organizational development activity (oda) baseline report
TRANSCRIPT
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
Baseline Report Page 2 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 3 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 4 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 5 of 39
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.
Baseline Report Page 6 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 7 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 8 of 39
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%
Baseline Report Page 9 of 39
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
2017 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”
Baseline Report Page 10 of 39
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.
Baseline Report Page 11 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 12 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 13 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 14 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 15 of 39
-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
Baseline Report Page 16 of 39
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.
Baseline Report Page 17 of 39
Baseline Report Page 18 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 19 of 39
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.
Baseline Report Page 20 of 39
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?
Baseline Report Page 21 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 22 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 23 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 24 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 25 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 26 of 39
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.
Baseline Report Page 27 of 39
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%
Baseline Report Page 28 of 39
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%
2016 Pre-RetreatSurvey
2017 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”
Baseline Report Page 29 of 39
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%
Organizational Health Survey
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
Organizational Health Survey
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%
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 N/A
Organizational Health Survey
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
Organizational Health Survey
2018
The leaders in the mission keep people informed about what is
happening.
5% (Strongly Disagree 1,
Disagree 4)
95% (Agree 42, Strongly
agree 53)
0
FEVS 2017 N/A
Baseline Report Page 30 of 39
DOMAIN Survey Question % Strongly
Disagree/ % Disagree
% Agree/% Strongly
Agree
%
NA
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 N/A
Organizational Health Survey
2018
6. In the mission, differences of opinion are valued and I feel like I
can freely speak my mind.
31% (Strongly Disagree
6, Disagree 25)
59%. (Agree 36, Strongly
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%
Organizational Health Survey
2018
I regularly collaborate with staff across the mission on efforts that
contribute to the mission's goals.
9% (Strongly Disagree 0,
Disagree 9)
87%. (Agree 36, Strongly
agree 51)
4
FEVS 2017 N/A
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 There is collaboration and teamwork between teams and offices 65.6%
Organizational Health Survey
2018
My workload is reasonable. 32% (Strongly Disagree
9, Disagree 23)
66%. (Agree 40, strongly
agree 26)
2
FEVS 2017 My workload is reasonable 64%
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 N/A
Motivation Organizational Health Survey
2018
The mission motivates me to go beyond what I would in a similar
role elsewhere.
21% (Strongly Disagree
2, Disagree 19)
66%. (Agreed 47, strongly
Agree 19)
13
FEVS 2017 N/A
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 N/A
Organizational Health Survey
2018
My supervisor (or someone in management) has shown a genuine
interest in my career aspirations.
21% (Strongly Disagree
4, Disagree 17)
74%. (Agree 36, Strongly
agree 38)
5
FEVS 2017 Supervisor in my work unit supports employee development. 77%
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 N/A
Organizational Health Survey
2018
I receive appropriate recognition when I do good work. 14% (Strongly Disagree
1, Disagree 12)
85%. (Agree 54, Strongly
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%
Organizational Health Survey
2018
I rarely think about looking for a job in another organization. 38%. (Strongly disagree
10, disagree 28)
44%. (Agree 25, Strongly
Agree 19)
18%
FEVS 2017 How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in
your organization?
51%
Baseline Report Page 31 of 39
DOMAIN Survey Question % Strongly
Disagree/ % Disagree
% 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.
13% (Strongly Disagree
1, Disagree 12)
84%. (Agree 56, strongly
agree 28)
3
FEVS 2017 N/A
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 N/A
Organizational Health Survey
2018
I have the opportunity to participate in activities/trainings/etc. that
advance my professional development.
20% (Strongly Disagree
5, Disagree 15)
75%. (Agree 48, strongly
agree 27)
5
FEVS 2017 N/A
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 The Mission/My team provides me with training opportunities. 75.9%
Organizational Health Survey
2018
My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. 13% (Strongly Disagree
2, Disagree 11)
78%. (Agree 51, Strongly
agree 27)
9
FEVS 2017 My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. 80%
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 N/A
Learning &
Innovation
Organizational Health Survey
2018
I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing
things.
15% (Strongly Disagree
0, Disagree 15)
84%. (Agree 52, Strongly
Agree 32)
1
FEVS 2017 Creativity and innovation are rewarded. 68%
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 N/A
Organizational Health Survey
2018
I often have meaningful conversations with my supervisor about
my work.
10% (Strongly Disagree
1, Disagree 9)
86%. (Agree 40, Strongly
agree 46)
4
FEVS 2017 My supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to
improve my job performance.
80%
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 N/A
Leadership Organizational Health Survey
2018
I feel involved in decisions that affect my work (that are within the
control of the mission).
20% (Strongly Disagree
3, Disagree 17)
75%. (Agree 54, Strongly
Agree 21)
5
FEVS 2017 N/A
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 Within my team, my views are taken seriously 72.3%
Organizational Health Survey
2018
My supervisor provides me with opportunities to stretch and grow
professionally.
16% (Strongly Disagree
2, Disagree 14)
75%. (Agree 33, Strongly
42)
9
FEVS 2017 N/A
Full Pre-Retreat Survey 2017 My team provides me with development opportunities to stretch
and grow.
74.5%.
Baseline Report Page 32 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 33 of 39
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.
Baseline Report Page 34 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 35 of 39
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
Baseline Report Page 36 of 39
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.
Baseline Report Page 37 of 39
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.
Baseline Report Page 38 of 39
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.
Baseline Report Page 39 of 39
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.