Organizational Development Activity (ODA) Baseline Report

Baseline Report Page 1 of 39

Submission Date: February 7, 2019

Contract Number: 72061718C00005

Activity Start Date and End Date: July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2023

COR Name: Avery Ouellette

Submitted by: Amy Watve, Organizational Development Expert (Interim Team Leader)

The Kaizen Company

1700 K St. NW, Suite 440

Washington, D.C. 20006

Tel: (202) 299-9801

Email: [email protected]

This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of The Kaizen Company and do not

necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Organizational Development Activity (ODA)

Baseline Report

February 7, 2019


ACTIVITY INFORMATION

Activity Name: Organizational Development Activity (ODA)

Project: N/A (Mission-wide activity)

Activity Start Date and End

Date: July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2023

Name of Prime

Implementing Partner: The Kaizen Company

Contract Number: 72061718C00005

Name of

Subcontractors/Sub-

awardees and Dollar

Amounts:

SoCha, The Leadership Team

Major Counterpart

Organizations: N/A

Geographic Coverage:

(districts) N/A

Reporting Period: N/A


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1.0 CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy

2.0 COR Contracting Officer’s Representative

3.0 CLA Collaborating, Learning and Adapting

4.0 EG Economic Growth Office

5.0 EYCD Education Youth and Child Development Office

6.0 EXO Executive Office

7.0 FEI Federal Executive Institute

8.0 FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

9.0 FO Front Office

FSN Foreign Service National

FSO Foreign Service Officer

IDP Individual Development Plan

IP Implementing Partner

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

MLC Mission Leadership Council

OAA Office of Acquisition and Assistance

OD Organizational Development

ODA Organizational Development Activity

OFM Office of Financial Management

OH Organizational Health

OHH Office of Health and HIV

PAD Project Appraisal Document

PPD Office of Program and Policy Development

TCN Third Country Nationals

USAID United States Agency for International Development


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 5 2. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 6 3. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 7

3.1 PHASE 1: LISTENING TOUR ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 PHASE 2: DOCUMENTATION REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 8 3.3 PHASE 3: ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH PULSE CHECK SURVEY ........................................................................... 9 3.4 PHASE 4: OBSERVATION OF STAFF AND MISSION-WIDE ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH PRACTICES………………………….9

4. BASELINE FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 10

4.1 MISSION’S ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH BY DOMAIN..................................................................................... 10

4.1.1 LEADERSHIP AND DIRECTION .......................................................................................................... 10 4.1.2 WORKING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 12 4.1.3 MOTIVATION ............................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.4 CAPABILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 13 4.1.5 LEARNING & INNOVATION ............................................................................................................. 14

ANNEX I: ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 16 ANNEX II: ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH DOMAINS AND ELEMENTS SELECTED FOR USAID/UGANDA .......... 18 ANNEX III: USAID/UGANDA ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY 2018 ...................................................... 20 ANNEX IV: LISTENING TOUR FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 21 ANNEX V: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 27 ANNEX VI: SUMMARY OF PULSE CHECK, FEVS, AND PRE-RETREAT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS .................. 29 ANNEX VII: PULSE CHECK FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 32


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Organizational Development Activity (ODA) supports USAID/Uganda to accelerate its staff

development, improve its organizational health, and enhance Mission technical and operational

performance to deliver advancements for the Ugandan people. The ODA team began its engagement

with the Mission in August 2018. During the startup months, the team used a variety of approaches to

assess the Mission’s current organizational health and operational performance. This included a Mission-

wide listening tour; reviewing previous Mission organizational health surveys; learning more about the

Mission’s current organizational development practices; facilitating office retreats and workshops that

included self-assessments of current team effectiveness; and conducting an online organizational health

pulse check of all Mission staff.

The ODA team identified five organizational health domains for the Mission to focus on to ensure that it

can achieve and sustain optimal organizational performance. Based on the assessment approaches

described above, supplemented by direct observations by the ODA team, below is a summary

assessment of the Mission’s current organizational health, represented on a scale of strength from low

to high with key insights briefly summarized for each domain. This assessment serves as a baseline that

ODA will build upon over the coming years. It will help determine the impact of ODA’s specialized

organizational development technical assistance and in conjunction with internal USAID/Uganda efforts,

shift the Mission’s organizational health over time.

DIRECTION & LEADERSHIP Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High

This remains an important area for growth. The Front Office is doing a good job of messaging the vision for the Mission and has

very high buy-in for the vision of the Mission as a whole, and that of each office, among staff. However, the listening sessions and

pulse check survey identified a need for better guidance on how to implement the strategy. In particular, significant uncertainty

remains in how offices, teams and individuals can work together across traditional siloes to accomplish it in an integrated way. A

need exists for more actionable processes, and clearer decision-making authorities.

WORKING ENVIRONMENT Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High

There is a deficit of trust within the Mission. A significant number of Mission staff perceive their workload as unreasonable, which

affects morale and staff retention. Many staff feel that people and team management require improvement, particularly in how

supervisors provide feedback, incorporate diverse opinions, and encourage an open and trusting culture. Most respondents,

however, do feel that there is sufficient collaboration among staff. Responses made clear that there is a lot of room for

improvement with workflow, how teams work, and workload distribution in order to improve employee satisfaction.

MOTIVATION Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) scores and interviews show that personnel find meaning in their work and that of the

Mission. However, while the Mission is increasingly recognizing employee accomplishments, respondents report that they are not

supported in career development, do not feel they have a clear career path, and are not sufficiently guided, trusted, or empowered.

A significant percentage (51%) say they would leave if they could find another job.

CAPABILITIES Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High

Respondents note the need for greater capabilities and talent management through individual coaching, trainings, workshops, and

retreats to improve professional development. The most significant theme highlighted throughout the studies was the need for better

talent management, pertaining both to systems and supervisor capabilities.

LEARNING & INNOVATION Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High

Most staff confirmed that they receive constructive feedback and feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing

things, albeit there is not always enough time to do this. However, creativity and innovation are present and key to the Mission’s

success.


2. BACKGROUND

The ODA is designed to strengthen USAID/Uganda’s internal relationships, systems, capacities,

practices, and culture, resulting in improved organizational performance that contributes to

development advancements for the Ugandan people.

The ODA team is utilizing the Organizational Health (OH) framework in our support to the Mission.

This framework provides a structure to assess the organizational development factors that the ODA

strives to influence through its interventions.

OH is a performance improvement framework

increasingly used by organizations due to a strong,

positive correlation between an organization’s

‘health’, and its performance. A McKinsey and

Company study1 of more than 1,500 organizations

undergoing transformations found that those focusing

on OH achieved disproportionately higher

performance, by almost three times, as those who

did not. This and other studies also indicate a strong

correlation between OH and performance in a broad

range of measures.

The ODA team’s initial work with USAID/Uganda has led us to believe that the OH framework is an

excellent fit for the Mission given its current circumstances, and that increases in the Mission’s OH

will directly improve its overall impact. We thus intend to utilize a tailored OH framework over

the course of ODA to measure and track Mission progress in realizing its vision as outlined in the

Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and other strategy documents, and to

support improvements that deepen desired Leadership Charter and Guiding Principles practices.

The objective of this ODA Baseline Report is to present a current snapshot of the OH status in the

USAID/Uganda Mission at the onset of the ODA activity. The information from this report details the

current situation at the Mission. It will also form the basis of assessing how ODA interventions, along

with internal Mission efforts, contribute to changes in the Mission’s OH and performance over time.

Findings in this Baseline Report directly align with the OH model we have adapted to fit the current

circumstances of USAID/Uganda, based on our understanding of the Mission. We will adapt and improve

this OH model, along with ODA’s targeted support, to increase the Mission’s OH over the course of

this Activity as part of our overall Collaboration, Learning, and Adaptation (CLA) efforts.

The ODA team identified and prioritized five OH domains based on the Mission’s organizational

structure and desired organizational performance goals: Direction & Leadership, Working Environment,

Motivation, Capabilities, and Learning & Innovation. Each of the five OH domains selected to track

USAID/Uganda’s OH progress, along with the elements that support them, are described in Annex II.

Annex I provides a one-page overview of the Mission’s current OH in each domain and its

corresponding elements. We will update this regularly to show changes in the mission’s OH over time.

1 Gagnon, C, John, E, and Theunissen, R. “Organizational Health: A fast track to performance improvement.”

McKinsey Quarterly: September 2017, 1-10. The metric used for performance was earnings before interest, taxes,

depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA).

The Organizational Health ‘Advantage’

The advantage of organizational health is

undeniable and massive. Organizations get more

done in less time. They avoid losing their best

people, identify problems earlier and solve them

faster. They beat rivals who waste time and

energy fighting among themselves, which

ultimately drives away good employees and

customers. -- The Table Group


Note that ODA has not yet evaluated, in detail, specifically how the Mission interacts with its

Implementing Partners (IP), or the effectiveness of IP interactions. We expect that USAID-IP

interactions are a direct extension of USAID’s operating culture and will improve in correlation with

Mission OH improvements. We will test this assertion over the course of ODA and adapt accordingly.

3. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The ODA team employed a mixed-methods approach to determine the baseline of the Mission’s

organizational health. During Phase 1, the ODA team conducted a listening tour over two weeks to

provide ODA an understanding of the current OH practices and issues within the Mission. As part of

the listening tour, the ODA team conducted key informant interviews with 60 respondents representing

the full spectrum of employees from all offices/teams within the Mission. The listening tour provided

important insights into staff perceptions on OH issues. Overall, this phase provided an opportunity to

engage with Mission staff representatives to inform the selection of priority OH domains and identify

linkages between selected domains and desired outcomes.

During Phase 2, the ODA team conducted a review of project documents and relevant survey reports

that focused on OH in the Mission. The Full Pre-Retreat Survey provided insights about respondents’

understanding of the shared Mission goals and how respondents’ work contributes to that goal. The

FEVS provided an opportunity to gauge satisfaction of job recognition, involvement in decisions that

affect employee’s work, and senior leaders’ policies and practices. From the Pre-Retreat Survey, ODA

learned that most respondents have a positive understanding of the Mission’s goals and future trajectory

and think that Mission leaders effectively communicate a vision that motivates them.

During Phase 3, the ODA team administered an anonymous, web-based, 24-question Organizational

Health Pulse Check Survey. The questions for the 2018 survey tool combined the questions from the

FEVS and the 2017 Full Pre-Retreat Survey, with additional questions tailored to the Uganda Mission

aiming to capture the five OH themes. The questions asked respondents about changes that would

make their work more satisfying, improvements to Mission culture, and practices that would improve

employee wellbeing and organizational effectiveness. We used Google Forms data collection software

and received a total of 81 responses (54% of the 150 employees receiving the survey). Respondents

reacted to statements with one of the following: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree, or

Prefer Not to Answer.

3.1 Phase 1: Listening Tour The listening tour occurred at the onset of ODA planning. The exercise took place over two weeks and

gave ODA’s Team Leader and Learning and Development Expert an understanding of the Mission’s

current OH practices and issues. In total, ODA interviewed 60 respondents who represented the views

of all the offices within the Mission. These included Mission Leadership Council (MLC) members,

short/mid-term staff, Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), Foreign Service Officers (FSOs), Third Country

Nationals (TCNs), the Mission Director, and mid-level staff who were drawn from all offices/teams in

the Mission.

The ODA team used an open-ended data collection guide to understand the respondents’ views on the

Mission’s organizational health (see Annex III for the full guide). This guide was used to frame the

conversation. However, not all respondents were asked every question, therefore, ODA does not have

precise data across all 60 participants. The results of the listening tour provide important insights into

staff perceptions on OH issues but cannot be presented or interpreted in a statistical manner. The notes

of the listening tour were first organized by how frequently certain questions were discussed and then

thematically summarized based on the following: what the Mission can do differently to better achieve its


aspirations; what the Mission should prioritize over the next year to improve its OH; and staff

recommendations to strengthen internal relationships, systems, practices, organizational culture, efficient

performance and development in the Mission. Key priorities that emerged included: developing effective

teams; transforming Mission culture; enhancing interpersonal dynamics; building staff capacities; and

strengthening talent management processes and tools (see Annex IV for additional details). These

insights informed the selection of the key elements in the OH framework.

3.2 Phase 2: Documentation Review The ODA team also conducted a desk review of prior year mission perception surveys on

organizational health. These included:

Uganda FEVS Report 2017: The FEVS is federal government wide survey conducted

annually. The survey gauges perceptions of work experience, work unit, agency in their work,

and satisfaction.

USAID/Uganda Full Pre-Retreat Survey (2016 and 2017): This survey is also conducted

annually before the Mission-wide retreat and is used by the MLC and other stakeholders to

understand the current Mission trends. The survey collects views on: strategy and values,

leadership and management, enabling environment, communication, accountability, culture,

inclusiveness and fairness, internal and external interfaces, and organizational energy.

A review of the pre-retreat surveys revealed an unusual contrast. On the one hand, over 80% of staff

said they understood how their work contributes to the goals of the Mission and felt excited about

working with colleagues to achieve them. However, 51% said that they would leave the Mission if they

could find another job. Upon further exploration, we understand that this is due to a lack of

opportunities for upward mobility.

The FEVS and pre-retreat surveys revealed some changes in employee perceptions of leadership from

2016 - 2017, highlighted by the two charts below. Specifically, there was a decline in how staff felt

leadership recognized them for their work and involved them in decisions. Also, staff were less satisfied

with leadership’s policies and practices.

Comparison of FEVS and Pre-Retreat Survey Rates of Agreement, 2016 to 2017

Theme/Categories 2016 Pre-

Retreat

Survey

2016 FEVS

Survey

2017 FEVS

Survey

2017 Pre-

Retreat

Survey

1 Job Recognition: Statement: I feel I am

recognized and appreciated for the work I do.

70% 72% 58% 70%

2 Involvement in decisions: Statement: In my

team I am informed of decisions that affect me.

66% 68% 56% 66%

3 Satisfied by senior leaders’ policies &

Practices: Statement: Our Front Office (FO)

leaders manage change.

Not

available

81% 69% 76%


Analysis of the above reports contributed to the design of the Organizational Health 2018 survey tool.

See Annex V for detailed results of the literature review.

3.3 Phase 3: Organizational Health Pulse Check Survey From November to December 2018, ODA administered an anonymous, web-based OH Survey to

Mission staff. The 24-question survey was designed to better understand perceptions around OH. Many

survey questions were taken from the larger FEVS questionnaire and/or the 2017 Pre-Retreat Survey.

Most of the survey questions (19 of 24) were posed as statements about the USAID/Uganda Mission.

Accordingly, respondents reacted to statements by stating one of the following: Strongly Disagree,

Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree or Prefer Not to Answer. Five open-ended questions explored emerging

issues identified in the listening tour or document review and provided an opportunity for respondents

to provide more detailed inputs. All questions align with one of the five OH domains selected by ODA,

with two to four questions per domain. See Annex VI for the full results.

The survey opened for responses on November 27, 2018 and closed on December 7, 2018. A total of

150 Mission staff were invited to participate anonymously via an email link and received multiple email

reminders from ODA staff and the COR. In total, 81 responses were collected, representing a total

response rate of 54%. The table below shows the number of respondents per nationality:

Ugandan American Other nationality Prefer not to

answer

45 21 3 12

The 2018 survey showed that while the Mission improved its OH in 2018 over prior years, there is still

much room for improvement. ODA heard pain points about the lack of an enduring common identity

across teams; insufficient team cohesion; ineffective decision-making at many levels; and concerns that

diversity of cultures and staff categories are not valued. The ODA team continues to identify challenges

to the Mission’s OH, and their root causes.

3.4 Phase 4: Observation of Staff and Mission-wide Organizational

Health Practices From August to November 2018, ODA staff members worked directly with Mission staff on a range of

organizational development technical assistance activities. These activities included the design and

facilitation of six office-level retreats, individual coaching sessions, follow-up and planning meetings, and

70% 70% 72%

58%

66% 66% 68%

56%

76%

81%

69%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2016 Pre-RetreatSurvey


2016FEVS

Survey

2017FEVS

Survey

Axi

s Ti

tle

Job Recognition: Q. I feel I

am recognised and

appreciated for the work I

do?

Involvement in decisions that

affect work: “In my team I

am informed of decision

that affect me”

Satisfied by senior leaders

policies & Practices: “our

FO leaders manage change”


other opportunities to directly observe office, team, and individual practices. These observations were

also supplemented by conversations with other key stakeholders in organizational development at the

Mission, including the Executive Office (EXO), Office Directors, the Program and Policy Development

(PPD) Office, individual members of the Mission Leadership Council (MLC), and individual mission

employees. From these opportunities, the ODA team developed an understanding of several systems

the mission has in place, which ones are being fully utilized, and which ones are directly supporting their

intended purpose in the daily work of mission staff. Systems that the ODA team have observed include:

staff transitions, including onboarding and offboarding; awards; the new Talent Development Mission

Order that provides guidance around Individual Development Plans; Agency- and office-level

competency frameworks; and others.

Based on this observation, we have noted that the mission has taken concrete steps towards creating

systems to support specific areas, most notably in talent development through encouraging a mission-

wide IDP process. However, we have also observed that these systems still need to be fully

implemented and adjusted to ensure all messaging reinforces the mission’s shared purpose and desired

behaviors in a clear, consistent manner. As the ODA team continues to deliver technical assistance to

the mission, its offices, and its staff, we will continue to observe what systems are working, how they are

successful, what opportunities exist to improve them, and what lessons can be learned.

As the ODA team finalizes its definition of OH, we are defining the key practices that are most relevant

to USAID/Uganda as it journeys to the optimal healthy state. We will continue to document the current

state of these practices and assess the organization’s health in future reporting against the baseline that

we have established in this report.

4. BASELINE FINDINGS

4.1 Mission’s Organizational Health by Domain This section summarizes the current state of each OH domain based on insights from the four phases

described in the previous section.

4.1.1 DIRECTION & LEADERSHIP Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High

Leadership is ranked at Low/Medium OH strength because of staff confusion and uncertainty about how

to operationalize higher-level guidance – such as the Leadership Charter and Project Appraisal

Documents – to their own daily work. This gap has created increasing cynicism about the strategies,

reverberating throughout the Mission and affecting multiple facets of OH such as trust.

Respondents to the two surveys (OH Survey 2018 and Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017) understand the

goals of the Mission as well as those of their respective offices. The Front Office is doing a good job of

messaging the vision for the Mission and it has high buy-in among staff. Many employees understand how

their work and role contributes to this vision. Some expressed continued uncertainty in roles due to

regular leadership changes.

Feedback provided in the listening sessions and pulse check survey identified a clear need for better

guidelines and structures for individuals seeking to support the vision at functional levels. In addition,

significant uncertainty remains in terms of how offices, teams, and individuals can work together across

offices to accomplish the vision in an integrated way.


Many staff feel that they are involved in important decisions that affect their work and that their

supervisors provide them with opportunities to grow professionally. However, in spite of the Mission of

Leaders initiative, some do not feel they are empowered to make decisions, feel little agency in their

work, and do not have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do. By and large they do not

feel there is sufficient two-way communication. There is a perception that supervisors favor some staff

over others when it comes to development opportunities. Many in the Mission do not feel truly

empowered to lead.

Opportunities exist to improve the Mission’s OH in the Direction & Leadership domain. These include

more actionable guidance, clearer processes, and well-articulated decision-making authorities to better

operationalize the integrated strategy.

CURRENT STATE

Staff Perceptions:

-78% of survey respondents agreed that overall Mission

leadership tell a clear, and inspirational story about where

the Mission is headed

-FEVS data over the past two years show a decline in

leadership communications

-Over 90% of staff understand how their work

contributes to the Mission’s goals and those of their

Office

-Some staff feel current silos around procurement and

activity design inhibit desired integration

-3 out of 4 survey respondents state that they feel

involved in decisions that affect their work

-Many employees state that they do not feel empowered

to make decisions and are unclear on whom to go to for

decision-making

-While staff rate the Mission well in terms of

communicating plans, many still feel that regular Mission

changes have created uncertainty in roles and insufficient

time to adapt

-Some staff have noted that the Leadership Charter is stronger on paper than in practice

Staff Practices:

-Many staff struggle with how to implement the CDCS or

Leadership Charter practices in their daily work due to

lack of clarity on how to do so

Mission Practices:

-The mission created a Leadership Charter; the new Front

Office reinforced commitment to that charter and the

overall Mission of Leaders initiative

-Employees perceive shared purpose at the office level to

be low as evidenced through low rankings in Insights

Discovery Team Effectiveness Model Retreats and

statements that team goal statements do not resonate on

a unit or individual level

OPTIMAL STATE

Staff Perceptions:

-Staff hear, understand, and support a clear vision that is

articulated consistently by leadership of their organization

as a whole as well as in and across Offices

-Employees understand the Mission strategy, how their role

supports it, and how to execute it on a day-to-day basis;

they feel encouraged to act, make decisions within clear

limits, take calculated risks without the fear of

repercussions, and feel both trusted and supported when

they seek help

Staff Practices:

-Staff have an understanding of how to interpret the

Mission’s overall vision, and that of their respective offices,

in their daily work within and across offices, which

motivates them to work toward Mission-wide goals

-A high degree of continuity and consistency of work

remains in spite of leadership transitions

Mission Practices:

-Systems and processes reinforce the Mission’s overall direction, cascading messages from leadership and

supporting their operationalization

-Decision making authorities are widely understood, and

largely decentralized to the service delivery level

-Supervisors effectively manage staff to achieve high levels

of performance in a consultative, coaching-oriented, and

empowering manner

-Employees at all levels sometimes follow, sometimes lead,

and are comfortable doing both; they are proactive,

working with others to advance the goals of the Mission as

a whole, not just those of their departments; they

communicate actively and openly to share and receive

additional insight and knowledge

-There are systems to facilitate both top-down and

bottom-up communications, and capture and act upon

ideas to improve all aspects of the organization

-Credit is given when due and shared widely in a collective

effort to increase the organization’s health and

performance


4.1.2 WORKING ENVIRONMENT Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High

ODA rates the Working Environment domain as Low/Medium OH strength because there was a

significant number of staff that confirmed in both the OH Survey 2018 and the 2017 FEVS that

differences in opinion are not valued and they do not feel that they can freely speak their mind. Open

response data also shows that many employees do not feel like they are trusted to do some of their

work, feel low agency in their work flow, and worry about possible repercussions if they take risks. A

significant percentage of the respondents believe the workload in the Mission is unreasonable and that

they would take a job elsewhere if they found one. These points likely affect morale and retention.

While most respondents feel there is collaboration among staff, significant room exists to improve.

4.1.3 MOTIVATION Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High

The ODA team rates the Motivation domain as Low/Medium OH strength, based on the high

rate of employees who think about looking for work elsewhere. FEVS scores and interviews

show that personnel find meaning and inspiration in their work and that of the Mission. Scores

CURRENT STATE

Staff Perceptions:

-Staff care programs exist for emotional & psychological

support

-Many staff are concerned about high workloads, and

work-life balance

-One-third of respondents feel their workload is

unreasonable

-In over 80% of staff retreats led by ODA, insufficient

levels of trust have come up as an issue

-Staff have expressed concerns of possible undue

repercussions

-One-third of staff feel that differences of opinions are not

valued

-There is a common perception that interpersonal

dynamics and cultural sensitivities have led to conflict

between employees

-Some expressed that there is constant change in the

Mission, but not much support to help staff understand

these changes, make the necessary adjustments, and

accomplish their work

Staff Practices:

-Collaboration is a common occurrence, albeit not during activity design

-Staff support one another during personal crises

-Uncertainty over decision making authorities and/or

possible repercussions inhibits action

Mission Practices:

-Benefits are competitive with the Ugandan market

-Employee recognition programs exist

-Procurement and activity design remain largely siloed

within individual offices

OPTIMAL STATE

Staff Perceptions:

-Employees feel supported, respected and cared for as

complete people, including considerations of family,

inclusion, and other personal aspects; this genuine caring

increases cohesion and moral

-Employees generally have positive expectations and

assume positive intent among co-workers

-Staff do not fear repercussions for making decisions, taking

reasonable risks, or due to personal grudges

Staff Practices:

-Employees by-and-large trust one another, and this trust

extends across levels, cultures, etc.

-Varying perspectives are sought out, respected, discussed

openly, and considered in decision-making, including

culture, gender, and other differences

-Staff are told the reasons behind decisions or processes

they disagree with when they ask, but often need not ask

due to strong communications

-Staff operate with the best interests of their colleagues and

the overall Mission’s goals in mind

Mission Practices:

-Lines of communication and decision making are clear across the mission, and allow flexibility and consideration of

unique circumstances and special needs in wellness areas,

within reason

-Staff turnover is limited (~10% is considered healthy); high-

performers are retained

-Workloads are equitable, measured and managed;

workflows are mapped and streamlined

-Culture is actively measured and managed, with leadership

rapidly identifying and addressing issues

-Leadership transitions and other changes are clearly and

regularly communicated in a two-way dialogue between and

among leadership and staff


also show that most feel the Mission increasingly recognizes contributors and their

accomplishments. However, respondents also report that they do not feel supported in career

development, do not have a clear career path, and are not sufficiently guided, trusted, or

empowered. A slight majority (51%) would leave if they could find another job. Albeit partially

attributable to limited promotion opportunities for non-FSO staff due to USAID’s

organizational structure, such a high percentage is a clear indication of low motivation, job

satisfaction, and OH.

4.1.4 CAPABILITIES Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High

The ODA team ranks the Capabilities domain as Low/Medium, based on the absence of some

foundational talent management tools, such as competency frameworks, and the relatively new

application of others, such as Individual Development Plans (IDPs). Based on our direct

observation, the Mission does not currently use core competencies to align skill sets with the

needs of key positions, which often indicates that staff are underutilized. While most survey

respondents say they have access to learning opportunities, several cited the need for greater

capabilities and talent management through individual coaching, trainings, workshops, retreats,

and other means. Most survey respondents believe their performance appraisal clearly reflects

their performance. Talent development, including the need to improve systems and supervisor capabilities in developing staff, was the issue most frequently identified by Mission personnel.

CURRENT STATE

Staff Perceptions:

-1 in 5 respondents do not feel like their supervisor

shows genuine interest in their career aspirations

-Staff are motivated by the Mission of USAID/Uganda

-Several staff feel unmotivated to be creative or

innovative because they do not feel supported or they

fear their intentions may be mistrusted, which increases

the atmosphere of mistrust at the Mission

Staff Practices:

-A very high proportion of survey respondents (51%)

think of looking for jobs elsewhere

Mission Practices:

-Most formal recognition systems that exist are at the

Agency-wide level rather than Mission-specific initiatives

-Career paths, if they exist, are not sufficiently clear or

compelling to employees, with some feeling that they do

not exist interest

OPTIMAL STATE

Staff Perceptions:

-Employees look forward to working with their teams, and

view collaboration with other offices as a means to better

understand and support a holistic vision

-Employees have a clear understanding of professional and

career development opportunities in the Mission

Staff Practices:

-Employees regularly exhibit enthusiasm, passion and pride

in their work

-Leaders model and motivate in their daily actions

-Leaders are supportive of the career goals of staff

Mission Practices:

-There are clear, defined and successive career paths that

align with employee ambitions and goals; they provide a

sense of progress and achievement;

-Employees are recognized for strong performance;

-Clear processes guide the fair allocation of awards and

recognition such as a representative oversight/ advisory committee

-Staff welfare and culture are actively monitored and

measured; regular actions are taken to shape them

CURRENT STATE

Staff Perception:

-Most survey respondents state they have access to

learning and development they need for their job

OPTIMAL STATE

Staff Perception:

-Employees have a clear understanding of their level of

performance against defined standards and competencies


4.1.5 LEARNING &

INNOVATION Low Low/Medium Medium Medium/High High

The ODA team ranks Learning & Innovation as Low/Medium, based upon relatively positive staff

perceptions of support for innovation and knowledge sharing. Most of the staff confirmed that they

receive constructive feedback and feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of getting

work done; however, we concluded that while staff understand that innovation is a priority in the

Mission, there is a consensus that there is insufficient time to identify and drive improvements and

innovation. Some respondents also mentioned a lack of trust and fear of reprisal for taking risks.

Reinforcing knowledge sharing, employees backstop each other, providing some redundancies.

However, information is often not readily shared, particularly outside of the office/team. For example,

we observed that some internal OD best practices, like OAA’s Career Ladder, are not widely known

outside the office. We are also aware of staff not sharing ideas or knowledge due to concerns about

being seen as a ‘threat’ to their supervisor, or due to competition among co-workers.

-Some employees state that access to training varies per

level and consider this unfair

-Staff have difficulty understanding what training and

career development support is available to them

-While some employees lack a clear understanding of

examples or evidence for their performance ratings, 78%

of survey respondents believe their appraisal fairly reflect

their performance

Staff Practices:

-Confusion about available opportunities and lack of

supervisor trust appear to have reduced the extent to

which personnel access career development training and

other support

Mission Practices:

-Mission does not currently use core competencies to

align skill-sets with the needs of key positions

-360-review feedback is collected, but seen as subjective

and not always consistent with agreed-upon or

communicated competencies

-Large training budget exists and is mobilized by Office

Directors

-The talent development Mission Order is spurring the

creation of IDPs and support tools, strengthening staff

development processes

-Onboarding systems exist, but there are gaps pertaining

to cultural understanding and managing expectations of

FSOs on arrival

that are relevant to their role and position based on clear

communication from supervisor

-Level of performance is communicated on a clear and

systematic, basis, and largely viewed as fair

-Staff have clarity on learning and development options

available to grow their capabilities

Staff Practices:

-Employees understand how their skills and capabilities align

with the needs of their current role, and what new skills and

capabilities are required for their continued career

progression

-Staff have and are aware of opportunities to improve their

skills and competencies, and are encouraged to do so

Mission Practices:

-Formal and informal professional development and training

opportunities are available;

they are effective in supporting employees’

-Clearly defined processes guide managers and staff on how

to access capability development opportunities; an oversight committee ensures equitable allocation

competency development and progress along defined -

Career paths exist that align with employee ambitions

-Role models who can serve as trusted mentors and/or

guides exist and are accessible

-Expectations defining strong performance levels are clear

communicated; supervisors assessing them impartially and in

a culturally aware manner

-On-boarding and off-boarding systems exist and are used

and effectively transmit information to support effective

action and performance

CURRENT STATE

Staff Perception:

-Most survey respondents report feeling encouraged to

come up with new and better ways of doing things

-Supervisors encourage learning, but employees have

reported concerns of repercussions for taking risks

Staff Practices:

OPTIMAL STATE

Staff Perception:

-Staff feel encouraged to learn, innovative, and take

measured risks without concern for negative ramifications

Staff Practices:

-Support for learning and innovation is reinforced through

competencies and performance reviews


-Employees backstop each other and structures for work

review exist, providing some redundancies

-Information is often not openly shared, particularly

outside of the office/team

Mission Practices:

-Enterprise risk management is starting, but mainly

focused on financial risk, rather than broader risk

management to directly support innovation

- The mission maintains an Intranet Site for mission-wide

resources and documents, though it is not widely used in

its current format.

- The mission has dedicated positions for a Senior

Learning Advisor and Knowledge Management Specialist.

- CLA requirements and guidelines are incorporated into

all the mission’s activity awards.

- Quarterly Reports from Implementing Partners

includes sections on learning and innovation, although

this information isn’t currently aggregated or shared

across activities.

-Mission personnel encourage CLA, both internally and with

partners

-Staff have access to and make use of processes and tools to

capture and disseminate knowledge and learnings (e.g. from

training workshops, conferences)

Mission Practices:

-Employees are supported to stretch and take calculated

risks in support of continuous learning

-The organization has sound risk management systems

-Employees have access to and proactively share diverse

information and knowledge

-Knowledge and information (e.g. from engagements with

implementing partners, intra-team meetings) is captured,

easily accessible, and actively translated into learning and

improvement

-The Mission measures innovations, captures and scales

successful ones, and encourages its partners to do the same


ANNEX I: ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH OVERVIEW

The one-page (front and back) infographic ODA intends to update and use as a means to concisely present the

status of USAID Uganda’s OH is shown below. Currently a baseline of USAID’s OH, we will update it over the

course of ODA, and share it with USAID’s leadership to track and show the Mission’s OH progress and priorities.



ANNEX II: ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH DOMAINS AND

ELEMENTS SELECTED FOR USAID/UGANDA

Background

This annex lists the five domains ODA has selected for initial use with USAID Uganda. We

selected these domains in part based on our understanding of the Mission’s current state of

organizational development, as described in this baseline, and its overarching purpose. We also

applied research and analytical findings on how to adapt OH approaches and focal areas so that

they best reflect the purpose and goals of the organization, its existing culture and mandate, and

its desired state.

ODA recommends an initial focus on the following five OH domains:

1. Direction & Leadership: The Direction & Leadership domain focuses on creating,

and clearly and consistently communicating, a shared vision and strategic direction

linked to office, team, and individual roles. It is about creating Mission-wide clarity about

how to operationalize the vision at all levels, and about becoming a learning

organization. OH begins with leaders who model healthy workplace behavior, are

continuous learners, empower and motivate others, hold everyone in the Mission

accountable, and know how and when to follow.

The OH elements supporting the Direction & Leadership domain that we will track,

follow, and support the Mission to improve are: shared purpose, strategic clarity, employee

involvement, and comprehensive leadership.

2. Working Environment: The Working Environment domain focuses on building team

and Mission cohesion, where employees demonstrate high levels of trust and can

effectively collaborate to achieve development outcomes.

The OH elements supporting the Working Environment domain that we will track,

follow, and support the Mission to improve are: trust, collaboration, and cohesion.

3. Motivation: The Motivation domain increases employee enthusiasm, commitment, and

drive to deliver exceptional work. Motivated leadership tells a story of where the

Mission has been and where it can go that is truly inspirational and creates pride,

passion, and excitement in the vast majority of employees. Through example,

empowerment, and accountability, leaders will create momentum around big ideas and

daily work, however ambitious or mundane.

The OH elements supporting the Motivation domain that we will track, follow, and

support the Mission to improve are: inspirational leadership, career opportunities,

meaningful values, and recognition.

4. Capabilities: The Capabilities domain focuses on building talent through organizational

development processes that enable resilience in the face of change based on

performance measurement. Organizational assessments and diagnostics, including rapid


temperature checks, will support continuous, tangible improvements in how people

work, how they interact, and how they communicate, creating opportunities for

employees to stretch and grow.

The OH elements supporting the Capabilities domain that we will track, follow, and

support the Mission to improve are: organizational development processes, talent

development, change resilience, and measurement.

5. Learning and Innovation: The Learning and Innovation domain targets the fostering

of Mission improvements through robust knowledge sharing, increased information

flows, and outcome measurement within the organization. This domain is about

providing easy access for those within the Mission who seek to enhance processes

and/or results, at the right time and in the right forms. It is about regularly updating the

Mission’s knowledge sources and recognizing and rewarding Mission contributors to

Learning and Innovation. It is about the Mission achieving and sustaining its status as a

learning organization.

The OH elements supporting the Learning and Innovation domain that we will track,

follow, and support the Mission to improve are: knowledge sharing and innovation.


ANNEX III: USAID/UGANDA ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH

SURVEY 2018 - Survey Tool (November 2018)

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Choose only ONE response per statement. (Note: titles reflect correlated OH domains)

Direction & Leadership:

1. Our Front Office Leaders are able to tell a clear, convincing, and inspirational story

about where the Mission is headed.

2. The leaders in my office have communicated a vision that motivates me.

3. I understand how my work contributes to the Mission's strategy.

4. I understand how my work contributes to my office's/team's goals 5. I feel involved in decisions that affect my work (that are within the control of the

mission).

6. My supervisor provides me with opportunities to stretch and grow professionally.

Working Environment:

7. The leaders in the mission keep people informed about what is happening.

8. In the mission, differences of opinion are valued and I feel like I can freely speak my

mind.

9. I regularly collaborate with staff across the mission on efforts that contribute to the

mission's goals.

10. My workload is reasonable.

Motivation

11. The mission motivates me to go beyond what I would in a similar role elsewhere.

12. My supervisor (or someone in management) has shown a genuine interest in my

career aspirations.

13. I receive appropriate recognition when I do good work.

14. I rarely think about looking for a job in another organization.

Capabilities

15. I have access to the learning and development I need to do my job well.

16. I have the opportunity to participate in activities / trainings / etc. that advance my

professional development.

17. My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance.

Learning and Innovation

18. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.

19. I often have meaningful conversations with my supervisor about my work.

20. What are 1-3 changes that would make your work more satisfying?

21. What 1-3 things the Mission could do better to create the culture and practices that

promote employee well-being as well as organizational effectiveness?

Other

22. What concerns, if any, do you have about the upcoming leadership transition?

23. Which best describes you: Ugandan, American, and other nationality, prefer not to answer.

24. Anything else that you would like to add?


ANNEX IV: LISTENING TOUR FINDINGS

To kick off its engagement with the Mission and to refine the Activity’s areas of focus, the ODA

team conducted a Mission-wide listening tour. During a two-week period from August 6-15,

2018, the ODA team engaged with more than 60 Mission staff representatives of offices,

functions and roles. The team facilitated one-on-one interviews with Mission leadership, held

discussions with a variety of staff groups, attended various sector working sessions, and

reviewed Mission documents related to its OH. The following section provides guidance on the

major themes identified.

Themes Identified and Linkages with OH Domains and Outcomes

Operationalizing the Strategy: A key challenge that USAID employees are facing is how to

effectively operationalize the Mission’s integrated strategy, as defined in the CDCS. While staff

by-and-large support it, significant uncertainty remains in terms of how to make it work in

practice at the individual and team levels, and across offices (e.g. who has decision making

authority on integrated PADs). This is inhibiting progress in the strategic clarity element.

Enhance Cohesion and Trust: The listening tour identified areas in the working

environment that require ODA intervention. These included the work environment domain on

trust, and building collaboration and cohesion at team, Mission, and leadership levels.

Transform Mission Culture and Enhance Interpersonal Dynamics: Culture and

interpersonal dynamics are areas that were established from the listening tour as needing

further intervention.

Build Individual Staff Capability: The listening tour identified that capability of the staff and

leadership were key areas needing intervention. There were further needs on training, individual coaching, etc. to ensure OH in the Mission. Accordingly, the listening tour established

that building individual capability would add value to the Mission’s OH. These would be

addressed by building capabilities through the delivery of supervisor workshops that deliver

targeted knowledge and skills. This domain addresses an improved working environment

through the building of trust, building capabilities through development of IDP performance

support tools, coaching of leaders and staff to conduct development conversations, and building

staff and supervisor competencies through workshops.

Address Gaps in Talent Management: Talent management was another listening tour

theme identified for further intervention. Specific talent management gaps include supervisor

understanding of talent management, writing and reporting skills, time management, and a

desire for more blended training approaches and access to technical skills. In addition, reward

and recognition were perceived as lacking within the Mission. Accordingly, addressing the talent

management needs would improve the working environment and culture within the Mission.

ODA would address these by building capabilities through improving talent development

processes and tools. The talent management domain results in an improved working

environment by building trust through a culturally-sensitive onboarding design, motivation


through rewards and recognition, and capabilities through improved talent development

processes and tools.

Adaptive Management: Listening tour feedback indicated that adaptive management is

unconsciously practiced within the Mission; most people do not consciously set out to practice

it. However, by the very nature of the pace of change within the Mission plus the way in which

projects operate, staff must continuously adapt.

Effective Leadership Training: Training of any kind is well received. The Federal Executive

Institute (FEI) training in Washington is perceived to have been more robust, which is not

surprising giving its longer duration than the Uganda-based version. However, even the Uganda-

based version was found to be useful. A point that kept coming up is how the Mission can

institutionalize some of the things that are learnt on training. (i.e. to what extent is the Mission

culture enables adaptations in ways of work.) We did not gather sufficient data to draw a

conclusive option; however, we believe that through the culture transformation efforts we can

strengthen the environment so that it is more enabling.

Perception of FSO versus FSN: The biggest take away is that Mission staff – particularly

FSNs, are very careful in how they complete any formal feedback mechanism and as such the

results may not be the most accurate reflection of the reality on the ground. FSOs, on the

other hand, tend to be more open and trusting of survey methods and this may partly account

for the discrepancy in results regarding the organizational climate. Staff noted that non-

electronic means for collecting feedback would be appreciated—such as suggestion boxes or

coaching sessions.

The table below provides a summary of the Key OD themes from this on-the-ground collection

process and provides quotes from our conversations that illustrate each OD theme. Annex IV

identifies how ODA will translate these into our Year 1 Workplan and describes the linkage to

driving improvements to one or more of the organizational health domains (Direction &

Leadership, Working Environment, Motivation, Capabilities, and Learning & Innovation).

LISTENING TOUR RAW DATA Question and Responses Count

1. Given the CDCS focus on locally driven development, what should Mission do differently to better

achieve this aspiration?

Create sustainability in our local partners by building up their technical skills

Mission needs a specific role to develop a strategy and drive effective capacity building of IPs–perhaps a

company contracted to provide an intermediary service

We are severely understaffed to do this

An attempt is made via the pre-award processes, but this is not robust enough to yield the results

called for by the CDCS

What we need is someone to brief the IPs on USAID processes and procedures, walk them through

how to engage and hand-hold them through the process

Management implications, costs and time make it not practical for AOR/COR to fulfill this role given

the current status quo under which they function effectively as technical experts

Build capacity of local partners in terms of USAID rules, how to engage, processes, etc.

9


Increase knowledge, capability about how to effectively engage stakeholders including government and

IPs

5

Staff needs to reframe how they work:

o AORs/CORs need to approach their work differently and see themselves as project managers

whose role it is to drive the accomplishment of strategic objectives through activities – rather than

viewing themselves as an administrative

o AORs/CORs need to develop project management as well as relationship management skills to be

able to galvanize people across teams to achieve the objectives of the integrated strategy

o AORs/CORs, more than anyone else, should be responsible for driving integration across specialties

and with IPs

o PPD needs to play a stronger PMO role and support implementation with activity design inside

Project Appraisal Documents (PADs) and other tools, etc.

4

Clarify implementation plan for the integrated CDCS so that it is clear at the team and individual levels

Clarify the required shifts in ways of working for staff, the workload, impact on supervisors, and

manage the fear of change. For example, the complexity around the indicators must be explained and

embedded and the development actors must be understood

In some offices CDCS is viewed as something over and above what we do. We need to shift this so

that it is viewed as what we do on a day-to-day basis

3

Increase engagement with local partners especially during project design phase – to the extent

possible. This would create more buy-in and collaboration

3

Implement an organization structure that is responsive to the strategy i.e., need to structure differently

around the strategy and its development objectives rather than around technical/specialist areas to

drive integration better

3

Empower Mission staff with more soft skills to enable them to engage local partners better i.e., to

become more empowering, supportive and facilitative in their approach towards partners

Skills like facilitation, relationship management, to build social capital, coaching and mentoring

(formal/informal), other skills like note taking – at all levels

2

Understand why USAID Forward did not work, and 2

Mission needs a paradigm shift to ensure that everyone is speaking the same language with respect to

integration

1+1=3 is a message that has been introduced in the Mission, but we need to rally around this right

from solicitations and awards and then activity design to ensure that teams are forced to integrate

from the beginning

2

Mission teams need to harmonize their understanding of internal systems to better enable

implementation of local strategies. E.g. how do we, as integrated teams, deal with funding earmarks?

Harmonize directives from funders

2

Re-center staff around the vision and keep the vision clear in the minds of everyone.

Break old mindsets and old incentives

2

Mission is by design a bureaucratic entity, therefore anything that can be done to ease the process of

engaging IPs will enhance the Mission’s ability to do so

1

Enhance staff capacity to be able to implement the strategy both in terms of skills but also the

knowledge required to work effectively

1

Pilot full integration in one of the easier areas and garner lessons learned to facilitate further

implementation across the Mission

1

Mission should take a calculated risk, start small instead of trying to ‘eat the elephant in one bite’ 1

Consider what we can learn from CDC. Granted their work is more specialized, however, the fact

that 90% of the work they do is through local partners, surely, we can learn something from their

experience.

1


2. What 2 or 3 things should the Mission prioritize over the next year to improve its organizational

health?

Culture Transformation/Individual/Team/Mission-wide:

Help us define a Mission identity i.e. let’s define what we are good at and let’s leverage or build on that

Support the implementation of the Leadership Charter with its informal authority structures to drive

more effective execution and delivery

Elicit champions to support the change process

Where are the champions, how can we use them better?

Create a harmonious team culture leveraging different cultural backgrounds of employees. Leverage

the Mission of Leaders initiative and Leadership Charter to guide required culture shift

Enhance Team dynamics—rapport, respect, openness and trust within and between teams. Simple

practices like celebrating birthdays and other ways of recognizing staff at team-level and increasing

socialization within teams e.g. team lunches, etc. to build more rapport and trust. Effective Leaders

training helped but we need to do more.

