Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 04

July/August 2018 // Canadian Government Executive / 37 PROCUREMENT Focus on key obstacles Proper context is crucial, particularly since the Canadian public service is reportedly one of the best in the world, and past re- form efforts have unquestionably yielded many valuable improvements over the years. Nonetheless, true headway in some areas appears beyond reach. The conun- drum of public service renewals and re- forms is the often repeated unsuccessful attempts to solve the same basic daunting issues. For many priorities, such as simpli- fying internal rules and processes, tangible results remain elusive and objective infor- mation on actual outcomes is rare. To achieve better results on broad hori- zontal initiatives, this impasse of reforms’ repeated history needs to be viewed as a symptom of more fundamental and over- arching obstacles ensuing from how the public service is governed and organised. As such, the government needs to give more attention to the reasons why the lessons of the past appear so difficult to assimilate, and what to do about them. This echoes the cur- rent auditor general: “But the real question for the government to think about is why do we keep finding and reporting serious problems, and why do incomprehensible failures still happen?” (Office of the Auditor General, News Release, May 2018). In keeping with this broader perspec- tive, two areas which present obstacles to better progress are summarized. These are far from the only areas with likely is- sues, but they have been raised often by different authors and exemplify where short term remedies should be possible. Clarify governance The Westminster model of government – including embedded principles of min- isterial accountability and delegation of authority vertically within departments – generally does not by itself easily sup- ports the management of initiatives across departments. Additional structures and mechanisms are normally required to provide proper governance, oversight and coordination, but too often these can be insufficient for a number of reasons. The distinct notions of governance and management within the public service are frequently blurred, and governance is too often used to refer to what are es- sentially management functions and activities. Unlike the private sector with dedicated boards of directors, subject to some exceptions there are generally no independent governing bodies regularly overseeing the management of depart- ments or government-wide projects. The Treasury Board (TB) – the Govern- ment’s management board – is limited in its regular oversight of individual depart- ments or major initiatives, mainly because of its central role and the large number of departments and agencies under its pur- view. Further muddying the issue, deputy ministers’ accountabilities are complex and varied, including to their ministers, the clerk, the prime minister, the Public Service Commission, as well as to TB. Governance findings and issues pertain- ing to senior roles and responsibilities are very often identified in studies and audits of management reforms. The federal gov- ernment is complex and the explicit roles and responsibilities of its various actors are not always sufficiently well defined to avoid gaps and overlaps (e.g. deputy min- sters, lead departments, central agencies, functional leads such as chief HR officer, CIO, comptroller general and others). While governance changes are complex and require cautious consideration, timely actions to enhance oversight and coordina- tion of reforms would be to better clarify the roles and responsibilities of key play- ers, and to ensure there are very senior, in- dependent and well-supported oversight committees reporting directly to the re- sponsible deputy minister(s). Strengthen senior capacity The capacity and competencies of senior fed- eral executives – essentially deputy minis- ters (DMs), associate DMs and assistant DMs (ADMs) – is another example where benefits could be readily harvested. There are two underlying difficulties frequently identified. First, in the context of initiatives that can span many years, senior executives on av- erage rotate jobs too often and don’t stay on long enough to see important projects through to completion and ensure success. This high turnover and churn is often cri- tiqued as the consequence of a culture that prioritizes career advancement over com- petencies and results. One study described this as the “merry-go-round of senior ex- ecutives ... without concern for their spe- cific capacities to deal with the different cir- cumstances ....” (Hubbard and Paquet, 2014). Among others, the Prime Minister’s Advi- sory Committee on the Public Service also voiced the concern a number of years ago (Clerk’s 17th Annual Report, Annex E, 2010). Second, the current over-emphasis on generic leadership competencies for execu- tives does not help ensure that incumbents have all the necessary expertise required by senior executive positions. The six pre- scribed key leadership competencies , while certainly desirable, are not by them- selves sufficient and cannot replace special- ised knowledge, expertise and experience required by specific responsibilities. An in- depth study of ADMs reported that: “... the Public Service has moved too far in recent years towards ‘generic’ managers and that greater emphasis and value should be placed in the future on ADMs having strong knowledge and expertise in the content of their area of responsibility .... This should be understood to be part-and-parcel of having a professional Public Service, led by senior peo- ple who are themselves professionals in their own areas.” (Lahey and Goldenberg, 2014). As an important related factor, it is not always clear what are the consequences for senior executives when flagrant poor performance or failures occur. While often difficult to clearly distinguish the diverse responsibilities for horizontal initiatives, the lack of clear accountability for poor results risks undermining the need for executives to have the required expertise to begin with, and thus to ensure effective capacity in the senior ranks. These issues could be largely addressed by increasing the terms of office of senior executive and better emphasizing special- ized expertise and competencies in staffing executive positions. This would go a long way to improve the capacity of the public service to deal with government-wide ini- tiatives and daunting issues. In the wake of difficult and recurring problems, prompt action is needed to im- prove the capacity of the public service to deal with persistent reform challenges. As a starting point, a more structured exami- nation of the reasons why past lessons are not more readily assimilated would help to better identify and address systemic obsta- cles to better governance and results. R obert D’A oust (BComm, MBA, CPA- CA, CFE) is a federal executive cur- rently in residence at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. He formerly held senior positions, including as Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive, and Chief Financial Officer, as well as worked in the private and non-profit sectors. He would welcome comments on public service reforms as part of his residency research (robert.daoust@ canada.ca) .