Part 3: Governments need more creative upskilling solutions

This article is written by Shira Honig. Shira Honig is a dual Canadian-American citizen working as a senior data policy advisor in the Ontario Government and is a graduate of NYU's Wagner School of Public Service. She is Co-Chair of the Education Committee at the Technologists for the Public Good and recently contributed to Apolitical's course, Digital Fundamentals of Government.

The problem: Upskilling programmes in government exist, but they are often ineffective at building digital maturity at scale.
Why it matters: Increasing digital maturity at scale is critical to government success in the digital age.
The solution: There is no one-size-fits-all solution. But thoughtful and purposeful design should be front and centre

And yet, if you are not going to change, the world will do so anyway, and you will have no choice but to follow.

In my previous post in this series, I looked at some common approaches to training in government, and described how they aren’t necessarily effective in accomplishing the large-scale changes required to increase government’s level of digital maturity.

In December 2020, Bill Hunt wrote an excellent 3-part series of IT policy recommendations about his ideas for improving technology practice in the U.S. federal government. In his second post on hiring, he argued that it’s not enough to train government staff for a few short weeks on a skill or field new to them, such as cybersecurity, but that long-term apprenticeship programmes are needed to give staff a meaningful, hands-on experience.

There’s no substitute for first-hand learning

Advancing the digital skills of government staff and leadership to meet people’s current expectations is like learning anything else: there’s no substitute for immersion and first-hand experience.

There’s a wide variety of apprenticeship programmes out there–but there could be more. Current programmes tend to focus on specific skilled industries–“blue collar” fields such as hospitality, construction, plumbing, or carpentry. Often they’re government-run programmes that provide training to the general public in sectors where there is an urgent need for new entrants. Occasionally, they’re designed to encourage people from a specific community to enter a specific industry, such as the Government of Canada’s IT Apprenticeship programme for Indigenous Peoples. And sometimes, like the Federal Cyber Reskilling Academy in the U.S. federal government that Bill Hunt discussed, they’re too short.

In any event, only the American Federal Cyber Reskilling Academy is meant to train existing government employees.

Implementing long-term programmes would not be easy

Upskilling existing government employees through a long-term apprenticeship programme would not be easy: the amount of resources required to take away one person for a year or two, when resources are already thin and talent retention (let alone hiring) is an ongoing concern, is more than most teams can afford.

But accomplishing anything substantial is never easy, least of all in government. Resources will always be thin, even in large ministries and agencies, and the problem of retention isn’t going away–if anything, it’s getting worse. So sacrificing something is necessary, and immersion is by far the best principle upon which to build.

The challenges, and importance, of breaking out of the status quo

If leaders and managers are not satisfied with the status quo, the best alternative is to think differently: particularly about human resources, beyond what some remarkable civic tech leaders are already doing (for example, creating simpler job descriptions, and putting into place teams that are cross-functional and therefore more effective).

To be fair, some significant constraints within government organisations are out of the hands of middle management and even some executives. In some governments, unions hold a strong influence on job standardisation and a focus on seniority over skill.

Yet there are ways leadership can think creatively beyond or within these constraints, and indeed, to find ways to discuss these issues with union leadership, whose interests lie in maintaining membership (which correlates with, among other things, talent retention).

Mandatory instead of voluntary?

It’s pretty apparent that while individuals (including myself) have benefitted from courses, voluntary approaches aren’t enough to fill the skills gap.

At the same time, dragging people kicking and screaming is no answer either. Mandatory programmes can lead to frustration and resentment. And just because a programme is mandatory doesn’t automatically make it high quality, or effective at changing behaviour.

Interestingly, some governments require all employees take certain courses on subjects they deem essential, such as compliance with accessibility standards or training on subjects related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging. While these courses may increase knowledge, it’s not clear how effective they are at changing behaviour. To my knowledge, pre- and post- behaviour is not being measured.

Lead or follow?

And yet, if you are not going to change, the world will do so anyway, and you will have no choice but to follow.

COVID-19 showed this vividly: most government offices had no choice but to react. They hadn’t initiated remote work or technology prior to the pandemic, and they largely weren't prepared for it. Only the few ministries or agencies already working remotely and digitally when COVID-19 hit were the most nimble in those early critical weeks and months (and in most cases, they continue to have greater effectiveness and higher staff retention).

So the question is, if a mandatory programme won’t work, is there a way to achieve change at scale through incentives and purposeful design?

Search