1

If I only knew then what I know now:

Towards pedagogy and curriculum for training political staff

A paper prepared for the

Canadian Political Science Association (CPSA)

Annual Conference, Ryerson University, May 30-June 1, 2017

Peter P. Constantinou, Ph.D.

Assistant Lecturer,

School of Public Policy and Administration

York University

Draft for presentation only – please do not quote without permission of the author

Comments on the paper are welcome at peter.constantinou@rogers.com

2

If I only knew then what I know now: Towards pedagogy and curriculum for

training political staff

Peter P. Constantinou, Ph.D.

Assistant Lecturer,

School of Public Policy and Administration

York University

Key words: Political staff, cabinet minister’s staff training and orientation, political acuity

Abstract

Over time, the structure/function of a typical Minister’s office has evolved from a couple of very close

advisors to a large and very specialized group of individuals, often numbering between 10-20 people,

each with very different functions (Dutil and Constantinou, 2015) While some research has looked at

some aspects of these functions (Craft, 2015), we lack a more comprehensive understanding of their

roles and responsibilities, and even less is known about what we can do to better prepare them for their

roles and for success.

Recent scandals involving political staff highlight the need to better equip them for their roles and

responsibilities within government. Further, if the problems that society faces are becoming even more

challenging, the only way governments will be able to tackle these “wicked problems” is to work

efficiently and effectively. One of the key ways forward is to better understand the training and

education needs of political staff, and to develop ideas about curriculum and pedagogy for orienting and

on-boarding.

This study uses data collected by the author from 500 face-to-face interviews with current and former

political staff working in a Minister’s office at the provincial level in Ontario between 1985-2015. This

includes 50 interviews with representatives of all the 10 major functions in a typical Minister’s office –

chiefs of staff, policy advisors, constituency assistants, caucus/MPP liaison, communications advisor,

press secretary, speech writers, legislative assistants/issues managers, operations managers, schedulers,

general and special assistants, representing all three political parties.

The study asks the participants to reflect on their experiences, areas for improvement in knowledge and

performance in their role and seeks their ideas about what education and training is necessary and

forms it ought to take. The author offers some recommendations about developing best practices for

pedagogy and curriculum development, so that we might consider approaches to orientation/on-

boarding, and ongoing professional development of political staff.

3

If I only knew then what I know now: Towards pedagogy

and curriculum for training political staff

I thought I knew what I was getting into, but as it turns out, I didn’t have a

clue. It was both way better and way worse than I could have ever

imagined. If only I got a mulligan and could do the whole thing over!

Chief of Staff, 2015

As we study and learn more about the structure and function of government, we quickly realize

that we have learned a great deal about the civil service and the elected politicians, but that we

know the least about political staff. Some work has tried to shed light on these roles and

responsibilities (Craft, 2015), but we do not have a comprehensive understanding of who they

are and what they do. Recently we have learned of a number of scandals involving political staff

that has caused us to think that we need to learn more and do more to understand their roles

and responsibilities.

Recently, Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner Lynn Morrison called for mandatory training

(Morrison, p. 18). She wrote, “I found that there is a glaring need to professionalize the hiring,

training and appraisal of the work of ministers’ staff.” (Morrison, p.3) Esselment (2013) has

even called for a code of conduct for political staff, in response to a number of scandals.

Objectives and Research Questions

In order to better understand the experiences of political staff, and understand their

perspectives on the education and training needs, this study employed a series of questions to

guide the interviews and data collection. They are listed below:

• One thing that you really weren’t ready for?

• What did you feel you needed to improve in your role?

• What position/functions within the Minister’s office functioned well?

• What positions/functions within the Minister’s office needed improvement?

• What training do you feel would benefit you in your position?

Thesis

Political staff perform an increasingly important role in our system of government, yet they

receive little to no orientation and training. This paper will argue that in order for government

4

to work effectively, to prepare them for success and to minimize political-administrative

conflict, political staff should receive training in five particular areas, each with equal

importance:

1. Orientation and on-boarding – Introduction to government and public service

2. Legislation, policy, guidelines

3. Role-specific orientation and training

4. Public sector core competencies

5. Guiding principles/ethics

6. Ministry specific orientation

Methodology

This study focuses on political staff who worked in a Minister’s office in the Ontario Public

Service. A convenient (stratified) non-random sample of 500 current and former political staff

who have served in a Minister’s office between 1985-2015 were invited to participate in face-

to-face interviews. This approach ensures that all three major political parties were

represented, as well as big, medium and small ministries, including both line ministries and

central agencies. Interviews were conducted with people who held the following positions:

• Chief of Staff

• Director of Communications

• Senior Communications Advisor/Communications Advisor

• Press Secretary

• Director of Policy

• Senior Policy Advisor/Policy Advisor

• Director of Operations

• Senior Operations Advisors/Operations Advisors

• MPP Liaison/Caucus Liaison

• Legislative Assistant/Issues Manager

For each of the 10 positions included in this study, 50 people were interviewed – 20 Progressive

Conservatives, 20 Liberals and 10 New Democrats. There was an 84 per cent response rate,

virtually the same across all three political parties. Finding political staff to participate was not

difficult.

An interview guide of five open-ended questions was prepared by the researcher so as to

engage the key informants in a conversation about their experiences and advice regarding their

5

time working in a Minister’s office. This guide helped to frame the discussion and allowed the

informants to provide their own sense of their roles, responsibilities and education and training

needs. Interviews were conducted either in person or on the phone or video conferenced

during the two-month period from April to May 2016.

The conclusions and recommendations are based on both a literature review and the responses

of the key informants.

Limitations

This study focuses solely on Ontario, and on political staff in Ministers’ offices, and did not

include those who work in the offices of parliamentary assistants or members of provincial

parliament (MPPs). While the study could have been expanded to include other political staff,

such a limitation is reasonable start to the exploration of this important topic. Future research

should consider expanding this cohort of respondents as well as a comparative consideration of

political staff in other provinces and jurisdictions.

Literature Review

We know very little about political staff in Canada, as very few formal academic studies have

considered this topic. The foundational literature on the structure and function of government

(Dawson, 1949; Ward, 1963) makes virtually no mention of this, partly because there were few

“political” staff. Both Dawson and Ward do, however, talk about political parties and those that

work for political parties, but in the context of party organizations and functions. Corey and

Hodgetts (1943) introduce the idea of the link between politics and administration, but focus on

the elected parts and the civil service, and make no mention of any “political staff”. Again,

largely because there are so few and they do not factor prominently in structure of function.

Mallory (1967) suggests that not since the Dorion Report of 1965, have we had an informed

conversation about the implications of the political-administrative dichotomy, and that the

Prime Minister’s Office needed reform. Savoie (2003) talks about a “bargain” between elected

officials and the civil service, but does not talk about or single out political staff. While there is a

sufficient amount of literature dealing with the political-administrative dichotomy, this too

ignores the specific role of political staff (Atkinson and Coleman, 1985; Aucoin and Savoie,

2009; Campbell and Peters, 1988).

Not until more recently, as political staff grow in numbers and importance, do we have much

mention of them in academic studies. Benoit (2006) considered the role of political staff as part

of a Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal. The report was aptly titled Ministerial

6

Staff: the Life and Times of Parliament’s Statutory Orphans. The pithy title highlighted the lack

of rules and regulations surrounding the position of political staff. Jackson and Jackson (2009)

mention political staff as they relate to the Prime Minister’s Office, but offer no real insight into

their status or function. Brodie (2012) wrote about the important role of political staff and to

demystify their role and function. Craft (2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017) has done a satisfactory job

of highlighting the role of partisan advisors in policy work.

However, in academic literature focusing on the Province of Ontario, political staff are hardly

even mentioned. Bell and Pascoe (1988) attempted to produce a primer on the structure and

function of the Ontario government, but do not mention political staff at all. Loreto (1985)

mentions staff in Ministers’ offices, but only to say they have “grown” (p. 24). White’s seminal

book on the Legislature of Ontario (1989) does not mention political staff. Dutil and

Constantinou (2013) conduct a thorough historical review of the staff that have worked in the

Premier’s Office since 1945, and document a dramatic growth in numbers and importance.

Clearly, a great lacuna exists in our understanding of the players and their role. Modern

analysts all agree that political staff play an important role, but more needs to be done to

understand who they are and what they do. This study introduces the players, highlights their

roles and responsibilities, focuses on their interest in education and training, and develops a

curriculum to guide the development of such supports.

Findings by Function

Chiefs of Staff

The role of chief of staff to a minister is a critically important function. As the most senior

advisor to a minister, the chief of staff is also responsible for the overall management of the

minister’s office, including managing the budget and staff. They are typically responsible for

developing and implementing strategic plans, in order to assist the minister in delivering on

their agenda, liaising with senior departmental officials in providing direction on behalf of the

minister, ensuring the minister’s agenda is managed, appropriate briefings occur and overall

support of a minister in the execution of their duties.

7

Chart 1

What training do you feel would benefit you in your chief of staff position?

As displayed in Chart 1 above, four areas of training dominated the responses provided by the

chiefs of staff – stakeholder engagement, orientation to the Ontario Pubic Service

(OPS)/government, conflict of interest and lobbyist legislation. Much more detail was provided

in the examples they used as they answered this question. One chief of staff spoke eloquently

about the position, saying,

“I was hired by my minister to be chief of staff because I helped get her elected, and I

knew politics, but what neither of us realized was, I needed to know about government,

how it worked, and stakeholders, and how they worked, and to top it all off, I had to

manage staff too. And that was just the first day! Wow, was I unprepared. And by the

time I figured it out, we were out of government.”

The vast majority of respondents reported that they were the focus of much of the stakeholder

management efforts in the Minister’s office, and that in particular, they wished they had

learned two things about dealing with stakeholders. First, how to proactively and strategically

engage them, and second, how to manage stakeholders in a crisis. They viewed both of these

things as distinct and critical to success, and argued that internal stakeholders were as

important and external stakeholders, suggesting that civil servants and the Premier’s Office

were equally challenging, not to mention other Ministers’ offices as well.

Chiefs of staff suggested that training for them would come in three forms and ideally be

phased and continue over time.

8

1. Orientation

One respondent suggested that orientation was necessary to identify internal landmines,

suggesting there were lots of things that they needed to learn about processes and procedures.

This should include government and ministry-specific information. One respondent suggested

that, “the best way to start is with the legislation, the regulations, the organization charts and

the major players, then a deep dive into the sector.” Respondents indicated that typically their

minister’s had orientation briefings, but that they had not been hired yet, or had other things to

do in setting up the office, such as hiring or fire-fighting, and did not have the time to attend.

More than half of the respondents said at the time they did not think it was important, when

balanced against their other pressures, but later realized they were sorry they missed it. One

respondent said,

“No one questions the chief of staff when they say they are too busy to attend –

someone should push back and make the case for the value of the training. I wish I knew

then, what I know now.”

2. Role specific orientation and training

All of the respondents indicated that they felt that they needed job-specific training and

orientation. They suggest that, while all staff need orientation training, a chief of staff would

need that and more specific training related to their duties. There was also unanimity as to who

should do the training. Respondents argued for both the political party and the civil service to

work together to deliver the necessary training, that both parts were important. The

orientation should include the rules and regulations, as well as best practices. It was suggested

that some strategic management courses, along with stakeholder engagement would be

critical. Also, all participants talked about the need to learn more about working with the civil

service as a separate area of focus.

3. Ethics and Soft Skills

One respondent summed the sentiment expressed by all participating in the study when they

said, “Problems land on my desk when others don’t agree. I need some help with ethics and

guiding principles, collaboration and negotiation, and leadership skills.” Another respondent

said:

9

“It would be nice if people didn’t think that because we were political staff that we had

the soft skills and leadership skills and only lacked technical skills or sector knowledge.

We need both and right quick.”

Another respondent said, “If politics is about nuances and subtleties, then we need training to

move from an instrument that is bluntly used to one that is finely-tuned.” A vast majority of

respondents said that they believed that most of the internal conflict arose because, either side

did not really understand the other, or that political staff are operating at such a high speed

they often do not engage in ways that are thoughtful and respectful. The belief expressed by

most was that these so-called “soft skills” would be very beneficial.

Many respondents suggested that they needed somewhere they can go for answers about

ethical issues without having to make official requests of the integrity commissioner. In

particular, they believed that having a mentor or confidant would be most valuable, but that it

had to be someone they could trust and had “been there.”

Directors of Communication

Directors of communication are senior political staff who are responsible for leading the

development of comprehensive and strategic communications planning and advice to the

minister. They are responsible for providing direction to communications staff within the

Minister’s office, to consult regularly with the Premier’s Office in order to better coordinate

government-wide communications. They are also responsible for establishing and maintaining

professional relationships with the media. Although the director of communications is the

official spokesperson for the minister, it is very typical for the role of spokesperson to be

assigned to other political staff members, usually the press secretary.

10

Chart 2

What training do you feel would benefit you in your director of communication position?

As displayed in Chart 2 above, five areas of training dominated the responses provided by the

directors of communications – Orientation to the OPS/Government (also included here is

knowing more about the ministry, policy and activities), new media/social media, crisis

management, managing people and ethics. One respondent said,

“When I was communications director, I knew what I needed to know about

communications, but not about the nuances and implications for government and

ministry policy and operations. Trouble is, I have to communicate at the speed of

Twitter, and the civil service, who can and do help with this, takes 24 hours to get

everyone in the room for a briefing. I need to be better armed and prepared, and only

go to such briefings as the exception and not the rule.”

All of the respondents lamented that they did not know enough about government and their

ministry, as they needed to do their job. The problem they spoke of is there is little time once in

the job to figure it out, and formal briefings were “cumbersome.” Most argued that, not having

any formal education in “government,” they did not have the contextual understanding needed

to get the subtleties of communications right. Further, communications seemed to be moving

faster and faster, and this meant that sometimes faster is better than accurate, but that in

government, accuracy was important too. One respondent said, “the stakeholders can play fast

and loose with the truth, but we can’t. So I not only have to be fast, I have to be right.”

On the issue of the speed of change, all communications directors who participated in the study

expressed concern at how fast aspects of their job were changing. In particular, they spoke

11

about how technology and new social media was challenging them to keep up. One respondent

said,

“Everyone thinks we know this stuff because it is our job, but it just came out last week,

and I have been busy fighting fires, unable to learn and reflect on its potential

application. Just when I get to the cutting edge, it moves.”

Respondents also shared their frustrations on the way governments typically respond to what is

on social media. One respondent said,

“One guy says something on social media and we treat it like the end of the world. I

wish we could put it all in perspective, but instead, it becomes a crisis – a tempest in a

teapot. The problem is I spend all my time in the teapot, and have little time for other

things more important.”

The other frustration shared by all respondents related to the desire to have some support in

the development of management skills. In particular, respondents spoke of four things: rules

and policies related to OPS employment; leadership skills; problem solving and negotiation

skills and best practices in time management. One respondent said, “I found it difficult to have

my first management position within a Minister’s office where there is no sympathy or time for

my learning curve.”

Senior Communications Advisor/Communications Advisor

The senior communications advisor and communications advisor position typically works under

the director of communication and is responsible for providing support to the director and the

minister. This person is responsible for overseeing the timely development of communications

products by the department, such as communications plans, press releases and speeches. This

position must work in collaboration with the director, ministry staff, other Ministers’ offices and

the Premier’s Office to better coordinate government-wide communications.

12

Chart 3

What training do you feel would benefit you in your senior communications

advisor/communications advisor position?

As depicted in Chart 3 above, the respondents shared many of the same perspectives as the

directors of communications, as they too focused on orientation to the OPS/government (also

included here is knowing more about the ministry, policy and activities), new media/social

media, crisis management, managing people, and ethics. This group of respondents spent as

much time talking about the format of their training needs as the actual training needs

themselves. There was an interest in the use of cases in training as a way of “demystifying”

issues related to ethics. One respondent said, “We need to talk about scenarios and dig deep

into the details, otherwise it’s all theory.” Another respondent said, “If training isn’t real then it

won’t help me one bit. The challenges I face aren’t in the text book.”

This group of respondents also spoke at great length about the importance of working together

and learning how to coordinate efforts, particularly because of the short turn around and high

risk for a very public error. One respondent said, “We should do dry runs and simulations just

like emergency services does”. Another said “Lots of players, many ideas and hands, a recipe

for mistakes and reputation damage.” When prompted to expand on these ideas the

respondents suggested that the best way to learn more about this work is to work through and

establish procedures and to agree on dispute resolution mechanisms before the emotions and

the pressure gets to people. One respondent said, “We should talk about what we did and how

we did every day, and try to take lessons away, building best practices and consistency.”

13

This group of respondents also spoke quite passionately about tensions between policy and

communications. One respondent said,

“What is good public policy may not be good communications, and what may be good

communications may not be good public policy. So given that, how the hell are we

supposed to govern!?”

Respondents were very clear about the need to understand both policy and the policy process

more, and argued that they should be involved earlier, so as to avoid issues later. In particular,

one respondent said,

“If Communications was involved from the beginning, the policy would be better, easier

to communicate and sell, and I wouldn’t have to spend so much time figuring it out.”

The other area where respondents were very consistent is their emphasis on how much better

they believe they could do issues/crisis management if they had some training, and particular,

some shared understanding of best practices. One respondent said, “I wish I could do

something other than fight fires all day long. If I wanted to fight fires, I would have joined the

fire department.” Another respondent said, “We all seem to do this differently, and I think it

would be better if we had a standardized and shared sense of understanding and could

operationalize this more consistently.” Virtually all respondents said they approached issues

management with the mindset of wanting to make problems go away, as opposed to being

more strategic and less reactionary. One respondent said, “We don’t always get the best deal or

outcome when we are in crisis mode – it seems we are so afraid of the noise we will do

anything to make it go away.” The respondent went on to say that because there is no real

sense of goals or objectives, or no ethical guidance for what they were trying to accomplish,

that “killing the story” seemed to be the most efficacious thing to do, regardless of

consequences.

