Frequency of blogging is a pretty good measure of how maxed out a person is. So, from me, not much blogging of late. So what's to say on a Saturday lunchtime in a few moments snatched while the children devour 'Octonauts' on Cbeebies?
Well, I am, overall, in mostly a good place. Sat on my usual fault-line between productive, happy busyness and meltdown. I have to say that I am very pleased to be in business. Nothing quite matches the freedom it brings, despite the uncertainty and solitude. Also it's unforgiving in a way that organisational life just isn't: You fuck up and people don't call you in again. You are only as good as your last job. Quite a simple and effective motivator.
But perhaps what I am enjoying most is the lack of responsibility for the performance of others. This, above all else, is what really did for me as a CEO. Somehow, I was accountable for whether 200-odd people did a fantastic job or not. While I could accept the fact that it was my job to set the culture and processes up as best I could, it was the idea that it was the employers' job to be fix mediocre performance from staff, including all of their problems at work, that probably finally did for me.
Today, if someone lets me down, it's their fault, not mine, and they either take it or they don't work for us again. And their own problems - be it health, happiness, dying aunt, complicated love-life - are nothing at all to do with me. While I can and do care, I don't have to manage these problems as if they are somehow my own.. .
Right now I am working an Associate model. It's perfect. I get highly capable, committed people who are keen to prove their worth and earn well. They don't look to me for answers to their own delivery problems. Quietly, whole sections of the UK economy is moving over to this model. And, interestingly, everyone who does it seems happier than in the strange dance of being employed.
Am I calling for the casualisation of the British workforce? No, because many people need the securities and rights that employment brings. But I am saying that as an entrepreneur growing a business today, I don't view an expanded workforce as part of what I am doing. A few committed individuals perhaps, all of whose pay would be linked to results, but nothing more.
In fact, I believe I could build my own business to as large a size as I like with about five FT people. The thought of employing more than this chills me, as I know I would be taking on the problems of the world and his wife - and neglecting my customers in the process.
No thanks.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Guest Blog by Dan Gregory on the future for Mutuals
As the battle to command the future of our forests, our NHS, our libraries and our banks is being fought, we can map some territorial advances against the predictable axis of left and right. The conventional options open to those in power are either to retain assets and public services within the boundaries of the state - the traditional preference of the left - or throw things open to the market - much preferred by the right.
Frontline implementation of these choices falls to the likes of public sector asset managers, budget-holders in local councils and HR professionals. For asset managers, the practical levers which reflect the strategic political choice can be summarised as ‘keep it or flog it’. For budget-holders or commissioners of public services, it’s in-house provision versus cuts or going out to tender. And for HR professionals, it’s who to keep and who to make redundant or transfer elsewhere.
But since the global financial crisis, increased pressure on public finances and the election, we have witnessed increasing interest, if not consensus, around the idea of mutuals. Whether this means social enterprises, employee-owned businesses, or a commitment to the Rochdale co-operative principles (or all the above), Government Ministers and opposition MPs, think-tanks and council members have been calling for the mutualisation of our banks, public services, post offices, port authorities, forests and other assets and services - which until now have been ideologically tugged back and forth between public and private.
Meanwhile, out in the mundane world of local public sector administration, there is little real excitement, consensus, discussion or even understanding of mutuals. Many don’t recognise what it means. So in the longer term, perhaps this rhetoric may help open up awareness of a further enticing option for those who have lost faith in the failures of an unresponsive state and the unfettered market.
But a handful of our local public servants and administrators are interested. So what does this mutual ambition mean in practice for these asset managers, budget-holders and HR managers? Which button do you press to get yourself a mutual? The unspoken truth here - which is beginning to crystallise as the test of this government’s ambitions for mutual solutions - is that the standard levers available to those responsible for delivery probably won’t lead to the creation of mutuals. Keeping services or assets in house certainly won’t and going out to the market, well, unsurprisingly, means the market will decide. So how do you 'do' the mutual option? Where’s the lever?
Giving or transferring an asset or a contract to a mutual, social enterprise or charity isn’t straightforward. There are rules which guard against the sale of assets at below market price, protecting the financial opportunity cost to the taxpayer (at least in the short-term) of giving something away. Giving a contract to your preferred mutual provider would often simply be illegal, under competition law.
Yet there are ways which it can be done. Imaginative and pioneering public officials are experimenting with asset transfer, framework agreements, competitions for a mutual joint venture partner, exploiting the possibilities of individual budgets and looking to transfer publicly held shares to groups of staff and other individuals over time.
But each of these require imagination, trust and – while very few doubt the new found appetite in Whitehall for letting power flow away from the centre - an awareness that the centre still has a role to play in loosening the reins. This means understanding what really goes on at the frontlines and that good old fashioned practical policy interventions can be absolutely essential to turn a strategic ambition into something real.
‘Nudging’ may have a lot to offer. But what will it take to get Steve from Wiltshire County Council Social Services Management Unit to reach for something other than his conventional levers? If a group of passionate, committed and entrepreneurial staff knock on the door of the Deputy Resources Manager in the Lewisham Borough Council Strategic Commissioning Directorate and say “We want to mutualise!” isn’t the response still most likely to be “I’m sorry there doesn’t seem to be any reference to that in the HR handbook. Your notice of redundancy letters are in the post”?
The cuts, redundancies and new ideas, such as shared back office services, are already overwhelming enough for local public sector staff. Mutuals are simply not on the menu for public sector leaders confronted with need to make changes. There are few precedents and culture can be hugely risk averse. In practice, what are the incentives for HR managers to blaze a trail without a map? Where are the tools, guidance and maps for public sector budget-holders and managers to enable mutualised services to develop?
Yet speed is essential. Some opportunities have been lost already. Budgets for the next few years have largely been agreed - and they tend not to include a contingency reserve for staff coming forward with an idea for enabling new ways of delivering services through a mutual. If the Forest of Fangorn, for example, goes up for sale in the autumn, then United Land Inc. will probably submit their bid before the local community have agreed who is chairing the meetings. So delivery on commitments from the Government, such as the Mutuals Support Programme to launch in April, and the Right to Provide enshrined in a meaningful way in the Localism Bill, are much needed, and fast.
There are already 132,000 fewer public sectors workers in December 2010 than the preceding year and, on 31st March 2011, many thousands more will be made redundant. The Right to Request, which provided a relatively clear path to PCT staff to set up a mutual (as well as the financial support, pensions deal and uncontested contract which looks unlikely under the Right to Provide) is set to move 25,000 into mutuals. Compare this to Francis Maude’s ambition for 1,000,000 public sector workers to mutualise.
So to meet this ambition, and with time, opportunities and some of the best talent already jettisoned, the Budget will be an opportunity to judge the Government's understanding of, and appetite for, bridging the gap between ambition and action, rhetoric and reality, policy and practice.
We should look out for any promising words around the public stake in the banks, the future of the remaining arms-length bodies, the future of some of our valued national assets, and keep an eye on public service reforms. But far more importantly, we should welcome any practical steps that will truly enable the HR professionals, asset managers and budget-holders to look beyond the options they currently have at their disposal and set the warm words alight.
Dan Gregory is an independent advisor, who has worked for a number of years to support investment in mutual and social enterprises, developing policy at the Treasury and Cabinet Office and delivering in practice at the grassroots.
Frontline implementation of these choices falls to the likes of public sector asset managers, budget-holders in local councils and HR professionals. For asset managers, the practical levers which reflect the strategic political choice can be summarised as ‘keep it or flog it’. For budget-holders or commissioners of public services, it’s in-house provision versus cuts or going out to tender. And for HR professionals, it’s who to keep and who to make redundant or transfer elsewhere.
But since the global financial crisis, increased pressure on public finances and the election, we have witnessed increasing interest, if not consensus, around the idea of mutuals. Whether this means social enterprises, employee-owned businesses, or a commitment to the Rochdale co-operative principles (or all the above), Government Ministers and opposition MPs, think-tanks and council members have been calling for the mutualisation of our banks, public services, post offices, port authorities, forests and other assets and services - which until now have been ideologically tugged back and forth between public and private.
Meanwhile, out in the mundane world of local public sector administration, there is little real excitement, consensus, discussion or even understanding of mutuals. Many don’t recognise what it means. So in the longer term, perhaps this rhetoric may help open up awareness of a further enticing option for those who have lost faith in the failures of an unresponsive state and the unfettered market.
But a handful of our local public servants and administrators are interested. So what does this mutual ambition mean in practice for these asset managers, budget-holders and HR managers? Which button do you press to get yourself a mutual? The unspoken truth here - which is beginning to crystallise as the test of this government’s ambitions for mutual solutions - is that the standard levers available to those responsible for delivery probably won’t lead to the creation of mutuals. Keeping services or assets in house certainly won’t and going out to the market, well, unsurprisingly, means the market will decide. So how do you 'do' the mutual option? Where’s the lever?
Giving or transferring an asset or a contract to a mutual, social enterprise or charity isn’t straightforward. There are rules which guard against the sale of assets at below market price, protecting the financial opportunity cost to the taxpayer (at least in the short-term) of giving something away. Giving a contract to your preferred mutual provider would often simply be illegal, under competition law.
Yet there are ways which it can be done. Imaginative and pioneering public officials are experimenting with asset transfer, framework agreements, competitions for a mutual joint venture partner, exploiting the possibilities of individual budgets and looking to transfer publicly held shares to groups of staff and other individuals over time.
But each of these require imagination, trust and – while very few doubt the new found appetite in Whitehall for letting power flow away from the centre - an awareness that the centre still has a role to play in loosening the reins. This means understanding what really goes on at the frontlines and that good old fashioned practical policy interventions can be absolutely essential to turn a strategic ambition into something real.
‘Nudging’ may have a lot to offer. But what will it take to get Steve from Wiltshire County Council Social Services Management Unit to reach for something other than his conventional levers? If a group of passionate, committed and entrepreneurial staff knock on the door of the Deputy Resources Manager in the Lewisham Borough Council Strategic Commissioning Directorate and say “We want to mutualise!” isn’t the response still most likely to be “I’m sorry there doesn’t seem to be any reference to that in the HR handbook. Your notice of redundancy letters are in the post”?
The cuts, redundancies and new ideas, such as shared back office services, are already overwhelming enough for local public sector staff. Mutuals are simply not on the menu for public sector leaders confronted with need to make changes. There are few precedents and culture can be hugely risk averse. In practice, what are the incentives for HR managers to blaze a trail without a map? Where are the tools, guidance and maps for public sector budget-holders and managers to enable mutualised services to develop?
Yet speed is essential. Some opportunities have been lost already. Budgets for the next few years have largely been agreed - and they tend not to include a contingency reserve for staff coming forward with an idea for enabling new ways of delivering services through a mutual. If the Forest of Fangorn, for example, goes up for sale in the autumn, then United Land Inc. will probably submit their bid before the local community have agreed who is chairing the meetings. So delivery on commitments from the Government, such as the Mutuals Support Programme to launch in April, and the Right to Provide enshrined in a meaningful way in the Localism Bill, are much needed, and fast.
There are already 132,000 fewer public sectors workers in December 2010 than the preceding year and, on 31st March 2011, many thousands more will be made redundant. The Right to Request, which provided a relatively clear path to PCT staff to set up a mutual (as well as the financial support, pensions deal and uncontested contract which looks unlikely under the Right to Provide) is set to move 25,000 into mutuals. Compare this to Francis Maude’s ambition for 1,000,000 public sector workers to mutualise.
So to meet this ambition, and with time, opportunities and some of the best talent already jettisoned, the Budget will be an opportunity to judge the Government's understanding of, and appetite for, bridging the gap between ambition and action, rhetoric and reality, policy and practice.
We should look out for any promising words around the public stake in the banks, the future of the remaining arms-length bodies, the future of some of our valued national assets, and keep an eye on public service reforms. But far more importantly, we should welcome any practical steps that will truly enable the HR professionals, asset managers and budget-holders to look beyond the options they currently have at their disposal and set the warm words alight.
Dan Gregory is an independent advisor, who has worked for a number of years to support investment in mutual and social enterprises, developing policy at the Treasury and Cabinet Office and delivering in practice at the grassroots.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Are you fired with enthusiasm?
One afternoon recently I received three phone calls in the space of an hour: the first was from my former PA who had lost her new job; the second was from my brother, whose council job has been put "at risk"; and the third was from a talented charity director who has been told he's not part of the organisation's future plans. Yes, the long-awaited tsunami has hit our sector. If you haven't been swept away yourself, you will know someone who has been, or is clinging on to a branch as the waters rip by.
The legendary American football coach Vince Lombardi famously said: "If you're not fired with enthusiasm, you'll be fired with enthusiasm". Until now, this has never been particularly true of the UK voluntary sector. You could survive without showing much zip. However, the tables have now turned. Indeed, the financial situation in many UK charities is now so dire that even bouncing enthusiasts may not escape the crosshairs, along with the doomed RIPs (Retired-in-Posts). Our sector has, in a year, turned from a cosy armchair to a bed of nails - a staggering turnaround in such a short time.
So what if it's you next in line for a P45? The first thing is not to waste time and energy on arguing the toss. Tussles with your employer about "Why me?" will only sap your energy and confidence. Just accept your time is up and move on. Thank your employer, ask for a cracking reference and wish the organisation the best. Hold no bitterness and leave with a smile on your face.
The second thing is to inform your network. Fact: people who have strong networks find good work quicker than those who don't. Not because their friends find them a job - far from it. A network is a web of trust and reciprocity. It gives you vital information you might otherwise miss. And, crucially, it helps to hold you together while you adjust to your new situation. In times like this, a network is also a life-support system.
The third thing is to use redundancy as an opportunity to assess what you're actually doing with your life. Were you really in the job you were born to do? The world is full of people who say that losing their job was the best thing that ever happened to them. Countless new businesses, careers and lifestyles have grown from being rejected by one's employer. This could be you.
Of course, none of this softens the blow when it happens. It's hard to avoid taking redundancy personally, and keeping your self-belief high will be the biggest challenge. Of the three jobless people who called me that afternoon, two do not worry me at all - they are glass-half-full people, ardent networkers who, I know, will be back in work very quickly. The third, however, is in a major wobble and is taking it all very personally.
S
o whatever happens this spring, keep the faith, use your network, see the opportunities and - yes - stay fired with enthusiasm.
The legendary American football coach Vince Lombardi famously said: "If you're not fired with enthusiasm, you'll be fired with enthusiasm". Until now, this has never been particularly true of the UK voluntary sector. You could survive without showing much zip. However, the tables have now turned. Indeed, the financial situation in many UK charities is now so dire that even bouncing enthusiasts may not escape the crosshairs, along with the doomed RIPs (Retired-in-Posts). Our sector has, in a year, turned from a cosy armchair to a bed of nails - a staggering turnaround in such a short time.
So what if it's you next in line for a P45? The first thing is not to waste time and energy on arguing the toss. Tussles with your employer about "Why me?" will only sap your energy and confidence. Just accept your time is up and move on. Thank your employer, ask for a cracking reference and wish the organisation the best. Hold no bitterness and leave with a smile on your face.
The second thing is to inform your network. Fact: people who have strong networks find good work quicker than those who don't. Not because their friends find them a job - far from it. A network is a web of trust and reciprocity. It gives you vital information you might otherwise miss. And, crucially, it helps to hold you together while you adjust to your new situation. In times like this, a network is also a life-support system.
The third thing is to use redundancy as an opportunity to assess what you're actually doing with your life. Were you really in the job you were born to do? The world is full of people who say that losing their job was the best thing that ever happened to them. Countless new businesses, careers and lifestyles have grown from being rejected by one's employer. This could be you.
Of course, none of this softens the blow when it happens. It's hard to avoid taking redundancy personally, and keeping your self-belief high will be the biggest challenge. Of the three jobless people who called me that afternoon, two do not worry me at all - they are glass-half-full people, ardent networkers who, I know, will be back in work very quickly. The third, however, is in a major wobble and is taking it all very personally.
S
o whatever happens this spring, keep the faith, use your network, see the opportunities and - yes - stay fired with enthusiasm.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Any Willing Provider must mean Another Bleedin' Monopoly
What will Any Willing Provider (AWP) in public services actually mean in practice? In three words, it will mean: lots more competition.
To some, especially in the public sector, this spells duplication, chaos, a race to the bottom and bullying private companies, squashing the rest. To others, particularly in the private, social enterprise and voluntary sectors, it means diversity of supply, innovation, choice and efficiency, as organisations vie for new business.
The truth about the future is that either camp may be right. It all depends on how we go about the process of opening up public sector markets. So how do we end up with the good side of competition and avoid the bad?
Three things are important here. The first is how far we go to ensure diversity of supply – and avoid monopoly or oligopoly. Large, single providers – public or private – can be appealing to councillors and their local commissioners. They offer simplicity, accountability, early economies of scale and a logical "joined-up" approach compared to the "chaos" of the market.
As competition dawns there will no doubt be many providers, both larger and smaller, seeking to offer so-called integrated approaches in particular communities, which are, in fact, a byword for long-term monopoly. Once the commissioning bodies are dependent on the new arrangements the provider can turn the handle, raise prices and lower quality as much as it wants.
If this happens, it will be an expensive route back to what we have today in most public services: costly, unmoveable, low-quality, low-innovation services. The solution, of course, is for the principle of diversity of supply – allowing no one to become dominant – to be an absolute non-negotiable in local public service markets.
The second point is how markets are set up at local level. Just letting the market rip without any rules of engagement or quality thresholds for new entrants will be a recipe for disaster. It goes without saying that the public have to be protected from cowboy operators. Again, a proper job for local councillors and authorities.
More importantly, heavily capitalised organisations need to be prevented from dominating markets at the expense of small and medium players – as in the US, where 25% of public sector contracts are set aside for these firms. In UK healthcare, for example, we could introduce this rule to ensure that smaller and local providers have a guaranteed role in the healthcare economy.
Linked to this, we have to set up markets to ensure that any partnering between large and small organisations is fair – and that companies that abuse their relationships with smaller providers face blacklisting. Again, this is a legitimate role for councils and their councillors as "consumer champions". Don't get me wrong, private sector partnerships with social enterprises and charities should happen – they just need to be fair. Rules of engagement, with teeth, overseen at local level, will guarantee this.
The third factor that will shape how AWP operates at local level will be the fate of the private members bill on social value in commissioning, which is currently making its way through parliament. This bill will pass into UK law that local commissioning and procurement reflects the total "social value" to a community of a bid, as well as price and quality. Without this, we may face a "race to the bottom", as price factors overwhelm all others in the minds of financially pressed local authorities.
So AWP may be a good thing, if it delivers a genuine market. But only appropriately managed competition, a rock-solid commitment to diversity of supply and the hard-wiring of social value into local commissioning will deliver this. It is clear to many of us in the social economy that a simple free-for-all will lead not to AWP but back to another monopoly provider. Not what any of us – including the coalition – intended.
Craig Dearden-Phillips is founder and chief executive of Stepping Out, a business helping parts of the public sector become a social enterprise, and is a Liberal Democrat county councillor in Suffolk.
To some, especially in the public sector, this spells duplication, chaos, a race to the bottom and bullying private companies, squashing the rest. To others, particularly in the private, social enterprise and voluntary sectors, it means diversity of supply, innovation, choice and efficiency, as organisations vie for new business.
The truth about the future is that either camp may be right. It all depends on how we go about the process of opening up public sector markets. So how do we end up with the good side of competition and avoid the bad?
