bout de papier, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1990), pp. 5–6
Your organization is to be commended on your excellent magazine — bout de papier. There are many well-written articles that catch my interest in each issue.
One does not have to be directly involved with the Foreign Service to enjoy such a publication. Keep up the good work.
Sincerely, Peter J. Foley Regional Group Manager Great West Life
To the Editor
For more than 35 years, federal employees in the National Capital area have responded generously to the annual campaign on behalf of the United Ways of Ottawa-Carleton and the Outaouais.
Indeed, we in the federal service have always taken pride in the fact that for some time federal employees have provided close to 50 per cent and more than 60 per cent of the Ottawa-Carleton and Outaouais needs respectively.
Employees of the Department of External Affairs have been particularly conspicuous in their generosity and last year’s campaign is a good case in point. During 1989, the average contribution of External Affairs employees was more than double the average in the federal service division. On a per capita basis, External Affairs also led the way in terms of average contributions. This is a most impressive and enviable achievement, especially when you consider that many of the contributors were Foreign Service Officers, living and working away from the National Capital Region.
But each year is a new year and a new challenge and that is particularly true for 1990.
This year, the federal public service has been asked to run the very first, joint, UNITED WAY/HEALTHPARTNERS campaign in Canada.
This is a historical occasion. For the first time, federal employees will have an opportunity of contributing, by means of a single campaign, to the widest array of local social and national health organizations ever to come together in the country.
Not only will we be canvassing on behalf of the 104 agencies which make up the United Ways of Ottawa-Carleton and the Outaouais, but also for the 17 organizations, such as the Alzheimer Society of Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which make up the Healthpartners Fund.
Our objective is a very ambitious $6,550,000. This is 13 per cent more than the monies collected last year. But then, we have a 20 per cent increase in the number of agencies who need our help. The work of these agencies on behalf of the sick, the elderly, the lonely, the handicapped and many others is vital to the well-being of our society and deserves our whole-hearted support.
My congratulations to the people at External Affairs for their very enviable record of generosity. Please keep it up.
Sincerely, Harry Rogers Deputy Minister Industry, Science and Technology Canada Chairman of the 1990 UNITED WAY/HEALTHPARTNERS Campaign Federal Service Division
Dear Editor:
Whenever a document is labelled as being dangerous, it usually means it contains some fundamental truths which challenge existing ideas and those who support them. I was therefore intrigued by Max Reid’s letter to bout de papier (Vol. 7, No. 4), in which he described the PAFSO Evaluation Guide (PEG) as an “ill-conceived and extremely dangerous initiative” which threatens to “destroy departmental morale, the employee-management relationship and thus our service to the public.”
This is quite an accusation. However, several of Mr. Reid’s assertions, and their underlying assumptions, are unfair and rather unpalatable. The first of these assumptions seems to be that the employee’s assessment of management will inevitably be negative. Well, I found the PEG to be a good opportunity to put into writing some positive things about people — one in particular — for whom I have worked in the past, along with some reasonable and realistic criticisms. It was heartening to be able to write that a head of post had demonstrated the kind of loyalty and dedication to his staff which Mr. Reid correctly insists is essential in any large organization.
The spectre of employees “venting unhappiness through unskilled evaluations” is hardly one for concern. First of all, this image assumes that the mere condition of being a manager gives one the ability to give skilled evaluations. We all know from experience that this is not always the case — and indeed that managers themselves can use the appraisal system to vent unhappiness in an unfair manner. Moreover, it assumes that the employee is not going to treat the PEG in a professional and critical manner — that there is something mysterious about management that ordinary employees do not have the ability to grasp. Now, these same employees are people whose profession involves coming to an understanding of the political, cultural and economic complexities of the country to which they are posted, or whose responsibilities they cover as desk officers. They are all obviously intellectually capable of evaluating their managers. Often these employees are entrusted with carrying out tasks of great delicacy, and some have acted in management positions at post. Obviously they have the experience and professional commitment to treat this process in a responsible manner.
Mr. Reid has clearly identified the need for more training before posting. In fact, training ought to be an ongoing part of one’s career development — one which management should encourage in its employees. How often have we heard of pre-posting training being cut short because the manager of the employee’s existing section or post will not release the employee soon enough to take advantage of it? There is certainly a need for officers with more specialized training — whether it be in language, area studies, international political economy, finance, or personnel management at both the employee and management levels. Yet the time taken in acquiring these skills is still considered to be basically a hiatus in one’s career development. I am not sure, though, what Mr. Reid’s criticism here has to do with the PEG itself.
I welcome the PAFSO Evaluation Guide as a slight counterweight against an overly rigid and authoritarian power structure within the Department of External Affairs. If this can contribute to redressing some of the inequities in the appraisal system, it can only improve the morale of the place. The Department has nothing to lose from this but the chains of bureaucratic stagnation. It has a world to win.
Philip Calvert Foreign Service Officer
Dear Editor:
I have seen the article “Humble Origins: ’For Want of a Better Phrase, the External Affairs of the Dominion’” by Don Page in Vol. 7, No. 4 of bout de papier.
It should have been explained that this article is based on work done for the first volume of the official history of the Department, Canada’s Department of External Affairs: The Early Years 1909-1946 (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1990; published in French as Le ministère des Affaires extérieures du Canada : Les années de formation 1909-1946 by les Presses de l’Université Laval). The author of the book is John Hilliker, Senior Departmental Historian and Head of the Historical Section in this Division. The copyright is held jointly by the Minister of Supply and Services and the Institute of Public Administration of Canada. The book appears in the Institute’s Canadian Public Administration series.
Brian Long Acting Director Academic Relations Division External Affairs
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1990), pp. 5–6. Read the rest of this issue →
