Public: Leadership | Public

Leadership: Time for a different way of thinking

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:30:15 GMT

Stephen Brookes considers the role of academics in helping define a new public leadership

In the post-election landscape, the challenge of public leadership under huge spending constraints will be very difficult.

There is widespread agreement regarding the complexity of leadership in the public sector. Much of the focus in the past has been on "management" as opposed to leadership both in terms of "hands on" management as well as policy development through new public management (NPM).

It is our view that the time is right to move towards a new leadership practice through a collective approach that develops a policy shift away from NPM towards new public leadership (NPL) but drawing upon the best of the earlier approaches.

The public sector is highly diverse in character, governance and size and there are competing needs within and expectations from diverse stakeholders, and tasks involve different types and sizes of organisations. Added to this, is the need for public sector organisations to work in increasingly collaborative ways.

This applies at all levels of public leadership from Whitehall to Wigan.

We recognise the commentary of the National School of Government entitled Whole Systems Go and agree that leadership and management development has been a neglected area of both theory and development.

Devaluing of public services

We believe higher education institutions, by virtue of thought leadership and the experience underpinning it will help in turning what some describe as a crisis or threat into a period of innovation and one of opportunity. The period of criticism and the perceived devaluing of public services in recent times, fuelled more recently by the economic crisis, present key challenges but also significant opportunities to influence both current and future top leaders to think differently about leadership.

The development of inter-connected and inter-dependent approaches to leadership across public services as a whole system represents the key challenge for public leaders in the future.

This will also be critical after the election on 6 May, across government and in relation to the localism agenda.

The traditional view of leadership is that followers will look to leaders to provide the right answers particularly in times of crisis. We argue that the role of the leader is to ask the intelligent question rather than give the answer. This is not without historical precedent.

Writing over half a century ago, Selznick described the leader as offering "a guiding hand to a process that would otherwise occur more haphazardly, more readily subject to the accidents of circumstance and history" and, in separating institutional leadership from interpersonal leadership and administrative management, extols the virtue of leaders as statesmen by asking a range of questions which touched on tradition, long established practice and self-restricted outlooks.

As with Heifetz, Selznick argued for adaptive change.

When considering why Selznick's ideas were not popular (in the sense of generating a leadership paradigm) one has to consider the context in which he was writing. At the time of writing the Human Relations School was becoming very influential, but Selznick expressed concern in relation to the growing conflict in which individuals sought 'place' and 'preferment', in rivalry among units.

At an institutional level, one could argue that the tension between new public leadership as opposed to new public management has similar challenges in 2010 and beyond.

Total Place

We acknowledge that Total Place – as a means of changing the focus of public services -has the potential to deliver a step change in both service improvement and efficiency at the local level, as well as across Whitehall in providing what the Treasury refers to as "strong local, collective and focused leadership which supports joined up working and shared solutions to problems with citizens at the heart of service design".

Our approach is premised on the view that the development of whole systems of thinking and delivery requires an understanding of, and commitment to, the development of intelligent leadership through networks and improved knowledge and skills in a collective environment.

It requires a different way of thinking about leadership from the most senior levels of government through to those who deliver public services at the point of contact or encounter. This is increasingly difficult in a complex world where an issue, problem or strategy of one organisation has an impact on other organisations across the public sector.

Indeed, collaboration in tackling these issues or problems through joint strategies is now becoming essential rather than just desirable. Although most acknowledge the benefit of partnership working, research suggests that the evidence of impact of partnerships on improved performance is not readily sought.

This article is an edited extract from an article first published in Transforming Management

Developing future leaders

Jane Dudman — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:19:49 GMT

As applications open for the Clore Foundation's social leadership programme, its director Dame Mary Marsh talks to Jane Dudman about its value to the third sector

Today, applications open for the second year of an innovative programme to develop social enterprise leaders.

The Clore social leadership programme is an initiative of the Clore Duffield Foundation, which has previously set up the Clore leadership programme. The Clore social leadership programme is now recruiting between 14 and 20 people for its social leadership programme, following research that revealed minimal training provision for those with leadership potential across the third sector and concerns on the part of funders that the innovative potential of social enterprise projects might be jeopardised by a lack of leaders in charities, community groups and social enterprises.

The launch comes as unions have expressed concern about proposals to use more voluntary bodies to deliver public services.

This is a highly-tailored, intensive course that is likely to attract a diverse range of applicants, according to Dame Mary Marsh, director of the Clore social leadership programme. "Based on what happened this year, we expect to welcome a diversity of applications, from those in very small organisations to those from medium and large bodies," she comments. "We were especially pleased to have people based in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as it is good to have the views of those doing interesting work in each of the devolved administrations."

Marsh adds that she was pleased with the representation of black and ethnic minority fellows on the first course, as well as the sponsorship by the RNIB of a blind fellow. "Of 14 fellows on the first programme, four are from a black or ethnic minority background and in terms of disability that is good at championing people with a disability, but less good at having disabled people as leaders in the sector, we are pushing that very strongly," she says.

Personal development

Fellows can study either full-time for 12 months or part-time for up to two years. Applicants should already be working in the third sector and will need to demonstrate their leadership potential. "What's important to me is that we can only justify this kind of intensive investment in a smallish group if we have spinoffs," comments Marsh. So, for example, the process of applying for the programme is itself designed to be part of someone's personal development, with feedback at every stage. The foundation is also publishing all the material from the first programme and the Work Foundation, funded by Capacity Builders, is evaluating the work.