We need to develop teams and make them more effective in how they deliver

How can we foster ongoing team dialogue and air out grievances? Things like an internal welfare group

is an easy way to do this

Teams have different development needs, help us understand these and focus on where the needs are

Implement courses like Speed of Trust to build Trust

Create a culture that drives innovation and creative thinking. We seem to have a culture where things

are so prescribed that it can limit outspokenness or innovation and creative thinking, which are

required to succeed in a more collaborative environment

Leverage work done with Insights Discovery and bring this to life is more useful ways

Enhance self-leadership behaviors and do more to imbed work done with Insights Discovery

Imbed a culture of closing the loop on issues discussed – either from surveys or meetings i.e., more

effective communication practices

Improve meeting culture including limiting number of meetings to what is necessary, responding to

calendar meeting requests in a timely manner, effectively participating in and following-up on meetings

Build better working relationships between different staff categories by minimizing potential for

misunderstanding and conflict. For example, while we should continue empowerment of FSOs, we

should also do more to manage new FSO expectations by sensitizing them about the realities and

culture inherent in working at the Uganda Mission

TCNs would like a better sense of belonging

Achieving the balance between how FSOs and FSNs relate to each other is key to keep the Mission

together

Enhance cultural awareness and create a culture that values the diversity of different employee

categories i.e. FSNs and FSOs. Focus on cultural aspects of hierarchy and feedback processes. Let’s

create One Mission culture, not one of FSNs versus FSOs

Empower staff to push back and say no sometimes

We seem to continuously take on new things without even reflect and build supportive structures and

processes

33

Strategic Alignment/Operationalization:

Clarify the implementation plan for the integrated CDCS so that it is clear at the team and individual

levels

Clarify the required shifts in ways of working for staff, the workload, impact on supervisors, and

manage the fear of change. For example, the complexity around the indicators must be explained and

imbedded and the development actors must be understood

Clarify how support teams are supposed to implement the CDCS, as this is not clear

13


Enable staff – down to the lowest hierarchical levels, to understand what the CDCS is and how they

contribute to its execution

Provide guidance around how much time to dedicate to cross-functional collaboration, and who i.e.

from which technical team, takes the lead on such engagements i.e. how do we operationalize what we

do? How do we cascade PAD? How can we make engagement with local partners more systematic?

What does ‘doing business differently’ mean; it is not clear to us. How to make the CDCS work is the

big question

Adopt a Systems Thinking approach to the way we do things i.e. think holistically and approach our

work from a strategic perspective – looking at development objectives as what we need to achieve

through various activities, which may be supported from different technical/specialist areas

Build Staff Capability:

Implement individual career development practices that balance career growth for all staff categories

(FSO and FSN) and lead to increased work effectiveness leveraging all staff efforts. It appears FSOs are

incentivized to exert authority over FSNs to develop their careers, which contradicts the spirit of the

Mission of Leaders initiative.

Implement customized development options – including training for all staff categories for them to

more effectively serve the Mission – even TCNs that have served for an extensive timeframe

How can we support the AORs/CORs with decision support tools to enable them to make more

quantitative management?

Measure the adaptability of AORs/CORs?

Everything is constantly changing except for the skills to support us to do our work. We need more

focus on skills development

Support Exo to better understand different employee categories (FSN, FSO, TCN) so that they can

apply appropriate talent management for each group e.g. performance management practices

Capacitate supervisors to understand all aspects of talent management – a cheat sheet for them would

be useful

Upskill supervisors on dealing with EEO complaints, managing PIPs and having coaching conversations

Improve working practices (habits) and/or behaviors. E.g., roll-out 7 Habits training, which served as a

useful way to embed a way of doing things that everyone can galvanize around

Improve time management practices

Improve our skills with regards to building relationships and engaging with IPs and other stakeholders

Enhance skills such as writing and reporting skills and professionalism

12

Strengthen Talent Management Processes and Tools:

Clarify how training needs are assessed, this is currently not clear. Is this based on one’s role or to

development objectives?

Refine onboarding process, particularly for FSOs to avoid mis-aligned expectations and to support

them manage in assimilating into the USAID/Uganda Mission e.g. embed the culture of greeting others

Revamp outdated Mission Orders

Find a mechanism to track and imbed what is learned in training

We would like a more centralized approach to accessing training i.e. how can we apply to go on

training.

It seems to clear to some but not others – perhaps it requires one to be more assertive but not

everyone has the qualities

We also want a more blended approach to training and access to more technical skills

We also need to find a way to gauge the interests of staff with regards to soft skills – instead of just

being dictated to what to attend

How to access training not clear

Streamline training processes to create clarity and equity for all staff. MLC already working on how to

ensure well balanced training plans and how to facilitate budget approval


Provide a mechanism for staff to provide honest feedback in an anonymous way e.g. suggestion boxes

or via coaching sessions

Enhance Staff Wellbeing – the physical working space create a less than ideal working environment and

has led to understaffing

Strategic Alignment/Structure/Roles and Responsibilities:

Look at how we are structured to deliver in an integrated manner

Support with creating a structure and implementation plan that supports the implementation of the

CDCS objectives

Increase staff levels (headcount) to facilitate more effective implementation of strategy

Ensure role clarity and manage expectations e.g. between CORs and Activity Managers. CORs should

clearly understand their role in the process and funds should be leveraged at the activity level

Clarify role of PPD. They are currently viewed as Technical Coordinators, should this be the case or

should we expect more from them?

Clarify process flow and clarify roles – without getting bogged down by position descriptions i.e. your

job role versus strategic alignment and align roles throughout the Mission

8

Strategic Alignment/Communication:

Ensure communication from Leadership that is timely and ensure that messages filter downwards. For

example, many teams are on stand-by waiting to understand which direction the new leadership will

drive the Mission with regards to issues such as CDCS implementation but also issues of the focus on

FSO empowerment

Use communication media to create excitement about the implementation process

We are not clear about which direction the new leadership will drive us

It’s hard to know where we are right now

4

3. What aspects of your work would you like to reduce or potentially limit so you have more time to

focus on working in different ways to achieve the CDCS?

The bureaucracy involved in reporting – sometimes to multiple entities on the same issues

Some systems are not working very well e.g. GLASS has normal system issues but also the delegation

of authority makes it very difficult to get things done. It could be useful to have some FSNs as

approvers, which would speed things up at times when FSOs are on home leave

Having to deal with consistent changes imposed by Washington e.g. ADS

Different performance management cycles and feedback cycles for FSOs versus FSNs

4

4. Adaptive Management—how are you putting this to use?

Feedback indicated that adaptive management is unconsciously practiced within the Mission. i.e. most people

do not consciously set out to practice it

However, by the very nature of the pace of change within the Mission plus the way in which projects operate,

staff must continuously adapt

5. Comment on the Effective Leaders Training (FEI)

Training of any kind is well-received. The FEI training in Washington is perceived to have been more robust,

which is not surprising giving its longer duration than the local version. However, even the local version was

found to be useful. A point that kept coming up is how the Mission can institutionalize some of the things that

are learnt on training i.e., to what extent is the Mission culture enables adaptations in ways of work

We did not gather sufficient data to give a conclusive option however we believe that through the culture

transformation efforts we can strengthen the environment so that it is more enabling

6. FEVS feedback about perceptions of FSOs versus FSNs, what are your thoughts

The biggest take away is that Mission staff—particularly FSNs, are very careful in how they complete any formal

feedback mechanism and as such the results may not be the most accurate reflection of the reality on the

ground. FSOs on the other-hand tend to be more open and trusting of survey methods and this may partly

account for the discrepancy in results regarding the organizational climate. It was commented that staff would

appreciate a non-electronic media for providing feedback such as suggestion boxes or coaching sessions.


ANNEX V: LITERATURE REVIEW

USAID/Uganda Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 Results

The USAID/Uganda Full Pre–Retreat survey was first conducted and reported in 2016 and a

follow up survey was conducted in November 2017. The temperature check questions

were posed around the following themes: Strategy and Values, Leadership and Management,

Enabling Environment, Culture, Inclusiveness and Fairness, Internal and External Interfaces,

Communication and Accountability.

The survey targets respondents’ views about the USAID/Uganda Mission in general and how

they feel about the teams/offices in the Mission. In the November 2017 survey, respondents

stated that there was clear-shared purpose throughout the Mission. Responses to questions

about understanding the shared goals of the Mission and how their work contributes to

mission goals received over 80% agreement. Some aspects of the working environment

were also viewed favorably, with questions about excitement to work with colleagues to

achieve mission goals also receiving over 89% agreement. See Table 1 below for more

details.

Table 1: High Performing Themes in Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017

Theme Percent Agree

1 I understand how my work contributes to the success of the

Mission

86.5%

2 I am excited about working with colleagues to achieve the goals

of the Mission

82.2%

3 USAID acts with integrity when engaging with other US agencies 81.7%

4 Our Front Office leaders are able to tell a clear, convincing and

inspiring story about where the Mission is headed

80.1%

Despite the positive responses to shared goals, we see a high percentage of respondents

stating that they would leave the mission if they could find another job (51%). We also saw

high negative responses to other working environment themes around workload staffing

and respect. See Table 2 below for response frequency.

