Career Development in the Federal Public Service - Building a World-Class Workforce
(Publié aussi en français sous le titre Le perfectionnement professionnel dans la fonction publique fédérale - Constituer un effectif de calibre mondial)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary	ix
Chapter 1 - Introduction	1
Research Objectives	2
Approach	3
Outline of Chapter	4
Why The Increased Interest in Career Development?	5
Career Management by the Employer	9
Career Development: The Role of The Employee	13
Federal Career Development Programs	16
Outline of Report	17
Chapter 2 - Career Development in the Federal Public Service: The Interview Study	19
Methodology	20
Outline of Chapter	23
1.	Characteristics of The Sample	23
2.	Career Success: What is it?  How does it differ from life success?	37
3.	Career Goals and Aspirations	41
4.	Promotability	46
5.	Personal Career Strategies	50
6.	Organizational Career Development Strategies	56
7.	Satisfaction with Career Progress	70
8.	Retention	75
9.	Advice	89
10.	Summary and Conclusions	99
Chapter 3 - Career Development in the Federal Public Service: The Survey Study	113
Methodology	113
Outline of Chapter	114
A Personal Profile of the Respondents	115
A Work Profile of the Respondents	116
A Profile of Those Who Have Been Promoted	119
The Importance and Availability of Various Achievements	122
Respondents’ Career Goals	127
Respondents’ Developmental Experiences	130
Career Strategies Used by Respondents	133
Perceived Organizational Support for Career Development	135
Career Development Initiatives	136
Satisfaction with Career	140
Job Satisfaction	141
Respondents’ Assessment of the Work Environment	143
Respondent Commitment and Retention	145
Summary and Conclusions	150
Chapter 4 - Career Development in Best Practice Organizations	160
Introduction	160
Methodology	160
Alcan Aluminium Limited	161
Bank of Montreal	166
Health Canada	170
Hewlett-Packard Canada	178
IBM Canada	185
Royal Bank of Canada	194
Statistics Canada	204
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors	211
Chapter 5 - Summary and Recommendations	219
Summary of Key Findings	219
Recommendations	221
Appendix A - References on Career Development	243
Appendix B - Sources Used in Developing the Questionnaire	249

A Message from: 
Peter Harder
It seems fitting that the Canadian Public Service shares a common challenge with the nation it serves - the challenge of human development and growth. Like Canadians, public servants yearn to achieve their potential, to be ready for the challenges ahead. They instinctively understand that learning and growth is the only way to ensure their continuing relevance, their continuing capacity to serve Canadians with honour and distinction. In this publication the collective voice of federal public servants speaks to this issue and informs us about the priorities that must be addressed to meet the challenge.  
People are the lifeblood of any organization. Without them, aspirations cannot be achieved and legacies cannot be built. It therefore follows that responsible employers must learn to listen and serve the needs of the individual. Armed with this conviction a partnership was created with a goal to listen to the men and women of the public service, and to learn from them about their experiences, about what helped them be successful and about what they believe needs to be changed. It is our hope that this information will inform others in Canada about how to meet the needs of individuals in their organizations, and by extension, to ensure the continuation of productive, thriving workforces that are the basis of our collective prosperity in Canada.  
Funded by the Royal Bank, the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada, and Carleton University researchers from the Centre for Education on Women and Work conducted a research study on career development. The study’s  purpose is to provide the necessary data to assist the public service to build a world class workforce. The results of a survey of over 2500 men and women public servants, and over 250 in-depth interviews, are found in this publication. The data provided by this research are rich and instructive. They provide government and other employers with a deeper understanding of what must be done to ensure our people and our organizations are ready for the future.  
As the Royal Bank Visiting Chair on Women and Work, I am proud to have participated with others in bringing this research to light. As Secretary of the Treasury Board, I call on public service employees, their managers and our human resource practitioners to study this research and to understand its implications. I issue a challenge as well - a challenge not just to listen and to learn - but a challenge to act. I also affirm my responsibility and commitment to using what we have learned from public servants to develop the policies and practices that will answer the challenges presented in the data.  
A final pleasure is to thank our partners, the Royal Bank and Carleton University, and all those who contributed to the development and publication of this research. Most of all I wish to thank those public servants who contributed generously of their time to provide us with the information necessary for this research study.  
V. Peter Harder
Secretary of the Treasury Board and Royal Bank Visiting Chair on Women and Work 
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge and thank the following groups and individuals without whose assistance this research would not have been possible:
•	The project’s Advisory Board (Karen Brown, Doreen Steidle, Carole Swan, Cathy Downes, Kay Stanley, Ivan Fellegi).
•	The departmental contacts for the interview and survey studies (Environment - Ron Duval and Lynne Houde; DND - George Domaradzki and Michelle Richardson; Health - Patricia Jaton and Carmen Rule; DFAIT - Doreen Seguin; Revenue Canada - Tracy Lyall and Christine Dumoulin; PSC - Douglas Booker; Justice - Zina Glinski; Treasury Board/Finance - Mariette Ledo and Nicole McMullen; Industry - Jo-Ann Williamson; HRDC - George Thwaites and Julie Desjardins; Statistics Canada - Lee Reid, Eve Simpson, Diane Snowball and Martin Hiltz; Natural Resources Canada - Robert Levis).
•	Organizational and departmental contacts for best practice interviews (Xerox Canada Ltd - Jocelyne Traub; Pratt & Whitney Canada - Michel Gagne; Royal Bank - Frank McAuley, Mike J. Kavanagh, Blair Pollard, Sharon Wingfelder, Shelley Lockhart, Miro G. Skrivanic; Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd - Janet McChesney, Sherry Adams, Clare Norman; Bell Canada - Denis Coderre, Stephanie L. Sykes; Bank of Montreal - Dennis F. Arnold, Gabriella R. Zillmer; IBM Canada - Terry J. F. Whittam, Donna M. Marks, Sheri G. Stewart, Bob Willard, Cathy Poulin, Susan Williams; Alcan Aluminium Ltd. - Clermont Le Breton; Business Development Bank of Canada - Pauline Rochefort; Statistics Canada - Eve Simpson; National Research Council - Estelle Vincent-Fleurs; Health Canada - Patricia Jaton; Treasury Board Secretariat - Dawn Nicholson-O’Brien, Helene Charlebois and Mariette Ledo; Ontario Public Service - Murray Le Masurier, Rita Greenidge, Gwen Strachan).
•	The individuals who participated in the interview study and those who completed the survey.
•	Our research assistants (Les Szamosi for looking after data entry and data analysis; Carole Campbell for, amongst other things, taking charge of getting the surveys sent out: Donna Coghill, Parise Cote and Karen Johnson for conducting the interviews and coding the results; and Karen Johnson for developing the coding scheme and keeping us on track).
•	The team who helped put the report together (Karen Johnson for her work on the executive summary and her excellent job of editing the final report and Vivian Proulx at Ryan/Smith Design for typesetting and design).
•	Janet Weichel McKenzie from the Department of Communications, Carleton University for organizing the media release of the report.
•	The Royal Bank for funding the Royal Bank Chair in Women and Work, School of Business, Carleton University.
•	Paula Bennett from the Treasury Board for taking the lead role in getting the conference organized.
•	Pam LeBlanc from the Treasury Board for her help in keeping the research on track.
•	Our families for their support (especially during the writing phase of this research!).
•	Dr. Ivan Fellegi of Statistics Canada for helping us with the survey design and the sampling frame.
Finally, we would like to thank Peter Harder for his leadership during all phases of this project.  The study could not have been done without his interest and active involvement in this project.
Thank-you
Linda Duxbury, Ph.D  •  Lorraine Dyke, Ph.D  •  Natalie Lam, Ph.D

Executive Summary
Career Development in the Federal Public Service: Building a World-Class Workforce
by
Linda Duxbury, Ph.D, 
School of Business, Carleton University
Lorraine Dyke, Ph.D, 
School of Business, Carleton University
Natalie Lam, Ph.D, 
Faculty of Administration, University of Ottawa
BACKGROUND
In today’s uncertain environment, the recruitment, retention, and motivation of employees, particularly in key areas such as the scientific, professional and computer fields, is a growing challenge.  Fundamental to designing and evaluating career development program and policy, however, is an understanding of existing career opportunities and barriers from the employee’s perspective.
This report presents the results of a recent study of perceptions of career development among knowledge workers in the federal Public Service.  The research topic was identified for study by Peter Harder, Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada as part of his mandate as Visiting Chair on Women and Work at Carleton University’s School of Business.  The research was conducted in the summer and fall of 1998 by researchers associated with Carleton University’s Centre for Research and Education on Women and Work.
The objectives of the study were:
(1)	to explore various career development strategies, opportunities, and constraints among federal Public Service knowledge workers in an effort to better understand the perceptions and experiences of these employees; and
(2)	to suggest ways in which the federal Public Service can make it easier for Public Service knowledge workers to meet their career goals
The method of data collection involved three phases:
(1)	an interview study, conducted with a small, selected group of federal government knowledge workers in order to allow an in-depth exploration of employee opinions, concerns and insights
(2)	a pencil and paper survey, conducted with a larger sample of federal government knowledge workers in order to allow researchers a more structured examination of the factors associated with career development, including work background and environment, career aspirations, and work attitudes and behaviours
(3)	a “best practices” case study of a sample of Canadian organizations on the leading edge of career development in order to allow federal policy makers to reflect on their own human resources practices and to help them identify a set of career development practices that might contribute to organizational success and employee growth
The samples for the interview and survey studies were developed in an attempt to represent key groups of knowledge workers in the federal Public Service.  Under the recommendation of a research advisory board of senior Public Service executives, 3 employee categories were sampled: Executive, Scientific and Professional, and Administrative and Foreign Service.
THE INTERVIEW STUDY
Objectives
The interview study was designed to explore employees’ perspectives and experiences in terms of:
•	their definition of success in career and in life
•	their career goals and strategies
•	their perceptions of the factors associated with promotions
•	rewards, frustrations, and turnover intentions
•	organizational support for their career development
Each of the above issues was examined as a function of gender, job type and program participation status (whether or not the employee was a participant in one of four formal career development programs (CDP)- - Accelerated Executive Development Program (AEXDP), Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Pool, Career Assignment Program (CAP), or Management Trainee Program (MTP).
Method
A series of semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted by experienced interviewers and tape recorded with permission.  Work history and demographic data for the interview study were collected by means of a supplementary “fax-back” questionnaire.
Sample

The interview sample consisted of 254 employees representing 19 federal government departments and 48 job classifications.  The sample was distributed as illustrated in Figure A.
The “typical” employee in the interview sample was married, held at least one university degree, was in his or her mid- to late-career years, and a member of the “sandwich generation”.  He or she had been with the Public Service for at least ten years (one third of the sample over 20 years), had held at least four different positions, and had a wide variety of professional experience both within and outside of the Public Service.  This sample was highly mobile (over half had made recent lateral moves; three quarters had been promoted in the past five years), suggesting that interviewees were a “select” sample who might have a number of successful career development strategies to share.
Definitions of Success
Respondents defined career success in terms of:
•	enjoyment and satisfaction in the work itself (51% of sample)
•	self-esteem, reward and accomplishment (34%)
•	career progress (32%)
•	recognition and extrinsic rewards (28%)
•	learning (27%)
•	the ability to contribute and influence (25%)
Virtually all respondents defined life success in terms of family, lifestyle, and leisure.  A substantial majority (two thirds) commented that a successful career, although important to life success, was merely one aspect.
Career Goals
When asked where they saw their careers within five years, some respondents aspired to a particular position; others defined their goals in terms of intrinsic reward.  Goals included:
•	a Deputy Minister (DM) or Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) position (10%)
•	a “management” position (29%)
•	a job yielding satisfaction, self-esteem, accomplishment, or learning (27%)
•	a job that shows progress, is a clear “step up” (18%)
•	a job outside of the federal Public Service (11%)
•	a job where I can make a difference/contribution (11%)
•	 “I’m already where I want to be” (14%)
When asked where they saw their careers “ultimately”, respondents were more likely to aspire to particular senior government positions, or to want to broaden their horizons by making a move to another area of government, or leaving the Public Service to work in another sector.  Long-term goals included:
•	a DM or ADM position (21%)
•	a job yielding satisfaction, self-esteem, accomplishment, or learning (21%)
•	a “management” position (18%)
•	a move to another area of the federal Public Service (18%)
•	a job outside the Public Service that pays more/offers greater recognition (18%)
Career Strategies
Respondents were asked what they had done within the past three years to increase the chances they might reach their goals.  Less than 5% of the sample believed they had done “nothing” personally to move their careers forward.  By far, the most common strategy was to take steps to increase their breadth of knowledge and experience, including such strategies as a lateral move within the department or a move to a new and challenging area outside the government:
•	increased my breadth of experience (62%)
•	trained (e.g., language, HR, finance; 28%)
•	joined a specific career development program (e.g., CAP, AEXDP; 28%)
•	increased my visibility (put myself on the “radar screen”; 21%)
•	scanned the horizon to learn about trends and issues (16%)
•	networked or found a mentor (16%)
Factors Associated with Promotions
Interviews also explored employees’ interpretations of their experiences in the promotion/competition arena.  Over 90% of the sample had earned at least one promotion in the course of their Public Service career.  When asked why they thought they had been successful in obtaining their promotion(s), respondents typically attributed their success to personal qualities:
•	I was the best qualified (55%)
•	I had a strong performance history (45%)
Two thirds of the sample recalled at least one instance in which they had been unsuccessful.  In contrast to their successes, lack of success was attributed both to personal experience and to external factors over which respondents felt little control:
•	I did not have enough experience, someone else was better qualified (42%)
•	poor “fit” with those doing the selection (16%)
•	someone else had been groomed for the position (15%)
•	equity/diversity issue (wasn’t in the “target group”, old boys’ club; 14%)
Rewards, Frustrations, and Turnover Intentions
In order to assess the extent to which respondents might be considering alternatives to a Public Service career, employees were asked about the rewards and frustrations associated with working in the federal Public Service.  For the vast majority of respondents, the ability to make a contribution to society was the most rewarding aspect of their work:
•	ability to make a contribution (59%)
•	variety of challenging work available within the Public Service (19%)
•	work provides a sense of accomplishment and self-esteem (16%)
•	stimulating people to work with (15%)
Bureaucracy and a work atmosphere characterized by intergroup conflicts and heavy workloads was the greatest frustration:
•	bureaucracy (related to processes, staffing, or outcomes; 75%)
•	work atmosphere/culture/values (21%)
•	political interference (between my needs, needs of public, needs of officials; 16%)
A large majority of respondents (75%) had considered leaving the Public Service at one time or another, most for the private sector (58%) or to start their own business (25%).
Organizational Support for Career Development
Interviews explored three sources of organizational support for employee career development: supervisory support, departmental support, and support from the Public Service as a whole.  When asked what each of these three levels of the organization did to help employees reach their goals, responses were consistent with participants’ personal career development strategies: organizational measures which increased employees’ breadth of experience and exposure were most highly valued.   Supervisors were the most influential source of support (only 17% of respondents said their supervisors did nothing to help them with their careers), with perceived support diminishing with more distal aspects of the organization (25% felt their department did nothing; 30% felt the Public Service did nothing).  As expected, strong interpersonal relationships and explicit career discussions were important at the supervisor level, whereas more formal initiatives were mentioned at the level of the department and Public Service:
Supervisor support
•	good people skills, sincerely interested in me (39%)
•	increases my breadth, exposure (34%)
•	good communicator, keeps me posted (24%)
•	gives me autonomy (24%)
•	overtly focuses on my career (22%)
Departmental support
•	increases my breadth, exposure (28%)
•	supports training and education (24%)
•	offers formal career development programs (18%)
•	focus on people skills and management (15%)
Public Service support
•	offers formal career development programs (48%)
•	increases my breadth, exposure (17%)
•	supports training and education (17%)
Group Differences
The pattern of responses to the interviews varied according to gender, job type, and program participation status.  Key between-group differences were:
Gender
As compared to women, men were more likely to:
•	define career success in terms of recognition
•	see career goals in terms of leaving Public Service
•	be frustrated by political interference
•	mention that their supervisor provided autonomy
As compared to men, women were more likely to:
•	define career success in terms of esteem
•	see career goals in intrinsic terms
•	be frustrated by the work environment
•	mention that their supervisor had good people skills
Job type
The senior management and scientist groups emerged on many measures as distinctly different from others.  As compared to employees in other jobs,
Senior managers were more likely to:
•	define career success in terms of esteem
•	see career goals in terms of influence and contribution
•	have scanned the horizon as a career strategy
•	attribute their promotions to experience, performance, and a good “fit” with  those in charge of selection
•	find rewards in the variety and challenge of work
•	be frustrated by political interference
•	have thought of leaving the Public Service
•	mention their supervisor provided autonomy
•	think the department did nothing in the way of support
Scientists were more likely to:
•	define career success in terms of satisfaction and recognition
•	describe career goals in intrinsic terms
•	say they were already in the position they aspired to
•	attribute their promotions to meeting a formal requirement or being “good” at the competition process
•	find rewards in a sense of accomplishment and the variety and challenges of the job
•	have thought of leaving the Public Service
•	mention that their supervisor supported them by giving them breadth
•	mention that their supervisor hindered them by not being knowledgeable about their work
•	think that the Public Service had done nothing in the way of support
Managers were more likely to:
•	find rewards in the opportunity to learn
Officers were more likely to:
•	define career success in terms of satisfaction and recognition
•	describe their goals in terms of progress
•	have pursued training and increased their visibility as career strategies
•	find rewards in the people they worked with
Analysts were more likely to:
•	attribute their promotions to “being automatic–part of their program”
•	find rewards in the people they worked with
•	mention that their supervisor supported them by mentoring
Program Participants Versus Non-program Employees
Employees who were participants in formal career development programs (AEXDP, ADM Pool, CAP or MTP) differed from non-program employees in the following ways:
Program participants were more likely to:
•	define career success in terms of learning and contribution
•	see career goals in terms of achieving a DM or ADM position
•	attribute their promotions to their performance history
•	join a formal program, scan the horizon, or increase their breadth as career development strategies
•	find rewards in the variety and challenge of work
•	have thought of leaving the Public Service
•	mention that their supervisor had good people skills, mentored them, and increased their visibility
•	think that their department had helped them by offering formal career development programs and communicating information to them
Non-program employees were more likely to:
•	say that they were already in the position they aspired to
•	pursue training as a career strategy
•	attribute their promotions to meeting a formal requirement
•	find rewards in a sense of accomplishment and the people they worked with
•	think that their department had done nothing to help them
•	think that the Public Service had done nothing to help them
THE SURVEY STUDY
Objectives
The survey study was designed to investigate career development in the federal Public Service in a more structured format with a larger group of respondents.  Primary objectives were to examine:
•	what employees valued in a career and what they hoped to achieve
•	the steps they had taken to attain their goals
•	their perceptions of career support provided by the organization
•	their work attitudes and behaviours
Each of the above issues was examined as a function of gender, job category (Executive, Scientific and Professional, Administrative and Foreign Service) and promotional status (whether or not the respondent had been promoted at least once in his/her federal government career).
Method
Each of 13 participating departments was asked to draw a random sample of 20% of their Executive, Scientific and Professional, Administrative and Foreign Service employees.  This procedure produced an initial sample of 6,908 federal employees in the target job categories.  Questionnaires in both official languages were distributed via internal mail by a departmental contact person and returned in sealed envelopes to protect confidentiality.  A total of 2,350 usable questionnaires were returned before the cut-off date, resulting in a final response rate of 40% (net of undeliverables and late returns).

Sample
The survey sample was distributed as illustrated in Figure B.
The “typical” survey respondent was similar to the interview respondents in many respects (married, university educated, in the mid- to late-career years, with both child- and elder-care responsibilities).  Respondents had an average tenure of 17 years with the federal government, and had worked on average in two different departments during that time.  Nearly half of the respondents (44%) worked in sites outside of the National Capital Region.
Career Values
The survey format allowed researchers to contrast what employees valued in their careers with what they actually encountered in the federal Public Service work environment.  From a list of 15 possible achievements, respondents were asked how important each was to his or her definition of career success, and to what extent these same achievements were available to them in their work.  Results suggested a considerable gap between “dreams” and “reality”.  Following are some noteworthy differences:
	Important to me	Available to me	
Doing work that is enjoyable	97%	75%	
A sense of accomplishment	96%	59%	
Learning and developing skills	89%	62%	
A salary that affords a comfortable lifestyle	86%	51%	
A balance between work and non-work life	85%	63%	
Being surrounded by stimulating people	78%	45%	
Contributing to society	71%	50%	
Influencing the direction of the organization	54%	22%	
Increasing financial rewards	53%	25%	

Career Goals and Strategies
Many federal employees had given considerable thought to what they wanted to achieve in their careers: 68% had specific career goals; 51% scored high on a measure of career planning.  To get a sense of which career actions respondents might like to pursue, respondents were asked to indicate how likely it was that they would take advantage of 13 opportunities if they became available within the next two years.  A majority of employees indicated that they would be likely to take advantage of opportunities which enriched or challenged them professionally:
•	a new challenging assignment (71%)
•	advancement to a higher position (67%)
•	a special work opportunity or project (66%)
•	intensive employer-funded training (56%)
•	an opportunity to help younger employees develop professionally (51%)
Only a minority of employees indicated that they would likely take advantage of opportunities which removed them from the workplace or reduced their pay.  Least likely options were:
•	an unpaid leave (15%)
•	a sabbatical (20%)
•	a reduced workweek at prorated pay and benefits (23%)
In order to examine what steps employees took to further their careers, respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they had engaged in a list of 20 possible behaviours.  Four strategies were used to a great extent by three quarters or more of the respondents:
•	showing initiative (85%)
•	consistently exceeding performance expectations (73%)
•	doing quality work on things superiors pay attention to (73%)
•	doing things that are well beyond what is required by the job (73%)
Conversely, less than one quarter of respondents used the following strategies:
•	showing a willingness to relocate (25%)
•	moving from one department to another (13%)
•	cultivating a powerful mentor (11%)
Organizational Support for Career Development
The survey format also allowed a comparison of “dreams” versus “reality” in terms of responsibility for career development.  When asked who they thought should be responsible for employee development, 71% of respondents indicated the responsibility should be shared between employer and employee.  Only 17% of respondents, however, believed that responsibility was shared in the federal Public Service: most employees (73%) said that career development was left to the employee.
Items which tapped supervisor and departmental support for employee career development mirrored the results of the interview study: supervisors were rated higher than the department in terms of support (37% of supervisors were rated highly supportive, versus 18% of departments).  The perceived level of support from either source, however, was rather low.
Work Attitudes and Behaviours
Career satisfaction
Less than half of the survey respondents (49%) indicated that they were very satisfied with their career progress to date.  They were even less positive about their future prospects: only 35% believed it likely that they would be able to meet their career goals if they spent the remainder of their careers within the Public Service (30% considered it unlikely).
Job satisfaction
The inability to satisfy career goals can be a source of dissatisfaction which can spill over into attitudes about the job itself.  When assessed in terms of overall job satisfaction, only 44% of respondents were highly satisfied with their jobs.  This is a lower level of satisfaction than has been reported in similar studies with other employee groups.
The highest levels of satisfaction were associated with:
•	the schedule of work
•	the job in general
•	the types of things done on the job
The lowest levels of satisfaction were expressed in reference to:
•	the ability to advance
•	pay
Commitment
Employees who are highly committed to the organization work hard, are absent less often and are less likely to leave for a new job.  Earning employees’ commitment, therefore, is an important organizational goal.  The survey suggested that only 32% of employees were highly committed to the federal Public Service, a much lower proportion than has been reported in other employee groups (typically as high as 55% to 66%).  Allegiance leaned more toward the department: 42% of employees indicated they were highly committed to their departments.
Turnover intentions
Three quarters of survey respondents (74%) had considered leaving the Public Service at one point or another, a proportion very similar to that obtained in the interview study (75%).  Survey respondents were most likely to think they might leave for the private sector or to start their own business, again similar to the interview responses.  The survey also tapped, however, the proportion of respondents who were considering leaving at the time of the survey: 21% scored high on their turnover intentions when asked if they were thinking of leaving the Public Service within the next year.  Again, this was a higher level of turnover intention than has been reported elsewhere.
Group Differences
The pattern of survey responses varied according to gender, job category, and promotional status.  Key between-group differences were:
Gender
As compared to women, men were more likely to:
•	value the ability to influence the direction of the organization
•	experience greater gaps between their goals and their opportunities
•	pursue high visibility projects or become a leader in their peer group as career strategies
•	be dissatisfied with their career progress and believe that they were unlikely to meet their career goals if they remained in the Public Service
•	be dissatisfied with their jobs, particularly in the area of workload, pay and ability to advance
•	have a low level of commitment to the Public Service
•	consider leaving the Public Service within the next year
As compared to men, women were more likely to:
•	value the ability to achieve a balance, the development of new skills, and the ability to move through positions of increasing responsibility
•	be interested in developmental opportunities such as a special assignment or challenging new work
•	be interested in reduced work week or an unpaid leave
•	exceed performance expectations and go well beyond the requirements of the job as career strategies
•	have had a mentor
•	have acquired breadth through a variety of work
•	have been promoted in the past five years
•	be satisfied with their career progress and were more positive about future prospects if they remained with the Public Service
•	be satisfied with their jobs
•	be committed to the Public Service, and less likely to consider leaving the Public Service within the next year
Job category
As compared to employees in other job categories,
Executives were more likely to:
•	value the ability to influence the direction of the organization and being surrounded by stimulating people
•	say they would like the opportunity to move to a central agency or help develop younger employees 
•	have utilized a wide range of strategies, including line experience, staff experience, stretch assignments, special work opportunities, and  opportunities to interact with senior managers
•	have had mentors
•	perceive higher levels of support from both supervisors and the department
•	be satisfied with their career progress and believe that they could meet their goals within the Public Service
•	be more satisfied with the job in general, but less satisfied with workload and the number and scheduling of work hours
•	be committed to the Public Service
Administrative and Foreign Service Personnel were more likely to:
•	place a lower value on making a contribution to society
•	experience greater gaps between their goals and their opportunities
•	be interested in advancement to a higher position, a parallel move, a move to a central agency, or developmental opportunities such as a special assignment or training
•	have had access to training
•	believe they may not be able to meet their career goals within the Public Service
•	be dissatisfied with their pay
Scientists and Professionals were more likely to:
•	place a lower value on moving through positions of increasing responsibility or on obtaining increasing financial rewards
•	have a lower rate of promotion
•	be interested in a sabbatical or unpaid leave
•	have a lower level of commitment to the Public Service
Promotional status
Employees who had been promoted were more likely to:
•	perceive smaller gaps between goals and opportunities
•	report that their jobs provided for a personal sense of accomplishment, growth and development, and a salary commensurate with a comfortable lifestyle
•	be interested in advancing to a higher position or moving to a parallel assignment
•	have built breadth (worked in a variety of areas), focused on work important to their superiors, and solicited career support from others as career strategies
•	have had a mentor 
•	perceive higher levels of support from both supervisors and the department
•	have individual career counselling and formal career discussions with a superior
•	be satisfied with their career progress to date, and more optimistic about their ability to meet their career goals within the Public Service
•	be satisfied with the job in general, particularly in terms of pay and their ability to advance
•	be committed to the Public Service
Employees who had not been promoted were more likely to:
•	experience larger gaps between goals and opportunities
•	report that their jobs did not provide a comfortable salary and opportunities for learning and skills development
•	have attended career planning workshops
•	be interested in taking a sabbatical
•	be dissatisfied with their career progress to date, and more negative about their ability to achieve their goals within the Public Service
•	be dissatisfied with their jobs in general, particularly with pay and the ability to advance
•	have lower levels of commitment to the Public Service
•	be thinking of leaving the Public Service within the next year
THE “BEST PRACTICES” CASE STUDIES
Objectives
The best practices study was undertaken in order to “benchmark” the HR practices of organizations considered to be high performers in the career development arena.  Benchmarking embodies the idea that it is possible for decision-makers to examine the best practices of other organizations, reflect on the appropriateness of these practices in their own context, and then implement changes based on their observations.  It was hoped that the lessons learned from best-in-class organizations would help the Public Service to identify, define, and refine its own career development practices so as to better contribute to organizational success and employee growth.  
Method
Fourteen Canadian organizations were identified and in-depth interviews were conducted with individuals responsible for career management and career development programs in each organization.  The employers featured in this phase of the study were selected on the basis of their outstanding reputations in the Canadian career management arena (e.g., having been identified as one of Financial Post’s 100 best companies to work for, a government department with a reputation of innovative programs in the area).  Information was obtained through in-depth personal interviews, written policy summaries guidelines and other material provided by our contact people.  On average, interviews lasted three hours.
Sample
Of the 14 organizations, eight were private sector companies: Alcan Aluminum, Bank of Montreal, Hewlett-Packard Canada, IBM Canada, Pratt & Whitney, Royal Bank, Bell Canada, and  Xerox Canada; one was a crown corporation: Business Development Bank of Canada; and five were public sector organizations: Health Canada, National Research Council, Statistics Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada, and the Ontario Public Service.  Due to space limitations, only seven of these organizations are profiled in this report; the remainder will be featured in upcoming reports.
The final organizations selected for this report were:
•	Alcan
•	Bank of Montreal
•	Health Canada
•	Hewlett-Packard
•	IBM Canada
•	Royal Bank
•	Statistics Canada
Lessons Learned
Although, given the diversity of these organizations, there was a wide range of approaches to career development, there also were some striking similarities.  Following is a summary of some of the key similarities and “critical success factors” associated with exemplary management of career development.
Organizations who are top performers in managing employee career development:
1)	Have top management’s full commitment and support  Senior executives set the tone for the organization’s culture, so without this driving force, even the best processes will not provide the benefits they are capable of delivering.
2)	Invest in career development   Best practice organizations back up their visions with actual commitment of financial, human and technical resources.
3)	Align development with corporate objectives as well as personal goals   There was consensus that it is of utmost importance to link career goals to business strategies, directions and needs if both parties are to win.
4)	Have a culture which values, supports and rewards learning   Career development systems thrive in a culture that supports and rewards learning and participation.
5)	Share the responsibility for career development   In these organizations, career development is employee owned, manager facilitated, and organization supported.
6)	Build accountability into the system    Manager accountability for the development of their employees is particularly critical in these organizations, as managers play a pivotal role in coaching employees, rewarding them, and evaluating their performance.
7)	Train their managers in the skills they need to support employee career development   Best practice organizations recognize that for managers to be comfortable and competent in their career development roles, they need to be trained in skills such as coaching, providing performance feedback, etc.
8)	Give employees the processes, information, tools and resources they need   If organizations are to charge employees with responsibility for their own careers, then employees must have the resources they need to proceed.  Most of the organizations in this study provided a host of information and resources to facilitate career planning and development (e.g., self-assessment tools, catalogues of training options, workshops).
9)	Are good communicators   Without employee awareness of career development options, initiatives are without value.  Many organizations made use of existing communication systems in order to spread information regarding career development (e.g., using the job posting system not only to advertise jobs, but also to communicate organizational priorities and activities and opportunities in other parts of the organization.)
10)	Offer employees a number of development options   A range of options are typically available, including formal courses, seminars, workshops, mentoring, and online self-paced learning.
11)	Emphasize experiential learning   On the job learning through rotations, assignments and project work serves organizational needs in peak areas while broadening employees’ scope.
12)	Integrate career management processes into other key HR processes   Good career managers recognize the interrelationships among various processes and integrate career development within existing systems, such as performance management, succession planning, recruitment, staffing, and in some cases, compensation and reward.
13)	Identify and nurture high potential employees   Best practice organizations identify high potential employees and target them early in their careers for systematic development and exposure and planned career moves.
14)	Focus on identifying leadership throughout the organization   Focusing on high potential employees is not enough — organizations also need to pay attention to their “solid citizens”, the good contributors who may not be “high-flyers”, but whose contribution is critical to the organization’s success.
15)	Regularly evaluate their career development system   Although many best practice organizations invest in career development because they simply believe in the importance of people, good career development managers also track program usage, costs, and satisfaction with training.
The success of the above approaches depends largely on culture.  While what works in one organization may not work in another, lessons can be learned and strategies adapted.  Organizations hoping to become better career managers first need to examine their own culture and commitment to employee development in order to determine which of the above success factors will work within their individual environments.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The research generated 45 recommendations in 18 different areas.  
Definitions of Career Success and Career Aspirations
To provide appropriate career development supports to employees it is important to understand how employees define career success and how these definitions of success are linked to career aspirations.  The research findings suggest that there is not one common view of career success held by federal knowledge workers.  Nor do all workers have the same aspirations.  Approximately 40% of the study participants ascribe to “traditional” definitions of career success (i.e. define success in terms of career progress, recognition and increased financial rewards) while the rest espouse newer, more holistic definitions (i.e. define success in terms of satisfaction with the work they do, a personal sense of accomplishment, a chance to make a contribution, and being able to learn and develop new skills).  Unfortunately the data would suggest that current Public Service career development practices satisfy neither of these definitions of career success.  Nor do they help employees in either group meet their career aspirations.  These data give rise to the following recommendations:
1.	The Public Service redefine “career success” to include traditional and non-traditional career paths and career aspirations.  This re-definition should include changes to the compensation system.
2.	The Public Service develop different types of career development programs to accommodate these different definitions of success and career aspirations.
Sense of Accomplishment
Approximately half of both samples defined career success in terms of “a sense of accomplishment.”  Unfortunately, the data suggest that for many federal knowledge workers the Public Service work culture and the bureaucracy are reducing their ability to obtain a sense of accomplishment from work.  The following recommendations deal with sense of accomplishment:
3.	The Public Service identify ways to increase the personal sense of accomplishment felt by its knowledge workers.  Specifically it needs to:
-	provide greater autonomy to its knowledge workers
-	find new ways to provide recognition for work accomplishments
With respect to the provision of greater employee recognition we recommend that the government explore the following options:
•	improve salaries, especially at the executive level (concerns about salary are often about recognition as well as money)
•	give managers training on how to give and receive feedback
•	explore new ways of publicizing the good work the Public Service does (the data suggest that the widespread Public Service bashing in the media and elsewhere is demoralizing for those in the Public Service knowledge sector)
•	make employees more aware of existing recognition and awards programs 
•	redesign recognition and rewards programs to align what is rewarded with what different groups of employees value (the data suggest that the Public Service is “using the wrong carrots” for employees with non-traditional views of success)
Contribution to Society
The data show that a substantive number of Public Service knowledge workers feel that one of main rewards of working in the public sector is the chance to make a contribution.  The chance to make a contribution is especially important to those in the executive ranks.  Unfortunately the data would suggest that the bureaucracy and the work culture in the Public Service is making it more difficult for many employees to feel that they are making a contribution.  The following recommendations with respect to contributions to society are suggested:
4.	The Public Service identify ways in which they can let knowledge workers know how their work was used by others.  
5.	The Public Service explore ways to publicly reward “contributions to Canadian society.”
Work-Life Balance an Issue
The data indicate that work-life balance is a critical issue within the federal knowledge worker population.  The majority of employees in both samples were in the full-nest stage of the life cycle and had significant family responsibilities (i.e. childcare and eldercare).
Furthermore, almost all of the interview respondents indicate that career success and life success are closely inter-twined.  The data from both studies suggest that work-life balance issues were more problematic for female Public Service knowledge workers than for their male counterparts.  
Managing the work-life issue from an organizational as well as an individual perspective is difficult but if current conditions are any indication of long term trends (and the elder care data suggest that they are) then the Public Service can be sure of one thing - this “problem” is not going to go away.  The following recommendations around work-life balance are suggested.
6.	The Public Service examine why motherhood and career advancement are perceived by many female Public Service knowledge workers to be mutually exclusive goals. 
7.	Future career development initiatives be developed using a “work-life” lens. 
8.	The Public Service develop explicit policies around the career development of dual-career parents.
What Career Strategies are Linked to Promotability?
Promotions are one of the most tangible forms of career progression.  This research indicates that Public Service knowledge workers who received promotions used a different set of career strategies than employees who had not been promoted (see above summary on differences associated with promotional status).  The following career strategy recommendations are submitted in the report:
9.	The Public Service redesign their career planning workshops to make them more relevant to today’s workforce.
10.	The Public Service explicitly indicate the criteria that will be used in different promotion and advancement decisions.  
11.	The “number of promotions an employee receives within a certain time frame” be part of a set of outcome measures used by departments to formally evaluate the success of their career development initiatives and processes.
12.	The Public Service make career development opportunities and initiatives such as stretch assignments, special work opportunities, individual career counselling and formal career discussions with a superior more available to interested and qualified knowledge workers.
The Individual’s Role in Career Development
The data indicate that most knowledge workers in the Public Service have taken steps to develop their career.  Unfortunately, the data also suggest that many employees are using strategies which are not linked to career advancement and not adopting strategies which are!  Accordingly we recommend that:
13.	The Public Service make employees more aware of which individual career development strategies are associated with career advancement.
14.	The Public Service provide interested employees with the opportunity to network with those above them in the organization.
15.	The Public Service develop and implement formal and informal mentoring programs.
16.	The Public Service provide managers with training on how to effectively mentor employees.
Organizational Support of Career Development
The research suggests a number of ways in which managers, departments and the Public Service can take a more active role in the career development of its knowledge workers.  Since most career support comes from one’s immediate supervisor it is critical that the Public Service help managers become better people developers.  We recommend that the Public Service consider the following initiatives:
17.	Assess supervisors on their people management and people development skills.
18.	Provide managers with training on how to deal effectively with people (i.e. communication skills, negotiation, feedback, conflict resolution).
19.	Devolve responsibility for career development to the level of the employee’s immediate supervisor.  This will allow managers to tailor developmental opportunities to an individual’s needs and values and avoid the “one-size-fits-all” approach to career development.
20.	Provide supervisors with training which gives them the business rationale behind career development as well as the skills and tools they need to be a career development “partner”.
21.	Keep supervisors informed about future career opportunities so that they can give career-counselling to interested employees.
22.	Readjust workloads so that supervisors have time to support employee development (i.e. concretely recognize it is a critical part of the management job function).
23.	Make managers accountable for the career development of their subordinates.
24.	Make departments accountable for the career development of their knowledge workers.
25.	Make effective developmental experiences more accessible to interested employees.  The survey and interview data identify a number of such developmental experiences including career discussions with supervisor, individual career counselling, career planning workshops, job rotation, formal coaching and mentoring, assessments of career potential, parallel assignments, the opportunity to acquire line experience, the opportunity to mentor younger employees, the opportunity for intensive training funded by the Public Service, challenging new assignments, special work opportunities, and stretch assignments.
26.	Involve employees in the development of appropriate career development experiences and programs.
Breadth
The research indicates that “breadth” of knowledge and experience is one of the most important determinants of career advancement and career success in the knowledge sector.  Given the importance of “breadth” to the career development of those in the knowledge sector it is recommended that the Public Service:
27.	Make the importance of breadth of knowledge and experience(as defined in the report) widely known.
28.	Make it easier for employees to make lateral moves by identifying some of the most likely lateral moves both within and between departments.
29.	Develop new strategies to help knowledge workers acquire breadth using a “work-life” balance lens (i.e. how can employees gain breadth without relocating).
30.	Develop a compensation system which recognizes and rewards breadth as well as depth (the Public Service has a need for both in its knowledge sector).
Visibility
While breadth may be critical for career development, many employees believe that visibility is essential for career advancement.  Given the perceived importance of “visibility” to the career advancement of those in the knowledge sector it is recommended that the Public Service:
31.	Make the importance of “visibility” widely known.
32.	Make it easier for employees to interact and network with senior management.
Education/Training
With respect to education and training, we recommend:
33.	The Public Service explicitly indicate how formal training and educational qualification are used in different promotion and advancement decisions (i.e. are they considered a requirement for the job, an indication of breadth, an indication of depth, not considered at all?).
34.	The Public Service redesign their training programs to make them more relevant to today’s workforce (i.e. experiential learning, on the job training, mentoring).
Equity Issues
The research suggests that there may be some backlash to government policies around employment equity and diversity.  This backlash seems to centre around issues of language, gender and age.  These data are cause for concern.  To counteract these perceptions the Public Service needs to:
35.	Provide employees with information on why employment equity and diversity initiatives are necessary. 
36.	Make recruitment, hiring and promotion decisions transparent.
Federal Career Development Programs
The research indicates that the Public Service needs to re-examine the design and delivery of their CDPs.  In particular we recommend that:
37.	The Public Service offer a broader range of federal career development programs to meet the needs of today’s more diverse workforce (i.e. those with traditional definitions of success as well as those with more “holistic” views).  
HR Practices
The following recommendations were made with respect to human resources management:
38.	The Public Service needs to redesign the competition process.  Employee involvement should be sought during this redesign.
39.	HR policies and practices need to be aligned with the demographics of the Public Service work force (i.e. work- life balance, sandwich generation, elder care, dual-income couples).
40.	HR policies and practices need to be redesigned to be more flexible and user friendly.
41.	HR policies and practices need to be integrated with individual departmental missions (the data suggest that there is no one set of programs or policies that will meet everyone’s needs).
42.	Departments should measure “organizational health” on an annual or bi-annual basis.  Measures of organizational health should include (but not be limited to) work stress, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to turnover, morale and satisfaction with career progress.  These measures can be used by departments to formally evaluate the success of their career development initiatives and processes.  They can also be used in the accountability process.
Communication Key
The research indicates that the government should not simply focus on the generation and implementation of new career development opportunities.  In addition:
43.	The Public Service should explore new ways to disseminate relevant information on career development to interested employees.
44.	The Public Service should seek, wherever possible, to involve employees in the design of future career development programs and initiatives (i.e. develop channels which facilitate upward communication).
Recognize Job Type Differences
Current federal CDPs have been developed to accommodate different career-cycle stages (i.e. MTP, CAP, AEXDP, ADM pool).  The data collected in these studies suggest that job type differences are also important determinants of career aspirations and career strategies.  Consequently we recommend the following:
45.	The Public Service should develop CDPs which take into account job type differences in career aspirations and definitions of career success.

Chapter 1 - Introduction
Career planning and development have been receiving increased attention in public and private sector organizations.  Growing numbers of managers and professional staff are seeking more control over their worklife.  As organizations downsize and restructure there is less trust in the organization to provide job security.  “Employees are not willing to let their careers “just happen” and are taking an active role in planning and managing them.  This is particularly true for women, employees in mid-career and university recruits who are increasingly asking for career planning assistance.  On the other hand, organizations are becoming more and more reliant on their “intellectual capital.”  Providing career planning and development opportunities for organizational members helps to recruit and retain skilled and knowledgeable workers1.”
The research literature indicates that career development benefits both employees and employers alike.  From the individual viewpoint, human capital theory predicts that education, training and development are valuable investments that yield returns such as higher expected income, greater employment security and higher job satisfaction.  World economic and demographic trends are combining to put even greater pressure on those who lack basic and marketable skills.  
From the organizational point of view the role of development ranges from the basic goal of providing employees with the knowledge and skills necessary to perform to acceptable standards on their job to empowering workers so they can make decisions, solve problems, help managers change the company, achieve quality (service quality or production quality), become more competitive, and rapidly and fairly exploit the potential benefits of technological change.
One can also consider how training and development can contribute to organizational effectiveness.  The research literature indicates management development will make it easier for organizations to recruit high performers, retain employees who value opportunities for growth and advancement, improve interpersonal relations within the organization, increase an organization’s ability to cope with change, improve employee relations, and reduce turnover.
Career development programs and processes are critical to the rebuilding of the Canadian federal Public Service; to the “building of a vibrant and creative institution relevant to the needs of Canadians - an institution capable of attracting and retaining the talent it requires and providing its public servants with rewarding and stimulating careers.”2  Years of downsizing and pay freezes, criticism, insufficient recruitment and the premature departure of experienced public servants have made it more difficult to retain, motivate and attract people essential to the work of the Public Service3.  In such an environment career planning and development is critical.
In the 1997-98 Annual Report of the Public Service Commission the Commissioners talk about the importance of career development and human resources management (HRM) to the rejuvenation of the federal Public Service.
“We are fully aware that to meet the ... challenges there is much work to be done.  This will involve a major shift in organizational culture, in mind set and behaviour.  We are committed to becoming a learning organization.  We will provide the conditions and the incentives for our employees to develop the knowledge, skills and competencies we will need to achieve our goals.  Our people are our future and as Benjamin Franklin once said “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” (Ginette Steward, p. 4)
“As nations increasingly face critical and complex choices it is fundamentally necessary to increase the competency of those involved in governing including public servants ....  we need to nurture our staff so that their needs are identified and addressed, their skills and competencies are enhanced and their energies are sufficiently replenished and rejuvenated.  Thus learning emerges as a key strategic lever since it is a significant vehicle for a rapid increase in the competency and effectiveness of our Public Service.”  (Mary Gusella, p. 5)
“We must do all we can to retain those who make the commitment to serve and who achieve excellence in what they do by ensuring that they continue to learn and develop.” (Ruth Hubbard, p. 4)
Research Objectives
This report summarizes the results of a major study, begun in May of 1998, on career development of knowledge-based workers4 in the Canadian Federal Public Service (Public Service).  The objectives of this research were to:
1.	Identify the career goals and aspirations of knowledge workers in the federal Public Service
2.	Identify career development strategies currently in use in the Public Service
3.	Identify ways in which the organization (supervisor, department, Public Service):
-	supports the career development goals of Public Service knowledge workers 
-	impedes the career development goals Public Service knowledge workers 
4.	Identify changes that would make it easier for knowledge workers in the Public Service to meet their career development goals
5.	Use a number of critical outcome measures to evaluate organizational success with respect to career development (i.e. satisfaction with ability to meet career goals, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to turnover)
6.	Examine how the above issues are affected by:
-	gender,
-	job type,
-	whether or not a person has been promoted in the last five years, and
-	participation in a federal career development program (i.e. ADM pool, AEXDP, CAP, MTP).
7.	Highlight state of the art practices with respect to career development through a series of case studies of career development systems in best practice organizations.
To make federal career development programs and initiatives more meaningful to public servants we first need to have a comprehensive understanding of their career goals and aspirations and their career management strategies.  We need to know what development strategies work and which do not.  We need to know if different groups of employees have different career aspirations.  The research summarized in this report provides a significant step forward in these directions.  Data collected during the course of this research should prove invaluable to all stakeholders in the career development of federal public servants: managers, employees, departments, the Public Service itself, government institutions, elected and appointed officials and the Canadian public.
Approach
Three research studies were undertaken to meet the above objectives:
•	Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 254 knowledge based Public Service employees.  Just under half of those in the interview sample participated in a federal career development program.  The results from the interview study are presented and discussed in Chapter Two of this report.  
•	A random sample of 2,350 knowledge based Public Service employees representing 13 government departments were surveyed regarding career aspirations, career strategies, work attitudes and behaviours and work history.  Survey results are presented and discussed in Chapter Three of this report.  
•	Case studies were conducted with seven public and private sector organizations who are considered to be “best practice” organizations with respect to their career development programs and practices.  These case studies are given in Chapter Four of this report.
Outline of Chapter
This chapter is divided into five additional sections.  Section three examines reasons for the increased interest in career development in public and private sector institutions.  The impetus behind career management may come from either of two sources or both: (1) employers who strive to retain and effectively utilize their human resources, (2) employees who desire satisfying work and personal growth (Stone and Meltz, 1993).  Sections four and five provide a summary of the current thinking on the roles of these two career development partners: the employee and the organization.  Section six provides a short description of a number of current federal career development programs.  The chapter ends with a brief description of how the report itself is organized.
A number of academic journal articles and career management texts were reviewed during the course of this research.  There was a great deal of duplication within these documents with respect to key ideas, approaches and perspectives.  To increase the readability of this document the use of academic references will be kept to a minimum.  A complete list of source documents is provided for the interested reader in Appendix A.
BOX 1.1 - Definitions
CAREER:  The word career can be viewed from a number of different perspectives.  From one perspective a career is a sequence of positions held by a person during the course of a lifetime.  This is the objective career.  From another perspective a career consists of all the changes in values, attitudes and motivations that occur as a person grows older.  This is the subjective career.
CAREER GOALS:  the future positions one strives to reach as part of a career.  These goals serve as benchmarks along one’s career path.  
CAREER PLANNING:  the process by which one selects career goals and the path to those goals.  Career planning is important because the consequences of career success or failure are linked closely with an individual’s self concept, identity and satisfaction with career and life.
CAREER DEVELOPMENT:  the process by which one undertakes personal improvements to achieve personal career plans or goals.  A deliberate attempt by an individual to become more aware of his or her own skills, interests, values, opportunities, constraints, choices, and consequences.
HUMAN RESOURCES PLANNING:  the process of forecasting human resource needs of an organization so that steps can be taken to ensure all those needs are met.  This means avoiding both shortages and surpluses of labour.	

