Whole of Government

Whole of Government culture and capability

Effective budgetary, governance and ICT systems are central to the success of whole of government work. They must be supported, however, by a culture which fosters a service- wide bias towards looking for wider whole of government objectives that makes the most of the flexibility available within the current accountability framework, and focuses on developing the necessary capabilities in staff.

Building a Whole of Government culture

MAC’s Connecting Government report stressed that culture could critically shape the success of whole of government activities. ANAO’s audit of whole of government Indigenous service delivery arrangements has also emphasised the need for an onoing focus on bringing about cultural change to departments involved in whole of government exercises.²¹

Many APS agencies are putting a strong focus on initiatives to build a culture that supports whole of government work. Just over half of agencies put a high or very high priority in 2006–07 on building relationships with other agencies to ensure they are willing to collaborate to achieve whole of government outcomes (see Table 10.2). Experience on the ground, however, continues to be mixed.

Employee experience of collaborative activity

Most employees rate their own agency highly in terms of its collaborative culture. Seventy-nine per cent of SES and EL employees, who were required to deal directly with people from other public service agencies in the last 12 months, believed that their agency always or usually encourages a constructive approach to collaboration with other public service agencies. These employees also had very positive views of whether EL employees in their agency collaborated effectively with other APS agencies —70% believed that this usually occurred (see Table 10.2).

SES and EL employees who participated in multi-agency forums also tended to have generally positive views about how the participants in these forums behaved (see Table 10.4).

Table 10.4: Relevant EL and SES employees’ experience of multi-agency forums, 2006–07
	Agree (%)	Neither agree nor disagree (%)	Disagree (%)
Participants are primarily focused on meeting agency-specific objectives	70	16	15
Participants are primarily focused on solving whole of government problems	57	24	19
Participants actively try to work across boundaries to make sure outcomes are achieved	73	17	9
Participants share information relevant to the project/issue	80	12	8
Participants pool resources where necessary	56	27	16
Participants are supported by adequate information and communications infrastructure	59	24	16
Source: Employee survey

Nevertheless, there are some indications that a whole of government culture is not always deeply embedded. Relevant employees were generally less positive about whether SES employees in their agency usually collaborated effectively with other APS agencies than EL employees (see Table 10.2)—only 57% thought that the SES usually collaborated effectively, with the lower result caused by the views of relevant EL 1 and EL 2 employees (50% and 63% respectively). In contrast, SES employees were more likely than EL employees to believe that EL employees usually collaborate effectively with other agencies. This result is of concern given the crucial role that senior leaders play in influencing the behaviour and attitudes of the APS towards collaboration across organisational boundaries, a role highlighted in the synopsis review of the Indigenous COAG trial evaluations.

Even fewer employees (47% of SES and EL employees required to deal directly with people from other public service agencies) believed that other agencies were usually willing to collaborate to achieve whole of government outcomes. In addition, SES and EL participants in multi-agency forums continue to be more likely to agree that participants are primarily focused on meeting agency-specific objectives than on solving whole of government problems (although the majority nevertheless agree that participants are focused on solving whole of government problems—see Table 10.4).

Perceptions by the SES as to whether they are part of a broader APS-wide leadership cadre/ group continue to show room for improvement. Fifty-five per cent of SES employees definitely saw themselves as part of a broader APS-wide leadership group, 34% only as somewhat part of a broader APS-wide leadership group and 10% did not see themselves as part of a broader APS-wide leadership group.

Perceptions of the SES as an APS-wide leadership group continue to be lower among non-SES employees. Only 14% of non-SES employees definitely viewed the leaders in their agency as part of a broader APS-wide leadership cadre/group, with a further 38% believing that they were somewhat part of such a group.

Despite these results, the large majority of SES employees acknowledge the ongoing activities of agency heads in communicating the importance of working collaboratively to their SES employees. Eighty-two per cent of SES employees indicated that during the last 12 months their agency head had communicated to them, individually or in a group, the importance of working collaboratively with other APS agencies.

The important role that senior management plays in fostering a collaborative environment was underscored by a number of SES and EL employees who suggested that better support from senior management would improve their agency’s ability to cooperate with other agencies. One employee, for example, thought that collaboration could be improved by:

A belief by all senior management that collaboration and involvement in inter-agency forums and committees are a positive step forward to providing a whole of government approach to good governance.

Other employees put an emphasis on changing culture more broadly. One employee, for example, said:

We need to remove that ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality. Sometimes it comes from the other agencies and sometimes from within. Everyone feels they need to fight to push their agendas and it becomes a game of politics rather than focusing on the actual outcome we’re trying to achieve.

Agency efforts to support a whole of government culture have continued to be reinforced at the cross-agency level. In particular, the Australian Public Service Commissioner provides MAC’s statement of expectations for the SES, One APS—One SES, to all those promoted or engaged to Senior Executive Band 1 level and the statement has been promoted through a range of Commission leadership programmes, including SES orientation. Information to assist APS staff and other interested parties promote and facilitate whole of government initiatives and responses has also been made available online through the Connected Government website.

