Turnaround of a Digital Services Agency While Delivering a Ministerial Portal
You have just been appointed director of a 240-person digital services agency. The latest staff survey shows engagement at 38%, turnover at 24%, and 40% of cybersecurity posts vacant. Two major releases have failed in six months, and the minister has told you that a new benefits portal must go live in nine months. Your senior team of six includes three people in acting roles, and two directors have been briefing against each other. The union has lodged a grievance over grading of 60 engineers, and 18 staff have left in the last quarter. The agency's budget is protected, but the minister has ruled out delaying the portal. You have 90 days before the first major design authority review, and no agreed operating model.
1. What are your first 90 days priorities, and why in that order?
Read the worked answer
Sequence trust, diagnosis, then delivery. Days 1–14: meet each senior team member and the union; stop the briefing war by setting a single senior team meeting with agreed minutes and decision rights; appoint an accountable director for the portal, even if acting. Days 15–30: commission an independent delivery review of the portal; red-team the plan; decide what must be descoped; secure a managed service for critical cyber vacancies rather than pretending recruitment will fill 40% in nine months. Days 30–60: publish a short engagement plan with visible decisions; start a joint grading review with the union; fix the worst process irritants. Days 60–90: agree an operating model and capability plan, but do not impose a reorganisation during delivery. The order matters: restructuring before diagnosis destroys what little trust remains; ignoring delivery loses ministerial confidence. I would set three public measures: portal milestones, vacancy rate and an engagement pulse.
2. How would you address the two directors briefing against each other without destabilising delivery?
Read the worked answer
Name the behaviour, not the person, in public; be direct in private. I would gather evidence of the briefings, then hold separate conversations: what is behind the conflict, what each director wants, and what will stop. Reset expectations in writing: collective responsibility, no anonymous briefings, disagreements resolved in the team or escalated to me. Clarify decision rights so the conflict is not a proxy for unclear roles. If it is a personal dispute, offer mediation; if a conduct issue, follow the code and HR process. I would not humiliate either director publicly, because that makes the team take sides. I would set a 60-day review with observable behaviours and be prepared to reassign one director if it continues. Meanwhile, protect delivery by giving the portal a single accountable owner and a small delivery board that does not depend on the two directors cooperating.
3. How would you handle the union grading grievance alongside the delivery deadline?
Read the worked answer
Treat the grievance as a retention and fairness issue, not a distraction. The agency cannot afford 18 departures a quarter, and 60 engineers are a critical group. I would meet the union early, agree a joint fact-finding and job-evaluation process with a timetable, and separate the dispute from portal delivery. I would not promise pay before evidence or authority. Interim measures could include a temporary market supplement if the budget allows, or clearer progression criteria. I would explain to staff why grading affects retention and delivery, and publish the process. Legal advice on equal pay and precedent is essential. If conciliation fails, use the formal procedure, but keep talking. The delivery deadline makes speed important, but an imposed settlement would worsen engagement. The aim is a defensible outcome within 90 days, with the portal plan insulated by a delivery board.