OSCR Survey Results

(Survey conducted Oct / Nov 2003)

2

Introduction

• The OSCR survey was conducted over the period mid-Oct to late-Nov 2003. It was run online, via E-mail

• The questions were chosen to give a rounded picture of the various aspects of OSCR implementation

• There were 250 respondents, roughly 18% of RGU staff• Validation checks (see next slide) indicate that the

sample is a reasonable representation of the RGU staff population

• The results give a comprehensive picture of OSCR implementation status at RGU

3

Validation checks

Survey RGU overall• Areas of work:

– Prof / support 54% 55%– Academic 31% 33%– Ac Research 9% 8%– Managerial 4% 5%

• Gender:– Female 63% 56.4%

• Part / full time:– Full time 89% 67.6%

• Supervisory:– Reviewers 25% 17% (est.)

4

Overall result

• 95% of employees are currently participating in the

OSCR process, having been through the objective

setting process

• 50% of employees have had a mid-year review

• 32% of employees have had a full-year review

• The process is well-established, with a high % of employees “in”

the process. However there is a significant “lag” effect with a

disproportionately low % of employees having completed the 2nd

and 3rd phases

5

Strengths

• There is a strong sense of alignment of personal job objectives with both team and school / department objectives

• New employees are being inducted into OSCR effectively (71% Agree / Strongly Agree, versus only 16% Disagree / Strongly Disagree)

• Overall, the OSCR process is seen as effective by 50% of respondents, versus 26% disagreeing. This is an encouraging result just one year on from implementation

6

Development areas

• There is a significant “lag” effect, with only 60% of possible total population having done mid-year or full-year reviews

• Improvement in communication as a result of OSCR (40% agree, 30% disagree) leaves significant room for further improvement

• For research staff, the process of regular quarterly review meetings is not yet well established – only 26% agree and 55% disagree that the process is working effectively

• Reviewers feel that the OSCR process has helped to some degree to improve focus on objectives and development needs, but there is still significant improvement potential. 41% agreed and 31% disagreed with this proposition

7

Training &development

• 44% of respondents have had some form of development discussion with their supervisor or reviewer in the last 2-3 months (either as part of OSCR or not). This is consistent with the “lag” in completing mid-year and full-year OSCR’s. There is significant scope to improve the alignment of, and focus on, personal development needs

8

New employees since July 2003

16%

56%

12%

9%7%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

“The OSCR process has been explained to me, and I have had an initial objective setting meeting with my supervisor / reviewer”

An excellent result – the process is clearly being explained to new employees

9

When employees started in the process

57

74

45

36

1813

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Before Sept2002

Sept 2003 -Dec 2003

Jan 2003 -Mar 2003

Apr 2003 -June 2003

After June2003

Not startedyet

243 responses in total. 95% of employees in the process. Launched in Aug 2002Cross check with Q 2 (“Have you had an objective setting meeting....” 91% said “yes”

24%31%

19%

14%

7% 5%

10

OSCR implementation status, Dec 2003

0 20 40 60 80 100

Objectivesetting

Mid cycle

Full cycle

Theoretical max

% of emps

96% (of theoretical max)

57%

60%

Very high % of participants, but “lag” effect becoming significant as process matures

11

OSCR implementation status, detail

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Objectivesetting

Mid cycle

Full cycle

Man't

Research

Academic

Prof /Sup't

Total

% of employees

Variable levels of “sticking with it”

12

Overall view of process

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Stronglyagree

Agree Undecided Disagree Stronglydisagree

Total

Prof / Support

Academic

Ac Research

Managerial

“ Taking everything into account, the OSCR process has been effective for me in helping clarify my work objectives and establish any associated training and development needs”

13

Alignment to team objectives

9%

51%

27%

9%4%

Strongly agree

Agree

Undecided

Diasagree

Strongly disagree

“My OSCR objectives are aligned to the objectives of my immediate work team”

An excellent result – strong alignment

14

Alignment to school, etc objectives

14%

53%

23%

6%4%

Strongly agree

Agree

Undecided

Diasagree

Strongly disagree

“My OSCR objectives are aligned to the objectives of my school, department, or faculty”

An excellent result – strong alignment

15

Researcher quarterly reviews

7%

19%

19%

33%

22%

Strongly agree

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly disagree

“ In addition to the OSCR process, I have regular 1/4ly reviews with my supervisor, and have had at least one such review meeting”

Significant feedback that quarterly reviews are not yet “normal practice”

16

How do reviewers feel about OSCR?

0

5101520253035404550

Stronglyagree

Agree Undecided Disagree Stronglydisagree

Total

Prof / Support

Ac

Ac Res

Man't

“I believe the OSCR process has significantly helped to improve the focus on key objectives and development needs of employees”

Not bad, but “could do better”

17

Communication?

0

5101520253035404550

Stronglyagree

Agree Undecided Disagree Stronglydisagree

Total

Prof /Support

Ac

Ac Res

Man't

“ I believe the OSCR process has been effective in improving communication”

Trend is good, and “undecided” group may well be more +ve than –ve, but room for improvement

18

Recent development conversations?

0 20 40 60 80

Yes

NoMan't

Research

Academic

Prof/Support

Total

“I have had a recent (last 3 months) discussion with my supervisor / reviewer regarding my training and development needs”

19

Comments – paraphrased and grouped

• There is a significant view that the process is much less effective where reviewers are not direct supervisors – mainly due to a lack of openness, fear of non-confidentiality, and lack of knowledge of the individual concerned

• There is a significant view that reward should be more closely linked to performance

• Some employees still seem not to understand the process, even though they have been through at least one OSCR meeting with their reviewer. There is a continual need to reinforce the process, at all levels

• There was evidence that some senior employees are conducting OSCR’s yet have not started their own

• There is a view that more effort needs to be made by reviewers to discuss training and development needs and to follow up effectively to action them where appropriate

20

Comments – paraphrased and grouped - 2

• OSCR induction – although the data indicates a relatively high level of induction into the process for new employees (only 15% of employees who have joined in the past 3 months haven’t had an initial objective setting meeting) some people complained that they had still not been introduced to OSCR. It is important to ensure all new employees get effective induction and an initial OSCR meeting in their first 3 months

• There are comments that the OSCR process is being used as a “substitute for management”, implying that the process is sometimes being used as a “stand alone” management tool

• Several comments indicate a perceived lack of flexibility in the OSCR process. This seems to be because objectives are being set but not updated regularly enough as priorities shift

• There was a comment that more effort should be put into developing the interpersonal skills of team leaders

21

Comments – paraphrased and grouped - 3

• There is a view that OSCR objectives sometimes do not relate closely enough to a persons job – and that this can make feedback and review less meaningful. This implies that more effort is needed to explain how OSCR objectives should tie directly to major job objectives. A “rule of thumb” would be for the OSCR to reflect roughly 80% of what a person actually does

• There were comments that indicated some people only see their reviewer at OSCR review meetings. This makes it difficult to build rapport or to know enough about individual progress and performance in order to conduct a successful OSCR review • There is a significant view that the OSCR process is not applied consistently

• Some people appear to get little feedback, or an opportunity to discuss their performance against objectives. The process at times seems to focus on “completing the form” versus open discussion and dealing with issues raised

22

Comments – paraphrased and grouped - 4

• Some people seem to have had an objective setting meeting, but no follow-up meetings and no mid-year review meeting

• Some OSCR meetings appear to include minimal discussion about personal development or career expectations

23

The focus group

• This was set up to review the OSCR survey results and provided feedback on status of OSCR at RGU – in effect validating the results

• A cross-section of RGU employees were chosen for the focus group

• Overall – the team broadly validated the findings of the survey. A summary of key additional discussion points raised by the team appear on the following 2 slides

24

Themes from the focus group

• Training versus development – we need to focus more on the overall development need (into which training may fit)

• We need to broaden reviewers awareness of “developing people” – a more comprehensive approach is needed, focusing on enhancing roles and peoples’ capability, and the support / development they need over the longer term

• Development may be seen as a “rigid” process, with not enough flexibility around “development for what?”

• May be too “current reviewer dependent” – not enough notice taken of previous OSCR (or even SDCR) reviews with regard to development needs – need to have the “full picture” to be effective

• There is a feeling that culture is localised within RGU, and that this is reflected in OSCR’s and buy-in to the process

• Higher level buy-in may be a problem in some areas. Reinforcement by cascading from EG downwards will help to improve this

25

Themes from focus group - continued

• There is a perception that not enough is overtly stated about how employees are valued by RGU. This is critical to an effective OSCR process as it sends a signal about the importance of people

• Some people still see objective setting as a meaningless process – maybe because those same people are not encouraged to have meaningful objectives. Good role modelling is critical to success with OSCR

• The leadership development programme offers an opportunity to drive better overview and cascade of performance management – influence on reviewers

• We may need greater customer focus, versus task focus, in objective setting. I.e. greater consideration of the needs of people impacted by personal objectives

• Consider group meetings / workshops for reviewers to share experiences and learn from each other

26

Next steps

• A concerted communication effort to ensure mid-year and full-year reviews are completed and new objectives set. In progress, initially through EG and SMG

• Full involvement by all senior managers. Ensuring a high profile of OSCR – role modelling. As above

• Quality of review meetings - improvement in communication and feedback. New workshop currently being rolled out by HR

• Ensure researcher quarterly reviews are held regularly – ongoing communication effort via research leaders and HR Advisors

27

Next steps - continued

• Update the web page guide on OSCR. Specifically add more about “how” versus “what”. More guidance for reviewers. To be completed shortly

• Possibly hold informal “reviewer workshops” – learning from each other. To be considered – assess need