Building Whole of Government capability

MAC’s Connecting Government report stressed that developing the right capabilities is essential to effective whole of government working. Further efforts to build whole of government capability was a common idea put forward by SES and EL employees for improving their agency’s ability to collaborate with other agencies. One employee, for example, believed:

Not enough attention is given to the skills required for [whole of government] or the recognition of what a successful [whole of government] collaboration takes to achieve. Need to think about what we are bringing to the table, what we can collaboratively achieve and what (apart from the project’s outcomes) we can bring back to our own agency (i.e. skills and knowledge).

Employees involved in whole of government activity generally have a very positive view of the capability of their colleagues to engage in whole of government work. Seventy per cent of SES and EL employees whose work required them to deal directly with people from other public service agencies thought that key staff in their agency usually have the necessary capabilities to work effectively with other APS agencies (see Table 10.2). Nevertheless, one-quarter of APS agencies reported skills set gaps in the capacity of the SES feeder group to work collaboratively across agency and jurisdictional boundaries to achieve whole of government objectives (25% of agencies—compared to 11% of agencies identifying SES skills set gaps in this area).

Despite this result, agencies put a greater priority on initiatives to improve the capacity of SES employees to collaborate, than on initiatives targeted at EL or other key employees (see Table 10.2). Given the extent of SES feeder group skills set gaps in this area, there is potential for a greater focus on initiatives for EL employees.

Training

Training for staff engaged in whole of government initiatives that provides them with the skills and knowledge on how to do whole of government work was a key theme coming out of the synopsis review of the Indigenous COAG trial evaluations.

Reflecting the limited number of agencies that indicated capacity development in the whole of government area as a priority, however, only 36% of agencies had redesigned training programmes or refocused training objectives to specifically improve employee capability in undertaking whole of government activities in 2006–07. This was a fall from 2005–06, when around half of agencies had done this. It may be that some agencies are still focusing on embedding the changes made in 2005–06.

In redesigning these programmes, agencies were most likely to put a very high priority on building skill sets in relation to delivering services to the public and on relationship management. Skills most likely to be viewed as either a high or very high priority were budget/financial management, project/contract management and communications.

The need for a greater emphasis on training to improve agencies’ ability to collaborate with other agencies was mentioned by a number of SES and EL employees. One employee, for example, thought that their agency’s ability to collaborate with other agencies would be improved by:

More training on negotiation, conflict management and communication techniques.

There was also an emphasis on providing more formal opportunities for networking and improving understanding of other agency perspectives. One employee, for example, saw potential for:

Increased level of networking by holding regional forums with membership drawn from locally represented agencies focusing on issues relating to similar job skills e.g. policy advice, finance, IT, property management, etc.

At the cross-agency level, the Commission has continued to have a particular focus on whole of government capability development in 2006–07, in the design of a suite of new learning programmes and opportunities for the SES. The Commission has commenced new residential programmes for the SES cadre with a whole of government focus and has cascaded down these leadership programmes to ELs.

The Commission has also organised ‘Getting Connected’—a series of seminars on whole of government issues for small groups at the EL 2 and SES levels. Six seminars were delivered in 2006–07, with 153 attendees representing 60 agencies.

Experience and exposure

A common theme emerging from MAC’s Connecting Government and Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce,²² is the need for potential leaders to take steps to broaden their experience and exposure. There are a range of different ways to increase experience and exposure, including through internal agency-focused opportunities. However, moves between APS agencies and between sectors are an important ingredient in the mix.

Over the last 10 years, there has been a decrease in the number of employees at the SES, EL 2 and EL 1 classifications who have had experience in more than one APS agency. This trend has been partially offset by the increased number of employees engaged directly from outside the APS at each of these levels who bring a range of experiences in working in non-APS environments, including some APS employees who return to the APS after having gained experience in other sectors. Nevertheless, there is potential to look more strategically at encouraging employees to gain cross-APS agency experience, particularly at the EL 1 and EL 2 classifications, where employees are more likely to view themselves as primarily agency employees than either APS 1–6 level employees or SES employees.

APS-wide inter-agency mobility rates—movements (transfers) and promotions—have varied considerably over the past decade, with considerable fluctuations but a generally falling trend from 3.3% in 1997–98 to 1.5% in 2003–04. A trend now seems to be emerging of increasing mobility, with mobility rates having risen for three years in a row, reaching 2.9% in 2006–07. This trend needs to be sustained to have an impact on the overall levels of cross-APS agency experience among APS employees.

A number of SES and EL employees suggested a greater emphasis on mobility opportunities as an idea for improving their agency’s ability to collaborate with other agencies. One employee, for example, said:

I’m a firm believer that APS employees should be encouraged to work in more than one department to have a broader perspective. I note this is being encouraged at the SES level, but we still have a long way to go here. It should be also encouraged at EL level.

A greater focus on mobility opportunities is being supported through the new APSjobs website released in August 2007. To facilitate mobility and rotation opportunities, and consistent with decisions by MAC in its report, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, the new website contains a facility for agencies to advertise temporary vacancies. Further enhancements to the website will be undertaken in 2007–08.

21 ANAO 2007, Whole of Government Indigenous Service Delivery Arrangements, Performance Audit Report No. 10, 2007–08, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

22 Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac>