Chapter 5: Leadership, learning and development in the APS
Strong and effective leadership supported by investment in learning and development are essential components in building a high-performing, innovative and agile Australian Public Service (APS). The next few years represent a very challenging time for the APS as it embarks on delivering an ambitious policy agenda for the new government, which requires a very strategic response at both an agency and APS-wide level.
Leaders in the APS are leaders of a professional public service that is focused on delivering broader benefits to the Australian community and its citizens. They operate in an uncertain and challenging world. They need to have the capacity to develop innovative solutions to complex policy problems and be able to work with many different stakeholders, irrespective of whether these are other government organisations, industry bodies or the community. Increasingly, they also need to be adept at delivering business in different ways, ranging from being the deliverer of services to supporting other sectors which deliver services to the Australian community.
APS leaders are also responsible for building agile organisations that have the depth of capability to adapt, so they can support the Government of the day effectively. The APS needs leaders who can not only drive performance and productivity improvements, but also act as role models of the APS Values (the Values) to other employees.
This chapter begins by examining the existing leadership capability across the APS, and then assesses how the APS and agencies are progressing towards establishing three pillars that underpin effective leadership strategies. The chapter then considers broader learning and development issues, including how agencies are aligning learning and development to their business goals, employee satisfaction with learning and development, and agencies’ investment in off-the-job learning and development.
Leadership
The last two State of the Service reports have highlighted leadership as a critical challenge for the APS. The UK Civil Service and the Canadian Public Service have also given leadership capability and continuity considerable attention.
International approaches to leadership continuity
The UK Civil Service’s leadership strategy is shaped around four key objectives aimed at positioning the civil service to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The Senior Leadership Committee has the responsibility for ensuring that the UK Civil Service has the right leadership capability to deliver on current and future priorities. The UK has recognised that a key aspect of leadership is planning for the future, including identifying and developing people who are able to fill the most demanding jobs in the civil service when they become available. The Civil Service Capability Group helps departments identify new posts, likely vacancies and potential successors to ensure the civil service has the right capability to achieve its objectives. The UK uses a Senior Civil Service survey to identify what improvements can be made to leadership.1
The Canadian Public Service is increasing its focus on leadership development as part of the Public Service Renewal Action Plan. In 2007–08, it launched an Advanced Leadership Program targeted at promising senior leaders and Deputy Ministers, and also implemented talent management plans with Assistant Deputy Ministers. Tools such as the Career Assignment Program and the Accelerated Executive Development Program are also being strengthened in order to effectively support the timely preparation of the next generation of public service leaders. Canada’s public service is also taking steps to identify and report on key indicators designed to track the state of the public service and the people management within it.2
Leadership capability
As the demands and challenges facing the public sector change, so too do the skills required of its leaders. APS leaders are increasingly required to think and work in innovative and more entrepreneurial ways, and to exhibit personally, and to reward in others, flexibility and creativity. This section examines employee and agency views about current leadership capability.
Ils framework
The APS leadership model, the Integrated Leadership System (ILS), outlines the five key capability areas that APS leaders need to develop: achieves results; cultivates productive working relationships; communicates with influence; exemplifies personal drive and integrity; and shapes strategic thinking. These capabilities apply to all APS employees, although the extent to which employees will be required to demonstrate skills commensurate with these capability clusters varies between levels, and to a lesser extent, across different positions.
To assist managers and employees in identifying their leadership development needs and plan for the future, the Commission has developed a range of guidance material, for example, the ILS book,3 which provides practical support tools designed to assist individuals, leaders and HR practitioners in applying the descriptions and behaviours in the Leadership Pathway. The guidance material includes:
- support tools such as Layers of Complexity which describes the increasing levels of complexity as roles change
- critical transition points which have been identified for each capability across the various levels and are points where new behaviours have been introduced
- an ILS Capability Assessment Kit that informs an individual’s thinking about their capabilities and assists them to prepare a development plan.
The ILS can be integrated into agencies’ broader HR practices, and used as a capability guide for both recruitment and selection processes and in managing performance.
Employee views of leadership capability
Employees continue to be most positive about their immediate supervisor’s performance in the leadership capability areas of achieves results and exemplifies personal drive and integrity (see Figure 5.1). Compared to those of 2006–07, this year’s results were stable across the five capability clusters. Trend results, however, indicate that employees’ perceptions of their supervisor’s performance in the areas of cultivates productive working relationships, achieves results, and communicates with influence have improved since 2002–03.4 Recent results in the area of shaping strategic thinking are also showing signs of improvement.
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 policy, administration, legal and programme design or management were generally the most positive, with those in research, exercising regulatory authority and service delivery generally being less positive about their immediate supervisor’s performance.
Although the results of the employee survey indicate that employees hold positive perceptions of their supervisor’s ability to achieve results, assessment of participant capability through the Career Development Assessment Centre (CDAC) leadership development programme for high-performing EL 2 employees suggests that ‘achieves results’ and ‘shapes strategic thinking’ are the weakest capability areas among EL 2 participants.5
Figure 5.1: Proportion of employees who rated their immediate supervisor as ‘high’ on leadership capabilities, 2002–03, 2004–05, 2006–07 and 2007–08
Source: Employee survey
Agency reported skills gaps for the SES and SES feeder group
Consistent with last year’s results, agencies continue to report skills gaps among their SES feeder group (EL 2s).6 Around two-thirds of agencies reported at least one skills gap for their SES feeder group compared to around one-third of agencies for their existing SES employees. The most commonly reported skills gaps continue to be in the areas of people management, capacity to steer and implement change and capacity to think strategically, although a higher proportion of agencies reported these as skills gaps for their SES feeder group. The continuing high incidence of reported skills gaps for the SES feeder group supports the need to invest further in the leadership development of this group, notably in the areas of effectively managing people, steering and implementing change and strategic thinking.
Views of APS leaders (SES and EL 2s)
Most SES and EL 2 employees are confident that they have the leadership skills to do their jobs effectively. Although the views of senior leaders vary, SES officers are generally much more positive about the leadership of their agency (and their involvement in it) than their EL 2 colleagues (see Figure 5.2).
Those SES and EL 2 employees who do not feel like that they are actively engaged in the leadership of their agency, need to look at ways to become more engaged. SES officers also need to identify opportunities they can provide to engage their EL 2 employees in the broader leadership of the agency. This is particularly important given research on agency health which indicates that a disconnect between senior leaders and middle managers can be an indicator of an agency at risk of poor performance.7
Figure 5.2: SES and EL 2 views about leadership in their agency, 2007–08
Source: Employee survey
Figure 5.2 shows that EL 2 employees were least likely to agree that the SES in their agency give their time to identify and develop talented people and that the SES encourage innovation and creativity. It is of concern that these two areas are continually ranked lowest by EL 2s given the important role that SES officers should play in succession management and facilitating a culture of innovation. Agencies need to consider ways of building the skills of existing leaders so they are better able to recognise talent and provide appropriate support, and so that they can more consistently recognise and reward innovation and creativity. The inclusion of these capabilities in performance agreements supported by development plans that encourage SES employees to build skills in the areas of coaching and mentoring may enhance existing leaders’ capacity to develop the leaders of the future.
Employee views of senior leaders
Despite the very positive views SES employees hold about leadership in the APS, employees more generally did not hold overly positive views about senior leaders, with only 39% of all employees satisfied with the Senior Leaders factor.8 The term ‘senior leaders’ was not defined in the employee survey, and for some employees it may include employees outside the SES.
Employee satisfaction with the Senior Leaders factor varied for different segments of the workforce. Employees within the ACT were more satisfied with their senior leaders than those outside the ACT, as were SES employees (66%) compared to EL and APS 1–6 employees. The wide variation in the results for agencies of 18% to 72% suggests that it is possible for agencies to improve employees’ perceptions of their senior leaders and that some agencies have a problem in need of immediate attention. Within this range, nine agencies (Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL), the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the Commission, Comcare, Finance, RET, PM&C, Treasury and the National Library of Australia (NLA)) have results substantially better than the APS-wide result.
Employees were most likely to agree that senior leaders lead by example in ethical behaviour and least likely to agree that communication between senior leaders and other employees is effective, or that senior leaders are receptive to ideas put forward by other employees (see Table 5.1). These last two results are of particular concern, as these areas have been highlighted in the two most recent State of the Service reports as ones requiring attention, but there has been no improvement.
| Satisfied/agreed (%) | |
|---|---|
| Source: Employee survey | |
| Senior managers in my organisation lead by example in ethical behaviour | 57 |
| Formal and informal communication within my agency was effective | 54 |
| Within my agency the most senior leaders are sufficiently visible | 52 |
| In my agency, the leadership is of a high quality | 46 |
| My agency is well managed | 45 |
| I feel change is managed well in my agency | 36 |
| In my agency, communication between senior leaders and other employees is effective | 35 |
| In my agency, senior leaders are receptive to ideas put forward by other employees | 35 |
In assessing employees’ views of senior leaders, it is important to note the tendency for employees to rate senior leaders lower than their immediate supervisor. This is likely to reflect, at least in part, the remoteness of junior employees from senior leaders. It may also be difficult for junior employees to make an informed decision about senior leaders’ performance and in some circumstances employees may feel more comfortable providing a neutral response to statements relating to senior leaders. Nevertheless, the continuing lower levels of satisfaction being recorded in the area of senior leaders, and in some instances higher levels of dissatisfaction, suggest that this is an area where improvements can be made.
Increasing effective communication, with an emphasis on active listening, was one of the key themes to emerge from comments provided by employees about ways senior leaders could improve their performance. Other broad themes were senior leaders: becoming more innovative and flexible; being more reactive and not constrained by procedures; providing effective guidance; consulting more often; and uniting together as leaders. Some examples of suggested improvements included:
Attendance at team-based meetings and workshops to both hear/learn how the grass roots staff operate and work whilst taking the opportunity to communicate information to staff and receive innovation and feedback from staff.
Consult, actively listen and consider— explain goals and strategic direction.
It would benefit staff if leaders listened to the views of staff who actually do the work before they implement procedural changes that impact on staff. These changes very often don’t work and cause enormous stress to staff.
Notwithstanding the time pressures that many senior leaders face, it is important that they are able to communicate and build effective relationships with their staff. Effective communication skills are essential for enhancing agency productivity and also provide the basis for modelling and building relationships with external stakeholders.
Strengthening the leadership of today and developing leaders for the future
Enhancing the capacity of existing leaders and developing the leaders of tomorrow is a joint responsibility between agencies and employees. Leaders (and potential leaders) need to be as professional and disciplined about their own leadership development as they are about their work.
At the same time, agencies need to develop effective leadership strategies to support leadership development. It is important for agencies to build links with academic institutions and research bodies in order to develop and deliver programmes that equip current and future leaders with the skills they need to navigate an increasingly complex world.
The three pillars
Three pillars are integral to effective leadership strategies: a cohesive leadership cadre; strong investment in leadership development; and systematic and integrated succession management planning. These three pillars need to be reinforced in agencies’ performance management systems. A strategic approach to learning and development is also essential. This section examines progress towards the three pillars.
1. Towards an APS leadership cadre
The first pillar of an effective leadership strategy is a cohesive leadership cadre that supports whole of government and collaboration with a range of stakeholders. A united and connected APS-wide leadership group is essential if senior leaders are to be effective in seeing the bigger picture, juggling complex policy priorities and communicating a clear sense of purpose and direction. The identity of the SES as an APS leadership cadre is clearly and very deliberately reinforced through s. 35 of the Public Service Act 1999 (the Act). The notion of a single SES was also reiterated by the Secretaries of MAC through the One APS—One SES statement issued in 2005.9 Yet, building this sense of identity continues to be a challenge for the APS.
Only 40% of SES employees ‘definitely’ see themselves as part of a broader leadership cadre—down from 55% in 2006–07. This decline was offset by an increase in the proportion of SES employees who see themselves as ‘somewhat’ part of a broader leadership group (48% in 2007–08 compared to 34% in 2006–07). Perceptions of the SES as an APS-wide leadership group continue to be lower among non-SES employees, with only 16% of EL and APS 1–6 employees seeing their SES as ‘definitely’ part of a broader leadership group.
Building a broader identity among senior leaders—An international challenge
The value of a service-wide leadership cadre has been highlighted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in its report, Ireland: Towards an Integrated Public Service,10 where it recommended the creation of a Senior Public Service in Ireland to further promote strong, central leadership across the public service. Establishing a broader leadership identity among senior executives is proving challenging in many countries. In most of its Member States the OECD has found that ‘the goal of establishing a go-anywhere corps is still far to be achieved as camaraderie or esprit de corps seems not to be present …[and] interdepartmental mobility is still low’.11 Despite the emphasis on managerial and leadership skills across OECD countries, it seems that too much emphasis is on technical expertise among senior executives, although recent changes in appraisal systems may enhance a more managerial approach.
In 2007–08, the decline in the proportion of SES employees seeing themselves as ‘definitely’ part of a broader leadership group was more evident for particular groups of SES employees, namely:
- SES working in departments (down from 64% last year to 40% this year), which is now consistent with the views of SES employees in non-departments
- SES working in large agencies (down from 59% last year to 39% this year), which is now consistent with the views of SES employees in small and medium agencies
- SES working in the ACT (down from 61% last year to 42% this year), which is now consistent with the views of SES employees working outside the ACT
- SES Band 1 employees (down from 51% last year to 37% this year), which is well below the 55% of SES Band 2s and 3s.
This is clearly an area where the APS needs to improve its performance, especially as many of the issues confronting the APS, such as climate change and Indigenous disadvantage, and the other long-term issues as identified through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agenda, need strong connected leadership across a number of agencies and levels of government. Agency heads have an important role to play in fostering a collegial cross-APS leadership culture, and SES Band 2s and 3s should also be communicating to their SES Band 1 employees the importance of being part of a broader leadership group. Existing performance management arrangements should also be reviewed in order to ensure that these systems encourage and reward collaborative behaviour. Increasing the mobility of SES across the APS, coupled with a greater focus on cross-agency project work and placements and attendance at APS-wide development programmes, may also assist in building a stronger APS-wide leadership identity.
Strategies that facilitate greater mobility and diversity of career experience, particularly among employees with limited opportunities to advance, or potential leaders, are an important part of building a cohesive leadership cadre.
Employees continue to be more satisfied with the opportunities for career progression in the APS (59%) compared to opportunities in their agency (46%). The level of satisfaction with opportunities for career progression is similar this year to that in 2006–07. However, satisfaction varies for different segments of the APS workforce.
- Younger employees (aged under 25 years) are more satisfied, with 62% satisfied with opportunities in their agency and 74% satisfied with opportunities in the APS.
- Female employees are more satisfied than male employees, with 48% of females satisfied with opportunities in their agency and 62% satisfied with opportunities in the APS.
- Satisfaction increased with classification, for example, 70% of SES were satisfied with opportunities in their agency (84% satisfied with opportunities in the APS) compared to 41% of APS 1–4 employees (53% satisfied with opportunities in the APS)—the one exception was graduates and trainees, who were most likely to be satisfied with opportunities in their agency (78%) and the APS (85%).
- Satisfaction with opportunities in the agency increased with agency size, for example, 38% of employees in small agencies were satisfied compared to 46% of employees in large agencies; but satisfaction levels with APS opportunities were similar across agency size bands.
- Satisfaction decreased as employees’ time at their current classification level increased, for example, 61% of employees with less than one year of experience at their current level were satisfied with opportunities in their agency (71% satisfied with opportunities in the APS) compared to 35% of employees with 10 or more years’ experience at their current level (48% satisfied with opportunities in the APS).
Although levels of satisfaction varied for different groups of employees, across all of these groups, employees were more likely to be satisfied with career progression opportunities in the APS compared to those in their agency. This suggests that mobility may be a key lever that can be used to foster a broader leadership identity. The results also highlight the value of APS-wide approaches to leadership development, succession management and improving employee retention across the public service.
2. Investing in leadership development
The second pillar of an effective leadership strategy is strong investment in leadership development for the SES and the SES feeder group. This includes investing in development at both the service-wide and the agency levels.
The Australian Public Service Commissioner has a specific responsibility under the Act to ‘contribute to, and foster, leadership in the APS’.12 The Commissioner exercises this responsibility on a cost-recovery basis in close collaboration with agencies, consulting on the development of leadership and development programmes for SES and EL employees.
Programmes offered by the Commission to SES and EL employees are designed to challenge and stretch employees’ thinking and approaches to issues, to promote cooperation and collaboration, and to foster a sense of a single APS identity. In particular, they are designed to shift the focus from the immediate daily work issues to bigger picture leadership considerations. They complement many of the agency-specific leadership development programmes offered by agencies.
There are eight flagship programmes for SES employees and three for the SES feeder group. These programmes are fundamental building blocks for enhanced leadership across the public service and all SES and EL 2 employees should participate in these programmes. The flagship programmes are summarised below.
- SES Orientation—this programme provides new senior executives with the essential information they need to operate effectively in the APS environment and also gives them an opportunity to build valuable networks with their peers. This year the Commission delivered 15 iterations of the SES Orientation programme, with 235 senior executives attending, which represented 69% of newly appointed SES. This is a good improvement on the previous year’s result, where 54% of newly appointed SES attended.
- New Leadership Horizons (SES Band 1)—this programme is designed to assist SES Band 1s who have been appointed in the past three years to gain confidence in their new roles and leverage their experience so as to enable them to make significant contributions to their organisation and across the APS. This year, 76 SES from 37 agencies participated in the programme, up from the 58 SES from 28 agencies in 2006–07.
- Transforming Leadership (SES Band 1)—this programme is for SES officers with three or more years of experience at the SES Band 1 level and is designed to help them harness their considerable experience and skills in the APS to take them to a new level of leadership capability. This year, 89 SES from 37 agencies participated in the programme, up from the 85 SES from 36 agencies in 2006–07.
- Leading Across Boundaries (SES Band 2)—this programme helps SES Band 2 officers to manage the complexities of leading in a contemporary APS environment. This year, 30 SES from 24 agencies participated in the programme, down from the 51 SES from 26 agencies in 2006–07.
- Leadership Mastery (SES Band 3)—this programme builds on the extensive leadership experience of SES Band 3s and exposes them to new ways of thinking and developing solutions to key challenges facing the APS, for example, whole of government problems, engaging citizens effectively, and appropriate governance and accountability arrangements. The 2007–08 iteration was rescheduled to November 2008, but in 2006–07, 15 SES from 15 agencies participated in the programme.
- Leading Australia’s Future in the Asia-Pacific (LAFIA)—LAFIA enables senior executives to respond strategically to changes in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2007–08, the Commission led one LAFIA programme in the Pacific—19 senior leaders undertook a two-week study of PNG, Vanuatu and Samoa.
- Leadership Across Borders—this groundbreaking international leadership initiative is designed for senior public sector leaders working within a Westminster system. The inaugural programme, launched in February 2008, attracted ten Australian, two New Zealander, 12 Canadian and 12 British SES Band 2 (equivalent) participants and provides an opportunity for these senior leaders to work across borders on topical and relevant case studies.
- Preparing to Appear Before a Parliamentary Committee—using a simulation approach, this programme is designed to provide practical guidance to SES and EL employees when preparing to appear before a parliamentary committee. This year, 67 SES and EL employees attended this programme, up from the 45 participants in 2006–07.
- EL 2 Executive Leadership Dimensions—this programme provides an opportunity for participants to reflect on their professional role and engage in a challenging and collegial learning environment. It focuses on the behaviours required to be highly effective as an EL 2. This year, the Commission delivered seven iterations of this programme, with 139 participants from 47 agencies—an increase on the 44 employees from 16 agencies who participated in the two iterations delivered in 2006–07, the inaugural year of the programme.
- The Career Development Assessment Centre (CDAC)—CDAC assesses high-performing EL 2s identified by their agencies as having clear potential to reach the SES. The ongoing success of the programme provides a benchmark for the Commission’s focus on strengthening the leadership capability of the SES feeder group. In 2007–08, there were 145 participants from 30 agencies—a number similar to last year’s.
A comparison of the progression from EL to SES classifications between CDAC participants and non-participants continues to show that CDAC participants are more likely to become SES officers—at June 2008, 45.8% of 2004–05 CDAC participants were in the SES compared to 6.3% of non-participating EL 2s (who were EL 2s in June 2005). This is not necessarily a measure of the success of the programme, but it does indicate that suitable people are generally being nominated, and they are provided with assistance and guidance in identifying their development needs for further advancement. - Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) Executive Master of Public Administration (EMPA)—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. The 2008 cohort included 137 new students from Australia and NZ, with around one-quarter being from the APS. The programme’s core subjects are taught in five-day residential blocks in various Australian and NZ locations.
The Commission also delivers expertise programmes to assist employees at all levels. In 2007–08, it released two new expertise development programmes to assist senior executives in developing their knowledge and skills in key areas—Policy for SES, which discusses emerging and complex policy issues and challenges, and the Strategic Communications programme that explores communicating strategically and engaging with diverse internal and external stakeholders to best achieve objectives. The Leader to Leader series was also launched this year—it is a new programme of strategic discussions aimed at stimulating debate about APS-wide challenges and future public sector reforms. The six areas covered in 2007–08 were: Australia’s Climate Change Challenge; Stepping up to Change; What is the Point of the Public Service?; APEC and the Economic Challenges facing the Asia-Pacific; Defence Management Review; and Impacts of the Intergenerational Report.
Other opportunities for SES feeder group development include the Executive Level Leadership Network and a range of learning and development programmes that specifically target executive level needs, including report writing in the APS, and the preparation of Ministerials. New programmes to be delivered in 2008–09 include Governance, Boards and the APS Employee and Navigating the Regulatory Environment for EL 2s.
Commission programmes are an important part of the mix of activities agencies should be using to develop leadership capability, complemented by agency initiatives. Agencies are continuing to take an active and targeted approach to leadership development and are most commonly using general leadership development programmes and programmes tailored to agency-specific requirements, mentoring and personal sponsorship, internal coaching and structured individual learning agreements (see Figure 5.3). These are consistent with those used in 2005–06.
Figure 5.3: Leadership development activities offered by agencies, 2007–08
Source: Agency survey
Agencies continue to report that they are focusing on leadership development of their EL employees through various programmes and coaching. However, there continues to be less use of structured placements (both within and outside the APS) in developing these leaders. There may be potential for agencies to make greater use of such approaches to improve organisational agility and generate a greater sense of a whole-of-APS identity for senior leaders in the APS.
3. Succession management
The third pillar of an effective leadership strategy is systematic and integrated succession management planning. Developing a robust succession management strategy that focuses on the identification and development of talented people at all levels is a fundamental and desirable long-term investment in the APS. Without adequate succession planning and management, especially at senior levels, agencies are at risk of corporate failure.
To ensure they are well-positioned for the future and to deal with tighter labour market conditions and an ageing workforce, some agencies have developed, or are in the process of developing, agency-specific succession management strategies. Yet, there remains a lack of focus on a more integrated and structured whole-of-APS approach to succession management.
Approaches to identifying and developing future leaders in the APS have continued to be relatively informal. Only 6% of agencies had a talent management strategy in place, with a further 29% indicating they were developing such a strategy. Large agencies (17%) were more likely than medium and small agencies to have a talent management strategy in place, although around one-quarter of medium and small agencies were developing such a strategy.
It was a more positive story when it came to agencies’ use of plans to manage succession for critical roles and leadership positions. One-quarter of agencies indicated that they had such plans in place and a further 40% reported developing plans to address succession management. Those agencies with plans in place tended to focus on succession management for critical roles (e.g. IT), SES and EL roles (between 65% and 74%).
There appears to be considerable room for improvement in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of succession management plans. Only one-fifth of agencies with plans had systems in place to monitor and evaluate succession planning, with large agencies (57%) more likely to do so. A further 25% of agencies with plans were developing processes to evaluate their succession management plans.
Agencies have different pressures (e.g. age profile of employees in critical roles and the agency’s ability to attract similar people from the private sector) driving the urgency of succession management strategies. Therefore, it is not surprising that agencies are at different stages in developing approaches to succession management. ATO is relatively advanced with approaches to succession management, and Centrelink piloted their succession management strategy in 2007–08.
ATO
ATO continues to refine its talent management strategy. The succession management risk assessment allows ATO to first identify risks and once the risks have been identified, they are used to prioritise talent management efforts. By using this process ATO has identified key risks to one core business capability—technical decision-making. This has become a priority area for talent efforts, and ATO has a high-level, executive-sponsored project looking to identify high-potential staff with these capabilities, and also to manage high-risk staff (high intention to leave, high impact) to ensure their retention. The ‘talent scout’ tools are used by business lines to identify and discuss high-potential staff in key risk areas. The criteria for identifying talent was established by the leaders in the business lines, which ensures relevance to the business as well as giving business leaders some ownership of the process.
Centrelink
In 2007–08, Centrelink developed and piloted a succession management strategy targeting the development of high-performing employees with potential to move into senior executive roles. As a result of the lessons learned, the processes and tools have been refined and implementation is progressing. Work is also progressing on a policy direction and implementation plan to enable succession management principles and processes to be adopted nationally at the Team Leader (APS 5–6) levels and EL classifications, as part of an integrated capability development strategy.
Communication strategies and education of managers, along with seamless integration with performance management reporting cycles, remains a priority. It is too early to quantify the benefits of implementation, as it may take between two and five years for outcomes to become measurable in terms of gains made in capability development aligned to business needs and competitiveness at selection.
Anecdotally, candidates and managers are reporting increased confidence, clarity around expectations and development needs, improved effectiveness and relationship management, and ability to target information and opportunity and overall commitment and motivation.
Most agencies report using a range of more informal approaches to succession planning and talent management, rather than integrated succession management strategies or formalised plans. Almost all agencies reported using managers and agency heads to identify potential leaders, with identification through development opportunities and the performance management system, along with self-identification by individuals also commonly used for employees at all classification levels (see Figure 5.4). Career development assessment centres were used only by a minority of agencies, although around one-third of agencies used them for EL employees.
Informal methods can play a role in identifying potential leaders, but an integrated and strategic approach to succession management where all leaders have the skills and responsibility for identifying and developing ‘new’ talent is needed. Agencies should focus on developing approaches which effectively align retention, recruitment and succession management strategies.
Due to threshold issues, it may be difficult for smaller agencies to develop comprehensive succession management strategies. In such cases, these agencies could work with their portfolio department or in partnership with other agencies or even relevant stakeholder bodies to expose their employees to a broader range of opportunities.
Agencies should also consider how their individual strategies help to support a broader APS culture, especially by encouraging mobility as a means of improving individual and service- wide leadership capability.
To facilitate a greater strategic approach to talent identification and succession management across the APS, the Commission has produced the publication, Ensuring Leadership Continuity in the Australian Public Service: A Guide to Succession Management.13
Figure 5.4: Methods agencies use to identify future leaders, 2007–08
Source: Agency survey
Learning and development
This section examines learning and development issues more broadly across the APS. There are many learning and development options available to agencies, including formal off-the-job training, structured work placements and giving employees opportunities to work on ‘stretch’ projects or activities. Learning and development is a fundamental cornerstone in any strategy to strengthen agencies’ organisational agility (i.e. the depth of skills and capacity) and to improve productivity. Over three-quarters of employees surveyed indicated that increased knowledge or experience in the job and access to effective learning and development were important in helping them increase their productivity.
Learning and development can also produce other benefits for agencies, for example, as part of an attraction strategy—almost six out of 10 employees indicated that developmental and/ or educational opportunities were important in attracting them to their current job. These opportunities were particularly important for younger employees, with just over seven in 10 employees aged under 35 years rating access to these opportunities as important.
In recognising the organisational benefits that can be realised through learning and development, a strong focus has been placed on this area both internationally and in Australia. In the UK, the National School of Government has released a new online portal to give public servants greater control over their learning and development. The portal offers a range of information about leadership and management issues and provides tools to assist in improving performance, for example, ‘Finance Skills for All’ and ‘Understanding the Civil Service’.
In the APS, learning and development is a service-wide and agency issue. The Commission offers a range of programmes focused on generic skills that can help APS employees to become more effective in their roles. The Commission is assisted in this role by the Leadership and Learning Advisory Committee (LALAC), which provides strategic high-level advice to the Commissioner on whole-of-APS capability building. LALAC comprises primarily SES Band 3 employees representing line and central agencies—member agencies at September 2008 were the Commission, Defence, PM&C, Treasury, FaHCSIA, DoHA, DIAC, and the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Ombudsman).
In examining learning and development activities across the APS, the following section considers issues such as the alignment of learning and development to business goals, employee satisfaction, and agencies’ investment in off-the-job learning and development.
Learning and development priority areas and alignment to organisational business goals
To maximise the productivity gains achievable from learning and development, it is important for agencies to take a strategic approach to identifying learning and development needs across the organisation and prioritise these needs according to business requirements. Planning for learning and development requires the same amount of vigour and attention as any other management task, and should not be seen as an ‘optional extra’. It is therefore pleasing that results from the agency survey suggest that agencies have taken their responsibilities seriously and have progressed well in these areas.
Identifying learning and development needs and priority areas
Agencies collect information about employees’ learning and development needs in different ways, for example, through employee self-identification or manager identification via the performance management system, through formal skills needs analyses and/or organisational skills gaps identified by higher-level managers.
Consistent with results in previous years, around three-quarters of employees indicated that their learning and development needs had been identified and agreed with their manager. It is disappointing, however, that yet again one in five employees report that this is not the case.14
There continues to be a large variation across agencies—the proportion of employees in the 47 agencies with agency-specific results who indicated their needs had been identified ranged from 30% to 85%. Substantial work needs to be undertaken by agencies with results at the lower end of the spectrum in order to rectify their performance in this area.
