So here is the continuation of my synopsis of the 6th Annual CSPS-CAPPA Symposium that I attended recently. In the last entry I blogged about the work being undertaken by Ian Green. Today’s blog will focus (as much as I can focus, that is) on some of the questions that were discussed about the public service and renewal. The focus of the discussion was on the Federal Public Service.
Q1: Is the public service excellent now? Organizations are very good at blowing their own horn and calling themselves the “best” in the world, in their field, in the universe, in history, etc. But what criteria do we use to judge the performance of governments (apart from the periodic assessment of the voters)? In general, across Canada, the public service is relatively good at routine processes such as the collection of taxes. The Public Service, by and large, is also relatively good at dealing with a crisis – think of the Ice Storm in Eastern Canada or the Red River flooding. There are those who believe that the public service is not so good at the horizontal integration/collaboration needed to deal with complex issues today. And as in most large organizations, some governments are not really good at change.
Q2: How will the Federal Public Service evolve over the next 10 -20 years? There were a range of possibilities discussed – from the narrow focus on federal constitutional responsibilities to a larger role. Citizens expect that governments will work together to deliver services. They really have no patience for jurisdictional finger-pointing. Concepts like Biz-Pal that integrates services from all three orders of government are what citizens are seeking.
Q3: What is the role of the Public servant in relation to Ministers and other elected officials and political staff? The traditional bargain that has underpinned the Westminster model in Canada is changing. The roles of each of the players are overlapping more than they did in the past. Some argue that the “accounting officer” concept that is contained in the Federal Accountability Act is adding to that blurring. As well, given the increased scope and pace of government and the myriad and complexity of issues that government now deals with, some have argued that the traditional bargain is a quaint but outmoded concept and that a new relationship is evolving.
Q4: What will the characteristics of the ideal employee be in 10-20 years? The rapid evolution of knowledge and technology; the instant access to information; the horizontal nature of issues all mean that new employees must be very adaptable and at ease with technology and working with partners both inside and outside the organization. It also means that employees must have a balance between the specialist with in-depth knowledge and the generalist, who can pull together different steams of information.
Q5: Should the current career model (life-long employment) be retained? Demographic changes will mean that in likelihood Canada, like the rest of the industrialized world, will experience more jobs than people. As well, Generation Y-ers (see previous blog on “People & Organization Performance”) are more likely to want to go off for a year or two to gain different experiences. This means that employers, especially governments, must be more flexible in their human resources approaches. Governments must be prepared to allow employees to take a leave of absence for a period of time or even allow for employees to leave for a few years and come back later in their career. They must also make it easier for mid-career professionals to join the public service and give them the supports they need to thrive in the public service culture.
There is a major generational change just around the corner – at the Federal level the average age of a Deputy Minister is 54, ADMs – the successor group, has an average age of 53, while middle executives average age is 51. The entry level executive group’s average age is 50 and the feeder group average age is 47.6. Assuming a retirement age of 65, this means that the feeder group will have retired in less than 20 years.
These are all very interesting questions and there a many more as the public service contemplates it future.
As a final point I want to quote Gaius Petronius Arbiter a Roman Satirist ( 210 BC): “We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.”
No comments:
Post a Comment