GLOSSARY

From a community perspective, leadership for the greater good occurs when leaders create social, environmental and economic value for their stakeholders and the wider community in a manner that is transparent, accountable and ethical.

In other words, leadership for the greater good is reflected in what value leaders create, how they create value, and for whom they create value.

This is one of three items that measures participants’ beliefs about the types of value that institutions create.

The focus of this item is social value, which we operationalise as creating positive social outcomes.

Creating positive social outcomes includes such things as providing social services, preventing discrimination, and creating equal opportunities for all.

Participants are asked to rate institutions in terms of their apparent focus on creating social value (i.e., perceptions) and the degree to which these institutions should focus on creating social value (i.e., expectations).

This is one of three items that measures participants’ beliefs about types of value that institutions create.

The focus of this item is economic value, which we operationalise as creating positive economic outcomes.

Creating positive economic outcomes includes such things as contributing to economic prosperity, fostering innovation and providing job opportunities.

Participants are asked to rate institutions in terms of their apparent focus on creating economic value (i.e., perceptions) and the degree to which these institutions should focus on creating economic value (i.e., expectations).

This is one of three items that measures participants’ beliefs about types of value that institutions create.

The focus of this item is environmental value, which we operationalise as creating positive environmental outcomes.

Creating positive environmental outcomes includes such things as protecting the environment and improving environmental sustainability.

Participants are asked to rate institutions in terms of their apparent focus on creating environmental value (i.e., perceptions) and the degree to which these institutions should focus on creating environmental value (i.e., expectations).

This is one of three items that measures participants’ beliefs about how institutions create value.

The focus of this item is ‘transparency’, which is the extent to which institutions disclose information that is relevant to the public interest.

Participants are asked to rate institutions in terms of their apparent transparency (i.e., perceptions) and the degree to which these institutions should be transparent (i.e., expectations).

This is one of three items that measures participants’ beliefs about how institutions create value.

The focus of this item is ‘ethical standards’, which is the extent to which institutions demonstrate relevant moral standards of professional conduct.

Participants are asked to rate institutions in terms of their apparent ethicality (i.e., perceptions) and the degree to which these institutions should be ethical (i.e., expectations).

This is one of three items that measures participants’ beliefs about how institutions create value.

The focus of this item is ‘accountability’, which is the extent to which institutions accept responsibility for their actions and the consequences of their actions.

Participants are asked to rate institutions in terms of their apparent accountability (i.e., perceptions) and the degree to which these institutions should be accountable (i.e., expectations).

This is one of three items that measures participants’ beliefs about the constituencies for whom institutions create value.

The focus of this item is on an institution’s ‘responsiveness to the people it serves’, which is the extent to an institution is alive and responsive to the needs and concerns of its key stakeholders and constituencies.

Participants are asked to rate institutions in terms of their apparent responsiveness to the people it serves (i.e., perceptions) and the degree to which these institutions should be responsive to the people it serves (i.e., expectations).

This is one of three items that measures participants’ beliefs about the constituencies for whom institutions create value.

The focus of this item is on an institution’s ‘responsiveness to society’s needs’, which is the extent to an institution is alive and responsive to the needs and concerns of the broader population.

Participants are asked to rate institutions in terms of their apparent responsiveness to society (i.e., perceptions) and the degree to which these institutions should be responsive to society (i.e., expectations).

This is one of three items that measures participants’ beliefs about the constituencies for whom institutions create value.

The focus of this item is on whether an institution ‘balances the needs of different groups’, which is the extent to an institution attempts to strike a balance between the needs of internal stakeholders (e.g., employees, shareholders), external stakeholders (e.g., customers, suppliers) and society.

Participants are asked to rate institutions in terms of their apparent balancing of the needs of different groups of stakeholders (i.e., perceptions) and the degree to which these institutions should attempt to balance the needs of different groups of stakeholders (i.e., expectations).

The government sector is one of four sectors examined by the Australian Leadership Index (ALI).

The ALI examines three government sector institutions; namely, the Federal Government, State and Territory Governments, and Local Governments.

Given that the ALI surveys people from across the country, participants are asked to rate the State or Territory Governments in the State or Territory in which they reside. Similarly, participants are asked to rate their local government, not local government in general.

