insights from voice project’s university employee engagement surveys

1. insights fromvoice project’s university employee engagement surveys Dr Peter Langford peter.langford@voiceproject.com : connect on LinkedIn

2. scope • We analysed data from 39 universities on Oceania surveyed over the last 4 years, 35 of whom have pre/post data, involving responses from 148,359 employees • To manage scope we kept the analyses at the all-of-university level, not breaking results down across groups within unis • This document is a hybrid presentation/report: • Early slides graph the main results, supplemented with notes summarising the key insights • The appendix at the back of the document presents detailed results that may be useful to reference Danger Ahead: Possible Death From Data Overload

3. If universities are like Galapagos tortoises . . . . . . then many are speedy tortoises

4. survey methodologies • Average duration of survey live: 20 days • Surveys evenly split between 2 and 3 year cycles, plus a handful who skipped/delayed delivery; a small number are using interim pulse surveys • Survey method: 10 invitational, 29 anonymous • Average response rate 69% (excl casuals and sessionals) • 12 didn’t survey casuals and sessionals; 20 included casuals and/or sessionals (although 5 of these 20 excluded them from main analysis and analysed separately); 7 ran a separate sessionals survey

5. employee engagement in universities The range of employee engagement scores is a little narrower than is the case for most other survey measures, and it tends not to change quite as quickly as other measures. A challenging but achievable KPI would be an improvement of 3% between surveys.Min = 67%, Avg = 76%, 75th %ile = 79%, Max = 86% Employee engagement score Rank Order

6. performance overview – sector average University staff still score around the 75th %ile of the Australian economy for employee engagement The higher education sector still lags the private sector with more “reds” than “greens” for work practices Langford, P. H. (2009). Measuring organisational climate and employee engagement: Evidence for a 7 Ps model of work practices and outcomes. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61 (4), 185-198. Langford, P. H. (2010). Benchmarking work practices and outcomes in Australian universities using an employee survey. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32 (1), 41-53. Engagement is supported by a strong sense of purpose and belief in universities’ mission and values

7. performance overview (% fav) As a rule-of-thumb, 75th percentile scores are about 5% higher than these average scores 76% 53% 78% 69% 50% 64% 35% 43% 82% 75% 65% 58% 65% 48% 56% 66% 83% 77% 69% 67% 56% 49% 75% 77% 58% 70% 58% 76% 64% 66% 85% 80% 41% 58% 62% 41% 73% 87% 42% 67% See the appendix for details of min, avg, 75th %ile and max scores for all categories and questions

8. performance overview (avg % change) 0.7% 1.1% 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 2.0% 1.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 2.5% 0.4% 1.8% 1.1% 1.9% 1.1% 0.3% 2.1% 0.9% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 0.7% 2.0% 0.2% 1.7% 1.7% 2.7% 3.7% 1.1% 0.4% 1.3% 1.3% 2.2% 1.6% 0.5% 0.2% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% On average across the sector, all categories are improving. The only exception, somewhat paradoxically, are the Progress categories of Organisation Objectives and Change & Innovation, with the worst performing question being “The future of this organisation is positive”. The averages hide volatility within the sector, with 12 unis falling back and 23 unis moving forward.

9. performance overview (change for top quartile) 3.1% 3.6% 2.4% 3.9% 6.2% 5.3% 4.5% 4.2% 2.5% 3.5% 5.5% 3.1% 5.3% 6.0% 4.9% 3.6% 2.9% 3.6% 1.7% 4.8% 3.9% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 6.6% 3.3% 3.7% 4.6% 6.5% 4.8% 1.8% 2.8% 5.3% 5.2% 4.5% 6.9% 2.6% 1.8% 4.3% 7.2% The top 25% of universities are achieving these levels of change, or higher. Hence, these change scores could be used for KPIs if you are targeting improvements in particular areas. Notes: (1) These scores assume a 2.5 year gap between surveys; (2) If you are starting with an above-average score, it will be harder to achieve these levels of change. See the appendix for change scores for each individual question

10. priority matrix for passion and progress This priority matrix uses pre/post data from the most recent two surveys from 35 universities, involving responses from 138,427 employees. Changes in work practices on the right side of the matrix were most closely associated with changes in Passion and Progress scores.

11. This bar graph shows the work practices for which larger universities tend to score better. Things to note: Larger universities have higher average scores; although it should be noted that no Go8s are in the top quartile for engagement, and rarely do Go8s top the performance on any of the categories. Unsurprisingly, given larger unis tend to be research intensive, they score better on research, resources and safety. Larger universities also score better on flexibility, supervision, learning and development, and technology. However, larger universities seem to have greater difficulty establishing a clear organisation direction and building teamwork.

12. • The earlier “priority matrix” suggests that senior leadership and involvement are particularly important for driving engagement and change. • Whereas research output is more closely associated with results focus, role clarity and resourcing. • Teaching quality is associated with co-worker relationships, managing stress, and performance appraisal. • The survey categories for Research and Teaching correlate strongly with expected outcomes, suggesting they are good proxy measures enabling unis to conduct “driver analyses” for research and teaching using their survey data.

13. new & evolving survey questions • Universities are showing increasing interest in getting feedback from sessional staff. Many are including sessional staff in their surveys, although some are analysing their feedback separately. Some universities are running sessionals-specific surveys. • Although the majority of universities still ask questions about “Entrepreneurship”, some are moving to “Industry Engagement”. • Our analyses have shown the three co-worker categories of Motivation & Initiative, Talent, and Teamwork correlate strongly, indicating the 9 questions within these categories can be safely collapsed into a single 3-item “Co-workers” category. • Recently, several universities have started assessing gender equality in more detail for WGEA and SAGE/Athena SWAN initiatives. We have consulted with the coordinating bodies and have agreed benchmark questions for these initiatives.

14. new & evolving survey questions (cont.) • Online and flexible teaching • Sustainability • Pastoral care • Postgraduate supervision • University reputation • Branding • Internationalisation • Exploring existing survey categories in greater depth than the standard questions • Other topics include: • Internal service quality • Enterprise bargaining • Campus development • Indigenous employment and learning • Respectful behaviours • Voice safety and complaint handling • Workload models • Curriculum development • Strategic and operational planning processes We have compiled a LONG list of most the new questions asked by our university clients. Ask us for a copy.

15. appendix:detailed category & question results

20. questions