New Blog: Where are our future leaders? – http://ke-we.net/6xl http://amplify.com/u/ei6p
I have been very privileged in recent weeks to work with a number of new Councillors who were elected recently in the May 2010 local elections. I have been working with them to agree personal development plans to help support them as they develop in their roles. A number of things struck me from the conversations that I wanted to capture in this blog:
- without exception the Councillors I worked with are committed, bright, articulate and care passionately about their communities and local area
- while there are one or two gaps and have been some teething problems their Council has organised a fantastically rich and varied induction programme to help new Councillors develop their knowledge and skills, get up to speed and understand the system and how best to navigate it and get things done
- the Councillors are ambitious and optimistic for their communities in spite of the real difficulties facing public services
To be honest, I enjoyed the discussions with them so much I felt energised by it all and optimistic that if people like this feel motivated to stand in local elections and represent their communities then there is good reason to feel positive about local democracy. Let’s hope that they stick with it and let’s hope the system doesn’t grind them down. Local government needs people like this to stand and work tirelessly to represent local people. I have no doubt that the new intake that I have worked with recently will do just that and as long as people of passion and quality like this are willing to stand for election then there is definitely hope for local democracy.
I’ve become particularly interested recently in the increasing number of cases where the outcome of inspection does not seem to bear out what happens in practice. Here are some examples of what I mean:
- The case of Children’s Services In Haringey where inspection ratings prior to the Baby P case had been positive
- The case of Basildon Hospital where the inspection report does not appear to have identified some real problems and reflected what was really happening on the ground
- The increasing concern about OFSTED reports by the local government association (LGA) and by Directors of Childrens Services
- Inspections of local councils under the comprehensive performance assessment regime that resulted in ratings that “poor’ or ‘weak’ councils with examples of good and excellent performance and good practice and vice versa
- Increasing signs of concern about the Audit Commission approach being voiced within the LGA
What do we think is going on here?
I wonder whether it is something to do with the methodology and the way that inspections are carried out? The difficulties seem to me to arise from the fact that inspections focus on the ‘professional’ and “organisational” end of the service and not enough on real examples of delivery – what actually happens on the ground.
So what we see often in inspection reports is critiquing and comment about policy, strategy, systems, processes and performance targets and indicators. What we see little of is real commentary about how services are delivered and what it feels like to users and citizens.
Maybe this is at the root of the current problems and concerns? A noticeable policy shift in the way that government, the major political parties and the public sector see the role and involvement of communities in the design and delivery of our public services. Total Place and the comprehensive area assessment (CAA) represent a move away from top down approaches to target setting to a world where partnership, collaboration, the community and the citizen play a pivotal part in designing, procuring and delivering local services within a place.
This signals a real paradigm shift.
So it not just about the policies, strategies, targets and processes. It is what is really happening on the ground, in the streets, in the wards and in families and communities that really matters.
Perhaps the inspection regime has some catching up to do? Unless it is to fall into disrepute, it will need to make that paradigm shift too.
The “Eight I’s That Make We” are the factors that Rosabeth Moss Kanter believes make alliances and partnerships likely to succeed by bringing benefits to all parties. These ideas are based on many years of experience working with companies before, during, and after their partnership efforts.
Individual excellence. Each partner must have strengths on their own, because weak players cannot prop each other up.
Importance. The relationship must have strategic significance. If it is just casual, don’t bother.
Interdependence. The strongest and most enduring alliances occur when the partners are different in some respects and need each other to carry out an activity they would not otherwise do.
Investment. One sign of commitment is a willingness to invest something in the partner’s success.
Information. Transparency aids relationships. If you don’t want a partner to know too much about you, why are you in the alliance?
Integration. There must be many points of contact that tie the organisations together in joint activities.
Institutionalisation. A formal structure and governing board ensures objectivity, and ensures that alliance interests are considered, not just each partner’s interests.
Integrity. Trust is essential. Alliances fall apart when partners do not act ethically toward one another nor strive to contribute to the other’s success.
