Linguistic (in)security at work – Exploratory survey on official languages among federal government employees in Canada

1. Official languages matter to public servants working across Canada

2. Linguistic insecurity is a challenge in federal offices in Part V regions

3. The reasons for first- and second-language linguistic insecurity were different but interrelated

When respondents reported that they did not feel comfortable using English or French, or if they said they were not sure, they were then asked to specify whether they felt uncomfortable writing in the language, whether they felt uncomfortable speaking it in meetings or in conversations with colleagues, and (for those who indicated a preference for supervision in the language) whether they felt uncomfortable asking to be supervised in the language. Those who reported feeling uncomfortable writing, speaking or asking to be supervised in the language were then asked to explain why.

While linguistic insecurity in French was more common than linguistic insecurity in English, there were notable similarities between respondents’ reasons for French first-language discomfort and English first-language discomfort, and between respondents’ reasons for French second-language discomfort and English second-language discomfort. Work environment factors were also important for both first- and second-language linguistic insecurity.

Interestingly, the most frequently cited reasons for first- and second-language discomfort appeared to be interrelated. Whereas second-language speakers were more concerned about not being strong enough in the language and about being judged when trying to use it, first-language speakers were more concerned about inconveniencing colleagues (or even supervisors) whom they thought might themselves feel uncomfortable using the language. This suggests that it may be possible to address first- and second-language linguistic insecurity in ways that are complementary and mutually reinforcing (explored in Chapter III).

1. Feedback from employees outside of Part V regions

English and French are used in certain federal workplaces in all provinces and territories both for providing services to the public and as languages of work. In offices outside of Part V regions, co-workers may still use both English and French in their day-to-day operations with each other and with colleagues in different parts of the country (e.g., via conference calls, virtual teams). Moreover, some employees in non-Part V regions have Part V obligations (e.g., individuals working in a departmental head office located in a non-Part V region can have Part V responsibilities toward individuals in a satellite office located within a Part V region).

Early in the development of the survey, the Office of the Commissioner and PRA made the difficult methodological decision to limit eligible respondents to Part V regions in order to ensure that the results reflected the experiences of employees who had the right—and therefore the opportunity and even the expectation—to work in either or both official languages. Federal institutions were asked to circulate the questionnaire only to employees in Part V regions; the questionnaire opened with an explanation that it was intended for Part V regions; and respondents who said that they worked outside a Part V region were screened out early in the survey.

Despite this, 4,044 responses were received from federal public servants in more than 60 different institutions attempting to participate in the survey but who were screened out because they did not work in a Part V region. This included:

• 927 from non-Part V localities within Ontario;
• 873 from non-Part V localities within Quebec; and
• 2,244 from provinces and territories other than Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

The Office of the Commissioner and PRA received dozens of e-mails from federal employees across the country who wanted to participate in the survey. Some were perplexed, as they were under the impression that employees in an office that provided services to the public in both languages also automatically had the right to work in either language. Others were disappointed or even frustrated, explaining that official languages were personally and professionally important to them, that they often worked in both languages, served the public in both languages, and that they interacted with colleagues in both languages in other parts of the country.

Individuals from non-Part V regions who contacted the Office of the Commissioner and PRA directly were invited to provide written responses to the questionnaire’s open questions in the official language of their choice. Four of these individuals did so. Their responses illustrated the value that they placed on official languages and the importance of being able to work in both languages. Below are a few examples of their comments:

I enjoy communicating with my co-workers because we often switch language mid-conversation. I’m proud to be fluently bilingual in French and English.

When receiving correspondence and/or e-mails from management, it would be more than helpful if they were bilingual so I don’t have to request it be translated to my official language of choice, which I often have to do.

As a manager who works at a non-designated office and is responsible for employees in a designated bilingual office in the [National Capital Region], it would be great if this type of scenario would be considered when discussing [official languages]. Technology changes the landscape of ‘regions’ and [official languages] must be considered in these scenarios.

We take our roles very seriously when it comes to the [official languages] obligations. We truly exist because of [official languages], yet I wouldn’t say that we have the most current training and knowledge required, especially since we are not located in a designated bilingual area. Are we at a disadvantage in a non-designated area when required to provide content in both official languages?

Second-language courses should be available to employees who want to improve their language skills. [translation]

Many talented Francophone candidates have been refused bilingual positions here (in an English region) simply because their English isn’t good enough, but the employer could give them a chance to improve their English through structured training courses. [translation]

It’s important for employees to feel that their manager or supervisor supports them in their using the language of their choice in their workplace and that their manager or supervisor supports and even encourages them to learn a second language. [translation]

It’s worrying to see that a few people in positions of power seem to be able to set a certain tone or example that often has a negative impact on the workplace’s linguistic minority. [translation]

While the survey results from Part V regions cannot be extrapolated to non-Part V regions, it is possible that some of the findings could be consistent with realities in these offices. For example, respondents in offices in Part V regions where English predominates were more likely to want to have more opportunities to use their French; it is possible that this could also be the case among bilingual employees outside of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and the National Capital Region, in regions that also tend to have English-predominant work environments. In addition, the possibility that, if employees are made to feel more comfortable using both English and French with their colleagues they might feel more confident using both when interacting with the public (see Figure 56) should be of particular interest in offices outside of Part V regions that have Part IV obligations (communications with and services to the public). These issues merit further study and analysis.

2. Detailed overview of survey responses by region

Although the Office of the Commissioner and PRA heard from public servants working in all Part V regions, some regions were better represented than others. (See Table 1 in Chapter I.) Chapter II presents a detailed breakdown of the results for each Part V region and shows the situation and challenges among respondents within each region and how these can be related to the overall results.

Many Anglophone and Francophone respondents had suggestions of their own

The questionnaire asked respondents to provide suggestions as to how employees could be helped to feel more comfortable using English and/or French at work, and roughly 40% did so. Half of all respondents were randomly selected and their responses to the open survey question were coded and analyzed according to their first official language (see Table 8, below).

Respondents gave a variety of suggestions, but some suggestions were more prevalent than others. Among Anglophones (who were more likely to feel uncomfortable in their second language, except in Quebec outside the National Capital Region), the predominant suggestion was for greater access to opportunities to learn and to improve in the languages, including through training and a workplace environment that is more encouraging and open to people practising their second language. Among Francophones (who were more likely to feel uncomfortable in their first language), the predominant suggestion was to ensure a meaningful place for both languages through leadership from management in promoting bilingualism and through fostering a workplace environment in which both languages can be seen and heard being used by colleagues.

Is it possible to create a “virtuous circle” of linguistic security in which both first- and second-language speakers can benefit?

The survey results showed that first- and second-language speakers can have different needs when it comes to overcoming linguistic insecurity. But both groups can also form part of a shared linguistic work environment in which either English or French is the non-predominant language. This raises the question: By helping one group, is it possible to help the other? Is it possible to create a “virtuous circle” of linguistic security in which both first- and second-language speakers of the non-predominant language in a given office, team or department can benefit?

For example, encouraging second-language learners to use the underrepresented language more often (whether English or French) could help to make it more seen and heard. This could, in turn, help first-language speakers to see that their own use of the language is not inconveniencing colleagues who may, in fact, also wish to use it more often. With this in mind, first-language speakers could feel encouraged to respond in the non-predominant language to second-language speakers who are trying to use it, helping to show them that their efforts to develop their skills and to make the non-predominant language more seen and heard are worthwhile.

Moreover, it may be possible that both groups would benefit from the knowledge that some of their colleagues may be more bilingual than they realize (e.g., receptive bilingualism), and that some of them—first- and second-language speakers alike—may actually want to use the non-predominant language more often. No employee should have to feel alone in their desire to use or improve their English or French. As one respondent from an English-predominant work environment explained:

Native French speakers could more frequently engage in French during meetings and conversations so that others who are trying to practise/improve/engage in French can feel like they are genuinely participating and not artificially speaking French just because colleagues are French . . . . Making French more commonplace would make it easier for all employees to feel more comfortable speaking in French, regardless of their proficiency.

The next two sections present a set of potential strategies for further exploration that could help to address linguistic insecurity among first-language speakers and second-language speakers in ways that are complementary and mutually reinforcing. The strategies presented here are not exhaustive; they are based on the survey findings and respondent suggestions and are illustrated with direct quotations from individual respondents.

Potential strategies for further exploration: Addressing the needs of first-language speakers

Overcoming first-language linguistic insecurity in the workplace could benefit from an inclusive language environment in which first-language speakers know that they are genuinely welcome to use their language, and that their use of the language is not “inconveniencing” others. Everyone can play a positive role—colleagues, supervisors and senior management alike—to encourage this inclusivity and to help foster a meaningful place for the non-predominant language^{Endnote 4}.

A more inclusive language environment for first-language speakers could be fostered by one or more of the following:

• Equal promotion of both languages by senior management and supervisors

  If senior management were to use both official languages equally more often, the employees would feel more comfortable.

  I’d appreciate it if [management] made the effort to talk to me in French so that I don’t feel as if I’m causing them extra stress. [translation]

• Making the non-predominant language more seen and heard by encouraging greater use among first- and second-language speakers alike

  Let people know that they are welcome to work in either official language and to practise using the language of their choice. [translation]

  The simple fact of reminding people about this at the beginning of a meeting can reduce stress and increase the level of comfort for people who are not as fluent in one language as they are in the other. [translation]

• Greater awareness that second-language speakers may be more bilingual than people realize (e.g., receptive bilingualism)

  Trusting in Anglophones’ receptive bilingualism would improve Francophones’ comfort level, and French would be used more often. Francophones wouldn’t feel as if they’re excluding their Anglophone colleagues from the conversation by speaking French. [translation]

• Normalization and encouragement of using “at-level” receptive bilingualism between first-language speakers (e.g., internal documents using both languages, or Anglophone and Francophone colleagues conversing with each other in their own respective first language)

  People should be able to speak in their language of choice. We all speak both, and at varying levels, but we understand one another . . . . I understand my French colleagues fully when they speak in French, and they understand me when I speak in English . . . we get our work done and are very productive.

  Allowing for “bilingual” files (e.g., . . . documentation in either or both languages) could allow more flexibility.

• Greater awareness that some colleagues, including first- and second-language speakers, may wish to use the non-predominant language more often—those who want to use it need to know that they are not alone

  Some of my colleagues who don’t speak French very well may appreciate it if I speak to them in that language, but because I’m perfectly bilingual, it’s often just easier or quicker for me to speak to them in English. Maybe it’s up to me to make an effort to use my own language more often so that my colleagues can improve their second language. . . . That’s the reason I sometimes do choose to speak French, but maybe I should do it more often? [translation]

Potential strategies for further exploration: Addressing the needs of second-language speakers

Overcoming second-language linguistic insecurity in the workplace may require, above all, individual effort and engagement. As one respondent put it, employees “have to make the commitment to do it on their own.” But meaningful opportunities to learn, improve and maintain skills are also critical, including access to training (not just in terms of an available budget but also a manageable workload) and a non-judgemental language environment that encourages “linguistic risk-taking^{Endnote 5}.” Less formal situations—chatting with colleagues or short e-mail messages, for example—may provide such opportunities in some cases.

A more inclusive language environment for second-language speakers and learners could be fostered by one or more of the following:

• Meaningful access to opportunities to learn, improve and maintain one’s second official language, both through training and while at work

  If a completely bilingual environment is the goal, then everyone must be given equal and ongoing opportunities for training and maintaining.

  Training allows a safe space for people to learn, improve and practise.

• Patience and encouragement on the part of senior management, supervisors and colleagues of employees who wish to make the effort to use their second language more often

  Employees who suffer from being judged when speaking or writing French/English should be encouraged instead of shamed or disregarded when their use of the language isn’t perfect, especially if it is apparent that they put a lot of time and effort into trying to [give] their responses.

• Normalizing and encouraging second-language learners to ask to use their second language with native speakers and with each other

  Just give it a try! Don’t be shy, or intimidated, or afraid of making mistakes. Nobody will judge you, most everyone will help you, and it’s only through practice and a willingness to learn and have others correct you that you’ll feel more comfortable. You’ve got nothing to lose by trying!

• Avoiding switching to the first official language of a second-language learner who is trying to practise—although well intentioned, switching can have a discouraging effect for language learners

  When someone initiates a conversation in their second language, people should take this as a cue that they want to speak in that language even if they are having difficulty. Often when people notice someone is struggling a bit, they will switch to the language they believe the other person will feel more comfortable with, but this will frustrate their efforts to speak in their second official language.

• Normalizing mistakes as part of the learning process, and discouraging the practice of over-correcting or frequently commenting on a second-language learner’s imperfect English or French

  Take a risk and make mistakes to improve your skills. [translation]

  Change the social dynamic so that people can be imperfect and encouraged.

  People need to stop being afraid of looking stupid when they’re speaking their second language. Don’t be too proud or too fearful of making mistakes. [translation]

• Greater awareness that some colleagues, including first- and second-language speakers, may wish to use the non-predominant language more often—those who want to use it need to know that they are not alone and that their effort is worthwhile

  For me personally, my colleagues are very supportive when I try to speak in French, but it’s more of an internal struggle, as I know I’m not as comfortable or necessarily strong in French, so it’s easier to revert back to English when I forget a word or can’t express myself as I would in English. But I should remind myself they want to help me and are patient with me when I try to improve my French.

Additional opportunities for further understanding – Non-Part V regions, the relationship between language of work and service, workplace wellbeing, and other questions

The potential strategies suggested above would benefit from additional analysis and consideration through further study, including ongoing analysis of the survey data by other experts in the field and by establishing discussion groups—for example, by drawing on the more than 2,000 respondents who volunteered to participate in potential follow-up discussions.

The strong interest from federal public servants outside of Part V regions also suggests that there is an opportunity to study and to better understand their needs and contexts, including through a separate survey and through potential discussion groups.

The mutually reinforcing potential of promoting best practices in language of work (Part V) and best practices in language of service (Part IV) should also be explored further. Public servants working in non-Part V regions who contacted the Office of the Commissioner and PRA during the administration of the survey pointed out that fostering a positive language-of-work environment was important to them because they had an obligation to serve the public in both languages. Survey respondents from Part V regions appeared to be of a similar view. When asked whether they agreed that “if employees were made to feel more comfortable using both English and French with colleagues it would make them feel more confident using both languages when interacting with the public,” 60% of all survey respondents (including 53% of Anglophones and 66% of Francophones, see Figure 56, below) agreed, and only 16% disagreed.

The potential personal impacts of linguistic insecurity on federal employees’ workplace wellbeing may also merit further exploration. Among survey respondents who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using English or French at work, over three quarters of them reported having experienced some kind of personal impact as a result. Among those respondents, half (50%) stated that as a result they had hesitated to use the language, 43% (mainly Anglophones) stated that they felt awkward, judged, embarrassed or self-conscious, and 31% (mainly Francophones) felt the need to apologize for using the language.

Some survey respondents wrote about how their experiences had left them feeling frustrated, pessimistic or even disillusioned. One respondent, for example, was skeptical that the federal workplace culture could change:

I’m sorry, but I don’t think concrete actions will change anything. . . . The federal public service is slowly and surely assimilating Francophones. [translation]

Another cited the politicization of language in their workplace as a symptom of a broader societal challenge that their employer could do little to influence:

There is definitely a stigma in Quebec towards English speaking people. . . . But it’s not anything the job is doing, it’s the culture and the way people were raised, unfortunately.

A respondent in their 40s, although supportive of bilingualism, explained how they had never themselves had the opportunity to become bilingual, stating that “many of us are at a distinct disadvantage simply because of where and when we grew up.”

Still, others remained optimistic that, regardless of language or ability, all federal employees could contribute to a more linguistically secure work environment:

I think that all employees should be considerate of each other as they try to practise their second languages. That would go a long way to help.

Linguistic insecurity in the federal workplace intersects with other important challenges, issues and opportunities that survey participants identified in their comments and that could benefit from further consideration. These include questions around:

• diversity and inclusion;
• workplace environment and culture;
• the promotion of bilingualism among employees;
• the need for access to second-language education before entering the public service;
• leveraging technology and other tools;
• possibilities for greater cost-effectiveness; and
• the need for more bilingual staffing and recruitment.

As one survey respondent explained, perhaps the greatest need is for the continued promotion of linguistic duality and bilingualism as fundamental values of Canadian society:

First and foremost, we need to instill the idea among all Canadians that Canada is a bilingual country and that everyone benefits by being able to speak both of their country’s official languages. [translation]