Professor Steve Martin, Director of the Wales Centre for Public Policy for the centre’s first ten years, sheds some early light on his research into what it takes to lead these organisations – and how this learning could be used to help future leaders of academic-policy engagement initiatives.
There is growing recognition of the key role that evidence intermediary organisations can play in encouraging evidence-informed policy and practice. Surprisingly, given their mission is to promote the use of evidence, we still know relatively little about what makes for an effective evidence intermediary organisation. Some studies suggest leadership is a key factor in their success, but we lack a clear understanding of where leaders of evidence intermediary organisations come from, what they do, and the tools they need for the job.
As a first step towards addressing this gap, I recently conducted a series of in-depth, one-to-one conversations with the leaders of some of the UK’s most prominent evidence intermediary organisations, including eight What Works Centres, an ESRC-funded observatory, and three regional evidence centres working with combined mayoral authorities. Each leader kindly agreed to give a ‘warts and all’ account of their successes, failures and frustrations, and what emerged is a fascinating picture of what motivates them, the roles they fulfil, and the skills they need.
The organisations they lead vary considerably in terms of their origins, longevity, focus, staffing, funding, and governance structures. Some have been operating for over a decade, while others are less than five years old. Some benefit from multi-year, multi-million-pound endowments and employ large teams of up to 100 staff, while others depend on smaller, fixed-term grants and have fewer than ten full-time employees. Some focus on specific services, sectors, or professions, while others are place-based or address cross-cutting issues. Their leaders, too, come from a diverse range of academic and professional backgrounds. Most had worked in some form of research or policy role early in their careers, but only half held PhDs, and just two had previous experience as chief executives. Despite these differences, the leaders’ experiences of leading an evidence intermediary organisation were strikingly similar.
They were united by a strong sense of mission and motivated by a belief in the power of evidence to improve policy and/or practice. They spoke in similar terms about the blend of knowledge and skills required to operate across organisational boundaries and in the informal spaces between academia and government. They highlighted the need to be able to evaluate evidence rigour whilst at the same time being highly attuned to the nuances and shifting priorities of the political and policy contexts in which they work. They need to be skilled strategists capable of developing and communicating clear priorities, manage staff and budgets and accomplished fund raisers. In addition, they must have an array of ‘soft skills’ to build and maintain credibility and trust with senior academics, policy makers, practitioners, funders, and a host of other stakeholders.
They also highlighted the importance of being able to ‘make things happen’ despite significant institutional obstacles. Several had been instrumental in creating the organisations they now lead, recognising the need, convincing others of it, and securing funding to bring it to life. Others described complex negotiations with funders, host organisations, and other stakeholders, often requiring thinking and working outside standard institutional rules and processes.
Adaptability is crucial. Leaders must anticipate and respond rapidly to shifting stakeholder needs and expectations and being comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. They also must also cope with the constant ‘churn’ of staff in the civil service, local government, and other partner organisations.
Finally, they need to be resilient. The leaders I met with described the pressure of heavy workloads, the need to satisfy the competing demands of multiple stakeholders, and the importance of securing rapid results to secure continued funding. They also have to keep themselves going and lift team morale when evidence they have worked hard to produce and communicate is ignored by decision makers.
This blend of skills makes the role interesting but also unusual and challenging. Hardly any of the leaders I spoke with had fully appreciated its breadth and complexity before taking up their roles. Most reported ‘learning on the job’ and struggling with some aspects of it. The challenges they had faced and mistakes they had made varied depending on their prior experience and the nature of their organisations, but the underlying message was the same – people who are willing and able to lead evidence intermediary organisations are in short supply, there is little training or development for potential future leaders, and no established career path.
I’d like to suggest three ways to respond to these findings. First, we could do a lot more – at very little cost – to encourage and enable current leaders of evidence intermediary organisations to share their experiences with each other and the wider world. They currently work in isolation, with each leader discovering their own solutions to what are often shared, or very similar, challenges. Second, we should draw on these leaders’ experiences to inform the design of future research-policy engagement initiatives. It would be helpful to consult them at an early stage about what they have learnt and what could work better in future. Third, we need to secure the ‘pipeline’ of future leaders. I propose that we focus on one-to-one mentoring and peer support tailored to individuals’ needs, skills gaps, and aspirations, rather than formal training. Governments, universities, and research funders should all get behind this because they all stand to benefit from creating strong, well-led, effective evidence intermediary organisations that support evidence-informed policy and practice.
Acknowledgement
I’m grateful to the leaders of evidence intermediary organisations for agreeing to meet with me. Thank you for your time, for the inspirational work you do, and for sharing your experiences with such honesty and insight.
