Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
!!!Hail to the chief! But what do they really
do?
The role of the minister’s chief of staff in Ontario, 1985-2015
!Preliminary Draft
!A paper prepared for the
Canadian Association of Programs in Public Administration (CAPPA) Annual Conference, York University, May 25-26, 2015 !!!!!!
Peter P. Constantinou, Ph.D. Sessional Assistant Professor
School of Public Policy and Administration York University
!!!!!
Draft for presentation only – please do not quote without permission of the author.
!Hail to the chief! But what do they really do? The role of the minister’s chief of staff in Ontario, 1985-2015 !Peter P. Constantinou, Ph.D. Sessional Assistant Professor School of Public Policy and Administration York University !Keywords: minister’s chief of staff, political staff, minister’s Office, political-administrative dichotomy !Abstract !Scant literature exists in Canada about the relationship between the civil service and elected politicians and their political advisors. Much of this focuses on the federal level of government in Canada. Mallory (1967) argued that since the Dorion Report of 1965, little had been done to inform or reform our understanding of the political-administrative dichotomy and that the minister’s Office in particular was in need of reform. Campbell and Peters (1988) discussed what they called the “presumed separation in tasks of politics and those of administration” and Atkinson and Coleman (1985) explored “blurred distinctions” as they considered tradition roles. Savoie (2003) provided the most in-depth consideration of the relationship and how it was changing. Aucoin wrote much about New Public Management and new political management. While traditional texts attempt to identify the role and function in ways that students of government can understand, much of the detailed perspective of those office holders is missing. Furthermore, their experiences about what they did as chief of staff, and how they spent their time and efforts would fill a void in our understanding of this important role. !Based on face-to-face interviews with 50 current and former chiefs of staff representing all three political parties at the provincial level in Ontario between 1985-2015, this paper examines the tradition and changing role of the chief of staff, presents a detailed outline of their perceived role and expectations, describes the way they actually spent their time and efforts, and conveys their thoughts on relations with the civil service. This study also delves into their attitudes about areas of strength and weakness, and considers the respondent’s thoughts for areas of training for themselves and political staff in general. !!
! 3
!Introduction: Why are we talking about this? !Students of government are blessed with an abundance of literature that describes and explains the machinery of government (Correy and Hodgetts, 1966; Franks, 1987; Mallory, 1967 and 1971; MacGregor, 1963). Much effort is made to outline structure and function of these bodies and individual actors, but despite this, little is known about the political offices that form such an important part of this system. Lots of effort has been spent outlining the structure and rationale between the civil service and the political office holders, and this political-administrative dichotomy is a central tenant in our understanding of the system design and function (Atkinson and Coleman, 1985; Aucoin and Savoie, 2009; Campbell and Peters, 1988; Pfiffner, 1987; Svara, 1998 and 2006; Whitaker, 2004). And what all too often happens when we talk about the political part of the system, we revert back to the notion that what we cannot understand or explain is “political”. !Who are political staff and what do we know about their roles and responsibilities? The truth is, there is not a lot of research to support answering these questions. Little is known about political staff, and even less about specific roles within those offices. Kernaghan and Langford, 2014) stated that “The intended role of exempt staff is to provide political executives with partisan political advice that cannot be provided by politically neutral public servants” (p. 112). Deutsch (1971) warned about changes in the machinery of government and the growth of the Prime minister’s Office would be worrisome, stating “this development of a new quasi-public service has aroused a certain amount of apprehension because it is considered to constitute a new course of power.” !The trend has continued, and more recently Savoie (2003) argues that as the problems government faces become more and more complex, and as the sophistication of the expertise of the civil service continues to grow, political masters may well grow in their suspicion of the influence and potential control exerted by the civil service. What seems to be happening is the growth of a parallel source of information and advice, one that more directly aligns with the direction and desire of the elected government. With this comes some need for a discussion of how do these two fit together and function effectively? While it is certainly the prerogative of each government to determine how much advice it receives, and from whom, how the new normal is operationalized is up for consideration. !The role of chief of staff !Even in the early forms of government, political leaders have had advisors. As the size and complexity of government has grown, so too have political offices (Dutil and Constantinou, 2013). With larger political offices, has come the need for management and coordination. So it is logical that this position has grown from “Executive Assistant” or “Principal Secretary” to one of “Executive Assistant” and
! 4
“chief of staff”. For simplicity sake, the modern use of “chief of staff” refers to the fact that the candidate is both a primary advisor and manager of other political staff on behalf of the minister, is used. !Over time, as government bureaucracies have grown, the idea of increased political control arose. Campbell (1988) suggests that Trudeau worked to be involved in deputy minister and assistant deputy minister hiring, along with an expansion of agencies, boards and commissions as well as the expansion of cabinet committees to shift “the loci of key decisions from departments to centrally staffed cabinet sectors.” (p. 262) It is logical that as the demands on ministers increase, so too would the size of the offices that support them. And with more political staff, so too some early thoughts and debate about rules that could or should govern them specifically (Atkinson and Mancuso, 1985; Brodie, 2012; Treasury Board Secretariat, 2003) !British Columbia (2015) has gone as far as to produce a “Standard of Conduct for Political staff” that states that political staff:
…serve as advisors and assistants who share the ruling party’s political commitment, and who can complement the professional, expert and non-partisan advice and support of the permanent public service. !
The BC standards document goes on to also set to define the role of the chief of staff as “…the overall management of the minister’s Office including managing the office budget and personnel.” (p. 1) Over the years these offices have grown, yet we still know very little about their role and function. While many have held the post, few have ever written about it, leaving their experiences uncaptured. !Weller (2011) argues that chiefs of staff have primarily three functions: first as principal advisor; second as manager of the team; and third person primarily responsible for stakeholder relations. O’Connor (1990) states that beyond these responsibilities, the role of the chief of staff is also to “ensure that minister directives are carried out within the department. In this way, the chief of staff assists in increasing ministerial control and accountability.” !In attempting to give definition to the role and responsibilities of political staff, the Privy Council Office developed a Guide for ministers and ministers of State (2004) that describes the roles and responsibilities of the so called “exempt staff”. The guide states that the chief of staff has the following six major responsibilities: !
1. The most senior political advisor to the minister; 2. Is responsible for the overall management of the minister’s office, including
manager the office budget and staff; 3. Is responsible for developing and implementing strategic plans in order to assist
in delivering the Department’s and minister’s mandate;
! 5
4. Is responsible, on behalf of the minister, for liaising with Senior Departmental officials in order to ensure a positive working relations between the minister and the public service;
5. Must ensure that the minister is properly briefed and advised on all issues that related to the Government’s mandate and the Department’s objectives; and,
6. Must liaise, on behalf of the minister, with the prime minister’s office and other ministers’ chiefs of staff in order to address government wide issues. !
One study has focused on the Prime minister’s office in Canada (d’Aquino, 1973). Rhodes and Tiernan (2014, p. 13) focus their study on the chiefs of staff to prime ministers in Australia, and while obviously there exist some differences in the position, they report that their respondents outline their responsibilities as fitting into four categories: !
1. Supporting and protecting the prime minister, which includes both support of the position and support of the person;
2. Coping and surviving, which includes running the office, day-to-day management, as well as crisis management;
3. Supporting the policy agenda and coordination, which includes setting and sticking to priorities, controlling the agenda, getting the right people in the room and policy coordination; and,
4. Managing political issues and dependencies, which includes the cabinet and the ministry, the party room, the media and the public service. !
Given the very central role of the position, and the potential for great influence, it behoves us to better understand who they are and what they do. This paper is an attempt to shed some light unto this. !Research Questions !An open-ended guide was prepared to get respondents talking and to prompt them to address particular areas of interest. The overall goal of the study was to better understand who these people are, and what the nature of the work entails, including their perceptions of the roles and responsibilities, and their practical experiences and advice. It is the hope that this study will not only shed some light on this important position, but also provide ideas about advice and best practices for chiefs of staff, as well as some advice to inform the understanding of opportunities for better preparedness and training. In addition to some baseline demographic information about the respondents, the questions were as follows: !
• Why did you take the job? • What is the role/what do you perceive the role to be? • What do you actually do/how do you spend your time? • What would help you do your job better? What training do you need? • What advice do you have for new chiefs of staff? !
! 6
Thesis !This paper will argue that most chiefs of staff to ministers enter with ideas about the role that are not fully informed, developed or realistic, and spend their time doing things other than those they expected and would prefer. Further, that little in the way of preparation and training exists, and that most, if given the chance would appreciate the opportunity to be better prepared and able to perform their duties. !Methodology !This study focuses on the Ontario Public Service (OPS) and consisted of Interviews with 50 current and former chiefs of staff representing all three political parties, going back to 1985. The interview guide consisted of five open ended questions that helped to frame the discussion. Interviews were conducted either in person or on the phone or video conference during a three-week period between April-May 2015. !A convenient (stratified) non-random sample of current and former chiefs of staff to ministers were invited to participate. This approach ensured that all three major political parties were represented, as well as big, medium and small ministries, including both line ministries and central agencies. The 50 interview respondents consisted of 20 Progressive Conservatives, 20 Liberals and 10 New Democrats. The findings and conclusions are based on their responses. !Limitations of the study !This paper focuses only on chiefs of staff and not other political staff within a minister’s office. Future research should consider expanding this cohort of respondents to include more political staff. The focus of the study was only Ontario, so the context may well be different in other provinces and at the federal level, but certainly Ontario is a suitable focus for such study. Also too, the researcher was a chief of staff in Ontario in the past and is known to many of the respondents. This did not appear to limit “openness” of the respondents, in fact seemed to have the opposite effect – it made people more comfortable and talkative. !Findings of the study !All the respondents were extremely generous with their time and very forthcoming with their responses. Every single interview, whether in person or on phone/video call went over the 30 minutes estimated/set aside. The respondents wanted to reflect, they wanted to talk, and most of all, they wanted to share their experiences to benefit others who would one day hold the position. !Why did you take the job? !Respondents were asked to reflect on why they took the job of chief of staff to a minister, and their responses are as follows:
! 7
!• I wanted to make more of a difference in the agenda. • I believe in the minister and his/her agenda. • I wanted to help my friend be successful as minister. • This is one very real way to help move the province in a better direction. • I belief in the Party and want public policy to reflect this. • It is a great job • Build a great network and to jump-start my career. !
Among the respondents there was a universal exuberance expressed when talking about the decision to take the job, as well as a shared pride about the importance of the role and the seriousness of the responsibility. Those respondents that were former chiefs of staff became quite animated when reflecting on the job, and clearly thought the experience was, as one summarized “uniquely special”. Current chiefs of staff regarded the position similarly, but with some qualification. The best way to describe the hesitation of the current office holders to almost “gush” as the former office holders, was simply the gravity of the weight of the responsibility they felt they bore. It was indeed a privilege, they expressed, and one that required a certain humility. One of the former chiefs of staff said that “the worst day at Queen’s Park, was better than the best day in the private sector.” !Going into the job, how did you expect to spend your time? !Most of the respondents said they had definite ideas about the position before taking on the role. When asked about where those ideas came from, those that had worked as political staff before, said they had the benefit of reporting to a chief of staff and could reflect on that experience – both good and bad. One stated that “I worked for the worst chief of staff in the history of the position – he did everything wrong - so I had lots of ideas about how I would do it differently”. Another said “I had the privilege of working with a season pro and try to live up to that standard every day.” !
Figure 1 Going into the job, how did you expect to spend your time? !
! 8
! !Overwhelmingly, most respondents said that they expected to spend most of their time managing the minister’s Office. This they suggested, included directing and counselling staff, managing budgets and agendas, coordinating efforts, and ensuring the interface with the civil service on government matters was efficient and effective. !The second most common response was that managing the minister’s time would be their next most important duty. The idea, they suggested was that the number of demands would likely be so high, and it would be the chief of staff’s responsibility to divvy it up accordingly to help achieve the minister’s and government’s goals and objectives. Many used the phrase, “gate keeper” to reflect what they thought was an important responsibility – protect the minister’s time. !Many of the respondents said they thought that “managing the minister’s office” – having someone “above all of the other more operational functions – would mean the person would ensure adherence to a deliberate and strategic agenda. Virtually all lamented that they were not as in control of the agenda of the minister or the government as they had hoped. !Many responded by saying they believed that they “would be a traffic cop, pointing people in the right direction, and providing political advice to the minister” and that they would help “form a bridge between the minister’s Office and the civil service”. Many reported that they believed they would spend a “good chunk of time” meeting with, and working with the civil service “to refine and implement the minister’s agenda.” !After taking the job, how did you spend your time? !Two things were quite interesting about the results. First, there is a significant difference between what respondents thought they would do in the role and what
0
5
10
15
20
Manage the office anad the staffManage the Minister's timeRepresent the views of the ministerstakeholder relationsWork with the Civil service on policy and implementation
46
8
12
20
! 9
they ended up doing. Second, there is an incredible amount of similarity in the answers of the respondents. !
! 10
!!
Figure 2 After taking the job, how did you spend your time? !
! Three responses were most common. First, respondents said “stakeholder management” was what occupied most of their time and second, “issues management”. When prompted to explain further, most respondents indicated how closely linked these two concepts are. In most cases they said most of their issues management challenges were a result of stakeholder engagement – or more specifically, “the lack thereof”. The third most common response was “providing advice to the minister”. One would expect this to be one of the major functions of the position, and clearly it was, although respondents said they spent more time giving advice in response to a problem, than they did giving advice in policy development or the more formal proactive decision-making process. All lamented this reality. !Some of the most fascinating parts of the interviews lay not in the responses to the formal questions, but in the conversation that ensued. For instance, it appeared for many they were indeed surprised to learn or reflect on what they really spent their time doing. There was clearly a difference between their expectation of what the job would require, and what they ended up doing. When prompted with “what surprised you about the job or the role you had to play?” respondents provided fascinating answers. One former chief of staff said “I didn’t anticipate being smack dab in the middle of my minister and his wife/husband/family”, and went on to talk about how “intimately” s/he felt the job was connected to the private life of the minister.
! 11
Another stated that “I didn’t realize that there really are virtually no boundaries between the minister’s personal or private life and the role/job”. Another respondent said “I didn’t expect that I would have to manage the emotions of my minister?” In this case, the respondent said that s/he expected to give “professional advice and policy advice, even partisan advice, but not life advice”. !One of the most common themes that highlights the gap between expectations and reality, is the frequency with which respondents comment on how “overwhelming the problems and work can be.” One respondent said “we are dealing with real people problems and life and death – our work is way more important than I thought.” Others focused on the nature of the time commitments and in particular, the demands on the minister’s time, and by association, the time of political staff. Many said “People tell you the job is 24 hrs a day, and it really is” !Many respondents commented on the disconnect between what they thought the relationship with the civil service would be and what their experience ultimately was. One respondent said “I didn’t realize how few civil servants understand our role and politics in general”. Another said: !
These people can really be helpful when they want to be.” Yet another said “When I felt we were working toward the same goals, things worked brilliantly, but when the civil service didn’t like what we wanted to do, everything became a problem and moved at the speed of a glacier. !
Most respondents also expressed surprise at the role they thought the minister and the minister’s Office would play within the system. One respondent reflected many of the others feelings when s/he said “I thought the minister would be more central to policy making than they are” and “I didn’t realize how complicated government really is”. Another suggested that “There are a lot of rules, written and unwritten that I really didn’t know” arguing that with more formal and informal orientation, much of this could be avoided. !Many of the respondents reflected on having felt “lonely” at times. When asked to expand, almost universally, respondents said that they often had to remain “strong” to support a minister and provide them with confidence, and could not share everything with other political staff in the minister’s Office, and when faced with particularly “touchy subjects” there was no where do go for advice or answers. One said, “Asking questions of the Premier’s Office or fellow chiefs of staff was viewed as weakness – there was really no where really to go with dilemmas.” All respondents, across all parties and across the entire time frame considered in the scope of this study, indicated a great deal of negative feeling about the role and manner with which the Premier’s Office implements their function. Respondents said that the Premier’s Office was “controlling”, “domineering” and at times “arbitrary” and “cruel” in the way that it dealt with minister’s and political staff. !
! 12
All respondents prefaced their complaints with a recognition of the need for coordination and consistency, but all lamented the manner with which they exercised their decision-making authority. One former chief of staff summarized the feelings of many when s/he said “We as political staff are all part of one big happy family, until something goes wrong and they throw you under the bus.” Another said: !
“There was so much scheming about what we did relative to the Premier’s Office, if we had applied those energies and that time to the opposition, we would win every election, every time!” !
Most respondents indicated that they wished the Premier’s Office was more “cooperative” and “conciliatory” working together with all parts of the political offices in a more “collegial” manner. !What training do you feel would benefit you in your position? !One of the universal themes that came out loud and clear from all respondents is the notion that there really is no formal education or training that can properly prepare candidates for taking on the position of chief of staff. They all, however, argued that there could and should be a greater emphasis on orientation or on-boarding, so that the transition is smoother and the learning curve is not as steep. Ideally this training would be a cooperative effort between the Legislative Assembly, the civil service and the political party. This, they argued would reduce many of the obvious pitfall and avoid many of the unnecessary mistakes. !
Figure 3 What training do you feel would benefit you in your position? !
! !!Such training should start by focusing on running a minister’s office. As well, training should then move beyond to include some of the key, core competencies of the
! 13
position, and anticipate the types of functions where the chief of staff will be particularly expected to show leadership. These, they argued, include strategic stakeholder engagement as a top priority for competency building, and for knowledge, they suggested, orientation to government, conflict of interest rules/regulations, lobbyist legislation, ethics and financial reporting/stewardship expectations of the Ontario Public Service. !Respondents also noted that they felt they needed somewhere they could go for answers about ethical and operational issues without having to make official requests of the Integrity Commissioner. Those who raised this issue stated that they culture and context of chiefs of staff is that somehow they are supposed to be “all knowing” and that not knowing is a weakness best kept hidden. Suggestions to address this issue focused on the concept of having formal mentorship arrangements with more experienced chiefs of staff or former chiefs of staff that could act as coach and counsellor. !As chief of staff, what do you feel you personally did well? !Most respondents stated that they believed they did a good job at most of the things that they were responsible for, but all lamented that they did not have enough time to allocate to all the things they wanted to do, and that with more time would come even better performance. Interestingly enough, none of the respondents suggested that time management would be an important competency that they receive training for. !
Figure 4 As chief of staff, what do you feel you personally did well? !
! !Those respondents that were former chiefs of staff spoke very candidly about believing they could have done a much better job and made fewer avoidable mistakes with better orientation/on-boarding as well as competency- and knowledge-based
! 14
training. As per Figure 4 above, where respondents were asked to identify what they thought they did well, they identified nine things they thought they did well, including: !
• stakeholder engagement; • providing advice to the minister; • managing the minister’s time; • managing the minister’s staff; • interacting with the Premier’s Office; • interacting with the civil service; • constituency issues; • advancing the minister’s agenda; and, • advancing the government’s agenda. !
As chief of staff, what did you feel you needed to improve in your role? !Compared to the long list of things the respondents believed they did well, or “well enough” as many said, was a short list of things that respondents overwhelmingly felt that they wish they could have done better. The most frequent answer was “stakeholder engagement”. In this case they all said that they spent a considerable amount of time doing it, but that they felt it was not as strategic and proactive as it should have been. When asked what different that would have made, all the respondents said that it would have resulted in less conflict, less reputational damage, fewer delays and smoother implementation. !The second most frequent response was “communicating to the public”. Respondents all said that they felt, even in cases where they had things that the public “should like”, they found it a struggle to “cut through the noise” and “connect with the public”. Interestingly, the third most frequent response was “get our message out”, which in many ways is very similar to “communicating to the public”. When prompted about what the difference was, respondents made the distinction of the “public” from “interest groups” or “stakeholder”. So clearly here, communications is a challenge overall, and that includes the general public or “RPs” - real people – as one of the respondents said, and those more formally engaged in the public policy process. !
! 15
!!
Figure 5 As chief of staff, what did you feel you needed to improve in your role? !
! !The fourth most common response was “working with the Premier’s Office”. This was very much a strong theme with all respondents. When prompted about why this was in need of improvement, three responses were given. !First, many said “we didn’t get what we wanted from the negotiation”. In these cases, the respondents went on to say their minister did not get his/her way on an issue. Second, respondents stated that they believed if they had built better relationships and engaged in more proactive efforts, they may have been more successful in “all aspects of the relationship and interactions with the Premier’s Office.” !When prompted to enumerate further, respondents suggested four things that could have benefited from a better and more proactive relationship. These are, better success with desired decisions about policy or strategy, better appointments or assignments, more “quality time with the Premier” and “being a real priority for things like legislative time and budgetary matters. !As chief of staff, what positions/functions within the minister’s Office functioned well? !Virtually all the respondents said that most of the functions in the minister’s Office worked reasonably well, but that above all, communications generally performed best. If there is one additional notable exception it is that very few thought relations with the civil service were not very strong. !
! 16
!!
Figure 6 As chief of staff, what positions/functions within the minister’s Office functioned
well? !
! !As chief of staff, what positions/functions within the minister’s Office needed improvement? !Twenty out of the 50 respondents reported that briefing from the civil service were the number one area of weakness and ripe for improvement. When prompted about what they believed was weak or in need of improvement, four things were regularly mentioned. First, the chiefs of staff said that the briefings always seemed devoid of critical contextual issues impacted on their consideration. Second, they seemed to be overly technical, as though “political factors” and realistic stakeholder politics were not a part of the overall consideration. Third, the comparative analysis seemed to be selective, and limited. And fourth, there we almost always too many people in the room, many of which the minister did not know well, which made the minister uncomfortable with having a very “frank” discussion in from of “strangers” difficult. All those respondents said that they wished briefings happened in a more proactive way and that the minister was given more time to make decisions. !
! 17
!!
Figure 7 As chief of staff, what positions/functions within the minister’s Office needed
improvement? !
! What advice do you have for future chiefs of staff? !All of the respondents spoke at great lengths in response to this question. The consistency of ideas and advice was quite remarkable. Their responses can be grouped into seven categories. !1. Office Management !All of the respondents stated that it was important to delegate responsibilities to other political staff in the minister’s Office to ensure that the task receives the appropriate attention, and to ensure that chiefs are not overwhelmed by work. Virtually all of the respondents stated that they wished they did more planning and strategizing, and that they would stick to such plans and not be distracted by the daily crisis and different ways the “winds were blowing on any given day.” !More than two thirds of the chiefs of staff suggested that having a civil servant in the office in the function of “office managers” or “Special Liaison” would assist with helping the office and its inhabitants “stay on the straight and narrow.” Also too, these respondents suggested that such a person would help them “get things done” and “get to the right people in short order”. !Respondents also suggested that there ought to be protocols and procedures specific to a minister’s office in place, and that there should be consistency across such offices. In this case they were referring to everything from job descriptions, administrative procedures, orientation and training.
! 18
!!
! 19
!2. Relationship with the minister !All respondents spoke at great length about the relationship they had, and in some cases, wished they had with the minister. And unanimously they agreed that without a good relationship, the office could not function. Some suggested the relationship should be “intimate”, meaning that there should be no secrets, others suggested that it had to be based on something more than a professional relationship. In such cases they suggested that because the minister must have total confidence and loyalty, this relationship had to “transcend” the supervisor-subordinate relationship in typical workplaces. !All respondents also said that it is important that the minister hire the chief of staff him or herself, otherwise, if someone is provided by the Premier’s Office, whether to be helpful or to “control a minister” the relationship, and the smooth running of the minister’s Office is “doomed”. Many pointed to the increasingly popular idea of having the political party and the Premier’s Office coordinate applications, recommendations and hires, and while many said this reduced some of the “chaos” of post-election jockeying for positions, it was important that this position, above all others, be an intimately personal one and that a minister should ultimately choose. !Seasoned veterans suggested that the best way for a minister and potential chief of staff to start their hiring discussion is to have a very explicit discussion about what kind of chief the minister wants. Some ministers new to politics or cabinet might need a veteran chief of staff, some might need a real favourite within the party and/or Premier’s Office. Others might need someone with campaign experience, as they position may be tenable or they may have leadership ambitions. In some cases, ministers might want chiefs with strengths in communications, fundraising, policy or implementation. What was also stressed by all respondents is that they also have to discuss what is potentially off limits. In this case they meant that a discussion should occur about the scope of the relationship. Is the chief of staff part of the family and expected to be on-call and engaged at all times? Is the chief of staff included in absolutely every aspect of the minister’s life or are there limits? Will the chief of staff have any personal or private life? All suggested that having this discussion would remove any confusion and start the relationship off in a positive way. !Interesting, virtually all respondents advocated for a clear discussion about explicit expectations and deliverables, including regularized feedback on performance. Most did indicate that measuring success in the job was difficult and specific to each relationship and context, but that, as difficult as it might be, it should be a best practice and is almost never formally followed. !Respondents also argued for discussion about what is “off limits” and too personal to be included. One former chief of staff said that “When I was hired my minister said, everything is fair game, except my family – I never want them involved in work.”
! 20
Another former chief of staff said his/her minister said “I have a couple of family members who are a problem, I will work to keep them out of the picture, but if I can’t, then and only then will I let you know about them.” Yet another said his/her minister said “We can have no secrets, except those I chose to keep from you.” !All respondents suggested that a minister and chief of staff had to have agreement on some basic rules. Virtually all suggested the number one decision about the other political staff in the minister’s Office is, an answer to the question about who hires and fires political staff? All suggested that the best practice should be that the chief of staff hires and fires, but with some input from the minister. This they argued was because the level of comfort the minister needs to have with press secretaries, secretaries/schedulers/personal assistances and speech writers may well require the minister to participate in the hiring process. Respondents argued that if the chief is to have respect and authority, they needed a direct line of responsibility, and that would hopefully avoid staffers going over the head of the chief of staff when they thought they could get what they want from the minister. !Most respondents also suggested that decisions about decisions were really important. The general rule they argued was an explicit agreement on when the minister makes decisions alone, without the input of the chief of staff, and when the chief of staff is included. Respondents also suggested that, as a rule, the minister should almost always have a political staffer in the room when the minister meets with the civil service, except perhaps private meetings with the Deputy minister, and always with stakeholders. !ministers and chiefs of staff should always have a discussion about who has “unfettered access” and who does not. Respondents said that there are people in the minister’s life that can end up coming and going, and agreement on who would have their calls sent right through and who could “just show up” was an important discussion to have. !All respondents suggested that a best practice would be for there to be a regular weekly meeting protocol with minister, with a formal/regularized agenda that includes: !
• Outstanding issues • Performance of staff and civil service • Party-related issues • Planning and strategic issues !
Respondents argued that, although the chief of staff will likely have many occasions to talk to or meet with a minister on any given day, some topics should be dealt with more formally, and that this would provide a forum or platform for more strategic or difficult conversations about things beyond the day-to-day crisis. One former chief of staff said, “When we knew we had a time and place to deal with difficult issues, it meant that we could get through the daily pressures without the elephant in the
! 21
room, wondering when to bring up such topics.” Another current chief of staff said, “Often my minister doesn’t like talking about certain topics, and wants to put them off. But this meeting agenda forces the discussion, and we deal with tough topics better this way.” !
! 22
!!3. Relationship with other political staff !Most respondents lamented that although they thought they would spend a lot of time “managing in the ministers’ office, they did very little of it. And in particular, what suffered was the other political staff “who could use more guidance, coaching and mentoring.” One of former chiefs of staff suggested that one thing that would improve the quality of the work of a minister’s office is to rotate staff through a variety of functions in the office. Not only would this be an improvement for coordination within the office, but it would be good preparation for the development of skills needed to be a chief of staff. !Most chiefs of staff reported that this is not only about trying to optimize the workings of the minister’s office, it is about basic function. S/he suggested that because most political staff come to the office with very little life experience, and can get “caught up in the life of a minister and Queen’s Park” they need guidance and counselling. One chief suggested that other political staff are “essentially Energizer bunnies – press the on switch and away they go - frantically. Getting them to go in the right direction is the real trick.” !Many chiefs of staff reflected that they regretted not getting to know their staff better, that: !
…the hurly-burly of the day meant that coming out the other end of the crisis of the hour was accomplishment enough, anything else was a luxury they never had time for. !
Most chiefs of staff said they tried very hard to do two things in hiring. First, try to hire people that were really smart, even if they did not have much “life experience”. Second, only hire political staff with “no other life” because we needed them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Most of the chiefs of staff argued that what they valued in their staff was “common sense” and “loyalty” above all else. One chief of staff said “I can train a monkey to do a lot of jobs, but I can’t train good, old fashion horse sense or loyalty. These are traits, like ethics, you either have or you don’t.” !Most chiefs argued that their offices operated quite informally, and that in retrospect, they believe that bringing some form of structure and routine would benefit the staff and the performance. Otherwise, as one chief of staff argued, “all you have is chaos all the time”. Suggestions for improving this and as a “best practice” was to have a morning round-table meeting each and every day, where the minister’s schedule could be discussed, priorities, potential pitfalls and goals and objectives. Many recognized this was a chance to connect when too often it is done “on the fly and with email and text”, and to recognize successes and accomplishment with positive reinforcement
! 23
and, to also provide a forum for staff to ask for help and guidance in the context of a unified team effort. !One of the best advantages of getting to know staff was the opportunity to better understand who can operate more independently than others. In particular, respondents suggested that, in consultation with the minister, chiefs of staff should determine which staff are ready to brief the minister alone and which one need accompaniment. Those who are not quite ready should be brought in so as to give them opportunities to learn and eventually practice good habits. Most chiefs of staff suggested that by having more junior or inexperienced staff brief the chief of staff, they can develop skills and get feedback for when they are able to brief the minister directly. !Almost all chiefs also argued for the further professionalization of political staff and that this began with detailed job descriptions, performance expectations and regular formal reviews. It was exactly these types of roles that chiefs of staff thought they would do as professional managers, but that were exactly the things that they never seemed to have time for. One chief of staff said: !
It seems that, given the life span of a minister’s office is at best very short, investing in professionalization, formal job descriptions, training, performance contracts, and processes and protocols seem not to have an ROI that would be realized soon enough to be worth it. However, looking back, it would have made a world of difference. !
4. Relationship with the Premier’s Office !All respondents spoke quite freely and candidly about the importance of building and maintaining a positive relationship with the premier’s office. All said to “make this a priority” and talked about it as not only necessary, but as a matter of “life and death”. All suggested that political acuity in the minister’s office meant “knowing when to ask for permission in advance of a decision or action, or begging for forgiveness after the fact”. Most place an emphasis on maintaining the relationship, suggesting that it requires an ongoing effort. One chief of staff suggested “the premier’s office has both a short and long memory, at the same time, whichever is most convenient.” When prompted about how one does build and maintain such a positive relationship, most urged that the underpinnings of such a relationship was “trust” and that one way to earn this is to adopt a “no surprises” policy, so that even if there is “bad news” they hear it from you first. !One chief of staff stated that his/her goal was to avoid making the premier’s office angry, and that was a real accomplishment. S/he went on further to say “making them happy means keeping the minister out of trouble, making them will help your career.” One of the best ways to keep them happy, they argued, was to always make their requests a top priority, to work proactively with them, and “never waste their time”.
! 24
!5. Relationships with the Civil Service !All of the chiefs of staff indicated that working with the civil service was important to the efficient and effective operations of the government. Most suggested that, instead of seeing them as “the enemy”, that chiefs of staff and other political staff should get to know them. In particular, not simply their roles and function, but them as individuals. !The theory here is as simple as effective stakeholder relations. But what all chiefs of staff said was, there will be times when despite all your positive efforts and good intentions, there will be times when you do not agree or encounter conflict. In such circumstances they suggest you anticipate such instances and work to establish protocols with the civil service about how to work together and what to do when there is conflict. One chief of staff, who in a rather blunt way captured a lot of the sentiment heard in these interviews, said “Be respectful and professional, but never trust them fully”. Another suggested that the chief of staff should “ask a lot of questions, because otherwise they won’t necessarily tell you what you really need to know”. !Upon reflection most suggested there are things they would do differently if they had the chance. One of the most common ones relating to the civil service is the idea that they should know that the minister does not make decisions the first time he is briefed on a matter of importance. This, the chiefs argued, would hopefully stop the civil service from leaving big decisions to the last moment when the minister has no choice but to decide with little opportunity for “political due diligence”. !All chiefs said they had an ongoing struggle with how “caught up” in the work of the ministry they wanted their minister to be. Many suggested that a good chief of staff: !
Should work to ensure that we don’t let them bog down the minister with their work and priorities – limit their involvement and exposure if only to protect the minister’s scarce time, but also to ensure s/he has her priorities realized, not simply those of the civil service. !
6. Allocation of time !All chiefs of staff argued that one of their regular struggles was with how time is spent, whether it is their time or their minister’s time. Many suggested explicitly that “the minister’s time is the most precious thing you are managing”. As for suggestions and best practices, chiefs argued that developing a formal structure and routine for the minister’s time is important, and that to the greatest extent possible, to try to stick to it. Weekly meetings with the DM to set the agenda, and resolve issues were commons suggestions. Working with civil service to ensure minister is not backed into a corner and forced to make decisions at the last minute were also suggested. !
! 25
For the sake of the minister, chiefs argued that it was very important to make time for family and stick to it – build it into the schedule – otherwise there will always be something that keeps them apart, and that “there’s a time bomb waiting to go off, and believe me, it will when you can least afford it”. !Chiefs of staff also argued that constituency work also typically suffers when a member takes on a ministerial role, and that this is a bad thing, because “in the end, s/he still needs to get elected in that community”. !About a third of chiefs of staff argued that their own minister had a particular personal agenda that brought them into politics, or that they adopted once there. For some, rising in the ranks, or one day becoming premier may be their personal goal/agenda. For others, it may be a policy issue or constituency that they feel particularly close to. In either case, this agenda should be part of the things that a chief of staff must manage and promote. !7. Personal Issues and Miscellaneous !When reflecting on their time as chief of staff, most realized that the pace of the office was remarkable and “unsustainable” for the long term. They suggested that a good place to strat is to realize the minister is human and has human limitations. This sould be of constant concern to a chief of staff. Is the minister tired? Has the minister been away from family or the constituency too much? All of these questions should be top of mind for a chief of staff, and changes to the schedule should be made accordingly. !Smart chiefs of staff, it was argued, anticipated issues. For instance, it would be important to discuss with a minister in advance how to deal with personal issues and how much should be shared or widely known. Some were naturally more open and other preferred greater privacy – even within the minister’s’ office. There should be agreement about whether spouse/family are involved in the minister’s formal activities/role, and if so, to what extent. It would be best, they argued, to have discussions with the minister’s scheduler about what is confidential and what can be shared with different people (both inside the minister’s office and to a larger audience) !Some of the chiefs of staff lamented what “openness” and “transparency” meant in the operationalization of the work of a miniter’s office, and how the role of the media had seemed to change and evolve. Many suggested that a chief of staff should “never, ever, take a gift, go to a sporting event or let anyone pay for dinner”. The rationale was that sooner or later such a thing would get out and the optics would likely “come back to haunt you”. Many of the chiefs of staff said that they are communicating less via email and more and more verbally. One went so far as to say “Never write anything down! Buy a note pad without page numbers”. Another said that a chief of staff, except in extreme circumstances, should never talk to the media. S/he argued that “that is why the minister has a press secretary”. !Future Research !
