leadership inquiry with denmark

The Leadership Inquiry with Denmark Welsh Assembly Government

Sue Pritchard 2007

Beyond Boundaries

A Leadership Inquirywith

Denmark

Introduction

At the start of 2007 and over a period of almost six months, Public Service Management Wales

working with Sue Pritchard and the NHS Confederation conducted a Leadership Inquiry into

small state governance and public service delivery. Using newly re-configured public services

in Denmark to help set the context of the inquiry, provided an opportunity to explore on an

international level the future of public service reform and development. This report details the

comparative analysis and findings of the inquiry to offer insight and perspective on the evolving

reform agenda in Wales.

This report of the Leadership Inquiry with Denmark does not

claim to be a rigorously researched comparative study of two

countries’ systems. Instead it is intended to be a thought-

provoking account of the leadership development inquiry

undertaken by a group of leaders in the Welsh public services,

and from Third Sector and private sector organisations.

Seventeen leaders joined the development programme, to

reflect on the leadership challenges they face in developing

and implementing policy and strategy in Wales, in the course

of understanding more about what it means to lead public

services in a comparable small country.

Denmark was chosen since it has, on the face of it, several similarities with Wales. With a

population of 5m people gravitating towards the capital Copenhagen, a rural population

dispersed around the country and islands, a similar public health profile and it’s proximity to a

large European neighbour, Denmark shares many Welsh characteristics. By way of contrast,

it has a strong sense of confidence in its own identity, built on 900 years as an independent

state - and it has the highest citizen satisfaction rating with its public services in Europe, and,

arguably, the world.

This Leadership Inquiry consisted of an opening event for the whole community of 18, followed

by 2 separate action learning set meetings before the four day visit, which was followed up by

two further set meetings and a final ‘whole community’ event. The specific programme

content was designed around the concerns of the participants, using Open Space and Action

Learning methods in the Welsh leg of the programme, to help participants formulate the

strategic questions which they wanted to address together - and for which there were no

straightforward answers. The visit programme, therefore, was somewhat eclectic; but what

was also revealing was the many informal interactions we experienced during the visit – with

hotel staff, taxi drivers, service providers and families. It was in these less structured moments

that we came to inquire more into our underpinning assumptions and taken for granted ideas

about what works in Denmark – and more importantly, back in Wales.


Sue Pritchard 2007

After much debate, the critical, and overarching, question for the participants was summed up

thus:

“How do we work together better to implement policy changes and improve services

’on the ground’?”

This in turn generated a real range of more specific questions – posed as dilemmas - which

participants explored both in their sets and through the visit programme.

.................if we have agreed on our joint key areas of interest and keep

updating these We create the most value if each of us focuses on his/her own area of expertise

Leadership beyond boundaries is fundamentally different

The kind of leadership required is very much the same - in a different framework

Engagement of citizens in the political process is nice in theory, but it does not work in practice

The need to involve citizens is increasing and so are the possibilities of organising it successfully

Smaller organisations have better relations with citizens

Larger organisations can organise their interfaces professionally

The decisive factor for partnerships to work is a joint task and budget

The decisive factor are shared, important challenges and good relationships

There are good models for cooperation between different levels

Relationships between national and local authorities will always be problematical A new programme or organisation means disturbance of ongoing activities

Managers and clinicians (or other experts) will never really understand each other

Five years from now, we will wonder what the reasons for past miscommunication were

The most important thing in partnerships is trust - without trust in place they will never work

Trust is built through working together, getting on and doing important things together

What we need are some answers to the tricky issues we are facing

What we need is the ability to formulate really good questions to guide our work together

Smaller countries can never deliver services to the same range and standard as large

Small countries have a better track records on important tissues like well

The new programme or organization is an important chance for


Sue Pritchard 2007

On the last day of the Danish visit, Danes joined the Welsh participants in a joint Open Space

session, exploring the questions they had in common, such as,

What leadership approaches work in small countries?

In what ways can we develop more user/citizen-centered policy?

Is there a role for the private sector in delivering public service?

What does ‘localism’ mean in Denmark and in Wales?

How can we learn to trust each other across organisation and professional

divides?

How can public services help to generate better individual and social

responsibility?

How do we take more risks in policy making and implementation?

Citizen engagement and local democracy: are they both necessary?

How do we reconcile notions of equality and social justice to create a society

comfortable with its differences?

How can we create better reward systems to encourage co-operation?

At the final session in May, participants reflected on the main lessons learned from the

programme. They grouped these under three headings:

devolution

governance

citizenship

Since this was a leadership inquiry, the theme of leadership - and how to develop

leadership capacity - underpins all three topics. These encompassed the collaborative role

of leaders and the importance of acting in service of the transformation necessary to

deliver sustainable improvement to Welsh public services. These imperatives are

embedded in the following analysis reinforcing the importance of new forms leadership as

a critical success factors in leading change.

