1. 2017 UC Staff Engagement Survey
Agriculture and Natural Resources

2. How to Read Results * ⋆ Agriculture and Natural Resources Scores
Differences and Colors
Scores shown are the total Percent Favorable (typically the top two options). For example:
Agree
Tend to Agree ?
Tend to Disagree
Disagree
Differences to norms are shown as % points. Norms may include past surveys, parent groups, industry, national or high performance benchmarks.
Favorable Responses
For example:
Total Favorable Score
Historical
Parent Group
Company Overall
Industry Norm
Employee Engagement
-8* 3* 3*
-10* 86
I have a good understanding of our goals. 2* 1
-9* 2* 3 84
I have a good understanding of how my job contributes to achieving our goals. ⋆ 4
10* -1 12 88
Icons (if applicable) *
Statistically significant differences are indicated with asterisks and darker colors. They are meaningful differences, where we are 95% confident it did not occur by chance. The cut-off for significance varies according to the size of the groups being compared. Small groups require a bigger difference for it to be significant.
When a question number is shown in red it is a priority issue. #
Key driver question. ⋆
-10* -1 1
10*
On some questions disagreeing is the favorable response.
(N)
Significantly lower vs comparison
Lower, but not significant
No Difference
Higher, but not significant
Significantly higher vs comparison

3. University of California Overall 2017
Overview
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Results vs. Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
Results vs. US National Norm
6 Out Of 8 Categories Have Improved
8 Out Of 9 Categories Are Below
Most Improved
Least Favorable
Performance Management 5
Organizational Change -18*
Career Development 4
Performance Management -11*
Communication 4
Career Development -9*
Most Declined
Working Relationships -3
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Engagement 71 3 1 -2
Strengths
Opportunities
Career Development, Performance Management, Supervision
Performance Management, Supervision, Working Relationships

4. Strengths and Opportunities
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Strengths and Opportunities
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Strengths
% Favorable
I have a clear understanding of how my job contributes to the departmental objectives. 2 2 -1 16 90
Our strengths: We should continue to build on these.
I am confident I can achieve my personal career objectives within the UC system. ⋆
15* 1 -4 23 63
I feel my personal contributions are recognized.
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
19*
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm -1 5 67
Opportunities
% Favorable
I feel my campus/location does a good job matching pay to performance. 5
-11*
-27* 3 20
Our opportunity areas: These are our priority areas to focus on.
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your supervisor: Effectively deals with poor performers -6 -6
-16*
26a 42
There is good cooperation between my department and other departments at my campus/location. -6
-7*
-8* 10 62
Note: Strengths/Opportunities are based on several factors, such as absolute scores, differences from benchmarks, and impact on engagement.

5. Suggested Actions Agriculture and Natural Resources
WHAT WE COULD DO
Improve connection between pay and performance.
Differentiating rewards for high potential and high performing employees can be a challenge for managers. Executive leadership likely sets performance management parameters for the organization overall that you must follow. As a first step, consider what other managers are doing to successfully motivate their best employees. Next, consider what options you may have and discuss them with your HR business partner. There may be options you have that you were not aware of. Although differentiating rewards for performance is not easy, most organizations realize the value of doing it, and are constantly creating new policies and practices to do so.
"Best practice" suggested actions
Ensure that appropriate action is taken when dealing with poor performers.
Dealing with poor performers is a challenge for all managers. The key to addressing the challenge successfully are early identification of concerns, thorough diagnosis of issues, and cooperative effort with employees to identify needed actions. In some cases, the employee may require an upgrade in skills or knowledge. In other situations, the root cause may be poor fit between the employee capabilities and job requirements. In other situations, employee attitude may be a concern. A Personal Improvement Plan (PIP) is one tool for managing poor performance, but should come only after careful joint exploration of the issues.
Improve cooperation between departments.
Introduce your team to other departments by asking a manager from another department to sit in on one of your regular team briefings and spend time talking about the work of their group.

6. University of California Overall 2017
Categories vs. Multiple Benchmarks
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable Score
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Career Development 54 4 -3
-9*
Communication 68 4 -1 -3
Engagement 71 3 1 -2
Image/Brand 75 4 -1 -2
Organizational Change 32 2 2
-18*
Performance Management 52 5 -5
-11*
Supervision 70 -2 -5
Working Relationships 73 -3 -3 -2
Diversity & Inclusion 76
n/a 3
Wellness 60
n/a
-8*
n/a

7. Individual Contributor 2017 (157)
Category Breakdown - Role
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234)
Individual Contributor 2017 (157)
Supervisor 2017 (43)
Manager 2017 (24)
Career Development 54 -6 14 4
Communication 68 -3 9 -2
Engagement 71 -2 7 -3
Image/Brand 75 -3 12 -7
Organizational Change 32 -1 4
-10
Performance Management 52 -3 9 -5
Supervision 70 -1 6 -3
Working Relationships 73 -2 4 1
Diversity & Inclusion 76 -4 8 1
Wellness 60 -2 4 2

