What a minister wants and what a minister needs won’t be always the same. But, as a former minister and vice president, if there was only one thing I could ask from a civil servant it would be their frank and fearless advice. This blog is my honest (frank and fearless) advice to a civil servant.
The danger of hierarchy
Political authorities, particularly in countries with weak institutions, are mistakenly seen as a person on a pedestal that everyone has to please and obey. The ‘authority’. Some ministries, like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are particularly good at following protocol and status. To my surprise, it happens even in countries like Australia, which came as a shock to me (perhaps I idealize ‘developed countries’ more than I should).
One of the phrases I hate the most in the public sector is ‘The President / Minister / Director (fill in the blank) said XYZ. So, we have to do it’ – even if new information has come to light. What public servants and advisors fail to recognize is how unhelpful and dangerous that is. What decision-makers really need is to have the best available information to make the decisions that they have been elected and entrusted to make, for the good of the citizens and the country.
Decision-makers are humans, who also make mistakes
That’s a fact. We can be wrong (perhaps more often than one would like to admit). Using our word as the sacred and unequivocal directive is a mistake. The role of any advisor and civil servant is to offer the best information so that decision-makers can make the best decision they can. Civil servants need to tell us when we are wrong (with some empathy perhaps), highlight the facts and guide us if we are making a mistake.
Decisions should change as information changes.
Decisions must adapt to the circumstances and information available. Let me tell you a quick story. When I was Minister of Tourism, there was a project to build an ecotourism path in an area of the country where orchids grow naturally (it’s a unique place). The implicit assumption was that if there would be some minor intervention, that would enhance tourism in the area. After completing the soil study, it turned out that the area was unstable. The only way the path would be safe was if we built a stabilizing wall of concrete that would cost millions of dollars and that obviously defeated the purpose of the initial project.
I could see the hesitation in my team’s eyes when they presented the results. They made sure to add the budget increase they needed. When I asked them what they really think and their recommendation, they said the obvious. The project shouldn’t go ahead and we should think of alternatives to enhance tourism in the area. We did as my team recommended and apologized to the community that had suggested the intervention. I can easily imagine a scenario where the project could have gone through because ‘the minister said so’
Acting based on interpretations of what the decision maker wants is a waste of talent and resources.
A good decision-maker wants a team of people that think, that challenge you, that is better than you in their area of expertise. As I once read, if everyone is thinking like you, then someone isn’t thinking. While we won’t always like what we hear, what a Minister really needs is frank and fearless advice to make informed decisions to the best of their ability.
I have a long list of the things people were doing because they thought that’s what I wanted (they clearly didn’t know me well). From keeping bad team members because they thought I liked them, to using my name to go ahead with mediocre projects because they thought that’s what I said. So many assumptions and interpretations of what the Minister wants and needs. Interpretations of things that in my case, many times, I wasn’t even aware of.
Something similar happened to me when I was working on a project from the Australian Government. Far too many discussions were held based on what the Minister thinks, wants or would like to read in a briefing; all based on what the advisor of the advisor interpreted. Some people do it with the best of intentions or out of fear, others to preserve their own interests (status or job) at expense of the greater good.
The pleasing bias
When ‘keeping the decision maker happy’ becomes the objective, there is what I call a ‘pleasing bias’. The risk that information given to an authority is incomplete or biased to reinforce their own views and believes, which induce them to make a wrong decision. As a Minister, the only thing I asked my team was to tell me the truth, and present the facts (all of them), risks and potential outcomes so that I can make the best-informed decision possible.
The common goal
My only advice to you, as a civil servant, is that you give frank and fearless advice to your decision maker(s). Don’t let anything compromise your commitment to your country and the greater good. That should be a common goal of all politicians and civil servants. That’s what the public sector is all about.
Once a lawful decision is made, by those elected and entrusted to do so, then your role is to make sure it happens in the best possible way, not to repeatedly contest it. In the same way, ministers won’t always like what you have to say, civil servants won’t always like what ministers decide. It’s part of the game. But, as long as each side acts to the best of their ability for the common good, there will always be a way. To serve in government is a privilege and entails a huge responsibility, make it count.
Photo by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash
