DOCSLIB.ORG

GATEKEEPING and SILOS EXPLORING MANAGERS' DISCRETION and the ACTIONS TAKEN to AVOID GATEKEEPING in BLUEPRINT 2020 by DANIEL L. D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GATEKEEPING and SILOS EXPLORING MANAGERS' DISCRETION and the ACTIONS TAKEN to AVOID GATEKEEPING in BLUEPRINT 2020 by DANIEL L. D GATEKEEPING AND SILOS EXPLORING MANAGERS' DISCRETION AND THE ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID GATEKEEPING IN BLUEPRINT 2020 By DANIEL L. DICKIN Integrated Studies Project submitted to Dr. Angela Specht in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts – Integrated Studies Athabasca, Alberta October, 2014 2 Abstract This thesis defines and explores gatekeeping within the Canadian public service in the context of the Blueprint 2020 public service renewal initiative. Daniel Dickin defines gatekeeping as “the personal decision of an employee in deciding what information and work goes up and down the hierarchy and what does not” and uses this definition to explore the role managers play in dividing and suppressing information (gatekeeping) that should flow through the manager, both to lower- level employees and higher-ranking executives. The prevalence of gatekeeping in organizations has been studied in settings such as law and medical schools, but not in Canada’s public service. With reforms initiated in 2013 to bring Canada’s federal public service into the year 2020 (hence “Destination 2020” and “Blueprint 2020”), now is an opportune time to observe the changes. This thesis compares the faults of the Public Service 2000 initiatives with Blueprint 2020 and demonstrates that there were a number of gatekeeping elements in Public Service 2000 that were corrected for in designing Blueprint 2020. For example, access to social media and internet-based discussion platforms were designed to give public servants the freedom to voice how they really felt without having to go through a filter (their supervisors and managers) to have those voices heard. However, this thesis also explores the elements of gatekeeping that remain in Blueprint 2020, and suggests how they may impact a valuable and meaningful public service reform initiative. 3 Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................................2 Part One: Defining Gatekeeping in Previous Public Service Reforms...............3 Introduction...............................................................................................................3 The Failure of an Imposed Value-Shift.....................................................................4 Lack of Consultation Resulted in a Minimal Buy-In................................................6 Unclear Hierarchies and Competing Organizations..................................................6 Gatekeeping in Public Service 2000..........................................................................9 The Effects of Gatekeeping.......................................................................................9 Part Two: Efforts to Address Gatekeeping in Blueprint 2020 and Elements of Gatekeeping that Remain.....................................................................................12 Moving Forward: A New Vision for Renewal........................................................12 The Creation of Blueprint 2020...............................................................................13 Defining the Gatekeepers........................................................................................16 The Ancient Versus the Modern Gatekeeper..........................................................20 The Federal Environment........................................................................................21 How Does Gatekeeping Start?.................................................................................24 The Gatekeeping Paradox: An Educated Work Force............................................27 The Tall Climb to the Top.......................................................................................27 The Top: Ministerial and Prime Ministerial Leadership.........................................30 Reasons for Gatekeeping.........................................................................................32 Forms of Gatekeeping.............................................................................................33 Combating Gatekeeping..........................................................................................39 GC Connex..............................................................................................................39 Use of Social Media................................................................................................40 Employee Empowerment........................................................................................42 Conclusion...............................................................................................................42 References...............................................................................................................45 Figures.....................................................................................................................49 4 Part One: Defining Gatekeeping in Previous Public Service Reforms Introduction The bureaucracies of Canada's governments have faced constant calls for growth and change through the past several decades. Public service reform has been espoused from both left- and right-wing governments as an effective electoral campaign platform.1 Federally, this has included the 1984 Nielson Task Force, Public Service 2000 (PS2000), the 1995 Program Review, and the currently in progress, Blueprint 2020. The common thread of all of these reviews has been modernizing, reforming, and updating the public service to provide better outcomes, better customer service, and better value for taxpayer money. The largest of these reviews prior to Blueprint 2020 was Public Service 2000, in which the public service was envisioned as leading the way into the 21st century with a modern, lean, highly-qualified workforce. Unfortunately it failed, and the current federal government's Blueprint 2020 has been established specifically to avoid the shortfalls of Public Service 2000. While there were numerous minor and major errors in the Public Service 2000 initiative, they generally fell into three broad categories. In part one, I examine some of the errors of the Public Service 2000 initiative and conclude that many of the real and perceived failures of this initiative are connected to gatekeeping, a term not used in either the Public Service 2000 or current Blueprint 2020 renewal processes. First, I discuss how an executive-level imposed value system resulted in a lack of buy-in from employees in defining their workplace. Second, I illustrate how a lack of consultations with employees meant employees felt left out and excluded 1Mohamed Charih and Arthur Daniels, New Public Management and Public Administration in Canada (Ottawa: Institute of Public Administration of Canada, 1997), p. 18. 5 from shaping the priorities of the renewal process, again resulting in a subsequent lack of buy-in to reforms. Third, I examine the unclear hierarchies and unclear divisions of responsibility that resulted in confusion and duplication of work effort. Finally, I conclude with an introduction to gatekeeping, which connects these errors but has not been identified as a potential constraint in Public Service 2000 or as a potential barrier for meaningful reform through the Blueprint 2020 process. Given that gatekeeping has significant implications for achieving meaningful public sector reform, it is import to bring issues that arise from it to the foreground. The Failure of an Imposed Value-Shift Public Service 2000 “set out to significantly streamline systems and processes and modernize management practices, including those that governed how public service employees were managed.”2 According to the Auditor General, senior managers and department executives were frustrated with centrally-organized and controlled administrative and human resources departments, that were seen as rigidly applying rules and policies while remaining disconnected from a department's actual front line services. Managers sought to better define their vision of a public service, which they hoped would then help create a culture shift that would see the favouring of front line employees and end results that culminated in better service provision, more efficient and effective use of public resources, and employee empowerment through authority devolved to lower levels. The Clerk of the Privy Council said the reforms would require “10 percent legislative change, 20 percent change in systems, and 70 percent change in attitudes and practices.”3 Unfortunately, Public Service 2000 failed in this regard because its largest component – 2Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Public Service Management Reform: Progress, Setbacks, and Challenges, online: <http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/english/meth_gde_e_10222.html>. 3Ibid. 6 changing attitudes and practices - relied exclusively on the ideas and changes as decided by those same senior managers and executives. The front line employees whom senior managers and executives were purportedly representing were not involved in the actual reform or shaping of their public service processes or practices. For example, “traditional” public service values included accountability, excellence, neutrality, loyalty, leadership, effectiveness, and innovation among a list of values that were expressed as equally important within the public service. However, Public Service 2000 reforms created a ranked hierarchy of values, starting with integrity and ethics and ending with leadership and creativity. The new list
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deputy Ministers And'politicization in the Government of Canada: Lessons Learned from the 2006-2007 Conservative Transition
    DEPUTY MINISTERS AND'POLITICIZATION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE 2006-2007 CONSERVATIVE TRANSITION by SHANNON LEIGH WELLS B.A (Hons) Dalhousie University, 2005 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Political Science) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2007 © Shannon Leigh Wells, 2007 Abstract This thesis analyses the 2006-07 Conservative transition in the Government of Canada by asking the following: is there evidence of overt partisan politicization of the deputy ministers during this transition? Significantly, there is no evidence of overt politicization. Harper has not forced departure of incumbent deputy ministers, nor has he appointed a significant number of known partisan allies from outside the public service. Instead, Harper has retained the overwhelming majority of deputy ministers who served the previous Liberal government. However, the 2006-07 transition also suggests considerable lateral career mobility of deputy ministers within the highest levels of government. The thesis argues that lateral mobility is explained by the "corporate" governance structure in the government of Canada, according to which deputy ministers are expected to identify with the government's broad policy goals and mobilize support for them. High degrees of lateral mobility during the Conservative transition provide evidence to suggest that a potentially rigid bureaucratic system can be made responsive to the policy priorities of a new government without compromising the professional norms of a non-partisan, career public service. ii Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents > iii List of Tables. '. ...iv Acknowledgements '.
    [Show full text]
  • Blueprint 2020: Building Tomorrow's Public Service Together
    Blueprint 2020: Building Tomorrow’s Public Service Together Peter Edwards Adam Fritz John Kehoe Blueprint 2020 Blueprint 2020 Canada School of National Secretariat, National Secretariat, Public Service, Government of Canada Government of Canada Government of Canada 4th Annual Canadian Association of Programs in Public Administration (CAPPA) Conference in Public Management: Public Management in Theory and Practice May 25, 2015 Abstract Launched by the Clerk of the Privy Council in 2013, Blueprint 2020 is a first-of-its-kind transformation initiative that is fundamentally changing the way the Public Service of Canada does business in the 21st century. The Blueprint 2020 initiative sets out a vision for “a world- class Public Service equipped to serve Canada and Canadians now and into the future”, and – for the first time in the social media age – is directly engaging public servants in transforming the federal Public Service for the long-term. This paper explores the path of the Blueprint 2020 initiative to date, examining (1) distinguishing factors in the context of past Public Service renewal efforts; (2) lessons learned and confirmed through the first two years of the exercise; and (3) reflections on large-scale organizational culture change. Adopting a case study approach, this paper draws from available research, records from the initiative to date, input to the engagement process, and interviews with key players to extract lessons that have broader application to the theory and practice of public management. Canada’s quality of life and our nation’s position in today’s uncertain and competitive world depend on a strong, high-performing federal Public Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Jim Flaherty Fast Rob Fonberg
    THE HILL TIMES • 2013 • $8.95 STEPHEN HARPER Christian Paradis BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN JJimOHN Flaherty BAIRD Jason Kenney Rob ALLISOFonberNg JAMES MOORE REDFORD WJenniayne WoutersByrne MICHAEL HORGAN PETER Andrew MACKAY MacDougall 101 LEONA Tony AGLUKKAQ Clement JUSTIN MOST Morris TRUDEAU INFLUENTIAL Rosenberg CHRIS STEPHEN WOODCOCK PEOPLE IN CARTER MICHAEL FERGUSON GOVERNMENT RAY Rona & POLITICS NOVASergeK Amb Dupont rose John TOM Knubley MULCAIR Raoul BRAD Gébert WALL TOM LAW SON Ted MICHELLEArthur Hamilton D’AURAY Men Nathaziesn Ed ISSN 1929-2473 Simon Kennedy Fast Yaprak Baltacioglu Cullen 12 Top 100 list 8 The Top 25 30 The politicians 46 The political staffers Contents 49 The public servants 56 The lobbyists & consultants 59 The media 62 Other public fi gures 63 Energy & environment 66 MPs and art 70 Château Laurier Hotel 73 MPs’ tattoos 76 Best parties 79 Best watering holes 8 Stephen Harper He’s the central fi gure of the most centralized federal government in the country’s history. 10 Jim Flaherty So far, he’s Canada’s untouchable Finance minister. 10 Jason Kenney He’s the Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Immigration and Citizenship Laureen Harper, pictured on June 7, 2012, minister with the killer in Paris after a bilateral meeting with political instincts. 8 French President François Hollande. 11 John Baird He’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Photograph courtesy of the PMO go-to guy on just about everything. 11 Tony Clement This Treasury Board president is 74 one fi erce partisan player. 13 Ed Fast International Trade minister has a big job, but stays below the radar.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT 10 Tough Jobs REVISED 2.Indd
    PROFILES OF LEADERSHIP POSITIONS IN CANADA’S FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE Ten Tough Jobs 2010 ppforum.ca Building Better Government Public Policy Forum The Public Policy Forum is an independent, not-for-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of government in Canada through enhanced dialogue among the public, private and voluntary sectors. The Forum’s members, drawn from business, federal, provincial and territorial governments, the voluntary sector and organized labour, share a belief that an efficient and effective public service is important in ensuring Canada’s competitiveness abroad and quality of life at home. Established in 1987, the Forum has earned a reputation as a trusted, non- partisan facilitator, capable of bringing together a wide range of stake- holders in productive dialogue. Its research program provides a neutral base to inform collective decision making. By promoting information- sharing and greater links between governments and other sectors, the Forum helps ensure public policy in our country is dynamic, coordinated and responsive to future challenges and opportunities. © 2010, Public Policy Forum 1405-130 Albert St. Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4 Tel: 613.238.7160 Fax: 613-238-7990 www.ppforum.ca ISBN 978-0-9782281-5-6 Ce document est disponible en français: www.forumpp.ca Design & layout: John Macaulay ContentsAbout this report i Foreword:A Message from The CGA-Canada Changing Nature of Leadership ii Introduction 1 5 Managing in the Public Service 6 ProfilesSelecting the of TenTen Tough Tough Jobs Jobs 12 15 Regional
    [Show full text]
  • Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
    TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA SECRETARIAT Five-Year Evaluation of the MAF Final Report TBS Five-Year Evaluation of the MAF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Performance management frameworks are integral to the success of organizations within the public and private sectors. This is especially true for complex organizations such as the Federal Government of Canada. In November 2008, the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and Interis Consulting Inc. to conduct a five-year evaluation of the Management Accountability Framework (MAF), TBS’ performance management framework. As part of this evaluation, we considered how TBS should continue its evolution of the MAF. Our evaluation approach involved interviews, consultations, literature review, international comparison, a costing survey and cost analysis. We have been greatly assisted by feedback provided by various advisory groups, a DM Steering Committee and discussions with the MAF Directorate within TBS. We note that there were some limitations with