This paper explores whether the political activities of public servants during the 42nd Canadian Parliamentary Election, and the re-integration of those public servants into the government workplace post-election, impacts trust within the organization. In addition, it considers whether the reintegration of failed candidates (with clearly partisan views) into the neutral public service triggers a co-creation of trust or distrust among public servants in the organization.
In a Westminster Parliamentary system like Canada’s, public servants are expected to be neutral, fearlessly providing non-partisan advice to the elected officials making public policy decisions. Public servants are also expected to loyally implement the decisions made by elected officials. However, their non-partisan, neutral, professional, and objective work – reinforced through Codes of Ethics/Conduct – does not mean that they cannot have their own ideas, values, and opinions on political, social, and economic issues of the day. A 1991 Supreme Court of Canada decision stated that most public servants do not waive their freedom of expression as part of their employment, but there continues to be discussion about what those political rights entail and how to appropriately balance freedom of expression with employment requirements. In the 42nd Parliamentary election (October 19, 2015), an unprecedented number of federal public servants took leaves of absence in order to run in nomination races or as candidates. How does this choice to run – and to express a partisan affiliation – affect the level and nature of trust within their home organizations when they return post-election? Can their colleagues and elected officials trust them to do their work neutrally and trustworthily, while supporting a government that they may have run against? As Bouckhaert (2012) defines it, can they co-create T3 trust – trust within public administration?
In order to answer these research questions, the researcher will undertake an analysis of national and local media coverage of key races; publications produced by public sector unions; and interviews with three groups of people: 1) public servants who ran in the election, 2) those who oversee and manage public servants’ political activities, and 3) union officials intervening between the government and impacted public servants.
Theoretical explanations for political ideology, party support, and political activities ascribe conflicting motives to public servants. The bureaucratic voter model (BVM) focuses on individual benefits that accrue when public servants vote for (or run for) parties that are more likely to spend on public services (Jensen, Sum, and Flynn 2009). Public service motivation theory counters this by saying that public servants want to contribute to a particular understanding of that public good (see Pandey, Wright, and Moynihan 2008). These theories, combined with an understanding of interorganizational trust in public administration (Bouckhaert 2012), are used to frame this project.
Research results should provide a better understanding of what motivates public servants to participate in prominent political activities (knowing that they risk organizational trust) and how they re-integrate into the public service and co-create trust (or distrust) post-election.
