Commissioner's comment on the release of the 2010 Integrity and Conduct Survey results
Resource information
Media statement from Iain Rennie, State Services Commissioner.
In March and April this year the second State Services-wide integrity and conduct survey was undertaken. This was carried out under my mandate to set standards and provide advice and guidance on integrity and conduct to State Services agencies.
More than 13,000 State servants, from 41 randomly selected agencies across the State Services, were invited to participate in the survey. I am pleased that more than 8000 State servants chose to participate - a high response rate of 65 percent. Today I am publicly releasing the results of the survey.
The survey measures the trustworthiness of State servants by asking State Services employees about integrity-related behaviour they are seeing in their agencies. It is a reflection of how State servants view each other in a work setting and plays an important role in monitoring levels of integrity and conduct in the State Services.
This year's survey highlights the changes since the initial benchmarking survey in 2007. It also complements the recent Kiwis Count findings on public trust in the State Services (the 'outside in' view), by measuring State servants' perceptions of the trustworthiness of their colleagues (the 'inside out' view).
I'm pleased to note that the 2010 survey results are largely positive, consistent with New Zealand's rating as the least corrupt public sector on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2009.
Importantly, awareness of the Code of Conduct amongst State servants is very high - at 97%.
There are also indications of a strengthening in integrity since 2007. Behaviour in most areas has remained largely the same, or has improved slightly. While the number of statistically significant changes is small, the majority indicate a strengthening culture of integrity across the State Services.
These changes include:
|
- |
more State servants than in 2007 are aware of the provisions in the Protected Disclosures Act (increase: 31% to 35%) |
|
- |
criminal activity (theft, fraud) remains at very low levels, with the vast majority of misconduct being unacceptable social behaviour (bullying, lying, improper internet usage) |
|
- |
fewer State servants have observed sexual harassment (decrease: 7% to 5%) |
|
- |
more State servants are reporting misconduct when they see it (increase: 55% to 63%) |
|
- |
more agree their colleagues consider standards of integrity and conduct when making work-related decisions (increase: 76% to 81%) |
|
- |
more strongly agree their colleagues talk about the importance of integrity and conduct and doing the right thing in the work they do (increase: 19% to 23%) |
|
- |
more managers are acting on employee's breaches of integrity standards (increase: 52% to 59%) |
|
- |
more managers are integrating performance on integrity and conduct into employees' performance appraisals (increase: 63% to 67%) |
These results are encouraging.
The survey has also highlighted a number of areas where room for improvement remains:
|
- |
only 56% of State servants are aware of the integrity training provided by their agency, indicating a need for more emphasis on training as a way to integrate standards into all aspects of work. |
|
- |
despite a small improvement since 2007, awareness of the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000, which provides for confidential complaints about 'serious wrongdoing', remains disappointingly low (at 35%). This indicates the need for agencies to publish and promote their protected disclosures policy more robustly and frequently, as required by law. |
|
- |
the type of misconduct witnessed, and the extent to which it is occurring, is largely unchanged from 2007. As in 2007, the most frequently observed behaviours are abusive and intimidating behaviour towards other staff, improper use of the internet or email, and lying to other employees My expectation is that agencies will target these behaviours by raising awareness of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, publicising both agency policy and information on how to access advice and support, and acting decisively when breaches occur. |
|
- |
Some aspects of senior managers' behaviour is perceived poorly by State servants, with more in 2010 disagreeing that they trust middle and senior management to keep promises and commitments. The survey also indicates a relationship between the levels of trust in management and whether the agency has recently experienced a restructure. During times of change and stress on the system, excellent communication from managers to staff is vitally important to maintaining high levels of trust, and this is my expectation of chief executives and their leadership teams. |
In conclusion, this survey has provided a snapshot of integrity and conduct across the system and I believe we can be largely pleased with the results. However, we do not achieve high standards of integrity and conduct in the New Zealand State Services, or maintain them, through complacency.
I will continue to work with chief executives and State servants to encourage good behaviours, deal with unethical behaviours, and to strengthen the high level of trust that is required - both internally and externally - to maintain trusted State services.
ENDS
* Information about integrity and conduct, including survey results, is available on the SSC website:
www.ssc.govt.nz/2010-survey-report
Contact: Jason Ryan, Communications Manager, tel 04 495 2850.