Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EXECpulse Sponsor
RESEARCH REPORT
Building a Better Public Service
ForewordPrime Minister Kevin Rudd’s announcement of an examination of Australian Government Administration, led by an Advisory Group chaired by his Department’s Secretary, Terry Moran, came at a time following the disruption occasioned by the global financial crisis.
Australia’s strong economy, as well as its astute policy and institutional responses, enabled us to keep clear of the most severe GFC consequences. Few doubt that Australia has a proficient public sector, with many talented senior public servants making up its hard working ranks.
Nevertheless, the ambitious agenda occasioned by the Government’s response to the GFC threw the spotlight onto the public service in ways that demonstrated its
limitations. As the scope of the policies was vast and speed was of the essence, it came as no surprise to observe that cracks in service delivery emerged which caused embarrassment to the service and its political masters, particularly in areas such as the home insulation program and parts of the education revolution. In addition, the maverick behaviour of a senior public servant in Treasury raised questions about the capability of the public service to manage its own.
Setting aside the GFC, there has been continuous tension since the Labor Government’s election in 2007 with respect to workload expectations on both public servants and ministerial staffers. As ever, senior public servants often find themselves offering policy advice that governments would prefer not to hear or refuse to follow. Regardless, the public service is required to implement and deliver services in line with the policies that follow from the government of the day.
In essence public servants, especially at the senior executive level, need to be highly capable advisers and nimble negotiators if they are to offer advice that is deemed both in the national interest and politically palatable. They also need to manage their departments in such a way that they demonstrate responsiveness, effectiveness and competence.
As the Discussion Paper issued by the Advisory Group acknowledges, ‘Many modern business management practices and philosophies may need to be adopted by the APS to enhance program and service delivery capabilities.’ This is so not just in terms of financial and technical business practices and philosophies, but equally in terms of attracting, developing and retaining people who are sufficiently talented to take their place in a high performance professional setting.
The report released by the Moran Advisory Group addresses many of the issues raised in this survey, and is to be commended accordingly in the constructive solutions it offers.
In that spirit AHRI surveyed the public sector members, federal and state, of its database, the findings of which are set out in this document.
Peter Wilson AMNational President Australian Human Resources Institute
The Australian Human Resources Institute surveyed its member database of public servants during November 2009, in part to inform its submission to the Australian Public Service Inquiry into Reform of Government Administration, conducted by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Aside from that purpose, AHRI wanted also to seek the views of its public sector members from state as well as federal agencies on a number of issues of general relevance to human resource agendas. The AHRI survey asked questions about HR matters such as workplace culture and leadership, talent development, the scope of training, cross-portfolio strategy and independence in the context of interplay with ministerial offices. Some of those matters were touched on by the Moran initiative, but others were not.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the public sector members who responded to the survey. Without your input we would not be able to conduct studies of this order. You enable us to become informed by those on the ground responding anonymously as individual practitioners. I commend the report of the study to you.
Serge SardoChief Executive Officer Australian Human Resources Institute
AcknowledgementsProject director: Serge Sardo Research coordinator: Anne-Marie Dolan Report authors: Serge Sardo, Paul Begley Sponsor: Taleo
Reference panelSandra Cormack Meryl Stanton Ron Watts Peter Wilson
Volume 2, Number 1 © Australian Human Resources Institute, April 2010
Research Report1
page
SuRVEY OVERVIEWThe survey that resulted in these findings was conducted online during November 2009 and communicated by email to the appropriate public sector section of the AHRI member database. The questions were also available to the NSW membership of the Institute of Public Administration who were invited to submit responses.
Approximately 45 percent of the responses were from federal public servants, 50 percent from state public servants and 5 percent from local government members.
A total of 244 respondents returned answers to the survey. All responses were treated anonymously.
DEMOGRAPIHCSFigure 1. Policy or service delivery agency
0%
20%
40%
60%
(243 responses)
My agency is a policy agency i.e. it’s sole or prime purpose
is assisting with the formulation of
government policy
9.88%
My agency has a mix of policy and transactional
work (i.e. work involving service
delivery transactions tomembers of the public)
49.38%
My agency is primarily a service delivery agency
40.74%
Figure 1 shows that approximately half the respondents (49.38%) were engaged in a mixture of policy and service delivery work, while only one in 10 (9.88%) worked in an agency whose sole purpose is policy formulation.
