Transforming HR (THR) – Band D & E selection process

Report: 9
Date: 10 September 2009
By: Director of Human Resources on behalf of the Commissioner 

Summary

This report commissioned by Martin Davis, Head of Engagement and Partnerships provides information on the approach to and outcome of the Transforming HR (THR) Band D & E selection process and provides equalities analysis of the process.

The significance of this process being that there were more postholders than future job roles available at this level. Out of a total of 93 staff displaced by the selection process, at the time of writing this paper, only 13 staff remain to be redeployed and there is a high probability that the majority of those will be, making a significant saving against forecast redundancy costs for the THR Programme.

A. Recommendation

That Community Equalities and People Committee members note the report, which informs members of:

1. The THR selection process that was adopted for Bands D and E; and the implementation of the process and learning from the ‘pilot period’
2. Any other related issues concerning redundancy and relocation of HR staff as a result of the implementation of the process
3. The statistical information and an evaluation of the equalities impact issues (including an equalities analysis of those applicants who got first and second choices of jobs)
4. Organisational learning from the process.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The Transforming HR (THR) Programme was set up to develop an improved and more efficient HR service for the MPS based around a business partnership/shared service centre model.

THR Selection Principles

2. The vision for THR is to deliver HR transactional activity from a shared service environment therefore reducing the numbers of administrative HR staff within the business. There was, however, growth at the strategic leadership level of the new Band A HR Business Partners and Band B Strategic HR Advisors that will be aligned to the business on a geographical basis.

3. In order to select individuals into new HR roles and reduce the overall headcount through natural wastage where possible, the THR Programme Team developed a number of selection process principles in partnership with the Trade Unions to avoid compulsory redundancies where possible. This issue has been proactively managed since April 2007. Had this not been the case the number of staff that would have been displaced at Band D and E level would have been too large resulting in significant numbers of redundancies and a greater strain on employee relations.

4. The THR selection process principles were:

• Since 1 April 2007 roles within the new HR organisation were restricted to in-scope HR Community members only, and vacancies have been backfilled with agency and fixed-term contract staff to ensure service continuity.
• The selection process followed a cascade approach (starting with Band A) to allow for maximum promotion opportunities into growth Bands and therefore minimise the impact at more junior Bands.
• Within Bands where there were more posts than substantive individuals, substantive staff were given primacy in selection through a skills assessment process. Any remaining vacancies were restricted to the HR Community only as part of a competitive competency based process (this applied to Bands A, B, C, F and G). All substantive individuals within these Bands were posted to their 1st role preference, except two individuals at Band C who were posted to their 2nd choice.
• Within Bands D and E there were less posts than substantive individuals, and because of this individuals were required to apply for roles within a competitive competency based selection process.

5. As the greatest impact was at Bands D and E due to the reduction of posts at these Bands, this report focuses on this group of HR staff.

Pre Selection Support

6. The Trade Unions were consulted during the development of the Band D and E selection process and their feedback was included in the agreed published guidance. The Trade Unions were updated with progress at monthly meetings.

7. There was no ‘pilot period’ for the exercise as competency based selection is used by the MPS to select police staff into posts.

8. In support of the THR Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA), individual consultations were held with each member of HR staff in January 08 to determine any trends in relation to diversity strands.

9. Although not significant, fewer part-time staff wished to remain in HR than full-time staff, expressing concerns over issues such as travel and caring responsibilities.

10. In support of this a flexible working review was conducted for all roles within the new PeopleServices. The outcome of this was published on the THR intranet site, so that individuals could consider their options. The new HR Advisory Centre (HRAC) also operates a 24/7 service, which has enabled greater opportunities to work flexibly, which have been promoted at information events and job fairs.

11. THR held a series of Information Events and focused sessions on the popular HR Operational Support (HROS) posts based in the business and the largest new HR Advisory Centre (HRAC) team. A DVD was produced to provide HR staff with the opportunity to see how an Advisory Centre operates within the Prison Service and how the vision might apply to the MPS. Representatives from HR were available at these events such as the Work Life Balance Team who were able to address any concerns on an individual face to face basis. These events also gave individuals the opportunity to travel to ESB to try the journey.

12. Marginally more BME respondents than non-BME stated that they would prefer to remain in HR, although higher percentages of factors like travel, financial and carer responsibilities were recorded for BME staff.

13. In support of this, fact sheets were developed and published on the THR intranet site focusing on childcare, travel, allowances and other MPS wide career opportunities with contact points to enable individuals to consider opportunities that may provide suitable alternative employment.

14. THR Programme Team worked with the Childcare Coordinator to promote the Kiddi Caru nursery, which is based on site at ESB who offer MPS staff a total of 35% discount off childcare costs for pre- school aged children (3-5). Opportunities to hold nursery open days for MPS staff were also provided to HR staff.

15. Three Positive Action Leadership Programmes (PALP) were held for 36 individuals attending within the HR Community at Band D and E level. The course was aimed at BME employees, females, LGBT, mature and disabled members of staff.

16. Consultation with the Disabled Staff Association highlighted that individuals may be reluctant to register themselves as disabled. Therefore in consultation with the Disabled Staff Association, HR’s Diversity and Citizen Focus Advisor and the Trade Unions, a Disability Impact Assessment was designed and issued, in support of addressing individual’s needs, which were considered throughout selection and redeployment.

17. Whilst Empress State Building (ESB) may not be local to all HR staff, it has good accessibility and modern facilities for staff with disabilities such as Firewall lifts, Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) system for evacuation and hearing loops.

18. Within the 1-1 consultations, some individuals chose not to disclose their age, and with those that did, no significant concerns were highlighted.

19. As part of the commitment to support HR staff through the selection process, (as some may not have had a competency based interview for some time), the THR team undertook the following:

• Delivered workshops to provide an opportunity for staff to seek clarification about the selection process and focus on how competency based selection works, enabling staff to fully prepare for their upcoming interview.
• Provided written competency based refresher guidance, which was developed by the Career Management Team and published on the THR intranet site.
• Co-ordinated mock interviews to provide individuals with feedback on examples and an opportunity to practice verbalising evidence. Over 200 HR staff took up this opportunity.

The THR selection process for Bands D and E

20. Bands D and E staff were required to state a preference for any of the available roles, which they believed matched their skills on a role preference proforma. There was no limit to the number of roles that could be selected; however; they had to ensure that they were ranked in order of preference. Staff were encouraged to include as many roles, which they felt met their career aspirations and personal circumstances to maximise the chances of a suitable posting.

21. Individuals were also given the option to opt out of the process, although all staff were encouraged to engage. Those who opted out were required to seek alternative suitable employment through adverts placed in HR Notices until the completion of the selection process. Individuals remaining were then included in redeployment opportunities with those who engaged.

22. Following this paper based exercise, interviews were offered in relation to the member of staff’s 1st preference. Individuals were assessed at interview through a generic competency based process, where all individuals were asked the same set of questions by Band.

23. Individuals on maternity leave were not required to undertake an interview, but their role preferences were considered at the posting panel, where the overall principle was to post as many HR Community members as possible.

24. To support consistency within the process, panel members were:

• HR professionals who have experience in competency based selection interviewing.
• Supplied with a briefing pack and a refresher guide to competency based assessment.
• Provided with the same generic questions to ask all individuals with bullet point ‘model’ answers to provide consistency around the type of evidence and examples sought.
• Given feedback on their assessment if any concerns were highlighted through a dip sampling process to check quality.

25. A posting panel was held for staff at each pay Band to provide a final overview of the process. Posting decisions were based on preference for the role and performance at the interview as follows:

• Individuals with the highest generic interview score were considered for their 1st role preference until all posts for that role and location were filled.
• The next highest scoring candidate was then considered for their 2nd preference until all posts for that role and location were filled.
• This process was repeated until all available roles were filled.
• If two individuals scored the same in the generic interview score, the role specific score was considered. If this did not provide a result for posting, the individual's attendance management record and individual needs were then considered.

26. It should be noted that the selection process was designed in consultation with the Trade Unions, who also observed the posting panel, and expressed their satisfaction with the principles that were applied.

Post Selection Support

27. The outcome of the Band D and E selection process placed 93 HR community members on the corporate redeployment list. Only six appeals (6%) were received, which were in the majority appealing against the posting rather than perceived unfairness in the selection process.

28. In support of line managers delivering the selection results to those affected, ‘Clear Messages Notification’ workshops were delivered by Right Management (an external consultancy) to all line managers and panel members to help prepare them for delivering difficult messages and plan for how interview feedback will be given.

29. A weekly THR Management Group was established including representatives from the THR Programme team, Employment Relations, Workforce Deployment, Organisational Development and Pay and Benefits. The teams have worked together to maximise opportunities and to support staff through this uncertain time, ensuring that access to information to help individuals make informed career choices available.

30. For those who did not secure a role during the THR selection process, four events for affected HR staff were held to provide individuals with information regarding what happens next and an opportunity to ask questions or raise concerns to members of HR Board, the THR Programme and Employment Relations and Support teams. The Trade Unions were invited to attend and were represented at one of the sessions.

31. Work was undertaken with the HR Business Partners and Organisational Development Team to identify current and future vacancies across the MPS, to provide suitable alternative employment opportunities for staff. This information was shared with those affected at the events.

32. To provide further information to individuals regarding available and future vacancies, a job fair was arranged on 4 June 2009, with Business representatives attending to give specific advice on career opportunities, including the HR Advisory Centre where vacancies remain within HR at Band E.

33. Positive feedback was received from staff and the Trade Unions regarding the job fair, and this is now being considered as a formal part of ongoing processes to manage police staff redeployments across the MPS.

C. Race and equality impact

1. Following the Band D and E selection process an independent Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted by the HR Organisational Development Team to identify any equalities issues arising from the selection process.

2. To assess disproportionality, success rates were calculated based on the available demographical information. The success rates considered referred to staff that indicated a preference for a role, and were successful in being selected. The factors that influenced whether an individual was successful were:

• Consistency of selection panels – dip sampling was built into the process to ensure consistency.
• The level of competition for a particular role – some roles were more popular than others.
• The number of roles available for specific posts.
• The number of roles staff selected as a preference – no limit was placed on this.

3. Analysis of each category was carried out using the 4/5 rule of tolerance (Adverse Impact Ratio). This is an accepted convention and is widely used for equality impact assessment. This is calculated by dividing the minority group success rate by the majority group success rate, [1] and ensuring the ratio is above 0.8. This analysis showed no difference when the sample of 333 [2] Band D and E staff were analysed, as all diversity categories were well within the rule. To further verify this finding analysis was conducted by pay band, which showed:

• A difference in relation to ethnicity for Band E staff of 17 percentage points (81% non-BME as compared to 64% BME)
• A difference in relation to gender for Band D staff of 27 percentage points (91% female as compared to 64% male)

4. The sample of disabled staff was too small to conduct meaningful analysis, and where a difference was found in relation to age for Band D staff, this sample again was small (a total of 17 staff within the age group 39 - 49 years). Data was not captured for religion, faith and belief or sexual orientation. Therefore it was not possible to conduct analysis in relation to these strands.

5. It is important to note that the difference for Band E staff identified was within the lower limit with an adverse (impact ratio of 0.8). However, it was important to understand why this difference existed, therefore additional analysis will focus on ethnicity for Band E staff and gender in relation to Band D staff.

6. Additional analysis looked at all factors which could potentially influence the outcome of the process:

• Pre-assessment support workshops
• Performance at the competency based interview
• The assessment of candidates - ensuring this was in line with best practice
• The number of preferences selected
• The types of roles selected

7. Staff were offered the opportunity to attend workshops in advance of the selection process, which provided input in relation to interview techniques, and assessment best practice. Analysis showed similar proportions of Band E BME (33%) and non-BME (38%) staff attended the workshops. In relation to Band D staff this was also similar, with 57% male and 51% female attending.

8. Analysis of the interview scores showed that BME and non-BME Band E staff achieved the same average score (16.3) during the competency based process. At Band D females performed slightly higher than males, with average scores of 17.3 and 16.1 respectively. In addition, a dip sampling exercise was conducted as part of the EIA looking at candidate score sheets to ensure that assessors were consistent with guidelines and best practice. The focus of the exercise was to specifically assess whether scores reflected the evidence given in relation to all competencies. This showed that all candidates were fairly assessed in line with guidance and best practice, which also supports the outcome of the previous dip sampling conducted by the THR team on random candidates.

9. In relation to the number of preferences selected, both BME and non- BME Band E staff showed a similar average number of preferences selected, at approximately 4.5 each. For Band D staff males selected on average a higher number than females (6.6 as compared to 4.4). Table 1 shows that 98% of Band E BME staff were posted to their 1st – 4th preferred role, which was in comparison to 91% for non- BME staff. All Band D staff obtained a role within their first 4 preferences.

Table 1: Band D and E preference comparators

10. Analysis of the top three roles selected by staff, indicates that preference selection may have influenced the difference in success rate for Band E BME and non-BME staff, with BME staff less likely to select roles within the HR Advisory Centre (HRAC, based at ESB - 19% BME compared to 62% non-BME) and Recruitment (based at Hendon - 32% BME compared to 42% non-BME) roles. These two roles make up 56% (106 out of 190) of total available posts. This may have reduced chances of success based on selecting preferences for roles with less posts and therefore higher competition.

11. This is further highlighted by the lower proportion of BME staff (23%) in relation to total within the Band E in scope community (33%) that were posted to the HRAC, as compared to non-BME representation (77%, as compared to 52% non-BME within Band E in scope community).

12. In relation to gender differences for Band D staff a similar trend is evident. When analysing types of roles that were selected by male and female staff, the HR Operational Support (HROS) roles (which made up 29% of total Band D roles) were favoured by female staff. 32% of top three selections were for HROS roles, as compared to 15% for males.

13. Following the evaluation of the selection processes outcome EIA by a member of HR Organisational Development, further promotion of the HRAC has been undertaken to dispel any negative perceptions. The HRAC is the 'shop window' of the new HR service and the Advisor role offers staff an exciting and challenging new role within the People Services whereby Advisors are the first point of contact for all line managers and staff across the service. All staff within the HRAC will receive a comprehensive training package tailored to the role, and an ongoing continuing job related development programme is being developed, with a post within the HRAC dedicated to identifying and supporting staff development.

14. The Band D HROS posts appeared to be more attractive to female staff as they offer locally based roles and meet the needs of female staff who are majority primary carers.

Training & Development and Future Progression

15. The THR Programme is currently addressing the challenges faced in preparing and supporting the MPS wide workforce and HR staff to understand, learn and embrace the new ways of working to fully realise the benefits of the new processes and supporting technologies.

16. Although an integral part of the change programme is the pre go-live training programme, the ongoing support and development of HR staff within People Services, at all levels is key to supporting continuing professional development and delivering a quality service to customers. There is also a requirement to ensure that new staff and officers recruited into the MPS understand how People Services is accessed and their responsibilities.

17. The pre-go live training programme will cover process awareness, behavioural aspects (e.g. customer care and performance management) and technology (Oracle) training. The length of the training programme for individuals will vary from one to 17 days depending on the role being taken up in the new model. Most staff will have an average of three-four days training pre go-live.

18. For the future, a strategy is currently being prepared which has identified and will address the following key areas:

• Induction: People Services staff and the wider MPS
• Steady state training: technology and behavioural
• Mandatory corporate training
• Continuous Professional Development: Qualifications, process/policy/legislation, workshops/masterclasses
• Career Pathways to support progression within the HR People Services structure

19. The Head of Training and Development is currently progressing work, through service improvement, around pan MPS learning. The People Service’s strategy will be aligned to any outcomes from this piece of work, which will be completed before People Services goes live.

Redeployment and Redundancies

20. Within the THR Business Case, a budget for potential compulsory redundancies was included. In support of working to avoid compulsory redundancies, a voluntary exercise was agreed, resulting in 13 of the original 93 displaced HR Community members opting to leave the MPS on voluntary terms. These members of staff will be supported with an Outplacement Programme. The overall number of exits from the MPS is 16, with three individuals submitting their resignation

21. Since the selection results being notified on 11 May 2009, the majority of displaced staff have been redeployed to alternative suitable roles within the MPS, with 18 individuals opting for roles within HR that have subsequently become vacant since the posting results and 46 being redeployed in the business, where the majority have secured roles that meet their personal circumstances, such as being locally based.

22. As at 23 August 2009, 13 HR staff (five Band D and eight Band E) remain on the redeployment list. All individuals continue to be offered positions within the MPS with nine actively considering opportunities. There are two individuals who are currently displaced who have disability and welfare reasons for their location preferences, and both individuals are being supported to find suitable alternative employment.

Organisational Learning

23. The THR Team recognised at an early stage the impact that this major change programme would have on individual’s work life balance and ‘stable’ working environment. In determining the overall approach to selection and the support provided to individuals, the team adopted a strong ethos of valuing staff and providing appropriate individual support where required. In the main this has been achieved by the level of engagement at pre and post selection support, and the outcome of securing the majority of displaced HR staff a suitable alternative role within the MPS.

24. If a similar exercise was required in future, the key learning point is that face to face briefings would be delivered for staff to understand the posting process fully, and the impact that their preference choices will have on the potential outcome. Although extensive guidance was issued and any concerns raised responded to, some individuals limited their opportunities by opting for single posts, where the competition was higher.

25. Although following detailed analysis, no significant disproportionality has been highlighted, if there was more time to undertake this process and reflecting on what has been learnt, the THR Programme Team would have:

• Arranged full benchmark assessor training to panel members.
• Provided more opportunities for individuals to understand roles within the new People Services structure.
• Run the Band D and E processes separately.

D. Financial implications

THR funding approved by the Authority in April 2008 included a provision of £2.69 million to cover redundancy payments. Although it is not possible to provide a definitive cost until a list of staff affected is finalised, the current profile and level of displaced staff indicates the likely cost will be in the region of £1.69 million.

E. Legal Implications

Legal advice was taken from the Directorate of Legal Services with regards to the selection process as redundancies were a potential outcome. This advice was used to develop the process, which was agreed with the Trade Unions.

There are no apparent legal implications as a result of the approach adopted.

F. Background papers

• None

G. Contact details

Report author(s): Alex Kemp, THR Programme & Terah Enoch, HR Organisational Development

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Abbreviations

EIA

Equalities Impact Assessment

ESB

Empress State Building

HR

Human Resources

HRAC

HR Advisory Centre

HROS

HR Operational Support

LGBT

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & transgender

PALP

Positive Action Leadership Programmes

THR

Transforming HR

PEEP

Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback