The Westminster Tradition
In 2019, after three years, Robodebt was found to be unlawful. The Royal Commission process found it was also immoral and wildly inaccurate.
The Westminster Tradition
Imagine if... you were leading an orchard of bad apples
Your shiny new promotion turns out to be more than you bargained for.
In this scenario-based "Imagine if..." episode, Caroline and Danielle assume the role of a newly promoted manager who steps into a team they didn’t choose and some character-building challenges.
⚠️ Mild trigger warning for the depiction of toxic colleagues - we've all had one!
We cover:
- Walking the floor and gathering intel
- How to give the boss response to a credibility challenge
- Clarifying the authorising environment
- Lifting work quality
- When to whip out the whiteboard to create a two-way learning exercise
- Setting a vision and direction for the team that’s sensitive to the past
- Responding to bad behaviour that’s not quite misconduct
- To report or not to report; the risks of weighing in
Good egg managers in the Re Meagher case
https://hearsay.org.au/graduate-lawyer-fails-in-fair-work-act-bullying-claim/
This podcast was recorded on Kaurna land, and we recognise Kaurna elders past and present. Always was, always will be.
Now for some appropriately bureaucratic disclaimers....
While we have tried to be as thorough in our research as busy full time jobs and lives allow, we definitely don’t guarantee that we’ve got all the details right.
Please feel free to email us corrections, episode suggestions, or anything else, at thewestminstertraditionpod@gmail.com.
Thanks to PanPot audio for our intro and outro music.
'Til next time!
Welcome to the Westminster Tradition, where we unpack lessons for the public service. I'm Alison Lloyd Wright, Managing Director of the Good Trouble Group, and I am joining you from Garner Land. With me, as always, are my two fellow recovering public servants, Managing Director of Good Government Advisory, Danielle Elston. Hello, Alison. And Caroline Crozer Barlow.
SPEAKER_01:Hello, Alison.
SPEAKER_02:Thank you to our listeners for the incredible feedback we got on our recent episode, Imagine If Your Sleepy Grants program woke up, where Caroline took us through a choose your own adventure of ministerial office meddling amidst a literal media shitstorm. We aren't permanently converting to this format. There'll still be plenty of interviews, deep dives, and some special format episodes coming up, but we love the experience of recording it, and we were pleased so many of you liked it too. In fact, one former politician did reach out to compliment us on the episode format and express concern that we might not have enough content to do other scenario-based episodes. Trust us, there's plenty where that came from. But not every public sector challenge involves the minister's office. So today we're focusing on the evergreen issue of inheriting a team that you didn't choose. So welcome to The Inheritance.
SPEAKER_00:You've been a kind of um like the what are they thriller? Like a horror movie. It sounds like a horror movie.
SPEAKER_03:I was thinking it's a great name for like a new six-part binge kind of thing.
SPEAKER_02:Starring Sarah Snook and, you know, yeah, exactly. Very fine.
SPEAKER_03:That's what came into my head.
unknown:Okay.
SPEAKER_02:All right, here we go. You've been in your first management and leadership role for a few years now. And in that role, you were lucky enough to get a team of unicorns, high performers who produce excellent work and genuinely like each other. They bring food, they gently roast each other, but they also step up to help when deadlines demand it. But outside that bubble of competence and good humour, the operating environment has become, well, chaotic. Your boss is, frankly, a micromanager, and the senior leadership is locked in a never-ending turf war with passive-aggressive emails and constant changes in instruction and direction. Moreover, you're about ready to run over the minister's young upstart advisor who keeps calling you at all hours of the day. So when your excellent former boss calls you with an opportunity to work with them again, with a promotion attached, you don't hesitate. Uh, you put in an application and in due course the phone rings, you've got the job. Congratulations. Uh, in winning this job, you've stepped up a level and inherited a team more than triple the size of your previous one, which was now close to 30 people. And here's where it starts to get tricky. This job became available because its previous occupant was quietly but decisively shown the door after losing the confidence of both the secretary and the minister. You can't really get any details, but you get a really strong sense that you are not to be like them. So, first thoughts, you're about to step into this role. Risks, challenges, how you might approach it.
SPEAKER_03:The first thing, because I'm assuming it's going to get difficult, is to always remember that if that's the case, like you're starting on solid ground. I have started a couple of jobs, um, and a senior public servant has said to me, like, this bar is a broom on the floor, Danielle. Like, even you can climb over it, which is, you know, super inspiring. Um, but it's gonna get tricky. But I just think that one of the starting points here is like you can't do worse often sometimes when you go into these roles. So try not to be overwhelmed by it because um, you know, you can only do better.
SPEAKER_01:I would definitely be doing the ring around of the people I know who know the organization from the outside. So, like the central agencies or my friend who has, you know, who works in an adjacent but not in that division, just to kind of get a sense of kind of the things people are saying, and sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong, but it is always helpful to come in with a bit of intel about kind of how they're seen as a as a team. Um, so like before joining, that would definitely be one thing I would be really keen to do. I mean, the other thing, of course, is actually just to explicitly say to your excellent former boss, so excellent former boss, what exactly is it that you're looking for from me? I'm sure there's lots of things I could do. I'm sure the broom is on the floor, but I do think that kind of like what's the kind of first thing you really need from me in the first three months? Um, I think something, you know, just a little bit of kind of that sort of conversation.
SPEAKER_03:The other thing I just would be really interested in is what the application and ad looked like. Because have you ever seen an ad that said, come and manage an underperforming dysfunctional team that everyone hates each other? Like every single ad says that they're looking for a high performing high performing, yeah. Like, which is a shame because some people like a fixer opera. And I appreciate why we can't put in the ad this is going to require deep management skills because it's a place that's in trouble. But like I I can imagine what the interview questions were and the disconnect is what I'm saying between the recruitment process and what it is this person would is apparently about to have to actually do for a living.
SPEAKER_01:Oh, I have one more risk. I love that. Um, also because it makes me think of that excellent song from Frozen, he's a bit of a fixer-upper, which I sing to myself a lot.
SPEAKER_02:And to be clear, this is a bit of a fixer-upper, although of course the I assumed so at this point didn't indicate that that was so.
SPEAKER_01:Right. But just the other thing I would take in, there's a risk, right? And I've done this before, I've taken on a job where uh the big boss really didn't like the predecessor and therefore had quite a jaundice view about all of the things, and have formed, I think, quite an inaccurate view about what parts of that area were underperforming and what parts were performing well. And so I think there's like try, and I didn't do this very well, but try not to let the feelings of the big boss overly influence you because actually it might be something quite small and discreet and fixable that's driving them nuts about the team, and actually it might not be the whole thing. I just think like try not to be overly responsive in the kind of it's it's terrible until you actually see it yourself.
SPEAKER_02:Well, that's a great introduction to the next part. A bit more context about this role.
SPEAKER_03:And listeners, I'd just like you to note that we're not allowed to scroll through just like last time, but Alison so didn't trust us, even though last time Alison and I didn't scroll on, that she only sent it to us like at 30 seconds before recording, lest we we'd be unable to be trusted and scroll through.
SPEAKER_01:I also like that she used as much highlighting and as many exclamation points as I did, even though she was rude to me about it last time.
SPEAKER_00:So just saying no scrolling ahead.
SPEAKER_02:You may now scroll ahead one page.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you. Okay, one page only.
SPEAKER_02:Caroline's right in that there is maybe just a slight flavour of resentment about the existence of this whole section that you've stepped up to lead. So let's zoom out and take a look at this landscape that you've landed in. Uh, the section was set up a few years ago in response to political pressure to demonstrate visible leadership for a particularly vulnerable stakeholder group. For the purposes of this scenario, I won't go into a lot of detail about the stakeholder group, but you know the type of entity. Most governments have at least a few. Maybe they're for veterans, maybe they're for young people, multicultural community, but you get the idea. Uh this one even comes with its own dedicated very junior minister. The section was established in a hurry and as a kind of arm of an existing big government department. And because it was established in a hurry and under budget conditions and strict instructions that it was to be cost neutral, no proper recruitment process to staff this section ever occurred. Instead, what happened is departments were voluntold to contribute voluntold. So ladies, best guesses, who do you think uh who do you think the staff are in this section? Given that history and context.
SPEAKER_01:I wish there was a lot cynical view here, which is to say some agencies and parts of the agencies will have sent you their duds, right? Like a hundred percent. But I also expect there are some parts or some agencies that may have thought, oh, actually, if this goes badly over there, that's going to annoy me. And so, like, I just want to offer just the thought that it's not always the worst, but clearly it's the worst.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah. So on a similar positive vein, what I would say is you do not know those people. So there's clearly reputations and whatever else. So from what you've told us so far, Alison, I know nothing, and I have lots I need to learn about how they were shuffled into this team. And I mean, we'll probably get to it, but like anything that's performance-based could just be based on having not had a choice or all sorts of things. So a bit like what you said in the last bit, Caroline, when I have inherited teams and I have been told in advance that they are grumpy or underperforming, I am very, very careful not to assume that is because they are personally unable to deliver their job. And my first assumption is that the conditions haven't been set up. Now, clearly, obviously, later have discovered some of them were unable to kind of do the job. But no, no, sometimes. But sometimes have found it. But we know what they say about assumptions, right?
SPEAKER_00:Yes, that's exactly right.
SPEAKER_02:Um, but but broadly, you're on the right track here. Uh, in in sacrificing their own stuff into the creation of this new section, while there are some decent enough performers, there are also some people who've been redeployed from roles that are no longer uh important. And some departments absolutely did take the opportunity to get rid of people with low performance or attitude problems.
SPEAKER_03:And so, in some sense, uh yeah, so slow house or something. Slow house, exactly.
SPEAKER_02:So, for anyone uh familiar with slow horses, books by Will Smith, TV series on Apple, it's kind of a a department of broken toys, uh, which is to say, as viewers, we love Slough House and the people in it. Exactly. Uh so ladies, this you've not met any of these people yet, but you're about to you're about to go in on day one, and you know that this is the kind of the origin story of how your section came to be. What are the first things you're going to do?
SPEAKER_01:Walk the floor. Like ask people questions about what they think their job is and what they like, just try and like, oh, I'm I'm so interested in what the work is. But the challenge with that is not to look too affirming when they tell you they're doing stuff that sounds a bit stupid. So it's like it's a real balance of like being genuinely curious, but maintaining agnosticism to the fact that you might change direction a lot, which I struggle with because I can get a bit positive. I'm like, oh, that sounds great. And then like a week later, you're like, that was not great. I should not have said that.
SPEAKER_03:So the first thing I want to know is what it is we're trying to do. So they may not have that. So presumably, before I've walked the floor, or even before I've started, I've got from my boss uh, you know, okay, they're doing a lot of policy work, but really it needs to be stakeholder engagement, or the reverse, or it's all they're spending all their time on events, but it's supposed to be something else. What and and and then asking much clearer questions back up to the boss, which is like, so what is it that you want this team to do? Don't worry about what they are now, don't worry about where it all came from, what it is, what what what's my goal? Like, where am I trying to get these people? So I'm in my head clear what good looks like to my boss and what keeps me in my job. And then I'm trying to, in that first bit, get to know the people. Um, I think one of the things about inheriting teams that's tricky is you don't have CVs. So you know that they're a such and such level events officer in this team, but you don't realise that actually before maternity leave they were much higher classified or they've actually worked in two really relevant departments. I think that's really tricky. I think it would be awesome if you could find out that information more easily. But I as a part of that floor walking, what I'm trying to see is what they're doing, but also what the gap is without commenting on it between what it is I've been told we're doing or supposed to be working towards and what it is everyone's actually spending their time on to try and figure out why there's such a big gap between those things.
