Strategy Meets Reality In Government | Alison Guthrie-Wrenn

Strategy sounds clean on a slide deck. Then you try to deliver it inside a system with competing priorities, blurred boundaries, and a public spotlight that never switches off.

I’m joined by senior civil servant Alison Guthrie-Wrenn to talk about strategy execution where constraints are real, relationships are long-term, and legitimacy is not automatically granted. We compare what it feels like to drive change from inside an organisation versus advising from the outside, and why power dynamics and internal politics shape what can be challenged and what must be navigated.

From there, we get practical about systems thinking in government: how to start small, build influence, and use a systemic lens to see interconnections rather than isolated projects. Alison shares why large transformation programmes so often fail, and why the most resilient approach is to hold tight to a clear vision and purpose while keeping the plan flexible as reality shifts underneath you.

We also tackle the uniquely public-sector challenge of political cycles, where the route can change overnight, and sometimes even the destination changes too. Add volatility, misinformation, and “trial by Twitter”, and leaders need ways to keep options open without retreating into vague commitments. If you care about adaptive strategy, organisational change, and making better decisions in complex systems, this one will give you the language and tools you can use straight away.

Subscribe, share the episode with a colleague, and leave a review with the most useful question you’re now asking about your own strategy.

Connect with Alison: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alisonguthrie-wrenn/

Enjoying the show?

Subscribe and leave a review on your favourite platform — it helps more people find the podcast.

🔗 Full episodes, show notes, and resources: https://www.lbiconsulting.com/strategymeetsreality-podcast

📺 Watch on YouTube → https://www.youtube.com/@StrategyMeetsReality

Connect with host Mike Jones → https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-h-jones/

Transcript

Strategy Meets Reality Begins

Mike Jones 0:00

Most people do think of strategy that way. Developing a new strategy. Strategic blind spots. When strategy meets reality. Strategy and innovation.

SPEAKER_01 0:08

In the strategy world.

Mike Jones 0:09

Drive their strategic goals. And welcome back to Strategy Meets Reality Podcast. And welcome back to the Strategy Meets Product. Garag, let me speak today. Welcome back to the Strategy Meets Reality Podcast. I'm absolutely delighted to be joined by uh Alice and Guthrie Wren. And it's a pleasure that I've actually met you in person a few times before this episode. I normally get to meet people in person, so it's absolutely great to have you on. So thank you for joining me.

SPEAKER_01 0:37

Thanks, Mike. It's great to be here.

Mike Jones 0:40

Cool. And just for our guests, could you give a bit of background about a bit of context about what you've been up to lately?

SPEAKER_01 0:47

Yeah, sure. So I'm a senior civil servant uh and I've got a kind of I guess a day job that's quite busy. Um, and particularly at the minute, as you can imagine, in government, it is very busy. We, you know, there's a lot of stuff going on that that we get involved in uh on behalf of the the country uh and the government of the day. Um so that's uh that's always busy. I'm also now just starting to do some private practice. So I'm an endpoint assessor for the systems thinking apprenticeship with a few different providers, um, and I do a little bit of kind of mentoring of students on the MSc system thinking course at Exeter. So that keeps me kind of even more busy. But actually, it's super helpful because I get I learn from people as much as they learn from me, I think, in that kind of situation. So it's always really interesting to hear what other people are doing with their practice, and then you know, being able to take lessons from that. So, you know, it keeps me busy kind of doing stuff, but also keeps my brain ticking, which is good because I think we all need that.

Inside Versus Outside The System

Mike Jones 1:52

Exactly. And I think we can all get in that trap where we're stuck in one organization or one system, and then you know, it it create our own narratives, yeah. And you know, what I think is great to have you on is because a lot of my guests, as as the listeners will know, a lot of them are um consultants or they are specialists, you know, they their job is to advise organizations, and I've always been really wanting and interested to get people actually in organizations because we as I'm a consultant have the privilege of looking outwards and you know giving advice and all that stuff, but it's different when you're in the system, and especially when you're in government system, that is a highly constrained environment. So, what maybe seemed obvious for us to say and do, that's not really the reality that you you face probably day in and day out, trying to navigate the different stakeholders and constraints that you face.

SPEAKER_01 2:56

Yeah, I mean it you're right, it is a highly constrained environment for lots of really good reasons. It's also a very highly complex environment. Um, and I think some of that is visible from the outside, but actually a lot of it isn't. A lot of it's visible once you're within the system. So I think there's that that kind of adds a different facet to the work that you do. And I think there's also something about kind of where you sit on the boundary of the problem, right? So as a consultant, you've got that kind of nice position of being outside the problem, trying to fix it from outside, or help people to fix it from outside. And that feels very different to being inside the problem, trying to fix it from within, partly because of the constraints that you will be probably more aware of because you're within the system itself, but also partly because the relationships are there, the politics, internal politics, and you know, all of that sort of stuff is a very real thing for you when you're internal. And I guess the way that you're perceived is really different. You know, people perceive an external consultant very differently than someone who has a normal day job, but suddenly wants to dip into things that's like outside of their area, and it's like, oh hang on a minute, you know, do you have the expertise to do this? And yeah, and and it it's it feels very different being inside to being outside. And I've done a bit of both, and they both they both have their benefits. Um I think the more difficult one is being inside though, for me personally.

