FOI 052 1617 Documents approved for release.pdf

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale
Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the results on morale of the Defence APS, predominantly
using data collected from the February 2015 YourSay Organisational Climate survey. The
analysis presents the perceptions of workplace morale among Defence APS, the impacts of
low workplace morale to Defence, factors influencing workplace morale and what can be
done to improve workplace morale.

Table of contents
Section 1: Defence APS morale over time ...............................................................................3
Section 2: Workplace morale across Defence APS demographic groups ...............................4
Section 3: Impacts of low workplace morale ............................................................................5
Section 4: Factors influencing workplace morale .....................................................................7
Section 5: Characteristics of a workplace with low morale.......................................................9
Section 6: Improving workplace morale .................................................................................13

Summary of key findings
YourSay results show that workplace morale is somewhat lower than the long term trend and
this low morale is widespread among Defence APS. Almost half of respondents indicated
they had low/very low workplace morale, while just 16 per cent reported high/very high
workplace morale. Low workplace morale has increased noticeably over the past two years.
This drop in morale is a concern to Defence as low workplace morale was found to be
associated with negative workplace trends including reduced engagement and motivation,
lower productivity, decreased resilience, lower organisational commitment and also has a
noticeable impact on retention.
Factors influencing low morale are diverse and interrelated, and include:
  Reduced staffing resources and increased work loads;
  Perceived poor leadership, including a lack of planning, direction and communication;
  Perception that the DECA negotiations are taking too long and a perceived lack of job
security;
  Perceptions of a lack of promotion opportunities, career opportunities and a
dissatisfaction with work duties;
  Poor treatment such as dissatisfaction with respect, fairness and inclusivity.
Contributors to high morale were often the opposite to low morale and included:
  A good team;
 Good
leadership;
  Interesting and challenging work.
Overall the contributors to low morale were similar across APS levels, though dissatisfaction
with career development was stronger for APS1-6 level respondents while people
management and availability of resources was stronger for EL1 and above respondents.
While low workplace morale has many drivers and contributors, these YourSay results
indicate Defence can improve low workplace morale through:
  Better managing resourcing issues - reducing work programs, ensuring fair
distribution of work, finding efficiencies and knowledge transfer from departing
employees;
 Improving leadership - better planning, clearer direction and increased
communication;
  Increasing career development and through varying work and job mobility.

2

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale
Section 1: Defence APS morale over time
Workplace morale
YourSay data has shown a decline in workplace morale for APS respondents between 2013
and February 2015. In February 2015 almost half (44%) of APS respondents reported that
their workplace morale was low or very low. The majority of the remaining respondents
reported that their workplace morale was moderate (40%), with only a minority of
respondents reporting their workplace morale was high or very high (16%). The proportion of
respondents reporting low or very low workplace morale has increased from 34 per cent in
2013.
In contrast the opposite trend was seen for the ADF. Sixteen per cent of ADF respondents
reported that they had low or very low workplace morale which had decreased from 25 per
cent in 2013.
Workplace m orale (2013 to February 2015)
(What is the current level of morale w ithin your w orkplace?)
Feb-15
16%
42%
42%
F
2014
21%
42%
37%
AD
2013
25%
42%
33%
Feb-15
44%
40%
16%
S
2014
39%
42%
18%
AP
2013
34%
45%
22%
Low  or very low
Moderate
High or very high

Individual morale
Consistent with workplace morale, APS individual morale was found to have declined since
2013, though overall Defence APS reported higher individual than workplace morale. Just
over one third of APS respondents (36%) reported that their individual morale was low or
very low compared to 28 per cent in 2013. A similar proportion reported their individual
morale was moderate (38%), while one quarter (26%) reported they had high morale.
As with workplace morale, individual morale was rated more positively among ADF members
although there was less difference between the Defnece APS and ADF in terms of individual
morale. One in five (21%) ADF respondents indicated low or very low individual morale
compared to 36% of Defence APS respondents.
Individual m orale (2013 to February 2015)
(What is your current individual morale?)
Feb-15
21%
35%
44%
F
D
2014
24%
35%
41%
A
2013
26%
35%
39%
Feb-15
36%
38%
26%
S
2014
31%
40%
29%
AP
2013
28%
39%
32%
Low  or very low
Moderate
High or very high

3

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale
Unsurprisingly, workplace and individual morale are related. Of the respondents that reported
that their individual morale was low, the majority (78%) also reported that their workplace
morale was low. It is likely that work factors can have an impact on a respondents’ individual
morale and also that personal factors can have an impact on workplace morale.

Section 2: Workplace morale across Defence APS demographic
groups
Defence APS workplace morale was compared across demographic groups to explore
whether low morale was a more concerning issue for some groups of Defence APS
employees. Findings revealed that the patterns of low workplace morale were generally
consistent with similar results by gender, age groups, APS levels, and between members
and non members of a diversity group. Interestingly, of the various diversity groups
(disability, indigenous Australians, religion, Non English speaking background (NESB) and
LGBTI) morale was different for one group; NESB respondents had higher workplace morale
than other respondents.
Differences in workplace morale were identified across geographical location and by
organisational Groups. Geographical differences in workplace morale were identified by state
and territory. The state or territory with the highest morale was the Northern Territory (26%)
and South Australia had the lowest levels of morale (53%).
Workplace morale by state
ACT
41%
41%
18%
NSW
48%
37%
16%
VIC & TAS
45%
43%
12%
QLD
31%
48%
21%
SA
53%
34%
13%
WA
46%
33%
22%
NT
32%
42%
26%
Low or very low
Moderate
High or very high

The Groups with the lowest levels of morale were Chief Information Officer Group (CIOG)
(60%), Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) (57%), and Chief Finance
Officer Group (CFO) (55%). The Groups with the largest proportion of respondents that
reported high morale were Capability Development Group (CDG) (42%), Army Group (41%),
and Office of the Secretary and CDF (OSCDF) (38%).
4

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale
Workplace morale by group
Navy
42%
44%
14%
Army
25%
34%
41%
Air Force
28%
48%
25%
Office of the Secretary and CDF
22%
41%
38%
Intelligence and Security
38%
44%
18%
Vice Chief of the Defence Force
43%
40%
18%
Joint Operations Command
50%
30%
20%
Capability Development Group
16%
42%
42%
Defence People Group
37%
43%
20%
Chief Finance Officer Group
55%
33%
13%
Defence Support and Reform Group
48%
41%
11%
Chief Information Officer Group
60%
29%
12%
Defence Science and Technology Organisation
57%
34%
10%
Defence Materiel Organisation
47%
41%
13%
Chief Operating Officer Group (COO Executive
14%
67%
19%
or Defence Legal Division)
Low or very low
Moderate
High or very high

Section 3: Impacts of low workplace morale
How does low workplace morale impact Defence?
To further understand the impact, cost and detriment of low morale in the Defence APS
workforce a number of measures were compared against workplace morale. This can show if
low workplace morale is related to low productivity, low levels of resilience in the workplace
and low levels of employee engagement and so provide some indication of what low
workplace morale costs Defence.

Productivity
Those with low workplace morale were less likely to report that their work group was
productive and also that they had high individual motivation to do their job.
M otivation and workplace morale
42%
High job
Low or very low morale
66%
motivation
82%
Moderate morale
High or very high morale
% with high job motivation

5

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale

Engagement
Those with low workplace morale also had lower levels of all four types of engagement - job
engagement, team engagement, supervisor engagement and agency engagement.
Engagement and workplace morale
57%
Job
80%
Engagement
95%
42%
Low or very low morale
Team
73%
Engagement
92%
Moderate morale
High or very high morale
63%
Supervisor
80%
Engagement
94%
21%
Agency
54%
Engagement
79%
% above average engagement

Workplace resilience
Those who reported low workplace morale were less likely to observe resilience in their
colleagues and supervisor. Just over half (62%) of respondents with low morale reported that
their colleagues were resilient compared to most respondents (86%) who indicated their
workplace morale was high or very high.
Resilience and workplace morale
62%
Col eagues are
73%
resilient
Low or very low morale
86%
Moderate morale
72%
High or very high morale
Supervisor is
85%
resilient
94%
% Always / almost always

Organisational Commitment
Those with low morale were less likely to indicate organisational commitment, specifically
they were less likely to feel a strong sense of belonging to Defence, and report they were
proud to tell others they were an employee of Defence.
6

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale
Retention
Furthermore, low workplace morale was also found to be a contributor to employees leaving
Defence. The YourSay data from APS employees leaving Defence showed that low
workplace morale was the third most common reason APS respondents gave for leaving
Defence. Four in ten respondents (39%) reported that low morale was a strong influence in
their decision to leave Defence.

