Authorising Environment

15/02/2024

I am doing a series at the moment called the kāwana series. The kāwana series is for those who want to understand the work of the executive better.

It focuses on the tension between democracy and bureaucracy, including how and where the lines between politics and public management are drawn. This is an enduring debate—it’s not new. However, it has produced several frameworks that enable outsiders to see inside. Last week, I called attention to the “purple zone.” This week, I offer the “authorising environment.”

Not unlike the public sector bargain and purple zones, which were both developed by Kiwis, the idea of the authorising environment developed alongside the literature on public value.

Public value has emerged as a cornerstone of public administration in Aotearoa-New Zealand, thanks mainly to the Australia and New Zealand School of Government’s three-week residential Executive Fellows Program.

The authorising environment, or as Mark Moore suggests, the space from which public organisations draw their legitimacy and support, includes formal and informal aspects. All of it can be said to include the authorising environment. It is dynamic. It is not set-and-forget.

Formal authority includes those permissions granted through legislation, appropriation, and other statutory, financial or administrative delegations.

These are necessary, and they are insufficient on their own.

Informal authority also plays a key role and includes all the key actors and other institutions that support and consent to the co-production of an outcome, its scope of work, how the outcome is achieved, and the work undertaken.

It includes ministers, associate ministers, political staff, central agencies, other outcome-related departments, portfolio agencies, and often the wide range of non-state stakeholders in the policy advisory system.

Underpinning the idea of informal authority is the assumption that officials have positive relationships with all their informal authorities so that the authorising environment can provide ongoing legitimacy, support and consensus around the outcome and the work.

Without support or consensus, especially from the policy advisory system, the outcome risks not being achieved and the work wasted.

There is much uninformed online commentary on why government engagement and communication functions are necessary.

They are necessary because when the authorising environment is not engaged early and actively managed, it reduces the authorising environment and, therefore, the work’s legitimacy.

Creating a positive authorising environment involves generating support and buy-in from those who can create the governance and decision-making environment at critical moments. That means all the decision-holders – not just the state.

Authority in the form of a Cabinet decision, a deeply invested minister, or a supportive chief executive can be a great tool to drive action.

Equally, an active iwi or hapū or a well-resourced lobbying effort can be helpful if resources need to be marshalled or a critical decision taken.

It is possible to manage the authorising environment.

It is done through regular engagement and status updates. It is also done by supporting new decision-makers to join or reshape the journey.

Those who fail to nurture and maintain their authorising environment often find their outcome and work without support or buy-in at critical decision-making moments.