A foundational principle of effective leadership – famously championed by Peter Drucker – asserts that what isn’t measured, cannot be managed. This simple truth has recently been challenged within the federal government, sparking confusion and concern among experts.
Last week, a comprehensive report from a dedicated working group, tasked with analyzing public service productivity, was quietly released. The report contained nineteen recommendations aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness, with two specifically focused on enhanced measurement of productivity.
Surprisingly, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the recipient of this detailed analysis, swiftly dismissed those crucial measurement recommendations. The stated reason? Other priorities currently take precedence. This decision has left observers questioning the government’s commitment to genuine improvement.
Stephen Tapp, CEO of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, voiced a critical concern: “If we’re really not serious about measuring overall productivity, then why should we assume that productivity is going to improve?” He highlighted the progress made by nations like the United Kingdom, which actively track outputs and outcomes.
David McLaughlin, a former chief of staff, pointed to Australia’s success, citing their established productivity commission and a willingness to embrace structural reforms within the public sector. He emphasized the importance of dedicated structures designed to drive adaptation and performance.
While the government maintains it’s focused on efficiency, experts like McLaughlin stress that effectiveness is equally vital. The potential of artificial intelligence to solve productivity issues was also downplayed, with warnings that it’s no simple fix.
A statement from the Treasury Board President’s office indicated that some recommendations *are* being implemented, focusing on modernizing operations and reducing inefficiencies. However, this hasn’t quelled the disappointment expressed by figures like Michael Wernick, a former clerk of the Privy Council.
Wernick acknowledged the challenges of measuring productivity across all government functions – defense, emergency management, weather forecasting – but insisted that significant improvements could be uncovered by closely examining the relationship between resources invested and results achieved.
The timing of this decision is also under scrutiny. Lori Turnbull, a political science professor, suggests that introducing new performance metrics while simultaneously cutting 30,000 public service jobs, on top of 10,000 previous losses, would be deeply demoralizing.
Turnbull argues that the current climate is simply not conducive to such initiatives, stating that the proposal would be “a lead balloon.” The focus, she believes, must remain on navigating the existing workforce reductions.
Despite the immediate setback, advocates for greater transparency and accountability hope that parliamentarians will independently review the report and initiate further study through committee hearings. They view the report’s release as a starting point for a much-needed conversation.
Tapp describes the report’s quiet release and limited analysis as an “opening salvo,” urging for greater clarity and explanation. The question remains whether a commitment to measurement will ultimately emerge, or if the opportunity for meaningful improvement will be lost.