Alongside this, however, is the personal learning and development

gained by participants, which by definition is multi faceted, highly

specific and contextual. Accounts of this are more easily heard

through conversations with the participants themselves and they

are happy to talk more about what they have done as a result of

their participation – indeed most of them have already spoken to

groups or meetings since their return, reflecting on their

experiences. Some of these are captured in the report in more

personal accounts of the programme.


Sue Pritchard 2007

The leadership challenge

Leading public services today is a tough enough challenge; leading public services in a country

which is coming to understand what it means to be a more autonomous ‘small country’

presents yet another layer of complexity.

Since devolution, the debate has persisted over whether Wales is big enough to sustain our

own distinctive public policy direction, appropriate to our own particular context and

aspirations. If our only point of reference is the English model, then this makes for a very

limited debate. If, however, we look further a field, to the experiences of small countries

around the world, we generate a much richer source of ideas and possibilities, giving public

service leaders more of the evidence they need to be bolder and more confident in their

leadership.

However, leadership development can never be simply about ‘hard evidence’. If this were true

then getting leaders to read a few well chosen texts would be enough to transform public

services. This programme was about evidence, yes, but it was also a groundbreaking approach

to cross sector leadership development, designed to generate a shift in participants’ insight

into the challenges which face them and in turn in their confidence to implement change.

As George Bernard Shaw said “it is not enough to know what is good; you must be able to do

it”. Leadership development must be experiential, about the doing of it – brought about by

better awareness of one’s own day to day practice, through a feedback loop of reflection and

dialogue with others who are themselves engaged in similar dilemmas. Leaders at the top of

their organisations rarely get the opportunity to reflect on their own practice. Too often it is

assumed that, by virtue of having got there, they are now ‘the finished article’ and no longer

need to engage in personal and professional development. And, all too often, occasions for

frank, supportive feedback and challenge diminish in direct proportion to seniority – in this

pressurised and exposed environment, it is often considered to be a ‘career limiting move’ to

engage in candid debate, to challenge orthodoxies, to comment on unhelpful behaviours.

For public service leaders to work more effectively together, they must also learn differently

together. This does not mean ‘teaching’ them the same things, so that they all ‘sing from the

same hymn sheet’. What this means is that they work together in settings which enable them

to inquire into their diverse experiences and perspectives, understanding more about their

common ground and discovering their common purposes.

“the essential feature of common thought is not that it is held in common, but that it is

produced in common” – Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933)


Sue Pritchard 2007

Leadership is not about managing the status quo more efficiently – it is about change,

anticipating global trends and shifting world views - and acting with others to respond. For too

long, as Reg Revans said, management education has been like ‘throwing answers like stones

at the heads of those who have not yet begun to ask the questions.” And still, much

leadership development involves providing the answers to yesterdays’ questions. In a fast

changing and complex world, where leaders constantly feel as if they are working right at the

edge of their experience and competence (if they’re engaged in the right things!) the capacity

to ask fresh questions about the important issues becomes a critical leadership skill.

One of the hardest things for public service leaders to come to terms with is the impact of the

global information age, where information and communication is now widely dispersed into the

informal, user-generated realm. With widespread use of the web, the growth of chat forums

and blogs, Wikipedia, Google and so on, leaders can no longer rely on their privileged access

to expert knowledge to validate their authority. But that same pattern also provides new

opportunities, making it ever more important to be able to understand and interpret the

proliferation of data – often partial, contradictory and ambiguous. Contemporary leadership is

about the ability to ‘make sense’ of complex and contested information, bringing coherence

and drawing together the disparate and apparently unconnected strands into something that

aligns and integrates actions within organisations and across communities.

Leadership is about relationship. Fundamentally, leadership is enacted in the many day-to-day

interactions with colleagues, stakeholders, citizens, service users. To shift ‘Joining Up as One

Public Service’ from aspiration to day to day reality – moving away from the silo’d world of

public service organisation and the ‘us and them’ behaviours this generates - then leaders will

need to improve their capacity to build productive and purposeful relationships with a much

wider bandwidth of people. And in order to do this successfully, the leader of tomorrow will

need a much greater capacity to work with difference and diversity – not just because,

increasingly, our communities, stakeholders and service users expect an individualised,

differentiated service which meets their particular needs and concerns, but also because

including ‘requisite variety’ leads to better quality actions and outcomes. And the leaders of

tomorrow will need a much greater capacity to work with their customers, their service users

and their communities, in a way that both respects their contributions and galvanises their

collective energies.

This programme offered a learning design congruent with these principles.


