Appendix 4—Supporting statistics to the report

This appendix presents additional data that supports the content included in the main chapters of this report.

Chapter 2—Transparency and integrity

Breaches of the APS Code of Conduct

Table A4.1 presents the number of employees investigated by agencies for suspected breaches of individual elements of the APS Code of Conduct and the number of breach findings in 2017–18. One employee can be investigated for multiple elements of the Code of Conduct.

 

Table A4.1: Number of APS employees investigated and found in breach of elements of the APS Code of Conduct, 2017–18

Element of Code of Conduct	Number of employees
	Investigated	Breached
a. Behave honestly and with integrity in connection with APS employment—s.13(1)	243	199
b. Act with care and diligence in connection with APS employment—s.13(2)	216	189
c. When acting in connection with APS employment, treat everyone with respect and courtesy and without harassment—s.13(3)	154	107
d. When acting in connection with APS employment comply with all applicable Australian laws—s.13(4)	42	28
e. Comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee’s Agency who has authority to give the direction—s.13 (5)	147	121
f. Maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings that the employee has with any Minister or Minister’s member of staff—s.13(6)	0	0
g. Take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest (real or apparent) and disclose details of any material personal interest of the employee in connection with the employees’ APS employment—s.13(7)	31	25
h. Use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner and for a proper purpose—s.13(8)	124	98
i. Not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee’s APS employment—s.13 (9)	51	41
j. Not make improper use of: inside information, or the employee’s duties, status, power or authority in order to: a gain or seek to gain a benefit or advantage for the employee or any other person b. cause or seek to cause a detriment to the employee’s Agency, the Commonwealth or any other person—s.13 (10)	51	33
k. At all times behave in a way that upholds the APS values and APS Employment Principles and the integrity and good reputation of the employee’s Agency and the APS—s.13 (11)	412	356
l. While on duty overseas at all times behave in a way that upholds the good reputation of Australia—s.13(12)	7	6
m. Comply with any other conduct that is prescribed by the regulation—s.13 (13)	4	3

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Sources of reports

Table A4.2 presents the number of employees investigated for suspected breaches of the APS Code of Conduct during 2017–18 that resulted from each type of report.

Table A4.2: Type of reports leading to finalised Code of Conduct investigations, 2017–18

Type of report	Employees investigated (number)
A report made to a central conduct or ethics unit or nominated person in a HR area	215
A report generated by a compliance/monitoring system (for example, audit)	183
A report made to an email reporting address	45
A report made to a fraud prevention and control unit or hotline	41
A Public Interest Disclosure	22
A report made to another hotline	2
A report made to an employee advice or counselling unit	1
Other	52

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Outcomes of reports

Table A4.3 presents the outcomes for employees investigated for suspected breaches of the APS Code of Conduct during 2017–18.

 

Table A4. 3: Outcome of investigations into suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct, 2017–18

Outcome	Employees investigated (number)
Breach found and sanction applied	336
Breach found no sanction applied—employee resigned prior to sanction decision	87
Breach found no sanction applied—other reason	66
No breach found (for any element of the Code)	56
Investigation discontinued—employee resigned	18
Investigation discontinued—other reason	6

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Table A4.4 presents the sanctions applied to employees found to have breached the APS Code of Conduct during 2017–18.

 

Table A4.4: Sanctions imposed for breaches of the Code of Conduct, 2017–18

Sanction	Employees found to have breached the Code (number)
Reprimand	224
Reduction in salary	99
Deductions from salary by way of a fine	78
Termination of employment	75
Reduction in classification	20
Re-assignment of duties	13

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Harassment and bullying

In the 2018 APS employee census, 13.7 per cent of respondents indicated they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their workplace in the 12 months preceding the census.

Table A4.5 presents the types of behaviour perceived by respondents.

 

Table A4.5: Type of harassment or bullying perceived by respondents

Type of behaviour	% of those who indicated that they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their workplace in the previous 12 months preceding the census
Verbal abuse	49.3
Interference with work tasks	40.8
Inappropriate and unfair application of work policies or rules	37.4
Other	20.3
Cyberbullying	7.3
Physical behaviour	5.4
Interference with your personal property or work equipment	5.1
Sexual harassment	3.3
‘Initiations’ or pranks	3.1

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their current workplace. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.6 presents the perceived source of the harassment or bullying indicated by respondents.

 

Table A4.6: Perceived source of harassment or bullying

Perceived source	% of those who indicated they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their workplace in the previous 12 months preceding the census
Co-worker	38.2
Someone more senior (other than your supervisor)	33.5
A previous supervisor	26.1
Your current supervisor	19.4
Someone more junior than you	8.9
Client, customer or stakeholder	4.0
Contractor	2.5
Unknown	2.0
Representative of another APS agency	0.9
Consultant/service provider	0.8
Minister or ministerial adviser	0.4

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their current workplace. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.7 presents the reporting behaviour of respondents who had perceived harassment or bullying in their workplace in the 12 months preceding the census.

 

Table A4.7: Reporting behaviour of harassment or bullying

Reporting behaviour	% who perceived harassment or bullying in their workplace during the 12 months preceding the census
I reported the behaviour in accordance with my agency’s policies and procedures	35.4
It was reported by someone else	8.3
I did not report the behaviour	56.3

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.8 presents the number of recorded complaints of harassment and bullying made by employees within APS agencies during 2017–18.

 

Table A4.8: Complaints to agencies about harassment and bullying

Type of harassment or bullying	Number of complaints
Verbal abuse	259
Inappropriate and unfair application of work policies or rules	137
Interference with work tasks	65
Sexual harassment	34
Cyberbullying	30
Physical behaviour	26
Other	22
Interference with your personal property or work equipment	10
‘Initiations’ or pranks	1

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Discrimination

In the 2018 APS employee census, 12.3 per cent of respondents indicated they had been subjected to discrimination during the 12 months preceding the census and in the course of their employment.

Table A4.9 presents the types of the discrimination perceived by respondents during the 12 months preceding the census and in the course of their employment.

 

Table A4.9: Type of discrimination perceived by respondents

Categories	% of those who indicated they had been subjected to discrimination during the 12 months preceding the census and in the course of their employment
Gender	32.4
Age	25.8
Caring responsibilities	23.7
Other	22.2
Race	19.4
Disability	11.7
Sexual orientation	5.2
Identification as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person	3.7

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they had perceived discrimination during the 12 months preceding the census and in the course of their employment. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Corruption

Table A4.10 presents the proportion of respondents who, during the previous 12 months, had witnessed another APS employee within their agency engaging in behaviour they considered may be serious enough to be viewed as corruption.

 

Table A4.10: Perceptions of corruption

Potential corruption witnessed	%
Yes	4.6
No	87.4
Not sure	5.1
Would prefer not to answer	2.9

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Of those who had witnessed potential corruption, the types of corruption are presented in Table A4.11.

 

Table A4.11: Type of potential corruption witnessed

Type of potential corruption witnessed	% who had witnessed potential corruption
Cronyism—preferential treatment of friends	64.6
Nepotism—preferential treatment of family members	25.0
Green-lighting	21.9
Acting (or failing to act) in the presence of an undisclosed conflict of interest	21.8
Fraud, forgery or embezzlement	15.2
Other	10.2
Theft or misappropriation of official assets	6.8
Unlawful disclosure of government information	6.0
Insider trading	3.0
Perverting the course of justice	2.5
Bribery, domestic and foreign—obtaining, offering or soliciting secret commissions, kickbacks or gratuities	2.2
Blackmail	1.4
Colluding, conspiring with or harbouring, criminals	1.4

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they witnessed potential corruption. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.12 presents employee perceptions of workplace corruption risk.

 

Table A4.12: Perceptions of workplace corruption risk

Type of workplace corruption risk	%
	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree
My workplace operates in a high corruption-risk environment (for example, it holds information, assets or decision-making powers of value to others)	67.0	19.3	13.6
My agency has procedures in place to manage corruption	82.9	14.7	2.4
It would be hard to get away with corruption in my workplace	69.0	21.8	9.1
I have a good understanding of the policies and procedures my agency has in place to deal with corruption	74.4	18.6	7.0
I am confident that colleagues in my workplace would report corruption	79.5	15.5	5.1
I feel confident that I would know what to do if I identified corruption in my workplace	82.0	13.1	4.9

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Chapter 3—Risk and innovation

Table A4.13 presents employee perceptions of the risk culture in their agencies.

 

Table A4.13: Perceptions of risk culture in agencies

Questions	Responses	% of total
My agency supports employees to escalate risk-related issues with managers	Agree	70.7
	Neither agree nor disagree	22.6
	Disagree	6.7
Risk management concerns are discussed openly and honestly in my agency	Agree	62
	Neither agree nor disagree	27.3
	Disagree	10.7
Employees in my agency have the right skills to manage risk effectively	Agree	48.9
	Neither agree nor disagree	37.6
	Disagree	13.5
Employees in my agency are encouraged to consider opportunities when managing risk	Agree	52.7
	Neither agree nor disagree	36.8
	Disagree	10.6
Appropriate risk taking is rewarded in my agency	Agree	27.8
	Neither agree nor disagree	50.2
	Disagree	22.1
In my agency, the benefits of risk management match the time required to complete risk management activities	Agree	31.6
	Neither agree nor disagree	52.3
	Disagree	16.1
Senior leaders in my agency demonstrate and discuss the importance of managing risk appropriately	Agree	47.6
	Neither agree nor disagree	36.3
	Disagree	16.1
When things go wrong, my agency uses this as an opportunity to review, learn, and improve the management of similar risks	Agree	48.5
	Neither agree nor disagree	35.2
	Disagree	16.3

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.14 presents the 2018 APS employee census results for the individual elements of the innovation index.

 

Table A4.14: Results for individual elements of the innovation index

	%
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
I believe that one of my responsibilities is to continually look for new ways to improve the way we work	25.8	57.1	12.3	3.9	0.9
My immediate supervisor encourages me to come up with new or better ways of doing things	19	49.4	21.4	7.5	2.6
People are recognised for coming up with new and innovative ways of working	12.4	44.4	28.8	10.8	3.5
My agency inspires me to come up with new or better ways of doing things	9.5	35.3	36.0	14.6	4.6
My agency recognises and supports the notion that failure is a part of innovation	6.6	28.2	41.4	16.7	7.1

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Chapter 5—Diversity and inclusion

Table A4.15 presents the proportion of APS employees belonging to each diversity group.

 

Table A4.15: Proportion of employees by diversity group, 2009–18

	% of all employees
	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Women	57.9	57.8	57.7	57.7	57.9	58.1	58.4	59	59	59
Indigenous	2.6	2.6	2.5	2.5	2.6	2.8	2.9	3.1	3.3	3.3
People with disability	3.4	3.4	3.3	3.3	3.2	3.5	3.5	3.7	3.7	3.7
Non-English Speaking Background	13.2	13.6	14.1	14.4	14.4	14.6	14.6	14.5	14.5	14.3

Source: APSED

In the 2018 APS agency survey, agencies were asked to rate the implementation of initiatives in three Australian Government diversity strategies (Table A4.16, Table A4.17 and Table A4.18)). They were asked to do so against five levels of practice, defined here:

• Level 1: Practices are applied inconsistently and/or unskilfully and have a poor level of acceptance.
• Level 2: Practices are performed and managed with some skill and consistency, and a focus on compliance.
• Level 3: Practices are defined, familiar, shared and skilfully performed.
• Level 4: Practices are embedded and seen as a part of daily work and as adding real value to work.
• Level 5: Practices are continuously improved and leveraged for organisational outcomes.

Table A4.16: Agency self-reporting—implementation of initiatives in Balancing the Future: APS Gender Equality

 

	%					Average rating
	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5
Driving a supportive and enabling culture	3.2	23.2	33.7	30.5	9.5	3.20
Gender equality in APS leadership	4.2	18.9	29.5	37.9	9.5	3.29
Innovation to embed gender equality in employment practices	8.4	25.3	29.5	32.6	4.2	2.99
Increased take-up of flexible work arrangements by men and women	5.3	14.7	30.5	37.9	11.6	3.36
Measurement and evaluation	8.4	31.6	27.4	27.4	5.3	2.89

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

 

Table A4.17: Agency self-reporting—implementation of initiatives in the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment Strategy 2015-18

	%					Average rating
	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5
Expand the range of Indigenous employment opportunities	15.8	38.9	30.5	10.5	4.2	2.48
Invest in developing the capability of Indigenous employees	20.0	28.4	31.6	15.8	4.2	2.56
Increase the representation of Indigenous employees in senior roles	34.7	42.1	16.8	4.2	2.1	1.97
Improve the awareness of Indigenous culture in the workplace	11.6	21.1	35.8	24.2	7.4	2.95

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

 

Table A4.18: Agency self-reporting—implementation of initiatives in the As One; Making it Happen, APS Disability Employment Strategy 2016-19

	%					Average rating
	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5
Expand the range of employment opportunities for people with disability	22.1	42.1	26.3	9.5	0.0	2.23
Invest in developing the capability of employees with disability	21.1	37.9	26.3	11.6	3.2	2.38
Increase the representation of employees with disability in senior roles	37.9	38.9	17.9	5.3	0.0	1.91
Foster inclusive cultures in the workplace	1.1	28.4	36.8	25.3	8.4	3.12

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Chapter 6—Organisational performance and efficiency

Flexible work

Table A4.19 presents the percentage of 2018 APS employee census respondents using flexible working arrangements, by classification.

 

Table A4.19: Percentage of employees using flexible working arrangements, by classification

	Employees using flexible working arrangements (%)
	Trainee, Graduate or APS	EL	SES
Yes	52.4	48.7	34.9
No	47.6	51.3	65.1

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.20 presents the reasons for respondents not using flexible working arrangements.

 

Table A4.20: Reasons for not using flexible working arrangements, by classification

	Reasons for not using flexible working arrangements (%)
	Trainee, Graduate or APS	EL	SES
My agency does not have a flexible working arrangement policy	5.0	2.1	0.7
My agency’s culture is not conducive to flexible working arrangements	12.6	14.5	8.6
Lack of technical support (for example, remote access)	6.5	6.6	3.2
Absence of necessary hardware (for example, phone, computer, internet)	5.6	5.5	2.0
The operational requirements of my role (for example, rostered or otherwise scheduled work environment such as shift work)	16.6	14.4	19.8
Management discretion	16.9	14.4	4.3
Resources and staffing limits	17.5	23.6	19.0
Potential impact on my career	10.8	15.3	11.4
Personal and/or financial reasons	10.5	7.9	5.6
I would be letting my workgroup down	9.9	17.8	17.7
I do not need to	56.2	54.3	62.2

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they were not using flexible working arrangements. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.21 presents the types of work arrangements used by respondents.

 

Table A4.21: Types of work arrangements being used, by classification

	Types of arrangements being used (%)
	Trainee, Graduate or APS	EL	SES
Part time	19.1	14.2	5.5
Flexible hours of work	40.5	33.6	21.9
Compressed work week	1.7	3.2	2.0
Job sharing	0.8	0.8	0.9
Working remotely and/or virtual team	4.5	9.6	10.8
Working away from the office and/or working from home	11.9	32.1	32.5
Purchasing additional leave	7.8	7.9	4.8
Breastfeeding facilities and/or paid lactation breaks	0.5	0.5	0.5
Return to work arrangements	2.0	1.4	1.2
None of the above	39.3	40.0	53.2

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they were using flexible working arrangements. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.22 presents 2018 APS employee census results for questions on support for using flexible working arrangements.

 

Table A4.22: Support for using flexible working arrangements, by classification

		Support for use of flexible working arrangements (%)
		Trainee, Graduate or APS	EL	SES
My supervisor actively supports the use of flexible work arrangements by all staff, regardless of gender	Agree	80.8	83.5	86.2
	Neither agree nor disagree	12.2	11.2	11.2
	Disagree	7.0	5.3	2.6
My SES manager actively supports the use of flexible work arrangements by all staff, regardless of gender	Agree	55.2	69.1	86.7
	Neither agree nor disagree	36.0	25.0	10.6
	Disagree	8.9	5.9	2.7

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.23 presents the percentage of APS agencies that made each type of flexible work available to their employees.

 

Table A4.23: Agency availability of flexible working arrangements, by type

Type	% of agencies offering flexible working arrangements
Part-time work agreements	100.0
Breastfeeding/lactation breaks	74.7
Non-standard working hours	89.5
Work from home and/or remote work arrangements	98.9
Job share arrangements	78.9
Individual flexibility agreements	96.8
Purchased leave schemes	96.8
Career break or sabbatical schemes	49.5
Flex leave	98.9
Other	22.1

Source: 2018 APS agency survey As agencies could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Employee engagement

Table A4.24 presents the 2018 APS employee census results for the components of the Say, Stay, Strive employee engagement model.

 

Table A4.24: Employee engagement—components of the Say, Stay, Strive employee engagement model

		%
		Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Say	Considering everything, I am satisfied with my job	15.6	52.6	18.1	10.1	3.7
	I am proud to work in my agency	22.9	49.1	19.1	6.3	2.6
	I would recommend my agency as a good place to work	15.0	46.0	23.5	10.0	5.5
	I believe strongly in the purpose and objectives of my agency	25.3	51.5	18.1	3.4	1.7
	I feel a strong personal attachment to my agency	18.2	45.6	22.8	10.1	3.3
Stay	I feel committed to my agency’s goals	17.4	58.7	18.6	3.7	1.6
	I suggest ideas to improve our way of doing things	21.2	61.7	13.9	2.6	0.6
Strive	I am happy to go the ‘extra mile’ at work when required	36.3	54.5	6.5	1.9	0.8
	I work beyond what is required in my job to help my agency achieve its objectives	22.8	55.1	17.8	3.4	0.8
	My agency really inspires me to do my best work every day	10.4	39.4	32.6	12.7	4.8

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Wellbeing

Table A4.25 presents the 2018 APS employee census results for the individual elements of the wellbeing index.

 

Table A4.25: Wellbeing measures

	%
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
I am satisfied with the policies and/or practices in place to help me manage my health and wellbeing	12.9	55.3	21.6	7.6	2.6
My agency does a good job of communicating what it can offer me in terms of health and wellbeing	11.3	47.9	25.7	12	3.1
My agency does a good job of promoting health and wellbeing	11.5	46.1	27.2	12	3.2
I think my agency cares about my health and wellbeing	11.5	43.6	27.2	12.2	5.5
I believe my immediate supervisor cares about my health and wellbeing	32.8	48.3	12.5	4	2.3

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Chapter 7—Building capability

Data capability

Table A4.26 presents the actions taken by APS agencies to improve employee data literacy capability.

 

Table A4.26: Agency actions to improve employee data literacy capability

Action	% of agencies
Ensured employee access to on-the-job training and development opportunities	78.9
Ensured employee access to formal training	70.5
Access to a data champion within the agency	46.3
Establishment and/or ongoing involvement of data community of [practice networks	38.9
Establishment and/or ongoing involvement of data management committees	35.8
Other	21.1
No action	6.3

Source: 2018 agency survey

As agencies could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.27 presents the strategies applied by APS agencies to use and manage data in a way that is secure, effective and supports operations.

 

Table A4.27: Strategies applied to appropriately use and manage data

Action	% of agencies
Compliance with portfolio parent directives, governance frameworks such as the Australian Government Protective Security Policy Framework, and Codes of Professional Practice	86.3
Use of electronic document and records management systems	83.2
Continual review of existing data management policies and procedures	71.1
Other	17.9
No action	0.0

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

As agencies could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.28 presents the barriers to use of data reported by APS agencies.

 

Table A4.28: Agency barriers to the use of data

Barriers	% of agencies
Legacy systems and/or data storage methods	66.3
Skills and/or capability	65.3
Funding	54.7
Costs and/or availability of software	52.6
Organisational maturity	52.6
Privacy-related issues	34.7
Insufficient access to relevant data	29.5
Other	17.9
No action	8.4

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

As agencies could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Attraction and retention

Table A4.29 presents the reasons provided by respondents for joining the APS.

 

Table A4.29: Reasons for joining the APS

Reasons for joining the APS	%
Security and stability	64.8
Employment conditions	58.7
Type of work offered	45.8
The work aligned with my job skills and/or experience	45.1
Long term career progression	42.9
Service to the general public	42.2
Geographical location	28.0
Remuneration	27.1
Other	3.9

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages and totals are based on respondents. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.30 presents the proportion of respondents who had applied for a job during the 12 months preceding the census.

 

Table A4.30: Applications for another job during the 12 months preceding the census

	%
Had not applied for a job	49.7
Had applied for a job in their agency	36.7
Had applied for a job in another APS agency	18.1
Had applied for a job outside the APS	12.2

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages and totals are based on respondents. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.31 presents respondents’ intention to leave their agency.

 

Table A4.31: Intention to leave

	%
I want to leave my agency as soon as possible	6.2
I want to leave my agency within the next 12 months	8.9
I want to leave my agency within the next 12 months but feel it will be unlikely in the current environment	10.6
I want to stay working for my agency for the next one to two years	24.2
I want to stay working for my agency for at least the next three years	50.1

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.32 presents the reasons provided by respondents for wanting to leave their agency as soon as possible or within the next 12 months.

 

Table A4.32: Primary reason for wanting to leave current agency

	% of respondents who wanted to leave their agency as soon as possible or within the next 12 months
There is a lack of future career opportunities in my agency	25.9
I want to try a different type of work or I’m seeking a career change	14.2
Other	12.3
I am in an unpleasant working environment	8.1
Senior leadership is of a poor quality	7.7
I am not satisfied with the work	6.7
My agency lacks respect for employees	5.8
I am intending to retire	5.6
I can receive a higher salary elsewhere	5.4
My expectations for work in my agency have not been met	3.6
I want to live elsewhere—within Australia or overseas	2.6
I have achieved all I can in my agency	2.1

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Chapter 8—Mobilising capability

Degree of APS mobility

Table A4.33 presents 2018 APS employee census results for questions relating to employee mobility.

 

Table A4.33: Agency support for employee mobility

	%
	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree
My agency provides opportunities for mobility within my agency (for example, temporary transfers)	52.3	28.1	19.6
My agency provides opportunities for mobility outside my agency (for example, secondments and temporary transfers)	31.8	40.9	27.4
My immediate supervisor actively supports opportunities for mobility	50.3	37.0	12.7

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.34 presents the transfers of ongoing APS employees between types of APS agencies during 2017–18.

 

Table A4.34: Mobility by agency type, 2017–18

Agency type moved from	Agency type moved to (%)
	Regulatory	Smaller operational	Larger operational	Specialist	Policy
Specialist	5.1	6.3	26.7	17.5	44.4
Regulatory	11.5	8.3	28.6	8.3	43.2
Smaller operational	9.2	10.8	38.2	10.4	31.3
Larger operational	7.7	17.5	30.4	7.9	36.5
Policy	4.6	7.1	24.5	10.3	53.5
All	6.4	11.1	28.0	9.9	44.5

Source: APSED

Table A4.35 presents the number of ongoing APS employees who moved between locations during 2017–18.

 

Table A4.35: Mobility by location, 2017–18

Location moved from	Location moved to									Total
	ACT	NSW	VIC	QLD	SA	WA	TAS	NT	Overseas
Australian Capital Territory	.	602	502	357	163	101	50	57	552	2 384
New South Wales	695	.	132	132	30	39	12	18	32	1 090
Victoria	502	148	.	89	60	54	26	14	28	921
Queensland	325	102	70	.	27	37	13	18	34	626
South Australia	166	17	74	31	.	20	4	13	25	350
Western Australia	110	37	48	39	21	.	9	16	11	291
Tasmania	54	14	26	17	5	2	.	1	2	121
Northern Territory	72	18	12	44	19	16	3	.	4	188
Overseas	555	30	33	28	15	5	5	5	.	676
Total	2 479	968	897	737	340	274	122	142	688	6 647

Source: APSED

Chapter 9—Leadership and stewardship

Organisational leadership

The 2018 APS employee census provided respondents with an opportunity to share their perceptions of leadership in their agencies. This included perceptions of their immediate SES manager (Table A4.36), the broader SES leadership team in their agency (Table A4.37) and their immediate supervisor (Table A4.38).

 

Table A4.36: Employee perceptions of immediate SES manager

	%
	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree
My SES manager is of a high quality	65.4	25.7	8.9
My SES manager is sufficiently visible (for example, can be seen in action)	63.3	20.8	15.9
My SES manager communicates effectively	63.5	23.0	13.6
My SES manager engages with staff on how to respond to future challenges	59.4	26.0	14.5
My SES manager gives their time to identify and develop talented people	44.9	37.3	17.8
My SES manager ensures that work effort contributes to the strategic direction of the agency and the APS	64.8	26.8	8.3
My SES manager effectively leads and manages change	57.6	28.6	13.7
My SES manager actively contributes to the work of our area	60.4	27.3	12.3
My SES manager encourages innovation and creativity	59.7	29.3	10.9
My SES manager actively supports people of diverse backgrounds	65.0	30.8	4.2
My SES manager actively supports opportunities for women to access leadership roles	61.5	33.6	4.8
My SES manager actively supports the use of flexible work arrangements by all staff, regardless of gender	60.0	32.1	7.8
My SES manager leads regular staff meetings (for example, in person or by video conference)	59.7	24.2	16.1
My SES manager clearly articulates the direction and priorities for our area	61.5	25.5	13.0

Source: 2018 APS employee census

 

Table A4.37: Employee perceptions of agency SES leadership

	%
	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree
In my agency, the SES are sufficiently visible (for example, can be seen in action)	52.8	24.6	22.6
In my agency, communication between the SES and other employees is effective	46.3	30.3	23.3
In my agency, the SES set a clear strategic direction for the agency	56.9	27.6	15.5
In my agency, the SES actively contribute to the work of our agency	59.9	28.3	11.8
In my agency, the SES are of a high quality	52.7	33.1	14.3
In my agency, the SES supports and provides opportunities for new ways of working in a digital environment	52.0	33.4	14.6
In my agency, the SES work as a team	43.3	40.0	16.7
In my agency, the SES clearly articulate the direction and priorities for our agency	55.5	29.7	14.8

Source: 2018 APS employee census

 

Table A4.38: Employee perceptions of immediate supervisors

	%
	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree
My supervisor actively supports people from diverse backgrounds	85.3	12.3	2.4
My supervisor treats people with respect	87.5	7.6	4.9
My supervisor communicates effectively	78.4	11.6	10.0
My supervisor encourages me to contribute ideas	82.4	10.9	6.7
My supervisor helps to develop my capability	71.7	16.8	11.5
My supervisor invites a range of views, including those different to their own	77.5	14.1	8.4
My supervisor displays resilience when faced with difficulties or failures	78.5	14.4	7.1
My supervisor maintains composure under pressure	78.8	13.7	7.5
I have a good immediate supervisor	81.1	11.6	7.3
My supervisor gives me responsibility and holds me to account for what I deliver	84.7	10.7	4.6
My supervisor challenges me to consider new ways of doing things	72.3	18.8	8.8
My supervisor actively supports the use of flexible work arrangements by all staff, regardless of gender	81.7	11.9	6.4

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.39 presents valuation data for cross-APS leadership programs completed in 2017. Participants assessed their level of capability before a program began and after it finished. The assessment is expressed as a percentage, with 100 per cent indicating a very high level of confidence in the capability and 0 per cent indicating no confidence at all. The shift between the before and after assessments indicates a movement in capability. SES Band 3 employees were not included due to low survey responses rates.

Table A4.39: Cross-APS leadership programs, capability shift

Capability Shift	%
	SES Band 2	SES Band 1	SES orientation	EL2 expansion	EL2 practice	Women in Leadership
Pre-program capability	65	49	65	74	53	46
Post-program capability	72	90	92	90	91	88
Shift	+7	+41	+27	+16	+38	+42

Source: Cross-APS leadership program results, APSC Centre for Leadership and Learning