Chapter 4: Integrity and fairness

Abbreviations

A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary

Embedding the APS Values and Code of Conduct

The Values are set out in section 10(1) of the Act and the Code of Conduct in section 13. Agency heads must uphold and promote the Values (section 12) and are bound by the Code (section 14). The Act also places an obligation on SES employees to promote both the Values and compliance with the Code through personal example and other means. APS employees are required by law to uphold the Values and are bound by the Code.

This section assesses the embedding of the Values and the Code in three main areas identified by the Commission as important in successfully integrating the Values into an agency, namely commitment, management and assurance.

Commitment

Given the statutory responsibility placed on agency heads, they need to continually promote the Values and foster an effective values-based culture within their agency and across the APS more broadly. This year’s agency and employee survey results demonstrate a high level of commitment from agencies in fostering a values-based culture and provide evidence that agencies’ efforts at embedding the Values and the Code are paying off .

Agency heads appear to have paid particular attention to ensuring that their senior leadership group understands the Values. The large majority (87%) of SES employees had been advised by their agency head during the year of the importance of acting in accordance with the Values. The proportion of SES employees who reported that they had been told by their agency head that it was important that they develop in their staff an understanding of the Values was also very high at 84%.

Commitment to the Values is also expressed through the extent to which agencies invest in promoting the Values more broadly within their agency.

Over the last four years there has been an increase in the proportion of agencies providing learning and development activities on the Values and the Code. This has included small increases in the proportion of agencies conducting sessions on how the Values and the Code should operate in practice (now 64%) and the increasing use of online training (now 23%). The most widely used method of learning and development in relation to the Values and the Code, however, is the now almost universal use of awareness raising as part of induction and orientation (99%). The provision of information on the Internet is also widespread (90%). The use of promotional material (e.g. pamphlets and bookmarks) remains common (82%), but has declined somewhat, perhaps reflecting the increasing emphasis on the Internet as a means of communication. The size of an agency influences the type of training involved, with large agencies providing a greater range of activities than medium or small agencies.

The investment by agencies in learning and development activities related to the Values and the Code appears to be paying off, with awareness of both the Values and the Code having steadily increased to a very high level. In 2006, 91% of employees reported that they were familiar with the Values compared to 77% in 2003. The remaining 9% had heard of the Values even if they were not fully familiar with them. The trend in relation to familiarity with the Code of Conduct is similar, with familiarity increasing from 74% in 2003 to 93% this year.

The increasing level of familiarity with the Values across the APS has meant that there are only small differences between different groups of employees. SES employees continued to report higher levels of familiarity with the Values (98%) than APS 1–6 and EL employees, but the familiarity levels of APS 1–6 employees and EL employees is now very similar (91% and 90% respectively). The range of levels of familiarity across large agencies is also smaller, with only 21 percentage points separating the highest from the lowest (77%–98%).

Familiarity, of course, does not necessarily mean that employees always understand and apply the Values. In the course of regular consultations the Commission holds with APS senior executives and HR managers about a range of issues, it has heard reports that employees have difficulties with the number of values (15) and their complexity. This indicates that there may be some benefit in streamlining the Values to enable them to be more easily remembered and better understood, while retaining the fundamental concepts that underpin them.

Employees continue to have a high opinion of the ethical behaviour of their colleagues. In particular, levels of agreement that colleagues (89%) and immediate managers (87%) act in accordance with the Values have both increased this year.

There continues to be slightly lower levels of confidence that most senior managers act in accordance with the Values (73%) although this has continued to increase from 63% in 2003.The majority of employees in each large agency agreed that most senior managers act in accordance with the Values, with results ranging from 61% to 86%.

The APS compared favourably with state jurisdictions on encouraging ethical behaviour by employees but less favourably on the example provided by senior managers.³ Eighty-five per cent of APS employees agreed that their organisation actively encourages ethical behaviour by all of its employees. This compares to 82% of employees agreeing in Tasmania, 78% in Western Australia and 70% in Victoria. APS employees were less likely to agree that senior managers in their organisation led by example in ethical behaviour (55%), than employees in Tasmania (61%) and Western Australia (65%) but slightly more likely than Victorian employees (47%).

It is difficult to reconcile the different ratings for senior managers against the Values (73%) and ethical behaviour (55%), although it may be that employees impose their own standards, rather than the suggested standard, when assessing the ethical behaviour of senior managers.

Management

The incorporation of the Values into an agency’s broad performance management arrangements is one of the critical strategies that supports embedding the Values and has been supported by MAC.⁴ Table 4.1 sets out the measures used by agencies in performance assessments to ensure employees demonstrate and consistently apply the Values.

The results suggest that major progress has been made in incorporating the Values into agencies’ performance management arrangements. In particular, 85% of agencies now require that an assessment be made about the extent to which employees demonstrate and consistently apply some or all of the Values and/or agency-specific values and behaviours when considering individual performance—a 24 percentage point increase since 2003.

