Addressing Ineffective Managers in Public Service: A Call to Action

The issue of ineffective management within Canada’s public service has garnered attention, particularly concerning individuals who are repeatedly shuffled into new roles rather than being held accountable for their performance. A recent inquiry in the Public Service Confidential advice column highlights the frustrations faced by employees dealing with incompetent managers who remain in the system. The question raised is whether there is a way to address these concerns effectively.

Challenges of Accountability in Public Service

The questioner, who wished to remain anonymous, expressed discontent over a former manager’s persistent ineffectiveness. This individual has moved between various managerial positions within their department yet continues to be regarded as a liability. The question remains: how can employees intervene against such systemic issues without direct authority over the manager in question?

According to Daniel Quan-Watson, a former deputy minister and CEO with the federal public service, employees can raise specific instances of non-performance that impact their work. He emphasizes the importance of addressing these issues privately and professionally with management to insist on accountability. While this approach may not resolve all concerns, it represents a critical step toward fostering a more effective workplace.

Quan-Watson argues that failing to terminate individuals who do not meet the requirements of their positions incurs costs that extend beyond lost productivity. The effects ripple through teams, leading to inadequate support for citizens and clients, increased frustration among colleagues, and a general decline in workplace morale. He points out that ethical breaches—including bullying and harassment—are often overlooked, creating an environment where detrimental behaviors persist.

Understanding the Termination Process

Despite the challenges, there are mechanisms in place to address underperformance. Under Section 12 (3) of the Financial Administration Act, public servants can only be terminated for cause, which sometimes creates a perception that such actions are nearly impossible. However, statistical data from the Treasury Board indicates that between 2020 and 2025, an average of 187 public servants were terminated annually due to “misconduct” or “incompetence/incapacity” within a workforce exceeding 300,000 employees.

Quan-Watson suggests that many managers lack familiarity with the termination process, which leads to the perpetuation of ineffective management. Advisors with no prior experience in conducting such terminations further complicate the issue. As a result, the reluctance to address non-performance risks the loss of high-performing employees and diminishes overall organizational efficiency.

He challenges the myth that it is too difficult or costly to terminate non-performing employees, asserting that retaining them ultimately incurs greater expenses. The human resources sector needs to prioritize the training of advisors to support managers in effectively navigating the termination process without fear of the associated stigma.

In conclusion, addressing the issue of ineffective management in the public service requires a concerted effort from both employees and management. By fostering a culture of accountability and understanding the processes involved in addressing underperformance, organizations can improve workplace dynamics and ensure that public servants are equipped to serve their constituents effectively.

For those seeking advice on workplace concerns, Public Service Confidential welcomes inquiries at [email protected]. This column aims to provide guidance on a range of issues faced by public servants, ensuring that no concern is too small or too large to address.