Putting relationships first: working relationally with communities

The topic dicussed in this meeting of the relationships cell on 13 July 2022 was working relationally with communities. As public bodies seek to plug into community power, how can they do this in a ‘relational’ rather than an ‘extractive’ way? The risk for public bodies, as they try to help communities build connection and strengthen relationships, is that they try to turn voluntary organisations and community groups into instruments, rather than letting them do what they do best, or that they are overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of relationships they have to build.

Our opening speakers were David Robinson from the Relationships Project, who is our thought leader for this group, Lara Rufus-Fayemi, the Strategic Partnerships and Engagement Manager at Newham Council, and Paul White, from e-culture solutions. David told the group about the work from the Relationships Project’s Relational Councils Network, a peer learning space for anyone working in or with local authorities seeking to make relationships the central operating principle. Lara talked about the work Newham Council is doing to create people powered places. Paul, who is a former Chief Technology Officer at Devon County Council, is now working with the voluntary sector in Devon to help transform the relationship with the public sector and unlock community power. He talked about the untapped (and undervalued) potential of the sector and lessons from what is happening in Integrated Care Systems now in Devon.

Key points made by the speakers and in discussion include:

• Relational councils are drawing on this Relationships Framework, which includes good advice about how to build strong relationships with the community. Relationships need to be nurtured at many levels, from relationships with colleagues to communities to the places and spaces in which people meet, as shown in this slide.

• There are many cultural and other barriers which need to be addressed by the public sector, from institutional language which is not centred in real lives and prevents good communication, lack of the time needed to build trust with communities, too much bureaucracy, to turnover of staff just when good relationships are formed, to underfunding of the voluntary and community sector to do the important role that they play.

• There’s a need to develop a more relational language, listening, focusing on people’s lives, not jargon, and allowing local people to tell and celebrate their stories. It can help to engage champions within the community to deliver messages.

• Newham Council has set up a permanent, ground-breaking Citizens Assembly to learn about what matters to local people, and is also trying to establish people-powered communities by setting up local community assemblies which engage in decision-making about how funds should be spent in their area. They are also working with UCL to train up local people as ‘citizen scientists’ to research their own communities. They remunerate citizens who take part in these exercises and provide technical support to help them participate.

• Lara set out a series of principles for how to work with communities, which are set out in her blog about creating people-powered places here, including focusing on the people first and finding common cause, taking calculated risks, being open, investing in funding and time and really listening.

• Place has to be considered holistically and a conscious effort made to engage everyone, not just the groups that are first to come forward. It’s important to look at the collective resources in a community but often knowledge of local groups is sketchy at best, Paul told us. He said that there were 6,500 registered voluntary organisations in his area, including social enterprises, with considerable potential to help the public sector to meet the high levels of unmet demand that exist. He is setting up a local directory to help in this. Local businesses are part of the community and should be engaged too.

• Lack of resources in the voluntary sector to engage is an issue, they are already very stretched and their capacity to take part is often taken for granted by public bodies. Grants to help them engage in the Integrated Care System, for example, are essential. Too much paperwork should be avoided.

• Time has to be invested to truly understand the community and what motivates them, and it is very unlikely to work if responsibilities are contracted out to consultants from outside the community, as trust is key.

• Training can help to ensure local people have the skills to engage.

• You have to take all of your team with you on this journey.

• It’s important to be honest about power imbalances and find ways of ‘holding the space differently’ which allow local people to be the vehicle for change, not an instrument.

• Accessing community power, when it is done well, has the potential for the public sector to address deep-seated issues such as poverty much more effectively and to address needs which are currently unmet.
  

From Listening to Action

The topic for this meeting was ‘How to turn listening into action, balancing the urgency of what we hear with the complexities of achieving it? ‘

The first speaker was Nick Gardham from Community Organisers, who drew on Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as well as the Operation WiFi campaign led by Community Organisers. 

He was followed by Tony McKenzie, who is leading the Re-Connection Tour for Engage Britain, who spoke about the responses to the Hebden Bridge floods, as well as insights from the Experts by Experience panel at the charity Crisis.

We also heard from Emma Sandrey, from Co-Production Wales, who shared lessons from the practice of co-production.

Here are some of the key points made by speakers and in discussion:

• Good listening is first and foremost listening to understand, not to respond.

• Active listening is action, because it can bring about change in both the speaker and listener, and can open a doorway to a different future.  

• ·       As community organisers know, it is important to learn to work with self-interest. Not everyone will be driven by altruism, but self-interest (not selfishness) can lead to shared interest and action.

• It is important to be honest and human in our interactions. Listening well builds relationships, and that can have lasting value.

• Often an agile, iterative approach is needed, to generate a virtuous cycle of listening–action–listening. It is important to move fast when needed, and not become encumbered by bureaucratic rules.

• Every organisation should be willing to say to those they work with, ‘You are allowed to drop the ball and pick it up again’.

• Local authorities and other government bodies should sometimes be willing to step back and say, ‘What can we do to support you to bring about the change you want to see?’.  There are usually people in a local authority who want to work in that way, and others who have very different entrenched ideas.

• There is a great deal of frustration when things don’t change. We need to get better at recognising and channelling the anger in ways that can drive change. 

• For those confronted with institutions that find it hard to really listen, it is necessary to keep the pressure on, and to remember that ‘a good tactic is one that your people enjoy’ (Alinsky).

• Energy and enjoyment can come in various ways, e.g. from being part of a group with a common cause, from being heard, from a realistic sense of hope (not false optimism), from a sense of humour. High energy and enjoyable activities will encourage far more people to take part, and amplify the power of the message.

Putting relationships first: building connection in a place

This meeting, which took place on 28 April 2022, is one of a series looking at putting relationships first. The topic considered on this occasion was how to build connection, inclusion and social capital in a place. After some reflections by our thought leader for this cell, David Robinson from the Relationships Project, we heard from Nicola Baker from Social Life, which specialises in research and community projects exploring how people are affected by changes in the built environment, and Olu Alake from the Peel, a charity that has been building a connected community in Clerkenwell since 1898.

Key points made by the speakers and participants in the subsequent discussion include:

• Many businesses, from the local corner shop to supermarkets are natural ‘bumping places’ where people who would otherwise not meet rub shoulders and, although some people want quick transactions others want a chat. We need to design relationships in, not out of these places, said David Robinson.

• Social infrastructure needs to be defined widely, including the formal and informal spaces in which people meet, if we want to understand and make good places. Social Life had worked with Hawkins Brown for the GLA to look at how social infrastructure, including businesses, helps social integration in London, with this final report, Social Connection by Design: How London’s Social Spaces and Networks Help Us Live Well Together.

• They had identified a ‘social structure eco-system’, studying three areas where they asked people what they valued and where they liked to meet people like themselves and where they go to meet people who are different. Formal spaces, for example schools or a hairdressers, are where they meet the latter. Informal spaces, for example coffee bars and restaurants, are where they spend time with people like themselves. Food networks, such as Pembroke House and Homerton food network, are important not just for people who may be food poor but also those who may be relationship poor, Nicola told us.

• It’s important to map what’s there and understand the eco-system of social infrastructure, really listening to people, finding out what people value, and then to nurture it. Rural areas may be very different from urban ones, having very few corporate organisations but lots of small businesses and a lack of physical assets. Big businesses, like supermarkets, can also be very local.

• Local authorities can be important connectors between different groups and have a role in improving local social infrastructure. The GLA now have a Good Growth by Design programme, for example.

• Often places consist of different communities who do not mix at all and a conscious effort needs to be made to bring them together. In Clerkenwell, for example, Olu pointed out, there is a very high concentration of creative industries alongside housing estates with a high child poverty rate, and they never mix.

• Community hubs don’t just deliver services, they can also be a facilitator within the community to make lives better and promote well-being. This is the new strategy being adopted by the Peel, Olu told us, based on the view that ‘resources are the people, not in us’. They developed a community newspaper, with wide circulation, facilitated activities such as a street party and a basketball team that were led by the community and were what local people said they wanted to do, recruited community organisers and worked with the local businesses community, approaching them with clear asks. All their community led projects are sponsored by local business.

• It can be the connections that are made, not the service, that matter. Olu told a story of a single mother who popped into their centre and seemed to enjoy it, staying for hours, but she never came back. When he met her in the street he asked why. She said that she had met so many people at the centre with whom she had since maintained a connection that she didn’t need come back.

• This is a very different way of operating for many charities and it is important to celebrate and share the stories and find the right partners at the right time and ask them to do the right thing.

• Not all relationships are constructive and some may be cursory - it’s important to focus on creating positive connection that makes a difference in people’s lives.

Joining Forces: learning from campaigns

The topic for this meeting was: ‘What can we learn from tenacious and well-supported campaigns about joining forces for the long term?’

The speaker was Ollie Hilbery, Director of the Making Every Adult Matter (MEAM) coalition. This is a coalition of national charities, Clinks, Homeless Link, Mind and Collective Voice, representing over 1,300 frontline organisations across England. They are working together to bring about systems change in local services for people facing multiple disadvantage.

Here are some of the key points made by Ollie and by others in the discussion:

• Resources.  To manage and sustain a partnership requires resources.  This includes money (ideally core funding) but also leadership commitment from all partners, and continuity of key individuals.

• Strategic recommitment.  It is a good idea to periodically ask the question ‘Are we still up for this?’ and to have an honest discussion about that.

• Managing the ebb and flow. There can be risks when the partners drift too far apart, but also when they come too close. The partnership needs to be alert to these risks, and take action if necessary.

• Unwritten rules. There may be a partnership agreement, but some things which may not be written down must be observed. For example: no bidding against each other, no surprises.

• Size of the partnership.  A small number is best suited for intense co-operation over a long period. When the campaign requires a much larger alliance to be successful, there might be a core group and a wider membership, with a clear purpose and a strong and respected brand to hold it all together.

• Inequalities within the partnership. Larger organisations need to behave with humility, not claiming power they don’t deserve – the small organisation may be able to offer insights or specialisms which are larger partners don’t have. In a good partnership all have equal weight, regardless of size.

• Disagreements. Relationship need to be strong enough to have a falling out and get back together again.

• The inherent value of partnership.  For some the partnership is a good in itself, for others it is a necessary means to an end - many sit on a spectrum somewhere between the two.

Further reading: See this blog by Cate Newnes-Smith.

Sharing and building power: community power

This event, which took place on 29 March 2022, is one of a series under the theme of sharing and building power. It considered the question: what is community power and how can we make it happen? The main opening speaker was Hugh Rolo, from Locality, the national membership network supporting local community organisations. There were also some opening from Steve Wyler, our co-convenor, based on his research on community power in the past. Our thought leaders for the cell, Sue Tibballs and Sarah Thomas from the Sheila McKechnie Foundation, also reminded us of SMK’s practical guide to power, It’s All About Power, reflecting learning from their Power Project.

Key points made by speakers and participants included:

• Community power happens at all levels, is not finite and has driven social change for centuries. It can be expressed through individuals, for example Marcus Rashford on free school meals, or groups. Sometimes it is directed at seeking national change, sometimes local. Sometimes it is targeted around a single idea or sometimes it about place or focused on specific resources, such as community buildings, land or energy. It happens in every community.

• ‘Community power is a dandelion that grows in the cracks of other power structures’ though sometimes it is co-opted by by charities. It is incredibly difficult not to corrupt the ‘dandelion’ when this happens and charities need to work in a different way to avoid this.

• Public bodies and voluntary organisations need to be enablers of community power, not blockers, acting as facilitators and servant-leaders.

• Community power often comes alive in crises, most recently during the Covid pandemic but it has also been important in previous pandemics. History shows it is almost always suppressed because of wariness about community attempts at self-organisation.

• Community shares are a really good way to invest in social causes, and community ownership of assets including land is valuable too.

• Participatory grant-making is being used creatively to develop and harness community power.

• Sharing power is very difficult, it takes time and patience and investment in capacity building and developing leadership. Relationships are important.

• We shouldn’t lose sight of the national dimension of community power. Governments are far more interested in harnessing local community power while nationally it is closing down opportunities for campaigning and dialogue.

• There’s a need for a deep reimagining of community power and of charity.

Listening to Each Other: Inclusive Practice

The topic for this meeting was: ‘Why is it that some groups of people don’t get listened to properly, and what can be done about it?‘

The first speaker was Karin Woodley, CEO of Cambridge House in Southwark, London. She is the ‘thought leader’ for the Better Way on the theme of radical listening. 

Our second speaker was Helen Phoenix, Head of Co-Design & Improvement at the South Yorkshire Housing Association.            

Here are some of the key points made by speakers and in discussion:

• Many organisations are structurally resistant to sharing power and control. The philanthropic tradition may be well intentioned but is often paternalistic in its practice and can stigmatise groups of people. We should guard against a ‘saviour’ mentality.

• There can be a lack of cultural competence – poor diversity, at the front line of a service, as well as in management and governance, contributes to this.  We need to employ different people.

• We should be ‘person-led’ not ‘person-centred’ - inviting those who are outside to step in and take charge.

• We need to shift our efforts from an equality agenda to an equity agenda, it was suggested. This means, for example, understanding the circumstances that enable or constrain people’s lives, and taking action accordingly.  And wherever possible taking a strengths-based approach, not focusing only on the problems.

• We need to invest in small locally-rooted neighbourhood organisation, and be willing to reach out more widely, including beyond ‘professional lived experience’.

• When listening we should be aware of power dynamics.  Where there is an agenda we should consider whose agenda this is, and be willing to discard it in order to listen properly.

• We should ask rather than presume.  We recognise that many organisations suffer from ‘fear of what we are going to hear’ – being challenged to do something they feel they cannot do. Rather than closing down the conversation there may be things they can do, for example acting as a bridge to those who can respond.

• We need to practice ‘conversational leadership’ it was suggested, hosting discussions that can scale up from the personal to the system.  Those in positions of power need to become a ‘river’ allowing the ideas of others to flow.

Removing the roadblocks: bridging the divides

This event on 15 March 2022 is one of a series looking at how we can unblock the roadblocks, where we’ve heard that many people at every level can play a part in driving change by:

• Challenging and changing whatever stands in the way, including the deep-seated assumptions that can prevent us from being our best selves.

• Calling out inequalities and abuses of power, and making sure everyone can participate on their own terms.

• Assuming the best in others and seeing difference, conflict and division as an opportunity to pause, seek to understand, and find a fresh way.

But we’ve also heard that resistance to change is widespread, whether through culture, systems or practices. So how can we get better at overcoming the resistance and removing the roadblocks?

The specific question we considered at this event is how to bridge the divides. Our thought leader for removing the roadblocks, Neil Denton - a community mediator and Professor in Practice at Durham University’s After Disasters Network - kicked off the discussion by talking about the Bridge Builders Handbook, which he had compiled for the Relationships Project, focusing on this slide.

Key points made by the speaker and participants included:

• It’s important to avoid ‘enemy thinking’ and ‘othering’ and encourage instead curiosity and kindness. People on the receiving end of violence often see no choice and use words like ‘I can’t, I have to, I must’ and ‘I know what they’re thinking and what will happen’ and difference and division becomes destructive.

• Building bridges is not about starting in the middle with talk about similarity and points of connection. That way, the bridge falls down. It should begin with understanding the foundation stones of different communities - what’s really important to them, their values, needs and activities.

• Bridge builders need to listen with their eyes and their hearts, working out underlying motivations and needs and building a story that makes sense to that community. By working in this way differences then stop becoming deal breakers and become areas of curiousity. You then can identify the basic needs and values and activities on both sides and find common ground. An example of a shared activity that might result is moving away from ‘keeping out a group in order to feel safe’ toward ‘making a space safer for all our children.’ The keystone that leads to bonding must include goals that do not harm the other group.

• Community mediation is hard, exhausting work and sometimes it can feel like a ‘bucket in a drought’ but at best it can lead to ‘a million little drops that can make a difference if you carefully place them.’ It’s a messy process, working with a compass not a map - an uncertain journey which takes time and can be a cyclical process.

• Labels and language matter. For example it’s odd that people of colour are labled as a minority in this country, when they are the global majority.

• Building bridges is also building the social fabric, creating bridging as well as bonding social capital.

• Community spaces can really help build bridges, for example allotments.

• Understanding differences can unlock real power and potential.

Leadership as facilitation

In this session we focused on how leaders can operate as facilitators, rather than managers. What are the benefits, what are the difficulties?

The first speaker was Nick Sinclair from Community Catalysts.  Nick runs the Local Area Co-ordination network, and the New Social Leaders network.  He is also the ‘thought leader’ for the leadership strand of Better Way’s work.

Nick introduced our second speaker, Shelley McBride, who set up the Derby Community Parent Programme. 

The final speaker was Helen Goulden, CEO of the Young Foundation.  Her presentation drew on Young Foundation’s research, and the experience of its Leadership Academy, as well as her own personal experience as a leader.  

Here are some of the key points made by speakers and in discussion:

• A core role of established leaders can and should be to grow leadership in others.  To act in this way challenges the traditional ‘command-and-control’ leadership model, and opens up space for more people. 

• We should remember that leaders are not all a good thing – some set out to promote vested interests or sow division. Our efforts should be directed towards leaders who are willing to work for the common good and who value inclusion.  

• There is far too little investment in leadership development in the informal community sector, compared to other sectors, even though community leaders are so fundamental to social change. Many community leaders feel anxiety and unworthiness in their role, and we need to build a better system of support around them.

• We need to distinguish between management and leadership, and place more emphasis on the latter.  Most organisations, it was suggested, are ‘over-managed and under-led’.

• The term leader is an uneasy one.  It implies that someone is ‘in charge’. Perhaps we need a different word.

• A switch is needed, from efforts to support ‘leaders’ to support for ‘leadership’ – for example ‘how not to be a leader’ training, encouraging people to think of leadership as a group dynamic, not just about the individual.

• We don’t need to start from scratch. Over the last 30 years or more there have been excellent examples of leadership training, that place high value in qualities such as curiosity, collaboration, enabling others, humility, empathy, emotional intelligence.

Listening to each other - learning from Scotland’s Community Empowerment Act

The meeting considered Scotland’s Community Empowerment Act which places a responsibility on central and local government to listen, and asked ‘What can we learn from the experience so far?’

 The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 was designed to empower community bodies through the ownership or control of land and buildings, and by strengthening their voices in decisions about public services. Provisions include:

• A set of national outcomes drawn up by government.

• Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) for each local authority area, to produce a local outcomes improvement plan (LOIP) with 'locality plans' at a more local level for places experiencing particular disadvantage.

• CPPs are required to support community bodies to participate in all parts of the process, ‘in the development, design and delivery of plans and in review, revision and reporting of progress.’

• Participation requests: where a community body believes it could help to improve an outcome which is delivered by a public service, it is able to request to take part in a process with the public service authority to improve that outcome. 

• Measures to achieve more community ownership of land and buildings, including the right to request asset transfer from the public sector to communities.

The Community Empowerment Act is part of a longer story in Scotland, including the earlier Community Right to Buy legislation, the Christie Commission, etc, all broadly pushing in a similar direction, i.e. a shift in the role of the state towards an enabling function, empowering local communities and citizens to do more, and to encourage partnership working.

The speaker was Maddy Halliday, CEO of Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire.   

Here are some of the key points made by speakers and in discussion:

• The Act is regarded as successful in several respects. It has been widely implemented, and has produced some improvements. For example, it has led to somewhat greater investment in capacity-building at local level, and it has produced a more nuanced balancing of interests in local planning activities, with more community influence in decision-making, and a growth in participatory structures (e.g. participatory budgeting for small grants schemes).

• However, as a Caledonian University assessment found, there has been some public sector resistance, and progress has been strongest in rural areas, and less so in some urban areas. Moreover, the impact in areas experiencing disadvantage has not been as great as hoped for.

• Overall, participants in our meeting felt that this type of legislation does not necessarily advance the practice of ‘radical’ listening. A key test is what happens when those in positions of authority hear something they don’t like, or which doesn’t fit.

• For radical listening to flourish, a formal set of structures or practices, as set out in the Act, may be necessary but is not sufficient, when what is also required is a shift in culture and behaviour that allows relationships to flourish, including among people who may disagree.]

• Critically, public bodies need to signal an intention to really listen, not just to confirm or negate a hypothesis.

• A shift in culture and behaviour may require a significant and sustained investment of effort, including training in new skills.

Putting relationships first: mutual aid

The topic under discussion on 23rd February 2022 in our putting relationships first cell was mutual aid: how can we do more to support it?

David Robinson from the Relationships Project, who is our thought leader for the cell, opened the discussion by reflecting on the context and what we had learnt from the pandemic, which had demonstrated particularly in its early stages the value of mutual aid and the positivity it can bring. In the repeated cycle of lockdowns some of this had partially faded, and for some there was a feeling of exhaustion and fears about the economy had led to a sense of helplessness. But there was still learning and potential on which to build.

We then heard about the We-volution model of self-reliant groups (SRGs) from its founder Noel Mathias and Deborah Murdoch from one its groups in Greenock.

Debs explained that 7 years ago she had joined the SRG as a young mother to meet new people and was introduced to the philosophy of ‘meet-save-create’. The group built mutual trust and through these connnections she and others had learnt that they had skills which they can share and transfer, sometimes leading to the creation of new businesses or to people taking on leadership roles, helping to train other women. She had started working with Ratio, collecting data on how connections helps their groups and creates power. For her, the SRG and We-volution were ‘a movement and a family’, not an organisation.

Noel told us how the idea of SRGs had come from the practice of self-help groups in India. Their key impact is to put people, primarily women, in control of their lives, often in places or amongst people who are stigmatised in the way others, incorrectly, see them. We-volution see individuals as entrepreneurs rather than consumers - everyone is an entrepreneur, not least in the ‘enterprise of being human’. It is a relational model, he explained, where people learn to empower themselves and find their own agency, and a major shift in thinking away from ‘fixing to connecting’.

We-volution helps set up these groups but also creates peer groups from across the individual SRGs who become friends within the wider SRG family and learn from each other, with wisdom percolating through connnection. We-volution see their role as movement building, enabling access to financial support and capacity, mobilising participations and creating learning.

They’ve found SRGs and the wider movement can have huge impact in terms of systemic change - growing social capital, improving mental health and positively impacting the lives of children, he concluded. You can read a blog by Noel for a Better Way about We-volution’s work here.

We then heard from Richard Harries from the Institute for Community Studies, formerly from Power to Change. He has written a blog for a Better Way in which he invented the word ‘takepowerment’, which he said might capture the We-volution philosophy. Richard explained that the Institute for Community Studies would shortly be publishing research looking at mutual aid at home and abroad. He highlighted some lessons, including:

• they found that there was a correlation between community wealth, community owned assets and well-being.

• The location of community assets, including places to meet, and the level of grants mutual aid groups received, made all the difference.

• Levels of trust, access to digital tools, support from local authorities and the existence of faith based groups were also important.

• Working with mutual aid groups can be scary for local authorities because of the level of risk but in the pandemic they were forced to do so, with good results.

Other points made in the break out groups and plenary discussion included:

• charity and mutual aid are very different models. ‘When we do change to people , they can experience it as violence, when we allow people to do change for themselves they experience it as a liberation.’ As Mother Theresa said, ‘the poor will never forgive you for the charity you do to them.’

• Mutual aid is a relational model, one of ‘takepowerment’, with potentially huge social impact, unleashing the ‘enterprise of being human’.

• The pandemic had challenged local authorities to do things differently, and conquer their normal risk aversion, and their support for mutual aid was important.

• We heard of community based organisations which were also a form of mutual aid and where people would not be able to tell who are staff, volunteers, or local people, as they work together mutually.

• Mutual aid does not have to be small-scale and it is not new either: for example, in the 1790s it was widespread in relation to famine support and in Mumbai, when the mills closed, the women got together and set up a popadum business which was worth £250 million.

• Mutual aid is not exclusive to any demographic and it works.

• There is no one model, it’s important not to be prescriptive and it comes and goes. The use of IT, free access to community spaces, the ownership of community assets and capacity-building support are factors which can aid success.

• The key to making it work is to create the conditions in which human beings can be human.

Joining forces for Integrated Health and Care

The advent of the Integrated Care Systems should be an opportunity for organisations across sectors to join forces in a way that was not possible before. But it all seems a bit daunting. ‘So how should this best be approached?’ was the question we explored in this meeting.

Our first speaker was Samira ben Omar, previously Head of System Change at the North West London Collaboration of Clinical Commissioning Groups, and now working independently.  

Our second speaker was John Mortimer, previously at Vanguard Consulting, now also working independently.

Here are some of the key points made by speakers and in discussion:

• The formal health system cannot bring about good health by itself.  80% or more of the drivers of health are elsewhere. The NHS needs to join forces with others.

• There are serious problems of health discrimination and inequality, made more evident during the pandemic. So when joining forces, it is always necessary to consider who is included, who needs to be reached, and what discriminatory policies or practices need to be tackled.

•  It is important to unlearn, in order to shift towards a more creative and relational set of practices. In particular, we need to move away from the proliferation of committees, which have often become a ‘place of performance’, rather than drivers of improvement or change.

• Instead, we need to establish new spaces for people to come together to share power, from neighbourhood level upwards. The ‘Us & Them’ culture is toxic in the health system. We will only address that if we create more opportunities for people to discover their shared humanity.

• It is important not to make assumptions about what people want. Instead, we need to shift the whole system towards person-centred design. This includes asking open questions, listening together, bringing back answers. It also means giving front line teams the freedom to organise their work differently: to understand at first hand the experiences of individual people in the system, then experiment, prototype, and make normal.  

• Public sector organisations need to ‘let go’ more. Communities do most when they can decide for themselves, it was said.  

• We need to remember that in partnership working the quick fix is never successful. Worthwhile change will take time, and commitment must therefore be long term.

• We need to resist pressure from NHS England or elsewhere to meet immediate targets, and we should be wary of putting too much faith in new structures.  It’s the shared purpose held by committed people connecting across organisations and sectors and hierarchies that will get the best results.

• New Public Management, with its fixation on target-setting, cannot co-exist with Integrated Working, which needs the freedom to practice relational methods. The former has failed to drive down costs and improve health outcomes - the latter now needs to be given a chance.

Sharing and building power: participatory grant-making

The topic under discussion on 9 February 2022 in our Sharing and Building Power cell was how to make participatory grant-making work and become more widespread.

Our first opening speaker was Cameron Bray, from Barking and Dagenham Giving, who explained how an endowment fund of £1 million had been created from external fund-raising and income from social housing and half of this is being determined through participatory means, using various approaches in a ‘big DJ mixing deck approach’, as follows:

• A panel model, with participants being representative in terms of geography and also community of identity. Members shape the priorities of the fund and take the final decisions.

• A community steering group was being developed to design investment policy from scratch with the freedom to determine priorities.

• a closed collective pilot run by a young people’s network, where they collectively make decisions and are sharing the power and accountability between themselves.

These approaches need a lot of resources, he said, including paying people for their time and induction, but they had found the process was valuable in itself as an investment in the community and its empowerment.

Lucy Gilbert, from the Quartet Community Foundation in Avon, then told us about her experience of participatory budgeting, explaining that they were part of Bristol City Funds, set up in collaboration with Bristol City Council and Bristol and Bath Regional Council, which was implementing a ‘One City Plan’ to deliver systemic change. They too had found that processes were almost more important than the money itself and they had been exploring different ways for shifting power:

• setting up a grant panel for their health and well-being budget of £1.3 million, where 40% of the panel had lived experience and members are given both training and payment for their time.

• a panel of 100% people with lived experience making decisions for the Bristol Local Food Fund, which is a £60K fund raised through crowd-funding specifically to go to local food organisations. Members will be trained and paid at Living Wage rates.

• a pilot ‘City Lab’, with decisions for a fund of £14,000 over 6 months devolved to people with lived experience of mental health dificulties and local organisations and involving a community research exercise to come up with solutions, and committed to developing fundable projects.

Key points made in discussion in breakout groups and the plenary include:

• participatory grant-making is not just be about bringing communities into decision-making about who receives resources, but is also about allowing them to shape the agenda and the priorities for new funds.

• As well as improving decision-making, it brings other benefits, helping to empower and grow community and creating new collaborations. It can be life-changing for those involved and build capacity and confidence in the community.

• The process itself is important, including training and payment for volunteers. Local authorities can sometimes help by recruiting stakeholders from the community. One approach that’s worked is to bring in previous recipients of grants into the decision-making process. It is not enough just to bring people into the room - true collaboration with the community is required.

• There’s a lot of potential but current practice tends to be focused on relatively small budgets, so there is a need to grow confidence in the approach.

• Barriers to getting this right include culture, risk aversion and ‘white saviourism’ and that is why there is a need to build capacity across all of those involved, including funders who are not always comfortable with sharing power in this way.

• There’s a lot to learn from others, rather than just reinventing wheels, including from Scotland, where 1 % of local authority budgets have been earmarked for this approach, and internationally, for example in Brazil. It’s important that practice is shared.

Moral Imagination

This was a first meeting to address the question ‘How can we unlock our  humanity and imagination?’

This time we were exploring the idea of Moral imagination - what is it and how can we use it increase our power?

We heard from Phoebe Tickell from Moral Imaginations who is working with civil society organisations, local authorities and communities to embed imagination into place and is working on an Imagination Lab to bring leaders together to strengthen the role of imagination in their work collectively and individually.

Imagination is an extremely powerful force for change, Phoebe says, and humanity can build bridges and power us to change. Imagining allows us not just to see a different future but to feel it. The problem is not that we lack imagination, but that we have often blocked it.

Here is Phoebe’s presentation, in three parts:

An introduction to moral imagination

An imagination lab in Watchet, Somerset

The Impossible Train Story - a must-watch four-minute video

Some key points coming out of the event include:

• Imagination is a powerful force but there is a massive capacity that is not being used, rather like a muscle that has been atrophied.

• Developing imagination requires dedicated time, space and prompts, including tools and exercises (like the Imaginary Train one above) which remove the fear of performing and give permission to explore.

• Phoebe had worked with a community in Watchet creating a portal for the community to go through to imagine a ‘dream economy’ for their community. We heard from Georgie Grant from the Onion Collective who were undertaking this work. She told us it had been a four day lab bringing together 20 very diverse people and that initially people were scared, thinking that this would be ‘too hippy’, but after 4 days they expressed real grief that it had ended, so they followed it up with regular zoom meetings. The process proved impactful for the community and transformative for some individuals.

• This is about taking future thinking out of the boardroom and into communities.

• Imagination at scale is something different to individual acts of imagination, and could be transformative. What kind of world do we want to live in and how can we make it happen?

Phoebe Tickell has written more about how to ‘rewild the imagination’ here; and Audrey Thompson has also penned an essay for our collection, Building a Bigger We about unlocking imagination and humanity in a community in the 1970s.

Roundtable on working in a place

Creating the conditions for a fairer system to emerge

Introduction – Laura Seebohm

Laura Seebohm, the Better Way Convenor for the North, gave a quick summary of A Better Way, explaining that the Better Way Network is a collection of leaders who are committed to changing the way things work for people across society for the better.  We are not about leadership in the hierarchical sense.  We come together within and across sectors, learn from each other, share common experiences and identify better ways to do things. 

Laura noted that over the past 18 months we’ve seen certain ideas shine through, themes which seem to emerge and re-emerge in every conversation:

• Four fundamental behaviours - putting relationships first, sharing and building power, joining forces and listening to each other, particularly those least heard.

• And three cross-cutting questions, included one particularly pertinent to this event - how can we remove the road blocks?

These were all explored at our National Gathering on 24th November, she said.  The note of that meeting is here.

Laura explained this roundtable had come about from conversations with people whose purpose ‘in the day job’ is to work in a place, who had said they would welcome a group where they could explore the challenges more deeply with others working in places, exploring how to help create the conditions to bring about change, recognising that it can be hard to unpick where barriers lie and wanting to share honest reflections about the complexities.  

We had decided to make this an ‘invitation only’ meeting and to restrict the numbers, unlike most Better Way roundtables, she explained, in order to make it easier for open reflection, and to see if the group might want to work together, build up mutual trust and support each other after the first meeting.

We started with some opening contributions, moving to breakout groups and back to plenary.

Reflections from Kelly Cunningham, Changing Lives, working in York

·       She wanted to talk about feelings and emotions, not processes, because she thought it was important to acknowledge these in system change work.

·       We don’t acknowledge power dynamics enough.

·       There is no blueprint for this kind of work, and you need to be very self-motivated because the work goes really slowly.

·       There is always a pressure to see impact, but in fact there is no ‘big boom’ and sometimes it is hard to see the ripples of change.

·       Importance of building legitimacy and allies is important, but this takes time.

·       You need to change the conversation but in a way that you are not always seen as an ‘agitator’ – it can be a fine line between being radical and being irritating.

·       Need to let go of some of your own views, ‘not do the do’ and step back.  This is very hard – we need to model behaviours ourselves.

Reflections from Harriet Ballance, Lloyds Bank Foundation

·       Set up phase takes time and it’s important to hold your nerve.  This can be hard when there is pressure from colleagues within your organisation and within communities to show progress.

·       Covid-19 forced us to slow down and to get to know each other, which has been helpful in establishing strong relationships for this work

·       Capacity building is important– LBF try to identify people to work with them who have amazing networks locally.

·       Sometimes it works well to have LBF neutrality, not being from a place and able to ask different questions – about things that may seem obvious to people in a place – and this can create a different conversation. 

·       Getting a shift in ‘the way we do things here’ is often difficult.

·       Need to sit with discomfort and be very aware of how this work feels for people.

·       How do we make this something that people actually want to do? – we are thinking about how to develop spaces that feel different and that people value

·       Some of the tools adopted by LBF have been very useful in unblocking blockages, and providing a guide or framework in uncertainty eg training in restorative practice has provided a helpful framework.  Service design led thinking has also been a tried and tested tool.

Reflections from Andy Crosbie, Collective Impact Agency, Gateshead

·       Lots talked about ‘place-based’, ‘co-location’ – but what do we actually mean?

·       The real test for place-based work is whether it engages communities, those people living in a place, non-specialist and non-institutional roles.

·       Working a fine line between the old system – need to engage within it and find allies – and new ways of challenging orthodoxy and assumptions.  This is difficult while you are trying to build relationships.

·       Need to carve out a space free from assumptions and bureaucracy – a new space to grow

·       This work can be lonely and exhausting, messy and slow.  The old system loves clarity and efficiency, neither of which we can provide!

Some of the points made in discussion included:

·       The issues raised by the opening speakers really resonated.

·       It can be difficult to support systems change in a place when you are an outsider but it easy to slip into false assumptions. 

·       ‘Wisdom sits in a place’ and you really need to understand it, and take time to do so.

·       People locally are often extremely pressed for time, and it’s important to use that time well, and make sure that it is funded.  One key function to fund is a ‘systems facilitator’ who can bring different parties together and provide a convening space. Core, not project-based funding, is critical, otherwise local people are lurching from one funding crisis to another. Putting programme money into a community can be important but it can also be a curse because it distorts behaviour.

·       Achieving change in a place takes time, you have to be patient and give yourself and others permission not to know the answers. It’s important to think hard about the starting point, as this determines what follows. 

·       Given the slow pace of change, some indicators of success would be helpful.

·       Culture change may be the most important result that can be achieved, in order to free up the system.  A theory of change is valuable.

Summing up, Bonnie Hewson from Power to Change said that it is ‘not what you do but how you do it’ that matters, and understanding your own power, and why you are using it. Being a funder can be uncomfortable, and there are huge challenges to working in a place and to create co-operation, and it’s important to share your power, which can be humbling.  It’s critical to be led by the place and to ensure the process is fun, and very easy to constantly underestimate the wisdom of places whose main problem is often ‘not having capacity to build their own capacity.’

Caroline Slocock, a national co-convenor for a Better Way, ended with a reflection that perhaps the Better Way behaviours – putting relationships first, sharing and building power, listening to each other, particularly those least heard, and joining forces   – might provide one guide for how to work in a place and deliver systems and culture change.  Looking for evidence of these behaviours might be a way to measure progress, she added.  She hoped the group might meet again, if that would be useful.

Annual Gathering 2021

We held our annual Gathering this year on 29th November, bringing people together online for the second year running. This was an opportunity to share learning from the past year and help formulate our strategy for the next and beyond in an interactive way.

The theme of the Gathering was ‘Building the Bigger We’. This was the stand out phrase from our 2020 Gathering, and captured the need to build momentum around the principles and behaviours set out in a Better Way by growing the network and spreading the word. Ultimately, we had previously agreed, building a Bigger We would mean a very different kind of world in which:

• Everyone is heard and believed in, given a fair opportunity to thrive, and the ability to influence the things that matter to them.

• Every community comes together, looks out for each other, respects difference, and enables everyone to belong.

• Society as a whole values and invests in everyone and in every community.

A Better Way in turbulent times?

We opened the Gathering by discussing ‘where we are now’, starting with what the network had been doing over the last year. Caroline Slocock, the national co-convenor of A Better Way, explained that the network had grown. We’ve become bigger and more diverse and members have shared ideas and inspiration in more than 50 meetings. We’ve expanded from 680 to 880 people, and our twitter followers have grown from 1,660 to 1,850. Our Time for a Change publication which set out our Better Way model, was warmly received and circulated widely, not least on twitter. More people from across the country, and from many different backgrounds and organisations, are joining us, and our understanding of how to improve services, build community and create a fairer society has deepened as a consequence.

In the wider world, we’ve heard inspiring stories from our members about how a Better Way approach can change how things are done, she said, especially at local level. As the pandemic has shown, mountains can be moved when there is a common purpose and when there are strong relationships within communities and across organisations.

She explained that we’ve also heard that divisions in society have deepened during the pandemic, and it’s becoming harder to challenge injustices. Services are struggling and sometimes failing. Too often, power, which is already in too few hands, is being consolidated, and the voices of those with least power are still not being heard. Faced with this, there is a deep and growing unease about what lies ahead, from global warming to a country and world becoming ever more unequal.

Despite all this, momentum toward a Better Way does seem to be building in many places and in fields of activity, with champions in both the public and voluntary sectors,  but this still falls short of the system-wide change, for example in areas like health and social care, which will move us closer to our ultimate vision.

We then asked the Gathering whether they recognised this picture and what they were doing and feeling at this time. Breakout groups reported back that the picture painted above did resonate and they agreed that at the outset of the pandemic, despite the challenges, people had pulled together and there was an optimism about the potential to shift to a better way of working, as people took more risks and joined forces and achieved things at much greater speed. However, they also said:

• There is now enormous pressure on those we serve and massive challenges in the community. Trust is also breaking down and social division is growing. We need to ‘lean in to trust building’.

• There is an issue of resilience for people trying to bring about change, with an increase in demand while resources are getting even tighter, and some loss of optimism. Under pressure, some organisations are reverting to type, with ‘management by Gant chart.’ And it can be hard to keep in mind the bigger picture when faced with the short-term, sometimes fear-driven, focus of the media.

• Relationships were identified as being very important, but are not always seen to be so, and competition for resources could also be undermining, we were told. Lots of people in the network are seeking to apply Better Way principles and behaviours but get stuck when talking to decision-makers who don’t see relationships as important.

• We heard of some local authorities that are consciously trying to build on the relationships established through the pandemic. Newham was creating, for example, an anti-poverty alliance. It is clear that the statutory sector’s lead is very important. We also heard about the Time for Kids initiative in Surrey which had grown out of a small group of positive people from across the statutory and voluntary sectors who wanted to work together to achieve a better way.

• New technology had helped connect some people, but were we listening to everybody?

• Networks like a Better Way which allow for peer-to-peer conversations were seen as very important to building resilience among those seeking to drive change.

In an online poll taken during the Gathering, over 70% felt that momentum for a Better Way is rising (8% fast, 65% slowly), a quarter felt it is about the same and 3% said it is falling slowly.

The key messages that came out of the discussion were: ‘be intentional about making change happen’, go where the energy is’, ‘get out there and reduce the distance’, ‘build on positive relationships’, and seek to ‘create constellations out of single points of light.’

Behaviours for a Better Way

In the second session, which was introduced by our Convenor in the North, Laura Seebohm, we heard about what the network had learnt through its discussions over the course of the year about the four behaviours for a Better Way - putting relationships first, sharing and building power, listening to each other and joining forces.

David Robinson

Putting relationships first

David Robinson from the Relationships Project, the ‘thought leader’ for our Putting Relationships First cell, explained that we had held five sessions with lively discussions:

• making relationship-building the purpose of our work.

• turning organisations into communities, not machines.

• seeing people as the solution, not the problem.

• building good relationships in adversity and conflict.

• relational leadership.

Some of the key points coming out of the discussion are featured in the draft document circulated for the Gathering, and are shown here.

We had heard of many really good things happening in this area, David said. Over 2021, we had also been taking stock regularly, up and down the country, about the impact of the pandemic. It was clear we are still on a very uncertain course, and that there is likely to be a long, long tail with ‘deep tissue damage’. The challenge we have faced is to turn a common sense idea into common practice, he said, and move from ‘one place wonders’ to good examples being everywhere. We are accustomed to campaigning against things we oppose, and are less good at campaigning ‘with the grain’, elevating the importance of relationships. When a social worker, for example, puts relationships first, we say that s/he ‘goes the extra mile’, but we need to change this so that behaviour is seen as the ‘first mile’. Barriers to this happening are multiple, from culture, leadership models and systems, and he agreed that the challenges are getting bigger. To move forward, it’s important to demonstrate human qualities ourselves and build trust and share power. We can move from ‘Me to We’ and increase social capital, he concluded. The window that had been opened in the early stages of Covid-19 as people supported each other is still open.

Some of the comments from the discussion that followed in breakout groups and plenary included:

• Relationship-building is critical but tends to be ‘stamped out’ by command and control practices and targets. This can be changed by consciously changing the norms e.g. by including relationship building in job descriptions.

• ‘Relationships on their own aren’t enough of course, but making them a core operating principle, rather than the ‘fluffy extra’ is the point.’

• ‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast’, so don’t start with strategies when trying to change things, address the culture. But ‘relationships eat them both for dinner!’ one person suggested.

• Leaders have the power and responsibility to set a new culture. This quote from Prof Edgar Schein was provided by one participant: "The only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture. If you do not manage culture, it manages you, and you may not even be aware of the extent to which this is happening."

• Change is a continuous process. It must involve informal as well as formal behaviours.

• ‘People are the air within the Better Way “beach-ball” [i.e. the behaviours model] – their whole lives – not just the bits we can deal with.’

Sharing and Building Power

Sue Tibballs from the Sheila McKechnie Foundation, the ‘thought leader’ for our Sharing and Building Power cell, reflected on what we had learnt over the course of the year, with some key points set out in the draft document circulated for the Gathering shown below.

Sue Tibballs

Sue explained that the cell had discussed these topics:

• Authentic voices, hearing from Jude Habib from Sound Delivery and Brenda Buringi and Amanda Hailles, both of whom talked about how Sound Delivery had helped them to take on leadership roles as people with lived experience and how important these voices are. It was right, Sue said, to start with these voices.

• How power works and the tools we need, drawing on learning from SMK’s wider work which was to be launched in December 2021.

• How to build inclusive and equitable communities around a common cause.