Sue Pritchard 2007

Devolution – a continuing journey

Since it began the devolution journey in 1999 Wales has been developing an understanding of

it’s distinctively Welsh agenda. This was captured in the “Making The Connections” (MtC)

policy in 2004, and subsequently reinforced by the findings of the Beecham review “Beyond

Boundaries”. Welsh public policy lies in the achievement of four clear outcomes:

Social Justice; a just society which treats

individuals and groups of people fairly, in which no-

one is socially excluded;

Equalities; treating people equally in status, rights

and opportunities through a set of policies and

actions, to secure equality of outcome for all;

Sustainability; considering economic, social and

environmental issues equally in all our work and

decision making; and

Sense of community; creating strong, safe and cohesive communities for everybody

These goals are further strengthened in One Wales; the agreement between Labour and Plaid

Cymru groups; “…to deliver the sort of fair, prosperous, confident and outgoing Wales which

its citizens deserve and demand.”

The divergence in Welsh public policy from the English markets and choice model, (though,

arguably, being an effective driver for improvement in that context) comes about since the

English approach does not promote the four core policy outcomes that now form the

foundation for the development and delivery of Welsh public services- the citizen-centred

model promoting participation and partnership. This is not an either/or approach. Being citizen

centred recognises that people are both consumers of public services and citizens who have a

vital contribution to make in driving improvement in quality and form of public services. If the

aspiration to place the citizen at the centre of service delivery is to be effective then it has to be

demonstrated in four ways:

Better access to information and services

Engaging citizens in driving improvement in the quality of services

Working with citizens in the strategic commissioning of services

Creating partnerships with citizens and communities so that they work jointly with

public services in achieving complex social goals.

How to achieve this is not a new issue for Welsh public services. The debate preceding the

Local Government Review in Wales in 1996 centred around whether there was greater value in


Sue Pritchard 2007

having a large number of small Councils that could be close

to citizens and communities but lack the benefits of scale of a

large authority, or have a small number of large Councils that

would realise the economies of scale but would be more

remote from citizens and communities. It is a matter of

history that the former option prevailed and we have 22

Unitary Authorities that are able to get very close to citizens

and communities, and able to respect the sense of

community that is central to the Welsh culture. The downside

of this is that Wales has much higher infrastructure costs for

its public services. There was a hope in 1996 that this would

be addressed by combining the value of the two models. Twenty two non-self sufficient

Unitary Authorities would have been an excellent vehicle for engaging citizens and

communities at the local level, and high levels of collaboration across services (front line and

back office) would have provided the economies of scale. Ten years on MtC and Beyond

Boundaries present the same challenge, but to organisations which are now more mature and

possibly less territorial than in 1996. Inevitably complexity generates more complexity, as

individuals and organisations attempt to get to grip with the changes that need to be made.

Systems risk becoming more complex but not necessarily more sophisticated, they become

harder to understand but not more clever or intelligent.

This very dilemma – providing services as local as possible to citizens and communities,

removing layers of complex accountability, whilst at the same time ensuring value for money

and cost effectiveness – drove a significant programme of reforms within the Danish public

service.

The Purpose of the Local Government Reform

“The purpose of the reform is to maintain and develop a democratically governed public sector with a

sound basis for continued development of the Danish welfare society. Therefore, the decentralised

public sector, which is a distinctive Danish feature, needs to be designed in such a way that it can

meet future requirements by creating sustainable units with a clear responsibility to provide high

quality welfare service to the Danish population. Larger municipalities can provide the basis for

improved task solution where more welfare tasks are solved locally and democracy will be

strengthened as more political decisions are made locally.”

(Excerpt from the Agreement on a Structural Reform made by the government and the

Danish People’s Party)

Through a ‘voluntary and locally anchored process’ of debate, negotiation and collaboration,

98 municipalities replaced 271, covering populations varying in size from less than 20,000 in

the islands, to 650,000 in Copenhagen but, on average, serving communities of 60,000.

The new map of Denmark with 98 municipalities was then created from:


Sue Pritchard 2007

65 merged municipalities

33 unchanged municipalities. Seven of these municipalities have less than 20,000

inhabitants and therefore, they all enter into binding partnerships. Five of the seven

municipalities are islands.

11 municipalities were divided as a result of local referendums

That local communities negotiated, agreed and drove the reforms is significant for both service

users and those employed in them. The accounts of the reforms did not have the echo of

change fatigue, which we hear so often in the UK: rather the impression was more ‘sleeves

rolled up and all in it together’. Could this be accounted for by the fact that the Danes invested

heavily in an inclusive and open change process – generating a shared sense of the need for

change, the drivers and levers for change, the costs of change (and the costs of not changing)

and, most importantly, including leaders and players from the whole Danish system in agreeing

the shape of the public service and the steps needed to get there?

An intriguing question for participants, when reflecting on the Danes’ high sense of satisfaction

with their public services, is the extent to which this inclusive change process somehow

contributes or reinforces it. In a small country, where public services are themselves major

employers, it is important to recognise the relationship between staff engagement and

satisfaction and citizen engagement and satisfaction. The opportunity to create better

causality and mutuality between levels of provider and user satisfaction was intrinsic to

delivering improved services. The perception of services themselves was as important as

actual delivery.

Funds Follow the Tasks

”The parties agree that the reform should not result in higher taxes or increased

public expenditure. Changes in distribution of tasks will be made based on the

principle that the reform is neutral when it comes to expenditure and the funds

follow the tasks. This should ensure that the authorities taking on new tasks will

be compensated by the authorities giving up the tasks.

The municipalities have to bear the costs of the mergers. But they can keep whatever they

gain from the synergy effect. In this way the local government reform encourages the

municipalities to keep costs down and also to gain as many benefits from the synergy effect

as possible.”


Sue Pritchard 2007

Governance

Devolution continues to evolve in Wales, with the prospect of further self-determination under

the Government of Wales Act, but present governance arrangements are based on a large

country (the UK) model. This has created the sense that Wales has or is currently undergoing

technical devolvement but has yet to emerge as a Nation State. Denmark, a country about

twice the area of Wales and with almost double our population, is characterised by a strong

welfare-oriented profile and – according to the OECD – one of the world’s lowest levels of

social inequality. Its progressive tax system provides public services for all that are free at the

point of delivery yet, despite perceptions of a highly-funded public service regime, spend as a

proportion of GDP is about the same as in Wales (with its higher GDP, absolute spend in

Denmark is higher per capita). The value system that underpins this egalitarian society is

summarised by Rikke Lundsgarde, Deputy Director of a large NGO, as “a country where few

have too much – and even fewer too little”

Some interesting principles underpin the governance framework in Denmark: simplicity;

collaboration; spheres (not tiers); delivery and trust. These principles are founded on a cultural

platform of self-belief and community confidence.

The simplicity that can be achieved in a small country is evident in the national:local model,

with regional services operating only where critical mass precludes them from being delivered

more locally. Denmark’s 98 municipalities are responsible for the delivery of most direct public

services – in health care (preventative and rehabilitative services), employment, social services,

primary and special education, business services, collective transport and roads, nature,

environment, planning and culture. The five regions deal primarily with acute healthcare

(hospital services and general practitioners), regional development and the operation of a

number of social institutions (for vulnerable groups, those with special needs and for special

education). At the national level, the state undertakes those activities where delegation to the

municipalities and regions is considered to be inappropriate – policing, defence, the legal

system, foreign service, international obligations, upper secondary, vocational and higher

education and research. There are no ‘quangos’, and NGOs often have a specific role in

governance that is defined through legislation.

It was clearly evident during the visit that collaboration is the option of first resort, with partner

municipalities coming together as a matter of course – it is the way things are done, no central

government intervention seems necessary. As a consequence, government is organised in

spheres, not hierarchies. Governance is driven by delivery rather than control, by outcomes

rather than process. Trust was a dominant feature of public life. This included trusting elected

politicians to get on with delivering their manifesto, trusting public services to be delivered

without an over-engineered performance monitoring system, and trusting individuals within this

delivery system that each will play his/her part at the right time and to the agreed quality.


Sue Pritchard 2007

The process of governance involves wide debate about any issue – encompassing all

stakeholders – and resolution over the nature of the solution. To quote Jacob Stirling of WWF

Denmark on the recent local government reform, ‘there was wide public acceptance of the

need (to reform) and the debate was about how to reform’. As an illustration of this process,

293 of the 296 local government bodies that were being reduced to 98 municipalities and 5

regions simply got on with the job of making this agreed reform work, central government

intervention being limited to directing towards a merger the 3 municipalities that could not

agree. Local government reform started with the appointment of a commission on

administrative structure in 2002 and, following this process of widespread debate and general

support of the way forward, was implemented in January 2007.

Within the governance model, activities are organised in support of outcomes, government is

integrated around these outcomes and the presumption in the balance between national and

local responsibility and accountability is with the local. Accountability is vested in individuals

rather than systems, with agreement on the time needed for delivery and judgement then being

made on the results. As noted earlier, there is little evidence of anything other than a light touch

in terms of performance monitoring during delivery, with no relentless collection of statistics on

surrogate measures. Trust and confidence by, between and in individuals to play their part is

the dominant feature.

The principles and process of governance reflect a confident

leadership operating in a culture of individual and collective

responsibility. With a structure of local government that is

essentially two levels – national and local – there are fewer

politicians overall (broadly about 1:2000, compared with about

1:100 in Wales) yet, because of the simple structure of delivery,

the electorate feels closer to their elected members. The culture

engenders a sense of duty, developed through a strong thread

of citizenship woven into the education curriculum that

facilitates participation. Politicians in Denmark are clear that their competence matters - and

will be challenged (and unseated) if they fall short of public expectations.

But in drawing lessons for Wales in developing our governance, perhaps the single difference

between our two countries that, if addressed, could lead over time to a more Danish level of

participation, is this sense of citizenship. Citizenship, including national politics, is a major

subject in the Danish education system’s curriculum from primary through to upper secondary.

The interest and understanding shown by school leavers in governance, evidenced by the high

level of debate and turn-out of younger voters at elections, develops into lifelong wider

participation by adults in civic matters generally.


Sue Pritchard 2007

Citizenship, participation and engagement

Citizenship is defined as civil or human rights, independence or nationality. It can be described

as membership of a political community carrying with it rights to political participation and

protection from mistreatment. Increasingly we use the word to connote some notion of civic

relationship and mutual responsibility, hence the Welsh emphasis on citizen-centred

approaches. In the context of the Welsh public service, citizenship is about relationship and

engagement.

There were a number of differences in relation to

citizenship and participation between welsh and Danish

society that are worthy of consideration. Firstly, greater

emphasis was placed upon the responsibility of the

individual to contribute to his or her personal wellbeing

but also the wellbeing of the wider community.

Individuals are required to take responsibility for their

choice and actions. This is a cultural characteristic of

Danish society. This is reflected in a variety of ways that contrasts significantly with the Wales

of today. For example, until very recently, there was no legislation setting any age limits setting

restrictions on the purchase and consumption of alcohol.

The second contrast was in relation to levels of public satisfaction with public services.

Taxation is higher than in Wales and therefore it could be said that you get what you pay for.

Higher taxation (46.2% av in 2005), translates into higher levels of public spending, and it

seems, on the face of it, that people understand this equation and are happy with the

outcomes. People rightly had high expectations of their public services, and in broad terms

these seemed to be met. Copenhagen and other towns are remarkably free of litter and graffiti.

Crime is much lower and we were told that it was quite safe to walk anywhere in Copenhagen

at night without the risk of robbery or assault. The target setting and performance indicator

culture appeared to be non existent for public authorities and the Danes were surprised to

learn that Welsh local authorities had in the region of 500 targets to achieve each year. They

were genuinely curious as to why such an approach might be needed and what effect this had

on the ability to deliver services.

The arrangement of local authorities is two tiered in Municipalities and Counties. The latter had

responsibility for the greater part of the health services, planning and organising hospital based

services, whilst municipalities organised and delivered community facing services and social

care. The democratic system operated on a system of proportional representation and each

municipality was contested on an area wide basis - electoral divisions were not used. We were

informed that the turnout in elections was consistently high at over 80%. The electoral system,

with it’s highly competitive elections and choice of many credible candidates, served the

purpose of renewing of the value and importance of fulfilling one’s civic duty. New generations


Sue Pritchard 2007

were inculcated with a set of positive values surrounding their rights and responsibilities as

citizens.

There appeared to be a high level of trust in public service leaders and a belief that should

services be seen as substandard then the politicians would not be re-elected next time. Early

engagement generates such trust but during the visit, few examples were seen of what we

understand by public engagement. There is, however, interesting evidence available

concerning the consultative process on the restructuring of local government. Some of the

group found that officials were puzzled by questions about public engagement, since their

belief is that citizens are already involved and engaged through participation in the democratic

process and in what they see as their normal civic responsibilities.

One of the most significant differences between Wales and Denmark was the contrasting

approaches to risk management and aversion. Legislative reform coupled with the politics of

failure has engendered a risk avoidance culture in Wales which in turn has stifled creativity and

innovation. This is evident in a value chain linking the commissioners and providers of public

services with the user/citizen which is characterised by unacceptably high levels of antipathy

and mistrust. Further evidence would suggest that communities by and large form and evolve

in opposition to Government reform rather than in support of it. In this regard, communities

learn to be less trusting and more cynical about the intention of Government to create positive,

well meaning outcomes that however difficult are in the interests of the wider public.

Based upon an assessment of the likelihood of risk and the consequences of failure, leaders

generally measured the probability of success in terms of the eradication of risk. This

influenced considerably the course of action they were often prepared to take and the amount

of time and energy they invested in not getting things wrong rather than getting things right.

The smallness of Wales contributed to this pattern of risk avoidance because of the

individualised exposure to which they would be subjected if they were held accountable for a

mistake.

In a classroom in a barn surrounded by shovels, axes, deer heads and various other spiky or flammable items, the group of visitors gasped – this would never be allowed in the UK! Children can come to this Danish farm on school trips and are allowed to tend the fields, build temporary structures from wooden poles and straw bales, and even cut down trees. With real saws! “It is a dilemma,” Peter Laxdal, of the “From garden to stomach” initiative, told the assembled party of Welsh public-sector leaders and policy-makers. “The farm is a dangerous place and health and safety is strict in Denmark. Maybe even our hay castle is not legal.” Later he presented some slides, including one of children getting a ride on a dilapidated tractor trailer. “The kids loved it – it was a highlight. We watched through our fingers hoping it wouldn’t fall apart,” he joked. But, when one of the group pointed out that even a sharp knife to cut carrots with wouldn’t be allowed in the UK, Laxdal realised that perhaps his country’s regulations weren’t that strict after all.


