Guest blog by Silvia Lara Povedano, IPP ’24
As a government official and consultant for international development organizations, in recent years, a voice began echoing in my head, saying, “Something about what I’m doing is not right. Deep down, I know this isn’t going to work, no matter how passionately I speak or how carefully I choose my words.”
This is unacceptable to the people who believe in public institutions and hope to find solutions to their needs.
I was “making it look like I was doing, and making it look like it worked.”
This growing awareness of dysfunction led me to adopt a leadership style that only worsened things: imposing my ideas, rushing to solutions, pressuring people, demanding immediate results, and adopting a delegation style of “don’t ask, just do” with a focus on quick outcomes. This approach took a toll on teamwork, motivation, and trust in my leadership.
I needed to stop, take a step back, and listen.
I knew I had to move beyond my comfort zone and “unlearn” years of a way of thinking and working in public policy and service, rather than simply applying a new veneer. So, I decided to listen to what IPP had to say about change in development and a new perspective on public policy implementation.
I volunteered for the challenge of helping to optimize workshops run by a public university aimed at training key stakeholders across Costa Rica in using an AI tool designed as a specialized assistant for local and regional development. When the first workshops took place, it became clear that the design and implementation needed to change: participants struggled to understand how the AI tool worked and how to use it. Although it was unclear at first how to improve the workshops, I took the opportunity to introduce the idea of an “experimental process” to reach a better version of the workshops through a process of iteration, learning, and adaptation.
This is where my transformation journey began. IPP represents a paradigm shift in public policy implementation. However, IPP also had a profound emotional impact on me, changing my leadership style and communication approach. Once you learn and adopt the PDIA perspective, there is no going back; you’ll never see and address complex problems in the same way again.
In contrast to the authority and control I was accustomed to in public policy, my role in this challenge was to offer informal guidance, advice, and ideas on how to approach the implementation. This meant I had no control over decisions or execution. My personal challenge was to place myself in a “managing-up” position, understanding that true influence comes from personal strengths, inspiring and mobilizing others—not merely from holding a formal title.
Reflecting on how to manage up, I realized how much I was caught up in my need to be right, resistant to considering alternative options or adapting my viewpoint. This rigid mindset led me to feel truly stuck in the implementation process, hitting a dead end.
What got me moving again was reflecting on the “4 P’s of Leadership” (Perception, Process, People, and Perspective). I discovered how much I was trapped in my own assumptions, a narrative that wasn’t helpful, and a narrow view of the implementation challenge.
IPP promotes a new approach to public policy implementation, which demands a new kind of leadership:
- Do the work: Instead of simply pushing my ideas, I began framing challenges and visions in a way that builds common understanding and brings others on board.
- Respect the people: Rather than “jumping into” people, I focused on understanding their emotions, and on managing my own.
- Exercise patience: Avoid rushing to pre-determined solutions; dive into the problem, embrace the unknown, and don’t pretend to have all the answers.
- Emphasize process: Effective teamwork, psychological safety, accountability, and decision-making are all essential.
There are no shortcuts—do the work and trust the process!
Recognizing my past fixation on large, immediate results was critical. In this project, even small changes began to make a difference, and I gradually learned to acknowledge these “small wins.”
I experienced firsthand the impact of recognizing, valuing, and communicating small wins. By reflecting on what we were learning and how it was guiding necessary adjustments to the workshops, I gained insight into the value of these small steps. Taking time to reflect on my own learning—rather than waiting for others to lead the way—was an essential first step. Next, I “communicated my learning to myself,” a key realization because, until then, I was not convinced that what we were learning was valuable or that it offered new directions for future workshops. Once I systematized and shared these insights with the team and the primary authorizer as part of a “gains and progress” process, it transformed the team dynamic, building momentum, motivating the team, and opening new avenues for change.
This change significantly strengthened both the team’s and the main authorizer’s trust in me and in our work. Recognizing, valuing, and communicating small wins proved to be a powerful catalyst for change. It worked like magic!
I’ll always remember Matt Andrew’s words: “Lessons and leads—communicating this is key. Don’t keep it to yourself; share what we’re learning. This creates momentum.”
It’s all about empowering those involved in implementation and the team you work with. Teams are the vehicles for change in development.
However, accountability is essential for addressing people’s needs through public policy. The freedom, trust, and flexibility to try new things, make decisions, and adapt to foster innovation must not come at the cost of true accountability for measuring outcomes. Lant Pritchett describes this as camouflage, referring to a case in the education sector: “To shield themselves from accountability for failure, they created an environment lacking routine, reliable, and consistent outcome measurements, thus insulating themselves from blame.”
The shift in my leadership style and team practices also transformed my approach to time management. I now dedicate more time to “doing the work,” altering my time norms and structure. In alignment with this new approach, I would focus more on a “map it together, do it, and check-in” delegation style, rather than “do it, show me,” under the excuse of not having time for “micromanagement.”
As Peter Senge said, “Engaging in learning is hard.” Although I love learning, doing it systematically with tools, frequent check-ins, and small planned improvements is not how I traditionally approached things. I used to rely on a more “natural” and on-the-go learning style. Now, I recognize that the PDIA paradigm for implementing public policy, or any complex problem-solving project, demands a disciplined, rigorous, and structured a “learning and leads” process focused on adaptation and incremental achievements. This is central to PDIA.
Time is a challenge when it comes to implementation. It’s time-intensive work, and we often underestimate the time needed, especially when learning is part of the process. Resetting time management norms allows you and your team to find value in dedicating time to learning in a structured and disciplined way.
In short: “Making it look like you’re doing, and making it look like it works”? Do the work!
This is a blog series written by the alumni of the Implementing Public Policy Executive Education Program at the Harvard Kennedy School. 42 Participants successfully completed this 6-month hybrid program in November 2024. These are their learning journey stories.