State of the Service Report 2006-07

Download the PDF of this chapter2006-07

Home
› Organisational productivity > Learning and development
» Next: Workplace absence (Unscheduled leave)

Organisational productivity

Learning and development

Learning and development plays an important part in supporting organisational productivity, both in terms of its direct impact on capability, and its influence on employee engagement.6 In an environment where there has been strong growth in APS numbers and intergenerational change across many agencies, it is particularly important that agencies invest in their people capability by providing appropriate learning and development opportunities.

As part of its statutory role in coordinating and supporting learning and development in the APS,7 in May 2007 the Commission commenced the implementation of a new national leadership, learning and development strategy. It aims to support the needs of employees and agencies in responding to the challenges of a contemporary APS. The strategy draws on the finding of the State of the Service Report 2005–06 in relation to capability challenges for the APS. The key features of the strategy are outlined in the brochure, Learn. Lead. Succeed.8

In 2006–07, the Commission and many APS agencies also developed a set of induction materials to support all new starters across the APS, focusing on positive and consistent messages about:

A CD of seven e-learning modules has been designed for use as a resource by agencies in the development of their induction and orientation programmes. The CD is complemented by a facilitated programme which has been developed by the Commission as part of its public programmes calendar for delivery in 2007–08. The induction materials were launched in August 2007.

There has also been a strong focus on learning and development across APS agencies in the last year, for example:

The focus on learning and development in Australia is consistent with a similar focus in international jurisdictions:

The following sections examine ways in which development needs are identified, and employees’ satisfaction with the learning and development they receive. It also looks at how learning and development is coordinated within agencies, development priorities for 2007–08, and how agencies evaluate their learning and development strategies. Leadership development issues are discussed in Chapter 7.

Employee satisfaction and access to learning and development

There is a range of reasons for agencies to place a strong focus on learning and development within their organisations. Learning and development is an important issue for agencies to leverage in attracting new employees to their organisation—development/educational opportunities was rated by almost 20% of employees as one of the five main attributes that attracted them to their current job.

The employee survey asked employees about a range of issues associated with learning and development, including how their learning and development needs were identified and their satisfaction with learning and development.

Identification of learning and development

This year, the APS continued its strong focus on identifying learning and development needs. Consistent with last year, the large majority of APS employees (74%) had their learning and development needs identified and agreed to with their manager. This is a positive result and suggests a strong push across the APS for consideration of learning and development issues in performance management processes. There is still potential, however, to extend agreements to the one in five employees who had not had their needs identified and agreed to.

Employees in small agencies were less likely than those in medium agencies, who in turn were less likely than those in large agencies, to report that their learning and development needs had been identified and agreed to. SES employees (66%) were also less likely to indicate that their learning and development needs had been identified and agreed to compared to employees at other classifications (78% of EL and 73% of APS 1–6 employees). Last year’s report suggested that this result may in part be explained by the expectation that SES employees will take greater responsibility for their own learning and development. However, this may not always be occurring, given that only 35% of SES and EL 2 employees agreed that the SES in their agency show personal commitment to their own learning. It is important that a discussion about development needs and agreed actions takes place as part of performance management discussions for all employees, including the SES.

Employees located in the ACT were slightly more likely than those outside the ACT to report that their learning and development needs had been identified and agreed to (76% compared to 73%). Employees working in policy and corporate areas were most likely to report that their learning and development needs had been identified and agreed to. Results were less positive for employees working in administrative support and/or clerical roles and service delivery roles, where only around two-thirds of employees reported that this had occurred.

Satisfaction with learning and development

Given the influential role that learning and development can play in attracting and retaining employees, it is important that employees perceive that it is managed well within the agency. Results in this area, however, remain stable at less than desirable levels. Only just over half of employees (55%) agreed that their agency places a high priority on learning and development of employees. Around one-quarter of employees neither agreed nor disagreed, and one in five employees disagreed.

Employees were more positive about their immediate manager ensuring fair access to developmental opportunities for employees in their work group. Most employees (70%) continue to report that their manager ensures fairness in access, with only 12% of employees disagreeing. The majority of APS employees (60%) also reported satisfaction with their access to learning and development. Less than one in five were dissatisfied.

Across these measures, SES employees reported higher levels of satisfaction than employees at other classification levels, as did those working in the ACT compared to colleagues working outside the ACT. Employees working in administrative support and/or clerical and policy roles also tended to be more likely to report higher levels of satisfaction than employees working in other roles.

The high levels of satisfaction with access to learning and development for the SES are broadly consistent with results for members of the UK’s Senior Civil Service (SCS). Eighty per cent of SCS officers were satisfied with the learning and development opportunities they had been offered to improve their skills in their current job.9

APS employees who were dissatisfied with their access to learning and development were asked the reason(s) why this was the case. Three broad themes emerged from the responses provided by employees: a lack of resources (including no time, high workloads and limited funding); lack of support from management; and inability to access courses (including courses being booked out, lack of awareness about available courses and suitable courses not available). Some examples of reasons why employees were dissatisfied with their access to learning and development included:

Workload and low staffing levels have meant that I have not been able to access any professional learning and development opportunities.

Not enough in the budget.

Management always appears keen to provide learning and development, but generally find timing not suitable, and other excuses, such as not enough staff on deck at that particular time etc.

Relevant courses not offered frequently enough and fill up quickly when they are offered ... No technical training offered at departmental or divisional level, when it is pertinent to the jobs of my division.

A greater emphasis on planning and budgeting for learning and development opportunities for employees may help to address these concerns. It is important that managers work with employees to create an environment in which learning and development expectations discussed as part of the performance management process are met.

Although the majority of employees were satisfied with their access to learning and development, employees’ satisfaction with the Learning and Development factor that emerged in the factor analysis was lower than a range of other employee engagement factors.10 These results suggest that, despite generally positive results, a greater focus on learning and development could improve the engagement of employees with their work. This in turn may have flow-on effects for certain segments of the APS workforce (e.g. younger employees), where satisfaction with access to learning and development can be particularly influential in increasing job satisfaction and retention. Agencies that can describe and market themselves as an organisation that invests and focuses on learning and development may also improve their attractiveness to potential employees in an increasingly tight labour market.

Effectiveness of learning and development

For investment in learning and development to be effective it must result in real improvement in employee performance. Employees continue to be positive about how effective the learning and development they had received in the last 12 months had been in helping them improve their performance. Three-quarters of employees rated their learning and development as moderately or highly effective. Only 17% of employees reported the effectiveness as low.

As with other learning and development issues, employees outside the ACT were less likely to report that the learning and development undertaken was highly effective. Higher levels of effectiveness were reported by employees working in research, programme design and/or management, corporate services and regulatory roles.

Amount of off-the-job learning and development

The amount of off-the-job learning and development reported by employees has remained relatively constant over the last few years, but there was an increase this year in the proportion of employees reporting that they had spent time on off-the-job learning and development activities in the last 12 months (83% in 2006–07 compared with 78% in 2005–06).

Results for the APS in this area continue to be strong. In the last 12 months, almost one-third of employees (32%) reported that they had spent more than six days attending off-the-job learning and development activities. A further 52% of employees reported that they had spent between one and five days on such activities.

Employees working outside the ACT were more likely than those inside the ACT to report that they had spent no time or six or more days on off-the-job learning and development. A higher proportion of employees in large agencies reported that they had spent more than six days on off-the-job learning and development, while employees in small agencies were most likely to report that they had spent between one and five days on these activities. Employees working in administrative support and/or clerical areas were most likely to report that they had spent no time on off-the-job learning and development. At the other end of the scale, around half of employees working in research and regulatory roles reported spending at least six days on these activities.

Not surprisingly, those employees who reported spending more time on off-the-job learning and development were also more likely to report that the learning and development they had attended in the last 12 months was effective.

It is important to remember that off-the-job learning and development represents only one way for employees to improve their skills and abilities. Other approaches that may be more appropriate and effective include on-the-job opportunities such as secondments, targeted representational duties and special project-based work. Managers need to work with employees in designing innovative approaches to learning and development that best meet the needs of the agency and the employee.

How learning and development is coordinated in agencies

An integrated approach to learning and development is important in building capability at an agency and APS-wide level in order to deliver business and government outcomes, and address workforce challenges.

This year’s agency survey asked agencies what mechanisms they use to coordinate learning and development in their agency. As can be seen in Table 8.1, almost all agencies indicated that they coordinate learning and development through a central agency-wide learning and development area. When asked to outline how the areas responsible for learning and development are linked, many agencies reported that, although corporate areas were responsible for coordinating learning and development, the actual identification of learning and development needs occurred through performance management and the business planning process, and this was used to guide priorities and coordination. Smaller agencies generally placed more emphasis on the role of line managers in coordination.

Table 8.1: Mechanisms used to coordinate learning and development in agencies by agency size, 2006–07
Coordination mechanism Agency size Total (%)
Small (%) Medium (%) Large (%)
Through centralised agency-wide learning and development area 78 93 96 88
At a geographic regional level 5 36 61 30
At a business line level 38 54 74 52
Devolved to line managers 57 50 39 50
Devolved to individuals 27 39 30 32
Source: Agency survey

Only a minority of agencies used a coordinating mechanism at a geographic regional level. A greater focus at this level could potentially assist in addressing the generally lower levels of satisfaction with learning and development reported by employees working outside the ACT.

Learning and development priority areas

This year’s agency and employee surveys examined both employee and agency perceptions of learning and development priority areas for 2007–08.

Table 8.2 shows the proportion of employees rating different learning and development areas as a high priority. Results varied somewhat by classification, although people management and technical skills were in the top three priorities for employees at all classification levels. Leadership was also in the top three priorities for EL 1, EL 2 and SES employees. It was just outside the top three priorities for APS 1–6 employees.

Table 8.2: Learning and development priorities identified as ‘high’ by employees by classification, 2006–07
Area Classification
APS 1–6 (%) EL 1 (%) EL 2 (%) SES (%)
Leadership 41 60 56 59
People management 44 50 42 39
Interpersonal skills 42 35 30 26
Self-management 39 29 30 31
Delivering services to the public 34 17 7 15
Public programme design and/or management 23 24 14 23
Policy skills 27 27 18 21
Regulatory development and/or implementation 21 13 10 11
Other public administration 15 12 10 17
Corporate 27 19 13 20
Business 33 36 31 24
Technical, relevant to current job 55 51 45 31
Information technology 37 27 18 13

Note: The top three results for each classification level are bolded.

Source: Employee survey

As can be seen in Table 8.3, agencies’ learning and development priorities also varied across classifications of employees and generally followed a similar pattern to employees’ priorities. The major difference between agency and employee priorities emerged in the area of technical skills. One of the top three priorities for employees at all classification levels was technical skills relevant to current job, whereas it was only included in agencies’ top three priorities for APS 1–6 employees.

Table 8.3: Top five learning and development priorities identified by agencies by classification, 2006–07
Area Classification (% of agencies selecting in top five)
APS 1–6 EL 1 EL 2 SES
Leadership 11 77 95 96
People management 38 84 89 76
Interpersonal skills 75 65 49 39
Self-management 63 31 23 23
Delivering services to the public 46 16 13 16
Public programme design and/or management 5 11 24 32
Policy skills 18 26 37 27
Regulatory development and/or implementation 7 8 12 17
Other public administration 3 5 14 37
Corporate 69 50 43 28
Business 35 53 46 27
Technical, relevant to current job 74 53 38 22
Information technology 41 13 10 9

Note: The top three results for each classification level are bolded.

Source: Agency survey

Evaluation of learning and development strategies

Effective evaluation is essential if agencies are to make sound judgements about the success of their learning and development strategies. ANAO’s 2002 audit of learning and development in the APS found that, in general, agencies were not evaluating learning and development strategies.11 Consequently, they were not in a position to determine how successful learning and development outcomes had been in assisting them to achieve business outcomes.

Responding to this finding, the Commission and ANAO have produced a better practice guide to assist agencies in evaluating their learning and development strategies.12 The Commission’s 2005 learning and development evaluation guide provides further practical support and guidance for agencies.13

Results from the agency survey show that agencies continue to place a strong focus on more traditional approaches to evaluation, with almost all agencies evaluating the content of programmes and the effectiveness of their delivery (see Table 8.4). There has been strong progress over the last few years, however, in evaluating value for money and the appropriateness of the investment.

In line with the ANAO’s recommendations, increasingly agencies have also been developing approaches to evaluate the impact learning and development has on the performance of both the agency and the individual. However, this area clearly still remains a challenge for many agencies, with only one-third of agencies reporting that they assess whether learning and development leads to improvements in performance of the agency.

Table 8.4: Aspects of learning and development evaluated by agencies, 2002–03, 2004–05 and 2006–07
  2002–03
(%) 		2004–05
(%) 		2006–07
(%)
Effectiveness of presenters/facilitators 83 90 92
Relevance and currency of programme content 80 85 94
Effectiveness in meeting identified learning and development objectives 76 83 85
Appropriateness of investment to the desired culture, needs of target audience and required outcome 53 67 76
Value for money 44 57 73
Improvement in performance of the individual 38 40 50
Degree of capability acquired by the individual 35 37 51
Improvement in the performance of the agency 15 15 33
Source: Agency survey

 

6 Learning and development as discussed in this chapter refers to learning activities on-the-job as well as more formal off-the-job activities. Seminars, conferences, classroom training courses, leadership programmes, academic study and in-house programmes are all included—a more comprehensive analysis of leadership development and leadership programmes can be found in Chapter 7.

7 See Public Service Act 1999 s. 41(1)(i).

8 For further information see the learning and development pages of the Commission’s website: <http://www.apsc.gov.au/learn>

9 UK Cabinet Office, Survey of the Senior Civil Service 2006, <http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/reform/leadership/scssurvey.asp>

10 Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 4.

11 ANAO 2002, Management of Learning and Development in the Australian Public Service, Performance Audit Report No. 64, 2001–02, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

12 Australian Public Service Commission and ANAO 2003, Building Capability—A Framework for Managing Learning and Development in the APS, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

13 Australian Public Service Commission 2005, Evaluating Learning and Development—A Framework for Judging Success, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>