Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

MAF 2017 to 2018 people management methodology

From: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

On this page

Methodology Overview

Effective people management is essential to the efficiency of the Public Service of Canada and the quality of services offered by the federal government for Canadians. The objective of the People Management methodology for the 2017-18 Management Accountability Framework (MAF) is to provide a portrait of the health of an organization in terms of its management practices and performance with respect to people, structures, processes, and well-being.

To the extent possible, and with a view to leveraging existing information, the indicators are aligned with the goal of a healthy and productive workforce identified in the Public Service Renewal Results Plan, as well as the results Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) is looking to achieve as Employer of the Public Service.

The key areas of assessment are:

  1. Workforce – includes measures related to talent and performance management, learning and development, and official languages. These measures focus on a high performance workforce, with public servants in the right place, at the right time, doing the right things.
  2. Structures and Processes –provides a picture of how each organization is structured (in terms of executive (EX) population, levels of EX reporting to DMs, etc.) These measures (through the indicators on classification) will also give an indication of how the organization is designed and if the organization works effectively to meet changing job demands while ensuring that jobs clearly reflect the work to be performed.
  3. Workplace Culture – includes measures on mental health and wellness, diversity and inclusion, and values and ethics.

The 2017-18 MAF results will provide the following to the three key audiences listed below:

Deputy Heads:

  • Identify the strengths and potential risks in their organizations in relation to corporate commitments, such as talent management, diversity and inclusion, and well-being; and,
  • Provide information to track and communicate progress on the Government of Canada’s people management priorities.

People Management Community:

  • Measure the effectiveness of human resources services; and,
  • Identify areas of strong performance as well as gaps.

TBS:

  • Enable policy centres to monitor trends and identify gaps across departments and enterprise-wide relating to government priorities; and,
  • Support TBS program sectors and departments with evidence-based analysis on departmental initiatives.

To contextualize information for the assessed areas, findings from the 2017 Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) and the 2017 Public Service Employee Annual Survey (PSEAS) will be incorporated into the analysis of results from central system data and departmental asks.

This methodology was developed in consultation with the following stakeholders:

  • Policy Centres within the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer:
    • Governance, Planning and Policies
    • Executive Management and Leadership Development
    • Pensions and Benefits
    • Compensation and Labour Relations
  • Treasury Board Secretariat Program Sectors
  • Human Resources Council HR Performance Measurement Working Group

Questionnaire

Workforce

Outcome statement: A public service that enables new and existing public servants to be in the right place, at the right time, doing the right things.

Talent and performance management, learning & development

Outcome statement: A skilled and agile workforce that has the competencies and flexibility to meet the needs of an evolving public service.

Rationale: A world class public service equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century requires continuous learning, training and professional development for employees and executives. An organization’s commitment to various ways of learning is the foundation of employee development and performance improvement.

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category

  1. Percentage of employees that have documentation setting performance expectations/objectives.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation:

    Number of employees who have documentation setting performance expectations (objectives) ÷ total number of employees × 100%.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives).

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have over 90% of employees with documentation setting performance objectives.

Directive on Performance Management, 6.1.3

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Percentage of executives that have documentation setting performance expectations/objectives.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the Directive on Performance Management Program for Executives.

    Calculation: 

    Number of executives who have documentation setting performance expectations (objectives) ÷ total number of executives × 100%.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term executives of more than 3 months.

    Employee status: Active executive employees

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have 100% of executives that have documentation setting performance expectations/objectives.

Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives, Appendix C, s.1

Executive Talent Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for the measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Percentage of employees that have documentation setting learning objectives (learning and development plan).

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation:

    Number of employees who have documentation setting learning objectives (learning plan and development plan) ÷ total number of employees × 100%

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have over 90% of employees with documentation setting learning objectives.

Directive on Performance Management, 6.1.3

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Percentage of executives that have documentation setting learning objectives (learning and development plan).

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives

    Calculation: 

    Number of executives who have documentation setting learning objectives ÷ total number of executives  × 100%

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term executives of more than 3 months

    Employee status: Active executive employees

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have 100% of executives that have documentation setting learning objectives (learning and development plan).

Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives - Appendix B, 2.4

Executive Talent Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for the measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Percentage of employees that had mid-year conversations with their immediate supervisor to review performance.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation:

    Number of employees who had mid-year conversation(s) with their immediate supervisor to review performance ÷ total number of employees × 100%.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives).

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have over 90% of employees that had mid-year conversations with their immediate supervisor to review performance.

Directive on Performance Management, 6.1.3

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Percentage of executives that had mid-year conversations with their immediate supervisor to review performance.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives.

    Calculation:

    Number of executives who had mid-year conversation(s) with their immediate supervisor to review performance ÷ total number of executives × 100%.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term executives of more than 3 months.

    Employee status: Active executive employees.

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have 100% of executives that had mid-year conversations with their immediate supervisor to review performance.

Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives - Appendix C, 2.1

Executive Talent Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for the measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Percentage of employees with a completed annual written performance assessment.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation:

    Number of employees who have completed a written performance assessment ÷ total number of employees × 100%.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives).

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have over 90% of employees with completed annual written performance assessments.

Directive on Performance Management, 6.1.3

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers assessed in MAF must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Percentage of executives with a completed annual written performance assessment.

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives.

    Calculation:

    Number of executives who have a completed written performance assessment ÷ total number of executives × 100%.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term executive employees of more than 3 months.

    Employee status: Active executive employees

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Organizations should strive to have 100% of executives with a completed annual written performance assessment.

Directive on the Performance Management Program for Executives - Appendix C, 2.1

Executive Talent Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for the measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Percentage of employees with a rating of did not meet on their overall performance agreement.

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the distribution of the performance management results in the department.

    Calculation: Number of employees with a rating of did not meet divided by the number of employees who participatedFootnote 1 in the performance management process.

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Baseline year.

Directive on Performance Management

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. Percentage of employees with a rating of succeeded minus on their overall performance agreement.

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the distribution of the performance management results in the department.

    Calculation: Number of employees with a rating of succeeded minus divided by the number of employees who participatedFootnote 1 in the performance management process.

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Baseline year.

Directive on Performance Management

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. Percentage of employees with a rating of succeeded on their overall performance agreement.

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the distribution of the performance management results in the department.

    Calculation: Number of employees with a rating of succeeded divided by the number of employees who participatedFootnote 1 in the performance management process

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Baseline year.

Directive on Performance Management

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. Percentage of employees with a rating of succeeded plus on their overall performance agreement.

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the distribution of the performance management results in the department.

    Calculation: Number of employees with a rating of succeeded plus divided by the number of employees who participatedFootnote 1 in the performance management process

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Baseline year.

Directive on Performance Management

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. Percentage of employees with a rating of surpassed on their overall performance agreement.

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the distribution of the performance management results in the department.

    Calculation: Number of employees with a rating of surpassed divided by the number of employees who participatedFootnote 1 in the performance management process

    Period: Performance Management cycle 2016-17

    Date of extraction: 

Baseline year.

Directive on Performance Management

Public Service Performance Management Application

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. What does the department or agency do in terms of workplace recognition? (new)

    • Appoint a recognition champion
    • Have a contact person for recognition
    • Hold formal or information recognition activities
    • Have a budget for recognition
    • Have evaluation criteria in place or awarding recognition awards

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which recognition is integrated into departmental corporate activities.

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations are expected to have a recognition program in place and demonstrate that recognition is integrated into departmental corporate activities.

Recognition was included in the 23rd Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada (A respectful workplace).

Departmental Ask

Departments or agencies to submit evidence that best exemplifies their selection.

One (1) piece of evidence per selection.
  • Management Practice
    • Practice

Official languages

Outcome statement: An acceptable organizational culture creates, reflects and maintains a workplace that is conducive to the use of both official languages and in which employees are encouraged to use the official language of their choice.

Rationale: The questions on official languages relate to one of the priorities of the Clerk of the Privy Council, which is to acknowledge “the value of linguistic diversity and (to) ensure that each employee – French-speaking or English-speaking – feels that his or her linguistic identity is respected, wherever they work”. Furthermore, one of the Treasury Board President’s top priorities is to “ensure that all federal services are delivered in full compliance with the Official Languages Act.

To enable an environment conducive to the use of both official languages, linguistic profiles of bilingual positions must reflect the duties of employees and their work units, as well as the obligations with respect to service to the public. In terms of service to the public, employees play a vital role in fulfilling their organization’s official language obligations when providing services to or communicating with the public or employees. The organization’s leaders lead by example and promote these objectives.

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category

  1. Do the linguistic profiles of bilingual positions reflect the duties of employees or their work units as well as the obligations with respect to service to the public and language of work?

    Rationale: This question addresses the need to have the right people with the right linguistic competencies, to provide services to the public and/or supervision to employees “in full compliance with the Official Languages Act,” in line with the President’s top priorities in his mandate letter. This question would also address in part concerns raised by the Commissioner of Official Languages (in his last annual report and in investigations) related to an increase in complaints related to S. 91 of the Official Languages Act.

    Results will be displayed as: Nearly always (in 90% or more of cases); very often (between 70% and 89% of cases);  often (between 50% and 69% of cases); sometimes (between 25% and 49% of cases); almost never (in less than 25% of cases); not applicable(does not apply to your institution)

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations are expected to comply with the Policy on Official Languages.

Directive on Official Languages for People Management, Requirements 6.2 and 6.3

2016-17 Annual Review on Official Languages

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. When the office is designated bilingual, do oral communications occur in the official language chosen by the public?

    Rationale: This question addresses one of the TB President’s top priorities, which is to “ensure that all federal services are delivered in full compliance with the Official Languages Act.”

    Responses will be displayed as: Nearly always (in 90% or more of cases); very often (between 70% and 89% of cases); often (between 50% and 69% of cases); sometimes (between 25% and 49% of cases); almost never (in less than 25% of cases); not applicable (does not apply to your institution).

    Target: The target is to have a combined result of 90% for the two measures (written communications and oral communications), as specified in TBS’s 2017-18 Departmental Plan.

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations are expected to comply with the Policy on Official Languages and the Directive on Official Languages for Communications and Services.

Policy on Official Languages, Requirement 6.2 and Directive on Official Languages for Communications and Services

2016-17 Review on Official Languages

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. When the office is designated bilingual, do written communications occur in the official language chosen by the public?

    Rationale: This question addresses one of the TB President’s top priorities, which is to “ensure that all federal services are delivered in full compliance with the Official Languages Act.”

    Responses will be displayed as: Nearly always (in 90% or more of cases); very often (between 70% and 89% of cases); often (between 50% and 69% of cases); sometimes (between 25% and 49% of cases); almost never (in less than 25% of cases); not applicable (does not apply to your institution).

    Target: The target is to have a combined result of 90% for the two measures (written communications and oral communications), as specified in TBS’s 2017-18 Departmental Plan.

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations are expected to comply with the Policy on Official Languages and the Directive on Official Languages for Communications and Services.

Policy on Official Languages, Requirement 6.2 and Directive on Official Languages for Communications and Services

2016-17 Review on Official Languages

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Percentage of executives in a bilingual position in your organization whose second-language evaluation results (reading, writing, and oral) are all up to date.

    Rationale: This data provides information on the extent to which the organization’s workforce is maintaining its second language competencies within the executive group. This is also directly related to the leadership role that executives play within their organizations. To lead by example, leaders of an organization must be able to use their language competencies in day-to-day activities as they create an environment conducive to the use of both official languages.

    Employee tenure: includes indeterminate and term (3 months or more) tenures, including acting appointments of 4 months or more

    Employee status: Active executive employees.

    Period: Snapshot as of

Executives are expected to lead by example and must create an environment conductive to the use of both official languages. Additionally, organizations are expected to comply with the Policy on Official Languages and the Directive on Official Languages for People Management.

Policy on Official Languages and the Directive on Official Languages for People Management

Position and Classification Information System (PCIS)

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Internal Services Measure

  1. Percentage of employees in a bilingual position that communicate and serve the public in your organization whose second-language evaluation results (reading, writing, and oral) are all up to date.

    Rationale: This data provides information on the extent to which the organization’s workforce is maintaining its second language capacity particularly within positions providing services to the public. Furthermore, this data can also be examined in relation to the responses obtained from organizations to questions 44.1 and 44.2, in support to the President’s mandate letter commitment.