Why The Increased Interest in Career Development?
Profound changes in the Canadian business climate are requiring organizations to do more human resources planning and career development than in the past.  These changes include the challenges of globalization and international competition; the effects of technology; government employment equity legislation; redefined concepts of client-driven service delivery and shifting demographics.  Federal public sector coping strategies have included program review, Public Service reform, downsizing, restructuring, La Relève and improved customer service.  These strategies demand that both employees and managers think and behave in new ways.  Career development plays a tremendously large role in assuring the successful implementation of these strategies as it: (1) provides employees with the knowledge and skill needed for organizational change, and (2) can be used to communicate and sell people on the need for change.
Organizations engage in career development activities for a number of reasons (See Box 1.2).  The most critical of these motivations are discussed on the next page.
BOX 1.2 - Why Worry About Career Management?
The research literature reports that companies who practice career management and career planning activities indicate that they are influenced to do so by:
•	a desire to develop and promote employees from within
•	a shortage of promotable talent
•	a strong expression of interest by employees
•	a desire to increase productivity/improve customer service
•	a concern about employee turnover
•	a personal interest by managers
•	a desire for a positive recruiting image
•	employment equity legislation and planning pressures
•	rising educational levels and occupational aspirations
•	slow economic growth and reduced advancement opportunities

Sources: Stone and Meltz (1993);  Cascio and Thacker (1994)	

Demographic Changes In The Labour Force
An important factor contributing to the increased importance of career development is the changing demographics of the Canadian labour force.  Demographers have predicted that at the turn of the millennium as our workforce ages and many employees retire there will be shortages of educated and skilled labour.  The growth rate of the labour force has declined by nearly half since the 1960s (Stone and Meltz, 1993).  The number of Canadians aged 15 to 24 (the age group that typically enters the paid workforce) dropped 28% between 1980 and 1990.  The average age of employees is higher than at any time in recent history.  The education and skills of many seeking employment are often inadequate for the jobs that are vacant (i.e. specialized skill requirements).  Within the government context it is anticipated that approximately 300 executives may leave the Public Service in each of the next five years given the age profile of this cadre.  It has also been estimated that by the year 2000 approximately 80% of the new entrants to the workplace will be a mix of women, visible minorities and immigrants (Cascio and Thacker, 1994).  These trends have two key implications for managers:
•	the reduced supply of entry level workers will make finding, keeping and developing skilled employees a top priority in the years ahead
•	the task of developing and managing a culturally diverse workforce will present managers with one of their biggest challenges in the millennium to come
A second major demographic transformation, changing attitudes in the workplace, was noted by Arnold Deutsche in his book entitled The Human Resource Revolution: Communicate or Litigate.  Key attitudinal changes noted include rising expectations for a more rewarding career, more humane working experiences and a greater “democratization” of the workplace.  At this point in time many employees, especially but not only those who are highly educated, want a career not “just a job” and many have high expectations about gaining satisfaction from their work now and in the future.  Increasingly, workers want a say in decisions affecting their jobs and their employment.  These types of employees have higher expectations with respect to career development programs and experiences.
The federal Public Service has responded to these demographic changes in a number of ways including: (1) The Universal Classification System (UCS) a redesign and simplification of the classification system, (2) new recruitment strategies to address skills shortages; (3) new or revised corporate development programs including those for executives; and (4) the renewal of functional communities such as IT, science and technology, communications, middle management and policy specialists.
Downsizing and Restructuring
At the outset of the 90s the Canadian business climate was battered by a combination of factors that produced a record high level of bankruptcies, declining employment and rising unemployment.  Factors that had a negative effect on the economy included (among other things) high interest rates, a high exchange rate for the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the U.S.  dollar, the introduction of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the slowdown in the U.S. economy (Stone and Meltz, 1993).  These changes in the Canadian economy and the need to compete globally has lead many organizations to reduce staff and restructure employment in order to lower their operating costs.  For employees this downsizing and restructuring has lead to decreased morale and job satisfaction and increased job insecurity and stress.  For the human resources function this downsizing has had a major impact on compensation and functions such as recruiting, retraining, benefits and layoffs.  The other reality of slowed economic growth and downsizing is that upward mobility is less of an option for many.  In such an environment, career planning and development increases in importance as a vehicle for meeting employee demands for more satisfying work and job security.
In recent years the federal Public Service has undergone considerable restructuring and downsizing.  Program Review, announced in the 1994 budget, involved a comprehensive review of federal government programs and services.  Its goals were to clarify the government’s roles and responsibilities; to ensure that resources are used for priorities; and to deliver on the government’s commitment to achieve better, more accessible and more affordable government.  Although program review was originally scheduled to terminate on March 31, 1998 it was later extended for an additional 12 month period and will officially end March 31, 1999.  The program has so far managed to streamline federal programs and services and reduce federal government spending.  As a result of this major initiative, the Public Service has witnessed a 17% decline in the size of the workforce.5  
In the midst of downsizing and restructuring, career related programs are not just possible but vitally important.  Restructuring can lead to many redundant or inappropriately placed employees and a career management strategy which focuses on in-placement is critical6.  
Technological Change
Technological advances have fundamentally changed the nature of work.  They have changed when and where we work, blurred the boundaries between work and non-work, increased the pace of work, and changed service delivery.  Technological change is creating and destroying new jobs at an astonishing rate.  Employees need to learn new skills and knowledge.  When jobs changed radically in the past, many employers simply laid off older, “redundant” employees and hired new, usually younger workers.  The labour demographics of the 1990s make this approach to human resources much more difficult.  
Technological changes are linked to career development and HRM in two ways: (1) they have increased the need for retraining so that existing employees will be part of the future, and (2) the need to recruit and retain employees with skills in Information Technology (IT) has become critical.  In this regard, it should be noted that while technological needs are increasing in the Public Service and the demand for IT professionals is constantly rising, the Year 2000 challenge has compounded the difficulty of recruiting qualified individuals for this group.
Government Legislation
The expansion of government legislated programs such as employment equity, pay equity and other employment standards has also had a profound effect on career development and management in terms of responsibilities and activities.  In a recent survey, one-third of senior HR executives in Canada ranked employment equity and pay equity as crucial in achieving business and human resources objectives (Stone and Meltz, 1993).  The La Relève Task Force focus on HRM issues has created increased awareness of the importance of a representative workforce and the human resources challenges in achieving it.  Despite a long-standing commitment to Employment Equity, the Public Service has yet to achieve a representative workforce.  
Human Capital
Another factor leading to an increased awareness of the importance of career development is the organization’s need to make the best possible use of their most valuable resource - people - in times of rapid technological growth and change.  With global competition has come the realization of the enormous potential of a highly educated, trained and motivated workforce.  People are what make organizations work.  How these people are trained and developed determines to a large extent how successful an organization will be.  By developing employees for future positions an organization is assured a supply of qualified, committed employees to replace higher level employees who either terminate or advance.  This facilitates internal staffing of the organization and reduces the costs of external recruiting and selection.  In addition a career planning and development strategy enables organizations to develop and place employees in positions compatible with their individual career interests, needs and goals thus boosting employee satisfaction and optimizing the use of employee abilities.
Collective Bargaining
The Public Sector Compensation Act (PSCA) has also presented a number of unique challenges to career management and development initiatives in the federal Public Service.  Approximately 88% of the federal Public Service is unionized.  In Oct. 1991 the government passed the Public Sector Compensation Act (PSCA) which suspended collective bargaining and precluded salary increases.  This act was subsequently extended and broadened in its application.  It was seen by the government as an important component in accomplishing its financial objectives.  In 1996-97, the President of the Treasury Board, Marcel Masse announced the PSCA would not be extended and would be allowed to expire as scheduled.  Beginning in June 1996 the two year suspension of annual increments (imposed in the 1994 budget) was lifted.  At the same time performance pay, the equivalent of increments for more senior employees which had been suspended since 1991, was reintroduced.  The government has stated that it is committed to returning to collective bargaining in a way that is fair to both employees and taxpayers.  In 1996 the government passed legislation to suspend binding arbitration in collective bargaining for a three year period.  All groups will be subject to the conciliation process as outlined in the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) if the parties are unable to reach a settlement on their own.  
Career Management by the Employer
The nature of organizations and thus organizational careers are changing.  When the environment was relatively stable, the operations of the organization were relatively predictable and employees who did a good job could count on continued employment and advancement.  But the old rules no longer apply to organizations or their employees.  Organizations today need flexibility to adapt to ever changing circumstances and this has created a new, more flexible, employment contract.  Instead of employment security, organizations try to offer employability security.  Instead of employment for life, the organization offers to help employees develop skills that will enhance their future job prospects.  Unfortunately what employability security means in practice is often unclear.  As Barbara Moses points out, what organizations say and what employees hear are two different things.  
The organization says: “You are responsible for your own employability.  We will provide you with meaningful, challenging, and skill building work which will be good for your resume as long as you continue to add value.”
The employee hears: “We offer no job security.  We will fire you when we have no more need for you.  We will work you to the bone.  We don’t pay particularly well.  And we will tell you that you are our most important resource.”  
Employability security is intangible and the new career is much less predictable than the old employment contract.  The new employment contract, coupled with the pressures on organizations to do more with less, causes significant stress.  Moses claims, “the average worker today produces about 30% more goods or services than he/she did a generation ago with less take home pay, less job security and dimmer future prospects.”  The stresses and frustrations experienced by employees as a result of the new career can contribute to reduced productivity, poorer quality decisions, increased absenteeism and turnover, and increased incidence of disability claims related to stress.  
Research shows that organizations can help alleviate some of the negative consequences of the new career through effective career management.  Career management refers to the policies and practices established by the organization to help employees plan and develop their careers effectively.  Effective career management requires that organizations:  
•	redefine their responsibilities regarding employees’ careers;
•	revise their models of career management; and
•	redirect employees’ career aspirations.  
Under the old career rules the organization assumed responsibility for the career development and career paths of its employees.  Career management was a bit like playing chess — putting the right pieces (that is, people) in the right places at the right time created a winning strategy.  The value that organizations placed on employees’ contributions was measured by the number of promotions awarded them and thus many employees’ aspirations focused on moving up the ladder.  
Under the new career rules the employee is responsible for his or her own career.  The organization is responsible for providing information on future job opportunities and developmental experiences.  Instead of the organization defining success as upward mobility, the employee defines success for him-or herself.  The new model of career management is more like being a real estate broker.  The organization informs employees about options and helps the employee to assess the costs and benefits of various options but ultimate responsibility for the decision is in the hands of the employee.  
Effective career management today implies an understanding of:
•	the employee’s needs and goals; and 
•	the organization’s needs and goals.  
Without an understanding of what competencies the organization requires, an employee cannot chart a viable career path.  Without an understanding of what employees aspire to, organizations cannot offer the right developmental opportunities to the right employees.  
Career Management Practices
There are four major types of career management practices which will be discussed in turn below:
•	employee assessment practices;
•	career planning practices;
•	career development practices; and 
•	underlying HRM practices that support career management.  
Employee assessment practices help employees to identify their skills, values and interests.  There are two types of employee assessment practices:
•	the provision of tools supporting employee self-assessment such as computer software, workbooks and courses; and 
•	organizational assessments of employee potential typically through assessment or development centres.  
Traditionally, assessment centres were used as managerial selection tools which were controlled by the organization, did not try to address employees’ needs, provided little support to employee development and were demoralizing to those who were categorized as not having management potential.  Under career management systems, assessment centres become development centres which take a more collaborative approach, provide assessments relevant to employees’ career goals, recommend developmental interventions and help employees to prepare an individualized development plan.
Career planning is the process by which individuals identify future career goals and the paths to reach those goals.  Organizations can support employee career planning through the provision of career planning workshops, career counselling, and information services.  Career planning workshops help employees to articulate their career goals and identify opportunities relevant to their goals in a group setting.  Career counselling offered to individuals provides information on opportunities and feedback on individual career plans.  Career counselling is sometimes offered by external consultants (particularly in conjunction with outplacement activities); however, most career counselling is provided by supervisors as part of the performance appraisal and development process.  Information services provided for career management may include a variety of tools such as workbooks for career planning, videos, or a reference library.  The most common service provided is a job posting system.
Career development practices are initiatives offered to employees to help them develop the competencies required to reach their career goals.  Effective development programs are based on an assessment of employee needs, allow for employee participation in the learning process, utilize a variety of learning methods, give employees opportunities to practice new skills and incorporate as many on-the-job activities as possible.  The most common developmental activity is training.  Job rotation and formal mentoring programs are other such initiatives that have been successfully implemented in a variety of organizations.  Organizations can help employees to determine their developmental needs and identify programs to fill these needs through development planning incorporated into the performance review system.  The development centre approach discussed above is another more formal way of facilitating employee development.
The human resources management practices which underlie effective career development include HR planning, job analysis and career path mapping.  HR planning includes analysis of the supply and demand for various competencies and action plans for meeting forecast requirements.  Analysis of job content and required competencies provides a common currency that links various HRM practices (e.g.  selection, evaluation, and development), and is the foundation of career path mapping.  Career paths depict possible career directions.  Traditional career paths tend to be defined in terms of upward advancement within a single organizational unit.  Increasingly organizations are identifying bridging paths which indicate potential lateral or upward movement across functions.  This reduces the risk for employees in making these previously uncharted lateral moves.  
Each organization must tailor their career management system to their particular needs.  There are, however, some key components that should be part of any career management system:
•	job analysis to identify required competencies and possible career paths; 
•	employee assessment tools; 
•	services to communicate career information; 
•	supervisors trained to support employee development; and
•	training and development opportunities that address employees’ needs.  
To establish an effective career management system organizations need to:
•	understand the organization and the business rationale for career management;
•	encourage broad-based participation in the system’s design;
•	communicate details of the program widely;
•	develop supervisors’ career management skills through training and development; and
•	maintain momentum by ongoing assessment and training.
The most common problems that have limited the effectiveness of some career management systems include the following:
•	employees believe that supervisors do not care about their career development;
•	neither the employee nor the organization is fully aware of the employee’s needs and/or organizational constraints;
•	career plans are developed without regard for the support systems necessary to fulfill the plans; or
•	employees develop unrealistic expectations of the program.
Past experience in other organizations suggests that it is possible to build an effective career management system.  Research shows that employees in organizations where career management activities exist are more satisfied with their career, more satisfied with the organization and less likely to search for alternative employment.  These results suggest career management is well worth the investment but perhaps the most persuasive reason for helping employees manage their own careers is the need to remain competitive — career management practices can develop more purposeful and self-assured employees.
Career Development: The Role of The Employee
The rules by which careers are played out are changing.  Whenever the rules of a game are changing, there is a great deal of confusion, frustration and disillusionment.  For employees trying to come to grips with the “new career”, the changes can sometimes seem overwhelming.  The research literature does, however, suggest that there are concrete things that employees can do to enhance their career potential.  Six strategies are outlined below.  
Take responsibility for your own career
This is the first piece of advice that most career counsellors will give their clients these days.  Organizations used to be stable enough to define clear career paths and to offer promotions to good performers on a regular basis.  Employees who excelled could count on a progression of increasing responsibility, recognition and remuneration throughout their career.  But the work environment is now so dynamic that organizations cannot promise that the skills employees currently possess will be the skills that employers will need ten years or five years or even two years down the road.  Viable career paths cannot be easily charted when employers cannot be sure what competencies will be critical to future success.  The major implication of these conditions is that employees must find their own way through the maze.  
Taking responsibility for your own career means several things.  It means:
•	learning about what competencies the organization is looking for and assessing how you can contribute to the organization’s strategy;
•	thinking about your career goals, assessing your strengths and developmental needs and developing a plan to prepare yourself for the challenges you seek (and it means doing this on an ongoing basis — not once a career but once a year!);  
•	communicating your career goals and plans to your manager (discussing your goals with your manager signals your interests and helps your manager to plan appropriate developmental opportunities for you); and  
•	seeking out developmental opportunities like acting positions, special projects and task force involvement.  Employees who ask for special assignments are more likely to be given these career enhancing opportunities than those who do not make their interests known.  
Seek out challenges and opportunities for learning.
One of the factors that most strongly affects career progress is having worked on challenging assignments.  Those who tackle difficult projects and handle them successfully are more likely to be noticed and rewarded than those whose work is routine.  A challenging assignment gives employees greater scope to demonstrate their talents and show initiative.  And these assignments also provide tremendous opportunities for learning.  Since organizations are changing what they do and how they do it, continuous learning is particularly important in today’s environment.  Another way to indicate your willingness to learn is by broadening your experience and skill base.  Lateral moves, for instance, are an excellent way of developing greater insight into the organization and making you a more valuable employee.  
Build a credible track record.
Contrary to cartoon portrayals of work life, doing a good job matters.  But one good result does not make a career.  Doing a good job will earn employees a pat on the back.  What distinguishes between those who get a pat on the back for a job well done and those who get promoted is credibility.  Credibility comes from a track record of good job performance over time.  It means consistently delivering on your promises and it takes time to build! When managers bestow additional responsibilities on an employee, they want to be confident that those responsibilities will be executed well.  Managers need to be able to trust those to whom they entrust important work.  This suggests that employees need to build a track record for solid performance in order to earn managers’ trust.  
Make your work visible.
Managers are typically faced with many competing demands and significant time pressures.  Often, the only way for managers to cope with their workload is to focus on the exceptions.  Employees who are quietly doing a competent job typically receive little attention from the manager who is busy contending with a variety of problems.  For your good work to be rewarded, it must first be noticed!  One key to career success, therefore, is to make your good work visible.  
Making your work visible does not imply exaggerating, bragging or taking credit for other people’s work.  It does mean making sure that your manager is informed about your work and any special accomplishments.  It also means, for example, taking responsibility for writing a report yourself rather than simply providing input for it and being prepared to present your own ideas at group meetings.  If your manager is not aware of your contributions, how can he or she reward them?  
It is also important to make your work visible to more senior managers.  If it is difficult for your immediate supervisor to keep track of your accomplishments, it is even more difficult for his or her boss to be aware of your work.  Since research shows that senior managers can provide critical career support and, that managers rarely promote individuals whom they have not had face-to-face contact with, it is important to take advantage of opportunities to meet with senior managers.  
Seek out supportive developmental relationships.
Research has shown that individuals who have a mentor are more likely to be promoted than those who do not have the benefit of such guidance.  Mentors are more senior employees who take a personal interest in your career and help you learn about what the organization values and how you can perform your job more effectively.  Mentors typically provide feedback, coaching and career advice.  Mentors can also open doors for their proteges to access challenging assignments and opportunities for visibility.  The support and encouragement of a mentor can be of tremendous value in developing your career.  
When we think of mentoring we most often think of a senior employee who takes a personal interest in a junior employee’s career.  However, not all mentors or mentoring fit this image.  Mentoring roles can be filled by various people.  Mentoring functions such as coaching, career counselling and support can be provided by peers.  Subordinates can provide valuable feedback and support.  Career opportunities may be provided by senior employees whether or not they have a personal interest in your career.  Employees who do not have a mentor in the classic sense should not discount the important support that can be provided by individuals throughout the organization.  Supportive developmental relationships come in many varieties and all can be enriching.  
This broader view of developmental relationships highlights the importance of networking.  Getting to know more people throughout your organization and your profession can contribute to career development in a variety of ways.  Having a broad network of contacts can help you to perform your job more effectively as you have access to more sources of information and expertise.  Networking increases your visibility and your opportunities for learning.  And networking builds relationships with a broader pool of people who can provide career advice and support.  
Develop your career potential.
While employees do not control all of the factors that will affect their career progress, there are concrete actions that employees can take to enhance the probability of career success.  Understanding and taking responsibility for your career goals is the first step.  Seeking out opportunities to develop new competencies and to demonstrate your talents will make you a more valuable employee.  Making your work visible and enlisting the support of others can help ensure that your contributions are recognized.  Being proactive in career development does work.  
Federal Career Development Programs
As Jocelyn Bourgon observes in her Fifth Annual Report to the Prime Minster (1998) (p. 15) “Learning is a key lever for Public Service Renewal.”  As Ruth Hubbard, President of the Public Service Commission notes 7: 
“ ....  to build a modern and vibrant professional non-partisan Public Service it is necessary to commit as much time and energy to human resources management as to policy development or service delivery.  It is recognized that to retain, motivate and attract a corps of talented and dedicated public servants requires profound change.  The Public Service must be able to provide its people with the breadth of knowledge and experience necessary to advise and serve in a modern and global environment.
The Public Service Commission (PSC), the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) and the Canadian Centre for Management Development (CCMD) are working together to shape and support opportunities for professional learning in the Public Service.  CCMD is the only learning centre in Canada that focuses exclusively on the development and training of Canada’s senior federal public servants.  Among CCMD’s programs are the Management Trainee Program (MTP), Career Assignment Program (CAP), Accelerated Executive Development Program (AEXDP) and the Senior Executive Management Program (SEMP).  
Developmental programs have played an important role in the Public Service for many years.  La Relève, with its focus on renewal has brought both the introduction of new programs and the redesign of existing ones so that there is now a continuum of corporately managed developmental programs from entry to mid-career to the executive level to the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) level.  The following career development programs are examined in this research:
The Management Trainee Program (MTP) was established in 1990-91 to recruit and develop persons with management potential, vision and leadership in anticipation of their becoming future Public Service managers.  The MTP is offered to recent Master’s graduates and to federal public servants in participating departments and agencies who have a recent Bachelor’s degree as a minimum educational requirement.  Throughout the program participants are given both hands-on work experience through an assignment program and an educational support component which complements and enhances the work experience.  Upon completion of this entry level program, which generally spans four years, these professionals will form a pool of qualified candidates for future positions at the middle management level.
The Career Assignment Program (CAP) has a thirty-year record of success in developing leaders in the Public Service.  CAP is an integrated management development program for persons with executive potential.  It is aimed at middle managers and specialists who have demonstrated the necessary potential to become members of the Executive Group.  The objective of CAP is to provide a representative group of employees with the opportunity to broaden their experience, prove their managerial ability and develop a strong corporate vision with a view to enriching the pool from which executives are selected.  In response to suggestions made by participants, managers and advisory groups over the years, CAP has been redesigned to increase public servants’ access to developmental opportunities that will enhance their skills and competencies.  This is a significant step towards meeting the La Relève challenge of renewing the feeder group levels.  
In 1997-98 two new programs were created to make it easier to identify future senior executives in the Public Service.  A new Process for ADMs (ADMPQP) was established to identify a pool of executives who are ready to step into ADM positions.  The Accelerated Executive Development Program (AEXDP) was set up to help advance the development of EXs who have potential for more senior-level assignments.  
The objective of the AEXDP is to identify a representative groups of EX-1s to EX-3s who demonstrate the potential to become ADMs and to accelerate their development and career advancement.  It targets high potential employees EXs who are at a point in their career where rapid advancement to more senior levels of management would be in both their and the Public Service’s best interest.  
Self-identification is a key feature of this process.  Executives know their capabilities and aspirations and can set new career directions by participating.
During this same time period the PSC, the TBS, the Privy Council Office and the Committee of Senior Officials played a key role in developing a regime for the collective management of ADMs.  Collective management is a partnership which strives to balance the needs of ADMs, DMs and the Public Service as a whole.  Under collective management ADMs become part of a corporate pool (the ADM pool) where they have increased visibility, their career interests and aspirations become better known and they have access to a wider variety of assignments.
Outline of Report
The report is divided into four additional chapters.  Chapter two presents and discusses the data collected during the interview study.  Chapter three examines the results obtained from the survey study.  Chapter four provides detailed case studies of seven Canadian public and private sector organizations that are considered to be “best practice” with respect to career development and career planning.  To increase the readability of the report, each of these chapters was written so that it can be read on its own.  Each chapter begins with a section which outlines the objectives of this particular study and discusses the methods used to conduct this phase of the research.  This is followed by a complete discussion of the results.  Each chapter ends with a conclusion section where a summary of the findings of this phase of the research is presented and relevant conclusions drawn.  

FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 1
1	Cummings, T. and Worley, G. (1997) Organizational Development and Change, 6th Edition, South Western: Ohio.
2	Bourgon, J. (1998).  Fifth Annual Report to the Prime Minister, Cat. No. BT74-1/10-89.  
3	Ibid
4	Defined as employees in the Executive, Scientific and Professional, and Administrative and Foreign Service categories.
5	Employment Statistics for the federal Public Service, TBS, BT22-63/1998
6	In-placement emphasizes employee retention and creative employee movement to other jobs.  Closely associated with it are strategies such as retraining and cross-training.
7	1997-98 Annual Report of the Public Service Commission (p.3)

Chapter 2 - Career Development in the Federal Public Service: The Interview Study
In the 1997-98 Annual Report of the Public Service Commission, Mary Gusella observes (p. 5) that “the Public Service of Canada is engaged in a profound transformation.  The challenges of globalization, the effects of technology, redefined concepts of client driven service delivery and shifting demographics are driving changes in the nature of work the public sector performs, changes in how and with whom it performs that work, and changes in how it relates to citizens.”  In order to be able to attract, motivate and retain people essential to the work of the Public Service the government must be able to recognize, fully use and reward the talents of its people since “People are at the heart of successful public sector reform.”1  
Research has shown that career development and management programs are vitally important in the midst of restructuring, downsizing, technological growth and change.  The issue of career development needs to be addressed, if the Public Service wants to be able to realize the goals laid out in La Relève.  It will be difficult, however, for the government to manage this issue without first understanding how government employees feel about the various aspects of career development which affect them.  This phase of the research was designed to:
•	increase the government’s understanding of employees’ concerns and opinions in these areas,
•	increase employee awareness of the types of strategies associated with career advancement in the Public Service.
Specifically it seeks answers to the following questions:
1.	How do Public Service knowledge workers define career success?  How does career success differ from life success?
2.	What are the career goals and aspirations of knowledge workers in the Public Service?
3.	What factors do Public Service knowledge workers identify as increasing one’s promotability?  As reducing the chances that one will be promoted?
4.	What types of personal career strategies are used by knowledge workers in the Public Service?  Which ones seem to work?  Which do not?
5.	How does the organization (i.e. immediate supervisor, department, Public Service) make it easier for Public Service knowledge workers to meet their career development goals?
6.	How does the organization (i.e. immediate supervisor, department, Public Service) make it harder for Public Service knowledge workers to meet their career development goals?
7.	How satisfied are federal knowledge workers with their ability to meet their career goals?
8.	What factors are associated with retention and turnover of Public Service knowledge workers?
9.	What changes would make it easier for knowledge workers in the Public Service to meet their career goals?
10.	How does gender, job type and participation in federal career development programs (CDP) affect the above issues?
Methodology
The following research methodology was used in this phase of the research.
a.	The Interview
A semi-structured interview was developed to explore the issues outlined above.  Career development is a complex process with many variables playing a potential role.  Interviews provide the opportunity to gather in-depth and detailed information about complex subjects by making it possible for the researcher to seek clarification on a particular response and probe with additional questions.  Such flexibility ensures that complex information is not lost.  This format also ensures that analyses are not limited to categories that were defined a priori.  
After completion of the first 20 interviews, audio tapes were reviewed and a coding scheme was developed using content analysis which is the measurement of the semantic content (the what) of the information.  The coding scheme consisted of categories of responses for each question which could be rated as present or absent for each participant.  The preliminary coding scheme was then applied to 30 different interviews by a coder.  In ambiguous cases the coder recorded the responses verbatim and discussed them with one of the principal investigators.  Ambiguities were resolved by clarification of decision rules.  The remainder of the tapes were then coded.  Coders were monitored through regular meetings, spot-checking of tapes and availability to consult on coding questions.  
b.	The Survey
A short (four page) survey was designed to collect demographic information (age, gender, marital status, education etc.) and career histories (department, job type, classification, promotions, secondments, acting positions, etc) on interview participants.  This survey was sent to participants prior to their interview.  Respondents were given the option of faxing or mailing the survey back to the researchers.  To ensure participant confidentiality, identification numbers were used to link survey responses to the interviews.  
c.	The Sample
At the beginning of this research project Peter Harder set up an advisory board of senior Public Service executive to help us with the research design.  The research objectives, budget and time limitations and discussions with the advisory board suggested the following sample frame for the interviews:
•	the sample focus on Public Service knowledge workers (i.e. employees found in the Executive, Scientific and Professional and Administrative and Foreign Service categories);
•	the sample be selected to allow us to:
-	compare the responses given by  employees in Federal Career Development Programs (CDP) to the responses given by employees who were not in such programs,
-	compare the responses given by women to the responses given by men, and
-	examine how job type affects career development.
The CDP sample was created as follows.  First we obtained lists of all employees currently participating in AEXDP (n = 53), ADM pool (n = 126), CAP and MTP programs.  Peter Harder sent everyone on these lists a letter which explained the research.  A random sample of 15 men and 15 women were selected from each of these lists and contacted by the researchers.  All but eight of these individuals agreed to participate in the study.  
The non-CDP sample was developed as follows.  First, we stratified the government departments by function and size.  We then randomly selected a list of 13 government departments from this stratified cross-section from which we would sample.  The Deputy Ministers of each of these departments was sent a letter by Peter Harder explaining the research and requesting their participation in both the interview and survey phases of the research.  All 13 government departments agreed to participate.  The list of participating government departments are listed in Box 2.1.  A contact person was appointed in each government department.  The department contact supplied us with the names and telephone numbers of 20 men and 20 women from their department who were members of the Executive, Scientific and Professional and Administrative and Foreign Service categories and who were not participating in any federal CDP.  We randomly selected ten names from each of these lists, contacted them by telephone, and asked them to participate in the research.  Only five of the people from these lists declined to participate in the research.
BOX 2.1 - Participating Departments
Department of Defence (civilians only)
Department of Finance
Department of Health
Department of Justice
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Environment Canada
Industry Canada
Human Resources Development Canada
Natural Resources Canada
Public Service Commission
Revenue Canada (IT Branch only)
Statistics Canada
Treasury Board Secretariat

d.	Procedure
Telephone interviews were conducted by three trained graduate students who had at least a baccalaureate degree and had previous interviewing experience.  Coding of audiotapes was conducted by three trained graduate students.  Interviews lasted, on average, 40 minutes.
e.	Data Analyses
After the tapes were coded, the data were input into the computer and analysed using SPSS.  As a first step, frequency counts were conducted to determine the proportion of the sample providing a particular response within each coding category.  Only categories of responses provided by at least 10% of the sample are discussed in this report.  
In this chapter the following types of data are presented and discussed:
•	findings based on the total sample;
•	a comparison of the responses by gender;
•	a comparison of the responses by job type (job type was operationalized as consisting of respondents in executive, manager, officer, analyst, and scientific groupings);
•	a comparison of the responses by CDP participation (i.e. responses given by employees who participate in a CDP are compared to those who do not); and
•	a comparison of the responses by CDP type (AEXDP, ADM pool, CAP, MTP).
When presenting the results the focus of the report will be on significant differences that are substantive in nature.  In this phase of the research we have defined substantive as being a between group difference of 10% or more.  When no group differences are mentioned the reader can assume that the findings for the subsample (i.e. male sample, female sample, executive sample) are substantially the same as those reported for the total sample.
Outline of Chapter
This chapter is divided into ten additional sections.  The first section provides a description of the interview sample.  Section two focuses on Public Service knowledge workers’ definitions of career and life success.  In section three the career goals and aspirations of knowledge workers are discussed.  Section four examines issues associated with promotability while section five looks at personal career strategies.  Organizational career development activities (both positive and negative) are outlined in section six.  Section seven examines employees’ satisfaction with their ability to meet their career goals.  Issues related to employee retention and turnover are given in section eight.  Section nine looks at how the career development practices in the Public Service can be changed to make it easier for knowledge workers to meet their career goals.  The results are summarized and relevant conclusions are presented in section ten.
To increase the readability of the report each interview question in sections three through nine is presented in an autonomous sub-section.  Total sample results are presented first followed by gender, job type and CDP breakdowns of the data.  Relevant quotes are then presented.  This organizational structure allows readers to identify and analyse only those research questions of interest to them.
1.	Characteristics of The Sample
Two-hundred and fifty four individuals were interviewed and surveyed during this phase of the investigation.  This section provides a demographic profile of these individuals.  It is divided into two major parts.  In part one we describe the respondent (i.e. gender, first language, age, marital status, dependent care responsibilities, education).  Part two describes the work history of those in the sample (i.e. job type, department, participation in career development program, management responsibilities, years of work experience inside and outside the Public Service, career history).  Unless noted, the data discussed in this section of the report were collected using a short survey that was sent to interview respondents prior to the interview itself.  
A Personal Profile of the Respondents
Gender
Gender is a critical variable in any study of career development as the literature suggests that gender may influence career aspirations, career development strategies and career opportunities.  Just over half of the people who responded to the survey (56% of respondents) are women (See Figure 2.1a).  To put this into perspective, recent data indicate that women now hold 51% of all federal Public Service jobs and that over 48% of women in the Public Service now work in the Executive, Scientific and Professional, and Administrative and Foreign Service categories (the target group for this research).2
Age
As people mature they pass through various adult life cycle stages.  Each entails somewhat different problems and prospects, some of which can have a career impact.  Levinson3 has portrayed the development periods of adulthood as having three transition points: early adult transition, mid-life transition and late adult transition.  The move to early adulthood is a period of completing one’s education, entering an occupation, getting married and having children.  In one’s late 30s and early 40s, the mid-life transition, the career is considered to be all important.  Family complications stress this orientation and personal crisis can occur.  Some frustrations in the career may occur and bring with them added questions about goals and identity.  Midlife and later adulthood begins around age 50.  In this phase the concerns turn around making a real impact at work, being a mentor to others and balancing goals and realities.  The next step is retirement and perhaps a new career!
Age data on the interview sample can be found in Figure 2.1b.  The majority of the respondents are aged 36 to 45 (i.e. the midlife transition phase) and over 45 (middle and later adulthood).  The women in the sample are younger than the men and more likely to be in the midlife transition phase of life.
First Language
The language distribution of the sample is shown in Figure 2.1c.  Two thirds of the sample identified English as their first language, 27% identified French and 6% identified a language other then French or English.  This language distribution is virtually identical to that observed in the Public Service overall.  Language was not significantly associated with any of the other variables examined in this study (i.e. gender, marital status, parental status, education, participation in career development programs).
Family Situation
Thirty years ago, most Canadian families relied on one wage earner.  Now the proportion is reversed and two income families with both partners in the workforce seeking rewarding careers and work are in the majority.  In 1995, both spouses were employees in 64% of all husband-wife families, almost double the figure in 1967 when both spouses were employed in just 33% of all families.4  
The dual-income family is a contemporary phenomenon of great occupational significance.  Individual career problems and prospects become heightened for working parents and employees in dual-income relationships because of the added challenge of managing separate careers for both partners and perhaps the responsibility of parenthood.  Family responsibilities, particularly for children and elderly parents also complicate people’s working lives and their career development.  Younger couples, single parents, and those with elder care responsibilities face special challenges as they try to balance the demands of parenthood and dependent care with the requirements and opportunities of a career.5
a.  Marital Status
Marital status data for the interview respondents can be found in Figure 2.1d.  Three-quarters of the respondents to this survey are presently married or living with a significant other, 11% are separated or divorced and 14% are single.  Women are more likely than men to have never married.  This gender difference in marital status is consistent with the fact that the women in this sample are younger and with research which indicates that many women feel that achieving as professionals and having families are two incompatible goals.
b.  Parental Status
A large body of research links the parental responsibilities of employed couples to the incidence of work-family conflict.  Employees without children can act relatively independently as they do not have the constraints of caring for dependents.  The addition of the parent role can complicate an employee’s career development and advancement as it places greater demands on them at the same time as it adds constraints.  
The majority of interview respondents (69%) have children (see Figure 2.1e).  The men in the sample are significantly more likely than the women to have children (77% of men have children versus 62% of women).  As can be seen in Figure 2.1.f, this gender difference in parental status is most striking in the executive ranks.  These data are consistent with the data on marital status presented earlier and research done by Catalyst which reported that “many career centred women feel that they have to put their personal lives on the backburner in order to concentrate on their career”.6  These gender differences in parental status may also be due to the fact that women with university education often postpone having children until their career is established.
c.  Age of Children
The concept of life-cycle stage is used to consider the variations in work and family-role demands encountered during adulthood.  It is well established that conflict between career demands and family obligations increases as one’s obligations to the family expand through marriage and the arrival of children.  Related research suggests, however, that many of these conflicts will decrease as the age of the youngest child increases.  As can be seen from the data in Figure 2.1g, relatively few of those in the interview sample have young children at home (12% with children under age 3; 9% with children under five).  One quarter of the respondents have children who are over the age of 18.  Most of the children in this age group no longer live at home (only 3% of respondents with children over 18 indicated that they still live at home).  A plurality of the sample have children between the ages of six and 18 (42%) and are in what is referred to as the “full-nest” stage of the life cycle.  Children’s age was not associated with gender.  Respondents who are managers and executives are more likely to have older children than are respondents in other job types.
d.  Elder Care Responsibilities
Dependent care is not just a question of care for children.  Concern over elder-care responsibilities is now increasing.  Elder care is defined as providing some type of assistance with the daily living activities for an elderly relative who is chronically ill, frail or disabled.  The number of workers with adult caregiver responsibilities is growing rapidly as the parents of baby boomers enter their 60s, 70s and 80s.  The 1995 Canadian census estimated that 17% of Canadians currently have some form of elder-care responsibilities.  As can be seen in Figure 2.1h, the proportion of this sample with elder care responsibilities (66%) is substantially greater than was observed in the 1995 census.  Men and women in this sample are equally likely to have elder care responsibilities.
Educational Background
Research has shown that education is positively associated with career advancement.  As can be seen in Table 2.1a, the typical employee in this sample has a good deal of formal education.  Approximately 80% of the sample have university education (33% have an undergraduate degree; 47% have at least one postgraduate degree; one third of the sample have multiple graduate degrees).  Educational attainment is not associated with gender.  Respondents who are in Federal Career Development Programs (CDP) have more formal education than those who are not in these programs.  
Table 2.1
Interview Sample: Educational Status	
a: 	Level Completed		
	High school diploma	6%	
	Some college/some university	9%	
	College diploma	6%	
	University degree	33%	
	Post-graduate degree	47%	
b:	First Degree		
	Business, Accounting, Commerce, Economics	22%	
	Sociology/Social Sciences	25%	
	Computer Science, Engineering, Information Systems	12%	
	Sciences: Health, Natural, Applied, Physical, Mathematical	22%	
	Arts and Humanities	20%	
c: 	Graduate Degree		
	Business, Accounting, Commerce, Economics	27%	
	Sociology/Social Sciences	42%	
	Computer Science, Engineering, Information Systems	 4%	
	Sciences: Health, Natural, Applied, Physical, Mathematical	19%	
	Arts and Humanities	12%	
NOTE: Approximately one third of the sample have multiple graduate degrees	

Research would suggest that lifelong learning is both a responsibility and pre-requisite of career success.  It is interesting to note that half of the respondents have earned their graduate degree since 1990 (17% have earned their graduate degree since 1994).  These data would suggest that the majority of those interviewed have pursued formal education as a career development strategy.
Respondents with university education were asked to indicate the discipline of their first degree and their subsequent degrees.  These data are given in Table 2.1b (Discipline of Undergraduate Degree) and 2.1c (Discipline of Graduate Degree).  Discipline of degree is associated with gender.  With respect to both undergraduate and graduate degrees:
•	Men were more likely to have degrees in Business, Accounting, Commerce, Economics, Computer Science, Engineering, and Information Systems
•	Women were more likely to have degrees in Sociology/Social Sciences and in the Sciences (Health, Natural, Applied, Physical, Mathematical)
A Work Profile of the Respondents
Job Type and Classification
Career paths represent logical and possible sequences of positions that could be held based on what people actually do in an organization7.  Research suggests that career paths and progression possibilities are strongly linked to job type.  Open ended questions in the survey phase of the interview study asked respondents: What is your current job title?  What is your current classification? In this phase of the research, respondents are grouped by job type as follows:
•	Executives (ADMs, DGs, Executive Directors);
•	Managers (Directors, Managers, Chiefs, Section Heads);
•	Officers;
•	Analysts (Non-computer); and
•	Scientists (scientist, engineer, computer scientist, IS, IT).
The number of respondents in each of these job groupings is given in Table 2.2.  As can be seen from the data, job type is not associated with gender in this sample.  This is not surprising given how the sample was selected.
Table 2.2
Interview Sample: Job Type	
	Executive	Manager	Officer	Analyst	Scientist	
% of Sample	21%	35%	12%	18%	12%	
	44% male	49% male	49% male	44% male	44% male	
	56% female	51% female	51% female	56% female	56% female	

Interview respondents belong to 48 different classifications.  The most common of these classifications are shown in Table 2.3.  Just over one-quarter of the respondents are members of the EX classification.  This finding is consistent with the job type data presented earlier.  There were no gender differences in the data with respect to classification.
Table 2.3
Interview Sample: Classification (most common given only)	
Classification	% of Sample	
EX	27%	
AS	10%	
ES	9%	
CS	8%	
MM	7%	
PE	6%	
PM	6%	
CR	4%	
IS	3%	
PC	3%	
CO	3%	

Management Responsibilities
The majority of those who participated in the interviews (69%) supervised the work of others.  Span of control (i.e. the number of direct reports) ranged from a low of one report to a high of 1,200.  The plurality of the respondents supervised the work of three to ten employees (see Figure 2.2).  There were no gender differences with respect to supervisory status or span of control.
Department
Individuals from 19 different departments were interviewed for this study.  Participation by department is shown in Table 2.4.  There were no gender differences with respect to these data.
Table 2.4  Interview Sample: Department	
Agriculture Canada	2%	
Environment Canada	7%	
Finance	5%	
Fisheries and Oceans	3%	
Foreign Affairs and International Trade	5%	
Health Canada	7%	
Human Resources Development Canada	6%	
Indian and Northern Affairs	3%	
Industry Canada	8%	
Justice 	4%	
National Defence	7%	
Natural Resources Canada	8%	
Privy Council	4%	
Public Service Commission	8%	
Public Works	3%	
Revenue Canada	5%	
Statistics Canada	4%	
Treasury Board	10%	
Veterans Affairs	2%	

Participation in a Federal Career Development Program (CDP)
Management development is training that is specifically targeted to improve a person’s skills and knowledge in the fundamentals of management.  Training programs that prepare employees for future positions within the company are known as development programs.  Participation in CDP data are shown in Figure 2.3.  Just over half the sample (56%) do not participate in any federal CDP.  The rest of the sample was selected to include employees who participated in the following career development programs: AEXDP (10% of the sample), the ADM Pool (10% of the sample), CAP (11% of the sample), and MTP (13% of the sample).  The sample selection process ensured that approximately equal numbers of men and women were included in each of these five groups.
Career Description
Careers may take many shapes.  Employees can enter the work force and work continuously until retirement, or interrupt their career to further their education or to have children.  Interruptions for educational leave are typically thought to have a positive impact on career progression.  Maternity leaves, on the other hand, are often associated with difficult career decisions (when to return to work, whether to reduce one’s hours at work) and delays in career progression.  The following observations can be made from the data shown in Figure 2.4:
•	men were more likely than women to work continuously (75% versus 44%);
•	women were more likely than men to take parental leave (45% of women have taken parental leave versus 1% of men!); and
•	men were more likely than women to have taken educational leave (16% versus 9%).
Career History
The human resources literature links factors such as years of work experience, variety of work experience and mobility with career development and success.  Promotions, often used to measure career success, are also included under the career history umbrella.
a.  Years of Work Experience
Years of work experience has been linked to positive and negative career outcomes.  On the plus side, employees with greater work experience have been found to be better “socialized” (i.e. feel like part of the organization, know how things are done, are better able to perform the tasks and functions associated with the role) and are often considered to be more qualified for their job and subsequent jobs within their career path than are others with less experience.  On the negative side, other studies have found that employees who have spent many years in the same organization and doing the same sorts of things run the risk of obsolescence and career plateauing.
Four measures of work experience were collected in this phase of the study: (1) years in the workforce, (2) length of time in the federal Public Service, (3) length of time in their current department, and (4) length of time in their current position.
Years in the workforce data are shown in Table 2.5; years of employment in the Public Service are given in Figure 2.5a.  Not surprisingly, these data are very similar to those on respondent age presented earlier and support the idea that the majority of the interview respondents are in the transition/midcareer and late career stages of the life cycle.  
Table 2.5
Work Experience	
Year Began to Work			
Time Period	% of Sample	Mean Number Years of Employment	
1956-1966	6%	37 years	
1967-1977	38%	26 years	
1978-1988	35%	15 years	
1989-1998	21%	5 years	

Women had fewer years of work experience than men.  This gender difference is consistent with the fact that the women in the sample were younger than the men and with data showing women were more likely than men to interrupt their careers to have children.  Male respondents have worked in the Public Service longer than female respondents (39% of men had over 20 years of experience in the Public Service versus 27% of women).
Figure 2.5b presents data showing the amount of time respondents have spent working in their current departments, and Figure 2.5c provides data on years in current position.  While just over half of the sample (53%) have worked in their current department for more than five years, only 23% of the respondents have held the same position for more than three years.  The majority of respondents (55%) have, in fact, worked in their current position for one to three years.  Almost a quarter of the sample have held their current position for less than a year.  These data would suggest that the majority of individuals who participated in this phase of the study have relatively high career mobility within their own departments.  There were no gender differences with respect to time in current department and time in current position.
b.  Variety of Experience
The literature on human resources development stresses the importance of employees having a track record in staff, central and line operations for successful preparation for the executive level.  Experience in other departments is considered to provide important growth and development opportunities.  It offers the chance to broaden experience, learn new skills and become more familiar with other areas - things that can benefit the individual’s career development.  Variety of work experience was assessed in this phase of the study by asking respondents to indicate how many different line departments and central agencies they had worked in over the course of their Public Service career (see Table 2.6) and the number of different positions they had held (see Figure 2.6). 
Table 2.6
Number of Different Departments Have Worked In	
a.	Line Departments		
	Zero	0%	
	One	33%	
	Two	28%	
	Three	19%	
	More than three	20%	
b.	Central Agencies		
	Zero	30%	
	One	49%	
	Two	15%	
	More than two	6%	

These data indicate that the majority of interview participants have a wide variety of work experience in the Public Service.  All of those interviewed have spent a portion of their careers working in a line department; almost 40% of the respondents have worked in three of more line departments.  While 30% of the interview sample have spent no time in a central agency (i.e. Finance, TBS, PSC and PCO), almost one-quarter of the sample have spent time in at least two.  Eighty percent of the sample have held more than four different positions in their Public Service career; almost half of the sample has held at least seven different positions.  There were no significant gender differences in any these findings.  Respondents in the executive category and respondents who participate in a CDP have worked in more departments and held more positions.
c.  Lateral Moves
Lateral moves are moves across functions and organizational units at the same level.  Strictly speaking, they are not career advancements but they afford employees a chance for variety and growth.  Lateral moves are especially useful when opportunities for upward advancement in the organization are limited or blocked.  Lateral movement was assessed in this phase of the research by asking respondents to indicate the number of secondments, acting positions and lateral moves they had made during the course of their Public Service career (Table 2.7a).  They were also asked to indicate when they had last taken a lateral move in order to enhance their work skills (Table 2.8).
Table 2.7
Lateral Moves	
	#  Secondments	#   Acting Positions	#  Lateral Moves	
	Total	Men	Women	Total	Men	Women	Total	Men	Women	
None	40%	37%	42%	28%	25%	31%	35%	28%	40%	
One	27%	28%	26%	28%	33%	24%	18%	23%	14%	
Two	18%	19%	17%	22%	24%	21%	16%	17%	14%	
More than two	15%	16%	15%	21%	18%	24%				
  Three							14%	19%	10%	
  More than three							19%	13%	22%	

Table 2.8  When Last Took a Lateral Move to Enhance Skills	
1998	16%	
1997	18%	
1996	10%	
1995	10%	
Before 1995	19%	
Before 1985	5%	
Never	27%	

The data on secondments, acting positions and lateral moves provide further support for the idea that the interview respondents have high mobility within and between government departments.  One third of the sample have had two or more secondments; one third of the sample have made three or more lateral moves;  just under half (43%) of the respondents have had two or more acting positions.  The fact that just over half (54%) of the sample have made a lateral move in the last four years with the objective of enhancing their skills suggests that the high degree of career movement observed in this sample is part of a career development strategy.  This supposition is supported by the fact that respondents who were part of a federal CDP were more likely to have changed departments, changed positions, made lateral moves to enhance their skills, and taken acting positions.
Examination of the data in Table 2.7 indicates an interesting relationship between gender and lateral movement.  Women are more likely than men to have never made a lateral move (28% of men have never made a lateral move versus 40% of women) and to never have held an acting position (25% of men have never held an acting position versus 31% of women).  At the same time, however, women are more likely than men to have made a higher number of lateral moves (13% of men have made more than three lateral moves versus 22% of women) and taken a higher number of acting positions (18% of men have held more than two acting positions versus 24% of women).  These data are consistent with data presented earlier (i.e. % of women who have taken maternity leave, number of women without children) and suggest that there may be two different groups of women in this sample: those with fewer family responsibilities (this may be a career strategy for these women) and those with greater work-family conflict.
d.  Experience outside of the Government
Jocelyne Bourgon notes in her Fifth Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada the need for the Public Service to become a borderless institution.  By this she means an institution that is committed to reducing barriers to the flow of ideas and information within and among public sector organizations (p. 20).  Bourgon notes that a borderless institution encourages the mobility of its people within and outside the Public Service in order to broaden their experience and expertise and prepare them for the future (p. 21).  Experience outside the government was assessed by asking respondents if they had ever held a full-time position outside the federal Public Service.  Those who indicated that they had held such a position were asked where they had worked and how long they had worked in this position.  
Almost two thirds (62%) of those in the interview sample have worked outside the federal Public Service.  Just over half of those who had worked outside the Public Service were employed in the private sector.  One-third worked for an NGO or in the quasi public sector, 22% worked for municipal or provincial governments, and 7% worked for a crown corporation.  Just over half the sample (51%) had spent two or more years working outside the Public Service; 32% spent a year and 17% spent less than one year.  There were no gender differences in these data.
e.  Career Success:  Promotions 
Promoted employees usually assume greater responsibility and authority in return for higher pay, benefits and privileges.  Promotions are one measure of successful career development strategies.  We collected two sets of data on promotions during this phase of the research.  The survey phase of this research included three questions relating to promotions: (1) the number of promotions they had experienced in their career to date (Table 2.9)8, (2) when they had last applied for a promotion (Table 2.10), and (3) when they had last received a promotion (Table 2.10).  In the interview we asked respondents to speculate on why they had and had not been promoted.  
Table 2.9
Number of Promotions	
	Total	Men	Women	
None	16%	11%	20%	
One	21%	20%	20%	
Two	14%	12%	15%	
Three	16%	21%	10%	
Four	15%	21%	10%	
More than four	19%	15%	25%	

Table 2.10
When Applied for and Received Promotion	
When Last Applied for a Promotion?	When Last Received a Promotion?	
	Total	Total	Men	Women	
1998	27%	18%	13%	20%	
1997	28%	26%	28%	22%	
1996	13%	14%	10%	15%	
1995	5%	5%	3%	5%	
Before 1995	27%	37%	45%	36%	
Before 1985	4%	7%	8%	5%	

The promotion data from the survey would suggest that the interview sample has used successful career development strategies.  Only 10% of those who participated in the interviews have never received a promotion.  Half of the sample, on the other hand, have been promoted three or more times.  Just over half the sample (54%) have applied for a promotion in the last two years.  Just under half the sample (43%) has been promoted during this time period.  Three-quarters of the sample have been promoted in the last five years.  
Women are more likely than men to have never been promoted (20% of women have had no promotions versus 11% of men).  They are also, however, more likely than men to have received more than four promotions (25% of women with four or more promotions versus 15% of men).  These data are very similar to those observed with respect to acting positions and lateral moves and support the idea that there are different subgroups of women within the sample.  
2.	Career Success: What is it?  How does it differ from life success?
The interview began with a number of questions dealing with career and life success.  Respondents were asked:
•	How would you define career success?
•	How would you define life success? 
•	How does having a successful life differ from having a successful career?
Results for each of these questions are presented below.
How would you define career success?
Responses to this question are given in Table 2.11.  These data indicate that:
•	Over half the sample (54%) defined career success as being in some way related to satisfaction (happy with the work I do, happy in my job, I like to come to work in the morning, my career is something I enjoy);
•	One third of respondents felt career success was related to self-esteem (a personal sense of accomplishment, achievement, reward, something that meets my  personal needs, jives with my view of myself as a person);
•	One third of respondents felt that career success was related to career progress  (increased responsibility over time, continually moving me closer to my goals, logical succession up the ranks, jobs that “build on one another”);
•	Just over a quarter of the sample (28%) defined career success in terms of  recognition (i.e., extrinsic rewards- - money, “fame”, others recognize you do your job well);
•	Just over a quarter of the sample (27%) defined career success as being related to learning (something that stretches me, working to full potential, enhances my capabilities, challenges me, always something new); and
•	A quarter of the sample defined career success in terms of contribution/influence (I make a difference, a contribution, can lead, influence others).
Table 2.11
What is Career Success	
How would you define career success?				
	Total	Men	Women	
Satisfaction-related	51%	50%	49%	
Esteem-related	34%	28%	38%	
Progress-related	32%	34%	31%	
Recognition-related	28%	40%	20%	
Learning-related	27%	26%	26%	
Contribution/influence-related	25%	24%	26%	
*  Multiple responses recorded				

Gender differences
For both genders, career success was most commonly conceptualized as being related to satisfaction.  Women were more likely to associate career success with esteem (40% versus 28%); men were more likely to associate career success with recognition (40% versus 20%).
Job Type Differences
As can be seen from the data shown in Box 2.2, definitions of career success vary widely by job type.  Those in the executive group rarely defined career success in terms of satisfaction or recognition.  Their definitions of success are more likely to involve esteem (41%), contribution (36%) and learning (37%).  For those in the scientist and officer categories, on the other hand, satisfaction and recognition are key.  Only 10% of scientists defined career success in terms of esteem; only 12% of officers defined career success in terms of contribution.  
BOX 2.2
Differences in Definitions of Career Success: Job Type	
What it is		
	Executives 	Esteem (41%), Learning (36%) Contribution (36%)	
	Managers	Satisfaction (50%)	
	Officers	Satisfaction (60%) Recognition (50%), Esteem (40%)	
	Analysts	Satisfaction (46%)	
	Scientists	Satisfaction (73%) Recognition (50%)	
		
What it is not		
	Executives 	Recognition (15%)	
	Analysts	Contribution (12%)	
	Scientists	Esteem (11%)	
*  Percent of respondents in each of these job types giving this definition of success	

Participation in CDP
Definitions of career success also vary significantly by CDP participation (see Box 2.3).  Respondents who participate in a CDP were more likely than those who are not in such programs to say that career success is related to learning (34% versus 21%) and contribution (30% versus 20%).  Within the different programs:
•	AEXDP were more likely to define success in terms of esteem (55%) and contribution (45%) and less likely to define it in terms of recognition (14%);
•	ADM pool were more likely to define success in terms of learning (44%) and contribution (37%);
•	CAP were more likely to define success in terms of esteem (42%); and
•	MTP were more likely to define success in terms of progress (43%) and learning (40%), and less likely to define it in terms of contribution (13%).
BOX 2.3
Differences in Definitions of Career Success: CDP	
What it is		
	In CDP	Satisfaction (43%), Esteem (40%)	
	Not in CDP	Satisfaction (55%)	
	AEXDP	Esteem (55%), Contribution (45%), Satisfaction (45%)	
	ADM Pool	Learning (45%)	
	CAP	Satisfaction (46%), Esteem (42%)	
	MTP	Progress (43%), Learning (40%), 	
		
What it is not		
	AEXDP	Recognition (14%)	
	MTP	Contribution (13%)	
* Percent of respondents in each of these job types giving this definition of success	

How would you define life success?
Virtually all respondents (94% of the sample) defined life success in terms of family, lifestyle, their personal life and leisure.  Two-thirds of the sample indicated that career success was part of life success while 22% mentioned contributions to their community, society and humanitarian efforts.  
Men and women gave similar responses to this question.  Executives (79%) and those in the AEXDP (84%) and the ADM pool (79%) were less likely than those in other groups to associate life success with family and lifestyle.
How does having a successful life differ from having a successful career?
Only three responses were given to this question.  The majority of the sample (75%) felt that career success is only a component of life success (life success is broader, more holistic, a balance between career and personal interests).  One-quarter of the sample stated that life success and career success were intertwined and connected (they go hand in hand, are based on the same values, can’t have one without the other).  Ten percent of the sample felt that career success is “harder, more competitive and more measurable” than life success.  This group also felt life success was “softer”, “more emotional”, “more personal - related to values.”  There were no gender or job types differences in these responses.  Those in the AEXDP and CAP were less likely to say career and life success are intertwined (in fact no one in the CAP gave this response!)
How do you define career success? Is it different from life success?
“Too often, nowadays, a successful career can cost a successful life.  Too many people sacrifice their life for their careers.”
“I’m a farmer, I’m a public servant, I’m involved in public organizations, I take piano lessons.  That’s all part of a gestalt that makes you good at your job.”
“Having a successful career is looking forward to going to work.  Having a successful life is looking forward to going home!”
“The two go together.  You have to have the right fit between you and your job in the daytime in order to be a pleasant person at night.”
“A successful life is more about relationships.  You know you’ve had a successful life when people want to come visit you in the nursing home.”	

3.	Career Goals and Aspirations
To assess career goals and aspirations respondents were asked:
•	Where do you see your career in the next five years?
•	Where do you see your career ultimately?
The results for each of these questions are presented below.
Where do you see your career in the next five years?
Respondents answered this question in two quite different ways (see Table 2.12).  One set of respondents talked about what position they aspired to hold in the next five years (ADM, DM, other management position) while others talked about what they hoped to get from their career (satisfaction, self-esteem, influence, the chance to make a contribution).  Fourteen percent of the sample indicated that they were already where they wanted to be with respect to their career.  Eleven percent of the sample hoped to hold a position outside the government within the next five years.  The following quote typifies this response.
“Outside of government.  I have a lot of interests outside of government.  I’m the kind of person who needs at the end of the day to see goals met.  I get a lot of pleasure out of seeing things completed.  And in government, that’s the kiss of death.”
Table 2.12
Career Aspirations:  Next Five Years	
Where do you see your career in the next 5 years?	Percent	
Management position within government 	29%	
Working in an another area of the government (e.g., policy, federal-provincial relations, operations, more “people related”, more technical, another department of interest, etc.) 	27%	
Describes goals in intrinsic terms (a job that yields satisfaction, self-esteem, personal sense of accomplishment, enhances my skills, lets me learn) 	20%	
Describes goals in terms of progress (succession up the ranks, some job that “builds” on this one, a clear step up)	18%	
I’m already where I want to be (“I’m there”), same position 	14%	
Position outside of government (private sector, quasi-public, consulting, etc.; job that pays better, yields more recognition) 	11%	
Describes goals in terms of influence/contribution (something where I can make a difference, relevant, a contribution) 	11%	
DM or ADM	10%	
*	Multiple responses recorded		

Gender
There is only one gender difference in these data.  Women were more likely to describe their five-year career goals in intrinsic terms (27% versus 13%).  This finding is consistent with the data on career success presented earlier (women were more likely to define career success in terms of self-esteem).
Job Type
Five-year career aspirations vary with job type as follows:
•	executives were more likely than other respondents to describe their five-year career goals in terms of influence and contribution (24% of executives gave this response).  They were also more likely to aspire to the position of ADM or DM;
•	officers were more likely than other respondents to describe their five-year career goals in terms of progress (30% of officers gave this response);
•	analysts were less likely than other respondents to feel that they were already where they wanted to be with respect to their career goals (only 1% of analysts gave this response); and
•	scientists were more likely to feel that they were already where they wanted to be with respect to their career goals (28% of scientists gave this response).  They were also more likely to describe their career aspirations in intrinsic terms (33% of scientists gave this response).
Participation in CDP
Five-year career aspirations vary with CDP participation as follows:
•	respondents who were not in a CDP were more likely to report that they were “already where they wanted to be” with respect to their career (21% of non CDP participants gave this response versus 6% of those in a CDP);
•	CDP participants were more likely to say that they aspired to be a DM or ADM within the next five years (22% of CDP participants gave this response versus 4% of non CDP participants).  They were also more likely to hope that within five years they would be in a position of influence/contribution (21% of CDP participants gave this response versus 5% of non CDP participants);
•	70% of AEXDP hoped to be a DM or ADM in the next five years.  None of the respondents in this group indicated they were already where they wanted to be;
•	25% of those in the ADM pool hoped to be a DM in the next five years.  Respondents in this group were also more likely than others to describe their goals in intrinsic terms (33% of ADM pool gave this response);
•	two-thirds of respondents in the CAP sample and half of the respondents in the MTP sample hoped that within five years they would be in a management position within the government;
•	one-quarter of those in the CAP program hoped that within five years they would be in a position of influence (“somewhere where I can make a difference”);  
•	one-third of those in the MTP program described their five-year career goals in intrinsic terms (a job that yields satisfaction and esteem); and
•	none of the respondents in the CAP or MTP samples aspired to be an ADM or DM within the next five years.
Where do you see your career ultimately?
Approximately 20% of respondents stated that their ultimate career goal was to:
•	become an ADM or DM (21%); 
•	“hold a job that is satisfying and enhances my self esteem” (i.e. same as describing goals in intrinsic terms in Table 2.11) (21%); 
•	hold some other management position within the government (18%); 
•	work in another area of government (18%); or
•	work in some position outside the government that pays more and offers greater recognition (18%).
Eleven percent of the sample indicated that whatever happened, they did not want to become a DM (“I don’t need the stress”, “I don’t want the responsibility and long hours”, “I have a life”.)
Gender 
Women were significantly more likely than men to see themselves working in a position outside the government (22% of women gave this response versus 12% of men).
Job Type 
Again, career aspirations are strongly associated with job type.  Not surprisingly, executives were more likely than employees in other groups to aspire to the position of DM or ADM (31%).  Respondents in this group were also more likely than respondents in the other three job categories:
•	to think that ultimately they would be working outside the government (30% gave this response); and
•	to indicate that they did not want to be a DM!  (25% gave this response).
Scientists were also more likely to indicate that they did not want to be a DM (21% of the respondents in this group gave this response).  Respondents who worked as analysts were more likely than other employees to express their ultimate career goals in intrinsic terms (30%).
Participation in CDP
Ultimate career aspirations also varied with CDP participation.  Respondents who are in CDPs were more likely than those who are not in a CDP to say that they ultimately aspire to be a DM or ADM (30% versus 15% ).  Respondents who are not in CDP were more likely than their counterparts who are in CDPs to say “they already are where they want to be” (18% versus 1%).  These results would suggest that employees who participate in CDP have higher career aspirations than those who do not.  These findings can be interpreted in two ways: (1) those who have higher career aspirations are more likely to self-identify for these programs, or (2) CDPs lead to higher career aspirations.
Within the specific programs, the following between-group differences are worthy of note:
•	AEXDP had high career aspirations, with half of the respondents in this group indicating that ultimately they hoped to be a DM or ADM.
•	Almost 20% of those in the ADM pool think that ultimately they will become a DM.  A greater number, however, (25%) indicated that they didn’t ever want to become a DM!  Forty percent of the respondents in this group felt that ultimately they would hold a position outside the government that offers more recognition.
•	While none of the MTPs aspired to become an ADM or DM within the next five years, 30% of them felt that this is the position that they would end up in ultimately.  Respondents in this group were also more likely to describe their ultimate goals in intrinsic terms (33%).
•	Those in the CAP program have more modest aspirations.  Just over one-third of the respondents in the CAP sample felt that ultimately they would be in a management position within the government; another 33% saw themselves working in another area of the government.  Only 7% felt that ultimately they would become ADMs or DMs.
Where do you see your career ultimately?
“I don’t want to become an ADM or a DM.  I have no desire to become a slave to this organization.”
“In some ways, I would like to be an ADM but I’m not sure I’m willing to pay the price for the rest of my  working life.  If there was an ADM position in ____  where I didn’t have to work 70 hours a week, I would take it.”
“The number of hours required at senior management level is not worth the difference in pay after taxes.  Too many long hours, not enough pay.”
“The junior levels of management are in a no man’s land.  They have no power and are basically gofers for senior management.”
“Ultimately, I guess I would see myself perhaps moving towards some of the lower-end executive level positions, but I don’t really see myself moving any higher than that.  Partly because of the time factors involved: I’m not willing to put in 70 and 80 hour weeks, which is what I see people at the much higher levels doing, and I’m not sure I want to spend my life in meetings.  From what I see, the higher people get, the more time they spend in meetings.  I like the idea of still having contact with the delivery side or to benefit the public more directly.”
“When I was younger, I would have thought that a successful career meant climbing to the pinnacle of the organization.  I sincerely thought that I would like to be a deputy minister, but it is only through experience and maturation that I can say now with no hesitation that that is absolutely the last thing I would like to do.  Those are absolutely awful jobs.  They’re just pressure cookers.”
“Career is to finance life.  I don’t have any ultimate goals.”	
4.	Promotability
During the interview we asked respondents the following questions related to promotions:
•	Have you ever received a promotion? If yes, why do you think you received this promotion?
•	Have you ever been passed over for a promotion/ competed and didn’t get a promotion? If yes, why do you think you were passed over?
Responses to these questions are summarized below.
Have you ever received a promotion?
Almost all of those in the interview sample (93%) indicated that they had received a promotion during the course of their Public Service career.  There were no gender, job type or CDP differences in these findings.  These data, which are virtually identical to those compiled from the FAX-back survey, suggest that the individuals who participated in the interview phase of the research have had a number of career successes.  As such, the strategies they have used to manage their careers are of interest to those aspiring to advance in the Public Service.
Why do you think you received this promotion?
Respondents typically credited their promotion to their experience and background (I got it because I was the most “qualified”) (55% of sample) and their performance history (“I produce”; “I had already demonstrated I could do the type of things they were looking for”) (45% of the sample).  Twenty percent of the sample said that their personal qualities (creativity, loyalty, leadership, personality, the “right stuff”) had lead to their promotion.  Only 11% attributed their promotion to hard work.
Gender
Men were more likely to say they received their promotions because of their experience/background (58% versus 46%).  Women were more likely to say they received their promotions because of their personal qualities (24% versus 14%).
Job Type
Executives were more likely to say they were promoted on the basis of their experience (66% gave this response), their performance history (58% gave this response) and their personal qualities (32% gave this response).  Twelve percent of executives indicated that they were promoted “because there was a good fit between them and the people doing the selection.”  Only 2% of respondents in the rest of the sample gave this response.
Analysts, on the other hand, were more likely to think that they were promoted because it was “automatic” (it comes with the program I’m in) (20% of analysts gave this response versus 2% of in the rest of the sample).
Scientists had a very different view of why they were promoted than did respondents in other job groupings.  They were less likely to think they were promoted based on experience (only 28% of scientists gave this response), their performance history (only 30% of scientists gave this response) or their personal qualities (only 5% of scientists gave this response).  Instead, they attributed their promotions to the fact that they had met/completed some formal requirement such as training or education (20% of scientists gave this response) or because they had a good interview or were good at the competition process (17% of scientists gave this response).  
Participation in CDP
Non CDPs were more likely to think they had been promoted because they had met some formal requirement (15% of people who did not participate in CDPs gave this response versus 0% of respondents who were in CDPs).  Respondents in CDPs, on the other hand, were more likely to think they had been promoted on the basis of performance history (51% versus 37%) and their personal qualities (25% versus 14%).
There were also a number of between-group differences in responses within the CDP sample:
•	AEXDP were more likely to think they were promoted on the basis of performance history (55%) and personal qualities (40%);
•	those in the ADM pool were more likely to think they were promoted because of their experience/background (72%), because they had a good interview (12% of  the ADM pool sample gave this response versus 0% in all other groups!) and because they were good at the competition process (16% of  the ADM pool sample gave this response versus 1% in all other groups!);
•	CAP were more likely to think they had been promoted because of their experience (70%), and their formal training (12% of  the CAP sample gave this response versus 1% in all other groups).  They were less likely to think they had been promoted due to their performance history (only 19% of respondents in the CAP sample gave this response); and
•	MTP were more likely to think they had been promoted because it was automatic (47% of the MTP sample gave this response versus 0% in all other groups!).
Why do you think you received your promotion?
“To be honest, I’m just very good at the competition process.  I think there are a lot of people who aren’t, and that’s very unfortunate because they can’t ever rise to their level of competence because they can’t get through the process.  That’s not to say that I don’t have the ability, I have the ability, but I also am able to show that I do.”
“I got this job through a competition and being placed on an eligibility list.  I had the skills, but there’s a big element of luck.  The board decides in advance what the answers are to the questions, and you have to come as close as you can to matching their arbitrary answers.  And these aren’t fact-based questions, they’re hypothetical situations.  Would Harvard management gurus agree on the absolute answer to a question?  Does that mean they wouldn’t make the list?  There are no absolute answers to these questions.  It’s more a function of my ability to read the minds of the question-makers.”	

Have you ever been passed over for a promotion - competed for and didn’t get a promotion? Why do you think you were passed over?
Two-thirds of the sample were able to recall an occasion when they had been passed over for a promotion.  Responses given as to “why they were passed over” are given in table 2.13.  A plurality of respondents (42%) cited lack of experience as the primary reason.  Approximately 40% of respondents felt that some aspect of the competition process had contributed to their lack of success (e.g., poor “fit” with those doing selection; bad interview/bad at competitive process; the competition was a formality - the job was already filled).  Respondents also blamed their inability to get promoted on equity/diversity issues (too old, job went to a woman, job went to a man, job went to a minority group, etc.)  
Table 2.13
Employees’ view of Why They Had Not Received a Promotion	
Why Not Promoted (Employees’ View)	Total	
Not enough experience, not “qualified”, someone else better qualified 	42%	
Poor “fit” with those doing selection (different values, goals)	16%	
Someone else had been “groomed” for it, was acting in the capacity in preparation for the job, it had already been filled, competition was a formality	15%	
Equity/diversity issue (old boys’ club, job went to a woman, minority, etc.) 	14%	
My personal qualities (wanted stronger personality, etc.)	11%	
Bad interview/bad at competitive process	10%	
*	Multiple responses recorded		

Gender
Men were more likely to have been passed over for a promotion than women (71% versus 60%) and to think they did not get promoted because they did not have enough experience/were not qualified (47% versus 30%).  Women were more likely to think that they did not get promoted because of personal characteristics (17% versus 7%).
Job Type
Respondents from each of the five job types examined in this research were equally likely to have been passed over for a promotion.  The reasons respondents gave for being passed over for a promotion were not associated with job type.
Participation in CDP
The likelihood of being passed over for a promotion and the reasons given for being passed over are not linked to participation in a CDP.  There is, however, variation within program type.  Three quarters of those in the AEXDP, ADM pool and CAP programs have been passed over for a promotion versus 43% of MTPs.  Reasons given vary by program as follows:
•	AEXDP were more likely to feel they had not been promoted because they were a poor fit with those doing the interview (27%) and less likely to feel that they had not been promoted due to a lack of qualifications or experience (27%);
•	those in the ADM pool were more likely to think they had not been promoted because they did not have the necessary experience and qualifications (60%);
•	CAP were more likely to think they had not been promoted because they were not qualified for the job (43%) and because of  diversity/equity issues (25%).  None of those in the CAP  sample felt that they had not been promoted because of their personal qualities;
•	MTP were more likely to think they had not been promoted due to their lack of experience (53%).  None of those in the MTP group attributed their lack of success to a bad interview.
Why do you think you were passed over for your promotion?
“I have been passed over a hundred and one times.  It’s not the mark of the man or the race to the swiftest.  It’s a personal decision of the supervisor who sits on the board.”
“Yes.  There was a candidate who had been with the department, left, been hired back at a lower level, and was deemed to have seniority over me, so in somebody’s thinking was really the person who deserved (the job).  So, the way it was handled was I was sent (on assignment) for a month, and they ran the competition while I was gone.”
“I once competed for a position that was in a professional category, and at the time, I was in a non-professional category.  I believe that I was passed over because I was never considered on the basis of my experience and ability, just on the basis of my existing job group and level.  So, I was screened out.  I never even got to try.”
“It wasn’t my turn (laughs) to get promoted.  If you get a promotion, the expectation is that maybe after you’ve been in that level for four or five years, the board will look favorably upon promoting you to the next level.  Shortly after I received a promotion, I applied for another promotion and although I had been acting in the level, there were other people who had been in my position a lot longer than I had and they all received job offers and I didn’t.  The timing, and the position, I guess...I had been there a lot less time than other people.”	

5.	Personal Career Strategies
A key feature of new career management concepts is that the organization and the employee are partners in career development.  Employees are responsible for knowing what their skills and capabilities are, what assistance they need from their employers, asking for that assistance and preparing themselves to assume new responsibilities.  The following questions were included in the interview to determine what individuals were doing to forward their own careers and to discover what impact they perceived their personal situation had on their career development:
•	What kinds of things have you done in the past 3 years to increase the chances you’ll achieve your career goals?
•	Have you ever tried a strategy that backfired (i.e., didn’t work)?  Why do you think it didn’t work?
•	Can you think of anything in your personal life that has had:
-	a POSITIVE effect on your ability to meet your goals?
-	a NEGATIVE effect on your ability to meet your goals?
Responses to each of these questions are presented and discussed below.
What have respondents done in the past 3 years to increase the chances they will achieve their career goals?
Only 4% of the interview sample said that they had done “nothing” personally to move their careers forward.  The data (see Table 2.14) indicate that the most common personal career development strategy by far was to increase one’s breadth of knowledge (i.e. respondents noted that they applied for or made lateral moves, moved to international, interprovincial work, moved to a different department, broadened their expertise, broadened their exposure).  This strategy was practiced by 62% of respondents.  Other common personal career development strategies mentioned by the sample include:
•	training (language, budget, finance, HR) cited by 36% of the sample); 
•	joining a specific development program such as  AEXDP, CAP, MTP, (cited by 28% of the sample); 
•	increasing one’s visibility (e.g. respondents indicated that they applied for or moved to a job that put them in touch with people in high places; increased their committee work; “hitched themselves to a star”; took tough jobs that put them “on the radar screen”) (cited by 21% of the sample);
•	scanning the horizon and learning about “politics”, corporate objectives, trends and issues (i.e. respondents  took sensitive jobs, put themselves in touch with department’s/country’s direction) (cited by 16% of the sample); and
•	networking and finding a mentor (cited by 16% of the sample).
Eleven percent of the sample said they had increased their formal education (completed a new degree); 10% said that they had looked at their own values, strengths, goals etc (i.e. used introspection as a strategy).  Only 6% of respondents indicated that they “worked hard”; only 4% said they “took risks.”
Table 2.14
Personal Career Strategies	
Personal Career Strategies	Total	
Increased my breadth	62%	
Trained (language, budget, finance, HR) 	36%	
Joined a specific development program	28%	
Increased my visibility, took tough jobs that “put me on the radar screen”, etc.) 	21%	
Networked, found a mentor 	16%	
Scanned the horizon and learned about “politics”	16%	
Formal education (completed a new degree, etc.)	11%	
Introspection	10%	
*	Multiple responses recorded		

Gender
Men and women practiced similar personal career strategies.
Job Type
With the exception of respondents in the managerial and analyst groups (whose responses were identical to those reported for the total sample), personal career strategies varied considerably by job type:
•	executives were more likely to have scanned the horizon (cited by 27% of this group) and less likely to have trained (cited by 15% of this group) or increased their formal education (cited by 2% of this group);
•	officers were more likely to have trained (cited by 68% of this group) and increased their visibility (cited by 31% of this group) and less likely to have increased their breadth (cited by 50% of this group); and
•	scientists were more likely to have trained (cited by 50% of this group) and less likely to have scanned the horizon (cited by 0% of this group) or joined a specific development program (cited by 10% of this group).
Participation in CDP
As can be seen in Figure 2.7, the personal career development strategies used by respondents in CDPs were different from those used by non-program respondents.  There was also a considerable amount of variation in strategies followed by respondents in the different CDPs:
•	AEXDP were more likely to have increased their breadth (72%), increased their visibility (33%), found a mentor (33%) and engaged in introspection (20%).  They were less likely to have trained (14%);
•	those in the ADM pool were more likely to have scanned the horizon (36%) and less likely to have taken training (12%);
•	CAP were more likely to have increased the amount of formal education they had (28%) and less likely to have scanned the horizon (8%) or found a mentor (4%); and
•	MTP were less likely to have networked (4%) or increased their visibility (4%).
Ever tried a career strategy that backfired (i.e., didn’t work)? Why didn’t it work?
Half the sample said that they had never had the experience of a career strategy backfiring! Twenty percent said that they had taken a job that hadn’t worked for them (I didn’t like it; I wasn’t interested in the work).  Eighteen percent said that they had stayed too long in one position, assuming hard work was enough.  In other words, they had not been proactive with respect to managing their career.
Respondents were not really able to articulate why their strategy had failed.  The most common reasons given included: 
•	the position/strategy was just not right for me - It didn’t work out (cited by 25% the sample); and 
•	you have to take your career in your own hands or it won’t happen (cited by 25% the sample). 
There were very few between group differences in these findings.  Those worthy of note are listed below:
•	officers and analysts were more likely to say that they had taken a position/strategy that was just not right for them (72% of officers and 65% of analysts gave this response); and
•	CAP were more likely to say they had stayed too long in one position (33% gave this response).
What have you done in the past 3 years to increase the chances you’ll achieve your career goals?
“It is only since I’ve joined this program that I feel as though my work is recognized.  I’m now valued as an employee and it makes me feel that what I did before joining this program doesn’t count even though I worked just as hard then.”
“Doing a good job is necessary but not enough.  It’s who you know.”
“Very little.  We have been so preoccupied with just getting the work done, there has been little time to reflect.  In recent years the Public Service has gone through considerable downsizing.  This has affected not only employees who have left, but those who have remained.  In general, people have been faced with increasing workloads or significant changes in the nature of their roles and responsibilities in order to accommodate this downsizing.  You don’t really have much time, except perhaps in your personal time, to reflect on what you should be doing in a strategic sense for your career.”
“I had received advice from quite a few people that if I wanted to go anywhere in my career, I had better get into the policy area.  I consulted with a couple of senior officials, and they were unanimous in telling me that a policy move was the way to go.  So, I’ve pretty well left science, and this is a big career change.”
“Within five years, I’d like to be where I am now, to stay at my current level.  But I’m looking forward to moving up a couple of levels before the end of my career.  So, my career plan includes a period of stasis right now while I’m raising my children.  I’m not looking at upward mobility but at the same time I’m training right now and expanding my network in hope of meeting the requirements for my next level when I’m ready to move.”
“Taking jobs for the wrong reasons is a bad strategy.  Where was I successful in terms of being satisfied with my job?  The two criteria that always helped me were to stay away from emotions and notions of idealism.  Idealism, not in a negative sense that you shouldn’t be an idealist, but you should know that your idealism can lead you the wrong way.  The best criteria for success for me have been the selection of a boss that I would learn from and content that I could love.  If I use those two criteria, my strategies always win.”	

Have you ever tried a career strategy that “backfired”?
“The problem that I have in getting promoted is not my ability to do my job well nor my ability to learn.  It lies in my ability to perform well on competition”
“Yes.  The sort of reputation that you develop and build up with individuals - there’s no carry-over.  The departure of so many managers means that the kind of impression that one would make in a more stable environment, the benefits of that, don’t necessarily accrue to the employee.  That has been my experience.  For example, I have worked for five years in five different assignments and I don’t think that there is any manager that I have worked for, say at the Director General level, who is still in place in the organization.”
“I was passively waiting for people to deliver on what was promised, and because of the very high management turnover, those promises weren’t followed up because (1) they weren’t that explicit, (2) the people were gone, and there was no loyalty, or living up to those promises.  When the regimes change, or circumstances change, they’re always done on a dime.  They always override the commitments that were made.”
“There is still the concept that if you have stayed in the same job too long, you are either lazy or stupid.  That if you’ve bounced around a lot of jobs you must be bright and energetic.  I don’t think either statement is necessarily true.”	

Has anything in your personal life had a POSITIVE effect on your ability to meet your goals? A NEGATIVE effect?
Positive
Only 7% of the sample could not think of anything in their personal lives that had had a positive effect on their ability to meet their career goals.  The most common response by far, cited by 82% of the sample, was “support from spouse and family has had a positive effect on my ability to meet my career goals.”  Sixteen percent noted personal attributes that they felt had helped their ability to meet their career goals (I’m not a quitter, I have a strong work ethic, I’m patient, “Type A”, etc.).  Nine percent of respondents mentioned their formal education.
Negative
One third of the sample said that they could not think of anything in their personal life that had had a negative impact on their ability to meet their career goals.  Twenty percent of the sample said that their children had made it more difficult for them to achieve their career goals (I can’t relocate, I worry about them at work, I find it hard to stay late, come in early, etc.).  Thirteen percent of the sample identified each of the following personal barriers to career development: (1) I am so busy I have no leisure time, no time to recharge, (2) personal/demographic attributes make it hard for me to meet my goals (e.g. too old, visible minority, unilingual), and (3) I am unwilling to relocate because of my family.

Key between-group differences in these responses are illustrated in Figure 2.8.  These data indicate that many respondents (especially female respondents and those with heavier work demands) feel that children make it harder for employed parents to achieve their career goals.  Conversely, not having children is seen by some as an effective career strategy.  These data are consistent with the demographic data presented earlier. 
It is interesting to note that almost one-quarter of the men who were interviewed felt that “the fact that they were male had hurt their ability to advance.”  This suggests that there may be some backlash to government policies with respect to employment equity and diversity.
Is there anything in your personal life that has affected your ability to reach your career goals?
“There are two programs that I would be looking at and I have been identified as a very superior candidate for, but both demand that you be able to travel.  Therefore, I can’t consider them because they have made these programs non-family friendly.”
“Career development in the Public Service is for those people who are in the major centers.  I wish that they would look at their other people who are loyal who are in the outlying areas.”
“For me to advance to my next level, I am required to move to other jobs, and I have no control over which jobs I am assigned.  At this stage of my life I can’t afford to run that risk.  With small children, I wouldn’t want to be rotated to a job in which I had massive overtime to do, or where I had little control over my work hours, or where I had to travel.  But that’s the requirement of the next level, that you be able to move into any environment within the department, and you have to be prepared to do that if you opt into it.  And that’s why I have opted out of it.”	

6.	Organizational Career Development Strategies
Although primary and final responsibility for career development rests with each employee, the organization has complementary responsibilities.  The current human resources approach to career management can be summed up as follows: assign employees the responsibility for managing their careers and then provide the support they need to do it.  This support can take many forms.  In this research we look at support from three sources: the employee’s immediate manager, the department in which the employee is employed, and the Public Service itself.  The following questions were asked during the interview to determine organizational support for employee career development from each of these sources:
•	What types of things does your supervisor do:
-	to increase the chances you’ll achieve your career goals?
-	that make it harder for you to achieve your career goals?
•	What types of things does your department do:
-	to increase the chances you’ll achieve your career goals?
-	that make it harder for you to achieve your career goals?
•	What types of things does the Public Service do:
-	to increase the chances you’ll achieve your career goals?
-	that make it harder for you to achieve your career goals?
Responses to each of these questions are given below.
What types of things does your supervisor do:
-	to increase the chances you’ll achieve your career goals?
-	that make it harder for you to achieve your career goals?
Support
Almost 20% of the sample said that their supervisor did “nothing” to help their career development.  Other responses are given in Table 2.15.  There is a high degree of overlap between the data in Table 2.15 (career support from managers) and the data in Table 2.14 (employee’s personal career strategies).  This high degree of correspondence suggests that employees appreciate a manager who helps them achieve their personal career goals (i.e. helps subordinates increase their breadth of knowledge and visibility, mentors their employees).  
Further examination of the data in Table 2.15 identifies several attributes shared by managers who are seen as facilitating the career goals of their employees.  According to the data, such managers are good communicators who are sincerely interested in helping subordinates reach their career goals (good listening skills appear to be particularly critical).  They also appear to be very good at providing employees with the information they need to develop their careers (i.e. give good feedback, keep employees posted on trends, activities and opportunities).  These findings correspond to research in this area which suggests the most important contribution managers can make to the career development of their subordinates is to provide them complete information and honest feedback about their job performance.  The data also indicate that employees appreciate a manager who gives them autonomy (“gives me directions and then trusts me to do a good job”).
Table 2.15
Supervisor Support of Career Development	
How SUPERVISOR helps employee achieve career goals	Total	Men	Women	
Good people skills, sincerely supportive of me and my interests, good listener, sounding board	39%	33%	47%	
Increases my exposure, breadth (encourages training, learning opportunities, program participation, contact with outside agencies or departments) 	34%	31%	35%	
Good communicator, provides important information, good feedback, keeps me posted on trends, activities and   opportunities 	24%	27%	23%	
Gives me autonomy 	24%	30%	19%	
Overtly focuses on my career development/mentors me/role model for me	22%	20%	24%	
Nothing	17%	18%	17%	
Increases my visibility (supervisor is “upwardly mobile”, introduces me to senior people, credits me with work, brags about me, invites me to meetings, committees, allows me to “speak” for him or her)	13%	11%	14%	
Shares similar values, good personality, respect him/her, good match	11%	9%	12%	
*   Multiple responses recorded				

Hinder
Employees were also asked to identify things that their supervisor had done to make it harder for them to realize their career goals.  Fully half of the sample could not think of anything that their supervisor had done to impede their career development!  Ten percent of respondents said that their supervisor had made it harder by “doing little/nothing to enhance my breadth of knowledge” (they don’t support training, don’t let me take advantages of new opportunities, etc.).  Fifteen percent said their manager was “too busy him/herself to spend time on my needs”.
There are a number of very interesting between-group differences in these responses.
Gender
Women were more likely than men to say that their manager had helped by having good people skills (47% of women gave this response versus 33% of men).  Men, on the other hand, were more likely to say their manager had helped by giving them autonomy (30% of men gave this response versus 19% of women).  There were no gender differences with respect to behaviours which had made it harder.
Job Type
The kinds of things supervisors do to support the career development of their subordinates differs depending on what types of job their subordinates hold (see Box 2.4).  Executives were more likely than employees in other groups to say their supervisor had helped by giving them autonomy.  Analysts were more likely to say their manager had helped by mentoring them, while scientists were more likely to feel that their manager had helped by increasing their breadth.  
Scientists held the most negative views on this issue.  They were less likely than employees in other groups to feel that their managers had mentored them or increased their visibility, but more likely to say that their managers had made it harder for them to progress in their career by being too busy to spend time on their career needs (22% of scientists say this) and by “not being knowledgeable” about what the scientist did (28% of scientists say this versus 4% of the rest of the sample!)
BOX 2.4
Supervisor Support of Career Development: Job Type	
Executive	Good people skills (57%), gives autonomy (32%), good communicator (25%),	
Manager	Good people skills(40%), increases exposure (32%), good communicator (29%), gives autonomy (23%)	
Officer	Increases exposure (31%), good people skills (35%) gives autonomy (30%), good communicator (26%)	
Analyst	Increases exposure (44%), good people skills (37%), mentors (34%), gives autonomy (25%)	
Scientist	Increases breadth (47%), good people skills (29%), good communicator (24%), gives autonomy (24%)	
*	Responses cited by more than 20% of the sample	

Participation in CDP
The data indicate that the kinds of things supervisors do to support the career development of their subordinates depend on whether or not the employee is part of a CDP (see Box 2.5).  Respondents who participate in a CDP were more likely than those not in such a program to say their supervisor had helped by:
•	having good people skills - being supportive;
•	overtly focusing on their career/mentoring them; or
•	increasing their visibility.
BOX 2.5
Supervisor Support of Career Development: Participation in CDP	
Not in CDP	Good people skills (37%), increases my breadth (33%), good communicator (25%), gives autonomy (22%)	
AEXDP	Good people skills (57%), good communicator (33%), mentoring (33%), increases my visibility (33%), increases my breadth (24%), gives me autonomy (20%)	
ADM Pool	Good people skills (40%), gives autonomy (40%), mentoring (33%), nothing (28%), good communicator (20%)	
CAP	Good people skills (50%), increases exposure (31%), good communicator (27%), 
nothing (27%)	
MTP	Increases exposure (35%), good people skills (41%), mentors (38%), gives autonomy 31%)	
*	Responses cited by more than 20% of the sample	

Is there anything your supervisor does that affects your ability to reach your career goals?
“ I have been fortunate in the past ten years to have had managers who have recognized my abilities and my energy and have sat down with me and told me what they see for me for the future.  They have allowed me a lot of flexibility in terms of studying at work (I took a management course at university), in terms of assistance in projects, in terms of coaching, and they’ve allowed me to take on challenges and made me feel secure.  Even if I made mistakes, I felt that I had their support.  I really have been fortunate in the last five-ten years.”
“In the past I’ve let the job pick me, rather than picking the job.  This left me in positions with people who didn’t appreciate me, who didn’t care about my career, who had their own agendas.  But now, just as an employer can call your references and check on you before they hire you, you can check on them too.  And I’ve done that before I’ve accepted a position.  Now I do my homework because it all depends on the boss.  They can hold you down or they can make you shine.”
“When I asked my supervisor what he thought of my appraisal, his answer was “I signed it, I didn’t really read it”.
“Once again, I asked for language training.  Once again I was told that there was no budget for it, we have other concerns, we’ve got too many things on, there’s enough people on language training already, blah blah blah.....  I know this is going to hurt me because being bilingual is mandatory in a lot of the positions I want to apply for.”
“He’s sensitive to people, and to see somebody at that level who is sensitive to people is really something.  I come from a background where, by the time they get to (his level), they seem to be less than sensitive, tend to get almost into a “user” mode.”	

There was no corresponding difference in the other direction (i.e. no instance in which people who were not in CDPs felt that their managers were more supportive than those in a CDP).  
It is also interesting to note that respondents in the ADM pool and in the CAP program were more likely to say that their supervisor had done nothing to help them meet their career goals (28% of those in the ADM pool and in CAP gave this response).  Respondents in the AEXDP and CAP samples were more likely to say their supervisor made it harder for them to meet their career development goals by being too busy to spend time with them (20% of the respondents in these groups gave this response).
It is also interesting to note that 15% of those in the CAP and MTP programs say the fact that their managers have no people skills makes it harder for them to meet their career goals.
What types of things does your department do:
-	to increase the chances you’ll achieve your career goals?
-	that make it harder for you to achieve your career goals?
Support
Data on how respondents feel that their department has helped and hindered their ability to achieve their career goals are given in Tables 2.16 and 2.17 respectively.  These data suggest that employees are more likely to attribute support as coming from their manager rather than the department.  Again, there is a high degree of overlap between the responses given in conjunction with personal career development strategies and perceived departmental support.  It would appear that employees consider their departments supportive of career development if they develop mechanisms to help them increase their breadth (encourage training, provide learning opportunities, encourage program participation, provide employees with contact with outside agencies or departments, keep employees posted on trends, opportunities and activities), support training, and have their own formal career development programs (has own mentor programs, networks, job rotations and stretch assignments are “hardwired”).  
There is also an interesting overlap between departmental support and the data on supportive managers.  This overlaps suggests that it may be easier for managers to support the career development initiatives of their subordinates if they work in a department with a culture which encourages and facilitates the communication of important information and focuses on people skills, employee support, and people management.
Table 2.16
Department Support of Career Development	
How DEPARTMENT helps employee achieve 
career goals	
Total	
Men	
Women	
Increases my exposure, breadth	28%	33%	22%	
Training, education highly supported	24%	27%	22%	
Nothing	25%	20%	28%	
Formal career development programs	18%	20%	16%	
Focus on people skills, people management, employee support	15%	15%	16%	
Good communication, provides important information, keeps us posted on trends, activities and opportunities	12%	7%	18%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

Table 2.17
Departmental Barriers to Career Development	
How DEPARTMENT makes it harder to achieve career goals	Total	
Does nothing to make it harder	27%	
Does little/nothing to enhance my breadth of knowledge	22%	
Too busy, demanding (unrealistic workload in this department, stress, pressure)	18%	
No focus on people, people skills not emphasized, no employee support (devalues employees, ageism)	14%	
No/little support for training, education/ no time for training	14%	
Equity/diversity/cultural problems make it difficult to get ahead	14%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

Hinder
This interpretation of the data is supported by the data in Table 2.17 where various aspects of departmental culture (i.e. too hierarchical, hung up on protocol, unrealistic workload, no focus on people, little support for education/training) are identified as hindering employee career development.  Departments are also seen to be non-supportive if they make it difficult for employees to enhance their breadth of knowledge (a career tactic which seems to be strongly associated with career development and career success in the minds of many of the employees in this sample).  The respondents suggested a number of ways in which this occurred (i.e. structural barriers, traditional, hierarchical, hung up on protocol, department too small, narrow, or specialized, no lateral movement).
Finally, 14% of the respondents felt that equity, diversity and cultural problems in their department made it difficult to get ahead (opportunities available only to certain “closed communities”; can’t get ahead because of diversity quotas, male dominated, etc.) 
Gender
Men were more likely to say their department facilitates career development by helping employees to gain breadth (33% of men gave this response versus 22% of women).  Women, on the other hand, were more likely to say that their department had done nothing to help (30% of women gave this response versus 20% of men) or that the department had helped by being good at communicating relevant information (18% of women gave this response versus 7% of men).
Job Type
The kinds of things departments do to support career development differs depending on what types of job the employees hold (see Box 2.6).  Worthy of note is the fact that executives are more likely than respondents in other groups to say that their department does nothing to support employee career development (33% of executives gave this response).  Analysts were more likely to say that equity/diversity/ cultural problems in their department made it harder for them to achieve their career goals.  Scientists were more likely to say that their department did nothing to enhance their breadth of knowledge.

BOX 2.6
Department Support of Career Development: Job Type	
Executives
	Nothing (32%)
Focus on people skills (24%)	
Managers
	Nothing (30%)
Training/education supported (28%)
Increases exposure (26%)	
Officers
	Increases exposure (35%)
Formal career development programs (35%)
Training/education supported (22%)	
Analysts
	Increases exposure (39%)
Training/education supported (37%)
Formal career development programs (24%)
Nothing (20%)	
Scientists
	Training/education supported (35%)	
*  Responses cited by more than 20% of the sample	

Participation in CDP
The data indicate that the kinds of things departments do to support career development depends on whether or not the employee is part of a CDP (see Box 2.7).  Respondents not in CDPs were more likely to feel that their department had done nothing to help them achieve their career goals (30% of those not in a CDP felt this way versus 20% of those in a CDP).  Respondents in CDPs, on the other hand, were more likely to say that their department had helped by being good at communication (cited by 20% in CDPs versus 6% of those not in a CDP) or by offering formal career development programs (cited by 25% in CDPs versus 5% of those not in a CDP).  Specific differences by program type are given in Box 2.7.  
BOX 2.7
Department Support of Career Development: Participation in CDP	
Not in CDP
	Nothing (30%)
training highly supported (26%)
Increases my breadth (22%)	
AEXDP
	Increases my breadth (29%)
Nothing (24%)
Good communication (20%)
Increases my visibility (20%)	
ADM Pool
	Nothing (40%)
Increases my breadth (22%)
Focus on people skills (22%)	
CAP
	Formal career development programs (46%)
Increases my  breadth (31%)
Training/education supported (27%)	
MTP
	Increases my  breadth (38%)
Training/education supported (38%)
Formal career development programs (35%)
Good communication (21%)	
*  Responses cited by more than 20% of the sample	

Is there anything your department does that affects your ability to reach your career goals?
 “They’ve offered me a chance to compete for a position at the level I’ll be deployed into if I spend another year within the MTP, so I’ll be able to exit the program early, which interests me a great deal.  They also have quite a number of programs in place where people will help me with my resume and my application once the competition starts, and they’ll do practice interviews with me and so forth, to prepare me for the competition process, which is something I haven’t been offered anywhere else that I’ve worked.  I’m very impressed that they have this set up for employees.”
“My home department has been investing money in training for me since I started work and more specifically over the past four years since I started this program.  They’re making an effort to keep track of their people in developmental programs and to increase the participation in developmental programs, so I think they’ve been doing some good things there.”
“Our department has a written policy that work and lifestyle are to be respected and valued.  But to get feedback on my most important file, my manager says he will see me at 7:30 on Friday night.”
“My personal career goal is to work on interesting, challenging files.  The problem is the department is making a real effort to use some fluid staffing to cover these files.  And although this is intended to increase access, exposure to this work, in reality it is backfiring.  If I’m going to work on a file, I want to be staffed in that position, not lent.  In our environment, it isn’t good to be seen as someone on assignment, or secondment.  You want to be IN the full-time position.  So this is backfiring in terms of getting people to work on important files.  Although the intent (of fluid staffing) is to make it easier for employees to reach career goals, the effect is to make it more difficult.”
“The more senior you become, the smaller the community of decision makers with respect to career movement, and there it becomes not only your competence, but a lot of reputation, having godfathers and mentors.  There are communities that are rather closed.”
“The group and level at which you work is important, and I would say that executives, to my mind, people who are currently executives, probably have a wider range of opportunities for career development than those who are not.  Career management, assistance by an organization in career management, I’m not saying it’s non-existent, but it’s clearly stronger, better, more structured, for executives than it is for non-executives.”	

What types of things does the Public Service do:
-	to increase the chances you’ll achieve your career goals?
-	that make it harder for you to achieve your career goals?
Most respondents found it more difficult to identify ways in which the Public Service itself has affected their ability to achieve their career goals.  Most respondents had to really think about this question whereas they were easily able to give ways in which their supervisor or their department had supported or hindered their career aspirations.  The responses they identified are listed in Tables 2.18 (Supports) and 2.19 (Barriers).
Table 2.18
Public Service Support of Career Development	
How PUBLIC SERVICE helps employee achieve career goals	Total	Men	Women	
Formal career development programs	48%	42%	53%	
Nothing	30%	25%	34%	
Training, education highly supported	17%	19%	13%	
Increases my exposure, breadth of knowledge	17%	18%	16%	
Focus on people skills, people management, employee support	15%	11%	17%	
Provides important information, keeps us posted on trends, activities and opportunities	12%	16%	10%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

Table 2.19
Public Service Barriers to Career Development	
How PUBLIC SERVICE makes it harder to achieve career goals	Total	
	Does nothing to make it harder	20%	
	No focus on people	20%	
	Poor HR practices	18%	
	Does little/nothing to enhance my breadth of knowledge	10%	
	Downsizing reduced opportunities, nowhere TO advance	10%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

Supports
Half of the respondents said that the formal career development programs offered by the Public Service (La Relève, AEXDP, CAP, and MTP mentioned most frequently) had increased the chances that they would achieve their career goals.  This finding is not surprising given how the sample was selected.  Virtually all of the respondents who gave this response were, in fact, currently participating in a CDP program (76% of those in the CDP sample gave this response versus 2% in the non CDP sample!)  As such, they can be expected to be more aware of the existence of such programs and familiar with how such programs work.
Thirty percent of respondents said that the Public Service had done nothing to help their career development.  By comparison, 17% of respondents said their supervisor had done “nothing”, while 25% said their department had not supported them (see Figure 2.9). These data suggest that respondents are more likely to attribute support to their manager or their department than to the Public Service itself.
Other career supports mentioned in conjunction with the Public Service (see Table 2.18) mirror the supports reported earlier in our discussion of services offered by managers and departments.  Respondents think the Public Service makes it easier for employees to meet career goals when it supports education and training, makes it easier for employees to increase their breadth of knowledge (i.e. encourages cross-functional/cross-departmental contacts, encourages movement between jobs, departments), focuses on people skills and people management, and keeps employees posted on trends and opportunities.
Hinders
What barriers to career advancement do respondents associate with the Public Service itself ?  Only 20% of the sample could not identify any barriers.  Two of the Public Service obstacles to career advancement are ones we have seen before in association with the manager and the department:
•	no focus on people (people skills are not emphasized, Public Service does not support employees, Public Service devalues employees, pay too low, ageism); and
•	does nothing to enhance employee breadth (structural barriers, too large, traditional, hierarchical, no lateral movement).
Two of the impediments are, however, unique to the Public Service:
•	poor HR practices (classification systems, hiring, recruitment, competition process, problems with HR programs, acting positions); and 
•	recent downsizing initiatives (downsizing has reduced opportunities - there is nowhere TO advance to).
There were a number of interesting between-group differences in these findings.
Gender
Women were more likely to say that the formal CDPs offered by the Public Service had helped them meet their career goals.  Women were also more likely to indicate that the Public Service had done nothing to help them meet their career goals and that downsizing had reduced opportunities (13% of women gave this response versus 3% of men).
Job Type
The perception of Public Service support for career development varies by job type (see Box 2.8).  Examination of these data suggests that executives have the most positive view of the Public Service, scientists the least.  Almost half of the employees in the scientist sample (42%) say that the Public Service has done nothing to support their career development; 41% in this sample say that the Public Service has made it harder by not focusing on people, and 35% say that the Public Service has made it harder by downsizing and reducing the opportunities available to them.
BOX 2.8
Public Service Support of Career Development: Job Type	
Executives
	Formal career development programs (70%)
Focus on people skills (20%)	
Managers
	Formal career development programs (53%)
Training/education highly supported (21%)	
Officers
	Formal career development programs (41%)
Training/education highly supported (23%)
Nothing (23%)	
Analysts
	Formal career development programs (37%)
Increases my exposure (20%)
Nothing (20%)	
Scientists
	Nothing (41%)
Formal career development programs (24%)	
*  Responses cited by more than 20% of the sample	

Participation in CDP
The perception of Public Service support for career development varies by CDP (see Box 2.9).  Those in the AEXDP program had the most positive view of Public Service support (90% of those in the AEXDP sample said the Public Service had helped by providing formal career development programs; 0% in this sample felt the Public Service had done nothing).  Employees who did not participate in CDPs were less positive about Public Service support.  Almost 40% of the employees in this group said the Public Service had done nothing to support their careers.  Respondents who were not in CDPs were also more likely to say that downsizing in the government had reduced opportunities (27% of non CDP employees gave this response versus 4% of those in a CDP).
BOX 2.9
Public Service Support of Career Development: Participation in CDP	
Not in CDP
Nothing (40%)
Formal career development programs (26%)	
AEXDP
Formal career development programs (90%)
Focus on people skills (20%)	
ADM Pool
Formal career development programs (61%)
Focus on people skills (22%)	
CAP
Formal career development programs (81%)
Focus on people skills (23%)	
MTP
Formal career development programs (73%)
Increases my  breadth (31%)
Training/education supported (31%)	
*  Responses cited by more than 20% of the sample	

7.	Satisfaction with Career Progress
To quantify satisfaction we asked respondents:
•	How satisfied are you with your ability to meet your career goals?  Why do you say this?
When answering this question we asked respondents to use a “1” if they were very dissatisfied with their career progress and a “5” if they were very satisfied.
Ratings are shown in Figure 2.10 and discussed below.
How satisfied are you with your ability to meet your career goals?
The data indicate that the majority of those who participated in the interview study were either satisfied (48% of the sample) or very satisfied (23%) with their ability to meet their career goals.  
Gender
Women were more likely than men to be “very satisfied” (see Figure 2.10b).
Job Type
Respondents in the executive sample were the most likely to be very satisfied with their career progress (see Figure 2.10c).  Respondents in the scientist groups, followed closely by those in the manager sample, were the least satisfied with their ability to meet their career goals.  Those in the officer and analyst samples fall in between the executive and scientist/ manager groups with respect to their level of satisfaction with their ability to meet career goals. 
Is there anything the Public Service does that affects your ability to reach your career goals?
“I would have to say that in the two years I’ve been with the government, that I have had no interaction with what I would consider the “Public Service as a whole”.  So, I can’t even answer that...  I just don’t know what’s out there.”
“In the government, they seem to promote managers who are good at dealing with issues but they don’t seem to put much emphasis on the managers having the tools and abilities to deal with people.”
“As a scientist in the government, if you want to move ahead you will have to set your sights on management.  It is the only way to get ahead.  If you stay too long in the science they will not consider you or will only consider you for management positions within the science sector, which is very limited“.  
“You’re asking me about personal goals.  How can anyone really have any within the Public Service now.  In 1990, I had all the career aspiration a person could have, Since then, my position has become redundant twice, and I’ve managed to find work I enjoy doing twice.  I’ve been in this position for two years now and I am just waiting for it to be cut again.”
“There is no career development in the Public Service.  With all the cut backs, there are few competitions.  The morale is down and the workload is overwhelming.  You have to be happy with the fact that you still have a job even though you haven’t received a raised since 1990.  With all the work we have to do there is no time for thinking about your career, you are lucky if you can keep up with the work without falling too far behind.”
“Career development is very frustrating because of the lack of support at the management level...people are brought in from other areas and those who are already in an area are not given the opportunity to compete for positions.  They’re doing backdoor type things; they’re advocating the merit principle, but they’re not implementing it.  They’re not being fair, they’re not being open, they’re not being equitable about the way things are being done.  That has an influence on those who are feeling they’ve been looked over.  As I mentioned earlier, if there’s not a lot of things to look forward to as far as being a public servant, the negative things are highlighted even more.  I think these things have an impact on motivation, and I think motivation has a lot to do with career success.  If your motivation’s low, you don’t have a fire in your veins to do something about it, especially if you see roadblocks all over the place.”
“There’s either a lack of opportunities and programs, or there’s a major lack of communication about these opportunities and programs.  I don’t think there’s any connection from my department to the Public Service as a whole.”
“La Relève forces people to self select into senior positions.  And this appeals to a certain type of person and does not appeal to a certain type of person.  I would be delighted to go be an ADM in another department, but I will NOT because I would never select myself.  I believe firmly that a person who wants power should never have it.  I won’t be part of a system that encourages it.  So, this year I didn’t even open the La Relève envelope.  This was the first time in fact that I really focused on my career, because I thought, goodness, I’m about to go into oblivion because I refuse to go down this track.  I have now put a steel ceiling over my head.”
“It’s just so busy, too busy.  After the downsizing, we never got adequate help for survivors.  During my acting position I got to do both the acting position and my previous job.  These kinds of pressures are not conducive to effective human resources planning.”
“They have the programs in place, the training and development opportunities in place.  Now it’s a question of buy-in from the managers.  Managers should not have veto power over their employees’ requests for assignments.”	

Participation in CDP
Data in Figure 2.10d indicate that there is a relationship between participation in a CDP and satisfaction with career progress.  People in CDPs are more likely to be very satisfied with their career progress; those not in programs are more likely to be neutral.  There are also significant between-program differences.  Respondents in the AEXDP and ADM pools were more likely to be very satisfied with their ability to meet their career goals; those in the CAP and MTP programs were more likely to be neutral; respondents who were in the MTP were more likely to be dissatisfied with their career progress.
Why do you say this?
Respondents gave a number of reasons why they were satisfied and one reason for being dissatisfied with their career progress.  Not surprisingly, there is a high degree of correspondence between the reasons people gave for being satisfied with their ability to meet their career goals (Table 2.20) and their definitions of career success (see Table 2.11).  What gives respondents satisfaction? 
•	making visible progress (i.e. increased responsibility over time, I’ve continually moved closer to my goals, logical succession up the ranks, my jobs have “built on one another”);
•	feeling like they have accomplished something (personal sense of accomplishment, reward, something that meets my  personal needs, jives with my view of myself as a person, others recognize I do my job well, I’ve been promoted recently, selected for a special program, etc.);
•	getting the position they have aspired to (i.e. I’m where I want to be, I’ve proven that I can meet my goals by getting this job);
•	the kind of work they do (I’m happy with the work, happy in my job, I like to come to work in the morning, something I enjoy); and
•	the fact that they were learning something (gaining breadth, jobs have stretched me, I’m working to full potential, enhancing my capabilities, my work challenges me, there is always something new).
Respondents gave only one reason for being dissatisfied with their career progress: the fact they felt it was out of their control (doesn’t matter how hard you work, there’s always some “externality”, it’s who you know, pay/hiring freeze reduced my opportunities, etc.).
Table 2.20	
Why Satisfied with Career Progress	Total	
	Satisfied because I am making visible progress	21%	
	Satisfied because of sense of accomplishment	17%	
	Satisfied because of the position I hold	16%	
	Satisfied because of the nature of the work	13%	
	Satisfied because I’m learning	11%	
Why Dissatisfied with Career Progress		
	Dissatisfied because it’s out of my control	20%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

Gender
Men are more likely than women to be satisfied because they like the nature of their job (21% versus 8%) or because they are making visible progress (25% versus 18%).  Women are more likely than men to be satisfied because they have a sense of achievement (21% versus 12%).
Job Type
There are a number of interesting job type differences in the data:
•	executives were more likely to be satisfied because they are making visible progress (33%), because of the position they hold (28%) and because of the nature of their work (23%).  Virtually no one in this group was dissatisfied because they felt their career progress was out of their control (cited by only 2% of executives);
•	one-third of the managers in the sample and 36% of the scientists were dissatisfied with their career progress because they felt it was out of their control;
•	only 2% of officers and 4% of analysts said that they were satisfied because of the nature of their work (versus 14% of the total sample); and
•	scientists were more likely to be satisfied because of the nature of their work (25% of scientists give this response).
How satisfied are you with your career progress?
“I’d say I’m not fully satisfied with my ability to reach my goals because of the unrelenting stress in this work.  You always have to be on here.  You never have a quiet day.  You never have an opportunity to do that pile of work in the corner of your desk, or do the reading you want to do.”
“There are so many factors beyond my control that I have no indication that I’ll ever be able to achieve my goals.  Downsizing has required that so many of the upper level positions be given to someone who has been displaced there’s nothing left there for the rest of us.  You have no idea who is going to jump out from where to take the job you’re in line for.  It’s not like Mount Everest where you start at the bottom and climb to the top.  It’s more like a PacMan game.”	

Participation in CDP
Satisfaction with career progress is strongly associated with participation in a CDP:
•	none of the respondents in the AEXDP sample indicated they were satisfied because they were learning (0%) or because of the nature of their work (4%);
•	those in the ADM pool were more likely to be satisfied because they were making visible progress (40%) because of the nature of their work (36%) and because of the position they held (32%).  This group was less likely to say they were dissatisfied because their career progress was out of their control;
•	CAP were more likely to be satisfied because their career had given them recognition and a sense of accomplishment (41%) but less likely to be satisfied because of their position (7%) or the nature of their work (3%).  One-quarter of CAP were dissatisfied because they felt the ability to progress in their career was outside their control; and
•	MTPs were more likely to be satisfied because they felt they were making visible progress (31%) and because they were learning (28%).  Only 6% of the MTP group was satisfied because of the recognition they had achieved, only 7% were satisfied because of the position they had attained and only 3% were satisfied due to the nature of their work.  One-quarter of MTPs were dissatisfied with their ability to  progress in their career because they felt it was outside their control.
8.	Retention
Career development is a function whose activities are aimed at preserving and enhancing employees’ competence in their jobs through improving their knowledge, skills, abilities, etc.  Career development activities do not, however, occur within a vacuum.  They are implemented within a work environment and organizational culture which may either enhance the development experience or detract from it.  If the work environment is such that employees are frustrated and disheartened high performance employees with the most marketable skills will voluntarily leave the organization.  Such turnover makes succession and human resources planning difficult.  The following questions were asked during the interview to get a better picture of the extent to which employee turnover is an issue within the Public Service and to help identify possible solutions.
•	What is the most rewarding aspect of working in the Public Service?
•	What is the most frustrating aspect of working in the Public Service? What could the Public Service do to reduce this frustration?
•	What keeps you in the Public Service?
•	Have you ever thought about leaving the Public Service? If yes, 
-	Where would you go?
-	Why would you leave?
-	What would induce you to stay?
What is the most rewarding aspect of working in the Public Service?
The answers to this question (see Table 2.21) are, in many ways, inspirational.  Most respondents (59% of the sample) said that the most rewarding aspect of working in the Public Service was the chance to make a contribution to society (service, working in the public’s interest, average citizen is better off for what I do, not driven by the dollar, I can see the results, effect change, etc).  Respondents were also rewarded by:
•	the challenging nature of the work they were doing (i.e. Public Service so large and diverse, lots of opportunities, departments, variety of work, variety of occupations and tasks, work with lots of sectors);
•	the fact that their work gave them a sense of accomplishment and increased their sense of self-esteem (i.e. personal sense of accomplishment, achievement, reward, meets my  personal needs, jives with my view of myself as a person);
•	their interactions with their colleagues (I’m surrounded by good people, stimulating people, with similar values); and
•	the opportunities they had to learn new skills (the Public Service uses my talents, skills, stretches me, enhances my capabilities, challenges me, always the chance to learn something new).
Table 2.21
Most Rewarding Aspects of Working in the Public Service	
Rewards	Total	Men	Women	
	Contribution to society	59%	66%	54%	
	Challenge	19%	16%	20%	
	Esteem-related	16%	15%	16%	
	People-related	15%	11%	17%	
	Skills/learning-related	11%	11%	11%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

Gender differences
Men were more likely to say they found the chance to make a contribution rewarding (66% versus 54%).
Job Type Differences
All groups mentioned contribution to society as their number one reward.  There was, however, variation with respect to their number two reward (see Box 2.10). 
BOX 2.10
What is Rewarding About Work in The Public Service: Job Type	
What Was Mentioned		
  Executives	Challenge (25%)	
  Managers	Challenge (25%), Esteem (17%), Learning (17%)	
  Officers	Esteem (20%), People (20%)	
  Analysts	People (22%), Challenge (20%)	
  Scientists	Challenge (28%), Esteem (18%)  People (17%)	
What Was NOT Mentioned		
  Executives 	Job security (0%), Learning (7%), Esteem (7%), People (6%)	
  Managers	Job Security (3%)	
  Officers	Learning (8%), Challenge (4%)	
  Analysts	Learning (5%)	
  Scientists	Learning (0%)	
*  Contribution number one reward for all job groups	
Participation in CDP
Results were very similar to those observed in conjunction with job type as: (1) all groups were most likely to mention contribution to society as their number one reward, and (2) there was a lot of between- group variation with respect to reward number two (see Box 2.11).  
BOX 2.11
What is Rewarding About Work in The Public Service: Participation in CDP	
What Was Mentioned		
  Not in CDP	Contribution (49%), Esteem (18%), People (17%)	
  In CDP	Contribution (75%), Challenge (30%)	
  AEXDP	Contribution (85%), Challenge (45%)	
  ADM Pool	Contribution (76%, Challenge (28%)	
  CAP	Contribution (66%), Challenge (19%)	
  MTP	Contribution (75%), Challenge (26%), People (17%)	
What Was NOT Mentioned		
  AEXDP	People (0%)	
  ADM Pool	Esteem (4%) and Learning (4%)	

what’s the most rewarding aspect of working in the federal Public Service?
“I work with the public, and I can’t imagine being in the Public Service without being able to deal with the public.  I’m into instant gratification.  I wouldn’t want to have to rely on (my department) to get my rewards.  I need that all day long.”
“I think it’s being at the edge of things that are happening that are really important.  I’ve been involved in programs that were the first of their kind in North America.  This kind of program experience and professional experience just isn’t available anywhere but in government.  The file I’m working on now...  to say it’s exciting is an understatement...  It’s really being able to be involved in key social issues.  The issues are relevant and highly consistent with my value structure, so they’re very rewarding in that sense.”
“I’ve worked in the private sector and the public sector as well...I get lasting fulfillment over a period of time from my perhaps corny belief that my work does contribute somehow to the public good and to making Canada a better place to live in.  I believe very firmly that our Public Service is the best in the world.  It was neck and neck with some of the more developed commonwealth countries, but I think we’ve pulled ahead because our reforms have been carried out in a manner that is less dogmatic and less in a unidimensional philosophical bent and I think being part of that carries some of its own rewards...It’s certainly not the money!”	

What is the most frustrating aspect of working in the Public Service?
There was a fairly high degree of consensus with respect to the frustrations of working in the Public Service (see Table 2.22).  In total, 75% of respondents found some aspect of the “bureaucracy” frustrating.  The most common frustrations with the bureaucracy related to process (always someone else to rubber stamp it, inter-unit dependencies, takes too long to get anything done, always a layer above you), staffing (takes too long to hire who you need, can’t get right people, can’t let people go who might be better off elsewhere) and results (inertia, no control over the outcome, can never see outcome, feedback gets lost, your idea gets watered down).  Other frustrations relate to the work environment and self-esteem and include:
•	the work culture/working atmosphere (lack of vision and goals, interdepartmental conflicts, turf wars, heavy workloads);  
•	the perception that management/senior management treats public servants badly (devalues them, treated as second class by senior officials, etc.); and  
•	poor public perception/ lack of respect for public servants by the average citizen.  
Finally, 16% of the sample found political interference (conflict between my needs, needs of public, and needs of elected officials) to be very frustrating.
Table 2.22
Most Frustrating Aspects of Working in the Public Service	
	Total	
Bureaucracy: process related	35%	
Culture/values/working atmosphere	21%	
Political interference	16%	
Bureaucracy: staffing related	14%	
Management/senior management treat public servants badly	13%	
Poor public perception/ lack of respect for public servants by average citizen 	12%	
Bureaucracy: results related	11%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

Gender differences
For both genders, process related issues within the bureaucracy were mentioned as the most frustrating.  Women were more likely to find the work environment frustrating (26% versus 15%).  Men were more likely to mention political interference (20% versus 11%).
What can be done to reduce some of the frustrations of working in the Public Service?
“I’m tired of the elitism, territorialism and game playing among senior management.  We’re so focused on outcomes.  We have to start rewarding, not only outcome, but how you obtained it.  How much destruction did you leave in your wake?  How many people were hurt or shown disrespect?  We forget that what matters is not only where you end up, but the journey.”
“Shift the focus to people instead of filling in the forms.  It’s time to stop thinking that because the form is filled out, the job is done.”
“In trying to be fair, we are holier than the Pope.  For example, just in HR terms: the way we manage our people is unnecessarily bureaucratic to ensure fairness.  Frankly, I think we’ve now built up so many layers of bureaucracy that could probably be cut through simply by delegating, devolving more.  If you can’t try to decentralize it, devolve it down and give people the authorities that are necessary.  You’ve also got to make them accountable, so if you want that responsibility you’ve got to have the accountability to go with it.  I think we’re trying to do that in some respects, we’re just not doing it fast enough.  You’re going to have to be occasionally a little nasty: to fire a federal public servant all but takes an act of God.  It’s very difficult and I would argue that if you’re going to accept the streamlining of the system, accountability is going to dictate career actions and you’re going to have to accept that.  Another thing, the federal bureaucracy tends to be risk averse.  I’m sorry, risk averse is very slow, methodical and expensive.  You’re going to have to accept that there will be risk, what you’ve got to do is let the managers manage that risk and not insist upon a bureaucracy that will somehow pretend that it eliminates the risk.  It doesn’t, you can’t eliminate the risk.  But you can jump through so many damn hoops that by the time you get to the resolution, it no longer solves the problem because the problem has gone away.”
“Compensation isn’t the only motivation, it’s having a motivating working environment in which to address some of these issues.  You have to have a motivated staff; they have to feel that they’re contributing in a positive fashion.  We’ve moved to a corporate mentality, and away from the feeling of family.”
“Realistically, I don’t imagine there’s anything that can be done (about the bureaucracy).  There have been two or three initiatives since I joined the Public Service 18 years ago to try and streamline and grease the skids and make things move faster and give management more autonomy and all those sorts of buzzwords, and none of that ever works.  It always ends up even more of a strait-jacket.  Personnel policies are much more strict and much more inflexible than they were 18 years ago, in my opinion.  It’s happened despite all these initiatives to pull things in exactly the opposite direction.  Frankly, I have no suggestions to what could be done to improve it.  I don’t think there is anything.”	

Job Type Differences
For all but one of the job types examined, process related issues within the bureaucracy were mentioned as the most frustrating feature of working in the Public Service.  Officers felt that the work atmosphere (36%) and political interference (28%) were the most frustrating aspects of working in the public sector.  Also interesting are the findings showing that almost 30% of those in the executive group found political interference frustrating; 25% of managers found it frustrating that senior management treat public servants badly.
Participation in CDP
The types of frustrations noted by those who participated in a CDP were essentially the same as those noted by respondents who were not in such programs.  There were however differences in frustrations between the various CDP groups.  AEXDP reported the most frustration.  One quarter of those interviewed were frustrated with political interference, staffing issues, and poor public perception/lack of respect; 35% were frustrated with the culture/values/working atmosphere.  It is interesting to note that no one in this sample felt that senior managers treated government employees badly!  
Those in the ADM pool and MTP reported the least frustration.  Aside from frustration around bureaucratic processes within the Public Service (28% of those in the ADM pool and 36% of MTPs expressed frustration with this aspect of the bureaucracy), there was no other issue mentioned by a substantial number of respondents.  
A substantial number of employees who are part of CAP are very frustrated by the bureaucratic process (33%), the culture, values and working atmosphere (30%) and the way that senior management treat public servants (22%).  Virtually no one in this sample reported frustration with staffing, how the Public Service is perceived, or lack of control.
What could the Public Service do to reduce this frustration?
Respondents agreed on three strategies to reduce these frustrations:
•	streamline HR (cut the red tape in HR, make staffing more user friendly, more flexible, make it possible to hire who you need, reduce turnaround time to hire) (mentioned by 33% of the sample);
•	focus on people (respect employees, value employees, ask them what they want) (mentioned by 30% of the sample); and
•	make managers accountable for progress of own employees (make their evaluation contingent on employee development, reward it) (mentioned by 20% of the sample).
It is interesting to note that 20% of respondents (40% of executives, 30% of AEXDP, 34% of the ADM pool ) felt that the government was CURRENTLY working to reduce the frustrations they had cited.  
There were no gender, job type or CDP participation differences in these data!
What keeps you in the Public Service?
“I just love the complexity, the big picture.  I like all the levels and the domino effect of decisions.  I like looking at those kinds of challenges as they affect different levels of the organization.”
“The belief that the Public Service is an honourable profession.  It’s a calling.  Lots of days go by where I ask myself, “Hey, what am I doing here?” because what I’m doing doesn’t seem to make a difference at all.  Every once in a while you run into someone who’s working for you who says, “I really appreciate working for you, you really helped me out on this one.”  It’s real important, it’s an honourable profession.”
“A little bit of inertia, honestly.  Also, the fact that there’s nice benefits.”	

What’s the most frustrating aspect of working in the federal Public Service?
“Because of the downsizing, as a research scientist, I find myself in front of a photocopy machine doing photocopies because there is no support staff to give it to.  I find those to be expensive photocopies.”
“Real issues or rather important issues are discussed between upper management only.  If they do take the time to talk to us about it, it is just a formality.  The decision has already been made.  It is very frustrating.”
“I am getting quite cynical about whether anyone in the Public Service cares at all about management.  By that I mean the operational delivery side of the government as opposed to the political, ministerial, public policy side of the government.  They’ve got to understand that we’ve got 180 - 200,00 people and for the senior part of an organization not to focus on managing front-line service is very unhealthy and foolish.“
“I think the most frustrating thing is the extent to which almost every activity is bound up in so many rules and procedures that seem to be always more complex and more difficult to accommodate.  Despite lots of initiatives over the last ten years to make things more flexible and efficient, they only seem to become all the more Byzantine and inflexible.  “
“It’s a national sport in this country to run the Public Service down, despite its best efforts and the fact that I know damn well that we are not all sitting in our offices knitting the way we might have been 15 years ago.  The other frustrating part of it to me is the size and intractability of the bureaucracy.”
“The lack of individual reward for effort.  I’m paid based on a group and scale that has absolutely nothing to do with how effective and knowledgeable I am as an individual.  I’ve worked in the private sector and there you can be rewarded either monetarily or through other means, and this can’t happen in the Public Service.”
“The HR processes.  The competition process. If you’ve been classified as something, once you’ve been slotted as a secretary, for example, forget about breaking into another classification.  You’re into that classification silo, and you stay there.  People kept telling me that I had potential, but it has taken me six years to secure a position outside of my original classification.”
“The inability of differing government departments to recognize that they are common servants of Canada.  And that we have a common goal to serve the country.  This bickering among the departments slows us down and prevents us from having that common vision and being able to articulate it internationally.”
“The red tape.  Today I asked for a filing cabinet, files everywhere, we need a new cabinet.  And I was told it would take around six weeks.  This sort of thing is outrageous in this day and age.  I should be able to walk into Grand & Toy, put it on my government card and have it delivered tomorrow.”
“The heavy emphasis on risk avoidance, explaining mistakes, and defending decisions...  the PR aspects rather than focusing on actual work.”
“The workload.  I just took my 3-week holiday, I’ve been back for a week, and I’m looking forward to next year’s and the next year’s.  Doing more with less is one thing.  But you just can’t give the level of service you’d like with no staff.”
“There is a totally different skill-set that is needed on the operational side from the policy side.  It’s a totally different way of thinking, of approaching issues, and I have seen exceptional operational people who are creative and who could provide services in entirely new ways, absolutely downtrodden because they are not the glib policy people.  I guess what  I would say to people is if you want a senior career don’t be in operations.  And I think that is extremely sad.”
“The system seems to reward people who treat people badly.  I’ve seen a lot of senior managers in my career who seem to be effective at delivering results but who don’t seem to treat people with a lot of respect.  It is disturbing to me that the Public Service should be home to such a large proportion of people who fit that category.”
“No management continuity.  I’ve worked in a job where I had six managers within a year.  It’s like a management revolving door.”
“The frustrating part is that the link between my work and the actual impact on the lives of Canadians is not always clear.”	

Have you ever thought about leaving the Public Service?
“I don’t think about leaving the Public Service because of the golden handcuffs.  I have too much invested in my pension and too high a penalty to even think about doing something else.”
“Every once in a while I think about leaving the Public Service to go into the consulting game, because every once in a while I believe I could be a more effective contributor to the Public Service by doing that (laughs).  Sometimes if you’re outside you’re listened to better than if you’re inside.  Every once in a while I get a call, and I think “Gee, maybe I would really like to go and do this job in the private sector and really see if there’s more satisfaction,” not because of money, but because I have this perception that in the private sector you really can manage better, you can deliver things better.”	

What keeps you in the Public Service?
The data in Table 2.23 would indicate that people stay in the Public Service because of the rewards they cited earlier (see Table 2.21).  They like the nature of their work (cited by 51% of the sample), the chance to make a contribution, the challenges of the job and the people they work with.  It should be noted that only 15% of those interviewed said they stayed in the Public Service because of the pay or benefits.
Table 2.23
What Keeps Employees in the Public Service	
	Total	
I like my work, the nature of the job	51%	
Ability to make a contribution, a difference, influence, serve society	26%	
Diversity, complexity, variety, lots of opportunities	20%	
Good people, stimulating people in the Public Service	16%	
Good money	16%	
Good benefits	14%	
Near retirement, want my pension	12%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

Gender
Men were more likely to say that the nature of their job (68% versus 43%) and their ability to make a contribution (30% versus 21%) keeps them in the Public Service.
Job Type
Executives were more likely to say that they stayed in the Public Service because they felt that they were able to make a contribution to society (36%).  None of the respondents in this group stayed for the money or the benefits.  Those in the officer sample were more likely to stay because of the people they work with (28%) and the money they make (27%).  None of the respondents in this group said that they stayed in order to make a contribution.  Those in the scientist sample were more likely to say that they stayed because they like their work (60%) and because of the people they worked with (30%).  Very few in this group said they stayed because of their ability to make a contribution (8%).
Participation in CDP
Respondents in the CDPs were more likely to say that they stayed because they felt that their work made a contribution to society (51% versus 16%) or because of the challenges offered by their jobs (32% versus 15%).  Respondents who were not in CDPs were more likely to say they stayed because they liked their jobs (52% versus 41%), they worked with good people (16% versus 8%), received good money and benefits (16% versus 8%) or because their job was secure (11% versus 4%).  There were no substantive between-group differences.  The perception that they can make a contribution appears to be the most important reason by far that people who participate in CDPs stay in the Public Service.
Have you ever thought about leaving the Public Service?  Where would you go?
Three-quarters of the interview respondents have thought about leaving the Public Service.  Men and women were equally likely to have thought of leaving.  Managers (64% have thought about leaving) and officers (57% have thought about leaving) were less likely to have thought about leaving the Public Service; scientists (87% have thought about leaving) and analysts (85% have thought about leaving) were more likely to have thought about leaving.  
Respondents in the CDP sample were also more likely to have thought about leaving the Public Service (85% of CDP have thought about leaving versus 64% of non CDP).  Within the program group, employees in the CAP program were more likely to have thought about leaving (88% have thought about leaving) while employees in the AEXDP group were less likely to have thought about leaving (64% have thought about leaving).
The majority of respondents say they would go to the private sector (58% of the sample).  One-quarter would start their own business, 13% would go to the quasi public sector (e.g. education, health care) while 12% would look for work in the not-for-profit NGO sector.  There are no gender, job type or CDP participation differences in these data!  
Why would you leave?
Why would people leave?  An examination of the data in Table 2.24 shows there are two quite different sets of motivations: push factors (i.e. leave to get away from frustrations etc. in the public sector), and pull factors (i.e. leave because of attractions outside).  What factors do the data suggest are pushing employees to think about leaving?
Table 2.24
Why Would Employees Leave the Public Service?	
	Total	
Federal job frustrating, not rewarding, no growth, etc.  (some “push” force)	45%	
Better compensation (money, benefits)	31%	
Better culture, more respect	29%	
Opportunity that is better aligned with my goals, values, skills, etc.	23%	
Opportunity too good to pass up (“pull” force, not specified)	14%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

What kinds of things might induce you to stay in the Public Service?
“You know, I don’t think anything would induce me to stay forever.  I don’t want to be a career public servant.  There are more things out there.”
“This is going to sound funny, but, every once in a while, somebody saying “Geez, nice job, ***.” By somebody, I mean, my boss.  We don’t get much of that.  I’m very conscious of saying to all levels in my organization “Nice piece of work, there.”  You don’t hear it very much at the top.  We at the senior levels take each other for granted.  Getting some kind of recognition - that makes a difference to me.”
“I’ve been in three different departments in the past 15 years, and after a couple of years in one position, there’s nothing new.  The issues change but the way you solve them is always the same.  Government just approaches things in the same way.  It all begins to feel very familiar.  I think if there was more of an entrepreneurial feel to it, I might feel differently.  The ability to bring forward ideas, to have an opportunity to run with things.”	

•	frustrations within the Public Service work environment: it is not rewarding, there is no opportunity for growth etc; and
•	the work culture and work environment (these respondents all mentioned something to do with frustrations with the nature of the Public Service, not with the job itself -  lack of respect for public servants, pay freeze, old boys’ culture, bureaucracy, etc.).
What are the perceived attractions outside the Public Service?
•	better compensation (money, benefits) (cited by one-third of the sample; infrequently cited in conjunction with rewards of working in the Public Service; and
•	a better opportunity (i.e. one more aligned with goals, values, skills; an opportunity that is too good to pass up).
Gender
Men were more likely to say they would leave for better compensation (70% versus 35%) and because their federal job was too frustrating (56% versus 36%).
Job Type
Analysts were more likely to say they would leave because their job is frustrating (65% gave this response).  Scientists were more likely to say they would leave for a better culture and more respect (55% gave this response).
Participation in CDP
CDP employees are more likely to say they would leave because their job is frustrating and there is little opportunity for growth (56% versus 29%, respectively).  Employees not in CDPs were more likely to say they would leave because of the work culture (need more respect) (38% versus 21%).  Group differences in responses to this question are given in Box 12.
BOX 2.12
Why Would Respondent Leave the Public Service?	
AEXDP 	Federal job frustrating (42%), 
Opportunity better aligned with goals (28%)	
ADM pool  	Federal job frustrating (42%),
Better opportunity (30%)	
CAP 	Better compensation (62%),
Federal job frustrating (40%)	
MTP 	Federal job frustrating (53%),	
	Opportunity better aligned with goals (28%)	
Not in Program	Better culture, attitude and respect (38%),
Better compensation (32%)	

What would induce you to stay?
What would induce employees to stay?  The responses to this question (see Table 2.25) are not really surprising and can be distilled into the following advice: Get rid of the frustrations and match the incentives.  There were no substantive gender or CDP differences in these responses.
Table 2.25
What Would Induce Employees to Stay?	
	Total	
A better opportunity here, the right assignment, an opportunity that was better aligned with my goals, values, skills, etc.  	60%	
Better compensation (a raise)	23%	
Recognition, better treatment	13%	
Removal of current barriers (political tug of wars, bureaucracy, etc.)	10%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

Job Type
Scientists would be more likely to stay if they were offered a better opportunity within the government (70%) or if current barriers were removed (25%).  Analysts would be more likely to stay if offered better compensation (35%).
9.	Advice
We ended the interview with the following three questions:
•	What advice would you give regarding:
-	CAREER DEVELOPMENT in the Public Service?
-	CAREER ADVANCEMENT in the Public Service?
•	What one change would make it easier for public employees to meet their career goals?
Responses to these questions are given in Table 2.26 (advice) and Table 2.27 (one change) and discussed below.
Table 2.26
Advice Regarding Career Development and Career Advancement	
Advice regarding CAREER DEVELOPMENT in the Public Service	Total	
Increase your breadth of knowledge, skills 	35%	
Take control	28%	
Introspection	26%	
Train (language, budget, finance, HR)	16%	
Work hard, do your best	10%	
Increase formal education (complete a new degree, etc.)	10%	
Scan the horizon, learn about “politics”, trends and issues	10%	
Find a mentor	10%	
Advice regarding CAREER ADVANCEMENT in the Public Service		
Increase your breadth of knowledge, skills 	34%	
Take control	21%	
Introspection	16%	
Get visible	16%	
Work hard, do your best	16%	
Network	16%	
Train (language, budget, finance, HR)	12%	
Scan the horizon, learn about “politics”, trends and issues 	11%	
Find a mentor	10%	
*  Multiple responses recorded	

Table 2.27
What One Change Would Make it Easier for Public Employees to Meet Their Career Goals?	
	Total	
Develop better career development initiatives	31%	
Revisit job classification system and specific job requirements	21%	
Focus on people 	18%	
Make managers accountable for career development of subordinates	15%	
Change the competition process	14%	
Streamline HR	14%	

Advice: Career Development
Three pieces of advice were given by 25% to 35% of the sample:
•	increase your breadth of knowledge, skills (make a lateral move, move to international, interprovincial work, broaden expertise, exposure)
•	take control (nobody will do it for you, you’re the driver, etc.)
•	be introspective (identify own values, goals, strengths, etc.)
What advice would you give to a new employee regarding career development in the Public Service?
“I would wish them good luck because I think that one of the things that the Public Service has not done well at all is provided employees with the tools to allow them to plan and develop their careers.  “
“I would tell them to get a coach, attach themselves to somebody whom they can trust and ask for their experience to help in decision making.  Sometimes you’re faced with being offered a job, even at a lateral position, and you don’t know whether it’s the right thing to do.  When you get there, it turns out that nobody wants this job and the boss is a maniac and the project is going down the tubes and everybody hates each other and they just sent you there because you were new and you didn’t know any better.  It would be nice if people had somebody independent who they could go to for advice on accepting assignments.”
“Get it in writing.  Get some clear direction from your supervisor, and then get it in writing.  Things have a way of changing midstream and if you don’t have that contract, there’s not much you can do...  it’s your word against theirs.”
“Do the language training.  In the Public Service today, if you’re not bilingual you might as well give it up.”
“Just love what you do.  If you love what you do, the accolades and the compensation will follow.“ 
“If you really want to make a contribution, if you really want to develop to your potential, then I guess my advice would be to leave the Public Service.”
“Doing high-profile things is always a good thing to do.  A good way to meet people is at charitable and social events.  To take courses, to show some interest, to get yourself known by your peers and by your supervisors and obviously to present yourself in the most positive light you can.  Be eager to do things, and don’t be afraid to speak up, but if you’re told to do something do it gladly and do it well.  Just be a team player and keep smiling, and everything will be fine.  You’ll end up president of the organization someday (laughs).”
“Take advantage of the various things that are offered (I know for mothers it’s not always the case), but everywhere, every department I’ve worked in there’s always been strong support for making use of training dollars and getting experience and building up skills that would be useful.  Don’t be too busy to take that time and get some of that training that is available to you, because that really is important.”
“If there’s someone above you at whatever level that you really admire, develop an informal mentor relationship with them.  I’ve been very lucky in that I’ve worked with a number of managers at different levels who have been very supportive and who are willing, if I give them a call, to chat or ask advice about something, and are very happy to do so.”
“I think it’s important for public servants to get exposure to different government departments, different types of operations in government; operational departments and central agency experience is extremely valuable.  I’ve seen too many people in the Public Service who have spent their entire careers in one area within one department and can’t understand why their opportunities elsewhere are limited”.	

Another common piece of advice (given by 16% of the sample) was to train (language, finance, HR).  Approximately 10% of the sample advised people to work hard, increase their formal education, find a mentor and scan the horizon to learn about “politics”, trends and issues (take sensitive jobs, put yourself in touch with department’s/country’s direction).  Only 2% of respondents recommended joining a specific development program (e.g., AEXDP, CAP, etc.)! 
Gender
There were no substantive gender differences in these data.
Job Type
The type of advice offered varied significantly by job type (see Box 2.13):
•	executives were more likely to advise people to increase their breadth of knowledge (43%) or to take risks (17%); and less likely to advise people to increase their formal education (2%) or to take control (18%); 
BOX 2.13
Advice: Job Type	
Executives 	Increase breadth (43%), introspection (25%)	
Managers 	Increase breadth (37%), train (30%), 
introspection (25%), take control (22%)	
Officers	Increase breadth (38%), train (33%), 
introspection (25%), take control (21%)	
Analysts	Take control (39%), introspection (32%), 
train (24%), increase breadth (24%)	
Scientists	Take control (33%), introspection (28%), train (28%)	

What advice would you give to a new employee regarding advancement in the Public Service?
“Be aggressive, but not too.”
“You contribute to your career development by getting as many varied experiences as you can.  You contribute to your advancement by making yourself as useful a member of your team as possible.  You need to dig, to find out where the department’s needs exist, and where to fill them.  Involvement is the key.  If you can remain engaged in what’s going on, you remain open, become more receptive, more willing to try new things.  And that’s what’s going to get you there.”
“The way we promote people is through the competition process and a lot of times good candidates are passed over because they just don’t understand what the process is all about.  My advice - always be ready for a competition, that’s the key right there: start putting stuff aside like old job competitions, look at your own statement of qualifications, build up an inventory of things that you should know for boards.  “
“It’s not only important to be good at what you do, it’s equally important to be  seen as being good at what you do.”  That means making yourself visible and getting the exposure that you need to senior management in order to advance through your career.  I think that’s quite realistic within our organization.”
“Don’t hold your breath (laughs).  Sadly, a lot still depends on individual managers.  There doesn’t seem to be a uniform approach to getting ahead.  I think very often it’s the luck of the draw, and so I would not really advise anyone to have that much faith in the system.”
“Know the big picture: learn what’s driving change, learn what’s driving what’s happening around you.  There are many ways to get that information.  Is it technology, is it competition, is it other countries, globalization?  Learn what it is and apply it to your own area.” 
“I think I’ve been extremely lucky in the bosses that I’ve had, who never held me back, and always kept an eye open and gave me opportunities.  There are some managers who don’t want to let their good people go, want to keep them to themselves because they are the high producers.  So I guess I would say to someone who wanted to advance their career that you’ve got to be head and shoulders above other people and you’ve got to have a good boss who’ll look out for you.”
“You better damn well know why you want to move up.  You’d better be prepared to do the job you want to advance through and don’t view at as a “through” job.”	

•	managers were more likely to advise people to train (30%) and less likely to advise people to network (1 %), work hard (5%) or take risks (0%);
•	officers were more likely to advise people to train (31%) and less likely to advise people to increase their formal education (0%), find a mentor (0%) or take risks (0%);
•	analysts were more likely to advise people to identify own their values/goals (32%) and less likely to advise people to work hard (2%) or take risks (0%); and
•	scientists were more likely to advise people to identify their own values/goals (32%) or to take risks (12%) and less likely to advise people to increase their breadth (17%) or scan the horizon (0%).
Participation in CDP
The type of advice offered varies significantly depending on what CDP the respondent was in (see Box 2.14):
•	respondents in CDPs were more likely to advise people to increase their breadth (37% versus 29%), or to find a mentor (15% versus 4%); and
•	people not in programs were more likely to advise people to train (37% versus 18%) or increase their formal education (15% versus 5%).
Within Programs
•	AEXDP were less likely to advise people to train (6%) or to increase their formal education (0%);
•	those in the ADM pool were more likely to advise people to increase their breadth (53%) or scan the horizon (17%) and less likely to advise them to take control (12%); and
•	CAP were less likely to advise people to increase their breadth (22%) or to scan the horizon (0%).
BOX 2.14
Advice: CDP	
Not in CDP	Train (37%), take control (30%), increase breadth (29%),
 introspection (26%)	
AEXDP 	Increase breadth (39%), take control (28%) 
introspection (26%)	
ADM Pool	Increase breadth (52%), 
introspection (26%)	
CAP	Take control (26%), introspection (26%), train (26%), 
increase breadth (22%)	
MTP	Increase breadth (33%) take control (33%), 
introspection (26%)	

Advice: Career Advancement
With a few interesting exceptions the advice with respect to career advancement was virtually identical to that observed with respect to career development.  The three most common responses were again to increase breadth, take control and be introspective.  People were also advised to work hard, network and train.  The only difference between the two sets of results was the advice to “get visible”: 16% of respondents felt that the way to advance was to apply for a job that put you in touch with people in “high places” (“hitch yourself to a star”), increase your committee work, and take tough jobs that “put you on the radar screen”.
There are no substantive gender, job type or CDP differences in these data.
What one change would you like to see to make it easier for Public Service employees to meet their career goals?
“Typically jobs get filled by acting appointments.  Someone does the job for one year, gets known by the manager, they run a competition.  Others can apply but then the internal acting candidate gets confirmed.”
“I would like to be able to promote people on their qualifications  instead of going to the competition process.  I dislike it because some people can do well on boards but very poorly  at work.  These people will shine because they know all the new buzzwords.  At the same time somebody that is not very good at presenting themselves will not get promoted.  I find the process isn’t fair and I feel that you should be able to promote someone when they deserve it and not only when they do well on a competition.”
“In the management training program they want us to become generalists.  After the program it is difficult to find a position because you are a generalist  You don’t have any expertise in any area of interest to the people filling the positions.”
“Accelerated programs lead to very inexperienced people at the top who may be very bright, capable in many ways but they can also be very problematic depending on their level of experience with respect to dealing with people.”
“I sense that we do a terrible job of managing people in the public sector.  People management is almost an afterthought.  Usually the people who advance are good issues managers and we need to put more emphasis on managing people.” 
“My view is that they (should) modify completely their approach to compensation and  pensions.  Make them portable and let people select their own investments.  It would completely change people staying too long, people being afraid to make moves to the private sector and trying new things.  It would take away the stigma of thinking that this is life employment.  It would take away the thought of employment security, which shouldn’t be there at all.  The compensation drags people down.  People would love to leave, but they don’t because the penalty is too high; they don’t have portability.  The pension brings people down because they start looking at pension rather than work and they’re afraid to make decisions about their career.”
“From my experience in the MTP the most important benefits I have been able to get from the program actually have not come from the program itself, but through the personal contacts, working through routes such as that, being able to be exposed to a variety of peers and managers and to benefit from their advice and various perspectives on the Public Service and particular tasks.  In other words, it is not a question of defining a regulated type of program, it is more creating an opportunity in which people can create their own opportunities.”
“Make HR more user-friendly: I’ve had experiences when I’ve wanted to hire people, it took so much time just to get out a notice, and to have interviews.  It took so much time to get one body in the office.  It took time to get good advice from the HR group.  How can I do it efficiently, and according to the rules, but expeditiously?  It was really tough to get good advice .  The most frustrating thing is to hire people, to get things running.”
“In times of restraint and downsizing, the first thing we do is cut back on training and development of staff, because it’s money.  I think that it’s very short-sighted and that we pay the piper down the road.  The more we go through change, the more we go through restraint, the more you need to ensure that your staff is trained and motivated and sees a possibility of career advancement.”
“Redefine the merit principle.  As a manager, you can’t identify for your employees what steps they need to take to meet their career goals, you can’t say to an outstanding employee, “here, let’s train you in this or that and then you can move into this position”.  It would be like bypassing the merit principle as it stands.”
“Find a way that departments can identify their own HR needs, and plan the steps to get employees where they need them to be.  It takes a whole infrastructure change to develop people.  With program review, there are so few of us left, so few who know how to do a job, you can’t leave.  Someone going on language training is a big deal, a big tension builder.  Your manager doesn’t want to lose you.  And some of us are too dedicated.  You feel bad about leaving when you know you’re the only one with the expertise and there’s no one to replace you.  It’s one thing to put together a development plan, a whole new ball game to implement it.”
“Overhaul the competition system.  Instead of having people compete for a position, do it as they do in the military and foreign service....  have people compete for a level.  Then move them in to that level somewhere their skills are needed.  Instead of having a position occupied for years by the same person, and then the person finally leaves and then you have a competition for the job and then you rig the competition (give it to the acting person).  If instead you compete for a level, they have to move you around, you get lots of opportunities.”
“Unfortunately in the government it is not hard work that will get you up the ladder, it is who you know.  So, my advice is, if you want to get ahead, “network”.”	

One Change That Would Make it Easier for Public Service Employees to Meet Their Career Goals
Respondents suggested six ways in which the government could make it easier for Public Service employees to meet their career goals (see Table 2.27).  The most common response (given by one third of the sample) was to develop better career development initiatives.  Respondents gave the following examples of what they meant by this: “proactive career planning, institutionalize career development plans, encourage employees to identify own strengths, opportunities, self nomination processes, counselling, retraining, etc.” 
The second most common suggestion, offered by almost one quarter of the sample, was to revisit the job classification system and specific job requirements.  Examples of this response include: “put more emphasis on attitude and ability to learn, less on specific technical requirements, less structured job categories, remove rigid job requirements based on previous experience nobody has, kill term/indeterminate distinctions, etc.”
Respondents also felt that it would be easier for employees to meet their career goals and aspirations if the Public Service: focused on people (i.e. respect employees, value employees, ask them what they want); made managers accountable for the progress of their subordinates (i.e. make their evaluation contingent on employee development, reward it); changed the competition process (i.e. merit as currently prescribed doesn’t work, post all positions, post externally); and streamlined HR (cut the red tape in HR, make staffing more user friendly, more flexible, make it possible to hire who you need, reduce turnaround time to hire).
The type of change suggested by employees depends on their gender (see Box 2.15) and their participation in a CDP (see Box 2.16).  It is not associated with job type.
BOX 2.15
One Change: Gender	
Women 	Develop better career development initiatives (30%), 
revisit job classifications (27%)	
Men	Develop better career development initiatives (33%), 
focus on people (22%), make managers accountable (20%)	

BOX 2.16
One Change: CDP	
Not in CDP	Develop better career initiatives (28%), focus on people (22%) revisit job classifications (21%)	
AEXDP	Develop better career initiatives (39%), revisit job classifications (22%)	
ADM Pool	Develop better career initiatives (33%), make managers accountable (21%)	
CAP	Develop better career initiatives (30%), revisit job classifications (30%), streamline HR (26%), make managers accountable(22%)	
MTP	Develop better career initiatives (27%), revisit job classifications (23%), focus on people (22%) 	

10.	Summary and Conclusions
To get a better picture of how the career development of knowledge workers is being managed in the federal Public Service we interviewed 254 knowledge workers representing 19 government departments and 48 job classifications.  The way the sample was selected allowed us to look at the impact of gender, job type, and participation in four key career development programs (AEXDP, ADM pool, CAP, MTP) on the career development of federal employees.  
Who is in the Sample
The ”typical” employee in the interview sample is a married mother or father in their thirties or forties who is in the “full-nest” stage of the life cycle.  The average respondent is a member of the sandwich generation with responsibilities for the care of an elderly dependent and children between the ages of six and 18.  The employees who participated in the interviews are very well educated (33% have an undergraduate university degree; 47% have at least one postgraduate degree; one third of the sample have multiple graduate degrees) with current degrees (50% of the respondents have earned their graduate degree since 1990; 17% have earned their graduate degree since 1994) in a wide variety of disciplines.  Five groups of knowledge workers are equally represented in this sample: executives (i.e. ADM, DG), managers (i.e. Directors, Chiefs, Section Heads, Managers), Officers, Analysts, and Scientists (i.e. scientist, engineer, computer scientists, IS, IT).  Just over one quarter of the respondents are members of the EX classification.  Half participated in a federal career development program.  Regardless of job type, the majority of those who participated in the interviews (69%) supervised the work of approximately three to ten employees.
The majority of the interview respondents are in the transition/midcareer and late career stages of their career cycle and have worked in the government for more than 15 years.  The typical interview respondent has a wide variety of Public Service work experience and has followed a career path which has demonstrated high career mobility (i.e. they have made a considerable number of moves within a department, between government departments, and between the public and private sectors).
For example, the typical interview respondent has, in the course of their Public Service career, spent time in several line departments, one central agency and working outside the government.  Eighty percent of the sample have held more than four different positions in their Public Service career; almost half of the sample has held at least seven.  Over half of the sample have worked in their current position for less than three years (almost a quarter of the sample have held their current position for less than a year).  One third of the sample have had two or more secondments; one third of the sample have made three or more lateral moves; just under half (43%) of the respondents have had two or more acting positions.  The fact that over half (54%) of the sample have made a lateral move in the last four years with the objective of enhancing their skills suggests that the high degree of career movement observed in this sample is part of a career development strategy.
The promotion data from the survey would suggest that the employees who participated in the interview study have used successful career development strategies.  While two-thirds of the sample have been passed over for a promotion at one point or another in their career, only 10% of the respondents have never received a promotion.  Half of the sample have been promoted three or more times, 43% have received a promotion in the last two years, 75% in the last five years.  
These data would suggest the interview sample is a “select” group of employees who have used a number of different strategies (i.e. formal education, lateral and upward movement, participation in career development programs) to advance their careers.  Objectively, the individuals who participated in the interview phase of the research had a number of career successes (20% are in the executive category, most others have had recent promotions).  The career aspirations held by this sample are also very high.  One quarter expect to reach the level of DM or ADM!  These data are consistent with the demographic data presented earlier and our contention that this is a fairly “select” sample.  As such, the strategies they have used to manage their careers and the barriers they have encountered along the way are of interest to those aspiring to advance in the Public Service and those who have responsibility for managing this process.  
The rest of this section is devoted to a brief summary of the results pertaining to each of the objectives of this phase of the research.  Relevant conclusions are drawn and the role of gender, job type and participation in a career development program are discussed.
Definitions of Success
Respondents defined career success as being related to: satisfaction (happy with the work I do, happy in my job) (51% of sample); self-esteem (personal sense of accomplishment); career progress (increased responsibility over time) (32% of sample); recognition (i.e., extrinsic rewards, others recognize you do your job well) (28% of sample); learning (something that stretches me) (27% of sample); and/or contribution/influence (I make a difference) (25% of sample).  Career success was seen by virtually all of the respondents to be very different from life success which they defined more in terms of family, lifestyle, personal life and leisure.  The typical respondent did, however, feel quite strongly that career success was part of life success (i.e. life success is a balance between career and personal interests).  One quarter of the sample stated that life success and career success were intertwined to the extent that you couldn’t have one without the other.
Traditionally, career success has been defined in terms of upward progress and increased rewards.  While many of those who participated in this study hold this view (32% define success in terms of progression, 28% define it in terms recognition), the majority have a more dynamic, intrinsic, holistic view of success - a view which is consistent with the new economic reality (i.e. flatter organizations, fewer opportunities for promotions, wage freezes, no career for life).  These data suggest that, as part of its career development initiatives, the Public Service should seek ways to make jobs more satisfying for employees, give more positive feedback, and offer greater opportunities for learning.
Career Goals and Aspirations of Knowledge Workers in the Public Service
The data on career aspirations are very similar to the definitions of career success.  One set of respondents talked about what position they aspired to hold in the next five years (ADM, DM, other management position) while others talked about what they hoped to get from their career (satisfaction, self-esteem, influence, the chance to make a contribution).  
These data suggest that the Public Service may have to develop different sets of career development programs to accommodate employees who hold traditional views of what constitutes career success and those who hold more holistic views (either that or educate those who hold more traditional views on the new organizational realities!)
Fourteen percent of the sample indicated that they were already where they want to be with respect to their career.  These employees are in the later stages of their career (i.e. career plateau).  To develop, reward and retain this group of employees the Public Service needs to examine ways to team these employees with younger workers who require mentoring.  The development of a new generation of leaders could be seen as a significant, highly satisfying contribution by these employees.
One possible cause for concern is the fact that 20% of the sample expect ultimately to meet their career goals outside the federal Public Service; 11% of the sample plan to leave the government within five years.  This issue will be explored in greater depth in conjunction with employee retention.  
It is interesting to note that 11% of the sample said they didn’t want the job of DM (too much stress, no life, too much responsibility, not enough rewards).  The Public Service may need to address this issue more fully (and perhaps redefine the role of DM) if too many employees with the competencies required to be a DM self-select out of the job.
Factors Which Knowledge Workers Perceive Increase/Decrease Promotability
The results suggest that experience and background are key to promotability.  Respondents credited their promotions to their experience, background and performance history .  Twenty percent of the sample said that their personal qualities (creativity, loyalty, leadership, personality, the “right stuff”) had lead to their promotion.  They attributed their inability to get a promotion to a lack of experience.  These data suggest that career development efforts in the Public Service have to focus on experience and background (i.e. provide opportunities for educational leave, training, lateral moves, secondments, acting positions).
It is interesting to note that employees no longer see hard work as leading to promotions (necessary but not sufficient!).  This attitude is consistent with the new work ethics in which hard work is the norm, to be expected not rewarded.
Employees typically attribute their inability to obtain promotions to some aspect of the competition process (poor “fit” with those doing selection; bad interview/bad at competitive process; the competition was a formality - the job was already filled) and equity/diversity issues within the Public Service (too old, job went to a woman, job went to a man, job went to a minority group etc.).  Both of these issues were raised at several points of the interview and will be addressed later in the report.
Personal Career Development Strategies
The following career development strategies were used by the knowledge workers in this sample (listed in descending order from most frequently used to least frequently used): increasing their breadth of knowledge (62%); training (language, budget, finance, HR) (40%); joining a specific development program (38%); increasing their visibility (21%); learning about politics, corporate objectives, trends and issues (16%); networking and finding a mentor (16%); increasing their formal education (11%); and looking at their own values, strengths and goals (10%).  These strategies, which are consistent with the demographic data presented earlier, appear to work as just over half of the sample said that they had never had the experience of a career strategy backfiring, half of the sample have been promoted three or more times, and just under half of the respondents have been promoted in the past two years.
What doesn’t work? Twenty percent said that they had taken a job that hadn’t worked for them while 18% said they had not been proactive enough with respect to managing their career.
With respect to how their personal life has helped or hindered their career - family seems to be both a curse and a blessing.  While the majority of the sample (82%) felt that their family (spouse, children) had helped them meet their career goals by being supportive, a significant number (mostly women) felt that their family had hampered their career progress (I can’t relocate, I worry about my children when I am at work, I find it hard to stay late, come in early, I’m so busy I have no leisure time to recharge).  These data suggest that for the Public Service to realize the full potential of its workplace it needs to provide more mechanisms for employees to balance work and family responsibilities.  
Finally, it is interesting to note that while a substantive portion of the sample felt that their own personal attributes had helped them meet their career goals (I’m not a quitter, I have a strong work ethic, I’m patient, “Type A”, etc.), an equal proportion said that their personal/demographic attributes had made it harder for them to meet goals (e.g. too old, visible minority, unilingual).  
How Organization Supports Career Development of Public Service Knowledge Workers
Respondents indicated that their immediate supervisor had helped them by: having good people skills (39%); working to increase their breadth and knowledge (34%); providing them with important information and feedback (24%); communicating relevant information (24%); mentoring them and taking an interest in their careers (22%); and increasing their visibility (13%).  Employees considered their departments supportive of career development if they developed mechanisms to help them increase their breadth, focused on people skills and communication, and had their own formal career development programs.  Respondents felt that the Public Service supported career development by: offering career development programs (50%); supporting education and training (17%); making it easier for employees to increase their breadth of knowledge (17%); focusing on people skills and people management (15%); and by keeping employees posted on trends and opportunities (12%).
Examination of these data suggests a number of important support themes.  Employees find a supervisor supportive when he or she has good people skills, is interested in the career development of subordinates (i.e., mentors and supports them), knows what it takes to get ahead (offers breadth, information on trends, visibility), and is prepared to give employees autonomy.  Employees find a department supportive when it provides a culture which supports the manager in these efforts and promotes education, training, and career mobility.  They find the Public Service supportive when it provides a structure under which these activities can take place (i.e. formal career development programs, training opportunities, and communication of key information).
How Organization Frustrates Career Development of Public Service Knowledge Workers
Respondents had few examples of how their own manager had made it harder for them to achieve their career goals.  Most of their frustrations they ascribed either to their department or to the Public Service as their employer.  Respondents were frustrated by the fact that they felt that their department’s culture and the culture of the Public Service itself did not support career development (i.e. too hierarchical, hung up on protocol, unrealistic workload, no focus on people, little support for education/training) and inhibited their ability to expand their breadth of knowledge (a career tactic which seems to be strongly associated with career development and career success in the minds of many of the employees in this sample).  A substantial number of employees identified two impediments which they associated with working in the Public Service: (1) poor HR practices (classification systems, hiring, recruitment, competition process, problems with HR programs, acting positions); and (2) recent downsizing initiatives (downsizing has reduced opportunities - there is nowhere TO advance).
Finally, it is interesting to note that 14% of the respondents felt that equity and diversity problems in their department made it difficult to get ahead (opportunities available only to certain “closed communities”, can’t get ahead because of diversity quotas).  This is a recurrent issue and needs to be addressed if the Public Service is to get the maximum benefit from its career development, employment equity and diversity programs and initiatives.
There are several aspects of the data on organizational support for career development that are worthy of note.  First, a substantial proportion of this “select” sample perceive they have received no support with respect to career development from their supervisor (20%), from their department (25%), or from the Public Service as a whole (30%).  While increasing one’s “breadth” and knowledge seems to be critical to career development, the majority of the employees in this sample are not receiving help in this regard: only 34% felt their supervisors were helping; 28% felt their department was helping; and 17% felt the Public Service was helping them acquire the breadth they needed to advance.  People skills and people management were also consistently mentioned as being very important but again were infrequently present (40% of employees said their supervisor had good people skills, while 15% said the department focused on people and that the Public Service provided good people management).  Finally, communication on important trends and ideas, although important to career development, was the exception rather than the rule (24% of employees said their supervisor supported them by providing relevant and important information while only 12% felt they received such support from their department or the Public Service).
Satisfaction With Ability to Meet Career Goals
The data indicate that the majority of those who participated in the interview study were either satisfied (48% of the sample) or very satisfied (22%) with their ability to meet their career goals.  This high level of satisfaction is consistent with the demographic data presented earlier.  There is a high degree of correspondence between the reasons people gave for being satisfied with their ability to meet their career goals and their definitions of career success.  What makes people satisfied? (1) Making visible progress, (2) feeling like they have accomplished something, (3) getting the position they have aspired to, (4) enjoying the work they’re doing, and (5) learning.  These findings support the importance of incorporating features which capitalize on learning, satisfaction with the job itself, positive feedback etc. into future career development initiatives.
Those who are dissatisfied with their ability to meet their career goals attributed this dissatisfaction to their feeling that their ability to meet their career goals was out of their control (doesn’t matter how hard you work, there’s always some “externality”, it’s who you know, pay/hiring freeze reduced my opportunities, etc.).  These findings, in association with the findings on autonomy presented earlier, suggest mechanisms need to be put in place to give employees more of a sense of control over career development (i.e. assessment centres, communication of relevant information, skip level meetings).
Retention and Turnover of Public Service Knowledge Workers
Employers who are concerned about recruiting and retaining high performers need to focus on ways to make the work environment more supportive (i.e. increase the rewarding aspects of work, decrease the frustrations).  What do knowledge workers in the Public Service perceive to be the rewards of working in the public sector? Respondents indicated that they valued the chance to make a contribution to society, the challenging nature of the work they were doing, a sense of accomplishment from their work, their interactions with their colleagues, and the opportunities they had to learn new skills.  The chance to make a contribution was mentioned by almost two-thirds of the sample.  This high correspondence between perceived rewards and definitions of career success suggests that employees will be more likely to be satisfied with their careers if the rewards offered by the job match their personal definitions of career success.  
Why do employees say they stay in the Public Service?  Respondents say they stay because they like the nature of their work, the chance to make a contribution, the challenges of the job and the people they work with.  It should be noted that only 15% of those interviewed say they stay in the Public Service because of pay or benefits.  This is an important finding because a substantive number of this sample define success in terms of rewards and many say they would leave the Public Service for greater compensation and rewards elsewhere.
There was a fairly high degree of consensus with respect to the frustrations of working in the Public Service.  Three-quarters of the respondents found some aspect of the “bureaucracy” frustrating.  The most common frustrations with the bureaucracy related to process, staffing, and a lack of control over results.  Respondents were also frustrated with the work culture/working atmosphere, political interference, how they felt they were treated by management/ senior management and the lack of respect for public servants displayed by the average citizen.  Respondents agreed on three strategies to reduce these frustrations: (1) streamline HR, (2) focus on people, and (3) make managers accountable for the progress of their subordinates.
Three-quarters of the interview respondents had thought about leaving the public sector.  Why would people leave?  There appear to be two quite different sets of motivations: push factors (i.e. leave to get away from frustrations in the public sector), and pull factors (i.e. leave because of attractions outside).  The frustrations noted earlier are the main factors pushing employees to leave.  Main attractions outside the Public Service include better compensation and better opportunities.  What would induce employees to stay?  Get rid of the frustrations and match the incentives.  Simple to state but difficult to implement.
Advice
Respondents gave the following advice to others wishing to develop their career (given in descending order): increase your breadth of knowledge, take control, be introspective (figure out what you want), work hard, network, get a mentor and train.  Only 2% of respondents recommended joining a federal career development program (e.g., AEXDP, CAP, etc.)! 
The advice respondents gave to others who wished to advance in their career was, with one exception, identical to that given in conjunction with career development.  The only difference between the two sets of results was the advice to “get visible”.  In other words, you can develop your skills on your own, but to advance you need to be seen by others.
One Change With Respect to Career Development
Respondents suggested six ways in which the government could make it easier for Public Service employees to meet their career goals.  These changes included (in descending order) developing better career development initiatives, revisiting the job classification system and specific job requirements, focusing on people, making managers accountable for the progress of their subordinates, changing the competition process, and streamlining HR.  These changes are consistent with the data on support, frustrations, barriers and turnover presented earlier.
Impact of Gender, Job Type and CDP Participation
The data suggest that there is no one Public Service career development experience.  What people want from their careers, the strategies they use to develop their careers and how they are supported by the organization vary with gender, the type of job they perform and their participation in a career development program.  Tables 2.28 (gender differences), 2.29 (job-type differences), and 2.30 (differences associated with participation in a federal career development program) provide a summary of the key between-group differences as determined by this study.  These data suggest that it will be very difficult (if not impossible) to implement a “one-size-fits-all” program that fulfills career development needs in the federal Public Service.  These tables do, however, provide a useful starting point for the development of programs for specific target populations, including scientists, analysts, women, and employees who currently do not self-select for federal career development programs.

Table 2.28
Impact of Gender on the Findings	
	Men	Women	
Demographics	Worked continuously
Taken educational leave
More years of Public Service work experience	Younger
More likely to be single 
More likely not to have children
Taken maternity leave	
Career success	More likely to say recognition	More likely to say esteem	
Aspirations	Less likely to aspire to leave the Public Service	More likely to give goals in intrinsic terms	
Promotability	More likely to say they got promoted because of experience, or background
More likely to say they got turned down because of experience or background	More likely to say got promoted because of personal qualities
More likely to say they got turned down because of personal qualities	
Personal Career Strategies	More likely to say their education has helped their advancement
More likely to say the fact they are male has hurt their advancement	More likely to say family has had positive impact on career
More likely to say having no family has had a positive impact on their career	
Organizational Supports	More likely to say manager helped by giving autonomy
More likely to say dept. helped by giving breadth	More likely to say manager helped by having good people skills
More likely to say dept. did nothing
More likely to say Public Service did nothing
More likely to say dept. helped by communicating
More likely to say Public Service helped by providing formal career development programs	
Organizational Barriers		More likely to say Public Service hurt by downsizing	
Satisfaction Career Progress	More likely to be satisfied with visible progress	Women were more satisfied with progress overall	
Rewards/ Frustrations	More likely to say chance to make contribution rewarding and political interference frustrating	More likely to find the work environment frustrating	
Retention/ Turnover	More likely to leave for more compensation and because job is frustrating		
Advice	No gender differences		
One Change	More likely to say make managers accountable and focus on people	More likely to say revisit job classifications	

Table 2.29
Summary: Impact of Job Type on the Findings	
	Executive	Manager	
Demographics	Older, older children
Worked in more departments
Held more positions	Older, older children	
Career success	More likely to define as achievement
Less likely to associate life success with family and lifestyle		
Aspirations	More likely to describe in terms of influence and contribution
More likely to say that ultimately they will be working outside the government and that they do not want to be a DM		
Promotability	More likely to think got promoted because of experience, their performance history, their personal qualities and because there was a good fit between them and the person doing the selection		
Personal Career Strategies	More likely to have scanned the horizon, less likely to have trained or increased formal education
More likely to say having no spouse and children had helped them		
Organizational Supports/ Organizational Barriers	More likely to think supervisor had helped by giving them autonomy
More likely to think department does nothing to support		
Satisfaction Career Progress	More likely to be very satisfied
More likely to be satisfied because they are making visible progress, because of the position they hold and because of the nature of their work	More likely to be neutral 
More likely to be dissatisfied because they feel advancement is out of their control	
Rewards/ Frustrations	More likely to find the challenges of the job rewarding
More likely to find political interference frustrating	More likely to find the opportunity to learn rewarding
More likely to find it frustrating that senior managers treat employees badly	
Retention/ Turnover	More likely to be thinking of leaving the Public Service
More likely to say they stay because they feel they make a contribution and less likely to stay for money	Less likely to be thinking of leaving	
Advice	More likely to advise people to increase their breadth of knowledge and take risks	More likely to advise people to train	
One Change	No changes		
Table 2.29 continued	
Officer	Analyst	Scientist	
No demographic differences			
More likely to define as satisfaction and recognition		More likely to define as satisfaction and recognition	
More likely to describe in terms of progress	Less likely to say they are already where they want to be
More likely to describe ultimate goals in intrinsic terms	More likely to describe goals in intrinsic terms and to say they are already where they want to be
More likely to say did not want to be a DM	
	More likely to think got promoted because it was automatic	More likely to think got promoted because they met some formal requirement or because they were good at competition process	
More likely to have trained and increased their visibility	More likely to say took a position that was not right for them	More likely to have trained and less likely to have joined a CDP or scanned the horizon	
	More likely to think supervisor had helped by mentoring them
More likely to say equity issues in their department had hindered them	More likely to think supervisor had helped by giving them breadth
More likely to say manager had made it harder by not being knowledgeable and being too busy to offer support
More likely to say Public Service has done nothing to support their career development
More likely to say Public Service made it harder by not focusing on people and by downsizing	
Less likely to be satisfied because of the nature of their work	Less likely to be satisfied because of the nature of their work	More likely to be dissatisfied
More likely to be dissatisfied because they feel advancement is out of their control
More likely to be satisfied because of the nature of their work	
More likely to find the opportunity to work with good people rewarding
More likely to find the work atmosphere and political interference frustrating	More likely to find the opportunity to work with good people rewarding	More likely to find the challenges of the job and the sense of accomplishment rewarding	
Less likely to be thinking of leaving
More likely to stay because of the people they work with
More likely to leave because job is frustrating	More likely to be thinking of leaving
Less likely to stay because they think they make a contribution
More likely to stay if offered more compensation	More likely to be thinking of leaving
More likely to stay because they like their work and they like the people they work with
More likely to leave for better work culture and more respect	
More likely to advise people to train	More likely to advise people to think about what they want (be introspective)	More likely to advise people to think about what they want (be introspective) 	

Table 2.30
Summary: Impact of Career Development Program Participation on the Findings	
	In Career Development Program	Not in Career Development Program	
Demographics	More formal education
Worked in more departments, held more positions, taken more secondments and acting positions, made more lateral moves		
Career success	More likely to say relates to learning and contribution	More likely to associate life success with family and lifestyle	
Aspirations	More likely to aspire to be DM or ADM
More likely to aspire to a position of influence/contribution	More likely to say they are already where they want to be	
Promotability	More likely to think they had been promoted because of performance history	More likely to think they had been promoted because they had met some formal requirement	
Personal Career Strategies	More likely to try to increase breadth, join a CDP and scan the horizon	More likely to train	
Organizational Supports/ Organizational Barriers	More likely to think supervisor had helped by having good people skills, mentoring them, increasing their visibility
More likely to think department had helped by offering formal CDPs and by being good at communication	More likely to think department has done nothing to help them
More likely to think Public Service has done nothing to help them 
More likely to think downsizing has hindered their ability to advance	
Satisfaction Career Progress	More likely to be very satisfied	More likely to be neutral	
Rewards/ Frustrations	More likely to find challenging jobs rewarding No differences in frustrations!	More likely to find sense of accomplishment and the people they work with rewarding	
Retention/ Turnover	More likely to have thought of leaving
More likely to stay because felt work makes a contribution and it is challenging
More likely to leave because job is frustrating and there is little opportunity	More likely to stay because like their work and worked with good people
More likely to think of leaving because of the work culture	
Advice	More likely to advise people to increase breadth and find mentor	More likely to advise people to train and increase formal education	
One Change	Develop better career development initiatives	Focus on people, revisit job classifications	

FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 2
1	 Bourgon, J. (1998). Fifth Annual Report to the Prime Minister on The Public Service of Canada (p. 17).
2	Treasury Board of Canada, (1998). Employment Statistics for the federal Public Service: March 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998.
3	Levinson, D. (1978) The Seasons of a Man’s Life, Knopf, New York.
4 	Statistics Canada (1997). Characteristics of Dual-earner Families, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Catalogue Number 13-215-XPB.
5	Schemerhorn (1993) Managing for Productivity, Wiley: Toronto.
6	Schwartz, F. (1992). Breaking With Tradition: Women and Work and the New Facts of Life, Warner Books: New York. (p 87).
7	Cascio, W. & J. Thacker, (1994).  Managing Human Resources, McGraw-Hill Ryerson: Toronto.
8	Respondents were asked to include in this total any secondments, lateral moves, and acting positions that they considered to be promotions.

