Someone on Reddit asked this question this past week, and it is a great question because it brings in a combination of culture, classification, and delegation authorities. I’ve decided to use it for my first Friday Question for HR issues in the federal government.

The question is often answered with an easy response — no — but not quite for the reasons most people assume. And when you drill down, the answer is actually wrong. The question actually has three separate components.

A. Can a PM report to an EC?

If you ask the question of classification experts, you will likely net the official answer that PMs should report to PMs. Note that the answer would NOT be that they can’t, but that they SHOULDN’T.

The premise, backed up by union grievances and labour relations, is that managers should have expertise in the type of work that their employees are doing (note that it doesn’t have to be that specific job, just that they understand the nature of the work) in order to both guide the employee effectively as well as evaluate their performance.

However, suppose you have a PM job that combines analysis (30%), program management (50%) and coordination (20%). That is actually part EC, part PM, and part AS, potentially. Another officer sitting right beside them might have a 50/30/20 split and be classified as an EC. Most jobs are rarely 100% any one element, they combine elements of multiple categories. The official classification is the one that represents the largest portion of the job. Sometimes if it is just a mish-mash, HR / classification will balk and tell you to redistribute the duties, but mostly they go with the biggest chunk. Back in the day at DFAIT, they were offering me a term job that was about 50% comms logistics, 40% admin, and 10% analysis. It came back IS, but it was a close race with AS.

Having an EC manage a PM is not necessarily a problem, even if not ideal. But there is a big difference if, say, you have a team of 8, and 7 are PMs reporting to an EC vs. 6 ECs+1 PM reporting to the EC. If most of the people in the group are PM, classification would encourage the manager to be PM too.

So at first blush, HR will say they shouldn’t, but holistically, they will let it go through if the manager pushes.

B. Can the reverse hold true, i.e., can an EC report to a PM?

By the logic above, the answer should be the same, right? Except there’s a small wrinkle. ECs are required to have university degrees, often with some statistical experience. In other words, an educational component that PMs don’t require to be in their category. If a PM is managing a group of ECs, the manager is in the same boat above — they likely don’t have the work experience to understand and evaluate the work of the employee. And while HR might let that go in some cases, if the manager ALSO doesn’t have the academic pre-requisites, that makes the Labour Relatons people VERY unsettled.

If something goes wrong, if there are any performance problems with an employee, it is almost a guaranteed win on a grievance because the manager is not qualified to evaluate them.

Generally speaking, HR will say a much stronger no to this one and will often insist that LR give an opinion AND it be signed off by someone higher than the Director level for most things. Some HR people will even ask Legal for opinions. Call it a very reluctant maybe for an answer that people can manage across classifications in the other direction too.

C. Can an XX-06 report to a YY-07?

The original question is a bit confusing because it isn’t related at all to being PM or EC. Above, for those elements, it is. But when you get to the level component, the individual classifications don’t particularly matter. What matters is if the positions are equivalent (which wouldn’t be allowed) or different levels (which would be allowed). To check equivalency, as if you were looking at deployment, you ask if the first one could deploy to the second one.

In this example, the current (2020 update) PM-06 salary range is 100,220 to 114,592. For ECs, an (2020) EC-06 would be 98,641 to 114,400; an EC-07 would be 111,452 to 127,950.

As such, under the 2020 salary band, a PM-06 would be the equivalent of an EC-06 (they both top out at 114K and change) and thus could report to an EC-07. Therefore, at the moment, classification and pay would accept the levels as different and officially allow it. Call it a hard but reluctant yes.

Note, however, that about five years ago, the PM-06 band and the EC-06 band were NOT equivalent. A PM-06 came out more like -06.5. Partway into the EC-07 band. At that time, the answer would have been less clear. While a PM-06 was NOT simply the equivalent of a EC-06, they were ALSO not the equivalent of an EC-07 either. At the time, HR said no repeatedly to such arrangements in our department, citing both levels AND the EC/PM roles.

Where does that leave the answer?

First a no, then a yes; then a reluctant maybe the other way; and finally a hard but reluctant yes. The “yes” would win, if the Executive asking for the classification pushes, but HR and LR will NOT be happy. Why? Because as soon as the next PA contract is settled, the categories likely WON’T be different levels anymore. HR knows this and thus won’t want to set it up, because someone can object as soon as the pay rates change.

Now, lots of people would argue that I’ve missed a step, that the simple way to know is to say that EC-07 and PM-06 are both considered “EX minus 1”. Except that is not actually a thing in classification. What it MEANS is that someone has done the equivalency and compared EX to EC-07 and found that EX-01 and EC-08 are equivalent for pay, so EC-07 is one level below that; and PM-07 is the equivalent of EX-01 for pay, so PM-06 is one level below that…hence both are “EX minus 1”. Except it is simply a short-hand term that is used in HR, it has no basis for determining allowable reporting relationships. It’s slang, not legalistic.

Others may look at the situation and say, “But I’ve seen HR say no!” (yep, and someone in the EX world accepted their answer and didn’t push back) or “But I’ve seen it in operation lots of times.” I have too. Including for myself.

I was an EC-07 who was reporting directly to a DG. The EX-01 position was vacant, and I was comfortable leading my division as a manager. I didn’t need the acting, it would have complicated things anyway, so we just let it run for about 4 years with me as the divisional lead. And I had a PM-06 reporting to me in practical terms. On paper, they still reported to the EX-01 and, therefore, the EX-02 DG. The structure worked because the PM-06 wanted it to work, they were more comfortable reporting to me. A classification review went through at the same time, and they said, “Well, it’s not ideal, but it’s okay with us if there are no problems; but if things change later, it would be better to do blah blah blah”.

Lastly, many departments have settled this internally simply by saying no as a policy decision. It’s not an official answer by classification standards, it’s just that it’s a minefield and the safest way to deal with it is not to even enter the field. Instead, they say no, or put in so many signoffs that most people take no for an answer rather than beating down the appropriate doors to get three or four approvals.

So, what’s your Friday question? I’ll pick one a week to answer.