The APS Values are open to interpretation. I am somewhat of a traditionalist, wedded to Westminster principles of a professional service serving the elected government loyally but with a measure of independence through obligations to be apolitical and impartial. As in the film of that name, this enthusiasm for a ‘dead poets’ society’ was not just nostalgia for an arcane past, but a living philosophy of ‘seizing the day’ to serve the public. This view emphasises the shared culture and common role of the Public Service as a whole and the importance of nurturing the service and continually building and diversifying its overall capability.
Others have somewhat different views. Some give more weight to the different businesses of different agencies, focusing their attention more exclusively on their own agencies and complaining about central agency requirements. Some see closer similarities with the private sector, where investment in capability must deliver adequate rates of return, preferably in quantifiable terms such as the amount or price of agency outputs. Some give more weight to being responsive to the immediate demands of the government of the day and less to the requirement for a degree of professional independence or to the capability of the service as a whole to support future governments.
Perhaps the key shift in the values and culture of the Public Service in the past 30 years is the greater emphasis on performance—in delivering services (‘management for results’) and in serving the government (‘responsiveness’). For some secretaries, at least for a while, this reduced the importance of service-wide approaches to capability building and narrowed their interpretation of their obligation to promote the APS Values.
The renewed interest in service-wide approaches has also been associated with a shift towards greater engagement with external groups and organisations and the importance of enhancing capability to respond to and manage change and uncertainty.
The main practical issue for secretaries has been in balancing their efforts to enhance their organisations’ capabilities to meet their business requirements now and into the future and their contribution to broader APS and public sector capability. This is not a simple either/or issue, but a question of supporting both to the extent time and money are available.
My own view is that it should be mandatory for the SES, as the leadership cadre of the APS, to undertake key APS Commission programs of leadership development and management improvement. The quid pro quo, however, is close involvement of agency heads in the design and performance feedback of the programs.
A related issue is the power or influence of the APS Commission and Department of PM&C Secretary in SES succession management, including movement of deputy secretaries to enhance the readiness of people for future agency head positions. I am inclined to the view that our approach is a little too laissez faire.
Another related issue concerns the extent of joint actions in areas such as recruitment and induction training. My inclination is for agency heads to continue to have the freedom to work independently or collaboratively, but for the APS Commission to facilitate collaboration for those who favour that. I found in the Health department that there was benefit in a recruitment strategy that combined targeting those interested specifically in health careers with working also to gain our fair share of those looking more generally to public service employment through the broad, collaborative recruitment process coordinated by the APS Commission. Health tended not to attract the very best among the latter when candidates nominated their preferred agency, but the field of those specifically interested in health omitted many capable generalists with considerable potential to contribute to the Department of Health and the broader Public Service.
The IPAA plays an important role as a professional association. It has a degree of independence in its support of professionalism among those involved in public administration whatever their level or role, but it also serves jurisdictions and their public service leadership as a forum for informed debate and study of current issues, drawing together practitioners and academics. Several IPAA divisions also provide extensive training opportunities to middle managers in particular. The support of the IPAA by departmental secretaries is essential, as is their willingness to tolerate if not encourage open debate and fearless evaluation of public administration policies and practices. Other associations also provide valuable professional development services and opportunities and rely on the support of secretaries and other senior managers.