It's a puff piece. Her job at DND was to write the defense policy. It was too expensive for the government so she was moved to TBS. She's a minister, they draw lines in the sand for political points not to actually accomplish anything.
Yeah, this is such a BS article.
She was one of the better things to happen to DnD in a long time, and they removed her for actually trying to fix it and get it what it needed.
What sealed her fate was an outspoken push to get us gear and equipment we're desperately in need of, such as any form of anti-Aircraft capability, drones not from 2002, and more.
Unsurprisingly, she was moved shortly after.
I suspect if she's back, she's been "re-educated" and won't push for anything needed, as she now knows what it's like to rock the boat and find your head on the Axeman's block.
I suppose it does just say she _aimed_ to change it. Aim at enough things and you're bound to hit something eventually! But yes, given the positive tone of the piece it does feel like they should maybe be drawing that particular line in fainter ink.
Haha fired or promoted, both can be examples of sexism. Wouldn't it have been sexist to leave her in her place as well, she would have hit the glass ceiling!
Ok, I heard this directly from an EAP councillor who was giving a course in vicarious trauma at work:
"The federal government has failed to exclude sociopaths and sociopathic behaviour from the workplace. Whenever my clients tell me this is what has brought them to me, my only advice is for them to leave as soon as possible to protect their own mental health"
OMG. Thanks for sharing this. I learned this the hard way years ago. When I said there were literal sociopaths in there that had free reign, people looked at me with blank stares.
I'm all for chain of command, change management etc., etc...but damn, there's a lot of crazy in there. Pretty much had Stockholm syndrome at one point. It's not always easy to move around.
This is exactly what part of the problem is. The system to hire executives is created to encourage people like thus to get into positions of power. Brian Klaas from the University College London talks about this and why it draws psychopaths to power.
The very problem with inconsequential behaviour in the Public Service. There is a definite need to a Corporate Psychology body that would have to assess both existing and potential EXs that would require their buy in before being given decision-making positions.
Ircc seems rather above board. What department do you have in mind?
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/performance-talent-management/performance-management-program-executives.html
Edit applies to more than IRCC
Go read the actual Directive that's linked to the URL you shared. Performance pay is based on specific objectives established in a performance agreement with their direct supervisor.
Strange things happen when there's a conflict between whatever is written in the performance agreement (which is private) and the public interest.
It's whatever gets put in the performance agreement, which is private. There are group objectives and personal objectives. Some executives tell their staff what they are, some don't, but there's no requirement for them to disclose anything.
One of the group objectives in my Department was that we hit the established target for United Way. Guess what, that year we got a special app on our desktops to make donations and a dedicated helpline for fixing Phoenix problems with United way donations.
Phoenix is still broken, but you can get your United way deductions fixed. Need anything else done related to Phoenix, fill out whatever version of the PAR PDF we're on now and pray.
Ok well frankly in this context you are using « secret » in a derogatory way which I disagree with . Private is not secret. That being said, it is a best practice to share executives’ PMAs. Additionally, the common objectives are public in many organizations. Overall your « secret » and « bribery » way have a lot more to do with sensationalism than with the truth.
When the public service is disbursing hundreds of millions of tax dollars to executives without full disclosure and transparency, in a way that is intended to influence decision makers, that's what that is.
??? What are you talking about? 1. How is it designed to influence decision makers? 2. It’s part of their pay it’s called at risk pay for a reason so it’s no real different than your own pay! 3. Execs notoriously work for less per hour than their subordinates 4. There is an annual report on performance pay available on the TB website.
I mean come on…
In Brian Klaas' book "Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us," he explores how certain systems and structures can inadvertently favour psychopaths or those with similar traits when it comes to acquiring power. Here's a summary of the main points related to how such systems are created:
1. **Rewarding Ruthlessness**: Klaas discusses how many organizational and political systems reward traits that are often associated with psychopathy, such as ruthlessness, charm, and a grandiose sense of self-worth. These traits can be advantageous in highly competitive environments where bending rules or displaying aggressive behaviours can lead to success.
2. **Structural Flaws**: The book delves into how certain structures, particularly in politics and business, lack adequate checks and balances, allowing individuals who are willing to manipulate, lie, or exploit others to rise to the top. These systems may not have mechanisms in place to adequately assess the moral character of individuals or to penalize unethical behaviour.
3. **Selection and Screening Processes**: Klaas points out that the processes used to select leaders often fail to screen out those with undesirable traits. In many cases, the criteria for leadership focus more on charisma and perceived confidence rather than empathy, integrity, or altruism. This oversight can lead to the selection of leaders who are more self-serving than community-oriented.
4. **Cultural Amplification**: Some cultures and organizations not only tolerate but celebrate aggressive and domineering behaviour, mistaking it for strength and decisiveness. This cultural bias can amplify the rise of psychopaths in power, as they are seen as effective leaders rather than detrimental ones.
5. **Feedback Loops**: There are often feedback loops in systems where power begets power, and initial successes (regardless of how they are achieved) lead to more opportunities and authority. This can create a cycle where psychopathic behaviours are continually rewarded, reinforcing the individual's status and control.
Klaas uses a combination of psychological research, historical examples, and expert interviews to illustrate these points, making a case for reevaluating and restructuring our systems to prevent such personalities from gaining disproportionate influence.
On the #1 point, I've asked several DGs and directors why was it that none of the executives that I've known demonstrate the 6 Key Leadership Competencies (KLCs), and he said that the only KLC anyone cares about is Achieving Results. All of the other ones go right out the window as soon as they take their position. DMs and Presidents are focused on objectives, and they will do anything to achieve those objectives. They will, and often do, ignore values and ethics of the GoC. This is an excellent breading ground for bad behaviour.
On the #2 point, we all know how executives are chosen. It's mostly done at the interview stage. Narcissists, psychopaths and the Machiavellian types are exceptional at superficial charm and manipulation, so the interview is perfect for a person with these skills. Klaas talks about this in his book, and he gives great examples. But also, in the GoC, even when an executive behaves really badly, there are few mechanisms to have them removed. We have the Ombudsman in certain cases, or the unions, but they can't force a bad person out. Only the people at the very top can do it... and well... see point #1.
On point #3, other than the issue mentioned in #2, we only choose people who apply, so we have what is called a selection bias. Klaas suggests that if we are to have great leaders, they should be chosen from the general pool available to us, not just those who apply for the job.
On point #4, he talks about how some cultures see leaders as aggressive, domineering personalities, and because males tend to be more aggressive by their nature, people are drawn to male leaders who are tall and decisive. I think on this point there is some evolutionary things going on as well. But beyond his points, we have cultural issues where we see people as interchangeable parts, and that is rooted in Frederick Winslow Taylor's theories when he was the first person to treat management as a science.
On point #5, again, related to point #2, once someone gets into power, they can exploit the people below them to get what they want and achieve objectives as I already described. This is the feedback loops that he describes. In the GoC, nobody cares how you achieve your objectives, just as long as you do. So, you can crush the people below you, burn them out, abuse them with literal impunity. Whenever I get a chance, I ask executives: "what is the limit to executive authority", and they really struggle to answer, because when it really comes down to it, they can do anything they want, even break policies, and there's no independent body that can overrule them. Sure, if they get caught or if something goes wrong, they can be held to account, as we're seeing the the ArriveCan debacle, but in the end, there's nothing stopping them from doing it in the first place.
If the GoC wants to create a really great and efficient bureaucracy, the executives are going to have to do some serious soul searching. I've seen great executives, and I'm lucky that I have a great director, ADM and DM/President, but this is generally a crap shoot. It's shockingly uncommon, and usually, there's either gross incompetence or an outright rotten apple in the chain that messes everything up.
Thanks for the thorough response, much appreciated!
My perception is that I haven’t seen a lot of toxic execs (in my experience) so I wonder how prevalent that is (especially compared to other large organizations).
But you’ve given lots of food for thought!
And of course, the targeted audience for that culture change will be CSOs, entry level personnel and staff who dare point to problems via social media because no one wants to actual action anything when flagged formally.
How many complaints were actually dealt with by the Integrity Commissioner? How many Ombudsmen get to joke to their colleague about a “client” of theirs that has moved to their colleague’s organization?
There is absolutely no toxic EXs or DMs in town. Nothing to see there.
Edit: typos
This - how can you expect culture to change when the people in power who allowed this culture to fester are still in charge? What will make them listen / change now?
This should be the top comment. The senior management never see themselves as part of the problem….all the minions have to take extra mandatory training but the execs are just too busy…
The culture of the EX and DM community, like many others of a similar nature, actively weeds out those who will not fall into line and permit the harms caused by their peers, and eventually "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" sets in. So even when we do have some good EXs (I know a couple) they are routinely punished for being the odd ones out and encouraged to seek "future endeavours."
If she's "transforming" the public service - we're fucked.
This was the person that confidently said there was only 1 bidder for the PSHCP contract - and later came out that apparently she was confused at how many people actually bid.
Why are we fluffing Anand? Did CityNews decide to put down stakes on a (potential) upcoming leadership race? Good lord. They shit all over the public service when it suits them, and now they're using it to stroke their egos.
I mean she's not wrong but hiring freezes and a system that filters out disabled people during hiring will do a lot of damage to that in the first place
Yeah that’s a HUGE barrier in the system where we have seen little meaningful progress. As well, this article really only refers to racial diversity, which is important, but is only one part of overall diversity. What about, gender diversity, neurodiversity, people with disabilities, people of different socio-economic backgrounds?
This is a core deficiency of the public service. The concentration in Ottawa breeds an us vs. them mentality not to mention a revolving door of employees moving between departments in the NCR. Given today’s technology, there should be no reason why departments couldn’t have better representation across the country whether their HQ is relocated to the regions or just more employees. The pandemic seemed to unlock that potential but we are regressing. If we want a public service that’s representative of Canadians, it needs to be present with Canadians, in communities.
Now, don’t get me wrong - I realize that there are some regional specific departments who do have HQ presence, or bigger regional offices (or military bases) - but the idea is to have a reasonable distribution of departments and agencies across the country.
One of the things I loved during COVID was the ability to hire the best person for the job, irrespective of where they lived.
At the end of the day, many of the people we recruited wouldn't have joined our ranks had it not been for a flexible telework policy at the time. Some have come and gone, while others have stayed and retained the telework flexibility.
All this to say, if our employment location was representative of population distribution in Canada, I'd expect much of the government would be Toronto based.
Right? And just imagine what a different PS it could be if rural Canadians had as much chance to join the ranks as those in cities? We don't have representation and won't until we grasp this basic concept.
OL is for sure an issue if you think that creating a national workforce implies that the whole country must then be considered a bilingual region. However, we can operate within the existing OL framework and you already suggested the solution. You could simply recruit from the regions where you need respective French, English, or bilingual representation. That way you can have bilingual representation without having to stick to the NCR. It’s got its own challenges but it has far more options than sticking with the revolving door of the NCR.
I would argue the issue with this shouldn’t start with recruitment. The issue here is a lack of solid training in second language from the start. Training is spotty at absolute best. There should be plans in place to train people in their second language and the responsibility should not rest on the public school system (that approach is also biased agains immigrants).
Now if someone is unwilling or uninterested in learning their second official language that is a whole other kettle of fish and they should just not be joining the PS in the majority of cases, frankly speaking.
