• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

One-third of public service executives have mentally 'checked out,' study sugges

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Fossil
Reaction score
44,614
Points
1,160
One-third of public service executives have mentally 'checked out,' study suggests

Almost one-third of Canada’s federal executives, who are expected to lead the modernization of the public service, are actively disengaged or have “mentally checked out,” says a report by the association representing executives.

The Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada (APEX) commissioned a white paper to examine what makes executives committed to the job, after its 2012 health study indicated that the level of disengagement among executives was on the rise and higher than the average in the private sector.

The survey found 68 per cent – slightly more than two-thirds – are engaged but the level of engagement has fallen over the years. “Engagement” is an indicator of how well a person is connecting with their work and consequently how able that person is to deal with the demands of the job.

“Reform of the public service will require the full commitment and engagement of  executives,” said Lisanne Lacroix, APEX’s chief executive officer. “The degree to which they rise to the challenge will depend, in large part, on their state of health, which will largely be determined by the quality of the work environment.”

The engagement paper is among three white papers APEX has commissioned since the association’s health and work surveys revealed issues in the workplace that are affecting the productivity, performance and loyalty of the 6,400 executives in the public service.

“We wanted to not simply raise problem areas but do our part to offer solutions that can be implemented at the individual, team and organizational levels,” said Lacroix.


The lack of trust, coupled with the concentration of power and decision-making in the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, has intensified the lack of control and authority many executives complain about today.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/one-third-of-public-service-executives-have-mentally-checked-out-study-suggests
 
I would say that last paragraph sums up the entire problem and solution in 1 swoop.  And to top it off, the PMO (at least when I was dealing with them) was on a continuous hunt to find and absorb new responsibilities, sections and mandates.  PCO was just as bad when it came to control, but they didn't seek to expand their mandate.
 
If that 1/3 "checked out" of their offices and left the employ of the government, we could end the bureaucratic bloat and save millions of dollars as well in salaries and benefits.

Who knows, getting a leaner, faster Public service would do wonders for the people who have to deal with it too.

Sounds like a win-win situation.
 
Sure, getting rid of those 33% of EX-1 and above that's aren't doing much would be, in theory, a good thing, but the problem would be identifying the right targets for your witch hunt. Are you going to slash across the board? We've tried that -- the reality is that some departments are already lean and mean, some are incredibly bloated, so if you just chop 1/3 of positions you'll fire a lot of good people and will still have lots of underperformers left.

And as a reality check, is there really going to be a full Office Space "What would you say you do here?" inquisition of the Public Service, when an election is in the cards and there are no deals with the unions? Kick this ball further down the pitch, let the next government deal with it...
 
Which if it's the NDP or the Liberals, who rely on PSAC money to get elected, we're even more screwed as they won't bite the hand that feeds.
 
Thucydides said:
If that 1/3 "checked out" of their offices and left the employ of the government, we could end the bureaucratic bloat and save millions of dollars as well in salaries and benefits.

Who knows, getting a leaner, faster Public service would do wonders for the people who have to deal with it too.

Sounds like a win-win situation.
Assuming, of course, that cutting staff = cutting processes.  And reducing process = downloading/delegating a bit of trust closer to where taxpayers deal with government.
 
milnews.ca said:
Assuming, of course, that cutting staff = cutting processes.  And reducing process = downloading/delegating a bit of trust closer to where taxpayers deal with government.

??? I thought that institutionally the Public Service has already made the decision that they don't trust the lower levels of management, and that decisions are going to be made at the highest possible levels. Sort of an upside-down Mission Command. Certainly Deputy Ministers and ADM's seem to spend a lot of time on things like requests for coffee and donuts and rental cars.
 
Ostrozac said:
-- the reality is that some departments are already lean and mean, some are incredibly bloated, so if you just chop 1/3 of positions you'll fire a lot of good people and will still have lots of underperformers left.

And the one thing that many of those "under performers" are good at is covering their asses to protect their jobs.
 
I wonder if the results are transferable to CAF executive levels ...
 
Ostrozac said:
??? I thought that institutionally the Public Service has already made the decision that they don't trust the lower levels of management, and that decisions are going to be made at the highest possible levels. Sort of an upside-down Mission Command. Certainly Deputy Ministers and ADM's seem to spend a lot of time on things like requests for coffee and donuts and rental cars.
And if that's already the case, those higher up can say "hey, the high flyers are doing the real work - let's get rid of some peons - we can do the same with less!"  Which is why some folks think ....
George Wallace said:
And the one thing that many of those "under performers" are good at is covering their asses to protect their jobs.
 
George Wallace said:
And the one thing that many of those "under performers" are good at is covering their asses to protect their jobs.

Good point. And also the opposite. Some of your high performers don't react well to witch hunts. If you have a top-tier guy who's got three degrees, three languages, and has been working long hours, busting his ass and dodging car-bombs at the Canadian Embassy in Egypt, Tunisia or Afghanistan, he may not react well to some snot-nosed contractor with the ink not even wet on their MBA interviewing him about justifying his "value-added" to the "corporate enterprise".

He may just tell the contractor that if you question my commitment to my country and the Public Service, bugger off. I've got a job offer from Power Corporation. So there is a potential that a search to find low performers instead drives a high performer away.
 
Many of those executives could "check out " and not be missed by the rank and file. For many of them, it seems their major function is to ensure they have piddled on the edges of a document or have produced a "leading change" power point.
 
Perhaps much of the disengagement is due to many of those executives joining the Public Service as young pups, under a highly interventionist government (with a debatable grasp on budgeting). 

It is no secret that much of the Public Service tends left.  The prospect of the last 10 years being the next 10 years must be particularly bothersome.

Or they can sit on their hands and wait for one of three eventualities: the Government to change, their pension to arrive or being bought out with early retirement.
 
One third. The percentage is that low at the federal level...... lucky bastards >:D
 
Kirkhill said:
Perhaps much of the disengagement is due to many of those executives joining the Public Service as young pups, under a highly interventionist government (with a debatable grasp on budgeting). 

It is no secret that much of the Public Service tends left.  The prospect of the last 10 years being the next 10 years must be particularly bothersome.

Or they can sit on their hands and wait for one of three eventualities: the Government to change, their pension to arrive or being bought out with early retirement.

There was a significant bunch of PS types that was looking forward to the CPC as they thought they would be of a highly moral leadership, which was neded after the Liberals. The Duffy scandal killed any vestige of that.
 
Colin P said:
There was a significant bunch of PS types that was looking forward to the CPC as they thought they would be of a highly moral leadership, which was neded after the Liberals. The Duffy scandal killed any vestige of that.

I would hazard that Tony Clement's contemptuous attitude towards public servants did it more than the Duffy scandal, but what do I know.  ;D
 
MCG said:
I wonder if the results are transferable to CAF executive levels ...

Looks like it's a problem everywhere:

“An organization pays a heavy price when its bright, capable people quit and leave. But it’s even more costly when bright, capable people quit and stay.” — Rodger Dean Duncan

http://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/how-do-you-motivate-employees-who-quit-but-stay/
http://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/eleven-mismanagement-issues-that-lead-to-fake-work/

Why Companies Fail To Engage Today's Workforce: The Overwhelmed Employee
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/03/15/why-companies-fail-to-engage-todays-workforce-the-overwhelmed-employee/

 
cavalryman said:
I would hazard that Tony Clement's contemptuous attitude towards public servants did it more than the Duffy scandal, but what do I know.  ;D

Duffy was the icing on the cake from my vantage point
 
Back
Top