Is Deputy "Churn" Myth
or Reality?
A Study of Deputy Minister Turnover, and the Relationship Between
Workforce Mobility and Continuity in the Public Service
November 2007
IS DEPUTY “CHURN”
MYTH OR REALITY?
A STUDY OF DEPUTY MINISTER TURNOVER, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
WORKFORCE MOBILITY AND CONTINUITY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE
November 2007
André Côté
Alyx Holland
The Public Policy Forum
The Public Policy Forum is an independent, not-for-profit organization aimed at
improving the quality of government in Canada through better dialogue between the
public, private and voluntary sectors. The Forum’s members, drawn from business,
federal and provincial governments, the voluntary sector and organized labour, share a
belief that an efficient and effective public service is important in ensuring Canada’s
competitiveness abroad and quality of life at home.
Established in 1987, the Forum has earned a reputation as a trusted, neutral facilitator,
capable of bringing together a wide range of stakeholders in productive dialogue. Its
research program provides a neutral base to inform collective decision making. By
promoting more information sharing and greater links between governments and other
sectors, the Forum helps ensure public policy in this country is dynamic, coordinated and
responsive to future challenges and opportunities.
Public Policy Forum/
Forum des politiques publiques
1405-130 Albert Street
Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4
Tel.: (613) 238-7160
Fax: (613)238-7990
www.ppforum.ca
About the Authors
This report was prepared by André Côté, Research Associate, Alyx Holland, Research
Assistant.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors alone.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................4
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................5
HAS DEPUTY TURNOVER ACTUALLY BEEN INCREASING? .........................6
HOW MUCH MOBILITY IS THERE WITHIN THE PUBLIC SERVICE
WORKFORCE, AND WITHIN THE EX GROUP? ................................................9
HOW DOES DEPUTY MOBILITY COMPARE WITH TURNOVER IN CABINET?
............................................................................................................................13
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................15
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................17
ANNEX 1 – AVERAGE TENURE OF DEPUTIES BY
DEPARTMENT/AGENCY/OTHER 1997-2007, YEARS .....................................18
ANNEX 2 – AVERAGE TENURE OF MINISTERS BY MINISTRY 1977-2007,
YEARS ...............................................................................................................19
2
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the Public Policy Forum’s Public Service in the 21st Century initiative has rolled along, a view
that has been voiced time and again is that excessive movement – “churn” – within the deputy
minister community has become a significant problem in recent years, reducing the continuity of
leadership at the very top. The shorter assignments, the argument goes, just aren’t providing
enough time for deputies to be able to manage organizations effectively. As a collective
phenomenon, this is limiting the institution’s ability to effectively plan for and manage change.
But is this perception of frequent turnover within the deputy community reflected in reality? And if
so, are there comparably high rates of turnover within the public service as a whole or in Cabinet,
which could also potentially breed discontinuity? This report seeks to provide some answers.
The rate of Deputy Minister churn
The amount of time deputies spend in their positions has been in steady decline since
Confederation, approaching historic lows during the past decade. The length of each deputy
assignment fell to only 2.7 years between 1997 and 2007, down from an average tenure of 4 years
during the decade 1987 to 1997. Only the 2.3 year average during the decade ending in 1987 was
lower.
Departments that have experienced particularly high turnover during the last decade include
Environment Canada and Indian Affairs and Northern Development (each with five deputies), and
Industry and Natural Resources (each with four deputies). Deputies at Western Economic
Development, Transport, Justice, Canadian Heritage, Health, and Fisheries and Oceans have
averaged the longest assignments over the past decade.
Mobility in the broader public service workforce, and within the Executive Group
Public Service Commission employment statistics also make clear that there is significant
movement within the public service as a whole, though it can’t be precisely measured. Despite the
gaps in the data, high percentages of public servants surveyed believe that staff turnover and
organizational instability has a negative effect on workplace productivity throughout the institution.
Levels of mobility are particularly high within the EX community. Studies analyzing employment
data from the late 1980’s and 1990’s show that the EX group exhibited the highest degree of
turnover of any of the public service’s six occupational categories. During this period, the ADM
level – EX 4s and 5s working directly below deputies – experienced the most movement within the
EX cohort on a per capita basis. Data for 2005-06 seems to indicate that these trends have
continued.
Comparing Deputy churn with turnover among Cabinet Ministers
If there is a significant degree of churn within the group of professional public servants at the most
senior levels in the institution, it is even higher among their elected and accountable colleagues at
the Cabinet table. In none of the last three decades did federal Ministers spend as much time on
the job as their deputy counterparts, averaging only 1.8 years over the 30 year span. The shortest
average was during the past decade, from 1997 to 2007, when Ministers averaged only 1.6 years
in their positions. Tenure has varied by organization but the average rarely exceeded two years.
Good Government is Everyone’s Business
www.ppforum.ca
INTRODUCTION
As the Public Policy Forum’s Public Service in the 21st Century initiative has rolled along, a view
that has been voiced time and again is that excessive movement – “churn” – within the deputy
minister community has become a significant problem in recent years, reducing the continuity of
leadership at the very top. A common perception is that deputy ministers only average between 18
and 24 months in each appointment. This length of stay, the argument goes, just isn’t enough time
to be able to manage an organization effectively. And as a collective phenomenon, it limits the
institution’s ability to effectively plan for and manage change.
More specifically, many have suggested that transient leadership at the most senior level is a
cause for concern for a number of reasons. Firstly, on the most basic level, frequent changes of
leadership cause instability throughout the organization. New leaders tend to bring in new
leadership styles, new people, and new agendas, often pushing aside much of what was already
in progress. Secondly, federal departments and agencies are now so big, complex and
interconnected that developing an understanding of the business now takes longer than in the
past. Many believe the incoming head of a large organization – public or private – needs at least a
year to familiarize her/himself with the business, the people and the challenges. If, as many
assume, deputies are only around for an average of two years, they have very little time to
effectively run the organization and plan strategically once they have gotten up to speed. Thirdly, if
change is so frequent that deputies assume they will be moved within two years, it doesn’t create
the conditions that enable them to commit to the long-term success of their organization.
Developing a vision, crafting a strategic plan to move forward, and implementing and managing
the change agenda is generally a multi-year process; why would a leader do more than tread
water if they know they won’t be around for the three or four years they need to get the job done?
These views have generally been founded more upon perceived wisdom than empirical fact. There
is little evidence of the actual amount of turnover at the deputy level in recent years. There has
also been little discussion about rates of turnover at other levels within the government, and
whether excessive mobility above or below the deputy level could also be a cause for concern.
Because deputies are part of a relatively exclusive group, are appointed by Orders in Council, and
of course assume ultimate responsibility for the professional stewardship of public sector
organizations, they perhaps receive an inordinate amount of attention. But what of their colleagues
in the Executive group who also play an important role in the collective management of the
institution? Or of the general public service workforce, made up of almost 200,000 public servants,
who are responsible for a multitude of different services and functions all across the country, and
in different parts of the world? The relationship between the turnover of Cabinet ministers and its
effects on the leadership and management of the public service is another area that receives little
attention, given the importance of their role in working with and through the public service to define
and implement the government’s agenda. How, then, does the rate of ministerial turnover compare
with their colleagues at the deputy level?
Before looking at the effects of excessive turnover, it is important to take a step back and get a
better impression of the extent of mobility, and recent trends. This study will attempt to provide
some answers to the following three questions:
a) Is the rate of deputy turnover on the rise?
b) How much mobility is there within the EX group and in the rest of the public service
workforce?
4
5
c) How does deputy mobility compare with turnover in Cabinet?
METHODOLOGY
In order to ensure consistency with the data on ‘length of deputy stay in their positions’, this paper
incorporates the methodology used in Jacques Bourgault’s, “The Profile of Deputy Ministers in the
Government of Canada,” which looked at average length of deputy assignments between 1997
and 2007, and average length of Cabinet Minister appointments over the last three decades. Thus,
associate deputies and the heads of Crowns and of agencies that do not generally play a part in
the collective management of government (notably Statistics Canada and the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service) were excluded, while other agencies that do have a role in broader
government activities were included (Canada School of Public Service, Public Service
Commission, Canadian International Development Agency, Privy Council Office, etc. – see Annex
1 for a complete list). However, this list did not correspond exactly with the register of federal
ministries used in the analysis of Cabinet minister tenure.
The calculation of average tenure for the last decade, for both deputy and ministerial cohorts,
included all those appointed between 30 June 1997 and 30 June 2007 lasting longer than 7 days.
For the previous decades, the June 30 date was rolled back 10 years to 1987, and so forth. It is
important to recognize that the averages include assignments that overlapped beyond the June 30
break point into the next decade (for instance, a deputy appointed in 1985 who stayed in the
position until 1990 – well into the next 10 year span – would find that entire assignment included in
the 1977 to 1987 average because they were appointed prior to 30 June 1987). Because – as of
the cut off date of October 31, 2007 – the assignments of many of those appointed during the last
decade have not ended, and will in fact continue for months or years to come, the averages for
1997 to 2007 can be expected to grow until all those appointed between those years have left their
positions.
Good Government is Everyone’s Business
www.ppforum.ca
HAS DEPUTY TURNOVER ACTUALLY BEEN INCREASING?
In his book The Ottawa Men, Jack Granatstein described the golden age of the civil service, from
the mid-1930’s to the late ‘50’s. For the illustrious mandarins of that epoch – the Robertsons,
Bryces, Sharps and Rasminskys – Granatstein notes that “long service was the norm,” providing a
continuity of policy that was rare in democratic states while also endowing these Ottawa Men with
an enormous amount of clout and influence in the policy conception and development process.
Nostalgically reflecting on changing times and circumstances, he makes clear that by the 1980’s
those days were long gone, with “Canada and the world (having) changed so much that it is
unlikely that a group of civil servants could ever again have such an influence on the country.”1
In the late 1980’s, Gordon Osbaldeston, an eminent civil servant following in the footsteps of those
great mandarins, wrote about the changing role and environment in which deputy ministers work.
