This issue

– public management in Aotearoa-New Zealand and Australia
– how to fail (forward)
– welfare 5.0
– evidence-informed policymaking 
– COVID-19 and the information state
Plus what I'm reading.

Research brief: Developments in public management across Aotearoa-New Zealand and Australia​

Aotearoa-New Zealand and Australia have long been considered role models for innovations in public policy and management. A paper in Public Management Review by ANZSOG faculty member Michael Macaulay (Victoria University of Wellington) looks at recent developments in both countries over the past decade. Read our brief on the paper.

How to fail (forward) ​

While failure is a core part of the innovation process, learning from failure is difficult. In government where the stakes are high and resources tight, discussing failure is often not an option.

This report from the Centre for Public Impact and the Aspen Institute Center for Urban Innovation examines why failing forward is critical for innovation and improving services and programs for people. It is informed by on-the-ground research with six local governments in the US, 20 departments and over 150 public servants as well as interviews with 25 city leaders from around the US.

What does failing forward look like?

Failing forward is a multi-step process. First, a public servant (or several) must identify a failure has occurred. Then they discuss it with peers or managers to develop a deep understanding of why the failure occurred. The team or organisation then takes action to address the failure.

What the research found

The report argues workplace culture is the critical determinant of a government team’s ability to learn from failure. The research revealed four primary opportunities to develop a workplace culture that promotes failing forward:

1. Mindsets and beliefs: Acknowledge that failures are already occurring in the status quo and view failure as a necessary step towards positive change. 
2. Human relationships: Foster internal teams and relationships rooted in psychological safety and empowerment across all levels. Recognise leadership is essential to building a fail forward culture. 
3. Systems and processes: Redesign internal systems and processes to promote identifying, learning from, and taking action about failures. 
4. External ecosystems: Reshape the narrative and ecosystem to be supportive of (local) government innovation. 

Welfare 5.0: Why we need a social revolution and how to make it happen ​

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the inadequacies and limitations of top-down, centralised social, political and economic systems. A new working paper from University College London’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose argues investment is needed in the creation of a new social settlement and a set of renewed institutions post-pandemic.

The vision  

Creating change requires: 

• a re-discovery of our deeper sense of social purpose 

• practical interventions that enable everyone to transition through the immediate shocks that will inevitably follow the pandemic 

• support to grow and flourish within a generative economy.  

Purpose must be the advancement of the richness of life. This encompasses fair and decent material standards and is a modern form of flourishing which understands that dignity is rooted in the collective participation in the structures of society. This includes the home, the market, the community and the state. It calls for a re-design of institutions including welfare institutions.

A new social code

A new social code is needed that can guide collective making. There five principles at the heart of this code: Think whole, connected human beings Grow capability A social economy Horizontal and networked institutions Made through practice (i.e. informed by lived experience).

The demand for evidence has become challenging against a background of global over-supply of knowledge and a complex political process. This is compounded in a “post-truth” world, where speed is influenced by the 24/7 media cycle and where ‘facts’ may be presented without foundation or verification.

A new OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) report examines the current state of play with evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) and identifies the skills and capacities governments need to strengthen.

What is evidence-informed policy-making?

The report defines EIPM as a process whereby multiple sources of information, including statistics, data and research evidence and evaluations, are consulted before making a decision to plan, implement, and (where relevant) alter public policies and programs. Increasing governments’ capacity for an evidence-informed approach requires: investing in policymakers’ skills in the use of evidence taking systemic approaches to building EIPM capacity in the public sector.

Barriers and enablers to building capacity 

There are multiple dimensions to capacity which affect the use of evidence in policy-making. Building capacity means understanding the barriers and enablers. The report identified five clusters of either enablers or barriers depending on the circumstances:

• organisation and resources including access to research and management support
• policymakers’ characteristics including skills and awareness, political will and support
• contact and collaboration including relationships between policymakers and researchers
• policy characteristics including priority, level of support and other pressures
• researchers’ characteristics including clarity, relevance and reliability of research findings.

The COVID-19 crisis and the information state  ​The costs of COVID: Australia’s economic prospects in a wounded world ​

Governments around the world are using data and information systems to manage the COVID-19 crisis. An article in Information Polity presents a country by country report of 21 countries and their use of information during COVID-19. The countries include Australia (report prepared by Paul Henman, University of Queensland) and Aotearoa-New Zealand (prepared by Karl Lofgren, Victoria University of Wellington).

Comparative analysis

A comparative analysis of the 21 countries revealed six ways governments have used information to tackle the pandemic:

1. Management of information for crisis management. Managing information about infections, deaths, hospital beds, availability of pharmaceuticals, staff at the hospitals, which is crucial for crisis management responses.

2. Publishing public information for citizens. Providing information to citizens about COVID-19 cases, hospital beds, deaths, etc. plays a key role in generating support for government policies aimed at restricting contact between citizens.

3. Providing digital services to citizens. Government portals play a key role in developing healthcare services but also in providing financial support and access to other services.

4. Monitoring citizens in public space. Monitoring public space and the movement of people is a key element in government activities to enforce lockdowns.

5. Facilitating information exchange between citizens. To enable citizens to adjust their behaviour on the basis of possible contamination with COVID-19.

6. Developing innovative responses to COVID-19. The crisis demanded innovative responses and many countries developed specific strategies and interventions for strengthening their innovative capacity.

A focus on information and on information technology can act as an x-ray to study public administration. The analysis in the article highlighted patterns of institutional breakdown in the cross-country sample in the form of:

• contested information
• lack of support for government interventions and federal government leaders who criticised responses at the state level
• patterns of institutional dominance when responses were not – or could not be – contested and governments did not tolerate any deviance from its prescribed behaviour

• patterns of institutional democracy - where informational responses were largely accepted but specific responses were contested and there was a call for more attention to privacy and other public values.

1. The surprising upside of worrying

This BBC Future article discusses the surprising benefits to certain kinds of worrying. Worry has been defined in both negative and neutral terms. It’s an emotional state that often motivates behavioural responses with the aim of reducing a threat. Extreme levels of worry are associated with poorer mental and physical health. But at a more moderate, localised level, worry can be useful. The article describes a three-step process for channelling worry and redirecting it including getting into a state that reduces worry, like flow, mindfulness and awe.

2. Human capital as an asset

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated a shift to new ways of working.  A World Economic Forum white paper argues the pandemic presents an opportunity to shape a workforce ready to deliver value:  to the organisation, economy and society at large. The paper sets out a suite of measures to help organisations shape a course of action including:  seeing the crisis as a defining leadership moment; adopting an agile and continuous learning mindset; and focussing on the intersection of employee and company well-being.

‘Til the next issue

Maria Katsonis