1. October/November 2006 Overall Report For The University of Adelaide Part 1 – High-Level Results

2. The University of Adelaide (UoA) should be congratulated on conducting its second staff survey in a continuing atmosphere of change in the Tertiary Education sector, not the least of these changes being the recent introduction of the Federal Government Higher Education Workplace Reforms. While consistent, annual or bi-annual surveying are commonplace in similarly sized commercial organisations, UoA is among a small group of universities who are leading the way within the higher education sector by undertaking organisation-wide employee surveying of a broad range of human resource practices. What’s more, UoA should be particularly singled out for congratulations for continuing to assess these practices on a scheduled and regular basis. UoA staff will have continued and increasing confidence in leaders thanks to this demonstrated commitment to the survey process. By some significant measures, the second implementation of UoA’s staff opinion survey should be considered a success: –Employee engagement has improved. –Several key scales or topics of questions asked in the survey have improved by 5% or more. These include: Organisational Direction, Recruitment & Selection, Performance Review and Rewards & Recognition. Executive Summary

3. The 2006 survey of UoA: –Was based on a core set of questions drawn from the Voice Climate Survey and a number of tailored questions specific to UoA –Comprised a total of: 132 agree/disagree questions, 10 open-ended questions, and 18 demographic questions The survey was conducted using online and paper surveys Period open: 3 weeks –From October 24 th to November 10 th 1532 usable surveys were returned from approximately 2722 distributed surveys, for a 56% response rate Margin of error for the overall sample is approx ±1.5% Average time to complete survey: 21-25 minutes Executive Summary

4. The following slides provide an analysis of the 2006 University of Adelaide (UoA) results compared with the 2004 UoA Staff Survey results, the participating Universities’ benchmark and the Australian Industries’ Benchmark. The results are stated in terms of the percentage of favourable responses to the topic in the order; –% Fav = UoA's 2006 % of staff that were favourable about the topic, –% Uni Bench = the average % favourable value that Australian Universities in the Voice Project database score, –%ile Rank = the % of organizations UoA is BETTER than, in the Australian economy in general For example; Staff are proud to tell people they work for the University (86% Fav, 78% Fav Uni Bench, 78%ile Rank)

5. Executive Summary There are several strengths of The University of Adelaide (UoA), including:  Staff derive a feeling of personal accomplishment from their work (80% Fav, 75% Fav Uni Bench, 80%ile Rank), and like the kind of work they do (87% Fav, 85% Fav Uni Bench, 84%ile Rank).  Staff are willing to put in extra effort for the University (82% Fav, 78% Fav Uni Bench, 70%ile Rank), and are proud to tell people they work for the University (86% Fav, 78% Fav Uni Bench, 78%ile Rank).  Staff believe the University has a good reputation in the wider community (86% Fav). Staff also believe it is important that the teaching capabilities (97% Fav) and research capabilities (97% Fav) of the University have a strong profile in the wider community.  Staff have good working relationships with their co-workers (92% Fav, 88% Fav Uni Bench, 72%ile Rank), and believe their co-workers give them help and support (88% Fav, 83% Fav Uni Bench, 78%ile Rank). Staff feel they work well as a team with their co-workers (86% Fav, 82% Fav Uni Bench, 69%ile Rank).

6. Executive Summary Strengths of UoA (cont’d):  Staff believe sexual harassment (92% Fav, 85% Fav Uni Bench, 60%ile Rank) and discrimination (87% Fav, 77% Fav Uni Bench, 59%ile Rank) are prevented and discouraged.  Staff believe keeping high levels of health and safety are a priority of the University (81% Fav, 69% Fav Uni Bench, 59%ile Rank), and also believe supervisors and management engage in good safety behaviour (80% Fav, 67% Fav Uni Bench, 65%ile Rank). Staff believe their supervisors are aware of any risks associated with their work that are likely to affect their health and safety (82% Fav). Where necessary, staff believe adequate controls are in place to reduce health and safety risks (82% Fav).  Staff use student feedback to improve their teaching (90% Fav).  Staff believe research is regarded favourably within their schools (87% Fav, 72% Fav Uni Bench).

7. Executive Summary Compared to 2004, UoA also demonstrates the following strengths:  More staff use student feedback to improve their teaching (32% Fav increase). More staff believe the University provides sufficient recognition for good teaching performance (12% Fav increase). More staff believe there is appropriate technology and equipment available to facilitate teaching and changes in teaching (12% Fav increase). More staff feel they have access to adequate time and resources to help them in making changes to their teaching (8% Fav increase).  An increased number of staff believe the University recognises and rewards professional and consultative work (11% Fav increase).  More staff believe there is equal opportunity in employment for all staff in the University (10% Fav increase).  A greater number of staff believe the University places sufficient priority on the quality of library holdings and support (9% Fav increase).  More staff feel their performance is reviewed and evaluated often enough (9% Fav increase). More staff also feel the way their performance is evaluated is fair (9% Fav increase).  More staff feel the managers in the University know the benefits of employing the right people (8% Fav increase).

