Australia’s most significant public policy challenges are invariably complex and will increasingly cut across portfolio and organisational boundaries. The future APS must be able to take on challenges with the capacity to adopt new approaches, reconfigure teams and deploy skills where and when most needed. Machinery of government changes can be used to align the APS with government priorities, but the service should not wait for – or rely on – these to transform the way it works.
What we think is needed
- An operating model that dynamically responds to new and shifting priorities, with a culture and shared ways of working that allow teams to come together to tackle priorities for government and the Australian people.
- The optimum hierarchies, management layers and spans of control to empower people and teams, and drive effective decision-making.
- Performance measures that reward collaboration and support employees to excel in a dynamic and adaptive environment.
What is shaping our thinking
- Increasing evidence that more dynamic ways of working help large organisations respond to people’s needs faster, deliver better outcomes, increase productivity and improve employee engagement.
- Concerns that current work practices too often reflect individual agency preferences and focus, rather than being oriented around solving complex issues and delivering outstanding services.
- Balancing the important prerogative of government to structure the APS as it sees fit, against feedback on the cost, disruption and variable outcomes when such MoG changes occur.
- Work underway through the Secretaries Board examining structures and operating models, to ensure the APS way of working supports integration, efficiency and a focus on citizen services.
- Feedback that current structures and ways of working inhibit information sharing and can delay decision-making. Evidence on optimal approaches to hierarchy, management layers, and spans of control in improving efficacy of decision-making and overall organisational health.
What we are still exploring
- Initiatives to drive the necessary cultural change to embed new ways of working, including training, incentives and other support.
- Opportunities for the APS to meet government expectations and minimise the need for MoG changes, and to reduce costs and disruption when they do occur.
Comments
Thu, 02 May 2019
Take advantage of new technologies and flexible ways of work to make the best use of the whole APS diverse workforce eg remote work capabilities (not just limited to Canberra and capital cities), work from home, job share, iPads, mobile phones. This will also facilitate increased video sibility within the Australian community.
Thu, 02 May 2019
Ensure that management performance and promotion opportunities support those who have collaborative strengths and skills. At the moment it is very much about individual achievements. Ensure a focus on the triple bottom line. Include core training for all APS about the nature of complex issues and new ways of thinking to address these.
Wed, 01 May 2019
It seems odd there are few real means of cross-agency working. IDCs and 'taskforces' are set up for some things, but IDCs are mostly about one agency telling other agencies what its doing, and taskforces seem to be mostly ways of pretending to bring in expertise but mostly just getting staff not available internally to do the same work that would have been done anyway. Empire building and defending turf also play a role. The way the APS uses central agencies I think is the key here. At present, those agencies are structured around the line agencies. All three have teams that shadow line agencies to provide advice to their respective ministers. Rarely, unless absolutely required, is there significant collaboration. Indeed, the relationship between line and central agencies is generally adversarial. Central agencies really need to be hubs for collaboration between line agencies and between line agencies and centrals. They need to be involved at the start of a process, with their advice carrying weight in the development of NPPs, cabinet submissions etc before they go to ministers or are cleared at agency level. They can also serve as a means to ensure cross-government collaboration at this stage. Not at the point SES are prepared for an IDC, but at the point there's a blank page for the policy.
Tue, 30 Apr 2019
Leave MoGs behind. At least compel tail efforts to be completed with priority. Support the change and fund the change
Wed, 24 Apr 2019
The current pay structure does not support the retaining of talent or subject matter expertise. Once a staff member reaches the highest pay in their band, there are no further opportunities for a pay rise unless they are promoted to the next classification level. This means that subject matter experts at the APS6 level who are not inclined towards leadership but have extensive technical expertise and are high performers in their current role, are forced to seek EL1 opportunities. This creates a situation where EL1s are not necessarily good managers. The pay structure should be changed so that there are still rewards for high performers at the APS6 level who do not wish to go into management. This could be in the form of a pay rise every 3 years or some other form of incentive.
Tue, 23 Apr 2019
Is it possible to do away with the rigid hierarchical model, which 'requires' that a team leader (who may be more administrative than technical) is effectively required to be of a higher classification level than the team members (who may well be technical experts with no interest in progression along an administrative career path)? In my specific area, there is a rigid model which requires Team Leaders / Senior Technical Experts to be at EL2 level, 'managing' technical EL1s who often have similar, if not greater, expertise to the EL2s. The EL2/TL/STE positions are in short supply because of the appearance of bureaucratic bloat: this forces the incumbents to divide their time between their technical roles and the administrative requirements (for which they are often very poorly suited). If it was possible to recognise administrative expertise independently of technical expertise, then it would be possible to have the Team Leader role filled by (say) an APS6 administrator, responsible for a number of EL2 and EL1 technical experts. This used to be accomplished by recognising separate career paths, by classifying staff as ICTEL*, thereby excising them from any appearance of bureaucratic bloat. There is a significant difference between a bureaucrat and a technocrat and this needs to be recognised when reporting on staff numbers at various levels.
Mon, 22 Apr 2019
By giving all staff adequate time within work hours to be able to collaborate with other staff or their team leaders on important topics.
Thu, 18 Apr 2019
Place processing people in CSC's to help when illness or absence happens, specially in the small centres, where the processing team can also take on overdue work coming thru the door, provide explantions and do the initial new claim information, stopping the miscommunication about what type of paperwork is required. Working together with the new gensys and aux codes, while maintaining the workload. Having different processing skills in the CSC to help lighten the load and fill up the empty seats that are everywhere in the CSC's.
Thu, 18 Apr 2019
Fully engage the whole workforce in AGILE ways of working by embedding the methodologies into everyday business as usual teams, not just applying it to projects. Fluid and dynamic teams need to be skilled to adapt quickly to needs. The ability to lead teams across diverse skillsets and locations using technology (video, skype, external sharing platforms) has already, and will increasingly in the future reduce costs and utilise skilled individuals outside of traditional city-centric teams. Develop leaders to use new and emerging communication technology at the same skill level as more specialised staff. Reduce or remove job labels that limit staff to defined roles. Project manager becomes Change Enabler etc. Build a database attached to individuals profiles that reflects, in detail, their abilities and technical skillsets etc. At the moment, where you live, often precludes you from a role that you may well be best qualified to fulfil.
Thu, 18 Apr 2019
It is currently difficult to be flexible and dynamic in terms of the workload and management of work as there are many layers of management in the process. Channel Operations basically determine priorities and management but are disconnected from business areas and policy areas. Another stakeholder in the process is Business Process Branch and it is often confusing who is responsible for what. These many layers hinder communication and can be time consuming in attempts to discuss issues with the appropriate area
Thu, 18 Apr 2019
We feel very limited by the public service cap and the outsourcing of government jobs. I feel like this limits my ability to provide quality services.
Thu, 18 Apr 2019
As long as it’s: the right person, in the right role, who’s there for genuine reasons, focuses on priorities, uses real work examples, and does things that will make a difference. There’s nothing more tedious perhaps than being made to attend yet another branch classroom-style situation that’s run by an ex-teacher, who instructs you to use a particular colour stickynote and to place a picture icon up anywhere on a Kanban board (doesn’t matter what it is, they are not likely to read it, they just want lots of little icons stuck up there), who enjoys any opportunity to grandstand (to do all the talking), loves a good ‘make it look like work’ effort, doesn’t follow up or through with anything that’s come out of the classroom sessions they’ve led (because they weren’t focused or structured in the first place, the point was just to hold them, like many of those so-called branch planning days), actually flits off overseas during a peak period (coming back at the tail end after someone else does all the hard yakka: timed exquisitely: enough to work out whether to claim oversight and involvement if it goes well or to distance themselves on the off chance it doesn’t), ‘delegates’ management of any actual real-world projects for the same someone else to take care of (as above: making the required association depending on if it goes well or doesn’t), tells their staff they’re going back into their office to research what it means to be an intrapreneur (because they are so one), spends a couple of days finessing a powerpoint slide to present to their executive level peers at their next learning circle shindig (must flout to them, educate them too), puts good-sounding deets on CV (look at moi!), and brings what they're doing (are they) to attention of exec (promo ploise). Gah!!!
Thu, 18 Apr 2019
Begin by having more inter departmental interaction outside of Canberra whereby one can get an understanding of other areas operations
Wed, 17 Apr 2019
Very little mention of reduction of duplication is mentioned across the review so far. As a public servant, I feel totally at odds norms in particular bodies of work. Duplication is evident across the APS and Commonwealth. Why? I have observed that even work being done in review there appears to be pockets of duplication. Why must the tax payer fund this? We talk about collaboration amongst "teams and individuals", yet even under the review, items of work are not being discussed across agencies. Perhaps an initiatives register? Surly there is a better way of managing the excess work being done across the service?
Tue, 16 Apr 2019
I've recently returned to the APS after 18 years working for the NZ government. There's been a lot of work done in NZ over the past 5-10 years to understand and overcome barriers to collaboration. Initiatives like the Better Public Services Results were one of the mechanisms to drive cross-government collaboration on important problems. One of the challenges is that ministers (particularly junior ministers) want their own limelight and 'announceables', which can be harder if they are simply one of several ministers contributing to a collective effort (often led by a more senior minister). It really helps when the PM or a senior minister is also driving ministers to behave in the collective interest (as well as officials doing this). Former NZ Minister of Finance Bill English did this well.
Fri, 12 Apr 2019
Making collaboration the norm is essential. You can only do it collaboratively. To do it any other way is akin to saying "thou shalt collaborate in this way for these reasons", which is a very uncollaborative approach. The only way to make collaboration the norm is to find and experiment with reasons and situations and ways to collaborate. You cannot successfully do collaboration 'to' people. You can only collaborate 'with' them. so work collaboratively to build a collaborative norm. Do not try and work out what collaboration is and then 'train people up'. There is no collaboration in tat approach.
Fri, 12 Apr 2019
Absolutely agree that more fluid, dynamic, flexible and 'VUCA'-ready processes and skills are required. The business as usual approach to developing this new way of working would be to go through a lengthy and difficult process to find the best model and then to find "initiatives to drive the necessary cultural change to embed new ways of working". The incongruence in this approach is obvious. It assumes that there is a right model or process and that, once it is identified, it can be somehow rolled out across the diversity of the APS. This thinking flies in the face of the thinking required in a dynamic, fluid VUCA-ready world. So, a more consistent approach would be to step away from the desire to identify the process and then drive the culture in that direction. The more consistent approach is to recognise the task of creating a new culture and way of working itself as a complex problem, and use that as the opportunity to co-create a more suitable culture and process by finding ways to build a more suitable culture and process. In other words, learn by doing. Solve the problem by trying to solve the problem differently. Don't rely on the same old thinking to try and create a new and different way of thinking. It is impossible to do and will not work. Try new ways in order to find new ways. It is the only way that can work.
Fri, 12 Apr 2019
I think this priority would be strengthened with reference to diversity, in particular behavioural/cognitive diversity. One of the issues the APS has to deal with is that groupthink in an APS does not result in an organisation going out of business (like for example a Kodak) because there is certainty of supply - therefore it flourishes. This is particularly so in central agencies (and one in particular). THe harm of Groupthink on good outcomes is well documented (e.g. the Kodak example above) One of the key mitigations against groupthink is diversity, but the APS currently tends to treat diversity in terms of meeting quotas of different external diversity features (gender, cultural and linguistic, age...) but does not focus on welcoming a diversity of views to decision-making and actively seeking "disruptors". Somehow it would be good to reflect this in any new set of values for the APS - to improve our ways of working, and increase diversity in decision-making.
Wed, 10 Apr 2019
Any efforts to empower individuals and teams needs to look at a combination of structure, risk appetite, culture and performance. While a highly rigid and hierarchical structure is not ideal, a flatter structure is not without risk, including curtailing the ability of staff to learn and develop foundational supervisory and management skills. Even assuming there are more layers/approval steps than is desirable/efficient/helpful, a question worth asking is whether the problem is structural (there are simply too many layers) or a behavioural/cultural/risk issue (a norm/expectation that everyone in the hierarchy has to clear/approve everything). It seems all too common across the APS that delegations are not exercised, and routine and administrative tasks end up being approved/signed off by SESB1s or worse still, by SESB2s. I have a lot of sympathy for SES officers, particularly SESB1, who spend hours in their office, often not by choice, clearing rafts of low level documents, rather than being able to do their core job (leading and setting strategy). The SESB1 level seems particularly fraught in terms of expectations, where officers are expected to take carriage of matters of detail but also be strategic and provide leadership. If you are serious about empowerment, the APS Commissioner (as a proposed 'head of people' across the APS) should be tasked with doing a fundamental review of job design across the APS, EL and SES cohorts. Ideally work level standards should reflect clearer expectations around the expected decision making and exercise of delegations at particular levels. This should be supported by performance management and metrics (e.g. ways to identify, encourage and reward appropriate exercise of delegation).
Thu, 04 Apr 2019
This suggestion cuts across and may assist all priorities. One of the barriers to the collaborative ability, professionalism and independence of the APS is the changing of its Departments with every new cabinet reshuffle. As a result, the fundamental structure of the APS is set not by the need for continuity or action, but by a PM's need to reflect cabinet loyalties and rewards. It would be far better for the APS, the public and the services that link them if the APS settled on 10-15 departments that are well enough defined to last a century. If someone wanted to be Minister for Energy and Environment, for example, they would run those 2 departments; there would be no need for them to merge. This change would have a number of benefits, and support the wise direction of collaborative systems, operations and teams. Those systems and relationships would not be disturbed on a ministerial reshuffle. Policy areas that clearly span those departments would not be forced within one. Money would not need to be wasted on new stationery and branding. Career progressions, corporate memories and professional expertise would not be put at risk by organisational reshuffles. Australia would be better served as a result.
Thu, 04 Apr 2019
As a small Aboriginally Owned RTO trying to make a difference in the plight of Long Term Unemployed / Aboriginal & TSI peoples, we have tried on three occasions, over three years to gain registration approval by ASQA/APS as an RTO. The last (current) attempt was lodged September 2018. It is now April 2019 and still no final answer. ASQA keep moving the goal posts with compliance issues. It is understood that for a robust compliant VET Industry, straightened standards are required. We agree with this, after the bad recent publicity with shonky RTOs, providing lower standards of training and education. Our applications have been met with long delays. Our application has gone to Darwin, Melbourne and Sydney and still no result. We have spent many tens of thousands of dollars pursuing registration, to meet the Standards for RTOs. Clause 1.5 – Industry Consultation. How can an applicant engage with Industry in a new qualification that only one other RTO (Victoria) registered? Our qualification ACM40117 is so new that; it is unheard of in our Industry. We are making progress slowly to this end but receive no help from ASQA receiving impediment at every turn. We feel that the RTO application process is flawed, taking too long, placing financial hardship on small business. As we are a unique applicant for an RTO, proposing to upskill people not only in metropolitan but rural/regional areas, where we can make a difference to people’s lives and removing ‘welfare mentality’, raising self esteem and making use of the financial incentives to local government to gainfully employ these people. This incentive is much vaunted but unable to be utilised due to the people that need training/education being able to get the training we offer.
Thu, 04 Apr 2019
The APS needs to look towards some European countries, where any employee can question management and discuss issues with managers and executives of the organisation, not just higher level employees. Currently, there is so much reliance on hierarchy and structure that it seems only those in a higher positions have a say in their working environment and the daily activities and tasks of the lower position employees. Intrapreneurship in some form must be encouraged to create, build and deploy new processes which managers may not have thought of. There needs to be a common understanding of acceptance rather than complete control and regulation.
Wed, 03 Apr 2019
The APS structure is fundamentally busted; in our agency, we have almost no 1s, 2s, 3s and very few 4s. This means that the bulk of the Agency are only three levels, which for a ~40yr long career does not afford much motivation for progression, creates huge recruitment competition at level (putting undue pressure on the recruitment process) and also doesn't effectively allow for clear delineation of duties. It also results in people being promoted for the wrong reasons leading to technical experts being inadvertently forced into becoming managers (though unequipped) because they deserve promotion. The incessant funding cuts the APS has sustained over the last 7 years or so has also created a very negative culture, and seen the loss of many capable thus mobile people to the private sector. We need more certainty and support to do our jobs -the sad reality is that we are woefully under-equipped, both in staffing numbers and our IT systems. And the only strategy for dealing with this is to incessantly "innovate". Further, the push to unnecessarily decentralise is blatantly ridiculous and has also seen the departure of capable staff. If I wanted to find a farmer to provide advice I wouldn't start looking on George St. Why would you put a public service agency where there is no public servants to recruit from?! I would note however, that where systems allow for it, (voluntary) flexible working arrangements do work just fine.
Wed, 03 Apr 2019
The proposal picks up on staff as the most important resource in the APS. However, it does not go further as to how structures and a lack of capable staff currently impairs mobility and agility to respond to emerging priorities. The challenge is to be able to secure talent when and where it is most needed while not completely undermining essential services and BAU activities. Lasting change comes from leaders recognising that the work of the APS is bigger than them and their work.
Wed, 03 Apr 2019
The proposal needs to pick up on 'risk' in the public service and how it is managed. As you are aware, acceptance of some risk and mistakes provides an environment which embraces innovation and creativity. This is a fundamental barrier to transformation for the APS and has created an environment of over-engineered processes, approvals and flies in the face of the spans of control and accountabilities work that has been done in the past. Lasting change can only come from a better understanding of risk and leaders that accept a certain amount of risk is critical to success. This would then need to be reflected in the knowledge and capability of the whole APS. Finally, the proposal needs to pick up on the spans of control work - this was insightful and would help to address some of the barriers to the APS of the future. The findings and recommendations of this report were never fully implemented and realised.
Tue, 02 Apr 2019
Competing priorities make dynamic ways of working difficult, I note page 36 of the report states clear alignment between government priorities and public resourcing, however this is counter-intuitive to a flexible APS, cultural change and embedded ways of working tend to come from the culture of an organisation, if you have a constantly changing workforce you are changing the culture, which may be good if the culture needs changing, but the opposite if you have a dynamic and informed culture already established. I also note the statements made on pages 46-47 about 92% of promotions that are internal to agencies and mobility measures need to be carefully planned, including nurturing high performers. Additionally, that we need to bring in more people from outside the APS. We need to ensure a diversity within the workforce but also ensure that the right skills are in the right positions, this is notoriously difficult in a changing environment, as MoG processes have shown, so changing the APS to be more flexible will be a challenge in keeping the right skillsets where they are required at the right time. A flexible workforce will help with if we can breakdown silos not only across agencies, but also within departments. Leadership is critical to any change process.
