CONTENTS List of Tables... ii List of Figures... ii List of Appendices... iii Staff Survey Administration and Acknowledgement... v Executive Summary... 1 Major Findings... 1 Methodology... 3 Development of the Survey... 3 Survey Administration... 3 Quantitative Analyses... 3 Qualitative Analyses... 3 Sources of Error... 3 Section I: Staff Survey Respondent Characteristics... 4 Gender/Race/Age... 4 Highest Degree... 4 Length of Time in Current Position and at the University... 5 Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role... 5 Section II: Response Patterns Associated with General Staff Satisfaction... 6 Descriptive Analysis... 6 Mentoring... 9 Training or Professional Development... 10 Section III: Staff Retention... 12 Job Seeking-Related Activities... 12 Reasons for Considering Leaving... 13 Mentoring Status & Considering/t Considering Leaving... 14 Training or Professional Development & Considering/t Considering Leaving... 15 Section IV. Differences between Subgroups... 17 Race... 17 Gender... 18 Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role... 19 Length of Time in Current Position... 20 Length of Time at Georgia State University... 21 Section V: Cross-Year Comparisons on Staff Survey (2013, 2015, and 2017)... 22 i
Cross-Year Satisfaction Comparisons... 22 Cross-Year Comparisons on Mentoring Status... 24 Cross-Year Comparisons on Training or Professional Development Opportunities... 25 Cross-Year Satisfaction Comparisons by Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role... 25 Cross-Year Satisfaction Comparisons by Gender... 26 Cross-Year Comparisons on Staff Retention... 26 Section VI: Respondents Concerns in General Comments of 2017 Survey... 28 Section VII: Future Survey Implementations... 30 List of Tables Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Question Items and Subscales... 6 Table 2. Frequencies of Staff s Concerns in General Comments... 29 List of Figures Figure 1. Race of Respondents... 4 Figure 2. Highest Degree Earned... 4 Figure 3. Length of Time in Current Position... 5 Figure 4. Length of Time Employed at Georgia State University... 5 Figure 5. Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role... 5 Figure 6. Means of Items of Functional Aspects of the Job Subscale... 7 Figure 7. Means of Items of Work Environment within Department/Unit Subscale... 7 Figure 8. Means of Items of Development and Support Subscale... 8 Figure 9. Means of Subscales and Overall Items... 8 Figure 10. Types of Mentoring Activities... 9 Figure 11. Means of Subscales by Mentoring Status... 10 Figure 12. Means of Subscales by Training or Professional Development Opportunities... 10 Figure 13. Barriers to Training or Professional Development... 11 Figure 14. Distribution of Respondents Considering/t Considering Leaving... 12 Figure 15. Job Seeking-Related Activities of Respondents... 12 Figure 16. Reasons for Seriously Considering Leaving... 13 Figure 17. Means of Subscales by Considering/t Considering Leaving... 14 Figure 18. Means of Subscales by Mentoring Status and Considering/t Considering Leaving.. 15 Figure 19. Means of Subscales by Training or Professional Development Opportunity and Considering/t Considering Leaving... 16 Figure 20. Means of Subscales by Race... 17 Figure 21. Means of Subscales by Considering/t Considering Leaving and Race... 18 Figure 22. Means of Subscales by Gender... 18 ii
Figure 23. Means of Subscales by Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role... 19 Figure 24. Means of Subscales by Considering/t Considering Leaving and Supervisory/n- Supervisory Role... 20 Figure 25. Means of Subscales by Length of Time in Current Position... 20 Figure 26. Means of Subscales by Length of Time at Georgia State University... 21 Figure 27. Means of Items of Functional Aspects of the Job Subscale by Year of Staff Survey... 22 Figure 28. Means of Items of Development and Support Subscale by Year of Staff Survey... 23 Figure 29. Means of Items of Work Environment within Department/Unit Subscale by Year of Staff Survey... 23 Figure 30. Means of Subscales by Year of Staff Survey... 24 Figure 31. Cross-Year Comparisons on Percentage of Being/t Being Mentored Staff... 25 Figure 32. Cross-Year Comparisons on Training or Professional Development Opportunities... 25 Figure 33. Cross-Year Comparisons on Satisfaction by Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role... 26 Figure 34. Cross-Year Comparisons on Considering/t Considering Leaving... 27 List of Appendices Appendix A: Gender... 31 Appendix B: Age... 31 Appendix C: Race/Ethnicity... 31 Appendix D: Highest Degree Earned... 31 Appendix E: Length of Time in Current Position... 32 Appendix F: Length of Time at Georgia State University... 32 Appendix G: Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role... 32 Appendix H: Supervisory Role by Race... 32 Appendix I: Frequencies and Means of Satisfaction Items... 33 Appendix J: Mentoring Status... 34 Appendix K: Means of Satisfaction Items by Mentoring Status... 34 Appendix L: Means of Subscales by Mentoring Status... 35 Appendix M: Training or Professional Development Opportunities... 35 Appendix N: Means of Satisfaction Items by Training or Professional Development Opportunities 36 Appendix O: Means of Subscales by Training or Professional Development Opportunities... 36 Appendix P: Employee Retention... 37 Appendix Q: Means of Satisfaction Items by Considering/t Considering Leaving... 37 Appendix R: Means of Subscales by Considering/t Considering Leaving... 38 Appendix S: Means of Satisfaction Items by Mentoring Status and Considering/t Considering Leaving... 38 iii
