Français	Contact Us	Help	Search	Canada Site

Speeches	Research	Submissions	Report	Consultations

Access to Information Review Task Force

Home

About Us

Advisory Committees

Links

Report 10 - Access to Information Review Task Force

CONSTRUCTING A CULTURE OF ACCESS IN THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE

Access to Information and the Public Service Work Environment – A Study Commissioned by the
Access to Information Review Task Force

Published: February 2002

Gladys L. Symons

Acknowledgements
Introduction
Organizational Culture and how to Change It
A Culture of Access in the Public Service
Options for Consideration
Conclusion
Annexes
References

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the public servants who participated in this study for giving their time and offering candid comments concerning access to information in the workplace. I would also like to thank Lise Pigeon and Alice Régnier for the excellent animation and reporting of the focus groups. My appreciation also goes to Valerie Lasher whose organizational skills, patience and good humour made the work a very pleasant experience. Finally, I would like to thank Andrée Delagrave, Chair of the ATIRTF for her enthusiasm, wise counsel and constant support for this project.

One of the key issues for the
Task Force is to identify ways
to create a culture of access.
Mme. Andrée Delagrave,
Chair, ATIRTF (2001)

I. Introduction

1. Access to Information and the Public Service Work Environment: The Study

One unique feature of public service work is the duty to administer the access to information legislation which gives Canadians the right to access information in records under the control of the Government of Canada. In August 2000, a federal Task Force was established to conduct a broad review of the legislative and administrative aspects of Access¹. As part of its mandate, the Access to Information Review Task Force is reflecting on aspects of public service culture which affect the provision of access to information for Canadians and which also influence the work environment of public servants. This focus reflects the concern of the Government of Canada to provide access to information to Canadians while at the same time ensuring a positive work environment that is stimulating, productive, supportive and respectful of public employees in the service of Canadians.

The present study was undertaken to examine ways of constructing and reinforcing a culture of access compatible with a positive and supportive work environment for public servants. The study explores how access to information affects the daily working lives of Government of Canada employees and examines how public servants see their roles and responsibilities to provide information under the Access to Information Act. The report addresses ways of building a positive work environment compatible with enhanced access to information for Canadians. The question at hand is how to construct and maintain a culture of access within the federal public service, while at the same time providing a positive work environment attractive to seasoned employees and new recruits alike.

2. Focus Groups as a Source of Information

During the month of September 2001, thirty-five participants (twenty men and fifteen women), were divided into six focus groups (two by category) of officers, managers, and assistant deputy ministers (ADMs)². During the two-hour focus group, participants were asked to share their experiences concerning Access, and were encouraged to suggest ways to facilitate the promotion of access to information in their work environment. We focused on how public servants experience the Access to Information Act rather than on specific proposals for reforming it.

It should be noted that information generated by the focus groups is qualitative in nature. The objective of the focus group as a method of data collection is to produce a number of ideas concerning the issues under scrutiny, and to develop these ideas as fully as possible, given the time-frame and group size. This report presents a wide range of perspectives and concerns regarding access to information in the Government of Canada.

3. Structure of the Report

The report is divided into five sections. Following this introduction, we examine aspects of organizational culture which are essential for developing a culture of access. The ideational and material components of culture are scrutinized, as is culture's key "routine" nature. We discuss the links between organizational culture and work identity and introduce the concept of "invisible work". These elements are discussed in terms of their significance for culture change. This theoretical discussion guides the interpretation of the data, and informs the suggestions of options for consideration. The third section of the report synthesizes and interprets the information collected during the focus groups. The nature of the culture of access is discussed, including the roles and responsibilities of public servants, and the problem of providing access as "invisible work". The fourth section of the report offers options for consideration by the Government of Canada for constructing and sustaining a culture of access in the public service. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of routinizing the means of practicing access, while accepting as self-evident its goals and incorporating the two into the organizational identity of public servants.

Return to Table of Contents

II. Organizational Culture and how to Change It

For managers and policy makers alike, the major practical interest in the concept of organizational culture is how to control and change it. After a quarter century of discourse and study (Symons, 1992), suffice it to say that changing culture is not as simple as oftentimes suggested. This does not mean that culture change is impossible: To achieve it, however, requires addressing the concept of organizational culture at its roots.

To begin, we ask: "What are the basic elements of organizational culture, the essential components that define it?" A common definition describes culture as the shared practices and principles of a group. Culture comprises particular ways of acting, thinking, communicating and feeling, as well as the core values, principles, beliefs and symbols shared by members of a group over time. This definition, however, omits some critical elements of culture that not only define it, but also are necessary to change it.

1. Ideational Culture and Material Culture

While keeping in mind that organizational culture differs in some important ways from the sociological concept of culture (Symons, 1988), we draw upon the similarities of the two notions for the purposes of the present analysis. Like culture in general, organizational culture can be recognized by both its ideational and material elements. Ideational culture refers to ideas, symbols, values, norms, principles, beliefs, ways of feeling, thinking and acting, as well as a stock of knowledge and a world view constructed by a group which, over time become convention. Material culture comprises the material products of a culture, as well as the tools used to construct the artefacts in question. Material culture in public organizations includes the physical buildings of the bureaucracy, plus the tools available for public servants to do their job, such as offices, desks, files, paper, pens, information systems, telephones, faxes, computers and the like.

2. Organizational Culture as Routine

Organizational culture, like culture in general, is socially constructed over time. It arises out of a process of institutionalization whereby typified responses to typified action becomes "sedimented" as routine (Berger and Luckmann, 1967). Culture consists of taken-for-granted routines of everyday life. The "taken-for-grantedness" of culture, its "assumed" quality, is both its base and its strength. Culture is that which we do not question, it is as things are and as they should be. It is not only "the way we do things around here", it is the "real" way, the legitimate way of acting, feeling and generally seeing the world. There is no need to question such practices, for, being a part of culture, they are accepted as legitimate. Routine needs no explanation nor justification.

3. Organizational Culture and Identity Construction

Culture fashions identities, which are generated through participation in and internalization of cultural norms and values. Among the multiple social identities of our complex society, the one that interests us here is constructed in the work setting. Organizational identities emerge from participation in organizational cultures. When organizational members have the tools at their disposal to do the job, when they adopt the work habits and daily routines of the department, when they embrace organizational beliefs, values and principles, when they are encouraged and supported by superiors, they come to identify with the work group and embrace an identity congruent with the organizational culture. Organizational identities are constructed and supported through daily work routines valued by employees and superiors alike. The idea of valuing work brings us to the question of "invisible work" in the bureaucracy.

4. "Real" Work vs "Invisible Work"

An important part of the self-evident nature of working life and organizational identity is the value employees (and their superiors) place on their work. This value is reflected in the shared belief that during their daily routines, public servants will be assured the time, tools and training necessary to do the job. The tasks associated with the position are specified in the job description, and the incumbent is evaluated on a mutually approved performance level. For their labour, the workers are paid a fair wage. This description of paid work is taken-for-granted as reality: It is neither questioned, nor subject to debate. Valued work is visible, legitimate and endorsed by superiors. Employees takes pride in a job well done and this satisfaction empowers them, boosts their self-esteem and reinforces their organizational identity. It's a win-win situation for both the organization and the employees.

Contrast this picture with work that is executed without recognition, without satisfaction, and without reward. The labour is not valued, not "real" work. It is invisible. Invisible work takes time and energy, both emotional and physical. It attacks workers' self-esteem, disempowers them and renders problematic their organizational identity. Employees experience their work as devalued labour. Invisible work eats into "real work" time, stealing valuable time from legitimate responsibilities, i.e. those tasks for which workers are evaluated and paid a (hopefully) fair wage. Invisible work creates pressure, generates stress, resentment, frustration, feelings of injustice and generalized fatigue. Workers feel trapped and powerless, for both the invisible work and their regular tasks must be performed in the time allotted to do the legitimate job alone. All in all, invisible work has a negative impact on both employees and their work environment.

5. Changing Organizational Culture

In order to construct and support (or modify, build upon or change) an organizational culture, four important issues must be addressed. Both ideational and material aspects of the organizational culture need examination, assuring that they are firmly anchored in routine. Moreover, organizational identity must be constructed on a firm base of valued, legitimated and fully recognized daily work habits. To construct or modify an organizational culture then, practices and principles must be routinized and legitimated as taken-for-granted activities, work routines that become an unquestioned part of the daily reality of organizational life.