Career Progression and Development Survey 2005
Browse pages of search results
State Services Commission, April 2006, ISBN 0-478-24468-1, Crown Copyright. To print/download use the PDF and Excel files ABOVE.Media statement from State Services Commissioner.
Foreword from the State Services Commissioner
The State Services Commission undertook the first Career Progression and Development Survey in 2000. The survey was groundbreaking. For the first time, a sample of public servants from every Public Service department were questioned about their perceptions of their work environment and their career aspirations.
The survey was repeated with some slight changes in 2005. This enables a picture to be obtained of how the Public Service is perceived as a place to work, over time.
The State Services Commission has a long-standing interest in ensuring the Public Service and the wider State Services are considered an 'employer of choice'. This aspiration is one of the recently announced Development Goals for the State Services, along with promoting the development of 'excellent State servants'.
The Employer of Choice and Excellent State Servants Development Goals are about ensuring the State Services is made up of positive workplaces, staffed by high performers. The Goals are about ensuring State Services' employers can compete in a challenging labour market over the next two to three decades. They are about positioning the State Services for the 21st century world of work, where the work will be different from today, and will continue to change.
The needs and aspirations of State Services' employees are changing and employment and management practices need to keep pace with this change. The 2005 Career Progression and Development Survey will help to inform the State Services Commission's thinking about where future work efforts should be prioritised, both in the Public Service and in the wider State Services.
As with any survey, the results are a snapshot, but they provide some interesting insights. Some highlights for me are the increasingly high ambitions of public servants, with two thirds indicating they would like a more senior job in the Public Service at some time in the future. As in the 2000 survey, public servants remained motivated by the desire to do challenging work that makes a difference. This is not surprising, as making a difference is at the heart of the Public Service. Half of all participants believed that they worked for a reputable organisation - this was a significant improvement from the 2000 survey.
The survey also revealed some areas where the Public Service could potentially do better. Of most concern to me is that only a third of managers were rated 'good' at providing their staff with performance feedback and actively encouraging and supporting career development. While work-life balance provisions have improved, including the level of part-time work, public servants were less satisfied with their access to these provisions than they were in 2000. The Public Service remains a place of diversity but women, Māori and Pacific peoples remain under-represented in senior roles. Older public servants reported they were working harder and feeling less satisfied with their workload and formal development opportunities than in 2000.
Lifting the performance of the State Services depends to a large extent on the capabilities and commitment of State servants. In the current labour market it is not enough to hope that the State Services will attract and retain quality employees. The combined effects of a tight and shrinking global labour market, the different demands of a new generation of employees, and the increasing expectations of the public, require a significant change in how State servants are attracted, developed and retained.
The Development Goals are part of a strategic, whole-of-sector approach to improve the State Services' ability to attract, develop and retain a workforce that will meet the needs of the Government and New Zealanders.
Mark Prebble
Summary of Findings
A changing labour market - implications for the Public Service
Strong employment growth in New Zealand means that the Public Service is competing for staff with the private sector and globally. Labour and skill shortages have had an impact on recruitment. To attract and retain talented people, the Public Service is working towards the Development Goals for the State Services, of being an Employer of Choice and having Excellent State Servants1.
Over the last few years, New Zealand has experienced a period of strong economic growth. As a result, many employees have higher expectations of receiving a share in this prosperity.
New Zealand's demographic composition is changing, as the population ages. There is also growing ethnic diversity, and an increasing Māori and Pacific population. The New Zealand Public Service needs to be increasingly responsive to this diverse workforce.
Why a Career Progression and Development Survey?
The State Services Commission (SSC) first carried out the Career Progression and Development Survey in 20002. The survey was the first of its kind in the Public Service, and was repeated in 2005. It explored public servants' perceptions of the Public Service work environment and their career progression opportunities. The findings identify what public servants need to progress in their careers, and how well they think the Public Service is meeting these needs. The results from 2000 and 2005 have been compared and indicate areas for future work and focus.
The survey informs our understanding of the factors that influence career advancement and development in the Public Service. There is a particular emphasis on barriers and opportunities for women, Māori, Pacific people, managers, different age groups, and public servants with disabilities.
Research method and reporting issues
In March and April 2005, a total of 9,916 public servants were selected for the survey. The response rate was 53% or 5,235 people. The sampling method allows the results to be reported as if all staff had responded to the survey. Respondents were broadly representative of the Public Service population.
The survey was developed and implemented in consultation with a reference group of representatives from agencies, including Statistics New Zealand and the Public Service Association. There were some changes to questions asked in the 2005 survey. These are noted in the data tables and in the relevant chapter.
The first part of the report (Chapters 2-7) is issues-based and analyses the responses for all staff, while the latter part (Chapters 8-13) reports on the survey results for separate population groups in the Public Service. These groups are women, Māori, Pacific peoples, people with disabilities, Public Service managers, and different age groups.
The survey asked respondents how important certain factors were to them and how they rated their job or their department in terms of those factors. To give a clear indication of what was important to public servants, only the proportions of employees responding that a factor was "Highly important" to them are reported in the text. Similarly, to gain a clear impression of where there was high satisfaction and/or high dissatisfaction, only the respondents indicating "Good" or "Poor" in rating their departments are reported. All figures have been rounded to the nearest percent.
Qualitative responses (the responses to open-ended questions) are reported only where they represent a recurring theme and/or give added context to the quantitative results.
Key findings
Career aspirations and inhibitors
Public servants have high ambitions, which are increasing. More than two thirds (68%) reported they would like, or would probably like, to hold a more senior job in the Public Service at some time in the future. 60% reported this in 2000. Aspirations to be a chief executive declined slightly, with 14% of public servants wanting to be a chief executive, compared to 16% in 2000. As in 2000, 13% of public servants reported that they had achieved all they wanted in their careers.
In terms of their career intentions, over half of public servants planned to stay in their current positions in the long or short term. 22% were thinking about changing jobs, and 12% were actively applying for other jobs.
In order to progress their careers the majority of public servants were prepared to move into another work area. Nearly half reported that they would move to the private sector. Public servants were less likely to move to another location to further develop their career, with just over a quarter of respondents being prepared to move.
When asked what had stopped them from applying for a more senior position, a third of public servants said they simply preferred to stay in their current job. A range of other factors had stopped them from applying for a more senior position.
Deterrents to applying for a higher-level position in the Public Service
|
2005 |
2000 |
|
|
37% 30% 28% 24% 20% |
26% 25% 24% 21% 19% |
What motivates public servants?
Pay and benefits were seen as "Highly important" to nearly three quarters of public servants. However, public servants were not simply motivated by how much they can earn. As in 2000, the most important factors were having a feeling of accomplishment in their jobs, effective management, and challenging work.
40% of public servants rated their organisation as "Good" at providing a feeling of accomplishment. In relation to effective management, 27% rated their organisation as "Good" in this regard, while 26% rated their organisation as "Poor". Satisfaction with these factors has decreased since 2000.
A quarter of public servants rated pay and benefits for their job as "Good", while a similar number rated them as "Poor" (23%). Satisfaction with pay and benefits has declined from 2000. Most staff were satisfied with their job security, challenging work, and working a set number of hours each week. Half of public servants believed that they worked for a reputable organisation. This was a significant improvement from 30% in 2000.
Public servants were less satisfied with their workload than in 2000. Just under a third of public servants thought that their organisation was "Good" at providing a manageable workload, while 22% rated their organisation as "Poor" at this.
The majority of public servants were not having their expectations met in relation to opportunities for advancement. Only 15% thought their organisation was "Good" at this, while 42% felt it was "Poor". While this dissatisfaction level is high, it has decreased since 2000.
Development and training opportunities
As in 2000, public servants considered informal development opportunities as more important to their career development than formal training and development activities. The three training and development factors that were most important to public servants were demonstrating their skills and abilities, on-the-job training, and gaining experience in a range of tasks. Other important factors were feedback on their career development needs and access to training courses and seminars.
When asked whether their development and training expectations were being met, in general, public servants were less satisfied than in 2000. However, public servants were most satisfied with the development opportunities they considered most important for their career development. They were most content with access to opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities, although satisfaction has declined since 2000. Of all development factors, satisfaction levels were the lowest for access to mentoring.
How would you describe the opportunities you get in your current job?
|
(Listed in order of importance) |
"Good" |
"Poor" |
|
35% |
17% |
|
29% |
27% |
|
31% |
21% |
|
17% |
42% |
|
30% |
27% |
|
14% |
45% |
|
23% |
27% |
|
17% |
24% |
|
14% |
35% |
|
15% |
32% |
|
a 'Good' ratings have decreased since 2000 b 'Good' ratings have increased since 2000 c No change in 'Good' ratings since 2000 d New addition to the 2005 survey |
||
Managers and mentors
Public servants were asked to consider how important various management functions were to them. They especially valued a manager who communicated effectively, allowed them the freedom to use their own initiative, and encouraged their input into decisions that directly affected them.
Public servants' ratings of overall support from their immediate managers were not high. In 2005, 51% of public servants reported the level of support they received from their managers as "Good", while 17% rated it as "Poor".
Level of support public servants reported they received from their manager
|
(Listed in order of importance) |
"Good" |
"Poor" |
|
42% 56% 42% 36% 33% 40% 58% 34% 30% |
18% 12% 21% 18% 29% 24% 9% 27% 30% |
The number of public servants who had mentors has increased slightly since 2000. In 2005, one in five public servants had a mentor. Most mentoring relationships appear to be the result of individuals using their own networks and actively searching out informal mentoring relationships. Since 2000 there has been an increase in demand for access to formal mentoring. The vast majority of mentored staff reported that mentoring had assisted them with their career development.
Work environment - expectations and experiences
Public servants strongly indicated that they wanted to be treated fairly, work in an environment where staff work co-operatively, and have their ideas valued. Of lesser importance to public servants was having a good work-area design, and having outside commitments accommodated.
Public servants were not particularly satisfied with their work environments. They were most satisfied with the way their organisation accommodated outside commitments. 38% of public servants rated their organisation as "Good", and 13% said it was "Poor" at accommodating their outside commitments. When asked about their work, 37% of public servants gave "Good" ratings for being treated fairly (compared with 40% in 2000) and 20% gave "Poor" ratings (compared with 17% in 2000). Satisfaction with staff working co-operatively also declined, although most staff reported receiving good support from their co-workers. In relation to working in an environment where one's ideas are valued, 35% said their organisation was "Good", while 18% said it was "Poor". Public servants have also become more dissatisfied with their work-area design, and there were more "Poor" (32%) than "Good" results (25%) for this factor.
Balancing work and personal lives
The 2005 survey showed a decrease in the number of public servants reporting that they usually worked more hours a week than they were employed for. Despite this, the proportion was still quite high at 68%, compared to 76% in 2000. 88% of managers worked additional hours, and only 2% worked part time.
Overall, 11% of respondents worked part time. Women and caregivers continued to be the primary part-time workers. Satisfaction with access to part-time work has declined since 2000. Half of part-time workers reported that they usually worked more hours than they were employed for. Working reduced hours continued to be seen as a barrier to career progression by part-timers.
Work-life balance provisions
|
(Listed in order of importance)
|
|
a 'Good' ratings have decreased since 2000 b 'Good' ratings have increased since 2000 c No change in 'Good' ratings since 2000 d Of those who indicated the provision was applicable |
Overall, public servants continued to be relatively satisfied with provisions directly related to the care of dependants, where they considered these provisions applied to them. Public servants who were primary caregivers were more satisfied with their access to domestic/caregiver leave and parental leave.
Over a third of public servants care for children or adults. Caregivers were more likely than other staff to aspire to higher-level positions. However, 46% of caregivers, compared with 21% of non-caregivers, stated that concerns over balancing work and family responsibilities had deterred them from applying for a higher-level position. Other barriers to progression for caregivers included not wanting to travel extensively, relocate to another area, or work additional hours. Caregivers were also more likely to state that a lack of qualifications had stopped them from seeking a senior role.
Caregivers tended to place more value than non-caregivers on work-life balance provisions, such as access to domestic leave, and tended to be more satisfied with these. Caregivers also placed particular value on access to mentoring, study leave, and feedback on their career development. They were less satisfied than non-caregivers with access to the last two factors, as well as with access to formal training opportunities, such as training courses and seminars.
Diversity and the Public Service
Women in the Public Service
Profile of women in the Public Service - 2000 to 2004
Source: State Services Commission. Human Resource Capability Survey (2004, 2000) |
Women tended to attach more importance than men to most of the factors covered by the Career Progression and Development Survey. They also rated their jobs and the organisations in which they worked more highly. However, other evidence, such as the gender pay gap, women's under-representation in senior management, and women's high representation in lower-paid occupations, indicate that, despite some improvement in these areas, there is some way to go before women have parity with their male colleagues.
In general, results showed that women had high aspirations to advance in their careers and were relatively flexible about what they would do to move ahead. Most women were prepared to change work areas to progress their careers. Both genders were motivated by the same workplace factors: having a feeling of accomplishment, having effective management, and having challenging work. Women placed more value on development opportunities, particularly informal learning.
Balancing work and personal lives has become increasingly important to the Public Service in attracting and retaining talent. In 2005, both genders were more likely to cite a perceived clash between work and family as a deterrent to career progression. Flexible working hours was highly valued by both genders, and was the work-life factor both were most satisfied with. However, results show women still take more responsibility than men for the care of dependants and that this impacts more on women's working lives. Women, caregivers and staff in administrative/clerical occupations continued to be the main users of part-time working provisions.
Women are not a homogeneous group. There are likely to be differences between women of different ethnicities and/or at different levels of seniority. For this survey it was not possible to examine the differences between, for example, Pacific women and Māori women, to determine the dual impacts of gender and ethnicity on career progression.
Māori in the Public Service
Profile of Māori in the Public Service - 2000 to 2004
Source: State Services Commission. Human Resource Capability Survey (2004, 2000) |
As in 2000, Māori showed high ambitions and were flexible about what they would do to move ahead. Like other public servants, they were prepared to change work areas to progress their careers. However, proportionately more Māori were prepared to work additional hours or move to another location to advance their careers. Their higher ambitions may be due partly to the younger age structure of Māori public servants. Their propensity to have caregiving responsibilities did not appear to dampen these ambitions.
Māori were motivated by the same factors that were important to other public servants. Both wanted to be well managed in their work and were motivated by a sense of accomplishment. While both groups were moderately satisfied with the latter, they were less satisfied with the way in which they were being managed.
Māori, like other public servants, considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for their career development. They attributed more importance to all the development factors surveyed, particularly gaining experience in a range of tasks and on-the-job training. Having formal qualifications was also important. Māori perceived that not having the necessary qualifications was one of the most significant barriers to their career advancement. Many Māori reported being part way through their studies, and attributed considerably higher value to study leave. However, Māori reported that they were less satisfied with access to study leave.
Although more Māori were likely to be primary caregivers, access to part-time work was of less importance to Māori and they were less likely to work part time. Given the greater representation of Māori in lower paid roles, the financial implications of working reduced hours may have influenced their responses. Māori appeared to draw on other support networks to manage their caregiving responsibilities.
The largest difference between Māori and non-Māori was the relative importance each attached to leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations. Māori were over three times more likely to report that this type of leave was "Highly important" to them.
Pacific peoples in the Public Service
Profile of Pacific peoples in the Public Service - 2000 to 2004
Source: State Services Commission. Human Resource Capability Survey (2004, 2000) |
Pacific staff showed considerably higher levels of ambition than their non-Pacific colleagues. While most public servants were prepared to change work areas to progress their careers, this was particularly true for Pacific staff. Being in a role that provided them with advancement opportunities was "Highly important" to more Pacific than non-Pacific staff. A manager who encouraged and supported their career development was also more important to Pacific staff. Their higher ambitions may be due partly to the younger age structure of Pacific staff. Like their Māori colleagues, being caregivers did not appear to dampen Pacific public servants' ambitions.
The most significant barriers to career advancement for Pacific staff were not having the necessary experience or qualifications. This could be explained by their younger age structure and lower reported levels of tertiary qualifications. The training and development opportunities Pacific staff were seeking indicated they were keen to enhance their experience and qualifications.
The top development priority for public servants was being able to demonstrate their skills and abilities. While this was also "Highly important" to Pacific staff, they were more concerned with development opportunities where they learnt on the job and gained experience in a range of tasks. Access to mentoring and study leave was also highly valued by more Pacific than non-Pacific staff.
Pacific staff were motivated by the same factors that were important to other public servants. Both groups wanted their jobs to be well managed and to have a sense of accomplishment in their work. Pay and benefits were not the highest work priorities, but were relatively more important to Pacific than non-Pacific staff.
Possibly given their greater propensity to be primary caregivers, Pacific staff tended to attribute more importance to all the work-life balance factors that were surveyed than their non-Pacific colleagues, particularly the provisions relating to leave and working flexible hours. The largest difference between Pacific and non-Pacific public servants was the relative importance each attached to leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations. Pacific peoples were more than three times more likely than non-Pacific staff to report that this type of leave was "Highly important" to them.
People with disabilities
Profile of People with disabilities in the Public Service
Source: State Services Commission. Career Progression and Development Survey (2005) |
At first glance staff with disabilities appeared to be less ambitious than other public servants. They were less likely to want a higher-level role and were more likely to report that they had achieved all they wanted in their careers. Unlike their colleagues, opportunities for advancement were not a high priority for staff with disabilities. Given their older age profile, these findings may simply reflect the current career stage of staff with disabilities. However, a sizable proportion (59%) still sought a higher-level position at some time in the future.
The main barrier that deterred public servants from applying for a senior role was not having the necessary experience. This was of less concern to staff with disabilities, whose tenure in their current organisation and in the wider Public Service was generally greater than that of other staff. Given their greater tendency to be caregivers, staff with disabilities were more concerned that a senior job would have a negative impact on their family commitments. Perhaps linked to these concerns, they were reluctant to take up a higher-level role if it meant working additional hours or extensive travel. Not having the necessary qualifications was also seen as a barrier to progression.
Two factors that were "Highly important" to most public servants, including staff with disabilities, were having a feeling of accomplishment in their work and being managed effectively. Staff with disabilities attributed less importance than other public servants to challenging work and pay and benefits. Instead, they were more concerned with having a manageable workload. They did not rate their organisation well in this regard, and were less satisfied than their colleagues.
Like other public servants, staff with disabilities considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for their career development. On-the-job training, opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities, and gaining experience in a range of tasks were the three top priorities for all public servants. Staff with disabilities were particularly unsatisfied with these last two factors.
Staff with disabilities were just as likely as their colleagues to have a mentor. Most public servants who had mentors reported that mentoring had assisted them with their career development. However, staff with disabilities were less likely than other staff to report this.
Maintaining a sense of balance between work and family commitments was clearly a priority for staff with disabilities. Perhaps due to their older age structure, their career/life stage, or their propensity to be caregivers, time spent with family or accommodating other responsibilities outside of work, was highly valued. The responses of staff with disabilities indicate this was an area where they were less willing to compromise.
Managers in the Public Service
Profile of Managers in the Public Service - 2000 to 2004
Source: State Services Commission. Human Resource Capability Survey (2004); Regional data from the Career Progression and Development Survey (2005). |
Managers showed high aspirations to reach senior positions in the Public Service. They were more willing than their colleagues to move to another location, work area or to the private sector to progress their careers. While a lack of experience or qualifications had deterred non-managers from applying for a higher-level role in the Public Service, managers were more concerned with the impact such a role would have on their family responsibilities. A third reported this conflict had deterred them from seeking a more senior position. Despite this concern, they were less deterred by the prospect of taking on more responsibilities, or travelling extensively. Both groups generally saw their opportunities for advancement within their own organisation as "Poor".
Of most importance to public servants were having a sense of accomplishment and challenge in their work and being managed effectively. Managers placed more importance on challenging work and working for a reputable organisation. Their expectations in these areas were largely being met. Despite their greater influence on the overall management of the organisations in which they worked, managers' overall satisfaction with being managed effectively themselves was not high.
Managers were generally more satisfied than non-managers with their development opportunities. They were most satisfied with the development factors they attributed significant importance to, such as opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities and gaining experience in a range of tasks. Acting up in a senior role, while of more importance to managers, was a lower priority relative to other development opportunities.
Overall, managers painted a positive picture of their own managers in the Public Service. They were generally more satisfied than non-managers with the support they received from their managers, particularly in being able to use their initiative and being involved in decisions that affected them. However, both groups rated their managers less well in relation to aspects of their career advancement, notably in providing performance feedback and actively encouraging and supporting career development. Similar findings were reported in the 2000 survey. This remains an area for attention.
One in four managers had a mentor and nearly all reported that mentoring had assisted them in their career development.
Age Groups in the Public Service
Younger public servants (aged under 30 years)
Younger public servants were highly ambitious, with four out of every five wanting a higher-level position in the Public Service. Along with their mid-career colleagues, they were more likely than the 45-plus age group to want to become a chief executive. Younger staff were much more flexible about what they would do to progress their careers, and were more likely to be prepared to move to another work area, the private sector, or to another location. Reported barriers to career progression for this group were most likely to be experience or qualifications, or a lack of self-confidence.
Satisfaction with training and development factors was generally low, however younger public servants were more likely to rate their opportunities for advancement as "Good" than other groups. They were the least satisfied of all groups with pay and benefits. All training and development factors were more important to the younger age group than other groups, and they were generally more satisfied, although satisfaction overall was low.
Especially important to the younger age group was having a manager who encouraged and supported their career development. This group worked fewer hours, and were more satisfied with their workload. Most work-life balance factors were less important to this group than the mid-career group, except for parental leave, which was more "Highly important" to younger public servants. They were less satisfied than other groups with access to part time work and domestic/caregiver leave.
Mid-career public servants (aged 30 to 44 years)
Mid-career public servants were nearly as ambitious as their younger colleagues. However, they were less likely to see their organisation as preparation for a move to another organisation. They were less flexible than their younger colleagues about moving to another work area, location, or to the private sector, but were more so than their older colleagues.
The most important training and development factor for public servants aged 30 to 44 (along with the 45-plus age group) was demonstrating their skills and abilities, and they were the most satisfied of all age groups with this factor. Mid-career public servants were more likely to be dissatisfied with access to mentoring.
Lack of experience and concerns about balancing work and family commitments were the factors most likely to deter mid-career public servants from applying for a higher-level position. This group were more likely than their younger colleagues to work additional hours, and less likely to be satisfied with their workload. Consistent with their tendency to be caregivers, almost all work-life balance factors were more important to mid-career public servants than to other age groups. Their satisfaction with these was similar to, or higher than the younger age group.
Older public servants (aged 45 years and over)
While 59% of public servants aged 45 years and over wanted a higher-level job, this group was less ambitious than others. They were also much less likely to want to become a chief executive, and more likely to report that they had achieved all they wanted in their career. Older public servants were less flexible than other groups, and much more likely to be planning to stay in their current position for the long-term.
Working for a reputable organisation was "Highly important" to more older public servants than other age groups, and they were more satisfied with this factor than the younger age group. This age group was more satisfied than other groups with having a sense of accomplishment and challenge in their work, and with their pay and benefits. Opportunities for advancement were much less important to older public servants than to other age groups and they were more dissatisfied with the opportunities they actually received.
Training and development factors were of lesser importance to public servants aged 45 and over. Older public servants were less satisfied than other groups with their managers encouraging and supporting their career development. They were more likely to work additional hours, and (like their mid-career colleagues) were less satisfied with having a manageable workload than younger public servants. Work-life balance factors were less important to them than to the mid-career age group.
Chapter 1: Career Progression in the Public Service
The Public Service operates within New Zealand's overall labour, social and economic environment, and its employees are affected by changes that take place in wider society. Between 2000 and 2005, there were some significant changes to New Zealand's social and economic climate.
In response to Government policy decisions, the Public Service has grown in size in recent years. Over the year to 30 June 2004, the total number of public servants increased by 10%, or 3420 people, to a total of almost 38,0003. Some of that growth was accounted for by the need to increase the number of Public Service employees in frontline positions.
Between 2000 and 2004, a number of Public Service departments reorganised their senior management levels. In many cases, this resulted in a new level of second tier positions.
Increasingly, Public Service organisations have to compete both with each other and with employers in the wider labour market to find the staff they need. At the same time, potential employees have become more selective about what they want from a job. Because this level of competitiveness is not likely to reduce in the future, the Public Service faces a lengthy period of having to work hard to find and keep the skilled employees it requires. Becoming an 'employer of choice', as the Public Service aims to be, has become not just desirable but necessary, in order for it to continue to meet the needs of New Zealanders through quality service.
Since 2000, there has been a very tight labour market in New Zealand, with pronounced skill shortages. Recruitment in the Public Service has been impacted by these skill shortages, and people with skills that are in demand (such as managers and senior policy analysts) have become harder to attract. Over the same period, New Zealand's unemployment level has dropped steadily, culminating during 2005 in the lowest unemployment level in the developed world.
Over the last few years, New Zealand has enjoyed a period of strong economic growth, bringing with it relative prosperity and a healthy government surplus. As a result, many New Zealanders have higher expectations and want more of a share in the benefits that economic good times bring. Public servants, too, have higher expectations.
New Zealand is now part of a competitive global environment, where people and business are both more mobile. Younger New Zealanders are now much less likely than those of previous generations to stay all of their lives in the same place. The concept of a job for life has largely disappeared. Today, younger New Zealanders expect to change jobs, and even careers, several times during their working lives. Not only will they move from one organisation to another if their development needs are not being met, but many will move geographically as well - including to other countries.
Not only is New Zealand's population ageing, but its composition is changing. Because the Māori population is generally much younger than the non-Māori population, Māori will gradually make up a bigger proportion of the overall population. Half of all Māori were under 23 years of age in 2004, 13 years younger than the median age of the total population4. With Māori forming a larger part of the available workforce in future, the Public Service will need to work hard to attract Māori staff in a tight and competitive market. The same is true for Pacific peoples, whose proportion of the working-age population is predicted to rise from 7% in 2001 to 13% in 20515.
Women have outnumbered men in New Zealand since the early 1970s6, and in the Public Service this pattern is even more evident. Women made up 59% of all Public Service employees in 2004. They are, therefore, an increasingly important part of the senior management talent pool.
The demographic trends suggest that the composition of the Public Service is likely to change over the next few decades. The Public Service will need to provide the conditions and career development opportunities demanded by an increasingly diverse workforce to ensure access to large proportions of its labour supply.
1.1 The Career Progression and Development Survey, 2000 and 2005
The Career Progression and Development Survey carried out by the State Services Commission (SSC) in 20007 was the first of its kind in the Public Service. It provided important information enabling the Public Service to take stock of how staff viewed their work environment and career progression opportunities, and how well their organisation was meeting their needs.
That survey provided a benchmark. The second Career Progression and Development Survey, carried out in 2005, offered the opportunity to see what changes, if any, have occurred, and to take appropriate action to address staff concerns.
In April 2005, the SSC invited 10,000 public servants to take part in the second survey. As in 2000, the survey asked staff to respond to a broad range of questions about their careers, their career aspirations, what might be helping them or holding them back, their access to training and development opportunities, and what, if anything, had prevented them from applying for more senior jobs. All levels of staff were surveyed. A range of demographic data was collected to enable examination of differences based, for example, on gender, ethnicity, disability and occupation.
Research instruments such as these tend to elicit more negative than positive comments. As the survey was designed to highlight areas of most concern to public servants, the reported results, while not ignoring areas of relative satisfaction, focus on areas requiring attention.
For the 2000 survey, in addition to the major report that summarised the results for the whole of the Public Service, individual reports were supplied to each organisation. These departmental reports contained full analysis of the data, both quantitative and qualitative. For the 2005 survey, departmental reports have not been produced. Instead, departments have been given the opportunity to analyse their individual results themselves (see section 1.4).
1.2 What the reports represent, and how they are used
The 2000 data has underpinned the State Services Commission's strategic human resources work, including the Human Resources Framework, Senior Leadership and Management Development programme, guidelines on coaching and mentoring, and work-life balance. Information from the 2000 survey also helped to inform the equal employment opportunity (EEO) needs of Māori and Pacific peoples, and led directly to the guidelines the SSC produced on Creating a Positive Work Environment.
In the same way, the SSC will use the 2005 survey data to guide and assist its ongoing work.
1.3 Structure of the present report
This report is divided into two main parts. Chapters 2 to 7 deal with the key issues arising from the 2005 survey:
- Chapter 2, Career Goals, Aids and Barriers, reports on what aspirations public servants have for their careers, and what factors, if any, have helped or hindered them in realising those aspirations.
- Chapter 3, What Motivates Public Servants, explores the factors public servants value in their workplace, and the extent to which their expectations are being met in their current job.
- Chapter 4, Development and Training Opportunities, reports on the development and training opportunities public servants think are most important and valuable for achieving their career goals, and how much access they believe they have to these.
- Chapter 5, Managers and Mentors, discusses public servants' assessments of their managers or supervisors and how well staff are supported in career development. The importance of mentors, and the demand for these, is also discussed.
- Chapter 6, Work Environment, reports on the aspects of their workplace environment that are most important to public servants, and how they rate their own organisation's environment.
- Chapter 7, Work-life Balance, examines the extent to which public servants feel able to balance their work and other commitments. It includes their assessments of their access to family leave provisions and flexible work arrangements.
Each of these chapters includes differences in the responses between the population groups that make up the Public Service - women, Māori, Pacific peoples, people with disabilities, Public Service managers, and different age groups. The second part of the report concentrates on the results for those groups and where they differed from their comparators. It is split into six chapters:
- Chapter 8, Women in the Public Service
- Chapter 9, Māori in the Public Service
- Chapter 10, Pacific Peoples in the Public Service
- Chapter 11, Public Servants with Disabilities
- Chapter 12, Managers in the Public Service
- Chapter 13, Age groups in the Public Service.
As the demographic chapters (Chapters 8-13) are intended to be complete in themselves, there is some repetition of survey results and commentary from the issues chapters (Chapters 1-7).
Chapter 14 contains the overall conclusions and challenges going forward.
The data tables showing the results of the survey are supplied as Appendix 1. Technical details are explained in Appendix 2, and the survey questionnaire is attached as Appendix 3.
1.2 Research method
1.2.1 Sampling and respondents
A stratified random sample of employees from the Public Service participated in the survey on a voluntary basis. Before the 2005 survey began, Public Service departments could request that they be given their individual results as data tables, which they could then analyse themselves. Twenty-one departments requested these data tables. The size of the department as at 30 June 2004 influenced the sample selection for departments. In departments with fewer than 400 employees, all staff were selected. In departments of 400 or more, a stratified random sample was selected. For the 14 departments that did not request data tables, a stratified random sample of employees was selected.
The overall response rate was 53% - marginally higher than for the 2000 survey (52%). Respondents were broadly representative of the Public Service population when compared with the SSC Human Resource Capability data8.
The sampling method used allows the results to be reported as if all staff had responded to the survey. These results are subject to error in the same way that an opinion poll has a margin of error. The margins of error were used to construct confidence intervals of 95% around the proportions shown in this report (see Appendix 2).
1.2.2 Differences from the 2000 survey
Twelve of the questions asked in the 2005 survey were largely the same as those asked in the 2000 survey, allowing comparisons to be made. For each of these questions, the 2000 and the 2005 results are shown side by side in tables. There are, however, some changes from the 2000 survey. Any changes to a question are noted in both the chapter where that question is discussed, and in the data tables showing the results of the survey. The questions relating to discrimination and harassment, which were the basis of Chapter 8 in the first report, have been removed. Feedback from the last survey suggested that harassment and discrimination could be better addressed through other research9.
1.4.3 Reported results
The survey asked respondents how important certain factors were to them and how they rated their job or their department in terms of those factors. To give a clear indication of what was important to public servants, only the proportions of employees responding that a factor was "Highly important" to them, and not the proportions indicating that the factor was "Somewhat important" or "Of little or no importance", are reported in the text. Similarly, to gain a clear impression of where there was high satisfaction and/or high dissatisfaction, only those proportions of employees indicating "Good" or "Poor" in rating their departments are reported. All figures have been rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.
Qualitative responses - the responses to open-ended questions - are reported only where they represent a recurring theme and/or give added context to the quantitative results. Quotations are presented in text boxes where they are indicative of the types of qualitative responses received.
1.4.4 Sub-populations
While the report analyses differences in responses according to, for example, gender, ethnicity, disability, age and occupation, the survey research method and sample size did not support further detailed breakdowns or disaggregation. Therefore, comparing the experiences of small subgroups, such as Māori women managers compared with Māori men managers, was not undertaken.
1.4.5 Departmental data
This report represents the results for the Public Service as a whole. While inter-departmental ranges of results were provided in the 2000 report, the sampling method for 2005 did not support this approach. Of the 35 Public Service departments, 21 requested their results as data tables they could analyse themselves. In general, a larger sample was required for the departments that requested data tables.
A full discussion of the survey research method is provided in Appendix 2. Statistics New Zealand provided advice on the survey design, checked that the estimation method for the point and confidence interval estimates was implemented correctly, and reviewed the key tables and technical description of the survey contained in this report. Interpretation of the results of the survey is entirely the responsibility of the State Services Commission.
1.3 Composition of the Public Service
Today's Public Service is made up of a diverse workforce and a wide variety of occupations. As at 30 June 200410, the core Public Service consisted of 35 departments, with just under 37,900 staff (35,645 full-time equivalent staff). The departments range considerably in size, with the smallest (the Ministry of Women's Affairs) employing only 27 people, and the largest (the Ministry of Social Development) employing just over 6000. The Public Service workforce makes up approximately 2% of New Zealand's employed labour force.
1.3.1 Occupational make-up
The Public Service is dominated by frontline occupations, such as case managers, prison officers and social workers. People working as professionals (including legal, policy and computing staff) are also a proportionally larger group in the Public Service than in the employed labour force. In general, because of new technology and changing workplace requirements, the demand for these professional staff is increasing, while that for clerical staff (such as secretaries) is decreasing.
1.3.2 Gender
The number of women in the workplace has increased markedly in recent years in New Zealand, as it has in most developed countries. Women are particularly strongly represented in the Public Service. Between 2000 and 2004, the proportion of women in the Public Service increased from 56% to 59%. For that same period, the proportion of women in the employed labour force remained fairly constant at around 45%11.
Women's representation varies considerably across departments - between 27% and 83%, excluding the Ministry of Women's Affairs, which is 96% female. It also varies within the various occupation groups that make up the Public Service. Women are highly represented in the associate professionals (case workers and social workers) and office clerks occupational groups. They continue to have low representation in some of the non-traditional employment areas, such as the science and technical occupations. Since 2000, the proportion of female public servants in the managerial occupational group increased by 6 percentage points (from 40% to 46% in 2004) and by 3% percentage points in senior management12 positions (from 33% to 36% in 2004). The pay gap between the median salary for female and male public servants decreased between 2000 and 2004, from 17% to 16%13.
1.3.3 Ethnicity
- proportion of Māori in the Public Service remained relatively static from 2000 to 2004. 17% of public servants identify as Māori, compared with 9% of the employed labour force. Māori public servants are younger than public servants in general. In 2004, the median age for Māori public servants was 39 years, compared with 42 years for all public servants. Māori are highly represented in the associate professionals group and personal and protective service workers group (such as prison officers) and have low representation in the professional, technical and managerial occupations. Māori in senior management increased slightly, from 9% in 2000 to 10% in 2004. The pay gap between the median salary of Māori and non-Māori public servants increased between 2000 and 2004, from 7% to 12%14.
- representation in the Public Service has gradually increased, from 6% in 2000 to 7% in 2004. Pacific peoples make up 4% of the employed labour force. Pacific staff are the youngest ethnic group in the Public Service. In 2004, their median age was 35 years, compared with 42 years for all public servants. Like Māori, a high proportion of Pacific public servants work in the associate professional and personal and protective services occupations, and also in the clerical group. They are under-represented in the professional, technical and managerial occupations. The percentage of Pacific peoples in senior management remains the same as for the 2000 report (1%). The pay gap between Pacific and non-Pacific public servants increased between 2000 and 2004, from 11% to 14%15.
- the proportion of Asian public servants increased from 3% to 5% between 2000 and 2004, the number of Asian senior managers went down, from 2% to 1%. All other ethnic groups' representation remained at similar levels.
1.3.4 Regional distribution
In June 2004, 40% of public servants worked in the Wellington area (based on regional council boundaries). Lower proportions of staff worked in the Auckland region (20%) and outlying regional areas. The regional presence of departments reflects their size and function. Smaller policy-focused departments typically have a sole or predominant presence in the Wellington area, whereas larger service-oriented departments have employees throughout the country.
1.3.5 Age profile
In general, employees in the Public Service are older and more qualified than those in the general workforce, reflecting the fact that a high proportion of occupations in the Public Service require a tertiary qualification. Many of the Public Service front-line staff (such as receptionists, social workers or call centre staff) are more likely to be from the younger age groups and they are also more likely to be women, Māori or Pacific peoples, when compared with the overall Public Service. Senior managers, however, are still more likely to be older, and male. In their responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey 2005, 44% of the Public Service belonged to the 30-44 age group, and 41% were aged 45 years and over.
Figure 1.1 Gender/age distribution for the New Zealand Public Service, 2004
Source: State Services Commission. Human Resource Capability Survey (2004)
Chapter 2: Career Goals, Aids and Barriers
This chapter examines public servants' aspirations to higher-level jobs, what they were prepared to do to get them, and what they perceived as the main deterrents to applying for such positions.
2.1 Aspirations to achieve a higher-level job
2.1.1 Who wants a higher-level job?
Survey results from 2005 indicate that public servants are more ambitious than they were in 2000. More than two thirds (68%) reported they would like (or would probably like) to hold a more senior job in the Public Service at some time in the future. 60% reported this in 2000.
While men continue to be more likely than women to want a higher-level role, the gap between the two groups is smaller. In 2000, just under two thirds (65%) of men wanted a more senior role, compared with 57% of women. In 2005, 70% of men wanted a higher-level job, and so did 67% of women. Māori and Pacific staff showed higher levels of ambition. More than three quarters (76%) of Māori and 81% of Pacific staff aspired to a more senior role. This compares with just over two thirds of non-Māori and non-Pacific public servants. There might be an age effect operating here, given the relatively younger age profile of Māori and Pacific public servants. The results show that aspirations towards a higher-level role decrease with age.
2.1.2 Who wants to be a chief executive?
While more public servants want a higher-level job, aspirations to become a chief executive have declined across all groups, except Pacific staff. In 2005, 14% of public servants wanted to be a chief executive, compared with 16% in 2000. As was the case in 2000, men (19%) were more likely than women (11%) to have their sights on a chief executive role. 23% of managers, compared with 13% of non-managers, wanted such a position. Māori and Pacific public servants continued to show high levels of ambition. Māori (18%) and Pacific (22%) staff were more likely than their non-Māori or non-Pacific colleagues (14%) to want to become a chief executive. Perhaps reflecting the extent to which they had already achieved what they wanted in their careers, older public servants (those aged more than 45 years) were less likely to want to be a chief executive.
2.1.3 Who had already achieved all they wanted in their career?
As in 2000, only 13% of public servants reported that they had achieved all they wanted in their careers in 2005. This proportion increased with age, particularly in the 45 plus age group, although not as significantly as in 2000. Just under a quarter (23%) of public servants over the age of 45 reported that they had achieved all they wanted in their careers, compared with a third (32%) in 2000. There were no differences by gender, or between Pacific and non-Pacific staff. Māori staff were less likely to report that they had achieved all they wanted in their careers, with 8% reporting this compared with 14% of non-Māori.
"There are some people like myself who have previously been managers and/or for lifestyle reasons do not want to climb the career ladder. The Public Service also needs to find a niche for these people and find a way to best utilise them."
2.1 Career intentions - staying or going
A third of public servants reported that they were planning to stay in their current positions in the long term. A further 25% of staff were planning to stay in the short term. These results are consistent with the 2000 survey findings.
Slightly higher numbers (12%) of public servants were actively applying for other jobs at the time of the 2005 survey, compared with 10% in 2000. This is not surprising, given the tight labour market and skills shortage. The result is marginally lower than unplanned turnover for the Public Service (14%)16, which has been on the increase since 2000. More males (13%) than females (11%) were actively applying for other jobs. The survey results also indicate some likely mobility, with 22% of public servants indicating that they were thinking about changing jobs. This figure was 20% in 2000. 26% of Māori were thinking about changing jobs, compared with 21% of non-Māori.
Considerably more public servants saw their current position as a training ground for their next career move within their organisation - 41% in 2005, compared with 32% in 2000. This was particularly so for Māori and Pacific public servants. Just over half of Māori staff, compared with 40% of non-Māori, saw their next move as an internal one, as did 54% of Pacific staff, compared with 41% of non-Pacific staff.
More public servants had their sights set on an external move than was the case in 2000. 37% saw their current position as a training ground for their next career move to a new organisation, compared with just over a third (34%) in 2000. Managers were more likely than non-managers to view their current role as preparation for a move externally, as were Māori staff (40%) compared with non-Māori (36%), and Pacific staff (46%) compared with non-Pacific (36%).
2.2 What were staff prepared to do to move ahead?
2.3.1 Change work area
More public servants were prepared to move into another work area to develop their careers. 61% indicated this, compared with 56% in 2000. This was particularly true for women, Māori, Pacific staff and managers. 64% of women, compared with 59% of men, indicated they would change work areas to further their career, as did 68% of Māori, compared with 60% of non-Māori. Pacific staff and managers were even more likely to move - 71% of Pacific staff said they would do so, compared with 61% of non-Pacific staff, and 68% of managers compared with 60% of non-managers.
2.3.2 Move to the private sector
Findings for this factor remained unchanged from 2000. Just under half (49%) reported that they would move to the private sector to get ahead. Managers (54%) were more likely than non-managers (48%) to see the private sector as a viable employment option. Results were consistent across gender and ethnicity.
2.3.3 Move geographically
As in 2000, public servants were less inclined to move to another location to advance their careers. Only one in four (27%) were prepared to make such a move. This was less of a deterrent to men, 30% of whom reported they would move to another location for their career, compared with 26% of women. Similarly, more Māori (34%) than non-Māori (26%), and more managers (36%) than non-managers (26%) reported they would shift locations. Qualitative information reflected that location could be a barrier to career progression and opportunities such as secondments and training. Some perceived that living outside Wellington limited their chance to advance in their career. A higher-level position would frequently require a move. Several public servants were reluctant to move for family reasons.
"Most of the positions to which I am well suited are located in National Office. For family reasons I can't move to Wellington, and there is no flexibility to do [this work] from a different location. This eliminates a huge pool of talent, skill, knowledge and experience from policy/advice and decision-making positions."
2.3 Inhibitors - what deters people from applying for a higher-level position?
Public servants were asked whether a number of factors had stopped them from applying for a higher-level position in the Public Service in the previous 12 months. The results are shown in Figure 2.1. Preference to stay in their current job continued to be a top factor; a third of public servants indicated this. Apart from this factor, the greatest deterrents to applying for a more senior role were:
- a lack of readiness for such a role, with individuals feeling they did not have the necessary experience or qualifications
- concerns that taking on a more senior job would adversely affect the non-work aspects of their lives - family responsibilities, relocation and having to work additional hours
- concerns about the perceived political nature of higher-level jobs or that the selection process would be unfair.
Figure 2.1 What deters people from applying for a higher-level position?
|
Within the past 12 months, have any of these things stopped you from applying for a position at a higher level in the Public Service? |
||
|
All Staff % |
||
|
2005 |
2000 |
|
|
Don't yet have the necessary experience |
37% |
26% |
|
Preference to stay in my current job |
33% |
32% |
|
Concern that I would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities |
30% |
25% |
|
No desire to relocate to another area to take up a higher-level position |
28% |
24% |
|
Don't yet have the necessary qualifications |
24% |
21% |
|
No desire to work additional hours |
20% |
|
|
No desire because of the political nature of higher-level positions |
18% |
18% |
|
Concern that the selection process would not be fair |
18% |
18% |
|
Lack of confidence in myself |
17% |
15% |
|
No desire to work in a higher-level position |
16% |
14% |
|
No desire to undertake extensive travel |
15% |
12% |
|
Lack of support from my manager |
14% |
12% |
|
No desire to take on additional responsibilities |
12% |
|
|
Lack of support from others |
7% |
|
2.3.1 Lack of readiness for a senior job
Lacking the necessary qualifications or experience are legitimate reasons for not applying for a senior role. These factors were mentioned in both the qualitative and quantitative results. In 2005, 24% of public servants said not having the necessary qualifications had prevented them from applying for a higher-level position. This compares with 21% in 2000. Not having the right experience was more likely to be a barrier in 2005 than in 2000 - 37% of public servants reported this, compared with 26% in 2000.
Results for both surveys indicate that women continue to underestimate their readiness for jobs and apply only when they meet most of the job requirements. While there were no gender differences in terms of their perceptions of their qualifications, more women (40%) than men (32%) reported that lack of experience had prevented them from applying for a senior role. Women were also almost twice as likely as men (22% compared with 12%) to report that a lack of self-confidence had deterred them from seeking a higher-level position.
Māori and Pacific public servants were much more likely to report a lack of qualifications or experience as barriers to career progression. They were nearly twice as likely to indicate that not having the necessary qualifications had prevented them from applying for a higher-level position. This may, in part, be due to their relatively younger age profile and to the fact that Māori and Pacific staff were less likely to hold a tertiary qualification compared with their non-Māori and non-Pacific colleagues. There were no differences by ethnicity in terms of self-confidence.
2.3.2 A more senior job would clash with life outside the workplace
Balancing work and non-work activities is becoming increasingly important to public servants. In 2005, 30% of public servants stated that a perceived clash between work and family was a deterrent to career progression. This compares with 25% in 2000. A slightly higher proportion of women (32%) than men (28%) indicated this. Qualitative results confirmed that not being able to work part time or being able to balance non-work activities had deterred public servants from applying for higher positions.
"Maintaining a work-life balance as you rise higher in the organisation becomes more difficult - e.g. needing to leave at 5pm doesn't work well at all times."
More public servants (28% in 2005, 24% in 2000) were discouraged from applying for a senior role because they did not wish to relocate. One in five public servants was deterred because of the additional hours17 a senior role demanded. Women (23%) were more likely than men (17%) to be deterred by the prospect of working additional hours. In contrast, Māori and managers were less likely to see this as a barrier.
2.3.3 The job is unattractive
As was the case in 2000, 18% of public servants reported that they had not applied for a senior position because of the political nature associated with such a role. Not wanting to take on additional responsibilities18 was perceived as a deterrent by 12% of public servants. Pacific public servants and managers were less likely to be deterred by politics (internal or otherwise) or additional responsibilities.
2.3.4 Lack of fairness in selection process
18% of public servants said that they had been deterred from applying for a senior role because they perceived the selection process to be unfair. This was consistent with the 2000 results. Women (16%) were less likely than men (20%) to think this. Māori public servants were more likely than their non-Māori colleagues (24% compared with 17%) to perceive unfairness in the selection process. Managers were just as likely as non-managers to report this, even though they were more likely than their colleagues to be familiar with selection processes in general.
Qualitative data confirmed that some public servants perceived unfair selection processes. There were comments such as "It's not what you know, but who you know," and concerns about favouritism or appointments taking place without a fair and open process.
"Selection for positions is not fair. Certain people are earmarked for positions even before the job has been advertised."
2.4 Conclusions
Levels of ambition in the Public Service have increased since the 2000 survey, particularly for Māori and Pacific public servants. While women were less likely than men to want a senior job, the gap between the two significantly decreased (from 8 to 4 percentage points) in the five years between the two surveys.
Public servants were flexible about what they would do to advance their careers, with increasing numbers willing to change work areas to move ahead. They were less flexible when it came to relocating to another geographical area. The main deterrents to applying for a higher-level job were concerns about balancing work and family responsibilities and perceptions that they lacked the necessary experience. One in five public servants was deterred from applying for a senior job because they perceived the selection process would not be fair.
Chapter 3 What Motivates Public Servants
The factors that motivate employees to choose a job, and to stay in it, are complex. Research both in New Zealand and internationally shows that public servants are driven by a great deal more than how much they can earn. Many place more importance on less tangible factors, such as a feeling of accomplishment, being effectively managed, and having challenging work. This is not unique to New Zealand. An article in Britain's Guardian newspaper, reporting on an audit commission report, said "many private employers would give their eye teeth for the motivation that drives people applying for a public service job: the opportunity to 'make a difference'"19. The article went on to point out that job satisfaction is higher in the public than the private sector. However, the very idealism that leads employees to look for a position in the Public Service may also lead to their disenchantment if that need is not met. Research has shown that the main reasons why people leave public service jobs are the negative aspects of their jobs, rather than the positive attractions of alternative options20.
Some research shows that the type of person attracted to work in the Public Service may need to feel a greater degree of pride and accomplishment in order to enjoy their work than other groups of employees do. While this is a positive attribute when public servants' need for satisfaction is met, their pride may become eroded when the Public Service comes under attack, or when public trust and confidence in the Public Service is low. Because human behaviour is complex, it is possible for public servants to be motivated by both altruism and self-interest. The challenge for departments is to find ways of providing incentives for staff that cater for both motivations. Engaging in meaningful work may not only increase job satisfaction, but may even increase life expectancy21.
In the 2000 Career Progression and Development Survey, the results showed very strongly that what New Zealand public servants most valued in their jobs was a feeling of accomplishment. That was still the strongest motivation for them in 2005. While pay is important, other factors are even more important. In the 2005 survey, public servants reported relatively high levels of dissatisfaction with the quality of management, and how manageable they perceived their workload to be. Public servants were also dissatisfied with opportunities for advancement. Other research has shown that mid-career employees (those aged 35-54) were competing for too few leadership positions22.
3.1 What do staff value in the workplace?
The survey asked public servants to consider how important nine aspects of their work were to them (see Figure 3.1). Three factors emerged as "Highly important" to more than three out of every four public servants:
- a feeling of accomplishment (90%)
- effective management (84%)
- challenging work (77%).
These were also the top three workplace factors in the 2000 survey23. A feeling of accomplishment in their work was important to all public servants, regardless of gender or ethnicity, just as it was in 2000. However, a higher proportion of women (93%) than men (86%) thought a feeling of accomplishment was "Highly important".
More women, Māori and Pacific public servants considered effective management was "Highly important" than public servants outside these groups. 88% of women reported effective management was "Highly important", a considerably greater proportion than men (79%). More than 90% of Māori and Pacific public servants indicated effective management was "Highly important", compared with 83% of non-Māori and 84% of non-Pacific staff. Qualitative information also emphasised the value public servants placed on effective and supportive management.
Challenging work was valued highly by proportionately more managers, women, Māori and Pacific staff than other public servants. 87% of managers (compared with 75% of non-managers) reported this factor was "Highly important". Women also placed more value on this factor, with 78% reporting that having challenging work was "Highly important" to them, compared with 75% of men. More Māori than non-Māori thought challenging work was "Highly important" to them (81% compared with 76%). Similarly, more Pacific public servants (84%) than non-Pacific staff (76%) reported this.
Of the remaining six workplace factors (shown in Figure 3.1), pay and benefits was rated next, in fourth position overall. This factor was seen as "Highly important" by nearly three quarters of public servants. While there was no gender difference in the proportions viewing pay and benefits as "Highly important", there were differences between ethnic groups and occupations. Eight out of ten Māori public servants thought pay and benefits were "Highly important", compared with fewer than three quarters of non-Māori. 86% of Pacific public servants said pay and benefits were "Highly important" to them - a much higher proportion than the 73% of non-Pacific staff who indicated this. More non-managers (75%) than managers (63%) considered pay and benefits to be "Highly important".
Proportionately more women, Māori and Pacific public servants considered the remaining workplace factors to be "Highly important", compared with public servants outside these groups. Significantly greater proportions of Māori and Pacific public servants valued access to opportunities for advancement, in particular. 70% of Māori rated this factor as "Highly important", compared with 55% of non-Māori. 82% of Pacific public servants reported that opportunities for advancement were "Highly important", compared with 56% of non-Pacific staff. Some of the differences might be partly due to the younger age profile of Māori and Pacific public servants. Results indicate that the importance of opportunities for advancement decreases with age. Managers attached less importance than non-managers to job security, having a manageable workload and working a set number of hours per week.
Figure 3.1: Importance of workplace factors and how the organisation rated
3.2 Are public servants' expectations being met?
3.2.1 A feeling of accomplishment
The top priority for staff in carrying out their work was a feeling of accomplishment. Nine out of ten public servants considered this to be "Highly important". 40% of public servants rated their organisation as "Good" at providing a feeling of accomplishment, a slight decline from the 2000 survey (43%). Qualitative results confirmed that some public servants did not feel that their skills and experience were recognised, and did not feel valued. Lack of positive feedback and recognition were cited as reasons for some public servants not having a feeling of accomplishment in their work.
As was the case in 2000, managers were more satisfied than non-managers with their sense of accomplishment. 50% reported their current role was "Good" at providing them with a feeling of accomplishment, compared with 38% of non-managers. As managers, they are likely to have more control over what they do. Results also indicated that feelings of satisfaction increased with age, perhaps reflecting increasing seniority.
More women (42%) than men (39%) rated their role as "Good" at providing a sense of accomplishment. Given the younger age profile of women public servants, and the fact that women are under-represented in the management ranks, women could have been expected to have lower levels of satisfaction than men. However, results indicate that women derive satisfaction even when their actual conditions would suggest they should be less satisfied than their male colleagues. The 2000 survey had similar findings.
3.2.2 Effective management24
Although 85% of public servants considered effective management to be "Highly important", over a quarter of them (26%) rated their organisation as "Poor" at providing it. A similar proportion (27%) rated it as "Good". These ratings have declined since the 2000 survey, when 29% gave their department a "Good" rating, and a quarter gave it a "Poor" rating. Despite the efforts that have been made to improve the quality of management within the Public Service, it seems many staff still do not see management as sufficiently effective.
A third of managers reported their organisation was "Good" at providing effective management, compared with just over a quarter of non-managers. Women were more positive than men, with 29% giving their organisation a "Good" rating, compared with 24% of men.
3.2.3 Challenging work
Public servants' desire for challenging work ranked as the third priority, with more than three quarters of public servants considering it "Highly important". This expectation is largely being met - 60% of public servants rated their department as "Good" at providing them with challenging work, and only 6% of public servants gave a "Poor" rating on this factor. Although there is a gap between those who think challenging work is "Highly important" and those whose expectations on this are being met, most public servants appear to be relatively satisfied with the amount of challenging work they have to do. This compares closely with the survey findings from 2000. Qualitative results indicated that while a few public servants were dissatisfied with the level of challenge in their position, others felt that challenging work in their current role, or the opportunity to move into a more challenging role, had helped their career development.
"In this past 6 months I have developed my career more than any time with the department. The position is challenging and exciting and the support of management and colleagues enables and encourages me in my career."
3.2.4 Pay and benefits
A quarter of public servants rated their organisation as "Good" at providing them with a satisfactory level of pay and benefits. As noted in the 2000 survey, while pay and benefits are not a major motivator, it can be a powerful disincentive when staff feel dissatisfied with it. Almost the same proportion of public servants who rated their organisation as "Good" on pay and benefits (25%), gave "Poor" ratings (23%). Managers (39%) were more likely than non-managers (23%) to rate their pay and benefits as "Good". However, this factor was less important to managers than to their non-managerial colleagues.
Qualitative information showed some dissatisfaction with pay. This was particularly in relation to salary bands, and the difficulty in being promoted to a higher band. Some public servants were unhappy with their organisation's performance pay system.
3.2.5 Job security
A high proportion of public servants have their expectations regarding job security reasonably well met. More than two thirds (68%) rated job security as "Highly important", and almost the same proportion (63%) thought their organisation was "Good" at providing it. These ratings have improved since the 2000 survey, when just over half (51%) thought their job security was "Good". The change may reflect general changes in the workforce, with more people no longer thinking they have a job for life, and expecting their career to be more fluid and mobile. Public servants' relative lack of concern about job security may also reflect the general employment market in 2005, where, with unemployment at record low levels, finding a new position is likely to be less difficult than it has been in the past.
Qualitative information indicated that some public servants were concerned about job security during periods of restructuring.
3.2.6 Reputable organisation25
Two thirds of public servants ranked working for a reputable organisation as "Highly important" to them. Half of all public servants rated their organisation's reputation as "Good", and only 10% considered their organisation's reputation was "Poor". There has been a big improvement in this factor since the 2000 survey, when only 30% rated their organisation as "Good" on the reputation factor, and over a quarter (26%) rated it as "Poor". In terms of recruitment and retention, the perception of enhanced reputation is positive for the Public Service.
More women (53%) than men (47%) reported the reputation of their organisation was "Good". Māori were less likely to indicate this - 44% gave their department a "Good" rating, compared with just over half of non-Māori.
3.2.7 Manageable workload26
Feeling that their work is too pressured is a common complaint from working people. Having a manageable workload was something that almost two thirds of public servants thought was "Highly important", and almost one in three (32%) thought their organisation was "Good" at handling this. A lower proportion of public servants (22%) rated their organisation as "Poor" at providing a manageable workload. This has not changed markedly from 2000. Managers were less satisfied than other staff with their workload. Just over a quarter reported their workload was manageable, compared with a third of non-managers. Qualitative results indicated that, for some public servants, heavy workloads impacted on time for career development.
3.2.8 Opportunities for advancement
This factor was considered "Highly important" by 58% of public servants. However, only 15% felt their organisation was "Good" at delivering opportunities for getting ahead, and 42% thought their organisation was "Poor" at this. This result has improved since 2000, when only 13% of public servants rated their opportunities for advancement as "Good", and half rated them as "Poor". Managers were more satisfied than non-managers with advancement opportunities, and Pacific public servants were more satisfied than non-Pacific staff. Qualitative results generally reflected dissatisfaction with the availability of opportunities.
"There is very little room for advancement, as the organisation is a very flat, structured one."
3.2.9 Set number of hours per week27
Having a set number of hours that they worked each week was not a high priority for public servants - only a third rated it as "Highly important". Their level of satisfaction with this factor was reasonably high, with 56% rating their organisation as "Good" at providing a set number of hours per week. Only 10% of public servants thought their organisation was "Poor" at providing this.
3.3 Conclusions
The 2005 survey results clearly show that most public servants are motivated by a feeling of accomplishment in their work. They also want their jobs to be well managed and challenging. While most public servants appeared to find their jobs sufficiently challenging, a relatively high proportion were dissatisfied with the effectiveness of management in their organisation, signalling that more work needs to be done in this area. Pay and benefits was not among the highest work priorities for most public servants, but was relatively more important to Māori and Pacific staff than to other groups. Opportunities for advancement have become more important to public servants since 2000. While ratings improved compared to the first survey, relatively high proportions were dissatisfied with the opportunities they received. Public servants want a reasonable degree of job security, and their satisfaction with this has risen considerably since 2000. In terms of attracting and retaining talent, public servants' perceptions of the enhanced reputation of the organisations where they work are positive for the Public Service.
Chapter 4: Development and Training Opportunities
Appropriate training and development opportunities are key ways in which the Public Service can help its employees feel satisfaction in their work. Training and development are important both for the person and for the organisation. At the same time as catering for its staff's individual needs, the Public Service must ensure it can meet its own requirements for skilled, trained staff. As New Zealand's skill shortage has deepened in the last five years, training and development within the Public Service have become increasingly important to increase the pool of highly qualified staff available to departments.
Training and development can be divided into two main types. Formal training is defined as that which occurs when time is set aside for staff development. Informal training is associated with continuous learning 'on-the-job'. Training and development literature shows that on-the-job training and being able to accumulate and demonstrate skills at work are more likely than formal training to help an employee's career advancement.
While some international research shows that there is an age dimension to development and training, with younger people more highly motivated than older employees to learn new skills28, this appears to be less relevant in New Zealand. A study of 2000 workers and 2000 employers in the New Zealand manufacturing sector found that, while employers saw older workers (those aged 55 years and over) as more likely to be resistant to change and less willing to train than younger workers, older employees saw themselves as eminently willing and able to be trained. Older employees also saw themselves as considerably more ambitious than employers did29. There is a clear challenge for the Public Service in making training and development relevant and attractive to older staff, given New Zealand's ageing population and workforce. Since 1995, the proportion of older workers in the Public Service has doubled, from 7% to 14%30. In the next ten years, this is expected to rise to 24%.
Research in the United States into employee attitudes and experiences of mid-career employees (those aged 35-54 years), has shown this age group to be least likely to say that their workplace was congenial and fun or that it offered ample opportunity to try new things. The research has identified strategies for re-engaging and rejuvenating these employees in the workforce. Strategies include making work more enjoyable and enriching through new assignments and roles, and providing additional training and development31.
4.1 What development and training opportunities are important to public servants?
The survey results support some of the previous research on development and training, in that public servants considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for their career development. When staff were asked to consider the importance of a range of workplace factors, the three training and development factors that emerged as most important to them in 2005 were:
- demonstrating their skills and abilities (82%)
- on-the-job training (80%)
- gaining experience in a range of tasks (75%).
These are the same three factors that were most important in the 2000 survey. However, slightly more public servants considered these factors were "Highly important" in 2005. The importance of these factors was consistent across all groups.
The next two factors that were rated as "Highly important" by more than two thirds of public servants were those pertaining to formal development: feedback on career development needs (71%) and access to training courses and seminars (68%).
Learning while on secondment, acting in higher positions, and study leave were less important to public servants in their career development. However, in rating their organisations, high proportions (ranging from 23% to 37%) reported these factors as "Not applicable" to them in their role. Ratings for these three factors are reported as a proportion of those who actually gave a rating, that is, a proportion of those who felt the provisions were applicable to them.
More women, Māori and Pacific public servants rated the development factors as "Highly important". In particular, considerably higher proportions of Māori and Pacific staff placed value on access to mentoring, study leave and secondments to work in another area or organisation. More women than men considered mentoring as "Highly important", along with working on special projects and gaining experience in a range of tasks.
Younger public servants, too, tended to place significantly more value on all of the development factors surveyed, compared with their older colleagues. In terms of occupation, more associate professionals (social workers, case workers, customs officers, call centre operators) than other occupations placed higher importance on all of the development factors. As would be expected, more managers than non-managers rated acting up as "Highly important".
4.2 Are development and training expectations being met?
Public servants were asked to rate their current job against each development factor. Results indicated that satisfaction levels across most factors have declined since the 2000 survey. In general, except in relation to study leave and secondments, lower proportions of public servants rated their organisation as "Good" at providing development opportunities. However, public servants were most satisfied with the development opportunities they considered most important for their career development.
Responses regarding development opportunities are reported below.
Figure 4.1 Importance of career development opportunities and how the organisation rated
4.2.1 Demonstrating skills and abilities
Public servants were most satisfied with access to opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities. More than a third rated their organisation as "Good" at providing such opportunities. However, satisfaction with this factor has declined considerably since the first survey (down from 44% in 2000 to 35% in 2005).
"It is difficult to get opportunities to show that you can do more challenging work."
Proportionately more women than men rated their organisation as "Good" at providing access to this factor. Māori were less satisfied than non-Māori, and were more likely to rate their organisation as "Poor". The results for Pacific staff remained relatively static. Younger public servants (those aged less than 30) were less satisfied with this factor than their older colleagues.
Some respondents commented that they had found it helpful in their career development to have opportunities such as acting in higher positions, being given more autonomy and responsibility, and being involved in special projects to demonstrate their skills and abilities. A few public servants mentioned that they were unable to use the skills they had gained from training or other development opportunities.
4.2.2 On-the-job training
Only 29% of public servants rated their organisation as "Good" at providing on-the-job training opportunities, compared with 36% in the 2000 survey. More women than men rated their organisation as "Good" at providing development opportunities on the job (31% compared with 27%). The results for Māori and Pacific public servants were in line with other respondents. Overall satisfaction with on-the-job training declined with age. 36% of younger public servants (aged less than 30) reported their organisation was "Good" at providing on-the-job training, compared with 28% of public servants aged over 30. Several survey respondents indicated that their ability to develop new skills on the job was helpful. However, some staff wanted more or better quality on-the-job training.
"The department I work for offers training in all the aspects of the job, has flexible hours and is reasonable and supportive of issues outside of work."
4.2.3 Gaining experience in a range of tasks
Other research suggests that staff who experience a greater variety of tasks and are able to apply a variety of skills to different work challenges also experience less tedium and enhanced job satisfaction32. The Career Progression and Development Survey asked public servants how satisfied they were with gaining experience in a range of tasks. The results show that satisfaction with this factor declined from 38% in 2000 to 31% in 2005.
Women tended to be more satisfied than men: 33% felt their organisation was "Good" at providing opportunities to gain experience in a range of tasks, compared with 29% of men. Proportionately more young public servants (aged less than 30) rated their organisation as "Good" than their older colleagues did. There were no differences by ethnicity.
Some public servants commented that they would like to gain experience in a range of tasks. Others who had had this opportunity commented that gaining exposure to new tasks had assisted them to develop in their jobs. Qualitative information showed that having variety in a job, being able to change teams or work in a different area, and prove themselves in a new role, had helped public servants in their career development. Taking up networking opportunities and working with other agencies were also seen as helpful for public servants' careers.
However, other comments showed that a number of staff were hindered in their career development by not having access to such opportunities. These public servants had not had a chance to demonstrate their skills by moving into a more challenging area, or to work on special projects to assist their career progression. Some respondents commented that they had not been encouraged or given the opportunity to apply for positions, either acting or permanent, which may not have been advertised. For others, there was simply a limited number of job vacancies available.
Various reasons were cited for the perceived lack of development opportunities in organisations. It might be because there was no clear pathway for career progression, or because of a bureaucratic structure that made it difficult to formally progress. Some public servants, for example, support staff, felt "pigeonholed" in a particular area. For other staff, there was no position to move into, or no room for promotion. This applied, for example, to public servants in highly specialised roles, or staff who were not interested in a managerial position but felt that this was their only option.
4.2.4 Feedback on career development needs
This factor was not surveyed in 2000. In 2005, public servants considered having access to feedback on their career development needs as relatively important. However, only 17% indicated their organisation was "Good" at providing feedback and 42% rated their organisation as "Poor". Qualitative results reflected this, as some public servants wanted more discussion about career pathways and development opportunities. Others commented that development plans had helped them in their jobs.
Women, Māori, Pacific and younger public servants seemed to be happier than their counterparts. More women than men rated their organisation as "Good" at providing feedback (19% compared with 13%), as did Māori public servants compared with non-Māori (22% and 16% respectively). 24% of Pacific public servants rated their organisation as "Good", compared with 16% of non-Pacific respondents.
"[There is a] lack of feedback/communication from higher management about my career advancement prospects."
4.2.5 Training courses and seminars
Three out of ten public servants rated their organisation as "Good" at providing access to formal training opportunities such as courses and seminars. Satisfaction has decreased since 2000, when nearly four out of ten public servants rated their organisation as "Good". There was no differences by gender, and no differences between Pacific public servants and non-Pacific staff. Comparison by age was also consistent. However, Māori seemed to be more dissatisfied than non-Māori. 31% reported that their access to formal training opportunities was "Poor", compared with 26% for non-Māori.
Qualitative comments were mixed in terms of access to training courses and on-the-job training. Many public servants commented on the usefulness of in-house training and external courses, in particular. Others indicated discontent with access to training in their organisation. They mentioned not meeting criteria, a lack of funding, high workloads and an inability to take time off work to complete training, or a lack of resources to cover staff while they were on training courses. There were some concerns that training was not relevant, sufficiently specific, or of a high quality.
4.2.6 Access to mentoring and coaching
This factor was not surveyed in 2000. In 2005, access to mentoring was considered "Highly important" by nearly two thirds of public servants. Of all the development factors, satisfaction levels for this factor were the lowest. Just under half of the public servants surveyed rated their organisation as "Poor" at providing access to mentoring. This factor is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
Women rated this factor more positively than men did. 16% thought their organisation was "Good" at providing mentoring, compared with 12% of men. There were no differences by ethnicity or age.
4.2.7 Working on special projects
The wording for this question was changed in 2005 from "high-profile" to "special" projects, and this may have had an impact on the results. Consequently, no comparisons between the 2000 and 2005 survey results are made. 23% of public servants rated their organisation as "Good", and 27% rated it as "Poor" at providing opportunities to work on special projects. Access was consistent across gender and ethnicity. Managers were nearly twice as likely to report this factor was applicable to them and, in general, rated their organisations highly in this regard. In qualitative responses, public servants frequently mentioned that being involved in special projects had been helpful to their career advancement.
4.2.8 Study leave to further qualifications
Satisfaction with study leave has declined since 2000. Around two out of five public servants indicated access to this factor was "Not applicable" to them. Of those who reported study leave was applicable to them, 27% said it was "Good" (down from 34% in 2000) and 39% said it was "Poor" (up from 35% in 2000).
Managers were more satisfied with access to study leave. A third rated their organisation as "Good", compared with a quarter of non-managers. Women were also more satisfied, with 28% (compared with 22% of men) giving "Good" ratings. There was higher dissatisfaction among Māori. 43% said their organisation was "Poor" at providing such opportunities, compared with 38% of non-Māori.
Qualitative results highlighted concerns around the lack of availability of study leave. Some respondents perceived that access to study leave was highly dependent on managers. Others commented positively about their access to study leave. Several indicated that being able to study part time, which often included study leave or having fees paid, had been beneficial in their career development.
"I have been given the opportunity to study part time toward a Diploma in Business. I've had the support of my managers and have been able to attend lectures and workshops during work time, which was very helpful to me."
4.2.9 Acting up and secondment to another work area or organisation
Public servants did not seem to value acting up and working on secondments as much as they valued other development factors. Around one in four said these provisions were "Not applicable" to them. Of those public servants indicating these factors were applicable to them, around one in five said access was "Good", while just under half (45%) said access was "Poor". Satisfaction levels have declined since 2000, particularly with acting up opportunities. In 2000, 25% of public servants rated their organisation as "Good" in this regard (compared with 18% in 2005) and 39% rated it as "Poor" (compared with 45% in 2005).
Managers were more likely than non-managers to report that acting in higher positions and, to a lesser extent, working on secondment were applicable to them. Managers also appeared to be more satisfied. In terms of access to opportunities to act up, managers were twice as likely as non-managers to rate their organisation as "Good". However, women were less satisfied, with 47% giving their organisation "Poor" ratings, compared with 42% of men. Women were also more likely to report acting in higher-level positions was "Not applicable" to them. This may be related to occupational segregation, in that proportionately more women work in occupations where opportunities to act up are less available. There were no differences by ethnicity.
Qualitative results showed that public servants who had been given secondment opportunities had found this beneficial to developing their careers. Similarly, staff who had acted in a higher position had appreciated this opportunity.
"I was offered a secondment to another area ... I have learned new skills, which broaden my knowledge and could be a stepping stone to new and better career prospects."
4.2 Conclusions
Most public servants, like the workforce in general, no longer see themselves as staying in the same job long term. They know they need to gain skills that will help them achieve their own career goals, and they tend to be more focused on their individual progress than before. As was the case in the 2000 survey, public servants saw informal learning and continuous development as more important to their jobs and careers than formal development activities. Results showed that public servants wanted to be recognised and acknowledged for the work they do within their organisation. The chance to try a range of different tasks at work was seen as desirable, probably partly for interest and variety, but also as a chance for individuals to show what they could do.
In general, more women, Māori and Pacific public servants tended to rate all development and training factors as "Highly important", compared with public servants outside these groups. Study leave and mentoring were seen as areas of particular importance to Māori and Pacific staff. Women also valued mentoring, as well as opportunities to gain experience in a range of tasks and working on special projects.
Since 2000, satisfaction levels have declined across most factors. Public servants were most satisfied with the development areas they said were of high importance to them. However, their satisfaction, even in these areas, was generally not high.
Women were more satisfied than men with their development and training opportunities. There were few differences based on ethnicity, although Māori were dissatisfied with their access to study leave, training courses and opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities. Opportunities to act up, work on secondment or undertake study leave were generally viewed as not applicable to a large proportion of public servants. Managers were more likely to report such provisions as applicable to them, and to rate their organisation well in this regard.
Chapter 5: Managers and Mentors
Anyone wanting to advance their career needs feedback, advice, encouragement and support from those who are more experienced. Managers play a major role in the career development of their staff. Mentors, through listening, questioning and advising, can also influence an individual's career progression. While managers may mentor their staff, mentoring is different from management. Mentoring is more strongly focused on the learner's broader development. Mentors are not usually responsible for managing the performance of the learner. Managers, on the other hand, are concerned with performance management, and they need to apply principles of equity and fairness in dealing with all their staff. The Career Progression and Development Survey looked at the types and quality of career development support that public servants received from both managers and mentors.
The survey shows some dissatisfaction among public servants across all age groups with the support they received from their managers. Recent United States research has found that employees aged 35-54 (who make up 57% of New Zealand public servants33) have the lowest satisfaction rates with their immediate managers and the least confidence in top executives. The research suggested that putting experienced employees into mentoring, teaching and other knowledge sharing roles was one solution to this dissatisfaction, as it has the dual effect of regenerating the mid-career worker and boosting the expertise of less experienced employees34.
Public servants' perceptions of overall support from their immediate managers are not comparable to the 2000 survey, owing to a change in the structure of the 2005 questionnaire35. Therefore, this chapter focuses on the 2005 findings. In addition, the importance of management support factors was surveyed for the first time in 2005. For this reason, both the 2000 and 2005 data is available as an appendix to this report.
"A very good manager and an excellent mentor have helped."
5.1 Support from managers
Public servants were asked to consider how important various management functions were to them, and to rate their immediate managers or supervisors against each factor (see Figure 5.1). All factors were considered "Highly important" by more than three out of every four public servants. Of particular value to staff was a manager who:
- communicated effectively (96%)
- allowed staff the freedom to use their own initiative (90%)
- encouraged staff input into decisions that directly affected them (90%).
Just over half (51%) reported that the level of support they received from their managers was "Good". This result was consistent across gender and ethnicity. More managers (56%) than non-managers (51%) reported their own immediate supervisors were "Good" at providing support in general. Public servants aged less than 30 years also tended to rate their managers more favourably than their older colleagues did.
Figure 5.1 Importance of management support and how staff rated their managers
In rating their managers against a number of management support factors, respondents did not give high ratings. Of the nine factors surveyed, only five were rated "Good" by more than 40% of public servants.
Qualitative information showed that some respondents felt that a lack of management support had made it difficult for them to develop their careers. Many staff commented on poor management in general. A few public servants felt their managers did not fully understand or recognise their work and their ideas. Some public servants perceived that managers were unsupportive or uninterested in advancing their careers, sometimes because managers were too busy with their own work. Other staff indicated a lack of positive feedback or opportunities to develop. Not having performance reviews or regular feedback on performance was part of this. A small number of public servants reported they had experienced bullying behaviour by their manager.
However, many respondents commented that support from managers was significant in helping them to develop in their jobs and careers. They discussed the opportunities their managers had given them, by delegating work and trusting them with greater autonomy. Some respondents noted the positive feedback managers had given them had helped their career progression. Others commented on management support to progress their careers by studying, training, or going on secondment.
5.1.1 Flexibility in resolving work and family conflicts
Public servants rated their managers highest on the extent to which they took a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family conflicts. 58% of public servants reported that their managers were "Good" in this area. More Māori (62%) than non-Māori (57%) rated their managers as "Good" at resolving work and family conflicts, while staff aged 30 years or older (59%) were more likely than younger respondents (53%) to report that their managers were "Good". Caregivers (61%) were also more likely than non-caregivers (56%) to give "Good" ratings. The findings for older public servants and caregivers perhaps reflect the extent to which staff who have responsibilities for dependants are seen by managers to have more legitimate conflicts to resolve.
5.1.2 Freedom to use initiative
56% of public servants reported their managers were "Good" at giving them freedom to use their initiative in carrying out their work. 12% of public servants rated their managers as "Poor" at letting staff use their own initiative. Qualitative information also indicated a desire by some respondents to have more freedom to use their initiative.
Ratings were consistent across gender and ethnicity. Managers rated their own managers highly in this area, perhaps reflecting the extent to which they have autonomy over their work. 64% reported their managers as "Good" at giving them the freedom to do their jobs, compared with 55% of non-managers. Greater autonomy and control over their work is also likely to have been a factor explaining why public servants aged 30 years or more gave their managers higher ratings for this factor than younger public servants did. 57% of public servants aged 30 years or more indicated that their managers were "Good" at giving them freedom to carry out their work, compared with half of the younger respondents.
5.1.3 Information and input
Effective communication was considered the most important of the nine management functions surveyed, with 96% of public servants reporting it as a "Highly important" characteristic for managers to have. When asked to rate their own immediate managers or supervisors, 42% said their managers were "Good" at communicating effectively. However, 18% of staff reported that their managers were "Poor" at being effective communicators. Results were consistent across all the population groups that make up the Public Service.
Input into decisions that affected staff was considered "Highly important" by nine out of ten public servants. 42% said their managers were "Good" at this. 21% reported their managers were "Poor" at involving them in such decisions. More managers (49%) than non-managers (41%) rated their supervisors as "Good" at including them in decisions that affected them. In this regard, Māori also tended to be more satisfied with their managers (46% Māori, 42% non-Māori).
36% of public servants reported that their managers were "Good" at providing them with the relevant information they needed to do their job. However, 18% gave "Poor" ratings for this factor. Pacific staff tended to rate their managers better than non-Pacific staff at giving them the information to do their job (45% Pacific, 35% non-Pacific). Managers also gave higher ratings, with 41% reporting their own managers as "Good" at providing such information, compared with 35% of non-managers.
5.1.4 Performance management and career development
At least three out of ten public servants said their managers were "Good" at acknowledging good performance, encouraging and supporting their career development, and giving regular and constructive feedback on their performance. These are areas where managers rated least well.
40% of staff said their managers were "Good" at acknowledging good performance. At the same time, nearly a quarter of public servants reported that their manager was "Poor" in this regard. Results were consistent across all groups. In terms of support from managers for their career development, 34% reported their managers were "Good" at this. 27% of public servants rated their managers as "Poor". Findings varied across most groups; of particular note being the differences in "Good" ratings between Pacific (43%) and non-Pacific (32%) and Māori (40%) and non-Māori (33%) public servants.
Regarding constructive feedback on performance, a third of public servants rated their managers as "Good". A similar proportion said their managers were "Good" at providing regular feedback. Qualitative information indicated that many respondents wanted more feedback from their managers. Some public servants were dissatisfied with the timeliness or effectiveness of performance appraisal schemes.
"[The] quality of feedback could be improved and formal mentoring would be useful. I am told that I am doing really well but then sometimes I feel that I could do better if given specific feedback..."
5.2 Mentoring
5.2.1 What is mentoring?
Mentoring has become widely accepted as a useful tool for helping individuals advance their careers. Traditional mentoring is defined as a "nurturing process in which a more skilled or more experienced person, serving as a role model, teaches, sponsors, encourages, counsels, and befriends a less skilled or less experienced person for the purpose of promoting the latter's professional and/or personal development"36. A mentor essentially encourages, listens, and shares their own experiences with the person they are mentoring. The process benefits not only the learner, but the mentor too, for example, by enhancing their interpersonal skills. Mentoring relationships may take many forms. They can be part of a formalised mentoring scheme, or informal, organised by the mentor and learner. Mentors can be part of, or external to, the organisations where the people they mentor work. Other mentoring relationships are group-oriented (as opposed to one-to-one) and reverse (where senior managers are mentored by younger employees, to gain technical expertise).
"[I have] access to other experienced professionals in my field to learn from and get support. This is supported by a friendly, functional office culture which is reinforced and supported by the management."
5.2.2 Importance of mentoring and how organisations rated
Public servants were asked how important having access to mentoring and coaching was to their career development. 63% of public servants said it was "Highly important". This factor was not surveyed in 2000. Mentoring was generally considered more "Highly important" to women (68% compared with 55% of men), Māori (75% compared with 60% of non-Māori), and Pacific staff (82% compared with 62% of non-Pacific staff).
Public servants were not particularly satisfied with their access to mentoring and coaching. 46% rated their organisation as "Poor" and 14% as "Good" in this regard. More women (16%) than men (12%) reported their access to mentoring and coaching was "Good". There were no differences in how other population groups rated their organisations in providing access.
5.2.3 Who has a mentor?
The number of public servants who have mentors has slightly increased since 2000. 20% of public servants had mentors in 2005, compared with 18% in 2000. Women were more likely than men to have a mentor. This is the continuation of a finding first noted in 2000, and goes against the literature, which suggests women have more difficulty establishing mentoring relationships. In 2005, 21% of women had a mentor, compared with 18% of men. Given that most mentoring relationships were not part of a formal mentoring scheme (see below), this may be a result of deliberate attempts by women to get extra support for career advancement.
However, the gap between Māori and Pacific public servants and their colleagues is more prominent. Contrary to the literature, which cites the barriers different ethnic groups experience in establishing mentoring relationships, significantly higher proportions of Māori (29%) and Pacific (28%) public servants had a mentor than did their non-Māori and non-Pacific colleagues (both 18%).
The findings of the 2000 survey suggested mentoring was used more as assistance for younger people establishing their careers than for senior staff advancing up the management ladder. This looks to have changed. Unlike the 2000 survey, younger public servants in 2005 were no more likely than their older colleagues to have a mentor. In addition, in 2005 more managers (25%) than non-managers (19%) had a mentor. This was not the case in 2000. Both findings mark a shift since the 2000 survey towards more senior staff using mentoring to advance their careers.
|
Who has a mentor?
|
5.2.4 Formal or informal mentors
Only 14% of mentored staff (3% of public servants overall) reported they had made contact with their mentor through a formal mentoring scheme. This is in line with the 2000 survey findings. Results were consistent across gender, ethnicity and managerial status. These findings suggest there are few operational formal mentoring programmes in the Public Service and/or they are not well subscribed to. As in 2000, most mentoring relationships appear to be the result of individuals using their own networks and actively searching out informal mentoring relationships.
5.2.5 Is mentoring making a difference?
Mentoring certainly seems to make a difference in terms of support for career progression. 91% of mentored staff reported that mentoring had assisted them with their career development. Results were consistent across gender, ethnicity, managerial status and age. This question was not surveyed in 2000. Qualitative responses support this positive finding, with several comments from mentored staff about the value of mentoring to career development. Mentors came in a variety of forms, including external managers, private sector consultants and colleagues. There was significant demand for mentors from those who did not have them.
"I have found it immensely helpful going to my peers and asking for insight, help and direction. The organisation does not assign [mentors], you have to find them yourself!"
Qualitative results indicated that mentoring also had positive effects for mentors. Several public servants commented that mentoring or coaching others had been helpful for their own career development.
There were several differences between mentored and non-mentored public servants in terms of their work expectations and experiences. Mentored staff placed more value than non-mentored staff on having challenging work, access to opportunities for advancement and effective management. They were also more satisfied than non-mentored staff with access to all of these factors, as well as having a feeling of accomplishment in their current role.
Mentored public servants placed more value than non-mentored staff on all of the training and development factors surveyed37. They were also more satisfied with access to all of these factors, particularly with access to opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities, training courses and seminars, gaining experience in a range of tasks, and on-the-job training. In addition, they were more satisfied with the performance of their immediate managers or supervisors. This suggests mentored staff are able to get the best out of their managers in terms of support and encouragement in their work and career development. All of the findings relating to mentored staff support the 2000 survey results. These results suggest that the mentoring experience may have given staff the skills to seek out development opportunities, as well as to derive the most benefit from their relationships with their managers.
5.2.6 Demand for access to formal mentoring
Public servants who either did not have a mentor, or who had an informal one, were asked whether they would like to have access to a formal mentoring scheme. 45% wanted access to formal mentoring, compared with 38% in 2000. In general, women, Māori, Pacific staff and managers were more likely than other public servants to want access to formal mentoring. Of particular note were the differences for managers and Māori public servants. More than half of managers (53%) and Māori staff (52%) wanted a formal mentoring scheme, compared with non-managers and non-Māori (both 44%). Greater proportions of public servants aged between 30 and 44 years wanted access to a formal mentoring scheme than those in other age bands.
5.3 Conclusions
The support managers provide to their staff remains vital for individuals seeking to advance their careers. Managers did well at taking a flexible and supportive approach to work and family conflicts, and at allowing their staff to use initiative in carrying out their work. However, managers rated less well in relation to aspects of management associated with career advancement, especially in providing performance feedback and actively encouraging and supporting career development. For career progression, these are areas that warrant greater emphasis by managers.
Mentoring, too, seems to have changed its focus between the two surveys, from assisting younger people towards establishing their careers in 2000, to senior staff using mentoring to advance up the management ladder in 2005. Managers, women, Māori and Pacific public servants were more likely to be mentored. Most mentoring relationships were informal, and nearly all public servants who had mentors reported that mentoring had assisted their career development. Both the 2000 and 2005 survey results suggest there is a demand for access to formal mentoring schemes. Further work is required to determine how best to meet this demand38.
Chapter 6: Work Environment
This chapter reports on the aspects of the workplace environment that are most important to public servants, and how they rate their own organisation's environment.
6.1 Which work environment factors are important to public servants?
The Career Progression and Development Survey asked public servants to consider how important five workplace environment factors were to them (see Figure 6.1), and to rate their department on the provision of these conditions. Being treated fairly was crucial to public servants. 94% considered it "Highly important" to their career development. Working in an environment where staff work co-operatively (90%) and having one's ideas valued (82%) were factors that more than eight out of ten public servants said were "Highly important". These factors were considered most important in 2000 also, and the rankings were consistent across gender, ethnicity, managerial status and age.
Public servants were less concerned with having good work-area design or accommodating outside commitments. Nevertheless, these factors were still considered "Highly important" by more than half the public servants surveyed. Both factors were more important to women, Māori, Pacific staff and non-managers than to other groups.
Figure 6.1 Importance of work environment factors and how the organisation rated
6.2 Are public servants' expectations being met?
In general, public servants were not particularly satisfied with their work environment. They were most satisfied with their organisation's work on accommodating outside commitments, and on being treated fairly. However, satisfaction levels were, at best, moderate.
6.2.1 Being treated fairly
"[I have] an open and honest relationship with my immediate manager. She is firm but fair and is well respected."
Of most importance to public servants in their work was being treated fairly (see Figure 6.1), and this was reflected in qualitative comments. However, their overall satisfaction in this area has declined somewhat since the 2000 survey. In 2005, 37% said their organisation was "Good", compared with 40% in 2000, and 20% reported it was "Poor", compared with 17% in 2000.
Women attached more importance to this factor than men, and were more satisfied too. 39% indicated their organisation was "Good", and 18% reported it was "Poor". By comparison, 35% of men rated their organisation as "Good" at demonstrating fair treatment, and 22% felt it was "Poor". Managers also tended to be more satisfied. 46% rated their organisation as "Good" (compared with 36% of non-managers) and 15% as "Poor" (compared with 21% of non-managers). As managerial discretion can be associated with fairness issues, access to information around why decisions are made may have positively influenced managers' perceptions about being treated fairly. Public servants' positive perceptions of fair treatment declined with age.
Perceived fairness in selection processes was also covered in the survey. Just under one in five public servants cited a perceived lack of fairness in selection processes as a deterrent to their applying for a higher-level job. Managers were just as likely as non-managers to report this. However, more men (20% compared with 16% of women) and Māori (24% compared with 17% of non-Māori) were likely to report that they had been deterred from applying for a senior role because they perceived the selection process to be unfair.
6.2.2 Staff working co-operatively
Satisfaction with this factor declined between the two surveys, from 43% of public servants rating their organisation as "Good" in 2000 to 36% in 2005. In addition, "Poor" ratings increased, from 13% in 2000 to 16% in 2005. More non-managers (17%) than managers (12%) reported their organisation was "Poor" in terms of staff working co-operatively. Mid-career staff were less satisfied about this factor than their older or younger colleagues.
As in 2000, this result contrasts with the high levels of support public servants reported receiving from their co-workers. 59% of public servants reported the support they got from their co-workers was "Good", and as few as 6% reported it was "Poor". Women and Pacific staff were more likely to be satisfied with the support they had received. There were no differences between other groups. Qualitative results included many comments about the support public servants received from their peers. Several commented on how much they had learned from their colleagues who were willing to share their advice, experience, and knowledge. Others mentioned that they worked with a "great team".
"The people are great here, supportive, caring, funny and big at heart!"
Familiarity with their immediate co-workers and their work is likely to have influenced public servants' ratings of the support they got from colleagues. This would explain why they considered their own team was supportive and co-operative, but that staff across the organisation as a whole did not work co-operatively across teams. Familiarity is also likely to explain why staff rated their own immediate managers highly, but viewed management as less positive in general. Managers were just as likely as non-managers to consider their own manager as more supportive than management in general.
Qualitative information showed that some respondents had less co-operative work environments. For example, there was mention of competitiveness in the workplace, and a lack of information sharing.
6.2.3 Having their ideas valued
82% of respondents considered it "Highly important" to work in an environment where their ideas are valued. When asked how their own organisation measured up, just over a third rated it as "Good", while a fifth said it was "Poor" at making them feel their ideas were valued. These results were consistent with the 2000 survey findings, and were supported by the qualitative data.
"I sometimes feel my ideas or suggestions are not listened to."
Managers were most satisfied with this factor, perhaps reflecting the greater ability they have to influence their work environment. Just under half felt their organisation was "Good" at ensuring their ideas were valued, compared with a third of non-managers. Men (20%) were more likely than women (17%) to give "Poor" ratings. Dissatisfaction with this factor increased with age.
6.2.4 Work area design
Satisfaction with work area design has declined since 2000. In 2005, 25% of public servants reported their work area design was "Good", compared with 31% in 2000. Most of the movement has been in those reporting "Poor" ratings (from 27% in 2000 to 32% in 2005).
"The poor office design limits my ability to carry out my job to its full potential."
Women and Pacific public servants tended to be more satisfied than other groups with their work area design, while Māori, non-managers, older public servants and staff with disabilities were less satisfied. 40% of staff with disabilities rated their organisation as "Poor" at work area design, compared with 31% of other staff. Other findings to note relate to Pacific staff and non-managers. One third of Pacific public servants rated their organisation as "Good", compared with one quarter of their non-Pacific colleagues. More managers (30%) than non-managers (24%) gave "Good" ratings. Managers' overall satisfaction with work area design probably reflects the extent to which managers are likely to have better accommodation than other staff.
6.2.5 Accommodation of outside commitments
Like other employees, public servants have commitments and interests other than those related to family, such as cultural, sporting or community involvements, which sometimes clash with their work responsibilities.
Of all the workplace environment factors surveyed, public servants were most satisfied with their organisation at accommodating their outside commitments. In 2005, 38% rated their organisation as "Good" in this regard, and 13% said it was "Poor". Apart from a slight increase in "Poor" ratings between surveys (from 11% in 2000 to 13% in 2005), ratings for this factor remained unchanged.
An analysis by population group shows that more women (40%) than men (35%) were likely to report their organisation as "Good" at accommodating their outside commitments. Women generally rated this factor as more important to them than men. Māori considered this factor more important than their non-Māori colleagues, and were also likely to be less satisfied. 18% gave "Poor" ratings, compared with 12% of non-Māori.
The extent to which public servants were able to balance their work and other commitments is discussed in the next chapter.
6.3 Conclusions
A work environment where staff are treated fairly, where their ideas are valued and where staff work co-operatively was highly desirable to public servants in 2005. In this regard, little has changed since 2000. However, the work environment was less likely to meet expectations. Of the five workplace environment factors surveyed, satisfaction levels declined for all but one - a work environment where their ideas were valued. For this factor, satisfaction levels remained static.
Managers tended to be more satisfied than non-managers with their work environment, perhaps reflecting the greater control managers have over their work. Big picture knowledge, and access to information as to why decisions are made, are likely to have influenced managers' positive ratings on being treated fairly. More knowledge, however, did not have the same positive impact on managers' perceptions of unfairness in selection processes. Managers were just as likely as non-managers to cite this as a reason for not seeking a higher-level job.
Women were also relatively satisfied with most factors to do with their work environment. Māori rated their organisation well at accommodating outside commitments, but they were less satisfied with their work area design.
An environment where staff are treated fairly is very important to most public servants, yet one in every five rated their organisation as "Poor" in this regard. Ensuring that human resources policies and practices are transparent, that managers apply them evenly, and that managers communicate effectively with staff, might improve these perceptions.
Chapter 7: Balancing Work and Personal Lives
The balance between employees' lives as workers and their lives as family or community members is a topic that has received a great deal of attention in recent years, both within New Zealand and internationally39. Providing the right balance between work and life has become increasingly important to the Public Service in attracting and retaining talent. This is particularly so given demographic and sociological trends such as greater numbers of women in paid work, an ageing workforce, skill shortages and an increasingly mobile workforce. A Work-life Balance Project was established in 2003. This research revealed that work-life balance is a significant concern for many New Zealanders40.
Work-life balance is about "creating a productive work culture where the potential for tensions between work and other parts of people's lives are minimised."41 In their responses to the 2005 Equal Employment Opportunities Assessment survey conducted by the State Services Commission, government departments assessed their current practice in relation to work-life balance, focusing on 'family-friendly' policies or 'flexible work practices'. More than 90% reported having such policies and practices in place.
Recent United States research found that those in the 35-54 age group were generally sandwiched between commitments to children and parents, precisely at the time when their job responsibilities were peaking. They were likely to be working more, enjoying it less, and looking for alternatives. Many were also willing to trade some of their current success for greater significance in their lives and work, even if that meant doing something altogether different42.
The Career Progression and Development Survey asked public servants to rate their organisations against a range of factors that impact on work-life balance. Their responses to these questions are discussed below.
7.1 Benefits
Much has been written on the benefits of work-life balance43. Studies show strong links between work-life balance and
- improved recruitment and retention
- decreased sick leave usage
- decreased absenteeism
- increased staff loyalty and commitment
- improved productivity.
7.2 A composite picture of work-life balance
This section looks at a range of factors that impact on work-life balance, such as:
- hours of work, including provisions to work part time
- flexible work arrangements including working flexible hours and working from home
- family-friendly arrangements, including parental and caregiver leave, and managers' support in resolving work and family conflicts
- ability to accommodate outside commitments, including leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations.
Figure 7.1 Importance of flexible workplace conditions and how the organisation rated
It is difficult to assess how important work-life balance factors were compared to other issues covered by the Career Progression and Development Survey. The meaning and importance of work-life balance changes for people at different stages over their lifetime. Factors such as part-time work, working from home, parental leave and domestic/caregiver leave received a large number of "Not applicable" responses. Therefore, in this chapter, many of the results are reported as proportions of those who actually gave a rating, that is, a proportion of those who felt the provision was applicable to them.
Overall, qualitative information showed a range of results for this section. Many respondents received good support and flexible conditions for balancing work and life, while others were unsatisfied with their work-life balance.
7.2.1 Hours of work
Work-life balance is different for everyone. While the number of hours spent at work is an important factor in determining a healthy balance between life at work and life outside it, this is not the only factor. Indeed, some may choose to work longer hours at different stages of their careers, to manage fluctuations in workload or for personal satisfaction. The point to note here is choice. Research shows that employees respond well to a much higher degree of choice, flexibility and control over their working time and being able to match work patterns to their own lifestyle44.
"I have enjoyed my time [in this role] ... and have stayed for a number of years because of their flexible attitude to my working hours, which fit perfectly with my family!"
7.2.1.1 Working additional hours
In 2000, 76% of public servants reported that they usually worked more hours a week than they were employed for. In 2005, this figure dropped to 68%:
- 27% worked fewer than 5 hours extra per week
- 26% worked between 5 and 9 hours extra
- 14% worked 10 hours or more extra
- 2% worked more than 20 hours extra.
There was also a reduction in the proportion of public servants working 10 hours or more extra per week - from 17% in 2000 to 14% in 2005. Other findings were consistent with the 2000 results. Having more staff on the job45, and an increased focus on work-life balance, may account for the drop-off in the numbers of public servants working additional hours.
As in 2000, managers were much more likely to work additional hours (88%), compared with non-managers (64%), and men (71%) were more likely than women (65%) to do so. Proportionately more Māori (71%) than non-Māori (67%) reported working longer hours. There were no differences for Pacific peoples or staff with disabilities.
The likelihood of working additional hours increased with age, perhaps reflecting the demands of the senior positions older public servants were more likely to hold. The additional hours a senior role demands were a deterrent to career progression for some respondents. One in five public servants was discouraged from applying for a higher-level position because of the additional hours such a role demands. This was consistent with the 2000 survey.
7.2.1.2 Why do people work extra hours?
In a study undertaken by the Department of Labour, work hours and work intensity were cited as key inhibitors to managing a healthy balance between work and life46. Findings from the Career Progression and Development Survey also indicated this. A significant number of qualitative responses included concerns about high workloads. Several public servants commented that they felt pressured to work longer hours to get through a high volume of work or to meet deadlines. Having a heavy workload also meant that public servants had less time and energy to devote to progressing their careers. Respondents with high workloads discussed being unable to undertake developmental activities such as training, study leave, and going on secondment.
"We have had some difficulty recruiting and retaining high calibre staff. This has resulted in an increased workload that has left little time to be available for career development opportunities."
Despite the significant increase in numbers in the Public Service since 2000, staff shortages continued to be a common reason cited for working longer hours. Qualitative responses suggested that staff shortages also contributed to higher workloads and made career development more difficult. High turnover meant under-resourcing in some areas. Existing staff needed to cover vacancies, and to train new staff. Some respondents reported that this was stressful, especially if vacancies took a long time to fill. The tight labour market exacerbated this problem.
7.2.1.3 Working part time
Figures taken from the State Services Commission's Human Resource Capability47 data show an increase in the number of public servants working part time (i.e. fewer than 37.5 hours) between 2000 and 2004. After adjusting for structural changes, the total number of part-timers increased by 14%48.
In the 2005 Career Progression and Development Survey, 11% of respondents reported that they worked part time. Survey results indicate that:
- 6% worked 30 hours a week but fewer than 37.5 hours
- 4% worked fewer than 30 hours per week.
Public servants were asked how important having access to part-time work was to their career development, and to rate their organisation on this. 14% said access to part-time work was "Highly important" to them. In rating their organisation, a large proportion of public servants gave "Not applicable" responses. Comments from those who worked part time showed a preference for working reduced hours to accommodate family responsibilities or study commitments.
Who works part time?
Women and caregivers continued to be the primary users of part-time working provisions. In fact, women were three times more likely than men to work part time (just as they were in 2000)49. Caregivers (16%) were twice as likely as non-caregivers (8%) to work part time. Female caregivers were five times more likely than male caregivers to do so.
Only 2% of managers worked part time, compared with 12% of non-managers. There were no differences by ethnicity. In terms of age, part-timers were more likely to be aged between 30 and 44 years.
|
Who works part time?
|
Part-time - an accessible option?
The fact that more public servants are taking up part-time work (and that it is being offered in departments) is in itself positive. On the other hand, that nearly two thirds (63%, down from 67% in 2000) of respondents reported part-time work was "Not applicable" to them and that most part-timers continued to work in largely administrative, clerical-type roles50 indicates the unevenness of access to part-time work.
"Returning to paid employment and having to work part time on administrative- type work to begin with (because of family commitments), as opposed to using my technical capabilities, has stifled my attempts to regain the position of responsibility I had before having children. Further study with excellent results and working full time has done little to change this - it seems I will continue to be seen as a support worker. I feel that I will have to change organisations before this will improve."
Overall satisfaction with access to part-time work has slipped since 2000. Of those who indicated that part-time work applied to them, 33% (compared with 49% in 2000) rated their organisation as "Good" and 39% (compared with 19% in 2000) rated it as "Poor".
As in 2000, those who are accessing part-time work are more satisfied with these provisions. Women were more satisfied than men with their access to part-time work. Of those to whom it applied, 38% of women rated their organisation as "Good" compared with 23% of men. Caregivers were also more satisfied than non-caregivers. 42% gave their organisation a "Good" rating, compared with 26% of non-caregivers.
Half of respondents working part time reported that they usually worked more hours than they were employed for. Nevertheless, working reduced hours was still seen as a barrier to career progression by part-timers, as it was in 200051. Qualitative information supported this, with some respondents commenting that working part time made it difficult to advance in their careers.
"Although I am flexible and work extra hours when required, there seems to be little recognition that a part-time worker can take on higher responsibilities."
Qualitative results showed that working part-time hours also meant some inequity in development opportunities. Part-time workers could have difficulty travelling or attending training opportunities outside their normal hours, as these interfered with other responsibilities.
7.2.2 Flexible work arrangements
7.2.2.1 Flexible working hours
Of all the work-life balance factors surveyed, flexibility around working hours was considered the most important, and the factor that public servants were most satisfied with52. Just over half (53%) rated their access as "Good", and 13% rated it as "Poor". However, satisfaction levels have declined somewhat since 2000, when 61% reported flexibility in working hours was "Good" and 10% said it was "Poor". There were no differences between population groups. Qualitative information showed that some respondents wanted to work in higher positions on a job-share or part-time basis.
"The department I work for offers training in all aspects of the job, has flexible hours and [is] reasonable and supportive of issues outside of work."
7.2.2.2 Working from home
The majority of roles in the Public Service are 'face-to-face' or frontline positions. This is likely to explain why 55% of respondents said working from home was "Not applicable" to them. Satisfaction with this factor has declined significantly since 2000. Of those who indicated that it was applicable, 50% gave "Poor" ratings (compared with 37% in 2000) and 20% gave "Good" ratings (compared with 32% in 2000). The only differences between groups related to managers. Managers were more satisfied than non-managers with provisions for working from home and were more likely to report this factor as applicable to them. "Not applicable" responses from managers were 41%, compared with 57% of non-managers. Results for managers reflect their greater autonomy over where and when they work, and the types of work that can be done outside the workplace.
7.2.3 Is the Public Service 'family-friendly'?
"[My agency] is a friendly, family workplace and this is very much appreciated."
7.2.3.1 Public servants as caregivers - a profile
35% of public servants reported they that they had primary caring responsibility for children and/or adults53. This represented:
- 9% for pre-school children
- 25% for school children (aged 5-17 years)
- 9% for adults54.
Women (39%) were more likely than men (30%) to have primary caring responsibilities. Significantly higher proportions of Pacific public servants (56%, compared with 34% of non-Pacific) and Māori (50%, compared with 32% of non-Māori) reported that they were primary caregivers. As expected, caregivers were most likely to be aged between 30 and 44. Just under half of that group (48%) reported that they were primary caregivers, compared with 16% aged less than 30 and 29% of public servants aged over 45 years. The latter group were more likely than younger public servants to have primary caring responsibilities for adults. More non-managers (36%) than managers (31%) reported being caregivers. Caregivers were twice as likely as other staff to work part time.
7.2.3.2 Caregivers - expectations and experiences
Survey results showed that caregivers were more likely than other staff to aspire to higher-level positions (52% caregivers, 46% non-caregivers). Indeed, 16% of caregivers wanted a chief executive role, compared with 13% of non-caregivers. However, concern that they would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities was the most significant deterrent to a caregiver's progression to a more senior position. 46% of caregivers (compared with 21% of non-caregivers) cited this as having deterred them from applying for a higher-level position. Other barriers to progression for caregivers included not wanting to travel extensively (20% of caregivers, compared with 13% of non-caregivers), relocate to another area (32%, compared with 27%), and work additional hours (24%, compared with 19%). Caregivers were also more likely to cite a lack of qualifications (27% compared with 23%) as having stopped them from seeking a senior role.
"As I am [a] single parent ... I cannot apply for secondments and if there were higher vacancies involving travel it would be difficult to take it on."
There were several differences between caregivers and other staff in terms of their work expectations and experiences. Of particular interest to caregivers was having a manageable workload, working a set number of hours, job security and pay and benefits. They tended to be less satisfied with their pay and benefits, but more satisfied with working a set number of hours.
Not surprisingly, caregivers placed higher importance than non-caregivers on all the work-life balance factors, particularly factors that related directly to the care of dependants, such as access to domestic/caregiver leave and parental leave. Caregivers also tended to be more satisfied with these leave provisions, along with access to part-time work.
Caregivers were more likely than their colleagues to rate the support of their co-workers and of a higher-level manager as "Highly important". However, there were no differences between caregivers and other staff in terms of rating the support they actually received.
Caregivers placed particular value on the following training and development factors: access to mentoring, study leave, and feedback on their career development. They were less satisfied than non-caregivers with access to the last two factors, as well as with access to formal training opportunities such as training courses and seminars.
Qualitative results emphasised that family commitments, such as needing to care for sick family members, or leaving work early to collect children from school or childcare, had made it difficult for some public servants to develop in their career. Balancing work and family commitments could be challenging at times, and some respondents wanted more flexibility.
7.2.3.3 Provisions related to the care of dependants
As in 2000, public servants were relatively satisfied with access to provisions directly related to the care of dependants, such as domestic/caregiver55 leave and parental leave. A high proportion of public servants indicated these leave provisions were "Not applicable" to them. Of those who indicated that domestic/caregiver leave applied, 48% rated access to it as "Good", down from 53% in 2000. In addition, 15% rated it as "Poor", compared with 13% in 2000. Results for access to parental leave have also declined, despite legislation that has extended certain employees' entitlements to parental leave56. 54% of public servants gave "Good" ratings in 2005, compared with 58% in 2000. There was no change in "Poor" ratings.
Public servants who were more likely to be primary caregivers (such as women, Māori and Pacific staff) tended to place more value on, and were more satisfied with, their access to domestic/caregiver leave and parental leave. Women were more satisfied than men with parental leave. 60% gave their organisation "Good" ratings, compared with 47% of men. Pacific public servants were more than twice as likely to consider both domestic/caregiver leave and parental leave as "Highly important". Their responses were consistent with other public servants in their ratings of access to domestic/caregiver leave, and they were more satisfied with the availability of parental leave. 65% of Pacific staff said their access to parental leave was "Good", compared with 53% of non-Pacific public servants. Similarly, Māori also placed more value on, and were more satisfied with, access to the provisions relating to the care of dependants.
While both domestic/caregiver leave and parental leave were overall less important to managers than to non-managers, managers were more satisfied with their access to both provisions. Of those who indicated it was applicable, 55% of managers, compared with 47% of non-managers, rated their organisation as "Good" at providing domestic leave, while 60% of managers, compared with 53% of non-managers, rated their department as "Good" at providing parental leave.
7.2.3.4 Managerial support for resolving work and family conflicts
Public servants rated their managers highest on the extent to which they took a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family conflicts. In 2005, 58% of public servants reported that their managers were "Good" in this area. This was consistent with the 2000 survey findings. More Māori (62%) than non-Māori (57%) rated their managers as "Good" at resolving work and family conflicts. Similarly, public servants aged 30 years or older were more likely than younger respondents to report that their managers were "Good" at resolving work and family conflicts. Caregivers (61%) were also more likely than non-caregivers (56%) to give "Good" ratings. The findings for older public servants and caregivers perhaps reflect the extent to which people who have (or are likely to have) responsibilities for dependants are seen by managers to have more legitimate conflicts to resolve.
7.2.4 Accommodating outside commitments
Commitments outside work can extend beyond family. Other responsibilities, such as cultural, sporting or community involvements, may also clash with work commitments. In 2005, 38% of public servants rated their organisation as "Good" at accommodating their outside commitments, and 13% said it was "Poor". Apart from a slight increase in "Poor" ratings between surveys (from 11% in 2000 to 13% in 2005), ratings for this factor remained unchanged.
Accommodating their outside commitments at work was more important to women than to men. Women were also more satisfied with this factor, with 40% reporting their organisation was "Good" at accommodating their outside commitments, compared with 35% of men. More Māori than non-Māori considered this factor was important. However, Māori were more likely to be dissatisfied with access. 18% gave "Poor" ratings, compared with 12% of non-Māori.
7.2.4.1 Leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations
One in five public servants considered leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations to be "Highly important". The wording of this question was changed in 2005 to extend beyond cultural leave (surveyed in 2000) to include leave for religious or community obligations. Consequently, no comparisons between the 2000 and 2005 survey results are made.
In rating their organisation, just over half of public servants said leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations was "Not applicable" to them. Of those who indicated it was applicable, 40% gave "Good" ratings and 19% gave "Poor" ratings.
More women, Māori, Pacific peoples valued this factor as "Highly important" than did other groups. In fact, Māori and Pacific staff were three times more likely to report that leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations was "Highly important" to them. There were no differences between Pacific and non-Pacific staff and between women and men in how they rated access to this factor. Māori were generally more satisfied with their access to leave for cultural, religious or community obligations. 46% said their organisation was "Good" in this regard, compared with 39% of non-Māori.
7.2 Conclusions
Given demographic and social trends, and New Zealand's tight labour market, work-life balance has become increasingly important to the Public Service in attracting and retaining talent. These survey results show that work-life balance is of particular importance to mid-career public servants aged between 30 and 44 years. The question of work-life balance has been given some priority in New Zealand57. However, it is too early to measure the impact of guidance and improved provisions for work-life balance58. Increased attention to work-life balance and the fact that employees can now be more selective about what they want from a job, are likely to have influenced the results of the Career Progression and Development Survey. These findings indicate that, while there has been some increased satisfaction with provisions since 2000, notably in the availability of part-time work and flexible hours, employee ratings of other work-life factors have generally deteriorated.
While public servants were relatively satisfied with their access to flexible hours, there was still a sizeable number (68%) who reported that they worked more hours than they were employed for. Qualitative comments highlighted a particular concern with heavy workloads, which were seen as a barrier to career progression. Staff shortages impacted on workloads. Remaining staff reported being required to cover vacancies, and to train new staff. This was particularly stressful if vacancies took some time to be filled.
The increase in the number of public servants who worked part time is pleasing. However, women, caregivers and administrative/clerical occupations continued to be the main users of part-time working provisions. They also tended to place more value on this factor, and were more satisfied with access to part-time work. Nearly two thirds of respondents, however, said part-time work was not applicable to them in their role.
Managers rated well in terms of the support they provided to their staff to resolve work and family conflicts. Despite the existence of family-friendly policies, concerns that they would not be able to balance work and family commitments was a deterrent to career progression for nearly a third of public servants. Women, in particular, were likely to see this as a barrier.
Chapter 8: Women in the Public Service
This chapter looks at gender differences in responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey in relation to:
- Career aspirations and deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
- Workplace motivators
- Development and training experiences
- Support from managers or mentors
- Work environment
- Balancing work and other commitments.
8.1 A profile of women in the Public Service
Sample respondents for the Career Progression and Development Survey were drawn from the State Services Commission's Human Resource Capability Survey59 (HRC) data as at June 2004. Consequently, figures reported in this section relating to the profile of women in the Public Service are also from the HRC dataset as at June 2004 (unless otherwise stated).
8.1.1 Numerical representation
The number of women in the workplace has increased markedly in recent years in New Zealand, as it has in most developed countries. Increasing numbers are in high-status (formerly male dominated) roles. The changing aspirations of women, the promotion of equal employment opportunities, and the growth in part-time work have all contributed to these trends60. Women are particularly strongly represented in the Public Service. Between 2000 and 2004, women's representation in the Public Service increased from 56% to 59%. For that same period the proportion of women in the employed labour force remained fairly constant at around 45%61.
8.1.2 Occupational segregation
The five most common occupations for women in the Public Service remained unchanged between 2000 and 2004. These were: general clerk, case worker, policy analyst, social worker and call centre operator62. Women continue to have low representation in some of the non-traditional employment areas, such as the science and technical occupations. Since 2000, the proportion of female public servants in the managerial occupational group increased by 6 percentage points (from 40% to 46% in 2004) and by 3% percentage points in senior management63 positions (from 33% to 36% in 2004). At the time of the survey, women held 24% of Public Service chief executive positions64.
8.1.3 Age
Female public servants tended to be younger than male public servants. Between 2000 and 2004, the median age for female public servants increased from 39 years to 40 years, while the median age for males remained unchanged (at 43 years). In 2004, 52% of female public servants were aged 40 years or older, compared with 62% of males.
|
Profile of women in the Public Service, 2000 to 2004
|
8.1.4 Experience
As at June 2004, 35% of women (compared with 26% of men) had worked less than two years in their current organisation. 24% of women (compared with 36% of men) had worked for their current organisation for more than 10 years.
8.1.5 Qualifications
In their responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey, slightly more men (24%) reported they had a postgraduate qualification, compared with 22% of women. There were no differences in undergraduate qualifications.
8.1.6 Turnover
Since 2000, the turnover rate for women has been higher than the rate for men. Turnover for female public servants increased from 12% in 2000 to 13% in 2004. The turnover rate for male public servants remained unchanged over this period (at 10%).
8.1.7 Remuneration - the gender pay gap
Overall, 52% of women earned less than $40,000 (compared with 33% of men) and 5% earned more than $80,000 (compared with 12% of men). The pay gap between the median salary for female and male public servants decreased between 2000 and 2004, from 17% to 16%65. However, because pay varies considerably between occupations, pay gap comparisons between sectors with different occupational compositions are somewhat misleading. In addition, female public servants tend to be younger, and be concentrated in lower-paid occupations. These factors have influenced the pay gap. Controlling for the effect of age and occupation shows that the gender pay gap in the Public Service remained unchanged between 2000 and 2004, at 7%66. This compares with 17% in the labour force67 as a whole.
In 2004, a Pay and Employment Equity Unit was established within the Department of Labour to oversee the implementation of the five-year action plan that resulted from the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce. The unit aims to reduce the gender pay gap across the Public Service, public health and public education sectors.
8.2 Career aspirations
While men continued to be more likely than women to want a higher-level role, the gap between the two groups has decreased since 2000 (from 8 to 4 percentage points). In 2000, just under two thirds (65%) of men wanted a more senior role, compared with 57% of women. In 2005, 70% of men wanted a higher-level job, as did 67% of women. Aspirations to become a chief executive have declined across most population groups. As in 2000, men were more likely to have their sights on a chief executive role. 19% of men indicated this, compared with 11% of women. Survey results showed that caregivers were more likely than other staff to aspire to higher-level positions, including the chief executive role.
Since the 2000 survey public servants have become more ambitious. Most were prepared to change work areas to progress their careers. Women (64%) were more likely than men (59%) to report this. However, moving geographical locations to advance their careers was less attractive to women. More men (30%) than women (26%) said they would make such a move. Women were just as likely as men to be willing to move to the private sector. Just under half of women and men indicated they would consider the private sector to advance their career.
8.3 Deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
Gender differences in the deterrents to applying for a more senior role are discussed below under the following categories:
- perceived lack of readiness for such a role
- work and family clashes
- concerns about the fairness of the selection process.
8.3.1 Lack of readiness for a senior job
Research in Australia into women's career progression showed a tendency for women to be reticent about applying for senior positions68. Women tend to underestimate their readiness for jobs and only apply when they meet most of the job requirements. Findings from the Career Progression and Development Survey 2005 showed women (22%) were almost twice as likely as men (12%) to report that a lack of self-confidence had deterred them from seeking a higher-level position. More women (40%) than men (32%) reported that lack of experience had prevented them from applying for a senior role. This result may reflect the reality for some women whose length of service in their organisation tends to be shorter than that of men (see section 8.1.4). There were no gender differences in respondents' perceptions of their qualifications meeting job requirements for a more senior position.
8.3.2 Work and family clashes
Balancing work and non-work activities is becoming increasingly important to public servants. More respondents in 2005 (30% compared with 25% in 2000) cited a perceived clash between work and family as a deterrent to career progression. A slightly higher proportion of women (32%) than men (28%) had not applied for a higher-level position because they were concerned they would not be able to balance work and family commitments. Working longer hours or extensive travel impacted on a sense of balance between work and life outside of work. Women were more likely than men to cite both factors as deterrents to applying for senior roles. In 2005, 23% of women (compared with 17% of men) were deterred by the prospect of working additional hours in a senior role. 18% of women (compared with 12% of men) were discouraged by the extensive travel sometimes required in higher-level positions.
8.3.3 Lack of fairness in selection processes
18% of public servants said that they had been deterred from applying for a senior role because they perceived the selection process to be unfair. This is consistent with the 2000 results. Women (16%) were less likely than men (20%) to think the selection process was unfair.
8.4 Motivations and values - do men and women differ?
The survey asked public servants to consider how important nine aspects of their work were to them. The top five priorities for both women and men were:
- a feeling of accomplishment
- effective management
- challenging work
- pay and benefits
- job security.
These were also the top five workplace factors for women and men in the 2000 survey69. However, the relative importance each gender attached to these factors varied (see Figure 8.1). There were no gender differences related to the importance of pay and benefits. Women placed more value on all the remaining workplace factors. 93% of women, compared with 86% of men, reported it was "Highly important" to them to have a feeling of accomplishment in their role. 88% of women, compared with 79% of men, reported effective management was "Highly important". Job security was also important: 70% of women and 64% of men indicated this.
Figure 8.1 Importance of workplace factors and how the organisation rated - by gender
In rating their organisation against the top five workplace factors, women appeared to be more satisfied than men with three factors; effective management, job security, and a feeling of accomplishment. There were no gender differences in terms of access to challenging work and satisfactory pay and benefits. Women were particularly satisfied with their managers, 29% (compared with 24% of men) said their organisation was "Good" at providing effective management. Women also rated their organisation well at providing job security: 65% gave "Good" ratings, compared with 60% of men.
8.5 Development and training opportunities
8.5.1 Do women and men want the same development opportunities?
As in 2000, public servants considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for their career development. Women and men ranked all ten development factors in the same order. However, the relative importance each gender attached to these factors varied. While there were no gender differences in terms of importance attributed to acting up in higher positions, women tended to attach more value to all the remaining development factors. The top five priorities (see Figure 8.2) for male and female public servants were:
- on-the-job training
- being able to demonstrate their skills and abilities
- gaining experience in a range of tasks
- feedback on their career development needs
- training courses and seminars.
Apart from receiving feedback on their career development needs (which was not surveyed in 2000), these were also the top development factors for male and female public servants in 2000. Of these five top development factors, considerably more women than men reported gaining experience in a range of tasks (80% of women, compared with 68% of men) and on-the-job learning (85% of women, compared with 75% of men) as "Highly important".
Figure 8.2 Importance of career development opportunities and how the organisation rated - by gender
8.5.2 Do women and men perceive differential access to development opportunities?
Women appeared to be more satisfied than men with most factors, particularly feedback from their manager on their career development needs. 19% of women (compared with 13% of men) gave their manager "Good" ratings in this regard. In terms of gaining experience in a range of tasks, 33% of women rated their organisation as "Good", compared with 29% of men. Of most importance to both genders was on-the-job training. More women (31%) than men (27%) were satisfied with this factor.
Access to study leave and acting in higher positions was of less importance to both genders than other development factors. Women were more likely than men to say that these opportunities were "Not applicable" to them. Those women who indicated acting up was applicable to them were less satisfied with access: 47% gave their organisation "Poor" ratings, compared with 42% of men. After adjusting for "Not applicable" responses, there were no gender differences in terms of access to study leave: 17% of public servants reported their access to study leave was "Good" and 24% said it was "Poor".
8.6 Managers and mentors - encouragement & support for career development
8.6.1 Managers and supervisors
Public servants were asked to consider how important various management functions were to them, and to rate their immediate managers or supervisors against each factor. Of particular value to both genders was a manager who:
- communicated effectively
- encouraged staff input into decisions that directly affected them
- provided staff with the information they needed to do their job
- allowed staff the freedom to use their own initiative
- provided constructive feedback about their performance.
Having a manager who gave staff freedom to use their own initiative was considered "Highly important" by 57% of public servants. There were no gender differences for this factor. Women tended to place more importance on all other remaining management support factors, particularly a manager who acknowledged when staff had performed well ("Highly important" to 87% of women compared with 78% of men), encouraged and supported their career development (83% compared with 74% of men) and took a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family conflicts (84% compared with 76% men).
In rating their own manager or supervisor, results for women and men were similar. Women (36%) were more likely than men (32%) to say their manager was "Good" at encouraging and supporting their career development.
8.6.2 Mentors
Public servants were asked how important having access to mentoring or coaching was to their career development. 69% of women said it was "Highly important", compared with 55% of men. However, only 16% of women and 12% of men reported their organisation was "Good" at providing mentoring or coaching.
The number of public servants who have mentors has slightly increased since 2000. Women (21%) were more likely than men (18%) to have a mentor. While most mentoring relationships were not part of a formal mentoring scheme, there appeared to be a demand for such a scheme from both genders. The finding that more women had mentors, and that these relationships were informal, may indicate their greater need for or deliberate attempts by women to get extra support for their career advancement.
Nine out of ten of public servants who did have mentors reported that mentoring had assisted them with their career development. Results were consistent across both genders.
8.7 Work environment
The Career Progression and Development Survey asked public servants to consider how important five workplace environment factors were to them, and to rate their department on the provision of these factors. More women than men reported that each workplace factor was "Highly important" to them. The top three workplace factors for both genders were: being treated fairly ("Highly important" to 97% of women compared with 91% of men), working in an environment where staff worked co-operatively (93% compared with 86% of men) and having their ideas were valued (85% compared with 79% of men). Workplace factors that were considered less important were an organisation that accommodated outside commitments and had a good work-area design. Women placed more importance than men on both of these factors.
In rating their organisations, women appeared to be more satisfied with the way their organisation accommodated their outside commitments, treated them fairly, and had a good work-area design. Given that being treated fairly was crucial to both genders, the fact that nearly one in five rated their organisation as "Poor" in this regard is a concern.
8.8 Balancing work and personal lives
Providing the right balance between work and life has become increasingly important to the Public Service in attracting and retaining talent. This is particularly so given demographic and sociological trends such as greater numbers of women in paid work, an ageing workforce, skill shortages and an increasingly mobile workforce. The Public Service has historically been seen as less pressured and more 'family-friendly' than the private sector. The results from the Career Progression and Development Survey provide a composite picture of work-life balance in the Public Service and the differences between women and men, both in the importance attached to it and the ability to achieve it.
The meaning (and importance) of work-life balance changes for people at different stages over their lifetime. Factors such as part-time work, working from home, and parental leave and domestic/caregiver leave received a large number of "Not applicable" responses. Leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations also received a high number of "Not applicable" responses. The results for these five factors are reported as proportions of those who actually gave a rating, that is, a proportion of those who felt the provision was applicable to them.
8.8.1 Hours of work and flexibility
8.8.1.1 Working additional hours
Since 2000 the number of public servants who usually worked more hours a week than they were employed for has decreased. Having more staff on the job70, and an increased focus on work-life balance, may account for this decline. Women (65%) were less likely than men (71%) to work additional hours. Having a manageable workload was more important to women than men, and women tended to rate their organisation better in this regard.
8.8.1.2 Working flexible hours
Of all the work-life balance factors surveyed, flexibility in working hours was considered the most important, and the factor that public servants were most satisfied with. Just over half of female and male public servants rated their organisation as "Good" at providing flexible work hours. Men appeared to be more satisfied with this factor: 12% gave "Poor" ratings compared with 14% of women.
Of lesser importance was being able to work from home. 16% of women, compared with 11% of men, considered this "Highly important". Of those who indicated working from home applied to them, around one in five (for both female and male public servants) said their organisation was "Good" in this regard.
8.8.1.3 Working part time
Figures taken from the State Services Commission's Human Resource Capability data show an increase in the number of public servants working part time (i.e. less than 37.5 hours) between 2000 and 2004. After adjusting for structural changes, the total number of part-timers increased by 14%71. Women and caregivers continued to be the primary users of part-time working provisions. As in 2000, results from the Career Progression and Development Survey show women were three times more likely than men to work part time72. Caregivers (16%) were twice as likely as non-caregivers (8%) to work part time. Female caregivers were five times more likely than male caregivers to do so.
Women were more satisfied than men with their access to part-time work. Of those who indicated that part-time work applied to them, 37% of women rated their organisation as "Good" compared with 23% of men. Caregivers were also more satisfied than non-caregivers: 42% gave their organisation a "Good" rating, compared with 26% of non-caregivers.
Around half of female and male public servants who worked part time reported that they usually worked more hours than they were employed for. Despite this, working reduced hours was seen as a barrier to career progression by some part-timers, as it was in 200073. Qualitative information supported this, with some respondents commenting that working part time made it difficult to advance in their careers. Comments also indicated that working part-time hours also meant some inequity in development opportunities - particularly if such opportunities were outside of normal working hours or required travel to another venue.
8.8.2 Impacts of family responsibilities
Results for both the 2000 and 2005 survey show that women still take more responsibility than men for the care of dependants, and that this impacts more on women's working lives. More women (39%) than men (30%) reported they had primary caregiving responsibilities. Female caregivers were five times more likely than male caregivers to work part time. Female caregivers also placed more value on all the work-life balance factors, except working from home (where there was no gender difference). More female caregivers than male caregivers considered the following work-life balance factors as "Highly important":
- the ability to work flexible hours (74% compared with 52%)
- having a manageable workload (72% compared with 65%)
- domestic/caregiver leave (65% compared with 38%)
- parental leave (46% compared with 36%)
- working a set number of hours (46% compared with 30%)
- part-time work (27% compared with 7%).
Female caregivers were more satisfied than male caregivers with access to provisions directly related to the care of dependants, such as domestic/caregiver leave and parental leave. Of those who indicated that parental leave applied to them, 64% of female caregivers gave their organisation a "Good" rating, compared with 45% of male caregivers. In relation to domestic/caregiver leave, 54% of female caregivers reported their organisation was "Good" at providing access to this provision, compared with 44% of male caregivers. Regardless of caregiver status, both parental and domestic/caregiver leave were more important to women than men, and women appeared to be more satisfied with access to these provisions.
Having their outside commitments accommodated was considered "Highly important" by more women than men, and by more female caregivers than male caregivers. Women were also more satisfied than men with this factor: 40% of women reported their organisation was "Good" at accommodating outside commitments compared with 35% of men.
8.9 Conclusions
Women tended to attach more importance than men to most of the factors covered by the Career Progression and Development Survey. They also rated their jobs and the organisations in which they worked more highly. However, other evidence, such as the gender pay gap, women's under-representation in senior management and women's high representation in lower-paid occupations, indicate that, despite some improvement in these areas, there is some way to go before women have parity with their male colleagues.
In general, results showed that women had high aspirations to advance in their careers and were relatively flexible about what they would do to move ahead. Most women were prepared to change work areas to progress their careers. Both genders were motivated by the same workplace factors: having a feeling of accomplishment, having effective management and having challenging work. Women placed more value on development opportunities, particularly informal learning.
Balancing work and personal lives has become increasingly important to the Public Service in attracting and retaining talent. In 2005, both genders were more likely to cite a perceived clash between work and family as a deterrent to career progression. Flexible working hours was highly valued by both genders, and the work-life factor both were most satisfied with. However, results show women still take more responsibility than men for the care of dependants and that this impacts more on women's working lives. Women, caregivers and staff in administrative/clerical occupations continued to be the main users of part-time working provisions.
Women are not a homogenous group. There are likely to be differences between women of different ethnicities and/or at different levels of seniority. For this survey, it was not possible to examine the differences between, for example, Pacific women and Māori women, to determine the dual impacts of gender and ethnicity on career progression.
Chapter 9: Māori in the Public Service
This chapter looks at differences in responses between Māori and non-Māori public servants to the Career Progression and Development Survey in relation to:
- Career aspirations and deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
- Workplace motivators
- Development and training experiences
- Support from managers or mentors
- Work environment
- Balancing work and other commitments.
9.1 A profile of Māori in the Public Service
Sample respondents for the Career Progression and Development Survey were drawn from the State Services Commission's Human Resource Capability Survey74 (HRC) data as at June 2004. Consequently, figures reported in this section relating to the profile of Māori in the Public Service are also from the HRC dataset as at June 2004 (unless otherwise stated).
The representation of Māori in the Public Service remained relatively stable from 2000 to 2004. Māori made up 17% of the Public Service, compared with 10% of the employed labour force75. The five most common occupations for Māori in the Public Service remained unchanged between 2000 and 2004. These were: case worker, prison officer, general clerk, social worker and call centre operator. Since 2000 there has been a significant increase in the number of Māori working in policy analyst and managerial roles. Despite this increase, Māori continue to have low representation within these roles and within the science and technical occupations. Māori in senior management (tier 1, 2 and 3 managers) increased slightly, from 9% in 2000 to 10% in 2004.
Across the Public Service, Māori are generally younger than non-Māori (see Figure 9.1). In 2004, the median age for Māori was 39 years, compared with 42 years for all public servants.
Responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey showed that non-Māori were nearly twice as likely as Māori (51% compared with 28%) to hold an undergraduate or postgraduate qualification. However, proportionately more Māori reported they had a national/trade certificate or a partially completed degree or diploma.
In 2004, female Māori public servants outnumbered male Māori public servants by almost two to one76. Overall, 55% of Māori earned less than $40,000 (compared with 42% of non-Māori) and 3% earned over $80,000 (compared with 9% of non-Māori). The pay gap between the median salary of Māori and non-Māori public servants increased between 2000 and 2004, from 7% to 12%77. However, the pay gap is reduced when the effects of age and occupation are taken into account. Adjusted figures show the pay gap between Māori and non-Māori actually decreased from 4% in 2000 to 3% in 200478.
Figure 9.1 Age structure of Māori and non-Māori staff in the Public Service, 2004
Source: State Services Commission. Human Resource Capability Survey (2004)
9.2 Career aspirations
As in 2000, Māori showed higher levels of ambition than non-Māori. More than three quarters (76%) of Māori aspired to a more senior role, compared with just over two thirds (67%) of non-Māori. This may be partly due to the relatively younger age profile of Māori public servants. Younger public servants were generally more ambitious. Since the 2000 survey, aspirations to become a chief executive have declined across most groups. Despite this, Māori (18%) were still more likely than their non-Māori colleagues (14%) to want to become a chief executive.
Most public servants were prepared to change work areas to develop their careers. Māori (68%) were more likely than non-Māori (60%) to report this. Moving to another location to advance their careers was less attractive to public servants in general, but particularly so for caregivers. As in 2000, only one in four public servants (27%) was prepared to make such a move. Māori, however, were much less likely to see this as a barrier. One in three (34%) reported they would move geographical locations to advance their career, compared with one in four (26%) non-Māori. Around the same proportions reported this in 2000. Nevertheless, these results are surprising given the greater propensity of Māori to have caregiving responsibilities.
The willingness of Māori to relocate may be due to the fact that proportionately more Māori worked outside the usual areas (such as Wellington and Auckland) in which the majority of public servants worked, and where senior public service roles tend to be. While Māori worked in Wellington and Auckland, they were more highly represented in other, less urbanised, areas such as Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Hawke's Bay. This contrasts with Pacific public servants who, like Māori, tended to be younger and have caregiving responsibilities. However, unlike their Māori colleagues, the prospect of moving geographical locations to progress their careers was less appealing to Pacific staff. In addition, the majority of Pacific public servants are already located in Wellington or Auckland.
Qualitative comments showed that location could be a barrier to career progression and opportunities such as secondments and training. Some perceived that living outside of Wellington limited their chance to advance in their career. A higher-level position would frequently require a move. Several public servants were reluctant to move for family reasons.
9.3 Deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
Differences between Māori and non-Māori in the deterrents to applying for a more senior role are discussed below under the following categories:
- perceived lack of readiness for such a role
- work and family clashes
- concerns about the fairness of the selection process.
Figure 9.2 What deters people from applying for a higher-level position?
|
Within the past 12 months, have any of these things stopped you from applying for a position at a higher level in the Public Service? |
||
|
Māori |
Non-Māori |
|
|
Don't yet have the necessary experience |
44% |
35% |
|
Don't yet have the necessary qualifications |
38% |
22% |
|
Concern that I would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities |
33% |
29% |
|
Preference to stay in my current job |
29% |
34% |
|
Concern that the selection process would not be fair |
24% |
17% |
|
No desire to relocate to another area to take up a higher-level position |
24% |
29% |
|
No desire because of the political nature of higher-level positions |
18% |
18% |
|
Lack of confidence in myself |
18% |
17% |
|
No desire to work additional hours |
16% |
21% |
|
Lack of support from my manager |
15% |
14% |
|
No desire to undertake extensive travel |
13% |
16% |
|
No desire to work in a higher-level position |
11% |
17% |
|
No desire to take on additional responsibilities |
10% |
12% |
|
Lack of support from others |
9% |
6% |
9.3.1 Lack of readiness for a senior job
Māori were much more likely to report that not having the necessary qualifications or experience was a barrier to their career advancement. This may be attributed to their younger age profile and to the fact that Māori are less likely to hold a tertiary qualification compared with their non-Māori colleagues. Māori were nearly twice as likely to indicate that not having the necessary qualifications had prevented them from applying for a higher-level position (38% compared with 22% of non-Māori). Not having the right experience was also a barrier. 44% of Māori, compared with 35% of non-Māori, reported this was a deterrent to career progression.
9.3.2 Work and family clashes
Having primary caregiving responsibilities did not appear to dampen the ambitions of Māori public servants. Half of Māori (compared with a third of non-Māori) reported that they had primary caregiving responsibilities. Despite this fact, Māori were no more likely than non-Māori to report being deterred from applying for a senior position because it might clash with their family responsibilities. Similarly, Māori were no more likely than other public servants to be discouraged from a senior role because of the extensive travel such a role might require. In fact, Māori were less likely to be discouraged by the prospect of working additional hours (16% compared with 21% of non-Māori) or moving to another location (24% compared with 29% of non-Māori).
9.3.3 Lack of fairness in selection processes
Māori (24%) were more likely than non-Māori (17%) to report that concerns about the fairness of selection processes had deterred them from seeking a more senior role.
9.4 Motivations and values
The survey asked public servants to consider how important nine aspects of their work were to them. The top five priorities for Māori and non-Māori were:
- effective management
- a feeling of accomplishment
- challenging work
- pay and benefits
- job security.
In general, Māori were motivated by the same factors that were important to other public servants. Māori attached more importance to all of the workplace factors surveyed except one, having a feeling of accomplishment (see Figure 9.3). There were no differences between Māori and non-Māori in terms of the relative importance of this factor.
Māori were more likely than non-Māori to consider effective management as "Highly important" to their jobs (90% compared with 83%). Having challenging work was "Highly important" to 81% of Māori, compared with 76% of non-Māori. Good pay and benefits was also highly valued, 80% of Māori compared with 73% of non-Māori reported this. One of the biggest differences was the relative importance these groups attached to job security. Perhaps linked to their greater propensity to hold primary caregiving responsibilities, Māori (79%) placed considerably more value than non-Māori (66%) on this factor.
Figure 9.3 Importance of workplace factors and how the organisation rated - differences between Māori and non-Māori
There were only two statistically significant differences between Māori and non-Māori in terms of how they rated their organisation against each workplace factor. These differences related to working for a reputable organisation and working a set number of hours per week. Māori were less satisfied than non-Māori with the reputation of their organisation. 44% of Māori (compared with 51% of non-Māori) reported their organisation's reputation was "Good". Occupational segregation is likely to have affected the responses for Māori staff. Māori work predominantly in frontline positions such as social workers, prison officers and case workers. At times these roles have been subject to high profile, negative media attention. Māori were also less satisfied than non-Māori with working a set number of hours. Half gave their organisation "Good" ratings, compared with 57% of non-Māori.
Despite the pay gap between what Māori earn compared with non-Māori, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of how they rated their own pay and benefits79.
In rating all other workplace factors, Māori concurred with their non-Māori colleagues. Public servants were most satisfied with job security and having challenging work and least satisfied with opportunities for advancement and their pay and benefits. The top two priorities for staff were being managed effectively and having a sense of accomplishment. While public servants generally appeared to be moderately satisfied with the latter factor, they were less satisfied with the way in which they were being managed80.
9.5 Development and training opportunities
9.5.1 Do Māori and non-Māori want the same development opportunities?
As in 2000, public servants considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for career advancement. Māori and non-Māori considered the same development opportunities to be "Highly important". The top five priorities (see Figure 9.4) for Māori and non-Māori public servants were:
- on-the-job training
- being able to demonstrate their skills and abilities
- gaining experience in a range of tasks
- feedback on their career development needs
- training courses and seminars.
The relative importance Māori and non-Māori attached to these factors varied. In general, Māori attributed more importance to all the development factors surveyed. Of the five top development factors, Māori placed considerably more importance on gaining experience in a range of tasks (84% compared with 74%), on-the-job training (89% compared with 79%), getting feedback on their career development needs (80% compared with 70%) and attending training courses and seminars (75% compared with 67%).
Māori attached considerably more importance to study leave. That proportionately more Māori reported they were part way through completing a degree or diploma is likely to have influenced their responses. 60% reported study leave was "Highly important" to them, compared with 42% of non-Māori.
Figure 9.4 Importance of career development opportunities and how the organisation rated - differences between Māori and non-Māori
9.5.2 Do Māori and non-Māori perceive differential access to development opportunities?
There were four statistically significant differences between Māori and non-Māori in terms of how they rated their organisation against each development factor. Māori were more satisfied than non-Māori with feedback on their career development needs. 22% reported their organisation was "Good" in this regard, compared with 16% of non-Māori. Māori were less satisfied with access to opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities, training courses and study leave. More Māori (20%) than non-Māori (17%) were likely to rate their organisation as "Poor" at giving them opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities. Similarly, 31%, compared with 26% of non-Māori, reported that their access to training courses was "Poor".
Study leave was more important to Māori than non-Māori. This might be because proportionately more Māori reported they were part way through their studies. In addition, not having the necessary qualifications was one of the most significant barriers to career advancement for Māori. In rating their access to study leave many public servants (both Māori and non-Māori) reported this factor was "Not applicable" to them. Of those who indicated study leave to further their qualifications was applicable to them, more Māori (43%) than non-Māori (38%) gave "Poor" ratings.
9.6 Managers and mentors - encouragement & support for career development
9.6.1 Managers and supervisors
Public servants were asked to consider how important various management functions were to them, and to rate their immediate managers or supervisors against each factor. Of particular value to both Māori and non-Māori were managers who:
- communicated effectively
- provided staff with the information they needed to do their job
- provided constructive feedback about their performance
- encouraged staff input into decisions that directly affected them
- allowed staff the freedom to use their own initiative.
Factors are listed in terms of importance to Māori, starting with the most important factor. There were no differences between Māori and non-Māori with regard to the last two factors listed. Māori attributed more importance than non-Māori to all the remaining management support factors, particularly a manager who provided regular feedback about their performance ("Highly important" to 83% of Māori compared with 75% of non-Māori), took a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family conflicts (87% compared with 79%) and encouraged and supported their career development (85% compared with 78%).
In rating their own manager or supervisor, more Māori (40%) than non-Māori (33%) were satisfied with the extent to which their manager encouraged and supported their career development. Māori were also more likely to report their manager was "Good" at taking a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family conflicts (62% compared with 57% of non-Māori), encouraged their input into decisions that affected them (46% compared with 42%) and provided constructive feedback about their performance (37% compared with 32%). Māori were less satisfied with their manager in terms of the provision of information they needed to do their job: 22% gave "Poor" ratings compared with 17% of non-Māori.
9.6.2 Mentors
Public servants were asked how important having access to mentoring or coaching was to their career development. 75% of Māori said it was "Highly important", compared with 60% of non-Māori. Public servants were generally unsatisfied with their access to mentoring or coaching: 14% rated their organisation as "Good" and 46% as "Poor" in this regard. These results were consistent for Māori and non-Māori public servants.
The number of public servants who have mentors has slightly increased since 2000. Significantly higher proportions of Māori (29%) had a mentor compared with their non-Māori colleagues (18%). Most mentoring relationships were not part of a formal mentoring scheme81. There appeared to be demand for such a scheme from both groups, particularly from Māori. More Māori (52%) than non-Māori (44%) reported they would like access to a formal mentoring scheme.
Nine out of ten of public servants who had mentors reported that mentoring had assisted them with their career development. Results were consistent for Māori and non-Māori.
9.7 Work environment
The Career Progression and Development Survey asked public servants to consider how important five workplace environment factors were to them, and to rate their department on the provision of these factors. The three top workplace environment factors that were considered most important to both Māori and non-Māori were: being treated fairly, being part of a team that worked co-operatively, and working in an environment where their ideas were valued. At least eight out of ten public servants considered these factors to be "Highly important". There were no differences between Māori and non-Māori in terms of the relative importance each attributed to these factors. In rating their organisations against each of these factors, more than a third of public servants gave "Good" ratings. These results were consistent for Māori and non-Māori.
Māori placed more value on having a good work-area design ("Highly important" for 74% of Māori, compared with 61% of non-Māori) and an environment that accommodated outside commitments ("Highly important" for 65% of Māori, compared with 56% of non-Māori). They were also less satisfied with these factors. In rating their organisation, 36% of Māori said their work-area design was "Poor", compared with 32% of non-Māori. 18% of Māori reported their organisation was "Poor" at accommodating their outside commitments, compared with 12% of non-Māori.
9.8 Balancing work and personal lives
Providing the right balance between work and life has become increasingly important to the Public Service in attracting and retaining talent. This is particularly so given demographic and sociological trends such as greater numbers of women in paid work, an ageing workforce, skill shortages and an increasingly mobile workforce. Given their younger age structure, Māori will make up a larger part of the available workforce in the future. The Public Service will need to work hard to attract Māori staff in a tight and competitive market.
The Public Service has historically been seen as less pressured and more 'family-friendly' than the private sector. The results from the Career Progression and Development Survey provide a composite picture of work-life balance in the Public Service and the differences between women and men, both in the importance attached to it and the ability to achieve it.
The meaning (and importance) of work-life balance changes for people at different stages over their lifetime. Factors such as part-time work, working from home, and parental leave and domestic/caregiver leave received a large number of "Not applicable" responses. Leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations also received a high number of "Not applicable" responses. The results for these five factors are reported as proportions of those who actually gave a rating, that is, a proportion of those who felt the provision was applicable to them.
9.8.1 Hours of work and flexibility
9.8.1.1 Working additional hours
Since the 2000 survey there has been a decrease in the number of public servants who worked more hours a week than they were employed for. Having more staff on the job82 and an increased focus on work-life balance may account for this decline. While this was also true for Māori public servants, proportionately more Māori (72%) than non-Māori (67%) reported they usually worked additional hours. Having a manageable workload was more important to Māori than non-Māori. Ratings were similar for both groups: around one in three rated their organisation as "Good" at providing a manageable workload, while one in five gave "Poor" ratings.
9.8.1.2 Working flexible hours
Of all the work-life balance factors surveyed, flexibility around working hours was considered the most important, and the factor that public servants were most satisfied with. Just over half of Māori and non-Māori public servants reported their organisation was "Good" at providing flexible work hours.
While working from home was less important to public servants in general, Māori placed considerably more value on this factor ("Highly important" to 19% of Māori, compared with 13% of non-Māori). However, in rating their organisation they were more likely than non-Māori to report this factor was "Not applicable" to them, perhaps reflecting the higher propensity of Māori to work in frontline/face-to-face roles.
9.8.1.3 Working part time
Women and caregivers continued to be the primary users of part-time working provisions. Although Māori are highly represented in both of these groups, results showed that access to part-time work was of less importance to Māori and fewer numbers worked part time. Of those who indicated that working part time applied to them, one in four Māori gave "Good" ratings, compared with around one in three non-Māori.
Part-time work was "Highly important" to 21% of non-Māori caregivers, compared with only 14% of Māori caregivers. Māori caregivers were also less likely to work part time (fewer than 37.5 hours). The survey did not ask about the financial implications of reduced work hours and the effect this has on an individual's decision to work part time. Given Māori are more likely to work in lower paid roles, this may have had a greater influence on the relative lower importance Māori attached to working part time. Māori also appeared to draw on other support networks to manage their caregiving responsibilities.
9.8.2 Impacts of family responsibilities
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Māori were much more likely than non-Māori to be caregivers (50% compared with 33% of non-Māori). The work-life balance factors that were most important to caregivers, in general, were: flexibility around working hours, having a manageable workload, parental and domestic leave. Māori caregivers also attributed high importance to these factors, particularly the provisions relating to leave.
More Māori caregivers than non-Māori caregivers considered the following work-life balance factors as "Highly important":
- having a manageable workload (76% compared with 68%)
- the ability to work flexible hours (71% compared with 64%)
- domestic/caregiver leave (66% compared with 52%)
- parental leave (57% compared with 38%)
- working a set number of hours (42% compared with 39%).
In rating their organisation against these factors, Māori caregivers were less satisfied with working a set number of hours. 52% gave "Good" ratings, compared with 60% of non-Māori caregivers. Ratings for the other factors were consistent across the two groups.
9.8.3 Accommodating outside commitments
Commitments outside work can extend beyond family. Other responsibilities, such as cultural, sporting or community involvements, may also clash with work commitments. The largest difference between Māori and non-Māori was the relative importance each attached to leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations83. Māori were much more likely to consider access to this type of leave as "Highly important", perhaps reflecting the extent to which Māori might also have responsibilities for whānau, hapū and iwi. 49% of Māori indicated leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations was "Highly important", compared with 15% of non-Māori. In rating their access to this type of leave, non-Māori were nearly twice as likely to indicate this factor was "Not applicable" to them. Of those who reported this factor was applicable to them: 46% of Māori gave "Good" ratings, compared with 39% of non-Māori.
Having their outside commitments accommodated was considered "Highly important" by more Māori (65%) than non-Māori (56%) and by more Māori caregivers (72%) than non-Māori caregivers (66%). However, Māori were less satisfied with this factor: 18% indicated their organisation was "Poor" in this regard, compared with 12% of non-Māori.
9.9 Conclusions
As in 2000, Māori showed high ambitions and were flexible about what they would do to move ahead. Like other public servants, they were prepared to change work areas to progress their careers. However, proportionately more Māori were prepared to work additional hours or move to another location to advance their careers. Their higher ambitions may be due partly to the younger age structure of Māori public servants. Their propensity to have caregiving responsibilities did not appear to dampen these ambitions.
Māori were motivated by the same factors that were important to other public servants. Both wanted to be well managed in their work and were motivated by a sense of accomplishment. While both groups were moderately satisfied with the latter, they were less satisfied with the way in which they were being managed.
Māori, like other public servants, considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for their career development. They attributed more importance to all the development factors surveyed, particularly gaining experience in a range of tasks and on-the-job training. Having formal qualifications was also important. Māori perceived that not having the necessary qualifications was one of the most significant barriers to their career advancement. Many Māori reported being part way through their studies, and attributed considerably higher value to study leave. However, Māori reported that they were less satisfied with access to study leave.
Although more Māori were likely to be primary caregivers, access to part-time work was of less importance to Māori and they were less likely to work part time. Given the greater representation of Māori in lower paid roles, the financial implications of working reduced hours may have influenced their responses. Māori appeared to draw on other support networks to manage their caregiving responsibilities.
The largest difference between Māori and non-Māori was the relative importance each attached to leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations. Māori were more than three times likely to report that this type of leave was "Highly important" to them.
It was not possible to examine the differences between Māori men and Māori women to determine the dual impacts of gender and ethnicity on career progression.
Chapter 10: Pacific Peoples in the Public Service
This chapter looks at differences between Pacific and non-Pacific public servants in responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey in relation to:
- Career aspirations and deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
- Workplace motivators
- Development and training experiences
- Support from managers or mentors
- Work environment
- Balancing work and other commitments.
10.1 A profile of Pacific peoples in the Public Service
Sample respondents for the Career Progression and Development Survey were drawn from the State Services Commission's Human Resource Capability Survey84 (HRC) data as at June 2004. Consequently, figures reported in this section relating to the profile of Pacific public servants are also from the HRC dataset as at June 2004 (unless otherwise stated).
Pacific representation in the Public Service has gradually increased, from 6% in 2000 to 7% in 2004. Pacific peoples make up 5% of the employed labour force85. The five most common occupations for Pacific peoples in the Public Service remained unchanged between 2000 and 2004. These were: case worker, general clerk, call centre operator, prison officer and social worker. Since 2000 there has been a slight increase in the proportion of Pacific staff working in managerial and policy analyst roles, however, Pacific representation in these occupations remains low. Pacific staff are also under represented in the science and technical occupations. The percentage of Pacific peoples in senior management (tier 1, 2 and 3 managers) has not changed since 2000 (1%).
Pacific staff are the youngest ethnic group in the Public Service (see Figure 10.1). In 2004, their median age was 35 years, compared with 42 years for all public servants.
Responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey showed that 35% of Pacific peoples, compared with 59% of non-Pacific staff, held an undergraduate or postgraduate qualification. Proportionately more Pacific staff reported they had a partially completed degree or diploma.
In 2004, female Pacific public servants outnumbered male Pacific public servants by almost two to one86. Overall, 65% of Pacific peoples earned less than $40,000 (compared with 43% of non-Pacific staff) and 2% earned over $80,000 (compared with 8% of non-Pacific staff). The pay gap between the median salary of Pacific and non-Pacific public servants increased between 2000 and 2004, from 11% to 14%87. However, the pay gap is reduced when the effects of age and occupation are taken into account. Adjusted figures show the pay gap between Pacific and non-Pacific increased from 4% in 2000 to 5% in 200488.
Figure 10.1 Age structure of Pacific and non-Pacific staff in the Public Service, 2004
Source: State Services Commission. Human Resource Capability Survey (2004)
10.2 Career aspirations
As in 2000, Pacific staff showed considerably higher levels of ambition than non-Pacific staff. 81% of Pacific peoples aspired to a more senior role, compared with 67% of non-Pacific public servants. The difference may be attributed to the much younger age structure of Pacific staff (see Figure 10.1). Younger public servants were generally more ambitious.
Since the 2000 survey, aspirations to become a chief executive have declined across most population groups. This was not true for Pacific staff. They were nearly twice as likely to indicate they wanted to become a chief executive (22% compared with 14% of non-Pacific staff).
Generally, public servants have become more ambitious since 2000. Most were prepared to change work areas to progress their careers. This was particularly true for Pacific staff. 71% reported they would change work areas, compared with 61% of non-Pacific staff. The prospect of moving geographical locations to advance their careers was less appealing to public servants, including Pacific staff. This contrasts with the situation for Māori, who were more likely to indicate that they would move to another location. Unlike Māori public servants, Pacific peoples are already highly represented in the areas where the majority of public servants work, such as Wellington and Auckland, and where senior public service roles tend to be located. Qualitative information reflected that location could be a barrier to career progression and opportunities such as secondments and training. Some perceived that living outside of Wellington limited their chance to advance in their career. A higher-level position would frequently require a move. Several public servants were reluctant to move for family reasons.
10.3 Deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
Differences between Pacific and non-Pacific public servants in the deterrents to applying for a more senior role are discussed below under the following categories:
- perceived lack of readiness for such a role
- work and family clashes.
Figure 10.2 What deters people from applying for a higher-level position?
|
Within the past 12 months, have any of these things stopped you from applying for a position at a higher level in the Public Service? |
||
|
Pacific |
Non-Pacific |
|
|
Don't yet have the necessary experience |
53% |
36% |
|
Don't yet have the necessary qualifications |
45% |
23% |
|
Concern that I would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities |
34% |
30% |
|
Preference to stay in my current job |
30% |
33% |
|
Concern that the selection process would not be fair |
21% |
18% |
|
Lack of confidence in myself |
20% |
17% |
|
No desire to work additional hours |
17% |
20% |
|
No desire to undertake extensive travel |
15% |
15% |
|
No desire to work in a higher-level position |
13% |
16% |
|
No desire because of the political nature of higher-level positions |
13% |
19% |
|
Lack of support from my manager |
12% |
14% |
|
No desire to take on additional responsibilities |
7% |
12% |
|
Lack of support from others |
4% |
7% |
10.3.1 Lack of readiness for a senior job
The two most significant barriers to career advancement for Pacific staff were not having the right experience or necessary qualifications. This may be attributable to their younger age profile and to the fact that Pacific public servants are less likely to hold a tertiary qualification compared with non-Pacific public servants. More than half of Pacific staff (53%) reported that not having the necessary experience had deterred them from applying for a senior role, compared with just over a third (36%) of non-Pacific staff. Pacific public servants were nearly twice as likely to indicate that not having the necessary qualifications had prevented them from seeking a higher-level position (45% compared with 23% of non-Pacific public servants). Pacific staff were less likely than Māori to indicate not having the necessary qualifications was a barrier to career progression, but more likely to report a lack of experience as a factor affecting their career advancement.
10.3.2 Work and family clashes
Despite their greater tendency to have primary caregiving responsibilities a similar percentage of Pacific staff as non-Pacific staff said work-life balance concerns had deterred them from applying for a senior role. Additionally, a similar percentage of Pacific staff as non-Pacific staff were discouraged from a higher-level role because of the extensive travel or longer hours that such a position demanded.
10.4 Motivations and values
The survey asked public servants to consider how important nine aspects of their work were to them. The top five priorities for both Pacific and non-Pacific public servants were:
- effective management
- a feeling of accomplishment
- pay and benefits
- challenging work
- job security.
While Pacific staff were generally motivated by the same factors that were important to other public servants, they attached more importance to all of them except one, having a feeling of accomplishment (see Figure 10.3). There were no differences between Pacific and non-Pacific staff in terms of the relative importance of this factor.
Pacific staff were more likely than non-Pacific public servants to consider effective management as "Highly important" to their jobs (91% compared with 84%). Good pay and benefits were also highly valued: 86% of Pacific staff compared with 73% of non-Pacific staff reported this. Having challenging work was "Highly important" to 84% of Pacific staff, compared with 76% of non-Pacific staff.
Figure 10.3 Importance of workplace factors and how the organisation rated - differences between Pacific and non-Pacific public servants
Significantly more Pacific staff considered opportunities for advancement as "Highly important" (82% compared with 56% of non-Pacific staff). This is not surprising given Pacific staff tended to be more ambitious than other public servants. This result might also be linked to the younger age profile of Pacific staff. In addition, Pacific public servants appeared to be more satisfied with the advancement opportunities their organisation actually provided. In this regard, more Pacific staff (22%) than non-Pacific staff (14%) gave their organisation "Good" ratings.
Perhaps linked to their greater propensity to have primary caregiving responsibilities, considerably more Pacific staff reported that working a set number of hours (55% compared with 32% of non-Pacific staff) and job security (82% compared with 67%) were "Highly important" in their work.
With the exception of opportunities for advancement, there were no statistically significant differences between Pacific and non-Pacific staff in the way each rated their respective organisation against each factor (see Figure 10.3).
10.5 Development and training opportunities
10.5.1 Do Pacific and non-Pacific public servants want the same development opportunities?
As in 2000, public servants considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for their career advancement. Like other public servants, Pacific staff considered the same development opportunities to be "Highly important". However, the relative importance each attached to these factors varied. In general, Pacific public servants tended to attribute more value to all the development factors surveyed than non-Pacific staff. The top five priorities (see Figure 10.4) for both groups were:
- on-the-job training
- gaining experience in a range of tasks
- being able to demonstrate their skills and abilities
- feedback on their career development needs
- training courses and seminars.
The top priority for non-Pacific staff was demonstrating their skills and abilities. This was not so for Pacific staff. Perhaps due to their younger age structure and higher career aspirations, Pacific staff were more concerned with gaining experience and knowledge while on the job. Considerably more Pacific than non-Pacific staff considered the following development factors as "Highly important": gaining experience in a range of tasks (88% compared with 75%), getting feedback on their career development needs (86% compared with 71%) and attending training courses and seminars (84% compared with 68%).
The greater importance Pacific staff placed on these factors is understandable, given that the two main factors Pacific staff perceived as barriers to their career advancement were not having the necessary experience or qualifications.
Three other development factors that significantly more Pacific than non-Pacific staff reported as "Highly important" were: access to mentoring (82% compared with 62%), study leave (69% compared with 44%) and working on secondment (58% compared with 36%).
10.5.2 Do Pacific and non-Pacific public servants perceive differential access to development opportunities?
In rating their organisation, Pacific staff were more satisfied with their access to feedback on their career development needs. 24% of Pacific staff rated their organisation as "Good" compared with 16% of non-Pacific staff. There were no statistically significant differences between Pacific and non-Pacific staff in how they rated their access to any of the other development factors surveyed (see Figure 10.4). Like other public servants, Pacific staff were most satisfied with the development opportunities they considered most important for their career development. However, like other staff, their overall satisfaction with their access to development and training opportunities was not high.
Figure 10.4 Importance of career development opportunities and how the organisation rated - differences between Pacific and non-Pacific public servants
10.6 Managers and mentors - encouragement and support for career development
10.6.1 Managers and supervisors
Public servants were asked to consider how important various management functions were to them, and to rate their immediate managers or supervisors against each factor. Of particular value to both Pacific public servants was a manager who:
- communicated effectively
- allowed staff the freedom to use their own initiative
- provided staff with the information they needed to do their job
- encouraged staff input into decisions that directly affected them
- takes a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family conflicts.
Pacific staff attributed more importance than non-Pacific staff to all the management factors surveyed. For these top five management support factors, the largest differences between Pacific and non-Pacific staff related to a manager who supported them to resolve work and family conflicts ("Highly important" to 93% of Pacific staff, compared with 80% of non-Pacific) and provided staff with the information they needed to do their job (94% compared with 88% of non-Pacific).
Other factors that considerably more Pacific than non-Pacific staff reported as "Highly important" was a manager who encouraged and supported their career development (93% compared with 78% of non-Pacific staff) and provided regular feedback about their performance (88% compared with 75%).
There were several differences in the way Pacific and non-Pacific staff rated their managers against each support factor. More Pacific than non-Pacific public servants rated their manager as "Good" at encouraging and supporting their career development (46% compared with 33% of non-Pacific staff), giving them the information they needed to do their job (45% compared with 35%) and providing them with feedback on performance that is regular (40% compared with 30%) and constructive (43% compared with 32%).
Pacific public servants were less satisfied with their managers' approach to resolving work and family conflicts. 15% of Pacific staff rated their manager as "Poor", compared with 9% of non-Pacific.
10.6.2 Mentors
Public servants were asked how important having access to mentoring or coaching was to their career development. 82% of Pacific peoples said it was "Highly important", compared with 62% of non-Pacific. Public servants were generally unsatisfied with their access to mentoring or coaching: 14% rated their organisation as "Good" and 46% as "Poor" in this regard. These results were consistent for Pacific and non-Pacific public servants.
The number of public servants who have mentors has slightly increased since 2000. Significantly higher proportions of Pacific peoples (28%) had a mentor than their non-Pacific colleagues (19%). Most mentoring relationships were not part of a formal mentoring scheme. There appeared to be a demand for such a scheme from both groups. More Pacific (50%) than non-Pacific staff (45%) reported they would like to have access to a formal mentoring scheme.
Nine out of ten of public servants who had mentors reported that mentoring had assisted them with their career development. Results were consistent for Pacific and non-Pacific staff.
10.7 Work environment
The Career Progression and Development Survey asked public servants to consider how important several workplace environment factors were to them, and to rate their department on the provision of these factors. Like other public servants, Pacific staff placed high importance on an environment where they were treated fairly, staff worked co-operatively and their ideas were valued. Slightly more Pacific (94%) than non-Pacific public servants (90%) said a team that worked co-operatively was "Highly important" to them in their work.
Having a good work-area design was considerably more important to Pacific than non-Pacific public servants. 80% of Pacific staff reported having a good work-area design was "Highly important", compared with 62% of non-Pacific staff. Pacific public servants appeared to be more satisfied with this factor. 33% rated their organisation as "Good", compared with 25% of non-Pacific.
10.8 Balancing work and personal lives
Providing the right balance between work and life has become increasingly important to the Public Service in attracting and retaining talent. This is particularly so, given demographic and sociological trends such as greater numbers of women in paid work, an ageing workforce, skill shortages and an increasingly mobile workforce. Given their younger age structure, Pacific peoples will make up a larger part of the available workforce in the future. The Public Service will need to work hard to attract Pacific staff in a tight and competitive market.
The Public Service has historically been seen as less pressured and more 'family-friendly' than the private sector. Responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey give some indication of how well public servants perceived their organisations were doing in terms of work-life balance.
The meaning and importance of work-life balance changes for people at different stages over their lifetime. Factors such as part-time work, working from home, and parental leave and domestic/caregiver leave received a large number of "Not applicable" responses. So, too, did the factor relating to leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations. The results for these five factors are reported as proportions of those who actually gave a rating, that is, a proportion of those who felt the provision was applicable to them.
10.8.1 Hours of work and flexibility
10.8.1.1 Working additional hours
Since the 2000 survey there has been a decline in the number of public servants who worked more hours a week than they were employed for. Having more staff on the job89, and an increased focus on work-life balance, may account for this decline. 68% of public servants reported they usually worked additional hours. This was consistent with the results for Pacific staff. Having a manageable workload was "Highly important" for more Pacific (77%) than non-Pacific staff (64%). There were no differences in how each group rated their organisation. Around one in three public servants rated their organisation as "Good" at providing a manageable workload, while one in five gave "Poor" ratings.
10.8.1.2 Working flexible hours
Working flexible hours was clearly the most important work-life balance factor surveyed, and the factor that public servants were most satisfied with. This factor appeared to be more important to Pacific staff. 74% reported working flexible hours was "Highly important", compared with 55% of non-Pacific staff. There were no differences in how each group rated their organisation. Just over half of public servants reported their organisation was "Good" at providing flexible work hours. Of the work-life balance factors surveyed, working from home appeared to be less important to public servants than the other factors. The results for Pacific staff mirrored this finding. Of those who indicated that working from home was applicable, relatively more Pacific (30%) than non-Pacific staff (13%) reported it was "Highly important", but a very large proportion of Pacific staff reported that working from home was "Not applicable" to them, perhaps reflecting the higher propensity of Pacific staff to work in frontline/face-to-face roles.
10.8.1.3 Working part time
Women and caregivers continued to be the primary users of part-time working provisions. Pacific staff were highly represented in both of these groups. There were no differences in the importance Pacific and non-Pacific staff attached to part-time work, and similar numbers worked part time (11%). Of those who indicated part-time work applied to them, 32% of Pacific staff rated their organisation as "Poor", compared with 39% of non-Pacific staff. There were no differences in "Good" ratings.
10.8.2 Impacts of family responsibilities
Like their Māori colleagues, the support of their family was "Highly important" to more Pacific (91%) than non-Pacific (64%) public servants. In addition, Pacific staff were much more likely to report they had primary caregiving responsibilities (56% compared with 34% of non-Pacific staff). This section looks at the survey results for Pacific caregivers against non-Pacific caregivers.
More Pacific caregivers than non-Pacific caregivers considered the following work-life balance factors as "Highly important":
- having a manageable workload (77% compared with 69%)
- the ability to work flexible hours (73% compared with 65%)
- domestic/caregiver leave (69% compared with 54%)
- parental leave (68% compared with 40%)
- working a set number of hours (58% compared with 38%).
In rating their organisation against these factors, Pacific caregivers were more satisfied with their access to parental leave. 65% gave "Good" ratings, compared with 56% of non-Pacific caregivers. Ratings for the other factors were consistent across the two groups.
10.8.3 Accommodating outside commitments
Commitments outside work can extend beyond family. Other responsibilities, such as cultural, sporting or community involvements, may clash with work commitments. The largest difference between Pacific and non-Pacific staff was the relative importance each attached to leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations90. Like their Māori colleagues, Pacific peoples were much more likely to consider access to this type of leave as "Highly important". 56% of Pacific public servants indicated leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations was "Highly important", compared with 18% of non-Pacific staff. In rating their access to this type of leave, non-Pacific staff were more than twice as likely to indicate this factor was "Not applicable" to them. Of those who reported this factor was applicable to them: 40% of public servants gave "Good" ratings and 19% gave "Poor" ratings. These results were consistent for Pacific and non-Pacific staff.
Having their outside commitments accommodated was considered "Highly important" by more Pacific (74%) than non-Pacific staff (56%). There were no differences in how each group rated their organisation. Just over a third of public servants reported their organisation was "Good" at accommodating their outside commitments.
10.9 Conclusions
Pacific staff showed considerably higher levels of ambition than their non-Pacific colleagues. While most public servants were prepared to change work areas to progress their careers, this was particularly true for Pacific staff. Being in a role that provided them with advancement opportunities was "Highly important" to more Pacific than non-Pacific staff. A manager who encouraged and supported their career development was also more important to Pacific staff. Their higher ambitions may be due partly to the younger age structure of Pacific staff. Like their Māori colleagues, being caregivers did not appear to dampen Pacific public servants' ambitions.
The most significant barriers to career advancement for Pacific staff were not having the necessary experience or qualifications. This could be explained by their younger age structure and lower reported levels of tertiary qualifications. The training and development opportunities Pacific staff were seeking indicated they were keen to enhance their experience and qualifications.
The top development priority for public servants was being able to demonstrate their skills and abilities. While this was also "Highly important" to Pacific staff, they were more concerned with development opportunities where they learnt on the job and gained experience in a range of tasks. Access to mentoring and study leave was also highly valued by more Pacific than non-Pacific staff.
Pacific staff were motivated by the same factors that were important to other public servants. Both groups wanted their jobs to be well managed and to have a sense of accomplishment in their work. Pay and benefits were not the highest work priorities, but were relatively more important to Pacific than non-Pacific staff.
Possibly given their greater propensity to be primary caregivers, Pacific staff tended to attribute more importance to all the work-life balance factors that were surveyed than their non-Pacific colleagues, particularly the provisions relating to leave and working flexible hours. The largest difference between Pacific and non-Pacific public servants was the relative importance each attached to leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations. Pacific peoples were more than three times more likely than non-Pacific staff to report that this type of leave was "Highly important" to them.
It was not possible to examine the differences between Pacific men and Pacific women to determine the dual impacts of gender and ethnicity on career progression.
Chapter 11 Public Servants with Disabilities
The Public Service has long been regarded as an inclusive employer. A history of equal employment opportunity initiatives, including specific programmes that target people with disabilities, have all contributed to this reputation. The State Services Commission's Mainstream Supported Employment Programme is one such initiative. Mainstream works with a variety of disability sector agencies to facilitate the employment of people with significant disabilities within eligible State Services organisations, through the provision of salary and training subsidies.
This chapter looks at the differences in responses between public servants who experience disability and other staff to the Career Progression and Development Survey in relation to:
- Career aspirations and deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
- Workplace motivators
- Development and training experiences
- Support from managers or mentors
- Work environment
- Balancing work and other commitments.
It is important to note that staff who experience disability are not a homogenous group. They differ in terms of the type and level of impairment and, consequently, the type and level of support and assistance they may require in the workplace.
11.1 A profile of public servants with disabilities
The definition of disability used for the purposes of the Career Progression and Development Survey is any activity that is limited by a long-term condition or health problem that has lasted, or is expected to last, six months or more91.
In their responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey, 8% of public servants indicated they had a disability based on the above definition. The same proportion of staff reported this in the 2000 survey. When asked to describe their condition or health problem, the majority of staff indicated their condition was physical, followed by staff who reported their condition was sensory related (loss of hearing and/or vision).
Staff with disabilities earned similar amounts of money, had similar ethnic profiles and worked in the same regions as their colleagues without disabilities. They were, however, more highly represented in the associate professional occupational group (roles such as case worker and administration officer), with lower numbers in office clerk-type roles. Consistent with the tendency for disability to increase with age, staff who experience disability had a much older age profile than other public servants (see Figure 11.1). In addition, their length of service in both their current organisation and in the wider Public Service was generally greater than that of other staff. 29% of staff with disabilities, compared with 19% of other staff, had worked for their current organisation for 16 or more years.
Figure 11.1 Age structure of public servants with and without disabilities, 2005
Source: State Services Commission. Career Progression and Development Survey (2005)
11.2 Career aspirations
Staff who experience disability appeared to be less ambitious than their counterparts. 59% wanted to hold a higher-level position in the Public Service at some time in the future, compared with 69% of staff without disabilities. Perhaps due to their older age structure, staff with disabilities were more likely (19%) than other staff (12%) to report they had achieved all they wanted in their career.
Most public servants were relatively flexible about what they would do to progress their careers. Staff with disabilities were just as likely as their colleagues to report they would change work areas (60%) or move to the private sector (45%) to progress their careers. Moving to another geographical location was less attractive to public servants generally - only 27% were prepared to make such a move. The responses of staff with disabilities mirrored this finding.
11.3 Deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
Public servants were asked to indicate which factors had stopped them from applying for a higher-level job over the past 12 months (see Figure 11.2). Around a third of respondents were content with their current role. Staff with disabilities were more likely than their counterparts to report that they did not want a more senior role. Differences between the two groups in the deterrents to applying for a more senior role are discussed below.
Figure 11.2 What deters people from applying for a higher-level position?
|
Within the past 12 months, have any of these things stopped you from applying for a position at a higher level in the Public Service? |
||
|
Disability |
Other |
|
|
Concern that I would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities |
39% |
29% |
|
Preference to stay in my current job |
34% |
33% |
|
No desire to work additional hours |
33% |
19% |
|
Don't yet have the necessary experience |
31% |
37% |
|
Don't yet have the necessary qualifications |
30% |
23% |
|
No desire because of the political nature of higher-level positions |
28% |
17% |
|
Concern that the selection process would not be fair |
26% |
17% |
|
No desire to undertake extensive travel |
25% |
15% |
|
No desire to work in a higher-level position |
25% |
15% |
|
Lack of confidence in myself |
23% |
17% |
|
No desire to take on additional responsibilities |
21% |
11% |
|
Lack of support from my manager |
16% |
13% |
|
Lack of support from others |
10% |
7% |
11.3.1 Work and family clashes
The most common barrier to career advancement reported by staff who experience disability was a concern that they would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities. 39% reported this compared with 29% of other public servants. This is not surprising given that staff with disabilities were much more likely to indicate they were primary caregivers (45% compared with 34%). Perhaps linked to their concerns of balancing work and family life, staff with disabilities were also more likely to be deterred from applying for a higher-level role because they had no desire to work additional hours (33% compared with 19%) or travel extensively (25% compared with 15%).
11.3.2 Lack of readiness for a senior job
While balancing work and family commitments was the main factor that stopped staff with disabilities from applying for a senior role, the top deterrent for their colleagues was not having the necessary experience. 31% of staff who experience disability, compared to 37% of other staff, said a lack of experience was the main barrier to their career advancement.
Lacking the necessary qualifications was a concern for both groups, but more so for staff with disabilities. 30% were deterred from applying for a higher-level job because they did not have the necessary qualifications, compared with 23% of other public servants. This result may reflect that staff with disabilities were less likely to hold a tertiary qualification (41% compared with 48% of other staff).
11.3.3 Lack of fairness in selection processes
Staff with disabilities (26%) were more likely than their colleagues (17%) to report that concerns about the fairness of selection processes had deterred them from seeking a more senior role.
11.4 Motivations and values
The survey asked public servants to consider how important nine aspects of their work were to them (see Figure 11.3). The top five priorities for staff who experience disability were:
- a feeling of accomplishment
- effective management
- manageable workload
- job security
- challenging work.
Having a feeling of accomplishment in their work and being managed effectively were two factors that were considered "Highly important" to most public servants. Having a manageable workload was more important to staff who experience disability than to their colleagues. 73% reported having a manageable workload was "Highly important" compared with 64% of other public servants. This factor was third in terms of importance for staff with disabilities, yet it did not feature in the top five priorities of other public servants.
Figure 11.3 Importance of workplace factors and how the organisation rated - differences between public servants with and without disabilities
Having challenging work and pay and benefits were of relatively less importance to staff who experience disability. 71% compared with 77% of other public servants said that having challenging work was "Highly important" to them. 69% of staff with disabilities said pay and benefits were "Highly important", compared with 74% of other public servants.
Staff who experience disability placed considerably less importance than their colleagues on access to opportunities for advancement. Only 42% considered this factor as "Highly important", compared with 59% of other public servants. Given their older age profile, this result may simply reflect the achieved seniority and current career stage of staff with disabilities.
In rating their organisation, staff who experience disability appeared to be less satisfied than their colleagues with their access to most factors (see Figure 11.3). The biggest differences between the two groups related to having a manageable workload and job security. 24% of staff with disabilities, compared with 33% of other public servants, rated their organisation as "Good" at providing a manageable workload. 54% of staff with disabilities gave their organisation "Good" ratings for job security, compared with 64% of other public servants. Both groups were most satisfied with this factor, along with having challenging work and working a set number of hours. Additionally, both groups were least satisfied with access to advancement opportunities and their pay and benefits.
Of most importance to both groups was having a feeling of accomplishment in their work. 35% of staff who experience disability said their job was "Good" in this regard, compared with 41% of other public servants. Being managed effectively was also highly valued, however, satisfaction levels were not high for public servants generally. Only 27% rated their organisation as "Good" at providing effective management. Results were consistent for both groups.
11.5 Development and training opportunities
Like their colleagues, staff who experience disability considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for their career advancement. The top four priorities (see Figure 11.4) for both groups were:
- on-the-job training
- being able to demonstrate their skills and abilities
- gaining experience in a range of tasks
- training courses and seminars.
Staff with disabilities placed less importance than their colleagues on gaining experience in a range of tasks. 69% indicated this factor was "Highly important", compared with 76% of other public servants. Similarly, fewer staff with disabilities considered feedback on their career development (66% compared with 72%), working on special projects (45% compared with 54%) and acting in higher positions (34% compared with 44%) as "Highly important". The relative importance each group attributed to the remaining development factors was fairly consistent.
Staff who experience disability did not rate their organisations highly against each development factor (see Figure 11.4), and appeared to be less satisfied than their colleagues. They were most satisfied with the factors they considered most important, but their satisfaction levels were not high even for these factors. 25% of staff with disabilities, compared with 36% of other public servants, rated their organisation as "Good" at providing them with opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities. In terms of opportunities to gain experience in a range of tasks, 22% of public servants with disabilities rated their organisation as "Good", compared with 32% of their colleagues. Staff with disabilities were also less satisfied with their access to training courses. 25% rated their organisation as "Good", compared with 31% of other public servants.
Figure 11.4 Importance of career development opportunities and how the organisation rated - differences between public servants with and without disabilities
11.6 Managers and mentors - encouragement & support for career development
11.5.1 Managers and supervisors
Managers play a major role in the career development of their staff. Public servants were asked to consider how important various management functions were to them, and to rate their immediate managers or supervisors against each factor. Of particular value both to staff who experience disability and to other public servants was a manager who:
- communicated effectively
- encouraged staff input into decisions that directly affected them
- allowed staff the freedom to use their own initiative
- provided staff with the information they needed to do their job.
Nine out of ten public servants considered each of these four factors to be "Highly important". There were no differences in the relative importance each group attributed to these factors.
Staff who experience disability were less satisfied with being allowed the freedom to use their initiative. 50% reported their manager was "Good" in this regard, compared with 57% of their colleagues. They were also less satisfied with their manager when it came to getting the information they needed to do their job. 24% said their manager was "Poor" in this regard, compared with 17% of other staff.
Staff with disabilities placed less importance on a manager who provided constructive feedback on their performance (81% compared with 87% rated this "Highly important") and a manager who encouraged and supported their career development (73% compared with 79%). Staff with disabilities were less satisfied with this latter factor. 29% said their manager was "Good" at supporting their career development, compared with 35% of other staff.
11.5.2 Mentors
Public servants were asked how important having access to mentoring or coaching was to their career development. 63% of public servants said it was "Highly important". Results were consistent for staff who experience disability and other staff. Public servants were generally unsatisfied with their access to mentoring or coaching. Staff with disabilities reported lower levels of satisfaction. Only 10% rated their organisation as "Good" at providing mentoring or coaching, compared with 14% of other staff.
The number of public servants who have mentors has slightly increased since 2000. 20% of public servants reported that they had a mentor. These results were consistent for staff regardless of disability status. Most mentoring relationships were not part of a formal mentoring scheme. There appeared to be a demand for such a scheme from both groups. More staff with disabilities (48%) than other staff (45%) reported they would like to have access to a formal mentoring scheme.
Most public servants who had mentors reported that mentoring had assisted them with their career development. However, staff who experience disability were less likely to indicate this. 76% reported that mentoring had assisted their career advancement, compared with 92% of staff without disabilities.
11.6 Work environment
The Career Progression and Development Survey asked public servants to consider how important several workplace environment factors were to them, and to rate their department on the provision of these factors. Like other public servants, staff who experience disability placed high importance on an environment where: they were treated fairly, staff worked co-operatively, and their ideas were valued. The importance each group attributed to these factors was consistent. Nine out of ten public servants considered it was "Highly important" to work in an environment where they were treated fairly and where staff worked co-operatively. Similarly, 82% of public servants reported it was "Highly important" to work in an environment where their ideas were valued.
Having a good work-area design was no more important to staff who experience disability than to their colleagues. 63% of public servants reported this was "Highly important". Despite their greater tendency to have caregiving responsibilities, staff with disabilities were no more likely as their colleagues to report that accommodating their commitments outside of work was "Highly important" to them.
In rating their organisation against each work environment factor, staff who experience disability were less satisfied with all five factors. 29% rated their organisation as "Good" at treating their staff fairly (compared with 38% of other staff), while 25% gave "Poor" ratings (compared with 19% of other staff). A team that worked well together was valued highly. 29% of staff with disabilities rated their organisation as "Good" in this regard, compared with 37% of other public servants. Staff with disabilities were also less satisfied with their work-area design. 40% said it was "Poor", compared with 31% of other staff.
11.7 Balancing work and personal lives
The Public Service has historically been seen as less pressured and more 'family-friendly' than the private sector. Responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey give some indication of how well public servants perceived their organisations were doing in terms of work-life balance.
11.7.1 Hours of work and flexibility
11.7.1.1 Working additional hours
Since the 2000 survey there has been a decline in the number of public servants who worked more hours a week than they were employed for. Having more staff on the job92, and an increased focus on work-life balance, may account for this decline. 68% of public servants reported they usually worked additional hours. This was consistent with the results for staff who experience disability. Having a manageable workload was "Highly important" to more staff with disabilities (73%) than other public servants (64%). In rating their organisation, staff with disabilities were less satisfied with this factor. Around one in four said their organisation was "Good" at providing a manageable workload, compared with one in three of staff without disabilities.
11.7.1.2 Working flexible hours
56% of public servants considered working flexible hours to be "Highly important" to them in their work. This result was consistent for both groups. However, staff with disabilities were more likely to rate their organisation as "Poor" at providing flexible work hours. 20% reported this, compared with 13% of other staff.
11.7.1.3 Working part time93
Working part time was more important to staff who experience disability. 19% reported it was "Highly important", compared with 13% of other public servants. In addition, greater numbers of staff with disabilities worked part time (15% compared with 11%). This may be attributed to their greater tendency to be caregivers. There were no differences between each group in how they rated their access to this factor.
11.7.2 Impacts of family responsibilities
Despite their greater propensity to have caregiving responsibilities, there were no differences between staff who experience disability and other public servants in the relative importance each attributed to domestic/caregiver leave and parental leave. Of those who indicated domestic/caregiver leave applied to them, staff with disabilities were more inclined to perceive their access as "Poor" (23% compared with 14% of other staff). There were no differences in how each group rated their access to parental leave.
11.7.3 Accommodating outside commitments
Commitments outside of work can extend beyond family. Other responsibilities, such as cultural, sporting or community involvements, may clash with work commitments. Greater proportions of staff with disabilities (26%) compared with other staff (19%) considered leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations to be "Highly important". Of those who indicated this type of leave applied to them, 40% of public servants rated their access as "Good". There were no differences between each group in how they rated their access to this type of leave.
11.8 Conclusions
At first glance staff who experience disability appeared to be less ambitious than other public servants. They were less likely to want a higher-level role and were more likely to report that they had achieved all they wanted in their careers. Unlike their colleagues, opportunities for advancement were not a high priority for staff with disabilities. Given their older age profile, these findings may simply reflect the current career stage of staff with disabilities. However, a sizable proportion (59%) still aspired to a higher-level position at some time in the future.
The main barrier that deterred public servants from applying for a senior role was not having the necessary experience. This was of less concern to staff who experience disability, whose tenure in their current organisation and in the wider Public Service was generally greater than that of other staff. Given their greater tendency to be caregivers, staff with disabilities were more concerned that a senior job would have a negative impact on their family commitments. Perhaps linked to these concerns, they were reluctant to take up a higher-level role if it meant working additional hours or extensive travel. Not having the necessary qualifications was also seen as a barrier to progression.
Two factors that were "Highly important" to most public servants, including staff who experience disability, were having a feeling of accomplishment in their work and being managed effectively. Staff with disabilities attributed less importance than other public servants to challenging work and pay and benefits. Instead, they were more concerned with having a manageable workload. They did not rate their organisation well in this regard, and were less satisfied than their colleagues.
Like other public servants, staff with disabilities considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for their career development. On-the-job training, opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities, and gaining experience in a range of tasks were the three top priorities for all public servants. Staff with disabilities were particularly unsatisfied with these last two factors.
Staff who experience disability were just as likely as their colleagues to have a mentor. Most public servants who had mentors reported that mentoring had assisted them with their career development. However, staff with disabilities were less likely than other staff to report this.
Maintaining a sense of balance between work and family commitments was clearly a priority for staff who experience disability. Perhaps due to their older age structure, their career/life stage, or their propensity to be caregivers, time spent with family or accommodating other responsibilities outside of work, was highly valued. The responses of staff with disabilities indicate this was an area where they were less willing to compromise.
Chapter 12 Managers in the Public Service
Managers play a key role in the Public Service. As well as providing leadership, they ensure Public Service organisations are run efficiently and effectively, and are responsive to the public they serve. They also influence the career development of their staff.
Managers are also employees. This chapter looks at the differences in responses between managers and non-managers to the Career Progression and Development Survey in relation to:
- Career aspirations and deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
- Workplace motivators
- Development and training experiences
- Support from managers or mentors
- Work environment
- Balancing work and other commitments.
12.1 A profile of managers in the Public Service
Sample respondents for the Career Progression and Development Survey were drawn from the State Services Commission's Human Resource Capability Survey94 (HRC) data as at June 2004. Consequently, figures reported in this section relating to the profile of managers are also from the HRC dataset as at June 2004 unless otherwise stated.
The managers' occupation group accounted for 9% of the Public Service workforce. Most managers worked in administrative roles (48%), followed by office managers (24%) and general managers (7%). These managerial groups were relatively generic categories, based on the tasks and skills required of a particular role.
While women made up 59% of the Public Service, they only made up 46% of the managers' group in the Public Service, and 36% of senior management roles (tier 1, 2 and 3 managers). At the time of the survey, women held 24% of Public Service chief executive positions95. 13% of managers were Māori and 4% were Pacific peoples.
Managers were typically older on average than non-managers. The median age for Public Service managers was 46 years, compared with 42 years for non-managers. Not surprisingly, given their age and seniority, managers have generally worked in their current organisation and in the wider Public Service longer than their non-managerial counterparts. In their responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey, 29% of managers, compared with 18% of non-managers, reported they had worked in their current organisation for 16 years or more. Just over half reported they had worked in the Public Service for 16 years or more, compared with a third of non-managers.
Over half of all managers worked in the Wellington region (55%), followed by Auckland (13%), Waikato and Canterbury (both 7%).
12.2 Career aspirations
Managers showed high aspirations to reach senior positions in the Public Service. Just over three quarters (76%) reported they wanted a higher-level role, compared with 67% of non-managers. In addition, they were nearly twice as likely as non-managers to want to become a chief executive (23% compared with 13%). Similar findings were reported in the 2000 survey.
Public servants were relatively flexible about what they were prepared to do to advance their careers. This was particularly true for managers. They were more willing than non-managers to move to another geographical area (36% compared with 26%), move into another work area (68% compared with 60%), and move to the private sector (54% compared with 48%) to progress their careers.
12.3 Deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
Figure 12.1 What deters people from applying for a higher-level position?
|
Within the past 12 months, have any of these things stopped you from applying for a position at a higher level in the Public Service? |
||
|
Manager |
Other |
|
|
Preference to stay in my current job |
35% |
33% |
|
Concern that I would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities |
33% |
29% |
|
Don't yet have the necessary experience |
30% |
38% |
|
Don't yet have the necessary qualifications |
17% |
25% |
|
Concern that the selection process would not be fair |
16% |
18% |
|
No desire to work additional hours |
15% |
21% |
|
No desire because of the political nature of higher-level positions |
15% |
19% |
|
Lack of confidence in myself |
14% |
18% |
|
Lack of support from my manager |
12% |
14% |
|
No desire to undertake extensive travel |
12% |
16% |
|
No desire to work in a higher-level position |
11% |
17% |
|
No desire to take on additional responsibilities |
7% |
12% |
Around a third of managers and non-managers reported that a preference to stay in their current job had stopped them from applying for higher-level role. Not having the necessary experience or qualifications was much less likely to deter managers than non-managers from applying for a higher-level role. Managers were more concerned with the perceived impact a higher-level role would have on their family responsibilities96. 33% reported this had stopped them from applying for a senior role, compared with 29% of non-managers. Despite these concerns, managers were less deterred by the prospect of taking on additional responsibilities (7% compared with 12%), working longer hours (15% compared with 21%), or travelling extensively (12% compared with 16%). Despite their familiarity with selection processes in general, managers were just as likely as non-managers to report that they had not applied for a higher-level role because they perceived the selection process would not be fair.
12.4 Motivations and values
The survey asked public servants to consider how important nine aspects of their work were to them (see Figure 12.2). The top five priorities for managers were:
- a feeling of accomplishment
- challenging work
- effective management
- reputable organisation
- pay and benefits.
The top three priorities for managers were also the factors that were most important to public servants generally. Of particular significance to managers was access to challenging work. 87% said this was "Highly important", compared with 75% of non-managers. While there were no differences in the relative importance each group attached to working for a reputable organisation, this factor was fourth in terms of importance for managers, but was a lower priority for non-managers. Fewer managers than non-managers considered pay and benefits (63% compared with 75%), job security (51% compared with 70%), and having a manageable workload (45% compared with 68%) as "Highly important".
Figure 12.2 Importance of workplace factors and how the organisation rated - differences between managers and non-managers
In rating their organisation, managers were generally more satisfied than non-managers with their access to the factors they considered most important (see Figure 12.2). Managers' expectations of having challenging work and working for a reputable organisation were largely being met. 76% gave "Good" ratings for challenging work, compared with 58% of non-managers. Around half of public servants said their organisations' reputation was "Good", while 10% said it was "Poor". These results were consistent for managers.
Managers were more satisfied than non-managers with their sense of accomplishment. Half gave "Good" ratings, compared with 38% of non-managers. This is not surprising, given that managers are likely to have more control over the work that they do. Only a third of managers rated their organisation as "Good" at providing effective management, compared with 26% of non-managers, despite their greater influence on the overall management of these organisations. In addition, 21% gave "Poor" ratings, compared with 27% of non-managers. Perhaps reflecting their higher earning potential, managers were more likely to rate their pay and benefits as "Good" (39% compared with 23% of non-managers). However, this factor was of less importance to managers than non-managers.
12.5 Development and training opportunities
As in 2000, public servants considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for their career advancement.
The top five priorities (see Figure 12.3) for both groups were:
- being able to demonstrate their skills and abilities
- gaining experience in a range of tasks
- on-the-job training
- feedback on their career development needs
- training courses and seminars.
There were no differences in the relative importance each group attached to opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities, and feedback on their career development needs. Managers placed less importance on the remaining priorities, particularly on-the-job training. 70% reported this was "Highly important", compared with 82% of non-managers.
Not unexpectedly, more managers (53%) than non-managers (41%) reported that opportunities to act up in a senior role were "Highly important". However, compared with other development opportunities, acting up was not a high priority for managers. Consistent with the relatively low importance managers attached to training courses and seminars, fewer managers considered study leave to further their qualifications as "Highly important" (36% compared with 46%).
Figure 12.3 Importance of career development opportunities and how the organisation rated - differences between managers and non-managers
Managers were most satisfied with the development factors that they considered most important. They were more satisfied than non-managers with the extent to which they could demonstrate their skills and abilities (44% compared with 33%), gain experience in a range of tasks (40% compared with 30%), and attend seminars and training courses (36% compared with 29%). There were no differences between managers and non-managers in how they rated their access to on-the-job training. 30% of public servants gave "Good" ratings and 27% gave "Poor" ratings for this factor. Despite the relative importance both groups attributed to receiving feedback on their career development needs, satisfaction levels were low. 17% of public servants said their organisation was "Good" at providing feedback, but 42% said it was "Poor". Results for this factor were consistent for both groups.
Managers appeared to be more satisfied than non-managers with most of the development factors, including those that they considered less important, such as working on special projects and acting up. Managers were much more likely to indicate opportunities to act up were applicable to them. Adjusting for "Not applicable" responses, managers were nearly twice as likely to give "Good" ratings (31% compared with 16%) and less likely to give "Poor" ratings (31% compared with 48%) to this factor.
12.6 Managers and mentors - encouragement and support for career development
12.6.1 Managers and supervisors
Public servants were asked to consider how important various management functions were to them, and to rate their immediate managers or supervisors against each factor. Of particular value to both groups was a manager who:
- communicated effectively
- allowed staff the freedom to use their own initiative
- encouraged staff input into decisions that directly affected them
- provided constructive feedback about their performance
- provided staff with the information they needed to do their job.
Having a manager who gave staff the freedom to use their own initiative was "Highly important" to more managers (92%) than other public servants (90%). Of less importance to managers was a manager who took a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family commitments (72% compared with 82%), acknowledged good performance (78% compared with 84%), encouraged and supported their career development (75% compared with 80%), and provided them with appropriate information to do their job (86% compared with 89%).
In rating their own managers on the overall support they received, managers painted a positive picture of senior managers in the Public Service. They were generally more satisfied than non-managers with the support they received. In particular, they were more likely to report their manager was "Good" at letting them use their initiative (64% compared with 55%), being involved in decisions that affected them (49% compared with 41%), and providing the information they needed to do their job (41% compared with 35%). The factor both groups were most satisfied with was the extent to which their manager took a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family commitments.
Managers rated their own managers less well in relation to aspects of management associated with their career advancement, especially in providing performance feedback and actively encouraging and supporting career development. These are areas that need addressing for career progression.
12.6.2 Mentors
Public servants were asked how important having access to mentoring or coaching was to their career development. 63% of public servants considered mentoring to be "Highly important". These results were consistent for both managers and non-managers. Public servants were generally unsatisfied with their access to mentoring. 14% rated their organisation as "Good" and 46% as "Poor" for this factor. Again, results were consistent for both groups.
The number of public servants who had mentors has slightly increased since 2000. More managers (25%) had a mentor than non-managers (19%). Most mentoring relationships were not part of a formal mentoring scheme. There was a demand for such a scheme, particularly from managers (53% compared with 44% of non-managers).
Nine out of ten of public servants who had mentors reported that mentoring had assisted them with their career development. Results were consistent for managers and non-managers.
In the 2000 survey, younger people were more likely to use mentoring to help establish their careers. In that survey, non-managers were just as likely as managers to have a mentor. The focus of mentoring seems to have changed somewhat, and in 2005 is being used more as a tool to assist senior staff to advance up the management ladder.
12.7 Work environment
The Career Progression and Development Survey asked public servants to consider how important several workplace environment factors were to them, and to rate their organisation on the provision of these factors. Like other public servants, managers considered being treated fairly (91% compared with 95% of non-managers), working in an environment where staff worked co-operatively (90% for both groups), and where their ideas were valued (86% compared with 81%), as the most "Highly important" aspects of their work environment. Managers placed considerably less importance than non-managers on having a good work-area design (54% compared with 64%) and the ability to accommodate their outside commitments (49% compared with 58%).
Managers were generally more satisfied than non-managers with their work environment. Nearly half rated their organisation as "Good" in relation to having their ideas valued, compared with a third of non-managers. Managers were much more likely than other public servants to give "Good" ratings in terms of being treated fairly (46% compared with 36%). As managerial discretion can be associated with fairness issues, access to information about why decisions were made may have positively influenced managers' perceptions about being treated fairly. However, despite this 'big picture' knowledge, 15% of managers gave "Poor" ratings (compared with 21% of non-managers).
Overall, the differences between managers and non-managers probably reflect the extent to which managers have greater control over their work environment.
12.8 Balancing work and personal lives
Providing the right balance between work and life has become increasingly important to the Public Service in attracting and retaining talent. The Public Service has historically been seen as less pressured and more 'family-friendly' than the private sector. Responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey give some indication of how well public servants perceived their organisations were doing in terms of work-life balance.
12.8.1 Hours of work and flexibility
12.8.1.1 Working additional hours
Since the 2000 survey there has been a decline in the proportion of public servants who worked more hours a week than they were employed for. Having more staff on the job97, and an increased focus on work-life balance, may account for this decline. 88% of managers reported they usually worked additional hours, compared with 64% of non-managers. In the 2000 survey, 96% of managers (compared with 71% of non-managers) indicated this. In 2005, managers were three times as likely as non-managers to work an additional 15 or more hours per week (17% compared with 5%).
Having a manageable workload was less important to managers than non-managers. 45% reported this was "Highly important" compared with 68% of non-managers. They were also less satisfied with this factor. 26% gave "Poor" ratings, compared with 21% of non-managers.
12.8.1.2 Working flexible hours
Working flexible hours was clearly the most important work-life balance factor surveyed, and the factor that public servants were most satisfied with. 44% of managers considered working flexible hours as "Highly important", compared with 58% of non-managers. Both groups were equally satisfied with access to this factor. Just over half rated their organisation as "Good" in this regard.
12.8.1.3 Working part time
Since the 2000 survey there has been an increase in the number of public servants who work part time. However, most of this increase has occurred in administrative, clerical-type roles. In their responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey, only 2% of managers reported that they worked part time98, compared with 12% of non-managers. In addition, working part time was not particularly important to managers. Only 5% reported these provisions were "Highly important".
12.8.1.4 Impacts of family responsibilities
Managers were less likely than non-managers to report they had primary caregiving responsibilities (31% compared with 36%). While domestic/caregiver leave and parental leave were less important to managers than other public servants, managers were more satisfied with their access to both provisions. Of those who indicated it applied to them, 60% of managers (compared with 53% of non-managers) rated their organisations as "Good" at providing parental leave, while 55% of managers (compared with 47% of non-managers) rated their access to domestic/caregiver leave as "Good".
Managers were more concerned with the perceived negative impact a higher-level role could have on their family responsibilities. Besides a preference to stay in their current role, this was the second most common reason deterring managers from applying for a senior role in the Public Service.
12.8.1.5 Other non-work responsibilities
Commitments outside work can extend beyond family. Managers placed less importance on leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations. 13% considered it as "Highly important", compared with 21% of non-managers. Perhaps reflecting the increased autonomy managers have over their work and time, managers appeared to be more satisfied than non-managers with this factor. Of those who indicated this factor applied to them, 47% of managers gave "Good" ratings, compared with 39% of non-managers. Both groups were equally satisfied with the way in which their out of work commitments were accommodated.
12.9 Conclusions
Managers showed high aspirations to reach senior positions in the Public Service. They were more willing than non-managers to move to another location, work area or to the private sector to progress their careers. While a lack of experience or qualifications had deterred non-managers from applying for a higher-level role in the Public Service, managers were more concerned with the impact such a role would have on their family responsibilities. A third reported this conflict had deterred them from seeking a more senior position. Despite this concern, they were less deterred by the prospect of taking on more responsibilities, or travelling extensively. Both groups generally saw their opportunities for advancement within their own organisation as "Poor".
Most public servants were motivated by similar things. Of most importance were having a sense of accomplishment and challenge in their work, and being managed effectively. Managers placed more importance on challenging work and working for a reputable organisation. Their expectations in these areas were largely being met. Despite their greater influence on the overall management of the organisations in which they worked, managers' overall satisfaction with being managed effectively themselves was not high.
Like other public servants, managers considered informal development opportunities more important than formal training for their career development. They were generally more satisfied than non-managers with their development opportunities. Managers were most satisfied with the development factors they attributed significant importance to, such as opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities and gaining experience in a range of tasks. Acting up in a senior role, while of more importance to managers, was a lower priority relative to other development opportunities.
Overall, managers painted a positive picture of their own managers in the Public Service. They were generally more satisfied than non-managers with the support they received from their managers, particularly in being able to use their initiative and being involved in decisions that affected them. However, both groups rated their managers less well in relation to aspects of management associated with their career advancement, notably in providing performance feedback and actively encouraging and supporting career development. Similar findings were reported in the 2000 survey. This remains an area for attention.
Since the first survey conducted in 2000, the focus of mentoring seems to have changed, from helping younger people establish their careers to assisting senior staff advance up the management ladder. One in four managers had a mentor and nearly all reported that mentoring had assisted them in their career development.
Chapter 13 Age Groups in the Public Service
This chapter looks at the differences in responses of public servants in three different age groups to the Career Progression and Development Survey. The groups were public servants aged under 30, public servants aged 30 to 44 years and those aged 45 and over99. This chapter, focusing on differences by age, is a new addition to the 2005 report. Analysis of the 2005 survey results suggests some areas of difference in the career progression and development needs of these age groups.
The responses of the three groups are in relation to:
- Career aspirations and deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
- Workplace motivators
- Development and training experiences
- Support from managers or mentors
- Work environment
- Balancing work and other commitments.
13.1 A profile of public servants in different age groups
Sample respondents for the Career Progression and Development Survey were drawn from the State Services Commission's Human Resource Capability Survey100 (HRC) data as at June 2004. Figures reported in this section on the profile of public servants in each age group are also from the HRC dataset as at June 2004, unless otherwise stated.
13.1.1 Younger public servants (aged under 30 years)
Public servants aged less than 30 years made up 16% of the Public Service (see Figure 11.1). Around two thirds of this group were female. They were an ethnically diverse group, with 21% identifying as Māori and 14% as Pacific peoples. This was not surprising, given that these ethnic groups tended to have much younger age profiles.
Younger public servants were highly represented in the Associate Professional, Office Clerk and Customer Service occupational groups. Their three most common occupations were: case worker, general clerk and call centre operator. Fewer younger public servants worked as prison officers and in management positions.
Public servants in the younger age group were more likely to hold a tertiary qualification than their older colleagues. In their responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey, 53% indicated they had a tertiary qualification. 71% of public servants aged under 30 earned less than $40,000.
13.1.2 Mid-career public servants (aged 30 to 44 years)
Public servants aged 30 to 44 years made up 44% of the Public Service. Women accounted for the majority of mid-career public servants (61%). 19% of staff in this age group were Māori and 8% were Pacific peoples.
Mid-career public servants were highly represented in the Professional and Science/Technical occupational groups. Their three most common occupations were: case worker, general clerk and policy analyst. Fewer public servants aged 30 to 44 worked in customer service type roles.
In their responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey, 48% indicated they had a tertiary qualification. 42% of mid-career public servants earned less than $40,000, while 8% earned over $80,000.
Mid-career staff were much more likely than older public servants to be caregivers. Nearly half (48%) had caregiving responsibilities compared with 16% of younger public servants and 29% of older public servants.
13.1.3 Older public servants (aged over 45 years)
Older public servants (over 45 years) made up 41% of the Public Service. 53% of staff in this age group were women. 14% identified as Māori and 3% as Pacific peoples.
Older public servants were highly represented in the Protective Service Worker and Managerial occupational groups. The three most common occupations were: general clerk, prison officer and case worker. Fewer public servants aged over 45 years worked in customer service type roles.
In their responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey, 47% indicated they had a tertiary qualification. 35% of older public servants earned less than $40,000, while 11% earned over $80,000.
In terms of experience, one third of public servants aged over 45 years had worked in their current position for 16 years or more, compared with 14% of the mid-career age group. In addition, 60% of older public servants had worked in the wider Public Service for 16 years or more, compared with 23% of their mid-career colleagues.
Figure 13.1 Public Service Age Distribution 2005
Source: State Services Commission. Human Resource Capability Survey (2004
13.2 Career aspirations
Public servants aged under 30 were the most ambitious age group, followed closely by those aged 30 to 44 years. Of the younger group, 80% reported that they would like to hold a higher-level position in the Public Service at some time in the future. Similarly, 74% of the mid-career age group wanted a higher-level position, while just 59% of the 45-plus age group had this ambition. Both the younger and mid-career public servants were more likely to report that they would like to become a chief executive (18%) than their older colleagues (10%).
Public servants in the 45-plus age group were much more likely to report that they had achieved all they wanted in their career (23%) compared with 6% of the mid-career age group and 3% of the younger age group. Nearly half of the younger and mid-career groups saw their organisation as a training ground for their next move within that organisation, while only a third of the older group reported this. In addition, younger public servants were more likely than the other groups to see their current position as a training ground for a move to another organisation (55%) compared with 43% of the mid-career group and 24% of the older age group.
Younger public servants were more flexible than older public servants about what they would do to progress their careers. The under 30 age group were more prepared to move to another work area (78%) compared with 69% of the mid-career group and 49% of the older group. In addition, 66% were prepared to move to the private sector, compared with 57% of public servants aged 30 to 44 years, and 34% of public servants aged over 45. Younger public servants were also more willing to move to another geographical area (45%) compared with 30% of the mid-career group and 20% of the 45-plus group. Older public servants (41%) were more likely want to stay in their current position for the long-term, while 27% of mid-career public servants and 18% of younger public servants reported this.
13.3 Deterrents to seeking a higher-level job
Public servants were asked to indicate which factors had stopped them from applying for a higher-level job over the past 12 months (see Figure 13.2). Public servants preference to stay in their current role increased with age.
Figure 13.2 What deters people from applying for a higher-level position?
|
Within the past 12 months, have any of these things stopped you from applying for a position at a higher level in the Public Service? (Results for different age groups) |
|||
|
<30 |
30-44 |
45+ |
|
|
Don't yet have the necessary experience |
66% |
41% |
23% |
|
Concern that I would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities |
19% |
36% |
28% |
|
Preference to stay in my current job |
25% |
29% |
41% |
|
Don't yet have the necessary qualifications |
31% |
26% |
19% |
|
No desire to relocate to another area |
18% |
26% |
35% |
|
No desire to work additional hours |
13% |
20% |
23% |
|
Lack of confidence in myself |
22% |
20% |
14% |
|
No desire because of the political nature of higher-level positions |
16% |
18% |
20% |
|
Concern that the selection process would not be fair |
15% |
18% |
19% |
|
No desire to undertake extensive travel |
10% |
16% |
18% |
|
No desire to work in a higher-level position |
9% |
14% |
20% |
|
Lack of support from my manager |
14% |
14% |
14% |
|
No desire to take on additional responsibilities |
8% |
10% |
14% |
13.3.1 Work and family clashes
Concern that they would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities was highest in the 30 to 44 age group. 36% reported this. It was also a concern for 28% of the 45-plus age group, but only 19% of the under 30 group.
Over a third of public servants aged 45 and over reported that not wanting to relocate to another area had stopped them from applying for a position at a higher level in the Public Service. This age group was the most likely to work in rural areas (9%) compared with 7% of the mid-career age group and 3% of the younger age group.
13.3.2 Lack of readiness for a senior job
Two thirds of the under 30 age group reported that lack of experience had stopped them from applying for a higher level position. This was also the main barrier for mid-career staff (41%), but not for older public servants (23%). Around one fifth of public servants in the younger and mid-career age groups also reported that a lack of self-confidence was a barrier.
Lacking the necessary qualifications was the second highest barrier for the younger age group (31%). This was also a barrier for a quarter of the mid-career age group and nearly one fifth of the older age group.
13.3.3 Lack of fairness in selection processes
Older public servants (19%) were more likely than younger public servants (15%) to report that they had not applied for a higher-level role because they perceived the selection process would not be fair.
13.4 Motivations and values
The survey asked public servants to consider how important nine aspects of their work were to them (see Figure 13.3). Having a feeling of accomplishment in their work, and being managed effectively, were the factors considered "Highly important" by the largest proportions of all age groups.
Figure 13.3 Importance of workplace factors and how the organisation rated - differences between public servants in different age groups
Pay and benefits were more important to younger and mid-career staff than to their older colleagues. Nearly three quarters of public servants aged over 45 reported that having challenging work and working for a reputable organisation were "Highly important". The latter factor was less important for mid-career (63%) and younger public servants (54%).
The biggest differences between the three groups related to opportunities for advancement. This factor was the third most important factor for the younger age group, with 81% reporting that such opportunities were "Highly important". The relative importance of this factor decreased with age. 63% of the mid-career age group and 45% of the 45-plus age group considered this factor "Highly important".
In rating their organisation, staff were most satisfied with having challenging work and working for a reputable organisation. Staff in all age groups gave similar ratings for working for a reputable organisation, while satisfaction with challenging work increased with age.
Having a feeling of accomplishment in their jobs was of most importance to all groups, however, public servants' satisfaction in this area increased with age. Only 29% of younger public servants gave "Good" ratings, compared with 40% of the mid-career group and 45% of the older group. There were no statistically significant differences between age groups in ratings for effective management. 27% of public servants gave "Good" ratings and 26% gave "Poor" ratings.
Satisfaction with pay and benefits was generally low, especially for the younger age group. Only 21% of this group gave "Good" ratings, while around a quarter of the other age groups did so. However, younger staff (38%) were more satisfied than their colleagues (31%) with having a manageable workload.
Satisfaction with opportunities for advancement was highest for the younger age group. However, the younger age group still gave this factor more "Poor" ratings (31%) than "Good" ratings (21%). In the mid-career age group, 16% gave "Good" ratings and 40% gave "Poor" ratings. Older public servants were even less satisfied with opportunities for advancement, with only 12% rating their organisation as "Good" and nearly half (47%) rating it as "Poor".
13.5 Development and training opportunities
All age groups considered informal development opportunities to be more important than formal training for their career advancement. The top three priorities (see Figure 13.4) for all three age groups were:
- being able to demonstrate their skills and abilities
- on-the-job training
- gaining experience in a range of tasks.
The importance staff placed on each of the training and development factors decreased with age. However, over 50% of public servants aged 45-plus reported the top six factors to be "Highly important" to them. Younger public servants placed more importance than other groups on all training and development factors. Gaining experience in a range of tasks was the most important factor for the younger age group (89%) compared with 80% of the mid-career age group and 66% of the older age group. The most important factor for the mid-career and 45-plus age groups was demonstrating their skills and abilities (84% and 78% respectively), however, this was even more "Highly important" to the younger age group (87%). On-the-job training was the second most important factor for all groups, particularly the younger group (89%) compared with 82% of the mid-career group and 76% of the older group.
Figure 13.4 Importance of career development opportunities and how the organisation rated - differences between public servants in different age groups
Satisfaction with training and development factors was generally low. Younger public servants were more satisfied than other age groups with most training and development factors, including on-the-job training (36%), gaining experience in a range of tasks (35%), feedback on their career development needs (21%), and access to mentoring or coaching (16%).
35% of public servants were satisfied with demonstrating their skills and abilities, and 30% gave "Good" ratings for training courses and seminars. 23% of public servants gave "Good" ratings for working on special projects.
13.6 Managers and mentors - encouragement & support for career development
13.6.1 Managers and supervisors
Managers play an important role in the career development of their staff. Public servants were asked to consider how important various management functions were to them, and to rate their immediate managers or supervisors against each factor. Of particular value were managers who:
- communicated effectively
- encouraged staff input into decisions that directly affected them
- allowed staff the freedom to use their own initiative
- provided constructive feedback about their performance
- provided staff with the information they needed to do their job.
Nine out of ten public servants considered each of these factors to be "Highly important".
There were no differences in the relative importance each age group attributed to a manager who communicated effectively, or who provided staff with the information they needed to do their job. A similar proportion also thought that regular and constructive feedback on their performance was "Highly important", although this was slightly less important for older public servants. Having a manager who acknowledged good performance was important to all age groups, but more so to the younger age group (87%).
The most significant difference between the age groups was in the importance attributed to having a manager who encouraged and supported their career development. This was "Highly important" for most public servants under 30 years (88%), followed by those aged 30 to 44 years (81%), but less important for public servants aged 45 and above (74%). A manager who took a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family commitments was "Highly important" to more mid-career staff (84%) than the younger or older groups (78%). This may be attributed to the greater propensity of the mid-career group to have caregiving responsibilities.
Greater proportions of the mid-career and older age groups thought it was "Highly important" (91%) to have a manager who allowed them freedom to use their initiative, compared with 87% of the younger age group. The mid-career age group were more likely than their younger colleagues to report that it was "Highly important" to have a manager who encouraged their input into decisions that directly affected them.
In rating their managers on the overall support they received, public servants gave similar ratings irrespective of age. Around half of mid-career and older public servants described the level of support they received from their immediate manager as "Good", while 54% of younger public servants did so. Public servants under 30 were less likely to give their manager "Poor" ratings about the level of support they received (13%) compared with 18% for mid-career and older groups. Younger public servants gave lower ratings for their manager allowing them the freedom to use their initiative in performing their job (50%) compared with 58% for mid-career public servants and 56% for older staff.
Satisfaction with managers encouraging and supporting public servants' career development decreased with age, from 39% of the younger age group to 31% of the 45-plus age group. The older and mid-career age group were more satisfied with having a manager who took a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family commitments (58% and 59% respectively) gave "Good" ratings, compared with 53% of the younger age group.
13.6.2 Mentors
Public servants were asked how important having access to mentoring or coaching was to their career development. Mentoring was "Highly important" to more than two thirds of all public servants under 45 years, but to fewer of the 45-plus age group (55%). All age groups were more likely to give "Poor" than "Good" ratings for access to mentoring or coaching, and feedback on their career development needs. Mid-career public servants were more likely to give "Poor" ratings (48%) compared with 42% of younger public servants and 44% of older staff.
Public servants from all age groups were equally likely to have a mentor, and to report that mentoring had assisted their career development. Mid-career public servants were less likely than other groups to have made contact with their mentor through a formal mentoring scheme (10%). However, half of mid-career public servants wanted to have access to a formal mentoring scheme, followed by public servants under 30 years (44%) and the 45-plus age group (41%).
13.7 Work environment
The Career Progression and Development Survey asked public servants to consider how important several workplace environment factors were to them, and to rate their organisation on the provision of these factors. Public servants from all three age groups placed similar importance on having their ideas valued, being treated fairly, working co-operatively, and good work-area design. Accommodating outside commitments was "Highly important" to proportionately more younger and mid-career age groups (63%) than it was to their older colleagues (49%).
In rating their organisation against each work environment factor, the results were similar for the different age groups. Over a third of all age groups gave "Good" ratings for having their ideas valued in their job. However, the older (20%) and mid-career groups (18%) were more likely to be dissatisfied with this factor than the younger group (13%). The mid-career group (34%) was less likely to give "Good" ratings for staff working co-operatively than the younger and older groups (37% and 38% respectively). Satisfaction with accommodating outside commitments decreased with age. 41% of the under 30 age group gave "Good" ratings for this factor, while 36% of the 45-plus age group did so.
13.8 Balancing work and personal lives
The Public Service has historically been seen as less pressured and more 'family-friendly' than the private sector. Responses to the Career Progression and Development Survey give some indication of how well public servants perceived their organisations were doing in terms of work-life balance. Work-life balance factors were particularly important to mid-career staff, perhaps due to nearly half of this group reporting that they were caregivers.
13.8.1 Hours of work and flexibility
13.8.1.1 Working additional hours
The proportion of public servants who reported they usually worked additional hours increased with age, from 62% of the younger age group, 67% of the mid-career group, to 70% of the older group. Public servants over 45 years (9%) were three times more likely than their colleagues under 30 (3%) to work 15 or more additional hours per week. This is consistent with more younger staff (38%) reporting they were satisfied that they had a manageable workload than the other age groups (31%). This factor was equally important to all age groups.
13.8.1.2 Working flexible hours
Working flexible hours was significantly more important to mid-career public servants (63%) than their younger (54%) and older (50%) colleagues. About 53% of all age groups rated their satisfaction with working flexible hours as "Good".
13.8.1.3 Working part time101
Working part time was also more important to mid-career public servants: 16% reported it was "Highly important", compared with 11% of the under 30 age group and 13% of the 45-plus age group. The 30 to 44 age group was more likely to work part time (12%) than their younger or older colleagues (8% and 10% respectively), probably reflecting their increased likelihood of having caregiving responsibilities. Over a third of staff in the mid-career and older age groups (who indicated that it applied) rated their access to part-time work as "Good". The younger age group was less likely to do so. 24% of those who indicated that part-time work applied to them gave "Good" ratings.
13.8.2 Impacts of family responsibilities
There were significant differences in the importance each age group attributed to domestic/caregiver leave and parental leave. Domestic/caregiver leave was most important to the mid-career age group (42%), followed by the younger age group (33%). Parental leave was most important to the younger age group (44%), followed by the mid-career age group (39%). Domestic/caregiver leave was least important to the 45-plus age group (18%). Additionally, parental leave was also least important to this group (11%).
Of those who indicated domestic/caregiver leave applied to them, nearly half of mid-career staff and older staff gave "Good" ratings for access to it. 44% of younger public servants gave "Good" ratings. In reporting their satisfaction with access to parental leave, over half of those who indicated that it applied to them in all age groups said it was "Good".
13.8.3 Accommodating outside commitments
Commitments outside of work can extend beyond family. Other responsibilities, such as cultural, sporting or community involvements, may clash with work commitments. As age increased, fewer public servants considered leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations to be important. This factor was "Highly important" to only 16% of the older age group, compared with around 22% of the other groups. This finding may also reflect the lower proportions of Māori and Pacific staff in the older age group.
There were no differences between the age groups in how they rated their access to this type of leave. Of those who indicated it applied to them, around 40% rated their access as "Good".
13.9 Conclusions
Younger public servants (aged under 30 years)
Younger public servants were highly ambitious, with four out of five wanting a higher-level position in the Public Service. Along with their mid-career colleagues, they were more likely than the 45-plus age group to want to become a chief executive. Younger staff were more flexible about what they would do to progress their careers, and were more likely to be prepared to move to another work area, the private sector, or to another location. Reported barriers to career progression for this group were most likely to be lack of experience or qualifications, or a lack of self-confidence.
Satisfaction with training and development factors was generally low, however, younger public servants were more likely than other groups to rate their opportunities for advancement as "Good". They were the least satisfied of all groups with pay and benefits. All training and development factors were more important to the younger age group than other groups, and they were generally more satisfied, although satisfaction overall was low.
Especially important to the younger age group was having a manager who encouraged and supported their career development. This group worked fewer hours, and were more satisfied with their workload. Most work-life balance factors were less important to this group than to the mid-career group, except for parental leave, which was more "Highly important" to younger public servants. They were less satisfied than other groups with access to part-time work and domestic/caregiver leave.
Mid-career public servants (aged 30 to 44 years)
Mid-career public servants were nearly as ambitious as their younger colleagues. However, they were less likely to see their organisation as preparation for a move to another organisation. They were less flexible than their younger colleagues about moving to another work area, location, or to the private sector, but were more so than their older colleagues.
The most important training and development factor for public servants aged 30 to 44, along with the 45-plus age group, was demonstrating their skills and abilities, and they were the most satisfied of all age groups with this factor. Mid-career public servants were more likely to be dissatisfied with access to mentoring.
Lack of experience and concerns about balancing work and family commitments were the factors most likely to deter mid-career public servants from applying for a higher-level position. This group were more likely than their younger colleagues to work additional hours, and less likely to be satisfied with their workload. Consistent with their tendency to be caregivers, almost all work-life balance factors were more important to mid-career public servants than to other age groups. Their satisfaction with these was similar to, or higher than the younger age group.
Older public servants (aged 45 years and over)
While 59% of public servants aged 45 years and over wanted a higher-level job, this group was less ambitious than the others. They were also less likely to want to become a chief executive, and more likely to report that they had achieved all they wanted in their career. Older public servants were less flexible than other groups, and more likely to stay in their current position for the long-term.
Working for a reputable organisation was "Highly important" to more older public servants than to other age groups, and they were more satisfied with this factor than the younger age group. This age group was more satisfied than the other groups with having a sense of accomplishment and challenge in their work, and with their pay and benefits. Opportunities for advancement were less important to older public servants than to other age groups, and they were more dissatisfied with the opportunities they actually received.
Training and development factors were of less importance to public servants aged 45 and over. Older public servants were less satisfied than other groups with their managers encouraging and supporting their career development. They were more likely to work additional hours and, like their mid-career colleagues, were less satisfied with having a manageable workload than younger public servants. Work-life balance factors were less important to them than to the mid-career age group.
Chapter 14 Conclusions and Challenges
Overall, public servants appeared to have higher expectations from their jobs than they did in 2000, and they were less satisfied with how their organisation was meeting these expectations. Women attached more importance than men to most factors covered in the survey. Women were also more satisfied than men, in spite of the gender pay gap, their under-representation in senior management, and their high representation in low-paid occupations. The lower level of satisfaction overall may not be unique to the public sector, however, there is no comparable survey of the private sector.
The survey findings appeared to be linked to different age profiles for the groups covered by the survey. The findings for Māori, Pacific people and women reflected their younger age profile, while those for people with disabilities reflected their older age structure. In general, public servants under 30 years were mobile, ambitious, attached high priority to development opportunities and were more satisfied with the development opportunities provided. However, they were less satisfied than older workers that they had challenging work, and with their pay and benefits.
While mid-career workers, aged 30 to 44 years were almost as ambitious, work-life balance factors were a high priority. Flexible work arrangements, working from home, and caregiver leave were "Highly important" to this group. Furthermore, work-life balance concerns were a greater barrier to progression for this group than for other groups.
Public servants aged 45 years and older had much longer service102, were less mobile and less ambitious than their younger colleagues, and worked longer hours. Along with their mid-career colleagues, they were less satisfied than public servants under 30 that they had a manageable workload. They were the least satisfied that they had job security, or opportunities for advancement.
Ambition and advancement opportunities
Levels of ambition in the Public Service have increased since the 2000 survey, particularly for Māori and Pacific public servants, with more people wanting a higher-level position. While women were less likely than men to want a senior job, the gap between the two significantly decreased in the five years between the two surveys. Managers and public servants under 30 years showed high aspirations to reach senior positions in the Public Service. Public servants with disabilities were less likely to want higher-level roles and were more likely to report that they had achieved all they wanted in their careers. This may reflect their older age profile.
Public servants were flexible about what they would do to advance their careers, with increasing numbers willing to change work areas to move ahead. This was particularly true for managers, staff under 30 years, and Pacific staff. Public servants were less flexible when it came to relocating to another geographical area. However, Māori were more flexible about what they would do to move ahead, and were more prepared to work additional hours or move locations, despite their propensity to be caregivers.
The main deterrents to applying for a higher-level job were concerns about balancing work and family responsibilities, and perceptions that they lacked the necessary experience. The former was particularly the case for managers, staff in the 30-44 age group, and staff with disabilities. The most significant barriers for Māori and Pacific staff were not having the necessary experience or qualifications. One in five public servants were deterred from applying for a senior job because they perceived the selection process would not be fair.
Motivating public servants
A feeling of accomplishment, challenging work, effective management, and pay and benefits were clearly important to most public servants in the 2005 survey. Pay and benefits were relatively more important to Māori and Pacific staff than to other groups. Public servants with disabilities were more concerned with having a manageable workload.
Most public servants appeared to find their jobs sufficiently challenging. However, between 2000 and 2005 job satisfaction decreased compared to the other factors that public servants rated most important. A relatively high proportion of public servants were dissatisfied with the effectiveness of management in their organisation, signalling that more work needs to be done in this area.
Opportunities for advancement have become more important to public servants since 2000. While ratings improved since 2000, relatively high proportions of public servants were still dissatisfied with the opportunities they received. Public servants want a reasonable degree of job security, and their satisfaction with this has risen considerably since 2000. In terms of attracting and retaining talent, public servants' perceptions of the enhanced reputation of the organisations where they work are positive for the Public Service.
Development and training opportunities
Most public servants, like the workforce in general, no longer see themselves as staying in the same job long term. As in the 2000 survey, public servants saw informal learning and continuous development as more important to their jobs and careers than formal development activities. Results showed that public servants wanted to be recognised and acknowledged for their work. They also wanted the chance to work on a range of different tasks, particularly Māori and Pacific public servants.
In general, more women, Māori and Pacific public servants tended to rate development and training factors as "Highly important", compared with other public servants. Study leave and mentoring were seen as areas of particular importance to Māori and Pacific staff. Women valued mentoring, opportunities to gain experience in a range of tasks, and working on special projects. Development and training opportunities were of lower priority for people with disabilities, perhaps reflecting their older age profile. However, they were dissatisfied with opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities and gain experience in a range of tasks.
Since 2000, satisfaction levels have declined across most factors. Public servants were most satisfied in the development areas they said were of high importance to them. However, their satisfaction was generally low.
Women were more satisfied than men with their development and training opportunities. There were few differences based on ethnicity, although Māori were dissatisfied with their access to study leave, training courses and opportunities to demonstrate their skills and abilities. Opportunities to 'act up', work on secondment or undertake study leave were viewed largely as "Not applicable" to a large proportion of public servants. Managers were more likely to report such provisions as applicable to them, and to rate their organisations well in this regard.
Managers and mentors
The support managers provide to their staff remains vital for individuals seeking to advance their careers. Managers did well at taking a flexible and supportive approach to work and family conflicts, and at allowing their staff to use initiative in carrying out their work. However, managers rated less well in relation to aspects of management associated with staff career advancement, especially in providing performance feedback and actively encouraging and supporting career development. For career progression, these are areas that warrant greater emphasis by managers.
Mentoring seems to have changed focus between the two surveys, from assisting younger people towards establishing their careers in 2000, to helping senior staff advance up the management ladder in 2005. Managers, women, Māori and Pacific public servants were more likely to be mentored. Most mentoring relationships were informal, and nearly all public servants who had mentors reported that mentoring had assisted their career development. However, staff with disabilities were less likely than other staff to report this. Both the 2000 and 2005 survey results suggest there is a demand for access to formal mentoring schemes. Further work is required to determine how best to meet this demand103.
Work environment
A work environment where staff are treated fairly, where their ideas are valued and where staff work co-operatively was highly desirable to public servants in 2005. In this regard, little has changed since 2000. However, the work environment was less likely to meet expectations. Of the five workplace environment factors surveyed, satisfaction levels declined for all but one - a work environment where their ideas were valued. For this factor, satisfaction levels remained static.
Managers tended to be more satisfied than non-managers with their work environment, perhaps reflecting the greater control managers have over their work. Managers gave positive ratings for being treated fairly. However, managers were just as likely as others to give perceptions of unfairness in selection processes as a reason for not seeking a higher-level job.
Women were relatively satisfied with most factors to do with their work environment. Māori rated their organisations as "Good" at accommodating outside commitments, but they were less satisfied with their work-area design. People with disabilities were relatively dissatisfied with all work environment factors.
An environment where staff are treated fairly is very important to most public servants, yet one in every five rated their organisation as "Poor" in this regard. Ensuring that human resources policies and practices are transparent, that managers apply them evenly, and that managers communicate effectively with staff, might improve these perceptions.
Work-life balance
Given demographic and social trends, and New Zealand's tight labour market, work-life balance has become increasingly important to the Public Service in attracting and retaining talent. These survey results show that work-life balance is of particular importance to mid-career public servants aged between 30 and 44 years. The question of work-life balance has been given some priority in New Zealand104. However, it is too early to measure the impact of guidance and improved provisions for work-life balance105. Increased attention to work-life balance and the fact that employees can now be more selective about what they want from a job, are likely to have influenced the results of the Career Progression and Development Survey. These findings indicate that, while there has been some increased satisfaction with provisions since 2000, notably in the availability of part-time work and flexible hours, employee ratings of other work-life factors have generally deteriorated.
While public servants were relatively satisfied with their access to flexible hours, there was still a sizeable number (68%) who reported that they worked more hours than they were employed for. Qualitative comments highlighted a particular concern with heavy workloads, which were seen as a barrier to career progression. Staff shortages impacted on workloads. Remaining staff reported being required to cover vacancies, and to train new staff. This was particularly stressful if vacancies took some time to be filled.
The increase in the number of public servants who worked part time is pleasing. However, women, caregivers and administrative/clerical occupations continued to be the main users of part-time working provisions. They also tended to place more value on this factor, and were more satisfied with access to part-time work. Nearly two thirds of respondents, however, said part-time work was not applicable to them in their role. Access to part-time work was of less importance to Māori, who were less likely to work part time.
Managers rated well in terms of the support they provided to their staff to resolve work and family conflicts. But despite the existence of family-friendly policies, concern that they would not be able to balance work and family commitments was a deterrent to career progression for nearly a third of public servants. Women, in particular, were likely to see this as a barrier.
Maintaining a sense of balance between work and family commitments was clearly a priority for Māori, Pacific peoples, and staff with disabilities. In addition, leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations was more likely to be "Highly important" to these groups.
Areas for attention and the way forward
The survey findings have indicated some areas needing attention, to ensure that people are well managed and developed within the Public Service and the wider State Services. Despite the efforts that have been made to improve the quality of management, the survey results indicate that these improvements have not kept pace with growing staff expectations. This poses a threat to the future capability of the State Services, given the challenging labour market conditions projected for the next 2-3 decades.
Effective management
Public servants did not rate their organisations highly at providing effective management. Effective management includes communicating well, providing performance feedback and supporting staff to develop in their careers. Managers need to encourage and provide opportunities for staff to work to their strengths, and demonstrate their skills and abilities. Less than one in six public servants thought that their organisation was "Good" at providing opportunities for advancement. Part-time workers also reported that they found it difficult to advance in their careers. Organisations need to have systems in place for people to be able to take up development opportunities, and managers need to support them in this. Ensuring that staff are being promoted or appointed to roles internally, or within the wider State sector, will increase opportunities for advancement.
Training and development
Managers and organisations need to help public servants realise their ambitions through training and development opportunities. These include enabling staff to take up opportunities to gain experience in different tasks and work areas, and to train on-the-job throughout their career. Addressing the demand for mentoring is another way that organisations can help both staff and mentors to develop their careers and increase their job satisfaction.
Work-life balance
Another area of focus is work-life balance, which is imperative to address if the State Services are to be an Employer of Choice. This has been given some priority and attention in New Zealand, however, it is too early to measure the impact of guidance and improved provisions for work-life balance106. Nearly a third of public servants reported that a concern that they would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities had stopped them from applying for a higher-level position. Addressing work-life balance will help to attract and retain public servants and encourage them to advance in their careers. Public servants' satisfaction with access to work-life balance factors such as part-time work has decreased since 2000. Organisations need to ensure that part-time work is a viable option for staff, where appropriate. Public servants were also dissatisfied with their workload, and over two thirds of public servants worked more hours than they were employed for.
Fairness
Staff being treated fairly is another area for attention, with one fifth of public servants giving a "Poor" rating for being treated fairly in their organisations. Public servants' perceptions of unfairness in selection processes remain high, especially for men, Māori, and public servants with disabilities. "Organisational culture" is one of the areas being reviewed as part of the State Services Commission's review of EEO Policy to 2010107.
Diversity
Public servants are not a homogenous group. The Public Service will need to address the various needs of men and women, as well as employees of different ethnicities and ages, to continue to ensure that diverse and talented job seekers apply for positions. For the Public Service to continue to attract and retain Māori and Pacific peoples, providing opportunities for on-the-job training and experience in a range of tasks is important. Supporting staff to gain further qualifications and access to study leave will improve career advancement opportunities for these groups.
Work towards the Development Goals for the State Services
The SSC has underway a number of work programmes to support the achievement of the Employer of Choice and Excellent State Servants Development Goals. These two Development Goals are people driven. They are focused on ensuring the State Services has positive workplaces and a high performing workforce. The Career Progression and Development Survey 2005 results will help to inform this work.
The Development Goals are aspirational and will not be achieved by the SSC alone, as the programme is far broader than could be completed by any one agency. The SSC's people strategy is to work with agencies to target the following areas of concerns: attraction, development, retention, and engagement.
Key initiatives include attracting and hiring the best candidates possible. This involves SSC using and sharing survey data to better understand the labour market and ensure the State Services is positioned well to attract and select talented people.
Another aspect of the strategy is better development. This involves SSC ensuring the frameworks, tools and practices exist to support staff development. For example, the SSC is working with agencies to identify and procure a competency model for agencies to implement. This model will set standards of excellence for agencies to improve their staff selection, management and development. Another SSC initiative in this area is to develop a leaders' toolbox that provides practical ideas and advice on people management techniques for the State Services. The Leadership Development Centre is also working to help managers develop their skills so that they can be potential leaders.
The third work area in the people strategy is to improve employee engagement. This will help to ensure workplaces are positive and can better engage the support of State servants. The SSC will coordinate a procurement process that will allow participating Public Service agencies to carry out engagement surveys among their staff and develop plans to address the findings.
Lastly, the SSC is developing a set of overarching State of the Development Goals indicators. These will be valuable in tracking progress towards achieving the Development Goals in the Public Service, and wider State Services. These indicators will help track progress for different groups - including men and women, Māori, Pacific people and other ethnic groups, and different age cohorts.
Bibliography
Anderson, E. Definitions of mentoring, unpublished manuscript, 1987, cited in Alred, G. and Garvey, B. "Learning to produce knowledge - the contribution of mentoring", in Organisations and People, 8(2), May 2001, p19.
"Beat the burnout", in The Guardian, London, 4 Sept, 2002.
Bloom, N. et al. Solving the skills gap: summary report from the AIM/CIHE management research forum. Advanced Institute of Management Research, 2004.
Equal Employment Opportunities Trust. Bottom-line business benefits of implementing EEO.
Go to:
www.eeotrust.org.nz/equal/implementing.cfm
Equal Opportunities Commission. Britain's hidden brain drain - final report: the EOC's investigation into flexible and part-time working. Manchester, Sept 2005.
Flexecutive. Work-life balance or career death? Sept 2002.
Go to:
www.flexecutiveclient.co.uk/client/cli_02ij.asp
Henderson, P.G. "The career/longevity connection", in Adultspan Journal, Sept 2001.
Jones, A. The Labour of hours: is managing time the route to smarter working? London, The Work Foundation, 2004.
Go to:
www.theworkfoundation.com/research/labour.jsp
McGregor, J. Employment of the older worker. Palmerston North, Massey University, 2001.
Morison, R., Erickson, T. & Dychtwald, K. "Managing middlescence", in Harvard Business Review, March 2006.
Rendall, R. Facing an ageing workforce: information for Public Service HR managers. Wellington, State Services Commission, April 2004.
Go to:
www.ssc.govt.nz/information-ageing-ps-workforce
Ross-Smith, A. Women's career progression: findings from the ARC SPIRT project 2002-2003. Sydney, University of Technology, Nov 2004.
Go to:
www.ssc.govt.nz/cps-full-report
State Services Commission. Career progression and development survey 2000: results for the New Zealand Public Service. Wellington, SSC, 2002.
State Services Commission. Creating a positive work environment: respect and safety in the Public Service workplace. Wellington, SSC, 2003.
Go to:
www.ssc.govt.nz/creating-positive-work-environment
State Services Commission. EEO Policy to 2010: Future directions of EEO in the New Zealand Public Service. Wellington, SSC, 1997.
Go to:
www.ssc.govt.nz/eeo-policy-to-2010
State Services Commission. Human resource capability survey of Public Service departments as at 30 June 2000. Wellington, SSC, 2000.
Go to:
www.ssc.govt.nz/hrc-survey-2000
State Services Commission. Human resource capability survey of Public Service departments as at 30 June 2004. Wellington, SSC, 2004.
Go to:
www.ssc.govt.nz/hrc-survey-2004
State Services Commission. Human resource capability survey of Public Service departments as at 30 June 2005. Wellington, SSC, 2005.
Go to:
www.ssc.govt.nz/hrc-survey-2005
State Services Commission. Work-life balance: a resource for the State Services. Wellington, SSC, 2005.
Go to:
www.ssc.govt.nz/worklifebalance
Statistics New Zealand. Focusing on women, 2005. Wellington, SNZ, 2005.
Statistics New Zealand. Household labour force survey. Wellington, SNZ, June 2000.
Statistics New Zealand. Household labour force survey. Wellington, SNZ, June 2004.
Statistics New Zealand. National ethnic population projections (2001 (base) - 2021). Wellington, SNZ, 2001.
Statistics New Zealand. National Pacific population projections (2001 (base) - 2051). Wellington, SNZ, 2001.
Statistics New Zealand. New Zealand income survey. Wellington, SNZ, June 2004.
Statistics New Zealand. New Zealand now: women (census 96) (1998) - reference reports. Wellington, SNZ, 1998.
Work-Life Balance Project. Achieving balanced lives and employment. Wellington, 2004, p13.
Wright B. & Davis B. "Job satisfaction in the Public Sector: the role of the work environment", in American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 33 (1), March 2003, p70-90.
APPENDIX 1. TABLES FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE
* NOTE: The tables below can also be viewed in Excel format
Part A - Your Job and Career
The associated 95% confidence interval is shown in brackets. Each confidence interval is a range. This is the range within which the actual proportion will fall in 95 cases out of 100. Numbers have been suppressed (shown by an *) when the number in the cell is based on less than four responses.
Q1. Thinking about the things you would most like to have in an ideal job1, how important are the following factors to you?
|
How important are the factors to you? |
||||||
|
Highly important |
Somewhat important |
Of little or no importance |
||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
|
|
Pay and benefits |
70.5 (69.3 - 71.6) |
73.7 (72.6 - 74.8) |
29.0 (27.8 - 30.1) |
25.9 (24.8 - 27.0) |
0.6 (0.4 - 0.8) |
0.4 (0.3 - 0.6) |
|
Challenging work |
77.1 (76.0 - 78.2) |
76.5 (75.4 - 77.5) |
22.1 (21.0 - 23.2) |
22.7 (21.6 - 23.7) |
0.8 (0.6 - 1.1) |
0.9 (0.6 - 1.1) |
|
Feeling of accomplishment |
90.5 (89.7 - 91.2) |
89.8 (89.0 - 90.5) |
9.2 (8.4 - 9.9) |
9.8 (9.1 - 10.6) |
0.4 (0.2 - 0.5) |
0.4 (0.2 - 0.5) |
|
Opportunities for advancement |
50.5 (49.2 - 51.8) |
57.6 (56.4 - 58.8) |
43.7 (42.4 - 45.0) |
36.6 (35.4 - 37.9) |
5.8 (5.2 - 6.4) |
5.7 (5.2 - 6.3) |
|
Job security |
65.7 (64.5 - 66.9) |
67.7 (66.6 - 68.9) |
31.6 (30.4 - 32.7) |
29.7 (28.5 - 30.8) |
2.7 (2.4 - 3.1) |
2.6 (2.2 - 3.0) |
|
Set number of hours per week2 |
28.8 (27.6 - 30.0) |
33.1 (32.0 - 34.3) |
48.8 (47.5 - 50.1) |
46.9 (45.6 - 48.1) |
22.5 (21.5 - 23.5) |
20.0 (19.0 - 21.0) |
|
Manageable workload3 |
56.1 (54.8 - 57.3) |
64.8 (63.6 - 66.0) |
40.9 (39.6 - 42.1) |
33.6 (32.4 - 34.8) |
3.0 (2.6 - 3.5) |
1.6 (1.3 - 1.9) |
|
Effective management4 |
86.4 (85.5 - 87.2) |
84.4 (83.5 - 85.3) |
12.9 (12.0 - 13.8) |
15.0 (14.1 - 15.9) |
0.7 (0.6 - 1.0) |
0.6 (0.4 - 0.7) |
|
Reputable organisation5 |
58.5 (57.3 - 59.8) |
66.5 (65.4 - 67.7) |
36.3 (35.0 - 37.5) |
30.0 (28.9 - 31.2) |
5.2 (4.6 - 5.8) |
3.4 (3.0 - 3.9) |
|
1 "Ideal job" replaced the 2000 survey phrase "work and workplaces in general" |
||||||
|
2 This replaced the phrase "standard hours" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||
|
3 This replaced the phrase "reasonable workload" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||
|
4 This replaced the phrase "quality of management" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||
|
5 This replaced the phrase "reputation of organisation" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||
Q2. Thinking about the job you have now, how would you rate your own job against the following factors?
|
How would you rate your own job against the factors |
||||||
|
Good |
Average |
Poor |
||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
|
|
Pay and benefits |
29.3 (28.1 - 30.5) |
25.0 (23.9 - 26.1) |
47.3 (46.0 - 48.6) |
52.5 (51.2 - 53.7) |
23.5 (22.4 - 24.6) |
22.5 (21.5 - 23.6) |
|
Challenging work |
60.1 (58.8 - 61.3) |
60.1 (58.9 - 61.4) |
33.9 (32.7 - 35.2) |
34.4 (33.2 - 35.6) |
6.0 (5.4 - 6.6) |
5.5 (4.9 - 6.0) |
|
Feeling of accomplishment |
43.0 (41.7 - 44.3) |
40.0 (38.8 - 41.2) |
43.8 (42.6 - 45.1) |
46.7 (45.4 - 47.9) |
13.1 (12.3 - 14.0) |
13.3 (12.5 - 14.2) |
|
Opportunities for advancement |
12.6 (11.7 - 13.5) |
14.8 (13.9 - 15.6) |
37.7 (36.5 - 39.0) |
43.6 (42.4 - 44.9) |
49.7 (48.4 - 51.0) |
41.6 (40.4 - 42.8) |
|
Job security |
50.6 (49.3 - 51.9) |
62.8 (61.5 - 64.0) |
40.5 (39.2 - 41.7) |
31.2 (30.1 - 32.4) |
8.9 (8.3 - 9.7) |
6.0 (5.4 - 6.6) |
|
Set number of hours per week2 |
55.2 (53.9 - 56.4) |
56.1 (54.9 - 57.3) |
35.0 (33.8 - 36.2) |
33.6 (32.4 - 34.7) |
9.9 (9.2 - 10.6) |
10.3 (9.6 - 11.1) |
|
Manageable workload3 |
34.0 (32.8 - 35.2) |
31.9 (30.8 - 33.1) |
45.1 (43.8 - 46.4) |
46.2 (45.0 - 47.5) |
20.9 (19.9 - 22.0) |
21.9 (20.8 - 22.9) |
|
Effective management4 |
29.3 (28.2 - 30.5) |
26.6 (25.5 - 27.8) |
46.1 (44.8 - 47.4) |
47.2 (46.0 - 48.5) |
24.6 (23.5 - 25.7) |
26.1 (25.0 - 27.2) |
|
Reputable organisation5 |
29.7 (28.6 - 30.7) |
50.0 (48.8 - 51.3) |
44.5 (43.2 - 45.8) |
40.1 (38.9 - 41.3) |
25.8 (24.7 - 27.0) |
9.9 (9.1 - 10.6) |
|
1 This replaced the phrase "standard hours" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||
|
2 This replaced the phrase "reasonable workload" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||
|
3 This replaced the phrase "quality of management" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||
|
4 This replaced the phrase "reputation of organisation" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||
Q3. Thinking about your current job and career, which of these, if any, apply to you?1
|
Yes |
No |
||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
||
|
Already achieved what I want |
13.4 (12.5 - 14.3) |
12.6 (11.8 - 13.4) |
86.6 (85.7 - 87.5) |
87.4 (86.6 - 88.2) |
|
|
Training ground for next move within organisation |
32.1 (30.9 - 33.4) |
41.3 (40.0 - 42.5) |
67.9 (66.6 - 69.1) |
58.7 (57.5 - 60.0) |
|
|
Training ground for next move to new organisation |
33.9 (32.7 - 35.1) |
36.6 (35.4 - 37.8) |
66.1 (64.9 - 67.3) |
63.4 (62.2 - 64.6) |
|
|
Want to work in a higher level position |
47.0 (45.8 - 48.3) |
51.4 (50.1 - 52.6) |
53.0 (51.7 - 54.2) |
48.6 (47.4 - 49.9) |
|
|
Want to be an expert in my field |
45.0 (43.8 - 46.3) |
47.5 (46.3 - 48.8) |
55.0 (53.7 - 56.2) |
52.5 (51.2 - 53.7) |
|
|
Prepared to move into another work area |
55.5 (54.2 - 56.7) |
61.3 (60.1 - 62.5) |
44.5 (43.3 - 45.8) |
38.7 (37.5 - 39.9) |
|
|
Prepared to move to the private sector |
49.7 (48.4 - 51.0) |
48.9 (47.6 - 50.1) |
50.3 (49.0 - 51.6) |
51.1 (49.9 - 52.4) |
|
|
Prepared to move to another geographical area |
27.9 (26.8 - 29.0) |
27.3 (26.2 - 28.5) |
72.1 (71.0 - 73.2) |
72.7 (71.5 - 73.8) |
|
|
None of these |
4.4 (3.9 - 4.9) |
6.3 (5.7 - 6.9) |
95.6 (95.1 - 96.1) |
93.7 (93.1 - 94.3) |
|
|
Other plans for my career |
15.9 (15.0 - 16.9) |
8.2 (7.5 - 8.8) |
84.1 (83.1 - 85.0) |
91.8 (91.2 - 92.5) |
|
|
1 Respondents could select more than one option |
|||||
Q4. Which of these best describes your current situation?
|
2000 |
2005 |
|
|
Planning to stay in my current position for the long term |
32.5 (31.3 - 33.8) |
31.0 (29.9 - 32.2) |
|
Planning to stay in my current position for the short term |
26.6 (25.5 - 27.7) |
25.2 (24.1 - 26.3) |
|
Thinking about changing jobs |
20.2 (19.2 - 21.3) |
22.0 (20.9 - 23.0) |
|
Actively applying for other jobs |
10.4 (9.6 - 11.2) |
11.8 (11.0 - 12.6) |
|
None of these/uncertain |
10.3 (9.5 - 11.1) |
10.0 (9.2 - 10.7) |
Q5. Would you like to hold a position at a higher level in the Public Service in the future?
|
Yes |
No |
Probably |
Uncertain |
|
|
Would you like to hold a position at a higher level in the Public Service in the future? |
47.8 (46.5 - 49.0) |
15.3 (14.4 - 16.2) |
20.3 (19.3 - 21.3) |
16.6 (15.7 - 17.5) |
Q6. Would you like to become a chief executive in the Public Service?1
|
2000 |
2005 |
|
|
Yes |
20.3 (19.2 - 21.4) |
14.2 (13.3 - 15.1) |
|
No |
57.5 (56.2 - 58.8) |
66.1 (64.9 - 67.3) |
|
Don't Know |
19.1 (18.0 - 20.1) |
15.9 (15.0 - 16.8) |
|
N/A |
3.1 (2.6 - 3.6) |
3.8 (3.3 - 4.2) |
Q7. Within the past 12 months, have any of these things stopped you from applying for a higher-level position in the Public Service?1
|
Yes |
No |
|||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
|
|
Don't yet have the necessary qualifications |
21.0 (19.9 - 22.1) |
23.9 (22.9 - 25.0) |
79.0 (77.9 - 80.1) |
76.1 (75.0 - 77.1) |
|
Don't yet have the necessary experience |
26.1 (25.0 - 27.3) |
36.5 (35.3 - 37.7) |
73.9 (72.7 - 75.0) |
63.5 (62.3 - 64.7) |
|
Preference to stay in my current job |
31.6 (30.4 - 32.8) |
33.1 (31.9 - 34.3) |
68.4 (67.2 - 69.6) |
66.9 (65.7 - 68.1) |
|
No desire to work in a higher-level position |
14.1 (13.2 - 15.1) |
15.9 (15.0 - 16.8) |
85.9 (84.9 - 86.8) |
84.1 (83.2 - 85.0) |
|
No desire to take on additional responsibilities2 |
16.7 (15.7 - 17.7) |
11.5 (10.7 - 12.3) |
83.3 (82.3 - 84.3) |
88.5 (87.7 - 89.3) |
|
No desire to work additional hours3 |
19.3 (18.2 - 20.3) |
20.3 (19.3 - 21.3) |
80.7 (79.7 - 81.8) |
79.7 (78.7 - 80.7) |
|
No desire to undertake extensive travel |
11.8 (11.0 - 12.8) |
15.4 (14.5 - 16.3) |
88.2 (87.2 - 89.0) |
84.6 (83.7 - 85.5) |
|
No desire to relocate to another area to take up a higher-level position |
24.3 (23.2 - 25.5) |
28.3 (27.2 - 29.4) |
75.7 (74.5 - 76.8) |
71.7 (70.6 - 72.8) |
|
No desire because of the political nature of higher-level positions |
18.2 (17.2 - 19.3) |
18.3 (17.4 - 19.3) |
81.8 (80.7 - 82.8) |
81.7 (80.7 - 82.6) |
|
Concern that I would not be able to balance work and family responsibilities |
25.4 (24.3 - 26.6) |
29.9 (28.8 - 31.1) |
74.6 (73.4 - 75.7) |
70.1 (68.9 - 71.2) |
|
Concern that the selection process would not be fair |
18.0 (17.0 - 19.0) |
17.9 (17.0 - 18.9) |
82.0 (81.0 - 83.0) |
82.1 (81.1 - 83.0) |
|
Lack of confidence in myself |
15.0 (14.1 - 16.0) |
17.4 (16.5 - 18.3) |
85.0 (84.0 - 85.9) |
82.6 (81.7 - 83.5) |
|
Lack of support from my manager |
12.0 (11.2 - 12.9) |
13.8 (12.9 - 14.6) |
88.0 (87.1 - 88.8) |
86.2 (85.4 - 87.1) |
|
Lack of support from others4 |
7.8 (7.1 - 8.4) |
6.8 (6.1 - 7.4) |
92.2 (91.7 - 93.8) |
93.2 (92.6 - 93.9) |
|
Other factors |
17.8 (16.8 - 18.8) |
13.3 (12.4 - 14.1) |
82.2 (81.2 - 83.2) |
86.7 (85.9 - 87.6) |
Q8. How many Public Service departments have you ever worked for (including your current organisation)?1
|
One |
Two |
Three |
Four or more |
|
|
How many Public Service departments have you ever worked for (including your current organisation)? |
53.6 (52.3 - 54.8) |
28.8 (27.7 - 29.9) |
11.6 (10.8 - 12.4) |
6.0 (5.4 - 6.6) |
|
1 New addition to the 2005 survey |
||||
Part B - Career Development
The associated 95% confidence interval is shown in brackets. Each confidence interval is a range. This is the range within which the actual proportion will fall in 95 cases out of 100. Numbers have been suppressed (shown by an *) when the number in the cell is based on less than four responses.
Q9a. Thinking about your ideal job1, how important is having access to the following factors to your career development?
|
How important are the factors to you? |
||||||||
|
Highly important |
Somewhat important |
Of little or no importance |
N/A2 |
|||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
|
|
Flexible hours |
46.4 (45.2 - 47.7) |
55.9 (54.6 - 57.1) |
36.1 (34.9 - 37.4) |
37.2 (36.0 - 38.4) |
14.6 (13.7 - 15.5) |
6.9 (6.3 - 7.6) |
2.8 (2.4 - 3.3) |
n/a |
|
Working from home |
10.3 (9.5 - 11.1) |
13.7 (12.8 - 14.5) |
29.3 (28.1 - 30.4) |
33.8 (32.6 - 35.0) |
44.5 (43.2 - 45.8) |
52.5 (51.2 - 53.8) |
16.0 (15.0 - 17.0) |
n/a |
|
Part-time work |
13.7 (12.8 - 14.6) |
13.6 (12.7 - 14.5) |
21.5 (20.5 - 22.6) |
22.9 (21.8 - 23.9) |
35.1 (33.8 - 36.3) |
63.5 (62.3 - 64.8) |
29.7 (28.5 - 30.9) |
n/a |
|
Domestic/Caregiver leave3 |
23.5 (22.4 - 24.6) |
30.9 (29.8 - 32.1) |
22.0 (21.0 - 23.1) |
27.0 (25.9 - 28.2) |
24.6 (23.5 - 25.7) |
42.0 (40.8 - 43.3) |
29.9 (28.7 - 31.1) |
n/a |
|
Parental leave |
25.8 (24.7 - 27.0) |
28.2 (27.1 - 29.4) |
16.1 (15.1 - 17.0) |
16.7 (15.8 - 17.7) |
22.0 (21.0 - 23.1) |
55.0 (53.8 - 56.3) |
36.1 (34.8 - 37.3) |
n/a |
|
Leave without pay4 |
27.6 (26.5 - 28.8) |
21.9 (20.8 - 22.9) |
39.1 (37.8 - 40.3) |
41.0 (39.7 - 42.2) |
23.9 (22.8 - 25.0) |
37.2 (35.9 - 38.4) |
9.5 (8.7 - 10.3) |
n/a |
|
Leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations5 |
14.6 (13.6 - 15.5) |
19.8 (18.8 - 20.8) |
16.4 (15.5 - 17.4) |
26.4 (25.2 - 27.5) |
37.6 (36.3 - 38.8) |
53.8 (52.6 - 55.1) |
31.4 (30.2 - 32.7) |
n/a |
|
1 "Ideal job" replaced the 2000 survey phrase "job and career in general" |
||||||||
|
2 The "N/A" option was not available for the 2005 survey |
||||||||
|
3 This replaced the phrase "caregiver leave" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||||
|
4 This replaced the phrase "long term leave (paid or unpaid)" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||||
|
5 This replaced the phrase "leave for cultural reasons" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||||
Q9b. Thinking about your actual job1 in the last 12 months, how would you describe the opportunities you actually get?
|
How would you rate your own job against the factors? |
||||||||
|
Good |
Average |
Poor |
N/A2 |
|||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
|
|
Flexible hours |
60.8 (59.6 - 61.9) |
53.3 (52.0 - 54.5) |
20.8 (19.8 - 21.8) |
30.4 (29.2 - 31.6) |
9.7 (8.9 - 10.5) |
13.1 (12.2 - 14.0) |
8.7 (8.0 - 9.5) |
3.2 (2.8 - 3.6) |
|
Working from home |
14.2 (13.4 - 15.0) |
9.1 (8.3 - 9.8) |
13.8 (13.0 - 14.6) |
13.7 (12.8 - 14.5) |
16.5 (15.6 - 17.5) |
22.6 (21.5 - 23.6) |
55.5 (54.2 - 56.8) |
54.7 (53.5 - 56.0) |
|
Part-time work |
16.6 (15.6 - 17.6) |
12.0 (11.2 - 12.9) |
10.3 (9.5 - 11.1) |
10.4 (9.6 - 11.2) |
6.1 (5.5 - 6.7) |
14.4 (13.5 - 15.3) |
67.1 (65.8 - 68.3) |
63.2 (62.0 - 64.4) |
|
Domestic/Caregiver leave3 |
22.1 (21.0 - 23.2) |
26.3 (25.2 - 27.4) |
13.9 (13.0 - 14.8) |
20.6 (19.5 - 21.6) |
5.5 (4.9 - 6.2) |
8.1 (7.4 - 8.8) |
58.5 (57.2 - 59.8) |
45.1 (43.8 - 46.3) |
|
Parental leave |
19.9 (18.9 - 21.0) |
21.4 (20.4 - 22.5) |
10.8 (10.0 - 11.7) |
13.9 (13.0 - 14.8) |
3.4 (2.9 - 3.9) |
4.4 (3.9 - 4.9) |
65.9 (64.6 - 67.1) |
60.3 (59.0 - 61.5) |
|
Leave without pay4 |
20.0 (19.0 - 21.1) |
22.0 (20.9 - 23.1) |
15.5 (14.6 - 16.4) |
23.1 (22.1 - 24.2) |
8.5 (7.8 - 9.3) |
9.4 (8.7 - 10.2) |
56.0 (54.7 - 57.3) |
45.4 (44.2 - 46.7) |
|
Leave to meet cultural, religious or community obligations5 |
21.1 (20.1 - 22.2) |
20.9 (19.9 - 21.9) |
11.5 (10.6 - 12.4) |
21.1 (20.1 - 22.2) |
4.0 (3.5 - 4.5) |
9.7 (9.0 - 10.5) |
63.4 (62.2 - 64.7) |
48.2 (47.0 - 49.5) |
|
1 "Actual job" replaced the 2000 survey phrase "own situation in current organisation" |
||||||||
|
2 The "N/A" option was available for both the 2000 and 2005 surveys |
||||||||
|
3 This replaced the phrase "caregiver leave" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||||
|
4 This replaced the phrase "long term leave (paid or unpaid)" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||||
|
5 This replaced the phrase "leave for cultural reasons" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||||
Q10a. Thinking about your ideal job1, how important is having access to the following factors to your career development?
|
How important are the factors to you? |
||||||||
|
Highly important |
Somewhat important |
Of little or no importance |
N/A2 |
|||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
|
|
On-the-job training |
76.6 (75.5 - 77.7) |
80.3 (79.1 - 81.4) |
19.6 (18.6 - 20.7) |
17.9 (16.8 - 19) |
3.2 (2.8 - 3.7) |
1.8 (1.5 - 2.3) |
0.5 (0.4 - 0.8) |
n/a |
|
Training courses and seminars |
66.7 (65.5 - 68.0) |
68.4 (67 - 69.7) |
29.3 (28.2 - 30.5) |
29.5 (28.2 - 30.8) |
3.5 (3.1 - 4.0) |
2.1 (1.7 - 2.6) |
0.4 (0.3 - 0.6) |
n/a |
|
Study leave to further my qualifications |
39.3 (38 - 40.5) |
45.0 (43.5 - 46.4) |
34.5 (33.3 - 35.8) |
32.1 (30.8 - 33.5) |
17.9 (16.9 - 18.9) |
22.9 (21.7 - 24.2) |
8.4 (7.6 - 9.2) |
n/a |
|
Secondment to other work areas or organisations |
28.5 (27.3 - 29.7) |
36.7 (35.3 - 38.1) |
41.0 (39.7 - 42.3) |
40.3 (38.9 - 41.8) |
24.2 (23.1 - 25.3) |
23.0 (21.8 - 24.3) |
6.3 (5.6 - 6.9) |
n/a |
|
Acting in higher positions |
35.0 (33.7 - 36.2) |
42.9 (41.4 - 44.3) |
39.5 (38.2 - 40.7) |
37.7 (36.3 - 39.1) |
20.0 (19.0 - 21.1) |
19.4 (18.3 - 20.6) |
5.5 (4.9 - 6.1) |
n/a |
|
Gaining experience in a range of tasks |
71.5 (70.3 - 72.6) |
75.2 (73.9 - 76.4) |
24.4 (23.3 - 25.6) |
22.3 (21.1 - 23.5) |
3.1 (2.7 - 3.6) |
2.5 (2.1 - 3.0) |
1.0 (0.8 - 1.3) |
n/a |
|
Working on special projects3 |
36.8 (35.5 - 38) |
53.0 (51.5 - 54.4) |
42.1 (40.8 - 43.4) |
38.2 (36.8 - 39.7) |
17.4 (16.4 - 18.5) |
8.8 (8.0 - 9.7) |
3.7 (3.2 - 4.2) |
n/a |
|
Demonstrating my skills and abilities |
77.4 (76.2 - 78.4) |
81.7 (80.6 - 82.8) |
20.2 (19.2 - 21.3) |
16.8 (15.8 - 17.9) |
1.9 (1.6 - 2.3) |
1.5 (1.1 - 1.9) |
0.6 (0.4 - 0.9) |
n/a |
|
Feedback on my career development needs4 |
n/a |
71.4 (70.1 - 72.7) |
n/a |
23.8 (22.6 - 25.1) |
n/a |
4.7 (4.1 - 5.4) |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Access to mentoring/ coaching (internal or external)5 |
n/a |
62.6 (61.1 - 63.9) |
n/a |
30.0 (28.6 - 31.3) |
n/a |
7.5 (6.8 - 8.3) |
n/a |
n/a |
|
1 "Ideal job" replaced the 2000 survey phrase "job and career in general" |
||||||||
|
2 The "N/A" option was not available for the 2005 survey |
||||||||
|
3 This replaced the phrase "working on high profile projects" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||||
|
4 New addition to the 2005 survey |
||||||||
|
5 New addition to the 2005 survey |
||||||||
Q10b. Thinking about your actual job1 in the last 12 months, how would you describe the opportunities you actually get?
|
How would you rate your own job against the factors? |
||||||||
|
Good |
Average |
Poor |
N/A2 |
|||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
|
|
On-the-job training |
35.5 (34.3 - 36.8) |
29.3 (28.1 - 30.4) |
38.7 (37.5 - 40.0) |
41.7 (40.5 - 43.0) |
23.0 (22.0 - 24.1) |
27.0 (25.9 - 28.1) |
2.7 (2.3 - 3.1) |
2.0 (1.7 - 2.4) |
|
Training courses and seminars |
37.2 (35.9 - 38.4) |
30.0 (28.9 - 31.2) |
36.8 (35.6 - 38.1) |
41.3 (40.1 - 42.6) |
23.8 (22.7 - 24.9) |
26.9 (25.8 - 28.0) |
2.2 (1.8 - 2.6) |
1.8 (1.4 - 2.1) |
|
Study leave to further my qualifications |
16.2 (15.3 - 17.1) |
16.8 (15.9 - 17.8) |
15.3 (14.4 - 16.2) |
21.9 (20.8 - 22.9) |
16.6 (15.6 - 17.6) |
24.4 (23.3 - 25.5) |
52.0 (50.7 - 53.3) |
36.9 (35.7 - 38.1) |
|
Secondment to other work areas or organisations |
13.6 (12.7 - 14.5) |
15.1 (14.2 - 16.0) |
19.4 (18.4 - 20.5) |
24.8 (23.7 - 25.9) |
24.4 (23.3 - 25.5) |
32.3 (31.1 - 33.5) |
42.6 (41.3 - 43.9) |
27.8 (26.6 - 28.9) |
|
Acting in higher positions |
16.2 (15.2 - 17.2) |
14.1 (13.2 - 15.0) |
24.3 (23.2 - 25.4) |
28.0 (26.8 - 29.1) |
25.3 (24.2 - 26.5) |
34.7 (33.4 - 35.9) |
34.2 (33.0 - 35.4) |
23.3 (22.2 - 24.3) |
|
Gaining experience in a range of tasks |
38.3 (37.0 - 39.5) |
31.2 (30.1 - 32.4) |
38.6 (37.4 - 39.9) |
44.5 (43.2 - 45.7) |
17.9 (16.9 - 18.9) |
21.4 (20.4 - 22.4) |
5.2 (4.7 - 5.8) |
2.9 (2.5 - 3.3) |
|
Working on special projects3 |
27.2 (26.1 - 28.3) |
23.0 (21.9 - 24.0) |
28.1 (27.0 - 29.3) |
37.3 (36.1 - 38.6) |
20.3 (19.2 - 21.4) |
27.3 (26.2 - 28.5) |
24.4 (23.3 - 25.6) |
12.4 (11.5 - 13.2) |
|
Demonstrating my skills and abilities |
43.9 (42.6 - 45.2) |
34.5 (33.3 - 35.7) |
40.8 (39.5 - 42.1) |
47.0 (45.8 - 48.3) |
13.6 (12.7 - 14.5) |
17.5 (16.5 - 18.4) |
1.7 (1.4 - 2.1) |
1.0 (0.7 - 1.2) |
|
Feedback on my career development needs4 |
n/a |
16.8 (15.8 - 17.7) |
n/a |
37.9 (36.7 - 39.2) |
n/a |
41.6 (40.4 - 42.9) |
n/a |
3.7 (3.2 - 4.1) |
|
Access to mentoring/ coaching (internal or external)5 |
n/a |
14.0 (13.1 - 14.8) |
n/a |
32.3 (31.1 - 33.5) |
n/a |
45.5 (44.2 - 46.8) |
n/a |
8.3 (7.6 - 9.0) |
|
1 "Actual job" replaced the 2000 survey phrase "own situation in current organisation" |
||||||||
|
2 The "N/A" option was available for both the 2000 and 2005 surveys |
||||||||
|
3 This replaced the phrase "working on high profile projects" used in the 2000 survey |
||||||||
|
4 New addition to the 2005 survey |
||||||||
|
5 New addition to the 2005 survey |
||||||||
Q11a. Thinking about your ideal job1, how important is having access to the following factors to your career development?
|
How important are the factors to you? |
|||||||||
|
Highly important |
Somewhat important |
Of little or no importance |
N/A2 |
||||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
||
|
Having my ideas valued |
81.4 (80.3 - 82.4) |
82.0 (81.0 - 83.0) |
17.7 (16.7 - 18.7) |
17.7 (16.7 - 18.6) |
0.8 (0.6 - 1.1) |
0.4 (0.2 - 0.5) |
0.1 (0.0 - 0.2) |
n/a |
|
|
Staff working co-operatively |
87.6 (86.7 - 88.4) |
90.1 (89.3 - 90.9) |
11.8 (11.0 - 12.6) |
9.6 (8.8 - 10.3) |
0.5 (0.4 - 0.8) |
0.3 (0.2 - 0.4) |
0.1 (0.0 - 0.2) |
n/a |
|
|
Accommodating of outside commitments3 |
41.3 (40.0 - 42.6) |
57.0 (55.8 - 58.3) |
48.1 (46.8 - 49.4) |
37.9 (36.6 - 39.1) |
8.9 (8.1 - 9.7) |
5.1 (4.6 - 5.7) |
1.7 (1.4 - 2.1) |
n/a |
|
|
Being treated fairly |
93.9 (93.2 - 94.5) |
94.4 (93.9 - 95.0) |
5.8 (5.2 - 6.4) |
5.4 (4.8 - 6.0) |
0.2 (0.1 - 0.4) |
0.1 (0.0 - 0.2) |
0.1 (0.0 - 0.2) |
n/a |
|
|
Good work-area design |
56.3 (55.0 - 57.6) |
62.6 (61.3 - 63.8) |
38.1 (36.9 - 39.4) |
33.9 (32.7 - 35.1) |
5.3 (4.8 - 5.9) |
3.5 (3.1 - 4.0) |
0.3 (0.2 - 0.4) |
n/a |
|
|
1 "Ideal job" replaced the 2000 survey phrase "job and career in general" |
|||||||||
|
2 The "N/A" option was not available for the 2005 survey |
|||||||||
|
3 This replaced the phrase "accommodation of outside commitments" used in the 2000 survey |
|||||||||
Q11b. Thinking about your actual job1 in the last 12 months, how would you describe the opportunities you actually get?
|
How would you rate your own job against the factors? |
|||||||||
|
Good |
Average |
Poor |
N/A2 |
||||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
||
|
Having my ideas valued |
35.8 (34.6 - 37.0) |
35.1 (33.9 - 36.3) |
44.9 (43.6 - 46.2) |
46.0 (44.8 - 47.3) |
18.0 (17.0 - 19.1) |
18.2 (17.2 - 19.2) |
1.3 (1.0 - 1.7) |
0.7 (0.5 - 0.9) |
|
|
Staff working co-operatively |
43.2 (41.9 - 44.5) |
36.0 (34.8 - 37.3) |
43.8 (42.5 - 45.1) |
47.4 (46.1 - 48.7) |
12.6 (11.7 - 13.5) |
16.4 (15.4 - 17.3) |
0.5 (0.3 - 0.7) |
0.2 (0.1 - 0.3) |
|
|
Accommodating of outside commitments3 |
36.5 (35.3 - 37.8) |
37.5 (36.3 - 38.8) |
38.6 (37.3 - 39.8) |
44.3 (43.0 - 45.5) |
10.7 (9.9 - 11.5) |
13.0 (12.2 - 13.9) |
14.3 (13.3 - 15.2) |
5.2 (4.6 - 5.8) |
|
|
Being treated fairly |
40.2 (39.0 - 41.5) |
37.2 (36.0 - 38.4) |
42.6 (41.3 - 43.9) |
42.6 (41.4 - 43.9) |
16.6 (15.7 - 17.6) |
19.9 (18.9 - 20.9) |
0.5 (0.4 - 0.8) |
0.2 (0.1 - 0.4) |
|
|
Good work-area design |
30.7 (29.6 - 31.9) |
25.0 (23.9 - 26.1) |
40.5 (39.2 - 41.8) |
42.0 (40.7 - 43.3) |
27.0 (25.8 - 28.1) |
32.1 (30.9 - 33.3) |
1.8 (1.5 - 2.2) |
0.9 (0.7 - 1.2) |
|
|
1 "Actual job" replaced the 2000 survey phrase "own experience in current organisation" |
|||||||||
|
2 The "N/A" option was available for both the 2000 and 2005 surveys |
|||||||||
|
3 This replaced the phrase "accommodation of outside commitments" used in the 2000 survey |
|||||||||
Q12. In your current organisation within the past 12 months, has there been anything else that you feel has helped you to develop in your job and career?
|
Yes |
No |
||||
|
In your current organisation has there been anything else that you feel has helped you to develop in your job and career? |
35.1 (33.8 - 36.3) |
64.9 (63.7 - 66.2) |
|||
Q13. In your current organisation within the past 12 months, has there been anything else that you feel has made it difficult for you to develop in your career?
|
Yes |
No |
||||
|
In your current organisation has there been anything else that you feel has made it difficult for you to develop in your career? |
55.5 (54.2 - 56.8) |
44.5 (43.2 - 45.8) |
|||
Q14a and b. Thinking about your ideal job - how important is support from the following people and how would you describe the level of support you actually get?
|
How important are the factors to you? |
How would you rate your organisation against the factors? |
|||||||
|
Highly important |
Somewhat important |
Of little or no importance |
Good |
Average |
Poor |
N/A |
||
|
My immediate manager |
92.6 (91.9 - 93.2) |
6.9 (6.3 - 7.6) |
0.5 (0.3 - 0.7) |
51.3 (50.1 - 52.6) |
31.1 (29.9 - 32.3) |
17.2 (16.2 - 18.1) |
0.4 (0.2 - 0.5) |
|
|
A higher level manager |
54.0 (52.8 - 55.3) |
41.3 (40.1 - 42.6) |
4.6 (4.1 - 5.1) |
23.6 (22.5 - 24.7) |
38.9 (37.7 - 40.2) |
32.5 (31.3 - 33.6) |
5.0 (4.5 - 5.6) |
|
|
My co-workers |
82.8 (81.8 - 83.8) |
16.5 (15.6 - 17.4) |
0.7 (0.5 - 0.9) |
59.1 (57.8 - 60.3) |
34.3 (33.1 - 35.5) |
6.3 (5.7 - 6.9) |
0.3 (0.2 - 0.5) |
|
|
My own staff |
71.0 (69.7 - 72.2) |
13.4 (12.4 - 14.3) |
15.7 (14.7 - 16.7) |
30.1 (28.9 - 31.3) |
15.3 (14.4 - 16.2) |
1.7 (1.4 - 2.1) |
52.8 (51.5 - 54.1) |
|
|
My partner |
81.4 (80.4 - 82.4) |
10.3 (9.5 - 11.1) |
8.3 (7.6 - 9.0) |
66.4 (65.2 - 67.6) |
11.8 (11.0 - 12.7) |
2.4 (2.0 - 2.8) |
19.4 (18.4 - 20.4) |
|
|
My family or whanau |
65.2 (64.0 - 66.4) |
24.3 (23.2 - 25.4) |
10.5 (9.8 - 11.3) |
63.0 (61.7 - 64.2) |
22.8 (21.7 - 23.9) |
3.2 (2.7 - 3.6) |
11.0 (10.2 - 11.8) |
|
|
My friends |
51.4 (50.1 - 52.7) |
33.6 (32.4 - 34.8) |
15.0 (14.1 - 15.9) |
55.0 (53.7 - 56.3) |
30.0 (28.8 - 31.2) |
3.0 (2.6 - 3.4) |
12.0 (11.2 - 12.8) |
|
Q15a and b. Thinking about your ideal manager/supervisor - how important to you is a manager that does the following?1 (Results for the 2005 survey)
|
How important are the factors to you?2 |
How would you rate your manager against each factor? |
|||||||
|
Highly important |
Somewhat important |
Of little or no importance |
Good |
Average |
Poor |
N/A |
||
|
Communicates effectively |
96.3 (95.9 - 96.8) |
3.6 (3.1 - 4.1) |
* |
42.4 (41.1 - 43.6) |
39.7 (38.5 - 41.0) |
17.7 (16.7 - 18.7) |
0.2 (0.1 - 0.3) |
|
|
Provides regular feedback about my performance |
76.1 (75.0 - 77.2) |
22.7 (21.6 - 23.8) |
1.2 (0.9 - 1.5) |
30.1 (28.9 - 31.2) |
39.5 (38.3 - 40.8) |
29.9 (28.7 - 31.0) |
0.5 (0.3 - 0.7) |
|
|
Provides constructive feedback about my performance |
86.5 (85.6 - 87.3) |
13.0 (12.2 - 13.9) |
0.5 (0.3 - 0.7) |
32.9 (31.7 - 34.1) |
38.1 (36.8 - 39.3) |
28.5 (27.4 - 29.7) |
0.5 (0.3 - 0.7) |
|
|
Acknowledges when I have performed well |
82.9 (81.9 - 83.9) |
16.3 (15.4 - 17.2) |
0.8 (0.6 - 1.0) |
40.2 (39.0 - 41.5) |
35.8 (34.5 - 37.0) |
23.6 (22.5 - 24.7) |
0.4 (0.2 - 0.5) |
|
|
Allows me freedom to use my initiative in performing my job |
90.1 (89.3 - 90.8) |
9.7 (9.0 - 10.5) |
0.2 (0.1 - 0.3) |
56.4 (55.1 - 57.6) |
30.7 (29.5 - 31.8) |
12.2 (11.4 - 13.0) |
0.8 (0.5 - 1.0) |
|
|
Provides me with the information I need to do my job |
88.3 (87.5 - 89.1) |
11.1 (10.3 - 11.9) |
0.6 (0.4 - 0.8) |
35.9 (34.7 - 37.1) |
45.3 (44.0 - 46.5) |
17.9 (16.9 - 18.9) |
1.0 (0.7 - 1.2) |
|
|
Encourages my input into decisions which directly affect me |
89.8 (89.0 - 90.6) |
9.8 (9.0 - 10.5) |
0.4 (0.2 - 0.6) |
42.3 (41.1 - 43.6) |
36.0 (34.8 - 37.3) |
21.0 (19.9 - 22.0) |
0.7 (0.5 - 0.9) |
|
|
Encourages and supports my career development |
79.0 (77.9 - 80.0) |
18.4 (17.4 - 19.4) |
2.6 (2.2 - 3.0) |
34.0 (32.8 - 35.2) |
35.1 (33.9 - 36.3) |
27.2 (26.1 - 28.3) |
3.7 (3.2 - 4.2) |
|
|
Takes a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family conflicts |
80.6 (79.5 - 81.6) |
17.2 (16.3 - 18.2) |
2.2 (1.8 - 2.6) |
57.7 (56.4 - 58.9) |
28.4 (27.2 - 29.5) |
9.0 (8.2 - 9.7) |
5.0 (4.4 - 5.5) |
|
|
1 In 2000, respondents had six options "Very Good", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", "Very Poor" and "N/A". In 2005, respondents had four options "Good", "Average", "Poor" and "N/A". Because of the questionnaire change, results between 2000 and 2005 have not been compared. |
||||||||
|
2 The importance of each factor was not surveyed in 2000 |
||||||||
Q15b. Thinking about your actual manager/supervisor - how would you describe the level of support you actually received?1 (Results for the 2000 survey)
|
How would describe the level of support you actually received from your manager? |
|||||||
|
Very good |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
Very poor |
N/A |
||
|
Communicates effectively |
28.4 (27.4 - 29.4) |
33.6 (32.6 - 34.6) |
22.8 (21.8 - 23.7) |
9.7 (9.1 - 10.4) |
5.3 (4.8 - 5.8) |
0.2 (0.1 - 0.3) |
|
|
Provides regular feedback about my performance |
20.8 (19.9 - 21.6) |
29.0 (28.0 - 30.0) |
25.8 (24.8 - 26.7) |
14.9 (14.2 - 15.7) |
8.7 (8.1 - 9.3) |
0.8 (0.6 - 1.0) |
|
|
Provides constructive feedback about my performance |
28.4 (27.4 - 29.4) |
29.8 (28.8 - 30.8) |
23.3 (22.4 - 24.2) |
11.0 (10.3 - 11.7) |
6.8 (6.2 - 7.3) |
0.7 (0.5 - 0.9) |
|
|
Acknowledges when I have performed well |
45.5 (44.4 - 46.6) |
31.8 (30.8 - 32.9) |
14.2 (13.5 - 15.0) |
4.9 (4.4 - 5.3) |
2.7 (2.4 - 3.1) |
0.8 (0.6 - 1.0) |
|
|
Allows me freedom to use my initiative in performing my job |
25.2 (24.2 - 26.1) |
35.7 (34.7 - 36.8) |
25.0 (24.0 - 25.9) |
8.6 (8.0 - 9.2) |
4.2 (3.8 - 4.6) |
1.3 (1.1 - 1.6) |
|
|
Provides me with the information I need to do my job |
35.0 (33.9 - 36.0) |
32.1 (31.1 - 33.1) |
19.3 (18.4 - 20.2) |
8.0 (7.4 - 8.6) |
4.7 (4.2 - 5.2) |
0.9 (0.7 - 1.1) |
|
|
Encourages my input into decisions which directly affect me |
26.5 (25.5 - 27.5) |
27.6 (26.6 - 28.6) |
22.9 (21.9 - 23.8) |
10.9 (10.2 - 11.6) |
7.4 (6.8 - 7.9) |
4.8 (4.3 - 5.3) |
|
|
Encourages and supports my career development |
32.2 (31.2 - 33.2) |
27.0 (26.1 - 28.0) |
17.0 (16.1 - 17.8) |
6.3 (5.7 - 6.8) |
4.7 (4.2 - 5.1) |
12.8 (12.1 - 13.6) |
|
|
Takes a flexible and supportive approach to resolving work and family conflicts |
28.4 (27.4 - 29.4) |
33.6 (32.6 - 34.6) |
22.8 (21.8 - 23.7) |
9.7 (9.1 - 10.4) |
5.3 (4.8 - 5.8) |
0.2 (0.1 - 0.3) |
|
Q16. Do you have a mentor?
|
Yes |
No |
||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
||
|
Do you have a mentor? |
18.0 (17.1 - 19.1) |
19.8 (18.8 - 20.9) |
82.0 (80.9 - 82.9) |
80.2 (79.1 - 81.2) |
|
Q17. For those that had a mentor, do you find mentoring assists your career development?
|
Yes |
No |
||
|
Do you find mentoring assists your career development? |
90.5 (89.7 - 91.2) |
9.5 (8.8 - 10.3) |
Q18. For those that had a mentor, did you make contact with your mentor through a formal mentoring scheme?
|
Yes |
No |
||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
||
|
Did you make contact with your mentor through a formal mentoring scheme? |
15.4 (13.2 - 17.8) |
14.2 (13.3 - 15.1) |
84.6 (82.2 - 86.8) |
85.8 (84.9 - 86.7) |
|
Q19. For those that did not have a mentor, would you like to have access to a formal mentoring scheme?
|
Yes |
No |
Don't know |
|||||
|
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
2000 |
2005 |
||
|
Would you like to have access to a formal mentoring scheme? |
37.5 (36.3 - 38.8) |
45.3 (44.0 - 46.5) |
29.1 (27.9 - 30.3) |
25.1 (24.0 - 26.2) |
33.4 (32.1 - 34.7) |
29.7 (28.5 - 30.8) |
|
Part C - Background Information
The associated 95% confidence interval is shown in brackets. Each confidence interval is a range. This is the range within which the actual proportion will fall in 95 cases out of 100. Numbers have been suppressed (shown by an *) when the number in the cell is based on less than four responses.
Q21. Do you manage or supervise staff in your current position?
|
Yes |
No |
||
|
Do you manage or supervise staff in your current position? |
34.8 (33.5 - 36.0) |
65.2 (64.0 - 66.5) |
Q22. Do you manage budgets in your current position?
|
Yes |
No |
||
|
Do you manage budgets in your current position? |
23.0 (21.9 - 24.0) |
77.0 (76.0 - 78.1) |
Q23 and Q24. Occupation:
|
Associate Professional |
Customer Services Clerks |
Managers |
Not Specified |
||||
|
What is your current job title/occupation? |
28.5 (27.4 - 29.6) |
2.6 (2.2 - 3.0) |
13.2 (12.3 - 14.0) |
5.6 (5.0 - 6.2) |
|||
|
Office Clerks |
Personal & Protective Services |
Professionals |
Science/ Technical |
Trades & Production Workers |
|||
|
12.6 (11.8 - 13.5) |
5.4 (4.9 - 6.0) |
22.7 (21.6 - 23.7) |
9.3 (8.6 - 10.0) |
* |
|||
Q25. In total, how many years have you worked in your organisation (to the nearest 12 months)?
|
Less than 1 year |
1-2 years |
3-5 years |
6-10 years |
11-15 years |
16 or more years |
||
|
In total, how many years have you worked in your current organisation? |
3.5 (3.1 - 4.0) |
20.5 (19.4 - 21.5) |
26.9 (25.8 - 28.1) |
18.4 (17.4 - 19.4) |
10.8 (10.0 - 11.6) |
19.8 (18.8 - 20.8) |
Q26. In total, how many years (to the nearest 12 months) have you worked in the Public Service (including broken service & part-time work)?
|
Less than 1 year |
1-2 years |
3-5 years |
6-10 years |
11-15 years |
16 or more years |
||
|
In total, how many years have you worked in the Public Service (including broken service and part-time work)? |
1.6 (1.3 - 2.0) |
11.4 (10.6 - 12.2) |
18.9 (17.9 - 19.9) |
18.4 (17.4 - 19.4) |
14.0 (13.1 - 14.9) |
35.6 (34.4 - 36.9) |
Q27. In what region are you based?
|
Northland |
Auckland |
Waikato |
Bay of Plenty |
Gisborne |
Hawke's Bay |
Taranaki |
Manawatu-Wanganui |
|||
|
In what region are you based? |
2.8 (2.4 - 3.2) |
17.9 (16.9 - 18.9) |
8.3 (7.6 - 9.0) |
4.1 (3.6 - 4.6) |
0.8 (0.6 - 1.0) |
2.9 (2.4 - 3.3) |
1.7 (1.4 - 2.1) |
4.3 (3.7 - 4.8) |
||
|
Wellington-Wairarapa |
Nelson |
Marlborough |
West Coast |
Canterbury |
Otago |
Southland |
Overseas |
|||
|
39.1 (37.9 - 40.4) |
1.4 (1.1 - 1.7) |
0.7 (0.5 - 0.9) |
0.6 (0.4 - 0.9) |
10.1 (9.3 - 10.9) |
3.2 (2.8 - 3.7) |
1.5 (1.2 - 1.8) |
0.7 (0.5 - 0.9) |
|||
Q28. Which of these best describes the location of that office?
|
City |
Town |
Rural area |
||
|
Which of these best describes the location of that office? |
80.6 (79.6 - 81.6) |
12.4 (11.6 - 13.3) |
7.0 (6.3 - 7.6) |
Q29. How many hours are you employed to work each week?
|
Less than 30 hours |
30 hours or more but less than 37.5 hours |
37.5 hours or more |
||
|
How many hours are you employed to work each week? |
4.4 (3.9 - 5.0) |
6.4 (5.7 - 7.0) |
89.2 (88.4 - 90.0) |
Q30. Do you usually work additional hours each week (over and above those you are employed for)?
|
Yes |
No |
||
|
Do you usually work additional hours each week (over and above those you are employed for)? |
67.5 (66.3 - 68.7) |
32.5 (31.3 - 33.7) |
Q31. On average, how many additional hours do you work each week?
|
Less than 5 |
5 to 9 |
10 to 14 |
15 to 20 |
More than 20 |
||
|
On average, how many additional hours do you work each week? |
40.9 (39.6 - 42.1) |
38.9 (37.6 - 40.1) |
13.2 (12.3 - 14.1) |
4.8 (4.3 - 5.4) |
2.2 (1.8 - 2.6) |
Q32. What is your salary range?
|
Less than $30,000 |
$30,000-$39,999 |
$40,000-$49,999 |
$50,000-$59,999 |
$60,000-$69,999 |
||||||
|
What is your salary range? |
3.9 (3.4 - 4.4) |
28.9 (27.8 - 30.1) |
25.1 (24.0 - 26.2) |
14.8 (13.9 - 15.7) |
10.1 (9.4 - 10.9) |
|||||
|
$70,000-$79,999 |
$80,000-$89,999 |
$90,000-$99,999 |
$100,000-$149,999 |
$150,000-$199,999 |
$200,000 or more |
|||||
|
6.2 (5.6 - 6.9) |
4.1 (3.6 - 4.6) |
2.5 (2.1 - 2.9) |
3.4 (2.9 - 3.9) |
0.5 (0.3 - 0.7) |
0.5 (0.3 - 0.7) |
|||||
Q33. Which of these qualifications, if any, do you have?1
|
Yes |
||||
|
No formal qualification |
5.1 (4.3 - 5.9) |
|||
|
School qualification |
19.7 (18.5 - 20.9) |
|||
|
National/trade certificate or equivalent |
17.4 (16.2 - 18.6) |
|||
|
Partially completed degree or diploma |
9.2 (8.2 - 10.2) |
|||
|
Undergraduate degree or diploma |
24.8 (23.5 - 26.1) |
|||
|
Postgraduate qualification |
22.9 (21.6 - 24.2) |
|||
|
Other qualification |
0.8 (0.4 - 1.2) |
|||
|
1 Only the highest qualification is reported where a respondent has selected more than one option |
||||
Q34. Do you have primary caring responsibility for children or adults?
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
Do you have primary caring responsibility for children or adults? |
|
35.1 (33.9 - 36.3) |
64.9 (63.7 - 66.1) |
Q35. Who do you provide primary care for?1
|
|
Yes |
||
|
Pre-school child(ren) |
|
9.0 (8.3 - 9.8) |
|
|
School child(ren) (aged 5 - 17 years) |
|
24.6 (23.5 - 25.7) |
|
|
Adult(s) (aged 18 years or more) |
|
9.2 (8.5 - 10.0) |
|
|
1 Respondents could select more than one option |
|||
Q36. Which of the following best describes your personal situation?
|
|
Family with one income |
Family with two or more incomes |
Other |
|
|
Which of the following best describes your personal situation? |
|
23.0 (21.9 - 24.0) |
52.5 (51.2 - 53.8) |
24.6 (23.5 - 25.7) |
Q37. Do you live with a spouse or partner?
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
Do you live with a spouse or partner? |
|
71.0 (69.8 - 72.1) |
29.0 (27.9 - 30.2) |
Q38. Are you
|
|
Male |
Female |
|
|
Are you: |
|
42.7 (41.4 - 43.9) |
57.3 (56.1 - 58.6) |
Q39. To which age group do you belong?
|
Under 25 |
25-29 |
30-34 |
35-39 |
40-44 |
|||
|
To which age group do you belong?? |
4.7 (4.2 - 5.3) |
9.7 (8.9 - 10.5) |
12.4 (11.5 - 13.2) |
14.7 (13.8 - 15.6) |
15.7 (14.8 - 16.6) |
||
|
45-49 |
50-54 |
55-59 |
60-64 |
65+ |
|||
|
15.2 (14.3 - 16.1) |
13.0 (12.1 - 13.8) |
9.5 (8.7 - 10.2) |
4.2 (3.7 - 4.8) |
0.9 (0.6 - 1.1) |
|||
Q40. To which ethnic group(s) do you belong?1
|
Yes |
||||
|
NZ European |
70.3 (69.2 - 71.5) |
|||
|
Other European |
7.4 (6.8 - 8.1) |
|||
|
NZ Maori |
15.0 (14.1 - 15.9) |
|||
|
Pacific Peoples |
5.0 (4.5 - 5.6) |
|||
|
Asian |
4.6 (4.1 - 5.1) |
|||
|
Other |
0.2 (0.1 - 0.3) |
|||
|
1 Respondents could select more than one option |
||||
Q41. Is your daily activity limited by a long term condition or health problem that has lasted six month or more (or is expected to last six months or more)?
|
Yes |
No |
||
|
Is your daily activity limited by a long-term condition or health problem that has lasted six months or more (or is expected to last 6 months or more)? |
7.5 (6.8 - 8.1) |
92.5 (91.9 - 93.2) |
Q42. Which of these best describes your condition or health problem?1
|
Yes |
|||
|
Sensory |
1.0 (0.8 - 1.3) |
||
|
Physical |
5.4 (4.9 - 6.0) |
||
|
Intellectual |
* |
||
|
Psychiatric/Psychological |
0.6 (0.4 - 0.8) |
||
|
Other |
0.9 (0.6 - 1.1) |
||
|
1 Respondents could select more than one option |
|||
Q43. How long have you had this condition or health problem?
|
Less than 1 year |
1-2 years |
3-5 years |
6-10 years |
More than 10 years |
N/A |
||
|
How long have you had this condition or health problem? |
0.8 (0.6 - 1.0) |
1.4 (1.1 - 1.7) |
1.4 (1.1 - 1.7) |
1.4 (1.1 - 1.7) |
2.3 (1.9 - 2.6) |
92.7 (92.0 - 93.3) |
Q44. What is your sexual orientation?
|
Heterosexual (straight) |
Homosexual (gay/lesbian) |
Bisexual |
Prefer not to answer |
||
|
What is your sexual orientation? |
85.9 (85.0 - 86.8) |
1.9 (1.5 - 2.2) |
0.9 (0.7 - 1.2) |
11.3 (10.5 - 12.1) |
APPENDIX 2. TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Response rate
The overall response rate was 53%. In total, 9,916 people were selected for the survey and 5,235 responded. The departmental response rates varied from 16% to 93%, although 33 of the 35 departments had response rates over 40%.
Sample Design
Survey scope
The target population for the Career Progression and Development Survey was defined as "current employees in the Public Service as at 30 June 2004, who have an employment contract of service with the chief executive of the department, and to whom the usual conditions relating to being an employee apply, and Public Service chief executives".
The following people were excluded:
- fixed-term employees
- casual employees
- contractors and consultants where payment was made to a company rather than to the worker.
Frame
The sampling frame used for the Career Progression and Development Survey was department-based. The frame was constructed from the SSC Human Resource Capability (HRC) dataset, which contains anonymised unit record information for every person employed in the Public Service, including chief executives, as at 30 June each year. This unit record information is collected from the human resource units of each Public Service department. Due to the nine-month delay between the HRC data for 30 June 2004 and the survey field phase (March/April 2005), some selected staff were no longer employed by a department. To maintain the departmental sample size, these staff were replaced by a second random sample.
Stratification
The design was a stratified random sample with two levels of stratification:
- Level 1 "Super-strata" - division of staff members into their respective departments
- Level 2 "Sub-strata" - further division of each department into strata based on gender and ethnicity.
Allocation across strata, sample selection, and weighting
The sample size in each super-strata depended on two factors:
- whether the department required a report containing their own results
- the number of staff employed in the department.
For those departments requiring their own report, the available sample was allocated towards smaller departments and away from larger departments. In departments with fewer than 400 employees, everyone was selected; in departments with 400 or more employees, a sample was selected from within each of the sub-strata. The allocation of the sample across the sub-strata was also targeted towards Māori, to provide better estimates for this sub-population.
Fourteen departments did not require departmental reports. For these departments there was no requirement for accurate estimates at the departmental level. The 14 departments were therefore combined into one super-stratum and a stratified sample was selected from each of the sub-strata. The allocation to sub-strata targeted Māori and also ensured the sample was evenly spread across both male and female staff members.
The survey was weighted to reflect the sample design, and to account for the uneven probabilities of selection. An adjustment factor to account for non-response was applied within each department.
Survey procedures
The survey consisted of a single questionnaire, administered in electronic (web-based) or paper-based form. Most questionnaires were completed electronically.
Feedback from the field phase of the survey indicated that most respondents found the questionnaire easy to complete. The problems identified in the field stage centred around the electronic method - difficulties associated with usernames and passwords in accessing the web questionnaires.
Sampling Error Calculations
We have used the results from this sample to draw conclusions about the entire Public Service and specific sub-populations within the Public Service. However, because only a proportion of the Public Service was selected for the survey, the estimates are subject to sampling error.
A module of SPSS (a statistical analysis tool), called Complex Samples, was used to correctly account for the sample design in the sampling error and confidence interval calculations.
Sampling errors for point estimates
The sample errors have been used to estimate the accuracy of the point estimates. A survey estimate with a large sampling error is unreliable; therefore, the sampling error - a statistical measure that can be calculated for each estimate - should be used to examine the reliability of each estimate. The formula for the Public Service sampling errors of point estimates (proportion) is:
where:
Confidence intervals for point estimates
The sampling error is used to construct a confidence interval around the point estimate (proportion). This report uses a 95% confidence interval for estimates, which means that the confidence interval has a 95% chance of containing the population value. From the sampling error formula above, the confidence interval for each proportion is:
Confidence intervals are provided in the tables in Appendix 1, in brackets beneath the relevant proportion.
Confidence intervals for the difference between two point estimates
Estimates of the difference between sub-groups from the 2005 survey, and changes between the 2000 and 2005 survey have been calculated using the following formula:
A 95% confidence interval for the difference between two point estimates can also be calculated. The formula used by the SPSS Complex Samples module is:
A confidence interval that includes 0 means that no statistically significant difference has been found between the two proportions. This method has been used to compare the results of different groups - for example, comparing the results from females with those from males, or comparing the results from the 2000 survey with the 2005 survey.
APPENDIX 3. QUESTIONNAIRE
1 State Services Commission, Development Goals for the State Services. For further information visit www.ssc.govt.nz
2 State Services Commission. Career Progression and Development Survey, 2000: Results for the New Zealand Public Service. Wellington, SSC, 2002
3 State Services Commission. Human Resource Capability Survey of Public Service Departments as at 30 June 2004. Wellington, SSC, 2004. The sample for the Career Progression and Development Survey was drawn from the SSC's Human Resource Capability dataset as at 30 June 2004. Consequently, figures that report on the composition of the Public Service are also reported as at 30 June 2004.
4 Statistics New Zealand. National Ethnic Population Projections: 2001 (base) - 2021. Wellington, SNZ, 2001
5 Statistics New Zealand. National Pacific Population Projections: 2001 (base) - 2051. Wellington, SNZ, 2001
6 Statistics New Zealand. New Zealand Now: Women. Wellington, SNZ, 1998
7 State Services Commission. Career Progression and Development Survey, 2000: Results for the New Zealand Public Service. Wellington, SSC, 2002
8 The Human Resource Capability (HRC) Survey is a collection of anonymous, unit record human resource related data from government departments as at 30 June each year. June 2004 HRC figures are cited in this report, unless otherwise stated.
9 The SSC's publication Creating a Positive Work Environment, published in 2003, examines these issues.
10 The sample for the Career Progression and Development Survey was drawn from the State Services Commission's Human Resource Capability dataset as at 30 June 2004. Consequently, figures that report on the composition of the Public Service are also reported as at 30 June 2004.
11 Statistics New Zealand. Household Labour Force Survey. Wellington, SNZ, June 2000 and 2004
12 Tier 1, 2 and 3 managers.
13 Staff with unknown occupations and/or of unknown age were excluded from this calculation.
14 Staff with unknown ethnicities, occupations and/or of unknown age were excluded from this calculation.
15 Op. cit.
16 State Services Commission, Human Resource Capability Survey of Public Service Departments as at 30 June 2005, Wellington, SSC, 2005, p 9. Core unplanned turnover shows the number of unplanned cessations, primarily resignations, of open-term (permanent) staff as a proportion of total open-term employment (calculated as the average of the number of open-term staff at the start and end of the period). The calculation includes movements between departments. As such, the actual level of 'loss' to the Public Service through unplanned turnover exits is likely to be below the 14% reported.
17 The term "additional hours" replaced the phrase "long hours associated with higher-level positions" used in the 2000 survey.
18 The term "additional responsibilities" replaced the phrase "management responsibilities" used in the 2000 survey.
19 "Beat the burnout", in The Guardian, 4 September, 2002
20 Ibid.
21 Henderson, P.G. "The career/longevity connection", in Adultspan Journal, 22 September, 2001
22 Morison, R. et al. Managing Middlescence, Harvard Business Review, March 2006. The 35-54 age group makes up 57% of the New Zealand Public Service.
23 The term "effective management" replaced the phrase "quality of management" used in the 2000 survey.
24 The term "effective management" replaced the phrase "quality of management" used in the 2000 survey.
25 The term "reputable organisation" replaced the phrase "reputation of organisation" used in the 2000 survey.
26 The term "manageable workload" replaced the phrase "reasonable workload" used in the 2000 survey.
27 The term "set number of hours per week" replaced the phrase "standard hours" used in the 2000 survey.
28 Bloom, N. et al. Solving the Skills Gap: Summary Report from the AIM/CIHE Management Research Forum. Advanced Institute of Management Research, 2004
29 McGregor, J. Employment of the Older Worker. Palmerston North, Massey University, 2001
30 Rendall, R. Facing an Ageing Workforce: Information for Public Service HR Managers.Wellington, State Services Commission, April 2004
31 Morison, R. et al. Managing Middlescence, Harvard Business Review, March 2006.
32 Wright B. and Davis B. "Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector: The Role of the Work Environment" in American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 33 (1), March 2003, p 73.
33 State Services Commission, Human Resources Capability Survey, Wellington, 2004.
34 Morison, R. et al. Managing Middlescence, Harvard Business Review, March 2006. The 35-54 age group makes up 57% of the New Zealand Public Service.
35 For questions relating to the support from managers, the 2000 survey asked respondents to select one of six options ("Very good", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", "Very poor", and "N/A"). To maintain comparability with the rest of the questionnaire, the questions in the 2005 survey asked respondents to select one of four options ("Good", "Average", "Poor", and "N/A"). The different scales meant it was difficult to separate the effect of the questionnaire change from changes in the ratings that public servants gave their managers.
36 Anderson, E., Definitions of Mentoring, unpublished manuscript, 1987, cited in Alred, G. and Garvey, B. "Learning to produce knowledge - the contribution of mentoring", in Organisations and People, 8(2), May 2001, p19
37 Respondents were asked how important access to the following factors were to their career development and were then asked to rate their organisation in providing them with access to those factors over the 12 months prior to the survey: demonstrating my skills and abilities, on-the-job training, gaining experience in a range of tasks, feedback on my career development needs, training courses and seminars, access to mentoring/coaching (internal or external), working on special projects, study leave to further my qualifications, acting in higher positions, secondment to other work areas or organisations.
38 The Leadership Development Centre is currently doing some work in this area for senior Māori managers.
39 See, for example, Equal Opportunities Commission, Britain's Hidden Brain Drain - Final Report: the EOC's Investigation into Flexible and Part-time Working (September 2005) and Jones, A. The Labour of Hours: Is Managing Time the Route to Smarter Working? The Work Foundation (2004).
40 Work-Life Balance Project. Achieving Balanced Lives and Employment. Wellington, DOL, 2004, p 13.
41 State Services Commission. Work-Life Balance: a Resource for the State Services. Wellington, SSC, 2005, p 6.
42 Morison, R. et al. Managing Middlescence, Harvard Business Review, March 2006, p. 80-1.
43 See, for example, EEO Trust, The Business Benefits of Encouraging Work Life Balance.
www.theworkfoundation.com/research/labour.jsp Jones, A. The Labour of Hours: Is Managing Time the Route to Smarter Working? The Work Foundation, 2004
45 Between 2000 and 2004, the number of employees in the Public Service increased by almost 8,000. While 25% of this growth was due to the effects of agencies moving in and out of the Public Service, it can also be attributed to the increase in the number of new recruits into frontline positions.
46 Work-Life Balance Project, op. cit., p16
47 The Human Resource Capability (HRC) Survey is a collection of anonymous, unit record human resource-related data from government departments as at 30 June each year.
48 Between the 2003 and 2004 HRC surveys, some employees in the Ministry of Education and the Department of Corrections were reclassified from casual employees (outside the scope of the HRC Survey) to either permanent or temporary employees. Many of these staff worked part time. Unadjusted figures show a 44% increase in the proportion of public servants that work part time between June 2000 to June 2004.
49 HRC Survey data shows that the number of men who work part time has increased since 2000 (by 2 percentage points). However, over the same period, the proportion of women working part time has increased at a faster rate (5 percentage points).
50 Part-timers were over-represented in the associate professionals (call centre operators, administrative officers, case workers, social workers) and office clerk occupations. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, part-time work was mostly available only in low-level, low-paid jobs (Equal Opportunities Commission, Britain's Hidden Brain Drain - Final Report: The EOC's Investigation into Flexible and Part-time Working, September 2005).
51 Similarly, a United Kingdom survey of teaching, HR, marketing and IT professionals found that in all professions, requests for flexible hours were seen as 'career death' (Flexecutive, Work-Life Balance or Career Death? September 2002).
52 A study by the Department of Labour showed that access to flexible hours was the most frequently identified work-life balance practice that participants either had or wanted (Work-Life Balance Project, op. cit., p17).
53 In 2000 this question asked respondents whether they had, or shared, primary caring responsibilities for children or adults. In 2005 this question was altered to measure those that had primary caring responsibilities and looked at the impact this had on a caregiver's career progression. Options for this question were also altered to provide clearer age groups for each category. In 2000 the following options were available: "Pre-school child(ren)", "School child(ren)", and "Other child(ren)". In 2005 these options changed to: "Pre-school child(ren)", "School child(ren) (aged 5-17 years)", and "Adult(s) (aged 18 years or more)".
54 Respondents could select more than one option for this question. Reported figures do not, therefore, add to 35%.
55 The term "domestic/caregiver leave" replaced the phrase "caregiver leave" used in the 2000 survey.
56 Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987
57 In addition to the Government's Work-Life Balance Project, established in 2003, a resource on work-life balance for the State Services was released in March 2005.
58 For a list of relevant legislation, government policy and current government initiatives (as at March 2005) see State Services Commission, Supplement to Work-Life Balance: a Resource for the State Services, Wellington, SSC, 2005.
59 The Human Resource Capability (HRC) Survey is a collection of anonymous, unit record human resource related data from government departments as at 30 June each year.
60 Statistics New Zealand. Focusing on Women, 2005. Wellington, SNZ, 2004
61 Statistics New Zealand. Household Labour Force Survey. Wellington, SNZ, June 2000 and 2004
62 The largest occupations in the Public Service were general clerk (77% female), case worker (78% female) and policy analyst (52% female).
63 Tier 1, 2 and 3 managers.
64 At March 2006, women held 26% of Public Service chief executive positions.
65 Staff with unknown occupations and/or of unknown age were excluded from this calculation.
66 Op. cit.
67 Statistics New Zealand. New Zealand Income Survey (June 2004). The reported figure relates to median hourly earnings.
68 Ross-Smith, A. Women's career progression: Findings from the ARC SPIRT project 2002-2003. Sydney, University of Technology, November 2004
69 The term "effective management" replaced the phrase "quality of management" used in the 2000 survey.
70 Between 2000 and 2004, the number of employees in the Public Service increased by almost 8,000. While 25% of this growth was due to the effects of agencies moving in and out of the Public Service, it can also be attributed to the increase in the number of new recruits into frontline positions.
71 Between the 2003 and 2004 HRC surveys, some employees in the Ministry of Education and the Department of Corrections were reclassified from casual employees (outside the scope of the HRC Survey) to either permanent or temporary employees. Many of these staff worked part time. Unadjusted figures show a 44% increase in the proportion of public servants who worked part time between June 2000 to June 2004.
72 HRC Survey data shows that the number of men who worked part time has increased since 2000 (by 2 percentage points). However, over the same period, the proportion of women working part time has increased at a faster rate (5 percentage points).
73 Similarly, a United Kingdom survey of teaching, HR, marketing and IT professionals found that in all professions, requests for flexible hours were seen as 'career death' (Flexecutive, Work-Life Balance or Career Death? September 2002).
74 The Human Resource Capability (HRC) Survey is a collection of anonymous, unit record human resource related data from government departments as at 30 June each year.
75 Statistics New Zealand. Household Labour Force Survey. Wellington, SNZ, June 2004
76 In 2004, the gender split between Māori females and males was 65:35. This is higher than the proportion of women in the Public Service, which has a female:male split of 59:41.
77 Staff with unknown ethnicities, occupations and/or of unknown age were excluded from this calculation.
78 Op. cit.
79 Figures adjusted for age and occupation showed the pay gap between Māori and non-Māori decreased from 4% in 2000 to 3% in 2004.
80 For a more detailed discussion on these factors see chapter 3.
81 The Leadership Development Centre is currently doing some work in this area for senior Māori managers.
82 Between 2000 and 2004, the number of employees in the Public Service increased by almost 8,000. While 25% of this growth was due to the effects of agencies moving in and out of the Public Service, it can also be attributed to the increase in the number of new recruits into frontline positions.
83 The wording for this question was altered to extend beyond "leave for cultural reasons" that was used in the 2000 survey.
84 The Human Resource Capability (HRC) Survey is a collection of anonymous, unit record human resource related data from government departments as at 30 June each year.
85 Statistics New Zealand. Household Labour Force Survey
86 In 2004, the gender split between Pacific females and males was 64:36. This is higher than the proportion of women in the Public Service, which has a female:male split of 59:41.
87 Staff with unknown ethnicities, occupations and/or of unknown age were excluded from this calculation.
88 Op. cit.
89 Between 2000 and 2004, the number of employees in the Public Service increased by almost 8,000. While 25% of this growth was due to the effects of agencies moving in and out of the Public Service, it can also be attributed to the increase in the number of new recruits into frontline positions.
90 The wording for this question was altered to extend beyond "leave for cultural reasons" that was used in the 2000 survey.
91 This definition is based on recommendations from the World Health Organisation.
92 Between 2000 and 2004, the number of employees in the Public Service increased by almost 8,000. While 25% of this growth was due to the effects of agencies moving in and out of the Public Service, it can also be attributed to the increase in the number of new recruits into frontline positions.
93 Staff that work fewer than 37.5 hours per week.
94 The Human Resource Capability (HRC) Survey is a collection of anonymous, unit record human resource related data from government departments as at 30 June each year.
95 At March 2006, women held 26% of Public Service chief executive positions.
96 31% of managers were primary caregivers, compared with 36% of non-managers.
97 Between 2000 and 2004, the number of employees in the Public Service increased by almost 8,000. While 25% of this growth was due to the effects of agencies moving in and out of the Public Service, it can also be attributed to the increase in the number of new recruits into frontline positions.
98 Fewer than 37.5 hours per week.
99 These groups partially correspond to the terms 'Generation Y' (used for people born from the early 80's onwards), 'Generation X' (used for people born from 1964 to the early 80's), and the 'Baby Boomers' (used for people born between 1946 and 1964), although there is some crossover between groups.
100 The Human Resource Capability (HRC) Survey is a collection of anonymous, unit record human resource related data from government departments as at 30 June each year.
101 Staff who work fewer than 37.5 hours per week.
102 60% of workers in the 45 plus age group had spent 16 years or more in the Public Service.
103 The Leadership Development Centre is currently doing some work in this area for senior Māori managers.
104 In addition to the Government's Work-Life Balance Project, established in 2003, a resource on work-life balance for the State Services was released in March 2005.
105 For a list of relevant legislation, government policy and current government initiatives (as at March 2005) see State Services Commission, Supplement to Work-Life Balance: a Resource for the State Services, Wellington, SSC, 2005.
106 For a list of relevant legislation, government policy and current government initiatives (as at March 2005) see State Services Commission, Supplement to Work-Life Balance: a Resource for the State Services, Wellington, SSC, 2005.
107 EEO Policy to 2010: Future Directions of EEO in the New Zealand Public Service, State Services Commission, Wellington, 1997.
