Austerity measures - digging out of the fiscal hole

Governments constantly tell us of the need to cut costs. Fair enough that it is important not to waste money - spending should be stripped back wherever we can identify how to stop wasting it. But usually cutting costs is more about struggling with too much worthy* stuff to spend it on, and just not enough dollars to do so.

At the moment, the need to be frugal - or austere - is particularly pertinent. Ministers are stressed about debt levels and retaining surpluses - as always. Commissions and taskforces (like the Victorian IRSF) are modeling future expenditure and telling us we need to find ways to reduce it, particularly given pessimistic income forecasts.

One thing no government taskforce will bother doing is looking at the past and identifying what spending paradigm put us in this position, or what we should have been doing a decade ago to have a more financially sustainable public sector.

Just imagine if they did - the conclusion would probably be that we needed to devote resources to investing in and adapting for the future. You know what that would mean? More spending. It's not really ironic, unless you think the most important fiscal imperative is austerity, cutbacks, and forcing 'efficiency' by limiting funding (rather than identifying waste). But it is incredibly important.

Einstein said - apparently - that you don't get out of a hole with the same thinking that got you in there. But that's exactly what governments around the world are attempting to do.

www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

The priority of impetus

I have been thinking about how to do good things, and why lots of great ideas and ideal solutions don't work. I've come to think that it's more important to focus on sensing and working with impetus (e.g. motivation, which I've posted on already) than being right, or having the best idea.


Discussions on the success of entrepreneurs and changemakers often come down to it being 'the right time', or to an idea or context being 'ripe'. (Not only is a given business idea likely not original, it's quite possibly already been tried.) It's also important to have the drive to see it through and to engage people to come with you.  There are a lot of factors that can make or break a good idea (or even a bad one).


For entrepreneurs, we all know you need to understanding the market, your own motivations, and how to 'sell' your idea to others.  Defining a 'problem' is a bit more nebulous and ill understood, but it's useful for refining the business concept.  I don't think it's appreciated that this is a way to identify the most important factor in success - impetus, not necessarily for the entrepreneur, but in the system that is being remodeled for business purposes.


For changemakers otherwise, I'm yet to come across similar systematic ways to understand the task at hand, rather than just determining the ideal solution. There is an understanding of the need to be 'systemic', and foster transformation, but not of actually how to make being systemic core to the task at hand. As a result, most efforts are driven by a vision or a good idea, with 'how to get there' something worked out along the way - not central to the idea itself.  In this case, the impetus of the individual (or group) is provided by the strength of the vision - but that's not enough to motivate broader change.  I think it may help to make working with impetus for change (in the system, other parties etc) the central priority, and working out how to shift or catalyse this.  So for changemakers working within other systems (rather than setting up their own business), impetus is even more critical than for entrepreneurs.


These thoughts are highly personal, in the sense that my background has always been to work out the best solution.  My history is weighted towards one end of a spectrum of impetus/action thinking, and idea/ideal thinking.  I am reacting to this, and for me I need to flee these inclinations - ideally, I presume there is some happy halfway point (but it would be rather ironic of me to try to find that in a post about sidelining idealism).  They also tie into friends' thoughts on the need to making research real, because we've done so much reductionist, specialised and abstracted work already.


By way of example, these thoughts arose reading Jocelyn Bourgon's New Synthesis of Public Administration, and thinking about the role the book may play in fostering change. I think the book crystalises current ideas, but doesn't necessarily offer new insights.  What it does do, however, is provide real authority and credibility for ideas that are otherwise at the fringe of thinking about government. So it potentially (with the help of other contextual circumstances) help provide the impetus for a discussion about change, and revision of how best to govern.  Nobody is going to run out and go 'okay, we have a new template for how government works, we're going to introduce a change plan to get us up to date' (Bourgon emphasises the 'New Synthesis' as a framework rather than a model, clearly conscious of the danger of this). But it might provide a touch point - or an excuse - to take a step back, or to give credibility to ideas that otherwise may have been seen as unnecessary (or worse).


-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

'Why' manage performance?

People - and organisations - sometimes get so caught up performing a role that they don't serve a purpose.  They focus on the 'what', do detriment of the 'why'.  This is a pet hate of mine because it has so many knock-on effects, in particular preventing people from working together.  Many organisational cultures of defensive isolation, finger pointing etc. are fed by the prioritisation of roles over creating value, particularly in a high pressure and highly accountable environment.


So in other words, places like the public service.


Under a 'managerial' approach, internal performance systems are usually set up to do exactly this.  It is assumed that managers can identify the best way for those accountable to them to do what the organisation needs to do.  Often, this means taking the 'why', of the purpose of the organisation, and translating it into a 'what', of what other employees need to do.


This isn't always the case, but often good employees (including good managers) need to fight against their performance system to break through with the 'why' of the reason they are there - and restore a bit of humanity to the work.


