REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada ". yP AND DIGNITY rOR All I A - l A _ fc_ 1 '.iLCUMUL, DION" I fc". Lt. u u w ~ N>>e. ti H t. C 1 njjb 2012 Ethical Climate Survey Results & Analysis REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Forward Dear Colleagues , Although my father was a wise man in many respects, I did not always follow his advice. Notably, he advised me against working in corrections. His concern was that I would be working regularly with people who he referred to as among the most damaged persons in Canadian society. In retrospect I admire him as one of those citizens who had a genuine appreciation for the difficult work we do on behalf of all Canadians. " " How we do this difficult work is of importance on two counts. First, as we work together we demonstrate to offenders what it means to be a Canadian citizen that they would wish to emulate. Second the manner in which we work together in keeping with our values lays the foundation for the quality of our working lives. As our Commissioner has stated, "CSC is a people business, and how we work with others is central to our success." His authorization and support for the ethical climate survey has resulted in a detailed picture of how we work together in , order to continue to learn about what it means for us to live our values. While many findings may prompt important discussion, reflection and personal change the Commissioner has approved our initial focus as an organization in relation to three areas: , 1) Living Shared Values. The concept of shared values is central to our new Values Statement This means that we all aspire to live the same values. However there is a gap between how we perceive our own ethical . , conduct and that of others. This leads us to discussions of what each of our organizational values mean to us and how we work to express these values each and every day. Through such discussions we inevitably come to appreciate that there are many of us working hard to do the right thing but that ongoing communication about our intentions and opportunities for careful feedback in relation to our actions is key! , , 2) Fairness. The importance of fairness as a central value requires ongoing discussion not only in relation to day to day decisions, but at the level of organizational practises. To make progress in this area will in all likelihood require learning on the part of all of us. However if we can make progress in the practise of fairness, the quality of our organizational life will improve. , , 3) Leadership and Citizenship Behaviours. You will note the focus on visible leadership and citizenship behaviours (e.g. collaborative gestures and teamwork which are central to the quality of organizational life) within the survey. Of course leadership and teamwork are central to what is required in the difficult work we do. Both are exemplified as we take initiative and as we live our values. The survey emphasizes important elements in the practise of ethical leadership as well as citizenship behaviours Let,s use these elements to identify and learn about what we do well and to build upon these practises. , . In summary, we will be working to better understand each other as we live our values to encourage more discussions on the meaning of fairness and how we can achieve it in the workplace and to support each other s effectiveness as leaders and as colleagues in the workplace. , ' , Timothy Leis Director General Values, Integrity & Conflict Resolution 2 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Table of Contents Forward.2 Executive Summary.5 1 Introduction.11 . 2 . Methodology.11 2 1 Survey development.11 2 2 Data gathering.12 2 3 Data analysis.13 . . . . . 3 . . Survey sample.14 4 Results.15 . 4 1 Overall ethical climate.15 . . 42 . . 43 . . 44 . . 45 . . 46 . . Organizational citizenship behaviours.17 Organizational citizenship behaviours - self-assessment.19 Senior leadership.22 Supervisory leadership.24 Supervisor self-assessment.26 4 7 Awareness of values.28 . . 4 8 Awareness of recourse mechanisms.28 . . 4 9 Treatment of offenders.31 . 4 . 10. Fairness of organizational processes.32 11. Unhealthy work environment.35 4 11.1. Abuse of power.35 . 4 . . 4 11.2. Discrimination.37 . 4 11.3. Harassment.41 . 4 12. Relationships among various survey items.52 4 12.1. Impact of demographic differences.52 4 12.2. Impact of values and ethics awareness sessions.52 4 12.3. Correlations among the ethical climate aspects.53 4 12.4. Ability of survey themes to predict the perceptions of ethical climate.54 . . . . . 5 . Discussion of findings and their implications.55 5 1 Perception of the overall ethical climate in the organziation.56 5 2 Organizational citizenship behaviours.57 5 3 Ethicality of senior leadership.58 5 4 Ethicality of supervisory leadership.60 . . . . . . . . 5 5 Awareness of values and recourse mechanisms.61 . . 5 6 Treatment of offenders.62 . . 57 . . 58 . . 59 . . Fairness of organizational processes.63 Unhealthy work environments.64 Diversity within the CSC community.66 3 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada List of Acronyms and Abbreviations used in the Report.67 List of Figures and Tables.68 References.70 Annex A. Survey development procedure.73 Annex B. Data analysis.75 Annex C. Final survey structure.78 Annex D. Limitations of the study.83 4 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Executive Summary Correctional Service of Canada s (CSC) second Ethical Climate Survey (ECS) was administered over six weeks in February and March 2012, and collected 2,237 responses. The sample is sufficiently balanced to generalize the results to the whole department. The survey was a substantial upgrade of the initial ECS instrument administered in 2007/08. ' The survey is intended to sensitize all CSC staff to the ongoing importance of our personal and organizational values and how we live them on a day-to-day basis. Aside from its direct relevance to the quality of the ethical environment within the organization, the survey offers a rare and important glimpse into how CSC staff evaluate their own behaviours as well as those of others, and how this knowledge can serve to improve the quality of communication and organizational life. This second-generation survey had five major purposes: 1 4 To assess perceptions of the ethical climate within the department; To identify positive ethical climate aspects that should be maintained and areas for improvement; To identify areas of knowledge and behaviours that could be addressed at Values and Ethics workshops; To test the upgraded survey in the field and establish its reliability and validity; 5 To establish the baseline ethical climate to be used as a benchmark for future assessments. . 2 . 3 . . . In this survey, "ethical climate" is defined as a product of shared beliefs and behavioural norms which are guided by principles of right conduct and supported by well-aligned formal and informal organizational systems such as leadership rules, policies, values, code of conduct, rewards, staffing, training decision processes, communication, cultural norms and rituals. , , Survey upgrade This Ethical Climate Survey is a considerable improvement in its structure and psychometric qualities over the initial survey piloted between 2007 and 2009. New items were added to adequately represent the ethical climate a group of 108 employees was involved in refining these , items, and rigorous analytical procedures were applied to develop a new survey structure consisting of 11 sub-scales. An acceptable level of scale reliability and validity was reached . Survey results and implications The survey was administered online in English and French. Most items were measured on a 7- point Likert-type scale with 1 being "strongly disagree", 7 - "strongly agree", and 4 - "neither agree nor disagree". A higher score means a more positive perception The relationships among . various aspects of ethical climate were further explored using correlation and regression analysis . To have a deeper understanding of the impact of the ethical climate within CSC the themes were analyzed for several demographic groups: gender job type (i.e., supervisory or not), official language, shift work age, length of service within CSC, and institutional security level. , , , The following graph summarizes the scores of all themes in the order of positive perceptions . 5 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Average score Organizational citizenship behaviours - self assessment Supervisor self-assessment Awareness of values Treatment of offenders Organizational citizenship behaviours Ethicality of supervisory leadership Awareness of recourse mechanisms OVERALL ETHICAL CLIMATE Ethicality of senior leadership Fairness of organizational processes The overall ethical climate as measured by respondents' impressions of ethical conduct behaviours and integrity was rated at 4.5. Respondents indicated that people in their workplace understood how to make ethical decisions (4.78), had a shared understanding of standards of conduct and expected behaviours (4.69), acted ethically in their daily practices (4.59) and recognized ethical issues and dilemmas when they arose (4.48). Respondents were less positive about their confidence in the integrity of their organization (4.41) and that there were sufficient measures in place to prevent breaches of ethical conduct (4.09). , The survey introduced the concept of organizational citizenship or workplace behaviours that employees are not specifically instructed to do yet they contribute to a healthy workplace. They involve employee interactions which are not formally rewarded yet they promote organizational effectiveness. Behaviours were rated differently depending on whether colleagues or respondents themselves were being assessed. Self-ratings in cthics performance were more positive than ratings of others, a finding which has provided useful practical insights in the context of organizational learning. Self-ratings and ratings of others has been used in CSC ethics workshops to increase self-awareness and knowledge of the challenges of living shared values , , . Overall, own behaviours were rated at 6.28 while assessment by peers was 5 0 Respondents felt most strongly that they offered innovative suggestions to improve the workplace (6 77), but these behaviours appeared not to be noticed by others to the same extent (5.11). Further respondents reported they did not abuse the rights of others (6.53) but ratings of others were not as positive (4.99). Of all the organizational citizenship behaviour variables, respondents rated their pride when representing the organization in public lowest (5.87) but in assessing their colleagues, this . . . , , , item was ranked higher on the list of all behaviours (4 95). Genuine concern and courtesy toward others was rated lower than other indices (6 11 for self and 4.52 for others). . . The CSC community positively rated their colleagues' respect of organizational property (5 4), helpfulness to colleagues (5.33) and supervisors (5.31) sharing relevant work-related information (5.23), delivering on promises (5.08), creating healthy workplaces (5.07) and making ethical . , 6 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada decisions (5.01). Respondents evaluated slightly less positively that their colleagues went out of the way to help new employees (4.94). Behaviours pertaining to consideration and sensitivity were rated lower: respondents were somewhat less likely to admit there was mutual respect among colleagues (4.59), and that colleagues considered the impact of their actions on others (4.55). In this survey, organizational leadership was viewed at two levels: those holding senior management positions and immediate supervisors. Senior leadership included corporate management (RHQ or NHQ personnel at an EX or EX-equivalent level) and site management (personnel at an EX or EX-equivalent level). Overall, ethicality of senior leadership was rated at 4.16 which means that on average, respondents were indecisive about their positive or negative views of leadership. The most positively perceived aspect was that senior leaders were holding staff accountable for their compliance with policies and procedures (4.52), but the perception of leaders themselves being held accountable was rated lower (4.36). In role modeling ethical behaviours site management (4.28) was seen slightly more positively than corporate management (4.08). Results indicate that staff felt leaders were not passing them essential information effectively (4.06) nor did they feel they could approach their leaders with ethical issues (4.07). Respondents saw considerable room for improvement in the way senior site and corporate leaders follow through on their commitments (4.12 and 4.13) and make fair decisions (4.13 and 4.14). , , It is in the hands of senior leadership to engage in and support the practise of fairness a cornerstone of the perceived ethical climate. To improve ethical climate effort needs to be devoted to the pragmatic and constructive design and implementation of fair policies and practices. Further, the behaviours of senior leaders and the observed or perceived outcomes of their decisions directly affect everyone's perceptions of ethicality of the entire organization. This is why the example senior leaders set for the whole organization is so important. Using direct communication channels (including advanced communication technologies) being more visible, soliciting bottom-up feedback, walking around and visiting as many sites as possible as regularly as possible, and exercising an "open door" policy will help leaders be and be seen to be positive , , , role models. CSC members saw their immediate supervisors as being somewhat more ethical (4.88) than senior management of their site or the whole department (4.16) and overall respondents were positive about their interactions with their supervisor. Supervisors treating their staff fairly and with respect was the most appreciated aspect (5.38) followed by the supervisors' role in the professional growth of their staff (5.22), being open to new ideas (5.05), caring about employees, well-being (5.04) following through on their commitments (5.03), and allowing employees to express opinions that do not necessarily coincide with their own (5 0). Providing a good example of ethical behaviour (4.99) and fostering teamwork (4.98) were also recognized Those working at headquarters and community offices were less critical of their supervisors than institutional staff , , , . . . On the other hand, supervisors, focus on how employees achieve results rather than the results themselves was the least positively rated aspect (4 52). Other supervisory actions that leave room for improvement are helping staff resolve work-related ethical problems (4 92), correcting their own mistakes (4.84) building trust (4.78), keeping staff informed of things that affect the organization (4.69) and taking action if unethical behaviours are observed (4.66). . . , , 7 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Similar to the evaluation of organizational citizenship, supervisors were asked to assess their own behaviours and were also evaluated by other employees. Overall, supervisor self-assessment was 6 22 compared to ratings by employees at 4.88 showing that supervisors believe they engage in ethical behaviours to a higher degree than their staff think they do. Supervisors reported that they were concerned about the well-being of their staff (6.44), but this item was ranked lower by staff (5.04). Supervisors reported they took corrective action if they had made a mistake (6.39), but ratings by staff were not as positive (4.84). While supervisors stated they fostered teamwork (6.35), the ranking by employees was lower (4.98). Similarly, supervisors rated more positively (6.05) that they reinforced how employees achieve results, compared with the ratings by employees (4.52). . Awareness of values: respondents were considerably more aware and appreciative of CSC,s guiding values (5.84) and professional group values (5.78) than the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service (5.08). Although respondents were quite aware of values that should guide their actions they were less aware of the recourse mechanisms available to them if these values were violated (4.55). Least of all they knew where to report allegations of reprisal (4.13) while they felt more informed about their options when the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service (4.71) or CSC's Code of Conduct (4.63) were violated a wrongdoing had occurred within their organization (4.65), or they needed advice regarding ethical issues (4.6). Some groups were more aware of values than others and were also more informed about recourse mechanisms. The findings suggest that not only new hires, but also more experienced staff members need more effective training on values and recourse mechanisms. This does not necessarily imply more training but a more effective focus of current staff training. Also more attention should be devoted to shift workers, non-supervisory employees, and staff at institutions possibly tailoring training to their specific circumstances and , , , , , , needs. On average, the way offenders are treated was seen quite positively Rated at 5.24, this aspect of the CSC ethical climate was among the most favourable. Respondents believed that offenders were informed of recourse mechanisms available to them in case their rights were violated (5 73) and they were informed of decisions and changes affecting them (5 37). Respondents were somewhat less convinced that offenders were recognized for work well done (4 75). Supervisors were more likely than non-supervisors to believe that offenders were treated adequately and so did staff in community offices. Although still quite positively minded employees at headquarters . . . . , , were the least likely of all to feel that offenders were treated well Survey results suggest there is . work to be done to develop a common understanding and culturally accepted norms of how offenders should be treated. Fairness of organizational processes is a major building block of ethical climate but in the eyes of the CSC community it was the weakest link, rated overall at 4.05. The most positively rated aspect was help from the organization with work-related problems (4 85). Most critical respondents focused on HR practices: lack of transparency (3 69) and staffing free from favouritism (3.32) equal opportunities for advancement (3.5) and promotions based on clearly , , . . , established job expectations (3.48). Respondents were not very sure the organization had a practice of detecting unethical employees (3.35), and did not believe strongly that they would be protected from reprisal if they reported wrongdoing (3.8). They also were not very confident about the effectiveness of recourse mechanisms available to them (3 93). . 8 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Overall, respondents felt the organization supports work-life balance (4.27), encourages shared corporate values (4.5), recognizes ethical behaviours (4.54), and respects confidentiality of personal information (4.66). The results demonstrate that CSC values principles of conflict management for both staff and offenders (4.59), and many staff are aware of its methods (4.52). Respondents had some confidence they would be informed of their grievance and appeal rights if an undesirable personnel decision was made (4.46), and that disciplinary actions were justified (4.43). These findings suggest that these practices constitute a positive foundation for further improvement while detection of unethical employees, protection of those who report wrongdoings, and HR practices need the most attention. The following graph summarizes results related to unhealthy workplace practices: 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Feeling uncomfortable Feeling offended Abuse of power by others senior Abuse of power by colleagues Harassment Abuse of power by supervisor Discrimination B Yes B No In the past year roughly half of respondents reported that behaviours of others had made them feel uncomfortable (50.5%) and offended (50.1%) and they had experienced or observed abuse of , , power by others senior to them in the workplace (43.7%). About a third of respondents had experienced or observed abuse of power by their colleagues (35 6%) and supervisors (31.5%), and . felt that they had been harassed (31.8%) Slightly over one-fifth reported being discriminated . against (22.6%). Unhealthy work environment within CSC is an area that needs attention The survey examined abuse of power discrimination, inappropriate behaviours that offend employees and . , make them feel uncomfortable , and harassment. Most frequently, supervisors, others in senior positions and colleagues were perceived to abuse their power, discriminate and harass others. Overall, 22.6% of respondents indicated they had experienced discrimination on at least one of the prohibited grounds (of those race 45%, gender 43.6% and age 36.3%) over the past year. , There were notably more respondents who reported having felt uncomfortable (50 5%) and offended (50.1%) by the behaviours of others than harassed (31 8%) during the past year. . . Nevertheless all these practices create a toxic work environment and must be addressed on an ongoing basis. It appears that most frequently CSC employees suffer from statements damaging to their reputation rude, degrading, or offensive remarks, teasing, bullying, belittling, being , , , 9 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada criticized in public, inappropriate jokes, exclusion from group activities or assignments, threats, intimidation and retaliation, among other things. For some demographic groups, the work environment seemed less healthy than for others: anglophones and employees at medium, maximum and multi-level security institutions reported more frequent harassment than their colleagues, but shift workers reported having experienced all the unhealthy practices to a higher degree than those who did not work shifts. The survey also discovered the positive effect Values, Integrity and Conflict Management training sessions had on the ethical climate. Participants in harassment awareness sessions and conflict management training felt more confident using services of the Office of Conflict Management and contacting the regional anti-harassment coordinator rather than trying to resolve the situations on their own. Furthermore, over the past three years, 52.5% of respondents had taken values and ethics workshops offered to CSC employees. These sessions positively affected every aspect of the perceived ethical climate within CSC. Those who completed the workshops generally perceived their colleagues, supervisors, senior leaders, and organizational practices in a more understanding or positive light than those who had not taken the sessions. Regression analysis of the survey data enabled the development of an integrated model that shows the degree to which each individual aspect (or survey theme) influences the overall perception of the ethical climate. It was found that overall, the survey themes captured the essence of the ethical climate very well. The model shows that the value of fairness has a special role in the perception of ethical climate. Only when actions of every employee be it a senior leader, supervisor, or a staff member are perceived as fair, is the organizational climate seen to have a strong ethical foundation. Moreover, senior leaders, and co-workers, roles go beyond creating fair processes. Their behaviours can directly affect the ethical climate of the whole organization. In addition perception of fairness can be reinforced by knowing that there are recourse mechanisms available in case ethical norms are violated but knowledge of values and recourse mechanisms are insufficient. Perceptions of the quality of the ethical climate depend upon practising these skills consistently in everyone s daily work. , , , 1 10 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada 1 Introduction . The Ethical Climate Survey (ECS) administered within Correctional Service Canada (CSC) over six weeks in February and March, 2012 was the second survey of this kind conducted in the department. In 2007/08 and 2008/09, 18 sites across regions agreed to participate in the administration of the first ECS. The results allowed the Values, Integrity and Conflict Management Branch (VICM) to establish the need for collecting such data on a regular basis in the future, refine the goals for the survey, upgrade the survey instrument to better meet these goals, and streamline the survey administration process to ensure a sufficiently high response rate. This second-generation survey had five major purposes: 1 To assess perceptions of the ethical climate within the department; 2 To identify positive ethical climate aspects that should be maintained and areas for improvement; 3 To identify areas of knowledge and behaviours that could be addressed at Values and Ethics workshops; 4 To test the upgraded survey in the field and establish its reliability and validity; . . . . 5 . To establish the baseline ethical climate to be used as a benchmark for future assessments. In this survey ethical climate is defined as a product of shared beliefs and behavioural norms , which are guided by principles of right conduct and supported by well-aligned formal and informal organizational systems such as leadership rules, policies, values, code of conduct, rewards, staffing training, decision processes, communication, cultural norms and rituals. , , This report is divided into six sections. It starts with an overview of the methodology used to upgrade the survey, administer it, and analyze the data. A description of the survey sample follows The results are then presented in section four followed by a discussion of findings and some suggestions for using these findings in action planning to build a positive ethical climate in the department The report concludes with a discussion of the limitations of this project and possible steps for future . . ethical climate assessment. 2 2 1 . . . Methodology Survey development This second-generation survey is a substantial upgrade of the initial ECS instrument administered in 2007/08. Analysis of the initial ECS data identified several areas that needed improvement Since it was decided to continue an ongoing monitoring of the ethical climate within the department and ECS was going to be an important tool for this purpose it was critical to make the new version of the survey as valid relevant and practically useful as possible. . , , The major purpose for the survey upgrade was strengthening its psychometric properties through the following steps: - refining the survey s macro-structure by narrowing broadening, or subdividing the , , existing nine dimensions or ethical climate "themes" as necessary; representing each theme with an adequate number of relevant items; 11 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada - - - incorporating feedback from as many stakeholders as possible with respect to the content validity of the survey items; pre-testing the survey with a small group of CSC employees, and testing the survey for reliability, validity, and internal consistency of all the themes when the data collection is finished. To ensure the survey dimensions adequately represent the ethical climate, relevant literature was reviewed, some members of the National Ethics Advisory Committee were consulted, and findings of the 66 focus group sessions conducted in 2006 (during which CSC employees across all regions shared their views on how to improve the ethical climate) were revisited. Further, the same sources were used to identify additional ethical climate items to strengthen the survey themes. Comments provided in the first survey were also incorporated, and CSC's Internal Disclosure and Workplace Wellness groups were consulted. As a result the basic survey comprised 205 items representing 17 themes and their sub-themes. To select the most relevant items, a group of 108 employees representing regions hierarchical levels, occupational groups, as well as union groups was involved in assessing the importance of these items. At the end, organizational citizenship behaviours and supervisory leadership questions were mirrored by matching self-assessment questions (or "I" questions). The survey also included some open-ended comment questions and demographic questions to participants. Ultimately the survey included 152 items but the supervisor version contained 169 items. , , , , A more detailed account of generating selecting, and finalizing the items as well the full list of themes can be seen in Appendix A. , All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 being "strongly disagree" " " strongly agree , and 4 - " " neither agree nor disagree . , 7 - A "not applicable" option was also provided. The exception was the Unhealthy Environment section which consisted of a variety of item formats: some Yes/No items 4- or 5-point frequency scales, multiple choice questions, and , open-ended questions. 22 . . Data gathering Upon Departmental approval the survey was administered online in English and French, using , FluidSurveys survey software licensed to the CSC by a Canadian company which complies with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Privacy Act of Canada. All responses were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality and no response could be associated with an individual respondent as the initial data were gathered on FluidSurveys server external to the CSC. These guarantees and survey guidelines including the definitions of major , , were made clear in the preamble to the survey. Respondents were also provided with contact names and email addresses lest they had any concerns concepts , . The CSC community was invited to participate in the survey by an all-staff electronic letter from the Commissioner. It was made clear that participation was strictly voluntary The link to the survey site was provided in the letter as well as on the national and regional Infonet front pages . . 12 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Participants were not required to complete the survey in one sitting, but rather could save it and continue later without losing the previously entered data. The survey was open for six weeks, and a week prior to its closing, all staff were reminded of the deadline. 23 . . Data analysis The gathered data were subjected to a rigorous statistical analysis which is described in greater detail in Appendix B. First data distribution was inspected for its normality followed by the scale development procedure. The scales were refined by removing 35 poorly fitting items and clustering the remaining items to form new themes. Testing the validity and reliability of the survey is also presented in Appendix B. The new survey structure was found to be reliable and acceptably, but not perfectly, valid. , The final survey structure consisted of 117 items (supervisor version consisted of 134 items) organized into 13 groups (full list of items is given in Appendix C): 1 Overall ethical climate (6 items) 2 Senior leadership (10 items) 3 Supervisory leadership (14 items) 4 Fairness of organizational procedures (16 items) 5 Treatment of offenders (4 items) 6 Awareness of values (4 items) 7 Awareness of recourse mechanisms (5 items) 8 Organizational citizenship behaviours - others (14 items) 9 Organizational citizenship behaviours - self-assessment (12 items) 10. Supervisor self-assessment (17 items) 11. Unhealthy work environment (23 items) 12. Demographic questions (7) 13. General background questions (2) . . . . . . . . . Results of the data analysis are reported in graphs as summed average scores for each theme and average scores for individual items within these themes. A higher score means a more positive perception of the given aspect of ethical climate. When the score is around "4", it indicates a neutral attitude, that is, neither very positive nor very negative. This opens up an opportunity for organizational initiatives to attempt shifting employees' attitudes When the average score has reached the mark of 5 it can be said that the rating is positive. In the Unhealthy Work Environment section frequencies (percentages) were calculated for the Yes/No and multiple-choice . " " , , questions. Survey results were also controlled for demographic differences and some other survey items for , example, whether respondents had taken a values and ethics awareness session Further, the . relationships among various aspects of ethical climate were further explored with the help of correlation and regression analysis using SPSS software This type of analysis contributed to the development of the integrated ethical climate model. . 13 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada This Ethical Climate Survey is a considerable improvement in its structure and psychometric qualities over the initial survey piloted between 2007 and 2009. There were, however, some limitations that could be addressed when the survey is administered next time. These limitations are discussed in Appendix D. 3 . Survey sample The survey was completed by 2,237 CSC employees. Since CSC has 18,770 employees, this constitutes a 12% return rate. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the sample compared with CSC as a whole. Overall, the sample is sufficiently balanced to generalize the survey results to the whole department. The sample is balanced in terms of age official language users, length of service, and probably also supervisory or non-supervisory job holders although such information for the whole of CSC is not available. Some groups however, are less balanced. Women are slightly overrepresented, but men slightly underrepresented. Also medium and maximum security institutions are somewhat underrepresented, but headquarters and community offices are overrepresented. There are also grounds to believe that shift workers might be slightly underrepresented. , , , , Table 1. Demographic make-up of the sample Demographic characteristics Survey Sample In CSC N 900 40.2% 51.8% 1336 59.7% 48.2% 30 & younger 268 12% 15.36% 31-45 919 41.1% 45.75% 46-55 Age: Male Female Gender: % 750 33.5% 27.01% 56 & older 300 13.4% 11.76% First official English 1656 74% 70% language: Security French 580 26% 30% Minimum 186 8 4% 11.33% level: Medium 566 25.5% 35.98% Maximum 271 12.2% 20.03% Mixed level 392 17.7% 17.47% HQ Community 584 26.3% 14.35% 218 9 8% 0 84% Manager or supervisor Working in Yes 641 28.7% No 1596 71.3% Yes 500 22.4% shifts: No 1736 77.6% Length of < 12 mos 163 7 3% 8 79% work for 1-5 723 32.3% 31.79% 738 33% 34.63% 613 27.4% 24.59% CSC: yrs 6-15 yrs >16 yrs . . . . 14 . . . . . REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada 4 Results . The first part of this section presents the descriptive analysis of the data, that is, it shows the average ratings and response percentages of survey themes and their individual items and also indicates demographic differences in these ratings where applicable. In the second part, causal relationships among the survey themes are examined. Figure 1 shows the ranking of all ethical climate aspects. On average, no aspect was rated below the neutral scale midpoint of 4. Most positively, the CSC community rated their own behaviours (6.28 everyone and 6.22 supervisors), but was most critical of the ethicality of senior leadership (4.16) and organizational processes which were not seen as very fair (4.05). Supervisory leadership (4.88) was seen in a more positive light than behaviours of senior leadership (4.16). Furthermore, respondents reported being quite aware of organizational values (5.64), but less aware of the recourse mechanisms available to them (4.55). Respondents were also quite positive in relation to the organizational citizenship behaviours of their colleagues (5.0) and the way offenders were treated (5.24). Finally, the overall ethical climate was rated 4.5. Figure 1. Ethical climate aspects Average score 3 4 5 | I 1 6 28 Organizational citizenship behaviours - self assessment . 1 Supervisor self-assessment - Awareness of values if- 5 6' . 5 24 Treatment of offenders . Organizational citizenship behaviours 1 1 ! 1 Ethicality of supervisory leadership 1 __ 1 _ Awareness of recourse mechanisms OVERALL ETHICAL CLIMATE 4 16 Ethicality of senior leadership . 1 Fairness of organizational processes In terms of unhealthy workplace practices in the past year, roughly half of respondents reported that behaviours of others had made them feel uncomfortable (50 5%) and offended (50.1%), and they had experienced or observed abuse of power by others senior to them in the workplace (43.7%). About a third of respondents had experienced or observed abuse of power by their colleagues (35.6%) and supervisors (31.5%) and felt that they had been harassed (31.8%). Slightly over one-fifth reported being discriminated against (22 6%). , . , . 15 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada 0% 100% Feeling uncomfortable Feeling offended Abuse of power by others senior Abuse of power by colleagues Harassment Abuse of power by supervisor Discrimination 1 a Yes is No 4 1 Overall ethical climate . . Overall ethical climate was measured with six items that describe the organizational climate in somewhat general terms. This scale has been intended to serve as a reference point for all other survey dimensions which characterize the ethical climate in more specific terms. The CSC ethical climate was rated at 4.5, that is, slightly above the neutral midpoint of 4 (see Figure 2). It appears that employees, confidence in the integrity of the department (almost equal to the rating of the overall ethical climate) is influenced by two aspects: organizational systems and the behaviours of each individual. Respondents were more positive about the individuals' role in creating an ethical climate than organizational structures in place to prevent breaches of ethical conduct. Individuals contribute to ethical climate by understanding ethical standards and principles, being able to make ethical decisions, and acting ethically. This is a solid basis for building an ethical workplace. Improved formal rules and structures on the organizational level serve to support the endeavours of organizational members in the interest of the organization . 