| Overall Rating | Silver - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 52.95 |
| Liaison | Chad Carwein |
| Submission Date | Jan. 16, 2020 |
East Carolina University
PA-13: Assessing Employee Satisfaction
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.37 / 1.00 |
Chad
Carwein University Sustainability Manager HSC Facilities Services |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
Has the institution conducted a survey or other evaluation that allows for anonymous feedback to measure employee satisfaction and engagement during the previous three years?:
Yes
Percentage of employees assessed, directly or by representative sample:
37.40
A brief description of the institution’s methodology for evaluating employee satisfaction and engagement:
In 2018, ECU faculty and staff participated in the UNC System Employee Engagement Survey, which is part of a five-year project designed to provide metrics for measuring our progress in implementing the UNC System Strategic Plan. The survey was administered through an outside vendor, ModernThink, which has implemented similar studies for hundreds of colleges nationwide and for the Chronicle of Higher Education “Great Colleges to Work For” report. Additional surveys will be completed in 2020 and 2022 to measure our progress over a 5 year period of time.
The survey had respondents rate the University's performance on 15 core dimensions: Job Satisfaction/Support; Teaching Environment; Professional Development; Compensation, Benefits and Work/Life Balance; Facilities; Policies, Resources, and Efficiency; Shared Governance; Pride; Supervisors/Department Chairs; Senior Leadership; Faculty, Administration, and Staff Relations; Communication; Collaboration; Fairness; Respect and Appreciation.
The survey had respondents rate the University's performance on 15 core dimensions: Job Satisfaction/Support; Teaching Environment; Professional Development; Compensation, Benefits and Work/Life Balance; Facilities; Policies, Resources, and Efficiency; Shared Governance; Pride; Supervisors/Department Chairs; Senior Leadership; Faculty, Administration, and Staff Relations; Communication; Collaboration; Fairness; Respect and Appreciation.
A brief description of the mechanism(s) by which the institution addresses issues raised by the evaluation:
A few areas that the results indicated an average score of "Warrants Attention" were as follows: Senior Leadership; Faculty, Administration, and Staff Relations; Communication; Collaboration; Fairness; Respect and Appreciation. As such, the institution has attempted to address these issues in the following ways:
We previously held two town hall meetings led by ModernThink and attended by senior ECU leaders. There, we discussed the research, answered questions and reviewed the next steps in the process.
The Employee Engagement Project Management Team, along with members of ECU Senior Leadership, are also conducting Focus Groups aimed at learning more about how ECU employees experience communication both from Senior Leadership and within their respective workplaces. The information gathered during these conversations will be used to help inform University Leadership about how communication, both small and large scale, can be enhanced.
We previously held two town hall meetings led by ModernThink and attended by senior ECU leaders. There, we discussed the research, answered questions and reviewed the next steps in the process.
The Employee Engagement Project Management Team, along with members of ECU Senior Leadership, are also conducting Focus Groups aimed at learning more about how ECU employees experience communication both from Senior Leadership and within their respective workplaces. The information gathered during these conversations will be used to help inform University Leadership about how communication, both small and large scale, can be enhanced.
Optional Fields
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
Data Source: Justin Yeaman, Director of Employee Relations, Human Resources
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.