ABC Companies Employee Survey Submitted by EmployeesView – A service of Markinetics 800.552.2510

1. ABC Companies Employee Survey Submitted by EmployeesView – A service of Markinetics 800.552.2510

2. Table of Contents page 3 page 11 page 18 page 29 page 41 page 47 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employee Engagement Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employee Engagement by Location . . . . . . . . . . . Employee Engagement Demographics . . . . . . . . . Job Satisfaction, Supervision, Work Process . . . . Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Verbatim Comments (see Word Document)

3. Executive Summary

4. Objectives and Approach Objectives of the Study 1. Estimate baseline measures of employee engagement and other outcomes 2. Estimate drivers of employee retention, job satisfaction and employee engagement 3. Create a map that prioritizes actions to increase retention Approach • Adapted from “First Break All the Rules: What the World’s Great Managers Do Differently” by Gallup researchers Buckingham and Coffman • Used twelve key engagement questions – positive responses have been linked not only to employee retention, but also to productivity, profitability, and customer satisfaction • Used additional questions for supervision, work process, job satisfaction • Determined influence on intentions to continue working for the company through Employee Engagement Scale • Identified highest-impact areas for improvement by location and position • Created the foundation for studying actual employee retention over time • Utilized a Web survey with confidentiality ensured, using survey ID numbers to track participation and send individual invitations to participate

5. Objectives and Approach, continued Twelve questions provide the basis for the Engagement Scale Level 1 – Foundation 1. I know what is expected of me at work. 2. I have the supplies and equipment I need to do my job right. Level 2 – Facilitation 3. My position provides a good fit for my skills. 4. I have the opportunity to do my best at work. Level 3 – Reinforcement 5. I receive recognition or praise for doing good work. 6. There are people in this company who care about me as a person. 7. There is someone at work who encourages my development. 8. At work, my opinions seem to count. Level 4 – Integration 9. I feel that I am a part of this company. 10. People in this company are committed to doing quality work. 11. I have someone at work I can trust. Level 5 – Growth 12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow. • The basic assumption underlying the employee engagement approach taken here is that it is developmental (similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs). • If an employee can not respond in agreement to the foundation variables, their remaining responses on this scale are irrelevant. The employee is classified as “no foundation.” • An employee who responds in agreement to the foundation variables must then agree to the facilitation variables to move beyond the foundation level. This developmental approach proceeds through all five levels. • An employee who agrees with all 12 items is considered fully engaged. The variables above are measured on a five point scale corresponding to Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither agree nor disagree (3), Agree (4), and Strongly agree (5). The criterion for successful agreement within a given level is having a mean score of 4 (which corresponds to agree).

6. Summary of Findings and Recommendations Findings • The more engaged employees are the higher they score on employee retention. • The importance of the variables in the model vary by location and by position. • Employee engagement is highest at the Los Angeles, Boston Corporate, and Baltimore offices. • Employee engagement is highest for Survey and Administrative positions. • Over 25% of company employees report No Foundation – the most basic level of engagement. • Supervision, engagement and work processes influence employee retention. These influences on employee retention are mediated by job satisfaction. • Supervision ratings are highest for Los Angeles and lowest for St. Louis and Offsite. • Having good work processes positively impacts job satisfaction. • Verbatim comments/common themes: • Employees express a strong desire for feedback, recognition, and a sense that their contribution matters to the organization • There is broad interest in employee training and development • Employees across the organization are looking for REAL strides in establishing processes, procedures, and systems that work • Employees are anxious to see implementation of a structured training and development program • Most locations expressed concerns about ABC’s benefits

7. Summary of Findings and Recommendations, continued Key Areas for Improvement by Office Location in Priority Order (Parentheses indicates page number of relevant data)

8. Summary of Findings and Recommendations, continued • Initial Recommendations For Consideration • ABC Management • Review report and verbatim comments • Implement Communication Plan noted below • Support the implementation of location-specific recommendations • Accelerate the roll-out of work process documentation • Integrate the Engagement Model into manager training and development • Strengthen the performance management system by providing job descriptions and performance standards • Managers of each office should review findings and develop action plans based on the location- specific recommendations on pages 9 and 10 • Establish a schedule for review of progress on action plans • Consider additional supervision and work process variables for next survey to deepen analysis • Set a goal for improved engagement next year • Communication Plan • Distribute the full report and discuss with all department heads • Communicate survey results and overall action plans to all employees • Ensure that ALL managers understand they are not to try to determine “who said what” – not even in jest • Make the full report available for any employee to review (via department head or quality management) • Communicate progress with action plans

9. Summary of Findings and Recommendations, continued • Recommendations For Consideration By Location • Boston Corporate • Ensure that Project Controls staff have the tools to do their jobs and know what is expected of them • Prioritize work process improvement based on 1) weakest processes and 2) highest impact; initiate action plan to accelerate improvements • Boston Production • Ensure that Administrative staff have the tools to do their jobs and know what is expected of them • Identify poor performance issues; coach supervisor to swiftly address and resolve • St. Louis • Ensure that Project Controls staff have the tools to do their jobs and know what is expected of them • Prioritize work process improvement based on 1) weakest processes and 2) highest impact; initiate action plan to accelerate improvements

10. Summary of Findings and Recommendations, continued • Recommendations For Consideration By Location • Baltimore • Identify poor performance issues; coach supervisor to swiftly address and resolve • Review and improve information-sharing procedures • Los Angeles • Prioritize work process improvement based on 1) weakest processes and 2) highest impact; initiate action plan to accelerate improvements • Identify poor performance issues; coach supervisor to swiftly address and resolve • New York • Ensure that all staff have the tools to do their jobs and know what is expected of them • Review and improve information-sharing procedures • Offsite • Ensure that all staff have the tools to do their jobs and know what is expected of them • Ensure that supervisors provide ongoing reinforcement: recognition, development, asking for input, feeling connected to the organization

11. Employee EngagementOverall

12. Employee Engagement: All Employees 412 employees responded to all of the engagement variables (employees who did not respond to all variables were excluded from this analysis) Of the 166 who reached the reinforcement level, 154 moved on to the engaged level because they agreed to the growth variable (in addition to all of the earlier variables as well). Of the 182 who reached the reinforcement level, 166 moved on to the integration level (i.e., agreed with the integration variables). Of the 268 who agreed with the facilitation variables, 182 also agreed with the reinforcement variables. Of the 305, 268 agreed with the facilitation variables. 37 did not. Of the 412, 305 agreed with the foundation variables Of the 412 respondents, 107 failed to agree with the foundation variables

13. Employee Engagement: All Employees (Percentages) • The number of employees in the preceding slide have been replaced with percents. • For the company as a whole, about one-fourth (25.9%) of the employees failed to reach the foundation level and about one-third (37.3%) reached the engaged level.

14. Employee Engagement: Why Does it Matter? • The more engaged employees are, the higher they generally score on the employee retention scale. • Total possible rating = 15

15. Employee Engagement and Retention: Measure 1 I am currently seeking other employment • Employees who are a retention risk are less engaged than those likely to be retained.

16. Employee Engagement and Retention: Measure 2 I have no plans to leave my job in the near future. • Employees who are a retention risk are less engaged than those likely to be retained.

17. Employee Engagement and Retention: Measure 3 I expect to have a long career with ABC Companies. • Employees who are a retention risk are less engaged than those likely to be retained.

18. Employee EngagementBy Location

19. 47.0% Boston Corporate Engaged 37.3% Company 53.0% At or Above Integration Level 40.4% 56.0% At or Above Reinforcement Level 44.3% 73.0% At or Above Facilitation Level 65.1% 80.0% At or Above Foundation Level 74.1% 20.0% No Foundation 25.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Employee Engagement by Location: Boston Corporate • The engagement distribution for Boston Corporate shows that employees are more engaged as a whole as compared to the company. N = 100.

20. Employee Engagement by Location by Position: Boston Corporate • The engagement distributions for Boston Corporate by position shows that Project Controls lack Foundation as a group and are relatively low throughout the engagement range. N = 17 36 5 39

21. 40.6% Boston Production Engaged 37.3% Company 40.6% At or Above Integration Level 40.4% 42.0% At or Above Reinforcement Level 44.3% 55.1% At or Above Facilitation Level 65.1% 66.7% At or Above Foundation Level 74.1% 33.3% No Foundation 25.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Employee Engagement by Location: Boston Production • The engagement distribution for Boston Production shows one-third lack Foundation. N = 69.

22. Employee Engagement by Location by Position: Boston Production • The engagement distributions for Boston Production by position shows that Administration lacks Foundation as a group and are relatively low throughout the engagement range. The same is true for Design/Drafter, but to a lesser extent. N = 32 26 5 6

23. 31.6% St. Louis Engaged 37.3% Company 33.6% At or Above Integration Level 40.4% 39.5% At or Above Reinforcement Level 44.3% 62.5% At or Above Facilitation Level 65.1% 71.7% At or Above Foundation Level 74.1% 28.3% No Foundation 25.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Employee Engagement by Location: St. Louis • The engagement distribution for St. Louis is slightly lower than the company average with nearly 30% reporting no Foundation. N = 152.

24. Employee Engagement by Location by Position: St. Louis • A lack of Foundation for Project Controls is found in the engagement distributions for St. Louis. In addition, Design/Drafters are low at the Reinforcement level of engagement. N = 64 55 10 21

25. 28.6% New York Engaged 37.3% Company 35.7% At or Above Integration Level 40.4% 42.9% At or Above Reinforcement Level 44.3% 64.3% At or Above Facilitation Level 65.1% 64.3% At or Above Foundation Level 74.1% 35.7% No Foundation 25.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Employee Engagement by Location: New York • The engagement distribution for New York shows over one-third lack Foundation. N = 14.

26. Employee Engagement by Location: Offsite • The engagement distribution for Offsite employees shows a drop in engagement at the Reinforcement level. N = 37.

27. 47.4% Los Angeles Engaged 37.3% Company 52.6% At or Above Integration Level 40.4% 57.9% At or Above Reinforcement Level 44.3% 78.9% At or Above Facilitation Level 65.1% 84.2% At or Above Foundation Level 74.1% 15.8% No Foundation 25.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Employee Engagement by Location: Los Angeles • The engagement distribution for Los Angeles employees is positive throughout the engagement range. N = 19.

28. Employee Engagement by Location: Baltimore • The engagement distribution for Baltimore employees is positive throughout the engagement range. N = 16.

29. Employee EngagementDemographics

30. Employee Engagement by Position: Engineers • Responses for Engineers closely mirror the company results. N = 138.

31. Employee Engagement by Position: Design/Drafter • Responses for Design/Drafters drop off at the Reinforcement level. N = 154.

32. Employee Engagement by Position: Survey • Survey respondent results exceed the company responses at all levels. N = 10.

33. Employee Engagement by Position: Project Controls • Project Controls exceeds the company results in No Foundation. N = 27.

34. Employee Engagement by Position: Administrative • Administrative responses exceed company responses at all levels. N = 76.

35. Employee Engagement by Job Responsibilities • Project managers have the lowest levels of engagement as compared to managers and non-managers, with • 29.9% reporting a lack of Foundation. N = 42 67 299

36. Employee Engagement by Tenure • Long-term employees report the highest level of Foundation yet the lowest level of reinforcement N = 80 52 117 64 52 45

37. Employee Engagement Index by Location The engagement index summarizes the distributions presented earlier by weighting each level of engagement in a way that produces a score of zero if all employees fail to reach the foundation level and a score of 100 if all employees arefully engaged. The engagement index for the company overall is 51. • Los Angeles, Boston Corporate and Baltimore have the highest scores on the engagement index. Los Angeles 64 Boston Corporate 62 Baltimore 61 Boston Production 49 St. Louis 47 New York 47 Offsite 44 Company 51 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

38. Employee Engagement Index by Position • Survey employees have the highest score on the engagement index. The overall company score for those identifying their position is 52 (while 51 for everyone taking the survey). N = 10 N = 76 N = 138 N = 27 N = 154 N = 413

39. Los Angeles 12.9 New York 12.4 12.2 Boston Corporate 11.8 Boston Production Baltimore 11.7 St. Louis 11.5 11.1 Offsite 11.8 Company 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Employee Retention Scale by Location These ratings are the sum of the responses to the three retention questions. Highest possible rating is 15.

40. Employee Retention Model The model below shows that the impact of supervision, work processes and employee engagement on employee retention is mediated by job satisfaction. In addition, supervision has a strong effect on employee engagement. This model provides a good fit to the data. The assumptions and advantages of this type of model are in the appendix. Model Fit SummaryChi-square=85.2, d.f.=49 Chi-square/d.f.=1.7 Hoelter’s Critical N=328

41. Job Satisfaction, Supervision and Work Process

42. Los Angeles 12.7 Boston Corporate 12.6 New York 12.6 Baltimore 12.4 12.3 Boston Production 12.1 Offsite 11.7 St. Louis 12.2 Company 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Job Satisfaction Scale by Location These ratings are the sum of the responses to the three job satisfaction questions. Highest possible rating is 15. Overall, I am satisfied with my current job. I would recommend my company to a friend having the same work background. In general, my job has measured up to my expectations when hired.

43. Los Angeles 16.3 Baltimore 15.8 Boston Production 15.6 New York 15.5 Boston Corporate 15.5 St. Louis 14.7 Offsite 14.5 Company 15.2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Supervisor Scale by Location These ratings are the sum of the responses to the four supervision questions. Highest possible rating is 20.

44. Work Processes by Location Baltimore reports the best work processes. 4.1 Baltimore 3.8 Offsite Los Angeles 3.6 Boston Corporate 3.5 3.5 Boston Production 3.4 New York St. Louis 3.2 Company 3.5 1 2 3 4 5

45. Lowest Improvement Priorities BP Super fair BC Super fair SL Super fair BC Super BP Super feedback BP Super information feedback Performance BC Super BC Super information dealing poor performance BP Work SL Super SL Super Processes BP Super information feedback dealing poor BC Work performance Processes SL Work SL Super Processes dealing poor Highest performance Improvement Priorities Importance to Retention Priority Map for Actions Contributing to Retention – Excluding Engagement Large Locations The highest priorities are those lying the furthest below the diagonal (on a perpendicular line) and the lowest priorities are those furthest above the diagonal (perpendicularly). • Boston Corporate Priorities • We have good processes for doing our work. • My supervisor effectively deals with poor performance. • My supervisor shares pertinent information from staff meetings. • My supervisor provides me with timely feedback. • My supervisor treats me fairly. • Boston Production Priorities • My supervisor effectively deals with poor performance. • My supervisor shares pertinent information from staff meetings. • We have good processes for doing our work. • My supervisor provides me with timely feedback. • My supervisor treats me fairly. • St. Louis Priorities • We have good processes for doing our work. • My supervisor provides me with timely feedback. • My supervisor effectively deals with poor performance. • My supervisor shares pertinent information from staff meetings. • My supervisor treats me fairly.

46. Lowest Improvement Priorities LA Super BAL Super fair information LA Super fair BAL Work LA Super Processes feedback NY Super fair Performance BAL Super NY Super feedback information BAL Super information NY Super BAL Super dealing poor NY Super dealing poor performance feedback performance LA Work LA Super Processes dealing poor performance Highest NY Work Processes Improvement Priorities Importance to Retention Priority Map for Actions Contributing to Retention – Excluding Engagement Small Locations The highest priorities are those lying the furthest below the diagonal (on a perpendicular line) and the lowest priorities are those furthest above the diagonal (perpendicularly). See appendix. Offsite data failed to conform to assumptions and couldn’t be prioritized. • Baltimore Priorities • My supervisor effectively deals with poor performance. • My supervisor shares pertinent information from staff meetings. • My supervisor provides me with timely feedback. • We have good processes for doing our work. • My supervisor treats me fairly. • Los Angeles Production Priorities • We have good processes for doing our work. • My supervisor effectively deals with poor performance. • My supervisor provides me with timely feedback. • My supervisor treats me fairly. • My supervisor shares pertinent information from staff meetings. • New York Priorities • My supervisor shares pertinent information from staff meetings. • My supervisor provides me with timely feedback. • My supervisor treats me fairly. • My supervisor effectively deals with poor performance. • We have good processes for doing our work.

47. Appendix

48. Employee Retention Scale by Tenure, Responsibilities and Position These ratings are the sum of the responses to the three retention questions. Highest possible rating is 15.

49. Employee Retention: Responses to Individual Variables by Location

50. Supervisor Scale by Tenure, Responsibilities and Position These ratings are the sum of the responses to the four supervision questions. Highest possible rating is 20.