Should high-level managers bear the brunt of public service cuts?

Thank you for writing in so candidly. You are absolutely not alone in your concern; I have heard the same frustration many times over the years.

First, I want to acknowledge that the prospect of losing one’s job is scary. And you’re right to say that if cuts are misallocated, we risk undermining the public service’s core mission. Still, your worry that only non-executives suffer while senior managers skate by isn’t always fully borne out by the data.

During the Harper government’s Deficit Reduction Action Plan (DRAP), the core public administration planned to eliminate about 19,200 positions including around 600 executive roles, or roughly 7.4 per cent of the executive ranks.

That’s a higher proportional cut than the 4.8 per cent targeted reduction in total staff that was announced in the 2012 budget.

When we look at actual head counts from 2010 to 2015, we see a nearly 27 per cent drop in executive numbers, compared with roughly 24 per cent for non-executives. While non-executives lost more people in absolute terms, the executive cadre did not escape, and in fact shrank significantly, according to Treasury Board data.

I remember DRAP vividly having led it for the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer. I eliminated my own assistant deputy minister position. It seemed like a logical thing to do, based on the criteria we were using.

Your experience may be different, but I don’t believe that everyone is motivated by self-interest in these situations.

There are all kinds of public servants. There are some who do it for a steady paycheque, some who feel a calling to serve, and every degree in between.

Here’s the thing: the cuts now being proposed (in the most recent budget) are not nearly as extensive or existential as past waves. They are not “transformative.”

There’s no wholesale restructuring, no strategic rebalancing of who does what, and no meaningful reduction in top-heavy management — even though, for many, that might feel like the real problem.

Why don’t we see more bold restructuring? Well, the current government is under intense political pressure because of trade uncertainty, minority government dynamics and the demand for fast results.

Rather than reforming the existing public service machinery, it created three new separate operating agencies. These agencies avoid many of the binding constraints on traditional departments, giving the government a “fast lane” for delivering on its priorities.

But creating parallel organizations without fixing the underlying system? That’s not transformation, that’s a work-around. Now, no-one asked for my advice, but if they had, here’s some of what I would propose:

• Dramatically reduce the number of departments and deputy ministers.
• Flatten the executive hierarchy to three levels (director → director general → assistant deputy minister).
• Eliminate any position with the title, “associate.”
• Institute three-year contracts for executives, to reduce unnecessary churn and to hold people to account for delivery, not just intentions.
• Eliminate “performance pay” – it has nothing to do with performance; it is a way to top up salaries or reward DM favourites.

At the same time, take a hard look at compensation. Some positions and job categories are seriously underpaid compared to similar positions outside the public service, while others are overpaid.

But these are just one person’s ideas. What I would love to see is the government, through the clerk of the Privy Council, invite retired public servants — deeply experienced, battle-tested, with no vested interest — to return as advisers at a symbolic rate, like the “$1-a-day” men (yes, sadly, they were all men) of the post-war era, to design real, lasting reform.

By nature, I’m not a cynical person. I believe in the public service. I believe it can evolve. It can become leaner, more effective, more accountable and more mission-driven. But only if we call for change that goes beyond cuts in headcount.

We need change that reimagines and rebuilds structures because you are absolutely right: this isn’t just about today’s budget, it’s about whether the public service is built to meet 21st-century challenges.

Stay courageous,

—Yazmine Laroche, Public Service Confidential