2010 Employee Engagement Survey Executive Summary 6 December 2010.

2010 Employee Engagement Survey

Executive Summary

6 December 2010

Background

Timeframe: 8 November through 19 November, 2010

Participation Rate:

898 respondents

51% response rate (assuming 1756 eligible participants)

Demographic Data Collected:

Role

Job Grade

Gender

Length of Service

Age Group

School / Service

Faculty

Background Questionnaire:

52 core questions 11 supplemental questions One open-ended question

Themes:

Questionnaire:

No data is reported for groups with fewer than 10 respondents

Data Presentation:

Questions were answered on a five-point response scale with the midpoint being neutral.

The two favourable responses are combined and the two unfavourable responses are combined to produce a simplified three-response presentation (positive, neutral, and negative).

Key dimension scores are the average of the question responses that make up the dimension.

Background

General Benchmarks for Interpreting Survey Items

•Clear Strength > 65% Positive

•Moderate Strength 50 – 65% Positive

•Opportunity for Improvement < 50% Positive

•Weakness > 25% Negative

•Clear Problem > 40% Negative

Major Themes

Overall engagement has fallen since 2009 All major dimensions have declined Most significant decline is in perceptions of

Leadership (15% drop since 2009) 2010 engagement levels are now roughly equivalent

across Faculty areas

Middle job grades (5-7) declined more than lower and upper job grades

The 25 to 44 year-old age group declined more than older groups

Major Themes - continued

Favourability ratings for both men and women declined since 2009 Perceptions of men and women are now roughly

equivalent across dimensions, with women slightly more favourable

Length of service Declines occurred across all categories of service Employees with less than 12 months are generally

more favourable than employees with longer service, though this is a very small group

Role Of the two largest roles, Academic and Support, the

Academic role remains less engaged


Some of the gains seen in 2009 have reverted. This is particularly noticeable among certain demographics: Job Grade 5-7 Employees age 25-44 Women

And among certain dimensions: Leadership Overall Satisfaction


Though declines have occurred, relative strengths remain: Perceptions of immediate manager remain positive

(e.g., recognition, feedback) Fair pay and benefits Pride in team Challenging work that utilises personal skills

Overall Satisfaction

Dropped 11% from 2009 to 60% favourable

Opinions about immediate work environment are still relatively positive Immediate manager The job itself

Declines are related to the broader University environment Recommend University as place to work Global feeling of dissatisfaction with University


Declines across all demographics, with significant drops in:

Demographic 2009 2010 Diff

University Overall 71% 60% -11%

Job Grade 5-7 72% 59% -13%

Age 25-44 71% 57% -14%

Female 73% 61% -12%

Service 3-10 years 70% 59% -11%

Technical Role 77% 54% -23%

*Percent Favourable


Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

How good a job is being done by your immediate manager?

69% 66% -3%

How satisfied are you with your job? 71% 64% -7%

I would recommend University to others as a place to work

66% 47% -19%

Will you still be working for the University 12 months from now?

77% 69% -8%

Rate your overall satisfaction with the University

71% 56% -15%

*Percent Favourable

Leadership

Leadership dimension saw the greatest declines from 2009 Dropped by 15% to only 39% favourable

Opinions are sharply critical toward senior management, particularly in the areas of: Strategy and direction of the University Ability to make necessary changes and make effective

decisions Communication with employees Job security

Leadership

Declines across all demographics, notably:



Job Grade 5-7 52% 34% -18%

Age 25-44 55% 36% -19%

Female 57% 39% -18%

Service 10-20 years 49% 32% -17%

Support Role 60% 43% -17%

*Percent Favourable

Leadership Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

I understand University’s strategy 75% 65% -10%

I am confident strategy will succeed 54% 36% -18%

University is making changes necessary to succeed

60% 42% -18%

I understand what is expected of me 82% 79% -3%

Senior Management communicates effectively

51% 32% -19%

Confident in ability of senior mgmt to make decisions to ensure success

47% 27% -20%

*Percent Favourable

Leadership Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

Sufficient effort to get people’s opinions and ideas

39% 30% -9%

Senior management understands issues faced at my level

22% 16% -6%

Satisfaction with information received from senior management

46% 32% -14%

Actions of senior management are consistent with stated values

42% 30% -12%

Rate University in providing job security

74% 37% -37%

*Percent Favourable

Atmosphere of Cooperation


Some areas remained relatively stable since 2009 Teamwork and team accomplishments

Largest declines are in areas of: How people treat one another (trust and respect) Matters of personal involvement (decisions, new ways

of doing things) Pride in University


Remained consistent across certain demographics, with modest declines:



Job Grade 5-7 62% 54% -8%

Age 25-44 62% 54% -8%

*Percent Favourable


Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

Clear understanding of school/ service’s priorities

77% 72% -5%

I understand how my work supports school/service’s goals

83% 79% -4%

In my section/department we work effectively as a team

64% 63% -1%

In my part of the University, there are well defined processes and standards

55% 56% +1%

People treat one another with trust and mutual respect

46% 38% -8%

I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things

61% 52% -9%

*Percent Favourable


Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

There is a free exchange of opinions and ideas

43% 38% -5%

Satisfaction with involvement in decisions that affect your work

54% 47% -7%

Satisfaction with cooperation between your department and other depts

43% 40% -3%

I am proud of my team’s accomplishments

79% 79% 0%

I am proud to work here 69% 59% -10%

*Percent Favourable

Equity


Though most aspects around perceptions of immediate manager declined, these were generally slight Work/life balance Recognition for quality work Performance feedback

Areas that dropped more severely are related to University and leadership Fairness of University management Feeling valued as an employee

Equity

Small declines across most demographics, with some notable drops:



Job Grade 5-7 55% 48% -7%

Age 25-44 57% 50% -7%

Service less than 1 year 66% 59% -7%


*Percent Favourable

Equity

Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

My immediate manager is considerate of my need for work/life balance

82% 80% -2%

I am confident that management at the University is fair

52% 37% -15%

I understand how my performance is evaluated

62% 56% -6%

The overall evaluation of my performance is fair

67% 62% -5%

My immediate manager deals effectively with poor performers

42% 38% -4%

My immediate manager recognises quality work

73% 71% -2%

*Percent Favourable

Equity

Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

My immediate manager gives me feedback to improve performance

58% 57% -1%

Satisfaction with recognition for doing a good job

52% 45% -7%

I feel valued as an employee of the University

47% 37% -10%

I am paid fairly for my work 62% 58% -4%

The better my performance, the better my pay will be

8% 4% -4%

How do you rate your total benefits package?

49% 55% +6%

*Percent Favourable

Personal Development


Satisfaction with personal aspects of job remained stable Challenging and fulfilling Good use of skills Have information to succeed at job

Less satisfaction around opportunities to improve skills

More serious dissatisfaction with opportunities to advance within the University and with retaining talented employees


Small declines across most demographics, with some notable drops:



Job Grade 5-7 57% 51% -6%

Age 25-44 62% 54% -8%


*Percent Favourable


Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

My job is challenging and fulfilling 73% 72% -1%

My job makes good use of my skills and abilities

69% 69% 0%

I have enough information to succeed in my job

71% 70% -1%

My department has the resources necessary to achieve its objectives

39% 32% -7%

I receive the training and development I need to do my job

65% 61% -4%

*Percent Favourable


Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

How satisfied are you with your physical working conditions?

62% 64% +2%

I know what skills I will need in the future to be a valuable contributor

69% 65% -4%

I am given opportunities to improve my skills at the University

69% 61% -8%

My manager takes an active interest in my growth and development

61% 57% -4%

I am satisfied with my opportunities for growth and development

54% 48% -6%

*Percent Favourable


Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

How satisfied are you with your opportunities to advance?

32% 25% -7%

The University is successful in developing and promoting employees from within

37% 26% -11%

The University is doing what is necessary to keep its most talented employees

21% 13% -8%

Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate manager?

69% 66% -3%

*Percent Favourable

Supplemental

This dimension is at 61% favourable overall Items were changed from previous administration;

therefore, a direct comparison of the overall dimension with 2009 is not possible

Declines in specific areas seem to reflect overall attitude toward the University Poor understanding of customer needs Retaining talent Value placed on innovation Encouragement of diversity

Supplemental

Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

Satisfaction with information on intranet

67%

Satisfaction with information from line manager

57%

Ability to give line manager feedback that is received and acted on

60%

My school/service has a clear understanding of customer needs

77% 67% -10%

Overall, how would you rate your school/service’s customer service?

79% 76% -3%

The University is able to attract and retain high quality employees

43% 34% -9%

*Percent Favourable

Supplemental

Survey item details

Item 2009 2010 Diff

The University values innovation and creativity in pursuit of excellence

53% 40% -13%

I am fully aware of the University’s corporate values

58% 55% -3%

The University encourages and promotes diversity

79% 64% -15%

If I have a formal complaint, my concerns will be taken seriously

63% 65% +2%

In the last 12 months I have not been bullied, harassed, etc.

81% 83% +2%

*Percent Favourable

Key Results Matrix

Primary Strength

Secondary Strength

Neither Strength nor Weakness Opportunity for Improvement

Critical Weakness

• Immediate manager behavior

• Good use of skills and abilities

• Receive needed information

• Opportunities to improve skills

• Understanding of University strategy

Clear Majority Positive

( > 65% Positive)

Majority Positive

( > 50% Positive)

Less Than Majority Positive

(or > 25% Negative)

Above

Avg

At or

Near

Avg

Below

Avg

• Performance evaluation

• Fair pay

•Effective teamwork

•Overall Satisfaction

•Benefits package

•Proud to work at University

• Department resources

• Opportunity for growth

• Mutual trust & respect

• Feel valued as employees

• Cooperation between departments

• Recommend University

• Making necessary changes

• Confidence in University strategy

• Confidence in senior management decisions, actions, communication

• Advancement and developing & promoting from within

• Pay for performance

• Retaining talented employees

Open-Ended Comments

Communicating Survey Results

It is recommended that survey results be communicated to employees. Different levels of results are typically communicated utilising different methods of communication.

Organisation-level results are typically disseminated to a wider group of employees and print media is generally preferred. However, video or voice media are also effective. Results to other levels are generally communicated in smaller groups or during meetings between employees and their managers.

Organisation-Level Results Newsletter Memos from Top Management Intranet/ E-mail

Other Results Small Group Meetings Face-to-Face Meetings between Managers and Employees Group Newsletters or Memos

Action Planning

After determining your areas of strength and areas in need of improvement, develop a summary balance sheet (see chart on the following page). This provides a starting point for determining how to address the issues you’ve identified. It can guide you in coordinating efforts, where appropriate, with other levels of the organisation. Additionally, it clearly identifies those areas you need to address solely within a specific group.

List the strengths and weaknesses that are unique to a group (not shared with broader level organisations) in the “unique” column, and list those that are similar to broader organisations in the “shared” column.

Using the balance sheet, compare your organisation to the next highest or most logical organisation level.

UNIQUE SHARED

STRENGTH

WEAKNESS

Action Planning - Balance Sheet

Characteristics of an Effective Action Plan

After you’ve reviewed and analysed your results, it’s time to take action. An effective action plan has the following characteristics:

Is fully supported by senior leadership - Having the support of senior leadership is critical to success. If the actions you are undertaking are not important to and supported by senior leaders, there is little likelihood of success. Having their support ensures focus and priority are placed on the plan. Additionally, they can help eliminate roadblocks to implementation of the plan.

Focuses on what can be done - Don’t waste time on what is not possible. Although all ideas should be considered, focus on the positive and possible.

Involves employees - Involve employees as much as possible to gain their perspective on the issues, their ideas and their commitment.

Establishes specific actions and goals - Specificity ensures clarity and leads to success.

Provides a timetable of events - Publicising the timing of events enhances the likelihood that deadlines will be met and helps inform the organisation of the changes planned.

Assigns responsibilities and accountabilities - Ensure ONE person is accountable for each action plan item. This level of accountability eliminates the potential for assuming someone else will get it done.

Describes how success will be measured - Define what success is, since this provides the goal your team needs. This target offers continual feedback to the team on the progress they are making.

Is clearly communicated - Document your action plan to ensure that everyone has the same understanding of what will occur and who is accountable.

The final step in analysing your data and preparing to take action is to prioritise the areas you will address. Attempting to implement too many changes will dilute your focus and effort. Strive to identify 2 or 3 key issues you want to work on. Once your plans are developed and implemented, you can move to additional issues while monitoring the changes already established.

The following chart is a guide for prioritising the areas you will work on. It considers areas for improvement on two factors – Importance and Potential for Change. Priority should be placed on those issues that are important and have a high potential for change. Areas that are important, but have low potential for change can be addressed by minimising the negative impact they exert. Areas of low importance are addressed if resources permit, avoiding those that have a low potential to change.

Prioritising Your Action Plan

Prioritising Your Action Plan

Area to AvoidOptional Areas for Action

DilemmasPriorities for ActionI

MPORTANCE

HIGH LOW

Monitor for

Future Importance

Focus if

Resources AllowLOW

Attempt to Minimize Negative

Impact and Curtail Damage

Focus for Research

and EnergyHIGH

POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE

2010 Employee Engagement Survey

Executive Summary

6 December 2010

2010 Employee Engagement Survey Executive Summary 6 December 2010.

Documents

Transcript of 2010 Employee Engagement Survey Executive Summary 6 December 2010.