fwa 2010 staff survey presentation
Post on 02-Jan-2016
33 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
FWA 2010 Staff Survey
Presentation
4 April 2011
2
Background and Methodology
2010 survey conducted 6-22 December 2010• Follows previous AIR staff survey in 2007
233 staff participated• 79% response rate
Lower than the AIR 2007 (84%), but above APS State of the Service (64%)
3
Presentation Structure
This presentation of key findings will include:
Overall findings
Employee engagement and its key drivers
Analysis of top 4 key drivers
Other results • Bullying & harassment, work-life balance,
unscheduled leave, leadership
Conclusion
4
How FWA Compares with the APS
* There were 70 questions in the 2010 FWA staff survey comparable with the 2010 APS State of the Service survey.
46% at least 5% above APS
39% of comparable
questions* were within 5% of the
APS average
16% at least 5% below APS
Workload
Intrinsic rewards**
Team performance & relationships**
Understanding performance expectations**
Recognition & feeling valued
Job-skills match
Career progression (skill development)
Recruitment & selection
Learning & development
Supervisor performance
Acting in accordance with APS Values and Code of Conduct
** One of the top 3 key drivers of engagement (described later)
5
Summary of Key Changes 2007 to 2010
Main increases Career progression
Intrinsic rewards
Performance feedback
Recognition & feeling valued
Team performance & relationships
Chance to be innovative
Agency performance
Main declines Internal
communication
Systems support, physical environment
Satisfaction with work-life balance
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FWA 2010 (n=209)
AIR 2007 (n=132)
APS (n=5562)
FWA 2010 (n=205)
AIR 2007 (n=128)
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
How satisfied are you with your current job?
How would you rate your overall satisfaction with FWA as an employer?
Overall Satisfaction
79%
69%
78%
Job satisfaction considerably higher than the APS average
77%
80%
Agency and job satisfaction were consistent with the AIR 2007 results
7
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
M S M S L S S L M M L L M M M M L S M L S L M L L M M L L S L M M M S M S S S M L
FWA 2010
AIR 2007
Other agencies
FWA2010
Benchmarking – Agency Satisfaction
(% satisfied)
Agency satisfaction well above median of APS agencies recently
surveyed by ORIMA*
* Base: APS agencies surveyed by ORIMA between 2007 and 2010
3rd highest of 17 medium sized agencies
8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Perth (n=5)
Melbourne (n=138)
Sydney (n=37)
Other cities (n=10)
Brisbane (n=13)
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Overall Satisfaction with FWA as an employer – by City
100%
81%
76%
54%
Satisfaction varied considerably from the FWA average for the
smaller locations
60%
9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
APS 1-4 (n=58)
APS 5 (n=43)
APS 6 (n=57)
EL1 (n=11)
EL2 (n=32)
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Overall Satisfaction with Organisation – by Level
76%
84%
77%
82%
72%
Satisfaction was positive (above
70%) for all levels
EL2 staff were slightly less satisfied than
other levels
10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
M M S M M S S L M M M M S L S M M L M S S L M L S L L M M S M M L L S M L L S
FWA 2010
AIR 2007
Other agencies
Benchmarking – Overall Job Satisfaction
(% satisfied)
FWA2010
Job satisfaction rating is also well above the median of all
comparable agencies surveyed by ORIMA*
* Base: APS agencies surveyed by ORIMA between 2007 and 2010
4th highest of 17 medium sized agencies
11
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Perth (n=5)
Melbourne (n=138)
Sydney (n=37)
Brisbane (n=13)
Other cities (n=10)
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Overall Job Satisfaction – by City
100%
84%
54%
76%
Job satisfaction was also significantly different to FWA average for the
smaller locations
50%
12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
APS 1-4 (n=58)
APS 5 (n=42)
APS 6 (n=59)
EL1 (n=11)
EL2 (n=31)
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Overall Job Satisfaction – by Level
76%
81%
80%
91%
81%
Job satisfaction was strongest for
EL1 staff
APS 1-4 staff were least
satisfied with their job (but still
positive)
13
Perth Sydney Melbourne BrisbaneOther Cities APS 1-4 APS 5 APS 6 EL1 EL2
Maximum number of respondents: 229 136 5587 5 38 139 13 10 58 43 59 11 32
Satisfactionq36. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your current job?
79% 80% 69% 100% 76% 84% 54% 50% 76% 81% 80% 91% 81%
q78. Considering everything, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with FWA as an employer?
78% 77% - 100% 76% 81% 54% 60% 76% 84% 77% 82% 72%
Engagementq33a. I am motivated to do the best possible work that I can. 86% 86% 82% 100% 89% 83% 100% 100% 84% 86% 83% 91% 94%q33b. I am always looking for ways to do my job better. 89% - 82% 100% 92% 86% 92% 100% 86% 88% 88% 82% 97%
q33c. I want to succeed at my job so others will think highly of me. 84% - 65% 100% 84% 80% 92% 100% 88% 86% 72% 73% 94%
q33d. I frequently try to help others who have heavy workloads. 88% - 80% 100% 84% 88% 92% 90% 88% 86% 86% 100% 88%q33e. I am motivated at work because my job helps me achieve my career goals.
58% - 43% 80% 66% 57% 75% 40% 65% 60% 53% 64% 56%
q33f. When required, I am willing to put in the extra effort to get a task or project completed.
97% 96% 97% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 91% 98% 100% 100% 100%
Commitment/Loyaltyq79b. I am proud to tell others that I work for FWA. 85% 85% 68% 100% 86% 84% 100% 90% 84% 88% 80% 100% 90%q79c. I would recommend FWA as a good place to work. 72% 62% 67% 100% 74% 76% 31% 60% 71% 72% 75% 64% 75%q79d. I hardly ever think about leaving FWA to work somewhere else.
50% 53% - 60% 50% 52% 31% 50% 57% 35% 57% 45% 50%
Workforce Planningq76@. What is your likely career plan for the next 2 years? [% staying in FWA]
61% - 49% 80% 57% 61% 69% 50% 60% 48% 68% 55% 69%
q76@. What is your likely career plan for the next 2 years? [% leaving FWA]
26% - 28% 20% 27% 25% 15% 40% 19% 38% 25% 27% 25%
City Level
FWA 2010 APS
AIR 2007
City and Level ‘Hot Spots’ Analysis
City / Level 5+% more positive than the FWA average City/Level 5+% less positive than the FWA average
The two larger locations were fairly similar – main ‘hot spots’ were Brisbane
and ‘other cities’ combined
Some relatively low results for EL1, but APS 5 were most likely to intend to leave
14
4%
10%
< 1%
3%
11%
11%
7%
53%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
Don't know
Leave FWA - other
Retire
Resign from FWA to work elsewhere
Leave FWA for elsewhere in the APS
Work in a different area of FWA
Continue to work in my currentTeam/Branch within FWA
Career Plans
61% Stay
26% Leave
APS Average: 49%2010 State of the ServiceBased on the question: “Do you intend to leave your agency in the next 2 years?”
APS Average: 28%2010 State of the ServiceBased on the question: “Do you intend to leave your agency in the next 2 years?”
