ops employee survey report 2011

2011 OPS Employee Survey

Enterprise Report

June 2011

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 20112011 OPS ENTERPRISE REPORT | Page 56

Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction 1

1 1 Background 11.1 Background 1

1.2 2011 OPS Employee Survey Reporting Framework 2

2. Top Line Results 3

2.1 2011 OPS Results Scorecard 3

2.2 Index Trends 4

3. Employee Engagement Index 5

3.1 Employee Engagement Index Results 5

3.2 Distribution of Employee Engagement Scores 6

3.3 Inter‐jurisdictional Comparisons 7

4. Corporate Indices 9

4.1 Productive Capacity Index 94 1 1 Productive Capacity Index Results4.1.1 Productive Capacity Index Results

4.1.2 Priorities for Improvement

4.2 Workplace Culture Index 114.2.1 Workplace Culture Index Results


4.3 Talent Capacity Index 134 3 1 Talent Capacity Index Results4.3.1 Talent Capacity Index Results


4.4 Leadership Index 154.4.1 Leadership Index Results


5. Response rates 17

6 Acting on the Results 186. Acting on the Results 18

6.1 Communication and Awareness 18

6.2 Getting More Insight 20

6.3 Action Planning Steps 23

6.4 Resources 25

7. Detailed Results 26

Part A: Employee Engagement Themes 26

Part B: Ministry Scores 30

Part C: Discrimination, Harassment, Violence 31

Part D: Workforce Profile 36

Part E: Demographic Profile 42

Part F: Verbatim Summary 48Part F: Verbatim Summary 48

Appendix: OPS Employee Engagement Model

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 20112011 OPS ENTERPRISE REPORT |

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The OPS Employee Survey was launched as a corporate program in 2006. Since 2007 it has beenconducted as a biennial census survey. The 2011 Employee Survey was fielded in February/March2011. This is the third employee census conducted by the Modernization Division, HROntario onbehalf of the OPS.

In the OPS Employee Engagement Model, employee engagement consists of both employeecommitment to the organization and the achievement of its goals, along with employee satisfactionwith the organizational culture and work environment. The OPS Employee Engagement Modelid tifi i t th th t i fl l t ( A di )identifies nineteen themes that influence employee engagement (see Appendix).

The OPS also subscribes to the Public Sector Service Value Chain which links employee engagement toorganizational performance and client satisfaction leading to public trust and confidence (seeAppendix).

• As in past reports, the Employee Engagement Index is based on nine key indicator questions.In addition to the Employee Engagement Index this report includes four sub indices thatIn addition to the Employee Engagement Index, this report includes four sub‐indices thatalign with broad corporate goals. These new Corporate Indices are: the Productive CapacityIndex; the Workplace Culture Index; the Talent Capacity Index and; the Leadership Index (seepage 2).

• The new Corporate Indices build on insight gained from previous waves of the OPS EmployeeEngagement Measurement Program. These four additional measures enhance the level of

bl h d dactionable insight provided.

• In this report you will first see the “Top Line” results of the 2011 Employee Survey followedby analysis of the Employee Engagement Index. The following sections then report on eachCorporate Index, including the respective employee engagement themes on which they arebased.

• Priorities for action are identified in the context of each Corporate Index and summarized inthe “2011 OPS Employee Survey Results Scorecard”. Guidance on how to obtain furtherinsight regarding the results and tailor corresponding action plans is also provided.

• Detailed results are provided in section 7. These include response rates, question byquestion results, demographics and other useful information.

• Community of Practice representatives in each Ministry are available to provide furtherinformation about the OPS Employee Engagement Measurement Program and this report.Your Ministry representatives can also support insight development, action planning andcommunication strategies.


1. Introduction

1.2 2011 OPS Employee Survey Reporting Framework

The OPS Employee Survey Reporting Framework is a “balanced scorecard” that informs and supportskey corporate goals captured in the form of four Corporate Indices in addition to the overallEmployee Engagement Index. Each Corporate Index provides insight on an aspect of employeeEmployee Engagement Index. Each Corporate Index provides insight on an aspect of employeeengagement as outlined below. Each Corporate Index is in turn comprised of a set of EmployeeEngagement themes associated with the OPS Employee Engagement Model.

The Employee Engagement Index measures employee satisfaction with their immediate workenvironment and the broader organizational culture as well as their commitment to the organizationand the achievement of its goals.

The Productive Capacity Index reports on employees’ perceptions of their ability to effectivelyprovide service and discharge their duties.

The Workplace Culture Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the physical, social andorganizational environment in which they work.

The Talent Capacity Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the OPS’ ability to attract, developand optimize its human resources.

The Leadership Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the quality of leadership and supervisionthey receive.

OPS Employee Survey Reporting Framework

Corporate Indices• Job Fit

Themes

Productive Productive Capacity IndexCapacity Index

• Orientation\On‐Boarding• Performance Barriers• Quality of Service Provided• Support & Tools

• Co‐Worker Relationships

Employee Employee Engagement Engagement

IndexIndex

Workplace Workplace CultureCultureIndexIndex

• Inclusive Practices*• Independence & Innovation• Recognition• Safe & Healthy Workplace• Workplace Morale• Work‐Life Balance

C AdTalent Capacity Talent Capacity

IndexIndex

L d hiL d hi

• Career Advancement• Commitment to Public Service• Learning & Development

• Clear Expectations & Direction• Direct Supervision


Leadership Leadership IndexIndex

• Direct Supervision• Leadership Practices• Organizational Communication

* Formerly Fair HR Practices

2. Top Line Results

2.1 2011 OPS Results Scorecard

The following chart summarizes the OPS’ survey scores on the Employee Engagement Index (EEI) andh f th f C t I di Th t d l t d di d t i

OPS Employee Survey Scorecard

each of the four Corporate Indices. These scores are presented on a scale standardized to a maximumof 100 points. The individual corporate index scores move in different ranges. A lower score in aparticular index does not mean that it should be a priority over the other corporate indices.

OPS Employee Survey Scorecard

Productive Productive

Priority Themes*

Capacity IndexCapacity Index(61.99)

Workplace CultureWorkplace CultureIndexIndexEmployee Employee

Job Fit

RecognitionIndexIndex(63.80)

Talent Capacity Talent Capacity IndexIndex

p yp yEngagement Engagement

IndexIndex

(69.21)(69.21)

Recognition

Career Advancement(64.09)

Leadership Leadership IndexIndex(60.79)

Leadership Practices(60.79)

*Indicates the top priority theme for each of the Corporate Indices.

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

2. Top Line Results

2.2 Index Trends

The line chart below shows the OPS Employee Engagement Index trend for 2007, 2009 and 2011. Thenext set of bar charts below provides the Corporate Index scores. For each Corporate Index the OPS2009 and 2011 scores are provided for comparison. Please note that 2011 is the first time theseCorporate Indices are being reported. The 2009 Corporate Index scores shown here have beencalculated retroactively in order to provide relative guidance.

Employee Engagement Index

100 OPS Highest Ministry Lowest Ministry

65.98

72.47

69.21

73.65

78.7977.08

62.46

68.8266.11

60

70

80

90

Productive Capacity Index

60

0

10

2007 2009 2011

OPS 2011

OPS 2009

p y

Workplace Culture Index

61.99

64.66

OPS 2011

OPS 2009

p

Talent Capacity Index

63.80

64.67

OPS 2011

OPS 2009

p y

Leadership Index

64.09

66.18


OPS 2011

OPS 2009

60.79

63.50

3. Employee Engagement Index

The Employee Engagement Index measures employee satisfaction with their immediate workenvironment and the broader organizational culture as well as their commitment to the organizationand the achievement of its goals.

3.1 Employee Engagement Index (EEI) Results

As indicated on page 4, the OPS 2011 overall EEI score is 69.21. This is 3.26 points lower than in 2009but 3.23 higher than 2007. While the OPS achieved considerable progress from 2007 to 2009, therehas been a decline in 2011. Similarly, whereas the OPS engagement score was on par with the nationalbenchmark score in 2009, it has now slipped below on five of the six inter jurisdictional EEI indicators(see page 7).(see page 7).

The highest scoring EEI indicator in the 2011 results is “I strive to improve my Ministry’s results” (77%agree/strongly agree) while the lowest is “I am satisfied with my ministry” (50% agree/strongly agree).Employees have greater pride in their Ministries than in the OPS overall (70% versus 63%agree/strongly agree). Generally, they are also more satisfied with their own jobs and work than theyare with their Ministries. Research across organizations has shown that job and work satisfaction aretypically higher than organizational satisfaction.

Trends show that all EEI indicators in 2011 are lower than 2009 but most are higher than 2007. Theaverage score for “I am inspired to give my very best” dropped the most (.25 lower than 2009 OPSaverage and .03 lower than 2007), while “I would prefer to stay with the OPS…” dipped the least (.04)between 2009 and 2011. Hence, while feeling less inspired to give their best efforts overall, mostemployees remain firmly committed (albeit at lower levels than in 2009) to improving their Ministries’results.

5

7

9

12

23

32

38

36

25

14

OPS Average*

2011 2009 2007

I am satisfied with my job 3.69 3.77 3.58

I am satisfied with my Ministry 3.40 3.54 3.23

Employee Engagement Indicators (%)

5

5

4

9

9

5

22

24

21

38

31

35

26

32

35

y y

Overall, I am satisfied in my work as an OPS employee 3.71 3.82 3.56

I am proud to tell people I work for the OPS 3.77 3.86 3.58

I am proud to work for my Ministry 3.92 4.00 3.77

5

7

5

8

10

8

22

19

25

32

31

35

34

33

27

I would prefer to stay with the OPS, even if offered a similar job

elsewhere3.83 3.87 3.60

I am inspired to give my very best 3.73 3.98 3.76

I would recommend the OPS as a great place to work 3.71 3.85 3.50


* Average of responses based on a 5‐point agreement scale

13 20 43 34

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree(n=40,625) (n=29,052)(n=41,502)

I strive to improve my Ministry’s results 4.05 4.24 4.04

“n” refers to the first question in the survey and will vary slightly by question“⁻*⁻” indicates that the question was not asked in that year“‐” indicates insufficient base size to report↑↓ indicates statistically significant direction of change 2011 – 2009 (95% confidence)


It should be noted that the EEI and its key indicators are “outcome” oriented measures. Hence, theytend not to be “actionable” directly but rather must be influenced through actions that target otherpriority findings as highlighted in the Corporate Index Priorities (see section 4).

3.2 Distribution of Employee Engagement Scores

The OPS workforce was segmented into low, medium and high engaged employees based on theirindividual EEI scores. The proportion of highly engaged employees has declined sharply since 2009.Specifically, just over one third of OPS employees (37%) in 2011 are highly engaged compared to overhalf (51%) in 2009 and 44% in 2007.

The 14 percentage point decline in highly engaged employees since 2009 has now shifted into theThe 14 percentage point decline in highly engaged employees since 2009 has now shifted into themedium engaged (6 percentage point increase) and low engaged (8 point increase) employeesegments. The 41% medium engaged employee group is a large “swing” segment with the potential tobecome more engaged if their key concerns are addressed. The Corporate Priorities (see section 4)identify specific priorities for potential initiatives in each of the four Corporate Indices that couldimprove employee engagement.

Additional insights into the reasons for employee engagement shifts are gained by exploring patternsg p y g g g y p g pin the OPS survey results by Workforce and Demographic Profiles (Section 7). Significant declines since2009 in some large subgroups are important to consider in action planning. For example, the largestemployment group, Bargaining Units (as self identified by staff), has seen a greater than averagedecline in employee engagement compared to the OPS overall since 2009. Employee engagement hasdeclined more sharply for employees who haven’t been appraised in the last 12 months, don’t havewritten performance and learning plans, and have initiated job changes within the last three years.

Proportion of Employees with High, Medium and Low Levels of Engagement

37%21%

13% 16%

and Low Levels of Engagement

2011

41%

2009

35%

51%2007

39%

44%


Low 0‐50 Medium 50‐75 High 75‐100

3.3 Canadian Inter Jurisdictional Public Sector Comparisons

Six of the nine indicators in the OPS EE Index are also available through a benchmark national reportof Canadian public sector jurisdictions*. The results for these common engagement indicators are


of Canadian public sector jurisdictions . The results for these common engagement indicators arecompared below for the OPS versus national benchmarks (agree/strongly agree). Note that the InterJurisdictional EE Index is calculated using the average of the six common engagement indicators andthat is different from the OPS EE Index which is based on nine indicators.

Inter Jurisdictional Employee Engagement Indicators

2011 Inter Jurisdictional EE Index Engagement Indicators ( Strongly Agree/Agree %)

I am satisfied with my Ministry

60

50

National: 65.5 OPS: 61.5

Overall, I am satisfied in my work as an OPS employee

I d ll l I

72

67

64

I am proud to tell people I work for the OPS

I would prefer to stay with the OPS, even if offered a similar job l h

67

64

63

elsewhere

I am inspired to give my very best

67

66

64

I would recommend the OPS as a great place to work

63

62

Inter Jurisdictional 2011 scores

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

OPS 2011 scores

2011 OPS ENTERPRISE REPORT | Page 7

*Reporting Jurisdictions 2010‐2011: British Columbia, Alberta, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Labrador


The national inter‐jurisdictional EE Index has decreased from 67.2 in 2009 to 65.5 in 2011 (‐1.7points). The OPS inter‐jurisdictional EE Index has also decreased from 66 to 61.5 (‐4.5) in the sameperiod While in 2009 the OPS inter‐jurisdictional EE Index was just 1 2 points below the national EEperiod. While in 2009 the OPS inter‐jurisdictional EE Index was just 1.2 points below the national EEIndex, the gap has now widened.

The OPS has now slipped below the national benchmark on five of the six inter jurisdictionalengagement indicators. The most significant gaps between the OPS and other jurisdictions are onemployees’ satisfaction with their Ministries (10 percentage point gap) and with their work as OPSemployees (8 percentage point gap). These gaps likely relate to questions around Job Fit (see page10) where perceptions of job challenge and job fit with skills and interests have declined significantly10) where perceptions of job challenge and job fit with skills and interests have declined significantlywithin the OPS.

Gaps between the OPS and the national benchmark on four of the six inter jurisdictional engagementindicators are modest, ranging from 1 to 4 percentage points. The only indicator on which the OPS israted higher than other jurisdictions is “I would prefer to stay with the OPS, even if offered a similarjob elsewhere” (+2 percentage points)

The OPS engagement model and EEI distinguish between employee satisfaction and commitment.Clearly, both are required for strong employee engagement. The one item in the inter jurisdictionalengagement indicators that stands out from the rest is “I am satisfied with my Ministry” which israted favourably (agree/strongly agree) by only half of the OPS workforce as compared to between62% and 66% favourable for the five other indicators. This pattern of results suggests that, relativeto other jurisdictions, OPS employees are more dissatisfied with their Ministries than with their workor the OPS overall. Greater insight into more specific underlying causes can be facilitated throughthe Ministry level reports and action planning.

Employee engagement results from the private sector between 2009‐2011 are mixed. Mostreputable sources report downward or stable trends. To benchmark the OPS, the best comparator isthe Canadian public sector since provincial jurisdictions utilize similar methodologies includingseveral common indicators.


4. Corporate Indices

4.1 Productive Capacity Index

The Productive Capacity Index reports on employees’ perceptions of their ability to effectivelyprovide service and discharge their duties. The OPS 2009 and 2011 scores are provided for

OPS 2011

OPS 2009

61.99

64 66

comparison. Please note that 2011 is the first time these Corporate Indices are being reported. The2009 Corporate Index scores shown here have been calculated retroactively in order to providerelative guidance.

OPS 2009 64.66

4.1.1 Productive Capacity Index (PCI) ResultsThe OPS PCI is the second lowest scoring Corporate Index (see page 4) behind Talent Capacity andWorkplace Culture. It has declined by 2.67 index points since 2009. This decline is consistent with thedirection of change in the three other Corporate Indices. It is also comparable with the magnitude ofchange in the Leadership Index (2.71 index point decline). It has, however, declined more sharply thanchange in the Leadership Index (2.71 index point decline). It has, however, declined more sharply thanthe Workplace Culture and Talent Capacity Indices which declined by .87 and 2.09 index points,respectively.

4.1.2 Priorities for ImprovementThe five themes comprising the Productive Capacity Index are positioned below on a Priority Matrixreflecting their survey scores and relative influence on employee engagement. Based on the OPSsurvey results, Job Fit was identified statistically as the top priority in this Index to improve employeeengagement.

While focusing on Job Fit as the top enterprise priority in this Index, it will be important to not losesight of other low scoring themes from a potential action planning perspective. Performance Barriers,in particular, has a sharply negative performance score and presents significant opportunities forimprovement.

Higher Score

LOW PRIORITY

Job Fit

Quality of

Service

Support & Tools

LowerScore HIGH PRIORITY

Orientation/On‐

Boarding

Performance

Barriers

Support & Tools


Number of respondents = 40,625

Score HIGH PRIORITY

HigherLower Influence on Engagement

+ A low score in the Performance Barriers theme represents a positive outcome. Accordingly, the response scale for this theme has been reversed to position it appropriately in the graphic above

* The 2011 Index includes four extra questions that were not asked in 2009


Orientation/On‐Boarding is positioned about midway between Performance Barriers and Job Fit interms of strength of influence on employee engagement. It too may justify consideration from anaction planning perspective as it reflects relatively low performance and moderate influence onemployee engagementemployee engagement.

Quality of Service is the highest scoring theme and most influential on employee engagement in thisIndex. From a potential action planning perspective, it is important to determine whether actions maybe called for to “maintain” or even further enhance the relative strength of this theme in the OPS.Given the interconnected nature of Job Fit and Quality of Service identified in OPS studies, Job Fit canalso have a positive cross‐impact on this theme.

Looking more closely at the questions that comprise Job Fit (see chart below) helps identifyopportunities to strengthen the PCI within the OPS. Of the individual survey questions comprising thistheme, “My work is interesting” is the highest scoring item with 72% of OPS employeesagreeing/strongly agreeing. While not asked in 2009, the average for this question increased by .07compared to 2007. A majority of OPS employees are also positive about the two other questions inthis theme: “My job is a good fit with my skills and interests“ (66% agree/strongly agree); and, “Mywork provides me with the right level of challenge” (59% agree/strongly agree).

Still, trends show that the average scores on these questions declined significantly since 2009,although remaining higher than in 2007.

Job FitOPS Average*

2011 2009 2007

My work provides me with h i h l l f h ll 3 57 3 65 3 44the right level of challenge 3.57 3.65 3.44

My job is a good fit with my skills and interests 3.76 3.80 3.64

7

6

13

10

22

18

33

33

26

33

My work is interesting 3.94 ‐ 3.873 7 18 36 36



Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=40,625)(n=41,502)(n=29,052)



4.2 Workplace Culture Index

The Workplace Culture Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the physical, social andorganizational environment in which they work. The OPS 2009 and 2011 scores are provided for

i Pl h 2011 i h fi i h C I di b i d Th

OPS 2011

OPS 2009

63.80

64.67

comparison. Please note that 2011 is the first time these Corporate Indices are being reported. The2009 Corporate Index scores shown here have been calculated retroactively in order to providerelative guidance.

4.2.1 Workplace Culture Index (WCI) ResultsThe OPS WCI is the second highest scoring Corporate Index, behind Talent Capacity (see page 4). Ithas declined slightly by .87 index points since 2009 which is consistent with the direction of change inthe three other Corporate Indices), but not nearly as great in magnitude of change. The Leadership,Productive Capacity, and Talent Capacity Indices declined by 2.71, 2.67 and 2.09 index points,respectively.

4.2.2 Priorities for ImprovementThe seven themes comprising the WCI are positioned below on a priority matrix. Recognition wasidentified as the top priority for the OPS in the Workplace Culture Index. It is the lowest scoringtheme in this Index. Independence & Innovation is a “borderline” high priority but has strongerinfluence on engagement than Recognition. Hence, it is also important to not lose sight of its relativei t d t iti f i timportance and opportunities for improvement.

Inclusive Practices and Work‐Life Balance are less influential than the two aforementioned themesbut score at comparable levels. Consequently, while Recognition is the top enterprise priority in thisIndex, followed by Independence & Innovation, these two themes also offer opportunities forimprovement that can positively affect employee engagement.

Higher Score

LOW PRIORITY

Co‐Worker

Relationships

Safe & Healthy

Workplace

Workplace

Morale

L

Inclusive

Practices

Independence &

Innovation

Recognition

Workplace

Work‐Life

Balance





* The 2011 Index includes seven extra questions that were not asked in 2009


Co‐Worker Relationships has the highest performance score within this Index but the least influenceon employee engagement. Safe and Healthy Workplace has greater influence on engagement but alower performance score While clearly lower priorities actions may be warranted to maintain and/orlower performance score. While clearly lower priorities, actions may be warranted to maintain and/orenhance their relative strength.

Looking more closely at the questions that comprise Recognition helps identify opportunities forstrengthening the WCI within the OPS. Of the two survey questions comprising this theme, the onescoring lower in 2011 is: “My Ministry does a good job formally recognizing its employees”. Less thanhalf of employees (39%) agree / strongly agree with this statement. “I receive meaningful recognitionfor work well done” is rated more positively than formal Ministry recognition with over half offor work well done is rated more positively than formal Ministry recognition with over half ofemployees (53%) agreeing/strongly agreeing.

OPS trends show that while considerable progress was achieved in improving formal recognitionbetween 2007 and 2009 (average score increased by .32), this progress plateaued in 2011 (down by.01). Similarly, “I receive meaningful recognition for work well done” remains significantly higher thenin 2007, and it declined slightly (‐.03) in 2011.

OPS Average*

2011 2009 2007

Recognition

My Ministry does a good job formally recognizing its

employees 3.07 3.08 2.76

13 18 30 27 12

I receive meaningful recognition for work well

done3.40 3.43 3.15

12 14 21 28 25



Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree(n=40,625)(n=41,502)(n=29,052)



4.3 Talent Capacity Index

The Talent Capacity Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the OPS’ ability to attract, developand optimize its human resources. The OPS 2009 and 2011 scores are provided for comparison.

OPS 2011

OPS 2009

64.09

66.18

Please note that 2011 is the first time these Corporate Indices are being reported. The 2009Corporate Index scores shown here have been calculated retroactively in order to provide relativeguidance.

OPS 2009

4.3.1 Talent Capacity Index (TCI) ResultsThe OPS TCI is the strongest of the four corporate indices (see page 4). It has declined by 2.09 indexpoints since 2009 which is consistent with the direction of change of the three other CorporateIndices. It is sharper in magnitude of decline than the Workplace Culture Index (which declined by .87index points) but not as sharp as the Leadership and Productive Capacity Indices declines of 2.71 and2.67 index points, respectively.

4.3.2 Priorities for ImprovementOf the three themes comprising the TCI, Career Advancement was identified as the top enterprisepriority in this Index. Research across organizations has shown that perceptions of careeradvancement and learning and development are strongly correlated with employee engagement.

While focusing on Career Advancement as the top priority in this Index it is important to not loseWhile focusing on Career Advancement as the top priority in this Index, it is important to not losesight of the Learning and Development theme as it is a close second in priority and has slightly greaterinfluence on engagement. Actions aimed at addressing Career Advancement can also have a positivecross‐impact on Learning and Development and vice versa.

Higher Score

LOW PRIORITY

Commitment to

Public Service

Lower

Career

Advancement

Learning &

Development





* The 2011 Index includes the same questions as asked in 2009


The remaining theme, Commitment to Public Service, clearly scores highest of the three TalentCapacity themes although it has much less influence on employee engagement. This theme is basedon one survey item, “Serving the public good is a very important factor in my decision to work for theOPS” Clearly this is an inherent strength for the OPS At the same time by its nature it is lessOPS”. Clearly, this is an inherent strength for the OPS. At the same time, by its nature, it is lessactionable than the other items in this and other Corporate Indices.

Looking more closely at the questions that comprise Career Advancement helps identifyopportunities for strengthening Talent Capacity within the OPS. In 2011, the two survey questions inthis theme, “I have opportunities for career growth within the OPS” and “I am satisfied with the waymy career is progressing in the OPS”, are rated 44% and 46% (agree/strongly agree), respectively.Nearly a third of OPS employee don’t see opportunities for career growth (30% disagree/stronglyy p y pp g g g ydisagree) and are dissatisfied with the way their career is progressing (27% disagree/stronglydisagree). Paired with declines in the Leadership Index (see page 15) dissatisfaction with CareerAdvancement may also be linked to employee concerns with organizational communication.

While trends show that both questions remain higher than 2007 ratings, both have declinedsignificantly in average score since 2009 (‐.13 and ‐.21, respectively).

Additional insights into career advancement expectations may be gained by exploring whether careerAdditional insights into career advancement expectations may be gained by exploring whether careerplanning discussions are happening. As reported on page 41, both the number of employees who havewritten performance plans and those who’ve had performance appraisals have increased between2009 and 2011 (7 percentage points and 5 percentage points, respectively). Despite this, among thosewho’ve initiated job changes, the most common reasons cited are for career advancement (58%) andprofessional development (25%). Exploring employee expectations around career advancement andreviewing exit interviews among those who have initiated job changes may provide additional insights.

OPS Average*

2011 2009 2007

Career Advancement

I have opportunities for career growth within the OPS 3.16 3.29 2.99

13 17 27 29 15

I am satisfied with the way my career is progressing in the

OPS 3.21 3.42 3.18

12 15 27 30 16



Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=40,625)(n=41,502)(n=29,052)



4.4 Leadership Index

The Leadership Index reports on employees’ perceptions of the quality of leadership and supervisionthey receive. The OPS 2009 and 2011 scores are provided for comparison. Please note that 2011 is

OPS 2011

OPS 2009

60.79

63.50

the first time these Corporate Indices are being reported. The 2009 Corporate Index scores shownhere have been calculated retroactively in order to provide relative guidance.

4.4.1 Leadership Index (LI) ResultsThe OPS LI is the lowest scoring of the four Corporate Indices. It has declined by 2.71 index pointssince 2009 which is consistent with the direction of change of the three other Corporate Indices (seepage 4). It is about the same magnitude of change as the Productive Capacity Index’s 2.67 index pointdecline, sharper than Talent Capacity’s 2.09 index point decline, and much sharper than WorkplaceCulture’s .87 index point decline.

4.4.2 Priorities for ImprovementThe four themes comprising the LI are positioned below on a priority matrix. Leadership Practiceswas identified as the top priority for this Index. Of the four themes in this Index, it has the greatestinfluence on employee engagement. Leadership has also been shown through research acrossorganizations to be strongly related to organizational performance.

While focusing on Leadership Practices as the top priority in this Index, it is important to not lose sightof Organizational Communication as it also is a clear opportunity for improvement and a close secondin priority within this Index. Actions aimed at addressing Leadership Practices can also have a positivecross‐impact on Organizational Communication and vice versa.

Higher Score

LOW PRIORITY

Clear

Expectations &

Direction

Direct

Supervision

Lower

Leadership

Practices

Organizational

Communication





* The 2011 Index includes one extra question that was not asked in 2009


Clear Expectations & Direction is a clear strength for the OPS, having the highest theme score in thisIndex and strong influence on engagement. Clarity of direction is linked strongly to leadershipeffectiveness and has been shown through research across organizations to be one of the mosteffectiveness and has been shown through research across organizations to be one of the mostimportant attributes of high performing organizations.

Direct Supervision is a “borderline” enterprise strength for the OPS. Quality of supervision has beenfound through organizational research to strongly influence employee motivation and performanceand also foster positive employee relations. Hence, attention should be given to potential actions formoving this key theme from its current borderline position to a clear enterprise strength for the OPS.

Looking more closely at the questions that comprise Leadership Practices helps identify opportunitiesfor strengthening the LI within the OPS. Of the five survey questions comprising this theme, the tworated lowest in 2011 are: “Senior leaders in my Ministry make timely decisions” and “Senior leaders inmy Ministry provide clear direction” (40% and 38% agree/strongly agree, respectively).

Although trends show that considerable progress was achieved on both questions between 2007 and2009 (average scores increased by .31 and .32, respectively), results have slipped significantly in 2011(average scores decreased by .14 and .10, respectively). All of the other items in Leadership Practices(average scores decreased by .14 and .10, respectively). All of the other items in Leadership Practicesshow similar trends over time, with results declining significantly since 2009 but remaining higher thanin 2007. The question having the greatest decline by far since 2009, by far, is “My Ministry is on theright track in its planning for the future” (‐.26). “I have confidence in the senior leaders of myMinistry” and “Senior leaders in my Ministry make timely decisions” have declined the least since2009, although the decline is still statistically significant.

8 15 30 34 14

Leadership Practices

OPSMinistry Average*

2011 2009 2007

I have confidence in the senior leaders of my Ministry

3.23 3.34 3.05

9

10

18

16

34

29

29

31

11

14

Senior leaders in my Ministry make timely decisions

3.01 3.15 2.84

Senior leaders of my Ministry are genuinely interested in the

well‐being of employees 3.12 3.21 2.86

11

6

18

14

34

37

28

31

10

12

g p y

Senior leaders in my Ministry provide clear direction

3.05 3.15 2.83

My Ministry is on the right track in its planning for the

future3.14 3.40 3.06



(n=41502)(n=29052)Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=40625)

future


5. Response Rates

OPS Response Rate Trend


58.963.5

70.3

91.3 91.5

40 540

50

60

70

80

90

43.5

24.5

34.440.5

20

30

40

0

10

2007 2009 2011

2011 2009 2007OPSAboriginal Affairs 82.0% 78.8% 49.3%Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 82.9% 77.0% 64.5%Attorney General 56.2% 57.4% 50.7%Cabinet Office 86.5% 81.1% 58.7%Children and Youth Services 74.1% 64.5% 37.6%Citizenship and Immigration 79.4% 87.4% 70.3%Community and Social Services 73.3% 72.7% 44.9%Community Safety and Correctional Services 40.5% 34.4% 24.5%Consumer Services 78.4% 78.0% n/aEconomic Development and Trade 83.5% 84.5% 56.3%Education 70.7% 65.8% 37.1%Energy 69.8% n/a n/aEnvironment 77 5% 79 2% 63 8%Environment 77.5% 79.2% 63.8%Finance 78.2% 74.8% 54.0%Government Services 80.7% 91.1% n/aHealth and Long‐Term Care 62.3% 70.9% 42.2%Health Promotion and Sport 91.5% 85.1% 58.1%Information and Information Technology 77.3% 84.3% 61.2%Infrastructure 84.7% n/a n/aLabour 72.3% 71.6% 55.0%7 .3% 71.6% 55.0%Landlord and Tenant Board 74.6% 77.2% NAMunicipal Affairs and Housing 85.8% 84.7% 61.3%Natural Resources 62.8% 45.1% 38.7%Northern Development, Mines and Forestry 81.3% 61.4% 54.9%Office of Francophone Affairs ‐ ‐ ‐Ontario Clean Water Agency 64.2% 57.0% 35.9%Research and Innovation 84.7% 91.3% 40.4%


Revenue 72.7% 74.8% n/aServiceOntario 90.2% 79.0% NATourism and Culture 75.3% n/a n/aTraining, Colleges and Universities 76.3% 75.1% 54.8%Transportation 62.9% 68.5% 52.1%

The first step in action planning is communicating the survey results to all employees. This supportsan open and transparent working environment. Communicating through multiple channels and on

6. Acting on the Results

6.1 Communicating and Acting on Results

p p g g g pmore than one occasion is encouraged. In‐person discussion with staff should be the primary meansof communication for ministry leaders and managers. This can be supplemented by websites,OPSpedia and email.

Prior Survey Results Communicated

EE Index

2011* 2009

83%

17%

(n=32,309) (n=29,644)

Yes 70.83 73.79

No 64.96 69.27

While ministries often implement innovative employee engagement initiatives with positive impacts,our findings suggest that many employees are unaware of what actions, initiatives and programs havebeen implemented. It is important to make employees aware when initiatives are planned andimplemented, that these initiatives are in response to the priorities they have expressed through theEmployee Survey. This should be done in an ongoing fashion throughout the two year EmployeeSurvey cycle

( , ) ( , )

Awareness of Action Taken by OPS

Survey cycle.

EE Index

2011* 2009

55%

45%

2011* 2009

Yes 74.34 77.10

No 63.03 67.95


(n=28,647) (n=25,792)



The following OPS corporate initiatives were put in place in response to the 2009 Employee Survey.The 2011 results indicate strong employee awareness of the Workplace Discrimination andHarassment Prevention (87%) and Workplace Violence Prevention (81%) Policies. Employeeawareness of the three other corporate initiatives is sharply lower and is particularly weak with regard

Awareness of Specific Corporate Initiatives

EE Index2011

Workplace Discrimination and

awareness of the three other corporate initiatives is sharply lower and is particularly weak with regardto Role of the Manager training (20%).

87%

81%

20%

22%

Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy 69.85

Workplace Violence Prevention Policy 70.19

Role of the Manager training 75.72

New OPS On‐boarding / O i t ti P 75.45

(n=40,712)

22%

36%

8%

Orientation Program 75.45

OPS Weekly (reducing the number of OPS‐all email to staff) 72.80

None of the above 62.17

Our survey findings reveal that those employees with the most confidence in the employee surveyresults being addressed are also the most engaged. Conversely, employees who feel no action willresult are the least engaged. This underscores the necessity of creating, carrying out andcommunicating employee engagement action plans. Making employees aware of an action plan willengender trust, which can to lead to increased engagement.

Confidence that results from the

2011 Results Will be Addressed

results from the 2011 Employee Survey will be addressed.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree NA

9% 17% 36% 26% 11%

EE Index: 52.84 68.55 81.53


(n=40,005)



6.2 Getting More Insight

The following eleven techniques can be utilized to add depth and greater insight to the survey resultsat the ministry division and work unit levelsat the ministry, division and work unit levels.

Compare your 2011 EmployeeEngagement Index score to yourprevious 2009 score to assess thedirection and magnitude of change.

1. Review your scores over time

65.97

72.4775.83

80.00

90.0085.00

60.0060

70

80

90


65.97

72.4775.83

80.00

90.0085.00

60.0060

70

80

90


Identify trends over time that maysignal the need for action.

2. Benchmark your Employee Engagement Index scores against others in the OPS

Use the OPS and other Ministry Employee Engagement Index scores as benchmarks for howyour organization is doing. Significant gaps indicate the need for action. The Enterprise report

45.0050.00

40

50

0

10

2007 2009 2010

45.0050.00

40

50

0

10

2007 2009 2010

Employee Engagement Indicators (%)

OPS Average*

200720092011

OPS Average*

200720092011

y g g g g p p pallows you to see how you’re doing compared to other Ministries. The Ministry Reportprovides a similar comparison for divisions. Look for “best‐in‐class” performances andencourage divisions to share their successes with you.

3. Drill down into the nine employee engagement key indicator questions

The nine Employee EngagementIndex question scores are “outcome”

I am satisfied with my job

I am satisfied with my ministry



I am proud to work for my ministry


elsewhere

I am satisfied with my job

I am satisfied with my ministry



I am proud to work for my ministry


elsewhere

2

2

7

8

7

9

2

1

7

8

7

9

3

4

7

8

7

9

40

57

33

32

36

32

53

36

39

35

38

34

3.77 3.58 3.50

3.54 3.23 3.17

3.82 3.56 3.51

3.86 3.58 3.49

4.00 3.77 3.71

3.87 3.60 3.54

3.77 3.58 3.50

3.54 3.23 3.17

3.82 3.56 3.51

3.86 3.58 3.49

4.00 3.77 3.71

3.87 3.60 3.54

measures of the OPS EmployeeEngagement Model (see Appendix).Review the Employee EngagementIndex question scores to understandwhich aspects of employeeengagement need attention: workenvironment, organizational cultureor commitment I am inspired to give my very best


I strive to improve my ministry’s results

I am inspired to give my very best


I strive to improve my ministry’s results

8

11

8

8

11

8

8

11

8

39

38

40

28

19

27

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=xx,xxx) (n=xx,xxx)

3.98 3.76 3.71

3.85 3.50 3.38

4.24 4.04 3.99

3.98 3.76 3.71

3.85 3.50 3.38

4.24 4.04 3.99

(n=xx,xxx)

Higher LOW PRIORITY

or commitment.

4. Use the four Corporate Indices to ensure that you’re covering all priority areas

This report identifies themes withineach Corporate Index that are

Quality of

Service

ProvidedJob Fit

Support & Tools

Orientation/

O B di

Performance

Barriers

Scoreeach Corporate Index that arepriorities for action for yourorganization. These themes shouldbecome key focal points for youraction planning. Covering themesfrom each of the four corporatepriority areas creates a holisticimpact on employee engagement in


Number of respondents = 4591

On‐Boarding



your organization. While themes aregrouped under individual CorporateIndices, many themes cross over andinfluence one another.


5. Benchmark Corporate Indices against OPS/Ministry and Division scores

The Corporate Indices provide a second layer of analysis to the Employee Engagement Index.First study the relationship among the priority themes that surface and look for how they maybe linked. Then, as with the Employee Engagement Index, look at how your organization isdoing relative to the OPS overall and other Ministries. Share your “best in class” results andlook to other ministries/divisions to get ideas in areas where they are “best in class”.

6. Drill down into the question banks under the priority themes

For each priority theme you can drill down to review your performance on each questionunder the theme. Those questions with the weakest performance are likely the key levers toimprove engagementimprove engagement.

7. Look for significant downward shifts in question scores

Significant shifts in question scoressince the 2009 survey can signal anissue needing attention. This mayhave a link to priority issues alreadyidentified, or be unique issues intheir own right.

8. Link client satisfaction and other data outside of the Employee Surveyp y y

The Employee Survey data in this report provides you with the employee perspective. Anotherside of the equation is the client perspective. Relate your Employee Engagement Index scoresto your client satisfaction survey data (if available). According to the Public Sector ServiceValue Chain, employee engagement and customer satisfaction strongly influence each other.Analyzing how these two sets of data relate can provide useful information for improvementswithin your organization (see Appendix for more details on this linkage).



Relate priority themes to other key survey data

There are three sets of additional data provided in this report that can be used to gain further insight .These sets of data can also be analyzed using the Archway online tool (see 6.4 Resources).

Review the workplace profile data tosee if specific work groups respondeddifferently. Data includingemployment group, employeeclassification, occupational category,l i d id i i h

9. Workplace profiles

EE Index*2011

69.31

71.91

65.03

200720092011

‐

‐

‐

54.70

56.69

55.74Senior Manager occupying an SMG1 or

ITX1 position

Director occupying an SMG2 or ITX2 or OFA1 position

Assistant Deputy Minister or Associate Deputy Minister occupying an SMG 3‐4,

ITX3‐4, OFA2‐3 or OPP1 position

EE Index*2011

69.31

71.91

65.03

200720092011

‐

‐

‐

54.70

56.69

55.74Senior Manager occupying an SMG1 or

ITX1 position

Director occupying an SMG2 or ITX2 or OFA1 position


ITX3‐4, OFA2‐3 or OPP1 position

85%

85%

11%

Senior Management Level

location and tenure provide insightabout the level of engagement ofthose groups within yourorganization. Where there aremarkedly lower employeeengagement scores it may benecessary to adapt specific actionplans to address the needs of those

79.03‐56.69Deputy Minister

69.33‐54.70Prefer not to answer

79.03‐56.69Deputy Minister

69.33‐54.70Prefer not to answer

(n= 41,604)

2%

1%

(n= xx,xxx)

2009

EE Index*2011

69 31

71.91

65.03

200720092011

76 45

76.82

71.74

54 70

56.69

55.74Regular (Classified) Employee

Fixed Term Employee (Unclassified)

Other (not classified or unclassified)

2009

EE Index*2011

69 31

71.91

65.03

200720092011

76 45

76.82

71.74

54 70

56.69

55.74Regular (Classified) Employee

Fixed Term Employee (Unclassified)

Other (not classified or unclassified)

85%

85%

11%

85%

85%

11%

Classification

10. DemographicsExamine your Employee EngagementIndex scores related to thedemographic data including employee

d i i d lt

pwork groups.

2009

EE Index*2011

65.33

69.33

75.25

200720092011

71.77

75.30

79.94

54.70

56.69

55.74<1 yr

1‐4 yrs

5‐9 yrs

2009

EE Index*2011

65.33

69.33

75.25

200720092011

71.77

75.30

79.94

54.70

56.69

55.74<1 yr

1‐4 yrs

5‐9 yrs

8%

20%

22%

8%

20%

22%

Tenure

(n= 41,604) (n= xx,xxx) (n= xx,xxx)

69.3176.4554.70Other (not classified or unclassified) 69.3176.4554.70Other (not classified or unclassified) 11% 11%

age, gender, origin and culture,disability, education level, and otherdemographic variables. Again,consider which demographic groupsmay require attention.

Prefer not to answer

64.6370.1256.6910‐15 yrs

63.4869.9354.7016‐20 yrs

63.9370.9254.03> 20 yrs

Prefer not to answer

64.6370.1256.6910‐15 yrs

63.4869.9354.7016‐20 yrs

63.9370.9254.03> 20 yrs

2009

67 0573 5854 70North

EE Index*2011

65.63

66.21

200720092011

72.52

72.40

56.69

55.74Central

East

2009

67 0573 5854 70North

EE Index*2011

65.63

66.21

200720092011

72.52

72.40

56.69

55.74Central

East

11%

11%

28%

28%

53%

14%

15%

53%

14%

15%

(n= 41,604) (n= xx,xxx) (n= xx,xxx)

11%

11%

28%

28%

Location by Region

11. Verbatim dataOnce you have reviewed your prioritythemes and the workplace anddemographic categories needingtt ti dditi l lit ti

67.0573.5854.70North

65.5072.1454.03West

67.0573.5854.70North

65.5072.1454.03West

15%

16%

15%

16%

(n= 41,604) (n= xx,xxx) (n= xx,xxx)

attention, additional qualitativeinsight can be found by reviewing thecomments made by employees. CAO‐designated staff can use Archway, theonline support tool for the OPSEmployee Engagement program, toanalyze these comments. Archwayautomatically analyzes and


y ycategorizes the comments made byemployees. Search comments madeby staff with lower employeeengagement scores in your Ministryto add a qualitative layer of insight toyour action planning process.

6.3 Action Planning Steps

Building effective employee engagement requires a plan with input from all levels of the organizationincluding senior leaders, managers and staff. Successful plans are specific, measurable, realistic,


timely and flexible. Plans need to be evaluated, measured and adjusted as needed in a continuousimprovement process.

The OPS Employee Survey Program follows a 2‐year cycle. The steps to address results and implementaction plans (Act) are outlined below.

MMeasure

Conduct Survey

Process and

DesignSurvey

Monitor & Report

Action Results

Employee Survey Program

Cycle

Process and Analyze Data

Report Results

Select &

Plan & Implement Actions

Select &Communicate

ActionsCommunicateResults &Generate Action IdeasAct

Communicate Results and Generate Action Ideas

Leaders and managers can review and discuss results, compare and assess progress and communicatefindings to employees at staff meetings. The report results tell us “what’s happening” but “why it’shappening” is best informed through management‐staff discussions. Management and staff canbrainstorm ideas to identify potential response strategies.

Consider:

Step 1

• Various audiences in your organization and develop appropriate communication strategies

• Developing communications that are regular, multi‐channel, two‐way, clear and candid, strategicand intentional

• Scanning your organization to assess what initiatives are already underway that relate to thepriority areas identified in this report

• Assessing the actions taken in response to the 2009 results and what progress was made


• Assessing the actions taken in response to the 2009 results and what progress was made

• Deciding what current initiatives need to be continued, stopped or improved and what newinitiatives need to be started

Select & Communicate Actions

Once your team has interpreted the priority areas for your organization the next step is to defineti d th t i t th i iti t ll t ff L i ti t


Step 2

actions and then to communicate the priorities to all staff. Leverage existing corporate programswhen they support the priorities identified for your organization. Link in local actions that align withyour initiatives to those happening at the corporate level.

Select actions that:

• Are responsive to the priority areas and send a clear message to employees that their concernsare important and that they have been heard

• Are bold enough to clearly signal a desire to drive organizational change

• Build on but do not duplicate strategies already in place

• Can be implemented quickly and demonstrate results while longer‐term actions are beingplanned

Plan & Implement Actions Step 3Plan & Implement Actions

Leaders and managers can work with staff teams to develop detailed action plans that includemeasurable outcomes. Teams can be identified to implement either the entire action plan or specificinitiatives.

Ensure that:

• Teams develop detailed implementation plans that identify the activities to be undertaken, the

Step 3

Teams develop detailed implementation plans that identify the activities to be undertaken, theresponsibilities, timelines and resources for completion

• Actions include quick wins along with longer‐term initiatives

• Outcomes to be achieved are identified and the performance measures to determine success inmeeting outcomes are clearly understood

• Managers and teams are accountable for initiatives undertaken and that all involved areproperly recognized for their effortsproperly recognized for their efforts

• Initiatives are supported by providing appropriate training when needed

Monitor & Report Results of Actions

Teams can monitor and report on progress and results to senior leaders and managers. It is importantto evaluate, measure and adjust your action plans as needed and continuously communicate progressto all staff throughout the two year employee survey program cycle

Step 4

to all staff throughout the two year employee survey program cycle.

Consider:

• The best practices that may have been uncovered and how these can be continued or adaptedto other initiatives

• How expected organizational changes may impact on your initiatives and how to manage risks toplan completion


• A regular schedule for your teams to report results and issues to ADM and management team

• How to maintain the values of transparency, accountability and fairness in all reporting ofemployee engagement actions


6.4 Resources

A) Archway Online Tool

Access to the Archway On‐Line Tool is restricted to CAO‐designated staff from each Ministry.Access to the Archway On Line Tool is restricted to CAO designated staff from each Ministry. They are required to follow a set of protocols to ensure proper use of the tool and preserve the principle of confidentiality.

The Archway Online Tool provides access to the aggregated responses from the employee surveyquestionnaire. Automated reports for various organizational levels can be created. The Archway

l id d il d i i h d d d l i l l i l l

) d l

tool provides detailed insight needed to develop appropriate local action plans to supplementMinistry action plans.

Customized employee engagement reports can be created down to the unit level providing thatthere are a minimum of 20 respondents. Archway generates reports according to specificthemes, questions and demographic variables. Benchmark data are provided across work unitsfor 3 years (2011, 2009 and 2007). In 2011 Archway will also provide analysis of employeecomments.

B) ADMs Guidelines

These guidelines are intended to help ADMs effectively lead, communicate andact on divisional results from the OPS Employee Survey to improve employeeengagement. The process outlined can be adapted to suit your Division’scircumstances.

C) Guidelines for Managers

This document provides a guide to managers for communicating survey resultsThis document provides a guide to managers for communicating survey resultsand action planning. The process outlined can be adapted to suit your Branchcircumstances.

D) OPS Manager’s Guide to Internal Communications

This guide provides suggestions on how to be more strategic and effective incommunicating with staff including a quick guide to various communicationschannels in the OPS and how to use them A companion document is a referencechannels in the OPS and how to use them. A companion document is a referenceguide on communicating through the online channel.

E) OPS Pulse Survey Tool

This employee survey tool complements the biennial OPS Employee Survey. It canbe used to track progress on improving Employee Engagement in real time or toconduct surveys for defined groups of employees not included in the OPSEmployee survey (e.g. seasonal staff). It is an easy‐to‐use web‐based survey


platform that enables any organizational unit to undertake Employee Engagementsurveys at their discretion. Its consistent set of questions aligned with the OPSEmployee Survey.

More information about existing resources and new tools as they are developed can be found on theModernization Division website (see contact information on the back page).

2011 * 2009 2007

7. Detailed Results

Part A: Employee Engagement Themes OPS Average

PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY

My work provides me with the right level of challenge 3.57 3.65 3.44

M j b i d fit ith kill dFit

7 13 22 33 26

My job is a good fit with my skills and interests 3.76 3.80 3.64

My work is interesting 3.94 ⁻*⁻ 3.87

My workload is too heavy 3.15 ⁻*⁻ 2.86

Job F

6

3

9

10

7

21

18

18

33

33

36

21

33

36

16

There are too many layers of approval in the work I do 3.21 ⁻*⁻ 2.99

Changing priorities make it difficult for me to do my job 2.99 ⁻*⁻ 2.91

9

11

23

25

26

31

20

21

21

12Perform

ance

Barriers

I experience too much stress and anxiety at work 3.06 2.80 2.82

Overall, I was satisfied with the orientation I received for this job 3.14 3.25 3.10

I h t t k t id

Orientation/

On‐Boarding

10

12

25

19

28

27

20

28

16

14

I have support at work to provide a high level of service 3.46 3.61 3.34

The work I do gives citizens good value for their tax dollars 4.07 4.12 3.88

My work unit is making an effort to improve service quality 3.81 3.87 ⁻*⁻

ality of Service

8

3

5

13

5

8

25

15

20

35

35

36

20

42

31improve service quality

The service my work unit provides meets the needs of diverse clients (e.g. disability, culture etc)

3.93 3.92 ⁻*⁻

I have the technology, equipment, and other tools I need to do my job well

3.48 3.61 3.55

Qua

& Tools

3

8

6

14

20

22

37

35

34

21


My physical work environment allows me to contribute fully to my job

3.63 3.73 ⁻*⁻

Support

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

6 10 23 37 24

(n=40,625) (n=41,502) (n=29,052)“n” refers to the first question in the survey and will vary slightly by question“⁻*⁻” indicates that the question was not asked in that year“‐” indicates insufficient base size to report↑↓ indicates statistically significant direction of change 2011 – 2009 (95% confidence)

2011 * 2009 2007

7. Detailed Results

Part A: Employee Engagement Themes OPS Average

elationships

WORKPLACE CULTURE

The people I work with are generally good at their jobs 3.92 ⁻*⁻ 3.88

My work group usually completes its assignments in a timely fashion 3.97 ⁻*⁻ 3.80

I have positive relations with my co‐

2

2

6

5

20

18

45

44

28

31

Co‐W

orker R

tices

I have positive relations with my co‐workers 4.28 4.25 4.17

My co‐workers invite me to join them in informal workplace social activities 3.92 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

The people I work with value my ideas and opinions 3.91 3.72 3.70

In my Ministry the process for selecting a person for a position is fair 2.99 2.87 2.60

1

5

3

16

2

7

5

18

11

17

19

28

39

36

45

26

47

36

29

12

Inclusive

Pract

tion

a person for a position is fair

The OPS hires and promotes people based on their skills, abilities and experience

3.27 3.39 3.13

My Ministry values diversity 3.87 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

I have the independence I need to make decisions about my daily work 3.77 3.78 3.62

14

3

5

15

6

8

23

23

20

28

36

40

21

32

27

Independence & In

nova I am encouraged to take reasonable risks

in doing my job 3.27 ⁻*⁻ 3.12

Innovation is valued in my work unit. 3.41 3.45 3.18

I feel free to express opinions that diverge from those of management without fear of reprisal

3.31 3.30 3.08

I have opportunities to provide input i t d i i th t ff t k 3.62 3.51 3.32

10

9

12

6

15

14

14

11

28

25

23

22

33

32

31

38

15

20

19

23

Recognition

Safe &

Healthy

Workplace

into decisions that affect my work 3.62 3.51 3.32

My Ministry does a good job formally recognizing its employees 3.07 3.08 2.76

I receive meaningful recognition for work well done 3.40 3.43 3.15

I have a safe and healthy work environment 3.62 3.76 3.52

6

13

12

7

11

18

14

11

22

30

21

22

38

27

28

34

23

12

25

26

Workplace

Morale

H

I am treated respectfully at work 4.02 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

People in my work unit take pride in their work 3.96 3.94 3.80

The morale in my work unit is good 3.25 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

I have support at work to balance my 3 50 3 58 3 38

3

3

13

9

5

6

14

12

16

19

25

24

41

38

31

32

36

34

17

23


Work‐Life

Balan

ce

I have support at work to balance my work and personal life 3.50 3.58 3.38

I get support for my participation in volunteer activities in my community 3.18 3.44 3.20

9

12

12

15

24

31

32

26

23

16

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=40,625) (n=41,502) (n=29,052)“n” refers to the first question in the survey and will vary slightly by question“⁻*⁻” indicates that the question was not asked in that year“‐” indicates insufficient base size to report↑↓ indicates statistically significant direction of change 2011 – 2009 (95% confidence)

7. Detailed Results

Part A: Employee Engagement Themes

OPS Average

nt

2011 * 2009 2007

TALENT CAPACITY

I have opportunities for career 3 16 3 29 2 99

Career Advanceme 13

12

17

15

27

27

29

30

15

16

I have opportunities for career growth within the OPS 3.16 3.29 2.99

I am satisfied with the way my career is progressing in the OPS 3.21 3.42 3.18

Commitment to

Public Service

2 5 17 34 42Serving the public good is a very important factor in my decision to work for the OPS

4.08 4.11 3.93

evelopment

7

7

12

13

21

30

29

35

31

15

I feel that I am always learning something new in my job 3.66 3.70 3.54

The quality of learning and development I have received is very good

3.38 3.44 3.17

Learning an

d De

9 17 29 31 13The amount of learning and development I have received has met my needs

3.23 3.27 3.01


7 13 26 35 19My Ministry supports my work‐related learning and development 3.47 3.56 3.26

(n=40,625) (n=41,502) (n=29,052)



*

7. Detailed Results

Part A: Employee Engagement ThemesOPS Average

2011 * 2009 2007

LEADERSHIP

I clearly understand the mandate and goals of my Ministry 3.85 3.96 3.67

I know how my work contributes to the achievement of my Ministry’s goals 3.88 4.01 3.75

Expectations &

Direction

3

3

6

6

22

21

41

41

28

30

I have a clear understanding of my job and what is expected of me 3.98 ‐ 4.00

The person I report to is an effective leader 3.57 3.68 3.52

The person I report to keeps me informed of things that I need to know 3.65 3.69 3.55

Clear E D

3

10

8

5

11

11

17

20

19

40

31

32

35

28

30

The person I report to consults me on decisions that affect my work 3.62 3.67 3.51

The person I report to gives me constructive feedback on my work 3.56 3.74 3.50

The person I report to makes timely decisions 3.55 3.35 3.08D

irect Supervision

9

10

10

12

12

11

19

20

21

31

30

31

30

28

27

I have a positive working relationship with the person I report to 4.00 4.12 3.99

