The issue of secondments between central and local government has come to the fore again. Recently, the minister for local government argued that central government would make “better policy, deliver improved outcomes and become more credible” if its senior managers had experience of working in councils or frontline services.

Then, last month, Whitehall & Westminster World saw senior figures such as permanent secretary David Bell, National School of Government chief Rod Clark and academic John Benington stress the benefits brought by top civil servants who have ‘hands-on’ experience (see WWW, 2 December 2008, p6). The message seems clear: first-hand experience of delivering public services helps create first-class leaders and, therefore, a more effective civil service as a whole.

On an individual level, secondments are often presented to civil servants as an effective way of advancing their careers. Although central government does offer opportunities to directly manage services, local government secondments can give valuable exposure to new challenges and different working practices. There is strong, top-level support for this viewpoint: Sir Gus O’Donnell has repeatedly stressed that ‘if you want to get on, get out’ (see WWW, 16 December 2008, p10).

Despite these potential benefits, a 2005 survey indicated that only a quarter of senior civil servants had been on secondment (some more than once). Of these secondments, only 20 per cent were to the wider public sector, while 40 per cent were to other Whitehall departments.

What is going on? In reality, both individuals and organisations see secondments as involving some unappealing risks and disadvantages. The ‘home’ organisation may feel that the potential gains are not convincing enough to outweigh the blunt reality of losing a member of staff for a prolonged period. The ‘host’ organisation may be reluctant to invest resources in developing temporary staff’s skills and knowledge.

Meanwhile, a perceived lack of institutional support may make individuals more likely to see a secondment as risking, rather than bolstering, their careers. The potential gains may seem flimsy in comparison to a range of worries: Will people think my department wanted to get rid of me? Is local government the right challenge for me? Will I miss out on promotion while I am away, or even be dispensed with altogether?

How can these fears be assuaged? Three things would need to be provided: tracking of secondees; diligent and realistic planning; and job security borne of employer commitment.
 
First, we need to track how individuals develop skills and progress in their careers after a secondment, in order to provide departments with evidence of their value. Institutions would then have the information to see secondments as a strategic investment, and weigh up the potential returns accordingly; individuals, meanwhile, would get better information about what type of secondment task or destination might develop the skills they want.
 
Second, careful planning is needed in order to ensure that secondments offer relevant tasks with a suitable level of challenge, and that the burdens placed on both organisations are acceptable.

Finally, the home organisation needs to give a commitment to potential secondees that their careers won’t be damaged by going on secondment.

What realistic, practical steps can be taken now? David Bell recently told WWW that gaining experience outside government is often easier for those early in their careers. Therefore, introducing a pilot local government secondment programme to a training scheme such as the Fast Stream could offer an attractive way forward. Starting with a limited number of participants would help to keep the costs of tracking and planning manageable, and the programme’s place in a training scheme would provide security for participants. A structured programme could also create a ‘control’ group of those not taking local government secondments, which would give added strength to the evidence.

Such a programme could be based on reciprocal exchanges with the local government-focused National Graduate Development Programme, in order to minimise direct costs and to efficiently identify opportunities at a local level. Naturally, there are many details that would need to be addressed and, if such a pilot were successful, effective co-ordination of its further development would be essential. The main uncertainties are over whether departments will ‘bite’ once the evidence starts to build up – and, indeed, what this evidence will reveal.

Why not be bolder, and propose an immediate requirement for all staff working in central government to be seconded by a certain stage of their careers? This could bring real benefits, as the Institute for Government’s recent Performance Art report makes clear. But such an initiative would need to be handled carefully. In addition to the practical difficulties of costs and responsibilities, the danger is that these secondments could be perceived as imposed and unnecessary. In the worst-case scenario, unwilling secondees performing mismatched tasks could actually damage central-local relationships.

By contrast, a tailored pilot programme might take a while to generate its evidence – but when it does, the ensuing benefits are likely to be deep and durable.