PARTNERSHIP

1. PARTNERSHIP Employee Engagement Survey 2011 - Results Facilitated by: - Gonzalo Shoobridge - Chris Samiullah 06 December 2011

2. Historical Comparison Lowest Scoring Areas in 2009 Openness Receptiveness

3. Partnership vs. other UK Financial Services Companies

4. Partnership is very much in line with other organisations operating in the UK, exceeding the norm in the areas of work-life balance and working relationships

5. Most Improved Areas since 2009: Benefits, External Reputation and Market Proactiveness

6. Best results when compared to the UK Financial Sector: Corporate values, work-life balance, pride in quality of products

7. TCF Results 2009 vs. 2011 – Steady good results

8. Although people in Partnership are less optimistic than they were in 2009, they are still more optimistic than most people in other UK organisations

9. Employee Engagement

10. The sum of these three elements is what we use to measure employee engagement The “head” refers to the rational part of the engagement equation, how employees connect with their company’s goals and values. The “heart” is the emotional connection between employee and employer, such as the employee’s pride in the organization. The “hands” refer to the employee’s willingness to put in a great deal of extra effort to help the company succeed.

11. HEAD: People show support for Partnership’s goals, objectives and corporate values – very much in line with external norms

12. HEAD: People believe in the products and services that Partnership offers; they fully understand how their work fits within Partnership

13. HEART: Pride levels have gone down since 2009 and are below both external norms

14. HANDS: People are willing to offer discretionary effort in their daily activities to ensure Partnership is successful

15. HANDS: People are highly motivated at work

16. Partnership’s Key Drivers of Employee Engagement show a slight decline since 2009 Difference from UK Financial Services Norm Difference from 2009 Favourable Score Beta Weight Key Drivers Difference from UK Financial Services Norm Communication 73 -5 -2 Difference from 2009 Favourable Score .38 83 -2 3 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Empowerment 75 +2 -3 .28 Variance Explained: 70% Management 62 -1 -1 .25

17. Although people are satisfied with their current pay, they feel that their benefits are not in-line with other similar organisations in the UK (Most positive on benefits: Change Delivery and Resource Development, but least positive on non-monetary recognition)

18. Line-Managers should encourage upward communication

19. People would expect Partnership to promote horizontal communication (teamwork) within and among departments

20. Areas of Strength Areas for Development • Engagement: • Support for Partnership’s goals, objectives and corporate values • Belief in the products and services that Partnership offers • Clear understanding of how people’s work fit within Partnership • Willingness to offer discretionary effort in their daily activities • High motivation at work • Most Improved Areas since 2009: • Benefits • External Reputation • Market Proactiveness • Best results when compared to the UK Financial Sector: • Corporate values • Work-life balance • Pride in quality of products • Engagement: Pride levels have gone down since 2009 and are below both external norms • Communication*: • Trust and respect from their Management • Downward Communications in general, which affected employee perceptions on how well internal reorganisations were managed • people would appreciate regular communications on matters that may affect their immediate work environment • Empowerment*: Upward communication could be encouraged within Partnership (Line-Managers) • Teamwork: People would expect Partnership to promote horizontal communication (teamwork) within and among departments • Efficiency: Overall operating efficiency (internal processes and the necessary equipment) has declined since 2009 • Benefits: Although people are satisfied with their current pay, they feel that their benefits are not in-line with other similar organisations in the UK • Career development: People do not see clear chances to grow professionally within Partnership & limited chances to obtain training

21. PARTNERSHIP Employee Engagement Survey 2011 - Results Preview Facilitated by: - Gonzalo Shoobridge - Chris Samiullah 06 December 2011

22. General Information about the Survey • Background to the Project • Project Scope • Response Rates • Survey Definitions 22 towerswatson.com R:\Freitac\AECOM\101810-Backup\AECOM 101910_Global Employee Survey - v1.ppt

23. General Information about the Survey • The survey was administered from the 5th to the 25th of September 2011 • Historical comparison to survey results from September 2009 • Data collection: 100% Online • 10 organisational / demographic self-coded questions • One pre-coded question (bonus split) • 17 research categories / 114 opinion items • One open question (116 comments received)

24. Response Rates by Department

25. Definitions used in the survey • “Company / Partnership” refers to the Partnership group as a whole, unless otherwise specified. • “Management” refers to the team of individuals at the highest level of organisational management (Directors) who have the day-to-day authority, accountability and responsibility for managing Partnership as a whole. • “My Boss” refers to your direct Supervisor or Line Manager, the person with primary responsibility for carrying out your performance review. • “My Department” refers to the team you work with on a day-to-day basis. • “Customer” refers to people to whom you supply products and / or services, both internally and / or externally. • “Business Area” refers to the wider part of the organisation your department belongs to (e.g. Finance, Retirement, Long Term Care and Operations).

26. External Benchmarks used in this Survey TW Global High Performance Companies Norm is a weighted average of employee survey results from companies across a range of industries whose return on invested capital or net profit margin are above relevant industry averages. The second criteria is a progressive HR practices as assessed by employee opinion scores.