1 / 20

Staff Experience Survey 2008 Philip Hopwood

Staff Experience Survey 2008 Philip Hopwood. VC’s Equality & Diversity Forum: 2 July 2009. Contents. Key Aims of the Staff Survey Key Aims of Today Key Equality & Diversity Results Summary & Conclusions. Key Aims of the Survey.

datherine
Download Presentation

Staff Experience Survey 2008 Philip Hopwood

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Staff Experience Survey 2008Philip Hopwood VC’s Equality & Diversity Forum: 2 July 2009

  2. Contents • Key Aims of the Staff Survey • Key Aims of Today • Key Equality & Diversity Results • Summary & Conclusions

  3. Key Aims of the Survey • Find out & understand the staff perspective on working at the University • With what elements of working and life at the University are staff satisfied and dissatisfied • What elements of working at the University are important in motivating staff • What are the key drivers that motivate/de-motivate staff – to target initiatives that may best effect satisfaction & motivation

  4. Key Overall Elements • Are staff satisfied with & motivated by their jobs? • Are staff satisfied with Salford as an employer? • Are staff satisfied they can influence University decisions? • Are staff committed to colleagues, teams, School, Faculty or Support Division or University or all of them? • How engaged are staff? • What are the elements of strength and development? • What are the priorities for action and the areas to focus on?

  5. Equality & Diversity Elements • Survey questionnaire requested information about the respondent including: • Ethnic origin • Gender • Sexual orientation • Faith • Age • Also requested information about the respondents working life such as: • Experience & source of discrimination or unfair treatment • Experience & source of harassment or bullying • Experience of complaining to the University about discrimination, unfair treatment, harassment or bullying

  6. Key Aims of Today • Present results for Equality & Diversity and Working Life elements • Ask if the results make sense: • Is this type of survey the best vehicle for canvassing such views • Are their any comparators • What are the areas for improvement

  7. University Level Results

  8. Response Rates & Representativity • Overall response rate = 48% (1225) • Representative of whole population • Partial completion with Working Life & “About You” section not completed gives rate = 56% • 8% (204) did not wish to declare these sections • By grouping: • Non-white (14%) • Non-heterosexual (6%) • Non-Christian (6%), no religion (37%) • Age (95%) • Disability (9%) In line with UK population Double number declared in HR

  9. Results - General • For most E&D groupings the results for the general functional responses such as: • Job satisfaction & motivation • Salford as an employer & influencing University decisions? • Commitment & engagement • Elements of strength and development such as training, reward & recognition, leadership, change, etc • Follow the University results within margin of error • However for those who responded as disabled: • Levels of satisfaction in areas affecting the person (eg job satisfaction) are 10-15% below this • Up to 25% below in areas of respect

  10. Results – Discrimination • Experience of discrimination or unfair treatment in last 2 years (lower than Gus John 2005)

  11. Results – Discrimination Type • What type of discrimination or unfair treatment in last 2 years? • Less than 1% declared non-heterosexuals responded to this question • Gender: 60% of females, 48% (60%) age over 30 (50) • Ethnicity: 52% of non-whites • Disability: 63% of declared disabled • Faith: 25% of non-Christian denominations • Sexual orientation: 17% of males

  12. Results – Discrimination Source • What was the source of discrimination or unfair treatment? • Less than 1% declared non-heterosexuals responded to this question • Management: • 80% source of all discrimination • 75-80% source of ethnic or gender related discrimination • 90% source of faith or disability related discrimination • Other Staff: • 30% source of gender related discrimination • 40% source of ethnic or faith related discrimination

  13. Results – Harassment • Experience of harassment or bullying in last 2 years

  14. Results – Harassment Type • What was the source of harassment or bullying? • Less than 15% of non-heterosexuals who declared they had been harassed or bullied responded to this question • Management: • 70% source of all harassment • 70% source of gender related harassment • 80% source of ethnicity and age related harassment • 90% source of faith or disability related harassment • Other Staff: • 30% source of gender related harassment • 40% source of ethnic or faith related harassment

  15. Results – Complaints • Was a complaint submitted following discrimination or harassment? • Rates greater than in Gus John (2005) survey

  16. Results – Complaint & Resolution • How did the University deal with a complaint? • On average 20-25% of complaints are dealt with to the complainants satisfaction – greater than Gus John (10-20%) • For ethnicity, age & disability related complaints this falls to below 20% • On average 50% of complaints are not dealt with to the complainants satisfaction – same as Gus John (50%) • On average 25-30% of complaints are not dealt with at all – less than Gus John (30-40%).

  17. Summary (1) • Inaction validates the survey! • Leadership issue only 33% of staff & 50% of Senior Managers believe something will be done as a result of the survey • Survey had good response rate (48%) – more representative than previous Gus John (11%) • Not comparable with Gus John at detailed level due to inclusion of students & aggregating results to generate robustness • All broad & diverse respondents deliver same key function messages around job satisfaction, commitment & engagement • Majority of E&D respondents answered Working Life questions indicating discrimination & harassment • However majority on non-heterosexual respondents did not answer what type nor the source of discrimination or harassment

  18. Summary (2) • The overwhelming source of discrimination or harassment was from management particularly with respect to faith & disability • All broad & diverse respondents submitted complaints to the same degree • However only about a third of those that felt discriminated or harassed submitted formal complaints • The level of satisfaction & dis-satisfaction with complaint outcomes was broadly consistent across all broad & diverse respondents • Approximately one quarter of complaints were perceived to have not been dealt with at all

  19. Conclusions • This survey is not the most appropriate method for gathering equality & diversity information because: • Reluctance to complete due to possible identification • Not focused on specific area • Anonymity of general “tick-box” survey prevents specific issues and representations from being presented, ie issues highlighted in verbatim comments • Although better than previous Gus John survey the University appears to not have a robust/slick process for dealing with specific equality & diversity complaints • Although better than previous Gus John survey the level of dis-satisfaction with complaint outcome should be reviewed

  20. Questions http://www.staffexperience.salford.ac.uk

More Related