    Employee tenure: includes indeterminate and term (3 months or more) tenures.

    Employee status: Active employees.

    Period: Snapshot as of

Organizations are expected to have in place the capacity to provide communications and services to Canadians in the official language of their choice. Furthermore, organizations are expected to comply with the Policy on Official Languages and the Directive on Official Languages for People Management.

Policy on Official Languages and the Directive on Official Languages for People Management

Position and Classification Information System (PCIS)

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Internal Services Measure

Structure and processes

Outcome statement: A public service with efficient and effective processes, tools, practices and organizational structures.

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category

  1. Does the department or agency publish its executive organizational chart(s) on its website?

    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: Measure the transparency of executive organizational structure:

    • To ensure that employees have access to information about their organization’s executive structure.
    • To support clear decision-making and accountability.
    • To promote transparency and organizational excellence.
    • Effective and efficient use and management of the public money, property and resources.

    Period: Snapshot as of .

Departments and agencies publish their executive level organizational charts.

TB Directive on Executive Group Organization and Classification, 5.5

Departmental Ask.

Department to submit one (1) piece of evidence; e.g. link, screenshot of departmental website.
  • Management Practice
    • Practice

  1. The department or agency has executive positions with more than three layers of EX reporting in direct line to DM (occupied and vacant positions).

    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: Measure the management of executive organizational structures in compliance with policy:

    • To ensure an appropriate number of hierarchical level of executives.
    • To sustain a fair and equitable compensation and classification system across the federal public service.

    Calculation: Number of EX positions located at the fourth hierarchical level below the Deputy Heads/Associate Deputy Heads.

    Period: Snapshot as of .

Departments and agencies are expected to classify executive positions no more than three levels below the Deputy or Associate Deputy level.

TBS Directive on Executive Group Organization and Classification

Executive Group Position Evaluation Plan (Refer to EX Group Definition)

Position Classification Information System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Number of incumbents of EX group positions.

    Rationale: To provide a snapshot of the executive workforce in departments and agencies in support of renewal and succession objectives.

    Calculation: Total number of incumbents of EX group position.

    Period: Snapshot as of

Baseline year

 N/A

Incumbent file

No evidence to be submitted for this measure.
  • Descriptive Statistic

  1. Percentage of positions having standardized job descriptions.

    Rationale: Standardized work descriptions assist departments and agencies in reducing the time/effort required to write, classify, and update work descriptions; simplify recruitment, staffing, career development, and learning efforts; facilitate mobility within an occupational group; and ensure sound relativity across the CPA.

    Calculation: Number of positions having standardized work description ÷ total number of positions.

    Period: Snapshot as of .

Improvement from the previous result (MAF 2016-17)

Departments and agencies should maximize the use of generic and standardized job descriptions as they can assist in reducing the time/effort required to write, classify, and update work descriptions; simplify recruitment, staffing, career development, and learning efforts; facilitate mobility within an occupational group, etc.

Policy on classification: 6.1.2.5, 6.1.2.6

Position Classification Information System

No evidence to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. Percentage of positions with classification decisions greater than five years.

    Rationale: Job descriptions must be reviewed regularly to ensure they continue to appropriately reflect the work performed and reward employees fairly, equitably and appropriately. Such a review allows departments to ensure jobs are accurate and are classified at the appropriate group and level.

    Calculation: Number of positions with a review date greater than five years ÷ total number of positions.

    Period: Snapshot as of

Baseline year

Directive on classification: 6.2.2, Appendix H

Position Classification Information System Plus

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. What is the percentage of managers who authorize job descriptions, organizational charts or classification action requests that have completed the Introduction to Organization and Classification (P930) required course?

    Rationale: A measure to indicate that authorized managers are aware of and able to carry on their organization and classification responsibilities, with an appreciation of impact their decisions have on their organization’s salary envelope and the overall Canadian Public Administration (CPA) wage bill. Further, this measures the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS Policy on Classification and related instruments and provides a snapshot of the status and results of the implementation.

    Note: All managers who authorize job descriptions, organizational charts or classification action requests are required to complete P930.

    Calculation: Total number of managers having completed P930 ÷ Total number of managers required to do so.

    Period: Snapshot as of .

