What does good consultation mean to you?

For me - good consultation means:

• Focus on the future (ask what do people want now and next - not what they did or did not want yesterday)
• Do it early (ie before the glossy 'draft' plan is produced - do it when things are still very rough)
• Do it in lots of ways (people are different - don't just stick to one method such as the 'residents survey' I got in the post today from Bucks CC)
• Do it partnership (with other agencies - this would save so much money - and help join up local services)
• Ask about outcomes not outputs (how do people want the world to be different not what do they think of the 'X' service on a 5 point scale)
• Get judgements not just opinions (ie give people information and time to think so that you can get their informed views not off the cuff 'yesterday's headlines' opinions
• Make it two way (so that the person being consulted is helped to take action afterwards as well! See my posting in empowered citizenship)
• Get everyone together (make sure the head of housing - say - actually has to talk with a tenant: encourage authentic & challenging conversations between all the people involved...)

What about you - how do you consult?

...

Open Space and Community Cohesion

I had a very enjoyable time yesterday taking part in a practitioners network meeting organised by iCoCo - the Institute of Community Cohesion (see http://www.cohesioninstitute.org.uk/home) During the day we got to talking about the use of Open Space as a method not only to coordinate plans around Community Cohesion in localities but also as a way of building cohesion itself. Time ran out on us sadly - but it is a dialogue I hope to keep going.

(You can join in too, if you wish, by either joining the OSlist - an email network of OS practitioners around the world by registering at this address or by registering to join the iCoCo forum by registering at this address or both! Both are open fora.)

In the course of posting ideas around this issue the facilitator of what looks to be a fabulous event got in touch: Linda Mitchell. She sent me this link to a site which has links to what happened in this OS meeting about community cohesion in Leeds. It is well worth a visit and explore!

Our Bringing People Together event took place on Thursday 21st May 2009. The day was full of passion, lively discussion and great ideas and the energy was fantastic all day. Over 20 separate workshops took place and they have been pulled together into a report...

Click here for a link to the page.

Making whole systems work

This is my model of how to achieve whole system change using the kinds of events I have described below in various postings such as here, here and here!

We need complexity to be 'held' (or 'cradled' even) by the system itself. It is not a question of hiring some super bright team of consultants at huge expense to come and 'do' change to the system. In my view - the best (i.e. most sustainable, efficient, effective and adaptable) organisational / system comes from the system itself. (Please see my other blog for lots of ideas that are all about doing that.) The processes need to be assembled to enable the system (i.e. all the people who know care or can do something about change) to understand and harness its own complexity. It is unlikely that this can be done by anything (or anyone) other than the whole system itself.

Creativity is required so that new solutions can emerge. In attempting to make improvements there is, in my experience, a great deal of doing the same things only harder or longer. We need to stand back, and take a sideways look, and do something different! (Perhaps the 'solution' to low rates of breast feeding in some communities, for example, is not a whole number of new 'Mother and Baby' groups but instead a 20 metre high sculpture of a woman breastfeeding her baby in the local shopping centre...!) If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got (as someone once said - but I don't know who though!)

Finally we need commitment. Without involving and really engaging people: the people who will have to take the actions forward, it is unlikely that the improvements will actually happen in the long term in my view. I have seen far to many ideas & great plans, no doubt brilliant in conception, fizzle out for want of someone to take it forward.

To get these three components present, we need imaginative processes that inspire people to think of different things. This may need (what I call) 'Blue Peter' type materials (glitter, cardboard tubes and glue) to encourage people to 'mess around' with what the future needs to be. Or you may just need to 'Open Space' and allow people to think and talk without boundaries or someone telling them what they should be discussing... (as most structured events & conferences do...).

We also need a focus on the future, so that people are helped to think about what could be rather that what wasn't. Yes, of course, there must be reflection on the past ('those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it' George Santayana) but it is vital, in my view, that people are encouraged to gaze into the future and consider what could and should be.

Finally the last ingredient is the need for authentic dialogue. In the events I have run, one of the things I say (and I try to say as little as possible and essentially just get out of the way as soon as I can) is that everyone has something to say and everyone should be respected. And respecting someone means that it is OK to disagree or agree. There should be courtesy and honest inquiry in bucketfuls. On the otherhand, deference, paternalism, and unctuous patronising conversations where professionals 'listen' carefully to users / customers / citizens and then ignore what they say a day or so later have no place in authentic whole system processes in my view.

In this way 'getting the whole system in the room' can be a hugely powerful motor for change that delivers the kinds of robust results that all the stakeholders want and need.

Virtuous leadership?

‘If a prince wants to maintain his rule, he must learn how not to be virtuous, and how to make the best use if this or not according to need’*

This is one of Machiavelli’s statements that have led to his notoriety. For him, being virtuous, or not, is merely a means to an end.  In this respect there is no virtue.

But, is there a modern and ethical message here? This statement could be interpreted as ‘be deliberate in how you act – you should always be focused on what you are trying to achieve’

Or am I being too charitable to Machiavelli? How would you interpret this statement?

(*Excerpt from * Machiavelli “The Prince” – translated by George Bull – Penguin 1961)

Machiavelli

The ‘Concise Oxford Dictionary’ (6th Edition) defines ‘Machiavellian’ as ‘Deceitful cunning … advocating the use of even unscrupulous means to strengthen the state.’ Machiavelli has had a bad press ever since his book ‘The Prince’ was published in 1513.

But did Machiavelli, instead, have some rather interesting things to say about leadership that may be relevant today?

Have you read his book?

What is Strategy & Strategic Thinking?

Here are two definitions I work with:

Strategy is a process by which an organisation (or system, or part of an organisation) continues to shape and realise its destiny; in the context of its changing environment; with the aim to enable all of its stakeholders to achieve success

Strategic thinking consists of all the ways in which we can consider the ideas and influences on our strategy and construct robust plans to achieve it

What are your definitions?

Intelligence - and trying things out...

If intelligence is ‘knowing what to do when you don’t know what to do’* then leadership should be about growing this ability in your organisation. Good strategic leadership is partly about imagining futures for the organisation. Even though many (if not all) of these futures will never happen – the act of imagining helps people know what to do when they don’t know what to do.

As a leader – how are you involving your colleagues in imagining and managing the future?

How much will this help your organisation be light on its feet?

*Often credited to Piaget

Teenage Pregnancy & Evidence Based Strategies

I have just read an excellent article published on the Nursing Times website (click here for 'Exploring the evidence on strategies to reduce teenage pregnancy rates' by David Paton, PhD, Chair of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School).

The overall thrust of the article is that the current strategy on teenage pregnancy reduction is just not working. As the conclusion says:

Despite more than £200m being spent on the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, there has been little discernible impact on conception rates, at least at a national level. Although disappointing, these results should not be surprising.

The article is well worth reading in its entirety. You may not have a huge interest in the subject (although I am sure we are all concerned with reducing teenage pregnancy) - but do read it for its analysis and the incisive way in which the author uses an evidence based approach to slice through existing strategies.

I have left a comment at the end saying

This is an excellent and provocative article that I hope makes policy makers and indeed the Teenage Pregnancy Unit sit up and think about their practices and assumptions. I am sure this will not be the end of the story - but the ball is now firmly in the Government's & TPU's court to evidence their continuing strategies. I only wish more Government (at all levels) strategies could undergo such scrutiny - we need more evidence based policy and practice - in every aspect of the public services (not just in health care).

Are your strategies evidence based? How are you evaluating the impact of your strategies?

UPDATE (& EXCELLENT NEWS): 29 October: report shows that restorative justice reduces reoffending - The Prison Reform Trust today publishes Making Amends: restorative youth justice in Northern Ireland, the study reveals that reoffending rates were much lower when offenders were involved in restorative justice schemes. Figures showed four in ten 10 to 17 year-olds committed another crime within a year, compared to 71% of those who had been locked up. (Click here - pdf file)

A great story of how evaluation has shown that a policy has worked - in this case remarkably well!

Customer Journey Mapping & Attendance Allowance

On my other blog - two of the posts that have proved to be more popular than most have been the links to Stoke City Council's work on customer journey mapping. Indeed partly as a result of the interest they have received via my other blog - they are now running workshops about their model. (The links can be found here and here)

I wish them well and look forward to hearing about their workshop which is happening early in November. (I have just found out this morning that the workshop is very nearly full - so I am very happy to have played a small part in this success. Watch this space for a report of the workshop.)

I think the idea of a process to enable and encourage service providers to see their service through the eyes of the user is enormously important. So often (and this is not just with public services of course) when you seek a service you get a response that appears to not only talk a different language to you - but also live in a very different world.

From recent experience of trying to understand how the process of 'Attendance Allowance' works (on behalf of an older relative) - I have been met with what appears to be a Catch 22. The eligibility criteria for obtaining Attendance Allowance say that "your disability must be severe enough for you to need" help with washing, dressing etc. In my dictionary the word 'need' implies that you cannot do without such help. However, Attendance Allowance ostensibly exists (at least in part) to help people with disabilities live independent lives. But how can this be the case because if you needed such help - you would not be able to (albeit possibly struggling to...) live alone.

