The Imperative for Agility

In today’s rapidly evolving policy environment, Ministers and Deputy Ministers are expected not only to set priorities but to foster agility across the public service. Policy challenges—from climate change to digital transformation to tariffs—require the federal public service to adapt quickly without sacrificing accountability.

Yet the culture of government is inherently conservative. Bureaucratic norms, layered processes, and risk aversion slow responsiveness. The challenge for leaders at the summit is not merely to issue directives but to model a mindset that balances prudence with agility, ensuring decisions cascade efficiently throughout the system.

Agility as Cultural Signal

Organizational agility is more than the ability to pivot policy. It is a cultural signal. When Ministers and Deputies approve initiatives rapidly, they convey that the system values action and responsiveness. When approvals drag, the signal is equally clear: hesitation is the norm.

Research in public administration emphasizes that leaders at the top influence culture indirectly through behaviors and decisions (Schein, 2017; OECD, 2020). Each file approved or delayed communicates a cultural expectation, affecting every ADM, DG, and Director below.

The Accountability/Agility Balance

A central paradox of public service leadership is balancing accountability with agility. Ministers are politically accountable to Parliament; Deputies are accountable to the Clerk and the system of values and ethics that guide civil servants. This dual accountability can lead to excessive caution.

Yet agility does not mean recklessness. It requires disciplined decision-making: evaluating risk, considering evidence, and closing decisions decisively. Studies indicate that organizations that develop “risk-aware but action-oriented” cultures deliver programs more efficiently without compromising integrity (Aucoin, 2012; Lodge & Gill, 2011).

Modeling Decision-Making for the System

At the Minister/Deputy level, decision-making serves as a model. Staff notice which initiatives are championed, how quickly files are approved, and which issues escalate unnecessarily. A Deputy Minister who consistently defers decisions signals caution, creating a culture of delay. Conversely, decisive action signals empowerment and accountability.

Consider the digital transformation of a government service: when Ministers approve pilot programs promptly, ADMs and DGs follow with confidence. When approvals stall, pilot programs stagnate, and the opportunity for innovation is lost.

Independent Insight: Seeing the Full System

Independent insight is critical at this level. Ministers and Deputies often receive filtered information—briefing notes curated for political or administrative risk. External advisors provide perspective on cultural bottlenecks, revealing where escalation or over-caution is impeding outcomes.

Independent insight allows leaders to:

• Identify areas where processes have become self-protective.
• Detect where cultural norms are blocking innovation.
• Provide targeted interventions that maintain accountability while improving responsiveness.

Driving Transformation Through Courage

Courage is the defining trait of transformational Ministers and Deputies. Courage means making decisions with imperfect information, defending officials against undue criticism, and visibly supporting risk-taking that aligns with policy goals.

Leadership research confirms that courage at the top level enables downstream risk-taking, critical for innovation and effective policy implementation (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015). When Ministers and Deputies demonstrate courage, ADMs and DGs are emboldened to act decisively, cascading the effect through the bureaucracy.

Case Example: Rapid Policy Adjustment

During a national health crisis, a Deputy Minister approved rapid procurement initiatives to ensure supply continuity. By making swift decisions and communicating rationale clearly, the Deputy signaled that urgency could coexist with accountability. ADMs and DGs responded with operational agility, and service delivery met public demand efficiently.

This example underscores the principle: culture follows behavior. Leaders who act decisively in high-stakes contexts shape expectations and norms for the entire system.

Building a Culture of Continuous Learning

Agility is not a one-time act; it requires continuous reinforcement. Ministers and Deputies must model learning from both success and failure. Transparent communication about decision-making rationale, lessons learned, and risk management strategies helps establish a culture where staff feel empowered to act.

OECD research highlights that high-performing public service organizations emphasize iterative learning, where leaders at the top model reflective practice and encourage experimentation within accountable boundaries (OECD, 2020).

Conclusion: Ministers and Deputies as Cultural Architects

Ministers and Deputies are not only decision-makers—they are cultural architects. The signals sent by your decisions, your pace of approval, and your willingness to take calculated risks shape the organizational culture of the public service.

Agility and accountability are not mutually exclusive. Through courageous, informed, and decisive leadership, you set the stage for transformational outcomes across the system. The public service does not merely follow directives; it follows the behavioral signals from the summit. By acting decisively, you catalyze the culture necessary for meaningful, sustained transformation.

What’s Next?

Institute X provides independent insight to help Ministers and Deputy Ministers model agility and accountability, ensuring culture and execution align to deliver transformative results.

References

• Aucoin, P. (2012). Democratizing the Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government. Emond Montgomery.
• Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Routledge.
• Lodge, M., & Gill, D. (2011). “Toward a New Era of Administrative Reform? The Myth of Post-NPM in New Zealand.” Governance, 24(1), 141–166.
• OECD (2020). Leadership for a High-Performing Civil Service. OECD Publishing.
• Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational Culture and Leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.
• Savoie, D. J. (1999). Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. University of Toronto Press.