How can network leaders promote public value through soft metagovernance?

Abstract

The aim of this article is to explore the opportunities and challenges of employing ‘soft’ metagovernance to promote public value in governance networks. Soft metagovernance can be defined as a form of relational leadership that is exercised through face‐to‐face contact. This involves making an emotional connection with people to exert influence through a collaborative endeavour, rather than employing bureaucratic authority. Drawing on a case study of a local social enterprise—The Bristol Pound—in the UK, this article examines how soft metagovernance can be used by non‐state actors as a form of leadership to create public value. Evidence reveals that relational forms of leadership are a powerful asset in helping leaders of networks to create public value. Moreover, if network leaders understand how soft metagovernance functions they can use it more purposefully to maximize public value creation and mitigate the risks of public value destruction in governance networks.

Leadership for public value: Political astuteness as a conceptual link

“…Turning to the symposium articles, they show the diversity of thinking about public value, and they also illustrate an exciting variety of purposes to which public value theory and its constituent frameworks can be put. They range from articles which deploy Moore's strategic triangle (Ayres ; Brown and Head ); use both Moore and Benington (Andrews ); use Benington (Hartley et al ; Teasdale and Dey ) and one article which is less definite about its approach to public value, but which assumes that endeavours by public servants and civil society actors can create public value by reducing air pollution (Trivellato et al ). These articles move the field forward, heeding the call of Hartley et al () for scholars to be clear about which strand of public value theory they are drawing on.…”

“…The use of public value helps to show where gaps exist in the regulatory and democratic approach to big data and algorithms and these provide clues about how the approach could be modified to benefit society. Ayres () uses Moore's strategic triangle to interrogate how soft meta‐governance (broadly, face‐to‐face relational leadership) is enacted by the leadership of a social enterprise interacting within a network of state, private and voluntary organizations. The use of the strategic triangle framework enables Ayres to disentangle strategic processes of considerable complexity over time.…”

“…Andrews’ () article has a strong sense of different stakeholders with different interests in big data (private companies, public services, citizens), with the role of the state in upholding important values for democratic societies. Ayres () also deconstructs the varied interests of different stakeholders, not only across but also within sectors, and exposes a sense of a real struggle for the soul of the social enterprise which is the focal organization in the case study. Her reference to a tipping point recognizes the dynamic nature of different interests—and also different societal values (for example, democratic legitimacy vs. flexibility).…”

“…Where leadership occurs is a matter of significance and the location can influence public value. Leadership processes may happen in informal spaces (Ayres ; Brown and Head ; Hartley et al ); in liminal spaces across organizations (Trivellato et al ); in symbolic spaces of loss and displacement of public value (Hartley et al ); in hidden spaces ‘where public managers and civil society practitioners deviate from official mandates’ (Teasdale and Dey ); and in grappling with public and private issues about big data and technological algorithms (Andrews ).…”

“…Consequently, collaboration and partnership might be a means not an end in many situations. Leadership for public value also involves engaging in implicit or explicit decision‐making about what has public value, who is included and who is excluded (Ayres ; Hartley et al ; Teasdale and Dey ). Leadership for public value is also involved in establishing how decisions are made (Andrews ) and how to change practices and ways of working (Brown and Head ).…”