5 experiments with joined- up, horizontal and whole- of ... · the term joined- up government was...

74

5 Experiments with joined- up, horizontaland whole- of- government in Anglophone countriesJohn Halligan, Fiona Buick and Janine O’Flynn

Second generation reform in Anglophone countries gave prominence to horizontal, cross- government, cross- boundary and interagency ques-tions. Having previously emphasized disaggregation and the di! usion of delegated and contractual responsibilities, in this new phase what was once broadly subsumed under coordination became mainstreamed under new terminology and emphases.

The starting point, ‘whole- of- government’, is su" ciently broad to encompass a range of themes contending for distinctiveness as expres-sions of a horizontal focus (Christensen and Laegreid 2007), even if the reality is one of overlapping and inconsistent concepts and practice. The # eld is beset with di! erent terminologies and ambiguous use of them as well as $ uctuating fashions. For example, ‘joined- up government’ in the UK is often identi# ed with focusing on delivery agencies in dif-ferent sectors (public, private and third), but also with cross- boundary units and interdepartmental activity. Australia’s ‘whole- of- government’ approach encompasses a range of activities and has, in practice, been used to describe broader strategic and systemic initiatives of government.1 The notion of collaboration has been linked heavily to these horizontal developments; however, whether substantive collaboration – as opposed to cooperation, for example – has actually developed has been questioned (O’Flynn 2009).

This chapter considers a range of horizontal experiments from the last decade drawing on the experience of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.2 It examines factors that account for the emergence of this distinctive ‘movement’ in these countries and the several strands that have contended for distinctiveness. The issues with realizing and sustaining e! ective horizontal government are common across the four countries. The prospects are both somewhat discouraging, judged by the mixed results of the experiments, and pro-pitious in that the horizontal government continues to move into the mainstream.

M2798 - MASSEY PRINT.indd 74M2798 - MASSEY PRINT.indd 74 21/11/2011 09:5021/11/2011 09:50

Experiments in Anglophone countries 75

5.1 THE BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE HORIZONTAL GOVERNMENT MOVEMENT

The focus on horizontal arrangements is commonly dated to the early Blair government in the United Kingdom and its preoccupation with addressing the fragmentation which accompanied New Public Management (NPM) reforms. As a leader in the reform era, the UK has often been at the forefront in introducing distinctive new reforms. Australia, Canada and New Zealand subsequently followed suit but with the timing and level of commitment re! ecting their own requirements.

All have emphasized the need for greater collaboration and coordina-tion across departmental boundaries during the 2000s. This is exempli" ed through the emphasis on ‘joined- up government’ (JUG) in the United Kingdom, ‘horizontal management/government’ in Canada and ‘inte-grated government’ in New Zealand (Fitzpatrick 2000; Shergold 2005a; Christensen and Laegreid 2007). Irrespective of the terminology used, and despite di# erences across countries on how to implement initiatives (Bakvis and Juillet 2004b), these concepts essentially provided new labels for the principle of horizontal coordination in public administration that has challenged government for decades (Hood 2005; 6, 2004).

The term joined- up government was introduced by the Blair Labour government, which came to power in the United Kingdom in 1997 (6, Raab and Bellamy 2005), as a signi" cant component of its modernization programme, one of the key aims being to ensure that policy making was more joined up and strategic (Cabinet O$ ce, 1999). The Modernizing Government White Paper stated that the government would be adopting and encouraging a whole systems approach whereby improvements in e# ectiveness and value for money would be assessed holistically, rather than on an individual basis (Cabinet O$ ce 1999, para. 4.6).

Canadian governments have been preoccupied with coordination and cooperation for a number of decades. Originally, this preoccupation was coined ‘coordinated government’ and, later, ‘horizontal management’ (Fitzpatrick 2000), which has been de" ned as ‘the coordination and man-agement of a set of activities between two or more organizational units, [which] do not have hierarchical control over each other and where the aim is to generate outcomes that cannot be achieved by units working in isolation. The structures and processes used to achieve coordination can range from informal networks to jointly managed secretariats’ (Bakvis and Juillet 2004a, p. 8).

Making sense of the di# erent formulations is challenging. The concept of whole- of- government has been portrayed as an umbrella term describ-ing a group of responses to the problem of increased fragmentation of


76 International handbook on civil service systems

the public sector and public services and a wish to increase integration, coordination and capacity (Ling 2002). In its simplest form, whole- of- government is about working collaboratively with o! cials in other port-folios and across jurisdictions to integrate policy and programmes, and achieve more e! cient and e" ective implementation and service delivery (Briggs 2005). Whole- of- government requires a focus on the bigger picture and an understanding of the government’s overall policy agenda and pri-orities (MAC 2004). It emphasizes increased coherence across government, objectives shared across organizational boundaries, encompasses design and delivery of policies, programmes and services, can involve government and non- government organizations (that is public, private, non- pro# t and community sectors), and can span all levels of government (that is federal, state/territory and local) (Christensen and Laegreid 2007; MAC 2004).

Apart from terminology, the formulations then di" er in emphases with breadth and depth being important: whether the focus is intra- government or more broadly on governance (that is either boundary spanning within government or crossing boundaries between the public, private and third sectors); and in terms of levels of analysis, ranging from interorganizational arrangements at the micro level through to meso net-works and mandatory cross- government requirements. Whilst there are commonalities, the elastic applications of the terms can sometimes make it di! cult to sustain clear distinctions.

5.2 EXPLAINING THE WHOLE- OF- GOVERNMENT MOVEMENT

The analysis of external and internal factors assists in explaining signi# -cant change (Hood 1994), but they operate at di" erent levels and are not necessarily complementary. However, the four explanations considered below have tended to reinforce trends to whole- of- government.

5.2.1 Whole- of- government as a Reaction to Disaggregation of Government under NPM

The expansion of agencies under the more $ exible regimes and fashions of NPM are well documented (Pollitt and Talbot 2004). For the purposes of contextualizing the conditions produced under NPM it is necessary to # ll in the other elements that decentralized the state. There was a greater reliance on expanded use of specialized agencies, reliance on third parties for services, and ‘devolution’ of responsibilities to line departments and other organizations.



Two caveats are relevant. First, there have been wide variations in the propensity to agencify with some countries adopting a systemic approach, while others followed a more selective strategy. In New Zealand, arguably the system most disaggregated vertically and horizontally following NPM reform, the results of fragmentation were stark. Apart from the prolif-eration of public organizations, the Minister for State Services, Trevor Mallard, observed that

departments compete against each other to hire the same sta! , sometimes to the detriment of the Government overall. Some sectors . . . require major coordina-tion from the centre that soaks up resources. There’s an absence of . . . feedback on whether policies actually work – because the policy advisors work in a department other than the delivery one and the connections between operations and advice aren’t established . . . [I]n a fragmented system the centre needs to be strong. But – paradoxically . . . the centre has been struggling for de# nition. (quoted in Boston and Eichbaum 2007, p. 152)

Australia and Canada did not agencify systemically like New Zealand and the United Kingdom, although there was still a $ owering of often- small agencies.

Secondly, there were debates about how much power was actually relin-quished via the disaggregation movement. Indeed for Anglophone coun-tries the centre of government remained relatively strong (see Richards 2008); but hollowing out did raise questions of capacity, coherence, control and performance.

