Findings from DJE Employee Survey

Findings from DJE Employee Survey This survey was conducted following the report from the Independent Review Group on the Department of Justice and Equality undertaken in 2014. This review, commonly known as the Toland Report, examined the effectiveness of the Department of Justice and Equality in terms of its structure, systems, management, and capabilities. This follow-up survey considers employees' perspectives of aspects of their work experience, and thus takes a 'bottom-up' approach to issues of reform. In so doing, it is hoped that it may the facilitate implementation of the changes proposed in the Toland Report and also the actions set out in the Civil Service Renewal Plan. Furthermore, its findings and recommendations may assist the Department in tailoring other future reforms to the specific needs of its employees. The primary objective of the survey was to gain an understanding of employees perspective on work, management and change in the Department of Justice and Equality. Data was gathered using an online survey of staff across the organisation between March and April 2015. A total of 1017 responses were received, generating an overall response rate of 52%. The survey examined a number of drivers that potentially influence a range of employee outcomes including: job satisfaction; employee engagement; employee disengagement/ alienation; employee wellbeing; employee resilience; commitment to change; commitment to the work division; identification with the Department. The main drivers of these outcomes that were considered were: the nature of work; human resource (HR) practices; the work climate and support within the Department. The researchers carried out a detailed analysis of the data, including statistical modelling, to identify the drivers that have greatest impact on these outcomes. This report provides a broad overview of the main findings from the survey, highlighting in particular the differences that emerged across (i) gender, (ii) the Department and its offices/ agencies, (iii) tenure, (iv) age, (v) location, and (vi) job grades 1. 1 Please note that numbers in some professions were very low. In order to (a) protect the identity of individuals, (b) enable for a fuller representation of the overall findings, and (c) ensure that meaningful conclusions could be drawn from the data, we created an other professions category. This included forensic scientists, laboratory analysts, solicitors and other professional grades. 1 P a g e

Summary of Key Findings The survey captured employees views on a broad range of issues based around the following themes: Theme 1: Employee experiences of the nature of their work; Theme 2: Employee views on human resource (HR) practices in the Department; Theme 3: Employee experiences of the work climate and support within the Department; Theme 4: Employees approaches to work and their feelings about life in general. The following sections provide a more detailed overview of the findings in relation to each broad theme examined in the survey. Theme (1): Employee Experiences of the Nature of Work The survey explored various indicators of the nature of work including: (i) empowerment, (ii) the impact of employees work on others (i.e. social impact), and (iii) job demands. There are four aspects to empowerment: competence, meaningfulness of work, self-determination and impact on the job. The findings indicate that views on competence and the meaningfulness of work are quite positive. For example, 95% of those surveyed feel confident about their ability to do their job, while 85% agree that their work is important to them. Employees views on selfdetermination and impact on their job are more mixed. Almost half (48%) of respondents feel they have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how they do their jobs; yet, 28% do not feel they have such opportunity and 24% have neutral feelings in this regard. While 51% feel they have significant influence over what happens in their work division, 25% do not and 24% remain neutral on this issue. Regarding social impact, the majority of those surveyed (71%) feel that they are conscious of the positive impact their work has on members of the public and/or their colleagues and are aware of the ways their work benefits these parties. Only 10% do not share these feelings. With regard to job demands, 51% are of the opinion that they never seem to have enough time to get everything done and that they have too much work for one person to do. In spite of this, only 12% believe that the performance standards for their job are too high. Regarding these indicators of the nature of work, the analysis of average (i.e. mean) scores across groups shows that: Levels of empowerment are significantly 2 lower among those respondents aged 40 years or less, compared to those in older age groups. In addition, respondents with shorter tenure (10 years or less) indicate that they feel significantly less empowered compared to those with longer tenure. Levels of empowerment are also significantly lower among those in lower grades (i.e. Service and Clerical Officers) in comparison to the Probation Officer grade. Levels of empowerment are, in turn, significantly lower among those in the Probation Officer grade in comparison to those in the higher grades (i.e. the Principal Officer (and above) grades); 2 In the area of statistics, the term significant does not mean important or meaningful, as is implied in the everyday use of the term. A result is deemed statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance, and therefore provides enough evidence to signal that group averages are different. 2 P a g e

