Summer's Top 150: Change Management

For this second "dump post" of the week, I present you my favourite resources of the summer on change management:

1. Results, Relationships, Leadership and the Brain
2. Why we only listen to what we want to hear
3. 7 Reasons Leaders Fail
4. Bad Leader! Stifling Dissent
5. How to Speak to an Unruly Crowd
6. On Change: Inclination, Motivation, Action
7. So you want to be a Change Agent?
8. The Hazards of Leading Culture Change
9. Don't Give Up on Change
10. In Praise of Non-conformity
11. How leaders embed and transmit culture
12. It's All About Trust
13. Leading Self With Character: Courage
14. Why Should Anyone Be Led By You
15. 5 Positive Leadership Strategies
16. I'll Change If You Tell Me What You Really Want

A Not-So-Inconvenient Renewal: What Happens When Managers Change the Way They Manage

If you have been following my work over the last couple of years, you may be wondering if I actually practice what I preach with regards to organization renewal, change management, and most importantly, people management.

Every three years, the federal public service of Canada administers a government-wide survey called the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES). The 2005 PSES was administered just a week before I joined my current organization. The last PSES was administered in November and December 2008, and the results were released a few weeks ago. I have done the analysis, and the results speak for themselves: renewal is possible, and yes, people management does make a difference!

I have just put together a document entitled "A Not-So-Inconvenient Renewal: What Happens When Managers Change the Way They Manage". It presents the dramatic progress made by my organization between 2005 and 2008, as measured by the PSES.

The document is an epilogue to “An Inconvenient Renewal: Are Public Service Managers Ready to Change the Way They Manage?”, a paper I released in 2007 in which I stressed the importance of good people management and argued that while top-down change has its merits, many of the things that would make the most significant and palpable difference don’t happen at the top of the organization, but rather at the field level in the everyday interactions between managers and their employees.

I hope the PSES results will convince you that when managers change the way they manage, the ripple effects can be felt throughout the organization. To learn more about the renewal efforts in my organization, you may browse through some of the links featured in the side-bar of my blog under the header "My Websites, Papers, and Other Initiatives".

Enjoy you reading, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any question.

A Bigger One!

I know some of you would like me to comment on each link I share in these "dump posts" or at least give a snippet for what the article is about, but that will have to wait (I just can't make the time for it right now)! In the meantime, enjoy the best of the last week:

1. Making presentations in the TED style
2. "Sir, we don't actually do what we propose. We just propose it."
3. 4 Tips for Efficient Succession Planning
4. Smart Stuff from HiringSmart
5. You Don’t Know Everything
6. Stepping Up & Intrinsic Rewards
7. The Utility of Paradigm Shifting for Professional Learning Communities
8. The Geometry of Employee Engagement
9. Change is Good: The Movie
10. Three ways to impress your boss
11. The World We Live In ORC 09
12. The times they are a-changin’
13. Hope Springs Eternal for HR & Leadership
14. The Tyranny of Consensus
15. The Importance of Clarity - pt II
16. The Cost of Everyday Interruptions
17. Would you pass a stress test?
18. Over Half of Employees Say Their Managers Are Ineffective
19. Five Steps To Better Employee Communications
20. Dealing with workplace negativity
21. Combatting Negativity, Changing Attitudes in the Workplace
22. We Are Only What We Do…
23. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates Together: Part 11

This Week's Recommendations

1. Being a Boss is Two Jobs in One
2. 13 Things You Should Know About Company Culture / Organizational Culture
3. How Organizations Remain Bureaucratic
4. Improving Your Odds of Success in Driving Change
5. Feedback That Works
6. Mom's Supervision Lessons
7. Are You Micromanaging Yourself?
8. Employee Engagement & Excellence
9. 10 No Bull Tips on How to Lead a Team Meeting
10. 65 Things I Believe About HR
11. Is HR Afraid to Fire People?

