Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CROSS-SECTOR PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY: MAKING ALIGNED CONTRIBUTIONS TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY WELL-BEING
JOLIE BAIN PILLSBURY, PH.D.VICTORIA GODDARD-TRUITT, PH.D. JENNIFER LITTLEFIELD, PH.D. STUDENT
University of MarylandSchool of Public Policy
James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership
Acknowledgements
The Leadership in Action Program is implemented by The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership (Academy) at the University of Maryland in partnership with the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Casey Foundation)
This research is supported by the Academy and the Casey Foundation
Introduction
This paper presents a framework for cross-sector performance accountability that helps communities to realize results.
The research highlights an approach to performance management where public sector leaders join with leaders from other sectors to hold themselves accountable for their collective performance to measurably improve conditions of well-being at the community level.
Outline
Theory of Aligned Contributions Four Quadrants of Aligned Actions Implementation Framework The Leadership in Action Program A County Level LAP Research Methods Findings Next Steps Implications List of References
Theory of Aligned Contributions
Four Quadrants of Aligned Actions For Results
Low Alignment High Alignment
High Action
High action that contributes to results
Does not work to be in alignment with others
High action that contributes to results
Works to be in alignment with others
Low Action
Low action that does not contribute to results
Does not work to be in alignment with others
Low action that does not contribute to results
Works to be in alignment with others
Implementation Framework
A call to action An invitation from a credible source to join and be publicly accountable A legitimizing force recognized by leaders from public & private sectors
A container A place, time, materials and support structure that creates a meeting
environment to work together. A holding environment creates a non-hierarchical, structured
environment that allows decision making process to address power imbalances while dealing with conflict
A capacity to collaborate Results-based Accountability Competency Race, Class & Culture Competency Leading from the Middle Collaborative Leadership Competency
The Leadership in Action Program (LAP) LAP is a competency-based leadership
development program that mobilizes leaders from multiple sectors and the community to rapidly accelerate results for children and families.
This presentation presents findings from an assessment of a county level LAP program to determine the efficacy of a leadership approach in holding leaders in cross section work accountable for performance management that leads to results
A County Level LAP
“LAPpers” Public sector (12) Private, non-profit sectors
(13) Private, for profit (1) Funders (2)
All children in the County enter school ready to learn
County Early Learning and School Readiness Commission
Population Indicator-CRCT
Research Method
Unit of Analysis Tracked commitments made Initial interest: level of commitments related to action
and alignment Research parameters
Qualitative and descriptive methods Grounded approach to development of coding scheme
with 84% inter-rater reliability Ordinal Scale Data collection source: leader’s action commitment
forms and session notes
Findings: Action Level
Anticipated increase in the number of high level action and aligned commitments
Anticipated decrease of the low level commitments as the sessions progress
Significant change occurred after session 3 in the predicted target session for the development of the capacity to collaborate
Decrease in the total number of actions seen in session 8 and 9 reflect a consolidation of strategies by the leaders as they prepared to integrate and institutionalize their performance management system.
Further hypothesis that the decrease was also an artifact of the design of the tracking system
Findings: Level of Alignment
Findings: Matrix of Action and Alignment
The TOAC predicts that a critical mass of multi-sector leaders taking aligned action (high action, high alignment) at sufficient scope and scale creates performance accountability for results
Low Alignment
Medium Alignment
High Alignment
High Action
0 18 (5%)
98(27%)
Medium Action
85(23%)
100(27%)
36(10%)
Low Action 21 (6%)
4 (>1%)
0
Preliminary Research Conclusions Preliminary support for a theory of
aligned contributions The implementation of the theory allows
public sector leaders to become part of heterarchical, voluntary network
The network holds accountability for performance related to community wide conditions of well- being through a performance management system of public accountability for commitments to aligned action.
Next Steps
Expand analysis to more sites Analyze the relationship between types
and levels of commitments to progress on action commitments
Use other units of analysis e.g. leaders, achievement of performance measures and population results
Comparative analysis of LAPs
Implications for Public Administrators
A heterarchical approach to performance management of cross sector networks is possible.
Successful network performance is more likely when collaborative leadership development is integrated into the operation of the network.
Public accountability is very difficult; however, network performance management is possible when there is attention paid to the development of capacity and individual skill building.
References
Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review, Special Issue: 56-65. Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2007). The Impact of Leadership Development on Early Childhood Education. www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter.aspx. Babies Born Healthy Leadership in Action Program. (2007). Babies Born Healthy Leadership in Action Program. International Conference on Urban Health. Baltimore Leadership in Action Program Progress Report 2005 – 2007 (2007). Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public
Adminsitration Review, Special Issue: 44-55. Dooley, K. D. (1997). A Complex Adaptive Systems Model of Organization Change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, Vol. 1(1) . Eoyang, G. H., & Berkas, T. H. (1998). Evaluating Performance in Complex Adaptive System. In M. a. Lissack, Managing Complexity in Organizations (pp. 2-
13). Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books. Friedman, M. (2005). Trying Hard is Not Good Enough. Victoria, BC Canada: Trafford. Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the Line. Harvard Business School Press , 1-13. Human, S., & Provan, K. (2000). Legitimacy Building in the Evolution of Small-Firm Multilateral Networks: A Comparative Study of Success and Demise.
Administrative Science Quarterly.45(2), 327 – 65. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to Collaborate: the Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. New York: Routledge. Kickert, W. J., & Koppenjan, J. F. (1997). Public Management and Network Management: An Overview. In W. J. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn, & J. F. Koppenjan,
Managing Complex Networks (pp. 35-61). London: Sage Publications. Kickert, W. J., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (1997). Introduction: A Management Perspective on Policy Networks. In W. J. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn, & J. F.
Koppenjan, Managing Complex Networks (pp. 1-13). London: Sage Publications. Kontopoulos, K. (1997). The Logics of Social Structure. New York: Cambridge University Press. Littlefield, J. (2009). The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Leadership in Action Program: Leading to Progress in Children Entering Kindergarten Ready to Learn?
Working paper. McQuire, M. (December, 2006). Collaborative Public Mangagement: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It . Public Administration Review, Special
Issue: 33-42. Pillsbury, J. B. (2008). Theory of Aligned Contributions: An Emerging Theory of Change. Draft White Paper (www.sherbrookeconsulting.com). Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. In B. M. Staww, & L. Cummings, Research in Organizational Behavior
(pp. 295-336). Grennwich, CT: JAI Press. Stone, C., Doherty, K., Jones, C., & Ross, T. (1999). Schools and Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: The Community Development Challenge. In R. F. Ferguson,
& W. T. Dickens, Urban Problems and Community Development (pp. 339-369). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Thank You
Jolie Bain Pillsbury [email protected]
Victoria Goddard-Truitt [email protected]
Jennifer Littlefield [email protected]