Chapter 3 - Career Development in the Federal Public Service: The Survey Study
The interview study presented in Chapter Two provided an opportunity to gain in-depth insight into the career development concerns of a select group of public servants.  The survey study was designed to examine these concerns in a more structured way with a larger group.  While surveys do not permit respondents to describe their concerns in their own words, they do facilitate comparative measurement of attitudes and behaviour amongst larger groups than could be feasibly interviewed.  
The primary objectives of the survey were to examine:
•	what employees hope to achieve in their career;
•	the steps they have taken to attain their goals; 
•	the career support provided to them by the organization; and
•	the attitudes toward the organization that have resulted.
Methodology
The questionnaire was developed using measures employed in previous research wherever possible.  These measures were supplemented and refined in light of the responses in the interview study.  A list of the original sources for the measures is included, for further reference, in Appendix B1.  In selecting measures for inclusion in the questionnaire, the researchers tried to limit the questionnaire length while also exploring fully each of the study’s objectives.  The result was a 17-page questionnaire including sections on work background, career aspirations, work environment, work attitudes and behaviours, and demographics.  
The sample was drawn in a manner similar to that used to select non-CDP participants for the interview.  A representative sample of 13 government departments was first selected (see Box 2.1 in Chapter Two for a complete list).  Each department was then asked to draw a random sample of 20% of their executive, administrative and foreign service, and scientific and professional employees.  This sampling procedure resulted in a total sample of 6,908.  Since the sample was designed to be representative, larger departments were a proportionately larger share of the sample.  This type of representative sampling leads to greater confidence in extrapolating the results from the survey to these employee groups in the federal Public Service as a whole.  
Each department provided mailing labels for the sample.  The contact person for each department took responsibility for distributing the questionnaires to the selected employees.  Internal mail was used both to distribute and collect the questionnaires which were then forwarded unopened to the researchers.  The questionnaire was provided to all respondents in both English and French versions.  Covering letters from Peter Harder and the researchers explained the purpose of the research and assured respondents of confidentiality.  Contact information for the researchers was also provided in case any recipients had concerns or questions about the study.  
A total of 2,569 questionnaires were returned resulting in a final response rate of 40% (net of undeliverables).  This response rate is comparable to that obtained in other studies in the public and private sector.  The analysis reported here is based on the 2,350 usable responses received before the cut-off date.  As indicated below, the distribution of respondents across various groups approximates their distribution in the Public Service as a whole.
The data analysis presented below focuses on providing an overview of the issues based on the sample as a whole followed by group differences related to three key variables: gender, job type and whether or not a respondent had been promoted.  These variables were selected for further examination because:
•	previous research has shown that gender has a significant impact on career development;
•	job type is typically related to opportunities and attitudes; and  
•	the experiences of those who have been promoted can provide useful insight into the causes and consequences of career progression.  
Substantive group differences (defined in this phase of the research as differences of more than 5%), are highlighted in the report.  
Outline of Chapter
The remainder of this chapter is comprised of 14 sections grouped according to the four objectives described above.  The first three sections describe the respondents by providing a personal profile of the respondents, a work profile of the respondents, and a profile of those who have been promoted in the last five years.  This material is followed by sections on the importance and availability of various career achievements, and respondents’ career goals.  Next respondents’ developmental experiences and career strategies are examined.  Perceived organizational support for career development and career development initiatives comprise the next two sections.  Consequences examined in the subsequent sections include satisfaction with career, job satisfaction, respondents’ assessment of the work environment and organizational commitment and retention.  Finally, a summary of the results and some key conclusions are presented.  
A Personal Profile of the Respondents
Women accounted for 49% of the employees who responded to the survey.  In the Public Service as a whole, women hold 44% of the jobs in the three job groups studied (Executive, Administrative and Foreign Service, and Scientific and Professional)2.  Women are not, however, equally distributed across these three job types.  Women held 27% of the executive positions, 59% of the administrative and foreign service positions and 34% of the scientific and professional positions included in the sample (compared to 22%, 49% and 31%, respectively, of these jobs in the Public Service).  
The average age of respondents was 44.  The age distribution for the total sample and by gender is shown in Figure 3.1.  As can be seen from this figure, most respondents are in the midlife and later adult stages.  As illustrated, the women in the sample tended to be somewhat younger than the men.  There were also age differences by job type.  The executives in the sample tended to be older than the other two job groups, with 72% of executives being over 45 compared to 42% of the other two job groups.  This age differential is not surprising given the years of experience required to attain most executive positions.  
Most of the respondents (90%) had some post-secondary education with 64% completing at least one university degree.  Twenty-nine percent had also completed a post-graduate degree.  Figure 3.2 shows that fewer women (52%) than men (74%) had university degrees.  Educational background also varied by job type (see Figure 3.3).  Executives and scientific and professional personnel had significantly higher levels of education, as typically required for these positions.  

The first language of most respondents (63%) was English.  French was the first language of 34% of respondents while 3% listed another first language.  There were no gender differences in language.  There were, however, language differences between job types.  Scientific and professional staff were more likely to report their first language as English (66%) or other (6%).  
Most employees had significant family responsibilities.  The majority of respondents (76%) were married or living with a partner.  As illustrated in Figure 3.4, more men (80%) than women (71%) were married.  A majority of respondents (74%) also had children.  Again, more men (77%) than women (70%) had children.  A majority of respondents (65%) also reported having some responsibility for elderly relatives living either with them or elsewhere.  There were no gender differences in elder care responsibilities.  
There were differences in family situation between the three job categories.  Similar numbers of all three job groups were currently married but fewer scientific and professional staff were separated or divorced.  As you would expect given their higher average age, fewer executives (7%) had never been married.  Consistent with this difference more executives (81%) had children.  And more executives (73%) reported having some responsibility for elderly relatives.  
A Work Profile of the Respondents
Administrative and foreign service jobs accounted for a majority of the respondents (62%).  Scientific and professional jobs were held by 32% of the respondents and executive jobs by 6%.  In the Public Service as a whole, these jobs groups account for 72%, 25% and 3%, respectively, of the total employment in these three categories.  Fifty-one percent of respondents supervise the work of others.  It is not surprising given the nature of their job responsibilities that 95% of those in the executive category have supervisory responsibilities compared to 42% of administrative and foreign service personnel and 47% of scientists and professionals.  More men (54%) than women (40%) supervise others.  This difference is consistent with the greater representation of men in the executive and scientific and professional categories.  
Employees in the sample had considerable work experience.  Respondents had an average of 21 years of full-time work experience with 17 years of that occurring within the Public Service.  On average they had worked for 2 different departments during their Public Service career and had been with their current department for 14 years.  Respondents had spent an average of six years in their current position.  Women had slightly less experience on average than men (see Table 3.1).  As shown in Table 3.2, scientists and professionals had the least experience but they had spent more of that experience within the same department and doing the same job.  Only 16% of scientists and professionals had worked in more than 2 departments compared to 37% of executives and 25% of administrative and foreign service staff.  Gender did not affect the number of departments worked for.  
Table 3.1
Years Experience by Gender	
Years of experience:	Women	Men	
Full-time work	21	22	
	In the Public Service	17	18	
	In current department	13	15	
	In current position	5	7	

Table 3.2
Years Experience by Job Type	

Years of experience:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
Full-time work	26	22	19	
	In the Public Service	22	18	15	
	In current department	15	15	13	
	In current position	3	6	7	

Data were also collected on respondents’ career moves.  Specifically respondents were asked to give the number of promotions, acting positions and lateral moves they had experienced over the past five years.  These kinds of career moves can broaden an employee’s skill set and accelerate career progression.  Results showed that promotions had been experienced by 50% of the sample.  Forty-six percent had held an acting position considered a promotion, 18% an acting position at the same level.  Lateral moves within the same department had been made by 43% of respondents, lateral moves to a different department by 16%.  As Table 3.3 shows, women had experienced significantly more of each of these career moves.  Table 3.4 illustrates job type differences in career moves.  Compared to the other groups, executives had experienced significantly more promotions and lateral moves.  Scientists and professionals had made fewer of each of the types of career moves than the other respondents.  This result may be a consequence of the more specialized work done by scientists and professionals.  
Table 3.3
Career Moves Over Previous Five Years by Gender	
Percentage of employees who have received:	Women	Men	
Promotions	59%	41%	
Acting positions that were considered promotions	54%	38%	
Acting positions at the same level	23%	14%	
Lateral moves in the same department	46%	41%	
Lateral moves to different departments	19%	13%	

Table 3.4
Career Moves Over Previous Five Years by Job Type	

Percentage of employees who have received:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
Promotions	65%	52%	43%	
Acting positions that were considered promotions	51%	52%	31%	
Acting positions at the same level	22%	21%	12%	
Lateral moves in the same department	65%	45%	38%	
Lateral moves to different departments	33%	18%	10%	

Working overtime is a widely used career strategy and was a common practice amongst the employees in the sample.  Most respondents were scheduled to work 37.5 hours per week but they worked, on average, an additional 5.5 hours.  Executives clocked the most overtime work (13.3 hours per week) followed by scientists and professionals (six hours) and administrative and foreign service personnel (4.4 hours).  Men put in more overtime than women — 6.1 hours compared to 4.8.  This gender difference in hours worked may be related to the fact that in our society women typically shoulder more than their share of family responsibilities.  It should be kept in mind, however, that more men than women in this sample were married and had children.  The gender difference in overtime is also consistent with gender differences in job type since significantly fewer women held executive positions which typically require the most extra work.  
Previous research has suggested that taking a leave of absence can be detrimental to employees’ career progression.  On average employees in the sample had taken six months of leave: one month of education leave, three months of parental or maternity leave, and two months of other personal leave.  Compared to men, women took the same amount of education leave but more parental/maternity leave (six months) and other personal leave (three months).  Parental/maternity leave and personal leaves were most common amongst administrative and foreign service personnel (where the greatest percentage of women work) while education leave was highest amongst scientific and professional employees.  
A job located in an organization’s headquarters is often considered more valuable than one in a regional office.  Fifty-six percent of the respondents worked in the National Capital region.  Being located in the National Capital region was more common amongst executives (73%) and scientific and professional staff (64%).  There were no gender differences in location.
A number of previous studies have found that the gender ratio in an individual’s work environment is related to career progression.  Mixed sex work environments are generally beneficial for women while men often progress more rapidly in a male hierarchy.3  Fifty-six percent of the employees in this sample worked in a mixed sex environment with 28% and 16% working in predominantly female and male environments respectively.  Women were more likely than men to work in predominantly female environments (37% versus 19%).  As shown in Figure 3.5, more scientific and professional employees worked in predominantly male environments while more administrative and foreign service staff found themselves in predominantly female environments.  These results are consistent with patterns of gender segregation in the labour force as a whole, that is, scientific and professional occupations are typically male dominated and administrative occupations are typically female dominated.4
A Profile of Those Who Have Been Promoted
Promotions are one of the most tangible forms of career progression.  Promotions are both a reward for good performance and an important developmental opportunity.5  Promotion practices symbolize what organizations value.6  An understanding of the differences between those who have been promoted and those who have not provides insight into career development issues.  And those who have been promoted are likely to have different attitudes toward the organization than those who have not.  
Half of the sample had experienced promotions in the past five years.  Promotions were more common amongst executives (65% received promotions) followed by administrative and foreign service employees (52%) and scientists and professionals (43%).  There were other significant differences in promotion rates between groups: 
•	59% of women versus 41% of men had been promoted;
•	56% of Francophones versus 47% of Anglophones had been promoted;
•	57% of those working in the National Capital Region versus 41% outside it had been promoted;
•	53% of non-parents versus 48% of parents had been promoted; and
•	56% of those who supervise others versus 44% of non-supervisors had been promoted.  
Differences in work experience between those promoted and those not promoted are summarized in Table 3.5.  The data show that those who had been promoted had fewer years of experience than those who were not promoted.  Lest this trigger concerns about the competency of those promoted, it should be noted that those who had been promoted had considerable experience — an average of 16 years within the Public Service.  The longer tenure of those not promoted may reflect the fact that plateauing is common in mid-career.  These employees may have reached a peak in their career several years ago and thus not have received any promotions in the past five years.  
Table 3.5
Years Experience by Promotions	
Years of experience:	Those Promoted	Those Not Promoted	
Full-time work	19	23	
	In the Public Service	16	19	
	In current department	12	16	
	In current position	4	8	

These differences with respect to experience are consistent with age differences in promotion experiences.  The average age of those promoted in the last five years was 41 compared to 46 for those not promoted.  Promotion rates were highest for those 35 and under (73% experienced promotion) followed by the 36-45 year olds (54% promoted) and the over 45 group (36% promoted).  
Table 3.6 presents a history of career moves.  In addition to receiving promotions, those experiencing promotions made significantly more career moves of other types in the past five years.  They were more likely to have experienced acting positions both at a higher level and at the same level.  And they were more likely to make lateral moves within and between departments.  Since these career moves enhance employees’ knowledge and skills, they may have contributed to these respondents earning a promotion.  
Table 3.6
Career Moves Over Previous Five Years by Promotions	
Percentage of employees who have received:	Those Promoted	Those Not Promoted	
Acting positions that were considered promotions	64%	24%	
Acting positions at the same level	25%	11%	
Lateral moves in the same department	50%	33%	
Lateral moves to different departments	21%	9%	

There were no differences between those promoted and those not promoted with respect to:
•	level of education;
•	number of different departments they had worked for; or
•	overtime hours worked.  
In contrast to the findings of other studies, taking a leave of absence did not seem to inhibit promotion opportunities.  There were no differences in the average amounts of education or personal leave taken by those promoted.  Those who had been promoted had taken, on average, more parental/maternity leave (four months compared to two months).  While this differs from the patterns found in previous research,7 it is consistent with the finding that more women are being promoted and they are the ones who typically take parental leave.  
As noted above, the gender mix of the work environment has been found in other studies to impact the promotion experiences of men and women.  Overall, employees who had been promoted were more likely to be found in mixed sex groups and less likely to be found in predominantly male groups.  This pattern of results was also true when male respondents were examined separately.  This contradicts previous research which has found that men have an advantage in predominantly male environments.  This may reflect the fact that the group most likely to be found in predominantly male environments are scientists and professionals who typically experience fewer promotions.  For women, those who were promoted were, again, more likely than those not promoted to be found in mixed sex environments; however, women who had been promoted were less likely to be found in predominantly female groups.  The results for the women are consistent with previous research suggesting that mixed-sex environments have the greatest career potential for women.  
The Importance and Availability of Various Achievements
 “Career success” means different things to different people.  Understanding what employees value in their careers is a first step in addressing their needs.  Respondents were asked to indicate how important 15 different achievements were to their personal definitions of success.  The achievements most important to employees’ personal definitions of success (see Figure 3.6) were:
•	doing work that is enjoyable;
•	a personal sense of accomplishment;
•	being able to learn and develop new skills;
•	a salary that provides a comfortable lifestyle; and
•	balance between work and non-work life.
Respondents were also asked to indicate whether or not these 15 achievements were available to them in their work (see Figure 3.6).  The achievements most available to employees were:
•	work that is enjoyable;
•	balance between work and non-work life;
•	sufficient authority to accomplish objectives;
•	learning and developing new skills; and 
•	recognition by colleagues for their expertise.  
As portrayed in Figure 3.6, for most of these items there is a considerable gap between the percentage of respondents who reported that a particular achievement was important to them and the percentage who reported that it was available to them.  These gaps suggest ways of enhancing employees’ experience of work.  Some of the areas that it would appear most important to address are helping employees to: 
•	experience a personal sense of accomplishment in their work; and 
•	earn a salary that provides a comfortable lifestyle.
Differences by Job Type
There were numerous significant differences in the achievements important to different job groups (see Table 3.7) and in their availability in the work environment (see Table 3.8).  Five achievements in particular were significantly more important to the executive group:
•	being able to influence organizational direction;
•	being surrounded by stimulating people;
•	obtaining personal autonomy; 
•	moving through positions of increasing responsibility; and
•	being in a position of authority.  
Executive jobs also provided significantly more scope for attaining ten of the 15 achievements.  Maintaining a balance between work and non-work was less important to executives than to the other two groups and was significantly more difficult for them to attain.  
Table 3.7
Importance of Achievements by Job Type	
Percentage reporting that achievement is important to their definition of career success:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
Obtaining increasing financial rewards	54%	56%	47%	
Making a contribution to society	79%	68%	75%	
Being surrounded by stimulating people	89%	75%	80%	
Moving through positions of increasing responsibility	63%	56%	48%	
Maintaining a balance between work and non-work	75%	87%	83%	
Being in a position of authority	42%	25%	23%	
Being able to influence organizational direction	90%	50%	53%	
Obtaining personal autonomy	73%	66%	68%	

Table 3.8
Availability of Achievements by Job Type	
Percentage agreeing that achievement is available in their work:	
Executive	Admin.  and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
I enjoy my work	83%	73%	76%	
I earn a salary that provides a comfortable lifestyle	76%	43%	59%	
I have obtained increasing financial rewards	55%	22%	26%	
My job allows me to make a contribution to society	75%	46%	51%	
My job provides a sense of accomplishment	72%	61%	61%	
Over the years, I have moved through positions of increasing responsibility 	
80%	
56%	
42%	
I am able to maintain balance between my work and non-work lives	
45%	
65%	
63%	
I have sufficient authority to accomplish my objectives	
69%	
65%	
58%	
I feel that I receive peer recognition	65%	50%	49%	
I am able to influence the direction of the organization	55%	21%	18%	
I have a sense of personal autonomy in this job	59%	49%	47%	
I am recognized by my colleagues for my expertise	75%	60%	59%	

Scientists and professionals were less interested than the other groups in:
•	moving through positions of increasing responsibility; and
•	obtaining increasing financial rewards.  
They also viewed it as significantly more difficult to attain:
•	positions of increasing responsibility; and
•	sufficient authority to accomplish their objectives.  
The administrative and foreign service personnel placed significantly less importance on making a contribution to society than the other two groups and were also significantly less likely to report that this was attainable.  They also were less likely to report that their work provided a salary commensurate with a comfortable lifestyle.  
Figure 3.7 shows the five most important achievements in each job group and their assessment of availability.  While the rankings of the five most important achievements overlap between the administrative and foreign service category and the scientific and professional group, different achievements are highly important to executives.  In particular executives place a high priority on the ability to influence organizational direction and the desire to be surrounded by stimulating people.  
The gaps between importance and availability also differ by job type.  The gaps are particularly high for administrative and foreign service personnel (averaging 31%), followed by scientific and professional staff (27%) and then executives (21%).  Based on these gaps, the priorities for action would be:
•	to address salary concerns in the administrative and foreign service group (44% gap);
•	to provide opportunities to experience a personal sense of accomplishment in scientific and professional jobs (39% gap) and administrative and foreign service jobs (37% gap); and
•	to allow executives to have greater influence over the direction of the organization (35% gap).  
Differences Based on Promotions
There were no differences between those promoted and those not promoted in terms of the career achievements that were important to their personal definitions of success.  This suggests that those who have not been promoted still value career opportunities.  There were, however, significant differences regarding the availability of these achievements to the two groups.  As illustrated in Table 3.9, those who had been promoted felt that their work provided more opportunity to attain ten of the 15 career accomplishments.  Differences were particularly striking regarding the ability of those promoted to earn a salary that provides a comfortable lifestyle, experience increasing financial reward and learn and develop new skills.  
Table 3.9
Availability of Achievements by Promotions	

Percentage agreeing that achievement is available in their work:	Those Promoted	Those Not Promoted	
I enjoy my work	80%	71%	
My salary provides a comfortable lifestyle	60%	41%	
I have experienced increasing financial reward through the years	38%	15%	
I am surrounded by stimulating people	50%	40%	
My job provides a sense of accomplishment	65%	55%	
I am learning and developing new skills	69%	54%	
Over the years, I have moved through positions of increasing responsibility	
68%	
39%	
I have sufficient authority to accomplish my objectives	67%	61%	
I am able to influence the direction of the organization	25%	19%	
I have strong relationships at work	61%	54%	

Differences by Gender
There were gender differences in importance for five of the 15 career achievements (see Table 3.10).  Women were more likely than men to place importance on developing new skills and moving through positions of increasing responsibility.  Women were also more likely to value balance between their work and non-work lives and strong relationships on the job.  Men placed more importance on being able to influence the direction of the organization.  As illustrated in Table 3.11, women were more likely to report that their job made six of the 15 career accomplishments possible.  This may reflect the fact that more women than men had experienced promotions in the preceding five years.  
Table 3.10
Importance of Achievements by Gender	
Percentage reporting that achievement is important to their definition of career success:	
Women	
Men	
Learn and develop new skills	93%	85%	
Moving through positions of increasing responsibility	58%	50%	
Balance between work and non-work lives	89%	81%	
Being able to influence the direction of the organization	50%	57%	
Strong relationships on the job	66%	59%	

Table 3.11
Availability of Achievements by Gender	
Percentage agreeing that achievement is available in their work: 	Women	Men	
I enjoy my work	78%	73%	
My job provides a personal sense of accomplishment	63%	56%	
I am learning and developing new skills	64%	59%	
Over the years, I have moved through positions of increasing responsibility	59%	48%	
I have sufficient authority to accomplish my objectives	67%	60%	
Strong relationships on the job	60%	54%	

Respondents’ Career Goals
In order to provide appropriate support to employee career development it is important to understand employees’ goals.  One study of career management practices found that where there was a match between individual and organizational career plans, employees were over three times more likely to be satisfied and over five times less likely to look for work elsewhere.8  Since turnover is costly, understanding employees’ career goals has financial as well as organizational benefits.  
Sixty-eight percent of respondents reported that they have career goals; 51% reported high scores on a five-item scale measuring career planning.  There were no significant gender, job type or promotion status differences in the proportion of respondents who reported having career goals.  High scores on career planning were, however, more common amongst those who had been promoted, women, and administrative and foreign service personnel.  These data suggest that many public servants have given considerable thought to what they want to achieve in their career.  
To get a sense of what specific career actions respondents hoped to take, respondents were asked to indicate how likely it is that they would take advantage of 13 different opportunities if they became available to them over the next two years.  As shown in Table 3.12, a majority of employees say they would likely take advantage of the following career-enhancing opportunities: 
•	a new, challenging assignment;
•	advancement to a higher position;
•	a special work opportunity or project;
•	intensive training funded by their employer; and 
•	an opportunity to help younger employees develop.  
Table 3.12
Desired Opportunities	
Percentage reporting they would likely take advantage of this career opportunity:	
Likely	Somewhat Likely	
Unlikely	
Advancement to a higher position	67%	19%	14%	
A parallel assignment	45%	31%	25%	
The opportunity to acquire line experience	42%	30%	28%	
An assignment to a less stressful work environment	24%	29%	47%	
The opportunity to help younger employees develop professionally	51%	29%	21%	
An unpaid leave of several months for personal reasons	15%	12%	74%	
A sabbatical	20%	12%	68%	
Intensive training funded by employer	56%	18%	26%	
Greater opportunity to interact with senior management	44%	27%	30%	
A challenging new assignment	71%	19%	11%	
A special work opportunity 	66%	19%	15%	
A reduced work week at prorated pay and benefits	23%	15%	62%	
The opportunity to move to a central agency	18%	24%	58%	

Respondents were unlikely to be interested in the opportunity to move to a central agency or in reducing their work involvement through:
•	unpaid leave;
•	a sabbatical; or 
•	a reduced work week at prorated pay.  
There were significant job type differences on ten of the 13 opportunities examined (see Table 3.13).  Executives were more likely than other groups to express interest in helping younger employees develop professionally and in moving to a central agency.  They were less likely to be interested in a reduced work week at prorated pay.  Scientists and professionals were more likely to be interested in unpaid leave and a sabbatical than the other groups.  Administrative and foreign service personnel were the group most interested in advancement to a higher position, a parallel assignment, the opportunity to acquire line experience, intensive training and a special work opportunity.  
Table 3.13
Desired Opportunities by Job Type	
Percentage reporting they would likely take advantage of this career opportunity:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
Advancement to a higher position	60%	69%	37%	
A parallel assignment	38%	48%	37%	
Opportunity to acquire line experience	38%	45%	37%	
Opportunity to help younger employees develop professionally	60%	52%	46%	
An unpaid leave of several months for personal reasons	8%	15%	17%	
A sabbatical	22%	15%	29%	
Intensive training funded by employer	42%	59%	54%	
A special work opportunity	53%	70%	61%	
A reduced work week at prorated pay and benefits	15%	23%	23%	
The opportunity to move to a central agency	21%	19%	14%	

Respondents who had been promoted were more likely than those not promoted to say they would likely take advantage of the opportunity for advancement (71% versus 64%), and a parallel assignment (46% versus 41%).  Those who had not been promoted were more likely than those who had been promoted to say they would likely take advantage of a sabbatical (23% versus 17% of those promoted).  
There were significant gender differences on nine of the 13 opportunities.  As shown in Table 3.14, in each case women were more likely than men to say they would take advantage of these opportunities.  The opportunities that women were more likely to embrace included both opportunities for more intense involvement in work (e.g. a challenging assignment or special work) and opportunities to reduce work commitment (e.g. reduced work week or assignment to a less stressful environment).  These results suggest there may be two groups of women in the sample: those interested in more rapid career progression and those interested (at least at this time) in more balance in their lives.  
Table 3.14
Desired Opportunities by Gender	
Percentage reporting they would likely take advantage of this career opportunity:	Women	Men	
A parallel assignment	50%	38%	
An opportunity to acquire line experience	47%	37%	
Assignment to a less stressful work environment	28%	20%	
An unpaid leave of several months for personal reasons	18%	12%	
Intensive training funded by employer	59%	54%	
A challenging new assignment	74%	67%	
A special work opportunity	71%	61%	
A reduced work week at prorated pay and benefits	30%	16%	
An opportunity to move to a central agency	21%	15%	

Respondents’ Developmental Experiences
Developmental experiences are the experiences that help employees to grow in knowledge and skills, thus making them more valuable employees and expanding their career options.  Respondents were asked whether they had experienced seven possible developmental opportunities.  As shown in Table 3.15, the developmental opportunity respondents had experienced the most was the opportunity to make contacts outside the department.  Relatively few respondents had experienced a stretch assignment.  Since opportunities for challenge and growth are important to most of the employees in the sample, this is a career development initiative that would be beneficial.  
Table 3.15
Developmental Experiences	
Percentage experiencing:	A Great Deal	Some	Little	
Opportunity to gain line experience 	28%	24%	48%	
Opportunity to gain staff experience	28%	24%	49%	
Opportunity to make contacts outside their department	41%	26%	37%	
Employer funded training	31%	33%	36%	
Greater opportunity to interact with senior management	29%	26%	44%	
Being given a stretch assignment	22%	13%	65%	
Being given special work opportunities 	28%	24%	48%	

There were significant job type differences for all seven of the developmental experiences examined (see Table 3.16).  Executives reported more experience of all of these opportunities with the exception of training.  Administrative and foreign services personnel were more likely than the other two groups to report receiving a great deal of training.  
Table 3.16
Developmental Experiences by Job Type	

Percentage experiencing to a great extent:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
Opportunity to gain line experience	64%	25%	28%	
Opportunity to gain staff experience	45%	28%	22%	
Opportunity to make contacts outside their department	69%	36%	45%	
Employer funded training	23%	34%	27%	
Greater opportunity to interact with senior management	67%	26%	27%	
Being given a stretch assignment	37%	24%	16%	
Being given special work opportunities	37%	27%	28%	

The differences in developmental experiences by promotion status are depicted in Table 3.17.  Individuals who had been promoted reported having had more experience on five of the seven developmental opportunities.  The most dramatic difference was in terms of stretch assignments.  Those who had been promoted had experienced significantly more stretch assignments than those who had not been promoted.  It is reasonable to infer that these stretch assignments may have been a contributing factor in these employees earning promotion.  
Table 3.17
Developmental Experiences by Promotions	

Percentage experiencing to a great extent: 	Those Promoted	Those Not Promoted	
Opportunity to gain line experience	31%	25%	
Employer funded training	36%	27%	
Greater opportunity to interact with senior management	37%	22%	
Being given a stretch assignment	30%	13%	
Being given special work opportunities	31%	23%	

Women were more likely than men to report that they had received a great deal of training (36% women, 27% men) and stretch assignments (25% women, 20% men).  Men were more likely than women to report having a great deal of opportunity to make contacts outside their department (43% men, 38% women).  
Since training is a key career development initiative, the questionnaire included a more detailed examination of training.  On average, employees in the sample had experienced eight days of training in the previous year.  Table 3.18 shows the percentage of employees in various groups who received more than the average amount of training.  The groups receiving the most training were those who had been promoted, administrative and foreign service staff and women.  
Table 3.18
Training by Groups	
Percentage of each group experiencing:	Above Average Training	
Total Sample		29%	
	By Job Type	Executive	26%	
	Admin & Foreign Service	35%	
	Scientific & Professional	18%	
	By Promotion	Promoted	31%	
	Not Promoted	25%	
	By Gender 	Women	33%	
	Men	25%	

Mentoring is another developmental opportunity that has been found in previous research to have a major impact on career progress.  A majority of respondents (59%) reported having had at least one mentor.  Group differences in mentoring experience are summarized in Table 3.19.  More executives, promoted employees and women had experienced mentoring relationships.  
Table 3.19
Mentoring by Groups	
Percentage of each group who:	Had at Least One Mentor	
Total Sample		59%	
	By Job Type	Executive	68%	
	Admin & Foreign Service	60%	
	Scientific & Professional	53%	
	By Promotion  	Promoted	63%	
	Not Promoted 	56%	
	By Gender	Women	62%	
	Men	56%	

Career Strategies Used by Respondents
As outlined in the introduction to this report, there are a variety of strategies which previous research has linked to career progression.  The survey examined 20 such strategies in detail.  The specific strategies and the percentages of all respondents who reported using each to a great extent are shown in Table 3.20.  Eleven of the strategies were used by a majority of respondents.  As indicated in the Table, there were significant group differences in the strategies employed.  
The strategies which were employed to a greater extent by those who had been promoted were:
•	do quality work on things superiors pay attention to (76%); 
•	show confidence (68%);
•	show that you aspire to increased responsibility (64%);
•	develop a style senior managers are comfortable with (63%);
•	work on high visibility projects (55%);
•	round out skills by working in a variety of areas (50%);
•	pursue opportunities for line experience (36%);
•	network with influential colleagues (29%);
•	change departments (16%); and
•	cultivate a powerful mentor (14%).  
While it is possible that having been promoted, these respondents now have greater opportunity to engage in these career strategies, it is also quite plausible that their use of these strategies contributed to their gaining promotion.  
As illustrated in Table 3.20, executives were more likely than other groups to engage in 19 of the 20 strategies.  Women were more likely than men to employ eight of the career strategies (five of which were common to those promoted).  Five strategies were more popular amongst men (only one of which was used more extensively by those promoted).  
Table 3.20
Career Strategies Employed	
Career strategies used to a great extent:	% of all Respondents	
Groups Using The Strategy More: 	
		
Prom	Not
Prom	
Wom	
Men	
Ex	
A&FS	
S&P	
Exceed expectations	73%			*		*			
Style managers comfortable with 	
60%	
*				
*			
High visibility projects	52%	*			*	*			
Powerful mentor	11%	*		*		*			
Network with influential colleagues	
26%	
*				
*			
Line experience	32%	*		*		*			
Breadth to round skills	46%	*		*		*			
Change departments	13%	*		*		*			
Show aspire to increased responsibility	
58%	
*		
*		
*			
Quality work on important things 	
73%	
*				
*			
Leader within peer group	
60%				
*	
*			
Effectively advocate ideas	
59%					
*			
Show initiative	85%			*		*			
Communicate career goals	
40%					*			
Recommend innovations	
49%		
*		
*	
*			
Find ways to be unique	44%					*			
Go well beyond requirements	
73%			
*		
*			
Be specialist in important area 	
55%				
*				
Prepared to relocate	25%		*		*	*			
Show confidence	65%	*				*			

Perceived Organizational Support for Career Development
The role of organizations in employee career development used to be a paternalistic one.  When an individual joined an organization they expected that their employer would take care of their career.  Most writers on career development now recommend that responsibility for employee career development be shared between employer and employee.  A majority of the public servants in the sample (71%) shared this view.  As depicted in Figure 3.8, however, only 17% of respondents believe this actually happens (i.e. that responsibility for career development is shared).  Most respondents (73%) say that it is the employee who actually takes responsibility for their career development.  This gap between ideal and actual is strongest amongst executives — 77% of whom believe responsibility should be shared and only 12% of whom believe it is.  Hopefully this recognition will spur executives to support valuable change in career development practices.
Respondents were also asked a series of questions about the support for career development provided by their supervisor and their department.  Support provided by supervisors included things like learning about employees’ career goals, informing employees about different career opportunities and providing opportunities to develop new skills.  Support provided by the department included items such as encouraging employee development at all levels and linking career development programs to the department’s strategic plan.  
Aggregate scores for supervisory support and departmental support for the full sample are illustrated in Figure 3.9.  Employees in the sample felt that more career support was provided by their immediate supervisor than by their department but overall a minority experienced high levels of support.  As shown in Table 3.21, these results were consistent across all groups although executives and those promoted reported experiencing significantly more career support from both sources.
Table 3.21
Career Development Support by Groups	
Percentage of each group reporting high career support:	From Supervisor	From Department	
Total Sample		37%	18%	
	By Job	Executive	45%	24%	
	Admin & Foreign Service	36%	18%	
	Scientific & Professional	37%	16%	
	By Promotion 	Promoted	43%	24%	
	Not Promoted	31%	13%	
	By Gender	Women	39%	20%	
	Men	35%	17%	

Career Development Initiatives
There are a variety of initiatives that organizations can undertake to support employee career development.  Previous research has linked career satisfaction to the degree to which organizations have formal career management practices and provide full information on career opportunities to all employees.9  The survey included questions on 12 of the more common career management initiatives such as job posting systems, training, and career planning workshops.  Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they were aware of such programs, whether the programs were available to them and whether they had used them if they were available to them.  As Table 3.22 shows, a majority of employees were aware of all of these initiatives but availability and usage varied significantly across the 12 initiatives examined.  The initiatives available to a majority of respondents were job postings, information on future career opportunities, tuition reimbursement, internal training, external training and employee orientation programs.  A majority of respondents had used job postings, information on future career opportunities, internal training, external training, and career discussions with a superior.  
Table 3.22
Career Development Initiatives	
Percentage for each initiative:	Available	Aware	Used	
Posting job opportunities	96%	98%	76%	
Info on future opportunities	54%	73%	57%	
Individual career counseling	43%	67%	25%	
Formal coaching/mentoring	27%	68%	36%	
Assessment of potential	25%	55%	42%	
Career planning workshops	41%	67%	29%	
Tuition reimbursement	77%	87%	45%	
Internal training	83%	93%	83%	
External training	75%	88%	73%	
Employee orientation 	51%	71%	49%	
Job rotation	38%	71%	46%	
Career discussion w/superior	50%	76%	68%	

There were significant job type differences in awareness, availability and usage for almost all of the initiatives.  As shown in Table 3.23, awareness of these initiatives was, in general, significantly higher amongst executives.  Table 3.24 demonstrates that the majority of these initiatives were also more available to the executive group.  The pattern of results for usage was, however, quite different (see Table 3.25).  While executives were more likely to be aware of and have access to these programs, they were less likely to use them.  The only exceptions to this pattern were assessments of career potential and formal career discussions with a superior which executives tended to use to a greater extent.  Administrative and foreign service personnel were less likely than others to use these two career initiatives and more likely to use job postings and career planning workshops.  Scientists and professionals were less likely to use information on future career opportunities.  
Table 3.23
Awareness of Career Development Initiatives by Job Type	

Percentage of each group reporting awareness of:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
Info on future opportunities	84%	73%	71%	
Individual career counseling	87%	67%	64%	
Formal coaching/mentoring	79%	66%	69%	
Assessment of potential	77%	54%	54%	
Career planning workshops	78%	67%	65%	
Tuition reimbursement	89%	90%	81%	
Internal training	99%	93%	92%	
External training	98%	87%	87%	
Employee orientation 	89%	70%	70%	
Job rotation	84%	71%	68%	
Career discussion w/superior	93%	75%	77%	

Table 3.24
Availability of Career Development Initiatives by Job Type	

Percentage of each group reporting availability of:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
Info on future opportunities	66%	55%	51%	
Individual career counseling	68%	43%	39%	
Formal coaching/mentoring	41%	27%	25%	
Assessment of potential	50%	24%	23%	
Career planning workshops	50%	42%	39%	
Tuition reimbursement	79%	82%	66%	
Internal training	90%	83%	83%	
External training	94%	74%	75%	
Employee orientation 	68%	50%	50%	
Job rotation	55%	37%	35%	
Career discussion w/superior	71%	47%	53%	

Table 3.25
Usage of Career Development Initiatives by Job Type	

Percentage of each group reporting availability of:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
Posting job opportunities	67%	78%	72%	
Info on future opportunities	58%	61%	52%	
Formal coaching/mentoring	19%	38%	36%	
Assessment of potential	51%	39%	44%	
Career planning workshops	22%	32%	24%	
Tuition reimbursement	32%	45%	45%	
Internal training	67%	85%	83%	
Employee orientation 	34%	48%	53%	
Job rotation	40%	47%	46%	
Career discussion w/superior	82%	62%	73%	

Differences were also observed between those who had been promoted and those who had not.  Although both groups were equally aware of these programs, respondents who had been promoted were more likely to report that eight of the initiatives were available to them.  The differences were particularly strong for individual career counselling and formal career discussions with a superior.  Those who had been promoted were more likely than those not having been promoted to report using:
•	the job posting system;
•	information on future career opportunities;
•	formal coaching or mentoring;
•	assessments of career potential; and
•	formal career discussions with a superior.  
Individuals who had not been promoted were more likely than others to have been involved in a career planning workshop.  
Awareness and availability of information on future career opportunities and formal career discussions with a superior were higher for men than women.  More men also reported that job rotation was available to them.  Women were more likely to report that career planning workshops were available to them.  The greatest number of gender differences appeared with respect to usage.  Women reported greater usage of nine of the 12 initiatives.  The three initiatives on which there were no gender differences were assessments of career potential, external training, and career discussions with a superior.  Their greater use of career development initiatives may be one of the reasons why more women had earned promotions.  
Satisfaction with Career
Research shows that employees who are satisfied with their career progress are less likely to leave the organization.10  As illustrated in Figure 3.10, 49% of respondents are satisfied with their career progress to date.  Respondents are, however, less positive about their future prospects.  Figure 3.11 shows that only 35% feel it is likely that they will meet their career aspirations if they spend the remainder of their career within the Public Service; 30% consider it unlikely.  Table 3.26 contains data on group differences in career satisfaction and respondents’ ability to meet aspirations.  In each group, respondents evaluated their progress to date more positively than their future prospects.  The most positive groups are executives, those who have been promoted and women.  
Table 3.26
Evaluation of Career Progress and Prospects	

Percentage of each group:	Satisfied with Progress	Expect to Meet Aspirations	
Total Sample		48%	35%	
	By Job Type 	Executive	72%	56%	
	Admin & Foreign Service	47%	32%	
	Scientific & Professional	46%	36%	
	By Promotion 	Promoted 	61%	44%	
	Not Promoted	37%	27%	
	By Gender 	Women 	53%	37%	
 	Men	44%	32%	

Job Satisfaction
The inability to satisfy career goals can be a source of dissatisfaction which can spill over into attitudes about the job itself.  Dissatisfied employees are less productive, are absent from work more often and are more likely to leave the organization.  Thus job satisfaction is an important outcome to assess.  
Table 3.27 shows the levels of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction expressed by respondents.  Forty-four percent of employees in the sample are highly satisfied with their jobs.  The highest levels of satisfaction are related to:
•	schedule of work;
•	the job in general; and
•	things done on the job.  
The lowest levels of satisfaction are related to:
•	the ability to advance; and 
•	pay.
Table 3.27
Job Satisfaction	
Percentage of employees who are:	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	
Average of all 8 items	44%	45%	11%	
The job in general	66%	21%	13%	
The pay 	36%	23%	42%	
The number of hours worked	54%	28%	18%	
The schedule of working hours	73%	20%	7%	
The things done on the job	66%	24%	11%	
Current workload	42%	29%	29%	
The amount of job security	54%	26%	21%	
Ability to advance	24%	32%	45%	

Respondents who had been promoted were significantly more satisfied on average than those who had not been promoted (see Table 3.28).  This result supports the contention that career progress influences job satisfaction.  As shown in Table 3.29, women had higher levels of satisfaction than men.  This may be due in part to the fact that more women had experienced a promotion in the past five years.
Table 3.28
Job Satisfaction by Promotions	

Percentage of employees satisfied with:	Those Promoted	Those Not Promoted	
Average of all 8 items	54%	35%	
The job in general	72%	61%	
The pay	45%	26%	
The things done on the job	69%	63%	
Ability to advance 	36%	13%	

Table 3.29
Job Satisfaction by Gender	
Percentage of employees satisfied with:	Women	Men	
Average of all 8 items	49%	40%	
The pay	40%	31%	
The number of hours worked	58%	51%	
Current workload	46%	39%	
Ability to advance 	28%	20%	

The greatest number of significant differences in satisfaction occurred in the job type analysis.  Although the three groups did not differ in terms of average satisfaction scores, there were significant differences on every one of the individual items.  These differences are summarized in Table 3.30.  Executives were more satisfied than the other groups with their job in general, the things done on the job, their job security, their pay and their ability to advance.  Executives were the group least satisfied, however, with the number of hours they worked, the schedule of their working hours and their workload.  The administrative and foreign services group was significantly less satisfied than the other two groups with respect to pay and job security.  
Table 3.30
Job Satisfaction by Job Type	

Percentage of employees satisfied with:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
The job in general	77%	65%	65%	
The pay 	53%	30%	41%	
The number of hours worked	32%	57%	53%	
The schedule of working hours	53%	75%	73%	
The things done on the job	75%	65%	65%	
Current workload	34%	43%	41%	
The amount of job security	69%	51%	56%	
Ability to advance	39%	23%	22%	

Respondents’ Assessment of the Work Environment
Organizational policies and practices can contribute to a work environment that either supports or inhibits effective job performance.  Work environment variables like stress, morale and loyalty are barometers of organizational health.  While objective measures of work environment variables such as retention, productivity and quality can be constructed, employee perceptions about the work environment will influence their motivation and commitment and thus have important consequences for organizations.  To assess employees’ perceptions of the work environment, respondents were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed that their department was doing a good job of managing ten different aspects of the work environment.  
On average, only 12% of respondents agreed that their department was doing a good job of managing the work environment.  As illustrated by Table 3.31, the most problematic areas were:
•	stress;
•	employee morale; 
•	workload; and
•	employee loyalty.  
The least problematic aspect of the work environment was recruiting.
Table 3.31
Assessment of the Work Environment	
Percentage agreeing that their department is doing a good job of managing: 	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	
The work environment on average	12%	41%	47%	
Recruitment of good employees	41%	32%	26%	
Retention of good employees	20%	26%	54%	
Employee stress	10%	28%	62%	
Employee morale	10%	22%	68%	
Employee loyalty	16%	28%	57%	
Employee productivity	24%	37%	39%	
Employee workload	14%	29%	58%	
Quality of work	34%	35%	31%	
Workforce diversity	28%	41%	30%	
The job competition process	24%	34%	42%	

Respondents who had been promoted gave more positive assessments of the work environment on average and also on six of the ten aspects of work environment (see Table 3.32).  These differences were particularly dramatic on the issues of quality of work and the job competition process.  Men’s and women’s evaluations of the work environment were very similar.  The only significant difference was that more women than men felt that their department was doing a good job of managing the quality of work (37% women versus 31% men).  
Table 3.32
Assessment of the Work Environment by Promotions	
Percentage agreeing that their department is doing a good job of managing:	Those Promoted	Those Not Promoted	
The work environment on average	15%	9%	
Recruitment of good employees	45%	38%	
Employee morale	13%	8%	
Employee loyalty	19%	13%	
Quality of work	41%	29%	
Workforce diversity	33%	25%	
The job competition process	30%	20%	

There were significant job type differences on nine of the ten aspects of work environment studied (see Table 3.33).  On average, executives were more positive than other groups (although agreement was still only 22%).  Executives were more likely to agree that their department was doing a good job managing recruitment, retention, morale, loyalty, productivity, work quality and the job competition process.  Administrative and foreign service personnel were less likely to believe their department did a good job of managing recruitment and workforce diversity.  Scientists and professionals were the group least impressed by their departments’ handling of workload and productivity.
Table 3.33
Assessment of the Work Environment by Job Type	
Percentage agreeing that their department is doing a good job of managing:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
The work environment on average	22%	11%	11%	
Recruitment of good employees	60%	36%	45%	
Retention of good employees	30%	18%	20%	
Employee morale	17%	10%	9%	
Employee loyalty	27%	14%	16%	
Employee productivity	33%	26%	20%	
Employee workload	15%	16%	9%	
Quality of work	50%	32%	35%	
Workforce diversity	34%	25%	35%	
The job competition process	38%	23%	24%	

Respondent Commitment and Retention
Employees who are highly committed to the organization work harder, are absent less often and are less likely to leave the organization.  When an employee leaves, the organization incurs significant costs to recruit and train a successor.  The new employee is often less productive initially and co-workers may be negatively affected as well.  Thus earning employees’ commitment and reducing turnover are important organizational goals.
In this sample, only 32% of employees were highly committed to the Public Service; 42% to their department (see Figure 3.12).  These levels of commitment are significantly lower than those found in other studies.  For instance, a 1998 mixed public and private sector sample in Saskatchewan found that 55% of respondents were highly committed to the organization while a national public and private sector sample found 66% were highly committed.11  These data are consistent, however, with respondents’ intention to turnover.  Seventy-four percent of employees in the sample had thought about leaving the Public Service, and 21% had high scores on a measure of intent to turnover from the Public Service (27% from the department, see Figure 3.13).  In the recent Saskatchewan study, intent to turnover was 12%.  
Individuals who had been promoted in the last five years were more  committed to the organization and less likely to leave (see Table 3.34).  The differences were particularly strong with respect to their commitment to their department.  It should be noted, however, that even this group, which had received important validation of their contributions to the organization through being promoted, are still significantly lower in commitment than groups studied in previous research.  
Table 3.34
Commitment and Retention by Promotions	

Percentage in each group that:	Those Promoted	Those Not Promoted	
Has thought about leaving the Public Service	72%	77%	
Is highly committed to the Public Service	36%	28%	
Is likely to leave the Public Service in the next year	18%	23%	
Is highly committed to their department	51%	35%	
Is likely to leave their department in the next year 	23%	30%	

Gender differences in commitment and retention are summarized in Table 3.35.  More women than men were highly committed to the Public Service.  Fewer women had thought of leaving the Public Service and fewer women had high scores on intent to turnover from the Public Service.  There were no significant gender differences, however, when commitment and retention were examined at the departmental level.  
Table 3.35
Commitment and Retention by Gender	
Percentage in each group that:	Women	Men	
Has thought about leaving the Public Service	70%	78%	
Is highly committed to the Public Service	36%	28%	
Is likely to leave the Public Service in the next year	18%	24%	
Is highly committed to their department	44%	41%	
Is likely to leave their department in the next year	26%	28%	

Job type also had a significant impact on commitment and retention as illustrated in Table 3.36.  Executives were more highly committed to both their department and the Public Service with levels of commitment approximating those found in other studies.  This did not, however, translate into a lower propensity to leave the organization.  Executives were as likely as others to have high scores on turnover and more executives reported having thought about leaving the Public Service (84%).  This seeming paradox may be a function of the greater opportunities for mobility faced by many Public Service executives.  
Table 3.36
Commitment and Retention by Job Type	

Percentage in each group that:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
Has thought about leaving the Public Service	84%	71%	78%	
Is highly committed to the Public Service	50%	34%	23%	
Is likely to leave the Public Service in the next year	20%	19%	24%	
Is highly committed to their department	63%	42%	39%	
Is likely to leave their department in the next year	27%	26%	27%	

Respondents who had thought about leaving were asked to indicate where they would go if they left the Public Service.  Figure 3.14 illustrates that the most popular options are the private sector (77%) or into business for themselves (42%).  These are the two most popular options amongst all three job groups as well.  Table 3.37 shows that the major reasons employees in the sample consider leaving include:
•	to earn a higher salary; 
•	because they feel recognition is lacking; 
•	they are frustrated with the bureaucracy; and
•	they want to engage in more interesting work.
Table 3.37
Reasons for Leaving the Public Service	
Percentage of respondents giving these reasons for leaving the Public Service:	All Respondents	
To earn a higher salary	46%	
To engage in more interesting and challenging work	34%	
Because in the Public Service I sense a lack of recognition and respect for what I do	38%	
Because my current work environment is not supportive of me as an individual	17%	
For greater advancement opportunities outside the federal Public Service	28%	
Lack of job security in the federal Public Service	9%	
Frustration with bureaucracy and red tape	37%	
Personal or family reasons	10%	

These were the top four reasons given by all three job groups, although their ranking did differ between groups (see Table 3.38).  In particular, executives were significantly less likely than the other groups to consider leaving because of a lack of recognition.  It is also worthwhile to note that 21% of executives responded that reasons other than those listed would cause their departure.  This is significantly higher than the occurrence of other reasons in the other job groups and suggests that further exploration of executives’ reasons for leaving the Public Service is warranted.  The only other group differences observed in reasons for leaving the Public Service were that employees who had not been promoted were more likely than others to report that an unsupportive work environment, greater opportunities for advancement elsewhere and a lack of job security might compel them to leave.  
Table 3.38
Reasons for Leaving the Public Service by Job Type	
Percentage of respondents giving these reasons for leaving the Public Service:	
Executive	Admin. and Foreign Services	Science and Prof.	
To earn a higher salary	61%	66%	55%	
To engage in more interesting and challenging work	41%	47%	45%	
Because in the Public Service I sense a lack of recognition and respect for what I do	
29%	
53%	
53%	
Because my current work environment is not supportive of me as an individual	
17%	
23%	
25%	
For greater advancement opportunities outside the federal Public Service	
24%	
39%	
37%	
Lack of job security in the federal Public Service	1%	14%	11%	
Frustration with bureaucracy and red tape	42%	50%	51%	
Personal or family reasons	11%	13%	14%	

One final way in which the issue of commitment and retention was examined was by assessing respondents’ psychological identification with the organization.  Previous research indicates that individuals who identify more strongly with the organization are less likely to leave while individuals who have an external identification such as with their profession may be less committed to helping the organization achieve its goals.12 Respondents were asked which group they identified most strongly with: the department, the Public Service, their profession or none of these groups.  As illustrated in Figure 3.15, almost equal numbers of respondents identified with their department and their profession.  Far fewer identified with the Public Service as a whole.  
There were significant differences between groups in terms of group identification.  Those who had been promoted were more likely to identify with their department while those who had not been promoted were more likely to identify with their profession.  Men were more likely than women to identify with their profession.  Figure 3.16, which portrays job type differences in group identity, shows that scientists and professionals are significantly more likely to identify with their profession.  These different patterns of identification may contribute to different levels of organizational attachment and goal identification.  
Summary and Conclusions
The objectives of the survey were to examine what employees hope to achieve in their career, the steps they have taken to attain their goals, the career support provided to them by the organization, and the attitudes toward the organization that have resulted.  Findings pertaining to each of these objectives are summarized first.  Then results specific to each of the groups examined are reviewed.  Finally, some general conclusions are offered.  
What Employees Hope to Achieve
The majority of respondents had given considerable thought to what they wanted from their career.  What employees valued most was enjoyable work which provided a sense of accomplishment and the opportunity for growth and development.  Respondents wanted to earn a salary that would provide a comfortable lifestyle but achieving a balance between work and non-work lives was more important than obtaining increasing financial rewards.  Most respondents felt that their work was enjoyable but there were particularly large gaps between the importance and availability of a personal sense of accomplishment through work and a satisfactory salary.  
The work opportunities which employees wanted most were new challenges, special projects, training and career advancement.  Their interest in these career enhancing experiences far outpaced their interest in reducing their work involvement through leaves or a reduced work week.  
What Employees Have Done to Attain Their Goals
A majority of employees had engaged in a number of behaviours that previous research has linked to career advancement.  In particular, most employees felt that they had shown initiative, gone beyond what was required of them and exceeded expectations.  But these behaviours did not differentiate between those who had earned a promotion and those who had not.  The behaviours that did distinguish those who had been promoted had to do with focusing on important work, developing breadth, developing a style senior managers are comfortable with, and seeking career support from others.  The importance the organization places on these behaviours is signalled implicitly through the promotion selection process but it would help all employees to better understand what the organization values if these implicit values were made explicit.  
Most employees had undertaken training in the past year and many reported having had the help of a mentor but the incidence of other developmental opportunities was much lower.  In particular, respondents had much less opportunity to experience a stretch assignment or special work despite their strong desire to do so.  
Career Support Provided by the Organization
A minority of respondents reported experiencing high levels of career support from the organization.  Supervisors provided more support than did respondents’ departments.  Although employees in the sample believed that responsibility for career development should be shared between employer and employee, few felt that, in practice, the employer assumed their share of the responsibility.  
The career development initiatives available to most employees were job postings, information on future opportunities, tuition reimbursement, internal training, external training, and employee orientation programs.  While awareness of most of these initiatives was high, usage varied considerably.  The initiatives used most were job postings, internal training and external training.  
Employee Attitudes Toward the Organization
Almost half of the respondents were satisfied with their career progress to date but only one third believe that they will be able to satisfy their career aspirations if they stay in the Public Service for the remainder of their careers.  Forty-four percent were highly satisfied with their jobs, primarily with the schedule of hours, the job in general and the things done on the job.  The greatest dissatisfaction was with pay and the ability to advance.  
Assessments of the work environment were very negative.  Only 12% of respondents felt that their department was doing a good job of managing the work environment overall.  Stress, morale, workload, and loyalty were seen as particularly problematic.  Identification with the Public Service as a whole was low although respondents were to identify with their department as well as with their profession.  Commitment to the organization was lower and intent to turnover was higher in this population than in other populations examined in previous research.  
Most theories of human needs posit that unmet needs are important drivers of behaviour.  These linkages can be seen in the survey results.  The large gaps between the desire for and availability of a sense of accomplishment and a satisfactory salary were echoed in two of the key reasons employees articulated for potentially leaving the Public Service: lack of recognition and to earn a higher salary.  Other major reasons respondents would consider leaving included frustration with the bureaucracy and to engage in more challenging work.  
Employees Who Had Been Promoted
Employees who had been promoted had considerably more opportunity to realize their career aspirations so the gaps between what they wanted and what was available to them were significantly smaller than they were for others.  Respondents who had been promoted reported that their jobs provided greater scope for experiencing a personal sense of accomplishment, for growth and development, and a salary commensurate with a comfortable lifestyle.  They valued these achievements and looked for continuing opportunities to fulfil these objectives.  
Employees who had been promoted engaged in a different set of career strategies than those who had not been promoted.  Like their non-promoted counterparts, they showed initiative and exceeded expectations but they also built breadth, focused on important work and solicited career support from others.  They received more training, mentoring and developmental opportunities, particularly stretch assignments.  It would appear from the data that these experiences helped them to achieve their goals.  
Employees who had been promoted reported receiving more career support than others but still believed that their employer was not an equal partner in employee career development.  They were more likely, however, to have access to career development initiatives, especially individual career counselling and formal career discussions with a superior.  They also made greater use of several of the developmental initiatives.  
Respondents who had been promoted were more satisfied with their career progress to date and more optimistic about their prospects for the future.  They had higher levels of job satisfaction, particularly with respect to pay and their ability to advance.  
Having been promoted led to more favourable evaluations of the work environment although those who thought their department was doing a good job of managing the work environment were still a small minority.  Those who had been promoted were more likely to identify with their department, to be highly committed to the organization and to be less likely to think about leaving.  
Employees Who Had Not Been Promoted
Employees who had not been promoted wanted to experience the same achievements as those who had been promoted but had more limited opportunities to do so.  Thus they experienced a larger gap between their desire for various achievements and their ability to realize them.  These gaps were particularly acute with respect to earning a comfortable salary and opportunities for learning and developing their skills.  Nevertheless, they continued to want challenging assignments and special work.  
A majority of these employees reported that they showed initiative and exceeded expectations but they were less likely to have gained breadth, worked on important projects or garnered career support from others.  They had received less training and mentoring and fewer developmental opportunities.  The data suggest that their careers may have suffered as a consequence.  
Employees who had not been promoted had received less career support than other employees.  And although they were aware of career development initiatives, they were less likely to have had access to them and typically reported lower usage of them.  The one career development initiative that these employees used to a greater extent than did other groups was career planning workshops.
Respondents who had not been promoted were the group least satisfied with their career progress to date and least optimistic about their prospects for the future.  They had the lowest levels of job satisfaction and were especially dissatisfied with their pay and their ability to advance.  
Employees who had not been promoted were the most negative about the work environment.  They were particularly harsh in their judgements about the quality of work and the job competition process.  They were more likely to identify with their profession than with their department or the Public Service and they were significantly less committed to the organization.  They were also more likely to think about leaving and to cite an unsupportive work environment, limited opportunities for advancement and a lack of job security as reasons for departing.  
Women
Women placed a higher value on developing new skills, advancing their careers and achieving balance.  They sought: 1) opportunities for more developmental opportunities such as a challenging assignment or special work; and 2) opportunities to reduce work commitment through a reduced work week or assignment to a less stressful environment.  These two sets of priorities may reflect the competing values that women face regarding work and family or they may indicate the existence of two distinct groups of women with different goals.  In either case, these results highlight the importance of ascertaining what individual employees aspire to rather than assuming that what a specific employee wants to achieve can be predicted on the basis of their membership in a particular group.  
Women had engaged in a wider range of career strategies than men.  They received more training, more mentoring and more stretch assignments.  These experiences seemed to bear fruit as more women than men had been promoted.  
Women reported receiving an average level of career support.  For the most part their access to career development initiatives was equal to or lower than that of men yet they were significantly more likely to use these programs when they had access to them.  
Women were more satisfied with their career progress and more positive about future prospects than men.  Women also had higher levels of job satisfaction.  This greater satisfaction may be the result of more women having experienced a promotion.  
Despite their greater career and job satisfaction, women were equally negative about the work environment.  The only work environment issue they were more positive about was quality of work.  Their levels of identification with the Public Service and their department were comparable to those of other groups.  Their scores on commitment and intent to turnover with respect to the department were comparable to other groups.  They were, however, more committed to the Public Service and were less likely to think about leaving the Public Service.  Consistent with this difference, those women who had considered leaving were more likely than the men to be interested in a move to another level of government.  
Men
Men placed a higher value on influencing the direction of the organization than did women although this was not as important to them as gaining a sense of accomplishment and earning a satisfactory salary.  They felt that their work provided fewer opportunities to experience a personal sense of accomplishment and to develop new skills.  They experienced greater gaps between their goals and their opportunities.  Men were as desirous as women of career advancement but they were less likely to report that they would take advantage of the opportunity to gain line experience, undertake new challenges, or accept a parallel assignment.
On average, men made less use of the 20 career strategies.  The only strategy that was related to promotion that men utilized more than women was working on high visibility projects.  Men received less training, less mentoring and fewer stretch assignments.  The only developmental opportunity which they experienced to a greater extent was the opportunity to develop contacts outside their department.  
Men reported receiving an average level of career support.  They had greater access to three of the 12 career development initiatives but were significantly less likely to use most of them.  
Men were less happy with their career progress and more negative about their future prospects.  Men’s overall job satisfaction was also lower with the key differences being related to workload, pay and the ability to advance.  
Although they were more dissatisfied with their career and work, men gave similar assessments of the work environment.  Men were more likely than women to identify with their profession.  And although their commitment to the department was average, they were less likely to be committed to the Public Service and more likely to consider leaving.  
Executives
Executives shared other employees’ frustrations in regards to achieving a personal sense of accomplishment.  They also placed a high value on being able to influence the direction of the organization and although they had considerably more scope to achieve this influence, there was still a large gap between their desire for influence and its realization.  Executives continued to look for opportunities for advancement but also for opportunities to help younger employees develop professionally.  
Many in this group had significant family responsibilities (they were more likely to have children and eldercare responsibilities than other groups) but they placed less importance on a balance between their work and non-work lives than did other groups.  Nevertheless there was a 30% gap between the percentage desiring balance and those who felt that it was available in their work.  
Executives were heavy users of all of the career strategies except being a specialist.  They received less training than other groups but their positions afforded them greater access to all of the other developmental opportunities, particularly line experience and opportunities to interact with senior managers.  They had also received more mentoring.  
Executives reported receiving more career support than other groups but those who reported high levels of support were still in a minority.  Executives were also more likely than others to say that the responsibility for career development should be shared but that in fact it was not.  Thus while their personal experiences were more positive, they recognized that current support of employee career development is less than ideal.  
Executives were more likely to be aware of and have access to career development initiatives but were less likely to use them.  The only exceptions to this pattern were assessments of career potential and formal career discussions with a superior which executives tended to use to a greater extent.  
A majority of executives were satisfied with the progress they had made toward their career goals and believed that they can meet their career aspirations within the Public Service.  They were more satisfied with their job in general, things done on the job, pay, job security, and the ability to advance than other groups.  Where they experienced considerable dissatisfaction was with the current workload, number of hours worked and their schedule.  This is consistent with the fact that they reported working significantly more overtime than other groups (an average of 13.3 hours per week).  
Executives gave the most positive assessment of the work environment although less than one quarter felt their department was doing a good job of managing the environment overall.  They identified much more strongly with both their department and the Public Service as a whole than other employees.  They were significantly more committed to their department and the Public Service than other groups.  However, more executives reported thinking about leaving the Public Service and their scores on intent to turnover were equal to those of other groups.  Since this group is relatively satisfied with their work and the recognition that accompanies it, their willingness to consider leaving may be a function of the considerable opportunities for them in the labour market.  
Administrative and Foreign Service Personnel
The gaps between what employees wanted to achieve and what they believed was possible were greatest for administrative and foreign service personnel.  Salary issues and feelings of personal accomplishment were particularly problematic areas for this group.  Staff in these occupations were keenly interested in developmental opportunities such as special assignments and training.
Administrative and foreign service personnel had access to more training than the other groups but received an average amount of exposure to the other developmental opportunities.  Their use of most of the career strategies was also average.  There were, however, two strategies that were significantly less common in this group: working on high visibility projects and making a unique contribution.  
Career support for administrative and foreign service personnel was low, as it was for other groups.  They reported greater access to tuition reimbursement programs but less access to formal career discussions with a superior.  They were more likely than other groups to use job postings and career planning workshops but less likely to use assessments of career potential and career discussions with superiors when they were available.  
Administrative and foreign service staff were moderately satisfied with their career progress to date but only one third expected to meet their career goals within the Public Service.  Their overall job satisfaction was average but they were significantly less satisfied with pay than employees in other job groups.  
Assessments of the work environment by respondents in administrative and foreign service jobs were as negative as those provided by other groups with two exceptions: they were more negative than other groups regarding recruitment practices and the management of workforce diversity.  They identified more strongly with the department than with a profession or with the Public Service as whole.  Their scores on commitment and intent to turnover were average although fewer of these employees said they had thought about leaving the Public Service.  
Scientists and Professionals
Scientists and professionals were less interested than other employees in career advancement and financial rewards.  They also felt that career advancement was less available to them.  This view is consistent with the fact that they had the lowest rate of promotion of the three job groups examined.  The opportunities they sought were special work and training rather than advancement.  A significant minority (29%) expressed interest in taking a sabbatical.  
Scientists and professionals engaged in fewer career strategies.  They were significantly less likely to: develop a style that senior managers were comfortable with, pursue opportunities to gain line experience, move between departments, show that they aspire to increased responsibility, go beyond what is required by the job, indicate a willingness to relocate, or demonstrate confidence.  They experienced fewer developmental opportunities.  They received the least training, the least mentoring and the fewest stretch assignments.  
Like other employees, scientists and professionals reported receiving relatively little career support.  They had the same access as others to most career initiatives with the exception of tuition reimbursement.  They reported average levels of usage of career initiatives with the exception that they were less likely to use information on future career opportunities.  
Despite having received fewer promotions than other groups, scientists and professionals expressed average levels of satisfaction with their career progress and expectations of meeting future career goals.  And they expressed levels of job satisfaction comparable to other groups.  
Scientists and professional employees in the sample gave comparably negative assessments of the work environment overall and they were more negative on workload issues.  Unlike other job groups, they identified more strongly with their profession than with their department or the Public Service.  Their commitment to the Public Service was low although their turnover scores were not significantly different from average.  
General Conclusions
There are strong group differences in what respondents want and have experienced from their careers.  Those who have been promoted, women and executives were generally more satisfied.  Those who have not been promoted, men and those employed in administrative and foreign service, and scientific and professional jobs were less content.  There are, however, two caveats about these group generalizations which should be kept in mind.  First, although the data clearly support these differences on an aggregate group level, this does not mean that any particular employee shares the preferences of the group(s) of which he or she is a member.  Each employee’s goals and experiences are unique and must be understood as such in order to provide effective career support.  The second caveat is that while it is tempting to focus efforts to improve the situation on the groups who are most unhappy, it is important that the other groups not be neglected.  For example, although employees who have been promoted are relatively satisfied, there is still significant room for improvement and the organization would not want to risk losing valuable employees in whom they have invested considerable developmental resources.  Thus the concerns of all employees need to be considered.  
In aggregate, the results of the survey portray a group of employees who enjoy their work, are keen to learn new skills and are prepared to take on new challenges.  They believe they have done good work and gone beyond what was required of them.  They are, however, frustrated with a perceived lack of recognition for the work that they do.  The prevalent salary dissatisfaction may also be a reflection, in part, of concerns about recognition.  These frustrations have contributed to low levels of commitment and a high propensity to consider other employment.  
Respondents have given considerable thought to their career goals but report little understanding or support of these goals from their supervisors.  The organization is seen as providing even less support.  Respondents believe that responsibility for employee career development should be shared between the employee and the employer but they feel that they have been left to manage alone.  They want opportunities for growth and challenge but few have experienced them.  Those who have experienced significant developmental opportunities are much more satisfied and committed to the organization.  Developing the capacity to understand and address employees’ career development needs would seem to offer substantial benefits to the organization.  

FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 3
1	In a number of cases aggregate measures were compiled from a number of questions (for example, job satisfaction overall).  In these cases high scores were defined as greater than 3.5 on a 5-point scale, low scores as less than 2.5.  
2	Data supplied by Treasury Board.
3	See for instance Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and women of the corporation (New York: Basic Books); Tharenou, P & D. Conroy (1994), “Men and Women Managers’ Advancement: Personal or Situational Determinants?”  Applied Psychology: An International Review, 43 (1); or Ely, R.J. (1995), “The Power in Demography: Women’s Social Constructions of Gender Identity at Work.”  Academy of Management Journal, 38.
4	Armstrong, P. & Armstrong, H. (1994).  The double ghetto: Canadian women and their segregated work, Third edition.  Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd.
5	Cooper, W.H., Graham, W.J. & Dyke, L.S. (1993).  Tournament players.  In K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 11, (pp 83-132).  Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.  
6	Longenecker, C.O., Sims, H.P., & Gioia, D.A. (1987).  Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal.  Executive, 1, 183-193.
7	Stroh, L.K, J.M. Brett & A.H. Reilly (1992).  “All the Right Stuff: A Comparison of Female and Male Managers’ Career Progression,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 251-260.
8	Granrose, C.S.  and Portwood, J.S. (1987).  “Matching individual career plans and organizational career management.”  Academy of Management Journal, 30, (4). 699-720.
9	Orpen, C. (1994).  “The effects of organizational and individual career management on career success.”  International Journal of Manpower, 15 (1), 27-37.
10	Granrose, C.S. and Portwood, J.S. (1987).  “Matching individual career plans and organizational career management.”  Academy of Management Journal, 30, (4). 699-720.
11	Duxbury, L and Higgins, C. (1998).  Work-Life Balance in Saskatchewan: Realities and Challenges. Saskatoon: The Government of Saskatchewan.
12	Tuma, N.B. and Grimes, A.J. (1981).  “A comparison of models of role orientations of professionals in a research-oriented university.”  Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 187-206.

Chapter 4 - Career Development in Best Practice Organizations
Introduction
One of the ways progressive employers have sought to make improvements in their people management is through benchmarking their practices against the progress of other firms.  Benchmarking embodies the idea that it is possible to examine the best practices of other organizations and then implement changes based on these observations.  Fitz-Enz1, the guru of benchmarking, formally defines benchmarking as a “continuous systematic process for evaluating business practice and organizations that are recognized as examples of best-in-class through organizational comparison”.  He views it as an iterative, investigative process that seeks out high performers in order to learn how they have achieved exceptional results.  Initially associated with manufacturing processes, benchmarking has expanded rapidly and is now applied as a tool for collecting data to improve essentially any organizational process including administration, service delivery etc.  
This chapter of the report profiles seven Canadian organizations on the leading edge of career development.  The purpose of studying best practice companies is to learn from them.  In this study, it is hoped that the lessons learned from the best-in-class career management and career development companies will help the public sector reflect on their own practices in the area.  It should also allow Public Service policy makers to identify, define and refine a set of career development processes and practices that will contribute to organizational success and employee growth.  
Methodology
Fourteen organizations were identified and in-depth interviews were held with individual(s) responsible for career management and career development programs in each organization.  The employers featured in this phase of the study were selected on the basis of their outstanding reputations in the Canadian career management arena.  The organizations were chosen on the basis of having been profiled or identified as “best-in-class”, progressive organizations (e.g. one of Financial Post’s 100 best companies to work for in Canada, a government department with a reputation of innovative programs in the area).  
The interviews were conducted by one researcher to ensure consistency across interviews.  Information was obtained through in-depth personal interviews, written policy summaries, guidelines and other material provided by our contact people.  Although a structured script consisting of 26 questions was prepared for each interview, the perspectives of these organizations proved so diverse that it was decided that more insights could be obtained if the researcher did not limit the respondents to particular topics but instead encouraged them to explore what they deemed to be critical.  On average, each individual interview lasted at least three hours.  Many of the organizations were very generous with their time.  For some organizations, several individuals responsible for different aspects of the career development system were interviewed, each spending on average two to three hours with the researcher.  Not only were the participants cooperative, they were also candid, informative and comprehensive, and provided extensive documentation for reference purposes.  
Of the fourteen organizations, eight were private sector companies: Alcan Aluminium, Bank of Montreal, Bell Canada, Hewlett-Packard Canada, IBM Canada, Pratt & Whitney, Royal Bank, and Xerox Canada; one was a crown corporation: Business Development Bank of Canada; and five were public sector organizations: Health Canada, National Research Council, Statistics Canada, Treasury Board of Canada, and the Ontario Public Service.  
Due to page limits to this report, only seven of these organizations (Alcan, Bank of Montreal, Health Canada, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Royal Bank, and Statistics Canada)will be profiled in this chapter of the report.  The other organizations will be profiled in upcoming reports.  The following discussion will attempt to provide for each organization: (1) a brief organizational profile, (2) “critical success factors” and performance drivers that may have helped make career development initiatives work for these organizations and their employees, and (3) characteristics of the career development system that make each of these best-practice organizations unique.  The chapter ends with a summary of the lessons to be learned from these organizations and a concluding discussion of critical success factors.
Alcan Aluminium Limited
Alcan Aluminium Limited, a Canadian corporation, is the parent company of an international group involved in all aspects of the aluminum industry.  Through subsidiaries and related companies around the world, the activities of the Alcan Group include bauxite mining, alumina refining, power generation, aluminum smelting, manufacturing and recycling as well as research and technology.  Approximately 33,000 people are directly employed by the Company, with thousands more employed in its related companies.  With operations and sales offices in more than 30 countries, the Alcan Group is one of the most international aluminum companies as well as the largest producer of flat-rolled aluminum products.  The word ALCAN and the Alcan symbol are registered trademarks in more than 100 countries and are synonymous with aluminum the world over (Annual Report, 1997).
Succession Management and Leadership Development at Alcan
“Alcan recognizes that the conduct and effectiveness of an organization are highly dependent upon the quality of the people who compose it.” (Alcan, Its Purpose, Objectives and Policies)
Having recognized that the quality of people is critical to the long-term viability and success of Alcan, the company has implemented a Succession Management and Leadership Development Process (SM&LD) throughout the company to ensure that Alcan has high quality, strong leadership over time.  Viewed as a business priority, managers at all levels of the organization have been asked by top management to take ownership of the process and champion its application in their respective environments.  
A reduction in the pool of professional talent and the number of development opportunities due to divestment and cost reduction programs, significant turnover of senior managers in the coming years, and anticipated industry changes are among the “business drivers” that point to the need to have a consistent, structured approach to:
•	develop competent leaders; and 
•	ensure timely replacement of key people to meet future business objectives and strategies.  
The career development process at ALCAN is intended to:
•	identify, develop and promote high potential employees into leadership positions,
•	ensure leadership continuity; 
•	retain key company talent; 
•	maximize and diversify the pool of candidates; 
•	help employees grow personally and advance professionally; and 
•	strengthen organizational capability to respond quickly to changing requirements.  
It is focused on both the long and the short term needs of the organization and is aimed at implementing business strategy.
The Process
The SM&LD process is a ten-step sequence:
1)	Leadership development and succession management are both driven by a competency-based assessment process.
2)	Employee performance is assessed at least annually against set objectives, generic skills and competency profiles by immediate supervisors with the employee’s contribution.  This is considered the key element in the process and the foundation that will provide input into the other components of the system.  
3)	Feedback is provided to the employee regarding his/her potential for advancement and career prospects.
4)	The employee communicates his/her career interests, aspirations, mobility, etc.  At least once a year, the supervisor will have a formal discussion with the employee and listen to what the employee has to say regarding career development.  
5)	A specific development plan is then defined in accordance with previous career discussions.
6)	Information on performance management review, highlighting high potential employees, is shared in the “skills group exercise” starting at the business unit/plant level up to the corporate level.
This phase is where Alcan’s process begins to be fairly unique.  In line with its “bottom-up and top-down” principle underlying succession management, a “people review process” is facilitated through a skills group structure (see Figure 4.1).  At every level, managers will get together (with a sponsor from senior management) and share with their peers information on their subordinates’ performance.  Through this process, high potential employees are brought to the attention of every level, up to the CEO.   The skills groups typically meet once a year for this purpose, although sometimes they meet more often.  It is the intention of the organization to identify high potential employees as early as possible (at entry level), and to have as wide a pool of candidates as possible to develop and promote into leadership positions.  (The last two out of three chief executive officers of the company were identified in their late 20s or very early 30s and were promoted to very senior level jobs in their early 40s.)  
7)	Decisions regarding action plans related to succession management and leadership development are taken within the skills group process.  Managers may submit a development plan for an individual, and the skills group will discuss and make decisions on specific actions, be it transfer by a certain date, an expatriate assignment, enrollment in the high profile Corporate Management Development Program, or other development activity deemed appropriate by the skills group.  (At very senior levels, the skills group members are international.)
8)	An automated process tracks employees with detailed profiles, a record of achievements and competencies, and development plans.  The data are accessible to Alcan units around the world.  Consistent with the global nature of the company, the view of a high potential’s career is based world-wide, and succession planning is often global in nature, with someone in North America potentially succeeding someone in Europe, for example.  The whole SM&LD process and specific elements are detailed in the company intranet for world-wide accessibility.
9)	An on-going people review process, at least quarterly, is in place in all operating units/companies at senior management level.  A “people advisory committee” will spend one day every quarter, following up and implementing decisions that have been made.  
10)	As part of the annual five year business plan review, a people plan is presented and reviewed with the CEO.  This is required of every business sector and every operating unit.  The people plan is a comprehensive document which includes skills mapping, identification of critical skills in different areas, skills availability, and international skills exchange.  It provides a report on, among other things, employee profiles, recruitment actions, training and development activities, gaps in staffing or expertise, development plans and succession plans.  The CEO, with input from Alcan businesses around the world, and assistance of the VP HR, will consolidate the information from these reports into a presentation to the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors.  He will also present to the Board succession plans for all the jobs reporting to him.  (Figure 4.2) 

Since Alcan is a very decentralized company which is also “decentralized culturally” with divisions operating historically with autonomy, Alcan has provided all its managers around the world with guidelines to follow in relation to the SM&LD process.  This is to ensure all business sectors will use similar/linked processes while taking into account their organizational and cultural context.  Employees are fully informed of the SM&LD process and the related responsibilities of all stakeholders in the process.  The roles and responsibilities of line managers, HR, the employees and even that of the CEO in the SM&LD process have been clearly delineated.  While the employee has to take primary responsibility for his/her own career planning and development, the process is owned and driven by line management in that they are accountable for the successful implementation and follow-up of SM&LD activities within their area/sector.  To support and underscore the idea that the SM&LD process is a priority, managers are evaluated and rewarded for their efforts to develop talent.  Performance bonus is contingent on assisting with career planning, and a basic criterion used in promotion decisions is: Did the manager develop his/her people well?
There is strong support for developmental activities at Alcan.  A host of training and developmental opportunities and programs is available that addresses different employee populations.  There are internal, external, international, and a variety of corporate programs aimed at young potential employees as well as their “solid citizens”.  There is also a successful mentoring program.  
Measurements are taken to monitor the success of the SM&LD process.  Among them are:
•	percentage of senior positions filled from within (75% to 85% should be the target)
•	percentage of high potential employees who have specific development plans
•	how many of those identified as high potential employees for senior positions have left the company in a given year and how many have been promoted
•	the “hit-rate” (2/3 of positions should be filled by people on the back up list)
“What will make the difference if this company will make it or not is not the machines; we can buy the machines.  All our competitors have the same machines.  Leadership will make the difference.”
Bank of Montreal
Bank of Montreal is a highly diversified financial services institution offering a full range of services in all three NAFTA countries.  With Harris Bank, its wholly-owned subsidiary in the United States, Nesbitt Burns, and in alliance with Grupo Financiero Bancomer, its partner in Mexico, it has developed a continental banking platform that provides personal and commercial banking, institutional banking, corporate banking and investment banking in each market.  In all, it has 45 lines of business, and 1850 sites globally.  It has approximately 40,000 employees in its Canadian, U.S. and international operations, not including all subsidiaries or Mexico.
Executive Development and Career Management
The Bank of Montreal has been identifying its top talent for many years.  Within the last year they have introduced an initiative entitled “top talent management.”  This framework was put in place to: 
•	identify high potential employees (the top 5%-10% performers), and 
•	more actively and proactively manage this population in terms of development and career progression.
The Bank recognizes these individuals are “corporate resources”, and feels that more concerted effort is needed to “lead them across the enterprise”.  The Bank also understands that top talent management also means “a lot of attention” to ensure that these individuals are happy and understand that they are valued.
“What we don’t want is the top talent getting in, doing everything for themselves, and leaving....We need to reward them, to provide them with the opportunities....”  
Bank of Montreal
“....a significant part of career management, in my opinion, is trying to understand whether this is the industry that you want to be employed in.  So, it goes all the way from “let’s have a conversation, or provide you with some tools and information to understand the evolution of this industry and the opportunities in it” to “you made a commitment, you do understand this is where you want to be.  Let’s talk about specific jobs and about how our career might progress through those various jobs....”
“...(at the Bank), the focus is very much on individuals being responsible for their careers.  The employer’s obligation is to make sure the tools are there, know what the competencies are, know how they’re going to be measured, know the direction of the company, understand the business...”
“It’s a joint responsibility, but really at the end of the day, it’s the employee who will gather the information.  We provide the tools and have the discussions.”
“As much as possible, the learning takes place on the job.  It’s also the most effective adult learing: when you’re learning from experience.”
“Employees can’t make decisions if they’re not aware of the competencies, what the needs are, what the skills are.”
“Our chairman, our president, and our senior corporate management committee see the value in human capital.  And having seen the capital creates the opportunity for the corporate human resources function to come forward with some best-in-class practices.  I would be shocked if an HR function could be considered best-in-class in a number of things if they didn’t have a corporate executive committee that thinks that human capital is pretty important.”
The Bank is also working very hard at moving away from the propensity to stick to senior management levels and is attempting to “dig deeper into the organization and identify our top talent early in their careers so we can accelerate their progression and development.”
Identification of high potential employees is typically done by  immediate managers with confirmation occurring at least on a skip-level and frequently on a panel-skip-level basis.  Top talent emanating from a division would typically be the senior management ranks.  The divisional executive team would review the nominations to the top talent pool.
The Bank of Montreal firmly believes that there is a co-responsibility for development, placement, and utilization of its key resources.  Employees are responsible for their careers, but the organization must provide the tools and the necessary support.  For the executive group, however, they are “much more hands-on managed....around career moves.”  The executive group is assessed on an annual basis with respect to the succession planning process, performance, and development.  Executives are specifically assessed on eight broad categories of managerial leadership competencies in addition to the targets or goals established for the year.  Through interviews, career aspirations are discussed as well as possible placement opportunities and options.  Developmental needs are addressed by assessing the best course of action to take.  Options include formal courses, the executive development program, project assignments, a lateral move, a task force assignment or other developmental experiences.  
Executive Resources, as the name implies, is the group within the Bank of Montreal which is responsible for the recruitment, promotion and placement of the executive group.  This group is involved in performance discussions, and in the identification of developmental action plans.  It is responsible for undertaking the succession planning process on behalf of the chairman of the Bank and president of the board, in consultation with the senior executives who will ultimately confirm or not confirm the performance ratings and the succession.  This assessment then goes to the president and chairman of the Bank for a final decision.
Bank of Montreal’s Career Development Tools
A host of tools are available at the Bank of Montreal to assist employees’ understanding of the opportunities available, the developmental requirements, and the support available to meet these requirements.
The tools that have been created for specific job families are referred to as Personal Development Assessment and Planning Guides, a four-in-one tool.  They exist for each of the 16 job families (70 different roles) within Personal & Commercial Financial Services (PCFS).  Some of these tools are in paper form, while others are moving into electronic form.  In each guide are all the jobs in the family, (i.e. a career progression model).  Fully articulated are the key activities, performance, skill and knowledge requirements for the jobs, with an assessment scale on the requirements.  An individual can see the minimum performance requirements as he/she moves through the tiers, and the behavioural competencies required.  An individual can assess him/herself against these requirements, and thereby gain a better understanding of what is expected and how to achieve it.  The personal development maps provide a graphic guide to all the performance expectations for a role, helping the individual identify strengths and developmental needs.  Combined with the progression model, the maps help the individual to go through the following type of assessment:
“If I’m at this level, and my career aspiration is to end up at that level, I know what the performance requirements are, what the developmental requirements are...”
After going through the above process, the individual can then complete a personal development plan which provides a detailed guide to the high-priority development actions to be undertaken.  While this is a self-assessment exercise, the employee’s manager/ leader acts as a coach during the assessment and development process.  The leader is expected to understand the individual’s performance expectations, engage in ongoing, meaningful conversations with the candidate, provide learning opportunities and recognize and reward the individual’s efforts.  A Leader’s Summary Assessment Workbook is available to help leaders perform their role in this regard.  
The Bank launched a campaign of “cascading communication”, or information roll-out, one and a half years ago to ensure that employees were aware of what tools were available within the Bank to support career development and what the Bank expected from the employee with respect to career development requirements.  Workshops of one to two days duration, over a four-month period, were organized across the country to introduce the materials.  A group of facilitators across the country were trained to deliver them.  The Workforce Development Unit in corporate HR worked in conjunction with the facilitators to ensure that everyone was hearing the same, consistent message.  
Not only does Bank of Montreal provide career development assessment tools, they also provide a wide variety of  supports to employees with respect to career development.  Examples of such supports include classroom learning, action learning, assignments, projects, conferences, workshops, and mentoring.  The Bank has also invested heavily in training to give its employees the opportunities they seek for continuous learning, skills enhancement and career advancement.  In 1997, the Bank spent more than $65 million to offer employees an average of 6.6 training days per person through the course of the year.  More than 70% of this training occurred outside the traditional classroom setting.  
The Bank’s Institute for Learning (IFL) in Toronto offers more than 70 individual courses in four major areas: leadership and change; marketing, sales & services; lending, corporate finance and capital markets; and technology.  While the IFL serves as the learning centre for Bank employees around the world, employee training activities are conducted in every part of the Bank’s operations.  Through its distributed learning programs, recently augmented by its interactive learning services, the Bank also offers a comprehensive range of internal and external learning and performance support materials to employees wherever and whenever they are needed.
Other approaches are also employed to meet the Bank’s learning needs.  In 1997, for example, two programs in support of building the core competencies of the Operations Group were designed in alliance with external partners.  Alliances are also formed with universities, such as Boston University and the University of Waterloo, to provide programs which focus on building skills critical to project management and the rapid learning of new technology applications (Annual Report, 1997).  At last count, the Bank had approximately 7,000 employees registered with the Institute of Canadian Bankers (ICB) in a variety of courses.
The Bank also has a “Possibility Centre”, the equivalent of a career management centre or career resource centre.  Staffed with four consultants and a manager, it is essentially an information dissemination centre.  Through a 1-800 number, it provides information ranging from career choices, resume writing, networking, interviewing, IFL courses and programs, to information on “the direction in which the Bank is heading”.  It will find specific information requested by individuals or refer them to people and resources.  It is also a source for books, audios and videos related to career issues.  
At the present time the “end-state”of the career development process is accreditation (i.e. assessment — development — accreditation).  Accreditation represents the minimum standard of performance an employee is required to meet.  It is also the process by which the Bank confirms that an employee has learned and is consistently demonstrating the knowledge, skills and behaviours that are fundamental to his/her role.  When an individual feels he or she has: 
•	filled the gaps identified through the assessment phase; 
•	attended all required courses; 
•	mastered all the required computer managed tests; and 
•	had an opportunity to apply the learned skills, knowledge and behaviours; 
he/she prepares and undergoes the final behaviour-focused accreditation interview with a skip-level accreditor.  Following the successful interview, the accreditor then recommends salary and/or grade action.  This will signify a milestone in the career of the individual who is now poised to move on to another cycle of assessment — development — accreditation.  
Two years ago it was decided that this cycle of assessment — development —accreditation should be consistent across job families.  In other words, all employees would use the same methodology and approach with respect to career development: only the content would vary.  This consistency  would allow the Bank to measure, using the accreditation levels, “who is where in the process.”
Another “tool” in the career management process is the job posting system.  Bank of Montreal has a well developed career information network distributed through the computer system.  All jobs are posted, even ones that are filled, “so everyone can see what’s going on in the Bank”.  Jobs that have “prime candidate identified” are also posted, signifying that there will be competition for the job for any interested qualified candidates.  The Bank believes that people need information about jobs (i.e. need to know what the roles and responsibilities, learning requirements and qualifications are for the various jobs as well as knowing what opportunities are available).  Coupled with the assessment tools, the job posting system gives the Bank’s employees food for thought on career development actions to take or career avenues to pursue.  
Health Canada
Health Canada is a department of the federal Public Service whose mission is to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health.  Its mandate is to provide excellent service in the area of health.  Its goals are: 
•	foster active health system partnerships with provinces, territories and others; 
•	develop a more effective health intelligence network; 
•	improve knowledge management and dissemination and evidence-based decision making; 
•	give increased priority to initiatives that redress the most significant health inequalities in Canada;
•	develop a renewed relationship with First Nations; and 
•	provide leadership on health promotion, disease prevention and health strategies.  
Health Canada has seven Branches (Health Promotion and Programs; Health Protection; Medical Services; Policy and Consultation; Corporate Services; Home Care Developments; Information, Analysis and Connectivity) and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.  It is represented in four regions throughout Canada: Atlantic, Quebec, Central and West.  Health Canada has a grand total of 6,676 employees across its numerous (over 800) sites across Canada.  Approximately 54% are in the National Capital Region.
The Learning Culture at Health Canada
Health Canada considers that learning and development activities which are aimed at enhancing knowledge and skills are a priority and an essential business investment that contribute to the attainment of departmental objectives and employee career goals.  
“Out of the upheaval of restructuring and reengineering of recent years has emerged the recognition that organizations need to concentrate more on maximizing employee potential to achieve corporate results.  Even in a weak economy, investing in employee development is critical to enhancing productivity, because superior performance requires superior learning.”  (New Orientations for Learning at Health Canada, 1996).
In the early 90’s, significant elements were put in place to support the emergence of a learning organization and to inculcate a learning culture at Health Canada.  In 1993, Health Canada defined its framework and vision for continuous learning in a Strategic Learning Policy.  To reinforce its commitment to learning and self-development, it introduced the concept of “learning days” which formally recognizes the need for employee development and encourages managers to more openly support learning and self-development.  In the latest 1998 Strategic Learning and Development Policy, Health Canada has targeted an average of five working days per employee annually for all general learning and development activities.  Activities included under this rubric range from on-the-job training to computer-assisted learning, classroom training, conferences, workshops, seminars and developmental assignments.  These five days are in addition to travel time, attendance at mandatory management training programs, and language training.  The average number of training days for Health Canada and other federal departments is approximately 3.5 days annually.
Health Canada also recognizes that management and employees have a shared responsibility in identifying, planning and following up on learning and development activities, and clearly delineates them for employees, supervisors and managers.  Employees are responsible for their own learning and development.  Employees are expected to:
•	assess their own career and learning needs and discuss them with their supervisor;
•	identify and propose activities to achieve their learning and development goals; 
•	strive to continuously upgrade their skills and knowledge and seek out learning and development opportunities and expertise to attain their goals; and 
•	apply learnings on the job and share them with co-workers.  
It is the responsibility of supervisors and managers to support employee learning and development.  Besides regularly discussing and identifying the learning and development needs of their employees, they are to:
•	establish annual Learning and Development plans for them; 
•	link the plans to the Performance Discussion and Operational Planning processes;
•	commit funds for learning and development and protect approved training budgets; 
•	create learning and development opportunities within their organization; and
•	allow time for employees to participate in learning activities and to apply their learnings upon their return to work.  
Since the inception of the Strategic Learning Initiatives in 1993, major department courses were developed and introduced nationally at Health Canada.  The Learning for Leadership program has been the flagship of the continuous learning culture at Health Canada.  It is a mandatory program to develop leadership skills throughout the Department.  For non-supervisory staff, the Learning for Tomorrow program has been the main instrument of developmental initiatives.  The Management of Change programs, offered to all employees, are designed to help managers and employees deal with the evolving requirements and demands of the new Public Service workplace.  In 1997, eight learning areas (i.e. strategic thinking, business management, new technologies, quality service delivery, portable skills, leading change, modern leadership and effective work team) were identified in a New Orientations for Learning initiative and programs offered.
A major achievement for Health Canada has been the establishment of eight regional learning centres across the country to promote the self-development of employees.  This national network of learning centres is probably unique in the federal Public Service.  An array of services is offered to clients: technology training facilities, loan-out of training equipment, information and advisory services and contemporary collections of self-learning items.  Each centre is also able to offer specific services based on the needs of the region.  In the last year, more than 8,000 of these resources (books, audios, videos and coursewares) were used by Health Canada employees to develop new skills and competencies. 
The total cost for Health Canada of the various services and programs related to continuous learning has been approximately $3 million annually (excluding technical training and training purchased outside of the Department by individual managers and employees), “a reasonable and cost efficient investment”.  The Department spends approximately 3.1% of its salary budget on learning and development.
Career Management and Development
Health Canada plays an active role in assisting its employees in managing their careers.  Its Career Centre, working in partnership with the Learning Centres, is a focal point for career management services.  After three years in operation, it has been recognized as a leader in the area of career management in the Public Service.  It offers a range of group and individual services as well as programs designed to help employees make informed choices.  It provides confidential career counselling to help clarify skills, interests and values, and to assist employees in formulating action plans and job search strategies.  Professional career counsellors travel extensively to provide service across the country to all the regions, including remote locations.  In 1997-98, 1,500 counselling sessions were conducted with approximately 700 employees across Canada.  It also offers a variety of workshops, including career planning, resume writing, and preparing for interviews.  More than 1,350 participants attended career related workshops in the last year.  All employees also have access to a variety of books, videos, interactive software, workbooks, and assessment tools.  
Career Development Programs
Health Canada has a range of formal development programs.  Some of them are Public Service wide programs, while several are designed and implemented within the Department.  
Management Trainee Program (MTP)
The Management Trainee Program is a Public Service Commission program, intended to create a pool of candidates likely to enter middle management positions.  The four-year program recruits master-level university graduates as well as candidates from the Public Service who have Bachelors and/or Masters.  Health Canada normally has approximately 13-14 trainees in the program.  
Career Assignment Program (CAP)
 The Career Assignment Program is a Public Service Commission program of up to four years.  It is an integrated management development program encompassing selection, education and assignments.  CAP provides a representative group of employees, identified as having executive potential, with the opportunity to broaden their experience, prove their managerial ability and develop a strong corporate vision.  It is open to candidates with employment at the middle management level with managerial aspirations who usually have five or more years employment at the middle management level.  Currently, there are 15 participants from Health Canada in the program.  
Interchange Canada (IC)
Another Public Service Commission developmental program open to Health Canada employees is Interchange Canada (IC).  It promotes and facilitates the exchange of employees between the Public Service and organizations in other sectors located in Canada, such as the private sector, various levels of government, Crown corporations, unions, academic institutions and non-profit organizations.  It is open to public servants in all groups and levels, who have been appointed on an indeterminate (permanent) basis and who have obtained a commitment from their departments to sponsor them on an assignment.
Health Canada also participates in Public Service programs for senior executives such as the Accelerated EX Development Program.
In addition to the above, Health Canada has several of its own development programs:
Pas de deux
Pas de deux offers employees a chance to expand their horizons and learn about other areas of Health Canada.  It has two components: Shadowing and Exchange, both aimed at helping employees acquire new knowledge, experience and skills.  
In the Shadow experience, the employee follows the “host” through his/her daily routine, attends meetings and helps out where needed.  It is a unique opportunity to exchange ideas, learn new skills and to make new contacts.  Shadowing is for a period of one to five days.  The Exchange involves two employees temporarily switching functions, allowing them to explore new career opportunities and to broaden their knowledge of the Department.  Exchanges are for a period of between one week to three months.  
Mentoring
Employees who wish to explore career options in a more serious manner are able to obtain the assistance of a seasoned manager who will provide advice on career strategies, training and learning experiences in support of career goals, share career experiences, and uncover career opportunities in the organization.  Employees will be asked to identify clearly their expectations from a mentoring relationship so that an appropriate mentor can be identified.  Once the initial contact has been established, the employees are then responsible for managing the ongoing relationship.  A training program is offered to mentors and potential mentors to learn how to effectively carry out their roles and responsibilities.
Long Term Educational Leave
Health Canada supports Long Term Educational Leave as an important element in providing the specialized knowledge and skills required to meet strategic priorities of the Department.  An approved absence from normal duties consists of a period of 65 days or more, to a maximum of three years, or expenditures in excess of $25,000 including the employee’s salary and has the purpose of allowing the employee to attend full time courses at a university, technical college or institute of learning.  It is not intended for general education upgrading.  
In support of La Relève, the federal government’s initiative and call to action and commitment to human resources management, Health Canada is implementing three new programs to assist employees in their development.  Successful completion of the programs do not automatically ensure a promotion, but will greatly enhance the likelihood of the participants being ready to compete for higher level positions.
La Relève Management Development Program (LRMDP)
Is an expansion across Canada of the Health Protection Branch’s Management Development Program established three years ago.  The aim of the program is to develop a diversified, highly trained and competent management cadre for Health Canada.  In addition to the objective of management development, the program also aims to contribute to achieving an equitable representation of designated groups and both official language groups.  One-quarter of program seats will be set aside and allocated to employees in a visible minority group.  Participation of other designated group members is also closely monitored.  
The program encompasses nomination, selection, learning and assignments.  It is designed to provide opportunities in 1998-99 for a maximum of eight employees in the Scientific and Professional category, at the EX minus two level in the national capital region (NCR) and at the EX minus two and three levels in the Regions.  A period of three years is given to develop the necessary management experience and competencies to reach management or EX positions.  
The Learning Phase consists of required “structured learning”.  The participants must complete a learning plan for the duration of the program.  The learning plan should include the competencies that participants intend to be working to improve, the types of assignments, and other formal and informal learning activities.  Participants must attend Health Canada’s Learning for Leadership Program, and develop a mentoring relationship.
The purpose of the Assignment Phase is to give participants managerial experience within the branches/agency and regions of Health Canada.  These assignments help enhance managerial skills and competencies.  Assignments with other organizations, within and outside the Public Service, are also considered.  Through a variety of meaningful, well-matched work assignments, participants apply, test and expand on their knowledge, abilities and managerial skills.
La Relève Development Program for Intermediate Level Staff
The new program’s aim is to develop individuals in intermediate level positions who have demonstrated potential for advancement by providing them with the opportunity to develop new competencies, broaden their experience, develop a strong corporate vision and start acquiring supervisory skills through a series of challenging work assignments and instructional training.
It is a two-year maximum program, intended to develop competencies such as: innovation, leadership, accountability, problem solving, client focus, ethics, flexibility, team work and communication.  Employees  in intermediate level positions can apply.  The Learning Phase includes the mandatory course Learning for Leadership.  An individual can include in his/her individual development plan other learning programs dealing with problem solving, strategic thinking, people management, etc.  All participants have a mentor, identified through Health Canada’s mentoring program, and have access to career management services.
The Assignment Phase includes up to two one-year assignments or up to four six-month assignments, in various branches of the Department.  
La Relève Development Program for Junior Staff
The purpose of this new program is to enhance the abilities of employees in junior level positions who have demonstrated the potential for advancement.  The one-year program is designed to provide participants with opportunities to acquire additional marketable skills through learning activities and assignments, and develop competencies that have been identified in the New Orientations to Learning (e.g.  team work, communication, client focus and technical skills).  
Employees in the Administrative Support category or an entry level officer position can apply to the program.  The Learning Phase of the program consists of both formal and informal learning opportunities.  Participants must take the Learning for Tomorrow program which introduces participants to the Department’s culture, values, and key valued competencies.  This program was also designed to enhance skills and knowledge in strategic partnerships, communication, analysis, and individual self-reliance.  Other learning programs based on an individual development plan could include: writing skills, courses in finance and contract administration, career management workshops, informatics courses, etc.  All participants have a mentor and access to career management services.
The Assignment Phase can include a one-year work assignment or two six-month assignments in various branches of the Department where participants can apply, test and expand on their knowledge, skills and competencies.  In consideration of  regional participants, assignments within and outside the Public Service are considered.
In 1998-99, the two development programs for intermediate and junior staff will be piloted in the Health Promotion and Programs Branch.  
Other Initiatives
Through the commitment and support of its senior management, Health Canada has played a key role in building partnerships with other federal departments and other levels of government interested in working together in the areas of learning and development.  These partnerships now total more than fifty across Canada.  The collaboration has enabled the partnering organizations to offer “enhanced services to employees at a lesser cost”, and facilitated the development of shared programs and systems (such as a regional course registration system and the delivery of technology training at the regional level), and exchange of information and resources.  
“In a learning organization, the development of skills and knowledge must take on many forms so that learning can truly become pervasive and part of the organization culture.”  
Health Canada has introduced numerous learning methodologies to ensure that learning goes beyond the classroom and is a day-to-day occurrence (e.g. lunch-time sessions on a wide range of subjects, assignments, one-on-one coaching/counselling, self-learning, video presentations, open-concept learning, computer-based training, official and international language training).  Organized career discussion sessions with senior management can be quite informative.  To launch the sessions, the Deputy Minister was invited to discuss her career with employees, “the kind of jobs she’d had, the obstacles, how difficult or easy it was for her to find this work”.  This approach  worked very well and currently three or four sessions are held a year where senior managers in the NCR can talk to employees about their careers.  This benefits managers as well as employees as they become more involved in career and developmental activities.  Linkages with senior managers are maintained and they see the benefits of the learning and development initiatives.
To ensure accessibility, especially to employees in remote locations, paper and electronic versions of calendars of courses as well as the catalogue of self-learning materials are available.  Computer-based versions of key corporate courses such as Learning for Tomorrow have also been developed.  They have also tried innovative approaches such as establishing, on a pilot basis, a live camera link with the Learning Centre of a partner organization to better serve clients at both locations.
It should be noted that regions have their own successful initiatives.  One of the major accomplishments of the Quebec region, for example, is the launch of a new career management initiative, “Défi Carrière: je prends La Relève”.  It is aimed at providing employees with feedback on their potential, promoting employee learning and development, increasing employees’ occupational mobility and helping employees take charge of their career.  In the fall of 1997, the Ontario region launched its virtual Learning Centre which allows Health Canada employees from across the province to electronically identify their learning needs and to access various learning and career development services and resources.  
As can be seen, Health Canada is positioning itself in the Public Service as a leader in the areas of learning and development.  The many programs and services it offers have:
“contributed to make Health Canada an employer of choice in the Public Service and a forerunner with respect to the La Relève initiative.”  
One of the main reasons for its success in the learning and development area is senior management’s vision and support.  
“...The Department has always been very supportive of employee development, in terms of not only saying it is important, but also allocating money....We have been very fortunate in terms of resources, in terms of support from senior management...” 
Workshops are funded, 
“so people don’t have to pay....if they were not funded, then managers will have to pay for employees to attend these courses, and then attendance wouldn’t be as high as it is now...it’s just time off for the employees...”  
A continuous learning vision cannot be sustained if it is not supported.
Health Canada
“Career development is not only there when there is a crisis, when there are cuts, when there is downsizing.  It’s a lifelong process.....So don’t establish a career centre because we’re going to get cut.  Please establish one because there are long-term benefits to having one.”
“People spend more time planning their RRSPs than planning their career.....We have to educate the population that career planning is an on-going process.”	

Hewlett-Packard Canada
Hewlett-Packard Company designs, manufactures and services products and systems for measurement, computation and communications.  Its basic business purpose is to create information products that accelerate the advancement of knowledge and improve the effectiveness of people and organizations.  The company’s products and services are used in industry, business, engineering, science, medicine and education in more than 120 countries.  Hewlett-Packard Canada has been in operation for 36 years.  It has 1,700 employees, and has 22 sites across Canada.
The HP Way
To understand career management and career development at Hewlett-Packard, one must have a good understanding of the culture of the organization.  The founders’ philosophy has made indelible marks on the company and the values they espouse are at the foundation of every action, policy and practice in the organization.  “Strategies and practices may change, but the values remain.” Candidates for hire, for example, are screened and evaluated on whether they have values similar to the HP Way as well as on their technical skills and qualifications.  
So what is the HP Way?  It consists of three components: Values, Objectives and Practices.
At Hewlett-Packard, employees are valued and respected.  The motto has always been “...that men and women want to do a good job, a creative job, and when provided with a proper environment they will do so.”  It strives to be “the best company to work for”, and employees seem to agree.  Employees work long hours because they have objectives to achieve.  People volunteer for many projects beyond their normal load because they want to stretch, to learn, to contribute, to grow.  There are recreation sites around the world, scholarships for employees’ children, breakfasts (with unlimited variety), and coffee and tea are free to every employee every day throughout the year.  As was noted during the interview:
“We have the range of normal benefits, but the company does a whole bunch of other little things to make the environment extra.” 
The career message is “employee owned, manager supported”.  Careers are the employees’ own responsibility, and managers are there to support them.  It would be paternalistic and contrary to the culture to have someone telling employees that “you need to do this or that...It’s like ‘father knows best’...It has a ring to it that would not be good in HP...”  While no one says “we ought to give you this additional experience”, individuals do in fact take on “an incredible amount of things.”  Individuals know that if they are not continuing to develop, they are not going to be viable candidates for even their own jobs because the jobs are changing so quickly.
Within HP, there are no levels2 and no titles.  There is no vice president, assistant vice president, or senior vice president.  Even the CEO and president of HP Canada is just a “country manager” within HP.  Inside HP, you are either a manager or an individual contributor, and people move in and out of those roles easily.  In such a climate, the concept of career takes on a whole different meaning.  People worry more about “doing a decent job, doing something fun and interesting, and really making a contribution.” 
Values	Objectives	Practices	
Trust and respect for individuals
High level of achievement and contribution
Conduct a business with uncompromising integrity
Achieve outcomes and objectives through teamwork
Courage, flexibility and innovation	Profit
Customers
Fields of interest
Growth
Our people
Management
Citizenship	Management by wandering around
Management by objectives
Open door policy
Total quality control	

Hoshin
Career development flows out of the business plan and out of “Hoshin”, the breakthrough strategy.  Both business objectives and Hoshin are established at the top, and flow down to each business unit or team.  There are two primary areas in the Hoshin, one relating to customers, the other to HP’s people.  The Hoshin for people is that HP wants to be “the best place to work”, and strives to obtain this goal through a focus on development, diversity and work life balance.  
With the broad parameters from the top, business plans are developed in the business units, and implementation plans are developed for them, and for the breakthrough strategies in the Hoshin.  It puts simultaneous emphasis on “getting the work done” and “achieving new breakthroughs” in regards to customers and people.  Through Hoshins, the “wheels are put into motion” and there is “a lot of rallying around the areas of emphasis” (e.g. to achieve new things in making HP the best place to work).  There is recognition that they are “part and parcel of everybody’s lives and you have to do something about it.”  Everybody is accountable and responsible for development, for diversity, and for work life balance; there is no “waiting for corporate to roll out something”, “for experts somewhere to tell us what to do”.  “You can’t cop out and say we need that group or the corporate group or the local support group to go away and figure it out and then tell us the answer and we’ll implement it.”  Everyone has a stake, not just the experts.  It focuses employees, moving everyone in the same direction, but with built-in flexibility as to what’s practical within their framework or operation.  
Hewlett-Packard
“It’s a very open environment, and it’s a culture that’s full of Bill and Dave stories.”
 “...in HP you can practically create a job for yourself...you know you can look for unmet needs  which your skills would satisfy;...that provides opportunities...”
“...No one decides (on who’s targeted for career development)....it is where is the business going, what is the business need, what needs to happen right now....so managers pay most attention to developing people for the business.”	

