Obviously, there are two possible answers to this question. Yes. No. But both sides of the argument are valid.
I think as employees will determine how they want to put into practice what has been developed (framework, KM stuff, etc.).
But it IS important to say that we want people to start using the policy framework in their daily work. Not to say that the document can't be interpreted by employees based on their individual jobs. So the question is does it really need to be applied to everything we do?
While you might argue that it's not really a choice of whether to implement or not, but rather a choice of how to relate the framework to their daily work - I'm sure you could find people who do not want to and don't have to relate their framework to their daily work.
The point I'm trying to make is that the framework is very important. And eventually I do think that everyone (or most people) will use it in some way. But people will embrace it if we let them come to that conclusion on their own and see the real value in it! How will that happen? Through facilitated conversations, not talking head type presentations. While I know that the meaty content is important, people will only understand it if it's not preached to them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think we need to be clear, when we talk about the PF, that there are two pieces here:
1. The concept paper (empowering ideas), which tells the "Natural Resources Story"
2. The diagram, which is basically the 4th part of the concept paper, talking about NRCan's role in the natural resources story.
The dialogue sessions will have to wrestle with the challenge of "telling" people the story and / or eliciting their version of the natural resource story from them (see my other pedantic policy thread on how to talk about the PF)
In a way, it's a real shame that the ITG didn't use a popular education methodology to create opportunities for the whole department to "tell their natural resource story", integrate that with academic research and create our departmental take on the NR story. It's hard to sell someone "THE" natural resource story - why would they accept it as the only story in town?
By contrast, the diagram is much more useful as a tool. Here is where I think the issue of being non-negotiable is a non-issue.
The PF diagram, in my view, is actually an excellent integration of common-sense knowledge about what civil servants need to do to do their jobs well.
It talks about stakeholder engagement, integrating science/policy, generating and deploying knowledge, and using our various "levers" to achieve our goals.
This is not rocket science - what it actually can be, however, is a diagnostic tool that plays the same role for any TEAM in NRCan as a performance review plays for an employee.
The PF diagram basically spells out the dimensions of what's expected from every employee with respect to standard best practice. No one expects every team to perform highly on every dimension all the time-- but the diagram sets the bar high in each area.
So, after using the PF as a diagnostic tool, each team can identify where it needs to go to beef up its capacity to work in the way that the North Star PF has outlined that it expects us to work.
Standards, accountability and excellence --- that's what the PF diagram can give us.
And those should be non-negotiable!
Answer: No. It is completely negotiable.
What difference does it make what employees connect to? If they are more likely to understand the value of their contributions to NRCan's vision via a discussion about a new way of working - then gosh darn it all we have an engaged employee.
All I am proposing is that we market this to appeal to our target audience - NRCan employees -not the policy maker contingent of that audience.
The connection to the PF will come. Let's not make it the focus.
Post a Comment