Organisational Culture in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

Appraisal – Performance monitoring

83. The Service has an appraisal process for all employees, the policy which was last reviewed in December 2023 and was due a further review in April 2024, remains extant. Appraisal and related objective setting is intended to highlight where individual performance provides a contribution to the overall SFRS strategic goals, values and vision. The SFRS is committed to developing all employees to their full potential and to improving service delivery. A fundamental aim of the policy is to ensure that each employee understands how their individual objectives relate to the achievement of the SFRS strategic aims. HMFSI are of the view that appraisals can be a contributor to staff feeling valued as part of a comprehensive performance management process.

84. The appraisal process consists of the elements of a year-end and a mid-year meeting to discuss performance and encourages employees and managers to take the opportunity throughout the year to discuss performance. In our discussions with staff we were advised that a very small number were having quarterly performance appraisal meetings. The view regarding this quarterly frequency was mixed: some liked it; others found it burdensome.

85. Appraisal dates are different for uniformed and Support staff due to the respective routine pay award dates, but generally speaking follow the same overall process of an annual and a mid-year appraisal.

86. There are guidance documents for the appraising manager and for the member of staff. There is also a non-mandatory self-assessment proforma for the member of staff receiving the appraisal. This can be completed prior to the appraisal meeting. During our fieldwork we found that, of the staff we engaged with, the self-assessment proforma was very rarely used, if known about. Further, many of those we spoke to felt that there was little value in the appraisal process, particularly from On-Call staff, though we found a similar view was held by some Support staff. The process was regularly described as a ‘tick-box’ exercise, we also made a similar observation in the inspection of the West Service Delivery Area report⁽¹⁰⁾.

87. We encountered a large proportion of staff from all staff groups who hadn’t had an appraisal for a number of years, including within the People Directorate. It was frequently stated that an appraisal was only of value if you were going for promotion, (where the appraisal forms part of the application process for uniformed staff), or if you wanted a training course. But here again, the value was downplayed when staff either saw no direct link between having a development request identified on an appraisal and the access to the development opportunity. Annually the Service completes a Learning Needs Analysis (LNA) review. There is a perceived lack of availability of paid for courses as these are seen to be more challenging to access due to budgetary constraints. This was not always the case, as some staff must demonstrate CPD for professional reasons, such as solicitors. Some teams and functions have made use of no cost learning opportunities that they have been able to source outwith the Service, through courses made available from representative bodies, on-line platforms or by developing local initiatives. During our fieldwork, some staff had been waiting on a particular training course for a significant period of time, but had observed other staff members attending these courses ahead of them. This has led to some staff suggesting an unfair selection culture in course allocation, whilst some voiced those whose ‘face fits’ got all the courses. Managers also queried the spend allocation of this budget as there was no analysis available. We are advised that there are plans to identify and provide career or ‘development pathways’ for Support staff. We have been advised by the SFRS that an annual Learning and Development Report is made to the People Committee that provides analysis and the allocation of budget.

Recommendation 8

We recommend that the SFRS continue to undertake analysis and review of course allocation to ensure fair and equitable distribution of funded courses to support the SFRS in its objectives. Promote and develop impactful communication of outcomes and reasons behind funding allocation to the wider organisation. In addition, the SFRS should consider allocating time for staff to work on their development.

88. At the beginning of the appraisal process a set of objectives are intended to be agreed between the parties. The objectives must include mandatory objectives as defined on the appraisal proforma. There can be up to a further three objectives.

89. Within the appraisal policy there is the role of a countersigning officer. Their role is primarily twofold;

• reviewing (and/or assigning responsibility for the review of) performance appraisal paperwork where an employee raises a concern regarding their appraisal ratings or non-award of a Continued Professional Development (CPD) payment / salary increment; and,
• carrying out annual quality assurance (e.g. random sample 10% minimum of completed appraisal forms) within their department to check consistency.

90. From our fieldwork there was very limited evidence that the quality assurance check is being undertaken. There is no central electronic system to record and process appraisals, this may be contributing to some of the issues. For uniformed personnel the appraisal includes an assessment, at the time of appraisal, of suitability for promotion. The individual must be identified as ‘ready for progression’ in their latest appraisal in addition to receiving their current Line manager’s endorsement. We would recommend that the Service action the quality assurance and monitoring reviews as stated in the policies.

