Collaboration takes time that organizations don't have

by Kent Aitken

---

A couple years back I wrote about a vicious cycle of centralized decision-making and the what it meant for executive attention on important issues. I don’t think there’s a single major issue in large organizations that doesn’t, at some level, stem from the meta-problem that the demands on executives’ time are incredible. At some point in the dissection of every systemic issue you could include “And executives don’t have the time for it.” Every major new initiative includes, as a factor for success, “senior executive support.” 

I’ll recreate the same model because I think it’s still interesting. Today I’d add organizational design and I’d probably fingerpaint it, but I think it mostly holds up.

The long story short is that more time spent on content means less time on process, including coaching, big-picture thinking, and organizational design. Which ultimately leads to the need for even more centralized decision-making in the absence of experienced delegates and effective governance. 

The compounding problem is that executives are structurally hamstrung from recognizing and correcting this pattern. Throughout an organization, there will be some sub-organizations with a manageable workload where everything gets dealt with. However, from the top, those organizations will look the same as those where things are falling through the cracks. Some issues that would otherwise be important will remain invisible because there’s no time to make them visible. And your delegates will start curating demands on executives' attention on their behalf out of sheer practicality - and from a smaller-picture lens - removing the ability for pattern recognition.

That is, for someone running at 100% capacity - as in, an actual maximum at, say, 80 hours per week - they’ll never know if the amount of work that should, given current systems, require their attention would actually add up to 120 hours per week. The extra 40 hours of work is impossible to see.

From the ground floor, this often results in issues that are paradoxically so important that they can only be resolved by [X] level of executive, but so unimportant that they won’t possibly make it to that level in the absence of good luck or a media article that catalyzes attention. 

When this problem exists in an organization, people probably don’t - and can’t - know the extent of it. 

Right now I'm doing work on digital-era governance, and there are recurring themes: collaboration, systems thinking, user-centricity. But collaboration takes time - particularly when we're talking about formal, long-term collaboration between organizations or even orders of government - and time is already an incredibly stressed resource, in ways that are very difficult to fix.

Thoughts on Problem Definition from NYU's GovLab

by Nick Charney

---

Last week I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Alan Kantrow from NYU's GovLab who was in Ottawa to frame up a collaboration with the Institute on Governance (where I am currently on interchange). In addition to back of house discussions, Alan took the time to speak to a number of different groups including the IOG's Executive Leadership Program (which is currently recruiting it's next cohort) about the importance of problem definition. It was a great talk and Alan made some key points that are worth sharing:

• We are more likely to pursue solutions that are locally optimal but globally suboptimal, this is problem shifting not problem solving.
• There is an interesting incongruence between hierarchical incentive structures that reward solving small problems and problem shifting which generates animosity among peers horizontally.
• Making the system known – the up front costs/benefits and embedded logics – explicitly puts people in an uncomfortable position because the outcomes from a good systems map are (in most cases) predictable.
• Shift the bulk of your resources upstream to problem definition, if there has been any central lesson in the work of the GovLab thus far it is that poor problem definition creates poor outcomes. Don't short change yourself upstream (problem definition).
• You need both a theory of change and a theory of action; these are not synonyms. The former is about how does a project touch people, how do they respond and what are their incentives, whereas the latter is about how you cause change to happen within that context, at what points of intervention and in what sequence?
• Far too many people ignore the risks when defining their problem; they genuflect in their direction but fail to go beyond a discussion of type and probability. There is tremendous value in assessing risks against other criteria, time, location, human resource resiliency, cash flow, etc. Resiliency against certain risk types is an important competitive advantage, it allows people to bid on risk.

As a side note, I left the talk wondering about the tension between the amount of time and effort required for proper upstream problem definition and the super-fast superficial culture that reinforces heads down doing instead of heads up thinking.

To Govern is to Choose

by Nick Charney

---

That is the affirmation at the centre of an incredibly important report released by the UK House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee in May; it's an affirmation I believe strongly in, but before telling you why I wanted to (again) walk you through a bit of the thinking behind how I got there.

Now, I know it seems like I've been recapping the ongoing narrative at every opportunity lately but the truth is that the ideas I put forward every week flow naturally from one another and - to be honest - my own thinking evolves from week to week. Recapping them helps both you and I understand where we are, how we got here, and where we are going.

If you've been following the narrative as it's unfolded than feel free to jump down past the recap header to the next one in bold below. If you haven't, then I suggest reading what follows, and re-examining some of the posts in this series should you feel the need to go deeper.

Recap

• I asked a thought provoking question about the tenuous relationship between bureaucrats who see value in pursuing innovative and a public narrative that demands predictability (See: Can Bureaucrats be Interesting When the World Demands they be Boring);
• I put forth an argument that positioned the problem of facelessness as one that is self made, that the bureaucracy relies on passive rules and protocols rather than active relationship buildings (See: The Real Problem of Facelessness); 
• Kent argued that continuing to rely on these things is unsustainable and that potential for public servants to have an impact on the lives of others at this point in time is nearly unparalleled (See: Moving Public Service Mountains Part I & Part II); 
• I positioned the solution to the problem of facelessness as greater authenticity in our dealings with each other and by extension those we serve (See: The Solution to Facelessness is Authenticity);
• I shared a whimsical video and a powerful story that exemplifies the type of authenticity that the civil service desperately needs (See: Peak Bullshit & A Noteworthy Example of Authenticity);
• I re-iterated a recent discussion that helped me realize the importance of the stories we set in motion today while Kent argued that good storytelling is akin to usability for ideas (See: On the Stories You Tell Today & Towards a New Professionalism in Government);
• I shared a personal story about a little boy I met ten years ago that still shapes my expectations today to illustrate the point (See: We All Have Our Defining Moments); 
• We even reviewed a book that serves as a powerful example of the need to and the difficulty of elevating a more authentic public policy discourse (See: Impossible Conversations: A Review of Jeffrey Simpson's Chronic Condition); 
• As an added bonus, the conversation spilled over to another a blog we happen to like (See: The Whole Hearted Bureaucrat: The Public Service as Reflective Practice written by Ashleigh Weeden)
• I made the direct link between the authenticity and complexity, arguing that to whole-heartedly embrace the former entails embracing the latter (See: Embracing Authenticity means Embracing Complexity); and finally
• I shared that the fact that a lot of the reading I've been doing and the conversations I've been having lately have focused squarely on the recognition that the civil service no longer holds a monopoly on policy advice, that the model is shifting from the cathedral to the bazaar and that by extension if the civil service wants to retain its value in the new model then civil servants ought to embrace complexity. (See: The Bazaar World of Fearless Advice 2.0)

Which obviously brings me to the point I want to address today

Its a point that has always been in the back of my mind since starting this exploration; its a point I've already given away, but one that is - in my view - incredibly important and often lost in the shuffle: to govern is to choose. In my initial introduction I mentioned a report out of the UK. Not only is it worth reading but also citing verbatim; here's the executive summary in full (emphasis added):

In its plan for Civil Service reform, published in June 2012, the Government introduced “open policy-making”. This means engaging the public and experts from beyond the “Westminster village” in debates about policy and in the policy-making process itself, and establishing a new relationship with the citizen who becomes a valued partner to identify problems, discover new thinking and to propose solutions. It is a departure from more traditional approaches to public engagement, which have usually only occurred after the Government has already determined a course of action.  

To govern is to choose. Open policy-making should take debate outside Whitehall and into the community as a whole, but ultimate responsibility and accountability for leadership must remain with Ministers and senior civil servants. Once again, we emphasise the importance of leadership in Government; of effective strategic thinking, which involves choosing between different arguments, reconciling conflicting opinions and arbitrating between different groups and interests; and of effective governance of departments and their agencies. A process of engagement, which can reach beyond the “Westminster village” and the “usual suspects”, will itself be an act of leadership, but there can be no abdication of that leadership.  

There is great potential for open and contested policy-making to deliver genuine public engagement. There is also a risk of disappointment and scepticism amongst the public about the impact of their participation, and that Government listens only to the media, lobbying and “the usual suspects”. Ministers must commit sufficient time for public engagement to reach beyond Westminster. Digital technology and new media have a huge role to play. In time, the Government should be able to demonstrate that the citizen is able to contribute opinion, ideas and suggestions on an ongoing basis, if it is to be seen as moving away from old processes and embracing a new relationship with the citizen.

