Policy and Planning Managers
Plan, organise, direct, control and coordinate policy advice and strategic planning within organisations.
Two days to a briefing
You are the manager of a policy team in a state government department, and a minister's briefing on a new housing support scheme is due in two days. It is Tuesday at 9am. Your team has drafted advice, but new information has just arrived. The briefing has to be short, accurate and on the minister's desk by Thursday morning.
Choose what you would do. Then see what happens. There are often good reasons for each choice.
I found a survey from a community organisation that suggests the scheme is missing renters in small towns. It is not official data and the sample is small. Do we include it in the briefing, or leave it out?
Leave it out, since it is not official data and could muddy the advice for the minister
The briefing stays tidy, but a real gap goes unmentioned. If the minister is asked about small towns, she will have nothing to say, and it will reflect on the whole team.
Include it as a headline finding, because it supports the case for change and strengthens the briefing
A reviewer points out the survey was small and not tested. Overstating weak evidence damages your credibility, and the other findings get doubted as well.
Include it with a note on its small sample, and suggest how to check it properly
The minister sees a possible gap, knows how solid the evidence is and can ask for more work. Honest uncertainty is easier for decision makers to use than false confidence.
The minister has just decided to announce the scheme on Friday, a week earlier than planned. Can your briefing be shortened to one page and focus on the good news? She is busy and just wants the highlights.
Cut it to the good news only, because that is what the office has asked for
The one-pager is lovely to read. Then a journalist asks about a known risk, and the minister is caught out. She is not pleased with the department, and the team's trust in you wobbles.
Produce a one-page summary that leads with the benefits and states the main risk and what you propose to do about it
Georgia grumbles at one line, but accepts it. The minister reads the whole page and is ready for the journalist's question. Short does not have to mean one-sided.
Push back on the new date and say the briefing cannot be shortened safely
You have a point about quality, but the decision has been made, and Georgia hears that you are not helping. A tighter document was possible if you had offered one.
Your scheme overlaps with a program my team runs. If it goes ahead as written, ours may look redundant. I would like you to hold off until we can talk. I have asked the deputy secretary to back me.
Delay the briefing until you have settled the overlap with Tomasz, whatever it takes to get there
Relations stay polite, but the deadline slips and the minister's office is frustrated. There was a way to involve Tomasz without stopping everything.
Meet Tomasz today, share your draft and put both options in the briefing
Tomasz feels included and offers useful detail. The briefing shows a clear choice between aligning the programs or running both, and the deadline is kept.
Ignore the request, because your minister's decision comes first and the date is fixed
The briefing goes out on time, but Tomasz goes over your head, and the overlap surfaces in a meeting where nobody has prepared. In government, you need these colleagues again next month.
How it went
The briefing reaches the minister with a day to spare. Policy work means turning evidence, politics and deadlines into advice a decision maker can actually use, and being honest when that is uncomfortable. Would you enjoy being the person who brings both the good news and the caution?
This is a simplified, fictional situation to help you explore. It is not professional instruction or a test of your ability.
Case study: The advice that did not say what they wanted
A fictional case set in the policy branch of a fictional state government department.
The situation
Nasrin Haddad led the policy team at the Department of Regional Services, a fictional agency. The minister's office wanted to extend a popular grants program, and asked her team for a short note supporting it. Her team's review found that the grants were mostly going to towns that already had strong community groups, while the smallest, most isolated towns were missing out. The evidence did not quite fit the story the office was hoping to tell. The note was due by the end of the week.
What they did
Nasrin did not write the note the office expected, and she did not simply deliver bad news either. She met the minister's adviser early, explained the finding in two plain paragraphs, and offered a version of the program that kept what worked and added support for towns without a grant writer. Her team prepared options with costs and trade-offs, and she made sure the minister saw the data, not only a summary.
How it turned out
The minister chose a modified program and announced it as an improvement rather than a repeat. Some people in the office were annoyed at first. Nasrin's team was later asked to look at other programs at an early stage, which made their work harder, and more useful.
What would you do?
- Why was it better to meet the adviser early instead of sending the note on Friday?
- Where is the line between serving a government and bending the evidence?
- What would you want to know before recommending a policy that affects thousands of people?