Paul Vogt is Clerk of the Executive Council for the Government of Manitoba. He spoke with Paul Thomas, the Duff Roblin Professor of Government with the University of Manitoba.
In government we have dual leadership – both elected politicians and appointed public servants. Ideally, there’s a constructive partnership that goes on between them. What should politicians expect from public service executives, and vice-versa?
The most important thing, and this applies both ways, is to have clear priorities set. Problems emerge when there are multiple priorities and there isn’t an explicit ranking of those priorities at the political level. A constant refreshing of the political agenda in very clear terms is the most important aspect of leadership.
Another is to have effective communicators in leadership positions, so that both the content and the tone of government direction is reflected down through the ranks. It’s also important for elected leaders to communicate a basic respect for public service. Respect is often an unspoken issue, but it affects morale where it is lacking – often in the media and in many interactions with the public. It is necessary for the work of the public service to be valued by elected leaders, and for this to be seen, particularly on the frontlines.
A third aspect of public leadership is contained in the question to public servants, are we still prepared to “speak truth to power?” That is, are we prepared to give independent, objective advice to warn ministers that particular ideas may not be feasible or affordable?
Do you sense there’s a willingness to give professional, non-partisan advice even when it may be unpopular with the politicians?
I think so, when the advice can be given from deputies to their ministers, and in appropriately confidential settings. It’s appropriate for deputies to challenge their ministers on the five Ws of policy, on how they implement policy. But once a decision has been made by Cabinet, it is the role of deputies to acknowledge the direction of the government and to make their best efforts to carry it out. There has to be that clear distinction.
How would you describe your leadership style?
Leadership in the public service is subordinate to the leadership role of the government. A chief concern for me is that those elected to make decisions have the ability to do so and have confidence they will be carried out. And the tone or the spirit in which policies are carried out is almost as important as the policies themselves.
The most important thing in my role is that the decisions of the government are communicated very clearly along with the detail that is required for those decisions to be translated into effective policy. I see myself as a liaison between cabinet and the public service – eliciting the best possible advice and documentation for Cabinet, and overseeing the effective implementation of policy.
I would say my own style reflects the Manitoba context. We are a little village here at the Legislature; the Executive Branch and all the deputies are grouped together so it’s very much a matter of face-to-face meetings, frequent and informal contacts to make sure things are moving along as they should. This allows us to be more nimble and responsive than larger systems. Over the past two decades we haven’t expanded the staff that serve Cabinet. In the same period, the federal government, Ontario and Quebec have really added to their executive policy and implementation branches. This means that the contacts with departments are mediated more than they are in Manitoba. Also, we still rely on departments to be the actual generators of policy options. We have a very small policy shop in Executive Council. And for implementation, we rely entirely on the department. It creates a very healthy mutual need and it also clarifies the role of people in Executive Council – to ensure that Cabinet’s requirements are communicated but not to take over from departments the generation of policy to be presented to Cabinet or the implementation responsibilities.
What progress have you made on civil service renewal, and what remains to be done?
Like most provinces we have a formal civil service renewal process underway, led by our Civil Service Commission. It originated with a desire to get the right people to replace the generation that was retiring and to prepare for accelerating promotions. We wanted to get more leadership training in place and achieve some equity goals. We want a public service that reflects the “face” of Manitoba as accurately as possible.
The turnover has been delayed somewhat. It hasn’t been as dramatic as we anticipated, and now with the economy, it might be pushed back a couple more years as people delay retirement. We’ve set up effective internship programs and leadership development programs for the next generation of deputies. That has been very well received. It’s generated a lot of management candidates who are actually quite coveted within the public service. We’ve developed a program with Queen’s, and get credible feedback about its value. We have an intake of about 40 to 60 people a year. We started with ADMs and now it’s expanded to address a much larger leadership group.
We’ve had good success in equity hiring, and have a dedicated Aboriginal management internship program that’s also been quite successful.
One area that we have not made as much headway on is to challenge some of the existing culture and take a larger view of the public service. Government is still silo-driven and service on policy innovations is constrained sometimes by the departmental structure.
Isn’t the “Healthy Child” initiative a good example of breaking out of silos?
Yes, Healthy Child and the Aboriginal Issues Committee of Cabinet are efforts to achieve some of that breakdown. Implementing these new policy initiatives entails setting up a new Cabinet Committee and then having people come together from all the relevant departments to craft a dedicated budget, to devise policy together, and to collaborate on implementation.
The problem with that approach is that there’s a limit to how many Cabinet Committees you can create. We’ve seen how successful the model is; but I think the greater challenge is to get that kind of collaboration happening more spontaneously without having to create a formal structure in each case. The way to do that is to get people to see the public service as an integrated network, to be less conscious of departmental borders.
Ideally, we want senior public servants to be policy entrepreneurs, people who aren’t afraid to pick up the phone and see if they can find areas of overlap and successful collaboration on their own. In fact, we’ve tried to get across the message that, within the constraints of a balanced budget, we have a context where policy entrepreneurship is to some extent a necessity; it is a way to deal with the continual pressure to “do more with less.”
In terms of policy capacity, one way to stretch your internal capacity is to network with outside organizations in search of new policy ideas and new methods of program delivery. Is this happening in Manitoba?
I would accept that assessment as it applies to Manitoba, and I think it’s true of other governments across Canada as well. Past budget exercises diminished in-house policy capacity, but the impact was uneven. Some larger departments were able to hold onto more of their capacity.
Looking forward, I think the priority will continue to be placed be