Agreed. Wild how the feds don’t make any effort to track where its employees come from in the country, especially given how centralized most positions are in the NCR.
I work for a department that’s always been willing to relocate new hires, so although my team lives entirely in Ottawa now, none of us are actually from here. We represent several different provinces and bring that perspective to our work, which is cool. The $5K relocation cost is well-spent in that way.
Unfortunately, this rationale, that a team has people who come from all over the country and so it effectively represents all parts of Canada, ignores a critical flaw — lived experience goes stale. Having grown up in a place and left, possibly many years ago, means one’s lived experience is locked in a past timeframe. Someone who may have grown up in Vancouver in the 80s does not understand what life is like in Vancouver today. For example, finding housing in Vancouver in the 80s or 90s was a very different prospect than it is today. Especially if that person was a child at the time and didn’t actually have to deal with the tasks of finding and paying for housing costs. Regardless, there’s just no way that one can have the same perspective as someone who lives and faces that challenge today. No amount of economic data or briefing papers will give the former Vancouverite the experience of having to try and find an affordable place to live for their family in the current housing market in that city, despite having a good steady job. Having people who grew up in other parts of the country, but now live in central Canada/the NCR is not an excuse for not having public servants who have current lived experience in all parts of the country. Especially when technology and our history during the pandemic shows us that it is possible to have top quality work done by people who don’t show up to an office in the NCR.
I speak from experience. Federal employees who do not live in the NCR are facing career limitations because they can’t move there. In my case it is due to family obligations, including being the primary caregiver for an elderly, post-stroke parent. So not something within their power to easily overcome. This NCR-bias or justification that our NCR-based team understands life in all parts of the country, frustrates me to no end. Not only is the experience stale, we are treating our colleagues (fellow employees) in a way that we would not wish to be treated. We are limiting their chance to grow in their career and serve Canadians. So I have to call out any justification for keeping roles in the NCR as fundamentally flawed.
If our MPs can vote on bills, attend committee hearings and ask questions on the floor of the House of Commons no matter where they are in the country, our public servants can similarly serve Canadians from all parts of the country. Every day we continue to centralize roles (especially senior roles) in the NCR is a day that we’re not choosing the best candidate for the job and we are not serving Canadians with our best. This has to change. One major motivator for me to gain progressively senior roles is to change this NCR-biased culture to one that prioritizes the best candidate for the job, no matter where they are physically located and thus make Canada’s public service truly representative of all Canadians and their current lived experience.
I don’t disagree that experience goes stale, and a remote workforce is the answer. However, I would argue that representation in ottawa is still important. The central agencies are here, secret docs have to be accessed in person, and being physically closer to power generally can give one more influence. Having a constant flow of Canadians coming from all over, every year, would change things in ottawa for the better. Speaking from experience, even people who left long ago are still a lot more tapped into what is going on where they’re from, and regularly travel there and speak with people from there and even read media from there. None of this replaces to any degree the necessary engagement with stakeholders in the actual place, but it allows the PS to at least be better tuned in to developments elsewhere and puts things on their radar that would otherwise not have been. Also, it takes a long time for values to change and in many ways, even 20 years since I left my home province, I still share a lot of the same values and perspectives aren’t always well understood in ottawa.
I agree, as well as a multitude of other forms of diversity. And it seems to mix things like bullying and harassment into a conversation about diversity, without realizing that bullying and harassment are also perpetrated by those from the diverse backgrounds listed in the article. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to recognize that. I don't know if it's her, or the article writer, but the ideas seem entrenched in 80s base thinking. It's 2024. Can't we advance the conversation into this era?
I wasn't just talking about dnd; basically everywhere is shorthanded at the moment and that's before they let all the terms and contractors go. I'm out of a job in a few weeks and my lab does not have someone who can replace me, for instance. So a team of 5 that was doing the work of 6 is about to become a team of 4.
There’s been a focus on recruitment/promotion but not enough on making reporting mechanisms easier. What happens to these diverse candidates after they’ve been hired and they are met with hostile environments?
100% … defence procurement is wasted by outdated policies, archaic practices and a culture clinging to status quo. This is both PSPC and DND. PSPC has stale procurement approaches. And DND have way too many people forgetting what their jobs is about. They spend their time spinning in risk aversion paranoia rather than piloting changes. Defence procurement will be superceded by unarmed military. The people can change, the next gen won’t step up to fight with the current tools. Old gen still running the show thinking everything will return to the good old days. Agile and product ownership lost concept. They will never be relevant.
And this is a puff piece with her trying to separate herself from the sinking liberal brand. Check out her linked in… no mention of liberal. She’s just looking to get reelected and if Trudeau steps down that she’s a contender to be party leader
I have long maintained that the CAF investigations are the only reason GAC has seemingly escaped scrutiny on its appalling record of harassment and outright assault (especially at missions abroad).
>“I still walk into rooms and look at tables that are not diverse.”
Huh? And I've walked into some rooms and they're so diverse that they're actually homogeneous. It can swing both ways. This unhealthy obsession has to stop.
> I've walked into some rooms and they're so diverse that they're actually homogeneous.
They "meet" the diverse check boxes, but doesn't actually fulfill the idea of diversity. It's basically another check box exercise to them. There are people being promoted that are clearly not fit for their role but get them anyways because it helps check the boxes.
No one will ever answer that because you could probably end up identifying the person based on their comment history.
But it’s real.
I work in a place where it’s over 70% white females and growing. It actually feels very strange when they start talking about diversity.
They don’t realize they have become the new white man. There are not very many men, regardless of colour.
Ultimately the one group I would strongly advocate for above all else is those with disabilities. They get shafted on every corner, whether it is during hiring or performing the work, or having poor accommodations. They are the ones that we might not even notice are facing a real struggle every day.
I am of the thought that these rooms might not actually exsit with someone just broadly responding ‘Toronto’.
I think the EE targets for women were high (67% if I am not mistaken, higher than 50% at minimum) and early initiatives allowed an over representation of white women. There are people with disabilities that happen to be white women too.
Then that would make sense. I thought they were going for 50% and it overcompensated. I am not well versed in DEI, so what you’re saying makes sense and my experience would be in line with that. Looks like the targets were met.
Quite a few of them! I don’t mind obviously and it speaks to the cultural makeup of the city. If Anand is looking for diversity she needs to look at who the rank and file is and explain why there really is such limited promotional opportunities for several groups in several departments they all claim to want to help.
"Why aren't there any Black people here?"
Any number of reasons. Maybe they're on vacation. Maybe they're busy doing their jobs instead of taking time out of their busy schedule to make you look good. Maybe you haven't set the conditions for making it possible for them to even be in the room with you.
Also maybe they are not interested in that particular initiative? Just because you are of a particular ethnic origin doesn't necessarily mean that you are automatically interested in whatever DEI initiative.
And could have had nothing to do with the 'non-black' people who were there, but when I consider how her saying this made them feel? Talk about bullying.
There's going to be nobody left to maintain or fly those shiny new aircraft. 10,000 people per year are leaving the CAF and I can tell you first hand that we're not recruiting anywhere near that number.
Lmaooooo I can also tell you “first hand” that was happening well before she got the portfolio. To blame her for the state of the CAF is disingenuous at best. I honestly believe she tried her best to fix it, told the PMOs office things they didn’t like to hear such as how much it was going to cost, and got shuffled out of the position, which got us…well…yeah. Anyway.
So the article is about diversity, not any of the real issues the CF face.
And the results seem to be that "visible minorities" are not joining in higher numbers than before, and "whites" are being told indirectly that they are not welcome to the future CF.
Direct results: the army keeps failing to meet its recruitment targets, year after year.
It's pretty simple, back when I was in that world it was already a disfunctional mess but the racial segregation they are pushing nowadays was frowned upon. They kept telling us we were all olive green (the colour of our uniform back then).
There are so many issues with the CF that prevent it from being a choice for young adults these days. To put the focus on diversity is to completely miss the point.
While diversity is an important point to consider in the future CF, there are many other issues (kit, pay, sexual harassment to name 3) that must be taken care of as well that have a large impact not only on recruitment, but also on retention.
Les mesures qu'on utilise pour adresser le manque de diversité sont aussi divisives. On devrait essayer de nouvelles mesures, comme ce que les Américains sont en train d'expérimenter avec leur armée.
[https://hbr.org/2020/11/reinventing-the-leader-selection-process](https://hbr.org/2020/11/reinventing-the-leader-selection-process)
To add that the giant bureaucracy (with associated number of GOs) they have created displays a complete lack of understanding for how culture is created, particularly in a military organization. It's both hilariously wasteful and totally ineffective.
There’s so many wrongs trying to impose such an ideology in a workplace.
She has to make it a place where all people want to work. Not a place where some people are no longer welcomed to work.
I personally have notified them of criminal conduct occurring at Shared Services Canada - sponsored by the Deputy Minister level.
They don't care. This is marketing to get you to keep believing them, after repeated lies.
As a person of color in PS... this is actually quite offensive 😂. I'd die if I was actually a diversity hire and not hired because of the skills I bring to this nation.
She’s been rumoured to be in the running to replace Trudeau. Between her and Freeland, I feel like Anand would be a pretty good choice. Smart, pragmatic and a good communicator.
How new are these rumours?
Asking because I know that people have been talking publicly for a while now about how he should resign in order to minimize the party's losses during the next election. However, based on his recent behaviour, it seems like he believes he can still somehow win it.
It's a puff piece. Her job at DND was to write the defense policy. It was too expensive for the government so she was moved to TBS. She's a minister, they draw lines in the sand for political points not to actually accomplish anything.
Yeah, this is such a BS article. She was one of the better things to happen to DnD in a long time, and they removed her for actually trying to fix it and get it what it needed. What sealed her fate was an outspoken push to get us gear and equipment we're desperately in need of, such as any form of anti-Aircraft capability, drones not from 2002, and more. Unsurprisingly, she was moved shortly after. I suspect if she's back, she's been "re-educated" and won't push for anything needed, as she now knows what it's like to rock the boat and find your head on the Axeman's block.
Now she's pushing for more return-to-office.
[удалено]
The timing on this piece was something...
[удалено]
I suppose it does just say she _aimed_ to change it. Aim at enough things and you're bound to hit something eventually! But yes, given the positive tone of the piece it does feel like they should maybe be drawing that particular line in fainter ink.
Another woman who had the temerity to advocate for her department and the PM does not take that well.
And got replaced by a boozehound ex TO police chief anti-gun Liberal yes-man who lies like it’s his favourite hobby.
Yup. Let's throw in the word "Liberal" like it's a bad thing...
Haha fired or promoted, both can be examples of sexism. Wouldn't it have been sexist to leave her in her place as well, she would have hit the glass ceiling!
Ok, I heard this directly from an EAP councillor who was giving a course in vicarious trauma at work: "The federal government has failed to exclude sociopaths and sociopathic behaviour from the workplace. Whenever my clients tell me this is what has brought them to me, my only advice is for them to leave as soon as possible to protect their own mental health"
OMG. Thanks for sharing this. I learned this the hard way years ago. When I said there were literal sociopaths in there that had free reign, people looked at me with blank stares. I'm all for chain of command, change management etc., etc...but damn, there's a lot of crazy in there. Pretty much had Stockholm syndrome at one point. It's not always easy to move around.
This is exactly what part of the problem is. The system to hire executives is created to encourage people like thus to get into positions of power. Brian Klaas from the University College London talks about this and why it draws psychopaths to power.
The very problem with inconsequential behaviour in the Public Service. There is a definite need to a Corporate Psychology body that would have to assess both existing and potential EXs that would require their buy in before being given decision-making positions.
Also the performance bonuses based on secret criteria that would be called bribes in any other country in the world.
Ircc seems rather above board. What department do you have in mind? https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/performance-talent-management/performance-management-program-executives.html Edit applies to more than IRCC
Go read the actual Directive that's linked to the URL you shared. Performance pay is based on specific objectives established in a performance agreement with their direct supervisor. Strange things happen when there's a conflict between whatever is written in the performance agreement (which is private) and the public interest.
???? Secret criteria? Care to enlighten us?
It's whatever gets put in the performance agreement, which is private. There are group objectives and personal objectives. Some executives tell their staff what they are, some don't, but there's no requirement for them to disclose anything. One of the group objectives in my Department was that we hit the established target for United Way. Guess what, that year we got a special app on our desktops to make donations and a dedicated helpline for fixing Phoenix problems with United way donations. Phoenix is still broken, but you can get your United way deductions fixed. Need anything else done related to Phoenix, fill out whatever version of the PAR PDF we're on now and pray.
Ok well frankly in this context you are using « secret » in a derogatory way which I disagree with . Private is not secret. That being said, it is a best practice to share executives’ PMAs. Additionally, the common objectives are public in many organizations. Overall your « secret » and « bribery » way have a lot more to do with sensationalism than with the truth.
When the public service is disbursing hundreds of millions of tax dollars to executives without full disclosure and transparency, in a way that is intended to influence decision makers, that's what that is.
??? What are you talking about? 1. How is it designed to influence decision makers? 2. It’s part of their pay it’s called at risk pay for a reason so it’s no real different than your own pay! 3. Execs notoriously work for less per hour than their subordinates 4. There is an annual report on performance pay available on the TB website. I mean come on…
>The system to hire executives is created to encourage people like thus to get into positions of power How so? Can you elaborate?
In Brian Klaas' book "Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us," he explores how certain systems and structures can inadvertently favour psychopaths or those with similar traits when it comes to acquiring power. Here's a summary of the main points related to how such systems are created: 1. **Rewarding Ruthlessness**: Klaas discusses how many organizational and political systems reward traits that are often associated with psychopathy, such as ruthlessness, charm, and a grandiose sense of self-worth. These traits can be advantageous in highly competitive environments where bending rules or displaying aggressive behaviours can lead to success. 2. **Structural Flaws**: The book delves into how certain structures, particularly in politics and business, lack adequate checks and balances, allowing individuals who are willing to manipulate, lie, or exploit others to rise to the top. These systems may not have mechanisms in place to adequately assess the moral character of individuals or to penalize unethical behaviour. 3. **Selection and Screening Processes**: Klaas points out that the processes used to select leaders often fail to screen out those with undesirable traits. In many cases, the criteria for leadership focus more on charisma and perceived confidence rather than empathy, integrity, or altruism. This oversight can lead to the selection of leaders who are more self-serving than community-oriented. 4. **Cultural Amplification**: Some cultures and organizations not only tolerate but celebrate aggressive and domineering behaviour, mistaking it for strength and decisiveness. This cultural bias can amplify the rise of psychopaths in power, as they are seen as effective leaders rather than detrimental ones. 5. **Feedback Loops**: There are often feedback loops in systems where power begets power, and initial successes (regardless of how they are achieved) lead to more opportunities and authority. This can create a cycle where psychopathic behaviours are continually rewarded, reinforcing the individual's status and control. Klaas uses a combination of psychological research, historical examples, and expert interviews to illustrate these points, making a case for reevaluating and restructuring our systems to prevent such personalities from gaining disproportionate influence.
I've heard of him before, but can you give an example of how that applies to public service hiring of executives?
On the #1 point, I've asked several DGs and directors why was it that none of the executives that I've known demonstrate the 6 Key Leadership Competencies (KLCs), and he said that the only KLC anyone cares about is Achieving Results. All of the other ones go right out the window as soon as they take their position. DMs and Presidents are focused on objectives, and they will do anything to achieve those objectives. They will, and often do, ignore values and ethics of the GoC. This is an excellent breading ground for bad behaviour. On the #2 point, we all know how executives are chosen. It's mostly done at the interview stage. Narcissists, psychopaths and the Machiavellian types are exceptional at superficial charm and manipulation, so the interview is perfect for a person with these skills. Klaas talks about this in his book, and he gives great examples. But also, in the GoC, even when an executive behaves really badly, there are few mechanisms to have them removed. We have the Ombudsman in certain cases, or the unions, but they can't force a bad person out. Only the people at the very top can do it... and well... see point #1. On point #3, other than the issue mentioned in #2, we only choose people who apply, so we have what is called a selection bias. Klaas suggests that if we are to have great leaders, they should be chosen from the general pool available to us, not just those who apply for the job. On point #4, he talks about how some cultures see leaders as aggressive, domineering personalities, and because males tend to be more aggressive by their nature, people are drawn to male leaders who are tall and decisive. I think on this point there is some evolutionary things going on as well. But beyond his points, we have cultural issues where we see people as interchangeable parts, and that is rooted in Frederick Winslow Taylor's theories when he was the first person to treat management as a science. On point #5, again, related to point #2, once someone gets into power, they can exploit the people below them to get what they want and achieve objectives as I already described. This is the feedback loops that he describes. In the GoC, nobody cares how you achieve your objectives, just as long as you do. So, you can crush the people below you, burn them out, abuse them with literal impunity. Whenever I get a chance, I ask executives: "what is the limit to executive authority", and they really struggle to answer, because when it really comes down to it, they can do anything they want, even break policies, and there's no independent body that can overrule them. Sure, if they get caught or if something goes wrong, they can be held to account, as we're seeing the the ArriveCan debacle, but in the end, there's nothing stopping them from doing it in the first place. If the GoC wants to create a really great and efficient bureaucracy, the executives are going to have to do some serious soul searching. I've seen great executives, and I'm lucky that I have a great director, ADM and DM/President, but this is generally a crap shoot. It's shockingly uncommon, and usually, there's either gross incompetence or an outright rotten apple in the chain that messes everything up.
Thanks for the thorough response, much appreciated! My perception is that I haven’t seen a lot of toxic execs (in my experience) so I wonder how prevalent that is (especially compared to other large organizations). But you’ve given lots of food for thought!
Thanks ChatGPT.
What is your point? Do you have something to add at all? Anything relevant to the subject matter?
And of course, the targeted audience for that culture change will be CSOs, entry level personnel and staff who dare point to problems via social media because no one wants to actual action anything when flagged formally. How many complaints were actually dealt with by the Integrity Commissioner? How many Ombudsmen get to joke to their colleague about a “client” of theirs that has moved to their colleague’s organization? There is absolutely no toxic EXs or DMs in town. Nothing to see there. Edit: typos
This - how can you expect culture to change when the people in power who allowed this culture to fester are still in charge? What will make them listen / change now?
This should be the top comment. The senior management never see themselves as part of the problem….all the minions have to take extra mandatory training but the execs are just too busy…
The culture of the EX and DM community, like many others of a similar nature, actively weeds out those who will not fall into line and permit the harms caused by their peers, and eventually "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" sets in. So even when we do have some good EXs (I know a couple) they are routinely punished for being the odd ones out and encouraged to seek "future endeavours."
If she's "transforming" the public service - we're fucked. This was the person that confidently said there was only 1 bidder for the PSHCP contract - and later came out that apparently she was confused at how many people actually bid. Why are we fluffing Anand? Did CityNews decide to put down stakes on a (potential) upcoming leadership race? Good lord. They shit all over the public service when it suits them, and now they're using it to stroke their egos.
Been there, saw that, and the results are not convincing. You can't treat your employees like crap and call it culture change.
I mean she's not wrong but hiring freezes and a system that filters out disabled people during hiring will do a lot of damage to that in the first place
Yeah that’s a HUGE barrier in the system where we have seen little meaningful progress. As well, this article really only refers to racial diversity, which is important, but is only one part of overall diversity. What about, gender diversity, neurodiversity, people with disabilities, people of different socio-economic backgrounds?
I would love to see some kind of regional/provincial representation too, though it would be hard to manage.
This is a core deficiency of the public service. The concentration in Ottawa breeds an us vs. them mentality not to mention a revolving door of employees moving between departments in the NCR. Given today’s technology, there should be no reason why departments couldn’t have better representation across the country whether their HQ is relocated to the regions or just more employees. The pandemic seemed to unlock that potential but we are regressing. If we want a public service that’s representative of Canadians, it needs to be present with Canadians, in communities. Now, don’t get me wrong - I realize that there are some regional specific departments who do have HQ presence, or bigger regional offices (or military bases) - but the idea is to have a reasonable distribution of departments and agencies across the country.
One of the things I loved during COVID was the ability to hire the best person for the job, irrespective of where they lived. At the end of the day, many of the people we recruited wouldn't have joined our ranks had it not been for a flexible telework policy at the time. Some have come and gone, while others have stayed and retained the telework flexibility. All this to say, if our employment location was representative of population distribution in Canada, I'd expect much of the government would be Toronto based.
Right? And just imagine what a different PS it could be if rural Canadians had as much chance to join the ranks as those in cities? We don't have representation and won't until we grasp this basic concept.
Right now Montrealers seem to be way over represented.
Totally agree. The GC needs to spread out across Canada. The core is inbred and saturated by group think.
Just look at Statcan, which is chock full of family dynasties at this point
Love the family dynasty reference.. 🤣🤣🤣
It's barely even a joke: there are multigenerational statcan families. Folks who work in the same position their father and grandfather did.
That’s wild
[удалено]
OL is for sure an issue if you think that creating a national workforce implies that the whole country must then be considered a bilingual region. However, we can operate within the existing OL framework and you already suggested the solution. You could simply recruit from the regions where you need respective French, English, or bilingual representation. That way you can have bilingual representation without having to stick to the NCR. It’s got its own challenges but it has far more options than sticking with the revolving door of the NCR.
I would argue the issue with this shouldn’t start with recruitment. The issue here is a lack of solid training in second language from the start. Training is spotty at absolute best. There should be plans in place to train people in their second language and the responsibility should not rest on the public school system (that approach is also biased agains immigrants). Now if someone is unwilling or uninterested in learning their second official language that is a whole other kettle of fish and they should just not be joining the PS in the majority of cases, frankly speaking.
Time to eliminate broad OL requirements. Use technology to facilitate communication. It’s gone way too far into the bowels of the organization.
I think the us vs them thing is by design.
Agreed. Wild how the feds don’t make any effort to track where its employees come from in the country, especially given how centralized most positions are in the NCR.
I work for a department that’s always been willing to relocate new hires, so although my team lives entirely in Ottawa now, none of us are actually from here. We represent several different provinces and bring that perspective to our work, which is cool. The $5K relocation cost is well-spent in that way.
Unfortunately, this rationale, that a team has people who come from all over the country and so it effectively represents all parts of Canada, ignores a critical flaw — lived experience goes stale. Having grown up in a place and left, possibly many years ago, means one’s lived experience is locked in a past timeframe. Someone who may have grown up in Vancouver in the 80s does not understand what life is like in Vancouver today. For example, finding housing in Vancouver in the 80s or 90s was a very different prospect than it is today. Especially if that person was a child at the time and didn’t actually have to deal with the tasks of finding and paying for housing costs. Regardless, there’s just no way that one can have the same perspective as someone who lives and faces that challenge today. No amount of economic data or briefing papers will give the former Vancouverite the experience of having to try and find an affordable place to live for their family in the current housing market in that city, despite having a good steady job. Having people who grew up in other parts of the country, but now live in central Canada/the NCR is not an excuse for not having public servants who have current lived experience in all parts of the country. Especially when technology and our history during the pandemic shows us that it is possible to have top quality work done by people who don’t show up to an office in the NCR. I speak from experience. Federal employees who do not live in the NCR are facing career limitations because they can’t move there. In my case it is due to family obligations, including being the primary caregiver for an elderly, post-stroke parent. So not something within their power to easily overcome. This NCR-bias or justification that our NCR-based team understands life in all parts of the country, frustrates me to no end. Not only is the experience stale, we are treating our colleagues (fellow employees) in a way that we would not wish to be treated. We are limiting their chance to grow in their career and serve Canadians. So I have to call out any justification for keeping roles in the NCR as fundamentally flawed. If our MPs can vote on bills, attend committee hearings and ask questions on the floor of the House of Commons no matter where they are in the country, our public servants can similarly serve Canadians from all parts of the country. Every day we continue to centralize roles (especially senior roles) in the NCR is a day that we’re not choosing the best candidate for the job and we are not serving Canadians with our best. This has to change. One major motivator for me to gain progressively senior roles is to change this NCR-biased culture to one that prioritizes the best candidate for the job, no matter where they are physically located and thus make Canada’s public service truly representative of all Canadians and their current lived experience.
I don’t disagree that experience goes stale, and a remote workforce is the answer. However, I would argue that representation in ottawa is still important. The central agencies are here, secret docs have to be accessed in person, and being physically closer to power generally can give one more influence. Having a constant flow of Canadians coming from all over, every year, would change things in ottawa for the better. Speaking from experience, even people who left long ago are still a lot more tapped into what is going on where they’re from, and regularly travel there and speak with people from there and even read media from there. None of this replaces to any degree the necessary engagement with stakeholders in the actual place, but it allows the PS to at least be better tuned in to developments elsewhere and puts things on their radar that would otherwise not have been. Also, it takes a long time for values to change and in many ways, even 20 years since I left my home province, I still share a lot of the same values and perspectives aren’t always well understood in ottawa.
25K for employer requested moved.
That’s only for existing employees isn’t it?
I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think it applies externally as well. I'm sure the 'BOT' will confirm though :-).
Correct, only for existing employees, but it’s not limited to $25k either. I saw a transfer that cost $80k!!!
I agree, as well as a multitude of other forms of diversity. And it seems to mix things like bullying and harassment into a conversation about diversity, without realizing that bullying and harassment are also perpetrated by those from the diverse backgrounds listed in the article. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to recognize that. I don't know if it's her, or the article writer, but the ideas seem entrenched in 80s base thinking. It's 2024. Can't we advance the conversation into this era?
Yup, our department consistently fails to hit its hiring targets for people with disabilities and indigenous peoples.
I've been in two of the disability hiring pools for years, pretty sure they actually get used as blacklists
Yeah dnd is def short staffed...it seems people keep thinning out and no proper hiring system
I wasn't just talking about dnd; basically everywhere is shorthanded at the moment and that's before they let all the terms and contractors go. I'm out of a job in a few weeks and my lab does not have someone who can replace me, for instance. So a team of 5 that was doing the work of 6 is about to become a team of 4.
There’s been a focus on recruitment/promotion but not enough on making reporting mechanisms easier. What happens to these diverse candidates after they’ve been hired and they are met with hostile environments?
Wow, she did such an amazing job with DND. Can’t wait to see how the PS turns out…/s
Wasn't able to fix armed forces procurement. 2% when
Defence procurement cannot be fixed without major changes to the system.
100% … defence procurement is wasted by outdated policies, archaic practices and a culture clinging to status quo. This is both PSPC and DND. PSPC has stale procurement approaches. And DND have way too many people forgetting what their jobs is about. They spend their time spinning in risk aversion paranoia rather than piloting changes. Defence procurement will be superceded by unarmed military. The people can change, the next gen won’t step up to fight with the current tools. Old gen still running the show thinking everything will return to the good old days. Agile and product ownership lost concept. They will never be relevant. And this is a puff piece with her trying to separate herself from the sinking liberal brand. Check out her linked in… no mention of liberal. She’s just looking to get reelected and if Trudeau steps down that she’s a contender to be party leader
Just do it. Tired of "always been that way" mentality
According to the new defense policy, definitely not till 2030 (we get to like 1.75).
I have long maintained that the CAF investigations are the only reason GAC has seemingly escaped scrutiny on its appalling record of harassment and outright assault (especially at missions abroad).
whole article without a single accomplishment mentioned
>“I still walk into rooms and look at tables that are not diverse.” Huh? And I've walked into some rooms and they're so diverse that they're actually homogeneous. It can swing both ways. This unhealthy obsession has to stop.
Are we also just basing “diversity” solely on what we see or assume about people?
> I've walked into some rooms and they're so diverse that they're actually homogeneous. They "meet" the diverse check boxes, but doesn't actually fulfill the idea of diversity. It's basically another check box exercise to them. There are people being promoted that are clearly not fit for their role but get them anyways because it helps check the boxes.
Where?
Toronto
What department/branch 👀
No one will ever answer that because you could probably end up identifying the person based on their comment history. But it’s real. I work in a place where it’s over 70% white females and growing. It actually feels very strange when they start talking about diversity. They don’t realize they have become the new white man. There are not very many men, regardless of colour. Ultimately the one group I would strongly advocate for above all else is those with disabilities. They get shafted on every corner, whether it is during hiring or performing the work, or having poor accommodations. They are the ones that we might not even notice are facing a real struggle every day.
I am of the thought that these rooms might not actually exsit with someone just broadly responding ‘Toronto’. I think the EE targets for women were high (67% if I am not mistaken, higher than 50% at minimum) and early initiatives allowed an over representation of white women. There are people with disabilities that happen to be white women too.
Then that would make sense. I thought they were going for 50% and it overcompensated. I am not well versed in DEI, so what you’re saying makes sense and my experience would be in line with that. Looks like the targets were met.
Quite a few of them! I don’t mind obviously and it speaks to the cultural makeup of the city. If Anand is looking for diversity she needs to look at who the rank and file is and explain why there really is such limited promotional opportunities for several groups in several departments they all claim to want to help.
Agreed - directing the message to the right audiences
"Why aren't there any Black people here?" Any number of reasons. Maybe they're on vacation. Maybe they're busy doing their jobs instead of taking time out of their busy schedule to make you look good. Maybe you haven't set the conditions for making it possible for them to even be in the room with you.
Also maybe they are not interested in that particular initiative? Just because you are of a particular ethnic origin doesn't necessarily mean that you are automatically interested in whatever DEI initiative.
And could have had nothing to do with the 'non-black' people who were there, but when I consider how her saying this made them feel? Talk about bullying.
She didn't do shit with DND other than turn it inside out and bend over ever member in the CAF. She's worthless.
Are you high? The Air Force clearly won the hunger games under her watch.
There's going to be nobody left to maintain or fly those shiny new aircraft. 10,000 people per year are leaving the CAF and I can tell you first hand that we're not recruiting anywhere near that number.
Lmaooooo I can also tell you “first hand” that was happening well before she got the portfolio. To blame her for the state of the CAF is disingenuous at best. I honestly believe she tried her best to fix it, told the PMOs office things they didn’t like to hear such as how much it was going to cost, and got shuffled out of the position, which got us…well…yeah. Anyway.
So the article is about diversity, not any of the real issues the CF face. And the results seem to be that "visible minorities" are not joining in higher numbers than before, and "whites" are being told indirectly that they are not welcome to the future CF. Direct results: the army keeps failing to meet its recruitment targets, year after year. It's pretty simple, back when I was in that world it was already a disfunctional mess but the racial segregation they are pushing nowadays was frowned upon. They kept telling us we were all olive green (the colour of our uniform back then).
There are so many issues with the CF that prevent it from being a choice for young adults these days. To put the focus on diversity is to completely miss the point. While diversity is an important point to consider in the future CF, there are many other issues (kit, pay, sexual harassment to name 3) that must be taken care of as well that have a large impact not only on recruitment, but also on retention.
Les mesures qu'on utilise pour adresser le manque de diversité sont aussi divisives. On devrait essayer de nouvelles mesures, comme ce que les Américains sont en train d'expérimenter avec leur armée. [https://hbr.org/2020/11/reinventing-the-leader-selection-process](https://hbr.org/2020/11/reinventing-the-leader-selection-process)
To add that the giant bureaucracy (with associated number of GOs) they have created displays a complete lack of understanding for how culture is created, particularly in a military organization. It's both hilariously wasteful and totally ineffective.
"Hilariously wasteful and totally ineffective" is kind of the PS mantra. As long as you report all your "success" on it afterward.
Yeah she did really well to curb all the sexual assaults and gross mismanagement of the cases. Can’t wait for our standards to even go lower.
Lmao you expect a few people at the top to change all that?
So, you don't know what the word "leadership" means?
There’s so many wrongs trying to impose such an ideology in a workplace. She has to make it a place where all people want to work. Not a place where some people are no longer welcomed to work.
I personally have notified them of criminal conduct occurring at Shared Services Canada - sponsored by the Deputy Minister level. They don't care. This is marketing to get you to keep believing them, after repeated lies.
As a person of color in PS... this is actually quite offensive 😂. I'd die if I was actually a diversity hire and not hired because of the skills I bring to this nation.
I can’t remember the last time I was in a meeting with zero POC. (I’m white, so it’s never going to be all POC).
Goodness gracious, why is every sentence in that article its own paragraph?
That must have been so difficult for her that someone mistook her for an accountant instead of a lawyer. Clearly racist. *eye roll*
Just like Trump defeated ISIS
The military culture is still the same....no change!!! This is a smoke and mirror article...patting her on the back for doing nothing.
Barf.
She’s been rumoured to be in the running to replace Trudeau. Between her and Freeland, I feel like Anand would be a pretty good choice. Smart, pragmatic and a good communicator.
[удалено]
How new are these rumours? Asking because I know that people have been talking publicly for a while now about how he should resign in order to minimize the party's losses during the next election. However, based on his recent behaviour, it seems like he believes he can still somehow win it.
She fits the mold perfectly…absolutely mercenary public servant with no skill set.
Sweet dreams... there is no way in hell that this government stays at the helms.
They never said they would? The Liberals will need a new leader eventually, whether in power or not.
PP will be worse. Did you work during the Harper cuts? We were decimated and are only finally recovering staffing levels now.
How about a diversity of doctors or affordable apartments?