|
|
Posted By Clore Social Leadership,
26 June 2017
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
This blog introduces Athol Halle's full provocation piece which he developed as part of his Clore Social Leadership 2016 Fellowship.
Are we in denial about homelessness? The facts are out there - homelessness kills you. The average of death of a rough sleeper in England is 47, with one person dying whilst sleeping on the streets of London every two weeks.
Homelessness is growing. The number of people sleeping on our streets more than doubling since 2010.
Services are shrinking. Despite the rise in rough sleeping, there has been 20% reduction in the number of homeless hostel beds since 2010.
A lack of empathy – do we have a Personality Disorder? As a society, we know of the serious harms that homelessness causes to people, and yet we lack compassion and allow it to grow, before our eyes, under our feet. ‘An impairment in empathy: lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others.’ This diagnostic criteria for a personality disorder fits us well.
We waste our precious resources – is this self-harm? People are society’s most precious resource. Take Jimmy Carlson, whose Memorial Service was recently held at St Martins-in-the-Fields in Trafalgar Square. Jimmy spent over 20 years as homeless. He then spent the next 20 years as an inspirational advocate for the rights of homeless people, contributing to national policy, setting up client involvement groups and creating social clubs for people in recovery from alcohol and drug problems. On receiving his OBE in 2012 Jimmy said 'You would have walked over me in the street 15 years ago and thought I was a lost cause, just another drunk. However, I picked myself up and turned my life around and I have gone on to make a decent contribution to my community. Rough sleepers you see on the street today – with the right support they have a lot to offer too. Never give up on anyone.'
When we allow people to rot away on the margins of society, we all suffer from the lack of contribution people have to offer. A 2012 government study estimated up to £1 billion was spent as a result of homelessness across all government departments. We waste our money on dealing with the consequences rather than addressing the causes of homelessness. ‘Deliberate injury to oneself, typically as a manifestation of a psychological or psychiatric disorder.’ This dictionary definition for ‘Self-Harm’ fits us well.
There is a complex relationship between homelessness and mental health, on an individual level, both cause and consequence. Heriot Watt University’s in-depth research showed that for the majority of people, mental health problems preceded homelessness; whilst the experience of homelessness is clearly damaging - Homeless Link show that 80% of people in homelessness services had some form of mental health issue, diagnosed or undiagnosed. However, the stark truth is that if you are homeless you are nine times more likely to commit suicide than the general population.
Denial? Lack of empathy? Self-harm? As a society, when it comes to homelessness, we have a mental health problem. Acknowledging we have a problem is the first step to solving it.
Athol Hallé is Chief Executive of Groundswell - this piece is also published on their website.
Tags:
change
collaboration
culture
fellow
fellowship
future
health
homelessness
socialsector
wellbeing
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Clore Social Leadership,
13 March 2017
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
Jo Youle is the CEO of Missing People, a charity that offers a lifeline to the 250,000 people who run away and go missing each year in the UK.
I don’t like making mistakes. I don’t think many of us do. I don’t like getting things wrong since I’m the sort of person who works hard to get things right. I’m pre-programmed to think round corners, to not let the wool be pulled over my eyes.
But it could be worse. What if I make a mistake and don’t even realise I’m making it until it’s too late? What if we take our thinking, our organisations and other people’s lives off down the wrong road, and realise too late we’re in a cul-de-sac with no fuel to get us back on the right road?
Not so long ago, I made this kind of mistake. I just got the wrong idea in my head and blithely followed myself, down the wrong road.
A close friend’s mum died. I moved heaven and earth to be there for the funeral. I did a ‘belt and braces’ check on the address and was reassured it was the only crematorium in town. I arrived well over an hour early; checked with the guy working in the graveyard that I was in the right place.
I started to feel uneasy about 1pm, when the service was due to start in 15 minutes and no one had turned up. That guy I’d first spoken to asked, 'anything I can help with?' I told him what I was waiting for and he said, 'Oh, you want the crematorium, ‘love’, 10 miles from here, this is the cemetery'.
I did a slow motion fall apart; 10 miles from where I needed to be it was game over. I cried. Gutted that I wouldn’t be there for my friend. I had sort of known way before, that something wasn’t right. I hadn’t listened to my instinct. I’d simply got the wrong ‘idea’ in my head and everything I did, googled, and saw from that moment forward merely confirmed to me I was in the right place. A bad case of confirmation bias.
It’s a pervasive thing, this confirmation bias. And all the more annoying since I’ve been ‘on the watch’ for it since being warned about this for newbie, and oldie CEO’s. We all know about huge companies slowly leading themselves to disaster by distorted realities, and this, even when all the data and information suggested a different picture and a different road to take. Take the now stereotypical examples: Xerox, Kodak, Blackberry.
Think on the sad demise of Kids Company. I’ll always remember visiting one of their vibrant, happily noisy centres in north London. A piano lesson underway on the Coldplay-donated piano in reception, counselling rooms, play areas, needlework. Creativity, friendship and care everywhere, providing the sort of environment many lucky children expect and have at home. This, a charity where income climbed from £2m to £23m over 10 years, before it came publically crashing down, in 2015.
The signs must have been there for a long time. The numbers must have painted a picture. There must have been warning signs. Perhaps they were obscured by hopefulness, optimism, and a divine sense of purposefulness. Perhaps a successful history was being used to predict a successful future. The post-collapse parliamentary investigation concluded that the charity had been run according to 'wishful thinking'.
Another (nameless) charity was saved from the brink only by a newcomer. From someone not invested in the ‘story’ or the people of the charity. For ten years the charity had not changed anything in finance. The team were well respected and friendly. They quietly got on with their work, undisturbed. The treasurer and the senior finance bod got on well. The reserves pot was healthy.
The newbie CEO saw a different picture. A financial strategy that would mean doom. A picture the treasurer couldn’t see even when it was painted in front of them; a human being simply not wanting to believe difficult truths about people and the organisation they cared about so much.
But new people aren’t always the answer either. A familiar story? Recruiting someone on a strong belief bolstered by a long recruitment process, that they are a good and competent egg. And from that point on, every piece of work, every behaviour, feeds this same belief. The ‘good egg peg’. And all this despite evidence to the contrary. Yes, you might hear or see some negatives. You might listen to (but not hear) some politely shared concerns from others. But surely your own instincts, your years of experience count for something.
There might be a slow dawning and then the consequences. A slowness to respond. A team disheartened, and worried. Time lost. Trust gone. There were some important lessons to learn. Not least, how quickly a team can disintegrate with a less than competent egg at the helm and the importance of not believing yourself too much.
We create worlds for ourselves that confirm our own thinking and beliefs. Our own, personalised echo chambers. We select newsfeeds, watch the ‘bits’ we like on catch up TV. We select ‘our sort of people’ to follow whilst Facebook selects stuff for us - algorithmed around our web browsing. And as for Twitter, we make it so bespoke I’m sure most people could be psychologically profiled purely on those people they choose to follow.
Setting off with the wrong hypotheses can have the most serious consequences. Avid followers of miscarriage of justice programmes: podcasts Serial and Undisclosed and Netflix hit Making A Murderer will have learned about injustice when a (wrong) hypothesis rules in evidence when it supports the theory, and out when it doesn’t. It can be devastatingly life changing.
Reflect on this observed phenomenon. Student sailors under pressure. Entering a harbour or approaching a coastline for the first time, in the dark. Trying to correctly identify the flashing patterns of different colours lights, all flashing a different number of times and lengths to guide them safely home. The small matter of avoiding rocks, running aground or sinking. Convinced they ‘know’ where they are, and then persuading themselves, that a light clearly flashing 5 times, was flashing in fact flashing 6. Even finding excuses about why the rest of the 'picture' and the many other lights weren’t right.
Why do we do it? In my case turning up at the wrong place for a funeral. A mixture of emotion on a sad occasion. Over confidence in myself. A tad smug as someone who travels. Being on my own. I’ll never mix up cemetery and crematorium again, that much I know. I’ll go back to trusting instinct a little more, and the sat nav a little less.
Maybe it is a gift to be less confident. To be more open to challenge. More open to changing your mind. Or your perspective. Think of the childhood experience of a little girl in the back of the car, hearing her mum crying, her dad silent. Her belief for years that she’d done something very bad, and only decades later jolted when your older brother says, ‘do you remember us in the back of the car the day JFK was shot?’
I’m going to do my best to avoid cul-de-sacs. I’m going to try to lose my more opinionated self. I’m going to be particularly alert when I want something to be true, particularly as someone who cares so much for the charity I lead and the people we help. Less of the ‘I believe’ and more 'scientific integrity’. A phrase coined by Richard Feynman denoting ‘the willingness to bend over backward to examine reasons your pet theories about the world might be wrong’ (Julia Galef, Slate).
Please share your comments and views about this blog below, or you can contact Jo on Twitter.
Tags:
bias
casestudy
change
collaboration
confidence
future
management
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Clore Social Leadership,
14 February 2017
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
Despite using the word in the title of my provocation piece, ‘The challenge of co-production when we can’t be trusted to vote for anything’, the first challenge is the word ‘co-production’!
When I talk about co-production many people do not know what it is. Creating any change starts with a conversation, so it is decidedly unhelpful when someone needs to disclose their lack of understanding at the onset of that conversation. The person in the know is immediately in a slightly elevated position. Elevated positions are an unhelpful conversation starter when talking about something which is about equal standings!
True co-production is a way of thinking and working, it is not a standalone technique. For it to work you have to have an organisation that lives and breathes its key values. It will often need transformational leadership. The CEO and leadership team must believe in the moral and operational value of working with customers as equal partners, and must ensure that the values, systems and processes that define the organisation drive the appropriate behaviour.
I share in my piece five key steps to working in this way based on my experience of working as a co-production consultant on these issues in the social sector.
- Awareness: Share with all concerned the thinking behind the decision to take a co-production approach to illustrate transparency.
- Buy-in: For co-production to work, you need buy-in from all parties.
- Expectations: All parties need an understanding of expectations, and knowledge about what they mean in reality - what’s required of them, decision making and so on.
- Performance: Everybody needs to have the required skills to deliver. This is where training and guidance might be required.
- Feedback: Giving regular feedback is important - all parties must remain informed about the current situation, the objectives, the barriers and the likely outcome.
One of the key values in co-production is mutual respect and equal access to information. The theory is that when customers see the whole picture they will be able to help make better decisions and also understand why their ideas cannot be done (if that is a valid outcome). I argue in my piece that a tickbox exercise to consultation, which has been business as usual, is partly behind some of the votes we saw last year (Brexit, Trump etc).
You can’t expect the public to make reasoned judgements without mutual trust, open information and a genuine sense of equality.
If there is a lesson to be learned from 2016 it is that if you want users or the public to follow, you need to understand where they are at and allow them access to your world. You need to do more than listen and do it from a place of equality. By working collaboratively we will produce something better and something that it is much harder to argue against. Only then can we have confidence in our direction of travel.
Please share your views and comments below about her blog and provocation piece, or you can contact her on Twitter.
Tags:
challenges
collaboration
fellow
respect
tips
value
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Clore Social Leadership,
13 September 2016
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
Dawn Austwick is Chief Executive of Big Lottery Fund.
Anyone interested in the role and nature of leadership will not have been short of food for thought lately. The recent referendum debated at length Britain’s role on the world stage – with both sides keen to paint a picture of leadership either within or without the EU. In that debate, we will rarely have seen a more eclectic array of personalities seeking to burnish their own leadership credentials. And both the Conservatives and Labour have engaged in (albeit very different) internal soul-searching about the leadership they need to tackle the post-Brexit era. Theresa May now leads the country – tasked with bringing the country back together and forging a socially just, economically sound, future. A task not without challenges.
But for all this leadership talk, the referendum laid bare the fact that large numbers of people feel disenfranchised and ignored by the powers-that-be. That’s an immediate challenge, and one that civil society has a key role to play in tackling. At the heart of this is giving people and communities a sense of agency over their lives. Here at the Fund, our new strategic framework sets out what sounds like a simple vision: putting people in the lead in shaping their lives and communities. That means people and communities defining their own aspirations, and organisations (including us) supporting them to achieve it. It’s nicely encapsulated by the phrase ‘nothing about us, without us, is for us’. And, in leadership terms that can be quite a challenge to what we are used to.
So what does great leadership look like in a thriving civil society? There’s a conversation starting to emerge around a concept I am calling ‘generous leadership’. John Donne has it in a nutshell:
"No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main."
And if I think back to my time as a trustee of conservation charity the Woodland Trust, it absolutely mirrors how we think of biodiversity - 'it's an ecology, stupid!' Everything is inter-linked and ultimately inter-dependent.
I’ve spent quite a lot of my professional career in the cultural sector. Over the last 25 years a pattern of generous leadership has evolved and developed: with national institutions like Tate and the British Museum jointly curating and displaying their collections with regional museums, training and developing curators and conservators of the future. The National Theatre has pioneered co-productions with smaller production companies and regional houses and sees its own box office as a platform for other companies to benefit from. And we have co-funded Battersea Arts Centre's ‘The Agency’ partnership with People’s Palace Projects, based on a model founded in the favelas of Rio to support young people to make entrepreneurial ideas a reality.
Fundamentally, these cultural institutions developed a more acute awareness of their place in a delicate ecosystem. Civil society has no less rich and diverse an ecosystem (the NCVO Almanac is a useful reference point). ‘Generous’ leaders need to think clearly about what they have that they can share with others – be it money, time, or assets. And that shouldn’t be thought of as a simple act of altruism, but as an exercise in mutual benefit.
Take for example, the acquisition of Only Connect by Catch 22. The latter provides strategic support, scale and greater financial security, the former provides a new innovative arm of the business alongside skills and closeness to community. For this to work, the generous leader has to have a burning focus on mission rather than organisational preservation. This might mean supporting other organisations working with a similar mission to thrive rather than pursuing perpetual growth. Or it might mean offering space and time for an emerging leader from outside the organisation to reflect and develop their ideas, as the Catch22 Fellowship programme does. Generous leadership with a focus on mission may also lead a CEO and Board to decide that income growth is not always the path to achieving that mission - a decision EveryChild took under Anna Feuchtwang’s leadership.
Charlie Howard’s MAC-UK initiative goes even further – set up on a ten year basis with the intention of changing the nature of mental health provision for young people, before exiting stage left. And that points to a further characteristic of generous leadership, of being networked with other people working hard for social change. Rather than simply telling a single story, generous leaders seek to be a part of a wider movement and to share in that narrative instead. That’s a lesson that we funders need to particularly reflect on, having traditionally been criticised for thinking in terms of ‘our’ money and what it achieves, rather than the bigger picture for people and communities: sometimes attribution can get in the way of the best solution. The Early Action Funders Alliance is an example of positive steps in the right direction, bringing together a cluster of UK funders to explore and test ways of preventing problems from occurring rather than simply coping with the consequences.
And so we return to ‘nothing about us, without us, is for us’. As generous leaders, we must renew our championing of the grassroots, staying focused on our mission and how best we can facilitate the work of those we support – the people in the lead. We must be listeners and collaborators with our colleagues in the sector, recognising where and how we can add value. And, as generous leaders, we must welcome the opportunity to challenge our own assumptions of what good leadership looks like, and fully embrace the complexity that will provoke.
Tags:
challenges
change
collaboration
politics
value
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Clore Social Leadership,
06 September 2016
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
Dr Henry Kippin is executive director of Collaborate an independent CIC focusing on the thinking, culture and practice of cross-sector collaboration.
Leadership is a slippery concept. A verb, not a noun. A spirit, not a skillset. It is a term that is broad and deep enough to mean both everything and nothing. But there is no doubt that if leadership matters (as Richard Harries’s excellent paper suggests), then we need to strive to make sure that the concept can hold the weight we ascribe to it. This means we need to work on it.
The concept of leadership development is becoming more tricky to grasp in line with the changing context around it. This throws up more questions than answers. But anyone OK with a degree of complexity and nuance should absolutely welcome that. Peoples’ lives are complex and multi-faceted, so why should we expect positively changing them to be any less so?
Collaborate’s work is about supporting people who want to lead change through collaboration. Our work is about blurring sector boundaries to improve outcomes for the public. By its very nature, it unpicks the way we define sectors and understand services, and in this context effective leadership may have some counterintuitive traits. Let me explain…
1. Great organisational leadership is necessary but not sufficient – those with an eye on health and social care reform (for example) will note the prevalence of high quality hospitals functioning brilliantly within places in which some social outcomes haven’t changed for decades. Does great leadership mean more of the same? Clearly not. But just as unwelcome is a narrow version of system change that might help to keep organisations sustainable but is just as far from real co-production as ever. If the Brexit vote shows us anything, it is the acute need to close this gap. Social sector leaders should be actively working together to do so.
2. Collaboration and consensus make awkward bedfellows – any meaningful change is hard to effect. Yet we often expect this to happen across different organizations with multiple incentives in a complex environment with a remarkable degree of ease. Hope over experience on a grand scale! Beyond creating good vibes in the room, collaborative leaders need to know how to be honest, when to say no (or even better: ‘I don’t know!’), and how to create the right commitment devices to support collective progress against shared goals with multiple stakeholders. That is why we talk about building ‘collaboration readiness’: it isn’t easy.
3. The social sector silo is dead. Long live collaborative social change – social change is not the preserve of the social sector, and nor can the sector deliver some of the aspirations it exists to address in-and-of-itself. Look at the JRF’s strategy for ending poverty: a clear role for business, government and society. Leaders need to care as much about their terms of engagement with other systems and sectors as their own independence, seeing their world through others’ eyes. For a 17-year old looking for work, a smartphone, a broadband connection and a mate with a job are the critical ingredients. None of these things are delivered as public services; none of these things are innate social goods. Yet social sector leaders recognize that part of their role is creating the conditions for these things to be accessible.
So how do we operationalise some of these insights in response to Shaks Gosh’s challenge of ‘new solutions’ and a need for ‘structured leadership development’? Collaborate’s own efforts have been written up recently as the Anatomy of Collaboration: the critical components of cross-sector leadership and delivery as defined by an expert group convened in partnership with Oxford University. One quote from a prominent social sector leader stands out for me: “Collaboration is an offer, not a demand. It should always come with a decent pitch”. One might say the same about leadership.
Please share your views and comments below, you can also follow Dr Kippin on Twitter @h_kippin.
Tags:
challenges
change
charitysector
collaboration
culture
inclusion
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
Blog Home
All Blogs
RSS