One of the reasons why this blog continues is that the physical process of writing words – whether on a keyboard or on the pages of a notebook – somehow releases thoughts that take me in
unexpected directions.
The Kafka Brigade
Let me give an example….On Thursday I came across an article which
annoyed me – it was in something called the Stanford Social Innovation
Review – so I should have known better!
It seemed to be about community-based solutions to perennial problems
like homelessness - but talked of
“the
urgent need to eradicate social and economic ills rather than just manage them”.
Three things annoyed me on my first skim of the article – first the sheer
arrogance of such an approach particularly when, secondly, it made no reference to any previous efforts to find such a "silver bullet". And, finally, that a
serious university (Hertie in Berlin) seemed to take it seriously enough to
offer the authors a platform – who were also claiming in aid a recent British
book “Radical Help”.
Bingo, I thought….here’s a peg on which to hang a post about the
importance of decentralized approaches – but not before I clear the ground to spell out some of the efforts which others have made to supply
alternatives to the centralized delivery of services….
Hence the two previous posts – the first which
started with Ralston Saul’s quote about democratic structures being more
important than technocratic; my own critique (from 1977) of managerialism and pluralism; then the technocracy of New Labourism;
and, finally, the hypocrisy of the Conservative “Big Society” and “mutualisation”
programmes from 2010.
The second post was a reminder of the significance of Frederic Laloux’s
book on “Reinventing Organisations” and its celebration of worker self-management…
But, as I prepared for what I thought would be a detailed critical post about the article The New Practice of Public
Problem Solving, I did my usual surfing and
came across an amazing book with an unusual title - Dealing with Dysfunction –
innovative problem solving in the public sector by Jorrit de
Jong (2014). It's written by a Dutchman who had, a decade earlier, been a member of a team called “The Kafka
Brigade” (!) - whose work is described in this excellent short article The Kafka Brigade – public
management theory in practice; M Mathias (2015).
This has elements of “action-research” – to which I’ve always been attracted – shades of “learning while doing”……The opening chapter of his book (see title link) puts it more precisely -
This has elements of “action-research” – to which I’ve always been attracted – shades of “learning while doing”……The opening chapter of his book (see title link) puts it more precisely -
“using a bottom-up diagnostic approach,
collaborative inquiry, creative problem-solving techniques and a pressure-cooker
environment, the Kafka Brigade has tapped into the knowledge and experience of
hundreds if public officials and clients”
At
this stage, I would normally clear my throat a bit ironically……but, hey, we all
have to make a living …and the jargon isn’t all that difficult …..And he and
his team readily accept that his approach has yielded both failures and
successes……it is indeed a pragmatic learning process. Indeed he quotes one of
the first academics to devote a full-length book about “bureaucratic dysfunctions”
– Herbert Kaufman - who wrote (in 1977) that -
“what we need is a detailed clinical approach
rather than heated attacks, the delicate wielding of a scalpel rather than furious flailing around
with a meat axe”!
And
the heated attacks since then have included (successful) calls for “Deregulation”,
“smaller government”. “stronger professional input” and “private sector models
of management”.
De
Jong makes it clear his approach was influenced by Mark Moore’s concept of
Public Value which I
discussed (all too briefly) in this post last year about the struggle in
the past 20 years to offer a better model for public services than New Public
Management
Mark Moore’s Creating Public Value – strategic management in
Government (1995) demonstrated how the passion and
example of individual leaders could inspire teams and lift the performance and
profile of public services. The decentralisation of American government allowed
them that freedom.
British New Labour,
however, chose to go in the opposite direction and to build on to what was
already a tight centralised system a new quasi-Soviet one of targets and
punishment – although this 2002 note, Creating Public Value
– an analytical framework for public service reform, showed that there were at least some people within the Cabinet Office pushing for a more
flexible approach.
Measuring Public Value
– the competing values approach
showed that there was still life in the idea in the UK – if only amongst
academics eg Public Value
Management – a new narrative for networked governance by Gerry Stoker in 2006.
Sadly Public Value; theory
and practice ed by John Benington and
Mark Moore (2011) offered no clarion call to a better society, it was full of
dreadful jargon…..Who in his right mind imagines that networked public
governance is going to set the heather alight???
My post also looked critically at
some other competing ideas which had been offered – such as “good governance”,
the “common good”, “communitarianism”, “service” and “stewardship”
All these concepts have problems – as does “Dealing with Dysfunction”
(!!) – but “The Kafka Brigade”?,,,,,now there’s a powerful image!!
I warned you at the start of this post that, more than anything else, I
would be trying to “showcase” (what an awful word!!) how I approach the blog
first thing in the morning.
I let the fingers do the talking…..
I let the fingers do the talking…..
