Navigating tensions in co‐production: A missing link in leadership for public value

Abstract

New forms of public leadership are needed to design and implement co‐production of public value. We draw on narrative analysis to explore the barriers to developing the capacity for co‐production of public value in disadvantaged and vulnerable Indigenous communities and find that existing norms not only crowd out efforts at reform, but can work against them. In particular, we find that upward accountability and a focus on expert knowledge are the most problematic for co‐production of public value. We focus on how more traditional practices of public administration mediated the achievements of public leaders in their co‐production efforts when Australian governments introduced strategies for partnership with Indigenous communities for services design and delivery. The analysis suggests that creating a broader enabling environment of supportive logics would allow public leaders to engage more productively with inherent tensions between old and new ways of working.

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.…”

“…The use of the strategic triangle framework enables Ayres to disentangle strategic processes of considerable complexity over time. Brown and Head () also deploy Moore's strategic triangle and use it to both analyse and evaluate how far public managers (the original set of actors in public value theory) are able to achieve new policy goals, when earlier institutional logics (Reay and Hinings ) are still in play. In both of these cases, public value is a theoretical tool applied to understand a complex and wicked societal challenge.…”

“…Her reference to a tipping point recognizes the dynamic nature of different interests—and also different societal values (for example, democratic legitimacy vs. flexibility). Brown and Head () largely seem to hold the view that there is a public interest (singular), although they do note that public value can be contested by different stakeholders. 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.…”

“…This symposium highlights that leadership for public value can be exhibited by citizens and social groups (Brown and Head ; Hartley et al ), social enterprises, charities, and civil society organizations (Ayres ; Teasdale and Dey ), and also by private corporations (Andrews ) as well as by public organizations. Public leadership is not only about leadership from within public organizations but is about leadership which impacts on the public (Hartley ).…”

Selective permeability of boundaries in a knowledge brokering team

“…The findings of this study are likely to be applicable to a wide range of collective knowledge brokering agents, such as knowledge mobilization agencies engaged in co‐production and other forms of boundary work in the fragmented contexts of networks, partnerships and alliances (Guston ; Mørk et al ; Brown and Head ; Powell et al ). It also opens a number of avenues for future research.…”