New Public Leadership Outcomes

Programmes plan either a single or series of future events.  Often accompanied by related measures or activities, they tend to focus on a particular medium or long-term aim. The term originates from early 17th century (in the sense of ‘written notice’). It thus aims to bridge the gap between the shared purpose (context) and policy, practice, problem solving and pedagogy (mechanisms) in delivering public value.

A programme is a deliberate means of taking forward a course of action and each can be evaluated. Programmes are viewed as a public statement of intent.  Most programmes will include an itinerary, plan and schedule of what will be definitely undertaken and how its implementation will be evaluated.

Take one topical example:

Following the Covid-19 pandemic, most nations have introduced a programme of vaccination.  The medium-term aim is to protect the most vulnerable members of society and, by doing this, prevent the spread of the virus across the wider population.  This is a shared global aim, a point that is made by the World Health Organisation.  It is viewed as the greatest global leadership challenge of current living generations.  From a contextual perspective, this is a major task for all global leaders.  Some national leaders have taken a more proactive approach than others (leadership style).  In some countries, policies and practices have been devised based on identifying risk (problemitisation) and managing this risk is being supported by critical and wide-ranging training and development (all four mechanisms).  The programme of vaccination is an outcome of the policies and practice which are seeking to alter the patterns of infection and the tragic consequences of the virus.  The ultimate aim, however, is to eradicate the virus.  This would be the creation and (through evaluation) demonstration of public value outcomes.

Of relevance to lead­ership is the meaning of ‘patterns’; how these are identified and why and what leaders do in terms of responding to emerging patterns. Everything that we do, and everything that we see, is determined by patterns.  We are determined by patterns (our DNA).  Understanding emerging patterns is critical to understanding leadership from a systemic viewpoint.  Complex adaptive systems are patterned (as highlighted in the earlier session on whole systems).

Patterns will emerge naturally through universal aspects of nature but will also arise as a result of human precession or intervention (altering patterns by slow or rapid change).  Patterns can both influence and determine future change.  Hopefully, this change will be positive and can act as an exemplar for others to replicate.  Some patterns and change will be negative.  There is also a need to be aware that change will work in different ways in different contexts.

Responding to patterns is represented by what is described in a further section of this portal (LINKS³⁶⁰) as the intelligent leadership process.

A further outcome of effective public leadership is that of ‘person­al impact’. Traditional leadership theory and language has tended to focus on the individual whereas public leadership focuses primarily on the collective.  However, the individ­ual lies at the heart of collective activity and another aspect of collective leadership is that of relationships.  The strength of the relationship between the leader and the follower will often determine the impact of leadership activities.  The concept of per­formance traditionally holds more weight when considered within the individual domain as opposed to the col­lective (patterns and products).  The difficulty is in the assessment of performance of individuals is that this is often undertaken in the complete absence of understanding or appreciating the context within which leaders are leading.

A product is often associated with an article of substance (for example, something that is manufactured).  It is also descriptive of an outcome that is the result of an action or process” (for exam­ple, a leadership mechanism within differing contexts). The former is more appropriate in the for-profit sector (for example, in manufacturing where the product is likely to be a tangible and visible outcome).   In terms of leadership within the not-for-profit sectors, the product is likely to be more about the result of an action or process rather then it’s production.  This would include the quality of service delivery, for example in health and social care or community safety.  In such cases, the product may be represented by the quality of the services delivered (whether response times, processes and clinical and safety outcomes).  This is an important component of public value.

Being ‘fit for purpose’ is one of the ways of defining quality, and this is a good starting point in understanding the common denominators between physical products and less visible services.   Quality thus relates to both personal dispositions, as well as actions taken and highlights the importance of balanced performance measures.  This aligns and supports the core ‘P’, which is that of public value representing the all-embracing outcome of leading in the public interest.