And some humor:

• Flutter: After microblogging - nanoblogging
• 5 Reasons Why We All Click On Lists
• 33+ Most Amazing and Funny Twitter Comics

Some "Must-Read" Posts

A short selection of the finest posts I ran into in the past week:

1. Quiz: Does Your Work Matter to You?
2. The System Is Broken. Will B-Schools Help Fix it?
3. Ducks In A Row: Teams Rule (Staffing)
4. Leaders: Frame Your Messages for Maximum Impact
5. How To Have "Beautiful" PLC and Team Meetings: 12 Ways To Disagree
6. 6 Networking Mistakes And How to Avoid Them
7. How Group Decisions Go Wrong
8. Management skills must include ‘translation’
9. Some irrational thoughts on training and change management
10. Culture Matters
11. The times they are a-changin'
12. 10 Principles of Change Management

Also, I couldn't help to read over and over this quote from the New Zealand public service's Principles for interaction with social media:

"As an agency representative: The protocols that apply when you are acting as an official representative of your agency are the same whether you are talking to the media, speaking at a conference or using social media. Good practice is to disclose your position and that you are representing your agency. You should only disclose information, make commitments or engage in activities when you are authorised to do so. You should remember that your comments will often be permanently available and able to be reproduced in other media."

Hum... where do I fit in this?

Have a good week!

Misc. Blog Posts, Part 2: More on Management

As you know, this is probably my favourite topic, so I have more blog posts recommendations than usual. Don't panic, it's still early in the week, so you'll have time to read them all by Friday ;-)

1. He who thinks acts
2. Insultants Wanted
3. Are you making room for Mavericks?
4. What It Takes to be a Genuine Leader
5. The Movie!
6. The 6 causes of disengagement
7. The Great Disconnect
8. Leader's Capacity to Sustain Change
9. Make believe world
10. Three Things You (Probably) Won't Learn in Business School
11. When to Change for Change's Sake
12. Beckhard’s Change Equation
13. Fear brings loathing, not harder work
14. You Just May Be a Poor Boss If...
15. Put Away Your Blackberry
16. 10 Rules From The Incompetent Educational Leader's Handbook
17. Meetings: Where You Sit, How You Act, and What People Think Of You
18. Why Centralizing Power May Be Exactly What They Need
19. A Male Engineer's Perspective on Women in Male-Dominated Fields
20. Leadership and the Sexes (video)
21. Documenting Performance Measure Drivers
22. The Seven Fatal Flaws of Performance Measurement
23. The Mis-Misinterpretations of PMBOK
24. A Simple Way to Put PMBOK to Work
25. It’s Time to Make Management a True Profession

Living Renewal: Powerpoint Available on GCPEDIA

Quite a few people have been asking for the Powerpoint of last week's presentation at the CSPS Armchair Discussion. It is now available on my GCPEDIA page.

Bottom-Up Change: Comments and Feedback

Please give me your feedback about the presentation by using the comment feature below.

Thank you!

Bottom-Up Change: Video Rebroadcast

If you couldn't attend the original session taped on December 11, 2008, you will be happy to know that CSPS is rebroadcasting "Bottom-Up Change: It Starts With An Individual" on March 26, 2009, in both French and English.

Go to the CSPS Armchair Discussions website to register!

Living Renewal: Comments and Feeback

Please give me your feedback about today's presentation by using the comment feature below.

Thank you!

Career Advice, Part 1: Selling Your Ideas

15 tips to make your case and sell your ideas:

1. Expert power
2. The evidence shows that the evidence must be visible
3. What does the evidence say about presenting evidence?
4. 9 Delusions of Management Books
5. Should you seek to be more decisive?
6. Behaviours that create or break trust
7. Does your behavior damage trust?
8. How To Influence "Up"
9. Seven ways inspiring leaders communicate
10. 10 Ways to Get Management to Listen to Your Ideas
11. Overcome Your Fear of Trying Something New
12. How to stand out in any job
13. How to recruit a small army
14. Leading Change? These 5 Obama-Approved Tactics Get Buy-In
15. And of course, scheme virtuously!
    

Living Renewal: How to Turn An Organization Around in 1000 Days

It's official! I will be delivering my presentation entitled "Living Renewal: How to Turn An Organization Around in 1000 Days" at the CSPS Armchair Discussion on March 17, 2009, 8:30 to 11:00 (Eastern time).

If you are a federal public servant, you can register:

• Live presentation (Ottawa)
• Webcast

Here's the description:


Living Renewal: How to Turn An Organization Around in 1000 Days

To say the organization was in a poor state would be an understatement – it was a mess! Much of the pride and commitment of the employees had been eroded, if not lost altogether. Relations between management and staff were strained. Everywhere, the organization was preceded by its "bad reputation".

Fast-forward 3 years later: trust has been rebuilt, employees are as dedicated as they ever were, and people are now saying: "If this organization did it, anyone can!". How did this organization renewed itself? What were the steps that lead to organizational healing? What were the big lessons learned? What can you do to make renewal a reality in your organization?

In this presentation, Etienne Laliberté, will tell the story of the renewal lived in his organization over the years, and even share the secrets of how they systematically do staffing in three weeks (yes, that is correct: only three weeks!!!). In the spirit of his article published recently in the magazine Canadian Government Executive, the presentation will also challenge some of the myths around change management and demonstrate how simple - and yet difficult! - turning an organization around can be.

***

[Français]

Vivre le renouvellement: comment transformer une organisation en 1000 jours

Ce serait un euphémisme que d’affirmer que l’organisation était en mauvais état – c’était un beau gâchis! La fierté et l’engagement des employés avaient été gravement ébranlés, voire complètement anéantis. Les relations entre la direction et le personnel étaient tendues et partout, la mauvaise réputation de l’organisation la précédait.

Projetons-nous dans le futur, soit trois ans plus tard : la confiance a été restaurée, les employés sont plus dévoués et les gens disent maintenant : « Si cette organisation a réussi tout cela, tout le monde peut y arriver! ». Comment cette organisation est-elle parvenue à se renouveler? Quelles étapes ont mené à cette guérison organisationnelle? Quelles sont les grandes leçons apprises? Que pouvez-vous faire pour faire du renouvellement une réalité dans votre organisation?

Au cours de cette présentation, Étienne Laliberté, nous relatera le déroulement du renouvellement vécu dans son organisation au cours des dernières années, et partagera même comment on y fait de la dotation en trois semaines (oui, vous avez bien lu: seulement trois semaines!!!). Tout comme il le fait dans un article publié récemment dans le magazine Canadian Government Executive, cette présentation s’attaquera aussi aux mythes entourant la gestion du changement et nous démontrera à quel point il est simple - et pourtant si difficile - de transformer une organisation.

Change

Today, I am recommending you a dozen great blog posts on one of my favourite topic: change.

1. The truth about change
2. The secrets of successful change
3. Top-Down Change
4. How To Troubleshoot Change
5. Choosing a Strategy - The Big Leap Forward or Tiny Steps?
6. Three Principles of Change
7. The 6 Drivers of Organisational Change
8. How to keep the company vision strong
9. Moving from a language of destinations to a language of action!
10. How Do You Know If Your Change Will Stick?
11. Improving Communication with a Work Levels, Attractive Leadership Framework
12. Positive Leadership

Also, if I would recommend you a single book to read on change, it would be Deep Change by Robert Quinn. You can have a glimpse of some of Quinn's ideas here.

Please feel free to check out what else is in my library.

Organizational Culture

In the vein of yesterday's post, today I am sharing with you my top 10 blog postings on "organizational culture":

1. Organisational Culture
2. Organizational Culture & Leadership
3. Confusing culture
4. Using Cultural Models to Change Organisational Culture
5. Is there mold growing in your organization?
6. Why Aren’t We Learning? (fully applicable to the current problems in staffing!)
7. Why we need more doubt and less conformity
8. Shaping conversation as a leadership practice
9. High performing cultures share five key values
10. Compelling culture

Got any other resource to recommend?

Living Renewal: Myths and Reality

I am very pleased to announce the publication of my first article in a magazine!

So it's no longer a secret: now you know which organization I work for ;-)

By the way, this article is a shortened version of the introduction and conclusion of my new presentation entitled "Living Renewal: How to Turn An Organization Around in 1000 Days".


Update: February 3, 2009

The article is now available for download in Word format on my "Inconvenient Renewal" sites:

EN: http://sites.google.com/site/aninconvenientrenewal/Home/LivingRenewal-MythsandReality.doc?attredirects=0

FR: http://sites.google.com/site/unrenouvellementquiderange/Home/Vivrelerenouvellement-Mythesetr%C3%A9alit%C3%A9.doc?attredirects=0

Merci!

Etienne

In response to the comments...

As I alluded to in an earlier post, one criticism I have received repeatedly concerning my "Bottom-Up Change" presentation is that it is a bit short on examples and not practical enough.

The critics are right!

Although I didn't anticipate that the need for practicality would be an expectation or need from the audience when I originally developed the presentation, I consciously limited the use of specific examples. Part of the reason is that my intent was to provoke a desire to change, more than providing solutions.

But another reason has to do with the inherent difficulty of using specific examples and/or making things practical in a 45 minute presentation. The challenge is to meet the three criteria that make the core message effective, namely:

• General: if you want to reach the entire audience, the application of your ideas must be broad enough so that everyone can relate to them;
• Simple: in a keynote presentation, communication is mostly one-way (as opposed to a group discussion or a dialogue). Since feedback loop is minimal and opportunities to clarify ideas limited, it is best to keep the message very simple in order to ensure it is well understood as it is communicated.
• Accurate: Whatever idea you are communicating, you want it to be correct, complete, and you hope it will meet the needs and expectations of each person in the audience.

