In the line of fire

It costs a lot of money to make someone redundant, apparently. That comforting thought was passed on by a member of the senior management team the other day, when I mentioned the looming spectre of job cuts. But the fear of redundancy hangs over our housing service like an unspoken threat, all the same.

We are banking on the housing revenue account - literally, since our councillors have staunchly refused to top up the council’s income from our handy housing surplus for many years now. But can that stance hold, in the face of millions of pounds sliced from the authority’s budget? It doesn’t help to hear other council chiefs talking about cutting 10, 20 or even 30 per cent from their budgets and political parties vying with one another to savage the ‘inefficient’ public sector.

Housing staff fear they will be at the sharp end of this. The recession is already increasing repossessions in our area, which is as over-priced as any.

As well as fearing the axe themselves, housing colleagues know they will have to work harder. Then there is the impact of public sector cuts on careers and job progression. In a bid, no doubt, to protect their existing workforces, councils are coming up with policies which will make it almost impossible for people to move on in their careers.

Recruitment freezes are happening or are imminent all around. Some local authorities, wise to the dangers of rigidity, have taken a different tack - one is inviting staff over 50 to retire early.

This isn’t an ideal solution either, since experience counts for more than the corporate bean counters care to admit. There is a serious danger that the brightest and best will not be recruited, while the accumulated knowledge of older staff is lost forever.

More worrying than any of this is the toxic combination of politicians with a ‘slash and burn’ mentality, and some rigid employment policies that box in councils at the very moment they need flexibility.

In the interest of fairness over the years, recruitment processes have increasingly emphasised box-ticking. The post has become more important than the person, and so the person must fit the job description exactly. One unintended consequence is that it is possible to recruit someone who matches the criteria for the job perfectly, but whose personality may wreak havoc.

Short-sighted approach

It isn’t just the lack of subtlety in the recruitment process that causes problems, though. In hard times, it actively prevents efficient use of staff. The emphasis on the post means that flexible generalists, who can be moved around the organisation when staff are short or not available, are rarely recruited. The recruitment process favours specialists. In times of plenty this doesn’t matter much, but when you can’t recruit and need to be able to fill gaps with able existing staff, it is a major obstacle.

Departments are fixed at the foundations around the concept of the post, and employment contracts are written with this in mind. So, if you are short in the finance department, and have an able housing officer who is willing to take on the job, it is usually impossible to move them, even though that might suit management and employee alike.

Even in the good times these personnel policies can be a serious hindrance to staff wanting to move up the ladder. The impact on individuals is as negative as it is on the organisation.

One of my colleagues complained to me recently that his career path was blocked. He wanted to change his line of work but couldn’t move into another post as he didn’t have the necessary experience.

Someone already doing the job would always tick more boxes, and with the emphasis on the post and not the person, the fact that my colleague is an able man who could make a useful contribution, would count for nothing.

This rigid approach is going to cause a major headache for councils when (rather than if) they start to look for savings in their housing departments. When the cuts finally start to bite, you can be sure it will be posts that are considered before individuals. In the private sector it is usually the other way around.

Councils, however, will shed many highly skilled, intelligent and committed staff because their bums were on the wrong seats when the music stopped. Posts will be axed and the staff that remain will be there, not on merit but because the organisation saw their work as necessary.

This is demoralising in many ways; not least since it implies that there is no point in trying to do a good job - the quality of your work isn’t going to save you. Respected colleagues will start to disappear from the office, through no fault of their own.

Saving grace

There is one crumb of comfort to be gleaned from working for a council, though. Unlike the private sector, councils are usually obliged to flag the cuts because they have an impact on the public - and services - as well as staff.

Staff get to see the way the wind is blowing well in advance of the hurricane. That isn’t a lot of use, if rigid job policies in your own organisation combine with recruitment freezes elsewhere to create a ‘perfect storm’. You will get blown away, whatever you do to try to save yourself.