Making collaboration real: Practical moves that unlock the potential of the APS middle-tier

As we discussed in the first of this two-part series, there is broad agreement that the APS needs to, and would greatly benefit from, more collaboration. Yet the pressures are such that the instinct can be to work in isolated ways and become inwardly focused, which can breed a sense of helplessness and defensiveness across the system. 

From Nous’ extensive leadership work across government, we know that many leaders – particularly at the EL1/EL2 level – are asking: “What does the exercise of leadership look like in this moment? How do I exert influence across a complex system to drive meaningful and enduring outcomes?”

This piece translates what we have observed into practical moves that leaders can use to reduce (or productively use) friction in working across boundaries, enabling collective problem-solving in pursuit of public value.

Calls for collaboration have become "motherhood" statements: everyone endorses the idea in principle but have different views about what this looks like in practice. Cross-agency (or cross-department or cross-jurisdiction) work is challenging for predictable reasons: unclear decision rights, conflicting incentives, mismatched timeframes, and the absence of a shared picture of what good actually looks like. While it can be convenient to explain the challenges of collaboration through the lens of a flawed system, it is more useful to notice these as system conditions and respond accordingly.

That is why the middle matters. EL1/EL2 leaders are often the system’s integrators: they translate the intent of ministers, agency heads and senior leaders into action on the ground. They negotiate the finer details (where the "devil" lives) and manage relationships where collaboration either happens or breaks down. When executive leaders are supported to think systemically, the difference is visible in weeks, not years.

The essence of collaboration is ‘working together for a common goal’. In practice, however, the term collaboration is often used as a proxy for positive relationships in the workplace, regular engagement or strong information flows. Too often, leaders who are trying to be collaborative include everybody in every engagement and leaders focused on execution discard collaborative practices in service of speed. 

True collaboration requires parties to answer a basic question in the same way: “What are we trying to achieve together?” If the shared goal can’t be defined in plain language, it’s time to get specific. Leaders should surface differences in the perspectives of collaboration partners in order to find the common ground, name non-negotiables (legal duties, safety, treaty commitments, time-critical milestones) and be specific about the boundaries of this particular collaboration.

When executive leaders shift from “my remit” to “our system,” collaboration becomes grounded in a broader strategic picture. Public servants are already expert at operating with complex, and often overlapping systems (e.g. the innovation system, the economic development system, the employment services system, the regional development system). System stewardship recognises that these systems are only partially, and imperfectly, subject to direct government control and therefore governments need to influence system outcomes by engaging a wider range of system actors and supporting them to operate in a way that meets overlapping or shared objectives. 

Executive leaders can best optimise collaboration when they get curious about who has an interest in a particular domain and map where those interests coincide, if not in the short term, then in the longer term. Blockers to collaboration can be unlocked when leaders actively seek to understand the what the risk landscape looks like from each person’s vantage point. With a clear-eyed perspective of the incentives and potential losses in the system, leaders can more productively identify how and when to engage partners to join-up effort or agendas and negotiate trade-offs. 

Many collaboration failures are really governance failures. Committees get established but drift, devolving into information-sharing forums where participants present positions rather than engage in a more open debate. Agendas become over-long and work becomes focused on papers and other outputs rather than outcomes. Essentially, they are used for coordination rather than collaboration. 

This invites questions about how they are structured and for what purpose. Think about the potential distinctive value and contribution of the governance group you are establishing or are a part of. You do not need to be the chair to influence how the work is prioritised and meeting time is best used. Model transparency and a willingness to engage, take a genuine interest in others’ perspectives, suggest including additional voices, challenge understanding of what progress or success looks like. Such conversations foster collaborative and more productive endeavour, rather than set-piece exchanges of views and lengthy discussions about process.

Leaders need to get diagnostic about where collaboration is actually breaking down in their teams, divisions, and organisations. That means looking beyond the immediate task to ask where clarity is missing, where accountability is blurred, where decision rights are uncertain, and where different parts of the system may be working to different goals or timeframes.

Rather than rushing to produce another artefact, a more useful move might be to surface the patterns shaping the work: what risks are driving behaviour, where incentives are colliding, which milestones are vulnerable to slipping, and what information is not travelling to the people who need it in time. This kind of diagnosis gives leaders a clearer view of what the collaboration actually requires.

It also means paying close attention to how people are behaving under pressure. When issues are raised late, disagreement is pushed aside, or teams retreat into narrow remits, those are signals about the system that go beyond mere interpersonal problems. Leaders who maintain that diagnostic mindset are better placed to reassess priorities, adapt their approach, and intervene before collaboration quietly drifts off course.

In pressured systems, collaboration rarely fails because people lack commitment. It fails because the conditions for collaboration are missing. The good news is that many of those conditions – clarity, cadence, decision rights, shared risk, and trust – are buildable. When leaders treat them as part of delivery, not separate from it, the system becomes better able to handle the pressure that is already here.

Get in touch to discuss practical ways to build collaborative capability and embed shared behaviours in your team’s everyday work. 

Connect with Philippa Prothero, and Tanya Smith on LinkedIn.

Read the first article in our two-part series on collaboration in the APS here.