APPENDIX B

BUILDING ON OUR STRENGTHS

Report of the DPRS Staff Attitudes Survey 2000

Prepared for the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff

ARTD Management and Research Consultants
12 December 2000

Acknowledgements

The consultants wish to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance of DPRS staff who completed the questionnaire and participated in the follow-up interviews. In particular, invaluable advice was provided by representatives on the three departmental divisional sub-committees.

The consultants also wish to acknowledge the support of the Strategic Development Group within DPRS (Brian Cheetham and John Walsh) in assisting with the logistics of undertaking the research.

Consultancy Team

Michael Brooks, Marie Delaney (ARTD)
PO Box 216
Haberfield, NSW 2045

(02) 9716 4500 (tel)
(02) 9716 4300 (fax)
michael.brooks@artd.com.au
www.artd.com.au

Table of contents

1   Introduction

1.1   DPRS Staff Attitude Survey 2000

As part of its commitment to continuous improvement, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff (DPRS) constantly seeks to improve the way it works. An important part of this process is seeking ideas and advice from staff on how the department can do its job better.

To help with this process, the department commissioned ARTD Management and Research Consultants to conduct an independent Staff Attitudes Survey. The survey was intended to:

• provide all staff with the opportunity to identify what they value most about working in DPRS, and how these positives can be built on in the future;
• provide staff with the opportunity to raise any issues of concern about managers, their job and how the department is performing;
• encourage staff to provide constructive feedback about where improvements can be made and better services offered, and how staff can contribute to these changes;
• provide benchmark data against which future changes in staff attitudes can be monitored;
• provide data to compare differences and similarities between staff and client perceptions of the quality of DPRS services; and
• identify recommendations for business improvement.

1.2   Methodology

The survey was undertaken in four stages:

• Consultation and communication (stage 1)
• Self-completion questionnaire (stage 2)
• Follow-up small group discussions (stage 3)
• Data analysis and reporting (stage 4).

1.2.1   Consultation and communication

Given that this was the first DPRS Staff Attitudes Survey, considerable investment was made in consulting with managers and staff to ensure key messages about the research were understood and that the research design was customised to DPRS's specific requirements. The consultation and communication activities included:

• presentation of a survey design report (ARTD, Sept 2000) to the Senior Management Team;
• posting of two information papers on the DPRS intranet about the purpose, conduct and protocols for the survey. The first paper covered background information about the survey and the second presented details of the ethical protocols supporting the survey; and
• briefing sessions for staff which were designed to provide information about the survey and allow staff to contribute their ideas on key areas for investigation. Approximately 65 staff attended.

1.2.2   Self-completion questionnaire

A self-completion questionnaire was mailed to all 288 DPRS staff on 9 October 2000, included 277 distributed by internal mail and 11 distributed to the home addresses of staff who were on leave during the survey period.

The survey contained 67 closed response questions and 13 open-ended questions.

Overall, a response rate of 71 per cent was achieved, which is very credible for this type of research. All workplace units achieved response rates of over 60 per cent.

Table 1.1 Staff survey response rate

Source: Staff Attitudes Survey 2000 Q1.1

1.2.3   Follow-up small group discussions and interviews

All staff were invited to participate in a series of small group discussions and interviews to elaborate on the views expressed in the questionnaire and to contribute their ideas about strategies for improving the organisational culture and practices. In total, 33 staff participated in five small group discussions and interviews based around key themes arising from the questionnaire data.

1.2.4   Data analysis and reporting

Quantitative and qualitative data from the questionnaire and follow-up small group discussions were systematically analysed to identify the key themes and issues for staff. Differences in staff views and issues across DPRS were analysed and reported in terms of:

• workplace units (Client Liaison; Broadcasting; Hansard; Projects/Standards and Security; Infrastructure; Corporate Support and Executive support units)
• years employed at DPRS
• grade (SMT/Senior Officers; middle grade positions; lower grade positions)
• gender
• age
• workplace location.

In line with the confidentiality protocol for the survey, breakdowns of the data were reported only where there were more than 15 respondents. Open-ended comments are also reported to illustrate key findings, although minor changes were sometimes made to ensure all quotes were de-identified.

2   Key themes

2.1   Overview

What staff like most about working in DPRS

The key drivers for DPRS staff of a productive, safe and enjoyable working environment are the satisfaction they receive from doing their job, the friendly and productive relationships with colleagues in their work unit and the facilities provided for staff within Parliament House.

In response to an open-ended question about what staff 'like about working in DPRS', ^[Staff Survey Q12.1 (n=135 - ie 67% of survey respondents provided feedback on at least one  positive attribute of the DPRS workplace)] close to half (45 per cent) of all respondents referred to job satisfaction - in particular:

• the interesting nature of the work undertaken and the pride in delivering quality services
• 'The feeling of producing an A-grade product for our clients'
• 'It's interesting, challenging and there is rarely a dull moment'
• 'My job is interesting and there is a good variety of work'
• a number of staff, particularly from the Technical Services Group, highlighted the job satisfaction they received from working with 'cutting edge' technology.
• 'Working with leading edge technologies in a technical environment that strives for excellence'
• 'Exposure to emerging technologies and opportunities to be involved in their implementation'
• 'The work is challenging and we get the chance to use state of the art technology'
• staff also highlighted the job satisfaction gained from working in the parliamentary environment
• 'Provides me with the ability to make a worthwhile contribution to the workings of parliament'
• 'Being at the hub of Australia's political affairs'

The other most commonly cited things that staff like about working in DPRS were:

• the friendly and collegial relationships within their teams and work units (cited by 24 per cent of respondents)
• 'A good bunch of staff in our team'
• 'The sections I have worked in are happy and friendly'
• 'Everyone is helpful and they treat you with respect. It's such a joy to actually come to work'
• the excellent staff amenities and facilities that were available for staff within Parliament House (cited by 20 per cent of all respondents). This included sports and recreation facilities, free parking, cafeteria and the high quality of the built environment and environs.

In addition, staff were very positive that harassment and discrimination were not tolerated in the DPRS workplace, and that suitable support services were available for staff. Among survey respondents:

• ninety-four per cent reported that they had not experienced racial, sex-based or physical harassment in the workplace over the last 12 months (Staff Q9.4);
• ninety-one per cent reported that they had not experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in DPRS because of age, sex, sexuality or ethnicity (Staff Q9.3);
• eighty-six per cent reported that staff in their work unit do not say or do things that offend or humiliate (Staff Q9.2);
• eighty per cent of respondents were confident that if they made a complaint about harassment or discrimination, that DPRS managers would act promptly (Staff Q9.5);
• ninety-six per cent believe that DPRS provides appropriate access for staff to professional support services (Staff Q9.6);
• eighty-one per cent were satisfied that work practices in DPRS were sufficiently flexible to recognise family and personal commitments (Staff Q5.5).

Key areas of staff concern

These positives attributes of the DPRS workplace, along with others presented in the following sections, provide a strong basis for achieving the goal of a productive, safe and enjoyable working environment. However, staff feedback from the survey also highlighted a significant number of strong concerns and potential threats to achieving this goal.

Based on responses to an open-ended question about what staff believe are the most important workplace issues over the next 12 months [Staff Survey Q12.3 (n=116 - ie 77% of survey respondents provided feedback on at least one key workplace issue)], six key themes were identified. Each of these themes is considered in detail in the following sections. The themes were:

• strengthening DPRS unity (Section 2.2);
• building ownership of DPRS-wide initiatives (Section 2.3);
• building a learning organisation (Section 2.4);
• recognising and rewarding staff (Section 2.5);
• improving communication and consultation (Section 2.6);
• performance management (Section 2.7).

In some cases, issues identified by staff cut across these themes and therefore were integrated into the analysis for each of the themes (for example, concerns about leadership and the Senior Management Team).

While ARTD believes that these themes comprehensively cover all the main issues raised by staff, the analysis ultimately reflects the consultant's assessments. To ensure staff and management can undertake additional analysis of other issues (within the limitations of the confidentiality protocol), the report also presents all survey data in summary form (Attachment 1) and as detailed consolidated frequency tables (Attachment 2).

2.2   Strengthening DPRS unity

Cooperation and respect

Staff recognise that the DPRS workplace already has a number of positive attributes which are essential for organisational unity. Among survey respondents:

• eighty-four per cent agree that there is a strong sense of cooperation within their work unit (Staff Q8.4);
• eighty-one per cent agree that staff maintain ethical behaviour and conduct (Staff Q5.7);
• sixty-eight per cent agree that staff support and respect each other (Staff Q5.3);
• sixty-two per cent agree that DPRS staff understand and share a common sense of purpose (62 per cent) (Staff Q5.1).

As highlighted in Section 2.1, one of the key features that staff like about working in DPRS is the friendly and collegial relationships within their teams and work units.

Staff concerns about DPRS unity

However, concerns about a perceived lack of unity across the Department were the most commonly cited issue in response to the open-ended survey question about the most important DPRS workplace issues over the next 12 months.^{[Cited by 28 per cent of respondents who provided feedback to Q12.3.]}

For staff, concerns about DPRS unity focussed on three issues:

• a perceived lack of unity among the senior management team.
  Among survey respondents only:
• thirty-six per cent believe the senior management team are united (Staff Q2.5);
• thirty-four per cent believe that senior management try to be fair and equitable in dealing with competing needs across DPRS (Staff Q2.4); and
• thirty per cent believe the senior management team lead by example in that they 'practice what they preach' (Staff Q2.3).

A key issue for staff is the perception that members of the senior management team fail to appropriately model the DPRS values - particularly in relation to personal respect ('we value and support each other and share ideas') and professionalism ('we are ethical, committed and use initiative in providing our services').

These perceptions, regardless of their basis and accuracy, need to be addressed as they could provide a major barrier to building unity and significantly impact on staff morale.

• the need for improved cooperation between the different professional services and workplace units within DPRS.
• Staff recognise their responsibility in strengthening DPRS unity through improved cooperation between work units. The 'tribal' nature of the different professional groups in DPRS was cited as a significant barrier.
• 'That the Department operates as one organisation and not a collection of smaller units'
• 'Do away with us and them mentality between work units'
• 'Building a common organisational focus - promote the notion that everyone belongs to the larger team'
• consolidating recent changes

  Staff also highlighted the importance of consolidating recent changes (eg new organisational restructure, Hansard production system) as part of building DPRS unity. For some staff, the rapid pace of change within DPRS and the public sector more generally has lead to what they describe as 'change fatigue'

  'We need to focus on the potential gains of present changes, rather than working on new ones'

  'Re-establishing stability for staff so that we can start to move forward together'

The survey results also highlighted the fact that the strength of staff concerns about key issues such as DPRS unity varied widely across the organisation. In general, concerns about a perceived lack of unity were strongest among staff in Broadcasting and Hansard as well as among staff employed at DPRS for more than 5 years.

For example, in response to a survey question about whether DPRS has a workplace culture which values people and their contribution, significant difference were found across the organisation. The proportion of staff from different workplace units who agreed with this statement was:

• twenty-five per cent in Hansard, CSG
• twenty-six per cent in Broadcasting, CSG
• fifty per cent in Projects/Standards & Security, TSG
• fifty-six per cent in Corporate Services
• sixty per cent in Infrastructure, TSG
• seventy-five per cent in Client Liaison, CSG.

In addition, the proportion of staff who agreed with this statement was:

• eighty-three per cent among staff employed for less than 2 years
• fifty per cent among staff employed for 2-5 years
• thirty-two per cent among staff employed for 5-10 years
• thirty-three per cent among staff employed for more than 10 years.

Given that this pattern was broadly repeated across most survey questions, there are clearly some specific workplace issues for sub-groups particularly staff in Broadcasting and Hansard, and long-serving employees.

Staff suggestions for strengthening DPRS unity

While many of the specific suggestions from staff for strengthening DPRS unity are covered under the other themes (for example building ownership of DPRS-wide initiatives - Section 2.3), a number of general points were raised.

Staff believe that the survey can act as an important 'circuit breaker' - by acknowledging both the positive aspects of the DPRS workplace and the areas for concern. For staff, a key part of this will be a clear and public acknowledgment by the senior management team that they take seriously the issues raised by staff, and that they are committed to working with staff on finding solutions. A 'litmus test' for staff will be the acknowledgement of the need to improve unity within the senior management team.

Staff in Broadcasting and Hansard believe that more regular contact is needed by senior managers with the day-to-day operations of their business. They have suggested a regular roster of 'front desk' days for Senior Executives whereby they participate in the day-to-day service delivery activities - both to gain first hand experience of the service delivery issues, and to provide informal opportunities to discuss workplace issues with staff.

Staff want to see staff attitude surveys as a regular part of the DPRS continuous improvement cycle. This would both allow changes in staff attitudes to be monitored and to check whether action had been taken on issues identified in previous surveys.

2.3   Continuously improving the effectiveness and efficiency of client services

A workforce passionate about quality client service

The DPRS workforce is passionate about the quality of client services and confident in their capacity to deliver world-class services. This is highlighted by the fact that:

• 82 per cent of staff believe that DPRS is a highly customer-focussed organisation (Staff Q11.7);
• 97 per cent enjoy working with DPRS clients (Staff Q11.1);
• 89 per cent are proud of the quality of services and products they currently deliver (Staff Q11.2);
• 84 per cent believe that DPRS currently delivers a world-class standard of service to clients (Staff Q11.3);
• 75 per cent believe their work unit is well-placed to continue to provide a world-class service to clients (Staff Q11.4).

In addition, the vast majority of staff (83 per cent) are confident that their immediate manager is competent to lead their work unit in improving services over the next two years (Staff Q3.5).

These views are strongly supported by feedback from clients in the DPRS Client Survey 2000, with 92 per cent agreeing that DPRS provides professional and helpful service and 87 per cent agreeing that DPRS responds promptly and courteously to client requests.

Feedback from staff highlight that this commitment to quality is strongly driven by the professional ethics and standards set within each of the work units in DPRS. As highlighted in Section 2.1, the most commonly cited reason why staff enjoy working in DPRS is the professional satisfaction they achieve from 'a job well done' within their chosen profession.

Perceived tension between DPRS-wide initiatives and professionalism within workplace units

A recurring theme in the staff feedback was concerns about the perceived conflict between DPRS-wide initiatives aimed at improving the long-term effectiveness and efficiency of client services, and professionalism within local workplace units. This was particularly the case for transcription professionals (Hansard) and broadcast production professionals (Broadcasting). For example, less than two-thirds of staff in Hansard (55 per cent) and Broadcasting (64 per cent) believe their work unit is well-placed to continue to provide a world-class service to clients, compared to 87 per cent across all other staff in DPRS.

In particular, there were mixed views from staff about the impact of the new organisational structure introduced in 1999.

Staff were somewhat divided on whether the new organisational structure made DPRS better placed to deliver cost-effective and relevant services over the next five year with 30 per cent of staff expressing positive views, 40 per cent negative and 30 per cent indicating that they didn't know. However, among those who expressed an opinion, there were strong differences between work units, with the majority of staff in Client Liaison (67 per cent) and Infrastructure (60 per cent) agreeing that the restructure made DPRS better placed to improve services, compared to staff in Hansard (15 per cent) and Broadcasting (15 per cent) (Staff Q4.1).

In a similar way, there were mixed views about the potential of the new organisational structure to improve internal communication within DPRS. Around one-third of staff indicated that they were positive (32 per cent), negative (36 per cent) or didn't know (32 per cent). However, there were strong differences again between work units. Among those who expressed an opinion, the majority of staff in Client Liaison (67 per cent) and Infrastructure (66 per cent) agreed that the restructure was likely to improve communication within DPRS, compared to staff in Hansard (6 per cent) and Broadcasting, (39 per cent) (Staff Q7.7).

Part of the explanation for these views appears to relate to staff's perception that the introduction of the new organisational structure had not been well managed over the last 12 months. Only one-quarter (25 per cent) of staff agreed that the introduction of the changes had been well-managed, a pattern that was broadly consistent across all DPRS work units (Staff Q4.2).

However, the underlying issues appear to be more complex - in part reflecting the task of managing diverse professional cultures in the context of increased demands for improved service effectiveness and efficiency.

If a key strength of DPRS is the skills and motivation of staff which is strongly based in the professional and collegiate culture of the different workplace units, then the 'Achilles heal' may be the limited ownership of management issues and initiatives outside of these immediate professional spheres. A number of staff clearly recognised that this led to a lack of ownership of DPRS-wide initiatives.

From the perspective of staff, the tension between DPRS-wide initiatives and professionalism within workplace units relates to three issues:

• perceived inadequate communication from senior management about the rationale and benefits of DPRS-wide initiatives;
• perceived inadequate communication from senior management about the potential risks and likely differential impact of DPRS-wide initiatives, which are acknowledged by many staff as inevitable given the finite resources and competing priorities across the department. This perceived failure has resulted in some staff interpreting recent DPRS-wide initiatives as 'punishment' for poor past management practices within their work unit;
• perceived lack of unity among members of the senior management team in relation to DPRS-wide initiatives (see Section 2.2). Staff reported receiving 'mixed messages' about the merits of DPRS-wide initiatives from managers, citing instances of senior managers openly criticising the decisions and members of the senior management team.

However, staff also recognised that these concerns related to job insecurity in the face of increased public sector outsourcing (eg in the IT area) and the impact of changing technologies on professional status (eg the potential impact of voice recognition technologies on transcription professionals).

Staff suggestions for building ownership of DPRS-wide initiatives

Staff identified a number of strategies for building ownership of DPRS-wide initiatives across the department, and recognised that both staff and managers had a role in finding solutions.

• Promotion of DPRS-wide achievements

  A number of staff highlighted the importance of promoting DPRS-wide achievements and the contribution of different DPRS work units to these achievements.

  'We need to ensure staff take pride in what the department has achieved, and not just (the achievements of) their own work area. Staff need to understand and be proud of their department and be proud of how the different work areas are helping the department achieve its goals'

  Promotional strategies suggested by staff included:

  • the adoption of the 'ParlCom' department name to highlight a single corporate vision;
  • brief, plain-English, quarterly business performance reports distributed to staff to highlight progress and outcomes associated with DPRS-wide initiatives;
  • staff achievement awards (see Section 2.4).
• Departmental Consultative Committee and Divisional Sub-Committees

  While the DCC and DSC essentially relate to communication and consultation (see Section 2.6), a number of staff saw them as a potentially significant vehicle for improving ownership of DPRS-wide initiatives. In particular, these staff suggested there was a need to promote the role and function of the DSC within DPRS, so that more staff took the opportunity to raise issues related to DPRS-wide initiatives through this forum. However, staff suggested there was first a need to clarify the terms of reference and processes of the DSC to ensure it remained focussed on DPRS-wide initiatives rather than becoming a complaints mechanism for local work unit issues. In addition, staff wanted greater formalisation of the mechanism for referring issues to the DCC and receiving feedback from the DCC on decisions.

• Independent evaluations of DPRS-wide initiatives

  Staff highlighted the importance of undertaking independent evaluations of all major DPRS-wide initiatives. These evaluation would be designed to measure the extent to which initiatives were achieving their stated objectives and to identify strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvements. Suggested priority evaluations over the next 12 months were evaluations of the new Hansard Production System and the x2020 help desk, as well as a review of service integration under the new DPRS organisational structure.

• 'Let's move forward'

  Some staff indicated that a negative and defensive attitude among some staff had contributed to morale and ownership problems in relation to DPRS-wide initiatives. For these staff, a large part of the solution lies in staff simply 'giving new initiatives a chance' to be implemented rather than pre-judging or undermining the process. These views were more commonly expressed by staff who had worked at DPRS for less than two years.

• Reviewing opportunities for Broadcasting input into DPRS strategic planning processes

  A number of staff in Broadcasting wanted improved opportunities for their work unit to have input into DPRS strategic planning processes, either through improved representation on the senior management team or greater participation in the planning processes within the Client Services Group.

2.4   Building a learning organisation

Teamwork, innovation and local leadership within work units

At the local work unit level, staff identified a number of strengths of the DPRS workplace including teamwork, innovation and local leadership. The survey findings highlighted that:

• ninety-four per cent of staff believe they can approach their immediate manager with ideas and suggestions for improvements (Staff Q3.2);
• eighty-one per cent believe that teamwork is encouraged in their work unit to take advantage of the skills and expertise of different staff (Staff Q8.3);
• seventy-eight per cent believe that their immediate manager provides a clear sense of direction for work in their area (Staff Q3.1);
• sixty-four per cent believe that people in their work unit are encouraged to try new ideas, even if there is a risk they might not work (Staff Q8.5);
• sixty per cent agree that as an organisation, DPRS always tries to improve and find innovative and cost-effective ways to solve problems (Staff Q5.4).

These view are supported by feedback from clients in the DPRS Client Survey 2000, with 72 per cent of senators and members strongly agreeing that DPRS is innovative in finding more cost-effective ways of meeting clients' needs (with a further 21 per cent agreeing that innovation in DPRS was acceptable).

Potential barriers to innovation in DPRS

However, staff also identified a number of perceived barriers to the promotion of innovation. Only a minority of survey respondents agreed that key attributes related to innovation and organisational learning were currently being achieved. In particular:

• forty-eight per cent of respondents agreed that when things go wrong in DPRS, the focus is on learning from the experience [significantly lower in Broadcasting (25 per cent)] (Staff Q10.6);
• forty-five per cent believe the senior management team is open to feedback and suggestions for improvements [significantly lower in Hansard (29 per cent)] (Staff Q2.2);
• forty-two per cent believe the senior management team promotes a culture of managing risk and learning from mistakes (Staff Q2.6);
• thirty per cent agree that the senior management team lead by example in that they 'practise what they preach' (Staff Q2.3).

Some staff commented that they felt that DPRS was developing a culture of 'sweeping problems under the carpet' and perceived that innovation outside of local work units was often stifled through 'a culture of blame' and a lack of promotion of innovation by senior managers.

Staff suggestions for building a learning organisation

Staff identified a number of priorities for building for innovation and an appropriate culture of risk management. These included:

• 360° performance feedback for senior managers

  Staff view the performance management process for senior managers as an important organisational learning opportunity. As such, staff want greater opportunities to provide feedback on their manager's performance, and for this feedback to be taken into account in performance reviews.

• 'Bouquets and Brickbats'

  A suggestion was made that DPRS introduce a staff and client feedback log ('Bouquets and Brickbats') similar to that used by the Department of the Parliamentary Library. Essentially the mechanism would allow staff to record positive and negative feedback from clients, as well as staff 'leanings' and ideas for improvements. The system would need to be supported by an appropriate protocol to ensure staff could honestly and openly provide feedback.

• Evaluation mechanisms in standard DPRS project management methodology

  Staff suggested the need to strengthen the evaluation components of the standard project management methodology used in DPRS. This could include the dissemination of regular project debriefs that highlight lessons learnt, implementation issues raised by staff, and strategies for improvement.

• Best practice forums

  A suggestion was made that DPRS introduce a system of >Best Practice= forums both within and between work units. The task of these forums would be to identify and promote best practice ideas based on consultation with staff and managers. The forums could cover local initiatives (eg Hansard Production System) or DPRS-wide initiatives (eg performance management).

• Team building

  A number of staff suggested the need for externally-facilitated 'team building' workshops, focussed on good teamwork practices.

2.5   Recognising and rewarding staff

Good opportunities for training and professional development

Staff were generally very positive about opportunities in DPRS for training and professional development. Among survey respondents:

• eighty-one per cent agree that there are sufficient opportunities in DPRS to develop the knowledge and skills needed to do their job [although this was significantly lower in broadcasting (47 per cent)] (Staff Q6.3);
• seventy-two per cent agree that they are given opportunities to develop the skills needed for promotion [although this was significantly lower in broadcasting (43 per cent)] (Staff Q6.4).

In addition, the vast majority of respondents (81 per cent) indicated that the manager of their work unit was fair in dealing with staff (Staff Q3.4).

There were somewhat mixed views on whether working at DPRS provided good career opportunities (either inside DPRS or outside). Overall, 53 per cent were satisfied with the career opportunities but this varied from lower satisfaction in Broadcasting (25 per cent) and Hansard (20 per cent), to higher levels of satisfaction in other parts of DPRS including Client Liaison (79 per cent), Infrastructure (76 per cent) and Projects (67 per cent).

Skill recognition and utilisation

Despite the generally positive views about training and professional development in DPRS, staff raised a number of significant concerns about promotion opportunities and the recognition of acquired skills and experience. Among survey respondents:

• forty per cent indicated that advancement in DPRS was based solely on merit [somewhat lower for staff employed in DPRS for more than 5 years (32 per cent)] (Staff Q6.1);
• forty-three per cent indicated DPRS has a workplace culture which values people and their contribution [significantly lower in Broadcasting (26 per cent) and Hansard (25 per cent)] (Staff Q5.2);
• fifty-seven per cent believe managers treat staff fairly when opportunities arise for acting in higher duties or filling short-term vacancies [significantly lower for broadcasting (24 per cent) and somewhat lower for staff employed in DPRS for more than 5 years (48 per cent)] (Staff Q6.2);

Feedback from staff in the open-ended questions highlighted a number of key issues including concerns about:

• the consistent application of DPRS recruitment and promotion policies. Staff acknowledged that the DPRS Human Resources section had developed appropriate policies and guidelines, but perceived that the 'spirit' of these policies was often neglected either through expedience or a lack of proper understanding among managers and supervisors of merit-based selection. As a result, some staff perceived that recruitment and promotion was often based on favouritism and cronyism (eg 'They tend to play favourites ... promotion depends on your position at the coffee table').
• a perceived lack of appropriate recognition by senior managers of the professional skills and contribution of staff.

'Senior Management need to improve the way they value their staff. There should be some kind of reward system in place to recognise work effects and contribution that staff make especially the lower and middle levels of this organisation'

• 'Management respecting and valuing staff is a crunch issue. Occasionally awards and prizes are given out at special staff meetings, but the people selected have invariably been high fliers who have been on some special project for management - not the ordinary toilers.'
• 'Management does not look at individual talents and explore ways to employ them to mutual benefit. We need to value staff and their contributions and all managers need to pay more attention to this. All staff should give recognition for the different contributions and skills they make'

Improving recognition and rewards

Staff identified a number of strategies for improving recognition and reward, including strategies in relation to promotion and career development. These included:

Staff made a number of suggestions for improving the use of Individual Development Plans including:

• following selection processes, feedback from the selection panel to successful and unsuccessful DPRS candidates should be incorporated into their Individual Development Plans. For unsuccessful candidates, this should include feedback on possible areas for professional development to improve their promotion prospects;
• greater use of IDPs for assisting managers select the right person when opportunities arise for acting in higher duties;
• formal review and updating of IDPs after each six-monthly performance appraisal.

To be effective, awards/rewards would need to be promoted widely and be of sufficient value to attract the attention of staff.

2.6   Improving communication and consultation

Communication and consultation within work units

Staff were generally positive about communication within their work unit. Among survey respondents:

• ninety-three per cent agree that they can readily communicate with their immediate manager or supervisor on day-to-day work issues (Staff Q7.3);
• seventy-three per cent believe that in their work units there are effective systems for the timely dissemination of information (Staff Q7.4);
• sixty-six per cent agree that staff communicate openly and share information (Staff Q7.1).

Although there were more mixed reactions, the majority of survey respondents also agreed that the DPRS workplace has a number of appropriate consultation mechanisms. In particular:

• seventy-four per cent agreed that staff are kept informed through representation on the department's consultative committee and its divisional subcommittees [although this was somewhat lower in Broadcasting (64 per cent) and Infrastructure TSG (64 per cent)](Staff Q7.6);
• fifty-eight per cent agreed that staff are adequately consulted about any proposed changes that will affect them [although this was somewhat lower in Broadcasting (43 per cent) and Hansard (44 per cent)] (Staff Q8.1);
• fifty-nine per cent agreed that staff are given opportunities to contribute to decisions that affect them [although this was somewhat lower in Hansard (35 per cent)] (Staff Q8.2).

DPRS-wide communication and consultation

However at the DPRS-wide level, staff raised a number of concerns about communication and consultation including:

• poor communication between different work units.

  Among survey respondents only a minority of staff (41 per cent) agreed that DPRS has effective systems for ensuring timely dissemination of information between work units (Staff Q7.5).

  Some staff recognised that this reflected the often 'inward-looking' focus of the different professional work units within DPRS, and was closely linked to comments about the need to improve DPRS unity. While staff were frustrated by poor communication with other work units, they recognised that these other work units were probably also frustrated with them.

• the need to make the link between consultation and decision-making more transparent

  A number of staff perceive that the current consultation mechanisms are 'one-way traffic' in that they either do not believe their views are adequately taken into account in the decision making process or that they are not informed about the results of the consultation process.

  'Consultation tends to be 'here it is' rather than 'how best can we do it'.'

  'My perception is that the members of staff are still willing to contribute, if there is a guarantee that their contribution is not going to be wasted or ignored again by senior managers.'

  'Staff are consulted and kept informed by the divisional subcommittee, but senior management pay little or no attention to what is said. Management needs to take the divisional subcommittee seriously by putting subcommittee recommendations on its official agendas and reporting back to the subcommittee.'

• the perceived receptiveness of some senior managers to staff feedback.

  Some staff commented that senior managers needed to adopt a more 'active listening' mode in meetings and contact with staff, particularly in relation to their contact with middle- and lower-level staff. Concerns were raised by a number of staff about what they perceived to be a 'hostile' and 'defensive' response by some senior managers at staff meetings and consultative forums.

  On the other hand, some staff cited positive experiences of meetings with senior managers.

  'The Technical Officers had a very positive meeting with senior managers. I would like to see more of these relatively informal meetings with various members of upper management. They provide opportunities for an exchange of opinions and promote greater understanding.'

  The over-riding message from staff about communication and consultation was about 'quality' not 'quantity'. Staff do not want more consultation, information or meetings to improve communication, but rather better processes.

Improving communication and consultation

• overcoming communication road-blocks and filters

  Staff indicated that managers across DPRS needed training and support to improve the quality of communication. Staff believe the Department's Executive are often not receiving 'the full story' about staff concerns and issues because by the time information reaches them, the information has been 'sanitised'. Staff suggested that there was a need for:

  • putting a priority on communication skills training as part of Individual Development Plans for all DPRS managers;
  • assessing communication skills as part of managers' performance assessments.
• streamlined information channel between senior management team and staff

  Staff want brief reports of major decisions of senior management team meetings, in all situations where the information is appropriate to be available to staff. This is seen as critical to avoid the 'rumour mill' that operates on many issues. Suggestions are:

  • regular updates on ParlCom Central of major decisions and issues. Such updates need to presented in such a way that only the key message is initially presented, with a link to further details for interested staff;
  • trialing a 'team briefing' model where a formal process is put in place for communicating information and discussing issues at a series of cascading level (eg after a Management Board (Secretary and SES) meeting from Group Managers to Directors, from Directors to team leaders, from team leaders to staff). Any major issue should also be able to quickly reverse back up the chain.

  While staff support the department's intraNet and email as important avenues for communication, they also want supervisors and managers to devote more time to face to face communication about important issues. In return, staff recognised that the use of information technology tools needed to be more systematically embedded in their normal work routine (eg regularly review the latest news items on the intraNet at the start of each day).

• job rotation

  Staff recognise that improved communication between work units ultimately depends on staff better understanding the business of other work units and having closer professional contact with staff in other work units. Staff highlighted the potential of planned job rotations, which could be linked to Individual Development Plans.

2.7   Performance management

Broad support for performance management

Staff were generally satisfied that the expected level of work performance in DPRS was clearly defined, achievable and realistic and that performance management processes were satisfactory. Among survey respondents:

• seventy per cent agree that the level of work performance is clearly defined and explained [although this was somewhat lower in Broadcasting (54 per cent) and among staff who had worked in DPRS for less than 2 yrs (50 per cent)] (Staff Q10.1);
• eighty-nine per cent believe that the expected level of work performance is achievable and realistic (Staff Q10.2);
• seventy-one per cent agree that the assessment of work performance is rigorous and factually based [although this was somewhat lower in Broadcasting (50 per cent)] (Staff Q10.5);
• sixty-five per cent were satisfied that they received regular feedback from their immediate manager or supervisor about their work performance [although this was somewhat lower in Broadcasting (38 per cent)] (Staff Q10.3);
• sixty per cent agreed that DPRS performance management processes were helpful to them [although this was significantly lower in Broadcasting (23 per cent) and Projects/ Standards and Security (44 per cent)] (Staff Q10.7).

However, staff raised a number of issues about perceived shortcomings in the current performance management processes including:

   'Formal feedback sessions are rare. They should occur more often.'

'More regular formal assessments of my work performance and the expectation of my work.'

'I do not receive feedback except when the forms have to be completed, and then it is forgotten again.'

'The formal twice-yearly feedback tends to be hastily put together and based on impressions rather than a thorough, systematic and ongoing assessment.'

'Although I receive excellent 'grades' for my work, I know that the sampling methods used are not thorough and that systematic records are not kept or even seen as necessary.'

Positively, a number of staff commented that the new Certified Agreement offered the potential to reinforce the importance of performance management processes.

'The feedback I receive is usually in regards to things that aren't right - it would be nice if there was a little more praise handed around as this builds confidence'

'There could be more accent on the positive. Partly for time reasons, feedback tends to concentrate on errors and omissions'

3   Strategies for improvement

Mechanism for action

Across each of the key themes presented in Section 2, staff made a number of suggestions for addressing the issues raised in the Staff Attitudes Survey.

Following the release of the survey findings to all staff and managers on 21 November, these suggestions were reviewed by the three divisional sub-committees of the Departmental Consultative Committee in order to identify priority strategies and recommendations for improvement.

This section summaries these strategies and recommendations.

Rather than being the end of the Staff Attitudes Survey process, these strategies and recommendations represent the start of an ongoing process of refinement, implementation and review involving staff, the senior management team, the three divisional sub-committees and the Departmental Consultative Committee.

Each strategy and recommendation presented in this section will need to be refined in consultation with staff to determine specific responsibilities, actions and time frames for implementation. It is anticipated that ongoing workshops will be held with staff to assist with this process.

It is intended that the divisional sub-committees will have a key role in these ongoing planning processes, with overall coordination provided by the Director, Corporate Improvement (Strategic Development Group). The primary task of this coordination will be to ensure new strategies are linked to existing initiatives, such as the TSG Service Improvement Program (SIP) which already has staff groups looking at issues such as recognising and rewarding staff and improving communication and consultation.

Strategies for improvement

1. Leadership of the senior management team   

The senior management team should demonstrate leadership in responding to the issues raised in the Staff Attitudes Survey by clearly promoting its commitment to working as a team to address perceived disunity within the team, and improving the teams relationship with staff. A high priority should be given to initiatives that improve the availability and visibility of senior managers.

The Secretary will report to the DCC by the end of March 2001, on the strategies that the senior management team have adopted to ensure members of the senior management team appropriately model the DPRS values.

2. Commitment to regular monitoring of staff attitudes

Staff attitude surveys should be a regular part of the DPRS continuous improvement cycle. A timeframe should be negotiated with the DCC for regular reports on staff attitudes.

3. Enhanced communication mechanisms

The senior management team should develop and promote a formal strategy (such as that used in the area of project management) to ensure DPRS-wide communication occurs in a timely manner. Specific actions under the strategy could include:

• trialing a 'team briefing' model where a formal process is put in place for communicating information and discussing issues at a series of cascading level (eg after a Management Board (Secretary and SES) meeting; from group managers to directors, from directors to team leaders, from team leaders to staff);
• regular updates on ParlCom Central of major decisions and issues discussed at Management Board and senior management team meetings. Such updates need to presented in such a way that only the key message is initially presented, with a link to further details for interested staff;
• ensuring communication skills training is part of Individual Development Plans for all DPRS managers;
• assessing communication skills as part of managers' performance assessments.

4. DPRS-wide team building

The DCC should develop a strategy for DPRS-wide team building in 2001. Actions should include both relationship building activities (eg social activities, golf day) and professional development activities (eg cross-team scenario workshops). All team building activities should recognise the importance of opportunities to improve communication between the different work units within DPRS.

5. Consistent implementation of the human resource policies

The Staff Development Committee of the senior management team should proactively monitor and enhance the implementation of the department's performance communication processes and merit-based selection processes. Actions could include:

• promoting supervisors and managers responsibilities in the performance communication process (in particular the need to provide constructive feedback, and the need to be accessible and approachable);
• promoting the training requirements for selection committee members so that staff are aware of the established policies and procedures;
• publishing lists of DPRS personnel who were currently 'accredited' by the Personnel Section as having appropriate training to participate in selection and promotion decision making;
• undertaking regular audits of selection processes to review the practical application of DPRS recruitment and promotion policies;
• promoting the greater use of Individual Development Plans to assist managers select the right person when opportunities arise for acting in higher duties;
• promoting formal review and updating of Individual Development Plans after each six-monthly performance appraisal;
• dissemination of summaries of 'exit interviews' to relevant managers.

6. Improving recognition and rewards for staff

The Staff Development Committee of the senior management team should introduce a system which recognises the contribution of individual staff and teams, based on the demonstration of commitment and modelling of the DPRS values. Examples of awards could include lunch in the Members' dining room.

7. Reviewing opportunities for Client Service Group input into DPRS technical planning

The Technical Development Implementation Committee of the senior management team should review mechanisms for ensuring appropriate input from the three service delivery arms of the Client Service Group in all strategic and project planning activities.