There are good and bad ways of responding to failure, says the IfG in a new report. Image: Fotolia
There should be a formalised system of peer-to-peer support to intervene earlier in failing public sector organisations, according to a new report by the Institute for Government.
The IfG's latest report is based on interviews with staff from four organisations that recovered from severe failures, and think tank argues the best responses are those that come at a sector-wide, rather than solely organisational level.
“When failure is not owned and approached at a system level, the result can be unco-ordinated interventions at notionally separate organisations whose failure is nonetheless inherently linked,” says the report.
Ignore the frontline at your peril, former perm sec Sir Peter Housden warns reformers
Performance management: Ministry of Defence consults staff on rethink of "demotivating" system
Transforming Public Sector Productivity
Emma Norris, programme director, said: “Failure is an ever-present threat in our public services – and the risks are increasing. Yet there are good and bad ways of responding to failure. Politicians too often use a superficial set of tools – restructuring a service or parcelling out blame.
“But this won’t solve the problem: leadership, collaboration and transparency will. Those overseeing turnarounds also need to hold their nerve and accept that performance can dip further as recovery begins.”
The IfG suggests that there could be a more formalised way to trigger early peer-to-peer support of failing organisations.
Central government tends to intervene as a last resort, the report notes, but peers – such as other councils or hospital trusts – can provide support before failures become severe.
However, the IfG warns that such support networks should not be purely voluntary, since failing organisations are often insular, with “weak networks and connections to their peers”.
It therefore suggests there could be a greater role for organisations such as the Local Government Association or professional bodies in supporting troubled service providers.
“Establishing a greater role for peer review as a form of sector-led, non-statutory intervention may therefore be necessary,” says the report.
The report also notes, however, that peer-based inspections do not always spot failures and says there could be a case for developing improvement boards, such as the panel set up to review progress of Wirral Borough Council after it was hit by a series of scandals in 2012.
Responses to failure should not be “over-reliant on structural reforms” the report suggests, saying that leadership and culture is also important. In particular, creating an “open, no-blame culture helps to protect against future risk of failure”.
However, encouraging an open culture and proper reporting may mean that an organisation appears to get worse before it gets better, the IfG adds.
“In some cases what appears to be worsening performance after being designated as failing was in fact the beginnings of honest reporting,” says the report.
“The ascription of failure often leads to a more rigorous examination of the issues underlying poor performance, in turn revealing the true extent of the problems being experienced.”