Something has gone badly wrong in the public service. From energy policy to financial regulation to education, ministers are too often advised by officials lacking the deep technical background their roles demand.
This chronic loss of subject-matter expertise repeatedly surfaced in consultations for The New Zealand Initiative’s forthcoming report on unscrambling the machinery of government. The consequences are predictable: flawed advice, avoidable errors, and expensive U-turns.
This lack of expertise is not just a matter of a few bad hires. It is built into how the public service now operates – a design feature rather than a flaw.
A telling example came in 2022. The Treasury advertised for a senior analyst to lead its economic strategy team, at “the forefront of economic thought and policy” with “far reaching impacts.” But it then added, almost cheerfully, that “an economics background is not essential.”
Instead, applicants were told to bring “good EQ,” “relationship skills,” and “comfort with ambiguity.” You didn’t need to know economics; you just needed to be a people person.
The job ad caused a brief storm. Under new Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie, it is unlikely to be repeated.
But the advertisement was not an aberration. It was a symptom of a doctrine that “anyone can do anything” in the public service.
This is not a reflection on the many talented people within the public service. Brilliant, dedicated officials work across government departments. But the system increasingly constrains rather than cultivates their potential, training them to become generalists who glide through policy cycles without mastering one.
Much has been said about the public sector’s exploding headcount and declining performance. But these problems may share a common root: deep expertise has been devalued in favour of mobility and breadth.
It was not always like this. In the postwar decades, New Zealand’s “mandarin” public service – a term used admiringly then – was full of specialists. Economists advised Treasury. Regulatory experts advised on regulation. Expertise mattered.
The State Sector Act 1988 sought to strengthen the mandarins’ management capability – an unquestionably sound goal. But this was never intended to come at the expense of technical depth. Done well, the two should reinforce each other. Experts who are capable leaders are better placed to develop and guide expert teams.
Over time, this logic was lost. Being a “well-rounded candidate” became more important than subject matter depth. Switching departments every two years was rewarded. Staying put and developing expertise was not.
Former Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes became synonymous with this generalist model. Hughes did not invent it. But as Commissioner from 2016 to 2023, he perfected it.
Hughes moved public servants like chess pieces – from social development to customs, from corrections to education – building a leadership cadre whose common trait was having worked with him.
In 2020, Hughes’s vision was enshrined in law. The Public Service Act 2020 requires the Commissioner to develop a leadership strategy for “flexible deployment of senior leaders.” It calls for mobility, versatility, and “working across agency boundaries.” In practice, subject expertise is no longer the path to the top.
Dr Simon Chapple, a former public service chief economist, calls this “the rise of the myth of the generic manager” – the notion that anyone with a basic set of management skills can manage any government body. Chapple argues this managerialism has rewarded bureaucratic fluency over technical competence, discouraging investment in deep, organisation-specific skills.
Across the system, generalists now dominate. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment spans an absurd range – from digital payments to energy markets to immigration. No single person at the top could master all these domains.
But the problem runs deeper: the organisation lacks sufficient technical expertise at every level. When complex regulatory decisions arise, there are too few specialists who truly understand the industries they are regulating.
The lack of expertise has consequences. In financial regulation, the CCCFA reforms caused a credit crunch and had to be walked back. In energy, policy has swung between incoherence and overreach.
In each case, industry experts warned of problems. But inside government, no one knew enough – or was confident enough – to push back.
Meanwhile, career public servants succeed by moving frequently. Build a team, lead a restructure, tick the box, move on. A stint in education might lead to a role in primary industries, followed by health or justice. Breadth is rewarded; depth is rare.
This model is not just flawed. It is dangerous. In a world of complex, technical challenges – in digital infrastructure, climate, housing, finance, biosecurity – we need more than process-focused generalists. We need experts.
Other countries are rethinking. Australia and the UK continue to recruit generalists but have formalised specialist career tracks and professional cadres within their public services. They recognise that the best generalists are often former experts – not the other way around.
