Advancing the Value of Ethnography

Advancing the Value of Ethnography

10 Things You Should Know About Moving from the Private Sector to the Public Sector

Advice, wisdom, and resources for navigating the transition to the public sector

Share:

Almost a decade ago, after I successfully transitioned from a post-doc in academia to an industry job at Facebook, I started receiving emails and LinkedIn messages asking for advice. The situation in academia was (and continues to be) dire: after the 2008 recession, the number of tenure-track jobs had diminished, and many PhDs in the social sciences found themselves wondering, what next?

This prompted me to write the article “10 things you should know about moving from academia to industry.” I wanted to help academics who felt stuck, who felt that their only option was to keep taking adjunct roles, who didn’t know that they had options outside of the ivory tower.

Now, more than five years later, I find myself fielding a different set of inquiries—this time about the transition from the private sector to the public sector. When I joined Facebook, the private tech sector was seen as a safe haven of high-paying jobs, endless resources, and opportunities to explore meaty strategic questions. But over-expansion during the pandemic, combined with high-profile failures to deliver on futuristic tech, and the rise of AI tools, have since led to layoffs and tightened budgets. Research and design have been hit particularly hard, and although there are signs of renewed growth, this “crash” has led people to reassess their options in other industries and sectors.

But this is not the only thing driving interest in work in the public sector. For many, the COVID-19 pandemic was a forcing function: a moment to question what people wanted out of a career and where they were best positioned to add value. During the pandemic, as I sat in my San Francisco apartment with a well-paying tech job that let me work from home, I felt dismayed and burdened by my privilege. Should I spend my time helping a company increase its metrics and profit, when there were other more meaningful, mission-driven problems to solve?

My cognitive dissonance grew as I watched cities, states, and the federal government rally to provide COVID-19 tests and vaccines; as they protected the vulnerable by imposing eviction moratoria; as they supported businesses with grants and programs to legalize parklets and other outdoor venues. It was the public sector’s time to shine—and a reminder of the critical role the government can and should play in peoples’ everyday lives.

After much consideration, I left my job in the private sector in the summer of 2021, at the beginning of the “Great Resignation.” I was lucky to find a role in one of the largest municipal civic tech teams in the country, during a time when the economy was still doing well and money was flowing into government programs and budgets. The situation is unfortunately not so rosy anymore. Economic uncertainty (and more recently, elections) has affected the public sector, meaning there are now fewer jobs. But there is still so much opportunity in the public sector—opportunities to help governments understand constituents, deliver better services, empower staff, and streamline bureaucracy.

And ethnography, with its focus on lived experience and power relations, is well-suited to the task.

Below is a collection of observations and advice to help researchers and ethnographers navigate the transition from the private sector to the public sector. I hope it illuminates how work in the public sector is different from or similar to work in the private sector, what the job landscape looks like, and how the “public-sector curious” should approach looking for jobs.

Note: These observations are shaped by my own experience working within local government—experiences may vary in other contexts. Please comment if you have thoughts!

1. Know at which level of government you want to work.

Government operates at three major levels: federal, state, and city/county. The nature of work changes with each level.

City, or municipal, governments are, in many ways, the closest, most hands-on touchpoints with the public. They are responsible for administering not only local but also state and federal funds, and often have more visible and immediate impact on peoples’ lives. They can be large and sprawling (San Francisco, where I work, is an excellent example of that), but as an individual, it is still possible to form connections with a wide range of staff and programs. They may also have fewer resources, and are affected by economic and political issues at the local, state, and national levels.

In contrast, federal and state governments are much larger. They are closer to policy, can have sweeping impacts on the American public, and can also be mired in more extreme forms of bureaucracy (look at the Paperwork Reduction Act to get a sense). Because federal and state governments are more complex, roles are also more specialized and may have less opportunity to span programs and departments.

Neither is better than the other, but as you apply for jobs, you should know what you want.

2. Know if you want to work in-house or as a consultant/contractor.

In addition to determining what level of government you want to work in, you also need to consider whether you want to work in-house or as a consultant/contractor (within a non- or for-profit organization).

Change in government is slow, and working in-house gives you the ability to enact organizational change over longer periods of time. Working in-house, you also have greater access to city staff—and the ability to think about how improving the government means improving things for those who administer and receive services. 

In contrast, working as a consultant/contractor gives you the opportunity to work on a greater variety of projects. It allows you to experiment more with different forms of technology, as you are not as tied to legacy ways of working. If you join a large and established organization like Code for America, you will be part of a larger community of practitioners who can help you grow and thrive. Moreover, working as a consultant/contractor is also a good way to try out government work without subjecting yourself to the often arduous hiring processes I describe below.

3. Familiarize yourself with government hiring practices.

Technology roles are fairly new for the government. Digital innovation—and with it, common practices at tech companies—has been slow to influence the public sector. As a result, it can be difficult to find and secure technology roles in governments, as roles may have strange (i.e., outdated) job titles and hiring practices.

When I was hired at SF Digital and Data Services, my role was technically classified as a “Principal Business Analyst.” Despite the role requiring unique research skills, an advanced degree was not recognized as one of the requirements. Moreover, I had to dramatically expand my streamlined, one-page industry resume, as my salary was determined by the exact number of months and hours I had worked in each relevant role. I also had to submit letters of verification for everything on my CV, proving my responsibilities and length of employment. In other words, during the hiring process, I personally had to do many of the things I would have expected HR to do in the private sector.

So what does this mean for your job search? When you look for government roles, you should consider the following things. But remember that each place might have a different process, so pay attention and follow the guidelines/rules!

4. Don’t expect high pay, bonuses, and promotions. But do expect more job security and work-life balance.

Because the public sector does not run on profit, salaries are, by necessity, lower. Your take-home pay will consist only of your salary and will not include stock options. Many government jobs do not have official performance reviews, meaning career advancement is a function of time in the job rather than impact. As a result, bonuses are rare (and much smaller), as are promotions. 

When I transitioned from the private to the public sector, my total compensation was about half. But what I lost in money, I gained in job security and work-life balance. My job came with amazing benefits like great healthcare and a pension if I stayed for at least five years. As the economy wobbled and former colleagues lost their jobs, I wasn’t worried about being laid off. (Technically, I am not a civil servant—instead, I am something called a “Permanent Exempt Employee”—meaning I can still be let go but generally have good job security.) Given my values, these benefits outweighed the decrease in compensation.

5. Get ready to wear many hats—and let others wear some research hats.

Because government tech teams have less funding and fewer resources, there are often fewer people working on problems than in private sector companies. Like in startups, this requires employees to broaden their scope of work and switch between a greater variety of job responsibilities. 

For researchers, this means several things. First: remember the things you relied on research ops, research program managers, or executive assistants to do? Get ready to do them yourself. Yes, even recruitment practices like reaching out directly to participants. This might feel like a return to your early career research days, but in some ways, it’s a breath of fresh air. You are more in control of the research practice and can set things up the way you want. You can also have closer contact with participants (which is important, given the history of trust issues with government) and can ensure that participant recruitment is ethical. 

Second: with less funding comes smaller research teams, which means government organizations are used to more “democratized” research models where non-researchers participate in research—often because of limited resources and staffing. This can be disorienting to some (it was to me!) and requires adjustment. You should approach these different practices and norms with curiosity rather than defensiveness. 

6. Get ready to (mostly) let go of metrics—and embrace the power of qualitative research.

Many people see the Bay Area as a hub of technology and data, as the home of self-driving cars, AI, and Silicon Valley. But the San Francisco government is another story. 

Working for the City and County of San Francisco, I am continually surprised by the lack of numbers and the absence of metrics and quantitative evaluation. This is in part because the government operates on a principle of data minimization, meaning it does not collect information about or track people due to privacy regulations. And even if data were collected, the goals would be very different. Numbers would be used to ensure that people were accessing services efficiently, minimizing time spent instead of maximizing engagement.

But the lack of numbers goes beyond data minimization. It stems from a particular culture of how programs and services are administered. While there are often program reporting requirements, staff are incentivized to focus more on equity and less on efficiency. Moreover, staff are often unaware of the value numbers can bring, of how they can help identify who is and isn’t receiving services and where key pain points are.

This lack of numbers has its pros and cons. I have found that quantitative research has significantly more power and weight because the methodology is more accessible and not outshone by data science and quantitative research. But at the same time, I have seen how the lack of numbers leads to problems with prioritization. Without numbers, government agencies struggle to determine if they are investing time and resources in the right places. This also places an additional burden on qualitative researchers, as we must ensure that qualitative insights are not misused for prioritization or other more quantitative ends.

