By James Semana – Insightful Path
Across the Australian Public Service, there is no shortage of well-designed capability initiatives.
Programs are carefully planned, widely promoted, and often reach large numbers of people. Attendance figures are strong. Evaluations are completed. Boxes are ticked.
And yet, many public servants will recognise a familiar gap. Despite all this activity, the day-to-day practice of leadership, judgement, and collaboration often shifts more slowly than we expect.
This raises an important question for capability work in the APS:
“Does reaching more people automatically lead to greater impact?"
The scale versus depth dilemma
In complex systems like the APS, scale is understandably attractive. Large-scale programs feel efficient, equitable, and defensible. They allow us to demonstrate reach and consistency across agencies and roles.
But capability does not develop in the same way information spreads.
Deep capability (particularly in areas such as leadership, stewardship, and working with complexity) is shaped through experience over time. It requires people to test ideas in real work, notice what happens, reflect on their assumptions, and adjust their behaviour accordingly. This kind of learning rarely happens all at once, and it cannot be mass-produced.
The risk is not that large-scale initiatives are wrong. The risk is assuming that scale alone is enough.
Learning is a process, not an event
Much of what matters most in public service work is learned gradually. Judgement improves through use. Leadership develops through challenge. Confidence grows when people are trusted to think, not just comply.
This means learning works best when it is designed as a process, not an event. One-off workshops or mandatory sessions can be useful entry points, but they are rarely sufficient on their own. Without opportunities to apply learning, reflect on outcomes, and revisit ideas over time, insight fades quickly back into habit.
Capability initiatives that acknowledge this tend to prioritise continuity over novelty. They create spaces where people can return, practice, and learn alongside others who are facing similar challenges.
Trust and relationship as foundations
Real learning requires people to be honest… about what they don’t know, what they find difficult, and where their habits might be getting in the way. That honesty depends on trust.
Trust is not created instantly, and it does not scale easily. It develops through repeated, respectful interaction where people feel psychologically safe enough to speak openly and try new approaches without fear of judgement.
In capability work, this often means that smaller, repeated engagements can have more impact than larger, one-off interventions. Particularly when dealing with complex, sensitive or identity-shaping aspects of public service work.
The role of reflection and self-awareness
At the heart of sustained capability is self-awareness. The ability to notice one’s assumptions, default responses and patterns of behaviour is what allows learning to translate into change.
Reflection is the mechanism that makes this possible. It turns experience into insight, and insight into practice.
Designing for reflection is a deliberate choice. It requires time, permission and skilled facilitation. But without it, even the best learning content risks remaining theoretical rather than lived.
The craft behind the work
Designing for reflection and self-awareness also places specific demands on those who lead capability work. Reflective practice cannot be taught purely from theory or curriculum alone. It is learned, recognised and strengthened through facilitation that is grounded in lived experience.
This kind of facilitation is a distinct capability. It relies on a depth of practice, judgement and the ability to work skilfully with human dynamics as they unfold. Deep, reflective, identity-level learning is most effectively supported by facilitators who have practiced this work themselves.
Designing for real impact
Scale and depth are not opposites. Effective capability systems need both. The challenge is to be clear about what kind of change we are designing for and align our methods accordingly.
If the goal is compliance or awareness, scale may be enough. If the goal is better judgement, leadership and collaboration, depth becomes essential.
By designing capability initiatives that balance reach with relationship, and information with reflection, the APS can continue to build not just capability at scale, but capability that genuinely endures.