Organisational Culture in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

152. The majority of the uniformed staff we spoke to said that they felt respected by their immediate colleagues, and knew what the expected behaviours of the organisation were. The majority of staff also said they would be comfortable challenging each other, within their immediate peer group, if they needed to, where there were issues related to behaviour. But a limited number mentioned a fear of consequences of doing so wider than with their immediate team.

153. Operational personnel with long service described how the value of respect was more prominent now than would have been experienced in the past. For example, those with longer service described there being a more supportive environment now for trainees, with trainees being mentored by watch colleagues. This was cited as an improvement to the environment they themselves had experienced when they started their careers. Trainees we spoke to also described being well supported by their immediate colleagues.

154. During our interviews with staff, the majority of those we spoke to thought that the Service values were relevant, but that they had no strong association with them, some describing them as ‘just four words’. Particularly for operational staff, there was a strong recognition of the values of teamwork and safety. There was less of an alignment by Support staff to safety, but the value of teamwork still resonated strongly. From our interviews, team working focussed on the immediate team and that each team was working in its own ‘silo’. The majority of staff we spoke to also felt that the value of innovation was difficult to identify with and was perhaps more of an aspiration. Some staff felt it was even difficult to make a suggestion. Quite often middle managers were seen as ‘blockers’ to ideas being fed ‘up the chain’. The perception of staff was that this was due to the manager’s fear of supporting an idea that is later viewed as being unsuitable, and in turn having a negative impact on them and their career prospects. This view of innovation is supported by the CES survey results which found that only 29% of responding staff agreed or strongly agreed that creativity and innovation are encouraged. Although innovation is a Service value, there are no key performance indicators for it within the Service’s Performance Management Framework, therefore making its effectiveness as a value hard to measure.

155. Some staff were of the view that the values were perhaps due a refresh or review, and we note that the Service’s draft Strategy for 2025-2028 proposes a review of the Service values.

156. Throughout our fieldwork it was clear that there was strong bonding and cohesion with immediate team members, but this close association diminished away from the immediate team, within directorates and even within the same functions at team level. Within the support functions and directorates we were regularly told that there was ‘silo working’, with limited collaboration within other teams in their own functions and across directorates. In the CES, of those staff who took part, only 31% agreed or strongly agreed, that there was collaborative working across departmental functions and areas. This clearly has the potential to impact on the Service’s ability to collectively focus on national priorities to progress change. It can also cause a monetary, and non-monetary waste of resources, where there is duplication of effort or non-alignment of activity. We have recommended previously that the Service should make greater use of an option appraisal and evaluation approach in resource planning⁽¹⁵⁾. Support staff suggested that there was a lack of proactive planning and prioritising, and that things were always lagging behind the need. We believe that there needs to be greater clarity around decision making, particularly levels of delegated authority and empowering of individuals at a local levels. We have previously raised this issue in the West Service Delivery report and recommended that the Service review its management and governance structure with a view to identifying improvements, which would give staff more local responsibility, autonomy and flexibility. It would appear from feedback obtained during our fieldwork that this issue persists. The effectiveness of governance may be explored in greater detail in a future inspection as outlined in the Chief Inspector’s Plan 2025-2028.

157. Perhaps understandably, and not exclusively restricted to uniformed staff, but staff expressed there was less of an affiliation to more senior staff above their immediate line managers. Frequently station-based staff stated that they either had frequent turnover of station commanders, and that they rarely saw them, or if they did, there was a problem. This issue was initially identified in our East Service Delivery Area inspection and restated in our West Service Delivery Area report. Some of this frequent turnover is due to some staff being temporary in that role and then being replaced by someone different on substantive promotion. There was a perception that certain areas were being used as a stepping stone for promotion resulting in a source of frustration as personnel felt that projects or issues concerning staff and stations were rarely seen through to a conclusion. Staff would often proffer an excuse for the absence of their supervisory managers by saying ‘we know they’re busy’. Nevertheless there was a strong desire for more visible leadership within uniformed staff. Many stated that a lack of visible leadership and interaction contributed to not feeling valued. They stated that it felt that their importance was diminished by virtue of individuals prioritising other work over interaction with them. We believe that this lack of visible leadership is influenced by post Covid pandemic working patterns, where some FDOs continue to work from home. We acknowledge the flexibility that working from home or hybrid working offers staff, we are also of the view that for some staff groups, particularly Support staff, home working is popular. There are undoubted benefits from home working. In some support functions we were told of examples of either daily or weekly ‘stand-up’ MS Teams meetings where work activities and priorities were briefly discussed, providing a focus and contact across teams for staff. In areas where these meetings took place, of the staff we spoke to, these meetings were valued.

Recommendation 14

We recommend that the Service evaluates the impact of home working, particularly on the relationship between middle managers and fire station-based personnel, with a view to increasing leadership visibility and interaction.

158. Visible leadership plays a crucial part in ensuring that the workforce has an accurate and up to date understanding of current priorities and ‘direction of travel’. During our fieldwork we asked staff their view on communication. The majority get their communications from the weekly brief, and from our fieldwork this was well received, briefings from line managers, email and the iHub. Although there were mixed views, the majority of staff we spoke to were of the opinion that there was too much information, particularly when returning from leave, and it was difficult to filter out what was important. For On-Call staff the issue is magnified by the limited time available to them and also the limited access to ICT equipment and broadband speeds at fire stations. We have commented on these issues before in other inspection reports. Interestingly in the CES 73% of staff agreed or strongly agreed that communications were relevant to their role. However only 44% of staff felt well informed of the activity of the wider SFRS. This latter issue was noted by us during fieldwork where the focus of personnel was on the immediate team, unit, or watch and there was less interest in the functioning of the wider organisation.

159. The influence of ‘watch culture’ was not a specific focus of this inspection, but its positive impact was referenced in our thematic inspection on Mental Health and Wellbeing Support⁽¹⁶⁾. Whilst there are positive impacts it is also recognised that there is potential for negative impact when inappropriate behaviours are displayed and not managed (Hill et al, 2023; Ward and Winstanley, 2006; Wankhade and Patnaik, 2019^iv). Some interviewees talked to us of a ‘pack mentality’ making it sometimes difficult to challenge inappropriate behaviour. We were also given examples of where female firefighters sought to conform with the majority rather than to be themselves.

160. The SFRS aims to recognise the contributions of staff via Recognition Awards covering six categories which aim to celebrate staff and teams who exceed expectations. In our fieldwork, awareness and profile of these awards was very limited and therefore do not appear to be achieving the objective. In addition to this, the SFRS has recently introduced a ‘High Five’ initiative through the Vivup benefits platform.

161. During our interviews we asked staff if they felt valued and if their managers displayed the SFRS values in their interactions with staff. The majority of those we spoke to stated that they don’t feel valued by the organisation. The phrase ‘them and us’ was often used and we did try to explore who were being perceived as ‘them’. This proved difficult to define, it was more of a generic descriptor used to describe the breach created by the hierarchy in the wider organisation and between different staff groups. Many individuals stated that they felt like ‘just a number’. One team was unhappy that they had been referred to by a senior officer as a ‘bum on a seat.’ They felt that they were not valued and were simply a resource. The 2018 survey results indicated that 31% responded positively that the actions of leaders were consistent with the values. In the 2024 CES this had increased to 39% saying that there was a positive leadership approach is consistent with the values. This correlates to our own findings during fieldwork.

162. On-Call staff unanimously described the feeling of being valued by the local community, in contrast to Wholetime personnel who didn’t describe a connection to the local community in our interactions, though there clearly was one. This is likely to be the result of the fact that On-Call staff live and are a part of their local community and therefore have a higher local profile than Wholetime firefighters.

163. On-Call staff, in relation to being valued, regularly said that the expectations of them by the Service were unrealistic and that there was a lack of recognition of On-Call commitment; ‘the more you do the more they expect’ and ‘a Wholetime expectation of a part-time service’ were phrases often used. Staff also felt put under pressure to keep the pump available and that there was little to no acknowledgement of the regular hours of extra availability given beyond their contracted hours. In previous reports, we have recorded our recognition of the huge personal commitment given by On-Call personnel. Availability of On-Call staff is a well-documented challenge for services across the UK and the SFRS is no different. However, for the Service, this challenge is magnified by the fact that almost 80% of its fire stations are crewed by On-Call firefighters. Linked to the recognition of the commitment given by On-Call crews is the commitment by primary employers in releasing staff to attend incidents. We were often told of the lack of recognition by the Service of primary employers. We see this as a relatively easy issue to resolve and should be possible at little to no cost. We would encourage the Service to review how it acknowledges the contribution of primary employers to supporting the SFRS in delivering its service to the public.

164. The lack of recognition and acknowledgement was also expressed by Support staff, who often felt that they get taken for granted and that their workloads were unsustainable. Conversely a number of operational staff felt that Support staff didn’t appreciate a key objective of the organisation was to respond to incidents and that sometimes the action, or inaction, of support functions hampered this. Equally some Support staff felt that their contribution to achieving the mission of the SFRS was not recognised. Obviously, all elements of the SFRS have a role in ensuring that the Service is able to deliver.

Area for consideration 7: We would encourage the Service, its managers and commanders to consider clearly articulating and acknowledging, through relevant communication, that everyone’s contribution is equally important and valued.

165. Additionally, staff often stated that Service values are not always displayed in the actions of managers, with particular reference to middle managers. In the CES only 39% of those staff who took part agreed or strongly agreed that the leadership approach was consistent with the SFRS values. In some support functions and directorates staff described to inspectors feeling ‘overlooked and undervalued’. With some peer groups feeling ‘downtrodden’ with words like ‘blame culture’ or ‘toxic culture’ used on a number of occasions. Across the organisation, in the CES, 74% of staff believed there was a blame culture. Despite this outlook, the vast majority of staff we spoke to described taking a pride in their job and fundamentally wanting to do a good job, despite what they saw as ‘the challenges’. This finding correlates with the CES result where 74% of responding staff agreed or strongly agreed that they enjoy their work. This juxtaposition should be an area of focus for the Service in its analysis of the CES results that is being undertaken by the CDG.

166. Feelings of being undervalued and overlooked can also extend to the impact that the physical environment of workplace locations can have on personnel. The fabric and facilities of fire stations have been commented on in other inspectorate reports. There are widespread examples of the working conditions being less than satisfactory, for example, either through the lack of dignified facilities for personnel to use; defective structure and leaking roofs; or sufficient access to ICT equipment. Whilst the inspectorate acknowledges that the SFRS is aware of these issues, and that Service’s ability to rectify them is constrained; due to a lack of capital funding or the restrictions placed by the general unsuitability of the building itself, the Service needs to recognise that these issues are having a significant impact on the morale of some staff.

SFRS Staff Surveys

167. In 2018 the Service undertook an employee survey which received 2,161 returns (response rate of 28%). This was the first survey of its type in the SFRS. At the time of the 2018 survey there was an expectation that the Service would undertake a staff survey every two years, although, due to the impact of the pandemic, this was not to be the case. The Service did however undertake other more targeted surveys.

168. Broadly speaking the respondents to the 2018 survey indicated very positively that they worked well as a team. 87% of respondents stated they were treated fairly and respected at work and understood how the Service’s values applied to them. However, only 38% felt valued. 10% of those who responded to the 2018 survey said they had personally experienced bullying or harassment at work within the previous 12 months. 11% of staff who responded said that they had personally received discrimination at work in the previous 12 months.

169. A national action plan was created following the analysis of the results of this survey. We have found it difficult to chart the progress of actions from the 2018 survey, as access to the information is not readily available. We were provided with a copy of the actions to be taken, including a timeline, in response to the survey findings. But the action plan contained no progress updates, these were blank. Charting of progress was also impacted by a change to some of the questions between the 2018 survey and the one in 2024.

170. A Colleague Experience Survey (CES) was launched on 31 March 2024 and closed on 12 May 2024. The survey information, responses and analysis was carried out on behalf of the SFRS by Skills for Justice. Skills for Justice is a not-for-profit organisation focused on workforce development in a range of public sector groups across the UK. The survey received almost 1,900 responses which equates to about 25% of the SFRS workforce. High-level results from across the Service were published on 13 August 2024. During our fieldwork we asked staff for their opinion on the survey and the published results. Disappointingly, there was very limited awareness of the results of the survey amongst the staff we spoke to.

171. The SFRS advised that further analysis of the high-level results was being undertaken to identify any geographic, directorate or workforce type trends within the data. There was also an intension to publish a report of the free text responses from the survey, however, this is still outstanding.

172. The Service also had the intention to convene focus groups to try and further understand staff views. At the time of writing there had been a delay in this element of the work as there had been a lack of take-up from employees to participate. It was anticipated that this would be done during March and April 2025, but this has been further delayed due to the lack of volunteers.

173. Whilst it is possible to chart progress in some of the results between the two surveys, this is not always possible as the questions are not identical between the two. For example in 2018 staff were asked ‘…have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work?; in 2024 this was changed to have you personally experienced or observed discrimination (our emphasis), bullying and/or harassment…; In 2018 there was a separate question relating to discrimination. Therefore, when you look at the change in the figures, 10% for bullying in 2018 to 21% in 2024 it is not possible to say if the increase reflects greater bullying (or reporting of it) or if perhaps the difference relates to the discrimination element of the 2024 question, which has a far broader definition. In 2018 staff were able to indicate what the reported discrimination related to, in 2024 no further explanation by staff was sought. Positively, there was a small increase in the number of staff that said SFRS was a great place to work rising from 45% in 2018 to 48% in 2024. 74% of staff said they enjoy their work which is up from 68% in 2018. However there was a drop in the percentage saying that managers promoted discussion around work from 66% in 2018 to 48% in 2024. This last finding may be related to our own observations around a lack of visible leadership; if leaders aren’t present to engage, they can’t promote discussion.

174. Staff appear to have little faith that the survey will make a difference. A substantial number of staff we spoke to were of the view that there was little point in completing surveys, ‘as nothing ever changes’. This echoed the response given in the 2018 survey when only 15% of staff said they had confidence in action being taken. It is not possible to directly chart shift in this result as the question wasn’t asked in 2024. In addition to a feeling of apathy, some staff told us they declined to complete the 2024 survey due to concerns around anonymity, as questions included details relating to workplace location and role, thereby making it possible to identify some individuals. Others that were interviewed said they felt that the questions were ‘loaded’ and designed to give the answer the Service ‘wanted’ or pre-determined outcomes. Some were of the view that only those who had ‘an axe to grind’ or thought everything was ‘rosy’ completed it. We are aware that there were some limitations placed on the Service by Skills for Justice to the extent that it could adapt the questions in the survey.

175. Staff took the same approach to requests for comment in general, staff felt that there was limited, if any, feedback from managers on the responses given. This lack of closure of the feedback loop was leading to a feeling of disengagement. During our interviews we asked staff if they felt that a response from the Service in the form of a ‘you said, we did’ statement would improve their general view of surveys, overwhelmingly staff said that it would. We believe that where change is not possible then this needs to be equally well communicated. Staff want to have a ‘voice that makes them feel heard’.

176. We have commented in other reports, for example in the East Service Delivery Area inspection, that a lack of direct feedback was disengaging staff. The lack of feedback also extends beyond surveys to operational areas of activity, in the West Service Delivery Area Inspection we found a degree of apathy and disappointment towards the Operational Assurance system. Many staff reported that they almost never got any feedback from being part of a process and when learning did get communicated, it had taken far too long to be disseminated. This highlights the importance of closing the feedback loop and is subject to inquiry in our thematic inspection of Operational Assurance.

