How can network leaders promote public value through soft metagovernance?
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| Author | Sarah Ayres |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12555 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE
How can network leaders promote public value
through soft metagovernance?
Sarah Ayres
School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol,
Bristol, UK
Correspondence
Sarah Ayres, School for Policy Studies,
University of Bristol, 8 Priory Road, Bristol
BS8 1TZ, UK.
Email: sarah.ayres@bristol.ac.uk
Funding information
Funding Agency: ESRC. Funding reference:
‘Impact Accelerator Account’.
The aim of this article is to explore the opportunities and chal-
lenges 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.
1|INTRODUCTION
The concept of public value has gained momentum in scholarly and managerial debates (Alford et al. 2017). It
describes the value that an organization or network contributes to society. The term was originally coined by Mark
Moore (1995) who saw it as providing public managers with a notion of how entrepreneurial activity can contribute
to the common good. Nowadays, the concept of public value is no longer limited to the public sector or the lone
manager. Instead, it is used by all types of leaders, organizations and networks, including non-governmental
organizations and private sector firms. Crosby et al. (2017, p. 659), for example, draw attention to creating public
value through networking and collaboration as opposed to a focus solely on formal political and bureaucratic chan-
nels. They assert that public value should be pursued ‘not through the heroic efforts of strategic public managers, but
through dispersed efforts and distributed leadership in which much of the enabling work can be performed by agents
without formal authority in the government system’.
Received: 1 October 2017 Revised: 16 August 2018 Accepted: 31 August 2018
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12555
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2018 The Author. Public Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Public Administration. 2019;97:279–295. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm 279
In this view, state and non-state actorswork together to solve complex ‘wicked issues’. Bryson et al. (2017, p. 641)
also suggest that ‘policy makersand managers in the public, private, voluntary and informal community sectors have to
somehow separatelyand jointly create public value’. However, this task is noteasy. Interactive and collaborative forms
of governance do not arisespontaneously. Achieving desired policyoutcomes is often difficult because:
…the new world is a polycentric, multi-nodal, multi-sector, multi-level, multi-actor, multi-logic, multi-
media, multi-practice place characterized by complexity, dynamism, uncertainty and ambiguity in
which a wide range of actors are engaged in public value creation and do so in shifting configurations.
(Bryson et al. 2017, p. 641)
Hence, in order to achieve preferred outcomes, a network needs to be properly governed. This poses a set of chal-
lenges for public leaders as networks are generally considered to be relatively self-governing in terms of setting
agendas and agreeing procedures for interaction. The challenge for leaders, therefore, is to govern multi-actor set-
tings without reverting too much to traditional hierarchical forms of governance based on command and control
(Beer et al. 2018). This dilemma is captured in the notion of ‘metagovernance’. Metagovernance is defined ‘as the
“governance of governance”and involves deliberate attempts to facilitate, manage and direct interactive governance
arenas without undermining the capacity for self-regulation too much’(Torfing 2016, p. 525).
Metagovernance can be viewed as a form of leadership in the pursuit and promotion of public value in complex
networks. It goes beyond simple managerial interventions about the most effective way to lead networks. Metago-
vernance includes the institutional and political framing of governance networks through attempts to shape the
structural environment for doing business (Sørensen and Torfing 2017). The formal authority and democratic legiti-
macy of elected politicians and public managers make them particularly well suited to exercise metagovernance.
Nonetheless, metagovernance can also be exercised by resourceful actors from the private sector or civil society.
Metagovernors provide leadership in a network and can employ a range of tools for governing. Sørensen and Torfing
(2009) suggest that ‘hands off’metagovernance can be exercised at a distance from the network and can include
administrative or bureaucratic tools such as new legislation or budgeting processes. By contrast, ‘hands on’metago-
vernance brings the metagovernor into closer contact with network participants and can include strategiesto resolve
conflicts, build trust or generate understanding.
‘Hands on’metagovernance epitomizes a more relational approach to leadership (Orr and Bennett 2016) where social
relationships and webs of influence can play crucial roles (Ayres 2017). It might, for example, include the use of ‘soft
power’(Newman 2012) and persuasion to exert influence. These inter-personal and relational aspects of metagovernance
can be referred to as ‘soft metagovernance’. Soft metagovernance involves utilizing social contacts and relationships to
pursue network objectives and can be particularly important to metagovernors who may not be resource-rich or do not
command formal authority. The importance of ‘soft’or more informal ways of working is recognized in the metagover-
nance and public value literature (Healey 2018). Yet, it has tended to remain at the margins of this analysis (Helmke and
Levitsky 2013). Such a narrow focus can, however, be problematic for it risks missing much of what drives leadership and
policy-making in governance networks. This article seeks to address this gap in the literature and is guided by a central
question: How can network leaders promote public value through soft metagovernance?
More specifically, the aim of this article is to explore the opportunities and challenges of employing soft metago-
vernance to promote public value in governance networks. Drawing on work funded by the Economic and Social
Research Council, it explores how leaders of a local social enterprise in the UK have sought to promote public value
through its use of soft metagovernance. It does so through an in-depth qualitative analysis of a local currency
agency—the Bristol Pound (Bristol£). The Bristol£is a not-for-profit partnership between the Bristol£Community
Interest Company and Bristol Credit Union. It is the UK’s first city-wide local currency. The rationale behind a local
currency is that it encourages individuals and businesses to spend more money locally. This local circulationof money
is intended to create a stronger community and a greener economy. Bristol£(2018a, p. 1) seeks to ‘build community
connections and work for people not banks to create a fairer, stronger [and] happier local economy’. Its work is,
280 AYRES
To continue reading
Request your trial