Common menu bar
Breadcrumb
Chapter 5
Management of staffing in departments and agencies
5.1 The Public Service Commission (PSC) uses a continuum of tools to ensure that deputy heads exercise their delegated authorities appropriately and adhere to the values of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). The main tools include a monitoring function based on the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF), audits and investigations of the public service staffing system and the implementation of corrective actions, when required. In addition, evaluations and studies are conducted to provide more information on issues or trends identified within the staffing system.
5.2 The PSC expects deputy heads to put in place their own management framework based on the SMAF. The SMAF sets out the key areas for a well-managed appointment system and assesses the effectiveness of the PSEA and adherence to the appointment values. Deputy heads are also expected to actively monitor the application of their delegated authorities to ensure compliance. Furthermore, they must report annually to the PSC on their performance using a Departmental Staffing Accountability Report (DSAR). In the DSAR, organizations are asked to self-assess with respect to specific questions linked to the assessment criteria, in order to reduce their reporting burden.
5.3 In terms of its monitoring exercise, the PSC assesses organizational performance annually in order to provide feedback and recommendations to deputy heads. Subsequently, the PSC conducts follow-ups to ensure that deputies are working towards staffing system improvements based on the PSC's recommendations.
5.4 The PSC's annual assessment of organizational performance is informed by PSC operational statistics and the DSARs. The overall results are presented in this chapter of the PSC's Annual Report to Parliament. The results are also used in the development of the PSC's audit, evaluation and studies plan. The content of certain organizational assessments is also shared with the Committee of Senior Officials (COSO) for the performance appraisals of deputy heads.
5.5 The SMAF identifies four factors that are key to the success of the PSEA:
- Delegation of staffing to deputy heads;
- Human resources (HR) planning and integration with business planning;
- Organizational HR support systems; and
- Managerial accountability for results.
5.6 The expectation is that progress on these key success factors will lead to improvements in achieving the results intended by the PSEA. Specifically, annual improvements in the four key success factors should be a sound predictor of improvements in seven results areas (e.g. flexibility and efficiency) as well as the six core and guiding values of merit, non-partisanship, access, transparency, fairness and representativeness. PSC analysis of data comparing the key success factors with the results areas shows support for these relationships.
5.7 The PSC's assessment of staffing performance for 2008-2009 was based on its evaluation of the staffing performance of 76 departments and agencies. Six organizations were not assessed, as they were either undergoing a staffing audit or had just been created. Of the assessed organizations, 20 were large (more than 2 000 employees) and represented 80% of the PSEA population.
5.8 Departments and agencies were assessed individually based on up to 26 of 37 possible performance indicators. These indicators were consolidated into the 11 performance areas (i.e. the four key success factors and the seven results presented in the SMAF). In last year's Annual Report, specific indicators were selected for reporting on the key success factors. This year, all lines of evidence available to the PSC were used to improve precision and reflect raised expectations in some areas.9
5.9 In making the assessment of organizational performance, the PSC assigned four possible ratings to each area:
- Strong management performance (consistent with DSAR requirements plus innovative or noteworthy practices);
- Acceptable management performance (consistent with the requirements outlined in the DSAR assessment criteria);
- Opportunities for management to improve (some DSAR criteria are met); and
- Requires management attention (key DSAR criteria are not met or no criteria are met).
5.10 In 2008-2009, the PSC's monitoring exercise specifically focused on the key success factors for all organizations, and then targeted the 40% of organizations identified as having weaker performance with respect to each of the operational statistics. In assigning a rating, the PSC assessed whether the statistical results appeared reasonable, given the organization's operating context. If not, the PSC assessed whether the organization's senior management was aware of the results and was responding to them (e.g. through monitoring, changing strategies or identifying measures in the HR plan). The PSC considered the remaining 60% of organizations to be acceptable in the particular performance area.
5.11 The performance measures for each of these areas are identified in Appendix 3: Staffing Management Accountability Framework.
Overall progress in key change areas
5.12 Figure 8 shows that the majority (approximately 77%) of the key success factors and results areas reviewed across departments and agencies for 2008-2009 were assessed as acceptable, in that the organizations demonstrated performance consistent with the ADAI requirements. This represents an improvement of about four percentage points over last year's performance.
5.13 This year, 0.8% of the performance areas were found to have strong management performance, an increase compared to 2007-2008.
5.14 In spite of this progress, about 17% of the performance areas across departments and agencies were assessed as requiring improvement (i.e. opportunities for improvement or requires management attention). HR planning that focuses on staffing strategies, organizational HR support systems and managerial accountability for results are key success factors that are still in need of improvement.
5.15 The PSC reviewed the overall results to determine whether there was variation based on organizational size. While there was no major difference between the performance of large and small organizations, medium-sized organizations seemed to have slightly more difficulty meeting the PSC's expectations.
Figure 8 – Overall assessment of key success factors and results areas across all departments and agencies
Source: PSC 2007-2008 — 2008-2009 DSAR assessment results
5.16 In 2008-2009, the PSC conducted further analysis on the links between improved staffing performance in these results areas and achieving the objectives of PSEA and a values-based staffing system. As indicated in Table 12, organizations that have better performance in HR planning, organizational HR support systems or managerial accountability tend to have better results with respect to efficiency and effectiveness, such as shorter times to staff and less reliance on short-term reactive approaches (e.g. acting appointments, casuals or non-advertised processes).
5.17 Further improvement depends on organizations putting more effort into the systems and tools required for the ongoing planning and monitoring of their staffing approaches, as well as assigning the appropriate HR resources to meet staffing needs. The PSC will continue its analysis to enhance its understanding of how organizations can increase staffing efficiency and use less reactive staffing approaches.
| Organizations that have better performance in: | tend to have more efficient staffing processes resulting in: |
|---|---|
|
|
| or tend to rely less on short-term reactive approaches such as: | |
|
Delegation of staffing to deputy heads
Organizations have implemented mechanisms to ensure that they are able to manage their delegated authorities appropriately.
5.18 In its 2007-2008 Annual Report, the PSC described the public service as "functionally operating under a fully established delegated staffing regime." Even so, the PSC continues to monitor the way in which organizations are managing their delegated authorities. Organizations are required to ensure that sub-delegated managers receive continuous learning in staffing and to monitor staffing decisions to ensure that they conform to the requirements of the PSEA, policies and staffing values.
5.19 In 2008-2009, 97.3% of organizations had acceptable or strong performance with respect to the implementation of their sub-delegation framework for the management of staffing. These results suggest that organizations have set up the necessary mechanisms to manage their delegated authorities effectively. One organization provided examples of the importance it places on the sub-delegation of its staffing authorities. That organization responded to concerns identified as a result of its own organizational monitoring by removing the sub-delegated authority of two implicated managers. Additionally, a letter of reprimand was placed on a third manager's file.
5.20 Over the course of 2008-2009, two organizations continued to operate with the additional conditions that had been imposed in previous years: the Office of the Correctional Investigator and the Canadian Space Agency. Following improved staffing performance, the PSC was able to lift certain conditions that had been imposed on the Canadian Space Agency. The PSC's follow-up audit of the Office of the Correctional Investigator resulted in the removal of all conditions.
5.21 In the summer of 2008, the PSC conducted a follow-up audit of the staffing of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (CPC). As the CPC was found to have improved its staffing systems and practices over the past three years, the PSC lifted all conditions that had been imposed on its delegation instrument.
5.22 In light of its audit findings, in 2008-2009 the PSC imposed additional conditions on only one organization, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Four other staffing audits were conducted during 2008-2009 that will result in conditions being imposed on some of these organizations.
5.23 Appendix 4 identifies the conditions that have been imposed by the PSC in the organizational ADAIs.
Human resources planning and integration with business planning
Organizations need to continue to improve their planning of staffing strategies with a focus on respecting the values. Strategies that include measurable objectives will strongly contribute to accountability for the results.
5.24 Based on the PSC's analysis, the integration of HR planning with business planning is central to producing a more effective and efficient staffing system that supports the values. This year, the PSC raised its expectation of organizational performance in this area and required organizations to have one integrated HR plan for the entire organization in order to facilitate their planning of staffing processes.
Figure 9 – Human resources planning and staffing
Source: PSC 2007-2008 — 2008-2009 DSAR assessment results
5.25 Acceptable performance was demonstrated by 60.5% of organizations with respect to integrated planning that provides direction for staffing and results in staffing strategies with measurable objectives. Figure 9 illustrates a considerable improvement from the previous year, when only 28% of organizations had acceptable performance. Last year, reporting was based on the assessment of staffing strategies without considering senior management direction (as was done this year). Regardless of the methodology, there has been an improvement in this area.
5.26 This year, the PSC found that HR plans were more fully integrated and set out staffing direction and strategies more clearly so that organizations can measure progress. Organizations were also found to be studying their workforces and identifying gaps that may affect their ability to fulfill their mandates.
5.27 However, effective planning must be iterative and, while many organizations improved their performance, 40% of them still had less than acceptable performance. These results are of concern. The number of organizations that require management attention has increased by about 14 percentage points. A key area for improvement is the development of staffing strategies that indicate the way in which staffing will be conducted and that includes measurable performance objectives.
One organization demonstrated strong performance with respect to transparency and engaging employees in the HR planning process. Western Economic Diversification Canada created a Succession Planning Toolkit enabling employees to obtain information on what is needed to further their careers, and partnered with unions to create an employee survey to obtain feedback about the toolkit. The results were presented to union members, management and employees.
Organizational human resources support systems
There is opportunity for organizations to improve their performance by developing targeted staffing approaches and more effectively engaging the necessary HR support.
5.28 With the delegation of staffing authorities to deputy heads and heads of agencies, organizations have the authority to plan and use the types of processes that allow them to better meet their strategic objectives and carry out their HR plans and staffing strategies.
5.29 Deputy heads must ensure that their sub-delegated managers have access to HR advisors with the necessary staffing expertise and that they have effective information and supporting systems to support decision making and monitoring.
5.30 Last year, the PSC reported on hiring managers' satisfaction with the quality of staffing services. This year, the PSC is reporting on additional lines of evidence, including the capacity of HR support and the learning provided to staffing advisors was also considered in reporting on performance as well as managers' satisfaction with both the quality of staffing services and staffing information systems. The results show that there has been a significant increase in the number of organizations assessed as acceptable (75% in 2008-2009 compared to 36% in 2007-2008, based on the same methodology). However, 25% of organizations still have opportunities for improvement with respect to HR support overall. Seven large organizations, representing 40.4% of the PSEA universe, reported that the perception of sub-delegated managers was that better support was required from their staffing advisors and systems.
Figure 10 – Human resources support systems
Source: 2007 PSC 2007-2008 — 2008-2009 DSAR assessment results
5.31 Since last year, organizations have increased the capacity of Personnel Administration (PE) officers to address their staffing needs. As of March 31, 2009, the number of employees in the PE group had increased by 5% over the previous year. Departments and agencies reported that they are providing staffing advisors with the ongoing learning necessary to develop their expertise and to enable them to provide effective staffing services to managers.
5.32 However, there is still a significant amount of movement within the PE group. Mobility to and within the PE group was 71% in 2008-2009, down only slightly from 74% in 2007-2008.
Transport Canada was assessed as having a strong performance in organizational HR support systems. In addition to providing continuous training on staffing to its HR advisors, Transport Canada established a national strategy to develop the community, including the development of staffing tools, guides and info sessions. Transport Canada also developed a memorandum of understanding with the Canada School of Public Service to have staffing courses in-house. Other organizations were invited to participate in this training.
Managerial accountability for results
There is significant opportunity for improvement in managerial accountability for results whereby managers compare results to plans and adjust their HR plans to address identified problems.
5.33 The ADAI requires that deputies be accountable to the PSC for the proper use of their delegated authorities, and that their performance be monitored on an ongoing basis.
5.34 Deputy heads are also expected to develop their own accountability systems for their sub-delegated authorities by establishing active monitoring practices. They are expected to comply with the PSC's reporting requirements, to collaborate with other PSC oversight requirements, such as audits, investigations and studies, and to make improvements where deficiencies are identified.