Three things are important here. The first is how far we go to ensure diversity of supply – and avoid monopoly or oligopoly. Large, single providers – public or private – can be appealing to councillors and their local commissioners. They offer simplicity, accountability, early economies of scale and a logical "joined-up" approach compared to the "chaos" of the market.
As competition dawns there will no doubt be many providers, both larger and smaller, seeking to offer so-called integrated approaches in particular communities, which are, in fact, a byword for long-term monopoly. Once the commissioning bodies are dependent on the new arrangements the provider can turn the handle, raise prices and lower quality as much as it wants.
If this happens, it will be an expensive route back to what we have today in most public services: costly, unmoveable, low-quality, low-innovation services. The solution, of course, is for the principle of diversity of supply – allowing no one to become dominant – to be an absolute non-negotiable in local public service markets.
The second point is how markets are set up at local level. Just letting the market rip without any rules of engagement or quality thresholds for new entrants will be a recipe for disaster. It goes without saying that the public have to be protected from cowboy operators. Again, a proper job for local councillors and authorities.
More importantly, heavily capitalised organisations need to be prevented from dominating markets at the expense of small and medium players – as in the US, where 25% of public sector contracts are set aside for these firms. In UK healthcare, for example, we could introduce this rule to ensure that smaller and local providers have a guaranteed role in the healthcare economy.
Linked to this, we have to set up markets to ensure that any partnering between large and small organisations is fair – and that companies that abuse their relationships with smaller providers face blacklisting. Again, this is a legitimate role for councils and their councillors as "consumer champions". Don't get me wrong, private sector partnerships with social enterprises and charities should happen – they just need to be fair. Rules of engagement, with teeth, overseen at local level, will guarantee this.
The third factor that will shape how AWP operates at local level will be the fate of the private members bill on social value in commissioning, which is currently making its way through parliament. This bill will pass into UK law that local commissioning and procurement reflects the total "social value" to a community of a bid, as well as price and quality. Without this, we may face a "race to the bottom", as price factors overwhelm all others in the minds of financially pressed local authorities.
So AWP may be a good thing, if it delivers a genuine market. But only appropriately managed competition, a rock-solid commitment to diversity of supply and the hard-wiring of social value into local commissioning will deliver this. It is clear to many of us in the social economy that a simple free-for-all will lead not to AWP but back to another monopoly provider. Not what any of us – including the coalition – intended.
Craig Dearden-Phillips is founder and chief executive of Stepping Out, a business helping parts of the public sector become a social enterprise, and is a Liberal Democrat county councillor in Suffolk.
What to do if you're fired
One afternoon recently I received three phone calls in the space of an hour: the first was from my former PA who had lost her new job; the second was from my brother, whose council job has been put "at risk"; and the third was from a talented charity director who has been told he's not part of the organisation's future plans.
Yes, the long-awaited tsunami has hit our sector. If you haven't been swept away yourself, you will know someone who has been, or is clinging on to a branch as the waters rip by.
The legendary American football coach Vince Lombardi famously said: "If you're not fired with enthusiasm, you'll be fired with enthusiasm" Until now, this has never been particularly true of the UK voluntary sector. You could survive without showing much zip.
However, the tables have now turned. Indeed, the financial situation in many UK charities is now so dire that even bouncing enthusiasts may not escape the crosshairs, along with the doomed RIPs (Retired-in-Posts). Our sector has, in a year, turned from a cosy armchair to a bed of nails - a staggering turnaround in such a short time.
So what if it's you next in line for a P45? The first thing is not to waste time and energy on arguing the toss. Tussles with your employer about "Why me?" will only sap your energy and confidence. Just accept your time is up and move on. Thank your employer, ask for a cracking reference and wish the organisation the best. Hold no bitterness and leave with a smile on your face.
The second thing is to inform your network. Fact: people who have strong networks find good work quicker than those who don't. Not because their friends find them a job - far from it. A network is a web of trust and reciprocity. It gives you vital information you might otherwise miss. And, crucially, it helps to hold you together while you adjust to your new situation. In times like this, a network is also a life-support system.
