Theories of Change

 The last post had two purposes –

·         to explore seven tools which governments have used in efforts to alter the behaviour of both citizens and organisations (public and commercial).

·         to remind us that some preliminary efforts in the 1970s to identify the factors which accounted for some successful  government initiatives of the 1960s had subsequently floundered in the 1980s - as Thatcherism, privatisation and neo-liberalism downgraded government in favour of what was little more than the downright worship of markets. New Labour may, in the new millennium, have brought back a few government programmes (such as Sure Start) but basically retained its faith in competition, globalisation and the market. 

The global financial meltdown of 2008 took the gloss off all that – and it was not altogether surprising that Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Thaler and Cass became a best-seller in the same year. This was a long overdue recognition that governments could also be effective   

Huge amounts of money, of course, are spent - and thousands of lobbyists employed – to persuade us otherwise; to keep us constantly supplied with stories of government waste and ineptitude. And most academics, it must be said, are happy to go along with this. Which is why I finished the post by paying tribute to the perseverance of people like Mark Moore, Paul du Gay and Paul t’Hart who are amongst the very few academics who have chosen to focus their efforts on trying to understand the preconditions for positive government efforts. 

What I want to do in this post is to try to describe the theories of change I’ve found most useful in the 50 years I’ve been lucky enough to have the chance to practice leadership – initially political, then project management and, in retirement, more distant and reflective. 

From “the Pincer Movement” to celebration of opportunism

When I was lucky enough to find myself in a position of strategic leadership in a new and large organisation in the mid 1970s, we used what I called the “pincer approach” to set up reform structures at both a political and community level. The organisational culture was, of course, one of classic bureaucracy – but, from its very start, some of us made sure that it had to contend with the unruly forces of political idealism and community power. The regional body concerned was responsible for such local government functions as education, social work, transport, water and strategic planning for two and half million people; and employed 100,000 staff but very little has been written about it. You’ll find the full story of the strategy here – and a short version here. 

Thirty years later. I was doing a lot of training sessions in the Presidential Academies of Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan and developed there what I called the “opportunistic” or “windows of opportunity” theory of change against what I started to call “impervious regimes” ie so confident of the lack of challenge to their rule that they had become impervious to their citizens. Initially I expressed it like this - 

• “Windows of opportunity present themselves - from outside the organization, in crises, pressure from below

• reformers have to be technically prepared, inspire confidence – and able to seize and direct the opportunity

• Others have to have a reason to follow

• the new ways of behaving have to be formalized in new structures. 

And then developed a more detailed formulation which put more emphasis on the individual, moral responsibility –

“Most of the time our systems seem impervious to change – but always (and suddenly) an opportunity arises. Those who care about the future of their society, prepare for these “windows of opportunity”. And the preparation is about analysis, mobilisation and trust.

·         It is about us caring enough about our organisation and society to speak out about the need for change.

·         It is about taking the trouble to think and read about ways to improve things – and

·         To help create and run networks of such change.

·         And it is about establishing a personal reputation for probity and good judgement 

·         that people will follow your lead when that window of opportunity arises”.

 Contagion and networks?

I am not a fan of Malcolm Gladwell but his popularisations have included the important notion of the Tipping Point (2010)  where he suggested that there were three key factors which determine whether an idea or fashion will “tip” into wide-scale popularity

·         the Law of the Few,

·         the Stickiness Factor, and

·         the Power of Context. 

The “Law of the Few” proposes that a few key types of people must champion an idea, concept, or product before it can reach the tipping point. Gladwell describes these key types as –

·         Connectors,

·         Mavens, and

·         Salesmen. 

(And a maven – in case you didn’t know - is a trusted expert in a particular field, who seeks to pass knowledge on to others. The word maven comes from the Hebrew, via Yiddish, and means one who understands, based on an accumulation of knowledge). 

If individuals representing all three of these groups endorse and advocate a new idea, it is much more likely that it will tip into exponential success.

The other 2 concepts are, frankly, not so well dealt with – and we need to go the wider literature of change management and social marketing to get the whole picture. 

A Final Point

Effective change doesn’t come from the “ya-boo yo-yo” system of adversarial power blocs of the UK and USA – it comes from a combination of sustained dialogue; coalitions of change; and grassroots activism and protest. And, often, it starts with an experiment – rather than a grand programme…Take, for example, what is now being called the Dutch model for neighbourhood care – started by Buurtzorg a few years back which is now inspiring people everywhere. That is a worker cooperative model… which, quite rightly, figures in Frederic Laloux’s  Reinventing Organisations. 

Further Reading; Annotated bibliogaphy for change agents" it may be a bit dated, but it’s still a useful resource for those who want to change the system of which they’re part.

Best explanation of ”theory of change” and annotated bibliography

To be continued

Tools of manipulation

I’ve often in the past 25 years had to put myself in the shoes of Ministers and senior civil servants to help them develop “road maps” for their reforms….Indeed I would get them to brainstorm about why they thought people behaved the way they did whether as officials, citizens, politicians or businesspeople – and what that might suggest about ways to achieve the desired change.

After all, the projects I’ve led only exist because someone has decided the present state of affairs is no longer acceptable…..so what aspects of whose behaviour are we talking about? And what is it that is most likely to make target groups change their behaviour?

·         Simple instructions?

·         Threats? Incentives?

·         Explanations and understanding?

·         Moral exhortation?

 One result was this table which focuses on the assumptions we make about motives - and then explores the various mechanisms which are available to those trying to change beliefs and behaviour 

The “behavioural turn” - Tools in the change process

Focus of attention	Example of tool	Relevant Tool
1. Understanding	Training Campaigns Functional review	Rational persuasion images Factual analysis
2. Commitment	Leadership Communications Training	Legitimisation; inspiration   Pride
3. Maximising Personal Benefit	Pay increase and bonus Promotion (including political office) Good publicity Winning an award	Monetary calculation ambition Reputation; Psychological Status
4. Minimising Personal Cost	Named as poor performer Demotion Report cards	Psychological (Shame) Monetary Pride
5. Obligation	Law Action plan Family ties	Courts Managerial authority Social pressure
6. Peer influence	Bribery Quality circles	Pressure Support
7. Social influence	Opinion surveys	Feedback from public about service quality

 The explosion of interest in behaviour; In the last decade, the question of changing (other) people’s behaviour has become a central one for government, business and NGOs. Professors Thaler and Cass may have “nudged” interest with their 2008 Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness but it was in fact the UK Cabinet Office which arguably set the ball rolling four years earlier with its Personal Responsibility and changing behaviour – the state of knowledge and its implications for public policy (2004) - an example which was followed with Changing Behaviour – a public policy perspective (Australian Government 2007). 

The Nudge book certainly inspired the Cameron government some 7 years later to set up a Nudge Unit in the Cabinet but the British government had been exploring this issue in its The Use of sanctions and rewards in the public sector (NAO 2008) accompanied by a literature review drafted by Deloitte. Even the House of Lords was not to be outdone – with the voluminous evidence of its Behaviour Change in 2011. And the voluntary sector put down an early marker with its Common Case – the case for working with our cultural values (2010)– which showed more familiarity with the marketing approach than did the economistic and rationalistic assumptions which were embedded in the early British attempts. So the World Bank was rather lagging behind when its Annual Development Report got round to dealing with the issue - in its Mind, Society and Behaviour (2015)

Government normally set up for Failure

Government systems are best known for their failures – and we certainly make the most of it when they happen, whether we are journalists, academics or mere citizens and voters. Books with titles such as “Great Planning Disasters” (1980) or “The Blunders of our Governments” (2013) line our shelves; and reports, post-mortems and articles on specific instances of breakdown and failure are legion. For some reason, the same interest isn’t shown in government success. One reviewer of the second book explained why – 

In our anti-politics culture it may be thought that governments never do anything else but blunder. That is not actually true: a serious academic work could be written examining the things governments got right and lessons learnt there from—but who would buy a book entitled ”The Successes of Our Governments”? Change the title to The Blunders of Our Governments and the readers are there 

There was a period – in the 1970s – when some interest was shown in positive government outcomes. I remember, in particular, “Change, Choice and Conflict in Social Policy” by Hall, Land, Parker and Webb (1975) with 6 case studies including the struggle for Clean Air, establishment of the Open University and of Health Centres. The authors suggested 3 important perquisites for such success which I have never forgotten - legitimacy, feasibility and support viz that policies require

·         clear and indisputable claims to authority ,

·         a good chance of achieving a successful outcome

·         indications of extensive support 

But the endeavours of government fell out of favour in the 1980s – at least in anglo-saxon territories – with austerity programmes caused by the bailing out of the banks in 2008 being a final challenge for even successful governments.  

It’s only the perseverance of people like Mark Moore and Paul t’Hart which has brought us positive stories of government efforts – with Alan McConnell’s Understanding Policy Success (2010) being an early and important milestone in what is now a burgeoning field 

Useful Further Reading

Reports and Books

Personal Responsibility and changing behaviour – the state of knowledge and its implications for public policy (UK Cabinet Office 2004

Changing Behaviour – a public policy perspective (Australian Government 2007)

Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness; Thaler and Cass (2008).

The Use of sanctions and rewards in the public sector (NAO 2008) accompanied by a literature review drafted by Deloitte

Common Case – the case for working with our cultural values (2010)

Behaviour Change (House of Lords (2011)

Finding Frames – new ways to engage the UK public in global poverty (2011)

Nudge, nudge, think, think;by Peter John, Smith and Gerry Stoker (2011)

A Practitioner’s Guide to Nudging; Rotman 2013

Mind, Society and Behaviour (World Development Report; World Bank 2015

Sanctions, Rewards and Learning (IDEA 2016)

Governance and the Law (World Development Report; World Bank 2017)

Influencing Behaviours and Practices to tackle poverty and injustice (Oxfam 2018)

Articles

“Finding the appropriate policy tools” (RG Young 2008)

Wicked Problems and clumsy solutions – the role of leadership; Keith Grint (2008)

 “Nudge, nudge, think, think”; article by John, Smith and Stoker (2009)

The Rational Paradox of Nudge in a world of bounded rationality; Martin Lodge and Kai Wegrich (2016). A quite excellent critique

Good techniques, leaders or institutions?

Books about getting public services to run well for the average person are little fun to read – which is a crying shame since the issue is of fundamental importance to almost all citizens.

Arguably, it was Gerald Caiden who first made administrative reform sexy – in the late 1960s

Because it’s an issue which has been central to my work, as academic, politician and then as consultant, for the past 50 years, I’ve had to wade through thousands of books and article on the subject since then – most of them academic. A few only have given real pleasure – those written by people such as Chris Hood, Chris Pollitt and B Guy Peters – exposing the nonsenses of the fashion for New Public Management (NPM) which started around 1990.

Most of the writing is spoiled by the appalling academic tic of backing up every statement, in almost every line, with named references (in brackets) linked to long bibliographic lists. And academics have to demonstrate their cleverness – so the articles and books consist of long descriptions of innovations – with results difficult to measure but almost certainly with little real impact…  

 

You might think that the net result of this torrent of negative academic coverage would have discouraged innovators in government – but, hey, there are reputations and careers to be made out of the change process. And staff turnover is such that the disappointing results which eventually come in can be blamed on others

 

Managers first started to make an appearance in government in the 1970s – they were the magicians supposed to turn dross into gold. I confess that I was an early enthusiast for “corporate management” which is indeed still alive and well in the continued reference to managerial silos which are to be slain…..John Stewart of the INLOGOV institute of the University of Birmingham was the guru who inspired a whole generation of local senior officials to think more creatively about this and indeed led me, in the mid 1970s, to help set up in Europe’s largest Region two new types of structure – area committees and scrutiny groups of middle-level officials and politicians  

But it was the Department of Government at Harvard University under the leadership of Mark Moore which began to show what it was possible to do at a more local level…His “Creating Public Value” (1995) celebrated the energy and creativity which good public managers brought to state bodies at both the national and local levels. By then, however, the formulaic NPM had got its grip and Moore, despite teaming up with Stewart and producing a second book, remained a lone voice – with his message that people (rather than techniques) made the difference. 

In recent years Ive noticed a little ripple of interesting titles about more creative ways of working – such as Frederic Laloux’s “Reinventing Organisations” (2014),  Jorrit de Jong’s (of the Kafka Brigade fame) “Dealing with Dysfunction” (2014), Hilary Cottam’s “Radical Help” (2018)  culminating in Strategies for Governing (2019) by Alasdair Roberts 

But it’s only in recent weeks that I’ve realised that Mark Moore’s influence has inspired a few Europeans (particularly from the Netherlands) who have been producing a series of books on good practice in public management – of both the “heroes” and “institutions” (of integrity) sort as they are called in the recent Guardians of Public Value – how public organization become and remain institutions (2021) ed A Boi, L Harty and P t’Hart This seems to take inspiration also from Hugh Heclo whose “On Thinking Institutionally” I wrote about some years ago 

At this stage I would normally conclude with a “resource” of relevant titles – but I realise that this can look a bit off-putting…..so those interested can ask me for the list (or I’ll add it later)

 

A Life in Reform

 Books about management are big business. The Management section of any bookshop is therefore a big one – with what used to be a clear divide between textbooks (for the many students of the subject) and the more practical no-nonsense books written by business leaders/heroes That line began to blur a bit in the 1990s – with academics such as Rosabeth Kanter and Peter Senge, for example, producing best-sellers about the latest "best practice".

At about the same time, the field of New Public Management (NPM) began to make its mark – building on the success of David Osborne’s “Reinventing Government” (1992). By the new millennium, the shelves were groaning under the weight of the academic books appearing on the subject.

What, however, was most curious was the absence of titles from those with the practical experience of managing state bodies. And this despite the best intentions of someone like Mark Moore whose “Creating Public Value” (1995) celebrated the energy and creativity which good public managers brought to state bodies at both the national and local levels. 

Perhaps such people are simply too busy – or contractually prevented from sharing their insights? Only one other academic, as far as I’m aware, has tried to encourage public managers to speak out – and that is the late lamented Chris Pollitt whose The Essential Public Manager” was published in 2003. 

It’s this imbalance in the literature which has encouraged me these past few years to try to put a book together about my fairly unusual experience of administrative reform in some dozen countries - which I had been calling “How did Admin Reform get to be so Sexy?” but which is currently running with a new title “Change for the Better? - a life in reform”. I've been working on it fairly feverishly for the past week - and hope to put it up shortly on this site.....

It has an unusual structure - in that the two opening chapters were actually penned some 20 and 10 years ago respectively; and most of the others are based on posts from this blog – each prefaced by a short introduction. In this I follow the example of two writers I’ve long admired – Robert Chambers, whose Ideas for Development consists of essays he has written over a 30 years period – each with an introduction indicating the circumstances in which it was penned and how his thinking has changed. Roger Harrison, an organisational consultant who developed with Charles Handy the famous idea of ”Gods of Management”, did the same,

For me, too many books pretend to an authority and precision which life simply doesn’t have .....