16 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Correctional Figure 2. Overall ethical climate in the total sample (N= 2213) Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 OVERALL ETHICAL CLIMATE It is my impression that organizational members in my workplace understand how to make ethical decisions. There is a shared understanding of standards of conduct and expected behaviours among all organizational members in my workplace. It is my impression that organizational members in my workplace act ethically in support of CSC and public service values in their daily practices. It is my impression that organizational members in my workplace recognize ethical issues and dilemmas when they arise. Based on my definition of integrity, I have confidence in the integrity of my organization. In my opinion, there are sufficient measures in place to prevent breaches of ethical conduct, The CSC community however, appears to have different experiences regarding ethical climate based on their demographic characteristics (see Figure 3). Women held somewhat more positive views of the ethicality of the department than men but the divide within other demographics was even more distinct. Employees working in shifts perceived the ethical climate as significantly more negative than those who do not work in shifts (3.8 vs. 4.7). It must be noted that the gender , , differences were present among non-shift workers, but not among shift workers. Similarly those who have worked in CSC for 6-15 years were more critical than the most recent hires (4.25 vs. 5 29). In fact, dissatisfaction with the way CSC tackles ethical issues increased with years of service, and those who have been with CSC for less than a year held the most positive views of all. Nevertheless, the most experienced employees (15+ years of experience) were not the most critical. This group expressed slightly more positive beliefs about ethical climate than those who have been with CSC for 1-15 years. This gives the department a potential for culture change by providing the new employees with consistent experiences regarding values-based leadership and maintaining their positive outlook as they progress through their careers The age groups exhibited the same pattern of beliefs with the youngest employees (age 30 and younger) being the most positive and the more senior employees (56+) somewhat more positive than those in the , . . middle. Supervisors tended to see the organizational climate as more ethical than those who did not have such responsibilities (4.77 vs. 4.39). Further English-speaking employees perceived the ethical climate less positively than French-speaking employees (4 43 vs. 4.71). A significant difference , . in experiences could also be observed across different types of workplaces Overall, those working at headquarters and community offices (4 98 and 4.91 respectively) saw the organizational climate as much more ethical than those working at institutions Among institutions, it seems that at minimum security (4 5), staff had fewer issues with ethical climate than others especially those at medium and maximum security levels (4.1 and 4.17 respectively). . . . . , 17 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 3. Overall ethical climate - demographic differences Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * Male N=893 Female N=1319 "15 yrs with CSC N=610 6-15 *" Minimum security N=185 Medium security N=557 Maximum security N=267 Multi-level security N=389 HQ N=578 Community N=217 * differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a s 05 differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant atas 001 . *** . 42 . . Organizational citizenship behaviours The survey included 14 items that asked respondents to rate the organizational citizenship behaviours of their peers (see Figure 4) These are on the job behaviours that employees are not specifically instructed to do yet they engage in using their own judgement. They are not formally rewarded, yet promote the effectiveness of the organization Significantly, this important aspect of ethical climate was rated at the positive mark of 5 Most positively, the CSC community rated their colleagues, respect for organizational property (5 4), helpfulness to colleagues (5.33) and supervisors (5.31) sharing relevant work-related information (5.23) and making innovative suggestions (5.11) delivering on promises (5.08), creating a healthy workplace (5.07), and making ethical decisions (5.01). Slightly less positively respondents evaluated their colleagues' respect for the rights of others (4 99), showing pride in the organization (4.95) and going the extra mile to . , . . . , , , . , help new employees (4.94). Three behaviours pertaining to consideration and sensitivity were rated notably lower: respondents were somewhat less likely to admit that there was mutual respect among colleagues (4.59) colleagues consider the impact of their actions on others (4.55) and , showed genuine concern and courtesy toward each other (4 52). . 18 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 4. Organizational citizenship behaviours in the total sample (N = 2198) Average score ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOURS My colleagues respect organizational property. My colleagues are ready to lend a helping hand to those around them My colleagues are willing to assist their supervisors when necessary. Within the limits proscribed by professional and privacy standards colleagues freely share relevant work-related , information. My colleagues make innovative suggestions to improve the workplace. My colleagues deliver on promises My colleagues try to create a healthy workplace I feel I can trust my colleagues to make ethical decisions . My colleagues do not abuse the rights of others My colleagues show pride when representing the organization in public. My colleagues go out of way to help new employees . There is mutual respect among colleagues in my workplace , My colleagues consider the impact of their actions on others. Employees in my workplace show genuine concern and courtesy toward each other even under the most trying , situations. Peer behaviours are the only aspect where men and women did not differ in their opinions overall but when controlled for shift work, men turned out to hold somewhat more positive views than , women (4.57 for men vs. 4.3 for women who work in shifts and 5.23 for men vs. 5.11 for women who do not work in shifts significant at a ? .05). It appears that compared to men, women were more sensitive to peer behaviours than to any other aspect of ethical climate Nevertheless, groups , , . along other demographic lines held distinctly and significantly different views (see Figure 5). 19 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 5. Organizational citizenship behaviours - demographic differences. Average score 3 4 5 Male N=890 Female N=1307 *" Supervisors N=632 Non-supervisors N=1566 ", English N=1629 French N=568 *" Work shifts N=494 Do not work shifts N=1703 *** 30 and younger N=262 31-45 N=905 46-55 N=735 56 and older N=296 *" < 12 months with CSC N=156 1-5 yrs with CSC N=705 yrs with CSC N=732 >15 yrs with CSC N=605 6-15 "Minimum security N=180 Medium security N=558 Maximum security N=266 Multi-level security N=385 HQ N=575 Community N=214 "" differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a < .001 Following the frequently observable pattern supervisors (5.23 vs. 4.91 for non-supervisors), francophones (5.19 vs. 4.93 for anglophones), non-shift workers (5.15 vs. 4.47) the youngest employees (5.24 vs. 4.93, 4.98, and 5.05 for older employees) and the least experienced group (5.54 vs. 5.03, 4.85, and 5.01 for other groups) held higher opinions about peer behaviours. Further, staff at headquarters and community offices (5.45 and 5.3 respectively) were more appreciative than those at minimum and multi-level security institutions (4 91 and 4.95 , , , . respectively) who in turn were somewhat more positive than employees at medium and maximum security institutions (4.66 and 4.63 respectively). The largest divergence with respect to peer behaviours was between shift and non-shift workers between those who have been with CSC for , less than a year and those who have worked in the department for 6-15 years as well as between staff at headquarters and maximum security institutions. , 43 . . Organizational citizenship behaviours - self-assessment Similar to supervisor ratings by employees and by supervisors themselves respondents evaluated their own organizational citizenship behaviours as well as those of colleagues Overall, own behaviours were rated 6.28 while those of colleagues were rated 5 0 (see Figure 6). , . . 20 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 6. Organizational citizenship behaviours - self-assessment in the total sample (N =2188) Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 | 7 I H-t- ORGANIZATIONAL CmZENSHIP BEHAVIOURS - SELF 6 28 6.28 , . I * I _ _ _ 33&1 aradHfe v&ssi] 6 7 1. '.' g- ?. . r I make innovative suggestions to improve the workplace. I : ess-, .saa? zsashr.-.. rmi \ : I respect organizational property. IfTWIe f6 1 I do not abuse the rights of others. KsB?. l? (R) (R)3 BSE. 7S355 JW2 I : ! I " - . I - _ _ I am ready to lend a helping hand to those around me. i . .. 6 46 16 46 . ill * " , " J .y AW I am willing to assist my supervisor when necessary. i ,7? ' 6 45 & 4& . . . I[ : I 8SK<<.:;, . -JST, jaSEF ? >:S(R). I deliver on promises I try to create a healthy workplace. ? _ 6 43 6.43 . 6.42 I consider the impact of my actions on others. I act in a manner that fosters the building of trust between supervisor and myself. es&< ? . sees. . . : f&A&mnsB I go out of way to help new employees. I show genuine concern and courtesy toward others , even under the most trying situations. ' I show pride when representing the organization in public . ? esBstssisHM Possible reasons for the higher ratings of self versus ratings of others and the implications are addressed in the Discussion section. It is interesting to note some of the differences in ratings of the same item. Respondents felt most strongly that they offered innovative suggestions to improve the workplace (6.77) but these behaviours appeared not to be noticed by others to the , same extent (5.11). Further respondents reported that they did not abuse the rights of others , (6.53), but this was not the impression of others (4.99). Looking at all items, respondents were least likely to admit that they showed pride when representing the organization in public (5 87), but in assessing their colleagues this item was rated lower (4.95). A similar ranking can be observed regarding genuine concern and courtesy toward others (6 11 for self and 4.52 for others). Considering the impact of one,s actions on others ranked among the lower rated items in both . , . cases. 21 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 7. Organizational citizenship behaviours - self-assessment - demographic differences Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .Male N=883 Female N=1304 Supervisors N=634 Non-supervisors N=1554 " English N=1621 French N=566 "" Work shifts N=484 Do not work shifts N=1703 30 and younger N=255 31-45 N=902 46-55 N=739 56 and older N=292 *** < 12 months with CSC N=154 1-5 yrs with CSC N=709 yrs with CSC N=720 >15 yrs with CSC N=605 6-15 " .Minimum security N=182 Medium security N=556 Maximum security N=266 Multi-level security N=381 HQ N=569 Community N=215 L ___ * differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a < 05 differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a ? 01 * differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a < 001 . ** . ** . Although there were some statistically significant differences in the self-assessment of various demographic groups, these differences were much smaller compared with other aspects of the ethical climate (see Figure 7) indicating a greater unanimity across these groups Nevertheless, . women (6.3 vs. 6.24 for men) francophones (6.34 vs. 6.26 for anglophones), non-shift workers , (6.3 vs. 6.2 for shift-workers), the least experienced employees (6.49 vs. 6.31, 6.2, and 6.28 for other groups), and staff at headquarters (6.38 vs 6.27, 6.22, 6.18 6.28, and 6.3 for other groups) . tended to rate themselves somewhat higher . , When controlled for shift work there were no gender , differences in self-assessment. 22 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISfz PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada 44 . . Senior leadership In this survey, organizational leadership was viewed at two levels: those holding senior management positions and immediate supervisors. Senior leadership included corporate management (RHQ or NHQ personnel at an EX or EX-equivalent level) and site management (personnel at an EX or EX-equivalent level). Overall, ethicality of senior leadership was rated at 4.16 which means that on average, respondents were indecisive about their positive or negative views of leadership. On the other hand, the spread of responses was quite wide suggesting that there was variability in the way organizational members saw their senior leaders. While roughly a half of respondents rated senior leadership behaviours positively (above 4.5), 34% gave average ratings of 3.5 and below. Figure 8. Ethicality of senior leadership in the total sample (N=2107) Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ETHICALITY OF SENIOR LEADERSHIP It is my impression that organizational members are held accountable for their personal compliance to policies and procedures in my organization. It is my impression that senior corporate managers are held accountable for their personal compliance to policies and procedures in my organization Senior site management are a positive role model for ethical behaviour in the workplace. I trust the senior corporate management to make fair decisions. Senior corporate management follow through on their commitments I trust the senior site management to make fair decisions. Senior site management follow through on their commitments Senior corporate management are a positive role model for ethical behaviour in the organization. It is my impression that overall, organizational members in my workplace feel they can raise ethical issues with management . Senior management as a whole effectively passes essential information to the staff The most positively perceived aspect was the impression that senior leaders were holding the staff accountable for their compliance to policies and procedures (4.52) but the perception of leaders themselves being held accountable was rated lower (4.36). In terms of role modeling ethical behaviours, site management was seen in a slightly more positive light than corporate management (4.28 vs. 4.08). Respondents were most critical of two-way communication with their leaders. Ratings suggested that many staff members felt that leaders were not passing essential information to the staff effectively (4 06), nor did they feel they could approach their leaders with ethical issues (4.07). Similarly many respondents saw considerable room for improvement in the way senior site and corporate leaders follow through on their commitments (4.12 and 4.13) and make fair decisions (4.13 and 4.14). , . , 23 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada There were statistically significant differences in the perceptions of the ethicality of senior leadership across various demographic groups (see Figure 9). Women (4 3 vs. 3.97 for men), supervisors (4.56 vs. 4 for non-supervisors) French-speaking employees (4.89 vs. 3.91 for English speaking) and those who do not work in shifts (4.47 vs. 3.15 for shift workers) were much more positive. It must be noted, however, that when controlled for shift work, there were no gender differences meaning that men and women in similar jobs held the same views. If there were differences, then the reason most probably was the job type. Also age length of service and type of workplace affected employees perceptions. The youngest and oldest groups (4.46 and 4.43 respectively) differed significantly from the middle-range age groups (3 99 for 31-45 year olds and 4.16 for 46-55 year olds), and the newest hires were considerably more positive than their more experienced colleagues (5.21 vs. 4.32 (1-5 years of service) 3.86 (5-15 years), 4.09 (16+ years)). Those working at headquarters and community offices (4.73 and 4.61) were less critical of senior leadership than institutional staff. In addition minimum security employees were more positive than others (4.37 vs. 3.71 in medium, 3.78 in maximum, and 3.94 in multi-level security institutions). . , , , . , , Figure 9. Ethicality of senior leadership - demographic differences Average score "* Male N=873 Female N= 1233 " .Supervisors N=607 Non-supervisors N=1500 ."English N=1568 French N=538 ".Work shifts N=494 Do not work shifts N=1612 *** 30 and younger N=240 31-45 N=867 46-55 N=709 56 and older N=291 *** < 12 months with CSC N=144 1-5 yrs with CSC N=658 yrs with CSC N=714 >15 yrs with CSC N=591 6-15 ."Minimum security N=179 Medium security N=551 Maximum security N=261 Multi-level security N=383 HQ N=508 Community N=205 ** differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at ex < 24 001 . REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada 45 . . Supervisory leadership CSC members saw their immediate supervisors as being somewhat more ethical than senior management of their site or the whole department (4.88 vs. 4.16) (see Figure 10). Overall, respondents were positive about their interactions with their supervisor. Supervisors treating their staff fairly and with respect was the most appreciated aspect (5.38). Also, the supervisors role in the professional growth of their staff (5.22), being open to new ideas (5.05) and allowing employees to express opinions that do not necessarily coincide with their own (5.0), caring about employees well-being (5.04), following through on their commitments (5.03), providing a good example of ethical behaviours (4.99) and fostering teamwork (4.98) were also recognized. On the other hand, supervisors focus on bottom-line results rather than the way results are achieved was the least positively rated aspect (4.52). Other supervisory actions that leave room for improvement are helping their staff solve work-related ethical problems (4.92) correcting their own mistakes (4.84), building trust (4.78), keeping staff informed of things that affect the organization (4.69), and taking action if unethical behaviours are observed (4.66). ' , , , Figure 10. Ethicality of supervisory leadership in the total sample (N = 2026) ETHICALITY OF SUPERVISORY LEADERSHIP My supervisor treats me fairly and with respect. My supervisor encourages me to continue to grow professionally. Within the limits of policy my superior is willing to be open to , new ideas. My supervisor is concerned about my well-being My supervisor follows through on his/her commitments. My supervisor provides me the opportunity to express opinions that diverge from his/her own without fear of reprisal. My supervisor sets a good example of ethical behaviour My supervisor fosters teamwork. My supervisor helps me solve work related ethical problems. It is my impression that my supervisor takes conrective action if he/she has made a mistake. My supervisor acts in a manner that fosters the building of trust My supervisor keeps me informed of things that affect the organization. From my experience my supervisor takes prompt and professional , action if cases of unethical behaviour occur. My supervisor reinforces how employees achieve results rather , than just the results themselves 25 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Similar to the perception of senior leadership, supervisory leadership was seen differently by various demographic groups (see Figure 11). Women (5.04 vs. 4.66 for men) those who themselves are supervisors (5.1 vs. 4.79 for non-supervisors) French-speaking employees (5.22 vs. 4.75 for English speaking) and those who do not work shifts (5.14 vs. 4.05 for shift workers) , , were much more positive. There were no gender differences when shift and non-shift workers were analyzed separately. Also age, length of service and workplace affected employees' perceptions of their supervisors. The youngest and oldest groups (5.19 and 5.07 respectively) Figure 11. Ethicality of supervisory leadership - demographic differences Average score 4 *** Male N=824 Female N=1201 "" Supervisors N=596 Non-supervisors N=1430 " >>English N=1484 French N=541 "* Work shifts N=478 Do not work shifts N=1549 *** 30 and younger N=231 31-45 N=848 46-55 N=674 56 and older N=273 *" < 12 months with CSC N=138 " . 5 74 . 1-5 yrs with CSC N=641 6-15 yrs with CSC N=682 >15 yrs with CSC N=565 4 99 . ! ."Minimum security N=173 Medium security N=525 Maximum security N=252 Multi-level security N=360 - 1 - i - HI 4 45 . HQ N=509 Community N=188 * ? differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a s .001 differed significantly from the more critical middle-range age groups (4 76 for 31-45 year olds and 86 for 46-55 year olds) and the newest hires were considerably more positive than their more experienced colleagues (5.74 vs. 4.99 (1-5 years of service) 4.64 (5-15 years) and 4.85 (16+ years)). Those working at headquarters and community offices (5.32 and 5.5) were less critical of . 4 . , , their supervisors than the institution staff. In addition minimum security employees were more , positive than others (5 vs. 4.45 in medium, 4.47 in maximum, and 4.78 in multi-level security institutions). 26 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada 46 . . Supervisor self-assessment Figure 12. Supervisor self-assessment in the total sample (N = 544) Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SUPERVISOR SELF-ASSESSMENT I I respect confidentiality of every individual's personal information. I I I ? B?TZZZ3 6.5fj ? I I 16.44 I am concerned about the wellBeing of my staff I take corrective action if I have made a mistake. I foster teamwork I believe I set a personal example of ethical behaviour in the workplace. ? I am open to new ideas within the limits of policy. 'ir, PiK" I encourage my staff to grow professionally. -v > v<>,-? aMEC? atpw 6.26 v- i lnMKa5E3 5.5? I I I III III 111! i I I . .II? MBESI'fllWfl,, n r=T II nimiHTiUM I'SZJ6.15 ,ii>>MM 6 52 . ? 6 D.I 6.16 . 1 >15 yrs with CSC N=249 Minimum security N=49 Medium security N=121 6 27 . . "fin in i ? , ftmn>>rii'-", i6.2 6 21 TTJ-Mfci.. . Maximum security N=54 f.v<< r1 Multi-level security N=88 , " BtV,airf,U 6.2 HQ N=165 ?<* MMMMMMMBMBBB fr- ?i.C&.i (j. 33 Community N=55 .. " ''; ,. ? ..,.VS-6.22 * differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a < 05 differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a s .01 ** differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a < 001 . ** * . There were some demographic differences in supervisor self-assessment but they did not follow the same pattern as other themes (see Figure 13). There were no differences based on the first official language and workplace. Men were more critical of themselves (6 15 vs. 6.29 for women) as were those supervisors who worked shifts (6 02 vs. 6.26 for non-shift workers), but again, there were no gender differences in self-assessment when controlled for shift work Also the youngest supervisors were more self-critical (5.58 vs. 6.18 6.32 and 6.15 for other age groups) while at the same time, supervisors new to CSC held the highest opinion of their behaviours (6 52 vs. 6.15, , . . . , . 6 16, and 6.27 for other groups). This may mean that the self-perception of young employees who have joined CSC early in life and have advanced in their careers to supervisory positions within . the department was closer to the perspective of their staff . On the other hand , supervisors who joined the organization recently, but in a further career stage, had a self-perception more different from the view held by their staff. 28 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada 4 7 Awareness of values . . Awareness of CSC, public service and professional group values is the highest ranking aspect of ethical climate after the self-assessment (rated at 5.64, see Figure 14). Overall, respondents were considerably more aware and appreciative of CSC and professional group values than the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. A demographic analysis of the survey results (Figure 15) shows that some CSC groups were more aware of values than others. Women (5.73 vs. 5.49 for men) supervisors (5.82 vs. 5.57 for nonsupervisors), francophones (5.73 vs. 5.6 for anglophones) those who do not work shifts (5.73 vs. 5 32 for shift workers) employees older than 46 (5.7 and 5.72 vs. 5.61 and 5.57 for other groups), and the most recent hires (5.86 vs. 5.69 5.52, and 5.64 for other groups) reported a higher awareness. Gender differences were present among shift workers but men and women who did not work shifts reported similar levels of awareness. , , . , , , Figure 14. Awareness of values in the total sample (N = 2116) Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AWARENESS OF VALUES I understand how CSC's values should guide my actions and decision making. I am aw are of CSC,s guiding values. I understand how my profession/association's code of ethics guides my w ork-related decisions and conduct. I think the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service is useful in guiding my w ork-related decisions and conduct 4 8 Awareness of recourse mechanisms . . Although respondents were quite aware of values that should guide their actions (Figure 16) they were less aware of the recourse mechanisms available to them if these values were violated (4.55). Least of all, they knew where to report allegations of reprisal (4.13), while they felt more informed about their options when the Public Service Values and Ethics Code or CSC,s Code of Conduct were violated (4.71 and 4.63 respectively), a wrongdoing had occurred within their organization (4.65) or they needed advice regarding ethical issues (4.6). , , Some groups were more informed about recourse mechanisms than others (see Figure 17). Those were supervisors (5.04 vs. 4.35 for non-supervisors) francophones (4.73 vs. 4.48 for anglophones) non-shift workers (4.68 vs. 4.06 for shift workers), employees aged 56+ (5.03 vs. 4 24, 4.33, and 4.72 for other groups) those who have worked in CSC for more than 15 years (4.93 vs. 4.55, 4.4, and 4.37 for other groups), and staff at headquarters (4.93 vs. 4.65 for the community office staff and 4.45 4.29, 4.31, and 4.46 for institutions). It is interesting to note that awareness of recourse mechanisms increased with respondents' age suggesting that such , , . , , , 29 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada knowledge might accumulate with maturity and life experience. This linear pattern did not apply to the length of service within CSC. Due to their more substantial experience, those with the longest service knew their options better, but most recent hires were more informed than those who have worked for the department for 1-15 years. This suggests a possible role played by the orientation of new employees and their more intense involvement in training. , however , Figure 15. Awareness of values - demographic differences Average score 3 4 ,"Male N=861 5 15 49: . Female N=1254 *Supervisors 5 73 . N=591 B05 82 Non-supervisors N=1525 15 57 . " English N=1576 15.6 French N=539 ? 5: ."Work shifts N=495 15 32 . Do not work shifts N=1620 * 15 ' . 30 and younger N=254 15 6 I 31-45 N=874 15 57 46-55 N=703 357 . . . 56 and older N=285 "* ? 5 72 . < 12 months with CSC N=153 1-5 6-15 86 . yrs with CSC N=688 yrs with CSC N=705 15 69 . 15 52 . >15 yrs with CSC N=570 "* 3 Minimum Medium Maximum Multi-level Q 5.64 security N=178 security N=552 security N=263 security N=368 >> 5 64 . 15 48 . 15 49 . 835.08 HQ N=531 * 81 Community N=205 79 differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a s 05 differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a < 01 ? differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a <; 001 . ** . * . 30 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 16. Awareness of recourse mechanisms in the total sample (N = 2207) Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 17. Awareness of recourse mechanisms - demographic differences Male N=891 Female N=1315 "" Supervisors N=634 Non-supervisors N=1573 ."English N=1636 French N=560 1"Work shifts N=497 Do not work shifts N=1709 *** 30 and younger N=261 31-45 N=909 46-55 N=744 56 and older N=293 "*< 12 months with CSC N=156 1-5 yrs with CSC N=712 yre with CSC N=731 >15 yrs with CSC N=608 6-15 " .Minimum security N=185 Medium security N=563 Maximum security N=265 Multi-level security N=391 HQ N=569 Community N=215 *** differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant atas 31 . 001 7 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada 4 9 Treatment of offenders . . On average, treatment of offenders was seen quite positively. Rated at 5.24 (see Figure 18), this aspect of the CSC ethical climate was among the most favourable (see Figure 1 for the ranking of all aspects). First and foremost, respondents believed that offenders were informed of the recourse mechanisms available to them in case their rights were violated (5.73). They also thought offenders were informed of decisions affecting them and were consulted on important decisions (5.37 and 5.12 respectively). Respondents were somewhat less convinced that offenders were recognized for work well done (4.75). It is interesting to note that one item pertaining to the treatment of offenders statistically did not fit in this theme very well and was eventually removed from further analysis. It dealt with treating offenders with respect as human beings. Although the average score on this item was within the range of other four scores respondents were much more divided on this question. It appears respondents viewed this aspect of treating offenders differently than the presence of certain practices. This item is more subjective than others within this theme, and most probably the CSC community does not share a common understanding and expectations regarding respect toward , offenders. Figure 18.Treatment of offenders in the total sample (N = 1729) Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS Offenders are informed of the recourse mechanisms available to them in case their rights are violated. Offenders are informed of decisions and changes affecting them. Offenders ha\<< an oportunity to be consulted on important decisions affecting them. Offenders are recognized for work well done. Not all respondent groups held the same opinions regarding treatment of offenders (see Figure 19). Supervisors were more likely than non-supervisors to believe that offenders were treated adequately (5.39 vs. 5.18 respectively), and so did staff in community offices (5.49). Treatment of offenders is the only aspect of the CSC ethical climate where opinions at headquarters and community offices differed significantly. Although still quite positively minded employees at headquarters were the least likely of all to feel that offenders were treated well (5.03) It is possible that those who deal with offenders directly on a daily basis have different standards regarding the adequate ways of treating offenders or the headquarters staff can access a broader variety of information sources (e.g. data on grievances) and tend to generalize their findings. , . , , A smaller although statistically significant, difference in opinions could be observed based on shift-work. Opposite to other aspects of the ethical climate treatment of offenders was viewed slightly more positively by shift workers (5.32 vs. 5.21 for non-shift workers) Another between, , . 32 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Service of Canada REzVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Correctional group difference that digresses from the usual pattern was based on age. With respect to this issue, the most experienced respondents were the most positive (5.37 vs. 5.21 5.14, and 5.22 for , other groups). Figure 19. Treatment of offenders - demographic differences Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Male N=751 Female N=977 ""Supervisors N=500 Non-supervisors N=1229 English N=1303 French N=425 " Work shifts N=483 Do not work shifts N=1245 30 and younger N=173 31-45 N=719 46-55 N=596 56 and older N=241 ** < 12 months with CSC N=104 1-5 yrs with CSC N=494 yrs with CSC N=616 >15 yrs with CSC N=515 6-15 ""Minimum security N=173 Medium security N=525 Maximum security N=241 Multi-level security N=364 HQ N=242 Community N=168 * differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a < .05 differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a ? .01 ** differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at * a < .001 4 . 10. Fairness of organizational processes This survey theme includes 16 items and covers a range of organizational processes the perceived Rated at 4.05 fairness of which characterizes the ethical climate of the whole organization overall, fairness of organizational processes was seen as the weakest aspect of the CSC ethical climate and would require sustained attention. Figure 20 shows that variability across perceptions , . of individual items here is broader than for other themes The only aspect which was rated close to . the positive mark was help with work-related problems available to employees from the organization (4.85). Most critical respondents focused on HR practices: lack of transparency and favouritism in staffing (3.69 and 3 32 respectively) as well as limited advancement opportunities and promotions (3.5 and 3 48 respectively). . , . 33 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 20. Fairness of organizational processes in the total sample (N = 1936) Average score 1 2 3 4 FAIRNESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES _ 5 6 7 14.05 LiMlilMIUJ4.85 Help is available from the organization when I ha\e a work-related problem. In our workplace, confidentiality of every individual's personal information is respected 53 4.66 CSC values principles of conflict management and problem resolution with respect to both offenders and staff. ? lWTIifiim yimni"Ef MWIf My workplace recognizes ethical behaviours. 14.54 Organizational members in my workplace are aware of methods how to resold conflicts effectively in an ethical manner. ? HHHH4.S; My organization takes steps to encourage shared corporate values I believe I would be informed of my grievance and appeal rights if an undesirable personnel decision was made. 4 46 . It is my impression that disciplinary actions taken in my workplace are justified. My organization supports a balanced work and personal life. I feel confident in the effectiveness of the recourse mechanisms available to me within CSC. I believe I would be protected from reprisals if I reported a wrongdoing within CSC. Staffing processes in my workplace are transparent. Employees ha\e equal opportunities for ad\ancement Promotions in my workplace are based on clearly established job expectations. My organization detects unethical employees Staffing processes in my workplace are free from favouritism. A similarly rated area pertains to dealing with unethical behaviours. Respondents were not very sure the organization had a practice of detecting unethical employees (3.35) and they did not believe strongly that they would be protected from reprisal if they reported such behaviours (3 8). , . They were not very confident in the effectiveness of recourse mechanisms available to them either (3.93). Nevertheless, respondents were more likely to admit that ethical behaviours were recognized in their workplace (4.54). Other processes were rated between the neutral midpoint and a positive mark. Overall, respondents felt the organization allowed some work-life balance (4.27), encouraged shared corporate values (4.5), and respected confidentiality of personal information (4.66). Further it was acknowledged that to some extent, CSC valued principles of conflict management (4.59) and many staff members in the organization were aware of its methods (4.52). Finally respondents had some confidence that disciplinary actions were usually justified (4.43) and they would be informed of their grievance and appeal rights if an undesirable , , , personnel decision was made (4.46). 34 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 21. Fairness of organizational processes - demographic differences Average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 *" Male N=820 Female N= 1115 ""Supervisors N=573 Non-supervisors N=1363 "" English N=1444 French N=491 "* Work shifts N=479 Do not work shifts N=1456 "* 30 and younger N=210 31-45 N=809 46-55 N=654 56 and older N=263 *" < 12 months with CSC N=107 1-5 yrs with CSC N=587 yrs with CSC N=683 >15 yrs with CSC N=559 6-15 *" Minimum Medium Maximum Multi-level security security security security N=171 N=529 N=247 N=364 HQ N=423 Community N=186 *** differences among the groups of the particular demographic significant at a < 001 . There were notable demographic differences in the perception of organizational processes (see Figure 21). Similar to many other ethical climate aspects processes were seen as more fair by women (4.17 vs. 3.89 for men) supervisors (4.5 vs. 3.86 for non-supervisors), Frcnch speaking , , employees (4.52 vs. 3.89 for the anglophones) non-shift workers (4.32 vs. 3.22), youngest and oldest employees (4.36 vs. 3.87 and 4.05 for other age groups) and those working at headquarters and community offices (4.65 and 4.52 respectively) but among institutions, those working at minimum security were more positive than others (4 08 vs. 3.64, 3.69, and 3.9 for other institutions). Also similar to most other aspects, fairness was perceived in the same way by both men and women within groups of shift and non-shift workers when viewed separately , , , . , . 4 . 11. Unhealthy work environment Unhealthy work environment can be described in terms of abuse-of-power discrimination, harassment and making employees feel uncomfortable and offended by inappropriate behaviours , , of others in the workplace. 35 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada 4 . 11.1. Abuse of power Abuse ofpower means improperly taking advantage of a position of authority to endanger an employee s job, undermine an employee s job performance, threaten an employee s livelihood ' ' , or interfere with or influence his or her career. Figure 22. Abuse of power by the supervisor Between-group differences statistically significant at * a < 0 05 . and ** a< 0.001. In this survey, respondents were asked if in the past year they had experienced or observed abuse of power by their supervisor others in senior positions, or their colleagues within the CSC. Overall, 31.5% reported abuse of power by their supervisor 43.7% by others in senior positions, and 35.6% by their colleagues (see Figures 22 23, 24). Most frequently, any type of abuse was experienced or observed more than once (15.7% 23.4%, and 20.4% of the sample respectively), , , , , , but there was also a group of respondents who reported abuse of power happening on a regular basis (9.4%, 12% and 7.7% of the sample respectively). Furthermore, experiences of various demographic groups significantly differed in this respect. , 36 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 23. Abuse of power by others in senior positions | Yes Once More than once On a regular basis | Between-group differences statistically significant at * a < 0.05 and ** a< 0.001. Figure 24. Abuse of power by colleagues in the workplace Yes Once -h- More than once -*(-On a regular basis Between-group differences statistically significant at * a < 0 05 . and ** a< 0.001. The highest level of any abuse of power was reported by those employees who worked in shifts but the lowest by those who have worked in the department for less than a year In addition anglophones were more likely than francophones to report any abuse of power but staff working at headquarters and community offices were less likely to do so than those working in institutions , . , , . Abuse of power by supervisors and others in senior positions was reported by men to a higher degree than women and by employees aged 30 and younger to a lesser degree than by their older colleagues. 37 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada To gather the specifics on the types of behaviours involved, respondents were asked to provide examples of abuse of power they experienced or observed in their workplace. One fourth of all examples pertained to staffing situations. Respondents often felt that their career advancement was blocked because they did not receive information about such opportunities or learned about them only after the fact when somebody was hired without a fair competition. Many respondents blamed favouritism and bias in these decisions. As well, when employees applied, they felt the selection was made based on personal connections with the hiring manager rather than qualifications. Another large group of respondents identified perceived abuse of power as various types of verbal and non-verbal bullying from supervisors, senior management and senior peers. An equally large group of respondents reported disrespect, disregard, ignoring, exclusion, belittling, and looking down on subordinates and colleagues. These behaviours were closely followed by three other categories of abuse of power. Management was observed inconsistently applying standards and requirements when some staff members received preferential treatment, but others were singled out for behaviours that were otherwise tolerated. Supervisors especially in acting positions and also senior staff members were reported as sometimes overstepping their authority and asking staff or junior peers to perform tasks that were not part of their job. Sometimes it was the job of the individuals who delegated duties to those lower in ranks. Staff members were also sometimes seen taking advantage of their control over resources or making , , decisions that were not theirs to make. The third group of abuse described management withholding support that could have made a difference to their subordinates. It was manifested as allowing bad situations to escalate procrastinating over decisions and resolutions, creating obstacles, ignoring staffs needs, or not sharing relevant information. , Other more frequently mentioned types of abuse of power by superiors were: intolerance of diverse opinions and imposition of their own will in an authoritarian manner disregard for rules, policies and even law, and placing unreasonable demands on staff. A significant number of respondents reported having observed their colleagues mistreating offenders. , 4 11.2. Discrimination . Discrimination means to treat someone differently or unfairly because of a personal characteristic or distinction which, whether intentional or not imposes disadvantages not imposed upon others or which withholds or limits access to members of society There are eleven prohibited grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Act: race national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation marital status, family status, mental or physical disability and pardoned , . , , conviction. Overall, 22.6% of survey respondents indicated they had been discriminated on at least one of the prohibited grounds in the past year (see Figure 25). This feeling, however, was not shared equally by all employee groups. The biggest difference can be observed between employees who work shifts and those who do not (38.6% versus 18%) but smaller albeit statistically significant , differences were also reported by other demographic groups: men were more likely than women , non-managers more likely than managers English speaking employees more likely than their French speaking colleagues younger employees more likely than their older counterparts (aged 46+), those whose length of service was 6-15 years more likely than others and staff at medium, , , , 38 00038 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada maximum and multi-level security institutions more likely than those at minimum security institutions, and especially those working at headquarters and community offices to report having been discriminated. Figure 25. Proportion of the employees who within the past year were discriminated on at least one of the prohibited grounds Between-group differences statistically significant at * a < 0.05 and ** a< 0.001. A better insight into unhealthy aspects of the work environment can be obtained by examining the intensity of discrimination (see Figure 26). Respondents were asked to indicate if in the past year they had experienced discrimination once, monthly weekly, or daily. Of the 22.6% of the sample (or 505 respondents) who reported having been discriminated on any number of prohibited grounds, about one-third said they were discriminated once on at least one of the reported grounds, another one-third - monthly, but the rest felt they were being discriminated weekly or daily (15.6% and 14.5% respectively). , , It is worth noting that some employee groups felt they had been discriminated against more intensely than others. Shift workers were more likely than those who do not work shifts to indicate they felt discriminated on a weekly or daily basis Also men more than women, and nonmanagers more than managers felt they were being discriminated against more frequently Less experienced employees were more likely to report discrimination on a weekly basis (23 1%), but the most experienced ones on a daily basis (17.2%). Finally all who work in institutions indicated that they had been discriminated more frequently than those who work in headquarters and community offices. However there were also some differences among institutions based on security level. It seems discrimination was more prevalent in the maximum and medium security institutions where it was more frequently reported to be happening on a weekly and daily basis . . . , , . 39 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP 16andmoreysN=16 Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 26. Frequency of discrimination on at least one of the prohibited grounds (for those who reported being discriminated) 10% 20% msmsEm Total N=505 1 ! 1 30% 40% Smc: i , pnrc- 60% 31.1% 1 Men * N=235 Women N=270 i 50% 70% . 1 80% 15.6% I ! 23.8% 17.9% =32 2%?" I I 1 I I =? 18.7% 13.7% ! 100% 14.5% I w * I ? v ? 90% I 10.4% J | ~ Managers*N=117 i Non-managers N=388 English N=432 r French N=73 ~~~ 28.0%_ TH 16.4% "" Shifts" N=193 . 21.2% 28,0% , '. I ~ 32-4% , ; No shifts N=312 1 30 and younger N=68 , 12.2% I 10.6% | A ,l 32.4%; 16.2% 31-45 N=229 46-55 N=155 56 and older N=53 M i I,M 'I in |l Less than 12 mos* N=26 C 1 -5 yrs N=167 6-15 423 0%- yrs N=196 H . " i 11.4% I 114% 19.4% SUM* ? I 10.0% I 17.5% fclfcilHl i*# 17.5% 20.9% ! 18.3% | 16.5% | Minimum * N=40 ? ? Medium N=164 13.7% Maximum N=73 Mixed-level N=111 36.7%. . . < ? 14 4% . I I I 16.2% HQ N=88 Community N=26 15.4% h Once a yr O Monthly ? Weekly ?Daily Between-group differences statistically significant at * a < 0.05 and ** a< 0.001. Some bars do not add up to 100% due to rounding and non-response. Most often, discrimination occurred because of employees, race (45%) gender (43.6%), or age (36.3%), followed by other grounds in order of diminishing frequency: family status, disability, marital status, religion sexual orientation and pardoned conviction (see Figure 27). Only a small proportion of these particular discrimination cases happened on a weekly or daily basis, but most respondents in this group had experienced discrimination once a year and some - also on a monthly basis. There are some differences across employee groups in this respect which are not reflected on the graph. Based on their age employees felt differently about ageism in the , , , , workplace. Those aged 31-55 mostly felt they were discriminated against because of their age once a year (66%); the youngest group was more likely than others to experience this type of discrimination every month (38%) but the oldest group was more likely to encounter ageism on a weekly basis (21%). Men were more likely than women to experience gender discrimination on a , daily basis (22% vs. 5%). 40 00040 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 27. Frequency of discrimination on the prohibited grounds (for the total sample who reported being discriminated, N=505) Next, respondents were asked about the source of discrimination. Most frequently those who were reported to be engaging in discriminating practises were others senior to them in the department including managers (62.1%) (see Figure 28). , , Figure 28. Frequency of discrimination by source (for the total sample who reported being discriminated, N=505) Other noteworthy sources were immediate supervisor (39 1%), colleagues in respondents' own unit (38.2%) other units (28.7%), other departments (24.2%), and offenders (23.8%). To a lesser extent, subordinates and other clients were reported to be engaging in discrimination Mostly, respondents had experienced discrimination from these sources once a year with the exception of colleagues in their own and other units who were more likely to discriminate on a monthly basis apparently due to the close proximity in the workplace and daily interaction . , . , , . 41 00041 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada An important aspect of a healthy workplace is inclusion of everyone as equal regardless of their race, colour, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. When asked whether everyone was accepted as equal within CSC, the average rating was 5.13. Managers, women, francophones, those not working shifts, the most recent hires, and staff at headquarters and community offices were more likely to see their workplace as inclusive. In their comments, respondents have elaborated on their experiences with respect to discrimination. Most frequently mentioned discrimination was the so called "reverse discrimination" when priority is given to visible minorities or women to the exclusion of white males. In addition, the bilingualism requirement was sometimes seen as a type of discrimination. Quite often respondents mentioned inappropriate remarks and jokes because of somebody,s faith, stature, physical characteristics or racial features. An equally common form of discrimination was nepotism favouritism and preferential treatment in staffing decisions and task allocation. Respondents belonging to some ethnic groups reported they had experienced discrimination in career advancement opportunities. There have been instances when employees were denied training or promotion opportunities or have heard derogatory remarks based on their maturity and experience while some have experienced the opposite - being put down because of their youth. Quite a few employees reported being discriminated because of their family status and having small children. They felt a lack of support and lack of understanding of their family obligations. Most often, those respondents were women who also had encountered inferior treatment and sexist remarks because of their gender. Medical condition was another reason some respondents felt they had been the subject of discrimination. , 4 11.3. Harassment . Another characteristic of an unhealthy work environment is harassment However, not every unpleasant situation in the workplace can be appropriately classified as such even if it creates embarrassment or is seen to be offensive. Therefore this survey attempted to obtain concrete . , information about harassment-related behaviours as well as behaviours that made others feel uncomfortable or offended. Inappropriate behaviours of others in the workplace have made 50 5% of all respondents feel uncomfortable and 50.1% of respondents offended (see Figures 29 and 30) It appears women, . . shift workers, employees who have worked at CSC for more than a year and all those who work at institutions were more likely than their colleagues to experience uncomfortable and offensive , situations. Also English-speaking employees have felt uncomfortable more often than their French-speaking counterparts as have employees younger than 55. But non-managers to a higher degree than managers and employees aged 31-55 more likely than others reported having felt , , offended. 42 00042 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 29. Proportion of employees who have felt uncomfortable because of inappropriate behaviours by others in the workplace Between-group differences statistically significant at * a < 0 05 . and ** a< 0.001. Figure 30. Proportion of employees who have felt offended by the behaviours of others in the workplace 65% Between-group differences statistically significant at * a < 0 05 . 43 and ** a< 0.001. REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Comments allow a better understanding of situations that have made respondents feel uncomfortable and offended. There is a wide range of such situations, and it appears that similar things made people feel uncomfortable and could offend them. The most unpleasant were situations when employees had to listen to condescending remarks and inappropriate jokes with racial or sexual connotations based on somebody s faith, stature, physical characteristics, and other prohibited grounds of discrimination. Inappropriate language and conversations (such as swearing and using lewd vocabulary) made respondents uncomfortable and offended. ' Respondents felt equally uncomfortable and offended when treated discourteously and in an uncivil manner by co-workers. Others observed poor treatment of other staff members (including bullying, belittling yelling, excluding from activities, criticizing others in public, disclosing private information). Arrogant, disrespectful and demeaning attitudes from managers and their abuse of power were also reported (such as bullying ignoring, using offensive language or demeaning tone of voice discussing staffs private matters in public, preferential treatment). , , , Quite a few respondents noted rude and disrespectful treatment of offenders, staff members misusing corporate resources gossiping, and managers failing to hold staff accountable for , unethical behaviours as well as failing to provide trustworthy recourse mechanisms. Figure 31. Proportion of employees who in the past year have been harassed in the workplace Between-group differences statistically significant at * a < 0 05 . 44 and ** a< 0.001. REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Respondents were made uncomfortable by inappropriate behaviours of co-workers such as unnecessary physical contact and disrespecting their personal space. Others reported being exposed to private conversations and being questioned in relation to private matters. On the other hand, respondents were more likely to feel offended than uncomfortable by certain co-workers, behaviours that made their work and life at work difficult: not doing their job properly, demonstrating a poor work ethic, ignoring safety rules, refusing to help, and abusing authority. Harassment is any improper conduct by an individual, that is directed at and offensive to another person or persons in the workplace, and that the individual knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm. It comprises any objectionable act, comment or display that demeans, belittles, or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment, and any act of intimidation or threat. It includes harassment within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Based on the definition of harassment, 31.8% of the sample reported having been harassed in the workplace in the past year (see Figure 31). The smaller size of this group compared to those who reported having felt uncomfortable and offended justifies the distinction among these concepts in the survey. The highest degree of harassment was experienced by shift workers (45.6% versus 27.9% of those who do not work in shifts). Non-managers anglophones, employees aged 31-45, those who have worked for CSC for more than a year and those who are employed at institutions reported more harassment than their colleagues. , , Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of nine types of harassment. Most respondents who admitted having been harassed in the past year indicated several types of harassment that had happened to them. Intensity of these types varied. Overall 14.2% of those who have felt harassed in the past year reported that at least one type of harassment had been happening on a daily basis (even if several types applied at various intensity levels), 25% reported that at least one type of harassment happened every week 33.3% felt harassed on a monthly basis, and 25.6% - once a year (see Figure 32). For some demographic groups, the work environment seemed less healthy than for others: shift workers anglophones, and employees at medium, maximum and multi-level security institutions reported more frequent harassment than their colleagues , , , . A review of the frequency of each type of harassment (see Figure 33) shows that CSC employees had experienced all of them in the following order of diminishing frequency: . . , statements damaging to people s reputation (62.7%) serious or repeated rude degrading, or offensive remarks, such as teasing about somebody,s , physical characteristics or appearance, put-downs or insults, belittling (52.9%) . . criticism in public (48 1%) exclusion from group activities or assignments (43 9%) . threats . . . being shouted at, intimidation or retaliation, including those against employees who have expressed concerns about perceived unethical or illegal workplace behaviours (41 1%) repeatedly being singled out for meaningless or dirty jobs that are not part of employees . . normal duties (26.4%) sexually suggestive behaviours remarks or invitations (23.3%) a display of sexist racist or other offensive pictures, posters, or sending e-mails related to one . of the eleven grounds prohibited under the Canadian Human Rights Act (21 5%) physical contact such as touching or pinching (9 6%). , . ' , , . . 45 00045 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada In addition, 10.8% of those having been harassed indicated other types of harassment. Most frequently those were: denial of professional growth opportunities, inconsistent application of rules and standards, and spreading false information. Figure 32. Frequency of at least one type of harassment (for those who reported being harassed) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 25.6% -i. sag Total N=712 I 50% 60% s>> 33.3% I ! ? I Men N=296 70% I I; 3 I , - ! I Tasas \ y Shifts*" N=228 31-45 N=337 I 20.6% 11.2% I I 38.2% I 15.8% 18.4% 22.3% ' 11.8% 25.7% . 2 S ....">>. ! 16.0% 28.2% .34 3% Less than 12 mos N=30 . ! 22.5% 35.8% 46-55 N=229 14.9% ~ 1 > '303% 56 and older N=70 11.7% I T n 6% | 17.7% 35.3% I | 15.0% 30.0% ' i,- I 26.9% 1 . 30 and younger N=76 19.0% I 13.7% ] -28 9% No shifts N=484 I 14.9% I 27.0% 1 32.7% M . I jy&iir I J I 33.5% ?i 5 " " 6-15 I 23.0% 34.6% - ? 32.8% I English * N=565 1-5 14.2% 26.4% Managers N=179 100% I 33.4%' ... Non-managers N=533 90% 25.0% Women N=416 French N=147 80% 11.4% 26.7% 10.0% yrs N=242 mvwmmw yrs N=268 16 and more yrs N=172 Minimum * N=59 Medium N=212 Maximum N=104 Mixed-level N=144 HQ N=146 Community N=44 [0 Once a yr s Monthly ?Weekly ?Daily Between-group differences statistically significant at * a < 0.05 and ** a< 0.001. Some bars do not add up to 100% due to rounding and non-response . A small proportion of respondents had experienced each type of harassment on a daily (up to 5 4%) . or weekly (up to 13.6%) basis For the most part, harassment had happened once a year . (reported by up to 23.1% of respondents), but also monthly occurrences were quite prevalent (up to 21.7%), especially of statements damaging to reputation rude, degrading or offensive remarks, criticism in public and exclusion from group activities - treatment apparently received from peers or immediate supervisors. In addition there was a tendency for shift workers to experience all types of harassment more on weekly and daily basis while more of those who do not work shifts reported having been harassed once a year Also non-managers were more likely than managers , , , . 46 00046 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada to experience rude remarks and to be singled out for less desirable jobs on a monthly or weekly basis, and anglophones experienced sexually suggestive behaviours, remarks or invitations on monthly or weekly basis to a greater extent than francophones (not shown on the graph). Figure 33. Frequency of types of harassment (for the total sample who reported being harassed N=712) , . 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% - 45% ? -Yes Once a yr 40% 35% -Monthly 30% Weekly 25% Daily 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% When asked from whom the harassing behaviours came half of respondents indicated others senior to them in the department followed by immediate supervisors (42%) and colleagues in respondents own units (40.7%) (see Figure 34). To a lesser degree those were also colleagues in other units (29.2%), departments (19.7%) offenders (23.9%), subordinates (8.8%), and other , , ' , , clients (3.8%). Daily harassment coming from any source was experienced by the smallest proportion of respondents (the highest occurrence was 6% coming from offenders). Most prevalent were instances taking place once a year, but colleagues in respondents, own units were more often reported as harassers on a monthly and weekly basis (16% and 10 7% respectively). Although not shown on the graph compared to employees not working in shifts, shift workers reported slightly higher levels of harassment from colleagues in their own and other units as well . , as others senior to them , but they reported a notably higher level of harassment from offenders. 47 00047 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 34. Frequency of sources of harassment (for the total sample who reported being harassed , N=712) . Sometimes employees personally might not be harassed but they reported having witnessed such situations happening to others in the workplace. Seeing others being harassed lowers morale and creates an unhealthy work environment. 60.3% of respondents stated they had witnessed harassment within CSC: 23.8% of all respondents saw it once a year 21% monthly, 10.6% weekly and 4.7% daily. Non-managers, anglophones, shift workers, those aged 31-45, those who have worked at CSC for more than a year and staff at institutions, especially medium, maximum and multi-level security levels reported having observed harassment more often than their , , , , , counterparts. When asked to provide examples of harassment that respondents had experienced or witnessed two types of situations prevailed: 1) supervisors, demeaning behaviours toward staff including bullying, threats, belittling, exclusion blocking advancement, preferential treatment, unfair evaluations, criticism in public and micro-management; and 2) condescending treatment by peers including yelling belittling, bullying, making fun of others and picking on them, exclusion, criticising in public, and disrespecting others privacy. , , , , ' A large number of respondents also pointed out insulting comments and jokes based on gender , ethnicity, race, age, physical characteristics and appearance. This was followed by sexually suggestive remarks and invitations, gossiping and spreading false information and accusations being denied advancement opportunities (also due to preferential treatment) and lack of appreciation, retaliation and intimidation from managers (also for reporting or pointing out , unethical behaviours in the workplace) and staff members using inappropriate language (such as name calling and rude remarks). Among less frequently mentioned harassment situations were supervisors assigning tasks based on preferential treatment and their abuse of power, as well as employees degrading comments about their superiors. Some respondents mentioned condescending treatment of offenders co-workers sabotaging others, work, and abusive language by offenders. , , ' , 48 00048 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada From the examples, there is a certain degree of overlap between situations were perceived as harassment and those that made respondents feel uncomfortable or offended. This suggests that people s sensitivity to unhealthy workplace behaviours varies, and that there is a very fine line between co-workers' and managers' behaviours that are merely uncomfortable and those that are felt as harassment and might be formally reported. Therefore, it is important for individuals and the organization to identify any potentially unhealthy behaviours and address them before they escalate. Quite a few staff members did not have much faith in the organization s ability to deal with harassment. They felt harassment was not taken seriously by management and was often minimized or covered up. In addition, employees were often afraid to submit harassment claims ' , for fear of reprisal. When harassment has happened, it is important that employees know how to deal with it. 63.1% of respondents indicated they would talk to their supervisors first, 53.4% indicated they would try to resolve the situation themselves, and 48.1% would confront the harasser (see Figure 35). Smaller proportions of the sample would contact their union representative (31.6%), the Office of Conflict Management (22.8%) or the regional anti-harassment coordinator (22.5%), file a formal complaint (20.6%) or simply ignore the harassment (18.3%). Those who would prefer to ignore the situation commented they would do so for fear of retaliation or because complaining was futile. Some respondents (10.7%) suggested other ways of dealing with such situations. Most frequently they would speak to management above the immediate supervisor and colleagues. Some respondents would speak to a lawyer, chaplain, doctor, contact the Human Rights office, Employee Assistance Program, or police. A group of respondents would either resign or seek a transfer, but others would document the incidents to gather evidence for future use. Quite a large group said it depends on the severity of the incident and who the harasser is. A few suggested counter-harassing. Finally, those who had witnessed harassment would show their support to the victim and advise him/her to seek justice. Some employee groups differed slightly in their preferred methods of dealing with harassment: . the following would speak to their supervisor and contact the Office of Conflict Management: women more likely than men, managers more likely than non-managers, employees not working shifts more likely than shift workers, francophones more likely than anglophones, and staff at headquarters and community offices more likely than those working at institutions; . staff at the minimum security institutions would also speak to their supervisor; . managers those not working shifts, and staff at headquarters and community offices would also be more likely to contact the regional anti-harassment coordinator; . non-managers shift workers, anglophones, the youngest employees, and staff at maximum security institutions would simply ignore the situation; . the preferred method of anglophones shift workers and the youngest employees would be try and resolve the situation by themselves. , , , 49 00049 REVIEWED BY ATIP DIVISION Correctional Service of Canada REVISE PAR LA DIVISION AIPRP Service correctionnel du Canada Figure 35. Dealing with harassment 70% 63.1% 53.4% 48.1% 18.3% 1Cr7% E o Sf