Enhancing Employee Engagement and Retention in the UK Civil Service: Strategies for Fostering a Thriving Work Environment

As the competition for top talent intensifies across sectors, employee engagement and retention have become critical focal points for the UK Civil Service. Engaged employees are more productive, innovative, and committed to their work, directly influencing the quality of public services.

 The Importance of Employee Engagement

·      According to the Civil Service’s People Survey 2023, the overall engagement score for civil servants stood at 62%, a slight improvement from previous years. Increased engagement levels are associated with higher productivity rates; organisations with highly engaged employees experience 20% higher productivity, as reported by Gallup.

·      The Government's People Survey indicates that engaged employees are more likely to deliver excellent public services. A study conducted by the Institute for Government found that positive employee engagement is linked to improved service delivery outcomes. Moreover, in their 2023 report, they highlighted that organisations with a higher engagement index saw a 10% increase in consumer satisfaction levels. Engaged employees are motivated to exceed expectations and provide quality service, making public service more effective.

·      There are also positive consequences when it comes to headhunting strong external candidates.  Strong candidates want to work in organisations where colleagues are engaged and committed.  High staff engagement scores make a real difference when putting together a compelling employer value proposition (EVP).

 Challenges to Employee Engagement and Retention in the UK Civil Service

While understanding the importance of employee engagement, it is equally essential to address the challenges that hinder it.

·      Bureaucracy and Organisational Culture.  A significant challenge to engagement in the UK Civil Service is the prevalent perception of bureaucratic rigidity. The Civil Service People Survey 2023 indicates that 40% of respondents feel constrained by hierarchical structures that limit their ability to innovate. This bureaucratic environment can stifle creativity and disengagement, particularly among younger employees who seek more agility and responsiveness in their roles.

·      Workload and stress present formidable barriers to employee engagement. The Institute for Government notes that in the public sector as a whole, around 29% of employees reported feeling overwhelmed by their workload, leading to lower engagement levels. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that 35% of public sector employees experience work-related stress that adversely affects their health and wellbeing. This high stress level can lead to burnout, diminish engagement, and ultimately contribute to higher staff turnover.

·      Lack of Development Opportunities.  Limited career development opportunities can demotivate employees and lead to higher attrition rates. According to the Civil Service People Survey, only 50% of respondents felt they had access to sufficient training and development resources. This gap in career advancement potential is a significant factor leading employees to seek what they believe are more fulfilling roles elsewhere, particularly in the more competitive private sector where continuous learning and development is more common.

 The Importance of Engagement and Retention for Attracting Top Talent from the Private Sector

·      For the UK Civil Service to attract high-calibre candidates from the private sector, it is essential to cultivate a reputation for excellent employee engagement and a supportive work environment.  As I mentioned above, a strong culture of engagement and staff retention is a very positive factor in building a compelling EVP for a senior role

·      The Appeal of the Private Sector.   Business is often perceived as being more agile, innovative, and rewarding when it comes to employee development and career growth. A report by LinkedIn indicates that 62% of non-government employees would consider moving to the public sector if they perceived it to offer a better work-life balance and more opportunities for professional growth.

 Benefits of a Strong Engagement Culture

·      An engaging work environment can change the narrative around careers in public service. The Civil Service must highlight efforts toward modernising workplace practices, implementing flexible working arrangements, and investing in employee development. Studies by the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD) confirm that organisations perceived as caring for their employees' well-being and professional growth attract higher-quality candidates.

·      Sadly, certain high profile incidents have not helped in this area.

 Outcome of Effective Engagement Strategies

·      Organisations in the public sector with strong employee engagement strategies can realise lower staff turnover rates and higher productivity, making them more appealing to top talent from the private sector. The People Survey 2023 showed that civil servants who feel heard and valued are 47% more likely to recommend the civil service as an employer of choice.

 Strategies for Enhancing Employee Engagement and Retention

Given the relevance of employee engagement and retention for both service delivery and talent attraction, the UK Civil Service should consider several strategies:

1.        Foster an Inclusive and Open Culture. Creating an inclusive workplace culture is vital for enhancing engagement. Organisations should encourage open dialogue about challenges and ideas, ensuring that all voices, particularly from underrepresented groups, are heard. Initiatives such as regular feedback sessions or town hall meetings foster a sense of community and belonging. According to the Institute for Government, organisations with high inclusivity scores saw an improvement in employee engagement of up to 18%.

2.        Provide Opportunities for Growth and Development.  Investing in employee development is crucial for retention. Organisations should offer tailored training programmes, mentorship opportunities and clear career progression pathways. A study from the Learning and Work Institute indicates that 90% of employees report improved engagement levels with access to professional development opportunities. Providing clear career advancement options can mitigate turnover rates significantly.  We discussed this in detail in a previous post.

3.        Recognise and Reward Contributions.  Recognition plays a vital role in employee motivation. Establishing engagement programs that celebrate individual and team achievements can boost morale and job satisfaction. According to Gallup, employees who receive regular recognition are 2.7 times more likely to be engaged in their work. Recognition initiatives can thus serve as a powerful tool for enhancing retention.

4.        Promote Work-Life Balance.  Supporting work-life balance through flexible working arrangements can enhance employee satisfaction. The CIPD notes that flexible working policies are linked to higher job satisfaction and employee retention. The recent trend towards hybrid working opportunities has enabled the civil service to attract talent by showcasing a commitment to work-life balance.   Successful organisations Regularly Assess Engagement Levels and act on their findings.

5.        Conducting clear and regular employee engagement surveys helps organisations identify areas needing improvement.  The Civil Service People Survey  provides invaluable insights into employee sentiment and engagement levels, enabling data-driven decisions to enhance the work environment effectively. Regular assessment ensures that engagement strategies evolve with changing .

 Creating a Supportive Environment for Civil Servants

·      Enhancing  employee engagement and retention is crucial not only for the wellbeing of civil servants but also for the delivery of high-quality public services. By fostering an inclusive culture, providing growth opportunities, recognising contributions, promoting work-life balance, and regularly assessing engagement levels, the civil service can create a thriving work environment that attracts and retains high performers.

·      As civil service leaders and stakeholders, the critical question is: How will you prioritise employee engagement and retention to foster a motivated and committed workforce?

International Women’s Day 2026: The Erosion of Progress?

International Women’s Day (IWD) has been marked for more than a century. In 2026, in a country like the UK with comprehensive equality legislation across both its jurisdictions (for convenience I’m going to call it “UK Law” and not England & Wales and Scotland – apologies lawyers) and women prominent in public life, some argue its time has passed. Yet when we look beyond the law to rapidly changing culture, data, and global trends, it becomes clear that IWD is perhaps more important than ever because  the terrain of gender politics has become more contested, not less.

 The UK sits at a crossroads:

·      Strong formal protections under the Equality Act 2010, domestic abuse and sexual offences legislation, and gender pay gap reporting to name but a few positive pieces of legislation. 

·      Persistent problems of everyday sexism, violence against women and girls (VAWG), and a stubborn gender pay gap. 

·      A rising online ecosystem of anti-feminist and misogynistic influencers such as Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate, incel and “men going their own way” (MGTOW) or Incel communities shaping the attitudes of some men and boys. 

·      A wider global context in which Amnesty International and others warn of a “backlash” against women’s rights, alongside the influence of the Trump era in the United States. 

 Comparing the UK with countries as different as Sweden, Saudi Arabia and Russia highlights that progress is neither linear nor secure; it can stall, fragment, or be rolled back. In 2026, IWD is as much about defending existing gains as achieving new ones.

 Everyday sexism in the UK: law vs lived experience 

 Survey work around International Women’s Day 2026, including multi-country polling by King’s College London (KCL), suggests that while many people in the UK and elsewhere endorse gender equality in principle, progress in attitudes has plateaued. Support for women’s leadership remains high, but polarisation by age and political identity is marked: younger, more progressive respondents tend to favour stronger equality measures; older and more conservative respondents are more likely to say equality has “gone far enough” or “too far.”  Alongside this, women in the UK continue to describe:

o   Harassment in public spaces and on public transport. 

o   Everyday belittling or sexualised comments at work. 

o   Online trolling that can at times be shocking/sickening.

o   Stereotyping in education and media that narrows perceived options and ambitions.

These experiences are often dismissed as trivial, but cumulatively they shape women’s sense of safety, opportunity and belonging. The Equality Act 2010 outlaws harassment based on sex, yet cultural norms about how women “should” behave, dress, speak remain deeply embedded.

The influence of online anti-feminist voices 

 Into this landscape steps a new constellation of online figures and communities who explicitly challenge feminist narratives and, in some cases, promote openly misogynistic ideas.

 Jordan Peterson 

 Jordan Peterson is a Canadian psychologist who rose to prominence in the late 2010s and 2020s. While some of his work focuses on self-help and personal responsibility, his commentary on gender has been highly controversial.  He is a malign influence who gives some perception of an intellectual air cover and thus respectability to some outdated and problematic ideas:

·      He has criticised contemporary feminism as allegedly undermining traditional structures and roles. 

·      He has questioned whether gender imbalances in leadership roles reflect discrimination or differences in interests and temperament between men and women. 

·      He has opposed certain equality initiatives, describing them as authoritarian or driven by ideology rather than evidence.

 In the UK, Peterson has a substantial following, especially among young men. His public lectures, interviews, and best-selling books are widely discussed on UK social media and in universities. Critics, including many gender scholars and journalists, argue that his framing can downplay structural sexism and provide an intellectual veneer for resistance to equality policies; encouraging a belief that if women are underrepresented, it is primarily because of their choices, not systemic barriers.

Andrew Tate 

 Andrew Tate, a former kickboxer and online personality, has become another key figure in discussions about masculinity and misogyny. He has been widely criticised for:

·      Explicitly describing women in demeaning, objectifying terms. 

·      Promoting hyper-aggressive, status-obsessed versions of masculinity that equate male worth with domination, wealth, and control over women.  Tate is perhaps precisely what a 14 year old boy thinks success looks like.

·      Making statements that appear to trivialise or normalise violence against women.

 In the UK, Tate’s influence has been evident in classrooms and youth culture, with teachers and parents reporting that boys sometimes repeat his talking points or use his content to justify sexist behaviour. Schools, charities and police forces have developed resources to counter his narratives, framing them as part of wider efforts to combat online radicalisation and harmful attitudes towards women and girls.

Beyond high-profile personalities, there are online subcultures such as Incels and “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW) 

Incels (involuntary celibates)

Often male-dominated communities defined by resentment over lack of sexual or romantic relationships. Some incel spaces have propagated extreme misogynistic ideology, viewing women as shallow, manipulative, or inherently hostile to “average” men. A small subset has celebrated or encouraged violence; several high-profile attacks globally have been linked to self-identified incels.  Incels are not formally proscribed in the UK as a terrorist organisation but the ideology is recognised as a form of extremism and a growing threat; individuals involved in this ideology can be subject to anti-terrorism measures.  The shooting of six people in Plymouth in 2021 by Jake Davison, an active member of incel culture is one of many reasons behind this.

 MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)

Communities encouraging men to withdraw from relationships and legal commitments with women, often portraying women as exploitative and institutions (courts, family law, workplaces) as biased against men.

In the UK, security and counter-extremism bodies have increasingly monitored violent misogyny as a potential extremist concern. Reports on online harms have noted overlaps between incel forums, far-right online spaces, and broader anti-feminist content. While not all participants in these communities are violent, the rhetoric can normalise contempt for women, reinforce everyday sexism, and undermine efforts to promote respectful, equal relationships.

International Women’s Day in 2026 thus takes place in a digital environment where misogynistic ideas can reach millions instantly and where some young men feel drawn to narratives that cast them as victims of feminism.

Police, violence against women, and institutional trust   

Public confidence in policing in the UK has been shaken by repeated scandals involving serving officers accused or convicted of serious sexual offences, domestic abuse, and even murder (the Sarah Everard Case and treatment of women at a subsequent vigil are a probably the highest profile examples of recent years). Investigations and reviews by the Metropolitan Police and Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) have highlighted:

·      Misogynistic, racist, and homophobic messages in officers’ private chats. 

·      A culture where sexist “banter” is normalised. 

·      Poor handling of VAWG cases, including failures to take reports seriously or to pursue evidence robustly.

Women, particularly younger women and those from marginalised communities, often report reluctance to report harassment, stalking, or sexual assault to the police, fearing they will not be believed or will be treated dismissively. 

The legal response 

 The UK’s legal architecture is relatively robust:

·      Domestic Abuse Act 2021 in England and Wales delivered a statutory definition of domestic abuse, including coercive control, and aimed to improve protection for survivors. 

·      The Sexual Offences Act 2003 sets out offences including rape, sexual assault, and exploitation. 

·      Stalking protection orders, alongside earlier coercive or controlling behaviour offences, attempt to address patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents. 

·       The UK’s ratification of the Istanbul Convention commits it to comprehensive action on VAWG.

 Despite this, Amnesty International and numerous UK women’s organisations emphasise the enforcement gap: under-reporting, low prosecution and conviction rates for sexual offences, uneven support services, and continuing institutional sexism.

International Women’s Day 2026 therefore focuses as much on institutional reform, especially in policing, justice systems, and education, as on formal legal rights.  Put simply, this suite of legislation is not being properly enforced.

 The gender pay gap and economic inequality 

Mandatory gender pay gap reporting for large employers, introduced under the Equality Act 2010 regulations, has made the issue more visible. Recent Office for National Statistics (ONS) data leading into 2026 show:

·      A gradually narrowing median gender pay gap, but one that remains significant. 

·      Larger disparities in sectors such as finance, law, technology and engineering, where senior, high-paid posts remain male-dominated. 

·      The persistence of the motherhood penalty: women’s earnings diverge from men’s notably after childbirth, reflecting part-time work, career breaks, and workplace cultures that reward long, inflexible hours.

 The ONS typically shows that the pay gap is smallest in younger age groups and widens among older workers; evidence that early career equality does not automatically translate into equality over a working lifetime.

Structural drivers:

·      Unequal distribution of unpaid care and domestic work. 

·      Patchy, expensive childcare, which disproportionately constrains full-time work for many mothers. 

·      Occupational segregation, with women overrepresented in lower-paid caring and service roles. 

·       Biases in promotion, leadership selection and performance assessment.

 While UK law prohibits pay discrimination, it does not in itself ensure that women are in the roles that pay most or that workplaces are structured to accommodate equal participation.

Global backlash and the Trump Administration

Human rights groups have highlighted a global backlash against women’s rights and gender equality. This includes attacks on women’s rights defenders, restrictions on civil society, and rollbacks on reproductive and sexual health rights.

The Trump administration in the United States left a lasting mark on gender politics:

·      Judicial appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, set the stage for major reversals on reproductive rights, culminating in the removal of federal protection for abortion in many states through overturning the famous 1973 Roe v Wade case  in 2022.

·      Expansion of the “global gag rule” cut funding to international organisations providing or even discussing abortion, affecting reproductive health services worldwide. 

·      Federal enforcement of equal pay and anti-discrimination protections was weakened in several areas, with regulatory agencies scaled back or redirected. 

·      Official rhetoric often dismissed feminist concerns as political enemies or “radical” agendas.

·      The Trump Administration’s 2025 abolition of the independence of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Amnesty and other global observers point to these changes as emblematic of a broader trend: rights once considered settled can be eroded relatively quickly.

Effects on the UK and beyond 

The US remains a key norm-setter. Shifts in Washington resonate globally in several ways:

1.        Discursive influence: Arguments crafted in US culture wars, about “gender ideology,” “woke feminism,” or “political correctness,” are imported into UK debates by politicians, commentators and online influencers. 

2.        Policy models: Anti-abortion and anti-feminist strategies tried in US state legislatures inform campaigns elsewhere, including Europe. 

3.        Funding and diplomacy: Cuts or ideological conditionality in US foreign aid shape how international organisations operate; UK-based NGOs and development actors must adjust, sometimes stepping in to mitigate damaging gaps.

IWD 2026 in the UK thus unfolds against a backdrop where progress in one country can be undercut by regression in another—and where harmful ideas cross borders with ease.

Where does the UK sit internationally?

International Women’s Day is inherently comparative; it invites us to ask where the UK stands relative to others. Sweden, Saudi Arabia and Russia offer three very different models.

Sweden: is frequently cited as a global leader in gender equality:

·      Policy framework: Strong equality legislation, extensive parental leave (with reserved quotas for fathers), and heavily subsidised childcare make it easier to combine work and family life. 

·       Gender pay gap: Sweden’s pay gap is generally smaller than that of the UK, reflecting policy choices and cultural norms around shared care and women’s employment. 

·      Representation: High female representation in politics and senior public roles, and long-standing feminist influence in policymaking.

Yet Sweden is not free of problems:

·      Women still face harassment, sexual violence, and workplace discrimination. 

·      Online misogyny and far-right movements there, as elsewhere in Europe, have used anti-feminist rhetoric as part of broader “traditional values” agendas.

·      Debates over migration, crime and integration have sometimes been weaponised using narratives about gender and “protecting women,” in ways that can stigmatise minority communities.

 Compared with the UK, Sweden demonstrates what stronger social infrastructure (parental leave, childcare, active labour market policies) can achieve in narrowing economic gaps, but also that even in highly egalitarian societies, cultural and political contestation persists.

Saudi Arabia offers a stark contrast:

·      In recent years, authorities have introduced high-profile reforms: allowing women to drive, easing some aspects of the male guardianship system, and encouraging greater female labour force participation 

·      Official narratives present these changes as modernisation and empowerment, including Saudi women’s increased presence in the workforce and public life.

However:

·      Guardianship norms and restrictive laws remain in place in various forms, limiting women’s full autonomy. 

·      Women’s rights defenders and activists have faced arrest, imprisonment, and travel bans. 

·      Public and private life is still shaped by highly conservative gender norms, and political dissent, including feminist critique, is tightly controlled.

From a UK perspective, Saudi Arabia illustrates how reforms can expand women’s opportunities while significant control and repression persist. It is a reminder that legal changes, when driven from the top without robust civil society participation, may remain fragile or partial.

Russia represents another pattern:

·      While Russia has formal legal equality provisions, recent years have seen a marked conservative turn in official rhetoric, emphasising “traditional family values” and often portraying feminism and LGBTQIA+ rights as foreign threats. 

·      Some forms of domestic violence have been partially decriminalised or downgraded, prompting serious concern among human rights organisations.

·      Civil society space has narrowed, with “foreign agent” laws and other measures curtailing NGOs, including those working on women’s rights and VAWG.

In this context:

·      Violence against women remains widespread, and under-reporting is significant. 

·      Feminist and human rights activists operate under pressure, with risk of harassment, fines or closure.

Relative to the UK, Russia shows how quickly institutional and cultural support for gender equality can be undermined when authoritarianism hardens and “gender ideology” is cast as an enemy of the state. It is a vivid example of the backlash Amnesty warns about.

UK in context: Viewed against these three:

·      The UK is ahead of Russia and Saudi Arabia in terms of legal protections, civic space, and institutional recognition of gender equality. 

·      It lags behind Sweden on childcare, parental leave, pay equality, and the integration of feminist perspectives into mainstream policy. 

·      Its challenges; online misogyny, polarised culture wars, implementation gaps in policing and justice are shared with many Western democracies rather than being unique.

International Women’s Day in the UK therefore serves not to claim moral superiority, but to:

1.        Provide an opportunity to learn from countries like Sweden on practical equality tools. 

2.        Stand in solidarity with women and feminist movements in more repressive contexts like Saudi Arabia and Russia. 

3.        Guard against complacency, recognising that rights can be chipped away even in long-standing democracies.   This is perhaps more relevant than ever.

Men, masculinity and the politics of resentment 

One of the most striking shifts in recent years has been the growth of narratives that frame men and boys as victims of feminism.  As the father if two boys, I am very concerned about this issue.   Figures like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate, Incel and MGTOW communities, and some corners of UK media and politics tap into:

·      Economic insecurity (precarious work, housing costs, regional inequalities). 

·      Educational concerns (boys’ underperformance in some metrics, lack of male role models in certain sectors). 

·      Social change (shifts in gender expectations, #MeToo, workplace equality policies).

 Rather than addressing these concerns through inclusive strategies that benefit everyone, some voices offer a simpler story: that feminism has “gone too far,” that women have gained at men’s expense, and that reclaiming “traditional” hierarchies is the solution.  This matters for IWD because:

·      It shapes the reception of women’s rights campaigns; where some see necessary progress, others see illegitimate privilege.   

·      It affects policy debates: from sexual consent education in schools to VAWG strategies and workplace diversity initiatives. 

·      It has implications for social cohesion: when young men are drawn toward online communities that valorise contempt or control over women, the prospects for healthy relationships and respectful workplaces are undermined.

Constructive engagement with men and boys on mental health, education, employment, and positive, non-dominating models of masculinity is therefore essential to the future of gender equality in the UK. International Women’s Day can and should be a space where these conversations happen, without ceding ground to misogynistic narratives.

 Bringing these threads together, IWD in the UK in 2026 is vital because:

·      Rights are fragile: Global developments, from US reproductive rights rollbacks to Russian domestic violence policies, show that protections can be weakened quickly. The UK is not immune to similar pressures. 

·      Culture is contested: Everyday sexism persists, and digital platforms amplify voices hostile to women’s equality. Jordan Peterson’s critiques, Andrew Tate’s hyper-masculine message, and Incel/MGTOW subcultures all feed into a climate where feminist gains are questioned or derided. 

·      Institutions are under strain: Policing scandals, justice system failures, and under-resourced support services mean women cannot always rely on the state to deliver on the promises of equality law. 

·      Economic gaps endure: The gender pay gap, unequal distribution of care work, and concentration of women in low-paid, insecure jobs remain structural obstacles. 

·      International solidarity is needed: Women in Sweden push at the frontiers of policy innovation; women in Saudi Arabia and Russia challenge repression at significant personal risk. The UK’s stance; diplomatically, financially, symbolically matters.

International Women’s Day began as a day of protest, mobilisation and internationalism. In 2026, for the UK, reclaiming that tradition means:

·      Using data—pay gap figures, ONS statistics, academic studies—to hold employers and institutions accountable. 

·      Calling for concrete reforms to policing and criminal justice to address entrenched misogyny and improve outcomes for survivors. 

