Centralised leadership stifles innovation

Strict hierarchies have become a punchline in the APS, but new research suggests centralised leadership may lead to fewer new ideas. A study by researchers at the University of Sydney and Stockholm University looked at the social networks and fertiliser use of 30 rural, cocoa-producing villages in Sulawesi to examine how innovative and sustainable farming practices are adopted among communities. It found that when one or two farmers hold a disproportionate level of influence, most others follow their lead. Associate professor Petr Matous from the University of Sydney’s School of Project Management said this has wider implications for leadership culture. “In contrast to the popular idea of a strong leader, we are interested in understanding socialised forms of leadership where decisions and influence are broadly shared, so we can find more effective ways of engaging communities in projects and programs, “ he said. “If you’ve ever watched a group of kindergarteners play soccer, you’ll know that they run after the one kid who has the ball all at the same time. It’s a bit like that — to foster innovation, what you really need is people playing a range of roles and exploring a problem from different angles. “When combined with power hierarchies in which those who are less central are not listened to, it can crowd out innovative voices, sometimes swaying entire communities one way or another.” This supports research in the communications field that suggests centralisation of government services leads to less to worse outcomes for wider society. Scholars like Nick Couldry have argued the introduction of “managerial logic” into the public service has resulted in a culture that sees citizens being treated like customers and more attention being paid to optics than actually serving the public. What Couldry means by this is the logic of business informing the delivery of public services. Elements of this include strict KPIs, centralised leadership, a focus on balancing the books, and relentless auditing to give the illusion of taking responsibility for failings, without ever having to action change. The effects of this on the Australian Public Service (APS) are self-evident. Most public-facing departments — like health, and social services — refer to the people they interact with as customers. The robodebt royal commission showed one of the worst-case scenarios for a centralised APS. Commissioner Catherine Holmes found concerned members of the department, including legal experts, were ignored by leadership when they expressed concerns the program was illegal. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that leaders should show strength and conviction, the study’s co-author from the University of Stockholm Örjan Bodin said leaders need to connect with the ideas and wishes of the people they’re leading. “While these individuals may hold sway in the short term, our findings suggest that top-down interventions risk undermining the social fabric of communities, potentially hindering adaptive capacities in the face of evolving agricultural and environmental challenges,” he said. The study found that Sulawesi farming communities with less centralised power networks showed more diverse farming practices, particularly relating to the use of fertiliser. This suggests there are significant differences in the outcomes produced by centralised leadership and less hierarchical power structures. Within the public service, this suggests a flatter structure within departments could result in greater innovation on the back of wider inputs. READ MORE: It’s complex, messy and frustrating, so why be a public sector leader? There are so many good answers