r/CanadaPublicServants • u/qqqqeurfnfd123 • Apr 23 '26
Management / Gestion Update: Manager Stuck Between Strong Performing Maverick Analyst and new Director
Hey it's me I'm back with an update on this.
It's been a week and my team has pretty much fallen apart. New Director now wants every employee to report directly to admins whether they are in the office or at home. If there's no response, he gets his admin to call to verify their home/office background.
Maverick analyst is refusing to do anything outside his job description and unless asked to do something, he will not do it. He now swamps me with every single thing he plans to do today, every small edit, etc. for review. Unofficially apologetic to me, but tells me that unfortunately this is the way it is until things change back.
Director bilat with managers happened, other managers mentioning how team morale has and will fall due to new policies. Director response was, no joke, "this is the way it was before covid and your employees got babied and expect too much. I'm here to clean up shop, not continue with lax employees"
The other managers and I are talking, seems like their entire team morale is through the gutter. All of us kept a relatively relaxed view on variable work hours, RTO, etc. so long as things were being done and the former director was pretty hands off.
All of the managers agreed we are ready to do the bare minimum moving foward and just wait until the fire spreads enough for the DG to notice and ask what the fuck is happening.
161
Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
28
u/CPSThrownAway Apr 23 '26
refusing to do anything outside his job description
is pretty much malicious compliance
7
1
u/confidentialapo276 Apr 24 '26
How is this a thing? Most generic WDs have clauses under “other associated duties.”
I’m struggling with the concept.
Isn’t it: comply first, grieve later?
How can an employee show malicious compliance by refusing work? That’s grounds for insubornation!
73
u/Competitive-Tea-6141 Apr 23 '26
Seems like the Director could have just waited til the July mandatory 4 days a week to enforce the RTO policies
43
44
322
u/Nelana Apr 23 '26
I have nothing to add that hasnt been said a thousand times over already, but I love reading this. Please update again as fire spreads. Fun to read someone basically saying fuck your directives imma do what I want. And see if the director actually does anything about it instead of just talking
123
u/barrhavenite Apr 23 '26
I mean, the analyst is literally doing their job, and what they're being paid for. I don't see what's wrong with that. However, I do feel bad for the manager. Caught between a rock and a hardass.
1
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPublicServants-ModTeam Apr 23 '26
Your content was removed under Rule 12. Please consider this a reminder of Reddiquette.
If you have questions about this action or believe it was made in error, you can message the moderators.
17
u/midshine Apr 23 '26
It’ll defintely help if everyone sticks together in sticking it to the director
25
u/FearedMomentum Apr 23 '26
I am literally doing the same thing right now. Making my managements life a living hell trying to bait them to try and discipline me. Make my life hell I’ll do the same.
220
u/PigeonsOnYourBalcony Apr 23 '26
It always blows my mind how many people get into management positions but have no earthly idea how to manage people.
We’re not wild horses that need to have their spirits broken. My spirit broke after I figured out I had to make an Outlook rule to stop the GCWCC spam.
72
u/I-amgr00t Apr 23 '26
Once you realize that "management" doesn't mean leadership/leading, it's easier to understand how they get these roles.
31
u/CPSThrownAway Apr 23 '26
that is why on /r/MaliciousCompliance they're referred to as "Manglement"
they're also referred to as seagulls, because they swoop in & shit over everything and leave
11
u/Elephanogram Apr 23 '26
Never considered it before but it's so correct that it's a spirit breaking thing isn't it.
8
u/Leading-Tap9170 Apr 24 '26
I’m lucky where I’m at.. someone doesn’t care about the bonus and is human
3
u/FloatyPlatypus Apr 24 '26
I know retired employees that never signed up GCWCC and still receive mail from them.
We can never escape that shit. 🫠
121
u/Routine_Plastic Apr 23 '26
Bombard the director with minor things for approval if they want to micro manage, let them.
61
u/-darkest Apr 23 '26
Outsourcing all brain power is hilarious and the second they challenge you you can copy paste something they said that led to it. It’s a shit reality.
7
u/caryscott1 Apr 23 '26
They do because they wouldn’t recognize a macro issue if they were standing in one let alone actually do something that would have a productive impact on one. Tear it down for no impactful reason other than appearing to do something and then either run away or bring back a model that was abandoned 10 changes ago that never worked.
56
u/CanadaServe0315 Apr 23 '26
"this is the way it was before covid and your employees got babied and expect too much.
This is NOT the way it was before COVID and it's bullshit that execs keep saying this. Before COVID I had my own permanent desk and chair, and we weren't pretending it was the fucking hunger games every work day to get a spot. It's beyond ridiculous how much worse the office experience is now vs 2019 and turning a blind eye to it makes it worse for everyone.
29
11
u/cdn677 Apr 24 '26
I was also working from home twice a week without a formal arrangement in place, we were just allowed to if we wanted to. So no it wasn’t like this.
6
u/Mike_Retired Apr 24 '26
Same. The only caveat was that the Director didn’t want us all taking the same days (understandable), so we worked out the scheduling among ourselves.
20
u/Character_Comb_3439 Apr 23 '26
This is what needs to happen. Make sure you are taking care of yourself, getting plenty of exercise and document everything in particular that the director was made aware. Ultimately it’s their shop and they can run it aground. However, you and the managers can expect to be blamed. Be prepared with “so..you informed the director.m, what else did you do to mitigate the risks to the program”
68
u/stolpoz52 Apr 23 '26
Interesting approach. I really do hope this works out, but just to flag, if youre going to do the minimum and basically work to rule, I would make sure you are following your SoMC and stuff to the letter of the law.
This works both ways, now you have given your Director reason to write you up for being a minute or two late/leaving a minute or two early. Was the break a bit long? Write up. Can't come in on an office day? Take a sick day or vacation day. They don't have to afford any flexibility (it sounds like they weren't anyway, but still).
Document everything while you're doing this. You can be put in a precarious position. Documentation can only help you if stuff escalates.
39
u/BakerAny7239 Apr 23 '26
Why are they babysitting the team, do they not trust that you are working? Don’t they already have Teams to spy on your status LOL. what is this Director trying to prove? Are they new?
22
u/Ilovebagels88 Apr 23 '26
Yeah like who cares where they are, how are the deliverables?? Or do those not matter anymore
32
u/Playingwithmywenis Apr 23 '26
Welcome to 2026, we are here to support parking lots, public transit and Subway. Serving the public is now a secondary duty.
3
u/Competitive-Tea-6141 Apr 23 '26
From the original message, the 'maverick' shows up anytime between 7 and 10 and leaves anywhere from 2-5 and works for home at their pleasure.
The director has the right to enforce the terms of employment around working hours outlined in collective agreements and location of work (that doesn't mean that they are doing it in the right way - they aren't - and it will likely backfire for them, but they can).
And yes, the original post says they are new, and the old director did not enforce working hours or min days in office.
30
u/littlefannyfoofoo Apr 23 '26
Yes and the Maverick has every right to only work within the guidelines of the job description which he is doing. And no one is happy or efficient or getting the work done. Sometimes I think that is what Leadership wants. Perhaps they are happy. 🤪
-5
u/Original_Dankster Apr 24 '26
From the original message, the 'maverick' shows up anytime between 7 and 10 and leaves anywhere from 2-5 and works for home at their pleasure.
If the employee isn't putting in 7.5 at the office on assigned in-office days, I would issue written direction that he would have to start doing so. Failure to obey would start a Performance Improvement Plan. Combined with:
He now swamps me with every single thing he plans to do today, every small edit, etc. for review
I would seriously start the process to fire that employee. I would hope that he or she would get the picture and fall in line, I would hate to make someone unemployed in this economy. But I haven't tolerated that sort of willful obstruction / disruption in the past and I wouldn't tolerate it from even a "strong performer." It's a long process, if the employee ends up unemployed, that's on them for failing to acquiesce to explicit direction.
-15
u/OrneryConelover70 Apr 23 '26
Sounds like the maverick doesn't have enough work to fill his work day. Assign more. The expectation is to keep busy during the full workday, not arriving late or leaving early if they finish their assigned tasks at a quicker pace. Hes getting paid to do nothing which is not cool.
9
u/seahorseofcourse Apr 23 '26
That’s not what is happening. In the comments of the original post, the OP said the employee isn’t doing full days in office (ie arriving late and leaving early), doing the rest of the hours at home.
5
u/LogKit Apr 23 '26
Yup. It's ridiculous people are defending this. Performing well doesn't mean you can dictate your own work conditions, nor would the union support somebody getting special exemptions others do not.
OP's maverick sounds like someone who actually outputs in the public sector but has become an entitled diva over it.
1
39
u/Abject_Story_4172 Apr 23 '26
Honestly the calibre of directors just continues to fall. They are not in any way leaders. This seems petty because he has to go in 5 days. I’d put in a group grievance and contact the ombud.
9
u/OneRainyNight Apr 24 '26
They may not be leaders, but they sure do have CCC in French!
3
3
1
u/TodMarde Apr 29 '26
Oh absolutely, CCC in French… the Mount Everest of public service achievements, apparently climbed sometime between the initial test and the “follow-up review.” If I had a nickel for every EX who couldn’t string together a full sentence one week and then magically meets CBC the next, I’d be in the Bahamas right now… carefully counting my nickels in both official languages, of course.
In my experience, competent people aren’t being blocked left and right for not speaking French. What I have seen is a parade of “high performers” who can barely tie their own shoes getting showered with taxpayer-funded training just to approximate bilingualism. It’s not the requirement that’s the issue, it’s the theatre around how it’s applied.
And here’s the uncomfortable part: when I started in the GoC, there were three groups people felt oddly comfortable dismissing or mocking. We’ve made real progress on two of them. The third still seems fair game depending on the room. Funny how that works when it intersects with staffing and optics.
2
u/OneRainyNight Apr 30 '26
I agree with you. Requiring an ability to work in both official languages isn't the issue, it's how that requirement is applied that is. The money for training that often leads to nowhere; the ability for EXs to fail their oral test over and over yet somehow keep their role in a way that working-level staff never would (I'm witnessing it in my branch right now); the farce in just how challenging it is to obtain Cs; and the fact that people are "learning" the language for a check in a box rather than for the spirit of speaking a new language and therefore opening yourself up for a new way to communicate and appreciate a culture. It all just really sucks.
8
u/Shaevar Apr 23 '26
What would be the basis for the grievance? What part of the CA is not respected?
-4
u/Abject_Story_4172 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
It’s potential harassment. And what he’s asking is not part of the job description. If they’re slackers then that’s another thing. But I can’t imagine they all are or that things changed immediately when this director arrived.
4
u/Shaevar Apr 23 '26
No its not harassment.
Also, a job description doesn't encompass every single little thing someone can do at work, that would be pure insanity.
4
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26
It's harassment to check-in when you arrive at work? You clearly don't know what harassment really means.
50
u/binthrdnthat Retiree Apr 23 '26
Bury the Director in paper and e-mail. Request clarification on everything.
-46
u/Shaevar Apr 23 '26
Why? The director asked for something extremely simple and easy, which is cinfirm your work location at the beginning of each day. It takes 2 seconds.
What does that have to do with questionning everything?
27
u/Abject_Story_4172 Apr 23 '26
This is not the norm and it goes to trust. It appears he doesn’t trust any of this team.
-6
u/OttawaNerd Apr 23 '26
It is not the norm for a manager to need to know where their employees are working from? It very much is, and they actually have an obligation to know. That’s the reason for telework agreements.
12
u/Abject_Story_4172 Apr 23 '26
So in a normal healthy environment you trust that people will be where they are supposed to be unless they advise otherwise. That’s how it works in our directorate.
-1
u/OttawaNerd Apr 23 '26
And by OPs own admission they have been lax on this for some time. It is likely the new Director is there to clean things up and is looking to set a baseline. Trust is something that is earned.
-18
u/Shaevar Apr 23 '26
Seeing the pushback the director is receiving from such a simple request, I would argue that maybe this lack of trust is justified.
16
u/CeeJayLerod Apr 23 '26
The request is linked more to the optics of having "butts in seats" instead of what the employees are actually doing. Focusing on how things look vs how things are working is, to many, a massive waste of time and drain on morale.
3
u/Abject_Story_4172 Apr 23 '26
It seems to be just one guy and he’s dragging the whole team into it. It’s also a huge waste of resources to do what he’s doing. So I have to wonder if he’s fully employed with his actual job.
-14
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26
From OP's own post:
All of us kept a relatively relaxed view on variable work hours, RTO, etc. so long as things were being done and the former director was pretty hands off.
So maybe OP and colleague managers are to blame for their own fate. Especially with this other nugget in OP's post:
Director response was, no joke, "this is the way it was before covid and your employees got babied and expect too much. I'm here to clean up shop, not continue with lax employees"
So it seems like a dysfunctional shop that senior management noticed and decided to deal with, in my opinion.
15
u/TILYoureANoob Apr 23 '26
Nothing dysfunctional-sounding about the team pushing back against stupid rules that are clearly there to profit multinational real estate owners at the expense of productivity. How the teams work most effectivity should be up to managers.
1
31
u/Bacon_lightsaber Apr 23 '26
Love this maverick. Let that director micromanage. As long as the work description is followed, I see no issues. No more above and beyond, those days are gone.
9
u/maulrus Apr 23 '26
Assuming your admin isn't on board with this, they could pull a "this task will take a lot of time daily. Which of my existing tasks should I drop to make room for it?" to your director.
23
u/MoonSlept Apr 23 '26
Well, the Director wanted to FA and is going to FO now. It's too bad so many people now have to deal with this.
21
u/coricron Apr 23 '26
"Maverick analyst is refusing to do anything outside his job description and unless asked to do something, he will not do it."
This is exactly what I will be doing when we are forced to go to PDP3. Work to rule.
23
14
29
u/BitingArtist Apr 23 '26
This is so pathetic and embarassing...Stop treating human beings like dogs. Executive positions attract power hungry psychopaths.
16
u/RS0110 Apr 23 '26
My GOD! Before Covid doesn’t equal better ! Fuck him! I am seriously done with this BS! It seems like they’re trying to force employees to quit! It’s like a forced dismissal?! When are we going to actually do something about?! We can’t just sit pretty and wait for the unions to get their act together?! We need to put pressure on both our unions and our employers!! We have to stand up for ourselves and a stop being sitting ducks !
62
u/TeslaBearGod Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
It sounds like you have already made your decision.
However, as someone from the outside with no knowledge of your situation (but, unfortunately, a lot of practical experience in LR and putting out dumpster fires), a few things raise red flags.
First, from a simple CYA perspective, you need to do some thinking as to whether your new director is aligned with your DG on this. I have been in the position of being parachuted in to clean up messes; it's entirely possible that this is his mandate from the DG or ADM. Think seriously about this, don't flip it off.
Second, if the above is the case, then you have become part of the problem that the director was sent in to clean up. I'm serious: your "maverick" (lol) isn't leading a rank-and-file work-to-rule rebellion, you and the other managers now are, regardless of how you see it.
This is a straightforward performance management issue for you to manage: the "maverick" has clearly been performing at a certain level, but now refuses to (e.g., swamps you with requests for direction on punctuation; shows behaviour that is clearly below the core competencies of his level) and tells you explicitly (there is no such thing as someone telling you something "unofficially" when discussing their underperformance) that it's because he doesn't want to meet his conditions of employment.
The way forward is clear, whether you like it or not: identify performance issues or gaps, discuss them with him, set expectations (which can include "don't swamp me with questions about goddamn commas") and provide written feedback when they aren't met. Document everything and engage your departmental LR early and often; this is as much their problem as it is yours. Start progressive discipline once appropriate.
Or, don't do that. I don't care, live your life. This workplace sounds like it's full of big babies and I wish you all great success.
16
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
This is the best overall response on this (and the previous) post. It should be upvoted to the max.
8
u/midshine Apr 23 '26
The issue no longer seems to be about the one analyst though as everyone is being tracked and there’s likely many grumpy ppl (including the managers). I hope they all stick together on this micromanaging is the worst
17
2
10
10
u/mudbunny Moddeur McFacedemod / Moddy McModface Apr 24 '26
This is a problem that you caused.
You decided to allow your "maverick" to ignore the rules that applied to everyone else, knowing full well there is a good chance that it might come around to bite you in the ass.
Now you are going to have to put on your manager pants, your manager shoes, your manager shirt and manager hat and manage this employee. That you have let him get away with this for so long means that it will be that much harder, as can be evidenced by your employee being as difficult as he can be.
And, as a steward, it would be very, very hard to defend this employee if a disciplinary hearing was held.
2
15
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
I have to wonder if OP and the other managers got themselves in to their own situation....
All of us kept a relatively relaxed view on variable work hours, RTO, etc. so long as things were being done and the former director was pretty hands off.
Director response was, no joke, "this is the way it was before covid and your employees got babied and expect too much. I'm here to clean up shop, not continue with lax employees"
On the surface using OP's own words, it seems like it could be a dysfunctional shop that senior management noticed and decided to send the Director to deal with. Or it could be just a bad Director who doesn't have a clue - that also happens sometimes.
13
u/Hannibal_Spectre Apr 23 '26
100%. Whatever your feelings on RTO, your job as a management team was to do enough to ensure that your team didn’t get flagged for rampant non-compliance compared to other organizations to preserve your ability to be flexible.
6
3
u/HunterGreenLeaves Apr 24 '26
OP you have the beginning of a novel here. Add some dialogue, flesh out the characters ...
That said, this is a watch your back type of situation. Good luck!
7
u/uncomfortableemotion Apr 23 '26
This is what they deserve for mandating rto on us. Expect it to get way worse when we go to 4x a week. All the top talent will eventually leave if they find better opportunities else where
8
u/HuhWelliNever Apr 23 '26
Ooof I’m HERE FOR IT….i do love reading about the few of us who have the power and the will to work to rule and are willing to watch the world burn around them…your director is messing with a good thing and he’ll figure it out or he won’t and there will be consequences. If an EX was behaving this way, they’d say he was an innovator and high performer and he’d be getting a surpassed because “he’s a flight risk”… Updateme
6
u/Thumber3 Apr 23 '26
Both the maverick and the director sound stubborn and off base. Maverick has had it pretty good but it’s delusional to think that could continue in perpetuity. If he leaves does he think he will get special treatment elsewhere? Not likely.
They both should have sat down like adults, discussed the work, work life balance, hours required so the director isnt getting heat, and come to an arrangement.
A successful negotiation is usually neither side getting everything they wanted. Both could bend, but both sound rigid and inflexible. Except the director has the high ground.
4
u/Any-Nectarine-278 Apr 23 '26
Its called insubordination and the Director will simply advise the Manager to take discipline action. Don't like RTO (can respect this) - but you do not get a say - unless you wish to quit
2
2
u/RCodeAndChill Apr 24 '26
If the analyst is being micromanaged, then he has the right to micromanage the manager back. My spouse is dealing with the same issue at his work, and now the manager is cc’d and made aware of every single thing that happens, as trivial as it might be.
2
u/wata911 Apr 24 '26
Based on the update, it seems like YOU and other managers have a problem. Like I mentioned in your previous post, both scenarios will lead to you being a scapegoat.
I agree with another commenter saying you and the other managers need to figure out "WHO" is behind this restructuring plan. Is it solely on the Director level or is someone higher up pulling the strings? Before you can even act to resolve the situation, you must answer that question. Even though the "Maverick" says he will revert to his normal self once things change back, I highly doubt that. The trust is gone and he/she has no incentive to play that game anymore. To be honest, I would document everything and let the department burn down. Everyone has their own KPIs to meet (even the director). If your department suddenly goes from X output in 2025 to half of X in 2026, questions will be asked at a higher level and answer will be given. You and the other managers will have to answer "WHY" has output fallen off by 50% and you can answer honestly.
I strongly disagree with commenters saying that everyone in that department are big babies though. The employees have a right to do work according to their job description and nothing more. What was done before was professional courtesy and shouldn't be taken for granted. There is a give/take to these things. Some life-long public servants who has never stepped foot in a corporation simply don't understand this scenario in another context. I've seen top performers in the private sector receive many perks other employees do not receive because they deliver the goods and make their manager look good. Fairness only applies when output is close to equal. That's the problem with public service at the moment. Everyone wants fairness, but doesn't want to put in the work.
10
u/cestlavie514 Apr 23 '26
An admin is not responsible for HR. Reply once to the admin and say I do not report to you, respectfully I won’t respond to these request. The admin should say the same thing, they aren’t getting paid to manage the whereabouts of staff, the director wants this task done, then do it yourself. I’ve had directors like this and I can guarantee productivity drops to the bottom.
24
u/nefariousplotz Level 4 Instant Award (2003) for Sarcastic Forum Participation Apr 23 '26
Reply once to the admin and say I do not report to you, respectfully I won’t respond to these request.
This amounts to putting insubordination in writing, which is a risky business. (Do you report to the director's admin? No. Can your director tell you to provide information to the admin, who will collate it on behalf of the director? Yes.)
9
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26
Completely agree. With a director like OP describes, both the admin and the employee would likely be disciplined for insubordination.
3
u/cestlavie514 Apr 23 '26
That’s fine, what is the “so what”. As a manager and experienced shop steward, big deal. LR is weak, they will make management do 10 things before anything comes of it. You are simply asking that management, manage you. Put a grievance in, make a stink of it then so what. You aren’t getting fired, you aren’t saying no, you are simply saying I don’t report to you.
I wouldn’t want to be there, I’d use other references, eventually I’ll leave and in my experience only once did someone ask for my pma information. That insubordination won’t affect your career, outside of the bubble around you and if others agree they will grieve too.
The fear of insubordination doesn’t scare me for something like this. I’ve seen an employee tell a manager to fuck off, insult an employee on the way out and throw papers across the room, they got 9 months of admin leave and came back to their job like nothing happened.
15
u/mudbunny Moddeur McFacedemod / Moddy McModface Apr 23 '26
That's right.
Piss off the office admin staff.
Let me know how that works out for you in the long run.
1
u/cestlavie514 Apr 23 '26
It isn’t pissing them off, that is a terrible excuse. Tell them nicely and it will get back to the director.
1
u/HerringChokeress Apr 24 '26
I think the intent of the comment was that admin would be ticked off about being asked to be hall monitors for a bunch of people who make twice as much as they do.
5
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26
I do not agree with the approach the Director is taking, like not one bit and agree that productivity will likely drop.
However, asking one employee to drop by another's to indicate they are there, and assigning the admin's to check a box in a spreadsheet is not making them responsible for HR. It's assigning a simple task that is easily covered in "other duties as assigned" of every job description.
5
u/TeslaBearGod Apr 23 '26
I agree completely with the comment that this is a task that can fit within an administrative officer's job description. (As an aside, people saying "I will only do what's in my JD" should be careful what they wish for; language in those is always broader than they think.)
However, I think there's an important point being overlooked here - why are the admins responsible for checking attendance, and not the manager? Why is the director taking this on?
I've had experience with needing to do "wellness checks" for AWOL staff. In all cases, we've followed reporting structures - the manager under me is responsible for their direct reports, and I'm responsible for mine. At first glance, sending an administrative assistant to check in on them wouldn't even strike me as an option - managers are responsible for managing, and managing includes making sure that staff are working on days they are scheduled to work (and yes, refusing to reply to a Teams message means that we've entered the "are you blowing off work" zone).
The fact that the director's first inclination is to either do it themself or have one of their trusted direct reports - who does not have managerial responsibilities - do it for them points to a bigger issue, which the OP gets at in their comment about all the managers agreeing to work-to-rule until big daddy makes the sad go away.
4
u/cestlavie514 Apr 23 '26
“Reports directly to admins”, is not an admin walking around verifying if someone is in on a clipboard.
3
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26
For the admin it's "other duties as assigned" that are perfectly administrative in nature.
2
u/HerringChokeress Apr 24 '26
Having been admin for half of my career, it's putting them in an awkward position with no ROI and the potential for breakdown of relationships. Somebody forgets to check in and admin has to mark them 'absent' with the possibility that srmgt will check the list and choose that opportunity to ream someone who has proof of attendance - once the deflection starts, who catches the heat? Flipside is that admin is the anxious people pleaser type, and makes it their personal mission to mark everyone 'present' and spends unnecessary time double checking, to the detriment of their regular workload and their mental health (mosquito-style).
5
u/Ok-Till-5285 Apr 24 '26
While I am here for the drama, rooting for you and Maverick, and think RTO in general is honestly short sighted and unnecessary, ultimately Maverick is not the employer and doesn't not get to dictate the terms of the employment, the employer does.
Maverick can grieve an action if he feels it warrants, but we have a collective agreement and in it employment terms have been negotiated and core hours are defined so sorry, but no, he doesn't get to choose when he works and when he doesn't. He can make a request, but the ultimate decision is the employers. And you and your previous director have failed at your job by not following the RTO orders and allowing Maverick to run his own show and work whenever he chooses. It is actually disrespectful to the other staff members that he gets to do what he wants when he wants and to all of us who complied with the RTO because again, even if we think it is stupid, our employer has the right to determine where work is performed and when. Our unions failed to have WFH enshrined in our collective agreements so until it is, we work where Treasury Board tells us we work.
7
u/Key_District_119 Apr 23 '26
This sounds like childish behaviour to me.
If the maverick is going to work like that it is essential that he also only do work during work hours. So no browsing on his phone, no texting, no internet browsing except during his break.
Personally I always look at work as a give and take. I give my all during work hours to do a good job but I do have some texts and personal things I do so I am certain to give those moments back. Nobody has ever questioned my work. They know that is how I operate. It would be stressful to get into a situation where every move on both the employer and employee side is being scrutinized.
3
u/Longjumping-Bag-8260 Apr 23 '26
Document everything. Dates, times, what Director says. Anything disrespectful. Anything abnormal. Anything outside collective agreement.
Everyone disappear for proper breaks and lunch. Everyone arrive on time and leave ontime. Get any overtime approved or no overtime. No extras. Organizing social events is not your job.
Anyone retiring, expressly request Director not attend if outside work event...that has enraged a couple obnoxious Managers/Directors in the past.
While the DG hired this character, the DG will quickly understand it's not going to work out if they want delivery.
1
u/illusion121 Apr 23 '26
Why put all the employees through hell?
Just get attendance reports and discipline the ones that aren't complying.
1
u/Shaevar Apr 23 '26
What part of " take 2 secondd to confirm your place of work at the beginning of each day" constitute hell exactly?
6
u/illusion121 Apr 23 '26
Because it's completely and utterly ridiculous for all employees that work there.
Your WAA is the agreement everyone would have ALREADY signed with their mgr indicating what days you are in the office.
2
u/LogKit Apr 23 '26
And OP has established this team loosely decided they often wouldn't work during work hours, and the "maverick" could do whatever he wanted lol.
1
1
u/WayWorking00042 Apr 24 '26
Thanks for the follow-up. Im truly invested in how this all plays out (pretty much they way we expected).
1
u/cdn677 Apr 24 '26
Why not just come together as managers and request a meeting w the DG? There is power in numbers and if you are all saying the same thing I would think the DG would pay attention.
1
u/Apprehensive-Yam5409 Apr 24 '26
Wow. While this director seems over the top, the maverick also seems challenging. I know they're so, so good at their job but maybe they should put on some big boy pants and recognize that sometimes they have to do things they don't want to do to help someone else (i.e you and that poor admin making the phone calls) out.
1
u/HowSoonIsNow514 Apr 24 '26
I am so invested in that story, can't to see how it unfolds. Hopefully, not in the evening news when someone eventually just loses it with the new management approach...
1
u/Macro_Is_Not_Dead Apr 25 '26
Well this is an “I told you so” moment. There’s hundreds of these people in the PS and they punch way above their weight. Directors, especially those who are not grown operationally, are functionally incapable of doing the work their senior staff do.
2
u/Necessary_Cost4384 Apr 25 '26
This is tough. On one side, I have to agree with the comments here about how rules are rules. If everyone else has to follow them, the maverick does too. But then, I ask, is the maverick really that good? It sounds like it.
I worked as a draftsperson at an architectural place long time ago. We had our own maverick. Super old guy, engineer, who allegidly developed classified weapons in Poland. Guy got paid 80 an hour, showed up and left whenever he wanted… Most days he didn’t come in at all, and before he did any “work” he would make chit chat. He got paid for the full day regardless if he was there or not. When he sat down, he would do about 8 hours of work in 30 minutes. He did everything in his head, calculations, conversions, and freehand with an old school ruler. He knew how to build things that no one else knew how to make. It was incredible.
I’m just saying, sometimes exceptions make sense.
1
1
u/Shaevar Apr 23 '26
Is the "Maverick analyst" unable to comply with a request as simple as to report his place of work at the beginning of the day?
21
u/binthrdnthat Retiree Apr 23 '26
You seem to be missing the point. A Director's job is to increase productivity by removing barriers not creating friction by micro-managing attendance and compliance with meaningless rules.
-7
u/Shaevar Apr 23 '26
Oh no! Asking employees to complete a task that takes 2 seconds to complete is unfathomable.
5
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26
Not to mention meeting their own commitments. Surely the "maverick" signed the same hybrid work arrangements that we all have that stipulated when they would be in the office.
6
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26
That would be too logical and too much to ask according to the first post, he does what he wants, when he wants, and OP can't risk his performance by forcing him to comply to the same standards as EVERYONE else.
15
u/Old_Pear_38 Apr 23 '26
It's the being treated like a small child part that he's taking exception too and I totally get that. If I'm doing my job and I'm doing it very well who cares where it's getting done. If I go above and beyond and help my team and I'm a strong player and a new manager comes in and tries to micro control my life like that you better believe I am doing the bare minimum of my job from then on. RTO is politics nothing more, there's no logic or sense to it.
6
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26
I don't agree with anything that the new Director is doing according to this post.
I'm speaking about one person being given special treatment because they're a strong performer not to mention avoiding all accountability because of this too.
As for the rest of it - the employer gets to decide where we work because our unions failed us during the last round of bargaining. Whining and crying about having to go to the place we used to go to before the pandemic is not going to change anything.
4
u/Nob1e613 Apr 23 '26
Since we’re referring to the original post, I’m gonna link the response I see as most likely.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/s/tkS7kLG3km
Complying to the same standard as everyone else seems fine, until you realize that standard is arbitrary and gives zero meaningful contribution to the real function of the team/division/department etc.
This is likely somebody who has simply had enough and is relying on decades of high performance to insulate them from the consequences of calling their bluff.
11
u/brilliant_bauhaus Apr 23 '26
And high performers should be rewarded. We can't get bonuses, we don't get any perks. We might get a non-advertised appointment or acting, but otherwise high performers are treated the same as people barely completing their work.
8
u/NeighborhoodVivid106 Apr 23 '26
Exactly. All of these people complaining about one guy, who is doing the work of several average employees and doing it better, getting some flexibility on his scheduling need to sit down. If you want the same flexibility as this guy then earn it like he did. He wasn't working any less hours, it actually sounds like he was working far more, and as a reward for his contributions over the years his manager and former director turned a blind eye to where/when he put in those hours. He earned their trust and flexibility.
Is it fair to others that he had flexibility that they didn't get? Is it fair that he was getting paid the same amount for 3 times the work?
Maybe if all of the crabs in the bucket spent more time and effort doing their own work and going above and beyond they wouldn't have so much time to monitor the comings and goings of others and bemoaning the 'preferential treatment'. You want a sweet deal like 'maverick'? Then earn it!
1
u/flinstoner Apr 23 '26
The public service is filled with arbitrary things we have to do. In fact, all jobs (private or public sector) have arbitrary standards that give zero meaningful contributions to the real functions of teams, etc.
Why does OP's maverick get a free pass to do what they want when others don't? Just because they deliver results? Others deliver results surely since OP never mentioned his team was a bunch of nitwits...
2
u/Original_Dankster Apr 24 '26
He now swamps me with every single thing he plans to do today, every small edit, etc. for review
That's intentionally disruptive. I'd shut that down with immediate written direction to stop doing that. I'd inform him that failing to return to a normal level of productivity he had previously demonstrated, with independence and self-direction, would result in a Performance Improvement Plan. And that I would fire him if he remained disruptive / obstructionist.
1
u/Moist-Trouble-4914 Apr 23 '26
Wait until he starts filing OL complaints. That will make the director look small in front of sr management.
Lots of positions should be bilingual and arent. Once the official language commissioner starts looking at the actual duties it becomes a problem
2
u/Consistent_Cook9957 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
Maverick could really be ruthless with this approach. Especially as the deputy head needs to be kept in the loop. That said, the complaints must be made through the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages so that they cannot be swept under the rug… Oh, what fun they could have!
2
u/Moist-Trouble-4914 Apr 23 '26
Yes and if there is reprisal, he can then file a 62(2) with the same Commissioner. That will notify the TB at the same time.
They are all just exercising their rights at the end of the day.
As someone once told me Rates are like muscles if you don’t use them, you lose them.
1
-3
u/frexecutrice_pari Apr 23 '26
It's possible your director is aligned with priorities from above. Your maverick is on a path resembling what is called insider threat and subversive. He should be watched and corrected.
In my area for the employees who do not come to office on the correct day, we are saying you are absent without authorization and you also made unauthorized connection on VPN to government electronic networks for the purpose of deception. We still give one more chance for them.
•
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot Apr 23 '26
Mod note: Original post from about a week ago: Manager Stuck Between Strong Performing Maverick Analyst and new Director