·      Investing in childcare, parental leave, and fair work policies that move us closer to the best-performing countries on equality. 

·      Actively countering online misogyny and harmful gender narratives, while engaging men and boys as allies, not enemies. 

·      Supporting and learning from women’s rights defenders worldwide, responding to the backlash with renewed commitment rather than retreat.

International Women’s Day 2026 is a crucial point of reflection and action in a UK and a world where the struggle for women’s rights is still very much alive, and where the direction of travel is anything but guaranteed.

Finally, for any smart-arse men reading this, it’s on 19th November.

Providing Senior Civil Servants with Clear Succession Planning: A Critical Need

As the pace of change accelerates in the public sector, the ability to maintain effective leadership becomes increasingly vital. Succession planning is a strategic imperative for the civil service as indeed it is for any large organisation; ensuring continuity, stability, and the capability to meet both current and future challenges.  What was once seen as a place providing “jobs for the boys” has come a long way in addressing this issue but there is more to be done in an evermore complex and fast-moving world.  Promotion and succession planning are not merely Human Resources buzzwords; they are strategic imperatives that empower organisations to identify, develop and retain top talent and promote diversity, which is essential in the case of the UK Civil Service. It is important to remember that promotion focuses on elevating employees to higher roles within an organisation, ideally based on merit and potential, succession planning involves the deliberate cultivation of a talent pipeline to fill critical leadership positions in the future. In this piece, I am going to explore the necessity of effective pro-active succession planning, its impact on leadership diversity, and best practices for implementation.

Why is Succession Planning so Important?

Addressing Leadership Gaps

At the most basic level, leadership gaps arise all the time due to retirements, promotions, or unexpected departures. According to the National Audit Office (NAO), close to 50% of senior civil servants are expected to retire within the next decade, leading to a significant potential loss of institutional knowledge and operational capacity. Effective succession planning helps mitigate these risks by developing a formal approach to identify and prepare future leaders.

Ensuring Business Continuity

Effective succession planning is essential for maintaining operational continuity during times of change, which in the context of the UK Civil Service can often be unforeseen and highly impactful (“events, dear boy, events” to quote former PM Harold MacMillan – probably). A report by the International Public Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR) highlights that organisations without a robust succession plan face disruptions that can hinder service delivery and impact public trust.

Adapting to Change

The civil service is continually evolving, with shifting priorities and demands from government, society and international affairs. A study published in the Public Administration Review emphasizes the importance of talent management and succession planning in enabling organisations to adapt more effectively to changing circumstances. By developing a strong leadership pipeline, organizations are better equipped to respond to new challenges and opportunities.

 Attracting Stronger External Candidates

When recruiting for the best possible candidates, I am often asked the question “where will this role take me in 2-3 years’ time.”  Strong candidates are always looking a couple of moves ahead and clear succession planning built into a job offer is far more likely to enable a headhunter to land a big fish.  I mentioned continuity above but bringing in strong external candidates (something I’ve built most of my career around), refreshing the professional gene pool is of equal importance.  This factor is often overlooked by hiring managers when putting together role specifications and sifting applications.

The Role of Succession Planning in Promoting Diversity 

Increasing Representation at Senior Levels

Succession planning presents a golden opportunity to enhance diversity within leadership ranks. Research from the Institute for Government indicates that while there is a growing pipeline of talent from underrepresented groups, this is yet to filter through to Senior Civil Service (SCS) levels. Reports show that BAME individuals make up only 9% of the Senior Civil Service, highlighting the critical need for more inclusive succession planning practices.  Likewise, this can enhance a compelling employer value proposition (EVP) when headhunting for strong external candidates.  This is another factor often overlooked by hiring managers when putting together role specifications and sifting applications.

Mitigating Bias in Leadership Selection

Structured succession planning processes are essential for reducing unconscious bias in leadership selection. A study by McKinsey reveals that organisations with formalised succession plans are more likely to promote diverse candidates. By establishing clear criteria focused on competencies rather than traditional credentials, the civil service has it in its hands to identify and foster high-potential individuals from underrepresented groups of all kinds.

Aligning Leadership Development with Organisational Goals

It is vital for succession planning to align with the civil service’s diversity and inclusion goals. Setting specific diversity targets within succession planning can enhance accountability and drive meaningful progress. For instance, the Public Appointments Data Report, issued by the Cabinet Office in December 2025, notes that organisations implementing targeted succession planning initiatives have achieved significant increases in overall diversity within their leadership teams.  Of course, civil service appointments at SCS levels must be made on merit under the Civil Service Commission’s rules but there is scope to ensure these initiatives have a clear focus on merit. 

Best Practices for Effective Succession Planning 

Establishing a Clear Framework

It is important to develop a well-defined succession planning framework that outlines the processes, expectations, and accountability measures for identifying and nurturing future leaders. Key components of this framework include:

·      Talent Identification: Regular assessment of the talent pool to identify high-potential individuals exhibiting leadership qualities and competencies.

·      Development Plans: Crafting tailored development plans that include mentorship, coaching, and training to prepare identified candidates for future leadership roles.

·      Regular Reviews: Conducting periodic reviews of succession plans ensures they remain relevant and responsive to government’s often rapidly evolving needs.

Engaging Senior Leaders in the Process

Successful succession planning requires buy-in from senior leaders who can advocate for the process and role model inclusive leadership behaviour. Engaging them in talent discussions and holding them accountable for developing their teams fosters a culture of leadership development throughout.

Fostering an Inclusive Culture

Creating a culture that values diversity and inclusion at all levels is essential for effective succession planning. An inclusive environment encourages open dialogue about leadership potential and empowers employees from diverse backgrounds to aspire to leadership roles.  This can be enhanced by high profile hires of senior individuals from underrepresented groups into key leadership roles, demonstrating that government is truly committed to fostering an inclusive culture.  This is a key factor in developing a diverse talent pipeline.

Utilising Data-Driven Insights

Leveraging data analytics in succession planning allows organizations to make informed decisions. By analysing workforce demographics, performance metrics, and leadership competencies, government can identify trends and gaps that inform talent development strategies, leading to more effective succession planning.

The Way Ahead

Proper succession planning is not merely a reactive measure; it is a proactive strategy that aims to ensure the civil service remains equipped with capable leaders to address the challenges of tomorrow. By investing in succession planning now, government can create a diverse and resilient leadership pipeline that reflects the communities it serves.  

The crucial question for those at the top is: How will you prioritise succession planning to cultivate leadership talent and drive meaningful change to meet future (sometimes unforeseen) needs?

From Intent to Impact: The Reality of Diversity in Senior Public Appointments

Across Whitehall and the wider public sector, few issues command as much rhetorical support as diversity and inclusion in leadership. Almost every strategy, framework and foreword now includes a commitment to building senior teams that “reflect the communities we serve”.

Notwithstanding last week’s appointment of the highly capable Antonia Romeo as Cabinet Secretary, the question is not whether the intent exists; it is whether it is translating into significant impact at the top of our organisations (in the Senior Civil Service (SCS1–3) and on the boards of public bodies).

The data tell a mixed story. In some areas, central government is ahead of the wider labour market. In others, progress at senior levels lags behind the gains seen in the wider civil service and on public appointments, there are still persistent gaps, particularly in Chair and NED roles.

I’m going to examine what the latest official and authoritative data say about diversity in senior public appointments, and what that means for how we design and run search processes for SCS and board roles because I don’t think any of us are currently getting things right.

1. What the data says: progress, plateaus and gaps

 To understand where we are, two sets of data are particularly helpful:

·      Civil service workforce diversity data, collated and analysed by the Institute for Government (IfG). 

·      Diversity statistics for public appointments, published annually in the Public Appointments Data Report by the Cabinet Office / Commissioner for Public Appointments.

1.1 Civil Service diversity: the big picture

The IfG’s explainer “Diversity in the civil service” brings together long‑run data from 2000–2024. A few key patterns stand out:

1.        Gender:  The proportion of female staff in the civil service as a whole has been above the population benchmark throughout the entire period.   However, the share of female Senior Civil Servants has only recently reached levels comparable to the economically active population. In other words, women have long been well‑represented overall, but only now are approaching parity at the very top.

2.        Ethnicity:  The proportion of ethnic minority staff in the civil service has increased substantially over the past two decades.   A 2024 bar chart in the IfG analysis shows that the share of minority ethnic staff is above the UK population benchmark in nine departmental groups.  But as with gender, representation is weaker at SCS level. Ethnic minority staff are still under‑represented in the most senior grades, and particularly in some major Whitehall departments.

3.        Disability:  The proportion of civil servants who report having a disability has grown, but progress is uneven between departments.  The IfG notes that the share of disabled staff is above the population benchmark in only two out of 17 departments – the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Cabinet Office.  At senior levels, disabled staff remain under‑represented relative to their presence in the wider workforce.

4.        Sexual orientation (LGBTQIA+):  Unlike for staff with disabilities, those from ethnic minorities or women, the IfG notes that LGBTQI+ civil servants make up a higher proportion of the SCS than of the whole civil service, though that gap has narrowed over time. 

Unsurprisingly, the overall message is nuanced:

·      The civil service has made substantial progress on diversity over the last 20+ years, often out‑performing the wider UK labour market.  

·      Yet on some axes – particularly ethnicity and disability at the very top – there are still stubborn gaps between the SCS and the rest of the organisation.

1.2 Public appointments: who gets onto boards?

For public body boards – Chairs, NEDs and members – the Cabinet Office’s Public Appointments Data Report 2024–25 (and earlier years) provides the most detailed picture.  The report focuses primarily on campaign design and diversity outcomes for ministerial public appointments across departments. While the extract we have here concentrates on process timings, the report as a whole includes:

·      Diversity breakdowns for applications, shortlists and appointments by:  

o   Gender  

o   Ethnicity  

o   Disability  

o   Age  

o   Region/nation of residence  

o   Professional and educational background

Although year‑to‑year figures fluctuate, the recent trend is that:

·      Women now account for a substantial – often near‑parity – share of new public appointees overall, but representation can be weaker in Chair roles compared to member roles.  

·      Ethnic minority and disabled candidates are under‑represented at the appointment stage relative to the application stage, indicating drop‑off through the process.  

·      Some departments and sectors significantly outperform others, suggesting that practice, culture and leadership commitment at the sponsoring department level make a tangible difference.

The 2024–25 report also provides an important process insight: public appointment campaigns are far too long.  On average in 2024–25, across all appointment types:  

·      Closing to longlisting took around 29 days  

·      Longlist to interview took around 50 days  

·      Interview to offer accepted took around 133 days

·      For Chairs and equivalent roles specifically:

o   Closing to Longlisting: 29 days

o   Longlist to interview: 46 days  

o   Interview to offer accepted: 112 days

These timings matter for diversity: lengthy, uncertain processes tend to disadvantage candidates with less flexibility – including many from under‑represented groups – and can reduce conversion from interest to appointment.

2.Why has intent is not yet made an impact at the top?

If both the civil service and ministers are publicly committed to diversity, why are the SCS and many public body boards still not fully representative?  The answer lies in the details of how senior roles are designed, advertised, assessed and filled.

2.1 The “ladder narrows” at the Senior Civil Service

 The IfG data shows that while women, ethnic minority staff and disabled people are increasingly present in the civil service pipeline, progress slows noticeably as you move up the grades.  There are several reasons for this narrowing:

·      Historic patterns of promotion.  Senior grades are still heavily populated by people who joined the service decades ago, when entry and promotion were less diverse. Even with fair and open competition today, it takes time for more diverse cohorts to move up.

·      Role design and criteria.  Senior roles are often described in ways that favour linear, “traditional” career paths – for example, requiring extensive experience in specific Whitehall roles or policy areas. This can inadvertently disadvantage those who have taken non‑linear paths or entered government mid‑career.

·      Informal sponsorship and networks.  Progression into the SCS is influenced not only by formal processes but by informal networks/reputation, mentoring and sponsorship. If those networks are not actively inclusive, they can perpetuate existing patterns.  Executive search cannot solve all of this, but it can influence two of the most critical levers: how roles are framed, and how candidates are assessed.  BUT Civil Servants MUST listen to the advice they are given.

2.2 Public appointments: where the pipeline leaks

The public appointments data consistently shows that diversity tends to be stronger at the application stage than at the appointment stage.

Common drop‑off points include:

·      From application to Longlist.  Candidates from under‑represented groups may be less skilled at “reading” what panels are really looking for, or less familiar with articulating experience in the language of public appointments. Overly narrow or jargon‑heavy criteria exacerbate this.

·      From interview to appointment.  Panels may unconsciously favour candidates who “feel familiar” – those with similar backgrounds, communication styles or career paths to existing members. Without structured assessment anchored in clear criteria, this can harden into bias.  Furthermore, good candidates are in demand, especially those from underrepresented groups and the more lucrative private sector moves more quickly than government.

·      Over the course of long campaigns.  As the Public Appointments Data Report shows, it can take many months from closing date to offer acceptance – particularly for Chair and high‑profile NED roles. During that time, candidates may withdraw due to other opportunities, changed circumstances, or discouragement from a slow process.

The result is that even where intent is strong and the top of the funnel looks diverse, the final appointments often skews towards familiar profiles.

3. What effective, evidence‑led search looks like

If we accept that diversity at the top is both intrinsically right and instrumentally valuable – as the Civil Service, Cabinet Office and many departmental strategies all do – the question becomes: what specifically needs to change in how we run SCS and public appointments?  Here are five characteristics of executive search and selection processes that move from intent to impact:

3.1 Role design that welcomes, rather than filters out, difference

 The way we write SCS, Chair and NED briefs sends a powerful signal about who is “likely” to be appointed.  An inclusive, evidence‑led approach means:

·      Interrogating every “must‑have”.  Is prior central government experience genuinely essential, or is what you really need deep experience of regulation, digital transformation, major programmes or stakeholder management – which could be gained in multiple sectors?

·      Focusing on outcomes and capabilities, not job titles.  Instead of “must have been a Director in a Whitehall department”, specify “has led a complex organisation or function through multi‑year change with political, regulatory or public scrutiny”.

·      Making space for non‑linear careers. Many candidates from under‑represented groups have portfolio careers, sector switches or career breaks. Recognising this explicitly in the advert and person specification widens the credible field.This is not about lowering the bar; it is about clarifying what the bar actually needs to be for the challenges ahead, and removing unnecessary proxies that exclude.

3.2 Proactive outreach beyond the usual suspects

Relying on “word of mouth” and established networks almost guarantees that your field will look like your current board or SCS cohort.  Effective search for diversity involves:

·      Mapping non‑traditional but relevant talent pools.  For example: senior leaders in local government, the NHS, regulators, social enterprises, academia, professional bodies, charities and regional business.

·      Targeted, respectful approaches.  Many high‑potential candidates will not self‑select into a government competition unless approached and supported. Outreach needs to be personalised, honest about the demands, and clear about the development and impact opportunities.

·      Regional and socio‑economic breadth.  Given the Civil Service’s commitment to levelling up and its shifting geographic footprint, there is a strong case for actively identifying senior talent outside London and the South East, and from a wider range of socio‑economic backgrounds.  Search partners who understand both Whitehall and these wider ecosystems are well‑placed to bridge this gap.

3.3 Structuring assessment to counter, not codify, bias

Diversity is not achieved by “tweaking” a standard process; it requires designing assessment to surface capability fairly and consistently. In practice, this means:

·      Translating criteria into clear, behavioural indicators.  Panels should agree in advance what evidence would demonstrate, say, “strategic leadership in complex systems” or “commitment to public value”, and score against that – rather than relying on overall impressions.

·      Using structured interviews and, where appropriate, work‑sample tasks.  Asking all candidates comparable, job‑relevant questions helps reduce the influence of familiarity and style. For some roles, realistic scenario exercises can be a fairer test of capability than informal discussion.

·      Diverse, trained panels.  Panels that themselves reflect a range of backgrounds and perspectives – and that are briefed on unconscious bias and inclusive assessment – are more likely to notice and challenge skewed judgments.  For SCS competitions, this aligns with existing Civil Service recruitment principles. For public appointments, it is consistent with the Governance Code on Public Appointments and the Commissioner’s emphasis on fairness and merit.

3.4 Designing processes that don’t disproportionately deter some groups

The Public Appointments Data Report 2024–25’s timings – with Chairs waiting on average 112 days between interview and offer accepted, and members 135 days – underline how demanding these processes are. Length and opacity hurt diversity for several reasons:

·      Candidates with caring responsibilities or in less flexible roles may simply not be able to sustain a long, uncertain process.  

·      Those without prior public appointments experience may interpret silence or delay as rejection and disengage.  

·      Candidates from under‑represented groups, who may already be questioning whether they “fit”, can see delays as confirmation of that doubt.

Better practice looks like:

·      Planning end‑to‑end before launch.  Map all decision points, approvals and clearances, then design a realistic but efficient timeline – and publish it.

·      Active communication.  Use your search partner and internal teams to keep candidates updated, especially if there is slippage. Explain reasons honestly.

·      Minimising unnecessary stages.  Every additional hoop should be tested against the question: “Does this materially improve the quality of our decision, or is it process for its own sake?”  Well‑designed, respectful processes do not just feel better; they retain more of the diverse talent you worked hard to attract.

3.5 Supporting appointees to succeed, not just arrive

 Diversity in appointments is only meaningful if appointees are set up to thrive.

For SCS and public body boards, that includes:

·      Tailored induction and onboarding.   External appointees, in particular, need structured support to understand Parliamentary processes, ministerial relationships, civil service culture and governance frameworks.

·      Access to mentoring and peer networks.  Pairing new senior leaders with experienced counterparts – including from similar backgrounds – can help them navigate challenges and build confidence.

·      Clear expectations and feedback.  

Being open about the realities of the role, and providing early, constructive feedback, helps prevent “sink or swim” dynamics that can disproportionately affect those without prior Whitehall experience.

Executive search can play a role here too, brokering honest pre‑appointment conversations and supporting early‑stage transitions.

4. Questions for senior sponsors and panels

 If you are a Permanent Secretary, DG, HR/People Director, or a sponsoring ministerial team preparing to run a senior competition, it is worth asking:

1.        Where, specifically, does your data say you are under‑represented at senior levels?  

2.        Is it gender, ethnicity, disability, region, professional background – or a combination?

3.        Does your role design genuinely welcome difference, or quietly preference familiarity?   

4.        If a talented, values‑aligned leader from outside central government read your brief, would they see themselves in it?

5.        Are your process design and timelines likely to support or erode diversity through the funnel?  

6.        How many potential candidates are you unintentionally discouraging through the way you run the campaign?

7.        How will you support new appointees – particularly those from under‑represented groups – to succeed once in post?  

8.        What would you need to change about induction, mentoring or board culture to make that real?

5.Competing with the Private Sector for C-Suite and Board Talent: Overcoming Civil Service Risk Aversion

 In an evolving landscape, central government faces an essential challenge: attracting and retaining senior talent in a competitive market. The need for innovation and fresh perspectives is critical to addressing complex issues in public service. However, a deeply ingrained risk aversion often pulls the recruitment process back toward familiar candidates, making it difficult to capitalize on the diverse talent pool available.

This article examines the reasons behind this risk aversion in the civil service, its impact on recruitment for Senior Civil Service (SCS) roles and public body boards, and outlines strategies that public bodies can employ to effectively compete with the private sector while maintaining accountability and integrity. It also highlights the unique challenges faced by candidates from underrepresented groups, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds.

1. Understanding Civil Service Risk Aversion

 1.1 Accountability and Scrutiny

 The civil service operates within a framework characterized by high levels of accountability to Parliament, the media, and the public. This intense scrutiny places pressure on public sector leaders to avoid missteps, leading to a conservative approach to decision-making where the perceived risks associated with innovation outweigh the potential benefits. Consequently, this culture fosters hesitation in embracing new leadership styles and ideas, maintaining the status quo over ambitious reform.

1.2 Historical Precedents

 Longstanding institutional norms dictate practices within the civil service, which often favour candidates with extensive internal experience. This preference limits opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds who may approach leadership in innovative ways. Historic hiring patterns create a recruitment loop that prioritizes familiarity over the fresh thinking required to navigate today’s challenges.

1.3 Comparison with the Private Sector

 Unlike the private sector, where risk-taking is often incentivised and seen as a catalyst for growth and innovation, the public sector’s focus on stability creates a misalignment. High-calibre external candidates may be deterred by the lack of flexibility and adaptability in civil service roles, perceiving them as too bureaucratic compared to private sector opportunities.

6. The Impact of Risk Aversion on Recruitment

1.1 Narrowing the Talent Pool

 Risk aversion results in a narrowing of the talent pool available for SCS roles and public body boards. A focus on candidates with extensive public sector experience inadvertently sidelines individuals with diverse perspectives and robust capabilities from other sectors. This trend creates a homogeneous leadership culture lacking the variety of thought and experience necessary for effective governance.

1.2 Contact Fatigue Among Underrepresented Groups

Candidates from underrepresented groups often experience "contact fatigue" during recruitment efforts. Many have participated in multiple searches or initiatives aimed at improving diversity but have found limited success or tangible outcomes. This fatigue can dissuade high-potential candidates from engaging with civil service roles, perpetuating a cycle of underrepresentation.

1.3 Resistance to Innovation

Governance frameworks necessary for accountability can stifle creative problem-solving. Many senior roles within the civil service become bogged down by lengthy approval processes, thereby deterring candidates who thrive on agility and adaptability. This results in a lack of innovative leaders capable of propelling public service transformation.

1.4 A Shortage of BAME Skills at SCS Levels and Board levels

The lack of diverse representation, particularly among BAME individuals in senior positions, further exacerbates the diversity gap. According to the Public Appointments Data Report 2024/25, only 9% of candidates appointed were from ethnic minority backgrounds, with a slightly higher representation for new appointments (just over 10%). While progress is being made, the rate of appointment for BAME individuals at the SCS level remains significantly below the population benchmarks, limiting the perspectives available in decision-making roles.

1.5 The Influence of White Civil Service Commissioners

Civil service commissioners, who often play a critical role in shaping recruitment standards and processes, tend to be predominantly white. In a study by the Institute for Government, it was highlighted that the lack of diversity on selection panels can lead to biases that favour candidates who conform to existing norms and expectations, further marginalising candidates from different backgrounds and experiences.  This is a subtle but significant factor and can often foster groupthink and unconscious bias within a recruitment panel.

1.6 Reluctance to Accept Pay Cuts

 Candidates from underrepresented groups who have established successful careers in the private sector may be reluctant to take significant pay cuts to transition into public service roles. According to research, the average pay discrepancy between experienced professionals in the private sector and SCS roles can exceed £30,000. This disparity can deter talented individuals who might otherwise bring valuable insights and skills to the civil service, deepening the imbalance in leadership composition.

1.7 Existing Civil Servants have the Home Field Advantage in Recruitment Processes

The recruitment process within the civil service, particularly elements such as staff engagement exercises, tends to favour existing civil servants. Internal candidates often have a greater familiarity with the processes, culture, and expectations of the civil service, granting them a "home field advantage." This familiarity can discourage BAME candidates and those from other underrepresented groups from applying, perceiving the competition as biased toward internal candidates.

Furthermore, as the recruitment process progresses, elements that favour existing civil servants can filter out private sector candidates. The emphasis on prior public sector experience during assessment stages can create a disadvantage for those with valuable insights and skills from diverse environments but lacking a traditional civil service background. This further reinforces the status quo, making it difficult for new, innovative perspectives to emerge and contribute to public service.

Anecdotally, I’ve sat in washups in which the strongest candidate who happens to be external and from an underrepresented group has not been offered the role because the postholder wanted to avoid a difficult conversation with an internal candidate who was expecting the recruitment process to be a mere formality on their way to acquiring the role.

1.8 Limited Talent Pool for BAME Candidates

Moreover, the talent pool available for BAME candidates within the private sector is more limited than senior civil servants may perceive. Studies indicate that while diversity initiatives are increasingly prioritized, the systemic barriers and challenges in accessing leadership roles for BAME individuals persist in the corporate world. This limitation adds an additional layer of complexity to recruitment processes within the civil service, as the government seeks to bolster diversity at senior levels. This long-term issue requires sustained commitment and effort from the government to encourage more BAME individuals into leadership roles, including mentorship programs and initiatives aimed at promoting diverse talent pipelines.  Though this is a process that could take 15-20 years + before such individuals arrive at SCS level.

My conclusion is that this is an area that is ripe for genuine transformation.  Asking headhunters to attract more candidates from underrepresented groups is not the solution, major systemic change is required as outlined above.  It’s time for HMG to grasp the nettle but major cultural change is required for true impact when comes to diversity.

Michael Pedersen’s Poem Celebrating 300 Years of Edinburgh University’s Medical School.

I don’t usually post poetry on here but this poem by Michael Pedersen features a very moving tribute to the surgeon who saved my wife’s life, Mr Arshad Siddiqui. It’s also a very beautiful poem and deserves sharing. Click here to watch his reading. I really couldn’t have put it better myself.

Why Top Government Roles Are Getting Harder to Fill: And What To Do About It

I am hearing more and more that across Whitehall and the wider public sector, there is a quiet consensus forming: the most senior roles are getting harder to fill, and harder still to fill well.

Directors and Directors‑General in central departments, Chief Executives of agencies and regulators, and Chairs/NEDs of public bodies are all operating in a context of heightened scrutiny, constrained resources and complex delivery challenges. The remit has grown, but the pool of people who can credibly take on these roles – and are willing to – has not expanded at the same pace.

 This is not just a matter of “it feels harder than it used to”. The evidence from official and authoritative sources – the National Audit Office (NAO), Institute for Government (IfG), Office for National Statistics (ONS) and others – points to a structural shift in the senior talent market.

 In this article, I will look at why top public sector roles are becoming harder to fill, and what departments, arm’s‑length bodies (ALBs) and sponsoring teams can do differently when they go to market for SCS1–3, Chair and NED appointments.

1. The role has changed faster than the recruitment model

Senior roles in central government have always been challenging. What has changed over the last decade is the combination and intensity of demands.

1.1 A broader, more complex leadership remit

Successive NAO reports highlight the scale and complexity of the programmes senior leaders are now accountable for:

·      Major projects and programmes – from infrastructure to defence and digital transformation – regularly run into the tens of billions of pounds and span multiple departments and delivery partners.

·      The NAO’s reviews of the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP) consistently underline the demands this places on leadership capability, particularly in commercial, project delivery and risk management.

 At the same time, the IfG’s Whitehall Monitor series has drawn attention to:

·      The increased churn in ministerial and senior official posts, which complicates strategic continuity.

·      The growth in cross‑cutting policy challenges – net zero, levelling up, digital regulation – that require collaboration across traditional departmental boundaries.

 For an SCS2 Director‑General or the Chair of a major ALB, this translates into a role that is:

·      Strategically broader – spanning policy, operations, digital, data, and increasingly, communications.

·      Organisationally more complex – involving ALBs, private/voluntary sector partners, devolved and local government.

·      Politically more exposed – with media and Parliamentary scrutiny as standard.

·      Yet the recruitment model has often remained oriented around a narrower conception of the role: heavy on policy experience and institutional knowledge, lighter on the functional and delivery capabilities now critical to success.

1.2 Demand for specialist skills has outpaced internal supply

This shift in role content has created specific pinch points in the senior talent market. Several NAO and IfG publications, as well as Cabinet Office capability reviews, highlight recurring capability gaps:

·      Digital, data and technology (DDaT) – including change leadership, cyber, and user‑centred design.

·      Commercial and contract management – particularly for complex outsourcing and public‑private partnerships.

·      Major project and programme delivery – the ability to manage risk and delivery at scale.

 Government has invested significantly in building internal professions in these areas – for example, through the Government Digital Service, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, and specialist commercial and project delivery functions. The Government Skills and Curriculum Unit (GSCU) and Civil Service reform programmes have also sought to strengthen these capabilities. 

But at SCS1–3 level, the pool of leaders who combine deep functional expertise with the full range of civil service leadership skills (policy, Parliamentary handling, cross‑government working) remains relatively small. This leads to:

·      A strong temptation to appoint on the basis of policy or institutional familiarity, on the assumption that specialist capability can be “bought in” around the leader.

·      Difficulty in attracting external candidates who have functional depth but lack prior central government experience – especially when role descriptions and processes are not designed with them in mind.

·      The net effect is that many senior roles ask for a rare – sometimes unrealistic – mix of competencies. That alone makes them harder to fill.

 2. The external market has become more competitive

The challenge is not just internal capability; it is also a function of the wider labour market.

2.1 A tight market for senior specialists

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has consistently reported high employment rates and ongoing recruitment difficulties in certain high‑skill occupations. While official statistics do not carve out “C‑suite” roles as a discrete category, the patterns are clear:

·      Persistent skills shortages in digital, engineering, data and certain professional services.

·      Strong demand in sectors that compete directly with central government for senior talent: consulting, technology, financial services, infrastructure, health and life sciences.

 For senior specialists in these fields, central government is only one of several options – and not always the most obvious or immediately attractive. Compensation constraints, perceived bureaucracy, and concerns about public scrutiny can all act as deterrents, particularly for those at the peak of private sector careers.

 2.2 Pay and reward: constraints are real, but only part of the story

Cabinet Office data on Senior Civil Service pay and reward and the IfG’s commentary on civil service pay underline the structural limitations on public pay:

·      SCS pay bands and progression are centrally constrained and heavily scrutinised.

·      The gap between public and private sector pay can be particularly stark in some specialist and executive roles.

·      However, the picture is more nuanced than “government cannot compete on pay”. Independent research (for example, from CIPD and others) suggests that senior professionals are also motivated by:

o   Intellectual challenge and autonomy

o   Organisational purpose and societal impact

o   Opportunities to shape systems and institutions

o   Flexible working and work‑life integration

 The challenge for many central government recruitment campaigns is not purely financial; it is that the non‑financial aspects of the proposition are not articulated clearly or persuasively enough to cut through in a crowded market.

 3. The process itself can deter the very people you most want

Alongside role content and market conditions, the way senior appointments are run can significantly influence the size and quality of the candidate pool.

 3.1 Long, opaque and high‑risk processes

A recurring theme in both NAO reviews and informal feedback from candidates is that central government recruitment processes can be:

1.     Lengthy – spanning many months from advertisement to decision.

2.     Opaque – with limited communication between stages and uncertainty about timelines.

3.     High‑risk – with final outcomes subject to multiple layers of approval or external scrutiny. 

For internal candidates, these features are frustrating but familiar. For external candidates – particularly those in senior private sector roles – they can be prohibitive. The opportunity cost of entering a process that is time‑consuming, unpredictable and potentially very public is high.

For Chair and NED roles, the Governance Code on Public Appointments and annual reports from the Commissioner for Public Appointments have brought greater transparency and accountability to the process. But they also highlight:

·      Variable practice between departments in planning, stakeholder engagement and candidate care.

·      Instances where competitions have been launched without sufficient upfront clarity on role, person specification and panel expectations – leading to abortive or extended processes.

3.2 Perceptions of “closed shops” and cultural misalignment

Even when processes are technically open and fair, the way they are perceived can put off capable candidates:

·      Perception of “insider advantage”. External candidates often believe – sometimes with justification – that internal or “usual suspect” candidates are favoured, especially where job descriptions strongly emphasise prior central government experience.

·      Cultural uncertainty. Candidates from outside the public sector can find it hard to decode the cultural signals in role packs and conversations. References to “policy‑led environments”, “ministerial priorities” and “Whitehall experience” can be off‑putting if not explained.

·      In an environment where government is actively seeking more external appointments to bring in fresh perspectives and specialist skills, these perception issues are not trivial. They go directly to the size and diversity of the candidate field.

4. What boards and departments can do differently

If the drivers of difficulty are structural, the response has to be strategic. Here are five practical shifts that can make top roles easier – not easy, but easier – to fill well. 

4.1 Redesign roles from first principles

Rather than starting with the last job description, start with:

·      Future challenges. What will this role need to deliver in three to five years, not just over the next 12 months? What NAO, IfG or departmental reviews tell you about current weaknesses or risks.

·      Non‑negotiable outcomes. What must change or improve under this leader’s watch?

·      Essential versus desirable experience. Distinguish clearly between core criteria and proxies for comfort (e.g. “has worked in central government before”).

This often leads to roles that are:

·      Clearer in purpose and impact (which helps attract mission‑driven candidates).

·      More open to candidates from diverse backgrounds who can demonstrate relevant outcomes, even if their career paths look different.

·      Executive search partners can add value at this stage by bringing evidence from comparable roles and markets, including what is realistically available and through the creation of a clear and attractive Employer Value Proposition (EVP).

4.2 Calibrate the market before you launch

Before launching a high‑stakes SCS or Chair/NED competition:

·      Test the proposition with the market. Discreetly sense‑check with a sample of potential candidates (internal and external) to understand what would attract or deter them.

·      Stress‑test the criteria. Ask your search partner to review the person specification against live talent maps. Are you over‑specifying? Are there fields where you will clearly not be competitive?

·      Align stakeholders on risk appetite. Be explicit about whether you are prepared to appoint someone without prior central government experience, or someone with deep functional expertise but a steeper learning curve on political context.

·      This upfront calibration can prevent the all‑too‑common scenario where a competition closes with a weak or homogeneous shortlist and the panel feels forced to choose from a limited field.

4.3 Design processes that respect senior candidates’ reality

Acknowledging what senior candidates can realistically commit to makes your process more attractive without compromising rigour:

·      Set and publish realistic timelines. Build in the necessary governance steps, but keep the overall end‑to‑end duration proportionate. Where approvals or external clearances are needed, be transparent about that from the outset.

·      Streamline contact points. Use your search partner to manage candidate communication actively – regular updates, clarity on next steps, and fair warning of any slippage.

·      Use assessment methods that add value. Senior candidates will typically accept intensive assessment if it is clearly linked to the role and handled professionally. They are less tolerant of repetitive interviews or generic exercises that feel like “process for process’s sake”.

For Chair and NED roles, close adherence to the Governance Code on Public Appointments remains critical. But within that framework, there is significant scope to improve candidate experience – and thereby widen the field.

4.4 Be explicit about the non‑financial offer

Given the constraints on pay, it is essential to articulate – concretely, not abstractly – what makes the role compelling. That means moving beyond generic references to “public service” and “making a difference” to specific, evidence‑backed propositions:

·      System‑level impact. For example: “You will be responsible for overseeing a regulatory regime that affects X million people and £Y billion of economic activity.”

·      Complexity and challenge. Senior candidates in the private sector often relish complexity; framing the role as an opportunity to tackle one of the state’s most intractable challenges can be a draw.

·      Influence and profile. Within appropriate bounds, be honest about the opportunity to shape national policy, institutional strategy or sector‑wide standards.

·      Flexibility and development. Where possible, highlight flexible working, portfolio career opportunities (for NEDs), and access to cross‑government networks and leadership development.

·      Role packs, early conversations and interview narratives should all reinforce this proposition consistently.

4.5 Use executive search as a strategic enabler, not a last resort

Finally, the way you deploy executive search matters. The most successful SCS and board‑level appointments tend to share three characteristics:

·      Early engagement. Search is involved before the role is frozen, shaping the brief and advising on market realities.

·      Genuine outreach. The search process is used to widen the field beyond usual suspects – mapping diverse talent pools across sectors and regions, and engaging candidates who would not otherwise consider a public sector move.

·      Robust, contextual assessment. Search consultants who understand the public context can probe not just for skills, but for values, resilience and appetite for scrutiny – testing alignment with the Civil Service Code, Nolan Principles and the specific governance environment of the role.

·      Used this way, executive search is not simply a way to “fix” difficult competitions; it is a tool to align recruitment practice with the capability, diversity and leadership needs highlighted by NAO, IfG and other analyses.

5. Questions for sponsors of senior appointments

If you are about to launch, or are in the middle of, a senior competition, it is worth pausing to consider:

·      Are we designing this role around our future challenges – or our past structures?

·      Have we calibrated the market and our own risk appetite – or are we hoping the right candidates will simply appear?

·      Does our process, in practice, encourage or discourage the senior talent we most want to attract?

·      The increasing difficulty of filling top public sector roles is not a passing phase. It reflects deep shifts in what these roles entail and how the wider labour market operates. The good news is that with deliberate design, evidence‑led role definition and a more strategic use of executive search, departments and boards can still secure the leadership they need.

The Changing Face of Senior Leadership in UK Central Government: What the Data Tell Us

If you look only at the headlines about the UK public sector, you might think the story of senior leadership is one of constant churn, constrained pay and ongoing reform fatigue.

But the data paints a more nuanced picture.  Recent Civil Service statistics show a workforce that is, in many ways, more diverse and more geographically dispersed than ever before. At the same time, the requirements of Senior Civil Service (SCS) and public body board roles are evolving rapidly driven by fiscal pressure, technological change, and increasingly intense public scrutiny.  For those of us involved in senior appointments at SCS Pay Bands 1–4, Chairs and Non‑Executive Directors these trends are not background noise; they define the talent market we are operating in.

This article looks at what the latest official numbers tell us about the changing face of senior leadership in central government, and what that means for how we design and run executive search.

What the latest data say about the Civil Service workforce

The Cabinet Office’s Civil Service Statistics 2024 release is the most comprehensive official snapshot of the workforce as at 31 March 2024, covering headcount, pay, grade, location and diversity across departments and agencies. It is complemented by other government and quasi‑government sources such as the Institute for Government’s Whitehall Monitor and annual diversity statistics on public appointments from the Commissioner for Public Appointments.  While much of the public commentary focuses on overall headcount, there are three trends particularly relevant to SCS and board‑level recruitment:

·      Overall growth and reshaping of the workforce  

·      Shifts in diversity, including at senior levels  

·      A gradual re‑balancing of civil servants’ locations

Overall workforce and SCS context

The Civil Service today is significantly larger than it was in the mid‑2010s, driven largely by EU exit, the pandemic response and a busy domestic policy agenda. The Civil Service Statistics 2024 release sets out the total number of civil servants and tracks grade composition, including the Senior Civil Service.  Alongside this, the Cabinet Office publishes the Senior Civil Service roles and salaries list, which provides an annual view of SCS posts, pay bands and departmental distribution. When you compare snapshots over several years, three patterns emerge:

·      The SCS has grown in size, but still represents a small fraction of the total workforce.  

·      New types of senior roles have appeared or expanded particularly in digital, data and technology (DDaT), commercial and major project delivery.  

·      Departments are experimenting more with external recruitment at senior levels, especially where they are seeking specialist expertise.

Taken together, this means the senior talent market in government is both tight and increasingly specialised. Many of the most challenging SCS1–3 and board roles combine:

·      Traditional civil service leadership (policy, assurance, Parliamentary accountability)  

·      Deep functional expertise (e.g. digital, cyber, commercial, infrastructure, health)  

·      The ability to operate across complex delivery systems involving arm’s‑length bodies, local government, private and third sector partners.

That is not a profile readily available “off the shelf” – either from within the Civil Service or externally.

Diversity: progress and persistent gaps

On diversity, the picture is mixed but moving in a broadly positive direction.

A Civil Service World analysis of the 2025 Civil Service statistics reports that the proportion of civil servants declaring they have a disability has reached a record high, now matching representation in the economically active working‑age population for the first time. Since 2015, there have been year‑on‑year increases in the percentage of civil servants who declare themselves as disabled. For more context, I’ve written about private sector diversity here.

The same analysis notes that the proportion of civil servants from an ethnic minority background has also reached a record high, though it still lags behind the proportion in the economically active working‑age population. Importantly, it highlights that:

·      Ethnic minority representation has increased across all grades below the Senior Civil Service.  

·      There are still gaps to close at the most senior levels.

For senior appointments more broadly, including Chairs and NEDs of public bodies, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ (OCPA) annual diversity statistics provide additional insight. Recent reports have shown:

·      Continued progress on gender representation in public appointments, with women now close to or exceeding parity among new appointees in many years.  

·      Ongoing under‑representation of some ethnic minority groups and disabled people in Chair and NED roles.  

·      Variation between departments and sectors, indicating that practice and culture at the sponsoring department level matters.

The headline message for executive search is clear: the pipeline is diversifying, particularly at feeder grades below the SCS, but there is still a drop‑off at the very top. That has implications for how we design selection criteria, run campaigns and support candidates.

Location: a more dispersed leadership footprint

The previous government’s “levelling up” and Places for Growth agendas have translated into a gradual re‑balancing of where civil servants are based.  The Civil Service World coverage of the latest statistics notes that London remains the region with the largest number of civil servants (over 107,000), followed by the North West of England and Scotland. While the proportion of London‑based civil servants has decreased slightly over time, the absolute number has still risen.

For senior leadership, this is starting to look like:

·      More SCS and public body board roles based outside London, or designed as multi‑location/hybrid.  

·      Greater emphasis on understanding regional economies, local government, and place‑based delivery.  

·      A more competitive landscape in some regional hubs, where multiple departments and agencies are co‑locating.

From an executive search perspective, location is no longer a binary “London vs the rest” question; it is a strategic design choice that shapes your candidate pool and diversity outcomes. 

 What this means for SCS and public body board recruitment

Translating data into decisions is where many recruitment processes fall down. Here are five practical implications of the trends above for those leading or advising on SCS1–3 and Chair/NED appointments. 

1.        Use evidence to design roles for the future, not just backfill the past.  Civil Service statistics and related analyses (for example, the Institute for Government’s Whitehall Monitor series) consistently highlight the areas where government most struggles: major project delivery, digital transformation, data and analysis, and complex cross‑cutting policy.  When you design a senior role, the default can be to reproduce the last job description with minor edits. The data suggest a different approach:

·       Start with capability gaps, not organisational charts. Look at the major risks and priorities facing your department or body – for instance, delivery of major capital programmes, data‑driven policy, or regulatory change.  

·       Benchmark against emerging roles. The growing number of Chief Digital Officers, Chief Data Officers and senior commercial leaders in government is a signal that the leadership model is shifting. Ask: which aspects of those roles do you need, even if your title is traditional (Director‑General, Director, Chair, NED)?  

·       Be explicit about the future state. If your strategy will require a step‑change in digital, or a fundamental re‑set of stakeholder relationships, write that into the role purpose and selection criteria. Vague references to “transformation” are not enough.

Evidence‑led role design tends to expand, not shrink, the viable candidate pool: you move from looking for “someone who has already done this exact job in government” to “someone who has demonstrably built similar capabilities in a complex, accountable environment”.

2.        Treat diversity data as a design constraint, not an afterthought.  The fact that disability representation in the Civil Service now matches the economically active population is a genuine milestone. But the persisting gaps at senior levels and in public appointments more broadly show that “more of the same” will not close the gap.  Three practical implications for senior recruitment:

·       Interrogate your criteria.  

·       Ask bluntly: which elements of the person specification are genuinely essential, and which are proxies for comfort? For many SCS and board roles, an insistence on prior central government experience can unintentionally exclude capable external candidates, including from under‑represented groups.

·       Design inclusive processes upfront.  

Drawing on Cabinet Office guidance and the Public Appointments diversity data, there is good evidence that drop‑off for under‑represented groups often happens between long‑list and final interviews. That points to the importance of:

·      Clear, jargon‑free role packs  

·      Accessible timelines and formats  

·      Mixed and trained selection panels  

·      Structured, criteria‑based assessment rather than unstructured discussion

Invest in proactive outreach, not just open competition.  

For Chairs and NEDs in particular, relying solely on open advertising will replicate existing networks. Using executive search to map and engage talent beyond the “usual suspects” – for example, senior leaders in local government, the NHS, social enterprise, or regional business – is a practical way to align practice with diversity ambitions.

Recognise that location can be a strategic lever in your talent strategy

The changing regional footprint of the Civil Service is not just a logistical matter; it is a talent and diversity opportunity.  When designing SCS and board roles, you have choices about:

·      Base location versus working pattern. Could a Director‑level role nominally based in a regional hub be offered on a multi‑location or predominantly hybrid basis, expanding the pool beyond those willing to relocate?  

·      Engagement with local ecosystems. For public bodies headquartered outside London, there is often untapped potential to bring in NEDs from local universities, anchor institutions and regional businesses; strengthening both governance and place‑based insight.  

·      Avoiding unintended exclusion. Over‑specifying location (for example, requiring three days per week in a single office) can have disproportionate impacts on candidates with caring responsibilities or disabilities. Given the Civil Service’s own journey towards more flexible working, senior recruitment should reflect that reality.