New Zealand should follow. We must revalue subject matter expertise, rebuild institutional memory, and promote capability and compatibility. And we should write job ads that do not insult the intelligence of the public – or the role.
The Treasury job ad should have been a scandal. Instead, it was a symptom. It is time for a cure.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was sourced HERE
A telling example came in 2022. The Treasury advertised for a senior analyst to lead its economic strategy team, at “the forefront of economic thought and policy” with “far reaching impacts.” But it then added, almost cheerfully, that “an economics background is not essential.”
Instead, applicants were told to bring “good EQ,” “relationship skills,” and “comfort with ambiguity.” You didn’t need to know economics; you just needed to be a people person.
The job ad caused a brief storm. Under new Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie, it is unlikely to be repeated.
But the advertisement was not an aberration. It was a symptom of a doctrine that “anyone can do anything” in the public service.
This is not a reflection on the many talented people within the public service. Brilliant, dedicated officials work across government departments. But the system increasingly constrains rather than cultivates their potential, training them to become generalists who glide through policy cycles without mastering one.
Much has been said about the public sector’s exploding headcount and declining performance. But these problems may share a common root: deep expertise has been devalued in favour of mobility and breadth.
It was not always like this. In the postwar decades, New Zealand’s “mandarin” public service – a term used admiringly then – was full of specialists. Economists advised Treasury. Regulatory experts advised on regulation. Expertise mattered.
The State Sector Act 1988 sought to strengthen the mandarins’ management capability – an unquestionably sound goal. But this was never intended to come at the expense of technical depth. Done well, the two should reinforce each other. Experts who are capable leaders are better placed to develop and guide expert teams.
Over time, this logic was lost. Being a “well-rounded candidate” became more important than subject matter depth. Switching departments every two years was rewarded. Staying put and developing expertise was not.
Former Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes became synonymous with this generalist model. Hughes did not invent it. But as Commissioner from 2016 to 2023, he perfected it.
Hughes moved public servants like chess pieces – from social development to customs, from corrections to education – building a leadership cadre whose common trait was having worked with him.
In 2020, Hughes’s vision was enshrined in law. The Public Service Act 2020 requires the Commissioner to develop a leadership strategy for “flexible deployment of senior leaders.” It calls for mobility, versatility, and “working across agency boundaries.” In practice, subject expertise is no longer the path to the top.
Dr Simon Chapple, a former public service chief economist, calls this “the rise of the myth of the generic manager” – the notion that anyone with a basic set of management skills can manage any government body. Chapple argues this managerialism has rewarded bureaucratic fluency over technical competence, discouraging investment in deep, organisation-specific skills.
Across the system, generalists now dominate. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment spans an absurd range – from digital payments to energy markets to immigration. No single person at the top could master all these domains.
But the problem runs deeper: the organisation lacks sufficient technical expertise at every level. When complex regulatory decisions arise, there are too few specialists who truly understand the industries they are regulating.
The lack of expertise has consequences. In financial regulation, the CCCFA reforms caused a credit crunch and had to be walked back. In energy, policy has swung between incoherence and overreach.
In each case, industry experts warned of problems. But inside government, no one knew enough – or was confident enough – to push back.
Meanwhile, career public servants succeed by moving frequently. Build a team, lead a restructure, tick the box, move on. A stint in education might lead to a role in primary industries, followed by health or justice. Breadth is rewarded; depth is rare.
This model is not just flawed. It is dangerous. In a world of complex, technical challenges – in digital infrastructure, climate, housing, finance, biosecurity – we need more than process-focused generalists. We need experts.
Other countries are rethinking. Australia and the UK continue to recruit generalists but have formalised specialist career tracks and professional cadres within their public services. They recognise that the best generalists are often former experts – not the other way around.
New Zealand should follow. We must revalue subject matter expertise, rebuild institutional memory, and promote capability and compatibility. And we should write job ads that do not insult the intelligence of the public – or the role.
The Treasury job ad should have been a scandal. Instead, it was a symptom. It is time for a cure.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was sourced HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.