Recommendation 9

We recommend that the Service ensures that the quality assurance and monitoring reviews, as stated in its policies, are conducted and evidenced.

Recommendation 10

We recommend that the Service undertakes a full review of its approach to appraisals and, takes into consideration the views of the workforce, revises the process to ensure that appraisals deliver benefit and value to both personnel and the Service.

91. There is a further policy on; Managing Employee Performance, (first issued in 2016 as the Capability Policy and Procedure and then revised and retitled in 2023). This policy is used to manage and support employees where under performance has been identified as an issue. Where under performance is identified as relating to a conduct issue, rather than a lack of ability, the case would be dealt with following the disciplinary policy, which is covered elsewhere in this report.

Grievance and conduct

92. The Service’s policy on managing grievance dates from December 2017, with a review date in December 2020, although the latest version of the policy, still dated 2017 was amended slightly in 2022, and is intended to be used by staff as the mechanism to raise an issue when the staff member feels aggrieved about an employment issue. An inspection of staff experiences of the policy will be undertaken in a future phase as outlined in the Chief Inspector’s Plan 2025-28⁽¹¹⁾.

93. There is an expectation that grievances will be raised with the employee’s line manager. Where the grievance relates to a serious issue, such as unlawful discrimination, then those cases will be referred to the Deputy Chief Officer.

94. The policy is to be used for all grievances, except complaints which relate to discrimination, bullying and harassment. There are other exclusions to the policy where reference must be made to other processes.

95. Reference is made to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures⁽¹²⁾ and the SFRS procedure states that it is compliant with that guidance.

96. The SFRS procedure has both informal and formal processes. Managers and employees are encouraged to resolve matters quickly and informally, before raising the matter formally. Employees have a statutory right to be accompanied to any grievance, or grievance appeal hearing, only under the formal part of this procedure. Whilst the policy does not refer to the provision of a welfare officer, from our fieldwork, we are aware that some staff have received the support of a welfare officer both during the formal and informal process.

Area for consideration 2: That the SFRS should provide clarity, within its policies and procedures where applicable, of the provision of welfare support available to individuals as part of both informal and formal processes.

97. There is a requirement to submit a formal grievance in writing and there is a proforma for doing so. A grievance hearing will then be arranged, where the employee will be able to explain the nature of the grievance and say how they think it should be resolved.

98. The employee should receive a written determination of the grievance and that there is a right of appeal. Again, any such appeal must be made in writing and clearly state the reason for the appeal. The appeal should be heard by a higher level of management.

99. The SFRS monitors general grievance data, including equality and diversity, in order to comply with its requirement to ensure that no groups or individuals are treated less favourably due to a protected characteristic. An overview of current grievance and discipline cases is reported to the People Committee of the SFRS Board, outlining the themes behind the cases, such as a breach of policy; breach of the Code of Conduct; and breach of contract.

100. The conduct of SFRS staff is covered by the Service’s Code of Conduct, which sets out the standards all employees are expected to meet both during and outwith working hours. During our interviews, the existence of this document was well known and understood. Some staff agreeing that it was useful in stating the Service policy and the majority saying that it was common sense and in an ideal world was unnecessary.

101. There is a separate Code of Conduct document for members of the SFRS Board. This is issued by the Scottish Ministers, with the approval of the Scottish Parliament as required by the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000.

102. The Code of Conduct document for employees was updated in October 2021 and was due for review in October 2023. We were unable to find any evidence of such a review taking place. The content of the policy is wide ranging and covers matters such as standards of dress, political neutrality, data protection and conflict of interests, amongst others. The Code is associated with a further 21 other policies, procedures or documents.

103. We make comment elsewhere in this report about Service policies and proposals to change the format of some to guidance notes. We anticipate that the ongoing document conversion process will attempt to ‘declutter’ the policy landscape. As part of our data request for this inspection we asked for a complete list of relevant policy documents. The Service was unable to provide a full list.

104. There is an expectation within the policy that employees will report any behaviour of colleagues that fails to comply with the principles of equality and diversity. If an employee believes they have been discriminated against the policy encourages them to raise it with a line manager or another suitable person.

