 Public Service Commission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The material on this page applies to staffing actions begun before December 31, 2005. For more information on appointment policies and resources currently in force, please visit the HR Toolbox at http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/centres/hr_toolbox_e.htm |
| The material on this page applies to staffing actions begun before December 31, 2005. For more information on appointment policies and resources currently in force, please visit the HR Toolbox at http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/centres/hr_toolbox_e.htm |
An Approach to Monitoring Staffing and a Risk Assessment Model
|
|
| Information
Management and Review Directorate |
 |
| Policy,
Research and Communications Branch |
|
| Public
Service Commission of Canada |
|
| |
Home
An
Approach to Monitoring Staffing and a Risk Assessment Model
Staffing
risk assessment models include a regular and systemic monitoring
program. For present purposes, the Public
Service Commission considers monitoring to be a process of examining
staffing activities to provide reasonable
assurance that staffing decisions are in line with the desired
results. Monitoring
activities are conducted with two goals in mind:
- to
obtain information on the achievement of targeted goals; and
- to
implement corrective actions if and where needed.
top
Characteristics
of a Monitoring System
The
PSC does not believe in a universal monitoring system for all
departments. Instead, we believe that departments
should adopt monitoring practices that suit the needs of the
particular organization. We are
suggesting a framework with the following characteristics:
- clearly
identified responsibilities;
- trends
that are examined against values and agreed upon performance
indicators;
- results
of the system are brought to the attention of Senior Management; and
- corrective
actions that are taken on the basis of the results.
Departmental
monitoring systems also have the characteristics of reliability and
scope. A reliable monitoring
system is achieved by having the appropriate mechanisms to safeguard
the quality and timeliness
of the staffing information, along with the safety of the actual data.
A monitoring system has
the proper scope when it examines the values and performance that have
been agreed to in Accountability
Agreement on significant sectors within the organization.
The
actual implementation of the monitoring system, of course, depends on
the departmental context.
There are several sources of information that can be used, including:
- statistical
data,
- staffing
practices, and
- interviews
and/or surveys with human resource managers, line managers, clients,
and employees.
Similarly,
departments will determine the frequency of their monitoring
activities, ranging from
a semi-annual basis to yearly, or even once every two or three years
depending on the
departmental needs and the sources of the data.
The
specific monitoring activities of the department should be derived
from a staffing risk assessment.
The risk assessment is a systematic process for assessing and
integrating professional judgements
about probable adverse conditions and/or effects. By examining the
functional and organizational
staffing risk, a risk assessment serves to:
- identify,
focus, and maximize the effectiveness of monitoring activities;
- help
determine the scope of a given performance assessment.
The
following diagram illustrates the relationship and roles between
values, performance indicators and
risk assessment in determining which monitoring activities should be
conducted in a department.
In
the new Staffing Accountability Framework, departments are required to
conduct an assessment of their staffing performance. To help
departments meet these requirements, a model for assessing staffing
risk is presented on the following pages. The model can be used by
staffing monitoring and assessment officers in organizations governed
by the Public Service Employment Act to provide focus for
their monitoring activities and maximize the effectiveness of these
activities. They can also use the model to determine the sectors of
the organization and areas of staffing that present the highest risks.
It
is important to note that the model is only a tool to be used to
facilitate decision making. Other
more or less tangible factors may also influence the determination of
the level risk in an
organization.
Definitions
Risk,
in the context of staffing in the Public Service, can be interpreted
as: a staffing environment which does not adhere to the requirements
of the Public Service Employment Act and Regulations, and the
policies, guidelines and values of the Public Service. This, in turn,
could have negative impact on the operational programs of an
organization.
The
staffing risk assessment model is based on the following definitions:
Risk
The
probability that an event or action-such as exposure to financial
loss, non-ethical conduct, loss of reputation, and non-compliance with
legal requirements and business guidelines-may adversely affect
the organization.
Internal Auditing in a Changing Management Culture, Office of
the Auditor General of Canada, 1992, p. 19.
Risk
Factors
The
criteria used to identify the relative significance of, and likelihood
that, conditions or events may occur that could adversely affect the
organization.
Statement on Internal Auditing Standards No. 9,
Institute of Internal Auditors, Internal Auditor, October 1992, p. 61.
Risk
Assessment
A
systematic process for assessing and integrating professional
judgments about probable adverse conditions
and/or events. This process should take into account not only the
probability that unwanted
actions occur but also the impact of such occurrences on the
organization.
Structure
As
seen in the following pages, the model is divided into two parts:
- Part
I-Functional
Risks-describes risk factors related to the "staffing"
function, as
well as information sources for such factors. The Functional Risk
factors consist of
the six values defined in the Staffing Accountability Framework:
competency, representativeness,
non-partisanship, fairness, equity and transparency. Note that
the
Functional Risk section ends with a grid for compiling all of the
elements of risk
in a given organization.
- Part
II-Organizational
Risks-describes risk factors related to the
characteristics of
the organization, as well as information sources for such factors.
Note that the section
ends with a grid for compiling all of the elements of organizational
risks.
Part
I-Functional Risks
Value:
Competency
|
Risk Factor
|
Definition of a low risk |
Depart-
mental Risk Level |
Information
Sources |
Com-
ments |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
|
Use
of competency profiles |
The
department has a staffing system based on competency profiles (for
the main occupational groups) which includes:
-the definition of basic competencies and
transferable skills; and
-the use of behavioural assessment tools
(behaviour based interview-BBI) to identify individual
competencies. |
|
Policy/
guidelines/
practices in effect on the use of competency profiles |
|
| Use
of staffing processes (generic competitions where appropriate) |
The
department uses generic competitions, where appropriate, to:
-fill a number of positions
simultan-eously or
-create an inventory of qualified
candidates for rotation to various positions at the same group and
level; and
-candidates are assessed on the basis of
skills, abilities and "generic" competen-cies, not
exclusively on the specific requirements of a position.
|
|
Policies/ guidelines/
practices in effect on the use of generic competitions
|
|
| Staffing
strategy |
The
department has a staffing strategy that:
-assesses the status of the
organiza-tion's human resources;
-determines new requirements of positions;
-reviews all employee qualifications;
-chooses a combination of staffing options
based on operational needs and the aspirations and expectations of
employees; and
-creates a linkage between staffing, the
business plan, and operations. |
|
Policy/ guidelines/
practices on staffing strategy |
|
| Staffing
training |
The
department improves the competency of staffing consultants by
providing and updating staffing training. The department keeps
staffing participants (delegated managers) informed about staffing
changes.
|
|
Policy/
guidelines/
practices on staffing training for staffing consultants and
delegated managers Statistics on the content and frequency of
staffing training |
|
| Selection
tools and techniques |
The
department is concerned about the quality of selection tools and
techniques and takes into consideration and applies a variety of
appropriate measurement instruments such as:
-reviewing
the information contained in personal files;
-details
of previous track record;
-written
examinations (departmental and PSC tests);
-directed
interview techniques (in-basket, detailed questionnaires,
behaviour based interviews (BBI), simulations, role play and oral
presentations);
-recorded
reference checks;
-peer
assessment for specific groups; and so on. |
|
Policies/
guidelines/
practices on the use of selection tools and techniques |
|
| Occupational
learning and training program (where necessary) |
-The department establishes its own
learning and training program where the required knowledge and
competencies are not available either within or outside the Public
Service.
-The department shows the competencies the
program enables employees to acquire, how the program is
organized, and the progress of trainees (including the measures
that are taken in the event of training failure).
-Competencies are properly assessed in a
consistent manner, according to the same criteria for all
trainees.
-The department develops competency
standards, in accordance with the Standards for Selection and
Assessment (generic and specific), for every level of promotion
based on individual merit expected in the program.
|
|
Policy/
guidelines/
procedures in effect to develop learning and training programs
Statistics on the number of trainees promoted |
|
| Active
and effective management of the external inventory (where delegated) |
The
department has a policy, guidelines, procedures and monitoring
mechanisms for:
-area of recruitment;
-composition of the inventory (scope of
the inventory, distribution of notices, processing of
applications, screening and/or preliminary assessment, maintenance
of the inventory); and
-quality of referrals (selection, from an
inventory, of candidates to be considered for some positions).
|
|
Policy/
guidelines/
procedures and monitoring mechanisms for managing the external
inventory |
|
| Other
risk factor identified by the department |
|
|
|
|
Compilation
| |
Departmental
Risk Level |
| Value
of Competency |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
top
Value:
Representativeness
| Risk
Factor |
Definition
of a low risk |
Depart-
mental Risk Level |
Information
Sources |
Com-
ments |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Recruitment
of members of designated groups |
The
department meets the standards of representativeness negotiated with
TBS and/or the provisions of Land Claims Agreements negotiated with
Aboriginal groups (where appropriate). |
|
Demo
graphic data |
|
| |
The
department takes advantage of special PSC programs (Section 5 of the
Employ ment Act and Regulation 44). |
|
Analysis
of the level of use of special programs |
|
| |
The
department promotes external recruitment by means of generic competi
tions (where appropriate). |
|
Review
of practices/ guidelines/ policies |
|
| |
Members
of target groups participate as selection board members. |
|
Composi
tion of selection boards |
|
| |
Invitation
to target groups in advertising, competition posters and other
media. |
|
Review
of practices/ guidelines/
policies |
|
| |
Expansion
of areas of selection to be sure to attract members of target
groups. |
|
Review
of practices/ guidelines/
policies |
|
| Promotion
of members of designated groups |
The
department meets the promotion standards negotiated with TBS. |
|
Demo
graphic data |
|
| |
The
department takes initiatives to reach the goals of overcoming
obstacles and eliminating
barriers with regard to employ-
ment equity (e.g., review of statements of qualifica tions, exit
interviews, participa tion by members of designated groups on
selection boards). |
|
Review
of practices/
guidelines/
policies |
|
| |
Training
is facilitated for members of target groups already on the job. |
|
Review
of practices/
guidelines/
policies |
|
| Information/
training |
Information/
training of managers and employees (targets to be met, new equity
legislation and/or provisions of Land Claims Agreements negotiated
with Aboriginal groups). |
|
Review
of information mechanisms |
|
| |
Training/
awareness of managers and employees (courses, info-lunch, etc.). |
|
Review
of training content |
|
| Support
from senior management |
Reinforcement
of the role of co- ordinators (financial support for costs incurred
for actual initiatives) |
|
Review
of depart mental practices |
|
| Other
risk factor identified by the department |
|
|
|
|
Compilation
| |
Departmental
Risk Level |
| Value
of Representativeness |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
top
Value:
Non-Partisanship
| Risk
Factor |
Definition
of a low risk |
Depart-
mental Risk Level |
Information
Sources |
Com-
ments |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
Information/
training of participants |
Annual
reminder to all staff on sections 32, 33, 34 of the PSEA. |
|
Guidelines/
practices communicated to employees |
|
| |
Existence
of a code of ethics including staffing issues or inclusion of such
elements in the mission or values of the organization. |
|
Review
of code of ethics/ mission |
|
| |
Information/
training sessions such as workshops and info- lunches.
Communication to the Minister of the responsibilities of the Deputy
Minister or Deputy Head on non- partisanship. |
|
Review
of content of information sessions
N/A |
|
| Resource
person as departmental contact |
The
organization has identified a resource person to answer employee
questions/
concerns, such as political activities outside working hours. |
|
Reflected
in work descriptions |
|
| Appeals/
grievances/ complaints involving non partisanship Other risk factor
identified by the department |
No
or few admissible appeals/
complaints/ investigations (in the context of the volume of
staffing activity). |
|
Analysis
of admissible complaints |
|
| Other
risk factor identified by the department |
|
|
|
|
Compilation
| |
Departmental
Risk Level |
| Value
of Non-partisanship |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
top
Value:
Fairness
|
Risk
Factor |
Definition
of a low risk |
Depart-
mental Risk Level |
Information
Sources |
Com-
ments |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
|
Consideration
and placement of employees with priority rights |
The
organization has mechanisms in effect to ensure the consideration
and placement of employees with priority.
|
|
Review
of mechanisms in effect within the organization Data on appointments
of employees with priority from within the organization. |
|
| |
The
organization also hires employees with priority from other
organizations.
|
|
Data
on appointments of employees with priority from other
organizations |
|
| Quality
of selection tools |
Information/training
for individuals responsible for assessing candidates.
|
|
Policy/guidelines/
practices on selection tools |
|
| |
Use
of PSC tests or standardized departmental tests as a selection tool,
where appropriate.
|
|
Practices
on the use of standardized tests |
|
| |
No or few admissible complaints/appeals/
investigations involving selection methods and tools.
