Background
GMFRS is the second largest Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) in the UK, covering an area of 500 square miles, containing a culturally diverse population of 2.5 million people, one million domestic properties and a wide range of commercial and industrial buildings. GMFRS employs 1950 operational and fire safety staff and 450 support staff employed in a wide range of disciplines, including HR, Legal, Finance, ICT, Health and Safety, Community Safety, Research and Development, Estates Management, Procurement, Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance and Emergency Planning. GMFRS’s annual budget is approximately £118m per year.
From 1947 to 2004 the Fire and Rescue Service operated under the Fire Services Act (1947) whose main emphasis was on effective operational firefighting and rescue from fires. Despite several national studies into the Service during the 1980’s and 1990’s, the drive to improve efficiency and effectiveness across the FRS was slow and varied. However, at the time of the 2002 national Fire Service strike, the Government commissioned a review into the FRS (The “Bain Review”); this review and the national pay agreement in October 2003, following the strike, set the context for a period of rapid change in the FRS. Bain’s key recommendations were that the FRS should shift its emphasis from ‘cure to prevention’, adapt a more risk-based approach to dealing with fires requiring radical changes to the way it deployed resources, change the way it approaches fire safety and take on an increasingly broader role in the community.
The FRS was also to take on additional responsibility for dealing with national and human disasters, such as flooding and terrorism (post the 9/11 disaster in New York). Much of this was encapsulated in new legislation, the 2004 Fire and Rescue Services Act, new Civil Contingencies legislation and an overriding demand for the public sector to produce significant (Gershon) efficiencies, both cashable and non cashable. Thus the FRS was faced with a significant “change” agenda based on the “modernisation” of the service against a backdrop of an ever increasing tight financial envelope which commenced in October 2003, with a significant pay award to FRS personnel brokered by the national employers and national unions (with Government input) with no additional funding coming to individual FRSs to support this. From April 2004 therefore, the Brigade Management Team in GMFRS were faced with a £6m (year on year) shortfall in budget and demands for a “modernised” service whilst at the same time providing the “same” level of service to the community.
The Change Agenda
The idea of a “modernised” FRS and the “modernisation agenda”, whilst accepted by staff and representative bodies to achieve the national pay agreement, was not popular. The Brigade Management Team (BMT) in GMFRS quickly agreed that they had “to strike while the iron was hot” and immediately commenced the changes needed “to balance the books” and at the same time, constantly communicating to staff that this was essential to meet the significant pay awards (16.2% in October 2003 and 3.4% in July 2004) and the government’s efficiency drive. The leadership of BMT had to be strong and robust to drive through some significant change over the next three years which was unpopular, particularly with staff. This was recognised by the Audit Commission (“Rising to the Challenge” National Report December 2008) who acknowledged the level of efficiency savings in GMFRS as a proportion of net expenditure to be the best in the country, whilst others, including the HSE and IDeA agreed that this had been done without increasing risk to the public or firefighters.
Whilst BMT could feel proud of the challenges they had faced and tackled, a significant new challenge started to emerge a couple of years into the “modernisation agenda”. There was growing resistance to the change agenda within the Service, a feeling of disenchantment, staff feeling undervalued and strong messages being fed back of BMT being disengaged with staff, not joined up and driving through change with little concern for the “collateral damage” being caused along the way.
At the same time, BMT recognised that it needed to create some space for itself and some creative thinking and planning time as the previous 2/3 years had been “head on” with little time to do anything other than tackle the “modernisation” agenda. BMT regarded themselves as a high performing team but recognised the need to think again about their relationship with their staff, work out the “future” beyond the present “modernisation agenda”, and ensure, because of the change thus far,that we were working in harmony, with clarity and in unity.
Brathay helped BMT in the early stages to break down all of this into its constituent parts and facilitated our understanding and analysis of the journey we had been on as a team, the impact that had had on individual team members, the impact on the team itself, the impact our actions had had on many partners and stakeholders and also how our organisation had developed and managed through this period of significant change.
The Brathay Programme
The Brathay Programme for GMFRS’s BMT has been facilitated in a number of ways at different locations, however, the main focus has always been to get “away from it all” for two day periods at the inspirational Brathay Hall and focus on three main areas:
- Organisational Development
- BMT Team Development
- Personal Development
Outcomes – Organisational Development
- Tackling the “collateral damage” concerns of staff around change, communication, feeling undervalued and leadership became a primary focus for the BMT.
- BMT developed a number of workstreams for future organisational development under what proved to be a very innovative “working together” banner involving all sections of the service and a wide range of staff.
- This employee engagement programme was then developed and strengthened by BMT under the next phase by the production of a “Blueprint Discussion” document, accompanied by massive BMT face to face engagement with more than 75% of all staff to share our thoughts on what the future FRS might look like but more importantly, to hear from staff their thoughts, concerns, fears and ideas as to how the future and “their” future may look.
- The results of all this work can be best summarised by a 2009 Employee Satisfaction Survey which portrayed a significant improvement on the 2005 survey across a wide range of areas including “Working for GMFRS”, “Me and My Job”, “Management and Leadership” and “Training and Development”. This was especially pleasing for BMT as the change and modernisation agenda had continued through that period.
BMTTeam Development
- The BMT recognised, with Brathay help, that areas around greater joined up and stronger working, greater understanding of individual roles with the team and the importance of building personal relationships within the team could all be improved upon. We recognised through clear, honest and open dialogue that we had been so “busy” meeting the many demands and challenges we faced that we devoted little time to these important areas.
- The development of a BMT Organisational Climate self questionnaire and update helped us to understand much more clearly what was “good” about BMT and what would be “better if” in the areas of Clarity, Standards, Rewards, Team Commitment, Flexibility and Responsibility. This in turn, led to the development of a “BMT Charter” which set out “how we want to operate as a team” with a commitment to review our Charter and BMT team contract on a regular basis.
- This has helped the team to develop new approaches for supporting one another and create greater joined up working and planning.
Personal Development
- Recognising and bringing out the strengths and weaknesses of individual team members is a particular strength of the “Brathay experience”.
- The introduction of 360o personal feedback from fellow BMT members proved a particular success in opening up BMT to be a more honest, open and relaxed team whilst at the same time improving on aspects of how we as a team “work around here”.
- The use of Myers Briggs Type Indicator, Belbin team roles and the setting and achieving personal “stretch” targets, all contributed to increased dynamism within the team, leaving individuals much more comfortable operating at a much higher “emotional” level than previously.
Summary
GMFRS BMT has continued to build its reputation within the UK FRS as one of the leaders in the provision of FRS services, continually stepping up to the mark in meeting the efficiency and effectiveness agenda, whilst developing alongside that a powerful staff engagement and communication brand which continues to compliment the Service’s next phase of improvement and change.
The BMT has learnt, with the help of Brathay, that to stay successful it needs to continue the maintenance of team and individual development to benefit organisational development and improvement.
It is my experience that Brathay has gone the ‘extra mile’ to understand the context, culture and challenges of our service in order to remain flexible and agile enough to respond to our needs, even when in the middle of a programme/event. They don’t get hung up on a timetable and are able to ‘field’ a range of facilitators with varied and successful backgrounds to best meet our culture and objectives. Their values closely match our own in terms contributing positively to the wider community. They don’t over promise and under deliver and operate a style which is professional and yet informal and friendly. They will go ‘all out’ to respond to requests, even at short notice but are unafraid to challenge our thinking if they believe there may be better ways of doing things.
Kieran Nolan
Deputy County Fire Officer
GMFRS