Skip to content Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Breadcrumb Trail

Institutional links

Values and ethics

Versions

ARCHIVED - Career Development in the Federal Public Service - Building a World-Class Workforce

Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

Chapter 2 - Career Development in the Federal Public Service: The Interview Study (Continued)

8. Retention

Career development is a function whose activities are aimed at preserving and enhancing employees' competence in their jobs through improving their knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. Career development activities do not, however, occur within a vacuum. They are implemented within a work environment and organizational culture which may either enhance the development experience or detract from it. If the work environment is such that employees are frustrated and disheartened high performance employees with the most marketable skills will voluntarily leave the organization. Such turnover makes succession and human resources planning difficult. The following questions were asked during the interview to get a better picture of the extent to which employee turnover is an issue within the Public Service and to help identify possible solutions.

What is the most rewarding aspect of working in the Public Service?
What is the most frustrating aspect of working in the Public Service? What could the Public Service do to reduce this frustration?
What keeps you in the Public Service?
Have you ever thought about leaving the Public Service? If yes,
- Where would you go?
- Why would you leave?
- What would induce you to stay?

What is the most rewarding aspect of working in the Public Service?

The answers to this question (see Table 2.21) are, in many ways, inspirational. Most respondents (59% of the sample) said that the most rewarding aspect of working in the Public Service was the chance to make a contribution to society (service, working in the public's interest, average citizen is better off for what I do, not driven by the dollar, I can see the results, effect change, etc). Respondents were also rewarded by:

the challenging nature of the work they were doing (i.e. Public Service so large and diverse, lots of opportunities, departments, variety of work, variety of occupations and tasks, work with lots of sectors);
the fact that their work gave them a sense of accomplishment and increased their sense of self-esteem (i.e. personal sense of accomplishment, achievement, reward, meets my personal needs, jives with my view of myself as a person);
their interactions with their colleagues (I'm surrounded by good people, stimulating people, with similar values); and
the opportunities they had to learn new skills (the Public Service uses my talents, skills, stretches me, enhances my capabilities, challenges me, always the chance to learn something new).

Table 2.21
Most Rewarding Aspects of Working in the Public Service
Rewards	Total	Men	Women
* Multiple responses recorded
Contribution to society	59%	66%	54%
Challenge	19%	16%	20%
Esteem-related	16%	15%	16%
People-related	15%	11%	17%
Skills/learning-related	11%	11%	11%

Gender differences

Men were more likely to say they found the chance to make a contribution rewarding (66% versus 54%).

Job Type Differences

All groups mentioned contribution to society as their number one reward. There was, however, variation with respect to their number two reward (see Box 2.10).

BOX 2.10
What is Rewarding About Work in The Public Service: Job Type
* Contribution number one reward for all job groups
What Was Mentioned
Executives	Challenge (25%)
Managers	Challenge (25%), Esteem (17%), Learning (17%)
Officers	Esteem (20%), People (20%)
Analysts	People (22%), Challenge (20%)
Scientists	Challenge (28%), Esteem (18%) People (17%)
What Was NOT Mentioned
Executives	Job security (0%), Learning (7%), Esteem (7%), People (6%)
Managers	Job Security (3%)
Officers	Learning (8%), Challenge (4%)
Analysts	Learning (5%)
Scientists	Learning (0%)

Participation in CDP

Results were very similar to those observed in conjunction with job type as: (1) all groups were most likely to mention contribution to society as their number one reward, and (2) there was a lot of between- group variation with respect to reward number two (see Box 2.11).

BOX 2.11
What is Rewarding About Work in The Public Service: Participation in CDP
What Was Mentioned
Not in CDP	Contribution (49%), Esteem (18%), People (17%)
In CDP	Contribution (75%), Challenge (30%)
AEXDP	Contribution (85%), Challenge (45%)
ADM Pool	Contribution (76%, Challenge (28%)
CAP	Contribution (66%), Challenge (19%)
MTP	Contribution (75%), Challenge (26%), People (17%)
What Was NOT Mentioned
AEXDP	People (0%)
ADM Pool	Esteem (4%) and Learning (4%)

What's the most rewarding aspect of working in the federal Public Service?

"I work with the public, and I can't imagine being in the Public Service without being able to deal with the public. I'm into instant gratification. I wouldn't want to have to rely on (my department) to get my rewards. I need that all day long."

"I think it's being at the edge of things that are happening that are really important. I've been involved in programs that were the first of their kind in North America. This kind of program experience and professional experience just isn't available anywhere but in government. The file I'm working on now... to say it's exciting is an understatement... It's really being able to be involved in key social issues. The issues are relevant and highly consistent with my value structure, so they're very rewarding in that sense."

"I've worked in the private sector and the public sector as well...I get lasting fulfillment over a period of time from my perhaps corny belief that my work does contribute somehow to the public good and to making Canada a better place to live in. I believe very firmly that our Public Service is the best in the world. It was neck and neck with some of the more developed commonwealth countries, but I think we've pulled ahead because our reforms have been carried out in a manner that is less dogmatic and less in a unidimensional philosophical bent and I think being part of that carries some of its own rewards...It's certainly not the money!"

What is the most frustrating aspect of working in the Public Service?

There was a fairly high degree of consensus with respect to the frustrations of working in the Public Service (see Table 2.22). In total, 75% of respondents found some aspect of the "bureaucracy" frustrating. The most common frustrations with the bureaucracy related to process (always someone else to rubber stamp it, inter-unit dependencies, takes too long to get anything done, always a layer above you), staffing (takes too long to hire who you need, can't get right people, can't let people go who might be better off elsewhere) and results (inertia, no control over the outcome, can never see outcome, feedback gets lost, your idea gets watered down). Other frustrations relate to the work environment and self-esteem and include:

the work culture/working atmosphere (lack of vision and goals, interdepartmental conflicts, turf wars, heavy workloads);
the perception that management/senior management treats public servants badly (devalues them, treated as second class by senior officials, etc.); and
poor public perception/ lack of respect for public servants by the average citizen.

Finally, 16% of the sample found political interference (conflict between my needs, needs of public, and needs of elected officials) to be very frustrating.

Table 2.22
Most Frustrating Aspects of Working in the Public Service
	Total
* Multiple responses recorded
Bureaucracy: process related	35%
Culture/values/working atmosphere	21%
Political interference	16%
Bureaucracy: staffing related	14%
Management/senior management treat public servants badly	13%
Poor public perception/ lack of respect for public servants by average citizen	12%
Bureaucracy: results related	11%

Gender differences

For both genders, process related issues within the bureaucracy were mentioned as the most frustrating. Women were more likely to find the work environment frustrating (26% versus 15%). Men were more likely to mention political interference (20% versus 11%).

What can be done to reduce some of the frustrations of working in the Public Service?

"I'm tired of the elitism, territorialism and game playing among senior management. We're so focused on outcomes. We have to start rewarding, not only outcome, but how you obtained it. How much destruction did you leave in your wake? How many people were hurt or shown disrespect? We forget that what matters is not only where you end up, but the journey."

"Shift the focus to people instead of filling in the forms. It's time to stop thinking that because the form is filled out, the job is done."

"In trying to be fair, we are holier than the Pope. For example, just in HR terms: the way we manage our people is unnecessarily bureaucratic to ensure fairness. Frankly, I think we've now built up so many layers of bureaucracy that could probably be cut through simply by delegating, devolving more. If you can't try to decentralize it, devolve it down and give people the authorities that are necessary. You've also got to make them accountable, so if you want that responsibility you've got to have the accountability to go with it. I think we're trying to do that in some respects, we're just not doing it fast enough. You're going to have to be occasionally a little nasty: to fire a federal public servant all but takes an act of God. It's very difficult and I would argue that if you're going to accept the streamlining of the system, accountability is going to dictate career actions and you're going to have to accept that. Another thing, the federal bureaucracy tends to be risk averse. I'm sorry, risk averse is very slow, methodical and expensive. You're going to have to accept that there will be risk, what you've got to do is let the managers manage that risk and not insist upon a bureaucracy that will somehow pretend that it eliminates the risk. It doesn't, you can't eliminate the risk. But you can jump through so many damn hoops that by the time you get to the resolution, it no longer solves the problem because the problem has gone away."

"Compensation isn't the only motivation, it's having a motivating working environment in which to address some of these issues. You have to have a motivated staff; they have to feel that they're contributing in a positive fashion. We've moved to a corporate mentality, and away from the feeling of family."

"Realistically, I don't imagine there's anything that can be done (about the bureaucracy). There have been two or three initiatives since I joined the Public Service 18 years ago to try and streamline and grease the skids and make things move faster and give management more autonomy and all those sorts of buzzwords, and none of that ever works. It always ends up even more of a strait-jacket. Personnel policies are much more strict and much more inflexible than they were 18 years ago, in my opinion. It's happened despite all these initiatives to pull things in exactly the opposite direction. Frankly, I have no suggestions to what could be done to improve it. I don't think there is anything."

Job Type Differences

For all but one of the job types examined, process related issues within the bureaucracy were mentioned as the most frustrating feature of working in the Public Service. Officers felt that the work atmosphere (36%) and political interference (28%) were the most frustrating aspects of working in the public sector. Also interesting are the findings showing that almost 30% of those in the executive group found political interference frustrating; 25% of managers found it frustrating that senior management treat public servants badly.

Participation in CDP

The types of frustrations noted by those who participated in a CDP were essentially the same as those noted by respondents who were not in such programs. There were however differences in frustrations between the various CDP groups. AEXDP reported the most frustration. One quarter of those interviewed were frustrated with political interference, staffing issues, and poor public perception/lack of respect; 35% were frustrated with the culture/values/working atmosphere. It is interesting to note that no one in this sample felt that senior managers treated government employees badly!

Those in the ADM pool and MTP reported the least frustration. Aside from frustration around bureaucratic processes within the Public Service (28% of those in the ADM pool and 36% of MTPs expressed frustration with this aspect of the bureaucracy), there was no other issue mentioned by a substantial number of respondents.

A substantial number of employees who are part of CAP are very frustrated by the bureaucratic process (33%), the culture, values and working atmosphere (30%) and the way that senior management treat public servants (22%). Virtually no one in this sample reported frustration with staffing, how the Public Service is perceived, or lack of control.

What could the Public Service do to reduce this frustration?

Respondents agreed on three strategies to reduce these frustrations:

streamline HR (cut the red tape in HR, make staffing more user friendly, more flexible, make it possible to hire who you need, reduce turnaround time to hire) (mentioned by 33% of the sample);
focus on people (respect employees, value employees, ask them what they want) (mentioned by 30% of the sample); and
make managers accountable for progress of own employees (make their evaluation contingent on employee development, reward it) (mentioned by 20% of the sample).

It is interesting to note that 20% of respondents (40% of executives, 30% of AEXDP, 34% of the ADM pool ) felt that the government was CURRENTLY working to reduce the frustrations they had cited.

There were no gender, job type or CDP participation differences in these data!

What keeps you in the Public Service?

"I just love the complexity, the big picture. I like all the levels and the domino effect of decisions. I like looking at those kinds of challenges as they affect different levels of the organization."

"The belief that the Public Service is an honourable profession. It's a calling. Lots of days go by where I ask myself, "Hey, what am I doing here?" because what I'm doing doesn't seem to make a difference at all. Every once in a while you run into someone who's working for you who says, "I really appreciate working for you, you really helped me out on this one." It's real important, it's an honourable profession."

"A little bit of inertia, honestly. Also, the fact that there's nice benefits."

What's the most frustrating aspect of working in the federal Public Service?

"Because of the downsizing, as a research scientist, I find myself in front of a photocopy machine doing photocopies because there is no support staff to give it to. I find those to be expensive photocopies."

"Real issues or rather important issues are discussed between upper management only. If they do take the time to talk to us about it, it is just a formality. The decision has already been made. It is very frustrating."

"I am getting quite cynical about whether anyone in the Public Service cares at all about management. By that I mean the operational delivery side of the government as opposed to the political, ministerial, public policy side of the government. They've got to understand that we've got 180 - 200,00 people and for the senior part of an organization not to focus on managing front-line service is very unhealthy and foolish."

"I think the most frustrating thing is the extent to which almost every activity is bound up in so many rules and procedures that seem to be always more complex and more difficult to accommodate. Despite lots of initiatives over the last ten years to make things more flexible and efficient, they only seem to become all the more Byzantine and inflexible. "

"It's a national sport in this country to run the Public Service down, despite its best efforts and the fact that I know damn well that we are not all sitting in our offices knitting the way we might have been 15 years ago. The other frustrating part of it to me is the size and intractability of the bureaucracy."

"The lack of individual reward for effort. I'm paid based on a group and scale that has absolutely nothing to do with how effective and knowledgeable I am as an individual. I've worked in the private sector and there you can be rewarded either monetarily or through other means, and this can't happen in the Public Service."

"The HR processes. The competition process. If you've been classified as something, once you've been slotted as a secretary, for example, forget about breaking into another classification. You're into that classification silo, and you stay there. People kept telling me that I had potential, but it has taken me six years to secure a position outside of my original classification."

"The inability of differing government departments to recognize that they are common servants of Canada. And that we have a common goal to serve the country. This bickering among the departments slows us down and prevents us from having that common vision and being able to articulate it internationally."

"The red tape. Today I asked for a filing cabinet, files everywhere, we need a new cabinet. And I was told it would take around six weeks. This sort of thing is outrageous in this day and age. I should be able to walk into Grand & Toy, put it on my government card and have it delivered tomorrow."

"The heavy emphasis on risk avoidance, explaining mistakes, and defending decisions... the PR aspects rather than focusing on actual work."

"The workload. I just took my 3-week holiday, I've been back for a week, and I'm looking forward to next year's and the next year's. Doing more with less is one thing. But you just can't give the level of service you'd like with no staff."

"There is a totally different skill-set that is needed on the operational side from the policy side. It's a totally different way of thinking, of approaching issues, and I have seen exceptional operational people who are creative and who could provide services in entirely new ways, absolutely downtrodden because they are not the glib policy people. I guess what I would say to people is if you want a senior career don't be in operations. And I think that is extremely sad."

"The system seems to reward people who treat people badly. I've seen a lot of senior managers in my career who seem to be effective at delivering results but who don't seem to treat people with a lot of respect. It is disturbing to me that the Public Service should be home to such a large proportion of people who fit that category."

"No management continuity. I've worked in a job where I had six managers within a year. It's like a management revolving door."

"The frustrating part is that the link between my work and the actual impact on the lives of Canadians is not always clear."

Have you ever thought about leaving the Public Service?

"I don't think about leaving the Public Service because of the golden handcuffs. I have too much invested in my pension and too high a penalty to even think about doing something else."

"Every once in a while I think about leaving the Public Service to go into the consulting game, because every once in a while I believe I could be a more effective contributor to the Public Service by doing that (laughs). Sometimes if you're outside you're listened to better than if you're inside. Every once in a while I get a call, and I think "Gee, maybe I would really like to go and do this job in the private sector and really see if there's more satisfaction," not because of money, but because I have this perception that in the private sector you really can manage better, you can deliver things better."

What keeps you in the Public Service?

The data in Table 2.23 would indicate that people stay in the Public Service because of the rewards they cited earlier (see Table 2.21). They like the nature of their work (cited by 51% of the sample), the chance to make a contribution, the challenges of the job and the people they work with. It should be noted that only 15% of those interviewed said they stayed in the Public Service because of the pay or benefits.

Table 2.23
What Keeps Employees in the Public Service
	Total
* Multiple responses recorded
I like my work, the nature of the job	51%
Ability to make a contribution, a difference, influence, serve society	26%
Diversity, complexity, variety, lots of opportunities	20%
Good people, stimulating people in the Public Service	16%
Good money	16%
Good benefits	14%
Near retirement, want my pension	12%

Gender

Men were more likely to say that the nature of their job (68% versus 43%) and their ability to make a contribution (30% versus 21%) keeps them in the Public Service.

Job Type

Executives were more likely to say that they stayed in the Public Service because they felt that they were able to make a contribution to society (36%). None of the respondents in this group stayed for the money or the benefits. Those in the officer sample were more likely to stay because of the people they work with (28%) and the money they make (27%). None of the respondents in this group said that they stayed in order to make a contribution. Those in the scientist sample were more likely to say that they stayed because they like their work (60%) and because of the people they worked with (30%). Very few in this group said they stayed because of their ability to make a contribution (8%).

Participation in CDP

Respondents in the CDPs were more likely to say that they stayed because they felt that their work made a contribution to society (51% versus 16%) or because of the challenges offered by their jobs (32% versus 15%). Respondents who were not in CDPs were more likely to say they stayed because they liked their jobs (52% versus 41%), they worked with good people (16% versus 8%), received good money and benefits (16% versus 8%) or because their job was secure (11% versus 4%). There were no substantive between-group differences. The perception that they can make a contribution appears to be the most important reason by far that people who participate in CDPs stay in the Public Service.

Have you ever thought about leaving the Public Service? Where would you go?

Three-quarters of the interview respondents have thought about leaving the Public Service. Men and women were equally likely to have thought of leaving. Managers (64% have thought about leaving) and officers (57% have thought about leaving) were less likely to have thought about leaving the Public Service; scientists (87% have thought about leaving) and analysts (85% have thought about leaving) were more likely to have thought about leaving.

Respondents in the CDP sample were also more likely to have thought about leaving the Public Service (85% of CDP have thought about leaving versus 64% of non CDP). Within the program group, employees in the CAP program were more likely to have thought about leaving (88% have thought about leaving) while employees in the AEXDP group were less likely to have thought about leaving (64% have thought about leaving).

The majority of respondents say they would go to the private sector (58% of the sample). One-quarter would start their own business, 13% would go to the quasi public sector (e.g. education, health care) while 12% would look for work in the not-for-profit NGO sector. There are no gender, job type or CDP participation differences in these data!

Why would you leave?

Why would people leave? An examination of the data in Table 2.24 shows there are two quite different sets of motivations: push factors (i.e. leave to get away from frustrations etc. in the public sector), and pull factors (i.e. leave because of attractions outside). What factors do the data suggest are pushing employees to think about leaving?

frustrations within the Public Service work environment: it is not rewarding, there is no opportunity for growth etc; and
the work culture and work environment (these respondents all mentioned something to do with frustrations with the nature of the Public Service, not with the job itself - lack of respect for public servants, pay freeze, old boys' culture, bureaucracy, etc.).

What are the perceived attractions outside the Public Service?

better compensation (money, benefits) (cited by one-third of the sample; infrequently cited in conjunction with rewards of working in the Public Service; and
a better opportunity (i.e. one more aligned with goals, values, skills; an opportunity that is too good to pass up).

Table 2.24
Why Would Employees Leave the Public Service?
	Total
* Multiple responses recorded
Federal job frustrating, not rewarding, no growth, etc. (some "push" force)	45%
Better compensation (money, benefits)	31%
Better culture, more respect	29%
Opportunity that is better aligned with my goals, values, skills, etc.	23%
Opportunity too good to pass up ("pull" force, not specified)	14%

What kinds of things might induce you to stay in the Public Service?

"You know, I don't think anything would induce me to stay forever. I don't want to be a career public servant. There are more things out there."

"This is going to sound funny, but, every once in a while, somebody saying "Geez, nice job, ***." By somebody, I mean, my boss. We don't get much of that. I'm very conscious of saying to all levels in my organization "Nice piece of work, there." You don't hear it very much at the top. We at the senior levels take each other for granted. Getting some kind of recognition - that makes a difference to me."

"I've been in three different departments in the past 15 years, and after a couple of years in one position, there's nothing new. The issues change but the way you solve them is always the same. Government just approaches things in the same way. It all begins to feel very familiar. I think if there was more of an entrepreneurial feel to it, I might feel differently. The ability to bring forward ideas, to have an opportunity to run with things."

Gender

Men were more likely to say they would leave for better compensation (70% versus 35%) and because their federal job was too frustrating (56% versus 36%).

Job Type

Analysts were more likely to say they would leave because their job is frustrating (65% gave this response). Scientists were more likely to say they would leave for a better culture and more respect (55% gave this response).

Participation in CDP

CDP employees are more likely to say they would leave because their job is frustrating and there is little opportunity for growth (56% versus 29%, respectively). Employees not in CDPs were more likely to say they would leave because of the work culture (need more respect) (38% versus 21%). Group differences in responses to this question are given in Box 12.

BOX 2.12
Why Would Respondent Leave the Public Service?
AEXDP	Federal job frustrating (42%), Opportunity better aligned with goals (28%)
ADM pool	Federal job frustrating (42%), Better opportunity (30%)
CAP	Better compensation (62%), Federal job frustrating (40%)
MTP	Federal job frustrating (53%),
	Opportunity better aligned with goals (28%)
Not in Program	Better culture, attitude and respect (38%), Better compensation (32%)

What would induce you to stay?

What would induce employees to stay? The responses to this question (see Table 2.25) are not really surprising and can be distilled into the following advice: Get rid of the frustrations and match the incentives. There were no substantive gender or CDP differences in these responses.

Table 2.25
What Would Induce Employees to Stay?
	Total
* Multiple responses recorded
A better opportunity here, the right assignment, an opportunity that was better aligned with my goals, values, skills, etc.	60%
Better compensation (a raise)	23%
Recognition, better treatment	13%
Removal of current barriers (political tug of wars, bureaucracy, etc.)	10%

Job Type

Scientists would be more likely to stay if they were offered a better opportunity within the government (70%) or if current barriers were removed (25%). Analysts would be more likely to stay if offered better compensation (35%).

9. Advice

We ended the interview with the following three questions:

What advice would you give regarding:
- - CAREER DEVELOPMENT in the Public Service?
- - CAREER ADVANCEMENT in the Public Service?
What one change would make it easier for public employees to meet their career goals?

Responses to these questions are given in Table 2.26 (advice) and Table 2.27 (one change) and discussed below.

Table 2.26
Advice Regarding Career Development and Career Advancement
Advice regarding CAREER DEVELOPMENT in the Public Service	Total
* Multiple responses recorded
Increase your breadth of knowledge, skills	35%
Take control	28%
Introspection	26%
Train (language, budget, finance, HR)	16%
Work hard, do your best	10%
Increase formal education (complete a new degree, etc.)	10%
Scan the horizon, learn about "politics", trends and issues	10%
Find a mentor	10%
Advice regarding CAREER ADVANCEMENT in the Public Service
Increase your breadth of knowledge, skills	34%
Take control	21%
Introspection	16%
Get visible	16%
Work hard, do your best	16%
Network	16%
Train (language, budget, finance, HR)	12%
Scan the horizon, learn about "politics", trends and issues	11%
Find a mentor	10%

Table 2.27
What One Change Would Make it Easier for Public Employees to Meet Their Career Goals?
	Total
Develop better career development initiatives	31%
Revisit job classification system and specific job requirements	21%
Focus on people	18%
Make managers accountable for career development of subordinates	15%
Change the competition process	14%
Streamline HR	14%

Advice: Career Development

Three pieces of advice were given by 25% to 35% of the sample:

increase your breadth of knowledge, skills (make a lateral move, move to international, interprovincial work, broaden expertise, exposure)
take control (nobody will do it for you, you're the driver, etc.)
be introspective (identify own values, goals, strengths, etc.)

What advice would you give to a new employee regarding career development in the Public Service?

"I would wish them good luck because I think that one of the things that the Public Service has not done well at all is provided employees with the tools to allow them to plan and develop their careers. "

"I would tell them to get a coach, attach themselves to somebody whom they can trust and ask for their experience to help in decision making. Sometimes you're faced with being offered a job, even at a lateral position, and you don't know whether it's the right thing to do. When you get there, it turns out that nobody wants this job and the boss is a maniac and the project is going down the tubes and everybody hates each other and they just sent you there because you were new and you didn't know any better. It would be nice if people had somebody independent who they could go to for advice on accepting assignments."

"Get it in writing. Get some clear direction from your supervisor, and then get it in writing. Things have a way of changing midstream and if you don't have that contract, there's not much you can do... it's your word against theirs."

"Do the language training. In the Public Service today, if you're not bilingual you might as well give it up."

"Just love what you do. If you love what you do, the accolades and the compensation will follow."

"If you really want to make a contribution, if you really want to develop to your potential, then I guess my advice would be to leave the Public Service."

"Doing high-profile things is always a good thing to do. A good way to meet people is at charitable and social events. To take courses, to show some interest, to get yourself known by your peers and by your supervisors and obviously to present yourself in the most positive light you can. Be eager to do things, and don't be afraid to speak up, but if you're told to do something do it gladly and do it well. Just be a team player and keep smiling, and everything will be fine. You'll end up president of the organization someday (laughs)."

"Take advantage of the various things that are offered (I know for mothers it's not always the case), but everywhere, every department I've worked in there's always been strong support for making use of training dollars and getting experience and building up skills that would be useful. Don't be too busy to take that time and get some of that training that is available to you, because that really is important."

"If there's someone above you at whatever level that you really admire, develop an informal mentor relationship with them. I've been very lucky in that I've worked with a number of managers at different levels who have been very supportive and who are willing, if I give them a call, to chat or ask advice about something, and are very happy to do so."

"I think it's important for public servants to get exposure to different government departments, different types of operations in government; operational departments and central agency experience is extremely valuable. I've seen too many people in the Public Service who have spent their entire careers in one area within one department and can't understand why their opportunities elsewhere are limited".

Another common piece of advice (given by 16% of the sample) was to train (language, finance, HR). Approximately 10% of the sample advised people to work hard, increase their formal education, find a mentor and scan the horizon to learn about "politics", trends and issues (take sensitive jobs, put yourself in touch with department's/country's direction). Only 2% of respondents recommended joining a specific development program (e.g., AEXDP, CAP, etc.)!

Gender

There were no substantive gender differences in these data.

Job Type

The type of advice offered varied significantly by job type (see Box 2.13):

executives were more likely to advise people to increase their breadth of knowledge (43%) or to take risks (17%); and less likely to advise people to increase their formal education (2%) or to take control (18%);
managers were more likely to advise people to train (30%) and less likely to advise people to network (1 %), work hard (5%) or take risks (0%);
officers were more likely to advise people to train (31%) and less likely to advise people to increase their formal education (0%), find a mentor (0%) or take risks (0%);
analysts were more likely to advise people to identify own their values/goals (32%) and less likely to advise people to work hard (2%) or take risks (0%); and
scientists were more likely to advise people to identify their own values/goals (32%) or to take risks (12%) and less likely to advise people to increase their breadth (17%) or scan the horizon (0%).

BOX 2.13
Advice: Job Type
Executives	Increase breadth (43%), introspection (25%)
Managers	Increase breadth (37%), train (30%), introspection (25%), take control (22%)
Officers	Increase breadth (38%), train (33%), introspection (25%), take control (21%)
Analysts	Take control (39%), introspection (32%), train (24%), increase breadth (24%)
Scientists	Take control (33%), introspection (28%), train (28%)

What advice would you give to a new employee regarding advancement in the Public Service?

"Be aggressive, but not too."

"You contribute to your career development by getting as many varied experiences as you can. You contribute to your advancement by making yourself as useful a member of your team as possible. You need to dig, to find out where the department's needs exist, and where to fill them. Involvement is the key. If you can remain engaged in what's going on, you remain open, become more receptive, more willing to try new things. And that's what's going to get you there."

"The way we promote people is through the competition process and a lot of times good candidates are passed over because they just don't understand what the process is all about. My advice - always be ready for a competition, that's the key right there: start putting stuff aside like old job competitions, look at your own statement of qualifications, build up an inventory of things that you should know for boards. "

"It's not only important to be good at what you do, it's equally important to be seen as being good at what you do." That means making yourself visible and getting the exposure that you need to senior management in order to advance through your career. I think that's quite realistic within our organization."

"Don't hold your breath (laughs). Sadly, a lot still depends on individual managers. There doesn't seem to be a uniform approach to getting ahead. I think very often it's the luck of the draw, and so I would not really advise anyone to have that much faith in the system."

"Know the big picture: learn what's driving change, learn what's driving what's happening around you. There are many ways to get that information. Is it technology, is it competition, is it other countries, globalization? Learn what it is and apply it to your own area."

"I think I've been extremely lucky in the bosses that I've had, who never held me back, and always kept an eye open and gave me opportunities. There are some managers who don't want to let their good people go, want to keep them to themselves because they are the high producers. So I guess I would say to someone who wanted to advance their career that you've got to be head and shoulders above other people and you've got to have a good boss who'll look out for you."

"You better damn well know why you want to move up. You'd better be prepared to do the job you want to advance through and don't view at as a "through" job."

Participation in CDP

The type of advice offered varies significantly depending on what CDP the respondent was in (see Box 2.14):

respondents in CDPs were more likely to advise people to increase their breadth (37% versus 29%), or to find a mentor (15% versus 4%); and
people not in programs were more likely to advise people to train (37% versus 18%) or increase their formal education (15% versus 5%).

Within Programs

AEXDP were less likely to advise people to train (6%) or to increase their formal education (0%);
those in the ADM pool were more likely to advise people to increase their breadth (53%) or scan the horizon (17%) and less likely to advise them to take control (12%); and
CAP were less likely to advise people to increase their breadth (22%) or to scan the horizon (0%).

BOX 2.14
Advice: CDP
Not in CDP	Train (37%), take control (30%), increase breadth (29%), introspection (26%)
AEXDP	Increase breadth (39%), take control (28%) introspection (26%)
ADM Pool	Increase breadth (52%), introspection (26%)
CAP	Take control (26%), introspection (26%), train (26%), increase breadth (22%)
MTP	Increase breadth (33%) take control (33%), introspection (26%)

Advice: Career Advancement

With a few interesting exceptions the advice with respect to career advancement was virtually identical to that observed with respect to career development. The three most common responses were again to increase breadth, take control and be introspective. People were also advised to work hard, network and train. The only difference between the two sets of results was the advice to "get visible": 16% of respondents felt that the way to advance was to apply for a job that put you in touch with people in "high places" ("hitch yourself to a star"), increase your committee work, and take tough jobs that "put you on the radar screen".

There are no substantive gender, job type or CDP differences in these data.

What one change would you like to see to make it easier for Public Service employees to meet their career goals?

"Typically jobs get filled by acting appointments. Someone does the job for one year, gets known by the manager, they run a competition. Others can apply but then the internal acting candidate gets confirmed."

"I would like to be able to promote people on their qualifications instead of going to the competition process. I dislike it because some people can do well on boards but very poorly at work. These people will shine because they know all the new buzzwords. At the same time somebody that is not very good at presenting themselves will not get promoted. I find the process isn't fair and I feel that you should be able to promote someone when they deserve it and not only when they do well on a competition."

"In the management training program they want us to become generalists. After the program it is difficult to find a position because you are a generalist You don't have any expertise in any area of interest to the people filling the positions."

"Accelerated programs lead to very inexperienced people at the top who may be very bright, capable in many ways but they can also be very problematic depending on their level of experience with respect to dealing with people."

"I sense that we do a terrible job of managing people in the public sector. People management is almost an afterthought. Usually the people who advance are good issues managers and we need to put more emphasis on managing people."

"My view is that they (should) modify completely their approach to compensation and pensions. Make them portable and let people select their own investments. It would completely change people staying too long, people being afraid to make moves to the private sector and trying new things. It would take away the stigma of thinking that this is life employment. It would take away the thought of employment security, which shouldn't be there at all. The compensation drags people down. People would love to leave, but they don't because the penalty is too high; they don't have portability. The pension brings people down because they start looking at pension rather than work and they're afraid to make decisions about their career."

"From my experience in the MTP the most important benefits I have been able to get from the program actually have not come from the program itself, but through the personal contacts, working through routes such as that, being able to be exposed to a variety of peers and managers and to benefit from their advice and various perspectives on the Public Service and particular tasks. In other words, it is not a question of defining a regulated type of program, it is more creating an opportunity in which people can create their own opportunities."

"Make HR more user-friendly: I've had experiences when I've wanted to hire people, it took so much time just to get out a notice, and to have interviews. It took so much time to get one body in the office. It took time to get good advice from the HR group. How can I do it efficiently, and according to the rules, but expeditiously? It was really tough to get good advice . The most frustrating thing is to hire people, to get things running."

"In times of restraint and downsizing, the first thing we do is cut back on training and development of staff, because it's money. I think that it's very short-sighted and that we pay the piper down the road. The more we go through change, the more we go through restraint, the more you need to ensure that your staff is trained and motivated and sees a possibility of career advancement."

"Redefine the merit principle. As a manager, you can't identify for your employees what steps they need to take to meet their career goals, you can't say to an outstanding employee, "here, let's train you in this or that and then you can move into this position". It would be like bypassing the merit principle as it stands."

"Find a way that departments can identify their own HR needs, and plan the steps to get employees where they need them to be. It takes a whole infrastructure change to develop people. With program review, there are so few of us left, so few who know how to do a job, you can't leave. Someone going on language training is a big deal, a big tension builder. Your manager doesn't want to lose you. And some of us are too dedicated. You feel bad about leaving when you know you're the only one with the expertise and there's no one to replace you. It's one thing to put together a development plan, a whole new ball game to implement it."

"Overhaul the competition system. Instead of having people compete for a position, do it as they do in the military and foreign service.... have people compete for a level. Then move them in to that level somewhere their skills are needed. Instead of having a position occupied for years by the same person, and then the person finally leaves and then you have a competition for the job and then you rig the competition (give it to the acting person). If instead you compete for a level, they have to move you around, you get lots of opportunities."

"Unfortunately in the government it is not hard work that will get you up the ladder, it is who you know. So, my advice is, if you want to get ahead, "network"."

One Change That Would Make it Easier for Public Service Employees to Meet Their Career Goals

Respondents suggested six ways in which the government could make it easier for Public Service employees to meet their career goals (see Table 2.27). The most common response (given by one third of the sample) was to develop better career development initiatives. Respondents gave the following examples of what they meant by this: "proactive career planning, institutionalize career development plans, encourage employees to identify own strengths, opportunities, self nomination processes, counseling, retraining, etc."

The second most common suggestion, offered by almost one quarter of the sample, was to revisit the job classification system and specific job requirements. Examples of this response include: "put more emphasis on attitude and ability to learn, less on specific technical requirements, less structured job categories, remove rigid job requirements based on previous experience nobody has, kill term/indeterminate distinctions, etc."

Respondents also felt that it would be easier for employees to meet their career goals and aspirations if the Public Service: focused on people (i.e. respect employees, value employees, ask them what they want); made managers accountable for the progress of their subordinates (i.e. make their evaluation contingent on employee development, reward it); changed the competition process (i.e. merit as currently prescribed doesn't work, post all positions, post externally); and streamlined HR (cut the red tape in HR, make staffing more user friendly, more flexible, make it possible to hire who you need, reduce turnaround time to hire).

The type of change suggested by employees depends on their gender (see Box 2.15) and their participation in a CDP (see Box 2.16). It is not associated with job type.

BOX 2.15
One Change: Gender
Women	Develop better career development initiatives (30%), revisit job classifications (27%)
Men	Develop better career development initiatives (33%), focus on people (22%), make managers accountable (20%)

BOX 2.16
One Change: CDP
Not in CDP	Develop better career initiatives (28%), focus on people (22%) revisit job classifications (21%)
AEXDP	Develop better career initiatives (39%), revisit job classifications (22%)
ADM Pool	Develop better career initiatives (33%), make managers accountable (21%)
CAP	Develop better career initiatives (30%), revisit job classifications (30%), streamline HR (26%), make managers accountable(22%)
MTP	Develop better career initiatives (27%), revisit job classifications (23%), focus on people (22%)