Who are you? and why does it matter

I work with people. I work with people in many different, countries and cultures. People from different backgrounds and races. People at different places and stages in their careers and in varied roles. My job is to help them make sense of their world, their priorities, their challenges and make sense of each other. One of the biggest challenge which I encounter, no matter the place or the race or the challenge is that people do not understand each other. But this is important if we are to build effective professional relationships to get work done. It was the celebrated Swiss psychologist, Carl Jung who said “If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool. We understand another person in the same way as we understand, or seek to understand, ourselves. What we do not understand in ourselves, we do not understand in the other person either”.

If we do not understand ourselves we struggle to answer the question ‘Who are you?’ I am not a psychologist but I am privileged to dabble on the edges of psychology helping people to make sense of their situation and of each other. I rely on a wide range of tools including psychometric instruments. These are psychological tools which help us to understand how we think and why we behave the way we do. I also use other tools, such as Questions, coaching, stakeholder analysis, culture mapping and confrontation because different clients gravitate towards different stimuli and different problems require different approaches. People are complex and so to think that a tool that worked well here will work well there is to go on a fool’s errand.

One of my ‘go to’ tools is the diagram on the opposite side of this page. It has the words ‘YOU’ in the middle and two concentric circles of descriptors. I use this tool to get people to talk about themselves. To tell their story. I get them to think about their own complexity. We are awkward. I get them to talk about their implicit ways of thinking. Ways of thinking that were hardwired into them at home. The inner, grey, circle is who you are at your core. Those aspects of who you are will almost completely remain with you from cradle to grave. The outer circle changes but it’s still a part of your make up.

By encouraging the people that I have the privilege to work with, to focus on who they are and to disclose more of themselves to others and to have others reciprocate has proven to be a powerful tool to unlock understanding in groups of people. A health warning here though. Please do not try this at home unless you explain that they should only share what they are comfortable sharing. This is not an opportunity for gossip or ridicule or judgement. So, for example, I often tell people about my humble beginnings. About being bullied at school simply because I was poor and black and my mother made all my clothes and my school bag and for that I was bullied. For that I was excluded. So, the experience of being bullied has become both a ‘blocker’ and an ‘enabler’ for me. As an enabler it has made me thoughtful about how I use power. How I treat with ‘los de abajo’ (Spanish for ‘the underdogs’) the poor and the powerless. Those over whom I have legal authority. I make it my business to use power in a prosocialised way.

I was a timid child but over the years, through my exposure and benefitting from the kindness of people who could influence my life, and opportunities to lead in complexity and in the face of uncertainty and danger, I have become confident of who I am. I talk proudly of my family life. We were poor but we never missed a day of school. Everyone knew that we, all 4 of us, would be on the pass list for the high school entrance exam, when our time came. The confidence I have in myself makes it easy for me to let others have their say because as it is said in the Desiderata ‘ even the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. So, who are you?

What useless information do you hold in your head and why? (This article is actually about leadership but that’s boring, so I put a catchy title)

A think piece by Winston Sutherland
20 June 2020

I spend a lot of my time trying to find opportunities to use some of the useless information I hold in my head. For example, I know that the coffin bone, is in the the front half of a horse’s hoof. What I can’t understand is why do I know that? Why do I know these things? I have never used this information. So, why is it using up gigabytes of storage space in my head? But there’s more, I just Googled ‘coffin bones’ and found out this bone is connected to the hoof capsule via the laminae and is also known as P3 and the pedal bone. Wot?

So, I decided to do some more research and found there are pages and pages of lists of things that I need to know, on Google. Things like:

  1. The space between your eyebrows is called the ‘Glabella’
  2. The smell of fresh rain is called ‘petrichor’
  3. The tingling sensation you get when your foot is asleep is known as ‘paresthesia’- What we normally call ‘pins and needles’;
  4. ‘Dysania’ means having difficulty getting out of bed in the morning
  5. Illegible handwriting is also called ‘griffonage’.

And I could go on and on, but I won’t. If you are curious go to:

MINDSET: So what is this about? Why do we, as humans, gather ‘useless’ information?
I do not use the term ’useless’ in a pejorative sense. It’s just a way of speaking. The only thing anyone needs to know in 2020 is how to Google. The next thing to say is that this behaviour is a long standing part of our culture. When I was a child you had to know stuff. In fact the mantra was, ‘knowledge maketh a man’ and ‘Knowledge is power’. The more you knew the more doors were opened to you and the greater the respect that you got. People gravitated to you for the knowledge in your head. You gained power because of what you knew. But times have changed. It is no longer BG. We now live in AG (BG=before Google and AG = After Google) and yet I hold on to this store of ‘useless’ information. Information that I will never use except to write this article.

So, the answer has to do with our mindset. Our mindset is at the heart of culture and culture is at the heart of leadership. It is also called the paradigm. We have retained our obsession with knowing things even when we do not need to. A leader’s paradigm is also known as their ‘implicit leadership theory’. What’s going on, unconsciously in their head.

The only thing anyone needs to know in 2020 is how to Google.

Leadership is beyond knowing stuff: Average leaders know stuff. They know the answer to problems. A bit managerial. Good leaders not only know stuff but they also do stuff. Stuff like building the capability of those they lead through coaching and mentoring and providing opportunities for growth through secondments and other developmental activities. Awesome leaders have a way of being. They don’t rely on what they know or what they can do. They listen to your ideas and say ‘let’s do it’ or ‘make it happen’ and then they get out of the way and allow you to shine. They are there when you need them to remove barriers. They know that knowing stuff is not enough.

They know that they are at their most potent when they enable others to act. Kouses and Posner “The Leadership Challenge”. When they have changed through the gears from knowing, to doing, to being. When they let others shine. Because when they let others shine they are celebrated, and their reputation grows and in that moment they achieve greatness.

What kind of a leader are you being?

What’s inside your toolbox? Can you find your tools?

What’s inside your toolbox? Can you find your tools?

A think piece: By Winston Sutherland – 30 May, 2020

We all have a toolbox, whether we know and acknowledge it explicitly or not. If we didn’t we would not be able to do our work. Try cutting the lawn with without a lawn mower or cut the hedge without hedge clippers. About 10 years ago I introduced the concept of a personal toolbox to someone I was coaching and asked them to create one and show it to me. The person said they would give it a try but then they asked ‘what does it look like?’ I did a bit more explaining but it was obvious to me, from their body language that more help was needed. So I promised to send them ‘something’ before the next scheduled coaching session. Yikes! What had I got myself into? Never mind, I went and looked at toolboxes on line and decided to use the old fashioned blue tool-box at the bottom of this article.

The conversation was about tooling up as a leader, but not just tooling up but knowing what tools you have and where to find them. So, it’s no good having tools or a tool box but not being able to find the tools when you need them. Like the unorganised tool box on the right. I did my homework and sent the diagram below to the person that I was coaching and that made all the difference.

All leaders draw on a range of tools whether they know it or not. Having a broad repertoire of handy tools to use judiciously and skilfully makes you a more powerful and effective leader. I draw on a wide range of tools on a daily basis, because I do not have a normal day. I know what’s in my tool box, I know when to use them and I am constantly adding new tools. So, do you have a toolbox and do you know where to find the tools you need when you need them? What do you think?

Rethinking ‘World Class’ and Toilet Paper

Rethinking ‘World Class’ and Toilet Paper

A think piece by: Winston Sutherland – 23 May, 2020

The term world class is synonymous with the countries which are also called ‘developed’ or ‘first world’ and organisations that are described as ‘high performing’. World class is the benchmark term for what good looks like. According to Merriam-Webster, the first recorded use of the phrase was in 1939 and meant ’being of the highest calibre in the world’. Today, every developing country aspires to achieve ‘developed’ status. Many public service systems aspire to be world class, a centre of excellence, or high performing or similar tag. Countries aspire to have economies and health systems and a standard of living that meets the criteria set for world class. Organisations wanting to mimic this epithet go as far as labelling themselves ‘world class’ but as we are witnessing in the current Covid-19 pandemic this idea of world class has failed the acid test in country after country in the developed world. Even organisations specifically set up to deal with this sort of situation did not fare well. So, is it time to rethink world class? Is it time to redefine world class? Is world class the goal? And how would we go about defining and creating a world class organisation? I have set out a few ideas to complete this paper.

Being the best in the world means being the best in the world in good times and bad. Best in the normal day to day run of life as well as in a crisis. But this has not held true in the Covid pandemic. The health system of country after country in the developed world has been overwhelmed in short order. Toilet paper gave us the first indication that the system would not cope under stress and yet no one seems to be able to explain why this happened. The economy of world class country after world class country has been decimated. The toll on the poor and vulnerable has been catastrophic. It has been painful to watch the daily statistics as the death toll climbs higher and higher and as world class country after world class country has buckled in the onslaught of the Corona virus. So, is world class a thin veneer? Emperors clothes? Is this something to aspire to or is something different needed?

‘World-class’ is a pervasive characteristic of developed countries. Systems, processes, services, leadership. Everything looks and smells world-class. World-class runs through the entire system. The justice system; food supply and food quality; law enforcement; sports; education; the rule of law. The quality of the offer is consistent and unrivaled. You get the same high quality in every encounter, in every geographic region of a country. People have trust in the systems and high expectations. When those expectations are not met they are able to resort to and complain to world-class systems; Ombudspersons; Regulatory bodies etc. and they get a resolution. In countries that are not considered world-class, quality is patchy or inconsistent and complaining is akin to whistling in the wind.

World-class has to be able to withstand short term shocks. World class has to be resilient. World class has to have built-in systems and processes that respond to adverse stimuli in a robust way. Any system that crumbles within weeks cannot be considered world-class. The bar for world-class is obviously too low or is there another level to aspire to? ‘Crisis class’ perhaps? ‘Fit for purpose class’ maybe? Those phrases do not sound sexy so I don’t think they will catch on. I will need to come up with something that is catchy. Something understated like ‘iclass’ perhaps?

To end this piece, my suggestion is that world class has to come to mean something different especially as we look at building better public service systems. We have to redesign and redefine world class. Here are some starter ideas/criteria to build on:

  • Responsiveness of the system in a crisis. Developing what could be called a ‘crisis ready culture’;
  • Support mechanisms for vulnerable individuals, families and children are in place;
  • Technology is integrated into business as usual and business in crisis mode;
  • Fluid business models and delivery systems (links to the first point) are in place;
  • The system should ‘fail safe’ i.e. automatic trigger mechanisms are activated. Mechanisms known as SOPS. These would flow out of scenario planning.
  • Scenario planning is a core part of business as usual and a core element of leadership development and leadership practice. Scenario planning is about thinking the unthinkable and planning for it but hoping you never need the plan.

The above ideas, if implemented, would go some way to reducing the scrambling around that has taken place during Covid. What do you think? And what about toilet paper? What about it?

‘COVID Speak’ – How Covid-19 has influenced the way we speak

A Thinkpiece: By Winston Sutherland – 09 May, 2020

Where did these words and phrases come from? Does someone sit in a room and make them up Justin Case they are ever needed? Just in case a pandemic or some other unexpected event comes along? There are numerous cases that I can cite, but the following two words and two phrases, will suffice as examples:

  • Exponential – word
  • Herd immunity – phrase
  • Epidemiologist – word
  • Flatten the curve – phrase

These words and phrases have come into every-day use and they roll off the tongue effortlessly. What has become of words and phrases like ‘The environment’, global warming, terrorism, daily commute etc.? ☺.

So what do these words and phrases mean?

Word number 1 – EXPONENTIAL in this context refers to the rapid rate at which the Covid virus can multiply in the community if we do not implement strategies that slow down the rate of increase in infection from person to person. The only way to defeat the spread is to achieve an infection rate of 1×1 or lower. We know that 1×1 = 1. So, if you get a spread of 1 person infecting 2 or 3 other per persons then the curve rises. So, for example, 1 person infects 3 others. Each of those persons infects three other persons which gives us 1x3x3x3 =27. Just like that! Now, if that continues then we can see the exponential growth. Try this on your own1x3x3x3x3X3x3. I know my math is rubbish but the number I got was not 1 so I get it. And that is why exponential matters and that is why we need to stay do ‘social distancing’. Another new phrase but I don’t have space to write about it.

One last point on ‘EXPONENTIAL’. If we had ‘herd immunity’ exponential would not be significant but we don’t. Which takes us to phrase number 1. ‘Herd Immunity ‘.

Phrase number 1 – Herd Immunity. (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or social immunity)

We have herd immunity against a number of illnesses. Measles, mumps, small pox etc. How did we get it? We were vaccinated when we were young. That is why we do not have annual epidemics of small pox and measles and mumps. We have outbreaks but these outbreaks are quickly brought under control. Most of those affected by these outbreaks, to the best of my knowledge, were not vaccinated, but some were.

Word number 2- Epidemiologist. I have always known that word and I figured it had something to do with epidemics and that was that. I didn’t need to know anymore, or so I thought. Well it turns out I really did not realize that these are some of the most important peeple in our communities. They are disease detectives. They investigate each outbreak of a disease, identify people who are at risk, determine how to control or stop the spread or prevent it from happening again and when they are not doing that they use what they learn during the investigation and make recommendations to prevent a future occurrence.

Phrase number 2- Flatten the curve. (not ‘flatten the CURB like I heard someone say) I first came across the concept of a curve in my first year economics class at university and I recall wondering if I was the only one who could only see a straight line. Then in first year university math we were always talking about the ‘area under the curve’ and now, all these years later along come this process of flattening the curve. The value of understanding this is not so much in being able to see the actual curve from the numerous daily data points but more in understanding the implications of a flattened curve. Flattening the curve does not mean that we have defeated the virus. It’s not time to celebrate. Flattening the curve is a public health tool for managing the virus so that the health system is not overwhelmed as we saw in Italy and in New York. Flattening the curve means fewer admissions and fewer deaths on a daily basis, but it means this is likely to continue for a longer period of time.

In a sentence, ‘Epidemiologists think that in order to prevent an exponential rise in new infections we need to acquire herd immunity and flatten the curb’ hmmm!!
Did you spot the three deliberate spelling mistakes and one oxymoron in the article? No?

Leading Without Authority

Leading Without Authority

Based on his research into the experience of Senior Responsible Owners in implementing Public Service Agreements.

I am writing this article on the back of research I conducted in 2008/9 into the experience of the 27 Senior Responsible Owners (SROs) of Public Service Agreements, (PSA) in the UK, in leading the implementation of these 30 cross cutting priorities of the UK Government. The PSA regime has been discontinued under the administration which took office this year but the lessons are still valid and the need to work across the system without formal authority has not diminished and if anything is becoming more necessary. So it’s a good place
to start understanding what is involved in leading when you can’t compel anyone to do anything.

My research surfaced quite a bit of data on leading without authority which was not a surprise because the ‘agreements’ had been set up to foster a greater spirit of collaboration between government departments. They were intended to make the public services more responsive to the needs of citizens and ensure that important aspects of leading for citizens did not fall between the departmental boundaries. Other reasons were around attempting to harmonise policy tensions; make better use of resources; enhance communications and ultimately a more integrated set of public services.

It may have come as a bit of a shock that the rules of the game were Changed when we weren’t looking and more and more we are being asked to do this thing called ‘leading without authority’. We might as well all be contestants on the apprentice. It may be useful, at this point to step back and examine this phenomenon. Lets ask some questions and suggest some answers: the first question is, what does leading without authority mean and why is it necessary and why now? Second, what is involved? Third, what skills do I need; fourth, what are the leadership challenges? And finally, what support is available and how do I access it?

‘Dan Harris tried unsuccessfully to assert his
authority in a desperate attempt to show the other contestants who was ‘boss’ in the first episode of series six of The Apprentice’

The rest of this presentation focuses on what I found out with regard to the experience of how the SROs attempted to work across their organisational boundaries and what that meant in terms of how they led when in reality, and to put it crudely, some of the people that they needed to work for did not necessarily even knew who they were or
why they should have a conversation with them. That at it’s most basic is what powerlessness means.

1. What does ‘leading without authority’ mean; why is it necessary and why now?
Traditionally, leaders had a range of options that they could use to get things done; in our mechanistic language they are often called power levers: power levers are, for example, money, status, rules, regulations, standing orders, reward, sanctions etc. what we also call hard power. The new rules require you to use abandon these and start doing ‘soft power’.
Using soft power requires you to abandon all notions of being able to make anyone do anything simply on your say so. It requires you to acknowledge your ‘powerlessness’ in the circumstances and to make a fundamental shift in the way you engage with people. A fundamental shift In the way you get them to do things for you.

Using soft power requires you
to abandon all notions of being able to make anyone do anything, simply on your say so.

The shift is being experienced by those who work in what is called ‘matrix’ arrangements or matrix management. I should point out that there are variations of what this means in practical terms but to a large extent it means working with other people to achieve an outcome in many instances where there is no designated leader of the task or where there is a designated leader the team members have no direct line relationship with that
Why now? The simple answer is that the way the world work has changed. We are now operating at a more sophisticated level. we have moved to a more interdependent and interconnected world. A more fluid world. A world where you can’t redesign your organisational hierarchies for every task that comes along. A world in which a multitude of projects are taking place simultaneously and people are involved in more than one project at any one time. A world in which individuals are expected to and are taking more ownership of what is expected of them and where ‘hand holding’ and supervision is less and less a guarantor of success.

2. What is involved?
In leading large scale complex and expensive projects and leading them without direct authority a number of issues arise. These are issues which need you attention. The first four are what you could describe as soft stuff’; Relationships, High levels of trust, sharing information and collaboration.
The next four are a bit more concrete; governance, accountability for outcomes, sharing resources and finally dealing with policy tensions. Leading Outcome focused PSAs highlighted these as some of the critical things that the leader has to pay attention to. I will now comment on each in turn
The first and most critical element of leading this requirement effectively are the relationships that you build with other individuals and which you sustain over a period of time and is the cornerstone of ‘soft power’. In fact in many cases it’s the relationships that you have nurtured
over the years with no specific purpose in mind. Relationships that you build with your peers and people from other parts of the system. It is when you have to lead without traditional power that these relationships pay off.
High levels of trust
The second element is the need for high levels of trust. It’s fairly easy to strike up a conversation and to engage someone and think you have a great relationship. Lots of back slapping. coffee meetings etc. You keep all your commitments and promises to the other party.

You do them small favours and not unrealistically assume that they will do the same for you. and then get the shock of your life when you are stuck and nothing happens.
Sharing information
Sharing information assumes that trust exists between the parties involved. PSA 26 had as its objective: ‘to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from international terrorism’ and involved 16 different departments of state. The challenge was that some of the players were traditional national security departments and they were accustomed to sharing information over a long period of time and through different threats to the UK. This PSA now included departments such as the Department for children, schools and families, The department of the Environment and Department for transport to name three. I am sure it is not very difficult to imagine or to empathise with some of the data sharing challenges they faced. But face them they did and found ways to share data. I can only make assumptions but there must have been some sort of agreement around ‘need to know as well as protective marking of what was shared. I can’t imagine however, that even with those conditions in place, that any of this took place without implicit trust.
Collaboration becomes necessary when
we are no longer by our own effort and resources and in the time and place
of our own choosing, deal with a problem. It becomes necessary when we are increasingly uncertain about what the problem is and how to solve the problem. Figure 1 is taken from the work of professor Keith Grint which builds on the work of Churchman who introduced the concept of ‘wicked problems’ in 1967 Governance issues
Confusion around governance structure can lead to uncertainty regarding who is responsible for what and who will provide the resources for certain actions and tasks. A number of problems stem from unclear governance in collaborations such as those involved in collaborations being in danger of repetition where different stakeholders carry out actions that only need to be done by one party. Also the omission of important tasks can occur where one department assumes another department is carrying out the task.
Accountability for outcomes
At some point this collaborative endeavour has to produce something. Someone has to explain if nothing happens or if the outcomes are not the ones expected or have been achieved at a cost that is disproportionate to the benefits?
Sharing resources
Working collaboratively and leading without authority means that although something has to be produced no one actually owns the full means of production and the named leader may have no resources at all and is depending on others to contribute from their resource pot. The challenge here has to get the involvement of a higher level sponsor or develop some process that will ensure equal or proportionate contribution to the effort.
Policy tensions
Policy tensions are contributing partners with conflicting goals, for example, the environmental PSAs vs. the building of new transport systems or the need for parallel processes, e.g. getting other departments to change conflicting and/or problematic policies such as prisoner release vs. benefit claims, or flood protection vs. bio diversity.

3. WhatskillsdoIneed?
First: Everything in your Emotional Intelligence inventory. What’s in
your EI inventory? Do you have one? I am going to assume that you have an EI inventory in which case you would be well advanced in your journey of self awareness. Part of which expects that you will ask people what they think of you and having got that information you will do something about any unattractive aspect of what you were told. You will know that asking for feedback is an influencing mechanism but it is only so if you do something about what you have been told. Another aspect is to tell people about who you are and why you are the way you are. Again, this is part of your way of helping people to be able to influence you on the basis that they have an understanding of what knobs to turn. They understand what makes you tick.
You will also know that a key aspect of emotional intelligence is building relationships; a great segway into the next paragraph.
‘They know what knobs to turn’
Second: the ability to building and sustaining relationships
Building relationships can be hard work if you are not naturally a sociable person. It can be a time consuming activity and in many cases it is not obvious when you will need the help or support of the other person on the other end of the relationship. So it’s an investment that you make in your
time and energy, in good faith. The interest on your investment is not always shown on
your monthly balance sheet. Sometimes you build relationships because you connect with someone and you just seem to get on. In leading without authority you sometimes have to deliberately set out to build relationships with people with whom you have not previously found any
common ground.
These are strategic relationships and very different from the personal and or professional relationships that you already have. They are relationships which are created for strategic purposes. They are not nice to have relationships or relationships which you have because someone happens to share the same parents as yourself. They are not relationships which
you had to develop when you joined a team and found out who the other members were and realised that to be able to get the job done it was worth having some sort of decent day to day relationship with the other members of the team. Relationships that were prescribed for you. Strategic relationships are your own creation. You decide who is in and who is out. These relationships are future oriented and created to help you to figuring out future priorities and challenges; getting stakeholder support. Membership of these networks is Discretionary and as I have previously said relevance not always obvious. The final thing to say is that relationships are built on trust. Where have I seen that before?

I have elaborated on two of the skills that I think are essential and have listed below the skills that were being used by different SROs that I interviewed in my research piece which shows the wide range of skills that they deployed to achieve their task of successfully. You will notice a predominance of ‘soft power’:
High levels of emotional intelligence
The ability to building and sustaining relationships Diplomacy
Influencing/Political skills
Team building/Developing a vision to bring a department together
Analysis of data
Use of evidence
Expert skills
Stakeholder management
Working with complexity
Understanding the sensitivities of other departments Being able to ask the right questions
Programme and project management
Change management
Engaging the organisation
Hard cop/soft cop, i.e. using influencing and process and procedures in tandem to get results
Task allocation – playing to the strengths of the team members
Thinking further down the system – recognising the
contribution of others deep into the system

What are the leadership challenges?
Drawing again on my research the challenges the leaders of the cross departmental PSAs found themselves working on were 30 large scale, expensive and complex priorities which
were cast in an environment that was as unpredictable as it was uncertain. Below,
I have condensed the key leadership challenges they faced under four headings:
Making sense of the task and the environment. In practice this means:
• Understanding the task and its implications/interpreting what is required to achieve the goal;
• Preparation for taking up the SRO role One SRO asked “how do you prepare for something for which there is no precedence”;
• Creating the right governance structure • Coming to grips with the scale of the task and how to incentivise the organisation to deliver – in this particular case the PSAs had long term objectives but the Assessment Framework in some cases used a short term methodology to assess success
Making the task happen end to end
• Getting started;
• Deploying the right skills/need for a multiplicity of skills;
• Knowing what levers to use and when and what to do when there are no levers to pull;
• Visible leadership – what can people see that is making a difference
• How to move things along quickly when working on multiple fronts;
•Using the governance system to focus on and scrutinise the right issues
• Personal example
• Mechanisms for creating more challenge within the project board
• Handling inter departmental cultural issues • Being collaborative – see previous section on skills which dealt with collaboration
• Making best use of non integrated IT systems
• Engagement and involvement of professional groups
• Knowledge transfer, knowledge management and sharing good practice
Wider issues – these are issues more concerned with people not directly involved in achieving the task
• Keeping those in the department not involved in PSA motivated;
• Ministerial involvement and sponsorship;
• Focusing top officials on managing the joints;
• The competitive male culture vs. the collaborative approach;
• Getting political leaders to understand why performance is different from what is expected;
• Getting political/ministerial support;
• Getting results that allows for exploration and experimentation;
• Broadening the pool of people with PSA experience – not just the ‘usual suspects’/‘the club’;
• Coming to grips with the scale of the task and how to incentivise the organisation to deliver;

What Support is available to me?
Finding support when you are faced with working out of cultural preference and in some cases out of personal preference can be difficult. Here are a few suggestions:
There are quite a few people who have the experience of having done it and are willing to share warts and all with you. I recall one SRO saying to me ‘this is not something for which I was trained’. So some of the people who now have the experience and the expertise started from scratch. The good news is that you don’t have to. You can ask them to mentor you and the chances are that they will say yes. Your ability to take advantage of their willingness, however will rest on your ability to be a good mentee. People who make the best of mentoring relationships are: proactive, confidential, receptive to feedback and act on it, do not expect favours from their mentor, keep their appointments and
Your networks – In taking on tasks which need you to lead people and deliver outcomes with little direct power, no direct or scarce resources and where expectations are high you need the support of your strategic networks.

Churchman CW; Management Science (Vol. 14, No. 4, December 1967) referenced
Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). A leadership framework for cross-sector collaboration. Public Management Review, 7 (2), 177 – 201.
Grint K; Wicked Problems and Clumsy Solutions: the Role of Leadership; BAMM Publications Originally Published Clinical Leader, Volume I Number II, December 2008, ISSN 1757-3424,
Harrinvirta, M., & Kekkonen, S. (2004). Evaluating Effectiveness of the Horizontal Policy Programmes of the Finnish Government. Paper presented to the EPGA Study Group on Productivity and Quality in the Public Sector, Ljubljana, 1 to 4 Sep 2004.
Institute of Public Administration Australia. (2000). Working Together: Integrated Governance. Brisbane: Author.
Jones. (2007). It’s all about relationships. Whitehall and Westminster World. Retrieved, July 22nd, 2008 from http://www.civilservicenetwork.com/index.php?id1&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=2 6301&tx_ttnews[backPid]=29.
Public Sector Service Delivery Council. (2003). Integrated Service Delivery: A Critical Analysis. Author.
Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2002). Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in the Public Service. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sutherland W, 2009; Leading Outcome focused PSAs