Chapter 6: The Values and workplace relations

Merit

The current devolved framework means that agencies are able to adopt a variety of processes for non-SES selection depending on their individual needs and circumstances. The processes, however, must satisfy the requirements of the PS Act and the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions that employment decisions be based on merit. The practical application of merit in selection requires processes to be in place to ensure that:

• all eligible applicants have a reasonable opportunity to put forward their claims
• the selection process is transparent, and is seen to be applied fairly, to all applicants
• the assessment process is able realistically to match the qualities of the applicants to the qualitiesgenuinely required for the job.

SES selection processes operate under a tighter framework than those for non-SES staff, to ensure the effective reflection of core leadership capabilities and the transparent selection of the senior leadership group across the APS. However, within this tighter framework there remains scope for agencies to use a variety of processes, including executive search, assessment centres and recruitment agencies to assist them.

While it is desirable that agencies use the available flexibility, it is vital that they have in place systems to ensure compliance with the APS Value that ‘the APS is a public service in which employment decisions are based on merit’.

Both the agency and employee surveys asked questions about perceptions of merit and about the processes used to make employment decisions in the APS. The questions distinguished between employment decisions relating to the engagement, transfer or promotion¹ of staff and decisions regarding the temporary assignment of higher duties. This section examines the results of these questions. It also discusses data relating to the value requiring the APS to provide reasonable community access to employment opportunities.

Employees’ merit perceptions

The employee survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the following statement— ‘my agency consistently applies merit in engagements/transfers/promotions resulting from a competitive selection process’. Fifty-nine per cent of employees agreed with the statement while 21% disagreed. The remainder neither agreed nor disagreed (17%), or were unsure (4%). Fewer employees (31%) agreed that merit was consistently applied in decisions involving transfer at level without a competitive selection process, and 28% disagreed. Significantly more employees neither agreed nor disagreed (31%), or were unsure (10%) about transfer decisions without a competitive selection process.

The data examined in the remainder of this section relate to employees’ perceptions of merit regarding engagements/ transfers/ promotions resulting from a competitive selection process.

Perceptions of merit varied markedly amongst employees in the 21 large agencies for which statistically valid results are available. Two large agencies had agreement rates of less than 45% while two other large agencies achieved agreement rates of over 70%. FaCS had the highest rate of agreement that merit was consistently applied (82%).

Perceptions of merit generally did not vary between different age groups or between men and women, although employees over 55 years had lower rates of agreement that merit was consistently applied (51% compared with 59% for all employees). Employees in large agencies had slightly less positive merit perceptions (58% agreement rate in large agencies compared with 63% and 66% in small and medium agencies respectively) as did employees working outside the ACT (57% compared with 63% for those in the ACT).

A very strong correlation was apparent between merit perception and classification. Figure 6.1 indicates that, as classification increases, so do positive views of perception of merit.

Views on the application of merit were clearly correlated with views on a number of other issues explored in the employee survey. Not surprisingly, employees’ views on whether their immediate supervisor demonstrated personal drive and integrity and acted in accordance with the APS Values were strongly correlated with views on merit. Also, not surprisingly, views on merit were strongly correlated with levels of job satisfaction. Employees with the highest level of job satisfaction were twice as likely to agree that merit was consistently applied (78%) compared with those with the lowest level of job satisfaction (39%).

Figure 6.2 indicates that views on merit were also strongly correlated with employees’ views on aspects of performance management systems. Employees who agreed that they understood the standards used to evaluate their performance in their individual performance agreements were more likely to agree that merit was applied consistently (66%) than those who did not understand the standards used to evaluate their performance (46%).

The effect of broadbanding on merit perceptions is interesting. Whether or not an employee reports that their agency has a broadbanded classification structure does not appear to affect their perceptions of merit. However, the employees of agencies that have introduced broadbanding are more likely to agree that merit is applied consistently if they were also of the view that the broadbanded classification structure had made advancement opportunities better—73% of this group agreed that merit is applied consistently compared with 53% of those who think the broadbanding had made advancement opportunities worse.

In summary, the results from the employee survey indicate that around three in five APS employees agree that merit is consistently applied while around one in five disagrees and another one is ambivalent. The results are broadly similar to a one-off survey of public sector employees by the Victorian Office of Public Employment in 2000. The proportion of respondents who agreed with the statement ‘selection decisions are fair’was 68%.² It is also broadly similar to the results of international surveys. The Canadian Public Service conducted employee censuses in 1999 and 2002.³ Sixty per cent of employees agreed with a statement that ‘when I was a candidate in competitions in the past three years, I found that the competitions were run in a fair manner’ in 1999, while 30% disagreed. This had improved to 66% agreeing in 2002 and 28% disagreeing. The New Zealand ‘Career Progression and Development Survey’, conducted in 2000 by the State Services Commission, found that 18% of employees said that they had been deterred from seeking a higher-level job because they felt the selection process would not be fair.

It appears that progress is being made when comparisons are made with results relating to perceptions of merit reported in the 2000–01 State of the Service report. In that year APS agencies were asked to survey their own employees to ask them seven standardised questions, one of which asked employees whether or not they agreed with the statement that ‘my agency makes decisions about people based on merit’. Fortysix agencies asked their employees this question and the result was that only 39% of respondents agreed with the statement, while 33% disagreed. While it is important to note the different methodologies between the 2002–03 employee survey and the survey in 2000–01, and the difference in the number of participating agencies, it is clear that the results in 2002–03 are significantly better. It may be that employees are now more familiar with how merit selection is defined and operates under the new PS Act. It may also be that the higher growth rate in the APS with more opportunities for promotion has affected perceptions of merit.

Overall, the results on merit perception seem reasonably positive for the APS, compared both with other jurisdictions and with the past. There is, however, room for improvement particularly in some agencies. It seems likely, nonetheless, that there will always be a number of employees who will interpret their limited opportunities for, or success in, career advancement as reflecting that selection decisions are not based on merit.

Selection processes used by agencies

Agencies report using a wide range of selection processes. Some vary amongst agencies and amongst classifications within agencies, while others are commonly used across the APS. All agencies report using face-to-face interviews commonly in selection processes for all classification levels. The next most widespread and commonly used measure was including at least one member of the selection panel from outside the general work area. Using existing orders of merit to fill similar opportunities is very widespread for APS 1–6 and EL selection exercises (93% and 80% of all agencies respectively) but used less for SES selection (43%). Orders of merit are used commonly (i.e. where agencies have included them in their top three processes) in around 35% to 42% of agencies (usage varying with classification level).

Most agencies (85%) use internal reassignment of duties of existing staff at level to fill APS 1–6 and EL vacancies, while around half of agencies move people into the agency at the same classification level from another APS agency without a formal competitive selection process for these two classification groups. Both of these processes (i.e. internal reassignment of duties and transfers from another APS agency without a competitive process) are used less for SES vacancies. This may reflect a tendency to hold a competitive selection process for SES vacancies, even when they are eventually filled from within or beyond the agency by an employee at the same level.

The use of recruitment agencies for assistance with routine administration (e.g. scribing) is common among three-quarters of agencies for all classification levels. Recruitment agencies are used for more than routine assistance but less than the entire process by around one-third of agencies (slightly more for the APS 1–6 classifications at 40% of agencies) but only a few use recruitment agencies for the entire process up to the recommendation to the delegate (varying from around 10% of agencies for APS 1–6 and SES selection exercises to 6% for EL selection exercises).

Assessment centres, psychometric testing and other direct testing exercises to assess required workplace skills are used more commonly by agencies for APS 1–6 selection exercises (21%, 19% and 54% of all agencies respectively) but are more rarely used by agencies for SES selection (4%, 9% and 6% respectively). Agencies’ usage for EL employees lies roughly half-way between.

Initial screening of applicants by phone is more common for lower-level classifications (29% of all agencies use this in some APS 1–6 selection exercises compared with 20% for some EL selections and 14% for some SES selections). Over half of agencies report relying only on a combination of written applications and referee reports for some APS 1–6 selection exercises, falling to 38% of agencies for some EL selections and 9% of agencies for some SES selections.

Some agencies conduct some selection exercises for engagement, promotion or transfer at level on the basis of written applications only. This was reportedly used by 21% of agencies for some APS 1–6 selection exercises, 17% of agencies for some EL selections and 6% of agencies for some SES selections. Agencies that identified this measure as being one of their five most commonly used measures were the ANAO (APS 1–6 only), ComSuper (APS 1–6 and ELs), the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) (APS 1–6 and ELs) and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) (APS 1–6, ELs and SES). Whether this measure in these agencies is used only for transfers rather than promotions or engagements is not clear.

Only 12% of all agencies report requiring mandatory training for those involved in selecting candidates in APS 1–6 and EL selection processes. This falls to 7% of agencies for SES selections. Many more agencies provide self-nominating training ranging from 76% of all agencies for APS 1–6 selections to 60% of all agencies for SES selections. Most agencies (around 90%) reported having consistent selection guidelines/documentation for the whole agency for APS 1–6 and EL classification groups. Fewer agencies (around 80%) had them for SES selection.

No clear correlations were identified between the selection processes used by agencies and their employees’ perceptions of merit. This is likely to be due in part to the wide variety of selection processes used within agencies (processes which also vary between different sections of agencies and with circumstance—for example, where few applicants for a specialist position are involved, with one applicant clearly most competitive, as opposed to large selection rounds). Another factor likely to be relevant is that perceptions of merit are undoubtedly influenced by factors other than selection processes, including an employee’s own success or otherwise in selection processes.

A range of evidence over recent years, including two ANAO reports⁴, has suggested that line managers in agencies have not been feeling confident that the selection processes they are using are resulting in effective outcomes. Despite the flexibility available in most agencies’ recruitment and selection guidelines, many managers are continuing to rely on traditional methods such as face-to-face interviews because they are unsure about how and when to use alternative processes.

To assist managers and agencies achieve quality recruitment and selection decisions, the APS Commission has produced Get it Right–a recruitment kit for managers. The kit aims to raise awareness and usage of the various selection options and flexibility available to managers and APS agencies. It contains a range of tools, templates and information intended to encourage managers and agencies to be more innovative as well as more planned in their approach to recruitment.

Merit and decisions for assigning temporary ‘higher duties’

Employees’ perceptions of how consistently their agency applied merit in employment decisions relating to the temporary assignment of duties to a higher classification⁵ were less positive compared with their perceptions about those decisions involving engagements/transfers/promotions resulting from a competitive selection process. Employees were less likely to agree that merit had been consistently applied in the former type of decisions (44%) compared with the latter type of decisions (59%), and were more likely to disagree that merit had been consistently applied (29% compared with 21%).

There was considerable variation amongst the 21 large agencies in the proportion of employees who agreed that merit was consistently applied in decisions relating to the temporary assignment of duties to a higher classification. Five large agencies had over 50% of staff agreeing that merit was consistently applied, with Health having the highest agreement rate of 56%. Two large agencies had agreement rates of less than one third of employees.

Most agencies (71% of all agencies) reported having formal measures in selection processes/decisions for assigning temporary duties to a higher classification. Eight per cent of agencies were developing such measures while 20% had no formal measures. Employees in those agencies that reported having formal measures were somewhat more likely to agree that merit was consistently applied (46%) compared with those in agencies without such formal measures (40%). The majority of agencies without formal measures were mainly small and medium agencies but five large agencies also reported having no such measures.

Of the 71% of agencies with formal measures (and the 8% that are developing them) 84% reported distinguishing between temporary duties to a higher classification for a short period as opposed to a longer period in terms of requiring a competitive process. Fifty per cent of these agencies had periods of three months or less before requiring a competitive process, 40% had a period of six months and 10% had a period of 12 months. A decision based on written applications and referee reports was the most common form of competitive selection process (71%), followed by consideration of written applications alone (53%). Just over a third of agencies reported having a requirement for face-to-face interviews.

There were no clear correlations between perceptions of merit in the assignment of duties to a higher classification and the length of time before requiring a competitive process or the type of competitive selection processes used. While it appears that some agencies should review their processes for assigning temporary duties to a higher classification, it is not clear that there is a widespread problem with the processes being used. To some extent APS employees may still be adjusting to the more streamlined approaches being used to make decisions on the basis of merit, and to the acceptability of these approaches to the Public Service Commissioner in the modern public service.

Community access to APS employment opportunities

APS agencies are required to provide reasonable community access to employment opportunities. Since the open access policy was introduced in 1998, the APS Commission has undertaken a small annual survey of the selection outcomes of ongoing employment opportunities notified in a February Gazette to provide a snapshot of access trends. This study was undertaken again in 2003, using the Gazette of 20 February 2003.

The percentage of ongoing employment opportunities notified in the Gazette of 20 February 2003 as open to the public has remained at the high level of 99.5%, despite a decrease of around 22% in the total number of opportunities in that issue of the Gazette (536 in 2003 compared with 691 in 2002 and 725 in 2001). The number of ongoing employment opportunities was significantly lower in this year’s survey because a large APS agency (accounting for nearly 19% of opportunities in 2002) was not recruiting during the survey period.

Information on the outcome of the selection processes was provided by agencies on the 536 ongoing employment opportunities. Of the finalised opportunities, 51% were filled on an ongoing basis by applicants external to the APS. This is the highest percentage of engagements over the six years of the survey—the average now being 34%.

Further analysis of the classification levels of the employment opportunities notified shows that 71% of all engagements were to the APS 1–4 classifications (63% in 2002 and 78% in 2001) which remain the main entry points for APS employment. The balance between base-grade and lateral recruitment will vary between surveys because one-off exercises, such as a large trainee recruitment campaign in an agency, can significantly affect the survey results.

As the study is based on only one Gazette per year, it is difficult to be definitive on overall trends. However, the data obtained do indicate that agencies on the whole are:

• upholding the APS Value of providing reasonable community access to APS employment opportunities
• conducting selection processes that allow external applicants to compete on merit.

 

1 The terminology of ‘transfers’ and ‘promotions’ were used in the employee survey and consequently, in this chapter because they are commonly understood by most APS employees. The terminology used in the PS Act is ‘movement at level’ for transfer between agencies and ‘assignment of duties’ for internal transfer within an agency. Promotion is defined as ‘the assignment to the employee of duties at a higher classification than the employee’s current classification (whether or not the employee moves to another agency)’.

2 The confidential survey was sent to 5% of employees of 38 public sector organisations. The return rate was 41%

3 Public Service of Canada, ‘Public Service Employee Survey’, 2002. Results can be found at http://www.survey-sondage.gc.ca/2002/results-resultats/00/result-e.htm.

4 ANAO Audit Report No. 61 ‘Managing People for Business Outcomes’ 2001–02 and ANAO Audit Report No. 50 ‘Managing People for Business Outcomes—Year Two’ 2002–03.

5 ‘Temporary assignment to duties at a higher classification’ are duties that attract or could attract, if performed for longer than a specified period (e.g. three months), higher remuneration for performing work at a higher classification level or higher part of a broadband. Also called ‘temporary performance loading’.