Beware re-organisations - They’re not all bad, but the consequences for public engagement can often be serious

Re-organisations have a bad name.

It is easy to rail against them, and to criticise them for achieving few of their stated objectives. One of the most oft-quoted management sayings is attributed to Petronius (apparently wrongly) and sounds very real to many people:- We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation. Caius Petronius circa AD 61

However, the truth is that much of our civic infrastructure has been creaking for years. New public bodies with laudable aims tended to be grafted onto an already complex system; new appointees have complained that their tasks were made more difficult by this complexity, by rivalry and excessive regulation. So many people welcome the opportunity provided by expenditure cuts to slim down, and rationalise.

There is legitimate debate as to whether central and/or local Government is getting this right. Huge changes are on their way. They affect Government departments, Quangos, NHS Trusts, Police Authorities, Universities and, of course, the Third Sector. Legislation proceeding through Parliament abolishes major tiers of public administration. Regional Spatial strategies, of huge importance in large infrastructure planning decisions, are set to disappear, and Whitehall departments will claw back many responsibilities that had been devolved elsewhere. No wonder there is unease and uncertainty.

Re-organising effectively has eluded many previous Governments. This is no different. A recent Parliamentary Select Committee was highly critical of the so-called ‘cull of the quangos’; a National Audit Report on Central Government re-organisations is even more devastating. It seems that every mistake capable of being made is committed at a time of reorganisation. Poor communication, deferred or avoided decisions, a loss of skills and ineffective handover are but some aspects of bad management chronicled in these and other studies.

These should sound a cautionary note. Particularly so for those of us engaged in public dialogue, as the consequences of poor change management can be so severe for our profession. Here are some tentative conclusions:- ? The ‘ownership’ of issues can change, and with it a change in the consultation narrative, or a discontinuity in the approach to subjects under discussion ? New organisations may view stakeholders differently; there may be a lack of continuity, and some radical differences in whom they choose to hear ? The ‘Corporate memory’ may be erased. Loss of key staff, poor transfer of records can mean that the consultee memory is far better than many consultors. ? Relationships that may have taken years to develop and nurture are at risk, and with them, trust and confidence between parties to complex dialogues ? ‘Receiving’ or ‘Inheriting’ organisations may not honour commitments made by predecessor bodies or departments

Many of these are worrying threats to the quality and integrity of public engagement. Primary Care Trusts or Police Authorities, to name just two, will be seriously concerned that diligent work they have undertaken over several years could be put at risk if the forthcoming changes are botched. They will rightly claim that issues as important as the quality of local health care on the one hand or neighbourhood policing on the other need the active involvement and goodwill of community groups. No matter how clever or careful the new Managers, it won’t be easy to create confidence with new structures, especially if money is tight.

One strategy is for organisations who feel they’ve done a good job to package their best practice and consolidate their legacy in a way that makes it easier for those who follow to pick up the pieces without excessive damage.

Looking positively, let’s hope that much of what follows will be effective and stable. An awareness of the obvious risks illustrated above should help everyone be careful to preserve the best in public engagement, and avoid too many mistakes when we re-organise.

Trigger points

• The themes covered in this topic will be explored in greater detail in Briefing Paper 26: Public sector re-organisations ... and their impact on public engagement. Members receive Briefing Papers automatically. Non-members should email Martin Roach if they would like a copy.
• Are you being re-organised? If so, have you considered how best to preserve what’s best in your current public engagement?
• The NHS faces particular challenges, especially as GP Commissioners absorb the requirements of public and patient involvement.
• The National Audit Office Report is Reorganising Central Government (March 2010)

This is the 186th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement