1.3 Overview
The findings from this process reveal that there are indeed perceived
barriers to and problems with career advancement in the federal public service,
and that we can categorize these as follows:
A. Problems that are more indirectly related to perceptions of official
languages policies. Generally, these constitute more attitudinal aspects that
arise from incomplete or erroneous understanding of the policies themselves.
B. Barriers that are directly and tangibly attributed to the specific
requirements of official languages policies themselves. As a category, these are
embodied in specific language-ability criteria that determine eligibility for
promotion and for access to different positions.
C. Barriers that exist in a general fashion for visible minorities that can
be attributed to certain aspects of organizational culture.
D. And finally, specific challenges for visible minorities in terms of
language acquisition generally.
The relevance of these findings vis-à-vis the central question in this
research is, however, dependent on a more thorough understanding of the specific
nature of these barriers.
A. TANGIBLE BARRIERS RELATED TO OFFICIAL LANGUAGES POLICIES
Participants in our focus groups and individual interviews recognize that the
official languages policies in place pose very specific barriers to career
advancement. These barriers are directly embodied in the language requirements
of positions, and tangible in the sense that individuals who do not possess
specific language skills will find their access to these positions constrained
relative to their bilingual colleagues.
Moreover, we also find evidence to suggest that public servants are
increasingly aware of these requirements, and understand them to be increasingly
pervasive throughout the public service. In short, most participants believe
that bilingualism is not only a necessary prerequisite to upward mobility, but
that it is becoming more and more so. Participants sense that more and more jobs
have specific language-related requirements, and that these requirements are
present in an increasing number of locations across the country.
In our discussions, we also see evidence that these barriers are in some
cases perceived as inequitable for certain sub-groups of public servants:
- Public servants in unilingual areas of the country are often seen (or see
themselves) as being unfairly burdened by these policies and their related
requirements. The most commonly expressed sentiment in this respect is that
the "other" language is not really required (thus artificially
inflated in terms of utility), and more generally inaccessible (not used, so
not something that these public servants can learn by way of direct
contact).
- Older public servants are also seen (or see themselves) as particularly
disadvantaged vis-à-vis the official languages requirements, in part
because of the perceived increased difficulty in acquiring a second language
later in life. There is a conventional view that acquiring an additional
language increases in difficulty with age. In addition, as public servants
near the end of their careers, the organizational benefit of providing the
necessary training decreases. This is simply the result of a cost-benefit
analysis that factors in length of service, and that calculates the worth of
training as a function of how long that training will be put to use.
Clearly, as a remaining career diminishes in time, so too does the benefit
of providing language training. When combined, these two barriers pose a
particularly unpalatable barrier for older participants, especially in light
of another conventionally held view that it is precisely these older public
servants who should be promoted. To the same extent that they are considered
less than ideal candidates for language acquisition and training, they are
also widely valued for their experience, accumulated know-how, etc. Finally,
an additional perceived injustice arises for those experienced unilingual
public servants whose careers have evolved over a long time where upward
mobility was not at all affected by their language abilities. For public
servants in this situation who now find themselves confronted with the
perception of increasing demands for bilingualism, the injustice can
sometimes appear more pronounced.
Otherwise, and for the large remainder of public servants, we can assert that
these barriers imposed by official languages policies are for the most part
accepted, at least where the nuances of the policies are adequately understood.
B. PERCEPTIONS OF LANGUAGES POLICIES
Another type of finding we uncovered in this process relates not so much to
the policies themselves, but rather to public servants' incomplete or erroneous
understanding thereof. These findings suggest problems that are more attitudinal
in nature, and are tangible not in the system as much as they are in resistance
to the policies, or in active contestation of the policies.
The most important and obvious manifestation of these problems is in the
tendency to exaggerate or overstate the policies' demands. Typically, this is
most evident in outlying geographical areas, in the sense that bilingualism is
equally imperative in all areas of the country. This erroneous perception in
turn fuels considerable resistance to the actual demands that are in place, and
often provokes individuals into active undermining of the logic and sense of the
policy as a whole. This same imperfect or exaggerated understanding of the
policy extends to specific issues such as language of work and service to the
public. Clearly, the overall perceptions and attitudes vis-à-vis language
policies would improve as a result of improved communication on these issues.
C. MOBILITY BARRIERS FOR VISIBLE MINORITIES
Our findings also suggest that certain barriers to upward mobility exist for
visible minorities, although in a manner largely separate and distinct from
official languages policies. While most of our visible minority participants
tended to diminish the impact and importance of these barriers, we heard enough
anecdotal and perceptual evidence to suggest that the federal public service
retains certain cultural aspects that provide a less than level playing field.
The important distinction to emerge in this sense is that all of these barriers
were seen to affect the upward mobility of recent immigrants more than of all
visible minorities. Even more specifically, it is those who come to the public
service with accented speech in either official language that appear most
susceptible to the following kinds of barriers:
- Intolerance or impatience with the naturally slower, harder to understand
communication abilities of that recent immigrant;
- A related under-estimation of recent immigrants' skills, aptitudes and
abilities that is directly related to their communication issues; · An
internal culture with respect to promotions and mobility logistics,
specifically the emphasis on interviews (that require candidates to
"sell" themselves) and competitions that are not always shared,
comfortable for or compatible with the cultural traditions or organizational
behaviors of recent immigrants.
Parenthetically, these same incompatibilities and barriers can have other
effects, such as providing barriers to obtaining security clearances or to
access to language training.
D. LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND VISIBLE MINORITIES
Finally, and although of rather reduced importance for most participants that
spoke of it, our discussions also uncovered the view that visible minorities
(and perhaps again more specifically first and second generation Canadians) may
carry specific burdens with respect to their language acquisition abilities.
Ironically, however, the problem here is not at all in their lack of ability,
but rather in their tendency to already have acquired several languages prior to
their entry in the public service. This characteristic affects these people in
two relevant manners for the purposes of this analysis:
- It raises the possibility that acquiring the "other" official
language may be somewhat more difficult when this additional language
constitutes a third, fourth or fifth language. While there was no consensus
on this (as there is a competing view, namely that the more languages you
know, the easier additional ones are to learn), clearly some participants
believe this to be true.
- It raises questions about the relative value the public service attaches
to multiple language ability or "multilingualism". Although a
minority point of view, some participants question whether people who can
speak several languages, but not both official ones, shouldn't be
"given a break" of sorts. Generally speaking, however, very few
participants (and no visible minority participants) endorsed this idea.
|
