Organisational Culture in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

182. As stated at the beginning of this report we approached the inspection with the view that we didn’t think there would be one overarching Service culture, but a number of cultures and sub-cultures. Following our fieldwork we believe that still to be the case. From our engagement with the workforce during our fieldwork we felt that those we met with took a great deal of pride in what they did. That they tried to do their best, despite, what some saw as unnecessary organisational challenge, through a lack of systems and resources or overburdensome governance and bureaucracy. We met with teams, and individuals, who had a strong focus of teamwork with their immediate work colleagues.

183. By its very nature the SFRS, like other Fire and Rescue Services in UK, is a hierarchical organisation. This hierarchy extends to the Support staff part of the organisation too. Some staff we spoke to said that their support directorate or function operated in a similar fashion to the more visible rank structure in the uniform part of the SFRS. We were given examples of when people have ‘pulled rank’ to make things happen. This power-based pattern of behaviour was identified in the Service’s own 2014 cultural audit. During our fieldwork we were often told of a ‘them and us’ culture, which we found difficult to explore in depth. It potentially points to a feeling of distrust, disconnection and, fundamentally disengagement. There was a desire for more visible leadership. However, the majority of those we spoke to saw little benefit in engaging through the staff survey, ‘as nothing ever changes’. Therefore, there needs to be more prominence given to the actions taken to address the issues of concern to personnel. HMFSI are pleased to note in a recent statement by Chief Officer Stuart Stevens stating that ‘one of my top priorities is to improve the culture and leadership within the Service and we are committed to creating a workplace where all staff are treated with dignity and respect’. We are also aware of the aim of SLT to improve culture and trust across the organisation, and we envisage that the station engagement visits by SLT members, currently being undertaken, may help to counter that disengagement in the future.

184. During our fieldwork there were also descriptions of a ‘blame’ and, in a limited number of occasions, a ‘toxic’ culture within directorates. Again, there were features of this reflected within the 2014 cultural audit; where oppositional behaviours of looking for mistakes and pointing out flaws were identified. Whilst there was no question regarding a ‘blame’ culture within the 2018 survey, it was part of the 2024 CES, and as noted earlier 74% of respondents believed there is a ‘blame’ culture within the SFRS.

185. Collaboration with different parts of the organisation was highlighted as an issue in the 2018 staff survey, with only 19% of respondents believing that different parts of the SFRS work well together. In the CES 31% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there was collaboration across departmental functions and areas to achieve shared objectives. On the face of it this is a positive improvement, however, during our fieldwork, silo working and a lack of collaboration was often cited as an issue.

186. The Service has responded to the well-publicised issues in other services in the UK by creating a Cultural Development Group (CDG) and developing a Cultural Action Plan. However, we felt that although well intentioned, the Group has been slow to progress issues since its inaugural meeting in November 2023. We feel its scope is too broad and the basis of the work of the sub-groups is sometimes not clearly defined with a lack of SMART objectives and a lack of robust data on which to build and subsequently chart improvement. Our analysis is supported by a finding of the 2024 survey where 72% of respondents ‘do not think team priorities and objectives are communicated and reflect all the SMART objectives’. The work of the CDG follows on from an earlier attempt to improve the culture of the SFRS, the Building the Future Together (BFT) programme (2021). A great deal of effort, and no doubt expense, was invested in the BFT, and although some of the work is continuing under the CDG it seems to us that impetus was lost when, for undetermined reasons, the BFT programme was halted. Clearly the global pandemic will have had an impact on the pace of seeing things through, but it does not fully explain the demise of the programme.

187. The diversity of the SFRS does not reflect that of the communities it serves. In the operational part of the organisation the workforce is still predominantly male. The Service advises, on its public-facing website, that it does use PA events to promote opportunities to currently underrepresented groups. However, evidence of how PA is used is lacking. The Service attempts to support its current operational female workforce through the work of the WELF, but some of this work shouldn’t be necessary, as the issues should be mainstreamed and not require special action to resolve. Such as the issue of female firefighting footwear or tabards. This calls for better practices in improving inclusion, equality and diversity in SFRS including documenting successes and challenges in creating more inclusive, equal and diverse culture so that lessons could be learned to make necessary improvements.

188. The theme of frustration, brought about by changing priorities and perceived unsustainable workloads, was often mentioned during our interviews. Personnel said that the Service was guilty of trying to do too many things, and not achieving them. Or half doing something deemed a priority, and then dropping it for something else. This was in turn leading to a reduction in commitment to the next priority to come along.

189. Since its creation it can be argued that the Service has been in a constant state of change and there will be more to come. Change may be inevitable, as its causes are often the reaction to outside influences, such as advances in technology, and changes to lifestyles, resulting in fewer incidents. But whatever the root cause, the impact of change to the extent that it causes fatigue is not inevitable. We have already described in this report the frustration, apathy and disengagement that some staff feel. In our fieldwork, personnel frequently described the communication stream from the Service as being unmanageable, with the volume being too great. We’ve already said that the focus for the majority of staff is their immediate team. Consequently their interest in, and grasp of, the bigger picture is less. We found a general lack of engagement with the staff survey due to the perceived poor response when previously the workforce opinion is asked for and the lack of closure of the feedback loop.

190. Inspectors acknowledge that the Service has people policies and procedures to cover all eventualities. However, staff expressed to us that there are no clear standards around consistent application of these policies and local managers were often unclear how to interpret or apply them, some being described as ‘woolly’. This finding from our fieldwork is supported by the CES where only 33% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that policies and practices are applied fairly and consistently. We acknowledge that this may include policies beyond People Directorate specific policies. Several policies stipulate procedures for monitoring, recording and quality assurance, however we found limited evidence to suggest that quality assurance was being completed.

191. Due to the perceived limited resources within the People Directorate, staff and managers often felt unsupported, and that the effective resolution of issues was often very protracted and could impact on staff wellbeing. In some instances, staff described people functions as being transactional, such as staff appraisals. Often outcomes were not adjusted to consider individual circumstances. Many staff highlighted that line managers did not always have the appropriate professional skillset in the relevant policies, we see this as a potential risk to the organisation.