You've raised some really important points.
The first thing I'd say about our turnover rates, as I've said already, is that our data show they are no higher than they were in the nineties in terms of the trend. So the trend is real.
As you say, there can be different kinds of expectations, and people are always looking to develop their careers and themselves, which we have to be very, very conscious of when we're trying to help people manage their careers.
You can have a variety of people with different types of backgrounds. You can have people who are highly specialized and who can spend an entire career in one department and find a career path there to move up and advance. And that has to be part of their experience, working with good managers who look at the business needs and at that person's aspirations; and if there's a real ongoing dialogue and engagement about that, one would hope the person would feel there is a path for them and that there could be movement.
So I go back to the basic point: is every employee being managed well by a supervisor who's thinking about the very things you've pointed out, about what people may want in terms of their own path? So the basics have to be done well.
The second thing is that you've talked about there being a lot of movement. And in particular categories of jobs, where you will often have more generalist or transferable skills that are going to be in high demand between departments—and also in the private sector—we really have to look at good strategies. For example, some of the groups that are in high demand are the human resource professionals, the communications professionals, and the finance professionals. As you can appreciate, there is a lot of need for those skills in the public service, as well as outside. When you have groups that are in high demand and we're not necessarily getting enough graduates at the same time to get them experience and to have them replaced, there is going to be lots of pressure for those people to move around the system, because people have a great demand for them.
What we've been doing, for example, with the HR community—and Finance has also been working on this—is to say, okay, this community has a lot of pressure on it. How do we actually work with this community to develop capacity, such as specific training that will get these people ready at the right level and give them a career path, and manage them as a community, so they have a sense that their careers are going to be helped through the system even though they're under pressure?
The point is that you always have to have a balance between operational business needs, trying to get someone in to do that job, and also making sure employees are going to succeed over time. You need to spend enough time at a level to get good at that level and to be able to serve the public, or the internal client you have in government. I always say that's why that discussion is so important. You can say to an employee, it's probably a good idea to spend a couple of years at this level before you move up. And if you're working with them closely, that path can be a good, productive path for them, and they'll see a way ahead. It doesn't mean we don't have cases where there will be an opportunity for someone to get a promotion faster. Do you know what I mean? And that will be of interest to them.
But I go back to the fact that these are realities. We have to manage them and to focus on them and really work one-on-one—every manager and employee—to really find out how to manage movement within the public service. What's the best mix?
All I would say is that I like to see people equipped to succeed, so I like them to build depth and credibility at level. And that can vary from case to case, but as long as it's part of a really good performance management dialogue and career development dialogue, I think we'll get better and better at it.