Take a deep breath...and then change, appreciatively

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!

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."

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!

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.

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...