SPEAKER_02:So, on that one, I regret to advise that your excellent boss was in fact pulled, uh seconded over into a department to manage an emergency response. By the time you've started, they're no longer there. And while technically you do have a dotted line reporting to someone, they basically couldn't care less about what you are doing. They work in the other part of the agency to a different minister, and you're on your own. Okay. Uh, but I think I think I would approach this quite similarly to what you are both saying, a bit of a listening to a an internal and external listening to a chat to the people I've got working for me about their history and what they enjoy and their strengths and what it is that they think they're doing. A chat to the other stakeholders the section engages with about where it's going well and where it's not. Yeah. All right, and may now scroll ahead to the next page. Uh you're excited about your promotion, obviously, but not everyone is super excited about you stepping into this new role. Uh, some of the people that aren't excited are as follows. Uh, one of your lateral colleagues uh in this new department applied, uh, but they didn't get the role, obviously, and they're a bit miffed about it. You suspect they're subtly white anting you to other execs andor to the minister's office, but maybe you're just paranoid.
SPEAKER_00:No.
SPEAKER_02:And then there's Bernie. Bernie is an old timer. Bernie is at least 25 years older than you and is wildly unimpressed about reporting to a young, newly promoted woman. At afternoon tea for someone's birthday, you brought cake. Uh, Bernie takes you on in front of the whole section and asks, what experience do you have anyway with this particular group of vulnerable stakeholders the section is focused on serving? And unfortunately, the truth is actually not that much. How are you going to approach? Go for it.
SPEAKER_01:Because I've spent my whole life never knowing much about the content when I start. And it's like the the answer is to say, yeah, I don't know a lot about veterans' affairs. The bit I'm good at is the bit which is about what do ministers want and what makes them happy and how do we get things done. And the bit you guys are good at is knowing what happens with veterans. And here's the magic, right? Like you guys and me together, we can deploy those strengths to do really great work. And I'm really looking forward to you teaching me everything you know, but also to just being able to rely on your wisdom.
SPEAKER_02:Like gold star answer, Caroline. I'm not sure I can improve on that.
SPEAKER_03:No, no, no. I was gonna say I was gonna say, I have had this happen to me a number of times, and particularly uh older, close to retirement men um who have worked in that content for 40 years and are very protective of that, which you know I understand. Um, and being called out, you know, in that first thing across the whole section where it's like, so you don't know anything, do you? And being like them just being really hostilely clear about it. And the same thing. It's so bad. And but so I think it's the thing of what I am good at, and being so I think it's even if it's not that answer, that exact answer, Caroline. It's like, no, so you know, I've had a bit of a background in comms and this and that and whatever else, and what I'm hoping that does is helps you as technical experts translate this into that and deliver the thing. Um because the kind of thing we're describing is also a gap between like when it's technical and content versus kind of public sector stuff, so public sector generalist, public sector management. And some areas have only ever had a technical manager and leader where they became the manager, not because they had any leadership skills or management skills, but just because they were the smartest regulator of you know curtains. And so um, I think the challenge here is that there's sometimes an expectation, particularly with technical teams, that you can only lead them if you could also do the ASO2 filling out of the form kind of work.
SPEAKER_01:Um, I have a question about what one would regulate in relation to curtains.
SPEAKER_00:But no, but I was going to say, I am tired.
SPEAKER_04:I gave a lot of speeches last week, and the closest thing to me is a curtain. But thank you, Clay.
SPEAKER_01:I was just thinking my nana would have views. But no, actually, the thing I would say as a as to our listeners is this is the hardest thing to the newly promoted, because you don't necessarily know or value or have words around your your brilliant skill set, right? Like I just gave you the speech, but that was the fourth time I gave it. The first time I gave it, it was rubbish, right? Because it was hard to say this is what I'm good at, this is not what I'm good at. So I really encourage you, if you're in this situation, to sit down with your otters and do a practice and be like, actually, what are the things that I can genuinely say I'm pretty good at? Like I'm good at building teams, I'm good at blah, blah, blah. And then like just make sure that you keep that in your head so that you have a kind of an answer and you don't look like you've been punched in the face when they say, but you don't know what section 413 of the legislation says, do you?
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, yeah. Also, because you're gonna need it to keep your confidence going forward. So keep it. Absolutely, yeah.
SPEAKER_02:But I guess my point here is it's not your job, actually, to be the technical expert. And it is your job to know your strengths and to know how those strengths are going to connect with the technical experts and getting what they're trying to get done done. Uh, but it's trap for young players, I think, to fall into. Well, I better take myself home and read all the legislation so that next time I know, I uh next time I'm asked, so I can answer that question. Don't do that. All right. Any other thoughts about how you're you're going to start shaping this new team in this context?
SPEAKER_03:Not too loudly, not too forcefully. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. To Danielle's point, like I think, like not too loudly, not too forcefully, gently, but showing that you're actually really interested in them as people and them as work. And so I really like the birthday cake. And I think like just that kind of um genuine curiosity and interest is really important.
SPEAKER_02:Excellent. So here's where we run into some reality, though, and you may now scroll ahead. Obviously, it would be lovely, ideal, even, if you could spend several weeks being genuinely warm, empathetic, and curious, building relationships, listening deeply, understanding the team, mapping capability. Uh, but did no one tell you? Estimates is in three weeks. Uh, and as best you can tell, no preparation has begun from your team. So you decide that the right place to start is to ask to see last year's estimates folder.
SPEAKER_03:Easy, just update them. Can't be that hard.
SPEAKER_02:Can't be that hard, but but once you get them, boy oh boy, uh, they're terrible. They're long, they're unclear, they're hard to navigate, and you are really conscious that, albeit on the little information you have, but failure to adequately serve the minister was really one of the reasons your predecessor was moved on. So instead of spending your time capability mapping and building relationships, you now have three weeks to get an excellent estimates folder done. Where are we starting?
SPEAKER_01:Um, sorry, I would start with what is your sense of what they're gonna be asked based on what have you seen being asked in previous years and your spidey sense? Because like this feels to me like why you're there is that you've got a kind of better sense of kind of the politics. Um so I think there's something about I actually don't think you need to make the whole estimates brief a gun brief. I think you need to make like the three things you're gonna get asked a gun brief, and then I would preserve my relationships and actually not overly finesse the other ones. Like I think, um but anyway, that's a that's a that's an approach that I usually take, is that I'm like radical prioritization.
SPEAKER_02:I love it.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, radical prioritization, right? And like so I'm also thinking, yes, the minister might not love that there's this very long one that I know he's not gonna get asked about, but also I'm preserving my relationships with the poor people who've put a lot of effort into it and I don't have time to whatever it is. So I think there's something about um like yes, it's important to get a gun folder, but also you have a long game to play here. So I think sort of trying to work out where your efforts lie is important. But Danielle, you look so good. Well, I have a different view.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, yeah, giving you lots of face down the line. Um, not skeptical. I think this is not bad news. I think this is quite good news because we are going off to school together now as a team. Um, for my mind, we are not doing drafts that are coming up and down, we are going into a room. Before we get there, I have read the last sort of questions. So, what you just said, Caroline, like having a spidey sense of they're really worried about the grant money or the something or the something. So you've you've you've done that piece of work. Um, but there's a way to, for instance, say to your team, like, this is actually a really good way for me to get up to speed. Um, and I don't want you to like write it and then me to send back with comments and questions. That's all like let's all go into the room with the whiteboard. Yes. I've I've prepared some questions. You guys probably know much better ones, whether they do or they don't. Um, and I am gonna try and answer them and like you are gonna educate me as to how to answer them. And at the end of that, we will be able to write down seven dot points. Um, and I'm really sorry that it's your job to like school me. But because we have to get done in the next three weeks, I can't read all the back briefs and get my head around everything. So we're gonna do it basically as a live thingamajiggy. Because it's genius. Um I think if you don't do it that way, all you're gonna end up with is buried in paper that you don't understand, signing through something that um you feel a bit squiffy about. Yeah. Not that it's necessarily inaccurate, just that you're like, I can't understand it. So like the minister's definitely not gonna be able to understand this. Um, maybe they know more than me, you know, those kind of things. So I think, as I said, you just run it like a live back to basics. You want in your the only thing you want as a leader in your own head is a strong sense of what the kind of um uh vulnerabilities are or what's coming at you. But after that, it's like live in the room, ask me the question, can someone help me with an answer? I don't think I could say that if I was in estimates, so what could I say like that kind of thing?
SPEAKER_02:And can I talk a bit about here uh the wrong approach, slash the approach I absolutely have taken in the past is do too much of it yourself. Yeah. Which is to be this kind of like, I'm the only one that knows what good looks like here, and we don't have time. And so I don't have time to upskill everyone, and I don't have time to get this whole pack where I need to get it. So people are gonna give me what they can, and I'm going to spend too much time and effort turning this into a product that I am proud of.
SPEAKER_01:100% that's what I would have done, which I think is why I went to my answer, which was like avoiding that. But I think Danielle's answer of like flip it to the positive is genius. Like I just think isn't it? I apologize to get to know people. No, agree.
SPEAKER_04:And it's a genuine people.
SPEAKER_02:It's a very good opportunity to set expectations really early about what work product from your section should and will look like under your leadership.
SPEAKER_03:Also, you can kind of ask questions under the guise of like, I I wouldn't, I wouldn't be interested in this, but like they might ask us, do we know anything about the outcomes from that money we've been given away? And they might give you some kind of framework answer, and you're gonna be like, okay, well that's not a friggin' awesome. Need a little bit like we're gonna need some specifics here. So it's not the most terrible way to figure out whether we're like what some of the things might like we're just talking in like Wally words, that's one of the problems with the ministers. We couldn't give them concrete anything, or oh, they don't know anything, that's one of the problems, or they know so much that we've never been able to distill it down into anything kind of communicable. So you can kind of use the cover of the process to figure out what's what, I reckon. So I don't think it's bad. You can't do that.
SPEAKER_01:If you're frightened, though, right? You can't do that if you're frightened that they will know that you don't know things. So all of this is predicated. Exactly. Exactly. Feeling confident about what you're bringing, and also feeling able to share with them that you don't know the content.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. Yeah. All right. So you've made it through estimates, mostly unscathed. Uh, and actually, you're kind of grateful that you have a really, really junior minister who, although they panic about things like estimates, ultimately gets very little media attention. Uh, and your approach to working collaboratively and setting clear expectations on how to prepare the estimates brief is sort of working to improve the standard of work across the team. Uh, you're still doing more of it yourself than you ought to, but at least the quality of what's going to the minister's office has improved. But and Danielle alluded to this a bit earlier. Your team just aren't really sure why they exist. They're worried they're going to get absorbed into another section or get redeployed again. And outside of knowing that they were set up to serve this particular group of stakeholders, they're just not really sure what they're doing and why. How are you going to go about setting a vision and direction for this team?
SPEAKER_01:I think the first thing I would do, and I recognise you're not likely to get an answer, but you have to do it anyway, is you really need a conversation with your secretary or minister's office or both about actually, yeah, probably not your minister's office, it's probably your secretary and your central, actually, to just say, hey guys, just so I know, is this a thing that we're gonna fold up in a couple of years, in which case, fine, like I'll do it a certain way, or is this like actually, you know, you kind of think it's serving a longer term political goal than just this particular thing, and so we're gonna keep living?
SPEAKER_03:Um they're never gonna give you the first answer. They're never gonna they very rarely say in two years something's gonna fold.
SPEAKER_01:I think that's the readers between the lines, right? You would have to read between the lines. It would be like, because a because a tactful central might say something like, Look, you know, they're a really important stakeholder group and this is really working for us at the moment, but who knows? Like maybe it will change, and then you're like, yep, they're killing us in two years. Um, so like you just kind of you do, there's something about understanding the broader authorizing environment before you commence on this. And if you don't understand it, if you can't get anyone to tell you, that's fine too, right? Then you just have to operate on the good faith assumption you're there for a long time, not a not a good time, right? So, but I just think that very first piece of information is very important.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, I think some of this is about the team. So we can also set our own vision and direction. And I'm not saying that that is devoid of what the direction of government is, but um a couple of things to check here, preferably without asking the team if you can, just from an annoying them perspective, is have they been through various business plans and processes that were done to tick a box and never delivered on? Is that part of their lack of enthusiasm? Um, did they once have a vision? Did they once have a mission? Did they have a program? Did they have a program logic? And then that person left and it all just died. Because um what you don't want to do is be like, hi, I'm the first person who's ever thought about putting some direction around this when this team of 30 people are then going to look at you and go, No, you're not lady.
SPEAKER_00:Like such a good point, Debbie.
SPEAKER_03:You want it, and sometimes you can't find it in the filing, and then you try and find the nicest person in the team to say what have you done before, or like try and kind of keep it on the low down low. But you want to check what has happened in the last few years because sometimes people have had like multiple directions, and that is one of the reasons they won't set a direction with you because they're like, Yeah, this will last for another two weeks, I'm not doing it. I think the other thing is often staff have never been asked, and managers. So if there's 30 people, you've probably got maybe a couple of managers. You don't usually have 30 direct reports, but you know, sometimes you do. So you're seeing your team, even if you are a senior manager, there might be two kind of team leaders or something. You want to start really solidifying that bit first, um, those relationships and that kind of thing, and starting that process of what have you put up that got killed? Why did you think it got knocked back? Um, because again, the suspicion of teams getting new leaders and them being especially enthusiastic and energetic new leaders will often be met by a wall of resistance because we've tried everything before, and then you know that that's your job to conquer. Now you've got a whole different approach. If it that's never happened and they're just desperate for someone to tell them what their job is. So you don't want to be beholden to history, and you certainly don't want to be beholden to so-and-so is bad at their job and stuff because, like, you don't know that yet, you haven't tried them. That's my strongest thing. I believe in references, but when you inherit teams, I actually don't want that much information from people about my team. I will figure out who is good based on my own things that I value in good performers. Um and so, yeah.
SPEAKER_02:If it helps you have a little context here, the previous boss that was fired didn't have a strategy or direction. And by all accounts, in your best search of the electronic document management system, didn't really do you anything except sit in their office with the door closed. Uh but that other person that applied, uh, they were acting in the role while the recruitment was underway, and they had a very uh clear and contrary vision about where the team developed.
SPEAKER_01:See, I think so. Can I oh that's I will go first because I have been in this situation where, like, you know, I I think I've talked about coming in and there was like a functional review underway, which was code for we don't have a kind of strategic vision, so we're looking at what we do now, which I think is very much the worst way to start this conversation, like just to kind of let's map everything and then we'll work out our vision from there. I think the best starting point is a conversation with your senior leaders, not in a formal sense, but in a kind of informal of what do we look like at our best? What do we think our best impact is? Like, where do we think we are at our best? And then my commitment to you, senior leaders, is I'm just gonna go and test that quietly with the secretary and with the thing and sort of see like, is that along the right track or is that something different? And I think once you've got a bit of a sense of kind of the scope of where your division is best, and that's kind of come up from your leadership and it kind of matches a little bit what you think your authorizing environment is, that's when I think you can start having a more formal conversation with the rest of the division around, you know, well, here team, this is what I'm thinking.
SPEAKER_03:I was going somewhere really different and kind of less vision-y and practical, which is if you get that intel that the last person was a door locked, didn't have team meetings, and I've inherited teams where they hadn't literally seen, and I don't mean their secretary, I mean they're like line boss.
SPEAKER_05:Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER_03:They see them twice a year or something. The first thing is you're like, oh, they're gonna be really excited to see me. You need to really think about what signals they've been given, right? So they've never been told that what they're doing isn't meeting the mark. So as far as they're concerned, their way forward has been like covering all bases. And your sudden, I'm gonna do a one-on-one with everybody, and then we're gonna do this, and then we're gonna do that, can feel really assaulting and can feel a lot like you don't trust them, or so you said to be very, it doesn't mean you don't do it. I'm just saying you have to be very careful that your own assumptions, like, oh, they've been neglected, so therefore they're gonna love all my love. There are multiple ways that can land. Sometimes that will be true, but sometimes they will be like, I have been left alone, and that was like to my perfect contentment. And who the hell do you think you are with like weekly wrap-ups and team meetings and whatever else? So I just one of the things I always say, regardless of whether the team is high performing or or low performing, is your team will work for their last boss for a good year after you've been sending signals to the contrary. So they are working to a different set of signals. And if those signals are never send me a problem, never whatever, they will keep doing that. And you saying in your third day, I love problems, bring them to me, is not going to be enough to change that culture. Like you got to keep doing it over and over again.
SPEAKER_02:Uh, that's such a good segue into the next bit. But while you're in the middle of this I didn't look while you're in the middle of doing all of this kind of um thinking and discussing and working about your authorizing environment and vision and purpose, uh, you get a call from DPC. Uh uh, you've been in the role for about two months, three months at this point. They're annoyed by the requirement that was established at the same time your section was established, for all of the programs to consider, for all government programs to consider the impact uh on your particular group of vulnerable stakeholders, and they're desperate for you to kill it. Thoughts?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, so I have strong thoughts about this. Like, firstly, I would say a heart DPC. Is this the ASO3 who is just sick of processing the coro, or is this the premier? Because there are really different uh versions of whether I care about your feedback. I wouldn't say that out loud, but I would be checking that out. But I think I'm gonna take a cue out of Danielle's book. I would turn this into a brilliant opportunity for what do our stakeholders want from us? Like what, and I mean internal government stakeholders. Like I would be like, oh yeah, gosh, I imagine our veterans' impact statements are very clunky. Um, I also imagine, of course, it would be a bit unpopular if we got rid of the veteran impact statement because you know it was like a political thing. How about I'll sit down with some of my excellent colleagues and we'll talk about, like, like colleagues in other agencies, the people who are being impacted by this, and we'll talk about what they're looking for in that. And then my team can come along in those and we can sort of hear how we are helpful in that. Like, I just think this is such a great opportunity to go get more information and to reform your process at the same time with a bit of stick on the edge that like maybe we're about to lose our our extra special powers, and that'll get the team on on side. I agree.
SPEAKER_02:See, I have a different view, which is like this is not the most important thing right now. Like, I'd want to know where it was coming from, like you, like, is it the premiere or is it the ASO3? And those are different, but but to the extent that it's not coming from the premiere, my view is like I'm eating a big elephant, and I'll get to that one. But right now, yeah, I need to work on getting my team to understand who they are, what they do, and why they do it and doing it well, and that is a distraction from that task.
SPEAKER_01:Yep, I agree with that. Like, if it is, even if it's not the ASO3, but even if it's just the sort of subject line director in in Cabner Office who's like, we've always thought this is an opportunity, and now we've got you as a friendly face. I would definitely be like, Yeah, sure, but my friendly face isn't friendly when you ask me this, because I'm doing this other bit of important culture work.
SPEAKER_02:So we're getting we're getting somewhere, right? Uh, you're finally making headway. You've hired an incredible 2IC who is competent, calm, and quietly fierce, uh, the kind of person who makes you wonder how you ever survived without them. Your team are clear about what good looks like and what the section does and how it adds value to stakeholders inside and outside of government. And you're all working together to make improvements to her performance. You're all working together except for Nicola. Nicola's work is fine. It's fine. She delivers deficient enough quality work on time. Genuinely no issues with her work product. But what there is an issue with is her attitude. She wears her bitterness like perfume. She operates in that maddening sweet spot between not technically misconduct and spiritually corrosive. And she's almost made that her personal brand. She's cultivated a sort of emotional black market where staff go to her with complaints and she fuels them further, uh, gently undermining you all the way with comments like, No wonder you're overwhelmed. Our priorities keep changing every five minutes. Oh no, dear. We've never had this level of chaos before. She participates in team meetings but does so with crossed arms and rolled eyes. Is convinced the star survey is a conspiracy and is building a growing cabal of followers. What are we doing about Nicola?
SPEAKER_03:Firstly, I do think that some of these might need to come with a trigger warning.
SPEAKER_02:Um they also found it triggering, so apologies.
SPEAKER_03:Okay, because I as you were talking, I was like having flashes with faces and scary feelings. So for managers out there, like firstly, we might put one up the top of the episode. Secondly, we have all had this person. Um, a couple of things on this person. Firstly, um, I'm gonna take very seriously that they're in that not technically misconduct because these are the people that are the hardest.
SPEAKER_02:Technically misconduct, nothing.
SPEAKER_03:They have not done a single thing that you can performance manage them from. They send you perfectly adequate work by deadline, la la la la la. Um like grappled with this. I don't think any of us have landed, I've never seen anyone do it perfectly. I think a couple of things. Um, head-on doesn't work very well. I think the cultural and team norms across the board can work better because otherwise it becomes a bit of a you're going after Nicola. And if she's got a growing cabal of followers, that will actually reinforce the surliness if you bring her in and say, look, we're on a journey, everyone's trying hard. I'd love it if you could like think of something positive to say in the team meeting as we move forward.
SPEAKER_02:Um toxic positivity is what you'll be accused of then, Danielle.
SPEAKER_03:Go straight out the door, um, and you're reinforcing it. So I think with those people, one of the best things you can do is I don't want to sound manipulated, but line up the numbers against it. So have as many other people operating differently because you've been talking about how it is you work, you're setting an example of where you can like have a vent of your feelings. Like, you know, in the team meeting where you can go, ministers change their mind again, but it's good public servants, we're gonna do this. Someone else laughs, someone else makes a joke. Yeah. Which is a very different approach to like surly, toxic, nasty. So I, as a general rule, don't take them head on because you can take them head on if you've got like something you can do something with from a HR perspective, but if you don't, I try and like work on a volumetric basis to dilute them as much as possible. Interesting. I reckon I got something more specific.
SPEAKER_01:No, no, no, no, no. I think it depends, right? If they report to me, it's different than if they don't report to me. Because if they report to me, they spend a lot of time with me. And I, in that context, um I try to be as open and kind of clear about my values and kind of the way I go about work as I can, with the hope that um it makes them quite uncomfortable. So, like that when they're saying things like, Oh, well, of course, you know, it's the minister changing his mind again. It's like, yeah, you know, but actually what I really need us to do is I need us to hold a straight face when we're talking to the team about that, because it's really unhelpful when we don't do that, because that's part of our journey, right? So, like if they're if they're your direct report, I think there, I think there is a kind of hug them close and make them really, really, really, really, really part of all of your thinking, like just talk out loud all the time. It's a high-risk strategy because of course you will give them material to use against you. And I think that's where your volumetric strategy is, Danielle. It's like, I just I personally believe that if you act with integrity in enough places, like even if you make a mistake and say something in front of them and they can use it against you, people will be like, oh yeah, but like actually she's mostly fine. So that's one thought. Second thought is I think try to understand what Nicola's aspirations are. I think there's something about kind of you know, a really straightforward conversation, which is like, hey, Nicola, I can tell you've you've been through this 700 times. You don't want to do it 701. I totally get that, right? Where do you see your future is? Because I am here to help you find your future. And like I am really happy to kind of give you a paid secondment somewhere else. I'm really happy to kind of think about what that looks like. And in a genuinely to your point, Danielle, about like you shouldn't judge people from their context. Sometimes people are shits because of their context, and often nicolas are shits because of where they've come from, and so you can be like in a different context, they will be okay. And so I just think something about trying to find out their aspirations, trying to find them a pathway out, that feels to me like the kind of other pathway. Yeah.
SPEAKER_03:I don't disagree with that, but the first thing I'm thinking is she goes back out to her cabal and she's like, Yeah, Caroline's trying to get rid of me, she's offered me a second. And you just be on it.
SPEAKER_04:I'll be here long after she's gone and I'm gonna hang out.
SPEAKER_02:And I will work with anyone else who has a career aspiration that I can help them with.
SPEAKER_01:That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And if she's going around telling people I'll be gone in two years, I think it's like, look, my plan is to be here, but actually, do you know what my plan is? That we are a happy, motivated, purposeful team that's kicking goals. And that is what we're doing here, and I can see we're all excited about it.
SPEAKER_02:Yep. So uh I I guess the only other thing I want to add to that is for anyone who's currently experiencing this or has experienced it, it just it feels awful. It's awful. It does. It's like it feels gross in your tummy. You don't want to have to talk to Nicola. The temptation is to avoid talking to her or engaging with her, but you cannot approach it that way as revolting as it feels.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, in fact, you're making me think, Alison, here, about just um, and maybe we can find the chain, but there was a kind of unfair dismissal claim that went through the Commonwealth. I can't remember what the department was.
SPEAKER_02:I know the exact one that you're talking about.
SPEAKER_01:You know the exact one, right? And you can read the emails from the EL1s and the EL2s who sat down with this person who was clearly really hard to work with and really combative, and they were just kind and thoughtful and responsive time and time again, and it was just incredibly hard work. And then at the end, you know, it ended with a kind of, you know, this went into the HR kind of IR space. But I just think so, one, it's icky, it's uncomfortable, no one likes conflict. Conflict is important if it is taking you where you need to be. Not having conflict is actually really damaging to lots of people, including your early adopters who are on board with your vision. Like you are letting them down if you let Nicola kind of behave like that in public all the time. So you've got to do something, even if it's gross. Two, don't let your feelings get away from you. Like you have to have, like what you could tell from that coro was that the EL1 and the EL2 were clearly like really thoughtfully designing how they approached the interaction with the person. So don't, you know, like make sure you've got an auto, make sure you've got a boss, make sure you've got someone who you can talk through it with so that you do do the right sorts of conversations along the way and don't kind of get trapped into kind of some kind of drama. Um, and then three, documentation, because although it isn't in an IR space at the moment, it goes to an IR space very quickly.
SPEAKER_02:And I've long thought, and we'll find it and put it in the show notes. But the emails that those public sector leaders wrote to this kind of problematic, we're like gold standard, everyone should read that.
SPEAKER_03:Totally.
unknown:Yeah.
SPEAKER_03:I just want to go back to your thing though, Alison. Like I appreciate what you just said, Caroline, but I am probably one of my greatest weaknesses is being quite conflict diverse generally. Um and this type of stuff is the hardest stuff if you are, if you are by nature very conflict diverse.
SPEAKER_02:All right, let's bring it to an end. Six months, uh it's six months since your first day. It took longer than you imagined and more of an investment in external training providers than you were used to. But actually, the team are making real progress, they're working harmoniously, and you've grown a lot as a leader. But remember that team you loved that you were working with before, the high-performing ones that you left behind? Well, they've been eating it hard since you left. The micromanaging boss you were shielding them from has been interfering, insulting, and all around difficult. When they push back against it, they were told that they had been coddled by before, implication by you, uh, and to get used to it. People are starting to cry at work in the toilets on a regular basis. And the other execs at your old agency are too busy fighting with each other to notice. Your old staff are thinking of making a formal complaint and they want you to join them. Do you?
SPEAKER_00:Holy shit, Alison! This is not the U-turn I expected at the end of this story.
SPEAKER_03:Can I? Before we go anywhere, just I just had this brilliant idea. Instead of doing PME, S, Your Voice Manners, and all the names of all the surveys, maybe we just have a thing in the toilets where you're like, like when you leave the like when you leave the servo.
SPEAKER_04:Did you click?
SPEAKER_02:Did you not click the happy button or the sad button?
SPEAKER_03:And that is in fact it would be cheaper. Um, and that was so we don't ask 99-page servo questions anymore. We're just gonna have a thing in the bathrooms. Did you cry today? Yes, no, that's how we're gonna tell going forward. Yeah, this took quite the turn. Um, two things. I'm in two minds. My first one is be very careful at meddling in your old teens. I'm like that's mind new leaders and whatever else. The second part of it though is you are presuming that you are in a place now where like you do have bosses who back you, you're in a really kind of safe, you're not in your own trouble, you are in the best position to support people who want to make a complaint because you're not directly in the line of fire. So if you are meritocracy convinced that this meets the test under whatever definition is required to complain about it, you are potentially like the best support person to be a part of that process because on your day-to-day life, you've got a completely different boss, completely different team, completely different everything. So I'm kind of in two minds.
SPEAKER_02:So I put this one in because it was a genuine line ball, and I don't think there is a right answer. I like on the one hand, I think express caution about meddling in things that you're no longer a part of and you haven't been there for six months, and you can't actually speak to what's been happening in that time at the same time. You have the advantage of knowing those people well and being out of the kind of um sphere of influence of of some of those managers and executives, and maybe best placed to support them.
SPEAKER_03:There is no it has to relate to your time in the role, it cannot relate to anything that isn't in your time in the role, just as a matter of kind of principle. Um, so firstly, the only way you can even consider it is if you are like, look, I shielded them um and didn't do anything formal about it, but I have XYZ five examples that were clear misconduct or clear something else that I didn't do at the time. So it can't be about things you've heard that have happened after you you left. Um, so it still has to be about your time in the joint. We all know that formal complaints, you know, they're the answer to everything, and yet like we there's still reputational issues to consider, there are still troublemaker issues to consider. Um I think it depends on how bad it is, how much you feel responsible for perhaps not doing anything while you were there and going, well, while I'm here, I can keep people safe and that'll do.
SPEAKER_01:Um yeah, I I think Danielle, to your sorry, to your point about like definitely I think kind of um being clear to the team that it's not the only place in the world to work and that there are good places in the world, both with you and with other good people that you know, and like connecting people to opportunities is really helpful. I think I would kind of as a default go so far as to say, I'm not willing to join your complaint, but obviously you should tell whoever is receiving the investigation that like I'm a relevant witness to things that happened before, and so like I'm perfectly happy to be interviewed about my time and offer my reflections about my time. Um, but I'm not willing to make a complaint because I wasn't willing to make a complaint then, right? Like I didn't think it was sufficient when I was there to make a complaint, and so I, you know, like the idea that I would now suddenly think what I experience triggers over into it is a no, you know, no, no. Yeah, fair, fair.
SPEAKER_03:No, no, no, no, no, no. Because a couple of things. You often don't know you're in a crazy cult or a crazy environment until you go somewhere where things are, where behaviour is better, and then you are like, what on earth was I in before? And how did I live in that thinking that was okay? Um, and secondly, you're making the assumption that every single manager and leader in the public service has the personal bottle and doesn't have heaps of other stuff going on that the minute they see something that makes that test, that you will do it while you're sitting in the job. So I think that that's a very high bar to ask people to No, and I think that's a good point about like this is why it's such a personal question, right?
SPEAKER_01:Like it is such a personal question because what you would have like like what has your journey been emotionally since you left? What have you learned about yourself since you left? What have you learned about what was happening since you left? Like, I just think there's like a whole thing there. I do think it is as a chronic meddler, I chronically meddle in my old teams. Like, oh my God, I just pity anyone who has ever taken a job that I have had. In fact, I had a coffee with one of them last week. God bless him. He's so patient. He's like, I just wanted to tell you, I'm doing this thing. And I know you said to me one time that like you would do exactly the opposite and you wish you hadn't. And I just thought I'd let you know. And I'm like, yeah, because of course, like, I'm such a meddler that you have to tell me because otherwise I'll be like, why did anyway? Um, chronic meddling. Actually, meddling is quite unhelpful. Um, and so unless you are happy to like, I think there's something about are you able to say something actually to your old leader? Like, I've had some reflections about our time working together. And now that I work in this different environment, I have noticed that actually my new leader is much less on this. And I wish I had provided you that feedback at the time. So, like just FYI. Like, I think there is some meddling that could be quite helpful, but generally I think don't meddle, offer safe harbour, be a truthful and accurate witness if called upon, but don't do a proactive thing unless unless you look back at it and you're like, actually, I see a thing that really contravenes my ethics, which is a that is a different question. That's not sort of what I feel like this is getting at.
SPEAKER_02:But I kind of put this one in because a lot of times in management scenarios, there is a good way and a better way and a best way. And on this one, there just isn't, right? There's what is right for you and what is right for the circumstances. Take advice from your friends and colleagues and decide accordingly. Any final thoughts on the other thing? But don't underestimate the risk.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, well, just don't underestimate the risk of going in on the complaint, right? Like I really think it is it is, you know, like I'm a black and white kind of rulesy person sometimes, but it is a high-risk thing to go in on a complaint about something that you're no longer there for. So you really want to think about that carefully.
SPEAKER_02:So that brings us to the end of the inheritance uh scenario that too many of us have found ourselves in. Our mug winner for this week is the wonderful Simon Corden, such a longtime follower and supporter of the podcast, that this mug is, frankly, overdue. Our bad, and we'll throw in a stubby holder to make up for it. Till next time.
SPEAKER_01:Just some appropriately bureaucratic disclaimers. While we've tried to be as thorough in our research as busy full time jobs and lives allow, we definitely don't guarantee that we've got all the details right. Please feel free to email us corrections, episode suggestions, or anything else at the Westminster Tradition Pod at gmail.com. Thanks to PamPot Audio for our intro and outro music. Till next time.