Policy Innovation, notwithstanding: Tackling the Deep Status Quo (Part II)
By Ryan Androsoff, Sharon Ayele, Neil Bouwer, Jonathan Craft
Innovation in policymaking is not for the faint of heart. That’s what a group of public servants emphasized in the second of two dialogues on policy innovation convened by policyready & IOG in Ottawa. Like the morning session with senior executives, the afternoon session with policy innovators from around the government recognized the deep status quo that hampers innovation. However, the afternoon discussion was animated by stories about pushing against that status quo, finding workarounds, building coalitions, and, sometimes, watching promising ideas die quietly.
This post reflects how those in the room were innovating in the policy space notwithstanding the structural, cultural, and resource constraints that can limit innovation. It shares their ideas for reform, what senior leaders can do to facilitate policy innovation, and concludes with reflections on what we heard across both sessions.
With government reform and modernization on the agenda in Ottawa these days one thing was clear - efficiencies and simplifications are needed but won’t go far enough. As one senior official put it, “risk aversion is a feature in government not a bug”. To address that, those innovating already emphasized the need to create positive innovation spaces, to avoid buzzwords and focus on operationally aware and outcome driven policymaking. Across both sessions there was a sense that more needs to be done to improve the essential instruments and processes of policymaking, to shift incentives and clarify rules, and to embed policy innovation into core public service architecture and practice.
courage graffiti mural
Rules, Culture, and Courage
It did not take long for the deep status quo to show up again. The mix of participants in the afternoon pointed to many well known challenges in Ottawa policymaking circles: a culture of risk aversion, a web of rules (both real and perceived), inflexible and cumbersome instruments and processes. Many bemoaned how quickly the lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic had been forgotten. Like an elastic band everything had snapped back to the status quo. We want to innovate,” they said, “but we’re scared of failure. So we lower the targets instead of pushing for better results”. Another said that even with strong evidence, public servants often hesitate: “You can bring the data, you can show the success, and people will still say no—because it’s safer to stick with what we know.”
Others described trying to launch bots and tools using public information, only to be warned internally that “this is a risk to the organization”. Even when tools were built using in-house software, the same culture and structures of the deep status quo made innovation hard.
The difference was however that this set of participants were often not making or changing rules but were on the interpreting end. Time and again, people shared stories about being told “you can’t do that”, only to dig deeper and realize the rule didn’t actually exist. One participant explained “I always ask: ‘Show me where it says that.’ Most of the time, people can’t. The barrier is a made-up rule”.
Others nodded. In fact, they said, the lack of clarity about what’s actually allowed creates more fear than the rules themselves. Central agencies may issue flexible policies—but unless departments understand them, they still default to the status deep status. As one person put it: “The only thing worse than not following Treasury Board directives is following them—because people read them wrong and then enforce things that aren’t even real.”
The afternoon session also unmasked the often personal costs of innovation with many in the session pointing to how they had to challenge rules, they had to manage up, they had to be the entrepreneurs and push or else innovation would never happen. Using tools in new ways, clarifying rules, pushing for space to innovate - requires courage and resolve.
Policy Innovation that Works - and Why
Many innovators in the room spoke about the need to go beyond catchphrases and buzzwords. Policy innovation happened when there was space, trust, and when it was grounded in the heavy lifting of policy and program design and delivery.
For example, one participant urged that every federal program include a minimum spend on experimentation—not just for research’s sake, but to identify the friction points that only emerge when real users try to engage with the government. Another, like the senior leader, pointed to Grants and Contributions instruments noting that “All grants and contributions (G&Cs) should be results-based within four years.” Why? Because right now, as they said, “You can fail for ten years straight and still look good—so long as your financial records are perfect.” Another summed up the feeling in the room well saying “We don’t need perfection. We need persistence, coalitions, and just enough freedom to try”.
A host of examples were shared about how policy innovators tackled the deep status quo, hacked the bureaucracy, and built coalitions and appetite for more policy innovation. They came from various departments and sectors but often flagged the role of getting the right teams together, clear mandates (or room to manoeuver within mandates), and supporting institutional levers.
Reflecting on building a new program in Finance one participant explained the breakthrough:“We had a clear ministerial mandate, a small team with the right skills, and a ton of political will. That alignment made it possible. Another shared how they helped build new terms and conditions under the Treasury Board Secretariat policy to allow for outcomes-based payments. Instead of paying organizations to deliver activities, they were paid only if they achieved pre-agreed results. It was radical for the government—and it worked.
sled dog team
Proof of concept was necessary, but not sufficient. Incremental approaches that started with small experimentation and innovation were often noted. Many spoke of innovating in policy and then using results as a flywheel to get access to more latitude, resources, or buy in. For example, one participant drew on a skilled trades training example. It was hard to convince employers to release two employees at first. But after showing the impact that training in dyads had on productivity, safety, and retention through a quasi-experimental study, the model scaled up from hundreds of participants to thousands.
Often you do not have the political will, sometimes results do not lead to buy-in or permission for more risk taking, sometimes you do not have the team or resources. The conditions might not always be ideal, but participants shared how they moved policy innovation forward by:
Building parallel teams. A few talked about creating small internal units with a different mandate. These teams had time to focus on transformation while the “main business” ran as usual.
Getting the right mix of people. One called these folks “can-do simplifiers”—financial officers, HR advisors, legal analysts who help solve problems rather than block them.
Bring people in early. Rather than convincing people after the fact, some found that including finance, HR, and IT teams from the beginning made it easier to get approval later.
Build coalitions, not just arguments. One speaker said: “I used to think I could just show the data and yell until people did the right thing. Now I know you have to build a team—even with people outside your comfort zone.” One speaker referred to “trojan mice”—small, stealthy efforts that sneak change under the radar. These efforts work best when they're backed by quiet persistence, strategic communication, and a willingness to “eat glass”—to suffer through the hard, unglamorous work that innovation often requires.
What Senior Leaders Can do
mother duck & ducklings
After our morning discussion we asked the group of policy innovation leaders from the afternoon session how senior leaders could support innovation? The answer was a lot, including:
Take real risks—and protect your teams when they do. One speaker said they launched a new tool internally, and within five minutes, someone came to their office warning it was a risk. If they hadn’t known their ADM would back them, they wouldn’t have dared.
Say yes to something imperfect. Leaders were urged to approve “version 1” of a proposal, with the promise to revisit it in 6–8 months. Stop vetoing without explanation. One person said, “We don’t mind disagreement. But when one person silently derails a project after months of work, it kills morale.
Tie funding to compliance with innovation standards. For example, departments should only receive delivery funding if they meet user experience or digital service standards.
Learn from users—and your own processes. Multiple speakers called for executives to spend time on the frontlines, experiencing the systems they oversee. One called this the “undercover boss” approach. “Let them file a procurement request and see how painful it is,” someone joked.
Write policies that are clear, concise, and actively taught. Rules mean little if no one understands or trusts them. One speaker said, “Just posting a directive online isn’t enough. The job isn’t done until departments know how to use it.”
Reflections from the day: spaces & practices for policy innovation
The sessions made clear that policy innovation isn’t optional anymore. Whether it's because of public expectations, complex problems, or digital realities, everyone agreed: the government must do better at seeding, scaling, and sustaining policy innovation. Both groups said: “We don’t have a shortage of ideas—we have a shortage of follow-through, support, and infrastructure”.
The dialogues surfaced that the spaces for policy innovation had declined, often shoehorned into specific initiatives or pilots. That more needed to be done to create not just labs and innovation hubs, but spaces in teams, units, and branches for those directly connected to the policies and programs to push for innovation. Building infrastructure for innovation must be a priority for senior and mid level leaders.
Yet, everyone agreed that risk aversion and fear of failure are more damaging than anything else. Addressing that cultural piece - how to enable policy innovation in practice requires leadership, better communications, and spaces for innovation to happen. It also requires courage from those at the top, but also those who are designing and delivering policies who are best placed to keep pushing the system and innovative practices.
The sessions put a light on the leadership, trust, but also courage and structural and cultural practices that can be decisive for policy innovation. Should the government review G&C, probably. Can senior leaders create more space for policy innovation? Yes, but they need the right incentives as they are also being pushed and pulled in too many directions. Policy innovation can’t live only in labs or pilots—it must be embedded in regulatory frameworks, service systems, and financial tools.
Across the two sessions there was candor, some laughter, and a quiet recognition that everyone in the room shared some responsibility in being more innovative. And not just for the sake of innovation, but because real people depend on it.
Ryan Androsoff is Vice-President, Learning and Leadership Institute on Governance
Sharon Ayele is Coordinator and Administrator, Learning at the Institute on Governance
Neil Bouwer is a long time policy leader in the Government of Canada. He is currently a Visiting Professor of Practice at the Max Bell School of Public Policy.
Jonathan Craft is Associate Professor at the University of Toronto and founder of www.policyready.ca