Mike Jones 4:27

Yeah, I think so, especially when you're well, you know me, you know, I'm not I'm not shy of saying what I think, um, and self-sided. Yeah. And I and I'm I'm quite used to that privilege that I can get away with saying stuff, you know, that probably people inside can't get away with, especially to whom as well. I think that that power, especially in the sort of open up debate, looking at different perspectives, is not as easy when you're trying to manage that sort of political, cultural, and also the power element.

SPEAKER_01 5:03

Yeah, that's I think that's right. I think it is the the kind of power dynamic is a bit different, and you have a sustained relationship within the organization that has to that has to endure beyond the piece of work that you're doing. So there are limits to kind of the kinds of things that you would feel able to say and feel that you should say, you know, as an internal, it does have that kind of different feel to it, and there's something about legitimacy in all of that as well, you know, as a as an external. I think you are seen as as having that legitimacy because you're an external, you've been called in to help to resolve a problem. So that gives you that legitimacy as an internal, kind of pushing against some of those boundaries. That legitimacy, you may get that, but it's not a given, it's it hasn't been granted to you by virtue of the role that you have. Whereas as a consultant, largely it has. So there is a different kind of dynamic, part of it's power for sure, and I think part of it's kind of that enduring relationship thing, and part of it is the legitimacy that can be, I think, an issue.

Boundaries, Silos And Government Scale

Mike Jones 6:14

And you know, correct me if I'm if I'm wrong, you know, but I always like view you know the government as quite boundaried in the sense that you've got your different functions. So I was thinking like with you know, especially with me, I I can quite easily move between functions and the boundaries. And yeah, I don't fully understand what it is, but like that legitimacy to move between boundaries. Well, I can imagine internally, um, if you're working in one function, like the you know, HR or operations or or whatever different functions you have, that you trying to go in there, I best I bet you encounter a lot of of defense because it's their their boundary, their world. And what are you doing coming in to look at look at what I'm doing?

SPEAKER_01 7:01

Yeah, I'm not sure. I'm not sure I would say I've experienced defence, or not explicitly, you know. I mean we you know, every profession has its own language and its own way of doing things, and that becomes implicitly a a a barrier and a defence. But I I don't I don't think that's a necessarily a deliberate thing, but I think because it it's partly I think because of the way that government is set up and the the sheer size of the machine, you know, we've got like over 500,000 civil servants. Well it's a huge piece of machinery, and you've got to be able to segment that in some way, you know, you've got to be able to do that because it's it's too big and unwieldy if you don't do that. And that segmenting over the, you know, uh I was gonna say tens of years, it's probably not tens of years, it's probably, you know, a lot more than that, has led us to where we are now in terms of kind of departmental structures. So we it it's layered, I think are layered because you've got that kind of departmental setup where you've got X number of government departments, you've then got kind of arm's length bodies and all of that, you know, uh partner organizations within that setup, some of them within that 500,000, some of them not. It's so it's very complex, and then you've got the boundaries in terms of role and and profession. So we've got professions that are recognised across the civil service, and we've you know, we've got lots of people who subscribe to those professions and who identify. You know, I'm an HR professional, I always have been. I identify with the HR profession. So you you are then further segmenting people down with, and the more you do that, the more obviously, the more risk you've got of siloing and not kind of reading across across the boundaries. So we've we've got it's not just that we've got boundaries, it's that we've got layers of boundaries. It's almost like tectonic plates, you know, the the boundaries kind of slide across each other, and and it it's a really, really complex picture. So to shift from one place to another is difficult, you know, and we we've all got you know, we've all we've all got our own acronyms and our own language and um our own IT kit and our own IT systems, and it's you know, it our own ways of doing things and budgets and headcounts, you know, all of that stuff that that we know kind of is the kind of the fabric of how government operates. You know, each department largely has its own way of doing that, and and there are similarities, but there's enough difference to make it a bit tricky.

Mike Jones 9:38

Yeah, so I think it's that it's that difference that is crucial. And I was having this um discussion with um some clients yesterday around you know, they've got different areas, they're working in Asia, they've got Europe, all different areas, and they're going, well, we do things slightly different here, and we need to do things slightly here. And I said, Well, that's that's the challenge, isn't it? I I can't sit here and go, well, it's all simple, you can all have what you want, because we don't have the resources, and actually, some things have to be centralized, some things can be decentralized. You know, we can't sometimes we may be able to accommodate difference, but a lot of the times we can't, because the more difference we create, the more complex it becomes, and then we've got to wonder if if that complexity now becomes useful or harmful to us to be able to maintain viability.

SPEAKER_01 10:29

Yeah, no, I think that's right, and of course, when you're working in other parts of the world, then there's the cultural kind of implications of that can be really, really significant. Um, and you know, I've seen that in in departments that I've worked in where we we do operate differently in different countries because that that is the the norm in that country, and obviously that's what you want to try and do. You want to try and fit in with kind of how things are done in in that part of the world, but it does become tricky, and I I think kind of the civil service goes through cycles of this stuff about do we do we centralize or do we not? Um do we have a dispersed model or do we have a centralized model for things? And normally kind of where you end up is in some kind of happy medium. Well, the problem is that kind of happy medium, there's always someone who's disappointed, and there's always there's always a bit of fallout when there's a happy medium. But you know, in an organization of that size, it's difficult to know what else you can do apart from reach compromises and and try and kind of make sure that you are doing what is right for the majority of people within the system and also for citizens, you know, because it it in the civil service, you know, largely it's about delivering for citizens, it's about best use of taxpayers' money. Are we doing this in the most efficient way possible? And if not, then what does that shift start to look like? Do we need different processes? Do we need different kinds of people in different places, fewer people, more people? It's constantly a shifting picture, really, in terms of delivering

Starting Systems Thinking Where You Can

SPEAKER_01 12:02

to the taxpayer.

Mike Jones 12:02

Yeah, and it's got to because the external environment's changing, right? You know, we what what UK was 50 years ago is definitely not what it is today. So demand will change. That's quite interesting when you because you talk about we mentioned that this is very complex as all this. So, and you're bringing you're really keen on system thinking, and you're trying to bring that into the civil service, and you think about all that complexity. Where do you even start?

SPEAKER_01 12:30

Well, I mean, you know, if I knew the answer to that makes that's a million-dollar question, isn't it? Where do you start? It's it's tricky, and I think you start with where you have influence and you start where you can with this stuff. You know, I mean the the civil service has a um has a system thinking interest group. We have a you know quite a strong network of people who are interested in working more systemically and systemic practice. We've got a whole range of departments who are doing some work on that and and who are kind of taking systems thinking and and running with it. Um co-chair a working group with externals uh to look at how we could best support government in doing some of that work and and looking systemically kind of across the system about how do we how do we help and how do we input where things uh are really difficult. But ultimately, I think you start where you personally can have the most impact. And so, I mean, that's certainly what I've done. You know, I've got involved in the community, I've I've run, you know, master classes for all so all senior civil servants now get the option of a systems thinking masterclass as part of their induction when they're new in their role as a taking that first step up into senior leadership. We try and kind of talk to them about systems thinking and why it's helpful as a leader in this kind of huge system. Um, and the take-up's really good for that, and it's really popular, but it you know, it is still a relatively small number of people compared to the population of the civil service, but it's kind of it's that that question about where do you start? And I think you start with where you can personally have influence, and that's where I can personally have influence. Um and I've gone in and kind of done work with various departments to support them and shown them kind of tools and methodologies and talk to them about this stuff, and it's something that I use a lot in in my practice as a senior civil servant. I use this stuff a lot, but it's also something that I talk about a lot with other people and say, Well, actually, you know, here's here's a problem that we're trying to grapple with. Would a more kind of systemic view be helpful? Let's have a look at just broadening out a little bit and think about kind of where all the bits fit together. And so I use the the kind of terminology and I use the thinking style a lot, and I quite often kind of talk to people about this stuff and and do keynotes for conferences and all of that sort of stuff, and and I end up always with the same phrase in my mind, which is I am not always a systems practitioner, I am always a systems thinker. A systems thinker is what I am, it's the way that I think. Systems practice is different. That's something that I do, that's something that I have to take time out of the day job and go and really focus on and do. The thinking is different, the thinking is stuff that I can do all the time, and I think people do pick up on that and they do see it, they do see that difference in the way that you would attack a an issue and value it. You know, it is really valued across government, I think.

Mike Jones 15:38

That's good. And you know, there's there's a lot in there, and I love the the thing around you are a system thinker in the way we think, um, which is which is good, but also could be a curse. I know for me, because I can get really frustrated when I see something, why, why, why is that like that? Why? That doesn't make sense. Um my clients can tell because I start playing my hair like this when I start getting like, why, why yeah, no, I know the frustration's coming. What what you what you said there is really I think a key thing when you're thinking about um that sort of the the strategy and the execution or or the development of the organisation, and it's it's where you have influence and where you can. Because I think that uh you know organisations can get themselves wrapped up so much in this perfect uh utopian, right? We've got this plan we're gonna roll out, and it's got to be this perfect plan we've got and we're gonna get everyone in and it's all going to work, and inevitably the those things don't stick. And I think just looking back and really thinking about you know where can where can we have that starting point?

