1989 Report of the Auditor General of Canada

Main Points

8.1 During our follow-up we noted improvements in policies and practices and, in some respects, significant differences -- both positive and negative --in the attitudes and perceptions of members of the Management Category compared with 1987. For example, decisions regarding pay in 1987 and 1988, increased flexibility granted to deputy heads in relation to salary administration, semi-annual Assistant Deputy Minister updates, creation of the Canadian Centre for Management Development and visits to regions by heads of central agencies were seen by the Executive levels -- and to a lesser extent by the Senior Management level -- as positive and constructive (paragraphs 8.9 to 8.12, 8.46).

8.2 Although there have been improvements in practices such as job evaluation and staffing, many of the problems identified in 1987, notably in relation to the definition and composition of the Category, salary compression/inversion, human resource planning and career development and the accountability framework, continue to exist. In addition, pay for performance is still a major source of dissatisfaction. Efforts are being made to address elements of these issues. In some of the areas examined, the ability to make further progress is limited due to the existing legislation and thus depends on legislative change (8.13 to 8.89).

8.3 Departments, however, believe that they are still unduly constrained in the efficient and effective management of their management teams. Perceived constraints include the definition of "management personnel" and the lack of sufficient flexibility and delegated authority (8.19, 8.90 to 8.93).

Introduction

8.4 Our 1987 audit of the Management Category examined policies, programs and practices related to the 4,300 members in the Executive (EX) and Senior Management (SM) groups in the federal public service at that time.

8.5 Our report contained observations and recommendations on the definition and composition of the Management Category, job evaluation, compensation and salary administration, performance management, resourcing, and the accountability framework for the management of programs related to the Category.

8.6 We found deficiencies that, taken as a whole, were working against key objectives in the creation of the Management Category such as the concept of an identifiable and cohesive managerial cadre.

Scope

8.7 In the follow-up we focussed on the changes that have taken place in Management Category policies and programs in the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Public Service Commission and the Privy Council Office since our audit, as well as changes in the practices in six departments.

8.8 Individual interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with EXs and SMs in the six departments to assess attitudes and perceptions of managers about Management Category policies, programs and practices.

Observations

8.9 In conducting our follow-up we noted a number of initiatives undertaken since our 1987 audit which relate to the management of the Management Category.

8.10 Included are projects conducted under the direction or auspices of the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Committee of Senior Officials (COSO) and central agencies. These projects have focussed on such topics as values, managerial attitudes, the role of the public service manager and internal communications. Some of these projects have in turn contributed to other service-wide and departmental activities.

8.11 Other examples of initiatives are the creation of the Canadian Centre for Management Development, the institution of semi-annual Assistant Deputy Minister updates, the publication by the Treasury Board Secretariat of the Manager's Magazine and visits to regions by heads of central agencies.

8.12 Those interviewed, particularly at the senior levels of the Management Category, welcomed these initiatives.

(Exhibit 8.1 is not available)

Definition and Composition of the Management Category: Progress, but Some Fundamental Issues Remain

8.13 Among the main deficiencies identified in 1987 was the lack of clear and consistent definitions of the Management Category and of "management personnel". This affected the degree to which people identified with the Category and management.

8.14 We found that, since the audit, and following a recommendation by the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation (AGEC), the Treasury Board Secretariat has returned (deconverted) 122 Management Category positions to their former occupational groups. This action has been greeted positively by some departments but with mixed feelings by others and by some of the individuals affected. It has alleviated some pay problems. These deconversions were the result of pressures from various sources, or of pay problems, rather than the result of a formal review of the concept and definition of the Management Category as recommended in our audit.

8.15 The Treasury Board Secretariat has undertaken a review of the close to 1,000 "Management Category Equivalent" positions -- positions with pay rates equivalent to or higher than those of many Management Category personnel -- to determine whether they should continue to exist as "equivalent" or be integrated into the Management Category. Some 50 percent of the incumbents are excluded from collective bargaining units and thus are eligible for consideration for inclusion in the Management Category. The Treasury Board Secretariat is also reviewing the "Management Category Complement", the control used to limit the number of Management Category and "equivalent" positions, in order to clarify its definition and simplify its administration. Workplans indicate a completion of these reviews in the fall of 1989.

8.16 The Treasury Board Secretariat has not formally addressed our 1987 recommendation to determine the extent to which the Management Category constitutes a service-wide and/or departmental resource. However, we found that, as noted in 1987, opinion is moving to a consensus that those at the Executive levels 4 and 5 constitute a service-wide resource. The Public Service Commission has created a Secretariat for a service-wide approach to planning for and staffing Executive level 4 and 5 positions -- Assistant Deputy Minister and equivalent. Although it is not a formal policy, Management Category personnel up to and including the EX 3 level are considered by departments as primarily a departmental resource.

8.17 Despite these changes, the Management Category continues to be composed of policy advisers, specialists and managers and to include only part of what most departments surveyed consider to be their management team. Some departments indicate that the Management Category represents less than one third of their "management personnel".

8.18 This situation persists because some of the fundamental issues identified in our 1987 audit still exist. For example, the Treasury Board Secretariat has not totally resolved the issue of which occupational groups should permit people to progress in their careers and salaries in parallel to those in the Management Category -- "dual streams". Furthermore, there is still a debate as to whether the concept of the Management Category should be extended to include some, or all, of the thousands of positions and individuals with managerial or supervisory responsibilities at the lower levels.

8.19 Some Treasury Board Secretariat officials and many of the departments surveyed still see the need for a better definition and identification of "management personnel". They believe that a certain number of individuals with significant management responsibilities should be excluded from collective bargaining and be clearly identified as part of management. They consider the current definition of "persons employed in a managerial capacity" -- for the purposes of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) -- as being too narrow, and the number of managerial exclusions from collective bargaining too few to ensure proper management representation, especially in field or regional offices. They are of the opinion that, as a result, they cannot create a strong sense of identity among their managers.

8.20 Despite announcements in January 1987 that the government was seeking a better definition of "persons employed in a managerial capacity", there has been no change so far. This issue was first raised in the 1974 Report on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service (the Finkelman Report).

8.21 Resolution of the managerial exclusion problem requires an amendment to the PSSRA. Exclusion from collective bargaining is the first criterion for consideration for inclusion in the Management Category; and it is also a first step toward a more clearly identifiable management team.

8.22 In reviewing the concept of the Management Category, consideration should be given to the fact that various surveys, including our own in 1987, have indicated that within the Management Category, as it currently exists, people at the SM level appear to have a different set of values and a different management culture than those at the EX levels. Their degree of satisfaction with the Management Category and some of its programs is much lower. There is a feeling of alienation, particularly but not exclusively in departments with scientific and professional populations. Some SMs believe they have been uprooted from the top of their former occupational group to find themselves at the bottom of a category in a group that has only one level. Their specialized qualifications, and the requirements of many positions, give them limited access to opportunities for advancement to the Executive level(s) or even lateral transfers.

8.23 Resolution of these issues regarding the definition and composition of the Management Category and of "management personnel" is necessary for the achievement of a strong and cohesive management team, both service-wide and at the departmental level. Furthermore, it could make it easier to control the number of management positions and to clarify access to mandatory management training, benefit entitlements and perquisites. More importantly, it would clearly identify those accountable for results.

8.24 The Treasury Board should review and clarify the definition and composition of the Management Category and of "management personnel" at the service-wide and departmental levels.

8.25 The Treasury Board should also review and reassess Management Category policies, programs and practices to ensure that they are consistent with the resulting definition.

Job Evaluation Practices: Improving Substantially

8.26 In our 1987 audit we observed that there was an inconsistent application of the Management Category Position (job) Evaluation Plan. Consistency is critical because job evaluation results are used in making salary comparisons with other sectors of the economy. Salary survey results are an important factor in determining compensation for the lower levels of the Management Category.

8.27 In 1987, job evaluation standards were incomplete; specialist training, management training and participation, resources devoted to job evaluation and information systems were inadequate; and there was no monitoring, review or audit.

8.28 These deficiencies made it inappropriate to delegate classification authority for Management Category positions, as intended at the time of the creation of the Management Category.

8.29 Substantial efforts and improvements have been made in job evaluation practices since our audit. Some of the initiatives undertaken by the Treasury Board Secretariat, however, had not been completed at the conclusion of our follow-up.

Benchmarks being reintroduced

8.30 The Treasury Board Secretariat is developing a new comprehensive set of benchmarks which it intends to introduce in the fall for use in the evaluation of Management Category positions. At present, the Secretariat is using "temporary" benchmarks. These have not been made available to departments; thus they are still without an essential element of the method used for evaluating Management Category positions.

Job evaluation specialists being trained

8.31 The Treasury Board Secretariat has taken measures to ensure that job evaluation specialists are trained in the use of the job evaluation plan for the Management Category. As of 1 July 1989, almost 150 job evaluation specialists had received training.

Still little management participation and training

8.32 The participation of managers in job evaluation is a fundamental principle of the Treasury Board's policy on job evaluation.

8.33 We found that there is still limited participation and training of managers in the job evaluation process for Management Category positions. In our opinion, the lack of management participation contributes to the continuing but unnecessary departmental practice of writing long, wordy job descriptions, which often are not sufficiently challenged. This weakens the credibility of the system. For example, there are managers in regions who think that the evaluation plan, and those doing the evaluating, do not always take into consideration all the complexities of their jobs compared with policy jobs and do not know the work as performed. Many managers admit, however, that they are not familiar with the system used.

8.34 In one of the six departments we examined, managers participate and have been trained in the Management Category job evaluation process. The reported result has been a better understanding of the relationship between organizational structures and jobs. There has also been a greater acceptance of, and satisfaction with, the job evaluation results.

Delays claimed to be reduced significantly, but high volume of classification activities

8.35 The Treasury Board Secretariat resource allocation problem observed in our 1987 audit has been partly resolved through reorganization. The service provided to departments is less reliant on transient expertise and, according to the Treasury Board Secretariat, delays reported in 1987 have been reduced by half. Controls are in place to ensure a steadier work flow and a faster turnaround time.

8.36 The Treasury Board Secretariat, however, indicated that the yearly volume of organization and classification activities for some 4,400 Management Category positions is between 1,500 and 2,000. According to experts, this is much higher than the volume that would be considered normal in the private sector and, in our opinion, it threatens the viability of the current approach to job evaluation. Furthermore, because of this high volume, evaluators cannot always devote enough time and attention to each job.

Information system: better, but could be further improved

8.37 The Treasury Board Secretariat has initiated projects to review and improve the system and the quality of information on Management Category job evaluation results. There have been improvements in the quality and accuracy of the data at the Treasury Board Secretariat level but the information has not yet been compared with that of departments, and the system in place does not yet permit the utilization of all the control features of the method used to evaluate Management Category positions. For example, we were informed that the system cannot produce an aggregate list of reporting relationships which would permit the monitoring of classification "creep" over time and the identification of opportunities for "delayering" -- that is, reducing the number of management levels. The Treasury Board Secretariat is taking steps to further improve the information systems and the quality of information.

Audit of job evaluation shows substantial improvements

8.38 The Treasury Board Secretariat has instituted a periodic audit of job evaluation activities and results.

8.39 The first audit report indicates a definite improvement in practices for jobs evaluated since our 1987 audit. Based on the sample of positions audited, it appears that the number of inconsistencies has been significantly reduced --from over 40 percent in 1987 to 15 percent -- while 10 percent of the audited positions are possibly misclassified upward or downward. According to the consultants who carried out the audit, these results -- given the high volume of activity -- are as good as and possibly better than those found in private sector organizations using the same job evaluation system.

8.40 The Treasury Board Secretariat expects the consistency problem noted in our 1987 audit to be corrected over time, given the very high level of job evaluation activities for Management Category positions. However, the volume of job evaluation activity varies greatly from department to department and some jobs may not be reviewed for a long time. As there is no plan to ensure that all positions are reviewed over a reasonable, specified timeframe, the "health" of the system cannot be fully assessed. Because of the direct link between job evaluation results and the determination of Management Category pay, an assessment of the health of the system is critical.

8.41 The Treasury Board should continue its efforts to identify and address deficiencies in the Management Category job evaluation process and practices and, within a reasonable specified timeframe, ensure that all positions are reviewed.

8.42 It should consider, where appropriate and feasible, increased management participation and training in the job evaluation process.

Salary Administration and Compensation Practices: Less Salary Compression/Inversion, but the Issue not Entirely Solved

8.43 In 1987 we reported that salary compression/inversion was a prevalent problem in Management Category compensation.

8.44 Salary compression occurs when the salary range of a subordinate seriously overlaps the salary range of his or her superior. Salary inversion occurs when the maximum salary of a subordinate exceeds the maximum salary rate of his or her superior.

8.45 Salary compression/inversion was causing dissatisfaction and making it difficult to attract personnel to certain jobs either from lower ranks or from outside the public service. It had also resulted in ad hoc administrative practices such as salary protection and lump sum payments to keep pace with compensation of other occupational groups -- including collectively bargained groups.

