1

First Year of Strategic Plan 2012-

17:Employee

Feedback Survey

Dr. John A. GedeonUniversity Office of Planning & Development

June 2015

2

Using Blackboard Collaborate

Use the following tips to make your experience more engaging:

To ask a question: Please note the slide number and title and make a note of your question for the Q&A session at the end. Click on the hand icon in left-hand column to be called on. When recognized by the moderator click the “talk” button.

To send a text message (Chat): If your microphone is not working or you do not want to interrupt someone else who is speaking, type a message in the chat box in the left-hand column then hit “enter”

In case of Internet failure: the software should detect it and automatically try to restart, in some cases you will need to start over by clicking on the invitation link and log in again

3

Presentation Objectives

1. Review the objectives, design, methodology and administration of the survey

2. Present demographics of the sample3. Examine the level of awareness and involvement with the strategic

plan and operational plan4. Analyse progress and implementation problems5. Lay out implications and recommendations

Note: Not all survey items will be covered because of the time restraint

4

Survey Overview• GOAL: Survey staff across the University to determine awareness,

involvement, and judgments about both the process, contents, progress, and problems of Strategic Plan 2012-17

• PERIOD: November – December 2013

• SURVEY: A 27-question survey utilizing Survey Monkey

• SAMPLE: All staff with e-mail accounts (6,301) of which 5,993 were sent invitations producing 991 respondents on all campuses and the Centre producing a 16.5% response rate

5

Survey Structure

• Section A – Involvement in Preparation and Understanding of the Strategic Plan • Section B – Knowledge of Strategic Plan Contents• Section C – Involvement in Implementation of the Operational Plan• Section D – Success and Achievements of the Strategic Plan • Section E – Challenges with Implementation• Section F – Suggestions for Improvements in Implementation

6

Demographics (Q1-6)

The dominant groups responding to the survey were:

• SEX: female (68%)• LEVEL: ATS staff (50%)• CAMPUS: St. Augustine staff (45%) • DURATION: those employed more than ten years (45%) • AGE: age group 36-45 (29%)• LOCATION: born regionally (94%)

7

Awareness (Q 7, 10, & 16)

Most (93%) were aware of the existence of the Strategic Plan but only 52% were aware of the Operational Plan (Q7 & Q16)

8

Involvement in Development of Strategic Plan (Q8)

Town Hall Meeting I made suggestions member of a strategic planning team

Did not think it would really matter No one asked my opinion0

50

100

150

200

250

Q8 - Level of Planning Involvement

Total

The disengaged responses were the single largest categories at 43%, when ATS staff were isolated this went to 50%.

9

Supervisor Involvement (Q11)

Read the Plan Explain relevant sections Supports activities Not mentioned it0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Q11 - My Supervisor's Involvement

Only 40% of supervisors encouraged their direct reports to read the Strategic Plan, while 34% of all supervisors never mentioned it at all in their routine communications with staff.

10

Involvement (Q18-19)• For involvement in the creating the Operational Plan the largest group (49%) had no input. Once the Plan was created, 38% had no involvement and 30% did related tasks but were not on any team.

Of those who were on a team, 17.8% said they were on one team, while 13.2% were on multiple teams, and 12.5% were team leaders.

11

Knowledge of Content (Q14 & Q15)

• Item Q14 was about the major components in the Strategic Plan and had seven correct responses and six distractors. For all but one, the correct responses that rate was above 50% but none of the incorrect responses were over 50%• Q15, where they were asked to identify the six Perspectives (with 13

distractors presented), again the all of the correct responses had rates of 55% or more, while incorrect responses did not score over 30.6%

12

Impact (Q22)

At the unit level, 56% of those who responded said it was too early to tell if their projects were making an impact.

On the organisational level, culture still is our most protracted issue (53% no change) and systems (44% no change)

13

What (really) Drives Improvement? (Q22)• Strategic Plan - 28.8%

• Reacting to external forces (government, competitors, funders, etc.) - 22.4%

• Head is very progressive - 37.9%

• Staff, themselves - 10.9%

14

Problems with Initiatives (Q23)• Lack of financial resources (55.9%)• Inadequate physical resources (equipment, materials, facilities, etc.)

(42.2%)• Not enough time to devote to the project (39.6%)• Inadequate upper management leadership or support (23.5%)• Poor cooperation from other departments (19.4%)• Required information is difficult to find or not available (16.6%)• Lack of technical skills on the team (16.6%)• Teammates were unreliable at times (15.2%)• Poor project planning (7.2%)

15

More Involvement? (Q24 & Q25)

• While most said they would get more involved in the next round (66%), those who did not stated that they:

• Did not feel that their efforts would be appreciated (58.5%)• Would need to work in a unit where their opinion is respected (32.0%)• Need their normal workload temporarily reduced or rearranged to

free up time (30.0%)• Would like a Head who really cares about improving the department

(29.0%)• Would like some type of incentive (28.5%)

16

Problems with the Strategic Planning Approach (Q26)

• Lack of Engagement and Poor Communication (89)• Planning and Execution Structure and Approach (39)• Leadership (34)• Problems with Monitoring, Follow-up, and Progress (29)• Content of the Plans (24)• Inadequate Resources (17)• Culture & Bureaucracy (13)

17

Plan Contents – What is Missing? (Q26)• ATS staff do not perceive changes as helping them directly especially

in their working conditions so they can be more productive• ICT is also seen as not given enough prominence and yet they are

involved in almost every university task• HR, there are strategic objectives for them, yet the everyday level of

service from HR has not been seen to change significantly• Administrative staff view changes as biased in favor of academic

concerns• Open Campus still does not feel like an integrated part of UWI even

with the two strategic objectives

18

Problems in General at UWI (Q 27)

• Engagement (34)• Content of Plans or Systems (23)• Approach to Problems (20)• HR Issues (19)• Leadership (14)• Bureaucracy (5)

19

Recommendations – Strategic Objectives1. Misinterpretation about what the strategic objectives mean (Reengineering), an

elaboration document would assist2. Overlaps in strategic objectives (technology, international students), the 74 objectives

could be merged in a list not exceed 20 3. Some “Strategic objectives” are actually super-initiatives. For example, “D3-Improve the

alumni database for more effective alignment and communications” 4. The cause-effect/influential relationships between objectives are not clear, as no official

strategy map has been approved5. Strategic Objectives should be are SMART, which means they need deadlines6. It must be determined if all strategic objectives are being addressed 7. A review needs to be done to ensure that the initiatives identified are both necessary and

sufficient to achieve the strategic objectives8. The new initiatives identified in the August Retreat 2014 need to be integrated

20

Recommendations - Execution

1. A University-level group overseeing and coordinating the execution the Operational Plan (not the EMT) is needed for integration to include at least Perspective Leaders

2. The implementation process in the Strategic Plan (pp. 39-41) has not been fully implemented nor deviation from it formally approved

3. External consultants could enhance our strategic process4. There is a fundamental need for leadership (as opposed to management) training

where one leads by example, inspires trust, and can create an engagement culture5. There are many complaints from staff about senior management abusing their

power and there must be consequences for bad behaviour to minimize it6. UWI must rethink automatically putting academics in management positions,

especially without management training, more professional managers are needed in the system

21

Recommendations – Critical Components1. Elaboration of the vision statement toward a common University model2. University-level KPI’s yet to be approved 3. Incentives are still not agreed to or in place and disincentives also need to be

removed from the system4. Lower level staff need to be more engaged by their HODs 5. Alignment of the budgeting system for strategic and recurrent perspectives6. Deans must support and hold HOD’s accountable 7. Regular feedback to decision makers 8. Training in project management and problem solving techniques 9. Training in Operational Planning for staff who were not trained, new staff, and as

a refresher

Improving the Garden

Space Station Planning Concept

24