To protect the confidential and proprietary information included in this material, it may not be disclosed or provided to any third parties without the approval of Hewitt Associates LLC. School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Summary of Findings

1 February, 2009 Our Agenda Today Share SEAS results from the University-wide 2008 Staff Survey including: –Engagement scores –Drivers of engagement Share results from the 2008 SEAS Internal Survey Answer questions and discuss Solicit input on possible actions

2 February, 2009 University Survey Background Harvard University core staff were invited to participate in the survey from October 22 to November 5, –10,888 staff were surveyed over the web; 1,789 staff received a paper survey in one of three languages Staff members were asked to rate their agreement with 83 statements, using a six-point scale. Survey participants were also asked three open-ended questions. –Best thing about working at Harvard; worst thing about working at Harvard; main suggestion for improvement

3 February, 2009 Survey statistics only represent the opinions of those who participated, which was 53% of SEAS staff.

4 February, 2009 What does Engagement Mean? The Hewitt survey measures employee engagement and major dimensions of the employment experience such as leadership, pay, and benefits. Engagement measures the extent to which we are providing a workplace that attracts, retains, and motivates the talented people Harvard needs to realize its mission.

5 February, 2009 Engagement Scores at-a-Glance 2006 Harvard University 2008 Harvard University Engagement Behaviors Hewitt Best Employer Benchmark I would not hesitate to recommend Harvard to a friend seeking employment. Say Stay Strive I would not hesitate to recommend Harvard to a friend seeking employment Given the opportunity, I tell others great things about working here It would take a lot to get me to leave Harvard I rarely think about leaving here to work somewhere else I regularly go 'above and beyond' at work I do my best work every day 80% 48% 56% 65% 71% 85% 57% 66% 75% 80% 70% 67% 66% 73% 77% 80% 83% 2006 SEAS 2008 SEAS 70%65% 59%64% 58% 68% 40%57% 71% 69% 80%

6 February, 2009 Destructive Serious Indifferent High Performance/ Hewitt Best Employer Engagement Scores at-a-Glance Harvard 2008 Engagement Score: 75% 40% 0% Des30% t Serious * 66% 75% 76% * Hewitt Best Employer Benchmark (76%) 2008 Harvard University (75%) 2006 Harvard University (66%) 100% 67% 63% 2006 SEAS (63%) 2008 SEAS (67%)

7 February, 2009 Driver Impact Analysis─ Harvard University Overall 67% 47% 56% 30% University Leadership I see strong evidence of effective leadership at the University 62% Quality of Life The balance between my work and personal commitments is right for me. Local Leadership I see strong evidence of effective local leadership 66% 63% Performance Management The performance review process has been helpful to me in understanding how well I am doing my current job. 63% ThreatsOpportunities Engagement: 67% Current % Favorable University Reputation Harvard deserves its reputation as a great place to work Career Opportunities I know what career opportunities are available to me Resources and Processes I have the tools and resources I need to do my job well

8 February, 2009 Driver Impact Analysis─ Harvard University Overall (continued) Physical Work Environment The physical work environment at my facility is appropriate for the type of work I do. 69% 73% 54% 73% Pay I am paid fairly for the contributions I make to Harvard’s success Benefits Overall, my benefits meet my (and my family’s) needs well Coworkers My relationships with coworkers are a major reason I remain working here. 78% 56% Safety This is a physically safe and secure place to work. 85% ThreatsOpportunities Current % Favorable 78% Diversity People here are treated fairly, regardless of their age, race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability Day-to-Day Work I get a sense of accomplishment from my work Manager My manager/supervisor provides the support I need to succeed. 67% Engagement: 67%

9 February, 2009 Opportunities (Positive Impact) Threats (Negative Impact) Engagement Drivers Impact Model High Low High High Opportunity, Low ThreatHigh Opportunity, High Threat Low Opportunity, High ThreatLow Opportunity, Low Threat University Reputation This graphic categorizes the factors based on the Impact Analysis -45 Local Leadership Performance Management Manager Career Opportunities Resources & Processes Quality of Life Coworkers Diversity Physical Work Environment Benefits Safety University Leadership Day-to-Day Work Pay

10 February, 2009 Staff saw evidence of improvement in the “big three” focus areas identified in the 2006 survey: University Leadership, Pay, and Career Opportunities

11 February, 2009 Local leadership got improved marks, but at 30%, still ranked quite low compared to University leadership and manager/supervisor leadership.

12 February, 2009 Specifically, employees want to be better informed about what’s happening around SEAS and to see how their work fits into the bigger picture.

13 February, 2009 SEAS staff would also like to see improvements in the areas of staff inclusion, resources and processes, and pay for performance.

14 February, 2009 Open Ended Questions Best Thing about Working At Harvard Worst Thing about Working At Harvard Main Suggestion for Improvement

15 February, 2009 Best Thing about Working At Harvard 21 SEAS staff members said the benefits were the best part of working at Harvard. “I believe that the benefits are excellent, including the non-monetary ones.” 19 SEAS staff members said their coworkers are the reason they love working at Harvard. “I work for great faculty and the staff assistants work hard to help each other and the people they work for.” 14 SEAS staff members said the intellectual environment is what they love best. “The energy and excitement associated with working at the best University in the world is why I work here.”

16 February, 2009 Worst Thing about Working At Harvard 15 SEAS staff members said Harvard’s bureaucracy posed the most threat to their job satisfaction. “The increasing volume of bureaucracy compared to time available to participate in scientific activities.” 9 SEAS staff members said the faculty/staff divide bothered them the most. “Faculty are not held accountable to the same standards as staff.” 8 SEAS staff members pointed to Harvard’s decentralization as their main frustration. “Harvard is decentralized, takes great lengths to get problems resolved- sometimes routes are circular and lengthy.”

17 February, 2009 Main Suggestion for Improvement SEAS staff members were very articulate and offered some great suggestions for improvement. These responses tended to vary more substantially then the other open- ended questions. However, the following trends emerged: 12 individuals suggested Harvard implement a pay for performance system. “More clearly link pay raises with performance reviews.” 5 people wanted SEAS to streamline processes and procedures to “cut through red tape” “Reduce the administrative layers”

18 February, 2009 SEAS 2008 Internal Survey Results

19 February, 2009 SEAS 2008 Survey Background SEAS staff were invited to participate in a SEAS specific survey during the Summer/Fall of 2008 –103 employees participated in the survey 51.5% were exempt employees 32.2% were non-exempt employees 16.2% are involved directly in research support Staff members were asked 57 questions and encouraged to write in their own feedback Questions were written to gauge employee satisfaction with their direct supervisor(s) and with the various key departments within SEAS

20 February, 2009 SEAS staff feel their skills are well suited for their jobs; however roughly half are taking advantage of training opportunities. 88.8% reported that their professional skill set matched their current responsibilities. 53.8% have participated in training offered by Harvard’s Center for Workforce Development. 51.9% have taken advantage of the TAP(and 7.9% report being involved in a terminal degree program). 86.5% occasionally or frequently discuss training and professional development with their supervisor. 85.1% of staff reported that their supervisor has approved requests for training or professional development.

21 February, 2009 Staff feel recognized by their supervisors and colleagues and are actively participating in their own professional development. 71.8% reported they met with their supervisor annually to discuss professional development. 43.5% reported they met with their supervisor annually to discuss job performance; 40.6% reported they met with their supervisor more frequently. 93.4% reported that their supervisor recognized their work. 90.3% reported that their colleagues recognized their work.

22 February, 2009 Staff would like to see more SEAS wide communication to facilitate community building and a sense of connection.

23 February, 2009 Despite our current space crunch, over 75% of SEAS staff reported satisfaction with their physical environment and resources. 77.1% reported that their physical environment (e.g. office or lab and shared spaces) are appropriate for job success 89% report that they have access to the appropriate resources (e.g. technology, materials, expertise) to do their job successfully In the University-wide survey, 78% of employees were satisfied with their work environment, but only 47% believed they had the tools and resources to do their jobs well.

24 February, 2009 Percentage of respondents who were satisfied or very satisfied with each unit listed below. Unit Responsiveness Capacity Quality of Services Administration 63% 58% 61% Facilities 71% 80% 81% Finance 63% 56% 59% IT 80% 71% 84% HR 58% 52% 59%

25 February, 2009 Next Steps Sharing of these high-level results within SEAS staff Development of a preliminary response plan with two elements: Near-term plan to protect/sustain gains made in employee engagement over the next 6+ months. Longer-term plan to extend/improve employee engagement over the next 6-36 months.