Leading for public value in multi-agency collaboration

Leadership

Leadership remains under-researched in relation to public value with less empirical work than is sometimes assumed (Hartley et al., 2019b). Informing this agenda is a growing literature about leadership in collaborative settings (e.g. Crosby and Bryson, 2005; Huxham and Vangen, 2013). For Crosby and Bryson (2018: 1266) public leadership is ‘a collective, multilevel, cross sector endeavour imbued with public value’. This recognises that leadership does not always involve singular leaders (Alvesson and Spicer, 2011). Increasingly, the literature assumes shared (Bligh et al., 2006; Pearce and Conger, 2003) or distributed leadership (Bolden, 2011; Spillane, 2005) reflecting the complexities of a ‘no-one-in-charge, shared-power world’ (Crosby and Bryson, 2005: 8). Denis et al. (2010) and Sergi et al. (2016) emphasize pluralistic forms of leadership, which may come about for a variety of reasons.

Although distributed leadership in networks and partnerships is widely discussed, few studies consider it in detail (Hartley, 2018). Such plural theories of leadership have been labelled ‘post-heroic’ (Crosby and Bryson, 2018; Sergi et al., 2016), describing the aspiration to move analytically beyond the commonly understood definition of singular leaders. Emphasising the importance of leadership by collectives, Sergi et al. (2016) identify variations in defining plural leadership – an important ‘umbrella term’, but one that is not clearly defined (Sergi et al., 2016: 36). They argue that there are three perspectives to plural leadership: pluralising by choice to ensure that complex organisations or collaborations function effectively; pluralising by ideal, with attention to promoting democratic ideals; and pluralising to assist analytical understanding of leadership processes that emerge out of joint action. This paper is concerned with the first perspective.

The literature on multi-agency collaboration enhances our understanding of leadership (e.g. Cristofoli et al., 2017; Huxham and Vangen, 2013). Issues include the requirement for trust amongst partners (Klijn et al., 2010; Sørensen and Torfing, 2009), frameworks for agreeing shared goals (Vangen and Huxham, 2012), and the complex institutional interests and power dynamics (Cornforth et al., 2018).

In multi-agency settings, leadership may be required to provide a sense of shared purpose and sense-making across disparate interests. Whilst multi-agency working between organisations is often associated with pluralistic leadership this is not inevitable. There are situations where collaboration is undertaken with singular leadership drawing together different stakeholders, or in cross-sectoral initiatives where a clear command structure is valuable. In these contexts, leadership may be granted by stakeholders to those with access to critical resources and the ability to direct them towards solving problems (Dudau et al., 2018; Weber and Khademian, 2008).

There has been a small number of attempts to consider the relationship between public value and collaboration. Page et al. (2015) argue when engaging in collaborative activities ‘democratic accountability’ is important for creating public value. This is because it can be applied vertically to provide responsiveness to authorisers and legal mandates, as well as horizontally to collaborative partners and external stakeholders. Second, ‘procedural legitimacy’ is key to creating public value as it improves the likelihood that collaborations are conducted effectively. Page et al.’s final dimension is ‘substantive outcomes’ by which a collaboration creates public value which is demonstrable and effective.

Another stream of literature focuses specifically on multidisciplinary services (Frost et al., 2005; Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2018). For Frost et al., (2005), multi-agency teams may include stages of joint working: ‘co-operation’ (working together but maintaining independence); ‘collaboration’ (services planning together); ‘co-ordination’ (working together systematically); and ‘merger and integration’ (when teams and professionals become a single service. By working together professionals are likely to influence each other’s beliefs and practices, but with disparities of power and status) (Frost et al., 2005; Sullivan and Williams, 2012).

For Keast et al. (2007) and Keast and Mandell (2014), the integration required to tackle and improve social problems jointly is described as including cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. First, cooperation is the agreement to share information, office space or referrals, but with organisations remaining independent. Second, coordination suggests increasingly formal links informed by shared objectives, leading to a more enduring relationship. Thirdly, collaboration is usually the basis for the most stable and long-term relationships, with the organisations recognising they are dependent on each other. They state that although the three terms can be used interchangeably, they are also analytically distinct.

Furthermore, leadership can manifest differently in partnership settings. Dudau (2009) investigated a UK Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, discussing difficulties for public organisations providing leadership in inter-professional and multi-agency settings. She notes that leadership in partnerships will include various expressions of leadership. She argues that although the leadership literature has typically referred to the leadership of people, in joined-up government initiatives, focus is also required on the leadership of partnership and collaborative governance processes, as well as front-line multi-sector service delivery.

While some important aspects of pluralistic leadership have been addressed in the extant literature, an important question remains. The public value literature has surprisingly little to say on this topic beyond broad and general statements (Hartley et al., 2019a). Ayres (2019) discusses soft metagovernance – an informal way of governing using relational leadership – arguing that it can contribute to public value creation and suggesting that managers use it as a part of their leadership armoury (p.15). In a recent study of public value and policing, Hartley et al. (2019a) examined how a police service led the creation of public value by collaborating with different publics in spaces of contest and conflict. In these contexts, it is imperative that leaders use their skills to harness the perspectives of different stakeholders to create public value from diverse interests.

In addition to leadership, this paper examines how political astuteness provides insight into the link between leadership and public value. Political astuteness involves leaders using political capabilities (skills, abilities, knowledge, and judgments) in situations with diverse and sometimes competing interests (Hartley et al., 2015). Hartley and Fletcher (2008) identified five dimensions of leadership with political astuteness: personal skills and self-awareness of one’s own motives and behaviours; interpersonal skills including ‘soft’ skills, and the ability to influence stakeholders; reading people and situations, by recognising the different interests of people and organisations; building alignment and alliances to forge collaborative action; and strategic direction and scanning, requiring strategic long-term thinking and action. Political skills are valuable in navigating the complexity of different organisations working together (Crosby and Bryson, 2005).

Increasingly, academic theory points to leadership with political astuteness being deployed constructively for social and organisational purposes (Buchanan, 2008; Hartley et al., 2015; Waring et al., 2018). Hartley et al. (2019b) argue that political astuteness provides the key concept which links leadership and public value. This is because public value and leadership both have to address competing interests amongst multiple stakeholders. Political astuteness augments the capability of actors to navigate various interests, involving ‘small p’ as well as ‘big P’ politics, including in the workplace as much as in formal political systems. This may be important in a multi-agency hub where there are leaders with formal organisational authority (based on position) but who may need to exercise influence beyond the bounds of their organisation with their collaborators from different organisations as well as with other stakeholders.

Public value

One way to examine how leadership contributes to the value achieved in a public service initiative is through the framework of public value. There has been significant theoretical work on public value since Moore’s book (1995) and the literature abounds with different definitions (Hartley et al., 2017).

Moore (1995) focused on how public managers create value through the activities they plan and orchestrate. He argued that to be effective, public organisations, require firstly a public value proposition, or vision, of the value they wish to create. Secondly, this proposition will require a mandate derived from the ‘authorising environment’. Thirdly, a public organisation needs operational capacity – influence over resources (inside or outside the organisation) to progress the public value proposition.

Benington (2011) further developed the concept of public value by suggesting that it can be analysed using two dimensions. The first is ‘what the public values’, challenging traditional approaches to public administration with a shift from producer-led to include user- or citizen-informed models of public services (Benington, 2011: 42). This requires judgement of what value means and who benefits, recognising that what the public values may be different from what the public desires. The second dimension is ‘what adds value to the public sphere’, for present and future generations so this goes beyond what the public themselves value. In later manifestations of public value theory, (Benington, 2011; Bryson et al., 2017), public value is not created and sustained by the public sector alone, but includes other sectors, encompassing the public and private sectors, and civil society including non-governmental organisations and citizens.

Studying public value is insightful in multi-agency settings. Scholars have explored public value creation involving not only public managers, but actors from different sectors (Bryson et al., 2017; Crosby et al., 2017). This is because a wide range of actors may engage in public value creation in a ‘polycentric, multi-nodal, multi-sector, multi-level, multi-actor, multi-logic, multi-media, multi-practice place characterised by complexity, dynamism, uncertainty, and ambiguity’ (Bryson et al., 2017: 641). Investigating the (co-) creation of public value has also expanded the focus from single organisations to settings where multiple stakeholders co-create public value (Sancino et al. 2018).

Case study context

Case studies are embedded in and informed by context, so we describe the local environment where the hub operated. The locality has a population of over 500,000 people, covering an area of 600 square miles. It is composed of several distinct localities, some with substantial levels of deprivation. The area has predominantly white residents, apart from a city with a small ethnic minority population and a younger demographic.

Before the hub was established, crime victims were contacted by a voluntary agency called Victim Support, which assessed the person’s needs and made a referral to other agencies. In 2012 the role of Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), elected by citizens for each police force, was introduced in the UK. This brought considerable change to providing victim services, in part because responsibility for funding shifted to PCCs from police authorities that previously oversaw police forces. New commissioning powers for PCCs meant there was scope for local variation across police force areas and involving other specialist services.

Multi-agency approach

In the case study, the PCC had recognised that changes in governance provided an opportunity to make services more co-ordinated. He was reported to have developed a vision of ‘a lot more agencies involved under one roof …. This is good as they know the right agency to go to when the referral goes in and that it goes to the right team’ (Police Officer).

Victim Support remained the lead agency and was the largest contributor of staff. The PCC office believed that involving other statutory and third-sector organisations and working in a different way could improve victims’ lives and so the idea of the hub was born:

We started looking around at where partnerships could streamline some of the services and an obvious place to start was to sit down with each other and talk about what services could be given to a victim. (PCC Officer)

To facilitate the new model, the role of hub co-ordinator was created to provide leadership across agencies but without direct responsibility for staff. She was responsible for ensuring partners collaborated effectively, and in this sense the co-ordinator was a singular leader fostering a shared culture across the agencies involved. The co-ordinator aimed to influence inter-organisational and cross-sector collaboration, through interactions and practices between herself and the managers in the many other agencies as well as the hub workers. Her role was important for how she formulated and marshalled the public value proposition in the hub, and she worked positively with partners to ensure the aims of the service were achieved.

Dynamics of public value in the multi-agency hub

Before reporting the findings on leadership, it is useful to analyse the dynamics of public value creation in the hub. This was rooted in the PCC’s vision to co-locate professionals in a shared office, using a shared referral pathways and improving communication amongst the different agencies.

An example of the link between the public value proposition and practice ‘on the ground’ was the case of an elderly person called ‘D’, a victim of a £40,000 fraud. The impact on D was financial, physical and emotional, leading to a loss of self-confidence and increased isolation. After a referral was made to the Victim Support about him, it was then signposted to the older people’s service within the hub and an older people’s worker visited him at home. Recognising his own vulnerabilities, D said that the worker:

…put me in touch with an agency called Care and Repair, they came to the house and did a survey of the house and made recommendations for things that could help. (‘D’ Victim)

As lead agency, Victim Support could sometimes involve friends and family directly as part of its service. This can be seen as public value creation (value being created through the community not just from public services) but where Victim Support were unable to assist, then hub workers still thought that hub services had enhanced wider public value:

The knock-on effect of the service we offer is that their family and friends benefit. (Hub Worker)

In other cases, practical measures provided wider benefits, such as for a boy who was assaulted and had his bike stolen, with another one purchased for him by the hub so that he could get to school. This had ‘…an impact on the family as it’s helped the boy to get to school’ (Hub Worker).

In our analysis, the public value creation that emerged from the hub suggested wider benefits for society. A manager thought benefit was added over different time periods:

…in the short term the victims of crime benefit in the area e.g. the emotional benefit. In the medium term, local services benefit from our approach, but also friends and family. At the widest level value for society because of budgetary savings. (Hub Service Manager)

Leadership in the hub

What leadership processes contributed to this multi-agency initiative? Several interviewees identified that it was the first elected PCC who had demonstrated initial leadership, by developing and implementing the hub idea. He had held formal authority and was responsible for the funding, but for the project to be successful he had to achieve ‘buy-in’ from other stakeholders by engendering a belief that the idea was feasible. According to several respondents, the PCC recognised the opportunity to develop and change the service, focused on improving outcomes for victims. This required not only a vision of a public value outcome, but also the leadership capabilities of political astuteness.

His leadership was outcome-focused, which is consistent with a public value approach. This former PCC had been a senior police officer prior to becoming PCC and it seems likely that his experience helped to shape his vision and desire to improve the service. He had exercised an influential role in shaping the new initiative:

(we) had to change practices in order to meet what the PCC wanted. (Co-ordinator)

Leadership by the PCC and his office focused not only on creating substantial change by bringing together different agencies as multi-agency partners, but also setting up new structures and roles and lines of accountability. Much organisational change seems to need both transformational and transactional leadership (Hartley and Benington, 2010) and this approach aimed to focus on success but also the management of the detail a ‘tight ship’ within this wider policy context.

Finally, the hub co-ordinator (specifically employed to provide leadership but without direct responsibility for staff) provided a flexibility of leadership approach to ensure the hub remained victim focused when there were tensions between workers from the different agencies. She stated:

I believe that I can talk to people in a way that allows me to challenge them without it becoming confrontational. (Co-ordinator)

Leadership with political astuteness

Interviewees reported that the first PCC had led with astuteness because he outlined a clear vision for redesigning victim services in the face of different agency perspectives about how victim services could be provided. The PCC exercised leadership and held power through both legitimate authority including controlling the budget, but for the project to be a success he had to engender a degree of consensus amongst potential partners with their disparate views and values.

The PCC officer said that agencies in the hub (or potential partners) sometimes competed as well as collaborated. He thought political astuteness was about being mindful of this when communicating with them:

Partnership working can be a chess game .….we don't have the funding issues that many of the organisations have where they may be competing for the same pot of money. We have nothing to gain other than caution. (PCC Officer)

Leadership with political astuteness was also exercised by the hub co-ordinator, who, with no direct line management for most staff (other than those in her own agency), had to work beyond formal authority. She exercised leadership through influence and this involved political astuteness by being aware of different interests and forging consensus to achieve valuable outcomes. There were some key capabilities here which enhanced sensitivity in being a new leader (for that team) but without formal authority:

[You] recognise that you have to adapt by learning about those you are working with and tailoring my response in order to influence them. (Co-ordinator)

The co-ordinator remarked that sometimes she wanted to change people’s views, whereas at other times she sought buy-in to an existing situation. She added ‘you have to be mindful of where you sit’. This was both literal and figurative, indicating she was sensitive to aligning herself too closely with one partner over another, or appearing threatening. It was important to her that she did not show favouritism to one agency – this indicates astuteness requires constant attention to make subtle changes.

The co-ordinator emphasised that the hub remained victim-focused by ‘pushing back’ on certain restrictive organisational performance criteria, enabling sufficient autonomy for her own decision-making. Several interviewees stated she used the skills of listening and inclusiveness. Such communication with individual staff was essential, but her leadership also required an understanding of the multi-agency dynamics within the hub setting and at a wider strategic level. By working between the hub and the wider environment she was a translator of the public value proposition:

Such comments demonstrated how the co-ordinator used political astuteness in a complex setting. She summarised her position as having a good understanding of the relationship between positional and personal power in the hub, and using this understanding to be effective.

However, there were limits to this approach. It was reported that referrals were not always passed to the relevant agencies in the hub as quickly as they could be. This was related to a particular manager which had created some tensions that the co-ordinator had had to follow up.

Finally, several interviewees claimed to have originated the hub, with comments such as ‘It came out of my office’, ‘The PCC wanted this’, ‘It was my baby’, ‘I took hold of it’. These may indicate a self-serving attribution bias (Arkin et al., 1980). Although different stakeholders asserted that they were the key driver for the venture, this may be indicative of the shared leadership required. Either way, it is clear that psychological ‘ownership’ of the hub was widely distributed and this was likely to be helpful for its longer-term sustainability.

Leadership to create public value

Leadership to create public value in the hub included not only strategy, but also operational management which enhanced collaboration. Leadership for public value creation where there are diverse and competing interests can be about handling delicate issues about relationships in a close working environment. The quality of the working relationships had an impact on the quality of service provided to victims.

The co-ordinator negotiated meanings between strategy and practice, with the requirement for her to focus not only on hub leadership, but also multi-agency collaboration and its processes. Positioned between the hub and the wider policy environment, she practised collective leadership and encouraged collaboration whilst acting as an interpreter and translator of public value:

She understands how we have to monitor victim satisfaction and we meet regularly on issues that affect both our agendas such as restorative justice and target hardening. (PCC Officer)

The leadership of public value might also be considered to facilitate the provision of wider benefits for society. In addition to the benefits for victims, it was stated that value might be created for other service providers (for example by reducing referrals to the NHS). Public value was created by victims regaining confidence to re-engage with society after an incident, or by providing resources (e.g. for a young person to attend school).

For instance, identifying underlying mental health issues may improve a person’s life and contribute to their family and community. The financial benefits for society (which can be part of public value) were also articulated by one interviewee:

If a victim can deliver outcomes for themselves, it is a good use of the taxpayers’ money. The outcomes are improved or maintained health and wellbeing, feeling of safety and being aware of information and choices. (Co-ordinator)

Lastly, leadership to create public value was also proactive, which is important for the generation of public value. The PCC officer looked for policy opportunities to link the hub activities and user outcomes to wider government programmes:

As a collective you look at how you may impact on an issue and it is interesting as to what comes up….one agency may have the primacy on an issue but all must have an impact. (PCC Officer)

Leadership in the multi-agency hub

The case study shows there were several different leaderships including plural leadership but also the singular leadership required to co-ordinate the diverse teams. Of course, singular and co-leadership are not easily divisible, as seen in emergency service responses which are often inter-organisationally collaborative, but which have a clear chain of command. In this case study, it is evident that although each of the agencies had their own separate leaders/managers, the co-ordinator exercised leadership by creating a degree of consensus to achieve shared goals, but without direct responsibility for staff.

Leadership was practiced by a diversity of actors who shared aspects of power, in roles in different contexts (Bryson et al., 2017). In the hub, the shared leadership involved the co-ordinator and the other managers, but this was not just about managing daily operations. Although she held strong views about some aspects of the project, the co-ordinator had to work in the context of the original vision of the project envisaged by the PCC. Shared leadership was needed so that each manager was jointly committed to the ‘buy-in’ for service outcomes through changed arrangements. This required the ability to be politically astute to ensure the implementation of the public value proposition.

The aim to improve outcomes was experienced as positive and it might be thought that in a multi-agency hub there will inevitably be ‘better’ collaboration and shared leadership. However, this cannot be assumed since leading in a multi-agency setting calls for a wide range of leadership skills (Dudau, 2009). In this case study, this included leading staff, leading a multi-agency service, as well as collaboration with wider strategic partnership arrangements. In the hub, such leadership stretched across operational and staff management, but also necessitated an understanding of the commissioning and procurement of services (Hall, 2018), and navigating the tensions involved in identifying resources to sustain the service in future.

Leadership was exercised within the context of a confined multi-agency office, where tensions could arise about conflicting aims and practices. The research on public value creation suggests the need for effective leadership to maintain a focus on the core proposition. The ability to identify and handle the various issues arising from joint working is a valuable skill of leadership. In particular, it was important that the co-ordinator navigated within the variants of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration that are central to partnership working (Keast et al., 2007; Keast and Mandell, 2014).

Within this authority structure there were different interests, some focused on how collaboration benefits service users, but some interests which were organisational and which created tensions and challenges. For example, public value creation can be lost in a slow gradual chipping away as agencies try to survive financially as third-sector organisations. This is because they may be dependent on insecure state funding and voluntary donations in ‘the complex network of statutory and non-statutory agencies, competing for funding with other providers in order to sustain and develop the services they provide’ (Hall, 2018: 231).

In sum, the pursuit of public value in a multi-agency setting appears to benefit from plural leadership although some aspects of singular leadership are identifiable. The intricacy of such issues are emphasised by Hartley (2018) who notes that state actors are not the only ones who can exercise public leadership on their own, but that in some settings they may do this in collaboration and contest with the public, private and voluntary sectors. Following Heifetz (1994), Hartley (2018) states that clarifying the purpose of leadership is essential, but not always easy, and that a core objective for leaders is to identify the key adaptive challenge in the situation and work to achieve it. In multi-agency contexts, leadership may be exercised at different levels and by different people, and this was identified in this study. Organisations may be motivated by different factors to pluralise their leadership, including for structural reasons, the desire to be normatively collaborative or even for idealistic reasons (Sergi et al., 2016). Leadership constellations seem particularly valuable in settings where there are diverse manifestations of leadership, including the coming together of political leadership, different professions and collaborations (Hartley, 2018). This will see leaders grappling with differing agendas in order to create a degree of shared vision and agreement, for which political astuteness appears to be valuable.

Leadership for public value with political astuteness

The multi-agency hub was considered by all interviewed to be a successful initiative, enabling a complex collaboration across diverse agencies. With the plurality of interests in a hub, it is valuable for leaders to use political astuteness to create some degree of alignment in order to progress these interests to create public value. In this study there was a plurality of interests, both from political and strategic perspectives, but also between the different agencies in their policies and practices. Leadership was not concerned with only leading a single team with a single set of aims and objectives but a diverse range of stakeholders. This requires a number of skills to practice leadership with political astuteness, including understanding strategic direction, interpersonal skills, and building alignment and alliances (Hartley and Fletcher, 2008).

The findings indicate that there were two uses of political astuteness in the hub. First, the historic ‘chess game’ that was required by the PCC to initiate the hub project. This was seen in the first PCC’s ability to identify a vision that drew together and incorporated a diversity of views. At that time, it was crucial that the project team collaborated effectively with partners to ensure buy-in to what the researchers have framed as the public value proposition. Second, the leader of the front-line delivery of a multi-agency service also exhibited political astuteness. In the close-knit hub service, this was demonstrated in how the co-ordinator promoted the overall goal of service delivery, in order to keep the public value proposition on track. As Lazarus (1991) has argued, there may be small daily ‘hassles’ and ‘niggles’ for employees, in this case arising from co-location, so a leader will need to work sensitively amongst the different agencies to ensure these do not become a risk of fragmentation, competition and tension.

Astuteness was identified in the co-ordinator’s efforts to promote a collaborative culture between services. Some shared goals were about purpose and organisation, but also could involve seemingly insignificant (but highly symbolic) issues about whether one can eat at one’s desk or not. The hub was a small open-plan office space and the co-ordinator had to influence others beyond her direct authority, drawing on legitimacy to cross agency boundaries. Leadership was exercised in the dynamics of this close-knit setting, and managers in the initiative remained focused on outcomes by resolving these personal and professional tensions. This was done in such a way that preference was not shown to one service over another, requiring political astuteness to balance the varied interests.

Furthermore, matrix management (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1990) is often found where there is collaboration, requiring detailed attention to the bigger picture and the small snags that arise which can confuse or demotivate staff. It is important that a leader is able to move from the balcony to the dance floor (Heifetz, 1994), to understand the interaction between strategy and day-to day-operations. This requires leadership, not only management.

We restate leadership with political astuteness is necessary for public value creation when it involves shaping processes and outcomes where there are diverse and competing interests. This require the exertion of influence beyond formal authority, and the maintenance of a strong sense of purpose in relation to public value creation.

Assessing leadership for public value in a multi-agency setting

Our study provides a critical view of leading for public value in multi-agency collaboration where there are diverse and sometimes competing interests. A multi-agency hub provides a rich setting in which to research public value and leadership because partners aim to work together, with greater or lesser success, to co-create an initiative.

In this case setting collaboration between partners was fundamental for the hub to succeed, and leadership enabled the orchestration of purpose, attention and resources beyond single organisational boundaries. This is horizontal public value creation between partners and it was a key element of this hub initiative. The case study suggests that political astuteness aids the exercise of leadership where complex relationships between partners exist. The study is valuable, as there is relatively little empirical research on public value and leadership and even less in the ‘intimate’ setting of a small open-plan work setting. In this case the evidence around public value points towards the leadership of the agency, rather than of a person.

The process of leading a hub for the purpose of public value creation is similarly informed by the literature on partnership working (Crosby et al., 2017; Huxham and Vangen, 2013). The findings illustrated that public value creation in a hub has aided an awareness of where collaboration might most effectively inform the public value proposition, and an understanding of the practices where cooperation and coordination may be less developed (Keast and Mandell, 2014; Keast et al., 2007).

Collaboration may be easier to achieve in some activities over others. Understanding – and using – different leadership perspectives in specific contexts, particularly the leadership of people, service delivery and in collaborative governance processes (Dudau, 2009), will contribute to trying to ensure that the public value proposition is sustained.

Finally, to assess leadership for public value in the hub, we draw on the conceptualisation of public value as the two dimensions of ‘what the public values’ and ‘what adds value to the public sphere’ (Benington, 2011: 43–44).

Firstly, the paper considers the role of leadership for public value, in terms of Benington’s (2011) first dimension of what the public value. For this hub, this view of public value speaks to how leaders try to understand the needs of service users, in a context where there are multiple interests. From the research evidence, service user data was mainly collected and value inferred through surveys, performance management indicators, and needs assessments. This highlights tensions about how collaboration with citizens adds value to the public sphere, for instance by service users participating in strategic planning, alongside how leaders balance resource allocation for front-line delivery.

The research analysed the data from the perspective of Benington’s (2011) second dimension of ‘what adds value to the public sphere’. This dimension suggests that the public sphere concerns what contributes to value in the wider society including widely and deeply held social values like fairness and inclusivity. This dimension can inform how leaders envisage the benefits of collaborative projects, as the public sphere may sometimes include services and activities from a diversity of sectors (Benington and Moore, 2011; Bryson et al., 2017). The second dimension found that community resilience, confidence and reductions in vulnerability may be seen as contributions to this wider sense of public value. The hub identified issues which could have been overlooked had it been left to the individual organisations to work independently of one another, and were able to contribute together to the wider community.

For Benington’s framework, the case illustrates the variability of victims and the public value created by tailoring a range of services to the needs of individual victims, providing services that were more personalised but which also reflected building community resilience. This has been motivated by PCCs leading victim services provision, providing the opportunity for local multi-agency working.