Tag Archives: mutuals

Making the case for “tilting the table” for mutuals

By David Bicknell

A recent get-together organised by Stepping Out discussed the landscape for mutuals and asked what needs to happen to get the mutuals show on the road.

The discussions are summed up in this well argued blog by Craig Dearden-Phillips.

A few paragraphs caught my eye:

“The general view in the room is that financial weakness – in the form of small balance sheets – is a disadvantage facing spin-outs tendering for contracts. There appears to be a truth that when tenders come up, this sector struggles to show the financial ‘leg’ necessary to get nervous public sector commissioners into bed. Instead they bee-line for safer-looking super-providers. Some would argue that social enterprises should be ‘gifted’ public assets in the form of property to address the balance sheet issue.

“Therefore, to what extent Government should ’tilt the table’ and if so how was one of the talking-points. There is a natural reluctance in many quarters of too much government intervention in markets of any sort. ‘Best is best’ is a common watchword in the world of public procurement. How to behave in markets is also a big question for spin-out organisations. Are they best, in the longer term, to partner up or even fold-in larger healthcare groups in order to gain efficiencies and achieve long-term stability? Or is this too much of a compromise that would water down their raison d’etre as socially focused organisations?

“This one of the unresolved questions facing spin-outs in this sector, particularly as they come up head to head with organisations whose chief competencies lie not in actual service delivery but the winning and fulfilment of contracts, often with third party deliverers.”

The blog makes some good points and appears to sum up the key issues facing mutuals.  To deliver any sense of a future for spin-out mutuals, the question is not whether to tilt the table, but how and when.

Without commissioning reforms, no mutuals within five years, only outsourcing companies

By David Bicknell

The government has been put on notice to find ways of making life easier for mutuals – or suffer the consequences.

As Public Finance reports, Patrick Burns, a member of the Cabinet Office Mutuals Taskforce, has warned that without changes in the way outsourcing contracts are awarded, spun-off mutuals could fail within five years.

Burns said: ‘If you don’t do something with the commissioning environment, then in five or ten years time you will not be dealing with mutuals, you will be dealing with [outsourcing companies] Serco, Capita and Virgin. Not that they are bad companies, but it’s not the point.’

UN asked to help create a ‘level playing field’ for co-operatives

By David Bicknell

There is a growing call from the mutuals and co-operatives sector for the business environment to be made friendlier to enable them to thrive.

That message has now made it to the United Nations, where Dame Pauline Green, President of the International Co-operative Alliance, called for nations to take co-operatives much more seriously. 

As Co-Operative News reports, Dame Pauline said, “..member-owned co-operatives are a serious business model – with scale. And so, co-operatives are asking that the specific and unique legal and financial framework of a co-operative is fully acknowledged and recognised in public policy and regulation.”

“Co-operatives are asking that there should be a greater diversification of the global economy, to ensure a level playing field for the member-owned model of business.”

Dame Pauline said the sector’s “commitment to our democratic and social agenda is built on a sound and successful member-owned business model” that means operatives can compete successfully in the marketplace with other forms of business.

Time to move beyond ‘Paint it Black’

By David Bicknell

I can see what Craig Dearden-Philips is getting at in this blog, but I’m not sure it needs to paint such a dire economic picture. There is too much talking down of the economy. No-one will spend any money because everyone from politicians to forecasters to social entrepreneurs to journalists  is trying to out-do each other and paint the blackest picture. There’s no leadership there – just followship.

Dearden-Philips argues that “a crisis of the sort we’re probably heading into will, one way or another, make it far more attractive to reinvent than cut back services. Careers – political and professional – will not survive if slash’n’burn is the modus operandi. For those of us who have long been advocating a reinvention of public services this could end up being, our moment.

“So spin-outs, community-based services, co-ops, innovations that allow decommissioning – all of these things could have a political attractiveness that is currently missing. The sadness is that it will take things getting really quite catastrophically bad before that happens.”

He’s right that spin-outs, community-based services, co-ops, innovations that allow decommissioning do need the right landscape to thrive. But how many employees will feel like spinning out when the picture is painted this black? Better to cling on ‘inside’ than venture – an appropriate word – out and create something new. Employee ownership? Out there? No thanks. I’ll just stay here.

If the government wants to see mutuals thrive, it has to paint a picture of opportunity and  create the right environment to create enthusiam, drive, and investment. That means spurning the negative talk that’s all too easy to do and creating the right environment for change and the tools  – finance, procurement etc – to achieve it.

Is the government up to do the job? When it makes its next pronouncement on open public services, it has to provide the impetus to reinforce  a willing mentality that says ‘Yes, can do’ not ‘Paint it Black.’

I’m not saying it’s going to be easy. But that’s what governments are for: to govern and provide the right environment for change. 

Positive thinking, leadership and action please, not negative no-choices. Opportunity; not opt out.

Global 300 co-operatives generate $1.6 trillion revenue

What Mutualism means for Labour

By David Bicknell

It’s interesting that when a word starts to be linked with a trend or movement, everyone wants to be associated with it.

That’s beginning to be the case with mutuals. Now the Labour Party has seen an opportunity to put its definition on what mutuals are, with the publication of a new pamphlet from the Policy Network, called ‘What mutualism means for Labour.’

The Policy Network blog says this:

“The Conservatives, with their rhetoric of the “big society”, seem to have displaced Labour as the “party of ideas”. Their emphasis on empowering communities and decentralising power arguably reflects a cooption of traditional social democratic language and an encroachment on the ideological terrain of the centre-left. Many see mutualism as the left’s answer to the “big society” and a key pillar in Labour’s political economy. However, our definition of mutualism remains unclear and the means to achieve its goals intangible.

“This pamphlet sets out to develop a clear vision of what mutualism means for Labour and how it can be used to drive forward the social democratic project. It brings together prominent thinkers, politicians and strategists to lay down ideas on how mutuals and co-operatives can serve as models of post-crisis reform in both the private and public sectors. ”

Comment

Given that there are employees who want to set up mutuals, a practical, how- to guide might have been more useful, both to the mutuals themselves as well as to Labour in defining its mutuals credentials. Instead, although this pamphlet has some good essays, it is undermined in places by the usual anti-Thatcher fare that’s great for the Labour Party Conference, but not much practical use to anyone else.

“It is Thatcherism disguised as mutualism – witness the recent case of the awarding of a large NHS contract to a private provider. (Virgin Healthcare) rather than an employee-owned enterprise (Central Surrey Health). David Cameron made much play of the work of Central Surrey Health and indeed praised it publicly as an ideal example of what the ‘big society’ stands for. Yet when it came to the crunch, the progressive mutual organisation was gazumped by the private provider, just as Margaret Thatcher would have loved all those years ago.”

There’s also a dig at No 10’s Director of Strategy, Steve Hilton – “We need to authoritatively restate our values of co-operation, solidarity and mutualism in order to expose the difference between our vision of society and our opponents’. The difference between an authentic tradition, built upon the secure foundations of a century’s worth of history, and a ‘tradition’ built upon an overlap in one of Downing Street strategist Steve Hilton’s Venn diagrams.”

Knockabout stuff, but Punch & Judy politics and of little practical help to today’s fledgling mutuals. 

Is this really what mutualism means for Labour?  On the face of it, not much then.

A few words from Francis Maude on mutuals’ pathfinders, skills and leadership

Some key points appear to emerge from this Civil Service Live interview with Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, who continues to be a chearleader for mutuals.

* Don’t bank on another wave of mutual pathfinders. It seems as if there is an internal debate going on which is erring towards wider encouragement for mutualisation.

* Leadership in setting up mutuals is required – and it may come from outside in stimulating workforce interest.

* Maude is more interested in developing skills in-house rather than hiring external consultants

* Staff shouldn’t be excluded from the opportunity to benefit from the sale of any entity.

Why the private sector is keen to be a Good Samaritan to new mutuals

By David Bicknell

There is a growing trickle of blogs, comments and discussions emerging around the idea of mutual joint ventures.

The mutuals concept has captured the imagination, even if precisely how they are going to be created; fund themselves; stand on their own two feet and compete in the commercial market has yet to evolve fully. And it will take some time.

Never one to pass up an opportunity, the private sector is now keen to offer itself as a Good Smaritan, lending a helping hand in helping mutuals get off the ground.

As a recent well-written paper from the Business Services Association puts it,  “…several barriers exist to realising the Government’s vision for mutuals. New mutuals spinning out of the public sector will face significant resource challenges – in terms of both expertise in areas such as human resources, finance and business planning, and start-up capital. Raising necessary capital will be a persistent problem for staff looking to form a mutual but lacking a trading history.

“A recent survey of British employee-owned companies found that one-third had difficulty accessing finance. Similarly, a number of studies have noted the “steep learning curve” faced by public sector employees when having to create a business plan, plot income generation for future years and develop marketing strategies – skills commonly required in the private sector. Partnering with a private sector provider through a mutual joint venture could offer a way of overcoming these barriers.”

Inevitably, there is a degree of self-interest here. As the Business Services Association guide  states, “there is a clear appetite amongst BSA members to enter joint venture agreements with, or as part of, new mutuals spinning out of the public sector.

“At the BSA-Pinsent Masons LLP 2011 annual lecture, Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Rt Hon Francis Maude said that the Government was open to hearing about new models from private providers partnering with mutuals to deliver public services. This put the ball firmly in the private sector’s court to consider how to rise to the Government’s challenge.”

It adds that the aim of the paper is therefore to be constructive, not to issue a list of requests for clarity or new demands of the Government, but rather how to work with the existing legislative landscape to make mutual joint ventures happen.

Nothing wrong with that idea. Joint ventures with the private sector may well turn out to be the way forward, provided the key words are mutual and joint. It is in no-one’s interests for a joint venture to be dressed up as a takeover.  As the title of the BSA’s document appositely puts it, it’s about “Making Mutuals Work.”

OPM: ‘three key ingredients for a mutual’

According to this blog from the Office for Public Management, there are three key ingredients that make up a mutual:

* Getting key people on board

* Taking a strategic approach to looking at different options

* Managing the process efficiently

How new models of ownership may help the health and social care sector

Maude: “We want services to be run by mutuals, social enterprises and small businesses”

By David Bicknell

Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude is to reinforce the message that the government wants its  services to be run and delivered by mutuals, social enterprises and small businesses.

Maude will tell a conference: “In the current climate we can no longer afford waste – demand for services is growing at a time of fiscal constraint.

“But we should not tolerate wasting public money whatever the economic climate. We need to find new ways of delivering public services that are high quality, cost effective and genuinely responsive to the needs of individuals, communities and businesses at local level.

“We believe that nearly all public services can be improved by being delivered by a wide range of organisations. What and how services are delivered are more important than who they are delivered by, and competition breeds innovation and creativity. These in turn will deliver service improvements.

“We want services to be run and delivered by mutuals, social enterprises and small businesses; and we want the talented people who are enthusiastic about what they do to be freed up to deliver services in the way that they think is best.”

Maude’s message comes as most public sector managers say they outsource work to save money, with few believing it leads to improved services.

A survey of 100 human resources directors from government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts and police forces revealed concerns that outsourcing services to private firms would lead to a loss of expertise in the public sector.

The research, by Totaljobs.com, found that almost two-thirds of managers believed outsourcing would cut costs, while only one in four said it would deliver better quality services.

The report will be discussed at the conference aimed at examining the implications on recruitment and skills of Government plans to achieve £40 billion of procurement savings in the next three years

Mike Booker of Totaljobs.com said: “The perception that the skills needed in the public and private sector are somehow different is being swept away by the more pressing need to work together to achieve £40 billion in savings.

“While we’re seeing large numbers of public sector workers looking to migrate to the private sector, it must not be forgotten that essential private sector skills are in high demand in the public sector with our site alone housing 326 postings for public sector procurement professionals.”

What sustainability – and business – leaders should learn from Steve Jobs

By David Bicknell

It’s a couple of weeks since Steve Jobs left us. Many tributes have been paid. With sustainability in mind, I liked this blog post from Andrew Winston entitled ‘What Sustainability should learn from Steve Jobs.’

It’s not so much about Apple and sustainability. But it’s about Steve Jobs’  eye for innovation and one important lesson that sustainability-minded leaders can learn from Jobs’ legacy: you should lead your customers and show them a better way.

Winston, who writes regularly for the Harvard Business Review, suggests that most large companies today are “fast followers” –  with ‘fiscal and strategic conservatism breeding a culture where execs prefer to wait and talk to customers before doing anything drastic. Of course customer (and other stakeholder) perspectives are critical. But as with tablet computers, when it comes to sustainability, often the customers don’t really know what they need.

“Companies often gather data on what their business customers think a sustainable product should be, and the survey might show that including recycled material is important, even if that’s a tiny part of the real footprint story. Nobody knows the value chain of your product and service as well as you do (or if someone else does, get them in the room pronto). So figure out where the impacts really lie and what you can do to reduce your customer’s footprint in ways they hadn’t considered. This might require asking heretical questions about whether the product should even exist in its current form or should be converted into more of a service.” 

Winston believes the next generation’s Steve Jobs is likely to focus on sustainability since that’s where the largest challenges and business opportunities lie.

I like Winston’s thinking on “fast followers.” It’s far easier to be a follower  than to take a lead, get out there, take a risk and make a market. That’s fine, as long as second place is somewhere, and not nowhere.

As well as sustainability and business leaders, maybe there’s also a lesson here for those who aspire to create public sector mutuals: to take a lead and show that there’s a better way.