LSE 2009 Staff Survey – Presentation to Staff Briefings 15 th /16 th March 2010

1. LSE 2009 Staff Survey – Presentation to Staff Briefings 15th/16th March 2010

2. Today • 1. Survey Background and Methodology • 2. A dip into the results by: • The Organisation • My Job • Wellbeing • Management • Communication • Personal Development • Diversity and Dignity at Work • Summary • 3. Next Steps

3. Background and Methodology • Need to maintain high staff satisfaction levels within the school – LSE Strategic Plan • Positive People (@ University of Bristol) engaged to: • Measuring levels of staff satisfaction • Deliver an institution wide (HSE compliant) stress audit • Benchmark against other HE institutions • Benchmark against 2006 LSE Staff Survey • Provide staff feedback on a range of issues

4. Background and Methodology cont… • Started with pre-focus groups to help inform the questionnaire • Questionnaire piloted with a range of different LSE staff • Online survey was open between 16th November and 11th December 2009 • 1,037 online responses (and 1 paper based reply) • Overall response rate was 39%, by staff groups: • Academic Research – 24% • Academic Teaching & Research – 41% • Support Staff in Academic Units – 43% • Support Staff in Divisions and Services – 44% • Teachers (including GTAs and guest teachers) – 15% • Response rate comparable with other Russell Group institutions

5. The Organisation

6. The Organisation • For the vast majority of staff LSE is a great place to work • Almost 8 out of 10 satisfied working here (HE benchmark figure of six out of ten): 79% very or quite satisfied • Very high levels of organisational pride and loyalty: one of the best places that people have worked; School demonstrates that it cares about its staff

7. The Organisation cont... • Two thirds of staff feel that the LSE’s profile had been maintained or had increased in recent years (similar to 2006) • 89% said that School demonstrated that it valued the diversity of its workforce • Communication of corporate objectives good • 85% confident in the way the School is run - almost double the benchmark average

8. My Job

9. My Job • Three quarters of staff consider pay rates acceptable • 89% happy with their terms and conditions of employment • Both improvements on the 2006 Staff Survey • 87% happy with their job ‘security’ • Non-academic teaching staff were least happy group ( but low response rate)

10. My Job cont... • Particular satisfaction with the overall ‘quality of working life’ and motivation to do their job well • Good compared to benchmark on: • ‘given what I need to do my job effectively’ • understanding how ‘change’ will work out in practice • Less positive for support staff in divisions and services

13. My Job cont... • Workload and stress a problem for a 36% of all staff (identical to HE benchmark) • Particularly apparent amongst academic staff - 47% describe the levels of stress as ‘excessive’ • 28% of academic staff feel they are set ‘unachievable deadlines’ • 47% of academic staff reporting being ‘pressured to work long hours’ – 24% above HE benchmark

15. Wellbeing

16. Wellbeing • Whilst academic staff may be the most ‘stressed’ they are also the most ‘content’ group: autonomy, motivation • Support staff have the lowest levels of working life contentment • Around three quarters of staff feel LSE provides adequate facilities and flexibility for them to balance their work and outside life • 87% feel that working hours/patterns suit personal circumstances (an impressive 16% above the benchmark average)

17. Management

18. Management • Line managers are generally viewed well by most staff • Particularly in the more ‘human’ aspects of being a manager • Respect • Trust • Approachability • LSE managers perform above benchmark average in all areas • Room for improvement in: • Performance management • Objective setting • Giving feedback • Link to one to ones and PDRs

19. Management – DMT/Senior managers • Good approval ratings for the Director`s Management Team in relation to being: • in touch with the views of staff • strategic • communicating clear messages • Not only higher then the benchmark averages but also improved since 2006 survey • Percentage results between 45% and 57% - the don't know response • Same questions asked of Heads of Division and Services - very positive responses

20. Communication

21. Communication • Corporate and departmental communication good • 85% feel that the School is ‘open in communicating to staff’ (30% above benchmark) • However, only 40% agreed that they were sufficiently consulted about change at work (although 37% were neutral) • Room for improvement around inter-departmental communication processes and between departments and ‘support services’ • 86% of academic teaching and research staff think communication is good between them and support staff • View not held by the support staff themselves with just 37% satisfied

23. Communication cont... • Since 2006 there has been a decline in the percentage of staff who feel : • Communication is good between academic and administrative/support staff • between academic departments and central administration • However, since 2006 there has been an increase in the percentage of staff that feel communication is good between academic departments

24. Personal Development

25. Personal Development • Very impressive results for learning and development • Good opportunities for training and development (much higher than the benchmark average) • Access to training and development is fair

26. Personal Development cont... • Room for improvement in management ‘process’ and ‘tools’ • Poor feedback in areas such as the Performance Development Review • Just 6% of non-academic teaching staff and 28% of research staff had been offered a PDR/ACDR • Disappointing, as when it does take place feedback is extremely good, irrespective of staff group (above benchmark)

27. Personal Development cont... • 91% of people value the induction process • Induction satisfaction rates have improved since 2006 • Initial induction statistics subject to further analysis

28. Diversity & Dignity at Work

29. Diversity & Dignity at Work • Diversity, particularly in the more traditionally monitored areas, appears to be dealt with in a positive fashion at LSE • Room for improvement around a persons ‘role’ or their contract of employment ‘type’ • Potential issue around ‘age’ for academic and research staff and ‘caring responsibilities’ for academic staff

31. Diversity & Dignity at Work cont.. • The School scores highly on treating staff with respect • 2% of staff reporting bullying or harassment (includes those that said Always or Often only) • This was well below the benchmark averages of 4% for harassment and 3% for bullying • However, when including the categories (Sometimes and Seldom), levels of harassment and bullying rise to 25% and 24% respectively • Additional analysis points to a possibly more accurate figure of 19%

32. Diversity & Dignity at Work • Most common reason given for bullying and harassment was ‘role’, followed by ‘personality’ and ‘work performance’ • In benchmark institutions the most common reason was ‘work performance’ • For those that said they are bullied/harassed, only around half of staff know ‘what to do about it’ • Only around a quarter were satisfied with the outcome of a complaint

33. Summary

34. Summary

35. What next? • An action plan to be approved by DMT • A written report on the findings • A summary for all staff in the School • Unit breakdowns where there were more than 10 responses • A presentation to the SCC next week • A report to Council in May