As you can imagine, it can be pretty difficult to meet these three criteria in a short presentation. Most of the time, you must do some kind of trade-off and sacrifice one criterion and go with one of the following combinations:

• General and Simple: You communicate a message that will be meaningful to all and can easily be communicated clearly and concisely. This also means the idea you communicate may be partial or incomplete, or may not be customized to the specific situation each person in the audience encounters.
• Simple and Accurate: If you frame the issue you want to address very narrowly, it becomes possible to make the message accurate and yet easy to understand. Obviously, the application of the message will likely be limited to similar type situations, which in turn may not be relevant to everyone in the audience.
• General and Accurate: In order to meet the specific needs and expectations of everyone in the room and make the message relevant to all, you will likely have to spend time articulating each argument or scenario in greater detail. Ultimately, it may make the messaging much more complex, unless the issue you're discussing is very narrowly defined.

I personally find the last combination the most difficult to achieve in a keynote presentation. I find it even more challenging during question periods, because very often a person in the audience will ask a question stemming from a very specific situation he or she is experiencing, which warrants and "accurate" response (i.e. correct, complete and relevant). But here's the difficulty: since I don't have all the background on the specific situation, it is hard to be accurate in my answer. Furthermore, assuming my answer is accurate given the person's needs and expectations, there is a low probability it will be equally accurate for the rest of the audience.

So there you have it, and that's why my "Bottom-Up Change" presentation is a bit short on practicality and examples.

For the second presentation I have developed - "Living Renewal: How to Turn An Organization Around in 1000 days" - I have taken a different approach. From the outset I compromise on the general application of what I have to say by specifically telling the story of organizational renewal experience in my Directorate. The upside is that it is highly practical and I give a lot of specific examples of things we did, tools we used, etc. The downside is that I know many people in the audience will listen the presentation, recognize we've done a good job, but leave feeling empty-handed because the practices I describe are either too specific or can't really be applied in their organization. Once again, I made a choice when I designed the presentation, and I know it won’t please everyone.

On a positive note, and regardless of the approach I take, these presentations are always followed by multiple and highly productive one-on-one conversations with people from the audience. And that's when I realize that the presentation is almost just a pretext to allow these conversations to take place!

There's something happening here

During the Holidays I came across "A Leader's Manifesto" by Kelley Eskridge. I recommend it to those who have enjoyed "An Inconvenient Renewal", as there are many similarities between the two documents. You will also find plenty more manifestos on the ChangeThis website.

I would love to see more of these manifestos being released by public servants. It would be a great complement to the work of the guys at CPSRenewal and my own. Actually, I would argue that we need more people to join in and provide active support through unique contributions of their own. We need a diversity of ideas.

Following my presentations at the MTP Conference and CSPS' Armchair Discussions last month, I have received quite a few emails. About half of them were from public servants who wanted to share a good idea with me. That in itself is a good news. But then, a good portion of them would go on to suggest that I would be the perfect person to kick-start the idea and make it "real".

While I find the suggestion flattering, it also indicates me that while my message may be well received, it is not entirely understood. When I talk about things like courage and the need to speak up and do something, I am implying that it is our duty! Not just mine, Nick's or Mike's!

That being said, if there is one thing I have learned through my involvement and participation in various PS Renewal committees, it is that the request is rarely the true need. More often than not, we must look beyond one's request to uncover the real need that is not being met.

For instance, I have heard many young public servants demand the creation of formal mentorship programs. The vast majority of managers simply nod in approval, and once in a while, launch such a program, with mixed results. But only a minority of managers actually take the time to ask the young public servant why they're making such a request. When they do, they are able to uncover the real reason behind the request to create mentorship programs. In this particular case, the real reason is usually twofold: 1) new hires lack meaningful guidance in the public service; and 2) they don't have any role model in their immediate work environment. But that doesn't necessarily warrants the creation of mentorship programs. Mentorship programs are just one way to address the need, but there are many (less formal!) options as well.

I think it's the same thing with the people who suggest I should implement their good ideas. There must be some unmet need behind their request, but what it is ain't exactly clear. If you have thoughts, please share them.

Big Day Ahead!

I've been on the road for the past few weeks - interrupted only by a short holiday in my native land (!).

