LSE 2009 Staff Survey – Presentation to Staff Briefings

15th/16th March 2010

2

Today

1. Survey Background and Methodology

2. A dip into the results by:

• The Organisation• My Job• Wellbeing• Management• Communication• Personal Development• Diversity and Dignity at Work• Summary

3. Next Steps

3Background and Methodology

• Need to maintain high staff satisfaction levels within the school – LSE Strategic Plan

• Positive People (@ University of Bristol) engaged to:

Measuring levels of staff satisfaction Deliver an institution wide (HSE compliant) stress audit Benchmark against other HE institutions Benchmark against 2006 LSE Staff Survey Provide staff feedback on a range of issues

4

• Started with pre-focus groups to help inform the questionnaire

• Questionnaire piloted with a range of different LSE staff

• Online survey was open between 16th November and 11th December 2009

• 1,037 online responses (and 1 paper based reply)

• Overall response rate was 39%, by staff groups: Academic Research – 24% Academic Teaching & Research – 41% Support Staff in Academic Units – 43% Support Staff in Divisions and Services – 44% Teachers (including GTAs and guest teachers) – 15%

• Response rate comparable with other Russell Group institutions

Background and Methodology cont…

5

The Organisation

6

The Organisation

• For the vast majority of staff LSE is a great place to work

• Almost 8 out of 10 satisfied working here (HE benchmark figure of six out of ten): 79% very or quite satisfied

• Very high levels of organisational pride and loyalty: one of the best places that people have worked; School demonstrates that it cares about its staff

7

The Organisation cont...

• Two thirds of staff feel that the LSE’s profile had been maintained or had increased in recent years (similar to 2006)

• 89% said that School demonstrated that it valued the diversity of its workforce

• Communication of corporate objectives good

• 85% confident in the way the School is run - almost double the benchmark average

8

My Job

9

My Job

• Three quarters of staff consider pay rates acceptable

• 89% happy with their terms and conditions of employment

• Both improvements on the 2006 Staff Survey

• 87% happy with their job ‘security’

• Non-academic teaching staff were least happy group ( but low response rate)

10My Job cont...

• Particular satisfaction with the overall ‘quality of working life’ and motivation to do their job well

• Good compared to benchmark on: • ‘given what I need to do my job effectively’• understanding how ‘change’ will work out in practice

• Less positive for support staff in divisions and services

11

12

13

My Job cont...

• Workload and stress a problem for a 36% of all staff (identical to HE benchmark)

• Particularly apparent amongst academic staff - 47% describe the levels of stress as ‘excessive’

• 28% of academic staff feel they are set ‘unachievable deadlines’

• 47% of academic staff reporting being ‘pressured to work long hours’ – 24% above HE benchmark

14

15

Wellbeing

16

Wellbeing• Whilst academic staff may be the most ‘stressed’ they are also

the most ‘content’ group: autonomy, motivation

• Support staff have the lowest levels of working life contentment

• Around three quarters of staff feel LSE provides adequate facilities and flexibility for them to balance their work and outside life

• 87% feel that working hours/patterns suit personal circumstances (an impressive 16% above the benchmark average)

17

Management

18

Management• Line managers are generally viewed well by most staff

• Particularly in the more ‘human’ aspects of being a manager• Respect

• Trust

• Approachability

• LSE managers perform above benchmark average in all areas

• Room for improvement in:• Performance management

• Objective setting

• Giving feedback • Link to one to ones and PDRs

19

Management – DMT/Senior managers• Good approval ratings for the Director`s Management Team in

relation to being: • in touch with the views of staff

• strategic

• communicating clear messages

• Not only higher then the benchmark averages but also improved since 2006 survey

• Percentage results between 45% and 57% - the don't know response

• Same questions asked of Heads of Division and Services - very positive responses

20

Communication

21

Communication• Corporate and departmental communication good

• 85% feel that the School is ‘open in communicating to staff’ (30% above benchmark)

• However, only 40% agreed that they were sufficiently consulted about change at work (although 37% were neutral)

• Room for improvement around inter-departmental communication processes and between departments and ‘support services’

• 86% of academic teaching and research staff think communication is good between them and support staff

• View not held by the support staff themselves with just 37% satisfied

22

23

Communication cont...

• Since 2006 there has been a decline in the percentage of staff who feel :

• Communication is good between academic and administrative/support staff

• between academic departments and central administration

• However, since 2006 there has been an increase in the percentage of staff that feel communication is good between academic departments

24

Personal Development

25

Personal Development

• Very impressive results for learning and development

• Good opportunities for training and development (much higher than the benchmark average)

• Access to training and development is fair

26

Personal Development cont...

• Room for improvement in management ‘process’ and ‘tools’

• Poor feedback in areas such as the Performance Development Review

• Just 6% of non-academic teaching staff and 28% of research staff had been offered a PDR/ACDR

• Disappointing, as when it does take place feedback is extremely good, irrespective of staff group (above benchmark)

27

Personal Development cont...

• 91% of people value the induction process

• Induction satisfaction rates have improved since 2006

• Initial induction statistics subject to further analysis

28

Diversity & Dignity at Work

29

Diversity & Dignity at Work

• Diversity, particularly in the more traditionally monitored areas, appears to be dealt with in a positive fashion at LSE

• Room for improvement around a persons ‘role’ or their contract of employment ‘type’

• Potential issue around ‘age’ for academic and research staff and ‘caring responsibilities’ for academic staff

30

31

Diversity & Dignity at Work cont..• The School scores highly on treating staff with respect

• 2% of staff reporting bullying or harassment (includes those that said Always or Often only)

• This was well below the benchmark averages of 4% for harassment and 3% for bullying

• However, when including the categories (Sometimes and Seldom), levels of harassment and bullying rise to 25% and 24% respectively

• Additional analysis points to a possibly more accurate figure of 19%

32Diversity & Dignity at Work

• Most common reason given for bullying and harassment was ‘role’, followed by ‘personality’ and ‘work performance’

• In benchmark institutions the most common reason was ‘work performance’

• For those that said they are bullied/harassed, only around half of staff know ‘what to do about it’

• Only around a quarter were satisfied with the outcome of a complaint

33

Summary

34Summary

What next?

• An action plan to be approved by DMT• A written report on the findings• A summary for all staff in the School• Unit breakdowns where there were more

than 10 responses• A presentation to the SCC next week• A report to Council in May