4.2 General Perceptions of Official Languages Policies
4.3 Official Languages and Career Mobility
4.4 Career Mobility and Visible Minorities
4.5 Visible Minorities and Official Languages
4.6 Official Languages, Visible Minorities and Career Mobility
Annex 1 - Participant Recruiting Screener
Annex 2 - Discussion Guide Outline
This report presents the findings from a qualitative research project with federal government employees. The overall objective of this process was to investigate the perception that official languages policies pose a specific barrier to career advancement for visible minorities in the Federal Public Service in order to better understand the nature of the concern. This qualitative research process is one part of a larger research initiative, and is intended only to shed light on the perceptions surrounding these issues, and the perceived nature of problems encountered. Additional investigational elements are planned.
One of the imperatives for this project stems from the often-heard, but unverified premise that visible minorities are disadvantaged with respect to advancing their careers in the federal Public Service because of the requirements of the official languages policies. In this light, it was determined that it would be important for Official Languages Branch (OLB) and Employment Equity Division (EED) to gain a better understanding of individual experiences and perceptions in order to identify and adequately address any perceived barriers presented by the Official languages policies, including access to language training. The mandate for this project states:
A review of the literature conducted for the Official Languages Branch/Employment Equity Division of the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) did not find that Visible Minorities as a group (nor sub-groups comprising Visible Minorities) have any greater difficulty as an entity in the second language acquisition. Findings from this study suggest that rather than any existence of systemic or cultural-based barriers with respect to language training, there appears to be a number of individual attributes and characteristics that may contribute to an increased difficulty in acquiring a second official language.
This particular qualitative research component consisted of ten focus groups held in Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver (seven in English and three in French) and four individual interviews, all with federal public servants representing a variety of departments and positions within the public service hierarchy. All groups were held between January 19th and February 5th, 2004. The individual interviews were conducted in December 2003.
Readers of this report are asked to consider the limitations of this study. This study addresses the perceived existence of barriers to career mobility for public servants who are of visible minority status. In so doing, it is important to consider the degree to which qualitative methods such as the ones employed both shed light on the perceptions of barriers, but are limited in their ability to measure "barriers" in tangible forms.
For the purposes of this study, "barriers" to career mobility are construed as those manifestations of attitude, culture, procedure or process that may obstruct or constrain one's ability to be promoted. Barriers may be both tangible and intangible, and may exist either in the perceptions of the obstructed or individuals around them. Accordingly, this study would recognize reluctance on the part of managers to accord second language training to visible minorities as a barrier, as well as reluctance on the part of visible minority participants to ask for it. Both of these kinds of barriers would likely be transparent to quantitative methods. Qualitative methods allow the researcher to discuss such perceptions at length in a responsive and probing fashion, and investigate on how and why they exist.
By the same token, these methods have important limitations: because the methodology employed in this study is qualitative in nature, our conclusions should not be construed as representative of the larger population of federal public servants in any statistically significant manner. In this case, the findings derived from this process may shed light on the perceptions of these barriers and the nature of the problem, but cannot shed light on the magnitude of the problem.
Readers of this report are thus cautioned to consider the implications of the findings reported herein with care.
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:
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:
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:
In illustrating and describing all of these different issues with respect to career mobility, visible minorities and official languages policies, three fundamental conclusions emerge:
1. That there are problems, both perceived and real in how the public service confronts and deals with these three issues. This research process has provided evidence of continued issues attributable to communications and understanding surrounding these policies that appear to have a direct impact on public servants' attitudes and acceptance. We can clearly assert that official languages policies remain imperfectly understood, and far from widely endorsed. In such a climate, it is not surprising to have encountered some negativity among participants relative to these questions. This negativity is directly responsible for what we observed in terms of active resistance and hostility toward the actual, systemic barriers that the official languages policies do impose.
2. That visible minorities, as a group, do indeed experience career mobility barriers, but that these emerge more as a function of organizational culture and attitudes from co-workers than as a function of specific language-related policies. In a parallel fashion, our findings also suggest that these issues tend to affect public servants who are recent immigrants more than visible minorities in general.