Tue, 02 Apr 2019
Standing & interdepartmental committee processes are still the fall back to deal with internal and cross portfolio policy and operational issues. This approach made sense in Westminster when the pace of decision-making allowed officials to amble to their meetings on a monthly and quarterly basis. It makes no sense in the digital age when decision cycles are compacted and require ever more rapid response. Many interdepartmental committees need to be replaced by bespoke (and preferably temporary) interagency taskforces along the lines Professor Shergold advocates in 'Learning from Failure'. Future public service leaders need to be identified and developed for their capacity to lead cross-agency teams to produce results for government. Spending an entire career in one agency should be regarded as a peculiar anomaly in Digital Age government.
Tue, 02 Apr 2019
Moving jobs from one town to another is not the answer to the attracting and retaining talented staff. Moving a whole department to a country town has already proved a sure fire way to lose talented staff. We should be looking at more teleworking or remote working opportunities for APS employees so that staff could be anywhere in Australia rather than locked down to 2 or 3 specific locations. Work/life balance is key to a lot of Australians in the current work environment and providing flexibility to work from anywhere, including regional areas, will help attract and retain more talented and skilled staff. It would be a win/win for both the Australian Government and the Australian public.
Mon, 01 Apr 2019
The Secretaries Board would need to have some influence over the government of the day, if there is none, then no proposals will work as each Minister will have the ability to fight for their preferences behind the scenes. Less interference will help to see long term relationships built, experts developed within agencies, long term staff retention and meaningful work. Every time there is a change for change sakes, you ultimately lose productivity for 12 months if not longer. The last changes with shared services were seen by staff in the areas as a train wreck waiting to happen, to this day they still do not function at their required speed, quality or outcome and have in instances been revoked by agencies. Talk to your staff and their executives before reinventing a wheel that someone else has discarded.
Mon, 01 Apr 2019
Flexible and remote work needs to become the norm. At the moment, the APS is seen as living in Canberra bubble - allowing people to work remotely from all over the country would reduce this perception and allow the APS to be more visible. This should be extended to everyone, including graduates. We are lagging behind the private sector. Technology is a major part of this.
Thu, 28 Mar 2019
Less centralisation of employees and services in Canberra. For APS outside of Canberra, the opportunity to acquire skills and therefore contribute to a dynamic and changing work environment is severely reduced. The opportunities just are not there.
Thu, 28 Mar 2019 Ensure managers and EL's actually have people management skills. In many departments I feel that knowledge of technical matter is prized over and above people and team skills. I have seen many more examples of very bad ELs and SESs than I have good. Bad examples: Non communicative, poor language and writing skills, difficult to approach, don't have empathy for staff, ignore issues that staff present to them etc. Maybe 360 degree reviews are in order here. Tenure, who you know, your networks, when you got into the APS etc all seem to play a part in the promotion of the bad managers. This has got to stop.
Thu, 28 Mar 2019
A flatter structure with empowered managers and leaders to make decisions. Less bureaucracy, more permanent employees (can't create the dynamic operating model if your permanent employees are flushed out and contracting services are used all the time) Better systems that support the new operating model (just like private enterprise which the gov is modelling many things on, the gov needs to invest in systems that are fit for purpose). Compulsory rotation and policies to address cronyism, favouritism, bullying, diversity etc. A flexible operating model which enables rotation within and across departments to share knowledge, access skills where needed, increase collaboration etc. Have People managers that actually have HR skills, emotional intelligence, social skills and can communicate effectively (The APS chooses managers that may be good with technical knowledge, but are fails when it comes to actually managing people). 360 degree performance reviews. De centralise HR. HR is an important function of high performing organisations and there needs to be a local (state) presence to support employees and be responsive to 'local' needs whilst espousing the vision and culture and 'walking the talk'.
Thu, 28 Mar 2019
It would be useful to do more thinking on what collective ownership of outcomes or delivery looks like and if it works. I know a number of state governments have achieved this with good results. This is important, because the current mindset is around 'accountability' - ie that only one person/team/department can be responsible or it won't get done. This means that collaboration is never the norm.
Thu, 28 Mar 2019
Why do we have to rely on MoGs to align priorities. Can't secretaries and departments remain static to build expertise and learning, but we work across agencies to deliver government priorities - assigning a lead agency on projects.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
A complex adaptive APS requires strong cross-agency linkage points. These include the exchange of liaison officers, who are fully embedded in the decision-making processes of the departments and agencies to which they are seconded. Liaison is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Policy lead agencies should be empowered to convene interagency taskforces to provide integrated whole-of-government policy advice. Departments and agencies need to retain the staff liability to be able to contribute subject-matter experts at short-notice to these taskforces. Professor Peter Shergold refers to these as 'Tiger teams' in 'Learning from Failure'. Additionally, we need to invest more in organizations specifically designed to provide the conceptual lead in developing interagency coordination and promoting the integrated approach. One model organization is the Australian Civil-Military Centre which is responsible for assisting Australian government agencies prepare to collaborate overseas - in disaster response, humanitarian assistance & conflict resolution. It is too late to build interoperability in a crisis. The APS needs to invest in cross-agency evaluation and lessons assessment; common education & training programs; interagency exercises (including desk top exercises); common policy guidelines & standard operating procedures; multiagency relationships with overseas multiagency partners; and confidence and relationship-building measures.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
Many APS staff come to the service through the grad program. Although there is something to be said for facilitating swaps with other governments (state and territory, international) and other sectors, I think we also need to think about grads.
The Victorian public sector commission manages the Victorian Government grad program, which includes placements across different agencies. They have recently included a component where at least one placement is with a central agency. Not only will this increase networks across the public sector, but grads get a better idea of what government is doing. I think this should be considered in the APS.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
The importance of engaging with stakeholders when determine, planning and implementing these important public policy challenges needs to be highlight as an important part of this proposal. Having come to Canberra around two years ago after working in state and the New Zealand Government, I’ve been surprised by the apprehension and lack of skills around softer stakeholder skills. My junior staff never spoke to stakeholders, whether it be inside or outside the APS. I’d even say there is little regard for talking with people at more senior levels, unless within formal processes. Having networks across the country and being able to listen to them not only assists develop good rapporteur, anticipate upcoming issues, etc but it also provides opportunities to refine and prioritise areas which are more needed on the ground. Throughout my time in the APS I’ve been provided countless examples of how bureaucrats have designed a policy, which has some merits, but because of the lack of engagement with the people who deliver it it has either been less effective, or addressing a lower priority issue. The fact is, being in an isolated city like Canberra means that there are less opportunities to regularly see stakeholders - this is why these capabilities need to be improved, so we can better leverage every opportunity to engage with the people (and their representatives) that we are meant to serve.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
Adopt/develop systems & culture within APS to promote self management with builtin accountability and openness. This way we can increase our productivity, cut silos & increase collaboration, have highly empowered & motivated APS work force. This also helps in shaping more productive roles & responsibilities for most EL2 and EL1s.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
The APS is adversarial. Agencies compete with each other, and line agencies compete with central agencies. Without firm government instruction, the notion of flexibility across portfolio and organizational boundaries is undermined right from the start by these incentives. As a former manager of mine used to say "we work for the minister, we do what they ask us to". Note the phrasing here - they don't work for the government, for the Australian people or even for the APS. For their minister. If their minister's preferences are in conflict, or are even thought likely to be in conflict, with the preferences of other agencies, especially centrals, collaboration ends right then and there. I've seen nothing to suggest there is any actual idea how to fix the conflict between agencies needing to be responsive to their minister and stated preferences to collaborate and work together across organizational boundaries. Probably the only viable solution is for performance to be genuinely linked to collaborative working effort. That is, people need to be held accountable for whether they and their staff collaborate, how they do it and how effective it is. I don't know what the metric is. This also needs to be a metric for promotion and pay point advancement. There are large numbers of SES and EL managers who are technically proficient but deeply ineffective in a modern management role. These people need to stop being promoted, and the people who already have been promoted need to either receive appropriate training or be put into performance management, potentially leading to reducing their classification to a level more commensurate with their actual skills and abilities.
Tue, 26 Mar 2019
It is a fact that the contractual and consulting workforce has supported the APS with delivery and implementation functions: policy, Implementation, strategy and in the new digital environments: Digital Transformation. I believe toxic work environments have been festering across the public service, and since the data on contractors and consultants, who don't have the same protections as APS staff, this fact is missed or significantly under the radar. For the past 10 years in Canberra (The highest % of public servants in the country), Bullying is common, verbal abuse is frequent, narcissists abound, passive aggressiveness, vindictiveness, psychological abuse, abuse of power and more severe of all: the utilisation of processes to delay, deter, sabotage and event prevent to fix a problem that is easily fixed but it goes on for years without anyone doing anything about it or simply letting it be, and it becomes culture. It even smells bad. The analogy of hiring a plumber into your household to fix a leaky tab. Once he arrives, you say: "Please do an assessment of what is causing the leaky tab and give me a recommendation". The plumber says: "it is just a leaky tab, it's a five minute job, I can fix it immediately and be on my way". You say: "No mate, if you can't do what I want you to do, I'll go get another plumber" A lot of problems in the public service are similar in nature: 80% of the technology problems, already have a quick fix or solution... some people in the APS just don't let you fix it, bully you not to fix it, harass you for telling the truth and even make your life impossible e.g. Whistle Blowers...Their life is ruined. You have missed the stench on the bureaucracy, specially the toxic broken systems such as the Family Courts and the Child Support system.
Mon, 25 Mar 2019
The focus of this item focuses at the macro level but I don't think it will get traction without taking the micro circumstances into consideration. I am based in Brisbane and work in an agency that has locations across the country but only about 10% of our workforce is based in Canberra. I really like the idea of working on a new measure similar to the proposed scenario but would guess most of the work would be done out of Canberra. Additionally if I was expected to go to another agency to undertake this work would I potentially take a pay cut because I work for an agency that is on the higher side for pay scales with our enterprise agreement? It would ultimately come down to how I would be involved in doing the role and if it would impact on my financial circumstances. Machinery of government works to a point but if people are going to take a hit on either their work/life balance or their hip pocket then the people required to get the outcome sought may not be ready to move.
Mon, 25 Mar 2019
While I support broad alignments (e.g. common email addresses) to reduce impediments and realise efficiencies across the APS it's important to note that the APS has necessarily evolved from being a single simple but large Service at inception, to a much more complex system today. The APS is fundamentally different from the private sector. It's all well and good to compare the APS to other large organisations due to scale but it is wrong to compare the APS to these same private organisations on complexity. Name one private organisation provides security (Defence, Border Protection), banking (Finance, Treasury), welfare (Human Services, Health, DVA), revenue collection (Tax) and safety (AFP, CASA).
Mon, 25 Mar 2019
I've been hearing about 'whole of government' and cross agency collaboration plus mobility across agencies for nearly 20 years. The steps we have taken to this end are very very small - for no good reason. I am very disappointed with how the APS treats it's people. The emphasis on a 'flexible workforce' (as it's been kindly referred to), is a retrograde evolution which has seen a lot of our best and brightest leave roles that they performed to a level of global best practice, and replaced by consultants whom we pay daily rates in excess of $12,000 (each) to first learn about our organisation and our needs, prior to providing glossy, shallow recommendations (which are as often as not then ignored by our leadership)......and then they leave.... taking what they've learnt about us and our needs with them. I will be recommending to my young children against joining the APS in preference for building expertise and international experience so that they can then be better placed to bid for projects and consult.
Fri, 22 Mar 2019
We can strengthen our words abit more, we only have missed the politics, the ensure last changes brand new computers.
Fri, 22 Mar 2019
It needs to be recognised that genuine collaboration takes more time. More investment upfront is worth it to deliver a better end result (designed for the end user in mind, fit for purpose etc). However, resource and time pressures are often at odds with this and this is where corners are cut. Consultation and collaboration may be one of the first things to be pared back.
Fri, 22 Mar 2019
Your numbers included in your research are impressive thank you. My only query is to what degree are those 'on the coal face' included in the conversations? All too often, only managers & leaders attend workshops: the distillation of front line issues routinely results in ambitious solutions that don't address the everyday practical challenges of working with clients. If you have included ALL levels of APS employees in your research, bravo and thank you.
Thu, 21 Mar 2019
In your review you state “what are we missing?” I would suggest sections on “Telecommuting in the 21st century” and “Decentralisation”. The cities of Sydney and Melbourne, as we know, are already bogged down in congestion, a situation that, realistically, is not likely to have changed by 2030. I see telecommuting and decentralisation (for example the creation of “hub” centres around our major cities) as ways that Australia can manage population growth, congestion and pollution. Currently the Department of Home Affairs (DHA)is actively seeking to curb work-from-home practices, in stark contrast to the private sector, for example, Telstra. The DHA has also closed offices in Dandenong, Preston and many other locations in the name of “efficiency”. Dandenong in particular is a major growth area for new arrivals to Australia, but according to Government imperatives, this is not a valid consideration. I can only speak for my experiences in the DHA, but I hope that the APS and the Independent Reviewers are capable of a more forward looking agenda.
Thu, 21 Mar 2019
One important dimension of empowering individuals is to ensure that effort, capability and skills get recognised and rewarded, while, importantly, the lack of them is addressed as well. Coming from the private sector, I cannot believe how deficient performance management is in the public sector. Poor performance is regarded as being so difficult to manage, that very often poor performers are simply shuffled around, with managers happy to see the problem moved out of their teams into another area. Often, such poor performers even get a good reference, regarded as the price to pay to get rid of a problem. While this may be a local solution for a particular manager or team, the impact in aggregate is both demoralising and disempowering. When poor performers continue to draw an income (usually movements either lateral, with no negative impact on remuneration, or even up) for poor performance comparable with that earned for higher performance, the question for the service in the long term is how will performance be rewarded? The inability to deal timely and effectively with non-performance is also impacting the ability to attract external talent into the public sector. The well-known practice of "white-anting" a manager, simply waiting them out, a clear consequence of the inability to refresh or adjust a team to respond to the needs of the organisation makes it very difficult to provide an attractive and empowering workplace to people coming from sectors where performance management is a much more agile and effective process. To conclude, the Review should strongly consider giving higher consideration to recommendations for making performance management, attracting and keeping talent and dealing with non-performance a much more timely and effective process.
