From the service paradigm to the enablement paradigm: reimagining government post crisis
Historically, dramatic events like those we are currently experiencing have acted as a catalyst for radical policy and paradigm shifts. With this in mind, this piece offers a vision for a reimagining of government post crisis.
We’re only in April, but it’s fair to say that 2020 is already shaping up to be an incredibly challenging year. Still reeling from the devastating 2019–20 bushfires in Australia, we are now confronting the Coronavirus, which is changing life as we know it.
Right now, we find ourselves at a critical juncture; a confusing, somewhat frightening period in human history. Yet, we are also at a moment in time where we are witnessing the undoing of institutions and architectures that felt undoable. Historically, dramatic events like those we are currently experiencing have acted as a catalyst for radical policy and paradigm shifts. However, for radical change to happen, an alternative model and set of ideas must be available to build from.
As Donella Meadows points out, the way to drive a paradigm shift is as follows:
“…you keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm, you come yourself, loudly, with assurance, from the new one, you insert people with the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power.”
The remainder of this article is my attempt to articulate, loudly, and with assurance, the core ideas which underpin a transition to a new paradigm.
The enablement paradigm
There are many potential new paradigms emerging; however, the new paradigm that I am describing focuses on a reimagining of government, which centres on a shift from a delivery mindset to an enablement mindset — what I have called “the enablement paradigm”.
In this paradigm, the core role of government is to create the conditions in which communities can thrive.
But what does this mean in practice? I’ve identified five core elements which underpin a shift to an enablement paradigm: a relationships-first approach; shared power; systems-thinking; humble leadership; and reorienting to learning.
1) Nurture Relationships
In an enablement paradigm, governments move away from designing specific programs to fix specific problems, and instead invest in programmes which build stronger relationships within a community. This approach acknowledges the critical role that human relationships play in developing social cohesion and community resilience.
An example of this is an initiative called Circle, adopted by Councils across the UK. Circle is described as “part social club, part concierge service, and part cooperative self-help group” where members (generally aged between 50 and 70) help each other with small but essential things — fixing things in the home, offering company and emotional support — both face-to-face and virtually. Through Circle, people found friendship and a sense of purpose in their lives. Members also reduced their reliance on formal government services; for example, 13% of members reported visiting their GP less after joining the program.
2) Share power
The enablement paradigm also requires that governments think differently about power. Rather than making decisions, governments identify the people and organisations within a community who have the greatest knowledge of an issue, hand decision-making power to them, and support them to exercise their power as effectively as possible.
An example of this can be seen in Wigan where the Council has given frontline staff — for example, social workers — training and freedom to have more open-ended, exploratory conversations with their clients and take decisions for themselves based on these conversations. This approach has been transformational; allowing Wigan Council to achieve financial savings while also protecting and improving outcomes for community members.
3) Think in systems
To support a transition to the enablement paradigm, government agencies also need to shift from a linear, reductionist approach to policy-making and service design, to one which acknowledges complexity.
This is easiest to explain through an example. Let’s take obesity. A traditional government approach would define the problem narrowly (i.e. obesity is caused by people eating too much food) and design a single intervention designed to address that problem (e.g. gastric banding). In contrast, a systemic approach would acknowledge that the causes of obesity are multifaceted and complex and require a broad range of interventions.
An example of this approach can be found in Victoria, Australia, where a number of communities have worked to develop, implement and evaluate a systemic, community-based approach to improving the health of children. The result of this systemic framing of the challenge of childhood obesity “has resulted in hundreds of community-led actions focused on changing norms and environments.”
4) Lead with humility
In the enablement paradigm, leadership is more humble than heroic. The role of a leader is to support communities to “become healthier, wiser, freer [and] more autonomous.” As CPI’s report “Finding a more Human Government” shows, trust builds when governments act with empathy, open themselves up to scrutiny, listen to citizens’ voices and act on them.
We have seen a humble approach to leadership playing out strongly in the context of Coronavirus, with leaders around the world admitting that they don’t have the answers, and that we are all learning about this together.
5) Reorient to learning
Finally, in this new paradigm, public sector agencies move away from trying to design technical solutions to public sector challenges; shifting instead to a model which centres on cultivating a culture of learning within agencies. This approach is necessary because, as Toby Lowe explains, there are no simple answers to complex problems.
This learning approach also requires a willingness to fail, which is deeply challenging for government agencies.
An example of governments embracing this learning approach can be seen through CPI North American team’s “Failing Forward” initiative where local governments are seeking to understand what the barriers to failure are within their organisations, and how to overcome these.
What next?
These changes cannot happen right away; we’re not ready yet. We are still knee-deep in crisis management. Navigating our way through this phase with as few casualties as possible needs to be the current priority.
During this time of crisis, we need strong leadership from the centre. We need governments to be moving very quickly in setting and enforcing rules and designing and administering stimulus packages to keep communities afloat
Once the crisis has passed, there will be a stage of emerging from the upheaval. This is an opportunity to pause, think deeply about what has happened, reflect on what we have learned — collectively and individually — and move forward in a way that is considered and reflective; incorporating the lessons learned into our lives at both an individual and societal level. As part of this reflective process, we also need to be recognising that the role for government in crisis necessarily looks different to the role for government post crisis.
Finally, we will begin rebuilding. This is the phase where the ideas outlined above come into play.
Shifting to the enablement paradigm requires new mindsets founded on new beliefs, values and principles. It will also likely require new institutions and new ways of working, which break through departmental, sectoral and disciplinary barriers.
It’s too soon to act; but it does feel like the right time to be convening a coalition of the willing, developing these ideas, and building a movement, so that when the time comes, this alternative vision for government is ready to offer to those in positions of visibility and power who are able to turn the vision into the new reality.
This is an abridged version of a longer article which was originally published by The Mandarin.
