The framework is accompanied by an updated poor performance management policy, which establishes a procedure to follow with an underperforming civil servant and lists dismissal as a potential consequence for underperformance.
The performance management framework (the 'Framework') for senior civil servants was updated on 6 February 2025, and was hailed by Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden as being demonstrative of the drive to create a more 'agile and modern' state.
The Framework provides a set of Minimum Standards (the 'Standards'), which are 'common expectations' that all senior civil servants must adhere to. The Standards are prescribed across four distinct areas, including: demonstrating proactive and positive leadership and management; contributing towards the collective running and performance of the civil service; focusing on diversity and inclusion; and managing public money, ensuring that 'value for money for the taxpayer' is always considered when making decisions.
It is the last of these Standards which has garnered significant media attention – this BBC article, for example, reported that senior leaders will be held personally responsible for achieving savings, and that they face dismissal if not. The article also commented on the mixed reviews that the Framework has received – a union representing senior civil servants has stated that, whilst the changes are reasonable, the policy comes at a time where morale is low and is an ostensible attempt from the government to 'score political brownie points'.
The Standards are stated to be of 'genuine importance', which is reflected in the fact that a senior civil servant's performance and delivery of the Standards is assessed as either a Met or Not Met outcome. Receiving a 'Not Met' assessment for the Standards also means that the civil servant will automatically be deemed to be 'Partially Met' in their overall performance.
The Framework is accompanied by an updated poor performance management policy (the 'Policy'), which is triggered where a senior civil servant is marked as being 'Partially Met' in their performance for two consecutive quarters. This would result in a performance development plan, with regular review meetings scheduled to evaluate improvements in the employee's performance. If the senior civil servant continues to be assessed as 'Not Met' against the Standards, or as 'Partially Met' against the key civil service behaviours and objectives after a designated improvement period, it is expected that they would be placed on formal poor performance measures under the terms of the Policy. However, it is stressed that managers must consider the broader context and individual circumstances of each relevant employee.
The Policy establishes a clear procedure and provides that, if an underperforming senior civil servant fails to improve their performance after a Final Written Warning, or if they fail to maintain their performance during a reasonable improvement period, there will be a decision on whether to dismiss the employee. Only in exceptional circumstances may a manager consider an alternative sanction, such as downgrading their role.
If a senior civil servant was dismissed for failing to meet the Standards, the relevant department must ensure that the dismissal was fair, so as to avoid the risk of an unfair dismissal claim being brought in the Employment Tribunal. A dismissal may be fair if it falls within one of the five reasons under s 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which are: conduct; capability; redundancy; statutory restrictions; or some other substantial reason. Additionally, for the dismissal to be fair, the employer must act reasonably and follow a fair procedure when making the dismissal.
If a senior civil servant was to be dismissed, it is likely that the department would rely on the 'capability' ground – in that the employee did not have the requisite skill to, for example, effectively manage public money, therefore failing to meet the Standards.
Further, the department must show that it followed a fair procedure when making the dismissal. The Policy sets out a clear framework which managers must follow when reviewing poor performance, and in following this procedure, the department would be likely able to demonstrate that they had taken all reasonable steps to improve the employee's performance before making the dismissal. Whilst the Policy is not prescriptive and can be interpreted broadly, it sets out a clear message – that there is an absolute minimum standard of performance that senior civil servants must adhere to.
Comment
The updated Framework and Policy stress the importance of having clear and effective policies and procedures to be followed and applied consistently where faced with the poor performance of an employee. Employers should ensure that any such policies are comprehensible, accessible, and communicated to employees, using clear timeframes, whilst still remaining flexible enough to adapt to the specific circumstances of each employee. Doing so will help employers to mitigate the risk of any subsequent unfair dismissal claims being brought in the Employment Tribunal.
If you need any assistance with regard to the issues raised in this legal update please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Authored by Francesca Parry and Ann Frances Cooney.
