tabling a question cannot fore-warn a Member about a likely hazard. Second, much of the behaviour which is central to the operation of the House involves covert and subtle behaviour which is not easily measurable as in most service contexts. For instance as Clerks cannot give advice proactively, and much of their role involves the use of covert behaviour. Most of their activity – including what might be described as excellent performance - is difficult to observe or publicly acknowledge. Third, sometimes House Staff are required to say 'No' to Members (which is perceived as annoying by Members and an action which clashes with good customer service). For instance, in the past Members have attempted to insist on using idiographic IT set ups which could potentially cause a breach of information security. IT services have had to push back against these individual demands. Arguably, being too oriented to the customer needs of Members may also have been one of the roots of the expenses scandal. 

26. Given these tensions, what became important in many parts of the service was tactfully negotiating a balance between the demands of Members ('Customer Service') and rules and issues of procedure ('Stewardship'). For instance, an important aspect of the Clerk role is to understand the rules and regulations that govern Member behaviour, for example, in relation to asking questions in the House. While a Member may not be able to pose a question as they initially intended, Clerks need to understand the ‘rule book’ as a framework of regulations and procedures and a good clerk understands the rules and says you can’t do this, why don’t you do this?  There are rules you can’t break, but good clerks have the intelligence and flexible attitude to understand what a Member needs and how they might achieve it within the existing rules.

27. A similar dilemma is faced by professionals in other complex organizations. They need to simultaneously balance multiple and often paradoxical demands.[6] For instance, medical doctors need to balance patient needs, cost demands and professional standards. When crude sets of metrics which are introduced that focus professionals on one aspect of these multiple demands tends to produce perverse outcomes. The most successful professional organizations have a culture which allows for multiple demands.[7] What this suggests is a simple focus on building a 'service culture' is probably short sighted. There needs to be a recognition there are other values which are dearly held in the House such as 'stewardship'.

28. Recommendation: It is important to build a plural culture which gives space for service and stewardship. 

Communication: How should Members and House staff interact?

29. Members tend to use two modes of communication with House Staff – advocacy and interrogation. They 'advocate' by either direct demands, or when these are not adequately met the political process itself is used to communicate the concerns of the Members. As a result politicians often register their concerns using early day motions tabled in the house. They also 'interrogate'. When engaging with House Staff they go into 'interrogation' mode which you would typically find on a select committee. We were told that 'the assumption is you must be wrong, they want to find out'. Another respondent told us Members often have 'communication habits of an inquisitor' and 'When they get worried they go into inquisition mode – it is part of their day job'. The result is that House Staff are put into a positions where they are required to defend themselves.

30. House staff talk about their communication with Members as 'member handling'. Because they assume Members are likely to go into advocacy and interrogation modes, they often pre-empt this defence through selectively revealing information. Staff tended to mirror politician behaviour by focusing on 'handling' rather than having blunt conversations about options. The result can be significant ambiguity and unwillingness to clearly reveal their views, and at times this means people can't decide what to do.  There was a feeling that this results in a habit of not telling the whole truth, but rather communicating a varnished truth to make it more palatable. One person we talked with told us that 'there is too much handling, not enough open conversation'.  

31. These two approaches to communication can result in vicious spirals in communication dynamics. The interplay of this advocacy and interrogation on the one hand leading to selective information revealing on the other hand. As a result Members often feel like they are being manipulated, so this results in more scrutiny, which in turn produced more careful 'handling'. The result is that bigger issues can be missed.

32. The times when the house staff have been able to get at more significant issues has been a result of the relaxing this problematic pattern of communication and having more open conversations. An example given here was the significant cost savings achieved in recent years which was the result of more direct conversations on the Finance and Services committee.

33. Recommendation: Open conversations need to be facilitated all way down the organization.

Change: Between Modernization and Tradition

34. One of the over-arching concerns was the need for change within the service. Many of the submissions to the committee emphasise a need for radical reform of house services. All respondents we spoke with agreed there was need for change. Many also pointed out that significant progress had been made in recent years on a number of issues and it was a misnomer to think about the house services are completely sclerotic. Underlying these points of agreement, there appeared to be a deeper tension between preserving tradition and through-going modernisation.

35. Many people underlined the importance of modernising the house services. By modernization, they mainly referred to the introduction of managerial techniques developed in the private sector and now widespread throughout the civil service. They noted that house services have been late-comers to this process, with the first serious reforms being introduced less than a decade ago. Some were frustrated these reforms had by no means gone far enough, and still saw managerial practices in the house being antiquated when compared to other organizations. For instance, in a submission one Member notes 'When I was a manager working in IT, I would have been severely criticised by my customers if we had handled IT changes as badly as they have been handled recently for Members and their staff'. A similar sentiment can be found in one staff member who was 'shocked at how ‘institutionalised’ certain senior officers of the Commons are. They spend the majority of their adult lives working their way up the organisational ladder and as a result, continue all the traditions, pomp and circumstance of Parliament without ever modernising or innovating.'