He describes a significant shift in emphasis that occurred in the early 1970’s. Whereas deputies
had previously been obliged to primarily possess a strong functional knowledge of the policy and
program areas of their department, the early ‘70’s witnessed a transition into an era that instead
required a broader understanding of political dynamics, government-wide priorities and
professional management techniques. While Osbaldeston concedes that this shift was needed in
many ways to reflect evolving social and political conditions – in essence to accommodate a very
different environment for governance – he describes it as also having resulted in both the
diminishment of deputies’ tenure in their appointments, and a correlated decline in their level of
knowledge of the policy areas of concern for their departments. To solidify his case, he points out
that those appointed in 1966 were in their jobs for an average of 4.5 years, while deputies
appointed in 1986 averaged a paltry 1.4 years.2
For those who consider churn to be a significant problem, Osbaldeston’s calculations represent a
startling confirmation of their beliefs. But is it possible that these two-decade old statistics
represent only an isolated snapshot? Or has this trend continued?
The tenure of deputies since Confederation
A recent report by noted public administration scholar Jacques Bourgault provides a much more
substantive look at the issue, and in fact confirms that there has been a long-term decline in the
amount of time deputies have spent in their positions going all the way back to Confederation.
According to Bourgault’s study, during Canada’s first 50 years – spanning the birth of the country
and concluding during the late days of the First World War – deputies averaged over 12 years in
each of their assignments.3 This is quite remarkable, but it is also representative of a time when
government was radically smaller and less complex, and in a world that was incomparably less
connected and mobile.
A more reasonable starting point is the period following the Second World War, when the role and
scope of government began its rapid growth towards its contemporary form. Between 1947 and
1967, deputies averaged six years at the helm, well below those serving in the late 19th and early
20th century. During the next two decades, the average fell again, down to approximately 4 years
between 1967 and 1977, and to just 2.3 years between 1977 and 1987 – the era during which
1
J.L. Granatstein, The Ottawa Men, University of Toronto Press: 1998, p. 278, 282.
Gordon Osbaldeston, “Job Description for DMs,” Policy Options: January 1988, p. 34-35.
3
Jacques Bourgault, “Profile of Deputy Ministers in the Government of Canada,” Canada School of Public Service:
2005, p. 13.
2
6
7
Osbaldeston made his observation. However, the downward trend reversed itself dramatically in
the subsequent decade, climbing back to 4 years for the decade from 1987 to 1997.
How does the tenure of deputies compare over the last decade?
The historical trend is important and telling, but most significant for the purposes of this study are
the results over the past decade. Using Bourgault’s methodology so as to ensure that calculations
correspond with his, it was determined that a deputy – appointed between June 30, 1997 and
June 30, 2007 – was (or has been) in her/his position for an average of only 2.7 years. Thus the
average tenure has almost fallen back to the historic low point of 2.3 years reached during the
decade beginning in the late 1970’s.4
Table 1 - Length of Time in Deputy Assignment, Years*
1867-1917
1917-1947
1947-1967
1967-1977
1977-1987
1987-1997
1997-2007**
12.2
8.7
5.9
4.1
2.3
4
2.7
*Source: Jacques Bourgault, “Profile of Deputy Ministers in the Government of Canada”
**Calculated using data from Parliament of Canada, Prime Minister's Office
Examining the data department by department (See Annex 1), there are some notable examples
where turnover has been particularly high, with average tenure under two years. Since late 1998,
Environment Canada has had five deputies, three of whom stayed for two years or less. The
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has also had five deputies since 1999,
with the longest serving for only 2.4 years. The Departments of Industry and of Natural Resources
have also had four deputies each since late 1999, with none in place for more than 3.3 years.
At the same time, there has been much more continuity in some other departments or
organizations. The deputies or equivalents at the Department of Justice, the Department of
Canadian Heritage, and the Public Service Commission have all averaged four years or more on
the job, with the Departments of Health and of Fisheries and Oceans also showing an average of
over three years. Also of note is the fact that there has been a relatively significant degree of
stability in the office of the Clerk of the Privy Council, with the two previous Clerks (Mel Cappe and
Alex Himelfarb) each serving over three years, and the current Clerk (Kevin Lynch) nearing the
end of his second year. Finally, there are also a number of currently sitting senior civil servants
who have far surpassed the average, with Louis Ranger into his sixth year as DM at the
Department of Transport and Oryssia Lennie beginning her 11th as President at Western
Economic Diversification.5
Nonetheless, the average over the past decade speaks for itself. It also corresponds with the
findings of other studies. According to the results of a 2006 survey of senior Canadian leaders in
the public and private sectors – including deputies and their equivalents in other federal
organizations, and CEOs and senior executives in the private sector – the percentage of public
sector leaders in their jobs for less than a year is twice as high as their counterparts in the private
4
As of October 31, 2007, there is one important caveat; as this average includes the tenure of active deputies, it will
inevitably increase until all those appointed between June 30, 1997 and June 30, 2007 have left their positions.
5
Though Statistics Canada has not been included in this data set, the foremost example of continuity of leadership is
StatsCan head Ivan Fellegi who has held that position since 1985 – over 22 years.
Good Government is Everyone’s Business
www.ppforum.ca
sector. Meanwhile, 62% of private sector respondents had been in their position for more than
three years, compared with only 43% of public sector leaders.6
Finally, the higher rate of turnover at the Associate Deputy Minister level is also worth noting.
Associate Deputy Minister positions – also appointed by Order in Council – have been created
across the public service to provide support to Deputies Ministers responsible for broad and
complex portfolios, and to improve corporate succession planning by preparing senior officials to
become full deputies. Because the positions are more flexible and strategic in nature than the
longstanding and more clearly defined Deputy Minister positions, it is probably reasonable to
expect them to be more transitive in nature. Currently, a rough count of all deputies within the core
departments and agencies reveals that 33 of the 63 current appointees are at the Associate level.
This group includes six Deputy Secretaries to Cabinet at the Privy Council Office, two Associate
Secretaries at Treasury Board, three Associate Deputies at the Departments of Finance and
Justice, and a range of other Associates or Executive Vice Presidents in line departments and
agencies.
The average tenure of the 33 current members of the Associate Deputy community is only 1.5
years, significantly lower than the Deputy Minister average over the last decade. Since the
beginning of 2006, there have been 30 Associate Deputy level appointments, compared with only
18 full Deputy Minister appointments. Of the 28 public servants appointed as Associates within
that time, 8 have been moved again since. Three of those were promoted to full deputy positions
in other departments, with three others promoted to high profile jobs including Commissioner of
the RCMP, President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Comptroller General. In
addition, one of the Senior Associate Deputy Ministers at the Department of Finance, Mark
Carney, has been chosen to replace the current Governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge,
when his term ends in early 2008.7
6
“Today’s Leaders: Bridging Skills and Career Trends of Canada’s Private and Public Sector Leaders,” Public Policy
Forum: July 2006, p. 10. This study broadens the Deputy Minister cohort to include Associate Deputies, Presidents of
Crown corporations, Agency Heads, Commissioners, Superintendants, Tribunal Chiefs, and a range of other
organizational heads from the federal public service.
7
Calculated using Privy Council Office Order in Council appointments data, online at http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/.
8
9
HOW MUCH MOBILITY IS THERE WITHIN THE PUBLIC SERVICE WORKFORCE, AND WITHIN THE EX
GROUP?
This study has demonstrated that the rate of churn at the deputy level has increased in recent
years, though it has not reached its historic low. With a high degree of churn at the top, it seems
germane to gain a better understanding of the rate of mobility within the public sector below the
deputy level. Given the assumed effects of churn within the deputy group, could high rates of
movement throughout the institution also be assumed to be having an impact on a range of other
functions, including policy, planning and administration?
A joint research program conducted by the Public Service Commission and Canadian Heritage in
2000 examined internal mobility trends across the public service beginning in 1987 and ending in
1998.8 The study, which accounted for all indeterminate (permanent) workers, regardless of
whether they entered or left during that period, incorporated over 600,000 employment
transactions amongst almost 280,000 employees over an 11 year period. While 35% of the
population did not move during that
time, 65% did change positions at
Table 2 - Average number of Moves by Initial Occupational
least once during that period,
Category 1987-98*
averaging 5.5 years on the job or
less. Furthermore, 35% of the
Occupational
Average Stay per
Number of Moves
Mean
workforce moved jobs twice and
(over 11 year span)
Category
Position, Years
16% moved three times, averaging
Total
241,611
2.27
4.8
2.8 years in each position or less.
Executive
3,185
2.62
4.2
Examined by occupational
category,9 the Executive Group had
Science and
26,696
2.18
5.0
the highest rate of mobility with a
Professional
mean of over 2.6 job changes per
Admin and
69,054
2.38
4.6
employee over the 11 years,
Foreign
compared with the overall public
Technical
27,631
2.13
5.2
service average of less than 2.3. On
Admin support
77,760
2.45
4.5
a per employee basis, Executives
Operational
37,285
1.85
5.9
changed positions every 4.2 years,
roughly mirroring the rate of change
*Source: Pendakur, Mata, Lee and Dole, "Job Mobility and Promotion in the Federal
Public Service
at the deputy level during the
decade from 1987 to 1997.10
Looking to more recent statistics also paints an interesting if admittedly inconclusive picture. The
Public Service Commission (PSC) keeps a yearly record of staffing activity – including
appointments to the public service (hiring), promotions, lateral and downwards movement, and
acting appointments (4 months or less) – across the core public service. Because staffing activity
involves external recruitment into the workforce as well as internal mobility between jobs within the
public service, it can loosely be used as a measure for mobility. For the year ending March 31,
8
Ravi Pendakur, Fernando Mata, Stan Lee and Natalie Dole, “Job Mobility and Promotion in the Federal Public
Service,” Canadian Heritage and the Public Service Commission: February 18, 2000. Online at www.psagencyagencefp.gc.ca/research/demographics/mobilit_e.asp#Patterns
9
Other occupational categories are Scientific and Professional; Administrative and Foreign Service; Technical;
Administrative Support; and Operational.
10
Statistics calculated based upon tables 1 and 2 on page 4.
Good Government is Everyone’s Business
www.ppforum.ca
2006, there were over 70,000 staffing actions amongst a population of over 175,000 employees.11
This equates to a rate of staffing activity per employee of over 40% for the year. For the five years
from 2001-02 to 2005-06, the average rate is over 42%.12 Of course, because a single employee
can be responsible for multiple instances of staffing activity in any given year, this doesn’t imply
that this percentage of the overall workforce turns over on an annual basis. It does however
suggest that there is a significant amount of mobility within the ranks of the public service today.
Table 3 - Staffing Activity rates by occupation category and type of staffing activity*
Occupational
category
External Hiring
Within the Public Service
Appointments to
the Public Service
Lateral and
downward
movement
Promotions
Total
Acting
appointments
(four months/less)
No.
Rate
No.
Rate
No.
Rate
No.
Rate
No.
Rate**
63
1.6
677
17.3
544
13.9
754
19.3
2038
52.1
Scientific and
Professional
2212
9.1
2736
11.2
2862
11.8
1695
7
9505
39
Administrative
and Foreign
Service
4355
5.8
11020
14.8
9730
13
9039
12.1
34144
45.8
Technical
1304
7.8
2000
11.9
1125
6.7
866
5.2
5295
31.5
Administrative
Support
4784
13.6
1949
5.5
5640
16
1365
3.9
13738
39.1
Operational
2348
12.4
887
4.7
1672
8.8
686
3.6
5593
29.6
Not applicable
112
6.7
138
8.2
94
5.6
89
5.3
433
25.8
15178
8.7
19407
11.1
21667
12.4
14494
8.3
70746
40.3
Executive Group
Total
*Source: PSC, “2005-06 Annual Report,” Supplementary Tables – Table 3
**Rate is representative of the percentages of staffing activity relative to the over 175,000 permanent and term employees in 2005-06
Another valuable (if unscientific) source of information about internal mobility and its effects on
productivity and stability is the 2005 Public Service Employee Survey. Though respondents gave
their immediate supervisors high marks for fairness and receptivity to divergent viewpoints, and
providing feedback, information, recognition and support, almost one third of respondents also
reported that they had three or more supervisors during the previous three years. Only 39%
reported having the same supervisor over that period. Not surprisingly, almost 50% of respondents
agreed that staff turnover in their work unit had been a significant problem over the previous three
years, with fully 73% of respondents also reporting that the quality of their work suffers ‘always’,
‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ because of a lack of stability in the organization. At the same time,
demographic considerations will play a significant role in contributing to the high rate of turnover
11
Public Service Commission, “2005-06 Annual Report,” Supplementary Tables – Table 3. Online at www.psccfp.gc.ca/centres/annual-annuel/2006/appendices_e.htm#A6. Population figure includes indeterminate and specified
period employees; it does not include casuals and students.
12
This figure was calculated by averaging the overall annual rates of staffing activity, using figures from the Public
Service Commission annual reports from 2001-02 to 2005-06. They can be found online at www.psccfp.gc.ca/centres/annual-annuel/index_e.htm.
10
11
and instability in the coming years, as 30% reported that they plan to leave the public service
within the next five years, with most heading off to retirement.13
Mobility in the Executive Group
As noted above, the rate of movement within the Executive Group (EX) group is higher than the
public service average, and there is good reason to believe it has increased over the last decade.
According to a demographic study of the EX community between 1991 and 1998, the average rate
of mobility through staffing actions14 within the executive group was 16% over the course of those
eight years, peaking in 1991 at over 25% and declining sharply after 199315 (interestingly, it is
worth noting that the rate of external recruitment only surpassed 1% in 1991, averaging less than
one percent over the course of the study). This study also includes an element that cannot be
found in the later statistics: departures from the EX community. The rate of these ‘separations’16
from the executive group – predominantly retirement, resignation, and buy-outs – average
approximately 9% per year, reaching almost 16% in 1996.
As the authors point out, the better part of this study – from 1994 to 1998 – roughly corresponds
with the Program Review period, during which staffing freezes, downsizing and tighter budgeting
undoubtedly had a significant effect on the decline in appointments (and thus a decline in internal
mobility). At the same time, this can be balanced to a degree by the increase in the rate of
departures during that tumultuous time. On the whole, when combining both staffing activity
(without ‘acting appointments’) and departures, the average yearly rate of mobility within the EX
community over the eight-year period from 1991 to 1998 was 25%. The average annual rate of
internal mobility was also generally highest on a per capita basis at the ADM levels – EX 4 and 5 –
and generally lowest at the EX 1 level, suggesting that churn increases as Executives near the
most senior positions.
When comparing this figure with the PSC employment statistics for the contemporary EX group,
even without including acting appointments, the rate of staffing activity reaches 32.8% in 2005-06,
which is higher than in any year during the previous study. If acting appointments – the largest
category of internal mobility within the EX community – are included, the overall rate jumps to
52%. This represents the highest rate of staffing activity of any of the six occupational groups
within the public service workforce. And, as in the previous study, external recruitment played an
extremely small role in overall mobility at the EX level; there were only 63 incoming appointments
from outside the public service in 2005-06 – an organization with a population of approximately
4000.17
According to the PSC Annual Report, although the number of EX appointments in 2005-06
increased by almost 15% on the previous year, the higher rate is not due to growth in EX cadre but
to “persons changing jobs within the level and to the filling of positions left vacant by departures
13
Canada Public Service Agency, “2005 Public Service Employee Survey.” Online at www.psagencyagencefp.gc.ca/survey-sondage/2005/index_e.asp.
14
The paper actually uses the term ‘appointments’, but it includes the same categories (external recruitment, internal
promotion, lateral or downward transfer) except ‘acting appointments’.
15
Micheline Nehmé, Timna Gorber, “Demographic Study of the Executive Community, 1991-1998,” Public Service
Commission: 1999, p. 8-10. Online at
www.psagencyagencefp.gc.ca/research/demographics/communities/ex_demo_e.asp#6.
16
Separations include devolution, privatization, retirement, resignation, abandonment of position, lay-off, release or
death.
17
PSC, “2005-06 Annual Report,” Supplementary Tables – Table 3.
Good Government is Everyone’s Business
www.ppforum.ca
from the public service.”18 The EX cadre itself only grew by 2.9% between 2004-05 and 2005-06,
from 3799 to 3910. Statistics within the EX5 group – at the Senior ADM level – make quite clear
that frequent turnover within senior management is not just an issue at the deputy level. In 200506, there were 40 appointments in a group that comprised only 79 members19 – a rate of staffing
activity of over 50%. Moreover, given that there were only 15 departures from the group during the
course of the year, the majority of the appointments were representative of lateral mobility within
the cohort. Though this trend was most pronounced at the EX5 level, the rate of appointments also
increased at every EX level except EX4, where there was a modest decline.
18
Public Service Commission, “2005-06 Annual Report,” Chapter 6.7 – Executive resourcing. Online at
http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/centres/annual-annuel/2006/index_e.htm.
19
This does not include the 2 EX5 level employees with the newly created Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA).
12
13
HOW DOES DEPUTY MOBILITY COMPARE WITH TURNOVER IN CABINET?
Given that Canada’s system of parliamentary democracy places elected officials at the heart of the
decision-making process, any discussion of continuity of public administration must take into
account political leadership at the Cabinet level. Civil servants are chiefly responsible for
supporting and serving government with their policy expertise and advice, in the management of
the institutions of government, and through the implementation and operation of the policies and
priorities of government. Because the effectiveness of government – and of the public service – is
contingent upon the two groups working together to ensure high quality policy and programs, the
tenure of ministers is also worth looking at. Much like for deputies, it takes time for ministers to
build relationships, to gain an understanding of policy issues, to shape their agenda, and to learn
how to advance their priorities through Cabinet.
Again, employing the methodology used by Bourgault to determine the amount of time deputies
have spent in their positions, a comparative statistical package has been generated to determine
the tenure of Ministers of the Crown over the past three decades.20 The results are quite startling.
In none of the last three decades did federal Ministers average as much time on the job as their
deputy counterparts, averaging 1.8 years over the 30 year span. The lowest average was in fact
during the past decade, when Ministers averaged only 1.6 years in their positions.21 In addition,
only in three departments during the past decade did Ministers average longer stays than their
deputies – at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Department of the Environment,
and at International Trade.
Over the course of the last 30 years, there were
Table 4 - Length of Time in Position, Years
only four departments where Ministers averaged a
stay of more than 2 years, with the longest average
1977-1987
1987-1997
1997-2007
by a wide margin at Finance (See Annex 2).
Buoyed by Michael Wilson and Paul Martin who
Deputies*
2.3
4
2.7
both stayed upwards of 6 years, the Minister of
Ministers**
1.7
2.0
1.6
Finance was on the job for an average of 2.7 years
*Source: Jacques Bourgault, "Profile of Deputy Ministers in the
between 1977 and 2007, with that average
Government of Canada"
reaching 3.7 years for those appointed between
**Calculated using data from Parliament of Canada
1987 and 1997. The other three Ministers who
averaged more than 2 years were at Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Foreign Affairs and Health. On the other end of the scale, the departments that
saw the highest turnover in political leadership were Fisheries and Oceans and Public Works and
Government Services at 1.5 years each, and Industry22 at only 1.4 years.
Of course, there are evident explanations for the more frequent turnover of ministers than
deputies. The most obvious is the fact that, unlike within the deputy community, there is wholesale
turnover of ministers during every instance of change in government. The governing party
changed five times over the course of the last thirty years, staying in power anywhere from 9
months to 13 years. In addition, changes in the head of government generally usher in Cabinet
20
Source data taken from Parliament of Canada website, Online at
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/index.asp?Language=E.
21
It should again be noted that like the average for Deputy Ministers between 1997 and 2007, the number will increase
until the last of those appointed before June 30, 2007 has left their position.
22
The Ministry of Industry, created in 1995, is an amalgamation of what were a range of Ministries over the past three
decades, including Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Science and Technology, and Regional Industrial/Economic
Expansion.
Good Government is Everyone’s Business
www.ppforum.ca
makeovers, as the new party leader appoints supporters to key positions. This occurred once in
each of the last three decades, as John Turner took the reigns from Pierre Trudeau in 1984, Kim
Campbell replaced Brian Mulroney in 1993, and Paul Martin took over for Jean Chrétien in 2003.
The Cabinets of Turner and Campbell – along with that of Joe Clark, elected in 1979 – lasted less
than a year, obviously having a diminishing effect on the average stay of Ministers. Lastly, even reelection often resulted in Cabinet shuffles, as we saw in early 1989 with Mulroney, in mid-1997
with Chrétien, and in mid-2004 with Martin (though, interestingly, there was no shuffle following
Chrétien’s re-election in November of 2000).
The bottom line is that although Ministers are expected to be more transitory, and require less
depth in policy and administrative expertise than their deputy colleagues, they must also
acclimatize themselves to the assignment, build relationships, develop an agenda and be
persuasive in Cabinet to be successful. To do this, they need to work closely and effectively with
the professional public servants in their department or agency, and across government.
Professional public servants are responsible for helping ministers make the transition into a new
role as seamless as possible, but they also rely heavily on their Minister to support and argue for
their mandate and priorities – i.e. to generally provide policy leadership. Consequently, it is not a
stretch to assume that changing ministers every year and half can be a significant cause of
discontinuity and changing priorities for departments across the public service.
The salient question that emerges is: if higher levels of turnover and instability in Cabinet are
difficult if not impossible to control, and are an inevitable consequence of the democratic process,
would measures to decrease hyper-mobility within the public sector workforce – particularly
amongst deputies and other senior officials – be a means to increase organizational stability?
14
15
CONCLUSIONS
Almost 20 years after Gordon Osbaldeston wrote of how deputy ministers were spending less time
than ever in their positions, little seems to have changed. Though the average tenure climbed
back to 4 years during the decade from 1987 to 1997, the length of each deputy assignment has
since fallen back to only 2.7 between 1997 and 2007. However, the rate of churn has not returned
to the historic low point of 2.3 years that was witnessed during the decade ending in 1987. There
are also significant variations in deputy continuity across departments, agencies and other public
organizations. Although a number of factors – the increasing focus on transferable management
skills and whole of government understanding, the reorganization of departments or agencies, or
perhaps political instability and change in the form of new governments, minority governments or
leadership change within the governing party – certainly have an impact, it is not entirely clear why
the rate of turnover has increased to the degree it has.
Of course, it is important to remember that no clear causal link has been established between
shorter tenure, poorer performance or organizational instability, nor would there seem to be any
quantifiable way of establishing one. Nonetheless, few will disagree with the notion that learning
the business, understanding the organization and its people, and developing policy expertise take
time. The less time a leader spends in a position, the more challenging these tasks become and
the harder it is for a leader to establish credibility and generate commitment. And, as many of
those we consulted with in recent months have remarked, ‘you can’t replace experience or
knowledge with a briefing note’.
However, even if shorter tenure is linked by some to a lack of continuity of leadership and weaker
operational performance, the blame cannot be laid solely on a transient deputy community. High
percentages of public servants polled were of the view that staff turnover and organizational
instability has a negative effect on workplace productivity throughout the institution. PSC
employment statistics also make evident that there is significant movement within the public
service as a whole, although it can’t be precisely measured.
Levels of mobility are particularly high within the EX community. Studies analyzing employment
data from the late 1980’s and 1990’s show that the EX group exhibited the highest degree of
turnover of any of the public service’s six occupational categories. During this period, the ADM
cadre – EX 4s and 5s – experienced the most movement within the EX cohort on a per capita
basis. On the whole, data for 2005-06 seems to indicate that these trends have continued, with the
EX group – and the ADMs at the EX5 level in particular – continuing to experience the highest rate
of staffing turnover. Also of note is that fact that external recruitment accounts for an extremely
small degree of the employment mobility in the public service.
Lastly, if churn is high within the group of professional public servants at the most senior levels in
the institution, it is even higher amongst their elected and accountable colleagues at the Cabinet
table who provide them with their mandates and their priorities. Whereas over the past three
decades the highest rate of deputy turnover – the worst in recorded history – was 2.3 years during
the late 1970s and ‘80s, the average stay of Ministers of the Crown has never been longer than 2
years over that same period. During the last decade, from 1997 to 2007, the average was the
worst it has been during that stretch, at only 1.6 years. It has varied across departments and
agencies – the longest average tenures were at Finance – but the average exceeded two years in
only a select group of Ministries.
Good Government is Everyone’s Business
www.ppforum.ca
It is perhaps no great surprise to some that churn would be more prevalent at the Cabinet table
than in the professional ranks of the public service given the unpredictability of electoral politics.
While this higher rate of change might seem an unavoidable byproduct of Canada’s democratic
institutions, the effects of this turnover on the public service can’t be underestimated. One of the
fundamental roles public servants – and deputies in particular – play is the provision of support
and stability when governments change or Cabinet shuffles usher in a fresh crop of ministers.
