2015 ALL STAFF TOWN HALL
Welcome
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS AND CUCSA
SURVEY BACKGROUND
Jessica Potts
Chair, Staff Assembly
Darolyn Striley
Chair-elect, Staff Assembly
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
OPENING COMMENTS & AGENDA
Dave Lawlor
Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer
Finance, Operations and Administration
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
TODAY’S AGENDA
• Welcome and CUCSA Survey Background
• CUCSA Survey Results Summary
• Pay for Performance
• Career Tracks
• Audience Q&A
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
2015 CUCSA ENGAGEMENT SURVEY RESULTS
Lisa Terry
Director – Organizational Excellence
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
2015 UC Engagement Survey – Objectives and Methodology
• Survey Objectives
• Understand the current state of engagement of the UC workforce
• Identify actions to enhance strengths and address gaps
• Consider these results along with related information such as Ombuds annual report, grievance
data and prior surveys
• Target Population
• A random, stratified sample of non-represented UC staff (99s) with at least one year of service
from each UC campus were invited to take the survey during the second quarter of 2015.
Total non-represented population ~ 4,000.
• Response: 1,083 staff responded from the Davis campus, School of Medicine and School of
Nursing.
• UCDHS conducts its own engagement survey using Press Ganey as vendor.
• 2015 survey just closed on 9/30/15 for all non-academic staff
• ~4,600 responses (52-53% response rate)
• Results cross-walked with Patient Satisfaction data; results communicated this month
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Results
Summary
7
2015 UC Engagement Survey – Objectives and Methodology
• Survey content
• Survey consisted of 37 opinion ITEMS/questions that were organized into 8 different
CATEGORIES. (2012 survey contained 32 opinion ITEMS/questions organized into 8
CATEGORIES)
• CATEGORIES included: Engagement (8 ITEMS); Career Development (5 ITEMS);
Communication (2 ITEMS); Image/Brand (2 ITEMS); Organizational Change (3 ITEMS);
Performance Management (3 ITEMS); Supervision (12 ITEMS); Working Relationships
(2 ITEMS)
• Benchmarks
• UC Davis 2012
• UC Overall 2015
• 2014 US Universities Staff Norm
• Towers Watson US National Norm
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Results
Summary
8
Comparative Data by Survey Category
Engagement (8 items)
Communication (2 items)
100
66
60
67
59
77
40
20
0
Score/Norm
80
80
69
66
77
69
60
40
20
0
UC Davis 2015
UC 2015 Overall
TW US National Norm
UC Davis 2012
2014 US University Staff Norm
UC Davis 2015
UC 2015 Overall
TW US National Norm
Supervision (12 items)
100
69
70
71
75
Score/Norm
80
UC Davis 2012
2014 US University Staff Norm
Working Relationships (2 items)
100
Score/Norm
Score/Norm
100
60
40
20
0
UC Davis 2015
UC 2015 Overall
TW US National Norm
UC Davis 2012
2014 US University Staff Norm
80
74
74
73
75
60
40
20
0
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Results
Summary
9
Comparative Data by Survey Category
Career Development (5 items)
Image/Brand (2 items)
100
100
58
53
56
59
40
20
40
20
0
UC Davis 2012
2014 US University Staff Norm
Performance Management (3 items)
Organizational Change (3 items)
100
77
80
60
28
33
34
20
80
60
53
54
52
61
40
20
0
UC Davis 2015
UC 2015 Overall
TW US National Norm
Score/Norm
100
40
77
60
0
UC Davis 2015
UC 2015 Overall
TW US National Norm
75
76
74
80
Score/Norm
60
Score/Norm
Score/Norm
80
0
UC Davis 2012
2014 US University Staff Norm
UC Davis 2015
UC 2015 Overall
TW US National Norm
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Results
Summary
UC Davis 2012
2014 US University Staff Norm
10
5-point Likert scale:
1, 2 = Unfavorable
3 = Neutral
4, 5 = Favorable
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Results
Summary
11
5-point Likert scale:
1, 2 = Unfavorable
3 = Neutral
4, 5 = Favorable
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Results
Summary
12
2015 Written Comment Summary
Of the 1083 employees who returned surveys, 666 respondents (61%) answered the
comment question: What one or two suggestions do you have that would most
improve you campus/location as a place to work?
1.
