Comments

ARCHIVE: HR — PolyWogg’s HR Guide – Annex 28 – HRSDC — 2 Comments

  1. Hi,

    Interesting, but unclear how this annex relates to your guide to HR. This is very much about HRSDC as a dept and not as a ministry. The only time it gets involved in HR matters in the public service is in relation to limited aspects of the Canada Labour Code and the Government Employees Compensation Act (ie workers comp).

    • Hi, thanks for comment. I didn’t think about context not being clear…I am working on different sections at a time, spreading out some areas that are needing of research while others I am already “done” so to speak, and this is one where I “jumped” ahead.

      For the departmental profile, one thing that I’ll make clear in one of the earlier chapters is that I think a lot of people waste time and energy applying to jobs at departments that don’t interest them much. While some of the HR texts refer to it as “issue-value alignment” between people and their positions, the reality is much simpler in some cases — they don’t know what the depts do, so they do a scattergun approach. Far more effective, in my view, is a targeted approach to the depts you DO have an interest in for their files, etc., or put differently, a mandate you can get behind. But with some 40-ish major departments in the “Core Public Administration”, lots of people don’t even know what programs some depts do, what their priorities are, etc. So, while I intend to include a para or two in the main text, I thought I would include short one-page annexes on each of the departments. Not as required for those who have been in government for awhile, perhaps, but from outside govt, could be extremely useful.

      Soooo, long explanation to say I thought I would pull together one sample profile and bounce it off a few people. It isn’t so much about what they (HRSDC) has to do with HR, so much as “Is this a dept that would interest you?”. One thing I’d really like to add to each is an overview of how many AS, PM, EC, ENG, IS, etc they have — I think it would go a long way towards saying “this is primarily a funding org” (if they are almost all PMs) or a policy-driven analyst dept (mostly ECs), but that data is proving a bit elusive in a public format (lots available internally, but I’m trying to avoid ATIPing it). I could also consider changing it all to prose paragraphs rather than bulleted, and “lead” people through it a bit more.

      From that vein, any thing you think I should add that would help someone say “This is a dept I might be interested in”? I’m a little worried about length too, so happy to consider cutting some elements.

      PolyWogg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *