Governments Need More Creative Upskilling Solutions (2 of 4)

Part 2 of a 4-part series on upskilling in government

A variety of upskilling efforts within and for government exist. But is the right thing being built?

In my first post of this series, I discussed why I believe increasing the training of government staff is an important issue for public interest technology, yet the attention it receives in the field doesn’t do justice to its high importance.

This post examines existing training efforts within governments.

But first, some definitions and a clarification.

Terminology: Upskilling, Re-Skilling, Training

Both terms, “upskilling” and “re-skilling,” have been used in public interest technology communities to discuss the issue of training. Neither are perfect, and I like to use “training”, too. Ultimately, I don’t think there’s one right answer. The point of this series is that governments and civic tech leaders need to focus more on the need to increase skills within government, without relying on outside assistance.

Upskilling or Re-skilling?

This is how I think of “upskilling” vs. “re-skilling”:

Upskilling is about building upon a person’s existing skillset through related skills (generally for their current position), while re-skilling is when a person is switching gears entirely for a new role.

Generally, across sectors, people who need to be “re-skilled” or “upskilled” fall into two categories:

1. those who are looking to transition careers or switch teams, or

2. people who are being pushed out of their current role (for example, their role is being automated).

When it comes to increasing digital maturity in government, the former tends to be more relevant than the latter, so my focus is on upskilling rather than re-skilling.

Like any change, upskilling is a process, which includes a before (a person’s current skillset and knowledge) and an after (the desired additional skills and knowledge).

Upskilling can be done at the individual level, but when the goal is to increase the knowledge of digital and data across government — whether that means increasing digital skills or familiarizing staff with the tenets of digital culture (working on projects cross-functionally; sharing data; working in the open; teams being fully empowered to fail, learn and re-try through agile methods), or both — then individual level change isn’t enough.

Why Does Change at Scale Matter?

The obvious reason why change needs to happen at scale is because technology isn’t going to stop moving at a rapid pace. If governments don’t want to become increasingly irrelevant or the source of increasing public frustration, closing the digital and technological skills gap in government needs to be a sustained, high priority.

But there’s another reason. When things are left to happen slowly or incrementally, it becomes hard to motivate people to make changes at all. And, in the end, it’s likely that nothing will happen.

Change at scale, on the other hand, requires purpose and intention: leaders directing full-time resources toward the change, measuring everything before and after, placing a premium on its importance and success, conveying that importance regularly to all staff, and especially listening and incorporating staff feedback, and building a shared language and sense of mission across the organization — ideally, without leaving people behind.

Change at scale doesn’t necessarily mean building one thing and scaling it across the whole organization. In government, that’s supremely hard. Scaling by team, by function, in logical stages, or in another way, may be more appropriate.

Of course, change at scale is really difficult. And it’s one thing to throw resources at a variety of upskilling initiatives and events. It’s a whole other thing to consider whether you’re building the right thing in the first place.

What Exists Right Now and Is It the Right Thing?

Training does exist in government, even if not enough resources are devoted to it. Some governments are better at this than others. But there is a good reason for a lack of dedicated funds for training: government agencies and departments operate using public funds and rightfully need to account for every dollar they spend, so leaders are reluctant to make significant investments.

Yet I’d also argue that there should be more training to maximize the skills and passions of those already employed. If you start with rigorous data-gathering and a user-centered approach to understand what is needed — one that takes into account a rigorous analysis of the true costs of training versus the costs of staff turnover, or short-term losses versus long-term gains — the true financial cost may be lower than you think.

Courses, Conferences, Communities, Oh My

The most common ways staff and leaders in government “upskill” is through events, courses, conferences, and short training sessions. All of these methods are flexible ways for people to learn specific skills such as user-centered design or digital or data literacy. Courses and short training workshops, in particular, are a great way for people to meet others who are also interested in the same subject.

Courses On Their Own Are Not Enough

Courses can be a great way for participants to learn something new. But they aren’t always effective: they’re often short, they vary a lot in quality, (especially when they’re free and are offered by people who do not have experience developing curriculum), and they tend to be taken by individuals rather than full teams. So even with the best course available, it’s unlikely that new skills will be adopted in a lasting way beyond those participating.

This isn’t to say that one person can’t make a tremendous difference, or that one course or conference can’t inspire a person or even a team to approach their work differently.

But unless managers or leaders are taking the course and are ready to impart their newfound knowledge in their teams, or unless managers and leaders insist those skills are adopted widely (i.e. make a course mandatory — more on this in my next post), or unless the staff taking the courses can put these skills to use in their daily work right away, the course is unlikely to lead to significant change.

Another way government employees learn or hone new skills is through communities of practice (CoP), which are groups of people who share a set of problems or interest in a subject and come together regularly to network, gain knowledge, and share best practices. CoPs may host regular events that bring people together to work through real-world challenges and apply those lessons to their work.

CoPs are arguably more effective than courses in advancing change because they last longer, but their effectiveness depends on how engaged their members are.

A Few Creative Programs in the U.S. Federal Government

Sometimes upskilling takes the form of an exchange. These kinds of programs, I believe, are the closest to the best solution for training. In the U.S. government, there are several programs that fall into this category, springing from the Office of Personnel Management: a transfer program, the Open Opportunities program, and the Department of the Interior’s DOI Career Connection (DCC).

All three of these exchanges allow government employees to try new opportunities, often but not always short term, and explore new work challenges in other areas of government. Not all the opportunities are related to civic tech, but many are. Open Opportunities and DOI Career Connection also give staff the opportunity to engage with each other online. Participants have given all of these programs high praise, both on the management side (they can make a quick hire) and on the staff side (they get to build and use new skills, meet new people, and even resource projects).

Another excellent initiative is 10x, a program that’s funded through a Congressional appropriation to crowdsource digital product ideas from any federal employees and turn them into real products that improve the public’s experience with federal products and services. The program takes a venture capital, phased approach, seeking ideas from wherever they come from in the public service. The program’s leaders come with no preconceived notions or agenda, other than a broad purpose to fund and advance digital work within government.

As a result, the side effects are healthy competition and empowerment of staff at all levels, from anywhere in the federal government. And while this program is limited to technology, there’s no reason why this model couldn’t be applied to crowdsourcing other critical ideas in other governmental bodies.

Generally, Training of Government Employees is Random and Voluntary

While these training methods are valuable in advancing digital and tech skills in government, especially exchange programs, most of them (with the exception of 10x, which was designed to do so) are not enough to create change at scale. Participants tend to volunteer to take part because they’re already interested in the topic, or because they want to advance their own careers.

It’s a great thing, of course, and the right thing, for staff to have the ability to move where they choose, where they believe they will benefit and grow professionally the most.

Yet if we return to the goal (in this case, to increase the knowledge of digital and data across government), then a random, opt-in method is unlikely to meet this goal. An individualized approach does not, by definition, prioritize the organization. It results in an uneven patchwork of skillsets rather than a consistent baseline of common knowledge from which to build on.

So what’s a better way? More on this in my next post.