April 24, 2007

Meeting Notes

05/02/07 Meeting Notes
Leader: Mary Ellen
Notes: Laura
Present: All

1) Check-in: the team did a quick check-in and update related to any internal/external interviews that were completed. The interview with General Mills will be rescheduled for either 5/10 or 5/11, and inroads have been made with Medtronic HR staff. Laureen was able to schedule a meeting with June Nobbe on 5/8 at 2pm.

2) We confirmed leadership and note taking for the rest of May. Mike will take the lead, and Janet agreed to take notes. Vic and Carol are confirmed for meeting with us on 5/16 from 12-12:30. Mary Ellen agreed to contact Dave to determine when he'll be coming for the month of May and will let us know on 5/9.

3) The team discussed what the top 2-3 driver's of engagement would be as a result of Carol's question the previous week. This lead to a detailed discussion of our top three-four recommendations. The team decided on the following key recommendations:
- Create a staff engagement committee and have a full-time staff engagement coordinator to facilitate these discussions.
- Provide training on staff engagement
- Community/Service both internally and externall to the U
- Deployment of hands-on, tangible product related to staff engagement.

4) The team decided on a tagline of "Engaging U".

5) Assignments were made for further writing of the key recommendations as follows:
Mary Ellen - community/Service
Janet - Staff Engagement Committee
Asim/Mike - Training
Laura - hands-on project

6) Mike shared his revisions related to the poster sesson with the team. We all liked the work he has done to date. He will keep us posted as he continues to develop the poster.

04-24-07 Meeting Notes
Leader: Mary Ellen
Notes: Laura
Present: Mike, Laureen, Asim, Laura, Mary Ellen

1) Check-In - the team is doing fine, everyone's busy and we're all committed to moving forward with the writing of our paper.

2) Leadership Duties for May and June: Mary Ellen will continue leading the team through the first week in May and Mike agreed to lead us for the remainder of May. We need to check with Janet to see if she'd be willing to be the recorder for Mike. Laura will continue to record through Mary Ellen's leadership.

3) Mike showed the team his idea for the poster session. He envisioned building blocks with different employee engagement words on them all forming together to build at the top block - staff engagement. The team liked the concept and suggested using our 6 categories for the foundation at the bottom, and he'll continue to tweak the words building up to staff engagement. Laura suggested coming up with a phrase or something that captures the graphic somehow, so we're all encouraged to think of something creative that we might use. Thoughts included "U Belong" or Discover U or something like that.

4) The team discussed various aspects of the paper and are looking to get some of the sections completed by our next session with Carol and Vic. We agreed that we would have a good set of recommendations ready to show our sponsors at our next meeting.

5) Next steps: Laura and Asim will work together to get Carol and Vic scheduled. We think they're coming on May 9th but we'd like to see if we can move it to the 16th so that we have more time to work on solidifying our recommendations. We talked about also developing a Powerpoint presentation to deliver to Vic and Carol as part of our report to them. We would tie in to the graphic of building blocks and summarize our key findings for them. We all took various assignments to work on for next week (which I'm hoping everyone knows because I didn't take clear notes for this part). We are all supposed to add to the recommendations document Laura started.

Everyone: work on recommendations based on the data/survey/report and chart you read and reported on.
Laureen: Contact June Nobbe of SCOPE for an interview
Asim: Contact Michelle in Vic's office to get a list of possible staff to interview from COPE
Mike: Continue fine tuning the graphic and presentation for poster board session
Laura: Put together chart for COPE information and research staff engagement tools/assessments

4-18-07 Meeting Notes
Leader: Mary Ellen
Notes: Laura
Present: Mary Ellen, Janet, Asim, Laura
Guests: Carol 10-10:30, Dave and Vic: 11-11:45ish

Visit with Carol:
Mary Ellen shared with Carol our progress to date to include the beginnings of a draft for our report and the poster session. We walked through the handout showing our preliminary recommendations and asked Carol for feedback. She seemed very pleased with our work and suggested several really good recommendations for us to include.

Carol asked us a question at the start of the meeting about what we found were the 2-3 things that drive staff engagement, and we weren't easily able to respond to this (Just as an aside...I think we need to come to some consensus on this question because I believe we'll get asked it again! LN)

1) She felt strongly that our recommendations be shaped in a way that gets the units involvement, rather than "just another program that central is asking units to participate in". She mentioned the Wellness program and how getting buy-in at the unit level leads to bigger success than central administration encouraging departments to address staff engagement.
2) She wanted us to make sure we included some form of measurement tool that could be used as a quick and easy win for the project. She really liked the assessment tool or checklist to be housed in the manager's toolkit.
3) She wants us to think hard on ways that we can get employees involved in "owning" this process. As she has mentioned to us before, it is not only about supervisor's and manager's trying to get staff engaged, but also finding ways for employees to become engaged on their own. She would like us to pursue the aspect of an "employee owned" process.
4) Carol thought it would be helpful to perhaps segment our report in to Quick and Easy Recommendations and those recommendations that require more resources.
5) She would like us to address the importance of the PULSE survey data within our report so there can be improved response rates with better data as a result. We suggested using a similar format to that of the Community Fund Campaign where there's enthusiasm and grassroots support for completion. She mentioned that this survey will be given every 2 years so it is imperative to the U that everyone participates in the survey.
6) She liked our idea of having a cross-employee/campus committee to work on staff engagement efforts and thought that we should specifially mention in our report how the commitee would be formed, who would participate, how would it be administered etc. We could call the volunteers 'Engagement Ambassadors' and provide a half day or full day seminar/training on what their role would include.

In summary, Carol appeared to be pleased with our progress and is looking forward to the next meeting where we'll have more concrete recommendations documented.

Dave and Vic joined us next and we basically went through the same things again with them as we did with Carol. Vic mentioned specifically that #1 and #2 items on our document were not the sorts of things he had in mind, but rather how do we work together to make a better community at the U. He would like to see our recommendations more related to COPA and other engagement groups.

Vic thought some of our ideas were well thought out and could be enhanced by including a cost benefit analysis, if appropriate, and how the recommendation would give a bottom-line return on investment.

Vic mentioned that in his work with COPE, they developed a really solid definition of public engagement and thought that some of the language could easily be shifted to our perspective for staff engagement. He encouraged us to look at this within our context.

Overall, he seemed pleased with our progress and confirmed that he would like to see a draft of our report as early as we can get it to him. He had a very good comment about writing that we all thought was great. He said "Writing is a way to think. You don't know what you think until you start to write." We all felt this captured some of our struggles to date as far as writing the report.

Dave mentioned a few process pieces that were helpful. 1) Ask our sponsors if our report is something that can be posted to the Web. Typically finished PEL reports are posted on the Web for others to see, but we need to ask our sponsors if they feel this is appropriate. 2) He will be sending out additional information about the poster sessions in the next couple of weeks but wanted us to make sure to include Learning Outcomes as part of our poster. 3) He would prefer not to come to our next meeting when Vic/Carol are here so we'll arrange schedules as soon as we know when he can come again. (Potentially May 23rd?) 4) He thought our initial recommendations were on track and told us that none of the other groups were at that point!

3-21-07 Notes

Agenda for next week and to dos:
- bring calendars
- schedule interviews on best practices
- talk some more about master matrix
- if the Boyer report comes, Mary Ellen will look at it
- ask some people for their definitions of staff engagement
- lunches with leaders
- pass Cargill report along – Janet to Asim
- assign responsibility for writing tasks
- Mike will do chart from 3M – they are walking away from engagement

Notes from conversation with sponsors and follow-up:

Vic’s suggestions:
Don’t wait until the end to start thinking of results. Not to get committed to a hypothesis, but as we get preliminary findings, take the time to look at them more deeply and do some analysis as we go along.

Taking notes along the way – a notebook can be a repository of results but also a repository of thoughts about the results – which is something that often gets neglected.

Janet’s summary of meeting with Cargill:

Met with one of five team members dedicated to staff engagement for Cargill. In response to what motivated the staff engagement, they described their strategic positioning effort a while back. They had a leadership academy (18 months). The staff engagement is really top-down, which will make it interesting to meet with Regent ____________. They have buy-in throughout management as well. They have a very informative and approachable leadership guide for managers that seems to be very effective. Some programs that impressed Janet: supervisors and managers get a 360% review, which is looked at by their supervisors and HR to see what skills need to be strengthened – picking one weakness to really focus on, with the expectation that the rest will also be improved – rather than overwhelming them. Another tip: concentrate on doing one staff engagement effort well rather than spreading out efforts. They work with Hewitt in this effort. They are just starting to add the community-building part (bringing in the post-office during holidays, bringing in auto services, allows paid time off to participate in community events such a walk for breast cancer, etc.).

Laura: U of C Berkeley, U of Michigan both have best practices. Mike has a friend at Michigan in facilities management, and a son who has a student job there – and looked at the web site. Not enough room on the chart to include everything they do. Every department does recognition differently, but they share it on the web. Example for facilities: saving compliment cards that can be exchanged for merchandise (bike, Ipod, etc.) – every five or ten years, a personal and detailed letter of things – upper leadership serving lunches – a department helping with needs such as affordable daycare or eldercare – excellent communication as well.

Community development piece has been helpful in our work.

Carol: Cargill has an engagement index they report managers on – a little 12-item thing done by Gallop – and put out for everyone to see.

Janet: mid-level women managers coaching UP to upper-management to help them in their leadership skills.

Laureen: asking for a definition of engagement works fine, as our sources have an immediate response – also the question about dissemination – Michigan has a good model with their Voices website and additional departmental website.

Vic: websites can be powerful or can be overlooked – is there some way of finding out how it is being used? Mike: it’s been up there for two years, and seems to reflect a constant thread of dialogue.

Laura: that’s interesting because communication is so key – employees very much want to hear from senior managers directly, not just a web site.

Carol: one of the things here is the very strong governance groups, such as the P&A group and their web site and the civil service and theirs.

Laureen: the Berkeley site wasn’t broken into segments by job class
Mike: Michigan is the same way – seems to be just one big organization – Voices includes staff, faculty, management on the web site – on other sites, categories are represented but not separated as they are at the U. Impressed at how inviting the atmosphere was at Cargill, with a very large team approach. Janet: they are consciously working against the silos – while communication within the silos, trying to bridge across them.

Carol: with the Senate’s expansion to include more groups, we have a good start.

Vic: in the departments, one of the real things that makes a difference with the staff is knowing what’s going on academically – feeling a part of that mission of the university – knowing the research and teaching.

Vic: Yudof’s immediate effort to do “low-hanging fruit? of beautifying the campus a good example of finding an implementable and going right for it.

Vic’s event: April 11, pretty much the whole day with keynote speakers – go to their web site engagement.umn.edu to see the event – registration is desired (though it is free) primarily for the lunch and parking issues.

Vic: question about Cargill – his impression of Cargill over the years is that they are very successful, don’t tell the world much about themselves, and don’t give much money – the building in St. Paul is one of the first donations he’s aware of – but they do encourage their employees to be involved in the communities

Janet/Mike: they are working on being more publically engaged – part of their repositioning – two years ago, remodeled their corporate headquarters as much more open – commercials highlight more about them – really encourage employees’ involvement

Dave: in the 90’s, the Boyer report on community on campus – got a lot of play at that point and then not much further – is there some exploration there? Then a book called Bowling Alone, Harvard professor – bowling was up and league participation down – social capital – civic engagement and how it was decreasing in America

Vic: Putnam and someone else – Better Together – book on decrease in social capital – very interesting examples of where working together had good results. Then he visited family and saw young people bowling with IPods on. Mike: kids all playing video game together but wearing IPods at the same time.

Vic: Boyer’s book on Scholarship Reconsidered criticizes the narrowness of scholarship of discovery, rather than scholarship of teaching, integration, and engagement or application. Remembers talking about this in SCEP but didn’t get much response.

Janet: when war protesters were here, people grumbled about the inconvenience instead of thinking of the opportunity for involvement.

Mike: yet we found the two top research universities also were leaders in engagement.

Vic: chicken and egg? They are rich institutions. Michigan is an endowed graduate school with resources we could only dream of. They can do things that we have to be more ingenious to do.

Speaking of the poster, Mike sent out an e-mail to staff at all levels to ask their understanding of staff engagement, and got some good ones. From Lisa Schulte, who runs the “soup and substance,? came an invitation to possibly present to his work group. Also got ahold of supervisor he knows, who had a different angle: focuses on supervisor’s willingness to interact with employees on a daily basis – but “could be wrong? – shows some nervousness.

Janet: having this variety of responses shows people the variety of understandings

Laureen: we could share this and Linda Bj____’s insight that it’s not static – changes over time.

Dave: three things
- he sends coaches a monthly update
- just read the People task force again, which wanted everyone at the U to be a coach and to have a coach – might be an interesting conversation to have with the coach about what they get out of it
- senior leader lunch – could ask those folks about staff engagement
- outcomes: report? Poster? – we are also doing something implementable
- seminar of April 13: organizational cultures – John Adams from Geography (?) and Chuck Denny (who used to be here) – we could probe them in the conversation also.

Laura: highlighted need to bridge silos (in job categories) – not just department, etc. but job class-related. So many silos and only central U leadership can take initiative to bridge or eliminate those.

Laura: need to be more conscious about capturing our good ideas as they come along.

Janet: appreciating our organizational structure and process – feels that other PEL groups aren’t doing this sort of thing.

Laureen: Ann Hagen’s group (Rochester) has had to start over three times.

Mike: concern that HR is going to create even more silos related to employee groups with the new merit system.

Going forward: next step – a master grid or some other graphic summarizing the key findings along with a narrative summary.

Laureen: we need to make sure we have time to do a quality presentation with the report – color, graphics, quotes from individuals – representing all levels and sectors.

Staff Engagement Meeting Notes - March 7
Present Asim, Laura, Laureen, Janet, Mary Ellen
Chair-Laureen / Notes-Mary Ellen

1. Did group grid on Leadership Council report – please review and respond via e-mail if you want to make additions. Here it is:

Download file

2. Vic, Carol, and Dave are all coming in two weeks at 11:00, for perhaps 45 minutes.

3. Final report framework:

4. Review blog

5. For next week:
- each bring charts of research/interviews we have done
- begin monster master chart
- review/discuss structure draft
- prepare for Vic, Carol, and Dave

Meeting Notes - Staff Engagement February 28, 2007
Note Taker: Laura Negrini
Present: Asim, Janet, Mary Ellen, Laureen, Laura

Check-In: The team went through check-ins and all seemed to be going ok with everyone. Mary Ellen shared that they've received approval to have a new major in Youth Studies, which was exciting for their area. Laura confirmed with the team that she'll ask Pam to see if Carol could meet with us on 3/21 instead of 3/14, so that she and Vic can meet on the same day.

Analysis of Research/Status of Internal/External Groups: Janet/Laura/Mike are continuing to work on scheduling interviews with external companies. Neither Janet or Laura have heard from the 3M contact that Mike mentioned in an email to us. Laureen has a meeting scheduled for 1pm with Linda Bjornberg from University Services. Mary Ellen is planning on attending as well. Laureen will update us next week about the interview. Mary Ellen offered and agreed to conduct a literature search on employee engagement which will be included in our final report. Janet will update the Excel chart to include another box titled "building community" as a result of Vic's suggestion at last week's meeting.

The group also talked about progress made on completing a chart for each of the reports/surveys we reviewed. We agreed that we would include a completed chart for each of the surveys in our final report as part of the Appendix. Laura shared with the group her work on the Watson Wyatt survey and found some aspects of completing the chart difficult, but that it did help frame the concepts contained within the report. The team agreed to complete a chart for the reports each of us read for next week's meeting. We also agreed to complete the chart for the Leadership Council report together. The assignments for chart completion are:

Faculty Culture Report - Mary Ellen
Watson Wyatt - Laura
New Employee Orientation - Laureen
PULSE Survey - Asim
Culture/Supervisor Task Force Reports - Janet

Strategize on Final Report Framing: We discussed a number of different options for the framework of our final report. We liked the labels (such as Introduction, Background, Recommendations, Best Practices etc.) that were contained in the NEO report and liked the column approach to the document. We should include, if at all possible, a section on metrics given that Carol was interested in finding an approach to capturing some of this information. Asim agreed to put a skeleton framework up on the blog and we can all begin entering information if we choose. Mary Ellen was interested in doing some of the writing for the document since that is one of her strengths!

Final Comments: The group provided Janet with feedback on her leadership of the February meetings. Congratulations Janet on a job well done! She was very organized and effective in her leadership with our group and should feel confident in her abilities to perform this function!

Next Steps/Assignments:
All - complete a chart for the assigned survey/report that we each read
Janet - update the Excel Chart to include "Building Community" box
Mary Ellen - provide an update on the literature search
Laureen - update the team on the meeting with Linda Bjornberg
Laura - work with Pam in Carol's office to see if we can reschedule our meeting with her to 3/21

Meeting Notes - Staff Engagement February 21, 2007
Note Taker: Laura Negrini
Present: Asim, Janet, Mary Ellen, Laura

Check-In: Everyone is doing fine, just really busy. We all feel like we're having a hard time balancing PEL with our daily work, which is typical of these types of programs. Asim shared that he will most likely be with us through April, early May, but he'll keep us all posted as he confirms his plans. Laura will add the treat and Chair schedule through April.

Prep for Vic: We reviewed the information that we wanted to share with Vic. It was the same information we shared with Carol relate to the chart, the interview questions, and the updates related to progress made on other institutions and internal/external groups.

Meeting with Vic: The meeting with Vic went well. Janet lead the discussion and he felt we were making good progress. He asked if we could reschedule him next month too as he will be out of town on 3/14. He confirmed that the 21st would work well, so we may try to see if Carol can reschedule to the 21st so they can meet together. Some of his thoughts included:
1) He thought we should have a "hint" about what we mean by staff engagement on our list of questions. He thought there was potential for confusion on the part of the interviewee on what we would be getting at here without having some sort of hint, since they may use different words than we do.
2) He wanted to know whether we thought Carol was comfortable with our approach. The team responded that we thought she was given her comments to us on the 14th, and that she was looking for us to provide some quick, easy wins related to staff engagement activities (manager's toolkit checklist, assessment instrument etc.). He likes this idea.
3) He suggested that we consider adding another box to our chart showing something about "community building" because he didn't see anything that suggested staff engagement related to building the University as a community. The team liked this idea and will discuss at our next team meeting.
4) He liked our progress made with other institutions and our internal/external progress. He didn't have any additional items to add on this topic.
5) He shared that he will be available during April/May timeframe if we need his expertise on writing our report.

Meeting with Dave: The meeting with Dave went well. He shared that he met with Vic and Carol about our project and felt they thought we were on track with our progress. Other thoughts included:
1) He confirmed that our poster session is June 20th and that our reports are due at the same time. He suggested shooting for a May timeframe to deliver the report to our sponsors so we have sufficient time to complete the poster. The team thought we should aim for completing our final draft around our May 23rd meeting. He did share that some groups have gone in to July to complete their report, but he said to shoot for June because we'll want to be done by then!
2) He asked us for a 2-minute synopsis of where we're at with the project, which Janet did extremely well! He asked our group a lot of questions to provoke thought and reflection on the direction our project was taking, just to make sure we were confident in our process and our results. He also suggested that we not only use our data and interview results to make recommendations but also as a way to determine what the "root cause(s)" of some of the barriers are to staff engagement.
3) We then had quite a long discussion about what we thought of his idea for next year's PEL program to include some in-depth training from the TLP program. He and Mel are considering adding a 4-day training program to the PEL program that relates to business process redesign somewhat related to Six Sigma and process improvement. We shared our thoughts and he'll take the information back to Mel and keep us updated as to the outcome.

Check-Out: We didn't have a lot of time to check-out but everyone felt the meeting with Vic and Dave went well. Laura is on for treats next week and we'll get the rest of the roles assigned on the blog as well.

Meeting Notes - Staff Engagement February 14, 2007
Note Taker: Laura Negrini
Mike, Laureen, Mary Ellen, Janet, Laura

Check-In: The team confirmed that we will meet with Dave on 2/21 and need to confirm with him when the report is due to the sponsors. Janet will add that to the agenda for next week's discussion with Dave. We briefly updated each other on progress made with internal/external subgroups. Cargill is confirmed for the external group for March 13th. 3M, Medtronic, and General Mills are yet to be scheduled. Laureen contacted Kathy O'Brien to see if she would be willing to talk with the internal group. Mary Ellen emailed Kate Maple as well. We also decided that next week we would work on setting up a framework for our paper which will make writing the document a bit easier.

Review for Meeting with Carol Carrier: The team briefly reviewed the information that we wanted to go through with Carol. We confirmed we wanted to review the chart and list of interview questions, update her on the internal/external progress, inform her about the other schools we're keying in on, and ask for her input about what would make the report most useful for her.

Update with Carol Carrier: Carol shared with us that we were on the right track with the progress we have made to date and thought there was a lot of good information being captured by our team. She would like us to see if we can tease out any "attitudes" coming out of the research that has been done at the U on engagement and address those if at all possible. She also encouraged us to balance both the good and bad experiences that U employees shared throughout the many reports we have read.

She wants us to ask about best practices related to the dissemination of information related to best practices. She wants us to find out how people want to learn about best practices - is it through an email, a specific communication, a web site, etc.

Carol was pleased about the other institutions we are focusing on and thought that the concept that U of MI uses called "Voices of Staff" was an interesting idea.

We asked Carol who she thought was good at staff engagement internal to the U and she thought Duluth is heavily involved in staff engagement on their campus. She thought Judith Karon, Greg Fox, and Bruce Gildseth would be good contacts for us. She also suggested that we meet with Regent Dave Larson with Cargill, who is a huge proponent of staff engagement. She offered to help us make arrangements for this meeting, which we all agreed was a good idea.

She thought we should firm up some of our timeframes so that we can move forward on the report writing because she said time goes by fast! :) She also would like us to see if we can uncover any recommendations that would be quick wins, and good, practical things that we could accomplish relatively quickly in the final report. She mentioned such things as how to measure engagement, when it's done, and what is done with the information?

Reflection on Sponsor Meeting: We all felt pleased that Carol thought we are headed in the right direction! We all thought it was important that we definitely try to find some quick, easy wins and that we should meet with Dave Larson. We also confirmed that we needed to make sure to ask about how information is best disseminated given her comments about her curiosity in this area.

Next Steps: Preparation for meeting with Dave included asking him when the report is due to the sponsors and that we would review our chart and list of questions. Janet will email Vic to see if he can attend our meeting next week.

Assignment: We will try to complete a chart for each of the reports that each of us were assigned early on in the project and bring them to the 2/28 meeting for discussion. We will work as a group to complete a chart for the Leadership Council Report.

Asim - PULSE survey
Laureen - NEO Report
Laura - Watson Wyatt report
Janet - Culture Task Force & Other PEL projects
Mary Ellen - Work/Life Initiative Focus Group Summary
Merit Task Force - Mike (not much to complete from this one)

Meeting Notes - Staff Engagement February 7, 2007
Note Taker: Laura Negrini
Present: Mike, Asim, Laureen, Mary Ellen, Janet, Laura

Check - In: Everyone is busy and finding it hard to find time to work on project assignments.
It was decided that it would be a good idea to review the roles for the upcoming months and include this as an agenda item. It was discussed that Laureen would take the lead in March and Mary Ellen would take the lead in April. We'll confirm roles at an upcoming meeting. We decided that the Leader role will confirm meetings with Dave.

PEL Seminar discussion: We all thought the session was valuable, but some of the items discussed, mainly, the polarity chart, was a good tool, but would be time consuming to complete. We all enjoyed seeing the results of our TKI Conflict Mode assessment.

Develop Questions for Interna/External Interviews: Mary Ellen drafted a list of potential questions to use when interviewing internal and external sources related to employee engagement. The team reviewed the questions and made some suggestions. Mary Ellen is going to revise the document and add them to the blog for ease of reference.

In addition to the questions Mary Ellen proposed, the team decided to add the following questions:
1) How does your organization define employee/staff engagement?
2) What prompted you to look at employee/staff engagement?
3) Why are you interested in staff/employee engagement? Why is it of value to you and your organization?

We also agreed that we would share any information received from any of the interviews that might be helpful or interesting as we move forward. We also thought it would be interesting to get advice from the interviewees about implementing programs, barriers in developing and ask for 3 key points to share with us.

Next Steps for Interviews: Schedule interviews and make appropriate contacts for assigned groups.

Watson Wyatt Report Review: We reviewed this report and found that it indeed supports the findings from other reports we've read. We liked the use of the phrase "Line of Sight" to define the focus and direction from leadership that is needed in conjunction with an employee's commitment to the organization. The information definitely validated our grid and contained similar concepts to the report from the Leadership Council.

As a result of reviewing this report, the team discussed whether it would be time to begin working on a framework for our report. Given the amount of research we've done, all the reports we've read, we thought it would be a good idea to start working on our report structure, citations and literature review. The Faculty and New Employee Orienation reports are good samples to use to build the framework.

Plan meeting with Carol and Vic: Carol will be attending our 2/14 meeting so we wanted to be prepared for her visit. Laura will email her a brief summary of what we intend to discuss. We decided on the following topics to discuss with her:
- Discuss the grid we came up with to make sure we're on the right track.
- Update her on the institutions of higher ed that we're keying in on: U of MI, Berkeley, and U of WA (tie in to those being the top 3 research institutions - which is what we're trying to achieve)
- Update her on our progress of internal/external contacts
- Tell her that we're intending on having a tool or assessment on the manager's toolkit.
- Discusss with her ways in which she thinks we can get high level buy-in, what would make this project most effective so it doesn't "sit on a shelf".

Next Steps:
-Make contact and try to schedule appointments for interviews.
-Janet: send a reminder to Dave about meeting on 2/21
- Asim will try to confirm with Vic whether he'll be able to meet with us on 2/21.

Meeting Notes - Staff Engagement 31 January 2007
Presented by Janet Kendra

Present: Mike Allen, Asim Dorovic, Laura Nagrini, Laureen Ross McCalib, Mary Ellen Shaw, Janet Kendra

Here are the notes taken at the 31 January 2007 meeting.

After arriving and checking in, Laura reported Carol Carrier visited with her about our PEL project. Carol gave her the Watson Wyatt report, which Laura will distribute to group at the Friday seminar on 2 February 2007.

Discussion then turn to the bucket matrix. General consensus was it will be a great tool in forming questions when the Internal and External Subgroups begin contacting others. Laura said matrix could be used in small and/or focus groups to ask them if it would help them be engaged rather than asking if they are engaged. It was suggested we interview the leadership team (former PEL group) for their perception of best practices. Question raised as to how much more data is needed. Mary Ellen said February good time to pull everything together and analyze what we have. By the end of February we will be at a point to see what we have and what we need, we can finish gathering info then.

Group felt we are on target and doing well.

We shared summaries of our research into other Universities. Asim did not find anything on staff engagement on the University of Illinois website. Mary Ellen felt University of Pennsylvania has some groups like UofM (i.e. CAPA), but that they were about 10 years behind where UofM is now. Janet had University of Texas, University of Florida and added University of Washington. Texas and Florida did not seem to have any staff engagement. She searched their websites and then called their HR depts and could not find anyone who seemed to know about any staff engagement initiatives, policies, etc. She has a conference call scheduled with a person at University of Washington and will report back after that. Laura had Purdue University and Ohio State University. She found Purdue had an Office of Engagement, which is much like Vic Bloomfield’s Office of Public Engagement. As for staff engagement at OSU, Laura found they were looking at UofM. Laureen researched University of California-Berkeley and found they had a lot of staff engagement on their website and seemed very committed to it. She will provide links on the Blog so we can go and look at it. There are some tools on their website that might be useful to our group. Mike researched University of Michigan and found they had a lot of staff engagement on their website, too. He will also provide links on the Blog for group to see. Mike also pointed out that Michigan and Berkeley were the top two research universities and both had strong staff engagement. We might be able to make a correlation between strong staff engagement and being top (in this case) research university.

We then broke into our External and Internal sub-groups and met.

Meeting was adjourned.

Meeting Notes - Staff Engagement 24 January 2007
Presented by Janet Kendra

Present: Laura Nagrini, Laureen Ross McCalib, Mary Ellen Shaw, Janet Kendra

Here are the notes taken at the 24 January 2007 meeting.

After arriving and checking in, the meeting with Beth and Dave was re-capped for Laureen. A discussion followed about setting meeting dates with Dave. It was decided to have him come at the beginning of the meeting on every third Wednesday of the month (after the sponsors so he could help group review meeting with the sponsors). It would be left to Dave whether he wanted to come for ½ hour or an hour. It was stated we should incorporate Dave more, so he is involved rather that just observing.
After reviewing the Blog training, group proceeded with the review of buckets (using the Post-It notes). The rest of the meeting was taken with discussion of and identification of buckets. It was requested that the post-its used to come up with the headings and categories be listed. Here are the post-its notes and their groupings (they are in no particular order):

1. Rewards & Recommendations
2. Training & Learning
3. Opportunities for career development and mobility; career consultation & opportunities
4. Management/supervision [performance evaluation feedback; communication]; leadership for staff engagement – what is needed at top level?; performance expectations
5. Communication
6. Buy in of both management & staff
7. Barriers: perceived & real to staff engagement
8. Benefits of engagement; cost savings of staff engagement; improving emotional commitment; perception that job matters to enterprise; respect, relate & results
9. Recruitment & selection

The above post-its resulted in creating a chart (see Excel chart uploaded to UBlog site). The headings are: Individual, Supervisor, and Leadership/Org. Under each heading are the following categories: Rewards & Recognition, Training, Career Mobility, Communication, and Work/Life Balance. Each category will identify the motivator(s), barrier(s), and recommendation(s) as it relates to each heading.
Mary Ellen stated that it would be useful to her if there was a list of questions we could use when doing our research with internal/external parties (so that we all work at getting the same type of info). She will email to group a list of questions she came up with and others will add to it if they so desire.
Laura stated that at our next meeting we should all be ready to provide an executive summary of the Universities each group member contacted regarding that institution’s staff engagement. At the next meeting we will revisit our milestones and have the external and internal sub-groups meet.
Meeting was adjourned.

Meeting Notes - Staff Engagement 17 January 2007
Presented by Janet Kendra

Present: Asim, Dorovic, Laura Nagrini, Mary Ellen Shaw, Janet Kendra
Guests: Beth Zemsky, Dave Dorman

Here are the notes taken at the 17 January 2007 meeting.

1. Asim, Laura, Mary Ellen and Janet checked in with each other.

2. The review of buckets/post-it notes was postponed until the next week due to the absence of Michael Allen and Laureen Ross McCalib. The group felt it was too important a discussion to continue without the whole group present.

3. Visit with Beth Zemsky and Dave Dorman. There was a lot discussion, mainly for Dave to get to know the PEL-Staff Engagement project members, understand better our project and get a general idea of where we were at with the project. He wanted to know he was there to be of any help for us, whether in making connections internally or externally, or with anything else with which we may need assistance.

Laura explained our group’s rotating roles, check-ins and -outs at each meeting, and discussed our staff engagement definition and the charter. Asim explained we wanted to use the data already collected and then, if needed, do a focus group. He also explained that we wanted to do something substantial, but not unmanageable.

Dave advised that one important component for staff engagement is transparency. His PEL group two years back found that transparency, i.e. Management sharing info, bringing staff in as part of the team, was important to staff and would be very important to staff engagement. Dave asked how we felt about our June deadline and our process in general. We responded we felt good. We had a lot of deadlines, but felt our milestones were flexible enough that we could drop some if it was too much. Asim explained we had figured out a structure for our group to work within and that we had made assignments. He added he felt bad when his obligations to his University job drew him away from PEL. Dave responded that feeling bad was a common issue. Beth said our group probably spent the most time upfront with details as to structure, etc. She also wanted us to know that storming happens in different ways. Sometimes storming happens as an individual works through their own "shame" of how to hold each other and self accountable. She suggested talking about how we felt in other instances when we could not hold up our end of the action and reflecting on that previous experience. Storming happens not just when there are blowups, but also when one withdraws.

Dave asked about our sponsors. Mary Ellen responded with the divergent expectations of Carol Carrier and Vic Bloomfield we do some managing up. For example, Carol wanted something concrete to go with the report, something like a Hot Tip for a Web page. Beth suggested a “quick and dirty? “How do I assess the engagement of my staff?? She also suggested the more concrete with Carol Carrier, the better (rather than abstract conversation). She said we have an unique challenge for our group – two sponsors that are different from each other. These sponsors also represent two cultures: administrative and academic.

We updated Dave on the materials we are using in our research. Dave wanted to remind us that one of the functional pieces of PEL is talking with others which helps us.

Dave requested a paragraph on our project/charter so he could put it up on the Web site. Would like the paragraph by Monday or Tuesday, 22 or 23 January.

4. Blog Training. While we waited for Beth Zemsky and Dave Dorman, Asim did a quick blog training. He showed how to make new entries, add to entries, etc. He had instructions and would be emailing them to the group.

5. Meeting with subgroups (Internal/External). This was postponed due to absent members.

6. Check-Out.

Janet was pulled out of meeting, thus end of Meeting Notes.

Minutes Staff Engagement 1-10-07

1. Arrive and check-in – everyone is exceptionally busy. Most people did update their research on the blog, but some still need to do it. Asim and Mary Ellen are available to work with individuals – we’ll also go over the blog and how to use it in two weeks.

2. School assignments and updates:
Berkeley – Laureen
Michigan – Mike – got some information about the Voices of Staff (see e-mail) -
Penn State – Mary Ellen
Ohio State – Laura (adding Purdue)
Texas & Washington – Janet
Illinois – Asim (and Florida) – Asim did have conversation with someone at Illinois, where there didn’t seem to be much going on related to staff engagement.

Target date to do summary comments on the blog (Outside university assignments and notes): end of January.

Laureen: (Bonnie Martin provided this report) – September 2006 report from Transitional Leadership Team on onboarding process. Started with retention and data from a leaving survey, then focus groups of different staff groups, then best practices in industry and peer university institutions. See additional notes on the blog report.

3. Definitions of staff engagement (Laureen & Laura) DRAFT from conversation – please review and respond by two weeks. (Laura will send out an updated charter with this draft included.

Staff engagement is the intellectual and emotional commitment employees have to the U’s mission of teaching, research, and outreach.

An engaged staff
- uses discretionary effort
- is motivated to do his or her best work
- is connected to the University’s community
- contributes to the overall success of the University’s mission
- functions as an engaged ambassador on behalf of the University to coworkers, students, potential employees, and the citizens of Minnesota.

4. Leadership Council Report – defer to when we are all done. Mike and Asim will review it over this next week.

5. Review Subcommittee Plans for internal/External Engagement Projects

We’ll use the last 30 minutes next week to do some planning.
(Some ideas for internal group to consider: Facilities/U Services, CHE (the former),
GC (the former), June Nobbe’s shop)

6. Discuss Engagement Buckets & Follow-Up Assignments

Here's the bucket brainstorming:

Learning & training
Performance & expectations
Follow through
Superb managers
Career mobility & development
Staff input mechanisms
Communication – 2 way
Recruitment & selection
Emotional commitment
Rewards & recognition
Career progression & consultation
Perception that work matters
Life work balance

Put these into 3-5 broader “buckets? – we’ll compare notes – in two weeks

Next week: meet with Beth and Dave – finish up focus group training. Try to come early (10 minutes). Of the last 30 minutes, 10 minutes for blog training – 20 minutes in internal/external sub-groups.

For future: Carol comes every second Wednesday starting in February – also Vic.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Meeting Notes - 03 Jan 2007 respectfully submitted by Laureen
General discussion about recent University changes, mentoring relationships, misc.
Mary Ellen has the Leadership report and will forward to Mike.
Laureen will review Employee Orientation Redesign report.
All committee members are to enter their summaries of reports on the Staff Engagement blog.
Internal and External sub teams should discuss how to approach the assignment of contacting organizations about best practices on staff engagement. The sub teams should bring a draft plan for discussion at the Jan 10 meeting. It was suggested we review the Dec 13 blog meeting minute notes for further direction.
The committee members discussed researching staff engagement at comparative higher education institutions, taking the institutions from the Strategic Positioning benchmarking universities. The following volunteer / assignments were made:
Pennsylvania - Mary Ellen
Michigan - Mike
Wisconsin - Laura
UC Berkely - Laureen
Texas, Washington - Janet
Illinois - Asim.
Suggestions were to review the institution's website and / or find a contact at the university to talk with.
Next week's meeting: Laureen to report on New Employee Orientation, Laureen and Laura to bring draft definiton of staff engagement for comments and review, committee to start defining 'buckets'.
Visitors: Vic will be with us next week (Jan 10). We can discuss draft definition with him.
Beth and new PEL coordinator will be with us Jan 17.
Carol Carrier will not be meeting with us in January.
Laura will be team leader beginning Jan 10. Janet may be note taker.

13 December2006: respectfully submitted by Laureen
Mike suggested our check-in time either be adjusted or we shorten the check-in.
Mary Ellen provided a report on the Faculty Culture Report. Mary Ellen said the report would be a good model for our own report when we come to putting it together and writing it. She also suggested we keep in mind that faculty are important stakeholders, and when we come to framing our recommendations, we keep them in mind. The way the report discussed its scope, definition and mission could also be good models for us. Related to engagement, the report discussed family friendly benefits and public engagement.
Laura passed the Leadership report to Laureen, who will review it and get it next to Janet. Mike encouraged quick review so we would all be able to look at it soon. We can then discuss the findings as a group.
Tasks and Milestones
Laura and Laureen will modify our draft definition of staff engagement to include some of the ideas from Carol C and the Leadership report. They will bring the definition to the next meeting.
Each of us who read and provided a summary of a report or document will go into the blog under References and write a short paragraph on findings.
Best practices outside the University: the three person team of Laura, Janet and Mike will get together and prepare a plan on how to approach the assessment of external best practices for the Jan 3 meeting. Companies under consideration are Cargill, Target and 3M.
Best practices inside the University: the three person team of Mary Ellen, Asim and Laureen will get together and do the same. Ideas for internal best practices are K. O'Brien's organization, June Noble, previous General College, and CAPA awards.
Each team member will work on finding best practices of an institute of higher education, possibly using the list of comparative universities in the Strategic Positioning booklet. This will be done as a later step.
"Buckets" means after review of the documents, we will identify consistent themes on where engagement can be improved, like flexibility, career mobility. Some ideas are also in the Leadership report.

Next week: We have all been invited to the Morrill Hall pot luck. Bring a dish to share or $10.
Mike will be team leader the first week in January. Laureen will also take notes that day.

Beth Z. joined us for the second hour to answer questions and provide the first part of training for focus groups. She asked us to read through the rest of the focus group hand out, and said we would finish it the next time we are together. Beth will check and see if she can meet us the third Wed in January. Beth told us the January PEL event will be Tuesday, Jan 23 from 9:30l- noon. PEL members can invite supervisors and coaches to participate. David Stillman will be talking about Managing Generations in the Work Place.


06 December 2006: respectfully submitted by Laureen
Vice President Carol Carrier attended from 10:30 to 11:00. Carol provided a list of data / information available for the team to use: New Employee focus groups (Bonnie Martin), Cluture Task Froce (Linda Thrane), P&A Studies (Jackie Singer and Mary Luther), PEL Leadership Development Report, PEL Performance Management, PULSE Survey, and Civil Service Survey: Supervisors and Staff.
During the discussion and in response to questions, Carol noted the issues of quality of annual reviews, rolls of supervisors, culture at the U and value and attitudes. Carol sugggested reviewing what's been done and analyzing what it shows. She would like to see recommendations on what might be best for the U and best practices from other organizations. She suggested the group might want to take one of the recommendations and in a very small way, make it real at some level, such as displaying the recommendations on a website, holding a mini-workshop with a small test group, using the Managers' Toolkit, holding a panel discussion for supervisors on how to implement, or hosting an invitation only training event. She cautioned that we would need to assess our time to see if this is manageable within our schedule. If we chose to do this, it could be done between March and May, before the final report is completed. Human Resources would be available to help with communications and scheduling.

Carol suggested learning more about staff engagement at Cargill, as it is undergoing a staff assessment on a systematic basis and is very serious about it. Regent Dave Larson talks very positively about Cargill's work in that area. Carol suggested if we contact organizations, like Cargill, we try to get input from several layers of the organization - leadership, HR department and employees, for example. Carol suggested we carefully pick the number of organizations we are going to talk with, and try to get many layers.
Carol reviewed our schedule and said it looks reasonable.