Press Secretary

The press secretary, working under the direction of the director of communications, is

responsible for providing strategic planning and communications advice to the minister,

establishing and maintaining a professional relationship with the media and for managing

media inquiries for the minister. The press secretary is also responsible for advising and briefing

the minister on relevant media relations issues, and is the lead/official spokesperson, under the

direction of the director of communications, for the minister.

14

Chart 4

What training do you feel would benefit you in your press secretary position?

As in Chart 4 above, the press secretaries who responded to this study were particularly

interested in training related to media relations, crisis management and orientation to the

OPS/government. Not unlike the directors of communications and the senior

communications/communications advisors, they spoke of needing a better sense for the

context of government – who does what and how it works, along with more job-specific

training. One respondent said,

“I am not sure what the civil servants do. I think it would help me to know who is who,

who does what and why? I spend too much time trying to figure it out, especially when I

don’t have time. Too often I seem to cause grief for them, either when I go to the wrong

people to get answers, or expect answers too quickly. While I often sympathize with

them, I don’t really have a choice. Most of the time it feels like I am grabbing in the dark,

and when I finally have something, I just go with it. Sometimes quick is better than

good.”

Another respondent summed up the feelings of all the respondents, they said,

“While I am a media person, I must admit things are changing faster than anyone

around me can figure it out. My colleagues in the civil service do not get any training

either, so we are in the same boat trying to figure out what to do. I wish we had some

training, and could be part of the conversation and help to shape the future, but as of

right now, the private sector laughs at us because we are so backwards. I think we are

missing out of using these new tools better.”

15

Directors of Policy

Directors of policy are responsible for overseeing policy development on behalf of the Minister,

and for advising and briefing the minister on all relevant policy issues. They are responsible for

working closely with the Premier’s Office and other Ministers’ offices in order to coordinate the

development of policies and programs within the government, to liaise with key stakeholders in

order to inform or consult on important policy initiatives within the minister’s purview. Also,

directors of policy oversee and give direction to senior policy/policy advisors working in the

Minister’s Office.

Chart 5

What training do you feel would benefit you in your director of policy position?

As evidenced in Chart 5 above, directors of policy expressed a great interest in more training in

stakeholder engagement, and having more orientation to the OPS/government and learning

more about what policies exist and what the ministry they work for does. One director of policy

said,

“When I started, I knew what our party wanted to accomplish, what our agenda was.

When I got my policy director job in the minister’s office, I assumed that is what we

were going to do. But then I met the civil service, and they also had an agenda,

recommendations and expectations for us. And their list kept growing, and sometimes it

squeezed out our own. I felt like I was working for them, instead of the other way

around.”

16

Another respondent said, “It seems like when you are talking about policy, the devil is in the

details. And I sure didn’t know the details.” Most expressed a frustration that government

always seemed more complicated than they had expected or hoped. One respondent said,

“Seems like no matter what we want to do, there are problems with it. I would stop trying to

get things done, except there are problems with that too!”

All respondents said that they thought that training in the area of stakeholder engagement was

critical for them to succeed in their jobs. They were quite concerned that they spend a great

deal of time doing it, but with no sense of the discipline, no best practices or shared

approaches. One respondent said,

“I bought a book about stakeholder engagement and was fascinated to learn that, not

only was I doing everything wrong, but that there were so many new tools available for

analysis and strategy development, I was really an amateur, wasting time and being

much less effective than I should be. We should be proactive and strategic, and if we did

that, we would have better policy, better partnerships and much less conflict. In short,

we would have better government.”

Many of the respondents also suggested that they would like to further develop their briefing

skills – whether it is writing briefing notes, or providing briefings, they feel these skills should

honed and improved. This, coupled with more training on crisis/issues management, could

make for improvements in the functioning of political offices as well as their relationship with

the civil service. One respondent said,

“Seems as though fast is appreciated more than better, but since we have to be faster

and faster each day, we are reaching a tipping point and the quality is really sacrificed

and we end up spending even more time cleaning up our own messes.”

All of the respondents demonstrated a genuine interest in the choices that government made,

and all seemed to regularly talk about the “complexity” of policy, so it was not a surprise when

they suggested that some effort be made to support their understanding about the context

within which policy was made. One respondent said,

“As party members we get together to articulate our vision through a platform

document. Then we get to government and realize that the devil is in the

implementation details. What would have helped me do better is to get some training

and orientation to the machinery of government, and then to work with policy people to

talk about its [policies] various incarnations. Because if there is one thing I learned it was

17

there are more than one way to achieve the same result. Sometimes the bureaucracy is

there to help you figure that out, and sometimes you are on your own. I wish I was

better equipped to do my job.”

Senior Policy Advisors/Policy Advisors

Senior policy advisors/policy advisors, working under the director of policy, and in collaboration

with the ministry, are responsible for policy development and implementation, and for advising

and briefing the minister on relevant policy issues. They would work closely with the Premier’s

Office and other Ministers’ Offices in order to coordinate the development of policies and

programs within the government, and ensure that policy development within the Minister’s

responsibilities is consistent with the broad policy goals of the government, as laid out in key

documents, such as the Speech from the Throne and the budget. They should also liaise with

key stakeholders in order to inform and/or consult or engage on important policy initiatives

within the Minster’s purview.

Chart 6

What training do you feel would benefit you in your senior policy advisor/policy advisor

position?

As displayed in Chart 6 above, there are a number of areas where these respondents felt they

needed training, chiefly in orientation to OPS/government, crisis management, the policy

making process and stakeholder engagement.

18

One of the reoccurring themes in all of the interviews was that respondents never imagined

how much time they would spend with ministry staff in development, approval and

implementation of policy. All respondents mentioned this and stated they were surprised by

this. One respondent said,

“I assumed that once we decided what we wanted to do, they [bureaucrats] might offer

some suggestions or improvements, and that they would go off and make it happen.

Boy was I wrong. I spent an enormous amount of time with these people at every stage

because they had something I didn’t – a detailed knowledge of the structure and

workings of the department and government as a whole, a detailed and nuanced

understanding about the details of policy and especially, policy implementation as it

related to legislation, regulations, policies and the broader public sector and various

policy actors. I took some poli sci courses in university, but that didn’t prepare me for

this. I didn’t feel like a shepherd guiding the project along, I didn’t feel like a conductor

coordinating all the players, I felt useless at times, sitting at the sidelines as the adults

took over. The only reason I was in the room is because I was supposed to be important

to the process. I became the errand boy for the group and process, scurrying back and

forth between my political masters. I must admit I didn’t always know what we were

doing or why, but the bureaucrats gave me decision points and I ran back and forth from

the Minister’s office and the Premier’s Office get them what they needed. I wish I could

have added more value and provided leadership on behalf of the minister.”

If we combine the responses that suggested they needed more training on orientation to the

OPS/government and orientation to the policy process, it is clear that a sizable number of

respondents really wanted and needed training in the basics of how government works. While

many did have educational backgrounds in Canadian government, law and public policy and

administration, there was a widespread feeling that it did not prepare them to take a job with

little or no time for a learning curve, and in absence of a supportive learning environment, they

felt they were ill equipped to do their jobs and hit the ground running. One respondent said, “I

figure I had a day or so before I could no longer say I am new. There was no patience or

sympathy for me – I was expected to do the job.”

The two other most frequent responses were crisis management and stakeholder relations, but

clearly from their responses, they were related. When asked to provide examples, in virtually

every example, stakeholders were key to the description of how something became a “crisis.”

There was a clear sense for respondents that they felt they could do these things better and

with more consistency and predictability. One respondent said, “If I did stakeholder

engagement better, then I probably wouldn’t need to know about crisis management.” Another

19

said that it seemed “Stakeholders do not want to be consulted, they want to be engaged. What

do I know about that?” Consistently in all responses was a sense that they were doing crisis

management and stakeholder engagement without formal training and rigor, and that most felt

that left them underperforming in their positions. One respondent said, “I am supposed to fix

problems, not make problems, except without well developed tools and skills, I am afraid I do

as much damage as good.”

One other area that was a sore point with most respondents is the relationship they had

developed with the civil service. All respondents lamented how reliant they were on ministry

policy bureaucrats, but the point of great friction for them was the political-administrative

divide. One respondent said,

“I found the civil service to simply dismiss too many things as “political” and that meant

they were not as helpful in the policy process. Don’t they get the difference between

political and partisan?”

The vast majority of respondents suggested that in any form of orientation, there should be

extensive political-acuity training that focused on understanding the relationship, and

developing mechanisms for times of disagreement. One respondent said, “I guess we really do

not understand each other and what we do. If we could get beyond that, government would

work better.”

Directors of Operations

Directors of operations are responsible, in collaboration with the ministry, for overseeing

operational plans and supports for the work of the ministry/on behalf of the ministry. In

particular, they are responsible for overseeing logistical planning and coordination of all

functions and all activities, including internal and external events (including advance work,

organization, logistics, security, scheduling and meeting invitations). Directors of operations are

also responsible for advising and briefing the minister regarding receptions, scheduling,

organizing meetings, record keeping, information management, document processing and

control.

20

Chart 7

What training do you feel would benefit you in your director of operations position?

Directors of operations were mostly interested in training in two areas, Orientation to the

OPS/government and stakeholder engagement. These respondents talked about their jobs

as being very “transactional” and “service” based, and felt that if they knew the context and

the players better, they could do better at their jobs. One respondent said, “I am trying to

execute an event, and getting what I need from the civil service is often confusion – I am

not sure who does what.” Another respondent said, “Events are in the media spotlight and

every detail matters. If I knew more about government or stakeholders I would be likely to

make fewer mistakes.”

When asked about the type of orientation needed, one respondent said, “I am an events

and public relations person – to say I know nothing about government is an

understatement. So, let’s start at the beginning.” All respondents wanted more detail about

the structure and function of government and most included in this the broader public

service. In this regard, one respondent said, “On day one a bureaucrat referred to someone

as being from the ‘civil society sector’. Civil? – Not on your life. These are tough people to

deal with!”

Senior Operations Advisor/Operations Advisor

Senior operations advisor/operations advisors are responsible, under the direction of the

director of operations, and in collaboration with the ministry, for the development of

operational plans and support for the work of the ministry, on behalf of the minister. They are

also responsible for logistical planning and coordination of all functions and all activities,

including internal and external events (including advance work, organization, logistics, security,

21

scheduling, meetings and invitations). They are also responsible for advising and providing

briefing materials or briefings for the minister, regarding receptions, scheduling, organizing

meetings, record keeping, information management, document processing and control.

Chart 8

What training do you feel would benefit you in your senior operations

advisor/operations advisor position?

Based on the results displayed in Chart 8 above, the results from these respondents is virtually

identical as the directors of operations. Again, the emphasis in their training interests is in

orientation to OPS/government and stakeholder engagement, and their rationales were very

similar.

Legislative Assistants

Legislative assistants provide general support to the minister in terms of their legislative

responsibilities and House duties. They are responsible for advising and briefing the minister on

all legislative issues, for overseeing the legislative approval process from the development of

legislation within the department all the way to Royal Assent. They must liaise with the

Premier’s Office, other Ministers’ offices and caucus members to ensure coordination of

government-wide legislative issues. Legislative assistant are also responsible for briefing and

preparing the minister for Question Period.

22

Chart 9

What training do you feel would benefit you in your legislative assistant position?

In many ways legislative assistants stood out as a group against all others that participated in

this study. Almost to a person, they expressed their position responsibilities in a much more

partisan way than all others. One respondent said,

“I think that after you get into government you forget that it is a partisan blood sport.

My colleagues in the Minister’s office kept getting sucked into governing the way the

civil service wants you to govern, and less time thinking about elections and leadership

contests, and getting our ideology implemented. They forget it is dog-eat-dog and that

politics is a zero-sum game.”

Another respondent summarized the views of the other legislative assistants by saying,

“I have to prepare my minister for battle every day. It reminds me that we are different

from the civil servants. Yes, communications fights to get good headlines and avoid bad

ones, but they see it more as a competition where you hope to win more than you lose,

more like a gentle contest. Legislative Assistants are in a partisan battle – us versus

them – and we never forget why we are here. Kill or be killed.”

So as a group, the responses were more partisan, more competition based and aggressive in

tone and language. In terms of training needs, the differences compared to the other groups

were not so stark. Legislative Assistants said their biggest need was for crisis management

training, orientation to the OPS and government, as well as stakeholder engagement.

23

In terms of crisis management, the respondents spoke of having to manage every issue, no

matter how big, as if it were a crisis. Most responded that they did “whatever it took” to make

the issue go away, but felt that they were not approaching the task with any formalized or

systematic approach, and certainly not in a proactive and strategic manner. One respondent

said,

“I start my day looking at the clippings and thinking about how to prepare my minister

to respond to questions, especially those from the media or in Question Period. But, I

must admit, my biggest fear is the Premier’s Office – they expect me to get answers to

everything, almost before they even ask. And they expect me to avoid everything all

together, and if I can’t, then to quickly make stories or issues disappear. Because I don’t

know very much about how my ministry works, I have to rely on the civil servants. They

are somewhat helpful and they write good house book notes. The problem is, I need

great house book notes. If I knew more I could rely on them less and do better, faster.

But as it stands, I just get yelled at by the Premier’s Office. That’s pretty much every

day.”

Respondents were very clear that they thought that the working relationship could be

improved by each side knowing more about one another, and understanding their needs. One

respondent said “Some of the people who write house book notes for me have never seen

Question Period”. Another said, “They don’t seem to have the same sense of urgency as I do,

even though I explain my deadlines.” Most of the respondents suggested that having the

legislative assistant participate in briefings would be a very positive thing, and having some

training in crisis management and communications might improve the process and the

products.

All of the respondents were very explicit about their desire to have orientation to the OPS and

government. Virtually all suggested their start could thereby be smoother, and avoid a great

deal of stress and ultimately tension between themselves and the civil service. One respondent

said that they felt left out of the loop, and left to clean up messes that often needlessly

occurred. One respondent said “Knowing how things work and who does what would save

valuable minutes where dealing with issues and crises.” Another respondent said, “I graduated

from law school and now I am a legislative assistant, but I really do not know much about the

legislative process.” Another said, “I wish being honest and admitting that I do not know what I

need to know to be good at my job was not seen as a sign of weakness.”

All respondents said that having some formal education and training in stakeholder

engagement would probably avoid many problems and issues, and certainly assist in crisis

24

management. Many spoke of “stakeholder management in a crisis” as the real missed

opportunity where a more deliberate and informed approach would help to resolve issues. One

respondent said,

I was hired because I was a great tactician during the election, but now I have to

function in a place that I do not really understand, and no one has the patience to wait

for me to figure it out.

While not many respondents spoke of this directly, many alluded in a roundabout way to the

fact that they wished they had training in how to do effective briefings. One respondent said, “I

get six or seven minutes to prepare my minister for Question Period, almost always as we walk

to the Legislature. I need to be better at briefing and preparing better briefing notes.” Virtually

all respondents suggested that what made their jobs particularly difficult is the tight deadliness

and short time-frames they had to deal with, so knowing more and being more prepared and

capable would be key to success.

MPP Liaison/Issues Manager

The MPP liaison is sometimes also referred to a caucus liaison, and is the primary conduit for

relations with other member’s offices. They are responsible to liaise with caucus members in

order to advice and consult them on departmental policies and programs. They are also

responsible for providing the minister with advice and feedback on caucus opinions and

positions o ministry-related issues, and to work with caucus members and their offices to

implement or communicate ministry decisions and direction.

25

Chart 10

What training do you feel would benefit you in your MPP liaison/issues manager

position?

Respondents indicated that a major component of their job was to get answers for caucus

members who had questions or issues with the ministry or ministry issues, and that they felt

very unaware of how the ministry was structured and functioned. One respondent said,

“They never think about inviting us to briefings. The only way I learn things is to go

through the process of championing a member’s issue or dealing with a crisis. Then I

learn the real nitty-gritty of the issue, but if I was better prepared to understand

programs and to know who does what, then I could save time and provide more timely

assistance. And likely there would be less confrontation with the civil service.”

Every single respondent lamented a lack of orientation and information about the OPS and

their particular ministry. Most suggested that the civil service was also more likely to respond

more slowly to their request, than others in the Minister’s office. One respondent said,

Most of the time I am just trying to get basic program or policy answers for members so

they could serve their constituents, but the civil service treat every request as though it

had some political motive attached. If I knew more about our programs and policies I

would probably not even have to bother them, or simply validate my understanding.

Instead, I have to justify my existence and purpose all day long to people who seemed

to be programed to say “no, sorry, that’s political.””

26

All of the respondents spoke about their jobs as having to deal with problems and difficult

people, and many said the wished they had some formal training in dealing with difficult people

or dealing with conflict.

One respondent said, “I never thought the most difficult people I had to deal with would be my

own ministry staff. They don’t seem to want to help.” While stakeholder engagement and crisis

management appear as two separate items, from the responses and examples used,

respondents were talking about the same thing. One said, “Whether it is internal stakeholders

or external ones, managing them more proactively and strategically would be better than what

I was doing.” In terms of the way the two intersected, one respondent said, “When I dealt with

stakeholders, it was usually because there was a crisis, and when I was dealing with crises, it

was usually with or because of stakeholders.”

Summary

Five things were common to all respondents, regardless of the position they held while in a

Minister’s office.

First, they all were happy to talk about the subject and offered lots of reflections, insights and

advice. One respondent said, “Regardless of political party, we have to do a better job at this so

governments can work better.” Whether it was someone who served in the middle 1980s or

someone in 2015, the concerns and desires were very consistent, and the interest to discuss

these maters was genuine, and their suggestions and insights always quite thoughtful and well

intentioned.

Second, they all lamented the lack of education and training available to them. One respondent

said, “I could have done so much better if I had a clue about what I was supposed to do.” While

the interest in topics varied somewhat, every single respondent wanted more orientation and

on-going training.

Third, they all said, “If only I knew then what I know now.” One respondent said,

“My former colleagues and I regularly get together and relive the ‘good old days’, and

what we all agree is how reckless it is to unleash a dozen 20-somethings on the world

without any adult supervision.”

More than half suggested they gave serious thought to going back for another “kick at the can,”

but all noted that it was “a young person’s game,” and that while they had the knowledge

27

necessary to succeed, they did not have the stamina. Another respondent said, “I only really

understood my job when I left it, and had time to reflect. Too bad, I could have been way more

effective.”

Fourth, all respondents spoke of their time in the Minister’s office with great fondness. Even

though for many it was fraught with challenges and disappointments, they all said, in different

ways, “it was the best job they ever had.” One respondent said, “it was the best of times, it was

the worst of times, and I would do it again in a heartbeat.” Another said, “I make a lot of money

now, but it sure doesn’t feel as important and it certainly isn’t as much fun.”

And fifth, respondents all suggested that what they learned while they were there, often the

hard way, was extremely valuable, and served them well in their careers. One respondent said,

“No one deals with more issues on a daily basis than we did in government, and when I got to

the private sector, I realized how valuable those skills were.” Another said, “Working in a

Minister’s office gave my career a boost, I leapt over entry positions into more senior roles, and

what I learned in government gave me the skills to achieve success in other sectors too.”

In terms of specific recommendations, the data was very helpful. Respondents made it very

clear that what they wanted and believed they needed to perform their functions at a

satisfactory to excellent level includes:

1. Orientation and onboarding – Introduction to the OPS, government and public

service. Participants believed that they needed more, especially those without a

background in public policy, administration and political science. Even those with

backgrounds/degrees in those areas said that there was a great gap in preparedness,

transition to work and the simple difference between theory and practice.

2. Legislation, policy, guidelines. This is a focus on rule specific training, including

conflict of interest, ethics, freedom of information and protection of privacy, lobbyist

legislation, records management, Treasury Board guidelines for expense reporting,

among others. Respondents said that there were always guidelines available for these

topics, but that they often either lived in a “grey area” where the guidelines did not

apply or anticipate, or that they needed help interpreting them and getting advice.

3. Role-specific orientation and training. All of the respondents were surprised that

neither the civil service nor the political party provided meaningful training in each of

the function areas. Many suggested that there should be basic foundation courses or

workshops and then regular refreshers.

28

4. Public sector core competencies. This would include leadership, strategy,

stakeholder engagement, negotiations, political acuity, effective communications and

briefings, policy making, dealing with difficult people and conflict resolution, among

others. Respondents suggested that they need this training more than civil servants,

because it is likely that they are hired without the skill or experience, but expected to do

the job.

5. Guiding principles and ethics. Virtually all respondents included “ethics training” in

their responses. Sometimes it was about learning how to stay on the right side of ethics,

and other times it was about having ethics training to guide decisions and behaviours

when decisions were difficult. This should include a specific focus on public sector

ethics, ethical decision-making models, fundraising, lobbying, among other topics.

6. Ministry-specific orientation. Every respondent spoke to the challenge of

understanding and dealing with their own department, and how quickly they became

aware that each department was very different in terms of mandate, culture, and

legislative and regulatory requirements. This was seen as a crucial part of their learning

and would help with identifying who does what, and why?

Curriculum Mapping:

Job-Ready Political Staffer

29

After completing 500 interviews with political staff serving in Ministers’ offices, it was very clear

that something needs to be done to meet the desires and needs of these staff, but that the key

to success will not only be the type of training, but the form and timing. Pedagogy would be

critical to success in designing and delivering this training. Ten important recommendations

have emerged from the interviews and data analysis.

1. Timing

One of the constant themes was how busy staff are once they take their positions, and how

little sympathy there is for not being at work, because there always seems to be a crisis, or an

event, or simply that the Minister needs something. Having training during the work week is

difficult. A mixed approach is necessary. Courses and/or modules should be scheduled at

regular intervals so as to offer participants choices. Boot Camp format should be adopted with

a heavy emphasis on compressed and intense formats. Because the Legislative Assembly does

not sit on Fridays, there is an opportunity for some political staff to be more likely to be

available for weekday training. Also, constituency weeks may well also make for slightly better

odds of availability. But mostly likely will be training that is scheduled on evenings and

weekends.

2. Delivery format

Here again a mixed approach is highly advisable. Formats such as an intense mode or “boot

camp,” webinars (used sparingly), peer discussion groups, some same party, some cross party,

case study and experiential education are all recommended. Further, aggressive mentoring and

coaching is an important follow-up to such courses or modules.

3. Class size

Some foundational training can be done with larger class sizes 25-50, but once these are

complete, an emphasis should be placed on in-person, small sessions for discussion will yield

the best results. Groups of 12-15 would yield sufficient class size to yield multiple perspectives

and experiences, but these would be small enough to ensure individual issues and challenges

could be addressed in a more intimate, less threatening environment.

4. Formalized learning outcomes and demonstrable learning and skills tied to job descriptions

In order to bring some rigour and credibility to the effort, it is critical that the foundation for

the orientation and training should rest on a strong and defensible rationale. Many

respondents said that if the training is seen as a “joke” or not practical or immediately useable,

then there will be little uptake.

30

5. Training as a requirement

The expectation that all staff must participate or be incented to participate should be a central

element of the orientation and training. Without having participated in some or all of the

training, staff cannot hold the position. And being too busy cannot be accepted as an excuse for

missing components.

6. Mix of facilitators/instructors

The design of the course components, curriculum planning and delivery should be done as a

collaborative effort. Academics should have a background in curriculum design and mapping,

along with experience with experiential education. Ideally these academics would also be

former practitioners, whether it is in the political or administrative parts of government.

Subject matter experts should include, as appropriate, civil servants, current and former

political staffers, elected and former elected officials. Some guest speakers or “legends” should

also be brought in to make the training even more relevant, compelling and entertaining. The

so-called “war stories” can be an effective part of a curriculum if coupled with and connected to

learning outcomes and lessons learned.

7. Extensive use of tools and best practices

One of the ways to ensure that participants find the orientation and training to be useful is to

make it instantly applicable and easy to use. This is where tools and best practices that can

easily be applied will be greatly appreciated, most likely used and ensure consistency of

practice.

8. Follow-up and coaching/mentoring

Critical to creating learning environment is a commitment to on-going education and training

activities. In particular, after participants finish each of the courses/modules, there should be

some form of coaching and mentoring. Ideally, as job functions and descriptions are formalized

and professionalized, goal setting and performance measurement regimes will be established

and supported by coaching and mentoring.

9. Creation of learning organizations

To ensure the importance of staff qualifications and skills development, the responsibility for

creating a learning environment should be built into the job description of the Chief of Staff.

The responsibility should include ensuring staff participate and are in compliance with formal

education and training expectations, but that they also create opportunities for informal

sharing and learning. This can include such things a “brown bag lunches” where staff can

present issues or challenges, or present successful/unsuccessful projects and lessons learned.

31

This will not only create more opportunities for discussion and learning, but emphasize the

importance of ongoing learning in many forms.

10. Acknowledging and rewarding excellence

One of the ways to both give incentive and reward staff for excellence in education and training

is to acknowledge such progress through a variety of recognition and reward programs. These

are common in so many aspects of the typical workplace. Acknowledgement of education and

training accomplishments can be tied to progress through the salary grid, or movement from

“junior” to “senior” in a variety of positions. Also, awards for excellence in areas such as

stakeholder engagement or crisis management can be a fun way for a party to highlight

excellent effort and achievement, further emphasizing the importance of ongoing education

and training tied to positive outcomes.

Summary/Conclusion

If governments are to meet the complex challenges they face, all players and parts of the

system will have to function at their very best. One area where we have an opportunity to

better prepare for those challenges is the cadre of political staff who serve in Ministers’ offices.

They are an increasingly important part of our system of government that has for too long been

ignored by researchers, poorly understood, and not adequately supported in their roles and

functions. This study has provided an insight into their experiences and ideas about their roles

and responsibilities, and what they believe they need to do their jobs effectively. This data has

provided an opportunity to consider guiding principles and components for a pedagogy and

way forward for training political staff.

32

References

Atkinson, M. and Coleman, W. (1985). Bureaucrats and Politicians in Canada: An Examination of

the Political Administration Model. Comparative Political Studies. April. Vol. 18, No. 1.

Aucoin, P. and Savoie, D. (2009). The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: Democracy versus

Bureaucracy?. In Dwivedi, O., Mau, T. and Shldrick, B. (2009). The Evolving Physiology of

Government: Canadian Public Administration in Transition. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Bell, G. and Pascoe, A. (1988). The Ontario Government: Structure and Function. Toronto: Wall

and Thompson.

Benoit, L. (2006). Ministerial Staff: The Life and Times of Parliament’s Statutory Orphans. In

Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, Restoring

Accountability, Research Studies Volume 1.

Brodie, I. (2012). In Defence of Political Staff. The Tansley Lecture.

Campbell, C. and Peters, B.G. (1988). The Politics/Administration Dichotomy: Death or Merely

Change? Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration. January. Vol. 1, No.

1.

Correy, J. and Hodgetts, J. (1966). Democratic Government and Politics. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press.

Craft, J. (2016). Backrooms and Beyond: Partisan Advisers and the Politics of Policy Work in Canada. Craft, J. (2015). “Conceptualizing Partisan Advisers as Policy Workers”. Policy Sciences Journal, 48(2), 135-158. Craft, J. (2013). “Appointed Political Staffs and the Diversification of Policy Advisory Sources: Theory and Evidence from Canada”. Policy and Society, 32(3): 211–223.

Dawson, R. (1949). Democratic Government in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Dutil, P. and Constantinou, P. (2013). “The Office of Premier of Ontario 1945-2010: Who Really

Advises? Canadian Parliamentary Review, Spring 2013.

33

Franks, C. (1987). The Parliament of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Jackson, R. and Jackson, D. (2009). Politics in Canada: Culture, Institutions, Behaviour and Public

Policy. Seventh Edition. Toronto: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Loreto, R. (1985). The Structure of the Ontario Political System. In MacDonald, D., Ed. (1985).

The Government and Politics of Ontario, Third Edition. Toronto: Nelson Canada.

Mallory, J. (1971). The Structure of Canadian Government. Toronto: Macmillan

Mallory, J. (1967). The Minister’s Office: An Unreformed Part of the Public Service. Canadian Journal of Public Administration. Vol. 10, Issue 1, p. 25-34.

Office of the Toronto Ombudsman, Annual Report 2011.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2010). The Municipal Councillor’s Guide.

Toronto: Queen’s Printer.

Savoie, D. (2003). Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants, Ministers, and Parliament. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Ward, N. (1947). The Government of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

White, G. (1989). The Ontario Legislature: A Political Analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press.

34

Biography – Dr. Peter P. Constantinou Peter Constantinou is Assistant Lecturer in the School of Public Policy and Administration at York University. Peter Constantinou is one of Canada’s leading practitioner-academics. Peter spent more than a decade as a civil servant at the federal and provincial levels of government, having held the following positions: Research Analyst with the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing; Policy Analyst, Senior Policy Advisor to the Deputy Minister and Senior International Trade Advisor with the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. Peter has also been a political advisor, having served as Chief of Staff to the Ontario Minister of Education and Training. He has also spent more than a decade as an administrator and lobbyist in the college and university sector, having served as Director of International Projects at Durham College, Special Advisor to the President of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and most recently, Director of Government Relations at Seneca College. Peter is currently Academic Director of the Ontario Legislature Internship Programme. For almost 25 years, Peter has been active in teaching and research in the area of public policy and administration. Peter has been a member of the part-time faculty in the public policy and administration program at Ryerson University, at the Management Program at the University of Toronto at Scarborough; at the Schulich School of Business at York University, the Degroote School of Business at McMaster University, the University of Salzburg Business School, the Rotman School of Management and the First Nations Technical Institute. Peter does a substantial amount of training for public sector executives. Recently he has worked with the Chinese government to develop a model ethical code of conduct for public sector employees and diplomats and with the Office of the President of Vietnam to design a new framework to reduce corruption in the civil service. Peter has recently started to provide political acuity training to public sector departments and agencies throughout Canada. In addition to a Ph.D. in Higher Education from the University of Toronto, Peter holds a BA (Specialized Honours) in Public Policy and Administration from York University, and an MA in Public Policy and Administration from McMaster University. His doctoral dissertation was a landmark study of government relations in the post-secondary education sector in Ontario.