1. UCL – Have your say HR User Group October 2009

2. Background and methodology Survey ran from the 9 – 27 March This was the second UCL employee engagement survey run, first was in 2005. Questionnaire designed through a combination of existing questions, ORC benchmark questions and steering group guidance On-line methodology used with paper contingency for staff without access to a PC Staff summary, full narrative and benchmarking reports provided – on website

3. Key strengths  There is a great deal of pride in working for UCL, staff consider that UCL is a good place to work and most are satisfied in the job that they do  The majority of respondents felt that they are kept well informed about is going on within UCL  The opportunities for training and skills development are good  Many staff feel valued and recognised for the work they do and are happy to go the extra mile at work when required  Many staff felt there was flexibility in how and when they do their work

4. Areas for improvement  The perceived fairness of the grading review and promotion processes  The quality of the working environment in some areas  Clarity and awareness of goals and objectives and the ability to manage workloads  The degree to which appraisals enhance performance and lead to the development of skills  Consistency in managing poor performance

5. Positive comparisons to the Perspectives benchmark

6. Least positive comparisons to the Perspectives benchmark

7. Employee engagement index Engagement Index Score: 76% SAY STAY STRIVE

8. Open comments 2010 comments were received to the free text question (If you were Dean/Head of Corporate Support Service, Faculty Manager for the day, what would you improve?) ThemeNumber% of comments Communication42821% Work environment/facilities/equipment27314% Management21511% Training/career development1457% Teamwork/teambuilding1216% Resources/staffing1116% Equality/fairness854% Policies/procedures824% IT/System734% Morale/recognition/being valued714% Nothing/don’t know653% Pay/benefits643% Transparency/openness643% Workload603%

9. Communication The full results of the survey have been presented to:  Provost's Senior Management Team.  Staff Survey Working Group (which includes trade union representatives)  Stress Resilience and Wellbeing working group (STRaW),  LGBT issues group  HR users group. Deans and Heads of Corporate Support Services tasked to have local meetings to discuss Faculty or Divisional results and agree priority areas for local action by end Oct. Information from the survey is being used to inform development of the updated Race Equality Plan, Disability Equality Plan and Gender Equality Plan

10. Next steps – Action Plan InitiativeDesired outcome 1Review the academic promotion and job evaluation/grading process in light of the results of the staff survey Improve the transparency and usability of the processes and communication regarding the equity of outcomes. 2Organisational structures to be reviewed to optimise support in managing workloads UCL to have organisational structures in place which  remove duplication of effort  remove single points of failure  ensure effective management of workloads and performance  provide cover for leave etc. 3Greater consultation on and communication of prioritisation of infrastructural improvements and improved working conditions within available resources Greater understanding amongst staff of the logic underpinning priorities for improvement of the estate and improvements as they are completed

11. Next steps – Action Plan InitiativeDesired outcome 4Leadership training for UCL’s senior academic and administrative managers to include improving communications and effective management of change Improved leadership skills and a more visible cohort of senior managers leading and explaining change effectively 5Refresher training for managers at all levels on managing and maximising performance A perceived improvement amongst staff of the management of (under) performance 6A review of the quality of objective setting within appraisal and improved support to staff and managers in setting stretching objectives Enhanced motivation and understanding of the links between individual and organisational performance. Enhanced faculty/divisional and institutional performance