print this page
© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Public Service Commission
Home page
> State of the Service reports
> State of the Service Report 2005-06 > Integrity and fairness > Merit and access to APS employment > Next: Review of employment decisions
‹ Previous page
Last updated: 30 November 2006
Chapter 4: Integrity and fairness
Abbreviations
A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary
Merit and access to APS employment
One of the key Values of APS employment is engagement and promotion on the basis of merit. Fair selection procedures and the application of merit are critical to ensuring that the APS has employees of the highest quality, as well as having an influence on the extent to which employees view their agency as demonstrating integrity and fairness. This section examines employees’ perceptions of recruitment, selection and merit, SES engagements, and community access to APS employment.
Recruitment, selection and merit
Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that recruitment processes meet the Values of employment decisions based on merit and reasonable access to employment opportunities by the Australian community. The employee and agency surveys included questions to assess the effectiveness and perceived fairness of agency recruitment and selection procedures.
Agency selection processes
Agencies are able to use a range of selection processes for employment decisions. One major decision for selections at an employee’s existing classification is whether or not to use competitive selection processes that assess the relative suitability of applicants for the duties of the job. This is because selections for movements at level or the temporary assignment of higher duties as a minimum only require an assessment of an employee against the duties of the position.
Despite this flexibility, many agencies still require competitive selection processes for these types of movements. Sixty-four per cent of all agencies reported that they routinely require the use of competitive selection processes for non-SES movements at level from another agency—a similar result to 2005 but less than the nearly 75% in 2004. This rate was 56% for movement at level within the agency, a rise of six percentage points since 2005, and similar to the result in 2004. Small agencies were more likely to have a requirement for competitive selection processes for both external and internal movements at level (83% and 60% respectively). Large agencies had the lowest rates (39% and 43% respectively).
There has been a consistent trend since 2004, for around three-quarters of agencies to report they had a routine requirement for competitive selection processes for long-term temporary assignment of higher duties. In 2006, medium agencies were more likely to have such a requirement than small agencies or large agencies—a result which reverses the relative position of small and medium agencies in 2005.
Employees’ perceptions of recruitment and selection
Employees’ views on the fairness and effectiveness of recruitment and selection processes within their agency showed some room for improvement.
A little over half of APS employees (54%) agreed that the recruitment and selection processes in their agency were fair—one-quarter of employees disagreed. This result is influenced by a number of factors, with employees in the ACT, SES and EL employees, employees in small agencies, employees from non-English speaking backgrounds and non-ongoing employees more likely to consider recruitment and selection processes fair.
Employees who had applied for a job and been successful (65%) were more likely to consider recruitment and selection processes to be fair compared to those employees who were unsuccessful (37%).
The range of agreement for large agencies was 32% to 82%. The level of agreement that recruitment and selection was fair was significantly above the APS average in seven agencies (ABS, BoM, CRS, DAFF, DFAT, DOTARS and Finance).
Perceptions of fairness are strongly related to employees’ views on the integrity of their supervisors or managers. Employees who agree that their immediate manager acts in accordance with the Values are more likely to agree that recruitment and selection processes are fair (58%) than those who disagreed (27%). The confidence that processes are fair is also higher if employees agree that the most senior managers in their agency act in accordance with the Values.
Employees were also asked a similar, but slightly different question, in relation to their perceptions of the fairness of recruitment and promotion decisions, to allow comparisons with some State jurisdictions. Forty-one per cent of employees agreed that recruitment and promotion decisions in their agency were fair, lower than the 54% of employees who considered recruitment and selection decisions in their agency to be fair. This difference may reflect different perceptions of merit in the promotion process.
APS results were slightly lower than results in the Tasmanian, Victorian and Western Australian jurisdictions, where 46%, 45% and 44% of employees agreed that recruitment and promotion decisions were fair.11
| Recruitment and selection processes in your agency | Agree (%) | Neither agree nor disagree (%) | Disagree (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| …enable the agency to attract the best candidates | 42 | 23 | 30 |
| …encourage good candidates to apply | 50 | 25 | 20 |
| …allow for selection based on potential, and not limited to direct experience | 37 | 27 | 30 |
| …allow processes to be completed in a timely manner | 35 | 22 | 38 |
| …are completed in a timely manner | 29 | 23 | 43 |
| …are too demanding of candidates | 23 | 33 | 38 |
| …are difficult for candidates outside the APS to understand | 37 | 29 | 28 |
| Source: Employee survey | |||
Table 4.8 shows employees’ perceptions of a number of aspects of the recruitment and selection process. The results against these questions are relatively poor. Half of employees agreed that recruitment and selection processes in their agency encourage good candidates to apply and only a minority thought the processes are too demanding of candidates. However, less than half thought they attract the best candidates, allow for selection based on potential, or allowed for processes to be completed in a timely manner. Only 29% of employees thought that recruitment and selection was in fact completed in a timely manner.
Although showing that there is room for improvement, the relatively high ‘neither agree nor disagree’ response for each statement, ranging from around one-fifth to one-third of employees, makes these views somewhat difficult to interpret. Many employees not directly involved may find it difficult to comment on the effectiveness of recruitment processes.
Employees were more likely to agree that recruitment and selection procedures were completed in a timely manner and that processes allowed for this if they came from small agencies or were non-ongoing employees. SES employees had significantly higher rates of agreement that processes allowed for timely completion and were more likely to believe that they were completed in a timely manner.
The timeliness of APS selection processes is determined largely by agency procedures. The APS recruitment framework provides agencies with considerable flexibility and does not prescribe a lengthy or complex process. Some agencies choose to include specific practices and procedures which may mean a slightly longer process.
Using the standard approach for recruitment, it is possible to complete a selection process in three to four weeks. The bulk of this time is needed for advertising the position to allow for a reasonable opportunity for people to apply, but shortlisting, interviewing and obtaining referee comments can be done in less than a week. If selections are taking much longer than four weeks, agencies need to determine the factors contributing to the delay (e.g. is there insufficient planning by managers or are there unnecessary internal processes to be followed?).
Some employees who chose to comment on recruitment and selection processes reflected concern over timeliness and changing methods of selection (these comments are not necessarily representative of all employees).
My department closely follows the public service guidelines for merit selection, however, we often lose high level applicants, because the merit selection process takes such a long time that the good applicants have been offered another position elsewhere by the time we get round to notifying them.
The use of generic criteria and recruitment agencies has left many staff feeling that they are being overlooked for promotion in areas where they have strong on-the-job skills and knowledge, because the generic criteria/ recruitment agencies are looking at a higher, broader level.
Employees’ perceptions of merit
As well as asking about the overall fairness of recruitment and selection processes, the employee survey also asked about perceptions of the application of merit (as defined in the Act) in different types of processes. As this is the third year in a row these questions have been asked, it is possible to determine some trends.
Table 4.9 indicates that employees remain most confident that merit is routinely applied in engagement and promotion decisions involving a competitive selection process. Employees continued to be less likely to agree that their agency routinely applies merit to other employment decisions resulting from competitive selection processes (i.e. movements at level from within and from outside the agency, and temporary assignment of higher duties). Employees were even less likely to have agreed that merit is routinely applied in these types of employment decisions if a competitive selection process was not involved. Higher proportions also reported not knowing if merit is routinely applied in these types of decisions.
| Agree (%) | Neither agree nor disagree (%) | Disagree (%) | Don’t know (%) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003–04 | 2004–05 | 2005–06 | 2003–04 | 2004–05 | 2005–06 | 2003–04 | 2004 –05 | 2005–06 | 2003–04 | 2004–05 | 2005–06 | |
| Engagement and promotion resulting | ||||||||||||
| from a CSP* | 59 | 53 | 54 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 18 | 21 | 18 | 4 | 7 | 10 |
| Movement at level from another agency | ||||||||||||
| from a CSP | 42 | 37 | 38 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 19 | 23 | 23 |
| without a CSP | 26 | 23 | 21 | 33 | 29 | 31 | 15 | 16 | 15 | 27 | 32 | 33 |
| Movement at level within my agency | ||||||||||||
| from a CSP | 44 | 38 | 42 | 26 | 28 | 25 | 21 | 23 | 19 | 10 | 12 | 14 |
| without a CSP | 33 | 30 | 29 | 30 | 28 | 28 | 21 | 24 | 20 | 15 | 18 | 23 |
| Temporary assignment of ‘higher duties’ | ||||||||||||
| from a CSP | 42 | 37 | 39 | 23 | 24 | 23 | 27 | 28 | 25 | 8 | 11 | 13 |
| without a CSP | 35 | 34 | 33 | 28 | 26 | 25 | 25 | 24 | 22 | 12 | 16 | 20 |
Note: * CSP—competitive selection process to assess the relative suitability of applicants for the duties of a job. Source: Employee survey |
||||||||||||
Table 4.9 also shows that employee perceptions of whether merit was applied in most employment decisions have either stabilised or improved following the decline reported in 2004–05. Improvements in employees’ perceptions of merit are statistically significant for internal movements resulting from a competitive process and for the temporary assignment of higher duties following a competitive selection process. For both internal movements and temporary assignments of higher duties without a competitive selection process, there was a decline in the proportion of employees disagreeing that merit was routinely applied, but the fall was offset by an increase in the proportion of employees who reported that they did not know.
Over the last three years, employees in large agencies were usually less likely to agree that merit is routinely applied across all decision types involving a competitive selection exercise than were employees in medium and small agencies. Small and medium agencies were more likely to report ‘neither agree nor disagree’ than ‘disagree’—the two responses were similar for employees in large agencies.
The data examined in the remainder of this section relates to employees’ perceptions of merit regarding engagement and promotions resulting from a competitive selection process.
Perceptions of merit continue to vary amongst employees in large agencies. In 2006, 40% to 68% of employees in large agencies agreed that merit is routinely applied in their agency for engagement and promotion decisions. Five large agencies had agreement rates that were statistically significantly higher than the APS average—ABS, BoM, DEST, FaCSIA and DFAT.
Employees in large agencies were less likely to agree that merit was applied in engagement and promotion than employees in small or medium agencies, as were those employees working outside the ACT compared to those working in the ACT. An employee’s classification was particularly significant, with APS 1–6 employees least likely to agree that merit was routinely applied for engagements and promotions (49%) compared to EL (67%) and SES (93%) employees. This has been a consistent trend over the last three years.
Consistent with the employee engagement literature, levels of job satisfaction and perceptions of merit were related. Employees with higher levels of job satisfaction were much more likely to agree that merit was routinely applied in engagement and promotion (80%) than were those with lower levels of job satisfaction (20%).12 Employees who agreed that their immediate manager acts in accordance with the Values were also more likely to agree that merit was applied than those who disagreed. Confidence that merit is applied was higher if employees agreed that the most senior managers in the agency act in accordance with the Values in their everyday work, and if they rated their immediate supervisor high on exhibits personal drive and integrity.
Employees who applied for, and were successful in obtaining, a new position in the last 12 months, were more likely to agree that merit was routinely applied (69%) than employees who applied and were unsuccessful (41%). Unsuccessful applicants were nearly three times as likely to consider that merit was not routinely applied as were successful applicants (32% compared to 11%).
Factor analysis identified a composite ‘Merit’ factor made up of merit-related questions where responses were highly related.13 Consistent with the responses to individual questions described above, the overall rate of satisfaction on the ‘Merit’ factor was 43%. The only other employee engagement factor identified with a lower level of agreement was the ‘Senior leaders/culture’ factor at 38%.
