workforce & retention study · workforce & retention study ... planning institute of...
TRANSCRIPT
WORKFORCE & RETENTION STUDY
Prepared for: Planning Institute of Australia (SA Division)
Project #: 8038
Date: June 2010
Principal Consultants:
Frances Eltridge, Natalie FullerSimone Fogarty and Sonia Manser
In conjunction with:
2Table of contents1. EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT: 3
30 second summary 4Key outcomes 5Recommendations 11
2. INTRODUCTION: 12Background 13Objectives 14About this study 15
3. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:PROFILING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE 18
Areas of expertise 19Gender and age 20Time in profession etc. 21Employment status & location 22Current and previous employers 23Current roles 26
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: 27Formal qualifications 28Management training 29Mentoring 32Other training/education 34Expectations towards employers 37Current benefits 38Acting in more senior roles 39Trainees, cadets, interns 41
ATTRACTION STRATEGIES: 42Most important factors 43Attractions to current workplace 44Benefits and pay structure 45
RETENTION STRATEGIES: 46Three best things 47Organisation-level retention activities 48Manager-level retention activities 49
CHALLENGES FACED: 50Meeting expectations 51In what ways different than expected 52Perceived ease of managing workload 56Three most critical challenges 57Other challenges 58
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT: 59Perceived feasibility of sharing skillsets 60Level of enjoyment, now and 2 years ago 61Future intentions 63Barriers to remaining in profession 64Motivations to stay 65
4. LITERATURE REVIEW 66Preface 67Attraction and retention overview 67Attracting staff 68Retaining staff 72Focusing on the built environment workforce 75Attracting professional staff 76Positioning local government as an attractive employer 78Attracting graduates 79Understanding generational differences 80Skilled immigrants and CALD groups 86Attracting women 87Case studies 89
APPENDIX 1: Margin for error & statistical significance 93APPENDIX 2: Questionnaire 95APPENDIX 3: Guide for managers 109
1. EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT:30-second summaryKey outcomesRecommendations
430-second summary
ATTRACTION
RETENTION
The Literature Review:Indicates the key attraction issues are:
Work/life balanceCareer opportunitiesRemunerationJob-interest alignmentRespectDevelopment opportunitiesLocation
The Survey:Says the key drivers that attracted people to their workplaces are:
Primary factors~ Remuneration~ Interesting / stimulating work~ Work-life balance
Secondary factors~ Job security (although much less important to non-gov't staff)~ Flexible work arrangements~ Type of work/tasks involved~ Location~ Professional development opportunities
The Literature ReviewFeatures of workplaces where people want to stay:
Recognising and rewarding staff achievement.Support for professional development.Supportive and collaborative leadership style.Flexible approach to work-life balance.Ways for staff to provide feedback to the organisation.Childcare, gym membership.Phased retirement.Mentoring.Identification of key staff who might be poached and setting up a counter-offer process.Demonstrated succession planning.Maintaining awareness of competitor activity and taking steps to maintain your organisation as the preferred option in the minds of key staff.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS:Provide up-to-date management training or refresher courses.Develop or integrate short courses - targeted at the built environment workforce - in managing interpersonal relationships and conflict resolution.Determine whether repetitive tasks could be completed by administrative and cadet-level staff.Consider rotating staff between functional versus policy/strategy-oriented roles.To reduce churn, improve coherence between employee value propositions offered at recruitment and the actuality of experiences in the workplace.
The SurveyThe most common factors that need to be addressed to retain staff are:
Building well-crafted and cohesive teams.Providing supportive atmosphere/workplace cultures.Promoting the challenging nature of the work.Uneven or unsupportive management.Poor (or no) processes and policies.Inaccurate representations of the workload during the recruitment stage.
With strong coherence evident between the literature and the survey outcomes (even though, of course, the survey could not cover all the issues encountered in a body of workforce literature), this study provides credible inputs to enhancing the built environment workforce.
5
Key outcomesThis study has provided a clear picture of the built environment workforce and of workforce best practices more generally, with the profiling, behaviours, attitudes, attraction and retention strategies covered herein all contributing to future workforce planning. What has emerged is a built environment workforce that is not, or is no longer, in crisis (as had been determined from various studies conducted up to 2007), but one that does retain clearly proclaimed needs and opportunities for improvement.
This Executive Assessment section of the report provides an overview of the study, then highlights the key outcomes (which are addressed in line with the structure of the report), followed by recommendations which have been based on the project outputs and the professional expertise of the various consultants involved in this study.
When considering the survey results, it should be borne in mind that, being a self-completion rather than administered survey, there is a varying degree of non-response to some questions. Mostly, this has been small and therefore ignored; in some questions, however, the non-response has been large enough to be mentioned and, in a few questions, results have been recalculated as percentages of those responding to the question. Where applicable, this has been clearly stated.
Overview:The specific needs of the workforce and avenues for improvement are pointed out in the report in terms of professional development, attraction and retention strategies. Some of the key issues that emerged from the investigation include:
~ the subjectivity and fairness of performance evaluations of managers.~ remuneration, work-life balance and job-interest alignment as the main motivators of attraction. ~ team setup and happiness among co-workers (workplace culture) and the perceived existence of improvements at work as main drivers of retention. ~ satisfaction of needs for mentoring and organisational support.~ the extent, frequency and cost-sharing of training opportunities (e.g. short courses, time-off for training, etc.).~ the roles and/or effectiveness of involving trainees, cadets or interns.~ the acquisition of specialised and highly skilled people, i.e. the need to be more attractive to people with advanced higher education (Masters, PhDs).~ a concerning proportion of respondents (1/5) giving a negative response to how well or poorly the workplace had met the expectations they had when joining. ~ workload (and the nature of that work) being a challenge that is horizontally affecting each of the aforementioned issues.
As can be seen in the Literature Review (Section 4 of this document), the results of the present study extensively concur with the findings of various studies in the literature. However, it needs to be emphasised that not every aspect elaborated in the Literature Review was (or could have been) investigated in the survey. But the Literature Review enhances the understanding of challenges in the sector, thereby increasing the likelihood of devising effective and purposeful strategies for change.
Having said that, it is useful to underline the key similarities and differences between the literature and survey. In terms of attraction and retention factors, the findings of the survey are remarkably similar to the findings in the literature. These include the significance of factors such as job-interest alignment, work/life balance, salary and remuneration, and professional development opportunities. It was found that the participants of the study also identified these as the most important factors influencing their gratification.
6
Key outcomes (continued)The major difference between the literature and the survey is the ability of the literature to include the employers' side of factors, while the survey mostly focused on employees (and some students).
Nonetheless, this does not mean these concepts in the literature are less important than the findings of the study. An example is the Employee Value Proposition (EVP) concept. EVP refers to issues that effectively influence attraction and retention in the long run such as the need to highlight opportunities for career advancement, learning and development; the level of flexibility at work (childcare, leave, work hours etc.); the match between individual and organisational values; the clarity of communication between the employee and the organisation; and truly understanding who the job-seekers are etc. It was found that even though such issues are clearly identified by the literature, they are not directly addressed in the study. Hence, for a thorough comprehension of the contemporary perspectives and issues in workforce development, attraction and retention, we strongly urge a read through of the attached Literature Review.
The literature also points out the need to diversify the opportunities and strategies according to the diverse needs and wants of employees. The diversity of employees can be considered in terms of gender, generation (Baby Boomers, X, Y), and the role within the organisation etc. This is an issue that needs to be taken into account while devising strategies for attraction and retention at an organisation level.
The remainder of this Executive Assessment provides a snapshot of the principal findings, addressed in line with the structure of the report:~ Profiling the workforce Professional development Attraction strategies Retention strategies Challenges faced Opportunities for improvement,
followed by our recommendations for changes that would assist in developing and retaining a successful built environment workforce .
Profiling the workforce:
In profiling the workforce, the sample of the workforce responding to the survey (n=197 people) appears to be reasonably representative of the overall built environment workforce with some reassurance gained from the fact that the sample's age and gender distribution was similar to that recorded on the contact list for members of the Planning Institute, which was the only group that included this data in their members' contact list. However, we consider it likely that the sample is somewhat biased towards people at team leader or above level, as they formed half the sample and this is probably not the case across the built environment workforce as a whole. Bearing that potential limitation in mind, however, the survey does give an interesting picture of the workforce.
While most respondents indicated they have expertise across a variety of areas, the most prominent individual groups were development assessment planners (who formed 31% of the sample), environmental health officers (28%), policy/strategy planners (26%) and building surveyors (23%). These were the only areas of expertise listed by large enough segments to provide analysis of other questions' results. The remaining professions / areas of expertise, such as environmental planners (8%), social planners (6%), engineers (3%), open space/recreation planners (2%), transport planners (1%) etc. have been grouped as 'other' in this analysis as their sub-samples are too small to provide reliable segmentation.
7
Key outcomes (continued)When we compare the built environment workforce with South Australia's or Australia's overall workforce, which we can do for factors such as gender, age and full time/part time, it becomes evident that the sample is slightly biased towards males, full time workers and is slightly older in age. However, the most prominent difference was among building surveyors, who appear to be overwhelmingly (98%) male and with a considerably older age profile than others segments of the built environment workforce.
Eight in ten policy/strategy planners and a similar proportion of those in the smaller professions/areas of expertise (open space, transport, etc.) are located in metropolitan Adelaide. In contrast, at least four in ten EHOs and DA planners are located in regional SA.
Local government is the predominant employer (70% of the respondents), while 18% work in commercial enterprises and 9% in State Government. Minor proportions were not currently in the built environment workforce or did not answer the question.
Professional development:
One third of the respondents recorded that they have bachelor degrees, and one in five (19%) has a post-graduate diploma, although this latter qualification was much less often noted among DA planners (5%). Very few have higher degrees and these were most commonly noted among policy/strategy planners.
Better performance and understanding by their managers proved to be a common request in subsequent questions, but at this point it is interesting to note that one third of mid-level managers, team leaders or supervisors claimed they had received no management training and this gap was evident in close to half of the executive and senior level managers answering the survey. State government was much more likely than local government or commercial enterprises to have staff with management training (65% versus 43% and 45% respectively).One of the more interesting facets of this study is that more people said they had provided mentoring (74%) than had received it (64%). This may be a function of the implication raised earlier that the sample of respondents is somewhat biased towards management with a relative under-representation of non-supervising officers, even though the latter group forms half the sample. Informal in-house mentoring is clearly the most common kind provided and received, followed by formal in-house mentoring. Between 13% and 19% had provided or received external mentoring.
When asked how easy or difficult it is to get organisational support for professional development (PD), the overall response was mildly positive (averaging 6.3 on a 0-10 scale), but left considerable room for improvement. Most interestingly, respondents with degree or post-graduate qualifications found gaining support for PD significantly easier than those with lower level qualifications.
Short, 1-3 day courses, were most often wanted by the respondents, although there was also some degree of interest in certificate, diploma and post-graduate study. Close to three quarters (72%) listed at least one course or type of course they would like to undertake and these responses are specified in detail in the body of this report.
8
Key outcomes (continued)There is a clear expectation among most respondents (77%) that their organisations should support their training or education with time-off to study, but there was a more mixed reaction to sharing costs. 42% expect full reimbursement or up-front payment of course costs; 29% expect to share costs and 17% do not expect their employer to contribute. This largely reflects the current position, in that 69% of respondents said they currently get time off; 42% can get full reimbursement and 45% indicated partial reimbursement. There were considerable difference between employer types, with eight in ten of the small number of State Government employees saying they can get time off, while six in ten claimed they can get partial reimbursement or payment of fees. Among local government staff, seven in ten nominated time off and just under half indicated they could claim full or partial reimbursement. However, among those working in the commercial sector, just 29% anticipate that they would receive full reimbursement, 48% said partial reimbursement and 67% specified time off to study.
Apart from EHOs, around two thirds of the various professions stated that their organisations do take on trainees, cadets or interns in their areas and estimation of their usefulness after the first few weeks was more positive than negative, averaging 6.1 on a 0-10 ('cause more work than they save' to 'very useful') scale. However, just 42% of EHOs said their organisations take on these juniors and their assessment was also negative - 4.3 on this scale.
Attraction strategies:All respondents were asked what are the three most important factors they take into account when looking for jobs. Responses fell very clearly into three groupings, with the factors within each group being of equal importance:
Primary factors Secondary factors Tertiary factorsSalary / remuneration Job security (much less important to non-govt staff) Professional co-workers and managersInteresting / stimulating work Flexible work arrangements Supportive organisational cultureWork-life balance Type of work / tasks involved Organisation's professional reputation (more
Location (of workplace) important to non-govt than govt staff)Opportunities for ongoing learning / professional development
It is worth noting that the patterns of these responses both reflect and reinforce the results of the Literature Review provided earlier in this study.It is also notable that location was specified by far more local government employees than others as one of their current workplaces' key attractions (59% versus 21%), while job-related factors such as opportunity to grow, new/better role, variety of work, etc. and good reputation were more important to people in other workplaces than they were to local government employees.It was also interesting that seven in ten respondents claimed that no inducement other than salary had been included to encourage them to join their current workplaces, although 15% of local government employees noted that a company car was included.Current pay structures varied quite considerably by employer type, with just 12% of State Government employees claiming they are paid over-award, compared with 25% of local government workers and 43% of those in commercial organisations.
9
Key outcomes (continued)Retention strategies:
This study clearly indicates that a well-crafted and cohesive team is one of, if not the, most critical factors in retaining staff. In one example of this, when staff were asked to record, in their own words, what are the best things about their current workplaces, respondents gave varied answers which have been grouped into categories to facilitate analysis. The people they work with was mentioned twice as often as any other factor.In commercial workplaces, the variety of the work, together with the atmosphere/workplace culture were also very prominent in people's thinking, but less so among government employees, which could indicate critical opportunities for governments to improve these factors and compete more readily for staff.However, in a somewhat sad outcome, when respondents were asked, in separate questions, what firstly their organisation and secondly their manager does, or tries to do, to make their working life better than it would be elsewhere, the top response by far - in both cases - was 'nothing'.Yet, in an indication that many people's thinking in this area is somewhat stilted, they also most commonly said 'nothing' when asked what their organisation (and subsequently manager) could do better. These people do not appear to be creatively engaged in the process of improving their own workplaces.
Challenges faced:People who had indicated that they had joined their workplaces within the five years prior to interview were asked how well or poorly the workplace had met the expectations they had when joining. Across the sample, i.e. regardless of profession, the type or size of workplace, close to half said it had been about what they expected (46%), while one quarter said it was better and one in five said it was worse (7% did not answer). In other words, three quarters said their workplace met or exceeded expectations, but the 20% giving a negative response is significant and concerning.
Those who said things were better or worse than expected were asked in what ways their workplaces were different than anticipated. On the positive side, responses focused on the supportive atmosphere and people they work with (predominantly) or the challenging nature of type of work. On the negative side, comments focused on uneven or unsupportive management, poor (or no) processes and policies, and inaccurate representations of the workload during the recruitment stage.
Despite three quarters of the sample indicating that expectations had been met or exceeded, when all respondents were asked how easy or difficult they found managing their day-to-day task load, the response was not favourable, averaging just 5.5 on the 0-10 scale. Compounding this, when asked to list their three most critical challenges, workload topped the list. Suggestions to relieve the challenges they had mentioned again focused around having more support staff or trainees/cadets who could be trained to take on some of the lower-level chores, thereby freeing up the experienced professionals to deal with the more challenging issues.
10
Opportunities for improvement:A proposition put to respondents that asked how feasible it would be to share personnel and/or skillsets across neighbouring or regional local government areas gained some, but not overwhelming, support, particularly among EHOs and planners, who recorded respective mean scores of 7.0 and 6.4 on the 0-10 scale provided. However, there was less enthusiasm among building surveyors, whose average (5.4) came barely above the midpoint, and local government employees clearly considered the proposition less feasible (6.2) than those who worked elsewhere (7.3-8.7). The option was also given a significantly higher feasibility rating among people aged 55+ than among their younger counterparts, although the latter group still gave a positive score (6.5 versus 7.4).
Among the final series of questions, people were asked to rate (on a 0-10 scale) how much they enjoy working in their current workplace and how much they enjoyed working two years ago, even if it were a different workplace. Results were reasonably favourable and surprisingly similar between the two assessments - 6.9 for currently and 6.8 for two years ago. Given the background to this study, these results seemed more positive than would have been expected and clearly do not indicate a workforce in crisis.
Regardless of current enjoyment levels, however, at least one third of the people surveyed expect to leave their professions within five years and this intention was stronger among EHOs than any other professional group. The key barriers identified across all respondents who expect to move out of their professions in the next five years were: retirement (29%), boredom (25%), workload too high (24%) and lack of support from management (16%).
When this was turned around and these respondents were asked what is the most important thing that would have to change in order for them to decide to stay in their current profession, most were unable to provide any suggestions and the limited responses provided no new insights. The most common suggestions - each given by a small minority - were more variety/more interesting work (18%), pay increase/better conditions (13%) and opportunity for professional development (11%).
Key outcomes (continued)
11
RecommendationsThese recommendations must necessarily be broad, applying generally across the built environment workforce. Individual workplaces and professional bodies would need to review them, consult internally and consider how or if they could or should be applied to their workforce.
~ Provide up-to-date management training or refresher courses to those who are or will be managing or leading staff. As the Literature Review clearly highlights, there are significant differences in the workplace expectations of Generation Y staff, versus the experiences of Gen X or Baby Boomers. Modern managers need to have good relationship skills, be consultative and know how to encourage team building. These are aspects that do not come naturally to everyone, but good training and a recognition of the need to adapt can greatly assist with smooth workplace functioning.
~ We also note that the 'toxic environment' referenced in 2007 was partly driven by the challenges and issues that staff can encounter when dealing directly with the public. It could be very useful for the respective professional associations and/or the educational institutions to develop or integrate short courses - targeted at the built environment workforce - in managing interpersonal relationships and conflict resolution.
~ Even though the issues of boredom and overwork appear initially contradictory, this is not necessarily so. Skilled professional staff can become bogged down in the mass of detailed, tick-box type of paperwork, and the repetitive, unchallenging nature of the work - especially if there are strong time pressures involved - can lead to boredom and dissatisfaction. Organisations could combine resource rationalisation and enhancing staff satisfaction by determining if any of these repetitive tasks could be completed by administrative and cadet-level staff, rather than experienced professionals. It may also be feasible to consider rotating staff between functional versus policy- or strategy-oriented roles to increase people's engagement. This latter option could also have the advantage of increasing people's awareness of the challenges faced across the wider built environment workforce .
~ With a significant one in five respondents noting that their workplace failed to meet expectations, there appears to be room to improve the coherence between the workload descriptions and employee value propositions communicated during the recruitment process and the actuality that recruits are likely to experience in the workplace.
While the survey results are sufficiently positive to indicate that the 'toxic workplace' description no longer applies, without further change churn appears set to remain an issue, with one in three expecting to exit their professions in the next five years, of whom only one in ten will leave due to retirement (one third of one in three equates to approximately one in ten). The recommendations above are designed to help alleviate this situation but we also note that the workforce participants responding to the survey provided limited suggestions for solutions to the issues they highlighted, which may indicate a general lack of engagement or hope of change. Further value might be obtained by introducing facilitated discussions within individual workplaces to identify more targeted solutions and encourage a greater sense of workforce cohesion.
A stand-alone Guide For Managers has been developed, based on the literature and survey. The Guide is appended to this report, but has also been provided as a separate document that can be distributed to organisations, association members, etc. as preferred.
2. INTRODUCTION:BackgroundObjectives About this study
13
BackgroundPrior to this project being commissioned, it had been recognised for some time that shortages of qualified planners and planning support staff have placed significant pressure on both organisations and their staff. A number of reports* had been produced over the past few years that had consistently highlighted the problems and their implications and showed that the issue is national, not just in South Australia.
A December 2007 study in South Australia, Development Assessment - The Inside View, highlighted that, in local governments across SA:~ almost 30% of all DA staff had less than 2 years planning experience and almost 50% less than 5 years experience.~ 48% of all DA staff had been at their current council for 2 years or less, and 72% for 5 years or less.~ (extrapolated) the entire population of DA planners was turning over every three years or so.~ 80% of vacancies were filled (and 80% of these within 3 months), but 43% were filled by staff from other councils.~ vacancies were often being filled by staff who were less experienced than desired.~ 20% of vacancies were not filled, leading to increased backlogs.~ achieving an ideal team structure across all respondent councils would require a 40% increase in the current number of DA staff, including 20% more planners and
67% more support staff.~ the greatest demand was suggested to be for building officers, whose primary role is in building rules and compliance and who do not directly support planners.
One outcome from this report was the development of the DA Taskforce Action Plan, which identified the need for a survey of the wider, built environment workforce, to examine workforce composition and trends, as well as current attraction and retention strategies, their perceived usefulness and ways in which these strategies could be improved and the rate of churn reduced. The Local Government Research and Development Scheme provided the funding for this study to take place and one of the aims was to develop a methodology that may be applied across other industries and/or built environment workforces, and may be utilised in other States and Territories.
Consequently, this project has considered not only the range of planning professions - such as urban planners, development assessment planners, transport planners, social planners, environmental planners, open space and recreation planners - to be found in local government, State government and commercial planning consultants, but also building, environmental health and engineering professionals employed in local governments across South Australia.
* For example:- Planning Skills Retention and Development in Local Government, produced by QED Pty Ltd for the Local Government Association, February 2003.- National Inquiry Into Planning Education and Employment, Planning Institute Australia, 2004- Helping The Planning Profession in South Australia: Addressing Workplace Problems in Planning, Planning Institute Australia (SA Division), April 2005- New Ways of Thinking - Doing Business Differently, National Local Government Skills Shortage Steering Committee, May 2007- Development Assessment - The Inside View, produced by Colliers International for the Planning Institute Australia (SA Division), December 2007
14
As identified in the original Brief, the aim of the project is toenhance and assist with the following issues:
attraction and retention of staff.reduction in the rate of churn.decreased burn-out.better balancing of work loads.enhanced job satisfaction.enhanced skill base and degree of experience.creation of more supportive work environments.enhanced career development.enhanced productivity as a result of a higher level of local and organisational knowledge.
The key objectives for the research, therefore, were to:gather and analyse sound information on the current state of the built environment workforce and its intentions over the coming years, particularly in terms of potential permanent or temporary loss through retirement, leakage out of the profession or other reasons.design a survey methodology that :
~ can be repeatable for the future and for the other built environment professions.~ is capable of being transferred and employed in other States.~ is in a format suitable for distribution by AIBS.~ respects the confidentiality of participants.~ identifies the ‘attitudes’ and prevailing conditions that influence whether officers stay or leave the organisation, such as corporate leadership/governance,
workplace conditions, nature and level of workloads, degree that professional expertise is valued.~ measures the effectiveness of existing and potential staff retention measures.
provide a benchmark for the current salary and working conditions in the industry and by sector 1.investigate and analyse a range of models, especially for regional areas that have difficulty in attracting professional staff, for delivering professional services in terms of cost, benefits, achievability, implications.inform the local government sector as to what the best practice staff retention methods are thus enabling them to refine their current retention methods/strategies.
Objectives
1 After some discussion, including advice from Locher HR that it can take a recruitment specialist up to two days to benchmark salary for a single position and consideration of the spread of roles and levels evident in the survey sample, it was acknowledged by the Committee that this objective was unrealistic for a survey of this nature. The survey does, however, determine the proportions, by profession and employer-type, paid in line with or over Awards.
15
About this studyThis study was commissioned and overseen by a committee comprising representatives from the SA Divisions of:
~ Planning Institute of Australia.~ Environmental Health Australia.~ Australian Institute of Building Surveyors.~ Local Government Association and its funding arm, the Local Government Research and Development Scheme.
The project included both secondary source research (a literature review and investigation of current student numbers) and primary research among the built environment workforce. It commenced with a preliminary workshop with the Steering Committee to review and confirm the scope, methodology and timeframes.
As one of the first stages in this project, a review of the relevant, current literature was carried out by Locher & Associates and a report provided to the Committee and the consultancy team in November 2009. That document (provided later in this report) informed the development of the questionnaire that was used in the main survey module and also in analysing the implications of the survey results.
The Literature Review also highlights a range of models and strategies that could be implemented in both metropolitan and regional areas to improve the attraction and retention of both professional and other staff.
Several attempts were made to explore the numbers of people studying the various courses relevant to the built environment. It was acknowledged at the time the study was commissioned that educational institutions in general, and universities in particular, can be extremely reluctant to release information about student and graduate numbers. It was therefore agreed that various members of the committee and one of the co-consultants would use personal contacts to gain this information. Unfortunately, despite reminders, only information about TAFE SA's Certificate IV in Local Government Planning was provided and subsequent direct approaches by Harrison Research to other relevant educational institutions proved as futile as had been anticipated. We have therefore been unable to properly fulfil this element of our proposed methodology.
Given this limited outcome, the data on student numbers for the Certificate IV in Local Government Planning are reported here rather than in a separate section in the main body of the report. We note with interest that the numbers had decreased in each of the four years reported:
~ 2006 - 42 Students~ 2007 - 36 Students~ 2008 - 33 students~ 2009 - 30 Students (current at the time the data were provided).
The TAFE SA information also stated that, at the time of reporting these numbers (October 2009), over 20 students had expressed interest in the Diploma of Local Government Planning that was to be introduced in 2010.
16
About this studyApart form the Literature Review, the main methodology used in this study was primary data collection via an online survey among people who are members of the professional organisations listed above, plus a contact list provided by the Local Government Association. The actual process used involved:
~ compile the database of potential respondents.~ draft the questionnaire which was distributed to the consultancy team and to the Steering Committee via the Committee's liaison person. ~ review and refine the questions based on the team's and committee's feedback.~ program the approved questionnaire for online survey delivery and gain client sign-off.~ conduct the pilot survey online, review and refine as required and gain client sign-off.~ conduct the main online survey, including sending reminders to non-respondents after 1 week.
The various lists provided by the participating organisations were compiled and de-duplicated by Harrison Research, resulting in a final 'population' of 862 people in the built environment workforce to be included in this study.
Once the final, programmed questionnaire was approved by the client, the invitation emails were sent to the potential respondents on 09 December 2009; a reminder email was sent to non-responders on 16 December and the survey remained open for respondents to complete until 21 December.
The final sample of completed surveys was n=197 out of the population of N=862. This means that, at the 95% Confidence Level (CL), the maximum Confidence Interval (CI) at total sample level is ±6.1%. Please see Appendix 2 - Margin for Error for a detailed explanation of sampling confidence.
One disadvantage of a self-completion methodology is that, if a truly unprompted response is desired, i.e. being able to ask, for example, "What factors are important in…(followed by a box for respondents to type freely)", rather than "Which of these factors is important in…(followed by a list for respondents to select from)", the process involves the subsequent collation and coding of the open-ended responses into categories that enable proper analysis. In this survey, the coding process was extensive and therefore time-consuming. The subsequent analysis, reporting and review were similarly extensive as well as intensive.
A draft report was provided to the committee in April 2010. After review by the committee, and subsequent discussion between the consultancy team and members of the committee, some additions and adjustments have been made and this document comprises the final report.
3. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Profiling the built environment workforceProfessional development Attraction strategies in useRetention strategies in useChallenges facedOpportunities for improvement
PROFILING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE:
Areas of expertiseGender and ageTime in profession etc.Employment status & locationCurrent and previous employersCurrent roles
19
Profiling the built environment workforceThe profiling provided in this report inherently assumes that the 197 people who responded to the survey are broadly representative of the total workforce. While we have no reliable way to confirm this, it is worth noting that the gender and age distribution is reasonably well aligned with that shown on the PIA membership list.. Unfortunately, none of the other lists provided gave these details, so we are unable to extend the comparison.
When asked to specify (from a list provided) what best describes them/their area of expertise, development assessment planner was most commonly nominated, closely followed by environmental health officer and policy/strategy planner; building surveyor was identified only slightly less often. Given that they each contain sufficient respondents to provide a degree of statistical reliability, these four categories have been used throughout the report to analyse responses to other questions.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE (Base: Total sample, includes multiple responses)
31 28 26 238 5 3 2 1
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
Developmentassessment
planner
Environmentalhealth officer
Policy / strategyplanner
Buildingsurveyor
Environmentalplanner
Social planner Engineering Open space /recreation
planner
Transportplanner
Other
% of
resp
onde
nts (
n=19
7)
Only these four segments provided enough respondents to use in analysing the results to other questions.
Building surveyor (n=45)
Environmental health officer (n=55)
DA planner (n=61)
Policy/ strategy planner (n=51)
Other (n=45)
Building surveyor 100 9 8 2 24Environmental health officer 11 100 5 6 11Development assessment planner 11 5 100 41 24Policy / strategy planner 2 5 34 100 31Environmental planner 2 5 10 24 33Social planner 0 0 7 6 20Engineering 7 2 0 0 11Open space / recreation planner 0 0 3 8 9Transport planner 0 0 2 4 4Other 16 2 5 4 42
1.49 1.29 1.74 1.94 2.11Mean number of areas listed per person
AGGREGATED AREAS OF EXPERTISE, showing % of each column who listed their expertise as including:
AREA
S OF
EXP
ERTI
SE
The table to the left clearly shows that people in the built environment workforce tend to have multiple skills.Across the total sample, respondents listed an average of 1.36 areas per person, but this varied quite considerably between the groups, with environmental health officers (EHOs) averaging fewer areas of expertise than the other groups.The most common link was, unsurprisingly, DA and policy/strategy planning, with 34% of DA people also listing policy and 41% of policy people also listing DA expertise.
20
Profiling the built environment workforce As the first graph on the left shows, two thirds of the workforce is male and one third female. This is biased towards males compared with the broader South Australian working population1, which is more evenly split. However, there is a wider difference within one section of the built environment workforce, with nearly all building surveyors being male. In contrast, environmental health officers are more closely aligned with the wider population (44% female).
However, it appears that the gender balance has changed over time. There is a significant, but not unexpected, difference evident when results are examined by how long respondents have been in their professions, with those entering their fields within the last five years being marginally more often female, although the differences between the male & female proportions in this group (53% and 47% respectively) are not statistically different and the actual split is likely to be around half male,half female.
The age distribution also shows differences from Australia's wider workforce2, with the local built environment groups tending to be older. Building surveyors again showed the greatest variation, with a considerably older age profile than the other areas of expertise.
When age is analysed by employer type, further differences emerged. As would be expected, self-employed professionals tend to be considerably older than the broader built environment workforce, with 7 in 10 aged 55+. State Government employees also showed an older profile, with just 18% under 40 years old.
GENDER DISTRIBUTION (Base: total sample excluding not answered)
5466
98
57 68 68 69 61
97
54 47
77
4634
2
4432 32 31 39
2
46 53
23
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
STH
AUST
'SEM
PLOY
EDPO
PULA
TION
TOTA
LSA
MPLE
(n=1
97)
Build
ingsu
rveyo
r(n
=45)
Envir
onme
ntal
healt
h offic
er(n
=55)
DA pl
anne
r(n
=61)
Policy
/ stra
tegy
plann
er (n
=51)
Othe
r (n=
45)
PIA
(n=9
5)
AIBS
(n=4
7)
EHA
(n=5
2)
<6 yr
s (n=
69)
6+ yr
s (n=
126)
Q6 PROFESSION Q7 PROF BODIES Q10. TERM INPROFESSION
% of
resp
onde
nts
FemaleMale
AGE DISTRIBUTION (Base: total sample excluding not answered)
175 4 4 7 4 7 6 4 4 0 5 5 0
3338
14
4451
40 2942
16
46
18
43 40
8
3434
35
3624
42
38
33
34
36
65
31 35
23
1420
39
16 19 1224 16
38
13 18 19 15
46
3 4 8 2 0 2 2 2 6 2 0 1 523
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
AUST
RALIA
'SEM
PLOY
EDPO
PULA
TION
TOTA
LSA
MPLE
(n=1
97)
Build
ingsu
rveyo
r(n
=45)
Envir
onme
ntal
healt
h offic
er(n
=55)
DA pl
anne
r(n
=61)
Policy
/ stra
tegy
plann
er (n
=51)
Othe
r (n=
45)
PIA
(n=9
5)
AIBS
(n=4
7)
EHA
(n=5
2)
State
Gov
t(n
=17)
Loca
l Gov
t(n
=137
)
Comm
ercia
l not
self-e
m. (n
=21)
Self e
mpl'd
(n=1
3)Q6 PROFESSION Q7 PROF BODIES Q2 EMPLOYER
% of
resp
onde
nts 65-7455-6440-5425-3918-24
1 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6202.0 Labour Force, Australia, Table 07. Labour force status by Sex - South Australia - Trend, Seasonally adjusted and Original
2 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6291.0.55.001 Labour Force, Australia, Detailed - Electronic Delivery, Table 01. Labour force status by Social marital status, Age and Sex
21
Profiling the built environment workforce
Reading clockwise, top left to bottom right, these three graphs demonstrate the linkages between age, time spent in current profession, time with current employer and time in current role with that employer.
Firstly, while there is an obvious and expected link between age and the time respondents have been in their professions (see graph top left), there are clearly occasions when people have entered their professions later in life. For example, one in eight (12%) of those aged 55 or over and one quarter of 40-54 year olds (27%) said they have been in their current professions less than 6 years.
Conversely, when we look at how long respondents have been with their current employer, by how long they have been in their profession (top right), it appears that a small number entered their profession while employed at their current organisation in other roles. For example, 26% of those who have been in their profession less than 3 years have been with their employer 3+ years (22% 3-5 yrs; 4% 6-10 yrs).
LENGTH OF SERVICE WITH CURRENT EMPLOYER, BY TERM IN PROFESSION (Base: Total sample)
8
26
4
3
6
23
48
33
12
17
29
22
59
24
19
19
4
2
52
19
20
0
2
9
38
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
TOTAL SAMPLE (n=197)
< 3yrs (n=23)
3-5 years (n=46)
6-10 years (n=33)
11+ years (n=93)Q10.
TERM
IN P
ROFE
SSIO
N
% of respondents
Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11+ years
Evidence of churn
TOTAL TIME IN PROFESSION, BY AGE GROUP
4
4
3
0
8
13
5
5
23
39
19
7
17
26
5
11
47
19
69
77
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
TOTAL SAMPLE (n=197)
<40 (n=80)
40-54 (n=64)
55+ (n=44)
Q63A
GE
% of respondentsLess than 1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11+ years
However, churn continues to be an issue, with this study reinforcing that at least one third have been with their current employer less than their period in their professions, e.g. 37% of those in their profession 3-5 years have been with their current employer less than 3 years; 39% of those with 6-10 years experience have been at their current workplace less than 6 years, etc.
TIME IN CURRENT ROLE, BY YEARS WITH CURRENT EMPLOYER (Base: total sample)
12
35
3
1
27
66
17
9
30
0
80
13
17
0
0
45
13
0
0
32
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
TOTAL (n=197)
<3 yrs (n=61)
3-5 yrs (n=58)
6+ yrs (n=76)Q8. T
ERM
WIT
HEM
PLOY
ER% of respondents
Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11+ years
Changing roles, but within the same organisation
22
Profiling the built environment workforce. EMPLOYMENT STATUS (Base: total sample excluding not answered)
3415
2 11 822 24 21
2 13 12 9 11
62
6685
98 89 9278 76 79
97 89 88 90 91
38
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
STH
AUST
'SEM
PLOY
EDPO
PULA
TION
TOTA
LSA
MPLE
(n=1
97)
Build
ingsu
rveyo
r(n
=45)
Envir
onme
ntal
healt
h offic
er(n
=55)
DA pl
anne
r(n
=61)
Polic
y/ str
ategy
plann
er (n
=51)
Othe
r (n=
45)
PIA
(n=9
5)
AIBS
(n=4
7)
EHA
(n=5
2)
State
Gov
t(n
=17)
Loca
l Gov
t(n
=137
)
Comm
ercia
l not
self-e
m. (n
=21)
Self e
mpl'd
(n=1
3)
Q6 PROFESSION Q7 PROF BODIES Q2 EMPLOYER
% of
resp
onde
nts
Full-timePart-time The vast majority of the built environment workforce
(85%) are employed full time and, with one exception, this varies only slightly by profession and employer-type.
The exception is those who are self-employed, where the proportion working part time is well above average and comprises close to two thirds of this segment.
The proportion of the built environment workforce employed full time is significantly greater than the broader SA workforce, which has two thirds full time and one third part time.
Two thirds of South Australia's built environment workforce is located within metropolitan Adelaide, and one third in regional SA.
This split is reflected among the building surveyors participating in this survey, but other groups vary:
~ EHOs (environmental health officers) and DA (development assessment) planners have a higher incidence of being in regional SA (40% and 44% respectively).
~ Policy and strategy planners are predominantly to be found in metro Adelaide (82%).
No comparison with the broader SA or Australian workforce is readily available from the ABS for this factor.
EMPLOYMENT LOCATION. Base: total sample excluding not answered
69 72 60 56
82 8968 68 63
94
59
9577
31 29 40 44
18 1132 32 39
6
41
523
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
TOTA
LSA
MPLE
(n=1
97)
Build
ingsu
rveyo
r(n
=45)
Envir
onme
ntal
healt
h offic
er(n
=55)
DA pl
anne
r(n
=61)
Policy
/str
ategy
plann
er(n
=51)
Othe
r (n=
45)
PIA
(n=9
5)
AIBS
(n=4
7)
EHA
(n=5
2)
State
Gov
t(n
=17)
Loca
l Gov
t(n
=137
)
Comm
ercia
lno
t self
-em.
(n=2
1)
Self e
mpl'd
(n=1
3)
Q6 PROFESSION Q7 PROF BODIES Q2 EMPLOYER
% of
resp
onde
nts
Regional SAMetro Adelaide
23
Profiling the built environment workforceAs the graph opposite reveals, close to three quarters of the built environment workforce is employed by local government, with 9% in State government and 18% in the commercial and not-for-profit sectors.
The graph also shows the clear differences when analysed by the types of work people do:
~ EHOs are predominantly employed by local government (95%).
~ A significant proportion of policy/strategy planners (22%) are employed by commercial organisations.
~ Those in other roles - transport, social, open space/recreation planning, engineering etc. are equally split between government and non-government organisations.
The second graph, which shows the distribution recorded by the members of each of the associations involved in this project, also shows significant differences, although these generally reflect the patterns shown in the first graph.
Few other significant variations were evident when the type of employer was analysed by other relevant factors, such as time inthe built environment workforce, time with that employer, qualifications, gender, etc. The only noteworthy differences included:
~ 20% of respondents aged 55 and over were self-employed, compared with 3% aged 54 and under.
~ The incidence of being in local government tended to decline as age increased, but this trend was not evident for State government.
CURRENT EMPLOYER, BY MAIN AREAS OF EXPERTISE (Base: Total sample)
9 7 2 5 14 18
70 6995
74 5329
11 16
215
22
27
7 7 0 5 816
1 2 0 0 22
1 0 0 0 42 2 2 2 40
0102030405060708090
100
TOTAL SAMPLE(n=197)
Building surveyor(n=45)
Environmentalhealth officer (n=55)
DA planner (n=61) Policy/ strategyplanner (n=51)
Other (n=45)
Q6 PROFESSION
% of
resp
onde
nts
State Government Local Government Commercial org'n - not self employedSelf employed consultant Not-for-profit organisation Not currently in workforceOther NOT ANSWERED
CURRENT EMPLOYER, BY ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP (Base: Total sample)
12
6
4
61
68
94
13
17
0
9
6
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PIA (n=95)
AIBS (n=47)
EHA (n=52)
% of respondents
State Government Local Government Commercial org'n - not self employedSelf employed consultant Not-for-profit organisation Not currently in workforceOther NOT ANSWERED
24
Profiling the built environment workforceAll respondents were asked, if they were not in their first professional job after graduating, who had been their previous employer.
The graph below shows the results across the total sample, as well as analysed by the type of organisation for which they currently work.
One of the most immediately notable outcomes is the high proportion of those in their first professional job employed with local governments - 20% of that employer group, compared with 6% in State government and 10% in commercial/not-for-profit organisations. [N.B. the interesting converse of this is that 82% of those in their first professional job after graduating are employed in local government.]
Other notable elements found during analysis (but not shown in this graph) include:~ half of local government workers (49%) had come from other local government agencies.~ six in ten of those currently in commercial/not-for-profit workplaces had come from government.~ people are less likely to move from government jobs into self-employment, compared with moving into other employer groups, i.e. just 38% of self-employed
respondents had been with government prior to going out on their own, whereas 62% of commercial employees had come from government.PREVIOUS EMPLOYER, BY CURRENT EMPLOYER (Base: total sample)
13
29
9
19
23
43
35
49
43
15
16
12
14
19
31
3
0
3
5
8
2
12
0
0
8
6
6
4
5
15
17
6
20
10
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
TOTAL SAMPLE (n=197)
State Govt (n=17)
Local Govt (n=137)
Commercial not self-em. (n=21)
Self empl'd (n=13)
Q2 C
URRE
NT E
MPLO
YER
% of respondents
State Government Local Government Commercial organisation - not self employedSelf employed consultant Not-for-profit organisation OtherNot applicable - first professional job
PREVIOUS EMPLOYERS :
25
Profiling the built environment workforceSix in ten of the built environment workforce are employed in large organisations (100+ employees) and the remainder in SMEs (small-medium enterprises), including 5% who work in micro business with fewer than 5 staff across the organisation. There were no significant differences when results were analysed across the various sub-groups.N.B. the categories used (micro, small, medium and large) are in line with the definitions used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).Respondents were then asked approximately how many staff associated with the built environment are employed in their organisation. It became evident that a few respondents had specified more built environment staff than the number specified for the organisation as a whole. These few, together with those unable to provide an answer (9 people in total) have been excluded from the analysis below, which shows that, reportedly, built environment staff tend to represent around one quarter of the micro and small business staff and higher proportions of medium and large organisations. We consider these results should be treated with caution.
NUMBER OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT STAFF, BY ORGANISATION SIZE(Base: total sample, excluding don't know and those who specified more
built environment staff than organisational total)4
100
25
0
2
0
0
10
0
75
24
21
2
1
38
0
0
76
65
50
12
36
0
0
0
12
30
66
6
0
0
0
0
18
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
16
0 20 40 60 80 100
TOTAL (n=188)
One (sole operator) (n=6)
2-4 employees (n=4)
5-19 employees (n=17)
20-99 employees (n=43)
100-199 employees (n=44)
200+ employees (n=74)
Q3. O
RGAN
ISAT
ION
SIZE
% of respondents
One (sole operator) 2-4 employees 5-19 employees 20-99 employees 100-199 employees 200+ employees
SIZE OF EMPLOYING ORGANISATION (TOTAL EMPLOYEES) Base: total sample excluding those unable to specify a size
20-99employees
23%
100-199 employees23%
One (sole operator)
3%2-4 employees
2% 5-19 employees10%
200+ employees39%
Note business size definitions:1-4 staff = micro (includes sole operators); 5-19 staff = small; 20-99 staff = medium; 100+ staff = large (except for manufacturing where 200+ = large).
26
Profiling the built environment workforceOne respondent in five listed themselves as a senior manager or executive and one in four as a mid-level manager, team leader or supervisor. Half were non-supervising officers.
Given that the management to staff distribution in most workplaces is unlikely to be 50:50, it appears that this sample of the built environment workforce may be somewhat biased towards those at a supervisor/ team leader level or above, especially given that sole operators formed a small proportion of this sample. However, we note this may also be a function of membership of the professional associations which provided the contact lists.
It is notable that the proportion of EHOs recorded as non-supervising officers (64%) is significantly above that of other roles (33%-46%).
As would be expected, the proportion noting their position as an executive or senior manager is significantly higher in commercial/not-for-profit organisations than in government agencies.
Close to half the respondents indicated membership with PIA, with one quarter each nominating EHA and AIBS. No other associations gained any significant nomination. Given how well this general pattern reflects the distribution of the original sample across the three main source groups (AIBS, EHA and PIA), this reinforces the representativeness (and therefore reliability) of the sample.
LEVEL OF CURRENT POSITION, BY AREAS OF EXPERTISE (Base: Total sample)
10
13
4
7
14
22
12
18
4
16
20
24
10
11
9
15
16
2
18
20
20
16
18
16
50
38
64
46
33
36
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
TOTAL SAMPLE (n=197)
Building surveyor (n=45)
Environmental health officer (n=55)
DA planner (n=61)
Policy/ strategy planner (n=51)
Other (n=45)
Q6 P
ROFE
SSIO
N
% of respondentsBusiness owner / Director / CEO Senior manager Mid-level managerTeam leader/supervisor Non-supervising officer
LEVEL OF CURRENT POSITION, BY EMPLOYER (Base: Total sample)
6
2
10
100
12
9
33
0
12
10
5
0
18
21
14
0
53
58
38
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
State Govt (n=17)
Local Govt (n=137)
Commercial not self-em.(n=21)
Self empl'd (n=13)
% of respondentsBusiness owner / Director / CEO Senior manager Mid-level managerTeam leader/supervisor Non-supervising officer
INCIDENCE OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP (Base: Total sample)
48
26 24
0 010 4
52
20 19
0
20
40
60
80
100
PIA - PlanningInstitute of Australia
EHA -Environmental
Health Australia
AIBS - AustralianInstitute of Building
Surveyors
AIM - AustralianInstitute of
Management
AICD - AustralianInstitute ofCompanyDirectors
Other None
% of
resp
onde
nts TOTAL SAMPLE (n=197) Original sample distribution (n=862)
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:Formal qualificationsManagement trainingMentoringOther training/educationExpectations towards employersCurrent benefitsActing in more senior rolesTrainees, cadets, interns
28
Professional development - formal qualifications
In most of the professional groups shown below, around one third of each segment indicated they held a Bachelor Degree and one in four or five of most segments held a post-graduate Diploma. The exception to this latter group was development assessment planners, among whom just 5% claimed a post-graduate Diploma.Higher degrees - Masters and PhDs - were only rarely mentioned across all segments; however, Certificates and undergraduate Diplomas were quite common in nearly all segments and particularly notable among building surveyors.
TYPES OF FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS HELD, RELEVANT TO TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF JOB(Base: total sample; includes multiple responses)
613
92 0
7
19
44
1521
2
1615
27
13 106
20
3440
31 3125
36
1924 22
5
2533
3 2 4 2 4 440
4 3 621 0 0 0 0 2
13 16
7 812
24
0
20
40
60
80
100
TOTAL SAMPLE (n=197) Building surveyor (n=45) Environmental health officer (n=55) DA planner (n=61) Policy/ strategy planner (n=51) Other (n=45)
Q6 PROFESSION
% of
resp
onde
nts
Trade Certificate Other Certificate Undergraduate Diploma Bachelor Degree Post-graduate Diploma MBA Masters other than MBA PhD Other
The specific qualifications listed by people taking part in this survey included:
• Carpenter 5%• Plumbing 2%• Bricklayer 1%• Assoc Diploma in Environmental Health 6%• Diploma in Building Environment 3%• Bachelor of Urban & Regional Planning 11%• BA-Planning/Planning 11%• Bachelor of Environmental Health 8%• Graduate Diploma in Urban & Regional Planning 10%• Graduate Diploma in Building Surveying 1%• Masters in Urban and Regional Planning 3%
Respondents were asked what qualifications they held with respect to the technical aspects of their roles. Results for degree level qualifications appear to be below expectations, and this raises the question as to whether some respondents recognise what they do as 'technical' in any sense. We also note that a few of those with higher degrees did not also note a Bachelor Degree, i.e. they may have only listed their highest qualification rather than all of them, or considered that the lower degree(s) were irrelevant to their current position, or they achieved a Masters without first acquiring a Bachelor Degree.
29
Professional development - management trainingAll respondents were asked, "what types of formal training or qualifications, if any, have you completed relevant to managing staff?"Some respondents (2%) gave no answer to this question (a common issue with self-completion surveys), and results have been recalculated to exclude this proportion. The first graph shows the results across the total sample, while the second and third graphs show the results segmented by people's level within their organisations and by the type of organisatiion.The second graph reveals some notable results. While the high, 70% of non-supervising officers who reported no management training is not unexpected given their workplace position, it is interesting to note that more than one third of middle management and close to half the senior managers indicated no management training.But one third of the middle and senior managers had received external training, while one in four mid-level managers/supervisors and one in eight senior managers had been trained in-house in managing staff. Respondents from State government had the highest incidence of having been trained (67%), with the pattern of responses among local government and commercial organisations being almost identical and showing lower levels of training compared with State government.Details on the various types of training recorded are provided on the next two pages.
INCIDENCE AND TYPE OF MANAGEMENT TRAINING RECEIVED(Base: total sample excluding not answered, n=191)
55 15 28 2
TYPES OF MANAGEMENT TRAINING RECEIVED, BY MANAGEMENT LEVEL(Base: total sample excluding not answered, n=130)
45
38
70
12
26
9
38
34
20
5
2
1
Executive & senior managers(n=42)
Mid-level (mgr, team leader orsupervisor) (n=53)
Non-supervising officers (n=96)
TYPES OF MANAGEMENT TRAINING RECEIVED, BY EMPLOYER TYPE (Base: total sample excluding not answered, n=130)
35
57
55
77
12
13
15
23
53
28
30
2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
State Govt (n=17)
Local Govt (n=134)
Commercial not self-em. (n=20)
Self empl'd (n=13)
% of respondentsNone Internal/in house training External training Other comments
30
Professional development - management trainingThe various courses and types of training listed by respondents as having been provided INTERNALLY are as follows:
~In house training in managing/leadership~In house formal training (no qualifications) with State and Federal Government~In house training only~Many in-house courses plus experience in a range of organisations, mainly government.~Defence in-house training programs~RAAF - various in-house management courses ~General assistance, no formal training apart from a Women in Management programme~Internal training courses on communication and team building, management styles~Conducted 6-7 staff business in real estate for 40 years~Managing people course and conflict resolution, both in-house~Management Fundamentals, in-house~In-house leadership training over 5 days while working in Adelaide City Council and other human resources and staff management training in the same organisation~Various in house training. IEAust Mentoring Course (ext). Components of Grad Dip Business (ext). Proteus Professional Development Program (int).~In-house training but with external provider in: Managing Difficult Staff, Project Management~In-house leadership 12 month training program. Various external 1 to 2 day training sessions.~Management Mentoring program - run internally by an external HR company~Several in-house training sessions~Project Management Training with previous organisation~In-house training by Institute of Management - Transitioning to Team Leader~Internal leadership course~Team leader training: in-house (2)~Emerging Leaders training (internal)~Internal training in recently acquired people manager role.~Two years in-house as required by building regulations at that time ~Certificate 4 in Management in-house~People and Performance Management
31
Professional development - management trainingThe EXTERNAL management training and courses listed were as follows:
External training while working in previous employment for 30 years as a bank officer. Includes training by Aust. Institute of Management, TUTA and the ANZ Bank. Have also had full training in Lead Auditor Training
• Graduate certificate in public sector management - external• Two day Leadership Training run by Local Government Association• Certificate in first line management cert in management (external)• level 4 front line management, degree commerce management, executive management training,
emerging leaders program.• Communication Course - External• Project Management Impact Leadership CPP all external• Certificate in Management - external • Project Management Grad Dip (external) also included significant human resource management
elements. I also did an AIM staff supervision course (external) many years ago and numerous smaller internal training courses with management elements (internal and external)
• Emerging Leaders Programme 2009 run by LGMA• External Institute of Technology• External training in interpersonal communication skills, including units from the Australian Institute
of Management frontline management training course.• Partly completed Certificate in Public Sector Management• Australian Institute of Management (management principles course) - external, Emotional
Intelligence Training - external, Australian Business Excellence Training - internal, 'think one team' training, external.
• Grad Dip Business Admin• Masters of HSE Management and Diploma of Frontline Management.• Graduate Certificate in Management - Deakin University and Masters of Business Administration
- Adelaide University• Front Line Management Certificate and Diploma.• various 1 - 2 day courses over many years• Various training over 35 years! Incl technical, EPA Certificates for appointment as Authorised
Officer, Plumbing Certificates, Waste Management awareness, etc etc.• MBA (UniSA), Graduate Diploma in Public Sector Management (UniSA)• Various short courses and workshops, some internal but mainly external• Management Development Program (external). MARC (external)• Diploma of Management (external)• Graduate Certificate in Management- External : Certificate 1 in Workplace Training
• Currently completing MBA Post Grad Public Sector management mentoring Australian institute of management
• CPP Training OHS W Reps Training• Excelling as a first time Manager - External. Workplace Leadership - External.• Various management courses and training through TAFE and Local Government both internal
and external• Professional Development courses as part of CPP for PIA and various Uni SA short courses• Graduate Diploma in Management - University of New England• Promotion subjects from Corporal through to Warrant Officer in the Australian Army• Environmental Health Policy, management and Administration - Flinders University, external• Management - public service certificate, Leadership training (DDI supplied, employer funded)• Diploma of business - frontline management (external) and managing performance development
reviews (external seminar)• Military training• Various courses run by state gov for small business• Short courses at university• First Line Management - External• Certificate IV Frontline Management (in-house)• University• Cert IV Frontline Management - TAFE - Provided in house. IGNITE Intensive Leadership Training
Program for new supervisors, team leaders in local government- South Australian LGMA -external. Attendance at various leadership workshops and forums provided by external training providers
• The majority of a Diploma in Business Management, and I am half way through a MBA• Developing People Performance – Directors/Coordinators/Supervisors Training (external).
Dealing with Negative Attitudes in the Workplace (external). Coaching Teambuilding Skills for Managers and Supervisors (external). Team Leader Development Program (external). Managing in a Turbocharged Environment – A Strategic Team Building Workshop (external).
• general human resource training which included managing staff - both in-house and external• As part of Bachelor Degree and Previous experience• Diploma Frontline Management current MBA - external • Post Graduate Diploma in Local Government Management external through Deakin University• First Line Management Certificate, external training.• Counselling, managing conflict, team building ALL with the Local Gov Association• Current enrolled in Graduate Diploma of Business Administration (external)• Working towards an External MBA, via Chifley School of Business - 3 CPP PIA subjects have
been completed to date
32
Professional development - mentoringOne of the more interesting facets if this study is that more people said they had provided mentoring (74%) than had received it (64%). This may be a function of the implication raised earlier that the sample of respondents is somewhat biased towards management with a relative under-representation of non-supervising officers, even though the latter group forms half the sample. However, the overall patterns for the types of mentoring are consistent between the receipt and provision of this form of professional development. As can be seen from the graph on the bottom left, informal in-house mentoring is clearly the most common kind provided and received, followed by formal in-house mentoring. Between 13% and 19% had provided or received external mentoring. The table on the bottom right shows the intersections between providing and receiving the various kinds of mentoring. The top right number in each cell shows the column percentages and the bottom left numbers show the row percentages. In other words, the table shows that 47% of those who received formal in-house mentoring also provided formal in-house mentoring; while 40% of those who provided this type also received it.Most notable is that, in each case, those who had received in-house mentoring had a significantly higher incidence of providing both internal and external mentoring than those who had received external mentoring.
INCIDENCE OF HAVING RECEIVED AND/OR PROVIDED MENTORING (Base: total sample, includes multiple responses)
18
21
13
13
45
56
19
15
36
26
0 20 40 60 80 100
RECEIVEDMENTORING (Q18)
PROVIDEDMENTORING (Q24)
% of respondents
Formal mentoring - in-house Formal mentoring - externally Informal mentoring - in-houseInformal mentoring - externally Have not received any mentoring
OVERALL INCIDENCE OF RECEIVING AND/OR PROVIDING MENTORING(Base: total sample, includes multiple responses)
49 5164
27
6274
0
20
40
60
80
100
Received formalmentoring
Receivedinformal
mentoring
Total receivedany mentoring
Provided formalmentoring
Providedinformal
mentoring
Total providedany mentoring
RECEIVED PROVIDED
% of
resp
onde
nts
NONEIn-house(n=35)
External(n=26)
In-house(n=88)
External(n=37)
Not receivedany (n=71)
In-house (n=42)
47%40%
20%27%
69%22%
26%30%
20%14%
External(n=26)
39%24%
19%19%
56%13%
35%30%
32%16%
In-house(n=111)
27%57%
17%58%
64%51%
18%53%
21%37%
External(n=30)
50%45%
40%58%
62%21%
38%47%
14%10%
NONE Not providedany (n=51)
12%21%
11%31%
50%32%
13%30%
29%41%
% O
F RE
SPON
DENT
S HA
VE
PROV
IDED
MEN
TORI
NG(lo
wer n
umbe
r in
each
cell) FORMAL
INFORMAL
% OF RESPONDENTS HAVE RECEIVED MENTORING(top number in each cell)
FORMAL INFORMAL
33
Professional development - mentoringPROVIDED MENTORING
PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF MENTORING PROVIDED BY RESPONDENTS, BY TYPE (Bases: those who received each type of mentoring)
34
29
57
66
9
5
0
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Q26 FORMAL (n=53)
Q28 INFORMAL(n=122)
TYPE
OF
MEN
TORI
NG
% of respondents
Very effective Quite effective Not very effective Not at all effective
In contrast, those who had provided mentoring to others were more closely aligned in assessments of their formal and informal support, with formal assessed slightly better.
When asked why they had given that rating and how the mentoring they had provided could have been improved, the reasons given tended to reflect those of the mentees, although providers tended to less critical overall:- more time should have been allocated.- a structured process is more effective.- greater commitment (resourcing) needed from management to make the process
work best.- meet outside the office for privacy and to avoid distractions.- clarify expectations, i.e. ensure that both parties (but particularly the mentee) know
what is being sought from the mentoring process and what can and cannot bedelivered.
RECEIVED MENTORING
PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF MENTORING RECEIVED BY RESPONDENTS, BY TYPE (Bases: those who received each type of mentoring)
29
41
53
49
16
10
2
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Q20 FORMAL (n=49)
Q22 INFORMAL(n=100)
TYPE
OF
MENT
ORIN
G
% of respondents
Very effective Quite effective Not very effective Not at all effective
It is interesting to note that, among those who had received mentoring, informal mentoring was more often assessed as very effective than formal mentoring.
When recipients who gave a rating of less than 'very effective' were asked why and how the experience could have been improved, most mentees chose not to comment. However, the most common themes emerging from those who did comment were:- the process should have been more formal and structured.- greater time, effort and interest commitments needed from the mentor.- wanting the process to have continued for a longer period.- the mentoring should have been more relevant /tailored to their needs.- a concern that bad habits can be passed on.
Interestingly, given the rated effectiveness shown in the graph above, those providing specific comments related to formal, rather than informal, mentoring, tended to be less critical of the process.
34
Professional development - other training/educationThe survey asked how easy or difficult it is get organisational support for professional development (PD) and provided a scale from 0, very difficult, to 10, very easy. On average, people rated this aspect slightly above the midpoint (6.3), which indicates a mildly positive response but with plenty of room to improve.
When we look at the results by profession and by employer, it appears that policy/strategy planners find it slightly easier than other professional groups to gain support for PD, while local government appears to be a more favourable environment than State government, but commercial organisations are better still. However, none of these differences is statistically reliable due to the small sample sizes of some of these groups. However, people who were self-employed rated themselves very poorly for supporting PD and that difference is statistically reliable.
Interestingly, there is also a significant difference when results are segmented by the types of qualifications held; those with degree or post-graduate qualifications clearly perceived the level of support more favourably than those who have only certificate- or diploma-level qualifications.
PERCEIVED EASE OR DIFFICULTY OF GAINING ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
6.3 6.2 6.66
6.95.9 5.5
6.5 6.9
4.1
5.66.5 6.5
0123456789
10
Build
ingsu
rveyo
r(n
=44)
Envir
onme
ntal
healt
h offic
er(n
=55)
DA pl
anne
r(n
=60)
Polic
y/str
ategy
plann
er(n
=50)
Othe
r (n=
44)
State
Gov
t(n
=17)
Loca
l Gov
t(n
=136
)
Cmmr
cl no
ts.e
. (n=
21)
Self e
mpld
(n=1
2)
Cert/
Dip
(n=7
4)
Bach
lr(n
=115
)
Post-
grad
(n=6
8)
TOTAL(n=194)
Q6 PROFESSION Q2 EMPLOYER Q16 TECH QUALIFICATIONS
Mean
scor
e on 0
-10 s
cale
35
When asked what sorts of additional training, if any, they would personally like to be able to take on, three quarters of the people responding to the survey (72%) nominated one or more types of training.
Short, 1-3 day courses were clearly the most common individual response, nominated by one third of respondents (34%), although one quarter (28%) would like to take on graduate or post-graduate level education.
INCIDENCE AND TYPES OF ADDITIONAL TRAINING WANTED (includes multiple repsonses)
34
126 6 9
153 6
28
0102030405060708090
100
Short (1-3days)
Certificatecourse
Diploma Bachelordegree
Post-graduateDiploma
Mastersdegree
PhD Other None atthis stage
% of
resp
onde
ntsProfessional development - other training/education
INCIDENCE AND TYPES OF ADDITIONAL TRAINING WANTED, BY EMPLOYER(includes multiple repsonses)
0102030405060708090
100
% of
resp
onde
nts
State Government (n=17) 47 29 0 0 18 12 6 0 18
Local Government (n=137) 36 11 9 7 9 17 2 6 26
Commercial not self-employed (n=21) 33 5 0 0 10 14 0 5 33
Self-employed (n=13) 8 0 0 8 0 8 0 15 62
Short (1-3 days)
Certificate course Diploma Bachelor
degree
Post-graduate Diploma
Masters degree PhD Other None at this
stage
However, when results were analysed by respondents' current workplaces, significant differences emerged between the employer groups.
Least surprisingly, as the graph on the right shows, self-employed consultants are least likely to want additional training or education, with close to two thirds (62%) saying 'none'.
State government employees are most likely to want short, 1-3 day courses or certificate level courses and marginally, but not significantly, more likely to nominate post-graduate diplomas. Masters level courses were nominated equally across the board.
More details on the actual courses nominated are provided overleaf.
36
SHORT COURSES:• Management (13 respondents)• Unspecified - technical issues/work related topics (6)• Leadership (5)• CPP (5)• Planning / planning related (4)• Project Management (4)• BCA /.BCA related areas (2)• CPD (2)• Building related (2)• Coaching / mentoring (2)• Financial management, budgeting (2)• Food Auditing (2)• Law, governance (2)• New Building / Development
Regulations / ResCode for SA (2)• Conflict resolution• Development Law ERDC Case Updates• Environmental design considerations• Federal government processes• Human resource management• In-service food safety, infectious disease education• Installation courses• Public participation in planning• Software / computer work related to job• Specific building surveying related subjects, e.g.
timber framing code• Swimming Pool management qualification• Urban design• Urban Development Economics• Waste Control Systems
Professional development - other training/educationThe courses and/or topics nominated by those who would like to undertake additional training were as follows. It can clearly be seen that, while there is a significant demand for technical training, there is also a preference for management training, at all levels and types of courses: The numbers in brackets refer to the numbers who nominated each item; no number indicates 1 reference.
CERTIFICATE COURSES:• Management (4)• Frontline management (2)• Risk Assessment (2)• AICD Course, Certificate in Governance
Practice and Administration• Design or horticulture at TAFE• Food Auditors Course• GIS• Law, governance• Project Management and Urban
Development Economics• Public Sector Administration• Public Sector Management Certificate• Safety auditing• Tourism planning• Urban design • Workplace training assessment• Unspecified / "work-related" (2)DIPLOMA COURSES:• Management (3)• Building Surveying (2)• Business Admin/Finance• Law, governance• Local Government• Occupational Hygiene• Quality Auditing• Risk management• Urban Design, Landscape Architecture
BACHELOR DEGREES:• Civil / Structural Engineering (3)• Urban and Regional Planning (2)• Construction • Accounting• Environmental Health
POST-GRADUATE DIPLOMAS:• Planning / Urban & Regional Planning (4)• Urban Design (3)• Building surveying (2)• Business administration (2)• Arbitration• Community Development• Economic development• Environmental Planning• Italian• Management • Sustainability
MASTERS DEGREES:• MBA (7)• Law (2)• Public Health (2)• Building Surveying• Built Environment• Business Administration• Creative writing• Environment or Public Health• Environmental management• Planning• Planning or business • Planning or urban design• Policy• Public Administration• Social Anthropology / International Relations• Social Ecology• Spatial science• Sustainability• Urban & Regional Planning
DOCTORATES:• Philosophy• Social Anthropology / International Relations• Sustainability Research• Urban and Regional Planning
OTHER TRAINING:• Complete PIA CPP (2)• Advanced management and
executive training• CPD Programs• Directors Course• MBA• Mentoring • Personal Training • Probably a subject or two in an urban
design course but not a whole degree• Study Tours
37
Professional development - expectations towards employersApart from those who are self-employed, all remaining respondents (n=184) were asked in separate questions if they expect their employers to: (1) pay for the training; (2) allow time off for study.
TIME OFF FOR STUDY EXPECTATIONS; BY TOTAL SAMPLE, AREAS OF EXPERTISE, EMPLOYER AND AGE Base: total sample excluding self-employed
77 83 75 76 79 74 76 80 81 76 7989
13 1015 17 13 16 12 12 14
14 1598 5 9 5 9 11 12 7 5 10 7 3
0102030405060708090
100
TOTALSAMPLE(n=184)
Buildingsurveyor
(n=42)
Environmentalhealth officer
(n=55)
DA planner(n=58)
Policy/strategyplanner(n=47)
Other (n=38) State Govt(n=17)
Local Govt(n=137)
Commercialnot self-em.
(n=21)
<40 (n=79) 40-54 (n=61) 55+ (n=35)
Q6 PROFESSION Q2 EMPLOYER Q63AGE
% of
resp
onde
nts
Yes No Don't know
FUNDING EXPECTATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT; BY TOTAL SAMPLE, AREAS OF EXPERTISE, EMPLOYER AND AGE Base: total sample excluding self-employed
42
67
42 38 3247
5942 43 34
4857
29
14
31 31 4024
24
32 2432
30 20
1714
11 22 17 2418
15 24 2315 14
9 2 15 7 11 5 9 10 11 8 9
0102030405060708090
100
TOTALSAMPLE(n=184)
Buildingsurveyor
(n=42)
Environmentalhealth officer
(n=55)
DA planner(n=58)
Policy/strategyplanner(n=47)
Other (n=38) State Govt(n=17)
Local Govt(n=137)
Commercialnot self-empl.
(n=21)
<40 (n=79) 40-54 (n=61) 55+ (n=35)
Q6 PROFESSION Q2 EMPLOYER Q63AGE
% of
resp
onde
nts
Yes - expect full reimbursement/payment Yes - shared cost - expect partial reimbursement/payment No Don't know
As the first column in the graph top left shows, seven in ten of those surveyed (71%) expect their employers to contribute to the costs of their professional development, including four in ten (42%) who expect full payment or reimbursement and 29% who expect to share the cost. Just 17% do not expect any cost sharing and 9% were unable to say (plus 2% did not answer this question)..However, as the graph also shows, there was considerable variation in expectations across several segments of the sample. Clearly, building surveyors and State Government employees had above average expectations regarding employers paying in full, while there is also a clear link with age.However, when it came to time of to study, the response was much more uniform, with high expectations evident across the sample (see bottom left graph).
In an additional analysis, however, we have analysed respondents' expectations for time off by their cost-sharingexpectations and there is a clear, albeit expected, link: nine in ten of those who expect full payment from their employers also expect time off. However, it should also be noted that half of those with no payment expectations still expect time off to study.
TIME OFF FOR STUDY EXPECTATIONS; BY EXPECTATIONS RE PAYMENT OF STUDY FEES
9181
59 53
511
38
12
4 7 3
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Expect fullpayment (n=77)
Expect sharedcost (n=54)
Don't expectemployer to pay
(n=32)
Don't know(n=17)
% of
resp
onde
nts
Yes - expect time off No - don't expect time off Don't know
38
Professional development - current benefitsWhen asked what types of support, if any, are provided to employees undertaking work-related study, nine people in ten nominated one or more items, with time off to study clearly the most common benefit (mentioned by 69%). Large minorities (42% and 45% respectively) mentioned either full reimbursement/payment or cost-sharing, but none of the other options provided was specified by more than one in five. Note, this does not necessarily mean these other items are not provided by employers, but they were not noted by respondents as definitely being provided. It could be possible that some respondents might not know about these elements, or that they may be provided by arrangement rather than as an automatic benefitRegardless, it is clear that State Government employees appear to get greater benefits than other segments, with all items - full or part payment, time off, accommodation and travel if required - all being nominated by higher proportions of State Government employees than those working in local government or the commercial sector.Other notable differences across the sub-groups include:
~ significantly more building surveyors than other professions said their employer provides full reimbursement or payment (67%) and accommodation if their study is not local (29%).
~ full reimbursement was increasingly nominated in line with how long respondents had served with their current employer, from 23% of those who had been there less than 3 years, to 55% of those who had been with their employers 6 or more years.
TYPES OF SUPPORT CURRENTLY PROVIDED TO EMPLOYEES UNDERTAKING WORK-RELATED STUDY Base: total sample excluding self-employed (includes multiple responses)
4247 45
29
45
59
45 48
69
82
70 67
2024
1824
1418
13 14
3 0 21010
610 10
1 0 15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
TOTAL SAMPLE (n=184) State Govt (n=17) Local Govt (n=137) Commercial not self-em. (n=21)
% of
resp
onde
nts
Full reimbursement / payment Shared cost - partial reimbursement / payment Time off to studyTravel if study not local Accommodation if study not local OtherDon't know what, if anything, would be available Employer does not provide support for training
39
Professional development - acting in more senior roles
When asked whether they had been given opportunities to act in more senior roles, half of those respondents not in very senior roles (i.e. neither owners, directors, CEOs nor self-employed) said that they had (53%).
