Chief Executives 'over-delegate' the challenge of change
Public Services fail where many council chief executives hand over the responsibility for change management to second or third tier management. A cursory look at the appointment columns of any national newspaper will show that many chief executives do recognise the need for change. Their senior service directors are then called upon to prepare the 'strategies' for change. The directors, in turn, put the pressure for change on 'heads of services'. This is a band of jobs in the UK public sector which is the least understood, the most unrecognised and least supported.
No where is this phenomenon more visible than in the case of 'Environmental Services'. It is also acknowledged that Environmental Services are the main service block which have tended to reduce the levels of final judgements of CPA. Councils are trying to address the causes of unacceptable results in the form of ‘weak’ judgements. These services are the most sensitive far as as customers are concerned. The service group consists of:
· Waste Management and Recycling, including street cleansing, maintenance, waste collection and recycling, civic amenity sites
· Parks and Gardens
· Parking Management and Enforcement.
The customer expects the following benefits from these services:
1. Bins to be cleared without spillages on scheduled days and at the right time
2. Parks and gardens to be maintained and grass to be cut regularly
3. Streets to be cleaned on a regular basis
4. Street lights to be maintained at correct levels of illumination to prevent crime
5. Roads and footpaths to be maintained to correct specifications
6. Councils to be effective in their arrangements for providing customer service, dealing with complaints and responding to requests for service
7. Service departments to consult with them and communicate their service plans and objectives on a regular basis.
8. Streets to be clear of traffic and congestion caused by poor parking practices.
9. Parking services to be customer friendly.
Critical Limiting Factors
The task facing many Chief Executives today is how to design, implement and supervise a programme of change, which will help to carry out a major shift in the performance following CPA. A case for strategic investment will be required to justify increases in capability for the present as well as to increase the capacity for the future. It is interesting how many times managers in the public sector just work to short-term targets suggesting interest in short-term outcomes.
Chief executives invariably fail as a result of the following:
1. Failure to appoint a project champion. This person needs to have power and influence and authority to influence change and to secure a firm handle for the implementation process to start. It is not recognised that the chief executives themselves are the best person for this task.
2. Failure to secure ‘buy-in’ or commitment at all levels of the service block. This is easier said than done. Commitment cannot be secured unless the change agent is able to harness motivation of the staff involved by acting as a catalyst in the change management process and influence the processes of change and leave the decisions on the content and context to line managers and their seniors, leading to a consensus creation up to corporate levels.
3. Failure to understand the organisational environment and to work within a shared framework. An example of a framework, which has worked for the author, is provided on the next page.
4. Failure to define and describe the strategic aspects of the change in simple terms. A good business planning process starts with aspirational statements which take different planning and delivery cycles into account. A rolling planning scenario of 1 plus 3 years is essential. A reliance on one-year service planning cycles is defended by supporters of zero-based budgeting but short change management cycles result in wasted effort.
5. Failure to define and collect accurate benchmarking data and performance indicators. This exercise is critical if performance management is to be embedded into the operational cycles.
6. Failure to integrate service improvement and change management process into the operational routines of the service. Most interim managers are left to pursue best value or CPA orientated actions on their own. Line managers see the process as an imposition and often refuse to take part. Consequently any slippage or failure is attributed to the interim. This can create negative connotations for the programme of change.
7. Failure to build teams and to reward success. Strong and well-managed teams generate success and seek ownership of the programme and its outcomes. Investment in team building is a priority and successful deployment of techniques of team consolidation are needed throughout the programme.
8. Failure to develop crosscutting agenda and to benefit from economies of scale. Difficulties in spotting opportunities for improvement in interfacing and interdependent services leads to loss of productivity.
9. Failure to develop a customer-centric focus for the change programme. Customer service management has more to with delivery of benefits to the customer and less to do with features of the service. Emphasis on service features confuses the delivery teams as well as the customers.
10. Failure to communicate programme objectives and success to the rest of the organisation. Creative and well-managed change results in providing cumulative benefits to all services, for example by improving corporate service support to delivery teams.
Where a combination of the above failures take place, chief executives are driven to impose
regimes which favour crisis management at a time when the organisation may be desperately
seeking consensus management.
