Tag Archives: administration

CIDA, DFAIT and what’s on the DMs’ minds…

The Writing Life of a Tadpole
March 27 2013

As with all posts on this site, my views are my own and obviously not that of my paycheque provider. Not that anyone complained, or that I’m being overly “critical” of decisions, as the reality of most decisions made by governments when it comes to structural changes is that most are simply that — choices. They are not “good” or “bad”, they simply have pros and cons. And just as with a hiring decision where one’s strength in being decisive can also be a weakness by being inflexible or quick to judge, the Deputy Ministers and Associates working on what the new merger will look like have a bunch of decisions to make, and most of the options have strengths that may turn out to be weaknesses or weaknesses that may turn out to be strengths.

Since many of you asked, and don’t have much experience thinking “structurally” or “corporately”, here is my guess of some of the things occupying their attention this week.

Job chaos

I may depress a lot of people with identifying this first, but it would be the most emotionless automaton working at that level who wouldn’t be affected by the chaos that just invaded their orbit. Last week, they knew who they were, they knew what their files were, and they knew what most of the big risks and outliers were. The announcement of a merger changed a lot of that for the senior executives of both departments.

Remember the anxiety you felt at the working level with announcements of Strategic Review, Deficit Reduction Action Plans and Work-Force Adjustment? Like the illusion of control of your work-life just evaporated with a large-scale corporate exercise? The senior executives treated those issues as relatively routine challenges, knowable problems. Not fun, but manageable. But a merger? This week, some of them are likely wondering what the heck just happened and what it means just as much as you are. A senior ADM in another department who once experienced this type of fun described it to me as “executive freefall”. The day before, the world was flat. The day after, they’re not even sure if they’re standing on rock or quicksand. A lot of stuff they used to have control over just got bumped up a level and now pretty much only the DMs are in decision-making mode. Sure, the ADMs are advising, and any DM worth their salt will talk a good game about consultations and shared decision-making, but ultimately recommendations will be made to Ministers and PCO by the DMs. And particularly by the DM of Foreign Affairs as the most senior. First among equals, so to speak.

Yet, while probably no one is crying tears for senior management right now, know this too — while their feet are dangling over empty space, they also have a job to do…they have to sell it to the masses as an opportunity, regardless if they think it is chaos or a perfect storm or a cluster snafu or the best thing since sliced bread. They will be professional, they will show their corporate leadership, and they will do their job. But it also sucks for them too, even when they agree. Because they just became much smaller fish relative to a much larger pond and they don’t know where the predators or safe shoals are located.

Two models

The big question for them this week is, “Did the announcement mean…”? Yep, the announcement was long on implications and short on details. It gave hints about the Ministerial structure but not the exact long-term relationship. One minister? Three Ministers? Three ministers with one BIG minister and two small Ministers? Ultimately, it comes down to two models.

Ignoring the Foreign Affairs/International Trade conundrum for a moment, option 1 has CIDA keeping a separate Minister, with a separate DM, etc. This doesn’t necessarily look a whole lot different from the current structure. Other departments have similar structures and merely share some corporate services. Integration is, well, to put it bluntly, done more in theory at the macro-levels than in practice at the micro-levels. That does not sound like what was announced, but it could be what results in the long-term.

Option 2 is more challenging — if CIDA doesn’t keep a separate Minister, or has their Minister reduced to the equivalent of Secretary of State (something that has not worked well in the past for DFAIT — other countries view it as a Deputy Minister rather than Cabinet rank, and they don’t get as big an office), then it goes to a giant question of integration of functions.

What integration might look like

As with the first question, there are multiple models of integration — administrative, functional or full. This quite frankly is probably one of the strongest indications of whether the DMs think this will work for the long-term because the degree of integration makes it harder to separate things later if someone changes their mind.

The minimal form of integration is going to merge common services, an administrative merger. Public affairs i.e. “communications” are an obvious group to merge. There will still be people responsible for “development” announcements, but it will be one DG or ADM in charge of it all. HR, IT, etc are obvious points for the merger. And TBS will be expecting savings through “economies of scale”, either real or imagined. It will not be simply that everyone will now be one big happy family. The only question will be if they put everyone together first and then rationalize or rationalize first and then merge the units. And within those corporate services — comms, HR, IT — different units will be affected differently.