Expected departure rates slightly below APS average
15
53%43%
27%25%
22%18%
16%16%
10%10%
8%8%
6%6%6%6%
4%4%4%
2%0%0%0%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Lack of future career opportunities in FWA
Opportunity to broaden experience
Limited opportunities to gain further experience
To seek/take a promotion elsewhere
Opportunity to work in a field of interest
Desire to try a different type of work
Promotions and rewards are not based on merit
For better pay
A lack of recognition for doing a good job
A lack of recognition for current skills/experience
Lack of developmental/educational opportunities
My immediate manager/supervisor is ineffective
My interests do not match my job role
Poor relationship with my supervisor
Senior leadership is of a poor quality
My work environment is not team oriented / collaborative
Better location/reduce travel time
My workload is excessive
Lack of opportunity to work on innovative projects
A lack of involvement in decisions affecting me
Lack of flexible work arrangements
Desire to relocate interstate or overseas
Lack of organisational stability
Other
'Push' Factors
'Pull' Factors
Reasons for Leaving
* Base: Staff with some intention of leaving in the next 2 years (n=51)
Top 4 reasons for leaving were a mix of push and pull factors related to
career/experience opportunities
18
Presentation Structure
This presentation of key findings will include:
Overall findings
Employee engagement and its key drivers
Analysis of top 4 key drivers
Other results • Bullying & harassment, work-life balance,
unscheduled leave, leadership
Conclusion
19
Key outcome indicators
Turnover
Organisational performance
Absenteeism
Performance/ Productivity
Workplace factors
Job/Organisation Satisfaction
Organisational commitment/
loyalty
Organisational objectives
Staff Engagement
Key drivers of engagement• Intrinsic Rewards• Team Performance and Relationships• Goal Clarity
Additional key drivers of job/ organisational satisfaction
• Agency Culture• Job-Skills Match• Management of Underperformance• Performance Feedback• Work-Life Balance
Additional key drivers of organisational
commitment/loyalty• Systems Support
Survey analysis based on OREEM analytical framework:
• Strong grounding in theory
• Validated across around 50 APS agencies
ORIMA Research Employee Engagement Model
20
92%
44%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Low (n=13) Moderate (n=54) High (n=138)
Se
lf-r
epo
rte
d li
kelih
oo
d o
f le
avin
g t
he
org
an
isa
tio
n
in t
he
nex
t 2
yea
rs
Level of Organisational Commitment/Loyalty
Loyalty/Commitment and Expected Turnover
There was a strong correlation between staff commitment/loyalty to FWA and
turnover intentions
(% expect to leave FWA in the next 2 years)
21
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I am motivated to do the best possible work that I can.(n=212)
I want to succeed at my job so others will think highly ofme. (n=211)*
I am motivated at work because my job helps meachieve my career goals. (n=209)*
When required, I am willing to put in the extra effort toget a task or project completed. (n=211)
I am always looking for ways to do my job better.(n=212)*
I frequently try to help others who have heavyworkloads. (n=211)*
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Motivation
Discretionary Effort
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is measured by motivation and willingness to expend discretionary effort for the agency. Engagement plays a key role in influencing staff satisfaction and loyalty /commitment and influences staff productivity and other organisational objectives.
APS Average: 97%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 82%2010 State of the Service 86%
84%
58%
97%
89%
88%
APS Average: 65%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 80%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 43%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 82%2010 State of the Service
Levels of engagement were moderate to strong
and items were consistent with or
higher than the APS average
22
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I am proud to be a member of my Team.(n=207)*
I am proud to tell others that I work forFWA. (n=206)
I would recommend FWA as a good placeto work. (n=207)
I hardly ever think about leaving FWA towork somewhere else. (n=206)
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Commitment and Loyalty to FWA
Staff loyalty and commitment is a key measure of staff attachment to the agency and a strong predictor of retention and other organisational objectives.
87%
72%
50%
APS Average: 68%2009 State of the Service
APS Average: 67%2009 State of the Service
85%
Levels of commitment were strong, and higher
than the APS average
23
0 25 50 75 100
Goal ClarityTeam Performance and Relationships
Intrinsic RewardsSupervisor Performance
Agency ReputationAutonomy and Empowerment
Work-Life BalanceStakeholder Communication
Job-Skills MatchOH&S and Environment
Remuneration and ConditionsPerformance Feedback
Branch Director PerformanceSystems Support
Change ManagementAgency Culture
Career ProgressionRecognition and Feeling Valued
Learning and DevelopmentExecutive PerformanceInternal Communication
Management of UnderperformanceRecruitment and Selection
Lower satisfaction Higher satisfaction
Above 70 Index Points
65 to 69.5 Index Points
60 to 64 Index Points
Below 60 Index Points
Satisfaction with Workplace factors
Comparable questions on average more positive than APS average
Comparable questions on average less positive than APS average
24
Agency Culture
Goal Clarity
Intrinsic Rewards
Job-Skills Match
Management of Underperformance
Performance Feedback
Systems Support
Team Performance and Relationships
Work-Life Balance
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
form
ance
Relative Importance
Other areas for improvement
HighLow HighLow HighLow HighLow HighLow
Other areas to sustain Key areas to sustain
Key areas for improvement
HighLow
Where to Focus Improvement Efforts
The survey suggests that two of the top four key drivers have scope for
improvement
Regression analysis identified the 9 most important key drivers of satisfaction,
commitment and engagement
Three of the other drivers also indicated some room for improvement (and/or decline from 2007)
25
Presentation Structure
This presentation of key findings will include:
Overall findings
Employee engagement and its key drivers
Analysis of top 4 key drivers
Other results • Bullying & harassment, work-life balance,
unscheduled leave, leadership,
Conclusion
26
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I believe the work I do is important to FWA. (n=212)
I believe the work I do is important to the Australianpublic. (n=211)
I enjoy the work in my current job. (n=211)
I get a sense of accomplishment from my work.(n=212)
Seeing tangible results from my work (n=211)*
Chance to make a useful contribution to society(n=210)*
Interesting work provided (n=209)*
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Intrinsic Rewards
* These questions were asked on a satisfaction scale.
94%
87%
82%
81%
81%
68%
APS Average: 78%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 63%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 68%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 69%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 60%2010 State of the Service
67%
Satisfaction with intrinsic rewards was strong, and consistent with or higher than
the APS average
27
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I believe the work I do is important tothe Australian public.
Seeing tangible results from my work Chance to make a useful contributionto society
FWA (n= 210-211)
APS 1-4 (n= 57-58)
APS 5 (n= 43)
APS 6 (n= 58-59)
EL1 (n= 11)
EL2 (n= 32)
Intrinsic Rewards by Level
APS 1-4 staff were the least satisfied with their intrinsic rewards across the board
28
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
… operates with a high level of integrity. (n=228)
… has earned a high level of Australian public trust. (n=205)
… fosters an environment where staff are treated fairly and with respect.
(n=229)
… involves staff in decisions about their work. (n=227)
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
The FWA...
Agency Culture
72%APS Average: 72%2010 State of the Service
38%
57%
57%
AIR 2007 Results: 59%
AIR 2007 Results: 35%
Agency culture recorded low to
moderate ratings, in line with 2007 and the APS average
21%
35%
29
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
…fosters an environment where staff are treated fairly and with respect. (n=229)
…staff feel they are valued for their contribution. (n=226)
…involves staff in decisions about their work. (n=227)
…listen carefully and consider the views and opinions of staff. (n=193)
…show transparency and fairness in decision-making. (n=196)
…listens carefully and considers the views and opinions of staff. (n=199)
…encourages participation, cooperation and information sharing. (n=206)
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
The FWA/In the FWA...
The Executive...
My Branch Director...
Agency Culture – Treatment of staff
APS Average: 44%AIR 2007 Results: 52%
57%
50%
54%
33%
53%
38%
30%
AIR 2007 Results: 35%
APS Average: 34%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 39%2010 State of the Service
Staff recorded moderate to low satisfaction with aspects of the treatment of staff
30
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The Executive act in accordance with theAPS Values and the APS Code of Conduct.
(n=197)
My Branch Director models behaviourconsistent with the APS Values and APS
Code of Conduct. (n=199)
[Supervisor's performance at] Acting inaccordance with the APS Values and the
APS Code of Conduct. (n=205)
My work colleagues act in accordance withthe APS Values. (n=203)
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Acting in accordance with the APS Values
Compared to the APS average, staff at FWA recorded
low ratings of behaviour
consistent with the APS Values and Code of Conduct
APS Average: 86%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 92%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 93%2010 State of the Service
64%
65%
80%
82%
31
Agency Culture by Level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
FWA fosters an environmentwhere staff are treated fairly and
with respect.
In FWA, staff feel they are valuedfor their contribution.
FWA involves staff in decisionsabout their work.
FWA (n= 226-229)
APS 1-4 (n= 56-58)
APS 5 (n= 42-43)
APS 6 (n= 58-59)
EL1 (n= 11)
EL2 (n= 31-32)
EL staff were least likely to agree that
the agency environment is
respectful
APS 6 staff were less likely to feel ‘valued’ or ‘involved’
32
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I have the skills and abilities to do my jobwell. (n=212)**
My job allows me to utilise my skills,knowledge and abilities. (n=212)
Opportunities to utilise my skills (n=211)*
My job gives me the opportunity to work onthe things I do best. (n=212)
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Job-skills match
94%
APS Average: 71%2010 State of the Service
79%
73%
64%
APS Average: 54%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 68%2010 State of the Service
Ratings of job-skills match were mixed (but consistent or
higher than the APS average)
33
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I have the skills andabilities to do my job
well.
My job allows me toutilise my skills,
knowledge and abilities.
Opportunities to utilisemy skills
My job gives me theopportunity to work on
the things I do best.
FWA (n= 211-212)
APS 1-4 (n= 58)
APS 5 (n= 43)
APS 6 (n= 58-59)
EL1 (n= 11)
EL2 (n= 32)
Job-skills match by Level
APS 1-4 staff generally lowest satisfaction but EL1 low regrading opportunity to work on things they do best
34
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FWA promotes and supports good recordkeeping practices. (n=205)*
FWA's administrative procedures, policiesand guidelines assist me to do my job well.
(n=209)
The non-IT/ computer equipment andresources that I have assist me to do my job
well. (n=206)
I find it easy to locate the internalinformation I need to do my job. (n=210)
FWA IT/computer equipment and supportthat I have assist me to do my job well.
(n=208)
FWA IT systems assist me to do my jobwell. (n=207)
The records managementsoftware/operating systems assist me to do
my job well. (n=199)
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Systems Support
69%
69%
68%
65%
63%
59%
57%
AIR 2007 Results: 80%
AIR 2007 Results: 79%
AIR 2007 Results: 88%
AIR 2007 Results: 67%
Satisfaction with systems support was
generally low to moderate and had decreased
from 2007
35
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FWA promotes andsupports good record
keeping practices.
FWA's administrativeprocedures, policies and
guidelines assist me to domy job well.
The non-IT/ computerequipment and resources(e.g. furniture, stationery,photocopiers, telephones,
specialised technicalequipment) that I haveassist me to do my job
well.
I find it easy to locate theinternal information I need
to do my job.
FWA IT/computerequipment and support
that I have assist me to domy job well.
FWA IT systems assist meto do my job well.
The records managementsoftware/operating
systems assist me to domy job well.
FWA (n= 199-210)
APS 1-4 (n= 55-58)
APS 5 (n= 40-43)
APS 6 (n= 55-58)
EL1 (n= 10-11)
EL2 (n= 30-31)
Systems Support by Level
EL and APS 5 staff showed relatively low satisfaction
with systems support,
especially in regards to IT
and information
36
Presentation Structure
This presentation of key findings will include:
Overall findings
Employee engagement and its key drivers
Analysis of top 4 key drivers
Other results • Bullying & harassment, work-life balance,
unscheduled leave, leadership
Conclusion
37
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FWA 2010 (n=207)
AIR 2007 (n=132)
APS 2010 (n=5,213)
Yes Not sure No
Extent of Bullying and Harassment
Increased since 2007 but lower than APS average15%
11%
17%
During the past 12 months have you been subjected to bullying or harassment in FWA?
38
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
APS 1-4 (n=58)
APS 5 (n=42)
APS 6 (n=59)
EL1 (n=11)
EL2 (n=32)
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Work-Life Balance
79%
69%
85%
64%
59%
APS 6 staff were the most satisfied, EL1s the most dissatisfied
27%
19%
Overall satisfaction with WLB was 75% (below 82% in 2007 but slightly above 73% for the APS)
39
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
APS 1-4 (n=58)
APS 5 (n=43)
APS 6 (n=59)
EL1 (n=11)
EL2 (n=32)
FWA 2010(n=189)
APS (n=4583)
100+ hours
90 - less than 100 hours
80 - less than 90 hours
More than 75 hours - lessthan 80 hours
75 hours or less
Not applicable (e.g.graduated return to work, onleave for whole fortnight)
Hours Worked per Fortnight*
* Based on q53: In the past fortnight, how many hours did you work in your current job? Base: all full-time respondents.
EL1 staff were also most likely to have
worked more than 90 or 100 hours
40
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Melbourne (n=130)
Sydney (n=34)
Brisbane (n=11)
Perth and Other cities (n=11)
FWA (n=193)
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Unscheduled Leave
23%
26%
9%
24%
Melbourne staff were slightly more likely to agree but Sydney more
likely to strongly agree (12%)
“Unscheduled leave is common in my team”
46% of staff across FWA indicated that unscheduled leave was work-related.
Brisbane staff were the most likely to
indicate this was the case (67%), and
Melbourne the least likely (41%)
41
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
… have a clear understanding of where FWA is going. (n=195)
… provide sound management of FWA. (n=201)
… provides effective leadership to drive FWA culture, performance and results. (n=201)
… use a structured and well planned approach to change management. (n=185)
… show transparency and fairness in decision-making. (n=196)
… listen carefully and consider the views and opinions of staff. (n=193)
Communication between the Executive and otherstaff is effective. (n=203)
Overall, how satisfied are you with the performanceof the Executive Group? (n=206)*
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
The Executive...
Leadership – ExecutiveMixed results – with most scope for
improvement in communication
57%
54%
46%
36%
33%
30%
42%
Comparisons with APS average were also mixed
35%
APS Average: 34%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 39%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 34%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 44%2010 State of the Service
APS Average: 42%2010 State of the Service
42
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Overall, how satisfied are you with the performanceof the Executive Group? (n=206)
Overall, how satisfied are you with the performanceof your Branch Director? (n=203)
Overall, how satisfied are you with the performanceof your IMT, NSW or Victoria Team Manager?
(n=111)
Please rate the overall effectiveness of your directmanager/supervisor at managing people? (n=207)
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Leadership – Comparison
42%
53%
53%
57%
Low to moderate ratings across all tiers
AIR 2007 Results: 53%, APS average 67%
Supervisor rating has increased but is below the APS average
43
Presentation Structure
This presentation of key findings will include:
Overall findings
Employee engagement and its key drivers
Analysis of top 4 key drivers
Other results • Bullying & harassment, work-life balance,
unscheduled leave, leadership
Conclusion
44
Conclusion
Very favourable results in 2011• High proportion of staff satisfied, engaged and
loyal/committed These ‘key outcome indicators’ and several other areas
were above the APS average• More improvements than declines since 2007 – key
gains included: Intrinsic rewards Performance feedback Career progression Team performance and relationships Autonomy and empowerment Agency performance
45
Conclusion
Several areas had scope for improvement:• Most important key drivers:
Systems support Agency culture
• Other key areas of influence – supervisor performance, leadership, work-life balance
Focusing in these areas offers the best pay-off
46
Conclusion
There was also significant variation by branch, city and classification level• Requires analysis and solutions at local level
Branch-level reports to be provided soon
Follow up is key• Acknowledging feedback• Focused response on a few key issues• Link response to survey
top related