Exploring the behavioural attributes, strategies and contextual knowledge of champions of change in the Canadian water sector

Abstract

Sustainable water resource management (WRM) is failing to be fully implemented in Canada due to, among other things, cultural and structural inhibiting factors. There is a need for water professionals to develop their understanding of the ways in which cultural and structural barriers within prominent water resource management institutions can be broken down and/or navigated so that climate change and sustainability challenges can be more appropriately addressed. This study explored, for the first time in Canada, champion leadership approaches by interviewing champions in the Canadian water sector, with a focus on behavioural attributes, strategies and contextual factors. The findings revealed the significance of both formal and informal relationships, passion in communication, respectful and humble networking and work relations alongside necessary risk taking as key behavioural strategies for Canadian water champions. It also exposed the need to understand contextual realities of mandate gaps, control and secrecy at the federal level versus the more open and responsive culture at the municipal level. While the context can inhibit change, it does not necessarily inhibit it if the champion is well equipped to understand the institution and the strategies that can influence it. Such strategies include the creation of windows of opportunities and the use of media such as journalists, for risk-taking change efforts that do not have to be socially and professionally threatening. Water professionals who have a better understanding of the champion experience in Canada may be in a better position to contribute to a more effective implementation of sustainable WRM in Canada.

Certains facteurs culturels et structurels, parmi d’autres, entravent la pleine mise en œuvre d’une gestion durable des ressources en eau au Canada. Les professionnels de la gestion de l’eau se doivent comprendre, d’une manière plus approfondie, comment les entraves culturelles et structurelles au sein des grandes institutions de gestion des ressources en eau peuvent être démantelées ou navigués afin de s’adresser d’une manière hautement efficace aux défis que présentent le changement climatique et le développement durable. Pour la première fois au Canada, une étude s’adresse au leadership par l’entremise d’individus se portant champions d’une intervention. De tels individus dans le secteur de l’eau au Canada furent interrogés, portant une attention particulière à leurs attributs comportementaux et leurs stratégies, ainsi qu’aux facteurs contextuels pertinents. L’enquête révéla que les stratégies comportementales clés, chez les individus se portant champions des ressources en eau au Canada, sont l’importance des leurs relations officielles et officieuses, une passion pour la communication, des relations par réseautage et en milieu de travail respectueuses et modestes, et l’habilité de prendre les risques nécessaires. L’enquête révéla aussi le besoin d’être au courant des réalités contextuelles en matière de mandats lacunaires, de problèmes de contrôle excessif et d’une culture de secrets au niveau fédéral, par rapport à la culture plus ouverte et plus réceptive au niveau municipal. Bien que le contexte puisse enrayer le changement, si le champion est bien équipé pour comprendre l’institution et les stratégies pouvant l’influencer, il pourra surmonter de telles entraves au changement. La création d’occasions d’intervention et l’utilisation des médias (e.g. journalistes) sont parmi les stratégies gestionnaires visant des approches posant un risque sans toutefois menacer le statut social ou professionnel de l’individu. En développant une compréhension plus approfondie de l’expérience du champion au Canada, le professionnel de la gestion de l’eau peut s’efforcer de se positionner pour contribuer à une mise en œuvre plus efficace d’une gestion durable des ressources en eau au Canada.

Introduction

Schön (1963) first stated that, “Where radical innovation is concerned, the emergence of a champion is required. Given the resistance to change… the new idea either finds a champion or dies” (84). Half a century later, Schön’s words are still relevant for efforts in Canada to effectively implement sustainable water resource management (WRM) that will secure Canadian water supplies for future generations and ecosystems (Bakker 2011; Basdeo and Bharadwaj 2013; Hipel et al. 2013; Kim et al. 2013; Wood and Pentland 2013). Sustainable WRM involves ensuring that water systems can “fully contribute to the objectives of society, now and in the future, while maintaining their ecological, environmental and hydrological integrity” (American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1998, 44); see also UNESCO 1999; Loucks 2000). It involves democratic, transparent, integrative and adaptive management, is responsive to a changing climate and is implemented on a watershed scale (International Conference on Water and Environment 1992; World Water Council 2000; Global Water Partnership 2003).

Management of water resources in Canada cannot currently be considered sustainable (Brandes 2005; Schindler 2011), and water users and ecosystems are increasingly experiencing a degradation in water quality and a shortage of supply (Brandes, 2005). For example, the agricultural prairie regions of western Canada are water scarce due to natural droughts exacerbated by increasing water demand from urban areas, agriculture and industry (Schindler and Donahue 2006; Bonsal and Regier 2007). Of the latter, Alberta’s oil sands industry is a prolific user of water (Schindler and Donahue 2006) and is causing declines in water quality in the Athabasca River and its watershed (Kelly et al. 2010), recession along the Athabasca River, shifting bird and caribou migration patterns (Lopez 2013), and fish toxicity (van den Heuval et al. 2000).

Canada has the second highest water use per capita in the world (Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) 2000) and is increasingly lagging behind other jurisdictions that have established an overarching legal framework for managing water, such as the European Union, South Africa, Brazil, New Zealand and Australia (de Loë 2008; Leitao and McAllister 2010). Such a high rate of consumption is unsustainable, particularly with climate change. Already, a reduction due to climate change in water supplied from glaciers and snowpacks has caused prolonged droughts in the prairie region since 1998, and it is predicted that climate change will continue to reduce prairie water supplies (Schindler and Donahue 2006; Schindler 2011).

Canada’s water-related challenges are exacerbated by the current lack of sustainable WRM characterized by uncoordinated planning and fragmented policy (Hill et al. 2008). Water policy is highly decentralized; Canada has no legally enforceable water policy at the federal level more than a decade into the twenty-first century (Bakker 2011), and there is wide variation between policies at the provincial level. Such fragmentation is thought to hinder sustainable management of drinking water and source water. In particular, the management of water based on political boundaries rather than those of watersheds can impede governance of watersheds that cross provincial borders (Hill et al. 2008). Lack of integrated planning can lead to over-allocation of water resources, conflicts between users and ecological degradation (Syme et al. 1999). Innovation in WRM is needed in Canada to overcome existing institutional inhibiting factors and move towards more sustainable management (Morin and Cantin 2009). As Moore and Westley (2011) highlight, it is not necessarily that the primary elements of the innovation must be novel, but it can be the new linkages in their combination that lead to innovative designs for solving problems.

As Schön (1963) notes, one effective way of facilitating change is through champions. There is a need for water professionals to develop their understanding of champion leadership to better understand the ways in which cultural and institutional barriers within WRM institutions can be adapted and/or navigated for sustainability. To understand the transition to more sustainable WRM in Canada, this study explored the behavioural attributes, strategies and contextual factors that could facilitate a champion-led transition to sustainable WRM.

In this study, champions working towards deep structural change for ameliorated WRM in various organizations and institutions in Canada were identified and interviewed to assess their attributes and the strategies they employed. This study built on the work of Taylor et al. (2012), since they were the first to explore the champion concept, specifically in the Australian water sector. Taylor et al. (2012) investigated how leadership development strategies can be created that are tailored for a specific type of champion working in a particular context to help them promote sustainable water management practices (Taylor et al. 2012). The primary objective of this paper is to open this question to the Canadian water sector by allowing for insight on both the facilitating and the constraining features of major organizational bodies involved in WRM to aid water professionals seeking change. The study does not explain what changes are needed with respect to specific water management practices in Canada, as the researchers believe that there is sufficient useful literature that addresses this question (Gleick 2003; Saxton and Rawls 2006; Roseland 2012; Adamowski et al. 2013; Lafreniere et al. 2013). Rather, the aim is to share how Canadian water professionals can pair their solutions for sustainable WRM with the institutional cultures and structures that they are faced with. In doing so, champion attributes, strategies and contextual factors within Canadian organizations and institutions are investigated (with a particular focus on the federal government due to the frequency that it was raised in the study). While the point of reference is Canada, the lessons learned from the study regarding these aforementioned points could potentially be transferred to help water professionals in other countries facing similar situations.

Theoretical background

As previously mentioned, the significance of individuals who drive change was first documented by Schön (1963), who focused on innovations within business organizations. Schön (1963) argued that innovation requires leadership from individual champions due to resistance (and conflict) from the status quo; since then, considerable research has been undertaken on the roles, attributes and strategies of champions in the business field.

Analysis of the behavioural attributes and contextual strategies of champions for instigating and driving change in the water sector is a relatively new field of study, and therefore it is appropriate to refer to literature in other fields that have a longer history. A number of terms are used in the business sustainability and organizational development literature to describe such individuals, including “change agent”, “emergent leader” and “champion” (Allen 1969; McClure 1978; Adams 1976; Shoemaker 1991; Dunphy et al. 2007). However, definitions of each term are not consistent between authors, and the different roles can overlap. For example, Ottaway (1983) indicates that the “key change agent” role is similar to descriptions of the champion role as they stand out as leaders who choose the right time to start change and act as catalysts for change, and tend to dominate the beginning of change processes. The contrasting roles of change agents, champions and emergent leaders are explored below, followed by a justification of why the term “champion” is used in this study.

Tyson (1995) describes change agents as those tasked to bring about far-reaching organizational change and Ford and Ford (1995) describe them as being central for effecting planned change. In both cases, it is implied that the change agent is given the task of ensuring a change happens, rather than being internally motivated by their own desire for change.

Armenakis et al. (1993) describe internal change agents as organizational leaders or managers, implying that such individuals possess power linked to their position within an organization. By contrast, Dunphy et al. (2007) do not restrict internal change agents to those occupying positions of power. They refer to “executives, managers and members of the workforce, external consultants, [and] community activists” when discussing change agents, and state that such individuals are “dissatisfied with the status quo in organizational life” (Dunphy et al. 2007, 5). Similarly, Bahamon et al. (2006) define internal change agents as those who “take responsibility for a change in the long term” (658).

A distinction can be made between change agents executing planned episodic change and those promoting continuous change. For example, Weick and Quinn (1999) describe a change agent as being a “prime mover who creates change” in a process of episodic change and as a “sense maker who redirects change” in a process of continuous change. Because episodic change tends to be planned (Weick and Quinn 1999, 366), the

change agent deliberately and consciously sets out to establish conditions and circumstances that are different from what they are now and then accomplishes that through some set or series of actions and interventions either singularly or in collaboration with other people. (Ford and Ford 1995, 543)

The term “champion” arises from the literature on “champions of innovation”. The role of a champion has been described as “seeking creative information” (Howell and Higgins 1990, 318) and actively “selling the idea to management” (Chakrabarti 1974, 58). Specifically, the champion is not constrained by their formal role or place in the organizational hierarchy, and targets those with power for positive decision making (Chakrabarti 1974, 58). The role of the champion has been described as assuming ownership of the idea, pushing it in the champion’s own informal networks, and risking their reputation and position (Schön 1963; Howell and Higgins 1990). The presence of an innovation champion – the individual who provides energy and momentum to the implementation process by advocating and promoting an innovation – is an important determinant of successful innovation implementation (Howell and Higgins 1990).

By contrast, in the human resources management literature, Caldwell (2001) describes human resources champions as “those directors or senior executives at the very top of the organization who can envision, lead or implement strategic human resources policy changes of a far-reaching, transformative or integrative nature” (45). Similarly, Bahamon et al. (2006) describe a champion as a “powerful senior manager who uses personal influence to overcome indifference or resistance to the innovation” (658–659). In these definitions, therefore, the champion has positional power as well as personal influence, with the former not being incorporated in the previously discussed definitions.

In contrast to change agents being assigned their role to execute change in a formal, organized process, champions usually arise in an organization through an informal process (Chakrabarti 1974; Howell and Higgins, 1990; Coakes and Smith 2007). This does not, however, preclude champions from making use of their formal role in an organization, in addition to personal activism, to achieve the change that they envision (Anderson and Bateman 2000).

Emergent leaders are often researched in the context of small, self-managing teams within organizations. Such leaders emerge informally from within the team (Carte et al. 2006) and have been defined as group members who exert noteworthy influence over other group members despite not having the formal authority to do so (Schneier and Goktepe 1983). Emergent leaders therefore assume a broader leadership role than champions, who act specifically to promote a particular idea within an organization, and change agents, who are formally responsible for implementing a particular change.

Research into the key individuals who instigate and drive forward change in the natural resources management sector is increasing. However, there are no consistent definitions of the contrasting roles of change agents or champions in the natural resources literature. For example, Gilmour et al. (1999) and Stankey et al. (2005) use the terms “change agent” and “institutional champion” interchangeably to describe an individual from within the organization who has influence on the decision-making process and can communicate inside and outside the organization to maintain a focus on the management paradigm being championed. In a study on community-based marine protected areas, Crawford et al. (2006) identified field extension agents hired from outside the communities and responsible for community organization and planning as change agents. This usage is consistent with the definitions from the business literature, wherein change agents are described as those with the role of implementing a change rather than promoting the idea or need for change.

In terms of how such individuals achieve their goals, research investigating how corporations become more sustainable found that transformative change is frequently driven by a band of leaders that span managerial levels and organizational units (e.g. Benn et al. 2006; Dunphy et al. 2007). This form of leadership involves leaders exerting influence from both the top-down and the bottom-up and is important to explore with regards to the question of the implementation of sustainable WRM (Taylor et al. 2012).

To date, very little research has been conducted on the behavioural attributes of individuals who instigate and drive change in the water field specifically. Taylor (2008, 2010; Taylor et al. 2012) is one of the few researchers who have addressed the topic of champions of change in the water sector, although this research was focused on the Australian context. Specifically, Taylor examined methods of leadership that were driven by champions at a project level in Australian water agencies and recognized three phases to the change progression (Taylor 2008, 2010; Taylor et al. 2012). In the initiation phase, sustainable projects and policies were triggered by “project champions” (Howell and Higgins 1990). In this phase, they frequently used transformational leadership behaviours, such as questioning the status quo and proposing alternative visions for projects. In the endorsement phase, they often worked alongside executive champions to present initiatives to senior, formal leaders. They also built advocacy coalitions and used “windows of opportunity”, a short time period during which an otherwise unattainable opportunity exists, to gain endorsement. During the final implementation phase they tended to work with multi-disciplinary, cross-boundary project teams involving many sustainable water management leaders, and were highly collaborative. The project champions regularly supported these teams and organized group-based leadership activities. All three phases were backed by executive leaders who created a safe environment for innovation, learning, risk-taking and collaboration, although in different ways (Taylor 2008).

Consistent with the work of Taylor (2008, 2010; Taylor et al. 2012) on change in the Australian water sector, the term “champion” was used for the purposes of this study. This term was chosen specifically to refer to individuals who arise informally within an organization to drive change, rather than being assigned the task of implementing a change. Thus, the term was used here in relation to those who take ownership of an idea for change and promote it using both their formal position in the organization and their own personal activism and networks. In this context, champions promote change or the idea of change, rather than a product, as is sometimes the case in the business literature.

The following sections explore the literature on the behavioural attributes, strategies and contextual knowledge of champions from both the water field and other fields to provide a background for the analysis of champions in the Canadian water sector.

Behavioural attributes

The literature relating to the key behavioural attributes exhibited by champions in different contexts is varied. With respect to common findings, the literature repeatedly emphasizes the presence of personal characteristics such as confidence, persistence, enthusiasm, motivation and the ability to build and clearly communicate visions for new projects and policies (Taylor et al. 2012). Taylor (2008) examined the behavioural attributes of leaders who promote sustainable urban water management in Australia and derived 10 characteristics of champions (Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of champions of sustainable urban water management in Australia (Taylor 2008).

Personal characteristics
General and relational knowledge	Champions typically possess general knowledge of the water sector, as well as specific expert knowledge and credibility.
Openness to experience	Inclinations to be innovative, creative and open to new approaches were strongly developed amongst champions.
Demographics
Career mobility	The majority of champions studied had a higher degree of career mobility in the preceding five years than typical non-champion leaders in their organizations.
Power
Personal power	Personal power derived from the champion’s personality characteristics and leadership skills were used in preference to their formal role in the organization (i.e. their position power).
Networking	Strategic networking focused on building relationships to achieve medium to long-term strategic organizational goals was a common behaviour of champions.
Leadership behaviours
Articulating an inspiring vision	Highly relevant behaviours for champions and often distinguishing characteristics compared to local control groups. ‘Questioning the status quo’ and ‘gathering political and managerial support’ were particularly distinguishing factors.
Questioning the status quo
Gathering political and managerial support
Expressing enthusiasm and confidence
Persisting under adversity

Context and strategies

The context within which a champion operates is thought to influence the strategies that they choose to drive change. However, little is known about the factors champions consider when they select which influence tactics, such as rational persuasion, inspirational appeals or ingratiation, to employ. Taylor (2008) found that organizational culture was a decidedly significant contextual factor that affected the emergence and effectiveness of champions in the water field. In all six of the case study agencies, the sub-culture at the branch level (i.e. the municipal level) had an adaptive orientation (Taylor 2008), meaning that the cultures valued innovation and risk taking rather than order and efficiency (Shamir and Howell 1999). The most influential champions generally emerged in agencies that had an adaptive organizational culture that supported responsible risk taking, continual learning, innovation and environmental sustainability, as well as a focus on leadership development programs that were driven by senior executives. These programs strongly encouraged collaboration and group-based forms of leadership (Taylor 2008).

Champions may also aim to manipulate the context to their benefit. This is what Meijerink and Huitema (2010) call “venue shopping”, seeking out the most favorable decision-making forum for consideration of the issues, or what Kingdon (1995) refers to as looking for “windows of opportunity”. Meijerink and Huitema’s (2010) international comparison of champions in the water field discusses how individual institutional contexts each offer a particular opportunity structure. Complex decision-making processes where many parties and levels of government are engaged typically feature a wide array of venues where champions can put their issues on the agenda or seek support for their ideas. For example, Becker’s (2009) study on transitions in German flood management draws parallels between venues and champion opportunity. He argues that the German federal state provides an appropriate enabling environment for the development of new policy approaches due to the fact that there are a large number of platforms for parallel discussions. In sync with this idea, Lebel et al. (2009) conclude that an increase in institutional complexity and redundancy is not necessarily dysfunctional but can provide a choice of platforms for deliberation and policy influence at multiple levels.

In terms of change management, Meijerink and Huitema (2010) argue that critiquing the organization is of less importance than knowing the system well and pairing strategies within the institutional environment. There are cases, nevertheless, where institutions are so constraining that they minimize any opportunity for action to drive change. For example, Turton (2009) argues that it took the end of the apartheid regime for possibilities to arise for individuals to change water management frameworks in South Africa. Thus, knowing the institution is critical for champions.

Methodology

The study focused on champions working to enhance the sustainability of WRM in Canada. Champions were identified from within organizations working on water quality, source water protection, drinking water quality, watershed management, transboundary water management and climate change adaptation. Criteria to identify champions in the Canadian water context were derived from a literature review. Broadly, the researchers sought out influential, persistent, motivated, creative and problem-solving individuals who challenged the status quo with a proven ability to initiate, manage and communicate change towards more sustainable WRM in various academic, non-government and government institutions concerned with Canadian water issues. A preliminary search of media and academic papers that highlighted particular individuals involved in change towards sustainable WRM was conducted to identify such individuals. Primarily, however, recommendations of champions were sought from the authors’ network of water professionals in Canada. The suggested individuals were assessed against the criteria to ensure that they did indeed meet the definition of a champion, and the selected individuals were subsequently approached. Those that did not meet the majority of the criteria were not selected for inclusion in the study. It is thought that in such instances the individuals were nominated because the organization in which they worked was seen to conduct sustainable WRM, but it appeared that this was not specifically as a result of the individuals themselves.

Once the individuals were identified, they were contacted through an email that explained that they had been identified as champions in the Canadian water sector and they were being asked to participate in a study exploring their experiences with overcoming and/or navigating cultural and institutional barriers to more sustainable WRM practices in Canada. The participants signed a research ethics form and were informed that they would remain anonymous to ensure an open and unconstrained flow of information. The interviews were conducted between February and April in 2012 and lasted an average of 1 hour. Table 2 provides details about the nine champions (eight men, one woman) selected and where they have worked or volunteered. For the purpose of anonymity, references to the participants are gender neutral.

Table 2. Research sample.

	Level	Organization Type
Environment Canada	Mid level & Senior	Federal Government Institution
International Joint Commission	Senior	Independent Government Consulting
Canadian Partnership Initiative	Senior	United Nations Initiative
Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy	Senior	Private
FLOW	Senior	NGO
RBC Blue Water Project	Mid-level	Private
Brock University Environmental Sustainability Research Centre	Senior	Private
One Drop	Mid-level	NGO
Western Watersheds Climate Research Collaborative	Senior	Private Non-Profit
Canadian Rivers Institute	Senior	Private Research Group
Canadian Water Issues Council	Senior	Private Research Group
POLIS	Senior	Private Research Group
Walkerton Clean Water Centre	Senior	Provincial Government Agency
Water Voices	Senior	NGO

The interviews focused on understanding the relationships between the champions’ behavioural attributes and strategies for change given a particular working context. Due to geographical distances, the research was conducted primarily by phone and Skype, with three in-person interviews to gather qualitative information for the study. The interviews were semi-structured and focused on four themes: (1) the champion and their identity, (2) the strategies of the champion, (3) the champion and their environment, and (4) the champion and their vision for change.

The first theme on champion identity asked questions regarding the participants’ self-perception, their role in the Canadian water sector, what they were trying to change, their personal drivers for pursuing change, and specific values and behavioural attributes that contributed to their specific change goals. The second theme on strategy asked whether the champion sought out opportunity and how, whether they used scare tactics or more encouraging and inspirational motivations for change, and who they typically aimed to partner with. The third theme, “the champion and their environment”, inquired about the participants’ experience with institutions that work on WRM in Canada and their organizational culture, as well as the perceived venues leading change towards sustainable WRM in Canada. This theme also inquired about contextual drivers for sustainable WRM in Canada (i.e. political, environmental, social and economic drivers). The final theme was a broader analysis of the participants’ vision for change, particularly in reference to their vision for the coming decades of Canadian WRM.

With the particular interest in behavioural attributes, strategies and contextual factors in mind, the interviews were then transcribed and systematically analyzed. The content was openly coded using MAXQDA software in a way that could respond to the research interests and other points that surfaced for change to sustainable WRM. For instance, all remarks that were considered to be “strategies” were coded as such and subsequently grouped into themes as the strategies grew in prevalence across the nine participants. Through this coding method, key insights were drawn out from the particular champions interviewed in order to synthesize notable behavioural attributes, strategies and contextual factors relevant for change to more sustainable WRM.

It is important to highlight that the scope of this study was restricted to analyzing the behavioural attributes of individuals identified by their peers as being “champions” for change in Canadian WRM, alongside the strategies and the contextual knowledge they used to meet their own personal goals for change. Whether such goals were well targeted for achieving sustainable WRM was not assessed. In cases where the champions made assertions outside the aforementioned scope, such as when they discussed organizations that facilitate change, their statements were treated as opinions based on personal experience, and are highlighted as such in the Results section of this paper. Where possible, further research was conducted to verify the champions’ out-of-scope statements, such as their commentary on the secrecy and control of Environment Canada. Thus, the value of this study comes from the insight into observed behavioural attributes and the contextual strategies based on past experiences of the champions in the Canadian water sector, not into the champions’ predictions regarding future events. This distinction is made with respect to Tetlock’s (2005) exploration of what constitutes good judgment in predicting future events and why experts are often inaccurate in their forecasts. Tetlock concluded that predictions from experts in a range of fields were hardly better than chance, and far worse than those based on simple extrapolation from current trends. While noteworthy, Tetlock’s conclusions about future predictions from “experts” are not relevant to this study, since this study primarily focused on individuals’ past experiences, and the attributes, strategies and contextual knowledge they employed to meet their own goals. Overall, the scope of the study allows for the sharing of the champion experience in progressing the sustainable WRM agenda in Canada as it is valuable to record their subjective experiences and perceptions for other water professionals in Canada to learn from.

Results and discussion

Change agent behaviours

The participants shared many common characteristics of the champions described in the literature. The following section specifically details the behavioural attributes found amongst the interviewed champions in the Canadian context. What is notable is the use of both formal and informal relationships, being a passionate communicator and networking in a generally respectful and humble way while taking risks and challenging the status quo. Each of the aforementioned themes emerged from the open coding methodology consistently across all nine participants and will be explored in some detail in the following section. In instances where the themes are not unanimous, the percentage of participants who demonstrated the characteristics of the theme has been indicated.

Use of informal and formal relationships

All of the champions explained that information sharing is key to publicizing their case so that it is engendered in public understanding and concern. This can be done in many ways, both formally and informally. Participant 8, a policy advisor, explained that formally, in their briefing notes to senior managers, they included their recommendations and explanations of their recommendations to give the policy makers direction on why they should make a specific decision. Informally, they kept informed on current issues, with regards to both science and policy issues, in order to be able to engage in relevant conversation in casual interactions at lunch or at conferences, for example. This is important in terms of “windows of opportunity”; a champion must be aware of the issues if they wish to actively seek opportunity to change policies and attitudes.

Passionate communicator

It was found that champions who were environmental scientists (five out of nine) tended to be very passionate about explaining science in lay terms. Not only did they enthusiastically explain the scientific data that illustrated the importance of their change efforts, they consistently stopped to check that the interviewer understood exactly what was being said. They were deeply concerned that issues based on scientific data were well understood so that the champions could perform their job of promoting ideas for change. Those with more socio-economic backgrounds (four out of nine) tended to avoid detail and instead broke down the issues into main points. Thus, those that were identified by the community as being successful champions were those that had both the passion and the patience to communicate knowledge.

The majority (eight out of nine) of the champions were frequent public speakers. The champions did not necessarily consider themselves to be gifted public speakers, but they saw it as crucial for mobilizing the public. As Participant 9 said, “I am not necessarily good at public relations; I speak because it’s essential”. Interestingly, Participant 7 went so far as to say that their experience at the International Joint Commission (IJC), where they saw many Commissioners struggle with solutions to complex and difficult decisions, brought them to the conclusion that a strong background in water was not a prerequisite for excellence. Instead, the ability to problem solve in general and communicate ardently throughout the process was critical. Not only was the role of communicating to the public deemed important, but also communicating within the organization. “I am a multi-tasker, I take on different roles”, Participant 4 explained. They also explained how their formal roles listed in their contract did not limit them from taking on other necessary roles for change. They explained that, “[they have] a role inside the organization to educate”, to keep everyone, such as the lawyers and accountants, involved and up to date with the issues and to “keep the organization alive”. Interpersonal and communication skills were noteworthy strengths across all the participants.

Respectful, open, honest and humble

“The first thing I say to myself when I wake up in the morning is, ‘you don’t know everything about anything’”, explained Participant 1. This modest behaviour was common amongst champions in the interviews (six of the nine). “I like to challenge things in a respectful way”, explained Participant 8. If an individual is not open-minded and enters debates with preconceived notions, they run the risk of being labelled and consequently cornered for their beliefs. For instance, if an individual who has the reputation of being against the privatization of water gives a talk at a conference, the audience already knows the direction of the argument and that their opinion is not open to variation. Every rebuttal will be tweaked to illustrate why privatization should not be pursued rather than focusing on the goal of sustainable WRM, for example. Almost half (four out of nine) of the participants suggested that one should be wary of allowing oneself to be labelled, as it reduces one’s ability to be respected and open to discussion.

Participant 7 stated, “One has to have principles. Principles as a person. You also have to be ethical. Trust, ethics and principles are all characteristics of leadership and if you have those then people will be more willing to work with you in managing water and other issues”.

Not only were the champions open and honest in terms of debating the issues, there was also evidence that they were open and honest with their own initiatives. While describing the success of one of their initiatives, Participant 8 stopped midway to evaluate what they were saying and stated that as they spoke they realized they could go even further to improve their efforts to solve the problem at hand. They were critical of their own change efforts, and were by no means satisfied with or defensive of the value of their and their organization’s work. “You must be open to the fact that your solution is never final”, said Participant 8, emphasizing the need to revisit decisions periodically to ensure effective and timely management.

Risk taker: Challenges the status quo and is action oriented

To be a champion, one must be able to recognize what is facilitating sustainable WRM and what is inhibiting it. In doing so, the champions each expressed their own ways in which they challenged the status quo and, as Participant 1 noted, they “[said] what other people [were] not prepared to say”. Participant 7 said:

You have to be a risk taker, if you don’t take risks you’re not going to get anywhere nor will you be able to effect change... I [stuck] my neck out and I was told that I might be fired. If you honestly believe in something strong enough you have to do that.

All of the champions referenced the need for passion for solutions-oriented approaches. Participant 8 created their daily and weekly schedule by setting goals that would indicate the pathway for their vision for change as efficiently and effectively as possible. “If you don’t have your vision you don’t know if you are adapting or basically reacting”, explained Participant 8. This participant also stated, however, that to be action-oriented and driven by vision, individuals “must be clear on what [one] can control and what [one] cannot”.

There is clear overlap between this study and the personal characteristics highlighted in Taylor’s work on champions in the Australian water sector. The Canadian champions’ use of both formal and informal relationships ties in with the Australian champions’ notable personal power and leadership skills used in addition to their formal role in the organization. The Canadian champions’ emphasis on passionate communication correlates with the Australians’ expressed confidence and enthusiasm around ideas they wanted to rally support for. Strategic networking focused on building relationships to achieve medium- to long-term strategic organizational goals was a common behaviour in both studies. Similarly, being a risk taker and challenging the status quo in a persistent way under adversity were important for both Canadian and Australian champions, although the Canadian champions emphasized the necessity of a respectful and humble approach.

The change agent and their context: Venues and strategies

The following section explores the Canadian contextual factors influencing sustainable WRM and the associated strategies adopted by the participants that proved to be successful.

Different histories, different change agents

It was clear throughout the interviews that the champions’ personal experiences or history influenced their understanding of which organization or institutions were most suitable for working to change towards sustainable WRM in Canada. For instance, after Participant 5 was asked if they focused energy on institutional change within the government, they immediately answered, “No! Good luck with governments, do not try to change the institutions”. Their response came from their own experience with disrespected, although signed, federal and provincial government contracts that left them mid-initiative with both support and finances frozen. When the government retracted finances, they saw the emergence of effective community leadership more times than not. Thus, their energy, passion and general belief in community leadership led them to engage with community based, non-governmental venues as they had a clear idea of their potential and success with WRM. There was little reason for this champion to focus on changing the governmental institutions as they had no vision for their success.

Interestingly, the older the participant, the more they held the federal government accountable to carry out major responsibilities regarding WRM. In contrast, none of the younger participants was either hopeful or expectant that the federal government would facilitate the transition to sustainable WRM, adaptive management or demand management, for example.

Participant 9, a former senior leader at Environment Canada (EC), stated that in the 1970s and 1980s there was strong support for cooperative federalism, which was effective under the Canadian Water Act. The CAD $20 million annual budget for federal and provincial spending on environmental protection allowed EC to carry out projects that, they argued, improved water quality significantly by the 1980s and 1990s through their basin management approach. They stated that “we fell by the wayside over the course of the last decade and it is now the provinces’ business, making things very spotted across the country”. Over the past few decades, 35% budget cuts to EC (Draper and Mitchell 2001) and a significant increase in secrecy and control with time (explained in the following section) are some of the key reasons that older generations hold the government accountable. In their lifetime, they have seen a more responsive and engaged government, contributing to their belief that the government must lead water management in Canada. Alternatively, all of the younger generation champions stated that they have never seen effective water management at the (federal) government level, and only one said that they would be willing to partner with the federal government. As Participant 3 stated, “We’re looking at legislative changes that are taking us back to the [19]80s. De-regulation and self-regulation”. They believed that federal politicians should be held responsible for their neglect so that they do not disengage from their crucial role to promote sustainable WRM in Canada.

Federal mandate gap

The role of EC was explored in particular due to the focus participants placed on it (five out of nine) and as it is the principal environmental management department for Canadian natural resources at the federal level. Participant 7, a former employee at EC, explained that one of the reasons they left the institution was because they often made recommendations and received no feedback on the decisions that were eventually made. They remarked that “it was very abstract; budgets were cut and there wasn’t really a clear mandate… I found it generally more frustrating than rewarding to work in Environment Canada”. Participant 2 shared similar frustrations with a lack of a clear mandate, and explained how it was inhibiting action for ameliorated water quality in First Nation communities. They stated that:

the provinces are ultimately responsible for providing water and wastewater treatment for Canadians living in their provinces but because the majority of these First Nations communities live on reserves, and because reserves are part of the federal government’s responsibility, the provinces have divested that responsibility back to the federal government. However, the federal government doesn’t have the resources, infrastructure, or design to implement any of that or the regulatory capacity, laws and legal authority, to go in and to provide it.

As a result, Participant 2 noted that action is stifled due to this large regulatory gap.

Maintaining the status quo: Turning a blind eye

“Governments, of course, are highly secretive. Never underestimate the power of the status quo”, said Participant 3. This was one of the many references that the majority of participants (six out of nine) made to the stifling status quo of Canadian institutions involved in WRM. For several participants, learning was rarely incorporated into policy. The policy analysts who were interviewed frequently referred to the lack of feedback with reference to policy suggestions, the public’s response to implemented policies, budget decisions and the results of important meetings with ministers, officials and the media. With a lack of information for feedback and reflection, the status quo safely remains, making the task of the champion more challenging. This maintenance of the status quo overlaps significantly with the following description of “federal control”.

Federal control

Alongside the mandate gap and issue of the status quo were frequent references to the controlling nature of EC as an institution (six out of nine). For example, Participant 7 reflected on how they believed EC was becoming a more closed and secretive institution with time. They recalled stories of the grave implications for two of their colleagues after they revealed findings that the government did not want to share with the public about a chemical found in the environment. Participant 7 remarked that, “some of [their] colleagues are very much reined in, in that any remarks that they want to make have to be screened... They might be scientifically sound but they might have an impact; an economic impact or political impact”. This participant’s perception is that it has generally gotten worse over time.

Such findings revealed major constraints to sustainable WRM and reflect Allan and Curtis’ (2005) Australian study that highlighted how western societal norms feed into the current dominant natural resource management culture that values reductionism, control, comfort and clarity. Allan and Curtis revealed how deeply entrenched social norms classify institutions as machines that provide smooth, efficient operations with predictable results. This attitude hampers establishing problem definition and learning from implementation. In such controlled and regulated environments, there is little room for learning and reflection at a higher level regarding consequences for the state of the ecosystem and watersheds, nor is the information necessarily disseminated to the public who have a significant role to play at a grassroots level (Allan and Curtis 2005). The secrecy and control within EC described by the participants may suggest that maintaining EC as an institution takes precedence over the sound understanding and management of Canadian water resources. These findings were further supported by a recent survey of federal government scientists commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), which found that 90% of those surveyed felt that they were not allowed to speak freely to the media about the work they do and that, faced with a departmental decision that could harm public health, safety or the environment, nearly as many (86%) felt they would face censure or retaliation. The survey also revealed that half of federal scientists (50%) reported being aware of actual cases in which the health and safety of Canadians or environmental sustainability has been compromised because of political interference with their scientific work (PIPSC 2013).

Strategies for the Canadian context?

For a more effective implementation of sustainable WRM, it appeared that champions have to either strategize to transform embedded values of the current government institutions in charge of natural resources in Canada or seek out other venues and new arrangements of partnerships between venues. This may include private-sector or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that do not have the barriers of secrecy, control and a stifling status quo.

Taylor’s research in the Australian water sector revealed that different types of champions emerged depending on the context. In water agencies that were relatively hostile to the concept of sustainability, individualistic, risk-taking “maverick” project champions were more likely to emerge. As agencies evolved so that their organizational cultures valued sustainability, decidedly collaborative project champions were more common (Taylor et al. 2012). Taylor’s conclusions parallel with the present study.

Champions in the federal government must focus on the governance culture of these institutions. As Participant 3 remarked, “We don’t lack good science, good understanding, and good ideas. We lack good governance”. Thus, a champion in the federal arena will have to be individually strong, and be more of a maverick and risk taker to overcome institutional constraints. Although these types of champions may be institutionally isolated, they will ultimately be able to refer to what Participant 3 called “the virtual network” of national champions for support. They noted that “there is a collaborative and collective effort of 200–300 people [in Canada] working together towards change to sustainable water resource management”.

Allan and Curtis (2005) argued that it is possible to create pockets of culture that can experiment in niches within organizations, regions or projects that support the aforementioned values associated with more sustainable WRM. These pockets of culture can instigate initial change efforts that can later be endorsed and implemented throughout the institution. Such niche experimentation may be relevant in the federal government. While champions in the federal government likely have to be risk takers, they also need to be politically savvy to effectively shape the way in which political institutions transition to embed sustainability values and projects. As Doppelt (2010) noted, the greatest leverage point for transforming a social system so that it embraces sustainability is to change the dominant controlling mental paradigm out of which the system arose. If this mental paradigm can be altered, one can change the entire way that it is governed and operates. To do so, champions in the federal government will have to repeatedly point out the failures of the old mental paradigm while concurrently articulating a new mental paradigm as the more appropriate approach. Repeatedly pointing out failures of the old system to change the mental paradigm has been a proven and highly effective leverage point (McClure 1978; Kotter 1996; Doppelt 2010).

Doppelt (2010) also argued that focus on improved information flow is essential for the sustainability of the social systems managing water resources. One example of an institution that is more open and is facilitating change, and which is neither a private-sector organization nor an NGO, is the IJC. The IJC was created by the signing of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, between Great Britain (on behalf of Canada) and the United States with the core mandate to prevent and resolve disputes and monitor and assist the two governments’ decisions on trans-boundary and boundary water matters between the two countries (IJC 2014). Participant 7 explained that the IJC principles proactively accommodated new ways of learning and sharing information. It is mandated by the Treaty to engage with community members across various platforms for bi-national exchange. Furthermore, they stated that the IJC aimed at meaningful stakeholder engagement to ensure effective information flow. They further explained that this was easier for the IJC than for a large government department because the IJC has a smaller multidisciplinary staff. These comments about why the IJC was perceived to be supportive of sustainable WRM can inform change efforts in other institutions inhibiting sustainable WRM. The majority (five out of nine) of the participants noted the importance of correcting feedback loops to collect information about past or present influences of the same phenomenon in the present or future. This is a leverage point for moving an institution towards sustainability as it allows people to understand the effects of their actions as well as to make appropriate adjustments. The importance that the champions placed on correcting the information flow is related to fostering learning and innovation to constantly increase organizational understanding (Doppelt 2010). This can be integrated into organizational management strategies and policies. Such initiatives, however, will seemingly only be effective once an institution, such as the IJC, has already endorsed sustainable WRM. Federal institutions, however, that have the aforementioned cultural constraints will not directly benefit from improved feedback loops until the organizational culture, namely values, has been challenged by the champions.

Municipalities and provinces

Municipalities, watershed councils, Ontario’s Conservation Authorities, the public and some provincial premiers were identified by the majority (six out of nine) of the participants as facilitating change in an effective manner. In particular, four out of the nine participants were very enthusiastic about municipal-level success in facilitating change (the other participants made no mention of the success or otherwise of the municipal level). “They are properly situated with regulation and appropriate powers. Although there are limits on what they can do with provincial regulations, this is where the action is”, Participant 3 explained. This corresponds well with Taylor’s (2008) research findings that suggest that the organizational culture in Australia at the third structural tier (the municipal level) had a more adaptive orientation, meaning that the cultures were innovative and encouraging rather than law- and goal-orientated.

Additionally, Ontario’s Conservation Authorities, which are organized on a watershed basis, were raised by three of the nine champions as success stories for addressing local watershed management issues in partnership with government, landowners and other key stakeholders. Participant 9 explained the Conservation Authorities’ unique positioning as an organized network of non-profit organizations that are financially supported by community and public funds. The combined arrangement of provincial funding and political power from the municipalities was considered a strong point by the participants, and entities similar to the Conservation Authorities were suggested as a way to improve WRM in other provinces. This is a good venue for champions willing to work with government bodies but who function better within smaller, local-level initiatives.

A change in power dynamics

As Participant 5 stated, “the types of change agents will change with time”. Before the secrecy, closed culture and funding cuts, the federal government was a major player in WRM in Canada. However, this is not the case now. As a result, the majority (six out of nine) of the participants noted that many of those who are frustrated with the mismanagement of water resources in Canada instead look to themselves and their communities to address the issues, rather than the federal government. This power and management shift is a noteworthy observation that must be understood by water professionals working in Canada. Participant 6 suggested that:

there is a vacuum created by the government. They are backing out of a lot of their responsibilities. This inevitably gets filled by community based monitoring systems and research groups. For instance, in the north, they have created an increased acceptance of local knowledge from elders over, say, that of more traditional western scientific knowledge and it is a huge success.

Community-based organizations are an area that the majority (six out of nine) of the participants focused their efforts on with success.

Seeking opportunity

As seen in this study and as mentioned in the literature, champions’ work environments affect their ability to drive change. At the same time, champions can manipulate the context through which they work. For example, champions commonly engage in “venue shopping” (Meijerink and Huitema 2010) and look for “windows of opportunity” (Kingdon 1995). An example of a window of opportunity in Canada followed the Walkerton, Ontario, crisis, where in May 2000, seven people died and approximately 2500 became ill from drinking Escherichia coli-contaminated water. The impact might have been much smaller if the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission had admitted to contaminated water sooner (Osterholm 2000). For a while, this event put a focus on water issues in the country.

One interesting concept that was discussed was the idea of “creating opportunity”. For instance, Participant 2 was working on improving sanitation on First Nations reserves in Canada, where there are significant problems in basic sanitary and water provision compared to other Canadian communities. They stated that:

the public is typically willing to fund expensive mitigation and repair immediately after a disaster. There is a big window of opportunity to instigate change across a region or in a particular area once that disaster has been experienced by the community. It is then the natural leaders and change makers who can get in there with relative ease to convince the public... On that same page, if you can create that same energy around an ongoing crisis, like what’s happening with the First Nations, then you can essentially create your own window of opportunity to fill the change agent niche.

A good example of this is the recent Idle No More (INM) movement which quickly became one of the largest indigenous mass movements in Canadian history. The INM movement took the energy embedded in a centuries-old resistance, as indigenous nations and their lands underwent the impacts of exploration and colonization, to inspire thousands of people and solidarity groups to action. Initially, the movement began as a series of teach-ins throughout Saskatchewan to protest Bill C-45, which included changes to the Indian Act and Navigable Waters Act that violate environmental protection, Aboriginal and Treaty rights. It then escalated within months to INM becoming the center of media attention, with millions of people accessing their websites, Twitter account and Facebook pages every day (INM 2013).

