Home page
> Indigenous affairs > Census report > Chapter 5: Managing, sustaining and engaging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS employees
> Publications
‹ Previous page

Census report

related indigenous items Useful references

Chapter 5: Managing, sustaining and engaging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS employees

A range of factors will influence employees’ experiences at work, their performance and their career intentions. Many of these go to the nature of employee engagement, which refers to the extent to which employees commit to something or someone in their organisation, how hard they work, and how long they stay as a result of that commitment.²⁶

This chapter begins by examining how successful agencies have been at encouraging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees to consider longer-term careers in the APS. It then looks at a number of factors that may be affecting the extent to which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees engage with their work. It looks first at the specific factors which impact on the job satisfaction of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. It then looks at respondents’ perceptions of the skills and capabilities of their immediate managers in terms of general people management, performance management, and some other management-related factors.

Intentions to remain in the APS

As the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey targeted only current APS employees, it was not able to specifically investigate the factors that motivate Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to leave the APS. Instead, the survey asked respondents to indicate whether they intended to leave the APS in the next three years, and explored the reasons for an intention to leave. It is important to note, however, that, while views about an intention to leave the APS may be indicative of some of the issues that motivate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees to resign from the APS, they may not necessarily be representative of the views of employees who do resign.

Fifty-one per cent of respondents to the survey indicated that they did not intend to leave the APS in the next three years. A total of 16% indicated that they did intend to leave in the next three years, made up of 5% intending to leave in the next year, 5% intending to leave in the next one to two years and 6% intending to leave in the next two to three years. Thirty-two per cent were not sure.

Consistent with the high separation rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees reported in Chapter 2, the group not intending to leave was lower than the 60% of the APS overall who indicated they do not intend to leave the APS in the next three years.²⁷ The percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees with a definite intention to leave in the next three years (16%), however, was similar to the 15% of APS employees overall who intended to leave.

The difference between results for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and overall APS results was largely the result of a larger group of respondents (32% compared to 25% for APS employees) who were not sure whether they would stay or leave. While this is of concern, the fact that these employees have not yet made a definite decision to leave the APS indicates that there is potential for agencies to encourage this group to make a longer-term commitment to the APS.

Table 5.1 outlines the range of reasons given by employees for their intention to leave the APS within the next three years. While the most common reason for leaving was to pursue job opportunities outside the APS (38%), the next four most common reasons related more to dissatisfaction with the APS than to an attraction to other opportunities. They were lack of job satisfaction (36%), feeling undervalued (33%), lack of workplace support (29%) and poor management (28%).

Results for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees were similar to results for APS employees overall, although APS employees generally were much more likely to be intending to leave because of retirement (38% compared to 11% for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees). This is consistent with the younger age profile of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees reported in Chapter 2.

Table 5.1: Reason for intending to leave in the next three years

Reason for intending to leave in the next three years	%
To pursue job opportunities outside the APS (e.g. state or local government, NGO, community organisations etc.)	38
Lack of job satisfaction	36
Feeling undervalued	33
Lack of workplace support	29
Poor management	28
Limited career development opportunities in the APS	26
Under-use of knowledge, skills and/or qualifications	24
Higher salaries elsewhere	19
Excessive workload	14
Views conflicted with those of the Government	12
Lack of personal support network	11
To pursue study	11
To retire (e.g. age retirement)	11
Return home to family	10
Family/caring commitments	10
To relocate (e.g. interstate, overseas)	9
End of contract	9
Excessive levels of discrimination/harassment	8
Return home to country	6
Presumed only to be able to work on issues relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people	6
Take a voluntary redundancy (to get a package)	6
No longer had a contribution to make	5
Pressure of community expectations	4
Other	3

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

Respondents were more likely to intend to leave the APS in the next three years if they were:

men (21% compared to 15% for women); the top three reasons for which men were intending to leave were to pursue job opportunities outside the APS, feeling under-valued, and poor management
aged under 25 (23%) or 54 and over (30%); for those under 25, key reasons identified for intending to leave were to pursue job opportunities outside the APS, lack of job satisfaction and to pursue study, and for those aged 54 or over the majority were planning to retire
at the APS 1–2 and APS 5–6 classifications (19% and 20% respectively, compared to 15% for APS 3–4 and 14% for EL employees); the top three reasons for leaving were similar across the classifications with the exception of ‘poor management’, which was only in the top three reasons for APS 5–6 employees, and ‘under-use of knowledge and skills and/or qualifications’ which was more likely to be reported by EL employees
from small agencies (30% compared to 19% from medium and 16% from large agencies); the top three reasons indicated for leaving small agencies included ‘pursue job opportunities outside the APS’, ‘end of contract’, and ‘lack of workplace support’, with the ‘end of contract’ response consistent with the higher levels of non-ongoing employment reported by this group
worked with the Indigenous community (20% compared to 14% for those not working with the Indigenous community); the reasons for intending to leave were the same across both groups.

There was no difference between those with shorter or longer periods of service with regard to intention to leave over the next three years; however, there was some difference in timing, with those with less than one year of service and between one and five years of service more likely to intend to leave within the year.

Respondents were more likely to indicate a ‘not sure’ response if they:

were under 24 and between 25 and 34 (both 37% compared to 28% for those aged 35 to 44 and 29% for those aged between 45 and 54)
had lengths of service of one to five years and 16 to 20 years (both 35% compared with those with six to 10 years (31%), 11 to 15 years (29%) and more than 20 years of service (26%))
were employed at the APS 1–6 levels (APS 1–2: 36%; APS 3–4: 33%; APS 5–6: 30% and EL employees, 25%)
had a diploma or certificate (37% compared to between 29% and 32% for all other types of qualifications)
were in remote localities (38% followed by capital cities and metropolitan areas (32% and 33% respectively) and respondents in rural localities (27%)).

Levels of job satisfaction appeared to have a particularly high impact on intention to leave. Employees with low rates of job satisfaction were more likely to intend to leave (27%) than those with high rates of job satisfaction (13%). Similarly, 58% of respondents with a high level of job satisfaction do not intend leaving the APS compared to 31% of those with a low level of job satisfaction. Forty-one per cent of respondents with low job satisfaction rates are unsure whether they will leave or remain in the APS.

The following are a sample of comments made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and the reasons they are considering leaving the APS.

I willingly moved to Canberra in the late 1979s to work in the APS. I have a family and cultural obligations to attend to/meet and therefore I intend to retire at 55 years.

Despite some desire, it is not worth leaving the APS after 23 years.

Movement will depend on what happens in my agency. If it continues on its current course, there may be no jobs here anyway. At my age I have no wish for a career I just want a job…

I will leave this department as soon as possible but I would consider another agency in the APS as I understand they are not all like this one.

… increasing numbers of Indigenous people will continue to leave the APS if nothing changes and that constitutes a great loss to the whole Australian community.

I don’t expect that I’ll progress any further… despite having an honours degree… I am still treated like a graduate.

A lack of opportunity to progress will ultimately force me out the agency I’d expect and maybe even the APS.

Whilst I indicated that I’m not sure about leaving the APS in the next three years, it will largely depend on whether I am achieving job satisfaction and that my views on Indigenous Affairs do not conflict too greatly with those of the Government.

Prior employment in the APS and reasons for leaving

There has been some suggestion that, while separation rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees from the APS are high, there may also be high levels of re-engagement.

When respondents to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee survey were asked if they had previously worked in the APS at some stage and for one reason or another had left and rejoined the APS within the last five years, 19% of respondents indicated that they had. While there is no comparative figure for non-Indigenous Australians, this figure does appear to be quite high.

Those who had left and rejoined the APS were asked to indicate their reasons for leaving the APS, from a choice of 23 possible reasons. There was a degree of consistency between answers to these questions and the reasons given for employees intending to leave in the next three years. Four of the top five reasons that influenced people to leave the APS were the same given by those intending to leave, namely, ‘feeling under-valued’ (21%), ‘lack of job satisfaction’ (20%), to ‘pursue job opportunities outside the APS’ (19%) and ‘lack of workplace support’ (18%). The key difference was in relation to ‘family/caring commitments’ which was more likely to be cited as a reason for having left the APS (20%) than those intending to leave (10%). Women were more likely to cite family and/or caring commitments as a reason for having left the APS than were men (24% compared to 9%).

The same respondents were then asked to indicate their reasons for rejoining the APS, from a choice of eight possible reasons. The top five factors that influenced people to rejoin were ‘needed work/position available’ (48%), ‘to make a difference for Indigenous Australians’ (31%), ‘family conditions changed’ (27%), ‘conditions of service in APS are better’ (22%) and ‘better salary in the APS’ (19%).

Job satisfaction

The extent to which employees engage with their work, and so improve their productivity, commitment and length of service with their employer is related to a number of factors. Job satisfaction, however, is likely to be an important influence.

The survey asked respondents to choose the five workplace factors (from a list of 16) that most affected their level of job satisfaction. Respondents were then asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the factors most important to them.

Table 5.2 shows the percentage of respondents who nominated a range of job satisfaction factors as important, and the percentage of employees who had nominated each factor who were satisfied with it.

The top five most commonly nominated job satisfaction factors for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees in rank order were ‘good working relationships’, ‘chance to make a useful contribution to Indigenous Australians’, ‘flexible working arrangements’, ‘duties/expectations made clear’ and ‘opportunities to develop my skills’. The factor ‘good supervisor’ ranked a close sixth.

Of these factors, respondents were most satisfied with ‘good working relationships’ and ‘flexible working relationships’ (both 81% satisfied), ‘good supervisor’ (72%), and ‘duties/expectations made clear’ (71% satisfied). The majority of respondents were also satisfied with the other top factors but at lower levels.

‘Opportunities for career development’ was the job satisfaction factor with which respondents were least likely to express satisfaction (only 44% satisfied). However, only 39% of employees rated this factor as one of their top five job satisfaction factors.

Table 5.2: Job satisfaction—sixteen workplace factors impacting on job satisfaction

Workplace factor	Employees who nominated the factor as important to them (%)	Employees who nominated the factor as important who were ‘satisfied’ (a) (%)
Good working relationships	54	81
Chance to make a useful contribution to Indigenous Australians	50	65
Flexible working arrangements	47	81
Duties/expectations made clear	46	71
Opportunities to develop my skills	45	59
Good supervisor	44	72
Salary	43	60
Regular feedback/recognition for effort	41	54
Opportunities to utilise my skills	40	62
Opportunities for career development	39	44
Seeing tangible results from my work	34	72
Chance to make a useful contribution to society	33	69
Interesting work provided	28	70
Chance to be creative/innovative	28	59
Appropriate workload	25	46
Appropriate level of autonomy in my job	25	65

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

Note: ^(a) Of the employees who nominated this factor as one of their most important and rated it, the percentage of employees who were either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the factor in their current workplace.

The top five job satisfaction factors reported by respondents were somewhat different to those results obtained in a separate survey for all APS employees. Some of this difference is likely to be related to the extra factor, ‘chance to make a useful contribution to Indigenous Australians’ which was included in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander survey and was the second most commonly chosen job satisfaction factor by respondents.²⁸

Both groups were most likely to nominate ‘good working relationships’ as one of their top five job satisfaction factors. ‘Flexible working arrangements’ also appeared in the top five most commonly nominated job satisfaction factors for both groups. Unlike Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, all APS employees also included ‘salary’, ‘regular feedback/recognition for effort’, and ‘good manager’ in their top five most commonly nominated job satisfaction factors. However, these factors were also viewed as important by a substantial proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, with all three factors rated just outside the top five most commonly nominated factors by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. More than 40% of respondents indicated that each of these three factors was among their top five job satisfaction factors. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees put more emphasis than other employees do on having the duties and expectations of their position made clear.

Satisfaction with the most important job satisfaction factors was similar between APS employees overall and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees.

A summary index was created from the results of the job satisfaction question in the survey of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. The index ranges from zero (the respondent was very dissatisfied with all the factors nominated) to 10 (the employee was very satisfied with all factors). An index of five translates to a respondent being on average neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their nominated factors.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, the proportion with a job satisfaction index over five was 74%. That is, almost three-quarters of respondents were on average satisfied with the factors they nominated. This was slightly higher than the result for APS employees overall. Seventy-one per cent of APS employees were on average satisfied with the factors they nominated as important.²⁹

Job satisfaction for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees was related to a number of different factors, that is:

While there was little difference between women’s and men’s overall satisfaction with their top five workplace factors (75% and 73% respectively), there were some differences in the factors nominated as most important. The five most important workplace factors for women were the same as those for respondents overall. By contrast, the factor ‘salary’ was the third most commonly nominated factor by men, with ‘opportunity to develop my skills’ sitting just outside their top five. Of their top five job satisfaction factors men were least satisfied with their ‘salary’ (57% satisfied).
Overall satisfaction with nominated job satisfaction factors was 70% or more for all age groups, but the oldest respondents (54 and over) were more satisfied (82%) than those under 25 through to 44 (less than 25: 73%; 25 to 34: 72%; 35 to 44: 74%). Younger respondents (under 25 and between 25 and 34) rated ‘salary’ and ‘opportunities for career development’ higher than other age groups, but were less likely to place importance on ‘chance to make a contribution to Indigenous Australians’. ‘Duties/expectations made clear’ was also not a factor in the top five for those in the 25 to 34 age group. Older respondents (aged 35 and over) were more likely to select ‘good supervisor’ and less likely to select ‘opportunities to develop my skills’. Respondents aged 45 and over were also more likely to select ‘regular feedback/ recognition for effort’, but less likely to select ‘flexible working arrangements’.
APS 3–4 employees (72%) and APS 5–6 employees (75%) had slightly lower satisfaction levels than EL employees (78%) and APS 1–2 employees (78%). ‘Regular feedback/recognition for effort’ and ‘good supervisor’ were in the top five factors for APS 1–2 employees and ‘salary’ was a top five factor only for APS 3–4 and APS 5–6 employees. EL employees were more likely than other employees to select the factors ‘chance to be creative/innovative’, ‘seeing tangible results from my work’ and ‘appropriate level of autonomy in my job’. These were ranked second, equal fourth and sixth respectively. Satisfaction with these factors was generally high, ranging from 75% to 80%.
Although there was no difference in overall satisfaction with job satisfaction factors for those in identified positions and/or working with Indigenous communities and those not in these roles, respondents in identified positions or working with Indigenous communities were more likely to select ‘chance to make a useful contribution to Indigenous Australians’, ‘good working relationships’ and ‘duties/expectations made clear’ as important whereas those not in these roles were more likely to select ‘flexible working arrangements’ and ‘salary’.
Respondents from small and medium agencies were more likely to rate ‘good supervisor’ as one of their top five factors than respondents in large agencies.

Overall, satisfaction with job satisfaction factors nominated was high across all localities with respondents from rural areas (78%) being slightly more satisfied than respondents from metropolitan and capital city localities (71% and 73% respectively). However, there were some differences in the importance of different job satisfaction factors (see Table 5.3).

Table 5.3: Top five job satisfaction factors by locality

Top five job satisfaction factors by locality	Overall rank	Capital rank	Metro rank	Rural rank	Remote rank
Good working relationships	1	1	1	2	1
Chance to make a useful contribution to Indigenous Australians	2	3	5	1	2
Flexible working arrangements	3	2	2	4	10
Duties/expectations made clear	4	5	9	3	3
Opportunities to develop my skills	5	4	3	6	5

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

Note: Further information about localities can be found in the appendix to this report.

A ‘chance to make a useful contribution to Indigenous Australians’ was the most commonly chosen job satisfaction factor for rural respondents and the second most common factor for remote respondents, but only the fifth most common factor for metropolitan respondents. Metropolitan and capital city respondents who rated this factor as important were also less likely to be satisfied with this factor (58% and 63% respectively) than were respondents from rural (69%) and remote (72%) localities.

The factor ‘good working relationships’ was highly rated by employees from all locations; however, there were differences in satisfaction with this factor, with rural and remote respondents (82% and 87% respectively) more likely to be satisfied than respondents from capital city (79%) and metropolitan (76%) localities. Relevant respondents from metropolitan areas also had relatively low rates of satisfaction with ‘opportunities for career development’ (32%) and ‘opportunities to develop my skills’ (47%).

Employees in the ACT were more likely to place importance on a good supervisor, and employees outside the ACT placed more emphasis on salary. The ‘chance to make a useful contribution to Indigenous Australians’ ranked second in the top five most commonly nominated factors for employees outside the ACT, but dropped to sixth place for those employees in the ACT.

Reflecting the links between intention to leave the APS and job satisfaction discussed in the previous sections, while overall job satisfaction was high, it was much lower among employees who intend to leave in the next three years, and among those not sure whether they will stay or leave. While 84% of those not intending to leave the APS in the next three years were on average satisfied with their most important job satisfaction factors, only 67% of those not sure whether they will leave were satisfied, and only 58% of those with a definite intention to leave were satisfied.

The variation in the importance of job satisfaction across different types of workplaces indicates the importance of individual agencies investing time in identifying and taking account of the job satisfaction factors that are important to their own employees, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees.

The following comments made in the census survey are illustrative of the spectrum of employees’ views about what influences their job satisfaction.

Work environment is more important than work type in determining job satisfaction.

I find that having an employer that allows flexibility to change my working times to assist me with home/work commitments gives a better working outcome for all.

Sometimes I feel more can be done to encourage Indigenous staff to improve themselves and create more opportunities for promotion thus improve retention of Indigenous staff.

I enjoy my current position however salary does not reflect the responsibility, workload and work I perform. Other staff have been paid more to do the same work I have now taken over. There are few opportunities for career development.

… working within the changing landscape of Indigenous Affairs is proving to be somewhat challenging and frustrating with the uncertainty that comes with being an ‘evolving process’.

I appreciate having a job, but quite often I feel as though it is taking me nowhere and I am not developing.

The team leader and manager get in the way of giving me job satisfaction as they are not very supportive to our team.

Level of work output is continually increasing for current staff level.

Management effectiveness

A range of research has shown that managers are one of the strongest drivers of employee job satisfaction and engagement within an organisation.³⁰ The results of the survey of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees reinforces these findings, with factors likely to be influenced by management (that is, lack of job satisfaction, feeling undervalued, lack of workplace support, and poor management, specifically) making up four of the top five most commonly reported reasons for intending to leave the APS in the next three years. While having a good supervisor was ranked just outside the five most commonly nominated factors influencing job satisfaction, most of the top five factors have a direct relation to the quality of management, including good working relationships, opportunities to develop skills, flexible working arrangements, and duties and expectations being made clear. This section looks at the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees on the effectiveness of their managers in relation to people management, performance management, and a number of more specific issues.

People management

The survey asked employees about how effective their immediate supervisor was at managing people. Fifty per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees rated their supervisor as highly effective in this regard. This is similar to the result for all APS employees (51%). In all, 84% of respondents rated their supervisor as either highly or moderately effective at managing people.

Respondents were more likely to rate their supervisor as highly effective at managing people if they:

were from medium or large agencies (both 50% compared to 39% for small agencies)
were in metropolitan locations (56%, higher than for respondents in capital city (49%), rural (49%) and remote (50%) locations)
had less than one year of service (72%), with those with six to 10 years of service least positive (42%)
were aged 25 or less (59% compared to those aged 25 to 34 (45%), 35 to 44 (50%) and 45 to 54 (53%)).

The survey also asked respondents to choose the five most important attributes they would like to see in a supervisor (from a list of 16). Respondents were then asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with these attributes in their current supervisor.

Table 5.4 shows the percentage of respondents who nominated each supervisory attribute as important, and the percentage of employees who nominated the attribute as important who were satisfied that their supervisor met this attribute.

By far the most commonly selected important attribute that respondents would like to see in their supervisor was: ‘demonstrates honesty and integrity’ (selected by 71% of respondents). The attributes ‘works with staff to find solutions to problems’ and ‘respects employees as individuals’ were also selected by more than half of respondents. The next most commonly selected attributes were ‘sets realistic performance expectations’ and ‘works effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians’.

Table 5.4: Attributes important in a supervisor

Supervisory attributes	Employees who nominated the attribute as important to them (%)	Employees who nominated the attribute as important and who were ‘satisfied’ ^(a) (%)
Demonstrates honesty and integrity	71	71
Works with staff to find solutions to problems	59	67
Respects employees as individuals	58	74
Sets realistic performance expectations	43	64
Works effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians	42	69
Listens carefully to views and opinions	41	64
Stands up for staff	40	59
Possesses relevant job skills	39	67
Open to new ideas and ways of working	37	69
Provides quality informal feedback	35	60
Provides access to effective learning and development	31	63
Clearly articulates organisational goals	31	65
Empathetic and understanding	29	71
Respectful of diverse points of view	26	65
Demonstrates passion to succeed	18	68
Other	2	45

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

A summary index was created from the results of the supervisory attribute question in the census survey. The index ranges from zero (the respondent was very dissatisfied with all of the attributes nominated as important) to 10 (the employee was very satisfied with all attributes). An index of five translates to a respondent being on average neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their nominated attributes.

The proportion of respondents with a supervisory attributes index of over five was 74%. That is, almost three-quarters of respondents were on average satisfied that their supervisor meets the factors they nominated as important.

Views about employees’ supervisors were related to a number of different factors, for example:

Overall, men and women were equally satisfied with their supervisors’ effectiveness at managing people and with their satisfaction with the attributes they had selected as important. However, while women’s top five attributes were the same as the overall result, men rated the factors ‘stands up for staff’ and ‘listens carefully to views and opinions’ as equal fourth. The attribute ‘works effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians’ sits just outside the top attributes selected by men.
Respondents in medium agencies were more likely to include ‘respectful of diverse points of view’ and ‘open to new ideas and ways of working’ in their top five (ranked fourth and fifth respectively) and less likely to include ‘sets realistic performance expectations’ and ‘works effectively and sensitively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’.
Those with less than one year of service were more likely to select ‘provides quality informal feedback’ and ‘listens carefully to views and opinions’ and less likely to select ‘sets realistic performance expectations’ and ‘works effectively and sensitively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’. Those with six to 10 years of service were more likely to choose ‘stands up for staff’ and ‘listens carefully to views and opinions’ as important attributes than ‘works effectively and sensitively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’. A supervisor ‘possessing relevant job skills’ was important for those with 11 to 15 years and over 20 years of service. Those with 11 to 15 years of service were less likely to select ‘works effectively and sensitively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’.

The variation in the selection of different supervisory attributes in various workplaces and among different groups of employees highlights the importance of agencies and managers understanding the needs and preferences of their own workforces in developing strategies to increase employee engagement.

Employees’ differing perceptions of supervisors’ people management skills were also reflected in the comments by some employees.

All of the above are very important, and I wish I could choose them all.

Managers have to be clear with every instruction they give you, be understanding, sensitive and no yelling or belittling you. Keep same standards for everyone and not have a favourite!!

Mainstream staff/supervisors require better understanding of Indigenous peoples, also need to show a bit of old fashion trust for their staff.

My manager is all of the above and more. My manager has an excellent knowledge of Indigenous people and our communities. My manager allows me to do what it takes to help progress our communities.

Lack of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander managers are making it hard for us to relate to delivering Indigenous programs to our people on a work level.

People management training should be in the form of certified training with a strong cultural component and reviewed regularly.

My immediate supervisor is an Indigenous staff member who works closely with, or reports to, non-Indigenous colleagues at an equivalent APS level or above. I think this makes it difficult for him to go against the majority (or seniority) or stand up for Indigenous staff or issues in situations where this may be required. There needs to be more Indigenous people in leadership positions.

I’ve had seven different supervisors in the last three years of employment all with variable experiences.

My new supervisor in my mainstream section is amazing. She drives the programmes and I have really felt like I’ve learnt so much already from working with her.

Performance management

Performance management is an essential component of people management more generally, along with the creation of a constructive workplace environment. Systematic approaches to performance management have been in place for some time in the APS, with formal performance agreements being required in the great majority of agencies.³¹

Seventy-six per cent of respondents to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee survey reported that they had received formal individual performance feedback in the last 12 months. This is lower than for APS employees generally (85%).³² Almost a quarter (24%) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents indicated that they had not received individual performance feedback in the last 12 months.

Employees were more likely to have received performance feedback if they:

were aged 25 to 34 (76%), 35 to 44 (79%) or 45 to 54 (81%), compared to lower rates of feedback for both employees aged under 25 (64%) and over 54 (63%)
were at higher classifications (APS 1–2: (60%); APS 3–4: (76%); APS 5–6: (82%); and EL: (85%)); this is of particular concern given the concentration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees at lower classifications
were from large agencies (79% compared to 62% for medium and 67% for small agencies).

Survey results indicate a generally positive perception of respondents’ performance discussions with their supervisor. Of those who had received feedback, 85% were satisfied that performance discussion with their supervisor had been fair and reasonable. Respondents were more likely to view performance feedback as fair if they:

were women (87% compared to 82% for men)
were from medium and large agencies (87% and 86% respectively, compared to 77% for small agencies).

Overall results also indicate a clear link between performance assessment and development opportunities for most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. Seventy per cent of respondents indicated that ‘as part of my performance assessment my supervisor encourages me to participate in development opportunities’. Fifteen per cent of respondents reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement and 13% disagreed.

Respondents were more likely to indicate that their supervisor had encouraged them to participate in development opportunities if they:

were at the APS 5–6 levels (74%)
were from large agencies (71% compared to 68% of respondents for small and 65% for medium agencies).

Consistent with the critical success factors for performance management identified by the Management Advisory Committee (MAC), an important aspect of setting realistic performance objectives is that employees have a clear line of sight to organisational responsibilities to enable them to see how their work aligns with the agency’s objectives and to ensure relevant and consistent performance information is cascaded through the organisation.³³

The survey asked respondents about their level of agreement with the statement that ‘the links between my agency’s business and my work were made clear in the development of my performance agreement’. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents agreed with this statement, 18% neither agreed nor disagreed and 9% disagreed. While showing some room for improvement, these results are similar to those for APS employees overall (65%).³⁴

Respondents were also asked if they understood the standards used to evaluate their performance. Seventy-six per cent of respondents reported that they agreed with this statement, 14% neither agreed nor disagreed and 7% disagreed. These results are also similar to those for APS employees generally (73%).

As for views on the fairness of performance feedback, employee views on these issues were related to gender and agency size.

Women were more likely to report that the links between their agency’s business and their work area had been made clear in the development of their performance agreement (71% compared to 66% for men) and that they understood the standards used to evaluate their performance (77% compared to 73% for men).
Respondents from medium agencies were less likely to report that the links between their agency’s business and their work were made clear to them in the development of their performance agreement (61% compared to 71% for large agencies) or that they understood the standards used to evaluate their performance (67% compared to 77% for large agencies).

The following comments made in the survey indicate the breadth of employees’ views about performance management.

Staff are encouraged to participate in development opportunities in relation to work practices, but not in relation to career development.

Agency does not act on underperforming staff and makes it difficult to move forward.

I don’t think the managers understand the performance process… when making comments they are not clear and are more generic in making decisions and don’t make them on individual choice.

I have had good feedback in performance assessments, however, I think the entire system used to evaluate performance is unclear and demotivating (across the board, not just as an Indigenous employee).

I have never had a performance assessment in the three and half years I have been employed with [agency].

My manager has always supported me in my career development. She has been my mentor and is assisting in my development for me to be able to do her work if required.

I would like to see managers take this process a lot more seriously… too much of a tick and flick process.

More attention should be taken on the monitoring and recording of performance assessments for Indigenous staff.

Issues impacting negatively on performance at work

Respondents were asked to identify the issues that had negatively impacted on their performance at work over the last 12 months (see Table 5.5). The top factor was family responsibilities, with 43% of respondents choosing this factor. The next two factors related to the quality of management—lack of effective management (26%) and lack of clear direction, work plans and timetables (23%). Almost a quarter of respondents indicated that none of the factors had negatively impacted on their performance at work.

As well as management factors, a number of factors specific to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were identified by respondents. Most commonly, respondents identified the impact of stereotypes (18%), expectations from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients (16%), issues of tokenism (15%), and pressure from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients and/or family (14%) as having a negative impact on their performance. These may be areas where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees require more support.

Table 5.5: Factors negatively impacting on employees’ performance at work

Factors negatively impacting on employees’ performance at work	% of respondents
Family responsibilities	43
Lack of effective management	26
Lack of clear direction, work plans and timetables	23
None of the above has negatively impacted on my work in the last 12 months	22
Lack of training	19
Stereotypes (having to deal with negative stereotypes held by people in the workplace e.g. Indigenous people are always on leave)	18
Expectations from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients	16
Issues of tokenism (feeling as if you are the ‘token’ Indigenous Australian in your workplace)	15
Unrealistic performance expectations	15
Pressure from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients and/or family (e.g. humbug)	14
Poor working relationship with my supervisor	14
Poor access to information, resources and/or technology to do work	13
Community responsibilities	9
Systems and procedures which are not culturally supportive (e.g. training programmes that are not supportive of your learning style)	9
Presumed only to be able to work on issues relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people	9
Cultural obligations	8
Poor working relationship with colleagues	8
Racism	7
Other	4

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

Employees outside the ACT were more likely to indicate that a lack of training affected their performance than those employed inside the ACT. Men also indicated lack of training as slightly more of an issue than did women. There were no particular differences relating to the selection of particular factors in terms of locality, classification or length of service.

Respondents in medium agencies were more likely to identify that ‘pressure from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients and/or family’ had negatively impacted on their performance (21%) than respondents in either small (6%) or large (13%) agencies. However, the proportion of respondents indicating that ‘expectations placed on respondents by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients’ had negatively impacted on their performance was similar regardless of agency size.

Other management factors

The survey also asked a number of questions relating to the quality and effectiveness of management which are discussed in more detail in other chapters. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee responses to most of these questions ranged from being similar to, or more positive than, the overall APS responses reported in the State of the Service Report 2004–05:

Eighty-two per cent of employees were satisfied that their supervisor would support the use of flexible work practices such as flextime, personal leave, flexible working hours, and part-time work, which was similar to the APS result (81%) (Chapter 8).
Fifty-four per cent reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their involvement in decisions that impact on their work, compared to 45% of APS employees overall (Chapter 8).
Forty-two per cent of respondents agreed that recruitment and promotion decisions in their agency are fair. Although a reasonably low result, this was favourable when compared to the same result for APS employees overall (36%) (Chapter 4).
Seventy-eight per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees believed that they have the same opportunities to access learning and development as non-Indigenous employees, although when asked if they were satisfied with their access to learning and development within their agency, only 52% of respondents agreed (Chapter 6).³⁵

Despite a general level of similarity between perceptions of management effectiveness by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and all APS employees, there were some differences.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees were asked about their agency’s commitment to creating a workforce that embraces their diversity. The survey found that only 49% of respondents agreed that their agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. This was lower than the 58% result for APS employees overall (this issue is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8).

In addition, twenty-three per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees indicated that they had been subjected to bullying or harassment in the workplace in the last 12 months and 18% believed that they had experienced discrimination. This compares poorly with 17% and 6% respectively for APS employees overall (this issue is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7).

These results suggest that there are still some specific issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees that may need to be addressed by managers in APS workplaces.

Key findings

Given the predicted tightening labour market and looming skill shortages, agencies are likely to face challenges in attracting the ‘right’ people with the ‘right’ skills. In this environment, it is of concern that 16% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents intend to leave the APS in the next three years, and that around a third of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees are not sure whether they will stay or leave. The higher rates of young people intending to leave are of particular concern.

Intention to leave may of course not result in an actual decision to leave. In view of the large numbers who have not yet made up their minds, there is a strong potential for agencies to encourage these employees to remain within the APS. It is also heartening to note that the experience of current employees suggests that a substantial number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees who resign from the APS may return in future.

The reasons that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees give for wishing to leave the APS, or for having left it in the past, largely relate to issues that can be influenced by effective management and support within APS agencies. They also suggest that some common assumptions about high separation rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, particularly that they leave the APS because of a desire to return to country or to family, may not always be correct.

The generally high levels of job satisfaction for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees is a positive result, particularly given the large amount of change many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees have experienced in the last two years as a result of machinery of government changes. Given that the job satisfaction factors for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees are not substantially different to those for other APS employees, it is likely that this group will benefit from policies aimed at sustaining and improving job satisfaction for all agency employees. However, it is important to recognise the importance that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees place on making a useful contribution to Indigenous Australians through their work.

Many of the factors that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees rated as important to their job satisfaction were either directly or indirectly related to the effectiveness of their managers. Given the generally high levels of job satisfaction it is not surprising that most respondents also rated their managers as effective at managing people. However, continuing to improve the quality of management and leadership could provide considerable benefits in the area of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee satisfaction, engagement and productivity, and retention rates.

In particular, the issue of the low number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees who reported having received individual performance feedback may need to be addressed. This is the case especially in relation to employees at lower classifications. Results concerning factors negatively affecting respondents’ performance also suggest that management effectiveness could be improved in some areas, including in terms of providing clearer direction. Managers may also benefit from being made aware of the areas of pressure reported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees that relate specifically to their Indigenous status and its impact on their performance at work.

The factors that affect employee engagement are necessarily organisation-based. This is confirmed by the varying results for reasons behind the decision to leave the APS and for important job satisfaction and supervisory factors based on the size and location of workplaces, as well as among different types of employees. While the survey results provide a broad picture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement in the APS, it will continue to be important for each agency to look at agency-specific data and to listen to the views of their employees to gain a better insight into engagement issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees within their organisation.

²⁶ Corporate Leadership Council 2004, Driving Employee Performance and Retention through Engagement: A Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Employee Engagement Strategies, CLC, Washington DC.

²⁷ APS employee results come from the 2005 employee survey and were reported in the State of the Service Report 2004–05 and/or the State of the Service Employee Survey Results 2004–05

.²⁸ APS employee results come from the 2005 employee survey and were reported in the State of the Service Report 2004–05 and/or the State of the Service Employee Survey Results 2004–05.

²⁹ APS employee results come from the 2005 employee survey and were reported in the State of the Service Report 2004–05 and/or the State of the Service Employee Survey Results 2004–05.

³⁰ See, for example, D. Robinson, S. Perryman and S. Hayday 2005, The Drivers of Employee Engagement; Gallup Organisation, ‘The Gallup Path to Business Performance’, http://consulting.gallup.com; Corporate Leadership Council 2004, Driving Employee Perform-ance and Retention through Engagement: A Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Employee Engagement Strategies, CLC, Washington DC.

³¹ The State of the Service Report 2004–05 reported that in 94% of agencies it is mandatory for all employees to have a formal performance agreement.

³² APS employee results come from the 2005 employee survey and were reported in the State of the Service Report 2004–05 and/or the State of the Service Employee Survey Results 2004–05.

³³ Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

³⁴ APS employee results come from the 2005 employee survey and were reported in the State of the Service Report 2004–05 and/or the State of the Service Employee Survey Results 2004–05.

³⁵ There are no comparisons with APS employees overall for satisfaction with access to learning and development.