Generational Diversity and Agile Working in the Public Sector

To date there is still too much office working in the Public Sector and not enough 'working where the work is', which for the Public Sector is working with the public. It is important to recognise that the Public Sector is on a Cultural journey which will require working differently, and in some cases counter-intuitively.

When 'working where the work is', technology is a great enabler. However there continues to be cultural barriers which link to a need to let go of some control, which understandably is counter-intuitive for political leaders, as well as the expectations of the different generations in the workplace.
Baby Boomers and - to some extend - my generation, Generation X, have become used to an office space we have been able to 'personalise' to our individual needs. In the current climate, office space is a high cost to any organisation, not just the Public Sector, and needs to be reviewed so that organisations don't compromise on their people (talent). In recent years, Generation X has been making more demands for equality, flexibility and work/life balance, however further economic pressures are demanding more compromise around the way we work. Equally access to ever-changing technologies has raised different workstyle expectations for the younger generations that are now sharing our workspaces.

The economy is pushing the Public Sector to think more carefully about the needs for efficiencies. Technology is a great enabler and should be led by the younger generation as the rate of adoption of the use of new technologies is 'speeding up' and will in turn enable new innovations. The younger generations - by the very nature of how an organisation works - are more likely to sit in the front line, hence a need for bottom-up innovation.

The culture set by Top Managers (likely to be Baby Boomers and Generation X) is important to consider as it highly depends on Top Managers' individual ability and willingness to recognise and embrace - not necessarily adopt - these generational changes and expectations, which will feel like a loss of control and in real terms is counter-intuitive, but - as you can see - extremely important.

Managing a virtual workforce requires organisations/managers to trust their front line workforce and embrace the use of technology and social media. This is all part of a wider cultural journey and  remains an enormous challenge for the Public Sector who are trying to get used to being more open and transparent, meaning a counter-intuitive 'loosening of the reins'.

Related blog - http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=23073

The changing role of Councils

To date, Councils have prided themselves on keeping their communities safe. Their leadership style has closely matched that of a parent creating safety for dependents. In the good times the relationship between Councils and the communities they support has been peaceful and mutually respectful as dependents have felt safe and looked-after. Financial uncertainty has however created some strain in this relationship.

What is needed now however is for Councils to empower their communities to take risks in order to survive the double-dip recession and the impact of an ageing population, which means a signifiant cultural shift and a need to think differently about the Council's priorities. Councils need to embrace the fact that they are interdependent on the support and creativity of the communities they have to date supported to deliver a wider variety of services to meet their own needs. Their role needs to change from 'safety-provider' to 'risk-enabler', a change not to be underestimated (please refer back to the parent-dependent analogy)!

To reduce the risk, it is crucial for Council to be humble, use a more coaching-style of community leadership and be honest, open and transparent in the sharing of information so that communities can make better informed decisions.

What would make Councils feel more at ease with the changes required? I'd really welcome your thoughts and views.

RELATED READING:

Councils' exaggerated risk aversion puts charity contracts under threat -http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2012/feb/27/councils-risk-aversion-puts-charity-contracts-at-risk

Letting go: how to set public services free from council control -http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2012/mar/14/public-services-council-control

Idea of the Day ... on Changing Behaviour through Design

In Belgium and the Netherlands they have put large butterfly nets along the cycle paths to encourage people to throw their litter in the right place rather than littering just anywhere. This design is based on a technique called 'Nudge' which uses people's nature/instinctive behaviours as the starting point of any design.

 
Nudge Theory too is used to design care homes for people with Dementia, in highways design and putting low-cost gym equipment in parks.

How else could we use 'nudge' for the benefit of the wider community?

Non-Compliance - problem or gift

Non-compliance can be viewed as a ‘problem’ resulting in solutions which are hoping to resolve that ‘problem’. From a more constructive point of view, non-compliance can be seen as a gift of ‘valuable feedback’ to help us achieve the best possible outcome for both the customer and ourselves.


‘Non-compliance’ in an organisation can be compared with a customer not buying a product they don’t like, leaving a meal in a restaurant that doesn’t meet their expectations or an employee not completing a mandatory learning package.


The problem is not always the person who doesn’t ‘comply’, it is more likely that the offering does not match the needs of/adds value to the person or the person does not fully understand the benefits to themselves and the organisation. Deciding to see ‘non-compliance’ as valuable feedback empowers suppliers of 'compliance' products and services to actively seek customers’ qualitative feedback and collaborate on how to make continuous improvements to a product or service for the benefit of all customer, leading in turn to better ‘compliance' (more accurately known as buy-in/ownership/personal responsibility). 


Using the above comparative examples, would it help to ‘tell’ or ‘train’ a customer to eat a meal in a restaurant that doesn’t meet their needs/expectations? Or would it help to actively seek their feedback, improve the meal based on the feedback received, give the customer a voucher to eat at the restaurant again at a future date and regain their trust (and your reputation)?


Even if a product or service is mandatory, which organisations often feel they have to consider, there has to be more of a commitment to explain the benefits and positively influence accountability in others, rather than using the ‘stick’ or 'reward' approach. 

Compliance as a possible sign of high stress & anxiety

Reflective questions:

1. So why do some employees/customers always comply with whatever is given to them, even when it doesn’t meet their own or their customers’ needs/expectations?
2. Why do people feel their feedback will not make a difference?
3. Why do some people eat the meal that doesn’t meet their expectations?
4. Why do people blindly believe everything a GP tells them?
5. Why do people believe changes or improvement to legislation are outside of their control?
6. Why do people see the law as a compliance target rather than a minimum standard to exceed? (see related blog - Legislation - Compliance Target or Minimum Standard)

Possible answers (not an exhaustive list):

1. Don’t want to ‘rock the boat’
2. Don’t want to upset the other person
3. Avoid embarrassment
4. Avoid conflict
5. Lacks confidence/assertiveness
6. Feels intimidated by the (sometimes perceived) status/power of the other person
7. Learned helplessness
8. Don’t know how to challenge
9. Don’t know how to say no
10. Worried about losing their job
11. Fear of blame
12. Fear of being seen as a 'trouble-maker' (Related blog - Troublemaker or Changemaker)

Non-compliance is not a problem. It should raise curiosity and be seen as an opportunity for getting more feedback to improve the quality of compliance products, service or communication. On the contrary however, there should be much more concern for the cultural impact of ‘blind compliance’.

Related TED video talking about Willing Blindness, a very human condition and the activity of whistle-blowing:

Margaret Heffernan: The dangers of "willful blindness" #TED

Innovation Series - An Anthropological Reflection of Organisational Culture & Transformation

Anxiety and uncertainty are common realities in the current climate. This is not helped by the often complex nature of decision-making, the range of uncertainties and the extensive scrutiny. This cannot be eliminated through procedures or training, so the question is: how do organisations effectively address anxiety and uncertainty? 

The impact of Psychology on Organisational Culture

It is important to acknowledge that organisations are not machines but human systems, which succumb to the same neurological and psychological behaviour patterns as a single individual. The neurological 'survival-mode' reactions, namely the ‘Fight/Flight/Freeze’ response has allowed us to survive many threatening and challenging situations. These three survival patterns unlock three behaviours which can be recognised in the workplace where culture is left unchecked. 

Fight may translate into frustration, impatience, anger, blame and even aggression towards others. Flight translates in denial ('head-in-the-sand' response), avoiding conflict and even isolation from others  in the form of silo-working. The Freeze response leads to feeling overwhelmed and paralysed, ruled by feelings of total powerlessness. In highly controlled and standardised organisational environments, the Freeze response becomes the order of the day and creates a high dependency culture, where the paralysed front line become overly dependent on those in power. As with any interaction, the behaviours of both parties are strengthened by the behaviour of the other. (The same can be observed in societies where control through rules is held by those in power)

A culture of blame, silo-working and high dependency often go hand-in-hand and lead to the believe that more control is needed to readdress this culture. As such, organisations who aim to move away from these cultures tend to employ/hold on to command-and control leaders and unwittingly create a vicious cycle of distrust, negativity, fear and low productivity, which in turn strengthens the culture they so desperately are trying to move away from. 

Other observable behaviour patterns may include low motivation, moral and engagement levels. Because as human being, we can only take so much negative pressure, organisations start to see patterns of people leaving 'en mass'. More worryingly this includes some professions, such as teachers, nurses & social workers, who are taking career breaks or are leaving the profession all together.

Changing from Blame to Learning & Innovation

So if our organisational cultures are driven by human psychology, how then do leaders influence a different culture. Today there is much more talk about a need for leaders to be self-aware and emotionally intelligent. They need to be more familiar with human psychology and become 'orchestrators' or 'facilitators' of healthy organisational environments where our humanity, our uniqueness and our relationships are acknowledged as key ingredient to maintaining the health & sustainability of the organisation. Organisations need no longer be seen as machines to fix, but as communities to be brought together for the greater good.

The leaders role lies therefore in connecting people and ideas to encourage collaboration and innovation, rather than being the producers of the rules and standards with which people should unquestionably comply. 

Leadership - Position or Mindset?

In today's highly complex world it may be required to take leadership one step further, driven by the question: 'Is leadership a position or is leadership a mindset?' 

When - with bravery & confidence - the 'fences' are removed the potential exists that it will unleash leadership in everyone as it restores people's ability to choose and take control over their own surroundings. In actual fact, as adults we are all motivated by autonomy, mastery & purpose (Dan Pink). While some may think that this will lead to chaos, there is much proof that this self-organisation actually lead to further empowerment, quicker better-informed decisions and an improvement in service quality as they become more responsive to need. 

The idea of self-organisation however is perceived as threat to certain positions of power within traditional hierarchies. The exploration of delegated powers and decision-making - unless 'taken with confidence by the frontline' - is only half-heartedly explored as a viable way forward by those whose positions feel threatened. 

The truth is in organisations where organisational energy is spent on celebrating uniqueness, encouraging autonomy and collective intelligence (as opposed to being spent on creating uniformity, dependency and functionality) a culture of learning & innovation flourishes. The challenge often lies not in creating an Innovation Culture afresh, the challenge lies in the transformation of blame culture into innovation culture when working with people unwilling to delegate power and sacrifice the known for the unknown. Ironically, those people who are willing to sacrifice the known for the unknown are often those who end up on the outside building the new. 

A summary

So, if Socrates was right when he said 'The Secret to Change is to focus all your Energy, not on Fighting the Old, but on Building the New' organisations need to take this into their stride when planning for the future. The cultural transformation & innovation they are looking to achieve may need to be supported beyond the boundaries of the organisation through support, collaboration and investment!