Engagement Analysis Report

November 2015 University of Alaska Fairbanks Leadership Intelligence Employee Engagement Analysis Report

Prepared by DecisionWise Josh Rosenberg Assessment Consultant jrosenberg@decision-wise.com 801.515.6500 Dave Mason Senior Consultant dmason@decision-wise.com 801.515.6500 2

The State of Engagement Dear University of Alaska Fairbanks, We appreciate this opportunity to work with your team in providing your 2015 Employee Survey Results. The purpose of this report is to provide you with information regarding the state of engagement in your organization, as well as to serve as a base from which to further increase the overall performance of the organization. Employee Engagement has become a hot topic over the past decade. This is due to the fact that employee engagement impacts organization success. ROI, employee turnover, customer satisfaction, quality, and a host of other key performance indicators have been clearly linked to levels of engagement. Through our extensive research, we have reaffirmed the notion that the overall Employee Experience has become even more critical today than at any time in the past. At the time, we are seeing mixed results. While even more critical than in past years, actual levels of employee engagement for most organizations throughout the world have seen little increase overall from 2013. However, the good news is that scores across the globe for the past two years are up significantly over the previous decade. In 2014, our DecisionWise group of client organizations saw fairly significant increases in engagement from 2013-2014 when they focused on what is referred to as the five MAGIC keys Meaning, Autonomy, Growth, Impact, and Connection. Those organizations that were able to bring the elements of the MAGIC acronym to the forefront of their engagement efforts typically experienced increases of 5%-10% in overall levels of engagement year-overyear. This, in turn, translates into improved operational performance. We are confident that the Leadership Intelligence contained in this report will provide you with actionable information from which to make wise decisions regarding your most valuable assets. We wish you and your team the best in continued success. Tracy M. Maylett, Ed.D, SPHR CEO, DecisionWise 3

Engagement Matters ENGAGEMENT IS TRANSFORMATIONAL The way in which your employees engage in their work is critical to your organization s success. True employee engagement is an emotional state where employees feel passionate, energetic, and committed to their work. In turn, they give their hearts, spirits, minds, and hands to deliver a high level of performance to the organization. When employees feel a personal connection to the purpose and goals of the organization, great things happen. For example, companies with higher engaged employees are/have: 2x higher net income than companies with poor engagement scores employees who are 87% less likely to leave the organization. 7x greater 5-year total annual shareholder return growing profits as much as 3x faster than their competitors SATISFACTION IS NOT ENOUGH When employees join an organization, they may be enticed by salary promises, cool perks, or the company brand. Important? Of course. But these factors satisfaction elements don t make us stick around. Engagement goes beyond satisfaction; engagement occurs when we find Meaning, Autonomy, Growth, Impact, and Connection MAGIC in what we do. ENGAGEMENT MAGIC The DecisionWise five-key model of employee engagement stems from over two decades of research, analyzing feedback from over 14 million employee survey responses in over 70 countries. The MAGIC acronym identifies the five key factors that drive employee engagement. 1. Meaning: Do employees find meaning and purpose in their jobs? Does their work make a difference? 2. Autonomy: Do employees have freedom, self-governance, and an ability to make choices about their work? 3. Growth: Does the job provide development and growth opportunities? Does the work challenge and stretch employees to grow and improve? 4. Impact: Do employees know they are successful in their work? Do they see that their effort makes a difference and contributes to the success of the organization? 5. Connection: Do employees have a personal connection with their co-workers, their boss, the organization, and the vision of where the organization is going? 4

Engagement Analysis Contents Section Page Survey Tool and Collection p. 12 Distribution of Responses p. 13 Participation Rates p. 16 Participation by Demographic p. 17 Overall Score p. 20 High Scores p. 21 Low Scores p. 23 Benchmark Comparisons p. 26 Measuring Engagement p. 30 Engagement Index p. 31 Engagement Profile p. 34 MAGIC p. 38 Top Themes by Survey Item p. 40 Attrition Analysis p. 46 Strengths p. 50 Areas for Improvement p. 53 Survey Item List p. 58 DecisionWise Global Benchmark List p. 61 Comment Category Themes p. 65 5

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

Executive Summary OVERALL RESULTS In October 2015, the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) conducted an Employee Engagement Survey in order to understand and increase levels of engagement of employees. The survey assessed employee views from the following frames of reference: 1) their jobs; 2) their teams; 3) their supervisors; and 4) the organization. Data were collected from 1,347 participants, across all divisions and employment type. 61% overall favorable score The aggregate overall score is 61% favorable, meaning 61% of responses were Agree or Strongly Agree 22% of responses were Strongly Agree, two points above the average organization 39% of responses were Neutral, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree, which indicate ambivalent or negative attitudes and beliefs that should be addressed 74% of employees, both fully engaged and key contributors, contribute positively to UAF Specific survey items which measure levels of employee engagement were grouped to create an Engagement Index. UAF results show 21% of employees as Fully Engaged, 11 points below the average organization 53% are Key Contributors: employees committed to the organization and who work hard to meet expectations 22% of employees fall into the Opportunity Group, and only 4% of employees are considered Fully Disengaged Positive and negative perceptions of engagement are identified in the Engagement Analysis section of this report 8

Executive Summary STRENGTHS Key strengths of UAF, Connection to Coworkers and Job Satisfaction, showed up on the highest-scoring items, positive perceptions of engagement, and the open-ended comments. Connection to Coworkers People care about others People treat each other with respect Supervisors have good relationships with their employees Job Satisfaction People enjoy the work they do People find meaning and purpose in their jobs There is freedom to perform one s work OPPORTUNITIES Bureaucracy Conversely, Bureaucracy, Communication, and Confidence in Leadership are consistent themes that employees indicate as areas of concern. UAF is slow to adapt to changes Changes are not communicated effectively Bureaucracy is a barrier to positive work Communication Confidence in Leadership People are not aware of what is going on Lack of communication between departments Employees feel they are lacking a voice People lack confidence in leadership at the university The strategy and vision are not effectively shared The following report provides detailed analysis of the 2015 Employee Engagement Survey for UAF. Participation and survey scores for each survey item are reported by division and demographic. 9

10

METHODOLOGY 11

Methodology METHODOLOGY SURVEY TOOL The instrument was developed in coordination with University of Alaska Fairbanks and DecisionWise survey experts. The survey was divided into four dimensions: My Job, My Department, My Supervisor, and My Organization (University of Alaska Fairbanks). 59 survey items and two open-ended comment questions were included. SURVEY COLLECTION Data were gathered via the online survey and consolidated into a central database. Responses to open-ended items were entered verbatim. The survey was administered to all employees over two weeks, from October 12 October 27, 2015. DESCRIPTIVE REPORT ONLINE LIS The Leadership Intelligence System (LIS) shows descriptive statistics of the survey results. This includes a basic analysis of the data by demographics, highs and lows, and distribution of responses. UAF scores represent the percent of employees answering favorable, neutral, and unfavorable. Example 9% 15% 76% 0% 50% 100% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable A Blue Bar, or favorable score, indicates a response of 4-Agree, or 5-Strongly Agree. A White Bar, or neutral score, indicates a response of 3-Neutral. A Red Bar, or unfavorable score, indicates a response of 2-Disagree or 1-Strongly Disagree. 12

Methodology DATA VALIDATION The total number of survey responses and other statistical details are shown below. The distribution of responses to all survey items, including Don t Know/Not Applicable (DK/NA) responses, reflect a typical distribution. 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Responses 4385 Strongly Disagree 8697 17002 30231 17028 Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total Responses: 78,922 Mean: 3.61 1579 Don't Know / Not Applicable DON T KNOW / NOT APPLICABLE RESPONSES The survey items with the greatest number of DK/NA responses are listed below. Percentages greater than 10% indicate a survey item that may need to be further analyzed before the next survey administration. SURVEY ITEM 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. DK/NA Responses Percent of Total 123 9% 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 93 7% 21. Work teams in my department collaborate well. 75 6% 13

Methodology ADVANCED ANALYSIS Statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), a software application frequently used to analyze organizational data. Some or all of the following analyses may be included in this report: Central Tendency Measures Central tendency describes a whole set of data with a single value that represents the middle or center of its distribution. The complexity of the data is reduced into simple reference points such as favorable, unfavorable, and average score. These reference points allow for quick interpretation of where individuals, teams, and departments stand in relation to each other and to the rest of the company. These analyses make up the bulk of the report and are the foundation for further metrics. Correlation This analysis indicates the degree of relationship and dependence between various survey items on the report. This is useful in understanding how survey items and key themes stand out and group together, as well as how results on one statement may impact another. Effect Size Statistical significance testing (e.g. T-Test) assigns a probability that a real difference exists between two items, such as comparing a survey item to a benchmark or the current year s score to a previous year. Sometimes that difference, while statistically significant, may be negligibly small. Therefore, significance testing is paired with a measurement of effect size, which calculates the size of that difference. In this report, Cohen s d is the measure used for effect size. The d-scores that exceed 0.4 reflect a substantial difference between the organization s score and the comparison data set. ANOVA The analysis of variance (ANOVA) compares the data in question with other groups to determine whether visible differences are significant or not. ANOVA allows for more efficient use of resources when creating interventions. The analysis is robust enough to allow for both comparisons within the company and comparisons between companies and industries. Regression This advanced analysis is important in understanding what drives engagement and what factors have the greatest impact on engagement for the company. Information is provided as to how certain modifications are likely to impact future engagement levels. 14

PARTICIPATION 15

Participation PARTICIPATION RATES A total of 1,347 out of 2,715 employees responded to the survey, representing an 50% participation rate. Rates by division give further insight into the overall participation rate. Divisions Actual Anticipated Participation Academic Affairs (Provost) 591 1,041 57% Administrative Services 160 306 52% Chancellor 22 36 61% Office of Information Technology 20 35 57% Research 244 408 60% Rural, Community, and Native Education 182 717 25% University and Student Advancement 128 172 74% Total 1,347 2,715 50% Participation Trends by Administration 100% 80% 76.4% 81.2% 92.4% 88.0% 60% 40% 50.0% 20% 0% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th DecisionWise UAF 16

Participation PARTICIPATION DISTRIBUTION 50% The following demographic results are represented by the 1,347 employees who answered the survey. Respondents were grouped into twelve demographic categories. The following three are represented here: Employee Type, Tenure, and Division. 37% Employee Type 63% Faculty Non-Faculty Tenure 10% 21% Up to 1 Year 1 to 3 Years 15% 20% 21% 4 to 7 Years 8 to 10 Years 13% 11 to 15 Years 16+ Years Division 14% 18% 9% 2% 1% 12% 44% Academic Affairs (Provost) Administrative Services Chancellor Office of Information Technology Research Rural, Community, and Native Education University and Student Advancement 17

18

OVERALL RESULTS 19

Overall Score OVERALL SCORE The overall score in 2015 is 61%. While survey items differ for each company, and an exact comparison is not possible, the average score for an organization in the DecisionWise databank is 75% favorable overall. 2015 Overall Score 17% 22% 61% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Employees responded most favorably to survey items in the My Department section. Lowest favorable scores are in My Organization (University of Alaska Fairbanks). Dimensions Summary My Job 14% 18% 68% My Department 8% 14% 78% My Supervisor 14% 18% 68% My Organization (University of Alaska Fairbanks) 24% 29% 47% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable 20

Highest Scores Three out of five of the highest-scoring survey items are about employees relationships with each other. The other items relate to job autonomy and employees care about the success of the organization. Highest Scores 15. There are people at work who care about me. 54. The success of this organization is personally important to me. 5. I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work. 17. I enjoy working with the people in my work group. 12% 13% 7% 10% 13% 86% 85% 83% 82% 14. The people I work with treat me with respect. 7% 11% 82% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% EMPLOYEE TYPE Faculty 12. I find enjoyment in the work that I perform. 88% 54. The success of this organization is personally important to me. 86% 11. My work provides me with a sense of meaning and purpose. 85% 10. My work is stimulating and energizing. 84% 8. Time passes quickly when I m at work 83% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Non-Faculty 15. There are people at work who care about me. 88% 17. I enjoy working with the people in my work group. 85% 19. The people I work with help each other when needed. 84% 54. The success of this organization is personally important to me. 84% 5. I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work. 84% 21

Highest Scores - Division The three highest-scoring items for each division are shown, with common items color-coded. Rank 1 2 3 Academic Affairs (Provost) (n=591) 15. There are people at work who care about me. 83% 12. I find enjoyment in the work that I perform. 83% 54. The success of this organization is personally important to me. 82% Administrative Services (n=160) 15. There are people at work who care about me. 86% 54. The success of this organization is personally important to me. 82% 19. The people I work with help each other when needed. 82% Chancellor (n=22) 19. The people I work with help each other when needed. 100% 5. I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work. 100% 15. There are people at work who care about me. 100% Office of Information Technology (n=20) 19. The people I work with help each other when needed. 100% 17. I enjoy working with the people in my work group. 100% 20. Individuals in my department work together well. 100% Research (n=244) 54. The success of this organization is personally important to me. 89% 15. There are people at work who care about me. 88% 17. I enjoy working with the people in my work group. 86% Rural, Community, and Native Education (n=182) 5. I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work. 89% 54. The success of this organization is personally important to me. 88% 12. I find enjoyment in the work that I perform. 87% University and Student Advancement (n=128) 54. The success of this organization is personally important to me. 88% 15. There are people at work who care about me. 88% 17. I enjoy working with the people in my work group. 84% 22

Lowest Scores The five lowest-scoring survey items relate to confidence that changes will be made as a result of the survey, effective methods for receiving and responding to suggestions for change, and organizational communication. 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 48. The University of Alaska system-wide offices communicate well with all employees about what is going on. 53. I have confidence in the University of Alaska system as a whole. Lowest Scores 42% 42% 37% 38% 31% 34% 36% 33% 41% 37% 17% 21% 29% 29% 33% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% EMPLOYEE TYPE Faculty 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 15% 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 18% 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 25% 48. The University of Alaska system-wide offices communicate well with all employees about what is going on. 26% 53. I have confidence in the University of Alaska system as a whole. 28% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Non-Faculty 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 18% 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 23% 48. The University of Alaska system-wide offices communicate well with all employees about what is going on. 30% 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 31% 53. I have confidence in the University of Alaska system as a whole. 35% 23

Lowest Scores - Division The three lowest-scoring items for each division are shown, with common items color-coded. Rank 1 2 3 Academic Affairs (Provost) (n=591) 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 13% 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 17% 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 24% Administrative Services (n=160) 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 24% 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 24% 48. The University of Alaska system-wide offices communicate well with all employees about what is going on. 28% Chancellor (n=22) 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 19% 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 19% 56. The University of Alaska Fairbanks does a good job at adapting to changes. 23% Office of Information Technology (n=20) 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 15% 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 16% 56. The University of Alaska Fairbanks does a good job at adapting to changes. 30% Research (n=244) 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 20% 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 22% 48. The University of Alaska system-wide offices communicate well with all employees about what is going on. 29% Rural, Community, and Native Education (n=182) 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 20% 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 29% 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 32% University and Student Advancement (n=128) 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 15% 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 23% 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 29% 24

25

Benchmarks: Positive & Negative Differences UAF survey item scores are compared to the average organization in the DecisionWise Leadership Intelligence Database. To identify survey items that have a meaningful statistical significance, a Cohen s d calculation is used. A d-score between 0 and 0.2 = a minor difference from the norm A d-score between 0.2 and 0.4= a moderate difference A d-score that exceeds 0.4 = a substantial difference A positive d-score indicates the amount to which UAF exceeded the industry norm. A negative score indicates the amount to which UAF scored lower than the norm. Substantial positive scores are GREEN, substantial negative scores are RED. POSITIVE DIFFERENCES The following chart shows the survey items where UAF surpassed the average organization. Survey Item 5. I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work. UAF Global Benchmark 83% 76% 0.23 d 23. My supervisor recognizes my efforts and contributions. 77% 69% 0.16 32. My supervisor treats me with fairness and respect. 81% 79% 0.08 15. There are people at work who care about me. 86% 84% 0.07 10. My work is stimulating and energizing. 72% 69% 0.04 12. I find enjoyment in the work that I perform. 82% 79% 0.03 26

Benchmarks: Positive & Negative Differences NEGATIVE DIFFERENCES The following survey items are where UAF did the poorest compared to the average organization. Survey Item 52. I have confidence in the leadership team specifically at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 48. The University of Alaska system-wide offices communicate well with all employees about what is going on. 41. The vision and goals of the University of Alaska Fairbanks are important to me personally. UAF Global Benchmark 35% 73% -0.90 17% 51% -0.72 21% 49% -0.67 29% 56% -0.61 61% 84% -0.59 d 50. This organization cares about employees. 44% 68% -0.58 55. I believe the University of Alaska Fairbanks has a successful future. 45. My opinions are sought on issues that affect me and my job. 59% 81% -0.54 40% 61% -0.52 36. We work effectively across departments and functions. 39% 62% -0.51 51. I feel like I belong at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 60% 77% -0.50 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 58. I would recommend the University of Alaska Fairbanks as a great place to work. 57. I am proud to tell people I work for the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 29% 49% -0.49 55% 75% -0.49 73% 89% -0.48 29. My supervisor sets clear performance expectations. 58% 82% -0.48 46. I feel that I can speak up without fear of retribution or negative consequences. 39. This organization trusts employees to be responsible for achieving results. 45% 64% -0.44 56% 73% -0.40 27

28

ENGAGEMENT ANALYSIS 29

Engagement Principles WHAT IS ENGAGEMENT? Engagement is characterized by feeling passionate, energetic, and committed to one s work. Behaviorally, this is demonstrated by fully investing one s best self heart, spirit, mind, and hands into work. MEASURING ENGAGEMENT Engagement consists of both affective and behavioral elements. It is measured directly through engagement anchor statements. These statements identify an individual s level of engagement, based on their agreement with specific survey items. Responses to engagement anchor statements are found to be the most accurate way to assess an individual s actual level of engagement. The survey items listed below are unique outcome measurements, unlike other items on the survey which measure working conditions that lead to engagement. The engagement index is calculated by combining responses from the following survey items: 8. Time passes quickly when I m at work. 10. My work is stimulating and energizing. 12. I find enjoyment in the work that I perform. 13. Overall, I love my job. 58. I would recommend the University of Alaska Fairbanks as a great place to work. 59. If given a choice, I would remain with University of Alaska Fairbanks, even if a job with similar pay and benefits were available elsewhere. 30

Engagement Index Each survey participant was placed into one of four categories, based on their responses to the engagement anchor statements previously listed. The table below shows the behaviors that are representative of employees in each category of the engagement index. 100% 90% 80% 21% Fully Engaged (n=276) Constantly learning and taking calculated risks. Feel stretched beyond your comfort zone. Take personal satisfaction in the quality of your work. Work can be stressful but is also rewarding and fun. You love your job! 70% 60% 50% 53% Key Contributor (n=713) Meet expectations the strong and steady. Stick to what you know and take few risks. Respond well to leadership. Rarely stretched by assignments. You are committed to your job. 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 22% 4% Opportunity Group (n=300) Generally feel underutilized. Spend significant time taking care of personal needs. Do just enough to get by and not get in trouble. Pay is the primary reason why you stay. You are putting in the time. Fully Disengaged (n=57) Bored and frustrated at work. Make sarcastic jokes about work. Speak poorly about the company and leaders. Look for ways to find blame. You quit, stay, and corrupt. 31

2014 Benchmark DecisionWise Engagement Index Benchmark According to the survey results, 21% of UAF employees that responded to the survey fall into the Fully Engaged category. Over half (53%) fit into the Key Contributor category. 22% of the employees are in the Opportunity Group category, and only 4% are Fully Disengaged. UAF has more Key Contributors and Opportunity Group employees than the average company in the DecisionWise database. 100% 90% 21% 80% 70% 32% 60% 50% 53% 40% 30% 46% 20% Fully Engaged 22% Key Contributor Opportunity Group Fully Disengaged 10% 0% 4% UAF 18% 4% 32

Engagement Index Compared: Divisions At UAF, the Chancellor division has the highest percentage of Fully Engaged employees. The Office of Information Technology has a low number of Fully Engaged employees, but has a large number in the Key Contributors (65%). See the positive perceptions of engagement on the following pages to understand what can be done to help increase engagement. Engagement Index by Division 100% 90% 80% 27% 22% 22% 22% 21% 13% 10% 70% 60% 50% 45% 52% 60% 55% 51% 54% 65% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 18% 9% Chancellor (n=22) 23% 16% 22% 23% 26% 20% 4% 5% 7% 5% Research (n=244) Rural, Community, and Native Education (n=181) University and Student Advancement (n=128) Academic Affairs (Provost) (n=591) Administrative Services (n=160) Office of Information Technology (n=20) Fully Disengaged Opportunity Group Key Contributor Fully Engaged 33

Engagement Profile FULLY ENGAGED 21% of the employees at UAF (n=276) can be categorized as Fully Engaged. Aspects of the work environment that are positively associated with engagement are identified by calculating the scores of the survey items. The statements to which the Fully Engaged group answered 5-Strongly Agree are listed below. Fully Engaged: Positive Perceptions 11. My work provides me with a sense of meaning and purpose. 32. My supervisor treats me with fairness and respect. 5. I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work. 28. My supervisor welcomes my opinions and feedback. 35. I trust my supervisor. 14. The people I work with treat me with respect. 27. My supervisor is approachable and easy to talk to. 84% 80% 76% 73% 73% 73% 72% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 5 - Strongly Agree 34

Engagement Profile OPPORTUNITY GROUP 22% of employees (n=300) at UAF can be categorized in the Opportunity Group. These employees have moderate to low levels of engagement and perceive both positive and negative factors in the organization that have an impact on engagement, as well as potential turnover. Aspects of the work environment that are positively associated with engagement are identified by calculating the scores of the survey items. The statements on the survey most favorably perceived by the Opportunity Group are listed below. Opportunity Group: Positive Perceptions 32. My supervisor treats me with fairness and respect. 27. My supervisor is approachable and easy to talk to. 15. There are people at work who care about me. 28. My supervisor welcomes my opinions and feedback. 14. The people I work with treat me with respect. 35. I trust my supervisor. 5. I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work. 19. The people I work with help each other when needed. 29% 27% 25% 24% 23% 23% 22% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 5 - Strongly Agree 35

Engagement Profile OPPORTUNITY GROUP Aspects of the work environment that may shift the Opportunity Group toward further disengagement and potential turnover were identified. By decreasing the level of negative responses in these areas, it is likely that those in the Opportunity Group will become more engaged. The items on the survey most unfavorably perceived by the Opportunity Group are listed below. 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. Opportunity Group: Negative Perceptions 48. The University of Alaska system-wide offices communicate well with all employees about what is going on. 56. The University of Alaska Fairbanks does a good job at adapting to changes. 45. My opinions are sought on issues that affect me and my job. 36. We work effectively across departments and 57% 57% 57% 53% functions. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 58% 66% 65% Unfavorable - Disagree or Strongly Disagree 36

Engagement Profile FULLY DISENGAGED Only 4% of employees (n=57) at UAF are considered Fully Disengaged. These employees have low levels of engagement and perceive both positive and negative factors in the organization that may have an impact on their potential turnover and engagement. The aspects in the work environment that contribute to low levels of engagement were identified. The results of these calculations provide insight into this Fully Disengaged group. The items on the survey most unfavorably perceived by the Fully Disengaged are listed below. Fully Disengaged: Negative Perceptions 46. I feel that I can speak up without fear of retribution or negative consequences. 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 50. This organization cares about employees. 45. My opinions are sought on issues that affect me and my job. 52. I have confidence in the leadership team specifically at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 89% 87% 85% 83% 82% 81% 81% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unfavorable - Disagree or Strongly Disagree 37

MAGIC FIVE KEYS TO UNLOCK THE POWER OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT The five key factors of employee engagement directly affect the overall levels of engagement within an organization. These are known by the acronym MAGIC, and are critical, at varying levels, to each employee within the organization. Meaning Autonomy Growth Impact Connection Your work has purpose beyond the job itself. The power to shape your work and environment in ways that allow you to perform at your best. Being stretched and challenged in ways that result in personal and professional progress. Seeing positive and worthwhile outcomes and results for your work. The sense of belonging to something greater than yourself. Below are the average scores for each of the MAGIC components for UAF. 75% 11. My work provides me with a sense of meaning and purpose. 5. I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work. 83% 69% 6. I feel challenged and stretched in my job in a way that results in personal growth. 9. Most days, I see a positive impact from my work. 71% 60% 51. I feel like I belong at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 38

Page Title 22 pt. White COMMENT ANALYSIS Copyright 2015 // www.decision-wise.com // +1.800.830.8086 39

Bureaucracy and Politics Budgets and Funding Staffing and Job Stress Communication Internal Processes Valued and Respected Team Members/ The People Meaning/ Contribution/ Job Students Culture Compensation and Benefits Alaska/ Fairbanks Community DecisionWise Comment Analysis Qualitative data provides insight into the issues most important to employees. The feedback often supports the quantitative data from the survey questions. UAF s comments were read and categorized by theme, and reported. The results and frequency of themes are provided in the following pages. OVERALL THEMES In response to the question If you left the University of Alaska Fairbanks, what would you miss most about working here? the 1,055 employees who responded identified the following top themes: 600 Themes: Strengths 500 586 400 438 300 200 100 343 284 239 175 0 In responses to the question If you left the University of Alaska Fairbanks, what would you not miss? the 1,013 employees who responded identified the following top themes: 300 200 Themes: Opportunities 279 100 116 114 107 99 98 0 Copyright 2015 // www.decision-wise.com // +1.800.830.8086 40

Comment Analysis GREATEST STRENGTHS In response to the survey item If you left the University of Alaska Fairbanks, what would you miss most about working here? employees identified these major themes: 586 Team Members/The People Coworkers within departments Intelligent and high quality people Supervisors 438 Meaning/Contribution/Job Interesting work and research Making a positive changes and contributions Students 343 Positive impact on students Interactions with the students Helping students development Copyright 2015 // www.decision-wise.com // +1.800.830.8086 41

Comment Analysis STRENGTHS COMMENTS BY ENGAGEMENT INDEX In the Engagement Analysis section, employees were categorized into four engagement groups based on their responses to specific anchor questions. In the tables below, the comments from each engagement group were identified by theme. Common themes are color coded. Fully Engaged (number of comments=227) Team Members/ The People 56% Meaning/ Contribution/Job 31% Culture 20% Key Contributors (number of comments=551) Team Members/ The People 59% Meaning/ Contribution/Job 22% Students 20% Opportunity Group (number of comments=227) Team Members/ The People 52% Meaning/ Contribution/Job 19% Compensation and Benefits 17% Fully Disengaged (number of comments=49) Team Members/ The People 35% Compensation and Benefits 22% Students 14% Copyright 2015 // www.decision-wise.com // +1.800.830.8086 42

Comment Analysis OPPORTUNITIES In response to the question If you left the University of Alaska Fairbanks, what would you not miss? employees identified these major themes: 279 Bureaucracy and Politics Red Tape and administrative challenges Politics and entitlements General bureaucracy 116 Budgets and Funding Budget cuts and uncertainty Securing funding 114 Staffing and Job Stress Stress from the lack of staffing Workload Copyright 2015 // www.decision-wise.com // +1.800.830.8086 43

Comment Analysis OPPORTUNITIES COMMENTS BY ENGAGEMENT INDEX In the Engagement Analysis section, employees were categorized into four engagement groups based on their responses to specific anchor questions. In the tables below, the comments from each engagement group were identified by theme. Common themes are color coded. Fully Engaged (number of comments=202) Bureaucracy and Politics 20% Budgets and Funding 11% Communication 10% Key Contributors (number of comments=529) Bureaucracy and Politics 30% Budgets and Funding 11% Internal Processes 11% Opportunity Group (number of comments=231) Bureaucracy and Politics 31% Valued and Respected 17% Communication 16% Fully Disengaged (number of comments=50) Valued and Respected 22% Leadership/Lack of Vision 22% Compensation and Benefits 20% Copyright 2015 // www.decision-wise.com // +1.800.830.8086 44

ATTRITION ANALYSIS 45

Attrition Analysis Employee engagement has a significant impact on attrition. To understand the potential for attrition at University of Alaska Fairbanks, employees were placed into one of the following four categories, depending on their responses to the following survey item: 59, If given a choice, I would remain with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, even if a job with similar pay and benefits were available elsewhere. 100% 90% 80% 22% Of the employees at UAF, 22% indicated 5- Strongly Agree when presented with these survey items. These 281 employees have strong intentions to stay with the organization. 70% 60% 50% 37% A significant number of employees at UAF are content with remaining with the organization. In fact, 475 (37%) indicated 4-Agree when presented with the survey items. 40% 30% 20% 24% 24% of employees indicated 3-Neutral to the survey items. This means 311 employees are undecided as to whether they would stay with UAF. 10% 0% Fully Committed Content Undecided High Potential for Turnover There were 232 respondents (18%) who marked 2-Disagree or 1-Strongly Disagree. These respondents have a higher likelihood of voluntary turnover. 46

Attrition Analysis When the responses to the potential attrition survey item (59) are viewed within engagement groups, those who answered a 1-Strongly Disagree or 2-Disagree indicate a higher likelihood of voluntary turnover. 59, If given a choice, I would remain with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, even if a job with similar pay and benefits were available elsewhere. High Turnover Potential Moderate Turnover Potential Engagement Category 1-Strongly Disagree 2-Disagree 3-Neutral 4-Agree 5-Strongly Agree Fully Engaged n=276 0% 0% 4% 30% 66% Key Contributor n=713 2% 7% 27% 49% 15% Opportunity Group n=300 16% 28% 37% 18% 1% Fully Disengaged n=57 62% 24% 13% 2% 0% 47

48

KEY FINDINGS 49

Key Findings STRENGTHS CONNECTION TO COWORKERS Survey respondents enjoy working with their immediate coworkers. Five of the top ten highest-scoring survey items refer to one s teammates. UAF employees: Feel cared for by others (S15, 86% favorable) Enjoy working with others (S17, 82%) Treat each other with respect (S14, 82%) Are comfortable being themselves (S16, 81%) Help each other when needed (S19, 80%) Connection to Coworkers 15. There are people at work who care about me. 17. I enjoy working with the people in my work group. 14. The people I work with treat me with respect. 16. I am comfortable being myself with my coworkers. 19. The people I work with help each other when needed. 12% 13% 7% 11% 6% 14% 8% 12% 86% 82% 82% 81% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Each of these survey items have a favorable score 19 to 25 points above the UAF overall score (61% favorable), showing a clear connection to one s coworkers. This theme also appears in the open-ended comments. In response to the question, If you left the University of Alaska Fairbanks, what would you miss most about working here?, Team Members were mentioned the most, with 56% of comments referring to coworkers. 50

Key Findings STRENGTHS CONNECTION TO COWORKERS (CONTINUED) Additionally to feeling connected to one s team members, people generally have positive relationships with their supervisors. Employees feel that supervisors: Treat them with respect (S32, 81% favorable) Are approachable and easy to talk to (S27, 80%) Recognize efforts and contributions (S23, 77%) Welcome opinions and feedback (S28, 76%) Can be trusted (S35, 74%) Connection to Supervisors 32. My supervisor treats me with fairness and respect. 27. My supervisor is approachable and easy to talk to. 23. My supervisor recognizes my efforts and contributions. 28. My supervisor welcomes my opinions and feedback. 7% 11% 9% 12% 11% 12% 10% 14% 81% 80% 77% 76% 35. I trust my supervisor. 11% 15% 74% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Employees at UAF enjoy working with their coworkers, and feel respected by their team members and supervisors. Connection to those with whom one works is an important key to engagement. 51

Key Findings STRENGTHS JOB SATISFACTION Job satisfaction is another strength of UAF according to the survey respondents. People enjoy what they do, the freedom they have in their roles, and the meaning they find in their work. This is a common feeling for both faculty and staff. In response to survey items 5, I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work, 12, I find enjoyment in the work that I perform, 8, Time passes quickly when I m at work, and 11, My work provides me with a sense of meaning and purpose, Faculty provided favorable scores of 82%, 88%, 83%, and 85% respectively. Staff also provided high favorable scores to the same survey items at 84%, 79%, 72%, and 69%. Job Satisfaction 5. I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work. 12. I find enjoyment in the work that I perform. 82% 84% 88% 79% 8. Time passes quickly when I'm at work. 11. My work provides me with a sense of meaning and purpose. 72% 69% 83% 85% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Faculty (n=501) Staff (n=846) Although staff score lower than faculty on survey item 11, both groups of employees trend favorably for items relating to the enjoyment of their work. Respondents also frequently mention how they enjoy their work when asked the openended question, If you left the University of Alaska Fairbanks, what would you miss most about working here? 42% of comments refer to job satisfaction and 33% refer to the students. 52

Key Findings OPPORTUNITIES BUREAUCRACY AND MAKING CHANGES The three lowest-scoring survey items, as well as the sixth lowest-scoring item, refer to people s trust of UAF to make changes based on employees suggestions. Employees do not feel that changes will be made as a result of the survey (S49, 17%), the organization has effective methods for responding to (S44, 21%) and receiving (S43, 29%) suggestions for change, and UAF is good at adapting to changes (S56, 33%). Scores to these survey items score significantly below, with meaningful differences, the DecisionWise Global Benchmarks* by 20 to 34 points. 49. I am confident that positive changes will be made as a result of this survey. 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 56. The University of Alaska Fairbanks does a good job at adapting to changes. Changes at UAF 42% 41% 42% 37% 37% 34% 31% 36% 17% 21% 29% 33% DW Global Benchmark Gap 51% -34 49% -28 49% -20 na na 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable When asked, If you left the University of Alaska Fairbanks, what would you not miss?, 28% of employees who left comments said they would not miss the bureaucracy and organizational politics. Employees feel it is hard to make positive and meaningful changes due to red tape and the bureaucracy at UAF. *See the Appendix for the full list of benchmarks and Information on a meaningful difference 53

Key Findings OPPORTUNITIES COMMUNICATION Communication throughout the organization is another opportunity for improvement at UAF. Employees feel they are not receiving the information they want or need from the organization, they do not have a voice going to the leaders of the organization, and that the cross-departmental communication is not effective. Employees have the perception that UAF and the University of Alaska system do not communicate with employees about what is happening in the organization. They also feel that changes are not effectively shared with them. When compared to the DecisionWise Global Benchmarks, survey items 44, This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change (21% favorable), 48, The University of Alaska system-wide offices communicate well with all employees about what is going on (29%), and 49, The University of Alaska Fairbanks communicates well with all employees about what is going on (42%), score below by 28 points, 27 points, and 14 points, respectively. Top-down Communication DW Global Benchmark Gap 44. This organization responds effectively to suggestions for change. 42% 37% 21% 49% -28 48. The University of Alaska system-wide offices communicate well with all employees about what is going on. 38% 33% 29% 56% -27 47. The University of Alaska Fairbanks communicates well with all employees about what is going on. 27% 31% 42% 56% -14 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable 54

Key Findings OPPORTUNITIES COMMUNICATION (CONTINUED) Employee voice is another aspect of communication that employees perceive to be lacking at UAF. Survey items 43, This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change (29% favorable), 45, My opinions are sought on issues that affect me and my job (40%), and 46, I feel that I can speak up without fear of retribution or negative consequences (45%), score below the DecisionWise benchmarks by 19 to 21 points. Employee Voice DW Global Benchmark Gap 43. This organization has effective methods for receiving suggestions for change. 37% 34% 29% 49% -20 45. My opinions are sought on issues that affect me and my job. 35% 25% 40% 61% -21 46. I feel that I can speak up without fear of retribution or negative consequences. 30% 25% 45% 64% -19 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable UAF also has a meaningful difference below the DecisionWise benchmark for working effectively across departments and functions (S36, 39%). Employees score 23 points below the average organization. 36. We work effectively across departments and functions. Cross-departmental Communication 34% 27% 39% DW Global Benchmark Gap 62% -23 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable 55

Key Findings OPPORTUNITIES CONFIDENCE IN LEADERSHIP With recent changes in the UAF leadership, the perception of bureaucracy, and the perceived lack of communication, employees do not feel confident with the University of Alaska system or the leadership at UAF. Survey items 53, I have confidence in the University of Alaska system as a whole (33% favorable), 52, I have confidence in the leadership team specifically at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (35%), and 40, The University of Alaska Fairbanks effectively shares its strategy and vision of the future (46%), each have low favorable scores. Confidence in Leadership 53. I have confidence in the University of Alaska system as a whole. 31% 36% 33% 52. I have confidence in the leadership team specifically at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 27% 38% 35% 40. The University of Alaska Fairbanks effectively shares its strategy and vision of the future. 24% 30% 46% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Survey item 52, scores below the DecisionWise benchmark by 38 points. This is the largest difference between a benchmark and a UAF favorable score. An area of focus for leadership at UAF should be communication specifically having avenues for employees to share their voice, responding to suggestions for change, and communicating what is going on at UAF with all employees. 56

APPENDIX 57

Survey Item Scores MY JOB Unfavorable Neutral Favorable 1. I am provided the resources I need to do my job well. 2. The training I received when I started (onboarding) was effective. 3. The amount of work I am expected to do is reasonable. 4. The level of stress in my job is manageable. 5. I have the freedom to choose how to best perform my work. 6. I feel challenged and stretched in my job in a way that results in personal growth. 7. My work is valued by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 8. Time passes quickly when I'm at work. 9. Most days, I see a positive impact from my work. 10. My work is stimulating and energizing. 11. My work provides me with a sense of meaning and purpose. 12. I find enjoyment in the work that I perform. 13. Overall, I love my job. 18% 16% 29% 28% 25% 18% 20% 21% 7% 10% 13% 18% 20% 24% 6% 18% 9% 20% 8% 19% 9% 16% 5% 13% 9% 19% 66% 43% 57% 58% 83% 69% 56% 76% 71% 72% 75% 82% 71% MY TEAM 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 14. The people I work with treat me with respect. 15. There are people at work who care about me. 16. I am comfortable being myself with my coworkers. 17. I enjoy working with the people in my work group. 18. My colleagues and I openly talk about what needs to be done to be more effective. 19. The people I work with help each other when needed. 20. Individuals in my department work together well. 21. Work teams in my department collaborate well. 22. I trust the people I work with to do what they say. 7% 11% 12% 6% 14% 13% 11% 14% 8% 12% 12% 17% 13% 19% 11% 16% 82% 86% 81% 82% 75% 80% 71% 68% 73% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 58

Survey Item Scores MY SUPERVISOR 23. My supervisor recognizes my efforts and contributions. 11% 12% 77% 24. My supervisor helps me understand how my work is important to the organization. 25. My supervisor gives me timely feedback on how I am doing. 26. My supervisor helps me to develop and grow. 27. My supervisor is approachable and easy to talk to. 28. My supervisor welcomes my opinions and feedback. 29. My supervisor sets clear performance expectations. 30. My supervisor shares important company information with the team. 31. My supervisor fosters a motivating and energizing workplace. 32. My supervisor treats me with fairness and respect. 33. My supervisor builds effective working relationships with all our team members. 34. My supervisor leads by example. 14% 20% 18% 22% 20% 24% 9% 12% 10% 14% 17% 25% 14% 18% 17% 24% 7% 11% 17% 22% 15% 19% 66% 60% 55% 80% 76% 58% 68% 59% 81% 61% 67% 35. I trust my supervisor. 11% 15% 74% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 59