the pebp culture survey results · the pebp culture survey results introduction at its april...
TRANSCRIPT
The PEBP Culture Survey Results Introduction At its April meeting, the PEBP Board approved a survey of all PEBP Staff created by Dr. Jacque Ewing-
Taylor, Research Professor at UNR and Vice Chair of the Board, and authorized her to conduct the
survey, using her corporate SurveyMonkey account.
On May 11, Dr. Ewing-Taylor met with PEBP employees to discuss the survey, the methodology, and
answer any questions that staff might have about the survey process. In order to not affect the work of
the agency, there were five sessions, scheduled for 30-minutes each, held in the PEBP conference room.
The first session was with senior staff. The other four were with various members of the classified staff,
as their schedules would allow. Each group was assured of the anonymity of the responses and
encouraged to respond to the survey from a non-PEBP computer. This was done out of an abundance of
caution and because it had been reported that employees were distrustful of the attempt to gather this
information. Employees were further assured that any and all identifying information contained in the
textual responses would be removed and all responses would be reported only in the aggregate. Thus,
this report does not contain the verbatim responses to the text response options or open-ended items.
Every effort has been made to ensure absolute anonymity of the respondents, so as to ensure honest
and open feedback. However, because the survey was constructed without the ability to track IP
addresses or any other identifying information, there appears to have been some inappropriate activity.
Because there was no ability to track participation in any way, it may be that some employees took the
survey more than once, since a rumor to this effect was reported to Dr. Ewing-Taylor. There were 30
responses to the survey. PEBP has 32 positions and two are currently vacant. The executive officer did
not participate, and he reported that one member of his senior staff did not participate, leaving 28
possible respondents. It therefore appears that there were duplicate responses, but there is no way to
know for certain, as those who were asked whether they participated could have responded “no” when
in fact they had participated. A side-by-side comparison of the raw scores revealed no obvious
duplicates, and the aggregated results are not skewed in any one direction. Nonetheless, this is a
limitation of the survey and interpretation of the data must take this possible unethical conduct into
account.
The survey was divided into two sections. The first section addressed the working environment at PEBP
and the second section addressed elements of the job performance of the executive officer. The first
section of the survey was comprised of 16 items: 15 multiple choice items, 12 of which allowed the
respondent to elaborate on her/his response, and one open-ended item. The second section was
comprised of eight Likert-style items, where the choices were Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree
nor Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree and Not Applicable (N/A). The full survey is reproduced in Appendix
A. Due to privacy concerns expressed, all of the open ended responses have been stricken and not
reported.
Section One: The PEBP Work Environment This section of the survey asked questions about the general working environment at PEBP. Items were
developed through a review of surveys used routinely by the Society of Human Resource Management
(SHRM) and were reviewed by a senior human resource professional not affiliated with state
government. Thirty PEBP employees responded to the items in this section.
There were 15 items in the first section. The first seven items used a response scale of Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Neutral/Neither Agree Nor Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree. Item #1 asked respondents to
rate the statement “PEBP employees treat each other with respect.” Figure 1 shows the distribution of
responses (N=30; µ=3.37; Mo=4). While 17 employees agree or strongly agree that employees treat
each other respectfully, it bears noting that 10 do not.
Figure 1: Section One, Item One
Item two stated “PEBP senior staff and employees trust each other” and offered respondents the
opportunity to elaborate on their responses. Figure 2 contains the results (N=30; µ=3.10; Mo=2). The
responses were evenly distributed on either side of the “Neutral” option, with 13 responding Disagree
or Strongly Disagree, and 13 responding Agree or Strongly Agree. Thirteen employees offered comments
on this item. The open-ended responses are not reported due to expressed concerns over anonymity.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1) PEBP employees treat each other with respect.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Figure 2: Section One, Item Two
Item #3 asked about coworker relationships. Twenty-two respondents agree or strongly agree that they
have a good working relationship with their coworkers (N=30; µ=4.03; Mo=5). This item also had a text
box where respondents could elaborate or explain their answers. There were eight comments on this
item. The open-ended responses are not reported due to expressed concerns over anonymity.
Figure 3: Section One, Item Three
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2) PEBP senior staff and employees trust each other.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
3) My coworkers and I have a good working relationship.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
The fourth item in Section One asked about supervisory relationships. Results, shown in Figure 4,
indicate that most employees feel they have a good relationship with their supervisor (N=30; µ=4.03;
Mo=5). The mean and mode are identical to those in Item #3 and a side-by-side comparison of the raw
scores revealed very few differences. Thus, it seems that employees who are satisfied with their
coworker relationships also are satisfied with their supervisory relationships. The open-ended responses
are not reported due to expressed concerns over anonymity.
Figure 4: Section One, Item Four
Item #5 referenced PEBP management and asked about management’s recognition of good job
performance (N=30; µ=3.40; Mo=4). Seventeen respondents, 57%, replied Agree or Strongly Agree in
response to the statement “PEBP management recognizes strong job performance.” The remaining 13,
43%, felt otherwise. Figure 5 shows the responses to this item.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
4) My supervisor and I have a good working relationship.
Strongly Disagree
DIsagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Figure 5: Section One, Item Five
Item #6 asked about work autonomy. Figure 6 contains the results and Error! Reference source not
found. contains the comments on this item. Nineteen respondents, 63%, agreed or strongly agreed with
the statement “I am able to make decisions affecting my work.” (N=30; µ=3.63; Mo=4), indicating a
majority of staff feel empowered in their jobs and have some control over their work, usually a strong
indicator of job satisfaction.
Figure 6: Section One, Item Six
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
5) PEBP management recognizes strong job performance.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
6) I am able to make decisions affecting my work.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Responses to Item #7 can be found in Figure 7. Half the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement that communication is good between senior staff and employees, while the other half were
neutral (23%) or disagreed at some level (27%) (N=30; µ=3.37; Mo=4).
Figure 7: Section One, Item Seven
When asked how comfortable they feel voicing concerns to their supervisor, employees were more
positive than in their responses to other items. Responses to Item #8, reported in Figure 8, show that 21
of 30 respondents feel very or extremely comfortable voicing their concerns to their supervisor (N=30;
µ=3.80; Mo=5).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
7) Communication between senior staff and employees is good at PEBP.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Figure 8: Section One, Item Eight
Figure 9 contains the results of Item #9 which asked about communication from supervisors when goals
change (N=30; µ=3.67; Mo=5). Twenty-four of 30 respondents (80%), said they were informed of
changes over half the time. There was no opportunity to elaborate on this item.
Figure 9: Section One, Item Nine
Similar to responses to the previous item, 24 of 30 respondents (80%) indicated that their supervisor
handles employee problems moderately to extremely effectively (N=30; µ=3.57; Mo=4). This item
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
8) How comfortable do you feel voicing your concerns to your supervisor?
Not At All Comfortable
Not So Comfortable
Somewhat Comfortable
Very Comfortable
Extremely Comfortable
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9) When decisions or goals change, how often does your supervisor explain to you why this has
happened?
Always
Most of the Time
About Half the Time
Once in a While
Never
allowed respondents to elaborate on their answer but the responses are not reported due to expressed
concerns over anonymity.
Figure 10: Section One, Item Ten
Responses to Item #11 were similar in distribution to those in items nine and ten where 80% of the
responses fell into the top three categories. On this item, 28 respondents (93%) indicated that their
supervisor is somewhat to extremely committed to making PEBP a more comfortable place to work
(N=30; µ=3.97; Mo=5).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10) How well does your supervisor handle employee problems?
Not At All Effectively
Slightly Effectively
Moderately Effectively
Very Effectively
Extremely Effectively
Figure 11: Section One, Item Eleven
The work PEBP employees do impacts directly the lives of the State’s employees. Item #12 asked if
employees feel whether that impact is positive. Only five people disagree or strongly disagree that the
impact is positive, as shown in Figure 12 (N=30; µ=3.57; Mo=3). There was no comment box available for
further comment on this item.
Figure 12: Section One, Item Twelve
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
11) How committed is your supervisor to making PEBP a more comfortable place to work?
Not At All Committed
Not So Committed
Somewhat Committed
Very Committed
Extremely Committed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12) PEBP's work positively impacts people's lives.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Item #13 asked how secure in their jobs PEBP employees feel. The responses, shown in Figure 14, would
indicate that most employees feel secure, though seven do not (N=30; µ=3.53; Mo=4).
Figure 13: Section One, Item Thirteen
Item #14, Figure 15, asked whether the PEBP work environment is safe. Twenty-nine of 30 responded
neutral to strongly agree (N=30; µ=4.00; Mo=4).
Figure 14: Section One, Item Fourteen
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
13) I am satisfied with my overall job security.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
14) PEBP has a safe work environment.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response distribution to Item #15 was perhaps the most even of all the items in Section One, though
slightly skewed towards the positive (N=30; µ=3.23; Mo=5). Fourteen respondents (47%) agree or
strongly agree that they are satisfied with the culture at PEBP, whereas ten (33%) disagree to strongly
disagree, and six (20%) are neutral. Figure 15 shows the results.
Figure 15: Section One, Item Fifteen
The final item in Section One, Item 16, asked what senior staff needs to do to improve their overall
effectiveness. There were 30 responses to this question, however, the responses are not reported due
to expressed concerns over anonymity.
Section Two: The Executive Officer This section employed a Likert-type scale with eight statements about the job performance of the
executive officer. The response options were Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree Nor Disagree,
Agree, Strongly Agree or Not Applicable (N/A). The option to respond N/A was added for those who may
not have direct interaction with the executive officer to respond, rather than force a response that
doesn’t fit the individual’s situation. The items were based on issues that had been previously identified
by the PEBP Board and were developed and reviewed jointly by Dr. Ewing-Taylor and Board Chair Leo
Drozdoff. There were no comment boxes available on the items in this section. There were 29 responses
to these items, one fewer than in Section One.
The distribution of responses to Item #1 in this section is bi-modal, as can be seen in Figure 16 (N=29;
µ=3.14; Mo=2,5). An equal number of people agree as disagree that the executive officer uses staff as a
resource to make decisions that are consistent with PEBP’s mission.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
15) I am satisfied with the culture of PEBP.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Figure 16: Section Two, Item One
The second item in this section had to do with meaningful feedback from the executive officer to staff.
Again, the range of responses is bi-modal, though slightly skewed towards the positive end of the scale,
as illustrated in Figure 17 (N=29; µ=2.97; Mo=2,5).
Figure 17: Section Two, Item Two
Responses to Item #3, shown in Figure 18, reveal that 19 staff members agree or strongly agree that the
executive officer makes them feel a meaningful part of the team (N=29; µ=3.69; Mo=5).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
The Executive Officer uses staff as a resource to make decisions that are consistent with the agency mission.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The Executive Officer provides meaningful feedback on my work product and gives adequate direction when appropriate.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
N/A
Figure 18: Section Two, Item Three
A bi-modal distribution can again be seen in Figure 19, where the responses indicate a split in feeling
about preferential relationships the executive officer might have with certain members of the staff
(N=29; µ=2.97; Mo=1,5).
Figure 19: Section Two, Item Four
Eighteen staff feel that the executive officer has made a positive impact on their work environment,
whereas ten were neutral, strongly disagreed or disagreed (N=29; µ=3.79; Mo=5) (Figure 20).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
The Executive Officer makes me feel like PEBP is team oriented and I am a meaningful part of the team.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
N/A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The Executive Officer has preferential relationships with certain members of the staff that make everyday communication difficult.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
N/A
Figure 20: Section Two, Item Five
Results for the sixth item in this section were largely the same as those in the previous item (N=29;
µ=3.69; Mo=5). Figure 21 shows that 17 employees strongly agree or agree that the executive officer
listens to them, 11 are either neutral, disagree or strongly disagree.
Figure 21: Section Two, Item Six
Item #7 asked if staff receive good communication from the executive officer regarding decisions and
future direction. The results are shown in Figure 22 and are similar to the previous two items, though
there is a higher number of neutral responses (N=29; µ=3.90; Mo=5).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
The Executive Officer has made a positive impact on my work environment.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
N/A
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
The Executive Officer actually listens to me.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
N/A
Figure 22: Section Two, Item Seven
The final item on the survey asked about the executive officer’s working relationship with the Board.
The results shown in Figure 23 indicate that 17 (59%) responding members of the PEBP staff disagree to
strongly disagree with the statement The executive officer has a good working relationship with the
Board (N=29; µ=2.03; Mo=2).
Figure 23: Section Two, Item Eight
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
The Executive Officer provides good communication to agency staff regarding decisions and directions for the future.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
N/A
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
The Executive Officer has a good working relationship with the Board.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
N/A