1984 Quiz Result
Michael Wintringham
State Services Commissioner(A copy of Michael Wintringham's powerpoint presentation is available in PDF format here (214k).
18 years ago our world began to change rapidly - with new economic and demographic realities, changing community values, changing labour markets, the impact of the IT revolution, increasing intrusiveness of the news media, increasing questioning and challenging of the old ways of doing things and a new, and sometimes volatile, political landscape.
You have seen some of that this morning.
I joined the Public Service in 1970. It is extremely unlikely that, at age 73, I will be part of the Public Service in 2020. However, I intend to be an intensive user of its services - preferably of the sports and recreation kind.
I look around this room and see many of my generation facing the same reality. I see also many of you who will have a large part in shaping the Public Service for 2020. What will the Public Service look like - more of the same? Not on the basis of past experience.
Let me give you a snapshot of the Public Service of 1984.
1984 2002 2020 Staff numbers 85,938 32,837 ? What will be the type and mix of government services provided by the Public Service, the State sector (Crown entities), the private sector and, more significantly, communities? The answer will drive Public Service staff numbers in 2020.
1984 2002 2020 Women 35% 58% ? Do we understand the patterns and drivers of participation in employment by gender? What will be the impact in 2020?
1984 2002 2020 Maori 10% 18% ? Although Maori make up 18% of the Public Service workforce, compared with 9% in the labour force as a whole, they make up only 8% of senior managers. Concerns about both female and Maori employment include relative seniority, pay disparities and the ability of both groups to realise their particular needs and aspirations.
1984 2002 2020 Pacific peoples 4% 7% ? The proportion of Pacific peoples in the general and Public Service workforce is likely to rise. What will be the similarities and differences in the patterns of employment of Pacific people compared with women and Maori?
1984 2002 2020 Largest occupation group Executive and clerical 35% General clerks 8% ? What will be the skills needed to do the Public Service work in 2020? Will staff be in occupational groupings that we currently recognise? For example, two powerful drivers of Government business at the moment - capitalising on the benefits of technology and engaging more responsively with citizens -will shape the skills of the people we need.
1984 2002 2020 Largest department Ministry of Works and Development 12% Ministry of Social Development 16% ? Eighteen or more years ago the Public service was building the dams, the office blocks and the motorways. It is not today's priority. What will the big department be in 2020?
1984 2002 2020 State Services Commission 767 155 ? How much, and what kind of, leadership will be exercised at the centre of government. Will we still have the politically neutral, permanent, professional Public Service that we have preserved since 1912? The State Services Commission gives effect to the role of the Commissioner, and the role of the Commissioner is to preserve our politically neutral Public Service.
1984 2002 2020 Turnover 10% 11% ? Do we understand our labour market and its increasingly diverse workforce in terms of ethnicity, mobility and aspirations?
Some of the changes apparent in these numbers reflect the direction of the government of the day (privatisation and SOE creation). Some reflect a combination of technological changes and social fashion (IT advances and the growth of call centres). Other changes reflect the transformation of our communities and the services that they require.
For the next 10 minutes I want to put down a challenge about our preparedness for change, speculate on the direction of that change and give you an undertaking about equipping you to help lead that change.
For the last 18 years, much of the effort in improving the performance of the State sector has been aimed at making the system more efficient, better managing our core business and putting more sensible delivery systems in place. Most commentators, domestic and international, say New Zealand has done pretty well in that regard.
At this conference last year I reflected that, in my five years as State Services Commissioner, my principal concerns had shifted from structures and systems to values and people.
The Review of the Centre reflected that view, but took matters further. It concluded that our public management system now provides a "reasonable platform" with clearer objectives and managerial authority to achieve them, and better ways of accounting for organisational performance.
But this emphasis on the performance of organisations has not been matched by a corresponding improvement in system performance. Nor has the emphasis on performance been matched by investment in our capability for future performance. For these and other reasons, the Review identified three main areas for improvement. The first two were:
- Integrating service delivery. Lying behind the jargon is a challenge: asking the citizen - as an individual, business or a community - "how was it for you?" before congratulating ourselves on how well we did.
- Addressing fragmentation and improving alignment. Although in the last decade or more we have created plenty of organisational units, which have been very effective in their own spheres of operations, we have struggled with overall coordination and strategy.
Please excuse me for stepping briefly into a military metaphor. In the past, our organisational units were sometimes operating with limited aerial reconnaissance or on-the-ground intelligence networks. In other words, we were often Wellington focussed, unable or unwilling to collect and use data from the field, and even more unwilling to invest in long term evaluation of what works. We were sometimes unclear whether we were an occupying army or a friendly power. We certainly didn't pay as much attention as we might to potential allies such as local governments and voluntary agencies.
In the early 90s we developed top down mechanisms for coordinating our efforts - SRAs, KRAs, and lead Ministers, but we still had the old problems - we didn't value good field intelligence about what the issues were. The signals from the top down mechanisms were sometimes not very clear, and certainly didn't reach all the outposts of the Public Service.
For the last two years there have been new efforts, a mix of bottom up and top down.
Some would like us to restructure into larger units with much greater central control. Others would like us to stay locked into the formal outputs based structures of 1988/89. Neither position is tenable.
Restructuring is expensive, time consuming and gives no guarantees on its own that the rebuilt monoliths will, in fact, meet the need. You have seen from this morning's conference sessions that flexibility and speed of reaction are likely to be increasingly important.
Much greater central control would throw away the gains of innovation, responsiveness at the local level and tailoring solutions to fit.
And finally, keeping our heads down on outputs and not paying more attention at a formal planning level to outcomes leaves us driven by what we are doing now, not by what we want to achieve.
Our current model, while not perfect, is closer to the optimum. But most would argue that the small units are still in a pretty rigid framework and we need some new ways to increase flexibility.
So, in many ways we have one of the hardest challenges before us - holding on to the gains we have made from a world class public management system and ensuring that it is responsive and effective out to 2020.
So what's happened with the Review of the Centre?
Since the Review was publicly released much work has been put in to its implementation. We have been constrained in our comments as it was awaiting Cabinet approval. It then got sidelined during the election campaign.
What I want to emphasise today is that the Review of the Centre is not bigger than Ben Hur - it is a number of linked common sense programmes that should help the Public Service evolve to meet some of the challenges described this morning. Because it fits so neatly with the conference theme today I want to elaborate on some of the work under way.
In summary, the programme of work has been divided into three main areas, each led by a chief executive or senior public servant and supported by a small group of Public Service chief executives. That in itself is symbolic. It is not being driven from the centre. The results are therefore likely to have wider buy in, and draw on the experience of those in service delivery.
There is a cost. This way of working takes time. It is in sharp contrast to some of the "crash through" policy making of the 1980s. You take your choice.
Integrated Service Delivery
Under integrated service delivery we are identifying good practice examples of agencies working together in the regions. Good practice means getting results, not just looking good. The idea is that what works in one place can be identified and shared elsewhere.
Circuit breaker teams are in the field. The idea behind this initiative was to draw on a different mix of people, who will take the problems out of the Wellington-based policy process. Working in the field with those grappling with the tough problems they will try to come up with new solutions. One of the first teams is working on the underlying causes of long term, institutionalised, truancy, initially in the Rotorua and Northland regions. Their work is due to be completed later this year.
Structures and Alignment
The structures and alignment work area includes a matter of particular interest to this audience - the potential for improved performance through structural change, including the merger of some departments and/or Crown entities.
However, rather than rush to structural solutions, those working in this area have taken a much more promising approach. They identified areas of the government's business where improved performance seems achievable - in sectors or across a cluster of agencies that contribute to similar outcomes. They then moved to identify what might generate that improved performance - better strategy, common objectives, less restrictive funding arrangements, more effective leadership, and structural change as one option. This approach is consistent with a theme running through the Review of the Centre recommendations - what is the best way to get results? How can we be more effective for the people out there? Now that the election is over, and portfolios allocated, we are about to seek agreement from the Government on their priorities for sector for reviews.
People and Culture
The third area of the Review of the Centre - enhancing people and culture - has two broad areas of work. The development of a common human resource framework for the Public Service. The idea is that, instead of 36 departments each developing their own systems ranging from recruitment to performance management and remuneration, we should identify where it makes sense to have commonality of systems, where it makes sense for departments to design their own, and where there are intermediate options such as clustering or brokering of best practice. That work is proceeding in conjunction with the PSA under the umbrella of the Partnership for Quality initiative.
That brings me to the senior leadership initiative.
The State Sector Act established a senior executive service (SES). This was intended to be a group of up to 500 senior executives who could be developed as good managers, and would be a unifying force at the most senior levels of the Public Service. As I stand here this morning, I should be looking at a group made up largely of the senior executive service. As it happens there are now less than 10 members of the SES. I will shortly be able to confirm proposals to replace the SES with a new senior management development regime for the New Zealand Public Service. I am determined that this time it will work.
- It will be attractive for senior public servants;
- It will not be based upon job or position, but on the wish of senior public servants to belong;
- It will be based on a clear specification of the skills, attributes and experience required for people to qualify;
- Each member will have an individual development plan, and some centrally funded development money (already earmarked in the Budget);
- It will be supported by institutional arrangements, built around a revamped Management Development Centre. The MDC ("owned" by chief executives) will maintain the individual development plans for SES members and will provide the institutional arrangements for what has bedevilled us since 1988, managing a systematic programme of secondments to provide experiential learning opportunities as part of the development programme;
- There will be an alliance with a tertiary education provider to provide a more interactive and systematic tertiary education dimension to senior management development, tailored to our own needs;
- My recommendations will be accompanied by proposals to change the provisions of the State Sector Act to give effect to these arrangements.
Associated with this development is the establishment of the Australia and New Zealand School of Government - announced two weeks ago by the Prime Minister. This initiative involves the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia, Victoria, Queensland and New Zealand. It involves the capital city universities in each of these administrations. It will provide a post-graduate degree - a Master of Public Administration - as well as Executive Fellow programmes. The latter will be part of the development opportunities for those within the new senior executive service. The former will be one of the preferred development opportunities for those at middle levels in the Public Service who aspire to a long term and senior career.
One of the big benefits of the new senior executive service will be the opportunity for more interaction among and between senior public servants such as those here today. Responding to the next 18 years will be more satisfying, more productive and effective if it is done from the sense of shared understanding of the issues, better interaction with one another and with a confidence that this is part of a collective effort.
Facing the Future
I am often humbled by your commitment and achievements. With this initiative I hope, at last, that you as senior public servants will be given the development and opportunities that you deserve to enhance the personal skills and commitment to our fellow citizens that you bring to your careers.
