Yep, I started with a trilogy and ended up with 9 posts. A few people have said, “What if I miss one?”. I don’t think of that as a normal risk per se, but sure, I can do a single post with all nine linked…
Tag Archives: HR
WFH vs. RTW, part 9: It’s showtime!
When it comes to figuring out the way forward, we’re pretty much at showtime. In September, departments started mandating RTW options, “forcing” people into the office as it is pitched by employees and unions.
Some people want to argue whether the government as the employer has the right to make the decision unilaterally. Others want to argue that the employer has consulted with employees on the best way forward and many have said RTW is a good thing that offers benefits that WFH don’t. They did pilots, and the people have spoken! Others want to argue that it isn’t safe and there’s a giant occupational health and safety issue with people being back in offices together.
I don’t have much interest in any of those topics, to be honest. Primarily, I don’t care because there’s nothing really to “debate” in any of it.
Labour law is 100% on the side of government about who chooses whether a job is done at home, at work or in the office. There is virtually no case law, legislative framework, collective agreement support or anything else anywhere on the planet that says a employer has to make the decision with its workers or with unions.… Read the rest
WFH vs. RTW, part 8: A rare Call to Action
My normal schtick is description. I explain why something is like it is, why seemingly opaque decisions or processes are not as dense as people might think. Other than sharing tips and tricks in my HR guide, I rarely try to tell people to do x or y. I’ve been a bit more directive on some of these topics, maybe a bit more rant-y. But, today, I have a different goal.
I want to tell people what to do if they want WFH as a continued option for the future and not as a slowly diminishing option until everyone is back in the office five days a week.
Change your script and talk about hybrid work
Let’s make this super simple for everyone to understand. There are three models:
- Remote model, never have to go into the office, 100% work from home
- Hybrid model, some mix of in-the-office and work from home
- Old school model, 100% in the office (Edit:
work from home)
We need to stop saying full WFH (5d) is working just fine (model 1). You may believe that everything is working, and maybe it looks that way to you for your files. But management sees the whole spectrum, vertically AND horizontally, and they know better.… Read the rest
WFH vs. RTW, part 7: No black swans required
When I started this series of posts two weeks ago, it was with the intent simply to share some views on what’s going on for preparations around Return to Work options in the federal government. I’d been seeing a bunch of stuff online where people were saying, “Hey management is a bunch of idiots, everything is working fine, blah blah blah”, and while that may be an employee/bottom-up view, it is NOT what management is seeing looking “down”.
While people in the past might have complained about stuff if they were actually AT work to colleagues, etc., the growth of Reddit fora and FaceBook groups, Twitter, and other social media for people working from home has sparked a surge in people expressing their views online about anything and everything. Some of that is good, and some of that just creates self-bias mini-groups where people hear the same thing coming back at them and assume that means it’s now a fact. And like the echo chambers that some of these groups become, people are frequently posting what they saw as fact (everything is working) yet is really more about their own desires (no need to go back to the office).
And so I started blogging, thinking maybe I’d do 2-3 posts, with a goal to let people know, “Actually, management isn’t all idiots, they’re seeing some real problems”.… Read the rest
WFH vs. RTW, part 6: If management is left to their own devices
I’ve been struggling to figure out how to organize this post, ever since I started the first one in the series. I want to talk about what departments are doing, but I don’t want it to be some sort of inventory. That’s not why I’m writing. I don’t care if Fisheries is doing one thing and Environment is doing another. I don’t care if one person reports that Transport is doing something and all heck breaks loose arguing it’s either not what someone else heard or it’s not the right thing to do or they spelled cluster truck wrong.
But as I thought about what I wanted the conclusion to be with “episode 7” in my increasingly misnamed series of 4-5 posts (with apologies to Douglas Adams), I realized what I wanted, or even needed, this post to be about.
It’s about what management is doing when it is generally left to their own devices.
What they heard
As I mentioned previously, they’ve heard LOTS of people say “We want to work from home forever”. Great, that message has been heard. And guess what? It’s about the same as everyone saying they’d like their salary doubled and their annual leave banks tripled, and retirement after ten years of work.… Read the rest
WFH vs. RTW, part 5: If an employee falls in an empty office, does anyone hear it?
So let’s recap my series so far and reorder the elements a bit. Hardly revolutionary, but decisions about RTW will be taken in a larger context:
- Pre-pandemic “norms” that assumed everyone was working “in the office” but that even face-to-face interactions were not enough, transactions and communications were not enough, you still needed intentional effort to make proper connections;
- Early pandemic transitioning to WFH and rolling out of all the cyber tools we take for granted now, while managers have been left to mostly “muddle through” too;
- Throughout the pandemic, public servants have been working with their paycheques intact, and relatively speaking, being spared much of the extreme personal economic, social and financial disruption that every other sector has experienced in the last 2+ years; and,
- Executives looking at the emerging-from-pandemic world and seeing not only that things are not all working perfectly, even if many employees don’t see the cracks, but also that there are huge risks looming on the horizon.
What are they hearing
Senior management is making decisions based on their own inclinations as experienced managers, as well as the input they get from three large sources. First, the Centre has gone out of its way not to be too prescriptive.… Read the rest
WFH vs. RTW, part 4: It’s not about Subway
If you’re reading this, you’re probably in the public service (not necessarily federal, but mostly), and unless you’ve been living under a rock, you will have heard the story about the health townhall meeting where one of the executives suggested that going back into the office was a good thing because you could go to Subway for lunch and support local business. There are lots of people who argue there was more to it, and memes blew up about Subway-gate, with many of them coming from people who weren’t even in the room nor work in the same department. It was a catalyst where people were saying management was tone-deaf and they needed to read the room.
My reaction was that management weren’t the only ones. The audience was too, and they weren’t reading management right at all. Management at all departments is trying to walk the line between two very difficult views to express. On the one hand, they want to tell people they’ve done a great job over the last two years; on the other, they’re seeing cracks in the foundations and know people are going to have to do SOME of their work in the office for different reasons.… Read the rest
WFH vs. RTW, part 3: The research (mostly) shows…
For all the departments looking to have people back in the office, they frequently will use the phrase, “So, yeah, we’re looking to have people back in the office at least some of the time because the research shows that it’s better.”
And when they say it, most people listening think it is complete bullsh**. Particularly EC policy wonks who see and hear that phrase every day from stakeholder groups, academics, think tanks, lobby groups, Joe who works at the corner deli. Everyone. And our job is to look at their evidence. “Really, you have research? Well, let’s see that research, show me your evidence, your methodology.” We eat that sh** for breakfast. I don’t want to overstate the case, but honestly, most of the ECs have spent the last 80% of their career ripping apart false claims based on so-called “evidence” that group A’s approach is better than what we’re already funding. Heck, we TRAIN our policy wonks to look for those tricks.
But, well, the people making the claims are not completely wrong. Let’s look at some of the areas of research.
Decades of academic research about business
If you go back to the era just before the introduction of the assembly line, people had realized that a central site for working was better than a whole bunch of solo workers working on their own.… Read the rest
WFH vs. RTW, part 2: A baseline year…
In the world of performance measurement, a friend and I have a cynical joke between us that it seems like every year is a baseline year for some programs…if you’re always moving the baseline, there’s never anything to measure or report other than activities undertaken. There’s no standard for success. When it comes to the question of working from home, any year up to the end of 2019 would have been a baseline year, and there is still not much evidence of a performance standard for success.
What did it look like?
If you looked around the government on January 1, 2020, you would have seen very few departments leading on anything resembling working from home except in exceptional circumstances. Generally speaking, the only people who had full remote access from home fell into one of three categories:
- Duty to accommodate — remote logins, bad gateways, slow networks, little in the way of IT supports, occasionally people making noises about having the government pay for their internet and especially so if they had to get faster internet to run work applications, etc.
- People dealing with emergency issues, where timely access tended to outweigh security concerns; and,
- Senior personnel.
Almost no departments were offering full remote access to internal systems.… Read the rest
WFH vs. RTW, part 1: Something to talk about
As everyone has seen over the last 2.5 years, every business entity has had to deal with the labour organization aspects of the pandemic. Separate from all the labour and health and safety issues, or supply-chain issues, one of the most pervasive questions has simply been one of location. Could employees work from home or did they need to return to work at a specified location? In the private-sector goods and services world, many of those business decisions were obvious. For example, fast-food restaurants in set locations needed employees to be on-site to work. It’s hard to flip a burger in your kitchen and upload it to the drive-through window.
But many knowledge-economy jobs are digitally-enabled. People could and did pivot to work from home when the pandemic hit. Banks. Gig economy workers. IT. Insurance. And, yes, government.
For the Canadian government, that was about 360,000 employees suddenly working from home. I’ll go into more details in future posts, but let’s say generally that the response was positive from most employees (> 80%, with > 95% in some cases). Fast-forward 2.5y, and they are still mostly working from home. Departments have experimented with different pilot options, while some went back earlier to hybrid configs (some days in the office, some days at home) and others doing specific jobs were in-office immediately.… Read the rest
Great practice from PHAC on HR notices
If anyone has read my HR guide, you already know that there are notices of appointments that go up on the Jobs.gc.ca portal. When it is a non-advertised appointment, and it says promotion, you really have almost no idea why the person is being promoted. It just says “non-advertised” and “promotion”.
Common rationales for non-advertised appointments
From a process perspective, a non-advertised appointment is a perfectly valid tool to be used by any manager. The requirement isn’t to assess everyone everywhere in the world for the position, nor even to choose the best candidate available, it’s to demonstrate that the person being appointed meets all the merit criteria.
One rationale (A) for that appointment might be that they were in the job for 2 years on an acting basis, have clearly demonstrated they meet all the requirements for the job, and are performing at-level for the position. The manager could run an open competition, and lots of people would say that was the fairest option, but the likely result is the person will make the pool and get selected. There might be people with better qualifications, but not better experience than the person doing the job already. One might quibble about how they got the acting in the first place, but that’s a separate issue.… Read the rest
Demonstrating merit, non-advertised appointments, and frustration as a manager
Normally when I write about HR, I do so as a public servant talking to other public servants on how to prepare for competitions. I might draw on my own experiences competing or running processes from the other side of the table. But rarely do I write as simply a manager talking about my job. Today, I’m frustrated with the tools available to me as a manager for a specific type of non-advertised appointment process. I apologize for the upfront context, but it takes a bit to get us to where the problem comes up. If you already know all about non-advertised appointments, you can skip to the “But what if…” heading below.
Quick context
Most managers know that all PS staffing, maybe even all of HR outside of leave and benefits, is about “demonstrating merit”. Performance measurement, documentation, competitions i.e., selection processes, it almost all comes down to how we demonstrate merit.
In staffing, we generally have a matrix combining the elements to be demonstrated down the vertical axis while across we have a box for the lines of evidence. In most processes, we have:
- Basic eligibility for status and location of work (i.e., some jobs are restricted to internal candidates only or regional areas)
- Education;
- Experience;
- Knowledge;
- Abilities;
- Personal Suitability;
- Expanded eligibility for security and language profile; and.
Articles I Like: 21 HR Jobs of the Future
Harvard Business Review’s mailing include a link to a cool article by Jeanne C. Meister about what HR people will be doing in the future, or doing “more of” in the future, given the impact of COVID-19 and the likely enduring switch to working from home. It’s based on a think piece from one of the thousands of organizations looking at the “future of work”, and there are tons of these reports coming out, as they have for the last five years. Most of them are, quite frankly, wrong. They’re pie-in-the-sky visions of “what could be”, not very practically tied to the current environment. In order for most of the predictions to come true, we would need to see a massive disruption in the workplace and workforce.
Like COVID-19 has now done, which makes some of the more recent predictions more closely tied to reality.
The report outlines 21 different job functions that HR people expect to see in the next 10 years and plots them on a 2×2 grid of how “techy” the companies are and time. It’s an interesting idea, but my take on it is that most of the 21 functions are “options” and not necessarily cooperative ones.… Read the rest
Mental Health in the Workplace – My role as a manager
Unless you have been living under a rock, you would know that one of the latest pushes in all management circles — public, private, C-suites, academia — is to figure out how to improve workplaces so that they are supportive of good mental health. But part of that push is recognizing that we are not there yet, and even if we were, life happens outside of the workplace too, and eventually, even the most awesome place to work is going to deal with mental health issues with its employees.
Analysis without resolution
Earlier today, our branch held a half-day management discussion on mental health issues and included a desire for us all as managers to make a personal commitment to what we would “undertake” to improve our support on mental health issues. Some of them range from the obvious (don’t look at your phone while you’re talking to someone) while others are more complex (how to manage performance when there is an undiagnosed but suspected mental health issue on display). As I look at them, I start to feel like I’m doing a simple analysis without resolution. But these are the thoughts that tickle my brain.
One of our conversations was around the type of mental health issue.… Read the rest
Admitting I was wrong – Workplace 2.0
I work in a government office complex, and for the most part, our offices tend to look like they were designed and approved by accountants. Actuarial accountants. And auditors. We don’t have 50 shades of gray, we tend to have three. Light gray, dark gray, and something in between that is probably “light gray that got dirty and will never get cleaned”. Don’t get me started on the carpets. But before I talk about Workplace 2.0, let me talk for a moment about my last 20+ years of office accommodations.
Government accommodations
From 1993 to 1997, I was with Foreign Affairs. Generally, everyone had a closed office, boring off-white metal-like walls, brown doors, small window next to the door (usually, but not always), desk plus computer table, chair, guest chair, bookshelf and filing cabinet. With enough room that you could often have two people squeeze in front of the desk as guests, and have a quick meeting. Meeting rooms tended to be few and far between, a boardroom generally per floor of about 100+ people, but Directors had slightly larger offices with small tables for 4, DGs had tables for about 6, and ADMs had room for about 8 as part of their actual office, so between your own offices and meetings with executives, you rarely ran out of meeting space.… Read the rest
The Phoenix audit we could have had – Part 3
This is my last post on the Phoenix audit by the Office of the Auditor-General. In the first of three parts (The Phoenix audit we could have had – Part 1), I talked about governance and oversight. Part two (The Phoenix audit we could have had – Part 2) dealt with the level of details provided in terms of the state of pay. In both areas, there were missed opportunities galore.
Today I want to talk about the way forward.
What were the criteria?
There really weren’t any forward-looking ones, at least not upfront. They had some generic elements under governance, but that was it.
What the REAL criterion should have had
It is pretty simple — is there a plan in place going forward that addresses major issues, is risk-based, and is written down. There are lots of bells and whistles beyond that, things like cost and timelines, but the most basic element is “Do they have a plan?”
What did the audit find?
The audit found that
- Departments and agencies had significant difficulties in providing timely and accurate pay information and in supporting employees in resolving pay problems
- A sustainable solution will take years and cost much more than the $540 million the government expected to spend to resolve pay problems
What COULD the audit have found?
… Read the restThe Phoenix audit we could have had – Part 2
Earlier, I ranted about the actual audit of Phoenix that was done by the Office of the Auditor General (A disappointing audit of the Phoenix problems). And in my post yesterday (The Phoenix audit we could have had – Part 1), I talked about what I expected to see or at least thought we could have seen, regarding governance and oversight.
Today I want to talk about the current state of pay requests outstanding.
What were the criteria?
There were two elements to the state of pay, and the first one was:
Problems related to paying public service employees are identified, and the nature and impact of these problems are understood.
To understand the first problem, the auditors relied upon the following documents.
