bout de papier, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1991) — Summer 1991 // Été 1991, pp. 2–3
The Department buzzes with a current preoccupation with “managing change” (ie. organization and work-related change). Nothing is said about a concurrent need for “managing diversity” (ie. non-traditional composition of employees).
Clearly, the results of the Corporate Review impose certain requirements for changing the ongoing practices of the Department. In addition, the series of cuts by the Government’s Expenditure Review Committee, the February 1991 Budget, and the Treasury Board Sub-Committee on Grants and Contributions all affect the Department in ways which require development of new approaches.
However, without also evaluating the changes outside the Department which have made the world a different place, any approach which senior management decides upon after a one-day internal seminar can only be cosmetic at best. At worst, it will be yet another top-down exercise based on views carefully sanitized and prepared in-house by the local gurus who seldom stray from the eighth floor of Tower A in the Lester B. Pearson Building (the eyrie of senior management).
For change to be meaningful, it must be developed by all members of the organization working together toward the same common end. This requires broad consultation and negotiation; tolerant give and take; and knowledgeable compromise. It can only take place in an atmosphere of equality and fundamental respect, irrespective of occupational category or level in the hierarchy. Until External Affairs manages to achieve an egalitarian team spirit, there can be little hope for a beneficial change in departmental morale or organizational practice.
Management of diversity requires dealing with the fact that the Department is no longer a monolithic, homogeneous organization (if, indeed, it ever was). Its inhabitants no longer fit the concept of a male-headed household, with the wife and kids at home waiting for the sole breadwinner to return for dinner. We already know as a Department (and as a nation) that managing two cultures and languages requires sensitivity, good faith, divestment of preconceptions, and considerable dexterity. Management of diversity requires even more adroitness.
What is diversity? A recognition that both men and women work in the Department, whether as officers or support staff. A recognition that individuals from different races, colours, cultures, religions, languages, ages, expectations, and preoccupations all work for the same organization but do not operate in the same manner. Nor is there any need for them to do so. What these non-traditional employees bring to the organization is a broad set of skills and talents. It is harnessing their skills and talents (not the individuals) which the organization needs to adapt to the changes imposed upon it.
The need to manage diversity probably represents the greatest challenge which all organizations will face in the first quarter of the 21st century. The reason is that the baby boomers, the most significant population bulge existing in Canada, are now entering middle age. All will retire at roughly the same time, require medicare at roughly the same time, and die at roughly the same time. Currently, they swell government, academia, industry, and the corporate worlds. Our Department is no exception.
What will not happen, however, will be a parallel influx of young, educated workers into the marketplace. There will be fewer young people entering the job markets and many who do enter will have either less or irrelevant training. To resolve the shortage, organizations will need to pursue hiring non-traditional employees in escalating numbers. In addition, with the increasing exponential growth in human knowledge, there will be an ever increasing requirement for systematic new training on a regular basis. This training cannot be at the option of the individual. Employers cannot ignore this requirement. They cannot except that potential employees will present themselves at the door having already undergone, on their own, all the education they will ever require for a lifetime of employment.
Rather, training will need to be incorporated into the workplace as a regular occupational requirement for all employees, irrespective of rank or previous educational background. For this to occur, employers will need to develop a system for determining, tracking, and regularly updating the particular training, skills, talents, and interests of all employees on an individual basis. This information will be a fundamental building block for all organizations because no one can predict precisely which skills and talents will be necessary to get the job done (or even what the job will entail) ten years down the road. All employers will be searching for individuals from the same limited pool of employees. They will need to develop, at an ever increasing pace, flexible programs to deal with the needs of a diverse group, or else fail to tap that pool. No longer will employers or managers be able to state that a certain job is not suitable for a “ — (I leave it to the reader to fill in the blank). To do so, would risk rendering the organization ineffective and uncompetitive.
External Affairs must begin analyzing the experiences of other organizations in learning to manage diversity. A first step could be to elevate the personnel function to the deputy minister level, parallel with the trade and political functions. It would concretely underpin the oft-repeated phrase that employees are the Department’s “only” asset. It would also strengthen the resolve of senior management, and the ability of the Department, to develop approaches for dealing fairly and equitably with different kinds of employees (eg. women, handicapped, indigenous, visible minorities, married, single, single-parents, employees with aged parents or disabled children, young, or old). This does not mean treating all employees the “same way” by forcing them to fit into the same mould. They are not the same; they are different. Such a simplistic approach inevitably results in unfairness and discrimination. There are differences in requirements and needs, and in approach and behaviour. In saying this, I do not mean, resorting to favouritism. I mean learning to deal in an humane and practical manner with the fact that equitable mechanisms must be put into place which recognize and validate such differences. They are immutable factors of the human condition for which individual employees should not be penalized.
The test for an organization will be its capacity to deal creatively with diversity. The amount of money invested by the organization in each individual is too significant to endure lightly the prospect of losing the associated skill and expertise along with the employee. External Affairs is at a crossroad; it must make the right decisions to ensure a viable organization for the 21st century.”
Turning to the current edition of bout, readers will be pleased to note a new feature — the Photo Essay. We seek to stimulate all you super photographers to help bout make its impact with photos and not just words. Our première into the realms of image can be seen in the wonderful photographs entitled “Llamas and Lunch in Bolivia and Peru” taken by Carol Walker while travelling in Peru and Bolivia with the World Bank. We are very proud to excerpt as a feature article a section from Ivan Head’s soon-to-be-published provocative book, On a Hinge of History, concerning development assistance and the future struggles between countries of the North and South. A second feature article, After the Ball is Over…, is vintage Geoffrey Murray on Canada’s foreign policy (or lack thereof) in a fast-paced and spirited riposte to the authors of Pirouette. Jim Nutt takes a look at Canada’s oceans policy in National Strategies and the New Law of the Sea. Finally, the debate concerning the foreign service continues with a thought-provoking Guest Column by John G. Kneale from his book-in-progress, The Department and the Country.
Nous devons nous excuser auprès de Guy Archambault de la qualité inférieure de la préparation française de son article, « Entrevue au Secrétaire-générale de l’ACCT, Monsieur Jean-Louis Roy », qui a apparu dans notre édition de l’hiver. Nous sommes désolés de cet incident et nous essaierons de faire mieux la prochaine fois.
In our spring issue, we neglected to provide a biography for Rick Belliveau, whose picture, taken along the Amazon River, was used in the magazine. Rick has had postings in Jakarta, Hong Kong, Beijing, Algiers, Madrid, and Brasilia. He is currently Director, Cabinet Liaison, at EAITC.
Readers will be sorry to note that “Pardy’s Corner” regrettably is absent from the current edition. However, never fear, our trusty and stalwart writer, Laurel Pardy, will return in our fall issue with her unique perspective from Central America.
In this issue, you will also notice the absence of illustrations by Susan Macartney as she is on maternity leave prior to a posting in Japan. Once she has unpacked, however, she will continue to contribute to bout from that exotic locale.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1991) — Summer 1991 // Été 1991, pp. 2–3. Read the rest of this issue →