Despite the non-partisanship and professionalism required by public servants to perform their
duties, changes in Cabinet no doubt have an impact on the continuity of the public service in the
broadest sense. Because of this relationship – and because Ministers depend to a significant
extent on the knowledge and expertise of the professional public service – a call for greater
stability and less churn in the senior ranks of the public service would seem to be in order.
16
17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bourgault, Jacques. “Profile of Deputy Ministers in the Government of Canada.” Canada School of
Public Service, 2005.
Canada Public Service Agency, “Public Service Employees Survey – 2005.” 23 June 2006.
Accessed 9 July 2007, online at www.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/survey-sondage/2005/rpublications/survey_e.asp.
“Canada’s Public Service in the 21st Century – Discussion Paper.” Public Policy Forum, 2007.
Côté, André. “Skills and Career Trends of Canada’s Public and Private Sector Leaders – Report of
the Leadership Survey.” Public Policy Forum, October 2006.
Granatstein, J.L. The Ottawa Men: The Civil Service Mandarins, 1935-1957. University of Toronto
Press: Toronto, 1998.
Nehmé, Micheline and Timna Gorber. “Demographic Study of the Executive Community 19911998.” Public Service Commission of Canada – Research Directorate, February 1999.
Osbaldeston, Gordon. “Job Description for DMs.” Policy Options, January 1988.
Pendakur, Ravi, Fernando Mata, Stan Lee and Natalie Dole. “Job Mobility and Promotion in the
Federal Public Service.” Canadian Heritage and the Public Service Commission of
Canada, 18 February 2000.
Varette, Sharon and David Zussman. “Today’s Leaders: Career Trends of Canada’s Private and
Public Sector Executives.” Public Management Research Centre and University of Ottawa,
28 May 1996.
Good Government is Everyone’s Business
www.ppforum.ca
ANNEX 1 – AVERAGE TENURE OF DEPUTIES BY DEP’T/AGENCY/OTHER 1997-2007, YEARS
Department, Agency or Organization
Avg Tenure, 1997-07*
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Canada Revenue Agency
Canada School of Public Service
Canadian Heritage
Canadian International Development Agency
Citizenship and Immigration
Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec
Environment
Finance
Fisheries and Oceans
Foreign Affairs
International Trade
Human Resources Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Industry
Intergovernmental Affairs
Justice
National Defence
Health
Natural Resources
Privy Council Office - Clerk
Public Service Commission
Public Works and Government Services
Public Safety
Transport
Treasury Board
Veteran Affairs
Western Economic Diversification
2.5
2.9
2.2
3.0
4.3
2.7
2.2
2.7
1.8
2.6
3.3
2.6
2.1
2.2
1.7
1.9
1.8
4.7
2.4
3.3
2.0
2.9
4.2
2.2
2.5
5.5
2.5
2.8
10.0
Overall
2.7
*UPDATED TO OCTOBER 31, 2007
18
19
ANNEX 2 – AVERAGE TENURE OF MINISTERS BY MINISTRY 1977-2007, YEARS
1977-07*
1977-87
1987-97
1997-07*
Deputy Tenure,
1997-07
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
2.4
2.3
3.0
1.3
2.5
ATLANTIC CANADA
OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
1.9
na
2.0
1.8
2.9
HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.8
2.2
NATURAL RESOURCES
1.9
1.6
2.7
1.2
2.0
INDIAN AFFAIRS AND
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.7
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
1.8
na
2.8
1.4
2.2
CANADIAN HERITAGE
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.3
4.3
ENVIRONMENT
1.8
1.9
1.5
2.1
1.8
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
1.5
1.4
1.4
2.1
3.3
FINANCE
2.7
2.7
3.7
1.8
2.6
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
2.2
2.4
2.4
1.7
2.6
International Trade
1.9
1.5
1.9
2.7
2.1
International Cooperation
1.6
1.8
1.0
2.0
2.6
INDUSTRY
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.9
HEALTH
2.2
2.8
2.2
1.4
3.3
VETERANS AFFAIRS
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.4
2.8
JUSTICE
1.6
1.3
2.2
1.4
4.7
NATIONAL DEFENCE
1.6
1.4
2.0
1.3
2.4
NATIONAL REVENUE
1.7
1.4
2.1
1.6
2.2
PRIVY COUNCIL AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
2.0
2.0
3.2
1.0
2.9
PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
1.9
1.8
1.7
2.2
2.5
PUBLIC WORKS AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
1.5
1.3
2.1
1.2
2.2
TRANSPORT
2.0
1.8
2.6
1.3
5.5
TREASURY BOARD
1.7
1.7
1.5
2.1
2.5
WESTERN ECONOMIC
DIVERSIFICATION
1.7
na
2.2
1.2
10.0
1.8
1.7
2.0
1.6
2.6**
Ministry
Overall
* Updated to October 31, 2007
**Differs from 1997-07 Deputy Average in Annex 1 because list of Cabinet positions does not correspond exactly with
Departments, Agencies and Organizations used in deputy study.
Good Government is Everyone’s Business
www.ppforum.ca