Wed, 20 Mar 2019
I worked for the APS for almost 20 years, leaving in 2014 to join the German Development Organisation to work on PFM reform across Africa. I have been working on reform projects for the past 5 years and one of the common challenges that I have seen both in terms of the APS and in developing countries is the need for public sector organisations to work in small team to solve complex problems. I note that while working in the APS, while team work and teams were promoted it was often in form and not in function. There was a clear void in terms of leadership and shared visions. The successful teams that I worked with were often not even teams but they shared a purpose and a common goal. They had a sense of belonging and they had authority to act, ability to perform and they had acceptance to change. One of the challenges that I experienced while working both in and with public officials is the need to instill a culture of recognition and appreciation. The public service is often risk adverse due to a fear of talking complex challenges and problems as failure can be career hampering. Public servants should be encouraged to take on challenges and that failure is a lesson not a sentence. Not everything we do will succeed in the first attempt, it is okay to fail and it is okay to iterate and adapt. Policy is often a response to a complex problem. To solve complex policy challenges requires teams of individuals who share a purpose and vision. Promote a culture of individualism within an environment of shared vision and purpose. I left the Australian Public Service because I felt underappreciated yet I came to Africa with the same skill set and feel appreciated. I still make mistakes but its okay. I last worked in DoF on the Kenbi Land Claim. Peter John Jonath
Tue, 19 Mar 2019
As a public servant i have worked in many agencies. What's right or wrong is so different in each. What have you missed? Recognizing there is el1s and el2s that micromanage, obsessed with 'hours worked' not outcomes. Too many control freaks that think work is only done if they physically see you. Collaboration is working together, not over managing. Less invasive management means happier staff and better outcomes. Look at staff retention rates, statistics of bullying. Too high - time for change. And restructures... time for a flat structure.
Tue, 19 Mar 2019
I would like to congratulate the team on developing a clear and nuanced vision of what is needed to make collaboration the norm. I made a submission in the initial call for input into the APS Review. My submission, "Overlapping Pay Scales Proposal" recommends distinct measures to eliminate inconsistencies in pay and classification for staff performing similar duties. It also recommends a practical way to allow managerial staff to focus on and be rewarded for building management skills, and for specialist staff to focus on and be rewarded for building expertise in niche areas. It puts forward an approach that achieves optimal pay equity across staff performing similar work, while allowing for specific skills and accountabilities to be compensated at closer to market rates. The below recommendations do not yet appear to specifically address the issue of pay inequity and an excessively granular classification structure, which are perhaps the single largest barriers to collaboration in an environment where pay transparency is the norm. More detail is still required on exactly how a new operating model would achieve the optimum hierarchies, management layers and spans of control to empower people and teams. The devil is in the detail if this is to be successful. Unless a clear change to the current rigid APS1-6, EL1-2 and SES1-3 classification model is identified, it is hard to envisage how this vision can be reached. I would encourage the review team to revisit my earlier proposal, which might offer insights into how a new, more generalised classification model might work.
Tue, 19 Mar 2019
Tying this into the potentially strengthened role of the APSC in governance (including the facilitation of sub-committees of the Secretary's Board) it may be of interest to consider linking/creating lead roles and/or champions (perhaps within the APSC) for the four general arms of the service (i.e. policy/program/delivery/operational). This would encourage specialists in each of these arms as well as collaboration on priority issues. Linking each of these roles to a unified APS vision/purpose would assist each individual to link the work of their own organisation, division, team and role.
Tue, 19 Mar 2019
Reconfiguring the structure of the APS is the government's prerogative, much the same way as reconfiguring teams within and across departments is also meant to reflect the government's priorities. While MoG changes can be very disruptive and protracted, if the principle of being able to flexibly reconfigure teams is to be applied at departmental, inter- and intra- departmental levels, a government wide email address that excludes any departmental identifier could support MoGs more readily. Departmental identifier could instead be an attribute passed to departmental systems where necessary, rather than having it directly affect mail delivery and receipt. Similarly, a government ERP set up as a single enterprise, which allows for departmental and sub-departmental units, could also support MOGs more readily. A 'head of service' role would be critical to the success of such core central systems because active and/or passive resistance can relentlessly dilute any such initiatives over time where accountabilities reside solely and separately with departments. Performance KPIs should clearly articulate those which are related to the core identity of a department (related to its own autonomy and decision making authority) and those which are related to collaboration with other departments which become 'grey areas' of shared accountability, shared control, shared decision making authority and shared funding.