Poor PS Workers Hamper The Team

Published 05/30/2025 · Updated 05/30/2025

The public service needs to get better at firing its underperformers

—

We sure aren’t measuring car sales in the public service.

Growing up in Vancouver in the 1980s meant you knew at least one aspect of the reputation of Jim Pattison. Today, he is around the 200th richest person in the world with a net wealth of more than $9 billion. Back then, he was primarily a car dealer and his reputation was that he fired the lowest-performing salesperson on each of his lots every month.

Imagine even a smidgen of that managerial teeth in the federal public service.

Mel Cappe, a former clerk of the Privy Council, famously said it was “too hard to hire and too hard to fire in the public service.” He’s still right, but only on the latter count.

—

By John Kozij

Policy Options

—

There are many reasons for that, including poor training for public-service managers, especially in dealing with problem employees; few incentives for employees to better their performance; few effective approaches to force underperforming employees to improve; and an overall lack of drive to reduce the size of the public service, though Mark Carney says he will cap it.

So, what to do?

Anybody can come up with ideas, but they have to be battle-tested in the real world of people and unions that properly protect their members. Sculpting is better than slashing to align priorities with labour allocation.

But more can be done across-the-board and it wouldn’t hurt the public service to take a one-per-cent employee haircut every four years, just based on performance. It would improve morale, increase productivity, lower the wage bill, increase public confidence in the public sector and underscore the importance of employees giving it day-in, day-out or facing real consequences.

Out of touch with the private sector

Recently, I finished my Level 2 certification for coaching in the Ontario Basketball Association. It was more extensive than I anticipated, taking tens of hours of study to complete the many elements and volume of paperwork over a number of months. This also included an onsite evaluation of an extremely detailed practice plan – all to supervise a dozen 14-year-olds a few hours a week.

Earlier, I was an executive in the public service for more than 15 years, eventually overseeing a branch of about 90 people with an annual budget of $100 million. The leadership training I received was helpful, but it was more of a conceptual nature rather than the nuts and bolts of supervising employees, especially managing poor performers in a unionized environment.

Most public-service executives are familiar with the human-resource staff who help hire and reclassify as speedily as the process allows – and it has gotten speedier over the years.

However, it hasn’t changed much the other way. Even during the period of program review and the pressure to reduce the overall wage bill, the focus was on where the public service writ large was going and then making appropriate staffing adjustments. Smart thinking that, sculpting rather than everyone getting the same-percentage haircut.

The problem with taking action such as program sculpting only during cyclical times of restraint is that we don’t therefore undertake constant renewal by requiring good employee performance across-the-board on a permanent basis. Ongoing public-sector renewal should include regular pruning to address ongoing poor performance.

In all my federal government training, I was never given a course on how to demote or fire someone. It wasn’t easy, although I did it more than once. There is a general consensus about the importance of managing employee aspirations and performance. The whole point of a more directive managerial intervention is to get every employee to be a positive, contributing member of the team.

Many executives have never placed an employee on an “action plan” and often don’t want to deal with that. A public-service action plan is a serious step. Simply put, it’s a hassle, sometimes more than 15 pages with detailed expectations of the underperforming employee.

An action plan doesn’t cover only the work expectations of the position, but can include details such as when the employee shows up, when they leave and how long their breaks are. Then, the manager needs to supervise assiduously the expected work and behaviours in that plan.

This kind of micro daily oversight must go on for months and is oppressive for any manager who joined the public service to do something much different and more important. It’s not like you can just fire the lowest performer every month.

It is also oppressive for the employee to be put under a microscope for months, especially since there is already a job description, a statement of merit criteria for their role and an annual performance assessment with midpoint check-ins.

The public service generally puts limits on how many employees achieve the highest level – “surpassed” – of performance on an annual basis. But there isn’t a similar quota for underperforming employees, although numerous such employees exist in many departments.

There are a plethora of reasons for managerial inaction. But in the end, they are only excuses for not taking action, which is an essential part of a manager’s job, unappealing as it may be.

There is no doubt that executives aren’t recognized sufficiently for employee management. That issue is glossed over and there’s an assumption that any group as a whole and the individuals in it are doing well if broader achievements are met. It’s hard to find a comparison between total and individual car sales and its counterpart in the public service.

Incentives for managerial action are lacking and that probably plays a role. However, managers know, too, that there are few things more undermining to a group than someone who isn’t pulling their weight, especially when it sets a poor example for newer members of the public service.

Poor performance can manifest itself in many ways, including someone who regularly arrives late, leaves early, takes breaks that are too long, is a constant negative presence, has others do their work, disappears for hours at a time or does not work at a level commensurate with their compensation level.

Think of all the opposites of a model employee and you will find them in both the private sector and the public service. But this behaviour isn’t tolerated in the private sector. There’s a bottom line to meet and others in the job market who could help achieve it if a given employee isn’t performing well.

The reasons why an employee isn’t performing well are innumerable: issues at home; with the group; with the manager; with mental health or burnout; disinterest in the work; not being the right fit, etc. Managers are supposed to be compassionate about these reasons and make appropriate accommodations within reason.

No one is suggesting an action plan for transitory issues of underperformance. We are talking about employees who haven’t sold a car in years and yet draw decent taxpayer-funded compensation and who undermine the productivity and morale of a whole team.

On the flip side, an employee should know the reason for their own poor productivity, when they are a poor fit for their current occupation and when they have the agency to change that.

If there’s one thing the federal government offers in plenty, it is the opportunity to work on so many different and interesting areas of public policy and programming. There just isn’t any comparison to the narrow job choices on a car lot.

The bottom line for public servants should be this: You’ve got to sell some cars or why are you there and why is the taxpayer paying you?

This article first appeared on Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

John Kozij is a semi-retired federal senior executive, founder of JWK Consulting Group and an avid basketball coach for the Ottawa Shooting Stars and Lisgar Collegiate.