University of Virginia. Human Resources Restructuring Survey REPORT OF RESULTS THE CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH. Prepared by:

Transcription

1 University of Virginia Human Resources Restructuring Survey REPORT OF RESULTS Prepared by: THE CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH David E. Hartman. Ph.D. Principal Investigator Abdoulaye Diop, Ph.D. Senior Research Analyst Thomas M. Guterbock, Ph.D. Director Deborah L. Rexrode, M.A. Research Analyst University of Virginia WELDON COOPER CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE University of Virginia

2

3 UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Table of Contents List of Tables... iv Acknowledgements... vii Executive Summary... ix I Introduction... 1 About the Survey... 1 Questionnaire...1 Survey Administration...1 Survey Response...2 Statistical Analysis... 2 Questionnaire Scales...2 Regression Analysis...2 Cross-tabulation Analysis...3 Demographic Overview...3 Weighting...4 Open-ended Responses...4 II Overall Ratings... 5 Rating the University of Virginia as a Place for Staff to work... 5 Demographic Analysis...5 Rating the Current Staff Human Resources System... 5 Demographic Analysis...6 Recommending the University of Virginia to Friends and Family as a Place to Work... 6 Demographic Analysis...6 Awareness of the University Authority to Restructure its Human Resources System... 7 Sources of information about the Human Resources Restructuring...7 Awareness of Specific Facts about the Human Resources Restructuring... 8 Demographic Analysis...9 III Specific Components of the Human Resources System Part C: Performance Evaluation Performance Planning Program...11 Derived Importance...11 Performance Evaluation Program...11 Derived Importance...12 Demographic Analysis...12 Summary...13 Part D: Relative Importance of Performance Evaluation Factors Open Ends...14 Demographic Analysis...14 Summary...15 Part E: Performance Management System Demographic Analysis...15 Summary...16 Part F: Your Compensation Derived Importance...17 Demographic Analysis...17 Summary...18 Part G: Staff Compensation System Demographic Analysis...19 Summary...19 Center for Survey Research i

4 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Part H: Relative Importance of Factors Determining a Staff Employee s Pay Demographic Analysis Open Ends Summary Part I: Relative Importance of Pay Determinants Demographic Analysis Open Ends Summary Part J: Employee Leave Benefits Demographic Analysis Summary Part K: Staff Leave Benefits-Supervisors Views Demographic Analysis Summary Part L: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You Derived Importance Demographic Analysis Summary Part M: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors Views Derived Importance Demographic Analysis Summary Part N: University Staff and Classified Staff Systems Derived Importance Demographic Analysis Summary The Influence of Section Topics on Overall Ratings Staff Overall Evaluation Summary Staff Supervisors Overall Evaluations Summary IV Priority Analysis Appendix A: Questionnaire... A-1 Appendix B: Demographics... B-1 Appendix C: Frequencies and Means...C-1 Appendix D: Comparative Means... D-1 Appendix E: Crosstabulations...E-1 Appendix F: Methodology... F-1 Appendix G: Open-ended Responses...G-1 ii University of Virginia

5 UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY List of Figures Figure II-1: Overall rating of UVa as a place for staff to work...5 Figure II-2: Overall rating of the current staff human resources system...6 Figure II-3: Recommending UVa to friends and family as a place to work...6 Figure II-4: Awareness of the UVa authority to restructure its human resources system...7 Figure II-5: Employees had seen or heard any information about Human Resources Restructuring...8 Figure III-1: Overall Rating for Performance Evaluation...11 Figure III-2: Overall Rating of the Performance Evaluation Program...12 Figure III-3: Overall Rating of Compensation...17 Figure III-4: Overall Rating of the State s Leave Benefits...23 Figure III-5: Overall Factor Importance for Accepting Employment and Continuing With the University...25 Figure III-6: Overall Factor Importance for Attracting, Motivating and Retaining Employees of the University...28 Figure III-7: Potential Benefits Outweigh Complexities...30 Figure IV-1: Top-box Analysis...35 Center for Survey Research iii

6 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA List of Tables Table I-1: Parts of the Questionnaire and Number of questions... 1 Table I-2: Sequence of Survey Related Communications to Web Respondents... 2 Table I-3: Sequence of Survey Related Communications to Mail-out Respondents... 2 Table II-1: Sources of information about the Human Resources Restructuring... 8 Table II-2: Awareness of other facts about Human Resources Restructuring... 9 Table III-1: Performance Planning Program Table III-2: Performance Evaluation Program Table III-3: Factors that should be important in Performance Evaluations Table III-4: Performance Management System Table III-5: Your Compensation Table III-6: Staff Compensation System Table III-7: Staff Employee's Pay Current Importance Table III-8: Pay Determinants Table III-9: Employee Leave Benefits Table III-10: Staff Leave Benefits Table III-11: Relative Importance of Pay Benefits, and Work Life for You Table III-12: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You Table III-13: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors Views Table III-14: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors Views Table III-15: University Staff and Classified Staff Systems Table III-16: Overall Derived Importance Analysis Table III-17: Current Staff Human Resources System Table III-18: University as a Place for Staff to Work Table III-19: Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work Table III-20: Current Staff Human Resources System Table III-21: University as a Place for Staff to Work Table III-22: Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work Table III-23: Summary of the Overall Derived Importance Analysis Table IV-1: Staff Supervisors of Staff Quality Ratings Table IV-2: Staff Supervisors and Staff Derived Importance Analysis Table IV-3: Staff Priority Matrix iv University of Virginia

7 Acknowledgements The Human Resources Restructuring Survey was funded by the University of Virginia. The Principal Investigator for the project was Thomas M. Guterbock, Director of the Center for Survey Research. The Project Coordinators were David E. Hartman, Senior Research Director and Linda Tournade, Research Specialist with assistance from Abdoulaye Diop, Senior Research Analyst; and Deborah Rexrode, Research Analyst. We thank Susan Carkeek, Vice President of Human Resources for the University of Virginia for her continued support of this project from its inception. Additional valuable assistance was provided by Alan Cohn, Director, Faculty and Staff Employee Relations; Joni E. Louque, Faculty and Staff Employee Relations Counselor; Roderick F. Kelly, Director of Compensation and Classification; and David W. Ripley, Executive Assistant, Human Resources who comprised the survey team as the representatives of the Human Resources Department. As Principal Investigator, Dr. Guterbock was responsible for the scientific direction of the study and oversight of the data collection, analysis, and report phases of the project. Dr. David E. Hartman as Project Coordinator was responsible for the project design, questionnaire development and oversight of the data collection, data analysis, and report writing. Dr. Hartman served as the point of contact with the Human Resources Department. Linda Tournade, Research Specialist, helped to direct this project in the early stages of its development. Ms. Tournade assisted in the development of the conceptual outline and the first draft of the questions. Deborah Rexrode, Research Assistant, helped in the development of all survey materials including formatting the questionnaire for both web and mailout and managed survey packet assembly. Kathy Coker and Debbie Zieg, Project Assistants, entered the data for the returned paper questionnaires and tracked returned confirmation postcards and s. The development of the questionnaire was carried out in cooperation with the Human Resources staff of Virginia Tech, who were engaged in a parallel survey of their university s employees. Center for Survey Research UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Edith Fischer, Senior Lab Supervisor, provided the initial translation of the Word document survey into Sawtooth SensusWeb. Complex programming patterns for the web were developed by Research Analysts Gabriel Murtaugh and Kien T. Le. John Lee Holmes, Survey Operations Manager, formatted the final version of the web survey, finalized the programming of the questionnaire into the Sawtooth SensusWeb software, and oversaw the web hosting of the Internet portion of the survey. He and Ms. Rexrode oversaw the reminder-calling phase of the survey. Abdoulaye Diop, Senior Research Analyst conducted the statistical analyses. He was assisted by Kien T. Le and Deborah Rexrode, Research Analysts. Dr. Hartman, Dr. Diop, Dr. Guterbock, and Ms. Rexrode jointly wrote the report of findings including designing graphs and charts. The CSR staff is particularly grateful to the employees of the University of Virginia who gave their time to offer their candid opinions in response to the survey questions. The Center for Survey Research, a unit of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia, is responsible for any errors in this report. Inquiries may be directed to: Center for Survey Research, University of Virginia, P.O. Box , Charlottesville, VA The Center can be reached by telephone at , by to surveys@virginia.edu, or through the World Wide Web at vii

8 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA viii University of Virginia

9 Executive Summary The Human Resources Department of the University of Virginia commissioned the Center for Survey Research (CSR) at the University of Virginia to conduct a survey of all staff, staff supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff of the University of Virginia. The purpose of the survey is to develop a scientifically accurate evaluation of the current policies and procedures of the Human Resources system and to inform the development of the new HR system under restructuring. The survey was conducted by the Internet and by mail for those who do not have convenient access to the Internet. Invitations to participate in the survey were sent to 4,762 university employees and 901 faculty supervisors of staff. The survey was conducted between May 1, 2007 and June 18, During that time, CSR received 2,602 completed questionnaires by the web and 102 completed questionnaires by mail. The final response rate is 49 percent with a margin of error of ±1.4 percent. Overall ratings Asked of all respondents: Overall, how would you rate the University as a place for staff to work? More than eighty-eight percent (88.1%) rated the university as an excellent, very good, or good place to work. The remaining 11.4 percent rated the University as a fair or poor place to work. Asked of all respondents: Overall, how would you rate the current staff human resources system? Two-thirds of the respondents (66.6%) rated the system as excellent, very good, or good. The remaining one-third rated the system as fair or poor. Asked of staff and staff supervisors: I would recommend the University to my friends and family as a place to work. Seventy-nine percent (79%) said they strongly agree or agree with the statement. An additional 16.1 percent were neutral and the remaining 4.9 percent said they disagree or strongly disagree with the statement. Center for Survey Research UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Awareness Asked of all respondents: How aware are you of the University s authority to restructure the human resources policies and procedures for university staff? Just over half of the respondents (57.2%) said they were very aware or somewhat aware of the authority. The remainder was slightly aware or never heard of it. Of those who were aware of the authority, most learned about it through newsletter, announcements, meetings or the UVa website on HR restructuring. Performance Planning Program Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would you rate the university s performance planning program? Just over half (50.9%) rated the program as excellent, very good, or good. The remaining 48.9 percent rated the program as fair or poor. Performance Evaluation Program Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would you rate the university s performance evaluation program? Just under half (45.6%) rated the evaluation program as excellent, very good, or good. The remaining 54.3 percent rated the evaluation program as fair or poor. Relative Importance of Performance Evaluation Staff and staff supervisors indicated that the most important factors that should be used in performance planning and evaluation include: employees should know what is expected of them; employees should be given clear goals and objectives; and supervisors should recognize employees contributions. The factors that received the lowest ratings include: the University recognizes my contribution; receive regular feedback on performance; and helps to identify skills to develop and advance. Performance Management System Performance management system factors that received the highest supervisor ratings include: the system helps in setting expectations and the ix

10 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA system helps identify skills required for employees to be effective. The factors that received the lowest supervisor ratings include: the system helps to encourage achievement; the system helps in motivating employees; and the three-point scale is effective in distinguishing various levels of performance. Compensation Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would you rate the university s compensation program for staff? Less than half of the respondents (46.1%) rated the compensation system as excellent, very good, or good. The remaining 54 percent rated the system as fair or poor. The compensation factor that has the greatest affect on the overall evaluation of compensation is the university s current policies and procedures for determining staff pay. Staff Compensation System Supervisors were asked to evaluate the university s staff compensation system. In general, the ratings were below the scale midpoint. Areas that cause the greatest concern include: the program s effectiveness in retaining and motivating employees; and a supervisor s ability to compensate employees relative to organizations outside the University. Relative Importance of Factors Determining a Staff Employee s Pay All employees were asked to rate the importance of factors that are currently used in determining staff employees pay. The three factors receiving the highest importance ratings are: skills and abilities; duties and responsibilities; and performance. Lower importance ratings were given for local external equity; pay history; and regional or national external equity. abilities; duties and responsibilities; and experience. The lowest rated factors include: regional and national external equity; length of service; and pay history. Employee Leave Benefits Staff and staff supervisors were asked: How would you rate the state s leave benefits? A large majority (90.3%) indicated that the benefits are either excellent, very good, or good. The most important aspect of the benefit program is that benefits are viewed as being competitive relative to organizations outside the university. Staff Leave Benefits Asked of all supervisors: How would you rate your staff employees state leave benefits? Similarly to staff, a majority of supervisors (88.6%) indicated that the benefits are excellent, very good, or good. Supervisors also agree that the most important aspect of the benefit program is its competitiveness with organizations outside of the university. Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You Staff and staff supervisors indicate that leave benefits, tuition benefits, and supervisor relationships are the most important factors in their decision to accept employment with the University. They also indicate that supervisor relationships, job security and flexibility of work scheduling are the most important factors in their decision to continue employment with the University. Relative Importance of Pay Determinants All respondents were asked to evaluate the importance of factors that should be used in determining an employee s pay level. The four factors that received the highest importance ratings are: performance; skills and x University of Virginia

11 Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors indicate that tuition benefits, supervisor relationships, and job security are the most important factors for attracting employees to the University. Supervisors indicate that job security, supervisor relationships, and opportunities to learn new skills are the most important factors for retaining employees with the University. University Staff and Classified Staff System Supervisors were asked if the potential benefits of creating a new University Staff System would outweigh the complexities of managing the two human resources systems. Just over half (54.7%) of the supervisors believe that the benefits will outweigh the complexities. Twenty-eight percent are neutral and 17.1 percent believe the complexities will outweigh the benefits. Supervisors indicate the most important aspect of the restructuring program will be the potential benefits of creating new university staff compensation programs. UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Priority Analysis When overall quality ratings are considered jointly with ratings of importance, the results can suggest which areas should have highest priority for restructuring. These results point to compensation as the area of highest priority, because it receives relatively low quality ratings while being seen as high in importance. In contrast, leave benefits are seen as important, but are rated very high in quality, suggesting little immediate need for change. Performance evaluations rated lower in importance, but also lower in quality. These results along with other more specific findings in this report suggest that respondents ratings of both the compensation and performance evaluation systems would be higher if changes were to be made that linked compensation outcomes with performance evaluation. Center for Survey Research xi

12 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA xii University of Virginia

13 I Introduction About the Survey The Human Resources Department of the University of Virginia commissioned the Center for Survey Research to conduct a survey of all staff, staff supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff of the University of Virginia regarding Human Resources restructuring. Questionnaire Design Process Developing the questionnaire was a collaborative effort between the Human Resources Staff of the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech University and members of the CSR research team. Once a draft of the questionnaire was developed, a focus group was conducted by CSR with representatives of the employees at both universities. Input from the focus groups was instrumental in modifying the questionnaire before fielding the survey. Due to the length of the survey, open-ended questions were moved to the end of the questionnaire. Major Sections Excluding the sections about Job Classification (Part A) and the Employee Demographic information (Part P), the questionnaire is divided into 14 parts. Table I-1 presents these parts and the number of questions that were asked of employees. Survey Administration A pilot of this survey, using the Internet, was conducted for ten days prior to launching the survey. Participants were selected from the population of staff, staff supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff. Each respondent was given the opportunity to make suggestions on how the questionnaire might be improved. Advance letters were sent to remaining employees and non-respondents of the pilot. UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Table I-1: Parts of the Questionnaire and Number of questions Questionnaire Parts Awareness of the University authority to restructure its human resource system (B) Number of questions Performance Evaluation (C) 13 Relative Importance of Performance 13 Evaluation Factors (D) Performance Management System (E) 10 Staff s Compensation (F) 13 Supervisors on Staff Compensation (G) 10 Relative Importance of Factors Determining a Staff Employee s Pay (H) Relative Importance of Pay Determinants 13 (I) Employee Leave Benefits (J) 5 Supervisor on Staff Leave Benefits (K) 6 Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You (L) Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees (M) University Staff and Classified Staff Systems (N) Overall Ratings (O) 3 All employees with access were provided a web version of the survey instrument. Anonymity was assured to all participants through the random assignment of unique IDs and PINs. For employees who have limited or no access to computers, a paper version of the questionnaire was mailed to their university address as well as the opportunity to take the survey online. In order to insure anonymity, a confirmation postcard was provided that respondents could return separately to remove their name from the reminder list. A series of reminders were sent to employees by CSR to promote their participation in the survey. Table I-2 and Table I-3 lists the sequence of survey-related communications that were sent to employees during the survey period Center for Survey Research 1

14 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Table I-2: Sequence of Survey Related Communications to Web Respondents 2 Type Date Sent to Advance letter 5/1 announcement 5/1-4 thank you/reminder Second reminder 5/11 5/21 Postcard reminder 5/31 Phone call reminders 6/4-8 Close-out 6/15 Web respondents Web respondents Web respondents Web respondents Nonrespondents Nonrespondents Nonrespondents Table I-3: Sequence of Survey Related Communications to Mail-out Respondents Type Date Sent to Mail advance letters 5/9 Mail survey packets 5/10 Thank you/reminder postcard Phone call reminders 5/19 Mail-out respondents Mail-out respondents Mail-out respondents 6/4-8 Non-respondents Close-out postcard 6/9 Non-respondents Survey Response The Human Resources Department provided a list of 5,662 employees to CSR. The list contained the names of 901 faculty supervisors of staff and 4,447 staff and staff supervisors with addresses to participate in the web version of the survey. In addition, a list of 314 staff without access was utilized in mailing the paper version of the questionnaire. CSR tracked s from web respondents and confirmation postcards from paper respondents to determine who would receive reminder notices and phone calls. Of the 2,704 employees who participated in the survey, 102 (3.8%) chose the paper version of the survey and 2,602 (96.2%) chose the on-line version. Accordingly, the adjusted survey response rate is 49 percent. Statistical Analysis Questionnaire Scales Questions in each part of the questionnaire asked employees to rate the topics by responding to a five-point scale anchored by Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree or a four-point scale anchored by Very Important to Not Important. The scales were designed so that higher numbers represent preferred outcomes (e.g. 5=Strongly Agree, 1=Strongly Disagree or 4=Very Important, 1=Not Important). Two of the three overall satisfaction questions used five-point scales with anchors of Excellent to Poor. To maintain compatibility during analysis, the scales were reversed so that high numbers represent favorable outcomes and low numbers indicate less favorable outcomes. Regression Analysis Multiple regression analysis is a statistical method used to analyze relationships between a set of variables known as independent variables and a single variable known as the dependent variable. The objective is to use the independent variables to predict variation in the dependent variable. More specifically, a regression routine weights the independent variables through regression analysis to insure maximal prediction of the dependent variable from the set of independent variables. In this report, the summary evaluation questions from each section of the questionnaire are used to predict overall satisfaction. The regression analysis produced standardized regression coefficients or weights known as betas (β) that can have a value of -1 to +1. The betas can be interpreted as the relative importance of the independent variables in predicting the dependent variable. The significance level of the beta coefficient is tested and reported along with the beta coefficients. The significance level can take on values from.000 to 1. For this report, University of Virginia

15 any value that is.05 or less is considered statistically significant. That is, there is a 95 percent chance that the beta is not zero. An overall measure of the strength of the regression analysis is generally found in a table footnote as an R-square, which can take on values from 0 to 1. Larger R-squares represent greater explanatory power for the predictors taken as a group. Near the end of the questionnaire, three overall evaluation questions were asked of the respondents. The questions addressed evaluations of the human resources system, the university as a place to work, and whether staff respondents would recommend the university to friends and family as a place to work. These overall questions serve as dependent variables in the regression analysis. Embedded throughout the questionnaire are ten questions that were overall evaluations of a particular questionnaire part. These questions can serve as independent variables. By regressing the overall questions mentioned in the previous paragraph on these predictors, the affect each item has on the overall evaluations can be determined. This analysis is reported in the last part of Section III of this report. Cross-tabulation Analysis Demographic questions were included at the end of the questionnaire to obtain information about the respondents who completed the survey. The demographic information was used to evaluate differences in ratings given by sub-populations, such as males versus females, or those with different level of education. In this study, a cross-tabulation analysis relates the demographic variables to ratings of items throughout the questionnaire and to the overall evaluation ratings as well. Statistical significance tests were used to verify the existence of satisfaction differences among various subgroups. An independent Chi-Square test of independence is used to test for differences in proportions, and Gamma tests are used to detect patterns among ordinal demographic sub-groups. The results are included in Appendix E. UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Demographic Overview The survey questionnaire included demographic questions about respondents to allow for analysis of the data by personal and social characteristics. Men were slightly underrepresented with only 33 percent of the respondents compared to 67 percent female respondents. To report race, respondents were asked to select from the same categories utilized on the UVa Employment Application. The percentage of respondents were: 87.2 percent White, 7.7 percent Black or African American (Not Hispanic or Latino), 2.8 percent Asian (Not Hispanic or Latino), 1.0 percent Hispanic or Latino,.5 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, and.9 percent described themselves as Other (Two or more races Not Hispanic or Latino). With regard to length of employment as salaried employees of the State of Virginia, the largest percentage, (37.7%) of respondents were employees who have worked for the State for more than 15 years. The second largest group, (23.1%) were employees who have worked for the State 8 to 15 years. Fourteen percent of respondents have worked for the State for 2 to 4 years and 12.9 percent have worked 5 to 7 years. Twelve percent (12%) have worked for the State for less than 2 years. Of the 2,704 respondents who reported their educational level, 56 percent have earned a fouryear college degree or graduate/professional degree. Twenty-seven percent (27%) have a graduate degree. An additional 17.6 percent have received some college and over 12 percent have completed a two-year degree, technical school degree, or trade school certification. Fourteen percent (14%) have received a high school education or less. Further, the salary range with the largest percentage (60.6%) of respondents was the range of annual pay between $25,100 and $50,000 or an hourly rate of $12.01 to $ Second to this group at nearly 21 percent were those in the salary range of $50,100 to $75,000. Approximately 12 percent of respondents have a salary over $75,000 and less than 7 percent have a salary less than $25,000. Center for Survey Research 3

16 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Nearly ninety-two percent (92%) of respondents who supervise indicated they provide input into performance evaluations for the people they supervise. Almost 88 percent indicated they sign performance evaluations as a supervisor, but less than 20 percent sign performance evaluations as a reviewer. Eighty-three percent (83%) of respondents are enrolled in the Virginia Sickness and Disability Program (VSDP) while 17 percent are enrolled in the State s traditional sick leave accrual plan. The two largest academic or administrative areas who responded to the survey were the School of Medicine at 23.5 percent and the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at 9 percent. Respondents working under the Vice President for Finance represent 8 percent. In occupational areas, 37 percent of respondents selected administrative and office support; education and program support; academic or fiscal support. The next largest group of respondents (13.5%) were employed in information technology, telecommunications, computers, electronics, or engineering technology. Weighting Since the data reflects an under-representation of categories in gender and race relative to the population, statistical weighting was used to correct this under-representation. When reporting demographic information, the data were not weighted. The data were weighted by gender and race for all of the analysis that follows. Open-ended Responses A total of 6,550 responses were received on the open-ended questions. Responses to open-ended questions in Sections D, H, and I (3,430) were coded and are discussed in those sections of the report. The remaining responses were cleaned and have been included in Appendix G. Appendices A through G have been provided in entirety as a separate report due to the quantity of the data and the large volume of responses to the open-ended questions. 4 University of Virginia

17 II Overall Ratings Rating the University of Virginia as a Place for Staff to work Overall, how would you rate the University as a place for staff to work? Respondents were asked to rate the University of Virginia as a place for staff to work on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means Excellent and 5 means Poor. For the purpose of statistical analysis, the scale was reversed so that a higher number indicates a more favorable response. Overall, employees are well satisfied with the University as a place to work. Figure II-1 illustrates how participants rated the University of Virginia as a place to work. More than eighty-eight percent (88.1%) gave Excellent, Very good, or Good ratings to the University of Virginia as a place to work. Ten percent (10.6%) gave a Fair rating and 1.3 percent gave a Poor rating. On the scale from 1 to 5, the mean rating for Overall rating is a favorable Refer to Table C-2 in Appendix C for a complete distribution of responses for this item. Figure II-1: Overall rating of UVa as a place for staff to work Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 1.3% 13.6% 10.6% 39.4% 35.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Demographic Analysis The demographic variables include gender, race, education, salary, the number of years the employee has worked as a salaried employee of the State of Virginia, the state leave and disability plan, whether or not the employee UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY provides input into performance evaluations for the people he/she supervises, and whether or not the employee signs performance evaluations as a supervisor or as reviewer. The demographic variables also include the number of years the employee has been on continuous salaried employment with UVa and whether or not the current period of continuous salaried employment with UVa has started before July 1, In reviewing the results of the demographic analyses, this report mentions only those group differences that are statistically significant. Overall, faculty supervisors (3.62) and staff supervisors (3.62) were more likely to give higher ratings to UVa as a place to work than were staff members (3.49). In regards to faculty, administrative and professional employees (3.73) were more likely to give more favorable ratings to UVa than were teaching and research employees (3.48). The demographic analysis also indicates that the overall rating of UVa as a place to work was an increasing function of the employee s salary. Employees with higher salaries were more likely to give higher ratings than were employees with lower salaries. For example, employees with a salary of more than $100,000 (3.69) gave significantly higher ratings than those employees with a salary of $25,000 or less (3.36). Employees with a salary of $75,100 to $100,000, $50,100 to $75,000, and $25,100 to $50,000 rated UVa at 3.59, 3.57, and 3.53, respectively. Employees who provide input into performance evaluations for the people they supervise (3.63) and employees who sign performance evaluations as supervisor (3.64) were also more likely to give higher overall UVa ratings than their counterparts (3.16 and 3.29, respectively). In addition, those who have worked as salaried employees of the State of Virginia for a period of more than 15 years (3.64) gave significantly higher ratings than those who worked as salaried employees of the State of Virginia for a period of 2 to 7 years (3.42) and 8 to 15 years (3.49). Rating the Current Staff Human Resources System In addition to the overall rating of the University of Virginia, respondents were asked to rate the current staff human resources system. Overall, Center for Survey Research 5

18 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA two-thirds (66.6%) of the respondents said the current staff human resources system was Excellent, Very good, or Good. About one-quarter (24.8%) of the respondents rated the current staff human resources system as fair and 8.6 percent rated it as poor (see Figure II-2). On the five-point scale the current staff human resources system received a 2.89 mean rating. Figure II-2: Overall rating of the current staff human resources system 6 Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 3.1% 8.6% 22.9% 24.8% 40.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Demographic Analysis Unlike with the overall ratings of UVa as a place to work, salaried staff (non-supervisor) members (2.97) gave a significantly higher rating to the current staff human resources system than did faculty supervisors (2.58) and salaried staff supervisors (2.73). In addition, ratings of the current staff human resources were significantly higher with employees who do not provide input to performance evaluations (2.98) or sign performance evaluations as a supervisor (3.01) or as a reviewer (2.88) than with their counterparts (2.67, 2.66, and 2.76, respectively). With respect to education, favorable ratings of the current staff human resources decreased with higher levels of education. Employees with education of high school or less (3.21) gave significantly higher ratings than employees with some college education (3.03), a 4-year college degree (2.73), or a graduate professional degree (2.67). In addition, short-tenured (less than 2 years) employees with the State of Virginia (3.00) and long-tenured employees (more than 15 years) (2.91) were more likely to give higher ratings as compared to employees with 8 to 15 years of employment with the State of Virginia (2.76). Employees with 2 to 7 years of employment gave a mean rating of Finally, staff members (non-supervisor) (2.97) and female employees (2.95) gave higher ratings than supervisor staff (2.66) and male employees (2.80). With respect to race, black employees (3.02) gave significantly higher ratings than white employees (2.86). Employees of other races gave a rating of Recommending the University of Virginia to Friends and Family as a Place to Work Staff members and staff supervisors (excluding faculty) were also asked whether or not they would recommend the University of Virginia as a place to work. Using a five-point scale where 5 means Strongly Agree and 1 means Strongly Disagree, slightly more than three-quarters (78.8%) of the staff members and staff supervisors said that they would recommend UVa to friends and family as a place to work (see Figure II-3). The mean rating for this item is evaluated at 3.95 on a five-point scale. Figure II-3: Recommending UVa to friends and family as a place to work Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 3.0% 1.8% 16.3% 23.0% 55.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% Demographic Analysis As with the overall ratings of UVa as a place to work, supervisor salaried staff (4.05), employees who provide input into performance evaluations for the people they supervise (4.04), and employees who sign performance evaluations as a supervisor (4.07) were more likely to say they would recommend UVa to their friends or University of Virginia

19 family as compared to their counterparts (3.92, 3.60, and 3.65, respectively). In regards to education, employees with high school education or less (4.01) and some college education (4.03) were more likely to say they would recommend UVa to friends or family than were employees with a 4-year college degree (3.89) and employees with graduate or professional degree (3.87). Awareness of the University Authority to Restructure its Human Resources System All respondents of the survey (faculty, staff supervisors, and staff members) were asked to rate their level of awareness of the UVa s authority to restructure the human resources policies and procedures for University staff. Figure II-4 presents employees responses on this item. More than half (57.2%) of employees said they were very or somewhat aware of the Human Resources Restructuring, and about one-third (31.4%) said they were slightly aware of it. Eleven percent (11.3%) of the employees indicated that they never heard of it before the implementation of the survey. Figure II-4: Awareness of the UVa authority to restructure its human resources system Very aware Somewhat aware Slightly aware Never heard of it before today 11.3% 17.9% 31.4% 39.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% Demographic Analysis Overall, staff supervisors (26.9%) and faculty supervisors (24.2%) were more likely to say that they were very aware of the Human Resources Restructuring than were staff members (14.3%). The crosstabulation results also indicate that administrative and professional faculty members UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY (30.0%) were more aware of the restructuring program than were teaching and research faculty (14.6%). In addition, employees awareness of the university s authority to restructure the human resources policies and procedures for the university staff increased with the number of years the employee has worked as a salaried employee of the State of Virginia or has been on a continuous salaried employment with the University of Virginia. For example, employees who have been working for the State of Virginia for a period of more than 15 years (23.6%) or 8 to 15 years (19.2%) were more likely to be aware of the Human Resources Restructuring than were employees who worked for the State of Virginia for a period of 2 to 7 years (11.6%) or less than 2 years (11.9%). Awareness of the Human Resources Restructuring and employee s salary follow the same pattern with employees with higher salaries reporting more awareness than those with low salary levels. For example, 26.8 percent of employees with a salary of more than $100,000 said that they very aware of the program as compared to 9.3 percent of those employees with a salary of less than $25,000. Awareness of the Human Resources Restructuring also increased with the level of education. Employees with a graduate or professional degree (24.3%), a 4-year college degree (16.5%), or some college education (16.6%) were more aware of the Human Resources Restructuring than were employees with high school education or less (12.7%). Employees who provide input into performance evaluations for the people they supervise (26.1%), or sign performance evaluations as a supervisor (27.3%) or as a reviewer (21.2%) were more likely to say they were very aware of the Human Resource Restructuring than were their counterparts (7.3%, 6.0%, and 17.4% respectively). Sources of information about the Human Resources Restructuring More than two-thirds (68.1%) of all survey respondents indicated they had seen or heard information about the Human Resources Restructuring. About 3 out 10 (31.9%) employees said that they had never heard or seen Center for Survey Research 7

20 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA information about the Human Resources Restructuring. Figure II-5: Employees had seen or heard any information about Human Resources Restructuring 8 No 31.9% When asked to indicate how they had learned about the Human Resources Restructuring, most employees (67.3%) listed Other UVa communications (newsletters, announcements, meetings) as their primary source of information, followed by the UVa website on Human Resources Restructuring (51.8%), then colleagues and coworkers (36.7%). See Table II-1 for a full presentation of the sources of information. Table II-1: Sources of information about the Human Resources Restructuring Source of Information Other communications (newsletters, announcements, meetings) UVa website on HR restructuring My colleagues or coworkers n percent of responses Yes 68.1% percent of cases n=1,710 1, The grapevine News media (local newspaper, television, radio) Presentation or meeting My supervisor or manager University or student newspaper (electronic or print) Other Total 4, Note: Respondents could select more than one response. Awareness of Specific Facts about the Human Resources Restructuring In addition to the overall awareness question, employees were asked about their level of awareness of specific facts related to the Human Resources Restructuring. Table II-2 presents employees responses on these items. Of all the facts that were presented, employees were most aware that the university now has two human resources systems for staff (the classified staff system and the university staff system) and that the Virginia Retirement System will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring. More than 60 percent of employees indicated that they knew about these two facts (62.8% and 60.1% respectively). In addition, more than half (54.6%) of employees indicated that they knew that the current health insurance plan will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring. Less than half of employees said that they were aware of the remainder of the other facts about the Human Resources Restructuring (Table II-2). Of all the facts that were presented, employees were least aware that the current grievance policies for all staff will not be affected by the Human Resources Restructuring. University of Virginia

21 Table II-2: Awareness of other facts about Human Resources Restructuring Facts B7. The University now has two human resources systems for staff: the Classified staff system and the University staff system (Employees hired on or after 7/1/06) B4. The Virginia Retirement System will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring B5. The current health insurance plan will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring B10. The Classified staff system s policies and procedures will still be governed by the state and will not change based on Human Resources Restructuring B9. The University staff system s policies and procedures will be governed by the Board of Visitors and may change under Human Resources Restructuring B12. Classified staff who choose to switch to the University staff system will not be permitted to switch back to the Classified staff system B11. Classified staff (employees hired before July 1, 2006) will have a choice to switch to the University staff system at least every two years B8. The two human resources systems currently have essentially identical policies and procedures B6. The current grievance policies for all staff will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring Demographic Analysis I knew that (%) I did not know that (%) UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Restructuring. For example, 71.1 percent of employees with 22 years or more of continuous salaried employment with UVa said that they knew that the Virginia Retirement System will not be affected by the Human Resources Restructuring as compared to 44.7 percent of employees who have been with UVa for a period of 2 years or less. The crosstabulation results of awareness about the other facts of the Human Resources Restructuring and length of employment with the State of Virginia follow the same pattern. Additionally, awareness about the other facts of the Human Resources Restructuring increases with the level of education and income. The higher the employee s level of education or annual pay, the more likely he/she is aware of the Human Resources Restructuring. For example, 61.5 percent of employees with graduate or professional degree said that they knew that they knew that the current health plan will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring compared to 46.6 percent of employees with high school education or less. Overall, staff supervisors and administrative and professional staff were also more likely to say they knew about the other facts of the Human Resources Restructuring. For example, 51.3 percent of staff supervisors and 49.2 percent of administrative and professional staff said that they knew that the two human resources systems currently have essentially the same policies and procedures compared to 39.0 percent of nonsupervisor staff and 32.2 percent of teaching and research faculty. With respect to gender, female employees were more likely to say that they knew the University now has two human resources systems (65.6%), the two human resources systems currently have essentially identical policies and procedures (45.9%), and that the classified staff who choose to switch to the University staff system will not be permitted to switch back to the classified system (46.0%) compared to male employees (58.8%, 39.5%, and 41.5%, respectively). White employees were also more likely to know that the Virginia Retirement System will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring (62.4%) and that the University staff system s policies and procedures will be governed by the Board of Visitors and may change under Human Overall, staff and faculty supervisors were more likely to know about the other facts about the Human Resources Restructuring than salaried staff members who are not supervisors. In addition, awareness of the other facts about the Human Resources Restructuring increases with the number of years the employee has been on a continuous salaried employment with the University of Virginia. The longer the period the employee has been on a continuous salaried employment with the UVa, the more likely he/she is aware about the Human Resources Resources Restructuring (48.8%) compared to Center for Survey Research 9

22 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Black employees (52.3% and 37.8% respectively) and employees of other races (50.5% and 38.9%, respectively). 10 University of Virginia

23 III Specific Components of the Human Resources System Part C: Performance Evaluation (Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff) The first specifically focused section of the questionnaire assessed the university s Performance Planning Program and the Performance Evaluation Program. Survey respondents were provided definitions of both programs to assure that the distinctions between the two programs were clear. The Planning Program was defined as referring to the processes and forms for setting goals and expectations, including establishing learning and development objectives. The Evaluation Program referred to processes and forms used for providing coaching and ongoing feedback from supervisors and the annual evaluation process. The performance evaluation section consisted of thirteen questions designed to evaluate the Performance Planning Program and the Performance Evaluation Program. Two of the questions addressed the planning program, nine addressed the evaluation program and two were overall ratings. Performance Planning Program The overall rating for performance planning was obtained by asking respondents to rate the planning program on a five-point scale where 5 is Excellent and 1 is Poor. The results are shown in Figure II-1. Just over half of the respondents (51.1%) rated the program as either Excellent, Very Good, or Good. The mean rating, as reported in Appendix D, Table D1, is 2.51, which is below the mid-point of the five-point scale, suggesting that respondents are less than fully supportive of the program. Two questions in this section, C8 and C9, addressed specific aspects of the planning program. C8 asks whether the planning program helps employees identify the skills required to be effective on their jobs and C9 asks if the program helps identify skills needed to advance. The mean ratings for these questions, 3.33 and 3.15 respectively, are above the mid-point on the five-point scale, but leave room for UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY improvement. The ratings given by staff and staff supervisors are not significantly different. See Table D-1 in Appendix D. Figure III-1: Overall Rating for Performance Evaluation Excellent Very good 11.4% 15.1% 37.8% 33.8% Center for Survey Research 11 Good Fair Poor 1.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Derived Importance By regressing the results of the two evaluation questions on the overall rating question, it is possible to determine the strength of the two questions in determining the overall rating. The standardized beta coefficients for both questions are statistically significant indicating that both factors have a major influence on the overall rating of the performance planning program. See Table III-1 for a listing of the multiple regression outcomes. Table III-1: Performance Planning Program Derived Importance No. Item Beta Sig C8 Evaluation helps identify skills needed to be effective Evaluation helps identify skills C9 needed to advance Dependent variable is C12, overall rating of performance planning program [R sq =.598, n=2,252] Performance Evaluation Program The overall rating for performance evaluation was obtained by asking respondents to rate the Performance Evaluation Program on a five-point scale as in the previous section.