trampling the turf - eth z

Trampling the Turf: Enhancing Collaboration in

the Public Service of Canada

Institute On Governance

April 3, 1996

A Study Prepared for the

Deputy Minister Task Force on Horizontal Issues; and the

Deputy Minister Task Force on Service Delivery

Executive Summary

This report presents the results of a study of the problem of "turf" in the federal government undertaken by the Institute On Governance on behalf of two Deputy Minister Task Forces over the winter of 1996-97. The report defines "turf" as a lack of cooperation and collaboration among government departments (and between jurisdictions) which impedes the development of coherent public policy and the provision of effective service to citizens. It recognizes that some competition is inherent in government, and is in fact a reflection of the democratic process in action (different interests and viewpoints being reconciled in the general public interest). However, analysis revealed a strong sense among public servants that conflict in the public service has gone well beyond the level needed to reconcile legitimate interests. As one participant in a workshop put it, "the problem is that there's a general sense that an (unhealthy) pathology has crept into our culture ... Conflict itselfis part of our job. Yet we all sense that something's gone wrong." This report proposes what needs to be done to fix things.

'Fixing' the problem of turf is no trivial matter. The analysis undertaken in this study to isolate the causes of the problem revealed that turf is deep-rooted. Some 60 contributing factors were identified. From this list, a 'map' of the problem was devised by participants in a series of workshops for the purpose. The purpose of this map was to identify those factors which contributed most profoundly to the culture of competitive behaviour and to illustrate how these factors related to each other.

The analysis revealed that to "trample" this particular kind of turf will require action on several fronts. A systemic approach will be necessary, and initiatives will be required which will have implications beyond the immediate concern of this report (turf). This report thus bears to some degree upon the general challenge of reform or renewal of the public service. It identifies the need for a clearer sense of general direction and shared values for the public service (and measures to communicate these through both actions and other initiatives); more consistent leadership; changes to reward systems and incentives, and the clarification of performance expectations; the development of new skills and other initiatives to reshape mindsets and the culture of the public service. In addition, certain changes to structures and mechanisms in the public service are also required. The importance of the role of the 'leadership circle' of the public service, under the guidance of the Clerk of the Privy Council, is underlined, as is the need for PCO to reaffirm its role as a catalyst to change. The process whereby changes are instituted, it is suggested, is almost as important as the substance of the changes themselves, since the process will provide practical indications of the degree to which collaboration is valued.

The report presents 33 recommendations, some directed to line departments and some to the centre. These are reproduced in Appendix III at the end of this document.

Trampling the Turf Institute On Governance - Page i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1

Table of Contents ii

Foreword iv

Chapter One: Introduction.......................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND -- WHY THIS PROJECT? 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES............................................. 1 1.3 PROCESS AND WORK PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

Chapter Two: Defining the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3

2.1 SPECTRUM OF REASONS FOR NON-COOPERATION. . . . . . . . . . .. 3 2.2 THREE DIMENSIONS OF PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITY 5 2.3 HOW SERIOUS IS THE PROBLEM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 2.4 THE PROBLEM REVISITED: NEW INSIGHTS / NEW DEFINITION .. 7

Chapter Three: Understanding the Causes of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

3.1 A MAP OF THE FORCES AT PLAY 8 3.2 ROOT OR FUNDAMENTAL FACTORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 3.3 SECONDARY OR CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 11 3.4 THIRD ORDER FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 3.5 READING THE PROBLEM MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 3.6 REACTIONS TO THE PROBLEM MAP 13

Chapter Four: The Turf Problem in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

4.1 THE IMPERATIVE OF CHANGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 4.2 ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE RECOMMENDATIONS 16 4.3 A FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE: CLARIFYING PUBLIC SERVICE

DIRECTIONS 17

Chapter Five: Directions for Change 19

5.1 CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AS A WHOLE 19

Trampling the Turf Institute On Governance - Page ii

5.2 A COLLABORATIVE CORPORATE CULTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 5.3 POSITIVE LEADERSHIP 23 5.4 CLEARER PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS 27 5.5 REWARDING COLLABORATIVE BEHAVIOUR 30 5.6 EXPANDING PUBLIC SERVICE SKILLS 33 5.7 COLLABORATIVE STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS 36

Chapter Six: Conclusion............................................ 41

6.1 A SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO CHANGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 6.2 GETTING STARTED , 42

APPENDIX I 45

APPENDIX II 49

APPENDIX III 51

Trampling the Turf Institute On Governance - Page iii

Foreword

This report is based heavily on input from the public servants who have participated in the six workshops which have played a major role in this process. Their collaboration is gratefully acknowledged.

However, writing this report required the project team to push beyond the points made by participants, to shape their input into pointed recommendations for action. Members of the team have amplified and extrapolated from the workshop material, drawing on other experience, exposure to international models, and some focused research and interviews. Therefore, while much of the credit for this report must go to the workshop participants and others involved, the responsibility for its content lies with the Institute On Governance.

The Institute is grateful for the strong support of the secretariats to the two client task forces, particularly Rick Smith and Wilma Vreeswijk of Environment Canada, and Jim Armstrong and Mary O'Rourke of Western Diversification.

The lOG team was led by Tim Plumptre, Managing Director, and by Lyle Makosky, President of InterQuest and Executive Associate of the lOG. Lyle designed the process and facilitated the larger workshops using specialized electronic problem solving technology. Laurie Stretch, lOG Program Officer, did the bulk of the writing and coordination for the project. Claire McQuillan, lOG Director, helped the team to frame the final recommendations.

Trampling the Turf Institute On Governance - Page iv

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND -- WHY THIS PROJECT?

In the spring of 1995, the Institute On Governance held a series of Round Table discussions for a group of federal Assistant Deputy Ministers on the subject of "New Relationships and Partnerships for Government." The final session was devoted to exploring some of the impediments to better relationships within government, and partnerships with external organizations. Through a ranking process, participants concluded decisively that the single greatest impediment to more effective relationships was: "Departments don't work together well, due to turf consciousness andfew incentives or frameworks to support collaboration." Participants agreed that this is a crucial problem which warrants more focussed attention if it is to be addressed in any meaningful way.

As a result of this interesting finding, the Institute sought to delve further into the question of turf, to determine the real nature of the problem, and the factors which contribute to it. The Institute's interest coincided with the work of two Deputy Minister Task Forces: one on Alternative Service Delivery Mechanisms, chaired by Janet Smith, and one on Horizontal Issues, chaired by Mel Cappe. The issue of turf preoccupation is a serious problem hampering both policy coherence and client orientation, and is thus of particular interest to these task forces. Ultimately, if their efforts are to bear fruit, there will have to be effective cooperation and collaboration across government. Therefore, officials of these two task forces contracted the Institute On Governance to conduct a program of workshops and research into the turf issue.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this program were as follows:

• to define the turf problem clearly, with respect to the work of the two Deputy Minister task forces;

• to produce a conceptual map of the turf problem, showing the key factors causing the problem;

• to produce a set of strategies for addressing the turf problem; • to link this work to the work of the Deputy Minister task forces on Horizontal

Issues and Alternative Service Delivery Mechanisms.

Trampling the Turf Institute On Governance - Page 1

1.3 PROCESS AND WORK PROGRAM

The process consisted of two one-day workshop sessions a research component, and three half-day problem solving workshops, structured as follows:

1) preliminary research into the issue, consisting of a survey of existing material on the subject of turf protection in public service environments, and the preparation of background material for the first seminar;

2) a structured one-day workshop for program and policy managers from across government, to map out the problem of non-cooperation, define the factors affecting the current situation, and examine the relationships among them;

3) a one-day workshop for senior public service executives, building on the work of the previous group by filling out the problem map and beginning to build a framework or vision for a better future:'

4) research and analysis by the Institute based on the workshop outcomes, synthesizing the problem maps and identifying the leverage points for effective action;

5) three half-day problem solving workshops, in which participants developed strategies to address particular clusters of issues on the problem map;

6) synthesis and analysis by the lOG team, shaping the project input into a report with focused recommendations.

lBoth of the workshop sessions were professionally facilitated, using sophisticated group problemsolving software. This technology enables a group to produce a model which clarifies complex relationships between a large number of interrelated factors, and therefore to identify those factors which are most influential or dominant in perpetuating a difficult problem.


Chapter Two: Defining the Problem

As the work progressed on this project, the complexity of the issue became more apparent. A particular challenge was arriving at an accurate definition of the problem. We had used the word "turf" because it is often used by public servants themselves, and because it is a convenient shorthand for a whole range of barriers to coordination and collaboration across government. But is "turf" the best way to describe these problems? That word implies the problems are essentially behavioural. In fact, as this report will show, there exists a diverse range of barriers or impediments to cooperation. The first task, then, is to define accurately the problem with which we are concerned.

2.1 SPECTRUM OF REASONS FOR NON-COOPERATION

To avoid limiting the scope of the discussion, the problem was described at the beginning of the first workshop as a lack of cooperation and collaboration across the public sector which leads to uncoordinated services and fractured policy. A discussion ensued regarding the extent to which conflict is natural in a public sector environment. As was observed by workshop participants, friction is necessary and in fact healthy in a public sector context. Government, after all, is designed to be the forum through which the competing demands of society are addressed. This fosters a positive tension which leads to creative public policy. A workshop participant likened this basic political science type of conflict to "good cholesterol."

Yet there is a Widespread feeling that somehow this natural tension is manifesting itself in unhealthy ways. In many cases, cooperation and collaboration do not take place when they would clearly be positive. In the words of a workshop participant, "the problem is that there's a general sense that an (unhealthy) pathology has crept into our culture ... Conflict itself is part of our job. Yet we all sense that something's gone wrong."

It became evident that there is in fact a spectrum of types of non-cooperative behaviour, ranging from helpful, creative tension to negative, obstructive behaviour which is not in the public interest or helpful to the functioning of the public service. It is the unnecessary conflict, or "bad cholesterol" with which this report is concerned.

It should be emphasized that the lines of demarcation are not always clear. Tension viewed by one person as creative may be seen by another as obstructionist. The lOG


Round Table participants offered an interesting perspective regarding the spectrum of behaviour. "Strains and competitiveness are natural given how suddenly we are changing things -- merging Coast Guard with Fisheries, for example. The conflict isn't inherently bad, but we need better mechanisms to work out the conflict and reach closure or a solution. The real question is the extent to which the competitiveness is just bloody minded turf protection, rather than constructive debate."

The goal, then, is not collaboration for its own sake, or at the expense of important policy interests. The goal is cooperation and collaboration as a means to achieve more coherent public policy and more effective service delivery. An ideal public sector environment could be described as one in which opposing views or interests are debated openly and vigorously, but debated in the underlying context of seeking the public interest, rather than pursuing organizational or personal ends. The debate should be undertaken in a spirit of achieving a solution, and once that solution is achieved, there should be cooperation and collaboration, across whatever lines are required, to implement it. All of the attitudes, structures, and processes which prevent this positive type of cooperation and collaboration are what contribute to the problem whose manifestation we have described as "turf."

We found that the picture is further complicated by the range of public service activity and the fact that conflict may take different forms or be of different orders of magnitude according to the field of activity. The matrix below portrays the spectrum of conflictual behaviour and the range of policy and program activities. As we shall see, the shaded area is the conflict with which this report is primarily concerned.

Policy / program activities

A. Major, priority policy issues

B. Mainstream policy development

C. Program/service development and delivery

Helpful, creative tension or conflict around competing interests

Debatable tension or conflict

Unnecessary, harmful conflict


2.2 THREE DIMENSIONS OF PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITY

The three columns of the matrix above represent three dimensions of government activity, and the problem of unnecessary conflict plays out somewhat differently in each one.

Column A covers areas of stated government priority. The impetus on such issues is clearly coming from the political level. Related conflict often begins at the Cabinet table, and is reflected down through departments. Efforts to reform the social security system would be a current example of such an issue. While the big policy issues certainly generate friction, workshop participants determined that it is friction of a different type than that created by more everyday interaction, and therefore outside the primary scope of this report. Perhaps because of the political pressure driving such issues, they do not tend to get bogged down in unnecessary interdepartmental conflict.

Even so, one participant observed that the way in which top political priorities are handled may be indicative of the extent of the turf problem. Frequently, if a policy priority is viewed as central to a government's agenda, Ministers will bypass the regular public service by creating special purpose bodies or processes to create and implement the policy. Examples of this include the Free Trade Agreement, the Green Plan, and the National Energy Program. It is possible that part of the reason for such special purpose bodies is a desire on the part of Ministers to avoid conflict among departments and agencies which they fear could slow implementation of their policy priorities.

Columns Band C, then, are the primary focus of this report. Column B represents interaction on mainstream policy development. This field lies between the big policy issues and the operational level of effective service delivery. Column C represents the program and service development and delivery field, from the head office level to the front line worker.

There was considerable discussion in the workshops about whether the problem of barriers to cooperation is a substantively different issue for people and organizations in the policy development field than it is for those in the service delivery field. We explored the possibility that these may be two entirely different problems. Some important distinctions were indeed noted, based on the nature of the work. The policy field is inherently more flexible, and there is an expectation that people will think broadly. In service delivery on the other hand, the intended focus is on a narrow program area, and the goal is to administer that program or service as effectively as possible. In this sense, one might expect policy people to be more outward looking and hence more cooperative. However, this was not the experience of workshop participants. They noted that policy making is also naturally a conflictual exercise, often engaging Ministers directly, and that this natural conflict often goes much further than required.


The results of a failure to collaborate in policy making may also be of a different order than the impact of a similar failure in service delivery. As a participant noted, "at the policy level, developing policy in isolation is a recipe for disaster -- examples of this are legion. But for service delivery, working in isolation only results in poor service for a particular client group. "

In spite of these important distinctions, the workshop groups agreed that the heart of the problem is the same in the fields of policy development and program delivery. As one person put it, "underlying both perspectives are the culture and mindsets of the public service." The structures and processes which shape culture and mindsets are also similar across public service functions. Ultimately, policy development and program delivery are inextricably linked, and the factors which contribute to the impediments to cooperation in both areas are largely the same.

2.3 HOW SERIOUS IS THE PROBLEM?

The lOG spring Round Table discussions gave a clear indication that the turf problem is seriously hampering public service effectiveness (see section 1.1). As one ADM who participated in that session put it, II the emerging interconnectivity of the sectors is the new paradigm, yet the fluid needed to lubricate this interconnectivity is not there. Horizontal alliances are absolutely vital -- we must get beyond the stovepipes. But I believe that there is a public service organizational drag which is preventing the forging of these cooperative relationships. "

Workshop participants provided more specific insight into why this problem matters, and why it is urgent. With respect to the importance of the problem, six factors emerged as particularly significant:

• the climate of rapid global change is forcing a fundamental rethinking of the role of government, and some previous ways of operating in the public service need to adapt;

• the lack of collaboration contributes to the general loss of faith on the part of the Canadian public which is afflicting the public service;

• issues faced by the modem public service have a very long time horizon and cannot be solved quickly or unilaterally (ozone depletion was the example given), so cooperation is essential;

• incoherence hurts the Canadian government's overall credibility, in some cases even its international credibility;

• the costs of conflict are high (energy and resources wasted); • tension and unnecessary conflict cause poor morale and impede both service

delivery and policy development.

The urgency of the problem was viewed by many people in light of present fiscal


realities. It was argued that there used to be enough money to simply "paper over policy incoherence," so that conflict was often avoided. Today, though, competing interests must be more directly confronted. Furthermore, new policies must be funded by a reduction elsewhere, so that every reallocation becomes a major battle. For these reasons, the problem of impediments to cooperation was felt to be increasingly urgent.

To provide a better understanding of the dimensions of "turf", participants were invited to provide some indications of practical manifestations of the issue. Some examples cited by participants appear in appendix II.

2.4 THE PROBLEM REVISITED: NEW INSIGHTS I NEW DEFINITION

The investigation of the turf problem revealed that the problem is much more than just narrow-minded protection of jurisdictional boundaries. As we have seen, what we have called "turf" is just the manifestation, or the face, of a problem of non-collaboration, when collaboration would be in the interests of policy coherence and effective service delivery. The factors underlying this problem are a combination of barriers, attitudes and cultures which hinder positive cooperation and collaboration, as well as the lack of enabling structures and processes to encourage cooperation. What we seek, then, is not only behavioural change, implicit when describing the problem as "turf," but changes to the structures, mindsets, and processes which further these undesirable behaviours.

The work also revealed that this is a highly complex problem. The spectrum of conflictual behaviour, positive and negative, and the range of public service activity which has the potential to generate conflict make it difficult to pinpoint cause and effect. Section 3 explains the model of the problem which emerged from the workshop sessions, but even now, some questions remain unanswered. For example, it is likely that the magnitude or extent of the problem varies across the public service. Presumably some departments, regions, or fields of activity are more susceptible to these barriers to cooperation than others.

Nonetheless, participants agreed that while the problem may take different forms in different areas of the public service, the underlying factors driving the situation are the same. The next section maps out those factors.


Chapter Three: Understanding the Causes of the Problem

3.1 A MAP OF THE FORCES AT PLAY

The analysis of "turf" carried out by three groups of public servants, supplemented by a review of literature and of the experience of PS2000, generated a catalogue of factors which affect the problem to greater or lesser degrees. Some 60 such factors were identified, indicating that "turf" is a phenomenon which arises from many causes. This list, organized into categories, is presented in appendix 1.

Each of the three workshops also used a specialized computer modelling process to develop a "map" which isolates the most important or basic forces driving the problem. Each group first identified, from the list of factors in appendix I, those few which they believed to be critical. Each then weighed these against one another to determine their relative importance and their mutual influence, and constructed a map of the problem illustrating these forces and their relationships.

While the three problem maps thus produced vary in nuance and emphasis, they show remarkable agreement on the key causes of "turf". An analysis of the three maps in combination therefore provides some clear direction in developing an action plan to break down the impediments to cooperation. Thus, on the next page we present a problem map synthesized from the three. This diagram gives a visual depiction of the key factors contributing to the "turf" situation.' The following pages explain the model in more detail, including descriptions of what is included within each heading on the diagram.

2 In reading this map, one begins on the left side of the model and reads across to the right. The factors on the left-most side are the most influential drivers of the situation under analysis. The factors of secondary importance appear further to the right, with the arrows demonstrating paths of influence and clusters of related factors. Problem maps of this kind often reveal to an organization that it is concentrating too much of its energies on factors which are very visible symptoms of the bigger problem, but which are not in fact the root causes.


Key Contributing Factors to the Problem ofNon-Collaboration

Public Service Reward System

Skill Sets

t I \Performance Expectations

I '~I I Environment of

Mindsets, culture "Turf'budget restraint and values driven by short Behaviour

time frames

I 1//Vision

t Structures and MechanismsI ~~p I

~ J ~ J ~ J First order Second order Third order

contributingfactors contributingfactors contributingfactors

3.2 ROOT OR FUNDAMENTAL FACTORS

The analysis demonstrates four fundamental factors contributing to the problem, in two groupings. These factors are:

• a reward system which fails to encourage collaboration;

• performance expectations which encourage "upward" rather than horizontal kinds of behaviour and priorities

• leadership models and behaviour which send the wrong messages

• the lack of a sense of coherent purpose or direction for the public service within which the theme of collaboration is communicated and reinforced.

If changes can be made in these areas, they will almost certainly lead to a significant improvement in collaboration in the public service. (Conversely, if these issues are not addressed, and effort is directed to other factors because they are more pliable or require less effort, the likelihood of achieving enduring results falls dramatically.)

Reward System

The public service reward system emerged as perhaps the single most influential element giving rise to unnecessary conflict in the system. The message from workshop participants was unequivocal: individualism is favoured over group effort in the public service. Further, "vertical" ways of thinking (the departmental silos) are the ones which are rewarded. There is little recognition of collaboration and cooperation, particularly across departmental lines. As one participant put it, "the real rewards come when you "win" something for your organization -- you're seen as a wimp if you give something up or share power." The "win-lose" attitude was repeatedly emphasized as a major hurdle to cooperativeness.

Performance Expectations

Closely related to reward systems, performance expectations do not emphasize interdepartmental collaboration. Not only do job descriptions fail to identify cooperative behaviour as a goal, but officials are not held accountable when there is a failure of cooperation. Operational goals tend to be very sector- or program-specific. In fact, participants in the managers' workshop spoke of facing criticism from above if they spent significant time on interdepartmental meetings or relationship-building.


Leadership

There is little leadership, either political or bureaucratic, signalling that horizontal, cooperative approaches are a priority. It is evident to public servants that leadership bodies (central agencies like Treasury Board and PSC, and service organizations like CCMD) have been preoccupied with reductions, departmental restructuring, and vertical rationalization, and this may have led in recent years to even less emphasis on horizontal coordination.

Some participants also argued that powerful departments have little incentive to cooperate, and that powerful Ministers tend to focus on their own political agendas. In the view of participants, Deputy Ministers, while very skilled people, do not tend to be appointed for their consensus-building skills; rather, most are perceived to be aggressive, goal-focused people.

However, the lack of cooperation begins right at the political level. One ADM observed that"if the Board of Directors ofa private corporation worked as competitively and with as much animosity as Cabinet does, the company would collapse." This is a fundamental reality of the public service. Efforts to encourage collaborative behaviour within the public service so that the "general" public interest is served, not just that of individual sectors or specialized policy interests, will inevitably run counter to the strong territoriality which tends to emanate from many Cabinet Ministers.

On the leadership issue (as well as some of the other key factors), it was interesting to note a certain reluctance to take ownership of the issue. All of the participants in this program were fairly senior public servants, yet they tended to point elsewhere when they referred to problems of leadership. There were certain exceptions (one ADM said "we can't expect front line people to be client-focused and cooperative when we won't do it ourselves or share power at the top levels"), but overall, leadership was seen to be largely someone else's problem.

"Vision" or a Sense of Collective Purpose

Linked to the point about leadership, there is uncertainty and confusion about the future role of the public service, and indeed about the role of the federal government itself. This problem was generally described in the workshops as a lack of "vision", which could act as a rallying point for a new spirit of cooperation. Participants did not believe that there are meaningful priorities for government as a whole which speak to the need for more collaboration. One noted that "departments don't see themselves as subsidiaries of the whole government -- they see themselves as independent corporations."


3.3 SECONDARY OR CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

A second order of contributing factors also emerged, which appear as the middle column in the problem model. These are also key forces, not to be overlooked, but they tend to work together with the first order factors and to be affected by them.

Structures and Mechanisms

There are few structures and mechanisms to encourage horizontal coordination. As a participant put it, "our hierarchical structures are increasingly inappropriate for our problems. II This hierarchy leads to issue resolution only at the top levels, and does not favour collaboration. Departments and their internal structures are organized along largely vertical lines and citizen access and services are primarily designed to be department specific. This militates against a horizontal, multi-department, single window approach. Narrowly defined mandates is a related problem, and there is little opportunity for informal communication across departmental lines. Flexible mechanisms are required which span the range of formal and informal, structural and non-structural, temporary and permanent.

Skills

Current public service skills reinforce current behaviour. There is little investment in teamwork. Participants asserted that most employees stay in one department for their entire careers, making it difficult for them to think laterally. Their impressions were that little effort has been made to define the skill sets required for those new modes of operating better suited to the needs of tomorrow's public service, and current skill sets are not adequate for some emerging needs that are assuming increasing importance.

For example, we were told that consensus-building or cooperation skills are not sought in managers. Furthermore, retraining people to emphasize collaborative approaches requires a front-end investment in time and dollars and there is a reluctance to make such an investment unless it has a direct connection to the priorities of the individual job or program. The prevalence of existing skills, unrelieved by new learned capabilities or behaviours, contributes to the persistence of unhelpful mindsets and values, as discussed below.

Mindsets, Culture and Values

The mindsets, culture and values prevalent in the public service do not foster teamwork or cooperation. Fundamentally, there is little evidence of government wide corporate values to balance the historic departmental orientations. There is low risk tolerance, and


collaborative approaches are seen as unusual and therefore risky. Command and control attitudes still prevail in lieu of a teamwork mentality, and we were told that there a strong client focus is still not prevalent in many if not most departments. A lack of trust among people is another important point which can be included here. Finally, outlooks tend to be generally negative rather than positive, and we were advised that there is a reluctance to accept change toward more collaborative or team-like behaviour.

