go to print this page

Need help?
Click here to find out more?

go to related pages

Downloads:

Download the PDF Census report

Download the text file Census report

Download the PDF Census survey results

Download the PDF At a glance

Contents:

On our site:

go to on our site

go to news

Logo - Australian Government - Australian Public Service Commission

© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Public Service Commission

Home page
> Indigenous affairs > Census report > Chapter 6: Career progression and learning and development for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS employees
> Publications
‹ Previous page

Census report

Chapter 6: Career progression and learning and development for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS employees

To explore issues of career progression further, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee survey asked a number of questions aimed at obtaining a better understanding of respondents’ views about their careers and the factors they perceive to be affecting their career progression. Recognising the important link between learning and development opportunities and career advancement, it also asked a series of questions to ascertain respondents’ views on the learning and development opportunities available to them.

This chapter presents the findings from the survey in these two areas. It begins by looking at the career intentions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and their recent experience in selection exercises. It also examines their preparedness to relocate to further their career and their views about factors that may have prevented their career advancement. It then looks in more detail at issues of learning and development, including views about access to, and satisfaction with, learning and development opportunities. It reports respondents’ views on their current priorities in learning and development, and also looks at preferences for how learning and development should be delivered.

Career intentions

The survey asked respondents if they believed they had the same opportunities to develop their careers as non-Indigenous employees in their agency. Almost two-thirds (65%) believed they did have the same opportunities, 20% felt they did not, and 15% were unsure. Respondents were more likely to agree that they had the same opportunity to develop their careers as do their non-Indigenous colleagues if they:

There was some variation between respondents based on differing periods of service. In particular, those with 16 to 20 years of service were the least likely (57%) to believe they had the same opportunities, with those with six to 10 years of service most likely to agree (71%).

There was a strong relationship between views about career development and views about access to learning and development opportunities. Of those who believed they have had the same opportunities to develop their careers as non-Indigenous employees in their agency, a very high proportion (91%) also believed they have the same access to learning and development opportunities as non-Indigenous employees in their agency. In contrast, of those who did not believe that they have the same opportunities to develop their careers, only half (50%) believed they have the same opportunities to access learning and development, while a third (33%) did not believe that they have the same opportunities to access learning and development.

There was also a relationship between views about career development and levels of satisfaction in the overall say employees have in decisions that impact on their work. Of those who believed they have the same opportunities to develop their careers as non-Indigenous employees in their agency, almost two-thirds (63%) were satisfied with the overall say they have in decisions that impact on their work, while for those who did not believe they have the same opportunities to develop their careers, only 37% were satisfied with their say in decisions that impact on their work.

Recent experience of applying for positions within the APS

The survey asked respondents to indicate whether they had applied for a position in the APS in the last 12 months. Respondents were then asked to indicate whether the position was at a higher level, if the position applied for was an identified position, whether an interview was offered, and the outcome of the selection process.

Forty-three per cent of respondents indicated that they had applied for a position in the APS in the last 12 months. Of these, 76% reported that the position was at a higher classification. These results were similar to results for APS employees overall.36  Respondents were more likely to have applied for a position if they were in younger age categories, higher classifications, had higher levels of educational qualification, or worked full-time. They were also more likely to apply for positions if they worked in Canberra or other capital cities.

Of the respondents who reported they had applied for an APS position in the last 12 months, 39% reported that the position was an identified position (a similar proportion to the proportion of respondents overall who indicated they had been recruited through Indigenous-specific recruitment processes (37%)).37 Respondents were more likely to have applied for an identified position if they were currently in an identified position or in work related to the Indigenous community, or aged 45 to 54.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees in medium agencies were considerably more likely to report that they had applied for an identified position (63%) than respondents in small (37%) or large (35%) agencies.

Of respondents who had applied for a position in the last 12 months, 63% had received an interview, 27% had not received an interview, and 10% reported that the process was not complete. Of those who had received an interview, 37% indicated they had been offered the position, a further 39% had not been offered the position, 3% had withdrawn their application, 2% indicated that the availability of the position had been withdrawn, and 16% reported that the process was not complete.

Respondents were most likely to be offered a position if they:

The following comments from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees provide some insight into their views on career progression within the APS.

There are not many opportunities above the APS 5–6 for Indigenous people. Each employee needs to be responsible for their own career development and should pursue their options to maximise career aspirations.

I find that as an Indigenous employee I am in danger of being ‘typecast and stereotyped’ as only being suitable for working on Indigenous issues, regardless of my mainstream qualifications.

I just feel that opportunities are available but feel that there is a lack of support from Indigenous leaders to share their knowledge and assist others in pursuing higher positions i.e. managers/team leaders.

I am getting the impression that the servicing of Indigenous people and communities both internally and externally is becoming a priority with most APS Dept/Agencies and therefore it is an exciting time to work for the APS in this environment allowing for personal and professional job satisfaction.

The lack of opportunity for advancement outside of Canberra extremely limits career choices for me…

The lack of numbers of Indigenous people at management levels in the department speaks for itself!

Working in [agency] or any APS organisation I think you are given every advantage to excel.

Relocation to further career

Chapter 5 looked at whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees had relocated to take up their original position with the APS, and found that 25% of respondents had relocated to take up a position in the APS. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee survey also asked respondents if they were willing to relocate to further their career.

A high level, almost half of all respondents (46%), indicated that they would be willing to leave their home location and/or extended family to further their career, with another 20% not sure. Only 34% reported that they would not be willing to move to further their career.

Respondents were more willing to relocate to advance their career if they were younger, were EL employees, had higher educational qualifications, or were employed in the ACT.

Generally, as the length of service in the APS decreased, the respondent’s willingness to move increased— those with less than one year of service were most willing to move (59%) followed by those with one to five years of service (52%). Those with 11 years or more of service were less likely to be willing to move, ranging from 35% to 42%.

The following comments from respondents provide some insight into the views of the minority of employees who were unwilling to relocate to progress their careers in the APS.

Relocating whether it is for a term transfer or transfer because of a higher position, has a significant social and financial impact on my family…working in different locations has had significant benefits which has certainly made me a better employee…

My first commitment is the security and stability of my family, and although I would like to apply for higher roles, I live in a regional area and opportunities to gain experience at the higher levels rarely present themselves locally, and if are available in the area would require travel, which has a negative impact on my family.

Given that I do not want to leave my location this will have an impact on my future career, however, this is my choice and a lifestyle decision as I live in the country.

Factors preventing career advancement

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee survey asked respondents whether any factors had hindered or prevented them from seeking a higher position in the APS.

Fifty-nine per cent of respondents indicated that there was at least one factor that had hindered or prevented them from seeking a higher position in the APS.

Respondents indicating that there were factors hindering or preventing them from seeking a higher position in the APS were invited to nominate the factors they believed had had an impact on them, from a list of 16 factors. Table 6.1 shows the proportion of respondents who nominated each of the factors.

The factors most commonly identified included both personal and agency-specific factors. The top five factors identified were ‘limited number of vacancies at higher levels’, ‘lack of confidence in myself’ and ‘concern that I would not be able to balance work and family and community responsibilities at a higher level’, ‘don’t yet have the necessary qualifications and/or experience’ and ‘concern that the selection process might not be fair’.

Table 6.1: Factors that have hindered or prevented respondents from seeking a higher position in the APS
Factor Employees who nominated this factor (%)
Limited number of vacancies or opportunities at a higher level 37
Concern that I would not be able to balance work and family and community responsibilities at a higher level 33
Lack of confidence in myself 33
Don’t yet have the necessary qualifications and/or experience 32
Concern that the selection process would not be fair 23
No desire because of a lack of positive role models amongst more senior staff 20
No desire to work longer hours associated with higher-level positions 18
Lack of other people’s confidence in me 18
Lack of support from my supervisor 18
No desire to take on management responsibilities 16
No desire to relocate to another area to take up a higher-level position 15
No desire because remuneration/salary does not adequately compensate for the additional responsibilities associated with a higher-level position 14
Other 14
No desire to take on the responsibilities of a higher-level position 12
Concern about possible discrimination because of my Indigenous heritage 10
No desire because higher-level positions are more exposed to the political environment 10
No desire to undertake more/less travel associated with a higher-level position 8

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

A number of respondent characteristics appeared to impact on selection of factors.

The following comments from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees provide some insight into perceptions of factors hindering their career progression within the APS.

Lack of ongoing mentorship for Indigenous staff wanting to advance…

Higher positions in [agency] are mainly in Canberra and not sure if [agency] is where I want to further my career.

Manager and supervisor are not being supportive or encouraging you toward a career path. Lack of mentoring, lack of training, and lack of sensitivity and understanding of Indigenous staff.

I am happy doing the work I do, but there is no opportunity for advancement in this area.

Senior managers have the perception that qualifications are worth more than 23 years’ experience across the APS.

Also living in a remote area, travel allowance is not payable for temporary jobs in the city and therefore financially I cannot afford to move to the city for positions that become vacant.

No training available in the office to further skills/knowledge for a higher position. Also no feedback from supervisors/senior officers relating to work performance.

Would leave my current position vacant which might create problems.

Learning and development

The fact that a lack of necessary qualifications and experience was one of the most commonly identified factors viewed as hindering or preventing respondents from seeking higher APS positions reinforces the central importance of learning and development to improving the career progression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. The following section examines issues related to learning and development opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees within the APS.

Access to learning and development

The survey asked respondents whether they felt that they have the same opportunities to access learning and development opportunities as non-Indigenous employees in their agency. The majority of respondents (78%) agreed that they have the same opportunities to access learning and development opportunities as non-Indigenous employees in their agency. Only 10% of employees reported that they did not have the same access to opportunities, while 12% were unsure.

When respondents were asked, however, how satisfied they were with their own access to learning and development, only 52% reported being satisfied. Twenty-three per cent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 23% were dissatisfied. Respondents who worked within the ACT had higher satisfaction levels (61%) than respondents who worked outside the ACT (50%).

Respondents were also asked to identify the amount of time they had spent undertaking learning and development activities off-the-job during the last 12 months. The survey found that 69% of respondents had undertaken one or more days of training over the last 12 months. This was a lower result than for the wider APS population (79%).38  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees were also slightly more likely to report spending no time in learning and development activities (25% compared with 21% for APS employees overall), and less likely to spend between one and five days in learning and development (39% compared to 49% respectively).

Respondents were more likely to have spent no time in learning and development activities if they were at lower classifications, or had lower levels of educational qualifications.

The following comments provide some insight into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees’ views on access to learning and development.

All staff have very little opportunity for ‘outside’ learning and development.

I reckon I have a better opportunity to access learning and development through study awards that my non- Indigenous staff members are not eligible to apply for.

Work pressures do not allow the time for me to undertake learning and development.

Greater funding for training [is required and it] needs to be funded corporately.

The [agency] has always been an employer of choice [for me and] has always encouraged and made available opportunities of learning and development.

The only learning and development I can access is on-the-job training for my own position and limited opportunities for higher positions in my unit. There is no access to external activities, I have been told [agency] will not pay for attendance at such activities.

I have a feeling I’m not ‘targeted’ for certain opportunities because of my part-time work status and because I have young children (e.g. opportunities which involve travel).

My agency only concentrates at the EL level for further specific learning and development (you have to be in the ACT to access) should be open to APS 5–6s from outside of ACT.

Staff in the regional network are often forgotten when training is offered due to cost factors.

The majority of learning and development in this agency is done via remote TV. I don’t find this a good medium. It lacks the face to face and classroom hands on processes. You cannot build networks and friendships from TV. Plus the lack of written material and workbooks, and classroom discussion leaves a lot to be desired in an industry of continual change.

Skill development priorities

Respondents were asked to consider their current learning and development needs and then assess the level of priority they would place on seven skill development areas.

The three skill development areas most commonly identified as a high priority for respondents in considering their current learning and development needs were: communications, for example, presentation skills, cultural sensitivities, negotiation (62%); leadership, for instance, general leadership development, whole of government approaches (60%); and management, for example, project, financial, time, contract and people management (58%).

Table 6.2 provides results for the proportion of employees reporting each skill development area as a high priority, both overall, and by classification. The table shows that the priority placed on different skill development areas varied according to classification, with EL respondents putting more weight on leadership and public administration than respondents from other classifications and APS 5–6 respondents placing more importance on management. APS 1–2 and APS 3–4 employees put greater weight on communication skills than they did on other skill development areas.

Table 6.2: Proportion of respondents reporting skill development areas as a high priority by classification group
Skill Development Area Overall Result (%) APS 1–2 (%) APS 3–4 (%) APS 5–6 (%) EL (%)
Leadership 60 41 55 70 84
Public administration 50 37 43 60 67
Management 58 42 54 72 67
Other public service capabilities 51 53 55 50 34
Technical, relevant to specific jobs 56 45 60 58 49
Information Technology (IT) 44 42 48 44 32
Communication skills 62 56 65 60 59
Other 46 21 45 53 76

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

As well as being identified as a high priority by 62% of respondents, communication skills development was rated as a medium priority by 22% of respondents and as a low priority by 12%, with only 4% not rating it as a priority. Communication skills development was more likely to be seen as a high priority among respondents from large agencies, and employees in the ACT.

In addition to the 60% of respondents who indicated that leadership skills development was a high priority, 26% indicated that it was a medium priority, and 9% reported it as a low priority with 5% reporting that leadership skills development was not a priority. Leadership skills development was more likely to be seen as a high priority by full-time employees, employees at higher classification levels, those with tertiary qualifications, respondents from both small and large agencies, and respondents who indicated that their work was related to the Indigenous community.

Similarly, in addition to the 58% of respondents who reported that management skills development was a high priority, 25% reported it as a medium priority, only 11% viewed it as a low priority, and 5% did not rate it as a priority. As for leadership, greater priority was given to management skills development at higher classifications and education levels. Respondents were also more likely to put a high priority on management skills development if they were from small agencies, worked full-time, or if their work was directly related to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.

While the other skill development categories were less likely to be high priority areas for development, substantial proportions of respondents still saw them as either high or medium priorities. The skill development area of ‘public administration, for example, writing for government, policy development, and implementation’ was identified by the majority of respondents as a high- (50%) or medium- (29%) level priority. Respondents were more likely to rate this skill development area as a priority if they were at higher classifications, had tertiary qualifications, worked in the ACT, or worked full-time.

Fifty-one per cent of Indigenous employees rated ‘other public service capabilities’, such as customer skills, community consultation, record keeping, and programme delivery, as a high priority for skill development. Thirty per cent identified this skill area as a medium priority, while 15% rated it as a low priority and 4% did not rate it as a priority at all. This area was more likely to be seen as a priority by respondents below the EL classifications, respondents without tertiary qualifications, respondents from medium and large agencies, and women.

Most respondents viewed technical skills development relevant to specific jobs, for example, knowledge of specialist area, and legislation, as either a high- (56%) or medium- (27%) level priority. Thirteen per cent viewed this skills area as a low priority, while 4% considered it not to be a priority. Respondents were more likely to put a high priority on this skills development area if they were aged less than 54, were at the APS 3–4 and APS 5–6 levels, had higher educational qualifications, were from either small or large agencies, or were located in metropolitan areas.

Training in IT, including agency-specific IT systems and computer skills, was less likely to be viewed as a priority than were technical job-specific skills. Forty-four per cent of respondents viewed IT skills development as a high priority, 33% as a medium priority, and 18% as a low priority. Respondents were more likely to view IT skills as a high priority if they were from either a small or a large agency, if they were male, or if they had up to five years of service or 11 years or more of service.

Only a limited number of respondents provided an indication of other skills they saw as valuable to develop. Of those responses, issues identified included such things as the certification of skills, mentoring and coaching, personal and professional development, and cultural awareness training.

Comments made about skill development priorities included those below.

I wish I had more access to learning and development especially leadership and public administration; so I have more of an idea of what, how (and) why policies affect our People.

Opportunities to access learning and development are limited to experienced staff. Management programs are limited to higher levels and you can’t participate in any forums as management will not allow you time off your current duties. The only way to move up is to have experience. One big vicious circle.

Development programmes

There has been some debate about the respective merits of Indigenous-specific development programmes or general development programmes. Respondents were asked whether, if asked to choose, they would say that they felt that they learned more in development programmes that are targeted for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, general programmes that are open to everybody, or in both targeted and general programmes. The most common response was ‘both targeted and general programmes’ (52%). Smaller proportions of respondents indicated a preference for either general programmes that are open to everybody (25%) or, less commonly, targeted programmes for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders (14%). Ten per cent were not sure.

Respondents not in identified positions had a greater preference for ‘general programmes that are open to everybody’ (30%) than did respondents in identified positions (18%), as did respondents whose work was directly related to the Indigenous community compared to respondents in such a role. Interestingly, preferences of respondents did not vary greatly among APS 1–6 employees. EL employees were less likely to identify targeted programmes, and are more inclined to prefer general programmes that are open to everybody. Despite this, there are still a substantial number of EL employees who indicate a preference for both targeted and general programmes.

All respondents were asked to answer questions about programmes specifically targeted at Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and about general programmes, except for those who had answered ‘not sure’ to the question about the type of programmes they learn more in. Respondents were asked to indicate from a selection of six factors what they preferred about programmes specifically targeted at Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and what they preferred about general programmes. The factors were different for each programme and respondents could select multiple responses.

When asked about targeted programmes, respondents were most likely to indicate that they feel more comfortable having an open discussion and sharing their experiences, that they can relate to other participants, and that there is a greater level of applicability through a sharing of experiences. Table 6.3 illustrates the distribution of preferences across the factors.

Table 6.3: Preferences for programmes specifically targeted at Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders
Factor Respondents nominating factor (%)
You feel more comfortable having an open discussion and sharing your experiences 59
Can relate to other participants 56
There is a greater level of applicability through a sharing of experiences 52
You feel able to ask questions 40
You feel able to consolidate your learning by returning to aspects of the programme that have already been covered 28
Other 6

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

The following comments provide some insight into respondents’ views about targeted programmes.

Sometimes non-Indigenous people talk over the top of Indigenous people and don’t listen or give Indigenous people the opportunity to share knowledge/experience.

They are more culturally aware to my needs and the overall needs of my community through shared experiences.

When I first started in the APS I would have preferred to have attended programs/training for Indigenous people due to lack of confidence to ask questions or speak out.

Sharing an Indigenous perspective strengthens me to go back into work and keep identifying and speaking out about institutionalised racism.

Having other Indigenous people present in a learning environment can often lead to a greater support network.

Down side is you feel that it’s the same old thing and nothing is really achieved.

None, I don’t think it is fair to other non-Indigenous workers within the department. I don’t like specifically targeted training programmes for Indigenous staff only, when we are all working for the same thing.

You always seem to know someone or are linked to someone in someway which makes it all more comfortable as well.You feel that you can answer questions and if wrong that you are not ridiculed by others.

When looking at what they preferred about general programmes, respondents were most likely to identify exposure to a wider range of views and experiences and a broader range of subject matter and/or course content, as well as a greater opportunity to network. Table 6.4 illustrates the distribution of preferences across the factors.

Table 6.4: Preferences for general development programmes
Factor Respondents nominating factor (%)
You get exposure to a wider range of views and experiences from other course participants 68
You get exposure to a broader range of subject matter/course content 51
Greater opportunity to network 48
There is greater recognition of learning through these programmes in the workplace 40
These programmes are better targeted to my needs 20
Other 3

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

The following comments give some idea of respondents’ views about general development programmes.

General programmes are mainstream programmes and mainstreaming is the direction of Government. Knowledge and participation in general programmes will grow as a requirement when working with delivering Indigenous services.

I am able to help other participants see the content from an Indigenous perspective as they learn.

Feeling that my learnings are commensurate with the knowledge/skills I would need to demonstrate within the workplace to compete on par with all other employees.

I think it helps to get the mainstream views and then apply to how they work and adapt it to Aboriginal people. And also adds an Aboriginal perspective to the programme in a mainstream environment.

I feel general programmes provide an equitable understanding and these programmes are non-judgemental and open to learning from other ethnic backgrounds. They treat everyone equally.

Tend not to talk/participate as much.

Key findings

Despite the lower classification profile for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees reported in Chapter 2, findings from the survey paint a generally positive picture of this group’s views about their careers and learning and development opportunities within the APS. In particular, almost two-thirds of respondents felt that they have the same opportunities to develop their careers as non-Indigenous employees in their agency, and almost 80% of respondents believed that they had the same access to learning and development opportunities as other employees, although their general satisfaction levels with access to these opportunities indicates room for improvement. It is still of concern, however, that 20% of respondents actively disagreed that they had the same opportunities to develop their career as other employees in their agency. It is also of concern that respondents in lower classification levels and with lower educational qualifications appear to be spending less time participating in learning and development activities.

Of those applying for new positions in the APS, almost two-fifths (39%) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees indicated that they had applied for identified positions. This was similar to the proportion currently employed in identified positions, as reported in Chapter 3. This may reflect the importance that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees place on making a contribution to Indigenous Australians. However, it also indicates that there may be potential to encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees to consider applying for a broader range of positions in the APS.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees reported that there were a number of factors that had hindered or prevented them from seeking a higher position in the APS. Most of the top-ranking impediments relate to personal factors which could be addressed through targeted capability-building exercises, or by offering more flexible working arrangements. Interestingly, however, a reluctance to relocate to another area to take up a higher-level position does not seem to be a major factor hindering career progression for the majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. Only 15% indicated that this was a factor hindering or preventing them from seeking higher positions, and almost half of employees indicated that they would leave their home location or extended family to further their career.

Overall, responses suggest that there may be some generational changes in views on these issues. In particular, younger Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees were more likely to believe they had the same opportunities as non-Indigenous Australians, were more likely to apply for new positions, were less likely to apply for identified positions, and were more likely to express a willingness to relocate to further their careers. Respondents with higher-level educational qualifications were also more likely to report these responses, highlighting the relationship between improving educational levels and improving the career progression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees in the APS.

Most respondents stated that they learn best in both targeted programmes for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, and general programmes that are open to everybody. Nevertheless, employees in identified positions or those working with Indigenous communities were more likely to express a preference for targeted development activities. Given these results, it is likely that there will be a need for a mixed strategy of targeted and general learning and development activities into the future.

 

36 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.

37 Further information on the use of identified positions in the APS is included in Chapters 3 and 4.

38 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.