Home
› Leadership, management and communication > Leadership
» Next: Management

Leadership, management and communication

Leadership

Effective leadership is central to improving performance, maintaining a values-based APS, ensuring that the APS operates in a transparent and accountable manner, and achieving outcomes for the Government and the community. One of the APS Values (the Values) is that the APS has leadership of the highest quality (s.10(1)(h) of the Public Service Act 1999 (the Act).

Leadership is internationally recognised as essential to good government and good governance. At a 2006 State of the Public Service conference in the USA, for example, strong leadership was identified as one of the six essential pillars of effective government, along with the right talent, an engaged workforce, public support, systems and structures, and high performance.¹

Last year’s State of the Service report identified developing capability in the senior leadership group and supporting and developing EL employees—the middle management and SES feeder group—as critical challenges for the APS. To explore this second challenge further, this section begins by examining the composition of the EL 2 group. This is followed by a discussion of EL 2 and SES employees’ views on a range of leadership issues and all APS employees’ views of their senior leaders. The section concludes by examining activity directed at building leadership capability within agencies and across the APS within the last 12 months.

The composition of the EL 2 Group

The capability of all EL employees is important to the effectiveness of a high-performing APS, but the EL 2 role is of particular significance. EL 2s are the conduit responsible for translating and reinforcing important messages about organisational direction from the senior leadership to more junior employees on a daily basis. They play a key role in terms of their technical skills and business knowledge, and are the group that agencies look to for their potential as future senior leaders. In many agencies it is EL 2s who have first-line people management responsibilities. Even where these responsibilities are devolved to lower levels, it is the EL 2s who are responsible for ensuring delivery of Government outcomes, and who report directly to senior management.

Over the last 10 years, the number of ongoing EL 2 employees has grown by 71% (from 6,771 at June 1998 to 11,612 at June 2007) compared with 32% for the APS overall. This growth reflects a number of changes to both the nature of work within the APS and the environment in which the APS now operates. Over the last decade, there has been a much greater focus on highly skilled knowledge-based work across the APS. These skill requirements are reflected in the qualifications of the EL 2 group—data from APSED shows that 78% of EL 2 employees hold at least one qualification at bachelor’s degree level or higher. At the same time, the APS has needed to respond to increasing levels of accountability, and higher expectations from the community and the Government about the provision of high-quality services and comprehensive advice.

There is a great diversity in EL 2 job roles across the APS. The employee survey shows that EL 2 employees are working in a variety of areas, undertaking corporate (32%), policy (17%), programme design and/or management (17%) and research (12%) roles. The diversity in the nature of these job roles also brings different types of responsibilities. Some EL 2s, particularly those outside Canberra, have responsibility for managing teams in excess of 100 staff. Other EL 2s, particularly those located within the ACT, have fewer or no staff to manage, but have high-level policy responsibilities, including daily dealings with Ministers and their offices.

In the last 12 months, the number of ongoing EL 2s has increased by 10% compared to a 6.5% increase in the total number of ongoing APS employees. As a proportion of all ongoing employees, EL 2s now account for 8% of all ongoing employees, compared to 6%, 10 years ago. The rise over the last 12 months reflects a range of new and complex government initiatives and programmes, with a particular focus on national security and border control.

Reflecting the diverse nature of their activities, there is significant variation between agencies in their employment of EL 2s. In 2006–07, their numbers in MAC agencies² ranged from 2% of ongoing employees in Customs to 24% in ANAO. Agencies focusing on service delivery tend to have lower proportions of EL 2s.

The age profile of EL 2s is relatively high. At 30 June 2007, the median age of EL 2s was 46 years, with 34% of all EL 2s aged 50 years or over. There was significant variation between MAC agencies in the median age of their EL 2 group, with PM&C (37 years), Treasury (40 years) and Human Services (42 years) recording a median age below the APS median, and DVA (50 years) and DOTARS (48 years) recording a median age above the APS median.

The median age of EL 2s has remained fairly steady over the past 10 years, being either 45 years or 46 years each year since 1998. The consistency in the median age reflects the large number of new EL 2s appointed over the last 10 years, which has kept the overall median down. Nevertheless, 57% of existing EL 2 employees are aged 45 years or over and will be eligible for retirement within 10 years. Coupled with the fact that over two-thirds of SES employees are eligible for retirement within the next 10 years, this highlights the importance of the APS managing its workforce carefully to ensure it has the necessary leadership capacity for the future.

Experience and exposure

The importance of ensuring a depth of experience and exposure among employees moving to senior leadership roles was highlighted in MAC’s report, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce.³ As part of its examination of APS workforce trends, the report found the APS experience of employees moving towards senior leadership levels was increasingly narrow.

This year’s results show that the majority of EL 2s still have relatively limited experience outside their agency. Almost two-thirds of EL 2s (63%) have worked in one agency only. This proportion has risen steadily over the last 10 years (from 50% in 1998) and is much higher than the proportion of SES who have worked in only one agency (45%)—although the proportion of SES who have worked in only one agency has also increased from 34% in 1998.

EL 2s tend to have relatively long lengths of service in the agency in which they have been promoted, although their overall median length of service before becoming an EL 2 has fallen from 12.2 years in 1998 to 10.1 years in 2007.

EL 2 employees generally have limited experience at the EL 2 level itself. Two-thirds of EL 2s (68%) have been at their current level in their current agency for under five years—this compares to 52% of EL 2s with this level of experience 10 years ago. Length of service as an EL 2 in any agency has also fallen, from 6.6 years in 1998 to 4.2 years in 2007.

In assessing these results, it is important to recognise that APS experience is just one part of the picture. The extent of higher educational qualifications among this group indicates considerable capability. As well, the opening up of the APS employment framework over the last decade means that increasingly, people from outside the APS are joining at the executive levels—33% of employees new to the EL 2 role in 2006–07 joined from outside the APS. This compares with only 16% in 1997–98. Overall, almost one in five employees (17%) currently at the EL 2 classification were recruited at level to their current agency from outside the APS, although there is substantial variation between agencies.

Employees who join the APS at executive and senior executive levels bring with them a range of valuable experiences and new ways of thinking that can be used to improve APS performance. However, the increased level of engagements at the EL 2 classification also brings with it new challenges. It is important that newly-engaged EL 2 managers receive appropriate training, guidance and support so that they can understand the issues that make the APS unique, such as public service probity, accountability requirements, dealing with Ministers’ Offices, the Values, the Code, and the application of merit in selection processes.

EL 2s’ lack of experience in agencies other than their current one may partially explain why EL 2s have different views about their identity than other employees. EL 2s were less likely to consider that they were primarily APS employees and more likely to consider themselves as primarily employees of their agency (63%) than both the employees they manage (59% of APS 1–6 employees) and their senior leaders (50% of SES employees); EL 1s held similar views about their identity to EL 2s. This result is also likely to reflect the particular role of ELs and their responsibility for departmental programmes and projects.

The strong identity of EL 2s with their agency is a strength in terms of achieving agency outcomes. It should also be noted that the employee survey explored only an employee’s primary identity and not the relative strength of their connection to the APS or their agency. Nevertheless, the results suggest that there may be benefits in encouraging a greater sense of APS identity among EL 2 employees, particularly given the important role they have as carriers of culture both in the APS and within their agency.

Variation between agencies

Given the varying nature of work and business objectives of agencies across the APS, it is not surprising that agencies’ EL 2 profiles differ. There are broadly three different types of EL 2 profiles among MAC agencies—these largely reflect the profiles identified in last year’s report for the SES:

• Agencies with a relatively high proportion of EL 2s who are new both to their agency and their level. This group includes DEWR, DIAC, PM&C and AGD.
• Agencies with EL 2s who have been both at level and in their agency for a relatively long time. This group includes Customs, Centrelink, ABS, ATO, Treasury and Defence.
• Agencies with EL 2s who are new to their agency, but have considerable experience as an EL 2 in other agencies. This group includes DOTARS, the Commission and DAFF.

There are, of course, some agencies whose EL 2 profiles do not neatly fit into these three categories.

There are a number of reasons for the difference in agency profiles, including the nature of the agency’s business. It is not surprising, for example, that specialist and technically oriented agencies like ABS and ATO operate with strong internal labour markets and develop their leaders from within. There are no wrong or right profiles, nor is there one ideal profile to suit all agencies.

Given the variation between their EL 2 profiles, agencies confront a range of different issues in developing, broadening and supporting their EL 2s. Agencies with relatively inexperienced EL 2s may wish to consider internal programmes designed to maximise knowledge transfer, including using mentoring programmes drawing upon experienced SES employees. These agencies may also want to focus on retaining the experienced EL 2s that they do have—approaches to retention are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Agencies with relatively experienced EL 2s, but with less experience in other agencies, may want to consider programmes and opportunities that expand the exposure of their EL 2s, for example, working on inter-departmental committees and internal cross-agency working groups. Agencies with a relatively high proportion of EL 2s who are likely to have come from outside the APS, will benefit from focusing on APS-specific skills, such as programme management, policy development, government finances, and operating within the Values.

Despite the differing EL 2 profiles, development that focuses on the leadership, management and technical skills required to do their jobs will be relevant to all EL 2s, as will close engagement with agency leaders. A variety of approaches can be used to provide these development opportunities at both the agency and whole-of-APS levels. The use of whole-of-APS approaches such as participation in Commission training can be a particularly useful mechanism in generating a broader APS identity among the EL 2 group. Agency-specific initiatives may also lead to EL 2s being more actively engaged in the leadership of their agency. ATO, for example, uses regular meetings between its Executive and EL 2s across the country to keep EL 2s in touch and in tune with ATO directions and challenges, and as a way to obtain their views.

Views of APS Leaders

To explore the views of senior managers about leadership in the APS, this year’s employee survey directed some questions on this issue specifically to SES and EL 2 employees. Respondents were asked to rate their confidence in their own leadership skills and their level of engagement in their agency’s leadership. Both SES and EL 2 employees were also asked to rate the effectiveness of their agency’s SES in a number of areas. The results of these questions are at Figure 7.1. Some of these results can be benchmarked against results for the Senior Civil Service (SCS) in the UK.⁴

The most positive result for both groups of employees was that they were confident that they had the leadership skills to do their jobs effectively (see Figure 7.1). Results on this question for both SES and EL 2s were similar to results for the UK SCS.

The SES, however, were generally much more positive than EL 2 employees about their involvement in the leadership of their agency. Over 80% of SES employees reported that they were actively engaged in the leadership of their agency; only half of EL 2s agreed with this statement. The lower levels of agreement reported by EL 2s may be due, in part, to the way EL 2s interpreted the question—they may have viewed ‘actively engaged’ as actually representing their agency at high-level meetings or participating in high-level governance structures, rather than taking an active interest in the business of their agency and building a culture that assists the agency achieve its business objectives. Nevertheless, this result is of concern given research by the Commission that shows a disconnect between senior leaders and middle managers can be an indicator of an agency at risk of poor performance.⁵

EL 2s in small agencies were much more likely than their colleagues in larger agencies to indicate that they were actively engaged in the leadership of their agency (71% compared to around 50% respectively). This difference also held true for most of the other leadership statements. This may reflect more regular contact with agency heads and their deputies, and flatter organisational structures in small agencies.

EL 2s were also much less likely to agree with each of the statements about the leadership attributes displayed by the SES. They were least likely to agree that the SES in their agency give their time to identify and develop talented people and that the SES show personal commitment to their own learning. EL 2s may not have the full picture about how their SES are contributing in these areas, but is it is of some concern that they have such poor perceptions of their senior leaders.

SES employees, in contrast, had generally positive perceptions of the SES in their agency. When compared to the UK, results for the SES were also particularly good (see Figure 7.1). SES employees were more likely to indicate that they give their time to identify and develop talented people, that they encourage innovation and creativity, and that they demonstrate personal commitment to improving existing practices and processes than their equivalents in the UK. SES in the APS were also very positive about the SES working collaboratively and showing personal commitment to developing others.

Despite the generally positive views among the SES, there is still some room for improvement. Just under 60% of SES employees agreed that the SES show a personal commitment to their own learning, and a similar proportion agreed that SES employees are personally active in improving equality and diversity in employment. Agreement levels for EL 2s on these questions were even lower—they were only half as likely as SES employees to agree. Given the workforce challenges facing the APS, it is vital that the SES make a commitment to developing themselves and to nurturing a culture that values the benefits of a diverse workforce.

Employee views of senior leaders

Strong and effective leadership at senior levels is fundamental to a high-performing APS. One way senior leaders can gauge their performance is by assessing the views that employees have about their performance. The employee survey canvassed employees’ views of the senior leaders in their agency. The term ‘senior leaders’ was not defined in the employee survey, and for some employees it may include employees outside the SES.

There have been some positive developments in the last 12 months around employee perceptions of their senior leaders (see Figure 7.2). Around half of employees agreed that the SES are empowered to do their job and that the most senior leaders are sufficiently visible. Almost half (49%) of employees agreed that the leadership in their agency is of a high quality—this compares to 38% last year who believed that the leadership in their agency was of the highest quality (the revised wording was adopted to provide a more realistic benchmark for senior leaders’ performance). There was also a slight increase in the proportion of employees who agreed that their agency was well-managed.

Despite these more positive results, employees continue to report low levels of agreement with a number of statements relating to their senior leaders. Of particular concern is the finding that only just over one-third of employees agreed that communication between senior leaders and other employees is effective and that senior leaders are receptive to ideas put forward by others (see Figure 7.2). There was wide variation in agreement levels between agencies with individual agency-specific results, with the proportion of employees who agreed that communication between senior leaders and other employees was effective ranging from 14% to 60%.

In assessing employees’ views of senior leaders, it is important to note that employees across the world have a tendency to rate senior leaders lower than their immediate supervisors. This is likely to reflect, at least in part, the remoteness of junior employees from senior leaders. It may be difficult for some junior employees to make an informed assessment of senior leaders with whom they do not have extensive contact. Nevertheless, the continuing low results for communication with senior leaders suggests that this is an area which would benefit from greater focus. The relatively high levels of agreement in some agencies also show that it is possible for agencies to improve employees’ perceptions of their senior leaders.

The employee survey also asked APS employees for ideas about ways the senior leaders in their agency could improve. Around one in five respondents took the opportunity to comment on this issue, with the great majority of comments concerning improving communication. Other broad areas where employees suggested improvements could be made included: providing greater direction and leadership; supporting and respecting employees at all levels; and reducing the amount of micro-managing. Some examples of suggestions were:

Being more accessible; communicating more regularly with staff via newsletters, emails etc; being clearer about what our corporate priorities are; by encouraging mentoring amongst the staff; by insisting on in-house tailored training on management and staff supervision.

Be more open to ideas and recognise where the ideas come from. Inform staff of organisational direction to build some stability in unpredictable periods.

Some senior managers need to treat their fellow employees, no matter what level with dignity and respect.

Not surprisingly, SES employees were more positive about the senior leadership in their agency than were employees at other levels. They were also more positive than members of the UK SCS. Three-quarters of SES employees agreed that their agency was well-managed, compared to 51% of senior civil servants in the UK. Similarly, SES employees were more likely than their UK colleagues to agree that the most senior leaders in their agency were sufficiently visible (70% and 45% respectively).⁷ These differences may partially reflect the smaller size of many APS agencies compared to those in the UK.

Reflecting some of the key results highlighted above, employees’ satisfaction with the composite Senior Leaders factor that emerged in the factor analysis of satisfaction with a range of issues related to employee engagement was lower than most other employee engagement factors, with only half of employees being satisfied with this factor.⁸

Employees within the ACT were more satisfied with the Senior Leaders factor than those outside of the ACT, as were SES employees (79%) compared to EL and APS 1–6 employees (both 50%). Employees working in administrative support and/or clerical; legal; policy; or programme design and/or management roles were more satisfied than colleagues working in regulatory and service delivery roles.

There was also wide variation in satisfaction levels between the 45 agencies with individual agency-specific results—satisfaction levels ranged from 30% to 75%. This suggests that, although satisfaction with senior management does have a tendency to be lower than other results, there are still strategies that agencies can adopt to improve satisfaction levels.

Leadership capability and development

MAC’s report, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, called on all APS agencies to invest in identifying and developing the future leaders of the APS. The focus on identifying and developing future leaders is something that has also gained strong attention internationally; however, there is general recognition that it is not a simple process. A recent report produced for the Canadian public service has outlined some of the challenges in public service leadership planning,⁹ many of which resonate in the Australian context:

• Are public sector leaders being given the necessary organisational support to allow them to develop the right skills?
• Is the current landscape conducive to effective leadership, or has an organisational culture of assigning blame, while increasing transparency, accountability and the complexity of regulations, stifled the ability of leaders to innovate and introduce the meaningful systemic reforms that will equip the public service to meet the challenges of tomorrow?
• If the leadership environment is proving to be too stifling and the organisational culture needs significant revitalisation, what are the key leverage points at which renewal efforts can begin and what are the key drivers of change?

These are questions which are likely to be relevant to all APS agencies as they focus on identifying the most effective approaches to developing leadership capability.

Identification of potential leaders

There has been an increasing focus in Australia, and internationally, on identifying and developing the leaders of tomorrow; for example, recognising the importance of ensuring it has the necessary future leadership, the US Office of Personnel Management has issued new guidelines to both potential leaders and managers.¹⁰ These guidelines are based on the establishment of a strong learning environment, supportive of both initial and ongoing training, that is clearly linked to organisational strategy, goals and plans. In the APS, one of the major outcomes of Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce was an action item that all agencies develop systematic approaches to identifying and developing potential future leaders.

The approach to identifying and developing future leaders in the APS has tended to be relatively informal, although at the most senior levels, a more formal APS-wide approach is taken. Each year, the Australian Public Service Commissioner holds formal discussions with agency heads about high-potential senior leaders to identify ways to enable these employees to improve their leadership skills; for example, through identifying new challenges within their current agency or pursuing mobility options outside the agency.

Some agencies are also adopting more formal approaches within their agency. Twenty-three per cent of agencies have a formal succession management policy, although there has been no increase in recent years. A similar proportion (25%) had developed, or were developing, a talent management strategy targeted at high-potential employees.

One agency that reported having a talent management strategy was ATO, which uses innovative tools and programmes to manage succession. This strategy has enabled ATO to identify talented people to participate in accelerated development opportunities and to transfer knowledge in complex technical areas before leaving the organisation.

Despite a relatively low incidence of formal succession planning and talent management strategies, most agencies report a range of more informal strategies. Almost all agencies reported using managers and agency heads to identify potential leaders (see Figure 7.3). Identification through development opportunities and the performance management system was also widespread. Self-identification by individuals was a common method used across agencies. Career development assessment centres, were rarely used except at the EL classifications.

Informal methods can be effective in identifying potential leaders. Given the scale of the workforce challenges faced by the APS, however, there is potential for agencies to take a more strategic approach. The Commission is currently preparing further advice for agencies on this issue.

ILS framework and leadership capability

The APS leadership model, the Integrated Leadership System (ILS), outlines the key capability areas that APS leaders need to develop to be successful. The model is underpinned by five capability clusters that make up the Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework (the SELC framework): achieves results; cultivates productive working relationships; communicates with influence; exemplifies personal drive and integrity; and shapes strategic thinking. These capabilities are relevant to all APS employees, although the extent to which employees will be required to demonstrate skills commensurate with these capability clusters will, of course, vary at different levels and, to a lesser extent, in different positions.

The ILS is more than just a tool that can be drawn upon to guide leadership development. It can be integrated into agencies’ broader HR practices, and used as a capability guide for both recruitment and selection processes and for managing performance.

There is a relatively low level of awareness of the ILS among employees—57% of SES employees and EL 2s responding to the employee survey were not aware of it. In some cases, this may reflect the fact that, while agencies have adopted the ILS as part of their leadership capability frameworks, they have not badged the framework as the ILS. Nevertheless, given the benefit that the ILS can provide to employees in taking a strategic approach to their own development, the Commission is looking at how best to package and present the ILS so as to increase awareness among the SES and the SES feeder group.

The employee survey asked employees to rate their immediate supervisor’s performance against the five ILS/SELC capability clusters. Consistent with previous years, employees were most likely to rate their immediate supervisor’s performance as high against achieves results and exemplifies personal drive and integrity. There were improvements in the rating for four of the capability clusters—the only area that did not record an improvement was achieves results (see Figure 7.4). There was a particularly strong increase in the shapes strategic thinking cluster, where employees’ ratings had previously been declining.

Some caution should be exercised when comparing the results for 2006–07 with those of earlier years, as the 2007 employee survey included a brief description of what skills and behaviours relate to each of the capability clusters which was not included in the previous surveys. Nevertheless, these results suggest that agencies’ concerted effort to improve leadership capability, especially in the area of strategic thinking, is starting to translate into improved performance.

Not surprisingly, against most capability clusters SES employees were much more likely than employees at other classifications to rate their supervisor’s capability as high. Employees within the ACT were also more positive about their supervisor’s ability than those outside the ACT. Employees working in administrative support and/or clerical roles were generally the most positive, while those in research and regulatory roles were generally less positive about their immediate supervisor’s performance.

In prioritising their own development needs over the next 12 months against the five capability areas, over half of employees placed a high priority on four of the five capabilities. However, compared to 2005–06, this year a smaller proportion of employees rated their own development needs as high in all capability areas, except strategic thinking. Fifty-nine per cent of employees placed a high priority on leadership development in the area of communicating with influence, 54% on shaping strategic thinking and achieves results, 51% on cultivating productive working relationships, and 46% on exemplifying personal drive and integrity.

Priorities varied by classification, with APS 1–6 employees more likely than those at other classifications to place a high priority on exemplifying personal drive and integrity, and ELs more likely than SES and APS 1–6 employees to place a high priority on shaping strategic thinking. When type of work was examined, consistent with the nature of their duties, seven in 10 employees working in policy and legal roles placed a high priority on shaping strategic thinking compared to only five in 10 working in corporate, service delivery and administrative roles.

Skills gaps for the SES and SES Feeder Group

MAC’s report, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, identified concerns about the breadth and depth of experience of potential APS leaders in management, policy development and whole of government processes. The analysis earlier in this chapter of the EL 2 group shows that many EL 2s have only ever worked in one APS agency. This is also the case for 45% of the SES.

Consistent with this more limited experience, skills gaps for the SES and the SES feeder group were reported by a substantial proportion of agencies in 2006–07. Agencies were most likely to report skills gaps in their SES feeder group (generally EL 2s), with over half (57%) of agencies reporting that they had at least one skills gap for this group. One-third of agencies reported that they had three or more skills gaps. Almost one-third of agencies (31%) reported skills gaps for their SES group.

Figure 7.5 shows that the most commonly reported skills gap for both SES and SES feeder group employees was in the area of people management, with half of agencies reporting this as a skills gap for employees in their SES feeder group. Around one-third of agencies also reported that they had skills gaps in their SES feeder group in the areas of capacity to steer and implement change, strategic thinking and communicating effectively. The continuing high incidence of skills set gaps for this group supports the need to invest further in the development of this group.

Leadership capability development within agencies

There has been a strong focus on leadership development within agencies and across the APS. Almost half of agencies have developed their own agency-specific leadership development programmes. Many of these agencies have developed programmes for a broad range of classifications; however, the main target audience has been ELs and APS 5–6 levels. Forty per cent of all agencies have developed programmes for EL 2s, while 38% of agencies has developed programmes for EL 1s and APS 5–6 level employees. Only 21% of all agencies have developed their own programme for SES Band 1 employees, and even fewer have developed their own programmes for SES Band 2 and/or 3 employees. This suggests that agencies are relying on broader SES cadre programmes, such as whole-of-APS courses provided by the Commission and externally provided programmes, such as those offered by ANZSOG, the private sector and international programmes, to assist their SES leaders.

Agencies listed several reasons for developing their own leadership development programmes. The main reason was to address agency-specific issues, with many agencies indicating that these programmes were designed to complement existing broader leadership programmes. Some of the comments that agencies made as to why they had developed their own agency-specific leadership programmes were:

Leadership capabilities and behaviours have been developed within DVA to complement the APS Integrated Leadership System. The DVA leadership programme is designed to develop these capabilities and behaviours in a DVA business context.

The DOTARS leadership programme was developed to influence particular leadership behaviours and cultures in the agency whilst addressing some relevant capability issues for the DOTARS leaders.

Inherent difficulties of developing program for a dispersed workforce. Developed to meet specific agency requirements and business challenges.

Whole-of-APS leadership development

Agency approaches to leadership development are supported by whole-of-APS leadership programmes. The Australian Public Service Commissioner has a specific responsibility under the Act to ‘contribute to, and foster, leadership in the APS’.¹¹ In practice, the Commissioner exercises this responsibility on a cost-recovery basis in close collaboration with agencies, consulting with portfolio secretaries on the development of leadership and development programmes for SES and EL employees.

In 2006–07, the Commission released four new expertise development programmes to assist senior executives develop their knowledge and skills across a broad range of key areas: Programme Management, Mastering Your Financial Environment, Regulatory Environment and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy in Practice programme. These programmes complement the residential programmes for the SES introduced in 2005–06 that were continually refined throughout 2006–07.

The Commission also delivered 15 iterations of the three-day SES Orientation programme during 2006–07, which provides new senior executives with the essential information they need to operate effectively in the APS environment. Two hundred and twenty-two senior executives attended the orientation programme in 2006–07, an increase of 35% on the previous year.

Other leadership programmes offered by the Commission are the SES Breakfast Series, Ministerial Conversations, and Leading Australia’s Future in the Asia-Pacific (LAFIA) programme. In 2006–07, the Commission led one LAFIA programme in Asia and one programme in the Pacific. The ANZSOG Executive Fellows Program is also targeted at the SES.

The Commission is also working in partnership with the New Zealand, Canadian and UK Governments to develop the inaugural Leadership Across Borders: A Four Country Programme which will commence in 2008. This programme is targeted at high-performing SES Band 2s, and will provide an opportunity for these senior leaders to work across borders on topical live case studies. Participants will engage in a series of learning activities to be delivered in three different countries over a period of eight months.

SES Feeder Group development

Focusing on the development of the EL group is fundamental to the capacity of the APS. Two key APS-wide programmes for the SES feeder group are the Career Development Assessment Centre (CDAC) and ANZSOG’s Executive Master of Public Administration (EMPA).

CDAC assesses high-performing EL 2s identified by their agencies as having clear potential to reach the SES. In 2006–07, there were 156 participants, up from 96 in 2005–06 and 118 in 2004–05.¹²

A comparison of the progression from EL to SES classifications between participants in CDAC and non-participants shows that, at June 2007, 40.2% of 2004–05 CDAC participants were in the SES compared to 7.8% of non-participating EL 2s who were EL 2s at June 2004. Furthermore, 51.7% of 2000–01 participants were in the SES compared with 15.8% of non-participating EL 2s who were EL 2s at June 2000. This is not necessarily a measure of the success of the programme, but it does indicate that suitable people are generally being nominated, and that they are being helped to identify their development needs for future advancement.

ANZSOG’s EMPA is a two-year part-time postgraduate degree aimed at high-performing EL 2s, which is intended to develop the depth and breadth of management and policy skills needed in today’s public sector. In 2007, over 130 new students commenced the fifth Master’s programme, with 31 participants coming from APS agencies.

The Commission has also introduced two new programmes for ELs in the last 12 months: a residential programme, Executive Leadership Dimensions, targeted at EL 2s and Writing with influence. The Executive Leadership Dimensions programme—focusing on practical aspects of leadership in the APS—is a key component of the Commission’s renewed emphasis on building the capability of the SES feeder group, which has been identified in previous State of the Service reports as a priority for agencies across the APS. The programme was launched in January 2007, and two residential programmes were held in 2006–07, attracting 44 participants.

The Commission also holds EL Updates to offer EL staff the opportunity to keep up to date with major changes that affect the APS and to assist ELs to consider the implications for themselves, their staff and their agency. The EL Updates sessions offered in Canberra attracted high levels of participation in 2006–07, with 331 participants attending three sessions.

In 2007–08, the Commission is planning to roll out a broader suite of programmes targeted at ELs. These expertise development programmes will cover a range of areas, including: report writing in the APS environment; preparing Ministerials and Senate Estimates briefs; providing effective secretariat support in the APS environment; and the high-level responsibilities of recordkeeping.

 

1 Partnership for Public Service 2007, State of the Public Service Conference: Report of Proceedings. <http://www.ourpublicservice.org/OPS/publications/viewcontentdetails.php?id=116>

2 MAC agencies are listed in full at the beginning of Chapter 12.

3 Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac>

4 UK Cabinet Office 2006, Survey of the Senior Civil Service 2006, <http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/reform/leadership/scssurvey.asp>. Some caution should be exercised when comparing results with the results from UK SCS Survey 2006. While the questions in both surveys are similar, there may be differences in coverage and data collection methodologies may differ.

5 Australian Public Service Commission 2007, Agency Health: Monitoring Agency Health and Improving Performance, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

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

7 Some caution should be exercised when comparing results with those of the UK’s Survey of the Senior Civil Service 2006. While the questions in both surveys are similar, there may be differences in coverage and data collection methodologies may also differ.

8 The 12 factors were: Senior Leaders, Agency Culture, Immediate Manager, Work Group, Current Job, Governance, Merit, Diversity, Career and Development Opportunities, Learning and Development, Work-Life Balance, and Understanding Current Role. Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 4.

9 A. Cote 2007, Leadership in the Public Service of Canada: Leaders, The Leadership Environment, and Canada’s Public Service in the 21st Century, Public Policy Forum, Ottawa, <http://www.ppforum.ca/en/canadaspublicserviceinthe21stcentury>

10 Office of Personnel Management (USA) 2006, Guidelines for Managerial Development, <http://www.opm.gov>

11 Public Service Act 1999, s.41(1)(j).

12 The lower number of participants for 2005–06 was due to the introduction of the new CDAC series which commenced later in the financial year (i.e. September).