Associate Vice President Vic Bloomfield attended the meeting from 11:00 - 11:30. Vic reviewed the project charter, and said the goals and objectives look good. He suggested it is important to have the raw data from focus groups instead of just looking at the summary write-ups. He suggested we be alert to what people say when we tell them we are working on this project. Vic talked about the COPE faculty Staff rewards committee and their goal of finding ways to reward staff and faculty for public engagement. Half of the committee is Staff. He suggested at some point we meet with the COPE comittee - they would appreciate input from us, especially if we have ideas on staff rewards. Vic asked to share our project charter with the rewards committee. Asim will email the charter to Vic.

COP is hosting a seminar on engaging with the community on Aprill 11 and we are invited to participate.

Vic suggested external organizations to look at as part of our program: Target, 3M and Medtronic. They have a culture of interacting well with the community and are seen as good places to work - employees are happy. He also suggested contacting national professional organizations and asking them what makes employees satisfied.

Vic suggested our team not wait until the end of the schedule to start writing the report. He offered that writing spurs thinking. Vic will be away from the University beginning May 17 and through June.

The regular team meeting continued. We agreed to talk with Beth about Carol's idea of implementing a recommendation. We will put April 21 on our calendar. We discussed whether we are on two tracks: staff engagement and satisfaction internal to the University, or staff engagement with the community. We will discuss this with Beth at our next meeting. Laura provided a summary of reading to date on the Leadership report given to her by Carol. A significant finding of that report is that the manager has the smallest impact on engagement. Engagement is an emotional or personal committment - a discretionary effort. People are trying to do more with less.
Asim provided a summary of the PULSE data related to engagement. Findings are that people are happy with work at the University, overall high satisfaction in all categories of employment. What stands out as negative is promotion and mobility. Satisfaction with overall pay structure is inconclusive. Benefits are good. Pay level is mediocre. Raises are bad. Job security is mediocre. People are not leaving the U. Life family balance is okay.

Next meeting: Beth will attend from 11:00 - 12:00. Mike will email Beth as a reminder, and will ask about Focus Group training for our team. We will discuss the idea of implementing a recommendation. Janet brings snacks next week. Laura will bring more information from the Leadership report. Mary Ellen will report on the Faculty Culture report. We will review and divy up January milestones.
END (whew!)

November 29

For next week:

Laura will make the changes we suggested to the Project Charter and review the charter with Carol.

Mike will look into whether there is training in conducting focus groups, so we know about our options in the event that we decide to go that direction. (BETH CAN PROVIDE THIS FOR US.)

Those of us who haven’t reported on data sources, do so next week.

Questions for Carol: Laura will review what we’ve been doing and see what Carol would like to talk about. Asim will check with Vic and see if 30 minutes would work for him rather than an hour.

Some leadership decisions for the upcoming months – two roles, chair and scribe (will need scribes after December):

Laureen – scribe
Mike – lead

Laura – lead January

Janet – lead February

Mary Ellen – March
= = = = = = = =

Today's visitors have been Wokie Grigsby and Linda Thrane, from the Culture task group.

Wokie Grigsby – Culture taskgroup – defining culture that exists at the U and what it should be for a top-rated University. Culture means many things – tthe ask group spent a great deal of time getting hands around what that means and what their task was. Wokie staffed the group, which Linda Thrane chaired.

They started by reading literature that had been compiled – research that had been done at the U – there wasn’t much that had been done specific to culture – the Lighthouse report was one piece, an aspirational report looking particularly at the faculty perspective – currently out on the website.

The PEL group working with them did data mining – finding other reports out there – didn’t find anything that was specific to culture – the group decided to focus efforts on other things.

Other thing they did: benchmarked other universities as to how they perceive culture, verbally and on we sites – the PEL team worked on this as well with a task force member (John Adams and Jessica Phillips).

= = = =

Linda: culture is a manifestation of many things, which made their task large. Staff engagement is written throughout strategic positioning, because it won’t come off if staff aren’t engaged. Issue is communication – staff need to feel they are heard in order to be committed to goal.

Audit now: are people getting the information they need? Are there avenues to have people give feedback? Need to cut out the noise.

HR function is key: who you hire, how you train and reward them, consequences for poor performance. It’s the sum of actions of individuals that add up to the culure. HR is going through a lot of this now.

Another piece: leadership function – currently uneven and not entirely equipped to motivate and guide people. It’s like taking a good reporter and making him or her an editor. Similarly, a fabulous faculty member in a two-year leadership assignment may not have the skill set to be an administrator.

In asking for honest feedback, people acknowledged we are still in silos, need better leadership, need better communication.

The PEL group was key – so our contribution can be helpful for this period of time.

Question about different power roles between faculty and staff: faculty felt underserved by staff, and staff felt to be second-class employees.

Service orientation could play a role here: staff taking leadership in providing better service to faculty, and faculty providing better service to students.

(Question: are leadership and two-way communication key issues?) – Example of civil service needing to feel that their work is valued and contributes to the larger goals.

= = = = =

Wokie – they started with ten high level values of good climate or workplace – they added “University service? as part of the list, and came up with six key values that, if implemented in practice, would make this a better place for everyone.

Other high-level goals: need to articulate and bring full U community into goal of being in the top three

Second: leadership

Third: accountability – performance management is key for every position

Bureacracy - too stifling

Silos – need more collaboration

While research is important, other mission objectives of teaching and service are still important

Communications effort is needed to create the sense of purpose and community

In addition to their task groups, a U relations/marketing group was doing a similar effort to gain perceptions from the community – so these two projects came together in their report – as well as earlier inquiry into public perception about the U, which led to a sense that maybe more excitement could be communicated to the outside community (Minnesota nice?)

(Conversation about reasons for the perception of no excitement: big urban location? Contrast with Wisconsin.)

(Question: initiative for employee engagement? Already started with employee services – we could talk with Leslie Krueger, Chief of Staff to Kathy O’Brien, then Kathy O’Brien.)

At this point, with Linda leaving, she is handing the reins over to the administrative team – chaired by VP O’Brien – along with some recommendations as to what to look at to move forward with. U Services has been working on employee engagement for a year.

A piece of the implementation plan is to do an analysis of what’s going on and where the gaps are – Meredith Fox is leading this.

Faculty/staff issues – people ready for change, but guarded – faculty need to be engaged as one key – we should look closely at the faculty culture task force – Jeff Kahn and Kurt Wilson

= = = =
Our continued conversation:

Faculty piece – inside our scope? Or stakeholders that we need to work with and get buy in from? Channel this part through Vic? At this point, hold off – keep faculty in mind.

Things that keep coming up: leadership training, manager toolkit – this comes out from Pulse as a key issue. Need consistent and meaningful performance evaluation –

Accountability – some leaders/managers don’t see the value in performance evaluation, see it as a waste of time

Changing to merit-based pay raises (civil service, non bargaining) is going to really raise this issue.

= = = = =


Mike: Management Task Force, merit reviews: most revolved around civil service – HR talked about doing merit reviews starting next year – biggest issue was lack of comparability in reviews and quality of leadership, both in performance evaluation and communication skills in general – these are very uneven. This squares with his experience in his department. People need to be held accountable.

Janet: culture task force – listed some of the things we already heard about – boils down to encouragement, motivation, training.

Performance management and career mobility – you have to have engagement – benefits U in recruitment, hiring, retention, and meeting the goal of being top 3 – leaders need training and coaching - also two-way communication is key - you want people to feel like ambassadors for the U. People need management support, recognition, transparency of criteria for accountability.

(Laureen: Both academic freedom and responsibility.)

(Janet: there need to be criteria that apply to everyone at all levels for respectful behavior.)

(Laureen: these sorts of guiding principles in the culture task force can be useful to us – these came out of some of the same materials we are looking at, like the Pulse survey)

November 15

Do this week:

Asim: send out word doc of charter

Laura: redo charter incorporating comments (Laureen, Beth, any others)

Reading assignments are on the Resources list.


Teresa Glum – author of PULSE survey – CSOM
= = = = =

Visitors: Carol Carrier, Vic Bloomfield, Beth Zemsky

(Carol’s words for staff investment: get quote - Discretionary investment of energy beyond job requirements -)

Beth: working with mentors:
- schedule ahead
- shadow, or find alternative ways of getting connected with people (attend public meetings they are involved with, get referrals to people to meet)
- a good question down the line: how is power/decision making REALLY managed (both structure and informal power relations)
- how have you managed recent and earlier changes in U administration and directions?

Data analys

March 13, 2007

Final Report Drafts and Charts

Charts Uploaded Here

Download file - Cultural Taskforce

Download file - Leadership Development Project

Download file - New Employee Orientation

Download file - Watson Whatt

Download file - Berkeley

Download file - Leadership Council

Download file - U Services

Download file - Cargill

Download file - University of Michigan

Download file - Merit Task Force

Download file - Pulse Survey

Structure of the final report

1. Title page
2. Table of contents
3. Executive summary and key recommendations
4. Charter/opportunity statement
5. Methodology
6. Sources (appendix for details of these)
7. Findings and analysis
8. Recommendations detailed
9. Appendix

Draft of final report

1. Title page

2. Table of contents

3. Executive summary and key recommendations

4. Charter/opportunity statement

5. Methodology

6. Sources (appendix for details of these)

7. Findings and analysis

Points to consider for #7 – Findings and analysis – some barriers to staff engagement:

1) Job insecurity – such as when individuals are laid off in one unit because of programmatic or budget changes rather than the University finding ways of better shifting talent from one area of the organization to another. This is something happening in Facilities Management due to structural changes, where individual supervisors and managers have very little job security during the change process.

2) Large pay disparities within the University (not to speak of comparing University positions to equivalents outside the University) – employees can easily obtain salary information about their colleagues doing similar work at different units, and it is obvious that that pay levels depends quite a bit on the department head posting a position.

8. Recommendations detailed

Key Recommendations – for #3 and #8 of draft.

(Once these are collected, we can present them in order of ease of implementation, starting with some that could be implemented quickly without much expense, and then on up to those that would require significant commitment from University leadership.)

1) (Mike/Janet) The University should establish an engagement group at the University to lead this effort, using Hewitt as an outside source for literature and for measurement of levels of engagement to guide the process. As examples: University of Michigan has an engagement unit within HR, as does Cargill, with a 5-person specialized team within HR. Janet points out that, as Hewitt Associates offers a wealth of information, the University won’t need to reinvent the wheel in establishing improvement programs. For long-term and significant improvement, senior leadership as well as all levels of managers and supervisors need to be on board, and there needs to be financial investment in staff engagement programmatic improvement.

2) (Mike) A level down in expense and commitment, so perhaps something that could be established earlier: The University should start an ongoing engagement committee or task group, inviting volunteer members from around the University to apply for this role, much as individuals as invited into the PEL program. Individuals selected would have release time from their positions (like PEL participants), would receive training and support for their involvement, and could become ambassadors and trainers for staff engagement improvements throughout the University, helping units establish their own leadership groups to sustain the effort. A committee like this will help cut across University silos.

3) (Mike) There needs to be a toolkit created, something on the order of the Cargill manual, to help individual managers improve their staff engagement levels in their units.

Asim notes that a training document/tool could be created through technology now being worked on in OIT where you can combine a recording of someone speaking along with a PowerPoint or anything else displayed on a laptop. This would be a low-cost alternative format to more expensive group training, as one option.

4) (Mike) The University should establish a website like that of Michigan’s Voices – not a static information website like the one now available for employees through HR, but one staffed by volunteers and interactive, representing a forum for employees’ real concerns and ideas. For this to work, there needs to be real staff buy-in to using and maintaining this website.

5) (Mike/Janet) The University should establish mandatory leadership training for supervisors/managers providing leadership skills (there is a three-day leadership class now available, but it costs $1,800 for University members, which discourages most people from going – instead, something like this should be made an expectation for new managers to take it and subsidized for them). This training should be made available as an option for all staff.

6) (Janet) Each unit should have a “360% evaluation? on a routine basis – this is an open process where all staff members are invited to share (anonymously? In some safe way?) what is working for them and what is not working. Communication is critical in having things improve. Once a baseline is established for goals, the bar should be raised each year (Cargill’s model).

7) (Janet, others) Supervisors and leaders should be encouraged to do the small things that make a difference for employees, such as Mike’s example from a website of a senior leader sending a letter to the family of an employee thanking them for the employees contributions. However, for this to be meaningful, the supervisor needs to have enough direct contact with the employee to be able to recognize that person’s contributions.

8) (Mary Ellen) Related to the initiative going on now in University Services, each large word unit at the University should form a steering committee to assess levels of staff engagement and make proposals for improvement. These efforts need significant support from top leaders, including allowing the individual steering committee members to have enough time to do the research and planning, and then supporting recommendations and expecting and training managers to implement them. Once implemented, ongoing assessment and improvement of staff engagement needs to be part of each supervisor’s responsibility, and staff engagement improvement needs to be part of each supervisor’s job review.

9) (Mary Ellen) Another finding from University Services: the University should find a way of doing ongoing rolling “pulse-taking? staff engagement assessments – a quick short-question pop-up survey that people would answer periodically, so that there could be a benchmark and way of measuring improvement over time that could be tied to individual work units and used as part of organizational and supervisory evaluation.

9. Appendix

March 5, 2007

SE - Internal Sources

CDes Student Services Lead Staff (Kate Maple and her administrative staff) 4-30-07

1. What started you or your organization down the path to look at staff engagement issues?

Kate: experiencing management mistakes, she became strategic – looking at the staff for clues to improve.

2. How does your organization define staff engagement? How do you define it?

* Wanting to come to work – not just for the pay check.
* Wanting to continue to improve – creating a constant loop of what can be changed for the better
* Being around other people who do their jobs well – knowing they are committed at the same level of involvement and will follow through on their commitments
* Trusting others – sharing the same values: serving students, believing in the value of higher education and the value of working with students, making a positive difference – these values brought them to the job.

3. Why do you find staff engagement is important to your organization?

Relationships with people at work are rewarding – they don’t hang out after work, but function as a supportive family while at work – it makes it fun to come to work.

4. What does your organization do to engage staff?

* Kate has tea at her house
* Regular staff meetings – even though their staff is split between St. Paul and Minneapolis campuses
* Meetings every other week of the function lead team
* Meetings of other project teams (new student team, advising team)
* A daily e-mail report on what’s going on keeps people connected
* Staff development planning each year
* Effort to come to big decisions as a group – because expertise is spread out through the staff, and no-one can make decisions as an island, but needs to consult throughout the staff to make sure all the expertise out there is brought to bear on the decision.
* This relates to hiring practices: they hire for congruent talents to build a strong team
* No micromanagement from higher leadership: they are supported right up to the Dean level
*They have had adequate resources to do their work.
* They employ a family-friendly approach (flexibility related to caring for young children, aging parents, “emergency house cleaning?) – this connects to the trust that people will do their jobs and not take advantage of flexibility
* The shared work ethic is very strong – people are accountable to get things done
* They take time to have fun at work, enjoying the time together in meetings, etc.
* In the prior CHE, there were monthly birthday parties, seasonal parties such as Halloween, a celebration for Staff Appreciation Day.
Cross college (CHE) and cross administration, there was a general feeling that people play an equal part: staff, faculty – that everyone is in this together.

5. Who is responsible for increasing or improving staff engagement?

Everyone! But the tone is set by the Dean and central administration (legacy of CHE) – their former Dean set the tone by empowering people and showing respect (such as the P&A leave options)

The current Dean is taking the time to have breakfasts and lunches with small groups of employees over several months.

6. How is staff engagement worked into job descriptions?

Professional development has been a part of job descriptions for everyone. At the point of performance review, everyone is asked about professional development and goals. The prior college had a fund to help individuals take part in professional development activities. (Kate mentioned sending new staff members to _______ training).

7. How do you assess the level of staff engagement?

The measure is how satisfied the staff is. They haven’t done formal measurement, but Kate always asks – takes time at the outset of meetings, where possible, to have people check in – she checks in routinely with supervisees.

8. What rewards and recognition does your organization provide to motivate or acknowledge staff engagement? Are these effective motivators?

They had (CHE) an awards ceremony in the spring, recognizing all staff and faculty, at all different levels, connected to Commencement. (The newly merged college culture has a bigger chasm between staff and faculty than the prior college.)

9. In what ways has there been a connection in your organization between access to training and staff engagement? What sorts of training opportunities do staff seek out or desire?

In CHE: they sent one to two people to major national professional conferences, and especially encouraged attendance at local ones. Everyone when hired was sent to the Franklin Covey training. Staff have been encouraged to participate in the study abroad site visits experience through Learning Abroad Curriculum Integration project.

10. In what ways does your organization provide career support and mobility to staff? Is there a correlation between staff perception of mobility and engagement in your setting?

Within existing jobs, they encourage each other to explore new tasks (or swap out tasks that they don’t want to do). Especially when they have GTA or student workers, they support the person in growing professionally to go out to new jobs. There’s a lot of support for individual growth toward new opportunities, and support to grow in place in existing jobs – everyone’s jobs have changed, and they make conscious efforts to spread out the “distasteful? 20-25% of any job (though they find that what’s distasteful to one person might not be to another, so swapping tasks keeps people happy). They strongly support the use of tuition benefits. They actively work to help student hires develop professionally, not just do the tasks of the job.

11. Are there ways that communication in your organization fosters or impedes staff engagement?

It’s hard functioning across two campuses – holding frequent meetings helps – e-mails have become a problem for people to wade through, and it’s hard to get busy people on the phone. It’s harder and harder to control the flow of information, because different people want their information in different forms (some what information ahead of time, others don’t) – which makes it hard to get everyone on the same page when decision-making needs to happen.

There’s an information overload problem – too much detail, too many attachments – it’s hard to know who has read it all and who hasn’t. They try to find ways of matching communication to people’s preferred style, but really can’t do this for everyone.

12. In what ways is there a connection in your organization between support for work/life balance and the level of staff engagement.

It’s enormously important. (Already discussed above – flexibility combined with trust.)

13. Is there something else related to staff engagement in your setting that these questions didn’t touch on?

People need to have some control over their own work destiny and have some control over the conditions of their work. It empowers everyone to have input on these things.

14. What are some highlights you would tell someone who wanted to improve staff engagement?

ASK the employees – everyone who works there – honestly take the feedback, and not take it personally.

15. How does workplace staff engagement connect to staff connections/engagement/service to the wider University community and beyond?

(Mary) – when she worked at CCE, she didn’t feel attached to the wider U – but now is proud of representing her college and work unit in wider activities/groups. There needs to be support for people taking the time off to serve on U-wide committees, but getting people out there pays off: they have the opportunity to network and get to know people outside their work unit, they experience increased satisfaction, the service to students improves as people learn good approaches from other colleagues around campus, etc.

University Services Employee Engagement Project

For more than a year, the University Services unit has been in an active planning process to improve employee engagement. Last winter, this process was formalized when three leaders applied for and received a process improvement grant (this is the notice that Vic brought to us.)

University Services has 150 leaders (personnel in supervisory positions) and 2500 total employees, with an additional group of student employees bringing the total to 3000.

Headed by Kathy O’Brien, the unit is aligning their efforts with a larger system-wide revisioning process on the enterprise side (with parallels the academic strategic positioning effort). There have been changes already put in place affecting supervision and performance evaluation activities during this employee engagement development process which have already had results in lower levels of grievances, as one concrete measure.

At the end of May, the steering group, chaired by Linda Bjornberg (the individual we interviewed), will roll out the plan to the group of 150 unit leaders for their feedback. Included in the overarching employee engagement initiative are these teams:
* Services Values/Leader Behavior Congruence
* Work Environment & Employee Satisfaction
* Developing Human Capacity
* Performance Management

Each team is developing measures which will allow ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of changes as they are put into place and over time.

Each team has a charge and works independently, coordinating with others through the Steering Committee.

Here are the notes from our conversation with Linda, reflecting her responses to the questions of our survey:

= = = = = =

The process of the project getting set up was a bit bumpy, because it is quite ambitious and is being done on top of people’s jobs. One of the key planners (Lori Anne Williams?) left the unit after the process improvement grant was received. After some floundering, the group split into work teams with a steering committee keeping their efforts aligned. Linda has been keeping in touch with colleagues outside the University, looking at best practices elsewhere, and is thinking about attending a national Great Places to Work conference after attending a Twin Cities award breafast for area industry honorees. (She mentions Petters Worldwide, Ecumen, and Webber Shamvick – spelling?)

1. She’ll send their definition of employee engagement – the Great Places to Work definition is the “alignment of maximum job satisfaction with maximum job contribution.? Contribution includes not just doing things well, but doing the RIGHT things well.

2. Their example (she can send us team brainstorming materials) – the military sends people into battle, where there are lots of decisions needing to be made all the time that have critical impact – these need to be in line with the objectives of why they’re there. Employees need to have their attitudes in line to be the best ambassadors of their workplace.

Their top 3 goals: performance management: clarifying expectations – getting things in alignment – constantly doing the education piece.

A challenge is to communicate expectations and provide feedback to supervisees. They are experimenting with a “survey monkey? related to training they did with staff on this last January in facilities management, and find out how well it’s working. Then they need to find out how to engage the rest of the organization.

Who’s responsible? Everybody.

Job descriptions need work: this is moving forward, not retrofitting to the past.

Assessment: they are working on it.

Rewards and recognition: they are working on it.

Access to training: staff can’t be engaged if they don’t have the skills for the job.

Career pathing: she was on a joint civil-service & U work group on engagement, and came up with a worksheet on job expectations and what skill building needs to happen to move forward in job categories.

This goes beyond training to an individual development plan: experience, education, training, and feedback – which creates a creative loop.

It can’t be a program, but needs to be embedded throughout everything you do, so that people come to work excited to be there.

Career support and mobility: career pathing hasn’t been put in place through the organization yet – they started in Facilities Management, where there are expectations of training plus evidence of proficiency and three levels of advancement. They are working on doing something like this in Engineering. They (central HR) work with the unit to determine what’s needed at each level. Linda said that this effort has improved engagement. They used to carry 50-some grievances, which are now down in the 20’s – they have a very different relationship now with the Teamsters. They have been coaching supervisers in how to coach.

She said that typically in the past 80% of superviser/HR attention has been placed on the 30% of disengaged employees (on a spectrum where 17% are fully engaged) – the effort needs to shift away from these to the middle 53%.

Community building: she wrote this into one of her charges. The Pulse survey showed that only 18% identify with the U – this surprised her. She feels people DO identify with the U. There always seems to be good news coverage in the paper about the U and people take pride in it. She feels that the way we align each individual’s role with the U’s initiatives will improve this over time. She has a work team working on this.

Beyond the U services: there are no current plans to export this initiative to other U of M units right now – perhaps after their own people have a chance to respond and get on board. However, down the line, there needs to be a measure U-wide of some sort and expectations of written feedback on performance for everyone.

Next year, they have a goal of developing some web-based technology to keep track of this process (compliance with performance evaluation expectations), and they will be able to track and see trends by superviser. They can do feedback audits and quality audits (including grievances and customer complaints). They found, for example, that there were 30% of customer complaints in one audit related to a single supervisory area. They can use turnover information and exit interview data. They need tools to make decisions.

One of the work teams is looking at other units –U of M enterprise-wide practices.

There are also models of assessment elsewhere – such as Gallop’s Q12 survey from the 1990’s. This brief 6-question survey could pop up on employees computers and could take a pulse of employee engagement at any time.

They are looking at corporate models: a colleague of hers at Comcast has a process based on employee surveys

What are the benefits from attending to staff engagement in building community – both in the unit and the wider U?

(New wording of question)

Best Buy went from an annual to a continual pulse Q12 model. Using a standard like this allows the unit to benchmark against other work places.

Another best practice model: the Studer Group in Sarasota Florida – during a 2-day training, one of the suggestions was that, more than money at the end of the year or an increase in salaray, getting personal recognition makes a big impact – when a staff member was especially productive, the CEO worte a handwritten letter sent to employees homes telling the family about how valued the work of the individual was.

SE - External Sources


Here is what I found out from my meeting with Richard Ploetz, VP Global Business Solutions HR, on Thursday, 17 May. It was very interesting.

Medtronic does not have a staff engagement program per se. Mr. Ploetz identified staff enagement by referencing Medtronic's mission statement, which seems to be their staff engagement lightening rod. He said the company has strived to create a culture for their 37, 000 employees where they know the mission, are driven by it and see their work as a means to the mission. Mr. Ploetz had, along with his business cards, a Medtronic "mission statement" card (I have one I will bring on Wednesday, 23 May). Their philosophy is to keep it simple, strong and consistent. This statement helps them to attract, motivate and retain employees.

They have a Medallion Ceremony where the top executives (such as founder Earl Bakken) speak to new employees about Medtronics, its mission, expectations of employees in acheiving its mission, etc. They then present each new employee with a medallion with the mission statement on it (it is a hefty piece, a palm-sized coin that sits on an eisel). This medallion is only given to employees and they are expected to keep it on their desk as a reminder of what the mission is and the part they play in acheiving it.

They have a program called "Mission in Motion" that encourage employees to get involve, whether with the Medtronic community or the employee's "external" community (Medtronic will make donations to organizations their employees are involved with).
They conduct an employee attitude survey every 2 years (and achieve an 88-95% response rate from all employees). The survey is used by the unit/department/division/company. Managers and supervisors meet to discuss the results (as opposed to just handing them out to be read, if at all).

As to training, they have a Senior Leaders Program (which includes their spouses), Global Leader and Medtronic Manager training. They also have training courses for any employee to take also. Medtronic trains leaders in the Medtronic's expectations of their leaders.

All employees are encouraged (and leaders, managers, supervisors are expected) to design a career development program for themselves. It would include internal development goals, career goals and job empowerment. They strive to create a holistic culture to teach, delegate, empower their employees, encouraging them to participate in putting the "Mission in Motion."

Interestingly, Mr. Ploetz gave me a brief tour as he led me out. I commented on how beautiful the building was and he made an off-the-cuff comment about how they give tours, there is one guard who really knows the history of the company and his tours are quite interesting. The tours are for people internal as well as external -- and we were just talking about having University tours for staff! Quite serendipitous!

SE - Peer Institutions

Peer institutions and Staff Engagement

Berkeley – Laureen
Michigan – Mike – got some information (see e-mail)
Penn State – Mary Ellen
Ohio State & Purdue – Laura
Texas & Washington – Janet
Illinois & UCLA - Asim

University of Illinois - Asim

The University of Illinois does not have any major specific activities on staff engagement. They have individual programs supporting different kinds of public engagements as well as committees in a variety of areas. After contacting all three campuses' HR offices as well as the university level HR office the conclusion is that no specific program, office, or organized activities are undertaken at U Illinois on staff engagement.

University of Michigan - Mike

(from Mke's inquiry about Michigan): Mr. Allen,
Two years ago, we started a program called Voices of the Staff. It has been an amazing journey in staff engagement, and well received by all staff. Here is our website:


If you need more info after looking at our website, let me know.
Go Blue!

Diane J. Vasquez
Manager, HR Operations
Human Resources & Affirmative Action
University of Michigan

06 Feb 2007 LLRM
Notes from UC Berkeley websites
The UC-Berkeley site has lots of info when searched on staff engagement. The Office of Human Resources has the most info, and includes a strategy odcument from April 2004 that was presented to the Chancellor and Cabinet on "staff climate at Berkeley." The presentation includes a chart with the goal: To create an environment where the best people can do their best work" and shows the goals, context and actions related to
develop Staff and
develop supervisors.
More info on the hr website: http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/about/initiatives.htm
Berkeley also has a website just for a Staff Infrastructure Steering Committee. The Staff Infrastructure Steering Committee has a series of 'integrated projects' designed to transform the staff working environment at Berkeley and to help the campus recruit and retain an engaged, diverse and high-performing work force.
The Steering committee works with campus leaders, managers, staff and staff representatives. More info on specific projects is included at the site: http://sisc.berkeley.edu.
Berekely's Business and Administrative Services made a presentation to the American Council on Educations' Annual Conference in March 2004 with the title "Using the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan) as a Vehicle for Cultural Transformation."

Exec. Summaries of Reports and Readings

Pulse Survey - Asim

• People are happy with working for the U, giving it a 4 out of 5. The exception here is the issue of promotion and upward mobility.
• When it comes to pay structure, it is a happy medium with a 3 out of 5. While people are happy with the benefits provided, they are not satisfied with the pay increases given. The pay level is again in the middle somewhere.
• Job security is perhaps a 3.5 out of 5, so a little better than just average. Interestingly, people show no desire to quit or plan on leaving the U.
• People are fairly satisfied with both departmental and suppervisor support - in both cases a 3.5-4 out of 5.
• When it comes to work life balance, people are still quite happy about it - 4 out of 5. Please note that in certain areas of this, for example child care, the answers might be balanced out by people with kids vs. people without kids or different family situations.
• The full survey, incl. graphs, can be viewed at http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/er/pulse/2006staff/index.html

New Employee Orientation Redesign: TLP Sep 2006 - Laureen

The report was put together by a Transformational Leadership Team in 2006 to evaluate and provide recommendations on a proposed onboarding program for new employees. The intent of the new employee orientation program (NEO) is to assist in employee retention and development by providing information necessary to their success, productivity and sense of community during their first years. The Opportunity Statement outlining the report and the onboarding program outlines:
Achieve Strategic Goals
Improve Retention
Improve Employee Productivity, Engagement, Morale and Sucess
Meet Employee and University Needs and
REduce Redundancies and Achieve Delivery of Cionsistent, Accurate Information.

The team first looked at the results of the exlsting New Employee Orientation Survey data and came up with a long list of problems with new employee orientation. They next looked at retention at the University and estimated the cost of employee turnover. The team then held focus group research, dividing employees into the groups of Bargaining Unit, Civil Service, Adacemic Faculty, and Academic P&A and asked each group questions on their experience with the orientation program, what was wrong, right, and what they would recommend in the future. The report contains lots of anecdotal quotes.
The team also looked at best practices at 3M, Cargill and Medtronic and at the U of Washington, U of Wisconsin and U of California-Berkeley.
The report makes 38 recommendations on how to improve onboarding at the University.

In looking for connections with Staff Engagement, I found the "cultural barriers" identified on pages 67 and 68 relevant. The report listed obstacles to achieving success for employee orientation which could also be barriers to ongoing staff engagement. These barriers are:
inclusion and community,
career progression, and
supervisory accountability.
On pages 46 - 49, one of the recommendations is to have a wide variety of activities, oppiortunities and materials for employees, including
Learning and Training Opportunities,
Career Progression and Consultation,
Performance and Expectations, and
Opportunities on Campus.
Finally, one of the recommendations "outside the scope" of the NEO report includes ideas to further the University's strategic goals with employees on pages 58 - 61, which include
Create an Employee Violunteer Program,
Create an Employee Mentor Program, and
Create an Employee Recognition Program.

University Services Employee Engagement Project - Mary Ellen

From web site (brought by Vic)

University Services Employee Engagement Project - University Services ($50,000)
University Services' 2500+ employees work in nearly every building on the Twin Cities campus. The University Service Employee Engagement Project will develop a program for those employees that will enhance their engagement and service focus. The engagement tools that are developed (surveys, focus group plans, and activities) will be shared with other University units so that successes can be replicated.
This project was selected for its important focus on the people and culture components of the University's strategic plan. Additionally, the tools and learning that will be generated will be of significant value across the University system.


1) "Driving Performance and Retention Through Employee Engagement" - Laura
2) PULSE Survey - Asim, Mike
3) U of M Work/Life Initiative 2003 Focus Group Summary - Mary Ellen
4) Merit Task Force - Focus Group Feedback - Mike
5) Compensation Study - P&A Classification - Mary Ellen - when available
6) Culture Task Force - Janet
7) Last year's PEL project - Leadership/management - Janet
9) Strategic positioning reports - faculty culture, others - Mary Ellen
9) University Services Employee Engagement Project - Mary Ellen
11) New Employee Orientation Redesign - Laureen
(same thing?) New Employee Orientation Report by Transformational Leadership Team 2006 - Laureen

January 26, 2007

Meeting Schedule / Roles / Agendas

November 22, 2006:
• Not meeting today

November 29, 2006
• Treats: Laura
• Linda Thrane and Wokie Grigsby attending

December 6, 2006
• Chair: Mike
• Treats: Laureen
• Vic Bloomfield attending - 11:00-12:00
• Carol Carrier attending - 10:30-11:00

December 13, 2006
• Chair: Mike
• Treats: Janet
• Beth Zemsky attending - 11:30-12:30

December 20, 2006
• Chair: _________
• Treats: Potluck

December 27, 2006:
• Not meeting today

January 3, 2007
• Chair: Mike
• Treats: Mary Ellen

January 10, 2007
• Chair: Laura
• Treats: Asim

January 17, 2007
• Beth Zemsky and David Dorman - 11:00
• Chair: Laura
• Treats: Laura

January 24, 2007
• Chair: Laura
• Treats: Laureen

January 31, 2007
• Chair: Laura
• Treats: Janet

February 7, 2007
• Chair: Janet
• Treats: Mike

February 14, 2007
• Carol and Vic - 11:00-11:45
• Chair: Janet
• Treats: Mary Ellen

February 21, 2007
• Chair: Janet
• Treats: Asim

February 28, 2007
• Chair: Janet
• Treats: Laura

March 7, 2007
• Chair: Laureen (Mary Ellen and Laureens swapped months)
• Treats: Laureen

March 14, 2007 (NOTE: this is during Spring Break)
• Chair: Laureen
• Treats: Janet

March 21, 2007
• Carol, Vic and Dave 11:00-11:45 and Dave Dorman- 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
• Chair: Laureen
• Treats: Mike

March 28, 2007
• Chair: Laureen
• Treats: Mary Ellen

April 4, 2007
• Chair: Mary Ellen
• Treats: Asim

April 11, 2007
• Carol and Vic - 11:00-11:45
• Chair: Mary Ellen
• Treats: Laura

April 18, 2007
• Dave Dorman - 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
• Chair: Mary Ellen
• Treats: Laureen

April 25, 2007
• Chair: Mary Ellen
• Treats: Janet

May 2, 2007
• Chair:
• Treats: Mike

May 9, 2007
• Carol and Vic - 11:00-11:45
• Chair:
• Treats: Mary Ellen

May 16, 2007
• Dave Dorman - 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
• Chair:
• Treats: Laura

May 23, 2007
• Chair:
• Treats: Laureen

May 30, 2007
• Chair:
• Treats: Janet

June 6, 2007
• Chair:
• Treats: Mike

June 13, 2007
• Carol and Vic - 11:00-11:45
• Chair:
• Treats: Mary Ellen

June 20, 2007 Poster Session

February 14, 2007 Agenda

1. 10:30 - 10:45 Arrive and check in
2. 10:45 - 11:00 Review Updates for Carol
3. 11:00 - 11:45 Update Carol Carrier
4. 11:45 - 11:55 BREAK
5. 11:55 - 12:10 Reflection on Sponsor Meeting
6. 12:10 - 12:20 Identify Next Steps
Any Prep for Meeting with Dave Dorman?
7. 12:20 - 12:30 Check-out

TREATS – Mary Ellen

January 31, 2007 Agenda

1, 10:30- 10:45 Arrive and check in
2. 10:45 – 11:00 Discuss “Bucket? Matrix
3. 11:00-11:15 Revisit Charter Timeline and Milestones
4, 11:10-11:40 Share Summaries from Other Institutions
5. 11:40-11:50 Break
6. 11:50-12:20 Meet with Subgroups (Internal/External)
7. 12:20-12:30 Check-Out

TREATS – Janet

January 24, 2007 Agenda

1. 10:30- 10:45 Arrive and check in
2. 10:45 – 11:00 Recap Meeting w/ Beth & Dave
3. 11:00-11:10 Review Blog Training (Asim)
4. 11:10-11:40 Review Buckets/Post-It Notes
5. 11:40-11:50 Break
6. 11:50-12:20 Meet with Subgroups (Internal/External)
7. 12:20-12:30 Check-Out

January 17, 2006 Agenda

1. 10:30- 10:50 Arrive and check in
2. 10:50 – 11:00 Review School Assignments:
Berkeley – Laureen
Michigan – Mike
Penn State – Mary Ellen
Ohio State – Laura
Texas & Washington – Janet
Illinois - Asim
3. 11:00 -11:10 Share definitions of staff engagement (Laureen & Laura)
4. 11:10- 11:30 Discuss Leadership Council Report (All)
5. 11:30 – 11:40 Break
6. 11:40 – 12:00 Review Subcommittees Plans for Internal/External Engagement Projects
7. 12:00 – 12:15 Discuss Engagement Buckets & Follow-up Assignments
8. 12:15 – 12:30 Check Out

October 24, 2006

Team Members Info - Our Charge

Laura Negrini

Employment Manager, Office of Human Resouces
Mailing: 200 Donhowe Building
Phone: 612-626-1644
Fax: 612-626-7911
Email: negri001@umn.edu
Myers-Briggs: ESTJ

Mike Allen

Job: Facilities Operations Supervisor-Housing&Residential Life - Yudof Hall
Mailing: Yudof Hall
Phone: 612-625-7787
Cell: 612-490-5596
Fax: 612-625-8225
E-mail: Allen080@umn.edu
Myers-Briggs: ISTJ - Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging
Communication Style: Direct

Janet Kendra

Job: Executive Secretary - Office of the General Counsel
Mailing: 301 Morrill Hall
Phone: 612.624.3591
E-mail: kendr008@umn.edu
Myers-Briggs: ENFP

Laureen L. Ross McCalib

President's Initiative on the Environment and Renewable Energy
132 Skok Hall, Saint Paul Campus
Myers Briggs: INFJ Initiating, Casual

Mary Ellen Shaw

Job: Senior Academic Adviser, College of Education and Human Development
Mailing: 25 Appleby Hall
Phone: 612-625-4576
E-mail: shawx001@umn.edu
Myers-Briggs: INFP - (I'll add the tagline later when I find my results.)

Asim Dorovic
Assistant to the Director
University News Service - www.unews.umn.edu
Office of University Relations - University of Minnesota
3 Morrill Hall - 100 Church Street S.E. - Minneapolis, MN 55455
Phone: 612.624.0214 - E-Mail: dorovic@umn.edu
Mobile: 612.670.6765 - Fax: 612.626.9388

MBTI: ENTP - Realistic, systematic, planful ENTP

Staff Engagement in the University Community

The University’s mission, carried out on multiple campuses and throughout the state, is threefold: research and discovery, teaching and learning, and outreach and public service. These components of our mission are integrated in the concept of "engagement", recognizing that teaching and research are often most likely to be innovative and and productive when they interact with important public issues.

The University not only interacts with a wide range of external publics; it is itself a significant community. The Twin Cities campus has a daily population of as much as 80,000 faculty, staff, and students, making it one of the largest communities in the state. As such, it confronts the full range of issues that face any major community—especially work-life issues such as transportation, communication, workplace design, environmental quality, and family and child care, etc.—but embedded in an institution for which learning and discovery provide the dominant ethos and in which shared governance is highly valued.

Initiatives that support and encourage engagement, such as those fostered by the Council on Public Engagement (COPE), have mainly focused on University interactions with external communities. More recently, the Student Engagement Initiative in the Office for Student Affairs began working on efforts to be more intentional in engaging students to develop skills of leadership and active citizenship within the University, so they may become more effective leaders and public problem-solvers for today and the future.

Staff (P&A, civil service, and bargaining unit) represent a large proportion of our University community, and have been major contributors to COPE. More work needs to be done to assess staff attitudes toward public engagement, best practices that might exist around staff engagement, and recommendations to increase staff engagement both inside and outside the University.

Objectives of the President’s Emerging Leaders’ Project
This PEL project will investigate issues regarding staff engagement at the University of Minnesota. Both current staff engagement efforts and potential strategies for increasing future staff engagement will be explored. Specific strategic questions for this project include:

• What are the most effective ways to increase staff members’ sense of the University as a community in which all members are collectively involved in issues important to the institution?
• What are the most effective ways to engage staff in meaningful outreach activities with the broader community in order for them to participate as more active citizens and representatives of the land grant institution of the state of Minnesota?

Specific PEL project tasks may include:
• Performing an audit of current staff engagement activities
• Conducting a literature search regarding successful staff engagement practices in large bureaucratic organizations
• Investigating best practices regarding staff engagement at the University, in other higher education institutions, and the private sector
• Analyzing data from the Pulse survey and other data sources regarding staff engagement issues.
• Conducting focus groups and interviews to further investigate barriers to staff engagement and suggestions for increasing future engagement.

Victor Bloomfield, Associate Vice President, Office of Public Engagement
Carol Carrier, Vice President, Office of Human Resources

October 23, 2006

Resources / Downloads / Links

NEW Staff Engagement Chart

Download file

Pulse Survey
Main page: http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/pulse/
Pulse 2006 - Staff: http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/er/pulse/2006staff/index.html

Agenda Template
Download template