In today's Ottawa Citizen, there is an article on the Federal Public Service and the doubling in mental health disability claims between 1991 and 2007 and its impact on productivity and innovation in the public service. Mental health disability claims now make up 45% of all disability claims in the Federal public service.
The following is an extract from the article:
It’s an affliction among the country’s nurses, teachers, police, military and bureaucrats at all levels of government, undermining innovation, productivity, quality of service, policy-making and even the relevance of our democratic institutions, said Bill Wilkerson, founder of Global Business and Economic Roundtable on Mental Health.
Stress, burnout and depression is evident in all workplaces, especially in times of economic turmoil. But few employers have as profound a problem as the federal public service where the health effects of mental distress has been termed an epidemic.
“The public service is a tsunami of distractions — meetings, everything questioned, delegated, people moving … and no one is really in charge,” said Wilkerson. “It’s the most transient, fluid, unsettling work environment on the planet, so why wouldn’t people be anxious and in distress? They are human beings.”
The public service is heading into uncertain times. Speculation is rife that the public service will be the first place the Harper government turns when wrestling with the deficit. There are rumblings of changing or cutting public servants’ pension and benefits plans.
But Wilkerson argued the big savings will come by reforming management in the public service, which will go a long way to reducing disability claims. He said the across-the-board cuts that government’s typically resort to will only eat into the public service’s productivity.
“Pension reform and benefit reconstruction will not save the government money until it creates a work environment that protects mental health and the disabling effects of job stress and depressive disorder. Depression is the public health crisis in the government of Canada. Period.”
Similarly, he called the government’s so-called renewal of the public service, largely aimed at hiring new recruits, a “vision without hope” unless it focuses on improving the work environment. Instead of getting at problems with management, the government has hired thousands of new young workers and placed them in a toxic environment.
Wilkerson singled out two major trends that are crippling the public service. The biggest is the rapid and high turnover of people bouncing from job to job.
“The churn is remarkable, like a ship at sea casting about in turbulent waves and cascading until one day it tips over and sinks.”
A symptom of this is public servants’ obsession with delegating tasks until no one is really knows who is responsible for what. He said stories abound of revolving-door managers who are oblivious to how their behaviour affects others.
What’s needed is a cultural overhaul that brings back “human relations, not labour relations,” said Wilkerson. That means treating people fairly, with respect, giving them authority and fulfilling jobs. Without these basics, people “ruminate” and seethe — the key indicator to stress and depression, Wilkerson said.
So what do you think? Is Mr. Wilkerson correct and does his analysis also pertain to the provincial, territorial and municipal public services?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
An alarming article, to be sure. Got picked up widely too, through national syndication. I don't know if Wilkonson's cause/effect analyses are correct or not. But if it's there's even a shred of the legitimate, it would seem to warrant a more thorough look.
ReplyDeleteIf the affliction does run through all levels of gov, then it would suggest something endemic to public service in general. But even if it is a non-particularized endemic, we can still talk about 'degrees' and at which gov level the problem is most/least acute (chronic?).
Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when we’re trying to change how people think and behave.
ReplyDeletewww.onlineuniversalwork.com