Sue Pritchard 2007

In Denmark, the high regard that public service providers placed upon their relationship with

the citizen was rewarded with positive affirmation and respect by the latter. Providers were

trusted to get things right before they were suspected of getting things wrong. This mutual

positive regard was build on a platform of engagement that historically characterised the

relationship between both parties.

On the broader question of risk, it was self-evident that Danish public services took a less

rigorous approach to removing risk in its entirety from the provision of services. They

acknowledged that there were often inherent dangers in the planning and delivery of services

that it was important to address from the perspective of the user. However this was not to take

precedence over the service to the citizen they were attempting to deliver. Implicit in this

approach to risk was recognition of the role of user in taking responsibility for their own

actions. What emerged from these insights was a strong sense that risk must be context

sensitive and not take precedence over outcome.

Participants in the Leadership Inquiry were struck throughout their visit by the high degree of trust evident in the way that Danish society operates. This, when coupled with the positive inclination of individuals to advise and help with any problems, reflects a high degree of societal maturity that recognises the pre-eminence of 'us' before 'me'.

For one of our party, this was exemplified by events that followed his unfortunate decision to bite on a Brazil nut with a tooth that was clearly not up to this particular task. Our resident medic, Cerilan Rogers, recommended immediate treatment to avoid potentially extremely painful complications. And that's when Danish values came to the fore.

The hotel receptionist, being unable to get an immediate appointment with a local dentist, arranged for her own practitioner in the Copenhagen suburbs to take on this case. On arriving at the surgery, our colleague was greeted and booked in by a man who turned out - a few minutes later - to be a dentist. The receptionist had been busy on another matter and normal practice was for any available dentist to provide receptionist cover - the clear aim was to deal immediately with any incoming patient.

Treatment was carried out efficiently and effectively, before the bill was then calculated. The cost of treatment turned out to be a pleasant surprise, but only when he attempted to pay by credit card did it become clear that the surgery accepted only cash (all but cosmetic treatments are free at the point of delivery in Denmark, leaving no real requirement for the normal range of money handling facilities).

The dentist was unperturbed at our colleague's inability to pay, simply presenting him with an invoice and advising that this could be settled at any bank. This brought home graphically the trusting nature of Danish society, for the only detail the dentist had as he left the surgery was our colleague's name.

This experience highlighted the engaged relationship between the individual and the state, one

that was based upon clarity of responsibility and a high level of trust. This is not evident in the

case of Welsh public services. Low participation rates in national and local elections indicates

a malaise in the democratic process that is indicative of wide spread disaffection and mistrust.


Sue Pritchard 2007

Although by comparison the Welsh public service seems to have been less successful in

developing its service portfolio and engagement with citizens, there are positive signs that flow

from the current programme of reforms to address many of the issues outlined above. The

development of a much more simplified system of governance combined with a reduction in

the complexities underpinning service delivery as highlighted in the Beecham review of Welsh

public services, can serve to create better engagement with communities and improve mutual

accountability between the citizen and service. This will take time and require constant positive

reinforcement. Public service leaders will need to become more vigilant and mindful of the

effect of their behaviour on generating and sustaining mutual trust and respect.

People smell bad faith; poor practice around public involvement and consultation - far from

diminishing antipathy - has led in some instances to increased levels of distrust. However, as

in the case of Denmark, early, honest and respectful engagement can help to sustain improved

relations between key stakeholders.

All of this highlights the extent of the disengagement between the Government and the people

in Wales. We experience little evidence of the trust in public service leadership in Wales that

we found in Denmark. Participation in the democratic process is below 50% of the electorate

voting in the 2007 Welsh Assembly elections. At the (rarely discussed) Town and Community

Council level, over 80% of the seats were not even contested at the last poll. Added to this is

a complexity of public sector structures that continue to undermine the case for more

streamlined governance and better collaboration.


Sue Pritchard 2007

What can we do to address the situation?

Based on the Danish experience, we believe that all is not lost. Wales has tribal passions that

can be harnessed to reconnect communities with government. The development of a much

more simplified system of governance could lead to the greater engagement of communities

and also to greater accountability from politicians. This takes time, and constant positive

reinforcement, with public sector leaders (in the political and officer groups) becoming more

rigorously mindful of the effect of their behaviour on generating and sustaining mutual trust and

respect.

Realistically, it is unlikely that given the present funding arrangements for the public sector in

Wales, we will be able to replicate or match Danish levels of investment in public services.

Therefore, we are faced with different challenges – prioritising, rationing and harnessing all

possible means of support from all possible sources, particularly the support that people and

communities organise for themselves. To help achieve this, we need to achieve better

engagement between the commissioners and providers of public services, and the people who

not only use those services, but also in many cases can contribute to them. Engaging with

citizens to become co-creators and producers of public services offers unlimited opportunities

for delivering high quality cost-effective delivery.