|
|
Review
of appeal decisions/
investigation outcomes |
|
| Other
risk factor identified by the department |
|
|
|
|
Compilation
| |
Departmental
Risk Level |
| Value
of Fairness
|
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
top
Value:
Equity
|
Risk
Factor |
Definition
of a low risk |
Depart-
mental Risk Level |
Information
Sources |
Com-
ments |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Statement
of qualifications |
Information/training,
where necessary, for individuals responsible for developing
statements of qualifications. |
|
Data
on staffing training |
|
| |
The
organization applies generic factors in statements of qualifications
consistently for key positions and similar positions. |
|
Policy/
guidelines/
practices on statements of qualifications |
|
| |
No
or few admissible complaints/ appeals/
investigations with respect to qualifications. |
|
Review
of appeal decisions and investigation outcomes |
|
| Area
of selection |
Areas
of selection used by the organization for competitions allow a
reasonable number of candidates to apply. |
|
Policy/
guidelines/
practices on area of selection including areas for creating an
inventory where the organization has delegation to recruit from
outside the Public Service
Data
on the number of candidates in a competition |
|
| Use
of staffing processes |
Recruitment
on an indeterminate basis at a level other than entry level is
justified. |
|
Data
on appointments |
|
| |
Requests
for single candidate referrals during recruitment are justified. |
|
Data
on cases of single candidate referral |
|
| |
Where
necessary, the organization facilitates reasonable access to
opportunities likely to lead to promotion through competition. |
|
Guidelines/
practices on promotions
Data
on appointments |
|
| Other
risk factor identified by the department |
|
|
|
|
Compilation
| |
Departmental
Risk Level |
| Value
of Equity
|
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
top
Value:
Transparency
| Risk
Factor |
Definition
of a low risk |
Depart-
mental Risk Level |
Information
Sources |
Com-
ments |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Communication
of staffing information |
Regular
communication of policies, strategic decisions and selection
decisions to managers and employees (for example, staffing issues
are regularly covered at meetings with all employees). |
|
Policy/
guidelines/
practices on communication of policies and staffing decisions |
|
| Staffing
training for practitioners (if need be) |
Information/
training for managers and staffing advisors on values and staffing
principles. |
|
Data
on staffing training for managers and staffing advisors |
|
| Number
of complaints, appeals and investigations |
No
or few admissible complaints/appeals/
investigations. |
|
Review
of appeal decisions and investigation outcomes |
|
| Feedback
mechanisms accessible to managers and employees |
Systematic
offer to candidates to participate in post-interviews. |
|
Guidelines/
practices on feedback to candidates |
|
| |
Candidates
in closed competitions are systematically informed of their right to
appeal. |
|
Guidelines/
practices on right to appeal. Form letter sent to candidates. |
|
| |
Individuals
in the area of selection are informed of their right to appeal when
an appointment is made without competition. |
|
Practices
on right to appeal (for example, notices of appointments without
competition are issued) |
|
| |
Existence
of mechanisms for gathering comments from managers and employees. |
|
Practices
on feedback (e.g., feedback mechanisms in effect) |
|
| Use
of staffing processes |
The
organization applies generic factors in statements of qualifications
for key positions and similar positions consistently in external
recruitment and closed competitions. |
|
Guidelines/
practices on recruitment and promotions |
|
| |
Opportunities
for acting appointments are advertised to employees, and various
factors are considered, such as conducting a competition and
employee rotation. |
|
Guidelines/
practices on acting appointments |
|
| |
Promotion
of public servants by open competition is justified and done on an
exceptional basis. |
|
Data
on appointments |
|
| Other
risk factor identified by the department |
|
|
|
|
Compilation
| |
Departmental
Risk Level |
| Value
of Transparency
|
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
top
Overall
Compilation
| |
Departmental
Risk Level |
| Value
of Competency |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Value
of Representativeness |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Value
of Non-partisanship |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Value
of Fairness |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Value
of Equity |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Value
of Transparency |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
top
Part
II-Organizational Risks
| Risk
Factor |
Definition
of a low risk |
Departmental
Risk Level |
Information
Sources |
Comments |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Volume
of staffing activities |
The
volume of staffing activities per 100 employees is lower than the
Public Service average. |
|
Data
on appointments in the Public Service |
|
| Complexity
of staffing |
Staffing
in the organization shows these characteristics:
-variety of similar positions;
-no peak period for staffing activities;
and
-no staffing of highly specialized
positions. |
|
Data
on appointments |
|
| Extent
of Deputy Head's delegated staffing authority |
The
Delegation Agreement includes only the general authority usually
delegated to Deputy Heads. |
|
Organization's
agreement on delegated staffing authority and accountability |
|
| Distribution
of sub-delegated staffing authority within the organization |
The
sub-delegation structure within the organization shows these
characteristics:
-delegated staffing authority is
centralized from a geographic and organizational point of view;
and
-staffing authority is sub- delegated to a
small number of practitioners. |
|
Sub-delegation
structure within the organization |
|
| Environmental
analysis |
Human
resources management in the organization has not been the subject of
any unfavourable media reports. |
|
Organization's
Communication Branch, press clippings, parliamentary intervention |
|
| Other
risk factor identified by the department |
|
|
|
|
Departmental
Overall Compilation
| |
Departmental
Risk Level |
| Volume
of staffing activities |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Complexity
of staffing |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Extent
of Deputy Head's delegated staffing authority |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Distribution
of sub-delegated staffing authority within the organization |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
| Environmental
analysis |
Low
Risk
- |
High
Risk
+ |
top
Home
|
