The coalition government's programme develops apace. Whilst it looks to be largely about cuts, reductions, downsizing and closures, with significant reshaping, renewing or refocusing of what remains, in responding (we're not yet at the proactive 'predicting what's next stage' are we?) the challenge continues to be one of finding ways that protect what works well. To not do so risks losing so much of the excellent practice, innovation and new thinking that characterised some sections of our public services, despite the previous government's apparent mania for top-down targets, with the attendant unintended consequences that they sometimes created.
It's exactly at this point that we need to introduce, or re-acquaint ourselves, with appreciative and strengths-based approaches to large-scale organisational and partnership change and individual and organisational development. These approaches are proving to be enduring and sustainable across sectors and indeed cultures, with a growing body of quite inspirational case studies and stories from the field.
The argument is not to dismiss the highly problematic and potentially cataclysmic funding cuts as some trite 'opportunity' to be taken, although several of our clients are indeed using the challenges as productively as they can to generate new models of delivery and partnership, rather it's to start the work of change with an appreciative investigation, capturing the best of what is, and considering what might be, as the transformational journey gets underway. This way nothing is missed, good work of public value is recognised and considered properly, and innovation encouraged, rather than the more limited and self-limiting apparent 'equity' of across-the-board cuts, i.e. 'salami slicing' and other problem-centred solutions.
It's not easy. That we recognise and understand, and the trick, if there is one, is to engage as many people as practicable in our organisations and communities in as many of these tough decision-making processes; to encourage them to identify what works well and needs to be retained (in some form), as well as what has to or can go. As we know, what one inquires into is fateful to what one finds out, and only asking people to identify the 'losing' services is a path that will eventually and quite rapidly destroy fragile morale, hope and aspiration. Balance in all things - we must make those tough decisions, but let's make them with the best information and knowledge to hand.
We've recently spent an intensive month with a large public service that has inquired into its organisation in a coherent, concerted and consistent manner, asking every manager to review their service, consider alternative structures and funding levels and demonstrate where they are truly effective and innovative. This offered the opportunity for quite tough and challenging conversations as services were 'exposed' at several levels, yet in an environment where hope remained strong; where thoughts were not just about cuts, but also possible re-investment, realignment and new forms. Of course, the outcome has to equate to a reduction of 25% costs over four years, yet the impact is different - a new model can take shape and really effective services find ways to transform in a culture of openness and support. Tough calls made with good quality data and information, not ignorance, presumption or prejudice.
It's at times like this that we must support individuals and teams with coaching, learning opportunities and mutual support mechanisms. Now is not the time to be cleansing organisations of all development work. Quite the opposite, now is the time when some of the finest learning about change and transformation has to be captured, shared and acted upon. Many methods to do so cost little, need only small amounts of concentrated time and effort to yield quite remarkable learning opportunities and growth potential. Strengths-based and appreciative methods deliver in these scenarios - try them!
Tuesday 16 November 2010
Friday 20 August 2010
The Coalition marches on...
From the letters page of the Guardian, 20.8.10, Robin Wendt wrote;
"One basic strand runs through the Con-Dems policy. It is the swift repudiation of the post-war social settlement and an unrelenting march back to the 1930s,...
The promised cuts in public services are on a scale of which Stanley Baldwin would have been proud. They will reduce the public sector to much of what it was in his time - crude basic provision for the worst off. The changes to health services means the wholesale dismantling of Bevan's 1948 comprehensive, equitable and publicly accountable NHS. In the 1940s the Conservatives tried to oppose the creation of the NHS; now they have succeeded. It will be replaced by an atomised system of private commissioning, though the GPs and private firms brought in to support them; and delivery through hospitals that are no longer publicly owned. NHS privatisation is not just a prospect. It is here now.
Likewise the introduction of free schools and academies, entailing as they do the effective abolition of LEAs and any semblance of fair admission policies, are a huge rebuttal of Butler's 1945 Education Act and its even distribution of power between government and localities. It will be replaced by a centralised system. The proposed cuts in social security benefits will undermine the "cradle to the grave" philosophy so eloquently expounded in the 1940s by Beveridge and built into postwar legislation."
"One basic strand runs through the Con-Dems policy. It is the swift repudiation of the post-war social settlement and an unrelenting march back to the 1930s,...
The promised cuts in public services are on a scale of which Stanley Baldwin would have been proud. They will reduce the public sector to much of what it was in his time - crude basic provision for the worst off. The changes to health services means the wholesale dismantling of Bevan's 1948 comprehensive, equitable and publicly accountable NHS. In the 1940s the Conservatives tried to oppose the creation of the NHS; now they have succeeded. It will be replaced by an atomised system of private commissioning, though the GPs and private firms brought in to support them; and delivery through hospitals that are no longer publicly owned. NHS privatisation is not just a prospect. It is here now.
Likewise the introduction of free schools and academies, entailing as they do the effective abolition of LEAs and any semblance of fair admission policies, are a huge rebuttal of Butler's 1945 Education Act and its even distribution of power between government and localities. It will be replaced by a centralised system. The proposed cuts in social security benefits will undermine the "cradle to the grave" philosophy so eloquently expounded in the 1940s by Beveridge and built into postwar legislation."
Monday 7 June 2010
Prime Minister's Speech - 7th June 2010
The PM's speech sets the scene for the measures required to cut the country's "massive deficit and growing debt." A deficit that equates to £22,000 for each of us...in 5 years time. In other words, if it, i.e. the deficit, is to double in 5 years as claimed, our personal load is therefore currently at £10,000. Clearly, a worrying figure, but less headline grabbing than one double that size.
Anyway, that's a diversion from the real issues the speech raises.
We all know of the still recent madness perpetrated by the banks, and the PM calls this, "the success of financial services was partly an illusion, conjured from years of low interest rates (sounding critical, though surely low rates are better than the Lawson/Lamont era's 15% APR?) cheap money and a bubble in the price of assets like houses."
The analysis then switches to attack the "boom in government spending", which is seen as being of a longer term and deeper nature than the episodic credit crunch (not mentioned by name), i.e. public spending is the problem, not the hundreds of billions used and borrowed to stabilise (i.e. and buy) the banks. For example, in one afternoon in 2008 the government gave a single bank, RBS, more than had been saved by all of local government in the three years of the previous CSR. And, in the following weeks gave to that and other banks, everything that the whole of the public sector had saved in the previous CSR three-year period, i.e. £60billion. So, whilst spending in the public sector had increased in the previous decade, there had been real savings also. It also worth reminding ourselves that in the Government's emergency announcement at the end of May, £6b in savings were demanded from the public sector, i.e. a tenth of that previously saved in the aforementioned CSR period. So, the public sector can do it, has done it before, and is clearly going have to do it all over again!
Even that though is not the key issue. The speech goes onto say, "boom did turn to bust" and "the problem we face today is not just the size of the debts but the nature of them" and "how recklessly they spent the money", "shining a spotlight on waste", and this is where we see the polemic alter from poor financial industry practices and government mismanagement to the developing narrative that is now firmly bonding 'public sector' with 'waste'.
So, we now have the family that gets "£93,000 in Housing Benefit every year." How many of those are there? An "almost doubled number of managers in the NHS", which per se might not be a bad thing for all I know, but certainly is seen as such, regardless of their input/output/outcomes. Ministry of Defence overruns; can't argue with the apparent ineptitude there, and "£4.5b over budget" sounds serious to me, but on a budget of what, say several tens/hundreds of billions, is that a hanging offence? Perhaps so. And so on, a "public sector whose productivity is falling", a previous government "hostile to a private sector" and "public sector continuing its inexorable expansion." It's best summarised in these paragraphs:
"While everyday life was incredibly tough for people who didn't work in the public sector with job losses, pay cuts, reduced working and falling profits for those in the public sector, life went on much as before."..."So while the people employed by the taxpayer were insulated from the harsh realities of the recession everyone else in the economy was paying the price."... "And now we're all paying the price because the public sector has got way out of step with the size of the private sector."... " We're going to have to get it back in line - and that will be more painful than if we had kept things properly in balance all along."
The analysis might indeed be correct, if skewed towards blame and scapegoating of a single sector, one in which I wonder if the PM includes the oft eulogised nurses, police and armed forces in this polemic, or just the public 'administrators'?
The PM concludes his analysis by saying the "unavoidable" cutbacks "could have been avoided if the previous government had spent wisely instead of showering the public sector with cash at a time when everyone else in the country was tightening their belts."
So, there it is, one line on the debt burden created by banking madness and the majority of the speech on the waste of the public sector. The PM promises "immediate and decisive action", "unavoidably tough", though "in a way that strengthens and unites the country" - unless you're in the public sector? Well, no, because we also read that "this government will not cut this deficit in a way that hurts those we most need to help that divides the country or that undermines the spirit and ethos of our public services".
The task of avoiding hurting "those we most need to help" must be applauded, and then held to the highest level of account and scrutiny - assuming of course we are all talking about the same people who we most need to help!
Anyway, that's a diversion from the real issues the speech raises.