I am satisfied with the quality of supervision I receive 3.70 3.77 ⁻*⁻

I have confidence in the senior leaders of my Ministry 3.23 3.34 3.05

5

9

10

6

10

16

16

18

30

32

29

31

41

34

13

Senior leaders in my Ministry make timely decisions 3.01 3.15 2.84

Senior leaders of my Ministry are genuinely interested in the well‐being of employees

3.12 3.21 2.86

Senior leaders in my Ministry provide clear direction 3.05 3.15 2.83

Lead

ership Practices

13

13

12

19

17

19

32

29

32

26

28

27

10

13

10

My Ministry is on the right track in its planning for the future 3.14 3.40 3.06

Essential information flows effectively from senior leaders to staff 2.92 3.05 2.74

Essential information flows effectively from staff to senior leaders 2.99 3.15 2.89

nizational

munication

10

14

12

16

21

20

35

32

34

29

25

26

11

8

8


There is good communication between my work unit and other units that we are involved with

3.20 3.41 2.99Orga

Comm

9 16 31 32 11

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (n=40,625) (n=41,502) (n=29,052)“n” refers to the first question in the survey and will vary slightly by question“⁻*⁻” indicates that the question was not asked in that year“‐” indicates insufficient base size to report↑↓ indicates statistically significant direction of change 2011 – 2009 (95% confidence)

2011 2009 2011 2011 2011 2011

Productive Capacity Index

Workplace Culture Index

Talent Capacity Index

LeadershipIndex

7. Detailed Results

Part B: Ministry Scores EE Index*

OPS 69.21 72.47 61.99 63.80 64.09 60.79

Aboriginal Affairs 77.08 71.17 65.99 72.54 74.13 70.02

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 73.88 78.79 65.6 70.11 70.55 64.25

Attorney General 70.85 74.08 63.78 63.44 64.60 62.23

Cabinet Office 71.99 75.17 64.52 69.43 67.04 70.29

Children and Youth Services 69.79 73.71 63.02 64.67 66.16 61.69

Citizenship and Immigration 71.54 72.34 63.8 68.84 68.53 63.92

Community and Social Services 71.69 73.76 61.87 64.96 67.87 63.22Community Safety and Correctional Services 66.59 68.82 61.01 59.29 61.98 58.44

Consumer Services 74.3 72.41 62.28 68.46 68.06 64.92

Economic Development and Trade 68.93 71.16 60.8 63.73 64.41 59.96

Education 73.22 76.44 64.77 67.22 66.70 64.41

Energy 72.89 n/a 61.18 68.66 65.20 65.99

Environment 72.00 75.43 62.21 68.2 67.38 61.02

Finance 70.51 73.42 64.25 66.8 65.34 64.57

Government Services 68.97 73.55 60.01 65.42 63.89 61.62

Health and Long‐Term Care 66.64 70.61 58.92 61.44 62.20 57.41

Health Promotion and Sport 66.11 71.17 57.46 64.35 67.62 57.83Information and Information Technology 69.11 72.8 61.1 65.78 61.50 60.50

Infrastructure 72.18 n/a 60.74 69.08 68.44 68.13

Labour 73.44 76.52 64.54 66.76 67.05 64.29

Landlord and Tenant Board 69.04 75.09 61.43 65.29 62.82 64.34

Municipal Affairs and Housing 71.76 73.66 62.48 68.7 67.57 65.47

Natural Resources 70.5 75.71 62.94 68.27 66.43 60.55

Northern Development, Mines and Forestry 73.18 76.73 65.73 71.42 66.83 66.79y

Office of Francophone Affairs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Ontario Clean Water Agency 71.76 72.07 64.2 67.36 69.22 62.68

Research and Innovation 68.47 74.24 60.61 67.02 62.55 61.95

Revenue 66.46 71.85 60.95 62.32 58.65 58.22

ServiceOntario 68.72 74.17 62.94 65.23 63.81 62.30


Tourism and Culture 71.21 n/a 62.37 67.68 64.40 61.73

Training, Colleges and Universities 68.1 71.11 59.77 64.44 63.71 59.37

Transportation 70.54 72.47 62.54 65.11 66.00 61.71

“‐” A dash indicates insufficient base size to report* Arrows indicate statistically significant direction of change 2011 – 2009 (95% confidence)

2011 Employee Engagement Index2011 Employee Engagement Index OPS: 69.21OPS: 69.21

7. Detailed Results

Part C: Discrimination

YesNo

p y g gp y g g

EE Index*2011 200957.06 58.3272 71 75 82

2011

17%

9%

2009

14%

11%

I have experienced discrimination in my work unit in the past 2 years

NoPrefer not to answer

72.71 75.8263.20 67.09

74%

(n=41,604)(n=40,712)

EE Index*

75%

33% 29%

Was the issue(s) reported?

YesNoPrefer not to answer

(n=5,389)(n=6,495)

EE Index*2011 200956.10 55.7557.00 59.6958.80 58.26

2011

20%

47%

2009

17%

54%If you have experienced discrimination, please indicate the type of discrimination

14%

5%

5%

8%

16%

6%

6%

2011 2009 EE Index*

2011 2009

Race 52.57 55.74

Marital status 48.08 51.89

Place of origin 51.80 ‐

Family status 49 89 54 178%

11%

4%

12%

4%

8%

6%

14%

5%

22%

11%

Family status 49.89 54.17

Disability (mental or physical) 48.12 51.16

Sexual orientation 52.31 54.41

Sex (incl. pregnancy and gender identity) 52.98 54.90

Ancestry 47.13 ‐

Ethnic Origin 51.49 56.69

1%

8%

3%

15%

1%

10%

5%

18%

Citizenship 43.60 ‐

Colour 51.47 54.70

Creed (religion) 52.02 54.03

Age 53.08 55.64

Record of offences 45.31 ‐


29%

29%

39%

11%

Other 58.66 58.50

Prefer not to answer 59.68 61.24

(n=5,389)(n=6,495)


7. Detailed Results

Part C: Discrimination


2011 EE Index2011

Co‐workers(s) 57.70

Individual(s) with authority over me 52 33

43%

63%

p y g gp y g g

From whom did you experience workplace discrimination? (New Question in 2011)

Individual(s) with authority over me 52.33

Individual(s) working for me 59.04

Individual(s) for whom I have a custodial responsibility 45.20

Individual(s) from other OPS Ministries or agencies 46.98

Individual(s) from other government department or agencies 47.48

63%

6%

5%

6%

5%

Member(s) of the public (individuals or organizations) 51.03

Other 59.00

Prefer not to answer 65.31

(n=6,495)

9%

7%

9%

50%

48%

24%

25%

17%

17%

6%

6%

4%

4%

2011

2009

52.10 63.34 72.74EE Index

(n=5,424)

(n=4,401)

Overall, the issue(s) was resolved to my satisfaction

48% 25% 17% 6% 4%2009


EE Index 53.38 66.78 73.13

(n 4,401)




7. Detailed Results

Part C: Harassment (New Questions in 2011)

p y g gp y g g

I have experienced harassment in my work unit in the past 2 years


14%

8% d

47%

13%d

f

2011

8%

77%

EE Index2011

Yes 58.26

No 57.30


(n=5,499)

f

2011

13%

41%

EE Index2011

Yes 57.75

No 71.96


(n=40,712)

2011 EE Index2011

Co‐workers(s) 59.2354%

From whom did you experience harassment?

Yes No Prefer not to answer Yes No Prefer not to answer

( )




Individual(s) from other OPS Ministries or agencies 50.79

Individual(s) from other government department or 46 09

54%

52%

6%

5%

3%

Individual(s) from other government department or agencies 46.09

Member(s) of the public (individuals or organizations) 52.13

Other 59.39


(n=5499)

3%

7%

6%

6%

49% 23% 17% 7% 4%2011 (n=4,853)




52.91 66.43 73.26EE Index



7. Detailed Results

Part C: Harassment (New Questions in 2011)

p y g gp y g g

If you have experienced harassment, what was the focus of the harassment ?

7%

4%

2011 EE Index2011

Race 51.74

Marital status 47 974%

3%

6%

8%

3%

8%

Marital status 47.97

Place of origin 51.15

Family status 47.16

Disability (mental or physical) 45.97

Sexual orientation 54.71

Sex (incl. pregnancy and gender identity) 52.52

47%

3%

5%

1%

4%

( p g y g y)

Personal harassment (bullying or psychological harassment) 57.77

Ancestry 51.10

Ethnic Origin 50.75

Citizenship 40.25

Colour 52.23

2%

8%

1%

21%

19%

Creed (religion) 51.76

Age 51.08

Record of offences 39.82

Other 59.09


2011 EE Index2011

Insulting or derogatory remarks, gestures or actions 56.84

Malicious rumours, gossip or negative innuendo 56.90

62%

46%

(n=5,499)

If you have experienced harassment, what was the nature of the harassment?

Verbal aggression and/or verbal abuse 56.54

Persistent, unwarranted criticism 55.96

Mobbing and/or swarming 51.04

Isolation and/or exclusion from work‐related activities 52.99

Other 55.26

47%

42%

4%

30%

12%



12%

6%(n=5,499)



7. Detailed Results

Part C: Violence (New Questions in 2011)

p y g gp y g g

I have experienced violence in my work unit in the past 2 years


2011

3%

3%

201171%

13%EE Index2011

Yes 51.98

EE Index2011

Yes 52.16

2011 EE Index

Yes No Prefer not to answer Yes No Prefer not to answer

From whom did you experience violence?

2011

95%

2011

17%

No 52.60


(n=1,010)

No 70.00


(n=40,712)

2011 EE Index2011

Co‐workers(s) 52.16




Individual(s) from other OPS Ministries or agencies ‐

26%

14%

5%

36%

1%( ) g

Individual(s) from other government department or agencies ‐

Members of the public (individuals or organizations) 55.42

Other 53.80


(n=1,010)

1%

2%

24%

8%

8%


36% 17% 21% 16% 10%2011


43.23 56.66 63.66EE Index

(n=892)


2011 EE Index2011

Use of physical force 47.76

Attempt to use physical force 47.93

Threat to use physical force 50 63

36%

31%

If you have experienced violence, what was the nature of the violence?


Threat to use physical force 50.63

Other 53.01


63%

16%

12%

(n=1,010)“n” refers to the first question in the survey and will vary slightly by question“⁻*⁻” indicates that the question was not asked in that year“‐” indicates insufficient base size to report↑↓ indicates statistically significant direction of change 2011 – 2009 (95% confidence)


7. Detailed Results

Part D: Workforce Profile

2011 2009 EE Index*

2011 2009 2007

Senior Management 78.93 79.00 75.714% 4%

p y g gp y g g

Employment Group

A Bargaining Unit 67.91 71.38 64.67

MCP Manager 73.44 75.36 68.35

MCP non‐manager/specialist or excluded from a bargaining unit 71.62 74.17 69.74

Other 70.95 75.77 70.37

76%

9%

4%

7%

76%

8%

4%

8%

2011 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Senior Manager occupying an SMG1 or ITX1 position 76.48 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻46%

(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)

Senior Management Level

Director occupying an SMG2 or ITX2 or OFA1 position 82.52 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻


ITX3‐4, OFA2‐3 or OPP1 position88.05 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

Deputy Minister 92.88 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

Prefer not to answer 71.06 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

29%

11%

1%

14%

(n=1807)

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Regular (Classified) Employee 68.79 71.74 65.0391% 85%

Classification

(n= 41,604) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)

Fixed Term Employee (Unclassified) 73.78 76.82 71.91

Other (not classified or unclassified) 71.95 76.66 70.16

7%

2%

11%

3%


Note: Results are based on the self‐reported information provided by Employees in the OPS Employee Survey



7. Detailed Results


Job Category

2011 2009 EE Index*

2011 2009 2007

Management & Supervisory 74.83 76.55 70.09

Human Resources 71 20 73 34 69 81

12%

2%

12%

2%

p y g gp y g g

Human Resources 71.20 73.34 69.81

Administrative Support/Clerical 71.30 74.79 69.50

Education & Training 70.56 73.99 68.15

Customer & Client Services 67.58 72.83 67.08

L d & R 69 64 75 19 66 94

2%

17%

2%

8%

2%

2%

17%

2%

9%

4%Land & Resources 69.64 75.19 66.94

Inspections & Investigations 69.23 71.80 66.68

Consulting & Planning 68.60 71.95 66.59

Communications & Marketing 69.44 73.08 66.46

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

2%

3%

2%

Accounting & Finance 68.94 72.97 66.12

Legal Services 69.79 73.76 65.45

Information Technology 68.90 72.33 65.33

Policy/Program Analysis & Planning 69.20 71.07 65.00

5%

5%

7%

9%

4%

5%

6%

8%

Enforcement 68.93 71.77 64.52

Science & Engineering 69.53 71.99 64.38

Technical, Maintenance & Trades 68.06 70.66 63.83

Health & Social Services 66.65 67.41 59.76

9%

3%

2%

3%

10%

4%

3%

3%

Corrections 56.52 58.52 57.766%

(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)

5%





7. Detailed Results


2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

None/NA 68.78 71.96

Occasionally (not every day) 70 54 73 51

35%

32%

32%

33%

p y g gp y g g

Interaction with Citizens/Businesses: Face‐To‐Face

Occasionally (not every day) 70.54 73.51

Up to 1 hour daily 70.72 73.47

Up to 2 hours daily 70.76 73.04


3 hours or more daily 67.05 71.12

32%

6%

5%

4%

18%

33%

6%

5%

4%

20%

(n=40,712) (n=41,604)

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

None/NA 68.09 71.6422% 20%

Interaction with Citizens/Businesses: Telephone





3 hours or more daily 68 28 71 96

37%

17%

11%

5%

9%

36%

18%

11%

5%

10%3 hours or more daily 68.28 71.969% 10%

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

None/NA 67.58 71.6325% 25%

Interaction with Citizens/Businesses: Electronic Channels

(n=40,712) (n=41,604)

/





25%

34%

15%

9%

5%

25%

34%

16%

10%

5%



3 hours or more daily 69.62 73.1812% 11%

(n=40,712) (n=41,604)


7. Detailed Results



2011 2009 EE Index*

2011 2009 2007

<1 yr 77.00 79.94 75.26

1‐4 yrs 71.87 75.30 69.34

5%

18%

8%

20%

p y g gp y g g

Tenure

5‐9 yrs 69.29 71.77 65.33

10‐15 yrs 67.20 70.12 64.63

16‐20 yrs 67.78 69.93 63.48

> 20 yrs 68.37 70.92 63.93

Prefer not to answer 61.48 ‐ 62.96

21%

17%

7%

30%

2%

( 40 712) ( 41 604) ( 29 129)

22%

11%

11%

28%

0%

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Central 69.42 72.40 66.21

East 68.00 72.52 65.63

58%

13%

53%

14%

(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)

Location by Region

North 69.80 73.58 67.05

West 69.01 72.14 65.50

13%

16%

15%

16%

Job Changes (Within the last 3 years)

(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

None 68.21 71.64 65.03

Once 70.85 73.58 67.61

Twice 71.54 74.29 68.23

Three times or more 71.93 74.12 68.65

Prefer not to ans er 63 14 71 92 64 78

61%

22%

9%

6%

2%

62%

22%

10%

6%

0%Prefer not to answer 63.14 71.92 64.78

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Initiated by management 70.95 73.70 68.24

2%

35% 32%

0%

Job Change was Initiated by …

(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)



I initiated it 71.32 73.93 67.9365%

(n=15,422) (n=16,345) (n=9,966)

68%


7. Detailed Results



2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Advance my career 73.78 76.45 ‐

Reduce stress 65.97 67.11 ‐

58%

8%

Reason for Self‐Initiated Job Change

57%

8%

p y g gp y g g

Have more interesting work 70.86 72.45 ‐

Have a better supervisor 67.93 68.26 ‐

Have more compatible colleagues 71.99 69.85 ‐

It was just time for a change 68.35 71.29 ‐

Professional Development 73.59 75.95 ‐

Other reasons 67.90 70.92 ‐

8%

22%

8%

1%

10%

25%

15%

8%

23%

8%

1%

11%

24%

17%Prefer not to answer 63.24 ‐ ‐

15%

1%

(n=10,016) (n=11,017)

Are Flexible Work Arrangements Available in your Ministry?

Are You Currently on a Flexible Arrangement?

17%

0%

2011 EE Index2011

Yes 71.43

No 63.05

Don’t Know 69.64

58%

22%

20%

2011 EE Index2011

Yes 70.07

No 72.44

Don’t Know 70.16

41%

57%

2%

(n=40,712) (n=23,477)




7. Detailed Results



Are you a Member of One or More OPS Employee Networks? (New Question in 2011)

2011 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Yes 71.52 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

No 69.23 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

21%

64%

2011 EE Index*2011 2009

Black Ontario Public Service Employee Network (BOPSers) 69.11 ⁻*⁻

Employee Network You Belong To (New Question in 2011)

5%

Prefer not to answer 65.67 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻15%

(n=40,712)

FrancoGO (francophone employee network) 72.14 ⁻*⁻

OPS Disability Network (DNET) 68.38 ⁻*⁻

OPS East Asian Network Group (EANG) 72.16 ⁻*⁻

OPS Pride (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender network) 70.42 ⁻*⁻

S th A i N t k (SAN) 71 90 *

8%

4%

9%

5%

South Asian Network (SAN) 71.90 ⁻*⁻

Tomorrow’s OPS (TOPS) 71.43 ⁻*⁻

4%

35%

(n=8,668)

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

Performance Appraisal: Have a Written Performance and Learning Plan

Yes 70.34 73.57

No 62.35 67.19

Don’t know 68.19 73.14

83%

13%

4%

76%

17%

7%

(n=40,712) (n=41,604)

79%

20%

Performance Appraisal: Appraised in the last 12 months

2011 2009 2007 EE Index*

2011 2009 2007

Yes 70.50 73.76 67.61

No 64.19 68.85 62.72

P f

74%

26%

64%

31%



2%Prefer not to

answer 67.86 68.75 65.19

(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)

7% 6%



7. Detailed Results

Part E: Demographic Profile

Age

18%

24%

2011 2009 EE Index*Average Age = 45 Years Average Age = 44 Years 2011 2009 2007

Under 35 69.75 74.18 68.38

35 to 44 69 05 72 06 65 39

21%

24%

p y g gp y g g

Gender

24%

35%

17%

7%

35 to 44 69.05 72.06 65.39

45 to 54 69.24 71.68 64.70

55 and over 70.82 73.90 68.12

Prefer not to answer 64.06 67.70 63.02

24%

34%

15%

5%

(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)

54%

39%

0%

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Female 70.60 73.75 67.49

Male 68.67 71.74 64.65

Trans‐gendered 52.60 44.22 ‐

54%

41%

0%

6%Prefer not to answer 60.68 64.10 60.66

Education

0%

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

Grade/elementary school 57 41 52 78

5%

1%

(n=40,712) (n=41,604) (n=29,129)

0%

0%

7%

7%

20%

Grade/elementary school 57.41 52.78

Some high school 73.80 80.39

High school graduate 71.52 75.03

Some vocational, tech. college, or CEGEP 69.48 73.04

Vocational, tech. college or CEGEP graduate 68.39 72.66

1%

1%

8%

7%

20%

8%

30%

20%

8%

Some university 69.31 72.22

University graduate 69.60 72.17

Post graduate or higher 70.30 72.20


9%

29%

18%

6%

(n=40,712) (n=41,604)




7. Detailed Results



2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

No dependent care responsibilities 70.04 73.43

Children 69.56 72.64

For Whom do You Provide Dependent Care

35%

47%

37%

46%

Elders 68.02 71.33

An immediate family member (other than child or elder indicated above) 69.84 72.19

Friend (other than child or elder indicated above) 65.92 65.35

Dependents with special needs 67.52 71.58

Other 71.34 72.14

12%

5%

0%

2%

2%

11%

5%

0%

2%

2%

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Yes 63.34 66.42 60.49


Do you have a Disability?

9%

11%

(n=40,712) (n=41,604)

9%

8%

No 70.72 73.56 66.63


11%

80%

9%

Do you Require Accommodation for your Disability? (New Question in 2011)

2011 EE Index*

(n=40,712) (n= 41,604) (n=29,129)

8%

85%

7%

2011 EE Index2011 2009 2007

Yes 58.96 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

No 66.46 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻


(n=4,259)

35%

59%

6%

H Y B P id d i h h A d i Y R i P f Y J b?

2011 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Yes 62.80 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

No 47.83 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻

N li bl 61 70 * *

67%

21%

Have You Been Provided with the Accommodation You Require to Perform Your Job?(New Question in 2011)


Not applicable 61.70 ⁻*⁻ ⁻*⁻



4%

9%

(n=1,448)


7. Detailed Results



2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Yes 71.29 73.93 68.52

No 69.57 72.72 66.08

Francophone

7%

85%

8%

85%

p y g gp y g g

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

Heterosexual 70 00 73 14


Sexual Orientation

8%

80%

7%

81%

(n=40,712) (n= 41,604) (n=29,129)

Heterosexual 70.00 73.14

Gay 69.10 69.16

Lesbian 64.02 67.92

Bisexual 66.72 69.15

Two‐spirited 58.29 67.52

Q ti i 59 61 62 49

80%

1%

1%

1%

0%

81%

1%

1%

1%

0%

Questioning 59.61 62.49


2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

Aboriginal

0%

17%

0%

15%

(n=40,712) (n= 41,604)

2011 2009

No 69.85 73.00

Yes, First Nations 71.32 71.09

Yes, Métis 68.66 70.21

Yes, Inuit ‐ 58.14

Prefer not to answer 61 44 66 08

90%

1%

1%

0%

8%

91%

1%

1%

0%

7%Prefer not to answer 61.44 66.088% 7%

(n=40,712) (n= 41,604)





7. Detailed Results


Visible Minority

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009 2007

Yes 70.82 72.97 66.47

No 69.61 72.93 66.14

17%

72%

15%

75%

p y g gp y g g


Are You…

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

72%

11%

75%

10%

(n=40,712) (n= 41,604) (n=29,129)

1%

3%

3%

1%

0%

Arab 70.37 69.22

Black 70.90 71.58

Chinese 71.33 73.39

Filipino 76.09 75.09

Japanese 66.79 69.41

0%

3%

3%

1%

0%

0%

1%

4%

0%

0%

Korean 70.82 73.05

Latin American 73.43 75.52

South Asian 72.96 75.57

Southeast Asian 72.58 73.15

West Asian 72 65 70 44

0%

1%

4%

0%

0%0%

69%

6%

14%

West Asian 72.65 70.44

White 69.62 73.01

Other 68.68 72.11


0%

71%

6%

13%

(n=40,712) (n= 41,604)





7. Detailed Results


Ethnic or Cultural Origin

2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

Canadian 70.37 73.67

English 70.29 73.49

36%

15%

42%

18%

p y g gp y g g

Irish 69.13 72.84

Scottish 69.26 73.41

French 70.86 73.55

Italian 72.40 74.31

G 70 71 73 26

9%

9%

6%

4%

4%

12%

12%

8%

4%

6%German 70.71 73.26

Chinese 72.24 74.13

East Indian/India 73.96 75.48

British 69.62 72.40

Dutch 71.34 72.75

4%

3%

2%

2%

2%

6%

3%

2%

2%

3%

Polish 71.35 74.57

French Canadian 70.73 74.24

Ukrainian 70.96 73.66

American 71.37 73.51

Jamaican 69 32 71 70

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

2%

3%

2%

1%

1%Jamaican 69.32 71.70

Jewish 70.18 73.17

Métis 71.26 73.65

Greek 73.89 76.70

Portuguese 71.79 76.45

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Guyanese 74.09 74.85

Trinidadian 72.23 73.27

Filipino 78.16 77.21

First Nations 70.54 ‐

Other 72.77 74.40

1%

1%

1%

1%

12%

1%

1%

1%

13%




12%

28%

13%

24%

(n=40,712) (n= 41,604)



7. Detailed Results


2011 2009 EE Index*2011 2009

No religion 68.23 71.20

Buddhism 69.32 71.73

Religion

18%

1%

18%

1%

p y g gp y g g

Christianity 70.86 73.93

Hinduism 74.69 76.29

Judaism 69.44 72.50

Islam 74.03 76.98

1%

51%

2%

1%

2%

1%

54%

1%

1%

2%

Sikhism 69.07 72.29

Other 69.65 74.17


0%

5%

19%

1%

5%

18%

(n=40,712) (n= 41,604)




7. Detailed Results

Part F: Verbatim SummaryThe charts below show the number of mentions pertaining to a category as a percentage of thetotal number of verbatim comments (n) made for each question.

Comments about “Your Job”

38%

24%

19%

Management General

Physical Work Environment

Career Advancement

16%15%

14%

11%

11%

10%

10%

Employee Morale

Performance Barriers

Salary & Benefits

Training

Supportive Environment

Communication

Job Fit

10%

10%9%

8%

6%

5%1%

Managing Change

Organizational Procedures/Policies

Job Competency

Citizen/Customer Interaction

Recruitment Process

Recognition

Learning Opportunities

(n= 11109)

Comments about “Your Workplace”

43%

37%

25%

Management General


Employee Morale

15%14%

10%

9%

9%

9%

8%


Career Advancement

Salary & Benefits

Job Competency

Recruitment Process

Communication

Managing Change

7%

7%7%

6%

4%

3%0%


Recognition


Job Fit

Training




(n= 7992)

7. Detailed Results


Comments about “Your Career”

52%

29%

28%

Career Advancement

Management General

Training

19%15%

14%

11%

10%

9%

8%

g

Salary & Benefits

Managing Change


Job Competency

Recruitment Process


Employee Morale

7%

7%6%

5%

5%

4%2%



Job Fit

Communication


Recognition


Comments about “Your Senior Leadership”(n= 5782)

78%

31%

11%

Management General

Communication

Managing Change 11%

11%11%

9%

8%

7%

6%

6%

Managing Change


Career Advancement


Job Competency

Salary & Benefits

Employee Morale

Job Fit 6%

5%

5%5%

4%

3%

3%1%

Job Fit

Recruitment Process



Recognition

Training




(n= 5393)

1%Learning Opportunities

7. Detailed Results


Comments about “Your Direct Supervision”

80%

25%

17%

Management General

Career Advancement

Communication

10%10%

9%

9%

8%

7%

6%

Job Competency

Training

Managing Change




Salary & Benefits

(n= 6682)

6%

6%5%

3%

3%

3%1%


Employee Morale

Recognition


Recruitment Process

Job Fit


Comments about “Closing Comments”

36%

23%

20%

Management General


Career Advancement %

18%17%

15%

15%

15%

10%

10%

Managing Change

Salary & Benefits

Job Competency

Recruitment Process

Communication


Employee Morale

9%

9%7%

6%

5%

3%1%

Training

Job Fit


Recognition





(n= 4341)

Appendix:

OPS Employee Engagement Model


The OPS Employee Engagement Model

Employee Engagement is a combination of both Satisfaction and Commitment.

f d f d f h h d k d


Satisfaction is composed of two dimensions ‐ satisfaction with the immediate Work Environment, and satisfaction with the broader Organizational Culture.

Commitment reflects the degree to which employees are committed to (staying with) the organization and the achievement of its goals.

FIGURE 1 – OPS Employee Engagement Model

Engagement is more than Job Satisfaction

SATISFACTIONSATISFACTION• Employee Satisfaction has two components: Work Environment and O i ti l C ltOrganizational Culture.

• Each address different aspects of the Employees’ relationship to work.

COMMITMENTCOMMITMENT• Satisfaction, while essential, does not necessarily lead to engagement. Commitment must also be present.

SATISFACTIONSATISFACTION

• Commitment emerges when employees have clarity about their role and are able to act based on clear expectations and direction. Under these conditions employees can engage in, and advance the goals of the organization.

EMPLOYEEEMPLOYEEENGAGEMENTENGAGEMENT

COMMITMENT

The elements of satisfaction and commitment in the OPS model of employee engagement arereflected in the nine indicator questions constituting the Employee Engagement Index:

COMMITMENT

• I am satisfied with my job

• I am satisfied with my ministry

• Overall, I am satisfied in my work as an OPS employee

• I am proud to tell people I work for the OPS

• I am proud to work for my ministry

• I would prefer to stay with the OPS, even if offered a similar job elsewhere


I would prefer to stay with the OPS, even if offered a similar job elsewhere

• I am inspired to give my very best

• I would recommend the OPS as a great place to work

• I strive to improve my ministry’s results

In building its Employee Engagement model the OPS leverages 19 “themes” or “drivers” that have animpact on the three dimensions of Employee Engagement. These themes were initially identifiedbased on extensive research of current knowledge and best practice across the public and private


OPS Employee Engagement Themes

sectors in Canada and internationally and have since been validated through statistical testing andanalysis using OPS survey results.

Career AdvancementClear Expectations & DirectionCommitment to Public ServiceCo‐worker RelationshipsDirect SupervisionInclusive PracticesIndependence & Innovation

Quality of ServiceRecognitionSafe & Healthy WorkplaceSupport & ToolsWork‐Life BalanceWorkplace Morale

Job FitLeadership PracticesLearning and DevelopmentOrganizational CommunicationOrientation/On‐BoardingPerformance Barriers

The Public Service Commissioners’ Employee Engagement ModelThe OPS has participated in the work of an inter‐jurisdictional team representing the federal,provincial and territorial governments across Canada. This inter‐jurisdictional group has adopted anEmployee Engagement model that is consistent with that of the OPS and a set of common questionsthat are incorporated into Ontario’s survey questionnaire. The OPS uses national scores collected bythi t b h k it ltthis group to benchmark its own results.

FIGURE 2 ‐ Public Service Commissioners’ Employee Engagement Model


The Public Sector Service Value ChainThe OPS subscribes to the conceptual framework set out in the Public Sector Service Value Chain andinvokes it in its approach to Employee Engagement


FIGURE 3 ‐ Public Sector Service Value Chain

invokes it in its approach to Employee Engagement.

The service profit chain concept is widely used in the private sector and has been adapted to thepublic sector to help institutions improve organizational performance. The Public Sector ServiceValue Chain posits a link between Employee Engagement, Organizational Performance and CustomerSatisfaction which in turn build Public Trust and Confidence.

The Public Sector Service Value Chain recognizes the symbiotic link between engaged employees andsatisfied clients of public services Building an engaged workforce committed to higher levels of

Increase Increase Employee Employee

EngagementEngagement

Strengthen Strengthen Organizational Organizational PerformancePerformance

Increase Increase Customer Customer SatisfactionSatisfaction

Trust & Trust & ConfidenceConfidence

satisfied clients of public services. Building an engaged workforce committed to higher levels ofservice quality, is a key component of the OPS modernization agenda.

The Link Between Employee Engagement and Customer Satisfaction

Research on the links between Customer Satisfaction and Employee Engagement was conducted forthe Ontario Public Service through the Modernization Division at MGS. The analysis linked the 2007Ontario Public Service Employee Survey data to the 2007 OCCIO Customer Satisfaction survey results.In the analysis it was learned that those Employee Engagement drivers that simultaneously impactboth Employee Engagement and Customer Satisfaction are Job Design, Support and Tools, Job Fit andOrientation and On‐boarding. Building on the Public Sector Service Value Chain therefore, the OPSmust focus on these key drivers associated with Work Environment in the OPS Employee EngagementModel for those staff providing internal or external client services.

FIGURE 4 – Connecting Employee Engagement and Customer Satisfaction

Linking Employee Engagement and Customer Satisfaction

Support &

Job DesignOpportunitiesfor Growth &Advancement

Accessibility

Support &

Job DesignOpportunitiesfor Growth &Advancement

Opportunitiesfor Growth &Advancement

AccessibilityAccessibility

EmployeeEmployeeEngagementEngagement

CustomerCustomerSatisfactionSatisfaction

Support & Tools

Orientation / On-boarding

Job FitLeadership Practices

Value for Money

Timeliness

EmployeeEmployeeEngagementEngagement

CustomerCustomerSatisfactionSatisfaction

Support & Tools

Orientation / On-boarding

Job FitLeadership Practices

Leadership Practices

Value for Money

TimelinessTimeliness


Employees who are engaged view the organization as having strong Leadership Practices and offering Opportunities for Growth and Advancement.

Employees who are engaged and satisfy customers also have the necessary tools, a good fit of skills to task and have had a solid orientation for their role.

Satisfied customers receive service that is accessible, valuable and delivered in a timely manner.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Modernization Division, HROntario Mi i t f G t S iMinistry of Government Services375 University Ave., 5th FloorToronto, ON M5G 2J5

Phone: 416 325 7791Fax: 416 325 7798Email: Service Excellence@ontario caEmail: [email protected]: http://intra.mgs.gov.on.ca/MGSHome/MODHome/tabid/661/Default.aspx


7202011v3

ops employee survey report 2011

Documents