Go to top of page

This appendix presents additional data that supports the content included in the main chapters of this report.

Chapter 2—Transparency and integrity

Breaches of the APS Code of Conduct

Table A4.1 presents the number of employees investigated by agencies for suspected breaches of individual elements of the APS Code of Conduct and the number of breach findings in 2017–18. One employee can be investigated for multiple elements of the Code of Conduct.


Table A4.1: Number of APS employees investigated and found in breach of elements of the APS Code of Conduct, 2017–18
Element of Code of Conduct Number of employees
Investigated Breached
a. Behave honestly and with integrity in connection with APS employment—s.13(1) 243 199
b. Act with care and diligence in connection with APS employment—s.13(2) 216 189
c. When acting in connection with APS employment, treat everyone with respect and courtesy and without harassment—s.13(3) 154 107
d. When acting in connection with APS employment comply with all applicable Australian laws—s.13(4) 42 28
e. Comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee’s Agency who has authority to give the direction—s.13 (5) 147 121
f. Maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings that the employee has with any Minister or Minister’s member of staff—s.13(6) 0 0
g. Take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest (real or apparent) and disclose details of any material personal interest of the employee in connection with the employees’ APS employment—s.13(7) 31 25
h. Use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner and for a proper purpose—s.13(8) 124 98
i. Not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee’s APS employment—s.13 (9) 51 41
j. Not make improper use of: inside information, or the employee’s duties, status, power or authority in order to: a gain or seek to gain a benefit or advantage for the employee or any other person b. cause or seek to cause a detriment to the employee’s Agency, the Commonwealth or any other person—s.13 (10) 51 33
k. At all times behave in a way that upholds the APS values and APS Employment Principles and the integrity and good reputation of the employee’s Agency and the APS—s.13 (11) 412 356
l. While on duty overseas at all times behave in a way that upholds the good reputation of Australia—s.13(12) 7 6
m. Comply with any other conduct that is prescribed by the regulation—s.13 (13) 4 3

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Sources of reports

Table A4.2 presents the number of employees investigated for suspected breaches of the APS Code of Conduct during 2017–18 that resulted from each type of report.

Table A4.2: Type of reports leading to finalised Code of Conduct investigations, 2017–18
Type of report Employees investigated
(number)
A report made to a central conduct or ethics unit or nominated person in a HR area 215
A report generated by a compliance/monitoring system (for example, audit) 183
A report made to an email reporting address 45
A report made to a fraud prevention and control unit or hotline 41
A Public Interest Disclosure 22
A report made to another hotline 2
A report made to an employee advice or counselling unit 1
Other 52

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Outcomes of reports

Table A4.3 presents the outcomes for employees investigated for suspected breaches of the APS Code of Conduct during 2017–18.


Table A4. 3: Outcome of investigations into suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct, 2017–18
Outcome Employees investigated (number)
Breach found and sanction applied 336
Breach found no sanction applied—employee resigned prior to sanction decision 87
Breach found no sanction applied—other reason 66
No breach found (for any element of the Code) 56
Investigation discontinued—employee resigned 18
Investigation discontinued—other reason 6

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Table A4.4 presents the sanctions applied to employees found to have breached the APS Code of Conduct during 2017–18.


Table A4.4: Sanctions imposed for breaches of the Code of Conduct, 2017–18
Sanction Employees found to have breached the Code (number)
Reprimand 224
Reduction in salary 99
Deductions from salary by way of a fine 78
Termination of employment 75
Reduction in classification 20
Re-assignment of duties 13

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Harassment and bullying

In the 2018 APS employee census, 13.7 per cent of respondents indicated they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their workplace in the 12 months preceding the census.

Table A4.5 presents the types of behaviour perceived by respondents.


Table A4.5: Type of harassment or bullying perceived by respondents
Type of behaviour % of those who indicated that they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their workplace in the previous 12 months preceding the census
Verbal abuse 49.3
Interference with work tasks 40.8
Inappropriate and unfair application of work policies or rules 37.4
Other 20.3
Cyberbullying 7.3
Physical behaviour 5.4
Interference with your personal property or work equipment 5.1
Sexual harassment 3.3
‘Initiations’ or pranks 3.1

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their current workplace. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.6 presents the perceived source of the harassment or bullying indicated by respondents.


