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

image

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)

image

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)

image

image

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)

image

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.

image

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.

image

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.

image

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.