Section 4: Factors influencing workplace morale
In February 2015 respondents were asked to comment on the factors contributing to the high
or low morale in their workplace. The vast majority of APS respondents chose to answer with
1,748 of 2,047 respondents (85%) providing input to this question. Many comments were
focused on the contributors to low morale and were also quite detailed highlighting that
Defence APS respondents had a lot to say in relation to the topic.
Contributors to low workplace morale
Comments showed that a lack of resources and poor leadership were the most common
reported contributors to low workplace morale.
Contributors to low workplace morale
Lack of resources / staff (n = 483)
28%
Poor leadership & lack of direction (n = 451)
26%
DECA negotiations (n = 324)
19%
Poor communication (n = 304)
17%
Lack of job security (n = 303)
17%
Workload too high (n = 255)
15%
Lack of promotion opportunities (n = 245)
14%
Organisational change / change fatigue (n = 179)
10%
Work under valued / lack of recognition (n = 161)
9%
Dissatisfaction with work duties (n = 159)
9%
Not paid enough / no pay rise (n= 141)
8%
Lack of career opportunities (n = 123)
7%
Government not valuing the APS / reducing funding
7%
(n = 119)
Poor treatment / bad team (n = 107)
7%

7

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale
Just over a quarter (28%) of respondents reported a lack of resources as a contributor to low
morale in their workplace. This topic was often related to the 6th most commonly reported
contributor, workload too high (15%). While many comments focused on respondents having
to carry out the same amount of work with fewer people, other issues included a reduced
capacity to do a good job, and a lack of time/personnel to enable knowledge transfer. Some
examples of these comments are below:

“Poor communication, unsustainable workload levels with unrealistic expectations on all
personnel including higher level management/leadership. (fewer resources with no decrease in
the output expected).”
“The declining numbers in staff. The extra workloads that we have to do, with staff taking on
higher duties with no training or recognition. No job security and the fear of more staff leaving…..”
“I do a job others don't have training for and feel I am valued for that. On a negative side, my time
before I retire is short and the FTE freeze is a problem to recruit others to take over.”
“The recruitment freeze; the loss of manpower to enable the job to be done correctly. The lack of
funds to do things like travel or training. The endless promotion of people not skilled enough to
perform the task…..”
Poor leadership including a lack of direction provided by leadership, was reported by one
quarter (26%) of respondents as a reason for low workplace morale. This was closely related
to the 4th most commonly reported reason of poor communication (17%). Some examples
comments relating to poor leadership and communication include:

“The lack of support from above. The lack of communication in the workplace. The lack of clarity
around my role and what I'm supposed to do in my job. Decisions made that effect my role and
me personally that are made without consultation or seeking input from me.”
“An occasional 'job well done' from supervisors/hierarchy would make a big difference to morale
in the section. Minimal or no micro management would also be welcome as would trusting staff to
do their job.”
“Drastic downsizing that is proceeding with no stated or even implied end state or plan. The
process is haphazard and disorganised at the management level, hence everything that flows
from that such as communication is haphazard, conflicting, disorganised and not conducive to
good morale in the interim period which will likely stretch for many years.”
“Restructure of XX. Perceived lack of honesty in reasons given for many decisions made in
restructure. Continued lack of leadership and direction. Many senior positions still not filled.
Current agenda in decision making appears to be about "numbers", not about capability.”

The third most commonly reported reason for poor morale in the workplace was in relation to
the DECA negotiations with one fifth commenting on this aspect (19%). This was closely
related to the factor not paid enough / no pay rise (8%). One example of this is below:

“Government's employment conditions. Not back-paying even though it's the government's fault
DECA negotiations are so late and slow. The threat of no or low pay rises. The government's
threat of losing our jobs to privatisation etc. All contributing to low morale. We have had enough.”

Interestingly a lack of job security was another commonly reported reason for low workplace
morale with 17 per cent reporting this as a contributor, potentially this is due to reductions in
APS numbers. Other YourSay data has shown job security to be a topic of low concern to
respondents in the past, however dissatisfaction has increased slightly in 2015 (21%) and
8

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale
2014 (20%) compared to 2013 (16%). Some examples of comments relating to this topic
include:

“Getting told two years ago you are losing your job and since then all they can tell you its going to
happen some time.”
“Not knowing if you are going to stay in your current position or be moved elsewhere.”
“Uncertainty regarding redundancies…”

A lack of promotion opportunities (14%) was another commonly reported contributor to low
morale, this was also related to the lack of career opportunities (7%) factor. Though career is
a popular contributor to low morale, a lack of promotion opportunities and career
opportunities were more dominant as reasons for leaving Defence than for low workplace
morale.
Contributors to high workplace morale
While there were fewer comments in relation to workplace contributors to high morale there
were some comments that highlighted positive aspects of working environments in Defence.
The most common aspects that were reported to contribute to high workplace morale were a
good team (9%), good leadership (5%) and interesting work (4%).
Contributors to high workplace morale
Good team (n = 156)
9%
Good leadership (n = 92)
5%
Interesting / challenging work (n = 75)
4%

Some examples of comments relating to high morale in the workplace are as follows:
“Cooperation and commitment of peers towards the production and completion of quality work.”
“Open communication within the working team. Strong direction from the leaders (Director and
DG) in the team. Empowerment from the leaders in the team to perform individual roles.”
“The importance of the work you do and the ability to take ownership of that work is important. To
see the results of your work put in place and recognised.”

Section 5: Characteristics of a workplace with low morale
Factors related to low workplace morale in Defence
Additional analysis was undertaken to gain further insights into the factors related to low
workplace morale. Almost all YourSay data items had some association with morale showing
the wide range of workplace and organisational climate factors related to morale.
The single factor with the strongest relationship with low workplace morale was
dissatisfaction with the quality of senior leaders. Other factors relating to senior leaders were
9

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale
Interestingly low workplace morale and a lack of confidence in senior leaders were not found
to be tied to satisfaction with direct supervisors. This suggests that some of the
dissatisfaction with senior leaders is related to Defence wide processes and policies as well
as views of individual senior leaders.

Categories of respondents with low morale
Analysis was conducted on respondents who reported low workplace morale to determine
whether there were groups of respondents who have differing views on low morale. There
were four groups of respondents with different perspectives on low morale shown by different
areas of dissatisfaction. These groups are outlined below.
Dissatisfied with senior leaders (Group 1) (13%) – This group had quite negative views of
senior leaders however their views of other aspects of their jobs were much more positive.
Two thirds of these respondents reported having low individual morale (67%).
Low job satisfaction (Group 2) (26%) – This group was found to be more negative on more
local aspects of their jobs such as their supervisors, job satisfaction, career prospects,
learning and development and recognition received. However they were found to be
relatively more positive on their views of senior leaders. Just over three quarters (78%) of
these respondents reported that their individual morale was low.
Very dissatisfied (Group 3) (20%) – This group had the most negative responses of all the
groups. Generally their responses were among the most negative of the groups on almost all
dimensions of their jobs including: their views on senior leaders, supervisors, job satisfaction,
career prospects, treatment of personnel and commitment to Defence. However their
responses in relation to their supervisors were slightly less negative. Respondents in group 3
were also most likely to report that they had low individual morale (86%).
Less dissatisfied (Group 4) (42%) – Despite reporting low workplace morale this group
generally had positive responses on other aspects of their jobs including: their views on
senior leaders, supervisors, job satisfaction, career prospects, treatment of personnel and
commitment to Defence. They were also the least likely of the groups to report that they had
low individual morale with 45 per cent reporting they had low or very low individual morale.
The proportions of APS1-6 and EL1 and above level respondents within each of the clusters
were similar. Analysis by years of Service showed that respondents with more years of
service were more likely to be less dissatisfied with all aspects of their jobs (group 4); and
less likely be dissatisfied with their jobs (group 2).

Categories of respondents with low workplace morale by
years of Service
Group 1 - Dissatisfied
0 to 4 years of
13%
35%
17%
36%
with senior leaders
service
5 to 9 years of
Group 2 - Low job
11%
30%
19%
40%
service
satisfaction
10 to 19 years of 12%
25%
20%
43%
Group 3 - Very
service
dissatisfied
20 or more years
17%
19%
21%
44%
of service
Group 4 - Less
dissatisfied

12

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale
Male respondents were slightly more likely to fall among the very dissatisfied respondents
(Group 3) than female respondents and were also more likely to be dissatisfied with senior
leaders. Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to have low job
satisfaction.
Categories of respondents with low workplace
morale by gender
Male
18%
19%
23%
40%
Female
8%
33%
16%
43%
Group 1 - Dissatisfied with senior leaders
Group 2 - Low job satisfaction
Group 3 - Very dissatisfied
Group 4 - Less dissatisfied

Section 6: Conclusion - improving workplace morale
YourSay findings showed that there has been a decline in morale over time for the Defence
APS and that low morale is now wide spread among APS workplaces. Almost half of
respondents indicated they had low or very low workplace morale, while only 16 per cent
reported high or very high workplace morale. Analysis across demographic groups showed
low morale was spread across all demographic groups such as gender, APS level and
across age groups, although there was some variation in the degree of low morale between
organisational Groups and across states and territories.
The factors associated with low morale were diverse but there was evidence of four distinct
groups of respondents with a different focus of dissatisfaction among those with low morale.
These include a group with greater dissatisfaction with senior leaders, another with low job
satisfaction, a group with dissatisfaction with all aspects of their job, and another with less
dissatisfaction on all aspects of their jobs.
APS workplace morale was found to have declined over the past two years, in contrast with
the permanent ADF which has improved over the same time. This drop in morale is a
concern to Defence as low morale was found to be associated with negative workplace
trends in its APS workforce. The association of workplace morale with employee
engagement, productivity, resilience, organisational commitment and retention provides a
basis for Defence to invest in improving workplace morale.
Irrespective of the current focus on retention, it is important that employees remaining with
Defence continue to be engaged, productive and resilient in an environment of high
organisational change and tempo. Though DECA negotiations may be more difficult to
resolve quickly there are a number of other potential areas of focus for improving workplace
morale, listed below.
Leadership - Poor leadership and communication were found to be some of the key factors
for low morale for some groups of respondents, while good leadership was one of the key
factors for high morale. Comments showed that perceived poor leadership was related to
poor planning, a lack of direction, low role clarity, and micro management. In particular poor
planning, a lack of direction and poor role clarity amidst organisational restructuring and
downsizing was causing confusion and motivation issues among staff. Factors related to low
confidence in senior leaders with scope for improvement often related to organisational level
13

Serial 1
YourSay – Defence APS morale
policies and perceptions of fairness and integrity, recognition for employees as well as
communication from individual senior leaders.
Resourcing - Another key factor contributing to low morale was a lack of staffing resources,
and this was contributing to high workloads and a reduced capacity to do a good job.
Managers and Senior Leaders can place more focus on reducing the work program to keep
in line with the falling staff numbers, ensure the work is fairly distributed among employees
and ensure work is well prioritised. Clarity around an individual’s role and their priorities can
also assist with managing the impact of resourcing pressures as can placing more priority on
knowledge transfer, particularly from staff departing from the organisation.
Career development and work duties - A lack of promotion and career opportunities was
another influence on low morale as was dissatisfaction with ones work duties, at the same
time interesting/challenging work was identified as a contributor to high morale. While there
may be some difficulty offering promotions in the current APS environment, more could be
done to vary duties and increase at-level mobility within Defence. This would assist in
continuing to develop the future Defence APS workforce and improve engagement and
motivation by keeping the work more interesting and challenging.
Recognition - Not feeling valued for the work accomplished, a lack of recognition for a job
well done and favouritism is another area that results highlighted. As well as offering more
praise and appreciation, providing staff with a better understanding of the contribution of their
work to the wider Defence may also assist.
Perceived poor treatment – A lack of respect, a lack of fairness and a non-inclusive
environment were also factors contributing to low morale. Leadership at all levels leading by
example with respect, fairness and inclusion being a demonstrated part of the Defence
workplaces can continue to positively impact on morale.
Working towards these changes, could lead to improvements in the quality of outputs
(engagement), efficiencies in the production of work (productivity) and improved employee
resilience in the face of change. An increase to workplace morale can lead to further
harnessing the potential from employees as well as improving the working environment for all
Defence APS.
While Defence and its leadership have a big part to play in improving workplace morale, first
level supervisors and individuals can all work towards improving both their own morale and
the morale of their teams and the workplace.

______________________________________________
About this report
This report predominantly uses data collected in February 2015 from the YourSay
Occupational Climate Survey. Time series analysis includes data back to 2013. There were
2,047 responses from Defence APS employees in February 2015, this was a 51 per cent
response rate from Defence APS employees invited to take part.
A full list of factors that were analysed for their relationship with low morale is listed in the
following table.

14

Serial 3

Serial 4