As you can see on the PolyWogg.ca site, I have a PolyWogg Guide to HR competitions in the Canadian Federal Government. I cheekily called it Be the Duck as an extended metaphor, and I wanted something similar for another book in the same vein about being a manager. So this week’s FlashForwardFriday project is my future guide on being a manager, called Be the SheepDog: Managing from the Middle.

I went with the idea of a sheepdog rounding up sheep. It’s cutesy, a bit whimsical, maybe, and the dog is cute. The challenge is to know what to cover in a general guide to managing in the public service. I could, for example, talk about all of the different parts of government, but that gets to be more like an “introduction to public administration” than a management guide.

I could do something spunky like the 7 Habits of Highly Bureaucratic People, but I hate the term, and it’s not what I’m about.

I could do it like a business case study and talk about five or six complicated examples where features are added just to complicate the scenario, and after going through it, you feel good that you unravelled the mystery (that all started with the Big Bang).

But those business cases often seem very artificial to me. Yet there are two thoughts I have that resonate with me as the basis for an approach.

First and foremost, managers are not hired to manage when it is easy. Good portions of our year may be consumed by keeping steady hands on the console to keep the trains running on time, sure. But it is when things go off the rails, so to speak, that you earn your salary as a manager. Prevention, disaster management, and recovery are more challenging than when things work. Using the sheepdog example, sure, it’s great when all the sheep run into the pen together. But the sheepdog has to chase wayward lambs, watch for predators, and keep everyone together, too. If it were easy, not only could anyone do it, but you probably wouldn’t even need the manager.

Secondly, managers are not needed when the solution is obvious. If you’re having a problem where things are being done where one group has info that impacts another’s functioning, well, sure, it’s apparent that you need to put in place some consultation/info sharing mechanism to make sure Group 2 gets Group 1’s info before they make decisions. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. There can be hidden complications, interpersonal issues, turf wars, hoarding of info, etc., but the solution is relatively apparent.

It is when the answer isn’t apparent, or when there is more than one solution, and there is an actual problem to solve, that a good manager is needed.

A different sort of Values and Ethics approach to managing

There’s a subtitle running through my head, which would be highly misleading, but it is basically “Everything I know about management, I learned from the Values and Ethics Code”. If that were the title, almost everyone would snort and move on. Very few people use the V&E code for anything other than training purposes, and most people focus on the wrong aspects.

For example, there is a lot of time spent on stupid questions like, “Can I abuse my position to get free hockey tickets?”. Okay, sure, it’s not worded like that, it’s worded as a more straightforward example of a vendor offering free hockey tickets to customers. But it amounts to the same thing. No, you can’t accept gifts from vendors. The private sector does all the time, the public sector cannot. An easy answer, and you don’t need a “code” to tell you it’s wrong.

Actual values and ethics come into play when TWO or more values are at play simultaneously — and they tell you to do OPPOSITE things. For example, one sub-value that is frequently referenced is transparency. Essential to trust, a sound basis for communications, and a great way to establish vision. Perfect. Right up until you have info that you’re not allowed to share for other reasons (timing, confidentiality of decision-making, other people’s info). I used to do a lot of corporate work, which gave me access to the behind-the-scenes early work planning of senior leaders. Absolutely critical information for other groups, who would receive it at the appropriate time. Which wasn’t mine to decide. In the long term, transparency and confidentiality can even out and reinforce each other; in the short term, confidentiality wins. I have a perfect example of this, and I want to include it in the book. I found a solution that was a win-win of sorts for both, a compromise that required threading the needle in between the two principles, respecting both.

And it is that sort of approach I want to take — when actual values that are both positive end up in conflict, and how you choose to resolve the conflict to move forward.

As I said, though, the V&E code is not a selling feature, so more likely, I’ll start with the Treasury Board of Canada’s Six Management Competencies:

• Create Vision and Strategy
• Mobilize People
• Uphold Integrity and Respect
• Collaborate with Partners and Stakeholders
• Promote Innovation and Guide Change
• Achieve Results

If you mix and match those competencies in groups of two, you can create up to 15 scenarios. And I want to explore those scenarios in separate chapters. Although part of me wonders if it should be a much shorter “five-minute chapters” approach. Aka the five-minute manager. Here are some examples of conflict, using just vision as the common theme.

Create Vision and Strategy vs. Mobilizing People –> If you focus too much on self-creation for the vision, you’ve lost the opportunity to better mobilize people and get buy-in to the result. But if you mobilize people to create the vision, you both lose control and may be seen as the leader who does what the consensus tells them. Just this month, I am having my team break down our unit’s work plan and strategy, create a new list of plans for the new year, and group them into a vision they can support. Oddly enough, I am letting them run it entirely themselves. I am NOT part of the discussion. I planned the framework, told them the type of questions I wanted them to answer, and then I joined afterwards for review and questions. I combined “vision” for my instructions/framework, but I’m letting them develop the content to maximize buy-in. It is tough for me to let go like that as a manager. Instead, I want to be in there as the “visionary leader”, making sure they stay on course.

Create Vision and Strategy vs. Upholding Integrity and Respect –> At first blush, it would seem like there could be almost no way for these to be in conflict, unless your vision were to be a terrible leader, exploiting or disrespecting people. Yet when you look at the sub-values of both principles, it’s easy to see where conflict could arise. A decisive visionary leader might want to make decisions today, removing uncertainty for people in the company or organization and providing clear direction. For my current “work planning” by the team, I first envisioned an in-person two-day retreat. While we all work in a hybrid environment, in the office three days a week and from home two days a week, one of my team members is also in another province. I wanted to bring everyone together in person for two 1-day sessions while also allowing people to interact in the office on other days that week.

Unfortunately, the configuration didn’t work for personal reasons. Absolutely the best thing to do for the team, in my view, and the worst thing to do for the person. So I cancelled it out of fairness and respect for meeting or accommodating my employees’ needs as best I can. Yet, fast forward 6 weeks, I’ve scheduled the retreat as five virtual sessions over a 3-week window. Session 1 happened this week; everyone was able to join and participate. Session 2 and 3 are next week, and at the last minute, one of my staff members has an opportunity to travel next week and needs to be off. In theory, as a leader, while I want it to go forward sooner rather than later, as this is a quiet month for my team and the perfect timing, I also would like to be fair and adjust the schedule so he could participate. Similarly, another employee is off for two weeks, also taking advantage of the downtime, and will be away for the following two weeks. By this time, another employee will likely want some holidays. If I accommodate one, I should accommodate all, but that could push the much-needed retreat back three to six weeks. I don’t have a solution that really respects both in this case; I had to decide to schedule it to minimize gaps in participation, but they still have to proceed. I could minimize the conflict, but I couldn’t eliminate it.

Create Vision and Strategy vs. Collaborate with Partners and Stakeholders –> In most “policy theory” courses, the instructor will tell you that the key to a good vision is basically to consult with stakeholders. It’s the cornerstone of almost all best practices in policy. Yet there are several variables at play in the relationship that are almost always in conflict when you are operating in the private sector. Businesses will often say, “Okay, see what the customers want, segregate by market niche and see which combination of responses pays off the most.” In other words, if a small minority wants feature X, maybe it’s not worth doing; you can cost it out and see. On the other hand, if that minority are business customers rather than individual customers, maybe it is worth it. We don’t usually have that option in the public sector, market segmentation doesn’t equate to profits. We generally are supposed to serve all.

So, what do you do if the politicians in charge say to do X but the stakeholders say Y, Z, not to mention A, B, C, D and E? Maybe not direct opposition, but perhaps that they have lots of views beyond X. Governments are frequently bad at reporting back to stakeholders what they did with their input, or why we went against their advice or request. Governments do not delegate governance, so even if every stakeholder said not to do something, we may in fact decide to do it for governance reasons. Yet, how much feedback do we provide? Are we candid? Do we give responses back to each stakeholder, or do we say, “Hey, here’s what we heard overall, and here’s what we’re doing overall”?

In short, external stakeholders may not agree with the direction the government is taking. Yet we’re trying to be inclusive of their views, learn from their experiences on the ground, etc. How can we respect both?

Create Vision and Strategy vs. Promote Innovation and Guide Change –> This one is relatively easy to give an example for, as it doesn’t take too many attempts to incorporate innovation into a vision before you see people “innovating for innovation’s sake”, not because it is driving strategic direction, and in fact can hinder long-term planning as everything is in a perpetual state of change, innovation and/or flux.

Create Vision and Strategy vs. Achieve Results –> I have a whole book planned on what gets measured being somewhat close to what gets done (an old cliché). And one of the biggest problems comes from the interplay between new directions and a demand for demonstrable results. Take, for instance, my day job, which is related to labour market programming for people who are not currently part of the labour force. They need assistance and help to get in or sometimes back in. Those who were already working, but who lost their job, are “closer” to the labour market than those who have never had a job before because of personal circumstances. The one who needs to get back in might need some help with resumes and some remedial training or upskilling, and they’re good to go. Those who have never had a job might need some life skill training, resume help, more advanced or extended training for a career or trade, and more time to get “into the job market”. So, let’s say a new government comes along and says, “Hey, let’s boost those numbers served!”. Well, it’s easy to help those who need some basic training — put together a group, serve them 30 at a time, boom, the #s go up. Equally, no need to help those who need A LOT of help; the numbers will go up faster if you help those who only need a bit of help. Together, it’s called “creaming” — helping those who are the easiest and fastest to serve in order to boost the results figures. Yet they are not the ones who need help the most, nor for whom we could have the most significant impact. The demand for fast, demonstrable, measurable results can undercut vision and strategy in the long run.

So that’s my idea for a book. Helping a manager understand some of the two-way traffic when they take on a given task, and the way some of those pieces end up playing out. I haven’t quite figured out where to include some more common management problems, like making sure people have their preferred time off vs. ensuring coverage in a fair and supportive manner. And don’t get me started on managing HR like people are cattle. I have VERY strong views about that, labour mobility and talent management.

But I’ll get there. I probably won’t write this book until I retire, so 2027 is the date on the cover page. Maybe I’ll get there sooner, hard to say. In the meantime, I hope you enjoyed this FlashForwardFriday look.