7. Practice resilience in the face of bureaucracy.

Government is the O.G. bureaucracy. If you’ve worked in large companies with mature products/offerings, you might think you know what bureaucracy looks like. Think again and get ready to roll up your sleeves.

Because government is not united by singular top-line goals or metrics (as the private sector often is), power is more distributed and uneven. To get things done, you must identify the right people who can help you form relationships and learn about institutional history. This reveals who has the power to enact change (they may be part of an official or more “shadow” hierarchy) and who can be an ally.

In addition to being more relational than the private sector, the government is also more resistant to change. There is often little incentive or time to improve processes. As a result, inertia can set in, and advocating for change can sometimes feel like pushing a boulder up a mountain. 

Sometimes resistance to change is rooted in long-standing, seemingly nonsensical ways of doing things. But it is also rooted in principles like equity, accessibility, and security. While the private sector is oriented around profit, delivering value to shareholders, and complying with regulation, the public sector is oriented more toward equal access and mitigating harm/risk. 

This is not to say that the hurdles work as intended. In reality, they do slow things down and create barriers, often in unintentional ways. As a result, working in this space requires patience. It requires replacing frustration with curiosity and pushing yourself to explore the root causes of resistance to change instead of forcing change upon an unwilling audience. This highlights the true constraints, levers, and incentives. 

8. Process, what process?

Many civic tech teams are new, which means they haven’t had time to establish clear practices or to learn and evolve over time. They are made up of people who come from a variety of backgrounds (non-profits, community organizations, libraries, to name a few) and bring a variety of practices and norms. This creates a wonderful and diverse working environment where there is no right way to do things. But it also leads to a lack of process, unclear boundaries around who does what, and varied forms of communication norms.

As a researcher, this brings challenges. You have to be willing to wade through the mess and patiently deal with challenges. But it also creates opportunities. You may find yourself positioned to influence team-wide processes and culture, and to bring about positive changes based on industry best practices. Or you may find yourself positioned to expand your skillset by getting more involved in product and organizational strategy.

9. Get ready to fix hard problems with unsexy tech

Government runs on forms, websites, and legacy technology, not apps, AI, or fancy features. Many of the biggest problems and opportunities involve things like digitizing paper or PDF forms, centralizing websites, and connecting disparate technological systems. 

This can be a big change from the private sector, where many people find motivation and job satisfaction in their ability to work on new, cutting-edge technologies. But it also means that simple fixes can have dramatic impacts on people’s lives. 

This changes the nature of research and work in the public sector. The question becomes not “What new and shiny things should we build?” but rather “How can we streamline and connect existing processes” or “What is the simplest solution here that will satisfy some if not all requirements.” 

If we push this line of thinking even further, we often find that technology often isn’t the best fix. Services that have been cobbled together over time are often highly inefficient and disconnected. It might be tempting to say that technology is the right fix, but often it is more important to improve the design of the service first, which can actually result in less technology. 

10. Lean into organizational ethnography and holistic thinking.

Government is huge, messy, and complex. One of the most striking things I’ve learned in my time with the government is: we might be tempted to focus solely on improving the user experience for the public, but it is equally (if not more) important to improve the experience for the staff who administer services. I like to think of it as a venn diagram of public and staff needs, where the “sweet spot” for improving service delivery is in the overlap. 

This requires looking at services end-to-end, paying attention to the perspectives of the various actors involved, and attending to the ways technology and people interact. Ethnographers are perfectly poised to navigate this complexity by leveraging various research methodologies, attending to power and social structures, and centering the human experience in the face of technology and bureaucracy. We have a vast toolkit for approaching these messy problems and can benefit from doing more organizational ethnography and learning about service design.

Resources

References Cited

Job Boards and Job Resources

EPIC People in the Public Sector

Take a deep dive into some of the innovative work our members are doing in the public sector. Much more is freely available in the EPIC Library.

0 Comments

career transitions government public sector
Share:
Nadine Levin

Nadine Levin, San Francisco Digital Services

Nadine is an anthropologist and UX researcher, with a focus on strategic research, improving equitable access to technology, and combining ethnography and quantitative research. She currently leads the design and research team at the City and County of San Francisco’s Digital Services team, whose work focuses on improving the digital experience with permitting and forms, as well as helping the city centralize and scale its digital resources on SF.gov. She has previously worked at Meta, UCLA, and the University of Exeter, after completing a DPhil in Social Anthropology at Oxford.