The literature identifies champions in policy roles as typically politically savvy and as people who have the ability to use short-term political windows of opportunity to implement long-term change (Hartley et al. 1997; Meijerink and Huitema 2010; Taylor et al. 2012). Meijerink and Huitema (2010) highlighted how these individuals typically recognize a problem or political window and work to expand it by linking solutions to problems and by working to get the resulting policy packages accepted by decision makers. In doing so, they bring about a convergence around the issue. Participant 6, who was part of the negotiations between two provinces and eight states regarding withdrawals and diversions from the Great Lakes, capitalized on this highly public debate. The participant engaged both the public and journalists with the argument for managing water from the watershed perspective rather than based on political borders, in order to help their negotiations and carry policy decisions through to implementation. Once the public and media are highly engaged in the political decision, they stated, “You can’t go back”.

Champions must always be prepared for a window of opportunity, in terms of both strategizing to anticipate a window of opportunity and strategizing for solutions when the window opens up. For example, Participant 8 noted their use of strategic networking in preparation for windows of opportunity:

You must look at the opportunity. When there is a meeting, when there is a specific event. You need to be forward thinking of the implications... you will talk or will be in contact with certain people and you must build your networks... try to find nodes and then through those nodes you can connect, and extend your connection to where you need it to be.

Each venue is case specific and implies strategic thinking on the part of the champion to decipher the behavioural attributes and strategies necessary to instigate the changes through to implementation.

Social and professional considerations for change agents

With respect to challenging the status quo and driving change, there are social and professional considerations that need to be understood. Two participants (7 and 9) strongly believed that young professionals should refrain from confrontation while they are still establishing their career. Three other participants (1, 3 and 6) did not necessarily agree that young professionals should avoid champion roles, but they did sympathize that with more financial security one is able to take more risks. But even if one has financial security and a job, there is still the risk of harming your reputation. “People are scared to say anything for fear of being ridiculed”, stated Participant 7. For instance, they noted that in the public sector:

most people are not concerned about losing their jobs like in the private sector. It does, however, depend on the government of the day. So, some public servants will be very reluctant to say what they really want to say because if it’s contrary to government policy they may not lose their jobs but they could be shoved in a corner and not do any meaningful work.

A potentially useful strategy around reputation and financial security concerns is the use of journalists. Participant 6 frequently used journalists to effectively communicate stories while remaining relatively anonymous. For instance, Participant 6 was part of the Great Lakes diversion negotiations between Canada and the US, with a focus on policies governing water diversion from the Great Lakes Basin. They stated that they observed some of the politics involved, with participants saying one statement about the decisions for the negotiations in public and another statement behind closed doors. As such, they decided to privately consult a journalist regarding this observation rather than publically stating it themself. This proved to be highly successful and the media attention rallied public pressure on policy makers in charge of the negotiations to decide upon and design the Great Lakes Water Agreement in a way that was accountable to the public. Altogether, the participants were well aware of the social and professional considerations of being a champion, and were aware of the necessity to explore mitigation strategies.

Conclusions

This research sought out champions working towards deep structural change for sustainable WRM in Canada. The primary focus was on individuals’ past experiences and the attributes, strategies and contextual knowledge they employed to meet their own goals, rather than future predictions. Participants were interviewed regarding the factors that assisted and inhibited them in the process of implementing sustainable WRM in terms of venues, behaviours and strategies. This knowledge, derived from the successes and experiences of the participants, was presented to share how Canadian water professionals can pair their solutions for sustainable WRM with the institutional cultures and structures that they are faced with. The findings of this study contribute to the literature on characteristics of champions in the water sector and may be used in other countries in similar contexts.

While the participants shared many common characteristics of champions described in the literature, they revealed particularities that could be due to the contextual specificity of Canada. The Canadian champions behaved in a way that used both formal and informal relationships, passion in communication, and respectful and humble networking and work relations, while taking the risks needed to challenge the status quo. Furthermore, the champions revealed the need to understand contextual factors such as mandate gaps, control and secrecy at the federal level versus the more open and responsive depiction of the municipal institutional culture in Canada. The change in power dynamics in Canada is also important to note with respect to private and non-governmental community integration. This is specifically notable within the younger generation of champions as they expressed little experience with effective government action to implement sustainable WRM and highlighted alternative perspectives on contextual opportunities for action.

Such contexts are there to first understand and second, if at all, critique. This is to say that while the context can inhibit change, it does not necessarily prevent it if the champion is well equipped to understand the institution and the strategies that can influence it. Such strategies include the creation of windows of opportunity and the use of media, such as journalists, for risk-taking change efforts that do not have to be socially and professionally threatening.

The obstacles to sustainable WRM encountered in Canada must not dissuade the efforts of water professionals but instead encourage them to find ways to overcome such barriers through the use of the strategies described in this paper. As Participant 3 noted, champions are not lone mavericks but are instead part of a passionate and devoted collaborative group that both energize and support each other through all of their change efforts. If water professionals have a better understanding of the champion experience in Canada and how such agents are facilitated by effective strategies, behaviours and contextual knowledge, they will be able to contribute to a more effective implementation of sustainable WRM in Canada.

To address some limitations of this study, future work should include more female champions (only three were recommended and out of the three only one female was eventually determined to be a champion). In addition to building knowledge on the female experience, female participants may shed light on altogether different approaches to managing change for more sustainable WRM in Canada. Future work must also include First Nations leaders, as there were none interviewed. Learning from the First Nations experience in change management would be very valuable to such a study as it would shed light on alternative approaches, points of reference, change language and narratives that can serve as valuable tools for champions in Canada. This research was also very specific to the eastern Canadian experience, with only three participants representing the northern territories and the west. Thus, future work would benefit from a greater integration of champions from the northern and western regions of Canada and a larger overall sample size.

Acknowledgements

The involvement of the participants was greatly appreciated (for kindly giving their time to be interviewed for the purpose of this research). Without their commitment to share personal experiences and insights, this article and the subsequent conversation would have not been possible. The support provided by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Grant held by Jan Adamowski is also acknowledged.