Career Development (18% of comments)
•
Professional development for employees is not a leadership priority; little support in the form of
budget or release time
•
Lack of upward mobility in departments and on campus
•
Desire for specific guidelines and training requirements for career progression
•
Need for more career development opportunities in specialized areas such as student counseling
and development
2. Organizational Change (17% of comments)
•
Frustration with the volume and intensity of change on campus
•
Appears to be no clear strategic priorities; rather, everything is a top priority
•
Change is often implemented without any concern for how it impacts day-to-day activities and those
responsible for them
•
There is not enough stakeholder involvement in decision-making before and during change
•
Empower subject matter experts to make decisions
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Summary
13
2015 Written Comment Summary, continued.
3. Performance Management (15% of comments)
• Current performance management system is ineffective at recognizing and rewarding staff
• Faculty supervisors need more support and guidance regarding administrative performance
management
• The time spent on EPARs is disproportionate with the amount of merit monies available
• Current performance management system is perceived to use a bell curve/forced rankings
• Faculty, represented employee and non-represented employee merit approaches are
disparate; non-represented employees are disadvantaged
• Consistently poor performers are not managed effectively
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Summary
14
RECAP: 2012 Post-survey Follow-up
• Outreach:
• Staff Assembly leadership and Human Resources presented findings to CoDVC
with support from project vendor Towers Watson
• Staff Assembly sponsored town hall meetings to distribute the survey results.
HR, Chancellor’s Office, and Towers Watson participated
• Articles appeared in Dateline and regularly in the Staff Voice e-publication
• Action plans were created and implemented in a collaboration between Staff
Assembly and Human Resources
• Joint Human Resources and Staff Assembly Committees
• Career Development (+3%)
• Workload (+8%) and Retention (+1%)
• Communication (+7%)
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Results
Summary
15
Actions to Address 2015 Results
• Supervision and Middle Management – NEW Joint Committee
• Analysis – what are current ratios? Training levels?
• Training: Increase accountability
• Rewards and Recognition enhancements
• Succession and workload planning
• Pay for Performance Task force appointed in September; improvements in early 2016
• Climate – Task Force on Workplace Climate
• Appointed by Chancellor Katehi
• Managing Change
• Utilize structured approaches for major change initiatives
• Communication enhancements – Staff Assembly provided recommendations
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Results
Summary
16
Appendix: UC Davis Progress on Items Related to Engagement
Comparison between 2015 and 2012
Sustainable
Engagement
Sub-Indices
Items
Total
Favorable
2015
Total
Favorable
2012
Differential
Traditionally
Engaged
3. I feel motivated to go beyond my formal job
responsibilities to get the job done.
83
83
Traditionally
Engaged
11. UC inspires me to do my best work.
68
58
+ 10*
Enabled
15. I am satisfied with my involvement in decisions that
affect my work.
60
59
+1
Enabled
19. I have the equipment/tools/resources I need to do my job
effectively.
69
70
-1
Energized
21. There is usually sufficient staff in my department to
handle the workload.
48
40
+ 8*
Energized
23. My work schedule allows sufficient flexibility to meet my
personal/family needs.
84
84
0
Traditionally
Engaged
25. I would recommend UC as a good place to work.
78
74
+ 4*
Retention
29. At the present time, are you seriously considering
leaving UC?
61
60
+1
0
*Indicates a statistically significant difference
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Summary
17
Appendix: Items that Reflect the Key Drivers of Engagement as identified by
Towers Watson Comparison between 2015 and 2012
Category
Items
Total
Favorable
2015
Total
Favorable
2012
Differential
Career
Development
14. I am confident I can achieve my personal career
objectives within the UC system.
61
56
+ 5*
Career
Development
18. My campus/location is doing a good job of planning for
management succession.
31
27
+ 4*
Performance
Management
6. I feel my personal contributions are recognized.
56
64
- 8*
Performance
Management
16. I feel my campus/location does a good job matching pay
to performance.**
28
23
+ 5*
Communication
10. I feel able to openly and honestly communicate my views
to my supervisor and other leaders.***
68
55
+ 13*
Communication
23. My campus/location does an excellent job of keeping
employees informed about matters affecting us.****
64
64
0
*Indicates a statistically significant difference
**Slightly different statement in 2012, “I feel UC does a good job matching pay to performance.”
***Slightly different statement in 2012, “I feel able to openly and honestly communicate my views upwards.
****Slightly different statement in 2012, “UC does an excellent job keeping employees informed about matters
affecting us.
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Summary
18
Appendix: Items that Reflect the Key Drivers of Retention as identified by Towers
Watson Comparison between 2015 and 2012
Category
Items
Total
Favorable
2015
Total
Favorable
2012
Differential
Career
Development
14. I am confident I can achieve my personal career
objectives within the UC system.
61
56
+ 5*
Career
Development
18. My campus/location is doing a good job of planning for
management succession.
31
27
+ 4*
Supervision
27. Regarding suggestions for change from employees, my
supervisor is usually responsive.
72
73
-1
Supervision
26. I have a clear understanding of how my job contributes
to the departmental objectives.
88
86
+2
*Indicates a statistically significant difference
2015 UC Davis Engagement Survey Summary
19
PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
Dave Lawlor
Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer
Finance, Operations and Administration
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
Pay for Performance – Policy Covered Employees Only
UC Davis Salary Program Philosophy:
In our merit program, meritorious job performance is
rewarded through differential pay increases as opposed
to across-the-board adjustments.
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
2014-2015 Salary Program
• Chancellor Katehi committed to begin recognizing and
rewarding non-represented staff through a merit-based
system.
• Salary programs for represented staff are based on
contracts.
• UC Davis introduced the exercise of calibration as part
of the annual performance review.
• What calibration is and isn’t
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
What have I heard?
• Calibration: not understood consistently,
communication needed
• Ratings: not applied consistently, poorly worded
• Writing Appraisals: more tools and training needed
• EPAR Systems & Tools: not intuitive, hard to navigate
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
What are we doing?
• Encouraging supervisors to have quarterly conversations
with employees during the year, in addition to the EPAR.
• EPAR/Performance Management Task Force &
Subcommittees
o
o
o
o
Ratings
Calibration
Writing appraisals
EPAR systems & tools
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
What are we doing?
• Manager and supervisor survey
o Should have received a link via email to a survey to provide
feedback on these topic areas.
o Must submit survey by COB Thursday, December 10
• Put as many tools and resources in place as possible to
support the 2015-2016 salary program.
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
CAREER TRACKS
Irene Horgan-Thompson
HR Strategic Partner – Davis campus
Director, Compensation Center of Expertise
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
What is Career Tracks?
A UC system-wide initiative to replace/retitle our non
represented titles by providing a set of common job
standards for classifying staff positions into specific Job
Families and Levels.
• One UC Davis = 5,500 non-represented staff positions to
be reviewed and retitled
•
800+ new titles
• Largest groups – Information Technology (900); Student
Affairs Officers (400); Analysts (1,700)
Project Benefits
• Prepare position descriptions more
quickly and easily using new
standards.
• Transparency in understanding and
explaining the similarities and
differences among specialties and
levels.
• Easily identifying specific types of
positions across both campuses.
• Providing development/career paths
that show progression of levels.
• Compare specific titles to the labor
market when matching jobs to survey
data.
The New Structure
• Four Levels of Managers
• Two Levels of Supervisors
• Supervision of operational and technical staff
• Supervision of professional staff
• Five levels of Professionals
• Entry
• Intermediate
• Experienced
• Advanced
• Campus/Health System Expert
Family/Function/Level Relationship
Salary Ranges
Pay is based on cost of labor. UC utilizes national cost of labor data to
determine national midpoint plus geographical differential. Not cost of
living.
Our Progress – Completed
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Development and Fundraising
External Relations
EH&S – Central Units
Communications – Central Units
Marketing – Central Units
Counseling Psychologists
Career Services Specialists
Custodial Suprv/Mgrs
Campus Counsel/Mgrs
Training and Development Mgr
Executive Assistants
Executive Advisors
Enterprise Risk Mgr and Analysts
Parking Enforcement Suprv/Mgrs
Organizational Consultants
Physician Mgrs – Student Health
Fire Chief
Police Chief
Advocates
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public Education Specialists/Mgrs
Athletic Professionals
Police Officer 1 (Trainee)
Events Specialists/Mgrs
Procurement Suprv/Mgrs
Strategic Sourcing Professionals
Planning Specialists/Mgr
Ombudsmen
Audit Mgrs
Contract Administrator
Information Technology – Campus
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPLICATIONS PROGR
CMPTL AND DATA SCI RSCH SPEC
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNER
QA RELEASE MGT ANL
DATA SYS ANL
APPLICATIONS PROGR
SYS ADM
INFO SYS ANL
IT ARCHITECT
IT SECURITY ANL
USER EXPERIENCE DESIGNER
AV IT SPEC
BUS TCHL SUPP ANL
BUS SYS ANL
TCHL PROJECT MGT PROFL
BIOINFORMATICS PROGR
Next Steps…completing functional areas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EH&S and Communications positions outside of central offices
Central Procurement positions
IT Managers
Project/Policy Analysts
Research Compliance
Auditors
Veterinarians
Facilities Managers
Agricultural Superintendents
Next Families for review
• Student Services
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Academic Achievement Counselor
Admissions Recruitment
K-14 Academic Prep
Financial Aid
Student Advisor
Student Disability Specialist
Student Life Development Specialist
Student Services Advisor
• Analysts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Compliance
Financial Analysis
Financial Services
HR
Academic Personnel
Research and Compliance
Research Data
Payroll (Central Payroll)
Institutional Research
Your Web Resource
From the UC Davis web site, search:
“Career Tracks”
www.hr.ucdavis.edu/compensation/career_tracks.html
2015 ALL STAFF TOWN HALL
Audience Q&A
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu
2015 ALL STAFF TOWN HALL
Thank you!
Questions?
OEconnect@ucdavis.edu