Recommendations

Recommendation 1 | A new classification framework

Modernise and simplify the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 from 13 to 8 classifications, with Secretaries retaining flexibility to structure their organisations to optimise business needs.

“The APS needs to configure itself around the needs of the Government of the day and the expectations of citizens"

- Phil Gaetjens

Why do we need change?

The recommended changes to the classification framework are driven by an appetite to streamline decision-making, reduce unnecessary clearance layers, push risk down and empower staff across all levels of the workforce. An excessively layered approach to decision-making has consequences for both enterprise efficiency and delivery of services to Australians.

We heard consistently in consultations with APS staff that, for a contemporary workforce, the current APS classification structure is too hierarchical, has too many levels and the ingrained identification with levels as opposed to skills/expertise creates barriers to participation. We also heard the current classifications often underpinned team designs with layered structures, low appetite for risk and an administratively burdensome clearance process. This approach has been magnified by the shift in the APS profile over time, towards an increasingly top heavy structure.

Reducing layers and removing excessive reporting layers is a critical success factor in enabling accountability and decision-making to be pushed down to lower levels. A shift to a flatter structure, particularly at the senior executive levels, creates the opportunity for APS agencies to empower non-SES staff to take greater responsibility within their teams, delegate responsibility and manage risk appropriately to strengthen their engagement. Valuing the contribution of employees at all levels will help to attract the next generation into the public sector, while retaining and growing the current capabilities in the APS.

The new classification structure, combined with recommendations on spans of control and cultural change, will also see the EL2 cohort take on a greater role in risk management, representational responsibilities, and organisational leadership. This aligns with what the Panel heard from private sector entities and other state and territory public services – empowering middle managers to take a greater leadership role in the day-to-day business operation, while freeing up senior executives to focus on high priority issues, ministerial engagement, strategic organisational and people matters, and ‘One APS’ collaboration.

What change are we recommending?

The Panel recommends flattening the APS classification framework from 13 to 8 levels, both to match the changing composition of the APS workforce and to remove unproductive, hierarchical barriers to decision‑making.

• APS levels should be consolidated into two levels, Core Officer – Primary (current APS1-4) and Core Officer – Advanced (APS5-6):
  • Consolidating APS1-4 levels into the Core Officer – Primary level reflects a simplification of the existing lower end of classifications into a single level. It recognises the increased complexity of roles in the APS and works to realign the classifications to recognise the skills and proficiencies required in a modern public service.
  • Consultations strongly suggested there was a lack of distinction between APS5 and APS6 roles in the APS, which is also reflected in the APS6 now being the most common classification level in the APS.[21] Consolidating the APS5-6 levels into one new classification reflects the natural break currently occurring in classification levels.
     
• The EL1 level should be reclassified as Core Officer – Expert, recognising the significant expertise that is expected at this level.
• The EL2 level should be recalibrated to play an enhanced and strengthened leadership role:
  • Combined with greater spans of control (see Recommendation 5), the new classification structure will see the Manager cohort take on a greater role in risk management, representational responsibilities, and leadership of the organisation. This aligns with what the Panel heard from private sector entities and other State and Territory public services – pushing responsibility down to the lowest level where it is safe and effective to do so, empowering middle managers to take a greater leadership role. The Panel considers these responsibilities are consistent with the pay offered at this level, with the mean EL2 base salary over $143,000 per year.[22]
     
• At the SES level, the Panel proposes to consolidate three levels into two – an Executive General Manager and a General Manager classification. This change does not recommend removal of a specific layer, instead proposes to consolidate the existing SES Band 1 and Band 2 levels – this would result in a new Work Level Standard (WLS) for each new level to reflect the changed nature of these roles:
  • In recommending a flatter SES structure, the Panel encourages the use of flexible team structures and a departure from traditional chains of clearance that can see work passing through four lines of clearance before reaching a Secretary, or five before reaching a Minister.
  • The Panel envisages the two new SES levels would result in broader salary ranges at each level.
     
• Graduates and other entry level staff across all agencies should have their own classification level throughout the life of their program, and will move into the relevant Core Officer level (determined by the agency) at the completion of their graduate program.
• The Panel is not recommending a loss of any terms, conditions or remuneration at any level.

Implementation Considerations

A mapping of today’s public service to the new classification framework is illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7 | Anticipated proportion of roles at classification levels under the current and new structures[23]

Introducing a new classification framework is not intended to result in job cuts or loss of remuneration. Secretaries are encouraged to redesign a flatter organisational structure in a flexible manner, best meeting their business needs while also removing unnecessary decision-making layers. We recommend:

• Agencies have support and information to transition to the new classification structure.
• The APS Commissioner issues new Classification Rules to support and underpin new structures.
• The APSC works with the Chief Operating Officers (COO) Committee, agencies and the APS Professions to update the WLS, Integrated Leadership System (ILS) and role evaluation methodologies and associated frameworks, to reflect the new classifications.
• The APSC conducts open consultations with the CPSU and other relevant professional bodies in developing updated WLS and Classification Rules, where practical.
• Implementation plans developed to facilitate and guide consistent and cohesive transformation. Transition guidance will cover implications for enterprise bargaining and individual arrangements, interagency mobility during transition, and mechanisms for supporting vulnerable groups; and
• Agencies use careful workforce management to avoid salary creep.

Recognising the complexities in moving to the new classification structure and the strong identity APS employees attach to their levels, sensitive and well-informed change management will be essential in navigating the change. This should include urgent capability uplift and support for APS leaders to successfully achieve sustained, enterprise-wide organisational change.

Recommendation 2 | People-focused titles

Refer to people’s roles by descriptive job titles, rather than numerical classifications

“In the APS, you are a rank first, and a person second”

- APS Graduate

Why do we need change?

This recommendation speaks to broader cultural reform necessary for the APS to modernise its ways of working – valuing the contributions employees make to their team and their organisation, rather than the position they hold in the hierarchy.

Another strong theme that emerged from engagements with APS employees was that classification levels tend to be used as a determinant of who to listen to, who to consult and who to value. APS employees noted their professional identity – from their own and others’ perspective – was bound-up with their classification level and seniority was a key factor in determining how APS colleagues relate to each other. Consequently, their experience was that they were:

• Not allowed, or could not practically, communicate with colleagues at higher classification levels (even when there was a work imperative to do so), creating inefficiency and hampering productivity; and
• Not invited to participate in meetings on the basis of their classifications, meaning decision-makers are denied access to their expertise or valuable perspectives.

A move to generic, non-numeric classification titles, accompanied by more specific job titles, is intended to encourage a focus on role and contribution rather than position on a ‘ladder’. Specifically, it would discourage practices of organising by classification level and a reliance on positional authority to wield influence – notably, committees whose membership is based on classification level. Such practices embed a culture of deference to others on the basis of their level rather than expertise or experience (including frontline delivery experience). Hierarchical behaviours like these do not align with modern, flexible and productive organisations that are focused on citizen outcomes.

Using more descriptive job titles brings other advantages:

• They provide greater transparency for external customers and stakeholders who engage with government, by better reflecting the responsibility and expertise associated with a role.
• It promotes stronger identification with work teams, as opposed to those at the same classification, which is known to inspire higher levels of creativity and engagement.[24]
• It encourages sideways mobility to develop breadth rather than aspiring to the next level, by reducing the emphasis on position in the hierarchy.

This change is more than just administrative, it will embed new ways of working to support broader cultural reform, seeing a move away from hierarchical practices into an environment where APS staff are valued for the skills and expertise they bring to their role.

• Using a set of consistent titles across an organisation that emphasise the role or the skillset (as opposed to the layer in the hierarchy) enables a culture that values people’s expertise as opposed to their rank. It also aids mobility across the agency and broader APS with a clear understanding of the skills and experience of employees in each role.
• This shift has already started in the APS, with the ATO introducing work titles that reflect the work undertaken by staff as opposed to their level in the hierarchy. The use of a title that is reflective of someone’s position has not only enhanced mobility in the organisation, but has also led to a 4-5% increase in innovation within the organisation (according to APS census data collected by the ATO).

Implementation Considerations

The classification framework will adopt new language to describe job titles, moving away from numerical language that denotes a classification level. Job titles will be appropriate and descriptive, reflecting the nature of the work performed.

• The APSC will work with Agencies, COO Committee and the HR Professions group to provide guidance on the implementation and use of appropriate and descriptive job titles.
• Agencies will have discretion on which titles are used but are encouraged to adopt titles that are meaningful to current and potential employees, and internal and external stakeholders.
• Agencies will actively reward leaders for creating opportunities for colleagues to bring forward their expertise irrespective of classification level, including when briefing senior decision-makers and Ministers.

Over time, and in conjunction with the other recommendations, this should result in an environment where staff, irrespective of classification level are taking on broader responsibilities and are valued for their expertise as opposed to their rank.

