Combined Report for the Commonwealth Human Resources Restructuring Survey. University of Virginia and Virginia Tech

Transcription

1 Combined Report for the Commonwealth Human Resources Restructuring Survey University of Virginia and Virginia Tech Prepared by: THE CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH David E. Hartman. Ph.D. Senior Research Director Abdoulaye Diop, Ph.D. Senior Research Analyst Thomas M. Guterbock, Ph.D. Director Deborah L. Rexrode, M.A. Research Analyst University of Virginia WELDON COOPER CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE University of Virginia CSR PROJECT

2

3 Table of Contents HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEYS List of Figures... iii List of Tables...iv Acknowledgements...v Executive Summary... vii I Introduction...1 About the Survey...1 Questionnaire...1 Survey Administration...1 Survey Response...2 Statistical Analysis...2 Questionnaire Scales...2 Regression Analysis...2 Weighting...3 II Overall Ratings...5 Rating University of Virginia and Virginia Tech as a Place for Staff to work...5 Rating the Current Staff Human Resources Systems...5 Recommending University of Virginia and Virginia Tech to Friends and Family as a Place to Work...5 Awareness of the University Authority to Restructure its Human Resources System...6 Sources of information about Human Resources Restructuring...6 Awareness of Specific Facts about Human Resources Restructuring...7 III Specific Sections...8 Part C: Performance Evaluation...8 Performance Planning Program...8 Derived Importance...8 Performance Evaluation Program...8 Derived Importance...9 Summary...9 Part D: Relative Importance of Performance Evaluation Factors...10 Summary...10 Part E: Performance Management System...10 Summary...11 Part F: Your Compensation...11 Derived Importance...12 Summary...12 Part G: Staff Compensation System - The Supervisors View...13 Summary...13 Part H: Relative Importance of Factors Currently Determining a Staff Employee s Pay...14 Summary...14 Center for Survey Research i

4 STATE REPORT Part I: Relative Importance of Pay Determinants - Future...14 Summary...15 Part J: Employee Leave Benefits...15 Derived Importance...15 Summary...16 Part K: Staff Leave Benefits Supervisors Views...16 Derived Importance...16 Summary...17 Part L: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You...17 Derived Importance...18 Summary...19 Part M: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors View...19 Derived Importance...20 Summary...21 Part N: University Staff and Classified Staff Systems...21 Derived Importance...22 Summary...22 The Influence of Section Topics on Overall Ratings...22 Staff Overall Evaluation...23 Staff Supervisors Overall Evaluations...24 IV Priority Analysis...26 ii University of Virginia

5 List of Figures HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEYS Figure II-1: Overall rating of UVA and VTech as places for staff to work... 5 Figure II-2: Overall rating of the current staff human resources system... 5 Figure II-3: Recommending UVA and VTech to friends and family as places to work... 6 Figure II-4: Awareness of the Universities authorities to restructure their human resources systems... 6 Figure II-5: Has Employee seen or heard any information about Human Resources Restructuring?... 6 Figure III-1: Overall Rating for Performance Planning (C12)... 8 Figure III-2: Overall Rating of the Performance Evaluation Program (C13)... 9 Figure III-3: Overall Rating of Compensation Figure III-4: Overall Rating of the State's Leave Benefits Figure III-5: Overall rating of staff leave benefits Figure III-6: Overall Factor Importance for Accepting Employment and Continuing with the Universities Figure III-7: Overall Factor Importance for Attracting, Motivating and Retaining Employees of the Universities Figure III-8: Potential Benefits Outweigh Complexities Figure IV-1:Top-box Analysis Center for Survey Research iii

6 STATE REPORT List of Tables Table I-1: Parts of the Questionnaire and Number of Questions...1 Table II-1: Sources of Information about the Human Resources Restructuring...7 Table II-2: Awareness of other facts about Human Resources Restructuring...7 Table III-1: Performance Planning Program...8 Table III-2: Performance Evaluation Program...9 Table III-3: Factors that Should be in Performance Evaluations...10 Table III-4: Performance Management System...11 Table III-5: Your Compensation...12 Table III-6: Staff Compensation System...13 Table III-7: Staff Employee's Pay...14 Table III-8: Pay Determinants-Future...14 Table III-9: Employee Leave Benefits...16 Table III-10: Staff Leave Benefits...17 Table III-11: Relative Importance of Pay Benefits, and Work Life for You (accepting)...18 Table III-12: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You (continuing)...19 Table III-13: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors Views...20 Table III-14: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees...21 Table III-15: University Staff and Classified Staff Systems...22 Table III-16: Overall Derived Importance Analysis...23 Table III-17: Current Staff Human Resources System...23 Table III-18: University as a Place for Staff to Work...23 Table III-19: Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work...24 Table III-20: Current Staff Human Resources System...24 Table III-21: University as a Place for Staff to Work...25 Table III-22: Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work...25 Table IV-1: Staff Supervisors of Staff Quality Ratings...26 Table IV-2: Staff Supervisors and Staff Derived Importance Analysis...26 Table IV-3: Staff Priority Matrix...27 iv University of Virginia

7 Acknowledgements The Human Resources Restructuring Surveys were funded by the University of Virginia (UVA) and Virginia Tech (VTech). The Principal Investigator for the project was Thomas M. Guterbock, Director of the UVA Center for Survey Research. The Project Coordinators were David E. Hartman and Linda Tournade with assistance from Abdoulaye Diop, Senior Research Analyst; and Deborah Rexrode, Research Analyst at the UVA Center for Survey Research. We thank Susan Carkeek, Vice President of Human Resources for the University of Virginia and Linda Woodard, Assistant Vice President, Department of Human Resources for Virginia Tech, for their continued support of this project from its inception. From UVA, additional valuable assistance was provided by Alan Cohn, Director, Faculty and Staff Employee Relations; Joni E. Louque, Faculty and Staff Employee Relations Counselor; Roderick F. Kelly, Director of Compensation and Classification; and David W. Ripley, Executive Assistant, Human Resources who comprised the survey team as the representatives of the Human Resources Department. From VTECH, additional valuable assistance was provided by Judy Ridinger, Director of Staffing and Compensation, Department of Human Resources, and Kirk Wehner, Compensation Manager, Department of Human Resources, who comprised the survey team as the representatives of the Human Resources Department. These two HR survey teams worked closely to create a survey instrument and protocol that would be comparable between UVA and Virginia Tech. As Principal Investigator, Dr. Guterbock was responsible for the scientific direction of the study and oversight of the data collection, analysis, and report phases of the project. David E. Hartman, Senior Research Director, Project Coordinator, was responsible for the project design, questionnaire development and oversight of the data collection, data analysis, and report writing. Dr. Hartman served as the point of contact with the Human Resources Department. Linda Tournade, Research Specialist, helped to direct this project in the early stages of its development. Ms. Tournade assisted in the Center for Survey Research HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEYS development of the conceptual outline and the first draft of the questions. Deborah Rexrode, Research Assistant, helped in the development of all survey materials including formatting the questionnaire for both web and mailout and managed survey packet assembly. Kathy Coker and Debbie Zieg, Project Assistants, entered the data for the returned paper questionnaires and tracked returned confirmation postcards and s. Andrew Farber, Project Assistant, assisted in the cleaning and post-coding of responses to open-ended questions. The development of the questionnaire was carried out in cooperation with the Human Resources staff of the two universities. Edith Fischer, Senior Lab Supervisor at VTech, provided the initial translation of the Word document survey into Sawtooth SensusWeb. Complex programming patterns for the web were developed by Gabriel Murtaugh and Kien T. Le, Research Analysts at the UVA Center for Survey Research (CSR). John Lee Holmes, Survey Operations Manager (CSR), formatted the final version of the web survey, finalized the programming of the questionnaire into the Sawtooth SensusWeb software, and oversaw the web hosting of the Internet portion of the survey. He and Ms. Rexrode oversaw the reminder-calling phase of the survey. Abdoulaye Diop, Senior Research Analyst conducted the statistical analyses. He was assisted by Kien T. Le, Young Kim, and Deborah Rexrode, Research Analysts. Dr. Hartman, Dr. Diop, Dr. Guterbock, and Ms. Rexrode jointly wrote the report of findings for each university and the state report which combined the data from both universities. The CSR staff is particularly grateful to the employees of the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech who gave their time to offer their candid opinions in response to the survey questions. The Center for Survey Research, a unit of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia, is responsible for any errors in this report. Inquiries may be directed to: Center for Survey Research, University of Virginia, P.O. Box , Charlottesville, VA The Center can be reached by telephone at , by to surveys@virginia.edu, or through the World Wide Web at v

8 STATE REPORT vi University of Virginia

9 Executive Summary The Human Resources Department of the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech University commissioned the Center for Survey Research (CSR) at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech to conduct a survey of all staff, staff supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff at both universities. The purpose of the survey was to develop a scientifically accurate evaluation of the current policies and procedures of the Human Resources system and to inform the development of the new HR system under restructuring. The Center for Survey Research provided each university a report highlighting the major findings from their own staff. Each university also received a set of appendices containing frequencies, means tables (overall means and means by position), and a cleaned version of the open-ended responses. This report, which follows a similar format to the university-level reports, summarizes the results across universities. It treats responses from the two universities as representing a single population. Also included in this report are three appendices: Appendix A (the University of Virginia questionnaire), Appendix B (the Virginia Tech University questionnaire), and Appendix C (the overall frequencies and means tables). This report does not include subgroup demographic analyses or mean rating comparisons between the two universities. The survey was conducted by the Internet and by mail for those who did not have convenient access to the Internet. Invitations to participate in the survey were sent to 4,589 employees at Virginia Tech and 5,663 employees at the University of Virginia. At the University of Virginia, the survey was conducted between May 1, 2007 and June 18, As a result of the tragic events of April 16 at Virginia Tech, the survey at Virginia Tech was delayed until after graduation (between June 11, 2007 and July 13, 2007). At Virginia Tech, 2,148 employees (48%) completed questionnaires; and 2,704 (49%) University of Virginia employees completed questionnaires. The data collected from both universities was aggregated into one dataset for this report. Center for Survey Research HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEYS Overall ratings Asked of all respondents: Overall, how would you rate the current staff human resources system? Seven out of ten respondents (71.2%) rated the system as excellent, very good or good. The remaining 28.8% rated the system as fair or poor. Asked of all respondents: Overall, how would you rate the University as a place for staff to work? A large majority (89.3%) rated the University as an excellent, very good, or good place to work. The remaining 10.7% rated the University as a fair or poor place to work. Asked of staff and staff supervisors: I would recommend the University to my friends and family as a place to work. Over three-quarters (79.2%) said they strongly agree or agree with the statement. An additional 16.3% were neutral and the remaining 4.5% said they disagree or strongly disagree with the statement. Awareness Asked of all respondents: How aware are you of the University s authority to restructure the human resources policies and procedures for university staff? Six out of ten respondents (60.8%) said they were very aware or somewhat aware of the authority. The remainder (39.2%) was slightly aware or never heard of the authority. Of those who were aware of the authority, most learned about it through the universities website on HR restructuring, newsletters, colleagues, and news media. Performance Planning Program Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would you rate the university s performance planning program? Just over half (51.7%) rated the program as excellent, very good, or good. Just less than half (48.3%) rated the program as fair or poor. Performance Evaluation Program Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would you rate the university s performance evaluation program? vii

10 STATE REPORT Less than half (45.3%) rated the evaluation program as excellent, very good, or good. Over half (54.7%) rated the evaluation program as fair or poor. Relative Importance of Performance Evaluation Staff and staff supervisors indicated that the most important factors that should be used in performance planning and evaluation include: employees should know what is expected of them, employees should be given clear goals and objectives, and supervisors should recognize employees contributions. Performance Management System Performance management system factors that received the highest agreement ratings from supervisors include: performance planning helps in setting expectations and the performance evaluation helps in assessing performance. The factors that received the lowest agreement ratings from supervisors include: the system encourages achievement, the system helps the supervisor in motivating employees, and the threepoint scale is effective in distinguishing various levels of performance. Compensation Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would you rate the university s compensation program for staff? Four out of ten (44.8%) respondents rated the compensation system as excellent, very good, or good. Over half (55.2%) rated the system as fair or poor. The compensation factor that has the greatest effect on the overall evaluation of compensation is whether pay is appropriate when starting a salaried position. Staff Compensation System Supervisors were asked to evaluate the university s staff compensation system. In general, the ratings fell below the mid-point on the scale. Areas that cause the greatest concern include: a supervisor s ability to compensate employees relative to organizations outside the university, the program s effectiveness in retaining and motivating employees, and the ability to reward employees through pay. The area that received the greatest agreement from supervisors was support of a compensation program viii that allows the supervisor to recommend pay increases based on employee performance. Relative Importance of Factors Determining a Staff Employee s Pay All respondents were asked to rate the importance of factors that are currently used in determining staff employees pay. The three factors receiving the highest importance ratings are: skills and abilities; performance; and duties and responsibilities. Lower importance ratings were given for local external equity, pay history, and regional or national external equity. Relative Importance of Pay Determinants All respondents were asked to evaluate the importance of factors that should be used in determining an employee s pay level. The four factors that received the highest importance ratings are: performance; skills and abilities; duties and responsibilities; and experience. The lowest rated factors include: regional or national external equity, length of service, and pay history. Employee Leave Benefits Staff and staff supervisors were asked: How would you rate the state s leave benefits? A large majority (91.4%) indicated that the benefits are excellent, very good, or good. The most important aspect of the benefit program is that benefits are viewed as being competitive relative to organizations outside the university. Staff Leave Benefits Asked of all supervisors: How would you rate your staff employees state leave benefits? Similarly to staff, a large majority of supervisors (90.4%) indicated that the benefits are either excellent, very good, or good. Supervisors also agree that the most important aspect of the benefit program is its competitiveness with organizations outside of the university. University of Virginia

11 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEYS Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You Staff and staff supervisors indicate that leave benefits, tuition benefits, job security, supervisor relationships were the most important factors in their decision to accept employment with the university. They also indicate that supervisor relationships, leave benefits, job security, health insurance are the most important factors in their decision to continue employment with the University. Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors indicate that tuition benefits, job security, supervisor relationships, leave benefits are the most important factors for attracting employees to the University. Supervisors also indicate that job security, coworker relationships, tuition benefits and paid leave benefits are the most important factors for retaining employees with the University. University Staff and Classified Staff System Supervisors were asked if the potential benefits of creating a new University Staff System would outweigh the complexities of managing the two human resources systems. Just over half (53.5%) of the supervisors believe that the benefits will outweigh the complexities. Just over one-quarter (28.5%) are neutral and 18.1% believe the complexities will outweigh the benefits. An analysis of the supervisors responses about the overall benefit of restructuring suggests that the most important aspect of the restructuring program will be the potential benefits of creating a compensation program and performance planning. Priority Analysis When overall quality ratings are considered jointly with ratings of importance, the results can suggest which areas should have highest priority for restructuring. These results point to compensation as the area of highest priority, because it receives relatively low quality ratings while being seen as high importance. In contrast, leave benefits are seen as important, but are rated very high in quality, suggesting little immediate need for change. Performance evaluations rated lower in importance, but also lower in quality. These results, along with other more specific findings in this report, suggest that respondents ratings of both the compensation and performance evaluation systems would be higher if changes were to be made that linked compensation outcomes with performance evaluations. Center for Survey Research ix

12

13 I Introduction About the Survey The Human Resources Departments of the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech University commissioned the Center for Survey Research to conduct a survey of all staff. The survey included staff, staff supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff at each university regarding Human Resources restructuring. The Center for Survey Research provided each university a report highlighting the major findings from their own staff. Each university also received a set of appendices containing frequencies, means tables (overall means and means by position), and a cleaned version of the open-ended responses. This report, which follows a similar format to the university-level reports, summarizes the results across universities. It treats responses from the two universities as representing a single population. Also included in this report are three appendices: Appendix A (the University of Virginia questionnaire), Appendix B (the Virginia Tech University questionnaire), and Appendix C (the overall frequencies and means tables). This report does not include subgroup demographic analyses or mean rating comparisons between the two universities. Questionnaire Design Process Developing the questionnaire was a collaborative effort between the Human Resources Staff of Virginia Tech University and the University of Virginia and members of the CSR research team. Once a draft of the questionnaire was developed, a series of focus groups was conducted by CSR with representatives of the employees at each university. Input from the focus groups was instrumental in modifying the questionnaire before fielding the survey. Due to the length of the survey, open-ended questions were moved to the end of the questionnaire. Major Sections Excluding the sections about Job Classification (Part A) and the Employee Demographic information (Part P), the questionnaire is divided into 14 sections. Table I-1 presents these parts and HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY the number of questions that were asked of employees. Survey Administration A pilot of this survey, using the internet, was conducted for ten days prior to launching the survey at the University of Virginia. Participants were selected from the population of the UVa staff, staff supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff. Each respondent was given the opportunity to make suggestions on how the questionnaire might be improved. Table I-1: Parts of the Questionnaire and Number of Questions Questionnaire Parts Awareness of the University authority to restructure its human resource system (B) Number of questions Performance Evaluation (C) 13 Relative Importance of Performance Evaluation Factors (D) Performance Management System (E) 10 Staff s Compensation (F) 13 Supervisor s view of staff Compensation (G) Relative Importance of Factors Determining a Staff Employee s Pay (H) Relative Importance of Pay Determinants (I) Employee Leave Benefits (J) 5 Staff Leave Benefits (K) 6 Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You (L) Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees (M) University Staff and Classified Staff Systems (N) Overall Ratings (O) 3 Initial plans called for a separate pilot at Virginia Tech, to be followed by a launch of the survey in May, concurrently with UVa s survey. However, the tragic events of April 16 intervened, and the team agreed to delay the launch of the Virginia Center for Survey Research