Vision Over Plan In Turbulence

SPEAKER_01 16:52

Yeah, and I think uh so there's a couple of things. I mean, we know that kind of big transformation programmes on the whole don't achieve what they set out to achieve. And I think last time I looked, I think the stats depends on whose research you read, but it's something between 70 and 90 percent failure rate, which is fairly horrific when you think of the kind of the money and the effort and the energy that goes into trying to transform anything, actually, but certainly you know when it comes to kind of public services and that kind of thing. So I think I think that's that that is a problem, not not just in my organization or or in the civil service, but actually for organizations as a whole. I don't think it's just a public sector thing, I think it's a it's a it's an organizational issue. So I think there is something about kind of setting the vision and having a really strong kind of vision and purpose about things. There's a there's a quote that I often use uh um that's as, and I can't remember it verbatim, but it's something along the lines of when it's turbulent, stick to the vision, not the plan. And I think there is something about that. There's something about if your vision is to get from A to Z, then that's fine. And we have to have a really clear definition of what A is and also what Z is, and what it looks like and what it feels like, and you know what success would feel like to be at Z, what would that be? The B C D E E, etc. That's kind of up for debate, right? Because that that depends on um a whole range of different things, and certainly for us in the civil service, you know, our the the political cycles that we run on in this country mean that actually that plan has to be shiftable quite significantly, and sometimes really often, sometimes on quite a rapid kind of turnaround because we work that you know, the civil service is impartial and we work for the government of the day. So when the government of the day shifts and policies shift, then that that can you know that really changes your plan sometimes. Actually, it sometimes really changes your vision, right? So if you move from one political party to another, that vision might look quite different. The difficulty for us, I guess, as a kind of government body or as a civil service is that you that is that becomes the job. Delivering that then becomes the job, and it might look really different to the job that you set out to deliver. So there's got to be fluidity in the plan always, I think for every organization. For us in the civil service, sometimes there's also there's also fluidity in the vision, which is a bit more tricky to deal with. But we do, you know. I mean, we do, we do it all the time. That is, you know, that is the nature of working in this kind of organisation, and it's no different to organizations that go through mergers and acquisitions, and you know, that we all deal with stuff like that in our working lives. It's just probably more frequent for those of us in public sector, which makes that whole kind of try and stick to the vision, but the plan has to be fluid, even more important, I think, probably for us.

Mike Jones 20:02

Yeah, yeah. And I really like it because that it it's really important the A and the Z. But I think a lot of people get too too bogged down uh in the middle part, and less so about the A and the Z. You know, where where are we currently? Z like, you know, what's the when the smoke clears, what what's meaningfully going to be different? We seem to be looser on those and more tighter in the middle, where we need to be tighter on the ends um and looser in the middle.

SPEAKER_01 20:28

And yeah, it's kind of what difference, what difference will it make? You know, if we get to Zed, what difference will it make? And to what? You know, will it just make us feel better as an organisation? And is that is that what we want to achieve? Will it make outcomes for citizens better? And is that what we need to achieve? Clearly, it depends on the work, but you having that really clear kind of um the kind of north star really that you are aiming for. This is this is what we're trying to do, and this is why we're trying to do it, and this is broadly how we're gonna do it. The plan that's gonna shift underneath there. Yeah, and I think the other thing is, you know, we get very focused in all organisations, and I've worked in the private sector as well. I spent 10 years in the private sector before I joined public, uh, the public sector. And every organization does this. We kind of focus on the the project plan, the rag rating, the bits of the plan. So we're gonna do this and then we're gonna do that, and at some point we're gonna do this. What we tend not to focus on as much is the interconnections between them. So, what what success factors do we need in order to then progress to be? And have we fulfilled them before we've progressed to be? And are do they still hold water? Are they still the right success measures? Or actually, has the world around us shifted and do we need to just shift a little bit? And it's not about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but it is about being adaptive and kind of having that fluid and flexible kind of strategic design principle. That underpins everything because there's no point going through a whole kind of strategic plan for 12 months or whatever it was you set it out to be, only to realise that you've not achieved what you set out to achieve because the world looks entirely different to the way it did when you first set off on the journey. That's the most frustrating thing in the world.

Mike Jones 22:15

Yeah, yeah. And I think people get so focused on the minutiae stuff that they they forget to look outside. And I would say there's like you know, there's really two crucial feedback. Like one is the I call the like the effect loop, which is all this activity that we're doing is the total effect of that having the strategic effect that we're trying to go for, achieve the outcome. And the other one is the I call it the intent feedback that you know, is our strategy still relevant given what's changing in the external environment? And it's just constantly thinking about those things, I think is really crucial. And I've worked across you know, public private, and but it's really interesting in this sort of public space. I've worked across NHS and Network Rail and stuff, and things do change. Um, and they get I I think teams get so focused on what's changing, and they they forget that what's not changing. It's just like really focus on because I I work with some teams and I'd be like, Yeah, that's changing, the the things changing, but what you'll fundamentally exist for is not changing. Now you're here to you know do this or to to maintain the asset or that. So let's focus on what's not changing, and then let's see how those constraints that have now been put in uh are now going to mean that your your plan is going to have to adapt slightly or or quite a lot.

SPEAKER_01 23:39

Yeah, I think that's I think that's right. It's getting the balance right, I guess, isn't it? It's it's this it's always the same with this stuff. It there's always a balance. There's a balance and a tension between what's staying the same and what's changing, and how do we make people as autonomous as possible and able to deal with all of those slings and arrows, but we've got to know what they're all doing, and we don't want rogue operators, so you know we we have to have that cohesion kind of tension there as well. It it's all about managing those tensions, I think. Yes, in the way that we set our organisations up, but also in the way that we kind of structure the work that we do, and and and it's just sometimes I think just reminding people of that that there is always a balance, and sometimes it'll tip more one way than another. Sometimes you'll have a lot of stuff changing and not a lot staying the same. There's always something, yeah, and sometimes it'll tip the other way, and we're very kind of static, almost in stasis, really, and not a lot is shifting, and there are you know, there are benefits and downsides to all of that, isn't there? You know, I mean, if you if you are in that position, it feels very comfortable. But actually, where's your creativity, where's your innovation, what are you driving the organisation towards if you are kind of not changing a lot? So some of it is striking the balance and get and kind of talking to people about that, and some of it's about framing it in that way, I think, and certainly from a from a kind of people perspective, helping people see the benefits of both sides of that coin, because there are definitely benefits to work in in both kind of sets of scenarios, I think.

When Political Direction Shifts

Mike Jones 25:13

Yeah, yeah. And there's something that really interests me actually, because we've you know, I've talked a lot about that bit where we're talking about the fluidity that is required when you know how we get there starts to change. But you mentioned something earlier about when Zed changes and the different, you know, you you get a new political government in and that changes as shifts or something like that. Now that's something different because yeah, we're still achieving the aims here, but that's how we get there. I can sort of deal with that. But how how how have you found that people cope when fundamentally the direction changes completely?

SPEAKER_01 25:49

I think that's probably one of the most difficult things in working in this kind of environment because I think for a lot of people, you know, we spend a long time at work and we and and there are there are many, many thousands of public servants who kind of pour their heart and soul into the work that they do. They're deeply invested in it and deeply believe that what they're doing is is absolutely the right thing and is for the public good, and you know, all of that sentiment, which is absolutely fabulous, that we have that in our public services. So when that when that happens and when we see a complete shift, I mean there's always kind of minor shifts, I think, and we we kind of deal with that. But when there's a really big shift, I think that's really hard to deal with. Um, and we we have seen that, you know, in in recent times. We've we've changed governments, everybody knows that. And there are there are shifts in policy, of course there are. And I think it's it's one of the most tricky things to deal with because you you have invested your time and your energy into pursuing something. And I think the way that we tend to deal, certainly from my perspective, the way that I tend to deal with it, and I think a lot of kind of public servants tend to deal with it, is to think about to reframe it a bit and to think about, you know, our role is to invest our time and energy in supporting the government of the day, it's not about personal agenda. We are um intrinsically kind of apolitical in our stance that that is a part of being in the civil service. So I think it's about pouring your energy into, you know, is this what the government of the day was asking for? Yes, and did I do that to the best of my ability? Yes, I did. That has now shifted. This is now what we need to be focusing on, and I need to put the energy into that instead. But of course, that's difficult, you know. When you've done a job for like, I don't know, 10 years and you've gone in a certain direction to shift that overnight, it it is tricky.

Mike Jones 27:49

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 27:50

But you know, but people work in the public service kind of um arena and get and they get that, they understand that that is part of the job. You are there to support the government of the day, that's where you put your energy. I had a very, very similar conversation with kind of um senior colleagues a few weeks ago now about policy, kind of what our role is in in supporting the kind of um the development of government policy, um, and and how we can kind of make sure that we give the best advice possible. Um, and we were talking about kind of exploring some of the things we've talked about, you know, exploring boundaries of problems and you know, looking at potential different solutions to things, and it's one of the things that cropped up about we have to frame it as our job is to give the best advice to the government who happens to be in power at that time. Uh and you know, that may or may not chime with personal belief, but that is what the job is, and and you know, that is what we deliver.