Figure 2. Level in agency
0%
20%
40%
60%
(244 responses)
Senior executive
13.11%
Two top bands of the administrative levels
54.51%
Below the top two bands of the administrative levels
32.38%
On seniority, Figure 2 indicates that a little more than half the survey respondents (54.51%) were in the top two bands of the administrative level of the public sector of which they were members, 13.11% were in the senior executive service and around a third (32.38%) were at an administrative level below the top two bands.
Research Report2
page
Figure 3. Does the most senior HR person report to Secretary/CEO?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(244 responses)
Yes
30.74%
No
65.16%
Don’t know
4.10%
Figure 4. At what level does the most senior HR person report?
0%
20%
40%
60%
(164 responses)
Deputy Secretary or 1 level from CEO
51.22%
A COO/corporate services manager
or 2 levels from the CEO
39.02%
Another general manager or
3 levels from the CEO
5.49%
A manager more than 3 levels from the CEO
1.22%
Don’t know
3.05%
Nearly one-third of the sample group (30.74%) reported that the most senior HR person in their agency reported to the Secretary or CEO, as indicated in Figure 3. Of the other two-thirds, Figure 4 shows that half (51.22% report to a Deputy Secretary or one level from the CEO while most of the other half (39.02%) report to a Chief Operating Officer or a Corporate Services Manager two levels below the CEO.
Figure 5. Does the most senior HR person regularly attend senior executive meetings?
0%
20%
40%
60%
(243 responses)
Yes
53.09%
No
34.16%
Don’t know
12.76%
Research Report3
page
However, more than half the respondents (53.09%), as indicated in Figure 5, report that the most senior HR person attends the most senior executive leadership meetings regularly, leaving a third who do not (34.16%) and 12.76% who do not know.
Figure 6. What is the main value that guides the work in my agency?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(244 responses)
That achieving your personal best
is valued highly
5.33%
That achieving departmental/agency
objectives is valued highly
65.98%
That working in collaboration
with colleagues is valued highly
13.52%
That achieving cross-portfolio
outcomes is valued highly
6.56%
I do not remember or apply
any stated work-related values
8.61%
Figure 6 sets out a series of options that indicate the stated values guiding the work of the agency. Around two-thirds of the sample group (65.98%) indicate the main agency value is that of achieving departmental objectives, with the next best, at 13.52% of the sample, who nominated working in collaboration with colleagues as being the top value. The achievement of cross-portfolio outcomes is not rated highly with only 6.5% of respondents indicating it as top priority while 5.33% nominated achieving one’s personal best as being valued highly. Nearly one in 10 respondents (8.61%) report no recollection or application of stated work-related values.
FINDINGS AT A GLANCE• More than one in five respondents (22.13%) believe the leaders of their agency do not model in their
own behaviour public service values such as honesty, integrity, political neutrality and respect for citizens.
• Nearly six out of 10 respondents (58.61%) believe their agency does not encourage innovation through strategic risk taking.
• Half the respondents report the leaders of their agency are either lukewarm (39.18%) or opposed (10.82%) to the achievement of cross-portfolio outcomes as an agency priority.
•Approximately half the respondents (49.44%) believe the senior executives in their agency see themselves primarily as focused on the achievement of agency objectives rather than serving wider public service agendas as part of a broad leadership group.
•Approximately one third of respondents (33.71%) report that ministerial advisers either openly encourage (26.22%) whole-of-government agendas or insist on their observance (7.49%) when working with public servants.
• More than a quarter of respondents (29.51%) consider the main criterion for managing the performance of people is either meeting budget requirements or implementation timelines.
• More than half (52.46%) consider attaining agency outcomes the top priority, while only 5.74% see attaining cross-portfolio outcomes as the main criterion.
• Nearly a third of the respondents (32.38%) believe that the leaders of their agency do not have people-centred performance indicators.
• Considerably more than half the respondents (58.26%) report that their agency is too often under pressure to cope with short term results in response to the media cycle.
Research Report4
page
•Around two thirds of respondents (65.42%) do not believe their agency trains staff adequately to deal creatively with matters of long-term strategic policy.
• Only 1.7% of respondents indicate managers’ encouragement of training in areas of alignment to wider public service priorities. More than half encourage staff to seek training in an area that aligns with their own agency priorities (53.97%).
• More than six out of 10 respondents (60.58%) either believe (46.89%) or strongly believe (13.69%) that potentially high performing staff are not identified, developed and mentored.