Regarding social impact (i.e. impact of work on others), scores are significantly higher among those who work in an office or agency compared to those who work in the Department. They are also significantly higher among respondents aged 51 or over compared to those aged 40 years or under. Furthermore, scores for social impact are significantly higher among those working in the other professional grade category compared to others; Perceptions of job demands are significantly higher among respondents who have worked in the civil or public service for 11 years or more, compared to respondents with shorter tenure. Respondents aged 40 years or under also have significantly lower perceptions of job demands than older respondents. Finally, perceptions of job demands are significantly higher among probation and other professional grades compared to others. Theme (2) Employee views on Human Resource (HR) Practices The survey captured participants views on a variety of HR practices. The specific areas considered were: (i) training and development, (ii) performance management and rewards, (iii) skill utilisation, and (iv) participation and consultation. With regard to training, the findings reveal that over half of respondents (52%) do not feel that they receive the necessary training to keep them up to date with developments in the Department. In terms of career development, 60% do not believe that they have all the opportunities they need for promotion. A further 63% do not agree that the Department has a clear and fair promotion process that takes efficiency, performance and experience into account. Regarding performance management and rewards, 61% of respondents agree that they are encouraged to set performance objectives that are reviewed by their immediate managers at least one a year. However, only 19% of respondents believe that performance reviews lead to actions being taken by the Human Resources (HR) Division. The findings reveal mixed views on skill utilisation; 33% of those surveyed consider they have good opportunities to use all of their skills, talents and abilities on a regular basis, while 21% see little or no such opportunities. In addition, 22% believe they have good opportunities to develop new knowledge and learn new skills, while 34% consider they have little or no such opportunities. Findings concerning participation and consultation also present mixed views. For example, while 30% agree that they have good opportunities to participate in decisions that affect them, 44% disagree. In addition, 38% feel that the suggestions they make are taken seriously, while 26% do not. Only 19% of those surveyed agree that they have a good deal of information about what is happening in other parts of the Department, while 59% disagree. The analysis carried out to compare the average scores across groups identifies the following statistically significant differences: Perceptions of training and development are significantly more positive among those aged 51 years or older compared to younger age categories. Focusing specifically on promotion, respondents located outside of Dublin have significantly more negative attitudes regarding promotion. Those in the Principal Officer (and above) grades express more positive attitudes about promotion than do those in other job grades; Those aged 51 years or older express significantly more negative views regarding performance management than do those aged between 41 and 50 years. Respondents in the Principal Officer (and above) grades hold significantly more negative views on performance management and rewards compared to respondents in other grades; 3 P a g e

There are significantly more positive views regarding skill utilisation among those aged 51 and older compared to younger respondents; Females express significantly more negative views regarding participation and consultation. Those who work in offices and agencies of the Department also express significantly more negative opinions in this regard. Respondents in the other professional grades and the Service and Clerical Officer grades are also significantly more negative in their attitudes toward participation compared to those in other job grades; With the exception of performance management and rewards, attitudes towards all HR practices are significantly more negative among those with the shortest tenure (10 years or less) compared to those with longer tenure. (3) The Work Climate and Support within the Department The survey explored employees experiences relating to: (i) social support, (ii) manager support, (iii) support from the HR Division, (iv) knowledge sharing, (v) speaking up, and (vi) remaining silent. In terms of social support, the majority of those surveyed agree that they have the chance to get to know others at work (73%) and that the people they work with are friendly (86%). Smaller proportions, however, feel that they have the opportunity to develop close friendships at work (57%), or that the people they work with take a personal interest in them (57%). The findings show that over half of respondents feel that their immediate manager enhances the meaningfulness of their work; they agree their immediate manager helps them to understand how their objectives and goals relate to that of their division (58%) and helps them understand the importance of their work to the overall effectiveness of the division (52%). Just under half (48%) agree that their immediate manager helps them understand how their job fits in terms of the bigger picture. Over half of respondents also agree that their immediate manager helps to provide autonomy from bureaucratic constraints; 60% agree that their immediate manager allows them to make important decisions quickly to satisfy customer needs, and 67% feel their immediate manager allows them to do their job their own way. Again, more than half of respondents (55%) believe their immediate manager fosters participation in decision making by making decisions with them (54%), consulting them on decisions (55%), and asking their opinions on decisions that affect them (64%). Finally, the majority of respondents agree that their immediate manager expresses confidence in them; 84% agree their immediate manager believes they can handle demanding tasks, while 75% agree that their immediate manager expresses confidence in their ability to perform at a high level. Respondents tend to be more negative in their perceptions of support from the HR Division. Only 10% believe that the HR division cares about their opinions and only 8% believe that the HR division considers their goals and values. Slightly more agree that the HR division cares about their wellbeing (21%), provides support in times of need (27%), and supports them to achieve worklife balance (24%). Views on aspects of the work climate are more positive. In terms of knowledge sharing, the majority agree that members of their division share their special knowledge and expertise (71%), that more knowledgeable people in their division freely provide other members with hard-to-find knowledge and specialised skills (63%), and that division members provide a lot of work-related suggestions to each other (61%). Only 14% feel that there is virtually no exchange of information, knowledge, or sharing of skills among members of their division. Employees also appear to have good opportunities to speak up and contribute to their division and to the Department. 71% agree that they develop and make recommendations concerning 4 P a g e

