Employee Survey 2012-13
Employee Satisfaction Survey Report 2012-13
Introduction
The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment and as part of its annual survey cycle
administered in January-February 2013 an Employee Satisfaction Survey 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 2009 was administered again with some modifications and changes to
ensure better relevance of the results. Some items were added to provide some useful indicators for
strategic planning. 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).
For the first time, the ESS was administered on-line to faculty and staff Grades 7 and above, while
it was administered in the usual paper form 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 a month.
Sample
The surveys were sent to all AUB employees, academic and non-academic (around 4,203). 1,413
employees answered on-line survey, 720 provided full responses while 693 partial ones, and 122
filled out paper version with a total of 1,535 employee responses (37%). 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 21% of respondents did not specify grade
level. 42% of sample comes from employees between grades 4-12, lower than population of 62%,
while the above Grade 12 employees are overrepresented (17% vs. 13%) and academic employees
are underrepresented (20% vs. 29%). From the above statistics, we can presume that those who did
Page 1 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
not specify grade could be from the Grades 4-12 category. Table 2 also reports response rate for
the whole sample of 37% and it is higher than previous administrations of 20% in 2009, 25%
(2006), 30% (2003) and 60% (2000).
As in previous surveys, Non-academic personnel > 12 had highest response rate of 46%, followed
by academic employees of 29% higher than 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 1-4 report the breakdown of the sample of respondents by gender, age,
educational level, and years of employment at AUB.
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
Table 2. Response Rate by Grade Level
Group
Sample
N
%
Non-Academic personnel,
649
42
Grades 4-12
Non-Academic Personnel >
257
17
Grade 12
Academic Personnel
303
20
Not specify Grade
326
21
Total
1535
100
Number of Items
14
8
11
6
21
10
4
15
8
8
3
108
Population
N
%
2587
62
Response
Rate%
25
563
13
46
1053
25
29
4203
100
37%
Page 2 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Figure 1. Respondents by Gender
Figure 2. Respondents by Age
Page 3 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Figure 3. Respondents by Level of Education
Figure 4. Respondents by Years at AUB
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. Significant differences in satisfaction level between various
groups on each item will also be investigated using non-parametric techniques like KruskallWallis, and predictors of employee satisfaction investigated using regression analysis.
Page 4 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
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 2009 results are also provided.
Reliability
Reliability analysis conducted on the survey and its subscales revealed excellent reliabilities of
0.98 for the whole scale and 0.85-0.95 for the subscales. An exception is the General Conditions &
Climate Subscale with a reliability of 0.73 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 higher than the reliability
estimates on the 2009 survey.
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
*All significant at p< .00
R*
.73
.95
.92
.87
.95
.91
.85
.91
.92
No of items
14
8
11
6
21
10
4
15
8
.98
97
Descriptive Statistics and Satisfaction Level
I. Whole Sample
Table 4 reports descriptive statistics (mean, median) for 20, frequencies (% Agree, % Disagree) for
the whole sample and comparisons with 2009. % 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 2012-13 and 2009. 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 2009, nearly half of the subscale means remained quite the same with
an improvement in Management, Communication & Planning, and Training and
Development. There was slight decrease in Satisfaction with AUB services.
 Highest subscale means were for Management and General Conditions & Climate (GCC)
and lowest, as usual, for Benefits & Rewards (B&R).
 Highest rated items came from GCC and Communication & Planning (C&P) with one
coming from Management. Compared with 2009, the same items remained in highest
category.
Page 5 of 19

Employee Survey 2012-13
With respect to lowest items, all were from B&R, with two negatively worded items from
P&P and GCC.
Table 5. Range of Means and % Satisfied for 2012-13 and 2009 Surveys by Subscale
Mean
Mean
Range
Range
Mean
Mean
Scale
Range
Range
Satisfied Satisfied
2012
2009
2012
2009
2012
2009
General Conditions
& Climate
3.7
3.7
2.6-4.3
2.5 - 4.3
23-86
23 - 84
Management
3.9
3.8
3.7-4.1
3.7-4.0
67-78
64 - 73
Policies &
Procedures
3.5
3.5
2.9-3.8
2.9 - 3.9
31-74
15 - 73
Training &
Development
3.4
3.3
3.1-3.7
3.1 - 3.6
39-69
40 - 63
Communication &
Planning
3.6
3.5
3.2-4.1
3.2 - 4.1
47-87
40 - 81
2.6-3.3
2.6 - 3.4
26-55
23 – 53
3.3-3.5
3.2 - 3.5
48-62
43 - 58
3.2-3.5
3.3 - 3.7
40-61
30 - 63
3.1-3.5
2.9 – 3.5
42-65
34 - 59
Benefits & Rewards
Teamwork &
Coordination
Satisfaction with
AUB Services
Overall Items
2.9
2.9
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.3
Page 6 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Figure 5. Top Ten Items
Figure 6. Lowest Ten Items.
Page 7 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Table 6. Top Highest and Lowest Items
%
Top for Institution
Mean Agree
63. I have a clear understanding of my department’s goals and priorities (C&P) 4
79
16. At work I often do things above and beyond job requirements (GCC)
4.1
79
29. My supervisor is friendly and helpful (M)
4.1
78
53. I understand AUB’s mission (C&P)
4.1
87
61. I know what is expected of me at work (C&P)
4.1
85
18. I feel a great deal of loyalty towards AUB (GCC)
4.2
80
10. I am proud to work at AUB (GCC)
4.3
86
%
Bottom for Institution
Mean Agree
17.
I am thinking about leaving AUB in the next two years (GCC)
2.6
23
74.
The effectiveness of AUB’s performance appraisal process (B&R)
2.6
26
69.
Fairness of the pay you get for the work you do (B&R)
2.7
31
71.
Degree to which your pay is linked to your performance (B&R)
2.7
27
73.
Degree to which your pay matches your responsibilities (B&R)
2.7
27
75.
Fairness and objectivity of job promotions (B&R)
2.8
30
32.
In my dept. policies interfere with my ability to do my job well (P&P)
2.9
31
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.
 Eight of the 14 items showed improvement, most notable increase was in ‘At work I often do
things above and beyond job requirements’ from 3.9-4.1.
 Most of other items remained same with one slightly dropping ‘I have a best friend at work’.
 So, in general GC&C showed improvement as compared to 2009.
Management
 Five of the eight items on this subscale showed improvement while remaining three remained
the same.
 Highest rated item is ‘My supervisor is friendly and helpful’ (4.1) while lowest is ‘My
supervisor or someone at work encourages my development’ (3.7).
 The Management subscale showed improvement.
Policies & Procedures
 Nearly all items under P&P remained the same with an improvement in ‘overall, AUB’s
policies & procedures are flexible’.
 Highest rated item is ‘I am well-informed of policies and procedures related to my work’ (3.8)
and ‘Overall, AUB’s policies and procedures are: Clear’ (3.7).
 Lowest rated items are ‘In my department, policies interfere with my ability to do my job well’
(2.9). Same as 2009 results.
Page 8 of 19


Employee Survey 2012-13
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.
Stability in this dimension.
Training & Development
 Half the items improved, while other half remained same as last year.
 Highest rated is item ‘I had opportunities at work to learn and grow’ (3.7) followed by ‘AUB
provides me with training and development to help me do my job effectively’ (3.5); while the
lowest is ‘Training courses that meet my needs are available on a timely basis’ (3.1), same as
last survey.
 Scores show improvement on training opportunities and on given the chance to talk about
progress.
Communication & Planning
 Half of the items showed improvement with a notable increase in ‘I am aware of campus
wide plans and strategies’ from 3.2 (40% A) to 3.4 (55%A), and all other items stabilized.
 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 items ‘I believe I am not at risk by challenging rules’ also same
lowest item as last year.
 In conclusion, AUB employees have a good understanding of AUB mission and of
departmental goals, however, they feel that they are at risk if they challenge rules, and do not
believe that management is genuinely concerned, or that allocation of resources is timely nor
that organization structure helps efficient operations.
Benefits & Rewards
 Nearly half of the items (5/10) improved, while two of the ten went down. Highest
improvement was on ‘fairness and objectivity of job promotions’ from 2.6 to 2.8 (23%A to
30%A) and ’availability of opportunities for advancement at AUB’ (34% to 39% A).
 Highest rated items were ‘Degree of job security at AUB’ (3.3) and ‘AUB’s total benefits
package’ (3.2).
 Lowest rated items in this category were ‘Effectiveness of AUB’s performance appraisal
processes’ (2.6), ‘Fairness of the pay you get’ and ‘Degree to which your pay is linked to your
performance’, each 2.7.
 In conclusion, AUB employees perception of B&R has somewhat improved but they still
view their pay as unfair and around half are dissatisfied with fairness and objectivity of
promotion process and the degree to which their pay is linked to their performance.
Teamwork & Coordination
 Item means ranged from 3.3-3.5 with lowest rating on ‘Support from other AUB departments’.
 In general, half of the items (2/4) went down in average but not considerably in agreement
when compared with 2009 survey, while one improved ‘Support from other AUB departments’
from 43%A to 48%A.
 In conclusion, there is stability in satisfaction with teamwork and professionalism within
department, while support from other departments is still weaker than others.
Page 9 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Satisfaction Level with AUB Services
 Ratings on 15 AUB services ranged from 3.2-3.5 lower than 2009. Five of the items went
down most notably IT and ACPS from 3.7-3.5 (52%-44% Satisfied).
 Important improvement was in satisfaction with HIP from 3.3 to 3.5 (48% to 59% Satisfied)
and in janitorial services from 46% to 57% satisfied.
 Lowest mean ratings were given to Purchasing, Financial Support Services Comptroller’s
Office, and FPDU (3.2-3.3).
 In general, satisfaction level went down. Figure 7 reports satisfaction level of various services
and in comparison with 2009. Figure shows areas of highest and lowest satisfaction and their
improvement and/or decrease as compared to 2009.
Overall Ratings
 Mean overall item ratings ranged from 3.1 to 3.5.
 Highest rated are ‘How satisfied are you with AUB as an employee?, ‘How satisfied with
GC&C’ and ‘How satisfied are you with AUB P&P’ (3.5, 58-65% satisfied), while the lowest
item is ‘How satisfied are you with AUB Benefits & Rewards’ (3.1) though it improved from
2009 (2.9, from 34% to 42% S).
 Most of the items remained the same in terms of average except for satisfaction with B&R
(2.9-3.1) and with T&C (3.2-3.3, 42% to 47% S.)
 Satisfaction improved in terms of percentages on all items..
 In conclusion, overall satisfaction with AUB is still good (65% vs 59%), also with GC&C
(63%), and P&P (58%). Training has stabilized, and some problems still exist with AUB
Benefits and Rewards. In fact, all overall items showed satisfaction higher than 40% which is
moderate to good. Figure 8 provides comparison of overall items for 2009 and 2012.
Page 10 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Figure 7. Satisfaction Level by Department 2012 and 2009.
Page 11 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Figure 8. Overall items for 2012 and 2009.
II.
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 with exception of GC&C and
Management where they are either equal or Campus is higher. Figure 9 compares performance on
overall items. It is also evident on overall item evaluation that AUBMC have higher satisfaction
level.
Page 12 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Table 7. Subscales by AUBMC and Campus.
Employee Satisfaction Survey Subscales 2012-13 Campus AUB MC
597
3.7
3.9
3.3
3.2
3.4
2.8
3.3
3.4
3.2
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
Figure 9. Overall Items by Campus and AUBMC
Page 13 of 19
616
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.4
3.7
3.0
3.4
3.5
3.5
AUB
1535
3.7
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.6
2.9
3.4
3.4
3.3
Employee Survey 2012-13
III.
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 with most of the subscales except for GCC and Management. Similarly AUB Non
academic staff has lower satisfaction than AUBMC staff especially on P&P, T&D, C&P, and on
overall items. In general, academic employees have lower satisfaction than non-academics,
especially campus academics. Table 12 reports item means by academic and non-academic staff
for each of AUB and AUBMC (Appendix).
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
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.7
Management
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
Policies and Procedures
3.0
3.3
3.4
3.7
Training and Development
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.5
Communication and Planning
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.8
Benefits and Rewards
2.6
3.0
2.9
3.0
Teamwork and Coordination
3.2
3.5
3.4
3.4
Satisfaction Level with AUB services
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.5
Overall Items
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.5
Figure 10 reports satisfaction means by services department for academic and non-academic, while
Figure 11 reports satisfaction means for each of overall items.
As evident from Figure 10, AUB academics have lowest satisfaction on services except for IT and
ACPS. Similarly they have lowest satisfaction on overall items while AUBMC non-academic staff
has highest satisfaction.
Page 14 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Figure 10. Mean Satisfaction Academic and Non Academic by Service
Figure 11. Mean Satisfaction Overall Items Academic and Non-Academic
Page 15 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
IV.
Satisfaction by Grade Level
Table 13 (Appendix) reports item means by grade level and Figure 12 reports mean satisfaction for
each of the subscales, overall items, and satisfaction with services.
Figure 12. Mean Satisfaction by Grade Level
From figure 12, it is obvious that academic employees have lowest satisfaction. Also, lower level
employees, lower than grade 9, have higher satisfaction than upper level employees except on
management.
V.
Satisfaction by Level of Education
Table 14 (Appendix) reports item means by employee level of education and Figure 13 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
service departments.
Page 16 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Figure 13. Mean Satisfaction by Employee Level of Education
VI.
Satisfaction by Years of Employment at AUB
Table 15 (Appendix) reports item means by years of employment at AUB and Figure 14 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.
VII.
Satisfaction by Age
Table 16 (Appendix) reports item means by years of employment at AUB and Figure 15 reports
mean satisfaction for each of the subscales, overall items, and satisfaction with services. Younger
employees have higher satisfaction with subscales and overall items, then as they grow older
satisfaction decreases to lowest in 35-44 age groups. After that it starts to increase with older age
groups greater than 45.
Page 17 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Figure 14. Mean Satisfaction by Years of Employment at AUB
Figure 15. Mean Satisfaction by Employee Age
Page 18 of 19
Employee Survey 2012-13
Summary of Employee Comments:
Employee comments verbatim are provided in the Appendix D by question. The following is a
summary of most frequently mentioned comments:
Most satisfying at AUB:
 Working environment, campus, reputation, mission, professionalism, teamwork, academic
freedom, respect, support, friendly, ethical place, high standards, challenging,
 Stability, security, benefits, package.
 Opportunities to grow and develop, and autonomy.
 Students, eagerness, quality, diversity.
 Policies and procedures, well established work systems, leadership.
 Advanced technology,
Least satisfying at AUB
 Salary, performance appraisal, promotion not linked to achievements, workload, stressful,
unfairness, favoritism, promotions, tenure, working hours, money spent on construction.
 Bureaucracy, lack of coordination and communication between departments, lack of
transparency in hiring, heavy structure, rigid policies, lack of competent senior managers.
 No career development, lack of advancement opportunities, demotivated staff, lack of
recognition.
 HIP, purchasing, IT, comptrollers’ office,.
Suggestions for enhancing satisfaction
 Fairness in salaries, promotion based on achievement, objective appraisal, recognition,
well studied promotions, transparency, and accountability.
 Increase training & development, career paths, put right people in right place,
orientation to new employees and managers.
 Lower parking and Hostler fees.
 Better communication, flexible policies, and competent managers.
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, except first one of 2000,
especially for higher grades and academics. However, a larger percentage of employees did not
provide their grade level (20%) nor their department codes (60%). Compared to previous
survey reports, the picture is tending towards improvement and/or stability in most of the areas
investigated with few areas that went down like satisfaction with some of the services.
Comparison between Campus and AUBMC revealed higher satisfaction in AUBMC on most
of the subscales. Academic employees are less satisfied than non-academics on all dimensions
except for Management. The profile of a satisfied employee is that of a young lower grade
level with lower educational level. Older employees with higher educational level and higher
grades are less satisfied. Comments also revealed the improvements done with many
expressing satisfaction and nothing to comment on. Remaining issues are mostly with benefits
and rewards and with recruitment, appraisal system, and promotions as it is felt that they are
not fair and lack transparency. Some recommendations were provided by employees.
Page 19 of 19