Shared Intelligence

A new generation of leadership development programmes aims to build robust relationships between organisations and sectors. Shared Intelligence was engaged to evaluate five such new-style programmes, commissioned by LGID as part of its Productive Places programme. Specifically it was asked to carry out a mid-term evaluation of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Leadership in Partnership Programme and lighter touch evaluations of four other ‘leadership in place’ programmes in Cambridge, Sheffield, Kent and in the North East. LGID was particularly interested in the impact of these initiatives on participants, their organisations, wider local public services and the place itself; as well as in lessons for how these programmes are commissioned in the future and the value for money they represent.

Shared Intelligence also produced a working note intended to help councils and their partners to evaluate the new generation of leadership development in place programmes. The note draws on a brief literature review, our experience of evaluating a number of LDIP programmes and the conclusions of a workshop on the evaluation challenge.

Client:

Region:

Start Date:

01-01-2011

Project Description

What Shared Intelligence did:

Shared Intelligence used e-surveys of participants and their managers (and, in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland mentors and heads of HR/learning and development) to collect the initial data for the evaluation. Subsequently the team sought to validate and enrich this data by interviewing participants, commissioners and other stakeholders separately and together. Finally Si facilitated sense-making events involving a mix of participants, managers and other stakeholders from across the programmes.

Project outcomes:

The summary report, one of a suite of documents produced by the Si team, points out that, as is expected with place-based initiatives, the five LDIP programmes vary widely. However, the evidence is that they are successfully building robust cross-sectoral relationships and the evaluation identifies several commonalities which are key to this. Firstly, all of the programmes are aimed at participants in a defined place but from across a range of local public, private and voluntary sector bodies. In a significant shift from current practice, the report therefore recommends that leadership development should be commissioned across sectors. It also suggests that such programmes will only work if chief executives and senior management get involved. The balance between theory and practice was also a particularly important feature of all five programmes, which sought to ensure that they were designed to meet local needs and secured tangible outcomes for the place. A widely shared goal was to develop an approach where theoretical input and practical elements support each other. Finally, it says the wider impact of these programmes is influenced by the local political, cultural and organisational context, including the organisational culture and its openness to change. Organisational buy-in and support for is critical. Leadership bodies across the public sector are meeting to discuss the findings of this work in early June 2011.