• More than three quarters of the sample group (77.37%) either believe (52.89%) or strongly believe (24.38%) that their agency does not have a widely recognised succession plan for key people.
DETAILED FINDINGSQuestions were asked of the sample group in the areas of workplace culture, leadership, whole-of-government policy formulation and service delivery, and staff raining and development.
Workplace cultureFigure 7. Are agency mission, vision and values communicated to staff?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(244 responses)
Yes
63.11%
No
35.66%
Don’t know
1.23%
Figure 7 shows that more than a third of respondents (35.66%) believe the mission, vision and values of the agency in which they work are not communicated to the staff working in the agency Against that, nearly two thirds (63.11%) believe appropriate communication occurs.
Research Report5
page
Figure 8. Do agency leaders model public service values?
0%
20%
40%
60%
(244 responses)
Strongly agree
22.95%
Agree
48.77%
Don’t know
6.15%
Disagree
19.26%
Strongly disagree
2.87%
Figure 8 shows that more than one in five respondents (22.13%) believe the leaders of their agency do not model in their behaviour public service values such as honesty, integrity, political neutrality and respect for citizens. Around six out of 10 respondents (61.72%) believe their leaders model public service values appropriately.
Figure 9. Strategic risk taking and innovation
0%
20%
40%
60%
(244 responses)
Strongly agree
3.69%
Agree
26.23%
Don’t know
11.48%
Disagree
47.13%
Strongly disagree
11.48%
Figure 9 indicates that nearly six out of 10 respondents (58.61%) believe their agency does not encourage innovation through strategic risk taking, while less than three out of ten (29.92%) believe their agency does take appropriate risks to achieve innovation.
Research Report6
page
Figure 10. Does your agency have cultural change initiatives?
0%
50%
100%
(243 responses)
Yes
43.21%
No
52.26%
Don’t know
4.53%
Figure 10 indicates that respondents are roughly divided evenly on whether their agency has in place a culture change initiative, with a little more than half reporting theirs does not (52.26%) and a little less than half reporting theirs does (43.21%).
Figure 11. Does your agency have a code of conduct?
0%
50%
100%
(243 responses)
Yes
95.47%
No
2.88%
Don’t know
1.65%
The great majority of respondents (95.47%) report their agency has a legislatively based code of conduct, as indicated in Figure 11.
Research Report7
page
Cross-government and whole-of government leadershipFigure 12. Are your leaders unified in achieving cross-government strategic priorities?
0%
20%
40%
(268 responses)
Yes, the leaders of my agency
speak with one voice about the
commitment to achieving
whole-of-government
strategic priorities
27.24%
The leaders of my agency occasionally voice their
commitmentto achieving
whole-of-government
strategic priorities
22.76%
Some leaders of my agency
espouse the merits of cross-government strategic priorities.
Others pay lip service but appear
uncommitted
20.90%18.28%
No, the leaders of my agency
drive their staff exclusively towards
the achievement of internal
departmental objectives
10.82%
No, there is little by way of communication
from the top about of cross-
government strategic priorities.
Figure 12 shows that half the respondents report the leaders of their agency are either lukewarm (39.18%) or opposed (10.82%) to the achievement of cross-portfolio outcomes as an agency priority. The other half report their leaders are either united strongly on that priority (27.24%) or display occasional commitment to the idea (22.76%)
Figure 13. Do members of the SES in your agency see themselves as part of a leadership group beyond the agency?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
(265 responses)
21.89%
28.68%
11.70%
26.04%
11.70%
Yes, and they are encouraged to do so by the agency leadership group
To some extent, though that is their personal
decision
To some extent, through they are
regularly reminded that
internal objectives matter most
Very rarely. Their performance indicators are
largely directed to achieving agency
objectives
Not at all. Their performance indicators are
exclusively directed to the achievement of agency agendas
Figure 13 shows that approximately half the respondents believe the senior executives in their agency (49.44%) see themselves primarily as focused on the achievement of agency objectives rather than serving wider public service agendas as part of a broad leadership group. Of the other half, one in five (21.89%) receive encouragement to look beyond the agency and around a quarter (28.68%) make it a personal priority to do so.
Research Report8
page
Figure 14. Are your SES members encouraged to adopt a whole-of-government approach to achieving outcomes?
0%
25%
(267 responses)
7.49%
26.22%
5.62%
16.85%
2.25%
41.57%
I believe ministerial
advisers with whom they deal
insist on a whole-of-
government approach
I don’t know about their
interaction with ministerial
advisers
I believe ministerial
advisers with whom they deal
strongly discourage any
interest in matters
I believe ministerial
advisers with whom they deal
show little interest in matters
outside their minister’s portfolio
I believe ministerial
advisers with whom they deal pay lip service to
cross-portfolio agendas
I believe ministerial
advisers with whom they deal
take into account cross-portfolio
agenda
50%
Figure 14 indicates that while a significant proportion of respondents (41.57%) claim not to know whether senior executives in their department are encouraged by ministerial advisers to adopt a whole-of-government approach to their work, approximately one third (33.71%) report that ministerial advisers either openly encourage (26.22%) whole-of-government agendas or insist on their observance (7.49%). Around a quarter of respondents (24.72%) report that advisers either pay lip service to whole-of-government agendas (5.62%), show little interest (16.85%) or strongly discourage such an approach (2.25%).
Figure 15. Rationale for change management in your agency?
0%
25%
50%
(243 responses)
20.99%
40.74%
24.28%
4.53%
9.47%
Communicated clearly and
honestly by central managers who are
widely trusted
Communicated by newsletter and
Communicated by di�erent managers to their teams
Communicated informally among
sta� after the event
Communicated by rumour and
speculation
Figure 15 shows that communication by newsletter or email is the preferred method for letting staff know about the rationale for change in 40.74% of cases. Direct communication to their teams by managers is the preferred choice in a quarter of cases (24.28%) and communication by central managers is the preferred method in one in five cases (20.99%). Informal communication such as by word of mouth, rumour and speculation is reported as the way things happen by 14% of respondents.
Research Report9
page
Figure 16. Does your agency conduct staff surveys?
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
(244 responses)
Yes
79.92%
No
20.08%
Figure 16 shows that four out of five respondents (79.92%) report staff surveys are conducted for the purposes of employee alignment and engagement.
Figure 17. If yes, does the agency act on results and communicate them?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(200 responses)
Yes
60.50%
No
24.00%
Don’t know
15.50%
Of agencies that conduct engagement surveys, Figure 17 shows that nearly a quarter (24%) report that the findings are not acted on or communicated to staff, while six out of 10 respondents report that they are acted on and communicated.
Research Report10
page
Figure 18. What is the main criterion for managing performance in your agency?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(244 responses)
52.46%
5.74%
18.44%11.07% 12.30%
Attaining agency outcomes and
values
Attaining shared cross-portfolio outcomes and
values
Meeting agency budget
requirements
Meeting agency implementation
timelines
Other
Figure 18 shows that more than a quarter of respondents (29.51%) consider the main criterion for managing the performance of people is either meeting budget requirements or implementation timelines. More than half (52.46%) consider attaining agency outcomes the top priority, while only 5.74% thought attaining cross-portfolio outcomes was the main criterion.
Figure 19. Do your agency leaders have people-centred performance indicators?
0%
25%
50%
(244 responses)
Yes
45.08%
No
32.38%
Don’t know
22.54%
As indicated in Figure 19, more than half of the sample group (54.92%) believe either that the leaders of their agency do not have people-centred performance indicators (32.38%) or the respondents don’t know whether they do or not (22.54%). A little less than half (45.08%) believe they do have people-centred performance indicators.
Research Report11
page
Figure 20. Is performance management in your agency conducted by the person to whom members of staff report?
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
(244 responses)
Yes
93.03%
No
4.10%
Don’t know
2.87%
Figure 20 shows that the great majority (92.03%) of performance management is conducted by the actual person to whom members of staff report.
Figure 21. Does your agency have a human capital strategy?
0%
25%
50%
(244 responses)
Yes
38.11%
No
40.16%
Don’t know
21.72%
Figure 21 shows that of those respondents who claim to know, around half believe their agency has a human capital strategy (38.11%) and half believe they don’t have one (40.16%). Two out of ten (21.72%) report that they don’t know.
Research Report12
page
Figure 22. Does your agency have a strategy for each element of a human capital strategy?
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
(221 responses)
29.41%
82.81%80.09%
28.96%
53.39%
4.98%
Identifying talent/
marketing
Recruitment Learning and development
Talent management/
succession planning
Reward and recognition
Other strategies
relevant to human capital
framework
Figure 22 shows that around eight out of 10 respondents report knowledge of a human capital strategy in the areas of Recruitment and Learning & Development, and around half report knowledge of a strategy in Reward & Recognition. Approximately three out of 10 indicate knowledge of strategies in talent identification and talent management.
Figure 23. Are staff in your agency sufficiency well trained to produce whole-of-government outcomes?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%(261 responses)
7.28%
31.03%
12.64%
25.67% 23.37%
Yes, sta� in the agency are well training to
work with other agencies on delivery
whole-of-government policy agendas
Yes, by and large, through the training
in that area is not consistently e�ective
across the agency
The agency makes rhetorical gestures
towards training sta� to achieve whole-of-
government imperatives and
sometimes achieves them
No, lip service is paid to the skilling of sta� to
achieve whole-of-government agendas, but the department’s sta� are mainly driven
by internal performance indicators
There is little by way of training in this area
and sta� get the message that internal
departmental objectives are the ones
that count
As indicated in Figure 23, around six out of 10 respondents (61.68%) report their agency shows little or no interest in training staff to work in association with other agencies to produce cross-portfolio outcomes. Only 7.28% of respondents report that staff in their agency are well trained for that purpose and 31.03% report training but with limited consistency.
Research Report13
page
Figure 24. Are staff in your agency under too much pressure to deal with short-term issues in response to a 24/7 media cycle?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(242 responses)
Yes
58.26%
No
24.79%
Don’t know
16.94%
Figure 24 reveals considerably more than half the respondents (58.26%) report that their agency is too often under pressure to cope with short term results in line with the media cycle. Around a quarter of respondents (24.79%) report that is not an issue.
Figure 25. Are staff in your agency sufficiently well trained and resourced to deal creatively with long-term strategic policy matters?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(240 responses)
Yes
22.08%
No
65.42%
Don’t know
12.50%
As indicated in Figure 25, around two thirds of respondents (65.42%) do not believe their agency trains staff adequately to deal creatively with matters of long-term strategic policy. Around one in five respondents report that training is adequate in this area.
Research Report14
page
Table 1. Areas in which training is offered
(229 Responses)
Option Count Percent
Leadership 205 89.5
Teamwork 123 53.7
Innovation 36 15.7
Change management 84 36.1
Cross agency co-operation 14 6.1
Customer service 126 55
Stakeholder relationship management 74 32.3
Risk management 142 62
Identifying and retaining talent 22 9.6
Cross cultural development 80 34.9
Diversity 133 58.1
(Respondents were able to select more than one option)
Respondents were asked in what areas training is offered in the public service. Table 1 shows that leadership (89.5%), risk management (62%), diversity (58.1%), customer service (55%) and teamwork (53.7%) are the most popular offerings. Cross agency cooperation (6.1%), identifying and retaining talent (9.6%) and innovation (15.7%) are not widely offered.
Figure 26. How are skills development priorities determined in your agency?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(239 responses)
7.11%12.55%
53.97%
1.67%
17.15%
7.53%
Managers choose to train
their sta�
Managers encourage sta� to seek training
in areas that appeal to them
Managers encourage sta� to seek training
in areas that align with
agency priorities
Managers encourage sta� to seek training
in areas that align with wider
public service priorities
Managers restrict the priority of training
opportunities to �t in with
agency workloads
Sta� decide for themselves what training
they need; management
is not generally involved
Figure 26 sets out the range of ways in which skills development priorities are determined. The most used method by far is that whereby managers encourage staff to seek training in an area that aligns with agency priorities (53.97%) followed by managers restricting priority training to times that fit with agency workloads (17.15%) and encouraging staff to seek training in areas that appeal to the staff member (12.55%). Only 1.7% of respondents indicate managers’ encouragement of training in areas of alignment to wider public service priorities.
Research Report15
page
Figure 27. Are potentially high performing staff identified, developed and mentored?
0%
25%
50%
(241 responses)
3.32%
25.31%
10.79%
46.89%
13.69%
Strongly agree Agree Don’t know Disagree Strongly disagree
Figure 27 indicates that more than six out of 10 respondents (60.58%) either disagree (46.89%) or strongly disagree (13.69%) that potentially high performing staff in their agency are identified, developed and mentored. More than a quarter of respondents (28.63%) either strongly agree (3.32%) or agree (25.31%) with the proposition.