8. Category Breakdown - Gender
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234)
Female 2017 (185)
Male 2017 (49)
Career Development 54 -2 8
Communication 68 -3 11
Engagement 71 -1 3
Image/Brand 75
Organizational Change 32 -1 4
Performance Management 52 -3 11
Supervision 70 -2 9
Working Relationships 73 1 -4
Diversity & Inclusion 76 -2 9
Wellness 60 -3 12

9. Category Breakdown - Ethnicity
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234)
Asian 2017 (15)
Hispanic 2017 (63)
White 2017 (144)
Career Development 54 7 -5
Communication 68 -2 2 -1
Engagement 71 -6 5 -3
Image/Brand 75
-12 6 -2
Organizational Change 32 4 9 -4
Performance Management 52 -3
Supervision 70 -3 4 -2
Working Relationships 73 -3 9 -4
Diversity & Inclusion 76
-16 -1 3
Wellness 60 -4 6 -4

10. Category Breakdown - Years of Service
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234)
1 < (56)
3 < (40)
5 < (48)
10 < (30)
15 < (27)
20 < (17)
Career Development 54 -1 -3 -6 -8 12
Communication 68 -2 -1 4
-12 4 2
Engagement 71 1 2 -3 -5 1 -2
Image/Brand 75 -3 3 -7 -4 5 7
Organizational Change 32 -1 -4 -1
-24*
25*
Performance Management 52 -1 -2 -3 -5 3
Supervision 70 2 5 -4 -5 -6 -2
Working Relationships 73 3 -3
-12 -9 12
Diversity & Inclusion 76 6 1 -6 -5 -4
Wellness 60 7 -1 -6 3 -7 -4

11. Category Breakdown - Years of Service
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234)
25 < (12)
Career Development 54 23
Communication 68 7
Engagement 71 10
Image/Brand 75 21
Organizational Change 32 24
Performance Management 52 24
Supervision 70 14
Working Relationships 73 23
Diversity & Inclusion 76 16
Wellness 60 19

12. Category Breakdown - Pay Range
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234)
< 40k 2017 (60)
40k - 49k 2017 (44)
50k - 59k 2017 (42)
60k - 69k 2017 (36)
70k - 79k 2017 (21)
80k - 89k 2017 (12)
Career Development 54 -3 -5 -2 5 13
Communication 68 -2 3 2
-13 7 7
Engagement 71 2 -2 -1 -3 -2 6
Image/Brand 75 -2 -7 1 4 1 8
Organizational Change 32 2 -1
-11
-10 7
Performance Management 52 -3 -6 -3 5 -1 9
Supervision 70 3 -4 -2 -2 -5 8
Working Relationships 73 -1 -4 4 1 -9 15
Diversity & Inclusion 76 1 4 3 -8
-21* 16
Wellness 60 5
-10 -6 -9 6

13. University of California Overall 2017
Career Development
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Career Development 4 -3
-9* 54
There are sufficient opportunities for me to receive training to improve my skills in my current job. -4 -1 -4 7 65
I believe I have the opportunity for personal development and growth within the UC system. -1 -6
-11* 11 59
My campus/location is doing a good job of planning for management succession. ⋆ 5 -1
-9* 20 31
I am confident I can achieve my personal career objectives within the UC system. ⋆
15* 1 -4 23 63
My campus/location provides people with the necessary information and resources to manage their own careers effectively. 7
-7*
-15* 28 52

14. University of California Overall 2017
Communication
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Communication 4 -1 -3 68
My campus/location does an excellent job of keeping employees informed about important organizational matters affecting us. ⋆ 7 -3 -4 1 66
I feel able to openly and honestly communicate my views to my supervisor and other leaders. ⋆ 1 1 -3 14 70

15. University of California Overall 2017
Engagement
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Engagement 3 1 -2 71
There is usually sufficient staff in my department to handle the workload. 1 1
-11* 2 45
I am satisfied with my involvement in decisions that affect my work. 9 2 -3 8 68
My work schedule allows sufficient flexibility to meet my personal/family needs. 2
10* 18 86 4 -1 -3 19
I feel motivated to go beyond my formal job responsibilities to get the job done. 84 21
I have the equipment/tools/resources I need to do my job effectively. -7 1 -1 74
I would recommend the UC system as a good place to work. 4 1 27 79
Working for the UC system inspires me to do my best work. 1 2 -1 29 74 36
At the present time, are you seriously considering leaving the UC system? 8 -1
-6* 61

16. University of California Overall 2017
Image/Brand
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Image/Brand 4 -1 -2 75
I am proud to be associated with the UC system. 4 3 2 6 89
My campus/location is highly regarded by its employees. 4 -4
-6* 22 61

17. University of California Overall 2017
Organizational Change
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Organizational Change 2 2
-18* 32
Generally, recent major organizational changes across the UC system have been: Planned well 2 4
-8*
15a 34
Generally, recent major organizational changes across the UC system have been: Explained well 2 1
-23*
15b 33
Generally, recent major organizational changes across the UC system have been: Executed well 2 2
-22*
15c 28

18. University of California Overall 2017
Performance Management
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Performance Management 5 -5
-11* 52
I feel my campus/location does a good job matching pay to performance. 5
-11*
-27* 3 20
I feel my personal contributions are recognized.
19* -1 5 67
I think my performance on the job is evaluated fairly. -8 -4 -5 25 70

19. University of California Overall 2017
Supervision
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Supervision -2 -5 70 4
My supervisor keeps me informed about issues that affect me. -3 -2
-8* 73 9
My supervisor develops people's abilities. -5
-11* 58
Regarding suggestions for change from employees, my supervisor is usually responsive. -3
-8* 12 68
I have a clear understanding of how my job contributes to the departmental objectives. 2 2 -1 16 90 3 1 1 17
My supervisor treats me with respect. 88
My supervisor communicates effectively. -2
-6* 24 73
26a
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your supervisor: Effectively deals with poor performers -6 -6
-16* 42
26b
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your supervisor: Listens carefully to different points of view before coming to conclusions -2 1 70
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your supervisor: Encourages new ideas and new ways of doing things -1 -4
26c 75 -1 -3
-10* 31
My supervisor does a good job of building teamwork. 64

20. University of California Overall 2017
Supervision
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Supervision -2 -5 70
My supervisor helps me make time to participate in training and development activities. 5 9* 34 73

21. University of California Overall 2017
Working Relationships
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Working Relationships -3 -3 -2 73
There is good cooperation between my department and other departments at my campus/location. -6
-7*
-8* 10 62
There is good cooperation between staff in my department. 2 5 30 84

22. University of California Overall 2017
Diversity & Inclusion
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Diversity & Inclusion
n/a 3 76
I feel that management at my campus/location supports equal opportunity for all employees, of all differences, including, but not limited to, age, gender identity, ethnicity and disability status.
n/a 6* 9* 13 81
Employees at my campus/location are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their position or background.
n/a
-9* 33 71

23. University of California Overall 2017
Wellness
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Total Favorable
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Wellness
n/a
-8*
n/a 60
My supervisor is supportive of my participation in health or wellness-related initiatives and programs offered at my campus/location. ⋆
n/a
-11*
n/a 32 61
My organization promotes an environment of physical, mental, and social well-being. ⋆
n/a -5
-12* 35 60

24. Sustainable Engagement Profile vs. U.S. National Norm & ANR 2015
Segmentation analysis identifies the types of engagement within the organization
Highly Engaged: Those who score high on all three aspects of sustainable engagement
Detached: Those who feel enabled and/or energized, but lack a sense of traditional engagement
Unsupported: Those who are traditionally engaged, but lack enablement and/or energy
Disengaged: Those who score low on all three aspects of sustainable engagement
2017
Engaged
Enabled
Energized
Highly Engaged 27%
Unsupported
27%
Detached
21%
Disengaged
25%
U.S.
35%
22%
21%
2015
26%
24% 24

25. University of California Overall 2017
Key Drivers of Engagement
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Total Favorable Score
Career Development 4 -3
-9* 54
Engagement
Wellness
n/a
-8*
n/a 60
Communication 4 -1 -3 68

26. University of California Overall 2017
Key Driver Items of Engagement
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Ag and Natl Rescs 2015
University of California Overall 2017
US National Norm
Total Favorable Score
Career Development: My campus/location is doing a good job of planning for management succession. 5 -1
-9* 31
Career Development: I am confident I can achieve my personal career objectives within the UC system.
15* 1 -4 63
Wellness: My supervisor is supportive of my participation in health or wellness-related initiatives and programs offered at my campus/location.
n/a
-11*
n/a 61
Engagement
Wellness: My organization promotes an environment of physical, mental, and social well-being.
n/a -5
-12* 60
Communication: My campus/location does an excellent job of keeping employees informed about important organizational matters affecting us. 7 -3 -4 66
Communication: I feel able to openly and honestly communicate my views to my supervisor and other leaders. 1 1 -3 70

27. Group Sizes Agriculture and Natural Resources
Benchmarks
Ag and Natl Rescs
174
US National Norm
159,758
Ag and Natl Rescs 11
Universities Staff Norm
16,527
University of California Overall
10,539
Role
Individual Contributor
157
Manager 24
Supervisor 43
Gender
Female
185
Male 49
Ethnicity
Asian 15
White
144
Hispanic 63
Years of Service
1 < 56
15 < 27
3 < 40
20 < 17
5 < 48
25 < 12
10 < 30
Pay Range
< 40k 60
60k - 69k 36
40k - 49k 44
70k - 79k 21
50k - 59k 42
80k - 89k 12