Why charities should look to private business for inspiration...

As much as it pains me to disagree with her, (and at the risk of upsetting my 666th follower on twitter - for she has that dubious honour), I find myself at odds with Deborah Allcock Tyler's view of looking to the private sector for models and ideas in her column of Third Sector Magazine on 12th April 2011 (préci’d = charities are better at what they do than private business is as what it does, so we shouldn’t bother to see what we might learn from them that might benefit us) - surely we should be open to cross sector discussions, especially when some of their management practices put ours to shame (take a closer look at McDonalds), they have happier employees who are less likely to take them to tribunals than us, and have a workforce who are valued better by their employers based on more of ours expecting to leave our sector in 5 years than theirs...


just as there are some 'bad charities', and these are the exception to the norm, there are some 'bad businesses' who are the exception - it’s just a shame that they're mostly in the finance industry...


And surely, we’re both faced with similar challenges: dealing with recession, government expecting us to do more to strengthen society, managing costs, supporting our people – why does there seem to be such an engrained cultural resistance to exploring and addressing these together in the third sector/civil society?

Is co-production the key to a more equal and equitable society?

OK – so, some background first:
Its increasingly argued (and accepted) that the root cause of the causes of most of the ills in our society are due to inequality (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/).

Separate to this is the increasing interest in the delivery of public services through what’s called ‘co-production’ – the concept that as the recipient of services, it’s better to do ‘with us’ than ‘to us’; after all, surely as a patient we know best what treatments or care packages we’ll be more likely to engage with? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coproduction_of_public_services_by_service_users_and_communities


Last week I participated in one of the co-production road shows that Nesta are running (http://www.nesta.org.uk/events/previous_events). As well as being a nice opportunity to reflect on some of the work and thinking I’ve been doing around this over the last year or so, it was also a nice opportunity to catch up with someone I’d not seen for 7 years since moving away from Cambridge! http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-church/13/497/8

Anyways – in one of the sessions the idea was floated that coproduction = equality. After mulling this over for a bit, I think I agree. For Coproduction to truly work, all parties involved need to be able to respect each others’ experience and knowledge as being equally valid to their own, and also positively reciprocate to manifest that respect and build the trust that’s needed in such a relationship/dialogue.

I then started to think that the coproduction arrangement would also be more equitable in that it has to ensure fair and appropriate access for everyone to be able to engage with it, depending on their circumstances – after all, in a society as diverse as ours, one size won’t fit all, so it’s only just that people be treated equitably according to their need.

So – on the face of it, coproduction isn’t just about creating a 'revolution' in public service delivery and better empowering us, the recipient of public services, it’s also directly contributing to tacking the inequalities that affect us through starting to shift our collective mindsets through our starting to view those around us being as equally important to us in determining what the best courses of action should be.

Sounds great so far, but wait… most public services are increasingly sub-contracted to private companies to deliver – and they’re likely to be very resistant to the idea of coproduction as a delivery model owing to the costs to them that it will involve. But surely with commissioning moving more to an outcomes based model, coproduction can only be a good thing for them as pilot studies show that coproduction generates better outcomes? (and if they need further convincing, apparently Nesta are already working on the business case for it as well…)


So – coproduction: not just a better way to deliver public services, but a model that contributes to our becoming a more equal and equitable society!


Of course, the co-operative movement has been using this approach already for a few centuries; maybe I’ll write a companion piece to this on that angle next...


(and special acknowledgement in this blog to http://twitter.com/RuthRosselson for encouraging me to write this up)

three part management course: lesson 3 - getting dumped on

A little bird was flying south for the winter. It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground in a large field.
While it was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on it.
As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, it began to realise how warm it was. The dung was actually thawing him out!!

He lay there, all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.

A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate. Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung and promptly dug him out and ate him.

Management Lesson 3:
a) not everyone who sh*ts on you in your enemy,
b) not everyone who gets you out of sh*t is your friend,
c) and when you're in deep sh*t, its best to keep your mouth shut!

three part management course: lesson 2 - getting to the top

A turkey was chatting with a bull: "I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree," sighed the turkey, "but I haven't got the energy." "Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?" the bull replied. "They're packed with nutrients." the turkey pecked at a lump of dung and found it actually gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree. The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch.

Finally, after a fourth night, there he was, proudly perched at the top of the tree.

Soon he was spotted by a farmer, who shot the turkey out of the tree.

Management Lesson 2: bullsh*t might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there

three-part management course: lesson 1 - sitting

A crow was sitting on a tree, doing nothing all day. A small rabbit saw the crow, and asked him, "Can I also sit like you and do nothing all day long?" The crow answered: "Sure, why not?".

So the rabbit sat on the ground below the crow, and rested. All of a sudden, a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it.

Management Lesson 1: to be sitting doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up.

When is a co-op not a co-op?

There’s a famous surrealists’ riddle that asks “what’s the difference between a duck?” To which, most people will pause, realise that its probably going to take them a bit more time to figure something out that has no immediate or direct relevance to them and so ignore it.

Why am I telling you this? Well, because I’m concerned that the co-operative movement might be starting to become a surreal riddle.

Co-ops are high on the political agenda at the moment, with all the talk of ‘mutualism’, co-op councils and even a cushion manufacturer who’re presenting themselves as a new hybrid co-op model that makes it easier for co-ops to attract external equity investment.

However, co-ops are identified universally by a set of core values and principles. Anything that does not conform to these is not really a co-op (but perhaps an admirable venture based on social values). And if you start to look more closely at these ‘exciting new co-op models’, you might start to get a bit confused:


1) The ‘mutualism’ agenda - if you look up the term ‘mutualism’ you realise that what the politicians mean isn’t a true mutual (which would be run solely in the interests of its members – not a good fit for public services), but rather a workers or multi-stakeholder co-operative


2) The Lambeth Co-op council model states that it will work to an agreed set of principles – not all of which look very complementary or comparable to co-ops’:

Lambeth Co-op council principles:

• The council as the local democratic leader and civil society partner;
• Public services planned together and delivered through a variety of organisations which will improve outcomes, empower citizens and users, and strengthen civil society;
• Citizens incentivised to take part in the provision of public services;
• Public services enabling residents to engage in civil society through employment opportunities;
• Public services accessible from a variety of locations.

(taken from 'The Co-operative Council Sharing power: A new settlement between citizens and the state')

International co-op principles:

• Autonomy and Independence;
• Voluntary and Open Membership;
• Member Economic Participation;
• Education, Training and Information;
• Concern for Community;
• Co-operation among Co-operatives;
• Democratic Member Control.

(and there is also an additional values set that goes with these, too...Lambeth obvioulsy don't seem to think that a co-op needs values)

3) And the cushion manufacturer – well, they’re essentially looking at a nice profit share model to incentives employees, but not showing any intent to actually share ownership and power.


But does this really matter?

YES! Co-operatives are only as powerful as they are, and attract the support that they do because of their unique identity (an identity that many fear is only loosely protected in law…) If the co-operative movement is to remain as credible and powerful as it is, it needs to ensure that its unique identity remains ‘pure’ and not able to be ‘hi-jacked’ by others masquerading as co-ops when in doing so they only serve to ultimately confuse the general populace as to what co-ops actually are and so damage the movements’ brand and our shared heritage.


…so – when is a co-op not a co-op?

how businesses can actually benefit from the 'Big Society'

or..."Why i agree with the chief exec of the RSA - but not because of his thinking"

Matthew Taylor’s Comment section in the current issue of the RSA Journal calling for businesses to play their role in Big Society through engaging more with their local communities in relationship rather than token gesture is spot on. But I’m not sure I agree with the basis for his argument being solely on moral grounds.

I think that there are better arguments to be made for businesses to develop better relationships with the communities they based themselves on purely economic grounds:

1. Family firms – over the years this model of business has been seen to be amongst the most sustainable and long-lived, and amongst some of the best models of business to weather recession. Why? Because it roots itself in its local community. Local employees, local customers, local suppliers – all of whom understand the interdependent relationships they share with each other.

2. Compliance with legislation – companies are now legally required to show how they consider their local communities in the decisions they take (perhaps the most controversial aspect of Companies Act 2006)

Ask any business leader to sign up to a way of working based on a moral argument, and it’ll be an uphill struggle. Show them how building stronger relationships with their communities makes them comply more easily with legislation and create a stronger economic base, and they’ll bite your hand off...