The partial reversal of the agenci# cation trend internationally, was appro-priately most apparent in Britain (Talbot and Johnson 2006), where it had originated via the executive agency agenda (Massey and Pyper 2005). The ‘re- aggregation’ prevalent there has not been repeated in other Anglophone systems, such as Australia and Canada, as these had not undertaken such radical agenci# cation agenda. Yet somewhat similar movements can be detected that re$ ect a mood to review and tighten oversight through some restructuring and considerable rationalization of public bodies.

New Zealand was always the country with great potential to roll back the multiplicity of specialized agencies organized around the functional principle and it has been standard practice to critique the fragmentation for more than a decade. Yet the changes have been relatively modest, and con# ned to intra- # eld level of restructuring, the most notable being the creation of a Ministry of Social Development, which attempt to join disparate parts back up (Gregory 2006; Boston and Eichbaum 2007).

In Australia’s case several agencies were pulled in closer as part of the clari# cation of corporate governance templates. The most signi# cant was the creation of a Department of Human Services, as a small agency for



strategically directing, coordinating and brokering improvements to the delivery of services and which incorporated under its umbrella six agen-cies, including Centrelink, a one- stop shop and multi- purpose delivery agency that provided services on behalf of several purchasing departments.

An agenda for resurrecting a more comprehensive ministerial department through absorbing bodies or extending controls was given formal recognition in Australia through the Uhrig review (2003) into the corporate governance of statutory authorities and o! ce holders. The post- Uhrig agenda has been for ministerial departments to have tighter and more direct control over public agencies. Public bodies were comprehensively mapped by the Department of Finance and Deregulation, and the ‘dangers imposed by bureaucratic pro-liferation’ noted with most public servants working for agencies, many with statutory independence, while departments of state employed a minority of public employees. The centre was also concerned about opaque governance: ‘if implementation is to be driven hard it is important that there be clarity of purpose, powers and relationships between Ministers, public servants and boards’ (Shergold 2004b). Departmentalization therefore was occurring through absorbing statutory authorities and reclaiming control of agencies with hybrid boards that did not accord with corporate (and therefore private sector) governance prescriptions.

Similarly, we " nd that the centre in New Zealand had moved ‘to create and grasp more e# ective levers of control over crown entities that form part of the broader state services’ (Gregory 2006, p. 153). In response to confusing arrangements for governance and problematic legislation, the Crown Entities Act 2004 established a framework for establishing and operating crown entities, of which there are over 3000, and clari" es governance including accountability relationships between entities, board members, ministers and parliament.

Joined up and horizontal approaches have been heralded as being strat-egies to overcome the silo e# ect and dissipate the departmental and com-petitive mentality that resulted from NPM reforms in various Anglophone countries. This has been well re$ ected in the emphasis placed on more collaborative approaches in many countries, especially those that have moved into post- NPM phases (O’Flynn 2009).

5.2.2 Whole- of- government as a Response to Wicked Problems

Rittel and Webber (1973) " rst coined the term ‘wicked problems’ to describe ill- de" ned, ‘malignant’, ‘vicious’, ‘tricky’, or ‘aggressive’ issues – that include a range of seemingly intractable public policy problems. Wicked problems were contrasted with ‘tame problems’ that have clear missions, outcomes and identi" able and de" nable solutions (Rittel and



Webber 1973, p. 160). It is well recognized that for many nations the most pressing policy challenges cross organizational (and jurisdictional) boundaries (OECD 2001; Abramson et al. 2006) and they display several characteristics of wicked problems. Several public policy issues have been identi! ed ! tting such a description such as indigenous disadvantage, land degradation, obesity, climate change in Australia (APSC 2007a), gangs, family violence in New Zealand (Eppel et al. 2008), homelessness, teenage pregnancy in Britain (Kavanagh and Richards 2001), and more generally crime, immigration, poverty and national security.

As a result of the complex and inter- dependent nature of wicked problems, traditional hierarchical and bureaucratic systems are unable to cope with the informational demands of ambiguity, complexity and uncertainty. Since wicked problems permeate large systems, their solu-tions require the coordinated e" orts of many agencies and departments (Jackson and Stainsby 2000). Accordingly, many governments have identi! ed approaches that centre on more integrated, coordinated or col-laborative approaches; in the Australian context, for example, the whole- of- government agenda was strongly wedded to a renewed focus on these complex or ‘wicked’ problems (APSC 2007a).

5.2.3 Whole- of- government as Strategic Enabler

Whole- of- government can be depicted as a new government’s agenda or a new direction in reform. For example, in Australia, whole- of- government emerged from the Howard government’s push for more inte-grated approaches to more complex strategic policy issues such as national security and defence (Howard 2002, p. 7). Dr Peter Shergold, the then Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, champi-oned this cause; articulating the need to break down the departmental silos and mindsets that inhibit holistic thinking and working.

Following a di" erent, yet overlapping, path with the utilization of dif-ferent terminology, the Rudd government (elected in 2007) continued the message for whole- of- government working, including emphasizing greater cooperation between all levels of government in order to prepare for future challenges (one of the government’s top three policy priorities for ‘new ways of governing’). This connected strongly to the collaborative governance theme which emerged from the 2020 Summit convened by the government in 2008 (O’Flynn 2009). The drive for new collaborative approaches and the development of partnerships with other sectors has been further emphasized in recent times as a means of meeting complex policy problems (Rudd 2009). Prime Minister Rudd proclaimed his aspi-ration and vision to make the Australian Public Service the best public



service in the world and established the Advisory Group on Reform of the Australian Government Administration to develop a blueprint for reform of the public service (Rudd 2009). In its discussion paper the Advisory Group reinforced the need for the public service to be more collabora-tive, innovative, risk tolerant and accepting of the failure that can come from experimentation in order to learn and improve. The requirement for a longer- term focus, coupled with increased ! exibility and agility are also now on the agenda (AGRAGA 2009). This has re- energized and re- engineered the whole- of- government focus, as several of these elements require whole- of- government commitment and working.

5.2.4 Whole- of- government as Response to External Pressures

External pressures have long been seen as a driver for public sector reform; international competitiveness, for example, has often been linked to NPM reforms. A range of external threats, however, have developed in recent times as primary reform drivers. The global " nancial crisis being a per-tinent example and security issues have emerged over the last decade as critical for most countries.

In Australia, external threat issues of security and terrorism have domi-nated public policy thinking. The threat of global terrorism and emerging challenges of counter- terrorism, protection of borders and domestic security were depicted by the then head of the public service as having transformed Australian life and identity (DPMC 2003). For New Zealand, the impact of security and international developments were less direct and immediate, but biosecurity issues have been represented as broadly comparable in the sense of seeking to protect a country’s national interests from external threats (Gregory 2006). In response a ‘whole- of- biosecurity’ strategy was developed to handle the increasingly complex, economic and environmental threats and the international obligations that developed in relation to this challenge.

The impact of external threat is felt more directly by agencies concerned with protecting borders and security with a ! ow on e# ect to other parts of government, including budgets, and the general of governance. This produces a powerful motivating force for centralization through central coordination, tighter control and the overall integration of governance.

5.3 FORMS OF WHOLE- OF- GOVERNMENT

A diversity of whole- of- government forms have emerged in practice, however it is possible to identify four distinctive dimensions which capture much of this diversity.



5.3.1 Integrating Service Delivery

Integrated Service Delivery (ISD) is the process of bringing, and ! tting, together government services in order to provide seamless services to citi-zens (Kernaghan 2005). Otherwise known as a ‘one stop shop’ or ‘single window’ (Flumian et al. 2007), ISD arrangements aim to ensure one- stop access to services through coordination (sharing of work for mutual bene! t), collaboration (coordination with sharing of power) and cluster-ing (cluster similar government services together so citizens can access the services in one place) (Kernaghan 2005).

An early case of a complex ISD was Australia’s Centrelink that was also political salient and budget signi! cant.3 Centrelink was established in 1997 as a one- stop- shop, multi- purpose delivery agency to deliver services to several purchasing departments, and therefore provides an exemplar of horizontal coordination of service delivery. Essentially, two separate national networks of regional o" ces for social security and employment were combined. The delivery of services subsequently evolved through several models in the search for integrated service delivery (Halligan 2008).

A recent experiment with ISD is Service Canada, a service delivery model that was designed in response to the fragmentation and disjointed approach previously employed to deliver services to Canadian citizens. Service Canada was developed to address this fragmentation through adopting a citizen- centred approach to service design and delivery and bringing together a wide range of government programmes and services from di# erent jurisdictions to provide citizens with integrated, accessible and seamless services. Announced in 2005, Service Canada employs over 22 000 employees to serve the country’s 32 million citizens (Flumian et al. 2007).

A number of barriers have been highlighted as inhibiting progress with horizontal government in Canada (Service Canada), including the con-tinuing dominance of silo structures within and across departments; and across jurisdictions (Flumian et al. 2007). Kernaghan (2005) highlighted four governance barriers to ISD arrangements: political, structural, operational/managerial and cultural barriers. Political barriers cover issues associated with little public recognition of ministries for engaging in ISD, an emphasis on the vertical dimension of government and lack of direct control exerted by ministers on decision- making, potentially jeop-ardizing [crucial] political support for ISD initiatives (Flumian et al. 2007). Structural barriers cover inter- jurisdictional tensions and political com-petitiveness as well as horizontal governance issues (inter- departmentally) and issues associated with lack of dedicated funding and the vertical nature of the budgetary process. Operational and managerial barriers



incorporate [lack of] inter- operability (of technological, pay, reward and recognition systems that work against horizontal working); and public anxiety about privacy and security in general, and government databases and the security of electronic transactions in particular, can seriously inhibit information sharing across departments. Finally, cultural barriers include an emphasis on the vertical dimension of government; and support of departmental, rather than interdepartmental and inter- governmental, initiatives, that works against horizontal working (Kernaghan 2005; Flumian et al. 2007).

Structural reforms of government organization involving functional boundaries can still leave public o! cials with the problem of how to bridge vertical separation and horizontal divisions. There were issues with Centrelink related to the separation of policy formation and imple-mentation and how best to constitute a multi- purpose service delivery agency. In essence, a horizontal question (interagency failures in col-laboration) was converted into a vertical question (de" ning the relation-ship in terms of purchaser and provider). On the vertical dimension, the limitations of basic purchaser–provider as the means for handling relationships were apparent. The advantages of the horizontal integra-tion of welfare delivery can often be realized more e# ectively through partnerships and alliances for delivering services for a range of clients (Halligan 2007a).

The position of Centrelink later changed under an integrated gov-ernance agenda. The impact of integrated governance on Centrelink was comprehensive. Centrelink came under a new parent department, the Department of Human Services, created within the Finance port-folio with responsibility for six delivery agencies that operated under direct ministerial control and one advisory board. The rationale was to improve the delivery of services within a whole- of- government approach by strengthening the vertical dimension (ministerial and departmental control) and horizontal dimension (delivery network across agencies within the portfolio) (Halligan 2008).

5.3.2 Whole- of- government as Coordination and Collaboration

Horizontal government approaches have developed in the last decade in public sector practice in order to promote interagency collaboration and cooperation in the pursuit of government policy goals (Bogdanor 2005). These approaches re$ ect both traditional coordination and new forms of organizing, structuring, and coordinating that seek to connect distinct parts of the public sector. In Anglophone countries, such approaches represent an important break with conventional notions of public sector



organizing, and a response to dealing with complex public policy problems and operating in complex environments.

5.3.2.1 Whole- of- government as coordinationCoordination has been a perennial consideration in system design, but now features more prominently in reform agendas (Peters 2006; Verhoest and Bouckaert 2005; Bouckaert et al. 2010), and particularly where move-ment away from disaggregation is pronounced and governments are seeking to reassert central direction in order to improve performance. The new signi! cance of coordination re" ects in part a rebalancing following 1990s NPM (Halligan 2006, 2007b). Much of the coordination has a tradi-tional character, but it also seems to have acquired new characteristics and emphases, one being collaboration.

Australia came late to new wave coordination with its emphasis on hori-zontal and whole- of- government. Earlier experiments had occurred at the federal level – and traditional coordination still existed – but they were not well articulated and strongly supported. The federal government’s con-necting government agenda was ambitious with high- level commitment to a multi- layered approach that included cultural change, and was encapsu-lated within a broader reform programme of integrated governance.

Australian coordination in the 2000s took three overlapping forms: traditional, experimentation with new modes of coordination (variations on joined- up and horizontal government) and integrated governance. The boundaries are not always clear, and the o# cial characterizations not nec-essarily helpful. Take for example the term ‘whole- of- government’, which is used by o# cials for a range of cross- service and interdepartmental activity, the emphasis partly depending on where the observer is located.

A traditional conception of coordination is ‘a process in which two or more parties take one another into account for the purpose of bringing together their decisions and/or activities into harmonious or reciprocal relation’ (Kernaghan and Siegel 1987, p. 263). Coordination may be rep-resented as ‘remedial activity’, implying a more retrospective focus, react-ing to disasters and responding to communications problems. It would be an overstatement to depict traditional approaches as retrospective and their contemporary counterparts as prospective, except the emphasis has moved more to the prospective. Another de! nition addresses procedural and policy/functional coordination centred on central agencies (Painter 1987). The archetypal mechanisms of traditional coordination were the interdepartmental committee and central agency coordination through control of ! nancial and personnel transactions.

Coordination and integration can be di$ erentiated, but as distinctive elements (Verhoest and Bouckaert 2005). Or they can be regarded as



clusters of activities on a spectrum in which coordination refers to fairly rudimentary activities that range from ‘taking into account’ to dialogue and joint planning, but stopping short of implementation; and integration refers to implementation through structures that range from joint working (de! ned as temporary collaboration) through alliances to unions (6 2005, pp. 48–50).

5.3.2.2 Whole- of- government as collaborationMuch of the rhetoric related to horizontal government has contained a strong " avour of collaboration. Indeed, some of the broader consultant- driven material talks of the collaborative imperative, or the need for per-petual collaboration between government agencies, and beyond (Cortada et al. 2008). Of course collaboration itself is as fuzzy a concept as horizon-tal government and the marriage of collaboration with these approaches has emerged in a post- NPM world (see O’Flynn 2009). One of the unan-swered questions which comes from the linking of collaboration with more joined- up, horizontal forms of governing is whether these are a form of collaboration (that is, they represent examples of collaboration), or whether collaboration is required to operationalize these forms of governing (that is, collaboration is the enabler of whole- of- government).

Part of the explanation for the coupling comes from a series of pressures which have prompted a collaborative solution. The emergence of cross- cutting and/or ‘wicked’ problems (Huxham et al. 2000; APSC 2007a), and the ever- dwindling resources of public sector organizations in an era of increasing demands from both government and citizens take us down a path where collaboration appears as a panacea (Lowndes and Skelcher 1998; Economist Intelligence Unit 2007). We can further understand this when we consider the purported bene! ts of collaboration. It has been argued that collaboration has increased in attractiveness because it may (a) encourage trust and reduce con" ict; (b) unlock distinctive competencies in other sectors; and (c) deliver a transformational approach to improvement in public services (Entwistle and Martin 2005). Collaboration has emerged as both a ‘holy grail’ of setting in train a strong international agenda in collaborative governance, and also as an approach of last resort – when all else fails, collaborate (Bryson et al. 2006). It has also emerged as a means of reconnecting, or reintegration in fractured and fragmented domains. Such ideas have been linked to the notion of collaborative public manage-ment which blends collaboration with interorganizational, cross- agency operations. Collaborative public management is ‘the process of facilitating and operating in multi- organizational arrangements in order to remedy problems that cannot be solved – or solved easily – by single organization’ (McGuire 2006, p. 3).



A variety of de! nitions exist for collaboration, with a general de! nition includ-ing: A mutually bene! cial and well- de! ned relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals. The relationship includes: a commitment to mutual relationships and goals; a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability for success; and sharing of resources and rewards. (Mattessich and Monsey 1992, p. 39)

This di" ers considerably from other forms of working together, namely cooperation and coordination.

Any of these three could rightly de! ne the nature of horizontal, joined- up or whole- of- government approaches. Thus, ‘cooperation’ is a relatively informal relationship without a common mission or structure. Information is shared between parties and authority is retained by each of the organizations involved. Resources remain separate, and risk is rela-tively low (Mattessich and Monsey 1992, p. 39). ‘Coordination’ involves higher levels of formality and mutually compatible missions, although not joint ones. The parties here focus on planning together, clearly dividing tasks and roles, and opening formal communication channels. Parties retain authority, but resources are more likely to be shared between parties, albeit not to the extent of a more fully developed collaboration. Accordingly, risk levels increase (Mattessich and Monsey 1992, p. 39). These approaches di" er from a more durable and pervasive collaborative relationship where separate organizations are brought together to create new structures with a common mission: joint planning, formally de! ned communication challenges across various levels, and higher risk are all features of a collaboration. Authority is now shared in a collaborative structure, and resources are pooled or jointly secured.

Another similar continuum is set out by Himmelman (2002) who moves from networking, through to coordinating, cooperating and collaborat-ing. A movement between these developmental stages signals higher levels of trust, greater investment of time, and more signi! cant concessions over turf. According to Himmelman (2002), collaboration is a situation where the parties have developed a willingness to enhance each other’s capacity, where there is mutual bene! t and common purpose, where risks, responsi-bilities and rewards are shared, where trust is high, time commitment large and turf is shared.

Once we set about de! ning collaboration it is hard to reconcile this with what gets called collaboration in the whole- of- government reality. In fact, it is much more likely that we see extensive use of networking, cooperation and coordination (O’Flynn 2008, 2009). Much of the current ‘talk’ about collaboration is just that – talk.

In the Australian context much of the collaboration imperative ema-nated from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet where



a more joined- up or whole- of- government agenda emerged. The col-laborative manifesto was embodied in the Connecting Government report released by the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) in 2004. This was followed in 2007 by the Tackling Wicked Problems report released by the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC). Interestingly, neither of these collaboration- rich documents de! nes what is meant by collaboration. This collaborative push underpinned major experiments with the uniquely Australian approach which became known as ‘whole- of- government’, formally referring to working across portfolios, but more practically concerned with working across agencies in some form of interorganizational collaboration.

A change of government in 2007 did nothing to temper the collabora-tive agenda; indeed the election of the Labor government spurred a major inter- governmental agenda of ‘collaborative governance’. The extensive agenda emerging under the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is a perfect example – from health care reform, to early childhood educa-tion, to elective surgery management, to vocational education and train-ing, all cutting across federal government agencies and across jurisdictions (COAG 2009).

Those that study collaboration extensively warn against the adoption of collaboration as a one- size- ! ts- all approach: ‘Collaboration is not a panacea for tackling all organizational activities. Most of what organiza-tions strive to achieve is, and should be, done alone’ (Huxham 1996, p. 3). Similar arguments are put forward by Bryson et al. (2006), Hardy and Phillips (1998) and Lundin (2007) who makes the point that collaboration best suits complex rather than simple tasks.

In our work on whole- of- government experiments in Australia (see endnote 1), it is not unusual to see collaboration fatigue – a situation where organizations attempt more collaborative approaches, yet realize few of the purported bene! ts. Partly this can be explained by a failure to actually collaborate in the pure sense (that is, Mattessich and Monsey 1992) and partly by a poor matching of task to approach generating high collaboration costs, but little collaborative advantage.

5.3.3 Whole- of- government as Integrating and Rebalancing Governance

Much of the 2000s reform agenda involved integrated governance (Halligan 2007b). Whereas the forms discussed above typically arise with regard to addressing speci! c problems, in this case the agenda relates more to addressing systemic weaknesses, and in particular the rebalanc-ing of administrative machinery. This is multi- faceted and the dimensions involving coordination and integration are not necessarily congruent.



They range from centrally driven policy and implementation processes to attempts to make horizontal interaction a routine part of agency manage-ment. This move to integrate was common across Anglo- Saxon countries although, predictably contextual factors played a signi! cant part in how this was applied.

In Britain coordination and integration dimensions were apparent under Blair for a decade, and ‘reconstituted Westminster’ had been recog-nized (Bogdanor 2005; Richards and Smith 2006). The working through of the tensions between political control (or variants of the Westminster model) and administrative autonomy (variants of new public manage-ment) had demonstrated the dynamic interplay between contradictory reforms. One analysis saw a tendency for Anglo- Saxon systems to move from a Westminster model to a new public management model, but a more recent development (termed Westminster Model 2) saw the attempts to re- impose traditional mechanisms of control onto new public manage-ment systems of delivery (Richards and Smith 2006, p. 298). These features covered in particular political authority in the centre and re- imposition of central control using direct political control as well as regulation and targets (Richards 2008).

In New Zealand, system rebalancing and renewing public management outcomes became central. Several themes emerged in the 2000s covering capability, outcomes, integration and central agency roles within a phi-losophy supportive of the public sector. The Minister of State Services observed that ‘the centre had been struggling for de! nition in the last ten years or so . . . the SSC [State Services Commission] is still facing up to the nature of its role and DPMC [Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet] is working full- time with the coordination problems that come from a fragmented State sector’ (quoted in Boston and Eichbaum 2007, p. 152).

Having failed to implement the Schick report (1996), New Zealand con-fronted the limitations of its model with the Review of the Centre (MAG 2002), which examined the public management system and its responsive-ness to ministers and citizens. The report re# ected standard views about the model’s de! ciencies (Boston et al. 1996; Scott 2001; State Services Commission 1998), concluding that the public management system pro-vided a foundation to work from, but that signi! cant shifts in emphasis were needed. Speci! c issues requiring attention were the products of frag-mentation under an agency system: the need for integrating service deliv-ery, cross- agency coordination, improvements to public service culture, and the need to augment central agency responsibilities.

As part of the reform agenda, there was rationalizing and re! ning of systemic elements to align them with government goals; measures to



readdress organizational fragmentation and coordination gaps; and ver-tical relationships were augmented by considerations about horizontal integration. The State Services Commissioner’s powers were expanded to encompass the state sector with broader responsibilities for developing capability and providing leadership. This action was designed to enhance the e! ectiveness of the SSC within an expanded role in the state services.

A subsequent inquiry was undertaken on the core central agen-cies (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, State Services Commission and Treasury) and their role in managing state sector per-formance. Under the devolved system of public management, individual agencies were responsible for performance, but across the public sector performance was uneven and in some cases below acceptable standards. Central agencies were seen as having roles in aligning agencies and gov-ernment goals, and leading on and ensuring high performance in the state sector, but their focus was insu" ciently developed on a whole- of- government basis, and there was a lack of an integrated approach (Central Agencies Review 2006).

For Australia, the emergent model in the 2000s had several dimensions, which re# ected several themes: implementation, coherence and whole- of- government; and performance and responsiveness to government policy. The four dimensions were designed to draw together fundamental aspects of governance: resurrection of the central agency as a major actor with more direct in# uence over departments; whole- of- government as the new expression of a horizontal form of coordination; central monitoring of implementation and delivery; and rationalization of the non- departmental sector. A centralizing trend within the federal system has also been apparent within speci$ c policy sectors, which has become comprehen-sive (Moran 2008). In combination these provide the basis for integrated governance (Halligan 2006).

These trends shifted the focus to some extent from the vertical towards the horizontal by emphasizing cross- agency programmes and collabora-tive relationships as well as the individual agency. At the same time, verti-cal relationships receive reinforcement. The whole- of- government agenda also had a centralizing element, inasfar as central agencies were driving policy directions systemically and across agencies. The result has been the tempering of devolution through strategic steering and management from the centre and a rebalancing of the positions of centre and line agencies.

There was also underlying elements of political control: improved $ nan-cial information on a programme basis for ministers; strategic coordina-tion under the Cabinet; controlling major policy agendas; organizational integration through abolition of bodies; and monitoring implementa-tion of government policy down to the delivery level. The overall result



provided greater potential for policy and programme control and inte-gration using the conventional machinery of government – the Cabinet, central agencies and departments – as well as new mechanisms.

5.3.3.1 Dimensions of integrated governanceThe tendencies across Australia and New Zealand have been strong with regard to a spectrum of relationships, which amongst other things have included a rebalancing of centre and line agencies. The reassertion of the centre has been a signi! cant element as central agency weaknesses were addressed by giving them greater capacity for leadership and direction.

Diminished central agencies – the Department of Finance and Deregulation and the NZ State Services Commission, and to a lesser extent, the Australian Public Service Commission – have been recon-stituted with stronger roles. Prime minister departments have also been enhanced, particularly in Australia. The overriding trend for over a decade – to devolve responsibilities to agencies – remains a feature of the two systems (Australian and New Zealand), but they have been modi! ed through horizontal management, and a more prominent role for central agencies in espousing and enforcing principles, monitoring performance and providing guidance. In terms of monitoring performance and values, a counter to the devolved environment is to seek greater public account-ability through the legislative requirement of an annual report by the Australian Public Service Commissioner on the state of the public service. The Commission has extended evaluation to include surveying employees and agencies, and to scrutinizing more closely the institutionalization of values in public service organizations as part of the greater focus on evaluation and quality assurance.

Unlike the domination of New Zealand’s Treasury in the ! rst genera-tion of reform, the State Services Commission began to articulate perspec-tives on public management towards the end of the second generation (for example the roles of building expectations and promoting outcome evalu-ation: (SSC 1999)). It then acquired broader responsibilities from central agency strengthening (MAG 2002). Coordination and leadership appears to be operating jointly with the two central agencies of the State Services Commission and Treasury.

The State Services Commission has its new systemic focus across the state services and a wider role for the State Services Commissioner in enabling whole- of- government and central agency analysis of services. The development goals are reported as focusing on performance goals and monitoring across. There is a concern with unifying the state services ‘in essence, this is an opportunity to consider how the operation of the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts’. This legislation establishes a



framework to encourage coherence, to improve overall performance, and to strengthen integration (Prebble 2005, 2006).

5.3.4 Whole- of- government as Culture Change

A multitude of de! nitions exist for organizational culture4 (Hoogervorst et al. 2004). It has been depicted as the social glue that holds the organi-zation together (van den Berg and Wilderom 2004); an organizational control mechanism (Ott 1989); the set of important understandings (often unstated) that members of a community share in common (Sathe 1983); and ‘the way we do things around here’ (Deal and Kennedy 1983). Most notably, it has been depicted as a multi- layered phenomenon consisting of observable and (mostly) invisible elements (Lundberg 1990).

Organizational culture is an important factor in understanding organi-zational behaviour as it is a powerful, latent, and often unconscious set of forces that determine individual and collective behaviour, ways of per-ceiving, thought patterns and values (Schein 1999). It has been claimed that culture has strong linkages with organizational performance, e" ec-tiveness, employee commitment, knowledge management and transfer; and innovation (Denison 1990; Denison and Mishra 1995; Ahmed 1998; Rashid et al. 2003; Lai and Lee 2007). Organizational culture can support or frustrate organizational goals and strategies (Hoogervorst et al. 2004; Schneider 1995). Finally, organizational culture has an important role in organizational change e" orts, as it can be a massive stumbling block inhibiting e" orts to change strategic direction and adapt to a changing environment (Wilkins 1984; Frost and Gillespie 1998; Ott 1989; Rashid et al. 2004).

Upper echelon leaders are believed to be the primary in# uence on the creation and development of organizational culture (Giberson et al. 2009). Leaders create mechanisms for cultural development and the reinforcement of norms and behaviours expressed within the boundaries of the culture. Cultural norms arise and change because of what leaders focus their atten-tion on, how they react to crises, criteria used to allocate rewards, the behaviours they role model, whom they attract to their organizations and criteria used for personnel decisions (Bass and Avolio 1993). In addition, Hofstede and colleagues (1990) concluded that the values of founders and key leaders undoubtedly shape organizational cultures through instilling their values in shared practices throughout the organization (Hofstede et al. 1990). Employees learn from their own experience as to what the organization values for promotions and salary increases as well as what the organization punishes. Rewards and control systems reinforce behaviour that is deemed pivotal to success in the organization (Wilson 2001).



Developing a supportive culture that encourages interaction across institutional boundaries, values a diversity of views and perspectives, and innovation has been highlighted as a signi! cant challenge for horizontal approaches (MAC 2004). The horizontal management literature empha-sizes the importance of shared beliefs, common worldviews and mutual trust in the development of interorganizational collaboration (Bakvis and Juillet 2004b), as well as the importance of overcoming cultural dif-ferences between departments for the success of such collaborative e" orts (Audit Commission 2005). However, research conducted in Canada and the UK suggests that organizational culture is not seen as being con-ducive to extensive interdepartmental coordination (Bakvis and Juillet 2004a, 2004b). Bakvis (2002) proposed that an organizational culture that emphasizes the unique values of the department and a risk- averse departmental culture with an emphasis on minimizing errors are factors that inhibit horizontality. Consequently, it has been stated that a cultural change is required in the public sector in order to ful! l the goals of whole- of- government initiatives (Christensen and Laegreid 2007). This cultural transformation is required to shift the ‘siloed’ focus of public sector agencies to a more integrated and external focus (Barrett 2001). In addi-tion, cultural di" erences between departments must also be overcome if partnerships are to succeed (Audit Commission 2005).

The importance of whole- of- government mindsets and ways of working was emphasized in the Australian Management Advisory Committee’s (MAC) Connecting Government in 2004, where it was claimed that the APS should be striving to create a ‘culture of collaboration’ that aids informal sharing of research, experience and expertise in addressing intractable problems (MAC 2004). One of the key challenges for whole- of- government was identi! ed as being the need to develop a supportive culture that includes readiness to think and act across agency boundaries; e" ective teamwork; organizational # exibility; openness to innovation and creativity; the ability to capitalize on windows of opportunity, tolerate mistakes and manage risk; the capacity to build strategic alliances, col-laboration and trust; adaptability to changing circumstances; persistence; encouragement of the expression of diverse views, and awareness of di" er-ent cultures and appreciation of their strengths; a capacity to balance the tension between short- term and long- term goals; and e" ective knowledge management (MAC 2004). Moreover, one of the means through which this could be attained was through incentives and rewards that encour-age such behaviours. This is particularly challenging in an environment that places emphasis on vertical relationships and reporting arrangements (MAC 2004).

Several publications have emphasized the need for a collegiate, outward



looking and consultative culture across the APS and a strong bias to collaboration, partnerships and networks (MAC 2005). Work has been conducted to try and encourage a ‘One APS’ mindset, where all APS employees identify with the APS as their employer (as opposed to their agency) and thus encourage greater collaboration and holistic thinking across the Service. A MAC publication, Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service: One APS and One SES, emphasized the role of the senior leadership group (SES) in the APS in fostering a supportive culture and facilitating and encouraging this mindset. This has been seen as a critical element in the ability of APS employees to adopt a broader identity, appreciate the broader context of their employment and show real commitment to genuine collaboration and joint outcomes that deliver sustainable solutions (MAC 2005).

This engagement by the leadership cadre of the APS was championed by Dr Peter Shergold, who emphasized the need for APS leaders to embark on a cultural change e! ort to change the underlying attitudes and values of employees, vehemently pushing for a culture that consists of greater communication, cooperation, collaboration and collegiality; as well as " exibility (Shergold 2004b, 2004c, 2007). In order for this to occur, Shergold engaged with SES from across the Service, meeting regu-larly at Secretaries’ and senior management forums; and emphasized the importance of good and strong leadership, clear directions from the top, empowering employees and clearly articulating and setting out expecta-tions (Shergold 2005c). Underpinning this approach was a belief that the whole of the APS is greater than the sum of its parts and that this requires the disintegration of departmental silos; and incidences of territorialism and turf protection (Shergold 2004b, 2004c, 2005b).

Despite the e! ort that has gone into engaging in a cultural change e! ort that embraces whole- of- government ways of thinking and oper-ating, practitioner reports indicate that a cultural change has not been e! ective or realized. The initiative had high- level support and endorse-ment, but many systems and processes in departments and agencies have not followed the rhetoric. In the State of the Service Report 2008–09, only 35 per cent of Senior Executive Service and Executive Level employees considered their agency’s performance management system adequately recognized whole- of- government work (APSC 2009). In addition, a small percentage (39 per cent) of SES employees stated they de# nitely saw themselves as a part of a broader APS leadership cadre: with reasons for lack of identi# cation with the APS including agency- focused performance assessment and agency or service- wide cultural issues that promote an inward focus. In addition, over half of SES level (51 per cent) and APS level respondents (57 per cent), and almost two- thirds of Executive Level



employees (63 per cent) identi! ed as primarily employees of their agency (APSC 2009).

Similarly, research has found that whole- of- government working is not necessarily encouraged or rewarded: there is little systemic incentive to engage in whole- of- government behaviours. There appears to be a lack of incentives for collaborative behaviour and mobility across the APS, a factor of which is critical for employees to think holistically and laterally. This is further reinforced by State of the Service Report 2008–09 ! ndings that a large proportion of SES (45.4 per cent), EL (68.4 per cent) and APS (87.3 per cent) level employees have only worked in one agency (APSC 2009). Since behaviour that is rewarded re" ects the values of an organiza-tion (Martins and Terblanche 2003), it would be expected that, if a cultural change has occurred and whole- of- government behaviours are valued, the prevalence of incentives for collaborating, sharing information and so forth, would be entrenched in the day- to- day working of public servants.

Moreover, there is recent recognition that the APS values do not highlight some of the principles and ideals employees in a modern public service should be working toward, such as the need to work collabora-tively to achieve cross- portfolio outcomes (AGRAGA 2009). Given these values are supposed to govern and underpin the day- to- day modus operandi of APS employees, this potentially has a strong in" uence on the consequent behaviours and willingness to engage in, and commit to, whole- of- government approaches.

5.4 DIRECTIONS FOR WHOLE- OF- GOVERNMENT

The several strands of whole- of- government have evolved over time, but their momentum has waxed and waned in di# erent countries. Like other reform agendas, whole- of- government is subject to a cycle of interest and commitment. Take the ambitious Australian whole- of- government agenda, which operated within a broader and compatible framework of integrating governance and received sustained political and bureaucratic drive and support at the highest level. Despite these propitious conditions, the o$ cial view acknowledged some successes, but ‘the overall imple-mentation of the Connecting Government report has been disappointing and the report does not appear to have had a fundamental impact on the approach that the APS takes to its work’ (APSC 2007b, p. 247).

Whole- of- government appears to have peaked in terms of being a concerted agenda, but horizontal approaches continue to be widely used and is salient in recent reform documents and statements (for example AGRAGA 2009).



It is appropriate to note that much of what is subsumed here under whole- of- government is an integral part of governance at the centre par-ticularly the modes of coordination across the public sector. The main-streaming of the newer expressions of whole- of- government is apparent across Anglophone countries. Collaboration has become the signature term for many purposes.

Increasingly the emphasis has moved to external engagement. The imperative to join public services up and to focus on citizens’ outcome preferences for delivery remains strong in government agenda. The second- generation expressions of whole- of- government are making this connection more systematically, such as the role of community engage-ment in integrated service delivery (Massey and Pyper 2005; Kernaghan 2009).

A range of tensions and dysfunctional by- products have arisen. Joined- up government may have greater relevance outside the centre than in a context where ‘it would have taken a signi! cant change in high political culture for an administratively- based initiative such as “joined- up government” to have a major and lasting impact’ (Burnham and Pyper 2008, p. 87). Reforms involving functional and horizon-tal boundaries do not necessarily deal with the potential divisions between organizations. Horizontal solutions (the failure of interdepartmental collaboration) may not address vertical questions around relationships.

Horizontal management and whole- of- government raise signi! cant issues in organization design and behavioural challenges. The obstacles to inculcating cultural change, however, remain substantial. The imperative of the functional principle and the rigidity of organizational boundaries still loom prominently in all countries (Howard and Phillips 2009). The overall commitment to horizontal and integrated governance remains distinctive and ! rm.

NOTES

1. A research project at the University of Canberra is investigating the results of a whole- of- government agenda: http://www.canberra.edu.au/arc- wholegov/

2. The coverage does not extend to public- private partnerships about which there is an extensive literature.

3. Six agencies deliver services and payments that account for over $90 billion and also include the Child Support Agency, Health Services Australia and Medicare Australia.

4. Organizational culture frequently refers to, and re# ects, the dynamic interplay of various subcultures within an organization. These subcultures are formed according to groups of individuals that have frequent contact with one another and have enough common experience (Schein 1999).



REFERENCES

6, P. (2005), ‘Joined- up government in the west beyond Britain’, in V. Bogdanor (ed.), Joined- up Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6, P., C. Raab and C. Bellamy (2005), ‘Joined- up government and privacy in the United Kingdom: managing tensions between data protection and social policy Part 1’, Public Administration, 83(1), 111–33.

Abramson, M.A., J.D. Breul and J.M. Kamensky (2006), Six Trends Transforming Government, Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business and Government.

Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration (AGRAGA) (2009), Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the World’s Best Public Service, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Ahmed, P.K. (1998), ‘Culture and climate for innovation’, European Journal of Innovation Management, 1(1), 30–43.

Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) (2007a), Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

APSC (2007b), State of the Service Report 2006–07, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

APSC (2009), State of the Service Report: State of the Service Series 2008–09, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, accessed at www.apsc.gov.au.

Audit Commission (2005), Governing Partnerships: Bridging the Accountability Gap, London, accessed at www.audit- commission.gov.uk.

Bakvis, H. (2002), ‘Pulling Against Gravity? Horizontal Management in the Canadian Government’, International Political Science Association, Knowledge, Networks and Joined- up Government, University of Melbourne.

Bakvis, H. and L. Juillet (2004a), ‘The strategic management of horizontal issues: lessons in interdepartmental coordination in the Canadian government’, paper for 20th Anniversary of International Political Science Association Research Committee on the Structure and Organization of Government, Conference on Smart Practices Toward Innovation in Public Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 15–17 June.

Bakvis, H. and L. Juillet (2004b), The Horizontal Challenge: Line Departments, Central Agencies and Leadership, Ottawa: Canadian School of Public Service.

Barrett, P.J. (2001), ‘Corporate governance in the public sector context’, address to seminar on public services in the new millennium, Australian National Audit Commission, Canberra, 18 April.

Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio (1993), ‘Transformational leadership and organizational culture’, Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112–21.

Bogdanor, V. (ed.) (2005), Joined- up Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Boston, J., J. Martin, J. Pallot and P. Walsh (1996), Public Management: The New Zealand

Model, Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press.Boston, J. and C. Eichbaum (2007), ‘State sector reform and renewal in New Zealand:

lessons for governance’, in G.E. Caiden and Tsai- Tsu Su (eds), The Repositioning of Public Governance: Global Experience and Challenges, Taipei: Best- Wise Publishing.

Bouckaert, G., B.G. Peters and K. Verhoest (2010), The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations: Shifting Patterns of Public Management, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Briggs, L. (2005), ‘Synergies – new approaches to working together in government’, presenta-tion to the Annual Government Business Conference: The Future of the Australian Public Service, Gold Coast, 20 May.

Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby and M. Middleton Stone (2006), ‘The design and implementation of cross- sector collaborations: propositions from the literature’, Public Administration Review, 66(1), 44–55.

Burnham, J. and R. Pyper (2008), Britain’s Modernized Civil Service, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cabinet O! ce (1999), Modernizing Government White Paper, London: HMSO.Central Agencies Review (2006), ‘Review of central agencies’ role in promoting and assuring



state sector performance’, New Zealand Treasury, accessed at www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/exgreviews/ca.

Christensen, T. and P. Laegreid (2007), ‘The whole- of- government approach to public sector reform’, Public Administration Review, (November/December), 1059–66.

Cortada, J.W., S. Dijkstra, G.M. Mooney and T. Ramsey (2008), Government 2020 and the Perpetual Collaboration Mandate: Six Worldwide Drivers Demand Customized Strategies, New York: IBM Institute for Business Value, IBM Global Services.

Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (2009), COAG communiqué on the Council of Australian Governments’ meeting, 7 December, 2009, accessed 13 December at www.coag.gov.au.

Deal, T.E. and A.A. Kennedy (1983), ‘Culture: a new look through old lenses’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(4), 498–505.

Denison, D.R. (1990), Corporate Culture and Organizational E! ectiveness, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Denison, D.R. and A.K. Mishra (1995), ‘Toward a theory of organizational culture and e! ectiveness’, Organization Science, 6(2), 204–23.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) (2003), Annual Report 2002–03, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Economist Intelligence Unit (2007), ‘Collaboration: transforming the way business works’, The Economist, London, accessed 7 April 2008 at www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=Collaboration_Transforming_the_ way_business_works&rf=0.

Entwistle, T. and S. Martin (2005), ‘From competition to collaboration in public service delivery: a new agenda for research’, Public Administration, 83(1), 233–42.

Eppel, E., D. Gill, M. Lips and B. Ryan (2008), ‘Better connected services for Kiwis: a discus-sion document for managers and front- line sta! on better joining up the horizontal and the vertical’, July, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington School of Government, Wellington.

Fitzpatrick, T. (2000), ‘Horizontal management: trends in governance and accountability’, presentation to the Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat for CCMD’s Action Research Roundtable on the Management of Horizontal Issues, Ottawa.

Flumian, M., A. Coe and K. Kernaghan (2007), ‘Transforming service to Canadians: the Service Canada model’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73, 557–68.

Frost, S.H. and T.W. Gillespie (1998), ‘Organizations, culture, and teams: links toward genuine change’, New Directions for Institutional Research, 100, 5.

Giberson, T., C. Resick, M. Dickson, J. Mitchelson, K. Randall, M. Clark (2009), ‘Leadership and organizational culture: linking CEO characteristics to cultural values’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 24 (2), 123–37.

Gregory, R. (2006), ‘Theoretical faith and practical works: de- autonomizing and joining- up in the New Zealand state sector’, in Tom Christensen and Per Laegreid (eds) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

Halligan, J. (2006), ‘The reassertion of the centre in a " rst generation NPM system’, in T. Christensen and P. Laegreid (eds), Autonomy and Regulation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

Halligan, J. (2007a), ‘Advocacy and innovation in interagency management: the case of Centrelink’, Governance, 20(3), 445–67.

Halligan, J. (2007b), ‘Reintegrating government in third generation reforms of Australia and New Zealand’, Public Policy and Administration, 22(2), 217–38.

Halligan, J. (2008), The Centrelink Experiment: An Innovation in Service Delivery, Canberra: Australian National University Press.

Hardy, C. and N. Phillips (1998), ‘Strategies of engagement: lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and con# ict in an interorganizational domain’, Organization Studies, 9(2), 217–30.

Himmelman, A.T. (2002), Collaboration for a Change: De" nitions, Decision- Making Models, Roles, and Collaboration Process Guide, Minneapolis, MN: Himmelman Consulting.



Hofstede, G., B. Neuijen, D.D. Ohayv and G. Sanders (1990), ‘Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316.

Hood, C. (1994), Explaining Economic Policy Reversals, Buckingham: Open University Press.Hood, C. (2005), ‘The idea of joined- up government: a historical perspective’, in V. Bogdanor

(ed.), Joined- Up Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–42.Hoogervorst, J., H. van der Flier and P. Koopman (2004), ‘Implicit communication in

organizations: the impact of culture, structure and management practices on employee behaviour’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(3), 288–311.

Howard, C. and S. Phillips (2009), ‘Moving away from hierarchy: do horizontality, partner-ships and distributed governance really signify the end of accountability?’, paper pre-sented at symposium in honour of Professor Peter Aucoin, Dalhousie University, 12–13 November, Halifax, NS.

Howard, J. (2002), ‘Strategic leadership for Australia: policy directions in a complex world’, address to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, 20 November.

Huxham, C. (ed.) (1996), Creating Collaborative Advantage, London: Sage.Huxham, C., S. Vangen and C. Eden (2000), ‘The challenge of collaborative governance’,

Public Management Review, 2(2), 337–58.Jackson, P.M. and L. Stainsby (2000), ‘Managing public sector networked organizations’,

Public Money and Management, January- March, 11–16.Kavanagh, D. and D. Richards (2001), ‘Departmentalism and joined- up government: back

to the future?’, Parliamentary A! airs, 54, 1–18.Kernaghan, K. (2005), ‘Moving towards the virtual state: integrating services and service

channels for citizen- centred delivery’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71, 119–30.

Kernaghan, K. (2009), ‘Moving towards integrated public governance: improving service delivery through community engagement’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 239–54.

Kernaghan, K. and D. Siegel (1987), Public Administration in Canada, Toronto, ON: Methuen.

Lai, M.F. and G.G. Lee (2007), ‘Relationships of organizational culture toward knowledge activities’, Business Process Management Journal, 13(2), 306–22.

Ling, T. (2002), ‘Delivering joined- up government in the UK: dimensions, issues and prob-lems’, Public Administration, 80(4), 615–42.

Lowndes, V. and C. Skelcher (1998), ‘The dynamics of multi- organizational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance’, Public Administration, 76(2), 313–33.

Lundberg, C.C. (1990), ‘Surfacing organizational culture’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 5(4), 19–27.

Lundin, M. (2007), ‘When does cooperation improve public policy implementation?’, The Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 629–52.

McGuire, M. (2006), ‘Collaborative public management: assessing what we know and how we know it’, Public Administration Review, 66(1), 33–43.

Management Advisory Committee (MAC) (2004), Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

MAC (2005), Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service: One APS and One SES, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) (2002), Report of the Advisory Group of the Review of the Centre, Wellington: State Services Commission.

Martins, E.C. and F. Terblanche (2003), ‘Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation’, European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64–74.

Massey, A. and R. Pyper (2005), Public Management and Modernization in Britain, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mattessich, P.W. and B.R. Monsey (1992), Collaboration: What Makes It Work?, St Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.



Moran, T. (2008), ‘Splicing the perspectives of the commonwealth and states into a work-able federation’, presentation to the ANZSOG Annual Conference on Federalism, 11–12 September, Melbourne, VIC.

Norman, R. (2008), ‘At the centre or in control: central agencies in search of a new identity’, Policy Quarterly, 4(2), 33–8.

Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) (2001), ‘Government of the future’, OECD public management policy brief, no.9, Paris.

O’Flynn, J. (2008), ‘Elusive appeal or aspirational ideal? The rhetoric and reality of the “collaborative turn” in public policy’, in J. O’Flynn and J. Wanna (eds) Collaborative Governance: A New Era of Public Policy in Australia, Australia and New Zealand School of Government, The Australian National University, Canberra: ANU E- Press.

O’Flynn, J. (2009), ‘The cult of collaboration in public policy’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 112, 116.

Ott, J.S. (1989), The Organizational Culture Perspective, Paci! c Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Painter, M. (1987), Steering the Modern State, Sydney, NSW: Sydney University Press.Peters, B.G. (2004), ‘Back to the centre? Rebuilding the state’, in A. Gamble and T. Wright

(eds), Restating The State?, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 130–40.Peters, B.G. (2006), ‘Concepts and theories of horizontal policy management’, B.G. Peters

and J. Pierre (eds) Handbook of Public Policy, London: Sage pp. 116–38.Pollitt, C. and C. Talbot (eds) (2004), Unbundled Government, London: Routledge.Prebble, M. (2005), ‘Annual report of the State Services Commissioner’, in Annual Report of

the State Services Commission for year ended 30 June 2005.Prebble, M. (2006) ‘Annual report of the State Services Commissioner’, in Annual Report of

the State Services Commission for year ended 30 June 2006.Rashid, M.Z.A., M. Sambasivan and J. Johari (2003), ‘The in" uence of corporate culture

and organisational commitment on performance’, Journal of Management Development, 22(8), 708–28.

Rashid, M.Z.A., M. Sambasivan and A.A. Rahman (2004), ‘The in" uence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change’, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 161–79.

Richards, D. (2008), New Labour and the Civil Service: Reconstituting the Westminster Model, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Richards, D. and M. Smith (2006), ‘The tensions of political control and administrative autonomy: from NPM to a reconstituted Westminster model’, in T. Christensen and P. Laegreid (eds), Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

Rittel, H.W. and M.M. Webber (1973). ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

Rudd, K. (2009), ‘John Paterson Oration’, ANZSOG Annual Conference, 3 September.Sathe, V. (1983), ‘Implications of corporate culture: a manager’s guide to action’,

Organizational Dynamics, (Autumn), 5–23.Savoie, D.J. (2008), Court Government and the Collapse of Accountability in Canada and the

United Kingdom, Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Schein, E.H. (1999), The Corporate Culture Survival Guide: Sense and Nonsense About

Culture Change, San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.Schick, A. (1996), ‘The spirit of reform: managing the New Zealand state sector in a time of

change’, report prepared for the State Services Commission and the Treasury, Wellington.Schneider, W.E. (1995), ‘Productivity improvement through cultural focus’, Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 47(1), 3–27.Scott, Graham (2001), Public Management in New Zealand: Lessons and Challenges,

Wellington: New Zealand Business Roundtable.Shergold, P. (2004a), Connecting Government: Whole- of- government Responses to Australia’s

Priority Challenges, Canberra, 20 April.Shergold, P. (2004b), ‘Plan and deliver: avoiding bureaucratic hold- up’, Australian Graduate



School of Management/Harvard Club of Australia, National Press Club, Canberra, 17 November.

Shergold, P. (2004c), ‘Beyond the silo: connecting government’, The Canberra Times, 5 May, Canberra, Australia.

Shergold, P. (2005a), ‘Foundations of governance in the Australian Public Service’, speech delivered at launch of Foundations of Governance in the Australian Public Service, 1 June, Canberra.

Shergold, P. (2005b), ‘Bringing government together’, speech delivered at the IPAA SA Connecting Government Conference – ‘Creating a Culture for Success’. Adelaide, SA, 8 April.

Shergold, P. (2005c), ‘Government and communities in partnership: sharing responsibility’, speech delivered at Government and Communities in Partnership Conference, Melbourne, VIC, 18 May.

Shergold, P. (2007), Transformational Leadership – Australia’s Networked Government Experience, 30 April 2007.

State Services Commission (SSC) (1998), ‘Assessment of the New Zealand Public Service’, Occasional Paper No. 1, Wellington.

SSC (1999), ‘Integrated Service Delivery’, SSC occasional paper no. 12, Wellington.SSC (2007), Transforming the State Services: State of the Development Report 2007, SSC,

Wellington: SSC.Talbot, C. and C. Johnson (2006), ‘Seasonal cycles in public management: disaggregation

and re- aggregation’, Public Money and Management, November.Uhrig, J. (2003), Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and O! ce

Holders Report, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Van den Berg, P.T. and C.P.M. Wilderom (2004), ‘De! ning, measuring and comparing

organizational cultures’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), 570–82.Verhoest, K. and G. Bouckaert (2005), ‘Machinery of government and policy capacity’, in

M. Painter and J. Pierre (eds), Challenges to State Policy Capacity, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 92–111.

Wilkins, A.L. (1984), ‘The creation of company cultures: the role of stories and human resource systems’, Human Resource Management, 23(1), 41–60.

Wilson, A.M. (2001), ‘Understanding organizational culture and the implications for corporate marketing’, European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 353–67.


5 experiments with joined- up, horizontal and whole- of ... · the term joined- up government was...

Documents