Last week during the Management Trainee Program (MTP) Annual Conference I gave my "Bottom-Up Change" presentation in both official languages for the first time. Today, I'll be delivering it at the Canada School of Public Service's weekly Armchair Discussion, first in French, then in English. The presentations will also be available in webcast. If you attend the event in person or watch it on the Web, please use my blog to provide feedback. I'm looking forward to reading your comments.

Last week's MTP Conference also featured my new talk: "Living Renewal: How to Turn An Organization Around in 1000 Days". In this presentation, I discuss the drastic shift in morale and employee engagement experienced in my organization over the past 3 years. It is directly in line with the objectives of PS Renewal, and I've been waiting for the opportunity to tell this story for almost a year now. It seemed to be received quite well, despite the fact I had to cut short the last half-hour - which is also my favourite part because I use it to debunk some myths about organizational renewal and change management. This afternoon I am supposed to record the talk in both French and English for a podcast sponsored by CSPS. Hats off to Dean Landry, who is really "taking the bull by the horns" by bringing these concepts to life at the School and making the most of what technology has to offer!

I know I will be drained by the end of the day. Regardless, I think it will be worthwhile!

So PLEASE!!! Share your comments and feedback! :-)

Bottom-Up Change: It Starts With An Individual

UPDATE, June 19, 2008:

If you have attended my presentation entitled “Bottom-Up Change: It Starts With An Individual”, I would very much like to get your feedback. Please feel free to leave your comments here!

Thank you.

Staffing Under the New PSEA

UPDATE, July 17, 2008:

In April I took part in the poster sessions at the National Managers' Community Forum. Our poster was the object of quite a few jokes during the forum (see picture on the left), but that was part of the intent! An overview of our poster session is available here.

Full version of the document "Staffing Under the New PSEA: Tipcs and Practices" is available to federal public servants on the PSMA Practices and Lessons Learned website.

[Une version française est également disponible pour les fonctionnaires fédéraux.]

It’s Not the System – It’s What People Do With the System
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
– Leo Tolstoy

Back in the fall of 2005, shortly before the coming-into-force of the new PSEA, I wrote an article about the challenges I foresaw with the implementation of the legislation (see my blog [1]). I explained how people would have to unlearn what they knew about staffing under the previous legislation before they could learn how to do staffing under the new PSEA. I expressed my concerns with regards to the risk aversion we could expect from managers and HR professionals, and my fear that the employees would be somewhat forgotten in the change effort.

I recently attended a focus group on the implementation of the new PSEA and I quickly found out that my fears had materialized: the PSEA implementation wasn’t going nearly as smoothly as it was planned. The claims are that staffing takes even longer than it used to, that the appointment process couldn’t possibly be more convoluted, and that the new PSEA is simply not delivering the results it promised.

However, my personal experience with the PSEA has been quite the opposite. In my organization, we have experimented with most types of staffing options available to managers: collective and distinct, advertised and non-advertised, internal and external. We have made 39 internal appointments and 22 external appointments. We have held 50 informal discussions with approximately 25% of the applicants in our internal processes. Our longest (and least creative) staffing process took 5 ½ months to administer while our shortest (and slightly more creative) was completed in 3 weeks. All this took place without any complaint to the PSST.

When I contrast these results with the stories I hear from colleagues, I am bothered. What bothers me is not the PSEA or the system. What bothers me about staffing is that most people don’t question why they do the things they do and how they do them. Indeed, it looks like people are not “prepared for the intensive self-examination that is so often necessary to reach the core of the problem.” [2] Here are a few examples that illustrate my point. They are perhaps the most common myths about staffing in the public service:

1) “It takes too much time to staff a position”: Yes, staffing can take a lot of time: a lot of dead time and even more wasted time! How can a manager take 14 months to staff a position while another in the office next door staffs his in 3 weeks? I have heard people complain about the time it takes to staff positions while I witnessed others postpone an interview four times over a six months period and take another six months to give the result to the applicant. I have seen managers claim that staffing their vacancy was their priority but at the end of each day they would leave the office saying: “I didn’t have enough time today, I’ll do it tomorrow”. Is it a coincidence that those who keep pushing back their staffing actions are often the same who complain about being overworked and not having enough staff to get the work done? It’s a classic chicken-or-the-egg dilemma. In my opinion, if staffing was so important, these managers would make staffing their priority and make the time to complete the appointment process. At least in doing so they would have an extra body to ease their workload.

