Home
› Integrity and fairness > Merit and fairness in APS employment
» Next: SES engagements
Integrity and fairness
Merit and fairness in APS employment
One of the APS Values is that the APS is a public service in which employment decisions are based on merit. Merit in the APS means that employment decisions should be based on a person’s ability to do the job, and that decisions must be objective, fair and avoid patronage, favouritism and unjustified discrimination. For ongoing employment or promotion, all eligible members of the community should have a reasonable opportunity to apply for jobs and there must be a competitive assessment of applicants’ suitability to perform the duties of the job. For short-term or ongoing movement at level, or temporary movement to a higher- level job, the decision is based on a person’s work-related skills and the work-related qualities required for efficient and effective operational performance. A competitive assessment is not required in these cases.
Fair selection procedures together with the application of merit in employment decisions are critical to ensuring that the APS attracts and retains efficient and effective staff. Of the respondents to the employee survey who reported that they were intending to leave their agency within the next two years, 18% nominated the response ‘promotions and rewards are not based on achievement’ as one of the reasons for the move.
Recruitment to the APS is guided by minimum requirements and a set of principles set out in the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Service Regulations 1999, the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions 1999 and the Public Service Classification Rules 2000. These requirements are being reviewed to ensure that they provide the best possible framework for ensuring merit, while allowing agencies to take the most effective approaches to the recruitment of employees. The current requirements give agencies considerable flexibility and do not prescribe a lengthy or complex process, but we can always do better. Nevertheless, MAC’s report, Reducing Red Tape in the Australian Public Service, found that if the time it takes to fill one or a few vacancies takes longer than four weeks, the delay is unlikely to be due to legal requirements. The cause is more likely to be poor planning and preparation by managers, or unnecessary internal processes put in place by the agency.9
Agency selection processes
Despite the flexibility available under the Act where direct appointment is possible, many agencies still choose to conduct competitive selection processes for movements at level and temporary assignment of higher duties. Sixty-seven per cent of all agencies reported that they routinely require the use of competitive selection processes for non-SES movements at level from another agency—a similar result to 2005–06 but less than the nearly 75% of 2004–05.
The rate of movement at level within agencies has been stable since 2004–05 at 56%.
Around three-quarters of agencies report that they had a routine requirement for competitive selection processes for long-term temporary assignment of higher duties—this result has been stable since 2003–04.
There may be circumstances where competitive processes for movements at level and higher duties are appropriate, particularly when they are conducted in an efficient and timely way. The results suggest, however, that there is potential for agencies to take a more flexible and less risk-averse approach to both movements at level and temporary assignments. In implementing more streamlined approaches, it will be important to ensure that employees are aware of the framework provided in the Act, and of how merit will continue to be assured. Agencies need to be more proactively informing their employees of what is appropriate and how they intend to progress it.
Employees’ perceptions of fairness and merit
Employees’ perceptions of merit are likely to be influenced by a range of issues. These include poor recruitment practices and disappointment at failing to win a job. Employees need to be confident that engagement and promotion decisions are transparent, that consistent principles are applied, and that there is no evidence of favouritism. They also need to understand how merit is applied under the Act and be confident that recruitment results in the selection of high-quality staff.
The Commission’s experience in conducting promotion reviews is that much of employees’ dissatisfaction with selection processes relates to a poor approach to providing feedback, and using selection decisions to avoid managing underperformance for temporary occupants of the position. There are also particular issues for agencies in handling recruitment conducted through ‘bulk rounds’, that is, when several different positions are filled through the one selection process. It is important that in conducting such exercises, agencies are clear about what they want to achieve, and have identified how the vacancies to be filled are similar and how they differ.
Employees’ perceptions of fairness in agency selection processes continue to be relatively low. Just over half of employees (52%) reported that in their work group the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly. A similar proportion of those who had applied for a job in the last 12 months, believed that the process relating to their most recent experience in applying for a job was conducted fairly.
Employees’ views of the fairness of selection processes have shown some improvement. While the overall result is still relatively poor, with less than half of APS employees (45%) agreeing that recruitment and promotion decisions in their agencies are fair, this result has increased from 35% in 2004–05. During the same period, the proportion of employees who disagreed has fallen from 30% to 23%; there is still a large group (31%) who neither agree nor disagree. Agreement that recruitment and promotion decisions are fair varied widely, from 26% to 77% across agencies with individual agency-specific results.
The 2006–07 APS-wide result (45%) is similar to that in Western Australia where 44% of employees believed that recruitment and promotion decisions are fair and in Tasmania (46%). The APS result compares favourably with the result from South Australia (34%).10
When specifically asked about the application of merit, employees remain most confident that merit is routinely applied in engagement and promotion decisions involving a competitive selection process (see Table 6.9). Employees were less likely to agree that their agency routinely applies merit to other employment decisions resulting from competitive selection processes (i.e. movements at level from within and from outside the agency, and temporary assignment of higher duties). Nevertheless, results improved for all employment decisions in 2006–07. Agreement levels have now generally returned to the levels of support reported in 2003–04, and levels of disagreement have fallen slightly since that time.
| My agency routinely applies merit (as defined in the Act) in the following types of employment decisions resulting from a competitive process(a) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of employment decision | Response | 2003–04 (%) |
2004–05 (%) |
2005–06 (%) |
2006–07 (%) |
| Engagement and promotion | Agree | 59 | 53 | 54 | 59 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 18 | 19 | 19 | 19 | |
| Disagree | 18 | 21 | 18 | 14 | |
| Don’t know | 4 | 7 | 10 | 9 | |
| Movement at level from another agency | Agree | 42 | 37 | 38 | 44 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 27 | 27 | 26 | 27 | |
| Disagree | 12 | 13 | 13 | 9 | |
| Don’t know | 19 | 23 | 23 | 19 | |
| Movement at level within my agency | Agree | 44 | 38 | 42 | 47 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 26 | 28 | 25 | 25 | |
| Disagree | 21 | 23 | 19 | 16 | |
| Don’t know | 20 | 12 | 14 | 13 | |
| Temporary assignment of ‘higher duties’ | Agree | 42 | 37 | 39 | 42 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 23 | 24 | 23 | 25 | |
| Disagree | 27 | 28 | 25 | 22 | |
| Don’t know | 8 | 11 | 13 | 11 | |
(a) This year, the employee survey did not include questions about employees’ perception of merit in movements at level and higher duties that did not involve a competitive selection process. Source: Employee survey |
|||||
Perceptions about whether merit is applied continue to vary widely amongst employees in agencies with individual agency-specific results. In 2006–07, between 36% and 85% of employees in these agencies agreed that merit is routinely applied in their agency for engagement and promotion decisions.
As part of the factor analysis of satisfaction with a range of issues related to employee engagement, a merit factor was identified that provides a summary of employees’ views about merit.11 The overall rate of satisfaction on the Merit factor was 47%. This was the second lowest result for any of the employee engagement factors indicating that there is still substantial room for improvement in employees’ perceptions of merit in the APS.12
Employees who applied for, and were successful in obtaining, a new position in the last 12 months, were much more likely to record higher levels of satisfaction on the Merit factor (61%) than employees who applied and were unsuccessful (29%). Unsuccessful applicants were over three times more likely to be dissatisfied or disagree than successful applicants (25% compared to 8%). It is likely that a lack of success in job applications will always be associated with poorer perceptions of merit.
Nevertheless, the wide variation in perceptions of merit in different agencies suggests that how selection processes are managed within agencies does have an important impact on employees’ views. This is confirmed by the impact of a range of issues that are within the capacity of agencies to influence on employees’ satisfaction with merit.
Employees with higher levels of job satisfaction, for example, were much more likely to have higher levels of satisfaction on the Merit factor than were those with lower levels of job satisfaction, as were employees who agreed that their immediate manager and senior managers within their agency act in accordance with the Values. Employees, who received formal individual performance feedback within the last 12 months, were also slightly more likely to be satisfied with merit, as were employees who had participated in training on merit.
Employees in large agencies recorded lower levels of satisfaction on the Merit factor than employees in small or medium agencies, as did those employees working outside the ACT compared to those working in the ACT. An employee’s classification was particularly significant—APS 1–6 employees (44%) recorded lower levels of satisfaction on the Merit factor than EL (55%) and SES (84%) employees.
This year, employees who did not agree that merit was applied in their agency were asked to provide reasons. Only a minority of employees chose to comment, but their comments were generally consistent with the important issues likely to influence perceptions of merit outlined above. In particular, employees were concerned about:
- a lack of competitive selection processes (even where such processes are not required under the Act)
- a perceived lack of transparency in selection processes and poor feedback
- the inexperience of panels and differing interpretations of merit
- general claims of favouritism—‘not what you know but who you know’ and manipulation of selection criteria to gain a desired result.
Comments provided by a number of employees who did not think merit had been applied in their agency show some misunderstanding of the concept of merit in the current legislative framework. In particular, there appears to be confusion among some employees between merit and process. A number of employees equated the absence of a competitive selection process for movement at level and temporary assignment as meaning merit has not been applied. Comments along these lines included:
The area I work in doesn’t always conduct competitive selection exercises when assigning HDA or moving people at level.
I was offered a 12 month secondment position without (an) advertising/interview/application process.
For some temporary appointments, higher duties will be assigned to a particular officer as a development opportunity.
These comments highlight the importance of agencies putting a strong emphasis on awareness-raising activities and active change management, to ensure that their employees have a clear understanding of what merit means under the Act and its supporting legislation as they revisit traditional approaches to recruitment within their agency.
Merit training
Most agencies already provide some training on merit. There has been a small increase in the number of agencies providing training to staff on merit and its application in employment decisions. In 2006–07, 80% of agencies provided such training compared to 75% in 2005–06.
Table 6.10 shows the type of training provided by agencies and by agency size. Although training is widespread, formal training is largely targeted at employees involved in selection of staff, with information provided to other employees on induction or through the intranet. Other sorts of merit training reported by agencies included online learning, internal training courses on Values, staff selection and accountability, management training and individual assistance available on request.
| Merit training | Small (%) | Medium (%) | Large (%) | APS (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005–06 | 2006–07 | 2005–06 | 2006–07 | 2005–06 | 2006–07 | 2005–06 | 2006–07 | |
| Compulsory training for selection panel members | 6 | 8 | 12 | 14 | 22 | 30 | 12 | 16 |
| Optional training for selection panel members | 34 | 43 | 38 | 46 | 48 | 48 | 39 | 45 |
| Included as part of induction training | 11 | 11 | 15 | 21 | 26 | 30 | 17 | 19 |
| Training for delegates and decision makers | 14 | 14 | 15 | 18 | 26 | 26 | 18 | 18 |
| General policies on the intranet | 37 | 49 | 77 | 82 | 83 | 87 | 62 | 69 |
| Other | 9 | 8 | 42 | 39 | 39 | 52 | 27 | 30 |
| Source: Agency survey | ||||||||
The employee survey also asked employees whether they had participated in training that included an emphasis on merit, such as selection panel training or agency recruitment and selection process training. Results were lower than the agency survey results would suggest.
Thirty-six per cent of employees reported that they had participated in some training with an emphasis on merit at some point in their APS employment, compared to 31% in 2005–06. Only 13% of employees reported participating in training within the last 12 months. The difference in the agency and employee survey results is likely to reflect the targeted nature of most formal agency training.
The importance of providing training to employees to raise their awareness of the application of merit under the current APS employment framework is supported by the continuing positive relationship between participation in training that has included some emphasis on merit and employees’ perceptions of the recruitment and selection process. Employees who reported some training were:
- more likely to report satisfaction on the Merit factor
- more likely to agree that in their work group the process of selecting a person is done fairly
- more likely to agree that their agency applies merit in competitive selection processes
- more likely to disagree that they found their most recent selection process difficult to understand (if they had applied for a position in the last 12 months).
Providing merit training to a broader range of employees, and encouraging everyone in the APS to think about what merit means and how we can make better and more innovative use of the flexibilities provided in the legislation, is likely to assist agencies’ overall approaches to improving recruitment processes.
Assurance processes
As for other aspects of the Values, it is important that agencies take steps to monitor compliance with the merit Value, particularly as agencies move towards a more strategic consideration of the application of merit. The relatively poor perceptions of merit put an even greater importance on assurance processes in this area.
Since last year, there has been a slight increase in the proportion of agencies using staff surveys, consultative committees, or other mechanisms to collect information on employees’ confidence that the agency ensures that merit is routinely applied in employment decisions. Thirty-four per cent of agencies reported using staff surveys in 2006–07 (up from 29%) and 33% of agencies reported using consultative committees (similar to the 31% reported last year). Fourteen per cent of agencies reported using both compared to 11% in 2005–06. A further eight agencies reported that they were developing a staff survey. Ten agencies reported other methods which included further training around selection exercises.
Broadbanding
An effective classification structure is essential as it underpins agencies’ remuneration policies and helps define how employees move within agencies and within the APS—the Commissioner’s Directions define promotion as the ongoing assignment of duties at a higher classification than the employee’s current classification. The Classification Rules establish an APS-wide classification structure but allow an agency head to allocate more than one classification to a group of duties that involve work value requirements applying to more than one classification (non-SES levels only). This is known as broadbanding and the allocation of a higher classification within a broadband to an employee already in that broadband is excluded from the definition of promotion.
Agencies that choose to implement broadbanding determine which levels are to be broadbanded and how employees move within a broadband. How a broadbanded classification system is constructed and applied can be an important influence on employee perceptions of the application of merit in their agency.
In 2000, in response to concerns that some agencies were seeking to broadband more than six classifications, the then Australian Public Service Commissioner advised agency heads it would be difficult to meet the values of merit and reasonable community access to APS employment opportunities without incorporating at least two breaks that would require open competitive selection, that is, a minimum of three broadbands. In 2005, the current Commissioner reiterated that advice and, in addition, advised agencies of her view that there are very few jobs at Executive Levels 1 and 2 which are sufficiently homogeneous or have a sufficient commonality of functions to justify broadbanding.
This year, agencies were asked whether they had introduced broadbanding and, if they had, the number of barriers introduced between broadbands and the requirements for movement between classifications within the broadband.
Sixty-four per cent of agencies reported at least some degree of broadbanding. Large agencies were more likely to report broadbanding than medium agencies or small agencies.
Agencies that had introduced broadbanding were asked how many ‘hard barriers’ they had placed between the APS 1 and EL 2 classifications, (i.e. a break between broadbands where an open competitive selection must be conducted). The average number of hard barriers reported by agencies was 3.85. In general, agencies appear to have operated consistently with the Commissioner’s advice and observed the values relating to merit and reasonable community access to APS employment opportunities.
All agencies reporting broadbanding had at least one requirement for movement between classifications in the broadband, with one-quarter of relevant agencies using six or more of the range of measures specified in the agency survey question.13 The three most common measures nominated across all agency sizes were work available at the higher level in the broadband (77%), an assessment of fully competent performance (70%) and an assessment of the work-level standards of duties (57%). One-third of agencies with broadbands required competitive selection processes for movement within the broadband, with vacancies advertised internally across the whole agency, and a further 29% of relevant agencies required competitive selection processes with vacancies advertised externally.
For those agencies which allow employees to move within a broadband, merit should still be considered. In this context, as for movement at level and temporary assignment, merit requires an assessment of a person’s work-related skills and the work-related qualities required for efficient and effective operational performance. The results from the agency survey suggest that most agencies appear to require such assessments. Nevertheless, employees in agencies without any broadbanding were more likely to agree that recruitment and promotion decisions in their organisation were fair (52%) than employees where there was any degree of broadbanding (44%). This result, however, when considered by agency size was only significant for employees in large agencies.
There is likely to be a range of other issues that could affect this result, for example, classification profile, overall levels of job satisfaction, and participation in merit-based training. Nevertheless, agencies that use broadbands may wish to consider placing particular emphasis on ensuring transparency of decision-making, an effective understanding of the process of movement within and between broadbands—both by employees and the managers who apply the broadband—and on establishing assurance mechanisms such as audits or staff surveys to monitor the application of merit to decisions on movement within broadbands.
9 Management Advisory Committee 2007, Reducing Red Tape in the Australian Public Service, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac>
10 The jurisdictional comparison data from surveys conducted in 2005–06 and 2006–07 was provided to the Commission by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, South Australia, on behalf of the Commissioner for Public Employment (Workplace Perspectives Survey 2006); Tasmania (State Service Employee Survey 2005); and the Office of the Public Standards Commissioner, Western Australia (Climate Survey 2006–07). The South Australian survey covers all employees employed under the Public Sector Management Act 1995 and the Tasmanian survey covered all employees employed under the State Service Act 2000. The Western Australian Climate Survey involved 14 separate agencies in 2006–07. Each year 10–15 agencies are surveyed with each agency being surveyed approximately once every five years.
11 Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 4.
12 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.
13 Measures specified in the agency survey were: an assessment of fully competent performance; an assessment of better than fully competent performance; an assessment of the work-level standards of duties; work available at a higher level within the broadband; meeting qualification requirements; competitive selection processes with vacancies advertised internally in part of the agency; competitive selection processes with vacancies advertised internally across the whole agency; competitive selection processes with vacancies advertised externally; incremental progression through pay scales; and other.
