Just over a month ago, the very excellent @davidwilcox posted another excellent piece on “Mapping the Big Society Territory” here. I recommend it to you.

So taken was I by it that I scribbled a humble response which I’ve copied below. It touches on similar points as my response to Elizabeth Moss Kanter’s blog post on “Leading Change” back in May this year.

I really need to commit to doing what I said I would and build out this model I have in my head showing a map of considerations (anchored in empirical evidence) when designing and leading a change effort. 

Anyway – thanks to David Wilcox for his piece and the chance to articulate this. It’s a bit more generalised than I’m entirely comfortable with but it was late and Mrs C was digging me in the ribs to “turn that bloody iPhone off!!”…

@davidwilcox Interesting post, squiggles and all.

Three points only and humbly submitted. 

First, although some will argue it’s “only semantics”, the point on naming convention is interesting. Any behavioural economist worth their salt will tell you that the very phrase “Big Society” is enough to disengage (or at least barely raise the inherently self interested/motivated pulse of) the general populace.  We know from years of research that even when our own very personal (e.g. Health, wealth) interests are at risk we often remain unroused to act appropriately (rationally) in the short or long term. So, when the long term aim is as impersonal, intangible and thematically vast as a “Big Society” then people won’t be roused. They’ll feel it’s “too overwhelming”, “too big for them to meaningfully contribute to”, “clearly not a pressing priority specifically for me to act on” (the latter is oft referred to as ‘the bystander effect’ in behavioural psychology) etc. It’s a similar challenge for Global Warming…So, although “Our Society” is still a little wooly (what do we think those we’d like to see more involved interpret “society” to mean do you think? I doubt many would respond positively on instinct alone..) it at least calls to the (shared) ownership instinct in each of us via “our”. Shame you didn’t mention our very own “Co-operative Society” here in Lambeth….It’s like the Big Society but re-labeled for Red Rose Authorities. Room for one of those on the diagram?  

In it’s effort to address this behavioural challenge – in part by setting up it’s own “Nudge nerve centre” (aka The Behavioural Decisions Unit) at No 10 and trying  to encourage behaviour change among the general populace from there, the Coalition appear to be overlooking the key principle of any effective change (diffusion) initiative: those in the “Early Adopter” and IN PARTICULAR those in the “Early & Late Majority” categories adopt the desired behaviours/engage fully not simply because of WHAT they see to the left of them on the diffusion model but WHO they see. And I’d suggest that those who the Government hope to engage in the Big Society (who currently aren’t) are least likely to respond to diffusion from Government/Civic Orgs and most likely to respond to diffusion from peers and role models from the “Our Society” bubble of your diagram. I hold out most hope for the Social Enterprise community but I’m not convinced alone that we’ll get to (and sustain) those hard to reach places where society of any sort – big or small – could do with a little pick-me-up.  Hence my second point – the role of the existing “Our Society” is most fundamental to this effort and why the work the RSA piloted in New Cross to understand and leverage existing social networks and influence is vital. If Tipping Point and the myriad of behavioural economic/psychology books that followed in the last decade have taught us anything, it’s that influence is not distributed evenly. And rarely are authority or establishment gifted with the large quota they might like to believe is the case.  Should all roads on your pic therefore start from “Our Society”? I’m not sure just yet but a more considered understanding of how to harness and embolden existing activists with genuine and breadth of influence across into your “BS” bubble seems like the best bet for Gov. I’ve seen little to reflect they grasp this and the meeting you describe (the inside/out or top/down model) confirms this. The call for a more “emergent” approach is a good one – and could ultimately prevail (though do we even have high level desired outcomes?) but it need not be entirely free form as I infer above if we target resources where the greatest return in diffusion can be earned.

Finally, if there is one thing that we know works more powerfully than peer pressure to encourage behaviour change, it’s loss aversion. The final, actual reality of withdrawal of local services and the gains that were previously derived from those services may ultimately be necessary to create the incentive to engage the hereto disengaged. But I’m not convinced. Given the discussion on Big Soc has largely focused on community services such as libraries, parks, leisure facilities and some non (or lightly) regulated local authority functions, I’d hazard a guess that those most likely to feel the greatest loss aversion to their withdrawal are those who are already reasonably socially active in the “Our Society” bubble. So back to point two I guess.

Longfellow once wrote: “I shot an arrow in the air, it fell to earth I know not where”. We Irish have a more optimistic take on that. As I’m often reminded: “if you don’t know where you are going, that’s where you’re sure to end up”.

I sense Cameron would prefer to locate his arrow (age of austerity etc) and I don’t think he’s a wandering Irish troubadour at heart. But without some future vision expressed in somewhat tangible outcomes for people to organise themselves around that may be his fate. At the very least the current vacuum on meaning and process was sure to open and much energy dissipated in the ensuing mudfight.

Part of me hopes for the best. Part of me fears the horse has bolted, unhoved, unsaddled and with no direction. Part of me thinks that the true discussion can only commence when we understand the gaps the big society has/will need to fill when the CSR dust settles. I know that’s not the ultimate point but it may be it’s ultimate test.

And part of me thinks he should have just published one of those “Change the World for a Fiver” books with 50 no cost ideas for contributing to the local community with a foreword which explains that research from the past fifty years suggests that levels of social connection and philanthropy are better predictors of life expectancy and mental health than most any other measure (incl alcohol and tobacco consumption). Long life and happiness you say?! Sign me up. I’ll start soon, honestly….

Related articles

• Oh, Mr Cameron, do stop all that annoying nudging | Catherine Bennett(guardian.co.uk)
• Andreas Whittam Smith: The idea of Big Society is beyond left and right(independent.co.uk)
• ‘Big society’: Giving just that bit more | Francis Maude, Jeremy Hunt and David Willetts(guardian.co.uk)
• Cameron’s hijacking of Nudge theory is a classic example of how big ideas get corrupted | Aditya Chakrabortty(guardian.co.uk)
• First goal of David Cameron’s ‘nudge unit’ is to encourage healthy living(guardian.co.uk)
• Thaler Nudges the Brits (and the Swedes?)(marginalrevolution.com)
• Rory Sutherland’s quiet behavioural revolution gives the status quo bias a nudge(telegraph.co.uk)
• ‘Big society’ – where’s the opposition? (newstatesman.com)

Posted in response to Eamonn Mallie’s piece on www.sluggerotoole.com re David Cameron’s comments on the size of NI’s Public Sector last Friday.

Eammon has this spot on. The analysis was right, the language and timing were naive and amateurish at best.

 I’ll never vote Tory but Cameron is absolutely right in his ultimate assessment that NI must grow it’s Private Sector and reduce our over reliance on the Public Sector. We have an unhealthy imbalance and without a stimulus in the private sector – particularly in attracting a range of jobs which pay in line with and above average Public Sector jobs we are incredibly vulnerable and have been for some time to Public Sector cuts and also any increase in interest rates (likely in the next parliament) which will hit many of our overstretched “property boom” keyholders. I wonder how many interest only mortgages there are in NI held by people borrowing multiples greater than 3 against public sector wages likely to be capped/frozen in the next parliament? 

All our politicians know this is a fact. Many are on record re this in the past. The executive is on record as agreeing with Camerons sentiments on Private Sector growth – the 2009 IREP report recognised it. Many commentators and the occasional blogger like myself have been suggesting for some time that this was the real elephant in the room (http://www.shanepcarmichael.com/2010/01/a-new-vanguard/) while the Executive stalled and bickered over scraps from the sectarian table. An inclusive, burgeoning private sector economy supplementing our proud Public Sector makes sense not just economically but socially and politically – any post conflict society analysis tells us that employment and it’s associated benefits has one of the biggest impacts on the process of “normalisation”. University of Ulster recently published a report telling us we probably already knew – that young people with limited job or development opportunities are more likely to engage in anti social behaviour (including political and racial violence). 

And yet our representatives on the hill have spent the last few years doing exactly what about this? Think of the time wasted while Stormont has been suspended or in sectarian stand off mode when they could have been addressing this issue given anyone with any secular political nous knew it was coming. And maybe that lack of secular nous is at the heart of this. 

 In spite of a rational if poorly executed SDLP call for a revised NI budget last year to reflect the realities of an economy in freefall nothing happened and an opportunity to stimulate a flagging economy was lost. 

More alarmingly, at a public event in Westminster before Xmas i asked a senior political NI figure (vying now for a Westminster seat and to whose political views I am broadly aligned) what he thought of IREP and his views on developing our private sector given the chances of public sector cuts in the next parliament. His response not only suggested he had barely read IREP but he actually went on to say that he “had no time for these multi national corporations coming in for a few years and then swanning off to Singapore or wherever they get a better deal. The future of our economy has to be the 1-2 person family business…”!! Seriously – you couldn’t make it up, particularly as it came 2 weeks after the great news of NYSEs support centre investment and the audience that night contained at least one potential investor from a financial MNC. It’s just an isolated example but part of a larger failure –  Politicians like that should be vilified far more than Cameron on this issue. This problem has not been addressed on their watch.

But here’s the immediate and rather sad reality for Cameron and the Tory/UU alliance. In spite of the fact all other parties agree in principle with what Cameron says, in spite of the fact they are responsible for allowing the situation to develop, all of them have the good sense to know the timing and turn of phrase he used was an act of political naivety at best and suicide at worst. It not only brings into question the nature of the Tory/UU partnership but also his own political judgement.

The scent of blood (and cuts) is in the air. In a more mature political society Cameron may have been lauded for his honesty and it might even have triggered the long overdue advent of a more secular political debate on the issue at hand. It is badly needed –  anyone who thinks a simple cut in corporation tax is the answer to our problems is surely mistaken. It’s a much more complex consideration and needs early attention. But that’s a separate debate.    

Unfortunately it won’t happen now in the mouth of an election – as Cameron should have known. And it might turn out to be a debate shaped by others than the Tory/DUP alliance, for in politics, perhaps more than anywhere else, “to the victor the spoils” and as Helmut Kohl once said: “You don’t win elections by putting the weapons of torture on display”.    

Related articles by Zemanta

• Public sector job losses ‘inevitable’, says Alistair Darling (telegraph.co.uk)
• Britain’s public sector pay party is over (telegraph.co.uk)
• David Cameron tells Paxman: Northern Ireland and north-east to face squeeze (guardian.co.uk)
• Public Sector ‘Could Cut 500,000 Jobs’ (news.sky.com)

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100203_6336.php

http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/06/radical-transparency-federal-it-dashboard.html

Is there anything like this across UK Gov? I’m sure many UK Departments would make a deeply voilet shade of interesting reading on any dashboard here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Real change, persistent change in Federal IT (cnewmark.com)
• Is the Federal Government the Most Interesting Tech Startup For 2009? (ask.slashdot.org)

A few months ago there was much media interest in a proposal by Mike Freer, then leader of Barnet Council, to change the relationship between local councils and the citizens it serves with the focus being on finding and delivering efficiencies.

I read an interesting article with Mr Freer in today’s Guardian which promptd me to scrawl these thoughts…

In summary the three pronged approach proposed is thus:

1. Offer a basic set of services with additional or prioritised services subject to supplementary payments (where allowed within law). This element of the strategy led to the media labelling the proposal as creating “easyCouncils” after EasyJet and its no frills approach to business - somewhat disproportionately given it was only one part of the “Future Shape” strategy
2. The consolidation (in the name of efficiency) and streamlining of back office public sector functions in an area (aka shared services) and the creation of (our old favorite) a central shared citizen database to enable easier access to citizen needs across multiple service areas reducing duplication of contact and service
3. Targeted intervention strategies for those families who are “high cost” cases including a dedicated liaison officer per family.

In principle I think all this is pretty unexciting stuff - none of it is enormously groundbreaking, particularly points 2 & 3. Although I find unpalatable in the extreme the idea of ‘levels of service’ determined by the ability to pay. That’s just not in my view an acceptable way to deliver public services.

The idea of consolidating back office functions in Government is one I have experience of. Having been around a significant number of Public Sector ”back office streamlining and consolidation” or “single database” or “revised channel/service strategy” projects it’s not so much “easyCouncils” as (un)easyCouncils. 

None of these things are insurmountable to deliver but they are not insignificant areas of change (people, process and technology) particularly when trying to maintain business operations as usual.  These things require significant and sometimes extended up front and ongoing investment – financial and operational. New systems and new ways of working – across councils and departments while changing front line working practices (a change not easy to facilitate overnight). And who will foot that bill and for how long before savings are realised? And let’s not mention the legal wrangles that are sure to come or how this will impact any attempt at cross Council Service Provision comparison?

Followers of Vanguard and John Seddon would go even further and say that there is no evidence that these “shared service” models work at all: http://www.lgcplus.com/5010322.article

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done to reinvigorate local government and re-empowering local Councils to find new service models is fundamental to many things, not least reinvigorating our political system. But it definitely isn’t “easy”.

I am counting down the days until we start to hear the language of the last era of Public Sector austerity – the early 2000′s – and in particular that favorite phrase of the day: “Spend to Save”. It rolls off the tongue quite nicely doesn’t it. I can hear many Consultants across the land whispering it manta-like on their way to work…”Spend to Save”…”Spend to Save”…that’s right, repeat after me….

Related articles by Zemanta

• Council backs radical ‘easyJet’ services plan(guardian.co.uk)
• Former Barnet Council leader Mike Freer interviewed(guardian.co.uk)
• Report calls for mandatory shared back office(go.theregister.com)
• easyBarnet(fightingmonsters.wordpress.com)
• Fresh headache for Cameron after “easy council” plans ruled illegal(leftfootforward.org)

• the long overdue, much heralded and immediately useful launch of www.data.gov.uk
• the annual Gov Barcamp (which I did not attend but have enjoyed following from afar)
• Prospect Magazine leading with a story about Tim Berners-Lee’s “web revolution” at the heart of Whitehall
• Lots of commentary on the Government’s £3.2bn cost saving ICT Strategy

But before I got too excited, my good friend Lee Hopkins sent me this little snippet from yesterday’s Guardian as a reminder that when it comes to technology and transformation the key word in Government is evolution not revolution. Still – I thought it was almost charming….

“Smith admitted that the government had not always been quick to embrace new technology. “Back in 1885, the civil service bought its first-ever typewriter, despite stiff resistance from in-house calligraphers. About 20 years later the government took another leap into the unknown when it invested in its first telephone, a mere three decades after the technology was first demonstrated.”

(Angela Smith Cabinet Office Minister – Guardian 28/01/10)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Tim Berners-Lee Unveils UK Government Data Project(yro.slashdot.org)
• Tim Berners-Lee unveils government data project (BBC)(techmeme.com)
• Data.gov.uk(tom-watson.co.uk)
• Government to cut £3.2bn a year with radical ICT strategy(newstatesman.com)
• UK Government Launches Open Data Site: data.gov.uk(programmableweb.com)