Table 4.1: Measures used by agencies in performance assessments to ensure employees demonstrate and consistently apply the Values, 2002–03 to 2005–06
	2002–03 (% of agencies)		2003–04 (% of agencies)		2004–05 (% of agencies)		2005–06 (% of agencies)
	Yes	Being developed	Yes	Being developed	Yes	Being developed	Yes	Being developed
An assessment of values/ behaviours as well as results in performance assessments	61	15	78	7	77	9	81	8
Regular multi-source feedback	22	16	22	16	27	13	19	12
Training of all staff on how values/ behaviours relate to effective performance	27	17	36	10	35	18	46	20
Source: Agency survey

This has been accompanied by a strong increase in the number of agencies providing training to all employees on how values/behaviours relate to effective performance, although this is still only offered by half of all agencies. The use of regular multi-source feedback has remained fairly constant over the four years, being used by around one-fifth of agencies.

Most agencies (69%) reported assessing their employees against all the Values—an increase over the results of the last two years—an additional 12% of agencies reported using only the Values that were most relevant to the duties being performed. Forty per cent of agencies reported assessing their employees against agency-specific values and of these only four do not also assess against any or all of the Values. Twenty-three per cent of agencies used other behaviour indicators to assess employees. Nine agencies (five small, three medium and one large) did not nominate any values or behavioural indicators.

The high reporting by agencies of the inclusion of values and behaviour in performance assessment was also reflected in employee views. Around 80% of employees who had received formal individual feedback in the last 12 months reported that some discussion had taken place on behaviour in their performance assessment, similar to 2005. Thirty-one per cent reported that they had been assessed against agency-specific behaviours, and 49% were assessed against the Values as a set. A smaller proportion of employees continued to indicate that they had been assessed against the Values most relevant to the job (21%) or other behavioural indicators (3%).

Assurance

Agency-specific accountability and assurance mechanisms can be used to help sustain compliance with the Values and the Code. Staff surveys that ask questions directly or indirectly about the Values and consultative committees are important quality assurance mechanisms that can be used to monitor adherence to the Values and to improve agency performance. However, they are only one of a range of other mechanisms that could be used by agencies, including formal internal and external processes of review.

During 2005–06, half of all agencies used, or were developing, staff surveys and consultative committees to collect information on employees’ confidence that the agency’s culture and practices reflect the Values. Twenty-nine per cent of agencies used a staff survey and 26% of agencies a consultative committee. Seventeen per cent of agencies reported that they used other mechanisms, and these included use of workshops, focus groups or other feedback sources, discussions as part of the collective agreement process, and exit interviews.

The Commission has had discussions with a number of agencies during the year that are including questions from the State of the Service employee survey in their own staff surveys, so that they can benchmark their performance against APS-wide results. This is an effective quality assurance mechanism and the Commission would encourage other agencies to consider this option.

Agency-specific values

In 2006, two-thirds of agencies reported having developed their own agency-specific values, principles or behaviours—a decrease from 78% of agencies in 2004–05 and the 69% reported in the previous year. A further 4% of agencies were currently developing agency-specific values, principles or behaviours. While the decline is across the board, the practice is still more concentrated in medium agencies (69%) and large agencies (74%) than in small agencies (60%).

The majority of agencies’ responses as to why they needed to develop agency-specific values, principles or behaviours could be grouped into four reasons:

to complement the Values with values that reflect agency-specific operational and business imperatives
to reinforce the desired agency culture or to develop a new culture
to provide unity across the agency when there is a significant number of non-APS staff
to recognise external or professional standards.

As a general rule, it is the Commission’s strong preference that agencies not have two sets of values. There is a risk that employees can become confused about the relationship of one set of values to the other, and to the Code of Conduct. Where agencies identify a need to focus on key business principles or behaviours it is better to label them in a way that clearly distinguishes them from the Values.

Where agencies choose to develop agency-specific codes or standards of behaviour, these must be consistent with and reinforce the APS Values and the Code. It is also important that all employees understand that they are legally required to comply with the Values and the Code. Agency-specific values do not have this status. Agencies are only able to use the sanctions provided in the Act for proven breaches of the Code of Conduct.

Agencies did not report experiencing difficulties in differentiating between the APS Values and agency-specific values, with general acknowledgment of the primacy of the Values. Some agencies have made the hierarchy explicit, but most consider their agency-specific values to be of equal importance to the ethical operation of the agency and the behaviour of employees. Agencies tend to consider their values as complementary to the Values.

Agency-specific values are usually set out in collective agreements or in corporate plans. The relationship and the relevance of the agency-specific values and the Values is explained to most employees during the induction process and in training courses.

It is important that agencies using agency-specific values continue to ensure employees are familiar with both the Values and agency-specific values where these exist. Generally, this appears to have occurred. The employee survey shows that working in a large agency with agency-specific values does not appear to have any relationship to employees’ familiarity with the APS Values.

The jurisdictional comparison data from surveys conducted in 2004–05 and 2005–06 was provided to the Commission by the State Services Authority, Victoria (People Matter Survey 2005); the Office of the State Service Commissioner, Tasmania (State Service Employee Survey 2005); and the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, Western Australia (Climate Survey 2005–06). While the Victorian and Tasmanian surveys covered the jurisdiction, the Victorian jurisdictional comparision data was based on web-based responses only. The Western Australian Climate Survey only involved 14 agencies—each year 10–15 agencies are surveyed with each agency being surveyed approximately once every five years.
Management Advisory Committee 2001, Performance Management in the Australian Public Service, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.