A Chief Executive's Guide to Reputation

It seems that SOLACE have woken up to the reputation challenge facing local government. Their Co-Managing Director writes in response to Ben Page in the MJ about the Chief Executives plan for restoring local government reputation.

Essentially it is three steps. First, build on an apparently successful meeting at the LGA conference. Second, utilise social media to promote the sector using some leading figures. Third, develop a wider case for improving reputation through a 'SOLACE communique'. This is a solid start, but we need to be much more strategic and radical if we are to meet the four main reputational challenges facing the sector. This is the challenge of reassuring government that we are ready for localism; demonstrate to residents that we can meet the challenge of austerity; provide visible leadership to staff and show community leaders how we will really empower them to develop a ‘Big’ or ‘Civic’ society.

Put simply, reputation is what someone says about you when you leave the room. It can evoke respect even if you don't like someone. It can mean not having confidence in a person or body, even if they are well meaning. But the point is that it is about what people think about you. The SOLACE prescription is all about what we think about ourselves.

My advice to SOLACE is to think through the hard issues about how you tackle reputation in austere times, with a sceptical public and staff uncertain about the future. I'd advise them as follows.

First, test the evidence. The good news is that there has been a marginal improvement in the reputation of local government over the summer. A new poll by Populus shows that net satisfaction with the local council is up to 55% - a 15% increase since the great snow crisis in January. It is also noteworthy that this improvement appears to be underpinned by the fact that local authorities are beginning to get the communications right, demonstrated by a significant increase in public understanding of budget proposals over the last six months.

Second, if reputation is the sum of our actions the whole sector has to focus on doing the right thing by our communities. Councils have an unenviable and sometimes undeserved reputation for doing silly things, but sense checking service decisions is essential to restoring reputation. Looking at recent news, no chief executive would agree to a ‘keep off the grass’ sign on three square feet of turf; or build a fence through a football goal or paint yellow lines around parked cars. They can’t deal with every service issue but should be clear about setting a general instruction to managers to apply common sense in service delivery and consider the reputational consequences of individual actions.

Third, value for money has to be central to everything we do. The simple rule should be “would we spend this cash if it were our own money?” Demonstrating value for money to the public should be the daily mission of every Director and each communications team. From the autumn we will start the process of setting the budget for 2012-13, so every council needs to be thinking through how it will work with communities to do this. The MJ’s Council of the Year - Harrow - offers a model here with their Let’s Talk campaign http://www.harrow.gov.uk/letstalk

Fourth, there needs to be some passion; a fight against injustice. Councils that can show how they are determined to reduce poverty, end illiteracy and fight disease will garner public support more quickly than campaigning against cuts, because they will be demonstrating leadership, and people respond to that from good local government. We are all part of a noble cause; building local public service to improve lives. Why then do we disguise this in 80 page committee reports, unreadable mission statements and statutes providing rather than enabling. We should release our inner community activist to show how we are on the side of people and can do a lot of good by devolving power, ending restrictions and funding worth projects.

Finally, after evidence, services, outcomes and leadership comes communication, which does have a significant impact on reputation if the former elements are in place. Effective communications means putting yourself in the shoes of the audience and tailoring PR around them. It means using all the tools in the box, press, social media and marketing to reinforce core messages. It means funding evaluation and presenting to cabinet a monthly reputation report.

Reputation should build trust in public services and support service delivery. It should not be about promoting politicians or chief officers. You should be able to say that you build a positive reputation because service delivery improved because of the challenge of sustaining reputation and effective communication increased access to public services.

Time to nudge, smack, hug or shove - whatever works

It appears that the government campaign to spread the use positive incentives to change behaviour for the better – to nudge – may be running into the sand.

First the Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin told the House of Lords Science and Technology Sub-Committee that the £500,000 civil service team established to promote the use of behavioural economics tools might not justify the investment. He admitted that "It is of course open to question whether any of this will have any effect whatsoever”.

Now the committee has reported and concluded that nudging is not enough. It argues that the use of positive incentives to change behaviour – such as putting healthy foods prominently in the shop window or rewarding students who attend all their lessons will not achieve everything its advocates claim for the approach. In the words of committee Chairman Baroness Neuberger: “The government can't rely on ‘nudging’ to do all the work, particularly with a complicated and deep-rooted problem like obesity.”

This is of course true, positive reward for positive behaviour will only get you so far. But the debate should make councils and other local public services reflect on the whole range of tools, old and new, that can be used to influence and change behaviour and consider whether they are using the right ones across all fields of policy and service delivery.

Most people in focus groups, when asked how they imagine a typical local government officer to behave, will say that they are like old style bank managers. They are stickler for the rules, slow to respond and wary of new technology. People assume that like the bank manager we only know how to influence through a heavy handed application of the rules.

Of course, as upholders of the rule of law, this ability to ‘shove’ people to behave in the right way, for example through licensing laws, is critical. But the ability to ‘nudge’ should also be used alongside the ability to ‘hug’ – to reward citizens for doing the right things – council tax discount for community work and where necessary to ‘smack’ – the bailiffs will arrive if you don’t pay your council tax. 

But the strategic message of  the ‘nudge’ debate remains valid – we should set public policy in a way that goes with the grain of human behaviour, accepts that people are not entirely rational and motivated by love, fear, prejudice and custom. We should then design policies that work with, not against human nature, which in turn will generate better results.

This week the CLG have been lauding the success of three of the Big Society ‘Vanguard authorities’. They say that Eden Valley, Windsor and Maidenhead and the London Borough of Sutton, have seen community initiatives come to fruition citing a Citizen’s University, Care Bank Scheme and Community Housing Development as proof of the concept.

This is ‘nudging’ on a grand scale with government seeking to show the benefits of the Big Society to incentivise other authorities to get on board. But central government needs to be clear that a key part of behavioural economics is the ability to introduce the concept of reward, and councils and people need to be clear about the rewards they will get from participating in any scheme.    

Professor Geoff French, a leading expert in social marketing has highlighted the things that make ‘nudges’ appealing – that they are low cost, relatively easy choices for people, but also limited in their effectiveness.  We need to use the whole range of behavioural tools to change behaviour for the public good, and Baroness Neuberger’s report should be a start of a more informed debate in this area.