Last year’s State of the Service report noted that employees in small agencies and employees working outside the ACT were less likely to indicate that their learning and development needs had been identified and agreed to. This year, however, these employees were just as likely as their ACT-based colleagues to indicate that their needs had been identified. Variation continues to exist by type of work, with employees working in regulatory and legal roles most likely to report that their learning and development needs had been identified and agreed to, and employees in administrative support, clerical or corporate roles least likely to indicate that this was the case.
SES employees (63%) continue to be less likely than EL (70%) and APS 1–6 (74%) employees to report that their learning and development needs have been identified. The last two State of the Service reports have highlighted the need for agencies to improve their performance in this area, but this has not occurred.
Agencies continue to have a good understanding of how learning and development requirements vary for employees at different levels. In the next 12 months, learning and development targeted at technical skills is a priority across all classification levels; however, its importance decreases as classification increases (see Table 5.2). Another priority across all classifications is other public administration, with the types of skills targeted in this category varying across classifications—integrity training (e.g. APS Values and Code of Conduct) is a priority for APS 1–6 employees and working with Ministers and appearing before parliamentary committees is a priority for EL 2 and SES Band 1 employees. For SES Band 2 and SES Band 3 employees, who are not included in the table below, two dominant priorities emerged—leadership and broader management skills (e.g. strategic management, operational planning and managing risk).
Given investing in leadership development is one of the three pillars of an effective leadership development strategy, it is pleasing that agencies see leadership and people management skills as development priorities for their EL and SES employees. Agencies need to ensure that they action these priorities.
| Rank | APS 1–4 | APS 5–6 | EL 1 | EL 2 | SES Band 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(a) Agencies were asked to identify, by classification, the top five learning and development needs for their employees in 2008–09. The results in Table 5.2 are the five areas most commonly reported by agencies. Source: Agency survey |
|||||
| 1 | Technical, relevant to current job | Technical, relevant to current job | People management | Leadership | Leadership |
| 2 | Other public administration | People management | Leadership | People management | Other public administration |
| 3 | Writing | Other public administration | Other public administration | Other public administration | People management |
| 4 | Interpersonal skills | Interpersonal skills | Technical, relevant to current job | Technical, relevant to current job | Building partnerships and relationships |
| 5 | Information technology | Writing | Business and/or finance | Interpersonal skills | Technical, relevant to current job |
Last year’s State of the Service report identified new ways of working as a future challenge for the APS. Strong and effective interpersonal skills are foundation skills for modern public servants who are increasingly required to have the ability to listen to the views of others, take them into account, resolve conflict when needed and negotiate effectively. It is encouraging that agencies are placing a priority on interpersonal skills for three of the five groups, and that building partnerships and relationships has been identified as a priority for SES employees. Effective relationship management skills for all employees will be important in building agile and responsive organisations that are better able to engage with stakeholders and the community.
Aligning learning and development to organisational business goals
Agencies continue to have a strong focus on aligning their learning and development with their organisational business goals. The most common way of doing this is by identifying priorities through the performance management system (see Figure 5.5). The inclusion of learning and development priorities in collective and/or individual agreements has declined, but there has been an increase in the identification of learning and development priorities in work group plans and corporate plans over the last five years. This is a positive result and, coupled with most employees having their learning and development needs identified and agreed with their manager, suggests that learning and development is increasingly being integrated with business processes and organisational needs.
Figure 5.5: Measures used to align learning and development to organisational business goals, 2002–03, 2004–05 and 2007–08
Source: Agency survey
Despite a change in the types of measures being used to align learning and development with organisational business goals, almost all agencies continue to report using at least one measure. The proportion of agencies using four or more measures decreased from 68% in 2004–05 to 60% this year. As agency size increases so does the tendency to use a broader range of measures to align learning and development with business goals.
Employee satisfaction and access to learning and development
Given the influential role that learning and development can play in attracting and retaining employees, it is important that employees perceive it is managed well.
Satisfaction with learning and development
This year, employees held mixed views about learning and development, with just over half of employees satisfied with the Learning and Development factor.15 Satisfaction varied for different segments of the workforce, with younger employees (i.e. those aged under 25 years) recording higher levels of satisfaction, as did women, employees in small agencies and employees working in the ACT. In contrast, people with disability reported very low levels of satisfaction (38%).
Employees were most satisfied with less formal areas of learning and development that had helped them improve their productivity (see Table 5.3). They were much less positive about the effectiveness of the learning and development they had received in the last 12 months. Only 31% of employees agreed that the learning and development they received in the last 12 months was highly effective in helping them improve their performance, but a further 41% believed it had been moderately effective.
One key issue related to perceived effectiveness was employees’ satisfaction with their access to learning and development—52% of those who were satisfied with their access also rated the effectiveness of their learning and development as high, and 59% of employees who were dissatisfied with their access rated the effectiveness of their learning and development as low.
| Satisfied/agreed (%) | |
|---|---|
(a) Employees were asked to rate effectiveness on a five-point scale from ‘very high’ to ‘very low’. Respondents who indicated that the effectiveness of their learning and development had been ‘very high’ or ‘high’ were included in the satisfied/agreed category. Source: Employee survey |
|
| I increased my knowledge or experience in the job | 78 |
| I had access to the information, resources and/or technology I needed to perform my job | 71 |
| I had access to effective learning and development | 58 |
| My agency places a high priority on the learning and development of employees | 55 |
| Overall, how satisfied are you with your own access to learning and development in your organisation? | 55 |
| Please rate the overall effectiveness of the learning and development you received in the last 12 months in helping you improve your performance(a) | 31 |
Some employees also provided general comments about learning and development, which were both positive and negative. Some examples of such comments included:
I have a thirst to learn but no training or opportunity has arisen.
Workloads are increasing which leaves no time for training.
There is a strong recognition and emphasis in the agency overall on the need to keep updating and developing skills throughout one’s career.
I find learning on the job most useful for me.
Far too much emphasis is put on formal training and higher education. Better opportunities for mobility and secondment are more important.
Agencies and managers need to be innovative in providing learning and development options to staff, for example, by using eLearning options and internal or cross-agency project opportunities. To assist agencies in the eLearning environment, the Commission launched an eLearning Support Services and Solutions Panel in September 2008. It has been established to improve access to eLearning service providers with a demonstrated track record, encourage the adoption of innovative services, and ensure content developed for the eLearning environment is of a high standard and appropriate for accreditation (where required). The eLearning Support Services and Solutions Panel supplements the Commission’s Leadership, Learning and Development Panel and provides services in relation to content development and accreditation, content deployment, training and support services, and consultancy services.
Amount of off-the-job learning and development
Most employees continue to report that they had spent some time on off-the-job learning and development activities in the last 12 months. Just over half of employees spent between one and five days and a further 30% spent six or more days on such activities. For the second consecutive year, a minority of employees (17%) indicated that they had spent no time on these activities.
Last year’s State of the Service report noted that employees inside the ACT were more likely than employees outside the ACT to have spent time on off-the-job learning and development. This was not the case in 2007–08 and employees outside the ACT were more likely than those inside the ACT to have spent six or more days on off-the-job learning and development (employees inside the ACT were more likely to have spent between one and five days on these activities). Consistent with last year’s result, employees in large agencies were more likely than employees in other agencies to report that they had spent six or more days on off-the-job learning and development, whereas employees in medium and small agencies were more likely to report that they had spent between one and five days on these activities. SES and EL employees were most likely to report that they had spent some time on off-the-job learning and development. Differences also emerged by type of work, with employees working in legal and regulatory areas most likely to report spending six or more days on off-the-job learning and development, and administrative support and clerical employees most likely not to have spent any time on such activities.
It is important to recognise that there is a range of learning and development options available for agencies to use beyond off-the-job activities. The employee survey results suggest that many employees are receptive to informal opportunities that help them to improve their performance. Around 85% of employees agreed that they ‘often look for opportunities to develop new skills’ and that they ‘enjoy challenging and difficult tasks at work where they learn new skills’.
Agencies’ investment in off-the-job learning and development
Collection of data about expenditure on learning and development has been increasing, and this year 90% of agencies indicated that they could estimate their investment in formal off-the-job learning and development activities. This is up from 78% in 2004–05 (when this information was last collected by the Commission). This year almost all large (96%) and medium (93%) agencies, and the great majority of small agencies (84%), could estimate their investment.
Of the 81 agencies indicating they could estimate their total off-the-job learning and development expenditure:16
- 54% spent $500,000 or more
- 21% spent between $250,000 and $499,999
- the remainder (25%) spent less than $250,000 on formal off-the-job learning and development in 2007–08.
These results suggest that agencies’ expenditure on off-the-job learning and development has held up over time. In 2004–05, 48% of relevant agencies spent $500,000 or more and 37% spent less than $250,000.
Not surprisingly, larger agencies continue to report spending more on formal learning and development than smaller agencies. All relevant large agencies and two-thirds of relevant medium agencies spent $500,000 or more, compared to only 13% of relevant small agencies.
Slightly fewer agencies (79 agencies) indicated that they were able to estimate their total expenditure as a percentage of departmental (agency) operating expenses.17 Around three-quarters of these agencies reported that their expenditure on formal off-the-job learning and development activities was less than 2% of their departmental (agency) operating expenditure; this is largely consistent with the results for 2004–05 (see Table 5.4).
| Expenditure as % of operating expenses | Small | Medium | Large | All agencies | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004–05 (%) | 2007–08 (%) | 2004–05 (%) | 2007–08 (%) | 2004–05 (%) | 2007–08 (%) | 2004–05 (%) | 2007–08 (%) | |
| Source: Agency survey | ||||||||
| Less than 0.99% | 44 | 50 | 28 | 42 | 28 | 19 | 34 | 39 |
| 1.00 to 1.99% | 36 | 31 | 56 | 38 | 39 | 43 | 43 | 37 |
| 2.00 to 2.99% | 12 | 13 | 11 | 15 | 6 | 24 | 10 | 16 |
| 3.00% or more | 8 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 28 | 14 | 13 | 8 |
Relevant large agencies continue to be more likely than relevant medium and small agencies to spend more than 2% of their departmental (agency) operating expenditure on formal off-the-job learning and development activities (see Table 5.4). This suggests that large agencies invest more in absolute as well as proportional terms in such activities. These results—coupled with the employee survey results—indicate that employees in larger agencies continue to have more access to formal off-the-job learning and development activities.
It is important to recognise, however, that this does not necessarily mean that large agencies place a greater emphasis on developing their employees. In fact, as discussed earlier in this chapter, employees in small agencies reported higher levels of satisfaction with the Learning and Development factor than their colleagues in larger agencies. The differences reported by agencies in their investment in off-the-job learning and development may reflect the different learning and development strategies they have in place, for example, some agencies may have a greater focus on online training and on-the-job opportunities. Agencies’ business and capability needs are also an important part of the mix that will inform their approaches to learning and development.
Key chapter findings
Agency and employee views of leadership capability indicate that developing and strengthening leadership across the APS continues to be a key challenge. This challenge should be addressed by:
- building a cohesive senior leadership cadre
- investing in leadership development for the SES and SES feeder group
- taking a systematic and integrated approach to succession management.
Critical to the success of these actions is the need for reinforcement in agencies’ performance management systems.
The majority of employees continue to be positive about their supervisor’s performance against the five ILS capability clusters. Longer-term trend information indicates gradual improvement in four of the capability areas; however, the stabilisation of results this year is of concern and agencies may need to renew their focus on developing these capabilities among managers.
Employees’ views of their senior leaders continue to be at lower than desirable levels. Being able to create a culture that values and rewards innovation is a skill that all SES and EL employees need to develop if the APS is to provide influential advice to assist the Government in achieving its objectives. It is disappointing that there has been no improvement in employees’ perceptions of communication between senior leaders and other employees, or that senior leaders are receptive to ideas put forward by other employees. As the Government looks to the APS for big ideas and innovation, it is essential that all senior leaders model a principles-based decision-making framework that facilitates devolved leadership and promotes a culture of innovation.
Agencies also continue to report skills gaps among the SES and SES feeder group, most notably in the areas of effectively managing people, steering and implementing change, and strategic thinking. These results reinforce the need to invest in capability development for both the SES feeder group and the SES.
The need to invest at an agency and APS-wide level in leadership development for the SES and SES feeder groups is one of the three pillars that underpin effective leadership strategies. In accordance with its statutory responsibility, the Commission offers eight flagship programmes for SES employees and three for the SES feeder group. These programmes represent the key building blocks for leadership across the APS, and all SES and EL 2 employees should participate in these programmes at some stage in their career. These programmes are complemented by agency-specific approaches, with many agencies continuing to focus on the development of their EL employees.
The creation of a cohesive senior leadership cadre is another pillar of effective leadership strategies. Almost a decade on from the implementation of the Public Service Act 1999, it is disappointing that many SES employees do not see themselves as part of a broader APS-wide leadership cadre. Action needs to be taken immediately to reverse the decline in the proportion of SES employees who identify as ‘definitely’ part of this broader leadership group. It is the responsibility of agency heads and their deputies to model and develop a culture within their agency that promotes leadership identity within a broader APS-wide context. It is also the responsibility of each and every SES employee to see themselves in the bigger picture and to recognise that their leadership role goes beyond their current agency.
Targeted mobility options and cross-APS leadership development programmes are just two ways that may assist in creating a greater sense of APS identity among senior leaders. Employees’ higher levels of satisfaction with career progression within the APS (compared to that within their agency) provide further evidence of the value of APS-wide approaches to leadership development and succession management.
The final pillar of effective leadership strategies is systematic and integrated succession management planning. Given the ageing of the APS workforce and the tightening labour market conditions, it is important that agencies focus on developing leaders for the future. This is not an easy process, but requires targeted and integrated strategies, where recruitment, retention, succession planning and leadership development opportunities are considered holistically and not in isolation. A comprehensive approach to succession management requires significant investment, rigorous and future-oriented strategic leadership and careful planning. At this stage, most APS agencies are relying on more informal approaches, which is a good start, but will not be sufficient for the future.
Agencies need to consider how and when they are going to identify leadership talent and potential. Key career points when an assessment could be made are: after three to five years in the public service; at the middle manager (EL 2) level; and at all levels in the SES. Potential can be gauged by a combination of talent (intellectual and organisational), engagement with the workplace (how hard employees work and how committed they are), and aspiration (their desire and commitment to developing themselves and moving up). Nevertheless, some talented employees may decide not to take the next step or to defer it for personal reasons. Agencies may need to consider ways to support these employees, especially in addressing the issue of work-life balance.
Although employees held mixed views about learning and development, it is pleasing to report that employees in small agencies and those working outside the ACT were as likely as their colleagues to report that their learning and development needs had been identified and agreed to with their manager—this is a solid turnaround on last year’s results.
Agencies continue to have a good understanding of how learning and development needs differ across classification levels, and most agencies are aligning their learning and development with their organisational business goals. It is encouraging that the skills for the future, for example, interpersonal skills as well as building relationships, were recognised as a priority for most groups of APS employees. It is also pleasing to report that more agencies are able to provide information about their expenditure on learning and development.
Agencies need to continue their strong investment in learning and development, even as financial pressures become greater. Learning and development is an area often targeted for reduction when agencies are being asked to cut back on their discretionary expenditure. Agencies may need to become more strategic and targeted in the types of activities they offer employees, but any reduction in expenditure on learning and development needs to be carefully considered, given its importance in enhancing productivity. In building agile organisations with the depth and breadth of capability needed to achieve both short-term and long-term benefits for the APS, learning and development is an area where agencies need to continue to invest.
1 UK Civil Service 2007, Leadership Strategy, <http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/iam/leadership/strategy.asp>
2 Canada Public Service Agency 2008, 2007–08 Public Service Renewal Action Plan, <http://www.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca>
3 Australian Public Service Commission 2006, The Integrated Leadership System, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>
4 Some caution should be exercised when comparing the results for 2006–07 and 2007–08 with those of earlier years, as the 2007 and 2008 employee surveys included a brief description of what skills and behaviours relate to each of the capability clusters. This was not included in previous surveys.
5 Australian Public Service Commission, Unpublished data, CDAC Series 3, September 2005 to August 2008.
6 See the State of the Service Report 2006–07 for more detailed analyses of skills gaps for SES and SES feeder group employees.
7 Australian Public Service Commission 2007, Agency Health: Monitoring Agency Health and Improving Performance, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>
8 The Senior Leaders factor is derived from the factor analysis of satisfaction with issues related to employee engagement discussed in Chapter 4 and provides a summary of employees’ views about senior leaders. Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 3.
9 Management Advisory Committee 2005, Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service: One APS—One SES, Australian Government, Canberra (leaflet).
10 OECD 2008, Ireland: Towards an Integrated Public Service, <http://www.oecd.org>
11 OECD Public Employment and Management Working Party 2008, The Senior Civil Service in National Governments of OECD Countries, p. 135, <http://www.oecd.org>
12 PS Act s.41(1)(j).
13 Australian Public Service Commission 2008, Ensuring Leadership Continuity in the Australian Public Service: A Guide to Succession Management, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>
14 The remaining employees were unsure about whether their learning and development needs had been identified and agreed to with their manager in the last 12 months.
15 The Learning and Development factor is derived from the factor analysis of satisfaction with issues related to employee engagement discussed in Chapter 4 and provides a summary of employees’ views about learning and development. Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 3.
16 Total expenditure was defined in the agency survey as ‘the sum of all costs associated with learning and development activity including venue costs, catering, presenter fees, travel expenses, development and design costs, material, salary costs+oncosts of participants etc’.
17 Departmental operating expenses were defined in the agency survey as including employee, supplier, depreciation and other expenses. It does not include administered items.