WORKPLACE DYNAMICS IN NEW
ZEALAND PUBLIC SERVICES 2013
Geoff Plimmer
Jessie Wilson
Jane Bryson
Stephen Blumenfeld
Noelle Donnelly
Bill Ryan
The Industrial Relations Centre (IRC) and the
School of Management
Victoria University of Wellington
Key points
• 49,611 of the PSA members invited to
participate
• Between 3 and 24 April 2013
• 15,762 responses
• A response rate of 32%
• Survey comprised sets of standardised
questions – 5-point Likert scales, 1=
positive/agree, 3= neutral, 5 =
negative/disagree
The context, change agenda
• Better Public Services (BPS)
– New focus on results, leadership [transformational?],
people and organisational capability
– ‘Step change’ required
– Released early 2012, over a year ago
• Performance Improvement Reviews (PIF)
– Concerns about performance and leadership
– Poor on strategic management, better on operational
and ministerial responsiveness
• Budget cuts
• Work intensification, erosion of rights, low
management skill, personal accountability
Profile of the ‘typical’ participant
 48 years of age
 female
 New Zealand European/Pakeha
 works full-time in a clerical or administrative capacity
 more highly educated than the national average
 paid above the New Zealand wage and salary average
 heterosexual, married
 involved in community life through voluntary work in
the areas of sport, education, health/social support or
religious/spiritual activities
Employment and occupational
distribution
•
•
•
•
44.8% -public service agencies (N = 6452)
25.7% - district health boards (N = 3702)
12.3% - state sector agencies (N = 1778)
12.1% - local government bodies (e.g., district
councils; N = 1741)
• 5.1% - a variety of community orgs (N = 729)
• 340 organisations represented by the PSA
• Over 45% are in professional, registered service
worker, manager or scientist positions
Officials are committed and
motivated…
• Most agree they are motivated (M = 4.04, SD =
.54) [Neutral coded as 3]
• And are relatively committed to their
organisation (M = 3.59, SD = .88)
• But are motivated more to making a difference to
society (87.9%) or their job (84.5%) than their
organisation (67.9%)
…do pressured but decent work
• 51.3% say they work more than their contracted
working hours (M = 6 hours per week) but report
reasonable levels of workload (M- 3.01, SD .78)
• 51.5% of women report extra working hours
• 83% not compensated
• 42% say never seem to have enough time to get
everything done
• 47.2% indicate “too much work for one person to
do”
High rates of bullying
• Almost a third of participants reported being
bullied in the last six months, with 6.2%
experiencing bullying frequently (4.6% daily or
weekly)
• In other New Zealand research using the same
method, 12.4% of respondents reported
having been bullied “now and then”,
compared to 26.2% in the current survey
(O'Driscoll et al., 2011)
Organisational overview
• Next sections focus on workplace processes,
organisational systems and climate, perceptions of
management, organisational performance including
‘ambidexterity’
• Interpretive frame
– What would a ‘high-performing, well-organised, wellmanaged public organisation’ look like? – especially one
capable of being innovative whilst maintaining businessas-usual?
– In other words, how ‘ready’ to enact BPS/PIF?
• Assumption that most/all scores should be in the
positive range and some well above
– i.e. high percentage of staff rate organisations above 3
(neutral) on most/all indicators
Workplace processes
• Have reasonable authority, information, and
knowledge to do their jobs, but feel unrewarded and
have limited voice outside their immediate jobs.
• Authority/autonomy M = 3.57
• Information
M = 3, SD .79
• Rewards
M = 2.64, SD .90
• Knowledge
M= 3.16, SD .70
(5=positive/agree; 3=neutral; 1=negative/disagree)
• Low ratings for management knowledge and
opportunities for upward worker input
• Lowest ratings for rewards for extra effort, recognition
and praise
Organisational systems and climate
• Although organisational and workplace goals and procedures
are clear, they are not particularly efficient or well-designed
• Organisational goals –
M = 3.56, SD .81
– 58.1% can “clearly explain the direction (mission, values,
purpose) of this org…”
• Communication, co-operation - M = 2.73, SD .92
• Innovation –
M= 2.81, SD .86
• Processes M = 3.27, SD .87
(5=positive/agree; 3=neutral; 1=negative/disagree)
– Clear policies and procedures for work – 61.6%
– Efficient and well designed – 37.1%
• Note tendency towards ‘pervasive ambivalence’ starting to
emerge in responses
Perceptions of managers…
Managers are considerate in some respects but not particularly fair,
honest or trustworthy (M = 3.12, SD = .95)
Per cent
Strongly disagree
Tend to disagree
... treat employees fairly.
… understand about employees having to meet responsibilities outside of
work.
Neutral
9.7
6.5
Tend to agree
18.8
12.1
Strongly agree
28.9
36.4
23.5
47.9
… deal with employees honestly.
10.3
20.5
29.5
… are sincere in attempting to understand employees’ views.
10.4
20.7
26
10
22.6
.… can be relied upon to keep to their promises.
10
34.1
37.6
32
6.3
31.4
5.6
5.3
4.1
…more perceptions of managers
Are risk averse, overly political and not strong on development of
subordinates or organisations (M = 2.79, SD = .81)
Strongly disagree
Tend to disagree
Neutral
Tend to agree
… set realistic goals.
8
18.1
… are willing and able to take prudent risks.
8
18.7
… treat failure as a learning opportunity, not something to be ashamed of.
… base decisions on facts and analysis, not politics.
7.9
6.3
15
… give ready access to information that others need.
7.1
16.9
10
35.2
43.3
34.7
22.1
… work hard to develop the capabilities needed to execute our overall
organisational strategy.
… devote considerable effort to developing their subordinates.
34.9
15.8
11.8
Strongly agree
36.5
34.4
36.4
33.6
24.2
27.0
37.6
3.8
3
5.2
27.2
4.5
36.8
5.5
37.9
4.5
24.4
3.8
Organisational performance
• Organisational performance not rated highly (M =
2.79, SD = .81).
– An example item is “This organisation is achieving its full
potential.”
(5=positive/agree; 3=neutral; 1=negative/disagree)
• Adaptability – also low (M = 2.90, SD = .88).
– Example: “The management systems in this organisations
are flexible enough to respond quickly to changes”
• Alignment – slightly better (M = 3.04, SD = .79).
– Example: “My organisation wastes resources on
unproductive activities”
Ambidexterity