Craft and Capacity in the Public Service

Abstract

Over the past 8 years, debates about Australia's public service have evolved from being focused mainly on skills and capacities to being now increasingly concerned about the operating environment for career officials, their ability to fulfil their stewardship obligations, and to practice their ‘craft’. In this article, I track those changes and ask what is the craft of public administration? How should we understand it? Are concerns it is imperilled or has been lost valid or overblown? I draw on the observations of current and former senior officials, and the findings of recent Capability Reviews. My primary focus is on the Australian Public Service, because here is where the debate has been most public and direct. I note that the focus of concern has shifted from public servants towards ministers, who have been largely absent from public sector reform initiatives of the past 40 years.

Delivering public policy programs to senior executives in government—the Australia and New Zealand School of Government 2002–18

“…There was an ambition in both countries to improve public sector capabilities and performance in delivery (Fels 2003). There was also a sense of a perceived policy capability gap afflicting both countries as a direct result of nearly 20 years of NPM (Boston & Eichbaum 2014;Podger 2003;Tiernan 2015). With regard to the existing university programs, ANZSOG was the response to the perception of various Australian governments that there was a 'market failure' in the provision and quality of training and development programs available for public sector executives, especially focused on public leadership and management.…”

Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes: Opportunities and Challenges

“…There are certain instances where traditional approaches to the design and implementation of public policy are necessary and preferable (see, e.g. Rhodes ; Tiernan ). However, design thinking offers an alternative view of how government might interact with and include citizens in its decision‐making processes.…”

Explaining institutional amnesia in government

“…4–6), service delivery (Pollitt, , pp. 13–14), institutional reform (Hood & Jackson, , p. 19), regulatory oversight (Hall, Scott, & Hood, , p. 34), the “craft” of the public servant (Tiernan, , p. 57), and the capacity of prime ministerial offices and advisors (Rhodes & Tiernan, , p. 31). However, despite the repeated acknowledgment of its importance, we currently lack robust explanations for the causes of institutional amnesia within government.…”