The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 5
Leadership

We found leadership within Turning Point Scotland to be good, with important strengths and some areas for improvement.

We found that TPS board members provided good overall strategic leadership to TPS. The composition of the board at the time of this review reflected a range of skills and experience. The recruitment of board members, induction of new members, and ongoing training to board members all demonstrated the organisation's commitment to its values and overall purpose. We found board members to be actively engaged in the organisation's activities, both during and outwith board meetings. This included preparation for meetings, attendance at strategy days, staff conferences, and stakeholder days and service visits. However, the board could be strengthened in some areas of representation and specific skills. The board was aware of this and had actively tried to address this as part of a recent recruitment campaign.

We found the board to be well focused on current strategic and financial decisions for the organisation and that decisions were being made in line with the overall purpose of the charity. However, the board's involvement in influencing wider policy was more limited.

TPS staff were generally satisfied with their jobs and felt well supported by the organisation. Staff we met, and respondents to our questionnaire, were very positive about the training opportunities offered by TPS. However, staff comments about supervision and annual appraisals were more variable and expressed some dissatisfaction. Most staff felt consulted on organisational issues, whilst others described being told about decisions. The majority of staff we met were aware of the board and its purpose, but few reported reading and/or understanding records of board meetings. Most had met at least one board member.

The board as strategic leaders

At the time of this review, the board was made up of ten unpaid volunteers (the board could have up to 12 members). The board met five times per year. The current present mix of board members reflected a good range of skills and experience from those with legal, property, financial, management, public sector and private business expertise. The current board comprises of three women and seven men, with one minority ethnic community member and the remainder are all white British. The board had representatives from most areas in Scotland where TPS had services.

Board members could serve for two periods of up to three years each. They could then reapply to serve again after a one year gap. The current board recognised this as a weakness, given the time it took to become fully familiar with the organisation. The current board was acting to amend the length of time a board member could serve. They proposed to increase the time service up to two periods of four years, but with no option of return after a year. They were appropriately seeking to vote on a change to the organisation's Memorandum and Articles at the next scheduled annual general meeting. We agreed with this action and found the board to be forward thinking in terms of what skills and experience it would require to operate effectively into the future.

The board had recently undergone a skills gap analysis, which identified human resources and diversity as areas that needed to be strengthened. It also revealed a need for more direct knowledge of the organisation's beneficiaries and users. It was also recognised that not all geographic areas of Scotland where TPS operated were represented on the board. We agreed that the board could be strengthened with the addition of greater expertise in human resources and the public sector, and by ensuring more equal representation in terms of gender, members from minority ethnic communities and from across Scotland. Its most recent recruitment campaign was focused on attracting interest from these identified areas.

The board had conducted an internal review of its governance arrangements in the year preceding this independent review. This resulted in a number of positive and proactive changes (many of which are discussed earlier in this report), including the introduction of role descriptions, annual reviews for all board members, and specific board training on governance and charitable organisations. A director's pack was also produced with information about the organisation, good governance and the roles and responsibilities of board members. There were specific role descriptions for key members of the board (i.e. chair and vice chair), treasurer and general role descriptions for other board members. We reviewed each of these and found them to be comprehensive and clear. Board members we met told us how these initiatives had increased their confidence in the organisation and their ability to provide leadership to it.

A good working relationship between the chief executive ( CE) and the board is essential in ensuring effective leadership in any organisation. We observed and heard from stakeholders that the relationship between the current CE and the board was both professional and positive. We were told that regular meetings were held between the chair and the CE in advance of board meetings, where agendas would be agreed and any issues debated and discussed.

Board members were satisfied that the level of information received about the services of TPS was sufficiently robust to inform their role as leaders. As noted in chapter two (Openness), staff provided regular reports to the board on how services were performing. For current programmes, this was mostly financial information. We commented earlier in this report on the financially failing services policy, in relation to accountability. Board members were also provided with information on proposals and tenders for new services. Ultimately, the board decided what new business was pursued. From our review of meeting minutes and from meetings with stakeholders (including board members), we found that decisions taken by the board were consistent with the overall charitable mission of TPS.

