Melbourne Storm Survey Report.DOC

MELBOURNE SURVEY PROGRAM 2000

Preliminary Report

Overview

This research has been devised in two (2) parts as preparation for Melbourne Storm’s Information Programme’ which will continue throughout 2001.

Firstly, each individual employee was asked to complete a ‘survey’ which broadly touched on all aspects of their ability to perform tasks in an operational sense and also to gauge how they felt individually about their roles. In all thirteen (13) specific areas of the individual’s function have been measured and are briefly referenced in this report.

Secondly, ‘sectional’ discussions were conducted to measure the ability of the group in a functional sense. For the purpose of this research, ‘Team Meetings’ were isolated as a way to measure the dynamics of the group of which the results will be detailed in a second report to be addressed in our workshops in the New Year.

Further, my interpretations have been presented based only on the findings from the survey material. It is not my intention to draw conclusions but merely present the material as a base for our workshops. This material is geared toward stimulating discussion and awareness to the review process of all components of our performance, which will be the main focus of the workshop format..

Confidentiality

The comments provided in establishing the detail of this report have been provided confidentially and shall not be replicated or produced in any singular report. Specific detail shall remain anonymous unless otherwise stipulated by the interviewee. The material reported as a ‘collective’ has been done so with the authorization of the provider.

AUTHOR – STEVE ANDERSON ©


MELBOURNE STORM COMPANY INFORMATION PROGRAMME

Survey Findings - (Part A - Employee Questionnaire)

Introduction:

The detail contained in this report is the result of research material provided by the Melbourne Storm staff in areas specifically relating to their roles and procedures within the context of their jobs and related issues. Individual findings were then contrasted with research findings from the various sections to conceptualize and draw contrasts.

Purpose:

It is the intention of this material to form a pathway to updating staff in specific areas of company related issues. The priority is to improve the individuals understanding of the company’s planning and direction with an overall view to continuous improvement.

Scope:

The research environment was the Melbourne Storm Rugby League Football Club. Some twenty- (20) staff was surveyed as individuals and as a member of a specific work section. Six (6) sections have been referenced by function for the purpose of this research namely: Operations, Administration, Marketing, Media, Football Operations and Support.

Format:

The ‘Employee Questionnaire’ was designed in three (3) specific sections measuring: -

1. Individual’s feeling about his/her role2. How he/she interprets their worth and3. General knowledge of the ‘company

In Section One (1), three (3) questions were asked about their role within the company with a sliding numerical scale used as a measure of their responses. That is, 1 – 5 with ‘5’ being regarded as ‘very satisfactory’ and ‘1’ as ‘very unsatisfactory’ (Ref. App. 1).



Section Two (2), was designed to measure their ‘value’ within the confines of their work and in the context of a ‘team’. Three (3) direct questions with a yes or no answer format were used to record their responses. (Ref. App. 2).

The final section contained references to a broad range of areas of the company to measure their knowledge across an array of functions. Seven (7) areas were outlined where a ‘tick a box’ format from three categories namely, ‘Working knowledge’, ‘Adequate’ and ‘little or none’ were provided. (Ref. App. 3).

As a final area to the questionnaire, each employee was able to provide their thoughts about improvements and such. This has not been included in this report but will be discussed at some stage of the program.

Interpretations:

Each interpretation is based purely on the findings from the research. All referenced findings can be located in appendix 1, 2 and 3 at the close of the report.

Although some references to recommendations have been made throughout the interpretations, it shall be the task of the staff throughout the ‘workshops’ to compile conclusions defining areas for discussion or review. The areas identified are based purely on the responses from the staff while assessments provided from my analogies are to be used for workshop discussion and referencing only.

COMPONENT INTERPRETATIONS:

Job Satisfaction

Predominately staffs are comfortable within their individual roles but the indicators show some 40% of staff falls in the range of ‘average satisfaction’ to ‘unsatisfy’ category. This is a concern in terms of motivation and commitment to tasks.

Staff Support

Relationships can be drawn from these broad based interpretations were job satisfaction results can be directly related to ‘Staff support’ results. That is, 45% of staff has indicated a need for more support in conducting their duties, which obviously affects how staff performs and feel generally about their jobs.

ClarityAUTHOR – STEVE ANDERSON ©


This result conflicts slightly with other results where 65% of staff demonstrates clarity in their roles. At the other end of the scale 35% are unsure in many aspects of their jobs?

Part of Group

As a company teamwork is imperative for productive outcomes in individual tasks. Although the result in this section shows the majority of staff (65%) feel apart of the company we must not ignore the 35% who do not, and look to source their reasoning.

Communication

One of the most important and beneficial concepts in any form of industry! Our results are poor in real terms where 49% answered negatively to the question of clarity in communication processes. It would be in the company’s best interests to identify the specific breakdowns to elevate further consequence of poor internal communications between sections, staff and the various managerial components of the company.

Mission Statement

An improved induction program would elevate the fact that some 55% percent of staff did not know our ‘mission’ statement.

Administration

Across all sections our administration processes were well understood with 80% of staff having a ‘sound’ working knowledge of ‘in-house’ procedures.

Operational Targets

This area unfortunately represents a fairly typical result in terms of communicating where we are heading, what we should know and work toward. Fifty percent (50%) of staff were recorded as having ‘little or no knowledge’ of operational targets.

Football Operations

Although only slightly better, communication processes between sections need to be improved to teach the 35% who fall in the ‘little or no knowledge’ category.

Sponsors



An alarming statistic when considering 50% of staff displayed not only a minimal knowledge of our sponsors commitments and expectations, but also there were cases were staff could not name our major sponsors.

Social Club

Once again generally our knowledge of what the ‘Social club’ is and what they do is limited. Results registered 55% of responses in the’ adequate knowledge’ category.

Marketing Targets

The worst result of all survey material. Sixty percent (60%) of staff knew very little about our company marketing targets.

Company Goals

As distinct from ‘Operational Targets’ or ‘Marketing Targets’, which are basically the processes within the overall company goals, staff recorded one of the better results in terms of knowledge across all sections. Sixty Five percent (65%) have more than an adequate understanding of our company targets. Our aim should be to educate the 35% who responded in the ‘little or none’ category.



Melbourne Storm Information Program

Appendix 2

Section Two YES NO

4. (Part of Group) 13/20 (65%) 7/20 (35%)

5. (Communication) 11/20 (55%) 9/20 (45%)

6. (Mission) 9/20 (45%) 11/20 (55%)


MELBOURNE STORM SURVEY 2000


Appendix 1

Section One(VS) 5 4 3 2 1 (VUS)

1. (‘Feel’)

3/20(15%) 9/20(45%) 7/20 (35%) 1/20 (5%) 0/20 (0%)

2. (Supported)

3/20(15%) 8/20(40%) 5/20 (25%) 4/20 (20%) 0/20 (0%)

3. (Clarity)

6/20(30%) 7/20(35%) 1/20 (5%) 6/20(30%) 0/20 (0%)




Appendix 3

Section ThreeWorking Knowledge Adequate Knowledge Little or none

Administration 5/20 (25%) 11/20 (55%) 4/20 (20%)

Operational Targets1/20 (5%) 8/20 (40%) 10/20 (50%)

Football Operations8/20 (40%) 4/20 (20%) 7/20 (35%)

Sponsors4/20 (20%) 6/20 (30%) 6/20 (50%)

Social Club4/20 (20%) 7/20 (35%) 9/20 (45%)

Marketing Targets3/20 (15%) 5/20 (25%) 12/20 (60%)

Company Goals4/20 (20%) 9/20 (45%) 7/20 (35%)



PART B - ‘Section Survey’ Results

OVERVIEW

The second part of the ‘Information Program’ involved a research approach targeting the dynamics of the interaction processes of specific workplace environments. To enable this team meetings were used as the ‘measure’ while various components of the meetings were used as ‘tools’ for the ‘measured’ contrasts and such.

Each section were provided situations within the context of their company function and were required both as individuals within the group, and as a collective to measure team effectiveness. Additionally, staff was able to provide comments on ‘relationships and improvements’ outside the confines of the supplied measures. The formatting of the questionnaires enabled the staff responses to be debated between the various roles and functions within the section. It was the intention of this research approach to measure and identify areas of our team practices, which could be highlighted as area for review. It is not the intention of the research material to nominate corrective action but to provide our ‘workshops’ with detail, which can be utilized in discussing improvements to approach, purpose and technique in team, oriented practices.

Confidentiality

Material provided by the participants was offered in a manner, which assured anonymity and confidentiality to the staff and their comments. Each individual’s comments are to be discussed in this manner while ‘collective’ data has been provided with the participant’s approval. All other materials shall not be disclosed unless authorized by the provider.

Introduction

Material contained in this overview is the summation of detail compiled by ‘Sectional Surveys’, which isolated the functional components of team meetings in a manner which was geared toward staff and team improvement.

Purpose

Sectional survey findings from questionnaires and discussions will be combined with the 'Employee Surveys’ [Part A] providing context and contrasts for the program. Sectional survey findings have provided data, which has isolated team function and performance in a manner, which highlights aspects of our operation in a measured format.



Scope

Although the material is of a specific nature in terms of employee and sectional function, the findings in most cases are not contextualized, offering only broad based detail which must be considered in assessing the research as a ‘collective’. In all twenty (20) employees participated across six (6) sections of the company. Results shown in the appendices are based on seventeen (17) staff members and five (5) sections. Operational staff and sectional comments have not been measured or included in this report. The seventeen-(17) participants in the research are spread through sections namely: - Support; Finance; Marketing; Football and Media.

Format

‘Section Surveys’ were conducted where criteria were set to measure particular areas of function. Team meetings by section were isolated, providing data for the purpose of this report. The survey was broken into three (3) sections and administered in two (2) parts. These sections were devised with the intention to measure: -

a) Team Effectivenessb) Individual Function and relationships within

Each member was provided relevant detail on each area prior to filling in the questionnaire without consultation with other members. The purpose of individually rating each component was to establish a ‘consistency level’ of judgments by its members that was independent and without group bias. Group discussions followed where individual responses were contrasted and evaluated to highlight inconsistencies between individual interpretation of group function and their role.

The primary focus of the survey and discussions centered around the ‘component ratings’ which isolated six (6) areas of the meeting process which are briefly detailed in this overview[refer section following] and listed below:-

Goals Relationships Procedures Roles Boundaries Assessment

To conclude the ‘sectional survey’ each member of each work section were asked to provide feedback on areas were specific ‘relationships’ could be improved.



Interpretations

Results obtained from the survey responses are based purely on staff responses. References or recommendations offer only observational interpretations which in most cases are not contextualized. It is the intention of these interpretations to highlight work practices and their dynamics in the context of individual interpretation contrasting the section and its function. Detail provided in this report references statistical based findings and can be sourced in various details throughout. These areas include:-

Individual ‘Ranges’ of response Area ratings and individual relationships Percentage conversions on ranges ‘Team effectiveness’ and staff ratings

Comments provided in this ‘overview’ are purely devised to encourage debate forming the basis for out company ‘workshops’ in 2001. Highlighted ‘scores’ show predominate scoring areas of each component rating which should further clarify deficient areas in our operation.

Component Interpretations

[Score key – number of staff out of 17 surveyed followed by the rating out of ten (10) e.g.: 4 @ 5 means: 4 staff rated component 5 out of 10.]

Effectiveness Rating:

Each participant ‘rated’ their section based purely on their own interpretation of effectiveness and purpose without any group interaction. A rating of 1 – 10 (10 Highest) was recorded and then discussed collectively as a group to arrive at a justification of opinion and reasoning.

Responses displayed a range of 5 – 9 across all participants with 4 staff at the lower limit of range. To have such a range between individual scores and across sections suggests a need for more scrutiny of roles within sectional function and the company’s ideals. [Scores: 4 @ 5; 2 @ 6; 7 @ 7; 2 @ 8; 2 @ 9.]

Goals

Participants were asked to rate whether goals within their sections and specifically team discussions were known or referenced within the meeting structure. Once again concern should be aimed at the variance between lower and upper scores. A ‘spread’ of scores (4 – 10) suggests a lack of clarity to individual roles within the ‘team’ and as an individual within the ‘collective’ of the company.



[Scores: 1 @ 4; 2 @ 5; 4 @ 6; 3 @ 7; 4 @ 8; 1 @ 9; 1 @ 10.]

Procedures

Within the confines of the ‘team meeting’, participants were asked to rate the consistency of expectations and ‘norms’ between scheduled meetings. (I.e.: Do ‘common expectations and procedures exist and are they evident in the meeting place?] A range of scores between 4 and 9 were recorded which again reflects an inconsistent understanding between individuals with regard to their purpose, group function or the team meeting format. [Score: 1 @ 4; 3 @ 5; 4 @ 6; 5 @ 7; 3 @ 8; 1 @ 9.]

Roles

Participants were asked to consider this statement - “Each team member is there for a reason and has a specific part to play which is understood by all members”. In addition, each individual was asked whether he could confidently assume another person’s role within the confines of the meeting place. Ratings amongst the responses ranged from 60% to 100% with 8 staff members answering 70% confident of performing another member’s role.[Scores: 3 @ 6; 8 @ 7; 4 @ 8; 1 @ 9; 1 @ 10]

Relationships

Team members were asked of their commitment to making the teamwork within the meeting place and does this ‘commitment’ convert to the general workplace. Spreads of seven (7)-scoring categories were registered ranging from 4 – 10. Group function and pressures often result in ‘conflicts’ in the section meetings, which overlap in workplace activities. This spread of results would indicate this but should be noted that this is not an uncommon occurrence in team oriented practices?[Scores: 1 @ 4; 2 @ 5; 5 @ 6; 4 @ 7; 2 @ 8; 2 @ 9; 1 @ 10].

Boundaries

Both individually and as a group, there are limits or scope to what can be achieved. ‘Teams’ were asked to rate whether these ‘limits’ hindered their overall function as a group and within the confines of the meeting place. As the scores indicate opinion varied with a range response of 5 – 10 with 10 participants offering scores of 6 and 7. Scores clearly indicate a need for a better understanding to boundaries and responsibilities of teamwork for improved efficiency. [Scores: 2 @ 5; 5 @ 6; 5 @ 7; 3 @ 8; 1 @ 9; 1 @ 10].



Assessment

Does the ‘team’ look at how well they are doing, making adjustments where required? Is there a report of some kind generated and is that report circulated to other ‘teams’ within the company? Both lower limit and upper limit scores registered a spread of results between 3 and 8. Obviously the basic principles of assessment are not being carried out where 11 results were recorded at 6 or less. (<60%).[Scores: 1 @ 3; 1 @ 4; 2 @ 5; 7 @ 6; 3 @ 7; 1 @ 8]

‘Range’ Interpretation

The final interpretation of all results confirms further the need for individual discussion across a broad range of team oriented issues. Variations between lower and upper limit scores are the major concern with the average range across the seven-(7) measured areas calculated at, 4.4 – 9.4 (44% - 94%). These results can further be confirmed by converting the dominant scoring range by component. That is:-

Effectiveness Ratings – only seven (7) participants were in the dominant scoring category (70%).

Goals where 22% of staff represented the major scoring category?? (60%).

Roles – 47% (8 staff) registered in dominate scoring category (70%).

Procedures – only five (5) staff members or 29% were represented in the major scoring zone (70%).

Relationships – As with procedures 29% of staff represented the major scoring category (60%).

Boundaries – Two (2) areas at 60% and 70% respectively were represented by 10 staff or 48% with a spread through six (6) scores ranging from 2 – 10!

Assessment – seven (7) staff or 41% were represented in the major scoring zone (60%).



Appendix 1

Area Rating INDIVIDUAL STAFF SCORES [Out of 10] Range Area Rating Average [%].

1 Effectiveness Ratings 7 8 8 7 7 7 7 5 7 9 9 5 5 6 7 5 6 5-9 6-3 63%

2 Goals 8 7 8 8 5 8 7 5 6 10 9 6 6 6 7 6 4 4-10 6-8 68%

3 Roles 7 7 7 9 8 7 7 7 7 8 10 6 6 7 8 6 8 6-10 6-9 69%

4 Procedures 8 7 7 6 5 7 5 4 6 8 9 6 5 8 7 6 7 4-9 6-5 65%

5 Relationships 7 6 6 10 9 4 7 5 7 8 9 6 7 6 8 5 6 4-10 6-9 69%

6 Boundaries 8 6 5 10 7 7 7 6 6 8 9 6 6 7 8 5 7 5-10 6-9 69%

7 Assessment 6 6 3 7 6 6 5 4 6 7 8 6 5 7 7 7 6 3-8 6-4 64%

Individual Range 6-8 6-8 3-8 6-10 5-9 4-8 5-7 4-7 6-7 7-9 8-10 5-6 5-7 6-8 7-8 5-7 6-8 4.4 - 9.4 Function @

Individual Average 7-1 6-6 6-2 8-1 6-7 6-6 6-4 5-7 6-4 8-3 9-0 5-9 5-7 6-7 7-4 5-7 6-3 6-7 67%


Documents

Melbourne Storm Survey Report.DOC