The Engagement Ethic

Supermarket-style approaches have taken public services so far, but the next phase of improvement relies on their ability to engage and inspire citizens and staff.  This think-piece suggests that co-operatives and mutuals could play an important role in helping to achieve that.  Read the press release here and download the full text of the report here.

Public services have learnt a huge amount from the corporate world but the only benefit of the fiscal crisis is to free public services from the idea that they will never match up to big business.  Having spent a decade drawing lessons from the premium, personalised services of organisations like BUPA, some public service leaders are looking to the likes of Easyjet for examples of how to save money.  However, mutual and co-operative forms of governance employed by the likes of John Lewis may also have something to teach public services.  They raise the question of whether, to respond to the downturn in the economy, it might be possible to more radically change the relationship between the citizens, public servants and the state.

The think piece suggests that people will only encourage others to take more responsibility for their own health, learning and carbon footprint if they are given greater rights to shape the work of local public services.  It argues that public services need to strengthen their ethic of engagement by giving citizens and staff greater voice in decision-making.  If not, while public services are improving, the risk is that remains is that it is something done to the public rather than with the public.

The paper suggests that public services have gone through their own equivalent of de-mutualisation, with community engagement too often seen as too costly or time-consuming.  However, from anti-social behaviour to chronic disease, more of public services' work than ever before relies on their ability to engage and inspire people.

The paper argues that while public services belong to the public, too often their role in shaping their work is very limited.  It argues that co-operative and mutual structures can help to put the public back into public services.