Appendix T: Means of Subscales by Mentoring Status and Considering/t Considering Leaving... 39 Appendix U: Training or Professional Development Opportunities by Considering/t Considering Leaving... 39 Appendix V: Means of Subscales by Training or Professional Development Opportunities and Considering/t Considering Leaving... 39 Appendix W: Means of Satisfaction Items by Race... 40 Appendix W: Means of Satisfaction Items by Race (cont.)... 41 Appendix X: Means of Subscales by Race... 41 Appendix Y: Means of Satisfaction Items by Race and Considering/t Considering Leaving... 42 Appendix Y: Means of Satisfaction Items by Race and Considering/t Considering Leaving (cont.)... 43 Appendix Z: Means of Subscales by Race and Considering/t Considering Leaving... 44 Appendix AA: Means of Satisfaction Items by Gender... 45 Appendix BB: Means of Subscales by Gender... 45 Appendix CC: Means of Satisfaction Items by Gender and Considering/t Considering Leaving 46 Appendix DD: Means of Subscales by Gender and Considering/t Considering Leaving... 47 Appendix EE: Means of Satisfaction Items by Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role... 47 Appendix FF: Means of Subscales by Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role... 48 Appendix GG: Means of Satisfaction Items by Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role and Considering/t Considering Leaving... 49 Appendix HH: Means of Subscales by Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role and Considering/t Considering Leaving... 50 Appendix II: Means of Subscales by Length of Time in Current Position... 50 Appendix JJ: Means of Subscales by Length of Time in Current Position for Respondents Who Had Considered Leaving... 50 Appendix KK: Means of Subscales by Length of Time in Current Position for Respondents Who Had t Considered Leaving... 50 Appendix LL: Means of Subscales by Length of Time Employed at Georgia State University... 51 Appendix MM: Means of Subscales by Length of Time Employed at Georgia State for Respondents Who had Considered Leaving... 51 Appendix NN: Means of Subscales by Length of Time Employed at Georgia State for Respondents Who Had t Considered Leaving... 51 Appendix OO: Means of Satisfaction Items by Year of Staff Survey... 52 Appendix PP: Means of Subscales by Year of Staff Survey... 53 iv
STAFF SURVEY ADMINISTRATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The 2017 Georgia State University staff climate survey continued to use the staff climate questionnaire developed and administrated in 2013. The 2013 survey was developed by an ad hoc committee of the GSU Staff Council with representation from across the university. The 2017 staff climate survey was administered in consultation with the Staff Council Executive Committee and with the help of Office of Institutional Research on the report. We would like to thank all participants for their contribution to this survey. v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of Georgia State University s staff climate survey. The 2017 staff survey was administered in collaboration with the university s Staff Council and the Office of Institutional Research. The results presented in this report were based on responses from 942 university staff who completed the survey during its administration period in June and July of 2017. The response rate was 29.2%. The majority of respondents (77%) had a bachelor or higher degree. The instrument reliability alpha was.949 (excellent). The report begins with an overview of survey development and methodology. Section I presents the respondent characteristics. Section II presents descriptive data that reveals the general response patterns associated with questions on job satisfaction, mentoring status, and training or professional development opportunities. Section III addresses issues about employee retention. Section IV explores the relationship between employee satisfaction and demographics. Section V compares the 2017, 2015, and 2013 staff survey findings. Section VI summarizes staff s concerns in the 2017 survey and Section VII discusses recommendations regarding the survey findings. Comprehensive data tables are located in the appendices. Major Findings Overall, respondents indicated moderately high overall satisfaction with their current job environment. On average, they rated the highest score on the item of having developed close relationships with their colleagues. Consistent with 2013 and 2015 survey findings, inability to deal effectively with poor performance by staff remained the lowest scoring item. When compared to the 2013 and 2015 surveys, the 2017 survey results indicated a significant decline in the university staff climate in the areas of functional aspects of the job, development and support, and work environment within department/unit. Compared to the 2013 and 2015 survey results, staff employees also rated significantly lower scores on items of safe working environment and recommending department as a good work place in the 2017 survey. Staff retention remained an important issue in the 2017 survey. Slightly more than half of the respondents indicated they had seriously considered leaving their job in the past year. Of those staff employees who had considered leaving, around 50% had looked at job openings outside of the university, almost half had updated their résumé, approximately one-third had applied for jobs outside the universities, and around a quarter had been on a job interview. Similar to the 2013 and 2015 survey findings, lack of adequate compensation and career advancement remained staff s top two reasons cited for considering leaving their current job. Poor management and unprofessional work environment were also important noted factors for those had considered leaving. One-fifth of the respondents indicated they had someone who mentored them in their professional workplace role. These mentored staff had significantly higher mean scores in the areas of functional aspects of the job, development & support, and work environment within department/unit than those who were not mentored. In addition, staff who were mentored and had not considered leaving GSU had the highest mean scores, whereas staff who were not mentored and had considered leaving GSU had the lowest mean scores in the areas of functional aspects of the job, development and support, and work environment within department/unit. The majority of the respondents indicated they were able to take advantage of training or professional development opportunities. Staff who had taken advantage of training or professional development opportunities had significantly higher scores than those who had not in all the satisfaction items and subscales. Identical to the 2013 and 2015 findings, lack of budget, time issues, and lack of support by management remained the top three barriers for those seeking to take advantage of training or professional development opportunities. 1
Staff who had considered leaving had significantly lower mean scores on all the satisfaction items and subscales than those who had not considered leaving. Predictive analysis revealed that positive perception of development and support, functional aspects of the job, and opportunity to engage in training or professional development increased the likelihood of staff retention, regardless of their demographics and role in a supervisory/non-supervisory position. 2
METHODOLOGY Development of the Survey The primary reason for developing the staff climate survey was to assess the multiple facets of job satisfaction among staff employees at Georgia State University using quantitative and qualitative data. The questions were designed to generate unambiguous, actionable data on key issues that affect staff and their work-related environment. The questionnaire was a result of the combined efforts of the Staff Council, the Office of Institutional Research, and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. Survey Administration The survey was administered from June 20 th, 2017 through August 1 st, 2017, targeting all current personnel officially designated as holding full-time staff positions (no faculty rank) with at least 6 months of employment at the university. The survey was anonymous. Email invitations were sent to each staff member, containing a link to the survey and a randomly assigned access code in order to ensure a valid online response and control for duplication. The survey was accessible using smart phones or tablets. In addition, the Office of Institutional Research provided an open computer to ease accessibility for staff members with limited computer access. Quantitative Analyses Analysis of the quantitative data was performed using SPSS and STATA. Statistical procedures included descriptives (counts, frequencies, means, and standard deviations), cross tabulations, t- tests, analysis of variance, and regression. An important component of the analysis relied on the development of subscales that grouped the instrument scale items into three general areas: development and support, functional aspects of job, and work environment within department/unit. Qualitative Analyses The survey included four open-ended questions that generated important qualitative data. The qualitative data were analyzed using Atlas.ti, a sophisticated Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analytical Program (CAQDAP), allowing for the linking of codes to text to develop hypertext that permits one to perform complex model and network building. Coding was performed at the word, phrase, sentence, and paragraph levels. Using open thematic coding techniques, 697 coded texts were used in the analysis. A total of 44 themes were produced and analyzed using SPSS. Sources of Error The overall survey response rate (29%) in the 2017 survey was thirteen percentage points lower than the 2015 survey. Representation of the respondent population was deviated in the area of gender with slightly more females represented in the respondent population. Weighting procedures were not indicated. 3
SECTION I: STAFF SURVEY RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS This section provides an overview of demographic characteristics of the 942 respondents who completed the staff survey. Female respondents were overrepresented by 9 percentage points. Gender/Race/Age Almost two-thirds (64%) of the respondents identified as female (Appendix A). Figure 1. Race of Respondents (N=942) Of the responding staff members, the majority were between 30 to 59 years old (Appendix B). Of all respondents who reported a race, 41% identified as Black and 38% identified as White (Figure 1). In terms of ethnicity, 4% of respondents identified themselves as Latino/a (Appendix C). American Indian/Alaska Native Black/African American White t reported Asian Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Two or more than 2 races Highest Degree A majority of the responding staff (77%) reported having a bachelor s degree or higher, with 42% having held a post-graduate degree (Figure 2 & Appendix D). Figure 2. Highest Degree Earned (N=942) College Degree Graduate Degree Assoc./Bachelor Degree t Reported 4
Length of Time in Current Position and at the University The average length of employment of staff reported in their current position was 4-6 years. The average length of employment at the university was 7-8 years (Figure 3, Figure 4, Appendix E, & Appendix F). Figure 3. Length of Time in Current Position 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Figure 4. Length of Time Employed at Georgia State University 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role Of the staff who responded to the question on whether they had a supervisory role, around half (50.1%) indicated they held nonsupervisory roles (Figure 5 & Appendix G). More than a half of the respondents who had been in their current position for 4-6 years, 7-8 years, 9-10 years, and 16 years or more held supervisory roles. Similarly, more than a half of the respondents who had worked at the University for 7 years or more held supervisory roles. Figure 5. Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role Do you perform a supervisory role in your current position? Within each racial group of the respondents, 51% of White, 47% of Asian, and 44% of Black reported holding a supervisory role (Appendix H). t reported 5
SECTION II: RESPONSE PATTERNS ASSOCIATED WITH GENERAL STAFF SATISFACTION Descriptive Analysis The interpretation of the instrument s satisfaction items are based on a six-point semantic differential response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 6 = Strongly agree. A higher mean score indicates a more positive response pattern. For discussion within the context of this report, 16 scaled variables have been grouped into the following three subscales: (1) development and support, (2) functional aspects of the job, and (3) work environment within department/unit (Table 1). See Appendix I for details on all the satisfaction items. The satisfaction items typically generated moderately high means scores. Means of items for each subscale are displayed: functional aspects of the job (Figure 6), work environment within department/unit (Figure 7) and development and support (Figure 8). Of the 16 individual scaled items, the items associated with management s ability to effectively deal with poor performance by staff and opportunities to advance one s career received the lowest mean scores. Means of the three subscales and overall items are summarized as well (Figure 9). Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Question Items and Subscales Subscale Categories Survey Scaled Items M (SD/N) Development & Support My immediate supervisor encourages me to increase my 4.44(1.55/931) (DS) workplace skills. My supervisor keeps me informed about university 4.12(1.71/933) Mean (SD/N)= 4.00 (1.35/906) Reliability α=.84 developments that may have a significant effect on me and my work. I can communicate important information to those in 3.92(1.71/937) higher levels of administration. I feel comfortable using the procedures in place at 3.96(1.64/932) Georgia State to report violations of regulations. I have the opportunity to advance my career at Georgia 3.63(1.69/938) Functional Aspects of the Job (FAJ) Mean (SD/N) = 4.41 (1.30/924) Reliability α=.87 Work Environment within Department/Unit (WE) State. My job makes good use of my skills and abilities. 4.32(1.56/938) I have access to the resources I need to do my job well. 4.34(1.43/934) I am confident that my unit/department is meeting the 4.55(1.49/936) needs of Georgia State. My department/unit encourages teamwork. 4.37(1.61/939) My department/unit actively supports a shared and 4.48(1.58/930) inclusive understanding of diversity. My department/unit enables me to achieve a good 4.37(1.57/934) Mean(SD/N) = 4.24 (1.23/904) balance between work and my personal life. I have developed close relationships with colleagues in 4.52(1.44/938) Reliability α=.85 my department/unit. My department/unit deals effectively with poor 3.47(1.60/931) performance by staff. Overall (OR) Georgia State provides me with a safe working 4.44(1.37/937) environment. I would recommend my department/unit as a good place 4.13(1.67/934) to work. Overall, I would recommend Georgia State University as a good place to work. 4.37(1.48/931) te. Mean range: 1 = Strongly disagree to 6 = Strongly agree 6
Figure 6. Means of Items of Functional Aspects of the Job Subscale Functional Aspects of the Job Negative Direction Positive Mean scale: 1 = Strongly disagree to 6 = Strongly agree 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Good use of skills Meeting needs of GSU Access to resources Figure 7. Means of Items of Work Environment within Department/Unit Subscale Work Environment within Department/Unit Negative Direction Positive Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Effectively deal with poor performance by staff Inclusive understanding of diversity Close friendships with colleagues Encourages teamwork Work/life balance 7
Figure 8. Means of Items of Development and Support Subscale Development & Support Mean scale:1=strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Negative Direction Positive 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Increase workplace skills Career Advancement Procedures to report violations Communicate with administration Informed about the university development Figure 9. Means of Subscales and Overall Items Negative Direction Positive Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Work Environment within Department/Unit Recommend department/unit Development & Support Safe environment Recommend university 8
Mentoring When asked if they had someone in the university who mentors them in their professional workplace role, one-fifth of the respondents indicated that they were mentored (Appendix J). Qualitative analysis (responses to an open-ended question) indicated the four most frequent types of mentoring were: professional development pertinent to the job, professional advice, professional activities, and training (Figure 10). Figure 10. Types of Mentoring Activities Professional development pertinent to the job Professional advice Professional activities (Conferences/Seminars/Workshops/Lunch) Training Supervisors' support & guidance Formal meetings (weekly/higher level of admin) Informal conversations One-on-one meeting Job tasks Informal meetings Shadowing activities (from supervisor/co-worker) 9.5% 8.1% 7.1% 6.2% 5.7% 5.2% 4.7% 16.1% 15.6% 13.7% 13.3% 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% Representative Comments: As noted, most mentoring activities focused on training opportunities. As one respondent notes: My supervisor has encouraged me to further my education through the University's Tuition Assistance Program (TAP). Also she has encouraged me to attend professional seminars and software classes. Our department chair has made available money for staff member to attend conferences or acquire special software to aid job performance. Professional advice also was an important aspect in mentoring activities. The following comment represents the general character of these interactions: I am relatively new to managing employees. My manager takes time to listen to my ideas and concerns. She also provides constant feedback on issues and concerns. She continues to provide strong mentorship, Similar to the findings of the 2015 survey, more respondents connected mentoring activities with career development in terms of extending new skills/knowledge and advancement in terms of being prepared to assume leadership roles or advancing into higher supervisory positions. Mentoring & Job Satisfaction Engaging in mentoring activities was linked to higher levels of job satisfaction. Staff who were mentored received significantly higher mean scores than those who were not on all the 16 satisfaction items (Appendix K) and the three subscales (functional aspects of the job, development & support, and work environment within department/unit) (Figure 11 & Appendix L). 9
Figure 11. Means of Subscales by Mentoring Status Having a mentor N=740 N=188 Direction Negative Positive Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Work Environment within Department/Unit Development & Support Training or Professional Development In terms of training and professional development, 82% of the respondents reported that they were able to take advantage of training or professional development opportunities (Appendix M). The respondents who were able to take advantage of professional development opportunities had higher mean scores on the majority of the question items and all subscale items than their peers who were not (Appendix N, Appendix O, & Figure 12). Figure 12. Means of Subscales by Training or Professional Development Opportunities Having Training & Professional Development Opportunities N=138 N=692 Negative Direction Positive Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 Functional Aspects of the Job Work Envrionment within Department/Unit Development & Job 10
A quantified qualitative analysis of open responses indicated the primary barrier preventing many from training or professional development was a lack of budget, which was followed by heavy workload/no time, not encouraged by management, and scheduling conflicts (Figure 13). Figure 13. Barriers to Training or Professional Development budget Heavy workload/no time t encouraged by management 17.3% 21.2% 25.6% Scheduling conflicts t available Availability limited to faculty/certain staff t aware of opportunities interest t available in the work location 10.9% 8.3% 7.1% 3.8% 3.2% 3.2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Representative Comments: The 2017 survey findings indicated that lack of budget, absence of management support, and time issues were the most often cited barriers for respondents, as noted: At other times there is something I could take that is applicable, but those classes cost money instead of being freely offered to employees, so our department can't afford it. The volume of customers in our area is consistently so high that I am rarely able to take time away from the front counter to take advantage of many opportunities the university offers. I receive no encouragement from my supervisor to expand my skills. Most of the opportunities exist on other campuses and that requires travel time, mileage expense and time away from the office which hasn't been encouraged. 11
SECTION III: STAFF RETENTION Fifty-five percent of the 2017 survey respondents reported they had seriously considered leaving the university over the past year (Figure 14 & Appendix P). Figure 14. Distribution of Respondents Considering/t Considering Leaving 1.8% 43.0% 55.2% t reported Job Seeking-Related Activities To contextualize the meaning of seriously considered leaving, the respondents who indicated they had considered leaving were given a list of items associated with job seeking-related activities and asked to select all those activities they had engaged in during the last year (Figure 15). Half of the respondents reported that they had looked at job openings outside the university and almost half had updated their résumé. Almost one-third had applied for jobs outside the university and around a quarter had been on a job interview. It is important to note that the respondents could choose multiple items, the sum of percentages of all items reported in Figure 15 exceeds 100%. Figure 15. Job Seeking-Related Activities of Respondents 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Looked at job openings outside the university Updated my resume Looked at job openings within the university (outside of my department) Applied for a job opening outside the university Had a job interview Applied for a job opening within the university (outside of my department) Had a job offer 12
Reasons for Considering Leaving Of those respondents who had considered leaving, 99% of them explained their reasons, which were quantified and summarized in Figure 16. It is worth noting that multiple reasons were often cited in individual narratives. For example, there was a strong co-occurrence (c-index) between compensation and career advancement in that both were often mentioned together. Poor management and unprofessional work environment/morale also were embedded themes. Consistent with the 2013 and 2015 survey findings, career advancement and compensation issues remained the top two reasons that staff seriously had considered leaving, followed by poor management and unprofessional work environment/morale. Figure 16. Reasons for Seriously Considering Leaving Compensation Career advancement Poor management Unprofessional work environment/morale Excessive workload Work underappreciated University/Department culture Underutilization of skills Lack of professional development Consolidation issues Stress Poor communication Poor work/life balance Location Personal reasons Changes (tasks/position) Retirement Lack of resources Security Benefits Work building/space Other job opportunity High turnover rate.8%.8%.5%.5%.4% 1.8% 1.7% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 3.6% 3.6% 4.5% 5.4% 5.2% 13.3% 14.7% 14.2% 16.8% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Representative Comments: Many respondents reported that they were seriously considering leaving due to receiving inadequate compensation for their workload. The pay is not in alignment for the job responsibilities. Another compensation-related concern for considering leaving were the salary levels at Georgia State University that were not competitive with other USG institutions or on the national average. My job title does not match the work I do and the pay is much lower for the work I do in comparison with other departments and universities within USG. 13
My pay is significantly lower than the national average for my Job. It appears that GSU give hefty salaries and raises to employees who are above the level of Director. All other employees salaries and raise percentages are minute in comparison. In addition to compensation, limited opportunities for career advancement in terms of utilizing their skills and professional development were also major reasons of the respondents considering new employment opportunities. I have considered leaving my job because I believe I have reached the peak of my current position. Although I can identify opportunities that would allow my position to be reclassified into one that is more productive, supportive of our unit goals, and in line with my career trajectory, those opportunities are not in line with my boss's vision for the position. In terms of job satisfaction, the respondents who had seriously considered leaving reported significantly lower mean scores than those respondents who had not considered leaving on all the satisfaction items (Appendix Q) and subscales, particularly in the area of development and support (Figure 17 & Appendix R). Figure 17. Means of Subscales by Considering/t Considering Leaving Have seriously considered leaving N=405 N=520 Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Direction Negative Positive 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Development & Support Work Environment within Department/Unit Mentoring Status & Considering/t Considering Leaving When considering the differences in the job satisfaction by mentoring status and consideration of leaving, the mentored respondents reported significantly higher job satisfaction scores than those without a mentoring experience on all the items of each subscale (Appendix S) and the three subscales (Figure 18 & Appendix T), regardless of whether or not they had considered leaving. Particularly, the employees who were mentored and had not considered leaving the university had 14