• How to unlock the power of imagination, including the power of the arts, for example Forum Theatre which can help homeless people reimagine their lives.

• How to challenge abuses of power, including by practising ‘servant leadership’ rather than making citizens a servant of powerful institutions.

It is really difficult to change the culture, she concluded. At the heart of all this, she said, it’s important to understand power and become more literate in how it works. Power is not binary, as we tend to think, happening on one side only. The key is not so much about giving power away as recognising that we all have power and must use that power conscientiously and well. Sharing and building power is fundamental to the three other behaviours in the Better Way model - putting relationships first, listening to each other and joining forces - and these behaviours are critical to sharing and building power, so much so you could almost think of the latter as an overarching, core principle.

Some of the comments from the discussion that followed in breakout groups and plenary included:

• It’s important to be reflective about the power we have and use it wisely, but also allow ourselves to be challenged in a good way by community power.

• ‘Given we are saying that being power aware is in part recognising that we are all limited by our own experience and so we need to ensure there is real diversity of experience in the ‘room’ if we are to have a chance of really understanding.’

• ‘For sharing power to be real within an organisation it needs a culture within the organisation that supports that effort and that culture needs to be the same for all in the organisation and not just some.’ The right culture includes being able to share vulnerabilities - genuinely being allowed to share and express when things didn’t work as expected and to learn from this.

• It helps when sharing power to also have clarity of purpose, clear objectives and focus. Large organisations inevitably become hierarchical, but this can be mitigated by the potential use of distributive leadership.

• ‘Reflecting on what I've heard, I think there is a need to try to articulate what 21st century leadership is/can be. Greta Thunberg is a fantastic example of this. Undoubtedly a leader, but starting with absolutely no positional power. Personal power can achieve so much in a positive way.’

• The four behaviours are heavily inter-related.

Karin Woodley

Listening to each other

Karin Woodley from Cambridge House, the ‘thought leader’ for our Listening to Each Other cell, then reflected on what we had learnt in the five discussions during 2021 on these themes:

• Changing how we lead so we can listen better.

• Recruiting the right people, those best placed to listen and act on what they hear.

• How we can listen better together.

• Citizens’ Assemblies.

• Using citizens’ scientists and other techniques in research and policy-making.

Karin said that cells had explored how to create respectful relationships where it is possible to listen deeply and each had focused on different ways to address failures in the existing process in order to use experience to change policy.

Some of the key points from these discussions are included here.

She said that ‘radical listening’ meant stopping the normal ‘intellectual sorting’ process and ‘unlearning’ how we lead. In order to truly realise the transformative nature of relationship building and listening, we must radically change how we listen, recognising that ‘we are not the specialists’ and being quiet and resisting the temptation to speak and sum up. It is especially important to listen to people who have been pushed to one side and remain voiceles in the pandemic, amplifying their power.

Some of the comments from the discussion that followed in breakout groups and plenary included:

• Proper listening requires time and space. ‘Post-Covid panic can mean there is even more pressure to find 'solutions' when in fact Covid had demonstrated that we need to spend time and allocate resources to empowering lived experience voices.

• We must reach out to the crucial people who are too often overlooked. Generalised language, such as ‘young people’, can obscure groups who are being excluded from the conversation. ‘Listening is critical when diverse communities are concerned. Now we have many mechanisms to engage but we need varied methods for understanding what we are listening to.’

• Listening can surface conflict and anger. We need to get conflict out in the open and not suppress it. And also listen to others with courtesy and respect, which can be hard in the currently toxic environment. ‘When we are unheard, we shout. When our unmet needs remain unacknowledged, we express them in the language of judgement and blame.’ ‘The trick is not to get emotionally hijacked by others' anger; that's what enables us to remain courteous and to listen.’

• ‘Not all communities shout when they are poorly served - many I work with retreat into greater silence and despair….Hard to reach groups tend to be very easily found in the criminal justice system.’ And another comment: ‘Hard to reach means easy to ignore’.

• ‘Trust in listening processes frequently requires all people in the conversation to share lived experience.’ People also have to trust that their voice will really be heard.

• ‘The language has been hijacked and that is a problem. Co-production and recovery are words with radical roots, and they need to retain their radical meanings to prevent disingenuous and disengaged consequences.’

• ‘There are forces that are dangerously and deliberately whipping up people's fears and spreading misinformation - we see it on vaccines, refugees, a backlash to Black Lives Matter etc. So while we need to reach out and engage communities we also have to be wise and savvy and seek to challenge and minimise negative voices.’

• ‘If listening is a process and not an event then it needs to be a continual relationship and dialogue that includes action and delivery. Often we listen at the “what is the problem” stage, conducted by those who aren't the arbiters of the resources, who filter and filter what they have heard, and then the dialogue stops as the powerful go away and design the solution. Which they then "consult" on in processes designed to affirm their assumptions, and by which time it is too late to change.’

Cate Newnes-Smith

Joining Forces

Cate Newnes-Smith from Surrey Youth Focus and Time for Kids, the thought leader for our Joining Forces cell, then shared her reflections on the discussion held over the year on these topics:

• Developing a shared language to build collaboration.

• Building systems leadership into job roles at all levels.

• Dealing with imbalances and inequalities when joining forces.

• Joining forces across sectors, particularly with the private sector.

• Joining forces to inspire, rather than to control.

Some key messages from these discussions are shown here.

Cate said that the key lesson she had learnt during these discussions was the difference between true collaboration and partnership; and explained that in a Better Way we had chosen to speak of ‘joining forces’ because it seemed more active and definite than collaboration. Partnership was a bit like inviting other people to your own party or, when more participative, inviting others to help you throw a party you’ve organised, for example, by bringing food, or helping others to set up their parties. Joining forces, or collaboration, in contrast is much more like a street party, where everyone joins in and the event is organised together.

Some of the comments from the discussion that followed in breakout groups and plenary included:

• ‘Covid-19 has shown that not working together is not an option, so the question is how to join forces well, not whether.’

• ‘We are running a race together, but we don’t all cross the line together.’

• Power dynamics in collaborations are very important and there needs to be honesty about power imbalances. Relationships and trust are critical and need to be built between the voluntary and statutory sectors.

• ‘We need to move from a focus on our own organisation to a focus on community i.e. putting the community above our organisation. The bigger the organisation, the harder this becomes. Strict personal KPIs often work against this e.g. spending funding by year end not being in best interest of people served. We need common principles, but not necessarily a common understanding, as that may not be possible when joining forces.’

• One breakout group reported that there wasn't agreement around seeking allies in the business world - there was a feeling that people in the public sector have spent too long trying to win hearts and minds there and we should concentrate on powerful allies in civil society.

Three big cross-cutting issues

The next session looked at three big cross-cutting issues that had come out of the many many meetings we held in 2021, with each being introduced by reflections from a speaker.

The first question is:

1. What kind of leaders should we be?

During 2021, we’ve started to talk about a new kind of leadership where:

• We become leaders not because we hold positions of power, but because we give power to others.

• We deploy the four Better Way behaviours to build connection and community beyond our organisations.

• We create the conditions for those at the sharp end to take more control.

But how can we counter the existing ‘command and control’ and managerial leadership model and make this new style of leadership more widespread? What kind of leaders should we be?

Nick Sinclair

Nick Sinclair who runs the Local Area Co-ordinators Network and Community Catalysts New Social Leaders programme, said he had found that many people had been provoked by the pandemic crisis to ask themselves, ‘What does it mean to be a leader?’

Looking at the example of Local Area Co-ordinators, he thought the key lesson was that when you stop trying to control people and outcomes you allow agency. He told the story of Hugh and Janet who were helped by an Area Co-ordinator, Richard. Hugh has dementia and they reached out for some support which would not involve them separating. Richard spent some time getting to know them, finding out what they wanted, and what they were like. Hugh, it turned out, was a talented carpenter so Richard put them in touch with a timber merchant who provided him with free wood with which Hugh made bird houses. Richard linked him up with community organisations who then auctioned them for charities. What this illustrates is that it is important not to see people as service users, but as citizens and leaders too, Nick said.

He said when he talked to people in his new Social Leaders programme, they often felt like imposters because of a deeply rooted feeling that leadership is about hierarchy and command and control. ‘We can all be leaders and all be followers’, he’d discovered. It all depends on the context and particular knowledge. We should work ‘in a spirit of curiosity to find each other’s potential’. Leading involves being a distributor and builder of power, using the four behaviours in the Better Way model, and becoming a deep listener and facilitator of change. If more of us can model this, the existing model of leadership would change and create the conditions for those at the sharp end to take more control, he concluded.

Here are some of the points made in the subsequent discussion:

• As leaders, morals and principles are important, but we can all too easily be pulled into simply being managers - and sometimes it’s easier to retreat into management in a crisis because it is a kind of comfort zone.

• Safe spaces for leaders to share thinking and challenges are important - ‘self-reflecting, self-knowledge networks. Too often people feel isolated , under par and overworked.

• Faith in the team is required for this kind of Leadership-Followership model, which involves sharing power and shifting the culture. Trust is critical on both sides. A learning culture must be established, which allows people to make mistakes and push at the envelope rather than always getting things right. ‘Part of being a good leader is knowing when to follow, if someone else is already leading on something you want to happen, just follow and it may (or may not) be appropriate that over time you also offer your leadership skills to support.’

• Curiosity is an important quality, listening before acting. Empathy is needed, but we must start with ourselves.

• Leadership is not just something you do at work, you can be a leader in normal life. ‘I'm interested in the statement "when we become leaders." Isn't that old school thinking of leadership being about a position in an organisations? When did Greta become a 'leader'? The moment she sat down outside the parliament, on her own with a placard?’

• Leaders have to develop facilitation and convening skills, and not avoid the difficult issues. ‘I think that leaders have to be able to hold all sides where trust has broken down or been damaged. This might mean we have to challenge our own "morals and values", and those of our organisations.’

• ‘With increasing diversity within the UK population, how do we harness what that brings to the table and change it brings to leadership debate.’ ‘I would add that diversity needs more than representation, it needs to be deliberately inclusive. Also that without acknowledging the inherent inequalities of the structure, we cannot truly shift the leadership role.’

• ‘EDI without Justice is like football without a goal. You can substitute as many players as you want to have different players on the field- but what is the goal? That's why we have a JEDI approach- we foreground the Justice as the goal. Justice is tackling the injustice and inequality and seeking systemic change....’

• ‘Inclusion inevitably means we're working to replace ourselves with more people who share lived experience of inequity and cultural and social stigma but sometimes it’s important to invest in those people, where that is needed to allow equitable engagement.’

• ‘Feminist leadership principles - self awareness, self care, dismantling bias, inclusion, sharing power, responsible and transparent use of power, accountable collaboration, respectful feedback, courage and zero tolerance - work for me.’

• ‘This might be controversial, but I think there's a lot of talk about leadership at the moment and maybe not enough about managing the highly complex environment we are in. I think management needs re-imagining even more than leadership does. But we can't avoid that because it has to be done.’

• ‘Good looks like leading in your mission and values, not just leading your business. Agree we need to work on building trust, we lack brilliant convening and, in some ways, more importantly facilitation skills for building justice focused collaboration, in braver spaces...’

• How to counter the existing ‘command and control’ model? - here’s what one breakout group said:

  • Overall – call it out and don’t be complicit in it – don’t be sucked in to processes that are tokenistic or window dressing.

  • We must understand our own bias, experiences and values as that will be informing our beliefs and approach.

  • When we are in roles that have perceived power, we must recognise that and be mindful of it.

  • Our systems need a mix of generalists and specialists.

  • What does representative leadership look like and how do we build greater representation – that should be a core function of leadership.

  • We can’t forget that leaders are human too – it’s important we understand the fears and vulnerabilities of people in power.

  • Leadership is often about helping groups build a shared understanding.

  • Beware when people are taking concepts and “doing” them without any care or respect for the underpinning methodology or philosophy of the approach – if you take away or ignore too many pieces.

2. How can we unlock our humanity and imagination?

 In our meetings over the last year, we’ve identified that:

• Our humanity can build bridges and move us to change.

• Collective imagination can make a different future possible.

• There are ways to make a different kind of space to listen deeply to each other, share our stories, and tell new ones.

But some people may feel this is a distraction or are uncomfortable with opening up. How can we overcome that hesitancy and mainstream these approaches?

Phoebe Tickell

Phoebe Tickell from Moral Imaginations explained that through Moral Imaginations she was working with civil society organisations, local authorities and communities to embed imagination into place.

Imagination is an extremely powerful force for change, she said, and humanity can build bridges and power us to change. Imagining allows us not just to see a different future but to feel it. The problem is not that we lack imagination, but that we have often block it.

Children are naturally imaginative as we can see when they play, but ‘imagination gets colonised’ in the pursuit of ‘one right answer’ and we end up with ‘cookie-cutter’ brains. As a consequence, imagination is sidelined into entertainment and is often only reserved for some people in our society who work in the arts, for example. But we all need imagination, so ‘we need to de-colonise and re-wild our imaginations’.

To do this, we require:

• Dedicated time and space as adults to imagine.

• Permission (which is often withheld in a performance culture, where people may fear humiliation or being laughed at if they exercise imagination).

• Help through portals and exercises, which unlocks not just the brain but also feeling.

In the subsequent discussion, these were some of the points made:

• Story-telling is a powerful technique to unlock imagination and humanity. It can be much more effective than simply trying ‘to fight policy with policy’.

• ‘We share more in common than appears…we need to start dreaming again. Martin Luther King din’t have a plan, he had a dream.’

• ‘When I was working as a theatre director often the most important thoughts and breakthroughs came as we had a pint outside of the rehearsal room exactly because one's brains work differently when out of the very instrumental work environment and we were being more ruminative. As Pheobe says our brains really do have different ways of working and it is important to tap in all its ways.’

  ‘There was agreement about the importance of time and space, and also permission to get into that space.

• We should get people to try, and win over hearts and minds that way. These shifts need day-in-day-out practice.

• Good faith is important in helping people who disagree with each other to find common ground.

• ‘This is really hard for people who simply feel they cannot imagine a different life. Creativity is necessarily about being open to change – it takes time and tending to – sometimes also being held. It’s also about conflict… of the individual grappling with their own story, of organisations trying to change, of creating more empathy and tolerance. Collective imagination can help to centre equity into contexts through story-telling and deep understanding.’

• One breakout group talked about the difference between different people and their ability to access imagination and creativity - and how that does differ naturally between people. We also talked about the journey of realising over 10 or 20 years that your imagination and creativity are important and to believe in them. We also touched on the importance of collective intelligence and imagination in teams.

3. How can we remove the roadblocks?

In the course of the last year, we’ve heard that many people at every level can play a part in driving change by:

• Challenging and changing whatever stands in the way, including the deep-seated assumptions that can prevent us from being our best selves.

• Calling out inequalities and abuses of power, and making sure everyone can participate on their own terms.

• Assuming the best in others and seeing difference, conflict and division as an opportunity to pause, seek to understand, and find a fresh way.

But resistance to change is widespread, whether through culture, systems or practices. So how can we get better at overcoming the resistance and removing the roadblocks?

Kristian Tomblin

Kristian Tomblin from Devon County Council explained that he had worked for 15 years in a commissioning role for services for people with complex needs, including the victims of sexual violence. Five years ago he had started a listening exercise and concluded that he was complicit in a service architecture that causes harm. He and others were heavily invested in managerialism and target cultures, and found it hard to imagine beyond what we already practised and thought. The focus was on service optimisation.

Reflecting on how to break down this culture, he said change starts with us, echoing the final Better Way principle. ‘We change the system by changing ourselves’, he explained.

It is important to listen, and not just to make that an add on. This is the real work, not a distraction from it. You need to make time for it, go out and ‘make stories visible’ and don’t just talk to people who agree with you. The currency of achieving is learning, he said. The only rules should be ‘don’t break the law and do no harm’. He tells people he works with to experiment, test and learn, build community and show more empathy.

Change goes viral when empathy is deployed, he concluded, quoting Andy Brogan:

‘Trust is the outcome. Empathy is the practice.

Since behaviour is reciprocal . ..

If we want more change then we should show more empathy.

Change goes viral when empathy is the vector.’

Here are some of the points made in the following discussion:

• Recognising we are part of the problem is a good starting point, and empathy must start with ourselves in order to find genuine authenticity.

• It’s important to listen to people’s stories and develop an ‘empathetic ear’.

• "Be the change" - Ghandi.

• Time-wasting can be a major block to change - it is a well-known technique for those who resist change to string things out in order to dissipate energy.

• You need to go where the energy is, rather than butting your head against a wall. Seek out the people who want to do things differently and work with them. But don’t avoid the difficult issues, or conflict.

• Crises, like the pandemic, can help to unblock the road blocks.

• ‘One of the benefits of the pandemic for those of us privileged to be in roles that allow it, is the opportunity to think differently about our life balance (I don't like the juxtaposition of "work/life balance"). We can use our time to make ourselves as effective as possible as leaders. For me, exercise is essential to this: meditative cycling and climbing which is a complete distraction.’

• Take time to tune in and understand the true dynamics and develop a map of the blocks and enablers, visible and invisible.

• You need to give real permission to create a learning culture, as making mistakes can often end up being punished.

• ‘Positive dissenters are our friends..’

• We need accountability frameworks to ensure change happens and that those with power cannot restrict the pace or extent of change.

• Values matter but the practices we actually follow matter more in making change happen.

• ‘The importance of trust and reaching out, building bridges and being organisations comfortable with bringing together unusual suspects to make change happen and to bridge points of different for common benefit.’

• ‘The voluntary sector can be good at challenging others but less itself and when seeking common ground it can sometimes find a superficial place of agreement’.

Where next?

Steve Wyler, the national co-convenor of A Better Way, explained that we want to build on what we’ve learnt in 2021 and take our work to an even higher level, adapting and changing as we have all along, in order to build a Bigger We. We’ve heard how much our members value the opportunity in our network to share and inspire each other, he said.

The experience of Covid-19 has shown the potential to do things differently and challenges such as global warming and growing poverty demonstrate that we must, explained. We want to grasp the opportunity to widen the conversation, increase our impact and promote systems change. So, subject to the views of the Gathering, Steve said that we plan to:

• Continue with our existing four cells based on the Better Way model, and support regional or local groups where there is appetite for this.

• Set up discussions on the three big cross-cutting questions set out above and also where people tell us they want to work together to tackle common issues and, if there’s an appetite, run a series.

• Building on our roundtable in October 2021 on social care, hold further roundtables on major services and systems and seek subsequent opportunities to influence wider change and bring new people into the network.

• Continue with discussions without formal agendas including our twice monthly drop-in meetings for new members and existing ones who want to touch base, and also look for other opportunities to deepen relationships between members..

• Experiment with different types of meetings – including collective imagination spaces.

 In a poll, 85% of participants said this work programme was about right. Here are some comments left in the chat bar:

• ‘I really like the programme for next year. However, I would also like to have discussions within Better Way about how our principles and behaviours can be applied to some of the specific cultural and societal challenges that threaten to undermine the achievement of the Better Way. These are wider than the systems and structures we directly work in.’

• ‘Yes I agree. Some that I see include: healthy use of social media for young people, the belief that owning expensive stuff/brands (cars, trainers, etc) makes you happier, how do we help young people have healthier attitudes towards body image, etc.’

• ‘Whilst I appreciate that being online has helped Better Way widen and reach out, nonetheless it would be really good to have the face-to-face meetings back please.’

• ‘Is it time for "thought leadership' to become very practical and start running issue-processing sessions for members?’

We then talked about how to increase our influence, with Steve and Caroline outlining their initial thoughts. As our network grows, so do the opportunities for distributed leadership. We hope to discover even more ways for members to play a part in widening and diversifying the network, strengthening its influence and helping it become a catalyst for wider change, they said. For example, we hope to:

• Publish a book of essays and articles by our members early next year.

• Identify thought leaders for new cells.

• Encourage members to spread the word and bring new people into the network, including across the UK.

• Establish a new role of Better Way ‘connectors’ for this purpose, and some may even establish new cells in their areas.

• Create twitter campaigns encouraging our members to take part.

• Explore the idea of ‘buddying’ for members who want to more actively support each other.

We will also be investigating new ways to secure the future of the network, including options for longer term funding, putting the network on a more sustainable footing while also maintaining a light touch and responsive way of working.

Some points made by members in response included:

• ‘Strengthening each other to do better may be a sufficient role and is an important purpose.’

• ‘Over the longer term, be ambitious. This is not a quick fix.’

• ‘We are wondering about, how we connect with other similar networks, if we could produce some "so what" pieces, and if we should attempt to engage with those who disagree.’

• ‘I would be happy to help grow the influence of the network including joining Twitter conversations and coming to small meetings to explain the Better Way’s work to influential people.’

• ‘Today's society is dictated by media and politics. Tomorrow's society could be very different. Connected deeply to itself at every level and in open conversation with itself. Storytelling/networks/culture and independent media are part of this networked society, they help to enable it. Better Way could be part of a larger conversation around this society in transition.’

• ‘A campaign of letters to all our MPs about Better Way work and principles and inviting conversations with them and leading to roundtables hosted by them.’

• ‘A Better Way “training camp”.’

• ‘The mix of people who contribute to Better Way is really helpful. I still think the role of Better Way as a safe, yet challenging place for discussion is good - “re-wilding the conversation”.’

• ‘We do have to target the politicians … we also need to draw in more younger leaders so that they can draw strength and challenge as we do from the Network.”

• ‘It would be great to encourage links between Better Way members around practical challenges - that helps roots our discussions, which sometimes can get a little bit high level and esoteric in the real world challenges we are all facing. The essays can be a start to this.’

• ‘We should also perhaps acknowledge more that there are other networks and sources of insight and expertise that have overlap and with whom we could forge common cause around our principles and concerns.’

In an online poll, 70% said the network should continue beyond the end of 2022 , 30% said they didn’t know, and nobody said it should not continue.

Concluding remarks

Sufina Ahmad

Sufina Ahmad, the Director of the John Ellerman Foundation which supports a Better Way, made some concluding remarks. She said she had personally valued the space created by the network even before the Foundation became involved, and this was her third annual Gathering. Three points particularly struck her from this year:

• Language really matters, it can make things worse, be taken out of context, and can lead to culture wars. She was heartened to take part in a deep and thoughtful conversation today about language, e.g. the language of beneficiaries and grantees, looking at the ancestry of language, what it really means, avoiding practices like greenwashing.

• Resilience had emerged as a key issue - people had always been stretched paper thin, but now vulnerability was being pushed to new levels, particularly as a result of the pandemic. Sharing power and leadership can help sustain us and help us challenge notions of leadership and support new forms.

• Earlier in her life, she had focused on her personal independence, but building a ‘Bigger We’ really resonated with her now. We need to build a better form of ‘interdependence’ and find the right relationships to pursue the good life. But are we doing enough to build this inter-dependence? The network has a wide membership, but it is still missing huge swathes - for example, campaigners. As we build a Bigger We, we need to bring them into the conversation.
  

What people value about a Better Way: quotes from the event

During one break in the Gathering we asked people what they valued about A Better Way, and here are some of the things they said:

• ‘Meeting new people from diverse sectors with similar values, hopes and fears.’

• ‘The opportunity to learn from others which means that my own ideas evolve and improve. I've learned a massive amount from Better Way meetings.’

• ‘I’m a new to the Better Way Network, and tripped over you. But it’s been brilliant to discover a whole swathe of people across the country who are chewing through and finding their way through this dichotomy between service-led solutions and community-empowerment.’

• ‘I value having my brain expanded by Better Way and discussing ideas and concepts above the day to day. I also value the wide variety of experiences from across the country (mostly England I think, we could benefit from some more pan-UK experiences) and the relentless optimism that people have!’

• ‘l always value from Better Way the embrace of thinking, passionate people, and the evolution of the ideas here that keep on being able to provoke as well as nurture my own.’

• ‘I enjoy encountering a variety of different people and diverse range of views. And it would be good to go beyond platitudes. I have in mind hearing from others about how they've overcome problems like listening to people they don't typically speak to, or clarifying what collaboration means in practice, or saying what a culture is and what it's not, or saying how trust was rebuilt, or describing how they reached innovative breakthroughs and so on. Powerful stories like these provide a rich source of learning me thinks.’

• ‘I have benefited from the wonderful relationships that I have built, that have helped me believe in myself. I am a very different person from who I was 4 years ago. My ideas and beliefs are ever changing - surfacing new issues/ideas, making sense of them, embedding them into my practice, then believing them. Better Way is a key contributor to my evolving thinking.’

• ‘Better Way is like jumping into a wild hot spring in winter with the fascination of new depths and a reassuring temperature of thinking that connects you to find purpose with others.’

• ‘Solidarity with challenge. Leadership without ego.’

• ‘I really value being in a safe space and place. Being able to listen to different perspectives. seeing ‘old familiar’ places but also new ad different ones. National perspectives. Thoughtful contributions. Brain food.’

• ‘I love Better Way Network spaces and events - always leave with great brain food.’

• ‘Always great energy and lots to reflect on.’

• ‘For me personally one of the benefits I have taken and continue today to take from A Better Way is that it is the one of the key (and few) places where I have been able to learn, have my skills upgraded and, found support and fellow feeling as a leader. I think that should be an acknowledged purpose of the Network.”

And a challenge:

• ‘This is my first time to the “Better Way” network event - Just want to understand if Better Way is one of the many power systems that may be contributing or maintaining current structural divisions or equip within it culture to embrace those voices to make shared and meaningful change. How many in this space want to give up some of that power that make your lifestyle comfortable!’

Before the Gathering, we also circulated a survey to members and reported back on the results at the Gathering. Everyone who responded said they like the Better Way principles, with 83% saying 'very much'. 94% of respondents also told us they like the model of change which sets out our four behaviours for helping to realise those principles. Comments include: ‘incredibly useful’, ‘I use this regularly in my work’, ‘meaningful no matter what sector you are from’, ‘very much about how as well as what.’ When asked whether the network should continue, 89% said that they believed it should and nobody said it should not.

Roundtable on a Better Way and Adult Social Care

Summary of key points

• There needs to be ‘a rebirth of humanity’, leading to more connection and community. The aim should be to create a new eco-system of mutual support for people within their communities - ‘local people caring for local people with local people’ - as well as more personalised services.

• Change cannot be achieved without listening to people and hearing their stories in a way that focuses on strengths. There need to be a new kind of conversations, in which stories are exchanged and strengths are celebrated. Trusting relationships between residents, communities and professionals also need to be established, in which ‘lanyards are left at the door.’

• Individuals, families, communities, the voluntary sector and businesses as well as services are all part of the system and need to join forces and work together.

• Local authorities must move from being a ‘gatekeeper of public money’ to a partner for residents and voluntary and community groups.

• Resistance within bureaucracies is enormous and requires change at many levels, from services and systems, to culture and mindsets.

• Investment needs to be made in helping communities to connect up people and make sure they are inclusive.

In more detail

The roundtable considered how the Better Way principles and in particular our model of the behaviours required to achieve change might help create better support for adults in future.

The first speaker was Neil Crowther from Social Care Futures, who argued that we all want to live in the place we call home with the people and things that we love, in communities where we look out for one another, doing the things that matter to us. Social Care Futures is seeking to imagine, communicate and create a future where what we currently call social care makes a major contribution to everyone’s wellbeing and which, as a result, will enjoy high levels of public – and hence political – support; and it uses story-telling and imagine to help it do so.

Neil outlined what he called the ‘framing challenge’ at present, moving to a more positive story, for example, from ‘looking after our most vulnerable’ to ‘caring about and supporting each other’.

When organised well, he said, partnerships between local councils and others would weave a web of relationships, an eco-system of support, that primarily supports people in their communities. In this world, people would be the heroes in their own story, rather than being portrayed as vulnerable and passive as they too often are now.

The second speaker was Stephan Liebrecht, the Operational Director of Adult Social Care at Barking & Dagenham council in London. He explained that, when he joined the council, social workers had been largely reactive and their communications were full of jargon. They were undertaking 35 page assessments of need. To help shift from this model, he introduced active listening techniques. In the autumn of 2018, practitioners were asked to focus on the residents’ stories and then to retell these stories, focusing on the positives not deficits - a task which proved hugely difficult for them, initially, because of the cultural shift required. This process gave residents the space to speak about themselves, rather than answering questions from a drop down menu, and allowed practitioners to understand them and assess needs in a much more personalised way. Barking & Dagenham held a celebratory event in which three of these residents told their story, and some of their stories were made into songs. Social workers were then asked to spent time with a voluntary sector provider, a faith or neighbourhood group to explore what they might be able to offer.

These steps have moved them toward a Community Led Adult Social Care System, where social workers become a link between the resident and voluntary sector, and where residents are empowered to improve their lives with the support of the community. This requires the social workers to switch from being gatekeepers of state funding to a partner for residents and community groups. The council’s role has also moved more toward advising and supporting other professionals and community groups in partnership, seeking to promote prevention and early intervention, though still stepping when people need active care.

The final opening speaker was Clare Wightman, the CEO of Grapevine Coventry and Warwickshire, who told us about their work on a Healthy Communities Together project funded by the Kings Fund and the National Lottery Community Fund. Although it was still early days, she wanted to share their insights with us.

Clare stressed the importance of ‘person, place and first hand experience’. It is vital, she said, not to start from the existing institutions but from the people - forming strong relationships, listening to people with lived experience, sharing and building power and joining forces with everyone in the system, which includes not just services but families and businesses. Otherwise it is just ‘reorganising the deckchairs’. Resistance to change is enormous and there are lots of layers at which change is needed, from the services currently visible to everyone, to mindsets.

Their project is based in a particular community in Coventry and started by deep listening with an individual here called ‘Sam’, who has serious mental health issues and who was willing to join their team to help them deeply understand his and others experience of social care. The team also immersed themselves in the local community so that they became ‘part of the local furniture’, which led up to three big conversations with local people in a church, to which more and more people came as word spread. Sam’s story, not of victimhood but of his strengths, was at the centre and the events involved sharing stories and the professionals involved ‘parking their power, and taking their lanyard off’.

They are now at the stage where they want to create a plan for a healthy community, and to grow horizontal power. Six ongoing partnerships have been established and they want to create more across Coventry.

Points made in the subsequent breakout groups and plenary discussion included:

• A revolution is required with a new settlement between the state and communities and a different role for professionals. Trust needs to be built up between the parties.

• The vision should be ‘local people caring for local people for local people’.

• Starting from people’s life stories can lead to a very different perception of needs, and can even save money in some cases, although it is also the case that social care is under-resourced.

• Bureaucratic silos need to be broken down, and co-production must become intrinsic and should also take care not to exclude any groups.

The roundtable ended by inviting three respondents to give their reactions to what they had heard.

Olivier Tsemo from SADACCA, an Afro-Caribbean Community-based Association in Sheffield which has won awards for its services, said that what was required was nothing less than a rebirth of humanity, a ‘good society’, with a blended approach of community, connection and services.

Audrey Thompson from Doncaster, now in her eighties, commented at her surpise on being portrayed as a ‘vulnerable person’ in Covid. She talked about the importance of community social educators and training to help build community connection, which she had been involved in actively in her life. ‘If you cut the roots, you kill the tree’.

Khatija Patel from Ideal for All in Birmingham, a user-led charity and social enterprise working to make life better for disabled, elderly and vulnerable people and their carers, said she agreed with the points made by the previous speakers. It was important not just to join up people and services but also to empower people. And she asked, what next? Would the group continue…

Summing up, Caroline Slocock, the national co-convenor for a Better Way, highlighted the importance of humanity, community and connection in looking at the future of social care, rather than just focusing on discrete services. Thinking radically about social care requires new kinds of conversations between residents and everyone involved to find out what’s not working and what will; forging deeper, trusting relationships within the community, across services and sectors and in the way services are given, as Grapevine’s work vividly illustrated. This is partly about building the power of connection and community to enable people to live the kind of life they want, as set out by Social Care Futures, and also about local authorities, professionals and others sharing their power, as Stephan Liebrecht had described, so that everyone could join forces to create a better system of mutual support and care. What was also clear, from the discussion, she concluded, was how great the barriers to change are and how important it is to share knowledge and insights amongst ourselves, going forward.

Sharing and building power: challenging abuses of power

The topic discussed was how to challenge abuses of power.

The first opening speaker was Jill Baker from the Lloyds Bank Foundation, who spoke about her experience in a range of public and voluntary sector roles across her career. You can listen to what she said here.

The second speaker was Kristian Tomblin who works as Principal Commissioning Manager in a local authority, who told us about his experience in relation to domestic violence services, which he writes about here.

Here are some of the key points made by speakers and in discussion:

• we need to understand power, which is often complex, to challenge it.

• Faced with the enormity of change in a sector or system it can all seem too big, but we can try to do what we can. Everyone has power and it is their responsibility to give it away, practising ‘servant leadership’ in which you see your power as underpinning of other people.

• You should start with the assumption that most people want to make a positive difference. Everyone in the public sector, for example, wants to do a good job but too often services aren’t working for the people served and, even though the professionals know this, they keep on with the current system, partly because of fear, inertia, of being blamed if something went wrong.  You have to work hard to create a sense of power to do things differently.

• We need to call it out when you see something wrong and sometimes humility and humour work best.

• We need to move away from old to new forms of power, for example moving from managerialism and specialism to networked governance and radical transparency and listening deeply to people to understand what is really needed. Power begets more power and often in the public sector the symbols of power can themselves be very offputting, from the grand buildings to the fixed policies.

• It can be incredibly hard to ‘turn the ship around’ even with the best will in the world. Just having the right policies is not enough because so many structures and policies and regulations stand in the way.

• Networks of practitioners who support and learn from each other is one way to strengthen the forces of change and exercise new forms of power. A Better Way is itself an example.

• There are very few models of this form of power. It helps to make change real to show that it is possible.

• Those with power need to learn to listen deeply and create space and time to do so. Empathy is important.

• Giving away power in itself won’t always work. You need to equip people, and build relationships with them. ‘Power sharing’ is in danger of becoming a buzz word.

• We really need to up our game with people experiencing distress. Things can easily fall into a negative spiral, with those with power stamping down and consolidating their power over people who are perceived not to be behaving properly eg behaviour management of ‘disruptive’ children in schools. This relates to deep-seated social norms. We need to be able to sit comfortably with people in distress.

• Creating this new form of power takes time, it’s a long journey, and the model is not suited to modern Britain where the corporate model is uppermost.

Putting relationships first: leadership

The topic discussed was: the qualities of leadership that build strong relationships and how to promote them. The opening speakers were Nick Sinclair, who told us about what he had learnt from the New Social Leaders programme he is running at Community Catalysts, and Sophie Kendall from the Oxford Hub who has taken part in that programme.

Key points from the speakers and in the subsequent discussion included:

• We are still in ‘the thick of’ the pandemic, even though we appear to have gone back to normal, and this is still a moment in which relational skills are most important.  The greater use of online meetings has been a leveller and opened up new possibilities, as well as reducing physical connection.

• We can all be leaders, not just managers, and need to find our own style, not be constrained by cultural norms around leadership.

• To be a good leader you need to be able to build good relationships.  The qualities most prized in other leaders in Community Catalyst’s New Social Leaders programme include warmth, selflessness, honesty, kindness, openness, passion, determination, and the ability to build and inspire trust. 

• These kinds of empathetic leaders find the courage to ‘be themselves’, discover strength in their own vulnerability, step out of the way and create space for the new to emerge, rather than trying to specify outcomes in advance.  They realise power in others  and use this for good.

• Command and control leadership and hierarchies can undermine these qualities – the difference between the centralised NHS Volunteer scheme, which didn’t work, and neighbours helping out neighbours during Covid, which did.

• This kind of leadership is not just about qualities but also about behaviours and refining new tools – listening, creating new kinds of spaces, getting out of people’s way, sharing and giving up power.

• We need to challenge existing cultural norms of leadership by creating a new idea of what leadership is for – leaders as ‘community builders’ who create communities of interest, practice and place and build  community inside as well as outside organisations; and we need to explain why this is more likely to create value than command and control and new public management.

 After the meeting, James Dixon wrote this blog about leadership styles.

Sharing and building power: the power of imagination

The topic discussed was how to unlock the power of imagination in order to share and build power. The first opening speaker was Phoebe Tickell who spoke about her work at Moral Imaginations and the use of metaphors and storytelling to stimulate the collective imagination of a different future, including the Impossible Train story which she narrates here.

The second speaker was Athol Halle who talked about what he had learnt when he was CEO of Groundswell, and subsequently, including Groundswell’s use of forum theatre, where homeless people work with the audience to imagine different stragegies for their life, as explained here.

Key points made by the speakers and participants included:

• Techniques to unlock the imagination may to some feel a step too far from the current emphasis on the art of possible, evidence based policy-making and the rational rather than emotional, though everyone in the discussion was positive about the possibilities. 

• Indeed this could be seen as the only way forward: the wrong place to start, given the scale of challenges we face, is from existing bureaucracies and systems and incremental change.  Many of the people who have stimulated widescale changes have been motivated by a ‘dream’.  Hope, fear, hate and love are powerful drivers of change, not just rational forces.

• There is a systematic lack of imagination in society, and it is too often suppressed in our children through the educational system.  We need to recover our ‘inner child’ and use playful techniques to unlock the imagination.

• We need to create new spaces and activities, which allow us to collectively imagine a better future, including retreats and awaydays.

• It’s important this is not just seen as an elite activity and that power imbalances are addressed.  Many people feel disempowered and feel unable or unwilling to engage in imagining change.  Creating enjoyable activities, eg walking, or fishing, in which people can meet and forge new relationships and shift power, though this is often a long process.

• Civil society is itself a strong resource for imagining, dreaming and for visionaries but its skill in innovation and disruption needs to be better understood and valued.

Listening to Each Other: Citizens’ Assemblies

Summary of key points

The theme of the discussion was ‘Citizens Assemblies: are these a good way to generate better solutions to tough problems? ‘

The main points which emerged from the discussion were:

• If our political system cannot embrace methods, such as Citizens’ Assemblies, that widen democratic participation, then that system will be seen as increasingly moribund.

• It’s no good trying to run a Citizens’ Assembly on the cheap.

• It’s critically important who frames the agenda. Combining community organising with Citizen’s Assemblies could be a good way of both framing the agenda and building momentum for change.

• Done well, Citizens’ Assemblies can generate fresh and often bolder responses to entrenched and complex problems.  And at the same time make a contribution to tackling the democratic deficit.

• But they are not the only method, and fundamental change often requires the practice of radical listening, for which smaller more intimate conversations rather than Citizens’ Assemblies may be better suited.

In more detail

Steve Wyler, co-convenor introduced the model of change set out in the recent Better Way publication Time for a Change.

In this cell we are exploring the ‘listening to each other’ element of this model while noting that there are connections between all four elements, and indeed that applying them in combination makes each more effective.

Our focus this time is ‘Citizens Assemblies’.

Karin Woodley, thought-leader for this Better Way cell, said that we need to dismantle the filters that we set up when we set out to listen to people, and offer new types of spaces that allow people to tell their own stories, without interruption.

Andy Mycock from the University of Huddersfield spoke of the drivers that have led to the creation of Citizens’ Assemblies. These include the decline in participation in local democracy, and in the national democratic process as well. Some advocates of Citizens Assemblies see them not only as a way to achieve greater participation in public decision making, but also as a means to build voice and agency, and to exercise scrutiny over the formal political process.  It is certainly the case that those who participate do experience a steep learning curve, although the ability to exercise scrutiny is often less obvious.

There are various questions which are difficult to resolve. Should Citizens Assemblies been seen as a complement or a challenge to existing democratic structures? Sometimes indeed they are seen as a threat, by local councillors or MPs for example. But if they therefore have a disruptive effect, could that be regarded in itself as a positive outcome?  Do Citizens Assemblies actually improve the quality of decision making, or not?  And are they addressing the symptoms or the causes of the democratic deficit?

The cost and complexity of Citizens’ Assembles can be considerable, and this presents a barrier to their more widespread adoption.  There are also inherent difficulties about bias and prejudice – they can become vehicles for the projection and perpetuation of established views. And ultimately, because they do not have executive powers, their findings can be rejected or ignored. However, the evidence to date does suggest that in some cases at least they are capable of generating well-informed and well-considered solutions where other methods have made little progress.

Rich Wilson, from OSCA, previously co-founder of Involve, and currently helping to run the Global Citizens Assembly for COP26 spoke next.  

The big innovation of Citizens’ Assemblies, he believes, is sortition, in others words, the selection of people by lot (as is also found in the jury system).  The benefit of this is not only that Citizens’ Assemblies are by definition more inclusive, but also that they often produce more ambitious policy.

Citizens’ Assemblies have potential to generate change, either because they have been established by politicians who are willing to act on the outcomes, or because they serve as a platform for citizen activism. In the former case they risk a debilitating parent-child relationship, and remain within an ‘old power’ framework centralised on governments. In the latter case, the Citizens Assembly itself can constitute a political chamber, and can become a manifestation of a ‘new power’ framework where the political process is more widely distributed across communities.

Looking ahead, the challenges are to design a form of Citizens’ Assembly which involve larger numbers (beyond the upper limit of 100 or so at present) and which can evolve into a permanent institution.

Discussion

Breakout sessions were then held to consider the question: Can Citizens Assemblies generate better solutions to tough problems? In the feedback and further discussion participants offered the following responses:

We need to encourage politicians to embrace this way of doing things, or if they won’t, the political system itself will need to change

• It was pointed out that politicians tend not to like Citizens’ Assemblies as they are seen as challenging their power.

• However, this is not always the case and in Newham the elected Mayor has established the first permanent Citizens’ Assembly, using the principle of sortition.  

• We asked ourselves whether we should we be trying to persuade the existing political parties to adopt more distributed democratic processes such as Citizens’ Assemblies, or whether we need to establish a new political party with a primary aim of giving away power?

Citizens’ Assemblies only add value when they are designed and run to the highest standards

• Citizens’ Assemblies run on the cheap can lead to poor processes and undermine the concept.

• There is a need for quality assurance, and protocols, to ensure that Citizens’ Assemblies operate well.

Community organising can be a good way to frame the agenda for a Citizen’s Assembly

• There is a fundamental different between a Citizens’ Assembly which is set up to inform and guide an existing power holder, and one that is set up to challenge a prevailing system.

• It was felt that a prior exercise in community organising, or something equivalent, is needed, to frame questions which are meaningful for the people who participate, and which can also build momentum for action to follow.

What really matters is radical listening

• Citizens’ Assemblies function in a political and academic context, and they don’t necessarily lend themselves to a process of listening without a predetermined agenda, especially where the scope of the inquiry is limited by powerful institutions.  

• Citizens’ Assemblies can have a place in developing solutions to complex problems, especially those where there are not already sharp party political dividing lines.

• However, they should not be seen as a substitute for other types of listening exercise, especially small-scale more intimate discussions, which can create spaces for fresh and creative ideas to emerge, and those, some felt, may prove the more powerful means to accomplish a deeper change.

More information

To find out more, see the following articles which were circulated to participants before the event:

• https://newint.org/features/2021/02/08/defibrillating-democracy

• https://carnegieeurope.eu/2020/11/05/getting-climate-citizens-assemblies-right-pub-83133