bout de papier, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1989), p. 2
The Department of External Affairs ranks 32 out of 33 federal departments with respect to the representation of women in the management category. Even National Defense has marginally better representation: It is Revenue Canada which ranks a dismal 33.
Despite efforts to remove the barriers to the advancement of women officers in the Department, External Affairs has failed to achieve significant results. The fact of this failure and the reasons behind it were the subject of a meeting between Mr. Raymond Chrétien, Associate Deputy Minister and women foreign service officers on June 22 Some 60 women (all those at headquarters were invited) spent an hour and a half explaining to Mr. Chrétien why they believe progress has been hampered.
What is clear is that the management of the Department has yet to fully come to grips with the problem and has yet to develop the measures needed to change the current situation. Certainly the recruitment of women officers has improved significantly in recent years. Now almost one third of new recruits are women. But to assume that all that is now needed is to wait 15 years for these women to work their way through the system is to fail to recognize the barriers which have prevented, and still prevent, the women now in the ranks from having the same opportunities as their male colleagues.
The statistics are discomforting. There are 244 rotational foreign service women of all ranks in the Department, approximately 15% of the total officer complement. 92 women are at the FS2 level, or 12.6% of all FS2s. Yet, of 321 rotational management-level positions at Headquarters (from Deputy-Director and up), only 35 are held by women and only 21 of these women are rotational foreign service officers – that is 6.5% of management positions are held by rotational women.
In the political/economic stream, only 2 rotational women of 81 program managers abroad (from Counsellor to Minister level) are women. In the trade stream, 4 of 21 positions from Counsellor to Head of Post are held by women. The situation for the social affairs and development assistance streams is even more grim. There are no social affairs women in management positions in Headquarters, and of 63 program manager positions abroad, only 3 are held by women. Interestingly, 50% of new recruits to the social affairs stream are women, a stream where their chances of becoming managers seems to be slimmest. In the development assistance stream, only 3 of 99 management level positions are held by rotational women at Headquarters, while of 31 program manager positions abroad, only I is held by a rotational woman.
These statistics are only some highlights of a more detailed profile of women in management positions prepared by an ad hoc group of women for presentation to Mr. Chrétien. Similar profiles were prepared in 1986 and 1987, and while there have been improvements in some areas, it is clear there is still a long way to go. The statistics suggest that there remain systemic limitations to the progress of women into the management ranks of External Affairs although there are women who are eligible with sufficient experience and seniority.
Staffing and attitudes were identified as the crux of the problem. The answer is not lateral entries of non-rotational women into senior ranks or the political appointment of women to Head of Post positions. The Department needs to grapple with “growing its own women senior managers” from within the rotational ranks. The way to begin is to staff women with potential in jobs which give them the experience and exposure that is needed for entry into management in the same way that men with potential are staffed. The point is not to blindly advance women, but rather to give women equal opportunity to demonstrate their skills and to gain experience.
Staffing women in Deputy Director positions at least in proportion to the number of eligible women is critical. (To date, the proportion of women Deputy Directors is well below the number of eligible women). Assignment of women to positions slightly above their present rank – stretch assignments — is also important. Senior FS2 males are sometimes seen in Director positions, yet only the trade stream has seen fit to offer similar challenges to senior FS2 women. Women need to be seen in the high profile positions such as Executive Assistant to Deputy Minister positions, as Departmental Assistant to the Minister or as Departmental Spokesperson. Women also need to be assigned to “fast-track” jobs in the economic bureau and elsewhere, and to jobs in traditionally male dominated areas like arms control and defense.
How do officers get the kinds of jobs needed to progress? All of us in the Department are aware that staffing is done through a combination of the old boy network, repularge measure, officers staff themselves to the tation, lobbying and, lastly, Personnel. In areas that will advance their career interests and provide them satisfaction. Are women less aggressive, less able to identify the “good” jobs, unwilling to accept the challenge of a “stretch assignment” “, less able generally than their male colleagues? I think not. The answer to the staffing question lies in a complex of factors often dominated by antiquated and conservative attitudes about women held by both men and women inside the Department. Many of these attitudes can be overcome by sensitizing people to the situation and to the effects of these attitudes. Awareness is the beginning of change.
First, is the understandable fear that male colleagues may have that their own career prospects will be diminished in an already grim promotion environment as a result of affirmative action. Equal opportunity and some concrete measures are needed to redress the historical and substantial advantage men have always enjoyed and still do. But qualified male officers need not fear equal competition from qualified women officers. Equal opportunity and treatment ensures that the best, male and female, reach management levels to the benefit of all.
What are some of these attitudinal problems? Paternalistic treatment (pats on the head, the cheek, being called “dear”), exclusion from informal socializing, being deemed “shrill” or “aggressive” or “moody”, in contrast to males who are “firm” or “assertive” having the substance drained from job packages and challenging issues turned over to male colleagues, beliefs that because women have spouses and dependants that they can’t provide the quality work that male officers with spouses and dependents can, assumptions that all women answering phones are secretaries, and assumptions that women have less authority. Needless to say these are examples of attitudes that are not uniformly held nor experienced. But they are real examples that many woman officers have experienced. The meeting with Mr. Chrétien was the beginning of a new phase in consultation with management on issues of concern to women. It was a good beginning. The women have proposed to establish an ES Women’s Advisory Committee to continue the consultations and to help the Department map out a realistic plan of action to address the problem, including collecting and making available statistical information on the status of women in the Department.
It is time to debunk the myths. The Task Force on Barriers to Women in the Public Service will release its report in November, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission is now reviewing this Department’s equity data and employment systems. The issue has caught the concern of those outside the Department as well. But the test of success will be the results.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1989), p. 2. Read the rest of this issue →