However, this was significantly higher among policy/ strategy planners (73%) and people who had been in their professions 6 or more years.
It was also higher among males, but this is a reflection of the gender bias evident in the previous two groups.
INCIDENCE OF BEING GIVEN OPPORTUNITIES TO ACT IN MORE SENIOR ROLE, BY TOTAL SAMPLE, PROFESSION, TERM IN PROFESSION AND GENDERBase: total sample excluding self-employed and owners/directors/CEOs
53 49 49 5473
5137
64 6441
44 49 49 4427
4960
36 3659
0
20
40
60
80
100
TOTALSAMPLE(n=178)
Buildingsurveyor
(n=39)
Environmentalhealth officer
(n=53)
DA planner(n=57)
Policy/strategyplanner(n=44)
Other (n=35) <6 yrs (n=67) 6+ yrs(n=109)
Male (n=108) Female (n=61)
Q6 PROFESSION Q10. TERM IN PROFESSION Q62. GENDER.
% of
resp
onde
nts
Yes No
The bottom graph shows clearly that most consider it important to be given these opportunities for experience at a higher level, averaging 7.3 on a 0 (not at all important) to 10 (extremely important) scale.
When analysed by profession, it is interesting to note that building surveyors assign was significantly lower importance to this aspect than other groups (5.3 versus 7.1 to 8.1)
This aspect also recorded greater importance among females and younger respondents..
IMPORTANCE TO RESPONDENTS OF BEING GIVEN OPPORTINUTIES TO ACT IN MORE SENIOR ROLE Base: total sample excluding self-employed and owners/directors/CEOs
7.3
5.8
7.18.1
7.5 7.66.9
7.7 8.0
6.86.3
0123456789
10
TOTALSAMPLE(n=178)
Buildingsurveyor
(n=39)
Environmentalhealth officer
(n=53)
DA planner(n=57)
Policy/strategyplanner(n=44)
Other (n=35)Male (n=108) Female(n=61)
<40 (n=79) 40-54 (n=56) 55+ (n=34)
Q6 PROFESSION Q62. GENDER. Q63AGE
Mean
scor
e on 0
-10 s
cale
40
Professional development - acting in more senior roles
The 99 respondents who reported they had acted in a more senior role were asked if they had received any formal training or mentoring in order to act in such a role.
One quarter (23%) said they had but the vast majority (77%) indicated no training or mentoring for more senior positions.
The 77% who had not received any training or mentoring (n=73) were asked if this lack of training had caused them any problems
Fortunately, the great majority (78%) said there had been no problems as a result.
N.B. in both these questions, the subsets qualifying to answer them are too small to allow more detailed analysis among the sub-groups.
INCIDENCE OF RECEIVING FORMAL TRAINING OR MENTORING TO ACT IN MORE SENIOR ROLE
Base: people who have acted in more senior roles (n=95)Yes
23%
No77%
PERCEPTIONS RE LACK OF TRAINING/MENTORING TO ACT IN MORE SENIOR ROLE CAUSING THEM PROBLEMSBase: people who have acted in more senior roles and did
not receive training or mentoring for this (n=73)Yes
22%
No78%
41
All respondents were asked whether their organisation had taken on any trainees, cadets or interns, in their areas, in the twelve months prior to interview. Just over half (57%) answered in the affirmative, although the proportion was significantly lower among environmental health officers (42%) compared with other professions (60% - 70%), as can be seen in the graph below.
The only other significant difference was the (unsurprisingly) below average incidence of taking on trainees, cadets or interns among those self-employed in the built environment workforce (38%).
INCIDENCE OF ORGANISATION HAVING TAKEN ON TRAINEES, CADETS OR INTERNS, IN THEIR AREAS, IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS - BY TOTAL SAMPLE, PROFESSION AND EMPLOYERBase: total sample
57 6742
70 67 60 65 59 5738
36 2753
28 29 31 24 36 3862
5 4 4 0 4 9 12 4 5 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
TOTALSAMPLE(n=197)
Buildingsurveyor
(n=45)
Environmentalhealth officer
(n=55)
DA planner(n=61)
Policy/strategyplanner(n=51)
Other (n=45) State Govt(n=17)
Local Govt(n=137)
Commercialnot self-em.
(n=21)
Self empl'd(n=13)
Q6 PROFESSION Q2 EMPLOYER
% of
resp
onde
nts
Yes No Don't know
Professional development - trainees, cadets, interns
The 117 respondents whose organisation had taken on any of these junior staff were asked how useful or otherwise they were. After their first few weeks. In relieving the work pressures in their area. They provided their answers on a 0-10 scale, from 'Cause more work than they save' to 'Very useful'.
Overall, trainees etc, were judged to be moderately more useful than problematic, with a mean score of 6.1 emerging. However, as the graph on the left demonstrates, assessment was much more negative among environmental health officers than the other professions, and perceptions tended to become less favourable as respondents' experience with their employers increased.
The reasons for the negative perceptions among the 47 people rating trainees' usefulness at 5 or lower were 'lack of skills development prior to joining the workforce' (68%), 'lack of on-the-job support/mentoring' (19%) and 'lack of time available/too much work' (6%).
PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF TRAINEES, CADETS OR INTERNS, AFTER FIRST FEW WEEKS Base: Those whose organisations take on these staff
6.1 6.5
4.3
6.8 6.55.9
7.3
6.25.4
0123456789
10
TOTALSAMPLE(n=117)
Buildingsurveyor
(n=31)
Env ironmentalhealth officer
(n=24)
DA planner(n=44)
Policy /strategy
planner (n=34)
Other (n=27)<3 yrs (n=34)3-5 y rs (n=33)6+ yrs (n=48)
Q6 PROFESSION Q8. TERM WITH EMPLOYER
Mean
scor
e on 0
-10 s
cale
Very useful
Cause more wkthan they save
ATTRACTION STRATEGIES:Most important factorsInitial attractions and benefitsBenefits and pay structure
43
Attraction strategies - factors most important when job seekingAs the first graph opposite shows, the three factors considered most important when respondents are looking for a job are salary/remuneration, interesting/stimulating work and a work/life balance. The proportions spontaneously nominating each of these factors are statistically identical to each other.Similarly, there is a secondary group of factors which are equal in importance to each other, but mentioned by significantly fewer people than the first three factors.We had included a question asking people to allocate 100 points across the five factors they had identified as most important, so we could cross- check relative positioning, not just the % listing each item, and the pattern was almost identical.Pleasingly, the results to these questions also reflect and reinforce the outcomes regarding attraction from the Literature Review provided earlier in this study.
The second graph shows the same results, but analysed by the type of employer that respondents work for - aggregated as government or non-government to ensure large enough sub-sets. The blue circles show the only statistically significant differences and clearly demonstrate that job security is predominantly an issue for government employees, not non-government, while the organisation's professional reputation is particularly relevant in commercial settings.
MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS SOUGHT WHEN LOOKING FOR JOB - MAIN RESPONSES ONLY (Base: Total sample n=197; includes multiple responses)
6458 57
4337 36 36 36 35
2317 16
0102030405060708090
100
Salary /remuneration
Interesting /stimulating
work
Work / lifebalance
Job security Flexible workarrangements
The type ofwork / tasks /role involved
Location Opportunitiesfor ongoinglearning /
professionaldevelopment
Supportiveorganisational
culture
Professionalco-workers
and managers
Promotionopportunities
Organisation'sprofessionalreputation
% of
resp
onde
nts
MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS SOUGHT WHEN LOOKING FOR JOB - MAIN RESPONSES, BY CURRENT EMPLOYER (Base: Total sample; includes multiple responses)
6758 58
50
37 34 35 37 36
22 1913
59 61 59
17
3746
4132 32 29
7
29
0102030405060708090
100
Salary /remuneration
Interesting /stimulating
work
Work / lifebalance
Job security Flexible workarrangements
The type ofwork / tasks /role involved
Location Opportunitiesfor ongoinglearning /
professionaldevelopment
Supportiveorganisational
culture
Professionalco-workers
and managers
Promotionopportunities
Organisation'sprofessionalreputation
% of
resp
onde
nts
Government (State or Local) (n=154) All non-government (n=41)
Results statistically identicalwithin these 3 groups
44
Attraction strategies - initial attractions and benefitsIn addition to the generic attraction questions evaluated on the previous page (which were asked quite early in the survey), respondents were later asked what had attracted them to their current workplace.
Interestingly, there was a significant non-response factor to this question, with 29% choosing not to answer. The first graph opposite, therefore, considers the results in two ways - the dark columns show results with the non-response included (i.e. as percentages of the total sample) and the second, lighter column shows the relative distribution of attraction factors among those who answered the question. This second way of reviewing the results is more relevant and indicates that location plays a large role in workplace attraction.
However…
The graph on the bottom left shows the results analysed by whether respondents worked for local government or elsewhere (including State Government) and reveals a very clear difference. Location was clearly the primary attraction to the former group, but much less so to those outside local government, among whom the job itself ('an opportunity to grow/change', 'a new/better role', 'variety of work' and 'interesting/challenging work') accumulated greater prominence.
STATED ATTRACTIONS TO CURRENT WORKPLACE (includes multiple responses)
35
1710 9 8 7 6 10
29
50
2414 12 11 9 9 14
0102030405060708090
100
Location An opportunity/growth/change
Renumeration A new/better role
Variety of work
Good reputation
Interesting/challenging work
Other * Notanswered
% of
resp
onde
nts
TOTAL SAMPLE (n=197) TOTAL SAMPLE EXCLUDING NOT ANSWERED (n=139) * each response giv en by few er than 5% of the sample
STATED ATTRACTIONS TO CURRENT WORKPLACE, BY TYPE OF EMPLOYER (includes multiple responses) BASE: total sample excluding non-responders, n=139.
59
2315 10 9 8 8 9
21 26
918 18 15 12
29
0102030405060708090
100
Location An opportunity/growth/change
Renumeration A new/better role
Variety of work
Good reputation
Interesting/challenging work
Other *
% of
resp
onde
nts
Local Govt (n=105) Not local gov (n=34)CURRENT EMPLOYER... * each response given by fewer than 5% of the sample
45
Attraction strategies - benefits and pay structureSeven in ten respondents (68%) indicated that no specific benefits had been included to encourage them to join their current organisations. The only benefit of note was that a company car was mentioned by 15% of local government respondents but by very few employees of other organisations (2%).
All respondents were subsequently asked whether they are paid in line with an industry award or agreement, or whether they are paid in excess of what they would receive under an award.
Overall, one quarter (28%) said they were being paid over-award and, as the graph below shows, this was not restricted to the government sector. While a relatively small 12% of State Government employees were being paid above their relevant award rates, a significant 25% of local government employees claimed that this was the case.
Not unexpectedly, the figure was much higher in the commercial sector, with 43% claiming over-award remuneration rates.
Respondents tended to be more often paid over-award among medium size organisations (21-99 staff) than large or small ones, but this probably reflects the strong local government presence among the respondents.
Interestingly, the pattern did not vary significantly by profession, as can be seen in the second graph.PAY STRUCTURE x PROFESSION BASE: total sample
67
73
70
63
62
27
24
26
35
38
7
4
3
2
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Building surveyor(n=45)
Environmentalhealth officer (n=55)
DA planner (n=61)
Policy/ strategyplanner (n=51)
Other (n=45)
Q6 P
ROFE
SSIO
N
% of respondents
Generally in line with industry award/agreement Paid over-award NOT ANSWERED
PAY STRUCTURE x EMPLOYER-TYPE BASE: total sample
68
88
71
52
28
12
25
43
5
0
4
5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
TOTAL SAMPLE (n=197)
State Govt (n=17)
Local Govt (n=137)
Commercial, not self-employed (n=21)
Q2 E
MPLO
YER
% of respondents
Generally in line with industry award/agreement Paid over-award NOT ANSWERED
RETENTION STRATEGIES:Three best thingsOrganisation-level retention activitiesManager-level retention activities
47
Retention strategies - best things about workplaceAll respondents were asked, "What are the three best things about your current workplace?". No responses were listed for them to select from; this was an open-ended question that has been subsequently coded.
As the graph below clearly highlights, people/the team they work with are clearly perceived as the key benefit in all multi-staff workplaces, but the variety of work and the atmosphere/culture were mentioned much more often by those in the commercial sector, while self-employed consultants more often valued the flexibility and challenge.
THREE BEST THINGS ABOUT CURRENT WORKPLACE (UNPROMPTED) - includes multiple responses
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% o
f res
pond
ent
TOTAL SAMPLE (n=197) 49 22 21 14 14 13 10 10 8 8 7 6 6 2
State Govt (n=17) 53 6 12 24 18 18 0 12 6 6 6 6 6 6
Local Govt (n=137) 53 26 21 13 15 12 10 9 7 8 7 5 7 0
Commercial not self-em. (n=21) 52 19 33 10 5 29 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 0
Self empl'd (n=13) 8 15 8 15 8 8 31 23 15 0 0 15 0 15
The people/good team/get on
LocationVariety of
work
Flex ible (eg: conditions
etc)Support
Great work atmosphere/
culture
Flex ible hours/flex i
time
Interesting/enjoy work/challenge
Good work/life balance
Learning/training
opportunities
Office/facilities/
packages
Autonomous work
Wages/remuneration
Work from home
Differences worth noting
48
Retention strategies - what organisations do well & could do better In this section of the survey, respondents were asked what their current organisation does, or tries to do, that makes their working life better than it would be elsewhere.
This question was followed by asking, apart from salary rises, whether there was anything the organisation could do better that would make their working life better than elsewhere.
In both questions, a significant proportion chose not to provide an answer and it should be borne in mind that a non-response it not the same as a negative response, i.e. the non-response cannot be interpreted as meaning that the organisation does nothing.
But, in fact, relatively few respondents were able to identify aspects that their organisations do or have tried to do in this context.
~ The most common benefit listed was flexible work arrangements, such as work from home, maternity leave, etc. cited by 14% of the sample.
~ 9% indicated that good training or mentoring is provided.~ 7% mentioned that their organisations provided flexi-time.
As the second graph reveals, flexibility was an aspect most commonly sought, but it was mentioned by a relatively small proportion (11%) and this figure is statistically identical to the proportions who mentioned more staff or admin support (10%), greater acknowledgement (8%) and the other factors shown in the graph.
There were no significant differences across the various sub-groups of the sample.
WHAT ORGANISATION DOES OR TRIES TO DO TO MAKE WORKING LIFE BETTER THAN IT WOULD BE ELSEWHERE - UNPROMPTED
(includes multiple responses) BASE: total sample
41
14
9
7
9
26
0 20 40 60 80 100
Nothing
Flexible work arrangements (eg: work from home, family commitments, maternity leave)
Good training / mentoring provided
Flexible work hours/flexi time
Other individual comments (each too small to be of value)
NOT ANSWERED
% of respondents
WHAT ORGANISATION COULD DO BETTER, TO MAKE WORKING LIFE BETTER THAN ELSEWHERE - UNPROMPTED, MAIN RESPONSES
(includes multiple responses) BASE: total sample
34
11
10
8
7
6
5
22
0 20 40 60 80 100
Nothing
More flexible working hours/arrangements
More staff/admin support
More acknowledgement/better remuneration/respect
More training/mentoring/career development
More support
Better office / facilities
NOT ANSWERED
% of respondents
49
Retention strategies - what managers do well & could do better Following the questions on the previous page about their organisations, respondents were asked the same two questions about their managers, i.e.:
~ is there anything their managers do or try to so that makes the respondents' working lives better than they would be elsewhere.
~ is there anything they would like to see their current manager do better that would make the respondents' lives better than they would beelsewhere.
Again, there was a greater than usual non-response to these questions (one in five chose not to answer) and the most common response to each of these questions was 'nothing', specified by half the sample in each case.
The only responses made by more than one person in five regarding managers' current good practices were:
~ communicates / provides feedback, given by 11%.~ supportive (7%).~ flexible (6%).~ understands work/life balance (6%).
While the response was small (just 7%), communication also featured most often in people's wish lists for what they would like their managers to do better; however, the low level of responses much be borne in mind in considering these outcomes.
The patterns of responses was generally consistent across the various sub-groups.
WHAT MANAGER COULD DO BETTER, TO MAKE WORKING LIFE BETTER THAN ELSEWHERE - UNPROMPTED, MAIN RESPONSES
(includes multiple responses) BASE: total sample
54
7
3
29
0 20 40 60 80 100
Nothing
More communication/information
Better staff management
NOT ANSWERED
% of respondents
WHAT MANAGER DOES OR TRIES TO DO TO MAKE WORKING LIFE BETTER THAN IT WOULD BE ELSEWHERE - UNPROMPTED, MAIN RESPONSES
(includes multiple responses) BASE: total sample
45
11
7
6
6
19
0 20 40 60 80 100
Nothing
Communicates/provides feedback
Supportive
Flexible
Understands work/life balance
NOT ANSWERED
% of respondents
CHALLENGES FACED:Meeting expectationsIn what ways different than expected Perceived ease of managing workloadThree most critical challengesOther challenges
51
Challenges faced - meeting expectationsThe 121 respondents who had commenced work with their organisations within the 5 years prior to the survey were asked how well or poorly their current workplace had met the expectations they had when they joined. This question is associated with the concept of the Employee Value Proposition (EVP) discussed in some detail in the Literature Review (Section 4) and these results show there have been significant disparities between the EVPs presented and actuality. The literature clearly highlights that such disconnects can lead to employee dissatisfaction and lower retention.As the graph below shows, half the respondents indicated their experiences had been about what they expected (46%), while 27% gave more positive assessments (including 12% a lot better and 15% a little better) and a similar proportion (20%) considered their experiences worse than expected. Levels of dissatisfaction or poorly met expectations of this magnitude should always be taken seriously - but considered in context - whether they be among staff or clients.Somewhat surprisingly, this response pattern was recorded consistently, with only minor variations, across all segments of the sample.The 65 people who said their experiences were either better or worse than anticipated were asked in what ways their workplace is different than they expected. Their responses are detailed in full on the following four pages, but - whether positive or negative - they most commonly relate to management, organisational processes or an inaccurate representation initially of what the job entailed.
PERCEPTIONS OF HOW WELL OR POORLY WORKPLACE HAS MET EXPECTATIONS BASE: joined workplace in last 5 years (n=121)
A lot better than expected
12%A little better than
expected15%
About what I expected46%
A little worse than expected
11%
A lot worse than expected
9%
NOT ANSWERED7%
Despite the comments highlighted above, and while the negative comments should be read with care and attention, it should also be borne in mind that three quarters of the sample found their expectations to have been met or exceeded.
52
Challenges faced - workplace better than expected
A lot better than expected (12% of the total sample)• You expect a work place to run smoothly, especially at a local government level; however the workplace experienced was a lot better than expected• The variety of work is more than I expected.• The people are nice to work with.• Strong, supportive team environment• Perceived as a very challenging work environment; in reality support is offered and colleagues are very professional and helpful in meeting difficult demands on all.• The working environment, staff members, more professional• They respect and value me. When I ask for something it's almost always granted. I work hard and get rewarded.• I settled in easier, was promoted rapidly and very well rewarded with pay and conditions.• The employer takes an understated approach to the concept of 'employer of choice'. Instead of feeling let down as per previous workplaces I found they rarely referred
to values, and behaviours and opportunities for innovation were actually being put into practice. The result is exceptional values and behaviours and capacity to innovate well above employers professing these features in the adverts, position descriptions etc.
• Great place to work, fosters professional development• Great atmosphere, great people, allowed to get on with my work, very flexible working• The sheer size of the workload and how relentless it is• Benefits such as flexible hours• More progressive and fast paced• Had previously undertaken work experience in a private firm where there was a lot of pressure from management to perform. In this workplace, management expects
and trusts me to perform without having to look over my shoulder all the time - management will only intervene if there is an issue - the trust is put into the employees to do their job, employees aren't 'forced' to do their job a certain way 'or else'.
53
Challenges faced - workplace better than expected
A little better than expected (15% of the total sample):• More challenging, greater responsibility• Work colleges are great• More opportunity for advancement in job role sooner than expected• Expected better support in terms of employees and equipment; still waiting for a PC for home use after 4.5 years, very penny-pinching culture• Flexible • I have been given opportunities to grow my desired project management skills - although this was more like chance rather than planned by my superiors. I have been
involved with a variety of work although now I am doing more development assessment than when I first started - but this is only because that's what the organisation needed to fill. Better holiday arrangements - the chance to buy more annual leave. Ability to communicate directly with my boss(es) and HR managers - which helps with my reviews.
• More activity in this region than I had anticipated• Suddenly a restructure after 2 years in the position ... outcome not yet known• Focus on a positive workplace culture.• Less bureaucracy, they pay for everything, less tiers of management.• More hands-on approach.• Much greater level of passion and commitment from my colleagues than previous workplaces.• Larger and more interactive than I expected, with opportunities and advancement occurring at good pace. Growth of business also unexpected• I joined on a 12 month contract. They have now offered me permanent work and have supported my professional development and need for flexible work hours. I have also
found an unexpected level of intellectual compatibility and sharing of ideas with a few colleagues in particular.• Support for team members very strong among the team. By contrast, connection with other departments is not so good, marked by some long standing distrust, suspicion
or resentment.• I was able to negotiate flexible working hours and greater use of a vehicle after approx 2 years employment, it was easy negotiating with management• Professionalism of the current CDAP membership is not as high as I expected, which impacts greatly on my job - in many ways.
54
Challenges faced - workplace worse than expected
A little wore than expected (11% of the total sample):• Team environment (outside of my direct team) and uneven treatment of staff (both within my area and across the organisation) .• Role I applied for is very different to reality - partially due to a lack of clarity within the unit. • I was promised opportunities to work in policy - there are none. Was promised a file load of 40 but file load is consistently 70 - 80.• It appears to be quite professional; however, once I had been here for a while, I realised that there are a lot of things that are not in place that should be (inspection
polices, enforcement policies, lack of resources, lack of support from management above) there are many areas of Council that don't communicate with one another that impacts on the level of customer service. There are a lot of managers or people in a supervisor role.
• Poorly arranged work stations and no privacy; small, unserviceable reception desk; not a user-friendly office.• Poor morale and a management that is impotent and lazy.• Too many different managers involved in certain projects and who is responsible. • Poor management, lack of systems and process, happy-go-luck attitude• Day to day work can be challenging due to the way things are done... because that's the way they are done!• Lack of disciplinary action for staff doing the wrong thing• Not as organised as I had expected, a lack of processes and systems that all staff are aware of and adhere to. As a manager it is difficult to 'manage' without clarity
about processes and roles.• It has inefficient open plan offices. I have less discretion and flexibility. Decision making is more difficult - more people involved at the fringes - because they are
there and not because they contribute.
55
Challenges faced - workplace worse than expected
A lot worse than expected (9% of the total sample):• The work place has changed significantly in the past 8 months and it is not what I signed up to do originally; my role has changed significantly and I am presently
not satisfied with what I am doing each day.• The way the team interacts with each other needs to be professionally managed. Some individuals are extremely powerful, forceful and aggressive within the
team, limiting opportunities for others.• I expected a bit more integrity.• Expected more support from management.• Has transformed into just another reactive basic public sector agency within the environment portfolio, despite promoting initially innovation and a can-do attitude
to stand out as an employer of choice• The advertise said progressive. The consultant said is was true when I asked. The place still has that upstairs/downstairs mentality when senior management have
a problem. The management all moved up a tier when the previous CEO left. One day we should catch up with the 20th century.• The first year was absolutely fantastic, then there was a re-structure and we lost our local leadership - this has had an enormous impact on culture (lack of
supervision, lack of information etc..). We are now assessed based on numbers and numeric results not behaviour and attitude (anyone who knows consulting well can manipulate the numbers).
• Management behaviour, team divisiveness. No encouragement for professional development. Lack of advancement opportunities. Staff are restricted from networking at the profession level, because they could be seen to be speaking on behalf of the Dept.
• No work to do, poor team management and do not feel connected.• Original manager left and it went from a cohesive, happy hard working group to mass departures, massive loss of professional knowledge, negativity, depressed,
stressed, overworked, undervalued group of people, with manager employing 'buddies' with no knowledge.• Poorly managed; not public health role; NOT appreciated-respected.
56
Challenges faced - perceived ease of managing workload
When asked how easy or difficult they find managing their day-to-day task load, using a 0-10 scale from very difficult to very easy, the overall average response from those answering the survey just edged into positive territory - 5.5 on the 0-10 scale. Interestingly, there was no significant difference between the professions, even at a 90% rather than 95% Confidence Level.
However, results were clearly less favourable among local government employees than those from other workplaces, although the mean score only rose above 6 out of 10 among the small number of self-employed consultants (6.5), so even among this group there is clearly room for improvement.
As the graph on the left also shows, the more experienced respondents - those who have been in their professions for 6 or more years - consider themselves under greater daily pressure (mean rating 4.9 out of 10) than their less experienced colleagues (6.1).
The graph on the right shows the same results, but broken down by how the scores among these groups were actually distributed, rather than showing the average. What emerges from this view is that a notable 42% of the 17 State Government employees rated their day-to-day task load high into the very easy range (8-10), but the same proportion (42%) rated 0-4 on this scale - in other words, a quite polarised view. Unfortunately, this sub-group is too small to analyse in any more depth.
PERCEIVED EASE OR DIFFICULTY OF MANAGING DAY-TO-DAY TASK LOAD, USING 0 (very difficult) TO 10 (very easy) SCALE BASE: total sample
12 12 120 8 8 12
27 30 29
2423 17
32
15 12 16
240 12
17
27
6
2734
3134
23
2042
14 1939 26
15
0102030405060708090
100
TOTALSAMPLE(n=197)
State Govt(n=17)
Local Govt(n=137)
Commercialnot self-em.
(n=21)
Self empl'd(n=13)
<6 yrs (n=69) 6+ yrs(n=126)
EMPLOYER TERM IN PROFESSION
Mean
scor
e
8-10
6-7
5
3-4
0-2
Very easy
Very difficult
PERCEIVED EASE OR DIFFICULTY OF MANAGING DAY-TO-DAY TASK LOAD, USING 0 (very difficult) TO 10 (very easy) SCALE BASE: total sample
5.55.9
5.05.9
6.5 6.1
4.9
0123456789
10
TOTALSAMPLE(n=197)
State Govt(n=17)
Local Govt(n=137)
Commercial notself-em. (n=21)
Self empl'd(n=13)
<6 yrs (n=69) 6+ yrs (n=126)
EMPLOYER TERM IN PROFESSION
Mean
scor
e
Veryeasy
Verydifficult
Greater causes for concern
57
Challenges faced - three most critical challenges
When asked to nominate the 3 most critical challenges they face on a day-to-day basis, a clear leader emerged in the list of issues collated from the responses. Workload / having enough time was spontaneously nominated by half the people responding to the survey (50%) and was listed nearly three times as often as anything else.
This issue was compounded by a further 18% who specified interruptions / phone calls / email / enquiries as a challenge they faced daily.
These responses obviously both reflect and reinforce the results on the previous page, where the ease of respondents managing their task load did not rate well.
A range of other issues was raised, but each by smaller proportions than the ones already specified. The graph opposite shows the main topics, the ones mentioned by more than 5% of the people responding.
It was also interesting that, with relatively minor variations, the pattern of responses was remarkably similar across all segments of the sample.
GREATEST CHALLENGES FACED ON DAY-T0-DAY BASIS - MAIN RSPONSES ONLY (incl. multiple responses) BASE: total sample
50
18
13
13
12
11
11
7
7
6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Having enough time/workload/time management
Interruptions/phone calls/emails/urgent enquiries
Staff management
Having support staff available foradvice/sign-off/clarification/support
Dealing with customers' complaints/ the public
Unrealistic customer expectations/not understanding legislative restrictions
Insufficient resources
Changes in legislation/complying with legislation
Paperwork/admin
Unpredictable workload
% of repsondents
58
Challenges faced - other challenges
The follow-up question to the three most critical challenges, which asked what they would like to see happen to relieve these challenges, produced no useful insights beyond the obvious more staff / more assistance theme. However, these suggestions did include a significant proportion who specifically suggested acquiring greater administrative support and/or taking on cadets who could be trained to handle the lower-level chores, thereby freeing up the trained, experienced professionals for the more involved or technically-demanding tasks.
There was also some call for a better understanding at management level of the pressures these professional staff are under. In addition, a few called for legislative review (development assessment and environmental health) to reduce the workload, but with limited detail provided.
Respondents were further asked if there are any other factors associated with their current roles that they would like to see improved. Half of the sample noted 'nothing' and the comments that were listed by the other half generally followed similar lines to the three most critical challenges.
However, some additional issues did emerge among small groups of respondents, including:~ raising the recognition levels of the importance of building professionals to match those of planners.~ greater role clarity and the development of (and subsequent adherence to) better policies and processes.~ better communications between management and staff.~ more challenging, strategic or project work.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT:Perceived feasibility of sharing skillsetsLevel of enjoyment, now and 2 years agoFuture intentionsBarriers to remaining in professionMotivations to stay
60
Opportunities - sharing skillsets
When asked for their opinions on how feasible it would be for personnel and/or skillsets to be shared across neighbouring or regional local government areas, the response was quite favourable overall, although not reaching levels of strong support. But, as the graph below reveals, there were some interesting differences in reactions to this concept among some segments of the sample.
Most noticeably, building surveyors were least favourably disposed, recording a mean score of just 5.4 on the 0 (not at all feasible) to 10 (very feasible) scale. This is in contrast to the other built environment professions (environmental health, development assessment etc.), which averaged mean scores of 6.4 to 7.0.
There was also a clear difference between the different employer groups, with people who work in local government less inclined to consider skill- or personnel-sharing across regions to be feasible. The response is clearly most favourable among those in the private sector (especially among the small sub-sample of self-employed consultants - 8.7), but it is also clearly positive among the 17 State Government employees.
There was also a notable difference between the score of those who had been in their professions less than 6 years versus 6 or more years. With respective mean scores of 6.2 and 6.9, the difference is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (CL), but it is at the 90% CL. In other words you could be 90% confident that this difference is real, but not 95% confident.
However, this finding is reinforced by a difference among the age groups that is statistically significant at the 95% CL: respondents aged 55 or over gave this proportion a significantly higher feasibility rating (7.4) than those aged under 55 (6.5).
The mean feasibility rating was also higher among people who work part time (7.4) compared with full timers (6.5), but these particular results are only statistically reliable at the 90% CL due to a higher standard deviation,
PERCEIVED FEASIBILITY OF SHARING PERSONNEL AND/OR SKILLSETS ACROSS NEIGHBOURING OR REGIONAL LGAs BASE: total samplPERCEIVED
6.6
5.4
7.06.5 6.4 6.4
7.3
6.2
7.7
8.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTA
LSA
MPLE
(n=1
97)
Build
ingsu
rveyo
r(n
=45)
Envir
onme
ntal
healt
h offic
er(n
=55)
DA pl
anne
r(n
=61)
Policy
/str
ategy
plann
er(n
=51)
Othe
r (n=
45)
State
Gov
t(n
=17)
Loca
l Gov
t(n
=137
)
Com
merci
alno
t self
-em
.(n
=21)
Self e
mpl'd
(n=1
3)
Q6 PROFESSION Q2 EMPLOYER
Mean
scor
e
Veryfeasible
Not at allfeasible
61
Opportunities - changing levels of enjoymentAmong the last few questions to be asked, respondents were sequentially asked two questions: firstly, they were asked to rate how much they enjoy working in their current workplace; secondly they were asked to think back to two years previously and say how much they enjoyed their workplace then, even if it were a different workplace. In both questions, the scale used was 0-10, dislike it very much to enjoy it a lot.
The top graph on the right shows the results from both questions across the total sample, and highlights a somewhat surprising outcome given the background to this study, which had indicated real, entrenched problems in the industry - not just in terms of staff retention, but also in terms of staff satisfaction. In these questions, however, respondents overall are clearly not unhappy and the result for their recollections of conditions two years ago mirrors the current levels of workplace enjoyment, which are clearly within the favourable end of the spectrum.
LEVELS OF ENJOYING THE WORKPLACE, CURRENTLY & 2 YEARS AGO Base: total sample
6.8
6.9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Currently
2 years ago
Mean scoreDislike it
v ery muchEnjoyit a lot
LEVELS OF ENJOYING THE WORKPLACE, CURRENTLY AND 2 YEARS AGOBase: total sample, segmented by employer & profession
01
23
456
78
910
Mea
n sco
re
2 years ago 7.3 6.8 6.8 8.8 7.2 7.1 6.4 6.9 6.9
Currently 6.5 6.7 6.9 8.6 7.2 6.6 6.9 7.1 6.9
State Govt Local Govt Comm'l not s.e Self empl'd Blding survyr Enviro health DA planner Policy/strategy Other
Q2 EMPLOYER Q6 PROFESSION
Dislike itv ery much
Enjoyit a lot
n= 13 124 19 12 41 50 53 45 39
Looking into these results in more detail reveals some slight, but not statistically significant, differences between the various employer groups and professions. Most noticeably, self-employed people, not unexpectedly, registered the highest levels of enjoyment; however enjoyment results across the other employer segments (governmentand non-government) were broadly similar to each other, although results among the small number of State Government employees (n=13) indicate there may have been a slight decrease in enjoyment, but this sub-group is much too small to be statistically reliable and this result should be viewed with caution.
Results by profession show a slight increase in enjoyment among the various planning professions and a slight decrease among environmental health officers. However, neither of these results is statistically reliable and may only be considered indicative
62
Opportunities - changing levels of enjoymentThe 111 people who indicated that their levels of enjoyment were better or worse than two years ago were asked why their level of enjoyment had changed over that time.
Among the 58 people who rated their current enjoyment worse than 2 years ago, 23 of them opted not to provide an answer to this question. Among the 30 people who did respond, the following reasons emerged:
~ increased workload (12%)~ change in management (10%)~ no recognition / acknowledgement / rewards (10%)~ role/job has changed (9%)~ bored / not challenged (9%)~ lack of support (7%)~ workload redistributed (5%)~ fewer staff (2%)~ poor work-life balance (2%)
53 people had rated their current enjoyment better than 2 years ago, but 15 chose not to respond to why this is so. Among the 38 who did respond, the following reasons were given:
~ role/job has changed (23%)~ management has improved (15%)~ change in management (6%)~ staff / people are better (6%)~ workload redistributed (6%)~ feel valued (6%)~ better work-life balance (6%)~ increased workload (2%)
63
Opportunities - future intentionsRespondents were then asked about their future intentions regarding staying in their professions for the next 12 months, the next two years and the next five years.
As the graph on the top left shows, there is a clear progression evident in the results and, while there is some uncertainty in people's intentions five years out, this is actually relatively minor in comparison to the change in the overall pattern.
Looking one year ahead, 90% of the built environment workforce intends to stay in their profession (including 75% almost certainly and 15% probably). By two years ahead, this had reduced to 84%, but the level of certainty had dropped significantly, and by five years out just 6 in 10 expect to be still in their current professions and one third (32%) expect not to be.
Note: the question clearly asked about staying in their profession, not about staying at the same level in their profession.
STATED INTENTIONS TO STAY IN PROFESSION FOR... Base: total sample
75
52
30
15
32
30
5
7
18
3
6
14
2
3
9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The next 12 months
The next 2 years
The next 5 years
% of respondents
Almost certainly Probably will Probably not Definitely not Not sure
STATED INTENTIONS TO STAY IN PROFESSION FOR ... Base: total sample, segmented by profession
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% of
resp
onde
nts
Not sure 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 5 8 5 10 9
Definitely not 5 4 2 2 2 5 9 2 4 4 10 23 8 6 11
Probably not 5 8 2 4 7 12 6 7 2 9 29 19 15 14 20
Probably will 17 17 14 10 16 36 38 31 34 31 24 34 39 42 20
Almost certainly 74 72 78 84 76 48 43 56 60 56 33 17 32 28 40
Bldg svyr EHO DA planr Policy/strgy Other Bldg svyr EHO DA planr Policy/strgy Other Bldg svyr EHO DA planr Policy/strgy Other
NEXT 12 MTHS NEXT 2 YEARS NEXT 5 YEARS
n= 42 53 59 50 45 42 53 59 50 45 42 53 59 50 45
However, when we further examined the results by the individual professions included in the survey, it became clear that environmental health officers (EHOs) are clearly more pessimistic about their intentions to stay in the profession the than other segments, with just 17% sure they will still be in that field, compared with 28%-40% of those in other roles.
64
Opportunities - barriers to remaining in professionApart from those who said they would almost certainly or probably remain in their profession for the next five years, the remaining respondents were asked what are the most important factors driving their intensions to move out of their professions.
Three in ten (29%) said they would be retiring, while similar proportions (25% and 24% respectively) said either that they were bored and wanted increased challenges or that the workload was too high. Lack of support from management and better benefits elsewhere were each mentioned by one person in seven (16% and 14% respectively).
Smaller proportions gave a number of other responses, but the percentages are too small to be of consequence in driving any recommendations for change.
The most common results here (relating to the type and amount of work) tend to reinforce some of the earlier patterns, when many respondents were seeking additional support, specifically to relieve them of their administrative tasks, so they could focus on the more challenging aspects of their roles.
REASONS FOR INTENTIONS TO LEAVE PROFESSION (incl. multiple responses)Base: total sample excluding those likely to remain for next 5 years
29 25 2416 14
8 5 4 4
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Appr
oach
ingre
tireme
nt ag
e
Bore
d/nee
d ach
ange
/don't
enjoy
it
Wor
k loa
d too
high
Lack
of su
ppor
tfro
mma
nage
ment
Bene
fits be
tter
elsew
here
Lack
of sk
illed
staff
No op
portu
nity t
opr
ogre
ss
Bad w
orkp
lace
envir
onme
nt/ba
dsta
ff rela
tions
hips
Fami
lyco
mmitm
ents
Othe
r
% of
resp
onde
nts
Those nominating their reasons as relating to 'better benefits elsewhere' were asked to specify more detail. Unfortunately, their responses tended to be somewhat generic as to where these 'better benefits' were to be found:
• Always looking for more competitive contracts and benefits.
• Better benefits in other professions.• Better work tasks• Better workplaces, better places to
gain experience• Higher level project work• Improved salary /lifestyle • Intention to move into management• Pay, better professional development,
more specialised• Salary and work ethic • Workplace environment• Would like a role that involved more
strategic work.
65
Opportunities - motivations to stayThe final question in the main survey (before the demographic questions at the end), asked those not intending to stay in their professions for the next five years, "What is the most important thing that would have to change for you to decide to stay in your current profession?".
Unfortunately, fewer than half the respondents who were posed this question chose, or were able, to provide an answer, which makes the value of their responses limited due to their minority nature.
In summary, however, their responses group as follows:
• More variety / more interesting work 16%
• Pay increase / better conditions 13%
• Promotion / opportunity for professional development 11%
• Better management 7%
• If I were younger 7%
• More flexible hours / work-life balance 4%
• These responses reinforce the results discussed earlier, but reveal no new insights.
4. LITERATURE REVIEWPrefaceAttraction and retention overviewAttracting staffRetaining staffFocusing on the built environment workforceAttracting professional staffPositioning local government as an attractive employerAttracting graduatesUnderstanding generational differencesSkilled immigrants and CALD groups
67Preface
This review1 aims to discuss best practice and source up to date knowledge in workforce attraction and retention. Accordingly it has sourced information from both peer reviewed academic literature – which looks at the latest, research-based knowledge – as well as from more industry-focused material which looks at best practice and potential solutions.
The purpose of this review is to establish a background against which the actual views, aspirations, and desires of the Built Environment Workforce in South Australia can be measured, with a view to determining how best to attract and retain them. The review covers the issues and knowledge around attracting and retaining staff in the Built Environment Workforce. It considers the differing factors at play across different groups of workers, as well as placing these factors into a practical context. While some of the material presented here applies generally across the gamut of industry sectors, the focus of this review is the Built Environment Workforce. The industries covered in the Built Environment Workforce include Planning, Building, Environmental Health, and Engineering.
For clarity and convenience the material has been presented here in several sections according to the content being covered. Rather than presenting academic material and industry material in isolation, the two have been brought together on a topic-by-topic basis to produce a clear, holistic narrative on the state of attracting and retaining staff in the Built Environment Workforce.
This review concludes with a number of Case Studies to give both national and international examples of attraction and retention programs in the Built Environment Workforce and more generally within Local Government. It also includes a summary of the key points, and a bibliography.
Attraction & retention overview Employers must be attractive to prospective employees if they are to generate applicant pools from which they can draw the new staff needed to meet their recruitment requirements. Being seen as an attractive employer is key in market segments where skill shortages exist, such as in the Built Environment Workforce. From an internal perspective, retaining staff is one of the most important ways an organisation can control its staffing costs, reducing the need for recruitment processes and retraining, while maximising productivity by keeping high performing staff on board. Attractive organisations can retain employees better, and those places where people stay are often seen as attractive – so attraction and retention go hand in hand.
As will be expanded upon in following sections, attraction and retention are especially important issues in Local Government, and particularly in areas like Development Assessment (DA) where recent data (e.g. Development Assessment – The Inside View) paints a challenging picture;
~ Experience: Almost half of DA staff have less than 5 years experience in the role.~ Employment: 72% of DA staff have worked for 5 years or less at their current council.~ Recruitment: 20% of DA vacancies go unfilled and almost half of those filled are filled from other councils leading to a ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ scenario.
The following sections briefly touch on the key issues around attracting and retaining staff and have been sourced from a range of academic and industry sources.1 This literature review was undertaken in late September 2009 using academic databases, journal indexes, web search,
academic and business library catalogues and books, as well as the knowledge and experience of Locher HumanResources and its Associates.
68
Attracting staff The current tightening of the skilled labour market, notwithstanding the transient effects of the Global Financial Crisis, makes it increasingly difficult for organisations to attract and retain skilled staff. Organisations therefore need to become more proactive in their approach to their human capital. The following strategies can build the attractiveness of an organisation.
FACTORS INFLUENCING ATTRACTION:
According to the Corporate Leadership Council (cited in Pavement Management Services, Road Runner, 2007), the most important factors in attraction in Australia are; work/life balance, career opportunities, remuneration, job-interest alignment, respect, development opportunities, and location. They also note that it is imperative to give accurate information during recruitment because failing to deliver on those promises is the cause of a significant decline in the level of commitment to the organisation of new employees in their first year on the job.
The State Services Authority of Victoria makes a number of suggestions as to how organisations might go about attracting talent. It notes that organisations gaining the best results tend to show creativity and perseverance and that, where the competition is greater, organisations may need to take a more proactive approach to targeting people. In terms of attracting candidates through marketing they recommend the following be considered;
~ Use print advertising to direct people to websites where more detailed information can be located. This keeps print advertising space requirements down and also allows for more visually appealing ads.
~ Target on-line advertising to specific sites (e.g. Seek, CareerOne) that will yield higher quality candidates, using collective experience of peer organisations and recruiters to determine where best to place ads.
~ Avoid unmet expectations and poor reputation by ensuring job ads are honest and accurate.
On the topic of incentives they raise a number of points for consideration;~ Consider incentives that benefit the organisation as well as the employee, for example payment for extra professional development is of direct benefit to the
organisation, whereas unconditional, untargeted additional payments are not.~ Appreciate that different staff and groups of staff will value different incentives and target incentives carefully. Ask existing employees what motivates them.~ The best incentives are not necessarily expensive.
Flexible working arrangements, traditionally a key strength at State and Federal Government employment levels, are a possible way of positioning Local Government to more effectively compete with the other levels of government for staff. Private enterprise is coming on board with flexibility also so this is a growing area.
69
Attracting staff State Services Authority of Victoria lists a number of factors to consider when designing flexible working arrangements;
~ Tailor flexibility according to the life stages and career points of staff – one-size-fits-all ‘flexibility’ will not work across the gamut of employees.~ Accept that some roles will have requirements that preclude certain types of flexibility and consider other ways of making them flexible. For example a customer
contact worker can’t work outside business hours but can have flexibility about which business hours are worked.~ Flexible arrangements will require managers to focus on outputs and outcomes rather than hours worked when assessing performance, which can be a challenging
change of focus in some roles.~ While it may seem difficult to provide flexibility in roles that are very senior, critical or hard-to-fill, these are the very roles most in need of attraction and retention
attention. Weigh up the costs of flexibility versus those of losing, or not attracting, key staff through inflexibility.
EMPLOYEE VALUE PROPOSITION:
The term Employee Value Proposition may be defined as the sum of tangible (pay, benefits, etc.) and intangible (culture, values, leadership, etc.) rewards provided by the employer, balanced against the work performance and other contributions made by the employee.
Developing and communicating an effective Employee Value Proposition (EVP) allows an organisation to source more deeply within a labour market and in doing so increases attraction and retention rates. A successful EVP must truly reflect the reality of the organisation, be consistent in the message being delivered and match the promises the organisation is making. (Corporate Leadership Council Survey on ‘Attracting and Retaining Critical Talent Segments’, 2006).
Some key point in developing a successful EVP:~ Understand what job seekers are looking for and meet their needs competitively; conditions, role autonomy, meaningful work, remuneration, conditions such as
holidays and benefits. ~ Highlight opportunities for career advancement, learning and development.~ Provide flexibility of roles, time, childcare, leave, working hours or valued alternatives.~ Understand who their job seekers are; are they university students, competitors’ staff, people who read particular journals or are likely to hold particular values. What
is of value to them?~ Consider how the Values and Culture of the organisation is likely to fit with prospective employees and work toward better aligned values if necessary.
70
Attracting staff PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANISATIONS :
The perceptions of an organisation are a critical issue in attraction and retention. An organisation widely mistrusted will find it hard to attract staff while a widely praised organisation will find it comparatively easy. Organisations need to understand how they are perceived and be ready to take the actions necessary to change those perceptions if these are making them unattractive to the employees they need to attract. Positive and effective organisational branding is critical for successful attraction because it builds a positive image in the minds of the potential labour market that the company is a great place to work. (Journal of International Advertising, 2005. Captivating Company: Dimensions of Attractiveness in Employer Branding; Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Lian Hah, L.)
TARGETING RECRUITMENT
Different target segments require different recruitment campaigns and strategies; graduates, women, youth, Aboriginal, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD), and so on have different motivators. Targeted recruitment is especially important where messages targeted at one group may not be attractive to another group. Also, organisations that are able to promote good diversity management programs as a part of their recruitment process are more attractive to women and minority groups. Having good diversity management practices includes having a history of promoting women and minority groups into managerial and executive positions. (International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2005. Ng, E., & Burke, R.)
PASSIVE CANDIDATES
Reaching, attracting and recruiting the passive candidate are becoming critical in tight labour markets. Passive candidates are those candidates that are not actively job seeking. One way of reaching these candidates is through clever leveraging of employer branding, other ways include employee referrals, and competitively differentiating the organisation’s Employee Value Proposition. Researching potential candidate’s motivators for considering working for your organisation is a key starting point from which your EVP can be tuned and marketed directly to those people. Perth’s Hollywood private hospital did exactly this; they researched the wants of nursing staff in competitor hospitals, identified flexible working hours as a key issue, tuned their EVP to promote flexible working hours and successfully recruited sufficient staff to meet their requirements. (HR Monthly, 2006, Finders Keepers, Evans, T.)
BASIC CONSIDERATIONS
Streamlining of the recruitment process is particularly important in a tight, competitive market. Coming to work for you should be easy. Consider the position of prospective employees in a tight market; if one organisation they are interested in working with is slow to respond or uses a long recruitment process, while another is quick and straight forward, the candidate is likely to be employed by the more streamlined employer who completes the process to job offer stage first. A particularly clear example of this is in graduate recruitment. Many graduates will apply to multiple organisations during graduate intakes. It makes sense that they will accept the first desirable position they are offered thereby leaving organisations with slower recruitment processes, even if they are otherwise desirable, out in the cold.
71
Attracting staff LEVERAGING THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE :
Current recruitment and industry sources, as well as academic ones, are well aligned in suggesting strategies for better attracting staff.
~ Gain a clear understanding of how Built Environment Workforce roles are seen in the marketplace by both potential and current staff.
~ Develop targeted attraction strategies for each target segment.
~ Improve the organisational diversity of Local Government, including working towards achieving a mix of managerial and executive staff reflective of the mix found in the community, to better attract minority applicants.
~ Develop attraction strategies to deliberately target the passive candidate.
~ Ensure that recruitment processes are efficient, streamlined, and can rapidly identify and recruit strong candidates.
~ Actively promote your workplace – local government – to gain interest and support for engaging with you as a preferred employee (Eglin, 2004).• Marketing your organisation through effectively employer branding
~ Develop a strong Employee Value Proposition;• Consider salary and flexibility of hours.• Align workplace values and culture with those of the target• Promote opportunities for career advancement, professional development and recognition
~ Consider new media (web, social networking) methods of recruitment (Whetstone, Reed & Turner, 2006).• The existing Shape Your World website is a strong beginning but consider ways of increasing its profile through other marketing so its existence is more widely
known.• Make use of the internet as an integrated one-stop-shop to not only advertise positions, but also provide information about roles, about how they fit together with
the vision and values of the organisation, as well as promoting the EVP of your organisation.
72
Retaining staff In part, retaining staff is a special case of attracting staff and many of the same principles apply. There are however a number of additional factors to be considered such as job satisfaction which don’t exist at the time of attraction.
According to the Corporate Leadership Council (2007), the most important factors influencing retention are; innovation, respect, empowerment, the reputation of senior leadership, recognition of the employer as being a ‘great employer’, career opportunities, manager skill, recognition of achievements, ethics of the organisation, and development opportunities.
Holland, Sheehan & de Cieri (2007) report on a study they undertook involving 1372 Australian HR professionals which found that, while employers are addressing issues related to attraction, key retention issues such as training, job design, skill development, career management, and team building are not being allocated sufficient resources. They concluded that as a result many Australian organisations are struggling to compete for skilled workers both domestically and in international markets.
The following are some of the widely cited features of workplaces where people want to stay:~ Recognising and rewarding staff achievement.~ Learning and Development – support for career progression, professional development.~ Supportive and collaborative leadership style – leading by example.~ Flexible approach to work-life balance – parenting leave, role sharing.~ Offer ways for staff to provide feedback to the organisation – culture and climate surveys, or a truly interactive personal development process.~ Childcare, gym membership.~ Phased retirement, relaxation of retirement expectations.~ Mentoring.~ Identification of key staff that may be poached and setting up a counter-offer process.~ Demonstrating commitment to the career progression of staff by succession planning – this provides a visible path forward for both the person approaching retirement as
well as those moving up into the role to be vacated.~ Maintaining awareness of competitor activity and taking steps to maintain your organisation as the preferred option in the minds of key staff.
Some further strategies for retaining staff follow.
73
Retaining staff JOB SATISFACTION:
Mansell, Brough and Cole (2006) attributed staff retention and workplace satisfaction to positive work experiences, job control, and perceptions of manager support. Poor satisfaction and retention were contributed to by workplace hassles, with minor daily hassles at work found to have more serious consequences for general well-being than major life events. This surprising finding is thought to be due to the frequent and uncontrollable nature of workplace hassles.
Wang and Lee (2009) found a complex pattern of factors that interplay to influence job satisfaction, but their results were consistent with basic wisdom that giving employees choices, a feeling of competency and a sense of job impact improve satisfaction at work, and therefore likely retention.
CAREER DEVELOPMENT:
Career development, the process of developing and using talents through making and refining occupational role choices, is a key plank in workplace attraction and retention of skilled workers (Amundson, 2007). Amundson identifies a number of key 'attractors' which influence career choices and which are impacted by the process of career development. These are; security, location, relationships, recognition, contribution, work fit, flexibility, learning, responsibility, and innovation. Amundson discusses the fact that changes to the relative strengths of these attractors may occur over time in response to changes in situation, personal development and life stages.
A survey of over 7000 employers across Australia (Hudson, 2006) identified career management programs as a key component in attracting and retaining employees in markets where skills shortages exist. They found that found that 72% of employers providing a career management program believed it improved their ability to attract and retain employees.
TOTAL REWARDS STATEMENTS:
According to Smolkin (2007) of Employee Benefit News a concept generating excitement in attraction and retention circles, particularly in North America, is Total Rewards Statements. A Total Rewards Statement is a regularly updated document given to employees which clearly lays out the Employee Value Proposition of their role, listing salary, bonuses, superannuation, entitlements and other benefits in a single document. It is suggested these documents also identify career paths open to employees. The key implication for attraction and retention is that these documents spell out the full value proposition of the role the employee is engaged in, keeping those benefits top-of-mind where they can be most effective in influencing retention.
74
Retaining staff TURNOVER CONTAGION:
Recent research (Felps, Mitchell, Hekman, Lee, Holtom & Harman, 2009) has raised the issue of Turnover Contagion. In a study involving over 8,000 employees in total, an effect was uncovered where, even controlling for other factors, it was found that if co-workers are engaged in behaviours suggesting they are planning to quit, such as looking for another job, that other staff are also more likely to quit. This brings into focus the importance of workplace culture and staff morale where, if negative feelings are left unchecked, a organisation faces the risk of dissatisfaction and resignations leading to more dissatisfaction and resignations.
LEVERAGING THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE
Build a positive working environment where high levels of job satisfaction are present and where ‘turnover contagion’ will not take hold. Find out what employees value, what deficiencies they see, and seek ways to address those issues. Key issues might be;
~ Flexibility~ Feedback, recognition and reward~ Collaboration and mentoring rather than ‘managing’~ Work/Life balance
Provide training to managers to create a supportive rather than dictatorial work environment.Provide career development opportunities, perhaps through shared roles with other Local Government bodies or in partnerships with private enterprise.Implement Total Reward Statements.Look for ways to reduce workplace hassles.Exit interviews; look at people leaving as a resource, obtain information about improving the workplace as they leave. See them as a pool of potential recruits to bring back into the fold after they’ve gone away and gained more knowledge from other organisations and competitors..
75
Focusing on the built environment workforce The following section of the review is divided into six parts which look at a range of key issues around attracting and retaining Built Environment Workforce staff in Local Government. These issues are;
~ Attracting Professional staff.
~ Positioning Local Government as an attractive employer.
~ Attracting Graduates.
~ Understanding Generational Differences; Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y.
~ Skilled Immigrants and people from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) backgrounds.
~ Being an Attractive Employer to Women.
Professional staff come with their own unique set of expectations as do graduates, people from different generations and cultural backgrounds, and women. All of these segments are important given the skills shortages in the Built Environment Workforce and neglecting any one group will put an organisation at a competitive disadvantage to its more inclusive peers.
76
Attracting professional staff Engineers, Planners and staff in the professions generally have a number of features resulting in unique attraction and retention needs. They generally have expectations around ongoing professional development, a strong desire for meaningful work, and are strongly driven to expect professional respect.
The results of a survey of employers who had recruited an urban or regional planner in 2006 (DEEWR, 2007) showed that 59% of the vacancies were filled by qualified planners within six weeks of advertising at that time. The results were lower however, at less than one third of positions filled, for senior planners. An interesting outcome of the survey was that, in respect of the strong demand for senior planners, each of state and local government recruiters held the view that they offer better remuneration than the other. Benefits offered to senior planners included flexible working hours, 9 day fortnight and use of a vehicle.
A key piece of research in the domain of attracting and retaining professional staff in Australia, “Attracting & Retaining Staff Engaged in Science, Engineering & Technology: A Review of National and International Best Practice” (Langford, 2006), is recommended reading for those wanting in-depth knowledge in this field. Its key findings in relation to Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) workers include;
~ Employers should aim to improve the workplace experience of mid and late-career employees to better retain existing staff, and to develop an attractive long-term career for prospective new SET workers.
~ The cost to benefit ratio of a SET career has been steadily worsening over recent decades with increasing education costs and a large gap between graduates financial aspirations and the lower financial rewards found in a majority of early career SET roles. This highlights the need for a Total Rewards Statement approach.
~ SET roles, by their nature, evolve constantly over time with technological and scientific developments. This makes ongoing training and development essential in SET roles and in many cases a requirement of ongoing professional registration.
~ Given market changes, concerns are rising about mismatches between new graduates’ skills and those required in available early-career employment opportunities.
~ Baby Boomers do have some unique needs owing to their life stage. Employers seeking to attract and retain older workers should give attention to ongoing training opportunities, flexible hours, and equal employment polices for older workers. (Generations are discussed more fully in a following section)
~ Skills shortages in the SET sector make it essential that employers look for ways to engage with women and minority groups such as recent immigrants, people of CALD backgrounds, and older and younger people. Targeted recruitment, mentoring, learning and development, flexible work hours and conditions are just some of the strategies that may be effective. (These groups are covered in following sections)
~ Sourcing workers from overseas through skilled migration programs, while carrying some unique risks and challenges – such as equivalence of overseas qualifications, culture shock and racism – can be an effective tool if used with appropriate cautions.
77
Attracting professional staff TOTAL REWARDS STATEMENTS – LEVERAGING THESE FOR PROFESSIONALS:
Total Rewards, already touched on previously, may be of particular relevance in attracting and retaining professional staff, such as engineers and planners. Because Total: Rewards takes a holistic approach to rewards, considering all of the rewards available to employees and not just financial ones, it is able to capture the key professional learning and development rewards of particular value to those engaged in the professions (Rumpel & Medcof, 2006). Rumpel and Medcof go on to note that by properly recognising their value proposition through a Total Rewards approach to the professions, organisations will be better able to sell themselves and meet their recruitment and retention challenges in areas of critical skills shortages.
WOMEN:
Attracting and retaining women in the Built Environment Workforce will be considered in a separate section to follow, but it is worth touching on issues around professional women at this point because the employment of women in science and engineering roles has its own set of potential issues (Rosser, 2003). These include balancing work with family responsibilities, assumptions that females employed in these fields must have obtained their job as a result of affirmative action rather than through their own skills and qualifications, and lack of ‘critical mass’ due to the low number of women in some fields.
LEVERAGING THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE:
In terms of attracting and retaining professional staff, such as Engineers and Planners, a number of implication can be drawn from the foregoing;~ Develop and market Total Rewards statements for workers in the professions, being mindful of the importance placed on professional development by many
professional employees.~ Ensure high performing SET workers are sufficiently rewarded.~ Provide flexibility in pay and condition structures to SET workers.~ Be prepared to play an increased role in training and developing SET staff, both through tertiary institutions – by providing work experience to undergraduates – and
directly once new SET workers come into your organisation.~ Develop an approach to flexibility of work arrangements that encourages female applicants.~ Target a sufficient proportion of women in professional roles to achieve ‘critical mass’ so women do not feel like a conspicuous minority whose right to be in a
professional role is doubted.
78
Positioning local government as an attractive employerLocal Government is a comparatively quiet achiever when compared to the media profile of the Federal and State levels of government. The scale of Local Government also places it in a similar market to many private enterprises rather than that of the super-departments which feature in the other levels of government. These differentiators are selling points, as is the focus by Local Government on specific geographic regions and specific communities.
In 2002 a group of eastern Victorian councils collaborated to commission a study into attraction and retention issues facing local government, particularly in rural areas. At that time, as now, Planners, Engineers, and Environmental Health professionals were in short supply so this was a particular challenge the councils sought to investigate. At that time Cardinia Council adopted one of the key strategies to come out of the study by launching a traineeship through an arrangement with Swinburne University which lead to a nationally accredited qualification. The joint accredited traineeship program provided the opportunity to redesign processes to reduce the amount of time planners spent on activities that could be carried out by less qualified staff. Since that time Cardinia has continued to take advantage of similar programs to alleviate skills shortages in planning. (See Case Studies for more information).
LEVERAGING THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE:
~ Consider using shared roles across councils to increase capacity and to provide a wider range or work options.
~ More lucrative competitors, such as State Government, who may be perceived as being able to offer a wider range of work options, can be more effectively countered by developing targeted EVP and Total Rewards approaches.
~ Look to partnerships with TAFE, universities and Registered Training Organisations to provide accredited on-the-job training as a way to alleviate skills shortages.
~ Offload functions from qualified professionals that can be undertaken by less qualified staff to enable qualified staff to get more work done.
79
Attracting graduates Graduates often come out of university with a strong sense of expertise in their field but little experience. This can lead to a gap between expectations and the realities of their first roles.
CURRICULUM DEFICIENCIES:
The curriculum of their degree program may not have prepared graduates for the adversarial nature of roles in Development Assessment, and their level of responsibility for ‘real’ decisions affecting real people may not be something they are ready for. Nor may their studies have properly prepared them with the knowledge they will need to work effectively as professionals in their chosen role.
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT:
Taylor (2005) conducted research into the motivational needs of new graduates from Australian universities. In particular it was noted that graduates do not arrive as ‘blank-slates’ but rather with a preconceived impression of the organisation upon which they have already based job seeking activities before applying for roles. Importantly this means organisations about which graduates have negative preconceptions may not get considered regardless of the other features of their employee value proposition. Taylor also found these preconceptions to be stable over time meaning that work done to improve impressions of an organisation may be long lasting, and go a long way to improving graduate recruitment success.
LEVERAGING THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE:
Improving the profile of both the specific roles and of the employers that take on the Built Environment Workforce in the minds of university students, beginning at the early undergraduate level, will have important implications for whether those graduates even consider these careers and therefore are sensitive to subsequent attempts to attract them. Strategies might include;
~ Presence at university career days.~ Promotion of Local Government roles in the wider media.~ Offering work experience whether a course requirement or not.~ Work placement may better prepare graduates for the realities of the workforce – such as their responsibility for real decisions, and the adversarial nature of some roles.~ Use recently recruited graduates to provide on-campus talks to students about the benefits of roles or organisations.~ Selling roles as being relevant to their studies. Gaining a clear understanding of what is being taught at university and highlighting to students how this will be used in
the real world.~ Providing guest speakers within coursework to raise the profile of roles in demand.~ Engaging with Generation Y from which most graduates will be drawn (see next section).
80
Understanding generational differencesBABY BOOMERS, GENERATION X AND GENERATION Y:
So who are the Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y anyway? Before discussing even that, two important caveats should be borne in mind about these labels.
~ Firstly, a person’s generation might be one factor in their expectations and approach to work, but there are myriad other factors. One should be cautious about taking generalisations about any generation too literally and assuming all people of a certain age will behave a certain way.
~ Secondly, while these terms are generally understood in a fuzzy-edged kind of way by many in business today, the terms are approximate, not rigorously defined, with contestable boundary years.
These points aside, here are some widely accepted, work oriented definitions;
~ Baby Boomers grew up in the period following the Second World War and entered the job market in a period of full employment prior to the arrival of the desktop computer.
~ Generation X grew up in the 1970s and 80s, entered the workforce in a period of high unemployment, and encountered ‘new technologies’ such as computers, fax machines and mobile phones as they did so.
~ Generation Y, the youngest workers in the today’s workforce, grew up in the 1990s, were heavily exposed to technology at home and in school, then entered a workforce already fully driven by well established information technology with moderate job availability.
The table overleaf, adapted from Jones Lang LaSalle’s The Future Office Report (2005), and supplemented from Aussie Rules: Business Blogs from Downunder (Lourenco, 2009), fleshes out these definitions a little more and begins to give some insight into the different experiences and expectations of the generations in today’s workforce.
81Understanding generational differences
Easy jobsMass downsizingEasy jobs
Value teamworkDesire autonomyProcess focused
Expect to change jobs regularlyDesire work/life balanceTake a job for life
Demand more flexibilityWould like more flexibilityAccustomed to being at work
Break the rulesHate the rulesMade the rules
Would like to be at the topHeading to the topAt the top
Independent contractorsWhy should I be loyal?Loyal to the end
Promote me or I’m goingGet me to the corner office now!Slow and steady to the top
Heading to the workplaceHeading to peak earning yearsHeading to retirement
Work
Yet to have familiesFamilies growingFamilies now downsizing
Are the youth!Understand youthCan’t understand youth
Technologically savvyTechnology is ‘next big thing’Technophobes
Highest potentialHighest income nowHighest wealth now
Change is goodAccustomed to changeNervous about change
Free time decreasingNo free timeFree time increasing
So far, the best educatedEven better educatedMany educated
Education costs soarEducation costs riseFree/cheap education
Privileged offspringGeneration eXcluded?Privileged youth
Life
Generation Y (1977 – ????)Generation X (1962 – 1976)Baby Boomers (1946 – 1961)
LIFE AND WORK STYLES BY GENERATION *
*It is important to remember that these generations are loosely defined, and that the behaviour and values of an individual are the result of many, many factors only one of which is their generation.
82
Understanding generational differencesHaving established who the generations in today’s workforce are, it will be useful to begin to consider what differences might exist in terms of attracting and retaining peoplefrom each of these cohorts.
Firstly, there are two types of differences between the generations. The first is a matter of logistics. Typically Baby Boomers are advanced in their career, occupying or expecting to occupy senior roles, highly knowledgeable, and perhaps approaching retirement. These things are so simply because of the age of the Baby Boomers. Meanwhile Generation Y will be in the opposite position, new to the workforce, relatively inexperienced, and with a lifetime in the workforce ahead of them. These kinds of differences exist simply because of the age and life-stage of the various generations.
The second class of differences between the generations – and the ones people tend to start thinking about first – are the more cultural or values-driven differences. These are the differences that are harder to pin point and have arisen out of the experiences and events each generation had as they grew up and entered the workforce. They include differences in company loyalty (high for Baby Boomers, lower for Gen X, lowest for Gen Y), expectations around promotion (lowest for Baby Boomers – but they’ve already got there, highest for Gen Y), willingness to follow orders (high for Boomers, low for Gens X and Y), and so on. Unlike the first set of differences however, these are highly variable and while there might be truth in them on the whole, individual differences are likely to play as big a role for a specific employee as is their generation.
When talking about ways of attracting and retaining the various generations it is important to consider which type of difference is salient – logistical or values based – and to think about how the likely level of variability between candidates will blur the lines between strategies that might be used.
Some generation related strategies follow below and overleaf.
LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT:
In terms of retaining older workers (Armstrong-Stassen & Ursel, 2009) concluded that learning and development targeted to Baby Boomers, and tailored to their needs, is important to build and maintain a perception of organisation support. This support in turn relates to career satisfaction and improved retention. Providing interesting and meaningful work was also found to be important.
83
Understanding generational differencesATTRACTING GENERATION Y:
Jones Lang LaSalle (2005) note that very few Generation Ys would begin working for an organisation with the expectation that they would remain there for the rest of their lives. They also note that many Generation Ys who are actually permanent employees sometimes behave as though they are contractors ready to leave if not given the opportunities they expect.
According to “Not Everyone Gets A Trophy: Managing Generation Y” (Tulgan, 2009), Generation Y bring enthusiasm and valuable skills to the workplace which can be leveraged by effective managers whose style embraces their mindset. In his "Top 14 Myths about Generation Y in the Workplace" he counters a number of assumptions with more constructive versions. For example, "They want the top job on day one" isn't true he says, but he notes they do want to make a difference from day one. On the topic of Gen Y not respecting their elders, he notes this is not generally true, but observes that they do expect more respect in return than did prior generations when first starting out.
In "Valuing generational differences key to attracting and retaining staff" (Chartered Accountants, 2008) it was noted that Australia is experiencing a skills shortage resulting, according to Avril Henry at the Chartered Accountants Business Forum, in a need for employers "to create a more positive work environment which understands and accepts that different generations are motivated differently." Henry went on to say,
~ "Gen Y want effective leadership. They want to work smarter not harder. They have become known as the 'why?' generation, not because they want to question authority but because they are driven to do things that are meaningful. Any employer that responds with 'this is the way it has always been done' will never retain a Generation Y employee."
EXPLOITING GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES:
Lourenco (2009) suggests that generational differences can be used to the advantage of the whole workplace. Examples include Gen Xs desire for work/life balance which might also manifest as retirement options for Baby Boomers, and flexibility to suit social lives for Gen Ys. Similarly Gen Y's pursuit of a fun environment is something Gen X and Baby Boomers would probably also welcome. Also, Gen Ys craving to learn and develop presents an opportunity for Gen X and the Baby Boomers to share their knowledge and in the process to move toward a workplace where succession planning is more integrated and less of an onerous task.
84
Understanding generational differencesGLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS – A GENERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:
While it has become something of a cliché to speak of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in business reports, it does have a number of clear implications according to thegenerational cohort of one’s employees.
For Baby Boomers the GFC is likely to be delaying retirement plans due to devalued superannuation investments and also increasing reluctance to change jobs which may risk further financial strain. In short, it is a strong driver of temporarily increased retention in this group. The GFC factor must be treated with caution however since general market consensus appears to place the expected recovery of retirement investments at about the year 2013. This may signal a surge in retirements commencing in two to three years.
Generation X is also likely to experience a temporary increase in retention through worries about changing jobs in a tight market whilst needing to remain focused on the financial needs of their families. As with the Baby Boomers however, as the employment market returns toward full employment, especially in professional fields, pent-up demand for a change of scenery may lead to a surge in resignations as Gen Xers seek greener pastures. While the Baby Boomers may need to wait a few years for their nest-eggs to recover, the job market is likely to recover more quickly since it does not need to rebuild in the same way an investment does, so the pick up in Gen X turn-over may begin sooner than the retirement surge of Baby Boomers.
Speaking more generally about the GFC, Gupta (2008) lists some important strategies for retaining staff during uncertain times;
~ Remember that salary is generally third or fourth on staff’s priority list behind things like career advancement and work environment. Don’t think increasing wages is the only way to retain staff, especially when profits are being squeezed.
~ Consider the full costs involved in rehiring staff when times improve before you allow ‘attrition’, or impose ‘downsizing’, to shrink your workforce.• Cutting staff may not be the smartest first response. • Focus on improving productivity and cutting other costs. • Encourage staff to find ways to beat the downturn. • Encourage holidays and consider new rostering arrangements.
~ Openly communicate with staff about what is happening to allay concerns that might lead to unwarranted job seeking behaviour and eventually loss of key employees.
85Understanding generational differences
LEVERAGING THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE:
While Generation X expects flexibility and may be less committed without it, they are looking for flexibility around their needs – often young families with childcare and family commitments. To this end, making packages available which empower Gen Xs to make their own decisions around flexible working hours, childcare, leave, job-sharing, part-time and other benefits should appeal to their values around flexible working practices and their key driver of work-life balance (Charrier, 2000; Brand, 1999; Messer, 2001; Mineard, 2003; Whetstone, Reed & Turner, 2006).Jones Lang LaSalle (2005) note that Gen Ys value mobility and flexibility so an emphasis on these aspects of work should improve attractiveness to this group. Facebook and other social networking sites are one of the most commonly used methods of communication for Generation Y and, to a lesser extent, some of Generation X. Facebook permits professional associations, universities, workplaces and others to create groups and communicate with interested parties on issues of interest. Creating such groups, and liaising with existing groups, may be a powerful and highly targeted way of reaching Gen Ys.One of the key defining characteristics of Gen X is their willingness to question authority. Charrier (2000), Mineard (2003), and Taylor (2005) have variously described Gen X as having little respect for authority, a preparedness to skip over the chain of command, and a willingness to openly question why things are done they way they are. Their belief that respect is earned also means they are unlikely to respond well to an autocratic style of management. Effectively managing Gen X is more about working with them as a performance coach rather than ‘leading’ them in the traditional way, building a team environment, asking their opinions, and involving them in the decision making process (Charrier, 2000).With their strong focus on training and development, the opportunity to enhance their knowledge will be an attractor for Gen X. This is a double-edged sword however. Developing skills will only be beneficial to retention if those skills are then utilised in an expanding job role with development prospects. Providing development which is not used may become a driver of career change if expectations are not carefully managed.Generation Ys comfort with technology means they are likely to embrace the use of the internet not only at the recruitment stage, but also in a Learning and Development context. On-line learning tools are a strongly emerging area that may be leveraged to provide the training and development expected by Gen Y while containing costs and down-time compared to other methods of training.Both Generations X and Y value feedback as a sign that their work is important and meaningful. Gen Xs seek reaffirmation that they have a reason to stay, that their aspirations are taken seriously, and that they have input into processes. Gen Ys see these things as an essential right, an assumed part of work. They demand value in their work as a stepping stone toward the success they see as a deserved and key to their work life.Messer (2001) advocates regular, personal feedback either through short measurable projects, or delivered at frequent milestones through large projects. Messer also advocates the use of salary as a form of feedback through short salary review cycles linked to performance and rewards tied to specific achievements. Now is a key time to begin succession planning for Baby Boomer employees. While those near retirement are likely to defer retirement plans for a few years the upcoming rush of retirements into the middle of the next decade is a serious threat to organisations which fail to plan for this predictable event. Now is also a key time to make sure Generation X know they are valued and have scope for career progression in line with their desire to reach the top. Even though staff turn-over rates are softer than would normally be the case people are still ‘collecting evidence’ to decide what their next career move will be.
86Skilled immigrants and CALD groups
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Groups include people for whom English is not their first language, people from cultures different to ‘mainstream’ Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples, as well as immigrants and refugees.
According to the State Services Authority of Victoria the following should be considered when considering skilled immigration:~ Consider working with other organisations to collectively target groups of potential employees and to share the load of an overseas recruitment effort.~ Seek the advice of experienced overseas recruiters as to the requirements of and the strategies that work best in particular markets. ~ Be aware that immigration policy and visa conditions change, so keep up to date with the employer obligations under the different visas.~ To retain overseas staff it is important to support them and their family to settle into the local area and help them build connections in the community.~ Likewise, it is important to be honest with overseas candidates about the job, location and lifestyle.
CALD groups can be impacted by the culture and values of an organisation to a greater extent than other groups of employees. Policies and behaviours around inclusivity, ethics, collaboration and team work can be especially important to those from collectivist cultures such as those across Asia. The presence, or lack of, co-workers from simular cultural backgrounds can also be an important determinant of perceived acceptance and job satisfaction. Other issues include;
~ If CALD workers are seen only in specific roles within an organisation a them-and-us culture can develop, so strategies which see diverse people represented across a range of roles are important.
~ Realistic and equitable career development for CALD workers may require special considerations, for example English as a Second Language training for CALD workers, or Cross-Cultural training for all workers.
~ Fully integrating CALD workers may not happen rapidly for some groups, but it is better to make slow progress and be seen as an employer of choice for these groups than to miss out on this valuable talent pool.
LEVERAGING THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE:
Speak to HR departments to determine if the resources exist within the organisation to recruit from overseas and, if not look to building that capacity, either in-house or in partnership with other Local Government bodies or private enterprise.
Implement cross-cultural training and use this to leverage a greater acceptance in the CALD talent pool.
Consider how organisational values might be improved to embrace CALD workers.
Aim to match staffing diversity in all areas of your organisation with the diversity of the community – thereby maximising use of available talent and improving organisational reputation in the wider community.
87Being an attractive employer to women
Many of the Built Environment Workforce professions have been historically favoured by males with few female professionals present in this segment. With affirmative action policies now twenty to thirty years old however the time has more than come to consider women as an important potential applicant pool across a wide range of non-traditional professions.
PERSON-ENVIRONMENT FIT:
From an academic perspective the Person-Environment (P-E) Fit Theory has application here because it begins to unpack how the fit between a person’s values and those of the workplace play an important role in determining the attractiveness of particular roles and employers. It draws attention to the need to understand what values potential employee groups have and how these might result in segments of the community being less attracted to particular roles because they just don’t ‘fit’. Caplan (1987) found that P-E fit is a good predictor of job selection outcomes, employee satisfaction and retention. Caplan’s research also strongly suggests that when the ‘fit’ is good, ratings of organisational attractiveness increase.
Thinking specifically about women, Campbell, Christman and Feigelson (2000) found that the following aspects of a workplace are of particular importance to women;~ A supportive work environment;
• good co-worker relations• comfortable conditions• supervisors are considerate and fair, and seen to be so
~ Job enrichment;• interesting work• opportunities to employ a variety of skills• timely and effective feedback on work• feelings of having achieved something worthwhile
~ Family friendly work policies;• flexibility around maternity / parenting leave• flexibility around childcare issues – hours of work tailored to suit or on-site childcare• flexibility of work hours to suit family responsibilities
Recent research has looked into other implications of Person-Organisation Ethical Fit (Coldwell, Billberry, van Meurs & Marsh, 2008) and noted that the closer the fit the better the retention outcome, as well as the on-the-job behavioural outcomes. Simply put, employees who are a good fit work better and stay longer. This highlights the importanceof designing recruitment activities that properly reflect the values of the organisation so that attracted people are the right fit for the organisation.
88Being an attractive employer to women
LEVERAGING THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE:
Attraction and recruitment strategies targeting women, or aiming to be inclusive of women, should ensure that those aspects of work particularly important to women are addressed clearly and prominently. Prussel and Lonsway (2001) recommend emphasising themes that are particularly attractive to women including the opportunities to use a variety of skills in an enriched way, and – vitally – organisational policies around flexibly and an understanding stance toward family obligations. Lords and Friday (2003) add that the communication, liaison, listening, and service provision aspects of work be highlighted.
Prussel and Lonsway (2001) also suggest ensuring organisational websites are ‘woman friendly’ by including specific mentions of issues likely to be of concern to female applicants, such as maternity leave, flexible arrangements around family issues, and assurances that applicants are sought on merit without bias against women of childbearing age.
89Case studies
MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA – GOGRAD:
Recruiting graduates to work in Local Government, especially in roles with skills shortages such as Engineering, Strategic Planning and Geographical Information Systems, has been an ongoing problem given the relatively small size of some Local Government bodies compared to some of the other recruiters in the marketplace. Without scale it is challenging to maintain market presence and to provide sufficient intake activity to get noticed. The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) embarked upon its GoGradprogram in 2004 to enable Local Government bodies to collectively access the graduate market in a more competitive way. GoGrad has successfully placed graduates in Built Environment Workforce roles. The 2007 GoGrad program included three intakes and continuous marketing to maintain momentum and improve its position in the competitive graduate recruitment market.
NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL, UK: ATTRACTING MINORITY CANDIDATES:
Norfolk County Council identified that “black and minority ethnic” (BME) residents were not represented in council employment in proportion to their presence in the community. To address this they determined that they wanted to increase confidence levels in BME residents in the council as an employer, address misconceptions about public sector recruitment within recently-arrived BME communities, tackle barriers to employment, and engage BME groups in designing a major county-wide recruitment event.
Norfolk County Council set up a “Let’s Meet” group between themselves and BME job-seekers, running an initial series of meetings to build relationships and trust, followed by discussion of barriers to employment. Out of this process, Norfolk determined that the key issues included: lack of understanding of recruitment practices, lack of awareness of available careers, a perception the some career paths would be more open to BME applicants than other paths, and that these barriers were unique to BME job seekers.
Learning from this information, council rearranged their recruitment event to make it more open plan and accessible, and employed BME ushers to assist BME attendees to feel more able to fully engage in the event. They also included images of BME persons in the brochure for the event
The recruitment event was a success with over 9% of attendees coming from BME groups, higher than their 6% representation in the population. Feedback on the event was overwhelmingly positive from BME participants.
90Case studies
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION:
Critical shortages in the Western Australian Local Government sector have motivated the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) to launch a program to attract recent graduates into the sector, the “Get on Board” initiative. The campaign includes State-wide television advertising, overseas recruitment assistance, and a series of employment expos delivered in WA and overseas.
A key part of “Get on Board” is a promotional pack designed to show students the range of career options available in Local Government. The pack contains information including an overview of Local Government and the career pathways available, including those in the Built Environment Workforce.
CARDINIA SHIRE COUNCIL (EASTERN VICTORIA):
A group of eastern Victorian councils experiencing critical shortages in Built Environment Workforce roles commissioned a report into attraction and retention of these professionals and embraced some of the recommended strategies. Key amongst these was the formation of partnerships with Registered Training Organisations to create trainee positions which could lead to formal qualification and simultaneously fulfil functions that normally required the time and attention of scarce planning professionals.
Cardinia Shire Council and others have joined with Swinburne University, the Municipal Association of Victoria, and Link Employment and Training to take advantage of the Town Planning Traineeship Program to assist Local Government to meet their staffing requirements in this hard-to-fill role. This gives the council access to valued planning capacity as well as giving the applicants experience and a Certificate IV qualification in planning. Similar Certificate IV employees are employed in allied roles in South Australian Local Government bodies.
91Selected bibliography and further reading
The following bibliography highlights both academic and business sources of information, organised under broad subject headings. A number of articles or books for suggested further reading have been highlighted.
ATTRACTING AND RETAINING TALENTThe Effects of Person – Organisation Ethical Fit on Employee Attraction and Retention: Towards a Testable, Explanatory Model. David Coldwell, John Billsberry,
Nathalie van Meurs, Phillip Marsh. Journal of Business Ethics, 2008.The Influence of Workplace Attraction on Recruitment and Retention. Norman Amundsen. Journal of Employment Counseling, 2007.Attracting and Retaining Talent: Exploring Human Resource Development Trends in Australia. Peter Holland, Cathy Sheenan, Helen de Ceire. Monash University,
Australia. Human Resource Development International. 2007.Top 10 Compensation Concerns in (an) Uncertain Economy – & Real-life solutions. Report on Salary Surveys. Institute of Management and Administration. 2008.Total Rewards Statements Promote Attraction, Retention. Sheryl Smolkin. Employee Benefit News. 2007.Total Rewards: Good Fit for Tech Workers. Steven Rumpel, John Medcof. Research Technology, Management. 2006.Attracting and Retaining Staff Engaged in Science, Engineering, and Technology: A review of National and International Best Practice. Dr. Peter Langford.
Macquarie University, NSW, 2006. Attracting and Retaining Engineers: The Global War for Talent. Road Runner…. Pavement Management Services. 2007. Urban and Regional Planner: Employer and Industry Comments / Current Labour Market DEEWR, 2007.Peer Support Program. Centre for Organisation Development. 2002.Predictors of Job Satisfaction, Psychological Strain, and Employee Retention: An Evaluation of Organisational Change within the New Zealand Customs Service.
Angela Mansell, Paula Brough, Kevin Cole. Victoria University (Wellington, NZ), Griffith University, Australia, NZ Customs Service. International Journal of Stress Management, 2006.
Do Promises Matter? An Exploration of the Role of Promises in Psychological Contract Breach. Samantha Montes, David Zweig, University of Toronto, Canada. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009.
Changes in Newcomer Job Satisfaction Over Time: Examining the Pattern of Honeymoons and Hangovers. Wendy Boswell, Abbie Shipp, Stephanie Payne, Satoris Culbertson. Texas A&M University, Kansas State University. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2009.
Turnover Contagion: How Co-workers’ Job Embeddedness and Job search Behaviours Influence Quitting. Will Felps, Terence Mitchell, David Hekman, Thomas Lee, Brooks Holtom, Wendy Harmon. Academy of Management Journal, 2009.
Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction: An Analysis of Interactive Effects. Guangping Wang, Peggy Lee. Group and Organisation Management. 2009.Career Management Programs Key to Attracting and Retaining Staff: Hudson Report. Kathryn Powditch, Emma Canning. Hudson, 2006.Recruiting and Retaining Staff in a High-Pressure Environment. Philippa Crome. Department of Finance and Administration. 2008.Retaining Staff During Difficult Times. Passion@People. ANZ Bank. 2009.
92Selected bibliography and further reading (continued)
The following bibliography highlights both academic and business sources of information, organised under broad subject headings. A number of articles or books for suggested further reading have been highlighted.
DIVERSITY
The Diversity – Validity Dilemma: Beyond Selection – The Role of Affirmative Action. David A. Kravitz, George Mason University, Virginia, USA. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 2008.
When and How Diversity benefits Teams: The Importance of Team Members’ Need for Cognition. Eric Kearney, Diether Gebert, Sven Voelpel. Jacobs University, Germany, Korea University, Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 2009.
Attracting and Retaining Women in Science and Engineering. Sue Rosser. Academe Online. 2003.
Perceived Organisational Support, Career Satisfaction, and the Retention of Older Workers. Marjorie Armstrong-Stassen, Nancy Ursel. University of Windsor, Canada. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology. 2009.
GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES
Not Everyone Gets a Trophy: How to Manage Generation Y. Bruce Tulgan. (Book, Publisher Jossey-Bass) San Francisco, 2009.
Communication Breakdown? Melissa Lourenco. Aussie Rules: Business blogs from Downunder. 2009.
Valuing generational differences key to attracting and retaining staff. Chartered Accountants: Number 1 in Numbers. 2008.
Retention and Intention in Teaching Careers; Will the New Generation Stay? Lindsey Smethem. Univserity of Nottingham, UK, Teachers and Teaching. 2007.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECTOR
Attracting and Retaining Staff: A guide for the Public Sector in Rural and Regional Victoria. State Services Authority (Victoria). 2009.
Attracting Students to a Career in Local Government. Western Australian Local Government Association. 2008.
Local Government 2020: Leadership. www.lgpro.com/forum/. 2009.
Health and Ageing: Impact on Local Government. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. 2008.
APPENDIX 1: Margin for error & statistical significance
94Explaining margin for error
Because nearly all market and social research evaluates results based on population samples, rather than a census where everyone is consulted, there is an inherent degree of error in the results. However, if the sample obtained is a properly randomised section of the target population, there are statistical tests that will calculate the degree of accuracy for those results - known as the margin for error or Confidence Interval. Unfortunately for the layperson, there is no single figure that says, 'this is a statistically significant difference'. The factors that go into the calculation of statistical differences include:
~ population size - the total number of people in the target audience, not in the whole population. For example, if an organisation were researching its casual staff'’s views on weekend work, the 'population' would be the total number of casual staff.
~ sample size - the number of respondents, or people taking part in a survey.~ the desired level of confidence in the result - for example, a 95% confidence level simply means that, if we ran the identical survey and sampling methodology
100 times, you would expect to get a result within the calculated margin for error 95 times out of 100. ~ the proximity of the result to the midpoint.
This latter element (proximity to the midpoint) means that, regardless of sample or population size, a figure close to 50% is inherently less reliable than a figure close to 100%. As an example, if you wish to be 95% confident in the results for a population (N) of 1 million and a sample (n) of 400, a result of 50% would be subject to a ±4.9% maximum margin for error. In other words, you could be 95% confident that the real result would be somewhere between 45.1% and 54.9%. However, with the same population, sample and 95% Confidence Level, a result of 90% saying yes or no would be subject to a margin for error of only ±2.94%, i.e. the real result would be between 87.06% and 92.94%.The following graphs may illustrate more clearly the way margin for error works. In each case, we have calculated the confidence interval for the results. If the intervals overlap, then the differences are not statistically significant; if there is no overlap, they are reliably different.
EXAMPLE 1: PROPORTIONS CHOOSING ANSWER 'A'
5446
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sub-group 1 Sub-group 2
% of
resp
onde
nts (n
=400
from
pop'n
1 mi
llion)
The blue error bars show the ± margin for error at the 95% confidence level.
The dotted blue line indicates whether the error bars overlap. If they do, the results are not significantly different.
EXAMPLE 2: PROPORTIONS CHOOSING ANSWER 'A'
60
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sub-group 1 Sub-group 2
% of
resp
onde
nts (n
=400
from
pop'n
1 mi
llion)
INTERPRETING RESULTS:Fortunately, researchers no longer have to check every result manually; our statistical analysis software packages tell us when figures are statistically different from one another and at what confidence level. However, the skill of the trained researcher is in interpreting the results and considering context, not just checking the numbers. For example, suppose that significantly more people aged 65-74 were aware of advertising for a sports store than people aged 75-84. It is significant, but is it relevant - in the context of the product and its major target audience of, say; active people aged 15-54? It is critical to good analysis that we judge relevance andhighlight the key issues, not waste clients' time by just regurgitating numbers that the computer says are statistically different.
APPENDIX 2: Questionnaire
968038 PLANNING INSTITUTE - WORKFORCE & EVALUATION PROJECT ~ NOV. 2009
"Welcome to the survey exploring issues associated with being in the planning, environmental health and building surveying professions. This study aims to provide valuable information to your professional associations (PIA, EHA and AIBS), the Local Government Association, State Government and other employer groups about the issues faced by people working in these professions and how these challenges might be addressed.
The study is being funded by the Local Government Research and Development Scheme and we thank them for their support.
This survey will take a little while to complete (possibly up to half an hour) as there are a lot of different issues faced by people in your professions. However, you may close the survey at any time and return later to where you left off, simply by opening the invitation email and clicking again on the START SURVEY link you followed to get here.
his survey is entirely confidential. Any identifying information (such as your email address) is removed from the data before we begin any analysis and no one other than Harrison Research will have access to the raw data. Your honest answers to the questions posed in this survey will enable us to provide the best help to improve your industries.
Q1. "SECTION 1: TO START WITH, WE WOULD LIKE A LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT YOU, TO ENSURE WE DO NOT BOTHER YOU WITH IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS."
Q2. Which category best describes your current employer? [N.B. People on unpaid leave - e.g. maternity, study leave etc. - should still consider themselves in the workforce.]"
1. State Government2. Local Government3. Commercial organisation - not self employed4. Self employed consultant5. Not-for-profit organisation6. Nor currently in the workforce (retired, studying, unemployed, etc.)7. Other (SPECIFY Q201)
Q3. Including you, approximately how many staff in total are employed in your organisation? If unsure, please provide your best estimate."1. One (sole operator)2. 2-4 employees3. 5-19 employees4. 20-99 employees5. 100-199 employees6. 200+ employees7. Don't know
97
Q4. Including you, approximately how many staff associated with the built environment (planners, environmental health, building surveyors, administration staff, managers, etc.) are employed in your organisation? If unsure, please provide your best estimate."
1. One (sole operator)2. 2-4 employees3. 5-19 employees4. 20-99 employees5. 100-199 employees6. 200+ employees7. Don't know
Q5. At what level is your current position?"1. Business owner / Director / CEO2. Senior manager 3. Mid-level manager4. Team leader/supervisor5. Non-supervising officer
Q6. Which of the following best describes you/your area of expertise?"MR
1. Building surveyor2. Engineering3. Environmental health officer4. Development assessment planner5. Environmental planner6. Open space and/or recreation planner7. Social planner8. Policy / strategy planner9. Transport planner10. Other (SPECIFY Q601)
98Q7. Which, if any, of the following professional bodies do you currently belong to?"MR
1. PIA - Planning Institute of Australia2. AIBS - Australian Institute of Building Surveyors3. EHA - Environmental Health Australia4. AIM - Australian Institute of Management5. AICD - Australian Institute of Company Directors6. Other (SPECIFY Q701) 7. None
Q8. How long in total have you worked for your current organisation?1. Less than 1 year2. 1-2 years3. 3-5 years4. 6-10 years5. 11+ years
Q9. How long have you worked in your current role for your current organisation?1. Less than 1 year2. 1-2 years3. 3-5 years4. 6-10 years5. 11+ years
Q10. How long in total have you worked in your current profession?1. Less than 1 year2. 1-2 years3. 3-5 years4. 6-10 years5. 11+ years
Q11. If this is not your first professional job after graduating, please indicate who was your last employer."1. State Government2. Local Government3. Commercial organisation - not self employed4. Self employed consultant5. Not-for-profit organisation6. Other (SPECIFY Q1101) 7. Not applicable - first professional job
99Q12. "SECTION 2: BEFORE WE GET INTO MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS, WE'D LIKE TO GET YOUR SPONTANEOUS THOUGHTS ON WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU PERSONALLY WHEN LOOKING FOR A JOB."
Q13. Without thinking about their relative order, what are the three to five MOST IMPORTANT factors you personally would seek when looking for a new job? NOTE 1: YOU WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED TO SELECT UP TO 5 ITEMS.NOTE 2: IF OTHER FACTORS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ONE LISTED, PLEASE CLICK ON ONE OF THE 'OTHER' FIELDS AND TYPE IN USING JUST A FEW WORDS. PLEASE KEEP EACH COMMENT TO ONLY ONE FACTOR."RND
1. Supportive organisational culture2. Professional co-workers and managers3. Organisation's professional reputation4. Interesting / stimulating work5. The type of work / tasks / role involved6. Location7. Salary / remuneration8. Promotion opportunities9. Opportunities for ongoing learning / professional development10. Size of the team11. Small/medium organisation12. Large organisation13. Government organisation14. Commercial organisation15. Local (SA only) organisation16. National organisation17. International organisation18. Work / life balance19. Flexible work arrangements20. Job security21. Other factor 1 (SPECIFY Q1301) 22. Other factor 2 (SPECIFY Q1302) 23. Other factor 3 (SPECIFY Q1303) 24. Other factor 4 (SPECIFY Q1304) 25. Other factor 5 (SPECIFY Q1305)
Q14. Now we would like you to assign 100 points between the factors you listed in the last question, based on THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE to you personally when looking for a new job. Obviously, the more points you assign to an individual factor, the more important you consider it to be. Please put a number against each factor, including 0 if you wish. The total must be 100.
CHECKSUM=100
100Q15. "SECTION 3: WE WOULD LIKE TO GET A PICTURE OF HOW BOTH FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS, AS WELL AS FORMAL AND INFORMAL TRAINING AND MENTORING, OCCUR ACROSS THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PROFESSIONS, SO THE NEXT FEW QUESTIONS WILL COVER THESE ISSUES."
Q16. What type of formal qualifications have you completed relevant to the technical aspects of your job? PLEASE DETAIL ALL YOU HAVE COMPLETED "MR
1. Trade Certification (SPECIFY Q1601)2. Other Certificate (SPECIFY Q1602)3. Undergraduate Diploma (SPECIFY Q1603)4. Bachelor Degree (SPECIFY Q1604) 5. Post-graduate Diploma (SPECIFY Q1605)6. MBA7. Masters Degree other than MBA (SPECIFY Q1606)8. PhD9. Other (SPECIFY Q1607)
Q17. What type of formal training or qualifications, if any, have you completed relevant to managing staff? PLEASE DETAIL, AND PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER THIS TRAINING WAS IN-HOUSE OR EXTERNAL"(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q18. Have you been involved in RECEIVING any direct mentoring, in-house or externally, either informally or through a formal mentoring situation arranged, for example, through your workplace or professional association? PLEASE MARK MORE THAN ONE IF APPLICABLE"MR
1. Received formal (coordinated) mentoring - in-house2. Received formal (coordinated) mentoring - externally3. Received informal mentoring - in-house4. Received informal mentoring - externally5. Have not received any mentoring ] Q30
Q19. If you have received formal mentoring from more than one mentor, or informal mentoring from more than one mentor, please indicate in each case whether your most recent mentor(s) were in-house or external.MR
1. Most recent formal mentor was in-house2. Most recent formal mentor was external3. Most recent informal mentor was in-house4. Most recent informal mentor was external5. I have had only one mentor
IF 1 OR 2 IN Q18 GO Q20JP GO Q22JP
101Q20. How effective or ineffective for you personally was the FORMAL mentoring you most recently received? "1. Very effective2. Quite effective3. Not very effective4. Not at all effective
Q21. Why do you say that and how, if at all, could it have been improved? PLEASE GIVE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN AVOID NAMES IF YOU WISH. ANYTHING YOU SAY HERE WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, READ ONLY BY HARRISON RESEARCH "(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q22JP=0
IF NOT 3 OR 4 IN Q18 GO Q24
Q22. How effective or ineffective for you personally was the INFORMAL mentoring you most recently received was? "1. Very effective2. Quite effective3. Not very effective4. Not at all effective
Q23. Why do you say that and how, if at all, could it have been improved? PLEASE GIVE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN AVOID NAMES IF YOU WISH. ANYTHING YOU SAY HERE WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, READ ONLY BY HARRISON RESEARCH "(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q24. Have you been involved in PROVIDING any direct mentoring, either through a formal mentoring situation and informally? PLEASE MARK MORE THAN ONE IF APPLICABLE"MR
1. Provided formal (coordinated) mentoring - in-house2. Provided formal (coordinated) mentoring - externally3. Provided informal mentoring - in-house4. Provided informal mentoring - externally5. Have not provided any mentoring ] Q30
102Q25. If you have provided formal mentoring for more than one mentee, or informal mentoring for more than one mentee, please indicate in each case whether your most recent mentee(s) were in-house or external.MR
1. Most recent formal mentee was in-house2. Most recent formal mentee was external3. Most recent informal mentee was in-house4. Most recent informal mentee was external5. I have had only one mentee
IF NOT 1 OR 2 IN Q24 GO Q28JP
Q26. How effective or ineffective do you think the most recent FORMAL mentoring you provided was?"1. Very effective2. Quite effective3. Not very effective4. Not at all effective
Q27. Why do you say that and how, if at all, could it have been improved? PLEASE GIVE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN AVOID NAMES IF YOU WISH. ANYTHING YOU SAY HERE WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, READ ONLY BY HARRISON RESEARCH "(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q28JP=0
IF NOT 3 OR 4 IN Q18 GO Q30
Q28. How effective or ineffective do you think the most recent INFORMAL mentoring you provided was?"1. Very effective2. Quite effective3. Not very effective4. Not at all effective
Q29. Why do you say that and how, if at all, could it have been improved? PLEASE GIVE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN AVOID NAMES IF YOU WISH. ANYTHING YOU SAY HERE WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, READ ONLY BY HARRISON RESEARCH "(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q30. How easy or difficult is it for you personally to get organisational support for professional development? SCALE PROVIDED WAS 0 VERY DIFFICULT TO 10 VERY EASY, WITH A DON'T KNOW OPTION"
103* next filter redirects self-employedIF 4 IN Q2 SKIP Q37
Q31.`What, if any, additional training would you personally like to be able to take on?MR
1. Short course (1-3 days) on - (SPECIFY Q3101) 2. Certificate course on - (SPECIFY Q3102)3. Diploma - (SPECIFY Q3103)4. Bachelor degree - (SPECIFY Q3104)5. Post-graduate Diploma in - (SPECIFY Q3105)6. Masters degree in - (SPECIFY Q3106)7. PhD in - (SPECIFY Q3107)8. Other (SPECIFY Q3108) 9. None at this stage
Q32. Do you expect your employer or current organisation to pay for this training?1. Yes - expect full reimbursement / payment2. Yes - shared cost - expect partial reimbursement / payment3. No4. Don't know
Q33. Do you expect your employer to allow you time off to study?1. Yes2. No3. Don't know
Q34A What types of support, if any, does your employer currently provide to employees undertaking work-related study? PLEASE CLICK ON ALL THAT APPLYMR
1. Full reimbursement / payment2. Shared cost - partial reimbursement / payment3. Time off to study4. Travel if study not local5. Accommodation if study not local6. Other (SPECIFY Q3401) 7. Don't know what, if anything, would be available8. Employer does not provide support for training
104*redirects execsIF 1 IN Q5 SKIP Q37
Q34. Has your current employer given you any opportunities to act in a more senior role?"1. Yes2. No
Q34B How important is it to you personally to be given opportunities to act in a more senior role? SCALE PROVIDED WAS 0 NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT TO 10 EXTREMELY IMPORTANT"
IF 2 IN Q34 GO Q39
Q35. Did you receive any formal training or mentoring in order to act in the more senior role?"1. Yes2. No
IF 1 IN Q35 GO Q37
Q36. Did this lack of training cause you any problems?1. Yes2. No
Q37. Has your organisation take on any trainees, cadets or interns in your area in the past 12 months?1. Yes2. No3. Don't know
IF 2-3 IN Q37 GO Q39
Q38. Thinking about your experiences overall, how useful or otherwise are these trainees, cadets or interns, after their initial few weeks, in relieving the work pressures in your area? SCALE PROVIDED WAS 0 cause more work than they save TO 10 Very useful, WITH A DON'T KNOW OPTION"
IF 6-10 OR D IN Q40 SKIP Q42
Q38B Is this mainly due to - "MR
1. Lack of on-the-job support / mentoring2. Lack of skills development prior to joining the workforce3. Other {SPECIFY Q4101)
105
Q39. THIS SECTION IS ABOUT ANY CHALLENGES YOU MIGHT FACE ON A DAILY BASIS IN CARRYING OUT YOUR ROLE."
Q40. "How easy or difficult do you find managing your day-to-day task load?"SCALE PROVIDED WAS 0 VERY DIFFICULT TO 10 VERY EASY
Q41. What are the three most critical CHALLENGES you face on a day-to-day basis?"(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q42. "What would you like to see happen to relieve these challenges?"(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q43. "Are there any other factors associated with your current role that you would like to see improved?"(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED, PLUS BUTTON FOR 'NONE')
Q44. "What are the three BEST things about your current workplace?"(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED, PLUS BUTTON FOR 'NOTHING')
Q45. "Is there anything that your current ORGANISATION does or tries to do that makes your working life better than it would be elsewhere? PLEASE GIVE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE."(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED, PLUS BUTTON FOR 'NO')
Q46. "Apart from salary rises, is there anything that you would like to see your current ORGANISATION do better that would make your working life better than it would be elsewhere? PLEASE GIVE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE."(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED, PLUS BUTTON FOR 'NO')
Q47. "Is there anything that your current MANAGER does or tries to do that makes your working life better than it would be elsewhere? PLEASE GIVE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE."(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED, PLUS BUTTON FOR 'NO')
Q48. "Is there anything that you would like to see your current MANAGER do better that would make your working life better than it would be elsewhere? PLEASE GIVE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE."(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED, PLUS BUTTON FOR 'NO')
Q49. "In your opinion, how feasible would it be for personnel and/or skillsets to be shared across neighbouring or regional local government areas?"SCALE PROVIDED WAS 0 Not at all feasible TO 10 Very feasible, PLUS Don't know
106Q50. SECTION 5 OTHER DEMOGRAPHICS"WE KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A LONG SURVEY BUT IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOUR PROFESSION TO COMPLETE ALL QUESTIONS - ONLY A FEW MINUTES TO GO.
THIS SECTION LOOKS AT SOME OTHER FACTORS THAT MAY INFLUENCE YOUR PROFESSION."
Q51. "What attracted you to your current workplace?"(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q52. "Were any specific benefits included that encouraged you to go there? If so, please tell us what they were."1. Yes, benefits included (SPECIFY Q5201)2. No special benefits offered
IF 4-5 IN Q8 GO Q55
Q53. "How well or poorly has your current workplace met the expectations you had when you joined?"1. A lot better than expected 2. A little better than expected3. About what I expected ] Q554. A little worse than expected5. A lot worse than expected
Q54. "In what ways is your workplace different than you expected?"(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q55. "Are you paid in line with your industry award or agreement, or is your salary in excess of what you would receive under an award?"1. Generally in line with industry award/agreement2. Paid over-award
IF 1-2 IN Q10 SKIP Q59G
Q56. "How much do you enjoy working in your current workplace?"SCALE PROVIDED WAS 0 DISLIKE IT VERY MUCH TO 10 ENJOY IT A LOT
IF 1-2 IN Q10 SKIP Q59G
Q57. "Thinking back to 2 years ago, how much did you enjoy your workplace then (even If it was a different workplace)?"SCALE PROVIDED WAS 0 DISLIKED IT VERY MUCH TO 10 ENJOYED IT A LOT
107IF 0 IN Q56 AND 0 IN Q57 GO Q59GIF 1 IN Q56 AND 1 IN Q57 GO Q59GIF 2 IN Q56 AND 2 IN Q57 GO Q59GIF 3 IN Q56 AND 3 IN Q57 GO Q59GIF 4 IN Q56 AND 4 IN Q57 GO Q59GIF 5 IN Q56 AND 5 IN Q57 GO Q59GIF 6 IN Q56 AND 6 IN Q57 GO Q59GIF 7 IN Q56 AND 7 IN Q57 GO Q59GIF 8 IN Q56 AND 8 IN Q57 GO Q59GIF 9 IN Q56 AND 9 IN Q57 GO Q59GIF 10 IN Q56 AND 10 IN Q57 GO Q59G
Q58. "Why has your level of enjoyment changed over the past 2 years?"(SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q59 Thinking about your future intentions, do you EXPECT to stay in your profession for...?"1. The next 12 months Almost certainly Probably will Probably not Definitely not Not sure2. The next 2 years Almost certainly Probably will Probably not Definitely not Not sure3. The next 5 years Almost certainly Probably will Probably not Definitely not Not sure
IF 3 IN Q59G AND 1-2 IN Q59 SKIP Q62
Q60. "What are the most important factors in driving your intention to move out of your profession?"MR
1. Approaching retirement age2. Work load too high3. Lack of support from management (SPECIFY Q6001) 4. Lack of skilled staff5. Benefits better elsewhere (SPECIFY Q6002) 6. Other (SPECIFY Q6003)
Q61. "What is the most important thing that would have to change for you to decide to stay in your current profession?"
**GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS
Q62. "Finally, just a few questions to help us analyse the results. Are you -"1. Male2. Female
Q63. "What year were you born?"
108
Q63B "On average, how many hours per week do you currently work as a built environment professional? PLEASE WRITE NUMBERS ONLY, NOT WORDS. PLEASE ROUND UP TO THE NEAREST WHOLE HOUR (E.G. ENTER 37.5 AS 38) IF NONE, PLEASE ENTER 0." (SPACE TO TYPE PROVIDED)
Q64. "Do you generally work part time or full time? [N.B. If currently on extended leave, will you be going back part time or full time?]"1. Part-time employment2. Full-time employment
Q65. "Are you based in the metropolitan area or regional SA?"1. Metropolitan Adelaide2. Regional SA
Q66 "If you wish to go back and review any answers please do so now before proceeding to the next screen."
Q67. "That concludes the survey. On behalf of PIA, AIBS, EHA, the Local Government Association and Harrison Research, thank you for your time."
APPENDIX 3: Guide for managers
110
GUIDE FOR MANAGERS: ATTRACTION AND RETENTION IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE
June 2010
111
GUIDE FOR MANAGERS: ATTRACTION AND RETENTION IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT WORKFORCE
This Guide is designed to assist managers facing the task of recruiting staff within the built environment workforce. It is one output of a study carried out by a team of research, planning, community engagement and recruitment professionals, led by Harrison Research, who carried out a study into the workforce and retention issues faced by the South Australian built environment workforce. This Guide draws on both modules of the main study, i.e.:
~ the findings of the Literature Review,~ the outcomes of the survey,
as well as on the previous experience of the team in undertaking recruitment.
The best recruitment solution is a good match between the culture and values of the organisation and the needs and values of the employee. However, the wider culture and values of an organisation are not solely controlled by the manager faced with the difficult task of recruitment.
On the other hand, recruitment in a competitive environment can be expensive and time consuming. In order to break the cycle of staff loss and attraction, it is often the culture and wider practices of the organisation that need to be addressed. This takes time and commitment at the highest levels of an organisation and is difficult to achieve without clear and strong leadership.
This Guide does not address this aspect but aims to provide some more practical guidance within the sphere of influence of the typical built environment manager, with a focus on filling positions.
The ultimate aim is to achieve a more stable workforce that can deliver the needs of the organisation, thereby reducing the overall workload involved in recruitment. The need for recruitment can never be avoided but the “churn” can be reduced.
At all times it is important that the organisation’s Human Resource Manager is also engaged and involved. This person has the potential to not only support the initiatives, but he or she can help to ensure that you are covering all the bases in terms of legal rights and responsibilities as well as perceptions and likely reactions.
This Guide focuses on the key steps and thinking that might help managers attract the right person for the job. If it does not work the first time, review, refine and try again - perseverance and practice do pay off. Some of these steps will provide information and insight into the views of existing staff. A key to reducing “churn” is to use the recruitment process as an pretext for exploring wider issues that might be leading to staff loss. Thus, the recruitment process can have a double value.
NOTE: all page references are references to: Workforce & Retention Study, June 2010.
112
Notes:
Look at what sort of skills and experience you need. Look at a range of options. For example, a base level role might be undertaken by a graduate, a skilled administrative person or an experienced professional who wants to work part time.
Start to consider what sort of person might be most likely to have these skills, where might they be in life, their likely working preferences:
• are they likely to be actively looking for a job?
• are they already in the sector or outside?
THE FIRST STEP: DEFINE THE ROLE.
Truly evaluate what the “job” is - try to set aside the past assumptions and define what needs to be done:
• the outputs (reports, assessment, evaluations, etc.).
• the level of service required (highly responsive, regular reporting, etc.).
• the skills needed (repetitive, intuitive, problem solving, communication etc.).
Clearly define the minimum requirements of the position.
Notes:
It is important not to get these two roles mixed up, which is why an experienced HR person is important. They can ensure that the process meets the organisation’s requirements.
It is also important that the marketing is honest and truthful - no one likes being sold something that is misrepresented. At the same time, highlight the positives; the survey indicated that a reasonable proportion of respondents thought their jobs were better than expected. This indicates that there may be elements that are not being promoted.
YOUR ROLE.
When filling a position, you are playing two roles:
• you are marketing a position and an organisation.
• you are responsible for conducting the process in accordance with the legal and procedural requirements of the organisation that you work for.
Get HR on board - you will need an independent person in this process.
FILLING A POSITION
113
Notes:
There may be some venting; you might hear things you don’t like etc., but if it reduces turnover and helps attraction then you, your team and the organisation will benefit. You need to be prepared to change some things but this is also an opportunity to engage with your team and get buy in. Give them the opportunity to resolve things themselves.
How is the organisation perceived? News can travel fast and bad news travels faster and further. If attraction continues to be an issue, it may be due to perceptions of the organisation that need to be addressed as part of a longer term strategy.
WHAT CAN THE ORGANISATION REALLY OFFER?
Understand the nature of the organisation from the perspective of the potential employee. Ask existing and friendly previous employees at the target level what they think:
• what they like about the culture?• what they don’t?• what they like about the job?• what are the drawbacks?• what incentives actually work?
Also ask - what is the solution, how do we maintain the best aspects and address the harder issues?
Notes:
The aim is to match the nature of the organisation to the needs and character of an individual. It is important to be honest and accurate about this.
There may be factors that cannot be changed. For example, State Government is least able to change remuneration but job security is relatively high.
Document what you think the organisation offers.
This is the most important step you can take, but it can also be very challenging for a manager. This gives you an insight into the workplace from the perspective of the team.
CONSIDER THE INFLUENCING FACTORS.
What are the things that will influence a person in the built environment workforce? The following were identified in the Literature Review and confirmed in the Survey:
• remuneration / job security.• interesting / stimulating work & type of tasks.• work-life balance / flexible/manageable work load.• location.• learning and professional development.• culture (professional, supportive, respectful).
FILLING A POSITION
114
Notes:
Take a step back and look at the situation in context. Could you view the position differently? Could it solve other problems (e.g. take away repetitive tasks from senior staff)? Can you align the job and the incentives with a target group?
Are there groups that are under-represented relative to the general population? This could be an indicator of latent capacity.
For Local Government, are there groups that are well represented in the Council community but not as well represented on staff? Location is a factor for some people; drawing from the local population makes the most of this factor.
In regional areas, for example, are there farming families who have children who have left the region to work in this field? Do they want to come back?
PULL IT ALL TOGETHER.
Review the position description and what you are looking for and what you can offer. Refine the approach to the position, the skills and conditions that you can offer. Think about the key elements:
• existing employee feedback - existing positives and negatives.• the range of incentives that can be offered.• the nature of the role, skills and time commitment.
Consider the market position: who are you competing with and are there timing considerations (time of the year)? In a competitive environment it is worth:
• targeting potential employee types.• being creative about the role.• persevering.
Is there a target group that fits the bill, or more than one? How do you get to the target group(s) - method of advertising?
Notes:
Present accurate information about the work place. The aim is to get the “Person-Environment Fit” (p.87). Look for incentives that match the organisation’s culture or benefit both the organisation and the employee (e.g. healthy and active employees are more focused when they are at work).
On the other hand don’t try to change all the negatives - many of them will be deeply embedded cultural issues that cannot be changed in the short term.
THE EMPLOYEE VALUE PROPOSITION.
Develop an employee value proposition as a single statement of what your organisation (honestly) offers:
• conditions and options (remuneration, leave, flexible hours etc.).• nature of the work, career path.• training, development, on the job learning.• the values and the culture of the organisation.
Page 69 outlines more about the employee value proposition.
FILLING A POSITION
115
Notes:
There are many ways an organisation can welcome a new employee, but - at a practical level - good induction:
• sets the mood and attitude.• influences how quickly a new employee settles in.• influences how quickly they become productive.
Identifying a “buddy” can be a useful strategy, provided that the buddy is a good match for the new employee and is a willing buddy.
Having follow-up meetings can also give you more insight into how you can improve the workplace for your team, because a new person can bring a fresh perspective.
INDUCTION
So often forgotten, this is fundamental to retention. Make sure that the following are addressed:
• they have a desk and all the equipment and materials needed to do their job.• plan the first day - introductions, familiarisation, workplace tour.• provide basic information (floor plan with names, organisation chart).
The Manager and a Human Resources person must see the new employee on their first day. If this is not possible, change the start date.
Have follow-up meetings within the first week, within the first month and at three months.
Notes:
Even unsuccessful candidates contribute to a wider perception of the organisation.
Acknowledgement of applications and giving a sense of timing is a very simple but important step - but is it amazing how few organisations actually do this.
Applying for any job at any level is stressful; people get their hopes up, they wait in anticipation, they might stress about interviews. How your organisation treats people in this context reflects the culture of the organisation.
THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS.
The first experience that most employees have of an organisation is the recruitment process. It says volumes about the organisation.
• is it easy to access information about the organisation?• is it a professional, streamlined process?• do you acknowledge the receipt of an application (in writing or by phone)?• do you have a clear and transparent process - can you offer honest feedback
if requested?• do you have a follow up letter, e.g. thank you for your involvement, time and
effort?
FILLING A POSITION
116
Flexibility does need to be treated with caution:•there needs to be a realistic assessment of the nature of the job (from the perspective of delivering an output).•management assessment measures need to focus on outputs as a measure of performance, not inputs.•managers need to spend more time on management issues (communication, workload management and allocation).•there may be a need for more administrative and/or IT support (e.g. an excellent admin person can answer enquiries and direct harder questions to another phone number).
•purchase extra carers leave.•work from home.
•weeks in the month.•purchase extra leave.
•hours in the day.•days in the week.
FLEXIBILITY:
Flexibility is much talked about but has some serious implications and there are many forms of flexibility:
•work experience / mentoring (at all levels).•“bonuses” (gym membership, bus/train tickets, health week).
•purchase of additional leave.•education / training agreements.
INCENTIVES:
After practical considerations such as remuneration and conditions, job security, nature of the job, location, career path and organisational culture, other incentives may influence applicants.
However, this needs to be treated with care, especially with regard to matters such as flexibility. Look at incentives that align with the nature of the job and the target type of employee. This is a re-emphasis of the person-environment fit theory (p.87).
Incentives do not have to be expensive and, with some creativity, they can add to the overall experience of the workplace. However, they do need to be robust so that they last.
Incentives might include:
OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER
117
INVOLVING STAFF IN THE PROCESS:
Page 76 of the Literature Review provides an overview of professional staff expectations. The survey identified some level of frustration around boredom, too many day-to-day hassles and inability to influence “problems”.
Involving staff in the recruitment process can be difficult and challenging, but it can also:• give you a much clearer insight into the culture of the organisation.• engage staff and give them an opportunity to help find solutions.• open up opportunities to solve more than one problem (e.g. reassign duties to make their roles more interesting, better define the position to be filled and reduce
their day-to-day hassle level).
TARGET GROUPS:
By targeting, you will reduce the potential pool of applicants, but sometimes it is not about the “volume” of applicants. If you are clear about the role, the skills andexperience required and the incentives, then, in many cases, you only need to find that one right person who is a match for your organisation.
Combining an honest evaluation of your organisation with a targeted strategy might only yield a small number of applications - as long as there is one that is right.
For example, there is a tendency to place great emphasis on teamwork, but a regional Council may not be able to offer a team approach if there is only one position and a lot of travel. In such a case, it may be better to target people who prefer independence, who like to travel and who like to meet lots of different people.
The Literature Review identifies a wide range of approaches to “targeting”:• skilled immigrants and CALD groups (p.86).• graduates (p.79).• women (pp.77, 87, 88).
It is also important to note that there needs to be a match between the target group and the culture of the organisation to avoid isolation in the workplace.
There are also some specific, successful, strategy examples on pages 89 and 90.
You might also consider using in-house skills to help. Planners (especially strategic and social planners) can help to define target groups. Use networks to target specific groups: e.g. an email group, local community facilities, sponsor a small event (breakfast, lunch, talk).
OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER