 | by Kent Aitken |       |
Here's my entire hand for this post, laid on the table: the idea of Fearless Advice, Loyal Implementation makes me deeply uncomfortable.
The idea is that public servants provide advice, elected officials make a decision, and public servants then implement that decision, regardless of whether or not they agree (Nick has written in the past that the principle "isn't reserved for ministerial briefings" and applies throughout the public sector). It stems from this section of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector:
1.2 Loyally carrying out the lawful decisions of their leaders and supporting ministers in their accountability to Parliament and Canadians.
1.3 Providing decision makers with all the information, analysis and advice they need, always striving to be open, candid and impartial.
However, the pithier version is well-entrenched in the minds of public servants. The phrase comes up everywhere, from office hallways to speeches from the Clerk of the Privy Council. However, compared to the source material, we've changed the order. But the real problem is that we think there is an order in the first place.
Theory and Practice
To be clear, I have zero issue with either of those two provisions. In fact, without them, the whole thing falls apart. Legitimately elected representatives make decisions based on the democratic logic that our system provides adequate information flows, contains sufficient checks and balances, and affords the opportunity to balance short- and long-term needs, regional and demographic demands, and public sentiment with substantive evidence.
However, the idea that fearless advice stops when loyal implementation starts is dangerous, and seems all too common ("they're sequential", I heard recently). We revisit the foundations for every policy and program eventually; when does a decision "end"? If new information comes available that impacts future actions, the past decision is a sunk cost, to be disregarded in weighing current options.
Fearless Advice and the Management Zeitgeist
The language that fills discussions about the future of the public service is of agility, continuous learning, and innovation - continuously exploring the adjacent possible of the new scenarios we enter (see: Where Good Ideas Go To Live And/Or Die):
Misplaced Confidence
The other issue with the sequential approach for advice and implementation is the degree of confidence that it places in our ability to communicate and decide.
We can write advice amazingly precisely and thoughtfully, but unlike a conversation cannot correct misconceptions when we see them in others' facial expressions and body language, which we all do daily. Anyone that has ever re-drafted their own writing knows it never gets to perfect.
Or, one could point to the evidence that willpower is a depletable resource. Or that hearing about large sums of money affects our judgement about money. Or that people are still biased towards certain names. Or that being reminded of negative stereotypes hurts people's test performance. Or that being tired impairs our judgement as much as alcohol. Regardless, we have quirks. We can reasonably rely on people to be effective decision-makers. But we can't rely on them to be effective decision-makers at every moment, and as such shouldn't shut the door on fearless advice once given.
The Rudder Straight
This is all perfectly consistent with the Values and Ethics Code, adhering to both provisions. It's urging a course change, while dutifully keeping the rudder straight. It's when we stop urging that the system falls apart.
Theory and Practice
To be clear, I have zero issue with either of those two provisions. In fact, without them, the whole thing falls apart. Legitimately elected representatives make decisions based on the democratic logic that our system provides adequate information flows, contains sufficient checks and balances, and affords the opportunity to balance short- and long-term needs, regional and demographic demands, and public sentiment with substantive evidence.
However, the idea that fearless advice stops when loyal implementation starts is dangerous, and seems all too common ("they're sequential", I heard recently). We revisit the foundations for every policy and program eventually; when does a decision "end"? If new information comes available that impacts future actions, the past decision is a sunk cost, to be disregarded in weighing current options.
Fearless Advice and the Management Zeitgeist
The language that fills discussions about the future of the public service is of agility, continuous learning, and innovation - continuously exploring the adjacent possible of the new scenarios we enter (see: Where Good Ideas Go To Live And/Or Die):
- 8th Annual Report of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on the Public Service
- Twenty-First Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada
- Destination 2020
Misplaced Confidence
The other issue with the sequential approach for advice and implementation is the degree of confidence that it places in our ability to communicate and decide.
We can write advice amazingly precisely and thoughtfully, but unlike a conversation cannot correct misconceptions when we see them in others' facial expressions and body language, which we all do daily. Anyone that has ever re-drafted their own writing knows it never gets to perfect.
.@oao21 Q:Ever write crap and know you're writing crap? A: Pretty much every first draft. Q: What'd you do about it? A: A second draft.
— Rick Riordan (@camphalfblood) February 7, 2014 And if we are delivering advice in person? In practice, all conversations are first drafts.Or, one could point to the evidence that willpower is a depletable resource. Or that hearing about large sums of money affects our judgement about money. Or that people are still biased towards certain names. Or that being reminded of negative stereotypes hurts people's test performance. Or that being tired impairs our judgement as much as alcohol. Regardless, we have quirks. We can reasonably rely on people to be effective decision-makers. But we can't rely on them to be effective decision-makers at every moment, and as such shouldn't shut the door on fearless advice once given.
The Rudder Straight
This is all perfectly consistent with the Values and Ethics Code, adhering to both provisions. It's urging a course change, while dutifully keeping the rudder straight. It's when we stop urging that the system falls apart.
No comments:
Post a Comment