Figure 28. My agency has a widely recognised succession plan in place for key people.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(242 responses)
1.24%
7.85%
13.64%
52.89%
24.38%
Strongly agree Agree Don’t know Disagree Strongly disagree
Figure 28 indicates that more than three quarters of the sample group (77.37%) either disagree (52.89%) or strongly disagree (24.38%) that their agency has a widely recognised succession plan for key people. Less than one in 10 (9.09%) agree with the proposition, and 13.64% claim not to know.
Research Report16
page
SAMPLE RESPONDENT COMMENTSRespondents were invited to submit three ideas that they thought would contribute to a better public service. A sample of ideas is set out below.
“Less focus on red tape and audit trails - this approach is based on risk aversion, and is not relevant in many situations, where a more agile and timely outcome could be achieved with less paperwork”
”Greater focus on the applicant in recruitment - processes need to be more user friendly with less emphasis on responses to selection criteria, and a much faster outcome. At present many good private sector candidates are lost due to the long lead times associated with the recruitment procedures in many APS agencies. This means that jobs tend to go to existing APS employees, and limits the introduction of ‘new blood’ joining the APS from the private sector”
“Reduce the focus on APS levels - large multinational companies in the private sector function well without them so I don’t see why the APS can’t consider dropping them. Staff would win positions or transfers based on their ability and skills, without being complicated by levels and promotions”
“Fewer legislative obstacles to managing underperformance”
“Improve opportunities for lateral entry rather than closed shop approach”
“Remove grievance and appeal rights against promotion/transfers etc”
“Standard rotations and job development opportunities for EL2s”
“Making use of people who do have a broad background and able to work collaboratively across multiple levels”
“Get rid of wage disparity”
“Having a Public Service wide budget for training so that sending a staff member to training doesn’t come out of local budgets (funding constraints is a big reason why managers say no)”
“Introducing staff rotation programs where staff can put their name forward to do a 6 month stint in another government department to learn new skills and to develop new networks. It is being done at senior levels but not lower”
“Cross organisational mentoring program for all staff not just EEO target groups”
“A greater appreciation amongst public servants that public money is being spent, i.e. the importance of recognising the taxpayer. That fact is often lost”
“Four year parliamentary terms would provide more scope for agencies to effectively implement policies and provide time to accurately analyse their public benefit. Three year parliamentary terms mean that too many decisions are based on short term “wins” that align to election cycles”
“Moving away from an agency-vs-agency approach in terms and conditions of employment. Employees see themselves as employed by their agency rather than as a part of a broader Public Service”
“Agency-vs-agency aligns with a minister-vs-minister mentality that does not assist in a wholistic approach to policy development and/or service delivery. Capability frameworks should be mandated across the APS rather than applied independently by agencies”
“Able to easily exchange data and information”
“Able to network more with other public sector environments and industry”
“To be able to be more innovative - however to be innovative you need to take risks. Public servants find it hard to take risks due to the scrutiny from government and media”
“Recruitment of leaders (not managers) who have worked in private industry to provide a broader base for decision making”
“Appoint leaders rather than those with technical expertise to senior positions”
“Acknowledge that skills developed outside of the public service are as good as if not better than those skills career public servants have developed”
“More flexibility in moving between agencies”
Research Report17
page
“Standardisation of pay scales across agencies”
“Greater flexibility to move financial resources across agencies and portfolios to allow for more innovative and holistic solutions”
“Consistency of remuneration for equivalent classifications across agencies (i.e. equal work, equal value)”
“More focus on valuing staff that are already employed in agencies - from the outside isn’t always best. The skills that got a person a job in the first place don’t dissipate once they are employed”
“Maybe a reduction in the influence of the ministerial advisor?”
