The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Beyond Boundaries A Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Introduction At the start of 2007 and over a period of almost six months, Public Service Management Wales working with Sue Pritchard and the NHS Confederation conducted a Leadership Inquiry into small state governance and public service delivery. Using newly re-configured public services in Denmark to help set the context of the inquiry, provided an opportunity to explore on an international level the future of public service reform and development. This report details the comparative analysis and findings of the inquiry to offer insight and perspective on the evolving reform agenda in Wales. This report of the Leadership Inquiry with Denmark does not claim to be a rigorously researched comparative study of two countries’ systems. Instead it is intended to be a thoughtprovoking account of the leadership development inquiry undertaken by a group of leaders in the Welsh public services, and from Third Sector and private sector organisations. Seventeen leaders joined the development programme, to reflect on the leadership challenges they face in developing and implementing policy and strategy in Wales, in the course of understanding more about what it means to lead public services in a comparable small country. Denmark was chosen since it has, on the face of it, several similarities with Wales. With a population of 5m people gravitating towards the capital Copenhagen, a rural population dispersed around the country and islands, a similar public health profile and it’s proximity to a large European neighbour, Denmark shares many Welsh characteristics. By way of contrast, it has a strong sense of confidence in its own identity, built on 900 years as an independent state - and it has the highest citizen satisfaction rating with its public services in Europe, and, arguably, the world. This Leadership Inquiry consisted of an opening event for the whole community of 18, followed by 2 separate action learning set meetings before the four day visit, which was followed up by two further set meetings and a final ‘whole community’ event. The specific programme content was designed around the concerns of the participants, using Open Space and Action Learning methods in the Welsh leg of the programme, to help participants formulate the strategic questions which they wanted to address together - and for which there were no straightforward answers. The visit programme, therefore, was somewhat eclectic; but what was also revealing was the many informal interactions we experienced during the visit – with hotel staff, taxi drivers, service providers and families. It was in these less structured moments that we came to inquire more into our underpinning assumptions and taken for granted ideas about what works in Denmark – and more importantly, back in Wales.
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
After much debate, the critical, and overarching, question for the participants was summed up thus: “How do we work together better to implement policy changes and improve services ’on the ground’?” This in turn generated a real range of more specific questions – posed as dilemmas - which participants explored both in their sets and through the visit programme.
Smaller countries can never deliver services to the same range and standard as large
Small countries have a better track records on important tissues like well
The most important thing in partnerships is trust without trust in place they will never work
Trust is built through working together, getting on and doing important things together
We create the most value if each of us focuses on his/her own area of expertise
.................if we have agreed on our joint key areas of interest and keep updating these
Leadership beyond boundaries is fundamentally different
The kind of leadership required is very much the same - in a different framework
Engagement of citizens in the political process is nice in theory, but it does not work in practice
The need to involve citizens is increasing and so are the possibilities of organising it successfully
Smaller organisations have better relations with citizens
Larger organisations can organise their interfaces professionally
The decisive factor for partnerships to work is a joint task and budget
The decisive factor are shared, important challenges and good relationships
Relationships between national and local authorities will always be problematical
There are good models for cooperation between different levels
A new programme or organisation means disturbance of ongoing activities
The new programme or organization is an important chance for
Managers and clinicians (or other experts) will never really understand each other
Five years from now, we will wonder what the reasons for past miscommunication were
What we need are some answers to the tricky issues we are facing
What we need is the ability to formulate really good questions to guide our work together
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
On the last day of the Danish visit, Danes joined the Welsh participants in a joint Open Space session, exploring the questions they had in common, such as, What leadership approaches work in small countries? In what ways can we develop more user/citizen-centered policy? Is there a role for the private sector in delivering public service? What does ‘localism’ mean in Denmark and in Wales? How can we learn to trust each other across organisation and professional divides? How can public services help to generate better individual and social responsibility? How do we take more risks in policy making and implementation? Citizen engagement and local democracy: are they both necessary? How do we reconcile notions of equality and social justice to create a society comfortable with its differences? How can we create better reward systems to encourage co-operation?
At the final session in May, participants reflected on the main lessons learned from the programme. They grouped these under three headings: devolution governance citizenship
Since this was a leadership inquiry, the theme of leadership - and how to develop leadership capacity - underpins all three topics. These encompassed the collaborative role of leaders and the importance of acting in service of the transformation necessary to deliver sustainable improvement to Welsh public services. These imperatives are embedded in the following analysis reinforcing the importance of new forms leadership as a critical success factors in leading change. Alongside this, however, is the personal learning and development gained by participants, which by definition is multi faceted, highly specific and contextual. Accounts of this are more easily heard through conversations with the participants themselves and they are happy to talk more about what they have done as a result of their participation – indeed most of them have already spoken to groups or meetings since their return, reflecting on their experiences. Some of these are captured in the report in more personal accounts of the programme.
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
The leadership challenge Leading public services today is a tough enough challenge; leading public services in a country which is coming to understand what it means to be a more autonomous ‘small country’ presents yet another layer of complexity. Since devolution, the debate has persisted over whether Wales is big enough to sustain our own distinctive public policy direction, appropriate to our own particular context and aspirations. If our only point of reference is the English model, then this makes for a very limited debate. If, however, we look further a field, to the experiences of small countries around the world, we generate a much richer source of ideas and possibilities, giving public service leaders more of the evidence they need to be bolder and more confident in their leadership. However, leadership development can never be simply about ‘hard evidence’. If this were true then getting leaders to read a few well chosen texts would be enough to transform public services. This programme was about evidence, yes, but it was also a groundbreaking approach to cross sector leadership development, designed to generate a shift in participants’ insight into the challenges which face them and in turn in their confidence to implement change. As George Bernard Shaw said “it is not enough to know what is good; you must be able to do it”.
Leadership development must be experiential, about the doing of it – brought about by
better awareness of one’s own day to day practice, through a feedback loop of reflection and dialogue with others who are themselves engaged in similar dilemmas. Leaders at the top of their organisations rarely get the opportunity to reflect on their own practice. Too often it is assumed that, by virtue of having got there, they are now ‘the finished article’ and no longer need to engage in personal and professional development. And, all too often, occasions for frank, supportive feedback and challenge diminish in direct proportion to seniority – in this pressurised and exposed environment, it is often considered to be a ‘career limiting move’ to engage in candid debate, to challenge orthodoxies, to comment on unhelpful behaviours. For public service leaders to work more effectively together, they must also learn differently together. This does not mean ‘teaching’ them the same things, so that they all ‘sing from the same hymn sheet’. What this means is that they work together in settings which enable them to inquire into their diverse experiences and perspectives, understanding more about their common ground and discovering their common purposes. “the essential feature of common thought is not that it is held in common, but that it is produced in common” – Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933)
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Leadership is not about managing the status quo more efficiently – it is about change, anticipating global trends and shifting world views - and acting with others to respond. For too long, as Reg Revans said, management education has been like ‘throwing answers like stones at the heads of those who have not yet begun to ask the questions.” And still, much leadership development involves providing the answers to yesterdays’ questions. In a fast changing and complex world, where leaders constantly feel as if they are working right at the edge of their experience and competence (if they’re engaged in the right things!) the capacity to ask fresh questions about the important issues becomes a critical leadership skill. One of the hardest things for public service leaders to come to terms with is the impact of the global information age, where information and communication is now widely dispersed into the informal, user-generated realm. With widespread use of the web, the growth of chat forums and blogs, Wikipedia, Google and so on, leaders can no longer rely on their privileged access to expert knowledge to validate their authority. But that same pattern also provides new opportunities, making it ever more important to be able to understand and interpret the proliferation of data – often partial, contradictory and ambiguous. Contemporary leadership is about the ability to ‘make sense’ of complex and contested information, bringing coherence and drawing together the disparate and apparently unconnected strands into something that aligns and integrates actions within organisations and across communities. Leadership is about relationship. Fundamentally, leadership is enacted in the many day-to-day interactions with colleagues, stakeholders, citizens, service users. To shift ‘Joining Up as One Public Service’ from aspiration to day to day reality – moving away from the silo’d world of public service organisation and the ‘us and them’ behaviours this generates - then leaders will need to improve their capacity to build productive and purposeful relationships with a much wider bandwidth of people. And in order to do this successfully, the leader of tomorrow will need a much greater capacity to work with difference and diversity – not just because, increasingly, our communities, stakeholders and service users expect an individualised, differentiated service which meets their particular needs and concerns, but also because including ‘requisite variety’ leads to better quality actions and outcomes. And the leaders of tomorrow will need a much greater capacity to work with their customers, their service users and their communities, in a way that both respects their contributions and galvanises their collective energies. This programme offered a learning design congruent with these principles.
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Devolution – a continuing journey Since it began the devolution journey in 1999 Wales has been developing an understanding of it’s distinctively Welsh agenda. This was captured in the “Making The Connections” (MtC) policy in 2004, and subsequently reinforced by the findings of the Beecham review “Beyond Boundaries”. Welsh public policy lies in the achievement of four clear outcomes: Social Justice; a just society which treats individuals and groups of people fairly, in which noone is socially excluded; Equalities; treating people equally in status, rights and opportunities through a set of policies and actions, to secure equality of outcome for all; Sustainability; considering economic, social and environmental issues equally in all our work and decision making; and Sense of community; creating strong, safe and cohesive communities for everybody These goals are further strengthened in One Wales; the agreement between Labour and Plaid Cymru groups; “…to deliver the sort of fair, prosperous, confident and outgoing Wales which its citizens deserve and demand.” The divergence in Welsh public policy from the English markets and choice model, (though, arguably, being an effective driver for improvement in that context) comes about since the English approach does not promote the four core policy outcomes that now form the foundation for the development and delivery of Welsh public services- the citizen-centred model promoting participation and partnership. This is not an either/or approach. Being citizen centred recognises that people are both consumers of public services and citizens who have a vital contribution to make in driving improvement in quality and form of public services. If the aspiration to place the citizen at the centre of service delivery is to be effective then it has to be demonstrated in four ways: Better access to information and services Engaging citizens in driving improvement in the quality of services Working with citizens in the strategic commissioning of services Creating partnerships with citizens and communities so that they work jointly with public services in achieving complex social goals. How to achieve this is not a new issue for Welsh public services. The debate preceding the Local Government Review in Wales in 1996 centred around whether there was greater value in
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
having a large number of small Councils that could be close to citizens and communities but lack the benefits of scale of a large authority, or have a small number of large Councils that would realise the economies of scale but would be more remote from citizens and communities. It is a matter of history that the former option prevailed and we have 22 Unitary Authorities that are able to get very close to citizens and communities, and able to respect the sense of community that is central to the Welsh culture. The downside of this is that Wales has much higher infrastructure costs for its public services. There was a hope in 1996 that this would be addressed by combining the value of the two models. Twenty two non-self sufficient Unitary Authorities would have been an excellent vehicle for engaging citizens and communities at the local level, and high levels of collaboration across services (front line and back office) would have provided the economies of scale. Ten years on MtC and Beyond Boundaries present the same challenge, but to organisations which are now more mature and possibly less territorial than in 1996. Inevitably complexity generates more complexity, as individuals and organisations attempt to get to grip with the changes that need to be made. Systems risk becoming more complex but not necessarily more sophisticated, they become harder to understand but not more clever or intelligent. This very dilemma – providing services as local as possible to citizens and communities, removing layers of complex accountability, whilst at the same time ensuring value for money and cost effectiveness – drove a significant programme of reforms within the Danish public service. The Purpose of the Local Government Reform “The purpose of the reform is to maintain and develop a democratically governed public sector with a sound basis for continued development of the Danish welfare society. Therefore, the decentralised public sector, which is a distinctive Danish feature, needs to be designed in such a way that it can meet future requirements by creating sustainable units with a clear responsibility to provide high quality welfare service to the Danish population.
Larger municipalities can provide the basis for
improved task solution where more welfare tasks are solved locally and democracy will be strengthened as more political decisions are made locally.” (Excerpt from the Agreement on a Structural Reform made by the government and the Danish People’s Party)
Through a ‘voluntary and locally anchored process’ of debate, negotiation and collaboration, 98 municipalities replaced 271, covering populations varying in size from less than 20,000 in the islands, to 650,000 in Copenhagen but, on average, serving communities of 60,000. The new map of Denmark with 98 municipalities was then created from:
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
65 merged municipalities 33 unchanged municipalities. Seven of these municipalities have less than 20,000 inhabitants and therefore, they all enter into binding partnerships. Five of the seven municipalities are islands. 11 municipalities were divided as a result of local referendums That local communities negotiated, agreed and drove the reforms is significant for both service users and those employed in them. The accounts of the reforms did not have the echo of change fatigue, which we hear so often in the UK: rather the impression was more ‘sleeves rolled up and all in it together’. Could this be accounted for by the fact that the Danes invested heavily in an inclusive and open change process – generating a shared sense of the need for change, the drivers and levers for change, the costs of change (and the costs of not changing) and, most importantly, including leaders and players from the whole Danish system in agreeing the shape of the public service and the steps needed to get there? An intriguing question for participants, when reflecting on the Danes’ high sense of satisfaction with their public services, is the extent to which this inclusive change process somehow contributes or reinforces it. In a small country, where public services are themselves major employers, it is important to recognise the relationship between staff engagement and satisfaction and citizen engagement and satisfaction. The opportunity to create better causality and mutuality between levels of provider and user satisfaction was intrinsic to delivering improved services. The perception of services themselves was as important as actual delivery. Funds Follow the Tasks ”The parties agree that the reform should not result in higher taxes or increased public expenditure. Changes in distribution of tasks will be made based on the principle that the reform is neutral when it comes to expenditure and the funds follow the tasks. This should ensure that the authorities taking on new tasks will be compensated by the authorities giving up the tasks. The municipalities have to bear the costs of the mergers. But they can keep whatever they gain from the synergy effect. In this way the local government reform encourages the municipalities to keep costs down and also to gain as many benefits from the synergy effect as possible.”
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Governance Devolution continues to evolve in Wales, with the prospect of further self-determination under the Government of Wales Act, but present governance arrangements are based on a large country (the UK) model. This has created the sense that Wales has or is currently undergoing technical devolvement but has yet to emerge as a Nation State. Denmark, a country about twice the area of Wales and with almost double our population, is characterised by a strong welfare-oriented profile and – according to the OECD – one of the world’s lowest levels of social inequality. Its progressive tax system provides public services for all that are free at the point of delivery yet, despite perceptions of a highly-funded public service regime, spend as a proportion of GDP is about the same as in Wales (with its higher GDP, absolute spend in Denmark is higher per capita). The value system that underpins this egalitarian society is summarised by Rikke Lundsgarde, Deputy Director of a large NGO, as “a country where few have too much – and even fewer too little” Some interesting principles underpin the governance framework in Denmark: simplicity; collaboration; spheres (not tiers); delivery and trust. These principles are founded on a cultural platform of self-belief and community confidence. The simplicity that can be achieved in a small country is evident in the national:local model, with regional services operating only where critical mass precludes them from being delivered more locally. Denmark’s 98 municipalities are responsible for the delivery of most direct public services – in health care (preventative and rehabilitative services), employment, social services, primary and special education, business services, collective transport and roads, nature, environment, planning and culture. The five regions deal primarily with acute healthcare (hospital services and general practitioners), regional development and the operation of a number of social institutions (for vulnerable groups, those with special needs and for special education). At the national level, the state undertakes those activities where delegation to the municipalities and regions is considered to be inappropriate – policing, defence, the legal system, foreign service, international obligations, upper secondary, vocational and higher education and research. There are no ‘quangos’, and NGOs often have a specific role in governance that is defined through legislation. It was clearly evident during the visit that collaboration is the option of first resort, with partner municipalities coming together as a matter of course – it is the way things are done, no central government intervention seems necessary. As a consequence, government is organised in spheres, not hierarchies. Governance is driven by delivery rather than control, by outcomes rather than process. Trust was a dominant feature of public life. This included trusting elected politicians to get on with delivering their manifesto, trusting public services to be delivered without an over-engineered performance monitoring system, and trusting individuals within this delivery system that each will play his/her part at the right time and to the agreed quality.
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
The process of governance involves wide debate about any issue – encompassing all stakeholders – and resolution over the nature of the solution. To quote Jacob Stirling of WWF Denmark on the recent local government reform, ‘there was wide public acceptance of the need (to reform) and the debate was about how to reform’. As an illustration of this process, 293 of the 296 local government bodies that were being reduced to 98 municipalities and 5 regions simply got on with the job of making this agreed reform work, central government intervention being limited to directing towards a merger the 3 municipalities that could not agree.
Local government reform started with the appointment of a commission on
administrative structure in 2002 and, following this process of widespread debate and general support of the way forward, was implemented in January 2007. Within the governance model, activities are organised in support of outcomes, government is integrated around these outcomes and the presumption in the balance between national and local responsibility and accountability is with the local. Accountability is vested in individuals rather than systems, with agreement on the time needed for delivery and judgement then being made on the results. As noted earlier, there is little evidence of anything other than a light touch in terms of performance monitoring during delivery, with no relentless collection of statistics on surrogate measures. Trust and confidence by, between and in individuals to play their part is the dominant feature. The principles and process of governance reflect a confident leadership operating in a culture of individual and collective responsibility. With a structure of local government that is essentially two levels – national and local – there are fewer politicians overall (broadly about 1:2000, compared with about 1:100 in Wales) yet, because of the simple structure of delivery, the electorate feels closer to their elected members. The culture engenders a sense of duty, developed through a strong thread of citizenship woven into the education curriculum that facilitates participation. Politicians in Denmark are clear that their competence matters - and will be challenged (and unseated) if they fall short of public expectations. But in drawing lessons for Wales in developing our governance, perhaps the single difference between our two countries that, if addressed, could lead over time to a more Danish level of participation, is this sense of citizenship. Citizenship, including national politics, is a major subject in the Danish education system’s curriculum from primary through to upper secondary. The interest and understanding shown by school leavers in governance, evidenced by the high level of debate and turn-out of younger voters at elections, develops into lifelong wider participation by adults in civic matters generally.
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Citizenship, participation and engagement Citizenship is defined as civil or human rights, independence or nationality. It can be described as membership of a political community carrying with it rights to political participation and protection from mistreatment. Increasingly we use the word to connote some notion of civic relationship and mutual responsibility, hence the Welsh emphasis on citizen-centred approaches. In the context of the Welsh public service, citizenship is about relationship and engagement. There were a number of differences in relation to citizenship and participation between welsh and Danish society that are worthy of consideration. Firstly, greater emphasis was placed upon the responsibility of the individual to contribute to his or her personal wellbeing but also the wellbeing of the wider community. Individuals are required to take responsibility for their choice and actions. This is a cultural characteristic of Danish society. This is reflected in a variety of ways that contrasts significantly with the Wales of today. For example, until very recently, there was no legislation setting any age limits setting restrictions on the purchase and consumption of alcohol. The second contrast was in relation to levels of public satisfaction with public services. Taxation is higher than in Wales and therefore it could be said that you get what you pay for. Higher taxation (46.2% av in 2005), translates into higher levels of public spending, and it seems, on the face of it, that people understand this equation and are happy with the outcomes. People rightly had high expectations of their public services, and in broad terms these seemed to be met. Copenhagen and other towns are remarkably free of litter and graffiti. Crime is much lower and we were told that it was quite safe to walk anywhere in Copenhagen at night without the risk of robbery or assault. The target setting and performance indicator culture appeared to be non existent for public authorities and the Danes were surprised to learn that Welsh local authorities had in the region of 500 targets to achieve each year. They were genuinely curious as to why such an approach might be needed and what effect this had on the ability to deliver services. The arrangement of local authorities is two tiered in Municipalities and Counties. The latter had responsibility for the greater part of the health services, planning and organising hospital based services, whilst municipalities organised and delivered community facing services and social care. The democratic system operated on a system of proportional representation and each municipality was contested on an area wide basis - electoral divisions were not used. We were informed that the turnout in elections was consistently high at over 80%. The electoral system, with it’s highly competitive elections and choice of many credible candidates, served the purpose of renewing of the value and importance of fulfilling one’s civic duty. New generations
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
were inculcated with a set of positive values surrounding their rights and responsibilities as citizens. There appeared to be a high level of trust in public service leaders and a belief that should services be seen as substandard then the politicians would not be re-elected next time. Early engagement generates such trust but during the visit, few examples were seen of what we understand by public engagement. There is, however, interesting evidence available concerning the consultative process on the restructuring of local government. Some of the group found that officials were puzzled by questions about public engagement, since their belief is that citizens are already involved and engaged through participation in the democratic process and in what they see as their normal civic responsibilities. One of the most significant differences between Wales and Denmark was the contrasting approaches to risk management and aversion. Legislative reform coupled with the politics of failure has engendered a risk avoidance culture in Wales which in turn has stifled creativity and innovation. This is evident in a value chain linking the commissioners and providers of public services with the user/citizen which is characterised by unacceptably high levels of antipathy and mistrust. Further evidence would suggest that communities by and large form and evolve in opposition to Government reform rather than in support of it. In this regard, communities learn to be less trusting and more cynical about the intention of Government to create positive, well meaning outcomes that however difficult are in the interests of the wider public.
In a classroom in a barn surrounded by shovels, axes, deer heads and various other spiky or flammable items, the group of visitors gasped – this would never be allowed in the UK! Children can come to this Danish farm on school trips and are allowed to tend the fields, build temporary structures from wooden poles and straw bales, and even cut down trees. With real saws! “It is a dilemma,” Peter Laxdal, of the “From garden to stomach” initiative, told the assembled party of Welsh public-sector leaders and policy-makers. “The farm is a dangerous place and health and safety is strict in Denmark. Maybe even our hay castle is not legal.” Later he presented some slides, including one of children getting a ride on a dilapidated tractor trailer. “The kids loved it – it was a highlight. We watched through our fingers hoping it wouldn’t fall apart,” he joked. But, when one of the group pointed out that even a sharp knife to cut carrots with wouldn’t be allowed in the UK, Laxdal realised that perhaps his country’s regulations weren’t that strict after all.
Based upon an assessment of the likelihood of risk and the consequences of failure, leaders generally measured the probability of success in terms of the eradication of risk. This influenced considerably the course of action they were often prepared to take and the amount of time and energy they invested in not getting things wrong rather than getting things right. The smallness of Wales contributed to this pattern of risk avoidance because of the individualised exposure to which they would be subjected if they were held accountable for a mistake.
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
In Denmark, the high regard that public service providers placed upon their relationship with the citizen was rewarded with positive affirmation and respect by the latter. Providers were trusted to get things right before they were suspected of getting things wrong. This mutual positive regard was build on a platform of engagement that historically characterised the relationship between both parties. On the broader question of risk, it was self-evident that Danish public services took a less rigorous approach to removing risk in its entirety from the provision of services. They acknowledged that there were often inherent dangers in the planning and delivery of services that it was important to address from the perspective of the user. However this was not to take precedence over the service to the citizen they were attempting to deliver. Implicit in this approach to risk was recognition of the role of user in taking responsibility for their own actions. What emerged from these insights was a strong sense that risk must be context sensitive and not take precedence over outcome.
Participants in the Leadership Inquiry were struck throughout their visit by the high degree of trust evident in the way that Danish society operates. This, when coupled with the positive inclination of individuals to advise and help with any problems, reflects a high degree of societal maturity that recognises the pre-eminence of 'us' before 'me'. For one of our party, this was exemplified by events that followed his unfortunate decision to bite on a Brazil nut with a tooth that was clearly not up to this particular task. Our resident medic, Cerilan Rogers, recommended immediate treatment to avoid potentially extremely painful complications. And that's when Danish values came to the fore. The hotel receptionist, being unable to get an immediate appointment with a local dentist, arranged for her own practitioner in the Copenhagen suburbs to take on this case. On arriving at the surgery, our colleague was greeted and booked in by a man who turned out - a few minutes later - to be a dentist. The receptionist had been busy on another matter and normal practice was for any available dentist to provide receptionist cover - the clear aim was to deal immediately with any incoming patient. Treatment was carried out efficiently and effectively, before the bill was then calculated. The cost of treatment turned out to be a pleasant surprise, but only when he attempted to pay by credit card did it become clear that the surgery accepted only cash (all but cosmetic treatments are free at the point of delivery in Denmark, leaving no real requirement for the normal range of money handling facilities). The dentist was unperturbed at our colleague's inability to pay, simply presenting him with an invoice and advising that this could be settled at any bank. This brought home graphically the trusting nature of Danish society, for the only detail the dentist had as he left the surgery was our colleague's name.
This experience highlighted the engaged relationship between the individual and the state, one that was based upon clarity of responsibility and a high level of trust. This is not evident in the case of Welsh public services. Low participation rates in national and local elections indicates a malaise in the democratic process that is indicative of wide spread disaffection and mistrust.
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Although by comparison the Welsh public service seems to have been less successful in developing its service portfolio and engagement with citizens, there are positive signs that flow from the current programme of reforms to address many of the issues outlined above. The development of a much more simplified system of governance combined with a reduction in the complexities underpinning service delivery as highlighted in the Beecham review of Welsh public services, can serve to create better engagement with communities and improve mutual accountability between the citizen and service. This will take time and require constant positive reinforcement. Public service leaders will need to become more vigilant and mindful of the effect of their behaviour on generating and sustaining mutual trust and respect. People smell bad faith; poor practice around public involvement and consultation - far from diminishing antipathy - has led in some instances to increased levels of distrust. However, as in the case of Denmark, early, honest and respectful engagement can help to sustain improved relations between key stakeholders. All of this highlights the extent of the disengagement between the Government and the people in Wales. We experience little evidence of the trust in public service leadership in Wales that we found in Denmark. Participation in the democratic process is below 50% of the electorate voting in the 2007 Welsh Assembly elections. At the (rarely discussed) Town and Community Council level, over 80% of the seats were not even contested at the last poll. Added to this is a complexity of public sector structures that continue to undermine the case for more streamlined governance and better collaboration.
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
What can we do to address the situation? Based on the Danish experience, we believe that all is not lost. Wales has tribal passions that can be harnessed to reconnect communities with government. The development of a much more simplified system of governance could lead to the greater engagement of communities and also to greater accountability from politicians. This takes time, and constant positive reinforcement, with public sector leaders (in the political and officer groups) becoming more rigorously mindful of the effect of their behaviour on generating and sustaining mutual trust and respect. Realistically, it is unlikely that given the present funding arrangements for the public sector in Wales, we will be able to replicate or match Danish levels of investment in public services. Therefore, we are faced with different challenges – prioritising, rationing and harnessing all possible means of support from all possible sources, particularly the support that people and communities organise for themselves. To help achieve this, we need to achieve better engagement between the commissioners and providers of public services, and the people who not only use those services, but also in many cases can contribute to them. Engaging with citizens to become co-creators and producers of public services offers unlimited opportunities for delivering high quality cost-effective delivery. As public service leaders we must help to build a shared and common understanding of what Citizenship means to individuals and their communities. We must help to redefine it in the context of the obligations and responsibilities we have to each other. This is a debate that must be invigorated with new ideas and principles so that we avoid the trap of merely repeating more loudly those things we have said in the past. Individuals must feel pride and empowerment in their role as citizens. They must acknowledge the attendant duties, rights, and privileges that accompany citizenship. Government should be instrumental in reminding individuals of their responsibilities towards others and in forging a new social contract fit for the 21st century.
"To take no part in the running of the community's affairs is to be either a beast or a god!" (Aristotle).
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Next steps Fascinating as Denmark is, the real value of this trip was three fold: Understanding more about our deep assumptions about what works in a small country context and coming to more creative conclusions than the ‘England vs Wales’ debate allows Reflecting on the sort of leadership that is needed to innovate, develop and deliver a distinctive policy direction for Wales Building relationships with other public service leaders, understanding more about how the world looks from their perspectives and how we can work more effectively together
In Wales we need to clearly sort out the values that underpin our public service direction and start to challenge some of the inconsistencies that undermine our capacity to deliver. More importantly we need to get away from the moribund, distracting and time-wasting arguments about structures and size, divorced from the underpinning values and principles in public service developments. In Denmark, public service structures have been remarkably consistent for decades, with these most recent changes being the first for some 20 years. The boundary changes were carefully agreed and negotiated, with equal participation from the central and local spheres. With the new arrangements in place and starting to operate, we saw effective public service organisations looking after communities from 30,000 to 650,000, but most typically for communities of 60-90,000.
The underpinning premise is that organisations will form around
what works on the ground for communities themselves, allowing smaller municipalities to collaborate on services where this is appropriate. But on the other hand, they do not have a history of organisational or professional ‘stovepipes’. Services in the community are – in our terms ‘joined up’ - designed around the overarching principle “…a simple public sector close to the citizen.” Danes take negotiation and consensus for granted.
When we asked about working in
partnerships between organisations, we often met a blank stare. The Police Chief, whose organisational boundaries span many municipalities, takes as his norm the regular meetings with 11 or 12 Mayors.
The quality of relationships between spheres and tiers was also
evidenced by the absence of punitive, repetitive inspection regimes – but also by the anecdotes we heard about when things do go wrong. In general, politicians and leaders are expected to accept responsibility when things go wrong on their watch – and the high levels of
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
political participation still underscore this – but the default position is one of trust and consensus – that people will want to, and generally are, doing their best. Looking back at Wales through the Danish lens brought into sharp relief the assumptions we make about public service organisation, governance and leadership. Five critical issues for a small country, developing its own distinctive approach to governance, became clear. 1.
We need to let go of an unsophisticated approach to the question of organisation size,
power and influence, based on constant reference to the English model. This is evident at present, for example, in the health commissioning debates. In spite of what we could learn from our own public sector history (where, frankly, outcomes for citizens were no better under bigger organisations than smaller ones) the debate reverts to whether big is better and more powerful. 2. The move towards working more collaboratively across boundaries often generates largely ‘undiscussable’ issues about power and control, authority and accountability between organisations - and the unhelpful behaviours that can play out when this is not addressed. Instead, the assertion ‘working in partnerships doesn’t work’ gains currency. 3. A lesson we appear to have utterly failed to learn is that you don’t innovate on the front line, in the citizen’s experience - where it matters - by simply exhorting change from the top down, from a more powerful ‘centre’. This misguided view appears to believe that leaders (and staff) in delivery organisations are sitting passively waiting for their instructions, or defiantly unwilling to learn from best practice. People are already doing things they largely believe to be right given their specific circumstances and the best information they have available. Sustainable change comes about when policy and strategy at the political centre is informed by and informs implementation and delivery at the front line in a virtuous cycle of appreciative and challenging experimentation, action, learning and reflection. 4. We need to stop confusing complexity with cleverness. The fact that we often apply our individual and corporate intelligence to making things more complex does not mean that are inherently cleverer – that is, more capable of responding adaptively in a fast changing world. We must instead focus on generating simple workable solutions that are based upon shared values and mutual trust – and be prepared to let go of our assumptions about how things should be. 5. We really need to get to grips with the whole new set of challenges presented by new technology and access to information. With widespread user-generated information and webbased communications, citizens are doing things for themselves and with each other in ways that simply sidestep the traditional rationing, informing, regulating mechanisms of the state.
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
In Wales, if we are to deliver the aspirations we have set out in policy and now in One Wales, we need to raise the level of debate with and between public service leaders and citizens. We need to recognise that there is a relationship between social justice, inclusion, the reduction of inequalities and the credibility of public bodies which are close to their communities and the people they serve – and in a small country this is thrown into sharp relief. Building social capital (that is, the quality of social interaction and pro-social behaviour between citizens and between citizens and their public services) requires public services to co-create different relationships with their citizens and with each other. We will do that most effectively when we broaden and deepen our own understanding of what works elsewhere and what that means for our own practice – not just in the home countries but in comparable countries around the world – and then build critical mass communities of practice committed to giving Wales the world class services we need and deserve.
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Programme Outline I. Opening ‘Open Space’ Event, leading to.... II. Three Action Learning sets, meeting three times, before.... III. The Visit
Travel from UK and arrival in Copenhagen, Denmark Tuesday 20th March Check-in & Orientation Dinner at Copenhagen Island Hotel
National Health Board – Kjell Kjellson, Deputy Director Wednesday 21st March
Ministry of the Interior - Søren Thomsen Hansen Association of Local Authorities, Mads Jensbo, Senior Consultant Debrief and Dinner – Island Hotel
Environmental Assessment Institute, Anders Larsen, CEO Committee for the people’s health, Pia Langhoff, Project Leader National Association of Local Authorities, OD Department, Mr Tomas Therkildsen, Head of Department “Young Now” - Regitze Sigaard, Project Leader ”The fat topmeeting” - Dorthe Brande Pedersen, Danish Food Industry Thursday 22nd March City of Copenhagen Health Department, Jens Egsgaard, Chief of Health Dept Association of New Danes - Human Shojaee Police Region Copenhagen West, Commander Henning Thiessen “From garden to stomach” – a partnership project between schools and agriculture CEO of Gladsaxe Local Authority, Marius Ibsen Debrief and Dinner at Restaurant Thorvaldsens Hus
Chief Inspector of Police Copenhagen Central, Per Larsen
Friday 23rd March
Danish Environmental Organisation (Miljøstyrelsen), Ole Christianssen, Director General Open Space meeting – Copenhagen Island Hotel Travel back to UK
IV. Followed by three Action Learning Set meetings, with a... V. Final Open Space event and Next Steps
Sue Pritchard 2007
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Participants Participant
Organisation
Job Title
Colin Berg
Monmouthshire CC
CEO
Colin Everett
WLGA
Dr Cerilan Rogers
National Public Health Service for Wales
Director of Improvement and Governance National Director
Edward Lewis
Boundary Commission for Wales
Secretary
Elizabeth Gallagher
Pontypridd and Rhondda NHS Trust
Head of Partnership Working
Giles York
South Wales Police
Assistant Chief Constable
Isobel Garner
Wrexham CC
CEO
Roger Thomas
Countryside Council for Wales
CEO
Mike Ponton
Welsh NHS Confederation
Director
Neil Wooding
PSMW
Director
Phil Jarrold
WCVA
Deputy CEO
Linda Pepper
Powys Association Vol Orgs Gwent Police
CEO
Paul Symes
Divisional Commander
Professor Sir Adrian Webb Lady Monjulee Webb
Lord Lieutenant Vale of Glamorgan
Chris Penn
BT Government Wales
Viscount Chris Mills
Environment Agency Wales
Regional Market Manager, Health & HE Director
Sue Pritchard
Bath Consultancy Group
Principal Consultant
Gerard Muller
Open Space
Tim Smedley
People Management Magazine
Sue Pritchard 2007
Journalist
The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark
Welsh Assembly Government
Background Reading Bernard Shaw and Follett quoted in Revans, R. The ABC of Action Learning, Lemos and Crane Edition Attwood, M. Pedler, M. Pritchard, S. Wilkinson, D, Leading Change; a guide to whole systems working, The Policy Press, 2003 Heifetz, R. & Linsky, M. (2002) Leadership on the Line: Staying alive during the dangers of Leading, Harvard Business School Press. Mann, P. Rummery K. and Pritchard, S, Supporting inter-organisational partnerships in the public sector: the role of joined up action learning and research. Public Management Review, 2004. Smedley, Tim, The Flag Bearers, in People Management, 14 June 2007 Beyond Boundaries; The Beecham Review, NAW, July 2006 Kommunal - Local Government Reform. The Ministry of the Interior and Health, Department of Economics, December 2005 Gallagher, N. and Parker, S. The Collaborative State – how working together can transform public services, Demos, March 2007
Sue Pritchard 2007