“Survey finds old stereotype of lazy bureaucrat diminishing”

The above headline and article that recently appeared in the Ottawa Citizen is welcome news to those who have worked in the public service.  Finally, here’s a good news story that should bring solace to a lot of public servants who have been the butt end of a lot of jokes and bad news stories. You know, the kind of conversation that goes a little like this:

Q. Do you work in the government?

A. Does anyone work in government?

More rewarding, interesting, and allows people to make a difference

A sample from the article:

A Labour Day survey by online recruiter Monster.ca found that 55 per cent of Canadians feel there are more advantages to working in the public rather than the private sector. Only 31 per cent felt the private sector offered more advantages.

But the poll of 1,008 Canadians, conducted by Harris/Decima, also found most Canadians said public sector work was more rewarding, interesting and allows people to make a difference, compared to the private sector. About 44 per cent said they didn't think public sector workers were overpaid.

The question that follows: why? 

What has happened within the public service that has resulted in these outcomes?  In our current climate of economic turmoil and uncertainty, some of the highly attractive aspects of public employment are obvious and require no further inspection.  But these factors do nothing to explain findings such as “rewarding”… “interesting”… “making a difference”…

I suspect there are new happenings afoot in the public sector, specifically in the innovative delivery of programs and services, that the public is beginning to notice.

My colleague - Ed Bernacki, during a recent Organizational Development group discussion on LinkedIn -  proposed that there’s a perception that the innovation work in the public sector is on the leading edge as they are not stuck with the old concept of innovation that comes from the product development model.

Innovation and Risk

The argument against true innovative development in government services frequently centers on an appetite, or lack thereof, for risk.  Innovative thinking and innovative programs are inherently risky, and therefore unlikely to hold any appeal for the staid, traditional bureaucrat.

My own experience is that the Canadian public service has its share of people who are seen as innovators – and who invariably don't see what they do as risk taking. My explanation - assuming that talent and intelligence is randomly distributed in the population - is that any organization which is moderately successful in recruiting and retention will invariably employ a number of people who are innately innovative. My experience as a manager and consultant is to seek such people out and engage them in any planned innovation.

16% of us are innovative.

I like to use Roger's model of the adoption of innovation which argues that about 2.5% of the population are inherently innovative. They are the people who are already doing it. The next slice of about 13.5% (the early joiners) are those who typically will not do it on their own, but when they see it happening will quickly join in. Thus, any well planned innovation can quickly attain an enrollment approaching 16% of the people involved.

I like to use the 1 in 5 rule as a shortcut, but this tends to flatter most organizational realities.

That said, true organizational excellence cannot be sustained with a participation rate of 16%. Stopping there often results in burn-out through too much reliance on too few. Animosity between work groups can also be created as some feel left out in favour of the chosen few.  Nonetheless, early gains can be quite impressive - often causing managers to think the job has been done. If only that were true!

Achieving Sustainable Innovation

To achieve sustainability the bulk of the people under the dome of the bell curve need to become engaged. The early majority (34%) and later majority (34%) will bring in another 68% of the group. This is where long-term excellence becomes feasible and pays off – it is also where the heart off the battle lies.  Engaging these people will require a deep commitment to strong leadership, sustained training, and meaningful support.

This is where the innovation and risk balance becomes germane. In my experience, the early and late majority are reluctant participants unless they get reassurance from managers at every level of their reporting ladder - and in a unionized environment, at least a benign stance from their union leadership. One can see the support as a "workplace safety net."

I won’t support stupid risks.

I had one deputy minister take the stance, "Yes, I will support intelligent risk taking. I won't support stupid risks or decisions." Unfortunately, this approach to innovation is typical of CEO’s.  They are reluctant to accept the reality that we frequently don’t know what was a “stupid” risk or decision until after the fact.

Until our public service is able to shake off this risk aversion at every level and truly embrace a culture of innovation, how can we hope to reap the benefits of our creativity and competitiveness?

The question: who "owns" the culture and climate in any public institution if not the leaders and staff?  Surely, that is the greatest challenge facing the public sector.