A perennial issue is the balance between generalists and specialists, or each secretary’s own balance between generalist and specialist skills and knowledge. There is a need for a mix among the cadre of secretaries and agency heads, but also there are risks for a secretary who is either too specialist (and lacking broad management skills or deep understanding of the processes of government and political awareness) or too generalist (and lacking essential subject content).

The increase in mobility adds weight to the Australian practice of more laissez faire approaches to career development. There is, however, a strong case for strengthening the investment in future leaders given the pressures on secretaries and the responsibilities they exercise. This requires careful succession management to identify those who should receive such investments. And it suggests that those who come in laterally to secretary or other very senior positions need to have access to substantial formal and informal support.

The increase in mobility should not, however, be exaggerated. The current leadership is still dominated by individuals who joined the APS or a state public service on or shortly after graduation. That might remain the case. If so, it also remains essential that the Public Service recruits some of the best and brightest from our universities and convinces them to stay.

Successful development almost always involves on-the-job experience. Formal training, however, is increasingly important, providing a framework for applying lessons from experience to new situations and for analysing the causes of success and failure. There are serious risks, however, in the fads and fashions of management theories and training, including wasted resources on overheads and on unnecessary restructuring together with loss of credibility among staff within the agency and external stakeholders.

I believe performance pay for secretaries shifted the balance of incentives too far towards rewarding responsiveness and away from rewarding good management, leadership and the promotion of public service professionalism. There is a risk, however, in removing performance pay that feedback to secretaries will also disappear. Secretaries, like other employees, require constructive, fair, comprehensive and timely feedback on their performance. There might be an opportunity now to introduce a performance assessment process that relies more on peer review, as in Canada or New Zealand, with ministerial feedback included but not dominating. Reports could still go to the Prime Minister for noting and comments (see Chapter 12).