Paul Ward

Continuing our celebration of the dissertations of our Degree Apprentices.  The use of data and data analytics is becoming increasingly important for all organisations – an essential asset to help effectively manage and transform local places.  For a truly holistic data view of a city or place, multi-agency approaches to partnerships and data sharing are essential.  What are the key governance considerations regarding a place-wide approach to data analytics?   

This study found support for the concept of multi-agency partnerships and data sharing.  Several barriers to data sharing were identified, including technical, organisational, political, economic and legal constraints. 

The key governance factors to consider include the need to truly understand the problem which data is being asked to solve, to acknowledge and address the barriers as they are understood, to align overall governance with existing multi-agency governance structures and to create the relevant capacity for strategy and leadership regarding data and data analytics for the area.

Key findings:

• There needs to be senior level drive and ownership for data that will champion its use within an organisation and wider city, but in most cities there is not a ‘go to’ person or function that has lead responsibility and can provide guidance on data sharing across organisations.
• Local partnerships need to consider the purpose, vision and strategy for data use, the objectives that data sharing will achieve, how the public can engage and understand data, and how far organisational cultures support effective data use.  Data sharing governance should be explicitly identified within existing multi-agency governance structures. 
• Existing data sharing agreements are generally not designed to deal with the frequency, level and types of data that now need to be shared. 
• Councils could lead the ‘democratisation’ of data as a public asset
• The study identifies two key elements of successful place-wide data sharing: a senior role identified as taking ownership and leadership responsibility for data, and a data strategy which defines the city’s ambition and vision for the use of data.

Background

Public authorities collect, hold and process a significant amount of data which could be used to make services more targeted and effective through design, delivery and transformation to improve outcomes whilst delivering efficiencies.  The 2020 National Data Strategy seeks to make better use of data across businesses, government, civil society and individuals. 

Data sharing has been in the spotlight as a result of the need for analysis to support interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the increasing public awareness of data and data privacy, and work to encourage greater public uptake of digital services.  For example, at the start of the lockdown period data was used to identify families in the case study city likely to become more vulnerable because of lockdown.  The data had never been combined in this way before.

There is a growing need for a sustainable model and framework for data sharing across multiple agencies when considering the management and development of towns, cities and regions.

What we knew already

Organisations learn and develop when part of the organisation acquires knowledge that they recognise as important to the rest of the organisation, distribute and interpret this information efficiently and has effective organisational ‘memory’.

Data sharing can encourage innovation and help solve sector-wide challenges.  However, trust in the use of public data is very low with many believing that they have no control over their personal data. A more trustworthy approach to public data is recommended by giving citizens more control over the use of their data.

Multi-agency approaches can deliver value and outcomes that would not be possible to deliver working individually.  However, there are significant challenges such as a lack of willingness to collaborate, protecting individual interests, local rivalries, governance, funding, communication, and conflicting priorities.   

Multi- agency information sharing is difficult to achieve because of multiple barriers which may be technical (such as technically incompatible IT system, data standards or security requirements), organisational (such as risk aversion or lack of trust), political (such as avoidance of scrutiny, economic (lack of resources), and legal (concerns about the law around data sharing).

Frameworks for data sharing
Despite a number of these barriers being identified over twenty years ago they still resonant today. Existing data sharing agreements are, by design, very technical and detailed documents these do not address the use of data to understand policy problems.  They are generally not designed to deal with the frequency, level and types of data that now need to be shared.  In addition, in most cities there is not a ‘go to’ person or function that has lead responsibility and can provide guidance on data sharing across organisations.

Multi-agency working and governance

Every council area has important multi-agency partnerships in place, such as Health and Wellbeing Boards and Local Enterprise Partnerships.  Most of these are established in a fairly traditional bureaucratic style with clear lines of authority, very detailed reporting arrangements and formalised decision making.  The study found no desire for specific governance structures to be established purely for data sharing, instead this should be explicitly identified within existing multi-agency governance structures.  The governance of these structures may need to evolve beyond the current bureaucratic model.

Local partnerships need to consider the purpose, vision and strategy for data use, the objectives that data sharing will achieve, how the public can engage and understand data, and how far organisational cultures support effective data use.  There needs to be senior level drive and ownership for data that will champion its use within an organisation and wider city.  

Councils could lead the ‘democratisation’ of data as a public asset – moving beyond allowing access to the data and making it easy for people to understand the data use under principles of transparency, integrity, accountability, and stakeholder participation. 

Examples of local data sharing partners

Conclusions

The study identifies two key elements of successful place-wide data sharing: a senior role identified as taking ownership and leadership responsibility for data, and a data strategy which defines the city’s ambition and vision for the use of data.

The findings suggest that the key governance factors to consider include the need to truly understand the problem which data is being asked to solve, to acknowledge and address the barriers as they are understood, to align overall governance with existing multi-agency governance structures and to create the relevant capacity for strategy and leadership regarding data and data analytics for the city.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About the project

This research was a Master’s dissertation as part of the MSc in Public Management and Leadership, completed by Paul Ward and supervised by Dr Louise Reardon.  The project included detailed interviews with ten members and officers related to data sharing in an urban area. 

Further information on Inlogov’s research, teaching and consultancy is available from the institute’s director, Jason Lowther, at [email protected]    

Gemma Carmichael

Continuing our National Apprenticeship Week celebrations, this dissertation explores what “good” leadership looks like in public service. The study of leadership within public services has evolved over the last twenty years.  Leadership continues to be understood as imperative within public services, particularly around driving reform.  There has been a shift from understanding leadership as ‘heroic’, towards an understanding of leadership as transformative.

This study provides insight into the way in which leadership is understood and constructed within public services today.  Good leadership is now understood to be transformative and strategic – with an overwhelming rejection of traditional ‘heroic’ and ‘trait’ models of leadership within public services.  

Key points

• There is a collective rejection of the role of ‘heroic’ styles of leadership within this literature.
• Leadership is not borne of a character trait, but rather can be developed in individuals.
• A key aspect of ‘good’ leadership is a positive relationship between a leader and followers. 
• Leadership is necessary for the creation and implementation of vision within an organisation.
• The role of leadership has become more important in a de-centralised, strategic state.
• Leadership is essential to driving public service reform.

Background

Over the last century, questions such as ‘what is leadership?’, ‘what makes a good leader?’ and ‘what are the benefits of leadership?’ have been explored. Over the last three decades, there has been an increased interest in leadership specific to public services.   This project uses ‘integrative review’ to analyse four core texts within the area of public service leadership and academic thinking, highlighting persistent themes within the literature and demonstrating how it contributes to understandings around leadership within public services.

What we knew already

Historically, leadership had been theorised as a collection of character ‘traits’ (such as heroism and bravery) possessed by a select few, primarily men.  These traits would be ‘God given’ or naturally acquired and would emerge at such points that leadership was required, for example during political turmoil. 

The mid-20th century saw the emergence of behavioural theories of leadership which demonstrated a shift from understanding leadership as something one ‘is’ to something one ‘does’.  Research here focused upon behaviours associated with leadership in different contexts and the desirability of such behaviours.  This work led to the emergence of further theories of leadership, such as situational and transformational. Situational theories of leadership were concerned with the way in which leaders would adapt leadership style according to varying contexts and transformational theories focused on the way in which leaders influence followers.  Transformational theories of leadership explored leaders’ interactions with others within an organisation and how leadership was co-constructed by various agents.  Most recently, social constructive perspectives consider leadership as a product of collective meaning making, developed on an ongoing basis between leaders, managers and/or followers.  These perspectives create space for consideration of the wider cultural and social implications of leadership, for example around gender or ethnicity.

Research focussing on public service leadership aims to take into account the many differences between the public and private sector, for example in terms of accountability and ownership. 

Good leadership is not ‘heroic’

The research explicitly rejects the role of ‘heroic’ and ‘trait’ leadership within the public sector, which is seen as ineffective compared to more collaborative styles of leadership in the context of complex, adaptive problems facing society in a decentralised, knowledge intensive context this form of leadership.  

Leadership is therefore seen as something that can be developed and that public service organisations have a duty to develop: leaders are ‘made’ rather than ‘born’.  That said, some personal characteristics can contribute to ‘good’ leadership, such as integrity, diplomacy and the ability to handle conflict.  This reflects the wider (private sector focussed) literature on leadership.

Good leadership is transformative

Transformative leadership can be understood as a way by which leaders can change or influence the goals of others.  Here, there is a rejection of command and control forms of leadership, aiming for commitment (rather than simply compliance) from ‘followers’.  Good leadership is seen as inspiring people through driving values and vision, persuading others, listening to others and learning from them.

The promotion of transformational leadership styles however may be problematic as for one individual to hold responsibility over ‘influencing’ and ‘changing’ the behaviour and attitudes of others is, in a way, heroic. A move away from ‘heroic’ leadership could be said to democratise the process of leadership, making it an aspect of organisational life that is accessible to those who are willing to develop, but how far transformative leadership symbolises this democratisation is questionable. The fundamental principal of changing followers’ attitudes and beliefs may still suggest an element of control on the part of a leader and the importance of character traits associated with having the ability to influence individuals, such as confidence.

Good leadership is strategic

There is a marked emphasis on leadership as strategic – the ability to plan ahead and enrol others in transforming the organisation.  Leadership is understood as essential to developing, implementing and managing strategic plans.   Leaders are important in setting the cultural ‘tone’ of an organisation and acting strategically to achieve a shared future vision.  Looking to the future is particularly challenging in circumstances whereby resources are scarce, and demand continues to rise.  Critically, this understanding of good leadership demonstrates the need for public services to have a greater function than just to ‘survive’.  

This project notes the lack of research on ways of promoting the role of non-leaders within an organisation in developing strategy.  For example, this could developing strategy in a way that involves stakeholders, such as trade unions or staff groups, to make use of the knowledge and wisdom of ‘non-leaders’.

Leadership is important for driving reform

Leadership is imperative to public sector reform and as a key driver in enhancing organisational performance, establishing and promoting values and building relationships in order to drive change.  Leadership is important to managing strategic issues (developments or events that risk the achievement of key goals) in order to realise the organisation’s strategic goals.