Bullying and Harassment

105. The Service has a Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination Procedure document which was published in March 2022 and is due for review in May 2026. As with other policies reviewed, this procedure is linked to several other documents which a reader requires to consult in order to understand the definition of each category or to initiate action. For example, the definitions of what constitutes bullying, harassment or discrimination are set out within the Service’s Dignity and Respect Policy rather than in the Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination Procedure document.

106. The Service’s staff surveys have asked specific questions around bullying, we cover the survey in further detail later.

Discipline

107. The Service has a Disciplinary Policy and Procedure document. The current version dates from March 2024 and was due for review in January 2025. The policy is supported by other documents, such as the Disciplinary Investigations Guidance. The aim of the Policy and its associated procedure is to set out the framework within which managers can work with employees to maintain satisfactory standards with regard to the fulfilment of their employment contract and their conduct. The policy is intended to encourage corrective behaviour/actions in staff and is not to be used as a punitive measure. The aim of the policy and procedure is to ensure that all employees understand what is expected of them in terms of conduct within and outside of the workplace and the consequences of failing to meet these standards. This policy document must be read in conjunction with the Service’s Code of Conduct.

108. The policy gives managers guidance on, amongst other areas, representation; investigations; hearings; outcomes and the appeal process.

109. Managers who have a responsibility for disciplinary matters must attend a mandatory training course. A spreadsheet list is maintained of all managers who have had training. The training is currently delivered as a MS Teams-based input by People Advisers on an ad hoc and geographic area basis. There is a desire to have a training calendar with a link to talent acquisition. The plan is also to link into the promotion process, ensuring that newly promoted staff obtain the training at the earliest opportunity, however due to capacity issues, this is aspirational with no timescale set for achieving it.

110. The policy outlines that each Directorate, Area, or Function is responsible for ensuring that the content of the policy is adhered to, and to apply it in a fair and consistent manner. Managers are also responsible for ensuring that an appropriate People Adviser from the People Directorate is involved in the case at the earliest opportunity. By the involvement of a People Adviser there is an element of central oversight in ensuring consistency across the SFRS.

111. The policy encourages managers, where appropriate, to address minor disciplinary matters informally as promptly as possible. The purpose of this is to enable minor problems to be highlighted and dealt with quickly and to encourage employees to correct their behaviour. We were advised that in some areas of the country there was an approach of ‘going straight to formal’ rather than dealing with low-level matters informally. A review of formal and informal discipline may be included in the scope of future inspection activity.

Managing attendance

112. There is an Attendance Management Policy, first published in 2015 as the Managing Attendance Policy and reviewed, updated and retitled in 2021. The current version is due for review in 2026. The policy is supported by an associated Procedure and Manager’s Handbook. The policy intent is to maximise attendance at work by focusing on employee wellbeing, early intervention and support mechanisms for those who are able to return to work and those who are not.

113. The policy sets out the process for managing the absence of personnel and contains timescales and trigger points. In 2022-2023 the SFRS’s internal auditors undertook an audit of the management of sickness absence. Auditors found that compliance with the policy needs to be improved. There is currently no single electronic system to manage staff absences. The process is mostly manual. Auditors identified that there was no consistent method for the storage and retention of documents, thereby they had difficulty locating evidence linked to its sample of records checked. The policy requires that a return to work interview is carried out, and the Managers Handbook provides guidance on how it should be conducted. Again auditors identified in their sample a lack of evidence of these being carried out. As there is no single electronic system to manage staff absences and a lack of consistency, HMFSI are of the view that the SFRS are unable to easily capture the necessary data to demonstrate the effectiveness of the policy in its objective to maximising attendance.

114. As indicated above, the absence system is mostly manual and this includes calculating the rolling 12-month absence trigger points dictated by the policy, as the current system is unable to do it automatically. During our own fieldwork we were advised that this reliance on manual intervention can lead to inaccuracy and missed trigger points. Additionally, access to timely intervention of occupational health appointments could be lengthy impacting on staff wellbeing.

Area for consideration 3: Consideration should be given to introducing service level agreements for occupational health appointments and potentially an accelerated access route for urgent appointments where necessary.

115. When absence trigger points are met or exceeded an Attendance Support Meeting (ASM) should be undertaken. During the internal audit, of those staff in the sample who had reached a trigger point, the majority had not been invited to an ASM. The recommendation of auditors was that ‘checks should be performed by a senior staff member on a frequent basis to ensure Attendance Support Meetings have been carried out and appropriately documented’. Auditors also stated that the ‘Attendance Management Guidance be updated to ensure managers responsibility to review absences within their area and ensure appropriate action and documentation is clear’. The current Managers Handbook clarifies the purpose of ASMs and responsibilities of managers in conducting them.

Exit interviews

116. The Service has an Exit Interview Policy, first introduced in February 2019 and due for review in February 2022. We were unable to find any evidence of such a review taking place the original policy is still extant. The Service recognises that understanding why employees leave their jobs can offer an invaluable source of information, particularly in terms of the overall quality of work life, and can assist in identifying opportunities to improve retention and employee engagement. The exit interview process is initiated by People Directorate administration staff on receipt of an employee’s letter of resignation. The employee will receive an email inviting them to complete an exit interview questionnaire, should they wish they can also opt for a face to face exit interview with their line manager, participation in the exit interview or questionnaire process is voluntary.

117. If during the exit interview process either bullying or harassment is highlighted by the employee, the manager is expected to investigate to gain more information.

118. The policy requires that data analysis is carried out of completed exit interviews and reported through the People Directorate governance process. We indicate elsewhere that there is limited data to interrogate and no single system to allow this to be done easily.

119. The SFRS publishes detailed information regarding reasons for retirement from the Service⁽¹³⁾. The most common reason for wholetime leavers (74. 1%) is what the Service describes as ‘retirement due to age’. The most common reason for On-Call staff leaving (72%) is stated as resignation. Unfortunately there is no similar breakdown as to the reason for resignation that could provide valuable insight to the organisation. The Service has recognised that it has a low take-up of staff agreeing to an exit interview and therefore it does not have robust data to analyse why people leave.

120. The CDG has formed a subgroup tasked with reviewing the exit interview process, as it has been recognised that there are issues with how the system is currently operating. Often people have already left before being invited to participate in exit interviews, resulting in low completion rates. As described elsewhere in this report, there are systemic issues with the methods of data capture and reporting, which prevent the Service from easily understanding why people leave the organisation, beyond those leaving due to retirement. It is therefore challenging to determine what, if anything, could be done to make them stay.

General

121. During our review of Service policy documents (HR and wider) we noted that a number were beyond the review date set out for them. These review dates are self-imposed and therefore, with the exception of the impact of legislative changes which will require amendment of a policy, the fact that the policy is beyond review date may be purely presentational. The Service is aware that some of its policies are beyond their review date, and has a process in place to remind policy owners of the need for review. However, we were advised that there were insufficient resources to undertake all the reviews necessary and they were being prioritised.

122. The list of policies beyond review date will be examined during late 2024-2025 and early 2025-2026 by the SFRS to establish whether a desktop review may be required to ensure these policies remain fit for purpose or whether they can have the review date extended. The People Directorate has committed to engage with stakeholders as appropriate. The Service also has plans to convert some of its policies to guidance notes, as it is considered that in some instances there is no need for a ‘policy document’. We are not sure how this will simplify things for end users, this will depend on content, volume and complexity. The conversion process will be incremental during 2025-2026. Our fieldwork established that Service policies and procedures were difficult to navigate. The Service needs to consider this, as there is a risk that it is satisfying itself that employees understand key policies when in fact the sheer volume and complexity means this is not the case.

Recommendation 11

We recommend that the Service, when carrying out its review of policies, takes the opportunity to reduce them in number and to simplify them for the end user as far as possible.

123. We are aware that some organisations have a dedicated team who have responsibility for the production and review of policy. The SFRS operates a system of named individual policy owners who have this responsibility, along with their ‘day job’. The Service may wish to consider if there would be advantages of moving to a dedicated team and a functional policy owner, rather than named individual format. There is currently a format template for policy documents; however, there is no accompanying guidance on how policies should be written.

Area for consideration 4: The Service may wish to consider if there would be advantages of moving to a dedicated policy team and a functional owner, rather than the current named individual format. Consideration should also be given to the provision of supplementary guidance on policy content.