Employee engagement

Broadly, employee engagement refers to how much an employee supports the purpose and values of an organisation and demonstrates that commitment through their behaviour and attitudes. Being engaged is more than just being satisfied or motivated.

Engaged employees have a sense of personal attachment to their job and organisation that means they want to give their best to help it succeed. A recurring theme in the literature is that engagement is consistent with employees ‘going the extra mile’, and exerting discretionary effort over and above what is normally expected.

Evidence from both the private and public sectors shows that engaged employees have a positive effect on organisational performance. This can translate into a range of outcomes, such as greater productivity, increased profitability, higher employee retention rates and higher levels of customer service. In the public sector, employee engagement can translate into increased trust and public confidence rather than profit.¹

An emerging view is that a high level of employee engagement will result in higher levels of innovation. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey on innovation in Australia found that of the 708,000 businesses surveyed only 37% were active innovators, well below the European averages of 55–60%. The ABS proposed that part of the reason for the low level of innovation in Australia is lack of encouragement of employee participation in all areas of the workplace and lack of appropriate leadership styles and workplace cultures.²

This chapter begins by examining levels of employee engagement across the APS, followed by a more detailed analysis of the drivers for employee engagement. This year, statistical analysis has been used to identify 14 workplace factors that are strong drivers of employee engagement in the APS.

These key factors will be examined in detail, including where additional effort needs to be applied to improve engagement.

APS job satisfaction and motivation

Over the years, through the State of the Service reports, the Commission has measured job satisfaction, loyalty/commitment and motivation by using summary indexes based on the employee survey questions. The 2009 summary indexes specifically measure motivation/ discretionary effort, job satisfaction, loyalty/commitment to agency and loyalty/ commitment to the APS, which together indicate levels of employee engagement across the APS.

Overall, the Commission has found continuing high levels of job satisfaction and motivation among APS employees. Figure 5.1 shows that during 2008–09 the majority of APS employees (87%) were highly motivated; this represents a slight increase on last year’s result of 84%. Job satisfaction has remained relatively stable across the last three years, at around 80%. Commitment to the APS is slightly higher this year at 80%, along with employees’ commitment to their agency at 65%.

Broadly, the level of APS employee engagement (as measured by the indexes) compares favourably with similar studies conducted in other government sectors and the private sector, although caution needs to be exercised with these comparisons due to methodological differences. A 2009 study by McKinsey and Company on levels of engagement among United States Government employees reported that:

• only 29% of public sector respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they are consulted on issues that affect them (compared with 43% of the SES sample and 40% in the private sector)
• only 34% of public sector respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they operate in an open and trusting environment (compared with 50% of the SES sample and 49% in the private sector)
• only 34% of public sector respondents suggest that they are encouraged to provide honest feedback to people within the agencies (compared with 51% of the SES sample and 48% in the private sector).

Interestingly, this study concluded that the United States Government enjoys relative strengths in those aspects that deal with the ‘heart’ of an organisation. More than in the private sector, government managers understand and embrace the vision of their organisation, and are motivated to make a difference. The government is not as well positioned as the private sector in the more operational elements of the organisation, and needs improvements in management practices related to fostering engagement, talent management and accountability.3

According to figures of the Corporate Leadership Council (2004), about 11% of the workforce are classified as ‘true believers’ and demonstrate very high levels of commitment to their work. Another 13% at the other end of the normal distribution curve demonstrate little commitment and are classified as the ‘disaffected’.4

Although the results of these studies cannot be used to benchmark APS employee engagement because of methodological differences, they do suggest that the high levels of job satisfaction (80%) and motivation (87%) in the APS are good overall results.

APS agencies have demonstrated a growing interest in, and focus on, how to enhance employee engagement. Centrelink, for example, is using a comprehensive strategy to help increase employee engagement.

Where to focus efforts to improve employee engagement

Australia is not alone in considering how to improve employee engagement in the public service. The Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Gus O’Donnell, spoke this year of similar challenges for the United Kingdom civil service and of the importance of ‘harness[ing] the talents of all our staff to the full’. Accordingly, the British Government is investing in employee engagement programs as a strategy to ensure delivery of ‘improved public services and better outcomes for citizens’.⁵

It is clear that an organisation has a responsibility to lead engagement. An organisation can address several key areas to encourage engagement among its employees. Leadership, effective management, open two-way communication, pay and benefits, employing the ‘right’ workforce, career development and training, and working hours are all aspects of the work environment that organisations can control and influence and have been found to affect engagement levels. However, there is no ‘one size fits all’ model of engagement, and different employees will place different emphases on the extent to which they value each of these elements in return for ‘going the extra mile’.

Measuring the extent of engagement within an organisation is usually achieved by assessing employee perceptions through an employee survey. However, the real value of such a survey lies in the extent to which the survey results are used as a basis to identify the organisation’s strengths and weaknesses so that any necessary corrective actions can be taken.

The Commission has been assessing APS employee views on a range of workplace attributes through the employee survey for a number of years. More recently, statistical analysis has been employed to identify those factors that give a summary picture of how the APS is performing in the area of employee engagement. This year statistical analysis has been used to identify 14 workplace factors that are strong drivers of job satisfaction, motivation/ discretionary effort and commitment/loyalty, which in turn drive employee engagement.⁶

These factors are:

• Goal Clarity
• Team Performance and Relationships
• Immediate Manager
• Intrinsic Rewards
• Autonomy/Empowerment
• Work-Life Balance
• Performance Feedback/Accountability
• Learning and Development
• Job-Skills Match
• Agency Culture
• Remuneration
• Recognition and Feeling Valued
• Senior Leaders
• Career Progression

Figure 5.2 shows that for both 2009 and 2008⁷ over half of APS employees were satisfied with 10 out of the 14 engagement factors. Employees across the APS are most satisfied with the Goal Clarity, Team Performance and Relationships, Immediate Manager and Intrinsic Rewards factors and are least satisfied with support for Career Progression, Senior Leaders, Recognition and Feeling Valued, and Remuneration. Satisfaction levels against the 14 factors are based on employee responses to 63 questions in the employee survey. A more detailed description of the methodology is set out in Appendix 3.

Key drivers of employee engagement in the APS

The following provides analysis of the 14 factors driving employee engagement in the APS and identifies where improvements could be made.

Goal clarity

Critical to employee engagement is employees having a clear understanding of their role and how they fit within the workgroup and the broader strategic direction of the agency.

Also important is how an organisation arrives at and communicates that strategy to employees. Good practice involves:

• staff beyond the executive team providing input into the corporate vision and direction
• leaders and managers communicating consistent messages about the organisational vision with their decisions and actions clearly aligned with it
• managers interpreting the vision for local employees to help them understand how their activities are relevant to corporate goals
• new initiatives announced and changes explained in the context of the vision
• employees kept informed about progress towards the vision.

Most employees report understanding the goals of their position, work group and wider agency, as shown by the level of satisfaction with the Goal Clarity factor result of 87% (see Figure 5.2). In general, SES employees (94%) are more satisfied than their non-SES counterparts (87%) with Goal Clarity in their workplace. Results across agencies8 ranged from 77% to 97% indicating that in some agencies there is room for improvement in this area.

The results for individual questions comprising the Goal Clarity factor indicates that employees are more likely to understand how their own job contributes to their work team’s role than how their work team’s role contributes to the organisation (see Table 5.1). This is not surprising given that many employees would generally interact with team members on a day-to-day basis at the operational, rather than strategic, level.

Table 5.1: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Goal Clarity factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Goal Clarity Factor	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source: Employee Survey
I have a clear understanding of how my own job contributes to my work team's role.	90	90
I clearly understand what is expected of me in this job.	85	85
I have a clear understanding of how my work group's role contributes to my agency's strategic directions.	82	83

Team performance and relationships

Working in a high-performing team based on good working relationships is an important driver of employee engagement and is critical to the productive capacity of the APS. The Team Performance and Relationships factor result of 75% (see Figure 5.2) indicates that most employees are satisfied with their work group and its performance. The SES (87%) is more satisfied with the Team Performance and Relationships factor than other employees (75%). Across agencies, the factor results ranged from 61% to 89%, indicating that team performance and relationships is an area where some agencies could make significant improvement.

Level of satisfaction with the Team Performance and Relationships factor is based on employee responses to the six questions in the employee survey shown in Table 5.2. Within the Team Performance and Relationships factor, employees agree that generally they worked well together in teams, through cooperation and sharing of knowledge (both 83%). These results are similar to last year’s results. However, it seems that employees are not always satisfied that team members make the best use of their time and resources (68%, similar to 2007–08). Employees are also less inclined to indicate that their work group quickly resolved conflict (64%, similar to last year).

Table 5.2: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Team Performance and Relationships factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Team Performance and Relationships Factor	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source: Employee Survey
People in my work group use time and resources effectively.	67	68
The people in my work group cooperate to get the job done.	84	83
The people in my work group share job knowledge with each other.	83	83
People in my work group are honest, open and transparent in their dealings.	74	77
People in my work group treat each other with respect.	80	82
My work group resolves conflict quickly when it arises.	63	64

Immediate manager

Arguably, an employee’s most important relationship at work is with their immediate manager. An effective manager who can provide job clarity, appreciate an employee’s effort and contribution, and manage people so they feel valued, equipped and supported to do the job is one of the keys to employee engagement. Corporate Leadership Council research suggests that managers not only influence commitment but are a force multiplier— meaning that managers who develop employee commitment to the job, team, and organisation are one of the strongest drivers of engagement within an organisation.⁹

Employees generally held positive perceptions about their immediate manager’s performance (72% satisfied as measured by the Immediate Manager factor). Satisfaction with the Immediate Manager factor varied for some segments of the workforce, with SES employees (87%) and employees 45 years or less (75%) most satisfied with their immediate manager. Satisfaction levels ranged from 62% to 89% across agencies, suggesting that this is an area some agencies should examine more closely to improve employee engagement.

Table 5.3 shows that, within the Immediate Manager factor, 69% of employees agree that their immediate supervisor effectively manages people, an increase on the previous year of 66%. Interestingly, 38% of employees who do not think their manager is effective indicated they intend to leave their agency in two years’ time, compared with only 16% of employees who consider their manager effective. APS employees tend to rate their immediate manager highly in areas related to their general behaviour and ethics. For example, 78% of employees indicate that their manager demonstrates honesty and integrity and 76% agreed that their manager works well with people from diverse backgrounds; these results are similar to those from last year’s employee survey. However, only 58% felt that their manager drew the best out of his/her employees, suggesting additional capacity could be realised through more effective management.

Table 5.3: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Immediate Manager factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Immediate Manager Factor	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source: Employee Survey
My manager demonstrates honesty and integrity.	77	78
My manager works effectively and sensitively with people from diverse backgrounds.	75	76
My manager shows concern for the welfare of his/her staff.	77	78
My manager draws the best out of his/her staff.	57	58
[Your workplace provides…]: Good working relationships with my manager and colleagues.	76	78
My immediate supervisor is effective in managing people.	66	69

Intrinsic rewards

Promoting Australia’s interests and the public good is important to APS employees. Intrinsic rewards, such as these, are an important driver of discretionary effort. The Intrinsic Rewards factor result (71%) indicates that most employees achieved personal satisfaction from their job. The SES (93%) are more likely than other employees (70%) to feel a sense of pride and achievement in their work.

Within the Intrinsic Rewards factor, results show that most employees held positive opinions about their job and agency, but were less inclined to feel they were conducting meaningful work. Table 5.4 shows that, while 80% of employees report enjoying the work in their current job, only 47% indicate that their recruitment expectations had been well met in terms of being able to contribute to making a difference.

Table 5.4: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Intrinsic Reward factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Intrinsic Reward Factor	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source: Employee Survey
I enjoy the work in my current job.	78	80
My job gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.	65	67
My agency is a good place to work.	74	78
[How well have your expectations been met in]: ...contributing to making a difference?	48	47
[How well have your expectations been met in]: ...the agency's reputation for doing important work?	57	61

Autonomy/empowerment

Another key driver of employee engagement is high levels of empowerment and autonomy in the workplace. It is important that employees are empowered to make decisions commensurate with their level of skill, experience and responsibility. Good managers should actively seek the views of their employees when making decisions that will affect their teams, and encourage employees to raise problems and make suggestions for business improvements. A structured process for gathering, incorporating and responding to employee views should be in place whenever there is organisational change that will affect them.

The Autonomy/Empowerment factor result of 64% indicates that many employees believe their agency and managers could do better in this area. As expected, SES employees (80%) are more likely to be satisfied with their level of autonomy than employees at other levels (64%). Employees under 25 years of age (68%) are the most likely to be satisfied with their level of autonomy, when compared with older employees (64%). Levels of satisfaction as measured by the Autonomy/Empowerment factor ranged between 50% and 76% across agencies, suggesting that this is an area where some agencies could make significant improvements to employee engagement through changing workplace practices.

Table 5.5 shows that, as a component of the Autonomy/Empowerment factor, employees generally feel they have the authority to do their job effectively (77%)—an increase from last year’s result of 72%. Another component of this factor is employee satisfaction with their manager’s encouragement and management of innovation. This year, the result for this question appeared low (60%), however it has increased since last year (55%). This increase is important in light of commentary emphasising the need for the APS to be more innovative and efficient.

Table 5.5: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Autonomy/Empowerment factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Autonomy/Empowerment Factor	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source: Employee Survey
I have the authority (e.g. the necessary delegation(s), autonomy, level of responsibility) to do my job effectively.	72	77
I receive support from my manager when I suggest new ideas.	64	66
My agency encourages employees to examine what they do and find ways to do it better.	52	54
My manager delegates work effectively.	65	65
[Your workplace provides…]: A manager that encourages and manages innovation.	55	60

Nearly two out of three APS employees (63%) are satisfied with their work-life balance as measured by the Work-Life Balance factor. This is the only factor where SES employees are less likely to be satisfied (45%) than other levels (52% for ELs; 67% for APS 1–6) and satisfaction levels ranged widely across agencies, from 35% to 79%. This result is worthy of further investigation at an agency level.

Investigation of the individual questions within the Work-Life Balance factor showed that levels of full-time employee satisfaction with work-life balance increased slightly from last year’s result (see Table 5.6).

Table 5.6: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Work-Life Balance factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Work-Life Balance factor questions	% Satisfied/Agreed
Source: Employee survey
	2007-08	2008-09
Considering your work and life priorities, how satisfied are you with the work-life balance in your current job?	70	72
My workplace culture supports people to achieve a good work/life balance.	66	71

Seventy-one per cent of employees agreed in 2008–09 that their workplace culture supported people seeking to achieve a good work-life balance.

This year’s employee survey again asked full-time employees to estimate the number of hours worked in the last fortnight. Notwithstanding the slight differences between agencies in what constitutes a standard day for full-time employees (e.g. 7 hours and 21 minutes or 7 hours and 30 minutes), Table 5.7 shows that just over one-third (34%) of full-time employees were working standard hours.¹⁰

Table 5.7: Hours worked in the last fortnight by full-time employees, 2008-09

Hours worked per fortnight	% of APS workforce
Note: (a) Two per cent of full-time employees indicated that the question was not applicable (e.g. because they were on a graduated return to work program or because they were on leave for the whole fortnight). Source: Employee survey
75 hours or less	34
More than 75 hours but less than 80 hours	32
Between 80 hours and 90 hours	22
More than 90 hours and less than 100 hours	7
100 hours or more	3

The likelihood of working extra hours varied for different segments of the full-time workforce with SES employees working substantially longer hours (43% reported working 100 hours or more in the last fortnight) than non-SES employees. These results help explain the poorer perceptions SES employees have about work-life balance.

Other segments of the full-time workforce more likely to report working 80 hours or more included:

• employees in small and medium agencies (38% for both, compared to 31% in large agencies)
• employees working in departments (38% compared to 27% in non-departments)
• employees working in the ACT (42% compared to 25% elsewhere).

Significant variation across agencies was also apparent for employees working 80 hours or more in the last fortnight (12% to 65%). This variation may be due to the differences reported above (e.g. a higher proportion of SES employees in some agencies) and/or it may reflect high workloads in some agencies at the time the employee survey was in the field.

It is important that agencies continue to monitor workload levels, especially ‘hot spots’ in the agency, and implement flexible strategies to help employees and managers deal with excessive workloads. Where possible, indicators, such as unscheduled absence, high levels of flex leave and/or annual leave being accrued (but not taken) and high turnover levels should be regularly monitored in order to identify any early warning signs that excessive workloads could be adversely affecting employee wellbeing.

Agencies identified a number of strategies they had adopted to manage excessive workloads, including:

• flexible resourcing approaches to enable employees to be moved temporarily to higher priority areas without the need for traditional employee movement processes
• regular liaison with Ministers and their offices to improve workflows
• access to personal development programs to enable employees to better manage priorities and/or workloads.

Early indications, as measured through the agency survey, suggest that agencies are taking reasonable steps to manage excessive workloads; however, the key way to test the effectiveness of such strategies is to continue testing employees’ perceptions of their work-life balance.

Performance feedback/accountability

Performance feedback/accountability provides a mechanism to systematically improve organisational performance by linking and aligning individual, team and organisational objectives and results. The 2003 Management Advisory Committee report on performance management in the APS identified three success factors for performance management systems, namely, alignment, credibility and integration. ‘Alignment’ refers to the alignment of an individual’s work with the organisation’s culture and business objectives; ‘credibility’ is whether the performance management system is seen as fair, transparent and rigorous; and ‘integration’ relates to integrating the organisation’s objectives with the performance of teams and individuals.¹¹

The findings of the Australian National Audit Office’s 2004 APS Performance Management report concluded that, although progress was being made in aligning and integrating the performance management systems with the broad objectives of organisations, ‘significant issues remain in establishing credible performance management systems in the APS. The perception of APS employees, reflected in survey responses as part of the audit, is that there remains a substantial gap between the rhetoric and the reality.’¹²

Today, five years later, some issues appear to remain in relation to the credibility of performance management. Only 57% of EL and APS 1–6 employees are satisfied with the Performance Feedback/Accountability factor, although more SES employees (65%) are satisfied with this factor. Individual agency results ranged from 42% to 73% for this factor, indicating scope for improvement by some agencies.

While close to nine out of 10 employees (88%) indicate receiving formal individual performance feedback in the last 12 months, Table 5.8 shows that fewer than seven out of 10 employees (67%) report receiving feedback on their performance that was adequate enough to enable them to deliver required results. Feedback sessions are an opportunity for managers and their employees to talk openly and constructively about positive and negative performance issues; to identify and act on learning and development needs; to ensure a common understanding about roles and responsibilities and how these relate to their agency’s goals; and for genuine two-way feedback to occur.

Table 5.8: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Performance Feedback/Accountability factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Performance Feedback/Accountability factor questions	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source: Employee survey
I receive adequate feedback on my performance to enable me to deliver required results.	64	67
My manager encourages me to build the capabilities and/or skills required for new job roles.	69	69
[Your workplace provides…]: A manager that provides effective feedback.	63	62
[Your workplace provides…]: Realistic performance expectations.	60	60

Most agencies have a suite of measures in place to help managers implement the agency’s performance management system. Ninety-one per cent of agencies report having three or more measures in place to support line managers, including providing consistent guidelines/forms for establishing performance agreements and self-nominating training on the performance management system. These results are generally consistent with those reported last year, although use of self-nominating training increased slightly this year.

Over three-quarters of agencies (77%) also had two or more mechanisms in place to ensure line managers are accountable for implementing the agency’s performance management system. The most common approaches involved mechanisms in senior managers’ and line managers’ performance agreements (74% and 64%, respectively).

Learning and development

Employee perceptions concerning access to and quality of learning and development opportunities affect their commitment to their agency. A 2004 Mercer study of the Australian workforce concluded that three in five employees who are given opportunities to improve their skills would not consider leaving their organisation.¹³ This also appears to be true of the APS. Thirty-one per cent of those whose learning and development needs had not been identified with their manager indicated an intention to leave their agency within the next two years.

Over half of employees (56%) are satisfied with workplace learning and development, as shown in the Learning and Development factor result. Satisfaction varied for different segments of the workforce, with SES employees (71%), employees aged less than 25 years (69%) and employees in small agencies (61%) recording higher levels of satisfaction in this area than all other segments of the APS workforce. There is wide variation in satisfaction levels across agencies, ranging from 37% to 82%. The Learning and Development factor is based on employee responses to the seven questions in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Learning and Development factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Learning and Development factor questions	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Note: Employees were asked to rate the effectiveness on a five-point scale from ‘very high’ to ‘very low’. Employees who indicated that the effectiveness of their learning and development had been ‘very high’, ‘high’ or ‘moderate’ were included in the satisfied/agreed category. Source: Employee survey
My manager ensures fair access to developmental opportunities for employees in my work group.	72	72
My agency places a high priority on the learning and development of employees.	55	54
[How well have your expectations been met in]: ...developmental/educational opportunities in the agency?	40	39
Overall, how satisfied are you with your own access to learning and development opportunities in your organisation?	55	57
Please rate the overall effectiveness of the learning and development you received in the last 12 months in helping you improve your performance (a)	72(a)	72(a)
[Your workplace provides…]: Encourages increased knowledge and/or experience in the job.	78	65
[Your workplace provides…]: Promotes access to effective learning and development.	58	56

Just over half of APS employees (57%) are satisfied with their access to learning and development. Seventy-two per cent of employees agreed their learning and development opportunities over the last 12 months had been effective. Of these employees, 31% rated their learning and development experience as very highly/highly effective and a further 41% rated it as moderately effective.

It is important that the organisation and managers are clear about the skills and competencies their employees need. Managers also need to think about the most cost-effective way for employees to gain these skills—whether it is through a formal training course, an eLearning option or a ‘hands on’ internal or cross-agency project.

The Commission operates two consultancy panels to help ensure agencies have access to high quality learning and development providers with a demonstrated track record. In the eLearning environment, the Commission launched an eLearning Support Services and Solutions Panel in September 2008. This supplements the Commission’s longer running Leadership, Learning and Development Panel which provides content development and accreditation, training and support services, and consultancy services.

Job-skills match

Just over half of employees (55%) are satisfied with the match between their skills, experience and interests and the requirements of their job or the business of their agency. Notable variation in satisfaction levels is evident between the classifications for this factor. SES employees are most likely to be satisfied with this area of their job (82%), followed by EL (65%) and APS 1–6 (51%) employees. Employees working in large agencies (55%) are the least likely to be satisfied, when compared with those working in small (59%) and medium (62%) agencies. Across agencies, satisfaction levels measured by the Job-Skills Match factor ranged between 37% and 78%.

Looking at the individual responses to questions within the Job-Skills Match factor, Table 5.10 shows that most employees believe their job allows them to use their skills (74%, similar to 73% last year). Fewer are satisfied with the match between their interests and their job responsibilities/agency business; only 57% agreed that their expectations had been well met, a small increase on the 2007–08 result of 55%. Job-skills match was the second most important attribute (after job security) employees chose from a list of attributes attracting them to their current job.

Table 5.10: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Job-Skills Match factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Job-Skills Match factor questions	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source:Employee survey
My job allows me to utilise my skills, knowledge and abilities.	73	74
[How well have your expectations been met in]: ...matching your interests/experience to the responsibilities of the job or the business of the agency?	55	57

Agency culture

The Agency Culture factor result of 51% indicates that around half of all APS employees are satisfied with their agency’s culture. This appears to reflect concerns about grievance resolution, underperformance management, and inclusiveness. SES employees were more satisfied with agency culture (72%) than other employees (51%). The Agency Culture factor satisfaction ratings range from 28% to 75% across agencies, indicating a wide variation in practice.

Table 5.11 shows that, with respect to the questions making up the Agency Culture factor, 85% of employees consider their agency encourages ethical behaviour, which is similar to last year’s result of 84%. However, only 44% of employees are confident of their agency’s employee grievance processes, although this is an improvement on last year’s result of 41%. Fifty-eight per cent of APS employees feel their input was adequately considered in agency decision-making, which is an improvement over last year’s results of 52%.

Table 5.11: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Agency Culture factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Agency Culture factor questions	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source: Employee survey
Employees in my agency feel they are valued for their contribution.	41	44
My agency operates with a high level of integrity.	71	72
My agency deals with underperformance effectively.	24	25
[How well have your expectations been met in]: ...the agency's reputation for good work practices (e.g. work-life balance, people management)?	49	53
My input is adequately sought and considered about decisions that directly affect me.	52	58
My organisation actively encourages ethical behaviour by all of its employees.	84	85
I have confidence in the processes that my organisation uses to resolve employee grievances.	41	44

Another unfavourable aspect of the Agency Culture factor is management of underperformance. Only one in four employees thought their agency deals with underperformance effectively (similar to last year’s result of 24%). There is a marked variation across agencies in satisfaction with agency management of underperformance, ranging from 9% to 56%.

If underperformance is not addressed, it can have a negative effect on productivity across the work group. Effectively addressing underperformance not only sets expectations for employees but also is central to reinforcing a shared vision of the organisation. Managers need to balance employee confidentiality when addressing underperformance with keeping other team members informed. This can be especially difficult in the absence of sufficient guidance and/or support from human resource areas. The Commission’s guide, Sharpening the Focus: Managing Performance in the APS¹⁴ is designed to help managers and agencies improve employees’ performance and provide guidance on handling underperformance.

Remuneration

Less than half of employees (48%) are satisfied with their level of remuneration, as measured by the Remuneration factor. Satisfaction with Remuneration progressively decreases down the levels, from 59% for SES employees to 54% for EL and 46% for APS 1–6 employees. Across agencies, satisfaction with Remuneration ranged from 21% through to 64%, which may reflect the increasing gap in remuneration at equivalent levels across agencies. Chapter 7 contains further discussion of remuneration.

Table 5.12 indicates that employee satisfaction with remuneration increased this year (63% from 59% last year). A strong relationship exists between levels of job satisfaction and employees’ views on how fairly they are remunerated. Those with a high level of job satisfaction are much more likely to believe they are fairly remunerated (69%) than those with low job satisfaction (40%).

Table 5.12: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Remuneration factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Remuneration factor questions	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source: Employee survey
I am fairly remunerated for the work that I do.	59	63
[How well have your expectations been met in]: ...your remuneration package?	50	52

Other segments of the workforce most likely to agree they are fairly remunerated include women (66%, compared with 59% of men); SES employees (79%, compared to 71% of EL and 60% of APS employees); and employees performing policy work (70%).

Employees in the ACT were more likely to believe they are fairly paid (68%) than those outside the ACT (61%). APS employees in Western Australia are particularly dissatisfied with their pay; only 51% thought they are fairly remunerated.

Recognition and feeling valued

A key driver of employee engagement is acknowledging and valuing the role that each individual plays in the organisation’s success. The United Kingdom civil service has developed the Employee Engagement Good Practice Guide that identifies steps for promoting recognition and feeling valued. These are:

• Structures are in place to identify and celebrate achievement, making the link to corporate values.
• Staff at all levels are encouraged to give informal feedback on positive behaviours and express their appreciation of colleagues’ efforts.
• Managers take the opportunity to praise individual and team effort openly.
• Positive feedback from customers and stakeholders is shared and published.
• The input of individuals or teams is specifically acknowledged in work submitted to senior staff/ministers.¹⁵

The Recognition and Feeling Valued factor has the second lowest satisfaction result across all factors (only 40%). The EL and APS 1–6 classifications expressed particularly low levels of satisfaction (45% and 38%, respectively), and SES employees also rated components of this factor relatively low (67%). Results varied markedly across agencies, ranging from 25% to 61%, indicating significant scope for improving practice in this area.

Table 5.13 shows that, within this factor, only 54% of employees are satisfied with the recognition they receive for doing a good job (up from 52% last year). Similarly, only 52% of employees feel their team is valued for its contribution to the workplace (similar to 50% last year).

Table 5.13: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Recognition/Feeling Valued factor; 2007-08 and 2008-09

Recognition/Feeling Valued factor questions	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source: Employee survey
I am satisfied with the recognition I receive for doing a good job.	52	54
The people in my work group feel they are valued for their contribution.	50	52

Senior leaders

Good leadership is the key to engaging employees with the business of the organisation. A global survey by Melcrum Publishing (2005) concluded that the senior executives set the tone of engagement in an organisation, whatever its size. The survey identified six key strategies that senior management can adopt to inspire engagement among employees, namely:

• Communicating a clear vision of the future.
• Building trust in the organisation.
• Involving employees in decision-making that will affect them.
• Demonstrating commitment to the organisation’s values.
• Being seen to respond to feedback.
• Demonstrating genuine commitment to employees’ wellbeing.¹⁶

Based on the Senior Leaders factor, less than half (43%) of employees are satisfied with their senior leaders. However, it is likely that many employees do not have direct and regular contact with their senior leaders and would be unsure how to rate their performance. Conversely, SES employees are much more likely to be satisfied with their senior leaders, as measured by this factor (70%), when compared with EL (40%) and APS 1–6 employees (43%). Surprisingly, however, younger employees (under 30 years) were more likely to be satisfied with their senior leaders (50%) than those aged 30 years and over (42%). There is wide variation across agencies with satisfaction levels ranging from 16% to 77%.

Table 5.14 shows that over three-quarters of employees (77%) thought their senior managers generally acted in accordance with the APS Values, which is similar to the 2006–07 result. In addition, 62% of employees feel that senior managers led by example in ethical behaviour; this is a significant improvement on last year’s result of 57%. However, employee views about change management, and how receptive their leaders are to ideas employees submitted, are much less positive. Chapter 4 contains a more detailed discussion of senior leadership and their capacity to meet future challenges.

Table 5.14: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Senior Leaders Factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Senior Leaders factor questions	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Note (a): This question was not asked in the 2007-08 employee survey. Source: Employee survey
I feel change is managed well in my agency.	36	36
In my agency, the leadership is of a high quality.	46	46
My agency is well managed.	45	45
In my agency, senior leaders are receptive to ideas put forward by other employees.	35	39
In my agency, senior leaders discuss with staff how to respond to future challenges.		43
Within my agency the most senior leaders are sufficiently visible.	52	50
Generally speaking, in my experience the most senior managers in my agency act in accordance with the APS Values.	75	77
Senior mangers in my organization lead by example in ethical behaviour	57	62

Career progression

A key driver of employee engagement is providing career development opportunities to employees for professional and personal development and advancement within the organisation. This involves:

• the organisation being clear about the competencies and skills it needs and encouraging employees to develop them
• employees receiving regular feedback and formal performance appraisals
• employees having access to training and other development opportunities
• the organisation setting out possible career paths to help employees plan their careers.

The Career Progression factor has the lowest reported employee satisfaction result (36%) of all factors. While SES employees (63%) are more satisfied with this aspect of work than EL (41%) and APS 1–6 (34%) employees, their level of satisfaction with components of this factor is also relatively low. Employees aged 45 years and older (28%) expressed a very low level of satisfaction compared with younger employees (43%). Employees in small agencies (32%) are less likely to be satisfied with their career progression than those in medium (40%) and large (38%) agencies. Satisfaction levels varied markedly across agencies from 17% to 71%, indicating significant scope for improvement in some agencies.

Table 5.15 shows that less than half of employees believe their current job would help their career aspirations (49%) and only 44% are satisfied with the opportunities for career progression in their current agency. As might be expected, 34% of employees who are not satisfied with their career progression opportunities have indicated they intend to leave their agency within two years, compared with only 12% of employees who were satisfied with career progression opportunities in their agency. Interestingly, Thales Australia—a private company that has purchased Australian Defence Industries (previously part of the Department of Defence)—claims to have reduced turnover from 15% to 8% within a year of introducing career development discussions and restructuring learning and development opportunities.

Table 5.15: Employee satisfaction/agreement with questions comprising the Career Progression Factor, 2007-08 and 2008-09

Career Progression factor questions	% Satisfied/Agreed
	2007-08	2008-09
Source: Employee survey
My current job will help my career aspirations.	50	49
I am satisfied with the opportunities for career progression in my current agency.	46	44
[How well have your expectations been met in]: … gaining experience or greater experience in the APS?	53	51
[How well have your expectations been met in]: ...future career opportunities in the agency?	34	31

Employee engagement across different groups

Satisfaction levels with employee engagement factors can vary across different groups. Figure 5.3 shows significant variation across classification levels for the 14 employee engagement factors.

Figure 5.3 shows that SES employees are more satisfied with almost all employee engagement factors, apart from Work-Life Balance, than are other APS employees.

While APS 1–6 employees are relatively satisfied with Work-Life Balance, they are less satisfied with Career Progression, Job-Skills Match, Recognition/Feeling Valued, and Remuneration. In terms of employee engagement it is important that SES employees, in particular, are conscious that workplace factors that most influence the large number of EL and APS 1–6 employees in their organisation are likely to be distinctly different from their own.

Significant variation is evident across APS agencies in the level of satisfaction with a number of employee engagement factors. Statistical analysis has identified three areas where there are both significant variations across agencies and relatively low levels of satisfaction. These areas are Agency Culture, Senior Leaders and Performance Feedback/Accountability. This is where APS agencies could target their efforts to make a real difference to employee engagement levels across the APS.

Key chapter findings

Overall, this chapter provides some positive indicators that suggest the APS is a healthy institution. Eighty-seven per cent of APS employees are motivated to do the best possible work they can, and most are willing to put in the extra effort to get the job done. Job satisfaction has remained relatively stable for the last three years at around 80%. Commitment to the APS is slightly higher this year, at 80%, along with employees’ commitment to their agency, at 65%.

The evidence suggests, however, that employee engagement and satisfaction with the key drivers have not changed dramatically for some time. Most employees are satisfied with the Goal Clarity, Team Performance and Relationships, and Immediate Manager factors, but substantially fewer are satisfied with the Recognition and Feeling Valued, Senior Leaders and Career Progression factors.

Essentially, the results show that there are high levels of commitment by APS employees who embrace the direction of their organisation, and are motivated to make a difference. However, they are less satisfied with their senior leadership, the recognition they receive for their work, and the opportunities for career progression. If the APS of the future is to do more with less, it will need to target effort to those areas of employee engagement where improvement can be achieved.

NEXT » Improving policy design and service delivery