An evidence‑based discussion about location, informed by Civil Service statistics on regional staffing and realistic assessments of role demands, will usually lead to better‑balanced decisions than defaulting to historic patterns.

Plan for a tight external market at senior levels

ONS labour market data continues to show a competitive landscape for senior professionals, particularly in digital, data, engineering, commercial and specialist regulatory fields. When you overlay that with the specific demands of public service leadership – accountability to Parliament, media scrutiny, complex stakeholder environments – the pool of candidates who can credibly step into SCS1–3 or Chair/NED roles becomes quite narrow.

In this context, three things become essential:

·      Clarity of offer beyond pay.  Public sector pay constraints are well‑documented in Cabinet Office and Institute for Government analyses. You cannot win a bidding war with the private sector. You can, however, craft compelling value propositions around impact, complexity of challenge, mission, flexibility and development.

·      Realistic timelines and sequencing.  Senior candidates in high‑demand fields often have multiple options. Long, opaque processes – a repeated theme in both NAO reviews and anecdotal feedback from candidates – simply push them elsewhere. Building in decision‑making discipline and clear communication is not just good manners; it is a competitive necessity.

·      Active talent mapping and relationship‑building.  For the most critical SCS and Chair/NED roles, starting from a blank sheet of paper when a vacancy arises is a luxury government can ill afford. Ongoing market mapping, informal conversations and “warm” networks, this is where a good executive search partner comes into their own, facilitated by specialist search make it far easier to move quickly when appointments are needed.

Anchor selection in public value and ethical leadership

 Finally, the data on workforce composition and capability tells only part of the story. NAO reports and Parliamentary committee inquiries into high‑profile programme failures frequently point to culture, behaviours and leadership values as root causes.

The Civil Service Code and the Nolan Principles of Public Life provide a clear articulation of the ethical framework within which all public servants operate. The Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies does the same for NEDs and Chairs.

For SCS and board‑level appointments, this has two consequences:

·      Values and behaviours must be explicitly assessed, not assumed.  At senior levels, almost all candidates will present a credible CV. Differentiation comes from how they have exercised judgment, managed conflicts of interest, handled scrutiny and led through ambiguity. That requires structured questions, realistic scenarios and – where appropriate – stakeholder input as part of the assessment.

·      Search partners need to understand the broader context.  Executive search in central government is not simply about identifying people with the right technical skills. It is about testing appetite and suitability for a unique leadership context: political neutrality, Parliamentary accountability, media interest and complex governance frameworks. The most effective searches integrate this lens from the first conversation with potential candidates.

Questions for senior leaders and hiring sponsors

The data are important, but only useful where they can prompt different decisions.

If you are a Permanent Secretary, Director‑General, Public Body Chair or Senior Sponsor of appointments, three questions are worth reflecting on now:

1.        Does your current approach to senior recruitment reflect the reality of the Civil Service workforce in 2026?  Or is it still designed for a smaller, more London‑centric, less diverse civil service?

2.        Are your role designs and selection criteria genuinely aligned with your future capability needs?   Or are you backfilling historical patterns because that feels safer?  Many Directors and Directors General are guilty of this particular sin.

3.        How deliberately are you using executive search as a strategic tool?   Is search engaged early to shape the market and support diversity and capability goals, or brought in late to “fix” a process that has already drifted off course?

Does the Private Sector “Truly Care” – Or Only When It Pays?

In 2026, the UK private sector is fluent in the language of “purpose”, “social value” and “DEI” (diversity, equity and inclusion). Corporate reports highlight commitments to inclusive workplaces, responsible supply chains and community investment. Major businesses have joined initiatives such as the new Social Value Commission, established by leading firms including Barratt Redrow, E.ON UK, Heathrow, Knight Dragon, Mitie, Pension Insurance Corporation and VodafoneThree to help ensure that local communities share in the benefits of private investment.

 The question is whether this activity reflects a genuine re‑ordering of corporate priorities, or whether profit still dominates with DEI and social value deployed when – and only when – they support the bottom line. A second Trump presidency in the United States and the continued rise of populism across Europe add further complexity, shaping how corporate leaders assess the risks and rewards of visible commitments to diversity and social value.

 Let’s look at the following key issues:

1.        How seriously the UK private sector is taking diversity and social value in 2026.

2.        Whether profit still dominates decision‑making when values and returns come into tension: is profit still King?

3.        How Trump‑era politics and European populism have influenced the DEI agenda in the UK.

4.        We will then look at three indicative case studies in the finance, construction and tech sectors.

 1. The State of DEI and Social Value in the UK Private Sector

Over the past decade, progress on headline indicators of diversity has been significant:

·      Gender representation at board level

·      The FTSE Women Leaders Review reported in 2023 that women held 40.2% of board roles across the FTSE 350, up from 9.5% in 2011.

·      This surpassed the voluntary 40% target ahead of schedule and placed the UK among global leaders on female board representation.

Ethnic diversity at senior levels

The Parker Review reported in 2023 that 96% of FTSE 100 companies had at least one director from a minority ethnic background, compared with 52% in 2017.  The target of at least one minority ethnic director on each FTSE 100 board by 2021 has effectively been met.

 Gender pay gap

Mandatory gender pay reporting for employers with 250+ staff, introduced in 2017, has created transparency but change has been far from stellar. The UK median gender pay gap was 9.1% in 2023, compared with 9.7% in 2017.⁴ Many large employers still report double‑digit gaps, especially in finance and professional services.

 Ethnicity pay gap

Ethnicity pay gap reporting remains voluntary at UK level, though the Mayor of London requires it for Greater London Authority Group organisations. A growing number of large employers, including major banks and consultancies, have begun publishing their data, which generally reveals material gaps, particularly for Black employees. Coverage, however, is still patchy and one feels this should be made mandatory like gender pay gap reporting.

 In 2026, the broad direction of travel is clear:

·      Board‑level diversity has improved markedly in numerical terms.

·      Nonetheless, intersectional gaps (for example, women of colour in the most senior roles, disabled leaders, socio‑economic background) remain substantial and under‑reported.

·      Many organisations have moved from “awareness‑raising” towards more structural interventions in recruitment and progression, but depth and consistency vary significantly by sector and size.

Social Value: From Contractual Obligation to Strategic Concern

“Social value” – the broader social, economic and environmental benefits created by an organisation – has become an entrenched concept in UK public procurement and is increasingly shaping private‑sector strategy:

 The UK Government’s Social Value Model requires central government procurement to explicitly evaluate social value, typically at a minimum of 10% of the tender score.⁵ This has compelled private contractors to develop structured social value plans around local employment, skills, supply chain diversity and environmental impact.

Social value has become standard language in sectors closely linked to public spending – including construction, facilities management, defence, healthcare and infrastructure – and is now moving into finance and tech via ESG, community investment and digital inclusion agendas.

The Social Value Leaders’ Summit and associated networks highlight growing cross‑sector collaboration, with businesses, social enterprises and public bodies sharing practices and frameworks for measurement.

 Companies such as ESS (part of Compass Group) have articulated future strategies centred on “diversity within our supply chain” and increasing spend with social enterprises to deliver measurable social impact.

Across the economy:

Large, procurement‑heavy organisations tend to lead on social value integration, while many mid‑sized firms still approach it as a tender requirement rather than a core strategic lens.

Measurement is inconsistent. Firms draw on a mix of the Social Value Portal’s TOMs (Themes, Outcomes and Measures), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and bespoke indicators, leaving limited comparability and opportunities for selective reporting.

 2. Is Profit Still King?

The key issue is not whether companies communicate about DEI and social value; it is what happens when those commitments collide with short‑term financial or political pressures.

 When DEI and Social Value Align with Profit

There is robust evidence linking aspects of diversity and social value to long‑term financial performance:

·      McKinsey’s 2020 “Diversity Wins” report found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25% more likely to outperform on profitability than those in the bottom quartile; for ethnic diversity, the outperformance was 36%.

·      Behavioural research in the UK and elsewhere shows that structured, evidence‑based recruitment processes (e.g. anonymised CV screening, standardised interviews) improve selection quality, not only diversity.

·      Social value can be directly revenue‑generating: under the UK Social Value Model, credible social value proposals are often the differentiator in winning large public contracts, particularly in construction, facilities management and outsourcing.

In these areas, the “business case” for inclusion and social value is well‑established. Many organisations have integrated DEI and social value because they support:

·      Talent attraction and retention in a tight labour market.

·      Innovation and market insight across diverse customer bases.

·      Risk management, including reputational and regulatory risk.

·      Access to public sector and ESG‑sensitive capital.

 When Values Compete With Short‑Term Gains

However, when DEI and social value require structural change, challenge profitable business models, or risk political backlash, profit and risk‑aversion often reassert themselves:

 Budget cuts and consolidation

In periods of economic pressure – the post‑pandemic recovery, inflation and the cost‑of‑living crisis – DEI and community investment budgets are frequently among the first to be scrutinised. In many organisations, standalone DEI roles have been absorbed into broader HR or ESG portfolios, sometimes reducing dedicated capacity.

·      Slow progress on costly reforms

·      Reforms with significant financial implications – for example, overhauling pay structures, altering bonus schemes that favour certain working patterns, or investing in large‑scale accessibility improvements – tend to progress more slowly than low‑cost interventions like awareness campaigns and one‑off training.

 Cautious public positioning

Many organisations adopt visible stances on broadly supported topics (e.g. mental health, high‑level commitments to gender equality), though in reality these can be poorly delivered, but are more cautious on politically contested issues such as migration, policing, or trans inclusion. Visible activism is often limited by concerns about media backlash, customer reactions, and internal polarisation.

 Persistent supply chain tensions

Despite the UK Modern Slavery Act (2015), independent reviews have repeatedly found that many company statements remain generic and low‑substance. When cost and speed pressures conflict with labour standards, particularly in long international supply chains, commercial imperatives still frequently dominate.

 The underlying conclusion is that profit remains the dominant driver. However, the boundaries of what is considered an acceptable route to profit – in terms of workforce equity, community impact and environmental responsibility – are gradually shifting, and this shift is partly enforced by regulators, investors and corporate customers.

 3. The Trump Presidency, European Populism and UK DEI

DEI and social value in UK business do not exist in a vacuum. They are shaped by a global political environment characterised by polarisation, culture wars and challenges to multilateralism.

 The “Trump Effect”: Culture Wars and Corporate Caution

The cumulative effect of Trump‑era politics in the US, including his second term, is visible in the UK corporate context in several ways:

 Import of US cultural narratives

UK discourse around “woke capitalism”, “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” often echoes US talking points. UK‑based multinationals with US operations have witnessed boycotts and political attacks on brands perceived as overly “woke”, and this informs a more cautious global communications strategy.

 Shift in language and framing

Many UK corporates have adopted more neutral or universalist language – emphasising “belonging”, “respect” and “fairness for all” – over overtly justice‑oriented framing. References to structural racism, patriarchy or colonial legacies are more likely to appear in internal documents than external statements.

 Balancing internal constituencies

Workforces are increasingly ideologically diverse. Some employees expect strong corporate leadership on racial and social justice; others view DEI as overreach. Leaders attuned to US dynamics are often reluctant to take firm public positions that could inflame internal or external conflict.

 European Populism: National Identity, Migration and Legitimacy

Across Europe, populist parties have gained prominence, often foregrounding national identity, scepticism towards immigration, and resistance to perceived “elite” or “globalist” agendas. This intersects with UK dynamics post‑Brexit:

 Narratives of “left behind” communities

UK political debate continues to focus on regional inequality and communities that feel marginalised by economic change. Corporate DEI is sometimes portrayed in populist narratives as preoccupied with metropolitan identities rather than regional economic justice.

 Scepticism about ESG and DEI

Some populist politicians and commentators frame ESG, net zero and DEI as elite priorities that impose costs on ordinary people. Businesses responding to these pressures often emphasise tangible benefits – such as jobs, apprenticeships and local investment – over abstract value statements.

 For UK companies, this environment:

·      Increases the reputational risk of being perceived as “out of touch” or “lecturing” customers and communities.

·      Simultaneously increases the strategic value of genuinely grounded social value that can demonstrate local economic and social benefits.

 Net Effect: Quiet Resilience Rather Than Retreat

Despite these political headwinds, DEI and social value have not collapsed in the UK private sector. Instead, there is a shift in how they are articulated and embedded:

·      Increased focus on governance and reporting – board oversight, data disclosure, and links between executive remuneration and social or diversity metrics.

·      Movement from symbolic interventions to systemic changes in recruitment, promotion, reward and supply chains, albeit unevenly.

·      Framing DEI and social value as components of risk management and long‑term value creation, rather than as standalone moral imperatives.

 4. UK Case Studies: Finance, Construction and Tech

To move beyond generalities, it is useful to examine how different sectors are operationalising DEI and social value under these conditions. The following case studies are illustrative rather than exhaustive; they draw on public disclosures, independent reviews and sectoral trends.

Case Study 1: Finance – A Major UK Bank Confronting Pay and Progression

Large UK‑headquartered banks have been under scrutiny for their record on gender and ethnicity, particularly given historically high pay and significant influence over the wider economy.

A typical illustration is a FTSE‑listed universal bank that:

·      Publishes detailed pay gap data

·      The bank voluntarily reports on both gender and ethnicity pay gaps, broken down by business unit and job level. Public data from leading UK banks has shown:

·      Median gender pay gaps often in the 25–35% range, reflecting under‑representation of women in front‑office, high‑bonus roles.

·      Ethnicity pay gaps that are smaller at aggregate level but more pronounced for Black employees in particular.

·      These disclosures exceed legal requirements but also expose reputational vulnerability.

Links DEI performance to remuneration

·      The bank has introduced a DEI scorecard, covering metrics such as representation targets at senior levels, inclusive leadership behaviours, and employee survey results on inclusion. A proportion of senior executives’ variable pay is now contingent on performance against this scorecard.

Invests in targeted progression

·      Sponsorship and leadership development for women and ethnic minority colleagues at mid‑senior levels.

·      Reverse mentoring of executives by staff from under‑represented groups.

·      Partnerships with universities and charities to create early‑career pathways for students from lower socio‑economic backgrounds (e.g. foundation apprenticeships, contextual recruitment).

Aligns social value with financial inclusion

The bank’s social value strategy emphasises access to finance for underserved communities and SMEs, support for social enterprises, and digital skills programmes. It collaborates with community finance institutions and social lenders to reach customers who may otherwise rely on high‑cost credit.

Tension with profit

While reporting and programmes are robust, the structural drivers of pay gaps – notably the distribution of high‑remuneration front‑office roles – remain largely. Addressing these would require reconfiguring business models, reward structures and working cultures at scale. Progress therefore remains steady but incremental, reflecting the continuing primacy of revenue‑generating activities.

Case Study 2: Construction – Social Value as a Route to Market

The UK construction sector sits at the centre of the social value agenda due to its dependence on public contracts and its visible impact on local communities.  Consider a large contractor or housebuilder operating across major public infrastructure projects:

Embedding social value in bids and delivery

The firm systematically integrates social value commitments into bids in line with the UK Government’s Social Value Model. These may include:

·      Local employment and apprenticeships, often with quantifiable targets (e.g. a set proportion of project hours delivered by residents of specified postcodes).

·      Training and upskilling programmes, including collaboration with FE colleges and local schools.

·      Targets for spend with SMEs, voluntary organisations and social enterprises.

·      Community facilities or public realm improvements linked to developments.

Measuring and reporting impact

The contractor uses recognised frameworks (e.g. Social Value Portal’s TOMs) to quantify social value delivered in monetary terms (e.g. value of apprenticeships, local wages, community investments). This data is reported to public‑sector clients and featured in annual reports.

Diversity and inclusion on site

The firm runs targeted initiatives to increase representation of women, ethnic minorities and younger workers in construction trades and site management. Examples include:

·      Pre‑employment training for under‑represented demographics.

·      Flexible working pilots to support parents and carers.

·      Zero‑tolerance policies on harassment and racist or sexist abuse on site.

Local legitimacy and planning

For major regeneration schemes, the company participates in or convenes community forums, co‑design workshops, and tenant/resident groups to secure buy‑in, mitigate opposition and co‑create community benefits.

Tension with profit

Social value is clearly a route to market in this sector; failing on social value criteria can mean losing high‑value public contracts. However, margins in construction are often thin, and there is ongoing pressure to standardise and, at times, minimise commitments to what is necessary to win bids. True transformation – for example, significantly shifting workforce composition or radically rethinking apprenticeships to widen access – competes for investment with other priorities such as digitalisation and off‑site manufacturing.  There is a danger that social value is prominent in bids and tenders but in reality is not visible at through contract delivery.

Case Study 3: Tech – Inclusion in a High‑Growth, High‑Profile Sector

The UK tech sector, particularly in London, Manchester, Cambridge and other hubs, has become emblematic of both opportunity and inequality:

·      High‑growth firms and large global platforms have faced criticism for under‑representation of women, Black and minority ethnic employees, and workers from lower socio‑economic backgrounds, particularly in technical and leadership roles.

·      At the same time, tech’s role in automation, AI and platform economies raises questions about the distribution of work, surveillance and digital exclusion.

A UK‑based technology company (for example, a FTSE‑listed software or fintech provider) might:

·      Set explicit representation goals

·      The company publishes targets for gender and ethnic diversity in technical roles and management, with annual disclosure on progress. Some leading firms have, for example, set goals to achieve gender parity in entry‑level technical hiring by mid‑decade.

Redesign recruitment and early‑career pathways

·      Removing degree requirements for more roles and focusing on demonstrable skills via coding challenges or portfolio review.

·      Running apprenticeships and bootcamp partnerships targeting candidates from non‑traditional or under‑represented backgrounds.

·      Broadening university outreach beyond the “Golden Triangle” to include regional institutions and colleges.

Focus on inclusive product design and digital inclusion

As part of its social value commitment, the firm:

·      Invests in digital literacy programmes in partnership with schools, charities and local authorities.

·      Conducts inclusive design reviews to ensure products are accessible and do not embed bias (e.g. in AI‑driven decision tools).

·      Supports employee volunteering in coding clubs or mentoring schemes for under‑represented young people.

Navigating global culture wars

The company operates in multiple jurisdictions, including the US and EU. It maintains internal DEI programmes and employee resource groups but is careful in external communications to emphasise “inclusive innovation”, equal opportunity and compliance with local law, rather than overt social activism.

Tension with profit:

High‑growth tech environments place a premium on speed and flexibility. Inclusive hiring and product design can be perceived internally as slowing delivery or increasing costs, even when they prevent costly problems later. The firm’s commitment is therefore strongest where DEI and social value are clearly connected to talent attraction (particularly among engineers) and regulatory risk mitigation (for AI and data‑driven products).

Does the Private Sector “Truly Care” – Or Only When It Pays?

Assessing whether the UK private sector “truly cares” about diversity and social value involves examining the depth of integration, not just surface‑level commitments.

There are clear signals of substantive engagement:

·      Governance: many large companies now have board‑level responsibility for DEI and/or ESG, with regular reporting to audit or sustainability committees.

·      Accountability: elements of executive remuneration are increasingly linked to diversity or social value outcomes (e.g. representation targets; employee engagement on inclusion; delivery of social value commitments in key contracts).

·      Integration into strategy: DEI and social value considerations appear in capital allocation decisions, location strategies, product development and supply chain management.

·      External collaboration: firms join cross‑sector bodies such as the Social Value Commission, sector charters and employer coalitions (e.g. the Race at Work Charter, Disability Confident) and participate actively rather than tokenistically.

Where such features are present and sustained over multiple reporting cycles, the case for genuine institutional commitment is stronger.

Reasons for Persistent Scepticism

Public and workforce scepticism remains justified in many instances:

·      Representation without power: increased diversity at non‑executive and middle‑management levels does not always translate into shared decision‑making power in the C‑suite or on investment committees.

·      Incrementalism: progress on certain metrics (especially pay gaps) remains slow, with limited evidence of willingness to take more radical steps when incremental change stalls.

·      Selective storytelling: companies naturally foreground successes and pilot programmes, while less attention is given to failures, trade‑offs or projects where commercial choices limited social ambition.

·      Whilst working in the Big 4 in around 2012, I was personally involved in a conversation with a partner who made several misogynistic comments only to discover years later that the same individual, had a new role connected with diversity and was waxing lyrical about his “commitment to inclusivity.”

 The most accurate description of the current landscape is uneven. A subset of UK companies – across finance, construction, tech and beyond – are actively working to make DEI and social value part of their core operating model. Others are primarily responding to external pressures (procurement scoring, regulatory scrutiny, investor expectations) at the minimum level required.

 Looking Ahead: Redefining the Terms of Profit

In 2026, profit clearly remains king in the UK private sector. Company law and mainstream capital market expectations have not been fundamentally rewritten. However, the terms on which profit is pursued, and judged legitimate, are evolving in important ways:

·      Diversity and inclusion have become baseline expectations for many regulators, investors, employees and customers, particularly younger generations.

·      Social value is now embedded in public procurement and is becoming an element of corporate reputation and community relations that boards cannot ignore.

·      Trump‑era politics and European populism have made overtly activist corporate stances more fraught, but they have also clarified that businesses operate within contested social spaces and cannot remain entirely neutral.

·      For leaders and practitioners, the strategic task is not to wish away profit as a motive. Rather, it is to tighten the alignment between inclusive, socially valuable business practices and long‑term financial performance. That means:

o   Designing governance and incentives so that DEI and social value are integral to success, not discretionary add‑ons.

o   Building credible measurement and independent assurance for social metrics.

o   Grounding DEI and social value in tangible outcomes for employees, customers and communities, rather than in abstract messaging.

o   Recognising that in an era of political polarisation, quiet, systemic progress may be more resilient than high‑profile symbolic gestures alone.

 In that sense, while profit is still king, the constraints, expectations and obligations surrounding it are being renegotiated. The organisations that will be most resilient into the 2030s are those that treat that renegotiation not as a compliance burden, but as the central strategic challenge – and opportunity – of our time.

A Little about our Background and how you can Help us Really get Going…

Antony Harvey Executive was established at the end of 2025, whilst I’m an old hand when it comes to executive search we are a relatively new business and need a small hand up to really get ourselves established in the market. For more information about how you can help us get going, continue to innovate and bring the very best of executive search, consulting and coaching to the market, please click https://gofund.me/728ccf875