14 STATE REPORT Tech survey. Having experience from the pilot and launch at the University of Virginia, the Virginia Tech survey was launched without a separate pilot study. All employees with access were provided a web version of the survey instrument. Anonymity was assured to all participants through the random assignment of unique IDs and PINs. For employees who have limited or no access to computers, a paper version of the questionnaire was mailed to their university address as well as the opportunity to take the survey online. In order to insure anonymity, a confirmation postcard was provided that respondents could return separately to remove their name from the reminder list. A series of reminders were sent to employees by CSR to promote their participation in the survey. Survey Response The University of Virginia Human Resources Department provided a list of 5,662 employees to CSR. The list contained the names of 901 faculty supervisors of staff and 4,447 staff and staff supervisors with addresses to participate in the web version of the survey. In addition, a list of 314 staff without access was utilized in mailing the paper version of the questionnaire. Of the 2,704 employees who participated in the survey, 102 (3.8%) chose the paper version of the survey and 2,602 (96.2%) chose the on-line version. Accordingly the adjusted survey response rate was 49 percent. The Virginia Tech University Human Resources Department provided a list of 4,589 employees to CSR. The list contained the names of 763 faculty supervisors of staff, 563 staff supervisors, and 3,263 staff. From these lists, 684 employees with limited access to the internet were targeted to receive the paper version of the questionnaire. All remaining employees were encouraged to participate in the online questionnaire. CSR tracked s from web respondents and confirmation postcards from paper respondents to determine who would receive reminder notices and phone calls. Of the 2,148 employees who participated in the survey, 258 (12%) chose the paper version of the survey and 1,890 (88%) chose the on-line version. Accordingly, the adjusted survey response rate was 48%. 2 Statistical Analysis Statistical analyses were completed for each university utilizing separate datasets, and a full report was prepared for each of the Human Resources Departments. The datasets were then combined into one dataset for the statewide analysis. All the analyses for the statewide report were completed without any reference to the individual universities and/or their specific policies. Questionnaire Scales Questions in each part of the questionnaire asked employees to rate each of the topics by responding to a five-point scale anchored by Agree to Disagree or a four-point scale anchored by Very to Not. The scales were designed so that higher numbers represent preferred outcomes (e.g. 5= Agree, 1= Disagree or 4=Very, 1=Not ). Two of the three overall satisfaction questions used five-point scales with anchors of Excellent to Poor. To maintain compatibility during analysis, the scales were also reversed so that high numbers represent favorable outcomes and low numbers indicate less favorable outcomes. Regression Analysis Multiple regression analysis is a statistical method used to analyze relationships between a set of variables known as independent variables and a single variable known as the dependent variable. The objective is to use the independent variables to predict variation in the dependent variable. More specifically, a regression routine weights the independent variables through regression analysis to insure maximal prediction of the dependent variable from the set of independent variables. In this report, the summary evaluation questions from each section of the questionnaire are used to predict the overall satisfaction. The regression analysis produced standardized regression coefficients or weights known as betas (β) that can have a value of -1 to +1. The betas can be interpreted as the relative importance of the independent variables in predicting the dependent variable. The significance level of the beta coefficient is tested and reported along with the beta coefficients. The significance level can take on values from.000 to 1. For this report, any value that is.05 or less is considered statistically significant. That is, there is a 95% chance that the beta is not zero. University of Virginia

15 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY An overall measure of the strength of the regression analysis is generally found in a table footnote as an R-square, which can take on values from 0 to 1. Larger R-squares represent greater explanatory power for the predictors taken as a group. Near the end of the questionnaire, three overall evaluation questions were asked of the respondents. The questions addressed evaluations of the human resources system, the university as a place to work, and whether staff respondents would recommend the university to friends and family as a place to work. These overall questions serve as dependent variables in the regression analysis. Embedded throughout the questionnaire are ten questions that were overall evaluations of a particular questionnaire part. These questions can serve as independent variables. By regressing the overall questions mentioned in the previous paragraph on these predictors, the affect they have on the overall evaluations can be determined. This analysis is conducted and reported in the last part of section III of this report. Weighting Since the data reflects an under-representation of categories in gender and race relative to the population at both universities, statistical weighting was used to correct this under-representation. The data were weighted by gender and race at the university level for all of the analyses that follow. Center for Survey Research 3

16 STATE REPORT 4 University of Virginia

17 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY II Overall Ratings Rating University of Virginia and Virginia Tech as a Place for Staff to work Overall, how would you rate the University of Virginia or Virginia Tech as a place for staff to work? Respondents were asked to rate the University of Virginia (or Virginia Tech) as a place for staff to work on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means Excellent and 5 means Poor. The scale was reverse-coded so that higher numbers indicate a more favorable response. Overall, employees are fairly well satisfied with their universities as a place to work. Figure II-1 illustrates how participants rated the two universities as a place to work. Nearly ninety percent (89.3%) gave Excellent, Very Good, or Good ratings to their university. Nine percent (9.3%) gave a Fair rating and 1.4 percent gave a Poor to their university. On the scale from 1 to 5, the mean rating for Overall rating is a favorable Refer to Table C-28 in Appendix C for a complete distribution of responses for this item. Figure II-1: Overall rating of UVA and VTech as places for staff to work current staff human resources system at their university. Overall, seven out of ten respondents (71.2%) said the current staff human resources system was Excellent (3.9%), Very good (25.9%), or Good (41.4%). Slightly more than one-fifth (21.8%) of the respondents rated the current staff human resources system as Fair and 7.1 percent rated it as Poor (see Figure II-2). On the five point scale the current staff human resources system received a 2.98 mean rating. Refer to Table C-27 in Appendix C for a complete distribution of responses for this item. Figure II-2: Overall rating of the current staff human resources system Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 3.9% 7.1% 25.9% 21.8% 41.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 1.4% 9.3% 15.8% 32.6% 40.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Rating the Current Staff Human Resources Systems In addition to the overall rating of the two universities, respondents were asked to rate the Recommending University of Virginia and Virginia Tech to Friends and Family as a Place to Work Staff members and staff supervisors (excluding faculty) were also asked whether or not they would recommend UVA and VTech as a place to work. Using a five-point scale where 5 means Agree and 1 means Disagree, onequarter (25.2%) of the staff members and staff supervisors said that they would strongly recommend their university as a place to work. More than half (53.9%) of the staff agreed that they would recommend their university to friends and family for a total of 79.1% who either Agree or Agree (see Figure II-3). The mean rating for this item is evaluated at 3.98 on a fivepoint scale. Refer to Table C-29 in Appendix C for a complete distribution of responses for this item. Center for Survey Research 5

18 STATE REPORT Figure II-3: Recommending UVA and VTech to friends and family as places to work agree Agree 25.2% 53.9% Figure II-4: Awareness of the Universities authorities to restructure their human resources systems Very aware 20.1% Neutral 16.3% Somewhat aware 40.6% Disagree 2.8% Slightly aware 29.4% disagree 1.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% Awareness of the University Authority to Restructure its Human Resources System All respondents of the survey (faculty, staff supervisors, and staff members) were asked to rate their level of awareness of the universities authorities to restructure the human resources policies and procedures for University staff. Figure II-4 presents employees responses on this item. One-fifth (20.1%) of employees said they were very aware of Human Resources Restructuring, while four out of ten (40.6%) employees said they were somewhat aware of it. More than one-third of employees indicated that they were slightly aware of it (29.4%) or never heard of it before the implementation of the survey (9.8%). Never heard of it before today 9.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% Sources of information about Human Resources Restructuring Nearly three-quarters (72.1%) of all survey respondents indicated they had seen or heard information about Human Resources Restructuring. Slightly more than one-quarter (27.9%) employees said that they had never heard or seen information about Human Resources Restructuring (see Figure II-5). Figure II-5: Has Employee seen or heard any information about Human Resources Restructuring? No 27.9% Yes 72.1% 6 When asked to indicate how they had learned about Human Resources Restructuring, most employees (61.0%) listed the universities websites on Human Resources Restructuring as their primary source of information followed by other universities communications (newsletters, announcements, meetings) (48.2%), then colleagues or co-workers (26.0%), news media (local newspaper, television, radio) (18.8%). See Table II-1 for a full presentation of the sources of information. University of Virginia