Mike Jones 28:55

Yeah, I think I think that's really crucial to I think that's why we can't understand understand understate the importance of role and positioning uh and perspective um in these situations, because as soon as they become a bit murky, that's where you definitely in in your environment, and I take my hat off to you, especially with uh and civil servants, because especially now with you know it's it's no secret that our our political views are becoming more and more polarized, and that means that that challenge is going to become more and more of a challenge um for you. But I think like having that sort of clarity of role, clarity of perspective, um, I think is is crucial to help guide that. And it I think it really underst uh underlines the the nature of organisations and strategy that it's just imperfect, and yeah, you know, we we just deliver the fact that things are imperfect and we're not going for the best option. Often we're scrapping for the the least least worst option, and that's what's gonna get us through, and you know, we have to make some very, very difficult choices that are going to not appease people. Um, yeah, and yeah, in your world, you're not gonna appease you know everyone by any stretch of the imagination.

SPEAKER_01 30:18

No, but no, well, no, and I think in life, you know, in general, you can't please all the people all of the time. In fact, sometimes you can't please any of the people all of the time, you know. But that's life, you know, that that is kind of we all know that. But I think I think that's that's right, Mike. I think it it's kind of we don't live in a perfect world, and therefore any solutions that we reach are not going to be perfect solutions. They they're gonna be the best that we can do at that given moment in time, and when things shift, then the solution should be capable of shifting with it. I think that's the key thing. Yeah, it's not about finding the perfect solution, it's about finding a solution that is adaptive when circumstances change, because they will undoubtedly change sometimes really rapidly, and sometimes, you know, three or four times in the space of as many months or you know, even shorter sometimes. So it's you know, it's not about finding the perfect solution because I don't think that exists. I think we'd be looking for a very long time if we searched for that. It's finding the best fit for that moment in time that creates the most benefit and the least damage and is shiftable, I think.

Mike Jones 31:30

Yeah, and that's that thing, isn't it? It's like you know, if we take this decision, will it still give us options?

SPEAKER_01 31:38

Yeah.

Mike Jones 31:39

Um and I think that's the crucial thing.

SPEAKER_01 31:43

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it is. Yeah, and I think you know, that's that's important that we we kind of where we can we maintain those options because quite often we need them, you know, when when you any any kind of strategic work, you know, you need to you need to have kind of exit routes for when things change, because they do. So yeah, no, I think that's right.

Volatility, Options And Prediction Limits

Mike Jones 32:04

Yeah, yeah. Definitely with the uh the increased volatility that uh we face with our international partners. Anything can change, anything's up for negotiation. And I think that's what um I think that's what people forget nowadays, is like, yeah, the world always has been complex, things have always been complex and stuff, but I think at the at the moment, I think it's the rate of that change.

SPEAKER_01 32:30

Yeah.

Mike Jones 32:30

And the uncertainty of that, because we we could deal before we knew things were changing, but we could pretty much make reasonable assumptions around what may emerge. But I think nowadays it's just we're unsure. Multiple things can emerge and multiple things can emerge at the same time. So that ability to have those options or to consider those options is crucial.

SPEAKER_01 32:53

Yeah. Yeah. Uh and I I heard something recently about our ability to kind of accurately forecast and predict. And I think um it was something around I think the the most we can ever kind of accurately predict, and there's a lot of controversy about whether this is too long is 400 days. That's not a lot.

Mike Jones 33:14

No.

SPEAKER_01 33:17

Yeah, when you're looking at national policy and you know, all of that sort of stuff, that's not that's not a long time.

Mike Jones 33:23

No.

SPEAKER_01 33:24

Which kind of puts our three-year plans and our five-year plans into perhaps a little bit of doubt. But yeah, I mean, you know, we we we can't predict the world is becoming more turbulent, more polarized. The assumptions we could have potentially made previously probably can't now, or certainly not to the degree that we used to. So you're right, it's not that we're it's not just that we're getting more complex, because I think we are, but it it's the nature of that complexity and it's the volatility, I think, for me, and the therefore the consequences of that that change. The consequences feel bigger now than perhaps they did previously. It's becoming a more high-stakes game, I think.

Mike Jones 34:08

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 34:09

And we can it's kind of a perfect storm of it's becoming more politically charged and more high stakes, and it's more turbulent and polarized, and our ability to forecast accurately is diminishing by the minute, I think. All of that combined makes it really difficult to kind of to operate as an organization in in that environment.

Mike Jones 34:31

Yeah, I really agree, and it's like it sort of brings a challenge our sort of normal operating mode, especially with the high volatility, but we're still obsessed with efficiency, and I get why we are because obviously, especially in your world, because you know, you're you're spending finite money, um, the taxpayers' money, so you've got to show that you're efficient, but also we still need the capacity to be able to deal with this uncertainty. And the high stakes part, I often look at and I think about this, and I think there's more, and it's you definitely see it amplified in the political stream, is that you don't want to be that leader that commits to something. Um because as soon as you commit to something, you could be proven wrong, and as soon as you're proven wrong, everyone's out there going, Oh, I need they need to be fired, they need fire, they need election now. Um, and so I think it drives that sort of cloak of ambiguity that if I'm just more the more vague I am, the more elusive I am, then you know, the less I can be held accountable for those decisions, but it doesn't really help when you're thinking to everybody else where they just need a bit a bit of solid direction that it can then adapt

Populism, Misinformation And Worldviews

Mike Jones 35:50

to.

SPEAKER_01 35:50

Yeah, I mean I think the difficult thing is that we kind of hold people to account by the courts of public opinion uh a lot of the time, and and that you know, I guess that goes for a lot of different worlds, you know, politics included, but um I think we do it do it across the board actually. We've become more populist and more kind of um yeah, you know, um trial by Twitter, which isn't the most objective, any kind of judgment, I would suggest. And it it's problematic, it's but it's problematic, you know, in a in a lot of different ways and for a lot of different people, I think, in you know, i in life in general. Uh uh and it's part of it is that polarizing thing. You know, we've become more polarized and everybody has a view, and of course, online communities and that kind of thing mean that people aren't worried about sharing that view because they can do so anonymously, you know, don't have to put their head above the parapet, they can quite easily say whatever they think and it not be attributable back to them necessarily, and and that, you know, in in some ways that's a good thing because it means that everyone's on a level playing field and everyone can have a say, but actually, you see a lot of damage done in the name of that. Um, it is problematic. Um, and we make judgment, we make snap judgments, I think, because of that, not knowing the full facts, I would suggest the full facts are often very different to what is presented on Twitter or in the media, or you know, and we know that through history, you know, it's always been that way. You can't um you can't believe everything you read in the press. Well, we can't, but increasingly we really can't, because there's a lot of misinformation and there's a lot of AI-produced stuff that that you can't actually tell the difference between what's real and what's not, and that muddies the waters. So it's it's all all murky and and problematic, I think.

Mike Jones 37:53

Yeah, I agree. It is rise of populism again. It's it's furthers that point we were talking about with uh boundaries, isn't it? That you know social media and communications is great with amplifying those boundaries because I can only I'll only see that perspective, and from this perspective, anything else is going to be wrong unless I'm willing to open up this perspective and see it from a different angle.

SPEAKER_01 38:16

Yeah.

Mike Jones 38:17

I don't need to now because I'm just getting fed what I want to hear.

SPEAKER_01 38:20

No, no, of course, and and of course, feeds are tailored to our viewing habits, so the more you read, the more you are fed that kind of information um and viewpoint, and it you don't open up the viewpoint. I mean, so it's I guess it's one of the reasons why uh the the whole kind of systems thinking world is is I think interesting to me, but also highly valuable to me because there is such an emphasis on worldview and on having different worldviews in the mix colour, and I think that's absolutely critical. You know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, you know, having a different voices around the table when you're making whatever kind of decision actually, but certainly the big kind of chunky decisions that we we deal with in government is is just um is just absolutely crucial. Um that you know that's one of the things that kind of drew me into the kind of systems thinking world, that that emphasis on diversity and and voice and and knowing that you've kind of heard a breadth of view, which we don't tend to hear in kind of everyday life necessarily anymore.

Mike Jones 39:31

No, and it it's like what John Boyd talks about that incestuous amplification that you know if we just have that closed view, we're only hearing our own narratives. Where what I really love is that question from critical systems heuristics where it's like who is not present but should have a voice? Yeah, yeah, and I think just asking that question, yeah, yeah. I think it's it's something that I think leaders should always sort of think about when they're and it they're not gonna get all the voices, but at least they've thought about who who who has not had the voice they should do, and how could we meaningfully include that in there for our decisions? Because it's their perspective, they they can see is it gonna be them that's impacted by the decisions, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 40:12

And how how do we account for the marginalized? Because actually the marginalized potentially are the people who will be impacted the most if we make the wrong choices and the wrong decisions. So it's how do we make sure that they are at least represented? Tricky, I mean, you know, always tricky to do, but um absolutely brilliant question.

Mike Jones 40:33

Yeah, and it there's always going to be with every decision, there's always gonna be unintended consequences of how it meets reality, and we're like, wow, okay, all we're trying to do by that question is just minimize that surprise. Yeah, you know, as much as possible.

SPEAKER_01 40:49

Yeah, yeah.

Strategy Time Horizons And Commitments

Mike Jones 40:51

It's been um I really enjoyed this, and and I think a key thing that you're probably finding is this sort of timing. Because I had a question yesterday about you know how how far should we look out for our strategy, what time frame? And I think there was a a wanting for me to say, oh no, yeah, 18 months, three years, five years, and they got because because I'm a psychologist, the obvious answer was it depends. Um, and and it I was like, it does depend. It depends on so much stuff, like you know, how fast is the external environment moving, you know, how you know how how quick can you what's your rate of change relative to that? You know, all these things come in. Um it could be how quick it actually takes to do something in the external environment. Actually, we could do something that we thought would be three years, but actually we do something and it opens up opportunities. We can do that in 18 months. I think we sort of need to move away from this temporal thing of that has to be five years, ten years, and actually keep it to more a consistent view of an orientation of what's happening. I I'm saying that as privilege, that must be probably quite a challenge in your organization.

