Dominic Raab

Germanshepherdsmum

Civil servants should be apolitical. It seems some involved in this were not. It is clear from the report that some who had never met Raab made or supported complaints. Civil servants are there to serve the government of the day and through that the people. That they should be able to determine who their minister should be is unthinkable. Raab has asked for some of them to be investigated, and rightly so.

It's unreasonable to expect someone to be apolitical just because they are a civil servant. Obviously, their politics should not influence how they do their job but that applies in all jobs. These employees are not committing themselves to some sort of monastic life, where they give up all outside influences.

I have yet to see any evidence that senior civil servants haven't been politically neutral in the way they carry out their work.

Incidentally, "apolitical" would imply not having any interest in politics, which is absurd.

I believe even Raab was a civil servant early in his career - working for a Labour government. Hopefully, he didn't let his own politics interfere with the way he did his job.

Germanshepherdsmum

Are you calling me a liar wwm? I may have no evidence pertinent to this matter but I most certainly have knowledge of CS at a very high level.

That as you should be aware is not my style. But I do question your apparent “knowledge” when you can come up with no evidence other than innuendo, which cuts no ice I’m afraid.

Having second hand knowledge is as you will undoubtedly confirm is unreliable at best.

Are there civil servants who do not perform to the expected standard? Of course. Is this endemic throughout the civil service? Absolutely not. The vast majority of ministers have no trouble whatsoever with their working relationship, those that do I’m afraid the fault will almost always lye with the minister, or with the way other ministers block “information” or actions being taken by civil servants. It is rare that the civil servants deliberately hinder or fail to carry out instructions from the minister. However, part of their job is to speak truth to power, and this is unfortunately often seen quite erroneously as being “passively aggressive” to put it in Raab’s terms.

One of my staff subsequently worked at No 10 and found the working environment exhilarating and exacting. She thrived in the atmosphere - particularly when the PM was so “respected and a real gentleman”

Sadly it is doubtful that this could happen now.

growstuff

I have yet to see any evidence that senior civil servants haven't been politically neutral in the way they carry out their work.

I agree.

Deflecting one man's behaviour by blaming the whole of the Civil Service is a bit extreme, even for the Conservatives.

‘It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it, that’s what gets results’ is the lesson he missed at school. The way he treated people, and his unrealistic expectations of them were the reason for his downfall.
He’s now lashing out because he is unable to come to terms with his own failings. It’s a hard lesson, but being graceless is not helping his corner.

Resigning because he says he said he would is one thing. Resigning then claiming you were bullied into it by nasty, lefties civil servants takes Trumpian responses to criticism to new levels.
What a self seeking individual Raab is.
Where’s Sunak?

Love this post Iam -

I thought maybe Sunk is under a desk with Liz Truss - but ^Mordaunt assured me this was not the case - he could not be found because he had been “detained on urgent business” — although I repeatedly tried to get her to reveal the nature of that “urgent business” it all ran aground. Mordaunt stressed that there was indeed a “good reason" though - so all is well.

*interesting autocorrect...
Sunk/Sunak.

or Skunk.

Iam64

Resigning because he says he said he would is one thing. Resigning then claiming you were bullied into it by nasty, lefties civil servants takes Trumpian responses to criticism to new levels.
What a self seeking individual Raab is.
Where’s Sunak?

So right

From The Conversation

Cary Cooper
Professor of Organisational Psychology and Health,
University of Manchester.

“The civil servants who came forward about Raab have not been afforded the same treatment as employees in any private company in the UK have the right to expect.

The investigation into Raab’s conduct was launched in November 2022 – more than five months ago. It has therefore taken far longer to get to the bottom of this situation than would be the norm in any other workplace.

In the meantime, staff have had to continue to work with Raab. It was decided fairly early on that he would not be suspended from his position while Tolley looked into the complaints against him.

It is not standard practice to allow someone facing multiple credible accusations of bullying to continue to work with more junior colleagues while the claims are being considered. Civil servants have been left with the message that their negative experiences at work come second to Raab’s political career.

The UK government has a duty of care to the health and wellbeing of its employees, who should be able to expect a fair process that is entirely separate from the political pressures being faced by the party of government or the personal patronage of the accused.

