The importance of openness and transparency for the Public Sector - a simple metaphor

When money and resources were plenty, our personal accountability is often forgotten about and environmental sustainability goes out of the window. Why? Some may call it 'greed', I call it a human hoarding instinct which in pre-historic times helped us survive however in the modern world can have serious economic and environmental implications. The metaphor below sets out a simple lesson in the importance of being open and transparent in the current climate.

 

When money was plenty, the world created gas-guzzling 4x4s and demand for them grew as they promised safety and reliability. The negatives, i.e. impact on the environment by guzzling the earth's resources among others, were given little consideration. Today, with much more openness and transparancy about the state of the world's resources and the environment, many people are taken more personal accountability and are wanting to minimize the strains on their pocket, wishing to purchase a car which is less costly to run and kinder to the environment.

 

So how does this metaphor help the Public Sector to prioritise its activities? Similarly, at times of plenty the Public Sector has created a number of luxury services at no 'direct' cost to the customer. In the current climate, Council needs to consider prioritising their services to cope with financial constraints and needs to more openly and transparently communicate their financial reality with the communities it supports.

 

The result of not communicating will lead to communities not fully accepting and supporting the changes, and a continuation of legal and costly challenges triggered by the changes in service provision. 

 

The Commissioning approach, if it includes a full commitment to openness and transparency, will act as an enabler of this prioritisation exercise for the Public Sector. It will allow the Public Sector to analyse its activities in light of financial, economic and environmental sustainability and current demands for services.

Question of the day ... on economic growth

Many Councils are still trying to get to grips with major changes to their budgets and gauging the impact of the Commissioning agenda. Are we asking too much in relation to economic growth from an emotionally drained and internally focussed Local Government?

 

Question of the day ... on Local Government

Should the Public Sector think and act more like a Cooperative, Charity or Social Enterprise?

I'd love to hear people's thoughts!

Thought of the day ... building accountability

Sometimes personal accountability can only be achieved by a 'tough love' approach. This is not just true in personal relationships, but equally applies to the Public Sector in empowering community action.

Letting go of your best people to support local economic growth

As it stands Local Authorities, by being the sole provider of a service in most cases and by their very size and systems, have installed dependency and ‘learned helplessness’ into the people they serve. In many cases, this high dependency has meant that Councils are looked at to address many of the communities’ needs, putting more pressure on the funds available. As a result, they attract litigation when the service provided does not address the needs identified. 
 
In times of luxury, the impact of the above was never felt and therefore never drawn into question. The double-dip recession, as well as the population’s demographic, has highlighted a need for a drastic change. The question is however why and how to move Councils to a more sustainable future.

WHY?
In order to stimulate local economic growth, Local Authorities have to let go of their best people, the people who have the knowledge and confidence to innovate and set up local businesses, social enterprises, charities or go self-employed/freelance. This would not only create more choice to address the needs of the local communities (moving away from one-size-fits-all solutions), but also better quality services – not through competition, but through closer community collaboration and co-creation.

HOW? And why is it important?
Redundancies are not the best option going forward. The impact could have a long-term negative effect on the local economy.

Hard-nosed selection processes used as part of the redundancy process often mean people leave with ‘a bad taste in their mouth’. Councils have to remember that the people that leave their organisation are the ‘providers of tomorrow’s services’ for the benefit of local citizens. The last things Councils want to invite is negative relationships with the people they will rely upon going forward. Nor do actions like redundancies support a positive ‘brand’ identity for the Council.

So how do Council’s identify and let their best people leave? Redundancy is not the only option. The best outcome for the community is to ensure positive relationships are upheld where possible. This requires a drastic behavioural change.

In order to ensure the best possible resilience levels for all involved is to talk openly about the changes ahead from the earliest opportunity, even when certain aspects may still be uncertain. Also important is to take more of a talent management and strength/career-coaching approach to your one-to-one’s with your staff team. Questions like ‘What are your ambitions for the future?’ and ‘Do you want to re-skill to support the Council of the future?’ are invaluable.

This approach does not necessarily have to come with a pot of money. A career-coaching approach may help identify cost-effective learning solutions such as shadowing or mentoring and help install more self-directed and self-funded learning where deemed necessary.

IF NOT ...?
What if Councils do not let go of their best people? This would leave the economy and communities impoverished of skills, knowledge and experience which are vital ingredients to building a better future.

There may be a further challenge to overcome if Councils decide to hold onto some of their specialists/experts. Holding onto specialists/experts can lead to distrust of external providers who have less knowledge and experience than the in-house specialist/expert. As a result, it is likely that the specialist/expert instigates in-house growth of workforce to deliver the service themselves. This would soon see the Council - not the economy - grow to its former size.

SO WHO DO COUNCILS NEED TO HOLD ONTO?
Councils need to start seeing themselves as the local ‘Think Tank’ and facilitators of continuous positive change, choice and quality. As such, the skills which may benefit Councils who are moving to a Commissioning role need to hold onto Strategic Generalists, Knowledge Analysts and Futurists who enjoy the challenge of uncertainty and local (and global) impact analysis. Specialists and experts in their field can be brought in - on a freelance basis - as and when a community need needs a larger contractual solution with a service provider.

Further blog - Who to Hire? http://thebuildnetwork.com/leadership/management/hire-generalists/

In one of my next blogs I will explore the Commissioning Role for Councils using the 70/20/10 model.