Listening to Simon Sinek's TED talk on the central importance of 'why' in leadership (despite its frequent relegation to being a footnote), really highlights how back-to-front a performance system is when based on roles and activities, and strips the 'why' out.  I comfortably call it an anti-human approach - it strips leadership and motivation out of the work relationships.


So why manage performance like that?  It doesn't need to be like that at all - there is plenty of room for the 'why', it just needs to be returned to its priority position.


-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

Government business model generation

Government has a diverse range of roles in helping make society a better place. But it only uses a couple of basic business models.  The main one looks something like:

collect independent revenue (e.g. tax) > use it to deliver something

(that aligns with the minister's priorities, and hopefully has a positive BCR)

In addition to 'policy' work (~delivering services to the minister), line departments are set up to do this - and that's about all their structures enable them to do.  Luckily, governments have the taxation authority that means this model will never break, though there's no guarantee it will be effective.


Having been referred to businessmodelgeneration.com (via @carlscrase) today got me thinking.  In many cases it will be effective, but is it always the best way?  And when will it not be - how do we know that we should be thinking about creating a different business model?


-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

A vision of progressive policy implementation

It should not be possible to commit to broad impact, systemic policy without understanding how it will work at the micro level.

This seems an obvious suggestion when written down, but it's usually not followed - which is why basic and fundamental things like 'human centered design' are so radical to the public service.

Government approaches delivering social value quite differently to how a startup does. A social enterprise startup may have a high-level social objective, but it will fail if it tries to achieve everything at once (known as 'boiling the ocean').  No matter how central that objective may be, it needs to start by being successful delivering value at the smallest scale, to a small set of individuals.  For a startup, this is an important way to validate hypotheses about the business model - and in particular the experiences and interactions - minimise risk, and progressively seek funding for expansion. It also fosters a completely different perspective on social change to that of the bureaucrat.

There is no one approach to developing policy that will foster a better understanding of impact at all different scales.  Enterprises scale up because they need to, they operate and grow very differently to government, and the different actions of government can't be shoved into a single model for implementation. Nevertheless, there should be a better way to make policy than to design a magnificent national system, then fill in the unpredictable and inconvenient gaps known as 'people'.  It may be hyperbolic, but this is closer to reality than it should be.


Some elements of human centered design can definitely help, particularly to understand how individuals interact with numerous different government systems (think MindLab). But in other contexts, it might be more useful to rethink how programs are implemented, inspired by enterprise approaches and led by the need to understand impact at different scales. A program will first test the most central hypotheses that are the easiest and lowest risk to trial - not necessarily the smallest scale - focus on getting this right, and progressively build on the growing foundation.


Thinking like this requires a conscious approach to risk, iteration and learning-through-doing that is confronting, unsettling - far from straightforward.

Nevertheless, thinking about 'progressive' policy as an option, to deliver a broad-impact policy - particularly on a difficult issue - without testing hypotheses about how it works for actual people would be crazy.  It's a large investment and has high risk.

Government can be pretty crazy sometimes.  In fact, some days I wonder how it escaped the straight jacket.

The impossible role of government

Peter Shergold spoke very well a couple of months ago on the challenge for government to meet contrasting expectations.  People expect government to leave them well alone to do what they want, but they also expect government to provide all this fantastic stuff, like flawless social services.


Like the Herald article last week on people's attitudes to toll roads - in the main, people expect not to have to pay for it, because that's the "government's problem"!

At the core of this is our perception of the role of government.  It is a logical conclusion of 'new management' approaches to government, founded in free market liberalism but with social democratic values, and a capitalist-liberal philosophy of the individual (who can and should pursue their own interest).

As Shergold explained, we need a more reliable model for the role of government, and also an alternative narrative, to displace this catch 22.

PEO

Organisations refining the idea of a 'thriving' society and how to deliver it (like TACSI in Adelaide and Participle in the UK) are providing a way to reconcile liberal and social values, but as yet it's only a start. The british government are going to need to build a model and narrative around this approach if their Big Society agenda is going to have any success - and indeed public administrators around the world will be hoping they can learn from the experience.

-------

John Baxter

www.jsbaxter.com.au

@JohnSBaxter

Acting on motivation

I have done a bit of brainstorming lately on public administration and my interest in it.  It has lead me to think about a motivation>action combination which seems like a very useful starting point - not only in terms of public administration, but personally as well.

To understand the scope and space of different ways of working I needed to relate different methodologies to one another.  How can one talk about options between traditional and design approaches to policy development without being able to relate these methodologies?

Different methodologies all have different components and labels, seemingly irreconcileable, but have strong parrallels.  Starting points including problems, opportunities, policies, objectives and outcomes.  Finishing points include plans, policies, programs and actions.  So many different methodologies have vastly different interiors, but nevertheless start at something like this, and finish at something like that.  They're processes, they all start, and they all go somewhere (though they don't all finish).

TACSI working backwards approach

But they don't all start at different places.  It's not like design starts at a drawing board, but policy starts at a polling booth. Each one of them starts at some sort of motivator.

They all end at action - or at least at some sort of a program for action.

Motivator > (program for) action

So now we have some sort of a reference point to relate these different methodologies, and at least a conception of how to choose between them.  Identify your motivator, and work out what methodology is the best approach to realising it.

Unfortunately, methodolgies aren't determined by a judgement of the best approach.  They are determined by things like precedent, experience or profession.  Or where none of these are present there is no structured response at all!

What are your personal motivators?  What approach do you take to realise these?  Does this make sense considering the importance of your motivators and the options available?

-------
John Baxter
http://www.jsbaxter.com.au/
@JohnSBaxter

The conundrum of shallow skills and silo professions

One of the tricky spots of my current situation is feeling a conflict between needing to deepen my skills, but not seeing the value in committing to digging myself into a silo.

here

I am not unskilled.  In fact, I have an impressive array of randomly aquired skills, experience and knowledge.  But my skill set is shallow, and not necessarily complimentary.  This is not a vice, at my young age.  But it is not an asset, and I am feeling that - I don't know how I can really be of value to others with the shallow skill set I have.  Who on earth really needs an analyst!?

But I think about the options to deepen my skill set and I struggle to see how that will help me solve the sorts of wicked problems that aren't already being churned through the production line of specialised professionals.  If I wanted to deepen my skills I would probably stay on at the audit office another year or so to gain a bit more experience, seniority and methodology.  But that would only exacerbate the smell of wasted, rotting innovative solutions that are flushed out of the woods by preliminary audit investigation, to be then methodically swept under the rug of the infamous audit methodology.

My aim - or at least what I propose - is not to focus on deepening my skills, but on the contrary to broaden them.  To be valuable I will deepen my expertise and my understanding of systems of government, without pinning myself to a profession.  I will pivot the experience I have gained so far, find other angles, and develop ways in to government's problems that others are yet to exploit.

I know my stated interest in 'public administration systems' is too broad for all this.  I'm working on how to narrow that down.  But regardless, it's a worthy beast to fall in love with - who needs a solution, when you have a problem like that?

From screenrant interview

-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au

Some things you might want to start with

Things you may or may not know if we haven’t been in regular contact recently.

Source: from soneone's blog

I have informally given notice of leaving the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office where I work.  I call myself an analyst of public administration systems (public transport) - my title is ‘analyst’.

Am looking to pivot my experience towards something more focused on innovation and understanding how to manage systems, particularly systems of public administration (e.g. regulation, social services), to deal with what the future will be throwing at us.  Particularly interested in design-focused innovation types like TACSI.  So yes, I’m looking for work!

Have been inspired by some of my recent experiences like the global sustainability jam, and a few others that I’ll look to post about over the next couple of months...

Am trained in literature and mathematics, and have a particularly analytical approach to understanding systems.  I’d be suited to economics, if only economic theory wasn’t so void of accuracy or moral value - soapbox posts to come on this no doubt (though I’m thinking of a separate blog along the lines of Economic Philosopher - how’s the ring?)

Currently live in Melbourne, but I'm not wedded to any location.

-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au

Pathway ID

Eureka!

I had a bit of a moment the other day.

I have previously been stumped when talking to people about what I do, for lack of any sort of position or identifier that combined my experience (and current employment) with my interest (and my future).  I had also struggled to reconcile my vision for where I was going with the experience that I have, as if I was looking to start completely anew.  That didn’t quite sit comfortably - surely I’ve picked up more than a few generic transferable skills.

I’ve been impressed by how well some people - like RowanKunz - have branded their expertise in a clear, simple and compelling way, without necessarily falling into a professional category.  I’ve wondered - is possible for me to have that sort of clarity?

Source: fd2s, on some random webpage

Then I hit upon a thread that draws my experience and thoughts together

systems of public administration

Now I know that might seem dull to normal people, but jargon aside I promise it’s interesting.  It encapsulates so much of what I have engaged with in the last couple of years, and it also helps describe the particular focus with which I engage the social and community sector.  I'll write some posts in the coming months about what it is and means.

I think it will be a very useful way to identify my professional interest, and brand my experience.

It will also be a guiding star for me to develop career pathways around - while I’ve had a sense of building on my skills by diversification, I haven’t been able to grapple actually making progress.  But now, I can work to a vision of being bloody good at public admin systems, making a contribution in an area central to addressing social challenges, yet not need to be boxed into the expectations of a profession.

The idea is yet to be road tested (feel free to comment!) so I can’t exactly proclaim it a successful strategy, but simply having some clarity of thought for me to understand where I am is immensely comforting so far, and I can see this eureka moment being very valuable.  How does everybody else approach what they do?  Have others found clarity amongst a mess of motivation, experience, and professional labels that just don’t fit?  Are people still struggling?

And does anybody out there have work for a public administration systems specialist?

-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au