Recommendation 15

We recommend that the SFRS consider publicising any action plans created following the analysis of the CES findings, specifically highlighting completed actions undertaken in response to comments made.

177. During our fieldwork we were told of an isolated instance of a locally provided, electronic ‘suggestion box’ where staff were able to make suggestions and then track progress of these. We see this as going someway to manage feedback and suggestions.

Good Practice 1

The use of an electronic suggestion box was welcomed by staff and we feel there could be benefit in rolling this out across the organisation.

178. In our fieldwork interviews we were frequently told of the negative impact that frequently changing and conflicting priorities, were having on staff experience at work. For some personnel this often coincided with a change in line management. For others it was the volume of work, with everything seen as a priority, even after attempts to deprioritise activity. It was frequently said that there were insufficient resources and capacity to both deliver new projects and at the same time some routine business as usual processes. Some were of the view that projects and activities never seemed to deliver, there were just too many competing demands. Protracted governance was also cited as a reason for slow progress on planned changes and approvals; with multiple groups or committees scrutinising activity. We were advised that it can take many months to make a small change in a policy due to the governance arrangements. As already indicated some tasks, such as governance reports, have to rely on manual interventions to provide data to carry out routine tasks. The new Chief Officer Stuart Stevens, who was appointed in October 2024, has engaged and communicated his and the organisation’s priorities and currently has a new SFRS Strategy out for consultation, as referred to earlier in this report, that will set clear priorities for the service going forward.

Recommendation 16

We recommend that the Service continue to clearly articulate national priorities, and how these will impact locally, and communicate as soon as possible when projects or proposed changes are to be delayed or cancelled.

179. During a staff consultation process for the Service’s Long Term Vision document, the Board was made aware, at a public meeting in February 2021, of the following key themes from the consultation:

• the need to clarify priorities;
• appropriate change management processes;
• creating capacity for change;
• greater utilisation of technology and Support staff; and
• change fatigue, amongst others.

At that time the Board was of the view that ‘… constant change or no progress … both cause change fatigue.’⁽¹⁷⁾ The Service, like areas of the wider public sector, has had to respond to the impact of tightening budgets and changing demand. It has already indicated that there is need for change and how it delivers its service. The degree to which staff consider these issues varies. As we have said, for quite a number of fire station-based staff, and within other staff groups, their primary focus is their immediate colleagues. HMFSI are aware that the Service has made significant investment into the creation of a Portfolio Office to manage and deliver change for relevant projects.

Recommendation 17

We recommend that the SFRS continue to review its business change process to ensure that it clearly identifies that the proposed activities are not only evidenced-based, but meet organisational strategic needs, with measurable defined outcomes.

180. We visited all three Operations Control (OC) rooms. There was a change to the management structure within the OCs a few years ago. A functional basis to the management was introduced. This functional basis arrangement means that there is no dedicated on-site middle manager with overall responsibility for its operation. We encountered a lot of frustration amongst staff with this structure format, as they felt there was no single point or clear route by which they could progress issues. A review of this structure is underway and has been delayed several times since it was originally introduced. A further potential structure has been suggested and, due to the perceived inability to discuss this topic any further, staff are unclear when or if it will be implemented. This has introduced a great deal of uncertainty for personnel, particularly those in a watch management role, due to the proposed reduction in number of those roles. We have mentioned this previously in other inspections and made a recommendation that the Service completes its review of the Functional Management structure in our inspection of the West Service Delivery Area.⁽¹⁸⁾ It is disappointing to note that this is still outstanding and continues to have a significant negative impact on staff.

181. Our findings regarding change management are reflected by the views of those who participated in the 2024 survey where only 23% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that change is managed effectively and respectfully within SFRS.

Recommendation 18

We recommend that the Service concludes its review of the structure of Operations Control and implements any proposed changes as soon as possible.