Every quarter, a report is made on whether business results have been achieved, and documents progress in terms of the breakthrough strategies.  A form is used, which includes the “situation statement”, the overall breakthrough(s) one is trying to achieve, the implementation plans, and the performance measures.  The reporting is based on a system of “red light, green light, yellow light.”  The “red lights” (and sometimes the “yellow lights”), “the things that are off the rails in terms of the implementation plan”, are examined and actions are taken on them.  
Career Development
Every year, employees are evaluated on their performance.  This evaluation is based on the performance and development objectives they have set.  Having been identified within Hoshin, the importance of development in HP is well grounded.  The performance evaluation process further reinforces and integrates it.  For the performance evaluation an employee must have a completed performance plan and a development plan.  The performance plan is focussed on the job, and performance objectives are developed with a view toward aligning work and results that will contribute to the organization’s and the manager’s objectives.  (See Figure 4.3) Measures are identified and time frames are established.  
The employee then compares his/her capabilities and aspirations with the performance plan to create development objectives.  In the development plan, the employee will also include measures, and identify different kinds of learning activities that will help him/her acquire the knowledge and skills needed to attain the development objectives (see Figure 4.4).  The following information is included in the development plan:
“how I’m going to develop in my current job as well as where I see myself down the road and what am I doing to get there.” 
The resources and support that will be needed are identified as well as the time frames.  
Performance evaluations by the manager are done with feedback from both internal and external clients.  Discussions also centre around development and the support that is forthcoming from the supervisor.  Beyond the manager-employee performance evaluation/discussion, the individual is ranked against a larger peer group, using a relative ranking system.  HP has a lot of good people and many would be expected to rank highly with respect to performance.  At HP, however, the bar keeps moving up and the scores become a new norm.  For example, using a scale of one-five, if many employees get a ranking of four one year, then next year that standard of performance becomes a three and expectations are raised.
“It’s extremely refreshing....because you achieve a certain status one year, but there is no guarantee at all in the future.  There are new expectations on you from year to year....”  
This process supports career development:  
“You just can’t stay doing the same thing you did last year and expect to get the same rank.  Each year it’s a whole new ball game...It’s the reason for wanting to pay attention to getting better...This is my career, and I’m going to do something to ensure that I have got the right kind of skills...”
Since there is no “quota entitlement”, and pay is contingent on performance,
“if you’re not looking out for your own welfare (i.e. developing) and making a more advanced contribution annually, then don’t expect to be remunerated for it”.
The system gives impetus and incentive for one to actively pursue as many development opportunities as possible.
Organizational Support For Career Development
The organization supports career development  endeavours.  On average, people get about forty hours of  formalized training each year (the organization is trying to raise that to eighty hours) but development at HP is also enhanced through assignments, projects and other on-the-job learning opportunities.  Great emphasis is placed on technical and product training.  The company does, however, support any training that is considered critical to business success such as project management, and the “softer skills”.  A variety of internal and external education and training options are available to employees, as is self-paced computerized learning.  The organization has an education centre responsible for an array of course offerings, and a learning centre which is a resource centre for books, audios and videos.  
Consistent with its philosophy of empowering its employees, HP has a Web site that is extensive in providing information and tools.  With the click of a key, employees can access a host of career development tools, including:
•	Forms for the performance plan and the development plan, and guidance to complete them with the aid of the Guide to Performance and Development Planning, or the Employee Appraiser.
•	Career Steps: an employee-driven, Intranet-based career development tool allowing employees to build their own profiles based on skills, strengths, and areas for development.  Once the employee has completed the profile, it can be matched with actual HP job descriptions.
•	The Learning Resource Network that works with universities to build partnerships, and qualify their programs.  It is linked directly to the university websites to provide up-to-date information on faculty, availability and registration.  It also helps users find resources to develop specific skills and competencies.
•	Job Postings:  A web-based application available to all HP employees, the pages on this website are translated into several languages to allow HP employees to navigate in the language of their choice.  Direct access to positions located in a specific country can be accessed through an electronic map.  A search tool helps internal applicants to look for job vacancies based upon several criteria such as HP location, function, job level, keywords, etc.  Internal applicants can apply directly through the “Apply to” feature on the Web.  The information is refreshed on a daily basis.  
•	Job Subscribe:  This service allows Worldwide HP employees who are looking for a new job to enter criteria on the “Subscribe to Job Opportunities” WEB form.  Once a week, a process is run to match subscriptions with job postings in Canada and Latin America.  When matches are found, an e-mail is generated that will notify the employee of the jobs that match their selected criteria.
•	The Leadership Development Resources Guide provide HP managers and individual contributors with resources (books, videos, programs and workshops), activities to help develop leadership ability and tips for on-the-job development.  It is organized according to six broad categories of leadership competencies (five for individual contributors).  It can be used as a reference guide or an assessment tool.
Career counselling is available through human resources (and to a lesser extent the Learning Centre), or the Career Action Centre in California, a pay-for-consulting service that helps people identify interests, skills and values and provides one-on-one counselling (via telephone for non-locals).
For a price, the company offers the Career Self-Reliance Tool Kit to employees to evaluate, make, and achieve career-related decisions.  This self-paced kit helps employees to assess themselves.  Included in this assessment is an examination of their life and career goals, their career self-reliance, and their knowledge and attitudes.  This kit also helps employees identify gaps as they relate to their current situation and future goals.  Employees are then assisted in developing a career plan and in determining the steps needed to implement it.  
HP organizes a Leadership Development Week four times a year in various locations in the U.S.  (In Canada, it’s offered every two years.)  Although aimed primarily at new managers world-wide, it also offers specific leadership training such as executive leadership and “management in process training.”  Workshops and presentations are offered in many areas including Career Self Reliance, and Performance and Development Planning.  
HP has four corporate education departments responsible for core management development for HP’s first and middle level managers, as well as leadership development for senior management.  
New and experienced managers are offered a variety of courses ranging from coaching and managing performance to diversity and behavioural interviewing.
The Leadership Effectiveness and Development (LEAD) program is part of a key strategic effort to accelerate development of leadership skills of high performing, high potential employees first level managers and individual contributors.  Businesses nominate and select participants who are ready to accept the increased demands of higher-level positions.  The current program offers a 360 degree leadership assessment, development planning, mentoring, practical work experience and periodic events.  There are 200 annual participant slots, and selection goals ensure cultural, ethnic and racial diversity.  The 1998 program will include approximately 180 people from the Americas, 20 from Asia Pacific and 12-20 from Europe.  
As the Hoshin in diversity and development reflects, HP recognizes that in order to sustain its competitive advantage in the marketplace it needs to:
•	enhance its ability to identify, track and develop high potential employees talent with a stated diversity objective, and 
•	have a systematic approach to the development of executive and management talent.
The Accelerated Leadership Development Program (ADP) is designed for high performing, high potential employees middle managers worldwide.  Participants are nominated and sponsored by the senior management of their businesses and are believed to be HP’s future senior leaders.  Criteria for selection include experience in two different functions, geographies or sectors of the business, and a minimum of five-seven years in management positions.  The current program offers a diverse range of experiences that include 360 degree leadership assessment, development planning, career assessment, peer/alumni networking, coaching and mentoring.  Selection goals for the 48 annual worldwide participant slots ensure cultural, ethnic and racial diversity.  In addition, half of the slots are reserved for women.  There are plans to develop an ADP program for First Level Managers and General Managers in 1999.  
IBM Canada
IBM is the world’s largest IT company, hardware company, and services company, with 280,000 employees world-wide.  There are two major segments in the business: sales and distribution, and global services.  IBM Global Services, with a presence in 164 countries, has more than 116,000 employees, 9,000 of whom are professionals.  These employees provide a variety of product support services, professional services and network services.  IBM Canada has 15,383 employees, with 88 facilities across the country.  IBM Canada has three subsidiary organizations.  In the IBM world, there are roughly 26,000 people managers (i.e. managers who have people reporting to them).  There are 3,000 executives world-wide.  In Canada, there are 2,100 managers.  
Skills Management, Skills Development and Career Vitality
IBM, like all organizations in the IT business, faces an environment that changes at “warp-speed”.  With new businesses, new markets, and changing customer demands for products and services, the challenge for IBM is to ensure that its employees have the skills to enable the company to compete globally, and to develop skills to stay ahead of the game.  
While IBM is focused on managing and developing the skills of its employees for competitive advantage, it is also committed to enabling individuals to link their career goals with IBM’s business strategies, directions and needs.  The three processes (skills management, skills development, and career vitality) are very much interrelated and integrated.
Skills Management Process
The skills management process at IBM is a world-wide process.  It is integrated with the business process.  Schematically, the process consists of four major components:
Plan 	Assess 
& 
Acquire	Develop 	Deploy 	

Plan
The organization decides as a business the markets it wants to play in, the customer requirements, and the products and services it wants to offer.
Assess & Acquire 
Through customer research, analysis is made of what customers require in terms of skills and capabilities.  An assessment is made of the skills available within IBM.  This assessment is done using a world-wide tool with skills definitions by job roles.  A gaps analysis, performed with the help of a template, is conducted to identify “what do we need to do to acquire the skills and what do we need to do to develop the skills?” 
Develop 
“IBM has always viewed employee development as vital to its own success, as well as that of its people.”  While some skills will be acquired from outside, emphasis is placed on extensive use of developmental strategies and tools to fill the skills gaps.  Skills development is seen as fundamental to maintaining and capturing business opportunities, but also for the career growth and satisfaction of the employees.  
Deploy
Once skills have been built, they can then be deployed to where they are needed.  Resource managers access the available skills and deploy them to projects as demand arises.  This is “opportunities management”.  The biggest challenge for IBM is to be able to use the vast amount of data (in the form of resumes) strategically.
There are many different layers of activities within each of the above components.  Running parallel and integrated with this process are the skills and career development processes.  
From the employee’s perspective, there is a three-step process with three pertinent questions: 
•	What does the business need?  
•	What skills do I have personally to compare with what the business needs?  
•	What are my gaps, and how can I fill those gaps?  Once these analyses have been made and actions taken, then “the individual is deployable.”
Two key roles have been identified across the business to help in the planning and assessment of skills from both an organization’s and employee’s perspective: the skills planner and the skills leader.  Skills Planners are fairly senior practitioners with technical experience who can evaluate business opportunities.  They work with the different units to evaluate the unique skills that will be required based on the market to be penetrated, and the products and services to be offered.  The Skills Planners will then communicate that into the process and make sure that employees know the critical skills that will be in demand and should thus be developed.  In other words, “a Skill Planner is a person who is planning strategically for skills for the future.”  It is his or her job to assess the tradeoff between skills to be developed and skills that can be “bought”.  A Skills Leader, on the other hand, helps managers and employees to choose professional templates that are “right for them” (i.e. will enable them to do an effective assessment, and to develop the appropriate developmental activities).  
IBM
“The solutions need to be tailored to the people’s needs.  I have seen too many of these initiatives put in and fail miserably because they are not linked with the business.  If our senior management did not believe for one minute that this solution we put in was not giving them a competitive edge in the market place, the doors would close.  It takes a huge investment.  So the real thing that you are delivering is a career resilient work force.  And any company that believes that’s important will go ahead and invest whatever they have to because the return is so large.  It’s very difficult to duplicate for other companies.  It gives you the competitive edge.”
“What’s right for the individual is right for the organization”
 “The career vitality of IGS professionals extends beyond individual careers and organization bottom line success to the long term viability of IBM competing in a fast changing, and intensely competitive market place.”
“In the 2 to 3 year cycle, you can have a complete job change where you are dealing with a whole different set of priorities.  Two or three times in your career at IBM, you’re going to have an 180 degree absolute change.  Totally different focus, totally different set of skills.”	

Skills Development Process
The model used at IBM for skills development, an integral part of the skills management process, is depicted in Figure 4.5.

There are responsibilities for both manager and employees within the Skills Management Process.  The manager is responsible for the identification of skills required by customers and market segments, and the assignment of job roles and responsibilities to the employee.  The job skills required by customers and markets help define the job roles and the relevant templates for skills assessment.  
There are 2,000 skills templates, all of which have been developed collaboratively.  Each template pertains to one job role.  Since the roles are built around groups of professions with very well defined career paths, employees not only can assess their present skill requirements, but can also assess what skill requirements are needed for positions further up a particular career path.  
Early every year, each employee establishes personal business commitments (PBC) or objectives as to what he/she will deliver to IBM.  Filtering down from the top, each person builds his “commitments” around the business plan, and identifies objectives in the three main commitment areas for IBM: commitment to WIN, commitment to EXECUTE, and commitment to contribute to the TEAM.  In other words, the employee makes commitments around the major things that they handle on the job, the specific details or tasks that are to be done, and activities that contribute to various team efforts.  Individual skills development objectives are incorporated into these “commitments”, and tied to business unit plans.  These plans and commitments form the baseline against which performance will be evaluated.
Employees then review the skills list for their profession’s template and update their skills assessment using the SKILLS tool that is online.  When the process first started in 1996, each employee invested between four - six hours on his/her initial assessment.  Over 90% of employees have since completed their initial skills assessment.  The SKILLS tool documents current skills and experiences and identifies gaps.  Part of this process includes an updating of each employee’s resume— an important process as customers (internal or external) will often ask to see the resumes of those who are providing services.  
The online SKILLS tool that every employee is required to fill out and update is the Individual Skills Plan (ISP).  “The ISP is used to identify and develop customer-valued skills critical to the success of the business and the employees.”  It summarizes skill development requirements in two key areas: 
1.	Skills needed for IBM’s success as defined by customer and business plans (i.e. current skills needed).  
2.	Skills needed for the attainment of the employee’s goals and aspirations.  
The set of “current skills needs” are developed in conjunction with the manager or team, and must be reviewed at least yearly for changes.  Priorities are also often identified by the organization to focus attention on building certain important critical skills.  For example, during 1998 there is a focus on building skills on internal office productivity tools.  Job role templates are then designed to help employees determine the skills and the required skill proficiencies.  After assessment, current skills are documented and prioritized.  It is expected that all employees maintain a current skills assessment on IBM’s online skills tool.  The documentation which is generated by this process allows IBM to maintain knowledge of the skills it holds in its workforce.  
The second section – skill development needed for the attainment of the employee’s goals and aspirations – is optional to allow for differing individual needs for career development discussions at various stages of their careers.  It can be initiated by the employee or manager.  It is particularly valuable for employees who want to prepare for a job change, or focus on their career goals.
Once an individual has identified where there is a gap between his or her current skills and his or her planned proficiency levels, he/she must document or update the Individual Development Plan (IDP).  The plan will include “gap closure activities”.  These activities  can include a variety of measures such as formal education, readings, project assignments, “internship” on projects, attendance at conferences, mentoring etc..  They also outline the necessary resources (time and funding) to be invested in developing the skills.  After the plan is agreed upon by both the manager and employee, the employee can proceed to execute it.  In general, three to five skills are identified for development for each IDP cycle.  Employees are encouraged not to over-commit themselves and to keep the development focussed.  As part of the PBC exercise, employees are evaluated on their attainment of their IDP goals.
Through the year, the employee is expected to:
•	engage in various “checkpoints”, 
•	obtain input from the assessments of his/her PBCs (from peers, from customers, from the manager), 
•	document skill gap closure, and 
•	update his/her personal skills profile.
360 degree feedback is obtained toward year-end, and the employee documents the feedback results against PBCs.  Both manager and employee provide input into the overall PBC ratings.  When the overall PBC rating is determined at the beginning of the following year the manager uses the data to help determine variable pay as well as determine compensation increases.  Employees are compensated for their contribution against PBCs, their skills and other factors.  The cycle then resumes.
It should be noted that skills development is also tied to a certification process at IBM.  As employees develop skills and apply them, they can prepare to be certified by a board of peers.  For employees already in more senior ranks, mandatory certification by a certain point in time is required.  The process ensures that world-wide standards are maintained.  “You don’t want different flavours of skills and talents when you’re trying to deploy a world-wide project.”  Certification also “opens doors” to promotional opportunities when they occur, offers “a little recognition” and is a “gateway” to the senior ranks.
IBM also tries to identify “high potential employees” early in their careers through a “roll-up” rating and ranking process that occurs twice a year.  Once identified, a very well documented individual development plan is developed.  This plan provides a detailed plan of career steps designed to give the high potential employees person the necessary breadth of experience.  The process is, nevertheless, “driven by the employee and supported by the manager.”  At this time, “High Technical Potentials”, and “High Women Potentials” are also being identified.
Career Vitality Process
Integrated in the Skills Management Process is a career management process entitled the Career Vitality Process (see Figure 4.6).
“Career Vitality is achievable when individuals take ownership and control of their work life by continuously assessing and understanding their skills, traits, attributes, motivational patterns; constantly explore and create business opportunities while benchmarking their talents inside and outside the company; set personal career goals with business strategy; and build SMART3 plans and commit to executing them.”  
(S. Stewart, Moving Toward a Career Resilient Workforce, IBM internal document) 

Taken together these two processes align individual capabilities and career goals with organizational opportunities.  The integration of these two processes enables IBM employees to:
•	better understand themselves and the skills they HAVE
•	explore opportunities to gain knowledge about the marketplace and the skills that are required (i.e., NEED)
•	make informed decisions on career goals, objectives and the specific skills and behaviours they need to develop and enhance to close the GAP
•	build feasible PLANs, continuously revise and prioritize, commit and effectively execute.  
The five-step Career Vitality Process provides IBM professionals with a step-by-step approach to help them become career resilient.  The steps provide structure and guidance in self-assessment, creating and exploring options, setting goals and objectives, decision making, developing action plans and executing the plans.
The Career Vitality Process benefits employees, managers and the organization.  For the individual, career vitality means enhanced lifelong career management skills, career ownership, employability and the opportunity for continuous learning.  For the manager, it is a structured approach to career management, with the resources to support it (such as career counselling, skills development), employee ownership of career, and increased commitment to organization success.  For IBM, it means attraction and retention of qualified, highly skilled and versatile professionals, increased productivity and alignment of careers to business direction.  It also means a career resilient workforce and a competitive edge and a strategic advantage that is difficult to replicate.  
To give support to the process, the Canadian IGS Career Vitality Centre was officially opened in January 1997 to provide career vitality services, tools and resources to new hires, all levels of professionals, general managers and both regular and supplemental employees.  This centre brings together under one umbrella almost all of the vital services and information that employees need in terms of assistance in career management.  Although located in Markham, Ontario, many of the resources are available to IBM professionals across Canada.  “The day we opened our doors, we were flooded.”
The Career Vitality Centre supplements the existing processes and tools already in place to facilitate the Career Vitality sub-processes (e.g., the SKILLS tool—ISP, IDP; 360 degree feedback; the PBC) by providing a variety of additional self-assessment tools (e.g. career counselling; workshops and self-studies on personal skills development, “bio writing”; interviewing; “benchmarking info sessions and career chats” business strategy sessions) as well as a career library of books, audio and video resources.  The Career Vitality Centre also developed an “Insiders Network” to assist professionals in finding other professionals willing to share with them specific career development information and experience and maintains a history of jobs posted in JOBNEWS (the online job posting tool).  JOBNEWS enables individuals to determine the types of jobs and skills that have been in high demand in the past.  The Career Vitality Centre also provides on-going, current information on IBM Professional Profiles against which employees can compare their own personal profile.  It is closely linked to the Education and Training Centre, as well as the Leadership Training and Management Development programs.  
Training, Management Development and Executive Development
IBM supports its philosophy and processes by investing in its employees.  It is estimated that IBM Canada spends about $22 million on employee development: $12 million of that amount is spent on “training” alone.  
The Education and Training Centre in Markham, Ontario, is responsible for “education” (mostly technical training) for employees and for customers.  In addition, distance learning, external education and training, and a host of other learning opportunities are available to employees.  
The IBM Management Development (MD) group is tasked with identifying and providing learning activities for all IBM leaders below the executive ranks.  They are also responsible as the Centre of Excellence for Leadership Development for teaching this group requisite leadership and management behaviours.
Consistent with IBM’s strategy to build skills throughout the organization (as reflected in the three Processes discussed earlier), MD is responsible for identifying a clear, concise set of common skills for all IBM managers, and for identifying competencies and related behaviours for first-line and middle managers.
For experienced managers and executives, a set of eleven competencies have been identified and “baked” into succession planning.  Managers are assessed against these competencies.  An assessment tool (Strengthening Leadership at IBM: An Assessment Handbook for Executives) is available to managers and executives to help them identify their own as well as their direct reports’ strengths and areas needing improvement.  The competencies are defined, the IBM “seven-circle leadership model” is explained, and a list of developmental activities are suggested to help the manager begin the process of crafting his/her own development plan.  A two-day course, named “New Blue” has been developed to give feedback to experienced managers on these competencies as well as their Managerial Styles and Organizational Climate.  This course was piloted with 300 of the most senior executives.  
Development for managers comes in many forms.  The philosophy in management development at IBM is that:
•	there will be consistency in the approach to leadership across professional/ management/ executive levels; 
•	the same approach will apply globally; and 
•	there is an emphasis on e-learning (electronic learning via intranet). 
There are also basic core management development programs for first-line, middle and experienced managers.  These include many remote learning modules through online e-learning, graduating to interactive, collaborative learning modules via newly developed technological tools.  “Learning labs” or face-to-face workshops comprise the other major category of offerings.  External courses (such as university courses, MBA) are also considered developmental options.  
Most important of all developmental experiences, however, are “leader-orchestrated, on-the-job learning opportunities with deliberate coaching and feedback,” and “organizationally provided learning experiences specifically designed to meet developmental needs of IBM managers.”  For the executive cadre, there is the Global Executive Program, run out of the IBM Learning Centre in Armonk, New York.  
Royal Bank of Canada
Royal Bank is Canada’s largest financial institution as measured by market capitalization, revenues and net income.  It serves nearly ten million individual and business customers around the world.  In Canada, it has leading market shares in residential mortgages, personal loans and deposits, and business loans.  It is the largest money manager and the third largest provider of mutual funds (first among bank-owned funds).  Royal Bank owns the largest and most profitable investment dealer (RBC Dominion Securities) and the second largest discount broker (Royal Bank Action Direct), and is a significant provider of creditor life and disability, individual life and travel insurance.  Internationally, corporate and investment banking, trade finance, correspondent banking, treasury and securities custody services are provided to business customers.  The Bank has a retail network in the Caribbean and substantial global private banking operations.  Its international network includes 105 offices in 36 countries.  Divided into geographic, business and functional units, the Bank has 58,000 employees.  (Annual Report, 1997) 
RBFG Leadership Development Model
The Royal Bank Financial Group has a clearly delineated model for leadership development.  This model (see Figure 4.7) can be viewed as a model for career development as it applies to almost all levels of the organization.
The model recognizes that there are both individual needs and organizational needs with respect to development.  The basis for determining organizational needs is the strategic plan, which leads to the examination of the strategic questions: Where do we need to go? Where do we want to go? What leadership needs will that entail?  Leadership needs are examined both in numbers and in competencies.   
RBFG goes through an extensive and exhaustive Succession Management Review process every year.  In dialogue with the various units, and with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the organization, the corporate HR group (the group responsible for succession management and leadership development) examines the talent pool.  This talent pool consists of existing executives and people who can be drawn into the executive ranks (i.e. those two levels below executive).  Any gaps between needs and talents that are identified are then assessed to determine whether the gaps can be addressed through experience or recruitment from elsewhere.  
The individual needs aspect of the leadership development model entails, first of all, the Performance Review which should be conducted on a quarterly basis.  During the Performance Review, discussions are held on the individual’s current performance and potential, and any gaps that there may be in achieving that potential are examined.  A final formal review is conducted at the end of the year in the context of these discussions.  
There is also a process called the Leadership Review, which is distinct from the Performance Review.  It is a 360 degree feedback process undertaken with individuals who are currently executives or are being considered for executive positions.  Feedback from about ten to 15 people (managers, peers, direct reports, customers, and others) are gathered, and performance is assessed against a set of six Leadership Criteria.  Gap analysis against the Leadership Criteria allows RBFG to determine whether the individual has certain developmental gaps that need to be worked on.  The exercise is “developmental” and not “evaluative”, with the intention to identify gaps and help to close the gaps.  It is psychometric in nature, with an interview after the assessment.  
The third element, which focuses on the perspective of individuals, is the Succession Management Review.  From the Succession Management Review comes an “individual potential rating”.  Potential is assessed and gaps relative to the Leadership Criteria are identified.  When individual needs and organizational needs are put together, “it gives a good sense of what the developmental priorities may be in the organization.”
Currently, the bank has identified three developmental priorities, relative to the strategic plan:
•	Global Mindset, defined as intellectual curiosity, broad-mindedness, a capacity to draw from many sources (i.e. “not thinking within the nine dots ....quite creative in their thinking”);
•	Collaboration, in terms of working across an organization.  This priority reflects the fact that RBFG, which for many years was a hierarchical, command and control type of organization, is evolving into one that is more cross-functional and cross-cultural; and
•	Innovation to develop an organization that is creative, innovative, and quicker to market.
Royal Bank
“....as Mintzberg would put it, our organizational style has been to “Think.  Think.  Think.  Do”.  (His course) is getting us to “Think.  Do.  Think.  Do.  Think.  Do.”
“In terms of developmental opportunities, what’s important to us to talk about with people, is not to talk about developmental opportunities in terms of changing level, but rather, career developmental opportunities in terms of changing jobs or careers.  ...you can have three or four or five careers during the course of your Royal Bank career”.
“Managers have to make themselves available to employees.  As an organization, if we are going to be supporting this initiative, we should be providing tools and resources to be put in place....and readily available to them....It’s an investment in our people.....We’ve taken the approach that cost takes a second step to the benefits that employees are gaining from it.”  
“We need to coach our managers effectively on how to handle the concept of self-career management.”
“The PPRD Process is specifically designed to align individual objectives and activities with our business objectives and strategies,......to close performance/skill gaps through personal development plans.	

There are three means of addressing developmental priorities within the model.  The first and foremost means of executive development/leadership development in the organization is experience.  As opposed to an external program or an internal program, the organization concentrates on providing people with a variety of experiential assignments (usually two-three years in duration) during their career:
“we will take people who have been in a particular role and potentially give them a role that is totally foreign to them—it may be geography, the type of work, or a variety of parameters.” 
The aim of the assignments is to develop in the executives and non-executives a much broader feel for the organization, so that they are allied or aligned with the organization as opposed to a particular business unit.  Career moves are discussed in terms of what they do, not only for the organization, but also for the individual.
The other two means of addressing developmental priorities are internal and external programs.  It should be noted, however, that:
“Our bias is to use experience first, internal programs for broad corporate needs and external programs for specific individual needs.”
Internal programs
The internal programs are project managed by an internal staff.  External consultants or experts are often asked to develop a program that is customized for Royal Bank’s needs.  The internal staff typically act as project managers who work  with external consultants to make sure the course is delivered against the objectives and within the budget that the Bank has established.  
Internal programs are customized against specific priorities, and generally aimed to imbue individuals with the Royal Bank values, “to turn them into leaders around the Royal Bank value system, and the Royal Bank culture.”  A second aim of internal programs is “simple networking”.  People are drawn from across the organization; it helps them develop networks; it helps them to “work cross-collaboratively in the organization”.  The third objective of these internal programs would be to have specific programs targeted to the three developmental priorities that have been identified (i.e. curiosity, innovation, collaboration).  For example, a program has recently been developed with Henry Mintzberg of McGill University called From Analysis to Action which is particularly geared toward: 
•	collaboration/innovation, 
•	how to move faster to market, and
•	being more entrepreneurial.  
The course was run for the first time in November 1998 with a cross-section of 25 executives and the level just below, and is expected to be offered for at least the next two years at which time it will be assessed4.  
There are three other internal programs offered at the senior level: 
Introduction to General Management
is aimed at people who are not yet executives.  It provides them with their first true exposure to a “general management type of education”.  Over the course of ten days, a series of seven or eight top notch consultants from around the world are brought in “to talk about corporate finance, strategic planning, market planning....and a variety of things that are directly related to general management skills and trying to get people to think much more broadly, in terms of what it’s like to run a business, as opposed to running a particular portfolio or ...a single job.”  John Cleghorn, the CEO of the Bank will spend time with the group.  Over the nine evenings, at least five to six senior executives will also spend an evening each with the group over dinner and in an hour long Q & A period discussing issues and questions.  Their presence demonstrates their commitment to the individuals.
The course is run twice a year for approximately 50 people per program.  For many within the organization, the course is a “true signal to them that they are being considered for greater things in the organization.  It’s looked at very positively and is a tremendous experience”.  The course has been in existence for at least 12 years.  
On Being a Royal Bank Financial Group Executive
is an orientation program for people who have been appointed Royal Bank executives (vice-president level) or who have been hired in as Royal Bank executives.  This program is eighteen months old and is typically given to executives about six months after their appointment (or hire) when they have had a little experience in the executive role.  This course “is about telling people to speak for the organization rather than speaking about the organization.”  Over the course of three days, the focus is on “making them leaders of the organization as opposed to people who are playing within the organization”.  It emphasizes the collaborative aspect, and allows for networking.  John Cleghorn, the CEO, comes in and spends a half-day with the group and talks extensively about leadership in the organization.  The Executive Vice President of Human Resources also spends a half-day.  Two programs are run per year with typically 25 persons a program.
The Leadership Development System
is an action-learning course for 30 people.  Projects dealing with key issues at the Bank are identified, cross-functional teams are designated.  Over the course of six months, each action learning team works on a project while fulfilling their own roles.  “It’s a very onerous and ambitious project to be on one of these LDS teams but it is one of the best experiences people find in terms of coming together as an organization, with other people, and in finding a sense of their own capabilities.”
Other internal programs such as task forces and project work are more informal.  These projects and programs provide exposure and experience in the organization.  
External Programs
In the Succession Management Reviews there are extensive discussions on what the needs of an individual are (i.e. International exposure?  Exposure to a business?  Exposure to technology?)  The aim of these discussions is to consider different avenues to enhance the breadth and exposure of an individual.  
The International Master’s Program in Management
is a consortium provided by McGill University, Lancaster University in England, the University of Bangalor in India, a university in Japan, and INSEAD in France.  It is an 18-month program that involves three weeks on-site at each of the universities.  An intense learning experience, it provides tremendous cross-cultural opportunities.  Three to four people, with at least ten years experience, will be chosen to attend.  It provides the opportunity to work within the Royal Bank team, but also enables the participants to benefit from other companies’ experiences.  To date, 13 people, fully funded, have gone through the program.  Although expensive, the Bank is committed to this program because of the response of the participants—“they are more reflective, more confident, more worldly....they think more strategically.” 
A variety of other external programs that individuals feel best suit their needs are also considered such as MBA programs, Executive MBA programs, Dalhousie University’s ICB/MBA (Institute of Canadian Bankers) program, and distance education (e.g. Athabasca University’s MBA program).  Based on a discussion with the manager, and an assessment of the return on the investment, a decision will be made as to the extent of the funding provided for such development.  At the very least, time will be made available to individuals who wish to invest in their own career. 
The total budget for internal and external leadership development programs is $5.2 million, some of which is recovered from the business units.  This budget typically breaks down as follows: 60% of the amount would be spent on the development and delivery of internal programs; 40% would be on a variety of external programs.  The average investment in development per person per annum, given that there are 300 executives and 300 MPEs at the below executive level, is $9,000, a “fairly significant commitment”. 
The Most Promising Employee (MPE) Process
The feeder group to the executive level (which has 300 individuals) is approximately 1,100 in number.  About 300 of these will be targeted as being potential executives.  A process called the Most Promising Employee Process exists within the individual units to assess the caliber of their own people.  MPEs can be targeted at an early age and at an early stage of their career, and confirmed throughout their career or later in their career.  In other words, “it can happen at any point in a career, and it needs to be confirmed every year.  You can fall off the list as well as be added.”  It is only at the most senior levels (i.e. two levels below executive)  that the MPE status is confirmed.  As they approach the executive level, “corporate would really confirm whether the assessment is correct.  We may do a leadership review, for example.  We may have further discussions, but there’s confirmation given at that point in time as to whether an individual truly does have executive potential.” At lower levels, the business unit has that responsibility of identifying promising employees.
Prior to this year, MPEs were not made aware that they had been identified as such.  The Bank has decided to make it a more open process.  The six Leadership Criteria (which are behavioural qualities to become a leader in the organization), along with the competencies that are tied to being proficient in the different criteria, have now been made known to lower levels, and will be more broadly applied.  
The MPE review takes place every year.  It is a three- or four-month process of “information bubbling up from the field and then confirmation at the top level, after the fact.”  It is a well-defined process in terms of the discussions that take place (i.e. succession within a business unit, the potential and ratings of the individuals within the unit).  There is information that is provided on each MPE within the organization to Corporate Human Resources which allows them to manage things from an organizational perspective.  Each MPE has a career plan which forms part of a documented electronic file system which can be reviewed on a regular basis to see “to what degree the MPEs are moving into jobs based on the schedule that had been set as part of the review process.”  “It is quite a formal process involving a considerable amount of dialogue and considerable amount of debate around individuals as opposed to being a systems driven or formula driven process.”  In addition, Corporate HR keeps a close watch on the size, gender, age, education and other dimensions of the feeder group to ensure that “we are building sufficient depth in the organization that will, over time, rise in the pyramid such that we will have management succession.” 
Career Development and the PPRD
Career development is given emphasis throughout the Bank through the Performance Planning, Review & Development (PPRD) Process.  It is a new process and many areas within the RBFG have introduced it.  With PPRD, quarterly meetings are held with all employees to plan specific objectives against the group’s objectives and performance drivers, and to review performance against these specific objectives.  The PPRD goes beyond measurement of where an individual stands relative to predetermined goals, and measurement for pay purposes5.  It also includes a coaching and development component which will assist employees in achieving their goals by identifying skill/competency/knowledge gaps, which when addressed, will enhance their overall performance and contribution.  
The process in developing a development plan within PPRD is as follows:
•	The employee completes a “Competency Model/Assessment Questionnaire” (CMQ/CAQ) for his/her position (an annual exercise), and transfers his/her competency ratings to the Competencies Assessment Summary in the PPRD.  He/she then identifies development opportunities.
•	In consultation with the manager, the employee outlines specific performance enhancing and competency development activities to be undertaken during the year on the Competencies Development Planner.  The employee is asked to refer to Learning Maps which are tied to competencies and can be found online.  These Learning Maps provide a series of steps and suggestions related to development which range from videos to books, to finding a mentor, to external education courses, to assignments and projects.
•	Each of the planned actions will have a target completion date.  The Development Planner is reviewed during the quarterly meetings with the manager.
•	Based on the individual’s and unit’s progress during the previous quarter, the individual and the manager may decide that activities or the development plan should be revised.  
•	Although there are no ratings for the Planner, the degree to which an employee progresses in the development activities will directly impact on his/her success in achieving his/her individual performance objectives.  
Coaching (on performance, development and career) is an integral part of the PPRD process.  The Royal Bank has developed a 6-step coaching model called the Royal Coaching Journey which provides managers with a road map to any coaching session, regardless of its nature.  In development and career coaching the manager will identify areas where the employee has been successful and where there may be an opportunity for further growth.  Using the data that the employee has gathered using available assessment processes (i.e. data on his/her own competencies, strengths and potential) the manager will:
•	review with the employee areas requiring development for the current role (competency), 
•	discuss areas requiring development for future roles (career), and 
•	discuss improvement/development strategies and programs as well as career strategies.
An action plan will be agreed upon and the development progress will be discussed quarterly.
September has been designated as Personal Growth Month for employees.  Previously, employees were encouraged to have a personal or career development discussion with the manager.  This discussion was to be completed separately from the performance review discussion.  With the new PPRD process it is formalized that in September a manager and an employee will “discuss development progress including a thorough competency assessment, complete development plan for each individual, and have a career discussion”.  Performance reviews are performed over the other three quarters, with an annual review at the end of the fiscal year.  The importance of career development is firmly entrenched in the process, with the individual taking full responsibility for his/her own development plan and actions, but with active involvement and coaching from the manager.
Organizational Support for Career Development
A strong believer in investing in its people, the Royal Bank has continuously developed tools, processes and resources to enable its employees to grow and to develop.  The Royal Coaching Journey is a good case in point.  The kit was rolled out in three phases over a year and a half.  It is now accessible to everyone in the workplace.  It comes with a diskette, video vignettes, a CD ROM, a leader’s guide, and a self-study manual.  The kit provides a learning tool for managers to develop critical skills that are essential to any manager’s role, and also supports the message that coaching in performance and career development is a major part of the manager’s job.  The kit’s design emphasizes the equal role of both the coach and the coached.  Both parties are provided with training and development and supporting material.  
Other examples of organizational support of career development include:
•	Career Navigator: Employee Guide, a workbook outlining a complete career and personal planning process.  This guide is a career and personal development management tool which guides employees through self-assessments and a reality check.  This guide then helps employees put together a development plan and a career plan.  It is customized to RBFG.  
•	Career Navigator: Leaders Guide complements the Employee Guide.  It incorporates the 6-step coaching model and includes specific career coaching situations.
•	Competency Model/Assessment Questionnaire (CMQ/CAQ) assesses competencies for individuals related to a specific role.  It helps identify competency strengths and developmental opportunities.
•	Career Experience is an internet web site offering information and workshops for career direction choices.
•	Enhancing Your Professionalism is an online catalogue of learning and personal development programs and workshops in RBFG.  It provides course descriptions and registration information.  
•	Mentorlink is RBFG’s mentoring process.  It is a competency-based, self-development process enabling employees to reach beyond their current environment to pursue personal and career growth.  It includes a start-up kit, overview, guidelines and checklists of the mentoring process.  Through technology, a reservoir of individuals who are prepared to be mentors is created and linked with individuals interested in being mentored.  This link includes a matching process for the developments needed by the mentees and the areas that mentors have to offer.  It is intended to be cross-functional and not hierarchical or business based.  
•	Personal Learning Network has PC based, multimedia learning activities that employees can tailor to a learning map.
•	Training Catalogue is an online catalogue of training materials and courses.
•	Connections Job Line is “a call-in career management tool”.  It assists in identifying available job opportunities and provides advice on resume writing and preparing for interviews.  Jobs are posted in Job Line which is accessible 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, anywhere around the world.  Job Line is updated daily.  There is commitment from all managers to post positions, even if a preferred candidate is identified.  Individuals can key on the phone system and get a copy of the job mandate which outlines the key responsibilities, qualifications and key competencies that are required.  Despite having the capabilities of putting Job Line online, the Bank has purposely maintained this as a phone-based tool with paper-based applications.  This was done in order to maintain accessibility as “everyone has a phone; not everyone has a computer.”  It should also be noted that: “Not only is Job Line about finding and making jobs accessible, ... it’s about providing employees with information about the activities that are going on in the organization.”  
The above is just a sampling of the many tools and resources that Royal Bank has available for its employees in managing their careers.  Many of the learning tools are under the umbrella of the Royal Learning Network.  This network signifies that “learning can happen anywhere, anytime across the Royal Bank”.  There is, nonetheless, a “centre of expertise”, a physical location which centrally manages the development and delivery of learning interventions of various types.  The centre offers a wide range of courses, among them highly popular career development workshops and workshops on Successfully Marketing Yourself Within the Royal Bank.  
The Royal Bank is a strong supporter of continuous education.  In 1997, the Bank invested a total of $113.8 million in training (including trainee salaries and benefits), which translates to nearly $2,000 per employee.  In 1998, the projected investment is $132 million, with an average of $2,245 per employee.  While close to 70% of the training is job specific, over 20% of the investment is toward career enrichment of its employees.  In the Systems and Technology Unit, which has only 2,300 employees, $4.3 million will be spent in 1998 on non-technical training, $3.8 million of which will be spent on career enrichment.  Technical training and self-study will come to $1.1 million.  
Royal Bank also believes in career programs for entry level positions.  In the Systems and Technology Unit, for example, there are various programs to ensure that not only are good candidates available for IT positions, but also that they are helped in terms of a career within the Bank.  Besides summer internship programs (four months) and co-op programs, the Unit also has a Technology Internship Program where new grads are brought on board.  About half are not computer-science graduates (intentionally).  The program is designed to run about four months in duration.  The Programmer Trainees (about 100 a year) go through extensive training (mostly self- paced learning).  When they are ready, a matching process takes place between the trainee, manager and project, and the trainee moves into a position where they will usually stay from six to 12 months.  After that, they generally start moving into other position streams and areas.  Since they were not hired for their technical skills, but for their potential and people skills (key desirable competencies) “they can start making career choices as they progress because they have a technology background as part of their introduction to the division and now they can pick up business knowledge; they become very marketable, in terms of moving into other businesses.” 
Statistics Canada
Statistics Canada is one of the world’s largest and most highly respected statistical organizations.  With an annual budget of $262 million, it has approximately 5,400 Public Service employees (4,715 indeterminate/permanent, 608 determinate/term employees).  Half of these are economists, mathematicians, technical officers and administrators, while the remaining 50% provide clerical, secretarial, data processing support and survey implementation.  More than 90% are located in Ottawa, the rest in the agency’s eight regional offices.  Statistics Canada also employs about 1,600 ‘interviewers’ in the regional offices to collect business, labour force and cost of living data.
As a scientific research agency, Statistics Canada publishes a wide range of statistical analyses and contributes substantially to the development of statistical methodologies at the national and international levels.  It operates as the hub of the nation’s statistical systems, and conducts special surveys funded by other federal departments and agencies, provincial or private sector clients.
Statistics Canada
“Almost everybody is getting some form of mentoring....Mentors have been known to lend dishes.  This is the person who helps you when you come to Statscan.  They’ll lend you dishes if you need at the beginning...help you choose your career....choose the courses you’ll go on next....help you in your selection of assignments; they’ll look at your background and where you’d like to go to .....”
“....the committee structure was the major culture change....bringing everyone in line to think as a corporate citizen...”
 “ We maintain a strong infrastructure so that we can move the people across.  You are a career employee, but the understanding is that your career is at Statscan, not necessarily in the division doing the job that you are doing.”	

Human Resources Development at Statistics Canada
Recognizing that the Agency has an aging workforce, especially in its middle and senior managerial levels, and challenged by the pressures of budget volatility in the face of varying demand for products and rapid technological change, Statistics Canada has developed a comprehensive human resources strategy to ensure it hires, trains, develops, and maintains a cadre of employees with:
•	the skills to meet current work requirements; 
•	the potential and versatility to adapt to changing work requirements; and 
•	the capacity to succeed in a long-term career involving several job changes, continuous learning and adaptability.   
At Statistics Canada, human resources development is accepted as a primary responsibility of line managers.  Human resources specialists are available to provide support and advice; however, line managers are held accountable for the success of the major human resources programs.  It is through this responsibility sharing that the Agency enacts the “cross-cutting principle of management ownership” of the human resources management function.  
This “ownership” is operationalized through a hierarchy of networked management committees (senior managers), sub-committees (mid-management) and working groups.  These committees facilitate and engender line management buy-in, and ensure extensive involvement in major human resources issues.  Ideas flow down, but also come from the bottom.  The various HR committees report (at least quarterly) to and are held accountable by the Human Resources Development Committee (HRDC) which is chaired by the Chief Statistician.  The HRDC provides direction on the acquisition, training, deployment, career development and retention of employees at Statistics Canada.  In all, there are approximately 400 positions for middle and senior managers on over 50 Human Resources Committees.  Over half of the top 300 managers are involved in, and have a specific role and responsibility in, human resources management.  With the exception of the full-time trainers, all this committee work is in addition to the regular responsibilities of the managers.  All senior managers are members of at least one of these committees and membership is rotated on a regular basis.  A successful assignment as Chair of one of these committees is recognized as an important achievement in the record of a senior manager.  
Figure 4.8 presents a model which is at the heart of Statistics Canada’s human resources strategy.  This strategy is conceptualized as including four interdependent elements which tie into one another.  Figure 4.9 presents “the architecture of Statistics Canada’s human resources development framework”, displayed as a pyramid of integrated activities and concrete mechanisms to support the HR strategy.

Professional Recruitment and Development - Selection of the Best
Statistics Canada has invested heavily  (in the last seven years) in recruiting the best quality new staff with the potential, the will and the skills to adapt to change throughout their careers.  A corporate Professional Recruitment and Development Committee forecasts future needs, and engages in hiring the best and the brightest university graduates.  Newly hired graduates are given broad exposure to the Agency.  For the first two years, they rotate among several positions on assignments in various parts of the organization, are aided by mentors and take prescribed training before they “graduate” to a regular position.  In the seven years since the Professional Recruitment Program has been in operation, it has produced a new cadre of highly skilled and motivated professionals.  Some of the early recruits have already reached middle management level.
Training
Statistics Canada places the highest priority on and invests heavily in training, regardless of volatile swings in the departmental budget levels.  Over 3% (approximately $9 million) of the overall budget is invested in training, with an average of six days of training annually per employee.  The Agency has an overall training framework and has developed major flagship courses (on topics such as survey management, data analysis and marketing) designed to address the major technical, professional and managerial needs of the organization.  Ninety percent of the courses are delivered in house by STC resources at the Statistics Canada Training Institute.  The thirty full time trainers are Agency professionals on temporary assignments to the Institute.  In addition, 200 “guest lecturers” donate their time to performing training functions in addition to their regular jobs.  
A Training and Development Committee, composed of a dozen divisional directors and chaired by one of the Agency’s most senior executives, provides overall management and direction and continually reviews, discusses and monitors the definition of training needs and policy.  Through this committee, training content, scope and overall thrust is entirely in the hands of the supervisors of its beneficiaries.  
Employees discuss their training needs for their current job and for their career planning during their annual performance review and also during biennial skip-level interviews.  Most divisions have training coordinators who develop and maintain divisional training plans that incorporate individual training plans.  
The Agency is particularly cognizant of the challenges facing its junior support and non-technical staff.  Support and technical programs are in place to increase the technical and quantitative skills of this large group of employees most at risk of becoming technologically redundant, and to ensure that multi-skilling and versatility will make them more readily redeployable.  Formal training, interspersed with work assignments and active mentoring provide opportunites to employees to gain knowledge and skills in technical, communication and project skills.  
Career Broadening - Mobility Through Assignments
Employees at Statistics Canada are strongly encouraged to accept rotation to different work areas in order to consolidate their newly acquired skills and broaden their experience.  The Agency operates a number of mechanisms such as the Corporate Assignments program (CAD), the rotation of new professionals and the rotation of senior managers to ensure the existence of a large cadre of mobile employees, who are willing and able to move to new, demanding work assignments.  These career broadening programs ensure that the Agency retains the ability to adapt quickly to change.  A key element which supports the rotational programs is that employees are guaranteed the security of returning to their home positions.  
Initiated in 1983, CAD is designed to support training and career development.  It brokers assignments, providing fast service with minimum red-tape to fill human resources requirements on a temporary basis, meet peak workloads or start urgent new projects.  It provides employees with opportunities to acquire new work experience, practise second-language skills, explore different areas in the Agency, gain experience that may lead to transfers or promotion, or get a second start because of downsizing or restructuring.  While on CAD there is no acting pay.  CAD provides career counselling, resume writing and helps in interview preparation, and special assistance for employees with disabilities and aboriginal employees.  All indeterminate employees are eligible to apply for CAD, with their director’s approval.  After four years in the same position, employees need no formal approval to participate and be considered for a developmental assignment.  The CAD program generally has about 500 (over 10% of) indeterminate employees on assignments at any given time.  Since its inception, over 4,000 assignments, ranging in duration from six months to two years, have been arranged for 2,500 employees from various groups and levels.  Statistics over the past ten years have indicated that CADs have a higher rate of subsequent career success compared to non-CADs.
Generic Competitions
At Statistics Canada, generic competitions are now the norm for the three most senior levels—Director and Director General, Assistant Director and Section Chiefs.  Other groups and levels are starting to use generic competitions.  With Agency-wide generic competitions, high potential employees candidates from a variety of areas are given consideration in the selection process.  Senior managers are encouraged to acquire a broader appreciation of corporate issues affecting the Agency and to develop a corporate identity.  Generic promotions provide additional career development benefits.  For instance, they:
•	require employees to have a broader understanding of the Agency rather than just knowledge of their own work area, and
•	encourage middle and senior managers to develop versatility through career-broadening assignments
Staffing through generic jobs is facilitated by the Agency’s move to increased use of generic job descriptions.
Middle Management Program
Middle managers gain experience and develop managerial skills through participation in a Task Force designed to initiate a group of managers into tackling Agency issues and preparing an analysis and recommendations for presentation to the executive.  Managers develop sensitivity to the various interests of many disparate groups in the organization.  They also gain from the inter-group collaboration.
Biennial Skip-Level Discussion on Career Development
Statistics Canada has added an additional step in its Performance Feedback and Review process by inviting employees to participate in a skip-level interview with their supervisor’s supervisor every two years.  These interviews focus upon the employee’s career aspirations and suggestions from the skip-level supervisor on the most appropriate means of attaining them through on-the-job training, courses, seminars, conferences, assignments and other means.  The meetings provide employees with a corporate perspective of occupational growth.  One of the main themes of these interviews is to encourage versatility in employees through developmental opportunities.
Research Sabbatical
The Internal Research Sabbatical Program (which is offered to mid-level employees with requisite expertise and professional training) provides the opportunity to be temporarily exempted from duties to pursue concentrated full-time research on a topic of their own choosing for up to a year.  Sabbaticals contribute to employee development in that they enhance research and analytical skills and facilitate mobility into areas where such skills are in demand.

Core Developmental Initiatives
Figure 4.10 outlines the core developmental initiatives provided by Statistics Canada to all its employees.  These initiatives occur within the framework shown in Figure 4.8 which includes training, career broadening and a positive work environment.  It is believed that placing training within this strategic HR context enables these initiatives to flourish.  Beyond this core set of developmental activities, more specific initiatives have been developed to meet the needs of specific groups of employee such as support and entry level employees, technical employees, junior and intermediate employees, and middle and senior managers.
Positive Work Environment
Statistics Canada believes that a positive work environment is an essential element in its HR strategy.  Among the most important ingredients fostering trust and commitment is its unique No Lay-Off Policy, maintained since 1979 despite times of budget restraints.  The policy is a vital prerequisite for the success of its mobility and career broadening mechanisms since it ensures job security and thereby facilitates risk-taking, mobility, and versatility.  On the other hand, the policy has succeeded because of the Agency’s strong investment in the training and rotation of its employees.  It also depends on the unique redeployment procedures that are in place should reassignment be necessary.  The policy and programs reinforce and support each other.
Other practices are also in place to foster a positive work environment— employee opinion surveys, flexible work options, employment equity initiatives, a comprehensive awards program, a variety of communication tools, and extensive supportive services including career counseling, an employee resource centre and employee assistance programs.  
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
Reading the above cases the reader is struck by the fact that while every organization has its own career development processes there is an amazing degree of similarity in what is being done and how it is being done.  The following conclusions can be drawn from the cases presented in this chapter.
Top Management Commitment and Support is Key
There is almost uniform consensus that perhaps the most important factor contributing to the success of any career management and career development system is top management commitment and support.  “It is the absolute No.1 factor.”  Without the driving force from the very top, the best processes and tools will not work or provide the benefits they are capable of delivering.  The cases indicate that most senior executives set the tone for the culture.  They use various processes and mechanisms to cascade the commitment and the significance that is to be attached to developing people for organizational success and personal growth down to every level of management.  As was noted by one respondent:  “If top management espouses it, it filters down.”  For example, when Alcan launched  its Succession Management and Leadership Development process around the globe, the CEO visibly endorsed it.  At Royal Bank, John Cleghorn, Chairman and CEO, demonstrates his commitment to people and leadership development by spending time in courses offered for high potential managers and executives.  
The cases also indicate that senior executives and leaders are “champions” for career development in best practice organizations.  As one respondent noted:  
“Capability is entrenched in our people managers at senior levels and it becomes part of our modelling behaviour...  throughout the organization.” 
Best Practice Organizations Invest in Career Development
Best practice organizations are also willing to invest in the career development process: to back up their vision of a career resilient workforce that is committed to the organization’s success with actual commitment in financial, human and technical resources.  IBM, for example, was willing to invest $1 million to get the Career Vitality Centre up and running.  Financial support from Health Canada’s senior management was identified as a primary reason for it being considered a successful continuous learning organization.  Best practice organizations have developed and are continually developing tools to help employees as well as managers to be better career planners and people developers.  
The commitment is relative to what the organization can afford.  Not every organization is big enough or has enough slack to afford generous investments.  But every organization can back up its commitment according to its means.  Investments of money, time and technology communicate the importance of career development to the employees and reinforce the idea the employees are valued resources.  The following quote typifies this attitude:
“Our chairman, our president, and our senior corporate management committee see the value in human capital.  And having seen the capital, creates the opportunity for the corporate human resources function to come forward with some best-in-class practices.  I would be shocked if an HR function could be considered best-in-class in a number of things if they didn’t have a corporate executive committee that thinks that human capital is pretty important.”
In Best Practice Organizations Career Development is Aligned With Personal Goals As Well As Corporate Objectives
There is consensus among the organizations who participated in this study that career development must be aligned with personal goals and corporate objectives.  These organizations consider it to be of utmost importance to link career goals with business strategies, directions and needs.  In other words, people development must be aligned with business performance for both parties to win.
Best Practice Organizations Have A Culture Which Values, Supports and Rewards Learning
Successful career development systems thrive within a culture that supports and rewards learning and participation.  Statistics Canada and Hewlett-Packard are excellent examples of organizations which have developed and nurtured a culture which facilitates, supports and rewards career development.  It is reassuring to note that cultural change, while often slow and painful, is possible.
The cases suggest that top management’s vision and support is critical to cultural change.  The cases also suggest that having top management support is sometimes all that is needed to move an entire organization into a state or culture that is more in tune to the realities of today’s workforce.
Best practice companies also recognize the importance of having a supportive manager to sustained cultural change:
 “You should never send a changed person back to an unchanged environment.  If the manager’s not involved, the environment may not change and you get no benefit from your career development activities.”
In Best Practice Organizations Responsibility for Career Development Is Shared
In all the best practice companies examined, responsibility for career development rests with three parties: the individual, the manager, and the organization.  As one participant noted: 
“The primary onus is on the individual.  The individual needs to take responsibility for his or her own career and career development.  The manager needs to be supportive and needs to provide coaching in terms of identifying the right gap...and then how it may be closed.  The organization should be responsible for ....creating an environment where learning and continuous learning is valued.  From a financial sense, providing support is warranted, and from an organizational sense as well, making sure that there is sufficient flexibility in the system that people have time for it...and providing the tools and incentive to do it.”  
Without question, the traditional, more paternalistic view of career development (i.e. that organizations will manage employees’ career for them, that people join an organization for life and the organization will take care of them) is no longer valid.  In every organization examined, the message is clear: career development is employee owned, manager facilitated, and organization supported. 
In Best Practice Companies There is Accountability for Career Development
All best practice companies have accountability built in to their career development processes (i.e. accountability is highlighted and “institutionalized”).  Who is held accountable, however, varies from organization to organization.  While some organizations feel that all three parties are responsible:
 “...the organization is really accountable to its shareholders to really develop people all the time; the individuals are accountable to themselves and to the organization in terms of how they develop...” 
Others feel that the accountability of managers is critical.  The cases indicate that managers in best practice companies play a pivotal role in coaching employees.  They assess not only performance but gaps in skills and developmental needs.  To ensure managers recognize the importance of these activities, systems are  in place in best practice organizations to hold managers accountable for the development of their employees.  Some organizations have gone as far as making career development of employees an integral part of the manager’s performance evaluation, with weakness in this area impacting on performance ratings and the outcomes attached to them.  In these organizations, managers are accountable not only for financial performance (for profit organizations) or performance in product or service delivery (in not-for-profit organizations), but also for people management (best practice organizations consider career development to be an essential component of people management.) For example, in the Systems & Technology unit of the Royal Bank, commencing in 1999, 25% of the compensation of people managers will be contigent on their HR management.
Best practice organizations also publicize and publicly reward those managers who have been exemplary in the area of career development.  When Royal Bank recently awarded (through its company-wide Star Performance Program) a manager for her excellence in people management (she won a cruise!), the message could not be clearer to employees that what is valued is not only “good work in customer orientation or support, or saving the Bank a lot of money, or some high-tech solution - it’s good people management.”  The adage rings true: “What is measured gets done; what’s rewarded gets attention.” 
Best Practice Organizations Give Managers Training on How to Help Employees With Career Development
Best practice organizations recognize that for managers to be competent and comfortable in their career development activities, they need to be trained in activities such as how to be an effective coach, how to give performance feedback etc.  Some organizations have not provided training systematically and now feel the need to develop this critical skill in their people.  Others have moved forward to provide the tools and training necessary for both the coach and the coached (e.g. Royal Bank’s Royal Coaching Journey).
Best Practice Organizations Give Employees the Processes, Information, Tools and Resources That They Need to Develop Their Careers	
Best practice companies recognize that if they are placing part of the onus for career planning and development on the individual, then the individual must have the processes, information, tools and resources in place to proceed.  This is the “support” that is required of the organization.  The cases indicate that best practice organizations have indeed provided extensive support to their employees in this regard.  Most of the best practice organizations considered in these cases provide a host of information and resources to facilitate individual career planning and development (i.e. provide self-assessment tools, catalogues of internal and external training options and educational opportunities, workshops, and resources in career and personal planning).  The key to the usefulness of these resources appears to lie not in how they are offered (i.e. online technology versus less sophisticated means), but rather, in their accessibility, timeliness and perceived relevance.  
Best Practice Organizations are Good At Communicating With Employees
Communication of key career development information and initiatives is considered by all best practice organizations to be a critical success factor.   They know that new career development tools and initiatives, no matter how good, are useless if not utilized.  Many best practice organizations also make strategic use of their career development systems to communicate with employees.  For example, many use their job posting system , not only as a means to advertise openings in the organization, but also as a tool to communicate to the employees what’s happening in the organization, and to provide employees with a better appreciation of what opportunities are available.
Best Practice Organizations Offer Their Employees a Number of Development Options
Best practice organizations offer and make available to their employees a range of developmental options (for example, formal courses, seminars, workshops, conferences, mentoring).  There is also a move toward self-directed, self-paced learning (i.e. “any time-any place learning”).  IBM, for example, has converted many of their courses to online versions, not only to contain costs but also to allow for self-paced learning.
Best Practice Companies Emphasize Experiential Learning
Most best practice companies consider “learning from experience” to be the most important developmental strategy (e.g. on the job learning, rotations, assignments, projects).  Statistics Canada’s Corporate Assignments program (CAD), and career broadening programs reflect a strategy that is endorsed by most organizations.
Best Practice Companies Integrate Career Management Processes into other Key Human Resources Processes
In all best practice organizations examined in this research the career management and development processes are integrated with and supported by other human resources processes such as performance management, succession management, HR planning, and, in many instances, recruitment and staffing.  As noted earlier, some best practice organizations even link career development to the compensation and reward system.  Good HR practices recognize the interrelationships among the various processes and integrate them in a well-connected system.  
In best practice organizations, career development is part and parcel of the performance management process.  With performance assessment comes the identification of skills gaps and developmental activities which will enable better performance and a higher level of growth and career aspiration.  
Best Practice Organizations Identify and Give Special Attention to High Potential Employees
Almost all of the organizations in these cases identify high potential employees and target them for systematic and more extensive development and exposure, and planned career moves.  Best practice organizations:
•	identify promising employees at an early age and at an early stage of their career
•	 “reach deeper into the organization” to identify high potential employees
Best Practice Organizations Focus on Identifying Leadership Throughout the Organization
Best practice organizations also recognize that focussing on high potential employees is not enough - it is also important to pay attention to the “solid citizens”, the good contributors who may not be the “high potential employees” or the “high-flyers”, but whose motivation and contribution is critical to the success of the organization.  Such organizations focus on developing leadership throughout the organization.  
Best Practice Organizations Regularly Evaluate Their Career Development System
Evaluations of the effectiveness of the career development system and programs are done with varying degrees of sophistication in best practice organizations.  While some track usage of programs, most track satisfaction with training.  Almost all best practice companies will have data on the costs associated with training and development.  Few, however, are able to quantify the benefits.  Many best practice organizations engage in career development programs because they believe in the importance of people.  
“....We cannot quantify it...it is something that we know that when we don’t do it that our people are not thinking globally, their mind set is not correct, they do not understand the strategy...they don’t have the network...The company cannot quantify it, but the payback is there.”
Gender Representation at the Top Still an Issue
A consistent but disturbing finding is that despite all the “best-in-class” career development systems and practices in the companies interviewed, the percentage of women in senior level positions is still very low.  Organizations may have identified high women potentials in the lower ranks (some even have a higher percentage of them than males) but somewhere along the way up the hierarchy their representation dwindles.  Organizations acknowledge that there could be a variety of reasons for the phenomenon and agree that closer study and subsequent action is necessary.  
Of particular interest is the fact that many of the competencies in the competency-based systems now in place in many organizations may be characterized as more “female” in nature (e.g. teamwork and cooperation; sharing information and communicating effectively; listening, understanding and responding, etc.).  If these competencies are “objective”, and are “supposed to get you somewhere”, why are the women not “there”?  Organizations appear to be quite conscious of the need to accelerate the development of women.  Similarly, they are aware that serious assessment of the causes and related issues are warranted.
Caveat
Finally, it needs to be noted that not all of the processes and strategies outlined above will work in every organization.  Much depends on culture.  While what works in one culture may not necessarily work in another, lessons can be learned and strategies adapted.  Organizations should look at their culture and their commitment and evaluate which of the above success factors will work within their own environments.

FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 4
1	Fitz-Enz, J.  (1993).  Benchmarking Staff Performance, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
2	Levels do exist in terms of scope of responsibility.  There is an equivalent of a VP of Human Resources at HP for example who uses this title when dealing with the public, but internally goes by the title of manager.
3	Specific, Measurable, Action Oriented, Realistic, Timeline
4	As developmental needs evolve, programs must be assessed and new programs developed to address new needs.  Assessment as to “What’s the useful life of a program?” is on-going at the Bank.
5	Merit/salary increases are based on skills and competencies achieved; bonuses are tied to the Bank’s performance and the individual’s performance and contribution to the unit.

Chapter 5 - Summary and Recommendations
The previous chapters of this document examined career development of knowledge workers in the federal Public Service.  Chapter two presents results obtained from detailed interviews with a select1 sample of 254 federal knowledge workers.  These employees worked in 19 different government departments and agencies.  Chapter three outlines and explains the survey data collected from a representative sample of 2,350 federal knowledge workers.  Thirteen departments and agencies participated in this phase of the research.  Chapter four summarizes the career development practices and procedures of seven Canadian organizations who are considered to be on the leading edge of career development. The interview and survey samples were selected and analysed to permit us to generalize the results of this research to the population of federal Public Service knowledge workers.  In total, employees from 19 departments representing 48 different job classifications participated in this research.
Conclusions relating to each of these studies have been included at the end of the appropriate chapters and will not be reiterated here.  Instead, this chapter of the report will attempt to integrate findings from the three studies, identify key findings, and suggest a number of ways in which the federal Public Service can enhance the career development of their knowledge workers.
Summary of Key Findings
The findings from the two research studies are very similar.  Both studies suggest that knowledge workers in the Public Service enjoy their work, are keen to learn new skills, take great pride and personal satisfaction in making a contribution to Canadian society and are prepared to take on new challenges.  Employees in this group believe they have done a good job and gone beyond what is required of them.  They are, however, frustrated by a perceived lack of recognition for the work they do (both within the Public Service and from the Canadian public), the human resources management practices within the Public Service, and by various aspects of the bureaucracy.  Many knowledge workers also express frustrations with their salary.  The data would suggest that these frustrations have contributed to low levels of commitment and a high propensity to consider other employment.
The majority of respondents in both studies are in the transition/mid-career and later stages of the career cycle and have considerable work experience.  Employees in the interview sample had high career mobility (part of their career development strategy) while those who participated in the survey were notably less mobile.
While respondents in both studies have given considerable thought to their career goals, they feel that their immediate supervisor, their department and the Public Service have provided little support for their career development.  While virtually all of the employees in the survey felt that the responsibility for career development of employees should be shared (a view which is commonly held by experts in this area), almost all felt that they have been left to manage their career development on their own.
Both studies suggest that employees who wish to advance in the public sector need to adopt strategies which increase their breadth of knowledge (high mobility, lateral moves, acting positions, stretch assignments) and increase their visibility.  Having a mentor also helps.  Education, training, and hard work, however, do not appear to be linked to career advancement.  Unfortunately, the data from both studies would suggest that many employees believe that these strategies (i.e. work hard and further your education) will lead to career success.
Both studies also indicate that the organization can support employee career development by increasing its focus on people; communicating trends/directions; giving employees the opportunity to acquire breadth and to become more visible; helping employees understand their strengths and weaknesses; and by developing mentoring programs.  Unfortunately, the data from both studies would suggest that many Public Service knowledge workers do not have access to these kinds of support.
Satisfaction with career progress was high in the interview sample, with 75% of respondents indicating they were satisfied/very satisfied.  Executives and respondents in the AEXDP and ADM pools were more likely to report high satisfaction with their career progress (virtually everyone in these samples was satisfied or very satisfied).  These findings are not surprising as one would expect those who have progressed through the hierarchy to be satisfied with their progress!  Managers, scientists, employees in CAP and MTP, and employees who were not in CDPs were less likely to be satisfied with their career progress.  
Half of the employees who participated in the survey phase of the research were satisfied with their current career progress (33% were neutral and 19% were dissatisfied).  Respondents were, however, much more pessimistic about their future career prospects in the Public Service: 35% feel it is somewhat likely they will achieve their career aspirations if they stay in the Public Service, 30% say it is not at all likely.  Just over half of those in the executive category and 44% of those who have been promoted in the past five years think their career goals will be met in the Public Service.  Only 27% of those who have not received a promotion in the past five years are positive about their future career prospects.  Similar findings can be observed when we looked at individual items from the job satisfaction scale.  Only 24% of the sample were satisfied with their ability to advance in the Public Service.  
These findings underline how critical it is for the Public Service to address career development among its knowledge workers.  As the results show, there are many benefits to be gained by focusing on this issue (i.e. reduced turnover, greater retention of key workers, higher commitment, reduced stress and frustrations, greater morale) and potential costs if it is ignored (lower commitment, higher turnover, lower morale).  Recommendations are given below.
Recommendations
Definitions of Career Success and Career Aspirations
To provide appropriate career development supports to employees it is important to understand what it is that they want from their careers.  The data from both the interview and survey studies suggest that there is not one common view of career success held by federal knowledge workers.  Nor do all workers have the same aspirations.  The research indicates that approximately 40% of the study participants ascribe to “traditional” definitions of career success, while the rest espouse newer, more dynamic and holistic definitions.  
Those with “traditional” definitions of career success define success in terms of career progress (increased responsibility, advancement to a higher position, succession up the ranks); recognition (rewards, fame); and increased financial rewards.  The aspirations of employees in this group are positional (i.e. want to be an ADM, a DM, in a management position) and progression related.  Employees in this group define satisfaction with career progress in terms of visible progress and “getting the position they aspired to.” 
Those with more holistic views of career success define success in terms of satisfaction with the work they do; a personal sense of accomplishment; a chance to make a contribution; and being able to learn and develop new skills.  The aspirations of this group revolve around job satisfaction (i.e. want to be in a job I enjoy); feeling a sense of achievement; being in a position where they can learn something new; and doing a job that makes a contribution.  Employees in this group define satisfaction with career progress in terms of personal accomplishment, self-esteem, learning, and doing work they like.  Employees in this group are rewarded by a sense of accomplishment, a chance to make a contribution, interactions with colleagues and a chance to learn.  Many respondents with this more “holistic” view of success indicate that they stay in the Public Service “despite the money - not for the money.”
Unfortunately, the research indicates that current Public Service career development practices satisfy neither of these definitions of career success; nor do they help employees in either group meet their career aspirations.  Gap analysis indicates that many employees in the holistic group do not feel that their job (as it is currently structured) provides them with a personal sense of accomplishment (gap 36%); offers them the opportunity to learn and develop new skills (gap 27%); or permits them to make a contribution to society (gap 21%).  Similarly, many in the traditional group do not feel that their current salary provides a comfortable life style (gap 35%); or that their job provides increasing financial rewards (gap 28%).
Global competition and the new economic reality suggest that the organization of the future will be flatter with fewer opportunities for advancement.  It will be harder for those with a “traditional” view of success to realize their aspirations in such organizations.  The Public Service needs to change how it defines success and change its reward systems to accommodate this new reality.  These data give rise to the following recommendations:
1.	Redefine “career success” to include traditional and non-traditional career paths and career aspirations.  This re-definition should include changes to the compensation system.
2.	Develop different types of career development programs to accommodate these different definitions of success and career aspirations.
Sense of Accomplishment
As noted previously, approximately half of both samples defined career success in terms of “a sense of accomplishment.”  These employees are satisfied with their career progress when they perceive that they have accomplished something worthwhile and have learned something.  Unfortunately, the data suggest that for many federal knowledge workers, the Public Service work culture and the bureaucracy are reducing their ability to obtain a sense of accomplishment from work (gap of 36%).  During the interviews, employees stated that they were frustrated by the fact that they never got to see how their work was used, that their feedback was lost or ignored, that their ideas got watered down, that their work was shelved, and that there was little to no recognition of their accomplishments.  Finally, it is important to note that the lack of a sense of accomplishment was the main reason given by knowledge workers (particularly those in the scientific and professional groups) for thinking of leaving the Public Service.  It is recommended that the Public Service:
3.	Identify ways to increase the personal sense of accomplishment felt by its knowledge workers.  Specifically the Public Service might:
-	provide greater autonomy
- 	find new ways to provide recognition for work accomplishments.
With respect to the recommendation around autonomy, feelings of accomplishment come from seeing ideas put into action.  Employees expressed great frustration with the red tape that inhibited their ability to take action.  This suggests that employees will experience a greater sense of accomplishment when they are empowered to get the job done (i.e. remove layers of bureaucracy and excessive levels of approval).
With respect to the provision of greater recognition the government should explore the following options:
•	improve salaries, especially at the executive level (concerns about salary are often about recognition as well as money)
•	give managers training on how to give and receive feedback
•	explore new ways of publicizing the good work the Public Service does (the data suggest that widespread Public Service “bashing” in the media and elsewhere contributes to this issue)
•	make employees more aware of existing recognition and awards programs 
•	redesign recognition and rewards programs to align what is rewarded with what different groups of employees value (the data suggest that the Public Service is “using the wrong carrots” for employees with non-traditional views of success)
The data suggest that career development and planning are strongly linked to the issue of compensation.  While 15% of those interviewed indicated that they “stay in the Public Service because of the pay and benefits”, 33% said they would leave the Public Service for better compensation.  The data suggest that there is a perception among many Public Service knowledge workers (especially in the executive group) that they are underpaid.  This perception is the cause of significant dissatisfaction.  The issue of compensation needs to be addressed by doing market surveys on salaries for comparable jobs and then either correcting the inequity or, if it is a perception problem, publicizing the market rates to show that salaries are fair.  While redressing the salary issue will not necessarily make employees happy, it should remove a key source of dissatisfaction.  It may be that until the issue of compensation is addressed, other career development initiatives will not have the desired impact.
Contribution to Society
The data indicate that a substantive number of knowledge workers feel that the main reward of working in the public sector is the chance to make a contribution (“i.e. the average citizen is better off for what I do”; “it’s not the money, it’s the difference I make”; “I can see the results, effect change”).  The chance to make a contribution is especially important to executives and those in federal CDPs (it is the number one reason respondents in these groups say they stay in the Public Service!)
Unfortunately, the data would suggest that the bureaucracy and the work culture in the Public Service make it more difficult for many employees to feel that they are making a contribution.  When asked to identify the biggest frustration of working in the Public Service, almost 25% of respondents identified frustrations around results (“I have no control over what happens to my work”; “I never see what happens to the work I do, how my work was used”; “feedback gets lost, your ideas get watered down”).  Lack of feedback makes it difficult for these employees to feel that they have made a difference.  Enhancing employees’ sense of contribution may be key to retaining knowledge workers (especially those in the executive category).  The following recommendations are suggested:
4.	Identify ways to let knowledge workers know how their work was used by others.  
5.	Explore ways to publicly reward “contributions to Canadian society.”
Accomplishment and contribution are highly inter-related concepts.  Many of the recommendations on rewarding accomplishment made earlier have relevance here as well.
Work-Life Balance an Issue
The data indicate that work-life balance is a critical issue within the federal knowledge worker population.  The majority of employees in both samples:
•	are in the full-nest stage of the life cycle
•	are part of the sandwich generation (i.e. have childcare and eldercare responsibilities)
•	have significant family responsibilities
Furthermore, almost all of the interview respondents indicate that career success and life success are closely inter-twined (i.e. “you can’t have one without the other.”) The work-life balance issue arose in both research studies.  Approximately 20% of those in the ADM pool said they “didn’t ever want to be DM” as the job involved too many hours, too much stress and no chance for balance.  Respondents in both studies were frustrated with heavy workloads and the lack of time for family, leisure and community.  While executives in the survey study were less likely to say work-life balance was important to them, they were also significantly less likely to say they were able to achieve a balance (75% of executives said work-life balance was important while only 45% said they were able to achieve such a balance!)  Particularly disturbing was the finding that parents were less likely to be promoted than non-parents.
While female survey respondents were more likely than male respondents to value work-life balance, the data from both studies suggest that work-life balance issues are more problematic for women.  Both the survey and interview data suggest that conflicting work-life goals require many women to make a choice between rapid career development and balance.  The following findings reinforce this conclusion:
•	A substantial number of women who can be considered to have achieved career success (i.e. have obtained a high number of promotions, are in the EX category or ADM pool) have no spouse and/or children.  These women stated that the fact that they have fewer family responsibilities has helped them achieve their career goals.  These results suggest that having children is perceived by some female Public Service knowledge workers to be an impediment to career advancement.  
•	A significant number of the dual-income mothers in this sample are less likely to have been promoted (i.e. can be considered less successful in the traditional sense).  These women have less work experience (45% have taken maternity leave) and are less likely to be mobile.  This group of women stated that their children had a negative effect on their ability to meet their career goals (i.e. having children reduces their mobility, and their ability to work long hours).
Managing the work-life issue is a challenge but if current conditions are any indication of long-term trends (and the elder care data suggest that they are), the Public Service can be sure of one thing: this “problem” is not going to go away.  
From a strategic perspective there are a number of reasons why it is critical that the Public Service look at the issue of work-life balance.  First, it will be difficult for departments to meet employment equity targets if capable women self select out of the career development process.  Second, succession planning will also be more difficult if career progression is associated with long hours, stress and imbalance.  Finally, in work environments where opportunities for promotion are reduced, employees have an increased need to obtain rewards outside of work.  A focus on balance would allow employees who are plateaued at work to realize rewards at home or in the community.  The following recommendations are suggested:
6.	Examine why motherhood and career advancement are perceived by many female Public Service knowledge workers to be mutually exclusive goals.   
7.	Develop future career development initiatives using a “work-life” lens.  
8.	Develop explicit policies around the career development of dual-career parents.
Many traditional career development strategies (i.e. relocation, intensive training programs with residential requirements) conflict with desires for work-life balance.  Career planning and development programs may be meaningless unless an employee’s role as a family member is also considered.  What can be done?  The research literature in this area suggests the following approaches.  From an organizational perspective, successful management of dual-career parents requires flexible work scheduling, special counselling, training for supervisors in career counselling skills, and the establishment of support structures for transfers and relocations.  The organization should also develop training programs to help employees acquire competencies to manage their careers through career information and planning, goal setting, and problem solving.  Other strategies that have proved successful include job sharing programs and childcare assistance.  In any of the above programs, however, measurement and accountability are key.  The concept of accountability is outlined in more detail in the following section.
What Career Strategies are Linked to Promotability?
As noted earlier, promotion is one of the most tangible forms of career progression.  Data on promotions are used in this study:
•	as a surrogate measure of career success (employees who have received more promotions have traditionally been viewed as being more successful) 
•	to identify what the Public Service values in their knowledge workers 
•	to distinguish between career strategies that lead to career advancement and those that do not
These data should help employees who wish to advance within the Public Service to identify which career strategies to pursue.
The data show that Public Service knowledge workers who have received promotions engage in a different set of career strategies from those who have not.  What strategies are linked to career advancement in the knowledge sector of the Public Service?  The data from both the interview and survey studies indicate that those who have been promoted are more likely to be mobile, to have taken acting positions (both at a higher level and at the same level), and to have made lateral moves within and between departments.  Those who have been promoted were also more likely to have:
•	adopted strategies that built breadth
•	focused on highly visible and important work projects 
•	sought career support from others and acquired a mentor
•	developed a style senior managers were comfortable with 
•	been given developmental opportunities such as stretch assignments and special work opportunities
•	had access to career development initiatives including individual career counselling and formal career discussions with a superior
•	interacted with senior managers 
Finally, it is interesting to note that respondents in the following demographic groupings were more likely to have received a promotion within the past five years: non-parents, women, employees whose first language is French, and those who live in the national capital region (NCR).  Respondents who stated that they had a career plan were also more likely to have been promoted than were their counterparts without such a plan.
By comparison, while some of those who had not received a promotion in the past five years indicated that they were happy where they were (“I’m in the position I always wanted”), the majority of those who had not been promoted felt there was a large gap between what they wanted from their careers and their ability to realize their objectives.  These gaps appear to be acute with respect to earning a comfortable salary and opportunities for learning and developing skills.  Respondents who had not received promotions also appeared to have had access to fewer career development opportunities (i.e. were less likely to have had a mentor, career counselling, formal career discussions with a manager, worked on a stretch assignment, or to have received a special work opportunity).  
It is interesting to note that employees who had not received a promotion in the past five years were more likely than their peers who had been promoted to have used career planning workshops.  This finding is important in that it indicates an interest on the part of these individuals to further their careers.  It also suggests that the material delivered in these workshops is inappropriate in either content or delivery.
Finally, it is interesting to note that hard work (i.e. number of overtime hours worked, exceeding work expectations) does not increase the likelihood of receiving a promotion.  Formal education and training appear to have a minimal impact.  The following career strategy recommendations should be considered:
9.	Redesign career planning workshops to make them more relevant to today’s workforce.
10.	Explicitly indicate the criteria that will be used in different promotion and advancement decisions.  
Such a delineation would help employees to better understand what the organization values and would help them match their career development efforts with their career aspirations.  Increased clarity in this area should also reduce misdirection of effort (i.e. many employees in this research seem to think that hard work will be rewarded - the data do not support this assumption), which in turn, may lead to an improvement in critical employee outcomes such as job satisfaction and morale.
11.	Use a set of outcome measures, including the “number of promotions an employee receives within a certain time frame” to formally evaluate the success of career development initiatives.
In this research employees who had received a recent promotion were more satisfied with their career progress to date, more optimistic about their prospects for the future, had higher levels of job satisfaction (especially with respect to pay and ability to advance), were more likely to identify with their department, reported higher levels of commitment to the department and the Public Service and were less likely to think about leaving the department or the Public Service.
12.	Make career development opportunities and initiatives (such as stretch assignments, special work opportunities, individual career counselling, and formal career discussions with a superior) more available to interested and qualified knowledge workers.
The Individual’s Role in Career Development
The data indicate that most Public Service knowledge workers have taken steps to develop their careers: 68% have career goals; 51% have detailed career plans; 97% can identify career development strategies they have tried.  Unfortunately, the data also suggest that many employees are using strategies which are not linked to career advancement and are not adopting strategies which are!
The following career development strategies were linked to career advancement and appeared to be widely adopted:
•	doing quality work on important things (used by 73%)
•	using a style managers were comfortable with (used by 60%)
•	showing aspiration to increased responsibility (used by 58%)
•	working on high visibility projects (used by 52%)
•	obtaining breadth to round skills (used by 46%)
The following strategies were frequently adopted but were not associated with advancement:
•	showing initiative (used by 85%)
•	exceeding expectations and working hard (used by 73%)
•	going well beyond the requirements of the job (used by 73%)
•	showing confidence (used by 65%)
•	becoming a leader within peer group (used by 60%)
•	advocating ideas effectively (used by 59%)
•	being a specialist in an important area (used by 55%)
Finally, the following career development strategies were linked to career advancement but were rarely adopted by knowledge workers:  
•	obtaining a powerful mentor (used by 11% )
•	changing departments (used by 13%)
•	networking with influential colleagues (done by 26%)
Accordingly we recommend that the Public Service:
13.	Make employees more aware of which individual career development strategies are associated with career advancement.
14.	Provide interested employees with the opportunity to network with those above them in the organization.
15.	Develop and implement formal and informal mentoring programs.
16.	Provide managers with training on how to effectively mentor subordinates.
Formal mentoring programs offer a vehicle for meeting the needs of both senior employees who have reached the pinnacle of their careers (and who want to help develop the next generation) and younger employees who want opportunities for growth and development.  Managers who mentored subordinates and departments who offered mentorship programs were considered by interview respondents to be supportive of career development.  The interview study also indicated that to be a good mentor one also has to be a good communicator (i.e. listen, be interested, and keep employees posted on what is important.) This would suggest that for a mentoring program to work, managers need mandatory training on how to communicate with and effectively mentor subordinates.  Many of the best practice organizations examined in Chapter Four provide such training.
Organizational Support of Career Development 
While three-quarters of those surveyed believe that the responsibility for career development should be equally shared between employee and employer, only 17% believe this is actually the case in the Public Service.  Most (75%) believe that, within the Public Service, employees have to take personal responsibility for their own career development.  In fact, in the interview study, the number two piece of advice respondents gave regarding career development/ career advancement was to “take control - no one will do it for you, you are the driver.”
What types of organizational support for career development are reported by knowledge workers?  Where does this support come from? Both the interview and survey studies paint similar pictures.  A minority of those in both samples perceived high levels of career development support from the organization.  The supervisor was perceived to provide more support than the department; the department was perceived to provide more support than the Public Service.
The research illustrates a number of ways in which managers, departments, and the Public Service can take more active roles in the development of employees:
Supervisors were perceived helpful if they had good people skills, were interested in the career development of their employees, kept their employees posted on important trends and helped their employees achieve their breadth, visibility and learning goals.  They were also considered supportive if they acted as mentors to their subordinates.
Departments were perceived to be supportive when they provided mechanisms to increase breadth (encouraged training, provided learning opportunities, encouraged program participation, provided employees with contact with others outside the department and kept employees posted on trends and opportunities), and when they supported training and formal career development programs.  Supportive departments also provided a culture to support managers in their career development efforts and encouraged education, training and career mobility.  Departments were viewed as non-supportive when they hindered acquisition of breadth (i.e. through structural barriers, a traditional hierarchy, or through “being too hung up on protocol.”)
The Public Service was seen as supportive when it provided the structure under which the above activities might take place (e.g., formal CDPs, communication of key information).  It was also recognized as being supportive when it facilitated education and training, made it easier for employees to increase their breadth, and focused on people skills.
These data indicate that, while the immediate supervisor is perceived to be key to career development it is difficult for a supervisor to provide assistance if the culture does not support career development.  The case studies and data from the interview indicate that measurement and accountability (at the level of the supervisor, the department and the Public Service) are necessary to effect real cultural change.  
Respondents used a number of career development initiatives including job postings, information on future career opportunities, tuition reimbursement, internal training, external training and employee orientation programs.  Career discussions with supervisors were highly valued (and linked to career advancement).  Unfortunately, this opportunity was available to only half of the employees in the survey!  The survey also identified a number of other highly effective development opportunities which were not widely available, including individual career counselling (available to 43%), career planning workshops (available to 41%), job rotation (available to 38%), formal coaching and mentoring (available to 27%), and assessments of career potential (available to only 25%).
Since most career support comes from one’s immediate supervisor, the Public Service needs to help supervisors become better people developers.  We recommend that the Public Service consider the following initiatives:
17.	Assess supervisors on their people management and people development skills (360 degree feedback would be valuable here).
18.	Provide managers with training on how to deal effectively with people (i.e. communication skills, negotiation, feedback, conflict resolutions).
19.	Devolve responsibility for career development to the level of the immediate supervisor.  This will allow managers to tailor developmental opportunities to an individual’s needs and values, and avoid the “one-size-fits-all” approach to career development.
20.	Provide supervisors with training which gives them the business rationale behind career development as well as the skills and tools they need to become career development “partners” with their subordinates.
21.	Keep supervisors informed about future career opportunities so that they can give career counselling to interested employees.
22.	Readjust workloads so that supervisors have time to support employee development (i.e. concretely recognize it is a critical part of the management job function).
23.	Make managers accountable for the career development of their employees (i.e. measure subordinates’ awareness of, access to, and use of various career development initiatives.) Develop accountability around employee participation.  Recognize and reward managers who effectively develop their people.
24.	Make departments accountable for the career development of their knowledge workers.  Establish targets; measure access to, and use of, various career development initiatives; develop executive accountability around employee participation; and recognize and reward departments who effectively develop their workforce.
25.	Make effective developmental experiences more accessible to interested employees.  The survey and interview data identify a number of such developmental experiences2 including career discussions with supervisor, individual career counselling, career planning workshops, job rotation, formal coaching and mentoring, assessments of career potential, parallel assignments, the opportunity to acquire line experience, the opportunity to mentor younger employees, the opportunity for intensive training funded by the Public Service, challenging new assignments, special work opportunities, and stretch assignments.
26.	Involve employees in the development of appropriate career development experiences and programs.
Breadth
Both the interview and survey data indicate that “breadth” of knowledge and experience seems to be one of the most important determinants of career advancement and career success in the knowledge sector.  It is also a career strategy that will enhance employability outside the Public Service.  Breadth, as defined by participants in this study, includes working in a number of different departments, making a number of lateral moves, taking a number of acting positions, broadening one’s expertise, taking stretch assignments, working to full potential, and learning on the job.  The importance of breadth is illustrated by the following findings:
•	Managers, departments and the Public Service were considered supportive if they helped employees acquire breadth, and non supportive if they hindered its acquisition.  
•	The number one piece of advice given by interview participants on how to develop one’s career and how to advance in the Public Service was to “increase your breadth of knowledge - make a lateral move, broaden your exposure, expertise.”
•	Even the “select” group who participated in the interview study felt that they were not getting the kinds of opportunities they needed to increase their breadth.
Given the importance of “breadth” to the career development of those in the knowledge sector, it is recommended that the Public Service:
27.	Make the importance of breadth (as defined above) widely known.
28.	Make it easier for employees to make lateral moves by identifying some of the most likely lateral moves both within and between departments.  
29.	Develop new strategies to acquire breadth using a “work-life” balance lens (e.g., how can employees gain breadth without relocating)
30.	Develop a compensation system which recognizes and rewards breadth as well as depth (the Public Service has a need for both in its knowledge sector).
The above strategies should also help to support a change in career aspirations by validating lateral moves (i.e. given the reality of flatter organizations, the Public Service needs to help employees see that up is not the only way to go!) Lateral moves should also help to satisfy employees’ need for new challenges and special projects.  
Visibility
Data from both studies suggest that, while breadth may be critical for career development, many employees believe that visibility is essential for advancement.  The following quotes typify this belief: 
“You can develop skills on your own but to get ahead you have to make sure others see you practising them!”
“It is not just important to be good at what you do - it is equally important to be seen as being good at what you do”
The following data support this belief:
•	Almost 40% of those who were promoted had the opportunity to interact with senior managers versus 22% of those who were not promoted 
•	Almost 25% of the interview sample used career development strategies which increased their visibility (i.e. took a job that put them in touch with people in high places, took tough jobs that put them on the radar screen)
•	Managers were considered supportive of career development if they helped the employee get more visibility
•	Almost half of the survey respondents said they wanted more opportunities to interact with senior management
Given the perceived  importance of “visibility” to career advancement, it is recommended that the Public Service:
31.	Make the importance of “visibility” (as defined above) widely known.
32.	Make it easier for employees to interact and network with senior management.
Education/Training
Respondents in both samples were highly educated.  The majority had at least one university degree; a substantial number had more than one.  The research literature indicates that a highly educated work force is, in many ways, harder to manage.  Career success is typically very important to employees with higher education.  They are also more likely to expect their work to be rewarding and challenging and have greater job mobility.  This higher degree of mobility means that the Public Service has to deal with issues confronting their knowledge workers or risk losing many of them.
Other findings around training and education are very interesting and somewhat mixed.  While almost 40% of the respondents indicated that they used a career development strategy which involved getting more training, and 11% followed a strategy of increasing their formal education, there is no real evidence from this research that these strategies work.  People who emphasize training and education (scientists, officers, and employees who were not involved in a CDP) are less likely to have received a promotion in the past five years; those who have “made it” (executives, ADM pool, AEXDP) were unlikely to recommend career development strategies which emphasize training and formal education.  Instead, they encouraged employees to focus on strategies which increase breadth and visibility.  Other data suggest that, while employees think learning is important, they value on the job and experiential learning rather than formal training or education.  Finally, it is important to note that:
•	education and training are seen as ways that the Public Service supports career development
•	half of the survey respondents said they wanted the opportunity to take intensive education funded by the Public Service
With respect to education and training, we recommend that the Public Service:
33.	Explicitly indicate how formal training and educational qualification are used in different promotion and advancement decisions (i.e. are they considered a requirement for the job, an indication of breadth, an indication of depth, not considered at all?)
34.	Redesign training programs to make them more relevant to today’s workforce (i.e. experiential learning, on the job training, mentoring).
Equity Issues
Data from the survey and the interview studies suggest that there may be some backlash to government policies around employment equity and diversity.  This backlash seems to centre around issues of language, gender and age.  For example:
•	25% of men in the interview sample said the fact they were men had made it hard for them to advance
•	14% of interview participants said that equity issues in their department made it difficult for them to get ahead (i.e. they believed opportunities were available only to certain groups)
•	younger employees with fewer years of experience were more likely to be promoted than their older counterparts with more years of experience
These data are cause for concern: they may just represent the tip of the iceberg.  To counteract these perceptions, we recommend that the Public Service:
35.	Provide employees with information on why employment equity and diversity initiatives are necessary.  
36.	Make recruitment, hiring and promotion decisions transparent.
Federal Career Development Programs
The following findings from the interview study suggest that the Public Service needs to re-examine the design and delivery of their CDPs:
•	Only 2% of respondents currently in CDPs would recommend these programs to colleagues as a way to develop and advance their careers.  
•	One-third of the interview respondents, when asked what one change would make it easier for Public Service employees to meet their career goals, requested that the Public Service develop better career development initiatives and programs.  Suggestions included proactive career planning, institutionalized career development programs, individual assessments of career potential (i.e. make it possible for employees to identify their own strengths), individualized career counselling, retraining programs and formal coaching and mentoring programs.  Employees who participated in CDPs were more likely to give these responses.
•	Not all federal CDP participants had the same career aspirations.
It is also interesting to note that only 2% of those who were not in a federal CDP perceived that these programs would increase their chance for promotion.  The data do not support this perception.  On the contrary, those who participated in a CDP were more likely to have been promoted.  They were also more likely to have had a manager who supported their career development and to have worked in a department whose culture supported career development.  
It is hard to determine cause and effect in the above data.  Do employees not participate in CDPs because they do not feel they will help OR are they more likely to use this rationale after the fact to justify their not participating in the program?  Are the advantages (i.e. management and departmental support) reported by those in CDPs a result of the program or are people in such programs more likely to end up in an area where career development is supported and valued?  Given the above findings, we recommend that the Public Service:
37.	Offer a broader range of federal career development programs to meet the needs of today’s more diverse workforce (i.e. those with traditional definitions of success as well as those with more “holistic” views).  
Public Service Culture
The data from both studies suggest that many knowledge workers believe that the Public Service does not value its employees and that the lack of organizational support for career development is just another symptom of this problem.  When asked what one change would make it easier for knowledge workers to develop their careers, almost 20% of those in the interview sample asked that the government increase its focus on people (training on people skills, 360 degree feedback, people quadrant of balanced score card).  Scientists, officers, analysts, and employees who were not in a CDP were more likely to request this change; executives were the least likely to request this change.
Approximately 15% of interview respondents said that the most frustrating part of working in the Public Service was that “senior management treated public servants badly; devalued them, treated them as second class.” When asked how the  Public Service could reduce their frustrations these respondents requested that the Public Service become more people oriented (i.e. ask employees what they want, value employees and show employees more respect).  It is interesting to note that respondents in the manager category were significantly more likely to report frustration with the culture than were employees in other job categories.
Many of the recommendations given previously in conjunction with organizational support of career development are equally applicable here.  The culture might become more people focused if the Public Service: provided managers with information on why people are important and what types of support employees desire; provided training in people skills and mentoring; made developing people part of the manager’s role; and introduced measurement and accountability.  
Intent to Turnover
The findings from both the interview and survey studies suggest that many knowledge workers are thinking of leaving the Public Service.  Twenty percent of those interviewed indicated that their ultimate career aspirations were to work outside the government sector.  Three-quarters of respondents from both samples have thought about leaving the Public Service; 21% indicated they were thinking of leaving within the next year!  Women, executives, respondents in the ADM pool, scientists, and employees who participated in a CDP were most likely to have thought of leaving the Public Service.
Why would these employees consider leaving the Public Service?  The data suggest two quite different sets of motivations: push factors (employees would leave to get away from the frustrations of their job) and pull factors (employees would leave because working conditions were more attractive outside the Public Service).
Push factors cited by employees in both the survey and interview studies include the work culture, political interference, how employees are treated by managers, frustrations with the Public Service bureaucracy, and a lack of recognition and respect.  Pull factors include the desire for greater recognition, the opportunity to earn a higher salary (50% gave this response), the desire to engage in more interesting work and a desire to advance.  It is interesting to note that all of these reasons for leaving relate to the Public Service work environment, not the nature of the job.  What keeps people in the Public Service? The nature of the work, the chance to make a contribution, the challenges of the job, and the people one works with.
Employees who had not received a promotion within the last five years (many of whom are in the scientist and professional category) were also more likely to be thinking of leaving the Public Service.  The reasons they gave for leaving were, however, quite different from those cited by other respondents: an unsupportive work environment (see the discussion of the lack of focus on people), limited opportunities for advancement, and lack of job security.
The recommendations given in conjunction with a sense of accomplishment appear to be equally applicable.  The large gaps between the desire for, and availability of, a sense of accomplishment and a satisfactory salary, are strongly linked to employees’ intent to turnover (i.e. these were two of the key reasons respondents cited for leaving the Public Service).  The data also draw attention to the need to increase retention of key knowledge workers (those in the executive, scientific and professional and CDP categories) by devising means to minimize the frustrations, increase the incentives, or both.  It should be noted that incentives do not necessarily need to be monetary in nature; they might also be in terms of respect and recognition.
HR Practices
Data from the both the interview and the survey suggest that many employees perceive current HR programs and practices to be problematic.  During the interview, over half of the respondents gave HR related answers when asked what one change would make it easier for knowledge workers in the Public Service to meet their career goals.  The following aspects of HR were identified as problematic: the job classification system (job categories too structured); specific job requirements (more emphasis on attitude and ability to learn, less on specific technical requirements, remove rigid job requirements); hiring practices (kill term/indeterminate distinctions); recruitment practices; the competition process; the use of acting positions; and staffing processes (it takes too long to hire who you need, can’t get right people, can’t let people go who might be better off somewhere else).
Almost half of survey respondents felt their department was not going a good job of managing the job competition process.  Of particular concern is the finding that only 30% of people who were promoted in the past five years and 38% of executives think that the competition process is fair.  Individuals who had not been promoted in the previous five years were particularly harsh in their judgements about the job competition process.
Fourteen percent of respondents stated that the Public Service needed to streamline HR (i.e. cut the red tape in HR, make staffing more user friendly, more flexible, make it possible to hire who you need, reduce turnaround time to hire).  
Organizational outcome data provide a second lens through which to assess the effectiveness of current HR policies and practices.  Organizational HR policies and practices can contribute to a work environment that either supports or inhibits effective job performance and organizational health.  Survey data on organizational health and work environment provide additional support for our recommendation that the Public Service re-examine current HR policies and practices.  For example:
•	Only 12% of respondents believed their department was  doing a good job of managing their  work environment
•	More than half the sample felt that their department was not doing a good job managing employee stress, employee morale, employee loyalty, employee workload and employee retention
It is important to note that this view of HR appears to be uniformly held (i.e. no gender, job type, etc. differences of note).  The following recommendations are made with respect to human resources management:
38.	Redesign the competition process.  Employee involvement should be sought during this redesign.
39.	Align HR policies and practices with the demographics of the Public Service work force (i.e. work-life balance, sandwich generation, elder care, dual-income couples).
40.	Redesign HR policies and practices to be more flexible and user friendly.
41.	Integrate HR policies and practices with individual departmental missions (the data suggest that there is no one set of programs or policies that will meet everyone’s needs).
42.	Measure “organizational health” on an annual or bi-annual basis.  Measures of organizational health should include (but not be limited to) work stress, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to turnover, morale, and satisfaction with career progress.  These measures can be used by departments to formally evaluate the success of their career development initiatives and processes.  They can also be used in the accountability process.
Impact of Downsizing on Career Development
Approximately 20% of those who participated in the interview process (almost half of those in the scientist and non-CDP samples) were dissatisfied with their career progress because they felt that it was “out of their control.”  Respondents who held this view stated that “it did not matter how hard they worked, there was always some externality”; “downsizing has reduced opportunities - there is nowhere to advance.”
Recommendations given in conjunction with sense of accomplishment and compensation are equally applicable here.  These findings also lend further support to the idea that the Public Service has to recognize and reward different types of success (i.e. lateral moves, not just progression up the ranks).
Communication Key
Study respondents indicated that communication of trends and opportunities at all levels (i.e. supervisor, department, Public Service level) was an important component of career development.  As can be seen from the case studies, best practice organizations place as much emphasis on communicating what career development opportunities are available as they do to creating and implementing them.  Unfortunately, only a minority of Public Service employees stated that their managers, their department or the Public Service were good at communicating.  This is consistent with the data presented earlier indicating many Public Service employees do not know which strategies lead to career advancement and which do not.  These findings indicate that the government should not simply focus on the generation and implementation of new career development opportunities.  In addition, it should:
43.	Explore new ways to disseminate relevant information on career development to interested employees.
44.	Seek, wherever possible, to involve employees in the design of career development programs and initiatives (i.e. develop channels which facilitate upward communication).
Previous recommendations pertaining to training managers and increasing feedback also have relevance to this issue.
Recognize Job Type Differences
The data show that employees’ career development experiences and aspirations are strongly associated with job type.  Key differences include the following:
Scientists and Professionals
Employees in this job category were more likely to have used career development strategies which gave them specialized knowledge rather than breadth (i.e have more formal education, are more likely to have taken educational leave and to attribute their promotions to their training/education, and are less likely to make lateral moves within or between departments).  Employees in this group are more likely to identify with their profession than with the Public Service or their department and  have the lowest commitment to both the Public Service and to their department.  The interview data indicate that one quarter of the respondents in the “scientist” group are likely to leave the Public Service in the next year!  To retain these employees the Public Service needs to design career development strategies that recognize the unique characteristics and aspirations of employees in this group.  For example, employees in this group:
•	identify recognition and satisfaction with their work as the keys to a successful career
•	have career aspirations which revolve around recognition and respect
•	were more likely to express satisfaction with their career progress because “they like what they do - the nature of their work”
•	stay in the Public Service because they like their work and the people they work with (not because they feel they can make a contribution)
•	were less interested than employees in other groups in career advancement and financial rewards
•	don’t appear to value breadth
•	would be more likely to leave the Public Service because they feel that they do not get recognition or respect for what they do and because they are frustrated with the red tape and bureaucracy
•	want special work assignments and training opportunities, rather than promotions
•	want sabbaticals, unpaid leave, recognition, and respect
Executives
Respondents in the executive category were more likely to have used career strategies that involve high mobility and acquisition of breadth.  Thirty percent of executives and 40% of those in the ADM pool are thinking of leaving the Public Service.  To retain these employees, the Public Service needs to design career development strategies that recognize the unique characteristics and aspirations of employees in this group.  For example, employees in this group:
•	were more likely to think that their department does nothing to support career development
•	were more likely to think that career development should be a shared responsibility between employer and employee, but less likely to perceive that it is shared
•	were more likely to say they stay in the Public Service because they feel that they are able to make a contribution to society.  NONE of the respondents in these groups stay because of the pay and benefits
•	were more likely to define success in terms of  personal autonomy, moving through positions of increasing responsibility, and in terms of being in positions of authority.  While the data suggest these needs are being satisfied at the present time, they should not be forgotten when designing future programs and initiatives.
•	were more likely to define success in terms of influencing the organization’s direction and being surrounded by stimulating people (The data suggest these needs are not being satisfied at the present time.)
•	have more “traditional views” of success than employees in the scientific and professional category (i.e., they value autonomy, authority, progress through the ranks)
Administrative and Foreign Services Group
Employees in this group tended to respond similarly to the executive and scientist and professional categories.  In fact, in many cases, their responses were similar to the group average presented in the report.  It is, however, important to note that employees in this job category are more negative in their assessments of recruitment practices, the management of workforce diversity, and pay and compensation practices than are employees in the other job categories.
Current federal CDPs have been developed to accommodate different career-cycle stages (i.e. MTP, CAP, AEXDP, ADM pool).  The data collected in these studies suggest that job type differences are also important determinants of career aspirations and strategies.  Consequently we recommend that the Public Service:
45.	Develop CDPs which take into account job type differences in career aspirations and definitions of career success.

FOOTNOTES CHAPTER 5
1	This sample was not chosen to represent the total population of federal sector knowledge workers but it was “selected” to allow us to examine the impact of gender, job type and participation in a federal career development program on career development.

Appendix A - References on Career Development
Arthur, M.B., Hall, D.T.  &  Lawrence, B.S.  (1989).  Handbook of career theory.  New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barner, R.  (1994).  The new career strategist: Career management for the year 2000 and beyond.  The Futurist, Sept-Oct, 8-14.
Baumann, B., Duncan, J., Forrer, S.  E., & Leibowitz, Z.  (1996).  Amoco primes the talent pump.  Personnel Journal.  75, 79-84.
Brass, D.J.  (1985).  Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization..  Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327-343.
Bratkovich, J.R., Steele, B.  & Rollins, T.  (1990).  Develop new career management strategies.  Personnel Journal, 69, 98-108.
Brousseau, K.  R., Driver, M.J., Eneroth, K, & Larsson, R.  (1996).  Career pandemonium: Realigning organizations and individuals.  Academy of Management Executive.  10, 52-66.
Burack, E.  H.  & Mathys, N.  J.  (1980).  Career management in organizations: A practical human resource planning approach.  Lake Forest, Ill.: Brace-Park Press.
Burke, R.J.  & McKeen, C.A.  (1990).  Mentoring in organizations: Implications for women.  Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 317-332.
Carulli, L.  M., Noroian, C.  L.  & Levine, C.  (1989).  Employee-driven career development.  Personnel Administrator.  34, 67-70.
Cascio, W.  & Thacker, W.  (1994).  Managing Human Resources: 1st Canadian Edition.  Toronto:  McGraw-Hill Ryerson
Constable, A.  (1993).  Bridging the gap:  Linking assessment to development.  International Journal of Career Management.  5, i-ii.
Cooper, W.H., Graham, W.J.  & Dyke, L.S.  (1993).   Tournament players.  In K.M.  Rowland & G.R.  Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 11, (pp 83-132).  Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.  
Dreher, G.  F.  &  Ash, R.  A.  (1990).  A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions.  Journal of Applied Psychology.  75, 539-546.
Dyke, L.S.  (1990).  Self-promotion in organizations.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON.  
Dyke, L.  S.  (1993).  Gender differences in self-promotion strategies.  In L.  Hammond-Ketilson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1993 Annual Conference of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, 14, (11), 34-43.  
Dyke, L.  S.  & Murphy, S.  A.  (1998, August).  How we define success: A study of what matters most to women and men.  Paper presented at the meetings of the Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.
Ellis, R.  & Henemen, H.G.  III.  (1990).  Career pattern determinants of career success for mature managers.  Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 3-21.
Ettington, D.  R.  (1997).  How human resource practices can help plateaued managers succeed.  Human Resources Management.  36, 221-234.
Gattiker, U.  E.  & Larwood, L.  (1988).  Predictors for managers’ career mobility, success, and satisfaction.  Human Relations, 41, 569-591.
Gattiker, U.E.  & Larwood, L.  (1990).  Predictors of career achievement in a corporate hierarchy.  Human Relations.  43, 703-726.
Gould, S.  & Penley, L.E.  (1984).  Career strategies and salary progression: A study of the relationships in a municipal bureaucracy.  Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 244-265.
Granrose, C.  S.  & Portwood, J.  D.  (1987).  Matching individual career plans and organizational career management.  Academy of Management Journal, 30, 699- 720.
Greenhaus, J.  H.  (1987).  Career management.  Chicago: Dryden.
Greenhaus, J.  F., Parasuraman, S.  & Wormley, W.  M.  (1990).  Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes.  Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64-86.
Gutteridge, T.G., Liebowitz, Z.B.  & Shore, J.E.  (1993).  Organizational career development: Benchmarks for building a world-class workforce.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Healey, A.  (1998).  Implementing a skill-based career development program: How one organization integrated staffing and compensation to reach success.  American Compensation  Association, May, 15-20.
Herriot, P.  (1992).  The career management challenge: Balancing individual and organizational needs.  Sage: London.  
Herriot, P., Gibbons, P., Pemberton, C.  & Jackson, P.R.  (1994).  An empirical model of managerial careers in organizations.  British Journal of Management, 5, 113-121.  
Hill, L.  & Kamprath, N.  (1991).  Beyond the myth of the perfect mentor: Building a network of developmental relationships.  Boston: Harvard Business School Case 9-491-096.  
Judge, T.  A., Cable, D.  M., Boudreau, J.  W.  & Bretz , R.D.  Jr.  (1995).  An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success.  Personnel Psychology, 48, 485-519.
Jukes, J.  (1996).  New career management program: A ‘win-win’ opportunity.  Canadian Manager.  21, 13-14
Kanter, R.M.  (1977).  Men and women of the corporation.  New York: Basic Books.  
Kaye, B.  & Leibowitz, Z.  (1994).  Career development: Don’t let it fizzle.  HRMagazine: On human resource management.  39, 78.  
Klauss, R.  (1981).  Formalized mentor relationships for management and executive development programs in the federal government.  Public Administration Review, July/Aug, 489-496.
Kram, K.E.  (1985).  Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.   Glenview, IL: cott, Foresman.
Kram, K.E.  & Isabella, L.A.  (1985).  Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development.  Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110-132.
Latack, J.  C.  (1990).  Organizational restructuring and career management.  In G.  R.  Ferris & D.  M.  Rowland, (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources, Volume 8 (pp.  109-139).  Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.  
Leibowitz, Z.  B., Feldman, B.  H.  & Mosley, S.  H.  (1990).  Career development works overtime at Corning, Inc.  Personnel.  April, 38-46.
London, M.  & Stumpf, S.  A.  (1982).  Managing careers.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.  
Lyness, K.S.  & Thompson, D.E.  (1997).  Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives.  Journal of Applied Psychology.  82, 359-375.
Mayo, A.  (1991).   Managing careers.  London: Institute of Personnel Management.
Mayo, A.  (1992).  A framework for career management.  Personnel Management., 24, 36- 39  
Melamed, T.  (1995).  Career success: The moderating effect of gender.  Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 47, 35-60.  
Melamed, T.  (1996).  Validation of a stage model of career success.  Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 35-65.
Milkovich, G.T.  & Anderson, J.  C.  (1982).  Career planning and development systems.  In K.  M.  Rowland & G.  R.  Ferris (Eds.), Personnel Management (pp.  364-389).  Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Morrison, A.  M., White, R.  P.  & Van Velsor, E.  (1987).  Breaking the glass ceiling.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.  
Moses, B.  (1997).  Career intelligence: Mastering the new work and personal realities.  Toronto: Stoddart.  
Murrell, A.  J., Hanson Frieze, I.  & Olson, J.  E.  (1996).  Mobility strategies and career outcomes: A longitudinal study of MBAs.  Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 49, 324-335.
Nicholson, N.  (1996).  Career systems in crisis: Change and opportunity in the information age.  Academy of Management Executive, 10, 40-51.  
Nusbaum, H.J.  (1986).  The career development program at Du Pont’s pioneering research laboratory.  Personnel, 63, 68-75.  	
Orpen, C.  (1993).  The effects of employment gaps on employee career prospects: An empirical study.  The Journal of Social Psychology.  133, 853-854.
Orpen, C.  (1994).  The effects of organizational and individual career management on career success.  International Journal of Manpower, 15, 27-37.
Ragins, B.R., Townsend, B.  & Mattis, M.  (1998).  Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling.  Academy of Management Executive, 12, 28-42.  
Rosenbaum, J.  E.  (1979).  Tournament mobility: Career patterns in a corporation.  Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 220-241.
Rosenbaum, J.  E.  (1984).  Career mobility in a corporate hierarchy.  Orlando, FL: Academic Press.  
Scandura, T.  A.  (1992).  Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation.  Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 169-174.
Schein, E.H.  (1996).  Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in the 21st century.  Academy of Management Executive, 10, 80-88.  
Schwoerer, C.  E.  (1990, August).  Individual characteristics, active career management, and career outcomes.  Paper presented at the meetings of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA.  
Stevens, P.  (1993).  Career development assistance strategies.  International Journal of Career Management.  5, 30-34.
Stewart, L.  P.  & Gundykunst, W.  B.  (1982).  Differential factors influencing the hierarchical level and number of promotions of males and females within an organization.  Academy of Management Journal, 25, 586-597.
Stone, T.  & Meltz, N.  (1993).  Human Resources Management in Canada, Toronto: Dryden.
Stroh, L.K, Brett, J.M.  & Reilly, A.H.  (1992).  All the right stuff: A comparison of female and male managers’ career progression.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 251- 260.
Tharenou, P & Conroy, D.  (1994).  Men and women managers’ advancement: Personal or situational determinants?  Applied Psychology:  An International Review, 43, 5- 31.
Tharenou, P., Latimer, S.  & Conroy, D.  (1994).   How do you make it to the top?  An examination of influences on women’s and men’s managerial advancement.  Academy of Management Journal, 37, 899-931.
Van Tiem, D.  & West, A.C.  (1997).  Career self-management: Employability for the new millennium.  Performance Improvement, 36 (7), 9-13.
Veiga, J.  (1983).  Mobility influences during managerial career stages.  Academy of Management Journal, 26, 64-85.  
Whitely, W., Dougherty, T.W.  & Dreher, G.  F.  (1991).  Relationship of career mentoring and socioeconomic origin to managers’ and professionals’ early career progress.  Academy of Management Journal, 34, 331-351.
Wilhelm, W.  R.  (1983).  Helping workers to self-manage their careers.  Personnel Administrator, 28, 83-89.  
Williams, S.T.  & Fox, C.J.  (1995).  Organizational approaches for managing mid-career personnel.  Public Personnel Management, 24, 351-363.  
Wils, T.  (1994).  Factors explaining why managers quit: Importance of a career.  Industrial Relations.  49, 152-159.
Wils, T., Guerin, G.  & Bernard, R.  (1993).  Career systems as a configuration of career management activities.  International Journal of Career Management.  5, 11-15.
Wright, P.C.  & Belcourt, M.  (1994).  Management development: A career management perspective.  International Journal of Career Management.  6, 3-10.

Appendix B - Sources Used in Developing the Questionnaire
Dreher, G. F. & Ash, R. A. (1990).  A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions.  Journal of Applied Psychology.  75, 539-546.
Dyke, L.S. (1990).  Self-promotion in organizations.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON.  
Gould, S. & Penley, L.E.  (1984).  Career strategies and salary progression: A study of the relationships in amunicipal bureaucracy.  Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 34, 244-265.
Granrose, C. S. & Portwood, J.  D.  (1987).  Matching individual career plans and organizational career management.  Academy of Management Journal, 30, 699- 720.
Greenhaus, J.  F., Parasuraman, S.  & Wormley, W.  M.  (1990).  Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes.  Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64-86.
Gutteridge, T.G., Liebowitz, Z.B.  & Shore, J.E.  (1993).  Organizational career development: Benchmarks for building a world-class workforce.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  
McKeen, C & Burke, R.  (1992).  Supporting the career aspirations of managerial women: Desired developmental opportunities.  National Centre for Management Research and Development, Working paper series No.  NC 92-010-J.  
Mowday, R., Steers, R.  & Porter, L.  (1979).  The Measurement of Organizational Commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Orpen, C.  (1994).  The effects of organizational and individual career management on career success.  International Journal of Manpower, 15, 27-37.
Ragins, B.R., Townsend, B.  & Mattis, M.  (1998).  Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling.  Academy of Management Executive, 12, 28-42.