UCL – Have your say

HR User Group October 2009

Background and methodology

Survey ran from the 9 – 27 March

This was the second UCL employee engagement survey run, first was in 2005.

Questionnaire designed through a combination of existing questions, ORC benchmark questions and steering group guidance

On-line methodology used with paper contingency for staff without access to a PC

Staff summary, full narrative and benchmarking reports provided – on website

Key strengths

There is a great deal of pride in working for UCL, staff consider that UCL is a good place to work and most are satisfied in the job that they do The majority of respondents felt that they are kept well informed about is going on within UCL The opportunities for training and skills development are good Many staff feel valued and recognised for the work they do and are happy to go the extra mile at work when required Many staff felt there was flexibility in how and when they do their work

Areas for improvement

The perceived fairness of the grading review and promotion processes The quality of the working environment in some areas Clarity and awareness of goals and objectives and the ability to manage workloads The degree to which appraisals enhance performance and lead to the development of skills Consistency in managing poor performance

Positive comparisons to the Perspectives benchmark

Least positive comparisons to the Perspectives benchmark

Employee engagement index

Engagement Index Score: 76%

SAY

STAY

STRIVE

Open comments

2010 comments were received to the free text question (If you were Dean/Head of Corporate Support Service, Faculty Manager for the day, what would you improve?)

Theme Number % of comments

Communication 428 21%

Work environment/facilities/equipment 273 14%

Management 215 11%

Training/career development 145 7%

Teamwork/teambuilding 121 6%

Resources/staffing 111 6%

Equality/fairness 85 4%

Policies/procedures 82 4%

IT/System 73 4%

Morale/recognition/being valued 71 4%

Nothing/don’t know 65 3%

Pay/benefits 64 3%

Transparency/openness 64 3%

Workload 60 3%

CommunicationThe full results of the survey have been presented to:

Provost's Senior Management Team. Staff Survey Working Group (which includes trade union representatives) Stress Resilience and Wellbeing working group (STRaW), LGBT issues group HR users group.

Deans and Heads of Corporate Support Services tasked to have local meetings to discuss Faculty or Divisional results and agree priority areas for local action by end Oct.

Information from the survey is being used to inform development of the updated Race Equality Plan, Disability Equality Plan and Gender Equality Plan

Next steps – Action Plan

Initiative Desired outcome

1 Review the academic promotion and job evaluation/grading process in light of the results of the staff survey

Improve the transparency and usability of the processes and communication regarding the equity of outcomes.

2 Organisational structures to be reviewed to optimise support in managing workloads

UCL to have organisational structures in place which remove duplication of effortremove single points of failureensure effective management of workloads and performance provide cover for leave etc.

3 Greater consultation on and communication of prioritisation of infrastructural improvements and improved working conditions within available resources

Greater understanding amongst staff of the logic underpinning priorities for improvement of the estate and improvements as they are completed

Next steps – Action Plan

Initiative Desired outcome

4 Leadership training for UCL’s senior academic and administrative managers to include improving communications and effective management of change

Improved leadership skills and a more visible cohort of senior managers leading and explaining change effectively

5 Refresher training for managers at all levels on managing and maximising performance

A perceived improvement amongst staff of the management of (under) performance

6 A review of the quality of objective setting within appraisal and improved support to staff and managers in setting stretching objectives

Enhanced motivation and understanding of the links between individual and organisational performance. Enhanced faculty/divisional and institutional performance