Satisfaction with merit was linked with a number of issues relevant to employee engagement. In particular, employees were more likely to agree with the ‘Merit’ factor if they were satisfied with their overall say in decisions impacting on their work, with their access to learning and development, and with increasing levels of job satisfaction.
Merit training and consultative processes
Most agencies had provided training to employees on merit and its application in employment decisions. Three-quarters of agencies provided at least one type of training to employees (60% of small agencies, 85% of medium agencies and 87% of large agencies).
| Merit Training | APS (%) | Small (%) | Medium (%) | Large (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compulsory training for selection panel members | 16 | 10 | 14 | 25 |
| Optional training for selection panel members | 52 | 57 | 45 | 55 |
| Included as part of induction training | 22 | 19 | 18 | 30 |
| Training for delegates and decision makers | 24 | 24 | 18 | 30 |
| General policies on the Intranet | 83 | 62 | 91 | 95 |
| Other | 37 | 14 | 50 | 45 |
| Source: Agency survey | ||||
Table 4.10 shows the type of training provided by relevant agencies. The most common measure was placing general policies on the Intranet, with medium and large agencies more likely to do this—for 19% of the agencies which reported training, this was the only one of the listed measures provided. Although a minority of agencies provided training as part of the induction process, agencies were more likely to direct training towards employees directly involved in conducting selection processes. For agencies reporting an other response, mechanisms used included use of advisers, both independent or from within the HR area, targeted training for some specific employees, and use of guidelines, newsletters or specific briefings.
Despite the range of activity reported by agencies, less than one-third (31%) of employees reported having participated in any training with an emphasis on merit—with 11% of all employees undertaking that training within the last 12 months. The targeted nature of most training provided by agencies may, in part, explain the discrepancy between employee and agency results.
Employees in medium agencies were more likely to report merit training than employees in small agencies. The higher the classification, the more likely it is that employees reported any training—two thirds of SES employees report some training compared to half of EL employees and one-quarter of APS 1–6 employees.
Participation in training that has included some emphasis on merit appears to influence employees’ perceptions of the recruitment and selection process. Employees who reported some training were:
- more likely to agree that their recruitment and selection procedures are fair
- less likely to report that selection procedures are too demanding
- more likely to agree that their agency applies merit in competitive selection processes but less likely to agree it was applied in internal and external movements at level with non-competitive selection processes
- more likely to disagree that selections are completed in a timely manner.
During 2005–06, a substantial proportion of agencies had used staff surveys, consultative committees, or other mechanisms to collect information on employees’ confidence that the agency ensures that merit is routinely applied in employment decisions. Twenty-nine per cent of agencies reported using staff surveys and 31% of agencies reported using consultative committees—11% of agencies reported using both. Nine agencies recorded other methods which included previous or future surveys, feedback from employees, focus groups, exit interviews, an ethics hotline and consultation as part of collective agreement negotiations. A further four agencies with no existing methods reported developing either surveys or consultative committees. However, among large agencies, there was no relationship between the use of such mechanisms and greater satisfaction about whether merit is routinely applied.
SES engagements
The SES represents the senior leadership and management group of APS employees. Selection of people for SES duties is based on the same principles that apply to all APS selection decisions including merit and equity considerations. To ensure that a high level of transparency in the selection procedures is followed in each case, there are some additional requirements which agency heads must satisfy before an engagement or promotion to SES duties can be finalised. These include a requirement that each selection committee must include a representative of the Australian Public Service Commissioner, whose certification that the selection process and procedures used were fair and merit-based must be endorsed by the Australian Public Service Commissioner before any promotion or engagement can be finalised. In 2005–06, over 250 such SES promotion or engagement processes were considered and endorsed by the Australian Public Service Commissioner.
One recent change to SES recruitment procedures is the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s requirement that her representative be substantively at a higher level than the duties being filled and from a different portfolio. Any variation from those requirements will only be agreed to in exceptional circumstances. It is also the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s firm view that in general all members of SES selection committees should be at a substantively higher level than the duties being filled .
Community access to APS employment opportunities
Under the Values, agencies are required to provide reasonable community access to employment opportunities. Since the open access policy was introduced in 1998, the Commission has undertaken a small annual survey of the selection outcomes of non-SES ongoing employment opportunities notified in a February Gazette to provide a snapshot of access trends. This study was undertaken again in 2006, using the Gazette of 23 February 2006.
The proportion of ongoing employment opportunities notified in the Gazette of 23 February 2006 as being open to the public is again over the 99% mark recorded in surveys prior to the 2003–04 survey (when it fell slightly to 98%). This year saw a large increase in the total number of employment opportunities notified in the February Gazette, with 1000 notified ongoing opportunities, representing the highest ever number of opportunities recorded in this series. The reasons behind the variability from year to year are likely to reflect particular staffing needs of agencies at any particular point in time.
Information was provided by agencies on subsequent selection action in relation to the 1000 employment opportunities that arose from the 351 Gazette notices.14 By early August, 9% of selection exercises had not resulted in a selection. Just under half of these selection exercises had ceased for a variety of reasons including that the selected applicant had declined the offer, there had been a reorganisation within an agency, that no suitable applicant was identified or because of the implementation of a machinery of government change. This is a slight decrease in the number of non-finalised exercises over the previous year.
Of the finalised opportunities that were open to eligible members of the community, 52% were filled on an ongoing basis by applicants external to the APS, exceeding the previous high of 51% in 2003 and well in excess of the average of 35% over the nine years of the survey. A key factor in the result was the number of APS 3 and 4 engagements in Centrelink (87% of the 171 finalised opportunities in Centrelink were engagements at the APS 3 and 4 classification levels and overall 92% of the finalised opportunities were engagements).
Given that the study consists of only one Gazette a year, it is difficult to be definitive on overall trends. However, in general the data obtained indicates that agencies are providing reasonable community access to APS employment opportunities.
Use of Clause 4.2A of the Commissioner’s Directions—engagement in exceptional circumstances
Clause 4.2A of the Commissioner’s Directions permits the Commissioner to authorise an agency head to engage a non-ongoing employee as an ongoing employee without the need for further advertising ormerit competition in exceptional cases. In the explanatory statement to the amending Commissioner’s Direction, the Commissioner undertook to report annually on the use of this authority.
In 2005–06, the Commissioner exercised this power twice, authorising, on two separate occasions, the engagement of a non-ongoing employee as an ongoing employee in NOPSA.
In making her decisions, the Commissioner had regard to the following factors:
- the written request by the agency head outlining the suitability of the non-ongoing employee
- evidence of compliance with the Values of merit and reasonable access in the original engagement as a non-ongoing employee
- the existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the ongoing engagement.
- The jurisdictional comparison data from surveys conducted in 2004–05 and 2005–06 was provided to the Commission by the State Services Authority, Victoria (People Matter Survey 2005); the Office of the State Service Commissioner, Tasmania (State Service Employee Survey 2005); and the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, Western Australia (Climate Survey 2005–06). While the Victorian and Tasmanian surveys covered the jurisdiction, the Victorian jurisdictional comparision data was based on web-based responses only. The Western Australian Climate Survey only involved 14 agencies—each year 10–15 agencies are surveyed with each agency being surveyed approximately once every five years.
- The higher levels of job satisfaction are scores of six or higher in the job satisfaction index (9–10 are the highest), and the lower levels are scores of five or less in the index (0–2 are the lowest). The job satisfaction index is discussed in Chapter 3.
- See Appendix 4 for more details of the factor analysis.
- A Gazette notification may be for a single employment opportunity or for multiple opportunities.
