Organisational and Institutional Leadership

Multiple, high-visibility programmes required enterprise-level delivery coherence: strong governance, predictable execution across countries, inclusive decision-making, and evidence-led adaptation—while aligning donors, ministries, private-sector partners, and internal British Council operations.

As a British Council team leader across programmes, I was accountable for:

• Operating model design (roles, RACI, cadence, decision rights) and governance (steering, quality assurance, risk/issue management).
• Performance systems (planning cycles, milestone discipline, financial oversight, partner management, procurement pathways).
• Institutional integration (MEL, EDI, safeguarding, comms, brand/consortium protocols).
• Capability and culture (training, coaching, templates, playbooks, ToR toolkits) to ensure repeatable quality across teams and partners.

• Built a cross-country operating rhythm: instituted quarterly planning, monthly performance reviews, and bi-weekly intervention clinics—creating a single view of delivery, risks, and decisions across programmes.
• Standardised governance: introduced a light-but-firm stage-gate from scoping → inception → delivery → handover, with quality criteria and document packs that shortened lead times and improved accountability.
• Tightened financial and commercial controls: aligned work breakdown structures, change-control rules, and vendor frameworks so finance, contracts, and delivery tracked the same baselines.
• Integrated evidence and inclusion by design: embedded MEL checkpoints and WEE/YEE/EDI standards into scoping forms, partner ToRs, and reporting templates—making inclusion and evidence non-negotiable rather than “add-ons.”
• De-risked procurement and resourcing: expanded/streamlined consultant frameworks, onboarding packs, and performance feedback loops; matched talent to workstreams faster without quality losses.
• Raised capability and cohesion: designed short, practical toolkits, playbooks, and clinics (governance, MEL for inclusion, risk, partner engagement) and coached country teams to apply them in their own contexts.

Protected consortium trust: modelled a “one-programme” posture—clear roles, shared branding, and proactive partner support—so joint implementation felt seamless to donors and requesters.

• Predictable delivery: milestones became more reliable, handovers cleaner, and issue resolution faster across geographies.
• Better decisions: programme teams used evidence and risk signals earlier, reducing rework and mission drift.
• Inclusion mainstreamed: WEE/YEE moved from aspiration to default design criterion across interventions and knowledge outputs.
• Institutional memory: templates, archives, and debriefs created reusable knowledge for future teams and country offices.
• Stakeholder confidence: donors, ministries, and private-sector partners experienced coherent processes and clearer accountability—strengthening sponsorship and uptake.

• ICR (consortium): instituted stage-gates, MEL/EDI checkpoints, and partner cadence; aligned TA and Knowledge workstreams so lessons flowed into design and vice-versa.
• Jobs for Youth (Ghana): connected training → incubation/acceleration → markets/finance under one performance spine; codified partner roles and youth-responsive selection/coaching.
• TGSS (multicountry): strengthened selection integrity, student journey, host-coordination, alumni tracking; embedded re-entry pathways so learning translated to home-country impact.

• Playbooks and templates (governance, MEL for inclusion, PPD practice, partner ToRs).
• Capability networks (train-the-trainer models, peer learning, CoPs).
• Knowledge handovers and repositories for future programmes and country offices.

• Systems enable culture: simple, shared routines beat complex controls.
• Make inclusion and evidence structural (forms, gates, dashboards)—not just values.
• In multi-partner delivery, trust = clarity + consistency; design both.