print this page
© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Public Service Commission
Home page
> State of the Service reports
> State of the Service Report 2005-06 > Job satisfaction, communication and productivity > Employee engagement > Next: Communication
‹ Previous page
Last updated: 30 November 2006
Chapter 3: Job satisfaction, communication and productivity
Abbreviations
A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary
Employee engagement
‘Employee engagement’ describes the relationship between how employees’ feel about the organisations they work for and how those feelings contribute to their commitment to the work they do, and to their intention to remain with the organisation.
The factors which are said to most strongly influence employee engagement can be grouped under the following headings:2
- immediate management
- career development/opportunities
- regular feedback and communication of goals and expectations
- good working relationships
- leadership and the purpose and values of the organisation
- salary and conditions.
For several years the employee survey has been used to capture information about APS employees’levels of job satisfaction, by asking survey respondents to choose the five factors (from among 15 factors) which contribute most to their overall job satisfaction. Respondents are also asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the five factors they nominate.
This year’s report takes a structured approach to ‘unpacking’ the concept of employee engagement. The job satisfaction factors used in the employee survey (listed in Table 3.1) could be said to equate to the ‘how employees feel ’ part of employee engagement. Similarly, employees’ responses to the questions about their identity and pride in their work and in being a public servant are also an indicator of how they feel about the work they do, and their level of engagement.
APS identity and pride
Levels of pride in the APS are high, and increasing. As in 2005, the majority of respondents to the employee survey (60%) indicated that they considered themselves to be primarily employees of their agency. Forty per cent of employees again identified primarily as APS employees. Women, employees from large agencies, SES employees and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees were more likely than other groups to consider themselves primarily as APS employees. Employees from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) were more likely to see themselves as primarily agency employees.
The large majority of employees (80%) were proud to work in the APS; higher than the proportion ofemployees who agreed they were proud to work in their current agency (71%). Pride in both the APS and the employee’s current agency was higher than in 2005 (71% and 65% respectively), a particularly good result. Employees were more likely to be proud to work in their agency if they worked in small agencies or in the SES. They were more likely to be proud to work in the APS if they worked outside the ACT. Women were more likely than men to be proud to work both in their agency and the APS.
Employee engagement factors
This year, the employee survey included a number of questions that particularly related to the concept of employee engagement. The results for these questions were analysed in a new way using factor analysis to give an overall summary picture of how the APS is going in the area of employee engagement.
Factor analysis identifies groups of questions (or factors) where responses are highly related, that is, where individual employees have tended to answer questions in the same way.3 Ten groups of questions(or factors) emerged from the factor analysis. Levels of satisfaction or agreement for each factor are shown at Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Employee satisfaction with factors identified through factor analysis, 2005–06
Source: Employee survey
Overall, the results of the factor analysis indicate a healthy APS, with the majority of employees satisfied against eight of the 10 factors relevant to employee engagement. The best result was for the group of questions relating to the understanding of employees’ current role; over 80% of employees were satisfied or agreed with these questions. The group of questions related to satisfaction with employees’ current job, the effectiveness of their work group, and the recruitment and retention of employees from diverse backgrounds also scored highly, with 70% or more of employees expressing agreement or satisfaction with the underlying questions.
In the case of the recruitment and retention of employees from diverse backgrounds, employee perceptions are somewhat at odds with the actual experience of the employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and employees with disability over 2005–06, where the representation of both groups is continuing to fall. These findings are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
The lowest results relate to the ‘Merit’ and ‘Senior leaders/culture’ factors, which include questions relevant both to the effectiveness of senior leaders and agency culture more broadly. These results are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7.
Job satisfaction factors
The strong overall result against the employee engagement factors is consistent with continuing high levels of job satisfaction for APS employees. Table 3.1 shows the proportion of employee survey respondents in 2004–05 and 2005–06 who nominated each job satisfaction factor among the five most important to them, and the proportion of those employees who were ‘satisfied’ with that factor.
| Workplace factor | 2004–05 | 2005–06 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employees who nominated factor as important to them (%) | Employees who nominated factor as important who were satisfied(a) (%) | Employees who nominated factor as important to them (%) | Employees who nominated factor as important who were satisfied(a) (%) | |
| Good working relationships | 48 | 85 | 50 | 88 |
| Salary | 42 | 49 | 43 | 58 |
| Flexible working arrangements | 41 | 84 | 41 | 83 |
| Good manager | 40 | 66 | 40 | 72 |
| Interesting work provided | 32 | 71 | 37 | 74 |
| Opportunities to utilise my skills | 37 | 61 | 36 | 65 |
| Regular feedback/recognition for effort | 41 | 49 | 35 | 52 |
| Opportunities to develop my skills | 35 | 56 | 31 | 58 |
| Seeing tangible results from my work | 32 | 75 | 31 | 76 |
| Opportunities for career development | 29 | 34 | 31 | 38 |
| Duties /expectations made clear | 33 | 68 | 28 | 70 |
| Appropriate level of autonomy in my job | 24 | 76 | 27 | 74 |
| Chance to make a useful contribution to society | 24 | 73 | 25 | 73 |
| Appropriate workload | 20 | 34 | 25 | 41 |
| Chance to be creative/innovative | 24 | 56 | 23 | 52 |
Note: (a) Of the employees who nominated this factor as one of their most important and rated it, the percentage of employees who were either very satisfied or satisfied with the factor in their current workplace. Source: Employee survey |
||||
The top five job satisfaction factors this year were good working relationships, salary, flexible working arrangements, good manager and interesting work provided, in that order. This is the same as in 2004–05, except for regular feedback/recognition for effort, ranked fourth in 2004–05, which was in seventh place this year and which has been replaced by interesting work. Satisfaction with the top five factors was generally higher this year (see Table 3.1).
Satisfaction with good working relationships, the top ranking factor since the employee survey began in 2003, was similar to last year, as was flexible working arrangements. Satisfaction with salary rose significantly this year. There was also an increase in the level of satisfaction with good manager this year.
Opportunities for career development and appropriate workload stand out again this year as areas where job satisfaction is relatively low, despite a significant increase in satisfaction with these factors.
The top ranking job satisfaction factors have remained fairly stable, with only seven factors ranking among the top five in four years.4 It is important to note, however, that even the bottom ranking factor (chance to be creative/innovative) was selected by almost a quarter of survey respondents. Agencies need to be mindful of the diverse needs and preferences of their employees and the importance of all the job satisfaction factors.
Overall job satisfaction
The job satisfaction results in the employee survey were used to create a summary index, an indicator of overall job satisfaction.5 The index ranges from zero (the employee was very dissatisfied with all of the factors nominated) to 10 (the employee was very satisfied with all factors). An index of five equates to an employee being, on average, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Respondents with a score of six or more on the index are regarded as being, on average, satisfied.
On the basis of the summary index, the overall level of job satisfaction in the APS this year continues to be high, at 73%, compared to 72% last year.6
Overall job satisfaction for large agencies7 ranged from 65% to 87%.Two agencies achieved job satisfaction levels significantly above the APS average—ABS and DFAT.
The factor analysis, discussed earlier, and outlined in detail in Appendix 4, showed that overall rates of job satisfaction were correlated with several employee engagement factors. In particular, employees with higher rates of job satisfaction were also more likely to be satisfied with the ‘Senior leaders/culture’, ‘Immediate supervisor’ and ‘Current job’ factors.
The following sample of comments made in the employee survey, although not necessarily representative, illustrate a range of employees’ views about what influences their job satisfaction.
I have a lot of satisfaction from my work environment rather than career opportunities such as career development, work load etc.
I consider appropriate training and time for hand over/take over essential to job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction is all dependent on your current manager.
As a part time employee opportunities for developing career are limited.
I think it is important that staff are given the opportunity to utilise their skills.
Our salary levels are quite low given the level of responsibility, complexity and the savings that we make for the community.
I love my job & I get a very high level of satisfaction from it but often there seems to be little real opportunity for career progression.
Though currently working in the corporate support area my job satisfaction comes from believing that I’m working for a department that is achieving good results for the Australian community, particularly the most disadvantaged.
More training for managers on how to be ‘people managers’ rather than content specialists would help with job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction and diversity
Rates of job satisfaction are not uniform across the APS. Table 3.2 shows the 2006 job satisfaction summary index results for different groups among respondents to the employee survey, compared to 2005.
| Group | Summary index rating >5 in 2004–05 (%) |
Summary index rating >5 in 2005–06 (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Indigenous | 72 | 86 |
| Non-English speaking background | 71 | 70 |
| People with disability | 70 | 70 |
| Women | 73 | 76 |
| Men | 70 | 70 |
| Carers | 71 | 73 |
| APS 1–6 employees | 70 | 73 |
| EL employees | 77 | 73 |
| SES | 87 | 90 |
| Mature-aged employees (45 years and over) | 74 | 76 |
| Younger employees (under 45 years) | 70 | 71 |
| < 1 year of service | 75 | 78 |
| 1–5 years of service | 70 | 71 |
| > 5 years of service | 73 | 74 |
| Ongoing employees | 71 | 73 |
| Non-ongoing employees | 86 | 84 |
| All respondents | 72 | 73 |
| Source: Employee survey | ||
The proportion of employee survey respondents with a job satisfaction index rating greater than five is lowest for people with disability and those from a non-English speaking background (although not statistically significant below the APS average) and highest for SES employees. The groups with job satisfaction levels that were higher than the average were women, mature-aged employees, non-ongoing employees, Indigenous employees, SES employees and those with less than one year of service.
Although their level of job satisfaction is the same as the average for all respondents, there has been a drop this year in the level of job satisfaction for EL employees. The reason for this is not clear, but is of concern given the critical role EL employees play as managers and supervisors, which, as is discussed in detail in Chapter 7, is, in turn, a critical ‘make or break’ point for employee engagement. There was also a small drop in the job satisfaction levels of NESB and non-ongoing employees, but these were not statistically significant.
Job satisfaction levels for employees aged under 45 were slightly below the average. Within this group, however, the lowest job satisfaction levels were reported for those in the 25–34 years age group, at 68%. Job satisfaction levels for those aged less than 25 years have, in fact, been equal to, or above the average, for the last three years. Results against age are consistent with length of service, and suggest that employees are most satisfied both early on, and once well established in their careers. This is quite understandable. Most people will be excited in a new job and see many potential opportunities; over time they may experience some frustrations and hard knocks in the job, and then settle down, having reached their maximum potential performance level and knowing this is so.
The level of job satisfaction reported for people with disability this year (70%) was similar to the overall APS result and was about the same as in 2005, which was a significant improvement on results for 2003 and 2004 (58% and 57% respectively).8
The results for Indigenous job satisfaction were very high, having increased significantly this year. However, it should be noted that the number of Indigenous respondents to the employee survey was small this year, and it is therefore difficult to draw strong conclusions from these results. Results from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey, conducted in November 2005, with 1554 respondents, are likely to provide a more reliable picture of Indigenous employees’ job satisfaction.9 On the basis of the summary index created from the Census Survey job satisfaction results, the overall rate of job satisfaction for Indigenous employees was 74%.
To gain a better understanding of the job satisfaction factors driving the results for the different EEO groups, the top five job satisfaction factors were examined separately for each group. In general, there were more similarities in the factors important to each group than diff erences.
| 2004–05 | 2005–06 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Men | Women | Men | |||||
| Rank | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) |
| 1 | Good working relationships | 85 | Salary | 43 | Good working relationships | 88 | Salary | 52 |
| 2 | Flexible working arrangements | 84 | Good working relationships | 86 | Flexible working arrangements | 84 | Good working relationships | 87 |
| 3 | Regular feedback/ recognition for effort | 52 | Opportunities to utilise my skills | 61 | Good manager | 73 | Opportunities to utilise my skills | 62 |
| 4 | Good manager | 70 | Good manager | 60 | Regular feedback/ recognition for effort | 54 | Good manager | 71 |
| 5 | Salary | 57 | Flexible working arrangements | 84 | Salary | 64 | Interesting work provided | 71 |
| Source: Employee survey | ||||||||
Table 3.3 shows that, of the top five workplace factors contributing to job satisfaction, men and women have three factors in common: good working relationships, good manager and salary.
Whereas the most important factors for women in 2006 were the same as in 2005 (in a slightly different order), interesting work provided has displaced flexible working arrangements for men in 2006. For both groups, satisfaction levels with the most important factors have increased or remained the same.
Of the workplace factors that men and women have in common, levels of satisfaction with good working relationships and good manager were similar for men and women, whereas satisfaction with salary was higher for women than for men, perhaps reflecting different expectations.
| 2004–05 | ||||||
| Indigenous | People with Disability | NESB | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) |
| 1 | Duties/ expectations made clear | * | Good working relationships | 80 | Good working relationships | 82 |
| 2 | Opportunity for career development | * | Good manager | 61 | Opportunity to utilise my skills | 64 |
| 3 | Regular feedback/ recognition for effort | * | Duties/expectations made clear | 70 | Salary | 41 |
| 4 | Chance to make a useful contribution to society | * | Regular feedback/recognition for effort | * | Good manager | 61 |
| 5 | Interesting work provided | * | Flexible working arrangements | 78 | Flexible working arrangements | 92 |
| 2005–06 | ||||||
| Indigenous | People with Disability | NESB | ||||
| Rank | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) |
| 1 | Good working relationships | * | Appropriate level of autonomy for my job | 72 | Good working relationships | 90 |
| 2 | Duties/expectations made clear | * | Opportunity to utilise my skills | 61 | Flexible working arrangements | 83 |
| 3 | Salary | * | Good manager | 52 | Salary | 50 |
| 4 | Flexible working arrangements | * | Good working relationships | 84 | Good manager | 76 |
| 5 | Seeing tangible results from my work | * | Salary | * | Opportunities to utilise my skills | 66 |
Note: * Satisfaction levels for these factors cannot be reported because of small numbers of respondents.10 Source: Employee survey |
||||||
Table 3.4 shows that good working relationships and salary were among the most important factors contributing to job satisfaction for Indigenous employees, people with disability and for those from a non-English speaking background. This is not surprising given that these factors are ranked first and second for respondents to the employee survey overall.
Consistent with the overall results, the level of satisfaction with good working relationships for people with disability and for those from a non-English speaking background was very high.
Due to small numbers, we are not able to provide the satisfaction levels for the top five workplace factors chosen by Indigenous respondents and, in two instances, for people with disability. Indigenous respondents do, however, appear to put more weight on having duties/expectations made clear and seeing tangible results from their work than other employees.The latter result is consistent with the high weighting given to an additional factor, the chance to make a useful contribution to Indigenous Australians, included in a similar question asked in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey conducted in November 2005. This factor was the second most commonly selected factor by respondents to the survey, with the other factors in the top five being drawn from good working relationships, flexible working arrangements, duties/expectations made clear and opportunities to develop my skills.
| 2004–05 | 2005–06 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mature-aged employees (45 years and over) | Employees aged under 45 years | Mature-aged employees (45 years and over) | Employees aged under 45 years | |||||
| Rank | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) |
| 1 | Good working relationships | 84 | Good working relationships | 86 | Good working relationships | 88 | Good working relationships | 88 |
| 2 | Opportunity to utilise my skills | 63 | Flexible working relationships | 85 | Salary | 61 | Salary | 55 |
| 3 | Seeing tangible results from my work | 79 | Salary | 48 | Opportunity to utilise my skills | 69 | Flexible working relationships | 81 |
| 4 | Good manager | 62 | Regular feedback/ recognition for effort | 51 | Good manager | 71 | Good manager | 72 |
| 5 | Salary* | 51 | Opportunity to develop my skills | 55 | Flexible working relationships | 87 | Opportunity for career development* | 43 |
| Regular feedback/ recognition for effort* | 45 | Opportunity to develop my skills* | 59 | |||||
Note: *Two factors ranked equally in fifth place. Source: Employee survey |
||||||||
Table 3.5 shows that the workplace factors chosen as most important by mature-aged employees and those aged less than 45 years were very similar this year. Four factors were common to each group: goodworking relationships, salary, good manager, all of which are ranked the same for both groups, and flexible working arrangements. The factors that were distinct to each age group, opportunity to utilise my skills for mature-aged employees, and opportunity for career development and opportunity to developmy skills for those aged under 45 years, seem to reflect the career stage of respondents, with younger employees keen for career development (but reporting relatively low levels of satisfaction with this factor) and to develop their skills, and older employees looking to utilise the skills they have developed over time.
| 2004–05 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APS | Executive Level | SES | ||||
| Rank | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) |
| 1 | Good working relationships | 85 | Good working relationships | 88 | Interesting work provided | 91 |
| 2 | Flexible working arrangements | 84 | Interesting work provided | 81 | Chance to make a useful contribution to society | 85 |
| 3 | Regular feedback/ recognition for effort | 49 | Seeing tangible results from my work | 74 | Good working relationships | 91 |
| 4 | Salary | 47 | Good manager | 67 | Seeing tangible results from my work | 89 |
| 5 | Opportunity to utilise my skills | 59 | Salary | 58 | Appropriate level of autonomy for my job | 75 |
| 2005–06 | ||||||
| APS | Executive Level | SES | ||||
| Rank | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) | Workplace factor | satisfied (%) |
| 1 | Good working relationships | 88 | Good working relationships | 87 | Interesting work provided | 93 |
| 2 | Flexible working arrangements | 84 | Interesting work provided | 84 | Seeing tangible results from my work | 86 |
| 3 | Salary | 59 | Good manager | 72 | Appropriate level of autonomy for my job | 75 |
| 4 | Good manager | 71 | Salary | 53 | Good working relationships | 87 |
| 5 | Regular feedback/ recognition for effort | 53 | Seeing tangible results from my work | 77 | Chance to make a useful contribution to society | 90 |
| Source: Employee survey | ||||||
Job satisfaction was also examined on the basis of the classification levels of respondents. Table 3.6 shows that, unlike for other demographic groups discussed above where there was a high degree of commonality between groups (with between two and four factors in common), only one factor, good working relationships, is common to all classification groups.
The workplace factors that were most important to APS 1–6 employees this year included two (flexible working arrangements and regular feedback/recognition for effort) which were among the top five only for them (as was the case last year). Similarly, there were two workplace factors that were included among the most important factors only for SES employees. These were chance to make a useful contribution to society and appropriate level of autonomy. As might be expected, EL employees straddle the areas between APS 1–6 employees and SES employees, having three factors (including good working relationships) in common with both—salary and good manager in common with APS 1–6 employees and interesting work provided and seeing tangible results from my work in common with SES employees.
This pattern, with good working relationships being important at all levels, but APS 1–6 and SES employees otherwise having distinctly different factors among the workplace factors that are most important to them, has held over the four years of the employee survey.
These results suggest, not surprisingly, that the factors that most influence job satisfaction are strongly related to the stage of employees’ careers and classification levels. In terms of employee engagement, it is important that SES employees, in particular, are conscious that the workplace factors that most influence the large number of APS 1–6 employees in their organisations are likely to be distinctly different from their own.
- These groupings are based on a range of sources in the literature including the following: D. Robinson, S. Perryman & S. Hayday 2004, The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Institute for Employment Studies, Sussex, UK, <http//www.employment-studies.co.uk/>; Corporate Leadership Council 2004, Driving Employee Performance and Retention through Engagement: A Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Employee Engagement Strategies, CLC, Washington, DC, <http//www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com>; J. Sasaki & M. Norquist, ‘Grim News for Japan’s Managers’, Gallup Management Journal, 14 July 2005, <http://gmj.gallup.com>
- Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 4.
- The top five ranking job satisfaction factors since 2002–03 have been drawn from the following: good working relationships, flexible working arrangements, regular feedback/ recognition for effort, salary, good manager, interesting work provided and opportunities to utilise my skills.
- How summary indexes are created and used is set out in Appendix 2.
- The overall level of job satisfaction in 2004–05 was reported as being 71%. However, this has been revised due to the further cleaning of the job satisfaction data from the employee survey from 2003 to 2006, to exclude responses that did not conform with the directions in the question. This is discussed in further detail in Appendix 2.
- Individual results are only available for large agencies (those with more than 1000 employees—see Appendix 1).
- Job satisfaction data for this year has been cleaned.
- The job satisfaction factors used for the Census Survey were the same as those used in the employee survey, although chance to make a useful contribution to Indigenous Australians was also included.
- See Appendix 2 for an explanation of the approach taken to reporting results and confidence intervals.