As the problem map demonstrates, while mindsets, culture and values is not one of the most basic factors discouraging collaboration, it is nonetheless a central one. Mindsets and attitudes are affected by all the other key factors, and changes in corporate values will clearly be a key determinant in fostering more cooperative public service relationships.

3.4 THIRD ORDER FACTORS

In this problem model, the only third order factor is an environment of budget restraint driven by short time frames. All of the workshops identified the tight fiscal situation as a factor which contributes to the turf problem. Participants argued that conflicts over reallocation have been a key component of recent "turf battles." The fact that the issue was chosen as one of the few factors to be included in the problem modelling exercise shows that it is indeed an important element of the picture. However, the positioning of the factor on the model suggests that, contrary to what one might anticipate, the stresses of budget restraint and tight time lines tend to be a symptom of the bigger problem, rather than a cause. In other words, the message of the model is that even if the atmosphere of fiscal restraint were to be relieved, the problem of turf would still persist, because it is rooted in other, more basic causes.

3.5 READING THE PROBLEM MAP

From the complete map, one can follow the arrows to read a number of paths showing what is happening to further the impediments to positive collaboration in the public service. For example, poor reward systems are creating a culture which does not value cooperation, which in turn prevents the formation of structures or mechanisms for collaboration, which then means that an environment of budget restraint results in harmful battles over funds. Several of these paths of influence exist concurrently.

To achieve progress, the greatest impact will be attained by working above all on the left-most, first order factors, as well as the second order contributing factors in combination with the first. The factors should not be considered in isolation, and success in improving one of the first order contributing factors will not automatically "fix" the second and third order factors at the same time. The value of this type of model is in the patterns of interaction which it reveals, and the need which it reveals for


an approach which is both systemic and centred around root causes.

3.6 REACTIONS TO THE PROBLEM MAP

Participants found the problem map a very useful tool around which to build strategies for change. One observed that the model demonstrates why previous efforts to become more collaborative may have failed, since little management time is spent on the key factors. Management attempts to address turf problems tend to take the form of retrenching, clarifying roles, and focusing on individual behaviour rather than systemic problems.


Chapter Four: The Turf Problem in Context

As noted, one of the challenges of this project was defining the problem. In discussing factors which contribute to a lack of cooperation across the public service, participants would begin by focusing their remarks on the turf problem, but as they moved toward solutions they would quickly begin to discuss wider problems of the general functioning of the public service. When challenged to remain "focused on the problem at hand", participants expressed the view that the issue of turf could not be extricated from the larger picture. That is, the actions required to address the turf question were thought to be ones with other ramifications. Since the mandate of this project was not to address the wider issues of public service renewal or reform, this linkage between narrower and wider problems created some conceptual difficulties. However, we did not believe that we could sidestep this issue, or pretend that because of its linkage to broader matters, we should seek to impose some kind of artificial constraints around the strategies required to deal with turf. At the same time, we are conscious that because the proposals related to turf have wider ramifications, they will have to be considered carefully, not only for their implications for turf but also for other dimensions of the public service.

Meanwhile, to deal specifically with turf, the mandate of this project, the conclusions of the workshops indicated clearly that if there is a serious desire, at the level of Cabinet or the Coordinating Committee of Deputy Ministers (CCDM), to address the issue of turf, the actions required will be significant.

4.1 THE IMPERATIVE OF CHANGE

Many of the factors contributing to the turf issue have existed for years if not decades in the public service. The problems raised in the previous section -- a lack of vision and leadership; reward systems which fail to promote teamwork; a risk-averse and noncollaborative corporate culture; structures and mechanisms which reinforce vertical mindsets -- have all been identified in previous initiatives designed to improve the public service. Why, then, is it critical that these issues be tackled again today? And is there any reason to believe that renewed efforts will be more successful than past attempts?


The answer to both questions lies in the mounting pressures for change bearing upon the public service. The environment in which the public service operates has changed greatly in recent years. The sense of workshop participants was that existing modes of operation have fallen very badly out of step with external reality. We heard as well that the pressures of change and downsizing are causing very high stress levels, and conflict on an individual level, which is the antithesis of the collaborative spirit which is desired.

A major part of the current atmosphere of stress, of course, is driven by the fiscal situation. Participants observed that fiscal restraint has become a kind of fog, enveloping the public service and affecting all action, although often in an indirect, obscure way. But the problems are not only financial.

The lack of trust which Canadians exhibit for their government is a major source of concern to the public service, because the effectiveness of any government depends to a large extent on the faith of citizens that the system is generally working in their interests. Furthermore, there are powerful external forces of change, often global in scope, which are challenging governments around the world to keep pace with changing notions of governance. Part of these changes have to do with the phenomenon of the global village, in which technological advances have made the transfer of information virtually instantaneous. In such an environment, governments lose their historically privileged position as the keeper of much information which was beyond the grasp of regular citizens or business leaders.

As well, at least partially due to the information revolution, the role of many governments around the world is changing. While citizens still look directly to government to perform some functions (security or protection of basic rights, for example), in several jurisdictions they are pushing government back from roles which it occupied during the expansion of the modern welfare state. There is a widespread feeling that governments by their nature are too large, too bureaucratic, too unwieldy to perform in the service-oriented, responsive and flexible manner demanded of service organizations in the late 20th century.

The pressures facing the Canadian public service are not, of course, entirely negative. Crisis can also provide powerful impetus for necessary change. For the public service, then, the need and the opportunity now exist for more fundamental change. It is, after all, better to work by design than to attempt to fix individual problems on a piecemeal basis. The better the anticipation and planning in the face of major forces for change, the more constructive the process is likely to be. For this reason, it is quite possible that reform attempts made now will have a greater likelihood of success than efforts undertaken in the past, because the appetite for change is growing.


• •

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

An Evolving Public Service

Today's Public Service

Policy Development

Regulation

A

Service Delivery

Existing Crowns, Agencies

C

( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I

II~-----I\I

New Service I Crowns, I Policy Regulation Service Delivery Models, AgenciesDevt Delivery Institutional C IA

Forms Il-" .

•-

B\ Private Sector

Non Profit I Public Purpose Organizations Voluntary Sector

4.2 ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

In offering recommendations on how to enhance cooperation and collaboration across the public service, we found it necessary to make some assumptions about how the public service is likely to evolve in the next few years and about the environment within which it will be functioning. These assumptions are as follows.

First, it seems like that there will be further devolution of federal government functions. Some of this devolution will be to provincial governments; but there will also likely be increasing numbers of partnerships with private or voluntary sector organizations. In the area of service delivery in particular, Canadians' desire for one-window access and quality service will likely drive continuing efforts to pursue alternative delivery mechanisms.

Second, the interdependence of issues will continue to rise, leading to a more pressing need to find more horizontal approaches to government activity.

Also the demand for more citizen engagement in the public policy process will likely increase rather than recede. Individuals and organizations are seeking a stronger voice in the debate around policy options.

The role of government is likely to move in the direction of becoming more of an enabler rather than a doer in society. Or, expressed in Osborne and Gaebler's famous phrase, government will do more steering and less rowing, and will find new kinds of service delivery mechanisms and approaches to handle service functions.

We are only beginning to get some sense of what these forces might mean in terms of changed organizational structures. It seems likely that the need for flexible, client driven service organizations will mean a devolution of some functions to arm's length bodies, employee owned agencies, special operating agencies, or other hybrid organizational forms. At the same time, there are clearly core functions of government which continue to require direct political accountability, and are probably therefore more suited to traditional bureaucratic structures. The accompanying chart provides some idea of the directions in which structural changes in the public service seem likely to proceed.

The most likely outcome of these forces and changes is the emergence of a new "mixed model" of organizational forms in the public service, with different accountability frameworks and management priorities. This has significant implications for the turf problem, as well as the management of horizontal issues more generally. We will discuss this emerging mixed model again at other points in this report.

All of these assumptions lead to the conclusion that the public service is going to need structures, principles, values and support systems which foster collaboration, both within the public service itself, and with external partners, other governments, and citizens. In


other words, the new public service, as it is conceived, requires an entirely new emphasis on cooperation and collaboration.

4.3 A FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE: CLARIFYING PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTIONS

Our problem modelling sessions identified the lack of "vision" for the public service as one of the first order contributing factors to the turf problem. In this, the findings of the workshops echoed sentiments which have been voiced in many public service forums in recent years (e.g. APEX surveys of membership),

However, in discussions about this issue, it became apparent to us that in the present context in Ottawa, the word "vision" gives rise to reactions that impede constructive discussion of strategy. There seem to be various reasons for this, among them:

• a widespread sense of fatigue with so-called visioning exercises that have consumed a lot of energy but produced little useful change;

• a belief that "visions" are but the latest of a series of private sector management fads which are ill-suited to the public sector;

• a concern that any real vision for the public service has to hang from some kind of political vision for the future of the country, and a recognition that this is a political issue which lies beyond the purview of the public service;

• the assumption that a "vision-driven" approach to change necessarily involves a kind of formal grand design that would be difficult or impossible to formulate, leading to paralysis by analysis;

• a belief that such a vision would of necessity involve a directive, top-down approach to change that would be neither appropriate nor feasible in an organization as complex and decentralized as the public service.

Although the idea of a vision does not need to be interpreted in this way, to avoid needless debate over terminology and concepts, in this report, we do not use the term "vision" to describe what is needed. Instead, we speak of a framework for change, a sense of guiding direction. It is our view that between some kind of grand design for the country or the public service, and the present situation of uncertainty and perplexity, there is a middle ground which can be attained in a practical manner.

What would go a considerable distance to meeting the concerns of the participants in our deliberations, is a clearer sense of direction from the centre of the public service on what the norms, values, method of operation and structural principles of the public service are expected to look like in a few years' time.


More specifically, this sense of direction:

• needs to have, as an underpinning, a common set of principles (such as the need to establish a more collaborative public service) which is subscribed to by the heads of central agencies and the majority of deputy ministers. Without such an underpinning, consistency in purpose from the many actors involved in public service leadership will not be achievable.

• requires some measure of Cabinet support

• can, and probably should, emerge progressively over a period of months, rather than being announced or proclaimed as some kind of full-blown plan for the future of the public service

• will be convincing to the degree that it is reflected in a consistent pattern of practical actions and decisions (the belief in the public service is widespread that there has been a failure to "walk the talk" of needed change in recent years, as discussed more fully in chapter five)

• will require leadership from within the public service itself. Politicians, by and large, have neither the time, the interest or the competence to provide directions on questions such as these. But they can respond to constructive suggestions from within the bureaucracy.

Henry Mintzberg's definition of strategy as "pattern in action" is a useful concept in this connection. Strategy does not need to be a grand design, nor does it need to be topdown. Empirical study of strategy in many organizations reveals that much if not most strategy is "emergent" -- that is, the broad ideas emerge gradually over time. The role of leaders is often not to articulate the vision but rather to see the pattern in emergent action and to take decisions which concert effort towards ends that become clearer and clearer as institutions work toward them.

The message from the participants in our workshops is that in the last few years, they have seen little evidence of pattern in the announcements and actions of the 'centre' of the public service, nor have they seen congruence between political actions and pronouncements with respect to the service. They would be reassured and encouraged if they saw more of both. For this to occur, however, there needs to be an emerging consensus at the centre of the public service, a binding framework of guiding ideas about the needed direction of change and about what is realistically achievable. In the following section of this report we elaborate on the areas which we believe these ideas can, and should address.


Chapter Five: Directions for Change

5.1 CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AS A WHOLE

A renewed sense of direction around how the federal public service should function is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for solving the deeply rooted problem which we have described as "turf". If public servants are to be expected to change fundamentally the way they have been working for years, there needs to be a process for both shaping and communicating the desired end state after all the change. If such a framework can be crafted and communicated through actions as well as words, it increases the likelihood that the upheaval of change will be embraced instead of resisted.

This framework should eventually encompass all of the theme areas covered in this chapter. People must be able to visualize the type of leadership, the human resource systems, the corporate culture, and the organizational structures and mechanisms which will comprise the public service's new mode of operating. They must be able to see all the forces of change moving in the same direction and toward the same general goals.

How such a framework is developed is as important as its content. The process should be collaborative and should gather strength and conviction with the passage of time. Unions and other important partners should be involved.

Most importantly, this framework must set directions for the public service as a whole. Many departments have their own vision statements, and benefit from reasonably strong internal corporate cultures. But, as workshop participants noted, missing is an articulation of a desired corporate culture for the public service as a whole which (a) is credible, not just rhetoric, and (b) is able to co-exist with departmental cultures.

People seem to be losing sight of what it means to be a public servant; the core of the service is beginning to look hollow. Public servants tend to identify themselves as employees of Health Canada or Environment Canada, rather than employees of the Government of Canada. This is not to say that departmental vision statements should be eliminated, but that a further level of allegiance needs to be promoted -- to the public service of Canada. A useful part of the process of creating this wider allegiance would be an examination of all existing departmental vision statements, to identify common elements.

An aspect which must be incorporated into this new framework is a set of core values to which the service subscribes or aspires. If public service leaders are genuinely


committed to the promotion of greater collaboration, and if they believe this is a legitimate goal in the face of the divisive influence of Cabinet government, then this set of values must support and emphasize cooperation. Participants in our workshops indicated that they would look for more emphasis on norms such as integrity; trust; initiative; collegiality; collaboration; accountability; equity; and respect. Some values, such as impartiality, will be longstanding public service values; others, such as collaboration, may be more recent additions. These values should help to define what it means to be part of the Government of Canada. It should provide a touchstone of affiliation for public servants, perhaps even those who may be working under new organizational structures at arm's length from the core public service.

This jobs falls squarely on the Clerk and the Privy Council Office. They must take the lead in shaping this sense of direction for the 'new' or 'renewed' public service. As important as the content of this material, however, is the process whereby it is developed, elaborated and communicated.

A fine balance must be struck: between intellectual leadership and engagement; between the process of 'reading' the "pattern in action" emerging in various places in the public service and the shaping of this emerging pattern into a framework with greater clarity and coherence; between actions which affirm desired goals or values and communications initiatives which confirm them or render them more explicit. New directions should not appear to be simply imposed from above -- wide involvement is important. Much of the material on which to base this new framework appears to be emerging from the six Deputy Minister task forces on various key public service issues.

Conventional ideas about strategy suggest that direction (vision, grand design) must be formulated first, and that action or implementation (detailed, top-down plan) has to follow with a kind of Descartian logic. Action cannot start until conception is completed. This is not what we are proposing here. The process we have in mind is one in which the articulation of purpose and the practical process of implementing changes are braided together, winding in and out of each other. What we are affirming, however, is the important of havinga sense of larger purpose with respect to issues such as values, coordinating mechanisms and new ways of organizing the public service, enhancing and enlarging the ideas in this framework, and communicating them through both actions and more conventional means of communication.

Our first three recommendations should therefore be read as a group.

1. The Clerk, with the support of the Privy Council Office, should take the lead in elaborating progressively, with her DM colleagues, a directional framework of ideas related to the future Public Service of Canada. This framework should clarify the distinctive character and values of the service, its contribution and value added, its capabilities and desired methods of operation, broad structural principles and desired relationships with Canadians and with other jurisdictions.


2. The process for developing this framework should: a) have a strong lead but an outward reach; b) be communicated through practical actions, not just words (but through words

also); both 'walk' and 'talk' must be, and be seen to be, consistent with each other;

c) be highly inclusive, and engage outsiders as well as public servants, to ensure that the approach is relevant to the public;

d) involve an ongoing consultation and communications strategy.

3. The new framework for the public service should include, among others, the following elements which speak to the importance of cooperation and collaboration; and to creating a public service approach which is relevant to the public: a) teamwork across the organization, across departments, and across

boundaries; b) partnership with other elements in society (a larger 'we' than that which

is only internal to the public service); c) recognition of the benefits of shared responsibility and cooperation; d) support and reward for risk taking and initiative, where this can

realistically be fostered; e) affirmation of internal public service values, as well as values which are

shared with society; j) projection of a public service which is client centred; inclusive (reflecting

all of Canada); accessible and user friendly; efficient; equitable in its treatment; presenting one government face (one stop approaches); outwardly focused; professional and non-partisan.

5.2 A COLLABORATIVE CORPORATE CULTURE

All of this means a very profound change in the corporate culture of the Canadian public service. This change may already be underway here and there in the public service, but it requires stronger impetus and clearer leadership. The chart below illustrates the extent of the transformation, by contrasting conventional perceptions of the present public service and those characteristics which might be considered desirable in a 'renewed' service appropriate to the 21st century.

A change in corporate culture is not something which happens quickly. In order to achieve sustained change, it is crucial that a long term perspective be taken, and expectations be managed. More damage than good will result from a flurry of management interest in "teamwork" which fades as day-to-day pressures intrude. A shift to a truly collaborative corporate culture requires efforts on many fronts at once (as we shall see), and time to let the changes take hold.


How the Public Service of Recent Years Is Sometimes Characterized

Characteristics Said to Be Desired for Some or All of the Future Public Service

• adversarial interdepartmental relations • cooperative approaches

• hierarchical • team-based

• centralized • decentralized

• upward-looking, internally-focused • outward-looking, client-focused

• emphasis on individual performance • focus on team success

• vertical • horizontal

• risk-averse, careful • risk-accepting, innovative

• government as leader, fixer • government as convenor of processes

• throw money at problems • seek holistic policy solutions

• empowerment, management by outcomes • command and control, input management

• closed, secretive • open, transparent

• macho • share power, collaborative

Collaboration requires a sense of mutual support and trust. This represents a major shift from the risk-averse culture which is said to prevail in most areas today. But although there is a lot of talk now about risk acceptance, workshop participants did not find that anything has changed when it comes to accepting the occasional errors which will result if risk is encouraged. As one participant put it, "Success is becoming collegial, but failure is still a highly individual experience!"

One difficulty with creating an innovative and risk accepting culture in the public service is that there is no shared understanding of what these terms mean in a practical sense. Yet participants argued that the problem of risk avoidance is a major contributor to the turf problem, because collaborative behaviour is often viewed as risky. They argued that the aversion to risk will continue as long as it is perceived that those who take risks and fail will pay a price. This speaks to the importance of leadership, which is the subject of the next section.

4. The concepts of innovation and risk acceptance should be clarified and defined in ways that make it clear how these values should be interpreted and applied in employees I everyday work.

If this cannot be done due to the realities of managing in the public service "fishbowl", then the rhetoric around risk-taking should cease, and the assertions that these kinds of


values are considered desirable and appropriate for public servants should stop. (It seems to us that these values can more credibly be encouraged in organizations with a more arm's length relationship to Ministers than in conventional government departments.)

5.3 POSITIVE LEADERSHIP

The phrase "public service leadership" can be somewhat confusing, because this leadership is diffused among several central agencies as well as line Deputy Ministers, some of whom may be very powerful both by virtue of the size of their mandate and the influence of their Minister. Also public service leadership, on certain issues, required as a minimum political acquiescence, if not active support.

Nevertheless, when it comes to implementing a shift in corporate values to a collaborative public service, it is the people at the uppermost level -- the Clerk and the Deputy Ministers -- who must take the main responsibility for the direction of the service as a whole. They should not wait for politicians to take the lead on this issue, for two reasons. First, political leaders have seldom shown a strong interest in the internal management of the public service (and they have many other priorities); and second, evidence suggests that it is Deputy Ministers who public servants look to for leadership on these matters, not politicians.'

"Talk the Talk"

Any time an organization is attempting fundamental change, one of the most crucial roles for leaders is communicating the message of change. In the case of the public service, if more collaboration is desired, then senior executives must clearly articulate the importance of collaboration and cooperation, and they must repeat the message at every opportunity, and through many different means of communication. The message that "turf" is not acceptable must come from the uppermost levels.

5. The Clerk and Deputy Ministers should frequently and forcefully affirm the importance of collaboration and cooperation throughout the service.

It has become generally accepted wisdom that a vital aspect of any successful organizational change effort is a well thought out communications strategy. Public servants must know that this is going on and they must hear the message repeatedly. Furthermore, too many efforts fail because a communications strategy is only considered

3 This assertion is based on the results of a recent survey of executives undertaken by APEX, which asked to whom they looked for leadership.


after the fact, once all the decisions have been taken, so that what is presented is a fait accompli. Both consultation and communications must be occurring throughout the process, to build support for the changes to come.

"Walk the Talk"

However, leaders must do more than just communicate the desired change. The overwhelming message our workshop participants had for public service leaders was that above all, they must "walk the talk." It was strongly felt that this is not yet happening. Moreover, we have heard that senior executives may not be hearing the complete message on the problems in this area, because of a prevailing fear that bringing bad news forward could cost jobs.

In any organization, people take their behavioural cues from the boss. In the public service today, while there is increasing emphasis on teamwork, horizontal approaches and cooperative service delivery, we were advised that many, if not most leaders still do not behave in collaborative, inclusive ways on a day to day basis. Individual agendas are still pursued at the expense of government-wide goals, and participants find that such "turfish'' behaviour still appears to be accepted and even rewarded. If the goal of diminished "turf" is to be attained, public service leaders, and particularly senior executives, must demonstrate commitment to collaboration through their own behaviour.

Although it is up to the Clerk and Deputies to set the direction, this is not to say that other executives and managers are off the hook when it comes to leadership. For a new approach to take hold, there must be a Widespread sense of shared ownership of the problem. The evidence is that this is definitely not yet happening. In fact, we noticed a peculiar phenomenon in the 'turf' workshops. All of the participants were managers, most of whom were at the executive level including a number of ADMs, yet "leadership" was usually identified as someone else's problem -- suggestions were presented as what "they" should do. This "us versus them" attitude may be a consequence of a lack of consistent message from the top levels, as well as uncertainty around what is really wanted in terms of behaviour (risk taking, for example).

As the sense of shared ownership emerges, the ground becomes more fertile for leadership to emerge from lower levels of the organization. This is essential for sustaining long term change. Leadership, then, becomes a sense of ownership, initiative, innovation, and risk acceptance which is felt throughout the organization.

6. "Leadership" in the public service -- not just the action of senior executives, but also other supervisory levels -- needs to demonstrate through actions, not just rhetoric, the importance of collaborative behaviour.


If occasional errors occur as a result of increased efforts among staff to work collaboratively, either within or across departments, these should be tolerated and even welcomed as evidence of positive change.

7. All Deputy Ministers should invest time in encouraging some of their teams and discussing the work they're doing. Examples of positive teamwork should be routinely included in everyday communications.

8. Executives should take the time for meetings with new staff members, to go through the goals of the program or department, how those goals fit into broader governmental objectives, and the importance of cooperative approaches in achieving these goals.

Leadership by Central Agencies

Discussions with participants revealed a number of problems with the current operation of the central agencies which hamper collaboration. Issues related to roles were frequently mentioned. There is perceived to be considerable overlap between the central agencies (PCO, Treasury Board, PSC, Finance), and a lack of clarity around their precise roles. This overlap was said to lead to turf wars between them -- hardly an effective way to promote collaboration in the public service as a whole! Participants noted particular confusion between the roles of Finance and Treasury Board, between Treasury Board and PCO, and between the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board." As well, participants complained of occasional mixed messages from the agencies, in which one may promote a collaborative approach while another seems to move in the opposite direction. Turf battles between these agencies, which are expected to function as leaders for the service as a whole, are one of the most vivid illustrations of how "the talk" and "the walk" are perceived to be mutually inconsistent.

The Privy Council Office's role was viewed as particularly critical. Participants felt that it is not playing a coordinating role as effectively as it might. They described PCO's role (on issues related to coordination) as primarily that of a gatekeeper -- it simply organizes the flow of issues to Cabinet. Various views were expressed regarding the ideal role for

4 For example, issues affecting the organization of government are split among pca (Machinery), Finance (Privatization, Crown Corporations) and TBS(Alternative Service Delivery, Crown Corporations); human resource management responsibilities lie with PSC (recruitment, promotion, representativeness, executive cadre), TBS (as employer and on equity, etc.) and pca (senior personnel); new public management is shared between TBS (setting criteria, accountability, etc.), pca (Management Priorities, public service reform), CCMD (instilling new disciplines) and PSC (criteria & screening for executives); issue management between Finance (Budget), pca (Cabinet decision making), and TBS (departmental & program financial decisions, expenditure management), with all three contributing to Program Review; etc.


PCO. Some said that PCO should act as a facilitator, implying that it would not play a controlling role in managing issues, but would encourage and facilitate cooperation among other departments and agencies. Others argued that PCO should take a stronger lead on horizontal issues. It was also stated that PCO should mediate rather than arbitrate when disputes arise. One workshop participant described the ideal role as one of "offensive coordination" rather than only "defensive coordination".

There was also some confusion over the role which PCO is playing and wishes to play in the process of public service reform -- it had taken a leadership role in the early days of Public Service 2000, then it had seemed to relinquish this role, according an ill-defined 'cheerleading' role to CCMD. Did this mean that reform was over? That CCMD was expected to function as the leader of the public service on important reform issues? That the issues of reform no longer warranted PCO's attention? And what was the desired direction which departments were expected to pursue? These questions remain unanswered, and they contribute to the sense of lack of purpose alluded to earlier in this study.

9. PCD should reaffirm its leadership role in the public service change process.

There was also concern expressed in the workshops about the problem of a disconnect between the political and the public service levels on the question of collaborative approaches. Participants noted that the Cabinet system has a long history of being quite adversarial and vertical in its approach, which is not conducive to collaboration among departments. Of course, this is to a certain extent a natural aspect of our political system, and must be simply accepted as a working reality.

However, participants did raise particular concern about the Cabinet decision-making process and about the process of preparation of Memoranda to Cabinet. As currently operating, these processes were felt to do little to obviate the traditional vertical approach of defending issues on an adversarial, department-by-department basis. Concerns were expressed regarding whether the current system is performing as well as it should in shaping competing interests into coherent policy which serves the broader public good. Although the time available in the present study precluded the development of specific proposals for change, it was felt that this aspect of PCO operations warranted further investigation.

10. A review of the overall role of PCD should be undertaken to: a) clarify its mandate; b) determine how, working in collaboration with other central agencies, it can

best provide leadership to the public service (c) identify what changes it might make to its methods of operation to provide

more tangible evidence, through its behaviour and actions, of desired values and directions for the public service;

d) determine the appropriate staffing policies and relationships required to


carry out this mandate; and, e) clarify the relationships of pca to the other central agencies with regard

to policy, personnel andfinance.

(This work may reveal that a wider review of the roles of all of the central agencies is required. Such a review, were it to occur, should not consider these agencies in isolation but also their relationships to each other, and areas of possible overlap and confusion.)

11. As part of the review of its functions, pca should examine how the process of Cabinet decision-making is supported, and in particular, the handling of Memoranda to Cabinet, to determine whether changes might be made which would foster cooperation and improve the coherence of public policy and the quality of service to citizens. ..

Leadership in Line Departments

We have placed a lot of stress on the centre of government because we believe it is crucial to the kinds of changes we have in mind. However, the reality of the public service is that most of the weight lies in line departments. We would be remiss if we ignored this important reality. It is beyond the scope of this report to suggest detailed strategies for different departments, although we have here and there recommended some specific initiatives which could be applied at the level of individual departments. However, to encourage and assist departments in taking a holistic look at their own culture and management approaches in relation to the "turf" issue, we make the following proposal:

12. pca or a lead line department should commission the development of a methodology which could be made available to all linedepartments to diagnose the extent and nature of the "turf" problem internally and to develop an action program for improvement.

5.4 CLEARER PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

The topic of performance expectations covers all levels of the public service, at all stages of the career path. Beginning with recruitment and promotion, performance expectations also include goal and priority setting, as well as performance appraisals. If big goals in respect of issues such as collaboration are not clear, performance expectations will, almost by definition, be more vertically and narrowly focused.


Recruitment and Promotion

Initial recruitment is perhaps the best point in a public service career to impart a sense of corporate identity and shared values. If the orientation of new employees is done only within departments, it must be expected that there will be little sense of a larger whole. A standard system-wide orientation for all new recruits would enable them to see how their work fits into that bigger picture.

This orientation could be a standard course run several times per year, or more innovative methods could be considered, such as a video, a multimedia CD-Rom, or an on-line course. Subjects covered by the orientation should include the overarching values, standards, and priorities of the Canadian public service; norms of behaviour, including an emphasis on teamwork and service quality; the basic structures and traditions of parliamentary government; the organizational structure of the public service; and the nature of relations between political and public service levels.

13. The Public Service Commission (PSC) should develop a standard orientation program for all new recruits affirming desired values, traditions and standards of the public service as a whole.

Promotion is also a key to shaping corporate culture, because the selection of people for promotion sends a clear signal as to the type of behaviour which is rewarded. Central agencies have a key role here, to choose, develop, and encourage people with excellent teamwork skills and with a service orientation. Again, changes in this area must begin at the top. An emphasis on teamwork at the DM level must begin with the promotion of team players to the Deputy level. Workshop participants did not feel this practice has been consistently observed in the past.

The first annual Report to the Prime Minister on the State of the Public Service (1991-'92) had a list of criteria for DM appointments. Teamwork is indeed mentioned, although this could be strengthened to emphasize that it is not sufficient that DMs be team players as individuals or within their own departments. As well, an overall collaborative approach is required, and demonstrated success in fostering collaboration among staff. Workshop participants did not tend to see a great deal of evidence of teamwork at the Deputy level today.

Generally speaking, participants found the process for promotion to executive levels to be rather murky. It would be helpful if there was more transparency, so that an emphasis on collaborative skills was explicit.

14. The Public Service Commission should ensure that criteria and promotional practices related to entry to the executive level are such that successful candidates demonstrate both a commitment to desired public service-wide values and teamwork skills.


15. At the ADM level, the process of adding names to the COSO list (of people identified as having Deputy potential) should be made more transparent. Only people who are demonstrated team players should be placed on the list.

16. PCO and PSC should jointly articulate and communicate the criteria for selection of Deputy Ministers and ensure attention to demonstrated collaborative skills and experience. Also, performance contracts with Deputies should be made somewhat more transparent, and team orientation should be emphasized in those contracts.

Establishing Expectations

Performance expectations are, above all, about clarity of goals and priorities. Individuals should be able to see how their work fits into the bigger picture. There is an important cyclical and connective relationship between setting goals for teams and individuals, monitoring progress against objectives, rewarding success, and providing training or other assistance to fill any gaps between expectations and performance. All of these pieces need to work together, and the theme of collaboration and teamwork needs to be built in throughout the performance expectation cycle. In establishing performance expectations, workshop participants argued that fostering collaboration would be easier if there was a clearer sense of horizontal policy priorities across government. It is hard for public servants to have a sense of where collaboration is required when the broad priorities are not clear, and change cannot happen on all fronts at once. Some of this priority setting will be politically driven; some will be bureaucratically driven.

Particularly in a time of unsettling change, there tends to be a great deal of focus on structures and processes, but not enough on individuals and what is expected of them in light of new realities. One of these expectations is collaboration, and how that is to be achieved. It also must be accepted that it will take time for staff to assimilate change, and adjust to a new mode of operating. Performance expectations are what enable people at all levels of an organization to understand how desired changes of a general sort relate to them in a practical sense.

17. Departmental executive teams need to recognize the unsettling impact of rapid change on employees, and afford the time required to interpret new directions in terms which are relevant to people, and to clarify new performance expectations at all levels of the organization.

Performance Appraisal

Workshop participants noted that performance appraisals do not seem to be taken very seriously in the public service, and their purpose is not always clear. In light of the


reinstatement of performance pay, there is a window of opportunity to revisit performance appraisals with an eye to integrating them with a newly designed performance pay system. Appraisals can be used either as a control mechanism or as a means of development. In light of the present desire which we believe exists to affirm certain values in the public service, more emphasis should be placed on the use of appraisals as a development tool.

Performance appraisal varies considerably by department. It was suggested in one workshop that these multiple frameworks for appraisal should be replaced with a new standard appraisal system for the entire public service. However, we hesitate to make such a recommendation, because not only would it be very difficult to design one approach which could apply to all departments, but it might also create an added level of bureaucracy which would be resented. Performance appraisal should remain a departmental responsibility, not a central responsibility.

Nonetheless, the current appraisal systems need work. Workshop participants find that currently, the appraisals in most departments do not give much emphasis to the importance of teamwork. Changing this requires more than just the addition of an extra line about teamwork on existing appraisal forms. Collaborative behaviour must be built in through the entire performance appraisal process. This might require a group appraisal system. As a minimum, appraisals at all levels should be based on multiple inputs, not just that of the immediate supervisor.

Furthermore, performance appraisals should be linked more deliberately with the other elements of the human resource picture -- to goal setting, monitoring progress, rewards, promotions, training and so on -- so that performance appraisal is seen as just one element of the larger performance expectations circle.

18. Treasury Board should aska department which has shown itself to be a leader in using performance appraisals as an effective development tool, and which has successfully focused on the value of collaboration, to provide guidance and recommendations in the area of performance appraisals to all other departments.

5.5 REWARDING COLLABORATIVE BEHAVIOUR

The rewards and recognition system in an organization is a key determinant of its corporate culture. Regardless of how much is said about teamwork and collaboration, if employees do not see that such behaviour is valued and rewarded on a daily basis, it will not become part of the corporate culture.

Generally speaking, workshop participants find that the public service does not do a good job of acknowledging success and congratulating people for good work. This goes beyond a formal reward system. Often informal rewards provide at least as much


personal motivation as formal rewards do. Informal rewards can often be quite intangible, such as the confidence that one's work is meaningful, the pride in a job well done, or the knowledge that one's efforts are appreciated. Promotion, of course, is a reward, as is being selected for an important assignment. However, there is a pressing need for some innovative and strategic thought around how to create a sense of worth in the changed public service environment. Many of the former ways of rewarding success are no longer possible, such as a financial bonus or an assignment to a new, rapidly expanding organization.

More broadly, discussions with participants suggest that there is still not enough general priority on human resource management in the public service. This is supported by APEX surveys, which continue to reveal that public servants do not feel valued. While there have certainly been efforts in this area, they have not gone far enough. Furthermore, there is added urgency behind human resource management issues as the shift toward more diverse organizational forms takes place in the public service. A hybrid of new structures will result in more diffused leadership and reward systems. As the nature of real and virtual teams evolves, it is likely that a good deal of acknowledgement and rewarding will have to be done within the teams themselves.

The challenge of improving human resource management in the public service is complex, and the responsibility is shared among a variety of players (central agencies, line managers, human resources officials, etc.). It is far beyond the scope of this report to recommend widespread changes to human resource management in the public service.

But one practical step which we feel able to recommend is a more systematic monitoring of the results of human resource management efforts. More regular and systematic monitoring would show that central agencies have a serious interest in this area, and would help to draw attention to unpleasant realities which might otherwise remain invisible to public service leaders. The value of such initiatives is underlined by the comments of some participants who advised us that there is at present an unwillingness in some departments to speak candidly to Deputies and other top officials because of concerns about job security.

For example, it would be useful to redo studies along the lines of the Zussman-jabes studies of 1986 and 1988, to determine whether the situation has improved or worsened since then, and to provide reliable feedback on whether efforts to build a more collaborative public service and to affirm various other values are in fact having any impact.

19. (a) Periodic surveys should be undertaken on the state of human resource management in the public service, measuring morale, motivation, sense of collaboration, job satisfaction, perceptions of leadership, and other suchfactors.


(b) Since so many aspects of human resource management are handled on a system-wide basis, these surveys should sample data across the service at large. (c) The results, includingdata about different departments, should be made public.

The well-worn management maxim, that you get the results which you inspect, not those which you expect, applies in the public service just as it does in the private sector.

Informal Rewards

Our participants said not enough use is made of informal rewards in the public service. This can be as simple as managers remembering to thank employees for excellent efforts on a regular basis. Such rewards should be frequent, immediate and public. There also need to be resources provided for small, fun rewards, such as a little gift, tickets to an event, or pizza for the team. Ideally, part of an organization's reward system should be occasional larger team building events, such as picnics, team retreats, etc., as well as day-to-day activities such as working lunches. However, this is highly problematic in the public sector, due to the possible reaction to taxpayer dollars being used to fund social activities.

Part of the solution to this problem may be found in the emerging mixed model of organizational structures, discussed in chapter 4. Some of the more arm's length functions, particularly those operating on a cost recovery basis, may find more flexibility in designing reward systems than "core" functions are likely to enjoy.

20. More use should be made of informal and/or instant rewards programs, which provide small and immediate recognition for a job well done.

Formal Rewards

Formal rewards play an important role in signalling the type of activity and behaviour most valued in the service. Many current rewards tend to be oriented toward individual success rather than team performance. A "star system" will not promote teamwork. Team based rewards should be as rich as individual rewards, and all team members should be rewarded.

Also, most rewards today are internal departmental awards. There are relatively few public service-wide awards, rewarding those who further the values and goals of the Government of Canada as a whole. Even internal departmental awards could more often be given to people outside the department, or to interdepartmental teams, in recognition of contributions to the goals of the department. A workshop participant offered the example of an Environment Canada official being given an award by Foreign Affairs for efforts which secured a Biodiversity Centre for Montreal.


The process for choosing award recipients is also important. For example, peer review could be used to recognize collaborative success. This could be done through networks such as the ADM network, professional groupings, and unions.

21. Treasury Board should invite a department which has done innovative things in the area of rewards to undertake a review of existing rewards in government, with the intent of creating a new award program which includes the following elements: a) team-based rather than individual rewards; b) public service-wide awards which recognize work which furthers the goals

of the government as a whole; c) department to department recognition of efforts which achieved shared

goals (or department to external partner recognition); d) nominations from outside the public service, from external partners or

others.

Consideration should be given to the issue of taxing financial rewards. We were told that taxes on rewards are taken off up front (rather than simply trusting the employee to declare the reward). It was argued that it sends the wrong message to hand an employee a $400 cheque for a $1000 reward.

5.6 EXPANDING PUBLIC SERVICE SKILLS

Career Paths

On the issue of skill sets, the strongest message which emerged from the workshops was that more mobility is required in public service careers. It was argued that most employees spend their entire careers in a single department, leading to a narrow outlook and reinforcing vertical perspectives. There should be more emphasis on lateral movement, temporary assignments, exchanges, and innovative career development. Exposure in central agencies would be valuable for line department staff (and vice versa), as would regional office exposure for head office staff.

Also, departments should be more strategic in pursuing temporary assignments into the private sector. Good assignments should be sought out and good people should be sent. The private sector example should be followed in this case, where temporary assignments in government are viewed as a positive development experience, and an opportunity to establish links with departments and to learn how government works.

Temporary assignments should be regarded as an important and regular aspect of career development. Workshop participants noted that currently, some people believe that such assignments are career limiting, because of the loss of connection with the home


department. Therefore, there should be deliberate strategies to combat the problem of public service "orphans", people who take temporary assignments and end up losing their affiliation to the home department. For example, the goals of the assignment can be linked to the goals of the home department, and the employee can be required to touch base with the home department periodically and to present what is being learned in the assignment.

As well, it is a problem that people who opt to take external assignments are generally not considered for promotion or advancement while they are absent. This reinforces the impression that such assignments are not valued as opportunities for development.

However, mobility need not always be interpreted as a long term assignment. There could be' far more use of creative options for career development, such as short-term temporary assignments, or parallel attachments in which an individual's time is split between more than one team. Generally, training and development opportunities should emphasize the importance of broadening perspectives, and should give employees the tools to manage their own careers -- including recognizing and pursuing opportunities for meaningful temporary assignments.

During the last six or seven years, there have been various efforts devoted to the theme of creating more mobility within the public service. Despite these efforts, workshop participants felt that career paths for the majority of public servants are still very narrow. They also argued strongly that more mobility would have a direct impact on reducing the turf problem in government.

22. A department which has done an outstanding job of promoting the mobility of its workforce should be requested by Treasury Board to conduct a review and recommend changes for the entire public service.

This review should include recommended measures for dealing with the problem of "orphans" in the public service.

Currently, the management of career paths for senior executives is particularly confused. Human resource management for this cadre is split between at least three agencies. More coordinated career management is required, and this may require central coordination. Consideration of this issue may require some redefinition of the roles of central agencies, as noted elsewhere in this report.

23. The Coordinating Committee of Deputy Ministers (CCDM) should decide how to provide stronger central coordination of career paths for senior executives. (Examination of this issue could be subsumed within the more general examination of central agency responsibilities discussed elsewhere in this repori.)


Training

Building a more collaborative public service will require a significant change in organizational culture. One aspect of the change relates to mindsets and attitudes, which speaks to the importance of leadership, rewards and communications. However, a change in organizational culture also requires that employees have the necessary skills to meet their altered performance expectations. Therefore, investments in training are required.

In particular, there must be greater emphasis on building teamwork skills throughout the public service. Particularly in areas requiring high technical expertise, there tends to be inadequate attention given to developing communication and collaboration skills. Care must also be given, when putting together cross-functional teams, that team leaders have the necessary skills to facilitate the process.

Workshop participants noted the problem of departments tending to priorize their training budgets according to skills which contribute directly to the bottom line deliverables of the particular job. Developmental opportunities come a distant second, and team skills fall even lower.

All of this illustrates the importance of a significant role for the Canadian Centre for Management Development (CCMD) in effecting the necessary cultural shift in the public service. CCMD should playa more central role in helping to shape and implement public service reform. In the private sector, an organization like CCMD would be central to a major corporate change program, but currently, our participants viewed the Centre as being rather on the fringe of the government. CCMD's faculty and staff need to feel that they are at the core of the business, and that they are key instruments of cultural change in the public service.

As part of this, CCMD must focus its efforts effectively. At least part of their curriculum should provide for an "action learning" approach, aimed at on-the-job training. For example, workshop participants noted that training and models for how to manage teams, in a practical sense, would be helpful. Also, the Centre should give top priority to training which is directly public service related, and perhaps leave more generic types of training to others. CCMD's funding was also discussed, and participants felt that training in core public service goals, such as ethics or collaboration, should not be funded on a cost recovery basis, but provided as an essential service to departments.

Of course, the training issue also speaks to the importance of developing collaborative skills among non-executive levels as well. There was insufficient time to go into this issue in any depth in our work, but it is an area which clearly requires more attention.

24. One of CCMD's key roles should be the development of government-wide or corporate capabilities, such as training in team-based management approaches.


25. CCMD should develop a course on managing across boundaries (or through networks and partnerships), focusing both on howto manage co-located teams and also on getting results through people with different organizational affiliations.

26. Deputy Ministers should reinforce the message that what CCMD is doing is important and encourage participation by theirexecutives in CCMD courses and activities intended to promote appropriate values and behaviour in the public service.

27. CCMD or Treasury Board Secretariat should determine what other training initiatives might be taken below the executive level in the public service to impart skills that would support more collaborative behaviour and teamwork.

Other Development

As well as formal training, other developmental methods can be used to further the message of cooperation and collaboration.

For example, Deputy Ministers benefit from shared experiences among the cadre of Deputies. These opportunities for sharing and exchange need to be cascaded down through departments, so that there are far more opportunities for exchange among officials at the same level across departments. Some such networks already exist, such as informal networks among professional groupings.

Leaders also have an important role in the informal, day-to-day development of their staffs. Some of this goes back to the need to "walk the talk", and some of it speaks to the importance of effective ongoing communications, mentoring and coaching.

5.7 COLLABORATIVE STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS

The phrase "structures and mechanisms" tends to imply formal delineations and regulated processes. In the context of this study, however, we were interested not only in formal structures but also in any other arrangements or processes, both formal or informal, which would further collaboration across the public service. Indeed the formal structures and mechanisms, while usually created with the best intentions, can sometimes become barriers preventing more innovative approaches. At the same time, this point should not be overstated. Workshop participants emphasized that public service structures are not in fact as rigid as they are often made out to be, and that structures are sometimes used as an excuse for inaction, when culture and mindsets are actually more to blame.


There are a number of existing coordinating mechanisms across government. These include the obvious ones -- central agencies, task forces, interdepartmental committees etc. -- and many less obvious ones. In the latter category are cross-cutting professional groups, unions, recreational and social organizations, and of course, personal networks.

Clearly, the achievement of a collaborative public service with common corporate goals will require considerably more interdepartmental communication than exists today. And the communication must go beyond formal interdepartmental consultations, into a whole range of working groups, formal and informal committees, electronic networks, and social groups.

Again, the importance of leadership must be stressed, because if employees get the impression that informal interactions outside one's own working group are viewed as a waste of time, or seen to be outside the priority deliverables of one's job, then such interaction will not happen. It is up to executives to stress that regular horizontal communication is encouraged.

Cross-departmental Teams

In the workshops, a couple of very positive examples were presented of interdepartmental cooperation on specific horizontal issue areas, such as trade promotion and justice issues. These were cases of interdepartmental teams created for an explicit purpose, and in both cases, the processes were rather unconventional, but apparently worked very well for their particular situations.

The message here is that there should be wider use of these types of innovative horizontal approaches. This will require efforts on the part of both line departments and central agencies. Central agencies, particularly PCO, have an important role to play in facilitating processes such as these, but they should not directly lead very many of them. In each case, one department should take the lead, but it need not necessarily be the biggest department or even the one most directly involved in the issue.

Participants seemed to indicate that the creation of well functioning task forces is still fairly rare, yet they work well to break down the barriers of turf protection. More use should be made of temporary horizontal task forces and other such mechanisms. The model suggested by participants had one department accountable as the responsible champion for the issue; staff assigned for a set period of time from several departments; salaries paid by the home departments; and evaluations done by the team. These should be permitted to be dynamic, evolving processes.


28. (a) The Coordinating Committee of Deputy Ministers should promote the wider use of cross-functional teams. (b) It should establish three orfour pilot projects of multi-departmental taskforces on significant issues. These pilots should be deliberately used as "models" to encourage imaginative approaches to collaboration, and the results should be publicized to encourage more work of this kind.

The groups should be encouraged to experiment with innovative structures, processes and technologies, and with the involvement of outside stakeholders in policy teams. These groups could in effect function as living laboratories for the more effective use of teams in the public service.

29. When cross departmental teams are formed, senior executives from all departments involved should agree on common objectives. This should be done again at crucial points in the project, and should be followed up with recognition and personal thanks when the team's work is completed.

Technology and Teamwork

Participants thought that there could be more effective and Widespread use of technology in dealing with horizontal issues, particularly in the areas of consultation, information sharing, and decision making. We are not in a position to make a welldeveloped recommendation in the area of technology, because it was not possible in the course of this review to examine this question in any depth. However, the feeling among participants was that it would be useful to identify and disseminate information about ways in which technology can be used to further the goals of more effective collaboration, both in addressing horizontal issues and in developing innovative means of service delivery. For example, in New Brunswick, as part of the Service New Brunswick initiative, efforts are underway to develop a common technology platform for the delivery of all provincial government services. Training in the use of technology for collaborative purposes would be welcomed.

30. If it is not already doing so, Treasury Board Secretariat (or a department which is doing an outstanding job in this area) should inquire into how technology can be used to foster cross-departmental collaboration and teamwork, and communicate the results widely in the public service.

Central Agencies

The role of central agencies is important in encouraging horizontal processes, both formal and informal. While they should identify the key horizontal issues, they do not need to control them centrally. Participants believed that central agencies should enable


and legitimize line departments to play lead and coordinating roles interdepartmentally on many issues. In fact, it would be worth considering new terminology for "central agencies," which sounds controlling. Thinking of them as "corporate agencies" or "coordinating agencies" might be more appropriate. In particular, PCO can playa key role both in identifying horizontal issues, and in facilitating cooperative approaches for their resolution.

31. reo should encourage the use of cooperative, horizontal approaches among departments, although it should act as the lead on only the top political priority issues.

PCO can help in flagging horizontal issues; suggesting useful process options, identifying the most appropriate lead department, and encouraging other departments to participate.

One difficulty in promoting risk acceptance in the public service is that central agencies, by their nature, tend to be the most risk averse bodies within government. Inputs are controlled, and there are many regulations governing how things are to be done. Central agencies behave this way quite naturally, since their behaviour is exposed to intense scrutiny, particularly by the media. However, the need for tight accountability is not necessarily as strong throughout the public service as it is at the central agency level. The mixed model of organizational structures which seems to be emerging may provide part of the answer to the risk acceptance dilemma in the public service, as new structures may permit changed approaches to accountability.

Workshop participants noted that staff in line departments occasionally use central agencies as an excuse for why a horizontal approach is not possible, blaming strict rules and inflexible procedures, when much innovation is in fact possible within the existing structures. Much of the responsibility here obviously lies with line departments, who should give central agencies the benefit of the doubt, but central agencies can also be more active in not allowing themselves to be used as an excuse for inaction. A number of years ago, Treasury Board published a document exposing myths about its regulations. This was an excellent effort, but it was only done once, and should be repeated.

32. Central agencies, particularly Treasury Board, should continue to expose some of the myths around "what cannot be done" due to regulations.


As noted previously, there was also concern expressed about the role of TBS, and whether the overlap between it and other central agencies might be reduced. A generic' review of central agency functions appropriate in the context of a shift to a new type of public service would be useful. Such a review could touch on Treasury Board, Finance, the Public Service Commission, and the Privy Council Office, and determine what needs to be done centrally, and how best to do it. It could identify current areas of overlap which are dysfunctional and which lead to the sort of behaviour which this report is intended to eradicate. If such a review were to be undertaken, it could eliminate the need for the review discussed in recommendation number ten.

33. The Coordinating Committee of Deputy Ministers should commission a generic review of the key functions which need to be performed at the heart of a modern federal government, to determine what should be done centrally in the context of the changing public service reality. These functions should then be related to existing central agency mandates andstructures, andstructuralchanges recommended if required.

A collaborative public service should encompass more than just internal collaboration. Ideally, provinces, non-governmental organizations and the private sector should be included in collaborative efforts. Evidence suggests that problems of "turf" are often particularly rampant between federal and provincial governments.

As mentioned in the fourth chapter, Canadians have lost patience with jurisdictional squabbles between governments, and they want convenient one-window access points. Such a change will require progress on all of the fronts already discussed: a framework of desired values, competencies and guiding principles; leadership in promoting external collaboration; human resource systems which reward such collaboration; and structures and mechanisms to make it happen. The starting point is a sense of direction in which provinces and other external partners are seen not as subordinates or adversaries, but as true collaborators in the shared goal of providing superior public policy and efficient service delivery to Canadians.

5 A generic review would ask the question, in principle, what kinds of functions should be carried out at the centre of a federal government in a parliamentary democracy and what kinds of organizational capabilities need to exist? The results of such a review can then be compared with the existing situation and gaps as well as excess capacity noted. A generic analysis of this kind is a useful way to start since it helps to prevent the analysis from becoming clouded prematurely by considerations such as organizational traditions, legislative mandates, personalities, etc.


Chapter Six: Conclusion

6.1 A SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO CHANGE

Fixing the "turf" problem in the federal government requires a major change in corporate culture, which means that this is not something which will happen quickly or easily. Participants agreed that there are significant downstream savings to be realized through the achievement of a more cooperative, collaborative public service. However, the necessary resources, leadership and priority must be committed up front, or the entire exercise will fail, and add to existing cynicism about "flavour of the month" management initiatives. The turf problem, in other words, cannot be addressed successfully by itself. It must be seen as part of a larger initiative of public service reform.

Having broken the turf problem down into its components, it is worth reconsidering that problem map as a whole, to get a sense of the total extent of change required. The relationships between the various aspects of the issue are important. The problem map gives direction on where energies should be applied, but it must be emphasized that working in only one area or on only one cluster of factors is unlikely to yield the desired results. A systemic approach to change is needed if this problem is to be addressed.

Addressing the turf problem is essential to equipping the public service to deal with changed realities. Our entire system of government is built on inherently adversarial approaches to addressing public issues. The emphasis on teamwork recommended by this report is intended to bring an appropriate balance to these adversarial traditions.

Some of what must change to create a collaborative public service is already happening in different ways around the system. The challenge is to link existing efforts with new initiatives focused on building a collaborative culture, all incorporated within a well articulated and communicated framework for the role and nature of the federal public service in the late 1990s. There is at present a window of opportunity for major change, driven by the fiscal situation and other factors outlined in Chapter Four. Furthermore, this changed environment makes many reformideas which were considered but rejected as too risky in previous years, worth revisiting.

Because this is far-reaching change, the leadership on the initiative must come from the centre. The necessity of a collaborative public service must be a message which is heard repeatedly from the centre, and reinforced by all Deputy Ministers. The leaders must back up the message through their own actions, working as teams and rewarding the collaborative behaviour of others. Well planned and executed communications and


implementation strategies are essential.

We have stated that an important aspect of the new public service approach is a set of shared values for the service as a whole. This may appear to be at odds with the emerging mixed model of organizational structures, which would see some employees remain in a "core government" function, while others are transferred to various forms of quasi-independent agencies. How can you decentralize structures on the one hand, while attempting to establish a common set of values on the other?

In fact, though, these two types of change are not only compatible, but complementary. A wider variety of organizational forms in the public service will add much needed flexibility and adaptability. At the same time, though, there is a risk that employees in the more arm's length organizations will feel little connection to the government as a whole, and even less commitment to working collaboratively toward shared public service goals. Therefore, a framework of direction and a set of common values for the public service as a whole is perhaps more essential under a decentralized structure than it is under a homogeneous one.

In one sense, the public service is simply catching up with other large organizations, which have had to invent new organizational approaches to overcome their own internal bureaucracies, which were harmful to their flexibility and ultimately to their competitive position. Individuals are very capable of multiple loyalties, and promoting a __ "Government of Canada" identity by no means overrules an "Agriculture Canada" identity, or even a "Canadian Food Inspection Services" identity. That first identity, though, is presently weak. If the problem of turf is to be overcome, the employee in the Canadian Food Inspection Service must also feel how her work benefits the Canadian citizen, and contributes to the goals of the Government of Canada.

6.2 GETTING STARTED

At a meeting with the Deputy Minister's Task Force on Horizontal Issues where a draft of this report was discussed, it was suggested that one of the best ways of imparting a new sense of direction to the public service was to demonstrate desired goals through practical actions. This is a sentiment with which we entirely agree, and therefore we conclude this report with a suggested list of ten actions which can be set in motion easily.

In advancing this list, however, we wish to underline the importance of ensuring that there is agreement among leaders on basic directions, whether is is called a mission or a vision or simply a sense of common purpose on big issues. Using practical actions as evidence of strategic intent may suffice in an organization with one leader and\or a unified management team, but where leadership is more diffused, and accountability relationships more complex, a consensus among the wider leadership circle on


underlying ideas is much more important. Without this, the actions of different leaders and different institutions will not reflect a common approach and the needed "pattern in action" alluded to previously in this study, which is the essence of strategy, will remain elusive.

With this caveat, the following 'action list' drawn from the recommendations here and there in this report may provide a useful point of departure. It contains a mix of initiatives which could be undertaken by individual departments and actions which are system-wide, therefore requiring initiative from a central agency. The premise underlying this list is that the government would wish to make "trampling the turf" a fairly high priority.

(i) pca or a lead line department should commission the development of a methodology which could be made available toall line departments to diagnose the extent and nature of the "turf" problem internally and to develop an action program for improvement. (Recommendation no. 12)

(ii) Departmental executive teams need to recognize theunsettling impact of rapid change on employees, and afford the time required to interpret new directions in terms which are relevant to people, and to clarify new performance expectations at all levels of the organization. (No. 17)

(iii) Treasury Board should invite a department which has done innovative things in the area of rewards to undertake a review of existing rewards in government, with the intent of creating a new award program which includes the following elements: a) team-based rather than individual rewards; b) public service-wide awards which recognize workwhich furthers the goals


goals (or department to external partner recognition); d) nominations from outside the public service, from external partners or

others. (No. 21 )

(iv) The Clerk and Deputy Ministers should frequently andforcefully affirm the importance of collaboration and cooperation throughout the service. (No.5)

(v) (a) The Coordinating Committee of Deputy Ministers should promote the wider use of cross-functional teams. (b) It should establish three orfour pilot projects of multi-departmental task forces on significant issues. These pilots should be deliberately used as "models" to encourage imaginative approaches to collaboration, and the results should be publicized to encourage more work of this kind. (No. 28.)


(vi) CCMD should develop a course on managing across boundaries (or through networks and partnerships),focusing both on how to manage co-located teams and also on getting results through people with different organizational affiliations. (No. 25)

(vii) A department which has done an outstanding job of promoting the mobility of its workforce should be requested by Treasury Board to conduct a review and recommend changes for the entire public service. (No. 22)

(viii) If it is not already doing so, Treasury Board Secretariat (or a department which is doingan outstandingjob in this area) should inquire into how technology can be used to foster cross-departmental collaboration and teamwork, and communicate the results widely in the public service. (No. 30)

(ix) Deputy Ministers should reinforce the message that what CCMD is doing is important and encourage participation by their executives in CCMD courses and activities intended to promote appropriate values and behaviour in the public service. (No. 26)

(x) CCMD or Treasury Board Secretariat should determine what other training initiatives might be taken below the executive level in the public service to impart skills that would support more collaborative behaviour and teamwork. (No. 27)


APPENDIX I

Matrix of Factors Contributing to the Problem of Impediments to Cooperation in the Public Service

Factors, Forces, Contributing to "Turf"

Vision, goals, priorities • Outlook fragmented, no coherent vision on role and conduct of government.

• No government themes stressing coordination and integration across departments

• No overriding goals (other than debt reduction) on future of public service

• Lack of clarity on priorities (what counts) in the public service

• No sense of urgency on this theme of collaboration

• We have not yet defined the issues that need to be horizontally managed

• Reduction vision driven by cuts, and relevance I uniqueness tests (not by any integrating theme)

• Goals are sector or program specific ( ie little emphasis on broad issues of public interest)

• Priorities are short-term, constraint oriented • Departments don't see themselves as

subsidiaries of the GOC

Leadership • Ministers focused on own agenda I portfolio (except debt) and incremental enhancements to it

• Senior executives not signaling and guiding horizontal and integrative approaches as a priority

• Political delegation to Ministers has intensified the departmental focus

• Role of central agencies in horizontality is critical, but not well understood at all levels of the agency

• Leadership focused on departmental survival and rationalization

Structures • Department mandates are set up to conflict to provide checks and balances on policy issues

• Overlapping mandates create accountability confusion

• Despite intentions, still lack of overall gUidance on one window access for clients (including machinery for collaboration at point of access)

• Rationalization of mandates, roles and responsibilities with other levels of government still emerging, so impression remains that Canadians over-governed with overlapping services

• No clear understanding of how to resolve reallocations

• No horizontal coordination structures

• Branches of departments organized to continue established functions

• Department roles and responsibilities largely vertical and sector I program specific

• One window access largely department specific

• Each department designed to act/acts as if its services are the right ones for the client

• Many departments are designed to be horizontal and are still struggling to make this work

Processes, frameworks

Culture (Values, beliefs, assumptions, traditions)

People Policy

Cabinet planning and decision making a zero sum• game Expenditure management designed for an• "expansion" era and focused vertically by department Accountability framework designed around• ministerial accountability to parliament for own program or policy area Short time lines force temporary band aid• solutions because processes call for short-term, issue by issue closure and easiest response is what ever will settle it (hence inderlying fundamental questions unresolved)

Idea of common values in the public service is• still at declaration stage and externally directed (l.e., intention to be client centred, etc.), with little focus on shared internal values Beliefs and assumptions of how government• should work still emerging (PS 2000 off the map) Value of competitiveness tacitly endorsed• System behaves as if damage control is one of the• highest priorities, so risk not encouraged General feeling of lack of trust in the system• Lack of corporate values focused on GOC ( lack• of sense of belonging to same corporation) No incentives for collaboration•

Policies and supports for encouraging multi • department, career path are nominal (and decreasing) Reward systems reward traditional and vertical• (departmental) oriented ways Hiring and promotion approach and values focus• on individualism over group effort Agenda with unions has little/no emphasis on• collaborative approach/values in public service (emphasis on uncoupling from past and reduction but no people vision to replace it) Skill development emphasis not on 'team' or• horizontal skills Reskilling people processes/development to emphasize collaborative approaches will have front-end costs (time, dollars) so there is a reluctance to invest

Planning processes are mainly operational• (within department only) and short-term and if long-term are not sustained long enough to assess impact

• Budget planning focused on cuts and reallocation within department toward perceived program needs (little or no emphasis on shared priorities with other departments)

• Accountability models focused on department and own agenda

• Collaborative processes seen as very time consuming Dept processes still focus on outputs rather• than outcomes

Values of departmental culture, protection and• self-interest very strong

• Departments assume that need to cooperate across departments if necessary but not necessarily Beliefthat central power (political and• bureaucratic) do not really care about this question nor see it as a priority Despite statements saying otherwise, risk is• not rewarded unless successful (and risk with failure is career threatening)

• Belief that central powers will never follow through with fundamental changes to a system currently focused on departmental competition and vertical accountability

• Work is changing, but workers aren't

• Deliberate interdepartmental personnel exchanges, joint teams with authority etc., not a priority (except to conclude a policy issue review on a short-term basis) Performance expectations and rewards do not• emphasize interdepartmental collaboration (although do emphasize cooperation within department)

• Little or no use of third parties to assist in rethinking or redesigning people approaches to focus on collaboration (i.e., parties like PSC, CCMD, unions, institutions) Cost of training seen as secondary so no • investment in building skills oriented to this theme

Tools, mechanisms • Low emphasis on integrating mechanisms except for accountability purposes (l.e., expect multiple or joint accountability after the fact, but not enough system support for shared approach at developmental stages of policy and programs)

• Mechanisms to share knowledge across system are rudimentary with modest emphasis (e.g. need for shared electronic platform, cross-cutting policy networks, etc.)

• General sense that the tools and rules are too rigid, not flexible or adaptable enough

• New public service reform practices are largely focused on vertical structures and programs i.e., Reengineering, Business Process improvement, TQM, The Learning Organization, etc.

• Little or no innovation or experimentation with interdepartmental mechanisms to enhance cooperation

• Departments struggling to share knowledge within own department, let alone along interdepartmental policy lines

• Departments focusing their renewal processes on own department (if look outside, look first to other governments, private sector)

APPENDIX II

PRACTICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF THE PROBLEM

Participants in the first workshop were asked to give practical examples of the turf problem in operation in their fields. We noted an interesting reluctance to be very specific or to "name names," although several general examples emerged. The reluctance to get into specifics while in an interdepartmental meeting like this one could perhaps be seen as symptomatic of some of the communications barriers which contribute to the very problem at hand.

It was argued that a particularly negative manifestation of the problem occurs in cases where organizations serving the same client end up conflicting and presenting different solutions or services to that client. There is also a "cumulative impact" problem, as policies which are individually entirely rational do not make sense in combination. Some specific examples of various types of harmful non-cooperation are provided below.

Departmental cultures, rather than a larger public service culture:

Federal buildings across the country do not present a coherent face to the public. Administrative functions such as mailrooms and security are often handled differently for each department. Public servants have a clear mandate to come up with practical solutions to these problems, but inertia and departmental cultures have prevented real change.

Mindsets and attitudes:

A "one-stop shopping" service model had been successfully developed for a regional government office, and the usual structural difficulties overcome, when a final hurdle was encountered. The telephone receptionist who was tasked with answering calls for all departments and routing them said "I can't do that because it's not in my job description." By going through the union, the job description was eventually amended, but it was only with considerable difficulty that this simple and practical new approach was achieved.


Jurisdictional complexity:

In many fields (mining was the example offered), jurisdiction is so complex that there is no single office in government to call for help with a problem. There are also many examples of departmental battles over particular pieces of legislation (the Endangered Species Act, for example) in which each Minister responds to particular interests, and no voice ends up speaking for the general public interest.

Leadership in addressing underlying political or constitutional issues:

The "efficiency of the federation" initiative, led by pca, sent the signal that departments should find ways to work more effectively with the provinces. At least one department, though, refused because there was no indication from pca about the extent to which responsibility could be devolved to the provinces. This underlying political question had not been adequately addressed, raising questions about whether there was real commitment to the initiative.

Trust and a collaborative culture:

A line department was asked by Treasury Board to provide input to a process, but when the resulting policy was released, it was clear that the input had been ignored. This created cynicism among those involved about collaborative processes in general.

Client service culture:

The importance of mindsets is illustrated by a final positive example. While visiting a provincial office in Saskatchewan, a participant saw a woman asking for help with her pension cheque. The provincial official explained this was federal jurisdiction, but she had the federal form on hand, and she filled it out for the woman anyway. This is the sort of service-oriented and cooperative attitude which the public finds all too rarely in government offices.


APPENDIX III

Recommendations of This Report

1. The Clerk, with the support of the Privy Council Office, should take the lead in elaborating progressively, with her DM colleagues, a directional framework of ideas related to the future Public Service of Canada. This framework should clarify the distinctive character and values of the service, its contribution and value added, its capabilities and desired methods of operation, broad structural principles and desired relationships with Canadians and with other jurisdictions.

2. The process for developing this framework should: a) have a strong lead but an outward reach; b) be communicated through practical actions, not just words (but through words

also); both 'walk' and 'talk' must be, and be seen to be, consistent with each other;

c) be highly inclusive, and engage outsiders as well as public servants, to ensure that the approach is relevant to the public;

d) involve an ongoing consultation and communications strategy.

3. The new framework for the public service should include, among others, the following elements which speak to theimportance ofcooperation and collaboration; and to creating a public service approach which is relevant to the public: a) teamwork across the organization, across departments, and across

boundaries; b) partnership with other elements in society (a larger 'we' than that which

is only internal to the public service); c) recognition of the benefits of shared responsibility and cooperation; d) support and reward for risk taking and initiative, where this can

realistically be fostered; e) affirmation of internal public service values, as well as values which are

shared with society;fJ projection of a public service which is client centred; inclusive (reflecting

all of Canada); accessible and user friendly; efficient; equitable in its treatment; presenting one government face (one stop approaches); outwardlyfocused; professional and non-partisan.

4. The concepts of innovation and risk acceptance should be clarified and defined in ways that make it clear how these values should be interpreted and applied in employees' everyday work.


5. The Clerk and Deputy Ministers should frequently and forcefully affirm the importance of collaboration and cooperation throughout the service.

6. "Leadership" in the public service -- not just the action of senior executives, but also other supervisory levels -- needs to demonstrate through actions, not just rhetoric, the importance of collaborative behaviour.

7. All Deputy Ministers should invest time in encouraging some of their teams and discussing the work they're doing. Examples of positive teamwork should be routinely included in everyday communications.

8. Executives should take the time for meetings with new staff members, to go through the goals of the program or department, how those goals fit into broader governmental objectives, and the importance of cooperative approaches in achieving these goals.

9. pca should reaffirm its leadership role in the public service change process.

10. A review of the overall role of pca should be undertaken to: a) clarify its mandate; b) determine how, working in collaboration with other central agencies, it can

best provide leadership to the public service (c) identify what changes it might make to its methods of operation to provide

more tangible evidence, through its behaviour and actions, of desired values and directions for the public service;

d) determine the appropriate staffing policies and relationships required to carry out this mandate; and,

e) clarify the relationships of pca to the other central agencies with regard to policy, personnel andfinance.

11. As part of the review of its functions, pca should examine how the process of Cabinet decision-making is supported, and in particular, the handling of Memoranda to Cabinet, to determine whether changes might be made which would foster cooperation and improve the coherence of public policy and the quality of service to citizens.

12. pca or a lead line department should commission the development of a methodology which could be made available toall linedepartments to diagnose the extent and nature of the "turf" problem internally and to develop an action program for improvement.

13. The Public Service Commission (PSC) should develop a standard orientation program for all new recruits affirming desired values, traditions and standards of the public service as a whole.


14. The Public Service Commission should ensure that criteria and promotional practices related to entry to theexecutive level are such that successful candidates demonstrate both a commitment to desired public service-wide values and teamwork skills.

15. At the ADM level, the process of adding names to the COSO list (of people identified as having Deputy potential) should be made more transparent. Only people who are demonstrated team players should be placed on the list.

16. PCO and PSC should jointly articulate and communicate the criteria for selection of Deputy Ministers and ensure attention to demonstrated collaborative skills and experience. Also,performance contracts with Deputies should be made somewhat more transparent, and team orientation should be emphasized in those contracts.

17. Departmental executive teams need to recognize the unsettling impact of rapid change on employees, and afford the time required to interpret new directions in terms which are relevant to people, and to clarify new performance expectations at all levels of the organization.

18. Treasury Board should aska department which has shown itselfto be a leader in using performance appraisals as an effective development tool, and which has successfully focused on the value of collaboration, to provide guidance and recommendations in the area of performance appraisals to all other departments.

19. (a) Periodic surveys should be undertaken on the state of human resource management in the public service, measuring morale, motivation, sense of collaboration, job satisfaction, perceptions of leadership, and other suchfactors. (b) Since so many aspects of human resource management are handled on a system-wide basis, these surveys should sample data across the service at large. (c) The results, includingdata about different departments, should be made public.

20. More use should be made of informal and/or instant rewards programs, which provide small and immediate recognition for a job well done.

21. Treasury Board should invite a department which has done innovative things in the area of rewards to undertake a review of existing rewards in government, with the intent of creating a new award program which includes the following elements: a) team-based rather than individual rewards; b) public service-wide awards which recognize workwhich furthers the goals


goals (or department to external partner recognition);


d) nominations from outside the public service, from external partners or others.

22. A department which has done an outstanding job of promoting the mobility of its workforce should be requested by Treasury Board to conduct a review and recommend changes for the entire public service.

23. The Coordinating Committee of Deputy Ministers (CCDM) should decide how to provide stronger central coordination of career paths for senior executives. (Examination of this issue could be subsumed within the more general examination of central agency responsibilities discussed elsewhere in this repori.)

24. One of CCMD's key roles should be the development of government-wide or corporate capabilities, such as training in team-based management approaches.

25. CCMD should develop a course on managing across boundaries (or through networks and partnerships), focusing both on howto manage co-located teams and also on getting results through people with different organizational affiliations.

26. Deputy Ministers should reinforce the message that what CCMD is doing is importantand encourage participation by their executives in CCMD courses and activities intended to promote appropriate values and behaviour in the public service.

27. CCMD or Treasury Board Secretariat should determine what other training initiatives might be taken below the executive level in the public service to impart skills that would support more collaborative behaviour and teamwork.

28. (a) The Coordinating Committee of Deputy Ministers should promote the wider use of cross-functional teams. (b) It should establish three orfour pilot projects of multi-departmental taskforces on significant issues. These pilots should be deliberately used as "models" to encourage imaginative approaches to collaboration, and the results should be publicized to encourage more work of this kind.

29. When cross departmental teams are formed, senior executives from all departments involved should agree on common objectives. This should be done again at crucial points in the project, and should be followed up with recognition and personal thanks when the team's work is completed.


30. If it is not already doing so, Treasury Board Secretariat (or a department which is doing an outstanding job in this area) should inquire into how technology can be used to foster cross-departmental collaboration and teamwork, and communicate the results widely in the public service.

31. pca should encourage the use of cooperative, horizontal approaches among departments, although it should act as the lead on only the top political priority issues.

32. Central agencies, particularly Treasury Board, should continue to expose some of the myths around "what cannot be done" due to regulations.

33. The Coordinating Committee of Deputy Ministers should commission a generic review of the key functions which need to be performed at the heart of a modern federal government, to determine what should be done centrally in the context of the changing public service reality. These functions should then be related to existingcentral agency mandates andstructures, andstructural changes recommended if required.


trampling the turf - eth z

Documents