Table 2: Low Performance Themes in Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017

Theme Percent Agree

1 If I could find another job, I would resign from this one 51%

2 Work is fairly and evenly distributed among employees

throughout the Mission

54.9%

3 We have enough of the right people in key roles to undertake

the work that is needed for us to make the Mission a success

55.7%

4 In the Mission, we have the appropriate balance between

planning and executing our work

56.3%

5 In the Mission, difference of opinion is valued and I feel I can

freely speak my mind

57.3%


Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)

USAID/Uganda Mission Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) is a survey that is

conducted annually in the Mission. The Mission last conducted FEVS in May/June 2017 and

the results were available and analysed in March/April 2018. The 2017 FEVS data and the

Pre-Retreat Survey were analyzed and themes were selected from the data for the years

compared as shown in Table 3 below. Generally, the responses in all three categories in the

Full Pre-Retreat Survey were higher than the responses in the 2017 FEVS. Specifically, the

FEVS data comparison between 2016 and 2017 shows a downward trend in all three

categories. However, between 2016 and 2017 on both surveys, the satisfaction with senior

leaders’ policies and practices scored highly. Note that the Pre-Retreat survey data for 2016

and 2017 remained the same for the two categories. (Source: FEVS report 2017)

Table 3: Comparison between FEVS and Pre-Retreat Survey data 2016 to 2017

Theme/Categories 2016

Pre-

Retreat

Survey

2016

FEVS

Survey

2017

FEVS

Survey

2017

Pre-

Retreat

Survey

1 Job Recognition: Statement: I feel I am

recognized and appreciated for the work I do.

70% 72% 58% 70%

2 Involvement in decisions: Statement: In my

team I am informed of decisions that affect me.

66% 68% 56% 66%

3 Satisfied by senior leaders’ policies &

Practices: Statement: Our Front Office (FO)

leaders manage change.

Not

available

81% 69% 76%

Further analysis on Full Pre-Retreat and FEVS surveys based on selected categories, namely,

job recognition, involvement in decisions that affect work and satisfaction of senior lenders

policies and practices shows that in the Full Pre-Retreat Survey the categories remained the

same within the period. However, in all three categories of the FEVS in 2016 and 2017, a

downward trend was reported as shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Full Pre-Retreat & FEVS trends from 2016 to 2017

70% 70% 72%

58%

66% 66% 68%

56%

76%

81%

69%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%



2016FEVS

Survey

2017FEVS

Survey

Axi

s Ti

tle

Job Recognition: Q. I feel I

am recognised and

appreciated for the work I

do?

Involvement in decisions that

affect work: “In my team I

am informed of decision

that affect me”

Satisfied by senior leaders

policies & Practices: “our

FO leaders manage change”


ANNEX VI: SUMMARY OF PULSE CHECK, FEVS, AND PRE-RETREAT COMPARATIVE

ANALYSIS

DOMAIN Survey Question % Strongly

Disagree/ % Disagree

% Agree/% Strongly

Agree

%

NA

Direction &

Leadership

Organizational Health Survey

2018

Our Front Office Leaders are able to tell a clear, convincing, and

inspirational story about where the Mission is headed.

9% (Strongly Disagree 0,

Disagree 9)

78%. (Agree 53, Strongly

agree 25)

13

FEVS N/A

Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 Our Front Office Leaders are able to tell a clear, convincing, and

inspirational story about where the Mission is headed.

80%


2018

The leaders in my office have communicated a vision that

motivates me.

15% (Strongly Disagree

0, Disagree 15)

78% (Agree 42, Strongly

agree 36)

7

FEVS 2017 Manager communicates the goals and priorities of the organization. 87%

Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 N/A


2018

I understand how my work contributes to the Mission's strategy. 2% (Strongly Disagree 0,

Disagree 2)

98 %. (Agree 31, Strongly

Agree 67)

0

FEVS 2017 I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities. 94%



2018

I understand how my work contributes to my office's/team's goals. 4% (Strongly Disagree 0,

Disagree 4)

93%. (Agree 30, strongly

agree 63)

3

FEVS 2017 N/A

Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 I understand how my work contributes to the success of my team. 86.5%

Working

Environment


2018

The leaders in the mission keep people informed about what is

happening.


Disagree 4)

95% (Agree 42, Strongly

agree 53)

0

FEVS 2017 N/A




% Agree/% Strongly

Agree

%

NA



2018

6. In the mission, differences of opinion are valued and I feel like I

can freely speak my mind.


6, Disagree 25)


agree 23)

10

FEVS 2017 N/A

Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 In the mission, differences of opinion are valued and I feel like I can

freely speak my mind.

65.6%


2018

I regularly collaborate with staff across the mission on efforts that

contribute to the mission's goals.


Disagree 9)


agree 51)

4

FEVS 2017 N/A

Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 There is collaboration and teamwork between teams and offices 65.6%


2018

My workload is reasonable. 32% (Strongly Disagree

9, Disagree 23)


agree 26)

2

FEVS 2017 My workload is reasonable 64%


Motivation Organizational Health Survey

2018

The mission motivates me to go beyond what I would in a similar

role elsewhere.


2, Disagree 19)

66%. (Agreed 47, strongly

Agree 19)

13

FEVS 2017 N/A



2018

My supervisor (or someone in management) has shown a genuine

interest in my career aspirations.


4, Disagree 17)


agree 38)

5

FEVS 2017 Supervisor in my work unit supports employee development. 77%



2018

I receive appropriate recognition when I do good work. 14% (Strongly Disagree

1, Disagree 12)


Agree 31)

1%

FEVS 2017 How satisfied are you with recognition you receive for doing a

good job?

58%

Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 I feel that I am recognized and appreciated for the work I do. 69.6%


2018

I rarely think about looking for a job in another organization. 38%. (Strongly disagree

10, disagree 28)


Agree 19)

18%

FEVS 2017 How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in

your organization?

51%




% Agree/% Strongly

Agree

%

NA

Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 If you find another job would you resign from this one? 51%

Capabilities Organizational Health Survey

2018

I have access to the learning and development I need to do my job

well.


1, Disagree 12)


agree 28)

3

FEVS 2017 N/A



2018

I have the opportunity to participate in activities/trainings/etc. that

advance my professional development.


5, Disagree 15)


agree 27)

5

FEVS 2017 N/A

Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 The Mission/My team provides me with training opportunities. 75.9%


2018

My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. 13% (Strongly Disagree

2, Disagree 11)


agree 27)

9

FEVS 2017 My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. 80%


Learning &

Innovation


2018

I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing

things.


0, Disagree 15)


Agree 32)

1

FEVS 2017 Creativity and innovation are rewarded. 68%



2018

I often have meaningful conversations with my supervisor about

my work.


1, Disagree 9)


agree 46)

4

FEVS 2017 My supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to

improve my job performance.

80%


Leadership Organizational Health Survey

2018

I feel involved in decisions that affect my work (that are within the

control of the mission).


3, Disagree 17)


Agree 21)

5

FEVS 2017 N/A

Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 Within my team, my views are taken seriously 72.3%


2018

My supervisor provides me with opportunities to stretch and grow

professionally.


2, Disagree 14)


42)

9

FEVS 2017 N/A

Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 My team provides me with development opportunities to stretch

and grow.

74.5%.


ANNEX VII: PULSE CHECK FINDINGS

Qualitative Findings Organizational Health Survey 2018 Open Response In the 2018 Organizational Health Survey, staff were asked to respond to open-ended questions regarding changes that would potentially make work more satisfying and effective

at the Uganda Mission. Respondents could opt out resulting in 41-61 responses for each of

the open-ended questions. Responses are summarized thematically below each question.

Question 20: What are 1-3 changes that would make your work more satisfying?

(60 responses)

Most of the respondents in the 2018 Organizational Health Survey open-ended questions

believe that to make work more satisfying, more changes should be made in the work

environment (33%), supervisor and staff capabilities (32%), and culture/practices to promote

well-being (24%), as detailed below. A few respondents (9%) reported that encouraging field

visits would be useful and bring employees closer to their work.

Working Environment: 20 out of 60 respondents (33%) provided suggestions to

improve the work environment.

Meeting management - Respondents were of the view that there should be more

productive meetings with clear objectives and decision points to enable them focus

on their duties and that the Mission should try to reduce the number of meetings.

Staff development - Staff should be encouraged to participate in trainings and technical activities. Respondents also highlighted the need for time and space to learn and stay

abreast of changes in their field.

Field visits - Numerous respondents asked for more opportunities to visit partners in

the field to stay close to the work and enhance their development.

Clarify common team priorities - Respondents reported the need to set office-wide

priorities that the team is expected to contribute to collectively and many

mentioned the need to have more clarity on priorities for their individual focus.

Flexible and cohesive environment - Respondents asked for a renewed focus on

flexibility (instead of systems and processes) in order to allow them to be creative

or innovative in their work.

Motivation: 10 out of 60 (17%) respondents highlighted the need to make them more

motivated to work in the Mission.

Recognition and appreciation: A common sentiment was the need for staff to feel

more appreciated and recognized for their contributions within the Mission.

Respect and mentorship: Respondents asked for coaching and mentorship. There were

also a few instances requesting more respect and professionalism from their

supervisors.

Benefits and salary motivation: Respondents asked that benefits be uniformly applied to all, irrespective of one’s nationality. Other requests include increasing salary and

expanding career opportunities for growth. The respondents were of the view that


FSNs lack motivation to do their work effectively. There is currently a feeling that a

gap exists between the FSN and FSO, hence the high turnover among Mission FSNs.

Leadership: Leadership enhancement was addressed by 12 out of 60 (20%) of

respondents. This included high-level leadership and team leadership.

Supervisors relationship and communication: Staff asked for more mentorship and coaching and stated the need for clearer communication with supervisors.

Workload: Setting targets with the supervisor by being able to contribute to work

load decisions. The Mission (not office) leadership should be focusing less on

administrative and procedural actions and more on bigger picture strategic thinking.

Mission Leadership Council (MLC): MLC should ideally solicit Mission wide input before making significant decisions that impact on Mission’s strategy or staff.

Capabilities: 19 out of 60 respondents (32%) reported that capabilities and training are

important area for staff satisfaction.

Capability building: Trainings, retreats and workshops and more personalized coaching would harness staff strengths and increase productivity in the Mission.

Training/on-boarding: Have a deeper dedication to training/learning across the Mission,

which is in-line with the staff job descriptions. Respondents also noted the need for

better onboarding and orientation for new staff.

Question 21: What 1-3 things the Mission could do better to create the culture

and practices that promote employee well-being as well as organizational

effectiveness? (59 responses)

Most of the respondents reported the culture/practices that would promote their well be

around the work environment (25%) these were mainly on the work/life balance (15%),

two-way communication (15%), great transparency and accountability for individuals,

increased ownership of work, team-building amongst and across teams/offices and greater

inclusiveness and openness to diverse ideas.

Direction: 7 out of 59 respondents (12%) highlighted that communication and

transparency in decision-making would support well-being and effectiveness.

Communication/Cohesion: Respondents requested more frequent two-way

communication and opportunities for leaders to listen to their staff through one on

one meetings and town halls. One respondent emphasized that the Mission should

keep up good communication around weekly priorities and sharing organizational

information.

Messages from Front Office: Keep reinforcing the same messages the current Front office has been putting out. It will take time for peoples' behavior to change.

Work Environment: 14 out of 59 (24%) respondents prioritized work environment

culture/practices that would promote employees’ wellbeing.

Work/Life balance: Staff highlighted a need for better balance between workload and family (social) life. Some mentions distribution of workload and more staffing in the

Mission. Others mentioned support for fitness and other staff care opportunities.


Team building and social forums: Staff suggested more cross team activities, both

inside and outside of the office. They suggested more social opportunities with other

teams in the Mission as a way of encouraging working together.

Trust: The Mission should nurture trust and support between peer and peer and between peer and the supervisors. Accordingly, there should be transparency and

accountability in real terms and no talk without action.

Inclusiveness and diversity: Be open to different ideas, inclusive of all people and

viewpoints. Also include FSNs in social activities.

Motivation: 7 out of 59 (12%) shared some motivational priorities that would promote

their well-being in the Mission by having a more cohesive environment and a strong team

spirit. These include:

Open and cohesive environment: Have a motivational and conducive work environment

that accommodates diverse people, interests and ideas. Building strong team spirit

and culture; organization culture where teams own mistakes and appreciate

individual successes.

Agency in work: Supervisors should support a feeling of control in workload and priorities and greater support around the time of performance review. Staff should

feel in control of their workload and priorities.

Question 22: What concerns, if any, do you have about the upcoming leadership

transition? (61 responses)

While 18% of respondents stated they were not concerned about the change in leadership,

the main sentiment (26%) was over concerns around potential shift in priorities or

movement away from the CDCS strategy.

Fearful of shift in strategy: Staff expresses concerns that the CDCS strategy will be

lost and the mission will revert back to ways of doing things 3 years ago. Many

respondents highlight concerns that the new leadership will have different priorities

that will subtract from the current approach.

Communication: Respondents expressed concerns over consistent messaging, how

changes will be communicated, how information will be shared and whether the new

leader will support two-way communication.

Transition fatigue: Respondents discuss concerns over adjusting to new management styles and expectations, new priorities and having to explain their work.

Question 24: Anything else that you would like to add? (41responses)

Collaboration across teams: Suggested weekly information updates from other offices on goals and accomplishments. Also suggested that in order to make collaboration

efficient and outcome oriented, offices should map and articulate areas of

intersection

Trust: Numerous respondents took the opportunity to emphasize that they would

like to feel that they are trusted by those they work with.

Ugandan staff concerns: Sentiment that Ugandan staff concerns are shelved. Perception that training opportunities only seem available for some positions.

Some feel the mission is moving in the right direction. Respondents gave positive

feedback about their offices, supportive teams and expressed gratitude for being able

to work at the mission


Quantitative Findings The 2018 Organizational Health Survey collected responses from 54% of Mission staff. The

highest performing domain was Direction/Shared Purpose. Information sharing about

important happenings and access to on the job trainings were also ranked highly. The

lowest performing areas fell under Work Environment and Motivation with a significant

number of respondents stating that they do not feel their difference of opinion is valued and

they do not feel free to speak their minds. Additionally, the majority of respondents stated

they look for jobs elsewhere. On particularly sensitive questions we see a high opt out rate

where 9% or more selected “prefer not to answer.” These questions are typically about

leadership, supervisors, and work motivation. It is important to keep this in mind when

reviewing the responses as it is an indicator that people feel uncomfortable answering this

question and the results may not accurately reflect reality. The following section details

survey responses broken down by each Organizational Health domain.

Direction/Shared Purpose

As shown in the chart above, shared purpose is reportedly strong. Most (78%) of the

respondents stated that the Front Office tells a clear, convincing and inspirational story of

where the Mission is headed. Many respondents (78%) also believed that leaders

communicate a vision that motivates them in their respective teams/offices. Further, 98%

also reported that they understand how their work contributes to the Mission’s

goal/strategy. Most respondents (93%) reported that they understand how their work

contributes to the team’s goals.

Of the respondents who disagreed with the four statements in this domain, American staff

represent a much higher proportion, with zero Ugandans reporting disagreement with


items 3. and 4. It is possible that Ugandan staff feel less comfortable in answering such

sensitive questions regarding superiors in the negative.

Working Environment

Responses to the Organizational Health Survey 2018 reported that the Work Environment

Domain, while strong in some areas, could use work in others. As the chart above shows,

the strongest area is collaboration, while the weakest are balance of workload and

respecting differences of opinion. Most (95%) of the respondents reported that the leaders

in the Mission keep them informed about what is happening. The majority of the

respondents (87%) reported that they regularly collaborate with other staff across the

Mission. 31% of respondents reported that differences in opinion are not valued in the

Mission and another 10% chose not to answer. 66% of the respondents stated that

workload is reasonable in the Mission, while 30% found it unreasonable.

Ugandan staff disproportionately reported that they do not collaborate with staff across the

Mission or that their differences of opinion are valued compared to American staff. This

highlights a divide that is a common issue brought up in interviews, retreats, and workshops.

Similar to sensitive questions related to Mission leadership in the Direction/Shared Purpose

domain, no Ugandan staff responded negatively to item 5.


Motivation

The respondents in the Organizational Health Survey 2018 had mixed reactions to the

motivation domain. The strongest was the fact that respondents feel recognized when they do good work in the Mission. 85% of the respondents reported that they are recognized

when they do good work in the Mission. The worst statement is that a significant number of

staff considers looking for a job in other organizations. Only 44% of the respondents stated

that they rarely think of looking for a job in another organization. 38% disagreed, meaning

that they are thinking of looking for jobs elsewhere, and another 19% chose not to answer.

66% of respondents reported that the Mission motivates them in their work to go beyond

what they would do elsewhere, though 16% disagreed and 14% chose not to answer.

Further, 74% of the respondents reported that their supervisors have shown genuine

interest in their career aspirations. 21% feel that their supervisors do not.

There appears to be a significant gap between Ugandan staff and American staff related to

Motivation. Despite Americans responding negatively to items 9 – 11 in greater proportion

to Ugandan staff, Ugandan staff reportedly think about looking for jobs elsewhere more

than American staff.


Capabilities

Responses in the Capabilities Domain were strong in all areas with scores over 75% in

agreement. Most (84%) of the respondents reported that they have access to the learning

and development needed to do the job well in the Mission. Further, 75% of the respondents

reported that they have opportunities to participate in activities/trainings that advance their

professional development. 78% of the respondents reported that their performance

appraisal is a fair reflection of their performance. However, 13% disagreed, stating that they

do not think their performance appraisal is accurate, and 9% chose not to answer.

American staff reported negatively in greater proportion to Ugandan staff on the items

related to Capabilities. This suggests that Ugandan staff are more satisfied with professional

development opportunities and performance appraisal than American staff.

Learning and Innovation

On the Learning and Innovation Domain, nearly all respondents report that they have

meaningful conversations with their supervisors and that they feel encouraged to come up

with new ways of doing things (84%). However, 15% of the respondents disagreed. Further,

85% of the respondents reported that they often have meaningful conversation with the

supervisor about their work, 10% disagreed.


While American staff report that they do not have meaningful conversations with their supervisor about their work in greater proportion to Ugandan staff, Ugandan staff appear to

feel less encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.

Leadership

Respondents state that the Leadership Domain is relatively strong, but there is room to

improve. 75% of the respondents in the survey reported that they feel involved in the

decision that affects their work, 19% disagreed. 75% of the respondents also stated that

their supervisors provide them with opportunity to stretch and grow professionally, 16%

disagreed and a high number chose not to respond (9%).

More Ugandan staff disagree that they are given opportunities to stretch and grow

professionally compared to American staff, but the opposite is the case for feeling involved

in decisions that affect one’s work.