- Pay Disbursement Administrative Services Order, 2011
- Directive on Financial Management of Pay Administration, Treasury Board
- Policy on Results, Treasury Board
- Directive on Results, Treasury Board
- Supporting Effective Evaluations: A Guide to Developing Performance Measurement Strategies, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
- COBIT 5: Enabling Processes, Information Systems Audit and Control Association, ISACA
As with the review yesterday, the policy on results, directive on results, guide to PM strategies, and COBIT 5 are virtually worthless to the exercise.… Read the rest
The Phoenix audit we could have had – Part 1
When I read the Office of the Auditor General’s audit of Phoenix, I was beyond disappointed (A disappointing audit of the Phoenix problems). In part, I think it is because I am too familiar with audits from my previous job where I read just about every audit done by my department in the last nine years, plus some of the broader OAG ones. Yep, I’m a public admin geek. I was even somewhat amused when I saw the news coverage about how aggressive the report was in its condemnation. And, if you weren’t a regular reviewer of audits, you might just go with the press conference and some of the findings and think, “Okay, they’re being appropriately harsh”.
Except the OAG knows how to be harsh when something isn’t working, and the language they would use for that kind of screw-up wasn’t present in the report. So let’s look at the report and see what they COULD (or even should?) have said, but didn’t.
What were the criteria?
Let’s go in reverse order, and start with the third criterion that the auditors set up in their audit. They based that criterion on a bunch of documents, including:
- Financial Administration Act
- Public Service Employment Act
- Department of Public Works and Government Services Act
- Shared Services Canada Act
- Pay Disbursement Administrative Services Order, 2011
- Policy on Internal Control, Treasury Board
- Directive on Financial Management of Pay Administration, Treasury Board
- Policy on Terms and Conditions of Employment and the Directive on Terms and Conditions of Employment, Treasury Board
- Policy Framework for People Management, Treasury Board
- Policy Framework for the Management of Compensation, Treasury Board
- COBIT 5: Enabling Processes, ISACA
Now, here’s the thing.… Read the rest
A disappointing audit of the Phoenix problems
As a civil servant, I was incredibly disappointed with the recent Phoenix audit, although maybe I just expected too much of it. Things that should have been clearly there, I would have thought, were in fact absent. Wording that I expected to be extremely harsh was toned down. Recommendations that would seem to be obvious ways forward were missing in action.
A friend asked me earlier this week where my indignant anger was at the fiasco and I think part of my passivity was because I knew the audit was coming. And I expected it to be a bombshell…a true blockbuster for its impact. Based on the actual wording, it seems more like they were going for a children’s firecracker that fizzled.
I expect three things from an audit:
- A clear articulation of the project’s goal and what they were trying to do;
- A clear indication of assessment/analysis of performance based on evaluation against an objective standard; and,
- Clear indications of recommendations for a way forward and response by the organization how they’re going to address the recommendations.
This audit doesn’t do any of those three things.
Understanding what an audit actually does
Most people hear the word audit and they immediately think of audits like what happens to taxpayers when they get audited by Revenue Canada or the Internal Revenue Service.… Read the rest
My cold, crass heart and Phoenix victims
I wrote earlier on Phoenix and attempted to deconstruct the mess that it has become, although perhaps it is more apt to say the mess it was from the beginning and remains so even now. My focus was on the process, and some people asked me about an apparent lack of sensitivity or where my anger was for the disaster on the victims’ behalf. I’ll defer my anger to my next post, as it goes in a slightly different direction than most.
But let’s address a couple of those sympathy concerns.
First, am I cold, heartless, unsympathetic? Not really, but I am capable of writing about it in a dispassionate tone. Partly because it’s public administration and anything less dissolves into rhetoric. And partly as I view public issues like this almost like a battlefield of wounded. And you have to triage the victims somehow, see who you need to stabilize quickly while prioritizing the serious cases to the head of the line.
Sure, I said upfront that everyone should be paid in full, on time and without reservation. Saying it is easy. It’s a fundamental principle.
But they weren’t paid in full, or in some cases, at all. Nor were they paid on time, or in some cases, at all.… Read the rest