Module Two: How do we understand public value?

TOPIC 2.7: What is Strategic and Political Acumen?

Political nous or acumen defined

Values traditionally important to the public sector include those that have to do with being ‘professional’ and ‘independent’ with increasing emphasis being placed on being ‘responsive’. How to be politically responsive, while remaining neutral, requires a lot of skill, and is discussed in the following topic.

For PSMP purposes we have broadly defined political acumen as the skills, knowledge and to communicate with ethical influence on government so as to create Public Value. It is the specific application of strategic acumen involving individual thinking and action to understand the external and internal forces impacting on the public service activities and effectiveness. It harnesses critical and analytical thinking to help solve complex problems and plan for the future. Developing political acumen is not about the ‘politicisation’ of the public service but the development and use of political awareness to benefit the serving of the public.

Successful managers in any organisation need to be politically strategic in order to ensure the sustainability of their project, program, unit, or organisation. As Jean Hartley notes, there is no agreed term, with people using various terms, including ‘political nous’ ‘political intelligence’, ‘small p politics’, ‘savvy’ and ‘political antennae’ (Hartley, 2017)[1]. But whatever it is called: what exactly is it?

Required
15 mins

Hartley, J. (2017). Politically astute leadership for public managers [Video]. YouTube.

First, it appears not to be a single skill. It’s a combination of people skills, organisational savvy, communications, timely initiative-taking and strategic-awareness that most likely makes one politically astute. In the public sector, you have to be politically astute internally and, also, towards the politics affecting the government of the day. A precise definition to cover all occasions may be impossible and even the experienced practitioner can struggle in an environment where the smallest of errors can create major consequences; an inappropriate wink or inappropriate language towards a policy or a group (‘disputed territory’ versus ‘occupied land’) by the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.

Sadly, political acumen is not merely a problem of definition. Some workplaces are toxic and internal politics can sap the time, and energy of incumbents. In other circumstances, a poor political decision can sink the ship of state (E.g. to renege on a promise.). In a comparative study on institutional failure, researcher Sarah Spencer (2014)[2] analysed six public sector institutions, which performed differently, yet failed, and reported:

Beyond the significance of each institution’s varying remit, powers, structure and resource constraints, leadership and effective management were found to be crucial factors, alongside the political acumen necessary to steer the ship through turbulent times. The institutions may take some comfort from the fact that it is those factors, which are those most within their control.

Australian political life is becoming increasingly turbulent and it is an increasingly necessary requirement for public servants to have political acumen in order to serve their organisation and their Minister.

There is a fine line, however, between being politically astute and managing appropriately, and being a party acolyte or pseudo politician. This is not the public servant’s role. Your constituency is a broad church and you must think for the wider community, for past and future generations as well as for present voters. As Mumford, Gold and Thorpe (2010)[3] have reminded us:

Managers in the public sector are not legitimated to act as politicians: They do not have the authority of the ballot box. But, they may often need to act with political awareness – that is with sensitivity to the diverse interests which are served by particular actions and decisions. … that, is because leaders may need to work with a range of stakeholders who may have diverse interests, values and goals and who may sometimes collaborate but at other times compete. (p542)

Part of being politically astute is being aware of your own values in a contestable environment and stringently checking they are not misguiding you. Hartley, Alford, Hughes and Yates (2013)[4] acknowledging the recent interest in the topic, offer a broader definition of political acumen:

The pervasiveness of politics means that dealing with these challenges puts a premium on political astuteness (also called political ‘savvy’ or ‘nous’ or having political antennae). Managers need to be able to understand their context (at both a micro- and a macro-level), ‘read’ other people’s behaviour, and understand the dynamics of power and, frame decisions and strategies that take these political factors into account. But, surprisingly, political astuteness, until recently, has attracted only modest attention in the management literature. (p7)

Their study of managers in Australia, New Zealand and the UK offers a fine introduction to this topic and should assist your development in this area, if you feel it is lacking.


Sometimes political acumen is better described through describing what it is not. Take the following case as an example.

Case Study: Political Nous – You know it when you don’t see it.

When Nigel heard the news about the Gazetting of the parcel of land on the outskirts of the city in order to build a large area hospital, he rang his friend Des C. Des lived across the creek from the site and Nigel wanted to pass on the news because he had mentioned the prospect of it at a barbeque some time previously when he felt it necessary to attempt to impress some of Dan’s guests with his commercial acumen. Upon hearing the result Des was ecstatic over the telephone and Nigel was most impressed that his friend got so much delight from someone else’s success.

He put down the handset and virtually ran to chair a meeting, only to find he was the last person there and had not remembered to bring his notes from the previous meeting. After a period of time where Nigel was trying to get people to make a decision, someone from the floor said ‘Excuse me Nigel, we are private sector business people we can’t make this decision, it is the Department’s to make.’ and Nigel’s embarrassed team mates looked at their desk. Nigel’s face went red and he said, “I’ve put you together as an advisory committee and that’s what I want you to do – advise!”  The stakeholder got up and left the room with another rising to join him.

Meeting concluded, Nigel returned to a telephone message requesting that he contact the CEO immediately. “The Minister had specifically asked for the land to have a small park area sliced off it and it is not on the plan. What has happened?” said his boss.

“Oh shivers we forgot. I was so busy getting the Ostraker’s lease approved: Which, in the end, wasn’t approved.”

“Well you know why it didn’t go through? That company has been a long-term supporter of the Mayor’s Charity Day and the Mayor is not going to do anything against their interests unless the stakes are a lot higher and the benefit more realizable. You should have raised it with me the minute they started complaining.”

“Yes, and speaking about complaining” continued the CEO, “the opposition has complained that someone has bought up all the land facing the site, and they are accusing the Minister of a leak from the Land Planning Authority and possible corruption.” On examination, Nigel discovers his friend Dan’s town planning company has purchased the land, with a view to establishing a convenience shopping and health speciality centre.

Required
25 min

Based on the Case Study above, consider and respond to the following questions in your journal.

  1. Do you believe that Nigel demonstrated political acumen?
    • Shade/highlight the areas where you believe he did not demonstrate political intelligence.
  2. What would you have done differently?
  3. How would you go about assisting Nigel to become more astute?
  4. Did you identify these indicators of his lack of political acumen?
    • Releases information inappropriately
    • Confuses private and public information
    • Fails to manage-up to warn boss
    • Doesn’t listen
    • Expects others to make decisions on his behalf
    • Doesn’t manage a specific request of the boss/Minister
    • Displays poor emotional intelligence (EI)
    • Thinks operationally rather than tactically
  5. What else did you have or are you curious about?

Recommended

The following reading delves deeper into this practical area of political craft skills.
35mins
Hartley, J., Alford, J., Hughes, O., & Yates, S. (2013). Leading with political astuteness: A study of public managers in Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom. ANZSOG & CMI. UK.

ANZSOG has a longstanding interest in issues of political nous for public servants. The following page on the ANZSOG website contains some commentary, a video and links to various articles on political nous. They are primarily by Sally Washington, Executive Director of ANZSOG in Aotearoa New Zealand, who has written and spoken extensively on these issues.

30 mins
ANZSOG. (2023, October 2). How to sharpen your political nous in government. ANZSOG

 


  1. Hartley, J. (2017). Politically astute leadership for public managers [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QdriVOisZU
  2. Spencer, S. (2014) discussing Spencer, S., & Harvey, C. Context, institution or accountability? Exploring the factors that shape the performance of national human rights and equality bodies. Policy & Politics, 42 (1), Ingenta.
  3. Mumford, A., Gold, J., & Thorpe, R. (Eds.) (2010) Gower Handbook of Leadership and Management Development (5th Ed.) Farnham: Gower Publishing.
  4. Hartley, A., Hughes and Yates. (2013). Leading with political astuteness – a white paper. Chartered Management Institute. UK London

License

GSZ631 Managing within the Context of Government Copyright © 2024 by Queensland University of Technology. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book