Darren Shickle1, Matthew Day1, Kevin Smith1, Ken Zakariasen2, Jacob Moskol3, Thomas Oliver4. 1. Academic Unit of Public Health, University of Leeds, Charles Thackrah Building, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds, UK. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, 3-263 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. Global Health Institute, University of Wisconsin, 4256 Health Sciences Learning Center, 750 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53705-2221, USA. 4. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, 610 Walnut Street, 760-C WARF, Madison, WI 53726, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public health leadership has been criticized as being ineffective. The public health profession is relatively small. Critics have argued that there is over-emphasis on technical aspects and insufficient use of the 'community as a source of public health actions'. METHODS: The paper analyses the resources, motivations and skills utilized by high-profile individuals who have made contributions to the public health agenda. The phenomenon of celebrity diplomacy is critiqued. Two exemplars are discussed: Jamie Oliver and Michael Bloomberg. The risks of involving celebrities are also considered. RESULTS: Leaders for public health demonstrate 'a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will' to make the 'right decisions happen'. While they may have ego or self-interest, in this context, at least, they channel their ambition for the public health cause, not themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders from outside public health may have no understanding of what public health is nor consider their work as part of a wider public health agenda. It is important to understand why they become leaders for public health. This will inform a strategy for how others may be encouraged to collaborate for public health causes. Some key points for working with high-profile leaders for public health are identified.
BACKGROUND: Public health leadership has been criticized as being ineffective. The public health profession is relatively small. Critics have argued that there is over-emphasis on technical aspects and insufficient use of the 'community as a source of public health actions'. METHODS: The paper analyses the resources, motivations and skills utilized by high-profile individuals who have made contributions to the public health agenda. The phenomenon of celebrity diplomacy is critiqued. Two exemplars are discussed: Jamie Oliver and Michael Bloomberg. The risks of involving celebrities are also considered. RESULTS: Leaders for public health demonstrate 'a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will' to make the 'right decisions happen'. While they may have ego or self-interest, in this context, at least, they channel their ambition for the public health cause, not themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders from outside public health may have no understanding of what public health is nor consider their work as part of a wider public health agenda. It is important to understand why they become leaders for public health. This will inform a strategy for how others may be encouraged to collaborate for public health causes. Some key points for working with high-profile leaders for public health are identified.