fwa 2010 staff survey presentation

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)


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)


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)


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)


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



Overall findings





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%





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)


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%



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



Overall findings




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)*


Intrinsic Rewards

* These questions were asked on a satisfaction scale.

94%

87%

82%

81%

81%

68%






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)


The FWA...

Agency Culture

72%APS Average: 72%2010 State of the Service

38%

57%

57%

AIR 2007 Results: 59%


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)


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%




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)


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




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)


Job-skills match

94%


79%

73%

64%



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)


Systems Support

69%

69%

68%

65%

63%

59%

57%





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



Overall findings





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)


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)


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)*


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%






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)


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



Overall findings





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

fwa 2010 staff survey presentation

Documents

satisfiedagency satisfaction

staff survey presentation

fwa staff survey comparable

median of aps agencies

aps state

fwa averagethe

aps values

aps average77