Staff Climate Survey

View: 2015 Staff Climate Report

The 2015 Staff Survey Findings report presents the complete results of Georgia State University’s staff climate survey.

The results presented in the report are based on responses from 1,173 university staff who completed the survey during its administration during June and July 2015. The response rate was approximately 44%, and the instrument reliability is excellent according to standard measures.

The report begins with an overview of survey development and methodology:

• Section one presents the respondent characteristics.
• The second section presents descriptive data that reveals the general response patterns associated with questions on job satisfaction, mentoring and training or professional development opportunities.
• The third section addresses issues around employee retention.
• The fourth section explores the relationship between employee satisfaction and demographics.
• The fifth section compares the 2015 and 2013 staff survey findings.

Recommendations regarding the survey findings are offered at the end of the report. Comprehensive data tables can be found in the appendices.

Major Findings

• When compared to the 2013 survey, the 2015 survey results indicated a significantly improved university staff climate in the areas of environment, job functions and performance and communication.
• Overall, respondents indicated high overall satisfaction with their job environment. They believe their department/unit supports an inclusive understanding of diversity and they have developed close relationships with their colleagues. As in 2013, the staff gave job function and performance items generally high scores, but the inability of departments to deal effectively with poor performance by staff remains the lowest scoring item. Staff responses show that communication with supervisors and administrators has increased since the 2013 survey.
• While staff retention remains an important issue, slightly less than half of the respondents indicated that they had seriously considered leaving their job in the past year. Of those, almost two-thirds have looked at job openings in other areas of the university and over half have applied for jobs outside of the university. Two-fifths have had job interviews. As in the 2013 survey, lack of career advancement and adequate compensation were reasons cited for considering leaving their job. A non-supportive work environment and poor management were also noted factors. Those who have considered leaving have significantly lower mean scores on all satisfaction items compared to those who have not considered leaving. As in the 2013 survey, those staff in their current position between four and eight years continue to be the at-risk group for leaving the university.
• A quarter of the respondents indicated that they had someone who mentors them in their professional workplace role. Staff who are mentored have significantly higher mean scores in the areas of environment, job function and performance and communication than those who are not mentored. Also, they are less likely to have considered leaving their job than those respondents who do not have a mentor.
• Georgia State staff are well educated with just under half having earned graduate degrees.
• The large majority of respondents indicated that they are able to take advantage of training or professional development. As in 2013, time issues, lack of funding and support by management remain barriers for those who are unable to take advantage of training and professional development opportunities. There is a significant relationship between training and job satisfaction. Those who have not had training or opportunities for professional development score lower on the majority of satisfaction and subscale items. ills, but they do not believe as strongly that they can advance in their career.

The 2015 staff survey was a Staff Council initiative and approved by the University Administrative Council. The findings from previous surveys have provided invaluable insight into the perspectives of staff employees that have helped shaped the development of a variety of university initiatives and programs.

For example, the results of the earlier 2013 staff survey helped inform the funding of a university-wide training initiative. The Staff Council and other university decision-making bodies will use the 2015 survey findings to shape many staff-focused initiatives.

As with the 2013 survey, numerous respondents indicated that they appreciated the opportunity to take the staff survey and felt that the survey played an important part in giving staff an opportunity to express their views on important topics.

The Staff Council plans to conduct the staff survey again in 2017, with adjustments to the survey content and administration to be made in relation to the consolidation effort with Georgia Perimeter College.

View: 2017 Staff Climate Report

The 2017 staff survey was administered in collaboration with the university’s Staff Council and the Office of Institutional Research. The results presented in this report were based on responses from 942 university staff who completed the survey during its administration period in June and July of 2017. The response rate was 29.2%. The majority of respondents (77%) had a bachelor or higher degree. The instrument reliability alpha was .949 (excellent).

The report begins with an overview of survey development and methodology:

• Section I presents the respondent characteristics.
• Section II presents descriptive data that reveals the general response patterns associated with questions on job satisfaction, mentoring status, and training or professional development opportunities.
• Section III addresses issues about employee retention.
• Section IV explores the relationship between employee satisfaction and demographics.
• Section V compares the 2017, 2015, and 2013 staff survey findings.
• Section VI summarizes staff’s concerns in the 2017 survey
• Section VII discusses recommendations regarding the survey findings.
• Comprehensive data tables are located in the appendices.