5.35 Because of the importance of accountability, in 2008-2009 the PSC raised its expectations of organizational performance in this result area. The PSC required organizations to provide evidence demonstrating that they conducted a variance analysis comparing actual staffing to planned staffing, that action plans had been developed and that improvements had been made. The PSC also expects organizations to respond to PSC recommendations and to demonstrate improvement with respect to all recommendations.
5.36 The PSC's assessment of organizational performance in 2008-2009 indicates that managerial accountability for results is an area in which significant improvement is still required.
Figure 11 – Managerial accountability for results
Source: PSC 2007-2008 — 2008-2009 DSAR assessment results
5.37 Overall, the PSC found that the number of organizations with acceptable managerial accountability for results decreased from 60% in 2007-2008 to 49% in 2008-2009. This decline is likely attributable to the PSC'S increased expectations and more stringent assessment criteria.
5.38 The PSC also closely monitors actions taken in follow-up to its recommendations and results achieved. The PSC's performance assessment revealed that 37 of the 68 organizations that received recommendations after last year's assessment responded to all of the recommendations and demonstrated improvement in all recommendation areas. Of the remaining organizations, 23 acted on at least half of the recommendations and demonstrated improvement. Eight organizations could not demonstrate that they had acted on at least half of the PSC's recommendations and that there had been improvement. Organizations that responded to all recommendations also tended to demonstrate better overall staffing performance.
5.39 These results are of concern to the PSC. Further progress towards developing efficient staffing systems will require organizations to address identified issues in their staffing plans. This should enable organizations to plan and implement effective staffing approaches that will not only ensure compliance, but also improve their staffing performance and overall operational effectiveness.
The Canada Industrial Relations Board demonstrated strong performance by having no staffing performance deficiencies identified during the PSC's staffing assessment for both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.
Efficiency and time to staff
5.40 Managers have various staffing options available to them that can affect the efficiency of their staffing processes. For instance, managers may decide to advertise internally to the public service only, or to broaden the area of selection to include external candidates. Managers may decide to conduct a process individually or to work with other managers who need to staff similar positions.
Collective staffing
5.41 Collective staffing processes are partnerships with other managers who may be in the same organization or in another federal department or agency. By working together, managers can share costs, staffing knowledge and assessment tools. Collective staffing can be particularly effective when staffing a variety of similar entry-level positions, such as clerical or administrative jobs, or when there is a need to attract a high number of candidates to create a pool of qualified candidates to staff current or future vacancies.
5.42 The collective staffing option is now more attractive under the PSEA because managers are no longer required to rank candidates according to their assessment results. Managers can assess additional asset qualifications to select the right individual for a specific position from all candidates who meet the essential criteria. Asset qualifications may be specific to an organization's current and future business needs, and can be different for each manager or position involved.
5.43 Since the implementation of the current PSEA, organizations are starting to make greater use of this staffing option. Based on notification data from Publiservice, approximately 25% of all internal advertised staffing processes have been made via collective processes.
5.44 In 2008-2009, the PSC conducted a Hiring Optimization Study, described in Chapter 7, which found that, for a sample of advertisements of entry-level positions (CR-3/4/5, AS-1/2), there were many similarities in the merit criteria. For example, 93% of all advertisements reviewed identified "ability to communicate" as a requirement. The study concluded that, for entry-level positions, collective approaches and common assessment tools would provide efficiencies. This would benefit not only HR professionals and hiring managers in managing the process, but also the job seeker, who could be assessed once instead of multiple times for the same merit criteria.
5.45 Collective staffing approaches require up-front efforts in planning, identifying essential and asset qualifications and putting in place effective HR support systems. When used appropriately, any additional time and effort involved in up-front planning is offset by the advantages of economies of scale from filling several positions or creating pools. By developing a pool of qualified candidates, managers can readily fill future positions as vacancies become available.
Measuring time to staff
5.46 The time it takes to staff is an important indicator of the efficiency of the staffing system. Increasing the efficiency of the staffing process can enable managers to maintain effective operations and program delivery. It also enables them to compete more effectively with other prospective employers and engage highly qualified candidates, rather than losing them due to delays.
5.47 Efficient staffing processes also minimize the need for managers to use alternate or temporary staffing options, such as casual employees or term appointments, when the work is of an indeterminate nature.
5.48 Prior to the current PSEA, appointment decisions that went to an appeal process considerably extended the time it took to staff a position. The implementation of informal discussion was intended to allow employees to raise issues related to their results at the time of the decision to eliminate them from a process, and managers could correct errors and omissions in staffing processes, thereby reducing the need for, and the time involved with, a formal recourse process.
5.49 Other jurisdictions have set benchmarks for the time to staff positions. Exhibit 1 provides an example with respect to the United States. The End-to-End Hiring Initiative of the United States Office of Personnel Management focuses on workforce analysis and process standardization as the basis for anticipating staffing needs and assigning resources to achieve efficiencies. By setting a benchmark of 80 days, organizations can monitor their results by measuring the time required for various steps in the staffing process to identify improvements that can be made.
Exhibit 1 – End-to-End (E2E) Hiring Initiative — United States Office of Personnel Management
The United States Office of Personnel Management has a new, comprehensive and integrated approach to federal hiring to increase its capability to efficiently and effectively recruit and hire high-performing employees. One key component of the approach is its End-to-End (E2E) Hiring Initiative, which includes the following key expectations:
- Recruitment strategies are directly informed by workforce planning in order to target anticipated talent requirements;
- Position descriptions are systematically reviewed so that managers can proactively plan for vacancies and potential shifts in the composition of their workforce; and
- Workforce planning and recruitment processes are completed prior to initiating the request for personnel action, including positions ready to be staffed and the appropriate assessment tools developed.
Two challenges to the success of the road map include the availability of trained HR staff conducting various steps of the hiring process and the availability of managers dedicated to engage in the hiring process.
Success is measured by the percentage of employees hired within 80 days, as noted in the steps below.
- Validate need and steps required to create and post job opportunity announcement (10 days)
- Receive applications (10 days)
- Evaluate applications (15 days)
- Select successful candidate (16 days)
- Job offer, security check and acceptance (15 days)
- Entry into duty (14 days)
Agencies may need to adjust the number of days for each step based on their particular practices and procedures.
Source: End-to-End Hiring Initiative, United States Office of Personnel Management (September 2008)
5.50 The perspective on the time it takes to staff a position differs depending on one's role in the process (i.e. the manager, the candidate or the HR officer). Figure 12 demonstrates these perspectives. Note that some steps can be run in parallel to achieve greater efficiency.
Figure 12 – Perspectives on time to staff by stakeholder for individual processes compared to collective processes
5.51 From the PSC's study Time to Staff In the Federal Public Service (Update), a wide range of factors was cited by managers as affecting their perception of the elapsed time, in particular the preparation phase (prior to posting the advertisement), the availability of HR support, stakeholder knowledge, language testing and security clearances. Recourse and conflict resolution tended to be identified less often as a factor slowing the staffing process compared to the previous study, which was published in May 2006.
5.52 While there is still substantial variation across federal departments and agencies, the study update found that a number of factors contributed to the overall trends: external recruitment processes tend to take longer, as do collective (or generic) staffing processes.
5.53 The update concluded that the public service experienced a transitional period as departments and agencies passed through the learning curve of the current legislation. One of the principal sources of difficulty appears to be the efficient management of collective processes.
5.54 A known area that may delay the time it takes organizations to staff positions is related to the duty to accommodate requirements of the PSC's Policy on Employment Equity in the Appointment Process (see Chapter 3). The PSC has examined the issue and has determined that managers can proceed to appoint candidates who are found qualified before all of the candidates who require accommodation have been assessed, provided that a sufficient number of vacancies remain. The PSC will clarify its guidance in this area.
Efficiency measured by time to staff
5.55 The PSC uses two sources of data to estimate the time it takes organizations to staff positions. On an annual basis, the PSC's Survey of Staffing collects information from hiring managers across the public service on advertised and non-advertised, internal and external processes. On an on-going basis, the PSC collects data from the Publiservice Web site, maintained by Public Works and Government Services Canada, which organizations use to advertise internal processes as well as post notifications of persons being considered for appointment and notifications of appointments. Unless otherwise stated, the numerical estimates presented in this section are based on the Publiservice data and, therefore, are restricted to internal advertised processes only in Table 13.
5.56 For monitoring purposes, the PSC estimates the time to staff separately for individual and collective processes.10 The PSC identifies a process as collective when there is more than one notification of appointment for a given advertisement. This approach assumes that there is only one candidate named on each notification of appointment and that any subsequent notifications are to appoint additional candidates (not the result of a candidate named in the first notification having refused the job offer).
5.57 In 2008-2009, the PSC found that, while the average time required to staff indeterminate advertised positions increased following the coming into force of the PSEA in December 2005, it then decreased as organizations started to adapt to the new staffing regime. As reported in the PSC's recent Time to Staff in the Federal Public Service (Update) study based on the Survey of Appointments and Survey of Staffing, the average time required to staff an indeterminate advertised position (as measured by managers' estimate of the time elapsed between submission of the staffing request form to the date when the appointee reported to work) increased from 22.8 weeks for appointments recorded in the period January 2000 to December 2003 to 24.1 weeks for appointments in the period April 2006 and September 2007. For the period October 2007 to September 2008, it then fell to 23.5 weeks.
5.58 This is consistent with the findings of PSC's analysis of internal indeterminate advertised staffing processes (see Table 13) and the time elapsed between job postings and first notification of appointment, which shows that the average time to staff for distinct processes dropped from 18.9 weeks (132 calendar days) in 2007-2008 to 17.7 weeks (124 calendar days) in 2008-2009. The average time to staff for collective processes remained essentially the same, i.e. 22.1 weeks (155 calendar days) in 2007-2008 and 22 weeks (154 calendar days) in 2008-2009.
| All | Distinct processes | Collective processes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | |
| Average time to staff (in days)1 | 121 | 132 | 124 | 142 | 155 | 154 |
| Average time to staff (in days) for "best performing organizations"2 | 93 | 102 | 80 | 100 | 117 | 106 |
| Potential reduction in average time to staff (in days) | 28 | 30 | 44 | 42 | 38 | 48 |
| Potential reduction as a percent of current average time to staff | 23.1% | 22.7% | 35.5% | 29.6% | 24.5% | 31.2% |
| Large | ||||||
| Average time to staff (in days)1 | 121 | 134 | 126 | 145 | 157 | 156 |
| Average time to staff (in days) for "best performing organizations"2 | 94 | 111 | 109 | 118 | 123 | 139 |
| Potential reduction in average time to staff (in days) | 27 | 23 | 17 | 27 | 34 | 17 |
| Potential reduction as a percent of current average time to staff | 22.3% | 17.2% | 13.5% | 18.6% | 21.7% | 10.9% |
| Medium | ||||||
| Average time to staff (in days)1 | 124 | 125 | 119 | 138 | 145 | 146 |
| Average time to staff (in days) for "best performing organizations"2 | 93 | 90 | 86 | 91 | 116 | 93 |
| Potential reduction in average time to staff (in days) | 31 | 35 | 33 | 47 | 29 | 53 |
| Potential reduction as a percent of current average time to staff | 25.0% | 28.0% | 27.7% | 34.1% | 20.0% | 36.3% |
| Small | ||||||
| Average time to staff (in days)1 | 111 | 124 | 106 | 105 | 125 | 124 |
| Average time to staff (in days) for "best performing organizations"2 | 83 | 85 | 80 | 82 | 98 | 86 |
| Potential reduction in average time to staff (in days) | 28 | 39 | 26 | 23 | 27 | 38 |
| Potential reduction as a percent of current average time to staff | 25.2% | 31.5% | 24.5% | 21.9% | 21.6% | 30.6% |
Source: PSC SMAF statistics
1 Estimates derived from the average calendar days between date of advertisement to first notification of appointment
2 Estimates derived from the average of lowest quartile (25%) of organizations
Potential for further progress
5.59 Based on an analysis of differences in performance among departments and agencies with respect to the efficiency and responsiveness of their staffing processes, there is considerable potential to reduce the time required to staff. Given the average time to staff for "best performing organizations," Table 13 suggests that reductions of up to 30% may be possible, depending on the type of process and the size of the organization.
5.60 The "best performing organizations" are the 25% of organizations with the lowest times to staff. For these organizations, the time to staff was an average of 80 days (11.4 weeks) overall for individual processes and 106 days (15.1 weeks) overall for "collective" processes. It should be noted that reductions in the time to staff for collective processes do not reflect all of the efficiencies that can be achieved through such approaches (such as use of resources and tools).
5.61 The PSC is currently examining the links between the time to staff and improved performance in the areas of HR planning that directs staffing activity, organizational HR support systems and managerial accountability for results. Preliminary analysis indicates that better organizational performance in these three areas is linked to reducing the time required to complete staffing processes and enabling more proactive staffing approaches.
5.62 Progress in this area, however, does not necessarily mean adding more resources. Rather, based on the PSC's assessment of organizational performance, the PSC observed that better times to staff were achieved when departments and agencies were well organized with respect to their HR management and staffing processes. When organizations were focused on accountability and assessed HR results against concrete, realistic plans and strategies, the PSC observed that times to staff were reduced by as much as 30 days compared to other organizations. The PSC also found that organizations that assigned HR staffing specialists to staffing processes achieved better results.
Extreme Hiring Makeover
In August 2008 the PSC conducted an Extreme Hiring Makeover. This was inspired by the work of the Partnership for Public Service (PPS), a non-profit, non-partisan United States organization that works to revitalize government and transform the way it works. Working with three U.S. federal agencies, the PPS piloted a number of innovative staffing ideas and was successful in attracting better candidates and significantly reducing the time it took to staff. The PSC adapted some of the lessons learned in the U.S. pilots, in particular its project management approach to staffing, to develop and pilot its own version of Extreme Hiring Makeover.
The PSC pilot focused on establishing a staffing plan up-front and using job seeker—friendly hiring practices such as more creative, plain-language job advertisements. The pilot, which was an external staffing process, was completed in 45 days (from advertisement to offers of appointment) and resulted in five highly qualified candidates. Several elements contributed to the pilot's success:
- Up-front efforts in planning and the engagement of all stakeholders;
- Maximizing the use of electronic screening tools;
- A strong project management approach;
- A senior HR staffing officer leading the process; and
- Management agreement and support.
Other factors that contributed to the success of the pilot were the fact that the job descriptions had been recently updated, that there were no requests for accommodation by employees and that external processes do not require two notification periods once assessments have been completed (as is the case for internal processes).
Outlined below are the steps and timelines achieved in the pilot, which can be tailored to fit the particular hiring needs.
| Steps in the staffing process | Days |
|---|---|
| Initial meeting held with the client | |
| Proposed activities outlined and project plan developed | |
| Statement of merit criteria and advertisement developed | |
| Electronic screening and assessment tools developed | |
| Advertisement posted | Day 15 |
| Electronic screening occurs | |
| Further manual screening conducted, if necessary | |
| Teleconference(s) held with applicants | |
| Assessment tools sent to applicants | Day 25 |
| Assessment Board scores results of written exam and references reviewed | |
| Interviews conducted | |
| Second language evaluation testing/security checks conducted as early as possible in the process |
|
| Final assessments/confirmations completed | |
| Results issued and appointments proposed | Day 45 |
Top performers based on the Public Service Commission's assessment of the 2008-2009 Departmental Staffing Accountability Reports
5.63 The following three organizations have been identified as top performers in 2008-2009 for having a rating of "strong management performance," without any areas needing attention: Transport Canada, Western Economic Diversification Canada and the Canada Industrial Relations Board (see Table 14).
| ORGANIZATION |
|---|
| Large: |
| Transport Canada |
| Medium: |
| Western Economic Diversification Canada |
| Small: |
| Canada Industrial Relations Board |
9 Note that last year's results have been revised to reflect the new methodology in this Annual Report.
10For monitoring purposes, the PSC measures the time to staff as the number of calendar days between the job posting date and the date of the second notification (first notification of appointment). This measure is calculated only for internal indeterminate, term and acting processes for which the notification of appointment was posted on Publiservice during the fiscal year and the advertisement was posted on Publiservice either in the same fiscal year or up to three months prior to the fiscal year. This represents approximately 29% of processes for which notification of appointments were posted on Publiservice.