This post is written by Sharon Rosenrauch, Senior Behavioural Scientist at the Australian Federal Government, and Damian Carmichael, Stakeholder Engagement Lead at the Australian Federal Government.

  • The problem: Some public servants are reluctant to engage with the public in open and meaningful ways.
  • Why it matters: Failing to engage the public in meaningful and open ways risks not grasping a full understanding of many issues.
  • The solution: An understanding of behavioural insights may help in identifying certain cognitive biases responsible for any reluctance towards more open and meaningful engagement.

Issues arise when heuristics are misapplied. This can lead to cognitive biases, or errors in decision-making that can lead to undesirable behaviour.

Public engagement is an important part of being a public servant–the problems public servants face are too daunting and complex to solve alone. But just because that’s true in principle doesn’t mean everyone does it.

Take for example Alice Whitehead’s excellent article ‘There’s a reason not everyone loves citizen engagement’, which sets out a number of practical challenges when trying to engage the public–and Lenihan and Carmichael’s reply. Both make valid points, and maybe you’re more inclined toward one view over the other. For many, the jury is still out.

Could behavioural insights help shed some light on the topic? Heuristics are ‘rules of thumb’ that our brains have developed to help us cope with the complexities of the world. It is a good thing we have them, as they help us operate in the face of constant information overload. Having said that, issues arise when heuristics are misapplied. This can lead to cognitive biases, or errors in decision-making that can lead to undesirable behaviour.

How to behave correctly

Given the profound impact heuristics and biases have on decision-making, the application of a behavioural insights lens may shed some light on why some public servants are reluctant to engage in more open and meaningful ways, while also providing practical suggestions for how to increase motivation to do so. Behavioural insights challenges some of the more traditional assumptions surrounding decision-making, recognising that human behaviour is quite complex. Not only do individual differences play a big role in shaping our behaviour, but we can also be at times irrational in our decision-making.

From a behavioural perspective, engaging others makes sense. Say we think a particular policy initiative, such as the provision of cash rebates to encourage the purchase of energy efficient items, would be effective at encouraging (or nudging) certain citizen behaviour.

Why not ask a sample of these citizens (who will ultimately be impacted) what they think?: Would this work? If not, why not? Is money their sole motivator when purchasing household goods or are there other considerations, like quality and brand? What would be a better alternative to cash rebates? The difference between engaging and not could mean the difference between the policy having the intended impact or having no (or even worse, the opposite) outcome. Here, the benefit from engaging would extend beyond any personal gain to a more broadly shared beneficial outcome.

Making a meaningful difference

While in theory meaningful engagement approaches make sense, practically, as Whitehead clearly articulates in her article, these are rarely applied to government decision-making. Undoubtedly in such contexts there are practical considerations at play–such as limited resources, competing priorities and tight deadlines. There are also certain sensitivities, like Cabinet confidentiality, that exclude public engagement for good reason (e.g. national security considerations). Nevertheless, certain internal factors may be equally if not more potent in driving reluctance towards greater engagement, even in appropriate circumstances where there is indubitable benefit to be gained. To date, these internal factors have not been given the same airtime as the more overt resources argument.

As humans we have a preference to maintain our current or previous state, commonly known as the status quo bias. A government report revealed that even when practical considerations like time and resources allow for engagement, sampled Australian public servants tend to default to consultation as their preferred engagement method. This appears to be the case even when the context would benefit from a more open and meaningful process. Why? Well, it’s easy, it’s faster, but (more importantly), it’s what they’re used to and have always done.

People tend to overvalue immediate rewards, while putting less worth in long-term consequences. Known as the present bias, this commonly observed behavioural disposition is prevalent in the public service where external pressures result in an acceptance of “good enough”. Consultation, the current option of choice, kind of gets what we need, even if it’s not optimising outcomes … it’s better than nothing. This box-ticking tendency can be a difficult one to overcome because the present is tangible, while the future is abstract and hypothetical. However tough this natural inclination may be to buffer against, it is not impossible.

To overcome this ask yourself “can I place some kind of incentive upfront, however small, since it will have a disproportionate impact?” Frame any business case by highlighting immediate, tangible benefits e.g., “by engaging in more meaningful ways now we are building capability in our workforce and may be able to uncover new learnings that will help in the design of a policy that is fit-for-purpose”.

Messages of encouragement for more open processes could come from significant messengers within the public service–senior executives and key decision-makers.

Supercharging social networks

Triggers of engagement are also often located in social networks–both institutionalised and informal. Having an initial “push” from someone else, particularly an influential messenger (a source of authority, credibility, or likeability) is more likely to see us follow through with our intentions to engage. We are also more likely to mimic the behaviour of people we perceive to be like us. Thus, messages of encouragement for more open processes could come from significant messengers within the public service–senior executives and key decision-makers. It’s important to note that people are more likely to copy behaviour that is overt (given our preference for all things visual), so if these influential messengers can be seen to be role-modelling the behaviour, even better!

But wait. Aren’t these leaders humans themselves?! Aren’t they vulnerable to the same biases? They sure are! This means that getting these messengers on board will take a bit of work. One of the most powerful tools in our behavioural insights toolkit is our tendency to feel losses psychologically much more than equivalent gains. Traditionally, public servants argue their business case for change by stressing the benefits to be gained by doing X. A more effective tack might be to reframe our messaging to leverage loss aversion by stressing the drawbacks of not engaging “we’ll be left behind as government moves towards a more citizen-centric model”, “think of the missed opportunity”, “the policy may not have the intended outcome” … you get the idea.

Social context is another major driver of decisions. We generally want to do what others expect from us, or what others are already doing. This technique is even more impactful if leaders are made aware that ‘others’ like them have already responded to an ever-changing policy context, and they are therefore late to the party (FOMO is a thing!). Drawing on government expectations for greater citizen engagement and examples from other areas within the public service or international counterparts will add a new level of persuasiveness to any business case.

How to make more meaningful engagement

Overall, consideration of internal motivation is important when observing why engagement in a public service context has been lacking to date. Despite the many benefits to come from public servants engaging in more open and meaningful ways–such as diversity of opinion, knowledge exchange, reciprocal relationships being established, having access to a broader range of subject matter expertise etc.–they are often reluctant to do so, partially due to certain biases. Behavioural insights may also explain why, when public servants do engage, they tend to use the same (often less effective) approaches.

The good news is that–to a certain extent–cognitive biases are predictable. This means strategies can be put in place, either to reduce their likelihood of occurrence or to dampen their impact. By engaging in more meaningful ways we are bringing the people that the policy affects into the process of designing a solution. This will create a sense of ownership and better policy outcomes, ultimately enhancing individual and communal wellbeing.

Want to learn more?

👋 You can create a post like this one! Share your thoughts with a community of public servants. Learn more

(Image Credit: Unsplash)