Peacocks, llamas, and the glass-crunching shadow army

Llama overlooking Machu Picchu, by Schuyler Shepherd

Since I first had the experience of working for the federal government as a co-op student, very little has frustrated me more than hearing people talk about how public servants are lazy and taking advantage of the average tax-paying Canadian. In fact, the only thing I have found more infuriating is meeting public servants who actually are seemingly lazy, who reinforce the cruelly negative stereotype, or who actively disassociate themselves from the public they are sworn to serve.

I’ve said it before: everyone who pays taxes pays a public servant’s wages, and that really should light a fire under our butts on days where we might be tempted to putter along or dick around. Just as it is motivating to work for a private company whose interests and values you share, so too I find it incredibly motivating to know that I work for the interests of my family, my friends, and indeed for myself.

But lately, it has been very difficult to ignore the fact that I am not actually a member of this public service whose strengths I vociferously defend and whose failings cause me to blush with embarrassment.

I am a contractor, a member of the so-called “shadow public-service” that represents a problem with staffing processes in government, whose existence allegedly constitutes an “assault on public service values” and whose livelihood “comes at the expense of the actual public service”.

When I hear some people talk about contractors, I am very often made to feel that I am some manner of wolf in sheep’s clothing – when in fact I consider myself more like a young guard llama. A llama helps protect the flock from attack and provides wool akin to (but not entirely identical to) that provided by a sheep; however, despite the fact that a llama is a positive force, his or her presence is symptomatic of a problem. If there were no wolves or coyotes then there would be little need for llamas, and if there were no staffing issues there would be much less need for contractors. Llamas are good, but if we didn’t have problems there would be no need to have them.

I may not be a sheep, and perhaps my presence is an indication of a wider problem; but as an individual I am absolutely working very hard in the best interests of the flock. I am, in essence, a positive symptom of a negative situation.

And just as I feel frustrated with public servants who contribute to the toxic stereotype that harms productive and unproductive public servants alike, so do I feel a decidedly unglamorous sense of fury when I hear of instances of exploitation on the part of the private sector. And while I am oversimplifying the issue, I still find myself thinking indignantly, “I’m not like that!” and being at serious risk of setting up false dichotomies and committing the self-aggrandizing error I once referred to as turncoat chic.

If we’re going to tackle this problem, the focus must be on more than simply reducing the amounts spent on contracts: we must learn to distinguish the llamas from the wolves, and bring the llamas into the flock wherever possible. And those who consider themselves llamas must be willing to recognize that they are part of a problem, however noble their intentions may be.

So it will come as no surprise when I say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading Lee-Anne Peluk’s recent post in which she argues that the treatment of temporary “shadow public service” workers represents a threat to public service renewal and innovation efforts. It was refreshing to see that she discussed the issue in terms of policies and practices – rather than framing the issue exclusively as one populated by caricatures of irresponsible managers, lazy staffers and the selfish, exploitative soldiers of the nefarious shadow army.

It’s an odd feeling to want to tell the other side of a story you already agree with, but here I am about to do precisely that.

Lee-Anne’s post was a refreshing new take on the issue, but the backbone of her basic argument – that overuse of contractors represents a threat to renewal efforts – seems to be based on the idea that a contractor will be less inclined to innovate.

“As long as there are people who are willing to eat glass to get in, there
will be a culture that lacks innovation. They will do what they are told, rather than trying to come up with innovative ideas.”

I’m certainly not going to make any offers to eat glass, but I would be lying to you if I said that I wasn’t hoping – sooner or later – to find a challenging, engaging, more or less permanent position, either through the student bridging mechanism or otherwise, in the public sector or the private sector. But that doesn’t mean I am keeping my head down and ignoring opportunities to innovate.

In fact, I am constantly on the lookout for new ideas to suggest and explore. As just one face in the nefarious and much-maligned glass-crunching shadow army, keeping my head down is no way to get noticed or re-hired. And most young contractors I know feel the same way.

If we have a failing, it is the exact opposite of keeping our heads down. We push ourselves to take on more than we can handle. We have helium hands and we have peacock tails, desperate to grab attention, to prove that we can run faster and jump higher than the old guard – but some contractors make much better sprinters than marathon runners, and all too often find themselves at the end of a short race with no team to play for, told that they’re great employees but cannot be kept on, with nothing to do but smooth their feathers and try again, unsure of how to do better, while another young gun takes the spot they just vacated. I know.

Lee-Anne is right when she says that “hunger and innovation do not go hand in hand”; but I am here to say that neither are they mutually exclusive, and from my experience, the problem is less about timidity or desperation and more about high turnover and the staffing problems faced every day by managers.

The idea of hoping to nail a job by compromising my professional integrity and, to quote Lee-Anne, do “whatever I was told, even if it seemed like nonsense or a time-waster” seems highly counter-intuitive to me. Then again, I don’t have a permanent job yet; so maybe I don’t know what I am talking about.

But I have to agree with Brianne Maxwell, a former colleague of mine and a fellow co-op-student-turned-contractor: “by constantly recycling students [or contractors], companies are wasting time, money, and knowledge”.

While I nodded along with the vast majority of what Lee-Anne has written, I can’t say that her characterization of the way contractors are forced to behave necessarily reflects my experience. If I read Lee-Anne correctly, she asserts that contractors are less likely to “rock the boat” or seek to innovate, because they are afraid that it will decrease their chances of getting re-hired or sought as an indeterminate employee:

“I had 90 days to prove I could fit in with the best of them, so I never wanted to rock the boat, in case the door closed on my one foot holding it open.
[….]
Being on contract essentially silences you because you want that contract to be renewed.
[….]
There are some shops in my department that are run completely through the use of contractors. They get the job done, sure. But we need a public service that does more than uphold the status quo.”

She appears to argue that financial cost aside, the temporary help workforce represents a risk to the public service because its members are passively discouraged (by the work environment and hiring practices of the public service itself) from being innovative. And we of the shadow army are therefore likely to be hindering renewal efforts, through no fault of our own save the desire for a modicum of job security.

I am absolutely resolute in my belief that this is often the case. But I am equally resolute in my assertion that it nonetheless fails to adequately reflect my personal experience.

In my experience, as a contractor I do not have the luxury of swallowing my objections, keeping my head down, and upholding the status quo if it seems counterproductive. To do so would result in a bad reference, a team within the community I rely on for employment that thinks I am nothing special or – much worse – a waste of money. I speak from experience. I have occupied a job for which I was a poor fit, a job in which I occasionally put in a less than stellar performance: and believe me, I got stung, my reputation was damaged and I learned my lesson.

This is not to say that contractors are better equipped to be innovative than indeterminately employed public servants; Lee-Anne links to a study that suggests this is not the case. But contractors are certainly motivated to innovate. If contractors are crippled in their efforts to innovate, it is not because we are timidly unwilling to rock the boat. It is because we are in a position that is inherently very hostile to the possibility of failure. Students are expected to screw up sometimes, but the cultural narrative within the public service does not generally include the same allowances for contractors. We are expected to come in, get the job done, and (usually) leave. As we have not been treated as long-term investments, we are not often in a position to ask for help or make mistakes and learn from them as readily as we could if we weren’t so busy flashing our peacock tails and trying to pretend to perfection. Granted there are exceptions to every rule, and in my current position I have had the opportunity to mess up (oops) and learn from it.

We’re not trying to fit in – we’re trying to stand out. But we are also very conscious that any errors we make will be subject to scrutiny. Making mistakes is important and healthy and an essential part of innovation and change.

The moral of the story? Hug your llamas if they deserve it. If you’ve got a llama in your flock, chances are they realize that their presence may be symptomatic of a larger issue – and that this is a larger issue we’re going to have to work together and do a lot of listening in order to solve.

NOTE from the author: For some reason my blog is not saving comments consistently if you are using Internet Explorer. I really would love to hear your thoughts, so if your comment does not immediately post, please try using an alternate browser such as Firefox or Chrome, or send me a message on Twitter. Special thanks to Lee-Anne for her help and patience in determining the source of the issue.