the ministry will now be monitoring whether its regional governance models "align with unique community-based strengths, priorities and challenges." And it will be making sure its employees "are fully engaged, healthy and contributing to transformation in their work environment." But the indicators for those performance measures are still "under development."

I read these two paragraphs three times and whoa what a load of overwrought government-speak!

They want their governance models to align with unique community blah blah blah? How on earth is the ministry of children and family development ever going to be in a position to quantify community make up - and what twit decided that this would be a key performance measure? That's not a performance measure - that's standard operating procedure that regional bodies should behave with sensitivity and common sense in relation to their clients needs. This is not something that needs to be itemized and weighted to be acted upon - creating some bogus need to create indicators for such fundamental tasks is ludicrous and a red herring. Talk about aiming low!

I think government employees have been affected greatly by the new employee performance measurement sham and the corrupt thinking is leaking into documents like these - they've learned that if you set the bar real low you will shine on your review. This key performance indicator is like a lifelong government employee setting performance goals of showing up for work, reading emails and attending meetings.

I understand that both ministries and employees are required to come up with a minimum number of 'goals', but they shouldn't be rewarded for delivering and meeting basic standard requirements. Not meeting such basic requirements should only result in censure and dismissal. Meeting them shouldn't result in a pat on the back - they should be assumed to be met!!

It's great that the PSA and government are trying to put in measures to hold ministries and people accountable but they are very very far away from even beginning to accomplish anything worth while from these efforts. In fact I'd say that these puerile transparent attempts only sully their reputations more.

How about setting and being held accountable for some real deliverables for a change.

One last observation, just when does the government and it's ministries and departments STOP transforming and go about it's daily work on a regular basis?

Change for the sake of change is not good business practice.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=change+fatigue&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a