19 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Table II-1: Sources of Information about the Human Resources Restructuring Source of Information n % of responses Universities websites on HR restructuring Other communications (newsletters, announcements, meetings) My colleagues or co-workers % of cases n=2,629 1, % 61.0% 1, % 48.2% % 26.0% The grapevine % 22.7% News media (local newspaper, television, radio) % 18.8% My supervisor or manager % 15.9% Presentation or meeting % 15.9% University or student newspapers (electronic or print) % 13.2% Other % 3.1% Total 5, % 224.8% Note: Respondents could select more than one response. or more of employees were aware of each of the remaining factors (Table II-2). Of all the factors that were presented, employees were least aware that The current grievance policies for all staff will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring (45.4%). Table II-2: Awareness of other facts about Human Resources Restructuring Facts B7. The University now has two human resources systems for staff: the Classified staff system and the University staff system (Employees hired on or after 7/1/06 are University staff) B4. The Virginia Retirement System will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring B5. The current health insurance plans will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring B10. The Classified staff system s policies and procedures will still be governed by the state and will not change based on Human Resources Restructuring I knew that (%) I did not knew that (%) Awareness of Specific Facts about Human Resources Restructuring B12. Classified staff who choose to switch to the University staff system will not be permitted to switch back to the Classified staff system B9. The University staff system s policies and procedures will be governed by the Board of Visitors and may change under Human Resources Restructuring In addition to the overall awareness question, employees were asked about their level of awareness of specific facts related to Human Resources Restructuring. Table II-2 presents B8. The two human resources employees responses on these items. Of all the systems currently have essentially facts that were presented, employees were most identical policies and procedures aware that the universities now have two human resources systems for staff (the classified staff B11. Classified staff (employees hired before July 1, 2006) will have system and the university staff system) and that a choice to switch to the University the Virginia Retirement System will not be staff system at least every two years affected by Human Resources Restructuring. More than 60 percent of employees indicated that B6. The current grievance policies they knew about these two facts (69.9% and 64.5% for all staff will not be affected by respectively). Except for the item B6 (The current Human Resources Restructuring grievance policies for all staff will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring), fifty percent Center for Survey Research 7

20 STATE REPORT III Specific Sections Part C: Performance Evaluation (Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff) The first specifically focused section of the questionnaire assessed the university s Performance Planning Program and the Performance Evaluation Program. Survey respondents were provided definitions of both programs to assure that the distinctions between the two programs were clear. The Planning Program was defined as referring to the processes and forms for setting goals and expectations, including establishing learning and development objectives. The Evaluation Program referred to processes and forms used for providing coaching and ongoing feedback from supervisors and the annual evaluation process. The performance evaluation section consisted of two questions designed to evaluate the Performance Planning Program and nine questions for the Performance Evaluation Program. Two additional questions asked for overall evaluation for the two programs. Performance Planning Program The overall rating for performance planning was obtained by asking the respondents to rate the planning program on a five-point scale where 5 is Excellent and 1 is Poor. The results are shown in Figure III-1. Just over half of the respondents (51.7%) rated the program as either excellent, very good, or good. The mean rating, as reported in Appendix C, Table C-10, is 2.52, which is below the mid-point of the five-point scale, indicating that respondents are less than fully supportive of the program. Two questions in this section, C8 and C9, addressed specific aspects of the planning program. C8 asks whether the planning program helps employees identify the skills required to be effective on their jobs and C9 asks if the program helps identify skills needed to advance. The mean ratings for these questions, 3.34 and 3.13 respectively, are above the mid-point on the fivepoint scale, but leave room for improvement. See Table C-9 in Appendix C. Figure III-1: Overall Rating for Performance Planning (C12) Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 2.0% 11.5% 15.5% 32.8% 38.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Derived Importance By regressing the overall rating question on the results of the two evaluation questions, it is possible to determine the strength of the two questions in determining the overall rating. The standardized beta coefficients for both questions are statistically significant indicating that both factors have an influence on the overall rating of the Performance Planning Program. See Table III-1 for a listing of the multiple regression outcomes. Table III-1: Performance Planning Program Derived Importance No. Item Beta Sig C8 C9 Evaluation helps identify skills needed to be effective Evaluation helps identify skills needed to advance Dependent variable is C12, overall rating of performance planning program Adjusted R Square =.34, N = 3,929 Performance Evaluation Program The overall rating for performance evaluation was obtained by asking respondents to rate the Performance Evaluation Program on a five-point scale as in the previous section. 8 University of Virginia

21 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Figure III-2: Overall Rating of the Performance Evaluation Program (C13) Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 2.2% 10.9% 22.0% 32.1% 32.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Less than half of the respondents (45.2%) gave the evaluation program a satisfactory rating of excellent, very good, or good. The results are shown in Figure III-2. The mean rating shown in Table C-10 of Appendix C is 2.39, which is below the mid-point on a five-scale. The Performance Evaluation section includes nine questions that ask for ratings on various aspects of the Performance Evaluations Program. The highest rating received in this section is 4.28 for I know what is expected of me in my job. Another high rating is 3.81 for As an employee, I have the opportunity to provide input into my performance goals and evaluation. A rating of concern is the 2.69 received for whether performance makes a difference in an employee s pay. Derived Importance The overall rating question was regressed on the nine evaluation questions. Five of the nine questions have significant beta coefficients (p less than.05). The items with significant coefficients, shown in the order of descending importance in Table III-2, have the greatest affect on the overall evaluation of Performance Evaluation Program. Table III-2: Performance Evaluation Program Derived Importance No. Item Beta Sig C11 Performance affects my pay C6 C5 Performance reviews help me know how to improve Performance reviews help me know how I am doing C10 Recognized by my department C3 C7 C4 C2 Clear understanding of performance Have the opportunity to provide input in review Know what I need to achieve high performance Receive regular feedback on performance C1 Know what is expected of me Dependent variable is C13, overall rating of performance evaluation program Adjusted R Square =.39, n = 3,892 The factor having the greatest relative affect is whether performance makes a difference in an employee s pay. The next most important factor is the issue of performance reviews helping an employee improve in his or her job. Other important factors include whether performance reviews help employees know how they are doing on their job and whether their department recognizes them. Clear understanding of how performance is evaluated also has a significant and positive impact on the universities evaluation programs. Summary Overall, the Performance Planning Program and the Performance Evaluation Program are viewed as fair to good by the staff and staff supervisors who responded to the survey. For the planning program, employees gave satisfactory ratings for evaluations that help identify skills that are needed to be effective and to advance on the job. Center for Survey Research 9

22 STATE REPORT For the evaluation program, employees know what is expected of them and they indicate that they have the opportunity to provide input into their performance goals. They are concerned, however, about how to improve on their job and that performance reviews are not providing sufficient help for them to improve. As evidenced by its low rating, the link between performance and pay is apparently a major concern to staff and staff supervisors. This concern is further accentuated by the high importance of this issue identified in the derived importance analysis. Part D: Relative Importance of Performance Evaluation Factors (Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff) In the Relative Importance of Performance Evaluation Factors section of the questionnaire, staff and staff supervisors were asked about similar items that were presented in the Part C. In this section, however, respondents were asked to rate how important each of the factors should be in performance planning and performance evaluation systems. The respondents rated the topics on a fourpoint scale where 4 is Very and 1 is Not. Table III-3 presents a list of the factors ordered by their means. Knowing what is expected of any employee and having clear goals and objectives received the highest importance ratings of 3.70 and 3.63, respectively. The lowest rating, 3.19, was received for having the universities recognize an employee s contributions. In contrast, having an employee s department recognize his or her contributions received a higher rating of Other than the universities recognition rating, the importance ratings were in a narrow range of 3.70 to 3.42, indicating a high degree of importance for the factors in this section. For a complete list of frequencies and means, see Table C-11 in Appendix C. 10 Table III-3: Factors that Should be in Performance Evaluations Ordered Means No. Item Total D1 Know what is expected of me 3.70 D2 Receive clear goals and objectives 3.63 D9 Supervisor recognizes my contribution 3.58 D5 Know how well I am doing 3.53 D4 Know what it takes to get high ratings 3.51 D8 Clear understanding of evaluation 3.49 D7 D6 D3 D10 D11 Summary Helps me identify skills I need to advance Helps me identify skills I need to develop Receive regular feedback on performance Department recognizes my contribution University recognizes my contribution General agreement was found among the staff and staff supervisors that all of the issues presented in this section are important for the Performance Planning Programs and Performance Evaluation Programs. Respondents indicated that having clear goals and objectives and knowing what is expected of an employee are the most important factors. Recognition by an employee s department apparently carries more weight than recognition by the universities. Part E: Performance Management System (Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff and Staff Supervisors) In Part E, Performance Management System, staff supervisors and faculty supervisors of staff were asked to evaluate the performance management system from their point of view. Statements University of Virginia

23 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY representing ten different aspects of the program were presented and the respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with the statements by responding to a five-point scale where 5 is strongly agree and 1 is strongly disagree scale. Table III-4 presents the list of statements ordered by their mean level of agreement. Higher ratings are more favorable. Six of the ten statements received ratings substantially above 3.0, which puts them in a satisfactory category. The ability to set and communicate expectations received the highest rating of Three of the statements received ratings below 3.0, suggesting that supervisors find these aspects of the planning and evaluation program less than satisfactory. The lowest rating, 2.34, was given for the three-point rating scale currently used to distinguish various levels of performance. Supervisors are apparently concerned about the effectiveness of this scale, which allows them to rate an employee s performance as extraordinary contributor, contributor, or below contributor. Table III-4: Performance Management System Ordered Means No. Item Total E1 Helps in setting expectations 3.47 E2 Helps in assessing performance 3.35 E7 E10 Helps identify skills to be effective Standards of conduct helps address problems E6 Helps me give clear feedback 3.32 E8 E9 Helps identify development needs Provides tools to address performance Summary Supervisors gave the highest performance management ratings to factors that help with assessment, such as, identify skills, identify development needs, and assessing performance. The lower ratings were given for factors that could help in motivating employees, including encouraging achievement, tools to address performance, and the three-point scale. The three-point rating scale appears to be a major concern for supervisors, suggesting that they do not find it to be an effective management tool. There is also concern about the system not being helpful for motivating employees toward excellent performance. Part F: Your Compensation (Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff) In Part F, Compensation, staff and staff supervisors were asked to rate twelve statements about their pay. A five-point scale anchored by agree and disagree was used to record their responses. An additional question asked for their overall rating of the universities compensation programs. For this question, their responses were recorded on a five-point scale anchored by excellent and poor. For both scales, higher ratings indicate more favorable outcomes. Less than half (43.7%) of the respondents gave satisfactory ratings of Excellent, Very good, or Good for the university s compensation program. See Figure III-3. The overall mean rating for the compensation program is 2.39, well below the midpoint of a five-point scale. See Table C-14 in Appendix C for a list of frequencies and means for this overall item. E3 Encourages achievement 2.78 E5 Helps in motivating employees 2.60 E4 Three point scale distinguishes levels 2.34 Center for Survey Research 11

24 STATE REPORT Figure III-3: Overall Rating of Compensation evaluation of compensation once the other items were taken into account. Excellent 1.9% Table III-5: Your Compensation Very good 10.8% Derived Importance No. Item Beta Sig Good 32.0% F1 Paid appropriately when started Fair 34.3% F4 Current policies for determining pay effective Poor 20.9% F10 Pay is comparable to others outside University % 10% 20% 30% 40% F6 Do not have to go outside University to get increase The highest mean rating in this section, 4.38, was for an interest in working in a place that provides an opportunity to get pay increases based on performance. The second highest rating, 3.80, indicates a willingness by respondents to participate in a system that resulted in lower performers being paid less than the state increase. These results indicate widespread support for moving the compensation system closer to a pay-forperformance model. Seven of the remaining ratings were below the scale mid-point of 3.0. The lowest rating, 2.04, indicates that the respondents do not believe that their pay is comparable to others outside the university. Another low rating, 2.08, indicates that respondents believe that must they change jobs within the university to get a meaningful pay increase. For a complete list of frequencies and means, see Table C-13 in Appendix C. Derived Importance Table III-5 lists the derived importance of the twelve factors in the compensation section. The item having the greatest affect on the overall evaluation of the university s compensation program is pay was appropriate when starting a salaried position. Other items that have a significant impact on the overall evaluation include the effectiveness of the university s policies and procedures for determining staff pay, and pay is comparable to pay outside the university, and pay has increased in line with the changes in levels of responsibility. The last four items listed in the table had no significant effect on the overall 12 F3 Pay increased with responsibility F7 F9 F12 F8 F2 F5 F11 Know where to get answers about pay Pay is comparable to others in University Pay less than state for low performance Supervisor can provide input into my pay Understand how pay is determined Do not have to change jobs to get increase Opportunities for pay increases based on performance Dependent variable is F13, overall rating of compensation Adjusted R Square =.436, n =3,028 Summary The low overall rating for the university s compensation program is largely due to respondents evaluation of the university s current policies and procedures for determining staff pay. The evaluation of this area received a low rating of 2.39 and is the second most important issue in this section, as determined by the derived importance analysis. Respondents appear greatly concerned about the comparability of their pay with similar jobs outside of the university, an issue that received the second lowest rating in the survey, This issue not only received a low rating, it has the third University of Virginia

25 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY highest impact on the overall rating of the compensation program. Respondents also tend to believe that it is necessary to change jobs within their university to get a meaningful pay increase. The issue, however is apparently not a serious concern to them as it is in eleventh place in derived importance, and is not significant once the other items are taken into account. Part G: Staff Compensation System - The Supervisors View (Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff and Staff Supervisors) Staff supervisors and faculty supervisors of staff were asked to rate ten statements about the university s staff compensation system. The respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with the statements using a five-point scale anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree. Higher ratings indicate preferred outcomes. The mean ratings are shown in descending order in Table III-6. The highest mean rating, 4.41, is for item G10, which indicates very strong support for a compensation program that would allow recommendations for pay increases based on employee performance. There was agreement from 92.7% of supervisors to this statement, with only 2.0% disagreeing (see table C-15 in Appendix C). The next highest mean, 3.09, is for item G6, which suggests that supervisors are somewhat comfortable with answering employees questions about how their pay is determined. The lowest rating the respondents gave was 2.07 for their ability to provide comparable compensation to their employees relative to organizations outside the university. Eight of the ten ratings in this section fall below the 3.0 mid-point on a five-point scale. The low ratings indicate a certain amount of disagreement with the statements about the compensation system including a concern about the compensation system being effective in motivating and retaining employees, and supervisors being able to reward employees through their pay. Table III-6: Staff Compensation System Ordered Means No. Item Total G10 G6 Would support increases based on performance Can answer employees questions about pay G5 Have input in employees pay 2.82 G8 G3 G1 G7 G4 G2 G9 Summary Able to compensate comparable to other dept Department funding effective in attracting Compensation effective in attracting and hiring Able to reward employees through pay Department funding effective in motivating Compensation effective in motivating and retaining Able to compensate comparable to outside University Eight of the ten ratings for the university s compensation system given by faculty and staff supervisors are below the 3.0 mid-point on a fivepoint scale. This indicates a certain amount of disagreement with the program. The ratings also suggest that supervisors do not find the compensation system helpful in motivating, retaining, or rewarding employees. The one high rating received in this section addressed support for pay increases based on performance and was not about current compensation policies. Center for Survey Research 13

26 STATE REPORT Part H: Relative Importance of Factors Currently Determining a Staff Employee s Pay (Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff, Staff Supervisors, and Staff) All respondents, staff, staff supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff were asked to rate the current importance of eleven factors that are used to determine an employees pay. The ratings were made on a four-point scale anchored by Very and Not. Higher ratings indicate greater importance. Table III-7 lists the eleven factors in order by their mean current importance ratings. The highest rating, 3.12, was received by skills and abilities. This factor was closely followed by performance (3.10) and duties and responsibilities (3.09). The factors receiving the two lowest importance ratings are pay history (2.57) and external equity (2.56). See Table C-16 in Appendix C for a complete listing of frequencies and means for this section. Table III-7: Staff Employee's Pay Ordered Means No. Item Total H3 Skills and Abilities 3.12 H5 Performance 3.10 H4 Duties and Responsibilities 3.09 H2 Experience 3.02 H1 Education and Training 2.96 H6 Department Equity 2.87 H7 University Equity 2.81 H11 Length of Service 2.75 H8 External Equity - Local 2.67 H10 Pay History 2.57 H9 External Equity - Regional/National 2.56 Summary The respondents as a group rate skills, abilities, performance, duties, and responsibilities as the most important determinants of a staff employee s pay. Of all the factors, external equity-local and length of service received the lowest mean ratings. Part I: Relative Importance of Pay Determinants - Future (Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff, Staff Supervisors, and Staff) All respondents were presented with the same list of factors that they rated in the previous section, Part H. In this section, however, the respondents were asked to rate the factors on how important they believe they should be in determining an employee s pay level. The ratings were made on a four-point scale anchored by Very and Not, Higher ratings indicate greater importance. Table III-8 lists the eleven factors presented in this section order by their mean importance ratings. Table III-8: Pay Determinants-Future Ordered Means No. Item Total I5 Performance 3.71 I3 Skills and Abilities 3.56 I4 Duties and Responsibilities 3.48 I2 Experience 3.41 I1 Education and Training 3.25 I8 External Equity - local 3.14 I6 Department Equity 3.11 I7 University Equity 3.07 I9 External Equity - Regional/National 3.02 I11 Length of Service 2.84 I10 Pay History University of Virginia

27 The five top importance ratings in the previous section remain as the top five ratings in this section, although rearranged and with higher importance ratings. Performance rose from second place in the previous section to first place in importance with a rating of 3.71, an increase from Skills and abilities dropped to second place from first place, although the importance rating increased from 3.12 to Duties and responsibilities, experience and education, and training round out the top positions. All of these factors received substantial increases in importance ratings over the previous section, indicating that respondents think these should be more important than they are thought to be in the current system. Pay history, length of service, national external equity, and university equity remain relatively low in importance. Summary The same five factors that are thought to be important in the current determination of staff employee s pay are rated as important for factors that should be used in determining an employee s pay. A major difference is the emphasis importance ratings for factors that should be used are substantially higher. This suggests that the currently used criteria for pay determination are seen as good, but are not applied to the degree that they should be. Part J: Employee Leave Benefits (Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff) Staff and staff supervisors were asked to evaluate four statements about their leave benefits. A definition box was available that defined precisely what is covered by leave benefits. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with each of the statements by responding on a five-point scale anchored by Agree and Disagree. Higher ratings represent more favorable outcomes. A fifth question was an overall rating of the state s leave benefits. Respondents were asked to make their ratings on a five-point scale anchored by Excellent and Poor. Higher ratings indicate better overall ratings. HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY (91.4%) gave Excellent, Very good, or Good ratings to the state s leave benefits. About eight percent (7.6%) gave a Fair rating and 1.0 percent gave a Poor rating. On the scale from 1 to 5, the mean rating for the overall rating of the state s leave benefits is a favorable Refer to Table C-19 in Appendix C for a complete distribution of responses for this item. Figure III-4: Overall Rating of the State's Leave Benefits Excellent Very good Figure III-4 illustrates how participants rated the state s leave benefits. Nearly ninety three percent Center for Survey Research 15 Good Fair Poor 1.0% 7.6% 24.3% 25.6% 41.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% All of the ratings were in the high threes, indicating substantial agreement with the statements. The highest rating, 3.90, was received for the relative competitiveness of the state benefits with organizations outside of the universities. The lowest rating, 3.78, was for the flexibility of the leave benefits. Derived Importance Table III-9 lists the derived importance of the four statements in this section as determined by multiple-regression analysis. All four statements have a significant impact on the overall rating of the employee leave benefits. The item having the greatest influence, however, is the competitiveness of the state benefits relative to organizations outside of the university. The lowest influence is offered by the ease of understanding the state s leave policies.

28 STATE REPORT Table III-9: Employee Leave Benefits Derived Importance No. Item Beta Sig J4 J2 J3 J1 State paid leave benefits are competitive State paid leave benefits meet my needs State paid leave benefits are flexible State paid leave policies are easy to understand gave a Poor rating. On the scale from 1 to 5, the mean rating for the overall rating of the staff leave benefits is a favorable Refer to Table C-21 in Appendix C for a complete distribution of responses for this item. Figure III-5: Overall rating of staff leave benefits Excellent Very good 22.9% 40.8% Dependent variable is J5, overall rating of employee leave benefits Good 26.7% Adjusted R Square =.61, n = 3,330 Fair 8.4% Summary Overall, the university s leave benefits were given very high ratings. Staff and staff supervisors both agree that state benefits are competitive, meet employee needs, are sufficiently flexible, and are understandable. Part K: Staff Leave Benefits Supervisors Views (Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff and Staff Supervisors) Faculty supervisors of staff and staff supervisors were asked to evaluate five statements about staff leave benefits from the perspective of a supervisor. A definition box was available that defined precisely what is covered by leave benefits. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with each of the statements by responding on a five-point scale anchored by Agree and Disagree. Higher ratings indicate more favorable outcomes. A sixth question was an overall rating of the state s leave benefits for staff. Respondents were asked to make their ratings on a five-point scale anchored by Excellent and Poor. Higher ratings indicate better overall ratings. Figure III-4 illustrates how participants rated the staff leave benefits. Nearly ninety three percent (90.4%) gave Excellent, Very good, or Good ratings to the staff leave benefits. About eight percent (7.6%) gave a Fair rating and 1.0 percent 16 Poor 1.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% All of the ratings are in the high threes, indicating substantial agreement with the statements. The highest rating, 3.91, was received for the relative competitiveness of the state leave benefits with organizations outside of the university. The lowest rating, 3.62, was for the ease of understanding the state s policies. Derived Importance Table III-10 lists the derived importance of the five factors in this section as determined by multipleregression analysis. Four of the five statements have a significant impact on supervisors overall rating of the staff leave benefits. The item having the greatest influence, as in previous sections, is the competitiveness of the state benefits relative to organizations outside of the universities. The item having the lowest influence is attributed to the State paid leave benefits meeting the needs of staff member s department. University of Virginia

29 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Table III-10: Staff Leave Benefits Derived Importance No. Item Beta Sig K5 K3 K4 K1 K2 State paid leave benefits are competitive State paid leave benefits meet needs of employees State paid leave benefits are flexible State paid leave policies are easy to understand State paid leave benefits meet needs of department Dependent variable is K6, overall rating of staff leave benefits Adjusted R Square =.62, n =1,261 Summary Faculty supervisors of staff and staff supervisors both agree that state benefits are competitive, meet employee needs, are sufficiently flexible, and are understandable. The greatest concern expressed by the respondents is about the ease of understanding the State paid leave policies. Part L: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You (Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff) In Part L of the questionnaire staff supervisors and staff were asked to rate thirteen factors relating to pay, benefits, and work life on the importance they have for the respondents continued employment with the universities. Their responses were recorded on a four-point scale anchored by Very and Not. Higher ratings reflect higher importance. The respondents were also asked to rate two overall questions about how important the factors in this section were to their decision to accept employment with the universities and how important the factors are in their decision to continue their employment with the universities. Their responses were recorded on the same fourpoint importance scale. Figure III-6 graphically shows the response percentages to the overall questions. A large majority of the respondents (87.7%) indicated that the listed factors in this section were very important or important in their decision for accepting employment with the university. An even larger majority (93.3%) indicated that these factors are important for their decision for continuing with the university. On the four-point scale, the mean ratings for these two items are 3.36 and 3.50, respectively. Figure III-6: Overall Factor Importance for Accepting Employment and Continuing with the Universities Very Somew hat Not 6.0% 10.2% 0.8% 2.2% 35.9% 37.7% 57.4% 50.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Accept Remain In general, the ratings show a high degree of importance for all of the factors listed. The highest importance rating, 3.77, was given for the importance of health insurance. The next highest rating, 3.65, was for both the importance of the Virginia retirement benefits and job security. Tuition benefits received the lowest rating, 2.96, in this section. While this was the lowest rating of the section, the rating is high enough to suggest that respondents place a fair amount of importance on this benefit. The same comment is true for two other factors that received relatively low ratings: supporting the universities visions, missions, and values with a rating of 2.99 and the reputation of the universities with a rating of Refer to Table C-22 in Appendix C for a complete listing of frequencies and means for the items in this section. Center for Survey Research 17

30 STATE REPORT Derived Importance The two overall questions in Part L provide the opportunity to conduct two derived importance analyses: importance of factors in accepting employment with the universities and importance of factors in continuing employment with the universities. In the first analysis, the overall rating, how important are the factors in your decision to accept employment with the university, was regressed on the 13 factors. Nine of the 13 factors have a statistically significant affect on the decision to accept employment with the university as illustrated in Table III-11. Table III-11: Relative Importance of Pay Benefits, and Work Life for You (accepting) (Accepting Employment with the University) Derived Importance No. Item Beta Sig L1 Leave benefits L13 Tuition benefits L8 Job security L11 Supervisor relationships L2 Health insurance L12 Supporting the university vision, mission and values The relative importance of the relationship of the factors to the overall variable is measured by the beta coefficient and the significance level. A significance measure that is below.05 is considered statistically significant. The five factors having the greatest impact on the decision to accept employment with the university are leave benefits, tuition benefits, job security, supervisor relationships, and health insurance. Factors having a relatively low impact include opportunities to learn skills, opportunities for pay increases, and coworker relationships. The second analysis addresses the factors that are important to the decision to continue employment with the university. The dependent variable for this analysis is L15, how important are the factors in your decision to continue your employment with the university. Table III-12 shows the results of the derived importance analysis. Ten of the 13 factors have a statistically significant affect on the decision to continue employment with the university. The factor having the highest relative affect on the decision to stay with the university is supervisor relationships. Other contributing factors are leave benefits, health insurance, job security, health insurance, and work scheduling. Factors having a relatively low impact on the decision to stay with the university include opportunities for responsibilities, opportunities for pay increases, and opportunities to learn new skills. L7 Reputation of the University L9 Work scheduling that supports my lifestyle L4 Opportunities for responsibility L3 Virginia retirement L6 Opportunities to learn skills L5 Opportunities for pay increases L10 Coworker relationships Dependent variable is L14, overall rating of factors in decision to accept employment with the university Adjusted R Square =.28, n = 3, University of Virginia

31 Table III-12: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You (continuing) (Continuing Employment with the University) Derived Importance No. Item Beta Sig L11 Supervisor relationships L1 Leave benefits L8 Job security L2 Health insurance L9 Work scheduling that supports my lifestyle L13 Tuition benefits L7 Reputation of the University L3 Virginia retirement L12 Supporting the university vision, mission and values L4 Opportunities for responsibility L6 Opportunities to learn skills L5 Opportunities for pay increases L10 Coworker relationships Dependent variable is L15, overall rating of factors in decision to continue employment with the university Adjusted R Square =.29, n = 3,896 Summary The thirteen factors listed in Part L play major roles in respondents decision to accept and continue their employment with the university. HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY opportunities for pay increases rise to the top of the list. The second approach uses derived importance or multiple regression analysis and identifies supervisor relationships, leave benefits, health insurance and job security as the most important factors. The first approach, importance ratings, produces a relatively rational or cognitive assessment while the second approach, derived importance, produces a relatively emotional or affective assessment. Combining the results of both assessments is important to gain a fuller understanding of the factors that influence the decision to continue employment with the university. The decision to accept employment with the university can be analyzed only through derived importance because of the way the initial question was worded for Part L. The analysis shows a slightly different order of importance than seen in the decision to continue employment. In this case leave benefits, tuition benefits, job security, supervisor relationships and health insurance rise to the top. Part M: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors View (Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff and Staff Supervisors) In Part M of the questionnaire, faculty supervisors of staff and staff supervisors were presented with the same thirteen factors that were presented to staff and staff supervisors in Part L. They were asked to rate the importance of the factors in attracting, motivating, and retaining employees of the universities from a supervisor s perspective. Their responses were recorded on a four-point scale anchored by very important and not important. Higher ratings reflect higher importance. The respondents were also asked to rate two overall questions about how important the factors in this section were in attracting their employees to the universities and how important the factors are in retaining their employees with the universities. Their responses were recorded on the same fourpoint importance scale. Two analytical approaches are possible for investigating the relative importance of the factors in the decision for an employee to continue employment with the universities. The first approach looks at the importance ratings given by the respondents and reveals that leave health Figure III-7 graphically shows the response insurance, Virginia retirement, job security, and percentages to the overall questions. A large Center for Survey Research 19

32 STATE REPORT majority of the respondents (90.0%) indicated that the listed factors in this section are Very " or in attracting employees to the university. The same percentage (90.1%) indicated that these factors are important in retaining employees with the university. Figure III-7: Overall Factor Importance for Attracting, Motivating and Retaining Employees of the Universities Very 20 Somewhat Not 0.6% 0.5% 9.4% 9.5% 39.0% 34.2% 51.1% 55.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Attract Retain Tables C-24 and C-25 in Appendix C provide the frequencies and means for this section. The importance ratings ranged from 2.59 to The highest rating was given to health insurance, followed closely by opportunities pay increases (3.54). The lowest importance ratings were given to supporting the universities visions, missions, and values (2.59), tuition benefits (2.76), and opportunities for responsibilities (2.94). While these ratings are the lowest of the section, they are high enough to suggest that respondents believe they are important in attracting, motivating, and retaining employees to the university. Derived Importance The two overall questions in Part M provide the opportunity to conduct two derived importance analyses: importance of the factors in employees accepting employment with the universities and importance of the factors in retaining employees with the universities (as seen by supervisors). The first analysis addresses the importance of factors in Part M in employees accepting employment with the universities. Item M14 was regressed on the 13 factors to determine how important the factors were in attracting employees to the universities. Eight of the 13 factors have a statistically significant impact on the decision to accept employment with the universities, as illustrated in Table III-13. The six factors having the greatest impact, as seen by the supervisors, include tuition benefits, job security, supervisor relationships, leave benefits, opportunities for responsibility, reputation of University, and Virginia retirement. Factors having a relatively low impact include health insurance, opportunities for pay increases, and opportunities to learn skills. Table III-13: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors Views (Attracting Employees to the University) Derived Importance No. Item Beta Sig M13 Tuition benefits M8 Job security M11 Supervisor relationships M1 Leave benefits M4 Opportunities for responsibility M7 Reputation of University M3 Virginia retirement M10 Coworker relationships M9 Work scheduling that supports my lifestyle M12 Supporting the university M2 Health insurance M5 Opportunities for pay increases M6 Opportunities to learn skills Dependent variable is M14, overall rating of factors in attracting employees to the university Adjusted R Square =.40, n = 1,461 University of Virginia

33 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY The second analysis addresses the factors that are important in retaining employees with the universities. The dependent variable for this analysis is M15, how important are the factors in retaining your employees with the universities. Table III-14 shows the results of the derived importance analysis. Twelve of the 13 factors have a statistically significant affect on the retention of employees with the universities. Table III-14: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees (Retaining Employees With the University) No. Item Beta Sig M8 Job Security M10 Coworker relationships M13 Tuition benefits M5 Opportunities for pay increases M1 Leave benefits M9 Work scheduling that supports my lifestyle M2 Health insurance M11 Supervisor relationships M6 Opportunities to learn skills M3 Virginia retirement M12 Supporting the university M7 Reputation of University M4 Opportunities for responsibility Dependent variable is M15, overall rating of factors in retaining employees with the university relatively less important include supporting the university, reputation of university, and opportunities for responsibility. Summary Supervisors rate tuition benefits, job security, and supervisor relationships as the top factors for attracting employees to the university. Job security, coworker relationships, and tuition benefits are the important factors for retaining employees. Part N: University Staff and Classified Staff Systems (Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff and Staff Supervisors) In Part N all supervisors were asked for their opinions about working with two human resource systems the university staff and the classified staff. The respondents were presented with five statements and they were asked to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with the statements. They were able to enter their responses on a five-point scale anchored by Agree and Disagree. Higher ratings indicate favorable outcomes. One of the five statements was an overall statement asking whether the benefits of creating a new university staff system will outweigh the complexities of managing the two human resource systems. Figure III-8 shows the frequency of responses graphically. Just over half of the respondents, 53.5%, either strongly agree or agree that the potential benefits will outweigh the complexities of two human resource systems. About twenty-eight percent (28.5%) have not yet decided whether they agree or disagree and chose the neutral alternative. Approximately one-fifth (18.1%) disagree or strongly disagree, indicating that they believe that the complexities of two systems will outweigh the benefits. This is an encouraging result for the planned restructuring effort. Adjusted R Square =.36, n =1,459 This analysis indicates that the factor that supervisors see as having the greatest affect on retention is job security, followed by coworker relationships, and tuition benefits. Factors that are Center for Survey Research 21

34 STATE REPORT Figure III-8: Potential Benefits Outweigh Complexities 22 Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 5.0% 15.9% 13.1% 28.5% 37.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Table C-26 in Appendix C provides a list of the frequencies and means for the items in this section. The mean ratings are in a narrow range between 3.24 and 3.65, all at a level of general agreement. The highest rating was 3.65 for benefits of compensation program outweigh managing two programs. The lowest rating, 3.24, was for benefits of workplace policies outweigh managing two programs. Derived Importance The relative importance of statements N1 through N4 can be determined by regressing N5, the overall statement about managing two human resource programs, on the four items about specific parts of the dual system. All four of the statements have a statistically significant affect on the overall rating. The statement with the highest relative impact is about the compensation program, followed by the potential benefits of reforming the performanceplanning program. See Table III-15 for an ordered listing of the relative importance of this section s factors. Benefits of revising workplace policies have the lowest relative importance. Table III-15: University Staff and Classified Staff Systems Derived Importance No. Item Beta Sig N2 N1 N3 N4 Benefits of compensation program outweigh managing two programs Benefits of Performance Planning outweigh managing two programs Benefits of leave benefits outweigh managing two programs Benefits of workplace policies outweigh managing two programs Dependent variable is N5, overall rating of university staff and classified staff systems Adjusted R Square =.85, n = 1,300 Summary Supervisors generally agree that working with the complexities of two human resource systems to establish a new system is worthwhile. Reworking the performance planning program and the compensation program have the greatest impact on the overall ratings for the two-system approach. Revising workplace policies has the lowest relative impact on the overall rating. These results reflect the ratings given to the current systems in each area: the current compensation system and the performance evaluation systems were rated lower than the current leave benefits, and it follows that changes in these areas would be seen as best justifying the costs of administering two systems into the future. The Influence of Section Topics on Overall Ratings Near the end of the questionnaire respondents were asked for their ratings of three overall questions. The questions addressed the current human resources system, the university as a place to work, and whether staff would recommend the university as a place to work to friends and family. The results of these evaluations are presented and discussed in Section II of this report. This section will continue the analysis of the overall ratings by analyzing potential determinants of those ratings. University of Virginia

35 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Embedded throughout the questionnaire are ten questions that addressed the overall evaluations of particular questionnaire sections. Respondents answered only the section overall questions that were appropriate for their job category. That is, supervisors answered only the section overall questions that were addressed to supervisors. The section overall questions provide the opportunity to determine the influence of section topics on the overall evaluations or what has been referred to as the derived importance. This is accomplished by regressing the overall evaluation questions at the end of the questionnaire on the four section topic questions. For example, an analysis could address the question of how much effect the ratings of the performance planning system, performance evaluation system, compensation, and leave benefits would have on the overall evaluation of the current staff human resources system. Table III-16 shows how the variables are arranged for this analysis. Table III-16: Overall Derived Analysis Job Classification Dependent Variables Importance Independent Variables Staff O1 O2 O3 C12 C13 F13 J5 Staff Supervisors as staff O1 O2 O3 Staff Overall Evaluation C12 C13 F13 J5 The following three tables show the results of the derived importance analysis for the staff respondents. In this analysis, the survey overall evaluations were regressed on the section topics that staff respondents rated, as listed in Table III-16. Current Staff Human Resources System Table III-17 shows the results of the derived importance analysis for the staff respondents evaluation of the current staff human resources system. The section topic that has the greatest affect on the overall rating is the university compensation system, which is followed closely by the state paid leave benefits and performance planning. The items having the lowest relative impact is performance evaluation. Table III-17: Current Staff Human Resources System Staff Derived Importance Analysis No. Item Beta Sig F13 J5 C12 C13 Overall rating of the University compensation Overall rating of state paid leave benefits Overall rating for performance planning Overall rating for performance evaluation Dependent variable is O1r, overall rating of current staff human resources system Adjusted R Square =.36, n = 2,877 University as a Place for Staff to Work Table III-18 shows the results of the derived importance analysis for the staff respondents evaluation of the university as a place for staff to work. The section topics that have the greatest affect on the overall rating are both the university compensation and state paid leave benefits. The items having the lowest relative impact are performance planning and performance evaluation. Table III-18: University as a Place for Staff to Work Staff Derived Importance Analysis No. Item Beta Sig F13 J5 C12 C13 Overall rating of the University compensation Overall rating of state paid leave benefits Overall rating for performance planning Overall rating for performance evaluation Dependent variable is O2r, overall rating of the university as a place for staff to work Adjusted R Square =.34, n =2,999 Center for Survey Research 23

36 STATE REPORT Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work Table III-19 shows the results of the derived importance analysis for the staff respondents recommendation of the university to their friends and family as a place to work. The section topics that have the greatest affect on the overall rating are the university compensation system and state paid leave benefits and. Items having the lowest relative impact include performance planning and performance evaluation. Table III-19: Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work 24 Staff Derived Importance Analysis No. Item Beta Sig F13 J5 C12 C13 Overall rating of the University compensation Overall rating of state paid leave benefits Overall rating for performance planning Overall rating for performance evaluation Dependent variable is O3r, recommend the university to my friends and family as a place to work Adjusted R Square =.23, n = 3,000 Summary The derived importance analysis for staff respondents show a consistency across the three overall evaluations the topic areas that have the greatest affect on the overall evaluations are the university compensation system and the state paid leave benefits. The section topics that have a relatively lower influence across the three overall evaluations are performance planning and performance evaluation. Staff Supervisors Overall Evaluations The next three tables show the results of the derived importance analysis for the staff supervisor respondents. The evaluations in this section were made from the viewpoint of a staff supervisor and not as a staff member. In this analysis, the survey overall evaluations were regressed on the section topics that staff supervisors rated, as illustrated in Table III-16. Current Staff Human Resources System Table III-20 presents the results of the derived importance analysis for staff supervisors evaluation of the current staff human resources system. The two section topics that have the greatest influence on the staff supervisor s overall evaluation are the university compensation system and state paid leave benefits. The two section topics that have the lowest relative influence are performance evaluation and performance planning. Table III-20: Current Staff Human Resources System Staff Supervisors Derived Importance Analysis No. Item Beta Sig F13 J5 C13 C12 Overall rating of the University compensation Overall rating of state paid leave benefits Overall rating for performance evaluation Overall rating for performance planning Dependent variable is O1r, overall rating of current staff human resources system Adjusted R Square =.32, n = 846 University as a Place to Work Table III-21 presents the results of the derived importance analysis for staff supervisors evaluation of the university as a place to work. The section topic having the greatest influence on the staff supervisor s overall evaluation is state paid leave benefits followed by the university compensation. The topics having the lowest impact are performance planning and performance evaluation. (Note that faculty supervisors of staff were not asked the rating questions used as a dependent variable in this analysis.) University of Virginia

37 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Table III-21: University as a Place for Staff to Work Staff Supervisors Derived Importance Analysis No. Item Beta Sig J5 F13 C12 C13 Overall rating of state paid leave benefits Overall rating of the University compensation Overall rating for performance planning Overall rating for performance evaluation Dependent variable is O2r, overall rating of the university as a place for staff to work Adjusted R Square =.28, n = 852 Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work Table III-22 presents the results of the derived importance analysis for staff supervisors evaluation of recommending the university to their friends and family as a place to work. The section topic having the greatest influence on the staff supervisor s overall evaluation is the university compensation followed by state paid leave benefits and performance planning. The section topic with the lowest impact is performance evaluation. Table III-22: Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work Staff Supervisors Derived Importance Analysis No. Item Beta Sig F13 J5 C12 C13 Overall rating of the University compensation Overall rating of state paid leave benefits Overall rating for performance planning Overall rating for performance evaluation Dependent variable is O3r, recommend the university to my friends and family as a place to work Adjusted R Square =.23, n = 855 Summary Analysis of the ratings of the current staff human resources system, indicate that staff supervisors place the greatest importance on the university compensation system and the state paid leave benefits, in similar manner to staff. The section topics that have a relatively lower influence across the three overall evaluations are performance planning and performance evaluation. Center for Survey Research 25

38 STATE REPORT 26 IV Priority Analysis The analysis so far has provided two types of information about the four section overall ratings discussed in the previous section, specifically, quality rating analysis and importance analysis. Combining the two types of information into a priority matrix provides guidance for determining which categories the respondents have identified as being in the greatest need for change. Starting with quality analysis, the mean ratings given to the section overall variables by staff supervisors and staff can be interpreted as the overall performance for a particular category. The ordered overall section mean ratings are shown in Table IV-1 indicating that the highest quality rating was received by leave benefits and the lowest by compensation system. Table IV-1: Staff Supervisors of Staff Quality Ratings University as a Place for Staff to Work No. Item Mean J5 Overall rating of state paid leave benefits Overall rating for performance C12 planning Overall rating for performance C13 evaluation Overall rating of the compensation F13 system The same results are seen graphically in Figure IV-1, which charts the top-box percentages for each of the section overall rating items. These are compared in the figure with two other overall items, HR systems and Universities (UVA and Virginia Tech) as a place to work. The figure shows that employees give high ratings to leave benefits, but substantially lower ratings to the university s compensation system. Of the four rated components of the system, performance evaluation and compensation have the lowest topbox percentages; performance planning rates a little higher; and the top-box percentage for leave benefits is outstandingly high at 91.1%. Figure IV-1:Top-box Analysis Excellent, Very Good, Good 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 48.0% 41.5% 39.2% 91.1% 63.7% 89.7% Perf planning Perf evaluation Compensation Leave benefits HR system Place to work The importance ranking is developed from the derived importance analysis (regression analysis) that was discussed earlier in this report. Table IV-2 shows that the leave benefits have the greatest impact of the four overall section ratings on the respondents evaluation of the university as a place to work. Table IV-2: Staff Supervisors and Staff Derived Importance Analysis University as a Place for Staff to Work No. Item Beta J5 Overall rating of state paid leave benefits Overall rating of the compensation F13 system Overall rating for performance C12 planning Overall rating for performance C13 evaluation Combining the quality ratings and importance rankings provides the opportunity to develop a priority matrix. For this analysis, the performance ratings and the importance rankings were simply divided into two categories, high and low, with two of the overall section ratings in each category. Table IV-3 shows the four overall section ratings arrayed in a priority matrix. The cell in the upper left corner represents high performance and high importance. Leave benefits occupy this cell, indicating that respondents find this aspect of the HR system to be important and the quality high. University of Virginia

39 HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Table IV-3: Staff Priority Matrix Quality Rating High Overall rating of state paid leave benefits (J5) Low Importance High Low Overall rating of the compensation system (F13) Overall rating for performance planning (C12) Overall rating for performance evaluation (C13) In contrast, the cell in the lower left corner represents low performance and high importance. The compensation system occupies this cell indicating that respondents find this aspect of the HR systems important, but low in quality. The remaining two cells are relatively low in importance, but not necessarily unimportant. Performance planning in the upper right cell has a somewhat higher performance rating than performance evaluation in the lower right cell. The prescription that comes from this analysis assigns first restructuring priority to the compensation system, an aspect of the HR system that is important to respondents, but is perceived as performing poorly. The second restructuring priority is assigned to performance evaluation. While lower in importance, this aspect of the HR system remains important to the respondents, but is lower in performance. Drawing on the results for specific items reviewed above, we can infer that innovation that would link compensation outcomes with performance evaluation would help greatly in improving respondents ratings of both the compensation and performance systems. Performance planning is in the third priority position as relatively low in importance and high in performance. The star aspect of the HR system and one that has the lowest restructuring priority is the leave benefits. This HR program receives the highest importance ratings and is perceived as the highest performer on the four HR programs analyzed in this section. Center for Survey Research 27

40

41 APPENDIX A UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA QUESTIONNAIRE

42

43 Conducted by: Center for Survey Research University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS TO EMPLOYEES: This survey is intended for all salaried staff, staff supervisors, and faculty who supervise staff. The survey is an opportunity for you to share your opinions regarding the restructuring of the University human resources policies and procedures. Your candid responses are important. If there is any question you are unable to answer or don t feel comfortable answering, just skip it and go to the next question. YOUR RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ARE ANONYMOUS. Individual answers to the demographic questions in this questionnaire will be kept confidential at the UVa Center for Survey Research (CSR), so that it will not be possible for anyone else at the University to identify an individual indirectly from their descriptions of themselves. Your participation in this survey is very important to the university. The results of the survey will be analyzed by the Center for Survey Research and will be shared as a summary report to the University administration and the various committees and teams that will be assisting in the design of the human resource system for University staff. Summary results will also be communicated to employees. The survey should take about minutes to complete. We have provided space for you to comment freely on the key issues. These optional comment questions are at the very end of the survey, so that you will be able to move through the structured questions without delay. What is Human Resources Restructuring? What was once Charter Reform has become the Restructured Higher Education Financial and Administrative Operations Act. There have been significant changes along the way. The most significant change was that current Classified employees now have the opportunity to remain Classified staff. The Act was passed by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2005, and the University now has the authority to change or restructure its compensation and performance management plan and its human resources policies and procedures. A-1