[2023-05-18] Six career questions

In response to my post Making the invisible visible, a friend sent me an email with six questions (below). I was reminded of this email today when I participated, virtually, in a retirement party for a dear colleague. In thinking about her stellar career, I reflected on my own, and turned my mind to answering these questions.

What are a few hard skills and soft skills that best served your career?

In setting out to answer this question, I first looked up a definition for hard and soft skills. These are terms many of us use, though sometimes with different interpretations of what they mean.

What I picked up from my quick research is that hard skills can be taught and are required for specific jobs. Editors need to know how to edit. Nurses need to know how to nurse. Planners need to know how to plan. Soft skills are harder to teach and are the inherent traits we possess and take with us to many types of jobs. Managers excel when they know how to lead people. Chairpersons succeed when they know how to achieve consensus. Customer service agents add value when they can demonstrate empathy and problem solving.

The hard skills I developed and demonstrated most during my career were editing, writing and planning abilities. In just about every job I did in my career—as an editor, then writer, planner, and executive in charge of internal services, planning, evaluation and, ultimately, communications—I used my knowledge of editing, writing and planning.

But I attribute my career success largely to my soft skills:
  • Adaptability — an ability to adjust to changes in the environment. In a recent conversation with a friend, I described myself as a chameleon, able to adjust my colours to match the people I came in contact with (especially different bosses and clients) and the places I found myself working (each with its own culture).
  • Collaboration — an ability to work efficiently and effectively with others. This is sometimes described as the ability to get along well with others. What greases the collaboration wheels are contributions (pulling your weight on a team) and commitment (following through on what you said you would do). I worked hard and met my commitments (admittedly, though, sometimes to the detriment of my own health).
  • Empathy — an ability to understand where someone else is coming from. I used this skill as a director of client services, understanding my clients' needs and frustrations. And I used it with staff, to comprehend the challenges and limitations they were facing, including when they lacked the time, resources, skills or knowledge to do their jobs well.
  • Organization — an ability to use resources efficiently and effectively. This skill is often thought of as the ability to use your time wisely. But when a deputy minister described me as being organized, I came to define this skill in another way: the ability to use other people's time wisely, especially that of senior managers. I would often spend extra time writing, designing and organizing information to make it easier for the people receiving that information to understand it and come to conclusions quickly.
  • Consensus building — an ability to understand the interests of each stakeholder and come up with a solution acceptable to all. This was, perhaps, the skill that most set me apart from others. My ability to find consensus among a group of individuals was supported by all my other soft skills: adaptability, collaboration, empathy and organization. When things weren't going well, my default was to bring the various parties together in a room, where we could develop our relationships, discuss possibilities and settle on the most desirable actions.
Underpinning these soft skills was the ability to listen, the willingness to keep an open mind, and the facility to communicate—verbally or in writing—what I was hearing and what various people needed to feel good about the next steps.

Were there any "difference-maker" moments during interviews you gave or even interviews you oversaw? Anything that stands out?

In contemplating this question, the first word that came to mind was "authentic"—that je-ne-sais-quoi quality of being genuine, even at the risk of being something other than what the interviewer board is seeking. I gave my best interviews when I could be myself. And I judged others whom I interviewed more favourably when I perceived that they were being true to themselves.

The "difference-maker" moment that stands out in my mind involved a man I was interviewing for a director general position. The question was simple: your biggest failure in leading people? When I asked the question, he paused, looked down momentarily, and then said, "OK, this is honest." He acknowledged that sharing this particular story might sink his chances with the interview board, but that it was a true story. He described being a newly minted EX-01 (director) working in a punishing organization. Political staff were running rampant over public servants, and their behaviour verged on abuse. His senior management had abdicated their responsibilities. He didn't notice that one of his staff members was close to the breaking point. He was focusing his efforts on managing up, trying to shield his staff. He said, "While I thought I was doing my job, I didn't realize I was failing my team and my employee."

"Your biggest failure in leading people" proved to be an excellent interview question. Most candidates tried to paint themselves in the best possible light, but—in doing so—missed the point of the question, which was to demonstrate humility and an ability to learn from mistakes. I ultimately hired the man who had told his authentic story of having failed to protect his employee.

What were the traits you most appreciated from your staff?

I appreciated employees who valued accuracy over appearance, and by that I mean admitting when they didn't know something rather than guessing because they didn't want to look uniformed in front of me. I much preferred when employees said, "I'm pretty sure the answer is this, but let me check to be 100% sure and get back to you."

I liked employees who recognized how little time I had and organized their work to make my life easier, not harder. For example, they might read a report and provide a summary rather than simply sending it to me as an attachment in an email.

I valued attention to detail. It's not that I expected perfection, but I did expect employees to review their work before sending it to me, so that I didn't need to spend time fixing simple, obvious errors. If time didn't permit such a review, I was happy to have an employee say something like, "because of the tight timeline, I had to send the document to you without proofreading it first."

Same question above...but that you didn't appreciate?

I disliked when employees of my team habitually criticized employees of another team. I often saw this dynamic in service organizations, whose staff would criticize the clients they were serving. Legitimate gripes were one thing, but continually seeing clients in a negative light became a habit that was hard to break out of.

What is your key advice to those building a career in the public service?

Be kind and respectful. Be visible. Deliver. Get to know what your boss needs and provide that as much as possible. Listen. Learn on the job. Make your boss's life easier. Get to know the people with whom you work regularly, including your boss, colleagues and key clients. If you are a manager, value and invest in your employees: they are key to your success. See the potential in others. Ask for help as soon as you start feeling overwhelmed or in over your head. Set boundaries, especially periods during the day or week when you will not be accessible, so that work doesn't intrude on the time you need to rejuvenate. Recognize the mentors all around you—anyone you can learn from, even if simply observing them. Stay long enough in a job to learn something and make a difference—longer if it's an awesome place to work.

What do you think the public service needs to do to improve and adapt?

The Canadian Public Service needs to do a better job of balancing expectations with resources. If something is a priority, senior leaders need to put the necessary resources into it. If resources are limited (which is always the case), managers need to be deliberate about getting rid of things that no longer add value, or—relatively speaking—add less value than the priority du jour. Not doing so leads to burnout and turnover, which only increases the pressure on the employees who remain.

That said, I think the Public Service gets many things right. I was privileged to make a career in this vast organization.