Stakeholder engagement and collaboration skills are often sought for public service jobs. These are valuable social skills, requiring knowledge, understanding, and specialist skills.

APS Craft: Engagement and Partnership

Engagement and Partnership is one of six capabilities comprising APS Craft. Broadly, it refers to what the APS Academy defines as ‘working with others to shape policy and services that drive better outcomes for the Australian community’.

The section of the Academy website on Engagement and Partnership is worth exploring for ideas on responding to jobs that ask for these skills. The material raises questions that can help guide selection and explanation of relevant experience in resumes, applications, and interview responses.

Defining Engagement and Partnership

The APS Academy further clarifies these skills: ‘Effective engagement and partnership is the craft of connecting to and working with stakeholders to harness collective knowledge, professionalism and expertise. It’s how we work, network and collaborate with individuals, communities, businesses and all levels of government to achieve the best possible outcomes for Australia.

Engagement and Partnership is built on a foundation of trust, transparency and open communication, and should always be clear on intent.’

Qn. 1: Within the context and seniority of the role, what outcomes were sought from stakeholder engagement and who was involved?

The why of engagement

The APS Academy identifies that: ‘Engagement and Partnership is established through:

• Understanding the needs of stakeholders, issues on the ground and remaining open to diverse ways of engaging.
• Building respectful, mutually beneficial relationships with shared knowledge and understanding.
• Being transparent about the nature of the engagement and the collective risk.
• Sharing insights to guide policy, program development and decisions for impactful delivery.
• Recognising the importance of diversity and inclusion and those whose voices may be underrepresented.
• Continuing engagement when appropriate by maintaining feedback loops; or concluding in a meaningful way that sustains stakeholder relationships.’

A resource worth reading is the Department of Industry, Science and Resources’ Guide to Right Engagement. The Guide is designed ‘to assist the Australian Public Service (APS) in choosing the right engagement for the problem at hand. It is made up of two components: the Diagnostic and Catalogue.’

Knowing what you’re trying to achieve is important and this guide provides help with what should be considered when choosing an approach:

• ‘Is the problem you are trying to solve simple, complicated or complex? Or, are you simply wanting to share information?
• How much influence do you want participants to have at each stage of your process?
• Do you want to involve the participants in the decision making process? Do you want to weigh up evidence and balance competing interests with participants, or on your own after receiving their input?
• Do you want to involve the participants as partners in implementing an agreed solution together?’ (p. 1)

These questions raise the issue of what kind of problem do you have: simple, complicated or complex? The guide provides clarification of these categories.

‘A policy problem is simple if:

• The problem is predominantly or entirely objective and based on facts.
• The problem is known and well understood, and a solution has already been decided.

A policy problem is complicated if:

• Multiple stakeholders are involved, and there is a high potential for finding a win/win solution.
• People’s lived experiences are involved, and must be supported by quantitative data.
• The problem is somewhat understood, however more information is needed to fully grasp it.

A policy problem is complex if:

• No one person or organisation has the resources to solve the problem alone, including the government.
• The problem may not be understood, and still needs to be defined or framed.
• Multiple stakeholders are involved, and any potential solutions will likely create some winners and losers.’  (p. 1)

Qn. 2: What sort of problem were you trying to address?

Qn. 3: Can you explain why the problem or challenge was complex?

Qn. 4: What were the challenges of building relationships with diverse groups?

Qn. 5: What were the risks involved?

Qn. 6: What were the demands, including ethical issues, of ongoing communication?

APS Framework for Engagement and Participation

The APS Academy provides a range of resources to inform public servants about their engagement craft.

One of these resources is the Australian Public Service Framework for Engagement and Participation, designed to help public servants ‘better engage with citizens, community and businesses. The Forward points out the complexity of APS work, with challenges needing trade-offs, and balancing competing interests and values. Also, the document notes that: ‘This complexity is compounded by declining trust in government. This is a worry. Trust is a basic indicator of our democracy’s health.’

Qn. 7: What were the competing interests faced?

Qn. 8: What role did building trust play?

The Forward also points out ‘that engagements should not focus solely on ‘managing’ citizens and stakeholders and their expectations, and looking to minimise opposition. Rather, public servants should see the public as a source of expertise, and that engaging with them can forge a partnership to overcome complexity’. (iii)

The definition of engagement (p. 4) focuses on processes, ones that ‘seek to unearth and exchange expertise to design, improve and test policy, programs and services’, as well as share information. Engagements are classified into four categories: Share, Consult, Deliberate, and Collaborate.

Expertise refers to ‘useful knowledge or inputs that the public and civil society holds, that can improve policy, programs and service delivery’. There are two types of expertise: ‘technical skill or knowledge of a subject matter or field’ (e.g. ‘lawyers have expertise about the law’.): and people’s life experience and practical know-how that is essential to good policy, programs and services. (p. 4)

The framework also makes clear what ‘public’ means: ‘Everyone other than government and public servants, including civil society, business, media, private citizens, academics and not-for-profits.’ (p. 4)

Qn. 9: Does your example imply just ‘managing’ stakeholders rather than engaging with stakeholders?

Qn. 10: What expertise did you need?

Qn11: What engagement process best suited your circumstances?

Qn. 12: Are the people mentioned members of the public as defined in the framework?

Qn. 13: What processes did you choose that would elicit the needed expertise?

The framework offers three Principles (p. 6) to help ensure engagement is more than just ‘managing stakeholders’. The three are listen; be genuine; and be open. Details are provided explaining what they mean and what they look like.

Qn. 14: Does your example reflect these Principles?

Four ways to engage

The section on the four ways to engage is important to read so you understand why a process is used. It’s not that any method is better than another. Rather they are used to fit with circumstances. The question the framework suggests public servants ask themselves is: ‘Which of these ways will best engage the expertise I need to solve the particular problem at hand, given the constraints I am under?’ (p. 9) Relevant issues include problem complexity, scope for influence, and who is involved in solution delivery.

The four engagement processes are used in different circumstances. In summary these are:

• ‘Share: When government needs to tell the public about a government initiative.
• Consult: When government needs to gather feedback from the public about a problem or a solution.
• Deliberate: When government needs help from the public because a problem involves competing values, and requires trade-offs and compromise.
• Collaborate: When government needs help from the public to find and implement a solution.’ (p. 9)

Qn. 15: Do you understand the differences between consult, deliberate, and collaborate?

Qn. 16: Does your example reflect an engagement process relevant to the circumstances?

Understand collaboration

Attention needs to be given to understanding what collaborate means as it has a specific meaning. The framework makes clear that collaboration ‘involves a commitment between governments, citizens, and/or organisations to pool their resources and align their efforts to achieve a shared goal that no one person or organisation has the resources to solve alone – not even government.’ P. 16 It means that together people are working on solutions to complex problems and implementing those solutions.

Qn. 17: Is your example about collaboration or something else?

The Guide to the Right Engagement explains and illustrates a wide range of engagement processes such as forums, street stalls, town hall meetings, round tables, focus groups, surveys, expert panels.

Qn. 18: Did you consider a range of engagement options?

Qn. 19: Which option/s did you pick and why?

Qn. 20: How effective were they?

Standards of engagement

The framework sets out ten standards or ‘agreed ways of doing something’. These standards make clear that engagement processes are planned, strategically analysed, and employ a range of social and interpersonal skills that affect staff and stakeholders, to maximise achieving an effective result. (pp. 18 ff)

Qn. 21: Does your example reflect these ten standards?

These 21 questions can inform your record keeping about what happens at work, so you have accurate, useful, informed examples to draw on when applying for government jobs.