36. Alongside of these concerns for the introduction of more managerial techniques was also a deep concern for preserving the traditions of the house. Both Staff and Members recognise they are part of a great institution. This motif is express in the Sergeant at Arms' submission which states that 'I believe Parliament to be one of the world’s greatest institutions. Our rich history, the buildings that we occupy, and the importance of the work that we do means that, as custodians of this great place, we must ensure that we do all we can to safeguard it for future generations'. In another submission, a Member laments that the House is being transformed from a place where legislation is scrutinised into a tourist attraction and catering facility. Many staff and members find traditions of the house provide a deep sense of meaning to their work, making it more than an ordinary job. It is important to note these sentiments do not preclude a desire for making administrative changes. However, it they do express the importance of deeply held traditions and symbolism which provide a central aspect of the collective culture of all who work in Parliament. We think in some quarters there is a deeply held, but maybe unexpressed concern that the rise of a more though-going managerial approach will lead to these traditions being replaced by a generic corporate culture which could be found in any workplace.

37. This tension expresses a class problem in the dynamics of organisational culture change: the tension between the driven for modernisation and attachment to tradition. Recent research suggests that most fairly successful change efforts are able to change surface level aspects like introducing new practices, however it is very difficult – if not impossible - to change underlying values and beliefs.[8] Therefore, any cultural change initiatives undertaken by the House would be best advised to introduce new practices in the guise of established traditions and values. It would be extremely unwise for a new leader to set about trying to radically alter the core values of the house staff at same time as many other change projects are underway.

38. Finally, it is worth emphasising that managerialist practices are themselves political in that they exist to enhance the power of one particular group (i.e., managers in business) to control employee behavior[9]. They are less suited to pluralist cultures where there is a greater need to balance the needs and aims of different groups that may have conflicting aims[10]. In this instance, there is a risk that adopting a managerialist solution without considering the political nature of Parliament could undermine the power of House Staff in their role of steward rather than servant.    

39. Recommendation: Any new managerial techniques introduced need to be in line with underlying values and traditions in the House.

Learning: How can Members and House staff learn how to make Parliament work more effectively?

40. A number of interviewees commented on the largely ad hoc and informal way in which Members and House Staff learn about each other’s roles. Although it was acknowledged that more efforts have been made to formalise training and development for Staff, and to improve induction procedures for new Members, there was a belief that most learning is experiential and that this serves to perpetuate cultural norms and behavior. For example, one interviewee commented that the political culture impacts on how House Staff behave, because staff tend to mirror politician behavior; focusing on 'handling' discussions rather than having blunt conversations about options. Their view was that this tends to result in lots of confusion and no real view, which in turn means that people can't decide what to do.  Similarly there was a feeling that this results in a habit of not telling the truth, but rather communicating a varnished truth to make it more palatable. 'There is too much handling, not enough open conversation' and as a result Members often feel like they are being manipulated, which in turn results in more scrutiny. As such, this politeness and handling can mean people don't get to bigger issues.

41. This mirroring of behavior reflects an accepted way of doing things that isn’t taught, but results typically from Members and Staff striving to work together in a way that reflects the culture of the House and the political nature of their work environment. While this has the advantage of allowing Members and Staff to ‘fit’ the existing culture, a reliance on informal learning can make it more difficult for certain individuals to learn. For example, it was suggested on that if new Members do not pick up on Parliamentary procedures quickly and early on in their careers, they are often too embarrassed to ask at a later stage when it can be more difficult to acknowledge a political weakness. It was felt that some Members lack a clear understanding of how to work with clerks to achieve their aims, and that this is often balanced against a concern that they should not appear too reliant on the clerks.

42. While the induction procedures for new Members and new House Staff have clearly improved in recent years, there is much less evidence that the House has developed a learning culture that encourages all individuals to engage in continual learning and review. To do this effectively would depend on all stakeholders (i.e., political parties and staff) acknowledging the need for a learning culture in Parliament, and provision of resources to support learning opportunities for Members and Staff at all levels.

43. Recommendation: The House Commission and Management Committee should consider different options to develop a learning culture within Parliament. As part of this Members and House Staff should have continuing opportunities to learn about each other’s roles and how to work together more effectively.

Jo Silvester is Professor of Organisational Psychology at Cass Business School. Her research focuses on the selection, assessment and development of leaders across different organizational settings. Jo worked with the Conservative Party in 2001 to create the first competency-based selection process for prospective parliamentary candidates. She conducted a similar project to redesign procedures for the Liberal Democrat Party in 2008, and has undertaken cross-party research on development for local politicians sponsored by the ESRC and Department of Communities and Local Government. Jo has also worked with JPMorgan, Barclays, the Home Office, Royal College of Surgeons and NHS. Her research has featured in The Financial Times, The Sunday Times, The Economist, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian, People Management, The Independent, Woman’s Hour, Science Now, BBC Politics Show and the Science Programme.  www.cass.city.ac.uk/experts/J.Silvester

Andre Spicer is Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Cass Business School. His research focuses on leadership, culture change and power and politics in complex organisations. Andre has worked with a range of organisations including Barclays, IBM, Jaguar Landrover, Transport for London, Old Mutual and BNY Mellon. He has published widely in top scholarly journals. He is also author of five books, including 'Metaphors we Lead By'. He regularly appears in the international media such as BBC, CNN, CNBC, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Telegraph, Times, Guardian and Independent.  www.cass.city.ac.uk/experts/A.Spicer

November 2014