Virginia Tech University Human Resources Restructuring Survey

Virginia Tech University Human Resources Restructuring Survey REPORT OF RESULTS Prepared by: THE CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH David E. Hartman. Ph.D. Principal Investigator 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

Table of Contents HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY List of Figures... iii List of Tables...iv Acknowledgements...v Executive Summary...vi I Introduction...1 About the Survey...1 Questionnaire...1 Survey Administration...1 Survey Response...2 Statistical Analysis...2 Questionnaire Scales...2 Regression Analysis...2 Cross-tabulation Analysis...3 Demographic Overview...3 Weighting...4 Open-ended Responses...4 II Overall Ratings...5 Rating Virginia Tech as a Place for Staff to work...5 Demographic Analysis...5 Rating the Current Staff Human Resources System...6 Demographic Analysis...6 Recommending Virginia Tech to Friends and Family as a Place to Work...6 Demographic Analysis...7 Awareness of the University Authority to Restructure its Human Resources System...7 Demographic Analysis...7 Sources of information about Human Resources Restructuring...8 Awareness of Specific Facts about Human Resources Restructuring...9 Demographic Analysis...10 III Specific Sections...11 Part C: Performance Evaluation...11 Performance Planning Program...11 Derived Importance...11 Performance Evaluation Program...11 Derived Importance...12 Demographic Analysis...12 Summary...13 Part D: Relative Importance of Performance Evaluation Factors...13 Open Ends...14 Demographic Analysis...14 Summary...15 University of Virginia Center for Survey Research i

VIRGINIA TECH Part E: Performance Management System...15 Demographic Analysis...15 Summary...16 Part F: Your Compensation...16 Derived Importance...17 Demographic Analysis...17 Summary...18 Part G: Staff Compensation System - The Supervisors View...18 Demographic Analysis...19 Summary...19 Part H: Relative Importance of Factors Currently Determining a Staff Employee s Pay...19 Demographic Analysis...20 Open Ends...20 Summary...21 Part I: Relative Importance of Pay Determinants - Future...21 Demographic Analysis...22 Open Ends...22 Summary...22 Part J: Employee Leave Benefits...23 Demographic Analysis...23 Summary...24 Part K: Staff Leave Benefits Supervisors Views...24 Demographic Analysis...24 Summary...25 Part L: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You...25 Derived Importance...26 Demographics...27 Summary...28 Part M: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors View...28 Derived Importance...29 Demographics...30 Summary...31 Part N: University Staff and Classified Staff Systems...31 Demographics...32 Summary...32 The Influence of Section Topics on Overall Ratings...32 Staff Overall Evaluation...33 Staff Supervisors Overall Evaluations...34 IV Priority Analysis...36 ii University of Virginia Center for Survey Research

List of Figures HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Figure II-1: Overall rating of Virginia Tech as a place for staff to work... 5 Figure II-2: Overall rating of the current staff human resources system... 6 Figure II-3: Recommending Virginia Tech to friends and family as a place to work... 7 Figure II-4: Awareness of the Virginia Tech authority to restructure its human resources system... 7 Figure II-5: Has Employee seen or heard any information about Human Resources Restructuring... 8 Figure III-1: Overall Rating for Performance Evaluation (C12)... 11 Figure III-2: Overall Rating of the Performance Evaluation Program... 12 Figure III-3: Overall Rating of Compensation... 16 Figure III-4: Overall Rating of the State's Leave Benefits... 23 Figure III-5: Overall Factor Importance for Accepting Employment and Continuing With the University... 25 Figure III-6: Overall Factor Importance for Attracting, Motivating and Retaining Employees of the University... 29 Figure III-7: Potential Benefits Outweigh Complexities... 31 Figure IV-1:Top-box Analysis... 36 University of Virginia Center for Survey Research iii

VIRGINIA TECH List of Tables Table I-1: Parts of the Questionnaire and Number of questions...1 Table I-2: Sequence of Survey-Related Communications to Web Respondents...2 Table I-3: Sequence of Survey Related Communications to Mailout Respondents...2 Table II-1: Sources of information about the Human Resources Restructuring...8 Table II-2: Awareness of other facts about Human Resources Restructuring...9 Table III-1: Performance Planning Program...11 Table III-2: Performance Evaluation Program...12 Table III-3: Factors that should be important in Performance Evaluations...14 Table III-4: Performance Management System...15 Table III-5: Your Compensation...17 Table III-6: Staff Compensation System...18 Table III-7: Staff Employee's Pay...20 Table III-8: Pay Determinants...21 Table III-9: Employee Leave Benefits...23 Table III-10: Staff Leave Benefits...24 Table III-11: Relative Importance of Pay Benefits, and Work Life for You...26 Table III-12: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You...27 Table III-13: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees Supervisors Views...30 Table III-14: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees...30 Table III-15: University Staff and Classified Staff Systems...32 Table III-16: Overall Derived Importance Analysis...33 Table III-17: Current Staff Human Resources System...33 Table III-18: University as a Place for Staff to Work...33 Table III-19: Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work...34 Table III-20: Current Staff Human Resources System...34 Table III-21: University as a Place for Staff to Work...35 Table III-22: Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work...35 Table III-23: Summary of the Overall Derived Importance Analysis...35 Table IV-1: Quality Ratings...36 Table IV-2: Staff Supervisors and Staff Derived Importance Analysis...36 Table IV-3: Staff Priority Matrix...37 iv University of Virginia Center for Survey Research

Acknowledgements The Human Resources Restructuring Survey was funded by Virginia Tech. The Principal Investigator for the project was Thomas M. Guterbock, Director of the 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. We thank Linda Woodard, Assistant Vice President, Department of Human Resources for Virginia Tech, for her leadership in this project. 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. They worked closely with the HR survey team at UVA 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 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 emails. Andrew Farber, Project Assistant, assisted in the cleaning and post-coding of responses to open-ended questions. HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY The development of the questionnaire was carried out in cooperation with the Human Resources staff of the University of Virginia, who were engaged in a parallel survey of their university s employees. Edith Fischer, Senior Lab Supervisor, provided the initial translation of the Word document survey into Sawtooth SensusWeb. Complex programming patterns for the web were developed by Research Analysts Gabriel Murtaugh and Kien T. Le. John Lee Holmes, Survey Operations Manager, 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 and Deborah Rexrode, Research Analysts. Dr. Hartman, Dr. Diop, Dr. Guterbock, and Ms. Rexrode jointly wrote the report of findings including designing graphs and charts. The CSR staff is particularly grateful to the employees of 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 400767, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4767. The Center can be reached by telephone at 1-434-243-5222, by e-mail to surveys@virginia.edu, or through the World Wide Web at www.virginia.edu/surveys. University of Virginia Center for Survey Research v

VIRGINIA TECH Executive Summary The Human Resources Department of Virginia Tech University commissioned the Center for Survey Research (CSR) at the University of Virginia to conduct a survey of all staff, staff supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff of Virginia Tech University. The purpose of the survey is 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 survey was closely coordinated with a similar effort conducted by the HR department at the University of Virginia. 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 3,826 university employees and 763 faculty supervisors of staff. The survey was conducted between June 11, 2007 and July 13, 2007. During that time, CSR received 1,890 completed questionnaires by the web and 258 completed questionnaires by mail. The response rate was 48%. Overall ratings Asked of all respondents: Overall, how would you rate the current staff human resources system? Over three-quarters of the respondents (76.8%) rated the system as excellent, very good or good. The remaining 23.2% 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 (90.8%) rated the University as an excellent, very good, or good place to work. The remaining 9.2% 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 (79.7%) said they strongly agree or agree with the statement. An additional 16.2% were neutral and the remaining 4.2% said they disagree or strongly disagree with the statement. vi 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? Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (65.2%) said they were very aware or somewhat aware of the authority. The remainder (34.8%) was slightly aware or never heard of the authority. Of those who were aware of the authority, most learned about it through newsletters, announcements, meetings or the VT website on HR restructuring. Performance Planning Program Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would you rate the university s performance planning program? Just over half (52.5%) rated the program as excellent, very good, or good. Just less than half (47.5%) 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? Less than half (44.8%) rated the evaluation program as excellent, very good, or good. Over half (55.2%) 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. University of Virginia Center for Survey Research

HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Compensation Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would you rate the university s compensation program for staff? Four in ten (43.2%) of the respondents rated the compensation system as excellent, very good, or good. Over half (56.8%) rated the system as fair or poor. The compensation factor that has the greatest affect on the overall evaluation of compensation is the university s current policies and procedures for determining staff pay. 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 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. University of Virginia Center for Survey Research 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 (92.8)% indicated that the benefits are either 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 (92.2%) 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. Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You Staff and staff supervisors indicate that job security, leave benefits, health insurance, and tuition benefits were the most important factors in their decision to accept employment with the university. They also indicate that supervisor relationships, leave benefits, health insurance, and job security 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 university reputation, opportunities for responsibilities, and job security 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. vii

VIRGINIA TECH Just over half (52.1%) of the supervisors believe that the benefits will outweigh the complexities. Just over one-quarter (28.8%) are neutral and 19.1% 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 new performance planning and evaluation system. 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. viii University of Virginia Center for Survey Research

I Introduction About the Survey The Human Resources Department of Virginia Tech commissioned the Center for Survey Research to conduct a survey of all staff, staff supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff of Virginia Tech regarding Human Resources restructuring. The effort was closely coordinated with a similar survey conducted concurrently at the University of Virginia, which was fielded separately by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia. 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 focus group was conducted by CSR with representatives of the employees at both universities. 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 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. HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY 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 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 Virginia Tech employees with email 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 12 13 10 13 13 15 15 5 University of Virginia Center for Survey Research 1

VIRGINIA TECH 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. Table I-2 and Table I-3 list the sequence of survey-related communications that were sent to employees during the survey period. Table I-2: Sequence of Survey-Related Communications to Web Respondents Type Date Sent to Advance letter 6/6-7 Web respondents Email announcement 6/11-13 Web respondents Email thank you/reminder 6/19 Web respondents Second email reminder 6/26 Web respondents Postcard reminder 7/6 Non- respondents Phone call reminders 7/10-13 Non-respondents Close-out email 7/16 Non-respondents Table I-3: Sequence of Survey Related Communications to Mailout Respondents 2 Type Date Sent to Mail advance letters 6/11-12 Distribute survey packets Thank you/reminder postcard 6/14-15 6/22 Mailout respondents Mailout respondents Mailout respondents Phone call reminders 7/10-13 Non-respondents Close-out postcard 7/13 Non-respondents Survey Response The 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 emails 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 is 48%. Statistical Analysis 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 Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree or a four-point scale anchored by Very Important to Not Important. The scales were designed so that higher numbers represent preferred outcomes (e.g. 5=Strongly Agree, 1=Strongly Disagree or 4=Very Important, 1=Not Important). 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 University of Virginia Center for Survey Research

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. 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. Cross-tabulation Analysis Demographic questions were included at the end of the questionnaire to obtain information about the respondents who completed the survey. The demographic information was used to evaluate differences in ratings given by sub-populations, such as males versus females, or those with different levels of education. In this study, a cross-tabulation analysis relates the demographic variables to ratings of items throughout the questionnaire and the overall ratings as well. Statistical significance tests were used to verify the existence of satisfaction differences among various subgroups. An independent Chi- Square test of independence is used to test for differences in proportions and Gamma tests are used to detect patterns among ordinal demographic sub-groups. The results are included in Appendix E. HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY the respondents compared to 64% female respondents. The percentage of respondents by race were: 86.8% White, 3.8% Black,.8% Asian and Asian American,.5% Hispanic,.4% American Indian, and 7.6% who described themselves as Other. With regard to length of employment as salaried employees of the State of Virginia, the largest percentage, (37.1%) of respondents were employees who have worked for the State for more than 15 years. The second largest group, (21.7%) were employees who have worked for the State 8 to 15 years. Fourteen percent of respondents have worked for the State for 2 to 4 years and nearly fourteen percent (13.8%) have worked 5 to 7 years. Almost thirteen percent (12.8%) have worked for the State for less than 2 years. Of the 2,148 respondents who reported their educational level, 53% have earned a four-year college degree or graduate/professional degree. Twenty-six percent (26%) have a graduate degree. An additional 18.5% have received some college and 13% have completed a two-year degree, technical school degree, or trade school certification. Under 14% have received a high school education or less. Further, the salary range with the largest percentage (55.5%) of respondents was the range of annual pay between $25,100 and $50,000 or an hourly rate of $12.01 to $24.00. Second to this group at nearly 19% were those in the salary range of $50,100 to $75,000. Approximately 15% have a salary over $75,000 and 12.1% have a salary less than $25,000. Eighty-three percent of respondents who supervise indicated they provide input into performance evaluations for the people they supervise. Seventyseven percent say they sign performance evaluations as a supervisor, while 20% sign performance evaluations as a reviewer. More than seventy percent (70.5%) of respondents are enrolled in the Virginia Sickness and Disability Program (VSDP) while 29.5% are enrolled in the State s traditional sick leave accrual plan. Demographic Overview The three largest academic or administrative areas that responded to the survey were the College of The survey questionnaire included demographic Agriculture and Life Science (16.3%), Student questions about respondents to allow for analysis of Affairs (9.0%), and the College of Engineering the data by personal and social characteristics. Men (6.7%). In occupational areas, 31.8% of were slightly under-represented with only 36% of respondents selected administrative and office University of Virginia Center for Survey Research 3

VIRGINIA TECH support; education and program support; academic or fiscal support. The next largest group of respondents (13%) is employed in building and grounds maintenance; housekeeping; installation and repairs; and skilled trades and utilities. The third largest group (12.8%) is employed in information technology, telecommunications, computers, electronics, or engineering technology. Weighting Since the data reflects an under-representation of categories in gender and race relative to the study population, statistical weighting was used to correct this under-representation. In reporting demographic information above, the data were not weighted. The data were weighted by gender and race for all of the analyses that follow. Open-ended Responses A total of 4,183 responses were received on the open-ended questions. Responses to open-ended questions in Sections D, H, and I (2,050) were coded and are discussed in those sections of the report. The remaining responses were cleaned of personal references and have been included in Appendix G. 4 University of Virginia Center for Survey Research

II Overall Ratings Rating Virginia Tech as a Place for Staff to work Overall, how would you rate Virginia Tech as a place for staff to work? Respondents were asked to rate Virginia Tech as a place for staff to work on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means Excellent and 5 means Poor. For analysis, the scale was reverse-coded so that higher numbers indicate a more favorable response (5 being Excellent and 1 being Poor). Overall, employees are fairly well satisfied with the University as a place to work. Figure II-1 illustrates how participants rated Virginia Tech as a place to work. More than ninety percent gave Excellent, Very Good, or Good ratings to Virginia Tech. Nearly eight percent (7.7%) gave a Fair rating and 1.5 percent gave a Poor to Virginia Tech. On the scale from 1 to 5, the mean rating for Overall rating is a favorable 3.69. Refer to Table C-2 in Appendix C for a complete distribution of responses for this item. Figure II-1: Overall rating of Virginia Tech as a place for staff to work Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 1.5% 7.7% 18.5% 29.6% 42.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Demographic Analysis The demographic variables include gender, race, education, salary, the number of years the employee has worked as a salaried employee of the State of Virginia, the state leave and disability plan, whether or not the employee provides input into performance evaluations for the people he/she HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY supervises, and whether or not the employee signs performance evaluations as a supervisor or as reviewer. The demographic variables also include the number of years the employee has been on continuous salaried employment with Virginia Tech and whether or not the current period of continuous salaried employment with Virginia Tech has started before July 1, 2006. In reviewing the results of the demographic analyses, this report mentions only those group differences that are statistically significant. Overall, administrative and professional faculty (3.87) were more likely to give more favorable ratings to Virginia Tech than were teaching and research faculty (3.63). The demographic analysis also indicates that the overall rating of Virginia Tech as a place to work was an increasing function of the employee s salary. Employees with higher salaries were more likely to give higher ratings than were employees with lower salaries. For example, employees with a salary of $75,100 to $100,000 (3.83) gave significantly higher ratings than those employees with a salary of $25,000 or less (3.58). Employees with a salary of greater than $100,000, $50,100 to $75,000, and $25,100 to $50,000 rated Virginia Tech at 3.79, 3.77, and 3.69, respectively. Employees who provide input into performance evaluations for the people they supervise (3.72), employees who sign performance evaluations as supervisor (3.72) and employees who sign performance evaluation as a reviewer (3.78) were also more likely to give higher overall Virginia Tech ratings than their counterparts (3.39, 3.44, and 3.68, respectively). Those who have worked as salaried employees of the State of Virginia for a period of less than 2 years (3.89) gave significantly higher ratings than those who worked as salaried employees of the State of Virginia for a period of 2 to 7 (3.61) or 8 to 15 (3.65) years. In addition, women gave significantly higher ratings (3.77) than men (3.63). White employees reported significantly higher scores than employees who selected the other race category (3.76 vs. 3.56). Black employees reported 3.66. University of Virginia Center for Survey Research 5

VIRGINIA TECH Rating the Current Staff Human Resources System In addition to the overall rating of Virginia Tech, respondents were asked to rate the current staff human resources system. Overall, three quarters (76.8%) of the respondents said the current staff human resources system was Excellent (4.9%), Very good (29.6%), or Good (42.3%). Less than one-fifth (18.0%) of the respondents rated the current staff human resources system as Fair and 5.2 percent rated it as Poor (see Figure II-2). On the five point scale the current staff human resources system received a 3.11 mean rating. Figure II-2: Overall rating of the current staff human resources system 6 Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 4.9% 5.2% 18.0% 29.6% 42.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Demographic Analysis Salaried staff (non-supervisor) members (3.22) gave a significantly higher rating to the current staff human resources system than did faculty supervisors (2.98) and salaried staff supervisors (2.87). In addition, ratings of the current human resources system were significantly higher with employees who do not sign performance evaluations as a supervisor (3.17), or as a reviewer (3.12) than with their counterparts (2.92 and 3.01, respectively). With respect to education, favorable ratings of the current staff human resources decreased with higher levels of education. Employees with high school education or less (3.28) or some college education (3.23), gave significantly higher ratings than employees with a 4-year college degree (3.02), or a graduate professional degree (3.01). In addition, newer (less than 2 years) employees with the State of Virginia were more likely to give higher ratings as compared to employees with 2 to 7, 8 to 15, or more than 15 years of employment with the State of Virginia (3.36 vs. 3.13, 3.01 and 3.09, respectively). Employees with lower salaries were more likely to give higher ratings than were employees with higher salaries. For example, employees with a salary of $25,000 or less (3.31) gave significantly higher ratings than those employees with a salary of $25,100 to $50,000, $75,100 to $100,000 or greater than $100,000 (3.09, 3.00 and 2.88 respectively). Employees with a salary of $50,100 to $75,000 rated the current staff human resources system at Virginia Tech at 3.12. Also, those enrolled in the Virginia Sickness and Disability Program (3.18) rated the system higher than those in the traditional sick leave accrual plan (3.03). Finally, staff members (non-supervisor) (3.21) and female employees (3.20) gave higher ratings than supervisors of staff (2.93) and male employees (3.02). With respect to race, black employees (3.24) gave significantly higher ratings than employees in the other race category (2.85). White employees gave a rating of 3.11. Recommending 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 Virginia Tech as a place to work. Using a five-point scale where 5 means Strongly Agree and 1 means Strongly Disagree, more than one-quarter (28.1%) of the staff members and staff supervisors said that they would strongly recommend Virginia Tech as a place to work. More than half (51.6%) of the staff agreed that they would recommend the university to friends and family. A total of 79.7% either Agree or Strongly Agree (see Figure II-3). The mean rating for this item is evaluated at 4.02 on a fivepoint scale. University of Virginia Center for Survey Research

Figure II-3: Recommending Virginia Tech to friends and family as a place to work Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 2.5% 1.7% 16.2% 28.1% 51.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% Demographic Analysis Employees who provide input into performance evaluations for the people they supervise (4.04), and employees who sign performance evaluations as a supervisor (4.04) were more likely to say they would recommend Virginia Tech to their friends or family as compared to their counterparts (3.82 and 3.81, respectively). In regards to length of employment, newer employees (less than 2 years) were more likely to recommend Virginia Tech compared to those who have been employed for 2 to 7, 8 to 15 and more than 15 years (4.24 vs. 4.02, 4.02 and 3.96 respectively). In addition, employees who have been on a continuous salaried employment with Virginia Tech for a period of 2 years or less (4.18) were more likely to say they would recommend Virginia Tech as compared to those with a salaried employment period of 3-6 years (3.99), 7-11 years (3.99), 12-21 years (3.96), and 22 years or more (3.94). Finally, women (4.14) were significantly more likely to say they would recommend Virginia Tech than men (3.88). With respect to race, white employees (4.08) gave significantly higher ratings than employees of the race other category (3.73). Black employees gave a rating of 3.97. HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY 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 Virginia Tech s authority to restructure the human resources policies and procedures for University staff. Figure II-4 presents employees responses on this item. Almost one-quarter (23.0%) of employees said they were very aware of Human Resources Restructuring, while four out of ten (42.2%) employees said they were somewhat aware of it. Slightly more than one-third of employees indicated that they were slightly aware of it (26.9%) or never heard of it before the implementation of the survey (7.9%). Figure II-4: Awareness of the Virginia Tech authority to restructure its human resources system Very aware Somewhat aware Slightly aware Never heard of it before today University of Virginia Center for Survey Research 7 7.9% 23.0% 26.9% 42.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% Demographic Analysis Overall, staff supervisors (31.6%) and faculty supervisors (33.2%) were more likely to say that they were very aware of Human Resources Restructuring than were staff members who are not supervisors (17.8%). The cross-tabulation results also indicate that administrative and professional faculty members (42.7%) were more aware of the restructuring program than were teaching and research faculty (16.3%). In addition, employees awareness of the university s authority to restructure the human

VIRGINIA TECH resources policies and procedures for the university staff increased with the number of years the employee has worked as a salaried employee of the State of Virginia or has been on a continuous salaried employment with Virginia Tech University. For example, employees who have been working for the State of Virginia for a period of more than 15 years (26.4%) or 8 to 15 years (25.2%) were more likely to be aware of Human Resources Restructuring than were employees who worked for the State of Virginia for a period of 2 to 7 years (18.4%) or less than 2 years (19.6%). Awareness of Human Resources Restructuring and employee s salary follow the same pattern with employees with higher salaries reporting more awareness than those with low salary levels. For example, 42.6% of employees with a salary of $75,000 to $100,000 said that they very aware of the program as compared to 14.4% of those employees with a salary of less than $25,000. Awareness of Human Resources Restructuring also increased with the level of education. Employees with a graduate or professional degree (29.4%), a 4- year college degree (28.0%), or some college education (18.1%) were more aware of Human Resources Restructuring than were employees with high school education or less (11.8%). Employees who provide input into performance evaluations for the people they supervise (32.4%) or sign performance evaluations as a supervisor (32.8%) or as a reviewer (35.3%) were more likely to say they were very aware of Human Resource Restructuring than were their counterparts (13.4%, 11.4%, and 20.8% respectively). Sources of information about Human Resources Restructuring More than three-quarters (77.1%) of all survey respondents indicated they had seen or heard information about Human Resources Restructuring. About 2 out 10 (22.9%) employees said that they had never heard or seen information about Human Resources Restructuring. When asked to indicate how they had learned about Human Resources Restructuring, most employees (93.5%) listed the Virginia Tech website on Human Resources Restructuring as their primary source of information followed by other Virginia Tech communications (newsletters, announcements, meetings) (73.7%), then supervisor or manager (49.8%). See Table II-1 for a full presentation of the sources of information. 8 Figure II-5: Has Employee seen or heard any information about Human Resources Restructuring No 22.9% Yes 77.1% Table II-1: Sources of information about the Human Resources Restructuring Source of Information n % of response s Virginia Tech website on HR restructuring Other communications (newsletters, announcements, meetings) % of cases n=1,55 3 1,453 33.2% 93.5% 1,145 26.1% 73.7% My supervisor or manager 773 17.6% 49.8% My colleagues or coworkers 488 11.1% 31.4% The grapevine 280 6.4% 18.0% University or student newspaper (electronic or print) News media (local newspaper, television, radio) 135 3.1% 8.7% 57 1.3% 3.6% Presentation or meeting 49 1.1% 3.1% Other 3 0.1% 0.2% Total 1,042 100 282.1 % Note: Respondents could select more than one response. University of Virginia Center for Survey Research

HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY Awareness of Specific Facts about 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 employees responses on these items. Of all the facts that were presented, employees were most aware that the university now has two human resources systems for staff (the classified staff system and the university staff system) and that the Virginia Retirement System will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring. More than 70 percent of employees indicated that they knew about these two facts (78.9% and 70.1% respectively). In addition, more than half 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 (50.3%). 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 plan will not be affected by 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 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 (%) 78.9 21.1 70.1 29.9 65.8 34.2 65.2 34.8 63.0 37.0 B8. The two human resources systems currently have essentially identical policies and procedures B9. The University staff system s policies and procedures will be governed by the Board of Visitors and may change under Human Resources Restructuring B11. Classified staff (employees hired before July 1, 2006) will have a choice to switch to the University staff system at least every two years B6. The current grievance policies for all staff will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring 59.9 40.1 59.1 40.9 58.7 41.3 50.3 49.7 University of Virginia Center for Survey Research 9

VIRGINIA TECH Demographic Analysis Overall, staff and faculty supervisors were more likely to know about the other facts about Human Resources Restructuring than salaried staff members who are not supervisors. In addition, awareness of the other facts about Human Resources Restructuring increases with the number of years the employee has been on a continuous salaried employment with Virginia Tech. The longer the period the employee has been on a continuous salaried employment with Virginia Tech, the more likely he/she is aware about Human Resources Restructuring. For example, 79.7 percent of employees with 22 years or more of continuous salaried employment with Virginia Tech said that they knew that the Virginia Retirement System will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring as compared to 52.4 percent of employees who have been with Virginia Tech for a period of 2 years or less. The cross tabulation results of awareness about the other facts of Human Resources Restructuring and length of employment with the State of Virginia follow the same pattern. Additionally, awareness about the other facts of Human Resources Restructuring increases with the level of education and income. The higher the employee s level of education or annual pay, the more likely he/she is aware of Human Resources Restructuring. For example, 74.0 percent of employees with graduate or professional degrees said that they knew that the current health plan will not be affected by Human Resources Restructuring, compared to 46.1 percent of employees with high school education or less. Overall, staff supervisors and administrative and professional staff were also more likely to say they knew about the other facts of Human Resources Restructuring. For example, 70.8 percent of staff supervisors and 73.2 percent of administrative and professional staff said that they knew that the two human resources systems currently have essentially the same policies and procedures compared to 55.8 percent of non-supervisor staff and 46.7 percent of teaching and research faculty. Employees who provide input into performance evaluations for the people they supervise, sign performance evaluations as a supervisor or as a reviewer were also more likely to say they knew about the other facts of Human Resources Restructuring. For example, 61.1% of those who provide input into performance evaluations, 60.8% 10 of those who sign as a supervisor and 65.7% of those who sign as a review knew that classified staff will be able to switch to the University staff system as compared to 45.0%, 48.9% and 58.8% respectively. With respect to gender, female employees were more likely to say that they knew the University now has two human resources systems (83.0%), that current grievance policies will not be affected (52.4%), and that the classified staff who choose to switch to the University staff system will not be permitted to switch back to the classified system (67.2%) compared to male employees (73.4%, 47.5%, and 61.9% respectively). White employees were more likely to say they know about the facts than black employees. For example, White employees (76.1%) were more likely to know that Virginia Retirement System will not be affected by the Human Resources Restructuring than black employees (54.5%). Employees of other races responded 68.1%. Also, white employees (63.5%) and employees of other races (63.1%) were more likely to know that the University staff system s policies and procedures will be governed by the Board of Visitors and may change under Human Resources Restructuring compared to black employees (43.0%). University of Virginia Center for Survey Research