Employee Survey 2012-13

Employee Satisfaction Survey Report 2012-13

Introduction

The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment and as part of its annual survey cycle administered in January-February 2013 an Employee Satisfaction Survey to all AUB employees, academic and non-academic. The purpose of the survey was to enable AUB administration to better understand employee perspectives on their jobs and how they felt about working for AUB. Such information falls into the measurement aspect of the AUB Quality Initiative and is essential to identifying improvement opportunities that will lead to a better and a more efficient organization. The survey has been administered since 2000 periodically once every three years, and based on obtained results several initiatives were launched.Accordingly, one of the purposes of the present survey is to detect changes or improvements in employee perspectives due to these initiatives.

Method

Instrument and administration

The survey form used in 2009 was administered again with some modifications and changes to ensure better relevance of the results. Some items were added to provide some useful indicators for strategic planning. The survey consists of 108items covering the following dimensions reported to be of significance by the literature: General Conditions & Climate (GCC), Management (M), Policies & Procedures (P&P), Training & Development (T&D), Communication & Planning (C&P), Benefits & Rewards (B&R) and Teamwork & Coordination (T & C).It also includes a number of global overall ratings, some demographic items, and three open-ended questions soliciting employees’ comments. A breakdown of the survey by subscale is provided in Table 1. Each respondent had to rate each item on a 5-point scale from Strongly Agree (SA) to Strongly Disagree (SD), or Very Satisfied (VS) to Very Dissatisfied (VD). A Not Applicable (NA) category was also included.

The survey was made available in English and Arabic versions to the employees. (Appendix A). For the first time, the ESS was administered on-line to faculty and staff Grades 7 and above, while it was administered in the usual paper form to those below Grade 7 (4-6). The paper forms were sent to the departments to be distributed, were filled out by employees and then collected and sent back to OIRA in sealed envelopes. Many employees opted to send their filled forms directly to OIRA. No names or identification numbers were requested, only department codes. Employees were constantly reminded by OIRA of the importance of filling out the forms, and they were assured of confidentiality. The distribution and collection of the surveys took around a month.

Sample

The surveys were sent to all AUB employees, academic and non-academic (around 4,203). 1,413 employees answered on-line survey, 720 provided full responses while 693 partial ones, and 122 filled out paper version with a total of 1,535employee responses (37%).Response rate of the respondents by grade level and for AUB is provided in Table 2. With respect to representativeness of the sample, we really cannot judge very well because 21% of respondents did not specify grade level. 42% of sample comes from employees between grades 4-12, lower than population of 62%, while the above Grade 12 employees are overrepresented (17% vs. 13%) and academic employees are underrepresented (20% vs. 29%). From the above statistics, we can presume that those who did not specify grade could be from the Grades 4-12 category. Table 2 also reports response rate for the whole sample of 37% and it is higher than previous administrations of 20% in 2009, 25% (2006), 30% (2003) and 60% (2000).

As in previous surveys, Non-academic personnel > 12 had highest response rate of 46%, followed by academic employees of 29% higher than 2009 figure of 20%. Apparent low response rate from Grades 4-12 could be because most of those who did not provide their grade came from this category.Figures 1-4 report the breakdown of the sample of respondents by gender, age, educational level, and years of employment at AUB.

Table 1. Breakdown of the Employee Survey

Scale / Number of Items
General Conditions & Climate / 14
Management / 8
Policies & Procedures / 11
Training & Development / 6
Communication & Planning / 21
Benefits & Rewards / 10
Teamwork & Coordination / 4
Satisfaction with AUB services / 15
Overall Items / 8
Demographic Information / 8
Open-ended Items / 3
Total Scale / 108

Table 2. Response Rate by Grade Level

Group
/

Sample

N %

/

Population

N %

/

Response Rate%

Non-Academic personnel, Grades 4-12 / 649 / 42 / 2587 / 62 / 25
Non-Academic Personnel > Grade 12 / 257 / 17 / 563 / 13 / 46
Academic Personnel / 303 / 20 / 1053 / 25 / 29
Not specify Grade / 326 / 21
Total / 1535 / 100 / 4203 / 100 / 37%

