20 / 32
20
/ Canadian Government Executive
// June 2016
Middle Management
John Wilkins
3. Reallocation of funds depends upon informed decisions on
surpluses, gaps, and redundancies.
4. Hollowed-out programs do not sustain savings against un-
changed expectations and transition costs.
5. Resistance to change protects political and special interests in
service level and delivery.
6. Managing the process means having a humane and fair hu-
man resource management strategy.
7.
Consolidation and centralization require upfront investment
to achieve economies of scale.
In tough times, less is more; that is, making things right by focus-
ing on the critical few rather than on the trivial many. Activist
budgets invest in doing the right things right. The object is to turn
things around after a period of neglect and/or to leapfrog to an
innovative future.
The fledgling Liberal Government in Ottawa faced a minefield
of election promises, emergent priorities, and unanticipated fiscal
realities in its March 2016 Budget. The Prime Minister and Cabi-
net were forced to make deft trade-offs, knowing that they could
not satisfy everyone and that they had to play the long game for
political survival. The balancing act of overdue enrichments and
deficit financing garnered surprising support, both from middle-
class Canadians and Bay Street.
Innovative middle managers
Political leaders assume that the public service is taking care of
the business of government. Managers need to move beyond sim-
ply reacting with budget practices that identify lower priorities,
efficient work routines, and strategic investments. They must also
master strategic people management alongside sound financial
management. This means implementing and communicating
critical changes.
Innovation is a valued competency. If middle managers obsess
about efficiencies, there is little slack for learning and innovation.
They need to chase variety, uncertainty, and conflict to generate
innovation. This means consulting, multi-tasking, and stretching
resources to explore new possibilities and capabilities. Innova-
tion remains core to performance while managing for stability
and consistency.
Middle managers can be more than prudent budget managers.
They must shift from guardians and gatekeepers for decision mak-
ers to connectors and facilitators of innovation. Unleashing in-
novation in mainstream budgeting helps align expectations and
sustain enabling relationships even in times of austerity.
J
ohn
W
ilkins
is Associate Director, Public Management with
the Schulich School of Business, York University (jwilkins@
schulich.yorku.ca). He was a career public service manager in
Canada and a Commonwealth Diplomat.
T
he surreal paradox of government is that nothing is what
it seems and perception is reality. Change, risk, and am-
biguity are constant companions. When the stakes are
steep, the rules of fair play are suspended. No prisoners
are taken. Much is excused, despite bad behaviour. The price is
deemed worth paying for a just cause. In times of protracted aus-
terity, all is fair in politics and budgets.
Restructuring was a panacea for coping with the economic and
budgetary pressures of the New Public Management era. Govern-
ments streamlined and strengthened public services systematical-
ly. They generated flexible institutional arrangements that were
more adaptable to economic and fiscal downturns. Canada, for
example, steered its way to a decade of prosperity and balanced
budgets under the banner of Program Review and Alternative
Service Delivery.
By the turn of the millennium, governments were relinquishing
hegemony in service and control. Reform was evolving from trans-
formation to collaboration, featuring networked government. Prog-
ress depended upon placing the people most affected at the centre
of decision making and service delivery. And a capable public ser-
vice grounded itself in the principles of good governance.
Austerity has returned with a vengeance. The fiscal and budget-
ary residue of global economic crises fans the flames of expendi-
ture management. Governments are searching for the right mix
of program cuts, investments, and improvements. Many opt for
crude, short-term wage reduction and public service downsizing.
Few develop systemic capacity for institutional self-examination
and innovation.
How are public programs and spending reviewed in a period of
austerity and sluggish growth? Consolidation episodes reveal the
dilemmas of simultaneously managing deficits and fueling priori-
ties, reducing costs and raising revenues, increasing efficiency and
improving service, and boosting productivity and building capac-
ity. The challenge is to learn ‘“what works well, where and why,”
reconcile the contradictions of setting, and adapt strategies for
comparative advantage.
Budgetary implications
Harvard’s Robert Behn observes: “Today, the budgetary process
makes no one happy; instead it just makes almost everyone liv-
id and resentful …. The rewards for cutback leadership are few,
while the political punishment can be severe.”
In a new IPAC case pack entitled
Hacking and Slashing: The Chal-
lenges of Reducing and Reallocating Budgets,
Andrew Graham pro-
files seven common budgeting issues:
1.
Across-the-board cuts fail to target lower-priority program-
ming and differentiate impact.
2. Doing more with less stereotypes efficiency with unrealistic
political and anti-taxation rhetoric.
Doing More or Less? …
Middle Managers and Austerity
“All’s fair in love and war”
— JOHN LILY (1578): EUPHUES: THE ANATOMY OF WIT