Chapter 4: Employee Perspectives

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the perspectives of both visible minority and control group employees gained through questionnaires and focus group discussions.

4.2 Environmental scan

When asked to offer their explanation of the gap between the availability of visible minorities in the Canadian workforce and the visible minority representation in the federal public service, participants in the focus groups, as well as those providing written comments, offered a sort of "environmental scan" of possible determining factors. We summarize below a number of perspectives of a general or contextual nature.

Visible minority public servants as agents of change

Participants felt the need for the government to "factor in change" to its operations. Several participants pointed to the strategic advantage of seeing visible minority public servants as part of the solution to the "crisis" facing the public service: the opportunity to enhance the diversity of experience and perspectives that could be brought to bear on policy formulation and program execution in Canada. The point emphasized is that "the world is in Canada". Public servants can, therefore, serve the citizens of diverse backgrounds better, by drawing on this rich array of talent and experience available in the service of the state.

Cynicism

Perhaps one of the strongest currents that ran through the comments of the visible minority participants in the study was that of cynicism regarding the employment equity program. The perception is that a large number of studies has been done on visible minorities and plans announced but almost no progress has been made in the 12 years since Equality Now! and the Abella Commission report, Equality in Employment.

Linked with this, as a sort of sub-theme, is the element of perceived tokenism. It is claimed, as one participant phrased it, that "tokenism is the worst form of racism." The impression is that departments and agencies typically focus only on aggregate numbers and often establish targets using the minimum as the maximum. In other words, the floor becomes the ceiling.

Commitment at the top is considered by participants to be critical. There is also a perception among the visible minority employees involved in the study that there is a lack of vision on the part of administrators who fear change and lack the will to change. Then, too, federal managers are said to be ill-equipped to defend the employment equity program.

There was also an indication that visible minorities outside the public service have little incentive to join as a result of the "the horror stories" from visible minority employees already in the service. This may be related to "culturally-shaped" choices of some visible minority communities in which, because of traditional orientations or the bad experience of elders, there exists a general antipathy to government and preference for the free professions or commerce. There was also a consensus that the relatively low salaries of the public service compared to those of the private sector, notably in fields like computer programming, is an important factor in the hiring equation.

The impact of downsizing

There was a clear recognition of the impact of downsizing. Participants seemed well aware of the implications for the employment equity program of the current freeze in the hiring of indeterminate employees and the loss of long-term security in the public service. And the fact that much of the recruitment which is occurring is at the clerical level was pinpointed by participants in the focus groups as a disincentive for the brightest and best of visible minority university graduates.

Image and climate

The general image of the federal public service was another factor highlighted by participants in the focus groups. There was a sense of decline in the already low prestige of public service jobs caused in great measure by "public service bashing" on the part of politicians and the media.

There were also references to the climate that is perceived to exist regarding visible minorities in the federal public service. It is felt that the corporate culture does not foster an equity program designed for them and that it is doubtful whether there is commitment at the top. Indeed, visible minority participants raised questions and expressed scepticism as to whether the present study would result in anything worthwhile.

4.3 Access to job information

The perception of most participants is of a near absence of accessible official information about jobs for which candidates from outside the federal public service can apply. The social or friendship network is seen to be the main effective source of information, and potential visible minority candidates tend to be excluded from this network. This view is supported by the evidence from the questionnaires that, in comparison with control group participants, a higher percentage of visible minority participants received job information through advertisements. The control group had a higher percentage who accessed job information through word of mouth -- an indicator of the impact of kinship and friendship networks. In short, information on jobs appears to be less available or accessible to potential visible minority candidates, particularly since there is little or no advertising in the media for positions to be filled.

4.4 Lack of accountability

A large proportion of visible minority participants believe that only "lip service" is paid to the employment equity program, and "we do not witness positive results." Employment equity is talked about but not enforced: "What we have here is just smoke." As a result, these observers state that the employment equity program should be monitored by an outside body -- an independent body that reports to Parliament. There is a widespread feeling that a strict regime of accountability must be established in order to ensure active and timely implementation of the policy.

4.5 Labour market supply

The focus group participants identified a number of factors that affect the supply side of the labour market regarding visible minorities and their participation in the public service. Among them are:

• the nature of public service work, which certain groups may view as insufficiently challenging;
• competition from the private sector which has realized the value of skills possessed by visible minorities;
• the fact that some visible minorities seek work in very specialized fields and are concentrated in certain occupations -- a fact that affects the composition of the available workforce;
• the influence of "culture-based" interest and training in certain occupations (e.g. the free professions) and not in others among certain visible minority groups;
• the perceived absence of consistent statements (e.g. in advertisements) that the federal government is an employment equity employer; and
• the fact that for some departments, most of the jobs are in locations with small visible minority populations.

4.6 Recruitment

The participants brought out a number of issues that are relevant to recruitment itself. Among them were:

• the absence of a clear, public commitment to employment equity for visible minorities (in contrast to the Memorandum of Understanding that has been drawn up regarding Aboriginal Peoples);
• poor recruitment strategies, i.e. limited university recruiting and very little use of the Internet to announce vacancies/competitions;
• an almost exclusive focus on term appointments;
• limited and selective impact of the "word of mouth" information system;
• "mirror image" recruitment by managers -- searching for people like themselves who "they can trust" and the alleged practice of changing the required qualifications to suit particular candidates;
• the lack of cross-cultural education of hiring officers;
• the problem of equivalencies of foreign credentials and an over-emphasis on credentialism; and
• alleged fake or rigged competitions.

We were told by a large segment of all public service employees that there is a perception of nepotism and bureaucratic patronage -- creating an environment in which visible minorities, who have not traditionally been "in the loop," find it more difficult to compete.

The lack of cross-cultural education among officers has its effect, participants argued, not in the hiring process itself, but rather in the barriers caused by the negative attitudes towards visible minority applicants harboured by those doing the hiring. The problem of equivalencies flows from the undervaluing of foreign credentials and experience. There is, also, a rigid attitude on the part of those hiring against educational requirements that do not "follow the orthodox path", as one participant put it: that is, reading for degrees or diplomas rather than taking a series of courses that do not necessarily lead to such certification.

Other factors mentioned by some focus group members were:

• the management style of senior public service managers who do not place importance on employment equity;
• the barriers created by organizational culture like the fear that since resources are scarce, managers cannot take a chance on visible minority candidates;
• management's lack of awareness of the special measures program;
• a need for more flexibility in hiring, and
• the negative effect of official languages policies at higher levels since access to language training is limited.  

4.7 Hiring

A number of comments were made regarding the hiring process proper, especially related to the relationship between those who hire and those who are hired. The proposition advanced by a number of participants is that since those who are hiring are looking for like-minded individuals -- the alleged "mirror image" recruitment referred to above -- and since few visible minorities are involved in the hiring process, their chances of being hired are minimal.

In recalling their job interviews, the percentage of visible minority participants who said that they were asked questions unrelated to the position for which they were competing was twice the percentage of control group participants with similar recollections. It was also stated that the competitive process in the federal public service is foreign to many visible minorities. There appears to be a lack of understanding of the process and of the language of the job descriptions. Participants argued that, generally, visible minority candidates do well in the examination but have a hard time in the rest of the process, especially in meeting "personal suitability" requirements, which are perceived as key determinant. A major deterrent to greater hiring of visible minority applicants is said to be a fear on the part of departments and agencies of a possible backlash if hiring of visible minorities is actively promoted.

4.8 Composition of selection boards

The composition of selection boards was also discussed by employees who participated in the study. The proportion of visible minority participants who had served on a selection board was only about half the proportion of control group participants with comparable experience (see Chart 2). Several visible minority participants observed that:

• the composition of those boards does not reflect the diversity of the workforce and the boards consequently lack the "cultural education" which would enable them to understand the background, the silent language (including the body language) of immigrant and visible minority candidates;
• the boards are often manipulated by "remote control" by senior managers or board chairs have the results overturned or the competition annulled if things do not turn out as planned.  

In short, most competitions were seen by visible minority participants as a "fake" or a "fraud" since the candidates were thought to have been pre-selected. In addition, it was noted that since there are few visible minority managers, they are seldom members of hiring boards.

4.9 Screening

The vast majority of visible minority participants seemed to think that foreign-earned qualifications and experience were undervalued. We were also told by some visible minority participants that one's name can be a factor; they found it helpful to change their "foreign sounding" names in order to get at least an interview call. It was also asserted that accent is used as a pretext of screening out visible minority candidates under the rubric of "effective interpersonal communication."

4.10 Selection

We received comments on aspects of the machinery used and the procedures adopted in selection that are deemed to be prejudicial to the hiring of visible minorities.

The role of kinship and friendship

We were told that "old boys" and "new girls" networks (from which visible minorities are mostly excluded) are the real avenues of access since informal "chat chat" and social interaction are often determining factors in interviews and that nepotism is rampant (e.g. there is hiring of spouses, partners and siblings).

It was also noted that some hiring is done through outside personnel agencies that rarely recruit minorities.

Specifications and tests

Participants spoke of a rising curve of complicated requirements for relatively simple jobs; some pointed to a perceived accompanying paradox: "the higher the post the less specific the requirement". In short, the non-visible minority candidates seem to face less demanding criteria for better-paying and more interesting jobs.

It is alleged by many visible minority participants that entry level tests are often culturally-biased. It was said that supposedly objective tests (e.g., in-basket tests) are open to very subjective interpretation of answers that tend to reflect an Anglo-Celtic way of doing things. Questions were raised about the appropriateness of the role-playing used in "behaviour interviews": it was sometimes described as aggressive and inappropriate. More generally, there were complaints about inappropriate tests being administered to clerical and other staff that, in the words of one senior and well-experienced manager, result in "persons highly praised for their competence in doing their jobs failing them." The criticism voiced was that these and other tests are too generic: that is, too largely based on general knowledge rather than knowledge specific to the jobs in question. The feeling, in the words of one participant, was that the "general competency test is problematic - some people are scored wrong."

An operational point regarding equivalencies was flagged: the assessment of the equivalence of qualifications earned abroad takes too long and many of those involved in the assessment process do not know how to evaluate them.

4.11 Personal suitability

Possibly the single aspect of hiring most often cited as an issue by visible minority participants was "personal suitability". This criterion can be one of the determining factors in competitions, and is perceived to be purely subjective. The elements include considerations that reflect the "personal chemistry" between the manager and a pre-selected candidate who is then given an automatic edge. Some focus group participants reported that a few visible minority candidates for internal competitions were being told that they lost those competitions by one point based on personal suitability.

4.12 Workplace environment

Visible minority participants and those from the control group had slightly divergent views on working conditions in the federal public service. Of those responding to our questionnaires, both groups agreed by a two-thirds majority that working conditions in the public service are not conducive to a higher level of production or achievement. However, twice as many visible minority participants as members of the control group felt that the working conditions discriminate against or create obstacles for visible minority employees.

Particularly noteworthy about the visible minority employee perspectives was the spontaneous mention of a negative climate, and the eagerness with which participants wanted to deal with this factor. We also received many written comments on this topic from visible minority respondents to the questionnaires.

With respect to arrangements for fair and equitable treatment of visible minority employees, one of the most revealing remarks made during the focus group discussions was a query made only partly in jest when the matter of a regime for the fair and equitable treatment of visible minority employees was broached: "Is this the comedy section?"

The overall conclusion among participants was that if there had been fair and equitable treatment for visible minority employees there would be no need for special measures. In fact, several examples were cited of mistreatment or harassment, both subtle and less so. The machinery for handling complaints in the public service was considered by participants to be ineffective.

Three out of five visible minority employees and half of the control group, as seen in Annex 2, believe that employment equity and human rights policies enhance the quality of the workplace. As far as the overall atmosphere is concerned, the view was expressed by some visible minority respondents that there is a lack of communication in general on employment equity and that resistance to accommodating visible minority employees is common. According to one observer, management seems warm and open in a private setting, but visible minorities are ignored in the public setting: "hot and cold treatment", as the person phrased it. In this person's view, there is a lot of stereotyping, leading to a misunderstanding of visible minorities. This summarizes many comments we got from different quarters.

4.13 Promotion

Chart 3 shows what proportion of visible minority employees were in the same position since entry compared to the control group. More than a third of the former were in the same position as when they were hired, while less than a quarter of the latter were. It needs to be mentioned here that visible minority employees were in the public service for a somewhat shorter duration, but not short enough, it would seem, to explain the full difference.          Chart 4 shows that more than twice the percentage of control group participants had received three or more promotions in the last seven years compared to the visible minority participants. During the same period, a higher percentage of the control group had lateral moves or assignments and if they did not, it was most often by choice. The same is true of acting positions at a higher level; more than three quarters of the control group had such opportunities compared to less than three out of five for visible minorities, as seen in           Chart 5. In both groups roughly the same number had applied for competitions in the last seven years.

The share of promotional opportunities seemed to be the subject uppermost in the minds of almost all visible minority participants in the group discussions. The consensus was that visible minority employees hit a "glass ceiling" by mid-career, some much earlier. There were several testimonies of one or two promotions over twenty years, even where initial appointments were at low levels given the incumbents' qualifications.

Nearly half of the visible minority participants and one-fifth of the control group participants answering the questionnaire could identify policies and/or practices in the promotion process that discouraged visible minority employees. The factors most often mentioned both on questionnaires and in discussions were the "buddy system" or the impact of ties of friendship and kinship. It is said that the informal system is the operative one: "If you don't mingle you are out of it." In this regard, it is perhaps instructive that three quarters of both groups answering the questionnaires felt that the best qualified candidates do not receive promotions.

The view was also put forward that regionalisation of competitions is a "set-up" to limit or exclude those who are outside a given region. The impact of acting appointments was also stressed. They are said to give an edge to incumbents in competitions for those jobs. As mentioned above, responses to the questionnaires indicate more members of the control group than visible minority respondents have had acting appointments. Many visible minority participants in the focus groups stated that visible minority employees do not get these assignments. One asked: "If you cannot get the acting assignment, how are you going to get the appointment?"

Another factor indicated is the practice of making appointments without competition and posting notices after the event. When there are competitions, there is, in the opinion of a large proportion of participants in the focus groups, too much emphasis on the interview rather than on the candidate's work record. Twice the proportion of visible minority participants as control group participants felt that interview questions were not related to the position.There is a feeling on the part of virtually all visible minority employees who participated in the study that they must work considerably harder -- estimates range from twice to ten times harder -- in order to gain recognition and to be considered worthy of promotions. The perception is that this affects acting appointments since their non-visible minority counterparts who are "number two in actual merit" seem "to get the breaks".

Some participants mentioned what might be called self-exclusion. The suggestion is that some visible minority potential candidates for promotion get discouraged because they are not regarded by others as competent and take themselves out of the competition process. Questionnaire results reveal that a higher proportion of visible minority participants than control group participants refrained from applying for promotion competitions because they thought the competition process was unfair and they had no chance of winning (as seen in Chart 6). It was put bluntly in one focus group: "visible minorities are afraid to try for promotions, so they do not bother."

The sense of being excluded by others was reported by several participants. The assertion was that one can feel that one is "not wanted in the clique." Others said that "you need to play bridge, hockey and belong to the Rotary Club" to get along. It was suggested that this type of social interaction off the job helps other employees acquire the credentials for promotion: "You need experience at a higher level to access high level positions. But acting positions are given to buddies. People take care of themselves first."

A number of other obstacles to upward mobility of visible minority employees were cited in the focus groups in particular. Managers were often said to assign visible minority staff to do innovative or "clean-up" jobs temporarily but never appoint them to these positions on an indeterminate basis despite very positive appraisals. Some participants claimed that managers in particular departments effectively "punish" visible minority staff for their productivity, keeping them at low levels, with the rationale that they are efficient and therefore indispensable.

How promotion competitions are lost is said to be sometimes perplexing to visible minority candidates. One often repeated source of puzzlement, mentioned earlier, has been the loss of competitions by one point on the grounds of personal suitability - a fact mentioned by several participants in focus groups. Other occurrences strike many participants as constituting "subtle but definite discrimination." These include the cancellation of boards -- with no right of appeal; the refusal "to extend the life" of eligibility lists; and the dissolution of boards where management does not get the candidates it wants. Participants argued that the successful candidates are frequently those that have been hand-picked by senior management. The ultimate irony, some participants said, is that visible minority staff are often asked to train (non-visible minority) winners of competitions in which they were judged the losers.

The perceived psychological climate in which visible minority aspirations are allegedly being thwarted was described by one person as follows: "If I am competing with a white person, I have to be exceptional to be qualified...White people do not want visible minorities to do too much." In that person's judgment no one takes the time to understand, so the visible minority employees are stuck in their jobs.

4.14 Visible minorities in the management category

An issue of particular concern to participants was access to the management or executive category by visible minority employees. Both visible minority and control group participants were articulate in their diagnosis of barriers against such access.

These barriers are said to include:

• the need to be a "whole" or "real" Canadian person;
• the need to be bilingual;
• the suggestion that colleagues are not yet ready to accept visible minorities in the category;
• management's lack of commitment despite the rhetoric;
• the myth that the visible minority employees are not well trained;
• the failure on the part of senior management to recognize the education and training of visible minority employees;
• the decline in the availability of management positions as a result of downsizing; and
• the suggestion that merit is not the first consideration.

In a more general sense, the following additional factors were identified: a lack of information regarding available programs and developmental opportunities; the alleged lack of networking skills on the part of the visible minority aspirants; an absence of information on processes; lack of visible minority role models; lack of acceptance by management and employees once appointed; communication difficulties, particularly among foreign-born visible minorities; possible "racist attitudes" of older executives who have not worked with visible minorities; the definition of "managers" and "leaders"; and the perceived absence of employee knowledge of the staffing process.

Perhaps the perceived plight of visible minority aspirants for middle and senior management positions was best put by an unsuccessful candidate for a senior position who, noting the absence of a visible minority professional in the management cadre of the occupational group, observed: "I may not be good, but is no one?"

The thread running through our discussions was that there is no accountability in the system for the conduct of boards that have "variable" practices, mostly inimical to the prospects for promotion of visible minority public servants.

4.15 Comfort in the environment of the workplace

The visible minority participants in the study were less comfortable in the workplace than members of the control group. This state of unease was attributed to a number of factors.

Some of these relate to perceptions about "entitlement": the implication that when a visible minority person secures a job in the federal public service it is seen as a favour offered by the white "establishment", not a right of citizenship or an achievement based on merit. Participants also suggested that there exists a fear at the political and managerial levels that one day visible minorities will hold too much power ("I may be supervised by a visible minority person".) However, the problem is said to be primarily with the older generation; the younger generation of public service managers is considered to be more receptive to change.

Another group of factors could be dubbed "psychological." They include the feeling, cited by visible minority participants, of being "beaten down", of hitting "walls" as distinct from merely going through hoops and, for some, of lacking psychological support. One participant noted that this lack of support, due in part to the absence of a critical mass of visible minority employees, results in certain issues and incidents being ignored or swept aside. Without the numbers, there is a hesitation to approach certain sensitive issues.

Some attitudinal factors that were mentioned relate to the concept and implementation of the employment equity program; the feeling on the part of some visible minority employees that the term visible minorities "has a negative connotation... there is a hurdle in that alone"; a negative perception of targets by visible minorities themselves and others; the fear in departments and agencies of backlash; a perception on the part of visible minority employees that only "lip service" is paid to the employment equity program; the growing perception that visible minority candidates who win competitions, especially promotional ones, only do so because they belong to a designated group; and the absence of an organizational climate that would allow visible minorities to take their proper place.

Other factors include perceived cultural differences. According to the majority of visible minority participants, assertiveness, when it comes to them, is seen as "aggressiveness". They also allege differential treatment of complainants; "if one complains one is seen as a trouble-maker"; if there is a complaint against you it is flagged but if it is against a non-visible minority colleague it is said that the person made "an error".

Participants spoke in general terms of the presence of prejudice and racial discrimination in the organizational culture and a "laissez-faire" attitude when it comes to the application of anti-discrimination policies, noting that managers do not receive adequate training in the field.

At the more technical level, many visible minority participants noted the under-valuing of their knowledge: the failure to recognize them by either praise or pay for the foreign language skills they employ in their work beyond those officially required in job specifications; the ghettoisation of visible minority employees because they do not fit an organizational culture that is based on career planning and the "image" of the corporate culture; and the lack of developmental positions and mentors.

The feeling of discomfort was also attributed by visible minority participants to: past discrimination on the basis of race; the very hierarchical nature of the service -- where even in small departments and agencies there exists a sort of "folie de grandeur"; the isolation of visible minority employees spread out at lower levels with no leaders; the annoyance of well-educated persons caught in lower level jobs finding themselves supervised by "grade 10 dropouts" in need of a "cultural education" and the sense of frustration and disappointment about promotional prospects that led one person contemplating departure to say "I would rather go home and bake cookies than stay in a brain-dead job."

Sadly, very few visible minority employees who participated in the study seemed inclined to recommend a career in the public service to young people of their acquaintance.

Summary: Chapter 4

Employee Perspectives

This chapter summarizes the perspectives of both visible minority and control group employees who participated in the study. The information was obtained through questionnaires and focus group discussions.

• Visible minority employees believe that diversity is still not accepted by management as beneficial to the public service and that genuine commitment is lacking. Participants were skeptical about achieving real equity.
• The public service climate is perceived as unresponsive and even hostile to visible minority candidates and employees. Participants detected a profound resistance to change and a tendency to keep visible minority employees in subordinate positions.
• Hiring and promotion processes were seen, in many cases, as being manipulated to favour those who were part of the right networks.
• The main factors cited as barriers to equitable hiring and promotion were:
  •  culturally biased selection processes;
  •  language requirements;
  •  the emphasis on subjective assessments of  "Personal suitability"; and
  •  denigration of foreign credentials;
• There was also some feeling that visible minority members are discouraged from entering the public service as a result of cultural preferences with respect to employment choices, and negative feedback from community members already employed in the public service. The general demoralization and lack of opportunity within a downsizing environment were also mentioned.

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page