Policy partnerships: maintain balance and engagement

In conclusion, trying to equally serve all three masters provides the best and most sustainable possibility for serving any of them well. This balancing act helps to maintain a sustained equilibrium and stable foundation for effectively progressing evidence based work that is values and purpose driven, while maintaining a working trust with all parties. When trust is lost or damaged with any of the three, it doesn’t just hurt in the short term, it hurts perceived legitimacy. Ultimately, it is in the day to day efforts and actions of public servants that this counts most. It is in what you choose to do that you demonstrate your values and the sort of public servant you are. So choose carefully, because your work is important, and it affects everyone. Policy partnerships: maintain balance and engagement When public servants work collaboratively with the broader community, especially with individuals and organisations that are naturally aligned and motivated for the same policy outcome, then everyone can do their part for the good of society. Public servants should carefully consider which policy actors are systemically aligned or misaligned with the policy goal, which can in turn inform how to engage most constructively. For instance, a scientist/researcher/academic is naturally motivated to produce an explainable, repeatable and peer-reviewed result, whereas a for-profit entity is naturally motivated to produce something that a customer is willing to pay for. Politicians (particularly in Australia, where ministers are also elected representatives) might be personally motivated to act in what they consider the best interests of the community, but are systemically incentivised to do things that help them get elected. Natural motivations are intrinsic both at an individual level, and at a structural and functional level. Structural incentives generally outlast, influence or can even nullify the natural motivations of individuals, so it is important to ensure the systemic incentives of a department or policy program is designed to reinforce and incentivise the intended policy purpose, which in the case of public institutions might be anything from a robust democracy to a safe and equitable society. Public servants might individually be motivated to deliver policy outcomes and public good, but if the structures and systems around them are built to prioritise efficiencies or political objectives, then individual natural motivations can become hampered, day to day. So what might a sustainable and mutually reinforcing governance ecosystem look like, one built on and designed to manage the natural motivations of all actors? It would need to have the right range of actors, motivated in mutually reinforcing ways, working sustainably, with the right tensions maintained such that the natural motivation of any one entity (or category) doesn’t overshadow the rest of the system. Ideally, a program, policy or public institution would proactively understand:

• Primary actors—the entities and people who are naturally motivated to achieve and maintain stewardship for a well understood and shared purpose and/or outcome. Includes public institutions, social service non-government organisations, health providers.

• Primary beneficiaries—the people and entities who benefit from and are regulated/served by the work of the primary actors, and are naturally motivated by their own well being, including individuals, families, businesses and regulated entities.

• Independent expert actors—the entities and people who provide independent and parallel expertise and evidence-based advice, made free of fear or favour, where the natural motivation is the veracity of the expertise itself. Includes academics, researchers, universities and research institutions, and some domain experts in the community (active or retired).

• Accountability actors—the entities and people who are motivated to oversee and ensure the lawfulness, integrity, performance and accountability of the primary actors. Includes independent auditors (ideally not the same actors providing support services), the parliament (and related oversight mechanisms such as Senate Committees and Royal Commissions), the fourth estate and the judicial system.

• Influencer actors—the entities and people who are naturally motivated to influence the system, directly (ministers, Cabinet, parliament) or indirectly (activists, thinktanks, lobbyists, unions).

• Support actors—the contracted entities that provide infrastructure, support and services to any of the above, but do not naturally and systemically share the same purpose or outcome. Below is a conceptual diagram for how these actors and their natural motivations can complement and maintain appropriate tensions to support a sustainable approach to any purpose or outcome. The key to understanding and applying the model above is not to simply map the actors in each category, but to establish and maintain the most appropriate mechanisms for how each is engaged, on an ongoing basis, as part of the resourcing and operating model for that department, program or policy.