The result of these delays and the way the allegations have been handled will have lasting consequences for government staff, who cannot have been left feeling confident that their experiences have be taken seriously or dealt with effectively, even if the end result was, eventually, Raab’s departure. This is not conducive to a healthy and efficient work environment.

In a large-scale study of more than 5,000 people across the UK, my colleagues and I found that bullying in the workplace left victims not only feeling unhappy and insecure while at work but with a higher chance of increased drug and excessive alcohol usage and relationship difficulties in their personal
lives.

We also found that it is not only direct victims that suffer in a workplace where bullying takes place. Witnesses to the bullying and people who have been previously victimised but are not the subject of current bullying also take more sick leave than average. A ripple effect is evident when people at the top abuse their power.

Given the nature of Raab’s departure, current and future victims of ministerial bullying can hardly be reassured that their suffering will be taken seriously if they ever feel brave enough to speak out against their bosses.”

Always admired Cary Cooper, WWM2, as ever he sums it up clearly and succinctly.

Germanshepherdsmum

How many here have actually read the report? It’s nothing like Lucky describes (as I knew it wouldn’t be). I recommend reading it and understanding the allegations which were upheld before leaping to judgment. He has behaved with integrity in resigning, as he said he would. I don’t blame him for being angry.

I agree. If you can’t tell anybody their work is not up to scratch then what kind of workforce are you going to end up with? Only 2 of 8 allegations upheld.

Primrose 53 Raab needed to communicate through the most senior civil servant and not talk to the individual who hadn’t formatted work in the way Raab could process most quickly.

Raab clearly didn’t follow the chain of command in his department . He wasn’t meant to act as the sergeant major - the Perm Sec had that role. If work wasn’t done or late, inadequately done etc it was for Raab to explain to the Perm Sec. Raab had taken on too much.

Also the report notes Raab’s working hours which might explain why he comes across as stressed. Obviously taking on a huge workload with a difficult
team would cause irritation for Raab. I don’t think enough weight was given to this in the report.

Primrose - isn't two cases enough!

Obviously you have never witnessed workplace bullying or suffered from it. If two cases have been upheld I'd wager 102 others have never been reported.

Please read Whitewavemark2's post above from The Conversation by Cary Cooper.

Primrose please try to understand command structures in the civil service. The permanent secretary should have dealt with staff.

Only 2 complaints upheld - that’s enough. The investigation didn’t find Raab to be an effective manager. It’s nonsense to claim the outcome of the investigation will prevent managers having ‘difficult’ discussions with staff. Good managers get the best out of people. Raab clearly was a poor manager.

Iam64 Raab was the minister in charge of the department not the office manager! You are wrong to think otherwise. Not a manager.

Minister-manager, the title doesnt matter as much as his behaviour. That’s the point

Iam64

Minister-manager, the title doesnt matter as much as his behaviour. That’s the point

Not the point at all. The Minister of State doesn’t ever go into the kitchen to say the buns are burnt- he sends someone else to sort it out.
It’s called chain of command!

I think we all u defstahd this ronib. Some of us understand it better than others and don’t seek to minimise dreadful behaviour from politicians, including prime ministers and ministers

I think the terminology does matter in that it underpins some of the complaints that related to Raab trying to directly manage civil service staff, which Ministers may not do. There is no employee or staff management relationship between civil servants and their Ministers, for several reasons, not least because the relationship is one of mutual dependence.

If a Minister isn’t happy with the work of a specific civil servant, there is a clearly defined process for them to use, and this was pointed out to Raab on several occasions, according to the report. He should - and no doubt did - know that anyway.

And yet, he is still blustering about ‘difficult conversations’ as if he’s David Brent.

Iam64 no one is minimising bad behaviour. Clearly you don’t understand the way the civil service is supposed to support government but that wasn’t really covered in the report. Maybe just think about military organisations and the idea of a chain of command. It’s hierarchical in nature.
Raab needed to tell the Perm Sec what was needed from the junior civil servants and not go to them directly.

Raab was told time and again that his behaviour was not up to scratch. He has a poor reputation throughout the civil service.

He did modify his behaviour somewhat once the enquiry got underway which begs the question, why didn’t he do so prior to that when he was told by his PS of the serious issues?