In this ‘age of austerity’, it is more important than ever for people to have a clear understanding of just what it is councils do – and why, says Mark Fletcher

The way that symbols are managed in local government in coming years will be crucial. Where life is complex, people look for easy ways of making judgments. And there is little in life more complex than councils.  

So, as we approach years of austerity, senior council managers and members will need to be attuned to the reputational risk around any symbols which apparently show a lack of sensitivity.

New cars, hotel-based training sessions, first class travel... all risk saying the wrong things to a population eager to find fault, particularly where jobs are at risk and services might be cut.

Such symbols are already flying around the public domain. Recent commentary on chief executives’ pay – symbolically judged against the salary of the prime minister – or news that the Audit Commission spent over £50,000 on chairs shows how easy it is to reduce complexity to a sound bite.

From a public commentary point of view, symbols are joyous things. They enable opinion-formers to strip out layers of complexity and present to an eager public a sentence that will stir emotions. They are tabloid-ready facts. They are Friday-night-in-the-pub-rant tested.

Symbols play brilliantly into our way of thinking. We have a tendency to make judgments about things, people, events and daily life on the basis of limited information. Life is very complicated, so finding ways into that complexity is inevitably appealing. It takes less time to judge that someone has a good character because he or she has a firm handshake than it does to read their CV in depth, carry out a lengthy interview, and talk to all of the people who know or have dealt with him or her.  

But there’s the dilemma. It is possible to reduce the pay of senior managers to a direct comparison with the prime minster’s salary. But is that helpful?

It’s absolutely true that the PM has a difficult job. Surely, it’s more than the size of the job or the public profile that determines salary.

Certainly, the benchmark in the City, where salaries and bonuses are again the stuff of public debate, the rationale there is paying what’s needed to get the right people.

Reducing the debate to a simple symbol – Number 10’s pay package – puts at risk considerations that are business critical... having people with skills, capacity, staying power, an understanding of the challenges, a brilliant track record, and a determination to deliver. Might that be what determines salary? 

In any event, symbols are notoriously unreliable. We are attracted to those who make eye contact, whose handshake is firm, and who are warm and friendly. These features give us confidence.

Such things, though pleasant and reassuring, tell us little about their ability to do the job we are employing them to do. We all know this from experience.

And the meaning of symbols can change in an instant, as doctors are soon to find out. Now, expensive cars in the surgery car park tell us that our doctor is a success, someone who has done well in life.

But once GPs control billions of pounds of public funds, a new Mercedes or BMW will say that they’re spending on cars what should be spent on treatments. Some things are hard to change. The more information we have to digest on a daily basis, particularly where our attention is limited, the more we will rely on shorthand. Sound-bite ready commentary is hard to fight. None of us should judge the Audit Commission on the basis of a story about chairs. Its work merits a deeper analysis of its brief and track record in challenging circumstances over a number of years.

The challenge local authorities face is much more stretching. The public will begin to feel angry if they are allowed or caused to reduce the whole debate about finance and priorities to a single headline. What’s more, senior management talent will walk and public services really will be put at risk.

At the same time, we cannot ignore symbolic communication. So, understanding how local people make judgments about public bodies will be a good starting point. It will be instructive. We will learn that many of the symbols we all rely on to tell us about daily life are unreliable.

Successive home improvement programmes on TV tell us that furniture polish and freshly ground coffee make selling our home more likely. But it would be dangerous to allow the matter to rest there. We can change the way that people make judgments by giving them more contextual information.

A direct comparison of chief executives’ pay with the PM’s is easy to make because we think we understand what each does. The prime minster runs the country whereas chief executives do…what? Nobody is sure. Why? Because we have not spent enough time telling them and helping them to understand that having talented people at the helm, particularly when the waters are choppy, is vital.

One of the big communication challenges councils face as they begin to make cuts is ensuring that people really understand what they do, why and how they do it – and how hard it will be to make the decisions that will have to be made.

The ‘aha’ moment of recognition and regret that will appear on the faces of local people will become a defining symbol for this era.

Mark Fletcher is a partner with reputation