Thematic Review on Staffing Values:

Non-partisanship & Transparency in the Public Service - Recruitments and Promotions

December 2001

Executive Summary

As part of its oversight role, the PSC conducts thematic reviews--Public Service-wide studies that examine the extent to which staffing practices are based on values and whether staffing policies and programs are used for the purposes for which they were intended. This thematic review, which examines the values of non-partisanship and transparency, does not focus on individual cases of staffing actions, but on trends and patterns observed in relation to non-partisanship and transparency. Our findings go beyond the two values under study to identify areas of concern that can affect all of the six staffing values.

Methodology

To frame the scope of this study, we sent a questionnaire to more than 50 clients, partners, stakeholders and knowledge workers within and outside of the PSC. A Terms of Reference was then sent to over 80 stakeholders including the National Staffing Council and unions.

We reviewed a number of employee surveys, recent research and policy initiatives, reviews and studies on staffing values and ethics, relevant appeals, investigations and court decisions, PSC Annual Reports and Early Warning System data, and recent reviews and studies in the United States and other jurisdictions.

We examined a sampling of staffing activities conducted in seven departments and agencies, at headquarters and in the regions, consisting of 502 recruitments from outside and promotions within the PS in fiscal year 1999-2000. Within these organizations, we interviewed 42 line managers, 32 HR specialists, and 7 union representatives, and conducted a short survey of a sample of employees in four of the organizations, inviting narrative comments; we had a very strong survey response rate of 68%.

Non-partisanship

Most interview and survey respondents agreed that bureaucratic patronage is more at risk in the PS than political patronage. None of the 273 comments made by employees concerned political patronage, but 15 concerned favouritism and undue advantage. We found that Operational and Technical employees report more bureaucratic patronage than other employees. Employees' perceptions of transparency are very closely linked to their experiences in staffing processes, and to some extent to their success in staffing competitions.

Political non-partisanship

A great majority of employees we surveyed do not see political patronage as a problem: 76% report that staffing in their work unit is free from political patronage, defined as interference from the Minister's or an M.P.'s office. While we did see instances where politicians inquired on behalf of their constituents regarding job opportunities, most of the inquiries were of a technical, "how-to" nature and none in our sample was directly attributable to political influence.

When departments receive calls and letters from politicians to consider candidates, they respond by acknowledging the request and explaining the appropriate staffing procedures. It is not, therefore, considered an issue by those we interviewed. Managers view as potential "door openers" that could lead to partisan appointments the hiring of ministerial staff as executives only because of their salary level, hiring from outside the Public Service, and hiring through the Interchange Program.

Bureaucratic patronage

Our exploratory interviews indicated that, while the notion of political patronage is relatively clear, the notion of bureaucratic patronage varies somewhat.

HR specialists said that managers who make appointments that are not free from bureaucratic patronage are not always conscious of their actions. Some have indicated that when such a situation is about to happen and the matter is brought to the manager's attention, a manager will usually react positively, be appreciative, and discontinue the action. They often get caught up in the speed of the process. As one HR specialist put it, "Most staffing actions are at risk since expediency rules."

Most HR specialists and some managers we spoke to cautioned that the hiring of relatives should not automatically be perceived as patronage. In one department, the policy on hiring relatives does not discriminate either positively or negatively but focuses instead on competence and openness. We were told that there are instances where the specialized expertise that is required can only be found among persons coming from a single family because there is such a limited pool to choose from in smaller communities.

The results of our research suggest that there is a critical link between the successful implementation of the values of non-partisanship and transparency. Employees do not state categorically that their work units or departments and agencies are free from bureaucratic patronage; we believe this is because of a lack of transparency in the application of the selection processes.

Transparency

Most persons we interviewed in the seven participating organizations were at ease in defining transparency. However, many admitted that making processes transparent and applying this value in day-to-day staffing actions and decisions is not so simple.

All of the 10 departments reporting to the PSC in 2000-2001 on the staffing authority delegated to them have measures in place to ensure that transparency in staffing is understood and respected. In six departments, survey results were used to determine adherence to this value and to address employee concerns. Good practices we noted include the establishment of an Area of Selection policy based on values, the conduct of an analysis of founded complaints, and the development of a training program to sensitize all managers to the staffing values. Risks identified include using contract personnel, heavy turnover among staff, and varying staffing practices in different regions of a department.

Managers focus on expediency

Several managers indicated that non-transparent staffing impacts negatively on staff morale and motivation and can lead some to leave. One manager indicated that transparency is integral to a positive workplace climate and helps maintain the credibility of the public service. An HR specialist agreed, saying, "Ignoring transparency in staffing will come back to haunt you."

At times, managers and HR specialists may have to take actions where information cannot be shared with employees due to personal circumstances--where an individual is offered a special assignment for health reasons, for example, or where someone who has been a victim of harassment is moved to another position.

Most HR specialists said that managers exert a great deal of pressure to staff positions quickly, as in situations where a good performing employee's work assignment is expiring and they want to retain that person. They use various staffing mechanisms such as short-term appointments to make that happen.

The perception of transparency is all-important

It may be the perception of transparency that is most important. Even when those involved believe that a staffing action has been transparent, if affected employees do not share that perception, transparency has not been achieved. Over half (55%) of respondents agreed that overall, staffing in their department is transparent. Fully 78% said they can easily obtain information about competitions being held in their department, and 66% are satisfied with the information they get on staffing processes they participate in. Results are somewhat lower for communications within the work unit: 59% agree that they are informed of staffing plans before positions are staffed, and 51% agree that the process for selecting a person for an acting assignment is transparent.

New employees--those who have less than one year's experience in their department--have more positive perceptions than those who have many more years of experience. On two items a slight difference emerged between the views of employment equity designated group members compared to those of other employees: they feel less informed of management staffing plans before positions are staffed and they report less transparency.

Key Findings Affecting Both of the Staffing Values of Non-partisanship & Transparency

Our research-especially our review of staffing file documentation-brought to light a number of over-arching issues that relate to both values, or to the effectiveness of all six staffing values.

Overall, interview respondents are of the opinion that moderate progress was made towards values-based staffing. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates no progress and 5 indicates great progress, the average rating nationally was 2.9. Respondents in the NCR awarded a rating of 2.5; those in Western regions awarded a rating of 3.6; managers in the Western Regions rated progress at a level of 4 out of 5.

A few of the narrative comments received in the current survey indicate that managers put more weight on abilities and personal suitability in selection than appointees do. Most managers think that "Competency is the most important value." In contrast, candidates put more weight on knowledge and experience.

Some of our interviews elicited comments that conveyed participants' concerns about the design and delivery of staffing systems and services:

• The PSC and departments need to share responsibility for the effectiveness of the staffing system by allocating sufficient resources and funding.
• Our interviews elicited calls for more training for managers, who say that they learn about staffing through trial and error.
• Managers said that HR resources are often not available. We consider that the evidence shows that HR capacity has diminished to a critical point so that there is now a problem with corporate memory loss, lack of experience and turnover.

Appointments to the Public Service

We identified a pattern of short-term hiring that points to a lack of long-term, targeted HR planning; this has also been reported in previous thematic reviews. Our findings indicate that:

• Priority persons are not always given appropriate consideration. Departments often appoint for periods of less than 12 months--which has the effect of eliminating the need to consider priority persons--then extend the term.
• Managers are making regular use of named referrals, especially in hiring term employees who were previously employed as casuals. Of those recruited through the open competitions we examined, 64 % (134/209) had occupied a similar position previously.
• There were several instances of tight screening of candidates--124 to 1, 112 to 1, 53 to 1, and 26 to 1. Experience or knowledge specific to a department, or the fact that the manager had a "proven entity" (someone who had previously been a casual or other appointee) were most often the reasons for this.

Promotions within the Public Service

We found that staffing processes conducted through closed competitions are normally very rigorous, meeting generally accepted staffing requirements. Selection Board Reports and Signed Statements of Persons Present at Boards, if produced, are usually found on the closed competition files.

Of the 150 appointments resulting from closed competitions, 64% (96/150) of the successful candidates had been acting in the job for at least eight months before winning the closed competition. Our preliminary interviews revealed that acting appointments that precede promotions are among the staffing actions which are deemed to place non-partisanship and transparency the most at risk.

Other findings

Although we consider the quality of staffing information on EX resourcing staffing files to be very good, there continues to be a perception that staffing at higher levels is not as transparent as it is at lower levels. Many view executive staffing at risk.

There exists considerable confusion amongst managers and HR specialists as to how to exercise the Without Competition authorities. These findings are not new and there are certain issues that need to be clarified on a priority basis, including the inconsistencies on how PSC districts and regions deal with named referrals.

Our research indicates that there has been some success achieved in the understanding of results values and process values across the Public Service of Canada but that considerable improvement is required to ensure their implementation in day-to-day staffing. The values of non-partisanship and transparency are in good health but continued vigilance is required to ensure that the areas of concern identified in this report-including those affecting all six values-do not interfere with the application of the merit principle.