Planning groups will likely get hit harder than direct service people — direct service people tend to be based on the size of the group they serve, and if those numbers don’t change, then the number of people needed to serve them don’t change by much.

The huge outlier in this merger is Finance. At old DFAIT/FAC, there was a CFO who primarily dealt with operating expenditures. Foreign Affairs has a lot of operating money, not much in the way of programming dollars. The CFO at CIDA, by contrast, has operating money as well as a huge giant programming budget. And they have two different operating environments — one is in a “proper line department”, the other a special operating agency with extra spending flexibility. The machinery to manage O&M at FAC is vastly different from the gigantic machinery required to run Gs&Cs at CIDA. While any good ADM can figure out how to manage a merger of HR, IT and Comms (okay, so IT is a little trickier with all the integrated systems, but still…), it will take a lot of VERY careful planning to figure out the management of financial systems and processes (note, I mean the way they manage money and the control frameworks in place, not the electronic systems). Other areas like Audit, Evaluation, and Performance Measurement are all groups that would be easily “merged” but probably really just housed together.

A functional merger would likely build off of the administrative option and potentially keep partnership branch, geographics, and multilateral as one big happy “branch” within the new DFATD. It wouldn’t be neat and tidy, but it would be a good temporary solution. The difference would be that the “policy” elements of those branches could be severely curtailed and they would be more focused on program design. Put as simply as possible, it could mean that the “sector” priorities and country strategies would be set by geographic areas filled with FA/T/D policy wonks but the actual project work would be done by the Development Branch. It would be a bit flexible on who would “approve” projects — both groups would probably have to sign off. For Partnership Branch, they’re a complete outlier. DFAIT has no significant natural counterpart except the trade commissioner types (sure, FAC had an NGO group, but limited in scope and aim) — they’d probably either get eliminated almost completely (i.e. rolled under geographics and reduced to a comms-like stakeholder relationship role) or continue exactly as they have so far. Not much middle ground. Multilateral, by contrast, has a huge middle ground. The health programming would likely remain part of the Development Branch since they have so much project funding, and humanitarian is just too big and too project-oriented to drop into a Foreign Affairs policy shop. But the UN and IFIs (WB, IMF, RDBs) all have natural counterparts whose divisional roles wouldn’t be compromised by also having to do annual funding programs. I don’t see much of a functional “policy/program design” division of duties for them, so I’d be hard-pressed to see them not being merged into a typical Foreign Affairs multilateral structure. I’m a huge multilateralist and have worked in both groups in previous incarnations of their roles…I think they should remain separate, but I can’t come up with much of an argument that would likely resonate with senior executives.

Lastly, I’m hard-pressed to figure out what to do with Policy Branch in this type of functional merger. Those that are specialists like the ones attached to Geographics would be clearly best-positioned in a Development Branch. But the broader policy wonks? They would have to go, I think, to the broader economic and policy groups in the old Foreign Affairs’ structure. Human rights, for example, has divisions at both departments. And even though they generally have two different levels of expertise and analysis (FA = treaties, broad diplomatic governance engagement domestically and multilaterally; CIDA = governance, capacity building, NGO engagement on the ground), the overlap is too large not to merge and avoid duplication/redundancies.

The full merger is a challenge of epic proportions. It basically takes the Texas Rangers approach to law enforcement (one riot, one ranger) and does the same with programming — one region, one directorate. All the policy and program managers from CIDA and DFAIT get merged together — ST functionally and LT physically. The process to do that is astronomically complex and yet strategically easy for Deputy Ministers making the decision. It’s painful administratively, bureaucratically, personally, emotionally, intellectually, etc. but the org chart looks much much neater. And if you’re a DM with a strong mandate to integrate and a velcro org chart in front of you, this is the model that gets you where you need to go. If your sphincter just tightened, there’s a reason for that, regardless of which department you work in. Everybody fully integrated, working side by side, common directors and managers.

Timelines

An administrative merger is, relative to the other options, easy. Three months for Comms, IT and HR to have a working plan and be ready for implementation. Ambitious, but straightforward.

A functional merger is more complex, but six months is doable. Physical colocation of some units would take longer, but the operations could work. If I was a betting man, I’d bet they slice and dice the Policy and Multilateral Branches and leave a lot of the rest in its own Development Branch. It’s a good first step and gets them operational faster. Not perfect, but workable.

By contrast, a full merger is a whole other operation. Six months would give you a working plan, but probably two years before it is fully operational. And relative chaos throughout that time frame.

If I ran the zoo

If I ran the zoo, I’d probably recommend full merger as it seems to be what the powers-that-be are saying they want, but with the full expectation that functional merger is the likely outcome. A separate “development branch” is a good selling point with domestic audiences, with of course the devil being in the details of operations.

The really interesting thing though is that while all of this “structural” stuff is going to be occupying the DMs’ attention this week, it is only their third biggest challenge. They won’t be able to as quickly address the obvious policy integration problem (which I would rank #2) but they know that one is there and will meet it relatively head-on. Their biggest problem though, in my view, is corporate culture at CIDA and DFAIT and making it work at HQ in DFATD.  Perhaps topics for other posts though…

Signature, happy reading
Share

Priority referrals from PSC: A new pilot project…

The Writing Life of a Tadpole
January 23 2012

It’s not that often that you see the Public Services Commission doing something innovative, but a new pilot project that starts today may qualify. And with all things HR-related, the impact may turn out to be either good or bad for employees on a referral list, depending on how the theory translates into practice.

So here’s the quick background you need to know first. When someone is declared surplus for whatever reason (relocation, program was cut, etc.), they can be put on a priority list for future jobs. Then, when any jobs come up in their region that match their skill sets, they’ll get referred to the hiring manager as a highly-possible hire. Unlike a regular applicant though where a hiring manager decides if a candidate meets the essential experience requirements and then invites them into a selection process (i.e. “screens” them in), a priority referral really IS a priority — if they meet the requirements, then the hiring manager MUST hire them. Good for the employee, they get a new job; good for the hiring manager, finding someone qualified really fast. Of course, there are lots of little tricks and tips on how a hiring manager may deem that the person does NOT meet the requirements if they want to screen them out, but in theory, if a priority candidate meets the requirements, screening them “in” basically means offering them the job.

How did this work? In the past, the PSC would look at a job description, run a search on their database, and forward several resumes and cover letters to the hiring manager to consider. Alternatively, if a candidate saw a posting, they could tell the PSC they wished to be referred — sometimes they were, sometimes they weren’t (if the PSC didn’t think it was close enough, they might not forward, but usually they did). After referral, though, those generic resumes and letters pre-saved on file often didn’t cover all the possible experiences the hiring manager asked for, so the hiring manager would screen out the priority person and continue with their normal selection process. In the last two years though, the PSC has put pressure on the departments to ensure that the hiring managers at least spoke to the candidate to see if possibly they DO have the experience, it just wasn’t in the resume or letter. Part of this was in response to priority referrals feeling like they were out of the loop, and weren’t engaged enough. More bluntly, it just means that priority referrals were getting screened out too often and too easily.

The new six-month pilot project (Jan-July 2012) puts a bit more power in the hands of the person on the priority list. Instead of simply having their generic letter and resume being forwarded, there will be three steps in the initial communication process:

  1. The PSC will refer the name of the priority candidate to the hiring manager (before it was name and resume);
  2. The PSC will notify the priority candidate of the referral and send them the job description, Statement of Merit Criteria (SOMC), etc. (no major change, just more automated); and,
  3. The candidate will have 5 days to send the hiring manager a detailed cover letter and resume tied to the SoMC (the major change).

This means that the priority candidate will essentially be treated like every other candidate in the process — it will be incumbent upon the candidate to PROVE they meet the requirements of the position, not up to the hiring manager to play forensic detective on their resumes and guess. This is in line with the rest of the processes for regular candidates that has hardened over recent years to ensure that people have to prove merit in their application before being screened in, and if the evidence isn’t in the cover letter, they get screened out. Now, just to be nice, the PSC has said too that if the priority candidate can’t apply within five days, they can RESPOND within five days and state a date by which they can apply properly. On the other hand, the PSC is not all fun and games — they also say if the candidates do not qualify, they can send a letter saying which elements they don’t meet.

What will this mean for hiring managers? Their job just got both easier and harder — easier in the sense that the application will be tailored to THEIR job so easier to see if they fit as well as the fact that some people won’t apply in the five days for jobs that aren’t very close so smaller pool to worry about, but harder in the sense that some candidates who might not have everything will still apply and stretch their experience to try to get chosen, and so the hiring manager will have to spend more time verifying if they really DO have the experience they say they do (bearing in mind that in a typical selection process, if the hiring manager screens in a “soft” candidate on experience, the candidate still has to prove they can pass the written exam and interview questions; in this process, there is no exam or detailed interview to test the priorities!).

What will this mean for employees? Before they were often referred to more jobs than perhaps they were qualified for, anything somewhat close; now they’ll get the referral but have to do more work to actually apply for each and every job with a tailored resume, not just a generic. So more work. Plus, the hiring manager will be able to look at your detailed application and probably make the decision without talking to you — after all, if it isn’t in your application, they can screen you out more easily. Fewer interviews than in the last two years, more back to paper screening. And guess what? HR may do the screening for the hiring manager, not the hiring manager themself. Meaning possible fewer managers actually seeing your application.

Bottom-line — if you’re on a priority list and you’re good, then writing a tailored cover letter and resume to apply for jobs can only help you get selected better. If you’re on a priority list, and you’re not the greatest employee or you have really narrow skill sets, the application process will make it harder for you to get pulled or even looked at by hiring managers. It depends on how it ends up working in practice.

But I have to give some credit to the PSC — it’s definitely an innovation in managing priority referrals.

Signature, happy reading
Share

Understanding “surplus” designations for federal public service…

The Writing Life of a Tadpole
January 23 2012

So, the federal Public Service is downsizing. Which means they are going to cut staff. And like all large bureaucracies, there are bureaucratic terms to understand what it means if you get “laid off”, so to speak. But wait, you say you have a letter appointing you in the first place to an indeterminate position, presumably “permanent”? Except that isn’t what “indeterminate” means. It means of “undetermined length of time”. Now, they’re telling you the real length of time. So you’re done sometime perhaps soon. Or are you?

How do you get downsized? Well you can be subject to “workforce adjustment” if the government decides to:

  • cut your position due to lack of work (i.e. they cut your job’s functions, often by cutting your program);
  • they’re moving the job somewhere else and you refused to go; or,
  • they’re implementing an alternative delivery initiative (usually contracting it out or automating, but not always).

So, you are workforce-adjusted, and you fall into one of three new status categories:

  1. “Affected” — this means you’ve got a letter that says your services MAY NOT be required…think of this as a “warning shot”. The good news is that it allows you to be put on “priority” lists within a department to allow you to apply for other jobs;
  2. “Surplus” — this means you’ve got a letter that says your services WILL NOT be required…direct hit. The good news is that it puts you on departmental lists, plus PSC lists, until you get a job through what is called a Reasonable Job Offer (i.e. equivalent to your current level) or you quit / retire or you get a RJO but refuse it;
  3. “Opting” — this means you got a letter saying “bye” (surplus), but haven’t got a RJO yet and four months have passed, you go into “opting” status, choosing between another 12 month period of waiting, take a lump sum payment, or take a lump sum payment + education allowance.

At the moment, the lump sum payments are likely to be fairly basic. Not unlike regular severance packages in the private sector.

Will there be “buy-outs” to encourage early retirement? Not yet, not really. Because at this point, there aren’t enough affected employees across the government to make buy-outs necessary. In a couple of years, if the number of people in affected / surplus / opting status are large enough, the various deputy ministers might complain to Treasury Board that they need something “extra” to offer people in the opting category to make it more attractive, i.e. to get people off the books, and buy-outsre particularly attractive for those close to retirement. Which means at that time, the “lump sums” might increase. Probably with some restrictions based on years of service (i.e. to make it attractive only to those near to retirement). But we’re not there yet. So, for now, the options will be basic — another year of work, or some money to quit, or some money to quit with a little extra for education. Not chicken-feed, but not the buy-outs for early retirement that were offered in the 1990s.

For newer public servants, it’s possible 12 more months of employment may be more $$ than the lump-sum; for longer-serving workers, it’ll be a financial calculation which is better. And of course your likelihood of getting a good RJO may depend on whether you’re in a specialized field that will be hard to find an equivalent position for, or you’re a generic type who can do lots of different things, or you’re in a specialized field but for which there is high demand (like computers or HR or finance).

Signature, happy reading
Share