Leading knowledge mobilization for public value: The case of the congestion charge zone (Area C) in Milan

Abstract

The literature on public value creation has grown significantly in recent years. However, how such generation of public value is linked to the interaction between individual and organizational capabilities, and the role played by leadership in such interaction, is still underexplored. This analysis of the congestion charge zone (Area C) implemented by the Municipality of Milan in Italy explores this issue and highlights the role played by the knowledge orchestrator who, by assuming different leadership roles at different times, strives to create value through knowledge mobilization. Leveraging from existing resources, the knowledge orchestrator captures knowledge from the external environment and promotes collaboration among individuals and institutions, so as to generate a new reconfigured stock of knowledge. These activities nurture the capacity of public organizations to collaborate, produce innovations, and more broadly contribute to public value creation.

Leadership for public value: Political astuteness as a conceptual link

“…Turning to the symposium articles, they show the diversity of thinking about public value, and they also illustrate an exciting variety of purposes to which public value theory and its constituent frameworks can be put. They range from articles which deploy Moore's strategic triangle (Ayres ; Brown and Head ); use both Moore and Benington (Andrews ); use Benington (Hartley et al ; Teasdale and Dey ) and one article which is less definite about its approach to public value, but which assumes that endeavours by public servants and civil society actors can create public value by reducing air pollution (Trivellato et al ). These articles move the field forward, heeding the call of Hartley et al () for scholars to be clear about which strand of public value theory they are drawing on.…”

“…Teasdale and Dey (), drawing on Benington (), frame public value as a contested democratic practice which changes over time and can be altered through debate, showing that there might be an ongoing tension between the public value constructed and argued for by different civil society groups, and the political objectives of government. Trivellato et al () deploy public value as the desirable outcome of complex leadership and knowledge mobilization processes.…”

“…Teasdale and Dey () use a Foucauldian governmentality perspective with the example of neoliberal governing through social enterprises to highlight how political philosophies and governmental technologies can foster a more sustainable public space. For Trivellato et al () there are also multiple interests which require particular leadership skills involving orchestration, mediation and negotiation. Hartley et al () present not only multiple stakeholders (who have interests, whether private or public), but also multiple publics.…”

“…Where leadership occurs is a matter of significance and the location can influence public value. Leadership processes may happen in informal spaces (Ayres ; Brown and Head ; Hartley et al ); in liminal spaces across organizations (Trivellato et al ); in symbolic spaces of loss and displacement of public value (Hartley et al ); in hidden spaces ‘where public managers and civil society practitioners deviate from official mandates’ (Teasdale and Dey ); and in grappling with public and private issues about big data and technological algorithms (Andrews ).…”

“…Leadership in these symposium articles often involves a continual struggle over how public value might be created, enhanced and subsequently sustained, in the context of other interests. Such impediments may be the interests represented by traditional public administration (Brown and Head ); criminals and potential vigilantes (Hartley et al ); political and economic interests to build an ideal model of citizenship and enterprise (Teasdale and Dey ); different views about how to achieve congestion charging (Trivellato et al ); how to manage big data in the public interest and not solely private corporation capture (Andrews ) or degrees of support, indifference or hostility to a social innovation (Ayres ). This highlights that contest and conflict are often endemic, and sometimes even beneficial, to the exercise of public leadership.…”