DO you go to meetings where the chair will say, as part of the welcome, ‘Chatham House rules, by the way’?
I’ve been to meetings where people will preface almost every contribution they make with ‘Chatham House rules, by the way’. Let me put my cards on the table – I think we have very different perceptions of just what that means, and I don’t think that’s helpful.
The Chatham House website helpfully has a page devoted to the Rule and the way they put it is: When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.
Well, that’s pretty clear, isn’t it? The meeting is not confidential (we don’t mention the content), nor is it super-confidential (we don’t mention that the meeting took place at all), we simply don’t say who was at the meeting. Unless, of course, that’s a matter of public record – in which case we are punctilious about not attributing anything that was said to anyone at the meeting.
The Guardian newspaper has an ‘online community site’ accessible via email – the Guardian Public Leaders Network – covering a wide range of issues of interest to those interested in ‘public service’ (understood very broadly). It follows, therefore, that each year the paper recruits public leaders to help guide the editorial staff through the complex public service landscape. The Network has over 25,000 members, and the publication normally attracts more than 225,000 page-views.
Earlier this week I attended my first meeting of the Guardian Public Leaders Network editorial board – and a fascinating experience it was. About a half-dozen people from very different walks of life gathered to share views on the context, drivers and future direction of public service in their area of work. Oh, and our views on Leadership, of course.
One of the most encouraging things about our morning spent together was the level of coherence between what the very different people around the table were saying:
- Public finances represent a very significant concern;
- Business-as-usual is simply not an option;
- There is a growing interest in ‘spin-outs’ and outsourcing;
- Despite this interest, there is simply not a matching capacity to commission intelligently;
- Despite a commitment to evidence-based service-planning, the Public Sector does not have access to the best evidence, nor the skills to commission the best research;
- As pressures on Public Services grow, workers lose their ability to be creative, and a discernible ‘blame culture’ is taking hold;
- Despite the pressures and significant risks there is still much hope that public service, a lifeline for so many communities, will define its own new narrative;
- The growing interest in public engagement and involvement in public service may have been sparked by a crisis in funding, but it just might lead to a creative paradigm and a compelling narrative…
Now, all we need is inspirational leaders.
Leave a Reply