"The time is so right for what we are doing," says Marsh. "We need to invest in leadership capacity across the whole of the voluntary sector and it is hard for individual organisations to make that investment, so someone like us needs to do it. If politicians want charities and social enterprises to provide more public services, they have to invest in the capabilities of the sector, not just buy the services.

* Wednesday's SocietyGuardian will feature an interview with Kate Lee, director of strategy and evaluation for the Red Cross, who is one of the first cohort of fellows on the social leadership programme

Jane Dudman

A more ruthless approach

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:00:00 GMT

Due diligence must be the starting point of any merger but public leaders have to toughen up when it comes to making unpalatable decisions

The recent National Audit Office report, Reorganising Central Government, revealed an estimated 51 government reorganisations had cost more than £780m, with technology being one of most significant expenses alongside people and property. The conclusion: little evidence of 'value for money' returned on the investment.

UK politics' addiction to change is generally based on positive motives. Driving greater public sector efficiency should win public support. However, high profile failures dampen public appetites and, as the NAO report clearly illustrates, further failures are inevitable without strong business cases and clear objectives.

Whatever 6th May's outcome, the incoming government is unlikely to be able to kick the restructuring habit. To gain real savings, the technology, people and property elements need careful structuring.

The NAO paper prompted Xantus to commission Sourceforconsulting.com to write a report, Public Sector M&A?, which is based on interviews with independent restructuring experts. It indicates that the public sector can learn key lessons from private sector mergers. I should add that research shows only 30% of private sector mergers actually succeed, while there is also clear evidence that not every public sector restructure fails.

Ofcom is a prime example from the public sector. In fact, in 2006, the NAO praised the process that formed Ofcom from five independent regulators. The whole approach of creating a new entity from scratch was, in my view, critical to the project's success. Had the merger followed the traditional path and fused five pre-existing bodies into an amorphous mass, the outcome may have been very different.

There are also lessons from less successful mergers. HMRC, for one, was recently subjected to a Cabinet Office Review after seven years of underperformance following the merger between the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.

So, what are the lessons?

Technology is often the catalyst for restructure success or failure. Here, private sector lessons are invaluable: due diligence at the outset; fearless decision-making; and rapid execution of the agreed plan even if it requires unpalatable job losses at all levels.

Due diligence must be the starting point of any merger decision. Private sector projects have clearly stood or fallen by the research, or lack of it, undertaken in advance. Assessing the capability and compatibility of departmental IT is as essential as evaluating the whole organisation.

Public sector departments are protective of their ways of working. This extends to the IT and database systems they run, the governance and processes that run them and often the external suppliers involved in providing and supporting the infrastructure.

As well as establishing whether genuine efficiencies can be made, due diligence will also determine which systems need to be retained or removed. An early understanding of the complexities of information management will ensure a vital system is not switched off only to emerge as pivotal to new organisation. Equally, if overall costs appear greater than long-term savings, then why restructure?

Next comes fearless leadership. Change is never easy and half the people involved aren't going to like the decisions made! There is little place for public sector diplomacy or 'silo mentalities' in driving effective change, with many experts even suggesting a more dictatorial approach is needed once the merger decision has been taken.

This fearless approach needs to extend to smarter working with suppliers. Often long-term IT service contracts and technologies are securely embedded. Clear assessment of need, long-term goals, and an ultimately ruthless approach to systems selection is essential in avoiding headlines trumpeting another public sector IT integration disaster.

Finally, decisions should be just that – decisive. Decide which IT systems to use; decide what departmental structures are needed; and decide the cost savings to target. Planning must be careful but acted on quickly, decisively and fearlessly. Politics has no place in successful restructures and faint hearts never win.

David Yip is director of Xantus Consulting

Elected mayor or council leader?

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:24:28 GMT

While there maybe benefits for an elected mayor system in local government there are also issues of accountability and public confidence. The government still seems keen on them, but larger authorities remain indifferent

The committee on standards in public life, before it was diverted into a pressing engagement with the spending habits of our MPs, was busy holding its 12th inquiry. This important, if under publicised, investigation was concerned with 'local leadership and public trust' in local government, a topic especially pertinent to mayoral systems of local governance.

There have been 37 mayoral referenda in England and Wales, 12 opting for an elected mayor. One of these subsequently reverted to the council leader system that operates almost everywhere else. Thus, of 388 local councils in England only 11 (outside London) currently have elected mayors.

Why then does the elected mayor remain so firmly on the government agenda, when it stimulates such great indifference in the big provincial cities where it ostensibly offered so much? The Conservatives, as recently as a 2009 green paper, proposed legislation for mayoral referenda in our great urban centres, while Labour, creator of the mayoral option, continues to advocate its expansion to local areas and wider 'city regions'.

It is not going away, politically. What does this mean for those who manage our local government services?

Having an executive mayor necessarily changes the role of the chief executive , particularly the policy co-ordination function. Where an executive mayor exists to lead on policy, strategy and also implementation, there is bound to be a reduction in the role of senior management. There may be a consequential politicisation amongst officers.

Bureaucracy

The advertised strengths of elected mayors – strong management and streamlined decision-making – may indeed cut through bureaucracy, but there is another side to any changed equation of local leadership. This relates to public confidence and accountability, as the committee on standards in public life was beginning to explore before it was so rudely interrupted.

There are other issues of course: mayors have extensive delegated powers, a fact not overlooked by fringe groups who see the mayoral system as a rapid route to public recognition. It may even be that council leaders, now appointable for four years, will come to resemble indirectly elected mayors. Perhaps the government will address its agenda by simply declaring that council leaders are now mayors.

Ultimately, policy transfer – or transplanting brilliant ideas from the United States or continental Europe to the UK – doesn't always work. One need only say 'Child Support Agency', which is based on an American model, to illustrate the point. So why persist with the mayoral agenda?

One reason is the addiction of central government to reorganisation and structural change. Unique within the UK, England has been subject to a series of ill thought out partial reorganisations, changes in 'political management' and experiments in modernisation that fail to add up to anything coherent.

The problem of local leadership persists because central government no longer knows what local government is for. It reorganises, and thinks of new structures. That's why the message still coming from Whitehall is 'let's try elected mayors!'

No matter that the public seem underwhelmed by this opportunity – government seems determined to give it another try. One suspects this is because it can't think of anything else.

John Fenwick is professor of Leadership and Public Management, Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University

Rewarding good performance in the public sector

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:54:06 GMT

Little things can mean a lot, so how can the public sector best reward its staff when times are tough, asks John Charlton

Last year about 300 London borough of Camden employees attended its annual staff awards ceremony, the Outstanding Service to Camden Awards (Oscas) where high performers were recognised, celebrated and honoured.
This year such glitzy events are out of the question as public sector employers grasp the austerity nettle.

Mike Cooke, HR director at Camden and lead officer on pay and reward at the Public Sector Peoples Managers' Association, says about £40,000 was spent on the Oscas but that budget has been "cut in half".

This year, staff that are recognised for having gone the extra performance mile will get luncheon or Marks & Spencer vouchers worth £5 each.

This is a stark illustration of how reward and recognition for outstanding performance in the public sector will have to be addressed on a low or no cost basis as it faces and experiences funding cuts.

"Reward and recognition is not an issue now," says Cooke, "but will be soon. We (in the public sector) are bracing ourselves for 15% reduction in budgets over the next few years. If that happens then the talk is of 10 years of lean."

Although £5 vouchers aren't so valuable in themselves, Cooke believes it's the act of recognition and publicising it internally that is important.

The total reward statement

One tried and tested reward standby in good times and bad is the total reward statement (TRS). These give chapter and verse on the total reward and benefits package that each employee receives and cast the employer in a favourable light. They can include the cost of employee training and development, benefits received such as employee assistance programmes and how much the employer spends on national insurance contributions.

But they are blunt reward instruments. Far better that reward is aligned to personal performance plans which set achievable, meaningful, stretching and agreed goals for each employee that mesh with organisational objectives.

In any case, public sector employers should find out what low or no cost rewards would be most appreciated by employees.

"There's no point investing a tight budget, or any budget for that matter," says Andy Philpott, marketing director at Capital Incentives and Motivation, "into an incentive programme that offers rewards that don't appeal to staff. They won't encourage their work efforts or raise morale."

He advises conducting informal research beforehand to see what rewards staff do value, a sentiment echoed by Chris Charman, director in reward, talent management and change at management consultants Towers Watson (TW).

He says research by TW in its latest survey of employee attitudes in the workplace indicates that staff "really value" career development and especially the opportunity to acquire new skills. Although this covered the private sector Charman says the same lessons apply to the public sector.

"Employers should focus on helping staff improve their skills and help them take opportunities in the workplace". This can include job swaps and formal and informal development. "Managers must keep the training budget going," stresses Charman.

Mary Robertson, director of reward consultancy Reward Matters, says little things can mean a lot. "Many staff expect at least thanks for putting up with little or no rise and still doing a good job. My former boss Lawrence Churchill CBE, now chairman of the Pension Protection Fund regularly wrote personal letters of thanks to staff who had done something excellent and hand delivered them. I still have a note he wrote to me about a report I had written. I was young and it really meant something.

"I remember that far more than the pay rise I got that year."

Tips:
• tell staff that reward budgets are tight or non existent
• find out what low or no cost options will motivate them
• engage them in the process through personal development plans
• publicise reward options
• publicise high achievement and achievers
• focus on skills and career development
• protect the training budget

View from the front line: beware the silent assassin

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:58:28 GMT

A public manager writes from the inside about change at the top and how a new, ferociously determined leadership is making an impact

People expect change if there is new leadership at the top of the organisation but they don't always anticipate it correctly. They expect a new set of priorities and expect "talk" of a change in the culture.

They expect a management restructuring, changes in job titles and job descriptions. However, these are often cosmetic changes; the real change is in management style and people often don't like it.

Most managers recognise there is room for improvement, that things could be done differently and better, that within their organisation there are islands of good practice but that there is not enough shared learning.

A silo mentality

They know a silo mentality exists in some departments, that there is a tendency to over complicate things and all too often the professionals want to go for a top-notch solution rather than something that is affordable and good enough. They know the financial situation will require painful and unpopular changes - possibly changes they themselves have previously championed but for which the leadership had no appetite.

