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.