Capacidad de atracción de talento en la empresa: Marca

Figure 5B outlines how themes were subsequently determined from the categories of tensions identified by the key actors. This chapter describes how the key actors identified funding as the first discovery and key principle. The key principle includes the important role that funding and adequate resources play in influencing decision making at the local level. When considering the various perceptions and tensions as outlined in the shared stories, some common topics emerged and these have been summarised in the form of two scenarios. Figure 5B outlines these scenarios and I continue the discussion and argument on how streamlining and starving of funds can influence decision making at the local level. Adequate resources and the two essential actions of the Act are considered as part of my analysis.

Adequate resources

As described by many key actors, the link between reduced funding and inadequate resources was so strong the two were almost interchangeable. Here I argue that adequate resources are essential to enable the championing of any case for change. Many of the key actors reported that, as Sure Start funds were being streamlined, a fundamental shift was evident in resources available to complete existing demands. At the local delivery level, observations about the shift in resources included the following:

You can’t engage with lots and lots of young people or children or families without any funding at all and we’re moving more and more towards that direction (Participant 32 – Group A).

Often tensions between the service delivery and policy directive level became evident, with challenges being identified as policies were implemented.

Minister Pickles can talk about localism until the cows come home but I think the actual reality of the delivery of it is something else and one of the things we have to manage. We’re trying to manage demand down. There’s a real dichotomy of what central government want and how we translate that into a local framework (Focus Group 1 – Group B).

The policy/implementation tension intensified as the impact of inadequate resources and competing existing demands intensified at local authority level.

I can see returning to work in silos with some gestures towards partnership working but I think people withdraw and it’s to do with budgets (Participant 29 – Group C).

Although manifested primarily at the central government level (Cohort G), much of this tension was described as a form of defensiveness.

If you’re asking people to work differently what they hear often is that you don’t like the way they’ve been working and so the defenses go up. It is staggering how much effort people will put into telling you why a change that works elsewhere won’t work for them (Participant 43 – Group D).

At central government level a different tension was evident, with the focus for central agencies being more on where best to apply their resources.

Well the ring fencing of Sure Start funds went and we spent a long time campaigning for the return of ring fence around Sure Start. In a sense our focus then went very quickly to making the case for services for families at a time when the local authorities were on the front line delivering major cuts. If you look at different layers of government local authority have been on the front line so our focus became less about the philosophy of it which you know was a done deal and became more pragmatic fighting to save Sure Start centres that were under threat of closing (Participant 5 – Group E).

Sure Start is a useful case because it traverses the micro, meso and macro levels. Through the exploration of cohorts across these levels the impact of the tensions, and how these impacted on local priorities, was identified and referred to as fragmentation.

You now have diverse agendas and not a common clear directive coming from central government that sets out what that vision is for local service called Sure Start and shared understanding of how you might go about putting that in place I think what we’ve got now is more fragmented, I mean is just isn’t that there is less money and less resources I think there’s less surety about what priorities are now (Participant 51 – Group F).

Even at ministerial level, recognition of the tension and its impact at the local level was evident, as was recognition of its correlation with adequate resources.

Because people’s heads have been down because they’re struggling with the budgetary problems that I outlined earlier they’re inclined at the moment to be less ambitious and visionary. At a time of deep cuts in public expenditure, people tend to focus on survival rather than innovation and I think that’s a real worry at the moment (Participant 44 – Group G).

Rather than resources continuing to support collaborative approaches, a silo effect was developing and the reduction in resources meant capacity was not only limited, but at times unable to support a collaborative approach.

As previously argued, the collaborative approach can only be adopted and sustained if sufficient resources and leadership are available (Frye and Webb 2002; Kania and Kramer 2011; Huxam 2003). The experience of the Sure Start key actors confirms the importance of adequate funding, in particular the link between adequate funding, generative leadership style and an enabling leadership approach. In addition, the Sure Start case reveals a constant tension between positive and negative experiences of fragmentation and change.

The most obvious shift and period of tension within Sure Start resources was during 2010–2012. During this period, three factors contributed to this shift and heightened tension. First, the global financial crisis (GFC) had led to austerity measures being introduced in the UK. Second, there was a change in political leadership and major changes to the way Sure Start was governed, including streamlining of funds and data misappropriation. Third, the Act (2012), although intended as a progressive framework for future policies, remained a top-down directive.

Under the Localism Act you’ve got to locally deliver things that the government tells you centrally. You have the responsibility but accountability is passed down so governments at the central level can say it’s down to the local authorities or local systems to deliver that so they have no responsibility. They control what they’re able to do and don’t do through inspections, through commissioning through the funds that come down (Participant 52 – Group F).

To understand the impact of adequate resources it is necessary to further explore the relationship described by Sure Start key actors as ‘no funding, no resources; no resources no leadership’. Although Sure Start key actors did not describe its leadership style in any explicit way, I argue that Sure Start’s leadership style pre- 2010–2012 was consistent with what Surie and Hazy (2006) refer to as a generative leadership style. Another way of describing generative leadership is ‘sense making’ (Weick et al. 2005); that is, the ability to articulate the meaning of circumstances in a way that serves as a springboard to action. Surie and Hazy extend their work to include processes of generative leadership, presenting key considerations that are inclusive of sense making and sense giving interactions and relationships. These five processes are useful in further exploring the alignment between funding and adequate resources, which I argue must precede generative leadership.

Stories shared by key actors highlighted the limitation that reduction of funds and inadequate resources imposed on Sure Start, a limitation that was particularly noticeable because of the comparison with the period leading up to the introduction of the Act and the changes in funding methodology. In the post ring fencing period, the micro level cohort, in particular, reported a reduced ability to interact with partners. In describing the five types of processes required for generative leadership, Surie and Hazy (2006, p.17) note the importance of interaction experience with others in relation to the first process required for generative leadership. In this context, the

micro cohort key actors – the key representatives of service delivery outcomes – reported a strong sense that reduced funds correlated with no or limited leadership.

Unless the Localism Act gets a special leader or something like that, whose driving it forward, who’s got a vision? Without someone who wants to bring people together I don’t think it’s going to happen (Participant 2 – Group A).

The alignment with reduced funds, and the impact on leadership and positive interaction experiences, was a common theme.

Local government experience at the moment is so dominated by austerity and cuts that any apparent shift in any powers down to them are not really experienced very meaningful. Where there has been a growth in local authority autonomy, it is often because very good leaders who have pulled together coalitions and put in place structures (Participant 34 – Group E).

In the second process of generative leadership, Surie and Hazy (2006, p.17) outlined the importance of interaction alignment. This was summarised in Figure 5A as changes in shared vision and joint approach. Interaction alignment became an obvious gap across the cohorts, especially in relation to ownership of responsibility.

I don’t think it’s the government’s role to do that it’s down to local people. We almost need a local leader or entrepreneur almost someone who will take that challenge on board (Participant 2 – Group A).

At the meso level, key actors identified both the reduced funding and governance arrangements as contributing to fragmentation. While fragmentation was presented at the lower end of the graph in Figure 5A, it played a part in each of the tensions that were summarised. This tension was best articulated in the example of council tax.

More and more central government guidance and then prescription comes along. Actually localism at the most fundamental level should be about what people want locally. How can you reconcile localism versus council capping where central government will determine what local councils are able to charge. For example the issues around council tax. The spirit of the Localism Act is right but I’m not sure that it’s made a huge amount of difference on the ground (Participants 12 & 13 – Group B).

One key actor, who resided in the DCLG and was a keen promoter of the Act, considered alignment at the local level to be separate from the giving of funds. Critiques of this line of thinking were well represented in other cohorts, but in theory

the argument to reduce dependency and promote innovation is a shared one. Although aspirations of reduced dependency were evident when confronted with inadequate resources for a generative leadership style relationship tensions easily shifted and not for the better. Surie and Hazy (2006, p.18) identified interaction speed as the third process of generative leadership and this emerged across the cohorts as a discourse strongly related to reduced funding and inadequate resources.

Retreats, cuts, austerity, and shrinking time horizons and visions are parked. God that sounds terrible (Participant 34 – Group E).

Surie and Hazy’s fourth and fifth processes of generative leadership focus on interaction partitioning and leveraging, and describe clearly how resources are allocated dynamically across sub-systems and operate to manage the interface between sub-systems. Likewise, the challenges as described by the seven cohorts of key actors in this study are a dynamic set of sub-systems as demonstrated in the challenges they have collectively experienced in both partitioning and leveraging Sure Start funds. While it was assumed that the Act was designed to assist with co- ordination across such sub-systems, this assumption was not upheld.

Streamlining of funds

Many of the key actors interviewed recognised that ‘streamlining of funds’ was commonplace, in particular during the period between 2010 and 2012. I argue that there was little evidence such streamlining reflected local needs. For example, a key actor based in Dover reported that streamlining their budget, when it had already been heavily reduced, caused an adverse impact on resources. It was noted that Dover was unlike other locations in Kent that were able to streamline funds and still maintain the same services (Participant 32 – Group A). One of the Focus Groups held with Kent County Council civil servants observed that the more central government pushed funding cuts and streamlining of funds, the more ‘precious’ and reluctant to be streamlined the community became. Another actor and local civil servant (Participant 28 – Group B) agreed. In her opinion, it was clear Dover had demonstrated inclusive decision making at the local level long before the Act. After the Act’, this was more difficult.

I think it’s just that every department in this county has had funding changes and restructure and movement so they’re looking after themselves. To be part of a bigger group was quite difficult I feel. But pre the Localism Act I feel we had good partner relationships, which was very good (Participant 28 – Group B).

Although the focus of this research is on the period 2010–2012, the preceding period is also of interest. As funds were streamlined an important change in the allocation of Sure Start resources began to emerge. Between 2006 and 2010, funding for Sure Start was no longer ring fenced and the local authorities had the power to do whatever they wanted with the funding. A notable tension between policy and funding emerged in Sure Start in the period leading up to 2010–2012. This shift was strongly reported by local civil servants whose members reported how ‘year by year [it] gets worse and worse’ with (Group B).

One Kent County Council civil servant referred to the experience of streamlining of funds and the impact on resources between 2010–2012 as a ‘watershed’. This was based on the fact that the consultation period of the Act coincided with the removal of ring fencing Sure Start funding streams to local authorities. The comment also reflected the fact that the process of un-ring fencing of funding was quite cyclical and typical of historical government changes.

Interestingly they always creep back. There’s always a temptation for just one hypothecated funding stream: it is overwhelming. If there’s going to be one there’s going to be two, then there’s going to be 30 and then in 15 years’ time another government will abolish them all and start again (Participant 27 – Group C).

The purpose of the Act was to address issues in society and ensure community visibility of government accountability. It is notable that the timing of the consultation and implementation of the Act coincided with austerity measures, which in turn created reductions in funding. Of most importance to my analysis is the influence these funding reductions had on Sure Start, due predominantly to the ring fencing being removed. More importantly, at a time when the demands upon local authorities were becoming intensified, reduced budgets were resulting in reduced services and changes in priorities. Many key actors described the streamlining of funds, leading to a reduction in resources, as a byproduct of the un-ring fencing of Sure Start funds.

Starving of funds

In general, starving of funds was described as being given responsibility for providing services previously been delivered at central government level, but with reduced funding. There was little evidence that such starving of funds reflected any local needs. For example, starving of funds was discussed at length by local civil servants who identified the fact that responsibility for funding distribution had been devolved to the county level as the key point of tension. They collectively expressed a strong view that despite this devolution not all funding decisions were left to the discretion of local authorities. For example, decisions to do with council tax and the ability to maneuver around its allocation was controlled by the central government and therefore local authorities had very little discretion. Likewise, key actors from national peak bodies noted an increase in tensions across Sure Start partners as a result of being starved of funds. The starving of funds was described as being most obvious where resources were reduced and then actors were blamed for not achieving results.

The remit to diversify the supply of public services was another essential action of the Act. However the diminished capacity of local level actors to control finances also led to a reduction in their capacity to deliver flexible, individualised public services.

One of the dichotomies is that I actually think that we’re getting more disparate between areas not as a product of the Localism Act but as a product of the reduced funding (Participant 35 – Group E).

Sure Start had more success in providing diversified services in its early stages, and the rationale for removing this diversity was heavily questioned as part of the National Evaluation (DfE 2010, p.ix). The National Evaluation results argued strongly that unless funds were ring fenced for Sure Start, then many of the quality assurance measures, including data gathering, would become fragmented. This is precisely what occurred, particularly during 2010–2012, when major shifts in funding occurred and the gathering of Sure Start data was almost discontinued.

For example, across Kent evidence as to what constituted the most cost effective practice was unknown. With such gaps in knowledge it is difficult to make decisions on the most effective use of funds – particularly when budgets ‘are being reduced by

over 50 per cent of the previous allocation, as was the case for Kent’ (Participants 6 & 7 – Group G). Many key actors made the point that, while the policy directive still expected the same level of service provision, service providers were expected to operate with less funds than previously allocated. Their ability to diversify public services while funds were being streamlined and reduced was a common theme across all seven cohorts.

At the micro level, more than one key actor described the feeling as one of ‘losing control’.

I’m actually seeing the negative from the statutory bodies, as they’re not giving us our authority to do what we want to do in the community and just leave it up to us. Actually we’re now being told they are going to control us (Participant 2 – Group A).

When the funding was no longer ring fenced, or when that ring fenced funding was taken away Sure Start became the poor partner (Participants 16 &17 – Group B).

Other key actors at the meso level recognised that enhanced control at the local level did not necessarily lead to enhanced ability to achieve desired outcomes because of reductions in funding.

Broadly the Localism Act would encourage local programs but there are of course far fewer