Evaluation of the Informal Conflict Management System

Executive summary

This report presents the finding and recommendations of the Canadian Grain Commission’s informal conflict management system (ICMS) program evaluation. This evaluation was conducted by the Canadian Grain Commission’s Audit and Evaluation Services team as part of the Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation for the 2020 to 2021 fiscal year in accordance with the Treasury Board’s Policy on Results (2016).

Program overview

The ICMS is a federally mandated program. The Public Service Labour Relations Act was passed in 2003 to modernize human resource management in the public service of Canada and implement new ways of improving labour-management relations.

In response to this legislation, all federal government departments and agencies were mandated to implement an informal conflict management system. Deputy Heads became responsible for establishing an informal conflict management system and ensuring that employees were aware of it and had access to it.

The Canadian Grain Commission’s Information Conflict Management policy was created with stakeholder consultation. The objective of this policy is for the program to be “the preferred approach to resolving workplace disputes.” In 2007, the Canadian Grain Commission launched its Informal Conflict Management System. The program is accessible to all employees at the Canadian Grain Commission and is heavily based on the federal system.

The program offers a variety of training and conflict mitigation services for employees, including the following:

• conflict management training courses
• peer support/informal conflict management
• team agreement/team building sessions
• team facilitated discussions

The Canadian Grain Commission’s Informal Conflict Management policy stipulates the following:

• “The Canadian Grain Commission promotes a workplace that respects core values, builds morale, and encourages a high level of productivity. It is committed to creating an organization where differences are respected and addressed collaboratively in a way that promotes satisfying work relationships, and reinforces the values and operating principles of the Federal Public Service. The Commission recognizes that in order for this to occur, a conflict resolution system must be implemented to both prevent conflicts and to address workplace disputes that will inevitably arise.”

Methodology

This evaluation assessed the program’s relevance, performance, efficiency and COVID-19 learnings. To ensure reliability and validity of data and information, the evaluation used multiple lines of evidence and triangulated findings to support the evaluation. The evaluation team investigated multiple lines of evidence, including program information review, document review, existing data, key informant interviews and an employee survey on ICMS.

Key findings

Relevance

Continued need for the program

The program evaluation found significant evidence from multiple sources that the program continues to be used and that there is a continued need for the program at the Canadian Grain Commission. The program evaluation found evidence that workplace conflict continues to exist at the Canadian Grain Commission, as is common within most organizations. There is no evidence of duplication by any other comparable program that can provide the same level of consistency, quality and objectivity.

Alignment with government priorities

The Canadian Grain Commission’s ICMS is aligned with current government priorities to address conflict in the workplace and foster a healthy, safe and respectful workplace.

Alignment with federal roles and responsibilities

The Canadian Grain Commission’s ICMS directly aligns with federal roles and responsibilities and is mandated under Section 207 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The act requires all federal departments and agencies across the public service of Canada establish an ICMS and inform employees of its availability.

Performance

While the program has achieved the majority of its stated goals, there was insufficient evidence that the program has fully achieved the long-term outcome of creating a conflict-competent organization. This may be, in part, due to the lack of tracking of key program metrics. This evaluation includes 9 recommendations for program improvement in the areas of performance (3) and efficiency (6), which require a Management Action Plan response. There was no evidence of unintended negative outcomes. Details of findings, recommendations, and management action plan responses can be found in Appendix 1.

Efficiency

Recommendations included throughout the report are summarized in Appendix 1 and focus on the following areas:

• Program resource adequacy
• Program oversight: tracking of key metrics and transparent processes and procedures
• Program reporting structure

Conclusion

The program evaluator found evidence of continued need for the ICMS program and that the program is being utilized. This evaluation contains recommendations for program improvement in the areas of performance and efficiency that require a management action plan response. There were additional key findings in the areas of relevance and performance that did not necessitate a corresponding management action plan response.

Details of findings, recommendations, and management action plan responses can be found in Appendix 1.

Introduction

Evaluation purpose

This report presents the results of a program evaluation of the Canadian Grain Commission’s Informal Conflict Management System (ICMS). The goal of this program is the prevention, management and early resolution of conflict at the lowest possible level. The program provides a systematic approach to managing and resolving conflicts in the workplace in a constructive manner using Alternate Dispute Resolution. The evaluation was recommended by the Canadian Grain Commission’s 2019 Employee Survey Working Group to increase accountability and quality assurance of the program.

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board’s Policy on Results, which requires departments to measure and evaluate performance and use the resulting information to manage and improve programs, policies and services. The evaluation was undertaken by the Audit and Evaluation Services team of the Canadian Grain Commission during the 2022 to 2023 fiscal year, as required by the Canadian Grain Commission’s Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan. The evaluation considered the period between program design and launch in the 2006 to 2007 fiscal year until the end of the 2020 to 2021 fiscal year.

The outcome evaluation assessed the following areas:

• Relevance
• Performance
• Efficiency
• Potential improvements

In addition, the following areas of interest were identified by the acting program manager and business process owner:

• Foster a workplace culture in which staff at all levels and in all roles have the skills and resources to seek early resolution of conflicts in a constructive manner
• Assessing program awareness levels within the organization
• Assessing the need for additional program services and supports for managers
• Potential implementation of a feedback mechanism for program users/clients
• Assessing potential program impacts of COVID-19 and the Canadian Grain Commission’s Future of Work initiative

The results of the evaluation are intended to inform current and future program and policy decisions. This is the first time this program has been evaluated independently by the Canadian Grain Commission’s Audit and Evaluation Services team. This program underwent a self evaluation in 2009, overseen by the program manager.

Background

Resolving conflict early reduces costs to the taxpayer. Conflict in the workplace can be costly and negatively impact the organization as whole via direct costs, hidden costs, and overall impact to the organization.

Direct costs

• Legal fees, salary costs related to formal dispute mechanisms, grievances and complaints

Hidden costs

• Absenteeism, sick time, paid leaves
• Additional Human Resources and salary costs of hiring, onboarding, training and development associated with high staff turnover and low retention

Overall impacts to the organization

• Hostile work environment
• Low team engagement
• Lower productivity
• Damage to morale, corporate culture and corporate reputation

Based on information obtained from the Federal ICMS Network, managers, on average, spend up to an estimated 42% of their time addressing conflict in the workplace, while the average employee spends just over 2 hours per week dealing with workplace conflict. The costs of formal processes and mediation can be high. According to one source (an undated Human Resources Social Development Canada discussion paper), grievances are estimated to cost, from first level to final adjudicated decision, as much as $40,000 per file. The average cost of mediation can range from $4,000 to $5,000.

There is also an economic cost to the Canadian economy as a whole. According to the Conference Board of Canada, based on 2012 data, unmanaged or unresolved conflict contributed to an estimated $16.1 billion in employee absenteeism alone across Canada.^{Footnote 1}

ICMS overview

Federal mandate

The Public Service Labour Relations Act was passed in 2003 to modernize human resource management in the Public Service of Canada and implement new ways of improving labour-management relations.

Section 207 of the act states:

• “Subject to any policies established by the employer or any directives issued by it, every Deputy Head in the core public administration must, in consultation with bargaining agents representing employees in the portion of the core public administration for which he or she is deputy head, establish an informal conflict management system and inform the employees in that portion of its availability.”

In response to this legislation, all federal government departments and agencies were mandated to implement an informal conflict management system. Deputy Heads became responsible for establishing an informal conflict management system and ensuring that employees were aware of it and had access to it. The Department of Justice was the first federal department to implement the system and at the time of evaluation, was unaware of any Canadian federal government department without an informal conflict management system in place.

The primary objective of an informal conflict management system is to foster a workplace culture in which staff at all levels and in all roles have the skills and resources to seek early resolution of conflicts in a constructive manner.

Hallmarks of a successful informal conflict management system include the following:

• Encouraging the resolution of conflict at the lowest level through face-to-face dialogue between conflicting parties
• Providing managers and employees with conflict management training to handle conflicts in a timely manner
• Providing employees with multiple access points, allowing them to identify and contact a knowledgeable person for advice about their organization’s Informal Conflict Management System
• Making available alternatives to formal recourse when resolving conflicts, such as self-resolution, coaching, facilitation, mediation, conflict assessments, and group intervention
• Providing employees with the option to switch from formal processes to informal recourse options without limiting their right to return to formal processes if they wish
• Building structures that support training and informal processes, and integrate effective conflict management into the organization’s daily operations

In essence, an informal conflict management system helps foster an environment where employees and managers can interact in a constructive, collaborative manner.^{Footnote 2}

Canadian Grain Commission Program

In 2006, the Canadian Grain Commission established a working group to respond to this new requirement and to design and implement an informal conflict management system specifically for the Canadian Grain Commission. Bargaining agents, divisional representatives, and staff from Human Resources were invited.

The Canadian Grain Commission’s Informal Conflict Management policy was created with stakeholder consultation. The objective of this policy is for the program to be “the preferred approach to resolving workplace disputes.” In 2007, this working group launched the Canadian Grain Commission’s Informal Conflict Management System. The program is accessible to all employees at the Canadian Grain Commission and is heavily based on the federal system outlined above.

The Canadian Grain Commission’s Informal Conflict Management policy stipulates the following:

• “The Canadian Grain Commission promotes a workplace that respects core values, builds morale, and encourages a high level of productivity. It is committed to creating an organization where differences are respected and addressed collaboratively in a way that promotes satisfying work relationships, and reinforces the values and operating principles of the Federal Public Service. The Commission recognizes that in order for this to occur, a conflict resolution system must be implemented to both prevent conflicts and to address workplace disputes that will inevitably arise.”^{Footnote 3}

Documents outline the following key program principles:

• Consultation with stakeholders
• Use of system is voluntary
• Flexibility between informal and formal processes
• Accessibility and awareness
• Representation (participant may withdraw from the informal process at any time)
• Confidentiality
• Impartiality and neutrality
• No retaliation or reprisal for having used the ICMS
• Respect collective bargaining, statutory and workplace rights

Program documents also specify that the Canadian Grain Commission must identify a Senior ICMS Officer reporting directly to the deputy head on matters related to the directive but could report to another manager for administrative purposes. The Senior ICMS Officer could be involved in other activities within the organization, provided that they do not negatively impact the ICMS.^{Footnote 4}

Evaluation scope

Available data from program design in 2006 and from 2007 (program launch) to March 2021 (end of the 2020 to 2021 fiscal year) was used. Data for the 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 fiscal years reflects program disruption and impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been taken into consideration in the evaluation.

The evaluation was planned to be completed during the 2021 to 2022 fiscal year as part of the Canadian Grain Commission’s Risk Based Audit and Evaluation Plan. Due to operational requirements and the COVID-19 pandemic, the evaluation was completed during the 2022 to 2023 fiscal year. The evaluation was conducted according to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Policy on Results. This “outcome” evaluation focused on the activities, inputs and expected outcomes of the program, their efficiency and effectiveness, and any potential improvements to the program. The results of the evaluation are intended to inform current and support future program and policy decisions.

Program profile

The program offers a variety of training and conflict mitigation services for employees, including the following:

• Conflict management training courses
• Peer support / informal conflict management
• Team agreement / team building sessions
• Team facilitated discussions

Program staff consists of one Senior Informal Conflict Management Officer (hereafter referred to as the program manager), administrative support, and a team of volunteer peer supporters. This peer supporter component is fairly unique within the federal government. At time of the program evaluation, the evaluator was unable to find this model elsewhere within the federal public service.

Program manager’s role

Under Section 207 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, a Senior Informal Conflict Management Officer administers the program and ensures all employees have equitable access to impartial, confidential, and voluntary informal conflict management. This Officer also provides Canadian Grain Commission employees with information to help them make fully informed decisions about choosing and participating in the program.

During the scoped time period of the evaluation, 3 different staff occupied this role. The position was vacant for a period of time and then filled on an acting basis for a period of time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, program resources were temporarily reassigned to other priorities, although ICMS services remained available to the organization.

Over time, additional responsibilities have been assigned to this position, including learning programs, change management, and COVID-19 Business Recovery / Future of Work activities. At the time of the program evaluation, the program was managed by the Acting Manager, Informal Conflict Management System, Values and Ethics and Organizational Development.

Peer supporters’ role

Peer supporters are fellow employees who offer support to employees experiencing conflict. Peer supporters are not counselors or clinicians. Rather, they are trained to recognize when an employee experiencing conflict should be referred to another service provider. The Peer Support team follows a unique code of conduct to ensure complete discretion as to respect the privacy of all parties involved. Peer supporters should be accessible to all staff and available in all divisions and regions.

When the evaluation was conducted, there were peer supporters based out of Winnipeg (6), Montreal (1), Quebec City (1), Thunder Bay (2), Weyburn (1), and Vancouver (8).

Program logic model

A logic model is a visual roadmap of how the program is expected to achieve its intended outcomes. It illustrates the intended causal relationships between the program activities, outputs and outcomes. The program logic model in Figure 1 was developed jointly by the evaluator, program manager and the evaluation working group. It outlines the program activities and outputs as well as immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes.