Recommendation 3 | Planned, capability-driven progression

Enable progression for people within classifications through fair and transparent assessment driven by proficiency, skills development and workforce planning.

“There are extraordinary opportunities within the public service to expand capability, however we need to be more targeted to build capability where it is needed and for the right types of roles”

- Jacqui Curtis, Head of HR Profession  

Why do we need change?

The APS needs a mechanism for enabling structured and fair growth and development within the new classifications. Managing progression within levels requires attention to:

• Equity – ensuring regular opportunities for external applicants to compete for roles at higher level.
• Effective workforce management – maintaining the appropriate overall workforce profile that is consistent with operational needs and salary budgets.

The review recommends the introduction of progression points within each classification level to both promote capability development and facilitate planned and well-managed progression.

Capability development must be a key priority for the APS.[25] Contemporary approaches to job design emphasise the importance of stimulating work that provides a sense of mastery.[26] We heard from APS employees that access to growth opportunities and interesting/challenging work are key motivators. By 2025, 50% of the APS workforce will be Gen Y and Z – the ‘digital natives’ – who will make up around 85% of new recruits.[27] We know professional development and career progression are highly valued by these generations (Figure 8), and targeted, digitally enabled forms of learning are increasingly the norm. The ability to map out fulfilling and staged career pathways will be critical to attract and retain these workers.

Figure 8 | Why different age groups stay in the APS[28]

The concept of planned, well-managed progression through introduced progression points draws on practices used by agencies with broadbanded classifications. Under current rules – which the review proposes not to change – Agency Heads can combine two or more classifications into a ‘broadband’ to enable an employee’s advancement between levels where work at a higher level is needed and they have demonstrated the relevant capabilities. We heard strong support for the principles that underpin broadbanding arrangements “as a measure to attract and retain employees”,[29] along with calls for a more consistent, fair, enterprise-wide approach.  

The recommendation proposes progression within classification levels is facilitated and managed through consideration of the following criteria:

• Capability development – extent to which there has been evident growth in skills and knowledge.
• Performance in the role – how capabilities have been applied to deliver the desired outcomes.
• Fairness and transparency – ensuring systems to assess capability and past performance are clear and objective, nurturing capability development and valuing both breadth and depth of experience.
• Strategic workforce planning – alignment to short- and longer-term workforce strategies within the business unit and agency.
• Efficiency – minimising onerous administrative processes.

The review recommends a system for progression that balances a ‘One APS’ approach to classification with agency-specific needs. For example, in very large agencies or in workforces with many jobs of the same type, there are likely to be opportunities to introduce more standardised practices in the management of progression. For smaller or more specialised agencies, different practices are likely to be appropriate.

Implementation Considerations

To ensure consistency and fairness across agencies, the APSC, with the COO Committee and HR Profession, will develop guidelines to support a staged and balanced approach to progression points. We recommend:

• The APSC, in consultation with the COO Committee and HR Profession, provide guidance on the operation of progression points to ensure consistent communications and application across the APS. Agencies can implement up to three progression points within a classification.
• Agency Heads make the final determination on the exact structure for progression within their organisation, to ensure their workforce is optimised to meet business needs.
• Updated WLS are used as a baseline for developing the progression points. They will be drafted to help prevent backwards bracket creep.
• The APS Commissioner plays a strong role in overseeing how WLS are applied, undertaking periodic reviews to ensure ongoing relevancy and auditing progression decisions when required to ensure consistent and fair application across the APS.
• Assessments of work availability are based on robust workforce planning, taking into consideration whole of organisation business needs (rather than individual level, as is the current practice) and career pathways for employees.
• Employee progression is supported with proficiency assessments, providing employees with a transparent appraisal of their skills, timely provision of clear feedback to enable development and investment in capability development and effective performance management.

Recommendation 4 | Specialist pathways

Recognise specialists for the value of their work within the new classification framework.

"Many technical specialists do not want to manage employees but want to have a career path where the increased complexity of work can be recognised as they progress through the classification structure"

- Public submission

Why do we need change?

The APS operates in an increasingly competitive labour market for particular specialist skills,[30] which has a direct impact on the ability of the APS to attract and retain technical experts in pivotal roles. 71% of the 95 agencies that responded to the 2021 Agency Survey identified critical skills shortages across emerging specialist roles, including 70% in data and digital, and 50% in ICT. In an increasingly disrupted and constantly evolving environment, it is crucial that the APS can attract and retain specialist skills required in the modern workforce to deliver for government and citizens.

