Excellent exposition. A few thoughts, in case they are helpful.
I see a nuance in the desire for neutrality which reflects your observation that there is no truly independent perspective. Public service writing always takes a perspective, which is usually derived from the responsibilities of the specific agency or an objective set by government. In a sense, public service writing represents a perspective based claim rather than a neutral judgment.
I am not convinced the transition from an oral based tradition of consideration to a written basis is as strong or complete as you suggest. To use a theatre analogy, written documents provide the set on which the decision-making play takes place. They do not provide the script for those decisions. My experience, especially in Cabinet and in Parliament, is that the oral debate and discussion remains the dominant mechanism by which important decisions are made.
If you see the written document as set rather than script, then your second recommendation becomes (arguably) less useful. The key thing is to ensure the actors understand the key dynamics of the decision being taken. Structure and consistency helps this and reduces search costs for those debating a decision.
There is another potential explanation for the quality of government writing (I am referring here to writing for internal decision making purposes). Rather than the problem resting with the norms within it is produced (your four are an excellent capturing of intent) being too constraining, it may be that people are not sufficiently well trained or versed in the techniques of writing for government to meet the norms well.
All that said, I think you are on to something important.
Thanks. Useful insights and well made. I'd probably try to summarise my argument as saying there is a tension between writing according to the norms I articulated and providing the necessary information, context and dynamics for good decisions. To pick up from a couple of your points, my experience is that people who write well for government manage to adhere to the norms at the same time as meeting a range of other competing objectives to provide the necessary set. However, many people in working government see the document as script (I think encouraged by the norms), and I suspect this is one reason why those advising decision makers can feel upset or betrayed when a different decision is made.
I agree that structure and consistency are helpful and I've been thinking about what a different set of norms might be that could maintain these but provide a better understanding of key dynamics. No answers yet.
Excellent exposition. A few thoughts, in case they are helpful.
I see a nuance in the desire for neutrality which reflects your observation that there is no truly independent perspective. Public service writing always takes a perspective, which is usually derived from the responsibilities of the specific agency or an objective set by government. In a sense, public service writing represents a perspective based claim rather than a neutral judgment.
I am not convinced the transition from an oral based tradition of consideration to a written basis is as strong or complete as you suggest. To use a theatre analogy, written documents provide the set on which the decision-making play takes place. They do not provide the script for those decisions. My experience, especially in Cabinet and in Parliament, is that the oral debate and discussion remains the dominant mechanism by which important decisions are made.
If you see the written document as set rather than script, then your second recommendation becomes (arguably) less useful. The key thing is to ensure the actors understand the key dynamics of the decision being taken. Structure and consistency helps this and reduces search costs for those debating a decision.
There is another potential explanation for the quality of government writing (I am referring here to writing for internal decision making purposes). Rather than the problem resting with the norms within it is produced (your four are an excellent capturing of intent) being too constraining, it may be that people are not sufficiently well trained or versed in the techniques of writing for government to meet the norms well.
All that said, I think you are on to something important.
Thanks. Useful insights and well made. I'd probably try to summarise my argument as saying there is a tension between writing according to the norms I articulated and providing the necessary information, context and dynamics for good decisions. To pick up from a couple of your points, my experience is that people who write well for government manage to adhere to the norms at the same time as meeting a range of other competing objectives to provide the necessary set. However, many people in working government see the document as script (I think encouraged by the norms), and I suspect this is one reason why those advising decision makers can feel upset or betrayed when a different decision is made.
I agree that structure and consistency are helpful and I've been thinking about what a different set of norms might be that could maintain these but provide a better understanding of key dynamics. No answers yet.