Home > Building APS capability > Whole of government culture and capabilities

WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT CULTURE AND CAPABILITIES

A capability issue of increasing importance to the APS is the ability of agencies to work together to achieve effective policy development and service delivery. In April 2004 MAC released Connecting Government: Whole of Government responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges. The report defined ‘whole of government’ activity as formal or informal work across portfolio boundaries undertaken to achieve a shared goal and an integrated government response through policy development, program management and service delivery. It recommended that whole of government solutions be targeted to genuine whole of government problems, citing complex policy challenges such as environmental or rural issues, complex program management issues such as security threats and drug dependence, and integrated service delivery mechanisms emerging in response to rising community expectations for easier access to government.

Because whole of government involvement can be both informal and formal, it is difficult to estimate the number of APS employees actually engaged in substantive whole of government activity. To begin to construct a picture, SES and EL respondents to the employee survey were asked whether, during the last 12 months, their job required them to deal directly with people from other public service agencies including at different levels of government. Seventy-five per cent reported dealing directly with staff in other Commonwealth agencies, 43% with State/Territory agencies, and 16% with local government agencies while 23% had none of these interactions.

When SES and EL staff who had dealt directly with other agencies were asked to report their involvement in more structured whole of government activities over the previous 12 months, numbers fell markedly. Fourteen per cent of this group reported having been a member of a taskforce, 28% reported having been part of an interdepartmental committee, 17% reported having been a member of a joint team,⁵³ and 58% had had no involvement in such arrangements.

The MAC report found that organisational culture and capabilities critically shape the success of both informal and formal whole of government interactions. By their nature such activities require both a willingness and a capacity to focus beyond agency-specific outcomes and priorities and on the Government’s overall policy agenda and priorities. This means that both organisational culture and individual capabilities need to be oriented to support collaboration in order for whole of government interactions to be given practical shape through intra-organisational structures and management and accountability frameworks.

PROMOTING A COLLABORATIVE AGENCY CULTURE

The MAC report acknowledged that portfolio Secretaries have a key role in influencing behaviour and attitudes of the APS towards collaboration across organisational boundaries. It also highlighted the broader statutory responsibilities of the SES ‘to promote cooperation with other agencies’.⁵⁴ Consistent with these responsibilities, SES leaders are expected to give explicit and consistent support for collegiate and horizontal approaches to working both within their agencies and across the Service as a whole, complementing their line responsibilities.

Despite these expectations, cultural blockages can undermine full collaboration, even where formal agreement has been given. Such blockages are associated with perceptions of staff that their role in inter-agency activity is ‘turf protection’ rather than collaboration.

One respondent to the employee survey commented:

We are desperately keen to appear to promote whole-of-government and whole-of-Australia approaches. Regrettably, in practice we often undermine our own best intentions by trying to push our priorities (even ill-considered priorities) down their throats. In other words, we start from the premise that we are in possession of revealed truth–if everyone else agrees with us then we're happy to cooperate, but if they don't agree then we generally seek ways to impose our views on them. Even when we are 'right' this tends to undermine our ability to sustain 'whole of' approaches, because interlocutors become dissatisfied and distrustful of us.

Removing cultural blockages of this nature is the responsibility of senior management, which is expected to have both the capacity and the authority to bring about Service-wide and agency cultural change and to deal with any recidivism into traditional vertical management styles and structures.

The employee survey asked SES and EL employees who had dealt directly with other agencies or been involved in multi-agency forums over the previous 12 months about the extent to which, in their experience, their agency’s culture encouraged a constructive approach to collaboration with other public service agencies. Responses were positive, with 84% of respondents saying that such an approach was ‘always’ (39%) or ‘usually’ (45%) encouraged, 10% saying it was ‘sometimes’ encouraged, and only three per cent saying it was ‘seldom’ encouraged. However, there were considerable variations between large agencies. The percentage of employees reporting that their agency ‘always’ or ‘usually’ encouraged a collaborative approach varied among large agencies from 58% to a very strong 98% (at the ATO), while those reporting that a collaborative approach was ‘seldom’ encouraged varied from 10% to 0%.

Collaborative and relationship-building skills at senior levels are also stressed in the SELC framework, which sets out a shared understanding of the critical success factors for APS leadership. The SELC framework identifies the cultivation of productive working relationships as one of the five core criteria for high performance by senior executives. The employee survey asked staff to what extent their immediate supervisors exhibited this core capability. Among staff whose supervisors would be expected to fall into the SES group, 63% of the SES and 56% of EL employees responded that their supervisor ‘cultivated productive working relationships’ to a ‘high’ extent; 22% of SES and 28% of EL employees reported ‘medium’ levels of performance; and 13% of the SES and 16% of EL employees reported ‘low’ levels.

Cross-fertilisation

As the MAC report notes, SES orientation training offers an important foundation for the SES leadership group in an appreciation of their broader APS leadership responsibilities.

Beyond this, agencies should consider whether they have a sufficient pool of employees at all levels with an exposure to other agency environments and cultures, or whether, as MAC recommends, there would be value in making such exposure available as part of preparation for whole of government involvement.⁵⁵

Networking and other cross-fertilisation strategies can raise employees’ levels of exposure to the cultures and practices of other agencies. The APS Commission hosts a number of networks, often at regional level, which bring together SES and EL staff. APS Regional Directors’ networks, for example, are established in each State to facilitate interagency discussion of current issues; relevant networking opportunities for central office staff are made available through SES breakfasts and the Futures Forum. Cross-agency learning and leadership development exchanges, such as the Band 3 forum, also have a role in supporting collegiate behaviour. The agency survey found that 40% of all agencies reported that formal networks, which could include both internal and external networks, were among their five most commonly used learning and development activities for EL staff, and 45% of agencies reported formal networks as one of the five most commonly used learning and development activities for the SES.

Policies/guidelines to guide participation

Connecting Government highlights the need for agencies to provide practical support to those involved in whole of government activities. Such support should include guidance to clarify individual roles and accountabilities associated with whole of government activities, covering such issues as authorisation to make commitments on behalf of an agency, record keeping arrangements and requirements for briefing of Ministers and reporting back to the agency.⁵⁶ Both the agency survey and the employee survey sought information about the availability of such guidance, and the extent to which employees who had been involved in multi-agency forums or structures during the preceding 12 months had been required to comply with it.

The picture that emerged indicated that around half of all agencies responding to the survey had one or more of such measures in place. Forty agencies had in place procedures for ensuring that employees have the appropriate authority to express views on the organisation’s behalf; 51 required their agency representative to report back; 39 required representatives to brief their Ministers on relevant issues; and 42 had record keeping requirements. The proportion of relevant SES and EL employees required to meet these requirements was larger, as more large agencies than small had them in place. Table 9.9 shows that record maintenance was most commonly reported as a requirement (by 84% of employees) and ministerial briefing was least commonly required (41%). Relevant SES and EL employees across all agencies appeared confident in their understanding of which of these procedural and accountability measures applied to them: as Table 9.9 indicates, very few were unsure whether their agency had the relevant requirement in place.

Table 9.9: SES and EL employees’ awareness of procedural and accountability measures for whole of government

Source: Employee survey

BUILDING WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT CAPABILITIES

In the devolved public service context, agency heads are responsible for the development of the capabilities required to achieve their agency’s business objectives. Connecting Government calls upon agencies to ensure that relevant employees have access to skills development in the range of leadership and implementation skills required for effective whole of government collaboration. These include broad based capabilities associated with the SELC framework noted above, and a range of technical and implementation skills.⁵⁷ Key among the latter are relationship management, project/program and contract management, negotiation and mediation, change and conflict management and record management. Twenty-nine per cent of agencies had procedures in place for ensuring that employees had the relevant skills and knowledge to participate in formal multi-agency decision-making forums and 15% did not believe that such procedures were relevant to their operations.

Both the agency survey and the employee survey sought a more detailed view of the availability of relevant training and its take-up by employees. Agencies were asked whether specific types of training had been made available to relevant employees as a means of increasing their capability in whole of government participation.