3. That despite the existence and impact of the above two conclusions, nowhere in this process have we heard evidence to suggest that a specific official languages problem exists solely for visible minorities. The problems these public servants encounter are, from the perspective of participants themselves, no different, and no less reasonable or unfair for them than they are for everyone else.
The overall purpose and objective for this research project was described in the briefing document as follows:
More specifically, this project was conceived and designed as the second phase of a multi-phase research process that began with a review of literature on the subject. This second phase, stipulated to be qualitative in nature, calls for groups discussions among French and English-speaking public servants both among visible minorities and non-visible minorities.
Given the objectives set out for this study, a combination of focus group discussions and individual in-depth interviews was selected as the most appropriate approach.
A total of ten (10) focus groups and four (4) individual interviews were held, all between December and February.
The following chart illustrates the nature, composition and location of the focus groups:
|
Dates |
Montreal | Ottawa | Ottawa | Ottawa | Vancouver |
| Jan. 19 | Jan. 20 | Jan. 21 | Jan. 22 | Feb. 5 | |
|
French |
English |
French |
French |
English |
|
|
English |
English |
English |
English |
||
|
English |
VM: Visible minorities
Exqui: Executive equivalent
NVM: Non Visible minorities
Exemin: executive minus (level 1, 2 or other levels)
Individual interviews were conducted with EX level Visible Minority Anglophones, all in Ottawa.
John Patterson of Patterson Langlois Consultants moderated all groups and was responsible for all analysis and report writing related to this research project.
A screening questionnaire and other documents were developed prior to contacting potential participants to facilitate the recruiting process and to ensure that all necessary protocols were adhered to. In addition, the moderator's guide, that serves as a tool for outlining the nature and sequence of topics addressed in the sessions also underwent the same approval procedure. Copies of these documents are appended to this report.
The following chart illustrates the juxtaposition of the three areas of investigation that are at the core of this study, namely:
The central question in this research process centres on the juxtaposition of all three topics, and seeks specifically to identify and understand the nature of perceived barriers to career mobility that exist for visible minority public servants as a result of the official languages policies. In addressing this question, we encountered clear findings relative to this central question, as well as more ancillary findings that touch on the specific intersections between the three topics.
For the purpose of clarity, the findings relative to these three topics will be presented as follows:
If we consider our findings about perceptions of the official languages policies (as distinct from the other questions at hand here), the following emerge:
A Varied and Imperfect Understanding of the Official Languages Policies: Although most public servants we spoke with have a general understanding of the official languages policies, many have failed to grasp their subtleties, and this imperfect understanding apparently is the source of much negative feeling. The most common manifestation of this imperfect understanding is the tendency to exaggerate the demands of the policies. Several specific areas of the policies are commonly exaggerated, or the source of apparent confusion: Participants tend to overstate the demands of the policies, and many continue to believe, for example, that the policies stipulate access to services in both languages in all areas of the country 1. Similarly, many participants suggest that the ability to speak French is being demanded for public service jobs in more areas (geographic and work-related) than it actually is. This tendency tends to increase as we move further from bilingual areas of the country, although was encountered in Ottawa groups as well.
The "Service Ethic": Generally, where we encountered dissent about the official languages policies, it tended to centre on the perceived demands of language of work, and was almost non-existent when considered in the context of service to the public. This perception underscores what is apparently a strong service ethic among many participants, a notion that seems to rally even the more recalcitrant unilingual participants to the policies. In addition, this perception, and this ethic seem to be consistent among all of the different public servants we spoke to, regardless of location, visible minority status, official language spoken, etc.
Controversy Surrounding Language of Work: Conversely to the widespread endorsement of the principles surrounding service to the public, the official languages policies' impact on language of work was much more contested and controversial. Generally, few participants make the link between public servants' rights to work and be supervised in the official language of their choice (which most know of and endorse), and how the policies makes positions of authority necessarily bilingual.
Impact on Staffing: The issue of staffing came up repeatedly: Participants continue to complain that the official languages requirements slow down the staffing process, and to suggest that manipulation of language requirements of positions to accommodate favoured individuals for certain positions continues to happen. Moreover, this complaint seems to be consistently voiced by all participants we spoke with.
We see evidence of a proportional relationship between buy-in to the official languages policies and the availability of training. This is manifest in the oft-expressed view that asking public servants to become bilingual requires a commitment of resources commensurate to the task. This commitment matches dollars with ideals, and reinforces the idea that the government is committed to making the policies a reality. Conversely, the failure to match resources to this requirement provokes criticism and considerable frustration. In a similar vein, we noted that frustration with the demands and limitations implied in the policies tends to be less pronounced among those who have had access to training, and even more among those who had been trained to some extent.
Greater Acceptance among Younger Public Servants: Finally, we noted that younger public servants we talked to were among the most likely of all participants to endorse the overall aims of the official languages policies, regardless of their language proficiency. We found a greater degree and more widespread acceptance of the aims, and the means surrounding the policies among these younger participants. Their tendency is to construe bilingualism as a normal and obvious requirement for finding work in the public service.
The impact of official languages policies on career mobility is a topic about which public servants seem divided, and where we encountered the greatest amount of controversy. Among the different groups we spoke with, we encountered differing opinions and perspectives on the letter and the spirit of the policies, on how they affect different public servants, and the degree to which they pose reasonable obstacles for upward mobility. While individual opinions and attitudes differed, there were nonetheless consistencies therein attributable to geographic dimensions (basically, a function of distance from Ottawa), language proficiency (between bilingual and unilingual public servants), and first official language. By the same token, we did not find much evidence of variance in overall perspective between non-visible minorities and visible minorities (which we will take up in a later section of this report).
This intersection is complicated, however, and requires that we distinguish between points of view across linguistic and geographical lines, among others. Generally, however, we noted that the controversy seems more pronounced among unilingual Anglophones, and less so among bilingual participants (we spoke to very few unilingual French-speaking participants). In an even more basic sense, we also note that Francophones and Anglophones have different manners of conceiving of the issue, and of what is at stake.
Different Perspectives of the "Stakes" Between Francophones and Anglophones
For most Anglophones, it is clear that the official languages policies impact life at work, and is something that can potentially impose limits or demands on them as employees. Unilingual Anglophones, in particular, appear very sensitive to the potential for the official languages policies to curtail their career aspirations, and to impede or slow the pace of work. For many Anglophones, there is a political character to the policies, in that they appear to be motivated by the central authority of Ottawa, and grounded in the social dynamics of the country at large. Conversely, many complain that the policies fail to reflect regional realities.
In listening to Francophone public servants, however, we see that the stakes involved in the official languages policies are apparently different, and are seen in a manner that is difficult to compare with those of their Anglophone counterparts. While somewhat of a simplification, where unilingual Anglophones appear concerned with how the official languages policies affect their career aspirations, their Francophone public servants tend to speak of more systemic and fundamental questions, and tend to consider the implications of the policies in wider terms that include the survival of the French language, and the exercise of basic rights.
Francophone public servants are apparently sensitive to the weight of the English-speaking majority, and how this weight tends to demand bilingualism from them for practical reasons. The vast majority of Francophone public servants we spoke with are bilingual, and many feel that they have been either forced to become so, or that it was inevitable that they would because efficiency and clear communication on the job demand it. This perception stands in some contrast to that of their English-speaking counterparts, where the imperative to learn French is more political than practical. When confronted with an opportunity to enable or proclaim the stipulations of language policies, however, most Francophone public servants have a strong tendency to be accommodating, and to favour the most efficient means of communication in any given situation. With these tendencies in place, the weight of the English majority has the capacity to be self-sustaining, and makes the Francophones' counter desire to bolster the political equality of their language all the more difficult.
Yet, despite these differences in perspective, we also note that the majority of participants -- be they Francophone, Anglophone, visible minority or not - speak rather generously of workplace environments, and of the relationships there. It would seem that the difficulties that these different groups experience are not in the day to day, but rather in their perceptions of the larger issues. Participants tend to focus not so much on the aims of the policies, but rather on the means adopted to achieve those aims, and on the availability of training resources.
Bilingual Public Servants
Predictably, bilingual public servants, having acquired the second official language, have many fewer objections to the policies. As a whole, they tend to endorse both the broad aims of the policies, as well as many more of the means deployed to achieve those ends. They tend to agree that both languages are necessary to work as a public servant, and are equally at ease with the stipulation that executives should be required to have both. Nonetheless, and despite their general degree of comfort with the policies, we did encounter a few preoccupations among them that are worth noting:
Unilingual Anglophones
Unilingual Anglophone public servants, for their part, understand that their language abilities (or lack thereof) have a negative impact on their upward mobility. In fact, English-speaking public servants are clearly the most likely to perceive the official languages policies as barriers to career mobility. There are several underlying facets to this point of view:
Common Ground - Illogical Means
Ultimately, however, both bilingual and unilingual Anglophone public servants tend to agree on their criticism of some of the following observable practices in the public service:
The folly of training public servants in the second language at the end of their careers: One irony of the stipulation that executive level public servants must have both languages is that those that reach this level often do so relatively close to the end of their careers. At this stage, and even despite the fact that the training itself will be more difficult, and more time-consuming, the pay off will be severely circumscribed by that person's impending retirement. By the same token, many also recognize that to deny the older, more seasoned, public servants access to the higher levels of the bureaucracy is to fundamentally ignore their experience and long-standing contribution to the public service. While this particular dilemma, in the end, lays the groundwork for the argument that bilingual capabilities should be a stipulated capacity for all new hires, most remain highly sensitive to this apparent paradox.
Another angle on this problem that emerges often is about the perceived folly of taking executive level public servants "off line" to learn the other language just as they are about to take an executive level job. Here too, the means necessary to empower the upper ranks with dual official language capability appear to extract a tangible and difficult-to-justify price in terms of efficiency and logic.
Finally, and no less important, is the fact that the official languages policies seem to demand bilingual capacity from Anglophone public servants who will in all likelihood never be required to use their French except in a rare meeting with people in Ottawa 3. Here again, the relative value of the ends appears outweighed by burdensome means and an apparent lack of need. As if to illustrate the point, Vancouver public servants are inclined to point out that other languages are more likely to be useful in their area than French.4
Summary - Official languages policies and Career Mobility
From a systemic perspective, then, we see evidence that the official languages policies continue to be decoded, valued and lived in very different manners by Anglophone and Francophone public servants. The former tend to concentrate on the means required to enforce these policies and to make it a reality, in which perceived follies of logic predominate, and where imperatives are perceived to be cast in very political terms. Francophone public servants, for their part, remain sensitive to the weight of practicality, and how (ironically) accommodating the weight of English tends to be self-defeating, ultimately sustaining the minority status of the French language on the political and practical plane. The bilingual participants we spoke with tend to downplay the impact of the policies, and often proclaim its merits. Those who have learned the second official language as a result of the policies are consistently positive - they tend to have a more accurate vision of what the demands are, and in those cases where the second language is fully acquired, tend to value the experience and the ability. That said, even these participants bemoan the fact that the environment makes less demands on their French skills than the policy implies: Bilingual participants of both official languages consistently point out that French is not sufficiently used in the workplace.
In summary, and although not part of the primary mandate of this study, we have nonetheless encountered evidence of two areas that seem to require attention about the policies in particular:
3 It should be noted that the Official Languages Act and related policies on language of work require employees at headquarters to accommodate the language used by employees in unilingual regions, not vice versa.
4 In 2002-2003, 3.5 % of jobs in British Columbia were designated bilingual
Another aspect of examining the question as to whether the official languages policies pose specific barriers for visible minorities was that this process inevitably opens the discourse onto the more general barriers that may exist for visible minorities in their career aspirations. Typically, our discussions with visible minority public servants tended to downplay the idea that such barriers exist, or that they exist in any tangible fashion. More commonly, the sense to emerge from our discussions from visible minorities (and occasionally from their non-visible minority counterparts) is that such barriers exert themselves in subtle, and more systemic than interpersonal or direct fashions. Some of the important findings to emerge in this context are as follows:
Recent Immigrants Versus Visible Minorities
Participants are keen to suggest that the barriers that do exist are more likely to exist for recent immigrants than for visible minorities in general. The distinction here seeks to highlight the specific difficulties - in integration, in adjusting, and in making one's way - that arise for public servants who do not speak either official language as their primary language. As such, the barriers that do exist (and these appear to be few in number and generally weak in effect) repose on recent immigrants' greater difficulties communicating, on one hand, and on their colleague's inability or unwillingness to accommodate these differences. In this sense, recent immigrants may confront more tangible barriers because they speak with a strong accent, or because they are culturally ill at ease interfacing with typical Canadian organizational culture. For example, we heard from some more recent immigrants that they are ill at ease with the overt individualism and selling of oneself that is such an integral part of an organization that promotes by way of competition and interview. The solution, or avenues to removal of these barriers, are in the ways in which staffing processes are handled, and more specifically, in ensuring that the groups that handle them are ethnically and linguistically diverse, and/or made to be sensitive to these differences in approach and communicational style.
Otherwise, we need to stipulate that the above was the only tangible example cited in any of the groups of systemic barriers that exist for visible minority groups in their career aspirations. While we heard about other barriers, namely that the "old boys network" still exists (implying that promotions are often granted on the basis of personal connections as opposed to merit), and that some elements of staffing manipulations still exist, the general sense was that these barriers exist for all public servants, or at least not specifically for any of the employment equity groups, including women. Generally, the tone and substance of our conversations about upward mobility in the public service in general suggest that the barriers and problems that exist centre on transparency, accountability, and the largely predictable and familiar problems that arise in any large organization as it endeavours to accommodate the ambitions of its employees. Moreover, most participants of all languages and backgrounds tend to describe the public service as an exemplary organization for its ability to accommodate diversity and to provide a variety of opportunities to its employees. Most concede that vertical mobility is a problem , but that the public service remains unequalled in its capacity to promote learning through lateral mobility. For most, there are problems in the public service, but no more so than with any other organization.
A few notable findings emerged about the intersection between visible minority groups and official languages generally, irrespective of any impact on career mobility. Most of these comments echo points raised earlier about how recent immigrants, and previously acquired languages can have a definite impact on how the official languages policies are lived. The central theme that emerged in this respect was that visible minorities are more likely (and recent immigrants even more so) to be carrying an extra language or two. This is essentially culturally driven, and speaks to a generational phenomenon in which first generation immigrants insist that their offspring retain the old country language. This simply increases the language burden, as visible minority groups and recent immigrants alike may be confronting French and/or English as second, third or higher language acquisitions. Several related theories emerged about how this adds to the challenges of being a public servant:
Finally, we note that this multiple language dynamic reposes in one's cultural background, and not in any visible aspects of one's minority status. In this sense, the findings here influence how any recent immigrant (or any multilingual person for that matter) might encounter the official languages policies if he or she comes to the public service with several languages other than English or French. Nothing in our discourse with participants on this topic would suggest that this factor is affected by skin color or other visible indicators of minority status.
The last question here, and one that was at the heart of this investigation, is whether or not we saw any evidence - perceived and/or tangible - that would affirm the perception of specific barriers in the application of the official languages policies for visible minority public servants. Our findings relative to this question are clear: The barriers we heard described are not accurately described as things lived or experiencd in official language policies that are specific to visible minorities. Moreover, what we found suggests that barriers do exist, but that they exist in a non-specific fashion for public servants in general.
Otherwise, visible minority participants did indicate the following:
A few participants, and occasionally from within the non-visible minority groups, we heard of a desire that the stipulations of the official languages policies be relaxed for the benefit of recent immigrants, or even more rarely, for the benefit of multilingual visible minorities. The logic behind this proposal is that a capacity to speak several languages, even if they do not include both French and English, nonetheless constitutes a specific advantage for an employer such as the Government of Canada. In this sense, a few participants suggested that the policies could and should be more flexible in these cases. Here again, however, this desire for flexibility seems to reflect a spirit of accommodation rather than any sense of injustice or inequity, and when pressed to articulate a system or a set of rules for determining how, when and where such "flexibility" should be exercised, most are unable. This inability, and the consistent retreat to the existing rules we see among those who would ask for more flexibility would seem to underscore the essential soundness of the policies.
This research process has shed light on the perceptions and experiences of public servants vis-à-vis official languages, visible minorities and career mobility. Among other things, we found:
Ultimately, if our mandate in this research process was to shed light on the nature of the problem, our findings suggest that while the initial premise is not substantiated, there is considerable evidence here to suggest why it continues to be asserted.