SPEAKER_01 42:08

It is, and I and I think it is because and I don't I don't think we're unlike other organisations in in this respect. I think we make public commitments to things because we have to make public commitments to things, you know. Government, it would be a sorry government who never made any public commitment to do anything ever, you know, that's not how government works, is it? No, yeah, and of course, the civil service has to um deliver on that is our job um to support ministers in doing that. Um, so it's a lot of that is kind of driven by that agenda and and you know, how quickly or slowly do we think we need to deliver on this particular piece of work because actually that's a political commitment that's been made, and that's what we're here to do. We're here to deliver that. Um so that is difficult. Uh and I think it kind of goes back um in a bit of a loop, probably, to what we were talking about earlier about having that vision and kind of what is the purpose, what is the purpose of this piece of work, and therefore kind of where are we trying to get to? What's our Z and what's our A? And then having that fluidity underneath it that says, you know, that and some of that might be temporal, some of it might be, you know, for the first six months, we're gonna go great guns and we're gonna speed it up and we're gonna get to a point, and then we're gonna reassess, and then we might go a bit slower because X, Y, and Z is happening, and we know that's happening. You know, it's it's it's that kind of fluidity in terms of kind of how we get to Z, but also how quickly or how slowly we might choose to do that. So I think having that kind of flex in the delivery plan is important. The the Z probably is prescribed and a timeline ultimately for. Z may well be prescribed, but how we get to that is is perhaps a little bit more in our gift.

Mike Jones 44:05

Yeah. And I think the reason why I raised that question is purely what exactly what you stated, is the expectation of the commitments. Um and I think that's where the the challenge really comes in because you are like most organisations, but I think really spotlighted for for civil service or the government, is that um you are expected to make those commitments and deliver on those commitments and even if things change, and that I think that's where it becomes a really tough, tough um sort of environment to to work in.

SPEAKER_01 44:39

Yeah. And I think also the fact that those commitments are things that everybody in this country is invested in and takes an interest in. Not all of them, but you know, largely, you know, we deal with really difficult problems that affect all of society. You know, X organization probably doesn't get that scrutiny and people aren't as interested. You know, are they going to deliver widgets A and B or A, B, C and D? Well, either, don't really mind. Is the government going to tackle some of the big issues of the day, you know, poverty and knife and immigration and you know, all of the really big kind of topics that people talk about? Well, everyone has a view on that, and everyone's interested in it. So there's a commitment there, politically and from the civil service, that you know, these are the things we're focusing on, quite rightly, and that shifts over time and you know all the rest of it. But they are things that everyone will scrutinize and everyone will take an interest in. So the delivery of that becomes much more heavily scrutinized.

Start Small, Make It Impactful

Mike Jones 45:37

Yeah, I agree. It's been absolutely fascinating having you you on. Just before I let you go and to crack on saving our our great country. Is there anything the is there anything that you would like to leave our listeners to think about from this episode?

SPEAKER_01 45:56

I think the the the one thing that I would say, and we've we've covered it really, is this thing about start where you can, start where you've got influence, and where you where there's a crack, and where you can kind of work your way into that crack and make a difference, a positive difference. I think that the a lot of people I think want to get involved in this kind of work and have these kinds of conversations and are reticent to do that because they can't see where it will have an impact, and they can't see something that's big enough and meaty enough for them to get their hands on. And I particularly come across this with new practitioners. So new practitioners uh kind of well, and I need to do a big piece of work, and my advice to them quite often is you don't you don't need to do a big piece of work, you need to do an impactful piece of work. That's different, and it might be quite small, and it might be something that's in your gift, but it will have a big impact. And I think I would say that probably to everyone. Start where you can have an influence and an impact, even if it's quite small, because things can then grow from there.

Mike Jones 47:03

Thank you so much for being such a great guest. I think there's a lot of value there from our conversation. I think just not just focused on civil service, but actually it's it's transferable to all organisations and even individuals. So, um, for the listeners, if you enjoyed this, please like, share, and subscribe so people can get the value from Alison's work. And I'll put Alison's details of her LinkedIn. Um, not a government email address because it doesn't mean hassle for policy things.

SPEAKER_01 47:32

No, please do that.

Mike Jones 47:35

But um, absolutely love this conversation. Thank you so much for joining me, Alison.

SPEAKER_01 47:41

Been an absolute pleasure. Thanks, Mike.

Mike Jones 47:43

And I hope to see you again soon.

SPEAKER_01 47:44

Yes, you too.

Mike Jones 47:46

Take care, everyone.

SPEAKER_01 47:47

Cheers.