Figure 1. Respondents by Gender

Figure 2. Respondents by Age

Figure 3. Respondents by Level of Education

Figure 4. Respondents by Years at AUB

Data Analysis

Reliability analysis was conducted on the whole scale and various subscales.Data analysis involved reporting item descriptives and frequencies for the whole sample and by each of the demographic variables studied (age, grade, educational level, number of years at AUB, and gender) for AUB and AUBMC. Significant differences in satisfaction level between various groups on each item will also be investigated using non-parametric techniques like Kruskall-Wallis, and predictors of employee satisfaction investigated using regression analysis.

Results

Table 3 reports reliability of questionnaire and various subscales. Table 4 reports the results of the survey for the whole sample, whileTable 9 provides breakdown of results by Campus and AUBMC (Appendix B). In addition, the open-ended comments made by the employees are reported in Appendix C. Comparisons with 2009 results are also provided.

Reliability

Reliability analysis conducted on the survey and its subscales revealed excellent reliabilities of 0.98 for the whole scale and 0.85-0.95 for the subscales. An exception is the General Conditions & Climate Subscale with a reliability of 0.73 and this is because it includes items covering diverse issues (Table 3). These reliability estimates provide an assurance of the precision and consistency of the results obtained from administering the survey and they are higher than the reliability estimates on the 2009 survey.

Table 3. Scale and Subscale Reliabilities

Scale / R* / No of items
General Conditions & Climate / .73 / 14
Management / .95 / 8
Policies & Procedures / .92 / 11
Training & Development / .87 / 6
Communication & Planning / .95 / 21
Benefits & Rewards / .91 / 10
Teamwork & Coordination / .85 / 4
Satisfaction with AUB services / .91 / 15
Overall Items / .92 / 8
Total Scale / .98 / 97

*All significant at p< .00

Descriptive Statistics and Satisfaction Level

I. Whole Sample

Table 4 reports descriptive statistics (mean, median) for 20, frequencies (% Agree, % Disagree) for the whole sample and comparisons with 2009. % Agree includes the respondents who chose SA & A, while % Disagree includes those who chose SD and D. Table 5 reports the range within which the subscales’ means fell, as well as the range of frequencies for both 2012-13 and 2009. Table 6 reports the highest and lowest rated items.

Examining Tables 4, 5, and 6 reveals the following with respect to the survey as a whole:

  • In comparison with 2009, nearly half of the subscale means remained quite the same with an improvement in Management, Communication & Planning, and Training and Development. There was slight decrease in Satisfaction with AUB services.
  • Highest subscale means were for Management and General Conditions & Climate (GCC) and lowest, as usual, for Benefits & Rewards (B&R).
  • Highest rated items came from GCC and Communication & Planning (C&P) with one coming from Management. Compared with 2009, the same items remained in highest category.
  • With respect to lowest items, all were from B&R, with two negatively worded items from P&P and GCC.

Table5. Range of Means and % Satisfied for 2012-13 and 2009 Surveys by Subscale

Scale / Mean 2012 / Mean
2009 / Mean Range 2012 / Mean
Range
2009 / Range
Satisfied 2012 / Range
Satisfied 2009
General Conditions & Climate / 3.7 / 3.7 / 2.6-4.3 / 2.5 - 4.3 / 23-86 / 23 - 84
Management / 3.9 / 3.8 / 3.7-4.1 / 3.7-4.0 / 67-78 / 64 - 73
Policies & Procedures / 3.5 / 3.5 / 2.9-3.8 / 2.9 - 3.9 / 31-74 / 15 - 73
Training & Development / 3.4 / 3.3 / 3.1-3.7 / 3.1 - 3.6 / 39-69 / 40 - 63
Communication & Planning / 3.6 / 3.5 / 3.2-4.1 / 3.2 - 4.1 / 47-87 / 40 - 81
Benefits & Rewards / 2.9 / 2.9 / 2.6-3.3 / 2.6 - 3.4 / 26-55 / 23 – 53
Teamwork & Coordination / 3.4 / 3.4 / 3.3-3.5 / 3.2 - 3.5 / 48-62 / 43 - 58
Satisfaction with AUB Services / 3.4 / 3.5 / 3.2-3.5 / 3.3 - 3.7 / 40-61 / 30 - 63
Overall Items / 3.3 / 3.3 / 3.1-3.5 / 2.9 – 3.5 / 42-65 / 34 - 59

Figure 5. Top Ten Items

Figure 6. Lowest Ten Items.

Table 6. Top Highest and Lowest Items

Top for Institution / Mean / % Agree
63.I have a clear understanding of my department’s goals and priorities (C&P) / 4 / 79
16.At work I often do things above and beyond job requirements (GCC) / 4.1 / 79
29.My supervisor is friendly and helpful (M) / 4.1 / 78
53.I understand AUB’s mission (C&P) / 4.1 / 87
61.I know what is expected of me at work (C&P) / 4.1 / 85
18.I feel a great deal of loyalty towards AUB (GCC) / 4.2 / 80
10.I am proud to work at AUB (GCC) / 4.3 / 86
Bottom for Institution / Mean / % Agree
17. I am thinking about leaving AUB in the next two years (GCC) / 2.6 / 23
74. The effectiveness of AUB’s performance appraisal process (B&R) / 2.6 / 26
69. Fairness of the pay you get for the work you do (B&R) / 2.7 / 31
71. Degree to which your pay is linked to your performance (B&R) / 2.7 / 27
73. Degree to which your pay matches your responsibilities (B&R) / 2.7 / 27
75. Fairness and objectivity of job promotions (B&R) / 2.8 / 30
32. In my dept. policies interfere with my ability to do my job well (P&P) / 2.9 / 31

With respect to subscales, the following can be noted:

General Conditions & Climate

  • Highest rated items were ‘I am proud to work at AUB’ and ‘I feel a great deal of loyalty towards AUB’. They were quite same as in previous years.
  • Lowest rated items in this category were ‘I am thinking about leaving AUB in the next two years’ but this is a negatively worded item so low means positive, and ‘I am satisfied with the physical work conditions’. The second was also lowest in previous years.
  • Eight of the 14 items showed improvement, most notable increase was in ‘At work I often do things above and beyond job requirements’ from 3.9-4.1.
  • Most of other items remained same with one slightly dropping ‘I have a best friend at work’.
  • So, in general GC&C showed improvement as compared to 2009.

Management

  • Five of the eight items on this subscale showed improvement while remaining three remained the same.
  • Highest rated item is ‘My supervisor is friendly and helpful’ (4.1) while lowest is ‘My supervisor or someone at work encourages my development’ (3.7).
  • The Management subscale showed improvement.

Policies & Procedures

  • Nearly all items under P&P remained the same with an improvement in ‘overall, AUB’s policies & procedures are flexible’.
  • Highest rated item is ‘I am well-informed of policies and procedures related to my work’ (3.8) and ‘Overall, AUB’s policies and procedures are: Clear’ (3.7).
  • Lowest rated items are ‘In my department, policies interfere with my ability to do my job well’ (2.9). Same as 2009 results.
  • As a conclusion, employees are knowledgeable about policies and procedures and they find them clear, easy to use. However, they complain that these P&P might interfere with their work and are not so flexible.
  • Stability in this dimension.

Training & Development

  • Half the items improved, while other half remained same as last year.
  • Highest rated is item ‘I had opportunities at work to learn and grow’ (3.7) followed by ‘AUB provides me with training and development to help me do my job effectively’ (3.5); while the lowest is ‘Training courses that meet my needs are available on a timely basis’ (3.1), same as last survey.
  • Scores show improvement on training opportunities and on given the chance to talk about progress.

Communication & Planning

  • Half of the items showed improvement with a notable increase in ‘I am aware of campus wide plans and strategies’ from 3.2 (40% A) to 3.4 (55%A), and all other items stabilized.
  • Highest rated items ‘I understand AUB’s mission’ and ‘Iknow what is expected of me at work’ (4.1). Same as previous surveys.
  • Lowest rated items involve items ‘I believe I am not at risk by challenging rules’ also same lowest item as last year.
  • In conclusion, AUB employees have a good understanding of AUB mission and of departmental goals, however, they feel that they are at risk if they challenge rules, and do not believe that management is genuinely concerned, or that allocation of resources is timely nor that organization structure helps efficient operations.

Benefits & Rewards

  • Nearly half of the items (5/10) improved, while two of the ten went down. Highest improvement was on ‘fairness and objectivity of job promotions’ from 2.6 to 2.8 (23%A to 30%A) and ’availability of opportunities for advancement at AUB’ (34% to 39% A).
  • Highest rated items were ‘Degree of job security at AUB’ (3.3) and ‘AUB’s total benefits package’ (3.2).
  • Lowest rated items in this category were ‘Effectiveness of AUB’s performance appraisal processes’ (2.6), ‘Fairness of the pay you get’ and ‘Degree to which your pay is linked to your performance’, each 2.7.
  • In conclusion, AUB employeesperception of B&R has somewhat improved but they still view their pay as unfair and around half are dissatisfied with fairness and objectivity of promotion process and the degree to which their pay is linked to their performance.

Teamwork & Coordination

  • Item means ranged from 3.3-3.5 with lowest rating on ‘Support from other AUB departments’.
  • In general, half of the items (2/4) went down in average but not considerably in agreement when compared with 2009 survey, while one improved ‘Support from other AUB departments’ from 43%A to 48%A.
  • In conclusion, there is stability in satisfaction with teamwork and professionalism within department, while support from other departments is still weaker than others.

Satisfaction Level with AUB Services

  • Ratings on 15 AUB services ranged from 3.2-3.5 lower than 2009. Five of the items went down most notably IT and ACPS from 3.7-3.5 (52%-44% Satisfied).
  • Important improvement was in satisfaction with HIP from 3.3 to 3.5 (48% to 59% Satisfied) and in janitorial services from 46% to 57% satisfied.
  • Lowest mean ratings were given to Purchasing, Financial Support Services Comptroller’s Office, and FPDU (3.2-3.3).
  • In general, satisfaction level went down. Figure 7 reports satisfaction level of various services and in comparison with 2009. Figure shows areas of highest and lowest satisfaction and their improvement and/or decrease as compared to 2009.

Overall Ratings

  • Mean overall item ratings ranged from 3.1 to 3.5.
  • Highest rated are ‘How satisfied are you with AUB as an employee?, ‘How satisfied with GC&C’ and ‘How satisfied are you with AUB P&P’ (3.5, 58-65% satisfied), while the lowest item is ‘How satisfied are you with AUB Benefits & Rewards’ (3.1) though it improved from 2009 (2.9, from 34% to 42% S).
  • Most of the items remained the same in terms of average except for satisfaction with B&R (2.9-3.1) and with T&C (3.2-3.3, 42% to 47% S.)
  • Satisfaction improved in terms of percentages on all items..
  • In conclusion, overall satisfaction with AUB is still good(65% vs 59%), also with GC&C (63%), and P&P (58%). Training has stabilized, and some problems still exist with AUB Benefits and Rewards. In fact, all overall items showed satisfaction higher than 40% which is moderate to good. Figure 8 provides comparison of overall items for 2009 and 2012.

Figure 7. Satisfaction Level by Department 2012 and 2009.

Figure 8. Overall items for 2012 and 2009.

II.AUB Campus and AUBMC

Table 9 reports survey results by AUB Campus and AUBMC, while Table 7 provides subscale means for whole sample, AUB Campus,and AUBMC. From Table 7 it is clear that Campus subscale scores are lower than AUBMC on most of the subscales with exception of GC&C and Management where they are either equal or Campus is higher. Figure 9 compares performance on overall items. It is also evident on overall item evaluation that AUBMC have higher satisfaction level.

Table 7. Subscales by AUBMC and Campus.

Employee Satisfaction Survey Subscales 2012-13 / Campus
597 / AUB MC
616 / AUB
1535
General Conditions and Climate / 3.7 / 3.7 / 3.7
Management / 3.9 / 3.8 / 3.9
Policies and Procedures / 3.3 / 3.7 / 3.5
Training and Development / 3.2 / 3.4 / 3.5
Communication and Planning / 3.4 / 3.7 / 3.6
Benefits and Rewards / 2.8 / 3.0 / 2.9
Teamwork and Coordination / 3.3 / 3.4 / 3.4
Satisfaction Level with AUB services / 3.4 / 3.5 / 3.4
Overall Items / 3.2 / 3.5 / 3.3

Figure 9. Overall Items by Campus and AUBMC

III.Satisfaction Results by Academic/Non-Academic

Table 8 reports the subscale means for AUB and AUBMC for each of academic and non-academic employees. It is obvious from the table that AUB academics have lower satisfaction than AUBMC academics with most of the subscales except for GCC and Management. Similarly AUB Non academic staff has lower satisfaction than AUBMC staff especially on P&P, T&D, C&P, and on overall items. In general, academic employees have lower satisfaction than non-academics, especially campus academics. Table 12 reports item means by academic and non-academic staff for each of AUB and AUBMC (Appendix).

Table 8. Subscale Means for AUB and AUBMC Academic and Non-Academic

Employee Satisfaction Survey Subscales 2012-13 / Academic AUB / Academic AUBMC / AUB Non Academic / AUBMC Non Academic
General Conditions and Climate / 3.7 / 3.7 / 3.8 / 3.7
Management / 4.0 / 3.9 / 3.9 / 3.8
Policies and Procedures / 3.0 / 3.3 / 3.4 / 3.7
Training and Development / 3.2 / 3.3 / 3.2 / 3.5
Communication and Planning / 3.2 / 3.6 / 3.5 / 3.8
Benefits and Rewards / 2.6 / 3.0 / 2.9 / 3.0
Teamwork and Coordination / 3.2 / 3.5 / 3.4 / 3.4
Satisfaction Level with AUB services / 3.2 / 3.4 / 3.5 / 3.5
Overall Items / 3.1 / 3.3 / 3.3 / 3.5

Figure 10 reports satisfaction means by services department for academic and non-academic, while Figure 11 reports satisfaction means for each of overall items.

As evident from Figure 10, AUB academics have lowest satisfaction on services except for IT and ACPS. Similarly they have lowest satisfaction on overall items while AUBMC non-academic staff has highest satisfaction.

Figure 10. Mean Satisfaction Academic and Non Academic by Service

Figure 11. Mean Satisfaction Overall Items Academic and Non-Academic

IV.Satisfaction by Grade Level

Table 13 (Appendix) reports item means by grade level and Figure 12 reports mean satisfaction for each of the subscales, overall items, and satisfaction with services.

Figure 12. Mean Satisfaction by Grade Level

From figure 12, it is obvious that academic employees have lowest satisfaction. Also, lower level employees, lower than grade 9, have higher satisfaction than upper level employees except on management.

  1. Satisfaction by Level of Education

Table 14 (Appendix) reports item means by employee level of education and Figure 13 reports mean satisfaction for each of the subscales, overall items, and satisfaction with services. It is clear from the graph that employees with lower levels of education have higher satisfaction with overall items and all subscales. There seems to be no difference by educational level on satisfaction with service departments.

Figure 13. Mean Satisfaction by Employee Level of Education

  1. Satisfaction by Years of Employment at AUB

Table 15 (Appendix) reports item means by years of employment at AUB and Figure 14 reports mean satisfaction for each of the subscales, overall items, and satisfaction with services. It is clear from the figure that employees with more than 20 years of employment and new hires have highest level of satisfaction. With years of service, satisfaction starts to decrease to reach its lowest with employees who have been 5-10 years,and thensatisfaction starts to increase after ten years of employment.