Table A4.6: Perceived source of harassment or bullying
Perceived source % of those who indicated they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their workplace in the previous 12 months preceding the census
Co-worker 38.2
Someone more senior (other than your supervisor) 33.5
A previous supervisor 26.1
Your current supervisor 19.4
Someone more junior than you 8.9
Client, customer or stakeholder 4.0
Contractor 2.5
Unknown 2.0
Representative of another APS agency 0.9
Consultant/service provider 0.8
Minister or ministerial adviser 0.4

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their current workplace. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.7 presents the reporting behaviour of respondents who had perceived harassment or bullying in their workplace in the 12 months preceding the census.


Table A4.7: Reporting behaviour of harassment or bullying
Reporting behaviour % who perceived harassment or bullying in their workplace during the 12 months preceding the census
I reported the behaviour in accordance with my agency’s policies and procedures 35.4
It was reported by someone else 8.3
I did not report the behaviour 56.3

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.8 presents the number of recorded complaints of harassment and bullying made by employees within APS agencies during 2017–18.


Table A4.8: Complaints to agencies about harassment and bullying
Type of harassment or bullying Number of complaints
Verbal abuse 259
Inappropriate and unfair application of work policies or rules 137
Interference with work tasks 65
Sexual harassment 34
Cyberbullying 30
Physical behaviour 26
Other 22
Interference with your personal property or work equipment 10
‘Initiations’ or pranks 1

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Discrimination

In the 2018 APS employee census, 12.3 per cent of respondents indicated they had been subjected to discrimination during the 12 months preceding the census and in the course of their employment.

Table A4.9 presents the types of the discrimination perceived by respondents during the 12 months preceding the census and in the course of their employment.


Table A4.9: Type of discrimination perceived by respondents
Categories % of those who indicated they had been subjected to discrimination during the 12 months preceding the census and in the course of their employment
Gender 32.4
Age 25.8
Caring responsibilities 23.7
Other 22.2
Race 19.4
Disability 11.7
Sexual orientation 5.2
Identification as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person 3.7

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they had perceived discrimination during the 12 months preceding the census and in the course of their employment. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Corruption

Table A4.10 presents the proportion of respondents who, during the previous 12 months, had witnessed another APS employee within their agency engaging in behaviour they considered may be serious enough to be viewed as corruption.


Table A4.10: Perceptions of corruption
Potential corruption witnessed %
Yes 4.6
No 87.4
Not sure 5.1
Would prefer not to answer 2.9

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Of those who had witnessed potential corruption, the types of corruption are presented in Table A4.11.


Table A4.11: Type of potential corruption witnessed
Type of potential corruption witnessed % who had witnessed potential corruption
Cronyism—preferential treatment of friends 64.6
Nepotism—preferential treatment of family members 25.0
Green-lighting 21.9
Acting (or failing to act) in the presence of an undisclosed conflict of interest 21.8
Fraud, forgery or embezzlement 15.2
Other 10.2
Theft or misappropriation of official assets 6.8
Unlawful disclosure of government information 6.0
Insider trading 3.0
Perverting the course of justice 2.5
Bribery, domestic and foreign—obtaining, offering or soliciting secret commissions, kickbacks or gratuities 2.2
Blackmail 1.4
Colluding, conspiring with or harbouring, criminals 1.4

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they witnessed potential corruption. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.12 presents employee perceptions of workplace corruption risk.


Table A4.12: Perceptions of workplace corruption risk
Type of workplace corruption risk %
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
My workplace operates in a high corruption-risk environment (for example, it holds information, assets or decision-making powers of value to others) 67.0 19.3 13.6
My agency has procedures in place to manage corruption 82.9 14.7 2.4
It would be hard to get away with corruption in my workplace 69.0 21.8 9.1
I have a good understanding of the policies and procedures my agency has in place to deal with corruption 74.4 18.6 7.0
I am confident that colleagues in my workplace would report corruption 79.5 15.5 5.1
I feel confident that I would know what to do if I identified corruption in my workplace 82.0 13.1 4.9

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Chapter 3—Risk and innovation

Table A4.13 presents employee perceptions of the risk culture in their agencies.


