Why do relational public services keep failing?

Why do relational public services keep failing? https://www.linkedin.com/posts/antlerboy_why-do-relational-public-servics-fail-activity-7475086866044870657–S5q Where does relational work get stuck in your system – at practice, management, governance, measurement, money, or politics?

At the Towards Relational Public Services conference in Manchester today, where I’m talking about a cheerful little question: why do relational public services keep failing?

Or, more accurately: why do they so often work, then fail to become normal?

We have enough examples now. Neighbourhood teams. Good social care. Integrated work around people with complex lives. The Lighthouse. Wigan. Oldham. Plymouth. Greater Manchester. Doncaster. Brilliant voluntary sector practice. Etc etc etc…

Work that reduces cost, reduces harm, and makes more sense to people and practitioners.

So I don’t think the problem is that nobody knows what better looks like.

The problem is that this work usually depends on judgement, discretion, continuity, trust, and adaptation at the boundary between citizen and practitioner. Public institutions, meanwhile, have to preserve coherence through categories, budgets, thresholds, targets, professional accountabilities, audit, risk systems, and visible lines of control.

Both are real and both are important.

And when we pretend only one of them matters, we get the familiar pattern. A small team works differently. It gets noticed. A method or pilot is named. The work asks for judgement. The system asks for legibility. The sponsor moves on. The bubble collapses, hardens, or survives through heroic effort.

Then we call for more leadership, more culture change, more evidence, or more passion.

I’m not sure that’s enough – and sometimes it’s counterproductive.

For senior leaders, I think the harder question is this:

What would have to change in governance, money, data, risk, measurement and authority for relational work to be legitimate, not just admired?

For practitioners, the question may be just as hard:

How do we avoid becoming heroes, victims, rebels, or missionaries — and instead change the conditions around the work?

The centre needs assurance. The edge needs authority. Both need better connected learning.

That feels like a good thread to bring from Stronger Things last week into TRIPS this week. Stronger Things left me thinking about commissioning, civic life, and how we stop turning people’s lives into service categories.

Last night’s Manchester relational meetup suggested this conference might be an unusually open place to test that thinking – full of like-hearted practitioners, advisers and academics, but not in a cosy way. More like people willing to ask awkward questions without immediately turning them into a new framework. Which is promising!

If you’re working on relational public services, especially from a senior leadership position, I’d love to know:

Where does relational work get stuck in your system – at practice, management, governance, measurement, money, or politics?