related resources

on our site

news

Home page
> Archive > An assessment of the Senior Executive Service
> Employment policy and advice
‹ Previous page

Last updated: 10 February 1996

An assessment of the Senior Executive Service in the APS: A survey of its officers

Please note: This document is for reference purposes only and is no longer considered by the APS Commission to be current. It may contain good practice advice and/or advice on the transitional arrangements between the 1922 and 1999 Public Service Acts.

Patty Renfrow
Department of Government
University of Queensland

Contents:

Introduction
Major Findings
Overview of the SES in the APS
Management Issues in the APS
Jobs, Working Relationships and Organisation
Performance Appraisal
Career Experience
Conclusions
Target Population

Introduction

The Australian Senior Executive Service is now a decade old. Like its counterparts established elsewhere, the Australian SES represented a dramatic departure in the design and management of the senior public service. The impact of these changes is most evident, of course, on the 1700 officers who comprise the SES. This report presents a picture of the perceptions and experiences of these officers after a decade of far-reaching change within the Australian Public Service. The survey findings constitute an important assessment of the performance of the SES, including its overall design and features, its implementation, and its impact on the individual, the organisation, and the APS. My hope is that these results will contribute to a better understanding of the working environment of SES officers and the demands placed on them, and ultimately to the full realisation of the objectives of the SES.

The results presented here could not have been achieved without the participation of all those SES officers who took time from their demanding schedules to complete the questionnaire or who contacted me to discuss issues concerning the SES. I also would like to express my appreciation to the Centre for Australian Public Sector Management at Griffith University, which supported my early research on the Australian SES; the Australian Research Council which awarded the funds for this project; and of course to the Public Service Commission for their generous commitment and support.

 

Patty Renfrow

Foreword

I am pleased to introduce Dr Patty Renfrow's report concerning her survey of the Senior Executive Service (SES) in the Australian Public Service (APS).

Dr Renfrow commenced this project in November 1993 with funding provided by the Australian Research Council and with the support of the Public Service Commission (PSC).

I wish to add my thanks to those of Dr Renfrow, to the many SES officers who took the time from their work and personal commitments to complete this survey. The perceptions of the people who comprise the SES are important to the PSC and your contribution is appreciated.

The SES was established on 1 October 1984 as the executive management group for the APS. It was intended to be small, unified, mobile and highly flexible. The decade since the SES was established has been characterised by community expectations of improved client service and high levels of productivity from the APS. During this time, the SES has played a major role in supporting Government, through anticipating and responding to increasingly complex management and policy challenges.

The last comprehensive survey of the SES was undertaken in 1989 by Nick Jans and Judy Frazer-Jans, five years after the implementation of the SES. The results of that survey were valuable to the PSC as a gauge of the perceptions of the SES at that time and as a source of information in formulating our policies and programs to assist the career management and development of the SES. The five years since 1989 have been characterised by an increasing pace of reform and restructuring in the APS but with continuing expectations of high quality performance by the SES.

The results of this survey therefore present a timely opportunity to review the extent to which the SES has realised its objectives and to assess and considerthe respective roles of the PSC and Secretaries and individual departments and agencies in supporting and extending the concept and implementation of the SES.

Many of the results of this survey are not surprising. The SES is hard working, highly motivated and very professional in its approach. The conceptof the SES is validated, and its implementation is, by and large, judged by its members to be successful. The synthesis of traditional core APS values and newer managerial responses which have been demanded by the issues confronting us in the 1990s appears to be well understood and well accepted.

Nevertheless, as the survey indicates, there are areas where the APS needs to improve further, particularly in managing performance and in career management. The survey also reflects some of the teething problems experienced in early cycles of performance appraisal and pay.

While members of today's SES appreciate that the onus of responsibility for career management rests with individuals, too frequently the PSC's experience is still that the SES do not give enough attention to their own career development needs. This is one of the personal challenges for senior executives in today's APS environment.

I commend the reading of these survey results to members of the APS and to the many others who are interested in improving the performance of the Service.

 

Denis Ives

Major findings from the SES Survey

• The members of the SES are strong supporters of the new results oriented culture in the APS.
• The introduction of the SES is not seen to have adversely impacted on the maintenance of traditional APS values, such as ethical behaviour, merit and equity.
• The majority of SES members report a high level of personal satisfaction with their current job including a sense of accomplishment from doing their job well, although a significant minority express dissatisfaction with the remuneration for their work.
• Most SES officers report a high level of satisfaction with their current organisation and with their working relationships but three quarters of the SES consider that communication and leadership in their organisation could be improved.
• The strongest loyalties reported by the SES are towards the Australian public and to their own organisation. About half of the SES also report thatthe SES has enhanced the responsiveness of the public service to the community.
• The SES members support the intended objectives of performance appraisal and consider performance appraisal to be an important part of the responsibilities of senior management. However, they believe there is room for improvement in its usage in terms of improving performance and productivity and supporting career management.
• The SES respondents feel that senior management who are in supervisory positions should be providing meaningful feedback and support to officers at SES level.
• Many members of the SES have mixed views about the performance pay process, including whether it encourages greater productivity.
• While there is a high level of satisfaction with their work among responding SES officers, many consider that the demands of work and their private lives conflict. The majority of the SES report working more than 50 hours per week.
• There is a need to focus attention on career management in the SES. Only one in three SES members report that they are satisfied with the extent of career development assistance provided by the senior manager with supervisory responsibilities for them, while about the same proportion consider that their organisation does a good job in developing its SES.
• Few SES members consider that opportunities for advancement in the APS are good. Nevertheless, more than half of the SES expect, individually, to be promoted within the next five years.
• Expectations of mobility amongst the SES is high - one third of the SES expect to be in a different organisation in five years time and almost half expect to seek a different position to their present one in the next twelve months.
• While the concept of SES mobility appears to be well supported, only about half the SES are satisfied with their opportunities for mobility, with two of every three SES officers agreeing that obstacles in the APS make it difficult to move from one organisation to another.
• Most SES officers regard access to development opportunities as important but only about half consider that the establishment of the SES has improved access to those opportunities.

An overview of the SES in the APS

The establishment of the SES

The predecessor of the SES within the APS consisted of officers of the Second Division and was managed more or less discretely by individual departments. The SES was established in October 1984 as a Service-wide senior management group, with particular emphasis on its policy advising, managerial and professional role; SES mobility across the Service; and, open competition for positions. According to the Second Reading Speech on the Public Service Reform Bill 1984, the SES was intended to produce 'a more unified and cohesive group' of senior staff. A key element of the newly created SES was that greater attention would be paid to the development and career mobility of members of the SES. The SES was also seen to have a key role in fostering the values of the Service.

The 1990 Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration reportThe Development of the Senior Executive Service (the Coates Report) commented that 'the actual SES that has developed since 1984 strongly reflects administrative theories that were fashionable in the 1980s. The development ofthe SES over the last six years owes more to a recent stress on management problems and techniques than it does to the earlier theories of public administration which influenced the successive committees of inquiry that recommended its creation over the quarter of a century before 1984'.

The Government response to this report in October 1991, agreed that the original vision of the SES as a unified leadership group for the APS remained relevant.

Although the broad SES concept has not been fundamentally questioned since its inception, as part of the Government's response to the Coates Report, modifications to the original concept such as broadbanding (the replacement ofthe former six levels of the SES with three broad bands) and the introduction of the SES Specialist category have addressed some concerns about salary flexibility and the need for particular expertise in departments. The introduction in 1992-93 of performance appraisal and performance based pay has provided a framework for managing performance and extended the range of incentives and rewards.

The management of the SES

The legislation which established the SES provided for its management to be shared between the former Public Service Board and Secretaries of departments. Some central controls were maintained in recognition of the views that the SES is more than a narrow departmental resource and that its members should be selected and developed with the managerial requirements of the overall APS in mind. On the other hand, the setting up of the SES was designed to give Secretaries the flexibility to allocate management resources in response to changing work requirements of their departments.

Under these new arrangements the then Public Service Board was given responsibility for approving selection, redeployment and retirement of SES officers (now the responsibility of the Public Service Commissioner). It was also directed to take a greater role in managing training and development forthe SES.

Secretaries of individual departments were given greater responsibilities for the management of their staff as a result of the "streamlining" reforms of personnel management within the APS in 1986. Following the Government's acceptance of the Report by the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit on Proposed Successor Arrangements to the Public Service Board in 1987 responsibility for management of the SES was split between the Departments of Finance and Industrial Relations and the Public Service Commission.

The Public Service Commissioner has responsibility for approving all appointments and promotions into and within the SES on the basis of a recommendation from the relevant departmental Secretary. The Public Service Commissioner also approves all departmental proposals for voluntary and involuntary retirement and reduction. The PSC also provides advice to SES officers through the SES Advisor on career development issues. The Commission also provides a range of residential and non-residential development programs at each Band level in the SES.

The Department of Finance is responsible for policy advice on position classification standards and for the specific approval of funds for departmental SES profiles. It also manages the total SES salary budget in respect of budget-funded agencies. The Department of Industrial Relations has responsibility for SES pay and working conditions, including performance pay arrangements.

Secretaries have the power, within parameters set by the Department of Finance approved SES profile and work level guidelines, to create, abolish and determine the duties of SES positions within their own Departments.

The SES Profile

At 30 June 1993 when the survey was undertaken, there were a total of 1702 SES officers which represented just over 1% of the total APS. This figure includes 77 officers in the ACT Administration, which was 4.5% of the total SES figure of 1702.

71.2% of the SES were located in Canberra, with 5.6% located overseas, the majority of those overseas are on posting with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The median age of all SES officers was 46.4 years. The median age of female officers was 43.5 years while for male officers the median age was 46.9 years.

Generally speaking, members of Band 1 of the SES are Branch Heads, Band 2 are Division Heads and Band 3 are Deputy Secretaries of Departments or agencies. Secretaries of Departments are not members of the SES.

At 30 June 1993 the breakdown by gender and band of the SES was:

	Band1	%	Band2	%	Band3	%	Total	%
Female	211	16.9	41	11.0	2	2.5	254	14.9
Male	1037	83.1	333	89.0	78	97.5	1448	85.1
Total	1248		374		80		1702

The SES Concept

Senior Executive Services (or equivalent management structures) have been at the centre of far reaching public service reform programs in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and New Zealand during the last fifteen years. The SES concept constitutes a significant shift in the design and management of the senior public service that reflects managerialist reforms to public administration.

Although designs vary somewhat, public sector senior management structures in public sectors typically have the following characteristics:

• emphasis on general management skills and competencies
• open competition for SES positions
• mobility within and between departments
• formal performance appraisal
• enhanced career development
• performance (or merit) pay
• a corporate identity among senior executives.

The SES in the Australian Public Service

The SES in the Australian Public Service (APS) is now a decade old. Since its creation in October 1984, the SES (or some of the aspects of its features) has been the subject of several government enquiries and numerous academic studies.

Most of these analyses are based on expert research and departmental and service-wide statistics, although there have been some previous surveys of SES officers - notably the 1989 Career Perceptions Survey.

The picture emerging from these studies is a mixed one: on the one hand the introduction of the SES is regarded as generally positive, but on the other hand, as reported in the 1992 Task Force on Management Improvement publication The Australian Public Service Reformed, : An evaluation of a Decade of management reform (ch 7 p.16), critics have argued that there appears to be little difference between the former Second Division group andthe SES of today. The Task Force also commented on the changed APS environment since the introduction of the SES in 1984 to a less centralised, more devolved and flexible entity.

The same question was raised in the Report from the Senate StandingCommittee on Finance and Public Administration 1989-1990, as to whether the SES is merely the Second Division renamed, concluding, however, that in the light of the changes in the 1980s, the SES is clearly something different from the Second Division, both structurally and in terms of its personnel.

The Task Force report also notes that this Inquiry did not fully report whether establishment of the SES had accomplished its original objectives. In commenting on the aspects of the Report relating to the model developed for the SES which expressed concerns that the model has been "eroded by the management changes of the 1980s", the Government response to that Report emphasised the need for sensitivity to, and account to be taken of, the realities of the devolved management and administrative structure of the APS today. It stressed also that the elements of central management should be retained if the model was to be preserved.

The 1990 Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration on the Development of the Senior Executive Service expressed concern that some practical initiatives to achieve the goals of the SES have not been fully implemented, notably in relation to mobility, cohesion and the extent to which the SES could be regarded as an APS resource. The Government response to that Report noted that the realities of the devolved management and administrative structure of the APS today should be taken into account in judgements about the operation of the SES, but that some elements of central management of the SES should be retained if the SES model was to be preserved.

Since these studies, the features of performance appraisal and performance pay have been introduced. Thus, this study, marking the the ten-year anniversary of the establishment of the Australian SES is an appropriate time to conduct a further assessment of the SES, particularly one based on the perceptions of its members.

Purpose of Study

This study was undertaken to examine the perceptions and overall assessments of the impact of the SES by those who make up this group. The study's principal focus is, therefore, on the views, attitudes, and experiences of SES officers.

The data provide important insights into senior management in the APS and the environment in which SES members consider they operate, including, for example, the extent to which the members of the SES regard the SES as having achieved its objectives of improved management and accountability. The data also provide an indication of the degree to which SES members are satisfied with their careers and with opportunities for career development and mobility. The data also give an indication of the perceptions held by SES members about their working relationships and about performance management initiatives for the SES.

Survey Methodology

A written self-administered questionnaire was used to obtain the perspectives of SES officers. The content of the questionnaire explored a range of issues relating to the SES and human resource management in the Australian Public Service. Major components of the questionnaire addressed:

• management issues
• the Senior Executive Service model
• job and organisation
• working relationships
• work and rewards
• career plans
• performance planning, pay, and executive development
• demographic characteristics of respondents

The survey's target population consisted of all SES APS officers as at 30 June 1993 who were Australian-based and attached. That is to say that officers who were overseas, on leave-without-pay or unattached were excluded from the survey. On the basis of these criteria, the target population numbered 1500 and represented all APS departments and agencies employing SES officers. The survey was conducted over a 10 week period between November 1993 and February 1994. Details of the survey administration are reported in Appendix 1.

Completed questionnaires were received from 1105 respondents, yielding aresponse rate of 74%. Demographic characteristics of the respondents indicate that they almost exactly replicate the population to whom the survey was sent and can, therefore, be assumed to represent the views of that population. It should be noted that 'Location' is by pay centre, so that where regional offices are paid from Canberra, figures for the ACT will be skewed. As Figure 1 shows, respondents were:

Figure 1 -- Survey Respondent Demographics

Band

Gender

Location

Length of SES Service

Data Analysis

The analysis reported here was conducted service wide, that is, based on all respondents. In addition, in order to identify systematic differences between major demographic groups, the analysis was conducted on the basis of gender, band, location (ACT based or non-ACT based), and length of SES service (5 years or less SES service or 6 years or more of SES service).

With a conventional sample survey, differences between sub-groups of respondents (such as between male and female officers) are assessed by the standards of statistical significance. However, as this is a survey in which the entire population of eligible SES officers was invited to participate it was not considered that tests of statistical significance were appropriate. Rather, the analysis reported here focuses on differences between sub-groups which are at least 10 percentage points or greater.

Outline of Report

Chapter 2 reports the perceptions of SES officers toward the SES overall and some key management issues. Chapter 3 presents an analysis of officers' attitudes towards their jobs, organisation, and working relationships, while Chapter 4 examines attitudes towards appraisal, incentives and rewards. SES officers' perceptions of their career experience, particularly career mobility and prospects, are reported in Chapter 5. The final chapter presents an overall assessment of the Australian SES, and offers some recommendations for improving the SES and enhancing the satisfaction of SES officers.

Management issues in the SES

The creation of the SES in 1984 was one of the first steps in an ambitious program of reform of the Australian Public Service. One of the major thrusts of that reform process was the emphasis it gave to performance management, and in particular to the efficient and effective management for results and to strengthened accountability for the results actually achieved.

This chapter examines the extent to which the move to a more managerialist culture has been embraced by the SES. It also looks at the extent to which members of the SES view traditional public service values, such as merit and ethical behaviour, as compatible with their SES work.

The SES and Management Performance

Improving the management performance of senior executives is one of the major objectives of the SES. Over three-fifths of SES respondents to the survey agree that the SES has improved the managerial competency of senior executives (see Figure 2); however, almost one-third are undecided. There are significant differences by gender and by band as reported in Figure 2. Male officers are more likely than female officers to agree as are Band 3 executives more likely to agree than executives at lower levels.

Figure 2 - SES and Management Performance

SES has improved managerial competency

SES has improved management efficiency and effectiveness

SES has improved operation of this organisation

Furthermore, as Figure 2 indicates, 60% of respondents agree that the SES has improved management efficiency and effectiveness in the APS; however, almost one third are undecided. Again, there are marked differences by gender and by band. Male executives are more likely than their female counterparts to agree as are executives at Band 3 more likely to agree than those at Bands 1 and 2.

In addition, 60% of respondents agree that the SES has improved the operation of their organisation. Agreement with this statement increases as one moves up the SES Bands.

Performance Management: Results

The findings of the survey indicate that the focus on results is viewed as central to managing at SES level. Almost three-quarters of respondents agree that an effective manager must focus on outputs rather than just on procedures, as reported in Table 1. Over three-fifths agree that the most important thing in management is getting results, with Band 3 executives more likely to agree than those at Bands 1 and 2. Similar proportions of respondents (62%) disagree with the statement that performance output in management is overrated in importance these days, with a higher proportion of Band 3 officers thinking this way than officers at Bands 1 and 2 (82% v 62% and 59%).