respect to the evidence – primarily around the lack of robust costing data as departments and agencies are not tracking costs related to the MAF assessment and empirical evidence with respect the improvement of management practices due to the evolving nature of MAF. Our evaluation compared MAF against three comparable frameworks in the following jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States. The frameworks in place in these jurisdictions are similar in intent (performance improvement) and methodology (regular diagnosis of organizational capability) to the MAF. Key elements of these frameworks that may be leveraged to further enhance the usefulness and sustainability of MAF are as follows. • United Kingdom (Capability Review) • This framework includes additional information gathering techniques such as interviews and workshops, as a means to gather evidence to support the lines of evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Roles of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
    The Honourable Review of the Roles of the A. Anne Minister of Justice and McLellan, P.C., O.C., A.O.E Attorney General of Canada June 28, 2019 1 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 6 THE CURRENT CANADIAN FRAMEWORK .................................................................... 9 The roles of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada .......................... 9 The Attorney General of Canada ................................................................................ 10 The Minister of Justice .................................................................................................. 12 The Attorney General and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada ........................ 12 Prosecutorial independence ........................................................................................ 13 Accountability ............................................................................................................... 15 Prosecutorial independence in practice ..................................................................... 16 The Director of Public Prosecutions Act .................................................................... 17 EVALUATING THE CURRENT MODEL .......................................................................... 22 Suggestions for structural
    [Show full text]
  • PBO Information Request IR0113 Dear
    April 25, 2013 [See IR0113 Distribution List] Re: PBO Information Request IR0113 Dear [salutation]: A parliamentarian has requested that I provide them with an analysis of savings measures presented in Annex I of Budget 2012, which pertain to your organization. Specifically: Whether savings outlined in Budget 2012 are achievable or likely to be achieved; Whether and the extent to which a failure to achieve them would result in fiscal consequences in the longer term; and, The purported savings premised on staff reductions. Section 79.2 of the Parliament of Canada Act (Act) delineates that this type of analysis falls within the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s legislative mandate. Further to section 79.3 of the Act that provides statutory authority to request information and data to fulfill my legislative mandate, I am seeking data and information held by your organization regarding the nature of the Budget 2012 savings initiatives. This includes: The type of savings measure (i.e. whether an “efficiency” that leaves service levels unchanged, or a “cut” that will impair or eliminate services). The cash inflows (i.e. investments) and outflows (i.e. savings, revenues or reduced expenditures) for each measure. The source of the savings (i.e. how many personnel are to be eliminated). The attached Excel Spreadsheet titled “Savings Measures by Category” is provided as a template to facilitate your response to this request. It should be completed for each Program Activity affected by Budget 2012 savings reductions. The deadline for this information
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2014 Our Mission
    Institut C.D. HOWE Institute Annual Report 2014 Our Mission The C. D. Howe Institute is an independent not-for-profit research institute whose mission is to raise living standards by fostering economically sound public policies. It is Canada’s trusted source of essential policy intelligence, distinguished by research that is nonpartisan, evidence-based and subject to definitive expert review. It is considered by many to be Canada’s most influential think tank. Board of Directors Chair N. Murray Edwards Gilles G. Ouellette President, Edco Financial Holdings Ltd. President and Chief Executive Officer, Hugh L. MacKinnon Private Client Group, BMO Financial Sheldon Elman, M.D. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Group, and Deputy Chair, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Bennett Jones LLP BMO Nesbitt Burns Medisys Health Group Inc. Steve Parker Gordon J. Fyfe Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Vice-Chair Chief Executive Officer/Chief Investment The CCL Group Brian M. Levitt Officer, BC Investment Management Partner & Co-Chair, Osler, Hoskin & Corporation (bcIMC) Aaron Regent Founder & Managing Partner, Magris Harcourt LLP Blake C. Goldring, M.S.M., CFA Resources Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief AGF Management Ltd. Donald S. Reimer Chairman, President and Chief Executive Bruce Gordon Executive Officer Officer, Reimer Express World Corp. Chairman, Manulife Bank, Manulife Trust William B.P. Robson Tracy Redies Paul J. Hill C.D. Howe Institute President and Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Coast Capital Savings Credit Union Officer, Harvard Developments Inc., A Hill Directors Company Stephen Smith Chairman, President & Co-founder, First Elyse Allan Dallas Howe National Financial LP President and Chief Executive Officer, Chair, Potash Corporation of GE Canada Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation in Government? Conversations with Canada’S Public Service Leaders Contents
    Innovation in government? Conversations with Canada’s public service leaders Contents Executive summary ......................................................... 1 Overview ........................................................................ 2 Our method .................................................................... 3 What we learned ............................................................ 4 What should change ....................................................... 8 The way forward ............................................................. 9 Appendix A: Innovation frameworks ............................. 10 Appendix B: Participants ............................................... 11 Contributors Deloitte Public Policy Forum Paul Macmillan Garnet Garven – Lead Researcher National Public Sector Leader Senior Fellow 416-874-4203 • [email protected] 306-539-3244 • [email protected] James Gordon David Mitchell Senior Manager President and Chief Executive Officer 604-601-3487 • [email protected] 613-238-7858 • [email protected] Amy Valliquette Paul Ledwell Senior Consultant Executive Vice President 416-601-5726 • [email protected] 613-238-7160 • [email protected] The Public Policy Forum wishes to thank Deloitte for its support and partnership. We wish to acknowledge the contributions of Mary-Rose Brown, Hala Domloge, Ryan Conway, Allison Bunting, and all of the Public Policy Forum. Other Deloitte representatives supporting the project or participating in the interviews were: Andy Potter
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Responsibilities and Accountabilities of Ministers and Senior Officials
    Meeting the Expectations of Canadians Review of the Responsibilities and Accountabilities of Ministers and Senior Officials REPORT TO PARLIAMENT © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the President of the Treasury Board, 2005 Catalogue No. BT22-100/2005 ISBN 0-662-69027-3 This document is available on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Web site at www.tbs-sct.gc.ca. This document is also available in alternate formats on request. Table of Contents 1. Introduction.................................................................................... 1 1.1 Structure of this report ................................................................. 2 1.2 Overview of accountability in responsible government ...................... 3 1.3 The goal of an accountability regime .............................................. 5 1.4 Overview of strengthening accountability ........................................ 6 2. The Role of Parliament in the Accountability Regime ............................ 9 Introduction....................................................................................... 9 2.1 Parliament and the assignment of responsibility .............................. 9 2.2 Parliament’s role in holding the government to account .................. 15 2.3 Role of Parliament in sanctioning the government, ministers, and senior officials............................................................................ 19 3. The Ministry and the Accountability Regime ...................................... 20 Introduction....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2008–09 Performance Report Regional Communications Network
    Regional Communications Network 2008–09 Performance Report Table of Contents Message from the Assistant Secretary ........................................................... 1 Section I: Overview of the Regional Communications Network ......................... 2 1.1 Mission and Vision.........................................................................................2 Mission .......................................................................................................2 Vision.........................................................................................................2 1.2 Operating Environment..................................................................................2 Section II: Analysis of Program Activity ......................................................... 4 2.1 2008-2009 Achievements ..............................................................................4 2.2 Strategic Priorities and Activities .....................................................................5 2.2.1 Communicating the Government of Canada’s Agenda in the Regions ...........5 2.2.2 Communicating Regional Realities and Perspectives ..................................9 2.2.3 Supporting the Government of Canada’s Communications Community ....... 12 2.2.4 Defining the TBS RCN’s Role in Emergency Communications and Business Continuity Planning ................................................................. 18 2.2.5 Communicating the TBS RCN Mandate .................................................. 21 2.3 Enhancing TBS RCN
    [Show full text]
  • By Their Excellencies the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada and Mrs
    Visit to the Kingdom of the Netherlands by Their Excellencies the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada and Mrs. Sharon Johnston Delegation Kingdom of the Netherlands October 26 and 27, 2014 DelegaçãoOfficial Oficial Delegation Visit to the Kingdom of theVisita Netherlands ao Brasil, 2012 October 26 to 27, 2014 His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston Governor General of Canada David Johnston began his professional career as an assistant professor in the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University in 1966, moving to the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law in 1968. He became dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario in 1974. In 1979, he was named principal and vice-chancellor of McGill University, and in July 1994, he returned to teaching as a full-time professor in the McGill Faculty of Law. In June 1999, he became the fifth president of the University of Waterloo. Mr. Johnston has served on many provincial and federal task forces and committees, and has also served on the boards of a number of public companies. He was president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and of the Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec. He was the founding chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and chaired the federal government’s Information Highway Advisory Council. His academic specializations include securities regulation, information technology and corporate law. Mr. Johnston holds an LL.B. from Queen’s University (1966); an LL.B. from the University of Cambridge (1965); and an AB from Harvard University (1963).
    [Show full text]