Employee Survey 2015
Employee Satisfaction Survey Report 2015
Introduction
The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment and as part of its annual survey cycle
administered in November-December 2015 an Employee Satisfaction Survey (ESS) to all AUB
employees, academic and non-academic. The purpose of the survey was to enable AUB
administration to better understand employee perspectives on their jobs and how they felt about
working for AUB. Such information falls into the measurement aspect of the AUB Quality
Initiative and is essential to identifying improvement opportunities that will lead to a better and a
more efficient organization. The survey has been administered since 2000 periodically once every
three years, and based on obtained results several initiatives were launched. Accordingly, one of
the purposes of the present survey is to detect changes or improvements in employee perspectives
due to these initiatives.
Method
Instrument and administration
The survey form used in 2012 was administered again with some modifications and changes to
ensure better relevance of the results. The survey consists of 108 items covering the following
dimensions reported to be of significance by the literature: General Conditions & Climate (GCC),
Management (M), Policies & Procedures (P&P), Training & Development (T&D),
Communication & Planning (C&P), Benefits & Rewards (B&R) and Teamwork & Coordination
(T & C). It also includes a number of global overall ratings, some demographic items, and three
open-ended questions soliciting employees’ comments. A breakdown of the survey by subscale is
provided in Table 1. Each respondent had to rate each item on a 5-point scale from Strongly Agree
(SA) to Strongly Disagree (SD), or Very Satisfied (VS) to Very Dissatisfied (VD). A Not
Applicable (NA) category was also included.
The survey was made available in English and Arabic versions to the employees. (Appendix A).
The ESS was administered on-line to faculty and staff Grades 7 and above, while it was
administered in the usual paper form in both languages to those below Grade 7 (4-6). The paper
forms were sent to the departments to be distributed, were filled out by employees and then
collected and sent back to OIRA in sealed envelopes. Many employees opted to send their filled
forms directly to OIRA. No names or identification numbers were requested, only department
codes. Employees were constantly reminded by OIRA of the importance of filling out the forms,
and they were assured of confidentiality. The distribution and collection of the surveys took around
six weeks.
Sample
The surveys were sent to all AUB employees, academic and non-academic (5,566, including
physicians, part timers and clinical associates, 4,932 if we exclude employees below Grade 4).
1,532 employees answered on-line survey, 787 provided full responses while 745 provided partial
ones, and 78 filled out paper version with a total of 1,610 employee responses (29% response rate
including less than Grade 4; 33% excluding them). Response rate of the respondents by grade
level and for AUB is provided in Table 2. With respect to representativeness of the sample, we
really cannot judge very well because 22% of respondents did not specify grade level. 38% of
sample comes from employees between grades 4-12, lower than populations of 49%, while the
Page 1 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
above Grade 12 employees are overrepresented (20% vs. 12%) and academic employees are
underrepresented (19% vs. 28%). Response rate below Grade 4 was minimal. Below From the
above statistics, we can presume that those who did not specify grade could be from the Grades 412 category. Table 2 also reports response rate for the whole sample of 29% (33%) , slightly lower
than 2013 but higher than previous administrations of 20% in 2009 and 25% (2006).
As in previous surveys, Non-academic personnel > 12 had highest response rate of 50%, followed
by nonacademic Grades 4-12 of 23% and then academic employees of 20% lower than 2012 of
29% but similar to that of 2009 figure of 20%. Apparent low response rate from Grades 4-12 could
be because most of those who did not provide their grade came from this category. Figures 1-7
report the breakdown of the sample of respondents by AUB/AUBMC, gender, age, educational
level, years of employment at AUB, grade level and faculty.
Table 1. Breakdown of the Employee Survey
Scale
General Conditions & Climate
Management
Policies & Procedures
Training & Development
Communication & Planning
Benefits & Rewards
Teamwork & Coordination
Satisfaction with AUB services
Overall Items
Demographic Information
Open-ended Items
Total Scale
Number of Items
14
8
11
6
21
10
4
15
8
8
3
108
Table 2. Response Rate by Grade Level
Group
Sample
Population
N
%
N
%
Non-Academic personnel,
5
1%
634
11
below Grade 4
Non-Academic personnel,
620
38
2.729
49
Grades 4-12
Non-Academic Personnel >
321
20
642
12
Grade 12
Academic Personnel*
309
19
1561*
28
355
Not specify Grade
22
Total
1610
100
5566
100
*Includes physicians, part timers, clinical associates
Page 2 of 22
Response
Rate%
23
50
20
29%
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 1. Respondents by AUB/AUBMC
Respondents by AUB and AUBMC
17%
AUB
40%
AUBMC
Did not specify
43%
Figure 2. Respondents by Gender
Employee Satisfaction Survey by Gender
19%
49%
Female
Male
Did not specif
32%
A look at demographics reveals that survey was answered relatively equally by AUB and AUBMC
though an additional 17% did not specify, more females than males answered survey (49% vs
32%) with another 19% not specifying. Largest percentqage of respodents were in the 25-34 age
bracket followed by the 35-44 then the 45-54. So, 80% of respodents wre in the 25-54 age bracket.
With resepct to education, largest respondent bracket was graduate school (39%) followed by
PhDs 26% and then completed college (20%). So, 85% of respodents have completed college and
above.
Page 3 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 3. Respondents by Age
Employee Satisfaction Survey by Age
8%
2%
5%
5%
18%
34%
Figure 4. Respondents by Level of Education
28%
Employee Satisfaction Survey by
Education Level
2%
4%
4%
Did not Specify
5%
26%
Some High School or less
Completed High School
20%
Some College
Completed College
Graduate School
PhD or equivalent
39%
With respect to years working at AUB, 45% have been working for 5 years or less and 16% more
than 20 years. With respect to grade, 38% were academic, 28% above Grade 12 and 10% not
specifying their grade.
Page 4 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 5. Respondents by Years at AUB
Employee Satisfaction Survey by Years at AUB
16%
6%
Did not Specify
10%
Less than 1 year
1 to less than 5 years
15%
5 to less than 10 years
10 to less than 20 years
35%
18%
20 years or longer
Figure 6. Respondents by Grade Level
Employee Satisfaction Survey by Grade Level
10%
1%
3%
4%
38%
Did not Specify
Below 4
4-6
16%
7-9
10-12
Above 12
Academic
28%
Page 5 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 7. Respondents by Faculty
Employee Satisfaction Survey by
Faculty
3%
Did not specify
FAFS
FAS
26%
FEA
35%
FHS
3%
11%
3%
10%
FM
OSB
Others
6%
3%
SNU
Data Analysis
Reliability analysis was conducted on the whole scale and various subscales. Data analysis
involved reporting item descriptives and frequencies for the whole sample and by each of the
demographic variables studied (age, grade, educational level, number of years at AUB, and
gender) for AUB and AUBMC. Predictors of employee satisfaction were investigated using
regression analysis.
Results
Table 3 reports reliability of questionnaire and various subscales. Table 4 reports the results of the
survey for the whole sample, while Table 9 provides breakdown of results by Campus and
AUBMC (Appendix B). In addition, the open-ended comments made by the employees are
reported in Appendix C. Comparisons with 2012 results are also provided.
Reliability
Reliability analysis conducted on the survey and its subscales revealed excellent reliabilities of
0.97 for the whole scale and 0.84-0.94 for the subscales. An exception is the General Conditions &
Climate Subscale with a reliability of 0.60 and this is because it includes items covering diverse
issues (Table 3). These reliability estimates provide an assurance of the precision and consistency
of the results obtained from administering the survey and they are similar to the 2012 reliability
estimates.
Page 6 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
Table 3. Scale and Subscale Reliabilities
Scale
General Conditions & Climate
Management
Policies & Procedures
Training & Development
Communication & Planning
Benefits & Rewards
Teamwork & Coordination
Satisfaction with AUB services
Overall Items
Total Scale
R*
.60
.94
.86
.85
.92
.88
.84
.91
.89
No of items
14
8
11
6
21
10
4
15
8
.97
97
*All significant at p< .00
Descriptive Statistics and Satisfaction Level
I. Whole Sample
Table 4 reports descriptive statistics (mean, median), frequencies (% Agree, % Disagree) for the
whole sample and comparisons with 2012. % Agree includes the respondents who chose SA & A,
while % Disagree includes those who chose SD and D. Table 5 reports the range within which the
subscales’ means fell, as well as the range of frequencies for both 2015 and 2012-13. Table 6
reports the highest and lowest rated items.
Examining Tables 4, 5, and 6 reveals the following with respect to the survey as a whole:
 In comparison with 2012, nearly all of the subscale means remained quite the same with
Benefits & Rewards means showing significant decrease.
 Highest subscale means were for Management and General Conditions & Climate (GCC)
3.8 and lowest, as usual, for Benefits & Rewards (B&R) 2.7.
 Highest rated items came from GCC and Communication & Planning (C&P) with one
coming from Management and another from Policies & Procedures. Compared with 2012,
the same items remained in highest category.
 With respect to lowest items, all were from B&R, with two negatively worded items from
P&P and GCC.
Page 7 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
Table 5. Range of Means and % Satisfied for 2015 and 2012-13 Surveys by Subscale
Mean
Range
2012
Mean
Range
2015
Range
Satisfied
2012
Range
Satisfied
2015
2.6-4.3
2.8-4.4
23-86
21-68
3.7-4.1
3.6-3.9
67-78
44-57
3.5
2.9-3.8
2.8-4.3
31-74
20-62
3.4
3.3
3.1-3.7
3.1-3.6
39-69
20-48
Communication &
Planning
3.6
3.5
3.2-4.1
3.3-4.1
47-87
24-60
Benefits & Rewards
2.9
2.7
2.6-3.3
2.3-3.5
26-55
18-31
Teamwork &
Coordination
3.4
3.4
3.3-3.5
3.3-3.5
48-62
31-40
Satisfaction with AUB
Services
3.4
3.5
3.2-3.5
3.2-3.8
40-61
23-39
Overall Items
3.3
3.2
3.1-3.5
2.9-3.6
42-65
22-41
Mean
2012
Mean
2015
General Conditions &
Climate
3.7
3.8
Management
3.9
3.8
Policies & Procedures
3.5
Training &
Development
Scale
Figure 5. Top Ten Items ≥ 4.0
Top of Institution
I am proud to work at AUB]
I am aware of AUB institutional integrity…
I feel a great deal of loyalty towards AUB]
I understand AUB’s mission]
I know what is expected of me at work]
I am well-informed of policies and procedures…
At work I often do things above and beyond job…
I have a clear understanding of my department’s …
AUB deserves my loyalty]
3.70
3.80
Page 8 of 22
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
4.40
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 6. Lowest Ten Items ≤ 3.0.
Bottom of Institution
In my department, policies interfere with my…
Adequacy of retirement benefits]
How 4 are you with AUB Benefits and Rewards-]
I am thinking about leaving AUB in the next two…
Availability of opportunities for advancement at…
The effectiveness of AUB’s performance …
Fairness and objectivity of job promotions]
Degree to which your pay matches your…
Fairness of the pay you get for the work you do]
Degree to which your pay is linked to your…
2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90
Table 6. Top Highest and Lowest Items
Top for Institution
10. I am proud to work at AUB (GCC)
Mean
4.4
18. I feel a great deal of loyalty towards AUB (GCC)
4.2
61
34. I am aware of AUB institutional integrity policies (P&P)
4.2
62
16. At work I often do things above and beyond job requirements (GCC)
4.1
63
54. I understand AUB’s mission (C&P)
4.1
60
62. I know what is expected of me at work (C&P)
4.1
59
29. My supervisor is friendly and helpful (M)
4.0
57
19. AUB deserves my loyalty (GCC)
3.9
52
64. I have a clear understanding of my department’s goals and priorities (C&P)
3.9
21. I am happy to recommend AUB as a good place at work (GCC)
Bottom for Institution
3.9
Mean
32. In my department, policies interfere with my ability to do my job well (P&P)*
2.9
20
79. Adequacy of retirement benefits (B&R)
2.9
19
105. How satisfied are you with AUB Benefits and Rewards (SS)
2.9
22
17. I am thinking about leaving AUB in the next two years (GCC)*
2.8
21
78. Availability of opportunities for advancement at AUB (B&R)
2.8
21
75. The effectiveness of AUB’s performance appraisal process (B&R)
2.5
11
76. Fairness and objectivity of job promotions (B&R)
2.5
15
74. Degree to which your pay matches your responsibilities (B&R)
2.5
70. Fairness of the pay you get for the work you do (B&R)
72. Degree to which your pay is linked to your performance (B&R)
2.4
2.4
16
18
14
* Negative wording, the lower the better.
Page 9 of 22
%Agree
68
54
52
%Agree
Employee Survey 2015
With respect to subscales, the following can be noted:
General Conditions & Climate
 Highest rated items were ‘I am proud to work at AUB’ and ‘I feel a great deal of loyalty
towards AUB’. They were quite same as in previous years.
 Lowest rated items in this category were ‘I am thinking about leaving AUB in the next two
years’ but this is a negatively worded item so low means positive, and ‘I am satisfied with the
physical work conditions’. The second was also lowest in previous years.
 Most of other items remained same with one item showing significant drop ‘At AUB, I feel
highly motivated to do my work well’.
 So, in general GC&C showed stability as compared to 2012.
Management
 Most of the items on management showed slight drop with significant drop on three items: My
supervisor values my views and participation, my supervisor is friendly and helpful, and my
supervisor seems to care for me.
 Highest rated item is ‘My supervisor is friendly and helpful’ (3.9) while lowest is ‘My
supervisor or someone at work encourages my development’ (3.6) same as previous results.
 In general, the Management subscale showed a drop in satisfaction, with nearly most of
the items showing a 4-5% drop in satisfaction level.
Policies & Procedures
 Six of the 10 items under P&P showed improvement especially items regarding AUB’s P&P
being clear, easy to use, and up to date.
 Highest rated items are ‘I am aware of AUB’s institutional integrity policies’ (4.3), and ‘I am
well-informed of policies and procedures related to my work’ (4.0).
 Lowest rated items are ‘In my department, policies interfere with my ability to do my job
well’ (2.8) which is a negative item and I am satisfied with AUB Human Resources policies.
 As a conclusion, employees are knowledgeable about policies and procedures and they find
them clear, easy to use. However, they complain that these P&P might interfere with their
work and are not so flexible.
 Overall improvement on this dimension.
Training & Development
 Most of the items remained same with an improvement on ‘my supervisor helps me decide
what training I need’. Lower percentage (45% vs 53%) agreed with ‘ I am given time to take
training courses’
 Highest rated is item ‘I had opportunities at work to learn and grow’ (3.6) and ‘AUB provides
me with training and development to help me do my job effectively’ (3.6); while the lowest is
‘Training courses that meet my needs are available on a timely basis’ (3.1), same as last survey
though lower percentage of satisfied 34% vs. 39%.
 Scores show stability on training opportunities but can be improved on with an average of 3.2.
Communication & Planning
 The average of most of the items remained stable with a notable increase in ‘Management
allocates resources I need in a timely manner’ and ‘organization structure helps me to
operate efficiently’. These were problematic areas in last survey. However, a number of items
(6) showed a significant decrease in percentage agreement (41-44, 52, 53, and 56). Of interest
Page 10 of 22
Employee Survey 2015




is item 56 ‘AUB management is genuinely concerned about its employees’ where agreement
dropped from 51% to 40%.
Highest rated items ‘I understand AUB’s mission’ and ‘I know what is expected of me at
work’ (4.1). Same as previous surveys.
Lowest rated items involve item ‘AUB management is genuinely concerned about its
employees’ 3.2, and as mentioned above there was a significant drop in agreement.
In conclusion, AUB employees have a good understanding of AUB mission and of
departmental goals; however, they do not believe that management is genuinely concerned.
Overall stability on this dimension.
Benefits & Rewards
 Nearly most of the items (6/10) dropped, while only one improved. Overall dimension average
went down from 2.9 to 2.7.
 Highest rated items were ‘Degree of job security at AUB’ (3.5) and ‘AUB’s total benefits
package’ (3.1).
 Lowest rated items in this category were ‘Fairness of the pay you get’ 2.3, ‘Degree to which
your pay is linked to your performance’ 2.4, ‘‘Degree to which your pay matches your
responsibilities’ 2.4.
 In conclusion, AUB employees perception of B&R has drastically dropped though had
shown improvement in 2012. They view their pay as unfair and more than half are
dissatisfied with fairness and objectivity of promotion process and the degree to which their
pay is linked to their performance (56-58%).
Teamwork & Coordination
 Item means ranged from 3.3-3.5 with lowest rating on ‘Support from other AUB departments’.
 All of items showed stability and can be improved on.
 In conclusion, there is stability in satisfaction with teamwork and professionalism within
department, while support from other departments is still weaker than others.
Satisfaction Level with AUB Services
 Ratings on 15 AUB services ranged from 3.2-3.8 higher than 2012.
 Important improvement was in satisfaction was noted on 7 of the items, especially
Comptroller’s Office (3.6 from 3.2), AUBMC Call center (3.8 from 3.5), Registrar’s Office
(3.6 from 3.3), and Physical Plant (3.6 from 3.3), and IT 3.7 from 3.5.
 Lowest mean ratings were given to food services and they went down to 3.2 from 3.5, though
percentage of satisfaction went up to 57 from 55.
 In general, satisfaction level went up. Figure 7 reports satisfaction level of various services
and in comparison with 2012 (2015 in blue). Figure shows areas of highest and lowest
satisfaction and their improvement and/or decrease as compared to 2012, nearly most of item
improved.
Overall Ratings
 Mean overall item ratings ranged from 2.9-3.6.
 Highest rated are ‘How satisfied are you with AUB P&P’ (3.6, 58% satisfied), ‘How satisfied
with GC&C’ (3.5, 62%), ‘How satisfied are you with AUB as an employee? (3.4, 60%); while
the lowest item is ‘How satisfied are you with AUB Benefits & Rewards’ (2.9, 37%) going
down from 2012 (3.1, 42%).
Page 11 of 22


Employee Survey 2015
In comparison with 2012, most of the items remained the same in terms of average except for
satisfaction with B&R (2.9 from 3.1) and with C&P (3.4 from 3.2) and T&C (3.2) 52%
satisfied as compared with 47% (Figure 8).
In conclusion, overall satisfaction with AUB is still good (60% vs 65%), also with GC&C
(62%), and P&P (58%). Training has stabilized, and problems still exist with AUB Benefits
and Rewards. In fact, all overall items, with exception of B&R, showed satisfaction higher than
43% which is moderate to good. Figure 8 provides comparison of overall items for 2012 and
2015.
Figure 7. Satisfaction Level by Department 2012 and 2015.
Employee Satisfaction Survey Satisfaction Level
(2015 -2012)
HIP Office
Human Resource Department
Office of Auxiliary Services
Campus Procurement & Contracts…
Financial & Support Services: …
Physical Plant’s: Grounds and Transfer …
2012
Custodial services Department (janitorial) /…
2015
Plant Engineering / Engineering Departments
Facilities Planning and Design Unit (FPDU)
Office of Communications
Registrar’s Office
IT Telecommunications
Office of Information Technology (IT)
2.8
3
Page 12 of 22
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 8. Overall Satisfaction Levels 2012 and 2015.
Overall Satisfaction Level (2015-2012)
How satisfied are you with Teamwork
and Coordination at AUB?
How satisfied are you with AUB
Benefits and Rewards?
How satisfied are you with
Communication and Planning at AUB?
How satisfied are you with
Management at AUB?
2015
How satisfied are you with Training
and Development at AUB?
2012
How satisfied are you with AUB
Policies and Procedures?
How satisfied are you with General
Conditions and Climate at AUB?
How satisfied are you with AUB as an
employee?
2.5
II.
3
3.5
AUB Campus and AUBMC
Table 9 reports survey results by AUB Campus and AUBMC, while Table 7 provides subscale
means for whole sample, AUB Campus, and AUBMC. From Table 7 it is clear that Campus
subscale scores are lower than AUBMC on most of the subscales especially on P&P, C&P, and
Satisfaction with Services. Figure 9 compares performance on overall items. It is also evident on
overall item evaluation that AUBMC have higher satisfaction level. Figure 10 reports satisfaction
with services for AUB and AUIBMC.
Table 7. Subscales by AUBMC and Campus.
Employee Satisfaction Survey
Subscales 2015 & 2012-13
General Conditions and Climate
Management
Policies and Procedures
Training and Development
Communication and Planning
Benefits and Rewards
Teamwork and Coordination
Satisfaction Level with AUB services
Overall Items
Campus
597
3.7
3.9
3.3
3.2
3.4
2.8
3.3
3.4
3.2
613
3.8
3.8
3.3
3.3
3.4
2.7
3.4
3.4
3.2
Page 13 of 22
AUB MC
616
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.4
3.7
3.0
3.4
3.5
3.5
658
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.4
3.6
2.8
3.4
3.6
3.3
AUB
1535
3.7
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.6
2.9
3.4
3.4
3.3
1610
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.5
2.7
3.4
3.5
3.2
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 9. Overall items by AUB and AUBMC.
Overall Items AUB and AUBMC
How satisfied are you with Teamwork and
Coordination at AUB
How satisfied are you with AUB Benefits and
Rewards
How satisfied are you with Communication
and Planning at AUB
How satisfied are you with Management at
AUB
AUBMC
How satisfied are you with Training and
Development at AUB
AUB
How satisfied are you with AUB Policies and
Procedures
How satisfied are you with General
Conditions and Climate at AUB
How satisfied are you with AUB as an
employee
2.50
III.
3.00
3.50
Satisfaction Results by Academic/Non-Academic
Table 8 reports the subscale means for AUB and AUBMC for each of academic and non-academic
employees. It is obvious from the table that AUB academics have lower satisfaction than AUBMC
academics and staff from both institutions on most of the subscales except for Management and
Training & Development where they are higher. Similarly AUB Non academic staff has lower
satisfaction than AUBMC staff except on Management and GC&C. In general, academic
employees have lower satisfaction than non-academics, especially campus academics. Table 10
reports item means by academic and non-academic staff for each of AUB and AUBMC
(Appendix).
Page 14 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 10. Satisfaction with Services AUB AUBMC
MEANS AUB & AUBMC SATISFACTION BY DEPARTMENT
[HIP Office]
[Human Resource Department]
[Food Services / Cafeterias]
[Office of Auxiliary Services]
[Campus Procurement & Contracts…
[Financial & Support Services: …
[Physical Plant’s: Grounds and Transfer …
Mean AUBMC
[Custodial services Department…
Mean AUB
[Plant Engineering / Engineering…
[Facilities Planning and Design Unit…
[Office of Communications]
[Registrar’s Office]
[AUBMC call center]
[IT Telecommunications]
[Office of Information Technology (IT)]
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
Table 8. Subscale Means for AUB and AUBMC Academic and Non-Academic
Employee Satisfaction Survey
Subscales 2012-13
Academic
AUB
Academic
AUBMC
AUB Non
Academic
AUBMC Non
Academic
General Conditions and Climate
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.5
Management
3.8
3.5
3.6
3.5
Policies and Procedures
3.2
3.4
3.4
3.6
Training and Development
3.7
3.6
3.3
3.4
Communication and Planning
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.6
Benefits and Rewards
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
Teamwork and Coordination
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.5
Satisfaction Level with AUB services
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.6
Overall Items
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Page 15 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 11 reports satisfaction means with services department for academic and non-academic,
while Figure 12 reports satisfaction means for each of overall items and Figure 13 subscale mean
averages. As evident from Figure 11, AUBMC academics have lowest satisfaction on services
except for Engineering followed by AUB academics. AUBMC non-academic staff has highest
satisfaction on nearly all items except cafeteria which is headed by AUB non academics.
Figure 11. Mean Satisfaction Academic and Non Academic by Service
MEANS AUB & AUBMC ACADEMIC & NON ACADEMIC
SATISFACTION BY DEPARTMENT
[HIP Office]
[Human Resource Department]
[Food Services / Cafeterias]
[Office of Auxiliary Services]
[Campus Procurement & Contracts
Administration / Purchasing…
[Financial & Support Services:
Comptroller’s Office]
[Physical Plant’s: Grounds and Transfer
Department]
AUBMC NON ACADEMIC
[Custodial services Department
(janitorial) / Housekeeping & Laundry]
AUB NON ACADEMIC
ACADEMIC AUBMC
[Plant Engineering / Engineering
Departments]
ACADEMIC AUB
[Facilities Planning and Design Unit
(FPDU)]
[Office of Communications]
[Registrar’s Office]
[AUBMC call center]
[IT Telecommunications]
[Office of Information Technology (IT)]
2.70
2.90
3.10
3.30
Page 16 of 22
3.50
3.70
3.90
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 12. AUB and AUBMC Overall Satisfaction Academic Non-Academic
AUB AND AUB MC Overall Satisfaction
How satisfied are you with Teamwork and
Coordination at AUB
How satisfied are you with AUB Benefits and
Rewards
How satisfied are you with Communication
and Planning at AUB
How satisfied are you with Management at
AUB
Non Academic AUB-MC
Non Academic AUB
How satisfied are you with Training and
Development at AUB
Academic AUB MC
Academic AUB
How satisfied are you with AUB Policies and
Procedures
How satisfied are you with General Conditions
and Climate at AUB
How satisfied are you with AUB as an
employee
0
1
2
3
4
Figure 13. Subscale Mean Averages AUB AUBMC Academic Non-Academic
Subscale Mean Averages AUB and AUB MC
Overall Items
Satisfaction Level with AUB services
Teamwork and Coordination
Benefits and Rewards
AUBMC Non
Academic
AUB Non Academic
Communication and Planning
Training and Development
Academic AUBMC
Policies and Procedures
Academic AUB
Management
General Conditions and Climate
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Page 17 of 22
3
3.5
4
Employee Survey 2015
III.
Satisfaction by Grade Level
Table 11 (Appendix) reports item means by grade level and Figure 14 reports mean satisfaction for
each of the subscales, overall items, and satisfaction with services.
Figure 14. Mean Satisfaction by Grade Level
Means by Grade
Overall Items
Satisfaction Level with AUB services
Teamwork and Coordination
Below 4
Benefits and Rewards
4 to 6
Communication and Planning
7 to 9
10 to 12
Training and Development
Above 12
Policies and Procedures
Academic
Management
General Conditions and Climate
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
From figure 14, it is obvious that academic employees have lowest satisfaction. Satisfaction starts
to go down with higher grader levels, except for B&R T&C, and GC&C where they are all similar.
IV.
Satisfaction by Level of Education
Table 12 (Appendix) reports item means by employee level of education and Figure 15 reports
mean satisfaction for each of the subscales, overall items, and satisfaction with services. It is clear
from the graph that employees with lower levels of education have higher satisfaction with overall
items and all subscales. There seems to be no difference by educational level on satisfaction with
T&C, Management and GC&C.
Page 18 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 15. Mean Satisfaction by Employee Level of Education
Means by Education
Overall Items
Satisfaction Level with AUB services
Graduate School
Teamwork and Coordination
Benefits and Rewards
Completed College
Communication and Planning
Some College
Training and Development
Policies and Procedures
Completed High
School
Management
Some High School or
less
General Conditions and Climate
0.00
V.
2.00
4.00
Satisfaction by Years of Employment at AUB
Table 13 (Appendix) reports item means by years of employment at AUB and Figure 16 reports
mean satisfaction for each of the subscales, overall items, and satisfaction with services. It is clear
from the figure that employees with more than 20 years of employment and new hires have highest
level of satisfaction. With years of service, satisfaction starts to decrease to reach its lowest with
employees who have been 5-10 years, and then satisfaction starts to increase after ten years of
employment.
VI.
Satisfaction by Age
Table 14 (Appendix) reports item means by years of employment at AUB and Figure 17 reports
mean satisfaction for each of the subscales, overall items, and satisfaction with services. The 35-44
age groups has highest satisfaction on a number of subscales followed by the 65 and older. Usually
younger employees have higher satisfaction, then as they grow older satisfaction decreases and
then start to go up again.
VII.
Predictors of employee satisfaction
Regression done on responses on overall items revealed that General Conditions & Climate was
best predictor accounting for 51% of the variance followed by Management adding another 7%
then Benefits & Rewards another 3%. These three variables accounted for 61% of the variance in
satisfaction of employee with working at AUB.
Page 19 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
Figure 16. Mean Satisfaction by Years of Employment at AUB
Means by Years at AUB
Overall Items
Satisfaction Level with AUB services
Teamwork and Coordination
20 years or longer
Benefits and Rewards
10 to < 20
Communication and Planning
5 to < 10
Training and Development
1 to < 5
Less than 1 year
Policies and Procedures
Management
General Conditions and Climate
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Figure 17. Mean Satisfaction by Employee Age
Means by Age
Overall Items
Satisfaction Level with AUB services
Teamwork and Coordination
65 and older
Benefits and Rewards
55-64
45 - 54
Communication and Planning
35-44
Training and Development
25-34
Policies and Procedures
Under 25
Management
General Conditions and Climate
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Page 20 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
Summary of Employee Comments:
Employees provided extensive comments on what they found most satisfying and least satisfying
at AUB and their recommendations for improvement (800). A verbatim summary is provided in
the Appendix C by question. The following is a summary of most frequently mentioned comments:
Most Satisfying at AUB
 Professional challenging competitive academic environment, atmosphere, and community.
 Freedom and independence in doing work, standards of excellence, professional
development opportunities,
 Benefits (educational allowance, medical coverage, retirement), and stability.
 Campus facilities, green space, gym, etc.
 Co-workers, team collaboration, and respect among colleagues.
 Students, inquisitive, engaging, quality, and motivated.
 Diversity of culture.
Least Satisfying at AUB
 Human resources, absence of career ladder or planning, annual evaluations, lack of
recognition of achievements, lack of accountability, and lack of opportunities for
advancement.
 Bad office conditions, toilettes, large class sizes, classes and labs.
 Inefficiency, bureaucracy, internal gossip, stressful climate, disparity in allocation of
resources, and unfairness.
How can AUB enhance employee satisfaction?
 Accurate assessment of performance, suitable grading system, fair contract, clear job
descriptions and career paths, and empowerment of employees.
 Better planning, communication, training, transparency, office space, and infrastructure.
 Create a call center for administrative help, a new culture based on accountability and
performance, improve managers’ skills, update procedures, and more involvement in
decisions making.
 Reduce bureaucracy and useless policies, and discrepancy in salaries and load.
Conclusion and Summary
The survey has revealed AUB employees views on working at AUB. Results were reported for
whole sample, for Campus and AUBMC, by grade, age, gender, educational level, and number of
years at AUB. Response rate was higher than for previous surveys. However, a larger percentage
of employees did not provide their grade level (22%) or their department codes. Overall
satisfaction with AUB is still good (60% vs 65%), also with General Conditions &Climate (62%),
and Policies & Procedures (58%). Training, Communication, and Teamwork have stabilized, while
satisfaction with Management went down, and serious problems still exist with AUB Benefits and
Rewards. All overall items, with exception of Benefits & Rewards, showed satisfaction higher than
43% which is moderate to good. Campus subscale scores are lower than AUBMC on most of the
subscales. In general, academic employees have lower satisfaction than non-academics, especially
campus academics. With respect to satisfaction by Grade level, it goes down with higher grades.
Academics have lowest satisfaction. The profile of a satisfied employee is that of a young lower
Page 21 of 22
Employee Survey 2015
grade level with lower educational level. Older employees with higher educational level and higher
grades are less satisfied.
AUB staff and faculty provided extensive comments and suggestions for improvement and these
focused mainly on aspects related to human resources, infra structure, and administrative issues.
Page 22 of 22