Major Findings

The results of this survey identified five principal factors based on 21 climate question items:

• Functional aspects of the job
• Communication within the department
• Supervisor professionalism
• Department management and culture
• University work environment

Overall, respondents indicated moderately high overall satisfaction with their current job environment.

• On average, they rated the highest score on the item of “having developed close relationships with their colleagues”. Consistent with 2013 and 2015 survey findings, “inability to deal effectively with poor performance by staff” remained the lowest scoring item.
• When compared to the 2013 and 2015 surveys, the 2017 survey results indicated a significant decline in the university staff climate in the areas of functional aspects of the job, development and support, and work environment within department/unit.
• Compared to the 2013 and 2015 survey results, staff employees also rated significantly lower scores on items of “safe working environment” and “recommending department” as a good workplace in the 2017 survey.
• Staff retention remained an important issue in the 2017 survey. Slightly more than half of the respondents indicated they had seriously considered leaving their job in the past year. Of those staff employees who had considered leaving, around 50% had looked at job openings outside of the university, almost half had updated their résumé, approximately one-third had applied for jobs outside the universities, and around a quarter had been on a job interview.
• Similar to the 2013 and 2015 survey findings, lack of adequate compensation and career advancement remained staff’s top two reasons cited for considering leaving their current job. Poor management and unprofessional work environment were also important noted factors for those had considered leaving.
• One-fifth of the respondents indicated they had someone who mentored them in their professional workplace role. These mentored staff had significantly higher mean scores in the areas of functional aspects of the job, development & support, and work environment within department/unit than those who were not mentored. In addition, staff who were mentored and had not considered leaving GSU had the highest mean scores, whereas staff who were not mentored and had considered leaving GSU had the lowest mean scores in the areas of functional aspects of the job, development and support, and work environment within department/unit.
• The majority of the respondents indicated they were able to take advantage of training or professional development opportunities. Staff who had taken advantage of training or professional development opportunities had significantly higher scores than those who had not in all the satisfaction items and subscales. Identical to the 2013 and 2015 findings, lack of budget, time issues, and lack of support by management remained the top three barriers for those seeking to take advantage of training or professional development opportunities.
• 2 Staff who had considered leaving had significantly lower mean scores on all the satisfaction items and subscales than those who had not considered leaving.
• The predictive analysis revealed that positive perception of development and support, functional aspects of the job, and opportunity to engage in training or professional development increased the likelihood of staff retention, regardless of their demographics and role in a supervisory/non-supervisory position.

View: 2019 Staff Climate Report

The 2019 survey was administered in collaboration with the University Staff Council and Office of Institutional Research, with assistance from Human Resources – Organizational Development and Consulting Services. The results presented in this report were based on the responses from 1,159 full-time university staff who had at least six months of service at GSU by June 10th, 2019. The response rate was 35%. The instrument reliability alpha was .95 (excellent).

The report begins with an overview of survey development and methodology:

• Section I presents the survey respondent demographic characteristics.
• Section II presents descriptive data that displayed the general patterns associated with the staff’s perception on the work climate at GSU: mentoring activities and professional development opportunities.
• Section III explores the relationships between staff retention and their perception of the work climate.
• Section IV addresses differences in perception on staff work climate by demographics.
• Section V summarizes the crossyear comparisons on staff’s professional development and staff retention.
• Section VI presents the respondents’ general comments.
• Section VII discusses future survey implementation.

Major Findings

The results of this survey identified five principal factors based on 21 climate question items:

• Functional aspects of the job
• Communication within the department
• Supervisor professionalism
• Department management and culture
• University work environment

Of the five factors, staff respondents indicated that they had experienced the most positive perception on functional aspects of the job (e.g., understanding job expectations, having access to resources, and good utilization of skills and abilities). They also had the highest score in [their] demonstrating the expected quality of work for their position. On the other hand, staff respondents reported the lowest average score on the item of “[my department] dealing with poor performance by staff”, followed by “[a] lack of opportunity to grow professionally at GSU” and “open communication is encouraged [in my department]”. In terms of the principal factors, staff members reported the lowest score on their supervisors’ professionalism, especially when reviewing the scale item of “[my supervisor] discussing my career goals with me”. Staff retention remained as a critical issue in the 2019 survey.

