Canadian Government Executive - Volume 23 - Issue 03

Our mission is to contribute to excellence in public service management Editorial Editor-in-Chief: Patrice Dutil patrice@promotivemedia.ca www.patricedutil.com Associate Editor: Marcello Sukhdeo marcello@promotivemedia.ca Editorial Advisory Board Vic Pakalnis, Mirarco, Laurentian University; Denise Amyot, CEO, ACCC; Guy Gordon, Manitoba; Peter Jones, OCADU; Murray Kronick, BDO-Interis Consulting; Michael Eastman, Government Internal Auditors Council of Canada; Peter Stoyko sales VP Content & Business Strategy: Marcello Sukhdeo 905-727-3875 x4 marcello@promotivemedia.ca Vice President, Sales: Terri Pavelic 905-727-3875 x2 terri@promotivemedia.ca Events Director, Social Content & Events: Laskey S. Hart 905-727-3875 x5 laskey@promotivemedia.ca art & production Art Director: Elena Pankova elena@promotivemedia.ca Subscriptions and Address Changes Circulation Director: Mary Labao 905-841-7389 circulation@promotivemedia.ca General Inquiries 1-226 Edward Street, Aurora, ON, L4G 3S8 Phone 905-727-3875 Fax 905-727-4428 www.canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca corporate Group Publisher: John Jones john@promotivemedia.ca Publisher’s Mail Agreement: 40052410 ISSN 1203-7893 Canadian Government Executive magazine is published 10 times per year by Navatar Press. All opinions expressed herein are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher or any person or organization associated with the magazine. Letters, submissions, comments and suggested topics are welcome, and should be sent to patrice@promotivemedia.ca Reprint Information: Reproduction or photocopying is prohibited without the publisher’s prior written consent. High quality reprints of articles and additional copies of the magazine are available through circulation@promotivemedia.ca. Privacy Policy: We do not sell our mailing list or share any confidential information on our subscribers. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Periodical Fund (CPF) for our publishing activities. www.canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca 4 / Canadian Government Executive // March/April 2017 Everyone Should Wear a Whistle I’m pleased to welcome Dr. Craig Dowden in the magazine for the third time. His work on bullying in the workplace, “problem employees” and now on whistleblowing is as insightful as it is timely. I think my interviewwith him and Mr. Joe Friday, the Commis- sioner of Public Sector Integrity in the government of Canada in this issue is revealing of a change of attitude in Ottawa. More and more people are open to the idea that the only way to draw the good from whistleblowing (or drawing attention to costly flaws in the system, including corruption) is to create a workplace where candour is actively encouraged: speaking truth to power no matter what your situation is in the hierarchy. Whistleblowing is not something one hopes for. It conjures up an image of bottled anxiety and despair; of a desperation to denounce a long-standing practice that has gone out of hand; an alarm; a cri de coeur . The objective of every executive should be to create a culture where “whistleblowing” becomes an everyday occurrence. At that level of frequency, it becomes not a matter of denouncing a place of work, or a particularly neglectful individual, but one where everyone in the kitchen is aware of what the other is doing inmaking sure the dish is the best it can be when it is served to a paying public. It’s not about the individual; it’s about the work. A place with no whistleblowing is symptomatic of a suppressive work culture, one where candour is discouraged by looks, huffs and puffs, casual marginalization and threats of retaliation. The assumption on management’s part is that the staff does not “know the whole story,” that whatever issue that has been raised can be dealt with by the application of a strategic solution cleverly applied at the right time. Until that time comes, best to ignore it, let it slide, let the other deal with it. It’s a fool’s game. Problems inevitably see the light of day, whether through an audit report, a leaked document to the media, or a parliamentary inquiry. Government runs into problems not because its employees are not aware of the issues but because man- agement did nothing to correct the problems. The reasons are explored in the inter- view, but I would add another element. There’s little in it for the employee: reporting bad practice is too often seen as an all-risk-and-no-reward proposition. The best way to deal with whistleblowing is to create a workplace where candour reigns. It starts with hiring and seriously reviewing performance. Professionals that are self-assured enough to take criticism are to be sought for executive positions; prefer- ence has to go to people who have a track record of always looking for better ways to do things. The problem is not one of middle management. It consistently ranks high in employ- ee surveys in terms of confidence. It is at the executive level that the bottlenecks take hold. In such a situation, it is hardly surprising that employees rarely find the courage to denounce bad practice. One of the best practices I’m aware of is in hospitals where medical-legal post-mor- tems led by peers regularly take place. Procedures are reviewed, practices are put un- der scrutiny, and candour is king. These are designed to ascertain the cause of death or other factors in unnatural or suspicious cases. The objective is to learn, to build an awareness of risk and of how to eliminate or manage it. Translated to the public ser- vice, the objective of a culture of candour is to keep improving: e.g. to go over details of a policy development process once it has been completed, perhaps to review how a minister was prepared over the course of a parliamentary session, or how an ex- pense request was handled. A regular practice of review inevitably filters down to the deepest reaches of the bureaucracy. The reward is a culture of openness, of regular “whistleblowing” where what attracts attention is not the individual but the quality of the whistle. The Commissioner of Public Sector Integrity’s initiative is laudable. It is part of a broader campaign to make the bureaucracy more responsive, more open to change, more candid about its successes and failings. As David Zussman points out in his col- umn, however, one has to ask about what it’s role should be. In serving justice and the public interest, everyone should wear a whistle. editor’s note Patrice Dutil web