Navigating tensions in co‐production: A missing link in leadership for public value
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12394 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Author | Prudence R. Brown,Brian W. Head |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE
Navigating tensions in co-production: A missing
link in leadership for public value
Prudence R. Brown
1
| Brian W. Head
1,2
1
School of Political Science and International
Studies, University of Queensland Faculty of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Queensland,
Australia
2
Institute for Social Science Research,
University of Queensland, Queensland,
Australia
Correspondence
Prudence R. Brown, School of Political Science
and International Studies, University of
Queensland Faculty of Humanities and Social
Sciences, Level 5, General Purpose North
(39A), Saint Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Email: p.brown3@uq.edu.au
New forms of public leadership are needed to design and imple-
ment co-production of public value. We draw on narrative analysis
to explore the barriers to developing the capacity for co-
production of public value in disadvantaged and vulnerable Indige-
nous communities and find that existing norms not only crowd out
efforts at reform, but can work against them. In particular, we find
that upward accountability and a focus on expert knowledge are
the most problematic for co-production of public value. We focus
on how more traditional practices of public administration medi-
ated the achievements of public leaders in their co-production
efforts when Australian governments introduced strategies for
partnership with Indigenous communities for services design and
delivery. The analysis suggests that creating a broader enabling
environment of supportive logics would allow public leaders to
engage more productively with inherent tensions between old and
new ways of working.
1|INTRODUCTION
In response to increased calls to address complex problems, governments have been experimenting with new
approaches. In this article we focus on Australian government efforts at ‘enhanced co-production’(Osborne and
Strokosch 2013) of remote Indigenous services. By this we mean efforts which ‘integrate co-production at the oper-
ational and strategic levels’(p. S39) and involve stakeholders at the problem specification and solution design stages
of policy and programme development.
Despite their commendable intentions, governments continue to struggle to make the shift away from the
old rational-technical approach. One of the many reasons put forward for the lack of ability to shift ways of
working is that new approaches are in tension with established bureaucratic norms and practices (Getha-Taylor
et al. 2011, p. i86). Indeed, in Australia, several evaluations of governmental attempts to introduce co-
production approaches in remote Indigenous communities have identified a lack of capacity on the part of pub-
lic leaders, and a lack of investment in further developing that capacity, as key factors in the failure to establish
new ways of working (these evaluations are summarized in Phillips-Brown et al. 2012). Notwithstanding the
emergence of this clear pattern, there has been a surprising lack of research focusing on how public leadership
Received: 4 September 2017 Revised: 4 December 2017 Accepted: 21 December 2017
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12394
250 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm Public Administration. 2019;97:250–263.
To continue reading
Request your trial