Ultimate responsibility and accountability for leadership must remain with Ministers and senior civil servants

There you have it. The conditions within which we operate may be changing but the accountability structures remain. Now, in the past I've written that I think that the balance of fearless advice and loyal implementation has shifted heavily towards implementation to the detriment of fearless advice (See: On Risk, Fearless Advice and Loyal Implementation) but now I'm not so sure. My original statements track well with the thesis presented in Wait: The Art and Science of Delay (which I enjoyed very much and recommend reading) but perhaps my position needs some refinement given what I've cited above.

First, the very notion of balance between fearless advice and loyal implementation may be false; there is a relationship to be sure, but balance, not necessarily. In fact, the very notion of balance may be a rooted in the cathedral model and thus not conducive to the bazaar. Remember, the bazaar is defined by complexity, while 'balance' is rather simple conceptual framework.

Second, the relationship between loyal implementation and fearless advice will likely be determined (negotiated?) by leadership on an issue by issue basis. A give here, a take there, a meet in middle elsewhere, and even perhaps the odd all out yelling match somewhere in parts unknown. There are no hard and fast rules here, its like any other relationship, it defies simple logic and point in time analyses. I think we struggle with this mostly because we (bureaucrats) tend to privilege the comfort of routine, protocols and machinations rather than the complexity of relationships (again, see: The Real Problem of Facelessness).

Third, there is an assumption that the shift in focus towards loyal implementation somehow diminishes the value of the fearless advice. But to be honest, the focus of implementation jives well with hierarchical organizational models that excel at incremental innovation (keep doing what we do, but do it faster, better, cheaper) and fall down when it comes to disruptive innovation (do something different that displaces old ways of doing things). I suppose what I am trying to get at is that I don't know that the value fearless advice is being diminished in so much as the context within which it is provided is changing and making it dramatically more difficult to deal with.

Finally, we can - as we do here - continue to offer our best and most fearless advice on a regular and sustained basis, but ultimately must resign ourselves to the fact that it is ultimately up to leadership to decide what to do (or not do) with that advice.

Quite simple, it's not our job to govern, at least not yet, and until then, our responsibility to leadership - Ministers and Senior Civil Servants - is to provide the best possible advice we can while affording them the trust and respect they have earned to choose what's in the best interests for Canadians.

In many ways, we have the easy jobs; we simply put forward the advice, whereas they have the at times unenviable responsibility of having to choose.


Postscript

Right now there are a number of interesting threads happening behind the firewall as a part of the Blueprint 2020 exercise; one tackles this precise issue, an issue that I weighed in on very carefully:

Just weighed in heavily on this thread on #gc2020. Probably some of my most honest comments to date. http://t.co/JuaXdldbVV [internal]
— Nicholas Charney (@nickcharney) July 17, 2013

The conversation I linked to in the tweet above is shaping up to be an interesting one, as such, I'd encourage you to check it out.

Speechless

I've got to warn you, I am about to do two things I told myself I never would.

First, I'm going to start by breaking the cardinal rule of blogging as a public servant: don't ever talk about the particulars of your workplace.

Second, well, let's just say if I explained it now, it would give too much away.


The Only Constant is Change

Some of you may question what is important enough to prompt me to speak to the specifics of my workplace. Last week, I got some bad news. Last week I learned that my boss is leaving.

If there is one thing I have learned in my time in the public service it is this: you cannot overstate the importance of good leadership.


The Team

The team I work in comprises only 8 people, including my boss.

She is a Director General (DG), we are her DGO (Director General's Office); and unlike typical DGOs, we don't have anyone reporting up into us. We are the closest thing in the public sector I have seen to a SWAT team:

1. Lightweight (mobilize quickly)
2. Proximate to senior leadership
3. Experienced in our areas (unique skill sets and backgrounds)
4. Clear on our responsibilities
5. Able to think ahead and anticipate issues
6. Surrounded by an enabling culture
7. Results driven
8. Handpicked by the boss

The worst part is that despite another few months under her leadership, the team is already starting to go its separate ways. I don't expect the next iteration to look the same as the last.

It gets worse: we are being moved under a Director (read: getting heavier, losing proximity to senior leadership) who is yet to be determined (read: unclear responsibilities and culture) and Director General who is also yet to be determined (read: double jeopardy).

In short, the entire unit is imploding, and quite frankly I'm pretty upset about it. It affects me personally, but also I think this is a huge blow for the public sector in general.

We are losing the closest thing I have ever come to a results oriented workplace in the public sector.

We are losing the closest thing I have ever come to an innovation lab in the public sector.

We are losing proof that a small and flexible unit, properly managed, can be highly effective.


It's Personal

When my boss told me she was leaving it was a complete system shock. I forced out the word “congratulations”, but inside a small part of me died.

She was an integral part of the work I was putting forward; she was one of the designated champions; she, at least in my opinion was the strongest voice at the table. Without her, the likelihood of success for the work I am about to undertake drops dramatically.

That drop makes me think twice about staying in my current role.

There, I just broke the second rule – the one I wasn't going to tell you about at the beginning of this diatribe: self-doubt.

I doubt my ability to be successful in my current role because one of the most critical elements for success is being removed from the equation and replaced with an unknown.


Worst Conclusion Ever

I suppose I am supposed to conclude with something definitive, be it positive or negative about the future of my work, but I can't.

For the first time in a long while, I am left speechless.

[image credit: TheGiantVermin]

Round Up: December 3

Here are a couple of things that may be of interest:

1. Federal employees earn more then private workers
2. PS hiring under fire
3. Audit finds fault with 14% of top bureaucratic appointments
   
4. Failure to Accept Responsibility is a Failure to Lead c/o Havard Business Publishing

Also you may notice that we have added some new ways to get in touch with us on the right hand side of the page, we now have links to both our GCPEDIA and facebook profiles. You can also now follow me on twitter. I am trying to deepen our use of social media to foster discussion on public service renewal. In addition to this, Mike and I would like to do some podcasting or even set up a youtube channel, but we really don't have the time right now.

Cheers... and keep your eye on the Governor General. Interesting times ahead.

Round-Up: September 24

News

Senior Civil Servants in BC are still under the gun for their pay raises.

Former president of the Nuclear Safety Commission, Linda Keen, is in the news again.

Public Works has apparently put the kaibosh on all new contracts posted on MERX unless a compelling case can be made for the procurement as essential.

There is an interesting article about the new head of the New Brunswick civil service, David Ferguson. He sounds like a pretty good guy to work for:

One senior civil servant who has worked closely with Ferguson said he demands both quality and timely recommendations, putting a premium on thorough advice. But he is blessed with a management style that exudes conciliation over confrontation.

"He puts people at ease with an informal manner. He's not at all hierarchical, wears a tie only as needed, and a great sense of humour runs in the family," the source said.

A video of a bureaucrats is making the rounds on the internet, albeit for completely political reasons.

The video is getting a lot of press (including a great spot on the Current on CBC Radio One this morning) and the numerous versions floating out their on youtube combine for about 100,000 views. Imagine if we put together a tongue in cheek video about renewal that got that kind of coverage.

(BTW, I feel it worth mentioning that I can't actually view the video from behind the firewall ... so I hope that link works... if not try youtubing for 'culture in danger' or 'culture en peril'.)

Blogs

Mike Kujawski posted the presentation he did from Podcamp 2008 in Montreal. You can head on over to check it out.

FYI we are 'mentioned" in slide 42 as an unofficial government blog. (Thanks Mike!)

Round-Up July 7

Media Analysis

1. Canoe - Family issues overtake work issues for federal workers: survey
2. Hill Times - APEX finds negative impact of technology on PS executives' workload, stress

Blogs

1. David Eaves - What government embraces Facebook? (hint: it’s not ours)
2. David Eaves - Oh, to live in a country with an open government
3. Colin McKay - Making the argument for free government data

Government Publications

1. Public Service Agency - It's My Day published its latest edition.
2. APEX report referenced in the 2nd news article.

Other Notes

We added a search tool to the right hand bar and have added social bookmarking buttons courtesy of addthis.

Have a great week!