Cameron's "Big Society" - Power to the people or passing the buck?

In a much heralded speech yesterday, David Cameron told us more about the "Big Society" and how this would change the nature of how public services will be delivered to the citizens of the UK.  The aim was to "create communities with oomph" which would redistribute power from the Whitehall mandarins to the "man and woman in the street".  It sounds great - very radical and quite "un-conservative". But what does it really mean?

Let's think back to where it all came from.  During the election there was much talk about the "John Lewis model" for public services.  John Lewis Partnership is a retailer which is owned by its employees.  It is very successful, producing a profitable, stable performance over the years, hitting all the key performance metrics in it sector: best customer service, best employee satisfaction, best supply chain management. The employees at John Lewis Partnership, called partners, all have a stake in the business, and are able to influence the direction and management of the company.  The senior people in John Lewis and Waitrose recognise that the front line people, closer to the point of delivery, have much to contribute to how the company is run.  (Although it's worth pointing out the company isn't run by all employees, but by a high calibre, professional management team). There are obvious lessons there for a public sector which in too many areas is characterised by disenfranchised, demotivated staff and unhappy, dissatisfied service users.

Are these lessons being learned?  As a practitioner working with many organisations who are making the move, or who have already made the transition into, employee ownership, then I'm convinced that keeping the power and control within an enterprise means that the organisation can focus on what's important- getting the service or product right for the customer and user. When the prime driver within a business is satisfying external shareholders who are usually motivated by financial return, then that dynamic changes. Evidence proves that employee owned businesses deliver more sustainable performance from happier employees to more satisfied customers.

In the public sector, where the push is often political targets, we have seen how the result is often a diversion away from what's important, to what produces the most politically palatable results. Teachers complain that they can't teach because they are overburdened with administration; surgeons are instructed by bureaucrats rather than being able to deploy their own expertise.

Replicating John Lewis Partnership in entirety would not be feasible, but having some sort of devolvement of power, instilling ownership into the people who deliver the services, makes sense.  The change has to be significant.  Listening to David Cameron's speech my fear is that we are now seeing change driven by a need to cut costs, not change to improve public services.  As a citizen, I don't want to run my rubbish collection service, or organise the traffic system in my town.  As a citizen, I do want these services to run well.  Let the people with expertise, those inside the enterprises, take control. Give them the authority and reason to deliver the best possible service. 

There wasn't much talk of employee ownership yesterday. Instead, it was about voluntary sector (which is already operating under extreme financial pressure) and philanthropy.  Is that really the way forward?  Will that produce better public services? It will be interesting to see what unfolds as the four trial areas get underway...