As public service leaders we must help to build a shared and common understanding of what

Citizenship means to individuals and their communities. We must help to redefine it in the

context of the obligations and responsibilities we have to each other. This is a debate that must

be invigorated with new ideas and principles so that we avoid the trap of merely repeating

more loudly those things we have said in the past. Individuals must feel pride and

empowerment in their role as citizens. They must acknowledge the attendant duties, rights,

and privileges that accompany citizenship. Government should be instrumental in reminding

individuals of their responsibilities towards others and in forging a

new social contract fit for the 21st century.

"To take no part in the running of the community's affairs is to be

either a beast or a god!" (Aristotle).


Sue Pritchard 2007

Next steps

Fascinating as Denmark is, the real value of this trip was three fold:

Understanding more about our deep assumptions about what works in a small country

context and coming to more creative conclusions than the ‘England vs Wales’ debate allows

Reflecting on the sort of leadership that is needed to innovate, develop and deliver a

distinctive policy direction for Wales

Building relationships with other public service leaders, understanding more about how the

world looks from their perspectives and how we can work more effectively together

In Wales we need to clearly sort out the values that

underpin our public service direction and start to

challenge some of the inconsistencies that undermine our

capacity to deliver. More importantly we need to get away

from the moribund, distracting and time-wasting

arguments about structures and size, divorced from the

underpinning values and principles in public service

developments.

In Denmark, public service structures have been remarkably consistent for decades, with these

most recent changes being the first for some 20 years. The boundary changes were carefully

agreed and negotiated, with equal participation from the central and local spheres. With the

new arrangements in place and starting to operate, we saw effective public service

organisations looking after communities from 30,000 to 650,000, but most typically for

communities of 60-90,000. The underpinning premise is that organisations will form around

what works on the ground for communities themselves, allowing smaller municipalities to

collaborate on services where this is appropriate. But on the other hand, they do not have a

history of organisational or professional ‘stovepipes’. Services in the community are – in our

terms ‘joined up’ - designed around the overarching principle “…a simple public sector close

to the citizen.”

Danes take negotiation and consensus for granted. When we asked about working in

partnerships between organisations, we often met a blank stare. The Police Chief, whose

organisational boundaries span many municipalities, takes as his norm the regular meetings

with 11 or 12 Mayors. The quality of relationships between spheres and tiers was also

evidenced by the absence of punitive, repetitive inspection regimes – but also by the

anecdotes we heard about when things do go wrong. In general, politicians and leaders are

expected to accept responsibility when things go wrong on their watch – and the high levels of


Sue Pritchard 2007

political participation still underscore this – but the default position is one of trust and

consensus – that people will want to, and generally are, doing their best.

Looking back at Wales through the Danish lens brought into sharp relief the assumptions we

make about public service organisation, governance and leadership.

Five critical issues for a small country, developing its own distinctive approach to governance,

became clear.

1. We need to let go of an unsophisticated approach to the question of organisation size,

power and influence, based on constant reference to the English model. This is evident at

present, for example, in the health commissioning debates. In spite of what we could learn

from our own public sector history (where, frankly, outcomes for citizens were no better under

bigger organisations than smaller ones) the debate reverts to whether big is better and more

powerful.

2. The move towards working more collaboratively across boundaries often generates largely

‘undiscussable’ issues about power and control, authority and accountability between

organisations - and the unhelpful behaviours that can play out when this is not addressed.

Instead, the assertion ‘working in partnerships doesn’t work’ gains currency.

3. A lesson we appear to have utterly failed to learn is that you don’t innovate on the front line,

in the citizen’s experience - where it matters - by simply exhorting change from the top down,

from a more powerful ‘centre’. This misguided view appears to believe that leaders (and staff)

in delivery organisations are sitting passively waiting for their instructions, or defiantly unwilling

to learn from best practice. People are already doing things they largely believe to be right -

given their specific circumstances and the best information they have available. Sustainable

change comes about when policy and strategy at the political centre is informed by and

informs implementation and delivery at the front line in a virtuous cycle of appreciative and

challenging experimentation, action, learning and reflection.

4. We need to stop confusing complexity with cleverness. The fact that we often apply our

individual and corporate intelligence to making things more complex does not mean that are

inherently cleverer – that is, more capable of responding adaptively in a fast changing world.

We must instead focus on generating simple workable solutions that are based upon shared

values and mutual trust – and be prepared to let go of our assumptions about how things

should be.

5. We really need to get to grips with the whole new set of challenges presented by new

technology and access to information. With widespread user-generated information and web-

based communications, citizens are doing things for themselves and with each other in ways

that simply sidestep the traditional rationing, informing, regulating mechanisms of the state.


Sue Pritchard 2007

In Wales, if we are to deliver the aspirations we have set out in policy and now in One Wales,

we need to raise the level of debate with and between public service leaders and citizens. We

need to recognise that there is a relationship between social justice, inclusion, the reduction of

inequalities and the credibility of public bodies which are close

to their communities and the people they serve – and in a small

country this is thrown into sharp relief. Building social capital

(that is, the quality of social interaction and pro-social

behaviour between citizens and between citizens and their

public services) requires public services to co-create different

relationships with their citizens and with each other. We will do

that most effectively when we broaden and deepen our own

understanding of what works elsewhere and what that means for our own practice – not just in

the home countries but in comparable countries around the world – and then build critical

mass communities of practice committed to giving Wales the world class services we need

and deserve.


Sue Pritchard 2007

Programme Outline

I. Opening ‘Open Space’ Event, leading to....

II. Three Action Learning sets, meeting three times, before....

III. The Visit

Tuesday 20th MarchTravel from UK and arrival in Copenhagen, Denmark

Tuesday 20th MarchCheck-in & Orientation Dinner at Copenhagen Island Hotel

Wednesday 21st March

National Health Board – Kjell Kjellson, Deputy Director


Ministry of the Interior - Søren Thomsen HansenWednesday 21st March

Association of Local Authorities, Mads Jensbo, Senior Consultant


Debrief and Dinner – Island Hotel

Thursday 22nd March

Environmental Assessment Institute, Anders Larsen, CEO

Thursday 22nd March

Committee for the people’s health, Pia Langhoff, Project Leader

Thursday 22nd March

National Association of Local Authorities, OD Department, Mr Tomas Therkildsen, Head of Department

Thursday 22nd March

“Young Now” - Regitze Sigaard, Project Leader

Thursday 22nd March

”The fat topmeeting” - Dorthe Brande Pedersen, Danish Food Industry

Thursday 22nd March City of Copenhagen Health Department, Jens Egsgaard, Chief of Health DeptThursday 22nd March

Association of New Danes - Human Shojaee

Thursday 22nd March

Police Region Copenhagen West, Commander Henning Thiessen

Thursday 22nd March

“From garden to stomach” – a partnership project between schools and agriculture

Thursday 22nd March

CEO of Gladsaxe Local Authority, Marius Ibsen

Thursday 22nd March

Debrief and Dinner at Restaurant Thorvaldsens Hus

Friday 23rd March

Chief Inspector of Police Copenhagen Central, Per Larsen

Friday 23rd MarchDanish Environmental Organisation (Miljøstyrelsen), Ole Christianssen, Director GeneralFriday 23rd MarchOpen Space meeting – Copenhagen Island Hotel

Friday 23rd March

Travel back to UK

IV. Followed by three Action Learning Set meetings, with a...

V. Final Open Space event and Next Steps


Sue Pritchard 2007

Participants


Sue Pritchard 2007

Participant Organisation Job Title

Colin Berg Monmouthshire CC CEOColin Everett WLGA Director of Improvement and Governance Dr Cerilan Rogers National Public Health Service for Wales National DirectorEdward Lewis Boundary Commission for Wales SecretaryElizabeth Gallagher Pontypridd and Rhondda NHS Trust Head of Partnership WorkingGiles York South Wales Police Assistant Chief ConstableIsobel Garner Wrexham CC CEORoger Thomas Countryside Council for Wales CEOMike Ponton Welsh NHS Confederation DirectorNeil Wooding PSMW DirectorPhil Jarrold WCVA Deputy CEOLinda Pepper Powys Association Vol Orgs CEOPaul Symes Gwent Police Divisional CommanderProfessor Sir Adrian Webb Lady Monjulee Webb Lord Lieutenant Vale of Glamorgan Chris Penn BT Government Wales Regional Market Manager, Health & HEViscount Chris Mills Environment Agency Wales Director

Sue Pritchard Bath Consultancy Group Principal ConsultantGerard Muller Open Space Tim Smedley People Management Magazine Journalist

Background Reading

Bernard Shaw and Follett quoted in Revans, R. The ABC of Action Learning, Lemos and Crane

Edition

Attwood, M. Pedler, M. Pritchard, S. Wilkinson, D, Leading Change; a guide to whole systems

working, The Policy Press, 2003

Heifetz, R. & Linsky, M. (2002) Leadership on the Line: Staying alive during the dangers of

Leading, Harvard Business School Press.

Mann, P. Rummery K. and Pritchard, S, Supporting inter-organisational partnerships in the

public sector: the role of joined up action learning and research. Public Management Review,

2004.

Smedley, Tim, The Flag Bearers, in People Management, 14 June 2007

Beyond Boundaries; The Beecham Review, NAW, July 2006

Kommunal - Local Government Reform. The Ministry of the Interior and Health, Department of

Economics, December 2005

Gallagher, N. and Parker, S. The Collaborative State – how working together can transform

public services, Demos, March 2007


Sue Pritchard 2007

leadership inquiry with denmark

Documents

leadership development

welsh public services

leadership challenges

public service delivery

reconfigured public

development programme

visit programme

welsh leg