Lesley Brown, Deputy Chief Executive, East Lothian Council
When we first started thinking seriously about the National Self‑Evaluation Framework, my instinct wasn’t to reach for a checklist or a model answer. It was to pause and get my question right: how well do we understand ourselves just now?
Like most councils, East Lothian already does a huge amount of performance reporting, review and improvement activity. Education has long‑established self‑evaluation approaches. Other services are deeply familiar with audit, Best Value and scrutiny.
The issue wasn’t that self‑evaluation wasn’t happening. It was that we didn’t always recognise it as such – or connect it into a shared picture in the way that the National Self -Evaluation Framework asks us to.
Language matters
One of the earliest lessons for me was how much language matters.
If you start by talking about “self‑evaluation” as something new or technical, people can struggle to see themselves in it. But if you start from what services already do – reflecting, reviewing, learning and improving – confidence changes. People realise they are already part of it. That reframing helped reduce anxiety and resistance. It also made the work feel relevant, rather than imposed.
Start somewhere, then follow everywhere
I started from what was familiar to me – my own service areas – and from informal conversations with colleagues. That helped me build an initial sense of where we were, before deliberately widening out. Waiting for a perfect, comprehensive picture would have stalled the work. Starting somewhere created momentum.
It also reinforced an important principle: this wasn’t about producing a definitive map. It was about knowing enough to clear a way forward.
Ownership sits where improvement happens
Another conscious choice was who to involve, and how. My starting point was the Council Leadership Team. That wasn’t about control – it was about shared understanding and shared ownership. Heads of Service were then asked to engage their own management teams and bring insight back from within their areas.
That approach mattered. It kept the work relational rather than transactional, and avoided it becoming “someone else’s project”.
Close enough is good enough to move
We used a deliberately light‑touch, high‑level survey to understand what approaches to self‑evaluation already existed across the council. It wasn’t designed to capture every detail – and that was intentional.
There is a real risk of tying ourselves in knots by going too granular too early. What we needed at this stage was to spot patterns, understand readiness, and identify where the National Framework might stretch us.
Returns came back in different formats. Education looked familiar. Other services reflected audit or statutory reporting. We resisted the urge to force everything into a single template. Instead, we focused on what the information told us about strengths, blind spots and culture.
Don’t go in thinking you know the answer
One of the most powerful moments came later, when we discussed what should happen next. I’m genuinely glad I didn’t go into the exercise with a pre‑designed solution. The ideas that emerged – establishing a cross‑council steering group, using it as a catalyst rather than a compliance mechanism, bringing elected members into the journey – came from our leadership team. That made them stronger, more credible, and more likely to stick.
A baseline, not a finishing point
I don’t see this work as something to complete and put on the shelf. For me, it’s a baseline – a shared understanding of where we are now, which we can revisit and build on over time.
If there’s one piece of advice I’d offer to others starting this journey, it’s this:
Treat it as an exploration, not a mapping exercise.
Be open‑minded. Expect variation. And trust that, more often than not, you’ll find you’re further ahead than you thought.