8. Executive Summary Possible areas for improvement include:  Some staff are dissatisfied with the way change is handled in the University (27% Fav, 27% Fav Uni Bench, 17%ile Rank), and feel the pace of change within the University is sometimes inappropriate (39% Fav). Some staff feel the University could be more innovative (49% Fav, 48% Fav Uni Bench, 39%ile Rank), and could be better at learning from its mistakes and successes (32% Fav, 32% Fav Uni Bench, 19%ile Rank). Some staff feel the amount of change occurring in the University is not always appropriate (40% Fav).  Some staff feel the executive management team do not always keep people informed about what’s going on (45% Fav, 40% Fav Uni Bench, 32%ile Rank), nor do they feel the executive management team always listens to other staff (32% Fav, 31% Fav Uni Bench, 18%ile Rank).  Many staff feel the communication between different sections of the University could be improved (20% Fav, 18% Fav Uni Bench, 18%ile Rank), and also feel there is sometimes little cooperation between different sections (31% Fav, 28% Fav Uni Bench, 17%ile Rank). Many staff believe knowledge and information are not always shared throughout the University (27% Fav, 23% Fav Uni Bench, 22%ile Rank).

9. Executive Summary Possible areas for improvement (cont’d):  The majority of staff feel the communication across Faculties (19% Fav) and Divisions (22% Fav), and between Schools and Administrative units (30% Fav) within the University could be improved. Some staff feel it is not always easy to locate information that will help them solve administrative problems (46% Fav).  Some staff believe managers at the University are not always good at selecting the right people for the right jobs (39% Fav, 33% Fav Uni Bench, 34%ile Rank), nor do they believe managers are always clear about the type of people the University needs to employ (45% Fav, 38% Fav Uni Bench, 24%ile Rank).  Many staff feel it is sometime unclear who has responsibility for what at the University (38% Fav, 33% Fav Uni Bench, 15%ile Rank). Some staff also believe that overall, the University’s policies and procedures could be more efficient and better designed (42% Fav, 32% Fav Uni Bench, 29%ile Rank), and that there should be clear policies and procedures in place for how work is to be done (46% Fav, 47% Fav Uni Bench, 16%ile Rank).

10. Executive Summary Possible areas for improvement (cont’d):  Some staff are dissatisfied with the academic workload model that is used by their school (41% Fav), nor do they believe their school applies a workload model that recognises their multiple academic responsibilities (45% Fav).  Most staff feel there is insufficient time available for research (33% Fav). Compared to 2004, other areas for development include:  Less staff throughout the University believe there are clear policies and procedures for how work is to be done (8% Fav decrease). Less staff believe it is clear who has responsibility for what in the University (3% Fav decrease).  Fewer staff feel they have an understanding of the University’s research vision and strategic objectives (3% Fav decrease).  Less staff believe they have input into everyday decisions in their School/ Branch/Unit (3% Fav decrease)

11. Executive Summary The open-ended text responses demonstrated significant numbers of staff identifying the following areas for improvement:  Streamlining and clarifying policies and procedures, and flattening the administrative structure (16% of respondents commenting).  Increasing horizontal communication, particularly between faculties, schools and departments (15%).  More resources provided to all areas of the University, including budgetary, physical and staff (14%).  Focussing on the quality of student learning, and ensuring student’s are able to transition easily into University life (11%).

12. Executive Summary This report uses statistically derived measures of importance to determine possible priorities for intervention. When examining your performance on issues that appeared to be important, the biggest gaps (and hence possibly the highest priorities) appear to be: –Increasing confidence and trust in executive management and increasing the number and frequency of use of formal and informal channels of communication to and with leaders, –Ensuring executive management understand operational issues of the University, and that they demonstrate and commit to equity issues of the University, –Recruiting and selecting the right people for the right jobs, and ensuring managers are clear about the types of people the University needs to employ, –Encouraging effective sharing of information and communication between faculties, divisions, schools and administrative departments in the University, –Clarifying policies and procedures and streamlining work processes, –Ensuring an integrated approach to fostering and managing research.

13. Executive Summary Differences in results across different units and demographic categories include: –Staff from Finance & Infrastructure appear happiest overall, whilst staff from the Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences appear the least satisfied. –Staff with a classification of HEO 1-3 are more satisfied in general than other staff, whilst those with Academic classifications appear the least satisfied in general. –Staff whose nature of work is mainly administration appear happier overall, whilst staff who focus on both teaching and research seem the least satisfied in general. –Part-time staff are more satisfied than full-time staff. –Fixed-term staff appear slightly happier than continuing staff. –Staff without a disability requiring adjustment are more satisfied in general than those staff that do have a disability requiring adjustment.

14. Executive Summary Differences in results across different units and demographic categories include (cont’d): –Staff without family caring responsibilities are more satisfied than those staff that do have caring responsibilities. –Staff aged 24 or younger appear happier overall, whilst staff aged 55 and over appear the least happy. –Female staff are slightly happier than male staff. –Staff who spend less than 10 hours per week on work related activity are more satisfied than staff who spend in excess of 51 hours per week. –Staff who have devoted 81-100% of their time to research over the last 12 months appear slightly happier when compared to other staff. –Staff with a length of service between 2-5 years appear more satisfied overall, whilst staff with a length of service of more than 10 years are the least satisfied. –Staff who plan to retire in 3-5 years appear less satisfied than those who plan to retire in more than 5 years time.

15. Executive Summary Differences in results across different units and demographic categories include (cont’d): –Staff who have achieved a qualification at vocational training at TAFE or similar are slightly more satisfied in general, whilst staff who have achieved a Doctorate are the least happy overall. –Staff who were not employed at the University in 2004 when the last staff survey was conducted are happier overall when compared to all other staff.

16. Executive Summary These critical steps should now be undertaken to implement of this employee survey: –Circulate results and explain them to the upper and middle management levels within the University of Adelaide, including a discussion of meaning, implications and likely next steps in the use of the results. –Communicate the high level results of this survey to staff, along with a brief explanation of the actions and next steps that will be taken in response to the survey. –Schedule more detailed action planning, either as an independent initiative associated with the survey or embedded within existing ongoing organisational planning.