We all know of the still recent madness perpetrated by the banks, and the PM calls this, "the success of financial services was partly an illusion, conjured from years of low interest rates (sounding critical, though surely low rates are better than the Lawson/Lamont era's 15% APR?) cheap money and a bubble in the price of assets like houses."
The analysis then switches to attack the "boom in government spending", which is seen as being of a longer term and deeper nature than the episodic credit crunch (not mentioned by name), i.e. public spending is the problem, not the hundreds of billions used and borrowed to stabilise (i.e. and buy) the banks. For example, in one afternoon in 2008 the government gave a single bank, RBS, more than had been saved by all of local government in the three years of the previous CSR. And, in the following weeks gave to that and other banks, everything that the whole of the public sector had saved in the previous CSR three-year period, i.e. £60billion. So, whilst spending in the public sector had increased in the previous decade, there had been real savings also. It also worth reminding ourselves that in the Government's emergency announcement at the end of May, £6b in savings were demanded from the public sector, i.e. a tenth of that previously saved in the aforementioned CSR period. So, the public sector can do it, has done it before, and is clearly going have to do it all over again!
Even that though is not the key issue. The speech goes onto say, "boom did turn to bust" and "the problem we face today is not just the size of the debts but the nature of them" and "how recklessly they spent the money", "shining a spotlight on waste", and this is where we see the polemic alter from poor financial industry practices and government mismanagement to the developing narrative that is now firmly bonding 'public sector' with 'waste'.
So, we now have the family that gets "£93,000 in Housing Benefit every year." How many of those are there? An "almost doubled number of managers in the NHS", which per se might not be a bad thing for all I know, but certainly is seen as such, regardless of their input/output/outcomes. Ministry of Defence overruns; can't argue with the apparent ineptitude there, and "£4.5b over budget" sounds serious to me, but on a budget of what, say several tens/hundreds of billions, is that a hanging offence? Perhaps so. And so on, a "public sector whose productivity is falling", a previous government "hostile to a private sector" and "public sector continuing its inexorable expansion." It's best summarised in these paragraphs:
"While everyday life was incredibly tough for people who didn't work in the public sector with job losses, pay cuts, reduced working and falling profits for those in the public sector, life went on much as before."..."So while the people employed by the taxpayer were insulated from the harsh realities of the recession everyone else in the economy was paying the price."... "And now we're all paying the price because the public sector has got way out of step with the size of the private sector."... " We're going to have to get it back in line - and that will be more painful than if we had kept things properly in balance all along."
The analysis might indeed be correct, if skewed towards blame and scapegoating of a single sector, one in which I wonder if the PM includes the oft eulogised nurses, police and armed forces in this polemic, or just the public 'administrators'?
The PM concludes his analysis by saying the "unavoidable" cutbacks "could have been avoided if the previous government had spent wisely instead of showering the public sector with cash at a time when everyone else in the country was tightening their belts."
So, there it is, one line on the debt burden created by banking madness and the majority of the speech on the waste of the public sector. The PM promises "immediate and decisive action", "unavoidably tough", though "in a way that strengthens and unites the country" - unless you're in the public sector? Well, no, because we also read that "this government will not cut this deficit in a way that hurts those we most need to help that divides the country or that undermines the spirit and ethos of our public services".
The task of avoiding hurting "those we most need to help" must be applauded, and then held to the highest level of account and scrutiny - assuming of course we are all talking about the same people who we most need to help!
Friday 30 April 2010
This blog has moved
This blog is now located at http://steveloraine.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://steveloraine.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.
Wednesday 10 February 2010
What's wrong with overlap?
Almost everyday I read material that posits 'overlap' as similar if not identical to 'duplication'. Both must be eradicated, particularly if notions of 'total place' are to be achieved, we are told. But, I pose this question; what's wrong with 'overlap'? Think a little more deeply about this casual use of the terms. Without some overlap between services and agencies we get hard edges, boundaries, cracks, nay chasms - and what can fall between those cracks and hard edges? The client/consumer/citizen/customer's needs. So, duplication does need to be eradicated. It is wasteful of scarce resources. Reasonable overlap on the other hand is fine. The next time you are near a bicycle have a look at its chain - every single link overlaps. I've ridden racing bikes for over 40 years and never had a chain break...
Saturday 30 January 2010
Sustaining Energy During Transitions
"Assume what motivates you, motivates others."
Change, the transition from one state to another, for an individual or an organisation, brings with it uncertainty and is invariably more complex and troubling than we might first expect.
As leaders and managers we can't presume we have people's trust at the start of the change. We have to earn trust and then we can mobilise people to the cause. Once moving, people will look to us for steadiness and competence - perhaps even a surefootedness in the turbulence of a changing situation.
Having character and the capacity to engage fully with the complexity of the transition helps to earn people's trust in us as the promoters of change in pursuit of improvement. But, much more is required of us in these evermore demanding roles.
To really move people we must give a voice to their own desires, to inspire them to deliver better. To do this requires the creation of a shared vision, which is a vital element in uniting people to navigate through the sometimes choppy waters of major transitions. We can really shift organisations if we give voice to people's own hopes about what their team or organisation is all about and capable of delivering. The vision pronounced from on high will never do the same job as the one co-created by and through engaged employees.
As leaders we need an authentic core; an inner steel of honesty and integrity that is evidenced by our consistent behaviour, particularly under pressure. The 'rules' apply to us just as much as they do to 'front-line' colleagues. Humility, i.e. not being arrogant or condescending, is closely allied to honesty in inspiring people to follow the lead we offer. We are not perfect, who is, and these qualities are not about perfection, they speak to a different imperative, that of excellence, doing the right thing, exhibiting sound judgement and being collaborative.
So, if we are seeking to inspire people to do the extraordinary, the different and the difficult, what are some of the ways to motivate others?
Change, the transition from one state to another, for an individual or an organisation, brings with it uncertainty and is invariably more complex and troubling than we might first expect.
As leaders and managers we can't presume we have people's trust at the start of the change. We have to earn trust and then we can mobilise people to the cause. Once moving, people will look to us for steadiness and competence - perhaps even a surefootedness in the turbulence of a changing situation.
Having character and the capacity to engage fully with the complexity of the transition helps to earn people's trust in us as the promoters of change in pursuit of improvement. But, much more is required of us in these evermore demanding roles.
To really move people we must give a voice to their own desires, to inspire them to deliver better. To do this requires the creation of a shared vision, which is a vital element in uniting people to navigate through the sometimes choppy waters of major transitions. We can really shift organisations if we give voice to people's own hopes about what their team or organisation is all about and capable of delivering. The vision pronounced from on high will never do the same job as the one co-created by and through engaged employees.
As leaders we need an authentic core; an inner steel of honesty and integrity that is evidenced by our consistent behaviour, particularly under pressure. The 'rules' apply to us just as much as they do to 'front-line' colleagues. Humility, i.e. not being arrogant or condescending, is closely allied to honesty in inspiring people to follow the lead we offer. We are not perfect, who is, and these qualities are not about perfection, they speak to a different imperative, that of excellence, doing the right thing, exhibiting sound judgement and being collaborative.
So, if we are seeking to inspire people to do the extraordinary, the different and the difficult, what are some of the ways to motivate others?
- Start with the truth. Confront reality. Set high expectations and aspirations and march pragmatically from reality towards that aspiration. Along the way, remind people how far they have come and how much closer they are to achieving their goals.
- Get excited about doing something really grand. People can work with an intensity and passion with the knowledge that they are achieving something rare and marvellous.
- Respect people and find ways for them to make a contribution.
- Adhere to simple values; honesty, fairness, generosity - and don't compromise your standards or ask others to.
- Talking to people once a quarter isn't enough. You have to repeat messages of direction, inspiration and comfort daily in a variety of forms. Constant and consistent communication helps people to feel part of the team and respected.
- Helping people to try things that are personally 'risky' is a tough motivational challenge.We can't and shouldn't want to eliminate all risks but we do want people to go into the uncomfortable space where they and their organisations can achieve extraordinary results. We do this through open and frank discussion about the likelihood of success; clear roles and accountabilities; by spreading risk across the team and organisation and by providing visible and confident support regardless of the end result.
- And finally, we need to move quickly towards a goal, particularly if it involves pain. Time is frequently not a friend. Consensus building might not work. So give people permission to move fast and make some mistakes, as long as the actions are in keeping with the organisation's values. Speed damps down resentment, turf issues and paralysis by analysis.
Good luck.
Wednesday 27 January 2010
Strengths-based development
People make organisations work well. Not the procedures, processes, structures or governance mechanisms. These elements can all assist, as well as frustrate, the effective working of an organisation, but they rarely if ever play the pivotal role that people do in delivering what an organisation is about.
Our coaching and thought-support work with clients invariably tells us that the deficit or weakness-centred approach to individual and organisational development is strong and worryingly prevalent. It is easy to get stuck in our old ways of thinking. It is also easy to get stuck in our relationships and act in the same way as we always have done. As the saying goes, "if you keep on doing what you have always done, you will keep on getting what you've always got!" In too many cases that means focusing on what's wrong with the organisation, the weaknesses of the individual and the measures required to make things better.