the highest mean scores, whereas the employees who were not mentored and had considered leaving the university had the lowest mean scores on all the subscale items (Figure 18). It is important to note that the respondents who were not mentored were significantly more likely to consider leaving than those who were mentored. Figure 18. Means of Subscales by Mentoring Status and Considering/t Considering Leaving Have seriously considered leaving Mentored N=287 N=113 N=439 N=72 Negative Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Direction Positive 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Development & Support Work Environment within Department/Unit Training or Professional Development & Considering/t Considering Leaving Of those staff who took advantage of training or professional development opportunities, 51% had seriously considered leaving the university as compared to 49% who had not considered leaving (Appendix U). On the other hand, of those staff who could not take advantage of training or professional development opportunities, 81% had seriously considered leaving the university as compared to 19% who had not considered leaving (Appendix U). Of the respondents who had seriously considered leaving the university, staff who had taken advantage of training or professional development opportunities had significantly higher subscale mean scores than those staff who had not (Figure 19 & Appendix V). In addition, those staff who had considered leaving and did not engage in any training or professional development opportunities had lower subscale mean scores than any other groups (Figure 19 & Appendix V), particularly on the subscale of development and support. 15
Figure 19. Means of Subscales by Training or Professional Development Opportunity and Considering/t Considering Leaving Have seriously considered leaving Training N=29 N=370 N=122 N=389 Negative Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Representative Comments: Direction Positive 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Development & Support Work Environment within Department/Unit Results indicated that lack of support from management and limited opportunity to advance were often cited barriers for respondents, as noted: My business manager only allows classes that pertain to my job not classes that would provide opportunity to advance my career in Georgia State. Although my boss gives the appearance of supporting my pursuit of internal and external opportunities for professional development, I have experienced resistance and obstacles when it comes to pursuing and engaging in such activities, which renders the support from my boss to be disingenuous. I am often made to feel that my absence for any reason is an inconvenience because my boss might actually have to do something for herself if I am not here. You can see how this expectation might limit my availability to pursue professional development opportunities offered at the university. 16
SECTION IV: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUBGROUPS Race When comparing the differences across races, both Asian and White respondents had higher means on most of the satisfaction items and all the subscales than Black and Two or more races respondents (Figure 20, Appendix W, & Appendix X). There were statistically significant differences across races on several single items (Appendix W). White respondents reported a significantly higher level of satisfaction with the functional aspects of the job than their Black peers (Appendix X). It should be noted that such statistically significant differences might be attributed to an unbalanced sample population across races. Figure 20. Means of Subscales by Race Asian N=35 Black N=388 White N=358 Two or more N=30 Negative Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Direction Positive 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Development & Support Work Environment within Department/Unit Results indicated that regardless of race, the respondents who had considered leaving generally had lower mean scores on all satisfaction items (Appendix Y). Further examination indicated that the Black and White respondent groups had significantly lower mean scores for those staff who had considered leaving than those who had not on all the satisfaction items and the three subscales (Figure 21, Appendix Y, & Appendix Z), regardless of their intent to leave the university. It should be noted that the results for Asian and Two or more races might not be representative due to unbalanced population across races (Appendix Y & Appendix Z). In addition, American Indian/Alaska Native and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander were excluded due to extremely low numbers of participants. 17
Figure 21. Means of Subscales by Considering/t Considering Leaving and Race Have seriously considered leaving Gender Asian Black White Two or more Asian Black White Two or more Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Negative In general, females had lower mean scores than males on all the satisfaction items; significant differences between females and males were found on certain items (Appendix AA). In terms of the subscales, females had significantly lower mean scores than their male peers on development and support and work environment within their department/unit (Figure 22 & Appendix BB). Figure 22. Means of Subscales by Gender Direction Positive 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Development & Support Work Environment within Department/Unit te: Means for Asian and Two or more races cohorts may not be representative due to lower Ns. See Appendicies Y & Z for details. Female N=595 Male N=277 Mean scale:1=strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Negative Positive 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Development & Support Work Environment within Department/Unit 18
Despite the gender, staff who had not considered leaving had significantly higher mean scores on all satisfaction items and subscales than those who had considered leaving in the past year (Appendices CC & DD). Within the group who had seriously considered leaving, there was no gender difference in the majority of the areas, though it was found that females had a significantly lower score in response to being encouraged to increase skills than their male counterparts. Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role In terms of supervisory/non-supervisory role, staff holding supervisory roles reported slightly higher mean scores on the majority of the satisfaction items than those who had nonsupervisory roles (Appendix EE), particularly in areas of good use of skills/abilities, encouraging teamwork, close relationships with colleagues, career advancement, and recommending department. Regardless, such differences were not significant (Figure 23 & Appendix FF). Figure 23. Means of Subscales by Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role Performing a supervisory role N=414 N=472 Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Direction Negative Positive 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Work Environment within Department/Unit Development & Support In the group who had seriously considered leaving, supervisors generally had higher mean scores than non-supervisors in the majority of the areas assessed with the exception of reporting a good work/life balance (Appendix GG). In particular, supervisors reported significantly higher scores than non-supervisors on the items of good use of skills/abilities, close relationships with colleagues, career advancement, [staff] can communicate with administration, and [staff] recommend department (Figure 24 & Appendix GG). Of the staff who had not considered leaving, supervisors only reported a significantly higher score than their counterparts in the area of good use of skills/abilities (Figure 24 & Appendix GG). Regardless of supervisory status, the group considering leaving generally had significantly higher scores than the group not considering leaving in the three subscales. However, there were no significant differences between supervisors and non-supervisors by considering/not considering leaving (Appendix HH). 19
Figure 24. Means of Subscales by Considering/t Considering Leaving and Supervisory/n- Supervisory Role Have considered leaving Supervisory role Negative Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Length of Time in Current Position The respondents with less than a year of employment in their current positions reported the highest mean scores, whereas respondents with 16-19 years of employment in their current positions had the lowest mean scores on all subscales (Figure 25 & Appendix II). Figure 25. Means of Subscales by Length of Time in Current Position Direction Positive 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Development & Support Work Environment within Department/Unit Less than a year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-8 years 9-10 years 11-15 years 16-19 years 20 or more years Mean scale:1=strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Negative Direction Positive 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Development & Support Work Environment within Department/Unit Be cautious when interpreting data due to unbalanced N across groups. See Appendix II for details. 20
In terms of staff retention, those employees who have been in their current positions from 1-6 years made up the at-risk group with 60% of them indicating that they had seriously considered leaving Georgia State (note: employees with 1-6 years of employment made up around 55% of the survey respondents). Staff who had been in their positions from 16-19 years reported lower subscale scores than all other groups of survey year, regardless of whether they had considered leaving (Appendix JJ & Appendix KK). Yet, one needs to be cautious when interpreting these results because the total number of respondents with 16-19 years of employment in current positions was small (N=17). Length of Time at Georgia State University Similar to the findings regarding the length of time in current position, staff with less than a year of employment at GSU reported the highest mean scores on all subscales, whereas staff with 16-19 years of employment reported the lowest mean scores on aspects of development and support and work environment within department/unit. Staff with 1-3 years of employment reported the lowest score on factor of functional aspects of the job (Figure 26 & Appendix LL). Figure 26. Means of Subscales by Length of Time at Georgia State University Less than a year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-8 years 9-10 years 11-15 years 16-19 years 20 or more years Direction Negative Positive Mean scale:1=strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Development & Support Work Environment within Department/Unit In the group who had seriously considered leaving, there were no significant differences on the three subscales by the years of employment at GSU (Appendix MM). However, staff with 9-10 years of employment reported a significantly higher mean score than those with 4-6 years of employment at GSU in the area of development and support and a significantly higher score than those staff with 1-3 years of employment in the area of work environment within department/unit at Georgia State University. Similarly, in the group that had not considered leaving, there were no differences on the three subscales by the years of employment at GSU (Appendix NN). In terms of staff retention, employees who had been employed at GSU for 1-6 years made up the at risk group, with 53% of them indicating they had seriously considered leaving GSU (note: employees with 1-6 years of employment at GSU made up around 47% of the survey respondents). 21
SECTION V: CROSS-YEAR COMPARISONS ON STAFF SURVEY (2013, 2015, and 2017) Cross-Year Satisfaction Comparisons The response rate for the 2017 survey dropped by 15 percentage points compared to that in the 2015 survey, and decreased by 19 percentage points compared to that in the 2013 survey. As with the earlier surveys, males were underrepresented in the respondent population. The most important difference between the 2017 results and the earlier surveys (2013 and 2015) was the decreased levels of satisfaction in all the question items (Appendix OO). Such differences were significant in the majority of the items assessed. Regarding the subscale of functional aspects of the job, the results of the 2017 survey presented significantly lower scores of satisfaction in the all items than those from the 2013 and 2015 surveys (Figure 27 & Appendix OO). Figure 27. Means of Items of Functional Aspects of the Job Subscale by Year of Staff Survey Year 2013 2015 2017 Direction Negative Positive Mean scale:1=strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Good use of skills/abilities Meeting needs of the GSU Access to resources In terms of the subscale of development and support, staff in the 2017 survey reported the lowest levels of satisfaction in all the items compared to those findings in the 2013 and 2015 surveys (Figure 28 & Appendix OO). The differences between the 2017 survey and the 2013 and 2015 surveys were significant. The staff s feedback on their experiences with development and support resonated with their comments that career advancement was one of the most prevalent narratives associated with the reasons they seriously considered leaving (Figure 16). 22
Figure 28. Means of Items of Development and Support Subscale by Year of Staff Survey Year 2013 2015 2017 Mean scale:1=strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree Negative Direction Positive 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Increase workplace skills Procedures to report violations Informed about university development Career Advancement Communicate with administration With regard to the subscale of work environment within department/unit, the 2017 survey showed significantly decreased satisfaction levels compared to the 2013 and 2015 surveys (Figure 29 & Appendix OO), particularly in the area of effectively deals with poor performance. Figure 29. Means of Items of Work Environment within Department/Unit Subscale by Year of Staff Survey Year 2013 2015 2017 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Effectively deals with poor performance Supports inclusive understanding of diversity Close relationships with colleagues Encourages teamwork Good work/life balance 23
The decrease in the satisfaction levels with all of the question items in the 2017 survey were reflected in all the subscales (Figure 30 & Appendix PP). In other words, staff in the 2017 survey had significantly lower scores than the respondents of the 2013 and 2015 surveys in the areas of functional aspects of the job, development and support, and work environment within department/unit. In addition, overall means of the items of safe working environment, recommending department, and recommending university in the 2017 survey significantly dropped from the results of the 2013 and 2015 surveys (Figure 30 & Appendix OO). Figure 30. Means of Subscales by Year of Staff Survey Year 2013 2015 2017 Negative Direction Positive Mean scale:1=strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Work Environment within Department/Unit Recommend department Development & Support Safe working environment Recommend University Cross-Year Comparisons on Mentoring Status The 2017 survey results indicated that staff who were not mentored increased by 6.5 percentage points, compared to the 2015 findings and increased by 2.2 percentage points from the 2013 findings (Figure 31). 24
Figure 31. Cross-Year Comparisons on Percentage of Being/t Being Mentored Staff Having a Mentor in Professional Workplace 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2013 (N=1109) 2015 (N=1207) 2017 (N=928) Cross-Year Comparisons on Training or Professional Development Opportunities As displayed in Figure 32, an overwhelming majority of staff (83.5%) reported they were able to take advantage of training or professional development opportunities in the 2017 survey. These results were similar to the 2013 findings, but decreased slightly (3 percentage points) from 2015. Figure 32. Cross-Year Comparisons on Training or Professional Development Opportunities Taking Advantage of Training or Professional Development Opportuntiies 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2013 (N=1103) 2015 (N=1203) 2017 (N=927) Cross-Year Satisfaction Comparisons by Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role Considering supervisory/non-supervisory differences by year of survey administration, there were no significant differences found between supervisory and non-supervisory staff in the 2017 survey. However, supervisory staff reported significantly higher mean scores in all of the subscales than non-supervisory staff in the 2013 survey results, and a significantly higher mean score than nonsupervisory staff only in the area of development and support in the 2015 results. 25
There was no interaction effect between the survey year and supervisory/non-supervisory role on staff s perceptions of the work climate. The main effects of the survey year and supervisory/nonsupervisory role were significant on the three subscales: functional aspects of the job, development and support, and work environment within department/unit (Figure 33). Specifically, staff s perceptions of the work climate significantly differed across years; supervisory staff generally had higher ratings in work climate than non-supervisory staff. Figure 33. Cross-Year Comparisons on Satisfaction by Supervisory/n-Supervisory Role Year 2013 Performing a supervisory role 2015 2017 2013 2015 2017 Negative Direction Positive Mean scale:1=strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 Functional Aspects of the Job Work Environment within Department/Unit Development & Support Cross-Year Satisfaction Comparisons by Gender When asked if their department effectively deals with poor performance by staff, both male and female respondents reported moderately lower mean scores. Interestingly, female staff constantly reported significantly lower mean scores than their male peers on this item across all years of the survey: 2013 (p<.05), 2015 (p<.01), and 2017 (p<.01). Cross-Year Comparisons on Staff Retention The 2017 staff survey indicated that staff retention was an area in need of attention. In 2013, 55% of the staff responded that they had seriously considered leaving Georgia State University. In 2015, this decreased to 48%, but rose back to 56% in the 2017 survey. Similar to the results for the 2013 and 2015 surveys, the respondents who had considered leaving did not differ by demographics, years of employment at Georgia State University, or their supervisory/nonsupervisory role (Figure 34). 26