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.