Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey: Perceptions of Federal Public Servants Who Self-Identified as a Member of an Employment Equity Group

On this page

Key terms

Employees belonging to employment equity groups are defined in this report as survey respondents who self-identified as:

  • First Nations, Inuit or Métis (Indigenous peoples)
  • a member of a racial or cultural group other than white (members of visible minorities)
  • having a disability (persons with disabilities)
  • female (women)

Indigenous peoples: while the legislative term “Aboriginal peoples” appears in the Employment Equity Act, this report uses the term “Indigenous peoples,” in keeping with international usage

Testing accommodation measures: Changes made to an assessment to remove barriers to a fair assessment and allow candidates to fully demonstrate their competency. They are most often requested on the basis of a disability. However, they can be requested for any legitimate need relating to one of the 13 prohibited grounds for discrimination set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Positive response rate: Percentage of respondents who answered positively to a question.

Highlights

This report is based on selected results of the first cycle of the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey, which was conducted over 8 weeks from February to April 2018. It follows a report on the survey results for the overall federal public service published in September 2018 as well as other reports focused on employment equity groups, including the 2018 Anonymized Recruitment Pilot Project and the 2019 Employment Equity Promotion Rate Study.

The objectives of this report are to:

  • examine how federal public service employees who belong to one or more of the 4 designated employment equity groups perceive merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing system
  • determine whether employees who are members of an employment equity group have different perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing system than other employees, and whether perceptions differ by gender
  • explore the perceptions of managers who belong to one or more of the 4 designated employment equity groups compared to the perceptions of other managers
  • examine how public servants with disabilities perceived testing accommodation measures (changes made to assessments to remove barriers to a fair assessment)
  • explore how managers and staffing advisors perceive staffing advice on employment equity considerations and testing accommodation measures

Overall findings suggest:

  • employees who self-identified as members of one or more of the 4 employment equity groups generally gave proportionally fewer positive responses on questions of merit, fairness and transparency in staffing activities
  • although managers who belong to one or more employment equity groups gave slightly less positive responses, managers overall
    • agreed that hires meet performance expectations and are a good fit within their team
    • felt little pressure to hire a particular employee
    • felt no personal indebtedness toward employees
  • although only a small proportion of persons with disabilities requested testing accommodation measures, most of those who did were satisfied with those measures

Introduction

About the survey

The Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey was introduced in 2018 as a public-service-wide survey to be run every 2 years, replacing the Survey of Staffing. The survey targeted employees, hiring managers and staffing advisors to gather their views on a wide range of staffing-related topics, including the New Direction in Staffing, organizational staffing policies and practices, as well as political activities and non-partisanship. A copy of the survey questionnaire is available on Statistics Canada’s website.

Invitations to complete the survey were sent to 214 275 public servants across 74 departments and agencies subject to the Public Service Employment Act. A total of 101 892 employees completed the survey, representing an overall response rate of 47.6%.

The information gathered in the survey will be used to:

  • identify current and emerging trends at government-wide and organizational levels
  • inform potential improvements to staffing policies and practices
  • better target efforts to safeguard non-partisanship within the federal public service

Because the content of this survey is different from its predecessor (the Survey of Staffing), year-over-year comparisons are not always possible.

Background

The Public Service Employment Act states that Canada will continue to benefit from a public service that is representative of Canada’s diversity. Under the Employment Equity Act, the Public Service Commission of Canada must:

  • identify and eliminate employment barriers in the appointment system for the 4 designated employment equity groups (women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities)
  • develop positive policies and practices
  • provide reasonable accommodation to create a representative public service

In recent decades, the federal public service has made important progress in the representation of the 4 designated employment equity groups, yet gaps persist.

The Public Service Commission’s mandate is to promote and safeguard merit-based appointments and, in collaboration with other stakeholders, to protect the non-partisan nature of the public service. Its mandate also includes promoting and safeguarding a representative public service.

In support of its commitment, the Public Service Commission has undertaken several projects and studies focused on employment equity groups, including the 2018 Anonymized Recruitment Pilot Project and the 2019 Employment Equity Promotion Rate Study.

Objectives of this report

Using findings from the 2018 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey, this analysis seeks to:

  • examine how federal public service employees who belong to one or more of the 4 designated employment equity groups, perceive merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing system
  • determine whether employees who are members of an employment equity group have different perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing system than other employees, and whether perceptions differ by gender
  • explore the perceptions of managers who belong to one or more of the 4 designated employment equity groups compared to the perceptions of other managers
  • examine how public servants with disabilities perceived testing accommodation measures (changes made to remove barriers to fair assessment)
  • explore perceptions of managers and staffing advisors regarding staffing advice on employment equity considerations and testing accommodation measures

Methodology

For this report, results from the 2018 Staffing and Non-Partisanship SurveyEndnote E1 for the 4 designated employment equity groups have been compared against results for persons in their comparator groups. Comparator groups are the people who do not belong to the particular employment equity group being looked at. The full list of comparator groups is in Appendix 2 of this report. Respondents who are in more than one employment equity group were included in the analysis of each group under consideration.

Endnote E2

Survey results for each group were further split by gender. As a result, this report provides an intersectional analysis by employment equity group and gender.

Perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency

This report analyzes overall perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency in staffing activities in respondents’ work units by examining whether employees feel that:

  • staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way
  • people hired can do the job
  • appointments depend on who you know
  • the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly

The report also explores the extent to which managers feel:

  • external pressure to hire a particular employee
  • a sense of personal indebtedness to one or more employees
  • that appointees meet performance expectations
  • that appointees are a good fit for their teams

Perceptions of testing accommodation measures and employment equity considerations

This report also looks into testing accommodation measures and employment equity considerations by analyzing:

  • the proportion of employees with disabilities who requested testing accommodation measures, as well as their level of satisfaction with those measures
  • staffing advisors’ perceptions of how their advice influences testing accommodation measures and employment equity considerations
  • managers’ satisfaction with the advice provided by staffing advisors on testing accommodation measures and employment equity considerations

The results in this report are based on full-time indeterminate and term employees. Also included are managers who are members of the regular Canadian Armed Forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and who conduct staffing activities under the Public Service Employment Act. Part-time and seasonal employees, casuals, students, contractors, Governor-in-Council appointees and ministers’ exempt staff are excluded from this analysis.

Perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency

This section first presents a brief overview of:

  • the work locations of survey respondents and all public servants under the Public Service Employment Act
  • responses to questions on the themes of merit, fairness and transparency

Next, each employment equity group is presented in subsections that:

  • outline some of the characteristics of those who indicated they belong to an employment equity group
  • elaborate on their responses to questions related to merit, appointments being dependent on who you know, fairness, and transparency
  • compare the responses by members of the employment equity group against their comparator groups

Finally, a summary of the responses of members of employment equity groups organized by theme (merit, appointments being dependent on who you know, fairness and transparency) is presented at the end of this section.

The survey themes are explored through questions about appointments to the respondents’ work units. The themes examined in this section are:

  • Merit: survey respondents were asked how much they agree with the statement “I believe that we hire people who can do the job”
    • respondents who indicated they “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement are considered to have given a positive response
  • Who you know: survey respondents were asked how much they agree with the statement “Appointments depend on who you know”
    • since this a negatively worded question, respondents who indicated they “somewhat disagree” or “strongly disagree” that appointments depend on who you know are considered to have given a positive response
  • Fairness: survey respondents were asked how much they agree with the statement “The process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly”
    • respondents who indicated they “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement are considered to have given a positive response
  • Transparency: survey respondents were asked how much they agree with the statement “Staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way”
    • respondents who indicated they “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement are considered to have given a positive response

Work locations

As shown in Figure 1 below, the distribution of survey respondents’ work locations is similar to the location breakdown of all employees under the Public Service Employment ActEndnote E3.

A majority of employees work in the National Capital Region, although a slightly smaller proportion of respondents work in that region compared to all employees (45.9% vs 46.8%).

When compared to all employees, similar proportions of survey respondents work in the same regions outside of the National Capital Region. Although a slightly smaller proportion of respondents work in the Prairies, Nunavut and Northwest Territories (11.2%) when compared to all employees (11.9%), other regions outside the National Capital Region have a slightly larger proportion of survey respondents working in them. This is most pronounced in Quebec excluding the National Capital Region (10.6% vs 9.7%) and Ontario excluding the National Capital Region (12.4% vs 12%), where proportionally more survey respondents work compared to all employees.

Table 6 in Appendix 3 provides detailed results for all groups by key demographic characteristics.

Figure 1:

Work locations of survey respondents and employees under the Public Service Employment Act

Work locations of survey respondents and employees under the Public Service Employment Act
Text Alternative
Figure 1: Work locations of survey respondents and employees under the Public Service Employment Act
Survey respondents All employees under the Public Service Employment Act
National Capital Region 45.9% 46.8%
Atlantic 10.8% 10.6%
British Columbia, Yukon 8.5% 8.3%
Ontario (excluding the National Capital Region) 12.4% 12.0%
Prairies, Nunavut, Northwest Territories 11.2% 11.9%
Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) 10.6% 9.7%
Outside of Canada 0.7% 0.6%

Responses to questions on the themes of merit, fairness and transparency

Figure 2 below shows the overall positive responses for each of the 4 employment equity groups and for all respondents. Respondents in all groups had a higher positive response rate on questions related to merit than to either fairness or transparency. The question of transparency received the lowest positive response rate overall.

Over half of women (54.8%) and visible minorities (51.9%) gave positive responses about merit in the hiring process. Less than half of Indigenous peoples (45.9%) and persons with disabilities (43.4%) held the same view. When asked if the process of hiring is done fairly, women had the highest positive response rate of any group (46.6%), while persons with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate (34.3%). When asked if staffing practices are transparent, women again had the highest positive response rate (43.9%), and persons with disabilities had the lowest (32.4%).

Figure 2:

Summary of positive responses by employment equity group on merit, fairness and transparencyEndnote E4

Summary of positive  responses by employment equity group on merit, fairness and transparency
Text Alternative
Figure 2: Summary of positive responses by employment equity group on merit, fairness and transparency
Merit Fairness Transparency
Indigenous peoples 45.9% 36.8% 36.4%
Persons with disabilities 43.4% 34.3% 32.4%
Members of visible minorities 51.9% 42.6% 41.6%
Women 54.8% 46.6% 43.9%
All respondents 54.1% 46.6% 44.6%

Note: “All respondents” consists of respondents who indicated their gender was either male or female. Due to their small population, this report excludes those who stated “Other” as their gender or chose not to respond (please refer to Table 5 in Appendix 2).

Women

The analysis of this employment equity group is based on respondents who identified their gender as female in the survey.Endnote E5 Respondents were asked if they were male, female or other.Endnote E6

Women accounted for approximately 56.8% of survey respondents, compared to 52.5% of the available Canadian workforce and 52.5% of the public service population.Endnote E7 Proportionally more women (46.8%) than men (41.2%) applied to an advertised process in 2017; 49.9% of women who applied were offered a position or placed in a pool, a larger proportion than men (47.7%).

The distribution of women and men by work location is similar. A slightly larger proportion of men work in the National Capital Region (47.1%) than women (46.7%).

Figure 3:

Breakdown of work locations for women and men

Breakdown of work locations for women and men
Text Alternative
Figure 3: Breakdown of work locations for women and men
Men Women
National Capital Region 47.1% 46.7%
Atlantic 10.4% 10.8%
British Columbia, Yukon 9.0% 7.7%
Ontario (excluding the National Capital Region) 11.8% 12.2%
Prairies, Nunavut, Northwest Territories 11.2% 12.3%
Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) 9.9% 9.7%
Outside of Canada 0.7% 0.6%

Merit

When asked if recent hires can do the job, proportionally more women agreed than men. Among women, 54.8% agreed compared to 53.3% of men, as outlined in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4:

Positive responses regarding merit

Positive responses regarding merit
Text Alternative
Figure 4: Positive responses regarding merit
Merit
Women 54.8%
Men 53.3%

Who you know

As shown in Figure 5 below, a larger percentage of women agreed when asked if appointments depend on who you know. Among women, 55.3% agreed that appointments depend on who you know compared to 51.9% of all men.

Figure 5:

Agreement that appointments depend on who you know

Agreement that appointments depend on who you know
Text Alternative
Figure 5: Agreement that appointments depend on who you know
Who you know
Women 55.3%
Men 51.9%

Fairness

When asked if staffing in their work unit is conducted fairly, a similar percentage of men and women gave positive responses. Figure 6 below shows that 46.6% of women and 46.7% of men agreed that the staffing process is done fairly.

Figure 6:

Positive responses regarding fairness

Positive responses regarding fairness
Text Alternative
Figure 6: Positive responses regarding fairness
Fairness
Women 46.6%
Men 46.7%

Transparency

A slightly smaller percentage of women than men gave positive responses on the topic of transparency in staffing. Only 43.9% of all women agreed that staffing is carried out transparently, compared to 45.4% of all men, as shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7:

Positive responses regarding transparency

Positive responses regarding fairness
Text Alternative
Figure 7: Positive responses regarding transparency
Transparency
Women 43.9%
Men 45.4%

Indigenous peoples

Survey respondents were asked if they were an Indigenous person (specifically First Nations, Métis or Inuit); the analysis of this employment equity group is based on respondents who answered that they are an Indigenous person.Endnote E8

Indigenous peoples accounted for approximately 4.6% of survey respondents, compared to 3.4% of the available Canadian workforce and 5.2% of the public service population.Endnote E9 In terms of gender, 5% of women and 3.9% of men who responded to the survey identified themselves as Indigenous. A slightly smaller share of Indigenous men (42.5%) applied to advertised processes than Indigenous women (47.4%). Of those who applied, however, similar proportions received an offer or were placed in a pool (46.4% for Indigenous men and 47.2% for Indigenous women).

Although 47.1% of all men work in the National Capital Region, only 34.8% of Indigenous men work in the region. A similar pattern is observed for Indigenous women, as 31.1% of Indigenous women work in the National Capital Region, compared to 46.7% of all women.

Figure 8:

Breakdown of work locations of Indigenous peoples

Breakdown of work locations of Indigenous peoples
Text Alternative
Figure 8: Breakdown of work locations of Indigenous peoples
Men Women
National Capital Region 34.8% 31.1%
Atlantic 12.8% 10.1%
British Columbia, Yukon 12.5% 10.2%
Ontario (excluding the National Capital Region) 10.6% 12.0%
Prairies, Nunavut, Northwest Territories 23.7% 32.1%
Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) 5.0% 4.4%
Outside of Canada 0.6% 0.2%

Merit

When asked if people hired in their work unit can do the job, a smaller percentage of Indigenous men gave positive responses than men who did not identify as Indigenous (42.3% vs. 53.8%). As seen in Figure 9 below, Indigenous women were proportionally more positive than Indigenous men, although they still had a lower positive response rate than women who did not identify as Indigenous (48.2% vs. 55.2%).

Figure 9:

Positive responses regarding merit

Positive responses regarding merit
Text Alternative
Figure 9: Positive responses regarding merit
Men Women
Indigenous peoples 42.3% 48.2%
Did not identify as Indigenous 53.8% 55.2%

Who you know

A larger percentage of Indigenous men than their comparator group agreed that appointments depend on who you know (58.4% vs 51.5%). This is also true of Indigenous women and their comparator, although, as seen in Figure 10, the difference is not as large (60.9% vs 55%).

Figure 10:

Agreement that appointments depend on who you know

Agreement that appointments depend on who you know
Text Alternative
Figure 10: Agreement that appointments depend on who you know
Men Women
Indigenous peoples 58.4% 60.9%
Did not identify as Indigenous 51.5% 55.0%

Fairness

When asked if the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly, Indigenous men and women also had a lower positive response rate than men and women who did not identify as Indigenous, as shown in Figure 11. While 35.5% of Indigenous men and 37.7% of Indigenous women agreed with the statement, identical proportions of men and women who did not identify as Indigenous agreed (47.2%).

Figure 11:

Positive responses regarding fairness

Positive responses regarding fairness
Text Alternative
Figure 11: Positive responses regarding fairness
Men Women
Indigenous peoples 35.5% 37.7%
Did not identify as Indigenous 47.2% 47.2%

Transparency

As Figure 12 illustrates, a smaller percentage of Indigenous respondents gave positive responses on the topic of transparency than respondents who did not identify as Indigenous. A lower proportion of Indigenous men (34.9%) and Indigenous women (37.4%) believed that staffing was carried out in a transparent way compared to men (45.8%) and women (44.3%) who did not identify as Indigenous.

Figure 12:

Positive responses regarding transparency

Positive responses regarding transparency
Text Alternative
Figure 12: Positive responses regarding transparency
Men Women
Indigenous peoples 34.9% 37.4%
Did not identify as Indigenous 45.8% 44.3%

Members of visible minorities

Survey respondents who did not identify themselves as Indigenous peoples were asked whether they belong to one or more racial or cultural groups.Endnote E10 Members of visible minorities are defined as respondents who selected one or more racial or cultural group other than white.

Approximately 15.8% of survey respondents indicated that they were members of visible minorities, compared to 13% of the available Canadian workforce and 14.5% of the public service population.Endnote E11 In terms of gender, 14.7% of women and 16.4% of men who responded to the survey identified themselves as members of visible minorities. Over half of visible minority men (52%) and women (57.2%) who responded to the survey applied to an advertised process in 2017, proportionally more than any other employment equity group. Just under half of these applicants received an offer or were placed in a pool (46.1% for both men and women).

A somewhat larger proportion of visible minority men (50.3%) work in the National Capital Region than all men (47.1%). The pattern is similar for visible minority women (48.3%) when compared to all women (46.7%).

Figure 13:

Breakdown of work locations of members of visible minorities

Breakdown of work locations of members of visible minorities
Text Alternative
Figure 13: Breakdown of work locations of members of visible minorities
Men Women
National Capital Region 50.3% 48.3%
Atlantic 3.1% 2.5%
British Columbia, Yukon 11.4% 11.8%
Ontario (excluding the National Capital Region) 16.3% 18.4%
Prairies, Nunavut, Northwest Territories 10.3% 9.5%
Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) 8.0% 8.8%
Outside of Canada 0.7% 0.7%

Merit

Half (50.7%) of visible minority women agreed that hires can do the job. This proportion is lower than that of women who are not members of visible minorities (55.6%), who had the highest positive response rate of all groups. In contrast, as Figure 14 below shows, an almost identical percentage of visible minority men and men who are not members of visible minorities gave positive responses, with 53.3% and 53.5% in agreement respectively.

Figure 14:

Positive responses regarding merit

Positive responses regarding merit
Text Alternative
Figure 14: Positive responses regarding merit
Men Women
Members of visible minorities 53.3% 50.7%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities 53.5% 55.6%

Who you know

When asked if appointments depend on who you know, a smaller percentage of visible minority men agreed than men in other employment equity groups. However, as Figure 15 illustrates, 56% of visible minority men agreed appointments depend on who you know, proportionally more than men who are not members of visible minorities (51%). A larger percentage of visible minority women agreed than women who are not members of visible minorities (62% vs 54.1%).

Figure 15:

Agreement that appointments depend on who you know

Agreement that appointments depend on who you know
Text Alternative
Figure 15: Agreement that appointments depend on who you know
Men Women
Members of visible minorities 56.0% 62.0%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities 51.0% 54.1%

Fairness

As outlined in Figure 16, members of visible minorities had a lower positive response rate than their comparator group regarding fairness of the staffing process within their work unit (44.4% of visible minority men and 41.1% of visible minority women agree that staffing processes are fair compared to 47.4% of men and 47.6% of women who are not members of visible minorities).

Figure 16:

Positive responses regarding fairness

Positive responses regarding fairness
Text Alternative
Figure 16: Positive responses regarding fairness
Men Women
Members of visible minorities 44.4% 41.1%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities 47.4% 47.6%

Transparency

As shown in Figure 17, a slightly smaller percentage of visible minority men gave positive responses on transparency in staffing than men who are not members of visible minorities (44.4% vs 45.8%). An even smaller percentage of visible minority women agreed that staffing is carried out in a transparent way in comparison to women who are not members of visible minorities (39.2% vs 44.9%).

Figure 17:

Positive responses regarding transparency

Positive responses regarding transparency
Text Alternative
Figure 17: Positive responses regarding transparency
Men Women
Members of visible minorities 44.4% 39.2%
Did not identify as a member of a visible minority 45.8% 44.9%

Visible minority groups

Survey respondents were also asked to indicate if they belonged to one or more racial or cultural groups (see Table 17 for full breakdown). Filipino respondents had the highest positive response rate of all sub-groups regarding merit, fairness and transparency, while Japanese and Korean respondents had the lowest positive response rate. While Black respondents had the second highest positive response rate regarding hiring employees who can do the job, their positive response rate regarding fairness and transparency of staffing processes was one of the lowest.

Persons with disabilities

Survey respondents were asked to indicate whether they are a person with a disability.Endnote E12 The analysis of this employment equity group is based on respondents who indicated they have a disability.

Approximately 6.6% of survey respondents identified as being persons with disabilities, compared to 4.4% of the available Canadian workforce and 5.6% of the public service population.Endnote E13 By gender, 6.4% of women and 6.7% of men who responded to the survey self-identified as persons with disabilities. Just under half of women (47.7%) with disabilities who responded to the survey had applied to an advertised process in 2017, a slightly larger proportion than men (44.5%). Somewhat less than half of those women (45.5%) who applied were offered a position or placed in a pool, a slightly larger share than men (42.9%).

A slightly smaller proportion of persons with disabilities occupy positions in the National Capital Region compared to all respondents. Among men with disabilities, 45.3% work in the National Capital Region compared to 47.1% of all men. Among women with disabilities, 43.8% work in the National Capital Region compared to 46.7% of all women.

Figure 18:

Breakdown of work locations of persons with disabilities

Breakdown of work locations of persons with disabilities
Text Alternative
Figure 18: Breakdown of work locations of persons with disabilities
Men Women
National Capital Region 45.3% 43.8%
Atlantic 12.9% 11.6%
British Columbia, Yukon 9.6% 8.9%
Ontario (excluding the National Capital Region) 13.9% 16.1%
Prairies, Nunavut, Northwest Territories 12.6% 13.6%
Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) 5.6% 5.6%
Outside of Canada 0.2% 0.3%

Merit

Men with disabilities had the lowest level of agreement among all groups when asked if people hired in their work unit can do the job. As shown in Figure 19, 41.6% of men with disabilities indicated that hires can do the job, a much lower rate than men who did not identify as a person with a disability (54.2%). Women with disabilities had a slightly higher positive response rate (44.9%), although still notably lower than women who did not identify as a person with a disability (55.5%).

Figure 19:

Positive responses regarding merit

Positive responses regarding merit
Text Alternative
Figure 19: Positive responses regarding merit
Men Women
Persons with disabilities 41.6% 44.9%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities 54.2% 55.5%

Who you know

Of all groups, women with disabilities agreed at the highest rate that appointments depend on who you know (66.1%). That is much higher than that of women who did not identify as a person with a disability (54.5%). Similarly, as seen in Figure 20, men with disabilities agreed at a higher rate than men who did not identify as a person with a disability (63.8% vs. 51%).

Figure 20:

Agreement that appointments depend on who you know

Agreement that appointments depend on who you know
Text Alternative
Figure 20: Agreement that appointments depend on who you know
Men Women
Persons with disabilities 63.8% 66.1%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities 51.0% 54.5%

Fairness

Men with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate among all groups when asked about staffing fairness in their work unit; only 32.7% agreed that staffing activities are done fairly. As shown in Figure 21, this is a smaller percentage than men who did not identify as a person with a disability, who had the highest positive response rate (47.8%) of all groups. Women with disabilities also agreed at a lower rate (35.7%) than women who did not identify as a person with a disability (47.4%).

Figure 21:

Positive responses regarding fairness

Positive responses regarding fairness
Text Alternative
Figure 21: Positive responses regarding fairness
Men Women
Persons with disabilities 32.7% 35.7%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities 47.8% 47.4%

Transparency

Women with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate of all respondents when asked if staffing is carried out in a transparent way, much lower than women who did not identify as a person with a disability (32.2% vs. 44.8%). Men with disabilities also responded proportionally lower (32.7%) than men who did not identify as a person with a disability (46.3%), as seen in Figure 22 below.

Figure 22:

Positive responses regarding transparency

Positive responses regarding transparency
Text Alternative
Figure 22: Positive responses regarding transparency
Men Women
Persons with disabilities 32.7% 32.2%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities 46.3% 44.8%

Summary

Figure 23:

Summary of positive responses regarding merit, fairness and transparency

Summary of positive responses regarding merit, fairness and transparency
Text Alternative
Figure 23: Summary of positive responses regarding merit, fairness and transparency
Merit Who you know Fairness Transparency
Women 54.8% 55.3% 46.6% 43.9%
Indigenous peoples 45.9% 59.9% 36.8% 36.4%
Persons with disabilities 43.4% 65.1% 34.3% 32.4%
Members of visible minorities 51.9% 59.2% 42.6% 41.6%
All respondents 54.1% 53.8% 46.6% 44.6%

Note: “All respondents” consists of respondents who indicated their gender as either male or female, and excludes those who stated “Other” or chose not to respond.

Merit

While 54.1% of all respondents indicated that people hired in their work unit can do the job, Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities had a lower positive response rate than other groups. Less than half of Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities, regardless of gender, agreed with the statement, contrasting with other employment equity groups.

Men with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate (41.6%) among all groups, while women who are not members of visible minorities had the highest positive response rate (55.6%). A majority of men (53.3%) and women (54.8%) agreed that the people hired can do the job.

Who you know

While 53.8% of all respondents, regardless of employment equity status, indicated that appointments in their work unit depend on who you know, a higher proportion of employment equity group members agreed than their respective comparator groups.

Women with disabilities agreed at the highest rate among all groups (66.1%) that appointments depend on who you know. Men who did not identify as a person with a disability (51%) and men who are not members of visible minorities (51%) agreed at the lowest rate of all groups. Altogether, men (51.9%) agreed at a lower rate than women (55.3%).

Fairness

While only 46.6% of all respondents, regardless of employment equity status, indicated that staffing activities in their work unit are conducted fairly, a smaller proportion of employment equity group members share that view. Less than 40% of Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities agreed that staffing is conducted fairly.

Men with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate of all groups (32.7%) while men without disabilities had the highest (47.8%). An almost identical proportion of men and women gave positive responses (46.7% vs 46.6%).

Transparency

Overall, 44.6% of all respondents indicated that staffing activities within their work unit are carried out in a transparent way. Indigenous peoples (36.4%) and persons with disabilities (32.4%) had lower positive response rates than other groups.

Women with disabilities had the lowest positive response rate of any employee group (32.2%) while men who did not identify as a person with a disability had the highest rate (46.3%). Overall, men had a higher percentage of positive responses than women (45.4% vs 43.9%).

Managers

In general, managers in all groups did not feel pressure to hire a particular employee or feel indebtedness to employees. Managers also generally agreed that hires meet performance expectations and are a good fit for their team. Proportionally, managers belonging to employment equity groups were slightly less positive than their comparators, but the differences were usually minor.

As seen in Table 1 below, managers who belong to an employment equity group felt somewhat more pressure to hire a particular employee than their comparators. Men with disabilities in particular were the only group where more than 20% reported feeling moderate or great pressure, at 21.8%. This is a higher rate than their comparator group; 11.8% of men who do not have a disability reported feeling pressure to hire, the lowest proportion among all groups. Men and women had a proportionally similar response rate overall, as 12.3% of men and 12.9% of women reported feeling pressure to hire a particular employee.

Table 1: Percentage of managers feeling pressure to hire a particular employee Endnote E14
  Men Women
Indigenous peoples 16.2% 15.7%
Did not identify as Indigenous 12.2% 12.7%
Members of visible minorities 14.3% 17.2%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities 12.0% 12.3%
Persons with disabilities 21.8% 19.4%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities 11.8% 12.5%
All 12.3% 12.9%

Less than 10% of each manager group felt moderate or great personal indebtedness to one or more employees, as shown in Table 2. Visible minority women reported feeling the most indebted at 9.3%, a higher rate than women who are not members of visible minorities (6.1%). Indigenous women had the lowest percentage of respondents feeling personal indebtedness, at 5.8%, although only marginally lower than their comparator group (6.4%). Again, men and women provided similar responses overall, with an identical proportion of men and women feeling indebted to employees.

Table 2: Percentage of managers feeling personal indebtedness to employees Endnote E15
  Men Women
Indigenous peoples 6.9% 5.8%
Did not identify as Indigenous 6.4% 6.4%
Members of visible minorities 8.0% 9.3%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities 6.2% 6.1%
Persons with disabilities 8.3% 6.9%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities 6.3% 6.4%
All 6.4% 6.4%

As Table 3 shows, managers in all employee groups agreed that recent hires meet performance expectations. Indigenous men reported the lowest level of agreement at 87.9%, somewhat lower than men who did not identify as Indigenous (92.4%). Proportionally, men and women gave similar responses, as 92.2% of men and 91.6% of women agreed that recent hires met expectations.

Table 3: Percentage of managers agreeing recent hires meet performance expectations Endnote E16
  Men Women
Indigenous peoples 87.9% 89.9%
Did not identify as Indigenous 92.4% 91.7%
Members of visible minorities 92.3% 90.5%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities 92.2% 91.8%
Persons with disabilities 89.2% 89.2%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities 92.4% 91.8%
All 92.2% 91.6%

As outlined in Table 4, managers agreed that recent hires are a good fit within their teams. Indigenous men reported the lowest level of agreement at 87%, lower than men who did not identify as Indigenous (93%). Proportionally, men and women had a similar response rate, as 92.7% of men and 92.1% of women agreed that recent hires are a good fit.

Table 4: Percentage of managers agreeing recent hires are a good fit within their teams Endnote E17
  Men Women
Indigenous peoples 87.0% 88.8%
Did not identify as Indigenous 93.0% 92.3%
Members of visible minorities 92.9% 91.7%
Did not identify as members of visible minorities 92.8% 92.3%
Persons with disabilities 90.6% 90.2%
Did not identify as persons with disabilities 92.9% 92.2%
All 92.7% 92.1%

Testing accommodation measures and employment equity considerations

Persons with disabilities

If invited to write a test for a job they applied for, persons with disabilities can request testing accommodation measures. Testing accommodation measures are changes made to the procedures, format or content of an assessment to remove barriers to a fair assessment and allow candidates to fully demonstrate their competency. A team of consultants determines testing accommodation measures on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature and extent of the functional limitations presented by the candidate.

Survey respondents who are persons with disabilities were asked if they requested testing accommodation measures in 2017 and how satisfied they were with those accommodation measures. Most persons with disabilities did not request testing accommodation measures (87.7%). This is consistent with the 2019 Survey on Workplace Accommodations in the Federal Public Service, conducted by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Office of Public Service Accessibility, which shows that only a very small proportion of disability accommodation requests in the past three years were related to a staffing process. Of those Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey respondents who did make a request, two-thirds (66.1%) indicated they were satisfied to a moderate or great extent with the testing accommodation measures provided.

Managers and staffing advisors

Two-thirds (66.1%) of staffing advisors indicated that managers sought their strategic input on testing accommodation measures for candidates. Of these, 80.7% agreed that their strategic input on testing accommodation measures influenced managers’ staffing actions.

More than half (56.2%) of staffing advisors indicated that managers sought their strategic input on employment equity considerations. Of these, 76.7% agreed that their strategic input on employment equity considerations influenced managers’ staffing actions.

In the survey, managers were asked the extent to which staffing advisors provided them with useful staffing advice. Among those who indicated that staffing advice provided was not useful (16.7%), a very small percentage of managers noted that advice on testing accommodation measures and advice on employment equity considerations was not useful (15.4% and 11.8% respectively).

Conclusion

Based on the results of the 2018 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey, this report shows that employees who belong to an employment equity group are generally less positive than their comparator groups about merit, fairness and transparency in the staffing system.

Looking at merit, women have a more positive perception than men. Visible minority men’s perceptions of merit are similar to men who are not members of a visible minority. Regarding fairness, employment equity groups had less positive perceptions in general, although women and men held similar views. Finally, all employment equity groups had a less positive perception of transparency in staffing.

Worth noting, the Public Service Commission has undertaken several projects and studies focused on employment equity groups, such as the 2018 Anonymized Recruitment Pilot Project and the Employment Equity Promotion Rate Study. The results of the Employment Equity Promotion Rate Study demonstrated that the career progression of employment equity groups was slower than their respective comparator group. These results might explain, in part, the generally less positive perceptions of merit, fairness and transparency of employees who belong to an employment equity group.

These findings are based on data from the first cycle of the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey and reflect a snapshot of the public service at the time of data collection. The second cycle of the survey will allow us to monitor changes in perceptions.

The Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey data and interactive tool on Open Government offer additional information for analyzing the survey results. 

Questions or comments regarding this report or the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey can be sent to cfp.sdip-snps.psc@canada.ca.

Appendix 1 - Sources of information

Data was taken from the first cycle of the Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey. Because the content of this survey is different from its predecessor (the Survey of Staffing), year-over-year comparisons are not always possible.

Data collection took place over a period of 8 weeks: between February 22 and April 20, 2018. The survey targeted employees, hiring managers and staffing advisors to gather their views on a wide range of staffing-related topics. In particular, questions regarding merit, fairness and transparency were used in this analysis.

Invitations to complete the survey were sent to 214 275 public servants across 74 departments and agencies subject to the Public Service Employment Act. A total of 101 892 employees completed the survey, representing an overall response rate of 47.6%.

The data presented in this report has been weighted to adjust for non-response and for respondents who did not want to share their data with the Public Service Commission. For this reason, the results can be generalized to the federal public service population in departments and agencies that are subject to the Public Service Employment Act.

The survey frame was made up of all employees who were on the October 2017 Public Services and Procurement Canada incumbent file and employee lists provided by in-scope departments and agencies that did not appear in the incumbent file.

The Canadian workforce availability and public service employment equity group representation percentages are provided by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat in their report: Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada for Fiscal Year 2016 to 2017.

Appendix 2

Comparator groups

7 comparator groups were created for the purposes of this study:

  • women who did not identify as an Indigenous person
  • women who did not identify as a member of a visible minority
  • women who did not identify as a person with a disability

 

  • men
  • men who did not identify as an Indigenous person
  • men who did not identify as a member of a visible minority
  • men who did not identify as a person with a disability

“Other gender” category

For the purposes of this report, “all respondents” consists of respondents who indicated their gender is either male or female. Although some respondents stated “other” or chose not to respond to the gender question, this report excludes those respondents because there were so few. This way, individual respondents cannot be identified based on their responses to demographic questions such as work location or employment equity group status.

Table 5: Responses to the “other gender” category
Non-binary
Transgender male/female
Pansexual/pangender
Gender neutral
Cisgender
Gender fluid

Appendix 3 - Tables

Table 6: Respondent profile
  Indigenous peoples Members of visible minorities Persons with disabilities All men All women All respondents
Men Women Men Women Men Women
Distribution 1 464 37.0% 2 485 62.8% 6 141 45.7% 7 269 54.1% 2 494 44.0% 3 147 55.5% 37 439 43.0% 49 390 56.8% 87 920 100.0%
Applied to an advertised process in 2017 621 42.5% 1 175 47.4% 3 188 52.0% 4 152 57.2% 1 108 44.5% 1 495 47.7% 15 391 41.2% 23 084 46.8% 38 929 44.4%
Received an offer or placed in a pool from application 288 46.4% 554 47.2% 1 465 46.1% 1 909 46.1% 474 42.9% 683 45.8% 7 325 47.7% 11 491 49.9% 19 011 48.8%
First official language  
English 1 102 75.4% 1 843 74.3% 4 789 78.1% 5 785 79.8% 1 972 79.3% 2 433 77.4% 25 761 69.0% 32 753 66.5% 59 299 67.7%
French 359 24.6% 637 25.7% 1 345 21.9% 1 466 20.2% 516 20.7% 709 22.6% 11 600 31.0% 16 509 33.5% 28 280 32.3%
Age  
24 years and under 15 1.0% 54 2.2% 203 1.6% 383 2.8% 11 0.4% 29 0.9% 468 1.3% 901 1.8% 1 380 1.6%
25 to 29 years 52 3.6% 127 5.1% 740 6.0% 1 293 9.3% 67 2.7% 105 3.3% 1 892 5.1% 3 310 6.7% 5 241 6.0%
30 to 34 years 124 8.5% 211 8.5% 1 221 9.8% 1 770 12.7% 150 6.0% 184 5.9% 3 446 9.2% 4 916 10.0% 8 447 9.7%
35 to 39 years 190 13.0% 342 13.8% 1 737 14.0% 2 263 16.3% 222 8.9% 346 11.0% 4 857 13.0% 7 151 14.5% 12 123 13.9%
40 to 44 years 225 15.4% 376 15.2% 2 016 16.3% 2 499 18.0% 324 13.0% 484 15.4% 5 638 15.1% 8 106 16.5% 13 865 15.9%
45 to 49 years 269 18.4% 458 18.5% 2 116 17.1% 2 102 15.1% 378 15.2% 564 18.0% 5 878 15.7% 7 804 15.9% 13 818 15.8%
50 to 54 years 276 18.9% 469 18.9% 1 908 15.4% 1 845 13.3% 531 21.4% 624 19.9% 6 591 17.6% 8 248 16.8% 14 986 17.2%
55 to 59 years 203 13.9% 303 12.2% 1 478 11.9% 1 102 7.9% 507 20.4% 508 16.2% 5 378 14.4% 5 937 12.1% 11 402 13.1%
60 years and over 106 7.3% 137 5.5% 979 7.9% 639 4.6% 296 11.9% 297 9.5% 3 204 8.6% 2 838 5.8% 6 099 7.0%
Years in the federal public service  
Less than a year 29 2.0% 91 3.7% 236 3.8% 266 3.7% 52 2.1% 65 2.1% 1 165 3.1% 1 623 3.3% 2 806 3.2%
1 year to less than 3 years 87 6.0% 203 8.2% 687 11.2% 933 12.9% 143 5.7% 174 5.5% 3 024 8.1% 4 569 9.3% 7 645 8.7%
3 years to less than 10 years 309 21.1% 548 22.1% 1 893 30.9% 2 219 30.6% 429 17.2% 602 19.2% 8 559 22.9% 11 759 23.9% 20 550 23.4%
10 years to less than 20 years 595 40.7% 1 053 42.5% 2 477 40.4% 2 995 41.3% 971 39.0% 1 386 44.1% 14 496 38.8% 20 317 41.2% 35 247 40.2%
20 years to less than 30 years 302 20.7% 457 18.4% 663 10.8% 684 9.4% 567 22.8% 651 20.7% 6 694 17.9% 8 139 16.5% 15 046 17.2%
30 years or more 140 9.6% 128 5.2% 179 2.9% 152 2.1% 329 13.2% 263 8.4% 3 433 9.2% 2 858 5.8% 6 383 7.3%
Work location  
National Capital Region 509 34.8% 772 31.1% 3 083 50.3% 3 509 48.3% 1 129 45.3% 1 378 43.8% 17 594 47.1% 23 026 46.7% 41 063 46.8%
Atlantic 187 12.8% 250 10.1% 191 3.1% 178 2.5% 321 12.9% 365 11.6% 3 891 10.4% 5 314 10.8% 9 304 10.6%
British Columbia Yukon 182 12.5% 253 10.2% 698 11.4% 859 11.8% 239 9.6% 281 8.9% 3 364 9.0% 3 792 7.7% 7 289 8.3%
Ontario (excluding the National Capital Region) 155 10.6% 297 12.0% 998 16.3% 1 337 18.4% 345 13.9% 507 16.1% 4 396 11.8% 6 032 12.2% 10 570 12.0%
Prairies Nunavut Northwest Territories 346 23.7% 795 32.1% 632 10.3% 690 9.5% 313 12.6% 427 13.6% 4 191 11.2% 6 090 12.3% 10 434 11.9%
Quebec (excluding the National Capital Region) 73 5.0% 108 4.4% 491 8.0% 639 8.8% 139 5.6% 176 5.6% 3 693 9.9% 4 785 9.7% 8 545 9.7%
Outside of Canada 9 0.6% 4 0.2% 41 0.7% 51 0.7% 4 0.2% 9 0.3% 265 0.7% 273 0.6% 541 0.6%
Highest level of education  
Bachelors degree 409 28.0% 688 27.7% 2 335 38.1% 3 240 44.6% 693 27.9% 914 29.1% 12 343 33.0% 16 885 34.2% 29 595 33.7%
College CEGEP non-university certificate/diploma 353 24.2% 729 29.4% 751 12.2% 971 13.4% 573 23.0% 843 26.8% 7 391 19.8% 11 064 22.4% 18 661 21.3%
High school or equivalent 265 18.2% 465 18.8% 265 4.3% 403 5.6% 315 12.7% 445 14.2% 3 894 10.4% 6 603 13.4% 10 573 12.1%
Less than high school diploma or equivalent 22 1.5% 43 1.7% 6 0.1% 11 0.2% 40 1.6% 28 0.9% 223 0.6% 351 0.7% 579 0.7%
Trade certificate/diploma 171 11.7% 142 5.7% 151 2.5% 114 1.6% 247 9.9% 137 4.4% 2 691 7.2% 1 881 3.8% 4 617 5.3%
University: below bachelor's 68 4.7% 166 6.7% 312 5.1% 399 5.5% 142 5.7% 216 6.9% 1 672 4.5% 2 426 4.9% 4 170 4.8%
University: above bachelor's 172 11.8% 247 10.0% 2 315 37.7% 2 121 29.2% 478 19.2% 557 17.7% 9 171 24.5% 10 092 20.5% 19 511 22.2%

 

Table 7: Employees: staffing activities are carried out in a transparent way
Group Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Grand Total Positive Responses
Indigenous peoples: Men 328 9.5% 875 25.4% 618 18.0% 743 21.6% 875 25.4% 3 440 100% 1 203 34.9%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men 11 629 15.3% 23 142 30.5% 13 683 18.0% 13 673 18.0% 13 713 18.1% 75 842 100% 34 771 45.8%
Indigenous peoples: Women 617 11.2% 1 447 26.2% 993 17.9% 1 169 21.1% 1 305 23.6% 5 531 100% 2 064 37.4%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women 12 337 13.1% 29 364 31.2% 16 040 17.1% 20 062 21.3% 16 213 17.2% 94 018 100% 41 701 44.3%
Members of visible minorities: Men 1 955 15.7% 3 567 28.7% 2 278 18.3% 2 098 16.9% 2 545 20.5% 12 444 100.0% 5 522 44.4%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men 9 855 15.0% 20 189 30.7% 11 849 18.0% 12 057 18.4% 11 714 17.8% 65 665 100.0% 30 044 45.8%
Members of visible minorities: Women 1 631 11.3% 4 033 27.9% 2 542 17.6% 3 190 22.1% 3 053 21.1% 14 450 100.0% 5 664 39.2%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women 11 156 13.3% 26 444 31.6% 14 294 17.1% 17 743 21.2% 14 133 16.9% 83 770 100.0% 37 600 44.9%
Persons with disabilities: Men 589 10.8% 1 196 21.9% 923 16.9% 1 187 21.7% 1 576 28.8% 5 471 100% 1 785 32.7%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men 11 379 15.4% 22 827 30.9% 13 364 18.1% 13 252 18.0% 12 992 17.6% 73 813 100% 34 206 46.3%
Persons with disabilities: Women 585 9.0% 1 508 23.2% 964 14.8% 1 550 23.8% 1 898 29.2% 6 505 100% 2 093 32.2%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women 12 354 13.3% 29 290 31.5% 16 049 17.3% 19 694 21.2% 15 634 16.8% 93 022 100% 41 644 44.8%
All Men 12 002 15.1% 24 126 30.3% 14 380 18.1% 14 508 18.2% 14 632 18.4% 79 648 100% 36 128 45.4%
All Women 12 995 13.0% 30 924 30.9% 17 103 17.1% 21 323 21.3% 17 598 17.6% 99 942 100% 43 919 43.9%

 

Table 8: Employees: people hired can do the job
Group Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Grand Total Positive Responses
Indigenous peoples: Men 370 10.5% 1 122 31.8% 463 13.1% 989 28.0% 581 16.5% 3 525 100% 1 492 42.3%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men 13 454 17.2% 28 542 36.6% 12 530 16.1% 14 710 18.9% 8 791 11.3% 78 027 100% 41 996 53.8%
Indigenous peoples: Women 805 14.3% 1 913 33.9% 904 16.0% 1 316 23.3% 709 12.6% 5 647 100% 2 718 48.2%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women 15 724 16.3% 37 520 38.9% 14 286 14.8% 19 275 20.0% 9 737 10.1% 96 542 100% 53 244 55.2%
Members of visible minorities: Men 2 251 17.5% 4 593 35.8% 2 260 17.6% 2 230 17.4% 1 501 11.7% 12 833 100.0% 6 843 53.3%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men 11 391 16.9% 24 715 36.6% 10 570 15.7% 13 180 19.5% 7 653 11.3% 67 508 100.0% 36 105 53.5%
Members of visible minorities: Women 2 139 14.5% 5 369 36.3% 2 432 16.4% 3 067 20.7% 1 793 12.1% 14 800 100.0% 7 508 50.7%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women 14 183 16.5% 33 626 39.1% 12 481 14.5% 17 249 20.1% 8 486 9.9% 86 025 100.0% 47 809 55.6%
Persons with disabilities: Men 694 12.3% 1 653 29.3% 842 14.9% 1 337 23.7% 1 110 19.7% 5 636 100% 2 347 41.6%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men 13 133 17.3% 28 040 36.9% 12 118 16.0% 14 388 18.9% 8 249 10.9% 75 928 100% 41 173 54.2%
Persons with disabilities: Women 788 11.8% 2 203 33.1% 959 14.4% 1 657 24.9% 1 055 15.8% 6 661 100% 2 991 44.9%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women 15 728 16.5% 37 231 39.0% 14 222 14.9% 18 919 19.8% 9 415 9.9% 95 514 100% 52 959 55.5%
All Men 13 884 16.9% 29 783 36.4% 13 075 16.0% 15 784 19.3% 9 406 11.5% 81 932 100% 43 667 53.3%
All Women 16 582 16.2% 39 599 38.6% 15 239 14.9% 20 667 20.1% 10 507 10.2% 102 594 100% 56 181 54.8%

 

Table 9: Employees: appointments depend on who you know
Group Strongly agree* Somewhat agree* Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Grand Total Positive Responses (*)
Indigenous peoples: Men 860 24.9% 1 157 33.5% 757 21.9% 325 9.4% 356 10.3% 3 454 100% 2 017 58.4%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men 14 400 19.0% 24 591 32.5% 17 412 23.0% 10 217 13.5% 8 994 11.9% 75 613 100% 38 991 51.5%
Indigenous peoples: Women 1 481 26.9% 1 867 34.0% 1 106 20.1% 488 8.9% 557 10.1% 5 499 100% 3 348 60.9%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women 17 544 18.8% 33 789 36.2% 20 985 22.5% 11 311 12.1% 9 836 10.5% 93 464 100% 51 333 55.0%
Members of visible minorities: Men 2 777 22.6% 4 092 33.3% 3 000 24.4% 1 265 10.3% 1 140 9.3% 12 274 100.0% 6 869 56.0%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men 12 158 18.5% 21 294 32.5% 14 922 22.7% 9 140 13.9% 8 101 12.3% 65 614 100.0% 33 452 51.0%
Members of visible minorities: Women 3 571 25.1% 5 252 36.9% 3 050 21.4% 1 229 8.6% 1 119 7.9% 14 221 100.0% 8 823 62.0%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women 15 157 18.2% 29 960 35.9% 18 761 22.5% 10 414 12.5% 9 128 10.9% 83 419 100.0% 45 117 54.1%
Persons with disabilities: Men 1 637 29.7% 1 875 34.1% 968 17.6% 501 9.1% 525 9.5% 5 505 100% 3 512 63.8%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men 13 627 18.5% 23 872 32.5% 17 187 23.4% 10 044 13.7% 8 832 12.0% 73 561 100% 37 499 51.0%
Persons with disabilities: Women 1 977 30.3% 2 335 35.8% 1 210 18.6% 484 7.4% 514 7.9% 6 520 100% 4 312 66.1%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women 17 047 18.4% 33 328 36.1% 20 868 22.6% 11 306 12.2% 9 875 10.7% 92 423 100% 50 375 54.5%
All Men 15 327 19.3% 25 873 32.6% 18 259 23.0% 10 575 13.3% 9 397 11.8% 79 431 100% 41 200 51.9%
All Women 19 106 19.2% 35 823 36.1% 22 154 22.3% 11 839 11.9% 10 436 10.5% 99 357 100% 54 929 55.3%

* Denotes agreement with the statement ("positive" response to a question with a negative sentiment)

 

Table 10: Employees: the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly
Group Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Grand Total Positive Responses
Indigenous peoples: Men 345 10.0% 879 25.5% 723 21.0% 775 22.5% 728 21.1% 3 449 100% 1 224 35.5%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men 11 590 15.2% 24 424 32.0% 16 574 21.7% 12 854 16.9% 10 770 14.1% 76 213 100% 36 014 47.2%
Indigenous peoples: Women 678 12.3% 1 401 25.4% 1 184 21.5% 1 229 22.3% 1 025 18.6% 5 517 100% 2 079 37.7%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women 12 574 13.4% 31 765 33.8% 20 343 21.6% 17 675 18.8% 11 759 12.5% 94 116 100% 44 339 47.2%
Members of visible minorities: Men 1 719 13.8% 3 822 30.6% 2 897 23.2% 2 038 16.3% 2 011 16.1% 12 488 100.0% 5 542 44.4%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men 10 077 15.3% 21 213 32.1% 14 180 21.5% 11 306 17.1% 9 236 14.0% 66 013 100.0% 31 290 47.4%
Members of visible minorities: Women 1 612 11.2% 4 320 30.0% 3 358 23.3% 2 817 19.5% 2 310 16.0% 14 417 100.0% 5 932 41.1%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women 11 452 13.7% 28 489 34.0% 17 925 21.4% 15 769 18.8% 10 262 12.2% 83 897 100.0% 29 941 47.6%
Persons with disabilities: Men 560 10.1% 1 247 22.6% 1 121 20.3% 1 233 22.3% 1 368 24.7% 5 529 100% 1 807 32.7%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men 11 384 15.4% 24 047 32.4% 16 177 21.8% 12 417 16.7% 10 132 13.7% 74 156 100% 35 431 47.8%
Persons with disabilities: Women 593 9.2% 1 719 26.5% 1 240 19.1% 1 429 22.1% 1 498 23.1% 6 480 100% 2 312 35.7%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women 12 645 13.6% 31 435 33.8% 20 285 21.8% 17 480 18.8% 11 283 12.1% 93 129 100% 44 080 47.4%
All Men 11 989 15.0% 25 418 31.8% 17 378 21.7% 13 689 17.1% 11 562 14.4% 80 036 100% 37 407 46.7%
All Women 13 292 13.3% 33 281 33.3% 21 636 21.6% 18 971 19.0% 12 846 12.8% 100 026 100% 46 573 46.6%

 

Table 11: Managers: felt external pressure to select a particular employee
Group Not at all To a minimal extent To a moderate extent* To a great extent* Grand Total Positive Responses (*)
Indigenous peoples: Men 545 72.4% 85 11.3% 66 8.7% 57 7.5% 752 100% 123 16.2%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men 14 711 76.5% 2 187 11.4% 1 359 7.1% 984 5.1% 19 241 100% 2 343 12.2%
Indigenous peoples: Women 633 73.2% 96 11.1% 76 8.8% 59 6.9% 865 100% 729 15.7%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women 13 966 75.4% 2 210 11.9% 1 365 7.4% 990 5.3% 18 532 100% 2 355 12.7%
Members of visible minorities: Men 1 703 72.9% 298 12.8% 194 8.3% 140 6.0% 2 335 100.0% 135 14.3%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men 13 358 76.9% 1 935 11.1% 1 201 6.9% 884 5.1% 17 378 100.0% 2 085 12.0%
Members of visible minorities: Women 1 394 68.8% 282 13.9% 183 9.0% 165 8.2% 2 024 100.0% 348 17.2%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women 12 954 76.0% 1 988 11.7% 1 233 7.2% 862 5.1% 17 037 100.0% 2 094 12.3%
Persons with disabilities: Men 686 66.0% 127 12.2% 101 9.7% 126 12.1% 1 040 100% 227 21.8%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men 14 598 76.9% 2 141 11.3% 1 329 7.0% 912 4.8% 18 980 100% 2 241 11.8%
Persons with disabilities: Women 642 67.8% 121 12.8% 90 9.5% 94 9.9% 948 100% 184 19.4%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women 13 967 75.6% 2 189 11.9% 1 364 7.4% 949 5.1% 18 469 100% 2 313 12.5%
All Men 15 356 76.3% 2 281 11.3% 1 433 7.1% 1 047 5.2% 20 117 100% 2 480 12.3%
All Women 14 652 75.2% 2 319 11.9% 1 459 7.5% 1 056 5.4% 19 486 100% 2 515 12.9%

* Denotes agreement with the statement (“positive” response to a question with a negative sentiment)

 

Table 12: Managers: felt a sense of personal indebtedness to one or more employees
Group Not at all To a minimal extent To a moderate extent* To a great extent* Grand Total Positive Responses (*)
Indigenous peoples: Men 640 84.4% 66 8.7% 35 4.6% 18 2.3% 759 100% 53 6.9%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men 15 705 81.1% 2 422 12.5% 966 5.0% 271 1.4% 19 364 100% 1 237 6.4%
Indigenous peoples: Women 702 80.8% 117 13.4% 43 4.9% 8 0.9% 870 100% 51 5.8%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women 15 048 81.1% 2 326 12.5% 888 4.8% 297 1.6% 18 560 100% 1 185 6.4%
Members of visible minorities: Men 1 827 78.7% 310 13.3% 152 6.6% 34 1.4% 2 323 100.0% 186 8.0%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men 14 299 81.6% 2 136 12.2% 835 4.8% 247 1.4% 17 517 100.0% 1 082 6.2%
Members of visible minorities: Women 1 588 78.9% 239 11.9% 132 6.6% 54 2.7% 2 013 100.0% 186 9.3%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women 13 897 81.3% 2 154 12.6% 790 4.6% 247 1.4% 17 088 100.0% 1 037 6.1%
Persons with disabilities: Men 825 77.8% 147 13.9% 52 4.9% 36 3.4% 1 060 100% 88 8.3%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men 15 545 81.4% 2 349 12.3% 946 5.0% 255 1.3% 19 095 100% 1 201 6.3%
Persons with disabilities: Women 773 80.7% 119 12.4% 35 3.6% 32 3.3% 958 100% 67 6.9%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women 15 009 81.1% 2 313 12.5% 900 4.9% 275 1.5% 18 498 100% 1 175 6.4%
All Men 16 446 81.3% 2 500 12.4% 1 003 5.0% 291 1.4% 20 240 100% 1 294 6.4%
All Women 15 836 81.1% 2 445 12.5% 937 4.8% 307 1.6% 19 526 100% 1 244 6.4%

* Denotes agreement with the statement (“positive” response to a question with a negative sentiment)

 

Table 13: Managers: appointees meet the performance expectations
Group Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Grand Total Positive Responses
Indigenous peoples: Men 263 56.5% 146 31.4% 19 4.2% 14 2.9% 23 5.0% 465 100% 409 87.9%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men 7 464 64.7% 3 196 27.7% 389 3.4% 239 2.1% 251 2.2% 11 539 100% 10 660 92.4%
Indigenous peoples: Women 331 61.8% 151 28.1% 32 5.9% 12 2.2% 11 2.1% 536 100% 482 89.9%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women 7 692 63.1% 3 491 28.6% 372 3.1% 357 2.9% 278 2.3% 12 191 100% 11 183 91.7%
Members of visible minorities: Men 822 62.1% 400 30.2% 50 3.8% 34 2.6% 18 1.4% 1 325 100.0% 1 223 92.3%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men 6 764 64.6% 2 893 27.6% 354 3.4% 210 2.0% 257 2.5% 10 478 100.0% 9 657 92.2%
Members of visible minorities: Women 787 61.5% 370 29.0% 53 4.2% 40 3.1% 29 2.2% 1 279 100.0% 1 157 90.5%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women 7 124 63.6% 3 167 28.3% 332 3.0% 327 2.9% 255 2.3% 11 206 100.0% 10 291 91.8%
Persons with disabilities: Men 367 62.2% 159 27.0% 30 5.1% 22 3.8% 11 1.9% 590 100% 526 89.2%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men 7 370 64.5% 3 182 27.8% 380 3.3% 227 2.0% 266 2.3% 11 425 100% 10 552 92.4%
Persons with disabilities: Women 371 62.1% 162 27.1% 21 3.5% 21 3.4% 23 3.9% 598 100% 533 89.2%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women 7 663 63.1% 3 476 28.6% 383 3.2% 351 2.9% 266 2.2% 12 139 100% 11 139 91.8%
All Men 7 760 64.3% 3 358 27.8% 410 3.4% 253 2.1% 279 2.3% 12 060 100% 11 118 92.2%
All Women 8 058 63.0% 3 657 28.6% 406 3.2% 371 2.9% 291 2.3% 12 784 100% 11 716 91.6%

 

Table 14: Managers: persons appointed are a good fit
Group Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Grand Total Positive Responses
Indigenous peoples: Men 285 61.4% 119 25.6% 26 5.6% 16 3.4% 18 4.0% 465 100% 404 87.0%
Not identified as Indigenous: Men 7 815 68.1% 2 858 24.9% 332 2.9% 222 1.9% 250 2.2% 11 477 100% 10 674 93.0%
Indigenous peoples: Women 338 64.1% 131 24.8% 34 6.5% 16 3.1% 9 1.6% 527 100% 469 88.8%
Not identified as Indigenous: Women 8 042 66.3% 3 152 26.0% 364 3.0% 316 2.6% 255 2.1% 12 129 100% 11 194 92.3%
Members of visible minorities: Men 858 64.2% 384 28.7% 42 3.2% 28 2.1% 24 1.8% 1 337 100.0% 1 242 92.9%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Men 7 091 68.2% 2 559 24.6% 308 3.0% 201 1.9% 244 2.3% 10 404 100.0% 9 650 92.8%
Members of visible minorities: Women 822 64.3% 350 27.4% 48 3.7% 32 2.5% 27 2.1% 1 279 100.0% 1 172 91.7%
Not identified as members of visible minorities: Women 7 427 66.7% 2 850 25.6% 330 3.0% 295 2.6% 231 2.1% 11 133 100.0% 10 277 92.3%
Persons with disabilities: Men 369 63.8% 155 26.8% 23 4.0% 18 3.0% 14 2.3% 579 100% 525 90.6%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Men 7 740 68.1% 2 822 24.8% 337 3.0% 218 1.9% 257 2.3% 11 374 100% 10 562 92.9%
Persons with disabilities: Women 363 62.0% 165 28.2% 22 3.8% 16 2.7% 19 3.2% 585 100% 528 90.2%
Not identified as persons with disabilities: Women 8 025 66.4% 3 115 25.8% 376 3.1% 319 2.6% 244 2.0% 12 079 100% 11 140 92.2%
All Men 8 135 67.8% 2 989 24.9% 360 3.0% 238 2.0% 272 2.3% 11 994 100% 11 124 92.7%
All Women 8 415 66.2% 3 297 25.9% 400 3.1% 335 2.6% 265 2.1% 12 712 100% 11 712 92.1%

 

Table 15: Percentage of persons with disabilities who requested testing accommodation measures
2018 Staffing and Non-Partisanship Survey Results Yes No Grand Total
Persons with disabilities 1 611 12.3% 11 456 87.7% 13 068 100%

 

Table 16: Extent persons with disabilities agreed that they were satisfied with the testing accommodation measures provided
Group Not at all To a minimal extent To a moderate extent To a great extent Grand Total Positive Responses
Persons with disabilities 230 14.3% 315 19.6% 487 30.3% 575 35.8% 1 607 100% 1 062 66.1%

 

Table 17: Merit, fairness and transparency: positive responses by visible minority group*
Group Merit Fairness Transparency Respondents (unweighted)
All employees 100 633 53.9% 84 584 46.4% 80 593 44.3% 87 920
All members of
visible minorities
15 166 50.9% 12 097 41.7% 11 787 40.6% 14 369
South Asian 2 653 48.0% 2 261 41.7% 2 123 39.1% 2 691
Chinese 2 903 52.1% 2 459 45.6% 2 367 43.7% 2 748
Black 3 305 55.3% 2 270 39.1% 2 247 38.5% 2 918
Filipino 734 56.0% 605 46.9% 589 45.9% 617
Latin American 1 281 52.9% 1 029 43.8% 1 031 43.8% 1 153
Arab 1 473 53.8% 1 204 45.1% 1 175 44.5% 1 322
Southeast Asian 673 48.8% 527 40.2% 560 42.4% 663
West Asian 549 50.3% 446 41.3% 430 40.3% 515
Korean 189 43.0% 142 33.2% 137 32.3% 212
Japanese 202 43.5% 167 37.5% 161 35.6% 217
Other 1 206 42.1% 987 35.4% 967 34.7% 1 313

*This table is for general information purposes and includes respondents that did not indicate “male” or “female” as their gender, thus including respondents who were excluded elsewhere in this report. Because of this, these results may differ from those elsewhere in this report. It is also possible that some respondents chose multiple ethnicities. Results for merit, fairness and transparency use weighted responses.

 

 

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: