Related observations and considerations

Several issues arose during our consultations that did not squarely fit within the review’s Terms of Reference, although should be borne in mind in responding to the foregoing recommendations. Three, in particular, are highlighted below.

Consistency in remuneration

There was substantial commentary on remuneration in workshops and submissions, with the key concern being the apparent inconsistency in approaches to remunerating staff who do similar work. This was producing mixed messages about work value. In the view of the Panel, a more consistent approach to remuneration and associated terms and conditions would:

• Facilitate greater mobility of staff between APS agencies.
• Reinforce the principles of fairness and equity.
• Strengthen the alignment between work value and classification.

On the latter point, the key is to separate classification decisions from remuneration arrangements to enable more transparency in situations where remuneration is designed to attract in-demand skills. 

A contemporary approach to risk management

A distinctive feature of the APS is its perceptions of and engagement with risk. APS leaders operate within a complex authorising and stakeholder environment that increases the sense of exposure to risk. This in turn fosters mindsets that are inherently risk-sensitive and therefore prone to trigger cautious and defensive or protective behaviour. This is a rational response; however, it can have unintended consequences. APS employees can define desired outcomes in narrow ways, and can seek to exercise control over products and processes that should be handled at lower levels.

A different approach to engaging with risk is therefore a critical element of APS cultural reform and leadership development. APS employees need assurance and evidence that they will be both trusted to exercise their responsibilities without undue interference or ‘micro-management’. Change must be led from the top, with those at the most senior levels demonstrating trust in their staff, being clear when the stakes are high and when they are not, and providing an environment where responses to mistakes are reasonable and proportionate.

The review understands that such changes are not easy and require support from Ministers’ offices and others. Nevertheless, they are worth pursuing if the APS is to counter the trend of work and decision-making continually being ‘pushed upwards’ and employees feeling their roles are being hollowed-out.

Supporting a diverse and inclusive APS

An ongoing commitment to a diverse and inclusive APS is key to realising the vision of an agile, flexible APS that delivers for Australian citizens. This review offers several points of intersection with the diversity and inclusion agenda. Rethinking classification and introducing new ways of working, along with new approaches to progression and development, all present opportunities for the APS to address systemic barriers to career development reported by underrepresented cohorts. For example, ensuring that people with the right skills and knowledge are included in decision-making is highly relevant, particularly when considering the value of involving people who bring a customer perspective or lived experience relevant to the issue at hand. Leadership development, including the cultivation of behaviours that recognise different working styles and mitigate the risk of bias provides a similar opportunity to reinforce diversity and inclusion principles.

It is important to guard against unintended outcomes from acting on the review’s recommendations. Doing this requires vigilance in seeking out and understanding the experiences of under-represented employees (and prospective employees). The review received rich insights from these cohorts, some of which relate directly to questions of hierarchy and classification, and others that ranged more broadly. Key themes to highlight were as follows:

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees who responded to our survey perceived limitations on their career progression opportunities, driven in part by limited cultural competency in (non-Indigenous) leaders and a lack of appropriate mentors to support their growth and development. 
• People from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds noted that levels of cultural diversity in the APS (especially in senior leadership) were relatively low and felt that systemic features such as a heavy reliance on interview performance in selection processes created barriers to progression.
• People with a disability said that assumptions about their capability and career aspirations had a detrimental impact and emphasised the importance of promoting disability awareness and understanding.

Such views are illustrative rather than comprehensive. However, they underline the need to capture the opportunities implicit in the recommendations to create a more equitable and inclusive APS that reflects the rich diversity of the Australian community that it serves.