The language of management has changed. The talk is now of "savage" budget cuts, the pressure to "do more with less" and managers are described as standing on a "burning platform".

Leaders start using phrases such as "less consultation and more action". The move to a more corporate way of doing things becomes a centralising straitjacket, driven by cost cutting. The desire to achieve a consensus on shared priorities and a common vision is replaced by a requirement to accept and own the leadership view, a view which is never explicitly stated but implied, requiring individual managers to agree first and work out later what is needed, because questions are discouraged and debate replaced by self censorship.

Professionals who have become used to year-on-year budget growth, who have been protected from the harsh realties of the real world and who just can't accept that the good times have come to an end will wave their shrouds, while senior mangers will be adamant that their management structures are not bloated and that their job is not possible without their current level of support services. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas so debate is pointless.

The quiet individual, the ordinary Joe

This is the new, humble but ferociously determined leadership. It is not about an inspirational or charismatic individual who by sheer force of personality brings about change. It is not about consensus leadership based on shared values and good people management skills. This leadership style is the quiet individual, the ordinary Joe, who appears to have little interest in making a name for themselves or having a high profile but who is determined to do what ever needs to be done. A style that others may perceive as unnerving, even intimidating.

It is a leadership style that often delivers in the short term but what about the longer term? Having shaken things up, these leaders tend to move on before they are moved on. If your organisation is characterised by a bout of this type of leadership you would be unwise to challenge it; just hope these leaders move on soon.

Good leadership in challenging times: what's the secret?

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Development charity Common Purpose has tried to find answers by interviewing 12 successful leaders from different sectors to see if there are common themes which can be adopted by others

Transparency about expenses and resilience are key qualities identified for public and voluntary sector leaders by leadership development charity Common Purpose.

The charity has released a series of interviews with 12 leaders from the private, public and voluntary sector about the qualities needed for good leadership in challenging times.

In the interviews, Peter Housden, permanent secretary at the department of communities and local government, says the ability to work in partnership has become increasingly important across the public sector.

"The type of leaders who will serve us well are going to be pretty open individuals who get their self confidence from that openness and sense of sharing and are always looking beyond their own circumstance – as leaders, as an organisation – to wider responsibilities and wider resource," he comments.

Dame Suzi Leather, chair of the Charity Commission says 2009 brought a big change in perceptions of public accountability for leaders. "One of the things that characterised 2009 was that it became the year of the personal," she said. "How much of what I used to think of as private information actually really is public information. People have a right to know what I spend on hotels, what I spend on taxis – actually I do think that is public interest information."

But Leather added that personal attacks on leaders are a real challenge to resilience.

Resilience was also mentioned by Sir David Normington, permanent secretary at the Home Office, who said personal resilience in a crisis is a real issue, but added that there are ways to deal with this.

"The model of leadership is not heroic leadership – it's about teams of people and building the capabilities of teams so that you can share the load and you can share the response," he says. "If you have built complementary teams, you will be in a better place in 2010."

Julia Middleton, the chief executive of Common Purpose, said she wanted to ask whether the country was facing a "crisis of leadership". She said the recurring themes of a good leader are trust, transparency, leading a crisis and the need for bravery.

On Purpose: A Rippin idea

Jane Dudman — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:30:00 GMT

Tom Rippin founder of On Purpose, a new organisation set up specifically to train young high-fliers for management positions in social enterprise, tells Jane Dudman how his own experiences forged his vision

Sometimes ideas come along that seem so obvious you wonder why everyone hasn't thought of it. Tom Rippin, founder and chief executive of On Purpose, a new organisation that is developing leadership skills for social enterprises, has had such an idea.

He seems to be surfing on the crest of a wave. Right now, social enterprises and social businesses are hot. Both political parties have their eyes on the potential gains for both the public purse and for the move towards services that are more tailored to individuals' needs.

"Social enterprise is attracting a lot of media and political attention, which is great, and there is a reasonable amount of money in the sector," comments Rippin.

"But there is the potential that in five years' time, people may look back and ask what happened to all the money, if the talent isn't brought into the sector, or isn't developed and retained in the sector. This is a fledgling sector at an exciting point in its development, where it recognises talent and understands it needs to invest in something that comes at this stage of development."

On Purpose is a one-year leadership programme for high-fliers who want to get into social enterprise, aimed at people in their mid to late 20s, rather than undergraduates. It comprises two, six-month placements in social enterprises, as well as more theoretical training, done on Friday afternoons, which Rippin describes as a "social mini-MBA".

The placements are paid at £20,000 a year and the aim is that the year will give people a solid grounding from which to obtain good jobs in the social enterprise sector. The organisations providing placements for the first five associates on the programme, which was launched on Monday, include Coin Street community builders, the Young Foundation, Comic Relief, O2 and the HCT group.

But if Rippin has come up with a good idea at the right time, that is not to say that a huge amount of effort hasn't gone into setting up On Purpose.

Rippin has an interesting background; "I wanted to get into international development, but was facing the dilemma that if I had gone to a big development charity, I feared that I would end up making the tea or doing the photocopying," he says. Instead, he joined consultancy McKinsey, as a way of developing his private sector skills, and stayed at the consultancy for five years. He then worked for Comic Relief and for Red, the social business set up by U2 star Bono.

"In some ways On Purpose is trying to allow people not to have to make that trade-off," he explains. It will provide people with the training, development and career structure they would have with a private sector employer, combined with experience in social enterprise.

The programme is being set up on a shoestring, acknowledges Rippin. But he hopes that it will eventually become self-sustaining. The other major challenge was finding organisations willing to take on his trainees. "Initially, it was about getting the social enterprises willing to take people on board, when the thing is untested," he says. "That took quite a lot of persuasion, but will hopefully become a lot easier as we build up a track record."

Jane Dudman

social enterprise: young high-flyers required for a fresh challenge

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:07:48 GMT

Good ideas and funding abound in social enterprise; so who will make it all happen? It's time to invest in a new generation of managers if it is to fulfil its potential, says Tom Rippin

Social enterprise is not a new phenomenon – the cooperative movement started in the 1840s – but it has the potential to grow massively over the coming years given the public and financial interest it is generating.

The promise of solving social and environmental problems using business models that do not require ongoing subsidies is attracting policy-makers, donors and social investors. Peter Holbrook, chief executive of the Social Enterprise Coalition, has committed to a threefold increase in the economic contribution of social enterprises by 2020.

The time of innovative but low-profile experimentation in the sector is drawing to a close. Proof of concept has been demonstrated, now it is time to deliver the financial and social results at scale.

So what could prevent social enterprise fulfilling its potential? While good ideas abound and funding is increasingly available, success will depend on people who can translate the money into tangible results.

Any investor, philanthropic or not, knows that the right management team is critical to any venture's success; but for many social investors finding the right people for the job is currently a real limitation.

Leaders who can walk a tightrope

Managing a social enterprise is challenging; it requires a constant, often uncomfortable balancing act between the organisation's social and financial objectives. Nurturing more leaders who can walk this tightrope, who have lived this paradigm for most of their career, is an urgent but often overlooked challenge for the sector.

On Purpose is designed to tackle this challenge head-on. It recruits young high-flyers and places them in leading, purpose-driven organisations (Comic Relief, Coin Street Community Builders, HCT Group, O2's CSR department and the Young Foundation, in this first year).

This paid work is complemented by a structured training programme delivered by professionals from prestigious organisations across the private and social (enterprise) sectors. The programme has been hugely popular. Thousands of 'Generation Y-ers' are hungry for social enterprise: they believe in the power of business but also in the obligation to use it for social benefit. 'Business as usual' is no longer good enough.

Young enthusiasts can be found in all corners of the sector, often volunteering or working for little money. But while many social enterprises can boast a waiting list for their internships, they find it much harder to recruit skilled and passionate middle and senior managers.

The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development has surveyed the reasons why people leave their organisation. "Lack of development or career opportunities" is the third most common factor, beaten only by "securing a promotion in another organisation and "changing careers" altogether. "Level of pay" only makes it to sixth place.

If social enterprises are to fulfil their potential, current leaders need to foster the new generation of their successors and do so quickly. Salary levels will play their part in this, but they will take time to adjust. Providing top-quality development and career opportunities promises the greatest short term impact.

Tom Rippin is the founder of On Purpose

Bullying in the workplace: is it out of control?

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:00:00 GMT

Gordon Brown's temper may have got the better of him in the past, but is he a victim of his own rage by simply not communicating better with staff? In the public sector there is already a climate of fear caused by the recession so how can managers lead by example, asks Eifion Rees

Shouting and swearing, manhandling secretaries and grabbing deputy chiefs of staff by their lapels – in terms of initiatives to highlight workplace bullying, this may just be government at its most effective.

Once described by his predecessor as a "big clunking fist", the prime minister must this week be ruing the epithet, as the media has picked apart his behaviour, but the row over whether bullying exists in Downing Street has once again raised the serious issue of workplace bullying in the public sector, with some experts concerned that existing procedures may not be enough to combat such behaviour, particularly in tough times.

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) is precise in its definition: bullying is "offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient".

Workplace bullying is a serious issue, believed to cost employers more than £2bn a year in sick pay, staff turnover and lower productivity. According to 2007 figures from the Andrea Adams Trust, more than 90% of personnel practitioners say bullying is occurring in their organisations.

Beating anger

Mike Fisher, director of the British Association of Anger Management and author of Beating Anger, says anger is the root cause of bullying, with stress a major contributor – those who feel out of their depth in the workplace seek to assert themselves, sometimes aggressively.

"Bullies in senior positions project their anger on to subordinates because they can, and the more senior they are, the fewer people able to challenge their authority, to get them to reflect upon their actions," he says.

"There is an expectation that individuals in management roles already have the training, resources and emotional intelligence to deal with those feelings, and that isn't true."

Andrew Rawnsley's book on Gordon Brown certainly paints a picture of a man not malicious, but in thrall to an uncontrollable temper.

Fisher says the workplace bully can be a victim of their own rage, and more resources are needed to help them realise the impact of their behaviour, control their actions, and learn to communicate and express themselves better.

The problem is worse in the public sector, according to Lyn Witheridge, chief executive of workplace bullying consultancy the Andrea Adams Trust– and it isn't just managers dishing it out.

"Jobs and budget cuts mean there is a lot of fear about," she says. "Managers are concerned that strong leadership could be perceived as being bullying, while a lack of robust procedures to deal with the pressure means staff are blaming and bullying managers more than ever."

Workplace procedures are failing everyone

The experts agree workplace procedures are failing everyone – even in the corridors of power. Jonathan Baume, general secretary of senior public servants' union the FDA, has acknowledged the behaviour of some ministers and special advisers "falls short of what is acceptable on occasions", and if informal complaints against them don't work, civil servants "generally either have to 'grin and bear it'... or seek a transfer".

The problem, says Witheridge, is that some public sector policy authors either haven't researched their workplace cultures properly, or see the rules as tick-box exercises.

"They post up policies on the intranet but neglect to educate their workforce about the definitions of workplace bullying, talk to them or explain formal or informal complaints procedures. Recognition and awareness of bullying is essential if it is to be legitimately challenged."

One person's bully is another's strong leader, however and in some instances, passion and strong feelings can be misconstrued (though perhaps not if you're being grabbed by the lapels), particularly if those who feel bullied have encountered aggression elsewhere in their lives.

"Appropriate anger is designed to cut through the waffle to get the job done, but that doesn't mean having to scream at people," says Fisher. "Anger is not good and bad; we simply have to learn to communicate and express strong feelings properly. We also have to learn how not to be scared when someone else is being angry – to be assertive when the line has been crossed, but also to listen, and not take it personally."

View from the top remains positive

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:47:57 GMT

It is clear that substantial cuts in public sector spending are inevitable, but public sector managers remain positive about the challenge ahead

As we begin to emerge from the deepest recession that the UK has faced in recent times and with a General Election looming, it is clear that substantial cuts in public sector spending are inevitable.

Against this backdrop the Institute of Leadership & Management set out to see how public sector managers are facing up to these circumstances, asking them about the challenges they deal with now and how they will change in the coming 12 – 18 months, their levels of satisfaction and their frustrations.

The research dispels the negative stereotype of unmotivated public sector workers, so often portrayed by the media or in folklore.

By contrast, we discovered a group of motivated managers, highly satisfied in their role, with a strong commitment to serving the public. They have a real appetite to banish bureaucracy, introduce more efficient processes and develop innovative solutions to the budgetary pressures that they will undoubtedly face. When surveyed about the future they're upbeat and motivated for the challenge ahead.

Interestingly, they also indicated that the next few months will present a welcome opportunity to deal with poor performance - cited by 25% of respondents as an important reason for dissatisfaction in their roles.

However, public sector managers are well aware that the real pain is yet to come. High levels of job satisfaction, optimism and goodwill alone are not enough to deal with the increasing challenges highlighted in our research.

The managers surveyed anticipate renewed pressure as cost cutting impacts on day-to-day operations, with increased concerns about personal job security, the threat of redundancies and headcount reductions.

Working at full stretch

This will only exacerbate the pressure they face. Three quarters of managers say that their team is working at full stretch with minimal room for cost reductions – suggesting that there will be little wriggle room for further cuts in budgets and resources without significant disruption to public services.

Skilled leaders and managers are required, both now and in the future, to deal effectively with the challenges identified. There is a danger that if these are mismanaged, essential frontline services will be compromised.

The public sector certainly has the managerial raw materials to make change happen, but needs to ensure these managers are engaged and developed to deliver on their demands for more innovative solutions.

Managers should not be tasked to improve efficiency by implementing crude cuts and be expected to continue with a business as usual approach but under greater pressure and with fewer resources, as this can only impact adversely on service delivery.

Fundamentally, the government, policy makers, HR directors and organisational leaders, need to capitalise on the spirit of optimism and opportunity identified by this research. Strong leadership is required to support and empower public sector managers, allowing them the freedom to make decisions that are appropriate to the circumstances, so that they can drive innovation, productivity and performance

Our research has revealed a strong commitment by managers to the services they deliver and a desire to do their best with the available resources. The challenge for policy-makers now is not to see public sector managers as barriers to achieving goals, rather as allies in their campaign.

Penny de Valk is chief executive of the Institute of Leadership & Management

• Click here to read the research report, Leading Change in the Public Sector, and to join the debate

Is there a manager in the house?

Jane Dudman — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:01:00 GMT

Managers with a clinical background have shown to possess the ideal qualities to run hospitals, and a new study advocates that more leaders from a medical environment should be given greater responsibility

Good hospitals require good managers, preferably with some clinical training. That's one of the conclusions of a recent study of NHS hospital management into the impact of competition on leadership practices in the health service.

The study from the Centre for Economic Performance is based on a survey of clinicians and hospital managers and concludes that good management results in better clinical outcomes. It says that hospitals with higher management scores have better outcomes, such as lower mortality rates from emergency heart attacks, shorter waiting times, better financial performance and higher staff satisfaction, and it recommends that hospitals consider drawing more senior managers from the ranks of clinical staff, as happens in the US.

The results will help to shore up the confidence of health service managers, who often come under fire in relation to frontline services.

Wide variations in the management of NHS hospitals

The study shows that there are wide variations in the management of NHS hospitals and that small variations in performance make a big difference to outcomes. Improving management by a single point on the researchers' scoring scale is associated, they say, with a fall in the death rate from heart attacks from 17% to 16% – and that could result in some 400 fewer deaths a year.

The study also concludes that competition does work in some way.
Hospitals faced with a larger number of nearby competing hospitals have much better management practice, it says. "Even in a regulated environment, where monitoring agencies and regulators decide how well a hospital is performing, the number of hospitals will have an impact," says the study.

"In an area with many hospitals, it is easier to assess the performance of each hospital by comparing it with its neighbours."

A more competitive environment also tends to attract high-quality managers: "With more hospitals nearby, it is easier for managers to look out for employment opportunities."

These findings on the competitive nature of hospitals may have implications for the proposals to centralise clinical practice into larger centres of excellence, which by definition would have fewer close "competitors".

One of the less surprising conclusions in the report is that hospitals located in marginal constituencies are much less likely to be closed than hospitals in safe seats.

Jane Dudman

Art or Science? Certainly not alchemy

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:32:04 GMT

The Art of Consultation, is a timely and insightful book, on public sector consultation framework, which should be acquired reading, says John Tizard

Consultation and public engagement – not necessarily the same thing – are now core processes for most if not all public agencies.

Statute, good customer focused management practice and common sense dictate that public bodies should consult key stakeholders, especially their service users and those who pay for the services – usually tax payers – before they embark on any significant change to policy or service delivery.

One would hope, too, that both national and local politicians would wish to use effective consultation. This is not always the case, but increasingly it is becoming essential as a critical element of democratic politics.

However, there are some key questions to ask when considering consultation:

• when to consult – at what stage or stages in a developmental process for new policy or service design
• who to consult
• how to consult
• how to use and apply the results of consultation
• when and how to report back to consultees on the outcome of a consultation and why final decisions have been taken

Rhion Jones and Elizabeth Gammell, founders of and inspiration behind the increasingly respected Consultation Institute, have written a timely and well presented book, The Art of Consultation, in which they attempt to answer these and related questions.

They have succeeded in their attempt.

The book reads well; it is light but has sufficient real, experienced–based, material and arguments; it explains the policy and legislative frameworks for public sector consultation; and it offers practical advice to officials and politicians.

The book defines consultation and explains its place in the wider spectrum of representation; plebiscites, involvement, participation and engagement. It is consultation that excites and drives the authors but they are not dismissive of its allied processes.

Jones and Gammell clearly state that they did not aim to write an academic book which addressed the theory and philosophy of consultation in any depth.

Their aim is to help readers with the practicalities of consultation. However, inevitably and usefully they do move beyond their self imposed brief to make the case for effective consultation.

They describe its value to managers and politicians. They also address the challenge of the relationship between consultation and representative democracy. While they draw primarily on the UK experience and the English public sector, there are some informative references to how the business sector consults and uses customer insight to shape business strategy and delivery.

This is deliberately neither an academic thesis nor a "painting by numbers" hand-holding guide on how to consult. The authors have set out to strike a balance between the "why" and the "how".

They have succeeded.

However, there are some aspects of the book that, in my view, could have benefited from a deeper and longer exploration. These relate to the interface of consultation and representative democracy; how in local government it can enhance the councillor's actions to promote the interests of constituents, both with her/his own council and with other public agencies.

Good consultation can strengthen the politician's community leadership role.

Too many politicians, particularly councillors, still do not understand or accept this. There could and should have been more on the use that politically led scrutiny at local and national level can make of consultation.

Public consultation policy and practice have to adapt to meet new circumstances. It has to be applied to contemporary policy and practice issues such as

• strategic commissioning
• service de-commissioning
• participatory budgeting and budget reduction
• personalisation – its development and delivery
• partnership working and Total Place- style approaches
• consulting processes where more than one agency is involved and/or where the public may not understand which agency is involved in/or leading the process
• procurement and contract management and the use of a range of providers from the public, social enterprise, business and community sectors
• how to hold providers to account using consultation – including potentially putting some of their reward at risk from user and wider stakeholder views of performance and behaviour
• service re-design

The Art of Consultation addressees some of these issues and promotes the principles on which they should be approached. There are limits to the detail and scenarios that can be adequately dealt with in just over 200 pages. Jones and Gammell may have a second edition to write!

The Art of Consultation
Rhion Jones and Elizabeth Gammell
Biteback 2009-11-21

John Tizard is director of the newly-formed
CPSP@LGiU

Managing the 'translation gap'

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:09:56 GMT

In the past managers in the NHS may have been self-taught with no formal training in the art of leadership. Not any more - the NHS's research arm, the National Institute for Health Research, has been sending its members on a specially designed course at Ashridge

When it comes to management, many research and development experts in the NHS are self-taught. People in this situation often find themselves at the helm of large organisations, managing big budgets and several staff, having received no formal training in leadership.

In one part of the public sector, the solution has been a leadership development course, run by the Ashridge Business School. Since 2008, NHS research arm, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), has been using the leadership programme to support its work in keeping up standards of UK clinical research and application, as set out in the government's strategy, Best Research for Best Health.

"There is a sense that often good work is done in research, but not applied," says George Binney, a consultant at Ashridge. "This programme focuses particularly on world-class health research that has benefits for patients and public alike. It's concerned with bridging the 'translation gaps', and we're in the service of leadership that contributes to those things."

Senior scientists, clinicians and doctors are involved, including, for example, staff working on cutting-edge gene therapy and stem-cell research at Moorfields Eye Hospital, as well as researchers in other areas, including the organisation and delivery of health services.

The programme costs £1m a year - roughly £10,000 a head - and will run until March 2012, by which time 380 people will have received training.

It caters for three groups: senior leaders at the forefront of UK research, 40 of whom were nominated by the director general of research and development at the Department of Health; development leaders - the potential successors to the most senior leaders; and trainee leaders - senior post-doctoral researchers who are establishing their own fields and taking on management roles.

The goal is to catch this latter group at a crucial transition in their careers - people such as Felicity Callard, a senior researcher at the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health in London, who has been on the programme since autumn 2009, who says the changing structure of research requires new skills.

"Scientific research within health demands complex collaborations between clinicians, clinical scientists and social scientists, as well as with universities," she comments. "This pilot is specifically designed to help people like me, who have hit a point where they're making strides in their research careers, with increasing management and leadership responsibilities. The application process was quite demanding, but in applying you're already committing to a certain amount of work, and I didn't take this on lightly. It is an in-depth engagement."

Callard says that while the course is designed for those at a certain stage of their career, within that there is a wide range of people and one of the challenges of the course is managing that diversity.

Dealing with conflict

As well as peergroup sessions, and mini-workshops on specific topics such as dealing with conflict, senior leaders are able to take part in 24-hour, community-building events at Ashridge. Those with busy schedules are shadowed by a consultant for four days over the course of their 18-month programme.

Sitting in on meetings, the goal is to observe style and methodology, then to discuss with them their various interventions and approaches to management.

Being given the opportunity to reflect on what they're trying to achieve and how is a revelation for many, and this "live" interaction – a shared experience, rather than dry workshops – is part of the reason so many have engaged with the programme.

Hywel Williams, professor of dermato-epidemiology at the centre of evidence-based dermatology at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, says the idea of leadership training hadn't occurred to him before.

"As I've taken on more senior responsibilities, I've become more interested in what it is that makes people successful," he comments. "I was open-minded when the offer came along – you have to be in a position of readiness to reflect on leadership issues. You can't have these things imposed upon you. I've been forced to go on other management courses in the NHS in the past and haven't been impressed, but these people are real professionals who understand the psychology of large organisations."

Williams says his schedule meant he couldn't get to many of the group events. "But the one-to-one sessions were a real luxury," he says. "I've developed a more efficient way of dealing with and prioritising work and I have had the confidence to apply for and secure a new national role. A detailed 360 degree appraisal was one of the best things. It was incredibly helpful in that I became more aware of my style of leadership and the kind of leader I am. The course has helped me to become more reflective with an inner sense of peace and space, which is half the battle."

HMRC: a top to bottom change is needed

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:54:00 GMT

When the HMRC received a less than flattering review from the Cabinet Office, the permanent secretary Lesley Strathie was quick to point out the changes already made. While the dedication of staff is not in dispute, the answer to HMRC's problems lie in governance, leadership and culture

Lesley Strathie, the permanent secretary at HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), responded to the recent rather damning review from the Cabinet Office with a spirited defence of her leadership team and the changes they have already made to improve processes and structures within the organisation.

No less than one would expect, of course, and a fair recognition that the right efforts have been made by those who will further drive her vision going forward. But, as any change expert will support, the main barriers to implementing change tend to be not the visionaries at the top of the organisation, nor the 'workers' as a complete group but those who see change as a threat to their career ambitions or a challenge to a comfortable status quo.

The wrong job, the wrong way, for too long

Staff within HMRC are well known for their tenacity and passion to do a great job. However, despite all the change that the organisation has undergone over the last few years, many still feel that they have been doing the wrong job, the wrong way, for too long. The key to successful change is usually to be found in engaging key operational staff, then motivating them to drive the whole process forward quickly and effectively.

This in turn requires a clear view, not just of the strategic goals but also a comprehensively-thought-through model for the entire new organisation, which encompasses vision, strategic performance measures, organisational structures, new projects and business-as-usual activities, together with the right combination of skills, competencies and behaviours needed by all staff.

More important than any of these areas individually is the need to demonstrate clear alignment between all of them. Research shows that organisations that do not seek this rarely achieve their performance goals; whereas those that do, often achieve 200%+ of their targets.

As Strathie recognised in her comments, top-down and bottom-up alignment are vital to the future success of the organisation.

If HMRC staff understand the organisation's goals at strategic and operational level, they will also understand how their own job contributes to those goals, and they are likely to be well-motivated and strive even harder to achieve their own targets.

The Cabinet Office review stated that at least one layer of management remains more likely to be focused on building the profile of their own area (and themselves) than looking out across the silos for the good of the department as a whole.

This is unlikely to change until they feel that their advancement is clearly linked to HMRC's overall success. Strathie's comments suggest that this will be one of the first areas to which she will turn her attention.

The answer for HMRC lies in governance, leadership and culture – harnessing the passion and work ethic of the majority of staff and persuading or redeploying those who see no need for change. The kind of detailed alignment model I mentioned earlier is at the heart of such a programme – but time to implement it fully is limited, given the proximity of the General Election which tends to change everyone's priorities.

For HMRC, the challenges have never been greater nor the public scrutiny so intense. The Cabinet Office review makes it clear that internal change is required: in Strathie at least it seems they have found the right leader at the right time to meet those challenges.

Chris Mills is a partner at PIPC, a global management consultancy, which has delivered some of the largest post merger integrations in the world