Leadership for Public Value Training Course

Participants can assess whether a proposed initiative has sufficient authority, sponsorship and legitimacy.

• Authorising environment actors: ministers, boards, regulators, funders and communities
• Formal authority compared with informal influence and political sponsorship
• Mandate analysis using legislation, policy commitments, budgets and delegated powers
• Sources of legitimacy: legality, participation, performance and public trust
• Political risk signals affecting contested reforms and sensitive service decisions
• Building an authorisation strategy for decisions beyond direct managerial control

Participants can write a defensible public value proposition and outcome statement.

• Public value proposition linking intended beneficiaries, outcomes and public purpose
• Outcome statements specifying change, population, timeframe and relevant conditions
• Equity analysis identifying who benefits, who bears costs and who remains excluded
• Prioritisation criteria balancing urgency, scale, feasibility, fairness and mandate fit
• Service-user needs translated into measurable outcome and experience requirements
• Testing proposed value against fiscal constraints and delivery trade-offs

Participants can construct a Theory of Change that makes assumptions and causal links visible.

• Theory of Change linking inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact
• Causal pathways stated as testable links rather than aspirational claims
• Assumptions identified across behavioural, institutional, political and market conditions
• External factors separated from controllable delivery actions and management decisions
• Results Framework indicators matched to outputs, outcomes and intended beneficiaries
• Contribution claims distinguished from attribution claims in complex public programmes
• Using evidence reviews to challenge weak causal assumptions early

Participants can map stakeholders and select engagement approaches suited to their influence and interests.

• Stakeholder Power-Interest Grid for prioritising engagement effort and communication
• Mapping affected groups, implementing partners, critics, champions and decision-makers
• Interest analysis separating stated positions from underlying incentives and concerns
• Participation methods: inform, consult, involve, collaborate and delegate decisions
• Community feedback channels designed for accessibility, safety and response accountability
• Negotiating shared commitments across agencies with different mandates and incentives
• Engagement plans specifying purpose, owner, message, channel and follow-up

Participants can diagnose delivery capacity and define practical actions to address priority gaps.

• Operational capacity assessed through people, processes, funding, data and partnerships
• Delivery chain mapping from policy decision to frontline service experience
• Bottleneck analysis locating delays, failure points and handover weaknesses
• Roles and accountabilities clarified through a RACI responsibility matrix
• Partnership governance covering decisions, escalation routes, information sharing and assurance
• Resource prioritisation against value, risk, urgency and implementation feasibility
• Frontline insight incorporated into service design and operational problem-solving

Participants can lead adaptive responses while retaining accountability for agreed outcomes.

• Technical problems distinguished from adaptive challenges requiring behavioural change
• Adaptive leadership practices: observe, interpret, intervene and review outcomes
• Managing uncertainty through hypotheses, short feedback cycles and decision thresholds
• Psychological safety supporting escalation of delivery failures and ethical concerns
• Scenario planning for funding shocks, political change, crises and service disruption
• Learning reviews converting implementation evidence into revised actions and assumptions
• Escalation decisions based on risk appetite, authority limits and beneficiary harm

Participants can apply ethical and accountability principles to contested public-sector decisions.

• Public service values: impartiality, integrity, transparency, fairness and stewardship
• Ethical decision tests examining rights, consequences, duties and distributive fairness
• Conflicts of interest identified, declared and managed through documented controls
• Equity impact assessment for differential access, burden and unintended exclusion
• Accountability relationships between citizens, elected officials, managers and funders
• Complaint and redress mechanisms linked to service standards and response times
• Documenting difficult decisions with evidence, rationale, authority and review dates

Participants can design a proportionate performance approach that supports accountability and learning.

• Performance measures balanced across outcomes, outputs, quality, equity and efficiency
• Indicator definitions specifying numerator, denominator, source, frequency and owner
• Leading indicators used to identify implementation risk before outcome deterioration
• Disaggregated data revealing unequal access, experience and results among groups
• Performance dashboards focused on decisions, exceptions, trends and corrective actions
• After-action reviews capturing lessons, responsible actions and verification dates
• Evidence governance protecting data quality, privacy, transparency and appropriate use

Participants can communicate a public value case and prepare an implementation plan for their initiative.

• Public value narrative connecting mandate, need, intervention, evidence and expected outcomes
• Decision briefs structured around options, trade-offs, risks and recommended action
• Tailoring messages for ministers, boards, frontline staff, partners and communities
• Implementation roadmaps sequencing authorisation, mobilisation, delivery and review milestones
• Risk registers linking threats, early warnings, mitigations, owners and escalation routes
• Ninety-day action plans converting public value commitments into accountable priorities
• Peer challenge used to test feasibility, legitimacy and outcome logic