Photo: IPAA
Jenny Wilkinson, the secretary to the Treasury in Australia, also discussed the importance of developing ‘institutional composure’ and the need for public servants to think about what reforms should look like in their policy area
How governments respond to the crises they face is a key test of modern government capability, a senior official in the Australian government has said.
Jenny Wilkinson, the secretary to the Treasury, said managing crises well is the substance of what good public administration looks like in practice, and public servants “should be more willing to name that, and to take pride in such successes, while still be willing to learn from the things that didn’t go so well”.
In a speech to the Institute of Public Administration Australia, Wilkinson shared her experience and lessons from dealing with crises, which in her time in the public service have included the global financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened geopolitical tensions and natural disasters.
“These shocks invariably have many dimensions and disrupt many aspects of government and the community simultaneously,” she said, adding that public servants cannot treat these events as interruptions to the work of government – they are now an essential part of it.
“How the public service performs in those moments is a true test of its capability,” Wilkinson said.
“This experience has reinforced in my mind the fact that governments spend a lot of time dealing with things they didn’t plan for, and that how the public service responds in those moments matters a lot.”
Wilkinson highlighted the need to be “responsive to the situation”.
She said: “You need to increase the cadence of discussions with key people, move quickly to establish teams (albeit often temporary teams) to best manage the situation, and make it clear within the organisation that you are looking for a change in posture. You can’t wait for the uncertainty to resolve or for enough information to be available to make these changes.”
Wilkinson’s comments echo findings from Global Government Forum’s The Future of the Finance Ministry study – published with sister title Global Government Finance – which set out how the traditional role of the finance ministry is undergoing a fundamental transformation in a world where “disorder is the new norm”.
Four key themes are identified in the report: the evolving role of the finance ministry in response to uncertainty; the shift to more flexible finance systems that support outcomes; digital transformation and the growth of artificial intelligence; and the battle for talent and trust.
The research is based on interviews with 10 senior leaders from finance ministries around the world, and found that finance ministries are moving beyond their traditional roles as “budgetary gatekeepers” to provide strategic leadership across government. This means that they are taking a lead on institutionalising foresight, building systemic resilience, and acting as stewards of long-term stability in government.
Download the full report: The future of the finance ministry: Insights from government finance leaders around the world
The importance of ‘institutional composure’
Public servants can get lost in the fog of a crisis, Wilkinson also said in her speech. “In my experience, organisations need quick clarity on governance and accountability (the who and the how) to give them space to focus on the critical issues such as the policy response.”
From a leadership point of view, Wilkinson said she had learned the need to maintain two things simultaneously: the capacity to deal with the crisis in front of you, and the capacity to keep delivering on everything else.
“This dual burden is one of the most under-acknowledged aspects of public service work,” she said. “In a crisis, the spotlight is on the response, but the rest of the portfolio doesn’t pause.”
Ministers still need advice, and pre-existing programmes still need to run, she said. “It is important to explicitly acknowledge this, and be open with the organisation about how, as a leader, your time or availability is being affected by the crisis and where others will need to step up.”
The organisations that handle this best are usually the ones that have built what Wilkinson called “deep bench strength” through not just having a few exceptional people at the top but genuine capability distributed through the institution, and whose people are therefore adept at having conversations with ministers about the trade-offs that the new circumstances present.
Wilkinson reflected that crises, if managed well, can bring out the best in the public service. “People rise to the challenge, genuine collaboration blossoms, and there is a stronger commitment to shared problem solving. Of course this works best if leaders explicitly acknowledge the imperative of the situation and both authorise and raise expectations about working differently.”
Her reflections on leadership include the value of what she called “institutional composure”.
“When things are moving fast and the stakes are high, the organisation looks to its leaders for a signal about how to respond. You need to stay calm, focused and clear about what you are trying to achieve, to create the conditions for everyone else to perform as effectively as possible in the circumstances.”
Public servants advised to think about what reforms should look like
Wilkinson also shared her thoughts on the challenges of service delivery reform. She said that one of the most important things a public servant can bring to government is a clear, evidence-based view of what improved policy would look like in their area.
“Not just an understanding of the current settings. Not just a map of the stakeholders and their interests. But a genuine intellectual position on what would work better, and why.”
Developing this requires expertise and understanding, and Wilkinson said, “I have been surprised, over the course of my career, when public servants lack these skills”.
There are public servants who understand the policy details and politics of their portfolio deeply, and know who the difficult stakeholders are and how to manage them, she said.
“But they have not done the hard thinking about what genuinely better policy looks like. So, when a government opens the door to reform they have little to offer beyond what they already know has been committed to.
“Part of our job – an important part – is to always be ready with an answer to the question: what should we do next, and why? And in my experience, decision-makers in all governments I have worked for have been keen to hear our views.”
Wilkinson acknowledged that there can be a tension in how the public service explains the evidence base for a reform, which can be interpreted by some as advocacy.
“And the uncomfortable truth is that they are not entirely wrong. If you present evidence that clearly supports a particular policy direction, and you do so in a context where that direction is being contested, you are not a neutral actor.”
However, the answer to this is not for the public service to go silent. “The answer, I think, is for us to be clear about what the evidence shows. We can do that in a way which is rigorous, which has integrity, and which is apolitical.”