Over the last twenty years, I’ve given numerous presentations on preparing for competitions in the federal public service (aka my HR guide called Be The Duck!). Lately, it is less of a presentation and more of an “Ask me anything (AMA)”-type format. I did one a few years ago with Health Canada, and they invited me back again this year as a joint presentation organized between Health Canada and PHAC, plus various friendly departments around town.

My presentation was called Career Compass: Navigating your career in the public service, and I knew some of the Qs in advance. I grouped eight of them in two questions before moving on to general Qs from the inbox. I promised to follow up on any of the ones I missed in the group AMA, and I’ll cover a bit of the first two again just for comprehensiveness (I’m anal retentive, I admit it!).

As always, these answers are my personal opinions based on my experiences in the public service, presented as candidly and transparently as I can. Even for some of the tough ones where I don’t think the government track-record is great.

With fewer job opportunities today, are there other classifications besides EC where there is policy work?

The short answer is an unequivocal yes. I answered this in the AMA session, with my initial focus on explaining that there are different types of policy work. Back when the old ES category was converted to EC, many departments (including ESDC) looked at the various types of ECs and created generic job descriptions for general policy, evaluation, research, and corporate planning, as well as something that was more policy management positions (more team leads, managers, etc.). Each of those are quite different types of policy work with different timelines, daily work pressures, etc.

Equally though, even within general policy positions, there are also strategic policy (macro), program policy and design (medium-level), delivery design (micro), federal-provincial or international or stakeholder relations, Cabinet Affairs, etc. Or as advisors in many horizontal groups, DGOs, ADMOs, etc. All EC work, etc.

If you want to look at near-EC work, many other classifications are essentially pseudo-ECs (analyst) focused on something specific — so COs (Commercial Officers) are generally ECs focused on private-sector issues, economic development, etc. Many departments converted COs to other categories, including EC; some departments still have them. Sometimes IS (Information Services aka Comms) are just ECs focused on outward communication issues…and the more they are focused on broader horizontal issues rather than events or announcements, the more they start to look like ECs (or PMs). Or Foreign Service Officers (FSO), who hate the comparison, but are frequently ECs focused on either trade issues or economic/political trends in specific countries or on specific issues. They have other elements to their job, but for someone who might be focused on say environmental issues, 60% of their job would look identical to a strategic policy analyst at Environment itself. There are also some PM and AS jobs that will come very close to the same type of work as ECs, except more focused on internal policy than external social or economic policy. In some departments, PMs are actively leading stakeholder engagement while other departments have their ECs do it for specific policies or programs.

As a general comment, many people in government tie themselves up in knots worrying about their classification and only staying within it. And there ARE some reasons to do that, particularly early in a career, but eventually it isn’t as relevant as many other factors like type of work, team, boss, or work-life balance, not to mention simply the skill sets that are transferable across categories.

What is the best strategy for career growth, in the current context of limited opportunities? // What is the best way to identify our strength/best career for yourself and find a job in that sector?

I answered this in the AMA session, and I confess looking back, I don’t think I nailed it as well as I would have liked. There are four elements for me in managing your career, outside of any other context.

First and foremost, you need to know yourself really well. What interests you for content? What are you good at? What do you want to do? And that includes understanding different job classifications that might interest you as well as what content interests you. I have little interest in business development or fisheries, for example. Not that interested in procurement. Very literal interest in Indigenous files, although that is more my disinterest in many of the current and past practices and the limitations of the levers we have than the files themselves.

Second, you need to understand that there are also different loci and foci of power, to use the academic terminology. If you’re in policy, it is quite common for someone in strategic policy to do it for a few years and then feel like they want to move to program policy to get “more in the weeds”, to see concrete programs rather than larger trends and issues. And also quite common for someone to work in program policy and design for a few years and start to want to get into delivery design or even delivery itself for the same reasons — to get closer to the real clients that are being helped. To see what is happening ON THE GROUND, whatever that means. But here’s the kicker. Those doing delivery frequently come across the same issues over and over and suddenly want to move upstream to delivery design so that they can “fix” the on-the-ground issues they keep seeing and influence delivery design. And for the same group to want to go up into macro strategic policy to deal with even higher upstream issues to effect larger change. Others want to have their finger on the pulse of the latest policy and program developments; others want to be on stable programs over time. There are a LOT of people who start in, say, policy and they hate it. But it’s not because they hate policy but because they’re in strategic policy and can’t see the people on the ground enough, they don’t feel a connection to the end product or service.

Third, when talking about learning your job over time, I often share a story about working at our Mission to the United Nations in New York. I was there for a short duration (3 months) but had lots of conversations with the staff who were on four-year assignments. The general zeitgeist of the posting is that in year 1, your goal is to find the bathrooms. That sounds silly, I know, but it’s all about orientation. You learn the layout, how the building is situated, where meeting rooms are, and well, you show up. You might not have a lot to contribute in year 1 in discussions with more senior reps from around the world who may be in year 3, 4 or 15. In year 2, you start contributing to the discussion more. You’re less intimidated, you know how things work, you offer suggestions. In year 3, you’re more experienced, and you start leading or guiding discussions, “making a difference” in the conversation. By year 4, everyone knows you, you’ve built some rapport with different delegations, and you might be asked to chair a discussion or sub-committee.

In my general experience, I think many people think of new jobs as “get in, learn, get out or move up”. For me, it’s different. I think in year 1, you will see 80% of the potential learning in the division. One full year of an operational cycle, you’ll see most things. I hesitate to say you’ll get 80% of your learning, because that is misleading, but you’ll get 80% of your “content” likely in year 1. In year 2, you’ll see things that you worked on in year 1, you’ll revisit them, and this year you’ll have the opportunity to shape them in a slightly different way for process or content. It’s like you found the bathrooms AND contribute to the discussions more. But also in year 2, you start to learn the way things CAN work, and what YOU are capable of, aka the skills gain of how to do things (not process per se, more how to influence outcomes in a new way). Maybe that is how to have a frank but cordial conversation with a stakeholder, how to move it from a transaction conversation to a transaction-within-a-relationship conversation … deeper, more meaningful, more transparent, more collaborative than you could do in year 1. At the end of year 2, I think you’ll have another 15% of your content (bringing you up to about 95% of the content) and perhaps 60% of your potential skills gains. If you stay for year 3, you’ll get very little in content learning, but you’ll pick up another 20% of skills gains. Some of that is simply doing the job differently, putting your own imprimatur on it. Or because you have been there, you get different and better files than someone who is brand new with no history with the program. As a manager, I can give you more and delegate more to you if you’ve been there longer, you have the content and the context.

So, I like to see people do jobs for at least a year, and better two years to get the most out of the job. If they can stay for year 3, it’s great. But not all jobs are great fits. So, I’m not saying don’t move on after a year. If the job fit isn’t there, and you don’t see benefits from year 2 and 3, move on. The challenge is more that some people say, “Oh, I’ve learned enough here, not much else to learn” after one year, which is quite often true, but misleading. You’ve found the bathrooms, but not how to have deeper conversations with stakeholders (internal or external).

Fourth, I am a great believer in finding ways to expand your current job over moving to a new job. Sometimes that is extra projects, sometimes that is deeper dives on specific issues. I confess that I have a high tolerance for corporate files. So when new corporate requests would come down to my division, ones that no one else wanted, I took them. I volunteered for them. And it gave me broader perspectives on what was going on around my “area” that others didn’t see. I like proposing value-added files to my boss. I like saying, “Hey, I’ve noticed X doesn’t really work the way we would like it to work, would it be worth it to you for me to spend some time researching some other ways we could do that?”. A project that started that way at CIDA ended up enlarging to be a multi-departmental project with PCO that I was the lead analyst for at CIDA, who was chairing the working group. And because I started it, I led it, and I shaped the outcomes more than anyone else in the working group. I did that. As a PM-02. Later, I led international discussions on similar issues, with trips to Paris and Rome. Because I had done it before. Later at ESDC, I did a big corporate project early on that nobody else wanted, I even negotiated when I took a new job that I would lead it — which made the Director laugh because NOBODY wanted to lead it. I did, because I knew how to do it without minimal pain for everyone…and because I did that project, I got offered five more great projects over the next ten years.

Now, that’s the basis for most of my career management advice. Know what you want, know what types of things are out there, suck everything you can out of a job before you move on (content AND skills, not just content), and expand your job whenever you can beyond what is on your to-do list. Managing those aspects also leads naturally to growth. Long before I made manager, I was seen as the person who could “get things done” and who didn’t complain about corporate stuff. So lots of projects came my way which lead to better experiences than others who balked at whether it was in their job description, was more than someone else was doing, or if they really wanted it. There’s a quote from Harrison Ford about acting in stuff that he didn’t necessarily enjoy doing all the elements of, and it is basically, “That’s what the money is for.” AKA not everything is fun and games, that’s why they pay us to do it. I’ve had some crappy files that helped someone get something done, and then the next time something good came up, they also gave it to me. Leading some people to complain, “Why is that person getting that opportunity?” Because I said yes to the previous 10 files that didn’t necessarily look like opportunities.

Now, that doesn’t answer the immediate question I know. What do you do NOW with so many constraints? The short answer is that most departments have halted competitions and transfers in from other departments. They’re focusing on their own internal budgets, constraints and needs, they are not recruiting from other departments except in specific sub-categories or specialized areas. As such, you are pretty looking only at laterals right now within your own department. And even then, it is likely a full deployment, not an assignment. Which means a lot of networking to find out about opportunities. I’ll cover that elsewhere again.

“Moving around” within the GoC has been a lot harder than people made it out to be. How do we find these opportunities, especially given cuts? // What type of lateral opportunities would you suggest since there isn’t much opportunities for promotions at the moment? // Any tips on how public servants can leverage qualifying into pools into promotional appointments in the current environment? // How does one switch jobs or teams to broaden horizons and experience in this constrained environment? // When you find a role you want to do in another agency within the Government of Canada, what are some strategies in order to get selected and get the job.

As I said above, almost everything right now is under a severe chill. Movement between departments will be almost impossible except for specialized needs, and within departments, managers will be told to do deployments, not competitions. So, as an employee, that means you are looking to do laterals.

Now, I need to go sideways for a second. I want to say that I absolutely detest the word networking. It makes me think of political people or used car salesmen trying to schmooze people…to get contacts, to meet people, to use them to get ahead. Everytime someone pitches me a networking event, I pass. Both directions — when I was more junior and needed to network and now as a middle manager with info people might want to get from me. So I just skip that and share it outright. No networking or schmoozing required.

Yet, it’s a decent enough verb. I’m going to pitch what I call substantive networking instead. I’ll tell you first how it has worked for me over my career even though I’m a serious introvert by nature and I hate networking.

When I was at Foreign Affairs, CIDA, SDC, and ESDC, there is something I did and still do regularly. When I meet someone, I ask them about their job. Part of that is because I tend to think in frameworks, so I try to add their job to my understanding of the world I’m in. International relations, development, social development, employment, whatever. And so I talk to them about their files and I try to understand what they do, how it works, what issues they deal with, etc. Not because I’m trying to impress them, or schmooze them, but because I am genuinely interested in knowing about other jobs and what their operating parameters look like. A barista, a sanitation engineer, a headhunter, I want to know what their job entails.

Then, over time, if I see something in a news announcement, journal article, interesting policy document that relates to what someone at work does, I share it with them later by email. With full curation. What does that mean? It means I say, “Hey John, I saw this article that talks about x elements. If I remember correctly, you deal with x in your job. I thought I would share because it has links to blah and blah.”. Soooo, I’m not finding something random to send them that will be spam. I’m showing them a) I understood your job based on what you told me, b) I found something that might be of interest to you legitimately and c) I’m telling you why I think you would be interested. If you don’t like it, you can delete it easily. Which they would do if I wasted their time with something frivolous. But I’m pretty good about not spamming people with that kind of stuff.

Because of the nature of my work, and a lot of built-in horizontality, I got to know lots of people at DFAIT (now GAC), CIDA, SDC and ESDC. Lots of people have said, “Hey, talk to Paul, he knows everyone and he’s really good at networking.” Except I’m NOT good at networking. I’m good at curating useful info and sharing it (a skill learned at DFAIT). At one point, I ran into someone that I had worked with a few years before, we were now in different areas, but on a regular basis, I would get info and would share it with her when I thought it was useful. She never really commented on it, but I kept sending it. Then one night as we were leaving work, she chased after me in the lobby to say, “Hey, I’ve never told you this, but you know the stuff you send me, I have a separate folder that I call “Stuff from Paul” because you never send me crap. It’s always good, you always flag why it’s useful, and I always want to read it, so I save it separately from all the other stuff I get and every week or two, I have coffee and read just your forwards. And that article you sent me yesterday from the UN? I cribbed from it to do a note to the Minister today on a related file, no extra research required! It was awesome!”

Which is great over time to build more contacts. Talk to people every time there’s some sort of horizontal request if you can. Ask questions when you can about the type of work people do. Instead of trying to meet someone to make a contact to see if they’ll hire you, aim to see if you can chat with them to find out what they do, what’s going on in their area, etc. Sure, they know you want a job eventually, and you know it too, but that’s not why you’re reaching out to talk to them. You just want to learn.

Now, if you want to be Machiavellian, you could meet someone, find out what they do, look all over the internet for something that would be useful in their job and forward it as good info to share, ensuring that you are curating WELL, not spamming them.

For moving around right now, most departments are keeping lists of internal vacancies, even assignments (although people aren’t big on assignments right now). Call them, chat them up, find out what it’s like. IF and ONLY IF you know it meets the original criteria that you know what type of work it is and what you are interested in. It does nobody any good if you waste their time. It is more surgical strikes than shotgun pellets.

And for one small nuance, never try to reach out to see if they have a job for you. The answer will almost always be “no”, and they can round file your request. If, on the other hand, you ask to talk to them about the type of work their unit does, so you can understand better for the future, it’s really hard to say no. Cuz that looks like supporting mobility and career development, which managers are always encouraged to do.

In this climate, what skills and competencies do you deem as most valuable? If one would have to compete for their job, what would put them above everyone else?

This one is relatively easy, and it doesn’t matter whether you are talking about current pressures, regular competitions, or right-fit interviews. Managers are looking for three things:

• Judgment — Managers always need employees with good judgment. If you read my earlier prose about substantive networking, and sharing curated materials, that is clearly based on judgment. I am NOT wasting their time. I am only sharing GOOD info worth reading, and saying WHY I am sharing. If I am wrong, they write me off as a spammer. Don’t be the type that wastes their time. For those of you who might have seen the Lego Block personality profiles within the GoC, there are “reds” which are what most Executive jobs entail, even if the person isn’t quite red (extroverted & analytical). The communications style for reds is “Be Brief. Be Bright. Be Gone.” (FYI, for those who want to know, Blue = Introverted & analytical = Show me the details; Green = Introverted and intuitive = Show me you care; Yellow = Extroverted and intuitive = Involve me and make it fun!).
• Initiative — I don’t want someone freelancing on other people’s files or going off half-cocked to tell the DM how to do their job, but I also don’t want a wallflower waiting for me to tell them what to do next;
• Interpersonal skills — Managers spend too much time on managing staff in conflict. Any second spent on that is literally wasted. I don’t need problems, I need people to work together to find solutions.

When managers talk, and we do, and we’re asking about how to solve a problem like Maria (Sound of Music aficionados should get that easily), we are often talking about employees who do not have one of those three skills. If you want to stand out, those are the three areas to nail. If pushed for a fourth, reliability is an obvious one, but truthfully, if you’re not reliable, you can’t wave a magic wand and fix that. It takes time to prove. The other three can be proven today

What is the best way to get promotional opportunities in the federal public service? I’ve heard working in the NCR/moving to other departments is the way? // Most opportunities are located in NCR. Are there provisions for Indigenous people to seek these opportunities? And is this frowned upon by the hiring manager?

Other variations on that question include:

• What advice do you have for people in the Regions who are looking for opportunities and navigating their career in the public service outside of the NCR?
• Advice for areas to work on to promote career progression for regional employees who don’t intend to relocate to the NCR?
• What’s your advice for people in regions/agencies struggling to obtain leadership roles despite having a secret clearance, language levels, pools, experience?
• Navigating Regional opportunities and inclusiveness for an EC. Particularly for those with NCR-based teams and who are EN essential (but keen on learning FR)
• How does some navigate moving from the NCR to the regions and in the current times, is it a smart move for a long-term career to move back to the NCR?
• Recommendations for networking if you are a regional employee and could a regional employee still be considered a valid choice for the NCR?

Soooo, this is a hard one to answer, as we have to go back to that first element. What interests YOU? Generally speaking, if you’re in a region, and you want to do policy work, you are better off being assigned to an NCR unit because most policy work is done in NCR. This is a throw-back to the fact that Ministers’ offices and Parliament are here, and briefings were done in person, ergo, you had to be here. Just as MPs had to come here for most of the year. With Teams, Zoom, all the WFH tools, which also work from regional offices, it is now less about the physical location and more about which unit you’re attached to in a department.

I’m currently an EC manager with a team of ECs, with a more operational focus than most units, but in program policy. I have three employees who regularly work in Gatineau, three that regularly work in Ottawa, and one that works/lives in B.C. That was the case before the RTO situation, and it works fine. One of my Gatineau people regularly works out of Montreal. All good. However, there are some old-school managers who want everyone onsite in one location. There are pluses and minuses to that, I’m not in the business of debating choices, just telling you what exists. There is a lot less flex for policy positions to be created outside of NCR now, or even to let them move outside of NCR if they are not already out. If I lost my BC person, I probably couldn’t hire another easily outside of NCR. I would need extra rationale, more paperwork, etc. and the person would pretty much have to be already located somewhere else, they couldn’t move away from NCR without senior-level approval. As a manager, that is relatively outside my delegated authorities, which wasn’t the case immedately post-pandemic, when more flex was available (aka pre RTO).

So, going back, do you WANT to do policy work of a specific type that is only done in NCR? Then yes, it makes sense to try and be attached to them either remotely or physically.

Alternatively, if you are in NCR, and you want/need more operational experience, a regional program often has that in spades. You CAN get it in NCR, but if you want to see it in full action, a regional stint could be helpful. However, right now, it isn’t as likely to be approved as easily, if you mean physical re-location. They’re more likely to say “Okay, you can work out of region X, but you have to move on your own, we’re not transferring you” or “you can work for region X, from NCR”. That may be better, that may be worse.

But, flipping my advice around, if you aren’t interested in NCR-like policy jobs or regional operations, taking a job in that area just to “do it” is likely a low return-on-investment compared with jobs of more interest to you.

For the question about Indigenous, I confess I’m a little confused by the question. You absolutely can apply, you’re encouraged to apply, it is not frowned upon by managers, and in fact, almost all would appreciate it. There’s a dark side to hiring, but not the one most people think. Let’s say for example that I have a mostly white abled male team. I want to diversify my pool, and I may even be encouraged to do so because my employee stats show that I am way under the population or PS averages. So I run a process, I hire three people who happen to be a female, a PWD, and an Indigenous person. Sounds great to some, problematic to others, I’m not going to debate that, but here’s the kicker. My employee profile stats may not change.

My stats ONLY change if the woman, the PWD and the Indigenous person have self-identified as such for HR purposes. Now, the reason I mention it is that managers generally do not hire by colour or gender, it’s not listed as a priority very often any more, but Indigenous and PWD are ALWAYS a priority every day of the week. I know it may not seem like it is welcome or a priority, but I would say poor outcomes are for two other systemic reasons.

First and foremost, some applicants who have faced systemic barriers up to this point in their career might not look as good on paper as another candidate who didn’t. It sucks, but if you look at two candidates with say 7 years work experience, a non-barriered candidate might have had three really good previous experiences, whereas a multi-barriered client might only have had 1 good experience and 2 average ones. So the manager starts to zero in on the one with three good experiences. Second, one extra barrier that Indigenous applicants might have is if they want to work remotely and to do so from their Indigenous community. While it shouldn’t be a barrier, managers have little flex right now. I have an employee that works in BC even though I’m in NCR. If she leaves, I would need very senior approval for the next person to NOT be in NCR. Call it the knock-on effect for RTO. If I then say, not only is the person new, not only is the person outside of NCR, they are also on a reserve or in an Indigenous community and likely won’t be able to come into a non-existent local GoC office 3x a week? That seems like three or four extra complications to a manager or executive who is being told to have them come into the office 3x a week and to do so locally because we can control that office space to give them a spot.

So, yes, you should absolutely apply. Apply today, apply often, and if you are comfortable doing so, flag all over the place that you are Indigenous. In the current environment, I would say it almost guarantees it will be at least considered. The challenge lies after that, and I would like to be optimistic for you, but I know what the stats look like generally. 🙁

If I may go sideways, I’ll give a non-barriered example from Global Affairs. For short context, new Foreign Service Officers are divided into several streams, but I’ll focus mainly on trade vs. political. In your first 2-3 years in the department, you are assigned to HQ in Ottawa. Trade positions often have options to go on temporary duty (TD) in embassies or consulates around the world, perhaps a few weeks here or there. Political officers rarely get TD, as there aren’t many opportunities. One glaring exception is a three-month assignment for five FSOs in New York City as junior advisors for the United Nations General Assembly. You go to NYC for three months, work at the Canadian mission, attend meetings, write reports, etc. Later, when postings become available at perhaps the two-year mark, let’s say 50 political officers are competing for positions. Forty-five of them have all HQ experience, while five have an extra experience working at the Canadian Mission. As a result, they often do better in interviews for postings, get better assignments, go to better destinations with more responsible duties and higher visibility. Four years later, they come back to Ottawa, they’re all reintegrating, and the people with the better postings had better experiences and often get better jobs back at HQ. If you fast-forward 20 years and look at the lists of new directors from the political stream, a huge number of them were previously junior advisors in New York. They stood out early, and their subsequent “leg-up” in job selections snowballs until they’re getting earlier promotions than their cohort brethren. The experience for many barriered clients in the GoC are not much different, in my opinion. Some of the early jobs are not as good as some that others got, perhaps based on limited previous experience and opportunities, and the gap can widen. Some of the Indigenous recruitment programs and initiatives attempt to correct some of that historical bias against barriered candidates, but it is up to the applicant to decide if they trust self-identifying or not.

What long-term career path tips do you have for those who want to remain subject matter experts and have no interest in pursuing management roles? 

Hey, you! Get out of my head! 🙂 Just kidding, but I have struggled with this thought throughout my career. As I was making my early bones, I assumed I would aim for senior executive positions. IS-03, PM-01, PM-02, PM-03, ES-04, A/ES-05, A/PM-06, A/EX-01, ES-06, EC-07, A/EX-01, etc. For the first 13 years or so of my career, I assumed I wanted to and would become an EX, maybe aim for EX-03 or so for my career. However, around the EX minus 1 level and EX level, I started to stall for ambition. I would do the acting assignments, get through them, and then feel relieved when they were over. I have been a manager since 2005, and it was probably around 2008 that I started wondering if EX-01 was what I wanted, and around 2016 when I was pretty sure I didn’t, and around 2019 when I decided I definitely did not.

Now, I need to tell you a bit about being a manager and director that dispels some myths. There are tons of people who say, “I never want to be a manager because I don’t want to manage people.” That’s the short version. What they REALLY mean is that they don’t want the bad part of managing people. Talking to people about their career goals, their passions, their hopes, where they want to go? That’s fun for just about everyone unless you’re hard-core introvert who would rather work in a closet than talk to anyone ever (which will hurt your career all on its own). My wife for example is a manager and before she became a manager, she was very much “against” the HR part of it. Then for the first couple of years, that distaste continued. But now, she’s completely okay with it. Why? Because once you become a manager, the job changes with you in it.

I said above that you can find the bathrooms in the first year, and that’s true for management in the first year. You follow the cycle, you do what you have to do, you meet your main deliverables, etc. But in year 2? You start deciding that your workplan will nudge 10% towards something you think is missing from your group’s output. And you replace an employee who left with someone who matches your idea of what a good employee looks like, with the skill set YOU are looking for, who is the right fit for YOUR team, not your previous manager’s ideal. Often that is a difficult employee who left, or your boss changed (good or bad), etc. But the more you get into your rhythm, not someone else’s, the more the job becomes yours. That doesn’t mean it is for everyone, but often the people who complain about having to manage have one of three problems — first and foremost, they have no idea how to manage to their strengths, they’re just ticking boxes; they have problem employees who quite often are in the wrong jobs, not always problem employees; or they have a bad management environment.

I’ll go sideways for a moment. I went into a team situation as a new manager and was told that it was a rough gig. Inconsistent structures inherited, people who were unmotivated, and even one who was a very difficult employee with a grievance situation going through the cycle. I met with them, asked questions about what they thought we should be doing vs. what we were doing currently, had multiple one-on-ones to find out the details of what they viewed as misdirection, etc. I had two separate long meetings with the “difficult” employee. Within 3 months, they were on board with my “vision” even though it wasn’t 100% what they wanted, and the difficult employee had cancelled their grievanced, signed all their outstanding PAs, and created a new one for the new year with an ambitious workplan. Three months. Because, honestly, I was simply an experienced manager who knew how to adapt to the employees I had, not the employees I thought everyone should be, and they responded favourably. In another situation, I was on board two weeks and could tell that this one employee was struggling because they were clearly in the wrong job — they were perfect for a PM in a more operational role and they were stuck doing EC work in a planning shop. I chatted with them, helped them move to another group, and they flew immediately into relative stardom. The new manager thought they owed me for giving them a star employee. No, I just helped the employee fit where they should, after a previous manager had managed them badly for two years. I’m not the employee whisperer, I just manage openly and transparently with a strong focus on helping my employees achieve their potential over micromanaging their deliverables.

So, when people tell me they don’t want to be a manager, I don’t disagree with them. That’s not my call. But I do want to know if what they are really trying to avoid is being a bad manager in a bad situation or working for a bad boss. Those are not the same things.

Now, for me, there is a very big difference between manager and Director. The easiest way for me to know if I want to be a Director is simple — I look at their calendar for the week and ask myself how many of those meetings would I want to attend. As an EX-01, you get a lot of meeting invites directly to cover your area of responsibility AND delegated to you by your EX-02 or -03 boss. Or even the ADM. I do not enjoy spending most of my week in meetings, even on files I enjoy. I get stressed if my day is choc-a-bloc with meetings. Instead, I like having time at my desk to work AND to meet in smaller groups with my team. Checkins, short bilats, one meeting a week with the larger team. I still get some delegated to me, but most of the time 40% of my day is open…there are SOME days, shh don’t tell anyone, where I have only 1 or 2 short meetings with my own staff, little checkins on files where they control the discussion, not me, more for them to tell me what they want to tell me, if anything. Sometimes they cancel them. I try not to dance when they do. In short, I don’t like the day to day actions of an EX, so I don’t pursue it. I’m happy as an EC-07 and I intend to finish my career as an EC-07. If there was an EC-08 option still instead of EX-01, sure, I’d be happy to consider it. But those are few and far between now.

However, even on EX options, I know a few people who have moved up to EX-01 for reasons that are not obvious, even when they thought they never would. The first example is a common one, where the Director left and the person started acting in the position. And eventually they just got regularized since they were already doing the job and didn’t really mind it. The second example is a bit more strategic perhaps…they moved up because they were the expert on their files and they didn’t want to lose momentum with someone new coming in who might have a different view on how to move forward. This is almost a pull — the files pull them into being the EX so that they continue. A third example is almost a hair’s breadth away from the second … some move up so that someone else doesn’t screw up their files. Sure, there are the ones who WANT to move up, but I know a bunch who moved up because they realized they were the best person to take that job. For me, I would be an okay director, but I am a really good manager. I also like the fact that some days, I can turn off my computer and say, “Sorry, that’s the director’s problem, not mine.”

Now, back on topic. What are the best options if you want to top out at EX-minus 1 or 2, non-management?

I would use a lot of the same advice as I have above — projects, expand current job, move laterally, etc. However, it changes somewhat too. If you are going to have a 30-year career for example and you are only going from EC-02 to EC-06 perhaps, that’s only four promotions. Which means you can spend some time at -02, -03, -04, -05 level without being stressed. You will automatically perform above level, because you’ll have the experience to move up. So, for example, I had an EC-02 working for me who had a small glitch with his resume, hadn’t been able to move up and wasn’t trying to either. He was capable of EC-05 work easily, and probably EC-06 at the time. He was the cheapest EC-05 around! Bad for him, he was only being paid EC-02 salary, but I regularly let him take on -04 and -05 work if he wanted to do the files. When warranted, I could even give him acting pay, but I gave him more lead on files than any other -02. Great deal for me and my division, but…dun dun dun…it also made him highly sought after because he was capable of so much more than his level. Even later, when he fixed his glitch, and was promoted to EC-05, he took on -06 work regularly and worked beyond his level. Sometimes with pay, sometimes just initiative. Being slightly underclassified or overqualified for your existing level for short periods of time can be painful for your pay cheque, but it makes you HIGHLY sought after by hiring managers. Lots of people would read that as “exploitation”, but that’s not what I’m talking about. As a manager, I don’t like it for my employees, BUT if you are a super-experienced -04, you’ll beat out all the other -04s competing for lateral positions. That’s not a bad career move, as long as you don’t do it for too long. He moved around, had some awesome work projects, and then jumped up to EC-05 and -06 level pretty quickly, with a -07 a few years after that, leveraging some of his experience of being under-level. I had similar experiences when I was in acting positions, working on files that would have regularly been done by far more senior people but I was the most knowledgeable. It can even help you get really good experiences WITHOUT being a manager or director. 🙂

I’ll throw in a philosophical thought, though, too. About 30 years ago, a colleague was being mentored by someone quite senior. And they shared their philosophy for a long, successful career. They suggested that up until age 40, you take jobs that play to your weaknesses. Things you need experience in, boxes to be checked, things you don’t know how to do. Call that the first half of your career if you don’t like the age estimate. Then, for the second half of your career, aim for jobs that play to your strengths. There’s a lot of nuance hidden in that advice, but it’s pretty solid. I only take jobs at this point in my career that I want, I’m good at, and I’ve done enough due diligence to think the boss and team are good. I have been burned by that in the past, but less often than I could have been otherwise. I have nuances that work better for me, but the main thrust resonates with my experience.

Finally, I’ll throw in a pop-culture reference to add an extra nuance. If you’ve seen the TV show, The Rookie, with Nathan Filion, you know he plays a 40-year-old man who decides to become a cop as his second career. At the end of the third season, he basically does something wrong, violates a direct order for good reason, and gets a serious reprimand, sending him backwards in his career. He’s told basically that becoming a “detective” is now off the table. He’ll never do it. But a few EPs later, his boss throws him a bone…he suggests that he COULD consider developing a very specific area of expertise like forensics or cyber crime or SWAT or whatever. That you can bypass some of the general approach by being so valuable in one area, there’s no competition, and they’ll promote you by depth of expertise over breadth.

While I don’t want to stretch the pop ref too far, it’s not completely wrong either. With a small twist. There are some people who become experts in very niche areas, and that’s useful. If you want to be come the foremost expert in labour law regs, great. Except it becomes increasingly harder in that scenario to move to something else. It isn’t that you are an expert in regs alone, it’s that you are an expert in labour law regs. That doesn’t scream doors being opened.

However, if you become an expert in a specific process, those are much more transferable. For example, if you want to stick to regs, it isn’t labour law regs you want to become an expert in, it is perhaps consultations / drafting / promulgation of regs. Regardless of domain, you have experience in the process and that can be applied to multiple domains of regs. Alternatively, for policy, some people become experts in MCs or TB Subs. Often with a bit of pain in taking new positions as others are like, “Hey! Why is that person getting the opportunity?”. The short answer is they’ve written five before, and it’s a cakewalk to write the sixth. The person may not be experienced in the program but they have expertise in the process, and that opens doors. Another popular “process” is stakeholder relations, even sometimes specific types of stakeholders like FPT or international. But SR or even consultations tend to follow similar structures across programs. And something that is regularly needed. If you can find a process, even if related to delivery more than policy (such as the complete client experience journey from awareness to application to service to outcome), and become an expert in the process, that’s often more attractive to managers than specific content expertise.

Just some extra thoughts…

Do you recommend leaving the public service and re-entering at a later time with the lack of promotional and acting opportunities available?

This one is easy. No, with a small asterisk.

I say no because the government is terrible at recognizing outside experience. We don’t understand it, we can’t equate it, and you won’t be able to translate it into a promotion. The only thing we recognize is doing another government job at a lower level to give you experience towards a higher-level position. We suck. And if you leave completely, ending your attachment, you have to find a way back in with zero guarantees.

But you do you. I’m older and of a generation (as Lynda Duxbury would note) where I don’t quit my current job until I have a guaranteed replacement. I don’t even consider job hopping. I’m old, I’m immobile in that regard. And I know I’m in the right domain…I have zero interest in non-government areas.

The asterisk to my “no” is because in the event of a buyout / WFA option, there are opportunities to take a package like educational money, do some upskilling for two years, and after two years, be put on a priority list for rehiring. A staff member of mine did that during DRAP. I thought she was nuts. However, she left, did schooling for two years, focused on herself and her health, came back at 2y to the priority list, and was hired 2 months later back to a full-time indeterminate position. She avoided all the chaos and demoralizing experiences of the two years she was gone, and came back to the level she left. Worked out pretty sweet for her. But, as I said, I thought she was nuts before she did it, and she’s the only one I know who had both a good “experience” and “outcome” from DRAP (some had good experiences and some good outcomes, rarely both, and frequently neither).

Do you recommend “cold-calling” managers and directors for job opportunities? (i.e., emailing someone you’ve never been introduced to) // Do you have recommendations on how to network in the public sector and maintain relationships? With those at-level and hiring managers?

In short, yes, but not for a job. As I mentioned earlier above, I believe in reaching out for substantive networking first, never asking if they have a job. They can say no to being asked about a job, harder to say no if you ask if you can chat with them OR SOMEONE in their unit to find out about the type of work they do for research for future career development etc. I prefer an email, not calling or messaging, and if I can reference someone they know that suggested their name, even better. Be willing to accept a manager or senior analyst rather than the director or manager. They may be busy, and it doesn’t help your case if they say yes but really don’t want to chat.

In the current climate, what advice do you have for those who feel underclassified but can’t find opportunities to advance through normal mechanisms?

So, there is an interesting nuance in there, two in fact. Let me deal with the first one — underclassified. That is a heavily misused term. Underclassified as a technical term suggests that you are in a box that is perhaps EC-04 and you are doing EC-05 work. People are NEVER underclassified, boxes are. So if they are giving you -05 work and you are only in a -04 box, the solution would normally be to reclassify the box. This is a formal process, it requires management to request it, and it has four possible outcomes:

• They decide the work corresponds to ONLY an -03 box and demote the box;
• They decide the work corresponds to an -04 box and do nothing;
• They decide the work corresponds to an -05 box and reclassify it to an -05 level and decide to move you to another -04 box; OR
• They decide the work corresponds to an -05 box, reclassify it to an -05 level AND reclassify you to an EC-05 level.

Sometimes it is good to be in that type of situation though, as they are giving you experiences that could help you in future competitions. It’s not good over a long period of time, but for short periods, it can be. I mentioned how above.

Now, what I suspect you really mean is that you are OVERqualified for the box you’re in. In other words, you’re in an EC-04 box, but you are capable of an -05 position. You are ready to move up, but you have to find a situation to do that.

So, let’s move to the second nuance — “normal mechanisms”. I mention it as a separate nuance because some people think for example that if you made a pool, your current manager could just pluck you and promote you. While it is often true, it’s not exactly how positions work. Going back to the situation above, let’s say you’re in an EC-04 box. That box has a set of duties with it, they decided it equates to an EC-04 box, and you as a current EC-04 are occupying it. Perfect. Now say you get a promotion. You go to your manager and say, “Can you promote to a -05?”. The official first question from HR would be, “Do you have -05 level work for them? Do you have an -05 box?”. They don’t put you in an -05 box because YOU’RE a -05; they put you in a -05 box because the work is -05 level AND you’re qualified as a -05. Now, the reality is that most EC positions are relatively scalable. But not all depts work that way. So let’s review the “normal mechanisms”.

To be promoted, you have several options:

• Make a pool for a formal competition. This is always the best option as multiple managers can pull from it, including the one who ran the competition. You clearly competed and proved your merit. Perfect;
• You participate in a career development program that has a graduation evaluation built into it, that promotes you based on an evaluation (often paper-based rather than test-based). Someone documents that you have met all the criteria to be promoted to an -05 position. Almost the same as the formal competition, in terms of rationale, but entirely based on someone’s argument that you meet it;
• You are being talent-managed (often for two years) to justify a non-advertised promotion;
• Your manager or equivalent writes a detailed rationale why you merit being appointed to a higher-level based on your work experience as evidenced by multiple years of above-average PA evaluations that are argument / sufficient evidence; or,
• Somebody is writing an evaluation that says there is some sort of national emergency, you are qualified, and they must appoint you immediately for safety or demand.

Unless you are in #2 or #3, what evidence do you have that you are overqualified for your level and ready for promotion? Until six months ago, there were no end of options for pools and competitions (#1). They had slowed down slightly, but they’ve been going pretty hot for the last few years, with huge growth in the public service. I’m not saying you’re not ready, but the only way you’ll be promoted is if you have evidence that you deserve a promotion. Since nobody qualifies for #5 above (that’s literally life or death almost or national security), the other four are not only the normal mechanisms, they are the ONLY mechanisms.

In the current climate, and for the next 6-18 months, there will be limited promotions, but the options don’t change. They’re trying to reduce costs, not increase them, so most programs will be constrained to their existing levels. About the only ones with opportunities for actings or promotions are going to be those implementing clear platform commitments of the new government OR which are in high-demand service areas.

Do you have tips for advancing with only a high school diploma? I feel stuck in my current position, and most job postings require post-secondary education.

So, I’ll circle back to the first question where I say you need to understand types of jobs and classifications. Without a degree, you generally cannot ever get an EC position. If you were grandfathered in as the saying goes from 30 years ago, the work experience and knowledge could be “matched”; however, currently, you are required to have a degree for any EC, CO, FS position. Most of the general hard-core analyst functions are looking for knowledge of economic / social methodologies for analysis, including stats. They have decreed that is best and only shown through a degree. There is some weasel words that say you can show it some other way, but it is almost impossible. The only “other” way is to often show that you don’t have a degree in sociology, statistics or economics, but you have a degree in something else with stats as an almost minor.

However, AS and PM jobs, and some IS jobs, plus a number of other more specialized fields, do not require degrees. Many of the HR categories like PE also don’t require a degree but they may want an HR diploma from a college program or something similar. Where an AS or PM job asks for a degree, they frequently are pressed hard by HR to accept non-degree applicants who claim the same information base. Unions do NOT like degree requirements for most PM or AS jobs, as the majority of PSAC members do not have degrees.

For AS jobs, there are a number of types too. I didn’t spend much time on that above when I was talking about EC, but there are AS jobs involving:

• divisional coordination (correspondence, basic HR, basic finance, records management)
• office management (purchases, the equivalent of the old stationery supplies, now mostly consumable electronics like mice or keyboards)
• more advanced HR for a division, directorate or branch
• more advanced finance for a division, directorate or branch
• ATIP
• Information management (IM rather than IT)

PM jobs vary heavily by type of function, but some do corporate planning, others manage Gs&Cs projects with external organizations (not really project management in the IT definition, more project coordination of finances and reports), and some do near-EC level policy for projects around departments. Some of the senior AS-05 and -06 positions have no degree requirement. It is occasionally an asset, but it is rarely required because of the union pushback.

Even in HR, as I mentioned, they start off with CRs and AS usually. Only once you are up a couple of levels does it change to PE category, and they often rely on the CR and AS as feeder groups. The AS usually do a lot of the processing, while the PEs get into more policy interpretation and advice.

Overall, I’d say if you’re looking for non-degree positions, almost anything in corporate management outside of pure finance (aka FIs) and IT are open to you.

What strategy do you recommend for job security in the regions during the current and future deep fiscal constraints? I am bilingual.

Wow, that is a great question. I can give you the obvious — as I did above — that any comparative job security will depend individually on skills like reliability, initiative, judgment and interpersonal skills. And that is still true.

However, one of the challenges with certain regional roles is they are often tied to specific programs. Which puts your job security at double risk…first and foremost, if they decide your program isn’t a priority, the whole thing could be cut. Same risk for everyone, including HQ and regional. Except HQ might have several programs to support, not just one that might be the regional focus. Secondly, if they are cutting jobs, they frequently do it as a percentage i.e., reduce HQ by 10%, reduce region by 10%, etc. So you might keep your program and still get a haircut like everyone else. And in regions, for many programs, lots of people often do the same job at the same level. Think say PM-01s all delivering the same program, and 10% have to be cut. Will they be able to find another position IN THE REGION? Probably not, and they may affect a whole swath of people just to end up cutting 10%.

The short answer? There’s nothing really anyone can do to avoid cuts in their area or being affected. Your only hope is that your existing skills and past evaluations bear out those types of skills mentioned.

However, the fact that you are bilingual helps enormously for two reasons. Not only can you potentially find other positions in HQ if need be, you would also have a leg up for any client-facing programs as they’ll want to maintain their bilingual status/capacity for service delivery.

In the end, it will be almost case by case though, there’s no grand rule.

Quelles sont les enjeux et les opportunités de carrière pour les francophones avec un niveau intermédiaire en anglais dans la capitale nationale?

La réponse officielle est qu’il y a de bonnes opportunités, mais cette réalité n’est probablement que dans des domaines spécifiques. Évidemment, si vous travaillez sur un programme qui est fortement axé sur le Québec ou les langues, comme les communautés minoritaire de langue officielle, tout le monde parlera bien français pour faire le travail et il y a déjà une forte base francophone. Ils préfèrent fortement les agents francophones plutot que les anglophones avec des bons profils (sans compter les cadres). Par ailleurs, si vous travaillez dans un poste de soutien qui a des fonctions en contact avec la clientèle (comme servir d’autres fonctionnaires), c’est “un tirage au sort” (pile ou face) du gestionnaire. La plupart ont désespérément besoin de s’assurer qu’ils peuvent servir les francophones et qu’ils peuvent facilement couvrir les anglophones avec n’importe qui d’autre si vous manquez quelque chose avec quelqu’un. Mais si le gestionnaire n’est pas à l’aise en français, il peut rechigner. Un collègue francophone qui est maintenant de niveau EX-02 m’a déjà déploré, à juste titre, que s’il parlait anglais comme la plupart des anglophones « bilingues » parlent français, il n’aurait pas son emploi. Parfois, c’est très douloureux d’écouter des hauts fonctionnaires parler français. D’après mon expérience, cependant, votre niveau intermédiaire serait plus que suffisant pour la RCN. Mais cela dépend plus de le gestionnaire que du poste, probablement.

The official answer is there are good opportunities, but the reality is probably only in specific areas. Obviously, if you work on a program that is heavily geared to Quebec or languages, such as Official Language Minority Communities, everyone will speak French well in order to do the job and it has a heavy francophone base already. They heavily prefer francophone officers over anglophones with profiles (not including executives). Alternatively, if you work in any general support capacity that has client-facing duties (like serving other public servants), it’s a coin toss based on the manager. Most desperately need to ensure they can serve French speakers, and can easily cover anglophones with anyone else if you miss something with someone. But if the manager isn’t comfortable in French, they may balk. A francophone colleague who is now EX-02 level once lamented to me, quite accurately, that if he spoke English the way most “bilingual” anglophones speak French, he wouldn’t have his job. Sometimes it is very painful listening to senior anglophones speak French. In my experience, though, your intermediate level would be more than good enough for NCR. But it depends more on the manager than the position, probably.

For those of us that reside in the NCR and are not indeterminate, how do we leverage our residence here to stay in the public service?

So, the short answer is I don’t know what the future will hold. I can tell you that in the last two rounds of program review (early 90s, early 2010s), they started with cutting terms and casuals almost immediately. It’s the way of the world, they have obligations to the indeterminate under collective agreements, everyone else can be cut with the slash of a pen. So they start by cutting all non-permanent positions. Then they move to indeterminate which takes a while. And there are adjustments, people move around, alternation may happen.

In short, it takes time to do everything and people can’t move quickly across departments or even around departments.

Yet things still have to get done, and frequently, it is cheaper to hire a term or casual than to do anything else. So, for example, let’s say I have to start a program tomorrow and get it up and running. It might take me 6m to move everyone around, but in those six months lies opportunity for you. It may not be fun, it may be chaotic, it may be stressful, but I had LOTS of work after the first review as they couldn’t hire anyone else in the short-term. Some friends of mine loved DRAP, as they picked up tons of work in the short-term until depts were able to hire again formally.

And on the positive side, with buyout packages, a lot of senior people leave, creating domino chains through the ranks.

When so many opportunities are kept behind “only employees from x department” and/or “at-levels,” is networking the most versatile tool we have? Ty!

Hmm…this is a bit hard to answer as there are a bunch of thing entwined. I’ve addressed networking above, and at first glance, I was going to lump this one in there too. Then I realized that the other parts are a bit “off” so I want to clarify things a bit. I might be too nitpicky, but I’ll do my best.

Yes, generally, networking or substantive networking above is always going to be your absolute best tool for anything outside of a formal process. It can be cold-calls, it can be facilitated referrals, it can be leads from friends, etc. But it will be some other form of reaching out if they are not running a formal process. You can call that networking or something else, but yes, if there’s no formal process, you’ll have to figure out how to contact them yourself.

My nuance detector goes off twice for the other two things you say / assume in your question.

First, you refer to “only employees from X department” as limiting, but it generally isn’t. The vast majority of jobs are not restricted that way — if you’re seeing that too often, there’s something wrong with what you are searching for, or you’re going too narrow. Or you’re going to the same dept over and over who is not taking outside candidates. There are stats kept on this by PSC, haven’t seen them recently, but they’re generally not supportive of the claim that too many are limiting only to the same dept. The exception is starting about a month ago, when just about all depts had to freeze things internally. That’s a union thing as much as it is a management thing, by the way. This ONLY affects formal processes and as I said, not as many as people like to think. Those that DO use it are often doing so because they are running very narrow processes anyway…for example, they’re limiting it to their dept as they’re only planning to hire 1 person with each of 10 processes; other depts open it up because they do one process to hire say 10 people. You might want to rethink your search approach though if you are seeing it too often for the jobs you are looking for/at.

Second, at levels means it’s a permanent deployment or a temporary assignment. The only “limit” is that you’re not qualified at that level. It’s no different than any other category — you don’t have MC experience, you don’t have a security clearance, you don’t have your language levels, you don’t have a driver’s license, etc. The only people being eliminated are those who are not at that level, and it’s not a competitive process, it’s just another tool. The only “limitation” of sorts is that they’re not offering / open to acting assignments. That’s simple — they don’t need to advertise for that. If they wanted to do an acting, they have enough people internally willing to take it usually. They would also get appealed or grieved when they do.

Soooo, while you may see them as limitations, it likely means you’re not searching for the right things or trying to use tools for promotions that are not and cannot give you that option. Deployments are always at level, limits to depts are usually simply size of pool they are looking to consider — they have enough internal people, they don’t need to go government wide. They just have to tell everyone they’re doing it.

Transitioning from Student to Full-time Public Servant

This category had four questions under it and I’ll try to answer them together:

• What advice would you provide to students (or anyone) trying to navigate the current job market when it comes to entering the Public Service industry?
• What advice do you have for students hoping to continue working for the public service? Could you speak more about how the Student Bridging work?
• What are the best ways that a co-op student could go about securing a term/ more permanent position with the public service after they have graduated undergrad?
• As a co-op student hoping to stay in public service, what resources and tips do you recommend for finding long-term government jobs?

This could be a whole book on its own, so I’ll try to keep it relatively simple.

For every government employee hired, they are “appointed” under authority given by legislation. To exercise that authority, every Deputy Minister delegates their authority down through the organization to various Executives and Managers. Thus, if I want to hire someone, my Director has to use her delegated authority to appoint them. To do so, we have to submit paperwork that says they are qualified for the position and demonstrates the rationale / proof / evidence of how they are qualified. Some of it is simple — you need a degree, hey look, they have a degree; they need a security clearance, hey look, they have clearance. Others are more subjective — they have to be a good writer, hey look, umm, hmm. How do I prove that?

When managers or anyone goes to write the rationale, certain rationales work like fast passes almost. Let’s say I want to appoint an EC-02. On the form, it asks a series of questions:

• Are they already an indeterminate employee of the GoC at the EC-02 level? If yes, appoint them, move on;
• Did you run a competition for an EC-02 that they have passed? If yes, give a bit of info about their scores, explain why them, appoint them, move on;
• Are they a student who has worked for the Department (and/or you directly) as a co-op student? If yes, explain some of the work they did that shows they have skills you want, appoint them, move on;

There are another 5 or 6 situations where you can appoint people with more and more info required as you get farther and farther away from a formal assessment that was open to multiple people.

The last option above, hiring a student, is our “bridging fast pass”. It basically deals with a couple of scenarios, depending on the department’s approach, where it says “Have they worked for you the manager before?” In other words, does the manager have direct experience evaluating their skills and overseeing their work. If not, it asks if the student worked in the unit or department before (i.e., someone else managed them) or even if they worked in the public service before. Again, as with above, the farther you go on the list, the more the manager has to write to justify why they are hiring you.

But generally, if you have worked as a student for the government before, you can generally be bridged by anyone. As I said, you have a fastpass for HR. However, there are some limitations. If you are doing your undergraduate degree, you have to be done your studies. I generally can’t bridge you early. I might finesse the timing of starting between finishing your studies and your actual graduation day, but not before you’re done. And I generally have to bridge you into the lowest functional level. For ECs, that is generally an EC-02. Some departments will let you bridge to an EC-03 **IF** you have done more than one term with government AND you are completing a Masters or perhaps even an EC-04 if you are finishing a Ph.D. Some departments say EC-02 or nothing. Some managers will only do EC-02.

It is the trade-off with the unions for not doing a full assessment of you through post-secondary recruitment or an individual competition. You get a fast-pass, but only to the first level AND all new employees are on probation for a year, so if you can’t do the job, they can terminate you before the year is up (at least in theory).

Alternatively, if you never worked for government as a student, you can either apply for a single competition, apply for post-secondary recruitment (some departments run large recruitments in normal years), OR try to find a casual position as if you were still a student, which can then be used as a bridging mechanism too. It’s a little technical, but some depts will treat casual employment after graduation as if you were a student still, and let managers bridge you from that casual employment rather than a formal student job.

Now, obviously, the best person to ask if they might bridge you is the manager that was your supervisor when you were a student. They know you best, they’re the best starting point. If not them, anybody in your old area who is manager, director, you can email and say, “Hey, remember me, amazing student #7 last year. I’m looking for work and able to be bridged.” The “bridging” is your password to remind that you are not random student out there, you are random student with a fastpass.

Just to be clear, I keep referring to it as a fastpass for you, but it is really a fastpass for the manager — they can say “bridging” and 90% of their initial paperwork goes away. They still need money in their budget to pay you, still need the authority / permission to hire someone, still need work for you to do, etc. But students are the easiest people to hire except those already in government.

If you are out of people you know to ask, and nobody gave you any referrals, well, you might have to use GEDS to try and find some managers in areas that interest you, email them and say, “Yep, random student here with bridging capability, looking for opportunities”.

But it’s going to be rough for the next 18 months. Many of the entry-level recruitment campaigns will be on hold until they figure out what’s happening with the overall public service. However, when that’s over, they’ll go back to hiring a lot of junior people.

Is PSPM agreement, attendance or any other factors considered when managers look to hire for a position? How much influence does it have on hiring decision?

So, one small caveat first. You never agree “with” a PSPM evaluation, you only “agree” that you’ve seen and discussed it. It is the manager’s evaluation, you don’t have to agree to the content. Lots of people think they are “agreeing” like it means it’s correct; it really doesn’t. The evaluation is done whether you agree or not. The only thing you can do is put your own comments in.

For 90% of hiring decisions, no one has traditionally looked at PSPM, attendance, or anything else like RTO, etc. However, there are two exceptions to that statement:

• The first small exception is that a number of years ago, the CHRO at TBS and PSC thought PAs SHOULD be used and suggested that it could be included in competitions and things…almost no one listened, and there is some case law that interrupted that plan, because if anyone uses it, then it can be legally challenged for accuracy, methodology, etc. It’s not a slam dunk either way, but it did not become a default tool for every process. It WAS however used in some layoff considerations during DRAP, albeit mostly for the overall ratings, not the details. So it CAN have weight, and some competitions have asked for them to be shared.
• The second larger exception is that almost all processes do reference checks and almost all of them want to talk to your most recent supervisor. And part of that conversation is going to ask about your overall performance, attendance, compliance with RTO, etc. If you have problems that lay anywhere in there, the manager is likely going to share them. Not aggressively, not maliciously, but they will be honest. They will say, “Well, we did have some performance issues and had to put them on a performance improvement plan” or “They are struggling to comply with the RTO requirements” or perhaps “They have had some above-average use of sick leave in the last year that has challenged them for consistent performance”. All totally true, nothing actionable in it, and might sink your chances.

It wouldn’t necessarily stop you from making a pool (although it could on reliability) but it would likely mean you don’t make it to the right-fit conversation. I will add too that some managers right now are going to zero in on RTO and attendance. They do not want to inherit someone who is not compliant, they don’t need the headache. They don’t care about your views, their own views, the other manager’s views…they just care if you’re going to be a pain in the patootie. On deployments, soft movements outside of competitions, reference checks are almost all starting with those questions.

The other 10% that I would flag is that they may ask you Qs about your ratings because it can help their rationale to appoint you. So managers may ask for the PSPM docs while they are writing up the letter of offer.

How are executive / excluding staffing decisions made? What are some factors to consider re: pursuing management level roles (e.g. job security)?

There are lots of views about job security. In my view, odds of being let go are slim unless programs are cut or you really aren’t cutting it in multiple years. But times have changed considerably over the last 10 years, with more accountability, albeit hidden. There are far fewer EXs being rotated to PCO for gardening leave and left collecting paycheques vs. being told to retire or be terminated. Doesn’t mean overall performance is better.

I would say that primary staffing decisions break into two parts. First and foremost, to make the EX level, there are frequently complex competitions with fewer “roll-over” appointments than there used to be (although my view is more limited to ESDC than other departments). Friends at other depts tell me the same though, they want everyone to have made a pool somewhere. In those pools, questions are less about the content / knowledge, and more about how you marshal multiple elements. For example, at sub-EX level, they might ask you a question about leadership, another about finances, another about HR management, etc. At EX level, they might ask you a question about leadership + finance together, another about ethics + HR management, another about leadership + ethics + stewardship, etc. The questions are VERY hard to try and pre-populate our answers. They tend to be much heavier on “what would you do in this situation” and really seeing what YOU would do, not what generic answer ChapGPT could have given just as easily.

For the second part, it is about putting “widgets” in the right holes more often than not. So, in our department, almost all EX decisions are made by the ADM, not the DGs. So I was appointed as an A/EX-01 under a DG that had very little say in me being chosen…she could have told her boss, “No I don’t want him” but at some peril to her relationship. It’s the ADM’s decision, not the DG’s so it would be a brave DG to say “no” rather than “I have some reservations but I’ll make it work”. In that regard, ADMs are often looking for how the EX-01, -02 or -03 will fit into the management culture of that branch, often with a strategic eye towards “what do they add to our mix?”. For example, an ADM might choose an DG or EX-01 who has experience dealing with Indigenous recruitment if that is a challenge for their branch, even though that has NOTHING to do with the job they’re being hired to do. Kind of a “two-fer” aka we get an EX that can do job X AND we add some capacity in Indigenous recruitment to our branch. EXs tend to be seen as serving multiple needs beyond the specific job. A few factors that are key are often FPT relations, finance, MCs and TB subs, difficult stakeholder relations, data-based / evidence-based storytelling, etc.

Once you are placed in a partially qualified pool, what are the next steps in the appointment hiring process?

So it depends in part on how “partial” it was. Let’s say there were 10 elements, and they assessed eight except for language and security. That’s a pretty complete pool. Any hiring manager can then go to the pool, look at a few candidates, narrow in on one they want, and then have you go for language testing and security. Easy peasy.

That is VERY different from a partially assessed pool where there were 10 elements, they did only the experience and writing, and they still have five others to go. That’s a larger amount of work for a manager still to do, so many managers will not even bother at that point. They might even start from scratch. Or maybe they only need the first 5, plus one more, and they are good to use it. No way to know, but the more that’s left, the less useful it is.

It is also harder to use it across departments if there is anything more than language or security left. Many depts don’t complete reference checks as their managers want to do their own, but again, some managers don’t have the time, so they’ll ignore the pool.

With cuts: advice to someone whose indeterminate paperwork got halted, and now on a term with an end date. Qualified in multiple pools, etc.

So, this will seem harsh, so I’m sorry in advance. Indeterminate paperwork being “halted” means it doesn’t exist. That step is dead. You are basically in a term with an end date. And it is REALLY hard to get hired right now for anything indeterminate unless it’s unique or in a program that’s growing. Multiple pools may help, but probably not. Your most likely offer will be a series of terms from those same pools for the next two years before anything might happen indeterminately.

I am in a SG06 pool for 2 years now in another department that I would like to join. What can I do about that and which other choices may I have? I’m indeterminate in SG, now on assignment in an EC job, & my current manager is trying to make me a permanent EC (which I’d love). How do I up my chances?

So two completely different scenarios, albeit with the same outcome.

For the SG pool, presumably a promotion, there is nothing you can “do” about it. You can cold call, market yourself, etc., but if you haven’t been pulled in 2 years, you may not be the profile they wanted. I certainly wouldn’t see it as a good return on investment to focus on it now, although SG is a specialized category and may have unique hiring needs in the future.

For the EC job, the assignment is great BUT many depts are ending all assignments and sending people back to their substantives. Your current manager may get permission to convert you, and you would only take it for indeterminate (no reason to EVER give that up), but unless you’re on a program that’s growing, I suspect most depts will freeze all indeterminate appointments, including conversions. You might have more “oomph” if the assignment for EC and the indeterminate SG box are in the same department, but only marginally better.

It’s too hard to predict either way.

Do you have recommendations for goal setting in public service where skill acquisition is siloed, unlike in private corporations?

I’m not sure I would agree that skill acquisition is siloed vs. private corporations. I think most private-sector corps focus less on individual skills and more on generic combos, if that is what you mean, whereas government tends to list a set of skills but which are often equally inter-related.

Unfortunately, I have to guess which way your question was meant. Do you mean setting goals for skills acquisition or the actual skill of goal setting?

If you mean the actual skill of goal-setting, on an individual level, I think it is useful to look at the classic SMART criteria to know what a goal is, focus on the techniques of “Getting Things Done” as a methodology primer, and focus mainly on dividing digestible chunks into a smaller set of categories of urgency…there is a classic story from Harvard Business Review teaching time management about knowing what your highest priority/value-added activities are for the day and doing them first, having slightly lesser ones that are more gravel, and then sand perhaps for a third level. I use a five-point scale myself, but I’ve spent way too much time in my life focusing on combining goal-setting with dashboards for monitoring and knowing what I’m really trying to achieve. Equally though, I’ve seen some recent chatter in the GTD type worlds about focusing on a mix of activities in the day and experimenting a bit for your own strengths — perhaps doing creative stuff in the a.m., or unpleasant tasks for 10m at set times of the day, etc.

If you mean goal setting for skills acquisition, I confess I tend to disagree with most talk of focusing on “skills”. I greatly prefer the term competency over skill as skill tends to seem more technical, even siloed as you said, vs. a competency like judgement. If I was looking for goal-setting, I would use the Key Leadership Competencies to distill down the parts that are most relevant / resonant with you (say perhaps managing people is all about transparency to you), and then figuring out how you can practice that specific task in multiple ways or incorporate into multiple domains of your work, setting concrete elements maybe as simple as saying you’ll have a transparent conversation with your boss within 3 days or with a difficult coworker where you want to model transparency in your behaviour, etc.

How did you navigate building your skills/experience in order to move from one classification to another, especially for “within classification” opportunities?

When I went from IS to PM, it was simple because it was a whole separate job at another department. It wasn’t really about moving within or to. When I went from PM to EC, I mostly focused on the subset of skills (interpersonal, consultation, collaboration, judgment) that directly translate over. For within classification opps, as I mentioned above in another context, I focused heavily on not saying no to unpopular files. Early on it was “don’t say no to anything” — while others said no to files they didn’t like, I said yes to anything, particularly if it was a problem for my boss. It is a common attitude in freelancers, for example — don’t tell them what you can do, show them how you can solve problems for them. Later it became a bit more strategic — I noticed that nobody liked corporate files and frequently they didn’t even UNDERSTAND corporate files. I dug in. So later, when I got to do it in other jobs, it was easy and fast for me, but it made me look like a superstar sometimes…some files that others would take 3 days to do and complain the whole time, I could zip through in an hour and give back camera-ready responses exactly to fit the request. I invested early in understanding the process, not the content.

For people new to Policy, any tips on remembering key legislation & regs? My policy colleagues can cite regs like it was on the backs of their hands.

It is often misleading to outsiders, in my view. If you work with stuff multiple times, it just starts to stick. Just from regular re-use. For most people, there’s no real trick.

However, one small trick that you CAN consider is either a framework design OR a series of mnemonics. A little in the weeds, and it may not work for you, but the simple idea works either way. I think in frameworks, so I tend to think of something like a diagram with the top 5 main regs and how they interact. The second step or an alternate step is to take the same five regs and turn them into a mnemonic. There are 17 puppies, 21 kittens, 212 rhinos, 312 baboons, and 414 alligators. Which helps you remember s17 is about population size, 21 is about kids, 212 is about reporting, 312 is about bait, and 414 is about air quality (just making stuff up).

It’s a way to memorize a set of regs, for example, or legislative provisions, not the whole list as 90% you may never use.

Can you share your thoughts on switching from EC to IS? I’m worried about having more options in the EC category

While I was an IS in a previous life (way back in 1996!), I can’t say I have a great understanding of all the opportunities in the category. So with that caveat, I’ll give my thoughts.

Yes, absolutely, you would have more options in EC, but that is simply because EC is such a broad category, so it seems deceptively multi-faceted in the options. I mentioned above that there are five big areas — generalist, planner, researcher, evaluator, or coordinator/manager. But here’s the thing…if I’ve been a planner for most of my career, I’m not getting hired as a researcher. Or likely even for the generalist positions either. In fact, planners often struggle to be screened in for generalist policy positions as they are so different — we don’t design policies, we don’t do stakeholder relations, etc. So sure, EC is theoretically huge as a classification, but are you really going to do ALL of the possible options? Is the category that interests you any narrower than IS? It might be, or not.

However, if you’ve got good EC experience, going to do IS for a while doesn’t mean you can’t ever do EC again later. And as I mentioned above, some IS functions are directly related. You will do more outward-facing activities with stakeholders as an IS than as a general EC, but the function translates over easily. You’ll do more public writing perhaps, more event management, more “projects” with multiple variables and deadlines to meet simultaneously, etc. In my view, it’s harder to go from IS to EC if you’ve never done EC before, than it would be to come back. Some of that too will be your storytelling for future movement. You may have to move LATERALLY rather than get a promotion from IS to EC, just as your recent experience might nto get you screened in, but on a lateral, it’s easy to say, “I was really interested in doing more with public-facing engagement, to deal directly with stakeholders, etc.” and sell a potential manager on the transferable skills.

Where do we find the information related to equivalency in terms of Groups. For ex: SRE-SG-04 is it equivalent to EC-02? What are the other equivalencies?

This is a really popular question with no obvious answer. At least not in terms of a tool that will tell you easily. Many HR sections have one, but there isn’t much public. You can do it manually, at least in terms of getting approximate equivalencies.

The basic variable is the current upper pay scale of the classification and level you are leaving and the one you are going to…not your current pay level, not the base of any of them; the actual top of the pay scale for category 1 (say SG-04) vs. category 2 (EC-02).

In order for them to be equivalent, which is misleading as it is more about “convertible”, the question is whether the top pay of category 2 (EC-02) is higher than the top pay of category 1 (SG-04). If it’s higher, then it would be a promotion as you could / will eventually reach that rate, and thus it is not equivalent / convertible to that level. Instead, you would have to go to EC-01. Alternatively, though, if the max pay is less than the first category, you’re good to go.

It isn’t quite that easy though. Three other elements come into play…you have to always use the currently in force pay rates. So if the EC pay rate/ contract gets updated, and the SG one isn’t, all the “equivalencies” suddenly change. And with all the rates changing at different times, there is no easy chart to create. I know, I’ve tried. 🙂

A second variable is that because people regularly use “equivalent” as the terminology, you miss the nuance that while an EC-02 might convert to SG-04, an SG-04 would not convert to an EC-02. Many of the equivalencies are one-directional at first calculation.

A third variable though is that there is “sometimes” a bit of wiggle room in the calculation between amounts. Under another part of the act, it says that a promotion has to result in at least a 4% increase in salary; if it doesn’t exceed by 4%, it’s not necessarily a promotion. I have no idea how some departments find wiggle room in this separate guideline, other than to say, it WOULD be a promotion by the main criterion BUT because it doesn’t meet this criterion, it doesn’t count as a promotion. I don’t get it, I don’t know why some depts use that loophole and others don’t. I’ve even seen it done in some depts differently across BRANCHES. It should not happen, it’s legislatively controlled, yet most depts use some sort of regularly updated internal excel spreadsheet where you enter the two classifications and levels, it looks up the top of the bands, and tells you “yes or no”. Except only HR people have access to it.

Clear as mud, right? The best solution is to message someone and ask them if an EC-02 would be equivalent to whatever class you’re in now, and they’ll let you know if you qualify as at level.

I’ve observed Section Heads at my agency and feel unmotivated to advance. How can I stay ambitious with more work pressure and few opportunities?

I can’t really answer that for you. The short and long answers are the same:

• What motivates you to work at all?
• What motivates you to work harder on your files?
• What motivates you to move up? (noting that nothing says you have to or even that you want to)

Only you can answer that. If the only thing that motivates you to move up is money, that’s a terrible reason to move up. But what motivates most people in the PS is not the pay because that is set uniformly, it isn’t tightly tied to your position. Instead they’re motivated by types of files, interest alignment, coworkers, etc.

While I have worked for some complete doofuses, and some amazing people, my work never really changed in quality or direction. I don’t do it for them, I do it for me and what I get out of doing it. Which isn’t virtue-signaling, I’m saying that the “vision” of my leader doesn’t motivate me … not the PM, not the Minister, not the DM, not the ADM, occasionally the DG somewhat, some influence from director. But if that IS what motivates you, the vision, the leadership, that’s important for you to know. Partly as it may be that you don’t want to be in government. Because even with a visionary that you like, we do what the elected politicians tell us to do. That’s the way our system works. Even if we or our visionary leader we like don’t agree with it. Some people who need a visionary leader to motivate them are often happier working in a startup or an NGO perhaps, than under layers of cogs.

Which isn’t meant to discourage you, by the way. Rather, you need to find your mojo and work to embrace it. But I will also say that not liking your section heads is relatively irrelevant. You don’t work for them directly; they don’t care if you like them, nor should you. I will also share a piece of pop culture wisdom from Tom Holland. I forget which fellow actor he was quoting, but the idea was “If you don’t like something I’m doing, text me. If you don’t have my number, you don’t know enough about me to like what I’m doing or not.” When you say you don’t like your Section Heads, do you have any idea what they actually do and if the decisions you do or do not like were actually even made by them?

What would you say to those who feel the “junior colleague” label lingers despite external and internal experience and post-graduate education?

I’ll start with the negative part first aka that external experience and post-graduate education is generally not recognized or valued by government. And in many ways, it shouldn’t be either. That’s controversial, I know, but here’s a reality check. There are lots of people who come into government who say “Well I’ve done x or y, and I studied z” as if it means anything to whether or not you can do the immediate job in front of you. And it frequently doesn’t. Everything you did before you started is what you did to GET the job. Once you start, you generally start at the same point as everyone else. What counts is what you do after that starting date.

I’ll give you a side example of the Recruitment of Policy Leaders program. It is essentially run by Deputy Ministers who do all the interviewing. They are looking for superstars in other realms — private sector, NGOs, academia, advocacy — to come into government and jump start the system with new ideas and an infusion of knowledge, experience and passion. Except it rarely works the way people expect it to work. The new hire, who comes in as an EC-05 or -06, is new to the organization. They’ve never worked in government, they have no idea how a consensus is built among equal-level colleagues, they’ve never written a memo to a DM or Minister that is fully evidence-based and addresses the history of a program where often several of their ideas were tried and failed, and to be honest, they frequently flounder. Why isn’t everyone patting them on the back? Why aren’t they a superstar? Because they have NO IDEA how government works. In fact, that is the main reason they were hired. So, in the short term, they struggle and some of them hit that wall HARD. All of what they had coming in is what GOT them the job. Everything after that is what they do with the opportunity.

They don’t get an extra leg up because they had previous experience. Everyone has previous experience — some life experience, some volunteer work, some academic, some technical. It got them the job. Their external experience was recognized by DMs and so they got to start at a higher level to begin. And the EC-04 who was previously an EC-02 for 2 years and now an EC-04 for two years who has now four years in-government experience will likely run circles around them. For a while.

The question if those other experiences and expertise matter and if academic studies show up later. After you have the basics. After you can do the job. Now is the time where you show that those other attributes make you better than the average employee. Because it’s merit-based work, not credential-based work. If you can’t translate that broader experience or academic work into the job, why would the government care? That helped you get the job, it’s up to you to show that having that “other” stuff lets you do the job better.

So, that’s the tough part out of the way. Does junior analyst demean people? Absolutely. The word conveys “less than”, that you are not a more senior analyst with more experience. Every analyst should start as “Analyst” for their title. I’m willing to accept that “senior” is likely okay later with promotions to how some level of progression. Although it probably is more about a group of levels — EC-02, 03 and 04 should probably be simply analyst. EC-06 and -07 would definitely fit the senior category. I’m not sold on the -05. I almost want something like “intermediate” that would cover -04 and -05 together, but I digress. Junior is simply an unnecessary adjective that some people don’t like. I personally don’t care too much as the titles are relatively meaningless. I’m fascinated, as an aside, that a game I play on my phone actually has over 700 levels and everyone has a different title awarded when you achieve it. It would be the equivalent of things like “Policy Ninja” or “Policy Acolyte”.

How would you deal with a difficult manager who blocks your learning/advancement?

I’m going to address the elephant in the room with this question, as many employees misunderstand the role of managers and what their job is. Almost as much as the manager themselves misunderstand the role. And I’ll use the two main examples people use of how a manager is “blocking” them. It may not apply to your situation, but it often applies to others.

So, let’s start with a simple example. You are an EC-02; someone in another division has a vacant EC-04 position and wants to offer you an acting -04 for three months. You ask me as your manager and I say no; your neighbour at work says you should grieve it because I am apparently “blocking your advancement”.

But before you come to that conclusion, you need to understand my job. I have a given set of files to manage and an equivalent set of employees. Let’s say work for five people and five employees to do it. My job is to do those five files. That’s the main part of my job. I have to support you too, manage finances, etc., but my first task is to deliver the files I’m tasked with overall.

If you leave to do an assignment, two things happen…first, I am now down to four employees AND I probably can’t find a replacement at level for three months. So let’s see how four groups are affected:

• You — You think it’s great, but off you go to do a job you’re not originally hired for, they can cancel it at any time, there’s no commitment from them, they aren’t going to give you much in the way of training or invest in you, you’re a temporary resource they can use and then throw you away in exchange for three months of exploitation for a temporary raise;
• The other manager — They had a temporary gap, couldn’t get all their work done, but hey, they offered to pay you a little bit more money that they have in their budget already, they get a temporary solution that solves all of their problems by transferring their problem to me, with zero risk to them — if you don’t work out, they can cancel at any time and send you back;
• Me as manager — I had five employees, I’m down to four, which means I’m going to have to cut back on my team’s output even though I didn’t have any problem to solve, it’s someone else’s problem that is hitting me like a domino;
• The rest of the team — It’s not likely that your files were the ones that would just get dropped, the rest of the team will have to adjust their workloads to drop some less important files and pick up the highest ones off your list, whether they want to or not, and they get no benefit for doing it.

