Chapter 8: Workplace diversity
Broader diversity issues
As noted previously, the concept of diversity is a broad one, going beyond a concentration on the representation of traditional EEO groups, and encompassing the skills, knowledge and background that agencies need to meet the needs of their diverse client groups. While the recruitment, development and retention of people in the traditional EEO groups is important to diversity management in the APS, there is a growing acknowledgment among agencies of the need to address issues of demographic change, work–life balance and workplace harassment and bullying, to ensure that agencies are able to attract and retain skilled employees, and meet their capability needs both now and in the future.
Age profile challenges
The MAC’s report Organisational Renewal is discussed in Chapter 9 in the context of longer-term workforce planning. The report sets out the challenges APS agencies face to maintain and enhance their ongoing capability in a changing environment.11 Broadly, it identifies a future contraction of the labour market, the implications of the ageing profile of the APS, and the career intentions of new graduates as critical factors for agencies to consider in their workforce planning processes.
The statistical snapshot of the APS in Chapter 2 highlighted the ageing of the APS over the last decade, and the implications of demographic changes for workplace planning are discussed in detail in Chapter 9. These chapters highlight the growing reliance on mature-aged workers in the APS, and the importance of providing a work environment and work practices that are conducive to their optimal participation.
There has been a significant increase in the proportion of workers aged 45–54 over the last decade, from 22.1% in 1994 to 29.3% in 2003, while the proportion of younger workers has declined. The changed age profile of the APS is shown in Figure 8.11.
Figure 8.11: Ongoing staff: Age profile, 1994 and 2003
Source: APSED
Mature-aged employees
Consistent with its ageing profile, the APS is increasingly reliant on mature-aged employees (45 and over) who now represent 37.6% of its workforce, although there is significant variation across agencies (see Chapter 2).
While 21.9% of the APS workforce could, if they wished, retire with superannuation benefits within five years (including 26.6% of ELs and 42.5% of SES), there are some indications that employees in this group may remain in the workforce longer than previous cohorts. The employee survey found that mature-aged employees had higher rates of job satisfaction than other employees. Results of employee surveys conducted for the MAC report also indicate that a high proportion of employees intend to work beyond 55.
Figure 8.12 shows the separation trends for APS employees in the 50–65 age group in 2002–03. Despite the continuing peak in departures between the ages of 53 and 55, the proportion of ongoing APS employees over 55 increased from 7.6% in 2002 to 8.3% in 2003 (rising from 5.6% in 1994).
Figure 8.12: Separation rates for ongoing employees aged 50 to 65, 2002–03
Source: APSED
There are a number of factors at play here, including the earning rates of the superannuation funds which affects the benefits available for those who resign before age 55. Nevertheless, there does appear to be a willingness on the part of mature-aged employees to remain in the workforce for longer periods of time, particularly if agencies are able to provide them with additional flexibility.
Table 8.9 shows the top five job satisfaction factors for workers 45 years and over (mature-aged employees), and employees aged under 45 years. These factors were similar between mature and nonmature- aged employees, with three out of the five common to both. The main difference between them was that mature-aged workers rated ‘seeing tangible results from my work’ and ‘opportunities to utilise my skills’ among their top five job satisfaction factors, while younger workers included ‘salary’ and ‘opportunities to develop my skills’.
Table 8.9: Top five job satisfaction factors, for employees aged over 45 and under 45
| Mature-aged employees (45 years and over) |
Employees satisfied % |
Non-mature-aged employees (under 45) |
Employees satisfied % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 good working relationships | 84 | good working relationships | 85 |
| 2 opportunities to utilise my skills | 79 | flexible working arrangements | 83 |
| 3 flexible working arrangements | 85 | opportunities to develop my skills | 68 |
| 4 interesting work provided | 84 | interesting work provided | 74 |
| 5 seeing tangible results from my work | 81 | salary | 60 |
Source: Employee survey
The majority of both mature-aged and non-mature-aged employees were satisfied with each of the job satisfaction factors that they identified as important. However, mature-aged workers were generally more likely to be satisfied (with an average rating for the five factors of 83%) than other workers (an average rating of 74%). For the factors common to both groups, the only major difference was for ‘interesting work provided’, where mature-aged workers were more likely to be satisfied (84% compared to 74%).
There were also some interesting differences in the top five job satisfaction factors within the mature-aged cohort when they were separated into the 45–54 year age group and the 55 years and over age group, see Table 8.10.
Table 8.10: Top five job satisfaction factors, for employees aged 45–54 years and 55 years and over
| Employees aged 45–54 years | Employees satisfied % |
Employees aged 55 years and over | Employees satisfied % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 good working relationships | 81 | good working relationships | 93 |
| 2 opportunities to utilise my skills | 71 | opportunities to utilise my skills | 70 |
| 3 flexible working arrangements | 89 | chance to make a useful contribution to society | 87 |
| 4 interesting work provided | 78 | flexible working arrangements | 89 |
| 5 salary | 60 | seeing tangible results from my work | 83 |
Source: Employee survey
While three out of the five top job satisfaction factors are common for both groups, 45–54 year olds placed more importance on interesting work and on salary, and those 55 years and over placed more importance on the chance to make a useful contribution to society, and seeing tangible results from their work. While the majority of both groups of employees were satisfied with the top five job satisfaction factors, those 55 years and over were more likely to be satisfied than those aged from 45–54 years, with an average satisfaction rating of 84% for their top five factors, compared to 76% (although the 45–54 year old figure is affected by the relatively greater dissatisfaction with salary). In particular, those 55 years and over were considerably more satisfied with their working relationships (93% compared with 81%).
In the survey of mature-aged workers conducted for the MAC project, mature-aged APS employees indicated that they would stay longer than intended if they had more flexible work arrangements. Of those current and former ELs and SES who had rejoined or would consider rejoining the APS, 90% of current employees and 82% of former employees said that they would prefer to work on a more flexible basis.
Given the ageing profile of the APS, agencies need to consider the scope for flexible work arrangements and management practices that optimise the participation and retention of their valued mature-aged workers. In addition to part-time work, such arrangements could include part-year or project-based work, mentoring, shedding management responsibilities and working at a reduced classification level, or leaving the APS and returning on alternative arrangements.
Agencies need to adopt a strategic approach to identifying and implementing flexibility and other initiatives. FaCS, for example, has established a strong commitment to the employment of mature-aged workers and followed this up with a survey and a series of initiatives addressing the interests of matureaged workers that should add considerably to agency retention rates over time. The FaCS strategy, to be launched in late 2003, includes the integration of age retirement and succession planning issues into the performance management system and the application of broader workplace policies such as flexible working arrangements to encourage the retention of mature-aged employees.
The APS Commission is about to release a package of materials aimed at HR areas in agencies with an interest in developing a strategic approach to the retention of their mature-aged employees.
Younger workers
The past several years have seen a turn around in the number of younger employees working in the APS. The number of people aged less than 25 years employed as ongoing employees dropped continuously from 11,846 to 4919 staff (a drop of 58.5%) between June 1994 and June 1998. Since then, the number has risen each year, to 5200 at June 2002 and 5943 at June 2003 (an increase of 14.3% during the year).
Much of the growth during 2002–03 was in the 20–24 age group. Within the under 25 age group, the number of those aged under 20 increased by only 11 (6.3%), while the number of 20–24 year olds increased by 732 (14.6%). This increase in the proportion of 20–24 year olds, as opposed to the under 20 year olds, mainly reflects the reduction in employment opportunities at the APS 1–2 level as the nature of work being undertaken continues to demand higher standards of education, skills and experience. While other labour market factors and high school retention rates mean the trend away from APS employees in the 15–19 age group may continue, agencies should also consider other strategies to attract promising young people, such as traineeships, as the employment market tightens. This might also help to redress some of the problems concerning employment of a wider range of people, including Indigenous Australians and people with a disability.
As indicated previously, younger employees were less likely than older employees to score above five on the job satisfaction index (66%, compared with 76% for all APS employees). Table 8.11 shows differences in the ranking of the top five job satisfaction factors for employees aged under 25, compared to those aged 25 years and over.
Table 8.11 Top five job satisfaction factors, for under 25 years and 25 years and over
| Employees aged under 25 years | Employees satisfied % |
Employees aged 25 years and over | Employees satisfied % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 good working relationships | 86 | good working relationships | 85 |
| 2 opportunities for career development | 61 | flexible working arrangements | 87 |
| 3 salary | 72 | opportunities to utilise my skills | 70 |
| 4 opportunities to develop my skills | 63 | interesting work provided | 74 |
| 5 regular feedback/recognition for effort | 45 | salary | 61 |
Source: Employee survey
Job satisfaction factors important to under 25 year olds were considerably different to those important to other employees, with only two out of the top five factors common to both groups (good working relationships and salary). Young employees put less weight on ‘flexible working arrangements’, ‘opportunities to utilise my skills’ and ‘interesting work provided’, and more emphasis on ‘opportunities for career development’, ‘opportunities to develop my skills’, and on ‘regular feedback/recognition for effort’.
Overall, young people were less satisfied with their most important job satisfaction factors than other employees, with an average of 65% reporting satisfaction, compared with 75% for other employees. They had particularly low rates of satisfaction with ‘regular feedback/recognition for effort (45%). However, they were more likely to report that they were satisfied with their salary than older employees (72% compared to 61%).
Agencies wishing to attract and retain younger workers need to consider the workplace factors important to them. According to surveys of graduates undertaken for MAC’s Organisational Renewal, access to favourable employment conditions (such as study leave) is by far the most important factor encouraging graduates to remain in the APS. The State of the Service employee survey shows that young people are also interested in good working relationships, opportunities for career and skill development, and feedback and recognition. Analysis of those ongoing employees at APS 3–4 and graduate trainee classifications engaged during 1997–98, shows a broadly similar pattern in retention rates between these groups, with 66.9% of the APS 3–4 employees and 60.9% of graduate trainees still employed in the APS at June 2003.
Other important factors identified through the MAC survey as encouraging graduates to stay are the same as those attracting them to the APS in the first place—job security and interesting work.
Private sector and public sector mobility
In 2002–03, over 45% of all employees engaged had been working in the private sector prior to entering the APS. This is not surprising given the increase in the median age of employees on engagement, which is now 31 years. The growing number of employees join the APS at higher classifications, rather than at base grade levels, a further indicator that employees are joining with work experience outside the APS. These employees come from a variety of workplace cultures; many will have experienced a range of managerial styles and workplace values. They have much to offer the APS in terms of broadening organisational capability, increasing agility and providing greater capacity to innovate. To maximise their potential, agencies will need to respond more flexibly to the ways in which employees' knowledge, skills and attributes are acquired, adapting their learning and development strategies to respond to lateral as well as entry level recruitment.
Life choice options
People at different life and career stages are looking for more flexible ways of working. Flexible work initiatives need to be inclusive, not limited to families with young children or other caring responsibilities, but catering for a wide range of life choice decisions. This may include options for all employees to adjust their working arrangements to balance their life with their work, including study leave, purchased leave, leave without pay, part-time work, and flexible working hours.
This year, the sixth annual benchmarking study of work–life balance initiatives by Australian company, Managing Work/Life Balance, reported that following the implementation of work–life balance strategies, federal government respondents reported a 14% reduction in turnover12. Additional benefits reported included reduced absenteeism, increased productivity, and higher rates of return from parental leave.
A broader analysis of work–life balance in the APS is discussed in Chapter 6. This section looks at particular work–life issues for some of the EEO groups.
A key issue for employees in reaching an effective work–life balance is access to flexible working conditions, particularly for employees with significant caring responsibilities. MAC has also identified flexible working conditions as a central issue for mature-aged workers and for graduate trainees.13
The APS has been a leader in providing family friendly work practices. It utilises a range of flexible approaches, including paid maternity leave, part-time work, flexible working hours, home based work, and purchased leave. This emphasis needs to continue in the future through flexible conditions and supportive management approaches as part of agencies’ broader attraction and retention strategies.
From the perspective of an employer, maternity leave is a particularly important element of an overall package of employment conditions that attracts and retains women, and supports the diversity objectives of the PS Act. There are significant costs involved, and while holding positions for women on maternity leave and temporary filling arrangements can be disruptive to small agencies and specialised work areas, these factors are generally outweighed by the benefit to the APS of retaining highly skilled and increasingly qualified women.
There has been a slight decrease in the total number of women completing a period of maternity leave, from 1777 in 2001–02 to 1642 in 2002–03. Most women combine their paid maternity leave with other forms of leave, including recreation leave and long service leave, to extend the period before returning to work. The proportion of women returning to work after being on maternity leave is quite high; of the 1777 women who took maternity leave during 2001–02, only 186 (10.5%) had separated from the APS by 30 June 2003.
The employee survey results found that women were only slightly more likely to report caring responsibilities than men (37% compared to 35%). They were also slightly more satisfied than men that their supervisors would support their use of flexible work practices (85% compared to 81%).
However, there were substantial differences in work–life balance for other EEO groups.
Indigenous employees were much more likely to report having carer responsibilities (62% compared to 35% for non-Indigenous employees). They were more likely than non-Indigenous employees to care for children from 5–16 years old (75% of Indigenous employees with caring responsibilities compared to 65% of non-Indigenous employees), and slightly more likely to care for aged parents (19% compared to 15%). However, despite their extra responsibilities, Indigenous employees were more likely to be satisfied than other employees that their supervisor would support their use of flexible work practices (89% compared with 83% for non-Indigenous employees).
People with a disability had a similar rate of caring responsibilities (38%) to other employees (36%). However, there were considerable differences in the make-up of their caring responsibilities. People with a disability were much less likely to care for children under five (six per cent of carers with a disability compared to 28% for people without a disability) and much more likely to care for aged parents (34% compared to 14%) or have other caring responsibilities (19% compared to 8%). They reported similar levels of satisfaction about supervisor support of the use of flexible work practices as other employees (81% compared with 83% for other employees).
Overall, the satisfaction of employees that their supervisor would support their use of flexible work practices was very high, and there was little difference between the satisfaction of employees with and without caring responsibilities (82% compared to 84% respectively). However, one group of carers, those who care for aged parents, stands out as being relatively less satisfied, with 71% of this group expressing satisfaction that their supervisor would support the use of flexible work practices and 17% expressing dissatisfaction, compared to 83% and seven per cent respectively for all employees.
Given the ageing profile of the APS, it is likely that elder care responsibilities will increasingly concern employees. Some agencies have introduced initiatives to help their employees meet the needs of their ageing parents. For example, FaCS has contracted Carelink Referral Service, a freecall service that gives employees practical help with child and elder care issues.
Consideration could also be given by agencies to providing greater flexibility with long service leave, including to meet elder care responsibilities. An employee may elect to take long service leave on half pay, which will enable them to extend the period of leave. In addition, while long service leave has traditionally been accessed in periods of not less than 15 calendar days, a number of agencies now allow staff to access leave in minimum blocks of seven calendar days.
Bullying, harassment and discrimination
A productive workplace depends on positive working relationships, which are essential for effective communication, cooperation and teamwork. Such positive relationships in the workplace depend on individuals treating each other with respect and courtesy, and without harassment. This means respecting not just obvious differences among employees such as gender, cultural background or expertise, but also less obvious aspects of diversity like work styles and thinking patterns.
Behaviour that intimidates, devalues or humiliates an employee, whether characterised as bullying, harassment or discrimination or not, destroys productive working relationships. It may cause physical and psychological harm to individuals, undermine teamwork and prevent the workplace operating in an optimal way.
In their responses to the employee survey, 18% of all employees reported experiencing what they considered to be bullying,14 harassment15 or discrimination16 during 2002–03. While this figure is high, and is cause for concern, it does appear to be lower than the results of other surveys similar to the State of the Service employee survey.
For example, 21% of New Zealand public servants who responded to a 2000 survey conducted by the New Zealand State Services Commission reported having been discriminated against, and 34% reported having been harassed or bullied.17 The New Zealand survey also found that while awareness of formal complaints procedures was high, confidence in them was low. A 2002 Canadian survey of public servants, commissioned by the Treasury Board of Canada, found that in the two years prior to the survey, 21% of employees considered they were the victims of harassment, and 17% of employees reported being discriminated against.18
Of course, differences in the questions asked in the three surveys as well as the variation in definitions of ‘harassment’, ‘discrimination’ and ‘bullying’ require that any comparison be treated with considerable caution. Nevertheless, the results do provide a useful context for the State of the Service employee survey results.
The State of the Service employee survey results show marked differences in employee responses when broken down by classification. Table 8.12 shows that lower level employees were more likely to report having been subjected to bullying, harassment or discrimination compared to SES employees.
Table 8.12: Employees who reported experiencing bullying, harassment or discrimination, by classification
| Yes (%) | No (%) | Not Sure (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| APS 1–6 | 20 | 78 | 3 |
| EL | 13 | 86 | 1 |
| SES | 5 | 95 | 0 |
Source: Employee survey
The employee survey did not ask respondents about who they perceived as having bullied, harassed or discriminated against them, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the significant difference between the results for SES and non-SES employees. However, it is likely that the results reflect the relative variations in authority.
In terms of EEO groups:
- women (21%) were more likely to consider that they had been subjected to bullying, harassment or discrimination than men (15%)
- Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees reported reasonably similar results (21% compared with 18%)
- people with a disability (39%) were much more likely to consider that they had been subjected to bullying, harassment or discrimination than employees without a disability (17%).
Of the employees who reported experiencing bullying, harassment or discrimination in 2002–03, the majority reported that the ground for that perceived behaviour was non-specific (51%), followed by ‘other’ (41%) and gender (13%). Explanations offered by respondents of why they chose the ‘other’ category included age and sexual orientation. ‘Other’ respondents commonly referred to situations suggesting a breakdown in the management of relationships in the workplace:
It's borderline whether you consider this discrimination or 'performance management'—senior management in my agency regard it as performance management; I consider it as discrimination.I fear that if I complain I'll only make things worse for myself.
I have seen two employees engage in what I regard as bullying behaviour with their supervisors in response to performance feedback sessions. It is difficult to know how to provide support to the supervisors who have the responsibility to counsel and provide performance feedback to such persons, trying to keep the sessions professional and impartial, when they know in advance that these individuals will respond with personal attacks.
The bullying I received was from a superior. Although I was satisfied with how this issue was handled, the same officer still displays the same behaviour (or worse) to other managers and staff.
Being the victim of a bully is the worst thing that can happen to anyone. In my previous position I was constantly harassed and picked on for non-work related issues.
Sometimes non-assertive people in lower classification levels are harassed, discriminated against and bullied. They have difficulty pursuing the matter. Supervisors should be made aware of this type of behaviour so they can identify it.
To address allegations of workplace bullying, discrimination and harassment, agencies may need to assist managers to develop their capabilities to build relationships and communicate effectively with employees. These capabilities are particularly important for managers when they are required to deal with complex issues relating to performance management and underperformance (see related discussion in Chapter 9 on underperformance).
The results of the employee survey indicate that the majority of APS employees (68%) were confident about using support structures in their agencies should they be subjected to harassment, discrimination or bullying. Sixteen per cent reported that they would not be confident using support structures. Confidence varied by age, with employees under 25 most likely to be confident (85%) and employees aged 25–34 least likely to be confident (66%).
Of the employees who reported experiencing bullying, harassment or discrimination, women (62%) were more likely to raise it through the support structures in their agency compared with men (34%), as were people with a disability (60%) compared with people without a disability (49%). The results for Indigenous employees are not statistically valid, and are therefore not reported.
Of the employees who had experienced bullying, harassment or discrimination and had raised it in their agency, 70% reported being dissatisfied with the way the issue was dealt with. Nineteen per cent were satisfied and 11% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This is clearly of concern, indicating the need for agencies to examine the quality and effectiveness of their review systems for addressing complaints and resolving issues of bullying, harassment and discrimination. When the results are examined by available EEO group, it was found that:
- women were more likely to be satisfied with how the issue was dealt with compared with men (20% compared with 16%) and less likely to be dissatisfied (66% compared with 79%)
- people with a disability were much more likely to be satisfied with how the issue was dealt with compared with people without a disability (39% compared with 16%) and much less likely to be dissatisfied (58% compared with 71%).
11 Management Advisory Committee Report 3, Organisational Renewal, 2003
12 Managing Work/Life Balance Work/Life Initiatives: The way ahead report on the year 2003 survey, 2003. Results can be found at www.worklifebalance.com.au
13 op cit.
14 For the purpose of the employee survey, ‘bullying’ was defined as repeated inappropriate behaviour, that may be direct or indirect, verbal or physical, or some form of negative interaction. It can reasonably be regarded as undermining the victim’s right to dignity.
15 For the purpose of the employee survey, ‘harassment’ was defined as any unwelcome, unsolicited, offensive, abusive, belittling or threatening behaviour directed at an individual or group because of some real or perceived attribute such as a person’s sex, sexuality, ethnicity, or disability. A reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would expect the person harassed to be offended, humiliated or intimidated.
16 For the purpose of the employee survey, ‘discrimination’ was defined as any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, social origin or other attributes that removes equality of opportunity or treatment in employment.
17 NZ State Services Commission NZ Public Service Career Progression and Development Survey, 2000. The question in the NZ survey on discrimination was ‘…was there any situation or event in which you felt you were treated less favourably than others in the same or similar situation because of a personal attribute such as gender, ethnicity or disability?’ The question on harassment and bullying in the NZ survey was ‘…have you experienced any unwelcome behaviour, which served to humiliate, intimidate or offend you?’
18 Public Service of Canada 2002, 2002 Public Service Employee Survey. Results can be found at http://www.surveysondage.gc.ca/2002/results-resultats/00/result-e.htm The Canadian survey defined ‘harassment’ as ‘any objectionable act, comment or display that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment, and any act of intimidation or threat.’
‘Discrimination’ was defined as ‘…treat[ing] someone differently or unfairly because of a personal characteristic or distinction which, whether intentional or not, has an effect which imposes disadvantages not imposed upon others or which withholds or limits access to other members of society.’