issues that affect their division; 69% agree to speaking up and encouraging others to get involved in issues that affect their division, and 73% agree that they offer ideas for new projects or changes in procedures. An analysis of reasons for remaining silent reveals that approximately one third of those surveyed do not speak up because of fear of negative consequences (36%), because of a fear that there will be repercussions from speaking up (32%), because they feel they will not find a sympathetic ear (32%), or because their superiors are not open to proposals or concerns (36%). However, over 40% disagree that these are reasons for not speaking up. An analysis of the average scores indicates a number of differences across groups: Those in the Principal Officer (and above) grades display significantly more positive attitudes regarding support from HR compared to other grades; Females are significantly less likely to share knowledge than males; Females are significantly less likely to speak up and significantly more likely to remain silent in comparison to males. Respondents with tenure of 30 years or more are significantly more likely to speak up compared to those respondents with shorter tenure. Younger respondents (i.e. 40 years or younger) are significantly less likely to speak up compared to older respondents. (4) Approach to Work and Feelings about Life in General This final aspect of the survey explored how employees approach their work and their life more generally. It seeks to assess various work outcomes that are important to both the individual and the organisation. These include levels of: (i) job satisfaction, (ii) employee engagement, (iii) employee disengagement, (iv) employee wellbeing, (v) employee resilience, (vi) commitment to change, (vii) commitment to the division, and (xiii) identification with the Department. The survey finds that over half of respondents are satisfied with their job (57%), while almost threequarters (71%) agree that they like working in the Department. When various indicators of employee engagement are considered, it would appear that the majority of those surveyed are proud of their work (71%) and are happy when they are fully engaged in their work (79%). Over half of respondents feel that they have lots of energy at work (58%) and are immersed in their work (55%). That said, less than half feel that they are inspired by their work (37%), while 26% feel that they are rarely inspired. Furthermore, only 20% indicate that they get carried away when working, while 41% do not. Indiators of employee disengagement are also considered in the survey. Findings in this regard show that only 11% agree that they do not enjoy work and only put in the time to get paid, while 72% disagree to feeling this way. Although one in five respondents agree to feeling disconnected to events in their workplace, over half (52%) disagree. Over a quarter (26%) agree that, over the years, they have become disillusioned about their work; however, almost half (47%) do not agree. An examination of employee wellbeing reveals that while 14% of those surveyed feel emotionally drained from their work, over half do not. One in five respondents often feel burned out from their work, 46% sometimes feel burned out, and 34% rarely or never feel burned out. Two in five respondents often feel drained at the end of the day, while 45% experience this feeling occassionally, and 15% do not. Our analysis shows that the number of days lost due to personal 5 P a g e

illness across the entire sample was on average 4.2 days in the year preceding the survey. It shows that on average: males missed significantly fewer days than females; those with tenure of 30 years or more missed significantly fewer days than those with tenure of between 11 and 29 years; absenteeism within Service and Clerical Officer and Staff and Executive Officer grades is significantly higher compared to the Principal Officer (and above) grades. Levels of resilience appear quite high among respondents in certain respects. For example, 76% agree that they tend to bounce back quickly after hard times, while only 11% find it hard to bounce back when something bad happens. Only 8% indicate that it takes a long time for them to get over set-backs in their life. Regarding commitment to change, respondents were asked to consider a specific element of the Civil Service Renewal Plan - the plan to manage underperformance. Findings show that the vast majority of respondents believe in the value of managing underperformance (93%) and recognise that managing underperformance serves an important purpose (91%). A further 88% agree that the plan to manage underperformance is necessary; only 3% see the plan as a mistake and only 4% believe that things would be better without this change. Respondents were also asked about their awareness of the Toland Report. Findings show that 39% believe there has been good communication in relation to the Report, while 35% do not. The survey also set out to evaluate how committed employees are to their work division and findings show that 69% of those surveyed feel a strong sense of commitment to their division, while 61% see their colleagues as committed to doing their best for the division. However, in the broader context, only 22% feel a strong sense of being part of one team in the Department. Equally, only 22% consider the atmosphere across divisions in the Department as open and co-operative. Finally, in terms of identification with the Department, levels of identification appear higher in some respects than in others. For example, 56% agree that they are interested in what others think about the Department, while only 13% disagree. When 57% of respondents talk about the Department, they say we rather than they, while 23% do not. When someone praises the Department, approximately one third take it as a personal compliment, while one third do not. In a similar manner, 37% feel embarrassed when a story in the media criticises the Department, while 33% do not. Regarding these work outcomes, the analysis of average scores across groups reveals some significant differences. With regard to differences in average scores for job satisfaction, the analysis indicates that: Respondents who are older than 40 years are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than younger respondents; Those in the Principal Officer (and above) job grades display significantly higher levels of job satisfaction, particularly when compared to those in Staff and Executive Officer grades. In terms of differences in levels of employee engagement and disengagement, the analysis suggests that: Respondents over 40 years of age are significantly more likely to be engaged in their work. Consistently, those aged 40 or less are significantly more likely to become disengaged. 6 P a g e

There is also some variance in levels of commitment to respondents work division: Respondents to the survey who have worked in the civil or public service for 30 years or more show significantly more commitment to their work division compared to those who have worked with the civil or public service for a shorter time; Older respondents (i.e. those 40 years or older) are also more likely to demonstrate commitment to their work division than those aged under 40. Analysis of differences in average scores for identification indicates that: Females are significantly more likely to identify with the Department than males; Those who work in the Department centrally are significantly more likely to identify with it compared to those who work in offices or agencies. The analysis of the data also explored the most important drivers of employees approaches to work and their feelings about life in general. The most significant drivers of job satisfaction are: (1) empowerment; (2) skill utilisation; (3) promotion; (4) knowledge sharing; (5) training and development. The factors that are most important in influencing employee engagement are: (1) empowerment; (2) skill utilisation; (3) social impact; (4) social support; (5) speaking up. The key influences on disengagement (i.e. alienation) are: (1) low social impact; (2) low levels of skill utilisation; (3) remaining silent; (4) low levels of support from the HR Division; (5) low levels of social support. The primary drivers of employee wellbeing are: (1) low job demands; (2) remaining silent; (3) empowerment; (4) social support; (5) training and development. The main factors influencing employee resilience are: (1) social impact; (2) speaking up; (3) social support; (4) performance management and rewards; (5) low job demands. 7 P a g e

The main drivers of commitment to change are: (1) speaking up; (2) performance management and rewards; (3) low job demands; (4) participation and consultation; (5) social impact. Commitment to work division is mainly driven by: (1) social support; (2) knowledge sharing; (3) social impact; (4) empowerment; (5) performance management and rewards. The key drivers of identification with the Department are: (1) social impact; (2) promotion; (3) speaking up; (4) support from the HR Division. Overview of the most and least positive responses Tables 1.1 and 1.2 present an overview of the most and least positive responses across all sections of the survey. 8 P a g e

Table 1.1 Top 20 positively rated statements Statements Agreement Disagreement 1. I am confident about my ability to do my job. 95% 2% 2. I believe in the value of managing underperformance. 93% 1% 3. I recognise that managing underperformance serves an important purpose. 4. I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work. 91% 3% 89% 3% 5. The plan to manage underperformance is necessary. 88% 4% 6. I have mastered the skills necessary for my job. 87% 4% 7. People I work with are friendly. 86% 2% 8. The management of underperformance is a good strategy for the Department. 86% 3% 9. The work that I do is important to me. 85% 5% 10. I think the plan to tackle underperformance is a mistake. 3% 84% 11. My immediate manager believes that I can handle demanding tasks. 84% 5% 12. Working with people directly puts too much stress on me. 3% 82% 13. Working with people all day is really a strain for me. 5% 82% 14. I often/always feel happy when I am fully engaged in my work. 79% 3% 15. Things would be better without this change (the plan to tackle underperformance). 4% 79% 16. I communicate my opinions about work issues to others even if my opinion is different and others in my division 78% 8% agree with me. 17. I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times. 76% 6% 18. I feel that if I work harder than my colleagues, then I should be recognised and rewarded. 19. My immediate manager expresses confidence in my ability to perform at a high level. 76% 8% 75% 11% 20. The work I do is meaningful to me. 74% 10% 9 P a g e

Table 1.2 Top 20 negatively rated statements Statements Disagreement Agreement 1. The Department has a clear and fair promotion process that takes efficiency, performance and experience into 63% 15% account. 2. I feel I have all the opportunities I need for promotion. 60% 18% 3. I have a good deal of information about what is happening in other parts of the Department. 59% 19% 4. The HR division cares about my opinions. 54% 10% 5. I strongly feel that we are part of one team in the Department. 54% 22% 6. The HR division considers my goals and values. 53% 8% 7. I receive training to keep me up to date with developments in the Department. 8. I have the opportunities to be moved around various positions so that I can learn a broad range of skills. 9. Sometimes I do not speak up at work because I fear there will be repercussions from speaking up. 10. Sometimes I do not speak up at work because of fear of negative consequences. 52% 28% 51% 28% 48% 32% 47% 36% 11. The HR division cares about my wellbeing. 46% 21% 12. There is an open and co-operative atmosphere across all divisions in the Department. 13. I have good opportunities to participate in decisions that affect me. 14. When someone criticises the Department, I take it personally. 44% 22% 44% 30% 42% 27% 15. I often or always get carried away when I am working. 41% 20% 16. Performance reviews do influence HR actions taken in the Department. 38% 19% 17. The HR division supports me to achieve work-life balance. 37% 24% 18. I receive the training that I need to do my job well. 37% 34% 19. I have a great extent of opportunities to improve on the skills and abilities I possess. 20. There has been good communication in relation to the Toland Report. 36% 22% 35% 39% 10 P a g e

Conclusion and Key Recommendations The findings from the survey highlight that, overall, respondents feel confident about their ability to do their job and feel that they have the capability to perform their work to a high level. Respondents also feel strongly that the management of underperformance in the Department is an important priority. However, there are a number of aspects of working in the Department that are viewed more negatively. In particular, the issue of promotion opportunities emerged as a key area of concern among respondents. Linked to this finding was the view among respondents that they are not given opportunities to fully utilise their skills and expertise. Taken together, these issues suggest the need to review the performance management and development system (PMDS) and how it operates. In addition, the role of the HR Division and of line managers in the effective design and implementation of the system, as well as in the overall management of the employment relationship are regarded as key priorities. While the findings suggest that respondents do feel that their work colleagues in the Department are friendly, there is an overall sense from the findings that tensions exist and that the Department as a whole does not operate as one team. Following the analysis of the data, we recommend that interventions be considered around three broad areas: (1) creating a culture of empowerment, (2) enhancing the employment relationship, and (3) improving the work and organisational climate. Creating a culture of empowerment There was evidence that employees do not feel that they are given the opportunity to fully utilise their skills in their roles or to feel empowered in the work that they do. Based on our analysis, we propose a number of measures that are centred around enhancing skill utilisation (e.g. through job rotation, networking opportunities, increasing levels of autonomy, and clarifying opportunities for mobility), enhancing social empowerment (e.g. through better publicising the impact of employees work on the external community, increasing interactions with the public, and reducing any red tape that might obstruct the line of sight between employees work and its impact on others), and empowering leadership (e.g. through building empowerment into management competency profiles, developing empowerment skills among managers, and embedding aspects of empowering leadership into managers performance reviews). Enhancing the employment relationship We identified a number of factors that are impacting on the overall quality of the employment relationship within the Department. We propose a number of measures to address this important issue. The first concerns the role of HR in the Department, the need for the HR philosophy to be re-considered, and HR strategies and practices to become better aligned with the philosophy. In addition, the ways in which line managers can be supported in their implementation of HR practices should be reviewed. The second intervention concerns the management of performance. We propose that a review of how the performance management and development system (PMDS) currently operates is needed. This will involve clarifying the objectives of the system, better establishing how its objectives are linked to other elements of the HR system (e.g. training, promotion etc.), and encouraging and supporting managers to tackle issues regarding underperformance. Finally, issues regarding promotion opportunities within the Department emerged as a source of considerable concern for respondents. We propose a number of interventions by which this important aspect of the employment relationship can be addressed including: clarifying the criteria for promotion, reviewing the application process for internal candidates, identifying ways in which work experience and skills 11 P a g e

can be better assessed as part of the promotion process, and ensuring that the process is seen by employees to be fair and transparent overall. Improving the Work and Organisation Climate Our analysis suggests that the organisation operates very much as a hybrid in terms of those who work for the Department and those who work for its offices or agencies. For example, those working in offices or agencies of the Department reported fewer promotion opportunities and less connection with the Department as regards participation or consultation. We identify a number of interventions aimed at clarifying the apparent tensions that exist in this regard. These include: reinforcing employees understanding of the role that each unit plays in the Department, clearly communicating job opportunities that exist across the Department and broadening opportunities for mobility (including secondments), and ensuring that communication is consistent across the entire Department. Finally, we make a number of recommendations aimed at improving the overall climate of the organisation. These measures involve (a) instituting a bottom up approach in the management of change, which will enable employees across all levels and grades in the organisation to contribute their ideas and expertise, and (b) establishing working groups that include a cross-section of grades and divisions to foster a climate of respect and cooperation. 12 P a g e