My unplanned and often accidental career has ended up giving me an unusually deep insight into the use of frameworks to drive improvement in organisational effectiveness and public sector leadership.
No surprise then that I have now developed a synthesis of these frameworks to underpin much of my advisory work.
I have had a slightly weird journey to my current job. Obessive about politics, current affairs, economics and share prices as a teenager. Studying management and organisational change at university. And then switching beween leading change in public services (Westminster Council, Cabinet Office, Ministry of Justice) and researching the best (and worst) of public services during spells at the Audit Commission and the Institute for Government.
A recurring fatal attraction has been to take a leading role in the development of some the most impactful frameworks for assessing organisational health and leadership effectiveness in public services.
I led the team that developed the framework and methodology for assessing and inspecting best value in local public services (1998)
Both as a board member of the Improvement and Development Agency for local government and peer reviewer I saw the development, impact and influence of a novel peer review method - a highly engaging way to build local commitment to specific changes [1999].
I led the research project that successfully made the case for abolishing best value and replacing it with the Comprehensive Performance Assessment of local authorities (2001).
I helped the Prime Ministers Delivery Unit develop and improve the framework we used for assessing ‘prospects for successful delivery’ of Prime Minister Blair’s top priorities (2003).
I led the development and successful implementation of the framework and method for assessing the capability to deliver of Whitehall departments. These capability reviews were a flagship programme of the new Cabinet Secretary, Gus O’Donnell (2006).
I led the research at the Institute for Government that identified the factors that explain the successes (and failures) during 40 years of civil service reform (2011).
What does the right framework need to be like?
For my ‘best of’ framework I was looking for was something that was credible, intelligible and practical. In my experience usability is determined by having a limited number of factors, each supported by some meaningful questions that we can use to explore the factor. I wanted something that could be used in most areas of public service with minimal adaptation.
I wanted a flexible tool that would facilitate purposeful conversations with leaders and senior managers about their role in leading their organisation and bringing leadership to their wider context. I wanted a framework that would help leaders, ministers and managers reflect on the effectiveness and capability of their organisations, and take decisive steps to improve it.
Factors to consider for the framework
In addition to drawing on the frameworks I had codesigned, I did further research to make sure I was picking up more recent wisdom and thinking in this field. I wanted my ‘best of’ to be a future looking framework that embraced newer thinking around: strategic agility; systems leadership; engagement, innovation and capability building.
Whilst much of what makes for effective senior leadership teams is more or less universal to all sectors and many countries, I was conscious that three challenges are especially acute for senior leadership teams in the public sector:
Value and results focus. You need a framework which keeps a strong focus on the purpose of the team and the impact it seeks. This will mean considering the role your leadership team plays in key elements of your operating model. Too many leadership team interventions are detached from the impacts and outcomes which should be the ultimate measure of that leadership team’s effectiveness.
Political and volatile context. Public sector leaders operate in a highly politicised and contested area of public policy, with active and influential stakeholders. The framework must test their ability to provide agile strategic leadership in this context.
System leadership. Public sector leaders have multiple leadership and team roles: of their local or regional team; and their role in shaping or leading national policy. Collaboration beyond conventional hierarchies and boundaries is essential. So the framework needs to draw on work that considers the key functions of system leadership and attributes of system leaders.
The 10 Characteristics of effective public sector leadership teams
The framework I developed boils down to 10 characteristics. The 10th only applied to those teams that lead a geographically dispersed organisation.
An effective public sector leadership team:
Is an open, outward looking team that connects and collaborates with the wider system – providing leadership to the local, regional and national system
Establishes and articulates ambition, clear direction and goals that are shared by key partners in the system
Exhibits healthy relationships and works in a way that builds trust whilst modelling the right behaviours and values
Empowers staff and partners to perform by establishing clear roles, responsibilities and investing sufficient resources
Is forward looking, resilient, agile and decisive
Focuses on building skills and capability in the organisation and across the system
Grips performance and outcomes – and establish the right business model to deliver them
Encourages innovation and learning across the system
Inspires and engages team leaders
Works in a way that mitigates the negative impacts of being a geographically dispersed organisation
Each characteristic is supported by a number of guide questions. And a questionaire which brings a quantitative aspect to the assessment of a leadership team.
The 10 key Characteristics and their supporting questions
Another blog out will draw some of the insights, common patterns and areas differences that have emerged from applying this framework, and earlier versions, to over 25 public sector organisations, departments and agencies.
How to use the framework
In practice I have found that a typical project using the framework takes 10 weeks from set-up to agreeing actions. As ever pace depends on quality administrative support, availability of key people, and clear messages about the purpose and priority of the work from respected leaders. It is crucial to work with the existing cycle of senior leadership team meetings and awaydays, and to allow time for focus groups with staff all the way through.
This methodology is ideal for taking a strategic step back to reflect and refocus. It works as well for existing senior leaders as for incoming chief executives, directors and new ministers. The use of the framework and our ability to provide a comparative picture provide a compelling assessment of your strengths and weakness.
Our approach is a highly collaborative and engaging. We help you create a shared view of opportunities, strengths and weaknesses - and mobilise your people to create and take action that will strengthen your organisation. As part of the process we usually become a valued source of counsel, challenge and support for leaders.
We always prefer to co-opt 2 or 3 part time staff from the organisation to be an integral part of the core team carrying out the stocktake.This has major benefits and is really important to the quality of the work. The joint team:
ensures we adapt the core methodologies to the context, capability and culture of the local system;
transfers skills and builds capability;
provides a great development opportunity for talented junior staff;
ensures external advisers are only used where they add value; and
builds a level of corporate ownership and memory within the organisation that will remain in place once the external team have departed.
End note: Main sources for the framework
Cabinet Office, 2008. Excellence and Fairness: achieving world class public services, Cabinet Office
Cabinet Office, 2007. Capability Review Model
De Meuse, 2009. A Comparative Analysis of the Korn/Ferry T7 Model With Other Popular Team Models, Korn Ferry Institute.
Doz, Hamalainen and Kossonen 2012. Strategic Agility in government, INSEAD-Sitra.
Kayworth and Leidner 2001. Global virtual team effectiveness, Journal of Management Information Systems.
Hackman, 2002. Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hallsworth, 2011. System Stewardship: the future of policy making, Institute for Government.
Hibben, 2016. Systems leadership, unpublished, London Borough of Haringey.
Huang, 2016. Mitigating the Negative Effects of Geographically Dispersed Teams, University of California
Keller and Price, 2010. Performance and health, McKinsey and Company
Senge, P., Hamilton, H., Kania, J., Winter 2015, ‘The Dawn of System Leadership’, Stanford Social Innovation Review.
Watkins, 2013. Making Virtual Teams Work: Ten Basic Principles