All managers who authorize job descriptions, organizational charts or classification action requests are required to complete P930.

 N/A

Departmental Ask

Departments to submit one (1) piece of evidence with the following information:

  1. Total number of managers who authorize job descriptions, organizational charts or classification action requests having completed P930; and,
  2. Total number of managers required to complete P930.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. Percentage of Personnel Administration (PE)-classified positions where there is turnover during the fiscal year (PE Churn Rate).

    Rationale: A measure of turnover frequency / intensity in the PE contingent within the Human Resources Management Internal Services category, which is likely to impact the level of services offered.

    Calculation: (Sum of Human Resources Management Internal Services category PE-classified positions where there has been a change of incumbent) divided by (Total Human Resources Management Internal Services PE-classified positions) multiplied by 100.

    Period: FY2016-17

    Please refer to the following web page for more information: http://intranet.canada.ca/wg-tg/gf-fg/mrrs-sgrr/about-apropos/instructions-consignes/indmetd-eng.asp

Baseline year.

 N/A

Position Classification Information System (PCIS); Regional Pay System (old) / Phoenix (new)
  • Management Performance
    • Internal Services Measure

  1. 2016-17 actual gross voted operating expenditures on Human Resources Management Internal Services category as a percentage of 2016-17 actual gross voted operating expenditures.

    Rationale: An indicator of efficient use of financial resources in the form of overhead expenditures where the level of resources should be an appropriate proportion of the level of resources for the whole department. Measurement of overhead expenditures along with FTEs strengthens understanding of efficiency. The MAF results will inform Deputy Heads (oversight role), TBS-OCG (functional role), and TBS-EMS (internal services).

Departments and agencies deliver human resources management services and achieve results in an efficient manner.

 N/A

TBS to provide response.
  • Management Performance
    • Internal Services Measure

  1. 2016-17 Human Resources Management Internal Services category FTEs as a percentage of 2016-17 total department or agency FTEs.

    Rationale: An indicator of efficient use of human resources where the level of resources should be an appropriate proportion of the level of resources for the whole department. Measurement of FTEs along with overhead expenditures strengthens understanding of efficiency. The MAF results will inform Deputy Heads (oversight role), TBS-OCG (functional role), and TBS-EMS (internal services).

Departments and agencies deliver human resources management services and achieve results in an efficient manner.

 N/A

TBS to provide response.
  • Management Performance
    • Internal Services Measure

Workplace culture

Outcome statement: A public service that embodies a healthy workplace.

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category

  1. In light of recent survey results (Public Service Employee Annual Survey 2017), please indicate your top three priorities identified for action:

    (select three)

    • Diversity
    • Engagement
    • Innovation
    • Mental health & wellbeing
    • Harassment
    • Discrimination

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departments are taking action on their PSES survey results.

    Period: Ongoing since release of Public Service Employee Annual Survey results ().

Department and agencies are invited to discuss the survey findings with their employees, and to work with them and other stakeholders to come up with and put in place solutions to issues raised in the survey.

 N/A

Departmental Ask

Please provide up to three (3) pieces of evidence that demonstrate which priorities your department is focusing on, based on your PSEAS results.
  • Management Practice
    • Practice

Mental health and wellness

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category

  1. Psychological Hazard Analysis, Control and Prevention

    Has the department or agency:

    • Performed a joint psychological hazard analysis and assessment informed by survey results (i.e. the Public Service Annual Employee Survey)?
    • Reviewed existing programs, policies and workplace practices that influence psychological health and safety?
    • Undertaken a prioritization process in relation to identified hazards

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which psychological hazard analysis, prevention and control occur in departments as part of the overall hazard prevention program.

    Period: FY2016-17

    For clarification, please refer to the Glossary at the end of this document.

Assessment, control and prevention of psychological hazards is part of the overall hazard prevention program outlined in the Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.

Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Regulation Part XIX

Hazard Prevention Program

Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace Section 4.3.4 Assessment, Control and Prevention

Departmental Ask

One (1) piece of evidence is to be submitted for each selection.

Maximum of three (3) pieces of evidence.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. Percentage of employees who indicated in the Public Service Employee Survey “I would describe my workplace as being psychologically healthy”.

    Rationale: The health and wellness of the federal public service and its employees are vital to each organization’s success. As part of the organization-specific objectives of the Federal Public Service Mental Health Strategy, Deputy heads are expected to promote positive mental health and prevent psychological harm due to workplace factors. This measure will gage whether employees perceive that their workplace is psychologically healthy.

    Calculation: Percentage of employees who strongly agree or somewhat agree.

    Period: 2017

Departments and agencies are expected to promote positive mental health and prevent psychological harm due to workplace factors.

Federal Public Service Mental Health Strategy

Public Service Employee Survey
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. Average number of certified paid sick days per Full Time Full Year Equivalent.

    Rationale: To measure the usage of sick days and identify average trends to inform decision-making.

    Calculation:

    Certified: (Sum of the number of certified paid sick days taken by employees during the period) ÷ number of Full Time Full Year Equivalent (FTFYE).

    Note: include leave codes 205, 206, 210, 220, only in the calculation of the number of paid sick days.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees (term greater than 3 months)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations should strive to maintain low sick leave rates

 N/A

Employee Leave Reporting System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. Average number of uncertified paid sick days per Full Time Full Year Equivalent.

    Rationale: To measure the usage of sick days and identify average trends to inform decision-making.

    Calculation:

    Uncertified:  (Sum of the number of uncertified paid sick days taken by employees during the period) ÷ number of Full Time Full Year Equivalent (FTFYE).

    Note: include leave codes 205, 206, 210, 220, only in the calculation of the number of paid sick days.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees (term greater than 3 months)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations should strive to maintain low sick leave rates

 N/A

Employee Leave Reporting System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. Average number of certified and uncertified (total) paid sick days per Full Time Full Year Equivalent

    Rationale: To measure the usage of sick days and identify average trends to inform decision-making.

    Calculation:

    Total: Sum of the number of certified and uncertified (total) paid sick days taken by employees during the period) ÷ number of Full Time Full Year Equivalent (FTFYE).

    Note: include leave codes 205, 206, 210, 220, only in the calculation of the number of paid sick days.

    The number of FTFYE is calculated as follows:

    • The FTFYE (Full-Time-Full-Year-Equivalent) variable converts all employees into units representing a full-time employee working for the whole year. The calculation of the FTFY equivalence is based on a ratio between the assigned work week and the normal work week as per the collective agreement and the amount of time an employee is active over a 12-month period.

      The formula is as follows: Number of periods an employee is active over a given year ÷ 12 months × assigned work week ÷ normal work week

      It is important to note that the number of hours in the assigned and normal work weeks can vary depending on employees. The leave usage per employee is translated from hours to days based on individual assigned work week. This means that the number of hours contained in 1 workday can vary depending on the employee. On average however, the day conversion is close to 7.5 hours.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees (term greater than 3 months)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations should strive to maintain low sick leave rates.

 N/A

Employee Leave Reporting System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure.
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. Average number of days taken to submit the Employer Report of Injury to Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC).

    Rationale: To ensure those ill or injured employees’ claims are processed quickly and properly, and to ensure a safe and timely return to work. It is a measure of the organization’s capacity in disability management.

    Calculation: (Sum of the number of days to send in the Employers Report of Injury to ESDC ÷ Number of new claims within the period.

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations should strive to meet the three day timeline. This demonstrates an appropriate level of capacity in the area of disability management. It is noted that higher reporting times could in part be due to delays in accessing pay information of ill or injured employees.

Government Employees Compensation Act (GECA)

National Injury Compensation System (NICS)

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure.
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

Values and ethics

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category

  1. Are departmental values and ethics priorities integrated in any of the following corporate activities?

    (Select all that apply)

    • The Ethical Risk Assessment and mitigation strategies are integrated with the Corporate Risk Profile
    • Values and ethics is part of the Departmental Audit Program
    • Values and ethics is part of the Departmental Evaluation Program
    • A Values and Ethics champion has been appointed
    • A Values and Ethics network / working group exists

    Rationale: To measure the extent to which departmental values and ethics priorities are integrated in the department’s corporate activities.

    Period: FY2016-17

Mechanisms are in place to demonstrate that values and ethics priorities are integrated in the organization’s corporate activities.

Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector

Departmental Ask

Departments or agencies to submit evidence that best exemplifies their selection.

One (1) piece of evidence per selection.
  • Management Practice
    • Practice

  1. Does the department or agency foster and support a workplace where employees feel protected from reprisal in any of the following ways? (New)

    (Select all that apply)

    • Mandate training for employees on values and ethics, and/or on internal disclosure procedures
    • Offer leadership training to develop accountability and foster an ethical culture, free from reprisal
    • Conduct department-wide activities such as workshops, information sessions or group discussions
    • A Values and Ethics champion has been appointed
    • Ensure easily accessible mechanisms for reporting and resolving concerns raised in the workplace

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the efforts of organizations to create and support a workplace free from reprisal.

    Period: FY2016-17

Organizations must take actions to create and support an ethical workplace, free from reprisal

PSDPA, s.2 and s.19

Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector

Departmental Ask

Departments or agencies to submit evidence that best exemplifies their selection.

One (1) piece of evidence per selection.

Maximum of five (5) pieces of evidence.
  • Management Practice
    • Practice

Diversity and inclusion

Indicators and calculation method (where applicable) Expected result Policy reference Evidence source and document limit Category

  1. In which ways does your department or agency foster a diverse and inclusive workplace?

    (Select all that apply)

    • Mandate training for employees on diversity and inclusion and/or on cultural awareness
    • Hold department-wide activities such as workshops, information sessions or group discussions
    • Appoint a champion for diversity and inclusion in the workplace
    • Recruitment strategies targeted at  designated employment equity groups
    • Diversity and Inclusion are included in organizational HR strategic plans

    Rationale: To provide an indication of the efforts of departments and agencies to create and sustain a diverse and inclusive workplace.

    Period: FY2016-17

Departments and agencies must take actions to create and sustain a diverse and inclusive workforce.

In all Ministerial mandate letters.

Departmental Ask

Departments or agencies to submit evidence that best exemplifies their selection.

One (1) piece of evidence per selection.

Maximum of five (5) pieces of evidence.
  • Management Practice
    • Practice

  1. Percentage of employees who indicated in the Public Service Employee Survey “My department or agency implements activities and practices that support a diverse and inclusive workplace”.

    Rationale: To complement the departmental ask on diversity and inclusion with employees’ perceptions of their workplace.

    Calculation: Percentage of employees who strongly agree or somewhat agree.

    Period: 2017

Departments and agencies must take actions to create and sustain a diverse and inclusive workforce.

In all Ministerial mandate letters.

Public Service Employee Survey
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

Glossary

Actual gross voted operating expenditures
defined as the sum of expenditures under Standard Objects 01 to 06 and 12 and exclude Statutory expenditures. The Office of the Comptroller General (OCG) will be using this definition in future guidance.
Diverse workplace
(as defined in the Public Service Employee Survey) a diverse workplace includes everyone, regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital or family status, religion, age, language, culture, background, interests, views or other dimensions
Joint psychological hazard analysis
A psychological hazard in the workplace can take many forms including trauma, chronic stress, emotional abuse, bullying, or harassment. As part of each organization’s Hazard Prevention Program (Part XIX of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations), psychological hazards must be assessed along with physical, chemical, ergonomic and mechanical hazards.
Jointly
performing a hazard analysis means undertaking a hazard analysis in your organization in collaboration with bargaining agents.
Prioritization process

Organizations, once they have identified hazards, must make decisions on how to deal with them. Part XIX of the OHS Regulations stipulate that hazards must be dealt with in the following order:

  • The elimination of the hazard, including by way of engineering controls which may involve mechanical aids, equipment design or redesign that take into account the physical attributes of the employee;
  • The reduction of the hazard, including isolating it;
  • The provision of personal protective equipment, clothing, devices or materials; and
  • Administrative procedures, such as the management or hazard exposure and recovery periods and the management of work patterns and methods.
Standardized job description
Document that describes the work assigned to a job classified at a specific occupational group and level, which is common across a number of work units, regions or organizations. (Policy on Classification)

Acronyms

Acronyms Spelled Out
MAF Management Accountability Framework
EX Executive
ADM Assistant Deputy Minister

Page details

Date modified: