Of Demons and Scapegoats

"A good scapegoat is nearly as welcome as a solution to the problem."
- Author unknown

Today is Guy Fawkes Day, UK's most celebrated scapegoat! And today is also the 4th anniversary of the publication of An Inconvenient Renewal, an infamous manifesto written by an obscure public servant (!) calling for better people management in organizations.

In one of my last posts, I told the story of some of the events that unfolded behind the scenes in the months that followed the release of my paper. I also expressed my thoughts on the recent so-called "indiscretion" of a certain Canadian public servant on Twitter.

However, going through the comments left by the readers further to the CBC article, I started seeing another narrative emerging: one of demons and scapegoats.

The word scapegoat is a mistranslation of the word "Azazel". In mythology, Azazel is often portrayed as a demon. In some religions, the scapegoat, or Azazel, is even a symbol for Satan. "The word "scapegoat" has come to mean a person who is blamed and punished for the sins, crimes or sufferings of others, generally as a way of distracting attention from the real causes." (Source)

"Scapegoating is a known practice in management where a lower staff employee is blamed for the mistakes of senior executives. This is often due to lack of accountability in upper management. For example, a teacher who constantly gets blamed or accused of wrongdoing could be a scapegoat if said teacher is only guilty of doing her job so well that she makes her coworkers and supervisory administration look bad. This could result in letters being placed in permanent files, condescending remarks from co-workers and constant blame finding from administration." (Source)

The explanation for the behaviour is that "social order is restored as people are contented that they have solved the cause of their problems by removing the scapegoated individual." In other words, "scapegoating serves as a psychological relief for a group of people." (Source)

Then I came across this article which makes the case that mobbing is a form of sociological scapegoating which occurs in the workplace:

"Mobbing can be understood as the stressor to beat all stressors. It is an impassioned, collective campaign by co-workers to exclude, punish, and humiliate a targeted worker. Initiated most often by a person in a position of power or influence, mobbing is a desperate urge to crush and eliminate the target. The urge travels through the workplace like a virus, infecting one person after another. The target comes to be viewed as absolutely abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities, outside the circle of acceptance and respectability, deserving only of contempt. As the campaign proceeds, a steadily larger range of hostile ploys and communications comes to be seen as legitimate. [...]

The worker most vulnerable to being mobbed is an average or high achiever who is personally invested in a formally secure job, but who nonetheless somehow threatens or puts to shame co-workers and/or managers. Such a worker provides no legally defensible grounds for termination, yet usually fails to pick up subtle hints and leave voluntarily. An attractive solution, from the majority point of view, is to bring or wear this worker down, one way or another, however long it takes.

As the process drags on, both sides, collective and individual, dig in their heels. It is often as if the targeted worker has grabbed a hot wire and cannot let go, despite the pain and injury it inflicts. The worker’s investment of self and sense of having been deeply wronged prevent the one resolution that would satisfy the other side.

Ironically, it is in workplaces where workers’ rights are formally protected that the complex and devious incursions on human dignity that constitute mobbing most commonly occur. Union shops are one example, as in the case of the factory worker described above. University faculties are another, on account of the special protections of tenure and academic freedom professors have. It happens in police forces, too, since management rights in this setting are tempered by the oath officers swear to uphold the law. Mobbings appear to be much more frequent in the public service as a whole, as compared to private companies."

Obviously, I couldn't help but draw a parallel with the story of the public servant and his tweet, based on the reactions of some of the readers.

So last night I was relating the Twitter case to Pádraig Ó Tuama, a well-known theologian and mediator based in Belfast. He had just attended a two-day course on the work of René Girard on scapegoating (neat coincidence, I know!). I submitted to him my hypothesis that the social media was being demonized and the public servant being punished for his inoffensive tweet was the scapegoat.

The mediator replied: "I could argue that the demon is not the social media, but rather the fear of the social media."

He paused and added: "...Or fear of the communication itself."

His comment reminded me of a line spoken by the character V as William Rockwood in a key scene of the movie V for Vendetta: "But the real genius of their plan was the fear. Fear became the ultimate tool."

What's your take? Is the current attitude in your organization towards social media more conducive to spreading fear or opening up communications?

A Personal Favourite

A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine pointed me to an upcoming event at the Canada School of Public Service entitled: Ethics and Social Media in the Public Service.

This combined with the recent case of a public servant who has been disciplined for tweeting something deemed "inappropriate", has had me thinking again about values and ethics in the public service.

I have reread some of my older posts, and found this one in particular to be as current as it was three years ago when I first published it: Values and Ethics in the Public Service of Canada: Tautology or Missed Opportunity?

Not only is it a good introduction for my upcoming post, it is also one of my favourite!

Do You Believe in Santa Claus?

I just came across this article on the CBC website. Apparently, a federal public servant tweeted the following on his personal Twitter account: “Making a spreadsheet and checking it twice, gonna find out which job to slice”.

The article claims that the tweet was meant “to poke fun at the government's strategic review process” by spoofing the famous pagan Christmas song, but some didn't see the humor in it. After removing the tweet, the employee was allegedly "punished" and "transferred to a different office in the same department".

Though the tweet could have been read in the larger context of the recession and worldwide economic uncertainty that are affecting everyone right now, some interpreted the line in the more specific context of strategic review, an expenditure management system the Government of Canada introduced a few years ago. As explained on the Treasury Board Secretariat website, “as a result of these reviews, departments are streamlining operations and realigning their activities to better deliver on the priorities of Canadians through increased effectiveness and efficiencies.” Translation for the government speak illiterate: (job) cuts.

According to a comment posted by user outragean on the CBC page, the tweet was further interpreted by some in light of the employee's position in the department, namely that he was “hired as a special advisor to the ADM” and that he had been in this position for only “a few months”. Still according to user outragean, the tweeter was “working in a cavalier manner”, however being transferred to another project was not a punishment. It's not specified if the transfer was a consequence of the now infamous tweet or something that was in the works prior to the incident.

***

From the gist of the story, I can strongly relate with the public servant who posted the tweet. Actually, I feel for him.

Four years ago I published a paper entitled An Inconvenient Renewal. Shortly after the release, a director from another agency filed a complaint to the Centre for Values, Integrity and Conflict Resolution (VICR) of my department. The basic allegations were that I had "breached the Values and Ethics Code by publicly criticizing the government of Canada’s Public Service Renewal Program". Simply put, my loyalty was called into question. Following receipt of the complaint, the Centre for VICR undertook a review to determine if the allegations were valid. It started right before Christmas 2007, and the assumption that tainted the whole process was that I had been a very naughty boy!

Before the review was concluded, and despite the absence of any evidence that I had done anything wrong - much less breached the Values and Ethics Code - two senior executives from my department who were involved in the review phoned my manager and told him that I should be suspended. Fortunately, my manager knew better than blindly following the advice of people he doesn’t even report to, although they were more senior than him in the hierarchy. Consequently, my manager didn’t act on the suspension recommendation, and instead went as far as stating to the two senior executives that if I was suspended, he himself should probably be suspended as well! (Yeah, I know: you wish this guy was your manager too!)

Meanwhile, and unbeknownst to me, a handful of people were working behind the curtains to prevent my suspension. As it was explained to me years later by consultant David Eaves during an armchair discussion at the Canada School of Public Service in Vancouver, some people were shocked that I was being investigated and on the verge of being suspended for getting involved in Public Service Renewal (as the Clerk of the Privy Council had invited public servants to do), and they brought the matter to the attention of the Big Boss himself.

A few weeks later, Big Boss (Kevin Lynch, then Clerk of the Privy Council) was in Vancouver for a town hall meeting with 1200 federal public servants. I had been asked to facilitate the Q&A period with the Clerk, but just before we launched into the questions, Mr. Lynch publicly recognized the contribution I had made through An Inconvenient Renewal, thanked me, and invited all public servants to get involved as well. The whole session was filmed and copies of the recording were distributed to every Deputy Ministers and Heads of Agencies.

Just a few days later, I received a letter from the Centre for VICR which concluded that I had not breached Values and Ethics Code because I had exercised my "democratic right of freedom of expression" (as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom). Was the sudden change of mind pure coincidence? Probably not...

Fast forward a year later. A new senior executive is appointed to the Centre for VICR and after meeting with me apologizes on behalf of the Department for the way I had been treated during the investigation. Aware that my ass had been saved only thanks to the intervention of some outsiders like David Eaves, a couple of very senior people and the intervention of the Clerk himself, I subsequently tried to seek clarification from the Centre for VICR, more specifically: “If tomorrow I would published An Inconvenient Renewal and no person of influence would take my defense, would I get suspended?”.

I never got an answer, but when I was appointed into a job two-and-a-half years later, the same person who had recommended my suspension initiated within two days an investigation into my appointment and for the first four or five months "stick-handled" it, all the way through Christmas time. Santa Claus cut me no slack that year, even though the investigation was allegedly prompted by an anonymous and undocumented phone call to this senior executive (how convenient!). Of course, you can rest assure that the whole investigation was carried out promptly, as well as in a fair and transparent manner.... (hint of cynicism here...)

Ten months after the start of the investigation and still awaiting a final result, I was told in no uncertain terms that the investigation was meant to "teach me a lesson". Yes, in the public service some lessons are best learned the “hard way”. (This is the reason why I have been so quiet on this blog for the last two years...)

***

This brings me back to the public servant who was tweeting Christmas carols in a brief moment of inspiration that only an Excel spreadsheet can provide...

My main worry for him is that right now he too is being taught a lesson the hard way. I’m worried that some people might have made a fuss about his tweet not because of the actual content of the tweet (after all, there’s only so much you can say in 140 characters and there is just too much room for assumptions about the context, intentions, or actual meaning of the message), but rather because of underlying issues of jealousy and resentment resulting perhaps from the enviable position of the employee in the organization, his quick rise, his portfolio, personal vendetta, you name it... (if you've worked in the public service too, you know exactly what I'm talking about.)

I’m also worried that there are probably a few people who see how they can better their own situation by making this snafu a bigger issue than it really is, and perhaps even propel their own career forward by making an example of that rogue employee. For instance, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how someone may want to show how effective are the new Codes of Conduct introduced by departments and agencies further to the requirement set out in the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. These Codes of Conduct greatly expand the latitude managers have to administer discipline (ranging from verbal or written reprimand to suspension or even dismissal). It would be quite easy for a decision-maker to administer a disciplinary measure that is disproportionate compared to the fault.

In fact, in “The Critical Failure of Workplace Ethics”, Gordon Lafer asks whether workplace ethics are “merely useless, or actually harmful?” and takes the position that ethics in organizations are in fact a disguise for power. He also talks about the imbalance of power relations in the workplace and how so-called questions of ethics can “seem like an attempt to mask the offensiveness of the state structure by focusing on marginal decisions and imbuing the bureaucrats of repression with the air of deep moral thinkers.”

Gonna find out who's naughty or nice!

***

One question that has been haunting me since I read the CBC article - and one I hope the decision-makers will consider in the current case - is the following: If the employee, rather than writing down his thoughts in a tweet, would have made the exact same comment to the exact same audience, but done so verbally around the water cooler, would he be punished and transferred?

The answer is obvious: no. The worst thing that would have happened would be his manager taking him aside and explaining him how the comment might be perceived by the audience in the absence of context and given the employee’s role within the department (assuming there is a connection, of course).

End of story. No harm done, no disciplinary measure taken, no job transfer, and most importantly a small but valuable lesson learned by an employee who is now that much wiser and whose energy and talent can now be channeled on things that matter.

***

To this employee, I would like to offer a practical tip. Next time, leave Santa out of the equation. Instead, tweet this: “Making a spreadsheet and wondering which jobs will be cut. What Would Jesus Do?”. At least this way if any complaint is filed, your Values and Ethics unit may conclude that you were exercising your “freedom of religion”.

I’m kidding of course. I mean, really: it’s a joke... A JOKE! Get it?

An Inconvenient Renewal: Still Relevant?

"An Inconvenient Renewal: Are Managers Ready to Change the Way They Manage?" is three years old today!

The paper's website has received 4,492 visitors since November 5, 2007 (an imperfect measure, I acknowledge), not counting those who came across the document in some other fashion. That's about 2% of the federal public service.

But is the topic still relevant? I would like to hear your thoughts...

The Rat Pack is back!

Hello loyal readers!

I know, I know. I have been a very bad b...logger! ;-)

After a hiatus of over a year, and much hesitation, I will soon be resuming my speaking and blogging activities. I probably wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't for the fact that I was recently invited to be on a panel with my two fellow "rat packers", David Eaves and Nick Charney.

Come join us on October 8, 2010! (see poster below).

A Not-So-Inconvenient Renewal: What Happens When Managers Change the Way They Manage

If you have been following my work over the last couple of years, you may be wondering if I actually practice what I preach with regards to organization renewal, change management, and most importantly, people management.

Every three years, the federal public service of Canada administers a government-wide survey called the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES). The 2005 PSES was administered just a week before I joined my current organization. The last PSES was administered in November and December 2008, and the results were released a few weeks ago. I have done the analysis, and the results speak for themselves: renewal is possible, and yes, people management does make a difference!

I have just put together a document entitled "A Not-So-Inconvenient Renewal: What Happens When Managers Change the Way They Manage". It presents the dramatic progress made by my organization between 2005 and 2008, as measured by the PSES.

The document is an epilogue to “An Inconvenient Renewal: Are Public Service Managers Ready to Change the Way They Manage?”, a paper I released in 2007 in which I stressed the importance of good people management and argued that while top-down change has its merits, many of the things that would make the most significant and palpable difference don’t happen at the top of the organization, but rather at the field level in the everyday interactions between managers and their employees.

I hope the PSES results will convince you that when managers change the way they manage, the ripple effects can be felt throughout the organization. To learn more about the renewal efforts in my organization, you may browse through some of the links featured in the side-bar of my blog under the header "My Websites, Papers, and Other Initiatives".

Enjoy you reading, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any question.

Courage

Courage in three posts:

1. Three Kinds of Courage
2. On Speaking Up at Work
3. If actions could speak louder than words, what would yours say?

And a bonus (in cased you missed it!)

Book Review: "Tribes" by Seth Godin

This weekend I just finished reading Seth Godin’s latest book, "Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us". It was... hum… interesting…

First, it is almost perplexing to see how a book can lack the qualities of so many other books. Although the content flows well, there's no real structure to it (actually, Godin is the first to admit this shortcoming!). I found the arguments supporting the ideas of the author rather sparse and often weak. And while it is very easy (and quick) to read, I wouldn't say it is particularly well written – it feels more like the transcript of a speech or the kind of stuff you’d find on my blog ;-)

Second, I loved some of Godin’s ideas as much as I disagree with others. For instance, I am fundamentally at odds with his view of management and managers (but I will reserve further comments on this topic for my next big paper which will focus on management and leadership).

By contrast, I find his message about tribes timely, powerful and well in-line with what some federal public servants are trying to do with PS Renewal. In fact, I could draw many parallels between what he says and my own experience. Much of what Godin talks about is similar to some of the messages I've been trying to communicate through my writing and presentations.

For example, he discusses encountering thousands of people who shared with him ideas (as I told in one of last week’s posts) and argues that there is no shortage of ideas out there. "Ordinary folks can dream up remarkable stuff fairly easily", he points out. He then explains that unfortunately, only a fraction of these ideas ever come to life.

The reason, he believes, is fear: “The only thing holding you back is your own fear. Not easy to admit, but essential to understand.” My favourite quote in the entire book is his paraphrasing of the Peter Principle: “In every organization everyone rises to the level at which they become paralyzed with fear.” So true!

Godin cleverly states that people do not fear failure as much as they fear criticism. As he says, “fear of failure is actually overrated as an excuse”, but "fear of criticism is a powerful deterrent because the criticism doesn't actually have to occur for the fear to set in.”

Towards the end of the book, Godin offers a few tips to start your own micromovement, such as publishing a manifesto!

Verdict: “Tribes” is not a great book, but one with an important message nonetheless. As an alternative, it seems you can download the audiobook for free.

There's something happening here

During the Holidays I came across "A Leader's Manifesto" by Kelley Eskridge. I recommend it to those who have enjoyed "An Inconvenient Renewal", as there are many similarities between the two documents. You will also find plenty more manifestos on the ChangeThis website.

I would love to see more of these manifestos being released by public servants. It would be a great complement to the work of the guys at CPSRenewal and my own. Actually, I would argue that we need more people to join in and provide active support through unique contributions of their own. We need a diversity of ideas.

Following my presentations at the MTP Conference and CSPS' Armchair Discussions last month, I have received quite a few emails. About half of them were from public servants who wanted to share a good idea with me. That in itself is a good news. But then, a good portion of them would go on to suggest that I would be the perfect person to kick-start the idea and make it "real".

While I find the suggestion flattering, it also indicates me that while my message may be well received, it is not entirely understood. When I talk about things like courage and the need to speak up and do something, I am implying that it is our duty! Not just mine, Nick's or Mike's!

That being said, if there is one thing I have learned through my involvement and participation in various PS Renewal committees, it is that the request is rarely the true need. More often than not, we must look beyond one's request to uncover the real need that is not being met.

For instance, I have heard many young public servants demand the creation of formal mentorship programs. The vast majority of managers simply nod in approval, and once in a while, launch such a program, with mixed results. But only a minority of managers actually take the time to ask the young public servant why they're making such a request. When they do, they are able to uncover the real reason behind the request to create mentorship programs. In this particular case, the real reason is usually twofold: 1) new hires lack meaningful guidance in the public service; and 2) they don't have any role model in their immediate work environment. But that doesn't necessarily warrants the creation of mentorship programs. Mentorship programs are just one way to address the need, but there are many (less formal!) options as well.

I think it's the same thing with the people who suggest I should implement their good ideas. There must be some unmet need behind their request, but what it is ain't exactly clear. If you have thoughts, please share them.

A Glimmer of Hope

In the past few weeks, I have witnessed some meaningful development around the use of social networks in my Department, and the government in general.

It started with my meetings with the people from Values and Ethics - the same people who dealt with the complaint filed against me about a year ago after I released “An Inconvenient Renewal” (if you have missed it, see my postings on the topic: here, here and here). We didn’t get into all the details of the investigation (or “fact-finding exercise” as they call it), but they acknowledged that they were a little overwhelmed and ill-equipped to deal with my case a year ago. A lot has happened since then: some learning has taken place, and the efforts of the government to bring Web 2.0 into the workplace has gotten many people to be a bit more open-minded about it.

The good thing though is that my case kind of set a precedent that was necessary to get senior public servant to a) think about the impact of Web 2.0 on the way we run our organizations and b) ponder the opportunities and risk involved in giving employees a space to voice their ideas and concerns about the public service in general and PS Renewal in particular.

In fact, I was just tasks by my superiors to look into the best practices surrounding the use of discussion boards and other alternatives to allow employees to discuss PS Renewal matters and voice their thoughts on the topic. There seems to be an awareness that there are risks involved, yet the benefits can offset those risks and therefore the initiative is worth pursuing.

I have also been asked to provide some kind of guidance to the employees of my organization with regards to the use of social networks. What could be the most interesting thing about this exercise, is that we do not seek to forbid the use of social networks, but rather educate employees about some of the implications of sharing information about work on sites such as Facebook and others. We have yet to issue the communication to staff, but I find we are taking a very progressive direction. If we go that route, it will strike a nice balance between being cautious and harnessing the power of Web 2.0.

Hopefully, this will serve as an incentive for more public servants to interact on existing websites related to the federal public service and PS Renewal.

On that note, here are three interesting postings about blogging:

• Seven Reasons Why Blogging Should Be Part of Your Marketing Effort
• Top 10 Reasons to Have a Blog
• Top 10 Reasons Not to Blog

What's the Fuss Over Leadership?

As I wrote in "An Inconvenient Renewal", I am growing tired of hearing the words leaders and leadership everywhere, especially when it is used in reference to managers.

The whole issue of "Management vs. Leadership" will be the topic of my next paper, which I intend to release sometime next spring.

In the meantime, I invite you to watch this short interview with my favourite management guru (and a Canadian too!), Henry Mintzberg. (Note: The juicy stuff begins at the 2:50 mark.)

If you are not familiar with the work of Mintzberg, I would recommend the following readings:

• Managers Not MBAs
• Leadership and Communityship
• The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact or a summary of his ten managerial roles model

In Hindsight: Links

"Like a pot of water brought to a boil, it all looks pretty messy and bubbly right before the system changes state and reaches new order. Of course, putting a lid on the pot and weighting it down doesn't prevent any disorder; it only prevents the new, higher level of organization from emerging."
- Douglas Rushkoff. Get Back in the Box: How Being Great at What You Do Is Great for Business. 2005.

For the longest time, it seemed that talking about the public service was something reserved exclusively for senior leaders, journalists, university professors and external consultants. But thanks to some courageous leadership (and a little help from Web 2.0!), a wind of renewal is blowing through the public service. Employees are taking matters into their own hands and sharing their thoughts on how to improve the institution.

In a very unscientific survey I administered on my blog, I asked visitors: “How do you feel about discussing the public service of Canada and/or PS Renewal on websites, blogs, discussion forums, Facebook, etc.?” The responses were as follows:

• 51% - I'm totally comfortable doing it. What needs to be said needs to be said!
• 23% - I'm a bit hesitant but I (would) do it anyway. Better to ask for forgiveness than permission!
• 20% - I'm not comfortable doing it. I would need some assurance that it won't come back to haunt me or be held against me.
• 5 % Are you kidding!?! We live in a culture of blamability. Big Brother is watching you!

(Total number response: 39)

The results seem encouraging, but then it begs a question: if 75% of (this small sample of) respondents claim to be comfortable discussing PS Renewal on the Web, why are there so few discussions and feedback on the current sites dedicated to PS Renewal matters? The issue is not unique to the Public Service of Canada; some public service bloggers in other countries have raised similar concerns before (here and here). Studies have identified some organizational barriers, and individuals have taken upon themselves to educate public servants about the appropriate use of Web 2.0, even going as far as providing guidelines for doing it appropriately (similar to what the UK Civil Service has done). But there is still a long way to go.

I released my paper roughly a month after the CBSA employees’ Facebook scandal hit the news, and many managers were initially very concerned that my paper was on Facebook. This showed a lack of understanding of the technology. To start with, you can’t really post a paper on Facebook; you can merely promote it, which I did on the Facebook group on PS Renewal (incidentally, this group was “created following a discussion with James Lahey - how to harness an internet discussion on public service renewal”). Lastly, the concerns over Facebook are somewhat misplaced because, as Mike Kujawski points out on his blog, Facebook is just one out of a few hundreds social networking sites available! Singling out Facebook is futile, because in the world of Web 2.0, chances are everyone will simply converge to another site and do what they wanted to do all along.

Shortly after releasing "An Inconvenient Renewal" on my blog, two public servants launched a blog of their own: CPSRenewal.ca. Their site has become for many the single best resource of news on PS Renewal matters. Feeding on this energy (and taking the Clerk's invitation to get involved to the letter), I have created a site called Bottom-Up Renewal. I hope to make it a hub for sharing tips and practices on how to renew the public service when you are on the front-line. Please take a moment to visit the site and contribute to it. Thanks!

In Hindsight: A Conscious Choice with Moral Overtones

"Your management is perfectly designed to produce the results that you’re currently experiencing."
- Mike Chitty

In lieu of a conclusion to the conclusion, here's a story that could well have been used as a prologue to "An Inconvenient Renewal". It is my story, and I hope it will help you: 1) put the paper in context; 2) understand why I feel so strongly about these ideas, and; 3) realize that the ideas are more down-to-earth than what many would like to believe.

I was a manager in the private sector for a few years before joining the public service. It was during some very exciting but challenging times (i.e. the Internet bubble). On my very first project, I had 20 staff, a 3 million dollars budget, cutting-edge technology, and insane deadlines to meet. In my first six months on the job, I probably made all the mistakes a manager could possibly make in an entire career, but I learned tremendously and soon developed a good reputation as a manager. I joined the public service expecting to follow a similar path (i.e. steep learning curve, quick career progression, more challenge than I could ever dream of, etc.), but unfortunately I ended up in what looked more like a cul-de-sac!

My first two years in the public service were characterized by great relationships with my supervisors and terrific colleagues, but there was one small problem: I wasn't used at half of my potential. Actually, if scientists claim we use 10% of our brain, I can probably say that I was using 10% of my talent. I felt I was being held back by the organizational culture. It seemed that in order to "fit in", I had to suppress so much of who I was and what I could become. The pressure to conform with the implicit norms of the organization (i.e. the culture) was beginning to have a toxic effect on my health. I was miserable because I couldn't be true to myself. I knew I had to escape the situation so I was actively looking for work outside the public service.

It was therefore with a “nothing to lose” attitude that I responded to one of the strangest job poster I had ever seen. It was extremely short and it said: “I’m looking for my alter ego" (I'm not making this up, this was the actual quote from the job poster!). I met with the manager and accepted the job based solely on a gut feeling I had about her. As it turned out, she did things very differently than any other manager I had ever encountered.

On my first day on the job, she told me: “At the present time I have no specific work for you, no projects, no files. In fact, for the first three months of your assignment, I don’t expect you to do any work. But I will drag you to all of my meetings, and you will follow all my direct reports to all of their meetings, and in three months from now, you will know pretty much everything there is to know about this unit and what we do. Along the way will come a project. I don’t know what that will be yet, but I will expect you to take it and deliver on it. In the meantime, sit back and learn as much as you can.” For the next three months almost all I did was attend meetings and read my manager's emails. Sure enough, a project eventually landed on my desk. Although I was by far the most junior person on the team and had no credentials in my résumé to do this project, my manager put her trust in me and I was confident I could do it. And I did.

One morning I asked her for feedback about my performance and how I could improve. She explained: “Etienne, you are in a development program, and therefore you are expected to develop. You have a job to do and a project to deliver, and that's fine. But you need more. When your regular work is done, I expect you to use the remainder of your 7,5 hours day to explore what’s out there, learn about the public service and what it has to offer, discover something that interest you and immerse yourself in it. It can be anything. But I expect you to do that, and I am willing to help you if you need it.”

I therefore became actively involved in communities of practice (managers’ network at the departmental, regional and national level) and young public servants networks. I even developed some sort of "expertise" on the topic and I seized all the opportunities I could to show some leadership. I was “in the zone” and it showed through my performance. I was more focused than ever in my “regular” job, because I knew that around three or four o’clock, I would get to work on the pet projects that fueled me. I totally poured my soul into this assignment.

I eventually discovered that for a large portion of her career, my manager had made a point of surrounding herself with people in development programs and people who came in her unit on assignments. In an institution that struggles to retain talent, this manager did just the opposite with her unit: she would give herself one year to bring the new employee up to the next level and get him or her ready to leave for the next assignment, the next promotion, the next job. What she did for me, she probably did for dozens of people before.

But what she did with me can't be overstated. I was just about to become a statistic: I was so disengaged, so fed up with my career progression in the public service, that I was ready to leave. Fast-forward a year later, and I was the most committed public servant you could come across. Working for this manager was a transforming experience, a turning point in my career (and by extension, in my personal life too). She got me back on the hook just before it was too late. More importantly, she tapped in my potential, pushed me to make the best use of my talent. She gave me a taste of what it was like to be unleashed rather than held back. Ultimately, she proved to me that I was right to think I could make a difference.

The whole episode taught me what being a good manager was all about. And the best thing of all: this living example came from a public service manager!

In Hindsight: There Are No Leaders, Only Good Managers

"Your worth is in their eyes."
- Author unknown

For many managers and senior executives, the two most challenging ideas contained in my paper came from the sections "Moving from manageability to management" and "There are no leaders, only good managers". These two sections above all challenged widely accepted beliefs about management in general, but especially in the public service. Consequently, more than a few made a point of telling me that they disagreed with many of my ideas.

On one hand, this form of denial from managers and senior executive is to be expected, because some of the ideas question their existence as managers as well as their success in the "system". For that reason, it is probably easier for them to state they disagree with many of my ideas than look into a mirror and rethink their most fundamental beliefs about management.

On the other hand, I am not (currently) a manager and I definitely do not have the perspective of senior executives in the public service. Therefore, I don't hold the truth and I have to acknowledge that if I had their perspective, my own ideas could very well be somewhat different than what they are now.

Regardless, my perspective is probably shared by a good portion of the 80% of public servants who are not managers and the 95% who are not senior executives. In that sense, even if my thinking is wrong, I know a few hundred thousands other public servants are likely to be wrong with me!

The question then is not whether we are right or wrong, but rather:

• Is it a valid perspective?
• Where are managers and executives failing to explain their perspective to employees? How could employees communicate their perspective differently so they can be heard by management?
• How can we educate people to see things differently?

For these reasons, I will leave it up to people - but especially managers and senior executives - to figure out for themselves what administration, management and leadership mean to them. I will however recommend three books which should be mandatory for all senior executives:

• "The Future of Management" by Gary Hamel;
• "Managers Not MBAs" by Henry Mintzberg;
• "Becoming a Manager" by Linda Hill.

(You can also find out more about my favourite management books here.)

As a side note, I recently came across this blog posting by Dave Crisp who shared his thoughts on "followership" and offered a solution to something that had been bugging me for quite a while:

"Personally I prefer to use the term “supporters” rather than “followers.” The days of blind following are grinding slowly, but surely to an end. People think for themselves and are finding ways to act on those thoughts more than in the past. “Supporters” implies a leaders needs to nurture support, that it can be withdrawn at any sign of inconsistency or personal agenda and that the entire process is very much a two-way street. Leaders need supporters and supporters need leaders."

Enjoy your reading!

In Hindsight: Levers of Renewal

"The real heroism of leadership involves having the courage to face reality - and helping the people around you to face reality."
- Ronald Heifetz

The most positive message to come out of my talk on bottom-up change is undoubtedly the need for courage. Without courage, all the ideas I discuss in my presentation and in my paper are just wishful thinking. Courage is the difference between having principles and living by these principles. Courage comes to life when outward acts are aligned with inner principles. Courage can make or break a leader.

Interestingly, the most frequent comment I have received from readers after I released “An Inconvenient Renewal” was that writing this paper must have required courage, and that it was a courageous act to release it. At first, that comment left me perplexed, because I didn't see what I had done as courageous. I felt compelled to write it, and I knew there could be negative consequences if I released it. But I didn't think of it as courageous. I just felt it was the right thing to do. But it definitely was not courage – at least not for me. And that’s when I realized that whether or not I felt it was courageous was absolutely irrelevant! "Perception is reality", and if readers thought it was courageous, then it was! Most importantly, the fact that some many people said it was courageous speaks volume as to what is missing from our public service culture: courage!

We want courage. We need courage. We crave for courageous people to step forth, speak up, and do what everyone knows is the right thing to do, but few are actually willing to do. This is why we must recognize that courage can also be manifested by anyone, including non-managers. Actually I would argue that the courage demonstrated by ordinary employees builds pressure for courageous management. It also builds pressure for change. Intuitively, we all know the power of a single right example, because courage is contagious.

In our bureaucratic organizations, we traditionally expect change to come from the top down. The Deputy Minister gives the direction for the change, it filters through the chain of command, and down to the employees. While this is a great way to ensure coordination, alignment, and provide a certain degree of control over the change, it blinds us to another reality: that is one of bottom-up change, it starts with one individual.

In Hindsight: Barriers to Renewal

"Set your limits early and high, because hitchhikers have the uncanny ability to detect just how much they can get away with."
- Rodd Wagner and James K. Harter. 12: The Elements of Great Managing. 2006.

In January 2008 I was asked to deliver a talk to a group of 250 employees from a federal department. I developed a presentation entitled “Bottom-Up Change: It Starts With An Individual”, which was largely based on the concepts I discuss in Part 3 of “An Inconvenient Renewal” (i.e. the barriers and levers). By far, what resonated the most with people was the notion of unmanaged poor performance. In the presentation, I tell a story inspired by two real-life situations that took place in the federal public service. It is truly amazing how much this segment of the presentation gets the attention of everyone in the room. I could only conclude one thing: everyone has had the misfortune of witnessing a case of unmanaged poor performance… and people resent it deeply.

Managing poor performers may very well be the single most difficult thing a supervisor has to do. I would argue that adequately addressing poor performance issues requires to blend all the top interpersonal and communication skills at once.

In my organization, we wanted to improve the quality of people management, and we figured that if we could get our supervisors to be skilled in the single most difficult aspect of their job, the rest should follow naturally and we should notice a major improvement in the quality of supervision. So we did a number of things:

• We signed-up all our supervisors to a supervisory skills course which focused largely on dealing with poor performers and holding difficult conversations with employees (the course received very positive reviews, thanks to the high calibre of the facilitator).
• The Director set clear expectations about how he wanted supervisors to do their job, and made that known to all the staff so that everyone in the organization knew that: 1) supervisors had the permission to deal with poor performers; 2) supervisors would be held accountable for managing performance of staff; 3) managing performance is not simply something you do once a year in the annual performance appraisal – it’s a daily thing.
• With that in mind, we gave every supervisor a book on how to give accurate feedback to employees.
• Along with the book, we attached a letter in which the Director reiterated his expectations but also acknowledged that managing performance of staff is not always an easy thing to do (see sample letter).
• The Director included a personal hand-written inscription inside each copy of the book we gave to our 70 supervisors, therefore signalling to individual supervisors that indeed he knows them and would hold them personally accountable for managing the performance of their staff.
• Each time we hold a staff or conference call, the Director makes a point of reinforcing the message that performance management is one of his top priorities, that poor performance will be addressed, and that unmanaged performance will be not tolerated.

Some of these things may appear mundane, but combined together over a sustained period of time, they form a coherent strategy which suggests that performance management is not just a fad or the new "priority of the day", but rather something we want to build into the organization's culture so that it becomes part of the way we do things. And it looks like we are off to a good start...

Last year our Directorate had a 98% completion rate for the annual performance appraisals - probably the highest in the Department given the fairly large size of the unit. Furthermore, all the annual performance appraisals were done using the "long form" (i.e. no check box, all narrative), which means all employees were also given an opportunity to develop an individual learning plan. Many supervisors have also incorporated the Key Leadership Competencies in the performance appraisals as a means to set clear performance expectations with employees (see posting on the Bottom-Up Renewal site for details).

Please feel free to take a closer look at Bottom-Up Renewal and contribute some of your own organizational practices.

Also please take a moment to take the poll on the top right-hand corner of this page!

In Hindsight: Not Everything That Counts Can Be Counted

"Managers who don't know how to measure what they want settle for wanting what they can measure."
- Russell L. Ackoff & Herbert J. Addison, "Management f-Laws: How Organizations Really Work" (2007)

The title of this section got a lot of people nodding in agreement, recognizing the pervasiveness of “management by measurement” in the public service.

One thing I had underestimated however was that many managers and even some senior executives would suggest that in order to get better at people management – which has traditionally been something considered difficult to measure – we should provide managers with financial incentives, i.e. a "performance pay" based on how well they managed people.

That’s absolutely ludicrous! To begin with, there is growing evidence that pay for individual performance produces mixed results at best (see Jeffrey Pfeffer's work on the topic - this is a must read!). Pfeffer further explains that:

"Tinkering with pay appears to be easier than fixing organizational cultures and leadership capabilities. It is apparently "fashionable" because it does not seem to require the systemic intervention along multiple dimensions implied in the idea of building high performance work arrangements."

This is why I think the conventional thinking on which the argument of the managers above is based is fundamentally flawed.

People management should not be an after-thought or something managers do on top of the rest, but rather the foundation on which they can achieve all the rest. Good people management should be the default performance expectation against which managers are held accountable. Under absolutely no circumstance should we reward managers with a financial incentive for doing what should be considered the basic minimum. The perverse effects would simply be to great.

At any rate, we don’t need any kind of incentives to get managers to value people management. When the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service was implemented, public servants were not told that complying with the Code was something "they could do at the end of the day, if they had time", and that those who comply would be rewarded. No. You either comply with the Code or you don’t; and if you don’t, you shouldn't be public servant to start with. Well, it turns out that there is a section in the Code called “people values”... Perhaps every manager and senior executive should re-read this section, think about the implications for people management, and then try to decide if good people management is really just a nice-to-have or, as I believe, a must-have.

I would also add it is a myth that people management is difficult to measure. The Public Service of Canada uses a great tool called the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES), which provides over a hundred indicators that are linked in one way or another with people management at the organization level. If I was a senior executive having to hold accountable my direct reports for the quality of people management in their unit, I would use the PSES as a benchmark, set clear performance expectations for what I would want the PSES results to look like in a year from now, and make this part of the managers' personal objectives in his annual performance appraisal.

In my organization, we have already been administering the PSES internally in-between the public service-wide surveys of 2005 and 2008. It is a very valuable tool that provides a good overall assessment of the well-being of the organization and can be used to measure the quality of people management. I’m glad to see that the Clerk indicated that the PSES will become an annual thing.

In Hindsight: People Join Organizations but Leave Their Managers

"We cannot tell employees, "You are the most important part of the [organization]" and then put bad supervision in front of them. If we have bad supervisors, take them out of the job immediately."
- Errol Davis Jr. Taken from: 50 Lessons: Hiring and Firing (Lessons Learned). 2008.

There are three key ideas from "An Inconvenient Renewal" that particularly resonated with most readers: one that I discuss in the section on the barriers to renewal, another that I discuss in the section on levers of renewal, and a third which is the point of this entire section - the notion that people join organizations but leave their managers. I'm definitely not the first person to make this statement, but in the context of the public service it seems that it's the first time it is getting the acknowledgment it rightfully deserves.

Although most people agree in theory with the notion that people leave their managers and we need to rectify that, it seems that public servants (supervisors in particular) either don't fully grasp what's required to turn things around or are ill-equipped to do it.

One such example is the on-boarding experience of new hires where we typically over-promise and under-deliver. The high expectations created by the former only exacerbates the gap with the reality of the latter. In the past two weeks alone I have met four new hires who were offered the world on a silver plate by public service recruiters at a job fair, and ever since they have accepted jobs with the public service they feel they are totally left in the dark. They haven't begin their job yet that they are already starting to harbour ill-feelings towards the employer, a sure sign of things to come. Retention begins on Day One (actually, even before Day One...).

The first day, first week, first month, and even the first year in the job can leave a lasting impression on the new hire. One thing I will try to push for in my department in the upcoming months is to implement a formal on-boarding process which would include:

• Providing peer support to new hires before their arrival;
• Delivering all the mandatory and required training in the first weeks on the job;
• Job-shadowing managers and colleagues to all their meetings for the first 3 months in the job.
• Etc.

It is ambitious, but at the same time I am convinced that this is something where we can have the greatest bang for the buck. Whatever cost there is (i.e. lack of direct productivity while the new hires follows managers to meetings) should be assessed against:

• The cost of not doing it;
• The gains in learning and development;
• The level of effectiveness in the job at the end of those first three months;
• The long-term retention of top talent (see "In Hindsight..." in "Conclusion" for more on this).

We often hear about the importance of recruitment and talent retention, but seldom (if ever) ask the employees what they want, what they need and what will keep them with us. My organization has hired quite a few new recruits in the past year. Approximately one month into the job, we administered a short "in-take" survey to our new hires. We asked them:

• What’s the best experience you have had since you joined us?
• How could we improve our on-boarding experience?
• What's the # 1 thing we can do to make sure you're still with us in five years from now?
• How do you play a role in this challenge?
• How can you make a difference?

Some of the answers we received indicated that we were doing pretty good on some things, and definitely not as good on others. At least it provided us a starting point to improve our on-boarding process. Since then, we are getting a little better every time!

In Hindsight: There Is No Renewal in the Idea of “PS Renewal”

"Culture is the shadow of the leader."
- George Ambler

The provocative title of the paper combined with the defiant title of this section earned me a number of labels: "maverick", "wild card", "rogue public servant", "loose cannon", "troublemaker", "sh**disturber", etc. But underneath the slightly in your face style of the paper lied some valid messages on the importance of people management, as well as a few requests for clarifications to the senior leaders championing PS Renewal. To my delight, most of my requests ended up being answered.

The senior leaders I had a chance to discuss the paper with acknowledged that PS Renewal, in its current version, was not a "be-all and end-all". The four priorities identified in the public service-wide action plan were chosen somewhat arbitrarily; they were not perfect and didn't encompass all the important issues, however they made sense and were a good starting point to force Deputy Heads implement some important changes in their Departments and Agencies. As it has now been explained, Deputy Heads are not limited to these four priorities; in fact they retain the flexibility to go beyond the four priorities. Hopefully, they will give "people management" the consideration it deserves.

While I was initially skeptic about the future success of PS Renewal, most of the concerns I had at the time have now been addressed. The Clerk has shown his commitment to PS Renewal by articulating his vision to a number of different audiences (i.e. at the Townhall in Vancouver, at the Managers' Community Forum, at the APEX Symposium, etc.). Other senior leaders have been following in his footsteps, therefore demonstrating that the "vision" doesn't lie in the hands of a single individual. In addition a number of valuable initiatives are providing feedback mechanisms for public servants to respond to PS Renewal and share what's on their mind. The Future Leaders Forum is one such example. The last Managers' Community Forum in Vancouver also provided an opportunity for managers from across the country to speak up their minds. If we continue in that direction, I think PS Renewal may just deliver on its promises.

At this point, I think the biggest challenges for PS Renewal will be the following:

1. Keep the vision strong. By that I mean: we must never lose sight of the "why's" behind PS Renewal: Why is renewal essential for the public service? Why is it not "optional"? What are the problems we need to solve? What will be the consequence of not resolving those problems?
2. Find senior leaders in all departments & agencies AND in every region across the country who understand the PS Renewal vision clearly enough to be able to champion it as if was their own and who can adapt it to the reality of their respective organization and/or region.
3. Recognize that this must be a long-term effort and keep the solutions and initiatives coordinated around a critical core. We must not fall in the trap of trying to do it all, i.e. launching a whole array of fragmented solutions and other "quick-fixes" that won't be sustained beyond the short-term.

Personally, I would like to see a 5 years plan centered around the idea that people management matters, and see it reflected in national, regional and departmental PS Renewal initiatives. But that's just the opinion of a "maverick"... ;-)

In Hindsight: We Are The Problem… And The Solution

"Raising a latent conflict can come with the risk of being seen as disloyal or simply as the one who created the issue. It is crucial to make clear that most conflicts are not created by tempered radicals; but tempered radicals are often the ones who speak "truth" and raise issues that have been suppressed."
- Debra E. Meyerson, "Rocking the Boat: How to Effect Change Without Making Trouble" (2008)

A couple of weeks after I released "An Inconvenient Renewal", I attended an IPAC conference in Toronto. I noticed a familiar face in the crowd: Tamara. I had worked briefly with Tamara on a project at PSHRMAC (now CPSA). Tamara asked me what I was up to, so I told her about the paper I had just completed. She responded: "Oh, yeah... The paper in which you say that PS Renewal is not really renewal. ALL my bosses are talking about it."

From that moment on, I knew I might eventually get in trouble because of my paper. Why? Because a number of people thought the point of the paper was to criticize PS Renewal and the Government of Canada. But nothing could be further from the truth. While I used PS Renewal and the federal public service as a backdrop, the problems I discussed in my paper can be observed in many organizations - public, private and not-for-profit alike. If you have worked in a large private organization, I'm 99% sure you have witnessed or experienced much of what I describe in “An Inconvenient Renewal”. Anyone who took the time to read my paper for what it was meant to be understood that the real criticism was not against PS Renewal or the federal public service, but rather against poor people management and bad managers.

I think many readers were blinded by the provocative title of the paper. Consequently, what they saw in it was more a reflection of their own fears (i.e. disloyalty, speaking up against a government program) than my true intents (i.e. get managers to recognize that we don't manage people very well and thus we need to change that). In retrospect, I should have been more explicit about the aims of my paper and help all readers read between the lines and understand that this paper was mostly about the importance of people management.