Why Is the Public Sector a DEI Laggard?

Recruiters for public service jobs talk a good game. Sure, the pay may not be as generous as in the private sector, but what about the opportunity to do purposeful work with diverse colleagues? Some government employers, such as the B.C. Public Service, promise that “diversity, inclusion and respect is at the heart of our work” — and offer accessibility and inclusion toolkits to ensure everyone feels welcome. 

The sales pitch seems believable. After all, there is a greater expectation that public sector employers will more readily enforce equity policies and anti-discrimination laws than their business counterparts. But does this perception match on-the-ground reality? Should the public sector be considered diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) standard-bearers?

Eddy Ng says the facts tell a different story. Ng, Smith Professor of Equity and Inclusion, points out that the public sector workforce lags the private sector in minority employee representation. Minority representation in the federal public sector is 2.7 per cent below their labour market availability rate. In comparison, federally regulated private sector employers exceeded the labour market availability rate by five per cent.

What explains the surprising underrepresentation of minorities in Canada’s public services? Ng believes one reason could relate to leadership. His prior research showed that organizational leaders play an influential role in developing diverse workforces. In particular, servant leaders, who focus on employee needs rather than organizational goals, would be expected to shine as DEI overachievers. By definition, they are more likely to invest their efforts in supporting employees, building stronger workplace relationships and enhancing employees’ sense of belonging.

This gave Ng and his colleagues Greg Sears (Carleton University) and Kara Arnold (Memorial University) an idea: Studying the relationship between servant leadership and inclusive practices in both sectors could reveal insights into why public employers don’t seem to be carrying their weight in minority employee representation.

“We wanted to examine whether the pursuit of similar goals by servant leaders could lead to dissimilar outcomes across the two sectors,” says Ng.

Servant leaders have a weaker pull in bureaucracies

Their study was based on an online survey of 151 Canadian DEI managers in the public and private sectors. Participants were asked to assess their organizational leaders using a well-validated measure of servant leadership as well as their organization’s implementation of various inclusive practices. They also reported the overall percentage of racial minorities in their organizations and the percentage of racial minorities in management positions.

Once the results were analyzed, the study confirmed what the researchers suspected: Servant leadership led to greater implementation of inclusive practices as well as increased numbers of minorities in organizations generally and, in particular, management roles. 

Ng says this finding signals that “servant leadership may not only help to foster more positive employee attitudes and behaviours, but among senior leaders, servant leadership may influence the formulation of inclusive practices that enhance workplace diversity.”

But the servant leadership story plays out differently depending on the type of organization. To Ng’s surprise, servant leadership was rated higher among private sector versus public sector employers. Further, the positive effect of servant leadership on DEI was noticeably stronger for private employers.

Removing institutional barriers

Ng is unsure why servant leadership is rated lower in the public sector. He says it is possible that servant leader behaviours may be perceived through a different lens within each sector.

As for why servant leadership has a stronger effect on inclusion in the private sector, Ng says business leaders have more room to exercise managerial discretion. Servant leaders in the highly institutionalized public service may be constrained in hiring and promoting minorities and implementing inclusion because of existing rules, unionization or work requirements (think bilingualism or citizenship).

Servant leaders in the public sector may also be up against social expectations, says Ng. In their workplaces, they are often viewed as “bureaucrats” following government directives or advancing political interests. “This unfortunate view of leaders as bureaucrats,” says Ng, “can render servant leaders in the public sector to be perceived as more socially distant, cold, untrustworthy and even out of touch.” With those personas, it’s no surprise servant leaders in the public sector struggle to implement diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Given the structure of the study, the findings offer suggestive inferences rather than causal connections. Ng hopes further research will flesh out some of the insights. But for now, he says, the case is strong enough for public sector organizations to support their servant leaders better. That may involve offering leadership training and development, building a culture that supports servant-leader behaviours and removing institutional constraints where possible.

“Our findings suggest that institutional constraints may limit the potential for servant leaders to exercise agency and mobilize organizational members to make transformational changes,” says Ng. “These constraints can impede the public sector and reform, and limit an organization’s ability to keep pace with private sector organizations.”