Now, sometimes there really is something worrying in the performance of a team, service or individual and an intervention needs to take place. We recognise that. Often that can take the form of a rapid change of personnel or the creation of a new procedure. Yet, often that proves to be the short-term palliative, not the long-term salvation. Why is this? Well, one reason might be that the positive core of that person or team has simply not been explored and captured because of the concentration on problems. Another reason is that individuals are so inured to the problem-fixing mode of operation that their strengths and talents, the activities that make best use of their talents, and their positive core are not recognised or valued.
Now, many times everything works just fine, but sometimes the person or service could benefit from a small 'nudge,' e.g. some new perspectives, a sharper focus, increased creativity or refreshed energy levels. When these moments occur one way is to invite an external advisor for a time to support the person or team to move forward. We believe that the “experts” are the people in the organization, and we can support them by creating different contexts that encourage people to understand their talents and strengths, to use their skills in new ways, and help people to co operate and become proud of what they are doing. These contexts help people to gather new perspectives and to refresh energy levels, make new commitments and engage with colleagues differently.
Working with strengths-based methods and exploring what works well in the organization instead of focusing at the “problem” pays dividends in our experience. It requires a degree of 're-programming' for the people involved but methods like Gallup's Strengthsfinder, solutions-oriented appraisals and the SOAR strategic planning model (Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, Results) offer new and exciting ways to optimise organisational and people talents.
Our work creates safe and creative environments for personal and service development; environments where people feel they are valued, important and where everyone has something to add to the whole.
This shift of perspective from the problem-centred to the positive and strength focused gives people an opportunity to be proud of what they are doing and feel that they are important contributors to the organisation's goals. When people feel valued and have the potential to use and increase their personal strengths they also become more engaged, accept greater responsibility and increase their ability to see new perspectives and others views.
We create learning opportunities where people can learn about and appreciate their talents, feel that they are important and skillful and learn how to combine their talents with colleagues'. We find when this happens weaknesses frequently become irrelevant.
Contact us to discuss how strength based personal and team development could improve customer and employee satisfaction and results in your organization.
Visit our website at http://www.optimuminterventions.co.uk/
Our coaching and thought-support work with clients invariably tells us that the deficit or weakness-centred approach to individual and organisational development is strong and worryingly prevalent. It is easy to get stuck in our old ways of thinking. It is also easy to get stuck in our relationships and act in the same way as we always have done. As the saying goes, "if you keep on doing what you have always done, you will keep on getting what you've always got!" In too many cases that means focusing on what's wrong with the organisation, the weaknesses of the individual and the measures required to make things better.
Now, sometimes there really is something worrying in the performance of a team, service or individual and an intervention needs to take place. We recognise that. Often that can take the form of a rapid change of personnel or the creation of a new procedure. Yet, often that proves to be the short-term palliative, not the long-term salvation. Why is this? Well, one reason might be that the positive core of that person or team has simply not been explored and captured because of the concentration on problems. Another reason is that individuals are so inured to the problem-fixing mode of operation that their strengths and talents, the activities that make best use of their talents, and their positive core are not recognised or valued.
Now, many times everything works just fine, but sometimes the person or service could benefit from a small 'nudge,' e.g. some new perspectives, a sharper focus, increased creativity or refreshed energy levels. When these moments occur one way is to invite an external advisor for a time to support the person or team to move forward. We believe that the “experts” are the people in the organization, and we can support them by creating different contexts that encourage people to understand their talents and strengths, to use their skills in new ways, and help people to co operate and become proud of what they are doing. These contexts help people to gather new perspectives and to refresh energy levels, make new commitments and engage with colleagues differently.
Working with strengths-based methods and exploring what works well in the organization instead of focusing at the “problem” pays dividends in our experience. It requires a degree of 're-programming' for the people involved but methods like Gallup's Strengthsfinder, solutions-oriented appraisals and the SOAR strategic planning model (Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, Results) offer new and exciting ways to optimise organisational and people talents.
Our work creates safe and creative environments for personal and service development; environments where people feel they are valued, important and where everyone has something to add to the whole.
This shift of perspective from the problem-centred to the positive and strength focused gives people an opportunity to be proud of what they are doing and feel that they are important contributors to the organisation's goals. When people feel valued and have the potential to use and increase their personal strengths they also become more engaged, accept greater responsibility and increase their ability to see new perspectives and others views.
We create learning opportunities where people can learn about and appreciate their talents, feel that they are important and skillful and learn how to combine their talents with colleagues'. We find when this happens weaknesses frequently become irrelevant.
Contact us to discuss how strength based personal and team development could improve customer and employee satisfaction and results in your organization.
Visit our website at http://www.optimuminterventions.co.uk/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)