Public services and private companies ~ two worlds or one?

Quote
“It is easy to get a thousand prescriptions but hard to get one single remedy.”  Chinese Proverb

News
Government reforms in health and education are provoking a sharp debate in Britain when private sector companies start running public services.  Although this has been going on for some time (e.g. most GP practices are independent partnerships), the NHS hospital at Hinchingbrook and several new state-funded Free Schools are now being run by private companies.

The classic arguments are that businesses are out to make profits while public sector organisations provide services to everyone, irrespective of users’ ability to pay; these are two different worlds and no one should profit from running public services.  Proponents of reform argue that private companies are more efficient, and that savings to the taxpayer more than outweigh any profit made by shareholders. 

The assumptions that private companies are only out to make a profit, and public sector organisations are always inefficient, both need challenging.  Being profitable and providing good services to customers are not mutually exclusive goals; indeed, to earn a profit year after year requires meeting customers’ needs and delivering value for money; this is not to deny the risk that private enterprise can err on the side of greed.

In contrast, public services are less responsive to the needs of their end users precisely because those users are not paying customers.  Although many working for public sector organisations have a strong social ethos, it’s easy for the interests of staff and the demands of governments to come first.  A target culture and mountains of customer complaints seem to be the inevitable result. 

It is in everyone’s interest that public sector reforms reduce inefficiency without compromising on access for the most vulnerable, the range of services available and fair pay and conditions for staff.  Crucial to the outcomes of the whole system are the relationships between the people who commission public services, those who provide them and people who use them.  Reforms need to reduce the relational distance between these three groups, and the long term success of using private companies may hinge on whether they maintain a collaborative commitment to the health or education system as a whole. 

If that is so, perhaps we can have the best of both worlds after all.

Read on:
Another approach to bridging the gap between profit and public service is social enterprise.  Charles Leadbeater is a leading writer and communicator who understands the importance of relationships to public services.  Read his paper on social enterprise and its role in public service innovation here.

Walk the talk:
Are any government reforms affecting public services in your community?  Look carefully at the changes being proposed and consider how they might affect the three key relationships involved in public service provision.  On this basis, how effective might the reforms be?

Verse:
From the Bible, Mark chapter 10 verse 45:  “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Redefining marriage: what is at stake?

Quote

“Marriage is an alliance entered into by a man who can't sleep with the window shut, and a woman who can't sleep with the window open.” George Bernard Shaw 

News

While national Marriage Week was celebrated in 18 countries last week, the governor of Washington state signed a bill legalising same-sex marriages. Meanwhile, the British government is preparing to launch a consultation next month on redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Those supporting the change in legal definition argue that it’s an equality issue. Any society committed to ending discrimination must not only allow same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples (which already exist in civil partnerships legislation), but should do away with religious restrictions on gay marriage too.

On the other hand, those opposing the redefinition of marriage agree that politicians should ensure minorities are not discriminated against, but it is not their job to redefine a centuries old institution that has its roots in the church, nor to pass laws forcing faith groups to act against their beliefs.

Moral, religious and cultural arguments are being made to support the traditional view of marriage, but in public debate, the benefit of heterosexual marriage to society in the long term must be demonstrated.

Two arguments stand out. A sustainable society requires each generation to ensure the best possible outcomes for their children. Research studies overwhelmingly conclude that a stable domestic relationship between the biological parents of a child outperforms every other family structure in terms of health, emotional and financial outcomes for their children. Any change in law that further weakens this gold standard of heterosexual marriage for family formation and child development will lead to poorer prospects for children and the next generation.

 
Secondly, the way that men and women relate to each other is crucial to personal, family and society’s wellbeing. Competitive or coercive gender relationships have led to incalculable suffering over the years; but this problem is not solved by promoting gender uniformity (which is behind the campaign for same-sex marriages). Instead, the structure which best encourages interdependent relations between the genders needs strengthening; society calls this marriage. Redefining it for the sake of the few could bring relational suffering to the many; is it worth the risk?

Read on...

“Gender cooperation: some implications of God’s design for society” is a Cambridge Paper by Michael and Auriel Schluter, which explores some of the challenges of influencing gender relationships. Read this insightful paper here.

Walk the talk

Gender roles and relationships are stereotyped to the n-th degree, but each one of us can still choose how to relate to the opposite sex; do you have any relationships that need to be shifted from a competitive towards a more complementary basis?

The last word

From the Bible, Genesis chapter 2 verse 24: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

Queen and Country

Quote

“The monarchy is so extraordinarily useful. When Britain wins a battle she shouts, "God save the Queen"; when she loses, she votes down the prime minister.”  Sir Winston Churchill

News

Sixty years ago on Monday, Queen Elizabeth II acceded to the throne, aged just 25.  She had learned the values of “diligence, duty, dignity, and compassion” from her father’s wartime leadership, and from her own vibrant Christian faith.  In the intervening years, the 40th monarch since William the Conqueror has served her country and the Commonwealth tirelessly, not least by opening parliament 58 times, making 261 overseas visits, holding weekly audiences with her prime ministers (from Churchill to Cameron), signing 3,500 acts of parliament and answering 3.5 million letters.

The future of the monarchy is a topic of lively debate, with political, financial and ethical arguments being made both for and against.  But what about the relational impact of Queen Elizabeth’s reign?  One reason for her popularity with the public are her “walkabouts”, which she first began during a visit to New Zealand in 1970.  She habitually takes time to converse with ordinary well-wishers, not just the elites and dignitaries lined up to meet her.  However, she has never given an interview to a journalist, suggesting that she wants to relate to her subjects directly and personally, rather than risking the more unpredictable, indirect route offered by the media.

A significant role played by the Queen is to provide support to political leaders.  She has been a confidant to numerous Commonwealth leaders over the years, and particularly to the incumbent British prime minister, who has an audience with her on Tuesday evenings.  The Queen’s position as unelected head of state for life frees her from the pressures of having to defend her role.  But neither does she yield to complacency; her extensive knowledge of government affairs is gained by her meticulous reading of state papers (in Downing street she is known as “Reader Number One”).

In his new biography on the Queen, political journalist Andrew Marr talks about the “humility of the hereditary”: precisely because the Queen cannot claim to hold her position through some meritocratic scramble, she is humble.  However, others who are blessed by similar advantages of birth can end up arrogant, remote and dictatorial.  It is to the Queen’s credit that she has chosen to put service of others and of her country ahead of personal aggrandisement and reward.  Britain would be a lot better off if leaders in industry and politics were more consistent in doing likewise.

Read on…

John Milton published a tract in 1660, warning of the dangers of re-establishing the monarchy in Britain following the Commonwealth period; he argued that a profligate king would be an economic burden, and restrict both freedom and virtue in the land.  The constitutional monarchy we have ended up with in Britain has largely avoided these dangers due, in part, to the warnings of Milton and others.  Read his “Free Commonwealth” pamphlet here.

Walk the talk

Organisational leadership comes by merit and is exercised through the structures of the organisation; relational leadership is ascribed to us by others, based on our character and patterns of behaviour.  What one lesson might you draw from the Queen’s example?

The last word

From the Bible, Mark 10, verse 42-45: “Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.  For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ ”

Public honours - to what end?

Quote

“Honour sinks where commerce long prevails.”  Oliver Goldsmith, writer and poet (1730-74)

News

The system of awarding public honours in the United Kingdom has been under scrutiny this week following the decision to strip (Sir) Fred Goodwin of his knighthood.  Under his leadership, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) was propelled from a provincial lender to, briefly in 2008, the largest company in the world with assets 1.4 times larger than the UK economy, before the state had to intervene to prevent the bank from collapsing.  In 2004 the Labour government recommended this electrician’s son-turned global financier for a knighthood for services to banking. 

However, following the £45 billion taxpayer rescue of RBS, Fred Goodwin has been viewed in a different light – as one of the perpetrators of the credit crunch and global financial crisis.  The controlling management style and ruthless cost-cutting methods of ‘Fred the Shred’ made him unpopular with employees.  More recently, the media have sought to make him a scapegoat to blame for the looming recession.

Whatever the ethics of stripping someone of a public honour, (when that person has not been convicted of a criminal offence – normally the main reason for such decisions), the honours system is currently in the spotlight.  There are typically three types of recipient: ‘establishment figures’, such as senior civil servants, politicians and royal aides; second, lesser known people who have made an exemplary contribution to society, and lastly, those whose achievements in sport, business or the arts have enriched the nation in diverse ways. 

The honours system may arguably pursue two different goals.  The first is to recognise and reward those who have consistently served or inspired others, motivated by duty, compassion or bravery in a spirit of self-sacrifice (and this group can include both the famous and the unknown).  The second echoes the old ways of political patronage, and is used by the governing elite to reward the loyalty and support of the wealthy and powerful. 

Although there is an appropriate time to honour those who govern or lead well, honouring the powerful is more likely to increase the relational distance between the elite and the rest of society, which can easily turn sour.  But a system based on commending the good and the brave is likely to build a more relational society.

Read on…

A thoughtful Cambridge Paper by David McIlroy looks at how contemporary society views honour and shame generally, and contrasts this with a Biblical and relational approach to the subject.  Read it here.

Walk the talk

To seek honour is not wrong in itself – it all depends on whom you seek it from and to what end.  Whose attention are you seeking, and why?  Let’s aim for the honour that comes from serving others selflessly.

The last word

From the Bible, Luke 16 verse 15: “Then he said to [the Pharisees], ‘You like to appear righteous in public, but God knows your hearts. What this world honours is detestable in the sight of God.’ ”

Romans 13 verse 7: “Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.”