So I phoned the Department for Work and Pensions helpline yesterday. I had a confidential and non attributable chat with a very helpful adviser. She explained that some people who should receive Attendance Allowance often do not apply because of this issue. She gave the example of a person crawling up their stairs on their hands and knees to get to bed. That person may feel they don't need assistance but they could do with some help. Their lives could be immeasurably better with some help. A person in such circumstances would get Attendance Allowance. However... would that person apply?

This seems to be a clear example of where some 'customer journey mapping' might help to sort out this service / benefits arrangement. Have the DWP ever spoken to people in these circumstances to understand their perspective on all of this?

I do not want to have a cynical view that the DWP has an interest in people not applying for Attendance Allowance - but unless they look again at the language of the legislation and guidance - as given on the relevant page of the Direct.gov.uk website then I may have to revise my view.

So I hope the DWP will show leadership here (and maybe even attend the workshop being run by Stoke City Council) and think about Attendance Allowance from the perspective of the claimant.

Means and ends

Do the ends always justify the means?

If the end is a valued and valuable social and/or financial result – are the means always justifiable?

• If not – why not?

How have your boundaries on what is and is not justifiable changed over the years?

• How come?

Change alchemy: Posters

I am really very unsure of the glossy posters that sometime spring up around a change programme. They seem to invariably create an air of cynicism. I am thinking here of posters which say things like ‘there is no ‘I’ in team’ etc. Others seem to offer mindless advice such as ‘mind how you go’.

A while ago, I learnt that the best poster campaigns:

• Are targeted
• Are positioned shrewdly
• Give clear information – that is informative!
• Avoid stating the ‘blindingly obvious’

How are you using – or planning to use – posters to get messages across?

Change Alchemy: Symbolise

Outside of one HQ was a set of flag poles – it made the car park look like a parade ground. This would be fine if it was military establishment – but it was not – it was the HQ of an ambulance service. The new Chief Executive wanted to impress upon all his staff that the organisation was about healthcare not about parading in uniforms. One night he and friend cut down the flag poles with a chain saw.

A radical act perhaps – but it certainly provoked much debate and was a visible symbol of the changes that the new Chief Exec was seeking to put in place.

How have you symbolised the changes you are putting in?

What other ways might there be?

Change alchemy: Tools

If things have to change – do people have the tools, the frameworks, the guidance, the power, the authority to make the changes?

What can you do to facilitate these changes – to give people the tools to make the change happen?

MPs Expenses: an OD perspective

I would like take an Organisation Development slant on the issue of MPs expenses which has resurfaced in recent days. Obviously it is an crucial matter that that all party leaders and the vast majority of MPs are still actively seeking to resolve. Whilst I have some thoughts about the issue itself – more importantly I would like to describe a process for resolving this – that might be a way out of this morass that is damaging politics on all sides.

As regular readers of this blog will know, I am a long time advocate (and practitioner) of using an approach to conferences and meetings called ‘Open Space’. It was invented by Harrison Owen and has been used worldwide over 200,000 times to help (often very large and often conflicting) groups of people find and agree ways forward. There is much information available on the net about the process (www.openspaceworld.org). There are also you-tube links that explain it too (e.g. interview with Harrison 1.57 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDi0GLTO9ao&NR=1 I have more links if you want them - please email me - or you can search on open space on the you-tube site.)

My suggestion towards finally kicking this expenses issue into touch would be get all the main protagonists in a room together – for a day – to sort the issue. By protagonists, I include front bench and back bench MPs (all parties of course), external observers including lobby correspondents and other journalists, key civil servants, others by dint of their expertise, gravitas, experience and wisdom (whoever those might be – but probably a few members of the House of Lords), some ‘ordinary’ members of the public, a few notable bloggers such as Iain Dale... and anyone else who might have some worthwhile things to contribute. The task would be sort out the issue of the expenses, for once and for all. The process would be Open Space – which would mean that all that people who wish (and have a passion for) to talk about – could be talked about. The agenda would emerge - with no order papers, whipping or catching the eye of the Speaker.

Why am I proposing this? It seems to be that this issue has become so corrosive to public confidence that action needs to be taken quickly to arrive at a broad consensus. I know of no better way to achieve consensus than through Open Space – as it is a totally transparent, creative and sublimely simple and elegant process. Whilst Sir Thomas Legg has made an good start - his actions clearly has left a good deal of rumblings behind and there is some way to go. An Open Space process could slice through all of this and be emblematic of the kind of new politics of which I believe many in the Houses of Parliament and in the country wish to see more.

I do know about politics and how decisions are often made, the deals are usually done, positions taken and resolutions driven through by majorities. Whilst politics is, always has been, and probably will continue to be about interests clashing and change often being bullied through – I know I (and maybe many other members of the public too) want something different this time about this issue in particular. Perhaps a new type of politics could rise from the ashes of this issue - but only if it is handled well - with a good process.

OD 3.0

(This is a blog post in progress!) Please watch this space - over the next few days - I plan to record some thoughts about the origins of organisation development, where I think it went off the rails, and where I hope the discipline (although I am not sure if that is the right word...) is now going. I think the time has come (although it has been coming a long time...) to reclaim OD as something that is done intensively and interactively with people, organisations & systems rather than to them.

Authentic leadership: who are you today?

Authentic: "authoritative," from O.Fr. autentique (13c.), from M.L. authenticus, from Gk. authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one's own authority," from autos "self" + hentes "doer, being." Sense of "entitled to acceptance as factual" is first recorded 1369. Authentic implies that the contents of the thing in question correspond to the facts and are not fictitious; genuine implies that the reputed author is the real one. Authentication is recorded from 1788. Authenticity dates to 1657 (in form authentity). (Thanks to the Online Etymology Dictionary for this)

On this basis - authentic leadership means being the author of one's own life and being true to oneself.

Many years ago I read a book by Warren Bennis "On Becoming a Leader" and one of his key themes was authenticity. To lift a quote (and thanks to the Amazon site for making this easy!): First and foremost, find out what it is you're about, and be that. Be what you are and don't lose it...It's very hard to be who we are because it doesn't seem to be what anyone wants.

I sometimes wonder in this age of competency models and evidential assessment whether sometimes people end up believing that leadership is some kind of puzzle to solve - a bit like one of those spot the difference competitions. If I can just tick enough of the boxes on the leadership framework, I too can become a senior manager, a director, a chief...

Warren Bennis and I (& no doubt many other people) say something different: first and foremost, being leader is about being yourself and being true to yourself. It is about knowing who you are and relaxing into being you.

How are you today?

Who are you today?

Change alchemy: Broadcast wins

In any change process, some aspects will go well and some aspects will not. It is in the nature of human communication (aka gossip) that the negatives will be discussed far more.

An effective change leader understands this and seeks to counter balance by ensuring the good news is broadcast as well. This will also help people see a connection between their efforts and the results being achieved.

How well do you broadcast the good news?

Change alchemy: change leadership?

Can change be managed or should it, indeed, be led?

Readers of this blog will know that I have titled several posts as 'Change Alchemy' with the first one explaining why I used this term. Making change stick still seems to me to be a 'daunting mixture of alchemy, tenacity and luck'. On this blog I have sought to outline what are some of the critical ingredients that need to be added to the crucible.

Certainly there are many elements of change leadership that might be reasonably called change management. There are various tasks that need to be manipulated and sequenced, and critical decisions need to be made. But all this seems to be to be more like the project management of change. So change management is a subset of change leadership. The question is, what are the extra ingredients?

I am reminded of an apocryphal comment on someone's professional development review 'not a born leader, yet'. I am pondering whether the ingredients that make change leadership different to change management can be learnt? I hope and believe so - since I am about to craft a workshop entitled 'change leadership'! Here is my starter for ten (and the beginnings of the workshop agenda) of the three most critical ingredients:

Number one for me is passion. Change leaders have and express a passion for where they want to go. This passion is sufficiently infectious and sincere to inspire others to take the journey as well. Change leaders are comfortable with creating visions of the future that are compelling both logically and emotionally. However this passion is not rigid or brittle like cast iron. This passion is strong like an old tree, able to bend in the wind and adapt whilst standing firm.

This heralds a second critical ingredient which must be resilience. Change leadership is rarely easy. I recommend reading 'The Prince' by Niccolò Machaivelli. This quote come comes from the Penguin 1961 edition translated by George Bull:

‘It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes in a state’s constitution. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Their support is lukewarm partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the existing laws on their side, and partly because men are generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience.’

The Change leader needs to know how to handle resistance and finesse the power of the resistors so that the goal is still achieved.

Thirdly comes being able to make change thrilling but safe. Change is a scary and threatening thing for both leader and those who are on the same journey. Change is always a process of letting go, not just of the past, but also the future. We can allow our past and present to hold us back from trying something new. We can have a fixed idea of the future we think we are going to have. However, ultimately change is about casting off and setting sail to another country. We may look back and think of the years we spent doing 'x' and feel driven to justify it. We may have hunkered down in a cosy image of our future...

But then a change leader comes along with something very different that challenges what we have done (in all good faith) and what we thought we were intent on doing in the future. The change leader will only be successful in these circumstances if they make it safe to change. Recriminations, blame and threats (whether intended or not) have no place in good change leadership. Instead the process of leading change is to create just enough discomfort with the status quo to make people want to change but not so much that fear of the future or justifications of the present way of doing things are provoked to emerge. Not only must the leader make it OK to change, they need to find the balance between comfort and risk.

Perhaps the job of being a change leader is about designing and then operating a rollercoaster!

Citizens not customers

There is much discussion and indeed mission statements in the public sector about the need to focus on customers. However, I don't think the public services have customers in the same way that say Pizza Hut has customers. I think the public services are there to serve & engage citizens whilst being accountable - through politicians - to taxpayers/citizens. This makes the whole relationship a far more complex one.

I think saying that the public services have customers simplifies and indeed commodifies the relationship. For example if I want a pizza, I buy a pizza: the transaction has ended. However, if I, as a police officer (say), wish to serve and help my community become a safer place to live and work, I have to work with the local citizenry to achieve that. I cannot do it alone. There is no simple one way transaction there.

Yes, all public service workers should give good customer service to the citizens / service users / public that they are there to support and help. That almost goes without saying in my view. But that is but one small part of a much richer relationship.

The role of public service workers is to be transformational not merely transactional. The job of the public services is to generate sustainable social outcomes, not merely perform a series of one way transactions.

Sadly, the use of the word customer has become all to common in the public services. People may defend its use as reasonable shorthand. I take a very different view. If there is a shorthand to use, it should be 'citizen' not customer.

For me the biggest danger in this use of the word 'customer' is that it shapes (consciously or unconsciously) the business of providing care, education, community safety (etc.) into being a commercial enterprise. It is not. It is more subtle, more complex, indeed more important than that!

X Factor: 3 Leadership lessons

For those who don't know, X Factor is a UK based (but syndicated in many other countries including the USA) reality TV show where members of the public audition to take part in a live pop singing show. It is a very compelling programme which dominates the weekend schedules for several weeks each year. I will come clean and admit that I am fan - mostly because I am captivated by the journeys that the various contestants go through. See http://xfactor.itv.com/2009/

But watching the programmes over the weekend - I got to thinking - what does this show say about leadership? (OK - it is mostly about entertainment - and leadership is probably not high on its agenda but...)

Firstly I recall a video by Tom Peters from many years ago - where he was talking to a large group of managers in the Albert Hall (I think). To paraphrase - he said "if you don't like people - don't become a manager! You have to really delight in seeing people grow and develop to be a good leader".

I think this is partly what makes Simon Cowell a good leader. Yes, of course, the cynic in me says that all is ever in his mind is a stream of pound notes and dollar bills. However, looking carefully at him when people perform (or don't perform) - I see a gleeful twinkle when anyone excels. Moreover, he smiles even more, when people appear to have been on a journey of development and discovery. I think this is what marks him out as a good leader. (For the record I would put Cheryl in the same category - but I am not sure about Louis and Danii...)

So leadership lesson one is: delight in reflection, growth and development and show it - your followers will aim for even higher things as a result

What Simon is also excellent at - is giving feedback. Yes, he plays to the crowd sometimes and can be quite cutting. If he is ever harsh (and some might say cruel) - he does it with a clear purpose designed to either get the person to give up on hoping to become a celebrated singer or to get the person to improve. His criticisms are never just extraneous. He is also honest and direct.

Leadership lesson two: give feedback purposefully and helpfully - say what you believe and believe what you say. Of course in a work context, giving developmental feedback needs to be more than the one liner from a reality TV show - but the principles are not that dissimilar.

One of the themes that Simon and other judges often return to is self belief. Comments such as 'she is really beginning to believe in herself now' pepper the show. I think one of the most important attributes of a good leader is the ability that they have to inspire true and deep self confidence in the people that they lead. I suspect that singing coaches, also know this - and whilst there are undoubtedly techniques and tricks to learn - I am guessing that the most important aspect of a good singer is confidence. Leaders and coaches need to act on this.

Leadership lesson three: Do all that you can to build confidence among the people you lead - indeed, look to create the leaders of the future.