Learning Leader

Cuts in charitable funding are what I'm talking about

In my last post I spoke about stress and simplistic responses to the call to make public sector budget cuts. Well we are seeing a lamentable expression of that now.This morning the BBC had feature illustrating this:

Charities have warned cuts in local authority funding in England may threaten services they provide.

via www.bbc.co.uk

The case of Croydon Accessible Transport, a charity quoted in the item, despite mobilising a large a critical volunteer workforce, has had its local government funding withdrawn. Quoting the BBC article:

Martin Brookes, of think tank New Philanthropy Capital, said voluntary groups would need to prove their worth.

"There are some charities that are simply not doing good enough work or they can't prove how good their work is - they're more vulnerable than others," he said.

"The vital thing for charities to do is to invest in demonstrating their impact, proving that they deliver vital, valuable services and that they should be exempt from cuts."

This is exactly the point I would make. In these austere times, the Business Case now becomes crucial, even in the charity sector. The trick is producing measurable contributions that keep in step with public agency strategic objectives. Make clear how your charity helps my council meet its service levels needs to be clear and the case powerfully made.  

Then the discussion could become, "If you withdraw my funding, this will be the social impact of it, and the additional demands on your service delivery."

Let's have some joined-up thinking here, rather than panic measures.

Stress makes you stupid: why this matters to public agency decisions

A few years ago I co-presented with Helen Whitten of positiveworks to the title 'Stress Makes You Stupid'. We used a piece of technology called 'biodots', little circular stickers which we gave out to delegates. If you stick a biodot onto the back of your wrist you can watch it change colour according to your skin temperature; and skin temperature, I was told, is a good indicator of your stress level. When you are stressed, your body diverts oxygen from the brain to your muscle groups to aid the 'fight or flight' response. However, the depletion of oxygen levels in your brain impairs your ability to think deeply, reflectively and wisely - not that you need to do in a moment of threat!

However,the point it that chronic stress reduces our analytical and conceptual abilities to almost habitual thinking patterns. We miss opportunities because we are always living in stress, and lack of oxygen doesn't allow us to see possibilities.

Right now executives teams of public bodies all across the UK are under great stress. They will have to live with unprecedented budgetary challenges for the foreseeable future,and the future they foresee is not very far ahead at all. Just getting through the next financial year seems like a huge achievement. These decision-makers are asking themselves, "How can we maintain services whilst making 25% cuts in budget?"

My concern is that stress is shaping their approach with, shall we say, less-than-smart thinking. This quality of thinking will not allow them to conceive that this is an opportunity for positive transformational change, and that maintaining service levels is even a possibility.

Stressed public executives will miss opportunities for transformational change - radical changes to the way services are delivered, such as rationalising and sharing delivery with other local agencies. They will slash services, because their thinking abilities in this climate of stress will funnel them into limited EITHER-OR thinking.

Jim Collins and Jerry Porras found in their research that all organisations of outstanding performance reject this 'Tyranny of the OR', and instead adopt the 'Genius of the AND', insisted on more creative BOTH-AND thinking. Where are our public leaders who can do this now, who can achieve necessary budget cuts AND maintain service levels?

Today there is an opportunity to transform positively the delivery of public services in the UK. But will the stress that these chief executives live under allow them to believe this is even possible?