Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
www.tbs-sct.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Breadcrumb Trail
ARCHIVED - Career Development in the Federal Public Service - Building a World-Class Workforce
This page has been archived.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)
10. Summary and Conclusions
To get a better picture of how the career development of knowledge workers is being managed in the federal Public Service we interviewed 254 knowledge workers representing 19 government departments and 48 job classifications. The way the sample was selected allowed us to look at the impact of gender, job type, and participation in four key career development programs (AEXDP, ADM pool, CAP, MTP) on the career development of federal employees.
Who is in the Sample
The "typical" employee in the interview sample is a married mother or father in their thirties or forties who is in the "full-nest" stage of the life cycle. The average respondent is a member of the sandwich generation with responsibilities for the care of an elderly dependent and children between the ages of six and 18. The employees who participated in the interviews are very well educated (33% have an undergraduate university degree; 47% have at least one postgraduate degree; one third of the sample have multiple graduate degrees) with current degrees (50% of the respondents have earned their graduate degree since 1990; 17% have earned their graduate degree since 1994) in a wide variety of disciplines. Five groups of knowledge workers are equally represented in this sample: executives (i.e. ADM, DG), managers (i.e. Directors, Chiefs, Section Heads, Managers), Officers, Analysts, and Scientists (i.e. scientist, engineer, computer scientists, IS, IT). Just over one quarter of the respondents are members of the EX classification. Half participated in a federal career development program. Regardless of job type, the majority of those who participated in the interviews (69%) supervised the work of approximately three to ten employees.
The majority of the interview respondents are in the transition/midcareer and late career stages of their career cycle and have worked in the government for more than 15 years. The typical interview respondent has a wide variety of Public Service work experience and has followed a career path which has demonstrated high career mobility (i.e. they have made a considerable number of moves within a department, between government departments, and between the public and private sectors).
For example, the typical interview respondent has, in the course of their Public Service career, spent time in several line departments, one central agency and working outside the government. Eighty percent of the sample have held more than four different positions in their Public Service career; almost half of the sample has held at least seven. Over half of the sample have worked in their current position for less than three years (almost a quarter of the sample have held their current position for less than a year). One third of the sample have had two or more secondments; one third of the sample have made three or more lateral moves; just under half (43%) of the respondents have had two or more acting positions. The fact that over half (54%) of the sample have made a lateral move in the last four years with the objective of enhancing their skills suggests that the high degree of career movement observed in this sample is part of a career development strategy.
The promotion data from the survey would suggest that the employees who participated in the interview study have used successful career development strategies. While two-thirds of the sample have been passed over for a promotion at one point or another in their career, only 10% of the respondents have never received a promotion. Half of the sample have been promoted three or more times, 43% have received a promotion in the last two years, 75% in the last five years.
These data would suggest the interview sample is a "select" group of employees who have used a number of different strategies (i.e. formal education, lateral and upward movement, participation in career development programs) to advance their careers. Objectively, the individuals who participated in the interview phase of the research had a number of career successes (20% are in the executive category, most others have had recent promotions). The career aspirations held by this sample are also very high. One quarter expect to reach the level of DM or ADM! These data are consistent with the demographic data presented earlier and our contention that this is a fairly "select" sample. As such, the strategies they have used to manage their careers and the barriers they have encountered along the way are of interest to those aspiring to advance in the Public Service and those who have responsibility for managing this process.
The rest of this section is devoted to a brief summary of the results pertaining to each of the objectives of this phase of the research. Relevant conclusions are drawn and the role of gender, job type and participation in a career development program are discussed.
Definitions of Success
Respondents defined career success as being related to: satisfaction (happy with the work I do, happy in my job) (51% of sample); self-esteem (personal sense of accomplishment); career progress (increased responsibility over time) (32% of sample); recognition (i.e., extrinsic rewards, others recognize you do your job well) (28% of sample); learning (something that stretches me) (27% of sample); and/or contribution/influence (I make a difference) (25% of sample). Career success was seen by virtually all of the respondents to be very different from life success which they defined more in terms of family, lifestyle, personal life and leisure. The typical respondent did, however, feel quite strongly that career success was part of life success (i.e. life success is a balance between career and personal interests). One quarter of the sample stated that life success and career success were intertwined to the extent that you couldn't have one without the other.
Traditionally, career success has been defined in terms of upward progress and increased rewards. While many of those who participated in this study hold this view (32% define success in terms of progression, 28% define it in terms recognition), the majority have a more dynamic, intrinsic, holistic view of success - a view which is consistent with the new economic reality (i.e. flatter organizations, fewer opportunities for promotions, wage freezes, no career for life). These data suggest that, as part of its career development initiatives, the Public Service should seek ways to make jobs more satisfying for employees, give more positive feedback, and offer greater opportunities for learning.
Career Goals and Aspirations of Knowledge Workers in the Public Service
The data on career aspirations are very similar to the definitions of career success. One set of respondents talked about what position they aspired to hold in the next five years (ADM, DM, other management position) while others talked about what they hoped to get from their career (satisfaction, self-esteem, influence, the chance to make a contribution).
These data suggest that the Public Service may have to develop different sets of career development programs to accommodate employees who hold traditional views of what constitutes career success and those who hold more holistic views (either that or educate those who hold more traditional views on the new organizational realities!)
Fourteen percent of the sample indicated that they were already where they want to be with respect to their career. These employees are in the later stages of their career (i.e. career plateau). To develop, reward and retain this group of employees the Public Service needs to examine ways to team these employees with younger workers who require mentoring. The development of a new generation of leaders could be seen as a significant, highly satisfying contribution by these employees.
One possible cause for concern is the fact that 20% of the sample expect ultimately to meet their career goals outside the federal Public Service; 11% of the sample plan to leave the government within five years. This issue will be explored in greater depth in conjunction with employee retention.
It is interesting to note that 11% of the sample said they didn't want the job of DM (too much stress, no life, too much responsibility, not enough rewards). The Public Service may need to address this issue more fully (and perhaps redefine the role of DM) if too many employees with the competencies required to be a DM self-select out of the job.
Factors Which Knowledge Workers Perceive Increase/Decrease Promotability
The results suggest that experience and background are key to promotability. Respondents credited their promotions to their experience, background and performance history . Twenty percent of the sample said that their personal qualities (creativity, loyalty, leadership, personality, the "right stuff") had lead to their promotion. They attributed their inability to get a promotion to a lack of experience. These data suggest that career development efforts in the Public Service have to focus on experience and background (i.e. provide opportunities for educational leave, training, lateral moves, secondments, acting positions).
It is interesting to note that employees no longer see hard work as leading to promotions (necessary but not sufficient!). This attitude is consistent with the new work ethics in which hard work is the norm, to be expected not rewarded.
Employees typically attribute their inability to obtain promotions to some aspect of the competition process (poor "fit" with those doing selection; bad interview/bad at competitive process; the competition was a formality - the job was already filled) and equity/diversity issues within the Public Service (too old, job went to a woman, job went to a man, job went to a minority group etc.). Both of these issues were raised at several points of the interview and will be addressed later in the report.
Personal Career Development Strategies
The following career development strategies were used by the knowledge workers in this sample (listed in descending order from most frequently used to least frequently used): increasing their breadth of knowledge (62%); training (language, budget, finance, HR) (40%); joining a specific development program (38%); increasing their visibility (21%); learning about politics, corporate objectives, trends and issues (16%); networking and finding a mentor (16%); increasing their formal education (11%); and looking at their own values, strengths and goals (10%). These strategies, which are consistent with the demographic data presented earlier, appear to work as just over half of the sample said that they had never had the experience of a career strategy backfiring, half of the sample have been promoted three or more times, and just under half of the respondents have been promoted in the past two years.
What doesn't work? Twenty percent said that they had taken a job that hadn't worked for them while 18% said they had not been proactive enough with respect to managing their career.
With respect to how their personal life has helped or hindered their career - family seems to be both a curse and a blessing. While the majority of the sample (82%) felt that their family (spouse, children) had helped them meet their career goals by being supportive, a significant number (mostly women) felt that their family had hampered their career progress (I can't relocate, I worry about my children when I am at work, I find it hard to stay late, come in early, I'm so busy I have no leisure time to recharge). These data suggest that for the Public Service to realize the full potential of its workplace it needs to provide more mechanisms for employees to balance work and family responsibilities.
Finally, it is interesting to note that while a substantive portion of the sample felt that their own personal attributes had helped them meet their career goals (I'm not a quitter, I have a strong work ethic, I'm patient, "Type A", etc.), an equal proportion said that their personal/demographic attributes had made it harder for them to meet goals (e.g. too old, visible minority, unilingual).
How Organization Supports Career Development of Public Service Knowledge Workers
Respondents indicated that their immediate supervisor had helped them by: having good people skills (39%); working to increase their breadth and knowledge (34%); providing them with important information and feedback (24%); communicating relevant information (24%); mentoring them and taking an interest in their careers (22%); and increasing their visibility (13%). Employees considered their departments supportive of career development if they developed mechanisms to help them increase their breadth, focused on people skills and communication, and had their own formal career development programs. Respondents felt that the Public Service supported career development by: offering career development programs (50%); supporting education and training (17%); making it easier for employees to increase their breadth of knowledge (17%); focusing on people skills and people management (15%); and by keeping employees posted on trends and opportunities (12%).
Examination of these data suggests a number of important support themes. Employees find a supervisor supportive when he or she has good people skills, is interested in the career development of subordinates (i.e., mentors and supports them), knows what it takes to get ahead (offers breadth, information on trends, visibility), and is prepared to give employees autonomy. Employees find a department supportive when it provides a culture which supports the manager in these efforts and promotes education, training, and career mobility. They find the Public Service supportive when it provides a structure under which these activities can take place (i.e. formal career development programs, training opportunities, and communication of key information).
How Organization Frustrates Career Development of Public Service Knowledge Workers
Respondents had few examples of how their own manager had made it harder for them to achieve their career goals. Most of their frustrations they ascribed either to their department or to the Public Service as their employer. Respondents were frustrated by the fact that they felt that their department's culture and the culture of the Public Service itself did not support career development (i.e. too hierarchical, hung up on protocol, unrealistic workload, no focus on people, little support for education/training) and inhibited their ability to expand their breadth of knowledge (a career tactic which seems to be strongly associated with career development and career success in the minds of many of the employees in this sample). A substantial number of employees identified two impediments which they associated with working in the Public Service: (1) poor HR practices (classification systems, hiring, recruitment, competition process, problems with HR programs, acting positions); and (2) recent downsizing initiatives (downsizing has reduced opportunities - there is nowhere TO advance).
Finally, it is interesting to note that 14% of the respondents felt that equity and diversity problems in their department made it difficult to get ahead (opportunities available only to certain "closed communities", can't get ahead because of diversity quotas). This is a recurrent issue and needs to be addressed if the Public Service is to get the maximum benefit from its career development, employment equity and diversity programs and initiatives.
There are several aspects of the data on organizational support for career development that are worthy of note. First, a substantial proportion of this "select" sample perceive they have received no support with respect to career development from their supervisor (20%), from their department (25%), or from the Public Service as a whole (30%). While increasing one's "breadth" and knowledge seems to be critical to career development, the majority of the employees in this sample are not receiving help in this regard: only 34% felt their supervisors were helping; 28% felt their department was helping; and 17% felt the Public Service was helping them acquire the breadth they needed to advance. People skills and people management were also consistently mentioned as being very important but again were infrequently present (40% of employees said their supervisor had good people skills, while 15% said the department focused on people and that the Public Service provided good people management). Finally, communication on important trends and ideas, although important to career development, was the exception rather than the rule (24% of employees said their supervisor supported them by providing relevant and important information while only 12% felt they received such support from their department or the Public Service).
Satisfaction With Ability to Meet Career Goals
The data indicate that the majority of those who participated in the interview study were either satisfied (48% of the sample) or very satisfied (22%) with their ability to meet their career goals. This high level of satisfaction is consistent with the demographic data presented earlier. There is a high degree of correspondence between the reasons people gave for being satisfied with their ability to meet their career goals and their definitions of career success. What makes people satisfied? (1) Making visible progress, (2) feeling like they have accomplished something, (3) getting the position they have aspired to, (4) enjoying the work they're doing, and (5) learning. These findings support the importance of incorporating features which capitalize on learning, satisfaction with the job itself, positive feedback etc. into future career development initiatives.
Those who are dissatisfied with their ability to meet their career goals attributed this dissatisfaction to their feeling that their ability to meet their career goals was out of their control (doesn't matter how hard you work, there's always some "externality", it's who you know, pay/hiring freeze reduced my opportunities, etc.). These findings, in association with the findings on autonomy presented earlier, suggest mechanisms need to be put in place to give employees more of a sense of control over career development (i.e. assessment centres, communication of relevant information, skip level meetings).
Retention and Turnover of Public Service Knowledge Workers
Employers who are concerned about recruiting and retaining high performers need to focus on ways to make the work environment more supportive (i.e. increase the rewarding aspects of work, decrease the frustrations). What do knowledge workers in the Public Service perceive to be the rewards of working in the public sector? Respondents indicated that they valued the chance to make a contribution to society, the challenging nature of the work they were doing, a sense of accomplishment from their work, their interactions with their colleagues, and the opportunities they had to learn new skills. The chance to make a contribution was mentioned by almost two-thirds of the sample. This high correspondence between perceived rewards and definitions of career success suggests that employees will be more likely to be satisfied with their careers if the rewards offered by the job match their personal definitions of career success.
Why do employees say they stay in the Public Service? Respondents say they stay because they like the nature of their work, 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 say they stay in the Public Service because of pay or benefits. This is an important finding because a substantive number of this sample define success in terms of rewards and many say they would leave the Public Service for greater compensation and rewards elsewhere.
There was a fairly high degree of consensus with respect to the frustrations of working in the Public Service. Three-quarters of the respondents found some aspect of the "bureaucracy" frustrating. The most common frustrations with the bureaucracy related to process, staffing, and a lack of control over results. Respondents were also frustrated with the work culture/working atmosphere, political interference, how they felt they were treated by management/ senior management and the lack of respect for public servants displayed by the average citizen. Respondents agreed on three strategies to reduce these frustrations: (1) streamline HR, (2) focus on people, and (3) make managers accountable for the progress of their subordinates.
Three-quarters of the interview respondents had thought about leaving the public sector. Why would people leave? There appear to be two quite different sets of motivations: push factors (i.e. leave to get away from frustrations in the public sector), and pull factors (i.e. leave because of attractions outside). The frustrations noted earlier are the main factors pushing employees to leave. Main attractions outside the Public Service include better compensation and better opportunities. What would induce employees to stay? Get rid of the frustrations and match the incentives. Simple to state but difficult to implement.
Advice
Respondents gave the following advice to others wishing to develop their career (given in descending order): increase your breadth of knowledge, take control, be introspective (figure out what you want), work hard, network, get a mentor and train. Only 2% of respondents recommended joining a federal career development program (e.g., AEXDP, CAP, etc.)!
The advice respondents gave to others who wished to advance in their career was, with one exception, identical to that given in conjunction with career development. The only difference between the two sets of results was the advice to "get visible". In other words, you can develop your skills on your own, but to advance you need to be seen by others.
One Change With Respect to Career Development
Respondents suggested six ways in which the government could make it easier for Public Service employees to meet their career goals. These changes included (in descending order) developing better career development initiatives, revisiting the job classification system and specific job requirements, focusing on people, making managers accountable for the progress of their subordinates, changing the competition process, and streamlining HR. These changes are consistent with the data on support, frustrations, barriers and turnover presented earlier.
Impact of Gender, Job Type and CDP Participation
The data suggest that there is no one Public Service career development experience. What people want from their careers, the strategies they use to develop their careers and how they are supported by the organization vary with gender, the type of job they perform and their participation in a career development program. Tables 2.28 (gender differences), 2.29 (job-type differences), and 2.30 (differences associated with participation in a federal career development program) provide a summary of the key between-group differences as determined by this study. These data suggest that it will be very difficult (if not impossible) to implement a "one-size-fits-all" program that fulfills career development needs in the federal Public Service. These tables do, however, provide a useful starting point for the development of programs for specific target populations, including scientists, analysts, women, and employees who currently do not self-select for federal career development programs.
|
Men |
Women |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Demographics |
Worked continuously |
Younger |
|
Career success |
More likely to say recognition |
More likely to say esteem |
|
Aspirations |
Less likely to aspire to leave the Public Service |
More likely to give goals in intrinsic terms |
|
Promotability |
More likely to say they got promoted because of experience, or background |
More likely to say got promoted because of personal qualities |
|
Personal Career Strategies |
More likely to say their education has helped their advancement |
More likely to say family has had positive impact on career |
|
Organizational Supports |
More likely to say manager helped by giving autonomy |
More likely to say manager helped by having good people skills |
|
Organizational Barriers |
More likely to say Public Service hurt by downsizing |
|
|
Satisfaction Career Progress |
More likely to be satisfied with visible progress |
Women were more satisfied with progress overall |
|
Rewards/ Frustrations |
More likely to say chance to make contribution rewarding and political interference frustrating |
More likely to find the work environment frustrating |
|
Retention/ Turnover |
More likely to leave for more compensation and because job is frustrating |
|
|
Advice |
No gender differences |
|
|
One Change |
More likely to say make managers accountable and focus on people |
More likely to say revisit job classifications |
|
Demographics: |
Executive:
Older, older children Manager: Older, older children Officer: No demographic differences Analyst: Scientist: |
|---|---|
|
Career success: |
Executive:
More likely to define as achievement Manager Officer More likely to define as satisfaction and recognition Analyst Scientist More likely to define as satisfaction and recognition |
|
Aspirations |
Executive:
More likely to describe in terms of influence and contribution Manager: Officer: More likely to describe in terms of progress Analyst:
Less likely to say they are already where they want to be Scientist:
More likely to describe goals in intrinsic terms and to say they are already where they want to be |
|
Promotability |
Executive: More likely to think got promoted because of experience, their performance history, their personal qualities and because there was a good fit between them and the person doing the selection Manager: Officer: Analyst: More likely to think got promoted because it was automatic Scientist: More likely to think got promoted because they met some formal requirement or because they were good at competition process |
|
Personal Career Strategies |
Executive:
More likely to have scanned the horizon, less likely to have trained or increased formal education Manager: Officer: More likely to have trained and increased their visibility Analyst: More likely to say took a position that was not right for them Scientist: More likely to have trained and less likely to have joined a CDP or scanned the horizon |
|
Organizational Supports/ Organizational Barriers |
Executive:
More likely to think supervisor had helped by giving them autonomy Manager: Officer: Analyst:
More likely to think supervisor had helped by mentoring them Scientist:
More likely to think supervisor had helped by giving them breadth |
|
Satisfaction Career Progress |
Executive:
More likely to be very satisfied Manager:
More likely to be neutral Officer: Less likely to be satisfied because of the nature of their work Analyst: Less likely to be satisfied because of the nature of their work Scientist:
More likely to be dissatisfied |
|
Rewards/ Frustrations |
Executive:
More likely to find the challenges of the job rewarding Manager:
More likely to find the opportunity to learn rewarding Officer:
More likely to find the opportunity to work with good people rewarding Analyst: More likely to find the opportunity to work with good people rewarding Scientist: More likely to find the challenges of the job and the sense of accomplishment rewarding |
|
Retention/ Turnover |
Executive:
More likely to be thinking of leaving the Public Service Manager: Less likely to be thinking of leaving Officer:
Less likely to be thinking of leaving Analyst:
More likely to be thinking of leaving Scientist:
More likely to be thinking of leaving |
|
Advice |
Executive: More likely to advise people to increase their breadth of knowledge and take risks Manager: More likely to advise people to train Officer: More likely to advise people to train Analyst: More likely to advise people to think about what they want (be introspective) Scientist: More likely to advise people to think about what they want (be introspective) |
|
One Change |
Executive: No changes Manager: Officer: Analyst: Scientist: |
|
In Career Development Program |
Not in Career Development Program |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Demographics |
More formal education |
|
|
Career success |
More likely to say relates to learning and contribution |
More likely to associate life success with family and lifestyle |
|
Aspirations |
More likely to aspire to be DM or ADM |
More likely to say they are already where they want to be |
|
Promotability |
More likely to think they had been promoted because of performance history |
More likely to think they had been promoted because they had met some formal requirement |
|
Personal Career Strategies |
More likely to try to increase breadth, join a CDP and scan the horizon |
More likely to train |
|
Organizational Supports/ Organizational Barriers |
More likely to think supervisor had helped by having good people skills, mentoring them, increasing their
visibility |
More likely to think department has done nothing to help them |
|
Satisfaction Career Progress |
More likely to be very satisfied |
More likely to be neutral |
|
Rewards/ Frustrations |
More likely to find challenging jobs rewarding No differences in frustrations! |
More likely to find sense of accomplishment and the people they work with rewarding |
|
Retention/ Turnover |
More likely to have thought of leaving |
More likely to stay because like their work and worked with good people |
|
Advice |
More likely to advise people to increase breadth and find mentor |
More likely to advise people to train and increase formal education |
|
One Change |
Develop better career development initiatives |
Focus on people, revisit job classifications |
Chapter 3 - Career Development in the Federal Public Service: The Survey Study
The interview study presented in Chapter Two provided an opportunity to gain in-depth insight into the career development concerns of a select group of public servants. The survey study was designed to examine these concerns in a more structured way with a larger group. While surveys do not permit respondents to describe their concerns in their own words, they do facilitate comparative measurement of attitudes and behaviour amongst larger groups than could be feasibly interviewed.
The primary objectives of the survey were to examine:
- what employees hope to achieve in their career;
- the steps they have taken to attain their goals;
- the career support provided to them by the organization; and
-
the attitudes toward the organization that have resulted.
Methodology
The questionnaire was developed using measures employed in previous research wherever possible. These measures were supplemented and refined in light of the responses in the interview study. A list of the original sources for the measures is included, for further reference, in Appendix B(16). In selecting measures for inclusion in the questionnaire, the researchers tried to limit the questionnaire length while also exploring fully each of the study's objectives. The result was a 17-page questionnaire including sections on work background, career aspirations, work environment, work attitudes and behaviours, and demographics.
The sample was drawn in a manner similar to that used to select non-CDP participants for the interview. A representative sample of 13 government departments was first selected (see Box 2.1 in Chapter Two for a complete list). Each department was then asked to draw a random sample of 20% of their executive, administrative and foreign service, and scientific and professional employees. This sampling procedure resulted in a total sample of 6,908. Since the sample was designed to be representative, larger departments were a proportionately larger share of the sample. This type of representative sampling leads to greater confidence in extrapolating the results from the survey to these employee groups in the federal Public Service as a whole.
Each department provided mailing labels for the sample. The contact person for each department took responsibility for distributing the questionnaires to the selected employees. Internal mail was used both to distribute and collect the questionnaires which were then forwarded unopened to the researchers. The questionnaire was provided to all respondents in both English and French versions. Covering letters from Peter Harder and the researchers explained the purpose of the research and assured respondents of confidentiality. Contact information for the researchers was also provided in case any recipients had concerns or questions about the study.
A total of 2,569 questionnaires were returned resulting in a final response rate of 40% (net of undeliverables). This response rate is comparable to that obtained in other studies in the public and private sector. The analysis reported here is based on the 2,350 usable responses received before the cut-off date. As indicated below, the distribution of respondents across various groupsapproximates their distribution in the Public Service as a whole.
The data analysis presented below focuses on providing an overview of the issues based on the sample as a whole followed by group differences related to three key variables: gender, job type and whether or not a respondent had been promoted. These variables were selected for further examination because:
-
previous research has shown that gender has a significant impact on career development;
-
job type is typically related to opportunities and attitudes; and
-
the experiences of those who have been promoted can provide useful insight into the causes and consequences of career progression.
Substantive group differences (defined in this phase of the research as differences of more than 5%), are highlighted in the report.
Outline of Chapter
The remainder of this chapter is comprised of 14 sections grouped according to the four objectives described above. The first three sections describe the respondents by providing a personal profile of the respondents, a work profile of the respondents, and a profile of those who have been promoted in the last five years. This material is followed by sections on the importance and availability of various career achievements, and respondents' career goals. Next respondents' developmental experiences and career strategies are examined. Perceived organizational support for career development and career development initiatives comprise the next two sections. Consequences examined in the subsequent sections include satisfaction with career, job satisfaction, respondents' assessment of the work environment and organizational commitment and retention. Finally, a summary of the results and some key conclusions are presented.
A Personal Profile of the Respondents
Women
accounted for 49% of the employees who responded to the survey. In the Public
Service as a whole, women hold 44% of the jobs in the three job groups studied
(Executive, Administrative and Foreign Service, and Scientific and Professional)(17).
Women are not, however, equally distributed across these three job types. Women
held 27% of the executive positions, 59% of the administrative and foreign
service positions and 34% of the scientific and professional positions included
in the sample (compared to 22%, 49% and 31%, respectively, of these jobs in the
Public Service).
The average age of respondents was 44. The age distribution for the total sample and by gender is shown in Figure 3.1. As can be seen from this figure, most respondents are in the midlife and later adult stages. As illustrated, the women in the sample tended to be somewhat younger than the men. There were also age differences by job type. The executives in the sample tended to be older than the other two job groups, with 72% of executives being over 45 compared to 42% of the other two job groups. This age differential is not surprising given the years of experience required to attain most executive positions.
Most of the respondents (90%) had some post-secondary education with 64% completing at least one university degree. Twenty-nine percent had also completed a post-graduate degree. Figure 3.2 shows that fewer women (52%) than men (74%) had university degrees. Educational background also varied by job type (see Figure 3.3). Executives and scientific and professional personnel had significantly higher levels of education, as typically required for these positions.
The
first language of most respondents (63%) was English. French was the first
language of 34% of respondents while 3% listed another first language. There
were no gender differences in language. There were, however, language
differences between job types. Scientific and professional staff were more
likely to report their first language as English (66%) or other (6%).
Most employees had significant family responsibilities. The majority of respondents (76%) were married or living with a partner. As illustrated in Figure 3.4, more men (80%) than women (71%) were married. A majority of respondents (74%) also had children. Again, more men (77%) than women (70%) had children. A majority of respondents (65%) also reported having some responsibility for elderly relatives living either with them or elsewhere. There were no gender differences in elder care responsibilities.
There were differences in family situation between the three job categories. Similar numbers of all three job groups were currently married but fewer scientific and professional staff were separated or divorced. As you would expect given their higher average age, fewer executives (7%) had never been married. Consistent with this difference more executives (81%) had children. And more executives (73%) reported having some responsibility for elderly relatives.
A Work Profile of the Respondents
Administrative and foreign service jobs accounted for a majority of the respondents (62%). Scientific and professional jobs were held by 32% of the respondents and executive jobs by 6%. In the Public Service as a whole, these jobs groups account for 72%, 25% and 3%, respectively, of the total employment in these three categories. Fifty-one percent of respondents supervise the work of others. It is not surprising given the nature of their job responsibilities that 95% of those in the executive category have supervisory responsibilities compared to 42% of administrative and foreign service personnel and 47% of scientists and professionals. More men (54%) than women (40%) supervise others. This difference is consistent with the greater representation of men in the executive and scientific and professional categories.
Employees in the sample had considerable work experience. Respondents had an average of 21 years of full-time work experience with 17 years of that occurring within the Public Service. On average they had worked for 2 different departments during their Public Service career and had been with their current department for 14 years. Respondents had spent an average of six years in their current position. Women had slightly less experience on average than men (see Table 3.1). As shown in Table 3.2, scientists and professionals had the least experience but they had spent more of that experience within the same department and doing the same job. Only 16% of scientists and professionals had worked in more than 2 departments compared to 37% of executives and 25% of administrative and foreign service staff. Gender did not affect the number of departments worked for.
|
Years of experience: |
Women |
Men |
|---|---|---|
|
Full-time work |
21 |
22 |
|
In the Public Service |
17 |
18 |
|
In current department |
13 |
15 |
|
In current position |
5 |
7 |
|
Years of experience: |
Executive |
Admin. and Foreign Services |
Science and Prof. |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Full-time work |
26 |
22 |
19 |
|
In the Public Service |
22 |
18 |
15 |
|
In current department |
15 |
15 |
13 |
|
In current position |
3 |
6 |
7 |
Data were also collected on respondents' career moves. Specifically respondents were asked to give the number of promotions, acting positions and lateral moves they had experienced over the past five years. These kinds of career moves can broaden an employee's skill set and accelerate career progression. Results showed that promotions had been experienced by 50% of the sample. Forty-six percent had held an acting position considered a promotion, 18% an acting position at the same level. Lateral moves within the same department had been made by 43% of respondents, lateral moves to a different department by 16%. As Table 3.3 shows, women had experienced significantly more of each of these career moves. Table 3.4 illustrates job type differences in career moves. Compared to the other groups, executives had experienced significantly more promotions and lateral moves. Scientists and professionals had made fewer of each of the types of career moves than the other respondents. This result may be a consequence of the more specialized work done by scientists and professionals.
|
Percentage of employees who have received: |
Women |
Men |
|---|---|---|
|
Promotions |
59% |
41% |
|
Acting positions that were considered promotions |
54% |
38% |
|
Acting positions at the same level |
23% |
14% |
|
Lateral moves in the same department |
46% |
41% |
|
Lateral moves to different departments |
19% |
13% |
|
Percentage of employees who have received: |
Executive |
Admin. and Foreign Services |
Science and Prof. |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Promotions |
65% |
52% |
43% |
|
Acting positions that were considered promotions |
51% |
52% |
31% |
|
Acting positions at the same level |
22% |
21% |
12% |
|
Lateral moves in the same department |
65% |
45% |
38% |
|
Lateral moves to different departments |
33% |
18% |
10% |
Working overtime is a widely used career strategy and was a common practice amongst the employees in the sample. Most respondents were scheduled to work 37.5 hours per week but they worked, on average, an additional 5.5 hours. Executives clocked the most overtime work (13.3 hours per week) followed by scientists and professionals (six hours) and administrative and foreign service personnel (4.4 hours). Men put in more overtime than women -- 6.1 hours compared to 4.8. This gender difference in hours worked may be related to the fact that in our society women typically shoulder more than their share of family responsibilities. It should be kept in mind, however, that more men than women in this sample were married and had children. The gender difference in overtime is also consistent with gender differences in job type since significantly fewer women held executive positions which typically require the most extra work.
Previous research has suggested that taking a leave of absence can be detrimental to employees' career progression. On average employees in the sample had taken six months of leave: one month of education leave, three months of parental or maternity leave, and two months of other personal leave. Compared to men, women took the same amount of education leave but more parental/maternity leave (six months) and other personal leave (three months). Parental/maternity leave and personal leaves were most common amongst administrative and foreign service personnel (where the greatest percentage of women work) while education leave was highest amongst scientific and professional employees.
A
job located in an organization's headquarters is often considered more valuable
than one in a regional office. Fifty-six percent of the respondents worked in
the National Capital region. Being located in the National Capital region was
more common amongst executives (73%) and scientific and professional staff
(64%). There were no gender differences in location.
A number of previous studies have found that the gender ratio in an individual's work environment is related to career progression. Mixed sex work environments are generally beneficial for women while men often progress more rapidly in a male hierarchy.(18) Fifty-six percent of the employees in this sample worked in a mixed sex environment with 28% and 16% working in predominantly female and male environments respectively. Women were more likely than men to work in predominantly female environments (37% versus 19%). As shown in Figure 3.5, more scientific and professional employees worked in predominantly male environments while more administrative and foreign service staff found themselves in predominantly female environments. These results are consistent with patterns of gender segregation in the labour force as a whole, that is, scientific and professional occupations are typically male dominated and administrative occupations are typically female dominated.(19)
A Profile of Those Who Have Been Promoted
Promotions are one of the most tangible forms of career progression. Promotions are both a reward for good performance and an important developmental opportunity.(20) Promotion practices symbolize what organizations value.(21) An understanding of the differences between those who have been promoted and those who have not provides insight into career development issues. And those who have been promoted are likely to have different attitudes toward the organization than those who have not.
Half of the sample had experienced promotions in the past five years. Promotions were more common amongst executives (65% received promotions) followed by administrative and foreign service employees (52%) and scientists and professionals (43%). There were other significant differences in promotion rates between groups:
- 59% of women versus 41% of men had been promoted;
- 56% of Francophones versus 47% of Anglophones had been promoted;
- 57% of those working in the National Capital Region versus 41% outside it had been promoted;
- 53% of non-parents versus 48% of parents had been promoted; and
- 56% of those who supervise others versus 44% of non-supervisors had been promoted.
Differences in work experience between those promoted and those not promoted are summarized in Table 3.5. The data show that those who had been promoted had fewer years of experience than those who were not promoted. Lest this trigger concerns about the competency of those promoted, it should be noted that those who had been promoted had considerable experience -- an average of 16 years within the Public Service. The longer tenure of those not promoted may reflect the fact that plateauing is common in mid-career. These employees may have reached a peak in their career several years ago and thus not have received any promotions in the past five years.
|
Years of experience: |
Those Promoted |
Those Not Promoted |
|---|---|---|
|
Full-time work |
19 |
23 |
|
In the Public Service |
16 |
19 |
|
In current department |
12 |
16 |
|
In current position |
4 |
8 |
These differences with respect to experience are consistent with age differences in promotion experiences. The average age of those promoted in the last five years was 41 compared to 46 for those not promoted. Promotion rates were highest for those 35 and under (73% experienced promotion) followed by the 36-45 year olds (54% promoted) and the over 45 group (36% promoted).
Table 3.6 presents a history of career moves. In addition to receiving promotions, those experiencing promotions made significantly more career moves of other types in the past five years. They were more likely to have experienced acting positions both at a higher level and at the same level. And they were more likely to make lateral moves within and between departments. Since these career moves enhance employees' knowledge and skills, they may have contributed to these respondents earning a promotion.
|
Percentage of employees who have received: |
Those Promoted |
Those Not Promoted |
|---|---|---|
|
Acting positions that were considered promotions |
64% |
24% |
|
Acting positions at the same level |
25% |
11% |
|
Lateral moves in the same department |
50% |
33% |
|
Lateral moves to different departments |
21% |
9% |
There were no differences between those promoted and those not promoted with respect to:
- level of education;
- number of different departments they had worked for; or
- overtime hours worked.
In contrast to the findings of other studies, taking a leave of absence did not seem to inhibit promotion opportunities. There were no differences in the average amounts of education or personal leave taken by those promoted. Those who had been promoted had taken, on average, more parental/maternity leave (four months compared to two months). While this differs from the patterns found in previous research,(22) it is consistent with the finding that more women are being promoted and they are the ones who typically take parental leave.
As noted above, the gender mix of the work environment has been found in other studies to impact the promotion experiences of men and women. Overall, employees who had been promoted were more likely to be found in mixed sex groups and less likely to be found in predominantly male groups. This pattern of results was also true when male respondents were examined separately. This contradicts previous research which has found that men have an advantage in predominantly male environments. This may reflect the fact that the group most likely to be found in predominantly male environments are scientists and professionals who typically experience fewer promotions. For women, those who were promoted were, again, more likely than those not promoted to be found in mixed sex environments; however, women who had been promoted were less likely to be found in predominantly female groups. The results for the women are consistent with previous research suggesting that mixed-sex environments have the greatest career potential for women.
The Importance and Availability of Various Achievements
"Career
success" means different things to different people. Understanding what
employees value in their careers is a first step in addressing their needs.
Respondents were asked to indicate how important 15 different achievements were
to their personal definitions of success. The achievements most important to
employees' personal definitions of success (see Figure 3.6) were:
- doing work that is enjoyable;
- a personal sense of accomplishment;
- being able to learn and develop new skills;
- a salary that provides a comfortable lifestyle; and
- balance between work and non-work life.
Respondents were also asked to indicate whether or not these 15 achievements were available to them in their work (see Figure 3.6). The achievements most available to employees were:
- work that is enjoyable;
- balance between work and non-work life;
- sufficient authority to accomplish objectives;
- learning and developing new skills; and
- recognition by colleagues for their expertise.
As portrayed in Figure 3.6, for most of these items there is a considerable gap between the percentage of respondents who reported that a particular achievement was important to them and the percentage who reported that it was available to them. These gaps suggest ways of enhancing employees' experience of work. Some of the areas that it would appear most important to address are helping employees to:
- experience a personal sense of accomplishment in their work; and
- earn a salary that provides a comfortable lifestyle.
Differences by Job Type
There were numerous significant differences in the achievements important to different job groups (see Table 3.7) and in their availability in the work environment (see Table 3.8). Five achievements in particular were significantly more important to the executive group:
- being able to influence organizational direction;
- being surrounded by stimulating people;
- obtaining personal autonomy;
- moving through positions of increasing responsibility; and
- being in a position of authority.
Executive jobs also provided significantly more scope for attaining ten of the 15 achievements. Maintaining a balance between work and non-work was less important to executives than to the other two groups and was significantly more difficult for them to attain.
|
Percentage reporting that achievement is important to their definition of career success: |
Executive |
Admin. and Foreign Services |
Science and Prof. |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Obtaining increasing financial rewards |
54% |
56% |
47% |
|
Making a contribution to society |
79% |
68% |
75% |
|
Being surrounded by stimulating people |
89% |
75% |
80% |
|
Moving through positions of increasing responsibility |
63% |
56% |
48% |
|
Maintaining a balance between work and non-work |
75% |
87% |
83% |
|
Being in a position of authority |
42% |
25% |
23% |
|
Being able to influence organizational direction |
90% |
50% |
53% |
|
Obtaining personal autonomy |
73% |
66% |
68% |
|
Percentage agreeing that achievement is available in their work: |
Executive |
Admin. and Foreign Services |
Science and Prof. |
|---|---|---|---|
|
I enjoy my work |
83% |
73% |
76% |
|
I earn a salary that provides a comfortable lifestyle |
76% |
43% |
59% |
|
I have obtained increasing financial rewards |
55% |
22% |
26% |
|
My job allows me to make a contribution to society |
75% |
46% |
51% |
|
My job provides a sense of accomplishment |
72% |
61% |
61% |
|
Over the years, I have moved through positions of increasing responsibility |
80% |
56% |
42% |
|
I am able to maintain balance between my work and non-work lives |
45% |
65% |
63% |
|
I have sufficient authority to accomplish my objectives |
69% |
65% |
58% |
|
I feel that I receive peer recognition |
65% |
50% |
49% |
|
I am able to influence the direction of the organization |
55% |
21% |
18% |
|
I have a sense of personal autonomy in this job |
59% |
49% |
47% |
|
I am recognized by my colleagues for my expertise |
75% |
60% |
59% |
Scientists and professionals were less interested than the other groups in:
- moving through positions of increasing responsibility; and
- obtaining increasing financial rewards.
They also viewed it as significantly more difficult to attain:
- positions of increasing responsibility; and
- sufficient authority to accomplish their objectives.
The
administrative and foreign service personnel placed significantly less
importance on making a contribution to society than the other two groups and
were also significantly less likely to report that this was attainable. They
also were less likely to report that their work provided a salary commensurate
with a comfortable lifestyle.
Figure 3.7 shows the five most important achievements in each job group and their assessment of availability. While the rankings of the five most important achievements overlap between the administrative and foreign service category and the scientific and professional group, different achievements are highly important to executives. In particular executives place a high priority on the ability to influence organizational direction and the desire to be surrounded by stimulating people.
The gaps between importance and availability also differ by job type. The gaps are particularly high for administrative and foreign service personnel (averaging 31%), followed by scientific and professional staff (27%) and then executives (21%). Based on these gaps, the priorities for action would be:
-
to address salary concerns in the administrative and foreign service group (44% gap);
-
to provide opportunities to experience a personal sense of accomplishment in scientific and professional jobs (39% gap) and administrative and foreign service jobs (37% gap); and
-
to allow executives to have greater influence over the direction of the organization (35% gap).
Differences Based on Promotions
There were no differences between those promoted and those not promoted in terms of the career achievements that were important to their personal definitions of success. This suggests that those who have not been promoted still value career opportunities. There were, however, significant differences regarding the availability of these achievements to the two groups. As illustrated in Table 3.9, those who had been promoted felt that their work provided more opportunity to attain ten of the 15 career accomplishments. Differences were particularly striking regarding the ability of those promoted to earn a salary that provides a comfortable lifestyle, experience increasing financial reward and learn and develop new skills.
|
Percentage agreeing that achievement is available in their work: |
Those Promoted |
Those Not Promoted |
|---|---|---|
|
I enjoy my work |
80% |
71% |
|
My salary provides a comfortable lifestyle |
60% |
41% |
|
I have experienced increasing financial reward through the years |
38% |
15% |
|
I am surrounded by stimulating people |
50% |
40% |
|
My job provides a sense of accomplishment |
65% |
55% |
|
I am learning and developing new skills |
69% |
54% |
|
Over the years, I have moved through positions of increasing responsibility |
68% |
39% |
|
I have sufficient authority to accomplish my objectives |
67% |
61% |
|
I am able to influence the direction of the organization |
25% |
19% |
|
I have strong relationships at work |
61% |
54% |
Differences by Gender
There were gender differences in importance for five of the 15 career achievements (see Table 3.10). Women were more likely than men to place importance on developing new skills and moving through positions of increasing responsibility. Women were also more likely to value balance between their work and non-work lives and strong relationships on the job. Men placed more importance on being able to influence the direction of the organization. As illustrated in Table 3.11, women were more likely to report that their job made six of the 15 career accomplishments possible. This may reflect the fact that more women than men had experienced promotions in the preceding five years.
|
Percentage reporting that achievement is important to their definition of career success: |
Women |
Men |
|---|---|---|
|
Learn and develop new skills |
93% |
85% |
|
Moving through positions of increasing responsibility |
58% |
50% |
|
Balance between work and non-work lives |
89% |
81% |
|
Being able to influence the direction of the organization |
50% |
57% |
|
Strong relationships on the job |
66% |
59% |
|
Percentage agreeing that achievement is available in their work: |
Women |
Men |
|---|---|---|
|
I enjoy my work |
78% |
73% |
|
My job provides a personal sense of accomplishment |
63% |
56% |
|
I am learning and developing new skills |
64% |
59% |
|
Over the years, I have moved through positions of increasing responsibility |
59% |
48% |
|
I have sufficient authority to accomplish my objectives |
67% |
60% |
|
Strong relationships on the job |
60% |
54% |
