How can you develop your own leadership style in Grant Administration?

I took my Master in Economics presenting an Essay on Cost Benefit Analysis (particularly applied for Public Administration project or investments.) Than I spent 20 years in the Finance dept. of multinational industrial companies (apparel, textile and automotive sectors mainly), and 10 years Banking, in the Risk Management functions. Therefore, I feel quite "equipped", and ready to learn more, on quantitative and technical tools and aspects. I also dealt with public subsidies in some countries (as included or excluded beneficiary). On the other side, I never worked directly within the Public Administration. Additionally, while I can have a good understanding of some sectors, I could have a superficial knowledge of many others.

For space reasons, I will limit my analysis to public and social administrations projects only. The traditional CBA (I am talking about the '50s and onwards of last century) I think still remain a fundamental indicator. In a classical analisys, price times quantity at the interception of demand and supply curves, is supposed to identify the value of a production. But, the individuals on the demand curve before that interception, would be available to pay more. The CBA captures that additional value and measures, in monetary terms, the full future benefit for the beneficiaries of the project, at a given cost. This allow to chose projects that maximize that benefit. I have no room here for other factors that could influence the final choice.

I think that quite frequently there could be several project of similar benefit, worth to be funded, in excess of the funds available. That is a matter of prioritisation. For this activity, I belive that listen has the greatest value. From different sources, experiences, constituencies, expert, public opinion. And possibly alligning with a pre-defined long term view / policy. This phase benefit also from flexibility, availability to change or compromise or combine with other initiatives, as long as this adds value to the full benefits of the projects, with a global advantage for the receivers.

A rational and consistent management require several elements at different level, like long term view, discipline, execution capabilities. Nonetheless, turbolence along the flight, will likely require also ability to listen, adapt and change. But, in my view, always maintaining clear in mind the destination of the journey. We can like it or not, but we will often have to go through trial and error processes. One can hope to make the best perceived choices, just at that time of the choice. But mistakes will certainly occur in any case. It is important not to neglect them, but also to readjust and to learn from them as much possible. Don't make people obsessed with mistakes, because it woul kill engagement, team sentiment and creativity.

In my view to measure the perfomrance and to measure the leadership are two different concepts and have to be measured separetely, although in the long run there should be a convergence in the assessment. Performance measurement, in my opinion, should be mostly quantitative and would require more than a single kpi, in order not to miss important elements. Even in this case, however, I would prefer to leave at least a small subjective component, for the same reason. Leadership measurement, in my experience, rarely brought substantial contributions. Confused models, people are defensive, adopt different criteria, uses it as a power game among teams ... At best, from time to time, it helps to make some undetected talent to emerge more rapidly.