Employees who had been involved in formal multi-agency decision-making forums during the preceding 12 months were similarly asked whether they had undertaken relevant training during the same period. Broadly half of all agencies surveyed were providing training in one or more of the technical skills identified as relevant to successful whole of government interactions. Table 9.10 shows that the take-up of such training amongst relevant SES and EL employees was very low, although considerable numbers reported having already received training in the specified field. It is likely that much of the take-up of agency offerings was among APS level employees.

Table 9.10: Proportion of relevant EL and SES employees reporting training for whole of government capability

Source: Agency and employee surveys

Project, program and contract management skills were offered by most agencies, an emphasis that is consistent with the MAC focus on a collaborative and effectively coordinated approach to implementing Government decisions. While the Cabinet Implementation Unit in PM&C has a key role in encouraging earlier and more successful planning for implementation of public policy decisions, its effectiveness will be dependent on greater understanding and use of good project management principles and practices at an agency and intra-agency level.

Relationship management, which was least likely to be part of agency training activities, is also a key whole of government capability, particularly where Government priorities can best be addressed through the co-location of employees from different agencies. Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs) are a case in point. At 30 sites in metropolitan and regional Australia, former ATSIC-ATSIS offices have become multi-agency ICCs. Over time ICCs will bring under the one roof staff working in the main agencies administering Government programs and services for Indigenous people. In regional and remote ICCs, coordination, planning and service functions are colocated and in metropolitan ICCs, coordination and planning functions are co-located. In some areas, negotiations have begun to place State/Territory Government staff in ICCs.

It will be increasingly important for those involved in initiating whole of government exercises such as the ICCs– both ongoing activities and particular projects–to be alert to the scope there is for organisational cultures to vary, and for that variation to impact on the conduct of the exercise. Capabilities such as relationship management will be critical to the ongoing effectiveness of such inter-agency exercises. The development of training approaches to support the new ICCs is part of the APS Commission’s Indigenous Employment Strategy and should offer useful guidance for ongoing whole of government capability development initiatives.

Connecting Government cited a number of other broad initiatives targeting whole of government capability development. Some of these are still under development; a number of others are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. Underpinning all of these is the ILS, which provides a systematic framework for capability analysis and executive career development for the APS, and incorporates whole of government behaviours and capabilities at key transition points. In addition the MAC report refers to increased use of networking activities and Service-wide training, such as the current Band 2 and Band 3 forums and the SES orientation training offered by the Commission (which will be supplemented by EL orientation training as part of the Commission’s suite of ILS support initiatives). All new SES employees would benefit from attending orientation training and, while participation rates improved this year, there is still potential for further improvement and commitment on the part of some agencies.

As mentioned at the start of this chapter, mobility of staff between agencies within the APS can enhance whole of government capabilities within agencies, particularly by improving cooperation and contributing to a Servicewide culture. Inter-jurisdictional activities referred to earlier in this chapter are also an important part of whole of government capability building including, in particular, the leadership development activities conducted by ANZSOG for both EL and Band 2 and 3 staff. In addition to providing structured learning, involvement in these programs gives participants access to key government leaders, leading academics and practitioners both in Australia and internationally.

Using reward and recognition

Connecting Government also raised the question of how performance assessment arrangements could be used to support a collaborative agency culture, and whether results-oriented performance criteria should for this reason be supplemented by behavioural criteria. As discussed above, almost 80% of agencies responding to the agency survey reported including behavioural criteria drawn from the APS Values or agency-specific values or behaviours in their assessment process, a considerable increase on 2002—03. A further six agencies (7%) reported developing such criteria.

Despite the growth in the use of behavioural criteria in performance assessment processes, the 2004 employee survey found that a larger percentage of relevant APS employees disagreed (37%) than agreed (26%) that the performance pay system in their agency ‘contributed to a workplace culture in which individuals work together effectively’. These findings suggest that agencies may need to examine the design of their reward and recognition systems, as well as individual performance criteria, as part of building organisational responsiveness to whole of government priorities.

One respondent to the employee survey commented:

The APS culture does not yet reward whole of government behaviour, and until it does staff will continue to be more interested in scoring points for their own agency at the expense of others.

53 Defined as a long-lasting structure that blends functions that cross portfolios.

54 PS Act, s. 35(2)(b).

55 MAC, 2004, op. cit., pp. 50—51.

56 ibid., p. 52.

57 ibid., p. 55.