2) “People are risk averse”: There is indeed a great deal of risk aversion in the public service. But the statement needs to be framed properly. People are risk-averse when it comes to actions that might have negative outcomes in the short-term; people are much less risk averse when it comes to inaction that might have negative consequences in the long-term. It seems that the decision to act imparts a higher level of responsibility than the decision to do nothing. [3] “The primary reason most people don’t want to make decisions is because of fear: fear of criticism, fear of being wrong, fear for their career; fear of failure.” [4] What we don’t realize is that by not taking any risk, we are dumping the consequences on others. Risk mandates responsibility. Calling people risk averse is really just a softer way of saying that they are avoiding personal responsibility and hoping that someone else will carry the burden (anyone but themselves…).

3) “We need to find better ways to assess the applicants”: This comment typically comes from people who still ask applicants: “What is the mission/vision of the Department?”. What does that really tell you about the applicant? That he cares enough about the job to actually take five minutes to memorize by heart the content of the Department’s web page? Nothing wrong with that… if you are assessing memory skills. But wouldn’t it be more useful to determine what the applicant can actually do? (Note: I plead guilty to this last example, as I have done it myself in some of our earlier staffing processes!)

The problem that the federal public service is facing with the implementation of the new PSEA is not one of spirit, intent, or good faith. I genuinely believe that everyone (managers, HR professionals, employees, union) is acting with good intentions in mind. We are simply still operating the way we always have despite the opportunity to do things differently.

“We’re very comfortable with what we already believe and know. Change, even of our opinions or thinking processes, has become the great anxiety for most people.” [5] Consequently, the behavioral change required to find new ways of doing staffing hasn’t occurred. The culture of staffing has remained the same.
I was working for the PSMA Implementation Secretariat at PSHRMAC (now the Canada Public Service Agency) in the year prior to the coming-into-force of the new PSEA. I was involved in the top-down change management effort that the Agency was leading and I still believe it was one of the strengths of the PSMA implementation. What hasn’t followed was the bottom-up change effort – the one stemming from individual managers and HR professionals.
The purpose of this document is not to point fingers at anyone. But it must be clear that apart from a few glitches here and there, the new PSEA and the system are not to blame for the inefficiency of staffing. If we are looking for the guilty, we need only to look into a mirror!

Robert Quinn, author of “Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within” (1996), writes: “We cannot easily recognize that the problem is part of the system in which we play an active role. Our first inclination is always from a perspective that minimizes the problem, keeps it somewhere out there. Because the problem is out there, it is always others who need to change.” Denial and avoidance of personal responsibility are common dysfunctions of many organizations, and the public service is no exception.

I don’t expect to please everyone with this document. Firstly, for every person that will wholeheartedly agree with the ideas presented here, there will likely be a few others who will be irritated. Secondly, there will be plenty of people who will remind me that I can’t say certain things because they’re not politically correct [6], or who will try to show that what I am suggesting can’t be done. Thirdly – and most importantly – those looking for a painless fix to their staffing headaches will be disappointed because the problem is not out there but inside each of us.

The biggest criticism about the old staffing system was that it was excessively rules-based and cumbersome. Yet, we are too busy talking about the limits of the new PSEA and what we can’t do, to give any serious consideration to the possibilities and what we could do. We must break with the culture and ways of thinking that have become institutionalized and caused the problems in the first place. As long as our thinking is governed by the habit of looking at what can’t be done, we will be re-creating a staffing system that is limiting, constraining, restrictive. We must step out of our narrow risk-free comfort zone, otherwise it’s precisely where we’ll end up again!

Robert Quinn sums up our collective challenge better that I could ever do it:

“Deep change requires more than the identification of the problem and the call for action. It requires looking beyond the scope of the problem and finding the actual source of the trouble. The real problem is frequently located where we would least expect to find it, inside ourselves. Deep change requires an evaluation of the ideologies behind the organizational culture. This process happens only when someone cares enough to exercise the courage to uncover the issue no one dare to recognize or confront. It means someone must be enormously secure and courageous. Culture change starts with personal change.” [7]

I have experimented with staffing under the new PSEA through trials and errors. In hindsight, there are things that I would do differently. The key is to learn the lessons and try something else the next time around. There is no excuse for leaving unchanged the things that don’t make sense. It’s people – not the institution – who will solve the problems and fix the system.


Red Flag: Questionable Staffing Practices


“Before we can change things we must call them by their real name.”– Confucius

I should probably warn everyone about two staffing practices that worry me – and I am not talking about abuse of authority[8] or favouritism[9]! The practices that concern me have to do with how the application of merit and the informal discussions may come in the way of truth and learning if they are not done properly by the manager. Indeed, they may be used as a mean to:
- Avoid disappointing the unsuccessful applicants / excessively protect their self-esteem;
- Avoid difficult conversations with the unsuccessful applicants, which may cause stress on the manager and the applicants, and potentially degenerate in a conflict.

The first danger consists in lowering the standard against which applicants are assessed (merit) to the point where it is so dumbed-down that it becomes meaningless because everyone meets the criteria. This can happen in a number of ways, i.e.:
- Intentionally limiting the essential qualifications to criteria that are met by just about everyone;
- Leaving under the essential qualifications non-critical qualifications and moving the more critical ones under the asset qualifications;
- Diluting the credibility and the meaningfulness of the essential qualifications’ assessment process, either by asking questions that don’t really assess the capacity of the applicants (such as the “mission/vision” question that I discussed earlier) or by setting pass marks that are so low that even the weak performers get screened-in.

The scenarios above all seek to achieve the same objective: screen-in all the applicants under the essential qualifications, and ultimately appoint the successful person based on the asset qualifications. The logic behind this is that it is easier to tell unsuccessful applicants that they didn’t meet some asset qualifications – which by definition can reflect relatively high standards – than tell them that they didn’t even meet the minimum requirements for the position. By pretending that everyone is good enough to be appointed, the manager avoids the delicate (and sometimes difficult) task of telling the unsuccessful applicants that they’re not qualified and why.[10] But the staffing value of accessibility doesn’t mean everybody must get screened-in!
The second risk consists in bailing out applicants when they perform poorly during the assessment process or don’t meet the expectations for the position. When I hear managers tell me stories of informal discussion they held with unsuccessful applicants, I am sometimes troubled. What troubles me is that the well-meant emphasis on helping the unsuccessful applicants to develop (through training, mentoring, acting experience, etc.) seems to be used in some cases as a means to avoid telling the applicants that they just didn’t cut it.

I get the sense that many managers escape their responsibility by embellishing or even disguising the truth to the extent where the applicants leave the informal discussion with an inflated sense of self. Could it be that our parenting-style – which dictates that parents should protect the self-esteem of their kids at all cost – has made its way into the workplace? Is it right to protect the self-esteem of employees by providing feedback with little basis in reality?

The informal discussion – just like the performance appraisal – is a time for a reality check with the applicant, and no matter how hard it may be, truth must be told.

If I am so concerned, it is because these practices are already widespread in the public service; we have simply known them under different names. We see the symptoms in offices where the poor performance of some employees is left unaddressed by managers. We see the consequences whenever a supervisor has to entirely rewrite a memo drafted by a subordinate because it is of such bad quality. By shutting our eyes in front of poor performance – or even by simply failing to call it for what it really is – we are actually telling the employee: “This is fine work”.[11]

Similarly, by giving false feedback to an unsuccessful applicant whose performance is not up to par, we are actually telling him: “You did pretty good, so keep on doing what you are doing.” Before long, the employee will truly believe that he is that good. How exactly will that help the manager the day he needs to inform the employee that his performance is not up to expectations and he is not delivering results? The manager who doesn’t tell an unsuccessful applicant why he was really eliminated, for fear of disappointing him or to avoid a conflict situation, is in fact planting the seeds of a serious (and much more painful) confrontation down the line.

The solution is actually quite simple – yet extremely difficult: it takes courage. “The overwhelming majority of us don’t want to think of ourselves as cowardly. [But] under pressure, some good people silently choose inaction and tolerate the unheroic long-term destructive consequence of fear. […] Courage improves relationships as surely as cowardice degrades them. Courage is the lever of leadership, while cowardice invites its collapse.” [12]

The key task of a manager is to manage performance and it must start on day one, with staffing.


Key Principles That Should Drive Your Staffing Process
“Truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it.”
– H. Norman Schwarzkopf

1. Involve your HR professionals, all the hiring managers (in the case of a collective staffing process) and the union, throughout the process. They are key stakeholders in the process. Keep in mind the spirit of the Public Service Modernization Act and involve the union in a meaningful way. Don’t make decisions for the managers or constrain them to the extent where they feel like they are not equipped to make the right appointment decision. After all, they are the ones with the delegation of authority in staffing!

2. Communicate, communicate, communicate (in a proactive, timely and sustained manner). The applicants should be at the centre of the entire staffing process. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine what it is like to apply on your process. Are you being clear enough? Are you addressing their concerns? Make the applicants accountable by giving them all the information they need so that they will take responsibility and ownership for their results. Remember: “All problems are due fundamentally to either a breakdown in communications or making the wrong assumptions; the key to success is to manage expectations.” [13]

3. Be upfront about everything. Don’t assume that the applicants understand what your intents and expectations are. What exactly is it that you are looking for? What are the rules of engagement for the applicants who take part in the staffing process? Treat the applicants the way you would like to be treated. Keep in mind that what people don’t know, they will make it up. Stop the rumor mill before it even starts.

4. Be honest and tell it like it is. Don’t hide, delay, soften or sugarcoat the bad news. If an applicant did poorly in the staffing process, don’t make him believe that he did well – he didn’t. Don’t relieve the applicant’s personal responsibility for his results. Straight talk accomplishes miracles, even if at first the truth may upset some people. “We need to grow a culture of honesty in which people can face reality together, dig deeper than was their habit, and commit themselves to facing reality, even when it's hard and uncomfortable to do so.” [14]

5. Do everything possible to avoid losing the applicants to the process rather than merit. Recognize that subjectivity and biases are an inherent part of staffing and overcome this challenge through accessibility, fairness and transparency in order to find the right fit. Don’t seek objectivity to the point where you will lose some good applicants for the wrong reasons. The first step toward having a bias-free process is still to have everyone involved acknowledge their own personal bias; only then can we have an open and honest dialogue. To quote Charles P. Curtis: “There are only two ways to be unprejudiced and impartial. One is to be completely ignorant. The other is to be completely indifferent. Bias and prejudice are attitudes to be kept in hand, not attitudes to be avoided.”

Notes:[1] Laliberté, Etienne. “Contrarian Thinking”. http://etiennelaliberte.blogspot.com/2006/03/all-we-are-saying-is-give-psea-chance.html .
[2] Farson Richard. “Management of the Absurd: Paradoxes in Leadership”. 1997.
[3] Gilovich, Thomas and Gary Belsky. “Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes”. 2001.
[4] Edwards, Robert G. “Project Management: Welcome Opportunity or Awesome Burden”. 2002.
[5] LeGault, Michael R. “Think!: Why Crucial Decisions Can’t be Made in the Blink of an Eye”. 2006.
[6] Mark Stevens defines political correctness as the “triumph of sensitivity over truth” (“Your Management Sucks”, 2006). Michael R. LeGault adds: “Political correctness asks, demands, that we put our critical thinking and questioning on hold in favor of preapproved, safe stances and opinions.” (“Think!”, 2006)
[7] Quinn, Robert. “Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within”. 1996.
[8] Whenever I’m told that the new PSEA opens up the door to abuse of authority, I don’t try to deny the fact. It’s actually quite reassuring to know that abuse of authority is on everyone’s radar. It reminds the managers that they are accountable for their actions and it keeps the others around alert to signs of abuse. I would be much more concerned if people would believe that the new PSEA is so great that there’s absolutely no risk of abuse of authority.
[9] Favouritism should not be confused with “two people who have a history of working well together and delivering results”. Unfortunately, favouritism is often used to overshadow the actual merit of the successful applicant by falsely pretending that the relationship with the manager got the applicant appointed in spite of merit.
[10] This seems to be similar to the current trend observed in school, colleges and universities, where more and more students get A’s, even when their performance doesn’t justify it. (For an interesting perspective on the matter, see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060201593_pf.html).
[11] This is why I don’t believe it is necessarily a good idea to call a weakness an area of improvement. Area of improvement almost makes it sound like the employee should deserve an award for his sub-performance! It is also impersonal, as if the performance was entirely beyond the employee’s control. Identifying areas of improvement gives the wrong impression that 1) a minimal increment in performance will be sufficient, and 2) the employee doesn’t really have to do anything about it – the manager will. At least a weakness requires ownership!
[12] Lee, Gus. “Courage: The Backbone of Leadership”. 2006.
[13] For a good example, you may consult the document entitled “Beyond the Staffing Values: Communicating with Applicants and Managing Expectations Under the New Public Service Employment Act” available at http://pfc.gc.ca/commits/pcsfo/docs/beyondstaffgval09-06.zip (accessible through the government intranet only). The appendix contains all the key communications of my organization’s first collective staffing process.
[14] Bodaken, Bruce and Robert Fritz. “The Managerial Moment of Truth: The Essential Step in Helping People Improve Performance”. 2006