The third thing is to use redundancy as an opportunity to assess what you're actually doing with your life. Were you really in the job you were born to do? The world is full of people who say that losing their job was the best thing that ever happened to them. Countless new businesses, careers and lifestyles have grown from being rejected by one's employer. This could be you.
Of course, none of this softens the blow when it happens. It's hard to avoid taking redundancy personally, and keeping your self-belief high will be the biggest challenge. Of the three jobless people who called me that afternoon, two do not worry me at all - they are glass-half-full people, ardent networkers who, I know, will be back in work very quickly. The third, however, is in a major wobble and is taking it all very personally.
So whatever happens this spring, keep the faith, use your network, see the opportunities and - yes - stay fired with enthusiasm.
Yes, the long-awaited tsunami has hit our sector. If you haven't been swept away yourself, you will know someone who has been, or is clinging on to a branch as the waters rip by.
The legendary American football coach Vince Lombardi famously said: "If you're not fired with enthusiasm, you'll be fired with enthusiasm" Until now, this has never been particularly true of the UK voluntary sector. You could survive without showing much zip.
However, the tables have now turned. Indeed, the financial situation in many UK charities is now so dire that even bouncing enthusiasts may not escape the crosshairs, along with the doomed RIPs (Retired-in-Posts). Our sector has, in a year, turned from a cosy armchair to a bed of nails - a staggering turnaround in such a short time.
So what if it's you next in line for a P45? The first thing is not to waste time and energy on arguing the toss. Tussles with your employer about "Why me?" will only sap your energy and confidence. Just accept your time is up and move on. Thank your employer, ask for a cracking reference and wish the organisation the best. Hold no bitterness and leave with a smile on your face.
The second thing is to inform your network. Fact: people who have strong networks find good work quicker than those who don't. Not because their friends find them a job - far from it. A network is a web of trust and reciprocity. It gives you vital information you might otherwise miss. And, crucially, it helps to hold you together while you adjust to your new situation. In times like this, a network is also a life-support system.
The third thing is to use redundancy as an opportunity to assess what you're actually doing with your life. Were you really in the job you were born to do? The world is full of people who say that losing their job was the best thing that ever happened to them. Countless new businesses, careers and lifestyles have grown from being rejected by one's employer. This could be you.
Of course, none of this softens the blow when it happens. It's hard to avoid taking redundancy personally, and keeping your self-belief high will be the biggest challenge. Of the three jobless people who called me that afternoon, two do not worry me at all - they are glass-half-full people, ardent networkers who, I know, will be back in work very quickly. The third, however, is in a major wobble and is taking it all very personally.
So whatever happens this spring, keep the faith, use your network, see the opportunities and - yes - stay fired with enthusiasm.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
My piece on public sector spin-outs in the Guardian 2.3.11
Where are public services going, after the prime minister's announcement last week that almost all are to be opened up to competition?
In February, the government announced a second wave of new "right to provide" initiatives, in which public sector staff step out of the public sector, often in large new ventures, in order to sell their services back in. These people will join some 60 new staff-led healthcare organisations that, by 2013, will employ 10% of the non-hospital-based NHS workforce.
But will this model of divestment to socially motivated ventures take hold? Or, as many suspect, is "right to provide" a warm-up act for the government's real long-term aim: outright privatisation of the public sector?
The question of whether the model will work depends on the unions, the government and the law. All three pose challenges for new ventures.
First, the unions. At present, most remain hostile to social enterprise. They see it as a slow-train to privatisation – and the erosion of hard-won gains for staff. Little distinction is made between socially inspired ventures and those that are profit maximising. A new social worker co-op and the big global outsourcers are all, for now, in the same bucket. Every new stepped-out venture I speak to has struggled to get the unions to see social enterprise as different, despite the protection of assets and guaranteed representation for staff on the board. This has to change if the floodgates are ever to open.
Second, the government. Up until now, most new social enterprises or co-ops have been offered a three- to five-year contract. This, in effect, gives the new venture time to reshape itself for the competitive market. They need this. A business emerging, say, from the NHS or a council is freighted with costs, practices and cultures that require a period of non-competition to sort out. They also tend, understandably, to lack commercial skills and early access to capital.
Here's the rub. If, under the new doctrine of Any Willing Provider, emergent ventures have to immediately go head-to-head with experienced private operators, they will struggle. With no trading history or funds to invest, they have little to bring to the table. The government, then, needs to give breathing space to emerging ventures and, for a short time, keep competition at bay if they are to stand a chance.
Which brings us to the law. European procurement rules states that if a public body commissions a service, rather than provides it, competition needs to be fair and open. While this hasn't yet stopped Right to Request in the NHS, and while certain courageous councils, such as my own in Suffolk, are finding ways to commission new staff-led ventures, the truth is that there will be legal challenges from the private sector which will claim to be "frozen out".
Should these new ventures be helped? Yes – studies indicate that they raise productivity and innovation. Arguably, they also generate social capital in a way the private sector finds difficult to emulate. So how do we remove the barriers?
Help is needed from the unions. Co-operatives and staff-led ventures resonate positively with politics of many union members and activists, but it's a conversation that isn't really happening as defence lines are being marked around state-run services.
Assistance is also needed from the government. Its £10m in support is useful, but the test of the government's sincerity is whether or not it acts to ensure that new co-ops and social businesses get the space and support at the start in order to be ready to play seriously in an open market two or three years down the line. This means continued short-term protection and a robust defence of the policy when it comes under challenge from other sectors.
In February, the government announced a second wave of new "right to provide" initiatives, in which public sector staff step out of the public sector, often in large new ventures, in order to sell their services back in. These people will join some 60 new staff-led healthcare organisations that, by 2013, will employ 10% of the non-hospital-based NHS workforce.
But will this model of divestment to socially motivated ventures take hold? Or, as many suspect, is "right to provide" a warm-up act for the government's real long-term aim: outright privatisation of the public sector?
The question of whether the model will work depends on the unions, the government and the law. All three pose challenges for new ventures.
First, the unions. At present, most remain hostile to social enterprise. They see it as a slow-train to privatisation – and the erosion of hard-won gains for staff. Little distinction is made between socially inspired ventures and those that are profit maximising. A new social worker co-op and the big global outsourcers are all, for now, in the same bucket. Every new stepped-out venture I speak to has struggled to get the unions to see social enterprise as different, despite the protection of assets and guaranteed representation for staff on the board. This has to change if the floodgates are ever to open.
Second, the government. Up until now, most new social enterprises or co-ops have been offered a three- to five-year contract. This, in effect, gives the new venture time to reshape itself for the competitive market. They need this. A business emerging, say, from the NHS or a council is freighted with costs, practices and cultures that require a period of non-competition to sort out. They also tend, understandably, to lack commercial skills and early access to capital.
Here's the rub. If, under the new doctrine of Any Willing Provider, emergent ventures have to immediately go head-to-head with experienced private operators, they will struggle. With no trading history or funds to invest, they have little to bring to the table. The government, then, needs to give breathing space to emerging ventures and, for a short time, keep competition at bay if they are to stand a chance.
Which brings us to the law. European procurement rules states that if a public body commissions a service, rather than provides it, competition needs to be fair and open. While this hasn't yet stopped Right to Request in the NHS, and while certain courageous councils, such as my own in Suffolk, are finding ways to commission new staff-led ventures, the truth is that there will be legal challenges from the private sector which will claim to be "frozen out".
Should these new ventures be helped? Yes – studies indicate that they raise productivity and innovation. Arguably, they also generate social capital in a way the private sector finds difficult to emulate. So how do we remove the barriers?
Help is needed from the unions. Co-operatives and staff-led ventures resonate positively with politics of many union members and activists, but it's a conversation that isn't really happening as defence lines are being marked around state-run services.
Assistance is also needed from the government. Its £10m in support is useful, but the test of the government's sincerity is whether or not it acts to ensure that new co-ops and social businesses get the space and support at the start in order to be ready to play seriously in an open market two or three years down the line. This means continued short-term protection and a robust defence of the policy when it comes under challenge from other sectors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)