DGs at the Crossroads

Directors General (DGs) are the backbone of Canada’s federal public service. You stand between Assistant Deputy Ministers (ADMs) who provide strategic direction and Directors who manage frontline delivery. In this pivotal position, your choices determine whether programs advance with clarity—or stall in layers of hesitation.

The DG role is not simply operational. It is cultural. You are close enough to the work to understand its realities, but senior enough to shape how accountability flows. When DGs hesitate, the organization slows. When DGs act decisively, transformation gains momentum.

The DG’s Sphere of Influence

The portfolio of a DG is vast. Programs, regulations, budgets, and teams often numbering in the hundreds fall within your purview. Every day, you face a stream of decisions: resource allocations, program design, staffing, and approvals that move files forward.

Unlike ADMs, who set broader strategy, or Directors, who manage execution, DGs must bridge the gap. You are expected to translate direction into workable plans while ensuring compliance with process. At the same time, you carry accountability for results. The sheer breadth of this role makes the DG one of the most influential cultural actors in government.

Scholars of public administration argue that mid-to-senior executives—those closest to the organizational hinge points—are decisive in how reforms succeed or fail (Bourgon, 2011; Aucoin, 2012). DGs are precisely in this category.

Accountability in Practice: The Temptation to Escalate

Every DG has experienced the temptation to escalate decisions upward. Sometimes it feels safer to kick the can to the ADM:

• What if the decision proves politically sensitive?
• What if the Deputy or Minister reacts badly?
• What if I make the wrong call?

On the surface, escalation feels prudent. Yet in practice, it often communicates the opposite: a lack of confidence and a reluctance to own responsibility. Over time, this erodes the very authority DGs are supposed to embody.

Research in organizational leadership confirms that hesitation at mid-senior levels cascades downward. Subordinates mirror their leaders: if a DG avoids decisions, Directors and managers follow suit (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015). The result is paralysis disguised as caution.

Cultural Pressures: Why DGs Hesitate

The federal public service culture is famously risk-averse. In part, this stems from the unique accountability regime of Westminster democracy. Senior officials must answer not only to their superiors but also to central agencies, auditors, and sometimes Parliament itself.

For DGs, this creates constant pressure to avoid blame. As one senior DG once put it:

“I realized that no one was rewarded for taking ownership, but plenty were punished for taking risks. The safest move always seemed to be: escalate.”

This risk aversion is reinforced by process. Governance structures are designed to diffuse accountability through layers of consultation. While this prevents rash decisions, it also enables indecision. For DGs, the cultural message is clear: play it safe, follow process, and wait for direction.

But here lies the paradox: if everyone follows this logic, no one leads.

The DG as Cultural Translator

One of the most important roles of the DG is cultural translation. You interpret ADM strategy into operational directives, and you interpret operational realities back upward. This translation is not mechanical. It is interpretive, requiring judgment, courage, and cultural intelligence.

If you simply pass information without interpretation, the system bogs down. ADMs are overloaded with details, and Directors are left unclear about priorities. When you act as translator, however, you clarify intent, align direction with reality, and give your teams confidence to proceed.

Public administration experts stress that “interpretive leadership” at this level is essential for government modernization (Head, 2018). Without it, reforms remain trapped in theory and never reach practical execution.

Independent Insight: Overcoming Cultural Blind Spots

DGs, like all leaders, operate within the culture they are expected to change. This creates blind spots. You may not notice when “prudence” has become paralysis, or when “process” has replaced progress.

Independent insight helps cut through these blind spots. External advisors can highlight patterns you may normalize:

• Endless circulation of briefing decks without closure.
• Over-escalation of medium-risk issues.
• A culture of “cover your bases” rather than “take ownership.”

This external perspective does not remove accountability. Rather, it strengthens it—helping DGs act decisively in a system that often rewards caution more than courage.

Modeling Accountability: The Cascade Effect

DGs, like ADMs, set the cultural tone. The behaviour you model cascades downward:

• If you take ownership, Directors stop reflexively escalating.
• If you insist on closure, teams deliver instead of deferring.
• If you demonstrate that mistakes can be learning opportunities, risk-taking becomes less threatening.

Conversely, if you hesitate, everyone hesitates. If you defer, everyone defers. The DG’s leadership is contagious—for better or worse.

One case study in the Government of Canada’s Blueprint 2020 evaluation showed that branches where DGs modeled decisive leadership moved transformation projects significantly faster than branches where DGs were passive (Treasury Board Secretariat, 2017).

Decision as a Cultural Act

At its core, every DG decision is not just technical—it is cultural. By deciding, you send a signal: ownership is possible. Risk is manageable. Accountability is expected.

By not deciding, you send the opposite signal: accountability is to be avoided. Risk is to be feared. Hesitation is safer than action.

The culture of a branch or sector is built not through grand speeches, but through the accumulation of small signals. Every DG choice either strengthens or weakens the culture of accountability.

Conclusion: DGs as the Fulcrum of Transformation

DGs are not simply middle managers in a bureaucratic chain. You are fulcrums of transformation. Your ability to decide—to own responsibility rather than escalate it—shapes how the system works.

In a risk-averse culture, DGs who demonstrate courage become catalysts. You model for Directors and staff that accountability is possible and meaningful. You show ADMs that translation and ownership are real. And you drive transformation not by rhetoric, but by action.

The power of decision is the DG’s greatest tool. Used with courage and cultural intelligence, it can change the system itself.

What’s Next?

Step into your role as cultural translator and fulcrum of accountability. Institute X provides independent insight that empowers DGs to act decisively, own responsibility, and lead transformation with confidence.

References

• Aucoin, P. (2012). Democratizing the Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government. Emond Montgomery.
• Bourgon, J. (2011). A New Synthesis of Public Administration: Serving in the 21st Century. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Routledge.
• Head, B. (2018). “Wicked Problems in Public Policy.” Public Policy and Administration, 33(3), 257–277.
• Treasury Board Secretariat (2017). Blueprint 2020: Progress Report. Government of Canada.