Why we need to change how we hold people to account
My last few posts have focused on complexity. A question came up on Twitter about how we can work differently when work is commissioned in a traditional way.
I lived accountability for a few years when I worked for an audit body. Before that, I worked for a voluntary organisation and grant giver that both set and was subject to measures.
One of the things that I’ve learnt is that the funding of the voluntary sector isn’t fit for purpose. Organisations have to work to objectives that have been set before the project has begun and years before the evaluation is due. This model may work in controlled environments where cause and effect is obvious, but it’s less likely to work in the complex and complicated world of public services.
This RSA podcast with Duncan Green of Oxfam on How Change Happens is fantastic on this. I particularly love the concept of Evidence Based Humility as Duncan discusses his work in Afghanistan:
“If you are in the Afghan system, not only can you not predict the future, you only have the foggiest idea of what is happening right now and history will be contested. This seems key to me. As public servants we are rewarded for knowing exactly what is wrong and what is best for people, yet how can we really predict what is happening on the ground?”
It’s this idea that informed my recent post on why it’s good not to know everything. The idea that our knowledge could or should be absolute really troubles me.
Exploring the new world
Toby Lowe shared this brilliant report by Collaborate CIC and Newcastle Business School on funding, commissioning and managing in complexity. I love the practical examples within the report and the way it looks at things from human, learning and systems perspectives.
Human
We need to tailor how we support each other because we’re all human and unique in our own ways. This report is interesting as it doesn’t just recognise complexity in terms of how services are provided, but also how we manage and work with each other.
“Those who hold power should take a collaborative and generous approach to leadership — thinking about their role as part of a bigger whole. Welcoming the knottiness of the world feeds into a more equitable relationship between funders and communities — valuing learning and improving, rather than proving; asking what matters, not what’s the matter; and putting people in the lead, instead of prescribing the solution.”
Learning
I’m definitely on board with how the report sees learning as an enabler of performance improvement. I love how it looks at learning as we go and how we should be commissioning learning and not the delivery of specified services.
“People working in this way also speak about learning and adaptation. They describe how their work is not about delivering a standardised service, but rather that it is a continuous process of learning which allows them to adapt to the changing strengths and needs of each person with whom they work.”
Systems
The key to all of this is the understanding that we’re working in complex systems, not in a vacuum. I really like how this changes the relationship between organisations from being a hierarchical relationship into one that’s based on trust through a shared purpose and the co-design of principles, values and behaviours.
“Funders and commissioners enable a collective, systemic response by reframing their relationships with providers. They no longer see a purchaser/provider split, they see a collective responsibility for creating the conditions for people to achieve better outcomes. They are stewards of a system of care and support.”
“Unconditional pounds are worth more”
There are some great examples of how this has worked. Children England talk about how funding without preconditions or key performance indicators enables them to respond quickly to changes in the environment. The contract for support to vulnerable adults in Plymouth does not specify outputs or outcomes, it uses agreed principles for how they’ll work. This includes changing the provision based on shared learning.
Reporting is based on what people want and their narrative around where they want to get to. It shifts power and accountability into a far healthier place.
“An approach that draws on multiple dimensions requires more than just counting. Providing an account for your actions and judgements — explaining why you acted in the way that you did — requires different forms of data, and frequently requires a dialogue between those who are seeking an account, and those who provide it. Accountability in complex environments can rarely be satisfied by one set of people sending a set of figures, or a set of ticked boxes, to another.”
This links to Complex Wales’ post on why the story is the measure.
Planning is guessing
I posted my aims for the year a while back, safe in the knowledge that it was all a wild stab in the dark because my own life had changed so dramatically. A Basecamp podcast on why planning is guessing struck a chord with me when I wrote it.
Jason Fried talks about the value of working in short cycles because of wider changes in systems. It seems to me that trying to see beyond that is just stargazing. Saying that we don’t know everything is too often perceived as weakness. However, being vulnerable enough to admit that you don’t know something is a fantastic show of strength.
Sam Villis wrote great weeknotes this week on imposter syndrome, and I loved Louise Cato’s response to her initial tweet on how only the best people are unsure of things.
I am massively on board with this. Anyone who thinks that they know everything is deluded. It’s far better to be open to new learning and to recognise the limits of our understanding.
