engagement survey results: staff presentation · engagement survey results: staff presentation...
TRANSCRIPT
Engagement Survey Results:
Staff Presentation
February 13th, 2020
Introduction, Terms and Background
Brief Background on Metrics@Work
Slide 3
• Metrics@Work emerged from Brock University’s Workplace Health Research Lab (WHRL) in September, 2007 after 8 years at Brock (i.e., established in 1999) –approaching 20+ years of operations
• Metrics@Work maintains processes and systems previously approved by Brock University’s Research Ethics Board. Surveys peer approved by neutral 3rd party at Univ. of Toronto
• 500+ surveys conducted with 200+ companies. Surveys conducted within our major sectors include:
• Overall Database nearly 310,000 respondents, usually use most recent – approx. 180,000 respondents since 2008
• Major Sectors: 60 Municipal / Regional; 23 Education Surveys: Colleges (5) and Universities (8); 152 Healthcare; 23 Finance / Ins
Universities:1. Western2. York University3. Ryerson University4. McMaster University5. Laurentian University 6. Lakehead University7. St. Thomas University8. University of Lethbridge
Colleges:1. Niagara College 2. Fanshawe College 3. Algonquin College4. Red River College5. New Brunswick Community College
Why Survey? Creating Engaging Work and Value for All Stakeholders
A. A survey:1. Identifies Units with strong results (high results and/ or
strong positive change results) with potential indicators of better management practices
2. Identifies Units with less strong results (lower results / or strong negative change results) with potential need for intervention and change
Has Management and Staff Value
Has Executive and Governance Value
Has Value to All Stakeholders
B. A Survey’s results allow an organization to:1. Measure against other organizations, i.e., external
benchmarking (other counties / municipalities)2. Measure improvements from previous surveys, i.e., internal
benchmarking with year-over-year changes
C. Premise:1. Stronger local work environments (more A1 and less A2)
are associated with higher levels of productivity2. Higher effectiveness & efficiency, i.e., improved overall
KPI’s
Slide 4
Drivers that are often able to be
changed by Managers,
Supervisors and staff (quick,
easier change)
Higher Level Drivers often
need strategy, budgets etc. by Snr. Ldrshp. and
HR/OD (slow, harder change)
Level 2. Department
Level 4. Organizational
Level 1.Job
Level 3.Portfolio
Engagement Drivers at Common Workplace
Levels
That Impact Outputs, e.g., Productivity, Efficiency &
Effectiveness
Affect Multiple Levels of States of Engagement
(Outcomes)
OrganizationalEngagement
Div. / Portfolio Engagement
TurnoverReputation
Student Engagement /
Satisfaction
IncivilityTeam Performance
PresenteeismPerformance
Inter-professionalCreativity
Dept. Engagement
Job Engagement
Basic Underlying Premise:A causes B causes C
Predicates:
In the Survey = Drivers“of Engagement”
In the Survey = Engagement Outcomes NOT in Survey
Metrics@Work’s Model of Measuring Engagement / Culture(adapted from Saks, 2006)
Survey Drivers (Predictors) of Culture / Engagement
Slide 6
1. Job: Performance Standards2. Job: Enough Time3. Job: Work is Distributed Fairly4. Job: Work / Life Balance5. Job: Satisfied with Physical Work
Environment6. Job: Satisfied with Resources &
Technology7. Job: Encouraged to Find Better Ways8. Job: Encouraged to be Innovative9. Job: Enough Time to Explore New
Things
Job Level Drivers
46 (single-item Drivers) of Engagement & 4 Outcomes
1. Dept: Morale is Good2. Dept: Ideas are Valued3. Dept: Satisfied with Co-Worker Interactions4. Dept: Treated with Respect5. Dept: Positive Relationship Between Faculty
& Staff6. Dept: Other Departments are Supportive7. Dept: Meetings are a Good Use of Time8. Dept: Comfortable Raising Issues9. Dept: Comfortable Approaching Supervisor
with a Problem10. Dept: Get Constructive Feedback from
Supervisor11. Dept: Supervisor is Committed to Learning
Opportunities12. Dept: Poor Work Performance is Not a Problem13. Dept: Communication from Supervisor14. Dept: Timely & Relevant Communication15. Dept: Decisions Based on Consultation16. Dept: Satisfied with Recognition17. Dept: Support for Diversity18. Dept: Supported When Dealing with Personal
Issues19. Dept: Psychologically Safe20. Dept: Support for Innovation21. Dept: Supports Continual Learning22. Dept: Supported Through Change
Department Level Drivers Organizational Drivers(Red River College)
1. Org: RRC Should be Globally Recognized
2. Org: Senior Leadership Team is Visible & Approachable
3. Org: Opportunities for Advancement4. Org: Supports a Culture of Diversity &
Inclusion5. Org: Receive Professional / Technical
Training6. Org: In-House Training Opportunities7. Org: Training Opportunities Outside of
College8. Org: Benefits Meet My Needs9. Org: Encouraged to Report Unsafe
Situations10. Org: Training for Safety & Emergency
Procedures
Division Level Drivers1. Div: Morale is Good2. Div: Satisfied with the Way
Information is Shared3. Div: Comfortable Expressing Opinion4. Div: Leaders Deal with Issues5. Div: Decisions Made Carefully
Custom Measures1. Respondents Identified as Most In
Need of Change2. Vision, Mission, and Values3. Red River College Strategic Plan4. Effective College Communication
Survey Outcomes1. Job Engagement2. Departmental Engagement3. Divisional Engagement4. Organizational Engagement
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
DisagreeDisagree
Somewhat
DisagreeNeither
Somewhat
AgreeAgree Strongly Agree
0.0% 50.0% 100%
Higher Levels of Agreement Higher Levels of Disagreement
Calculating Your Scores, Norms, and Ranges
Slide 7
83.3%66.7%33.3%16.7%
Normal Overall Group
Range Approximately 50% …To 80%
• A Score out of 100 DOES NOT mean the % who agree• It is the average level of Agreement / Engagement for a Driver• Not like a report card – A’s are not 80’s and so no one get’s all A’s • Avg.’s = good for summarizing but they hide group differences (MUST look deeper)
RRC Overall Highest
Driver (out of 46
Drivers) = 83.3%
RRC Overall
Lowest Driver:
(out of 46 Drivers) = 55.3%
Division
Highest
Driver 96.3%
Division
Lowest Driver:
43.3%
Department
Highest
Driver =
100.0%
Department
Lowest
Driver =
21.4%
(Out of 54
Departments and
46 Drivers)
(Out of 26
Divisions and 46
Drivers)
Overall Institutional Results
Slide 9
Response Rates:Overall Red River College
Survey Period: Nov. 25 to Dec. 6th (2-weeks)
• OVERALL M@W Avg. Response rate is 65%.
• M@W Higher Ed. Avg. Response rate is 54% (Faculty = 35% and staff = 68%).
Slide 10
Response Rates:Overall RRC Job Category / Position
Survey Period: Nov. 25 to Dec. 6th (2-weeks)
Overall Engagement Score (Avg. of all 46 Drivers):RRC Overall and Work Groups Compared to the Database
Slide 11
70.2%
68.2%
69.3%
72.3%
74.5%
68.0%
77.1%
40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% 80.0%
Red River College
The M@W Database Score
The M@W Education Sector Database Score
Academic Services
Non - Academic Services
Academic Programs
Senior Leadership Team
Notes:1. The M@W Database Score is based on the average of approximately 135 organizations, and 90,000 survey respondents (primarily based in Ontario), including only the common drivers with enough respondents in the database to produce valid benchmarks.2. The M@W Education Sector Database Score is based on the average of approximately 8 Universities and 5 Colleges, including only the common drivers with enough respondents in the database to produce valid benchmarks.3. There is a none zero origin to this graph, which increase the appearance of differences.
Slide 12
Top 2 are over 80%
13 of the top Drivers (out of 46 Drivers) are > 75 %
Remaining 11 Top Drivers are > 70% and represent strong positive responses.
Red River CollegeHIGHEST SCORES (Top 24 Drivers out of 46)
(Strongly Disagree & Disagree)
(Strongly Agree & Agree)
Slide 13
1. Three drivers below 60%. None below 50%,
Red River CollegeLOWEST SCORES (Lowest 22 Drivers out of 46)
2. Top / Bottom Box (% of respondents in the Agree & Disagree range). Results driven by Work Groups with lower
ratings. Add to the list of possible Improvement Areas (>15% Negative):
• Job: Enough Time and Poor Work Performance Not a Problem
Red River CollegeCompared to the M@W Education Database
(based on the average of approximately 8 Universities and 5 Colleges)
Slide 14
> 5% = Strong Positive Results in 1 out of 21 Drivers.
More than 5% Lower:• 1 out of
21 Drivers
Green = > 5 % Higher
Black = within +/- 5 %
Red = > 5 % Lower
Summary of Overall Institutional Results
Biggest ChallengesAs Self-Selected by Survey Respondents
From Lists of All the Drivers (Job Drivers=9, Dept. Drivers=22, Div. Drivers=5 Org. Drivers=10)
Job Drivers Department Drivers
Division Drivers Organizational Drivers
Notes From Previous Slides: The following drivers scored low in ranking, compared to higher Ed, or had > 15% Variance:• Job: Enough Time (to explore new things)• Job: Enough Time (e.g., workload manageability)• Opportunities for Advancement
• Dept: Poor Work Performance is not a Problem• Org: Senior Leadership is Visible & Approachable• Org: Training for Safety& Emergency Procedures
Thematic Approach: Overall Survey Indices
Slide 17
66.1%
62.1%
72.8% 72.9% 74.0% 73.0%74.9%
61.4%
69.9%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
Communication(6)
Workload &Work / Family
Balance (4)
SupervisorSupport (4)
Respect /Treatment (9)
EngagedEmployee /
Enjoy Job (15)
SupportiveWork
Environment /Comfortable
(12)
PsychologicalSupport &
Encouragement(8)
Senior /Executive
Leadership (3)
Learning &Career
Development(9)
Red River College Metrics@Work Database
Notes-the number in brackets represents the # of questions included in the Index / Survey Theme-non-zero origin to the graph can distort degree of difference
Variation Among Groups Within Portfolios
Job: Enough TimeBy (54) Departments Colour Coded by Portfolio:
Slide 19
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Dep
artm
en
t 1
Dep
artm
en
t 2
Dep
artm
en
t 3
Dep
artm
en
t 4
Dep
artm
en
t 5
Dep
artm
en
t 6
Dep
artm
en
t 7
Dep
artm
en
t 8
Dep
artm
en
t 9
Dep
artm
en
t 1
0
Dep
artm
en
t 1
1
Dep
artm
en
t 1
2
Dep
artm
en
t 1
3
Dep
artm
en
t 1
4
Dep
artm
en
t 1
5
Dep
artm
en
t 1
6
Dep
artm
en
t 1
7
Dep
artm
en
t 1
8
Dep
artm
en
t 1
9
Dep
artm
en
t 2
0
Dep
artm
en
t 2
1
Dep
artm
en
t 2
2
Dep
artm
en
t 2
3
Dep
artm
en
t 2
4
Dep
artm
en
t 2
5
Dep
artm
en
t 2
6
Dep
artm
en
t 2
7
Dep
artm
en
t 2
8
Dep
artm
en
t 2
9
Dep
artm
en
t 3
0
Dep
artm
en
t 3
1
Dep
artm
en
t 3
2
Re
d R
iver
Co
llege
(1
59
3)
Dep
artm
en
t 3
3
Dep
artm
en
t 3
4
Dep
artm
en
t 3
5
Dep
artm
en
t 3
6
Dep
artm
en
t 3
7
Dep
artm
en
t 3
8
Dep
artm
en
t 3
9
Dep
artm
en
t 4
0
Dep
artm
en
t 4
1
Dep
artm
en
t 4
2
Dep
artm
en
t 4
3
Dep
artm
en
t 4
4
Dep
artm
en
t 4
5
Dep
artm
en
t 4
6
Dep
artm
en
t 4
7
Dep
artm
en
t 4
8
Dep
artm
en
t 4
9
Dep
artm
en
t 5
0
Dep
artm
en
t 5
1
Dep
artm
en
t 5
2
Dep
artm
en
t 5
3
Dep
artm
en
t 5
4
Academic Services (224) Non-Academic Services (366) Academic Programs (985)
Database score is 61.7%
Less than 50%
Dept: Poor Work Performance is Not a ProblemBy (54) Departments Colour Coded by Portfolio:
Slide 20
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Dep
artm
en
t 1
Dep
artm
en
t 2
Dep
artm
en
t 3
Dep
artm
en
t 4
Dep
artm
en
t 5
Dep
artm
en
t 6
Dep
artm
en
t 7
Dep
artm
en
t 8
Dep
artm
en
t 9
Dep
artm
en
t 1
0
Dep
artm
en
t 1
1
Dep
artm
en
t 1
2
Dep
artm
en
t 1
3
Dep
artm
en
t 1
4
Dep
artm
en
t 1
5
Dep
artm
en
t 1
6
Dep
artm
en
t 1
7
Dep
artm
en
t 1
8
Dep
artm
en
t 1
9
Dep
artm
en
t 2
0
Dep
artm
en
t 2
1
Dep
artm
en
t 2
2
Dep
artm
en
t 2
3
Dep
artm
en
t 2
4
Dep
artm
en
t 2
5
Dep
artm
en
t 2
6
Re
d R
iver
Co
llege
(1
59
3)
Dep
artm
en
t 2
7
Dep
artm
en
t 2
8
Dep
artm
en
t 2
9
Dep
artm
en
t 3
0
Dep
artm
en
t 3
1
Dep
artm
en
t 3
2
Dep
artm
en
t 3
3
Dep
artm
en
t 3
4
Dep
artm
en
t 3
5
Dep
artm
en
t 3
6
Dep
artm
en
t 3
7
Dep
artm
en
t 3
8
Dep
artm
en
t 3
9
Dep
artm
en
t 4
0
Dep
artm
en
t 4
1
Dep
artm
en
t 4
2
Dep
artm
en
t 4
3
Dep
artm
en
t 4
4
Dep
artm
en
t 4
5
Dep
artm
en
t 4
6
Dep
artm
en
t 4
7
Dep
artm
en
t 4
8
Dep
artm
en
t 4
9
Dep
artm
en
t 5
0
Dep
artm
en
t 5
1
Dep
artm
en
t 5
2
Dep
artm
en
t 5
3
Dep
artm
en
t 5
4
Academic Services (224) Non-Academic Services (366) Academic Programs (985)
Database score is 62.9%
Less than 50%
Org: Opportunities for Advancement By (54) Departments Colour Coded by Portfolio:
Slide 21
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Dep
artm
en
t 1
Dep
artm
en
t 2
Dep
artm
en
t 3
Dep
artm
en
t 4
Dep
artm
en
t 5
Dep
artm
en
t 6
Dep
artm
en
t 7
Dep
artm
en
t 8
Dep
artm
en
t 9
Dep
artm
en
t 1
0
Dep
artm
en
t 1
1
Dep
artm
en
t 1
2
Dep
artm
en
t 1
3
Dep
artm
en
t 1
4
Dep
artm
en
t 1
5
Dep
artm
en
t 1
6
Dep
artm
en
t 1
7
Dep
artm
en
t 1
8
Dep
artm
en
t 1
9
Dep
artm
en
t 2
0
Dep
artm
en
t 2
1
Dep
artm
en
t 2
2
Re
d R
iver
Co
llege
(1
59
3)
Dep
artm
en
t 2
3
Dep
artm
en
t 2
4
Dep
artm
en
t 2
5
Dep
artm
en
t 2
6
Dep
artm
en
t 2
7
Dep
artm
en
t 2
8
Dep
artm
en
t 2
9
Dep
artm
en
t 3
0
Dep
artm
en
t 3
1
Dep
artm
en
t 3
2
Dep
artm
en
t 3
3
Dep
artm
en
t 3
4
Dep
artm
en
t 3
5
Dep
artm
en
t 3
6
Dep
artm
en
t 3
7
Dep
artm
en
t 3
8
Dep
artm
en
t 3
9
Dep
artm
en
t 4
0
Dep
artm
en
t 4
1
Dep
artm
en
t 4
2
Dep
artm
en
t 4
3
Dep
artm
en
t 4
4
Dep
artm
en
t 4
5
Dep
artm
en
t 4
6
Dep
artm
en
t 4
7
Dep
artm
en
t 4
8
Dep
artm
en
t 4
9
Dep
artm
en
t 5
0
Dep
artm
en
t 5
1
Dep
artm
en
t 5
2
Dep
artm
en
t 5
3
Dep
artm
en
t 5
4
Academic Services (224) Non-Academic Services (366) Academic Programs (985)
Database score is 58.9%
Less than 50%
Next Steps
General Next Steps forSurvey-based Improvements
1. Communications Cascade of the Results
2. Need for Learning and Focused Interventions:
a. Where Low Scores or Large Negative Changes to Scores - Changeb. Where Results are in the Middle, or Around Average – Small Changec. Where High – Maintain or very small changed. Where Large Positive Changes to Scores - Learn
3. Action Planning – Parallel processes at multiple levelsa. Discussions and action planning with action areas determined to be in need
of improvement, carried out by manager and his/her team, with support from one-up manager and possibly HR
b. Possibly, some selected Corporate or Department / Section actions, closely supported by HR and integrated with training and development planning
4. Evaluation and Follow-up / Accountability
5. Make clear there will be Continuity in Surveying, Reporting, Action Planning and Evaluation
Slide 23
APPENDIX:
Survey Key
Appendix: Survey Key
Appendix: Survey Key
Appendix: Survey Key