• Around 57.1% of survey respondents reported that they had seriously considered leaving their job in the past year, which was Executive Summary 2 higher than the results found in the past three survey administrations. Excluding the staff with retirement as their reason for leaving, there were still 52.6% of the total participants who responded to the survey considered leaving due to other reasons. Self-reported data indicated that compensation, career advancement, and poor management were the top three reasons for considering leaving. On the contrary, good work environment/culture, good utilization of skills, and good teamwork were the top three reasons for those staff who indicated that they would stay.
• Predictive data results found department management and culture, supervisor professionalism, university work environment, and functional aspects of the job significantly predicted staff retention. Of all the significant predictors in the overall predictive model, department management and culture was the factor that weighed most.
• A new set of questions for supervisory staff was added to the 2019 survey. Results indicated that the majority of the supervisory staff generally had a very positive self-evaluation of their supervisory performance.
• In terms of retention, predictive analysis discovered supervisory staff favored different reasons from non-supervisory staff for considering leaving. Supervisory staff were more likely to consider leaving when they reported having a more positive self-evaluation of their supervisory performance and a more negative perception of department management and culture and functional aspects of the job. However, non-supervisory staff were more likely to consider leaving when they experienced a more negative perception of the functional aspects of the job, university work environment, and communication within the department. At least 72.1% of the survey respondents indicated they had someone who mentored them in the professional workplace through informal/formal forms.
• The top three mentoring activities included informal conversations, supervisor support or guidance, and personal advice. Almost 80% of the survey takers indicated they had taken advantage of professional development opportunities. The top three professional development opportunities consisted of professional conferences/seminars or workshops, web-based training, and professional training.
• Staff members with professional development opportunities generally had a more positive perception of the work climate than those without professional development opportunities.
• Admittedly, some staff experienced barriers preventing their professional development, including heavy workload/no time, scheduling conflict(s), limited budget, etc.

View: 2021 Staff Climate Report

The 2021 survey was administered in collaboration with the University Staff Council and Office of Institutional Research. The results presented in this report were based on the responses from 769 full-time university staff who had at least six months of service at GSU by June 2nd, 2021. The response rate was 25%. The instrument reliability alpha was .95 (excellent).

The report begins with an overview of survey development and methodology:

1. Section I presents the survey respondent demographic characteristics.
2. Section II presents descriptive data that displayed the general patterns associated with the staff’s perception on the work climate at GSU: mentoring activities and professional development opportunities.
3. Section III explores the relationships between staff retention and their perception of the work climate.
4. Section IV addresses differences in perception on staff work climate by demographics.
5. Section V summarizes the cross-year comparisons on staff’s professional development and staff retention.
6. Section VI presents the respondents’ general comments.
7. Section VII analyzes staff respondents’ job change status from June 2019 to June 2021.
8. Section VIII discusses future survey implementation.

Purposes

The Staff Climate Survey was administered to assess staff employee perceptions about the work environment, leadership, inclusion, diversity, and professional development at Georgia State University. The survey was also used to understand how employee perceptions changed across years. The staff perspective and experience are crucial components for developing a more comprehensive understanding of the institutional strengths and weaknesses on any given campus.

Major Findings

The results of this survey continued with the five principal factors identified in the 2019 survey findings based on the 21 work climate questions items:

• Functional aspects of the job
• Communication within the department
• Supervisor professionalism
• Department management and culture
• University work environment

Staff respondents rated average highest score in the following items:

• “Staff demonstrating the expected quality” of work for their position
• “[Their] understanding job expectations”
• “Supervisor(s) treating me with respect and fairness”
• “Department meeting needs of GSU”,
• “[Department] open to inclusiveness and diversity”.

In contrast, Staff respondents rated average highest score in the following items:

• “[My department] dealing with poor performance by staff”
• “[A] lack of opportunity to grow professionally at GSU”
• “[My] supervisor has discussed my career goals with me”

Some concerning findings:

• Overall, of the five perception factors, staff respondents rated the highest average score on functional aspects of the job and the lowest average score on supervisors’ professionalism.
• Though lower than the 2019 Climate Survey, Staff retention still continued to be a critical issue in the 2021 climate survey, but the reasons for the low retention of staff were different in this 2021-year survey.
• Around 52.7% of survey respondents reported that they had seriously considered leaving their job in the past year, which was 4.4 percentage points lower than the results found in the last survey administration.
• Excluding the staff with retirement as their reason for leaving, there were still 48.9% of the total participants who responded to the survey considered leaving due to other reasons.
• Self-reported data indicated that compensation, career advancement, and work [being] underappreciated were the top three reasons for considering leaving.
• Predictive analysis found “[lack of] work-life balance”, “opportunities to grow professionally”, “utilizing their skills & abilities”, and “supervisor provides ongoing feedback” statistically significantly negatively predicted staff retention. In other words, the lower the scores rated in these items, the more likely staff employees considered leaving.
• Of all the significant predictors in the predictive model, “[lack of] work-life balance” was the factor that weighed the most. This was different from the previous survey which indicated that department management and culture was the factor that weighed the most.

Some positive findings:

• Staff respondents who reported that they would stay expressed those benefits (e.g., paid leave, insurance, TAP, and retirement), supportive supervisor(s), and enjoying their job/challenges were the top three reasons that kept them stay at GSU.
• Approximately 38.5 % of the survey respondents indicated they had someone who mentored them in the professional workplace through informal/formal practices.
• About 50.7% reported they are engaging in mentoring activities.
• Only 27.7% of the staff employees reported having mentor(s) and are engaging the mentoring activities.
• Around 78.4% of the survey participants indicated that they were able to engage in professional development opportunities.
  • The top three professional development opportunities consisted of web-based training, professional conferences/seminars or workshops, and professional training. Web-based trainings, Lynda.com, and training offered by the Talent Management Office were indicated as the top three most helpful resources for professional development.

Staff members with professional development opportunities generally had a more positive perception of the work climate than staff without professional development opportunities. However, not all staff have easily accessible professional development opportunities, including heavy workload/no time, limited budget, not [being] aware of opportunities, etc.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, what most concerned staff employees was returning to the office without an adequate reason or safety policies regarding vaccinations and the use of face masks. They also hoped university to develop flexible telework option during and after the pandemic

Recommendations

• The bi-annual staff climate survey continues to serve as a resource that collects staff feedback on Georgia State University’s work climate. The findings from the survey will help identify strengths and challenges within the university, which in turn can develop and shape programs/initiatives to improve the staff employee experience at GSU.
• Future research needs to examine the role of “department management and culture” in the staff retention when all employees return to campus and resume regular work mode on campus. Breakdown results of perception factors indicated that low satisfaction with work-life balance, [a] lack of opportunity to grow professionally, underutilizing skills and abilities, and ongoing feedback from supervisors played significant roles in predicting staff retention.
• Future administration will need to examine how staff experience changes have impacted their staff retention, productivity, and enjoyment of work at GSU across years.
• In addition, while it remains unknown how COVID-19 has impacted staff experience at the GSU workplace, returning to the office concerns staff in terms of safety policy. It would be also helpful to understand how the university can support staff and improve their experience when they are in teleworking during and after the pandemic.

Conclusion

The 2021 staff climate survey report included the 2019 staff climate survey findings as a benchmark to understand how staff employees’ experience and perception changed across the two years. “Department management and culture”, “supervisor professionalism”, “university work environment”, and “functional aspects of the job” were significant predictors in staff retention as found in the 2019 survey. The 2021 survey findings indicated, while “university work environment”, “supervisor professionalism”, and “functional aspects of the job” remained as the significant predictors, overall “department management and culture” was not a significant predictor in staff retention. Therefore, it is hoped that our staff’s feedback on the GSU work climate will be heard and reflected upon, and serve a baseline for resource allocation, investment in staff professional development, effective supervision, and effective university leadership.