THE STATE - WHY WE STILL NEED IT?

The State should serve us shouldn't it? 

Certain elements of the political right see the state as part of the problem and not part of the solution. That does not always need to be the case, the state and a strong effective government are necessary for a healthy society,whatever Mitt Romney and his acolytes wish to tell us. Government needs to be vigorous,strong and efficient but it doesn't need to do everything itself however it does need to ensure the right services are delivered in an effective way for the benefit of the people. The state cannot be divorced from this process and does need to be part of it. It does have a general responsibility for the welfare of its people and this responsibility cannot and should not be privatised although the provision of services certainly can be.

The state through its democratic institutions should represent the people and their views and aspirations but that is not always the case -- If the state is dominated by the interests of selfish and powerful elites then it too can become selfish and unrepresentative and not an instrument of social justice,equality and peace. This has happened in the past when the people have not taken a stand and let events rule their world. So a strong and respected state is a must have requirement -- however when things go wrong then it is difficult to put the state back where it once was. The first state to fall to the Nazis was Germany and the first state to fall to the communists was Russia. To move these states back to a semblance of democratic control has taken over 50 years. It has been more successful in Germany than in Russia. The latter finding it very difficult to escape from its totalitarian past and still  it sports a very authoritarian government which it seems will remain with it for a long time.

 

Some countries suffer from a lack of state power not too much state power. If you suffer a heart attack in certain parts of the world there is no ambulance service to save you because that state infrastructure just does not exist - even if individual people are rich enough to pay for it. So it is evident that not all state power is inherently evil. Some people are suspicious of the state when it invades every aspect of their lives and tries to tell them what and how to think, we should all guard against this as best we can.

Some economic theorists contend that the state can crowd out private sector activity and ingenuity if public spending is at a level in excess of say 30% of a country's GDP then the state can obtain more resources than the private sector when it is competing with it in private markets hence the private sector is crowded out. If only state spending were lower the private sector would therefore suffer from less crowding out and would deliver more jobs and higher economic growth. The picture of our economy is more complex than that. Reductions in state spending are not inherently good as such -- it depends what the money is being spent on and the impact of any reduction in that spending on the wider population. The idea that if state spending was drastically reduced to say 20% of GDP or less then the private sector would bridge this employment and growth gap seems a bit fanciful. Any private sector impact would take a long time to make any difference in my view and this is already evidenced in the British experience.    

Any reduction in state spending needs to be matched with increased dynamism of the private and not for profit sectors or else there will be long periods of unemployment and economic instability. Austerity on its own will not save us. Austerity coupled with some intelligent incentives for investment and business growth in the not for profit and private sectors could make a difference if properly targeted to foster calculated risk taking and further innovation.


Reductions in public spending might be necessary but are not sufficient in themselves to foster increased non state activity to bridge any gaps. Other moves to improve the conditions for private and not for profit investment should be introduced that make a real difference to the investment plans of individuals and businesses and yes, the state can have a role to make this happen as an enabler and not just a provider of public and not for profit services. This is probably the direction the modern state will need to move in to re-define its role in the 21st century.  If the commercial banks are not lending as much as they should might the state fill their lending void thus encouraging wider growth and prosperity as we really do need it.                             

TRANSFORMATION -- NEEDS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO PEOPLE'S LIVES

Our organisations need to transform to improve their service outcomes for society as a whole.

Everyone seems to be talking about the transformation agenda for public and not for profit bodies. Transformation means services being provided to the public in innovative, timely effective and cost efficient ways which do not necessarily reflect the patterns of service delivery that have been provided in the past when resources were more plentiful in these respective sectors, it also in my book means improving service outcomes. The transformation agenda is being driven to a large degree by resource constraints but even if these did not exist then then there would still need to be service transformation to take account of our demographics (Especially an ageing population) and the rapid pace of change in the development of digital technologies and electronic social interaction. We probably would not be able to hide away from the transformation agenda even if we wanted to. So we should not really kid ourselves that it will go away.

 

Transformation for a lot of people is difficult. They have provided services in the past which they feel were well delivered and consumed effectively by their clients -- it is challenging for them to accept that given a whole host of new political,economic, technological and social realities that the way services are configured, marketed and delivered will need to radically alter to address these new realities far more effectively than in the past. There will need to be a much further move down the road to measuring the social impacts of relative public policies and also more work on the outcomes of these policies. Increasing research on payment by results, especially in a proposed new publication by CIPFA, is also gaining ground. Final tranches of monies will only be paid to service providers if certain social outcomes have been delivered, be that problem families, healthy societies or educational attainment. The outcomes will need to be measured against acceptable benchmarks and this will need to  be developed much further as a more generally accepted approach. In future the starting benchmarks will also need to move forward as well in line with society's increasing expectations of what these services can deliver.

 

There is no real objection to the transformation agenda being angled in this way to produce improved social outcomes for our people. There is a need however to ensure that the transformation agenda is not used as a cloak to hide resource constraints per se. It is all very well having shared services which reduce back office costs, reduce service input duplication and increase efficiency but what about the service outcomes themselves. If these radical transformation agendas are followed and service outcomes do not improve then this is only a partial transformation of public sector bodies and not for profit bodies service delivery. In my view it is not true transformation because although excessive costs may be being addressed and efficiencies increased - the outcomes for service users can be worse than before.To my mind such a process would not be a successful exposition of a transformation agenda.

 

It is incumbent on us all to ensure that any transformation project addresses all the key elements of transformation and not just the cost and efficiency bits. If the latter is not the case then we will end up with services which are cheap and nasty which might save money in the short term but in the long term might lead to even greater costs for society as a whole.

 

If we are transforming our services and trying to improve service outcomes then we will often require input and help from experienced third parties who will be able to provide the expertise that we may not possess in technical and financial areas. This may not initially come at zero cost and it is therefore important that any social impact analysis is not short termist and does look at the long term impacts of the transformation agenda in terms of an invest to save approach. Energy saving measures will be fairly expensive now but in the future, the costs of not having undertaken them could prove to be prohibitive.

 

So let's ensure that any transformation agenda we engage with actually improves social outcomes and is not just an excuse to save money. If we can demonstrate this to be the case then the buy in to any future transformation projects will be so much higher and we will all benefit from that.

 

SWAPPING EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOR EQUITY - A GOOD WAY OF CHANGING MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES?



We will all need to broaden and democratise our management structures - but not at the expense of our employment rights

The need to incentivise employees is critical, now more than ever before, so it was interesting to see George Osbourne's proposals for employees to swap some of their employment rights for an equity share in the organisation they work for. Is this a good idea? Would the former worker end up being sacked but at least retaining some shares in the organisation he used to work for? This needs to be properly considered and thought through.

There will not be much scope to have future pay awards in the public sector and elsewhere but an option to share in the future benefits of an organisation on a risk basis needs to be examined. Such an approach would act as an incentive for employees to try harder and think more deeply about the way they wish their particular organisation to move forward and how they might be able to contribute to that progress. One would only sacrifice a set of rights if one had a good chance of obtaining greater future rights to compensate for the rights one has sacrificed or else it would not be worthwhile.

 

Spreading ownership of an organisation amongst the team of co-workers would have greater incentive effects to generate more wealth and spread that between these new owners of the organisation. Perhaps co-operation is the way forward for groups of individuals who wish to work together to generate a common approach. The year 2012 has been designated the international year of co-operation and the following points are given by Co-operatives UK as the key advantages of co-operation;

 

Allowing communities and groups to take responsibility for their own needs.Advantages are created by allowing groups with a common interest or aspiration to work together.

 

Trusted values and principles. Every co-operative benefits from a commitment to international Co-operative Values and Principles, the blueprint for a successful co-operative that has existed for over 150 years.

 

A commitment to ethics, community and governance means that co-operatives are trusted to provide sensitive services to vulnerable people.

 

Creating value for business and members. Co-operatives create value for their members. When co-operation is the priority, it enables provision for the best possible services for members and allows the advantages of co-operation to shine through.

 

Increased commitment and drive from the members of the workforce are priceless and in a world of restrained resources the move to increase the stake of workers in their organisation is a good way forward in ensuring that organisations can progress and that staff will feel and care for the organisation and its future. Existing organisations are not always in favour of moving in such a radical direction because they are frightened to abandon the top down status quo.There is always a fear of doing something but there is less of a fear of doing nothing. Doing nothing is just as dangerous as doing something -- Doing nothing and not responding to a radically changing environment can be doubly dangerous. Evidently, one must do the "right" thing and move in the right direction.

 

Greater levels of democratisation in the management of services especially those in the public and not for profit sectors will need to be addressed because with the lack of future resources this democratisation will be the only real incentive for the workforce to produce service outputs that will delight service users.

 

New management models will be developed,but please Mr Osbourne, not at the expense of our employment rights

 

DECISIONS DECISIONS -- HOW DO WE MAKE THEM?




Is this how you make your decisions?

We always seem to temper our decisions on policy with what might be acceptable rather than what we see as the right decision. Too often we are worried about what reactions we will generate by  putting forward what we feel is right. Often we are concerned that our approach will not be seen as particularly realistic in the way our organisation currently operates. But is our decision wrong or does the way our current organisation functions need to change to make our decision more acceptable. Our decision may be correct in the macro sense but may be hamstrung in the micro sense because it will not or will be very difficult to deliver, given our own existing organisational circumstances and culture.

 

Decisions need to be made after healthy and vigorous debate. Alfred P  Sloan Jr the legendary CEO of GM  argued that without any disagreements on a particular issue --there is no proper understanding of what that issue really means. Disagreement can provide an alternative to the accepted status quo and any decision made without proper disagreement and consideration of alternative approaches is a huge risk for the organisation. Disagreement is needed to stimulate creative thinking and problem solving.

 

I suppose we have all been there in the meeting where a senior officer of an organisation presents a particular approach that he\she passionately believes in as the way forward. You on the other other hand see the flaws in it in terms of its potential delivery and outcomes. What do you do? Keep quiet and agree? State your case? Offer a muted response?

 

Peter Drucker argues strongly that decisions on issues should always be based on what is right not who is right. This is sometimes very difficult to follow in practice but nevertheless,in the final analysis, it is the correct approach.

 

You must argue for what you believe is right -- Why? Because in the end there will be a compromise within the organisation on most if not all issues under consideration. Compromises will need to be based on the right decisions not the wrong decisions, that is why it is important to argue for what is right in your view,so the likelihood will be that a future compromise will be based upon it.

 

When Peter Drucker was doing some consultancy for Alfred P Sloan, Sloan Responded, " My only instruction to you is to put down what you think is right as you see it .....Don't worry about the reaction or the compromises that need to be made to make your decision work .... Executives in this company are perfectly able to make compromises, but they can't make compromises unless you tell them what "right" is."

 

Compromises from positions will be made however it will be important to identify the compromises that will get you at least half way to the "right" solution and compromises that will get you nowhere near the right solution. The quality of any compromise is nearly as important as initially propagating the "right" solution to a particular problem.

To make an effective decision one has to understand the problem the decision relates to -- i.e. the symptoms and causes of the problem. Decisions frequently address the symptoms of problems but not the root causes of those symptoms.The key data for decision making needs to be analysed although there are times when this may not be totally possible to achieve. In that case, data will need to be prioritised in importance and greater weighting given to more important data which can be used to inform decision making.

The ancient philosophers stated that decisions should not be made unless all of the underlying facts of a situation are known, in reality this is seldom the case - so decision makers need to work with what they have got,especially if decisions need to be made quickly. This is where the quality and priority of information needs to be properly assessed and judgements on it formed,before a final decision is taken.

Oh and one other thing - decisions are not just pronouncements, they need to be translated into actions through action planning and delivery. If they are not then there would have been little point in making the decision in the first place.

 

 

 

THE BAMBISANANI PARTNERSHIP - AN OASIS OF HOPE




Education is the most powerful weapon with which you can change the world -- Nelson Mandela

My son, a student at St.Mary's Catholic Comprehensive School in Menston has just returned from a trip to South Afirca where he worked in one of the most deprived areas of the planet teaching children and coaching sport. The children had so little in terms of material possessions yet they were very positive and very happy striving for success. Some of them walked miles to school to obtain an education they knew would be instrumetal in gettting them out of poverty.St. Mary's work in South Africa began in 2006 when David Geldart, Assistant Headteacher was invited, as part of a Youth Sport Trust and British Council Delegation, to help develop a School Sport Partnership system, based on the UK model that St. Mary's has been so instrumental in developing. The South African system, known as the School Sport Mass Participation Programme, is currently being developed in the eighteen most deprived areas of South Africa. Mr Geldart went on to develop a specific school partnership in one of these areas with Mnyakanya High School in the remote rural and desperately deprived Nkandla region of Kwa Zulu Natal.

 

Mnyakanya School serves a desperately poor community. Rural and remote, the area is ravaged by HIV/Aids, with the official figure of one in three adults infected. Many children are infected and there is a high percentage of Aids orphans. My son and his colleagues visited the Aids orphanage and were moved to tears by what they saw. Many of the children lived under very difficult circumstances had little hope of progress and some wre in an incurable position. At least 20% of children in the area do not go to school because they cannot afford the £7 a year school fees, uniform and stationery. Class sizes are in excess of sixty and the school has little equipment. Unemployment in the area is in excess of 90% and at least 60% of adults are illiterate. The majority of people live in isolated clusters of round, grass roofed dwellings with most having no water or electricity.

 

The development of education in the area is the only hope of breaking this cycle of deprivation and all that goes with it. Mnyakanya School offers an oasis of hope to a generation of young people. Children in the area are desperate to learn and regard education as a privilege. Most children walk at least two hours to and from school each day. Clean water is a boon to them and they believe that with clean water "anything is possible"

 

The Principal at Mnyakanya School, Mr Lucas Dubé, made his first visit outside of South Africa to visit St. Mary’s. Following the visit, Lucas said:-

“This partnership offers the greatest hope to my community of improving the education of young people. It has the capacity to raise both aspirations and awareness. I challenge both school communities to still be working together in one hundred years time. If we achieve this, we will make such a difference to so many peoples’ lives”

 

Bambisanani is the Zulu word for “working hand in hand” and aptly encapsulates the partnership between the two schools. If you wish to find out more about this truly inspirational project please read.

 

Bambisanani: The First Five Years

By David Geldart and Duncan Baines

 

Which was previewed at this year's Ilkley literature festival. This is an excellent example of life changing work of which these young people should be justifiably proud.