Figure 1: Informal Conflict Management System program logic model

*CGC: Canadian Grain Commission

Inputs

• Training
• Managers
• Peer Supporters
• Program manager
• External service providers

Legislation

• Public Service Labour Relations Act

Activities

• Program manager provides support to staff, managers, and teams dealing with conflict, as well as post-conflict workplace restoration (including team agreement / team building sessions, team facilitated discussions, one-on-one [or small group] facilitated discussions and team mediation)
• Program manager leads the group of peer supporters
• Peer supporters provide informal, one-on-one support to staff to resolve conflicts early and to prevent conflict in the workplace
• Program manager builds partnerships with internal and external groups for program delivery and awareness
• Program manager trains and recruits peer supporters
• Program manager promotes staff awareness of rights and options around conflict resolution through informative sessions (training)
• Program manager communicates about the program and its activities to employees and managers

Outputs

• Number of peer supporters recruited
• Number of peer supporter interactions logged
• Number of team agreements signed by external service or program manager
• Number of training sessions completed

Immediate outcomes

• Increased staff awareness of peer supporters and the Canadian Grain Commission’s ICMS
• Increased staff awareness of tools and ways to manage conflict at the Canadian Grain Commission
• Increased engagement of service delivery partners at the Canadian Grain Commission

Intermediate outcomes

• Identify and prevent escalation of conflict through effective management and resolution of conflict
• Early resolution of workplace conflict and preventing or reducing usage of formal conflict management
• Increased levels of conflict management skills amongst staff, managers, and teams

Long-term outcome

• A conflict-competent organization and healthy, respectful workplace that supports the delivery of the Canadian Grain Commission’s mandate

Program activities

This program offers a variety of activities and resources to help employees navigate the workplace. These activities are outlined in the logic model.

Except for peer support interactions, use of these activities has not been consistently tracked. Peer supporters use an anonymous log and recorded 408 peer support meetings from 2006 to 2020. Peer supporters have reported underuse of the log and a sharp decline in logged interactions since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 1 presents the current acting program manager’s estimate of activities during their tenure:

Conflict management training sessions were also periodically offered at the organization from 2007 to 2020. The purpose of these sessions was to develop skills pertaining to conflict management. The two main course offerings were Communications and Conflict Resolution in the Workplace for employees and a Certificate in Collaborative Management for managers and supervisors. These courses stopped in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and have not resumed.

Peer supporters are offered training session to continue to expand and develop their skills related to conflict management. Peer supporters meet monthly for training and collaboration.

Communications and promotional materials such as brochures, staff bulletins and speaker sessions have been used to raise awareness of the program at the organization and to ensure employees are aware of available services. Information about how to access a peer supporter is available on StaffNet, the Canadian Grain Commission’s internal staff website.

Program resources and funding

Reporting structure

This program is administered by a program manager housed within the Human Resources division, reporting directly to the Executive Director, Human Resources at the Canadian Grain Commission. Responsibility for the program lies with the Chief Commissioner / Deputy Head.

Human resources

This program is currently overseen by the Acting Manager, ICMS, Values and Ethics and Organizational Development (a portion of 1 full-time equivalent). It is supported by additional administration staff and a team of volunteer peer supporters. At the time of the evaluation, there were 19 active peer supporters.

Program costs

Informal conflict management system program costs are not tracked under a separate cost centre. For purposes of this evaluation, program costs were estimated. Costs include a portion of 1 full-time equivalent (employee), plus related program support, training and travel costs and external contracts. In addition, the program may use resources from other programs and teams. Due to the confidential nature of peer supporter interactions, peer supporter hours are not tracked. During key informant interviews, total peer supporter hours were estimated at a total of 141 hours for a typical month. This estimate is based on self-reported hours and represents a snapshot at the time of the evaluation. Hours tend to vary over time and are unpredictable.

Historical program costs as estimated by the acting program manager are in Table 2. This high-level estimate indicates that the ICMS has cost $1,843,886 since its design in 2006.

* Note: Data available only for program start-up phase and since 2016 implementation of SAP system. No data was available between 2008 and 2015; data for these years was estimated by the program manager.

2018 to 2019 fiscal years and prior: estimated one full-time equivalent 75% allocated to ICMS plus administrative support.

2019 to 2021 fiscal years: estimated 50% partial full-time equivalent (with administrative support), shared with Values and Ethics Role, change management, coordination of EFAP through a Memorandum of Understanding with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, leading mental health program and other duties as needed.

2021 to 2022: estimated 20% partial full-time equivalent (with administrative support), shared with Business Recovery, Executive performance and talent management, strategic organizational development advice and facilitation services.

Over the period administrative support to the program was estimated between 0.2 and 0.3 of one full-time equivalent (AS-01 or AS-02 employee) depending on the year.

This estimate does not include peer supporter hours.

Methodology

To ensure reliability and validity of data and information, the evaluation used multiple lines of evidence and triangulated findings to support the evaluation. The evaluation team investigated the following lines of evidence:

• Program information review
• Document review
• Existing data
• Key informant interviews
• Employee survey on ICMS

The review of existing data included relevant legislation and guidance documents. More than 65 internal documents, reports and articles were reviewed during this evaluation. New data was collected via virtual interviews with key informants and a survey that was emailed to all Canadian Grain Commission staff.

For a complete list of data sources and additional insight into the information gathered, refer to Appendix 2: Methodology.

Evaluation findings

Relevance

Continued need for the program

The program evaluation found significant evidence from multiple sources that the program continues to be used and that there is a continued need for the program at the Canadian Grain Commission.

The Canadian Grain Commission’s ICMS is a federally mandated program and continues to be a Deputy Head requirement under Section 207 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Resolving conflict early reduces costs to the taxpayer (refer to Background). Interviews with program partners also noted the high costs of formal processes and the financial benefit to taxpayers of preventing formal processes by supporting staff dealing with conflict early and informally.^{Footnote 5}

The program evaluation found evidence that workplace conflict continues to exist at the Canadian Grain Commission. Responses from the 2020 staff survey on ICMS indicate that overall, 70% of respondents have experienced conflict in the workplace at some point during their time with the Canadian Grain Commission. Of those who encountered conflict, almost 22% of respondents reported experiencing discrimination or harassment during their time with the organization. A similar 21% of permanent staff responding to the 2018 Guarding Minds at Work survey reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work. Almost 29% of respondents to the Guarding Minds at Work survey reported serious concerns with civility and respect in the workplace.^{Footnote 6}

Overall, respondents to the employee survey on ICMS identified these main sources of conflict:

• Almost 65% experienced conflict with their immediate coworkers
• 34% experienced conflict with coworkers outside their team
• Approximately 18% experienced conflict with their supervisor
• Approximately 26% experienced conflict with their manager
• 9% of respondents indicated they had experienced conflict with external parties

Supporting data from the Public Service Employee Survey indicates that Canadian Grain Commission employees continue to experience stress at work. These stress factors can contribute to conflict in the workplace. This trend has continued and remains relatively consistent based on 2017 to 2020 survey data. There is no evidence that these stress factors are decreasing over time. This is consistent with trends across the federal public service over the same period and supports the continued relevance of the ICMS.

Figure 2: Factors influencing stress at work for Canadian Grain Commission employees

*Source: Public Service Employee Survey, Canadian Grain Commission, 2017 and 2020

In addition to evidence of conflict in the workplace, the evaluation found significant evidence that the Informal Conflict Management System continues to be used. Peer supporter logs were reviewed and showed consistent usage since program launch. Key informant interviews indicated that the log is consistently underutilized. The majority of peer supporters self reported during key informant interviews that they have not consistently entered all peer support interactions into the log. An analysis of this log would tend to underestimate actual usage.

Peer supporters themselves consistently felt there was a continued need for the program and that its current utilization was high. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being no need at all and 5 being a high need, peer supporters reported an average response of 4.6. When asked this same question, program partners reported an average level of continued need of just over 4.0 on the “need” scale.

During key informant interviews, peer supporters were asked to self-report how much time they spent on the program each month. On average, time spent ranged from 2 to 20 hours per month. A small number of peer supporter respondents indicated they had not been accessed as a peer supporter or were not comfortable estimating time spent. During a typical month, a total of 141.5 hours were spent providing peer support for an average of 6.4 hours per month per peer supporter.

In addition, the Canadian Grain Commission has demonstrated its commitment to the program and has indicated that resolving conflict in the workplace is a priority in the following ways:

• Continued informal conflict training and regular meetings for ICMS program
• Continued promotion of the ICMS on the Canadian Grain Commission’s internal staff website
• Including the ICMS as a key part of the onboarding process for new staff
• Identifying linkages with the ICMS in the Canadian Grain Commission’s Mental Health Strategy

Responses to the employee survey on ICMS also confirmed that the program continues to be accessed by Canadian Grain Commission staff seeking support in resolving workplace conflicts. Approximately 38% of staff use peer supporters. Thirty-three percent have participated in a team agreement or team building session led by the ICMS team. An additional 14% of staff participated in a team agreement or team building session with an external service provider. Less than 20% of Canadian Grain Commission staff reported participating in a team facilitated discussion led by the ICMS team.

Survey respondents were also asked if they felt the need for the program had changed over time.

• Approximately 44% of all respondents expressed a continued need for the program
• 20% felt that need has increased over time
• 12% or respondents indicated that need has remained the same

Interestingly, 12% felt that the need has evolved over time, suggesting a review of current needs objectives is required.

Similarly, peer supporters interviewed noted that demand for their services increased during times of change and due to environmental stresses. Past workforce restructuring, years of drought, COVID-19 and post COVID-19 return-to-work adjustment periods were all listed as environmental stressors by the peer supporters interviewed. General times of uncertainty also tended to lead to higher demand for peer support. These past experiences may indicate that the need for program services could increase during return to work or remote work changes.

Complementarity and overlap with similar programs and initiatives

The majority of key informants felt that the ICMS does not duplicate other programs or initiatives. Informants were not aware of other programs or systems at the organization that could provide the same service provided by the ICMS.

Peer supporters interviewed did, however, feel that there was some synergy and complementarity between the ICMS and various committees and program partners, both for increasing program awareness and service delivery. Peer supporters felt that more could be done by the ICMS program management to reach out to these partners to collaborate.

Program partners interviewed, including Labour Relations, Occupational Health and Safety Services, and union representatives consistently expressed positive views of and experiences with the program. It was noted that the ICMS team sometimes refers staff to EFAP or other program partners and vice versa, thus complementing each other rather than overlapping.

Alignment with federal government priorities

The ICMS is a federally mandated program that aligns with the Government of Canada’s priorities to address conflict in the workplace.

Since 2005, under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, all Deputy Heads are mandated to establish an informal conflict management system that is accessible to all employees. The Canadian Grain Commission adheres to Section 207 of the act.

The evaluator found further evidence that this remains a federal government priority. In August 2018, the Clerk of the Privy Council released the Safe Workspaces: Starting a Dialogue and Taking Action on Harassment in the Public Service report and action plan. This document supports the need for a consistent approach to informal conflict management.^{Footnote 7}

The ICMS also supports the Government of Canada’s public service renewal initiative that commenced in September 2013^{Footnote 8}. Over the past few years, the Federal Public Service and the Canadian Grain Commission have committed to modernization and enhancing performance.^{Footnote 9} The implementation of an informal conflict management system is just one example of the organization’s commitment to modernize and support its employees. The goal of an ICMS is to create a healthy work environment where employees feel they can address issues and challenges openly and constructively. This is especially important during times of change.

There is also significant evidence that the Canadian Grain Commission’s ICMS aligns with department priorities. The Canadian Grain Commission’s 2022-2023 and beyond Strategic Plan^{Footnote 10} Infographic identifies working to “Establish the Canadian Grain Commission as an employer of choice” as one of 4 main areas of focus. One initiative outlined in this area is “investing in our people to foster a diverse, adaptable and engaged workforce”.

In addition, the Canadian Grain Commission’s commitment to fostering a “healthy, safe and respectful workplace” was included in the 2021 – 2023 CGC-wide people plan.^{Footnote 11} Conflict management remains a clear priority in internal Human Resource Divisional roles and responsibilities and internal planning documents. ^{Footnote 12}

The Canadian Grain Commission’s internal staff website continues to provide information about and outline the benefits of the program and confirm that conflict resolution remains an organizational priority. This internal webpage outlines the benefits to the organization of using an ICMS:

“The ICMS benefits the Canadian Grain Commission by:

• building strong relationships
• improving morale
• improving communication
• increasing productivity
• providing both tangible and intangible savings
• providing a fair, flexible and effective way of handling employee disputes

In general, the interest-based approach to conflict resolution can provide more long-lasting results than other processes. The flexible and informal nature of an ICMS may also lead to faster resolution of a conflict.”^{Footnote 13}

The Canadian Grain Commission’s internal staff website also outlines Employment Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and “fostering a climate of inclusion” as key organizational values. These key values (outlined below) support and intersect with the goals of the ICMS.

“The CGC's employment equity, diversity and inclusion values are:

• respect
• honesty
• integrity
• commitment
• trust
• healthy communication”^{Footnote 14}

During key informant interviews, program partners consistently felt that the program aligns with government priorities.

Alignment with federal government roles and responsibilities

Based on a review of current legislation, the Canadian Grain Commission’s ICMS directly aligns with federal roles and responsibilities and is mandated under Section 207 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The act requires all federal departments and agencies across the public service of Canada establish an informal conflict management system. Section 207 of the act states:

• “Subject to any policies established by the employer or any directives issued by it, every Deputy Head in the core public administration must, in consultation with bargaining agents representing employees in the portion of the core public administration for which he or she is deputy head, establish an informal conflict management system and inform the employees in that portion of its availability.”

The federal government’s role in conflict management is also supported by the following documents:

• A guide to the key elements of an ICMS in the core public administration
• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Policy on People Management
• Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations

In January 2021, the Directive on the Prevention and Resolution of Workplace Harassment came into force. The Canadian Grain Commission’s ICMS aligns with the main objectives of this directive, which include the prevention of workplace harassment and violence by providing a “…healthy, safe and respectful workplace that is free from all forms of harassment and violence,” and addressing workplace harassment and violence with “...an emphasis on informal early resolution.”

During key informant interviews, program partners consistently felt that the program aligns with government priorities.

Performance

This program evaluation assessed the performance of the Canadian Grain Commission’s ICMS and the extent to which it achieves its intended outcomes. The assessment relies on a review of key documents, new and existing staff survey data, and interviews with key informants.

Immediate outcome: Increased staff awareness of the informal conflict management system at the Canadian Grain Commission

Currently, information about the ICMS is included as part of the Canadian Grain Commission’s onboarding process for new employees. All new employees are provided with information about the program and have the opportunity to ask questions and/or speak with a peer supporter. Approximately 59% of respondents to the employee survey on ICMS (who joined the organization after the program was launched in 2007) indicated that they received information about the ICMS and peer support services during their new employee orientation. After this entry point, the evaluator found no process for consistent follow-up or reinforcement of program awareness. Of the remainder of respondents who did not learn about the program during their new employee orientation, the most common sources of program information included their manager, Human Resources, or a coworker.

The 2007 communications plan for the Canadian Grain Commission’s ICMS was reviewed and contains a detailed list of communications activities with timelines. Activities included employee engagement events and contests, StaffNet reminders, brochures, talking points, promotional items and events. The program does not currently have a communications plan in place.

A review of past surveys provided further insight into awareness levels of the ICMS at the Canadian Grain Commission. The Canadian Grain Commission’s 2019 Employee Survey Working Group work final report contained findings related to conflict resolution. Although tools and resources to support conflict and issue resolution are available to all employees, findings showed that not all employees understood the options and processes available to them nor did they know where to go to seek support.

Peer supporters and program partners consistently indicated they felt the biggest factor impacting the future success of the program was increased awareness. They felt that awareness levels have dropped over time and there has been a reduced focus on program awareness.

Similarly, the majority of program partners interviewed felt program awareness levels were low and that additional steps were needed to promote the program to staff.

Suggestions to improve awareness levels were consistent from these two groups and include an updated awareness campaign, increased visibility, and collaboration with other internal groups such as the following:

• The Mental Health Awareness Team
• Values and Ethics
• National Employment Equity and Diversity Committee
• Internal Human Resources partners such as Labour Relations and Occupational Health and Safety

Immediate outcome: Increased staff awareness of tools and ways to manage conflict at the Canadian Grain Commission

Conflict management training courses, the ICMS communications plan (2007), peer supporter interactions, and engagement with the program manager have built awareness of tools and ways to manage conflict at the Canadian Grain Commission in the past.

The organization has previously invested in training on conflict management skills. The two main course offerings when the program was launched were Communications and Conflict Resolution in the Workplace, offered to employees, and Certificate in Collaborative Management, for managers and supervisors. Approximately 46% of staff responding to the employee survey on ICMS reported attending conflict management training sessions of some kind. Results from the 2008 internal ICMS program evaluation indicate that 96% of Communications and Conflict Resolution in the Workplace participants would recommend the course to a fellow employee.

The Employee Survey Working Group reported in 2019 that these course offerings to staff have not been expanded and have declined over time with staff reporting, at that time, difficulty accessing these courses. A review of program meeting minutes indicates that in 2010, National Union-Management Consultation Committee recommended more training for managers and resources to use the ICMS. These courses are currently not offered.

Immediate outcome: Increased engagement of service delivery partners at the Canadian Grain Commission

Program staff identified the following groups as partners or potential partners in service delivery or program awareness.

• Internal partners within Human Resources: Labour Relations, Occupational Health and Safety Services, and onboarding
• Internal partners within the organization: Corporate Information Services (Communications), Managers and Executive Management Committee
• Canadian Grain Commission committees: Mental Health Awareness Team, National Employment Equity and Diversity Committee, and Values and Ethics
• External Partners: Unions (CAPE, ACFO, PIPSC and PSAC), NUMCC, EFAP, the Federal ICMS Network and the ICMS Community of Practice

All unions were invited to participate during program design, but not all engaged. The program manager meets regularly with the union representatives who have remained engaged.

When asked during key informant interviews, peer supporters and program partners were not consistently aware of this comprehensive list of program partners. Key informants overall felt that the program had not developed strong working relationships with all of their partners.

Intermediate outcome: Preventing conflict and reducing use of formal conflict management services

Due to the confidential and anonymous nature of the program and a lack of pre- and post-program comparison, the evaluator was unable to find direct evidence that the program has achieved this outcome. The following supporting evidence was reviewed.

The program evaluation found evidence that workplace conflict continues to exist at the Canadian Grain Commission, that the program is used, and that users have high levels of satisfaction with the services and see the benefits of resolving conflict early. In addition, grievance levels have declined in recent years. There is no direct evidence of causation.

Usage rates reported in the employee survey on ICMS indicate that the program is used at the Canadian Grain Commission. Figure 3 shows the percentage of survey respondents who reported using the program, by service.

Figure 3: Informal Conflict Management System survey respondent utilization by service

*Source: Employee survey on ICMS

Note: Survey responses related to Employee and Family Assistance Program was included for comparison purposes.

Amongst survey respondents, satisfaction levels with these services were high as reported by service in Figure 4. Of people who used the service, those who indicated a 3, 4, or 5 on the satisfaction scale (where 1 = not satisfied, 2 = slightly satisfied, 3 = moderately satisfied, 4 = satisfied 5 = very satisfied) were included in the category of “satisfied” with the program. Figure 4 indicates the percentage of survey respondents who responded 3, 4, or 5.

Figure 4: Client satisfaction with the ICMS, by service

*Source: Employee survey on ICMS

Note: Employee and Family Assistance Program was included for comparison purposes.

In addition, according to the staff survey over 90% or respondents see the benefit to resolving conflict early, prior to a formal process, indicating an openness to accessing the program when needed. There is some variation between divisions, but this metric remains high across all divisions.

A key goal of the ICMS is to facilitate resolution of conflict early before it reaches the stage of a formal grievance process. The grievance process involves submitting a grievance to the employee’s immediate supervisor and may progress to several steps and potentially adjudication or be resolved, dismissed or withdrawn at each stage. As part of this evaluation, grievance data from 1998 to 2021 was reviewed. All data was provided by Labour Relations and taken from the PeopleSoft system.

The evaluator found no way to establish a linkage between ICMS impacts and the quantity of grievances filed. There was no clear pattern pre- or post-program, and grievances have many other underlying causes beyond conflict in the workplace. There was no mechanism to quantify whether the number of grievances would have been higher without the program. While this data cannot confirm that the program has prevented or reduced formal processes, it does show a general decline in grievances in recent years.

Intermediate outcome: Increased levels of conflict management skills amongst staff, managers, and teams

While there is no pre- and post-program data available to indicate how the program has impacted the organization’s overall level of conflict management skills, the employee survey on ICMS contained some basic questions regarding conflict resolution skills and knowledge. These questions were developed by the program manager to gauge the level of conflict competence within the organization. The majority of survey respondents demonstrated a strong understanding of communication and conflict resolution skills, indicating a high level of competence regarding conflict.

This evaluation found significant evidence of manager/supervisor conflict management skills and overall support for the program. Areas for improvement were identified.

The 2019 Employee Survey Working Group reported that at that time, staff were dissatisfied with how conflict was resolved within the organization. Findings indicated that manager buy-in and additional training for managers was needed. The report also identified that managers were overwhelmed with work and reported a lack of support from Human Resources in following up and dealing with conflict.

The employee survey on ICMS found that just over one-third or 37% of all survey respondents would typically first approach their manager or supervisor for help with a conflict. In addition, approximately 70% of survey respondents felt that the ICMS was supported by their immediate supervisor/manager and by senior management.^{Footnote 15} When broken down further, the responses differed between managers and employees, with managers having a higher satisfaction rate than employees.

In addition, 78% of respondents to the employee survey on ICMS felt that their manager dealt effectively with conflict overall. These responses differ from the Employee Survey Working Group findings that in some areas managers were not dealing with conflict effectively. This may indicate an improvement over time or that there remain some pockets of the organization that could benefit from additional training for managers. That there was a difference between those who identified as managers/supervisors and those who identified themselves as employees. Managers/supervisors showed a higher positive response rate to this question.

Key informants also reported a need for manager-specific informal conflict management training so that peer supporter, staff and managers all have similar approach to conflict resolution. While 70% of survey respondents felt that the program was supported by both managers and senior management, some peer supporters felt that increased support from managers and senior management was needed and suggested conflict management training for managers.

Long-term outcome: A conflict-competent organization and healthy, respectful workplace that supports the delivery of the Canadian Grain Commission’s mandate

Based on evidence collected during this program evaluation, the ICMS has made significant progress towards achieving this long-term outcome. There remain opportunities to improve the program.

Conflict is normal and a part of most workplaces. This evaluation found evidence that conflict continues to exist at the Canadian Grain Commission as with most organizations. Evidence was also found that the ICMS continues to be utilized by staff and has high reported satisfaction rates from its users. In addition, 54% of respondents to the employee survey on ICMS reported being open to using these services in the future.

When asked how confident they were that the Canadian Grain Commission has met the long-term outcome of achieving a conflict-competent organization and healthy, respectful workplace that supports the delivery of the organization’s mandate, key informants felt overall that the program had “somewhat” met this outcome. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not confident and 5 being completely confident, program partners reported an average response of 3.3. When asked this same question, peer supporters reported a slightly higher average level of continued need of just over 3.7 on the same scale.

The evaluation has provided key findings and recommendations for program improvement which will assist the program in reaching this goal.

Potential for unintended outcomes

Any program can have unintended outcomes that are either positive or negative. During key informant interviews with peer supporters, some observed unintended positive outcomes from the ICMS. Peer supporters found the skills learned as a peer supporter and networking with other peer supporters provided benefits in the workplace and were also transferrable to other areas of their life.

This evaluation found no evidence of unintended negative outcomes. There was initially some concern that the program could encourage managers to avoid dealing with conflict by simply sending staff to the ICMS rather than effectively managing conflict within their unit. However, evidence collected during the evaluation indicates that staff overall felt that conflict was addressed by their managers. The ICMS remains available for the approximately 20% of respondents to the employee survey on ICMS who did not feel their manager dealt effectively with conflict.

Efficiency

Program efficiency

Due to the confidential nature of the program and lack of direct evidence, the evaluator was not able to track program efficiency over time using an input to output approach. Information collected from document review, key informant interviews, staff surveys and learnings from other organizations was used to assess efficiency.

Service delivery model

Throughout the federal public service, different approaches to service delivery have evolved. Three main ICMS service delivery models were found during this evaluation.

Large departments have typically hired full-time equivalent ICMS staff to deliver this service in-house. This role is typically filled by AS-04, AS-05, PE-04 and PE-05 positions at other organizations.

Some smaller departments have entered into a memorandum of understanding with another, often larger, department to provide ICMS services and meet their ICMS requirements. Other small departments have provided the required ICMS services by outsourcing to external service providers. At the time of this evaluation, the evaluator found evidence that ICMS services were provided to smaller departments via memorandums of understanding with Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Employment and Social Development Canada, Health Canada Specialized Services and potentially other departments. At the time of evaluation, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Informal Conflict Management Services team offered services to 15 federal government departments and agencies. This represents snapshot at the time of evaluation and this number may change over time.

The Canadian Grain Commission’s ICMS services are delivered using a somewhat unique peer supporter model not found else where in the federal public service. The organization has a position identified as the Senior ICMS Officer, who leads the program. This full-time equivalent spends a portion of their time on the ICMS in addition to leading and supporting other programs. They have selected and trained a team of volunteer peer supporters who provide program services in addition to their regular job duties.

At the time this evaluation was undertaken, the program evaluator was not aware of any other government department who has implemented a peer support service delivery model similar to the Canadian Grain Commission’s. In addition, at the time this evaluation was undertaken, information gained from the Federal ICMS network indicated that they were unaware of any federal government departments without some type of Informal Conflict Management System in place.^{Footnote 16}

Key informant interviews with other department ICMS practitioners indicated support for the Canadian Grain Commission’s model as an appealing alternative to the full-time equivalents and memorandum of understanding approaches, citing the following reasons:

• There is a current move away from the memorandum of understanding approach, which has made it increasingly difficult for small departments to arrange this type of agreement
• The peer supporter model can deliver services at a lower cost
• The peer supporter model is more community based, providing the option of accessing a peer supporter with knowledge of the client’s department, environment and situation
• Peer supporters may be more approachable as equals and this model may instill a higher level of trust in the ICMS as a whole

Program resource adequacy

There have been 3 different program managers in the Senior ICMS Officer role since 2007. Interviews with program staff indicate that the program manager’s availability to focus on the program and resources have decreased over time, due in part to operational needs, COVID-19 related changes, and employee turnover. Over the scope of the evaluation period, time allocated to activities conducted under the program have not been consistently tracked over the period. The current program manager at time of the evaluation has estimated that the program manager hours have reduced from 75% of total working hours in 2006 to 20% currently.^{Footnote 17} This is consistent with comments from key informant interviews and the employee survey on ICMS. Respondents indicated the program has become less of a priority over time and would benefit from revitalization and renewed focus. The same view was expressed in the Employee Survey Working Group’s findings on conflict resolution in 2019.

While the peer support log shows consistent program usage over time, peer supporters indicated that the log is used only sometimes and that it under reports actual usage. There is no consistent reliable source of data on the amount of time spent by peer supporters since program launch. During key informant interviews, however, peer supporters were asked to self-report their current time spent on the program. For the majority of peer supporters who felt confident in providing an estimate, time spent ranged from 2 hours per month on average to 20 hours per month on average. A small number of respondents indicated they had not been accessed as a peer supporter or were not comfortable estimating their time spent.

Based on peer supporter responses, during a typical month a total of 141.5 total hours are spent providing peer support. This represents a snapshot average of 5.6 hours per month per peer supporter. The original intention of the program was that peer supporters spend approximately 3 hours per month. This may suggest the need for additional peer supporters and for clarity and communication on time expectation for peer supporters.

Many peer supporters reported providing support primarily within their own area or division. An analysis of peer supporter demographics at the time of this program evaluation as well as comments from the ICMS staff survey and key informant interviews indicates some gaps or areas of concern:

• Two-thirds of peer supporters felt there were not enough peer supporters overall
• There were only 3 peer supporters able to offer support in both official languages; the remainder offer in English only
• 57% of peer supporters are managers/supervisors (while Peoplesoft data indicates that only 24% of the Canadian Grain Commission are managers or supervisors); managers and supervisors may be over-represented within the peer supporter group
• 63% of peer supporters have been with the organization for more than 15 years; the evaluator found no record of intake since 2009 and there are few peer supporters who are new to the organization and in junior roles (intake was planned in 2017 but not completed)
• 70% of peer supporters are in Industry Services (while Peoplesoft data indicates that 45% of staff work within this Division); there were no peer supporters within Innovation and Strategy (8% of the organization’s population) or Information Management and Technology Services (10% of the organization’s population)
• Key informants noted that there is not always a good resource option for managers seeking “peer support” and no peer supporters at the Executive level
• That are no peer supporters in Hamilton
• Approximately half of peer supporters felt that they faced obstacles in their role, including
  • losing connection with staff during remote work
  • a noted drop in priority of the program
  • a small number of peer supporters face lack of support to take peer support calls during work hours (there is no expectation from the program that peer supporters be available outside of work hours)
• Need for consistent tracking of key program metrics
• Need to collect anonymous client feedback
• Concerns about trust privacy and confidentiality

Program oversight

The 2019 Employee Survey Working Group recommended an ICMS program evaluation to increase accountability and quality assurance of the program.

The peer supporter selection process is a key component that drives the success of the peer support component of the ICMS. During key informant interviews, both peer supporters and program partners noted the importance of vetting peer supporters and selecting the right individuals for this role. In the past, new peer supporters were invited to apply during intake periods. The program manager conducted interviews were conducted to select candidates. While the program has continued to operate, there has been no new intake of peer supporters since 2009 and no documented consistent intake procedures or documents were found.

In addition, the evaluator found no evidence of a current consistent, formal process for reviewing the performance of peer supporters. In the past, the program manager would conduct an annual review and intervene when necessary. The Canadian Grain Commission is unique is this regard as, at government departments where support is provided by full-time equivalents, performance is handled within the Public Service Performance Management system.

The evaluator also found no direct evidence of a formal mechanism for clients to provide feedback. Peer supporters reported receiving feedback from clients who are happy with their peer supporter interaction. Other than direct feedback from clients, peer supporters reported having no means to gauge whether they were performing well or not. Peer supporters reported feeling that this is important and rewarding work and that there is a need for this service, but that they would like more consistent feedback.

Comments collected from the employee survey on ICMS, key informant interviews, and 2019 Employee Survey Working Group findings identified a small number of incidences where clients were unhappy with the program or a specific peer supporter interaction or had confidentiality concerns. Confidentiality is an important factor that influences participants’ trust and confidence in the integrity of the system.

Interviews with representatives from other ICMS programs within the federal public service identified accepted practices for collecting feedback anonymously from clients of the peer support program. Feedback was collected via online anonymous satisfaction surveys provided directly to clients by their peer supporter a few months after an interaction. In addition, links on internal staff websites or in peer supporter signature blocks provide a means for any client to submit feedback when they are ready.

Reporting structure

The current program manager reports to the Executive Director, Human Resources. A review of other departments’ reporting structure indicates that this is not unusual but not ideal. Having Labour Relations and ICMS within the same reporting structure may give the appearance of a lack of independence and may decrease trust in confidentiality (with confidentiality being a key factor underlying the success of an ICMS).

Other federal government departments use reporting structures that are not always feasible for a small department. Other ICMS program managers reported to the Ombudsperson, to Human Resources (via a different arm than Labour Relations), or to the Deputy Head. The Canadian Grain Commission’s October 2006 Informal Conflict Management Policy was reviewed.^{Footnote 18} The policy states that the Senior ICMS Officer report directly to the Deputy Head. Based on a review of program documents and steering committee minutes, the program manager originally reported to the Chief Operating Officer during the development and implementing phase.^{Footnote 19}

Conclusion

Overall, there is evidence to support the continued need for the Informal Conflict Management System to support employees and managers experiencing workplace conflict. There was no evidence of duplication by another comparable program that can provide the same level of consistency, quality, anonymity and objectivity. Overall, program partners were supportive of the program. The Informal Conflict Management System program is aligned with government priorities and with federal government roles and responsibilities.

Available data was not sufficient to confirm that the program has achieved the goal of preventing and reducing use of formal conflict management services. Based on supporting evidence, the ICMS program has made progress towards achieving this goal.

The evaluation found high reported levels of satisfaction overall with how managers deal with conflict and high perceived levels of manager support for the ICMS program. Some staff choose to reach out to peer supporters when dealing with conflict, but a higher percentage choose to reach out to their manager or another source. Having options available for all staff is valuable.

There was no evidence that the program has fully achieved the long-term outcome of creating a conflict-competent organization. Nine recommendations for program improvement in the areas of performance (3) and efficiency (6) are included within this evaluation, which require a Management Action Plan response. Details of findings and recommendations and management action plan responses can be found in Appendix 1.

Appendix 1: Findings, recommendations and management action plans

The table below summarizes findings and recommendations identified during the program evaluation that require management action plans. Similar recommendations (regarding training plan and collaboration with internal committees and program partners) have been combined to allow for overall MAP response to more than one recommendation. ***

Appendix 2: Methodology

Program information review

• Staffing information
• Discussions with the program manager
• Attendance at peer supporters’ sessions and training sessions
• Review of ICMS performance measures and previous evaluation

Documents review

The documents reviewed covered relevant legislation and guidance documents:

• Section 207 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (2003)
• Directive for ICMS (draft 2007, never implemented)
• Section 6.1.2 of the revised Policy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution (2012)
• Clerk of Privy Council Safe Workspaces: Starting a Dialogue and Taking Action on Harassment in the Public Service report and action plan (2018)
• Bill C-65 updates to Part II of the Canada Labour Code (2021)
• Publicly available Canadian Grain Commission mandate letters from the period in scope (2018, 2022)

Over 65 documents, reports and articles were reviewed during the evaluation. Internal Canadian Grain Commission documents were reviewed, including the following:

• Departmental Plan and Departmental Results Framework
• Strategic Planning Infographic 2022-2023
• Human Resources planning documents
• Program documents, evaluations, code of conduct, etc.

Documents related to the Federal ICMS network reviewed and included:

• Legal foundations of informal conflict management systems
• Significance of informal conflict management systems in the federal public service
• ICMS Network Terms of Reference, 2003

All documents reviewed for this evaluation are listed in Appendix 3.

Review of existing data

Public Service Employee Survey data was reviewed for the years 2008 to 2020. Relevant questions that were asked consistently over the period were used to evaluate trends.

In 2018, Ipsos conducted a Guarding Minds at Work public opinion survey on psychosocial risks in Canadian workplaces across a nationally representative sample of industries and geographical regions. A total of 192 permanent Canadian Grain Commission employees responded to the survey. A summary report of survey results was reviewed for this program evaluation.

The Canadian Grain Commission’s 2019 Employee Survey Working Group was formed to review employee survey results and provide recommendations to foster a healthy, positive and productive working environment for all Canadian Grain Commission employees. In addition to reviewing survey data, the group conducted small-group regional information gathering session with employees, groups and committees to gather additional insight and feedback. The evaluation reviewed a summary of specific conflict resolution recommendations produced by this group.

In 2020, the Canadian Grain Commission conducted a COVID-19 survey to assess how employees were doing during the pandemic. Specifically, the survey was designed to ask employees on how they were doing, what challenges they faced due to the pandemic, and how the organization could continue to support employees through the pandemic. The survey was reviewed for this evaluation and found to have limited applicability.

Canadian Grain Commission grievance data from 1998 to 2020 was reviewed.

Key informant interviews

Key informant interviews were conducted with relevant groups to capture a wide range of views and opinions regarding the program.

• Current and former peer supporters and program staff
• Program partners including union representatives, Labour Relations, and Occupational Health and Safety Services
• ICMS practitioners from other organizations selected by convenience from program manger contacts at the ICMS Winnipeg Network, as well as a sub-set of Canadian Grain Commission-comparable organizations

Online video interviews with key informants consisted of both open-ended and scale questions. The interview questions were designed to gather key informant views on relevance and program performance. In total, 36 key informants were interviewed between January and June 2022.

Staff survey on ICMS

A survey of all Canadian Grain Commission employees and managers was conducted between June 7 and June 21, 2022. The survey was designed to collect employee sentiments about the Canadian Grain Commission’s Informal Conflict Management System. It was sent to all employees and managers via email on June 7. Out of approximately 483 employees at the Canadian Grain Commission, 147 submitted complete responses. This reflects an organizational response rate of approximately 30%. Responses were collected, analyzed and summarized for reporting.

Responses were also categorized by demographic to provide more context and detail. The survey asked respondents to provide basic demographic data such as gender, which division they work in, and if they are a manager or supervisor. A large proportion of survey responses, 39%, were submitted by managers and supervisors. In comparison, only 24% of employees at the Canadian Grain Commission are managers or supervisors. Demographic analysis is vital to show trends in survey response data to inform recommendations made in this report.

Constraints and limitations

The following methodological constraints and limitations were identified during the evaluation. Steps taken to mitigate their impacts are included.

• Constraint: Program resources and costs have not been fully tracked for this program.
• Mitigation: The current acting program manager provided a high-level budget estimate for the period in scope.

• Constraint: Supporting data from the Public Service Employee Survey had limited applicability over the scoping period due to inconsistency in survey questions over time.
• Mitigation: This source was used as supporting data only, with limited applicability.

• Constraint: Potential for self-selection bias in the employee survey. Due to self-selection bias in the survey of Canadian Grain Commission employees, the demographic characteristics of the survey responses could potentially be an inaccurate reflection of the organization’s population.

*Note: Some percentages may not total to 100% due to rounding errors or categories not mutually exclusive.

CGC: Canadian Grain Commission

Mitigation: The demographic comparison table above compares the demographics of the survey with the overall Canadian Grain Commission profile (based on data from PeopleSoft). The survey demographics differ from the overall Canadian Grain Commission employee demographics:

• New employees (1 to 4 years of service) may be slightly over-represented while employees who have been with the Canadian Grain Commission for greater than 25 years may be slightly under-represented
• Managers/supervisors are over-represented while employees are under-represented
• The Industry Services division was significantly under-represented
• Eastern and Western Regions may be under-represented with a high number of “prefer not to say” responses
• Male respondents may be under-represented in the survey (this is difficult to confirm due to a high number of “prefer not to answer” responses)
• In terms of vulnerable populations, Indigenous employees were under-represented and visible minority groups were significantly under-represented; females were significantly over-represented as a vulnerable population

Constraint: Incomplete data on program usage. Due to the confidential nature of the program, limited data was available regarding peer supporter interactions. During key informant interviews it was also determined that the confidential log used by peer supporters is consistently underutilized. The log likely under-estimates the actual volume of peer supporter interactions. Other program activities were not consistently logged over the evaluation scoping period.

Mitigation: Other information sources were used to support estimates of peer supporter resources used under the program. Recommendations to address this are included in the evaluation report.