Community Care logo
Loading
E-Newsletters
Inform image
You are in:   News

Social care must choose whether to adopt management ideas that reflect reality or return to classical perfomance-oriented methods, writes academic Philip Haynes.

Thursday 29 January 2004 00:00

Over the past 25 years numerous management methods have been exported from the private to the public sector. Known as new public managerialism (NPM), the trend was accompanied by enthusiasm for the idea - particularly within government - that competition between providers was key to creating efficiency and choice. Those working in the public services had to learn the language of business and markets, despite not always feeling comfortable about it.

The 1990s saw a gradual disillusionment with many of these classical management ideas. There was an increasing awareness of the difficulty in applying the private into the public, and an emphasis on the importance of leadership emerged.

At the same time several other management models emerged. For example, whole systems theory argues that, rather than needing a grasp of the details, managers need a good overview of what influences their work, in particular the constraints and challenges of the external environment.

Chaos and complexity theory also have begun to influence management models in the UK. Hailing from North America, these theories argue that new approaches to unpredictable systems in the pure sciences could also be relevant to understanding economies and public organisations.

But complexity theory challenges the idea that managers can control the detail of performance. Classical models of management are based on the premise that managers can predict with confidence, which inputs will lead to the required outputs.

Under complexity theory, the key management skills are adaptability, diplomacy and flexibility in a rapidly changing environment. Such an approach encourages the development of a set of core values and ideas that creates a "vision" about where services want to be, which itself generates an attraction towards order, stability and progress.

The potential for disorder and chaos is a feature of many complex systems, including public services. But, although some disorder is a creative feature of all systems, there are risks associated with it which need constant attention.1

Performance management has proved an influential NPM technique. Much effort has been expended in health and social care to set up performance monitoring systems that allow services to be compared, often through long lists of indicators. In some cases these are linked to qualitative inspection regimes, such as the joint reviews of social care services. But the aggregation of such data into general star ratings and comprehensive performance assessments can distract from the real local issues.

Complexity approaches offer an alternative by moving away from the focus on identifying "cause and effect". Instead, managers look for key processes that affect performance. In the case of a local authority with high numbers of family placement breakdowns, it might be possible to identify a critical point where things start to go wrong, such when communication between social worker, school and carer fails.

Under complexity theory, when that point has been identified an attempt is made to understand what is happening within the system of local services and efforts are made to intervene. In other words, complexity theory takes a wide and open initial view of the system and gradually focuses on the feedback between the key elements within the system. The idea is to increase positive feedback between key elements and to break negative feedback where the wrong kind of communication is occurring. So, in this case, this might involve the intervention of an educational support worker who can mediate between the family and the school.

The sector is at something of a crossroads now. It can encourage the real world application of these new approaches or see a negative return to classical methods such as performance management that focus on over-defining outputs, and relating this directly to inputs. But it must be noted these classical approaches often undermine both creativity and the use of professional skills in the public workforce.

Philip Haynes is principal lecturer in social policy, University of Brighton.

References

1 P Haynes, Managing Complexity in the Public Services, Open University Press, 2003

blog comments powered by Disqus
 
More from Community Care
Trending now logo
 
 
Social care link

 

    Transcare