« SE - Internal Sources | Main | Meeting Notes »

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