The public sector is one of four sectors examined by the Australian Leadership Index (ALI).

The ALI examines three public sector institutions; namely, the public education sector, the public health sector and the justice sector.

By the public education sector, we mean public organisations and institutions, such as public primary and secondary schools, TAFE, and universities, that provide learning spaces and environments for the teaching of students under the direction of teachers. By the public health sector, we mean organisations and institutions that specialise in services related to health and medical care, such as public hospitals.

By justice sector, we mean organisations and institutions that deliver legal, judicial and custodial services to the Australian community by managing courts, correctional services and justice services.

The private sector is one of four sectors examined by the Australian Leadership Index (ALI).

The ALI examines three private sector institutions; namely, Small-Medium Enterprises (SMEs), large national businesses, and multinational corporations.

By SMEs, we mean businesses that have fewer than 200 employees (e.g., local businesses such as restaurants, services, or independent stores).

By large national businesses, we mean Australian businesses with over 200 employees that operate across all or many Australian States and Territories (e.g., Woolworths, Telstra, Harvey Norman).

By multinational corporations, we mean very large companies with thousands of employees that operate across multiple countries, including Australia (e.g., Google, Hilton, Airbus).

The not-for-profit sector is one of four sectors examined by the Australian Leadership Index (ALI).

The ALI examines three not-for-profit sector institutions; namely, charitable organisations, religious institutions, and trade unions.

By charitable organisations, we mean not-for-profit organisations with a mission dedicated to creating a social good or public benefit.

By religious organisations, we mean organisations whose purpose is to advance religion, which may also provide services to religious communities (e.g., places of worship).

By trade unions, we mean organisations of workers in a trade, or group of trades, formed to protect and further their rights and interests.

Using a 5-point scale ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘an extremely large extent’, we ask participants to rate each institution on their apparent and expected performance for the nine items pertaining to what value institutions create, how they create value, and for whom they create value.

Specifically, using ‘accountability’ as an example, these ratings yield a score that ranges from 1 to 5 where 1 indicates an institution is not accountable at all, 2 indicates that an institution is accountable to some extent, 3 indicates it is accountable to a moderate extent, 4 indicates it is accountable to a large extent, and 5 indicates it is accountable to an extremely large extent.

By comparing the ‘perceived performance’ ratings and the ‘expected performance’ ratings, it is possible to measure the discrepancy between apparent and expected performance on each item. This information is presented on the ‘index breakdown’, ‘sector comparison’ and ‘institution focus’ sections of the data visualisation portal.

Using a 5-point scale ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘an extremely large extent’, we ask participants to rate each institution in terms of its overall leadership for the public good.

This yields the a score that ranges from 1 to 5 where 1 indicates no leadership for the public good is shown at all, 2 indicates leadership for the public good is shown to some extent, 3 indicates it is shown to a moderate extent, 4 indicates it is shown to a large extent, and 5 indicates it is shown to an extremely large extent. This information is presented on the ‘index breakdown’, ‘sector comparison’ and ‘institution focus’ sections of the data visualisation portal.

We use this information to calculate an Australian Leadership Index (ALI) for each institution.

Specifically, the ALI is calculated as the percentage of people who indicate than institution shows leadership for the public good “to a large extent” or “to an extremely large extent” minus the percentage of people who answer “not at all” or “to some extent”.

Using a 5-point scale ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘an extremely large extent’, we ask participants to make a global judgement about the overall state of leadership for the public good shown by Australian organisations and institutions. This judgement is only made after participants have rated a range of specific institutions in the government, public, private and not-for-profit sectors.

This yields the a score that ranges from 1 to 5 where 1 indicates no leadership for the public good is shown at all, 2 indicates leadership for the public good is shown to some extent, 3 indicates it is shown to a moderate extent, 4 indicates it is shown to a large extent, and 5 indicates it is shown to an extremely large extent. This information is presented on the ‘index breakdown’, ‘sector comparison’ and ‘institution focus’ sections of the data visualisation portal.

We use this information to calculate an overall Australian Leadership Index (ALI).

Specifically, the overall ALI is calculated as the percentage of people who indicate that, overall, Australian organisations and institutions show leadership for the public good “to a large extent” or “to an extremely large extent” minus the percentage of people who answer “not at all” or “to some extent”.