Originally published February 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Imagine a situation in twenty years or so in which the\npublic service is genuinely designing and\/or delivering what the nation and its\npeople need.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What models, motivations and measures would need to be in place to encourage a public\u00a0 service genuinely driven to design \/ deliver what the nation and its people need, for both the short and long term, and how should these models, motivations and measures be applied?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Background<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s often been said that the public service (in almost\nevery country) is bureaucratic, risk adverse and inefficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Putting aside the question of accuracy of that assertion,\nsuch a complaint leads to the question \u2013 \u201cWhat would work better?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What models, motivations and measures would lead to the\npublic service operating at the ideal level \u2013 in quality of policy design and\nimplementation, and value it adds to the public it ostensibly serves?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Questions of this type are usually greeted by the refrain of\n\u201ccan\u2019t be done in our current environment\u201d. So think outside the current\nenvironment. Imagine an ideal future twenty years hence. Imagine that all the\nobstacles to improvement have been overcome, that the best models, motivations\nand measures can be implemented, and have been implemented, without major\nobstacle. What would those models, motivations and measures be?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What would motivate public servants to optimise what they\ndo?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Additional considerations<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Some extra things to consider in exploring the question\nabove:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Time\nscale of the question<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
This question is positioned in to\nthe future in an attempt to get away from thinking of current limitations. To\naddress that, it can be useful to imagine that all your bugbears with the\npublic service have been resolved and work backwards from there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Current\npublic service motivations<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The public service (that is, the\ngovernment agency sector) at times shows signs of being motivated primarily by\nrisk aversion, politically-driven decision-making, and a determined focus on\none\u2019s own silo. This appears to be more pronounced at higher levels \u2013 those who\nset the direction and tone of the rest of the organisations they\u2019re in. So what\nmotivations and measures would help to address this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Motivations\nfor genuine improvement<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
If a government agency’s core\nobjectives and motivations do not properly align with the true needs of the\nnation, its people or its interests, what motivations can there be to improve\nthis at all levels?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- On the\nprofit-based sector and objective measures of value<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The commercial sector has an\nobjective measure of value (profit) that is not available to the public sector\nfor many good reasons. The question above is aimed at identifying a similar\nmotivating factor that might work in the public sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The profit measure, for better or\nfor worse, is a relatively simple measure that can be applied to any part of an\norganisation to determine whether an initiative has a positive effect on the\norganisation and its purpose. The public sector needs something that can be\nsimilarly universal and objective (but preferably one which does not encourage\npsychopathic behaviour as the profit motive appears to do at times. I would\nhope that the readers of this article don\u2019t need me to re-prove that particular\nassertion).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Examples\nto learn from<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
What do other countries better\nrun than our own do to motivate their public service? What do they have in\nplace that drives their public service to create towards outcomes?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There would seem to be no\nshortage of examples of things being done well and things being done badly, but\nclear evidence on why certain approaches do or do not work isn\u2019t in such an\nabundant supply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Improving\nthe top over time by improving the base over time<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
It could be argued that before we\ncan have a well-functioning public service we first would need a\nwell-functioning elected government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But many democracies have\ndemonstrated that their populations can be guided to make problematic choices\nfor problematic reasons (a point further explored below in \u201cThe case for change\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If it is true that part of the\nproblem is our elected officials, what would need to change to address that?\nThat is, if it is necessary to consider improvement in the quality of elected\nofficials as a pre-condition to improvement in the public service, then how can\nwe improve the quality of elected officials?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example (and exclusively as\nan example), would something such as teaching critical thinking in schools for\ntwenty years help to gradually improve the quality of political leaders we\nselect?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- It\u2019s an\ninternational question<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The key question above and its\nassociated challenges is relevant to public service organisations in many\ncountries at many levels. This is a struggle not just for the Australian Public\nService or that of any government in isolation. It is a struggle for every\norganisation I\u2019ve worked with that doesn\u2019t have profit as an objective measure\nof value. Charities appear to have this issue too, although to a less extent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Separating\nthe \u201cwhat\u201d from the \u201chow\u201d<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
This is deliberately a question\nabout the \u201cwhat\u201d \u2013 what should we aim for, rather than how should we get there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some have said that the solution\nis to privatise everything. In this particular case, this would miss the\nquestion. No matter who does the work, models, motivations and measures still\nneed to be in place to drive that privatised \/ in-house or other approach.\nPrivatisation, in this case, would be a \u201chow\u201d. This question relates to the\ndrives of the \u201cwhy\u201d and \u201cwhat\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- The case\nfor change<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Many reasons could be given for whether\nand why the public service needs to change. Among those would be that public\nsector organisations generally have lower levels of customer satisfaction than\nbanks, insurers and utilities (D\u2019Emidio and Malfara, 2018), but also that (or\npossibly because) \u201caround 70% of transformation programs don\u2019t succeed, mostly\ndue to employee resistance to change and management behaviour\u201d (D\u2019Emidio and\nMalfara, 2018). That is, the public service in most countries isn\u2019t achieving\nthe changes it sets out to achieve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\u201cIf governments do not change with the times, they become less and less capable of addressing people\u2019s needs, and citizens grow more dissatisfied and disenfranchised. \u2026<\/p>
\u201cThe goal [of government reform] should be to reshape current governments into forms more suitable for modern life: technologically savvy, data-driven and fully globalised.<\/p>
\u201cBut while some governments have begun to take that approach, others, [Angela] Wilkinson [senior director of the World Energy Council and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford\u2019s Sa\u00efd Business School] says, \u201care not doing well at all. <\/p>
The contrasts can be stark. In Sweden, for example, [primary school] students learn to code and to spot fake news, whereas in the US, the president routinely promotes falsehoods. Taiwan, Spain and Iceland are exploring new methods of democracy that tap collective intelligence, but Russia and Turkey are moving toward autocracy and totalitarianism. Estonia has opened up its doors to welcome global citizens as \u201ce-Residents,\u201d while Britain has chosen to leave the European Union\u201d<\/p> Nuwer, 2018<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\nAt the same time, some\nsenior stakeholders believe there is a \u201cburning platform\u201d making change\nessential:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Australian Public\nService is unready to help governments as they grapple with eroding support for\nopenness with foreign countries, ambivalence about institutions, and China’s\nrole in the world order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“The domestic and\nglobal environment has changed so much that we do need to do policy differently\nif we are to adapt and succeed in a new environment, or more bluntly, the way\nthat we are configured to make and deliver policy is no longer fit for\npurpose.” [Quoting Heather Smith, Departmental Secretary, Australian\nDepartment of Industry, Innovation and Science]. (Dingwell, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Similarly, the current\nAustralian Government appears to be of the view that the Australian Public\nService is in need of re-examination:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe structure, approach\nand operations of the APS reflect a framework for public administration shaped\nlargely by the 1974-1976 Royal Commission on Australian Government\nAdministration, and refined by subsequent inquiries and reforms. It is\ntherefore timely to ask whether the APS\u2019s capability, culture and operating\nmodel are suited to harness the opportunities of a transformed Australian\neconomy and society, in an increasingly complex global context.\u201d (Source: www.apsreview.gov.au<\/a>, June 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Interestingly (and based on an\nentirely un-scientific review of writings on the topic), it would seem that\nmuch of the objection to the current Australian Public Service review is to the\nway it is being scoped and conducted, not so much objecting to the assertion\nthat a review is needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- The\nchallenge of metrics<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Throughout the talk of\nmeasurement in this article, it is important to note that measurement itself\nhas the potential to be a significant part of the problem. Measurement can be\ndifficult and problematic when what is important is quality, but the\nmeasurements available are quantitative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the focus is on measures, \u201cpeople within the organisation will focus their attention and efforts on the things that are getting measured, often at the expense of other essential functions.\u201d (Darabi, 2018). \u201cWhat can and does get measured is not always worth measuring, may not be what we really want to know, and may draw effort away from the things we care about.\u201d (Muller, 2018). As an example of this distortion, \u201cwhen surgeons \u2026 are rated or remunerated according to their rates [of operations with positive outcomes], some respond by refusing to operate on patients with more complex or critical conditions\u201d (Muller, 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Muller goes on to pronounce: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI\u2019m calling for a greater\nreliance on professionalism and expertise. It\u2019s in part possible by allowing\ndecision-making to be made at a more local level: local not just in a\ngeographic sense but in the sense of within the organisation themselves, at a\nlower level by people who actually know what\u2019s going on as opposed to trying to\norchestrate everything from the centre.\u201d (Muller, Jerry quoted in Darabi, 2018)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But this leads back to the\noriginal question \u2013 At a policy level, how should we make sure that this is\nhappening in the best way that\u2019s realistic possible? Whether it\u2019s through\nmeasures or some other method, how can we encourage public service\norganisations to do what is best?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
- Nuwer, Rachael (2018), \u201cWhy governments are\nbroken and how to fix them\u201d, British Broadcasting Commission (BBC), 16 Jan 2018.\nURL: http:\/\/www.bbc.com\/future\/story\/20180116-why-governments-are-broken-and-how-to-fix-them<\/a>.\nAccessed Feb 2018.<\/li>
- D\u2019Emidio, Tony; Malfara, David (2018) \u201cBuild a\ncase, build a following: Laying the groundwork to transform customer experience\nin government\u201d, McKinsey & Company, April 2018. URL: https:\/\/www.mckinsey.com\/industries\/public-sector\/our-insights\/build-a-case-build-a-following-laying-the-groundwork-to-transform-customer-experience-in-government<\/a>.\nAccessed April 2018.<\/li>
- Darabi, Anoush (2018) \u201cGovernment by numbers:\nhow data is damaging our public services \u2013 Q&A: Professor Jerry Muller on\nwhy government should trust professionals and stop chasing data\u201d. Apolitical\nUnited Kingdom, 13 Feb 2018. URL: https:\/\/apolitical.co\/solution_article\/government-numbers-data-damaging-public-services\/<\/a>.\nAccessed June 2018.<\/li>
- Dingwell, Doug (2018) \u201c’No burning platform’:\nAPS boss Heather Smith makes urgent case for reform\u201d, The Canberra Times, 28\nMarch 2018. URL: https:\/\/www.canberratimes.com.au\/public-service\/no-burning-platform-aps-boss-heather-smith-makes-urgent-case-for-reform-20180328-h0y2cn.html<\/a>.\nAccessed March 2018.<\/li>
- Muller, Jerry Z. (2018) \u201cThe Tyranny of Metrics\u201d,\nPrinceton University Press USA, ISBN: 9780691174952, URL: https:\/\/press.princeton.edu\/titles\/11218.html<\/a>.\nAccessed June 2018.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The question above was originally posted in January 2018,\nand updated as new evidence and input has been discovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chris Malcher, January and July 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n
www.chrismalcher.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A Supplementary Note \u2013 You know you\u2019ve been in the Public Service too long when \u2026<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Throughout the world, many large long-standing organisations\nof all types have common problems. They are often slow, bureaucratic, out of\ntouch and excessively conservative (opposed to change).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Public service organisations also have those problems, as\nwell having no objective measure of value (to remind all of their mission), and\nthe pressure of the organisation itself being the subject of a constant barrage\nof exclusively political overlords (government ministers) with an enforced\nshort-term focus (the next election).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The result of all of this is a culture which \u2026 well, a\nculture that requires some special attention to make it energised and focused\non the right things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But until then \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You know you\u2019ve been in the public service too long when:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. You think it\u2019s not possible to plan beyond the end of this financial years\u2019 budget, or the next election<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Keep in mind: No matter what\u2019s going to happen in the external environment, it\u2019s still essential to plan for maintaining and developing a core capability level, and work out how you\u2019ll be ready for the predictably unpredictable external changes. Commercial organisations don\u2019t know what\u2019s going to happen in their market, but they can still develop plans to make sure they\u2019re in the best position for whatever comes)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. You see it as normal that political relationships are a critical consideration in major decisions, not just a supplementary one<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. You are unfamiliar with having a solid objective basis on which you can professionally disagree with your boss<\/strong>, and you never expect to win any arguments with your boss unless there\u2019s an overriding political reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result, \u201cthe boss wants it\u201d is sufficient reason to act on its own, no matter whether \u201cit\u201d makes any sense or how it will affect the organisation\u2019s aims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4. You believe that all that really matters is whether the work is done, not whether it\u2019s done well or whether it should be done at all (the tick-box approach).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
You don\u2019t see any reason to have open measures on the quality of your team\u2019s work. You\u2019re of the view that all that what matters is just whether the work is done (the tick-box approach), not whether it is the right thing to do or whether it was done well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5. Your focus in projects is on spending the money in the specified timeframe, not on whether good value was delivered with that money<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the incentive is to spend the money rather than deliver value, what incentive would there be to stop a project that is clearly a complete waste of money?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
6. You\u2019re surprised when commercial providers deliver what you asked for rather than what you imagined or what you actually needed, and you don\u2019t see it as a major issue if they come back asking for (lots) more money when you change your mind<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Note: Commercial providers are explicitly driven very hard by maximisation of profit. The criticality of profit to profit-based companies means that a desire to benefit the community and a desire to do the right thing by a client are secondary or tertiary considerations, if they\u2019re considered at all. In other words, if it\u2019s not in the contract, or if there\u2019s ambiguity about interpretation, then they won\u2019t do it.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
7. You have minimal extrinsic motivation to do good quality work. The focus is on whether the work has been done, not whether it\u2019s the right work to do or it\u2019s been done well (the tick-box approach)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, you know the result of your periodic performance appraisal before the performance agreement is even written. No matter what happens, no matter whether you\u2019ve done any useful work or not, you\u2019ll always get a pass. The hurdles a manager has to go through to rate someone poorly is either too much to cope with, and\/or has very low likelihood of success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
8. You don\u2019t see much relationship between skills\/education and seniority. Ability to navigate political relationships is implicitly seen as more important than ability to determine what needs to be done and\/or deliver it<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are people at all levels of the organisation who are highly skilled, and there are people at all levels of the organisation who people struggle to understand where their skills lie. The scary part is when this is seen as normal. In healthy organisations such acceptance of mediocre performance is definitely not normal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
9. You see it as normal for people to be moved across to other positions at their level if no one else is available (\u201clast person standing\u201d), even if they have no real skill in the area<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet another consequence of no objective measure of value \u2013 all that matters is whether a position is filled. There\u2019s no real incentive to make sure the position is filled by someone who will do the job well, only that the job will be done (i.e.: that box has been ticked).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
10. You see it as normal to spend a significant proportion of your work day on personal matters (reading the news, organising personal events, social media etc.), and focus on attendance time (\u201cclock watching\u201d) over work outputs \/ outcomes produced<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
11. You\u2019re opposed to your organisation\u2019s employment agreement on the basis of the conditions and benefits offered even though those benefits are better than 90% of workers in your country could ever even hope for<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This blog is provided on a Creative Commons Share Alike basis. Use it as you wish, but if you improve it please share your results.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Originally published February 2018 Question Imagine a situation in twenty years or so in which the public service is genuinely designing and\/or delivering what the nation and its people need. What models, motivations and measures would need to be in place to encourage a public\u00a0 service genuinely driven to design \/ deliver what the nation … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.malcher.co\/p-f\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.malcher.co\/p-f\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.malcher.co\/p-f\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.malcher.co\/p-f\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.malcher.co\/p-f\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.malcher.co\/p-f\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36,"href":"https:\/\/www.malcher.co\/p-f\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32\/revisions\/36"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.malcher.co\/p-f\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.malcher.co\/p-f\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.malcher.co\/p-f\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}