Chapter 7: Leadership and managementLeadership and management are critical aspects of the business of the APS. They are integral to our performance and affect both our capacity to deliver policy and programme outcomes for the Government, and the level of confidence that the public has in the APS as an institution. Leadership and management also have an influence on employee engagement.

Although related, leadership and management describe different, but important, aspects of the business of the APS. Leadership is important in the context of identifying and defining organisational goals and desired outcomes, developing strategies and plans to achieve those goals and deliver those outcomes, and guiding the organisation and motivating its people in reaching those goals and outcomes.1 Management tends to focus on a range of more practical tasks including financial, contract, project, risk and people management skills, which are also very important.

The importance of both leadership and management skills is reflected in the APS leadership model developed as part of the Integrated Leadership System (ILS), which illustrates the shift in emphasis between technical, managerial and leadership roles as work becomes more complex at higher classification levels (see Figure 7.1). The model is underpinned by five capability clusters also reflected in the Senior Executive Leadership Capability framework (the SELC framework): achieves results; cultivates productive working relationships; communicates with influence; exemplifies personal drive and integrity; and shapes strategic thinking.

Figure 7.1 APS Leadership model

Both the managerial and leadership aspects of APS employees’ roles require capabilities from all five capability clusters. However, the managerial component has a strong focus on the achieves results capability cluster and the leadership component has a strong focus on shapes strategic thinking, achieves results and cultivates productive working relationships. At all levels, technical knowledge and capability are linked to effective performance and credibility, but with increasing seniority, the requirement for technical knowledge shifts from a requirement for depth of knowledge to one of breadth of knowledge.

It is worth noting that leadership, critical to how we deal with the complexity and uncertainty that has come to characterise the modern public sector environment, is expected of a broad range of APS employees. The extent to which leadership is required will, of course, vary at different levels, and, to a lesser extent, in different positions. The fact remains, however, that public servants today need to be more agile, and to have the ability to respond quickly to governments’ changing agendas and to the fast-moving pace of our operating environment. Events of the last few years have shown that public services need to be adept   at, and in a continual state of readiness for, dealing with crisis situations and other challenges, whether these arise from natural disasters or security and terrorism incidents. We also need to have the skills to carry forward an increasingly complex and important whole of government agenda. All of this puts a high premium on effective leadership and management.

Additional questions were included in this year’s employee survey to develop a greater understanding of both what attributes employees value in senior leaders and immediate supervisors, and their perceptions of the quality of leadership and management in their agencies. This chapter draws on the results from the employee and agency surveys and a range of other data to make an assessment of how effectively the APS is performing in these critical areas.

Leadership

In its One APS–One SES statement, MAC refers to the SES of the APS as a leadership cadre which is clearly and very deliberately reinforced through the Public Service Act 1999.2 The quality of the leadership group has an impact on all aspects of the APS, including our ability to achieve agency business goals, our ability to work in a whole of government context, how we deliver services to the Australian community, and how we engage with the Australian community more generally (some of these issues are discussed further in Chapters 10 and 11).

This section begins by examining the composition of the current SES group and the implications of this for leadership capability development in different agencies. It then looks at employees’ perceptions of their senior leadership, before going on to examine how potential leaders are being identified, and leadership capabilities are being developed throughout the APS.

The composition of the SES3

The effective functioning of the SES is fundamental to the effectiveness of leadership and management in the APS. Chapter 2 includes a brief overview summary of the demographics of the current SES.

This section builds on the information provided in Chapter 2 to provide a more comprehensive picture of the composition of the current leadership group. For this particular analysis, the focus is on capability requirements of the leadership cadre currently active within agencies. (To do this, the analysis excludes inoperative SES. For this reason, the data is not directly comparable with the data included in Chapter 2 which focuses on trends in the overall composition of the APS).

The number of operative SES in the APS has increased by 10.5% in 2005–06 (from 1976 to 2184) compared to a 9.1% increase in the total number of APS ongoing employees. The increase in SES employees represents a marginal increase in the SES as a proportion of total employees to 1.6%.

Reflecting the diverse nature of their activities, there continues to be significant variation between agencies in the proportion of SES to ongoing staff (in 2006 in MAC agencies,4 this ranged from 0.4% in Centrelink to 9.6% in PM&C), and in the relative use of the three SES Bands.

Some agencies increased their proportion of SES to ongoing staff in 2005–06. This is likely to be a reflection of the nature of the work of these agencies, in particular, a range of new Government initiatives and enhanced functions of an especially complex nature. The growth also reflects increasing levels of accountability, the requirements of Ministers’ offices, and the pace of modern communications leading to expectations of rapid provision of comprehensive advice.

It is important that the integrity of the SES as a leadership cadre with appropriate capability levels is maintained. The SES criteria and arrangements for SES recruitment (outlined in Chapter 4) have been deliberately framed to allow for a flexible approach to recruitment to the SES while preserving the SES as a leadership cadre and avoiding classification creep. Although not apparent at this stage, agencies will still need to be mindful of ‘classification creep’, especially in an increasingly tight labour market. Agencies have at their disposal a range of mechanisms, other than promotions, to reward and recognise valuable EL 2 employees who are working at positions where work value requirements are consistent with EL 2 classifications (e.g. AWAs).

The ageing of the APS workforce more generally, and the SES in particular, has been well-documented. The age profile of the SES this year is similar to that reported in last year’s State of the Service report. At June 2006, the median age for SES employees is 48, with 43.2% being 50 or more. There is considerable variation between MAC agencies in 2006, with DVA (66.7%) and ABS (59.5%) having the highest proportions of their SES aged 50 or more in 2006, compared to PM&C (30.4%) and DEWR (27.4%) with the lowest.

Seventy per cent of current SES employees and 55% of existing EL 2 employees are now aged 45 or over and will be eligible for retirement within 10 years. This continues to be a challenge that APS agencies will have to manage carefully, particularly given changes in the general depth of experience and exposure in the SES.

Experience and exposure

The importance of ensuring a depth of experience and exposure among the SES featured as a key theme in the MAC report, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce.5 As part of its examination of APS workforce trends, the report found an increasing narrowness in the APS experience of employees now moving towards and into senior leadership levels and pointed to the longer-term decline in inter-agency mobility.

As reported in Chapter 2, mobility across the APS has now risen for two years in a row. This is an encouraging result. As MAC found, there are substantial benefits to be derived from potential leaders taking steps to broaden their experience and exposure by working in different environments. This could mean seeking out different experiences within their existing agency, portfolio or elsewhere in the APS, as well as in other public, private and non-government organisations.

Nevertheless, a relatively high proportion of current SES has limited experience either at the SES level or at the SES level in their current agency. This is reflected in a reduction in the median length of service for the SES. In 2006, the median length of service in the SES was 4.5 years, compared to 6.2 years in 1996.

The majority of the SES in all MAC agencies, except for ANAO, have been at their current level in their current agency for less than five years. In 2006, this ranged from 91.5% in DEWR and 91.3% in PM&C, to 47.8% in ANAO and 56.2% in ATO.

A substantial proportion of SES also has limited experience outside their current agency—41.7% of MAC agencies’ SES have worked in one agency only (although this reduces through the classification levels to 28.9% at the SES Band 3 level). Some 22.2% of MAC agencies’ SES have worked in four or more agencies.

The corollary of this is that many SES have substantial experience within their own agency. Around two-thirds (67.7%) of SES in MAC agencies have been in their current agency for five or more years; half (50.4%) have worked in their current agency for 10 years or more.

SES are more likely to have been promoted from within their agency, than from another agency sector. Overall, 28.9% of the MAC SES came to their current level from another sector or agency, while 71.1% were promoted or on temporary assignment at their current SES level from within their agency. Significant variations between agencies can be seen underlying these figures.

Some agencies are more likely to promote from within—ABS (94.6%), DFAT (91.4%), ATO (86.8%). Some agencies are more likely to recruit externally from other agencies into the SES— PM&C (52.2%),

DOTARS (47.5%). Some 8.4% of the MAC agencies’ SES were engaged from outside the APS. This ranges from 14.7% in

Centrelink to 2.1% in DFAT.

Variation between agencies

An examination of the profile of different MAC agencies suggests that there are broadly three different types of SES profiles across the APS.

The first group is comprised of agencies with SES who have worked in the agency for a long time. This group can be further divided into two sub–groups. One group has relatively high proportions of experienced SES, and the other group has relatively high proportions of SES comparatively new to their SES level, but not new to the agency. Agencies with a relatively large proportion of their SES who have worked in the agency for more than ten years include DFAT (85.0%), ATO (82.6%), ABS (78.4%), DVA (60.6%) and Defence (56.9%). As a corollary of this, DFAT at 6.4%, ATO at 9.1% and ABS at 10.8% have the smallest proportions of SES with less than five years’ experience in the agency.

The second group of agencies have an SES with relatively broad experience outside their current agency. Agencies with an SES who are more likely to have worked in four or more agencies are DCITA (47.2%), DHS (46.7%), DOTARS (45.0%), and DITR (40.6%).

The third group of agencies are those with a relatively high proportion of newcomers to both their particular SES level and to the agency. These agencies include DEWR (91.5% have been at level in DEWR for less than five years and 48.1% have been in the agency for less than five years), PM&C (91.3% and 69.6% respectively), DEST (85.3% and 41.3%), Health (80.6% and 46.9%), Finance (80.0% and 51.4%) and the Commission (77.8% and 55.8%).

The figures for these agencies compare to the APS average of 73.0% of SES with less than 5 years experience at their current level in their current agency, and 33.9% with less than five years in current agency. MAC agencies with SES who have a relatively low median length of service in the SES are DHS (1.1 years), the Commission (1.3 years), DEWR (2.1 years) and DEST (2.9 years).

There are, of course, other agencies that deviate from these profiles. For example, DEH and Treasury both have a relatively high proportion of experienced SES (i.e. their SES have been at their current level in the agency for five or more years (37.3% and 36.4% respectively)), and have SES with a relatively broader experience across the APS (70.6% of DEH’s SES and 59.7% of Treasury’s SES have worked in two or more agencies).

There is a range of factors at play behind the difference in agency profiles, including the nature of the agency’s business and its size and age profile. It is not surprising, for example, that specialist and technically oriented agencies like ABS and ATO operate with strong internal labour markets and develop their leaders from within. There is no ideal profile to suit all agencies. However, there is a need to ensure that leadership teams are composed and work in a way that ensures fresh eyes and ideas, and maintain a continuous approach to organisational improvement. Given the variation between agencies’ SES profiles, agencies confront a range of different issues and may need to employ different methods to develop, broaden and support their SES.

Agencies with SES with little experience within their agency need to ensure that their SES have the necessary business knowledge and expertise. They may need to look to internal programmes to enable their SES employees to develop an understanding of the agency, and the relevant technical understanding to meet their responsibilities. They may also need to focus on the retention of some of their more experienced people and skills transfer.

Agencies with a high proportion of SES who have significant experience within their agencies (and related technical expertise and corporate knowledge) but limited experience in other agencies, confront different issues. Such agencies need to focus on how they broaden their SES’s exposure, guard against predictability and make sure that their approaches are subjected to ‘fresh eyes’. For some SES, this may mean seeking opportunities to broaden their experience and exposure by working in different environments, in different parts of their agencies, across different agencies and—on occasions—in the private or community sectors. Agencies may also wish to consider other means of obtaining ‘fresh eyes’ such as including external people on key governance committees and using peer reviews.

For all groups, agencies with relatively high proportions of SES new to their level need to ensure that those inexperienced employees develop the broader leadership capabilities and qualities expected at the SES level. Agencies with SES new to the APS may need to provide access to programmes focusing on topics peculiar to the APS, such as government finance, programme management and the regulatory environment.

Given the issues confronting different agencies, the importance of adequate and appropriate leadership development and training in particular areas cannot be underestimated. Depending on the circumstances, agencies may wish to explore a range of agency-specific and cross-service development opportunities for their SES. Agencies may also wish to explore mentoring and coaching as other ways of supporting their newly promoted SES.

Across public administration internationally and in Australia, concerns about the value of fresh perspectives and ideas and a desire to support ongoing innovation have led to consideration of:

succession planning and consideration of the skill and background make-up of leadership teams support for mobility and exposure widening opportunities as part of leadership development peer review processes (e.g. between international agencies in the same business) processes of organisational review.

International initiatives undertaken in 2005–06 include:

The Department of Defence in the USA evaluating the performance of its senior-level professionals with a view to reshaping their career development for future challenges, including addressing the lack of mobility among many staff.6

The Canada School of Public Service introducing a new course, ‘The Courage to Lead in the Public Service’, which is designed to encourage more innovative thinking among public sector leaders as they respond to a fast changing public sector environment, including by challenging habitual ways of perceiving situations.7

In the UK, capability reviews of government departments have been introduced to assess departmental capability in three key areas, including leadership.8

Employee views of senior leaders

Compared to other indicators in the employee survey, employee perceptions of their senior leaders were relatively poor. Only 38% of employees agreed that leadership in their agency was of the highest quality. A third of employees neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement and 26% disagreed. This result was similar to perceptions of senior leaders’ communication discussed in Chapter 3.

Consistent with the results in a number of other surveys, these results were lower than employees’ views about their immediate supervisors and to a large degree are likely to reflect the distance between many junior employees and their senior leaders. Results on more specific questions tended to be slightly higher. For example, 43% of employees agreed that their agencies were well-managed (24% disagreed) and 50% agreed that the SES in their agencies were empowered to do their jobs (only 7% disagreed).

Consistent with results reported above, only 38% of the overall APS were on average satisfied with the composite ‘Senior Leaders/Culture’ factor.9 This was the lowest result among employee engagement factors, although employees who did not report satisfaction were more likely to report that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (44%), than that they were actively dissatisfied (18%). For the ‘Senior Leaders/Culture’ factor, large agency results ranged widely from 19% to 66%.

Satisfaction with the ‘Senior Leaders/Culture’ factor was positively related to results on a range of other employee engagement factors. The strongest relationships were with the ‘Governance’ and ‘Merit’ factors.

Employees tended to have slightly higher satisfaction ratings when asked about specific attributes of their senior leaders than they did when assessing the quality of leadership overall. Employees were asked to select the five most important attributes they would like to see in senior leaders. Having nominated the attributes they would most like to see, employees were then asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the attributes in their agency’s senior leaders.

Table 7.1 shows that the most important attributes that employees would like to see in their agency’s senior leaders encompassed elements of honesty, integrity and fairness, judgment and communication. The majority of employees were satisfied with three of the elements rated in the top five, namely demonstrates honesty and integrity, shows judgment, intelligence and commonsense; and demonstrates sound judgment and is prepared to make decisions. A majority of relevant employees were also satisfied with factors relating to inspiring a sense of purpose and direction, setting clear expectations and working collaboratively with other APS agencies and stakeholders. However, for two attributes nominated in the top five, relating to communication and transparency and fairness in decision-making, only a minority of employees were satisfied.

Table 7.1: Attributes employees would like to see in senior leaders, 2005–06

Attribute

Employees that nominated attribute in

top five (%)2005–06

Employees who nominated attribute as important who

were satisfied (%) 2005–06

Demonstrates honesty and integrity 59 60

Communicates effectively with staff 57 47

Shows judgement, intelligence and common sense

54 52

Shows transparency and fairness in decision making

51 38

Demonstrates sound judgement and is prepared to make decisions

42 57

Listens carefully and considers the 36 34

Table 7.1: Attributes employees would like to see in senior leaders, 2005–06

Attribute

Employees that nominated attribute in

top five (%)2005–06

Employees who nominated attribute as important who

were satisfied (%) 2005–06

views and opinions of staff

Inspires a sense of purpose and direction showing links to business outcomes

34 56

Takes a genuine interest and assists staff develop (e.g. coaching, mentoring, career planning)

26 33

Helps staff to achieve work/life balance

25 44

Sets clear expectations linked to business outcomes

24 67

Recognises and rewards success 24 31

Demonstrates competence and has the ability to value-add

23 49

Provides constructive feedback 14 47

Demonstrates passion to succeed 10 68

Works collaboratively with other APS agencies and stakeholders

9 70

Values individual differences and diversity

9 47

Source: Employee survey

A summary index was created from the results of this leadership question in the employee survey.The index ranges from zero (the employee was very dissatisfied with all of the attributes nominated) to 10 (the employee was very satisfied with all attributes). An index of five translates to an employee being, on average, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their nominated factors.

For all employees, the proportion with a senior leaders’ attribute satisfaction index over five was 58%. Interestingly, this is higher than the 38% of employees who agreed that leadership in their agency was of the highest quality, perhaps indicating that the wording of the first question encouraged employees to rate their senior leadership against a particularly high benchmark.

The overall satisfaction of employees with the attributes of their agency’s senior leaders, as measured by the index, varied considerably between large agencies. Of the large agencies, those with satisfaction rates significantly above the APS average were ABS and DFAT.

The employee survey also asked employees whether they viewed the SES leaders in their agencies as part of a broader APS-wide leadership cadre/group. For the SES group, the result was very positive, with73% of SES employees viewing themselves either definitely or somewhat as part of a broader APS-wide leadership cadre/group. Only 42% of non-SES employees, however, viewed the SES leaders in their agencies as part of a broader APS-wide leadership cadre/group. This contrasts markedly with SES employees’ views of themselves but may reflect the different perspectives of employees at lower levels.

Some respondents to the employee survey made comments about feeling removed from their agency’s senior leaders (these comments are not necessarily representative of all employees).

Have very little to do with senior leaders.

The SES leadership group is so far removed from me that I have no knowledge of their abilities. They are only ‘names’. They have no direct impact on my day to day work.

I’m not sure they listen to or understand the voices of staff on the floor.

I think there is a lack of recognition for those who do the hands on work of the organisation by more senior management. Accountability seems to be in an upward direction with little recognition back down the line of the achievements that have been made by those who do the day to day work.

Leadership capability and development

The identification of future leaders and the design of effective leadership development programmes are both critical to leadership development.

Identification of potential leaders

One of the major outcomes of the MAC report, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, is that all APS agencies are developing systematic approaches to developing potential future leaders.

There has been increased interest in ways of identifying and realising the potential of high-performing employees, and for better targeting those with the best potential for leadership.

Research by the Corporate Leadership Council (CLC) links employee engagement with identifying and nurturing high potential employees.10 A high-potential employee is defined as someone capable of rising to and succeeding in a more senior, critical role. Potential, according to CLC, has three components: an employee’s aspiration, engagement, and ability. Aspiration is the extent to which an employee wants or desires prestige and recognition in the organisation, advancement and influence, financial reward, work-life balance and overall job enjoyment. Ability, on the other hand, is a combination of talents such as innate characteristics, mental and/or cognitive agility, emotional intelligence, and learned skills. Engagement is a measure of emotional and rational commitment to the organisation, discretionary effort and intent to stay.

CLC’s research suggests ways that agencies can better target high-potential employees, through strategies to understand their employees’ aspirations, the level of their engagement and their ability. It is important to note that neither aspiration, nor ability, nor engagement, are fixed, and there is scope for organisations, leaders and managers to influence whether employees achieve their potential.

In the APS, there is still a strong focus on more informal mechanisms to identify potential leaders.

As Figure 7.2 shows, manager/agency head identification was the most common method of identifying future leaders for all classifications. Next to this method there was a fairly even spread between individual self-identification, performance management system and development opportunities. Assessment centres were used less often by agencies, and almost not at all for identification of potential leaders at the APS 1–6 classifications. It appears that dedicated surveys to identify high potential employees have not yet had any widespread use as a means of identification of potential leaders in the APS. A small proportion of agencies indicated other means of identifying future leaders including through formal succession plans, the participation of employees in project teams and psychometric assessment.

Figure 7.2: Methods agencies use to identify future leaders, 2005–06

Source: Agency survey

SELC framework and leadership capability

The capability clusters in the SELC framework, outlined in the introduction to this chapter, articulate the crucial success factors for senior APS leaders.

Employees are most likely to rate their immediate supervisor (not necessarily at the SES level) as high against achieves results, cultivates productive working relationships and exemplifies personal drive and integrity (see Figure 7.3). Half rated their immediate supervisor as high against communicates with influence and 45% rated their immediate supervisor as high against shapes strategic thinking capability.

Overall, employee perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s leadership capabilities (as assessed against the ILS and/or SELC framework) were relatively stable between 2002–03 and 2005–06. Compared to the other core leadership capability areas, employees were more likely to rate their immediate supervisor as high in the areas of achieves results and exemplifies personal drive and integrity in all years. The proportion of employees who rated their immediate supervisor as high in the area of cultivates productive working relationships increased slightly over the period, and communicates with influence has fluctuated around 50%.

A trend is emerging, however, to a decline in the proportion of employees rating their supervisor as high in the area of shapes strategic thinking. Moreover, relative to the other leadership capabilities, the proportion of employees who rate their supervisor as high in the area of shapes strategic thinking remains relatively low. This is of concern as strategic thinking is an important leadership characteristic in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world.

Ratings vary according to the classification of those doing the rating. SES employees are most likely to rate their immediate supervisor highly against all of the leadership qualities, followed by EL employees and APS 1–6 employees.

The relatively low rating of supervisors against the shapes strategic thinking capability is consistent with trends identified within the feeder group to the SES who participate in the Career Development Assessment Centre (CDAC) programme—there is a consistent pattern that many CDAC participants are relatively weaker in the area of shapes strategic thinking. This may relate to limited experience in policy work in these days of more comprehensive management roles. Indeed, it is recognised that strategic thinking is a skill that develops with time

and experience and that people are getting to senior positions much sooner than they once did and have not necessarily had the experience and development opportunities that their predecessors did. As agencies are developing the next generation of leaders to replace the large number of retirees they will need to focus increasingly on strategic thinking as a core capability.

Figure 7.3: Proportion of employees who rated their immediate supervisor as ‘high’ on leadership capabilities, 2002–03 to 2005–06

Source: Employee survey

In prioritising their own development needs over the next 12 months against the five capability areas, the majority of employees placed a high priority on all five of the capabilities. Seventy per cent of employees placed a high priority on leadership development in the area of achieves results, 67% on cultivating productive working relationships, 65% on communicating with influence, 60% on exemplifying personal drive and integrity and 55% on shaping strategic thinking. Although shaping strategic thinking was the area where employees were least likely to place priority, this understandably varies according to classification. Seventy-three per cent of SES employees placed a high priority on leadership development in this area, compared to 67% of EL employees and 51% of APS 1–6s.

Integrated Leadership System (ILS)

The Commission has expanded the SELC framework through the ILS. The ILS builds on the SELC framework by describing indicators of capability and by outlining pathways to leadership from EL 1 to SES Band 3. It is supported by a range of tools for both agencies and individuals to use in their leadership development. This year the Commission has continued to work with agencies to extend the pathway down to APS levels. The expanded ILS will be published in 2006–07.

More than half of agencies have used the ILS as a basis for managing leadership development in their agency. Forty-two per cent of agencies used the ILS for SES employees, 49% used it for EL employees, and 21% used it for other employees, mostly the APS 5–6 levels although some agencies used it for all levels. Forty-five per cent of agencies indicated that they did not use the ILS at any level.

Of the 55% who did make some use of the ILS, 17% had developed a relevant policy strategy or framework to supplement or support the ILS. A further 30% were developing such supporting material.

Views about the ILS were generally positive. Of those agencies who had used the ILS, 67% believed that it had assisted the agency in developing leadership capability for SES employees, 72% for EL employees and 39% for employees at other levels. Only 13% said that it had not assisted in improving leadership capability at any level.

Specific comments made about how the ILS had affected leadership capability within agencies were overwhelmingly positive. Agencies believed that it had helped in a number of ways, including by providing a

rigorous and consistent framework for capability development within the agency, focusing managers and employees on leadership capabilities and clarifying expectations about behaviours, assisting in discussion of career and capability development, and by linking learning and development programmes to the ILS. Some agencies had utilised the ILS specifically for performance management discussions and recruitment processes.

Leadership capability development within agencies

There has been a strong focus during 2005–06 on leadership development at both the agency and cross-APS levels. Agencies were asked to identify the leadership development activities they offer at different classification levels.

As Figure 7.4 shows, agencies are continuing to take an active and targeted approach to leadership development, particularly for the SES feeder group. Leadership development programmes, mentoring and/or personal sponsorship, internal coaching and structured individual learning agreements are the dominant learning and development activities offered by agencies. The 2006 results show some decline in the use of agency-specific leadership development programmes and a large increase in those not tailored to agency-specific requirements.

Figure 7.4: Leadership development activities offered by agencies, 2005–06

Source: Agency survey

The agency survey results show that the use of structured placements and/or mobility options across the APS and outside the APS continues to be limited. There is potential for agencies to make greater use of these programmes which the 2004 MAC report, Connecting Government,11 found could help to foster organisational agility.

Some agencies highlighted specific leadership development activities. These included the range of learning and development and scholarship opportunities for staff provided by DITR, which is in the process of putting in place two new programmes relating to ‘policy development’ and another in relation to ‘management/ leadership’, and the leadership development programme being developed by DEH which will be rolled out progressively during 2006–2007.

Whole of APS leadership development

Agency approaches to leadership development are supported by the work of the Commission. The Australian Public Service Commissioner has a specific responsibility under the Public Service Act 1999 to ‘contribute to, and foster, leadership in the APS’.12 In practice, the Commissioner exercises this responsibility in close collaboration with agencies. The Commissioner consults with portfolio secretaries on the development of leadership and development programmes for SES and EL employees, including through the Leadership and Learning Advisory Committee (LALAC), which consists of agency heads from 10 departments and two other APS agencies. In 2005–06, LALAC’s focus included the outcomes of the CDACs and learning and development opportunities, including the development of new leadership programmes for senior executives which aim to build individual capability and at the same time foster cross-agency perspectives and collaboration between SES employees in all APS agencies.

New programmes include residential programmes for SES Band 3s, Leadership Mastery, and for Band 2s, Leading Across Boundaries. These programmes bring together a range of high-profile guest speakers and relevant stimulus material and provide an opportunity for participants to develop as leaders and build professional networks. The Commission has also developed two new residential programmes for SES Band 1s. New Leadership Horizons will assist SES Band 1s who have been appointed in the past three years to gain confidence in their new roles and leverage their experience to make a significant contribution to their organisation and across the APS. Transforming Leadership is a programme for senior executives who have been at the Band 1 level for three or more years. It will enhance the leadership capabilities of the participants by helping them identify, share, make sense of and leverage their considerable experience in the APS. The Commission is also developing a range of new SES short programmes to build capability in strategic thinking, governance and regulation and financial and programme management capability.

The refined three–day Senior Executive Service Orientation programme was delivered for the first time in June 2005 and 11 further iterations were offered during 2005–06. One hundred and sixty-four senior executives attended orientation programmes in 2005–06 (compared to 67 attending orientation programmes in 2004–05).13 Attendance at the orientation programme plays an important role in helping new SES to understand what it means to be part of the APS leadership cadre and to develop a cross- agency perspective.

Other leadership programmes offered by the Commission are the ‘SES Breakfast Series’, ‘Ministerial Conversations’, and ‘Leading Australia’s Future in the Asia–Pacific’ (LAFIA) programme. In 2005–06, the Commission led one LAFIA programme in Asia and one programme in the Pacific. The ANZSOG Executive Fellows Program is also targeted at the SES.

SES feeder group development

Focusing on the development of the EL group is fundamental to the capacity of the APS. This is particularly so, given concerns expressed by MAC about the breadth and depth of experience in Australian Government processes among the feeder group of potential future APS leaders.14 The role of ELs as middle-managers, who to a large extent represent the interface between the senior leadership group and other employees in their organisations, is also central to organisational effectiveness.

Two key APS-wide programmes for the SES feeder group are CDAC and ANZSOG’s Executive Master of Public Administration (EMPA).

CDAC assesses high-performing EL 2s identified by their agencies as having clear potential to reach the SES. Since the inception of CDAC in 2000, participation has included 797 EL 2s, with 96 participants in 2005–06, down from 118 in 2004–05 and 138 in 2003–04.15

Comparison of the progression from EL to SES levels between participants in CDAC and non-participants shows that, at June 2005, 21.3% of 2003–04 CDAC participants were in the SES compared to 3.3% of non-participating EL 2s who were EL 2s at June 2003; and 53.3% of 1999–2000 participants were in the SES compared with 13.8% of non participating EL 2s who were EL 2s at June 1999. This is not necessarily a measure of the success of the programme, but it does indicate that suitable people are generally being nominated, and that they are being helped to identify their development needs for future advancement. Agencies might consider the further participation of suitable employees in CDACas a means of identifying employees with SES potential, including younger employees in the feeder group and EL 2s new to that role with SES potential, for whom CDAC might indicate development requirements early in their management careers.

ANZSOG’s EMPA is a two-year part-time postgraduate degree aimed at high-performing EL 2s, which is intended to develop the depth and breadth of management and policy skills needed in today’s public sector. In 2006, 26 APS employees from 13 agencies commenced the fourth Master’s course.

A number of EL programmes are also conducted as part of the Commission’s ongoing development calendar. These include the quarterly EL updates and a series of programmes aimed directly at the EL classifications in relation to policy development, financial management, projects, tenders and contracts as well as a series on people management and leadership.

The EL 2 transition programme is targeted at newly appointed EL 2s to assist them in gaining confidence in their new roles and leveraging their experience to make a significant contribution to their organisation. A new EL 2 residential programme, which is currently under development, will also focus on developing leadership capabilities that require new and more complex behaviours in order to be highly effective at the EL 2 classification.

In 2005–06, 13 Indigenous APS EL employees completed the inaugural ‘Leadership in the Australian Public Service—An Indigenous experience’. The programme develops the APS leadership capabilities of Indigenous EL employees. A further 13 participants representing eight agencies commenced a second programme in February 2006 in Canberra.

Employee satisfaction with leadership development

Employee satisfaction with their access to leadership development opportunities improved in 2005, but there is still room for more improvement. This year, 39% of employees indicated that they were satisfied with their access to leadership development opportunities in their organisation (up from only 26% in 2004–05). Twenty-one per cent of employees indicated dissatisfaction (down from 30% last year).

Satisfaction levels were related to a range of factors including sex, location and classification, with men, employees located in the ACT and the SES all having higher levels of satisfaction.

SES employees were by far the most satisfied (72%). EL employees’ satisfaction level was above the average for all respondents (53% compared to 39%), but well behind those of SES employees (72%). This is of some concern, given EL employees’ crucial role as leaders, and as the feeder group for the SES.

There was also considerable variation between agencies, with ABS and Defence having significantly higher levels of satisfaction than the APS average.

Management

As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, leadership and management skills are both critical to agency performance. Management encompasses a range of practical day-to-day tasks within an agency that are fundamental to an effective organisation including financial, contract, project, risk and people management activities, all of which are important in terms of organisational performance. The quality of an employee’s immediate management can also be an important factor in their level of engagement with the organisation. In addition, employee survey results reported in Chapter 3 suggest that the quality of management can impact directly on an employee’s perception of their productivity.

On average, employees were satisfied with their immediate supervisors, with satisfaction levels being much higher than for senior leaders. Two-thirds of employees were satisfied with the composite ‘Immediate supervisor’ factor. There was some variation across agencies, however, with large agency results ranging from 56% to 80%.16

Satisfaction with an employee’s immediate supervisor was strongly related to job satisfaction and was also positively related to results on a range of other factors, including the ‘Senior leaders/culture’ and ‘Work group’ factors.

Employees were also generally satisfied with their immediate supervisor’s people management skills. Nearly two-thirds of employees agreed with the statement ‘My immediate supervisor is effective in managing people.’ This result compares favourably with results in other jurisdictions (see Table 7.2).17

Table 7.2: Level of agreement by employees that immediate supervisor is good at managing people

JurisdictionStrongly

agree/agree (%)

Neither agree or disagree

(%)

Strongly disagree/disagree

(%)

Don’t know/does not apply/not sure

(%)

Missing

Tasmania 59 17 24    

Western Australia

65 10 21 1 3

Victoria 60 18 22    

APS 63 19 18    

Source: 2006 Employee survey, 2005 Jurisdictional Input, 2006 jurisdictional input from WA

Immediate supervisor attributes

Generally high satisfaction ratings were also apparent in employees’ ratings of a range of immediate supervisor attributes. The employee survey asked respondents to select the five most important attributes they would like to see in an immediate supervisor. Having nominated the attributes they would most like to see in an immediate supervisor, employees were then asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with these attributes in their own immediate supervisor.

Table 7.3 shows that the attributes that employees would most like to see in an immediate supervisor were demonstrates honesty and integrity, respects employees as individuals, works with staff to find solutions to problems, possesses relevant job skills, and stands up for staff .

The majority of employees who nominated these attributes in the top five were satisfied with their immediate supervisors’ demonstrated abilities in respect of these attributes. Of all the attributes demonstrating honesty and integrity and supportings the use of flexible work practices had the highest satisfaction ratings, and providing quality informal feedback had the lowest. However, given that only 29% of employees nominated providing quality informal feedback as a top five attribute, it is difficult to assess whether their views are representative of all employees’ views.

Table 7.3: Attributes employees would like to see in an immediate supervisor, 2005–06

AttributeEmployees that

nominated attribute in top five (%)  

Employees who nominated attribute as important who

were satisfied (%)

Demonstrates honesty and integrity

 66 80

Respects employees as individuals

46 76

Works with staff to find solutions to problems

46 69

Possesses relevant job skills 43 71

Stands up for staff 42 62

Sets realistic performance expectations

39 66

Table 7.3: Attributes employees would like to see in an immediate supervisor, 2005–06

AttributeEmployees that

nominated attribute in top five (%)  

Employees who nominated attribute as important who

were satisfied (%)

Supports staff to achieve an appropriate work/life balance

37 75

Listens carefully and considers the views and opinions of staff

36 62

Provides quality informal feedback

29 55

Open to new ideas and ways of working

27 64

Supports the use of flexible working practices

21 80

Clearly articulates organisational goals

20 65

Provides access to effective learning and development

20 59

Respectful of diverse points of view

10 62

Demonstrates passion to succeed

9 65

Works effectively and sensitively with people from diverse backgrounds

6 71

Source: Employee survey

A summary index was created from the results of this people management question in the employee survey. The index ranges from zero (the employee was very dissatisfied with all of the attributes nominated) to 10 (the employee was very satisfied with all attributes). An index of five translates to an employee being, on average, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their nominated factors.

The proportion of employees with an immediate supervisor attribute satisfaction index over five was 77%. This is considerably higher than the 58% of employees with a senior leaders attribute satisfaction index of over five.

Satisfaction with the attributes in their immediate supervisors was higher for men, employees located in the ACT and for the SES. There was some variation between large agencies. ABS stood out as having the highest levels of satisfaction with the attributes in their immediate supervisors.

Employees were mostly satisfied against a number of other questions asked to ascertain their general impressions of their immediate managers. Three-quarters of employees agreed that their managers provide them with the support they need to do their jobs. Seventy-two per cent of employees agreed that their managers ensure fair access to developmental opportunities for employees in their workgroups and almost two-thirds (63%) of employees agreed that their managers would take appropriate action if decision-making processes were found not to be objective. Consistent with the results outlined above, employees located in the ACT and people at higher classification levels were more likely to agree with the above statements about their immediate supervisors. Again, there was also considerable variation between large agencies and again, ABS stood out as having higher levels of agreement with the statements overall.

Employees’ different perceptions about people management were also reflected in the comments providedby some employees (comments are not necessarily representative of all employees).

I could have marked another 6 attributes which I find important.

Supervisors need training.

My current high level of job satisfaction is largely related to the immediate supervisor that I have.

Very important area. Managers should not be promoted to positions who do not demonstrate adequate people management skills.

My immediate supervisor is very much the ‘meat in the sandwich’ between staff and higher management. A higher rating would apply if my immediate supervisor could rely on the above attributes of higher management.

If the above question was to apply to senior management my response would be ‘very dissatisfied on all counts.’

People management in this Department is not done well. The emphasis instead is on office technology and staff qualifications. Management of people seems a secondary consideration.

Current manager has just started receiving coaching and have noticed an improvement in people management skills. Would encourage all managers to be properly trained in: providing feedback, recognising and appreciating differing work styles, providing encouragement and recognition, and time management.

Performance management

An important aspect of people management is managing performance. Performance management is an essential component of a constructive workplace environment and, among other things, is aimed at improving individual and organisational performance, aligning individual work with organisational initiatives, recognising and rewarding good performance, and managing underperformance.

Performance management is a well documented area. Relevant and significant guidance material for APS agencies in this area includes the 2001 MAC report on performance management, the 2004 ANAO report, and material disseminated by the Commission.18

Systematic approaches to performance management have been in place for some time in the APS. Within the broad framework outlined by the PS Act and the Commissioner’s Directions, agency heads have the flexibility to develop performance management systems that meet the particular needs of their organisation and employees. In 92% of agencies it is mandatory for all employees to have a formal performance agreement (94% in 2005, 87% in 2003).

There are some very positive indications this year that the quality and effectiveness of performance management in the APS is improving.

The employee survey results point to the fact that performance management systems are well embedded in agencies, with most employees (85%) receiving formal performance feedback during the year (85%, the same proportion as in 2005, down slightly from 87% in 2004, but higher than the 79% reported in 2003).

Managers also report high levels of providing feedback. Of the 31% of employees who indicated that they had direct supervisory responsibility for at least one employee in their agency, 87% indicated that they had provided formal feedback in the last 12 months.

The ability of managers to provide effective formal and informal feedback is fundamental to the success of performance management systems. MAC’s 2001 report and more recent research by the Corporate Leadership Council both stress the importance of informed, positive, fair, accurate and detailed feedback as a strong driver of performance.19

Almost all (87%) of employees who had received feedback, reported that their performance in their most recent performance feedback session was assessed against a formal performance agreement or work plan agreed with their supervisor. The use of such agreements is likely to increase the quality of feedback.

According to employees, the feedback that they receive appears to be providing them with necessary assistance/guidance and addressing their learning and development needs. Almost two-thirds of employees who had received formal individual performance feedback in their current agency in the last 12 months agreed that it

had provided them with the assistance/guidance they needed. Only 15% disagreed. A similar proportion of relevant employees agreed that their learning and development needs were adequately considered as part of the performance feedback session, and only 16% disagreed. Results were less strong on whether their most recent performance review would help them improve their performance (48% agreed, 30% neither agreed nor disagreed and 22% disagreed).

Levels of agreement with the above statements varied considerably between large agencies. However, Medicare Australia, new to the APS this year, stands out as having the most positive results.

This high level of feedback, and employees’ generally positive perceptions of the feedback may be one factor driving the high results for employees’ understanding of their role, discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The ‘Understanding current role’ factor had the highest levels of agreement of any employee engagement factor at 84%.20

Also encouraging is the greater attention to values and behaviour in performance assessments. As reported in Chapter 4, 80% of employees who received feedback reported that some discussion had taken place on behaviour in their performance assessment.

There has also been some improvement in employees’ perceptions of performance pay.

A majority of employees (60%) reported that under the performance assessment system in their agency, any part of their pay was linked to an assessment of their performance (down from 69% in 2004 and 65% in 2005). The most common approaches reported were being eligible for advancement through the salary range for your classification, subject to fully competent performance (65%, down from 77% in 2003) and eligibility for a one-off performance bonus depending on performance (25%).

Other options, which were less common, included:

eligibility for accelerated advancement through the salary range for the employee’s classification, subject to better than fully competent performance (16%—down from 26% in 2003)

eligibility for an increase in base salary (18%) if covered by an AWA, performance assessments are formally taken into account when renegotiating

AWAs (8%) performance assessment is formally taken into account in selection for promotion (7%).

Performance pay in this chapter is used broadly to refer to all of these methods of linking pay to employees’ performance assessment.

Employee opinions about the operation of their employee pay systems are reported in Figure 7.5.

Across the board this year, relevant employees were more positive about the operation of their agencies’ performance pay systems. Some positive results are now emerging, with agreement with all statements being higher than they were in 2003, except that performance pay provides appropriate rewards for top performers (likely to be scheme related).

The majority of relevant employees now agree that the performance pay system in their agency ensures performance assessment is managed systematically and regularly (54%). Fifty per cent of employees also agree that the system in their agency operates fairly and consistently (up from 39% in 2005 and 47% in 2004).

At the other end of the spectrum, although agreement levels have improved this year, relevant employees continue to be more likely to disagree than agree that the systems in their agencies reflect differences in individuals’ performance (45% disagreed compared to 24% agreed), provides appropriate rewards for top performers (51% compared to 24%), accurately reflects differences in individuals’ performance (45% compared to 24%) and contributes to a workplace culture where individuals work together effectively (33% compared to 28%).

Figure 7.5: Proportion of relevant employees agreeing with performance pay statements, 2002–03 to 2005–06

Source: Employee surveys

There continued to be considerable variation in opinions about performance pay across large agencies. The largest difference in range was in the level of agreement on whether performance pay systems operate fairly and consistently, from a low of 24% to a high of 66%. However, there was a broad range of results for most statements, including:

acts as an incentive to perform well (26%–63%) ensures performance system is managed systematically and regularly (38%–68%) contributes to a workplace culture which upholds the APS Values (23%–55%) provides appropriate rewards for top performers (14%–45%) contributes to a workplace culture where individuals work together effectively (12%–49%).

The smallest range was for accurately reflects differences in individuals’ performance (12%–38%). The breadth of the range for all statements shows that there is scope for further improvement.

Medicare Australia stood out as a good performer, being significantly above the APS average against all but one of the statements.

Levels of agreement varied considerably on some of the statements according to sex, classification, age and location. Women and younger employees tended to be more positive about aspects of performance pay systems. With one exception (i.e. provides appropriate rewards for top performers), employees in the EL classifications were most negative.

Overall, the improvement in this year’s results, taken in the context of the other positive results on performance management, suggest that there may have been some improvements to some agencies’ systems or a gradual change in culture in some agencies. Some support for the hypothesis that the culture in the APS is changing slowly is provided by looking at levels of agreement about the operation of performance pay systems by length of service. Employees with longer service, who have experienced different approaches to performance pay in the past and/or commenced in the APS prior to the introduction of performance pay, tend to have greater levels of dissatisfaction with performance pay systems. Conversely, employees with 1–5 years of service are more likely to agree against most factors, although the only statements with which the majority of this group agrees are that the performance pay system operates fairly and consistently (53%) and ensures performance assessment is managed systematically and regularly (58%).21

In contrast to the general improvements in views about performance management in agencies, employees remain concerned about the handling of underperformance in their agencies.

Almost all of the managers who provided feedback (92%) indicated that they either always, or usually, confront and deal with performance management issues as they arise. However, this contrasts rather starkly with employee perceptions. Only 42% of employees agreed that their manager deals appropriately with employees who perform poorly. Even fewer (25%) agreed that their agency dealt with underperformance effectively. This disparity between supervisors’ and employees’ views might be partly explained by the fact that employees are not in a position to know exactly how underperformance is being dealt with. Nevertheless, there appears to be room for improvement in this area.

Managing performance is a difficult task. With this in mind, the Commission has developed a guide, Sharpening the Focus: Managing Performance in the APS to assist agencies to improve their performance management approaches and systems.22 The guide suggests a three-level approach for reviewing, refining and implementing performance management systems to ensure they achieve desired outcomes, are supported by employees, and are effective in managing various aspects of performance.

The key considerations identified are workplace culture, the system and its credibility, and supporting practices. The effectiveness of the whole system relies upon the successful integration of the three levels.

Key chapter findings

Effective leadership is fundamental to the performance of the APS. SES composition and experience varies widely between agencies. Agency heads need to manage carefully their SES leadership group to ensure its effectiveness. SES officers need to invest in themselves and plan their careers carefully if they are to consolidate to the maximum extent possible. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and this chapter presents a mixed picture about the APS’s leadership and management performance.

There are areas where the APS is doing particularly well. Positive results include employees’ satisfaction with their immediate supervisor, both in terms of their people management skills, and in relation to the management attributes that they view as most important. The fact that almost three-quarters of SES employees recognise their role as part of a broader APS-wide leadership cadre is also positive. This is likely to be bolstered among the leadership cadre as a whole, by the embedding of MAC’s One APS— One SES statement, which has a particular focus on helping the SES to understand their role in promoting a strong common identity across the APS.

There has been a focus, both in individual agencies and at a whole of government level, in developing programmes to improve the capability of the APS leadership group. In particular, agencies are continuing to take an active and targeted approach to leadership development, particularly for the SES feeder group. More than half of APS agencies have used the Commission’s ILS, and the overwhelming majority have found that it has assisted them in improving leadership capability. Reflecting this eff ort, employee satisfaction with leadership development opportunities has increased, although it still shows room for further improvement.

In general, employees’ perceptions of their senior leaders were not as positive as their views about their mnagers. To a large extent this result is to be expected, and is consistent with results from other surveys where employees tend to rate senior leaders lower than their immediate managers. It is understandable that employees may be more positive about their immediate supervisor, with whom they have daily contact, than the senior leadership of their agency which may seem more remote. Many junior employees may not fully appreciate the role of senior leadership, and on a number of questions the low levels of satisfaction reflect a high neutral response, rather than a high actively dissatisfied response.

The phrase ‘senior leaders’ was not defined in the employee survey, and for some employees it may include employees outside of the SES. Nevertheless, when combined with data from APSED which shows an increase in the number of SES employees with limited experience, the employee survey results appear to have particular significance for the SES group. They suggest that some APS agencies may need to work harder at ensuring both that they have senior leadership of the highest quality, and that the interactions of their leadership team with more junior employees in the agency reflect this quality. This is particularly so given that, of all the employee engagement factors, issues related to senior leaders and culture and immediate supervisor showed the strongest relationship to job satisfaction.

The employee survey results suggest that the traits that employees most value in their senior leaders, and where agencies may want to concentrate their efforts, are in communication, integrity and fairness, and judgment and decision-making. The results also suggest that there are continuing concerns about the ability of leaders in the

APS to shape strategic thinking. In this regard, it is heartening that almost three-quarters of SES employees place a high priority on leadership development in this area.

There are some very positive signs of improvement in the area of performance management. Performance management systems are now firmly embedded in agencies and there is evidence that formal performance feedback is providing employees with necessary assistance/guidance and helping to address their learning and development needs. Feedback seems to have been effective in providing employees with a clear understanding of their role, and to have been increasingly concentrated on behaviour as well as outcomes. Perceptions of performance pay also seem to be improving slightly.

That said, this is the area, both in relation to the provision of feedback and in dealing with underperformance effectively, where employees were most critical of their immediate supervisors. Performance across agencies, particularly in the area of performance pay, continues to be highly variable, but the good results in some agencies suggest that employee perceptions can be further improved.

The marked differences in the composition of the SES leadership group across agencies means that agencies will need to take different approaches to developing their SES and ensuring the capability of their leadership group. For agencies with strong internal labour markets this may mean encouraging greater use of mobility options, as well as mechanisms of external review to bring ‘fresh eyes’ to their operations. For agencies with relatively inexperienced SES it may mean investing in more formal leadership capability development programmes. For agencies with many SES new to the agency it may mean finding ways to ensure that they can develop the technical understanding they need to bring a sufficient breadth of knowledge to their work. For all agencies, however, a continuing focus on the capability of their leadership group will be critical to their ability to achieve outcomes for the Government and the community.

 

1. National Institute for Governance, Public Service Leadership: Emerging Issues, December 2003, <http://governance.canberra.edu.au>

2. Management Advisory Committee 2005, Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service: One APS–One SES, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

3. All data in this section relates to operative SES, except where specific references to inoperatives are included. 4. MAC agencies are listed in full at the start of Chapter 12. 5. Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia,

Canberra. 6. K. Rutzick, ‘Pentagon to Civilians: Get Departmentwide Experience’, GOVEXEC, 18 April 2006

<http://www.govexec.com> 7. Canada School of Public Service, <http://www.myschool-monecole.gc.ca/main_e.html> 8. ‘Publication of First Capability Reviews Steps Up Civil Service Reform’

<http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/news/index.asp> 9. Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 4. 10. Corporate Leadership Council 2004, Driving Employee Performance and Retention through Engagement: A

Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Employee Engagement Strategies, CLC, Washington, DC. 11. Management Advisory Committee 2004, Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s

Priority Challenges, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 12. PS Act s.41(1)(j). 13. The lower number of participants in 2004–05, compared to 2005–06, was partly due to the fact that the programme

was being reworked during the first half of 2005 and there was a backlog of participants for 2005–06. 14. Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia,

Canberra. 15. The lower participant number for 2005–06 was due to the introduction of the new CDAC series which commenced

later in the financial year (i.e. September). 16. Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 4. 17. The jurisdictional comparison data from surveys conducted in 2004–05 and 2005–06 was provided to the Commission

by the State Services Authority, Victoria (People Matter Survey 2005); the Office of the State Service Commissioner, Tasmania (State Service Employee Survey 2005); and the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, Western Australia (Climate Survey 2005–06). While the Victorian and Tasmanian surveys covered the jurisdiction, the Victorian jurisdictional comparison data was based on web-based responses only. The Western Australian Climate Survey involved 14 agencies—each year 10–15 agencies are surveyed with each agency being surveyed approximately once every 5 years.

18. Management Advisory Committee 2001, Performance Management in the Australian Public Service—A Strategic Framework, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra; ANAO 2004, Performance Management in the Australian Public Service, Performance Audit Report No. 6, <http:// www.anao.gov.au>; Australian Public Service Commission 2006, Sharpening the Focus—Managing Performance in the APS, <http://www. apsc.gov.au>

19. Management Advisory Committee 2001, Performance Management in the Australian Public Service—A Strategic Framework, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra; Corporate Leadership Council (CLC), Building the High Performance Workforce—A Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Performance Management Strategies, Corporate Executive Board, Washington, DC. These findings result from research undertaken by the CLC, via a web-based survey of 41,000 employees and managers, and of their performance management database, aimed at identifying the major drivers of individual performance <http://corporateleadershipcouncil.com>

20. Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 4. 21. Those with less than one year’s service were excluded on the basis that they would not have gone through a full

annual performance management cycle. Forty-nine per cent of employees with 1–5 years service agreed that their performance management system acts as an incentive to perform well.

22. Australian Public Service Commission 2006, Sharpening the Focus: Managing Performance in the APS, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>