! 26
The scope of this study would benefit from being expanded to other jurisdictions in Canada. By looking at other provinces and the federal level, we would have an enhanced and even more robust understanding of the role and function. Further, looking at other jurisdictions may well provide insights outside of these than can be expected within other commonwealth jurisdictions, but other systems of government as well. !Further, better understanding the other very important functions within a minister’s office will also enhance our understanding. While Craft (?) has done wonderful work uncovering the role of the policy function within a minister’s Office, much work is left undone. !What also would be very beneficial is case studies that highlight the interactions between ministers and their chiefs. While many provided examples, a more detailed account of the relationship would provide greater granularity. And if we apply this notion to the interaction between chiefs of staff and the civil service, we will not only know more about the role of chief of staff, but also gain great insight into the state of the political-administrative dichotomy. !Conclusions !There are lots of lessons that we can draw from this study. First, the lack of literature about this role has resulted in many candidates having to start without a firm theoretical basis of knowledge, and this has resulted in many suggesting that the entry is more difficult than necessary, too many mistakes that could have been avoided are continuing to occur. !We clearly do not currently have a mechanism within government or within any of the political parties during the time frame considered in this study, to share information or institutional memory in a way that would satisfy the orientation and information needs of those who participated in this study. Not a single respondent said they receive government or party orientation that was of any meaningful use to either being better prepared for the position, or improving or refining performance while in the position. And all said that they supports in place were not adequate while in the position. In fact, the opposite was made quite clear. Asking questions, one said, “meant you weren’t qualified to hold the position.” Clearly these positions are typically held for only limited amounts of time, but few ever share after the fact, no formal mechanisms exist for knowledge exchange, and formal coaching or support mechanisms are in place to help people along. And, as one participant said, “as soon as you learn something and start getting good at the job, you move on, or the electorate tells you to. !The lesson that is loud and clear is that we need to develop a more formal job description and capture best practices that better outline roles and responsibilities. Further, we need to develop on going education and training, done in conjunction between the government and political parties, so that supports are in place to help
! 27
further refine the capacity of these positions to lead this important part of the government. This should include operational handbooks, training and coaching and mentoring. This, coupled with an attempt to get minister’s thinking about how best to hire and engage chiefs of staff, along with performance expectations and regular reviews, as well as a code of conduct, would go a great distance towards a professionalization of political staff (this position as a start) and better ensure the optimal functioning of this important part of government. !
! 28
!!References !
Atkinson, M. and Coleman, W. (1985). Bureaucrats and Politicians in Canada: An Examination of the Political Administration Model. Comparative Political Studies. April. Vol. 18, No. 1. !Atkinson, M. and Mancuso, M. (1985). Do we Need a Code of Conduct for Politicians? The Search for an Elite Political Culture of Corruption in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, XVIII: 3, September. !Aucoin, P. and Savoie, D. (2009). The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: Democracy versus Bureaucracy?. In Dwivedi, O., Mau, T. and Shldrick, B. (2009). The Evolving Physoology of Government: Canadian Public Administration in Transition. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. !Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative Reform in Pubic Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 115-137. !Benoit, L. (2006). Ministerial Staff: The Life and Times of Parliament’s Statutory Orphans. Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, Ottawa. !Brodie, I. (2012). In Defence of Political Staff. The Tansley Lecture. !Campbell, C. and Peters, B.G. (1988). The Politics/Administration Dichotomy: Death or Merely Change? Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration. January. Vol. 1, No. 1. !Connaughton, B. (2010). ‘Glorified Gofers, Policy Experts or Good Generalists’: A Classification of the Roles of the Irish ministerial Adviser. Irish Political Studies. Vol. 25, No. 3. Pp. 347-369. !Correy, J. and Hodgetts, J. (1966). Democratic Government and Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. !Dwivedi, O., Mau, T. and Shldrick, B. (2009). The Evolving Physiology of Government: Canadian Public Administration in Transition. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. !Franks, C. (1987). The Parliament of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. !Mallory, J. (1971). The Structure of Canadian Government. Toronto: Macmillan. !
! 29
Mallory, J. (1967). The Minister’s Office: An Unreformed Part of the Public Service. Canadian Journal of Public Administration. Vol. 10, Issue 1, p. 25-34. !MacGregor, D. (1963). The Government of Canada. Toronto: The University of Toronto Press. !Pfiffner, J. (1987). Political Appointees and Career Executives: The Demoncracy-Bureaucracy Nexus in the Third Century. Public Administration Review. January/February. !Rhodes, R. and Tiernan, A. (2014). The Gate Keepers: Lessons from Prime ministers’ chiefs of staff. Melbourne University Press. !Smith, A. (2006). Ministerial Staff: Issues of Accountability and Ethics. Library of Parliament. !Svara, J. (1998). The Politics-Administrative Dichotomy Model as Aberration. Public Administration Review. January/February. Vol. 58, No. 1. !Svara, J. (2006). Complexity in Political-Administrative Relations and the Limits of the Dischotomy Concept. Public Administration Theory Network, Vol. 28, No. 1. Pp. 121-139. !Treasury Board Secretariat. (2003). Guidelines for Ministers’ Offices, Appendix A, “Exempt staff Position Structure.” !Walter, J. (2006). ministers, Minders and Public Servants: Changing Parameters of Responsibility in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration 65(3) September, pp. 22-27. !Whitaker, R. (2004). Politics versus administration: Politicians and bureaucrats. In Whittington M. and Williams G. Canadian Politics in the 21st Century. Toronto: Thompson Nelson. Sixth Edition.
! 30