We noted that the board chiefly responded to business proposals brought by the staff, rather than leading on new business the organisation could be pursuing. This was confirmed by board members who agreed with this observation. One of the stated objectives of TPS was to innovate and influence policy in the service areas they operated. We noted that a board member and the chief executive had recently visited four local authorities in an attempt to generate more business. However, staff and board members agreed that more often than not, the organisation responded to tenders versus developing or initiating new services. However, there were clear examples of where TPS had taken the lead role in developing services, for example the development of service for male offenders based on an existing successful one for female offenders. Furthermore, some purchasers commented on TPS tenders (both successful and unsuccessful) saying they were innovative and well constructed.

The board held annual strategy days with the senior management team. Agendas for these days were confirmed in advance by the chair and the CE. On these days, each operational manager delivered a presentation to the board on their service areas. Board members were also provided with results from IMPAQT, stakeholder processes, and Care Commission reports. Some board members we spoke to felt this full agenda sometimes limited the dialogue on these days and did not allow for impromptu discussions to take place that day. It was suggested that these days should be less determined in advance, and that there should be room for other business decided on the day. This echoed comments from recent board review meetings and has taken into account in the planning of future strategy days. We were also told that a discussion forum had been created on the intranet site for board members that would allow them to highlight issues they did not have time to discuss at board meetings.

The board operated as a collective decision making body. In our review of board minutes, the observation of a board meeting, and in speaking with board members and staff, we found that the culture of the board allowed for open and inclusive discussions to take place. Although we saw evidence of some disagreements amongst board members and sometimes with staff, we equally heard of, and observed, healthy debates taking place between the two until resolution was reached. We saw good evidence of board members appropriately challenging staff on reports and financial reporting. We were told that the board operated collectively and in the end all decisions were made by the board, not by individuals.

Management of staff

The board is responsible for overseeing the performance of the chief executive. The CE is responsible for overseeing the performance of the organisation and its staff and reporting this to the board. TPS is a large organisation with services throughout Scotland. Its head office is located in Glasgow, where the senior management of the organisation and central supports were based. At the time of this review, the senior management team was made up of the CE, the senior operations manager and the finance and resource manager. Board members told us they had great confidence in the senior management team. Each locality area was headed by an operations manager (six in total) and each service had a management structure with service managers and co-ordinators.

This review found some strengths and areas for improvement with respect to the management of staff. We found that the recruitment of staff was consistent with both good human resource practices and with the overall mission of TPS. Appropriate disclosure and reference checks were undertaken for working in support services with vulnerable adults. Staff told us how they had been asked about their values in interviews and those staff involved in recruitment told us how potential employees were screened for their value bases. We found that TPS was clear about its expectations for employees.

Staff told us how their introductions to the organisation had been thorough and most had a full month of induction activities before taking on full responsibilities. TPS had a management induction pack which was made available to all existing and new managers. However, some staff we met within TPS who had been promoted to management posts from existing posts did not feel they had been provided with sufficient induction to their new roles - particularly in financial management and disciplinary procedures. Furthermore, we met several staff who told us they did not have current contracts of employment. This was most common with staff who had been in sessional posts, which had subsequently become permanent.

The majority of staff we met told us they had regular supervision with their managers. Staff told us that supervision meetings covered both personal and professional development. This echoed our staff questionnaire, where the majority of respondents agreed they had received adequate levels of supervision for undertaking their role. All staff should have had annual appraisals, yet the majority of staff we met had not had an appraisal in the last 12 months. This was strengthened by the findings of our questionnaire, where less than half (44%) agreed that the appraisal system helped them improve their performance. TPS had noted in their self evaluation questionnaire that not all staff had annual appraisals and that improvements were needed in this area. A new policy had been introduced with a view to having all staff appraised by March 2008.

« Previous | Contents | Next »