Choosing a leadership competency model is easier when you can inspect actual published examples. This guide compares two public-sector leadership frameworks: the NHS Healthcare Leadership Model and the Australian Public Service Commission’s Integrated Leadership System. They illustrate different ways to organize leadership development; they are not interchangeable instruments or a shortlist of models validated for your organization.
This is AI-assisted editorial analysis of the official pages viewed October 22, 2026. We summarize their structure and context, then use an explicitly fictional buying example. We have not evaluated their effectiveness, administered their assessments or tested their suitability for a private-sector employer. No endorsement by either organization or claim that Lean Leaders Plus uses these models is implied.
Compare the organizing question before comparing labels
One reader may be looking for a language for discussing behavior; another for differences between leadership levels. The two official resources below make those organizing choices visible. Start there rather than judging a framework by the familiarity of its category names.
Our leadership development needs-assessment guide defines competencies and shows fictional role-specific behavior examples. This companion provides published references to inspect. It does not replace that work-based assessment or supply a ready-made employee rating scale.
NHS: dimensions for exploring leadership behavior
The NHS Healthcare Leadership Model presents nine dimensions and reflective questions about leadership behavior. Its stated audience includes clinical and non-clinical leaders and people approaching their first leadership role. That healthcare setting matters: the description connects leadership with patient care, services and NHS values.
For example, Leading with care concerns the conditions that help a team do its work; Connecting our service concerns how people and services relate across the wider system. Those dimensions invite discussion of relationships and context, not just an isolated individual’s technique. The page also links to separate self-assessment and 360-feedback resources; we have not used or reviewed those tools here.
Buyer question: Does the proposed model help participants examine relevant behavior and relationships, and can the supplier explain what changes when the setting is not healthcare? Familiar wording alone does not establish that the original questions or any associated assessment are appropriate for a different workforce.
APSC: a pathway differentiated by leadership level
The Integrated Leadership System overview describes capability development for Australian Public Service individuals and agencies. It is organized around five capability clusters and includes guides, individual profiles and comparisons across leadership levels. The overview was published June 3, 2021; this is a published reference, not a newly released model.
The Commission distinguishes descriptions for a leadership level from the requirements of a particular job. Its pathway shows how capability expectations change across levels, including new behaviors and greater complexity. It also states that individual profiles complement agency-specific capabilities and job requirements and are development tools rather than mandatory requirements.
Buyer question: If a supplier proposes one common model for supervisors, middle managers and executives, how does its structure distinguish the work expected at each level? A level profile may help organize that conversation without describing every decision in a particular job. Ask what role-specific analysis remains to be done, rather than assuming the published profile completes it.
Compare the design choices, not the number of headings
The NHS example makes behavior and relationships visible through dimensions and questions. The APSC overview makes differences across leadership levels explicit. Both offer development references, but the organizing choices are different. Nine dimensions are not inherently more complete than five clusters, and a longer list does not establish better fit.
For each proposed model, write down its original setting, intended users, organizing structure and the extra work needed to connect it to your roles. Keep a separate question for any assessment: which instrument, interpretation and evidence are actually included? A useful public description does not establish the properties of a separate questionnaire or a supplier’s adapted version.
Fictional buying example: one label, two decision scopes
Imagine a fictional company comparing a model for both supervisors and managers of several departments. Its supervisors need to explain approved work changes clearly. Its department managers must also reconcile conflicting requests before those changes reach the frontline. Labeling both requirements communication would conceal a difference in decision scope.
The buyer could ask one provider to use a behavior-focused discussion to examine how people receive a changed instruction. They could ask another to show how its level structure distinguishes explaining a decision from coordinating the decisions of several teams. Neither exercise assigns authority that the company has not agreed, and neither establishes an employee’s competence from a model label.
The useful output is a short mapping: the actual role, the recurring situation, the relevant model description, what the description leaves unanswered and the proposed development work. This is our invented comparison method, not an NHS or APSC procedure, a validated assessment or a reported client result.
What should you commission after reading the examples?
Ask a supplier to identify its deliverable precisely. Is it helping you select a reference, map capabilities to roles, facilitate development conversations, design learning or administer a separately specified assessment? Request an example of that deliverable for one non-confidential work situation before commissioning a complete organization-wide model.
If the next step is development design, the leadership development strategy guide helps decide which roles and practices to prioritize. Keep the source framework, your role analysis and the eventual learning plan distinct. Buying a model does not by itself resolve the operating problem or establish that a program will work.
About this resource: Prepared with AI-assisted drafting and editorial review from the two official HTML sources linked above. Summaries are contextual, not reproductions of the complete frameworks. The company and buying example are fictional. This is not clinical guidance, an employee-selection instrument or proof of model validity, provider accreditation or business outcomes. Cover illustration: AI-generated.