Loading...

On risk, fearless advice, and loyal implementation

Friday, December 7, 2012
I've been thinking a lot lately about the issue of risk and how it relates to the idea of fearless advice and loyal implementation. Admittedly, these thoughts aren't entirely formed yet so bear with me.


When it comes to risk, we are our own worst enemy

Generally speaking I feel as though civil servants over-inflate the risks of almost everything they (we) do. We often chalk it up to the culture, forgetting that if you stripped bureaucracy of the bureaucrats the risk averse culture would likely disappear. Sure the written rules will remain, but no where (to my knowledge, and in my experience) are the written rules actually as stringent as our interpretations thereof.  My thoughts on how we approach to risk are best summed up with the famous Walt Kelly line (pictured to the left): "We have met the enemy and he is us". We are responsible for the culture, to blame it, is to blame ourselves; on this, I doubt I can be convinced otherwise.


The relationship with fearless advice and loyal implementation

Before delving any deeper, I should probably hang this caveat out there. Recent discussions with a number of colleagues (at different stages in their career) have led me to the conclusion that I am likely an outlier in that I have a fundamentally different understanding of risk than is the norm. Yes - its surprising isn't it - I have a high tolerance for risk, but I also have a high tolerance for consequences arising from my actions; and in the real world risk and responsibility are inextricably linked.

However, inside the bureaucracy I'm of the view that they are artificially divided. By this I mean to say that even when someone is willing to take a risk and bear the responsibility for its consequences they can't actually do so.  Rather than being able to simply pull the trigger on something they are forced to crunch their willingness to move ahead into some sort of recommendation (often in a briefing note) that gets pushed upwards onto someone else.  Sometimes this can be a good thing, for example it protects junior employees from taking the heat if the shit hits the fan, but it can also be paralysing since it concentrates risk in certain areas which likely makes those areas more sensitive to risk than they would otherwise be.


That said, here's my (related) observations on fearless advice and loyal implementation

Giving fearless advice is a low risk activity; there are plenty of opportunities to do so all along the long tail, and most of them are behind closed doors.  Loyal implementation on the other hand is a high risk activity; execution is always a delicate matter, and always held to the highest degree of public scrutiny. I think that perhaps we (public servants) have been spending far too effort on loyal implementation and not enough on fearless advice. Our natural hypersensitivity to risks out there in the public realm have crept into our conciousness in here.

Here's my best effort and trying to boil that all down to a single image (click to enlarge):

Cheers


Originally published by Nick Charney at cpsrenewal.ca
subscribe/connect
RSS / cpsrenewalFacebook / cpsrenewalLinkedIn / Nick Charneytwitter / nickcharneygovloop / nickcharneyGoogle+ / nickcharney

2 Leave a comment on this post to On risk, fearless advice, and loyal implementation:

C.J. said...

"...even when someone is willing to take a risk and bear the responsibility for its consequences they can't actually do so. Rather than being able to simply pull the trigger on something they are forced to crunch their willingness to move ahead into some sort of recommendation (often in a briefing note) that gets pushed upwards onto someone else..."

Absolutely yes to the above.

And those good ideas (in my experience and those of MANY others I've spoken with) die on the vine when a DG or ADM makes statements like: "No way can we commit to that - it's too much work/negotiating/risk/(insert your own excuse with too little time."

All that despite the fact that the people who put forth the idea were willing to do whatever it took - work late, work weekends, put themselves out there - to make it happen. They were never asked, just told no.

I've been in the service for five years now. I'm not bitter but the above is my realistic assessment of what happens when you try to change things.

I don't stop trying but I've given up expecting much to happen.

apmichel said...

Another great post Nick.

I like your point about systemic separation of risk and consequence. This is probably the biggest innovation dampener in any large, complicated organization with a chain of command.

The same division of labour seems to also separate theory and practice, policy and program, advice and implementation. At the top of the pyramid, a DM or ADM is actually dealing with both advice-giving and decision-implementation. At the working-level, however, there is a separation of the roles. You are either one of the advice-givers or one of the decision-implementors. Your work unit is either a policy shop (minority) or it is operational (majority). We should be channelling more brave advice from the operational program officers up to the decision-makers, because they see the impact of the programs, but our separation of policy advice and program implementation means that doesn't happen as it should.

But not sure I understand the diagram. Advice and implementation are, I think, separate roles, the former preceding and the latter following the political role (as GW Bush famously said, "I'm the decider"). Policy people have a responsibility to always give fearless advice, knowing that they are not deciders, and then the operational people implement the deciders' decisions. A PS fails when it gives timid advice and/or foot-dragging implementation (or worse).

So my question about the diagram would be, are the variables scalar or binary? and are they linked or separated? I may be wrong, but I think one could fulfill an advice duty while fail on implementation or visa versa.

Thanks for the thought provoking posts as usual.

Post a Comment