8.46 The situation has improved since our 1987 audit. The Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service (AGEC) made salary recommendations in 1987 and 1988, all of which have been accepted. In its June 1988 report, the AGEC stated that salary inversions had for the most part been resolved, and that salary compression had been brought under control. In addition, deputy heads now have some flexibility to determine salary on promotions, and in certain circumstances transfers.

8.47 Our follow-up in the six departments indicates that salary compression/inversion is not the major issue it was in 1987, particularly with the EX group. At the SM level, however, the salary compression/ inversion issue remains, though less acute than in 1987. For example, some departments with SM positions with professional and scientific profiles are still experiencing salary compression/inversion problems.

8.48 In our opinion, salary compression/inversion situations continue to exist partly because the Treasury Board Secretariat has not addressed some of the issues identified in our 1987 audit.

8.49 In addition to the unresolved issue of determining who should be in the Management Category, there is the problem of the remaining inconsistencies in job evaluation results.

8.50 Furthermore, there is still no common basis for comparing compensation levels in the Management Category and those of other occupational groups, including collectively bargained groups -- with other sectors of the economy. As mentioned in 1987, there are fundamental differences in the methodology and process used for compensation surveys for the Management Category and, where available, those used for other occupational groups.

8.51 Unless the definition and composition of the Management Category is clarified and the level of inconsistencies in job evaluation results is brought down to a reasonable level service-wide, and until there is a common basis for comparing Management Category and other public service compensation with that paid in other sectors of the economy, the issue of salary compression/inversion is likely to recur. As stated in 1987, although it is important for Management Category compensation to pass the test of comparison with other sectors of the economy, it is equally important, if not more so, that internal relativity with other occupational groups be respected.

8.52 The Treasury Board should take further steps to improve relativity between Management Category compensation and that of senior levels of other occupational groups, and that of other sectors of the economy.

Performance Management Practices

Pay for performance: a major source of dissatisfaction

8.53 In our 1987 audit we reported that within the Management Category satisfaction was generally high with the performance appraisal process but that there was general dissatisfaction with "pay for performance".

8.54 We found that the ceiling imposed on the total number of "Superior" and "Outstanding" performance ratings -- which are used in determining pay for performance -- and other aspects of the policy have created an even higher degree of frustration than in 1987.

8.55 The current Treasury Board pay for performance policy and its application by departments contributes to questionable practices. To varying degrees in the six departments surveyed there was evidence of the following:

• deciding on performance ratings without documenting or formally reviewing performance;
• documenting performance and deciding on a performance rating without input or discussion with the employee being evaluated;
• rotating "Superior" performance ratings among employees for reasons other than performance;
• granting two ratings: one used in determining pay (generally lower) and the other for performance assessment purposes;
• allocating a greater proportion of "Superior" ratings to the senior levels, thus limiting the possibility of recognizing or financially rewarding equivalent or better performance at the lower levels of the Management Category;
• as a departmental policy, refusing to consider or acknowledge "Superior" performance, whatever the performance, for people seconded to other organizations, or participating in task forces, etc., to give more to those who were with the department during the same period;
• failure or inability to recognize special or exemplary contributions of employees not rated "Superior" or "Outstanding".
• granting merit increases or bonuses without input from, or consultation with, the immediate superior of the employee being rewarded.

8.56 Another significant issue affecting the credibility of pay for performance is the perception that the policy and administrative guidelines do not adequately recognize, or provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate, the vast differences in the environment, philosophy, culture, nature of the work, management style and particular circumstances prevailing within departments.

8.57 The questionable practices and the perceived inadequacies of the policy have a detrimental effect on the credibility of the pay for performance program, notably among those at the lower levels of the Management Category.

8.58 Most of the six departments we surveyed believe it should be possible to develop pay for performance practices that are flexible and more compatible with their particular culture and environment. In that context, they see the Treasury Board Secretariat's role changed to creating a framework fostering better pay for performance practices rather than prescribing, controlling and administering. They believe these changes could greatly enhance the credibility of pay for performance.

More awareness of the importance of solving performance problems, but legislative constraints still exist

8.59 In 1987 we observed that performance problems in the Management Category were known but were not always appropriately addressed. There were certain practices that led to the transfer of responsibility for handling performance problems to other departments or central agencies like the Public Service Commission.

8.60 In our follow-up we found that, although the performance ratings "Satisfactory" and "Unsatisfactory" are still almost never used, in 1988 there was an increase in the overall utilization of "separation agreements", including financial incentives, as permitted under Treasury Board's separation policy for members of the Management Category whose performance is deemed not entirely satisfactory.

8.61 There is also a perception at the top levels of the Management Category that budgetary restraints, coupled with an increased sensitivity to this issue, are resulting in more attention being given to solving performance problems. This view is not always shared at the lowest levels of the Management Category.

8.62 We found, however, that "brokerage activity" on the part of the Public Service Commission -- i.e. the placement of Management Category personnel -- is as high as it was in 1987 and that the negative perceptions about the performance of some of the people on the "brokerage list" still prevail. This may be an indication that some transferring of responsibilities for handling performance problems is still going on.

8.63 The problems created by the existence of legislative constraints raised in our 1987 audit -- notably the multiplicity of legislative and other provisions each with its separate redress mechanisms, and the fact that only extreme cases can be dealt with under the current legislation -- have not been addressed.

8.64 The Treasury Board Secretariat informed us that it had initiated a review of the Management Category appraisal and pay for performance policies. At the conclusion of our follow-up, position papers and recommendations were being prepared for consideration by the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation (AGEC) and the Treasury Board Senior Advisory Committee (TBSAC).

8.65 In its review of the appraisal and pay for performance policies and guidelines, the Treasury Board should recognize:

• the differences in nature and context among the different departments;
• the beneficial effects of involving departments in the design, development and implementation of more effective pay for performance practices and of improved ways to handle performance problems; as well as
• the need for flexibility.

Resourcing Practices: Some Improvements but More Required

8.66 In 1987, we identified a number of deficiencies in resourcing practices -- staffing, human resource planning and career development and counselling activities -- for the Management Category.

Staffing: some positions being advertised, but more visibility and openness wanted

8.67 We observed in 1987 that staffing for Management Category positions was a relatively closed process, with limited or no information available on vacancies, processes used or resulting appointments.

8.68 In July 1988, the Public Service Commission published and distributed information on its staffing process for the Management Category, and began advertising within the public service some vacant Management Category positions. As of 31 July 1989 a total of 334 vacancies had been advertised. A significant proportion of these -- close to 60 percent -- were at the SM level (Exhibit 8.2). Most members of the Management Category interviewed were aware of these advertisements.

(Exhibit 8.2 is not available)

8.69 The Public Service Commission reports that advertising these vacancies has not unduly slowed the staffing process and that it has resulted in the identification of a number of good candidates and a number of appointments of individuals who would otherwise not have been considered.

8.70 The Public Service Commission also publishes monthly, and distributes to departments, a list of its appointments. This information is not always adequately circulated by the departments.

8.71 Close to 35 percent of all Management Category appointments -- deployments -- are made by deputy heads under the Management Category Exclusion Approval Order (MCEAO). However, members still have little awareness of the openings, the process used, or the resulting appointments.

8.72 Persons interviewed in our follow-up perceived the Public Service Commission's advertising of some vacancies as a first step toward better understanding and increased visibility and openness of the staffing process. They did not, however, consider these efforts adequate to ensure a sufficient understanding of the processes used.

Human resource planning and career development: improvements required

8.73 In 1987 we observed that human resource planning and career development practices varied greatly among departments and involved mostly management at the Deputy Minister (DM) or Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) levels, often with little or no input from individuals or even from their immediate superior(s).

8.74 The creation, in 1988, of a Secretariat in the Public Service Commission involved in the staffing of Executive level 4 and 5 positions (paragraph 8.16) has resulted in an increased service-wide sensitivity to the importance of developing people with DM potential, leading to improved career development practices for employees at those levels.

8.75 We have also found that the Public Service Commissioners are more directly involved in determining staffing strategies for Management Category positions that are staffed by the Commission's resourcing officers, to ensure that individual needs and public service plans and objectives are taken into consideration.

8.76 There was evidence of improved succession planning and of a greater awareness of the need for improved planning practices in some of the departments we surveyed. However, human resource planning and career development practices, where they exist, are still viewed with some skepticism. In some cases, they continue to involve mostly DMs and ADMs, and are focussed on "special interest groups" or on developing people with high potential. Many people interviewed during our follow-up were uninformed about the processes in place and even questioned the existence of such practices in their departments since they claimed not to be formally consulted or asked about their career plans or the potential of their subordinates for Management Category positions.

8.77 Public Service Commission data indicate that the average age of the Management Category population is rising faster than that of the rest of the public service. In the light of this fact, and of increased career plateauing and its potential effect on motivation, there is a need for substantial improvement in, and innovative approaches to, human resource planning and career development for all Management Category personnel.

More counselling, but regions still have limited access

8.78 In our 1987 audit we observed that Management Category personnel, notably those in the regions, had no, or very limited, access to Public Service Commission counselling.

8.79 The Public Service Commission reports that it has substantially increased the number of career counselling sessions it offers, although direct access in the regions is still limited.

8.80 The Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and departments should improve resourcing practices to ensure that:

• career interests and aspirations of members of the Management Category are, and are seen to be, considered in service-wide and departmental planning that addresses the requirements for an experienced and motivated managerial cadre;
• information is communicated and accessible on the various processes used and, where appropriate, additional opportunities are provided for input, participation and competition.

Accountability for the Management Category

Roles and responsibilities more complex, but collaboration and co-operation have improved

8.81 In 1987 we reported that the accountability framework for managing the Management Category was weakened by the division of roles and responsibilities among central agencies and departments. Without a focal point, visible leadership and a forum for discussing and resolving problems, it was difficult to have an integrated approach to managing the Management Category and its programs.

8.82 Our 1987 recommendation on clarification of roles and responsibilities in relation to the Management Category and its programs has not been addressed by the Treasury Board.

8.83 Two major changes related to the roles and responsibilities for management of the Management Category and its programs have occurred since our 1987 audit.

8.84 The first change is the creation of the Canadian Centre for Management Development (CCMD), reporting to the Deputy Prime Minister.

8.85 The creation of the Centre has been seen by many as an indication of the government's commitment to improving management in the public service. Legislation which would clarify its mandate and accountability has been tabled in the House.

8.86 The second change is the increasingly visible leadership provided by the Clerk of the Privy Council -- whose role is not defined in legislation -- assisted by the Committee of Senior Officials (COSO), in managing the Management Category, and in initiating changes and influencing and co-ordinating the efforts of central agencies.

8.87 In our opinion, in the light of existing legislation and in the absence of a clear definition of "management personnel", roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for managing the Management Category and some of its programs are unclear.

8.88 Improved working relationships have permitted central agencies and departments to address some of the issues facing the Management Category. In our opinion, current working arrangements, however, do not provide the assurance, stability and continuity that a formal change in legislation would, nor do they permit exacting accountability for results. Because of the fragmentation of roles and responsibilities due to a complex legislative and administrative framework, an overall concerted strategy to address the concerns of both departments and members of the Management Category is much more difficult to develop, let alone implement.

8.89 Some people interviewed in the six departments surveyed have questioned whether the Public Service Commission can adequately protect the rights of individuals under the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) and account to Parliament for the application of the Act to Management Category appointments while, at the same time, responding to management needs and being directly involved in human resource planning and career development initiatives.

Despite requests from departments for more authority, little progress

8.90 One of the objectives in creating the Management Category was to provide greater flexibility to Deputy Ministers to manage, deploy and develop their management teams. In 1987 we noted that the original plan to delegate classification had not been carried out. We also noted that the authority delegated to DMs to deploy has provided less flexibility than envisaged at the time of the creation of the Management Category, partly due to the "Management Category Complement" -- the control on the number and use of Management Category and "equivalent" positions.

8.91 Since the audit there has been some increase in the authority delegated to deputy heads for Management Category salary administration and other administrative matters, and increased flexibility in the use of the "Management Category Complement".

8.92 At the conclusion of our follow-up, despite departmental requests under the Increased Ministerial Authority and Accountability (IMAA) initiative, no additional authority for staffing and no significant authority for classifying Management Category positions had been granted to deputy heads.

8.93 There is a strong desire in some departments for more significant authority for the management of their managerial cadre within an improved accountability framework. There is also the perception that some Management Category programs, such as pay for performance, are over-administered but under-managed.

Monitoring, audit and accounting for results: little improvement

8.94 With the exception of the audit of job evaluation results instituted by the Treasury Board Secretariat, there have been no significant improvements in the monitoring, review, audit or accounting for results by central agencies and departments, for the use of delegated authority for the Management Category and its programs.

8.95 The government should ensure that the allocation of roles and responsibilities for the Management Category and its programs provides for:

• a focal point for clear and visible leadership and direction;
• a planned and co-ordinated approach to providing to deputy heads the flexibility and authority necessary to manage their management teams efficiently and effectively; and
• improved accountability for results.