Cheshire
It is fair to say the results are an unmitigated disaster for the Department. More detail will be presented below, but in essence this is a result that no amount of spin can cover. DPIW not only fails to meet the standards of those organizations identified to be the best employers, but it does not even come close to meeting the average standards of all the rest (i.e. the average of the other surveyed organizations with the ‘best’ ones removed from the calculations!). DPIW not only consistently fails to reach even a perfunctory 50% mark, but does so by a wide margin. In some areas, 50% or greater is even the margin that separates DPIW from the average score of the best organizations.
Download Hewitt: hewdoc.xls
IN a state that should pride itself on its natural environment, it might be reasonable to expect appropriate resources, support and leadership to be found within the Government Department responsible for key areas of natural resource management.
But no, this is Tasmania, with a record of Government contempt and bureaucratic mismanagement of which even Third World countries would be ashamed.
It is well known that successive State Governments and State Service powerbrokers have sought to undermine the agencies and employees that might otherwise place their public responsibilities above political expediency.
The original Parks and Wildlife has been shrunk from an agency in its own right. It first became successively smaller subunits of a larger authority responsible for promoting industry, agriculture and water development at the expense of natural values. Then it was split, with its on-ground managers and scientific support sections separated from each other into different parts of the same Department, and — ultimately — into separate agencies altogether.
Those managing the parks and those responsible for private land conservation, threatened species assessments and other natural management have been divided and conquered.
Management approaches have been used to ruthlessly drive this control even further in those sections left within DPIW. Employees are not only emasculated by a regime that frequently ignores the issues that they raise, but employees are rarely supported when their duties require that they take a politically or industrially unpalatable stance over issues with legal and moral repercussions for themselves, their Department, or the State.
Control is very easy when DPIW is one of the few dinosaurs that still maintains staff on short-term contracts — some for over a decade — despite all state service guidelines to the contrary. Even those contracts have been cut shorter to reallocate funds elsewhere at the expense of the staff concerned. The agency has been plagued by a loss of public confidence, the departure of key staff and loss of corporate knowledge.
But a new report shows that anger and resentment is building within DPIW, focussed largely against its senior managers and the human resources practices they employ. This is important to TT readers and all Tasmanians because these are the people and practices that further entrench the current mismanagement of natural resources, the dismissal and control of expert opinion on conservation issues, and bypassing of the few controls that still technically exist between DPIW and forestry, agricultural and industrial development.
Senior management within DPIW drives the strategic direction of the Department, and forms the crucial link with the Government and its Ministers. Human Resources provide the support services that determine who is employed, how, and what support they receive within the organisation.
The Hewitt Report*
Astoundingly, DPIW management volunteered itself for the Hewitt Best Employer Study in late 2006. This independent study aims to identify the best employers in Australia and New Zealand, showing how far out of touch DPIW managers are if they believed the agency would rate well. DPIW employees were encouraged to fill in the survey, and the participation rate was surprisingly high: 637 staff completed the survey, representing 62% of the DPIW workforce. The results can therefore be taken to strongly reflect the workforce rather than being driven by a disgruntled or vocal minority. Further to this, DPIW was assessed against 220 other organizations in Australia and New Zealand (221 organisations took part in the survey as a whole).
It is fair to say the results are an unmitigated disaster for the Department. More detail will be presented below, but in essence this is a result that no amount of spin can cover. DPIW not only fails to meet the standards of those organizations identified to be the best employers, but it does not even come close to meeting the average standards of all the rest (i.e. the average of the other surveyed organizations with the ‘best’ ones removed from the calculations!). DPIW not only consistently fails to reach even a perfunctory 50% mark, but does so by a wide margin. In some areas, 50% or greater is even the margin that separates DPIW from the average score of the best organizations.
Although the report does not supply information on the degree of variation within the data, the difference between the DPIW scores and the averages for other organisations is stark enough to tell a very meaningful story. It is reasonably safe to say that DPIW is so far below the average of ‘the rest’ (with the best results excluded) that it must be at the low end of the overall results. As bad as the general result for DPIW is, however, the scores take an even more pronounced drop for the sections relating specifically to senior management and human resources. The low scores across the rest of the survey actually counterbalance the even worse drag effect of these two sections, giving a fair idea of where the DPIW workforce sees the source of its problems.
DPIW has not just missed meeting the average standards of other organizations, nor has it just missed the 50% mark in most of areas questioned. It has dismally failed the Hewitt Best Employer Study, to a point that would need the Lennon Government to pass special enabling legislation to try to put any shine on it.
The detail
Before starting, it should be noted that some questions (e.g. 57, 59, 64, 66, 79) are umbrella questions with several parts, which have been treated separately below. For brevity, some questions (e.g. 24, 58, 67-75) are not included in the following review of the Hewitt Survey results, as they are in a different format to the others, and not as readily included in the graphical comparisons as presented below. However, the responses to these questions are readily available in the survey results for anyone who wants to look at them. Less readily available is the compilation report of the additional information or ‘stories’ provided by staff within the survey; this is confidential and of restricted access to senior DPIW management, but based on the other results it is sure to be compelling reading.
As noted above, the survey results do not provide any measure of variation within the responses, and while information is given on the breakdown of “agree” versus “strongly agree” in the answers, no breakdown is given on “disagree” versus “strongly disagree”, which may also have been quite illuminating.
Figure 1: overall engagement
As described in the Hewitt report, key questions are used to determine an overall engagement score for employees within the organisation, with a higher score being better. Figure 1 compares the DPIW engagement score (35%) with the average score for the Best employers (79%) and the average score for the Rest of the employers with the best results excluded (57%). DPIW obviously does not meet even half the score of the best employers, nor can it match even two-thirds of the average of the remaining employers with the best results excluded.
Figure 2: introductory questions (Q1-13)
Figure 2 shows the start of a trend that is repeated throughout the report, with DPIW scores on individual questions nosediving in comparison to the average scores for the Best and the Rest of the employers. These scores represent the percentage of employees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statements put to them in the questions. The information available for DPIW also distinguishes how many “strongly agreed” as opposed to “agreed”, and so this is presented as separate line below the DPIW total for both categories (“DPIW (sa)”).