So you and I absorb all of the risk between us, the team and I have extra work and have to adjust everything with no benefit, and the other manager who could have hired someone temporary off the street to solve their problem is laughing all the way to the bank.

Why in this situation would I approve it? I probably won’t. However, there are three exceptions to my “no”:

1. If it is in a sister division, and it is a collective decision that together we have to meet this need as a higher “joint” priority, I’m more amenable…I’m not necessarily happy, but I’m not hired to just manage when it’s easy.
2. If I know that you are going to be trained in “x”, and I think “x” would be a good skill for someone in my team to have, then sure, I’ll take on the short-term pain because it benefits you, me and the team in the long-run;
3. If I know that this is a major dream job for you, and it is really more like a trial run so you can move there permanently, AND I can compensate for your absence somehow, sure, I want to support you.

But if I can’t compensate, and we’re going to miss deliverables being down to four people, I literally cannot agree to it. I’ll talk to my boss and say, “Hey boss, is it okay if we only do 80% of what we said we would do this year?” and my boss will say, “Heck no”. I’m supposed to show good stewardship of resources to deliver what I’m supposed to, and if sending you off on assignment means I can’t meet it, I can’t approve your being loaned out.

Now, a second reality check. I’m a good manager and I know that the best way to meet my deliverables is to have a happy motivated staff who are constantly learning. So I will do everything in my power to make it happen. Maybe I can’t do it now, but I can in 2 months when the workload goes down a bit. Or maybe if they loan me back their -02 as some sort of exchange. Or maybe I can negotiate different timelines for some of my files. Or … or … or… And I will do whatever I can, including turning myself into a pretzel if I have to, trying to make it work. I pride myself on never having to say no to vacation or other leave or formal assignments for the first 90% of my career. Then two years ago, I couldn’t make it work. The person was handling a key file for me, I was already understaffed as I had let two other people go off to do stuff, and I had to say no to a third person leaving. I had crippled my team too far to go any farther.

And that person was all pissed off that I was somehow “blocking” their career. Really? I’m the guy who gave you the two previous actings that made it possible for that offer to EVEN come up, and I’m blocking your career. I try to be understanding, and I confess, my first reaction was “how about you do the actual job we pay you for currently and shut the heck up”. Way too harsh, I know.

I’m not saying that’s your situation, or the answer for your current problem, but there is a very strong sense of entitlement that often comes up when employees claim that a manager is blocking their chances at an assignment…it is quite common that it is basically screwing the manager and giving them a problem that isn’t theirs to start with. I’ll give you a second example, or an enlarged example.

I had an employee who wanted to go to another branch, it was an one-year assignment, all good. Now, note that assignments can be ended by any one of three people at any time — the employee can say stop, the other manager can send them back, or I can say, “sorry, can’t lend them any longer” and recall them. Often, another manager will ask for 1y to allow them time to create a box or do something technical with their org structure so they can deploy the person. So if I send the person over, I am expecting them NOT to come back. They’ll stay there. But for the year that they are gone, I assume all the risk. The employee can come back, their job is guaranteed; the other manager can send them back anytime, there’s no binding commitment to even go for the full year. It can be cancelled at any time for any reason. And while the employee is “gone”, they still occupy my box in my division, which means if I hire a replacement, I can’t offer them a permanent position because the other person might come back. All of the other manager’s risk is transferred to me, with no benefit to me. All the pain, no reward.

Depending on the organization, and the fiscal context, maybe that’s no big deal. In the current environment? That is a huge risk to take. To solve another manager’s problem. What often happens in this situation is that the “sending” manager will say, “Okay, if you want them, I’ll give you 3 months to figure out your HR stuff, not a year.” Pushing the risk partially back on them to get their butt in gear. In my case, my employee went off for the year, I didn’t push them, they were doing it just as an assignment until the box was created. A year later? They asked to extend by another year as they still didn’t have the box.

Well, I had another employee who I wanted to keep too, so I agreed. Double banking the box. Which is risky for me. After two years? They asked for another year. I moved on, my successor approved TWO more extensions. At the end of five years, their DG changed and they RETURNED the employee. The other manager had no problems for five years with any risk, my successor’s successor suddenly had this huge problem to solve with an extra employee and no budget to pay them. It worked out for the budget. But the employee? They went off, invested five years in this other unit, and then got tossed away like yesterday’s garbage. I did the “right” thing to support him, and he got screwed. Some of my job is also to not enter into arrangements where I put my employees at risk.

Partly based on that experience, I have a different approach to some of my management of employees now. I feel like my duty starts before I even recruit them, continues through recruitment, continues through managing them, and continues after I leave the unit or they do. There’s a part of me that takes responsibility for their career from the moment I start interacting with them about a potential job until I retire. So I have a few employees who still call me and say, “Hey old boss, I’m about to do X, what are the risks I should consider?”. And I help them figure out the risks and what they are willing to undertake.

The second category where bosses are frequently accused of blocking advancement is training. This one is both simple and challenging. I’ll share my approach and throw in some ethical concerns as a manager. Let’s say you are my employee, and I pay you to do corporate planning as an EC-02. Your main file is risk management (no pun intended). But your medium-term interest is regulatory experience and your long-term interest is legislative affairs. I encourage my employees to plan three types of development:

1. What they need to do in their current job — I can easily argue for training money for it, you need it to do your job. There are limits to amounts of course. And those aren’t my decision, it’s likely that of my boss or the branch even. Some units say “$1000” for everyone, that’s it, that’s all. Some used to say $2K, some are down to $500, some are down to only what is needed for the current job. Hence this category.
2. What they need for their next job — I might be able to find a way to get some cash for it, but it’s a harder sell, particularly in the current environment. Maybe I can argue for “risk in regulations”. But far more likely, I’m looking for ways to do the job slightly different so that you interact with the regulation people more. Maybe it’s a project with them, maybe there’s a different distribution of files possible. But “development” through slight change in the way we do the job.
3. What they need for long-term jobs — I have no real reason to pay for you to take law classes, for instance. It’s not for your current job, it’s not for a specific job, it’s just general interest on your part. If budgets are easy, great; if budgets are tight, very hard. There is an old example where someone at one department paid for someone to be come a yoga instructor. It isn’t as far off as you might think. Initially, they were using their training “allowance” to pay for yoga classes tied to stress relief and helping them manage their mental health issues. But the more they got into it, they wanted to go further and maybe become certified for stress relief and mental health. And there was nothing in any of the training rules that said they couldn’t do it. So the manager approved. And it wound up on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen. Their day in the barrel. Since then NOBODY is going that far out on a limb. My solution for that is to see if I can RADICALLY alter the job way outside the box for say a project, or perhaps a microassignment, to give them some direct work-related experience as close as I can get to what they need. But I’m probably not paying for training in this category.

Yet I have had people tell me that unless I give them $4000 to take a course in something that HAS nothing to do with the current job I pay them to do, nothing to do with our files at all, I’m somehow blocking their advancement. Now, here’s the extra reality check. I wouldn’t authorize it even if I could, I wouldn’t try to get it authorized even if I thought it might be approved (hey it’s called stewardship!), and oh, right, I have a budget of less than $4000 for my entire team anyway. So there’s that.

So that comes back to the question, how do you get around a manager blocking you? I spent all that time to make sure that is what is actually happening and you understand all the context for what your manager’s job is and why they might not say yes to something that looks great for you. It is possible they are just terrible at their job and unsupportive. I’m not denying that. I’m just making sure you’re going to use the following advice to solve the right problem.

I didn’t talk about this at the top for managing your career, as some people say it’s wrong, they don’t agree, all managers and everyone is out to screw everyone, blah blah blah. I get the message, I do not agree, but I tell people to do what they do. Haters gonna hate, fakers gonna fake.

You need allies in managing your career and whether you like it or not, your first ally is always your boss. They may not start out that way, but you might be able to help them become that ally. Either way, the only approach is to talk to them. Every single PA discussion that I have ever had at the start of a year (and even at the end of a year tbh) has been the same approach:

• Here’s what I hope to achieve in the next year;
• Here’s what I hope to learn and expand in the next year;
• Here’s what I hope to work closer to in the next year;

It’s always a continuum of “building from this base of achievement, here’s where I’m intending to go”. And by telling them what I’m doing, planning, hoping, I give them ways to help me get there. I hesitate to call it this, it sounds too formal or too grandiose, but I treat myself as if I have a talent management plan, and they are going to provide specific supports. Maybe I know what I need directly, maybe I need them to tell me what they can do or I should do next. I share my vision, they give me comments.

I am not passive in my career management. It is not about asking for x or y. It is about embedding them in your shared story. If you can give me x, great; if you can’t, let’s do y; if y doesn’t work, what about z? I have contingency plans for contingency plans for contingency plans.

And if my supervisor isn’t on board, who can I rope in instead? If I need career direction, who can I talk to? Who can mentor me, informally or formally if necessary? What’s my next step?

If they can’t let me do an acting assignment, can I do a micro-assignment?

If I can’t do a micro-assignment, can I take on an internal project?

If I can’t take on an internal project, can I do United Way?

There are 1000 ways to learn and grow, even bad managers usually only “block” certain types that create risk or cost money.

That’s my solution. Find a way.

Michael Caine, the actor, has this beautiful story about leaning in basically. He was doing an early play rehearsal, was supposed to enter the stage through a door, and because of something else that had gone wrong, he couldn’t open the door the normal way. And he froze. The Director told him “Use the difficulty. If it’s stuck, force it; if it’s locked, kick it in. Climb through a window. Use the difficulty to create something else.” And so Caine has used that with his kids — when something doesn’t work, lean in and “use the difficulty” to say “Oh this doesn’t work, how can I use this to do something else better?”.

Maybe your manager won’t approve specific things. Or maybe they won’t because they don’t think you’re handling your current job well enough yet. Or maybe they’re worried about the team’s output. Or maybe they’re risk adverse. Or … or … or…they just haven’t been asked the right question in the right story line to see what they CAN do without messing up their own worries.

Whew. That was a lot.

Almost 20K words. Yeah, I’m anal like that. I like to answer Qs fully and with examples.

And that’s even with grouping some of them.

I hope it was helpful.