Definitions of specialist skills can also take on a narrow view of technical capability. Our consultations identified there is likely an undervaluation of Indigenous APS employees’ cultural competency. Highly skilled roles requiring complex stakeholder engagement and highly attuned cultural competency, for example land management roles, are often classified in the lower APS classifications.

Opportunities to better attract, retain and utilise specialists featured heavily in review consultations with the APS workforce. While some submissions suggested a separate technical stream for specialists,[31] [32] we considered the value inherent in a uniform classification system should be preserved. Instead, the APS should endeavour to more clearly articulate specialist career pathways – looking beyond the traditional ladder approach to career progression. Consultations also highlighted the need for greater consistency across the APS on how specialists are valued, while also ensuring agility and flexibility for agencies and employee.

The Panel heard of the need for the APS to accommodate roles for senior specialists who do not manage people. There is a current tendency to over-emphasise people leadership as a requirement for senior roles. This has been problematic in situations where an employee is needed to perform roles of a high work value, but does not have the aspiration or experience to manage large teams. Requiring such individuals to manage people is an ineffective use of expertise and does not result in a positive team experience.[33] This experience holds true for private and non-Public Service Act organisations, who have adopted ways of classifying and recognising specialists that values their technical expertise and leadership.

• CSIRO, as a non-APS agency, has a single classification system that reflects an integrated approach to their workforce, where technical specialists are catered for across the entire classification system. The classification system is structured around classification level descriptors that can accommodate both technical specialists and leadership roles. This allows technical specialists to move through the system based on their specialist role and/or their managerial functions, if they wish to take on a managerial role, providing CSIRO requires the role to be performed at the higher level for the foreseeable future.
• Within the single classification system, the Department of Defence utilises a flexible process that recognises the increasing difficulty in attracting and maintaining personnel with identified critical skills. The Department uses the ‘Building Defence Capability Payment’ and other benefits to appropriately value relevant critical skills,[34] aiding attraction and retention without over-classifying the role within the APS classification framework.
• Most private sector entities we consulted provide separate pathways for technical leadership, requiring all employees taking on senior organisational leadership roles to have the appropriate organisational leadership skills and training (Appendix F | Lessons from the private sector refers).

The review therefore recommends more explicit recognition of specialist pathways in order to address:

• Instances of ‘misclassification’ where a role is assigned a higher level than the applicable work level standards would suggest, in order to enable payment of higher salaries to individuals to match market rates for high-demand talent in particular fields.
• Attraction and retention of specialists. Clear pathways would provide more motivation for specialist staff and allow better recognition for their distinct contribution. It would also improve the value proposition for potential candidates and complement the APS Professions initiative, which seeks to nurture communities of practice that can enrich and expand capability in key functions across the APS.
• Greater access to expertise. More exposure and visibility increases the likelihood of those with deep subject matter knowledge or technical expertise being involved in decision-making processes.
• Undervaluing of particular specialist skill sets where the specialist contribution of a role is not appropriately recognised in role evaluation.

Implementation Considerations

Specialist roles to be accommodated across all classifications, with no artificial ceiling placed on the progression of technical experts. Senior executive roles will recognise both technical and general leadership, acknowledging the separate expertise specialists bring to an agency.

• Revised WLS and role evaluation methods will give appropriate weight to technical expertise and include consideration of level of expertise, complexity and decision-making responsibilities.  
• The APS Employment Database will maintain information on roles in specific specialist categories, for periodic reviews.
• Flexibility will be built in for those who have the appropriate people management skills and wish to move into roles with people management responsibilities. If specialists do move to a supervisory role, they would undertake relevant mandatory training (Recommendation 6 refers).

Building on the work underway by the APS Professions, the APSC should work with the COO Committee and Heads of Professions, to play a strengthened role on issues of attraction, retention, progression and job design for specialists, including:

• Defining criteria for allocating roles as specialist (with periodic reviews of the criteria, acknowledging the changing nature of the APS and broader workforce).
• Providing centralised guidance and oversight to agencies on in-demand specialist occupations, including supporting more transparent and consistent decision-making about remuneration.
• Developing clear career progression pathways for those in roles requiring specialist skills and technical expertise.
• Supporting the agile use of expertise across the sector and mobility into/out of the private sector.

Recommendation 5 | Appropriate spans of control

The Secretaries Board to implement spans of control for senior management roles generally within the range of 8-10 direct reports, consistent with contemporary organisational design.