Table A4.13: Perceptions of risk culture in agencies
Questions Responses % of total
My agency supports employees to escalate risk-related issues with managers Agree 70.7
Neither agree nor disagree 22.6
Disagree 6.7
Risk management concerns are discussed openly and honestly in my agency Agree 62
Neither agree nor disagree 27.3
Disagree 10.7
Employees in my agency have the right skills to manage risk effectively Agree 48.9
Neither agree nor disagree 37.6
Disagree 13.5
Employees in my agency are encouraged to consider opportunities when managing risk Agree 52.7
Neither agree nor disagree 36.8
Disagree 10.6
Appropriate risk taking is rewarded in my agency Agree 27.8
Neither agree nor disagree 50.2
Disagree 22.1
In my agency, the benefits of risk management match the time required to complete risk management activities Agree 31.6
Neither agree nor disagree 52.3
Disagree 16.1
Senior leaders in my agency demonstrate and discuss the importance of managing risk appropriately Agree 47.6
Neither agree nor disagree 36.3
Disagree 16.1
When things go wrong, my agency uses this as an opportunity to review, learn, and improve the management of similar risks Agree 48.5
Neither agree nor disagree 35.2
Disagree 16.3

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.14 presents the 2018 APS employee census results for the individual elements of the innovation index.


Table A4.14: Results for individual elements of the innovation index
  %
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
I believe that one of my responsibilities is to continually look for new ways to improve the way we work 25.8 57.1 12.3 3.9 0.9
My immediate supervisor encourages me to come up with new or better ways of doing things 19 49.4 21.4 7.5 2.6
People are recognised for coming up with new and innovative ways of working 12.4 44.4 28.8 10.8 3.5
My agency inspires me to come up with new or better ways of doing things 9.5 35.3 36.0 14.6 4.6
My agency recognises and supports the notion that failure is a part of innovation 6.6 28.2 41.4 16.7 7.1

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Chapter 5—Diversity and inclusion

Table A4.15 presents the proportion of APS employees belonging to each diversity group.


Table A4.15: Proportion of employees by diversity group, 2009–18
  % of all employees
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Women 57.9 57.8 57.7 57.7 57.9 58.1 58.4 59 59 59
Indigenous 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.3
People with disability 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.7
Non-English Speaking Background 13.2 13.6 14.1 14.4 14.4 14.6 14.6 14.5 14.5 14.3

Source: APSED

In the 2018 APS agency survey, agencies were asked to rate the implementation of initiatives in three Australian Government diversity strategies (Table A4.16, Table A4.17 and Table A4.18)). They were asked to do so against five levels of practice, defined here:

  • Level 1: Practices are applied inconsistently and/or unskilfully and have a poor level of acceptance.
  • Level 2: Practices are performed and managed with some skill and consistency, and a focus on compliance.
  • Level 3: Practices are defined, familiar, shared and skilfully performed.
  • Level 4: Practices are embedded and seen as a part of daily work and as adding real value to work.
  • Level 5: Practices are continuously improved and leveraged for organisational outcomes.

Table A4.16: Agency self-reporting—implementation of initiatives in Balancing the Future: APS Gender Equality


  % Average rating
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Driving a supportive and enabling culture 3.2 23.2 33.7 30.5 9.5 3.20
Gender equality in APS leadership 4.2 18.9 29.5 37.9 9.5 3.29
Innovation to embed gender equality in employment practices 8.4 25.3 29.5 32.6 4.2 2.99
Increased take-up of flexible work arrangements by men and women 5.3 14.7 30.5 37.9 11.6 3.36
Measurement and evaluation 8.4 31.6 27.4 27.4 5.3 2.89

Source: 2018 APS agency survey


Table A4.17: Agency self-reporting—implementation of initiatives in the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment Strategy 2015-18
  % Average rating
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Expand the range of Indigenous employment opportunities 15.8 38.9 30.5 10.5 4.2 2.48
Invest in developing the capability of Indigenous employees 20.0 28.4 31.6 15.8 4.2 2.56
Increase the representation of Indigenous employees in senior roles 34.7 42.1 16.8 4.2 2.1 1.97
Improve the awareness of Indigenous culture in the workplace 11.6 21.1 35.8 24.2 7.4 2.95

Source: 2018 APS agency survey


Table A4.18: Agency self-reporting—implementation of initiatives in the As One; Making it Happen, APS Disability Employment Strategy 2016-19
  % Average rating
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Expand the range of employment opportunities for people with disability 22.1 42.1 26.3 9.5 0.0 2.23
Invest in developing the capability of employees with disability 21.1 37.9 26.3 11.6 3.2 2.38
Increase the representation of employees with disability in senior roles 37.9 38.9 17.9 5.3 0.0 1.91
Foster inclusive cultures in the workplace 1.1 28.4 36.8 25.3 8.4 3.12

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

Chapter 6—Organisational performance and efficiency

Flexible work

Table A4.19 presents the percentage of 2018 APS employee census respondents using flexible working arrangements, by classification.


Table A4.19: Percentage of employees using flexible working arrangements, by classification
  Employees using flexible working arrangements (%)
Trainee, Graduate or APS EL SES
Yes 52.4 48.7 34.9
No 47.6 51.3 65.1

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.20 presents the reasons for respondents not using flexible working arrangements.


Table A4.20: Reasons for not using flexible working arrangements, by classification
  Reasons for not using flexible working arrangements (%)
Trainee, Graduate
or APS
EL SES
My agency does not have a flexible working arrangement policy 5.0 2.1 0.7
My agency’s culture is not conducive to flexible working arrangements 12.6 14.5 8.6
Lack of technical support (for example, remote access) 6.5 6.6 3.2
Absence of necessary hardware (for example, phone, computer, internet) 5.6 5.5 2.0
The operational requirements of my role (for example, rostered or otherwise scheduled work environment such as shift work) 16.6 14.4 19.8
Management discretion 16.9 14.4 4.3
Resources and staffing limits 17.5 23.6 19.0
Potential impact on my career 10.8 15.3 11.4
Personal and/or financial reasons 10.5 7.9 5.6
I would be letting my workgroup down 9.9 17.8 17.7
I do not need to 56.2 54.3 62.2

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they were not using flexible working arrangements. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.21 presents the types of work arrangements used by respondents.


Table A4.21: Types of work arrangements being used, by classification
  Types of arrangements being used (%)
Trainee, Graduate or APS EL SES
Part time 19.1 14.2 5.5
Flexible hours of work 40.5 33.6 21.9
Compressed work week 1.7 3.2 2.0
Job sharing 0.8 0.8 0.9
Working remotely and/or virtual team 4.5 9.6 10.8
Working away from the office and/or working from home 11.9 32.1 32.5
Purchasing additional leave 7.8 7.9 4.8
Breastfeeding facilities and/or paid lactation breaks 0.5 0.5 0.5
Return to work arrangements 2.0 1.4 1.2
None of the above 39.3 40.0 53.2

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages are based on respondents who said they were using flexible working arrangements. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.22 presents 2018 APS employee census results for questions on support for using flexible working arrangements.


Table A4.22: Support for using flexible working arrangements, by classification
  Support for use of flexible working arrangements (%)
Trainee, Graduate or APS EL SES
My supervisor actively supports the use of flexible work arrangements by all staff, regardless of gender Agree 80.8 83.5 86.2
Neither agree nor disagree 12.2 11.2 11.2
Disagree 7.0 5.3 2.6
My SES manager actively supports the use of flexible work arrangements by all staff, regardless of gender Agree 55.2 69.1 86.7
Neither agree nor disagree 36.0 25.0 10.6
Disagree 8.9 5.9 2.7

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.23 presents the percentage of APS agencies that made each type of flexible work available to their employees.


Table A4.23: Agency availability of flexible working arrangements, by type
Type % of agencies offering flexible working arrangements
Part-time work agreements 100.0
Breastfeeding/lactation breaks 74.7
Non-standard working hours 89.5
Work from home and/or remote work arrangements 98.9
Job share arrangements 78.9
Individual flexibility agreements 96.8
Purchased leave schemes 96.8
Career break or sabbatical schemes 49.5
Flex leave 98.9
Other 22.1

Source: 2018 APS agency survey As agencies could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Employee engagement

Table A4.24 presents the 2018 APS employee census results for the components of the Say, Stay, Strive employee engagement model.


Table A4.24: Employee engagement—components of the Say, Stay, Strive employee engagement model
    %
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
Say Considering everything, I am satisfied with my job 15.6 52.6 18.1 10.1 3.7
I am proud to work in my agency 22.9 49.1 19.1 6.3 2.6
I would recommend my agency as a good place to work 15.0 46.0 23.5 10.0 5.5
I believe strongly in the purpose and objectives of my agency 25.3 51.5 18.1 3.4 1.7
I feel a strong personal attachment to my agency 18.2 45.6 22.8 10.1 3.3
Stay I feel committed to my agency’s goals 17.4 58.7 18.6 3.7 1.6
I suggest ideas to improve our way of doing things 21.2 61.7 13.9 2.6 0.6
Strive I am happy to go the ‘extra mile’ at work when required 36.3 54.5 6.5 1.9 0.8
I work beyond what is required in my job to help my agency achieve its objectives 22.8 55.1 17.8 3.4 0.8
My agency really inspires me to do my best work every day 10.4 39.4 32.6 12.7 4.8

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Wellbeing

Table A4.25 presents the 2018 APS employee census results for the individual elements of the wellbeing index.


Table A4.25: Wellbeing measures
  %
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
I am satisfied with the policies and/or practices in place to help me manage my health and wellbeing 12.9 55.3 21.6 7.6 2.6
My agency does a good job of communicating what it can offer me in terms of health and wellbeing 11.3 47.9 25.7 12 3.1
My agency does a good job of promoting health and wellbeing 11.5 46.1 27.2 12 3.2
I think my agency cares about my health and wellbeing 11.5 43.6 27.2 12.2 5.5
I believe my immediate supervisor cares about my health and wellbeing 32.8 48.3 12.5 4 2.3

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Chapter 7—Building capability

Data capability

Table A4.26 presents the actions taken by APS agencies to improve employee data literacy capability.


Table A4.26: Agency actions to improve employee data literacy capability
Action % of agencies
Ensured employee access to on-the-job training and development opportunities 78.9
Ensured employee access to formal training 70.5
Access to a data champion within the agency 46.3
Establishment and/or ongoing involvement of data community of [practice networks 38.9
Establishment and/or ongoing involvement of data management committees 35.8
Other 21.1
No action 6.3

Source: 2018 agency survey

As agencies could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.27 presents the strategies applied by APS agencies to use and manage data in a way that is secure, effective and supports operations.


Table A4.27: Strategies applied to appropriately use and manage data
Action % of agencies
Compliance with portfolio parent directives, governance frameworks such as the Australian Government Protective Security Policy Framework, and Codes of Professional Practice 86.3
Use of electronic document and records management systems 83.2
Continual review of existing data management policies and procedures 71.1
Other 17.9
No action 0.0

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

As agencies could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.28 presents the barriers to use of data reported by APS agencies.


Table A4.28: Agency barriers to the use of data
Barriers % of agencies
Legacy systems and/or data storage methods 66.3
Skills and/or capability 65.3
Funding 54.7
Costs and/or availability of software 52.6
Organisational maturity 52.6
Privacy-related issues 34.7
Insufficient access to relevant data 29.5
Other 17.9
No action 8.4

Source: 2018 APS agency survey

As agencies could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Attraction and retention

Table A4.29 presents the reasons provided by respondents for joining the APS.


Table A4.29: Reasons for joining the APS
Reasons for joining the APS %
Security and stability 64.8
Employment conditions 58.7
Type of work offered 45.8
The work aligned with my job skills and/or experience 45.1
Long term career progression 42.9
Service to the general public 42.2
Geographical location 28.0
Remuneration 27.1
Other 3.9

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages and totals are based on respondents. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.30 presents the proportion of respondents who had applied for a job during the 12 months preceding the census.


Table A4.30: Applications for another job during the 12 months preceding the census
  %
Had not applied for a job 49.7
Had applied for a job in their agency 36.7
Had applied for a job in another APS agency 18.1
Had applied for a job outside the APS 12.2

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Percentages and totals are based on respondents. As respondents could select more than one option, percentages may not total to 100 per cent.

Table A4.31 presents respondents’ intention to leave their agency.


Table A4.31: Intention to leave
  %
I want to leave my agency as soon as possible 6.2
I want to leave my agency within the next 12 months 8.9
I want to leave my agency within the next 12 months but feel it will be unlikely in the current environment 10.6
I want to stay working for my agency for the next one to two years 24.2
I want to stay working for my agency for at least the next three years 50.1

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.32 presents the reasons provided by respondents for wanting to leave their agency as soon as possible or within the next 12 months.


Table A4.32: Primary reason for wanting to leave current agency
  % of respondents who wanted to leave their agency as soon as possible or within the next 12 months
There is a lack of future career opportunities in my agency 25.9
I want to try a different type of work or I’m seeking a career change 14.2
Other 12.3
I am in an unpleasant working environment 8.1
Senior leadership is of a poor quality 7.7
I am not satisfied with the work 6.7
My agency lacks respect for employees 5.8
I am intending to retire 5.6
I can receive a higher salary elsewhere 5.4
My expectations for work in my agency have not been met 3.6
I want to live elsewhere—within Australia or overseas 2.6
I have achieved all I can in my agency 2.1

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Chapter 8—Mobilising capability

Degree of APS mobility

Table A4.33 presents 2018 APS employee census results for questions relating to employee mobility.


Table A4.33: Agency support for employee mobility
  %
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
My agency provides opportunities for mobility within my agency (for example, temporary transfers) 52.3 28.1 19.6
My agency provides opportunities for mobility outside my agency (for example, secondments and temporary transfers) 31.8 40.9 27.4
My immediate supervisor actively supports opportunities for mobility 50.3 37.0 12.7

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.34 presents the transfers of ongoing APS employees between types of APS agencies during 2017–18.


Table A4.34: Mobility by agency type, 2017–18
Agency type moved from Agency type moved to (%)
Regulatory Smaller operational Larger operational Specialist Policy
Specialist 5.1 6.3 26.7 17.5 44.4
Regulatory 11.5 8.3 28.6 8.3 43.2
Smaller operational 9.2 10.8 38.2 10.4 31.3
Larger operational 7.7 17.5 30.4 7.9 36.5
Policy 4.6 7.1 24.5 10.3 53.5
All 6.4 11.1 28.0 9.9 44.5

Source: APSED

Table A4.35 presents the number of ongoing APS employees who moved between locations during 2017–18.


Table A4.35: Mobility by location, 2017–18
Location moved from Location moved to Total
ACT NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS NT Overseas
Australian Capital Territory . 602 502 357 163 101 50 57 552 2 384
New South Wales 695 . 132 132 30 39 12 18 32 1 090
Victoria 502 148 . 89 60 54 26 14 28 921
Queensland 325 102 70 . 27 37 13 18 34 626
South Australia 166 17 74 31 . 20 4 13 25 350
Western Australia 110 37 48 39 21 . 9 16 11 291
Tasmania 54 14 26 17 5 2 . 1 2 121
Northern Territory 72 18 12 44 19 16 3 . 4 188
Overseas 555 30 33 28 15 5 5 5 . 676
Total 2 479 968 897 737 340 274 122 142 688 6 647

Source: APSED

Chapter 9—Leadership and stewardship

Organisational leadership

The 2018 APS employee census provided respondents with an opportunity to share their perceptions of leadership in their agencies. This included perceptions of their immediate SES manager (Table A4.36), the broader SES leadership team in their agency (Table A4.37) and their immediate supervisor (Table A4.38).


Table A4.36: Employee perceptions of immediate SES manager
  %
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
My SES manager is of a high quality 65.4 25.7 8.9
My SES manager is sufficiently visible (for example, can be seen in action) 63.3 20.8 15.9
My SES manager communicates effectively 63.5 23.0 13.6
My SES manager engages with staff on how to respond to future challenges 59.4 26.0 14.5
My SES manager gives their time to identify and develop talented people 44.9 37.3 17.8
My SES manager ensures that work effort contributes to the strategic direction of the agency and the APS 64.8 26.8 8.3
My SES manager effectively leads and manages change 57.6 28.6 13.7
My SES manager actively contributes to the work of our area 60.4 27.3 12.3
My SES manager encourages innovation and creativity 59.7 29.3 10.9
My SES manager actively supports people of diverse backgrounds 65.0 30.8 4.2
My SES manager actively supports opportunities for women to access leadership roles 61.5 33.6 4.8
My SES manager actively supports the use of flexible work arrangements by all staff, regardless of gender 60.0 32.1 7.8
My SES manager leads regular staff meetings (for example, in person or by video conference) 59.7 24.2 16.1
My SES manager clearly articulates the direction and priorities for our area 61.5 25.5 13.0

Source: 2018 APS employee census


Table A4.37: Employee perceptions of agency SES leadership
  %
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
In my agency, the SES are sufficiently visible (for example, can be seen in action) 52.8 24.6 22.6
In my agency, communication between the SES and other employees is effective 46.3 30.3 23.3
In my agency, the SES set a clear strategic direction for the agency 56.9 27.6 15.5
In my agency, the SES actively contribute to the work of our agency 59.9 28.3 11.8
In my agency, the SES are of a high quality 52.7 33.1 14.3
In my agency, the SES supports and provides opportunities for new ways of working in a digital environment 52.0 33.4 14.6
In my agency, the SES work as a team 43.3 40.0 16.7
In my agency, the SES clearly articulate the direction and priorities for our agency 55.5 29.7 14.8

Source: 2018 APS employee census


Table A4.38: Employee perceptions of immediate supervisors
  %
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
My supervisor actively supports people from diverse backgrounds 85.3 12.3 2.4
My supervisor treats people with respect 87.5 7.6 4.9
My supervisor communicates effectively 78.4 11.6 10.0
My supervisor encourages me to contribute ideas 82.4 10.9 6.7
My supervisor helps to develop my capability 71.7 16.8 11.5
My supervisor invites a range of views, including those different to their own 77.5 14.1 8.4
My supervisor displays resilience when faced with difficulties or failures 78.5 14.4 7.1
My supervisor maintains composure under pressure 78.8 13.7 7.5
I have a good immediate supervisor 81.1 11.6 7.3
My supervisor gives me responsibility and holds me to account for what I deliver 84.7 10.7 4.6
My supervisor challenges me to consider new ways of doing things 72.3 18.8 8.8
My supervisor actively supports the use of flexible work arrangements by all staff, regardless of gender 81.7 11.9 6.4

Source: 2018 APS employee census

Table A4.39 presents valuation data for cross-APS leadership programs completed in 2017. Participants assessed their level of capability before a program began and after it finished. The assessment is expressed as a percentage, with 100 per cent indicating a very high level of confidence in the capability and 0 per cent indicating no confidence at all. The shift between the before and after assessments indicates a movement in capability. SES Band 3 employees were not included due to low survey responses rates.

Table A4.39: Cross-APS leadership programs, capability shift
Capability Shift %
SES
Band 2
SES
Band 1
SES orientation EL2 expansion EL2 practice Women in Leadership
Pre-program capability 65 49 65 74 53 46
Post-program capability 72 90 92 90 91 88
Shift +7 +41 +27 +16 +38 +42

Source: Cross-APS leadership program results, APSC Centre for Leadership and Learning

Last reviewed: 
30 November 2018