Territory Stories

Northern Territory Public Sector : People Matter Survey Report 2014

Details:

Title

Northern Territory Public Sector : People Matter Survey Report 2014

Collection

Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment reports; Reports; PublicationNT

Date

2015

Description

Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).

Language

English

Subject

Northern Territory. Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment -- Periodicals; Civil service -- Northern Territory -- Personnel management -- Periodicals

Publisher name

Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment

Place of publication

Darwin

ISSN

2206-0235

Copyright owner

Check within Publication or with content Publisher.

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/259019

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/499901

Page content

05 | OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVED PERFORMANCE 41 0 5 | O P P O R T U N IT IE S F O R IM P R O V E D P E R F O R M A N C E NORTHERN TERRITORY PUBLIC SECTOR PEOPLE MATTER SURVEY REPORT 2014 Table 5.3: Key drivers of employee engagement in the NT public sector Key drivers Standardised (Beta) regression coefficients9 Change management 0.27 Responsiveness 0.16 Integrity 0.12 Merit 0.11 EEO 0.09 My contribution 0.08 My manager 0.07 OHS 0.06 Based on the findings presented above, it could be argued that any strategy to increase employee engagement in the NTPS should focus, largely, on improving change management. For the purpose of the factor analysis, change management only includes measures that relate to leadership abilities or actions. In that sense, this differs from change management as measured in the summary findings section of this report (which includes an additional question in which respondent were asked if they acknowledged their own responsibilities to co-workers during times of change. In comparing results between these different change management factors it is clear that while individual employees have a strong understanding of their responsibility to assist their fellow workers during times of change, there is a substantially less positive view when it comes to assessing management capabilities/actions in this area. Views across demographic sub-groups Figure 5.1 shows that there are a range of change management views across demographic sub-groups, however these all fall short of achieving what might reasonably be termed a positive response; which is an average of 80 per cent and above. Of the demographic sub-groups analysed in the production of this report, employees with disability were the least satisfied with change management processes over the preceding twelve months; being 12 percentage points below the mean average for the sector. At the other end of the response scale, non-ongoing employees were considerably more positive in their views on change management; being 8 percentage points above the mean average for the sector. In conjunction with the demographic sub-group profiles at Section 7, Figure 5.1 highlights that those demographic sub-groups who are in a minority, are likely to require specific actions and interventions to improve. It is important to be mindful that, at its most effective, engagement is a voluntary process through which effective skills, capabilities and behaviours and practiced in a way that supports common goals and purposes. 9 Standardised (Beta) coefficients are used to measure the individual contribution of each explanatory variable towards explaining employee engagement. Standardised (Beta) coefficients measure changes in standard deviation units. Thus, the Beta coefficient for change management (leadership) can be interpreted as follows: a one unit change in the change management (leadership) score (meaning a one standard deviation change in change management) would change the engagement index by 0.27 (meaning 0.27 standard deviations), whereas a one unit change in the EEO score (meaning a one standard deviation change in EEO) would change the engagement index by 0.09 (meaning 0.09 standard deviations). Thus, the effect of change management (leadership) on engagement is much larger than the effect of EEO on engagement.