“Coordinate a better approach to public sector initiatives across agencies - each agency is generally duplicating the same things by doing it themselves”
“Integrate a fundamental values system across government, not to be confused with a conduct-based system (i.e. the APS Values) which are NOT values in the true sense of the term and do not provide guidance in ambiguity”
“Have human resources developed as a profession rather than as multiple outliers with no connection. Despite AHRI, Public Sector Commissions etc, there is nothing strong and innovative in connecting HR professionals. It’s all seminars, networking events... it’s not doing it. We need fundamental reform in making the HR profession as connected as others”
“Centralised leadership and management training, provided by the APSC”
“Mandatory whole of government awareness training for all public servants”
“Senior executive bonus pay linked to recognised whole of government efficiencies implemented”
“Easier mobility between agencies”
“Less focus on risk management - open up opportunities to innovate”
“Remove the layers upon layers required for approvals - makes work very slow”
“Reward and recognition for work”
“Career development”
“Training and recruiting the right people for the right role”
“Talent identification and development”
“Clear career paths for professionals throughout the APS”
“Whole of government communication”
“Leadership team, including elected officials, should undertake the Company Director’s Course to better understand the complexities and responsibilities attached to running a large scale organisation”
“The role of Ministerial Advisors requires critical re-examination and higher levels of transparency”
“Development of middle level capability to lead and encourage high performance amongst the masses...culture, team building, managing performance, building trust, etc”
“Staff placed in positions based on merit, not popularity”
“Staff being recognised for their talents, not their personality”
“Open and honest communication”
“Less political involvement in day to day matters”
“Abolition of the efficiency dividend and adequate funding of political promises”
“A more responsive senior executive not driven by the view that they have to ‘stand on all the bodies’ of their staff to achieve”
“Training and development in systems and systemic thinking”
“Less punitive and negative approach to creative and flexible solutions”
“Better information sharing”
Research Report18
page
“Shorter turn-around times when recruiting staff - the process takes too long”
”Easier movement between agencies”
“More value placed on training of staff”
“A centralised workplace agreement and the same pay scales for every Commonwealth agency”
“Less emphasis placed on policy departments at the expense of service deliver departments i.e. PM&C and Finance are no more important than Centrelink”
“A recognition that with succession planning, the concept of merit may not be applied”
“Less political interference”
“More sensible risk taking”
“Greater flexibility in the allocation of resources and funds”
“More secondments, movement between agencies”
“Common conditions”
“Better leadership”
“Significant cultural change processes when there is organisational change”
“Less politics in decision making. Merit and open and honest decision making processes”
“Valuing strategic thinkingpolicy units that ask this of the people on the ground”
“Greater mobility of the SES and executive level classifications across agencies so that they are exposed to different agencies and environments and build a strong appreciation and understanding of the APS more widely”
“APS values are streamlined and form part of all SES performance agreements”
“Online induction information for all new APS employees on whole of government and what it means for them”
“Collective bargaining - standardise a range of conditions to reduce the workload in bargaining around entitlements such as annual leave and sick leave”
“Structured mobility program for EL2s and above to get experience in policy and service delivery agencies”
“Some sort of development program to teach people how to work across agencies and achieve whole of government outcomes”
“Increase diversity of personal profiles (e.g. MBTI) of leaders; currently too homogenous, risk averse; “don’t question, just deliver””
“Focus on policy and strategy, separate, corporatise or outsource transactions and service delivery; Currently trying to be all things and senior people get tied up in responding to media timetables, political egos and need for content rather than maintaining longer term policy focus”
“Make it easier to move in and out of public sector to bring in new ideas and extend policy initiatives into private sector; still too many career public servants below SES who won’t risk tenure for promotion and pursue ‘pet projects’ beyond period of relevance”
“Stonger leadership capability”
“Greater risk taking”
“Empowerment for executive level staff”
“More encouragement to move between portfolios”
“Standardisation of conditions of service (e.g. remuneration, benefits)”
“That the customer be changed from the Minister back to the Australian people. The Minister does not always represent the best interest of the public and often follows political agendas due to media commentary or influence through small groups. Frank and fearless advice is now often met with demands for retraction or dismissal”
“Removal of patronage and favouritism which has crept in rather strongly across the public sector. Objectivity in management and policy recommendations makes for more professional outcomes”
Research Report19
page
“Apolitical. Make the ministerial advisers accountable to Parliament as well as revising current public service accountability from the Minister back to Parliament”
“Greater focus on skill of public servants”
“Public service wide conditions of service and pay scales - this will enable people to work wherever they will make the best contribution rather than keeping people in theagencies/departments that pay more”
“A higher focus on balancing work and family including greater use of flexible working arrangements, in particular job sharing arrangements where people have caring commitments. I believe we are losing a lot of quality women at the higher levels because they don’t feel that they can work part time or job share at those levels because of the expectation around hours of work. We should also be encouraging men to work part time so that they can carry out caring roles”
“A much higher focus on developing the policy writing and client service skills of public servants”
Australian Human Resources Institute LimitedABN 44 120 687 149
Level 10, 601 Bourke Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 T (+613) 9918 9200F (+613) 9918 9201www.ahri.com.au
