There’s a familiar instinct in public services: when something goes wrong, we add a rule, a new policy. a tighter process or another layer of governance.
It feels sensible. Responsible, even. But over time, something predictable happens, the more rules we create without strengthening relationships, the more resistance we generate.
Not always loud, visible rebellion but quieter forms too like disengagement, compliance without care, workarounds, burnout. Systems that appear stable on paper but are brittle in practice. Because rules, on their own, don’t hold. Relationships do.
The failure of “fixing” from a distance
Social innovation often begins with the desire to improve outcomes. We analyse data, identify gaps, design interventions. But too often, those interventions are created at a distance from the people they affect.
This is where the pattern emerges:
-
- Rules are designed for people, not with them
-
- Lived experience is consulted late, if at all
-
- Co-production becomes a stage, not a stance
-
- Trust is assumed, rather than built
And when those rules land in the real world that is complex, human, relational, they don’t quite fit. So, people bend them. Or ignore them. Or quietly resist them. Not because they don’t care but because the system hasn’t cared with them.
Lived experience is relational, not extractive
We often talk about “bringing in lived experience” as if it’s a resource we can plug into a system. A meeting. A panel. A story. But lived experience is not a data point, it’s a relationship.
When people share their experiences of services, they’re not simply informing better design. They’re offering trust. And trust isn’t transactional; it grows in environments where people feel heard, valued, and safe.
Without those conditions, asking for lived experience becomes extractive:
-
- Stories are shared, but nothing changes
-
- Feedback is given, but not acknowledged
-
- Participation is encouraged, but power remains fixed
And that’s where rebellion quietly begins, not in protest, but in withdrawal.
Co-production isn’t a method, it’s a culture
Co-production has become a well-used term in public services. But too often it’s applied as a technique rather than a way of being. You can’t co-produce within rigid, rule-bound systems that don’t flex for human relationships.
True co-production requires:
-
- Time to build trust
-
- Space for honest disagreement
-
- Willingness to share power
-
- Openness to being changed
And that last point is the hardest. Because it means letting go of certainty, of control, of the comfort that rules bring. But when relationships are strong, something more powerful happens, people don’t need to be governed into compliance, they choose to participate.
The quiet power of collaborating out loud
One of the most transformative shifts in social innovation isn’t a new framework or methodology it’s a mindset. Working openly. Sharing early. Inviting others in.
When people collaborate openly as they go, a few important things happen:
-
- Ideas are shaped by many, not a few
-
- Mistakes are surfaced early, before they become embedded
-
- Credit is shared, not hoarded
-
- People see themselves in the work
This isn’t about broadcasting perfection, it’s about making the process visible. Saying, “We don’t have all the answers, but we’re willing to figure it out together.” And in doing so, you build something rules alone never can, collective ownership.
Building communities, not just systems
Public services often focus on delivering outcomes. But outcomes don’t exist in isolation, they emerge from relationships between people, organisations, and communities.
If we want sustainable change, we need to invest in the spaces where those relationships grow:
-
- Spaces where people can connect as humans, not roles
-
- Spaces where difference is welcomed, not flattened
-
- Spaces where trust is cultivated intentionally
These aren’t always formal settings. Often, the most powerful work happens in the in-between:
-
- Conversations that aren’t minuted
-
- Ideas that aren’t fully formed
-
- Connections that don’t fit into org charts
This is where belonging is built. And belonging is what turns compliance into commitment.
Difference isn’t a barrier, it’s the work
Rules tend to standardise. They seek consistency, predictability, control. But social innovation lives in difference, in diverse perspectives, conflicting needs, and messy realities.
When we intentionally seek out perspectives unlike our own, something shifts. Decisions become richer. Solutions become more grounded. And power begins to redistribute.
Democracy, in this sense, isn’t just about voting, it’s about participation. It’s about making decisions in ways that are transparent, inclusive, and shared. And yes, that takes longer than imposing a rule. But it lasts longer too.
Generosity as infrastructure
We don’t often talk about kindness in public service design. Or generosity. They can feel soft, intangible and hard to measure or justify.
But they are, in many ways, the infrastructure of collaboration.
-
- Sharing knowledge freely
-
- Acknowledging contributions openly
-
- Supporting others without immediate return
-
- Creating psychological safety
These acts build relational capital, the kind that allows people to navigate complexity together. Without it, even the best-designed systems struggle.
Making it real: where rules and relationships meet
This isn’t about abandoning rules altogether. Rules have a role, they can create clarity, protect fairness, and provide structure. But they must sit within relationships, not replace them.
The most effective social innovations often emerge in the spaces between formal systems and informal communities:
-
- Small tests of change
-
- Collaborative prototypes
-
- Local adaptations
-
- Shared learning loops
These spaces allow us to try things, learn quickly, and adapt without the weight of needing to get everything right first time. They are where people experience the system as with them, not done to them.
So what does this mean in practice?
If rules without relationships lead to rebellion, then the question for public services becomes ‘How do we design for relationship first’?
A few starting points:
-
- Spend as much time building trust as writing policy
-
- Involve people early and keep them involved
-
- Share uncertainty, not just decisions
-
- Create spaces for real connection, not just consultation
-
- Be willing to be changed by what you hear
Because when relationships are strong:
-
- People don’t just follow rules, they shape them
-
- Services don’t just function, they adapt
-
- Innovation doesn’t just happen it spreads
Rebellion isn’t always loud. In public services, it often looks like silence.
Missed appointments. Disengaged staff. Communities who stop showing up.
Not because they don’t care but because the system has prioritised control over connection.
If we want to change that, we don’t need more rules. We need more relationship. And from there, everything else becomes possible.