The challenges, expectations and demands of public services are changing, thus leaders have a responsibility to ensure that public services can rise to each of these.  Leadership can be understood as a means by which stability is provided in a period of change.  The findings here echo arguments that flow through the wider literature, for example that leadership is imperative to driving organisations change and reform.

Challenging leadership theories

The textual analysis carried out within this research has demonstrated that the role of leadership within the public sector remains unchallenged.  There is no coverage of the limitations of leadership in the core texts reviewed. This is reflective of the wider literature, whereby leadership is accepted as a phenomenon and, though attempts are made to define and understand it, challenges to it remain scarce.  The most powerful challenges to leadership include that leadership serves to reinforce existing social beliefs and structures about the necessity of hierarchy, and that leadership enables the maintenance of the status quo.

A core criticism of leadership theory is that it is underpinned by the assumption that leadership is a while, male construct.  Black and minority ethnic people remain underrepresented in the top 5,000 leadership roles across the public and voluntary sectors.  In addition, women’s leadership is often viewed less favourably because traditional ‘leadership behaviour’ is not desirable in women. The exclusion of any discussion around gender or ethnicity in any one of the texts dismisses the reality of leadership for those who are often excluded from leadership roles, and the wider conversation around promoting inclusion.

Conclusions

This research has argued that understanding ‘good’ leadership within public services is increasingly important in an age of public service reform. It has outlined a distinct effort within the literature to distance ideas of ‘good’ leadership within public services from ‘heroic’ ideas of leadership and to align ‘good’ leadership with transformative ideologies of leadership. It has also demonstrated that leadership is a key driver of good public service organisation.

Furthermore, this research has highlighted that this role of leadership within public services has not been challenged, nor has there been consideration into the potential problems associated with leadership. This research has argued that the way in which leadership is constructed within the literature has real life implications for the reality of leadership within public service organisations, arguing that further research into leadership would benefit from being both follower-centric and providing more critique of the ‘leader’ role.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About the project

This research was a Master’s dissertation as part of the MSc in Public Management and Leadership, completed by Gemma Carmichael and supervised by Professor Vivien Lowndes. 

For further information

Please contact the Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV)
Jason Lowther, at [email protected]

Saiqa Khan

This week we are showcasing some of the recent dissertations produced by our Degree Apprentices. Much of the work councils do involves delivering projects.  Project managers increasingly seek to apply an ‘agile’ project management approach as a more collaborative way of working, inclusive of elements that encourage coproduction to develop services that meet citizen needs.  Some of the key strengths of agile project management are that the staff closest to a problem are the ones best placed to solve it, and that staff that are empowered and trusted to do their jobs are more productive than staff that are not.  

This project explores how council governance, culture and leadership affects the adoption of different project management approaches and hence the effectiveness of delivery.

Key points

• Project management approaches were traditionally linear, but more iterative and flexible ‘agile’ approaches may be more effective and efficient for some projects.  
• Hierarchical structures with high levels of ‘control’ cultures remain dominant within Local Authorities, so they are often comfortable with the traditional linear approach to project management.
• Some councils develop supportive and encouraging leadership styles able to balance the need for transparency and accountability whilst also creating an environment where staff feel empowered to take risks and be innovative.  Many councils developed a more collaborative way of working in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
• ‘Agile’ project management approaches are not understood by many council staff, who may associate this with ineffective governance mechanisms. 
• Decisions about which project management approach to use are highly influenced by tradition (“the way it’s always been done”), training, and member/manager preferences, rather than the needs of the project.
• More effective project management will need project staff to have the time and training to explore ‘agile’ approaches, and leaders placing their trust in staff within streamlined governance arrangements.

What we knew already

A ‘project’ is a temporary activity which should result in a unique product, service or outcome; project management concerns how one plans, organises and manages the staff and resources available to complete a set project within an agreed timescale.

Traditional project management approaches (known as ‘waterfall’) are linear, where each process group is executed as specified and all stages of the project follow a sequential configuration.  Here, the product/service is delivered as defined by the scope, which is created at the start of the project.  In contrast to the traditional approach, the ‘agile’ approach is iterative and flexible.  The project team work on small stages of the project and obtain customer feedback/ agreement before moving on to the next iteration. The planning adapts to the needs of the project and understands that change in one area may be connected to another stage of the project, thus providing a high level of adaptability and flexibility.   An agile approach is particularly appropriate if uncertainty is high and the requirements of the project are expected to change frequently.

Organisational culture is the underlying way employees are expected to behave and operate within an organisation based on shared values and beliefs.  There are many frameworks exploring culture in the academic literature.   This project adopted Schneider’s cultural model, which identifies four distinct “core cultures” by using two dimensions: content (what the organisation pays attention to) and process (an organisation’s approach to decision making), as illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1  Schneider’s cultural model

		Process
		Personal	Impersonal
Content	Actuality	Collaboration	Control
	Possibility	Cultivation	Competence

Projects are affected by the culture of the rest of the organisation, so understanding the organisational culture is essential to successful project management.  Different levels of culture can impact on project delivery: corporate, project organisational and project team.  The last two have a direct influence on project delivery and performance as they can influence how decisions are made, especially in the case of a multi-agency project team. 

Hierarchical structures with high levels of control remain dominant within Local Authorities.  This aligns with Schneider ‘control’ classification of culture involving very structured environments where documentation has great importance.  Local Authorities have historically been comfortable with the traditional approach to project management as this fits well with this type of organisational culture and reduces the need to delegate authority to project managers.  However, organisations that have high hierarchical structures and bureaucratic processes might be inflexible towards decision making, which impacts on project management and may decelerate the decision making process.

This research involved an online survey of 214 officers involved in projects in a council, a cultural questionnaire sent to 66 members of staff, observations from a live website development project underway within the organisation, and interviews with ten council officers.

Theme 1:  Traditional approaches are most widely used and understood

The research found that 63% of respondents used traditional project management approaches such as PRINCE2, in comparison to 32% who used an agile approach to deliver projects.  An unexpected finding in the research was the lack of understanding of what is meant by an ‘agile’ project management approach and the incorrect perceptions that people associate with it – such as a belief that agile project have no effective governance mechanisms. 

Decisions about which project management approach to use were highly influenced by tradition (“the way it’s always been done”), training, and member/manager preferences (figure 2).

Figure 2  What factors are most important in determining your decision on which project management approach to use?
(‘1’ being the most important)

Training is a key issue.  Interestingly, ‘self-help’ learning approaches, such as e-Learning or information on the intranet, were viewed as insufficient for staff to feel confident in trying approaches other than PRINCE 2 when delivering a project.

Theme 2:  Culture influences project management

Culture is a key influencer when project management approaches are chosen within local authority environments.  Public sector requirements for accountability and transparency can lead to high levels of control with hierarchical structures and high levels of bureaucracy.  This ‘command and control’ culture and complex governance results in projects being delivered using a traditional project management approach. 

Hierarchical, bureaucratic cultures can negatively impact on project effectiveness.  Risk aversion can filter down the organisation, resulting in employees working within low autonomy levels which curtail their ability to be innovative.  Projects can be delayed by the complex system of gateways for approval, updates, and decisions, which are often not tailored to the size of a project. 

If the culture is collaborative, employees feel more empowered and are more comfortable with trying new ways of delivering a project and are more likely to use an agile approach to deliver projects.  Some councils develop supportive and encouraging leadership styles which were found better able to balance the need for the transparency and accountability whilst also creating an environment where staff feel empowered to take risks and be innovative.  Interestingly, many councils developed a more collaborative way of working in response to the Covid-19 pandemic – it is not yet clear whether this will continue in future. 

Theme 3:  Trying new approaches takes time and leadership

To explore non-traditional approaches effectively, staff must have the time to explore options other than the ones that are ‘tried and tested’.  They need the capacity, knowledge and confidence to explore adopting non-traditional approaches to project management.

A major challenge in investigating more efficient project management approaches can be the resistance to change from the organisation’s leadership. Managers and members will need to become comfortable with giving up some control and placing their trust in staff delivering the project which may appear to leave the council open to a higher level of risk.  Under the agile approach, it remains important to establish appropriate checks, for example to ensure financial spend is in line with budgets.

__________________________________________________________________________________

About the project

The research was a Master’s dissertation as part of the MSc in Public Management and Leadership, completed by Saiqa Khan and supervised by Dr Louise Reardon. 

For further information

Please contact the Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV)
Jason Lowther, at [email protected]

Sarah Elliott

We continue our National Apprenticeship Week celebration of our graduates’ dissertations with this examination of co-production in recycling services.

This research examines the motivations and barriers for citizens which can influence the decision to contribute positively in recycling services. The study links participation in recycling services with concern and awareness of environmental issues, and highlights the potential negative impact of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the services provided.

Effective recycling services require a combination of efforts from both service users and service providers.  Recipients of the services are required to separate their materials and present them for collection as required.  There is significant variation in the quantity and quality of participation in recycling services.  One council found 65% of residual waste could have been recycled at the kerbside, losing potential income; and contamination rates of 35% in recycling bins increase costs.

By examining the understanding and experiences of recycling services by residents the data collected in the research shows how to influence greater collaboration and engagement.

Key points

• Understanding residents’ motivations in recycling, and their experience of the service provided, can support co-production efforts.
• Clarity and trust are key to success.  Citizens need to know how to participate, how to recycle different materials, and that the council is processing the material they submit responsibly.
  
  
• Clearly information and communication, using the website and perhaps a dedicated app, can help residents feel confident to participate in recycling.
  
  
• The report suggests three key actions for councils which want to improve the effectiveness of recycling in their area.

Background

Formalisation of requirements for waste collection authorities to collect recyclable waste separately from other waste came into force through the Household Waste Recycling Act 2003.  The separation of recyclable materials from municipal waste streams minimises the amount of waste being sent to landfill or incineration, reducing the impact of escalating disposal costs whilst helping to protect natural resources.  The nature of these services requires a positive coproductive effort from its recipients to ensure that the correct materials are deposited in the correct containers and presented on the day of collection.

The first part of this research therefore involved an online survey which was available for all residents of the city to access via the survey web platform on the council’s website and via the Council Recycling Club.  Following the online survey five semi structured interviews were held with volunteer recipients of the recycling services to gain better understanding and clarity of individuals perceptions of the service.

What we knew already

Several complex factors have been identified as influencing an individual’s ability and willingness to engage positively in coproductive services. These include considerations around the personal and social perceptions, competencies, concerns and motivations of citizens operating in conjunction with a variety of socioeconomic variables.  Citizens’ perceptions include whether the service requiring coproduction is important enough to consider putting in the required effort, and the personal and social importance they put on it – for example, are the environmental benefits and cost savings resulting from effective recycling worth the effort?

The design of recycling services is important as participation may be directly linked to the amount of effort required to do so. More complicated systems may suffer lower participation where residents consider the effort to contribute outweighs the perceived benefits of doing so. 

The issue of political efficacy also arises.  A citizen’s trust in the organisation providing the service influences the likelihood of them displaying positive coproductive behaviour, for example stories of recycling materials ending up in landfill sites across the world can lead to mistrust and reduce participation in services where recipients lose confidence that their efforts are worthwhile.   The development of mutual relationships between the recipients of services and service providers are a means of addressing the distrust between political institutions and citizens.

Levels of environmental concern and involvement in recycling vary by age, gender, social class and residence.  Participation in recycling services can be linked to the level of knowledge that citizens have about the services provided and the quality of these services.   The use of social media platforms such as Apps, Facebook and Twitter offer opportunities for organisations and citizens to share and gather information, including ‘nudging’ citizens to pro-environmental actions.

Theme 1: Motivation

Environmental considerations are a significant incentive for citizens in the positive coproduction of recycling services.  The most common reasons by survey respondents on why they recycle was to reduce waste going to landfill, a sense that it’s the ‘right thing to do’, to preserve natural resources and to tackle climate change.  When asked to identify the reasons why they might not always recycle the most common responses were that the service is too complicated (37%) and that they did not always produce appropriate waste (35%).  Regarding ease of use of the current system, 97% felt it was easy or very easy to use the recycling bin service.  Interestingly, only 1% of responses suggested that a cash incentive or reward would make them recycle more.

Theme 2: Clarity and trust

Confusion over how to participate positively in the services provided, alongside a lack of confidence that recyclable materials are being processed responsibly act to demotivate citizens when deciding if the effort required to positively participate outweighs the perceived benefits of doing so.

Some residents appear to be put off recycling because they think the system is too complicated, for example they don’t know which items can be recycled.  One interviewee commented, “I’m not sure if some things are recyclable or not. I want to recycle everything I can but find myself putting things in the green bin because I am not sure”.

The survey also found concerns about whether council can be trusted to recycle effectively.  One interviewee highlighted the concern as follows: “It would be good to know what happens to the recycled material and that it is being effectively recycled. Documentaries have shown that it ends up dumped in underdeveloped countries which are unable to process the waste, it’s a massive deception.”

One in eight items participants said they put in the recycling bins items which are outside the scope of the scheme.  Although participants mainly correctly identified types of waste suitable for recycling in the service, common errors were including plastic bags, glass other than bottles/jars, and hard plastics.  When unsure whether an item was admissible to recycle, 62% of participants would put it in the waste bin and 18% in the recycling bin.

Theme 3: Information

A lack of knowledge can lead to negative coproduction even from those people that identify themselves as regular recyclers.  In order to identify how people currently access information about the Council recycling services and to identify other communication methods that may be helpful participants were asked to identify what would help them recycle more.  The most frequently occurring response given by those answering this question identified that an app that confirms what can and can’t be recycled would help them to recycle more.   One respondent commented that “I would recycle more if I was sure exactly what items I can recycle, we should be utilising more technology to enable recycling and make it easier to access information”.

Through the development of better and clearer information on these topics, councils can provide recyclers with increased confidence that they are “doing the right thing” and increase the coproductive capacity of participants in the recycling services. 

Conclusions

Environmental concerns such as tackling climate change and preserving natural resources identified as a primary motivator for residents.  However, there can be a lack of clarity amongst recyclers around the requirements of the service.

A lack of trust from some recyclers that materials “may not end up being recycled effectively” can negatively impact on their decision to engage fully in the services where they feel that the effort required to participate outweighs the perceived benefits of doing so. Through better and clearer information on these topics councils can provide recyclers with increased confidence that they are “doing the right thing” and increase the coproductive capacity of participants in the recycling services.  This can be further enabled through the development of more technologically enabled relationships with citizens, giving them access to digital platforms such as a recycling App which can  provide easy and accessible  guidance and information about recycling services.

To increase co-production in recycling services, council should:

• Review existing information available to residents on the council’s website to ensure that it is easy to access and clear, and analyse how this information is being accessed.
• Consider an App that residents can use to have easy, clear and up to date information about the recycling services including information about which materials can be accepted.
• Develop a communications campaign to share information with residents about the environmental and financial benefits of recycling and highlighting the problems of contamination in the recycling bins.

__________________________________________________________________________________

About the project

This research was a Master’s dissertation as part of the MSc in Public Management and Leadership, completed by Sarah Elliott, supervised by Dr Louise Reardon. 

For further information

Please contact the Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV)
Jason Lowther, at [email protected]

Sally Giles

Over recent decades, the environment for public services has become increasingly challenging and complex.  In response, more emphasis has been given to interagency co-operation and systems leadership, although effective systems leadership can be extremely difficult. 

Based on a detailed literature review and twelve semi-structured interviews in a case study partnership, this study reaffirms the importance of systems leadership for public services, whilst highlighting certain barriers that can reduce its effectiveness. It makes recommendations for future improvements.

Key points

• Many issues facing the public sector (such poverty or obesity) are deeply complex (‘wicked’) social problems requiring cross-boundary co-operation to resolve them in an increasingly challenging and complex environment.   
• Systems leadership has been described as a ‘mind set’ of overlapping dimensions, rather than a collection of observable technical skills or competences. 
• Partners may have widely varying understandings of the ‘system’ and its leadership, and lack shared understanding and commitment.
• Partnerships may neglect the essential (and difficult) work of developing effective local strategy and local focus by focussing on national agendas, projects and tasks. 
• Team building across the system and improving staff capabilities to undertake systems leadership are important. 
• Systems leaders need to develop their own individual capabilities, but work is also needed on the system and the community.  Systems leadership must be facilitated at each of these levels.  
• Developing systems leadership locally could be supported by facilitated workshops focussing on the development of shared understanding, shared vision, team building and a collective narrative which helps communication with key stakeholders within and without the system. 

Background

Many issues facing the public sector (such poverty or obesity) are deeply complex (‘wicked’) social problems requiring cross-boundary co-operation to resolve them.  The environment for public services in the UK and beyond is increasingly challenging and complex.  The leadership required to be effective in these complex and uncertain environments is variously described as collaborative, distributed, dispersed or systems leadership. 

Systems leadership can be a complex and difficult option, with high transaction costs, extended time frames, and an ambiguous link to improved outcomes.  This research therefore explores the conditions under which theories of systems leadership have relevance for leaders of public services, investigating the extent to which a systems leadership approach has been adopted in a case study partnership, and whether the approach conforms to, or falls short, of an ideal type drawn from the academic literature, and how further improvements can be made.     

What we knew already

Systems leadership draws on insights from systems and complexity theory, which maintain that the component parts of a social arrangement can best be understood through their relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation.  In complex adaptive systems, large numbers of components or agents adapt and learn how to best meet desired outcomes, and solutions tend to emerge rather than being imposed.  The constant changes taking place within the system and the external environment mean that it is impossible to predict what will happen next.  The leadership required in this type of system relies on learning, creative and adaptive capacity. 

Systems leadership has been described as a ‘mind set’ of overlapping dimensions, rather than a collection of observable technical skills or competences.  Examples of these dimensions are ways of feeling, perceiving, thinking, relating and doing.  Such leaders need strong skills in analysis, synthesis and creating a narrative which simplifies complexity, galvanises stakeholders around a key purpose, and motivates them to continue difficult and demanding work in the face of uncertainty and challenge. 

Systems leadership may not always be an appropriate response to all leadership challenges or situations – practitioners need to reflect on the right response before acting.  In particular, leadership within an organisation (likely to be more command and control oriented) is different from the leadership required when working with complex problems and across boundaries in an inter-organisational space (which is likely to be systems leadership).

Systems leadership is not an easy option.   Aspects of the operating or authorising environment can hinder systems leadership, such as a lack of support from senior managers or politicians, bureaucracy and hierarchy, inspection and regulation and the tension between partnership and contractual arrangements.  The complexity of the operating environment can limit effective leadership.  And time pressures can lead to a focus on tasks and easily measured goals.  In response, leaders may choose to avoid systems leadership and resort to ‘command and control’ or the use of technical or process-type solutions. 

Understanding ‘the system’ and its leadership

Most of the interviewees in the case study Child and Mental Health Services partnership had a broad agreement that ‘systems leadership’ involves collaboration across boundaries, however beyond this there was wide variation in definitions given.   Similarly, often people from different organisations understood the term ‘system’ differently.  A frequent approach was to define systems leadership in terms of common goals or a common vision.  But there were also examples of extreme differences, from a view of systems leadership as imposed in a top-down way by government, to that of effective systems leadership requiring a kind of bottom-up or emergent moral imperative. 

There was a widely held view that the understanding and practice of systems leadership varied from organisation to organisation and from individual to individual.  Most individuals had developed their understanding from their training, roles and exposure to role models.  Collective understanding and collective commitment, in the form of shared vision, shared strategy, shared agendas or shared values were widely viewed as key facilitators of systems leadership but in many situations a shared local understanding has not yet been developed. 

Developing collective understanding

In focussing on tasks, projects and process (often driven by national agendas), partnerships may neglect opportunities for developing effective local strategy and local focus.  The work of developing this local focus can be threatening to partners.  The comment of one LA strategic manager clearly exemplifies the issue:

I don’t think we really understand each other’s issues, and I don’t think the system would feel particularly safe enough to explore these in a candid way.  (LA strategic manager)

One useful starting point is to think about the outcomes for the people or groups the system is designed to support, for example improving children’s mental health.  What are the real priorities in the specific local area, which might differ to a national set of priorities?  This needs to be at a much more detailed level than a headline outcome (such as ‘improved mental health’), for example looking at a very local level to understand needs and available resources and co-producing the analysis and action plan with relevant communities.

Developing the team

Team building across the system and on improving staff capabilities to undertake systems leadership are important.  Systems leaders can usefully see themselves as a virtual team, requiring similar investment to organisational teams.  For example, operational managers may benefit from support to move from a typical ‘command and control’ approach. The most commonly cited skills needed for working effectively across systems were problem solving, listening, emotional intelligence, humility, facilitation and meeting skills, and the ability to negotiate and influence without wielding traditional levers of power.   

Tackling complexity and lack of time

Complexity, such as a fragmented commissioning landscape or complex governance and contractual arrangements, can negatively impact on the effectiveness of systems leadership.  Complexity can also impact on the ability to shape and communicate a narrative about the state of the system, its progress and challenges.  Partnerships should take time to understand the complexities involved, their impacts, and also to consider whether all this complexity is necessary.

Another recurrent theme in the case study was extreme time pressure, that participants felt impacted on relationship-building, problem analysis and strategic planning.  Helping partnership members to prioritise this work is an important aspect of system leadership.  

Conclusions

Systems leadership is an important skill  for contemporary public service organisations, but the research highlights that there is a lack of practical guidance within the literature to support systems leaders to develop their understanding of how to operationalise this style of leadership. 

Systems leaders need to develop their own individual capabilities, but also requires work on the system and the community.  Systems leadership must be facilitated at each of these levels: the onus is not exclusively on an individual, superhuman leader, but on the wider system and community, and on government to create an appropriate culture and environment.  

Developing systems leadership locally could be supported by facilitated workshops focussing on the development of shared understanding, shared vision, team building and a collective narrative which helps communication with key stakeholders within and without the system. 

__________________________________________________________________________________

About the project This research was a Master’s dissertation as part of the MSc in Public Management and Leadership, completed by Sally Giles, supervised by Jason Lowther. 

Carl Binns

Continuing our celebration of National Apprenticeship Week, this dissertation explores systems change in violence reduction. The introduction of Violence Reduction Units (VRUs) from 2019 represented a paradigm shift in the strategic leadership and policy development relating to serious violence in the UK. Multi-disciplinary VRUs can co-commission services across sectors and engage with a multitude of partner to tackle the root causes of violence.

This research draws on the experiences and insights from a range of systems leaders working in and around the case study VRU. The study found that principles underpinning the public health approach to violence can be implemented and connected to a wide range of partners via effective systems leadership. However, systems leadership as a specific skillset is often under-recognised in the professional development of public leaders working to reduce and prevent violence.

Key findings:

• VRUs differ widely across the country in their composition and focus, but their introduction represents a paradigm shift towards focused and intensive multi-agency working.
• The public health approach can shift the focus from reacting to violence (the symptom) to a focus on changing the social determinants that cause violence, which can be systemic as well as linked to individual life experiences and capacities.
• VRU staff need to step away from the operational realities that can often blinker professionals, to enable a more encompassing view of those factors that influence susceptibility to violence.
• VRUs can provide space for innovation to develop in the form of strategies and conditions to develop interrelationships and effective ways of working in collaboration and partnership. Key to this is developing trust, between professionals and with communities. 
• VRUs have the opportunity to engage in ‘active listening’ with the community as a whole and with specific sub-groups such as victims of violence or potential perpetrators and victims.
• When practically applied, concepts of systems leadership can help system leaders to ‘become comfortable with chaos’ and enable them to extend public health principles across a system with otherwise diverging priorities and policy drivers. 

Background

Violence Reduction Units were established in 18 policy forces in 2019 as new multi-agency units responsible for tackling and preventing violence.  They represent an important step forward in regards local leadership around complex social issues.  This research investigated the extent to which VRUs can implement a ‘whole-systems’ policy response to serious violence using a case study of a large urban Violence Reduction Unit.  In seeking to tackle violence, this VRU has adopted a public health approach which brings with it a tradition of ‘integrative leadership’.

Fieldwork interviews in the dissertation identified VRUs as an important opportunity to do things differently and enhance strategic coordination at a regional level.  They can facilitate violence prevention activity by making information, advice and guidance more accessible and taking central responsibility for convening key partners. 

What we knew already

The UK government’s adoption of VRUs was inspired by experiences in Glasgow from 2005, which concluded: ‘Violence is preventable, not inevitable’.  The Glasgow partnership, formed of police and other local community partners, worked in an intensive and focussed way to provide to opportunities in employment, activities and education for those involved in violence. Accompanying this was a strong enforcement arm which ensured those who did not engage faced tough penal sentences.

VRUs differ widely across the country in their composition and focus, with two main operational models: a centralised multi-disciplinary unit and a hub and spoke structure. Central to both models is a tripartite structure which includes a governance board, a dedicated team of staff from a range of professional backgrounds and an additional localised resourcing to deliver focussed activity on the ground. The emerging literature on VRUs presents their introduction as a paradigm shift towards focused and intensive multi-agency working.

The public health approach can be seen as a shift in cultural thinking from a limiting focus on reacting to violence (the symptom) to a focus on changing the social determinants that cause violence. Where historical policy responses were often characterised by fragmented interventions spearheaded by the criminal justice sector, the public health approach prioritises principles of connectivity and collaboration and the inclusion of community voice and agency. This transition clearly requires a different set of skills for public sector leaders, with boundary crossing activity as ‘the new normal’ for effective service delivery.

Practical steps for implementing whole-systems approaches include the identification of ‘ways of working’ and specific activities such as enabling distributed leadership, being flexible and adaptive, and communicating effectively with partners via systemic data sharing across systems.  Systems leadership can be viewed as an interactive process of continual negotiation between many interacting actors; a marked change from the ‘bureaucratic ideal type’ mode of governance.  Leading in such a complex environment is often disconcerting, intellectually demanding and emotionally draining, often described as ‘emotional labour’.

The causes of violence are complex

VRUs need to develop a common understanding of the causes of violence in their locality.  Some responses focus on systemic issues prevalent within society, such as poverty and deprivation, a lack of opportunity and meaningful employment.  Others focus more on the pervasive impact of personal relationships and community contexts, drawing out trauma and negative life experiences in early childhood as central to a propensity towards violence.  A third perspective considers individual risk factors and protective factors, drawing out concepts of gender, psychology and individual capacity to resolve conflict.

Recognising the complexity of the system

VRU staff need to step away from the operational realities that can often blinker professionals, to enable a more encompassing view of those factors that influence susceptibility to violence.  Complex adaptive systems have a large number of agents that interact, adapt and learn together. They are particularly difficult to navigate through in that they are emergent in nature and cannot be perceived of or predicted by standard linear deduction.  System mapping can help actors build a visual picture of interdependencies and key players within a system, highlighting a key role for VRUs in coordinating local violence reduction activity. Framing a view of the system around the needs of individuals of specific cohorts can help.  Each agency within the system also needs to recognise the importance of violence as a societal issue.  VRUs must work within a context where national policy is not ‘joined up’ in addressing issues of violence.

Thinking in systems and leading across sectors

VRUs can provide space for innovation to develop in the form of strategies and conditions to develop interrelationships and effective ways of working in collaboration and partnership. Key to this is developing trust, between professionals and with communities.  Building effective partnerships with schools may be particularly important. As well as this facilitation role, VRUs at times need to take more of an active role in directing and shaping action to effect change. 

VRUs have the opportunity to engage in ‘active listening’ with the community as a whole and with specific sub-groups such as victims of violence or potential perpetrators and victims. Community involvement is often momentary, an afterthought or tick-box exercise without the true ambition of incorporating their views into the policy process. Active listening must build from the concept of transparency; providing communities with an understanding of how they can target their issues at specific parts of the system, then truly listening to what they have to say and acting on it.

VRUs have important roles in creating a shared and compelling narrative which mobilises, convenes and stimulates system actors by making sense of complexity and bringing together different strategies and visions to form a common purpose. Developing such a narrative requires the sharing and collective use of data and evidence, and developing a unified understanding of the problem and subsequent appropriate action to take. This takes time to develop.

VRUs can also empower others to view violence as their business by creating a shared sense of responsibility around violence prevention and reduction activity, in spite of the system’s current fragmentation.  A whole system response necessitates a cultural shift within society, so that all people understand the part they play within a violence prevention system.

The pandemic and recovery

The pandemic created unprecedented challenge for those working to reduce and prevent violence; impeding service delivery, increasing risk factors relating to violence and vulnerability and restricting the ability of VRUs to access partners or carry out face-to-face engagement with communities and stakeholders, and exacerbating the disconnect which can exist between different elements of the public services.  But the pandemic has also provided new opportunities such as the advances made in virtual connectivity via digital innovation, a new sense of unity, and a recognition that agencies and communities can work effectively together to tackle difficult issues.  

Conclusions

The introduction of VRUs is a paradigm shift towards greater local autonomy around violence prevention activity, and marks the beginning of a journey towards enhanced sector collaboration where risks are identified earlier, and vulnerable people are better supported by end-to-end services.  When practically applied, concepts of systems leadership can help system leaders to ‘become comfortable with chaos’ and enable them to extend public health principles across a system with otherwise diverging priorities and policy drivers. 

VRUs should lean into the diversity of opinion and expertise that exists across the system and find ways of connecting this up. Through analysis and insight generated via data, and the effective sharing of resources and knowledge with different sectors, VRUs have begun to foster a collective sense of both the challenge that faces their area, and the solutions to be acted upon. The direct mandate from the Home Office, coupled with flexible funding places them in an ideal position to corral partners around tangible change programmes. This serves a double purpose in that this as well as delivering activity for those in need, it also initiates engagement, and provides VRUs with an opportunity to influence and shape ways of thinking. VRUs can embody the principles of a public health approach to violence, and can make these tangible through carefully exercised systems leadership.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About the project

This research was a Master’s dissertation as part of the MSc in Public Management and Leadership, completed by Carl Binns, now a Senior Policy Advisor at the UK Home Office, and supervised by Dr Stephen Jeffares.

Further information on Inlogov’s research, teaching and consultancy is available from the institute’s director, Jason Lowther, at [email protected]