Table 1

Management Attitudes: Results	Percent responding "Tend to Agree" and "Strongly Agree"				Percent responding "Undecided"
	All	1	Band 2	3	All
A manager must focus on outputs rather than procedures	72	71	73	82	11
Most important thing in management is getting results	64	64	62	87	17
Performance output in management is overrated in importance	17	16	21	8	21
Getting things done is all that matters in management	16	16	18	8	19
Consider compromising ethical principles in order to achieve results	5	5	5	13	9
Human dimension of management tends to be forgotten in the quest for results	54	56	50	37	16
Being responsive to the needs of others is of greater importance than achieving results	13	14	11	5	28

The emphasis on results by the SES, however, does not appear to come entirely at the expense of other aspects of public management, as can be seen in Table 1. A substantial majority of all respondents do not perceive that getting things done is all that matters in management. Indeed, 86% express the view that they would not compromise ethical principles in order to achieve results.

At the same time, a slight majority of all respondents indicate that the human dimension of management tends to be forgotten in the quest for results. Executives in Bands 1 and 2 are more likely to hold this view than those in Band 3. Only 13% indicated that being responsive to the needs of others at work is more important than achieving results, although over one-quarter are undecided on this issue. This result may be explained by the comment from one respondent:

If it came to a choice (emphasis added) between results and staff morale, training, etc., you would get no marks for assisting staff at the cost of not achieving what the executive wants.

While it seems that a majority of SES officers accord a higher priority to achieving results than people issues, the comments of several SES officers suggested that both issues were equal in importance. Indeed, according to one executive:

Being responsive to the needs of staff is essential to getting results.

Performance Management: Efficiency

Not unexpectedly, the results of the survey indicate that the priority given to management efficiency receives considerable support from the SES. As reported in Table 2, almost four-fifths of respondents (78%) disagree with the statement that efficiency in management is of secondary importance. The majority of respondents state that they put most of their effort into managing a highly efficient operation.

Table 2

Management Attitudes: Efficiency	Percent responding "Tend to Agree" and "Strongly Agree"				Percent responding "Undecided"
	All	1	Band 2	3	All
Most effort into managing a highly efficient organisation	53	54	50	63	26
Efficiency in management is of secondary importance	7	8	4	10	15
Ethical behaviour is more important than management efficiency	50	51	45	41	30
A good manager will sacrifice efficiency to be fair to others	27	26	29	32	28
Prepared to trade off maximising efficiency to maintain good staff relations	30	32	25	18	29

The survey results indicate that the concern for efficiency is tempered somewhat by considerations of ethics, fairness and good staff relations. As reported in Table 2, half of all respondents support the statement that ethical behaviour is more important than management efficiency; almost one third are undecided. There are, however, notable differences by band in relation to this statement as agreement declines as one moves up the executive levels.

About one in four of all respondents accept that a good manager will sacrifice efficiency to be fair to others at work, with a slightly higher proportion prepared to trade off maximising efficiency to maintain good staff relations. In both instances, almost one-third of respondents are undecided.

The SES and Accountability

In establishing the SES, one aim was to assist in making senior officers, and the APS generally, more accountable and responsive to the needs and expectations of the Government and the public. Based on the survey responses, there is somewhat less agreement among SES officers that the SES has achieved this objective, as compared to improved management. While half of all respondents agree that the establishment of the SES has enhanced the responsiveness of the public service to the Government and community, 36% are undecided.

Enhanced responsiveness, of course, has the potential to translate into politicisation, a common criticism of the SES. Only 26% of responding SES officers agree that the SES has increased politicisation in the APS while almost half disagree (see Table 3). Band 3 executives are more likely to disagree than those in Bands 1 and 2. However, almost one-third of all respondents are undecided on this issue.

The SES Model

While the SES may be viewed as a component of, or reflection of managerial reforms, there is little support evident from the survey for the view that SES values are incompatible with public service values, or that the SES has eroded traditional public service values. As reported in Table 3, almost four in five respondents do not consider that SES values are incompatible with public service values, with less than one in five undecided. Three of every five respondents do not agree that the SES has eroded public service values, with close to one in five undecided. In addition, Band 3 executives are more likely to disagree with both statements than executives at Band 1 and Band 2.

Table 3

Managerialism and the SES	Percent responding "Tend to Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree"						Percent responding "Undecided"
	All	Female	Male	1	Band 2	3	All
SES values are incompatible with public service values	79	77	79	79	77	87	17
SES has eroded traditional public service values	63	61	63	63	58	72	21
SES has lowered morale among senior executives	65	52	67	63	69	80	29
SES has increased politicisation of APS	45	43	45	43	50	56	30
Overallthe SES has created a better APS	61	53	63	61	61	74	31

Two additional items underscore the positive view of the SES among SES officers. First, there is little support for the view that the SES has lowered morale among senior executives (Table 3). Almost two-thirds of respondents disagree with the statement that morale has been lowered. Male officersare more likely than their female counterparts to disagree, and disagreement increases as one moves up the executive ranks.

Second, and this point deserves emphasis, three-fifths of all SES officers responding to the survey agree that overall the SES has created a better APS. Only 8% disagree, but a significant minority are undecided. Male officers are more likely than their female counterparts to agree as are Band 3 executives more likely than those at Bands 1 and 2 to agree with this statement.

Merit and Equity

A prominent criticism of managerialism, and potentially the SES, is that its emphasis on results will be to the disadvantage of public sector values such as merit, fairness and equity. The findings of this survey indicate that this view is not shared by SES officers. On the contrary, officers indicate widespread support for these values. Almost all responding SES officers agree that the principles of merit and equity are essential for good management.However, approximately 1 in 10 respo

Table 4

Management Attitudes: Merit & Equity	Percent responding "Strongly or tend to agree" vs "Strongly or tend to disagree"					Percent responding "Undecided"
	All	Male-Female	1	Band 2	3	All
The principles of merit and equity are essential for good management	86v11	89v6-85v11	86v10	86v10	82v11	4
Equal employment opportunity undermines effective management	9v78	3v92-11v76	10v 77	8v 83	11v 79	12
I am firmly committed to implementing policies on Equal Employment Opportunity	74v13	85v10-72v13	75v13	70v13	80v8	13

ndents disagree (see Table 4).

There is also majority agreement from the respondents to the survey that merit is practised. About two-thirds agree that within their organisations, selection procedures used for senior executive positions are fair (68%) and that promotions and appointments are based on merit (65%).

Furthermore, only 9% agree that applicants from outside the APS are selected for senior positions over better qualified career public servants.

The survey indicates that fair treatment of employees and equity are highly valued. Only 6% of respondents report that they put little value on ensuring all people are treated fairly in employment. In addition, almost four out of five disagree with the statement that EEO undermines effective management (see Table 4). Nevertheless, there are some gender differences in relation to this with a larger proportion of female than male officers disagreeing with the statement. However, approximately one in ten respondents still either agree that EEO undermines effective management or are undecided.

The commitment evident in the responses to implementation of EEO reveals a pattern similar to the high level of support for EEO. Three-quarters of all respondents agree that they are firmly committed to implementing EEO policies. In addition, a majority also consider that people are given equality of opportunity within their organisations.

There are some differences in the EEO responses of male and female SES officers. Female respondents are more likely than male to regard themselves as firmly committed to implementing EEO (85% to 72%), but are less likely to agree that EEO is practised within their organisation (58% to 69%).

Summary

The picture that emerges from these survey results shows a performance management orientation which seems to be well entrenched in the SES. Responding officers show pronounced support for results-oriented management and management efficiency. At the same time, there is also widespread support for ethical behaviour, merit, and equity in public management. That stated, SES officers also perceive there to be some tensions between giving appropriate emphasis to management of people issues, such as fairness and responsiveness in dealings with staff, and the pursuit of management efficiency and results. Asone SES officer succinctly summarised:

Achieving efficient and effective operations while still meeting good ethical standards and good treatment of staff seems perhaps the major challenge facing APS managers. Neither can be subordinated to the others but they often come into conflict.

Another SES officer was prompted to write:

Equity and concern for people management are not inconsistent with efficiency - in the longer run they enhance it.

Finally, the survey findings demonstrate that a majority of SES officers view the SES positively, both as an appropriate model for the management of the senior public service and as realising its major objectives of improved management and accountability. However, in general a sizeable minority (about one-fifth to one-third) of SES officers are undecided about the impact of the SES. This may reflect, in part, that the SES has been but one of several reforms (albeit a major one) to the APS over the last ten years. Some respondents may have had difficulty disentangling the impact of the SES from the impact of other iniatives designed to achieve similar objectives.

Jobs, working relationships and organisation

SES officers were surveyed on a range of issues relating to their jobs, their organisations, and their working relationships. The attitudes of officers towards these issues are reported in this chapter.

Jobs

There is a high level of job satisfaction overall among SES officers. Eighty-two percent of the respondents to the SES survey report being generally satisfied with their (current) jobs. In addition, ninety-four percent agree that doing their job well gives them a feeling of accomplishment, that they enjoy doing their work for the personal satisfaction it gives them (86%), and that their job is significant and important in the broader scheme of things (83%).

As one executive reported:

Basically I work for the satisfaction of doing the work and for the contribution I make and I am happy to enjoy any of the rewards that come with doing a good job.

Organisation

SES respondents also report considerable satisfaction with their organisations, agreeing that they like working in their organisation (84%) and that what happens to their organisation is really important to them (83%). In addition, eighty-four percent of respondents report feeling loyal, to a "great" or "a very great" extent towards their organisation.

Respondents also rate the performance aspects of their organisations positively (Table 5). The majority agree that their organisation is responsive to the public interest, is forward-looking and innovative, and very effective in accomplishing its objectives. There is substantially less agreement, however,that the organisation has enough people and resources to get the job done. Agreement on performance aspects of the organisation also varies by band and by gender. As reported in Table 5, Band 3 officers are more likely than officers at lower levels, and male officers are more likely than their female counterparts, to rate their organisations positively.

Table 5

Performance Aspects of Organisations	Percent Responding "Tend to Agree" & "Strongly Agree"						Percent responding "Undecided"
	ALL	Female	Male	1	Band 2	3	ALL
This organisation is responsive to the public interest	82	81	82	82	83	85	13
This organisation is forward-looking and innovative	72	60	75	72	75	85	16
This organisation is very effective in accomplishing its objectives	65	57	67	66	63	74	19
We have enough people and resources to get the job done	42	26	44	40	46	53	15

Several other items reveal aspects of the organisational culture of SES officers. On the one hand, a substantial majority of officers agree that they are not afraid to blow the whistle on illegal or unethical behaviour within their organisations, and agree that they feel part of the corporate team (Table 6). Also, seventy percent of respondents disagree with the statement that it is really not possible to change things in their organisation.

Table 6

Attitudes to Corporate Culture	Percent responding "Tend to Agree" & "Strongly Agree"				Percent responding "Undecided"
	ALL	1	2	3	All
I am not afraid to 'blow the whistle' on illegal or unethical behaviour	70	69	73	67	20
In this organisation Ifeel part of a corporate team	62	60	66	85	17
This organisation encourages'risk taking' among its executive	40	37	47	51	25
'Risk taking' by senior executives is supported by the Minister	18	16	17	32	48

On the other hand, less than half of the respondents agree that their organisation encourages "risk taking" among its executives and a much smaller minority agree that "risk taking" by senior executives is supported by the Minister (Table 6). There are pronounced differences by band and by location. On both items concerning "risk taking", officers at Band 3 are more likely to agree than those at levels below. Regionally based SES officers are also more likely than their ACT based counterparts to agree that their organisation encourages "risk taking" (48%:37%).

Work Satisfaction

Although SES officers responding to the survey report a high degree of satisfaction with the intrinsic rewards of their jobs, there are appreciable levels of dissatisfaction with the extrinsic rewards. Almost one-third (31%) report dissatisfaction with their pay overall, and thirty-nine percent report dissatisfaction with their pay considering the skills and effort they put into their work. Furthermore, thirty-two percent of officers are dissatisfied with the recognition they receive for public service.

It is on the extrinsic rewards of their jobs that substantial differences occur in the responses of SES officers. As Table 7 reports, officers in the regions are more likely than their ACT-based counterparts to be dissatisfied with their pay overall and with their pay considering the skills and effort they put into their work. Similarly, officers with 6 or more years of service in the SES are more likely than those with 5 years or less to be dissatisfied on both aspects of their pay, as well as the recognition they receive for public service. Finally, Band 3 officers are less likely than other SES officers to be dissatisfied with their pay overall but more likely to be dissatisfied with their pay considering the skills and effort they put into their work. Band 3 officers are also less likely than other SES officers to be dissatisfied with the recognition they receive.

Table 7

Extrinsic Rewards of Jobs	Percent responding Tend to Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree"
								Length of SES Service
	Female	Male	1	2	3	ACT	Region	<5yrs	>6yrs
Satisfied with pay overall	26	32	31	36	23	29	38	28	36
Satisfied with pay considering skills and effort	36	39	38	44	50	36	46	36	44
Satisfied with recognition	42	43	42	47	32	42	45	40	47

One respondent had this to say about pay:

Pay is not a strong motivating factor with more senior APS professionals in terms of improved job performance. It is not money which drives the APS. However, fair and eligible pay commensurate with outside standards is a strong expectation of most APS professionals. Performance pay is no substitute for adequate basic pay levels.

As to performance aspects of their jobs, virtually all respondents (98%) agree that they work hard at their jobs , and sixty-nine percent agree that they have the authority needed to accomplish their work objectives. At the same time, a significant majority of officers agree that the demands of work and family often come into conflict (65%) and that they have too much work to do everything well (61%).

A number of respondents to the survey advised of its completion late in the evening and one was prompted to add:

Did you complete this survey questionnaire outside regular hours?
Yes/No

Work and Working Relationships

Almost half of all respondents report working between 51 and 60 hours per week, with another 19% reporting more than 60 hours per week. The vast majority (89%) report their level of effort over the last six months as "considerable or maximum", and 81% rate their performance over the same period as "above average or outstanding". Almost three-quarters consider they were "considerably or very highly motivated".

Working relationships of SES officers were explored in several ways. As reported below, respondents report that their greatest level of satisfaction is with the working relationships they have with personal staff.

The following figures indicate the percentage of officers responding that they are "fairly" or "very satisfied" with the effectiveness of their working relationships with different individuals or groups:

• personal staff 85%
• middle managers 76%
• other senior executives 71%
• immediate supervisor 68%
• Secretaries 65%
• Ministerial staff 39% (46% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied)
• Ministers 35% (48% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied)

There are also some pronounced differences by gender, location and band in response to this question. Male SES officers are more likely than female officers to be satisfied with their working relationships with other senior executives (73% v. 63%), whereas SES officers located in the ACT are more likely than their regional colleagues to be satisfied with their working relationships with middle managers (80% v. 66%) and with their immediate supervisor (70% v. 60%).

Sixty-eight percent of officers at Band 1 level are satisfied with their working relationships with senior executives compared to eighty-one percent of Band 2 and eighty-two percent of Band 3 officers. Relationships with Secretaries follow a similar pattern with sixty-two percent of Band 1 respondents being satisfied compared to seventy-two percent of Band 2 and seventy-six percent of Band 3.

The working relationships that SES officers have with their immediate supervisor were explored in greater detail given the primary importance of this relationship. As indicated in Table 8, a substantial majority of SES officers responding to the survey reported that they were "fairly satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the relationship with their immediate supervisor, except in the areas of performance feedback and assistance with career development.

Table 8

Working Relationship with Immediate Supervisor	Percent responding "Fairly Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied"
	All	1	Band 2	3
Work priorities	68	70	61	72
Quality of work allocated	68	69	62	79
Performance goals	63	64	61	67
Participatory decision making	61	61	59	72
Feedback on performance	44	43	44	58
Career development assistance	34	33	34	50

Male SES officers who responded to the survey were consistently somewhat more satisfied than their female colleagues with all areas of their workingrelationships with their immediate supervisor. Similarly, ACT based officers were somewhat more satisfied than officers located in the regions; only on theissue of performance feedback was there a substantial difference (47% v.34%).

There are also some interesting, and pronounced, differences by band, as shown in Table 8. Officers at Band 3 level are most satisfied with all areas of their working relationship with their immediate supervisor, while on four out of six areas, Band 2 officers are least satisfied.

SES officers often work closely with ministerial staff. Only 38% of SES officers responding to the survey agree that ministerial staff respect the ability of career executives; an almost equal number are undecided. That response may be in part understood by the comment of one executive who noted that:

Not being a policy department, contact with ministers and their staff is not frequent and their influence and concern for our operations is not strong.

Band 3 officers are substantially more likely to agree (65%) that Ministerial staff respect the ability of career executives, than officers at Band 1 (36%) and Band 2 (41%). However, only eighteen percent of respondents to the survey agree that a lack of co-operation between SES officers and ministerial staff gets in the way of getting the work done (and forty-nine percent disagree).

Officers were also asked whether improvements in particular areas would assist them to do their work more effectively (see Table 9). Improvements to organisational communication and leadership are perceived by about three-quarters of respondents as being helpful. In addition, improvements to performance feedback and development opportunities were identified by over half of SES officers as being helpful to their work. These are both areas of the supervisory relationship in which less than half of officers were satisfied. This is also the case concerning improvements to ministerial support. This may have some bearing on the earlier finding that less than half of those responding agree that ministerial staff respect the ability of career officers.

Table 9

Improvements for Working More Effectively	Percent responding "Considerably Helpful" or "Very Helpful"
	ALL	1	Band 2	3
Organisational communication	78	80	69	69
Organisational leadership	76	78	73	44
Feedback on performance appraisal	56	58	53	48
Ministerial support	54	51	60	61
Training and development opportunities	52	55	46	31
Staff qualifications	51	53	45	41
Opportunities for mobility	42	43	42	37
Working conditions	39	41	36	26

There are pronounced differences in the responses of officers at different levels as indicated in Table 9 above. With the exception of improvements in ministerial support, Band 1 officers are more likely than those at higher levels to generally consider improvements helpful to working more effectively.

A final aspect of working relationships in the public service examined by the survey is the loyalty officers feel towards their various "clients". As indicated below, the strongest loyalties are towards the Australian public and the respondent's organisation:

• Australian public 90%
• organisation 84%
• immediate supervisor 73%
• head of organisation 69%
• profession 56%
• APS 55%
• Government of the day 55%

Summary

Overall, a positive picture emerges of SES officers' jobs, organisations, and working relationships.

Officers who responded to the survey are generally very satisfied with their jobs, although there are two areas which warrant comment. First, although there is considerable satisfaction with the intrinsic rewards of their jobs, there is some dissatisfaction with the extrinsic rewards (this issue is examined further in Chapter 4). Second, there are indications of job stress among SES officers in terms of workload and balancing work and family responsibilities. A sizeable majority report that they have too much work to do it all well, and that they often experience conflict between the demands of their jobs and the demands of family life.

The findings also reveal a considerable degree of loyalty and commitment by SES officers to their organisations, whose performance they generally regard as high. This is despite some agreement that there are insufficient people and other resources in their organisations.

Survey respondents are also generally satisfied with their working relationships, although there is some room for improvement in the supervisory relationship in the areas of performance feedback and career development. Possible improvements to organisational communication and leadership were identified by about three-quarters of SES officers as being factors which would assist them in their work.

Finally, the survey indicates that the SES continues to support the traditional concept of public service, with their first loyalties to the Australian public, followed closely by the organisation for which they work.

Appraisal, incentives and rewards

As the senior management group in the APS, the performance and productivity of the SES are vital to the effective management of the APS. The question critical to achieving a high standard of performance and productivity in the SES is how well the performance management and incentive systems are working.

Performance appraisal arrangements for the SES have been in place in the APS since the 1992-93 financial year. These provided for assessing the standard of performance of individual SES officers. These assessments then served as the basis for the award of performance pay.

SES officers also have had, over the same period, supervisory responsibilities for the performance appraisal and pay arrangement for the Senior Officer group.

Bearing in mind how recently these two features of the SES have been introduced, and that the survey was conducted during this initial cycle, this chapter examines the attitudes of SES officers toward performance appraisal, incentives and rewards, particularly performance pay.

Criteria for Appraisal

The job factors considered important by respondents in assessing their performance are reported in Table 10. Some factors are identified overwhelmingly as important in determining their performance ratings against work objectives. These relate to leadership, program effectiveness and efficiency, the management of organisational change, and representation of the organisation. As Table 10 reveals, the responses of female and male officers and officers at different levels on the above factors are quite similar.

However, there is some variation by gender and by band on those factors regarded by less than 90% of all survey respondents as important to performance appraisal. For example, and perhaps reflecting some differences in roles, the provision of strategic advice to departmental secretaries is rated more highly by executives at Band 3 than at Bands 1 and 2, and by female executives than male executives. Another example is the achievement of EEO objectives which again is regarded as more important by Band 3 executives than by executives at Bands 1 and 2, and by more female executives than male executives. Moreover, it is worth noting that the achievement of EEO objectives and industrial democracy objectives, is regarded as important in assessing performance by just over half of all SES officers responding to the survey.

Table 10

Job Factors in Assessing Performance	Percent responding "Very Important or "Fairly Important"
	All	Female	Male	1	2	3
Provision of effective leadership	98	95	98	97	97	100
Achievement of program objectives	97	97	98	98	96	100
Ability to manage resources efficiently	96	93	97	96	96	97
Greater efficiency in operations	95	93	95	95	94	97
Ability to manage organisational change	94	95	94	94	94	92
Ability to represent the organisation	93	95	93	93	93	97
Articulate and monitor performance goals	90	85	91	91	90	92
Development of employees	86	82	87	87	85	82
Provide strategic advice to Secretary	78	85	77	76	72	95
Obtaining needed resources	75	77	75	76	75	56
Achievement of EEO Objectives	52	60	51	52	51	61
Achievement of industrial democracy objectives	52	56	51	53	47	47

Table 11

Performance Appraisal & Rating	Percent responding "Tend to Agree" or "Strongly Agree"								Percent responding "Undecided"
							Length of Service
	All	Female	Male	1	2	3	<5yrs	>6yrs	All
Last performance appraisal was accurate	71	62	61	62	56	76	66	56	18
Last performance rating was fair and accurate	62	60	62	62	58	76	67	57	17
Performance appraisal helps productivity	32	30	32	30	35	46	33	30	21
Performance appraisals influence personnel actions	35	30	36	34	36	59	34	36	34
Performance appraisals are an important part of an executives' jobs	59	48	61	57	62	74	58	60	22

Potential Benefits of Performance Appraisal

The perceived potential benefits of a performance appraisal system were assessed by asking respondents to indicate whether particular benefits were important to them. The percentages of SES officers responding to the survey and indicating that particular benefits were important are:

• better strategic planning 67%
• increased job satisfaction 58%
• clarification of organisational goals 57%
• incentive to better performance 51%
• improved career development 36%
• means to a higher salary 26%
• means to increased status 7%

Given that these results are consistent with the stated purposes of performance appraisal, namely the improvement of management performance by improvements against corporate and work goals, it seems that the SES largely supports the intended objectives of performance appraisal.

Support for Performance Appraisal

The concept of performance appraisal receives widespread, although not universal, support from SES officers, with almost four in five officers responding to the survey supporting the concept of an annual performance improvement plan against which they are assessed. A smaller percentage of respondents agree that their last formal performance appraisal was accurate (see Table 11) with twenty-one percent disagreeing. Similarly, almost two-thirds of all SES officers responding to the survey agree that their performance rating represented a fair and accurate picture of their actual job performance; twenty one percent disagree. Officers at Band 3 are more likely than those at bands below to agree that their last appraisal was accurate, and that their last performance rating was accurate. Similarly, officers with 5 or less years of service in the SES were more likely than those with 6 or more to agree that their last performance appraisal was accurate and that their last performance rating was accurate (Table 11).

Impact of Performance Appraisal

The extent to which performance appraisal realises its objectives is, of course, an important issue. The impact of performance appraisal was assessed in several ways. First, SES officers responding to the survey who had received a formal appraisal of their performance were asked how helpful their last appraisal was in several areas (see Table 12). Only about two in five respondents perceive the appraisal as "considerably" or "very helpful" in assisting executives to assess their strengths and weaknesses and set clear goals for achievement.

Table 12

Performance Area	Helpfulness of Performance Appraisal
	Percent responding "Very" or "Considerably helpful"				"A little helpful"				"Not at all helpful"
	All	1	2	3	All	1	2	3	All	1	2	3
Assess strengths & weaknesses in performing job	39	39	37	54	41	42	40	30	20	19	23	16
Set clear goals for achievement	39	38	39	51	34	35	30	30	28	26	31	19
Improve performance	31	31	28	43	40	42	39	22	29	27	33	35
Establish a plan for training & career development	20	19	21	30	37	39	33	32	43	42	46	38

Less than one-third of respondents viewed appraisals as "considerably" or "very helpful" in assisting them to improve their performance. Only one-fifth reported that appraisals greatly assisted in the establishment of a plan for career development, probably in part a reflection that this is a secondary purpose of the appraisal process. Overall, approximately one to two fifths of SES officers reported that performance appraisals were "not at all helpful" in these four areas.

Officers at Band 3 were more likely than those at bands below to perceive that appraisals were helpful in assessing strengths and weaknesses, setting clear goals, and improving performance (Table 12). The responses of male and female executives were almost identical except in one area; female executives were less likely than their male counterparts to perceive appraisals as assisting them to improve their performance (22% v. 32%).

A second assessment of the impact of performance appraisal is the extent to which organisations consider performance appraisal (and counselling) to be an important part of an executive's job. As reported in Figure 3, almost three-fifths of all SES officers responding to the survey agree. There are notable differences, however, by gender and by band. Male SES officers are more likely to agree than their female counterparts. Agreement also increases markedly as one moves up the executive ranks.

The impact of performance appraisal on productivity and personnel actions within organisations was also examined (see Figure 3). Only about one-third of SES officers agree that performance appraisal contributes to improved productivity in their organisations, whereas forty-seven percent disagree. Agreement increases as one moves up the executive ranks.

Similarly, about one-third of respondents agree that performance appraisals influence personnel actions in their organisation; however, almost as many disagree (31%). SES officers at the highest level are much more likely than those below to agree.

(Percent Responding "Strongly Agree" or "Tend to Agree")

Figure 3 above illustrates the responses to these questions:

Q.1 "I feel that performance appraisal contributes to improved productivity in this organisation".

Q.2 "Performance appraisals do influence personnel actions taken in this organisation".

Q.3 "This organisation considers the use of performance appraisal and counselling to be an important part of an executives job".

One last area examined was the impact of performance appraisal on the quality of policy advice. A common criticism of the use of performance appraisal in the public service is that it will diminish the provision of "frank and fearless advice" by career public servants. Over half of all respondents disagree (56%) that performance appraisal has adversely affected the quality of policy advice, but thirty-two percent are undecided. An overwhelming majority (80%) of Band 3 executives disagree, declining to sixty percent at Band 2 and to fifty-four percent at Band 1.

Furthermore, fifty-five percent of SES officers agree that within their organisations people feel free to give senior management their honest opinions.

While there is strong support for performance appraisal and its objectives, clearly the implementation of performance appraisal arrangements has some way to go in order to work effectively in APS organisations. The findings suggest that performance appraisal has not yet become a meaningful part of normal management tasks.

Given these findings, it is not surprising that only about a quarter of respondents, at the time of the survey, agree that performance appraisal was working in their organisation (see Table 13); almost twice as many disagree (46%). There are notable differences between SES officers at different levels. Band 3 respondents are almost twice as likely as respondents in Bands 1 and 2 to believe that the appraisal system is working in their organisation.

Table 13

Assessment of Performance Appraisal and Pay	Percent responding "Tend to Agree" and "Strongly Agree"				Percent responding "Undecided"
	All	1	2	3	All
Performance appraisal is working in this organisation	24	23	26	46	30
Performance appraisal is worth the time it takes	64	63	65	80	18
Performance pay is working in this organisation	19	16	25	45	26
Satisfied with chances of receiving a performance bonus	72	70	73	87	14

Despite the limited impact of performance appraisal in the first performance cycle, almost two-thirds of SES officers responding to the survey agree that "performance appraisal is worth the time it takes". There are pronounced differences between officers at different bands. Band 3 executives are much more likely than officers at lower levels to agree.

Incentives and Rewards

The rewards that SES officers seek most in their job are listed below in order of their mean ranking which is noted in parentheses. (Items were ranked on a 10 point scale where "1" equals the reward valued most and "10" equals the reward valued least.)

• a sense of achievement (2.0)
• responsibility (3.8)
• recognition (4.3)
• personal growth (4.8)
• pay (5.1)
• collegial relations (5.7)
• job security (6.8)
• promotion (6.8)
• work conditions (7.0)
• job status (7.0)

These findings indicate that SES officers responding to the survey rank intrinsic rewards in their job more highly than extrinsic although it must be noted that of the extrinsic rewards, pay is ranked highest. (See also Table 7.)

Only on one reward was there a substantial difference in the responses of male and female officers. Pay was ranked higher by male officers (6.2) than by female officers (4.9). In addition there were pronounced differences by band on two rewards. The ranking of collegial relations increased as one moved up the executive ranks, with Band 1 ranking it at 5.8, Band 2 at 5.5 and Band 3 at 4.8. The ranking of job security declined moving up the bands with Band 1 ranking it at 6.6, Band 2 at 7.3 and Band 3 at 7.7.

In contrast to the findings above, when asked which rewards are important in motivating them to improve their performance, respondents rated extrinsic rewards more highly. As Table 14 indicates, among the rewards that SES officers rate as "fairly" or "very important" in motivating them to improve their performance are first, a permanent increase in salary followed by anannual one-off cash award. There are differences by level with those at Bands 1 and 2 more likely than officers at Band 3 to rate both rewards as "fairly" or "very important", and by gender with male SES officers more likely than their female counterparts to view a cash reward as a motivator. Conversely, female officers responding to the survey are more likely than male officers to rate factors such as additional annual leave (64% v. 44%) and greater control over work schedule (55% v. 43%) as "fairly" or "very important."

Table 14

Rewards to Motivate Performance Improvement	Percent responding "Fairly" or "Very Important"
	All	Female	Male	1	Band 2	3
A cash reward (annual one-off basis)	62	51	64	62	63	44
Permanent increase in salary	77	73	78	78	80	51
Additional annual leave	47	64	44	48	42	31
Greater control over work schedule	44	55	43	46	39	41
Honorary recognition	44	45	44	45	45	38
A training opportunity	38	42	37	41	30	31
A bonus paid fortnightly for one year	37	30	38	38	38	13

However, in response to a more specific question related to the current performance pay arrangements, the findings indicate that only twenty-six percent of respondents agree that performance bonuses will encourage executives to be more productive; half disagree. One executive wrote:

I do my best in exchange for my salary. I cannot work any harder or better just because of the prospect of more money.

Furthermore, only a small minority of respondents agree that the performance pay system is working well in their organisation; over half (55%) disagree (see Table 13). There are pronounced differences in the responses of officers at different levels. Almost half of all Band 3 officers responding to the survey agree that the system is working well in their organisation compared to one-quarter of officers at Band 2 and even fewer officers at Band 1. In fact, one third of all SES officers responding to the survey believe that performance pay has lowered morale within the SES, with a slightly greater number disagreeing with this proposition (37%).

Interestingly, forty-one percent of respondents agree that within their organisation performance bonuses go to the best performer, with fifty-six percent disagreeing that they go primarily to "management favourites" without regard to actual performance.

These findings notwithstanding, almost three-fourths of all respondents are satisfied with their chances of receiving a performance bonus (see Table 14). Band 3 executives, however, are much more satisfied with their chances than are executives in Bands 1 and 2.

Finally, a substantial minority of respondents (42%) believe that the Senior Executive Service would be better off without performance pay. It is worth noting that twenty-two percent of all SES officers responding to the survey are undecided on this issue.

Summary

The findings on performance appraisal and rewards such as performance pay indicate that there is considerable room for improvement in their operation. It bears emphasis, of course, that the experience with both has been a brief one and some teething problems could be expected. Nonetheless there are some important messages from the findings.

First, there is substantial, although not universal support by those SES officers responding to the survey for an annual appraisal of performance, but considerably less agreement on whether performance appraisal has yet realised its potential benefits. The impact of appraisal could be much greater; it is clearly not yet effectively integrated into organisational human resource management and management in general.

Second, there is less consensus among respondents regarding the merits of performance pay, particularly whether it will serve as an incentive to improved performance, as demonstrated by the contradictory findings. However, in response to experience in the first appraisal pay cycles, additional advice has been provided to agencies on managing the arrangements for performance appraisal and performance pay.

The career experience

The SES model envisages the flexible deployment of SES officers to meet changing priorities, including by mobility between different APS departments and agencies. This means that SES officers should expect to move regularly and that remaining in the one SES position in the one Department throughout one's career is less likely.

This environment is marked by the continual evaluation of the effectiveness and priorities of programs and by rapidly changing management approaches. As indicated in the Government's 1992 response to the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Administration, continued attention will be needed to cover management and development at the SES level.

In order to assess the career experience of SES officers, this study examined the attitudes of officers towards their careers in the Australian Public Service, including their career satisfaction, career prospects, mobility, and career development.

Career Satisfaction

Overall, there is a high level of career satisfaction among SES officers who responded to the survey. Eighty-six percent of all respondents report being either "fairly" or "very satisfied" with their careers in the APS. Career satisfaction correlates very strongly with job and organisational satisfaction (as discussed in Chapter 3). It is, however, somewhat at odds with the survey findings on SES perceptions of career mobility, career prospects, and career development (as discussed below).

Career Goals

The most common career goals for all SES officers are, in order, consolidation in their present position; advancement outside their present organisation but within the APS; advancement in their organisation; and lateral movement within the APS (see Table 15). In addition, there are little differences in terms of career goals depending on length of service in the SES

Table 15 SES Major Career Goals

CareerGoals	Percent responding	Length of SES Service
	All	<5yrs	>6yrs
Consolidation in present position	31	34	28
Lateral movement in this organisation	8	8	9
Advancement in this organisation	16	16	16
Lateral movement within the APS	10	9	10
Advancement within the APS	21	20	21
Lateral movement within the non-APS public sector	2	2	2
Advancementin the non-APS public-sector	3	3	3
A job in private enterprise	4	3	5
Other	5	5	6

The findings on responses by SES officers to questions about where they see their career path taking them in two and five years time indicate that over time most SES officers expect to change their job, with many also expecting to move to a new organisation. As Table 16 reports, in 2 years time, over three-fourths of officers responding to the survey expect to be within the same organisation. However, the number of officers expecting to be within the same organisation after five years declines and is almost equal to the proportion of officers who expect to be within a different organisation within the APS.

Table 16

Major Career Paths	Percent responding
	All	1	2	3	ACT	Region
Expectations for 2 years Same position as now	40	38	45	59	37	48
Different position, same organisation	36	40	27	5	37	34
Different organisation in APS	16	15	17	28	19	9
Retirement	2	2	4	5	2	3
Expectations for 5 years Same position as now	4	4	5	3	3	6
Different position, same organisation	30	33	23	16	28	35
Different organisation in APS	33	33	35	37	39	17
Retirement	11	10	15	13	10	12

As might be expected, there is some variation in the career goals and career plans among respondents at different levels and at different locations. Table16 indicates that Band 3 officers are more likely than officers at Bands 1 & 2 to aspire to consolidation in their present position as their major career goal, and to be in a different APS organisation in 2 and 5 years time. In contrast with their Canberra colleagues, regional SES officers are slightly more likely to see their major career goal as remaining within the one organisation.

Many in the SES are ambitious. Forty-eight percent of all SES officers responding to the survey report that they are "fairly" or "very likely" to look for a new job within the APS during the next 12 months. The survey shows that the main factors sought in a new job are: more interesting work, selected by sixty-nine percent of respondents; better pay, selected by fifty-six percent; and more responsibility, chosen by forty-three percent (respondents could select more than one factor).

Career Mobility

The possibility of career mobility, a central component of the Senior Executive Service, is regarded positively by most SES officers responding to the survey. Two-thirds of respondents agree that the effectiveness of senior executives would improve if they were required to change jobs every five years. Just over half of the respondents agree that mobility among senior executives has in fact increased their managerial skills (54%). Table 17 shows the number of positions that officers have held in the SES due to mobility programs.

Table 17 SES Positions Held due to Mobility Programs

Number of Positions	Percent responding								Length of SES Service
	All	Female	Male	1	2	3	ACT	Region	<5yrs	>6yrs
0	58	63	58	58	57	64	59	56	65	51
1	13	11	13	15	9	11	11	19	15	11
2	10	11	10	12	7	6	12	7	11	10
3	9	10	9	9	9	8	9	9	6	12
4	5	3	5	4	8	3	5	5	3	8

Furthermore, sixty-eight percent of responding officers agree that career mobility (movement either laterally or through promotion) is important for them to achieve their career plans. There are notable locational differences with officers located in the ACT more likely to agree than are their regional counterparts (72% v. 58%). Moreover, fifty-eight percent of SES officers believe that their career has in fact benefited from job mobility within their organisation.

Despite the importance attached to career mobility, only about half (52%) of senior executives responding to the survey are satisfied with their opportunities for career mobility within the APS, whereas almost one-third (29%) report being dissatisfied. Of officers who are dissatisfied, Band 1 officers are more likely to be dissatisfied with opportunities for career mobility than Band 3, with Band 2 officers recording the lowest level of dissatisfaction. As one executive noted:

SES mobility is minimal in that it is generally confined to one's substantive agency.

Clearly greater access to mobility opportunities is being sought, this perhaps in part reflecting a growing recognition of reduced opportunities for advancement to more senior levels in the SES.

The dissatisfaction with mobility opportunities may be explained by the finding that sixty-three percent of officers responding to the survey agree that there are obstacles within the APS that make it difficult to move from one organisation to another. According to the PSC, such obstacles are likely to be the difficulties SES officers may have in identifying opportunities for mobility and utilising mechanisms for negotiating mobility, as well as perceptions in the SES (or at least in some departments) that those seeking mobility will be regarded as disloyal to the organisation or that seeking mobility reflects a performance problem.

A sizeable minority of SES officers responding to the survey, forty-two percent, identified further improvements in mobility opportunities as likely to be "considerably helpful" or "very helpful" in doing their work more effectively. One executive advised of efforts to find opportunities at level in the APS and of the hope that the results of this survey would bring attention to the difficulties faced by SES officers in small agencies seeking to broaden their experience.

Advancement

The survey findings on opportunities for advancement are in sharp contrast to those on mobility generally. Seven out of ten SES officers responding to the survey, a sizeable majority, disagree with the statement that advancement opportunities at their level are good in the APS; only eleven percent agree. In addition, only thirty-eight percent of officers are satisfied with their chances of getting a promotion; about one-third (32%) are dissatisfied.

Notwithstanding this pessimistic view of advancement opportunities generally, many SES officers believe their own personal advancement prospects are more favourable. Over half (54%) of senior executives responding to the survey expect to be promoted to a more senior position within the APS within 1 to 5 years, and another fifteen percent within 6 to 10 years. Optimism about advancement, however, declines over time in the SES. SES officers with 5 years or less service in the SES are more likely to expect promotion within 1 to 5 years, than those SES officers with 6 years or more SES service (60% v. 47%). Interestingly, there are no substantial differences on expectations of promotion between officers located in the ACT and officers in the regions.

Career Development

Regular access to training and development courses is regarded as "fairly" or "very important" by the vast majority, seventy-nine percent, of respondents. A smaller number of officers, fifty-three percent, however, are satisfied with the number of training and executive development opportunities currently in the APS. Furthermore, forty-eight percent, less than half, agree that the SES has improved career development opportunities.

The level of attendance at formal training and development courses during the previous 12 months is illustrated in Table 18. The largest group of respondents responding to the survey attended between 2 and 4 days of formal training and development. Almost equal numbers attended either between 5 and 9 days or none at all. As might be expected, Band 3 officers are less likely to participate in training and development courses than those below, while regional SES officers are more likely than those in the ACT to have attended 5 or more days of training. Attendance by male and female executives is similar.

Table 18 Executive Development Course Attendance

Number of days	Percent attending within last 12 months
	All	1	Band 2	3	ACT	Region
None	21	19	26	40	22	17
1	8	8	8	5	8	8
2 to 4	37	37	36	34	40	29
5 to 9	23	24	21	13	20	30
10 or more	12	13	10	8	10	16

While just over half of all respondents are satisfied with the number of training and development opportunities, forty-five percent are satisfied with the quality of training and career development programs in the APS. Satisfaction increases with level, with forty-four percent of Band 1 being satisfied, forty-eight percent of Band 2, and sixty-one percent of Band 3.

In keeping with the above findings, a majority of respondents (52%) report that improvements in training and development opportunities would be "considerably helpful" or "very helpful" in doing their work more effectively. At the same time, only thirty-eight percent of officers indicate that a training opportunity would be "fairly" or "very important" in motivating them to improve their performance.

Seven out of ten SES officers agree that their organisation considers "people management" to be an important part of an executive's job, and sixty-one percent agree that managers in their organisation are held accountable for the management and development of their staff. However, only about one-third of respondents are satisfied with the career development assistance from their immediate supervisor, (34%) and agree that their organisation does a good job of developing its managers (32%).

Career and Family

The extent to which the demands of family life are balanced against the demands of an SES career is an important issue. As reported in Chapter 3, almost half (49%) of all SES officers responding to the survey report working on average 51 to 60 hours per week, and another nineteen percent report more than 60 hours.

The long hours worked by most senior executives may account for the difficulties in balancing work and family life. Less than one-fifth (18%) of all SES officers responding to the survey agree that they can keep their personal/family life separate from their work so that one does not affect the other. There were only slight gender differences in this response with seventy-eight percent of female respondents disagreeing with the statement compared to seventy-two percent of male respondents.

Sixty-five percent of all respondents believe that the demands of work and personal/family life often come into conflict, with Band 3 officers even more likely to agree (74%) than officers at Bands 1 and 2 (64%). These survey findings indicate that it is SES level and/or hours worked, in particular, that explains the difficulty of balancing family and career demands. A respondent, noting their high job satisfaction and organisational loyalty also commented:

... the impact on family life is close to intolerable and ... I have given serious thought to changing jobs.

Summary

Several themes emerge from the findings about the SES career experience.

First, there is a high level of career satisfaction among SES officers responding to the survey; indeed, career satisfaction in 1993/94 is substantially higher than that found in the 1989 survey, 86% v. 63% (keeping in mind slightly different response categories). The results of this survey, undertaken five years on, provide a number of indications that members of the SES are more positive about themselves and the APS environment.

Second, the survey findings on career goals are slightly different from those reported by SES officers in 1989 and reveal that SES officers today, while many are seeking advancement, are more likely to seek lateral movement and advancement within the APS generally. They are also less likely to have as a career goal consolidation or advancement within their present organisation. The findings on career paths also underscore that SES officers today are more likely to view their career in terms of the APS, rather than a particular organisation.

A third theme is that there is considerable support for career mobility among SES officers, and also expectations of mobility. The survey findings suggest that officers recognise that the prevailing SES career model is one characterised by movement within the APS generally. Such movement, however, may be characterised more by intra-agency than by inter-agency mobility. However, it bears emphasis that there is less satisfaction among SES officers with existing opportunities for mobility and advancement within the APS. While recognising the responsibility that individual officers must take in actively pursuing mobility opportunities, the findings suggest that greater attention is required from departments and agencies and the Public Service Commission in order to fulfil officers' expectations of mobility, particularly in overcoming some of the perceived obstacles to mobility.

Finally, there is also widespread recognition among SES officers of the importance of career development for a rewarding and successful SES career, but less satisfaction with the opportunities and support for development. While departments and agencies and the PSC might examine support for and the content and timing of career development programs in order to better meet the needs of SES officers, the findings also highlight the need for greater assistance with career development from immediate supervisors, a finding consistent with that in the 1989 survey. While not discounting the role of individual officers to pro-actively manage their development, more effective assistance from supervisors might foster a more supportive climate for career development. In short, elevating the priority given to career development appears to be an important challenge for the SES.

Conclusion

One of the defining characteristics of the environment of the Australian Public Service during the last ten years is reform. Both the extent and pace of reform is without precedent since the APS was created early this century. The key objectives of the management reform program pursued over the last decade, as expressed in Building a Better Public Service, June 1993, (page 7), were to develop a Service that:

• was more responsive and accountable to Ministers and the parliament;
• was more efficient, effective and equitable, with more rational means for the distribution of resources to priorities, and which gave our managers greater flexibility in managing those resources; and
• had more streamlined staffing policies which more effectively pursued merit and equal employment opportunity.

The major reforms to the APS include:

• structural changes, including new machinery of government arrangements and the creation of Government Business Enterprises;
• commercialisation and privatisation;
• devolution of many financial and human resource management functions;
• greater scrutiny and review of administrative actions and strengthening of accountability measures;
• managerial reforms aimed at focussing on managing for the results of public sector performance such as corporate planning, program budgeting, program evaluation, performance appraisal, and performance pay;
• further improvement in equal employment opportunity and industrial democracy practices;
• machinery of government changes; and (of course)
• creation of the Senior Executive Service.

The SES, as one of the first of these major reforms, has experienced tremendous change during its first ten years. The reforms have affected all of the key functions and responsibilities of SES officers. Moreover, the SES is markedly different from when it began ten years ago. Two changes are particularly significant.

First, the Australian SES works in a far less centralised and much more devolved environment today than originally conceived. The powers of many central agencies such as the Departments of Finance and Industrial Relations, and the Public Service Commission have been devolved to Departmental Secretaries. As a result, Secretaries have greater control, and thus flexibility, over key aspects of SES management including mobility, and within the Department of Finance approved profile, the power to create, abolish and determine the duties of SES positions in their department. Thus, the trend has been in the direction of greater departmental autonomy over the management of the SES. Nevertheless, some central controls, such as the Public Service Commissioner's responsibility for approving all SES appointments and promotions, are maintained in recognition that members of the SES are not just a narrow departmental resource, but selected and developed with regard to the overall managerial requirements of the APS.

A second significant change to the SES, reflecting the reforms to the APS, is the recent addition of two new features, performance appraisal and performance pay. These features are important components of an SES model. At the same time, they are also somewhat controversial and problematic in realising their benefits, as discussed in previous chapters.

Key Conclusions

Despite the extent of change in the APS and in the attributes required from the SES to manage this change over the last ten years, this survey found that SES officers in 1993/94 are, by and large, satisfied with their jobs, their organisations, and their careers in the SES. Levels of job satisfaction are higher than reported in the 1989 Career Perceptions Survey undertaken by Nick Jans and Judy Frazer-Jans, when approximately three quarters of the SES expressed job satisfaction and job involvement. Comparable responses in 1993-94 indicate that almost ninety-five percent of SES officers responding to the survey "strongly agreed" (62%) or "tended to agree" (33%) that their job gave them a sense of accomplishment. There is, however, some continuing dissatisfaction with the extrinsic rewards of SES jobs, particularly pay, although the level of dissatisfaction is lower than in 1989.

While the survey findings canvass a broad range of issues, two broad conclusions may be drawn from this study. The first relates to the design of the SES and the second to its implementation.

First, the survey findings demonstrate that SES officers are generally supportive of the SES model. They regard mobility, particularly inter-agency mobility, and career development as important and valuable components of an SES career. They also support the use of performance appraisal and perceive numerous potential benefits from its use. Only on one feature of the SES, performance pay, is there less consensus among SES officers. This point notwithstanding, overall, the majority of officers strongly endorse the SES model; they view it positively, as compatible with traditional APS values of merit and equity, and as generally effective in improving individual and organisational performance.

Second, the survey findings also reveal that SES officers perceive that the implementation of several features of the SES could be improved. Officers express some dissatisfaction with current opportunities for mobility and for career development, and also with the range and quality of training and development programs. SES officers also perceive that performance appraisal has had little impact beyond its link to performance pay. Finally, there is some scepticism about the merits of performance pay and considerable agreement among officers that the performance pay system, at least after the first cycle, was not working well.

Challenges for the SES

While there has been considerable progress by the SES towards the achievement of its objectives, the principal message of the survey findings is that implementation of several SES features requires improvement for the SES to more fully build on a culture of performance and accountability. In particular, if officers are to achieve greater career mobility and career development; if performance appraisal and pay is to realise its potential to more effectively contribute to individual and organisational performance, then the implementation of these features requires continued attention.

While there are numerous factors critical to the implementation process, the survey findings highlight the importance of two key factors in the process: the role of Departments and supervisors and the role of the Public Service Commission.

While not diminishing the role that individual officers must take in career planning and in maximising the individual and organisational benefits of the performance appraisal system, the survey highlights the importance of the role accorded to the relationship with their immediate supervisors by SES officers. While SES officers are largely satisfied with this relationship, the survey findings indicate a widespread view that supervisors of SES officers are not perceived as providing sufficient assistance to them in the area of career mobility and career development and that supervisors do not provide sufficient feedback to SES officers on their performance. In effect, the message is that supervisors, whether SES or Secretaries, need to do a better job of "people management", a message in keeping with the 1989 survey findings.

Secondly the survey findings suggest (although indirectly) a greater role for the PSC in the management of the SES, especially in career planning. The findings suggest that more moves may be needed to facilitate mobility, in assisting officers to identify and take advantage of mobility opportunities, and to remove perceived obstacles to mobility within the Service. In addition, career development programs offered by the PSC might be examined, particularly their timing, so as to maximise the participation of officers.

This is not to suggest a return to centralised control; that is at odds with the broad thrust of the reforms to the APS over the last decade. However, these findings do suggest a continued role on the part of the PSC (along with supervisors) to encourage and facilitate the achievement of career mobility and development.

In conclusion, this 1993-94 survey of SES officers has systematically documented the views, attitudes, and experiences of SES officers and in so doing has identified some important challenges ahead in the management of the SES. For SES officers, for Secretaries of Departments and for central agencies overseeing the SES, the findings may to some extent confirm what they already know or suspect. At the same time, for those managing the SES, this snapshot provides important data on which to continue to build a culture of performance and accountability within the Australian Public Service.

Survey administration

Target Population

The survey`s target population consisted of all SES officers as at 30 June 1993 who were Australian-based and attached. The names, positions, and work addresses of these officers were provided to the researcher by the Public Service Commission.

All SES officers were then assigned an Identification (ID) number which was necessary for the conduct of the survey, in particular for following up non-respondents. Each officer's ID number was stamped on the first page of his or her questionnaire.

Questionnaire

The survey was conducted by post using a written, self-administered questionnaire requiring respondents only to circle or number response categories for most items.

The content of the questionnaire examined a range of HRM and SES issues, as outlined in Chapter 1.

First Mailing of Questionnaire

The initial mailing was distributed on 22 November 1993 to all officers in the population (N = 1500).

This first mailing contained:

• the written, self-administered questionnaire
• a cover letter from the Public Service Commissioner
• a reply-paid return envelope addressed to the Australian Senior Executive Service Study, Department of Government, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072.

Mailing of "Thank-you/Reminder" Letter

Two weeks following the distribution of the questionnaire, on 6 December 1993, all officers in the target population were sent a letter from the researcher extending thanks to those who had completed and returned the questionnaire, and requesting those who had not completed and returned the questionnaire to please take the time to do so.

Second Mailing of Questionnaire

Approximately four weeks following the initial distribution of the questionnaire, on 20 December 1993, a second mailing was distributed to all non-respondents (N = 675).

This second mailing contained:

• the written, self-administered questionnaire
• a cover letter from the researcher
• the Public Service Commissioner's letter
• the reply-paid return envelope

Monitoring Responses

Completed questionnaires were returned to the researcher at the University of Queensland where they were logged in on a daily basis.

Response Rate

The response rate to the first mailing of the questionnaire was 55% (N = 825). Following the second mailing, an additional 19% (N = 280) responded. Thus, the overall response rate to the survey was 74% (N = 1105).

Australian Public Service Commission   A-Z index   Privacy, legal & copyright   Contact us
This page can be found at www.apsc.gov.au/publications96/renfrowreport.htm