Professional Conduct & Culture
An implementation plan; a new path ahead?
Thursday June 27 and Friday, June 28 2024, was quite the day in defence announcement:
The construction of the Canadian Surface Combatant officially started;
The Department of National Defence released its culture change Implementation Plan (the “Comprehensive Implementation Plan”);
Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan was named as the next Chief of the Defence Staff, becoming the first woman to occupy this role in Canadian history.
CDL Caveat: I am mentioning the CSC announcement because it happened at the same time as these other two – I will not address it.
As for LGen Carignan’s appointment, here is the TL;DR of what I have to say: While the fact she is the first woman CDS is historical, I would advise not to assume she will change the entire organization at the snap of her fingers, because:
that would be putting too high expectations on her;
she might currently be the Chief Professional Conduct and Culture, but imagining she would lead the military as if she occupied the same role, but with more power is misguided;
the idea that women, by the virtue of their genitalia/ gender, can change a full organization, (1) overlooks how entrenched structures and common practices are; (2) contributes to the pressure commonly put on a woman that, if they do not fix all systemic problems or face a crisis, their failure is proof that women are not natural leaders (going back to point 1).
This is not to say that I believe LGen Carignan will abandon culture change – it is simply to say she has a new role with other responsibilities. Plus, a new person will become Chief Professional Conduct and Culture.
Will the fact that LGen Carignan is a woman bring a new approach to the role? Possibly.
I am just cautious in contributing to the discourse of reacting to the appointment of a woman at a head of an organization as a sea of change that would revolutionize the organization forever. We can celebrate the historical moment while having realistic expectations.
So, in short: félicitations, ma générale et bon courage!
Alright, let’s focus here.
What I actually want to do in this post is go through the Comprehensive Implementation Plan (CIP) – it is a document folks like myself have been anticipated for a while now, and that has been in the works since the release of the Arbour Report in May of 2022.
Mme Therrien, the External Monitor, mentioned in her third status report that the CIP existed (accompanied by a Culture Evolution Strategy). Now we get to read it!
Before I start, I have two questions:
How do the Comprehensive Implementation Plan and the Culture Evolution Strategy relate to one another? Mme Therrien wrote that
“Whereas the Comprehensive Implementation Plan (CIP) creates the milestones, the Culture Evolution Strategy (CES) is the mechanism by which a more professional, inclusive workplace will be institutionalized, beyond the confines of Ottawa.”
I would have expected the Strategy and the Implementation Plan to have the reverse dynamics, but I have observed that strategies and implementation plans often have different meanings and take different approaches in the CAF
Will the Strategy be published, and when? (yes, I want to give myself more work – a girl’s gotta grift).
The keywords that jump out to me reading the forewords from Minister Blair and Ms. Beck and Gen. Eyre are:
evolution
collective, sustained effort from each and every member of the CAF
living by the values of the institution
equity, inclusion, diversity
The forewords and the introduction also underline the pride in the effort made so far.
The Pillars
What we are seeing is that the CAF is adopting a principles- and values-based approach to culture change; and they break it down like this:
Four key themes:
Teamwork (aka, rethinking how teams work with inclusivity and equity in mind)
Identity (aka, ensuring all are able to be their authentic selves)
Service (aka, safeguarding well-being to create readiness and effectiveness)
Leadership (aka, building leaders that are trust- and confidence-worthy and can achieve outcomes in a “sustainable and responsible way”).
From there, four “culture aspects” were identified, and according to which the recommendations will be classified:
The CIP also adds four key considerations on which the implementation plan relies:
“Putting our people first” (and the prioritization of the recommendations will follow this idea of maximizing impact for people)
“Listening to our stakeholders” (that includes external folks who have advised the Department/ CAF on culture change related issues)
“Thinking about ripple effects” (strategizing based on impact and consequences, taking into account how effects may play out as implementation stacks up)
“Managing risks” (using a “phased, deliberate approach” instead of going all in quickly, prioritizing specific recommendations based on risk).
The Approach
The CIP recognizes that, in the past, efforts to address sexual misconduct issues were done it a “fractured” way, “one that has resulted in silos of effort and piecemeal changes.”
Instead, the plan reads that
“by trying to do everything simultaneously we would risk falling short in multiple areas and that could result in failing to address systemic issues in the end. For that reason, the Comprehensive Implementation Plan (CIP) is about prioritization and sequencing recommendations and initiatives that have the most direct and immediate impact on the well-being of Defence Team members.”
What will it prioritize, then? From 2023 (!) to 2028, the CAF will pursue implementation of the recommendations in four reports:
The Third Independent Review of the National Defence Act (aka, the Fish report);
Seven of Fish’s recommendations will not be directly addressed because “analysis has shown that they will be: addressed through other external recommendations or broader initiatives; or addressed by leveraging existing processes and structures or legislative changes”
Those seven recommendations are: #46, #49, #70, #72, #73, #89, #90, and #97
The Minister’s Advisory Panel on Systemic Racism and Discrimination Report
For the exact same reason as the Fish recommendations the Department/ CAF will not address, there are four recommendations from this report that are now “closed”: #4.4, #7.1, #8.2, and #13.1
The Independent External Comprehensive Review (aka, the Arbour Report)
The National Apology Advisory Committee Report
In total, this includes 194 recommendations “prioritized for implementation, focusing on meeting the underlying intent and spirit of each recommendation.:
I was wondering if the Deschamps Report would be included, but the CIP anticipates that question by arguing that its “recommendations were either addressed through more recent reports, or they have already been implemented.” I would need to refresh myself on the Deschamps report to assess whether the second part of that statement is true, but it is true that three of those reports have either reiterated Deschamps’ recommendations or offered an alternative approach. Later on (not in this post as I am heading to Fredericton this am and I am editing this at 6:45 am) I’ll have a look at which aspect made it through, and what other ones have been rejected/ abandoned.
The Timeline
The plan is broken down into four phases, spanning from 2023 to 2028
Phase 1 encompasses 53 recommendations put in place by December 2023.
Implemented recommendations:
Arbour: 1-2, 7-9, 12-13, 15-17, 27, 32, 41-45, 47-48;
Fish: 29, 39, 41-43, 46, 49, 65-66, 70-73, 89-90, 93-94, 97, 99
Advisory Panel: 1.2, 1.4, 2.1-2.5, 4.1, 4.4, 6.1-6.4, 7.1, 8.1-8.2, 10.2, 11.1-11.2, 13.1
National Apology Committee: 1-7.
Phase 2 aims to implement 54 recommendations by December 2024, with an emphasis on restorative initiatives, “tackling some of the recruitment and training challenges that have hindered culture change,” the establishment of a Minister’s Advisory Committee. They aim to fully implement all recommendations from the National Apology Advisory Committee Report by then.
Arbour: 3, 10-11, 14, 18-19, 24-25, 29-30, 36, 40, 46
Fish: 5, 17-18, 35, 44, 47-48, 69, 86-88, 92, 96, 98, 100-101, 105-107
Advisory Panel: 1.1, 1.3, 3.1-3.4, 4.2-4.3, 4.5, 5.1-5.3, 7.2-7.4, 9.1, 10.1, 10.3, 12.1-12.3
National Apology Committee: 8
Phase 3 will focus on putting in place 43 recommendations by December 2025 and the implementation of major policy initiatives, e.g., the grievance transformation project. The plan is to close all remaining recommendations from the Arbour and Advisory Panel on Systemic Racism and Discrimination reports.
Arbour: 4-6, 20-23, 26, 28, 31, 33-35, 37-39
Fish: 2, 6-16, 19-22, 24, 26-28, 40, 50, 67, 84-85, 91, 103-104
Advisory Panel: 3.5, 9.2
National Apology Committee: all accepted recommendations would be in place by then.
Phase 4 will centre around the military justice system and finalizing the implementation of the remaining Fish recommendations.
Arbour: all accepted recommendations would be in place by then.
Fish: 1, 3-4, 23, 25, 30-34, 36-38, 45, 51-64, 68, 74-83, 95, 105
Advisory Panel: all accepted recommendations would be in place by then.
National Apology Committee: all accepted recommendations would be in place by then.
Would You Like a Side of Monitoring with It?
The CIP commits to track and measure the effects of its activities, through the simply named CIP tracker. As expected, results “will be reported through a dedicated performance measurement framework structured by the four culture aspects.”
In addition, the External Monitor will continue her work, auditing, reviewing, and submitting her findings to the Minister of National Defence. While the focus of the External Monitor is the implementation of the Arbour report, past reports have shown that Mme Therrien is willing to go beyond to ensure the intent behind Mme Arbour’s recommendations are respected.
The plan also recognizes that the path to culture change is riddled with trial and error, and that the organization will leverage those as learning opportunities.
What You Didn’t Ask for: My Opinion
What I like
The implementation plan goes to outline the efforts pursued and outputs achieved under each aspect. It is very useful it is to see a recap of what has been achieved so far, and what the rationale behind those efforts.
We’re looking at outcomes, not just outputs. By that, I mean that we are seeing a focus on the expected/ desired results, instead of the activities needed to get there (i.e., a result-orientated plan instead of a check the box list of activities). Now, do not get me wrong; listing outputs/ activities is a critical part of an implementation plan, but if there are no results in mind, the purpose gets lost and there is no creation of the necessary structure to ensure these activities have the right result.
This document is holistic: it does not simply focus on sexual misconduct, but integrated questions of leadership (e.g., 360 assessments of leaders), well-being (e.g., the Total Health and Wellness Strategy, and, explained later on, includes also childcare strategy), ethics (e.g., the improvement of the Defence Ethics program), and trust (e.g., by undergoing a review of the complaints and grievance process).
A Minister’s Advisory Board! But see the next sections because there is more than meet the eyes, as its success will depend on many factors.
What gives me pause
While the CIP spans from 2023 to 2028, its publication date and official release are in 2024. I have some questions related to how the 2023 related implementation occurred – I am happy that there is a framework that now structures the changes, but this seems a bit like a retroactive justification of 2023 efforts.
Additionally, in 2023, I was part of the consultations on the Cultural Evolution Strategy – why was the CIP never mentioned? And where does thing sit with the CES?
It is less so the case in Annex A in which we have a good breakdown of the implementation of recommendation by phase and cultural aspect, but there seems at times that there is a little bit of “throwing any personnel policy change in the culture change bucket.” It goes back to my earlier point on retroactive justification of reforms. This is particularly salient as the Annex really zeroes in on recommendations of specific reports, while the rest of the documents underline larger changes that do not feature in these reports.
That being said, I will admit that it is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation – and I would rather they did than not (See the “what I like section”). The question here is whether those larger personnel policy changes were done with the objectives laid out in this document in mind, and that they will enjoy the same level of monitoring as the rest of the implementation targets.
There is little explanation about the dropping of the seven Fish and the four Advisory Panel on Systemic Racism and Discrimination recommendations. I would have welcome further elaboration, or the inclusion, in the Annex, of a note reading “this relates to Fish/ Advisory Panel recommendation X and we favour this approach” when it was the case.
I find the monitoring section quite thin – we do know by now how Mme Therrien operates, but we know little about (1) the CIP tracker that will be put in place (and whether or not this tracker will be made public; (2) how this tracker will differ from the now defunct Progress Tracker.
A note on the Minister’s Advisory Board: I am glad to finally see it get announced. Now, the thing with these structures are that they really depend on the Minister, the members of the Board, and the prioritization of the file. While the post-Somalia Minister’s Advisory Board can be deemed a success in its early years, a change of MND and budget cuts led to a significant cutting of its power. We also have the Minister’s Advisory Board on Gender Integration in the Canadian Forces that existed from 1990 to 1994, and many of whose recommendations have yet to be implemented. Also, as the post-Somalia history shows, a Minister’s Advisory Board cannot ensure the sustainment of reforms long term.
Not that the MND needs my advice, but here it is anyways (you cannot take the chutzpa out of the girl): proceed, but ensure that your MAB is empowered to ask you to drop the hammer if necessary – and that you, in fact, drop that proverbial hammer.
There is no discussion of authority, responsibility, and accountability; i.e., who’s driving that change and who will be held accountable if deadlines are not met? If proper monitoring does not happen? It is an issue that Mme Arbour brought up early on in her report, and I wish we had been presented with a precise structure on how the CIP will be, well, implemented, and by whom.
Parting thoughts
Do I think this CIP is a decent document that should be welcome? Absolutely. Do I also think that the devil is going to be in the actual implementation of the plan? You. Bet.
I am struggling, however, not to end this stackie like the professional Debbie Downer that I am.
I am absolutely encouraged by seeing an implementation plan with principles and a rationale for the pursuit of reforms – it is actually fantastic. But I am also very mindful that (1) a change of government is likely within the next year and that might slow down, if not halt, the implementation of this plan; (2) in the past, geopolitical reality and operational demands took over and formal gender integration (as directed by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) was pushed further down the chain of command and became the responsibility of one Major at NDHQ. Let us not make history rhyme once more.
This should not discourage the pursuit of change now. And that’s the best time to get it done.