Readers can look at the Hewitt Report itself (download above) to read the questions in detail, but the more notable observations include:
• DPIW is substantially below the averages for the Best and the Rest in most areas;
• “Strongly agree” is very much in the minority in most questions;
• Q7: only 32% of DPIW employees believe the organisation inspires them to do their best every day (only 3% strongly agree), in comparison to 77% for the Best and 54% for the Rest;
• Similar shortfalls occur for overall views of DPIW and the comments employees make to others (Q8-10), and the comparable Q11. For question 10, more than 50% separates DPIW from the average for the Best employers;
• Q12: only 4% of DPIW employees strongly agree that the Department offers them good future career opportunities. Overall, only 22% agree that this is the case, compared to 69% for the Best employers and 48% for the rest.
• Q13: only 4% of DPIW employees strongly agree that they have no plans to leave the organisation. Overall, only 16% agree that this is the case, compared to 65% for the Best employers and 48% for the rest.
Figures 3 + 4: general questions (14-60)
These questions are not grouped on any basis other than ease of display, as they cover a range of different topics and issues. Note that Q 24 and 58 are not included and that Q 57 and 59 have multiple parts as discussed before.
Again, readers can look at the Hewitt Report itself to read the questions in detail, but the more notable observations include:
• DPIW remains notably below the averages for the Best and the Rest in most areas;
• “Strongly agree” remains very much in the minority in most questions;
• Q 26: in a sign of things to come later in the survey, only 29% of DPIW staff see strong evidence of effective leadership from the Department’s senior managers (only 5% strongly agreeing). This compares to averages of 76% and 54% for the Best and the Rest, respectively.
• Q 28: more than 50% separates DPIW from the average for the Best employers with respect to the importance of meeting performance commitments (26% versus 78%);
• Q 34: only 30% of DPIW’s employees believe that the organisation keeps its promises to employees (only 3% agree strongly), in comparison to averages of 72% for the Best and 49% for the Rest. Similar results are reflected in Q 38.
• Q 46: 37% of DPIW staff believe (only 6% strongly) that they can fulfil their career aspirations within the Department, compared to 74% for the Best and 53% for the rest. Comparable results are given for related staff management issues (Q 51-56).
• Q 59b: 29% of DPIW staff believe (only 3% strongly) that the organisation is attracting the people it needs achieve its goals, compared to 72% for the Best and 48% for the Rest. These figures are mirrored in Q 59c, which asks whether the right people are being promoted to meet the future demands of the organisation.
• There are two notable exceptions to the general thrust of the results. Q 21 (85% overall for DPIW) provides the Department with a notably high result, and one of the few that competes with other organizations (93% for the Best and 89% for the rest). This indicates that DPIW employees feel they are personally prepared to take on the challenges of their work despite the barriers in their way.
• In contrast, Q 57a shows a marked drop in all results, with DPIW (16%) exceeding both the Best (11%) and the Rest (15%). Before the Department breaks out the champagne, however, we need to note that this is one of the few ‘negative’ questions in the survey, i.e. one asking whether managers distance themselves at time of stress, and not one where a higher score is better.
Figure 5: staff assessment of senior management (61-66)
As bad as the results were in previous sections, the DPIW percentages plummet even lower when it comes to staff management and assessing the role of senior management within the organization:
• Q 61 and 62 assess how employee performance is recognised and rewarded within the DPIW system, with staggeringly low scores of 17% and 5% for these questions respectively (1% and 0% strongly supporting current practices respectively). In both cases, DPIW is separated from the Best employers by over 50% (52% and 54% respectively).
• Q 63: only 14% of DPIW employees believed (only 1% strongly) that the Department’s reputation helped attract and retain the best employees, compared to 75% for the Best and 44% for the Rest. Again, compared on the same scale, DPIW fell more than 50% below the average for the Best (61% below).
• Q 64a: only 19% of DPIW employees believed (only 2% strongly) that the senior management developed constructive relationships at all levels within the organisation, compared to 71% for the Best and 46% for the Rest. Again, DPIW fell more than 50% below the average for the Best (52% below).
• Q 64c: only 12% of DPIW employees believed (only 1% strongly) that the senior management created excitement about the changes required for organisational success, compared to 75% for the Best and 47% for the Rest. Again, DPIW fell more than 50% below the average for the Best (63% below – a new record!). Very similar results were obtained for Q 66a, where DPIW fell 59% short of the Best.
• Q 64d: only 31% of DPIW employees believed (only 5% strongly) that senior management deserved their trust, compared to 78% for the Best and 56% for the Rest. Q 65 obtained similar results relating to matters of trust.
• Q 66a: only 19% of DPIW employees considered (only 3% strongly) that the senior management treated its employees as the organizations most valued assets, compared to 75% for the Best and 46% for the Rest. DPIW fell 56% below the average for the Best.
• Q 66c: only 21% of DPIW employees considered (only 3% strongly) that the senior management removed barriers to create effective cross-department teams, compared to 66% for the Best and 40% for the Rest.
Figure 6: staff assessment of human resources support (76-79)
Note that Q 67-75 are not included in this review, as discussed before.
The results remain bad for DPIW staff opinions of the Department’s Human Resources Section:
• Results for this section are notably low for Q 76, 79a, 79b and 79c;
• Q79e: Crucially, DPIW HR services are not broadly considered as “developing a culture that encourages positive relationships between employees and management”. At 18%, DPIW fell 52% below the average score for the Best (70%), and 27% below the average score for the Rest (47% – itself less than 50%).
• Q 79f: DPIW HR services are similarly considered very poor in assessing the status and opinion of its employees. At 17%, DPIW fell 53% below the average score for the Best (70%), and 30% below the average score for the Rest (47% – itself less than 50%).
Figure 7: views of middle management (80-89)
Questions 80-89 were only answered by employees responsible for managing other staff. By weight of numbers, these answers would mostly reflect the views of middle managers within the Department, and by and large indicate the ability of the organisation to cultivate new talent.
Although DPIW clearly remains much lower than the averages for the Best and the Rest, the overall percentages for this section are higher than the lows shown in relation to senior management and HR. However, it still must be noted that:
• Q 80: only 32% of DPIW managers considered (only 3% strongly) that genuinely challenging goals were being set at all levels of the organisation, compared to 84% for the Best and 62% for the Rest. DPIW fell 52% below the average for the Best, and 30%below the average for the Rest.
• Q 83: a meagre 6% of DPIW managers felt they were rewarded for developing high performers, 0% felt this strongly. This compared to 61% for the Best and 32% for the Rest. DPIW fell 55% and 26% lower than these respectively.
• Q 84: only 21% of DPIW managers considered (only 2% strongly) that they could adequately explain the organisation’s reward structure to employees, compared to 76% for the Best and 47% for the Rest. DPIW fell 55% below the average for the Best, and 26%below the average for the Rest.
• Q 85: only 9% of DPIW managers considered (none strongly) that they had the autonomy and tools to recognise and reward solid performers and high performers, compared to 68% for the Best and 39% for the Rest. DPIW fell 59% below the average for the Best, and 30% below the average for the Rest.
SUMMARY TABLE: Comparing the average % scores in the main sections of the report.
Note:
• As previously flagged, the separate parts of umbrella questions 57, 59, 64, 66, & 79 are treated as separate questions in the above calculations;
• Similarly questions 24, 58, and 67-75 have been omitted due to their different format.
• No adjustment has been made for the effect of ‘negative’ question 57a in the relevant section.
SUMMARY
The above table shows both the low comparative average score of DPIW for each group of questions compared to the averages for both the Best and the Rest for the same sets of questions. It also dramatically demonstrates the additional drop in comparative scores in regard to Senior Management and Human Resource Management within the Department.
Even if there is scope for debate on the interpretation of these results, and even if some issues have been misinterpreted or misunderstood, this is still a train-wreck of a survey result and an appalling indictment of the management of the Government Department responsible for safeguarding key parts of the natural environment in this state. It is also damning on the State’s responsibilities as an employer.
Alas, the days of personal accountability, when those responsible would do the honourable thing in the face of such a disaster, are long gone. Relevant senior managers will scuttle for cover, excuses will be found, and it will be hoped that this will just go away. It has already been said within DPIW that the survey identifies “some” areas for improvement, and that these are likely to be “incremental” over time. Small comfort trying to stop a major haemorrhage with sticky labels, and doubtless no improvement for the general DPIW foot-soldiers nor for the environment they are trying to manage.
Cheshire is a long time observer of political duplicity and organisational scheming, and has a keen interest in connecting the dots between the longer term strategies that both employ to maintain an imbalanced status quo.
*Hewitt Best Employer Study: explanatory notes
1. Background
1.1 Hewitt Study
The Hewitt Best Employer Study began in Australia in 2000 to:
• explore what makes an organisation a great place to work; and
• provide insight into how organisations can create a competitive advantage through their people.
A key element of the Study is an Employee Opinion Survey which measures employees’ views on factors that make organisations successful and a great place to work.
In 2006, DPIW was one of 221 organisations in Australia and New Zealand to participate in the Hewitt Best Employer Study. About 62% of all DPIW staff, 637 people, completed the Hewitt Employee survey.
Details of the Hewitt Best Employer Awards for 2006 and 2005 based on their annual Study are included as Attachment A.
1.2 DPIW Participation in the Study
DPIW’s participation in the Hewitt Study and associated Survey will make a key contribution towards the Agency’s Leadership Development Program. This Program has its roots in the State Service Commissioner’s 2005 Survey that identified Leadership as a key opportunity for improvement across the State Service:
• The first step in DPIW’s approach was to provide practical support to managers through training in people management skills. In recent months about 250 managers, supervisors and team leaders have been participating in a series of five workshops. The Executive and Secretary have also attended the workshops.
• This initial phase also included taking part in the Hewitt Study and Survey. The aim was to identify the things we do well in DPIW and the things we could improve, better understand staff views about DPIW and give an insight into the work practices and policies of the Best Employer organisations across the region. This phase will help benchmark DPIW’s position and help to identify critical areas for future improvement.
• The next step will be to develop other initiatives and strategies to support leadership development and organisational improvement, based on the priorities identified as part of the Hewitt Survey.
2. Hewitt Survey design and methodology
2.1 Key drivers
The Survey design represents the results of 40 years of international research by Hewitt Associates. The survey questions are based around the key drivers that influence an individual’s emotional and intellectual connection with their organisation.
A summary of driver definitions is included as Attachment B.
2.2 Engagement Score
Three key behaviours indicate strong Engagement with an organisation – Say, Stay and Strive.
Hewitt calculates an Engagement Score for each survey participant, based on individuals’ responses to six questions in the survey related to these three key behaviours:
(i) Say Behaviour
Engaged employees consistently speak positively about the organisation to co workers, potential employees and customers.
Related survey questions
• Given the opportunity, I tell others great things about working here (Q.10);
• I would not hesitate to recommend this organisation to a friend seeking employment (Q.6).
(ii) Stay Behaviour
Engaged employees have an intense desire to be a member of the organisation.
Related survey questions
• It would take a lot to get me to leave this organisation (Q.5);
• I hardly ever think about leaving this organisation to work somewhere else (Q.8).
(iii) Strive Behaviour
Engaged employees exert extra effort and engage in behaviours that contribute to business success
Related survey questions
• This organisation inspires me to do my best work every day (Q.7);
• This organisation motivates me to contribute more than is normally required to compete my work (Q.11).
Hewitt calculates Engagement by averaging an individual’s response to each of the six Engagement questions based on a six point scale with no “neutral” option. If the average rating for an individual exceeds Hewitt’s hurdle, that individual is considered to be engaged. The final Engagement Score is the total number of engaged employees as a percentage of the total number of respondents.
Note: the Engagement Score is measured at an individual level and not by taking the average of all scores for the six questions.
3. DPIW Report
3.1 DPIW results — Engagement Score
Hewitt has provided a DPIW Engagement Score — based on an individual’s responses to each of the six Engagement questions, 35% of DPIW staff responding to the survey are considered to be engaged.
3.2 DPIW results — all survey questions
Hewitt Associates have also provided us with a report of survey responses by DPIW staff. It identifies the percentages of DPIW respondents who:
1. “Agree”; and
2. “Strongly Agree”
against each of the statements listed in the survey (Questions 1 23, 25 57, 58 66, and 76 89). It also provides scores combining the “Agree” and “Strongly Agree” response rates.
A more detailed break down of the scores is provided for some questions (24, 58, 67 75), reflecting the different nature of these questions.
Note: the report does not result in the identification of individuals. All results are aggregates.
In addition, a Hewitt report on the “stories” told by DPIW staff as part of the survey has highly restricted access, being confidential to the Secretary and only those HR staff involved in the Leadership Program.
3.3 Benchmarking
The report also provides comparisons between the DPIW results and those of two other groups of organisations participating in the Hewitt Study:
• Best Employers benchmark — the average scores of those organisations assessed by an independent judging panel as part of the Hewitt Best Employer Study 2005 as outperforming others in the way they manage their people. This benchmark represents 5,624 individual survey respondents.
• Other Organisations benchmark — the average scores of all other organisations that participated in the Hewitt Best Employer Study in 2005 but did not make the Hewitt Best Employers list. The benchmark includes over 140 Australian and New Zealand organisations from a wide range of industries and organisational sizes. This benchmark represents 48,633 individual survey respondents.
Attachment A
Hewitt Best Employer Study 2006 — Awards
Winners
FedEx Express (New Zealand)
Salesforce
Highly recommended (in alphabetical order)
Bain & Company
Cisco Systems
Medtronic Australasia
SEEK Limited
Select Australia
Westaff
Public Sector Award
Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority
The Cancer Council NSW
Best employers (in alphabetical order)
Carson Group
Dimension Data Australia
Express Data
Golder Associates
Inside Mobile
Microsoft Australia
Nokia Australia
Novartis Consumer Health Australasia
SAP Australia and New Zealand
Stockland
Vodafone Australia
Large Organisation Award
Winner
American Express, Australia
Runner up
Flight Centre
Hewitt Best Employer Study 2005 – Awards
Winner
Salesforce
Best new entrant
ING Direct
Special commendation for consistent improvement
seek.com.au
Swiss Re
Best employers (in alphabetical order)
American Express
Bain & Company
Bayer Healthcare ANZ
Blackmores
British American Tobacco
Carson Group
Dell
Golder Associates
Medtronic
Nokia
Select Australasia
Westaff
Attachment B
Hewitt Driver Definitions
Brand Alignment – employees’ perceptions of how well the organisation delivers on the promises it makes to its employees.
Career Aspirations ¬– the extent to which employees can fulfil their career aspirations within the organisation.
Career Opportunities – employees’ perceptions of a favourable set of circumstances for their future at the company.
Company Reputation – employees’ perceptions that the organisation’s reputation as an employer helps attract the best employees.
Customers – the extent to which an employee’s relationships with their customers are rewarding.
Customer Focus – employees’ perceptions of the organisation’s responsiveness to the needs of external customers.
Diversity – employees’ perceptions of the organisation’s commitment to embracing differences and diversity.
Manager – the employee’s immediate supervisor. This is the person responsible for the employee’s performance and coaching.
Pay – employees’ perceptions of whether they are paid fairly for their contributions, pay refers to both fixed and variable pay.
Performance Management – the effectiveness of the organisation’s performance management system in helping employees to understand what is expected of them at work and improve their performance.
Policies and Practices – general company practices such as pay, benefits, and work/life balance programs.
Recognition – non financial attention and favourable notices that employees received for the contributions and accomplishments in their work.
Resources – the means available to an employee necessary to do their job well. Resources include tools, technology and information.
Senior Management – refers to the CEO/Managing Director/Secretary and his/her direct reports.
Sense of Accomplishment – the extent to which employees derive a deeper sense of accomplishment from their day to day work.
Training & Development – employees’ perceptions about the training and development opportunities that are available within the organisation to help the employee build valuable skills.
Valuing People – the extent to which people feel like a valued member of the organisation.
Work Activities – how the employee feels about their day to day work tasks.
Work/Life Balance – employees’ perceptions of an appropriate balance between their work responsibilities and personal commitments.
Work Processes – processes that influence how work is done eg staffing, project prioritisation ect.
eagle eye
May 15, 2007 at 22:21
very illuminating. one wonders how the assessment for the health department would come out. Does this approach generate less than zero results?
The results certainly support the contention that the public service in this state is managed with mediocity as a desirable outcome. That way those with any semblance of a backbone or moral fibre are driven out to allow the mendacious and coniving to have free reign.
rat
May 16, 2007 at 16:58
For a public service organisation I reckon DPIW did very well against what was probably mainly (all?) corporate entities. They are to be congratulated for participating. How did they compare with other public service organisations?
Lies, damn lies and statistics
Nick McKim
May 16, 2007 at 19:03
The Tasmanian Greens today demanded that Minister David Llewellyn respond to the morale crisis at the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) after the Hewitt Best Employers Study (the Hewitt Study) posted on the oldtt.pixelkey.biz website yesterday revealed that DPIW is rated very poorly as an employer by its own employees.
Greens Deputy Leader Nick McKim MHA attributed DPIW’s very poor showing to factors including Labor’s deliberate restructuring of the public service to disempower conservation and environmental managers, its long term failure to allocate adequate funding to environmental management, and a command and control mentality throughout much of Tasmania’s public service.
Mr McKim said that the government’s response should include:
· a restructure of sections of the public service to house natural resource managers, including the Parks and Wildlife Service and a new EPA, within one agency;
· consulting with DPIW employees regarding actions to improve morale, productivity and job satisfaction levels; and
· re-training senior DPIW managers and Human Resource Officers;
“This is a seriously bad result because low morale equals low productivity, but these results provide a great opportunity to improve the situation if the Minister and senior managers respond strongly.â€
“All of Tasmania’s natural resource managers must be housed within one stand alone Department, including an Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and the Parks and Wildlife Service, rather than the current situation in which they have been scattered to the winds in a strategy designed to disempower environmental managers and disenfranchise Tasmania’s environment.â€
“Labor’s institutional hatred of organisations and people dedicated to protecting Tasmania’s environment is at least partly responsible for the findings of the Hewitt Study.â€
“I have no doubt that this result would be reflected across many other government agencies, as Labor bizarre funding priorities have alienated considerable sections of Tasmania’s public service.â€
“Labor’s deliberate restructuring of the public service to disempower environmental managers has resulted in the ludicrous situation whereby the Minister for Primary Industries is responsible for Tasmania’s culpably minimalist response to climate change.â€
“Labor’s blinkered obsession with the pulp mill has meant that key opinions within DPIW which seek to protect Tasmania’s environment from massive damage by the Gunns Ltd proposal have been buried or ignored.â€
Mr McKim said that the Hewitt Study’s findings include:
Continued below
Nick McKim
May 16, 2007 at 19:04
· Only 32% of DPIW employees agree that ‘this organisation inspires me to do my best work every day’ compared to 77% of best practice employers and 54% of all employers surveyed.
· 22% of DPIW employees agreed that ‘my future career opportunities here look good’ compared to 69% of best practice employers and 48% of all employers surveyed.
· 16% of employees agreed that ‘ at this time, I have no plans to leave this organisation’ compared to 65% best practice and 48% of all employers surveyed.
· 50% of DPIW employees agreed that ‘I am treated like a valued member of this organisation’, compared to 81% of best practice and 64% of all employers surveyed.
· 29% of DPIW employees agreed that ‘I see strong evidence of effective leadership from our senior management’ compared to 76% of best practice and 54% of all employers surveyed.
· 37% of DPIW employees agreed that ‘this organisations policies create a positive work environment for me’ compared to 79% of best practice and 58% of all employers surveyed.
· 25% of DPIW employees agreed that ‘we do an excellent job of addressing employees’ concerns and issues here’ compared to 66% of best practice and 41% of all employers surveyed.
· 50% of DPIW employees agreed that ‘I completely support this organisation’s goals and objectives’ compared to 90% of best practice and 75% of all employers surveyed.
· 37% of DPIW employees agreed that ‘I can fulfil my career aspirations (e.g. training new colleagues, achieving work/life balance, developing a new product) here’ compared to 74% of best practice and 53% of all employers surveyed.
· 19% of employees agreed that ‘their senior leadership: develops constructive relationships at all levels within the organisation’ compared to 71% best practice and 46% of all employers surveyed.
· 10% of employees agree that ‘our senior leaders: fill me with excitement for the future of this organisation’ compared to 69% of best practice and 42% of all employers surveyed.
· 19% of employees agreed that ‘our senior leaders: treat employees as this organisation’s most valued assets’ compared to 75% of best practice and 46% of all employers surveyed.
Cheshire
May 16, 2007 at 21:56
A small but very important clarification needs to be made to the comparative stats that Nick McKim quotes in response #4. One of the averages used in comparison to DPIW is that of the best employers as quoted, but the second comparison is NOT simply an avarage of “all employers surveyed”. The key word is “ALL”. For whatever reason, Hewitt has SEPARATED the averages of the Best and the averages of the Rest. That is, the average of the Rest EXCLUDES the results for the Best employers, otherwse these would lift the overall average if an “all employers surveyed” category was included in the results (as response #4 misinterprets).
As the Hewitt background information states, the two benchmarks are: (i) “the average scores of those organisations assessed… as outperforming others in the way they manage their people”; and (ii) “the average scores of all other organisations that participated… BUT DID NOT MAKE the Hewitt Best Employers list” (my capitalisation for emphasis).
Does this actually matter? The overall tenor of the result would remain the same, but Nick McKim is inadvertantly doing DPIW a favour by not recognising this distinction. The average percentages for “all employers surveyed” would actually be placed somewhere between the averages for the Best employers and those given for the Rest (i.e. excluding the Best). This would make the graphs look even worse for DPIW than they do now, as inclusion of the Best would elevate the average beyond that currently shown for the Rest, leaving DPIW even further behind.
As always, the devil is in the detail and, as post number 2 comments, statistics can be used to show many different things. However, the results here are fairly clear, despite 4% of the DPIW structure (eg Q12 & 13) clearly having its head in the sand about the health and vibrancy of the Department. Would anyone care to bet whether that 4% is at the top or the bottom of the management tree?
Ian Rist
May 17, 2007 at 00:29
Only in Tasmania could such a Department stumble from one disaster to another and not be accountable.
Devil Facial tumour disease, Macquarie Island, feral cats, foxes (which will go down as the joke of the century), biosecurity, the list goes on and on.
Any agency that condones a massive 120,000 plus 1080 meat based baiting campaign for foxes that only exist in the minds of the benefactors of such beliefs surely is off the rails.
This 1080 baiting disaster will go down in history as one of the biggest stuff ups in Tasmania, second only to the bounty on the Thylacine.
WHERE ARE the apathetic so-called conservationist protectors of our wildlife? HOW could you let this go on for so long???
Anonymouse
May 17, 2007 at 02:18
As an ex-employee of DPIW, I am not at all surprised by these results.
Over the 5 years that I was a member of the (now defunct) Nature Conservation Branch, I witnessed countless acts of
“management” that could only have been intended to hamper, rather than promote that Branch’s charter. It was painfully obvious that the Branch only existed because it was required to by legislation, and that its activities would be hindered by management as much as possible without overt (i.e. public) disruption.
Projects fundamental to the proper management of the State’s natural resources were habitually under-funded and under-staffed. Many projects were dependant on Commonwealth grants, for which the project managers had to personally apply. And, often such grants were siphoned off into other areas…
And, as for the principle of selection by merit… that only seemed to apply to positions at the entry level. For anything much above that, you generally had to be mates with those with influence. I witnessed a number of employees, who had been acting in their positions to the highest standards, only to have someone’s mate beat them for the job, once re-advertised.
And it was almost unheard of for anyone to be on a contract longer than two years. Mostly because there is no recurrent funding for the majority of projects.
One individual (a rare permanent employee) was doing such a good job, they re-wrote his position description out from under him and, despite being the most qualified and most experienced applicant, the pal of one of the managers got parachuted in to do the job instead.
Then there is the whole “divide and conquer” that has been going on in this Departmental realm since forever. First it was Parks and Wildlife, then the two got split, with Parks joining Tourism, Heritage and the Arts (what an obvious marriage). It was then that it was obvious what the Government’s opinion of our natural resources was… placing them under the banner of Primary Industries! (many of my colleagues didn’t realise this fact until the recent move of Environment from that Department to another.
Later the Nature Conservation Branch was further split into the Biodiversity Conservation and Wildlife Management branches, thus hampering what used to be simple matters between staff members. They still sit on the same floor in the Lands Building (to my knowledge) but now have separate managers, funding, etc.
The fact that any productive work has been achieved under these conditions is due only to the fact that those employees at the coal face are so talented and so passionately dedicated to our rich natural heritage that they endure in the face of their oppressive management.
I know of two such individuals who suffered nervous breakdowns because of the very fact that they felt that, without them, the work they were doing would not get done.
I’m surprised DPIW didn’t score lower.
super_cynic
May 17, 2007 at 12:33
Perhaps it is not so much a case of having lost the E from DPIWE, but a lack of facilitation for helping long term employees in the department to deal with significant structural and ideological change.
Transparent change within any organisation is essential to maintain morale, and common sense would say, encourages creative participation by motivated employees in establishing effective new directions – new directions that have a better chance to work despite the existence of any long term entrenched resistance to change.
When workers are included in decision making, and actively listened to, regardless of the organisation they may be working in, then increased morale and productivity follow.
As human beings, we generally fear change, and instability; no-one would work well within an environment that doesn’t or won’t address these two fundamental human fears with some degree of compassion and inclusive leadership.
Sabina01
May 17, 2007 at 17:21
Dear Super cynic
Given Anonymouse’s comments (similar comments which I have heard before regarding mates, corruption, obstruction, incompetence) do you think a course on ‘accepting corruption; or ‘how not to resent losing the job you are qualified for because you don’t kiss the right butt etc’ would help them through accepting the type of ideological or structural change described? Not sure that management can acknowledge those problems by being transparent about them….
An ICAC is what these employees need, not management mumbo jumbo.
That said, acknowledgement to the DPIW management for including DPIW in the survey. They are either hopelessly out of touch or at least some of them have a genuine commitment to improve things and such an ‘outing’ should prompt some changes.
Sabina01
Dr Niall Doran
May 17, 2007 at 18:09
I usually read the debate on this site rather than contributing, but Anonymouse raises a point towards the end of post #7 that needs further comment.
DPIW is full of people with a level of dedication that private enterprise would envy, and which the Department could really capitalise on if it would only provide the resources and support that these people need. Far too many staff are left in the position of having to do unreasonable and unhealthy levels of work to ensure they meet the tasks that they are responsible for, and doing so frequently leaves them in politically difficult positions with uncertain support or backing from above.
Like Anonymouse, I make these comments as an ex-employee of DPIWE/DPIW, and I can confirm that the commitment of many staff to their jobs forced them to work ridiculous hours due to lack of resources and support. This included late into the night and early morning, as well as weekends, just to try to stay even remotely on top of their statutory responsibilities. These were hardly the hours that most people attribute to public servants, yet this was the ‘status quo’, not just something that happened in ‘busy periods’.
One particular high-stress and under-staffed area had already lost two people to work-related breakdowns in two years. In 2003-2004, it was clear that there were other staff who might make that three (or more) lost to stress in three years, and staff urgently flagged this to senior managers. After a year of trying to resolve this reasonably with management, it was apparent that the increasingly urgent warnings were falling on deaf ears.
In sheer desperation, the staff turned to the union for help. That triggered more of a response from the Department than had been received to date, but brought with it a personal rebuke to those involved for taking such a step. Despite all this, and despite one staff member breaking down emotionally in front of senior managers in that meeting, nothing changed to materially improve the situation.
Ultimately a third staff member was lost to stress, despite all the warnings by staff trying to avoid this over the preceding year. The Department may argue that the earlier staff losses were unforseen, but it is completely and directly culpable for the third one.
This remains a burning point of anger, especially as we were powerless to stop it without meaningful and timely support from senior management. Who knows how many other such losses or similar stories have occurred across the rest of the Department? From the results of the survey, it would appear that this is not an isolated story, and that little has changed.
For my part, I decided to leave that area (and ultimately the Department) because I didn’t want the same thing to happen to me, and I refused to ‘half do’ my job which was the only other way to continue. Even so, the experience had a notable impact on my own peace of mind and my family life. Leaving was the best decision I’ve ever made.
Senior DPIW management really need to take this survey result on board, not just address it with band-aids. There are serious deep-rooted problems in that organisation that need to be resolved. But there are also incredibly dedicated people who are busting their backs within DPIW trying to do what the Dept and public require of them.
With the right support and approach, the Department could turn this around. It might also find that the competing aims of its different sections can be balanced and met without causing the division and resentment that is clearly there at present. DPIW might then be in a position to really provide the service and support that it owes to the public and to its own employees.
sanguine
May 18, 2007 at 15:39
Thank you Dr Doran for the honest appraisal of working for and with DPIW.
The last paragraph says it all; management have responsibility to not only to their own staff but also to the general public and that great area called the environment that has no voice of its own to “blow the whistle”; it can only show impacts. We all need to pull together and start working at really looking at what is happening around us and being a lot cleverer at why and how we do things. We can do this if there is the will to change.
Mike Bolan
May 18, 2007 at 16:07
The results described are fairly classic for an organisation with purposes that are in conflict with each other.
If the real world (where many employees work) does not conform to management descriptions or policies, then the employees that are trying to deal with real world problems quickly become isolated, even pilloried by their own managers.
The managers, who are dealing with a different world (money, government policy, tax compliance etc) become translators of abstract fantasies into ‘real world’ terms, and also creators of ‘explanations’ for failure (because the policies etc don’t apply to the real world).
These characteristics can be seen at every level of government in Tasmania and Australia.
The result is that the management/government cannot produce the results that they promise because their promises are based on a fantasy that isn’t descriptive of the real world, nor in their actual organisational arrangements.
Result:- multiple failures, staff apathy, high cost of operations etc etc
john Hayward
May 18, 2007 at 20:18
Nothing can be done so long as the Tasmanian Government is controlled at the top by people who actually cultivate regulatory impotence on behalf of vested interests. Our fat cats need to be belled by an ICAC as a matter of urgency.
Hats off to Niall Doran for having the very rare courage to speak out, though I expect it will mean the end of his Tasmanian career, as happened to another outraged DPIW scientist not long ago.
John Hayward
gk
May 18, 2007 at 22:01
OK… So what is to be done?
Dr Niall Doran
May 19, 2007 at 22:37
To answer post #15, the starting point is for the Department’s management to avoid trying to cover the issue with spin, to acknowledge that there are very serious morale problems, and to be open in addressing them. I didn’t write message #11 to score cheap points: it was an ongoing issue that I raised repeatedly within the Department, because I care about the work that they do and the colleagues that still work there.
Since submitting my previous post, I have been congratulated on this site, by email and in person for being prepared to put my name to what I wrote (thank you to all). The same people have also questioned what consequences it will have for me, both personally and professionally. Obviously that is a risk, but what I raised for discussion was too important not to be said. The comments would also have been sufficient to identify me within DPIW even without my name, and so the point of anonymity would have been lost.
If the Department and the powers-that-be want to spend more time shooting the messenger than tackling the issues that have been raised, and if they have a greater concern that these matters have become public than that they actually happened in the first place, then it further demonstrates the problem.
It will only show the level of desperation if they wish to focus on me as the first identifiable target, especially after these issues have already been made public by the Hewitt Report, the Tasmanian Times article that reported it, and the subsequent comments of other posters on this site.
I’ve already pointed out that the Department has an opportunity to progress from this. It deserves recognition for taking part in the survey, but it also has to wear the results that have come back, or else nothing will change.
Stress has caused permanent or long-term damage to the careers and lives of staff who were giving their all for DPIW. That is the crucial point, bar none.
The question now is whether the Department can move to stop that happening again. If not, anger in their ranks will only continue to grow, and more and more people are likely to speak out. Then potential retaliation and censure becomes a toothless threat. Without change, who would want to work under those conditions anyway?
Con I Shed
May 20, 2007 at 01:36
I recently retired from working at DPIW. Both were largely unrewarding and stressful experiences.
There were more memorable working low lights than there were highs.
• Some of my staff were arbitrarily reallocated without any consultation or any material reduction in the section’s required outputs.
• Denial of previously agreed further professional education.
• Complete management indifference to extra hours worked by staff to cover vacant positions and still meet unavoidable deadlines.
• There was a strong culture of blame, which when combined with under-staffing and increasing output demands, multiplied stress levels. A little management support would have made a world of difference to us.
• Volumes of state of the art HR policies that were ignored by management when economic rationalism demanded.
• A staff survey, which was purported to be anonymous but contained questions, the answers to which would enable many respondents to be identified.
The Department’s sole response to my retirement was a letter, which set out formal arrangements, devoted one sentence to my years of effort and offered the standard termination interview. Not the celebration of a life of work in the Service from a thoughtful employer. Just another turning of the corporate back on an expended resource.
Too many other former DIPW employees report the same indifference.
The Report reveals endemic problems in the Department’s senior management that need to be resolved by externally directed forces. The Minister is aware of these problems and should act directly.
Charles and Claire Gilmour
May 20, 2007 at 13:30
Good on you Niall and others, maybe showing them integrity is still alive and well in this state will result in some positive change. Besides encouraging others to also speak out.
David Obendorf
May 21, 2007 at 02:31
What is at stake and the the real story behind this survey is the mismanagement of Tasmania’s future sustainability. The Hewitt Survey that benchmarks DPIW against other large employee organisations and corporate businesses reflects the corrosive malaise in this Department and, in my view, stems from a highly politicised ‘kiss up-kick down’ approach embedded within its leadership & management culture. It is now quite chronic and is symptomatic of a ‘command & control’ ethos. Management acts like punative overseers to a frightened, insecure and compliant employee base. In such an atmosphere of fear, is it any wonder the consequences are self-censorship and mediocrity?
State Government’s going back to Robin Gray in the mid-1980’s have dismembered this Department and taken way its ‘public service’ raison d’etre and ethic. So many budget cuts, sell offs and organisational reviews have taken place. Scientific staff lack confidence in management, and the generic management in turn have mediocritised the professionalism of the Agency. If there were ongoing HRM auditing processes operating in Tasmania, such serious professional & morale statistics could be clearly identified and perhaps be addressed.
But alas, I believe DPIW ‘condition’ is a chronic malaise and the pathology is not in the body but in it’s own head.
It seems little has changed in a decade within DPIW. Results from a staff morale survey in the mid-1990’s highlighted identical systemic cultural deficiencies in the top management and the operations of HRM in DPIW. As other former DPIW staff have reported the culture of Nepotism in filling vacancies merely reinforces the mediocrity.
Put this in perspective, this Agency has responsibility for the sustainability of Tasmania’s vital primary resources – its soil, its air, its fresh water, its food production, its biodiversity, its marine resources, its land use management, its quarantine & biosecurity etc. It is the gatekeeper and public custodian of Tasmania’s land use and there are sound reasons to be concerned by the ‘head sickness’ at DPIW; it seems so also are many of its own rank & file employees!
Let’s face it, this is a politicised Agency run by specially appointed political scientists and politically savvy bureaucrats.
Now to other departments and the Public Service generally. The list of bungled public policy and exposed fiascos over the years has been, in my view, breath-takingly shameless, supremely ignorant and sometimes plain arrogant. But like naked Emperors public sector managers keep on walking as if nothing has happened. These head-strong bulls really feel they OWN the china shop that they run amuck in!
And yet DPIW specifically does deserve an award for media propaganda. It is one area of their business that they excel in and for that I would award them the title: â€The Sultans of Spinâ€.
Until the seeds of a new leadership style are planted in this Agency, there will be no change and we will continue to place our trust in this ‘rough beast’ to protect our path to a sustainable future. [I personally don’t expect any radical change whilst ever David Llewellyn is the responsible Minister.]
Mike Bolan
May 22, 2007 at 22:31
I’d suggest reframing gk’s point to ‘what can WE do about this situation (which exists at all levels of government)?
I maintain that we need to act as though we had standards for government and political behaviours. We need to pour odium on those who refuse to meet our standards and only reward those who meet, or exceed, our standards. If we reward people for corrupted behaviours we will amplify the problem. We need to scutinise them MUCH more carefully, taking them to court where required.
Every time we call a patently corrupted politician “Honorable” we are reinforcing the dysfunction that we’re trying to avoid.
If we treated our politicians and government’s utterances with the response that they deserve, they wouldn’t be able to stand the pressure. It’s behavioural, cultural and biological for people to want to go with the majority…but we need to remind them that we ARE the majority.
There’s about 7,000 loggers in Tasmania. The tourism industry employs about 38,000 people in a wide range of occupations. In that context we can see that it is the loggers who are the noisy minority – a courageous political decision.
When the PM calls everyone outside the logging industry a ‘noisy minority’ we know we have a serious problem. Doesn’t he know there’s more people adversely impacted by logging than those who benefit? Doesn’t he know that farming creates more jobs, supports more communities and brings in a greater percentage of GDP than logging? Doesn’t he know that water and food are more important than pulp wood trees?
We need to remind our politicians forcefully who they work for, who pays them, and that taxpayers deserve at least the same respect that a corporation would give its customers.
We should be throwing more eggs.
If we treated our kids like we treat our politicians, we’d end up with a generation of spoiled brats.
Perhaps the same principles apply to ‘training’ our political and government classes as apply to good parenting?
If you don’t want the behaviour, stop reinforcing it.
Christopher Purcell
May 23, 2007 at 14:45
Mike,
John Howard & Paul Lennon know that logging takes rather than contributes to the economy. But why would they bite the hand that feeds them?
It’s a great rort; give an ‘industry’ lots of government (taxpayer) financial support in the relaxed & comfortable knowledge that the favoured ‘industry’ will return a reasonable percentage of that taxpayer money to your political campaign. Simple backhanders. It’s a way of paying for political campaigns by using taxpayers’ money, nothing more.
Banning all political donations by companies & organisations & limiting personal political donations to $5,000 or so would perhaps put a dent in the amount of ‘funding’, ‘tax benefits’ & ‘industry restructuring help’ that governments give to certain industries & companies.
Toby Rowallan
May 23, 2007 at 17:29
It’s an excellent suggestion Christopher P, however, getting such a donations ban through parliament whilst those who are profiting from their support by vested interests are in power, I just can’t see happening.
Of course others, such as the Greens have suggested similar things in the past, but the majority of voters do not seem to be able to connect corporate donations with improper behaviour by governments.
Mind you, when a premier rushes to visit the head of a corporation who withdraws from a longstanding legislated and thorough assessment process and promises to let him get away with that, well I think a few more people than usual have unsurprisingly put two and two together and come up with ‘dodgy’.
committed
May 24, 2007 at 23:42
What a suprise? Anyone with potential or vision has been ‘transfered’. Un-inspiring untalented people have been placed in leadership roles. Appointment procedures are ‘managed’. Quality staff are ignored – and leave – if they haven’t golden handcuffs. And then they suffer in silence.
Surely it is clear now that the DPIW is seeking to divest itself of responsibility – palming off sections, research, extension, research stations…. progressively over time. Sadly management has not been brave enough to be explicit about its true mission and vision – but as we all know – the truth emerges with time.
The truth is that the Government is seeking to step away from investing in the primary industry sector and natural resource management. A weak and dysfunctional farmer organisation has allowed this to take place by stealth.
We need to seriously consider how we can support the future management of our natural resources outside of the dysfunctional confines of State government. Death by 1000 cuts over the last 15 years has caused significant negative human, environmental and economic impacts. It is time the government made its true intentions overt, to allow its staff, landholders and key stakeholders to get on with the business of fostering sustainable primary industries and water without a ‘pretend’ DPIWE.
Kay Seltitzas
January 11, 2014 at 01:51
A revolution, mutiny, seems to me to be the only way we can take back this state from the total morons we call Politicians and throw these useless self serving idiots OUT. We are the citizens but we are treated like a visitor who outstays their welcome!
Our corrupt state needs to stand up, stop this crap and let’s be brave and put our evil system to death. After all, they are happy enough to put our lives at risk, SO let’s do something other than talk! How about Nauru?
David Obendorf
January 11, 2014 at 15:05
DPIPWE has been a demoralised, fearful Department for decades. The Hewitt Review just demonstrates that malaise.
Job insecurity, workplace bullying, politicisation and mediocre management typify an organisation that does not understand its public-good role in the Tasmanian Society and treats its staff like indentured convicts over-seen by jailers. Sadly there is little refreshment in the management at the top; that typifies a culture of complacency and denial in State Government.
Paradoxical amalagamation of portfolios within DPIPWE; being answerable to multple ministers; senior public servants chosen more for their conformity to politics than their innovation and creativity.
Welcome to Taz-mania – Rotten at its core.