Delivering major cuts in public spending over the next few years poses both political and managerial challenges. To an extent these two agendas can feel like sharply contrasting takes on the hurdles and pitfalls which lie ahead. On the contrary, however, they are overlapping perspectives with a high degree of interdependence.
For me, the relationships between the two are well illustrated when we think about the struggle to get a real shift in emphasis from measurement of ‘inputs’ to ‘outcomes’. Managerially the case is compelling, whereas politically it is merely interesting. Indeed, for politicians there are some real snags. Outcomes are irritatingly hard to measure; they take a long time – sometimes decades – to reach; and the results, far from incontrovertible, are annoyingly easy to contest.
So despite their compelling virtue, outcomes don’t really get the airtime they deserve.
‘Priorities’ also illustrate the interaction of the two agendas. Priorities work for politicians: in many ways they are the antidote to many of the difficulties associated with outcomes. They are fast and flexible; they can be tuned to address even the most current, topical problem; they can be ambitious to the point of being commendably aspirational.
Priorities also work managerially – but only so far. Harmonising political and managerial priorities can be a very tricky area. Think, for example, about the mechanisms that politicians use to express priorities. There are three classics: let’s legislate to show that X is our priority; let’s set some targets.....; let’s vote some more resources.... The managerial consequences of all three approaches are deeply unhelpful: elaborate procedures to observe unnecessary legislation; the bureaucracy of targets that have little to do with running and improving of the business; and resource allocation systems that are only distantly related to real community needs.
So we have lots of priorities but a nagging concern that they are better serving political rather than service delivery ends.
Getting real alignment of political and management agendas is one of the critical challenges that needs to be addressed ahead of any large cuts programmes. Managers – the professional delivery experts – must understand what politicians really want to achieve and be able to advise what works best managerially. They absolutely must be engaged in shaping and influencing policy before the die is irrevocably cast.
And politicians need to welcome this dialogue and see it for what it is: the means to test the art of the possible. Successful policy has to work outside as well as inside the laboratory. Good policy making must reflect realistic assumptions about what can be produced in the real world, based on properly considered plans and sensible assessments of risk.
In our best public service organisations these open channels are already firmly established and working effectively to help produce high-quality services. As a generalisation we should feel pretty confident about the decisions these organisations will make when they implement spending cuts.
But best practice is far from universal. In some organisations and parts of the sector there remains a real reluctance, by politicians and managers, to engage in the debate. We should be very afraid about the mess these bodies might get into when they attempt to make significant spending adjustments in the tough times ahead.
Steve Freer is the chief executive of CIPFA