“Leaders are less focused on the strategic vision and more involved in the detail and delivery, because the way they've been promoted is based on their ability to deliver. You’ve got to trust the people that you hire”

- Workshop participant

Why do we need change?

In general, spans of control for the APS senior leadership are narrower than contemporary practice in large organisations. More than 75% of ASX200 companies have eight or more direct reports to the CEO.[35] A 2018 survey of global organisations showed an average of eight direct reports to the leader in large organisations[36] (5% public service). In contrast, the average span of control across the APS is 3-5 (Table 1).[37] Widening the spans of control at senior levels is enabled by shifts away from more traditional team structures and increasing adoption of self-managing and Agile principles.[38]

To fully realise the benefits of modernising the classification framework, particularly consolidating the SES levels, the APS needs to think differently about the way that team structures are designed. Senior leadership roles need to be clearly focused on creating the environment for teams to succeed by guiding, enabling and empowering employees. Wider spans of control are a mechanism for:

• Promoting delegated decision-making, encouraging responsibility to be exercised at the appropriate level and discouraging ‘micro-managing’.
• Enabling an appropriate risk tolerance, in which managers support decision-making by employees, however, do not pull risk inappropriately up the line.
• Focusing leaders on the core task of ‘leading’, rather than ‘doing’.

Table 1 | Average Spans of Control across the APS

	Specialist policy	Policy/Program development and Program delivery	High level service/ Case management	High volume service/ Regular and less complex tasks
OMS Benchmark	3 - 7	5 - 9	6 - 9	8 - 15+
Average Spans of Control across APS	3.8	3.2	3.8	5.1

A consistent message from consultations, particularly with the private sector, was that higher spans of control provide more organisational agility, and allow them to develop capable, empowered and engaged employees, particularly in middle management (Appendix F | Lessons from the private sector refers). The UK Civil Service is another public service looking to increase spans of control as part of their reforms to improve agility and implement flatter structures.[39] Consultations repeatedly emphasised that a contemporary approach to risk management is key to the effective operation of flatter and more responsive structures (see related observations).

Acknowledging the optimal design of a senior leadership team will depend on specific agency functions and the context of its operations, this recommendation drives a more intentional and systematic approach to the design of APS senior leadership teams. It draws on lessons learned from unsuccessful attempts to implement the OMS guidance in 2014; while there needs to be some flexibility, a driving commitment is required to ensure sustained efforts to move closer towards the recommended organisational structures.

The APS’s history of unwillingness to adopt structural guidance suggests a different approach is necessary. The review recommends adoption of a default position on spans of control, accompanied by careful management of exceptions and ongoing incentives (including regular reporting requirements), to achieve more systemic change over time.[40]

Implementation Considerations

Agencies to be supported by the APSC to design organisational structures that are aligned with contemporary practice and allow sufficient flexibility to ensure the APS maintains its core focus on meeting the expectations of government and citizens. 

• Generally, across the APS senior management roles will have 8-10 direct reports, providing clearer line of sight and accountability for an agency’s strategic priorities to all employees.
• Updated OMS guidance reinforces this general principle and sets out circumstances when spans outside 8-10 are appropriate to meet business needs. Such circumstances include where:
  • New leaders are developing. Narrower spans of control are appropriate for roles that provide opportunities to build leadership skills.
  • Roles require high expertise and teams need active coaching. Narrower spans enable greater involvement in highly complex work requiring deep expertise and support.
  • Roles with high exposure. This might include roles with serious, high-consequence risks, greater external scrutiny and/or more regular and intensive interaction with Ministers.
  • Teams undertake standardised work. Broader spans of 15 or higher are appropriate when direct reports operate more independently, work is more standardised and/or minimal training is required. Very large spans are likely to impact pastoral care functions for teams.
  • Where mature Agile is in place. In mature Agile environments where teams have motivation and experience, leaders can coach up to 25 people.
• Combined with flatter structures and capability uplift, decisions will be made at the lowest practical level to empower staff to take on additional responsibility (especially at the EL2 level).
• Agencies will invest urgently in training and capability uplift to ensure staff are appropriately skilled to safely make decisions and successfully take on the additional responsibility.

Recommendation 6 | Mandatory leadership development

Invest urgently in the capability of future leaders, particularly the EL2/Manager cohort, and mandate management and leadership training for all staff with supervisory responsibility.

“Set up leaders for success – they need new skills aligned across the APS to drive and deliver consistent change”

- Workshop participant

Why do we need change?

APS staff consulted expressed a strong desire to see improved leadership capabilities, recognising that successful change must be led from the top. In APS workshops, 90% of participants saw leadership as a critical enabler of positive change in the APS. They admired agencies who invested in their leaders (e.g. Defence and Services Australia) and noted leadership programs can make a significant difference.

Investment in leadership capability development was a significant theme in consultations with the private sector and counterpart public sectors (appendices refer). NSW and Victoria, for example, attributed a significant proportion of their successful transformation efforts to their structured and dedicated efforts to uplift leadership capability, especially at middle manager levels. Increasing leadership and management skills in this cohort will be critical to the APS, as they continue to play a central role in ensuring equitable access to career development opportunities and creating cohesive and productive teams.

Agencies across the APS are experiencing shortages in critical leadership skills. Figure 9 shows agencies across all functions do not have enough leaders with the skills to guide their workforce, with policy and small operational areas experiencing the greatest capability gap.

Figure 9 | Proportion of agencies, by function, that are experiencing leadership skill shortages[41]

Mandating appropriate leadership development for those assuming supervisory responsibilities is critical.

• Not all leaders are well-prepared for their roles. It is not unusual for employees to be appointed to supervisory roles without ever receiving formal leadership training or having benefited from leadership development opportunities. The work of the APS relies almost entirely on the ability to build and deploy the capabilities of its people; strong leadership and people management qualities are essential.
• Leadership challenges are evolving. Particularly in a post-COVID-19 world, it is important to recognise that leaders now need to: be effective in working with distributed teams; adopt new, customer-centric ways of work; and be digitally literate and confident in using data.
• Effective leadership is required to drive ambitious change. Given the centrality of leadership to the review’s desired cultural and structural change, it is crucial to better equip and support APS leaders.

Consultations suggested a focus on effective risk management and delegation as part of any leadership program, as well as collaborative ways of working to empower staff to do work appropriate to their level. This is consistent with data from SES leadership capability assessments, showing leadership competencies most in need of development for SES are entrepreneurial, including finding ways to challenge current perspectives, generate new ideas, experiment with different approaches and manage risk, and enabling, creating an environment that empowers diverse individuals and teams to deliver their best.[42]

Implementation Considerations

Managers across all levels of the APS must have the skills, training and support to successfully embed dynamic, responsive and non-hierarchical ways of working sustainably across the APS.

• Urgent investment in capability uplift to begin at the EL2/Manager level, to ensure they are equipped to effectively manage the transition period, while also providing the skills to effectively lead modern, agile and high performing teams.
• Employees at all levels to be required to undertake appropriate leadership and people management training before advancing into a role with supervisory responsibilities. Training requirements will vary for different classification levels.
• Advancement should not be denied to those who do not initially have these skills. However, they will be required to attain them within three months of any advancement. The APSC, with advice from the APS Academy, should issue guidelines on minimum training requirements to ensure consistency and fairness in access to, and quality of, training. Delivery should be at the discretion of each agency.
• The APS Academy will play a critical role in ensuring consistent and fair training across the APS, while noting agencies will have different requirements. Consideration will be given to utilising existing training programs within the APS (particularly looking at the largest APS agencies) and rolling out enterprise-wide training in digital format, to ensure both consistency and cost-effectiveness. Common training requirements across the APS should include:
  • Effective people leadership – how to form, oversee and enable successful teams, including across dispersed workforces or in ‘hybrid’ working arrangements.
  • Effective risk management and delegation.
  • Effective change management.
  • Modelling non-hierarchical behaviours and collaborative ways of working.
  • Self-awareness – identifying strengths and weaknesses, setting goals, acting on feedback.
  • Practical resources/tools to promote ongoing learning and improvement, beyond short courses.

Leadership and management training to be supported by other important initiatives, including effective performance management, coaching and talent management. Cross-agency programs are encouraged, enabling leaders to establish and strengthen networks across the service and promote a ‘One APS’ ethos.

A significant investment in capability uplift across the APS, combined with flatter structures and reduced hierarchical behaviours, will empower the APS workforce across all classifications. With this, there is an expectation that staff across all levels take a greater level of accountability and responsibility in the operation of their organisation, driving the best possible outcomes for the government and citizens.

Recommendation 7 | Strengthened role of APS Chief People Officer

Strengthen the role of the APS Commissioner as the Chief People Officer for APS people management.

“To meet this vision, the APS will need to invest in the professionalism and expertise of its people and leaders, who are at the heart of its organisational capability. This includes adopting a strategic approach to workforce management to improve how the APS attracts, recruits, develops and deploys its people”

- Independent Review of the APS

Why do we need change?

Strategic people management is critical to the continued evolution of the APS. In engagements with the private sector, there were striking differences in the extent to which people management at senior levels was valued relative to the APS. The Panel observed in leading private sector organisations, immense value is placed on people management (Appendix F | Lessons from the private sector refers), with Chief People Officers having a seat at the leadership table.

Research suggests organisational performance is improved when people management is considered core business as part of strategy and leadership from the top down.[43] Giving more prominence to such roles elevates the issues, and promotes a mindset and capability shift among leaders of all types to see people management as ‘their’ business, not an ‘HR’ problem. More generally, strengthening strategic people management capability ensures agencies improve their approaches to organisational design and job design.

The Panel also sees this recommendation as critical to ensuring the ongoing accountability and the effective implementation of the review in its entirety. To achieve full impact and value, there needs to be an ongoing focus on implementation for sustainable, lasting change. The APS Chief People Officer will play a key role in providing quality guidance and support to agencies, and monitoring progress and outcomes of implementation at an enterprise level. The APSC will also report to Parliament annually on progress against these recommendations through the State of the Service Report.

Strengthening the role of the APS Commissioner as the APS Chief People Officer not only provides an opportunity to ensure comprehensive implementation of the review, it also positions the Commissioner to oversee strategic people management across the APS and take a lead role in embedding long-term change to the way the APS operates and delivers for the government and wider community.

Implementation Considerations

A strengthened role for the APS Chief People Officer would drive stronger people management practices through the APS. It would provide clearer mechanisms for information sharing, collaboration and the provision of guidance, helping to align HR practices across agencies and ensure an enterprise-wide focus is brought to the APS’s most significant people challenges.

The APS Chief People Officer should have authority and resourcing to:

• Oversee the implementation of the revised classification framework and supporting measures, together with Agency Heads.
• Oversee strategic management issues into the future.
• Lead initiatives on whole-of-enterprise people matters.
• Provide oversight to data collection, audits and an accountability framework (e.g. spans of control).
• Support enterprise alignment through consistent and comprehensive implementation across agencies.

To assist the transition period and to embed an ongoing, enterprise view of strategic people management and HR, it is critical for the Chief People Officer role to be supported by Agency Heads, the COO Committee, and the APS Professions.

• The COO Committee should play a central role in advising and supporting the Chief People Officer, to align transition arrangements, ensure consistent implementation across the sector and provide advice to both the Chief People Officer and Secretaries Board on critical enterprise-wide strategic HR and people management priorities – giving it a stronger voice at the leadership table. 
• The APS Professions, particularly the HR profession, will be critical in supporting the Chief People Officer – both in implementation of the review and in ensuring people matters are front and centre for their organisations.
• Ongoing engagement and leadership by Secretaries and Agency Heads would ensure that strategic people management is considered under a ‘One APS’ approach and is a key factor in organisational and strategic decision-making.

Recommendation 8 | A charter of leadership behaviours

The Secretaries Board to adopt and model a Charter of Leadership Behaviours for APS leaders to promote collaborative and team-based behaviours.

“If you have support from leaders that mistakes are okay and you can learn from it – if that culture is present, it is a lot easier to work with new ideas and be adaptable to change as there is a culture of learning”

- Workshop participant

Why do we need change?

A shift away from unnecessarily hierarchical behaviour and towards an empowered and agile APS must be driven and modelled by leaders.

• APS leaders are key to the success of enterprise reforms. Leaders – most notably Departmental Secretaries and other Agency Heads – are central to driving the recommended package of reforms set out in this report. The commitment of these leaders must be evident in action they take to change culture within their organisations and to emulate new norms of behaviour.
• There needs to be agreement and role modelling from the top on new behavioural standards. The purpose of this recommendation is to define the desired ‘norms’ and to give them force as a new set of standards to observe and be held accountable to. The proposed ‘signature behaviours’ would need to reflect a shared understanding about what non-hierarchical behaviour ‘looks like’, while also reinforcing other related aspects of effective and adaptive leadership.
• Signature behaviours can prevent backsliding. The signature behaviours can both mitigate the risk of a relapse to more traditional mindsets and ways of working, and set a positive, enterprise-wide frame for defining leadership excellence in the APS.

In making this recommendation, the Panel notes that there is a strong base of capability to build on. The desired behaviours are in evidence across many APS agencies and among leaders at all levels. The COVID-19 experience is illustrative of what can be achieved when hierarchies and status are put to one side in favour of strengths-based collaboration to improve the outcomes for citizens and businesses.

Adopting a Charter of Signature Behaviours has proven to have had a significant impact on cultural change, particularly in the private sector context. Organisations like Microsoft, NAB and Atlassian have used tools such as a leadership charter to send strong signals of intent from the top of the organisation (Appendix F | Lessons from the private sector refers). Johnson and Johnson’s “Credo” guides decision-making and operations across the company, with performance of executives measured against the Credo, ensuring accountability to uphold the organisation’s values.

Implementation Considerations

The Secretaries Board will develop a Charter of Signature Leadership Behaviours that they, and their executive-level colleagues, are prepared to promote, model and be held accountable to.

• The Charter will set clear expectations for the APS’s most senior leaders about the types of behaviours that will be valued and necessary to succeed.
• It will not replace the APS Code of Conduct. These remain the behavioural foundation for all APS employees. Nor will the charter detract from internal values set by Agencies.
• Input from APS staff will be sought in the development of the charter; an indicative set of behaviours is offered in Figure 10.

The APSC will provide clear implementation advice which will include examples of good practice, to ensure there is full take-up and alignment with related leadership and cultural change initiatives.

The APSC will include a question in the annual APS Employee Census/Agency Survey to measure progress with, and accountability against, the Charter.

Figure 10 | Indicative set of leadership behaviours to consider for inclusion in a charter

Proposed Leadership Behaviours Secretaries/Senior Executive Service Officers will model and adopt the following behaviours: Backing in our people Enable others to think, decide and act Blame fixes nothing; how we respond and learn really matters Breaking down silos Be boundary-less in seeking solutions Embed a shared sense of purpose Focus on outcomes for citizens Investing in growth Develop capability of others Actively identify and apply learnings Inspire optimism and creativity Building adaptable teams Value collaboration Foster inclusion Personal accountability Seek feedback Own and grow from mistakes

---

 

[21] Australian Public Service Commission (2020) APS Employment database (APSED), APSC website.

[22] Australian Public Service Commission (2021) APS Employment database (APSED), APSC website. Note data excludes values less than the 5th and or greater than 95th percentile.

[23] Australian Public Service Commission (2021) APS Employment database (APSED), APSC website.

[24] Haslam, SA et al. (2019) Inspired and Appreciated by the Group: The Social Identity Approach to Creativity, The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation, edited by Paulus, BP & Nijstad, BA, Oxford University Press.117-131.

[25] Australian Public Service Commission (2021) APS Delivering for tomorrow: APS Workforce Strategy 2025.

[26] Parker, SK, Morgeson, FP & Johns, G (2017) em>One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward, Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403.

[27] Australian Public Service Commission (2021) em>APS Delivering for tomorrow: APS Workforce Strategy 2025.

[28] Australian Public Service Commission (2020) APS Employee Census 2020 [unpublished data set].

[29] CPSU (2021) Submission to the Hierarchy and Classification Review .

[30] Australian Public Service Commission (2021) APS Delivering for tomorrow: APS Workforce Strategy 2025.

[31] Professionals Australia (2021) Public Submission to the Hierarchy and Classification Review.

[32] Digital Transformation Agency (2021) Public Submission to the Hierarchy and Classification Review.

[33] Gregory, S (2018) The Most Common Type of Incompetent Leader, Harvard Business Review_._

[34] Department of Defence (2017) Defence Enterprise Agreement (DEA) 2017 – 2020, Defence website.

[35] Chief Executive Women (2020) CEW ASX200 Senior Executive Census 2020.

[36] Global sample from Deloitte Research Article (2020) Benchmarking Findings: Organization Design ">[available under license].

[37] Australian Public Service Commission (2018) 2018 APS Agency Survey ">[unpublished data set].

[38] Zoller, YJ & Muldoon, J (2020) Journey of a concept: span of control – the rise, the decline, and what is next?, Journal of Management History, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 515-533.

[39] Government of the United Kingdom (2021) Declaration of Government Reform.

[40] Thaler, RH & Sunstein, CR (2009) Nudge, Penguin.

[41] Australian Public Service Commission (2020) 2020 APS Agency Survey ">[unpublished data set].

[42] Australian Public Service Commission (2021) APS Delivering for tomorrow: APS Workforce Strategy 2025.

[43] Jyoti, J, Chahal, H & Rani, A (2016) The effect of perceived high performance human resource practices on business performance: Role of organizational learning, Global Business Review, vol. 17, no. 3(supp).