March 31 2000
Download
1 / 14

March 31, 2000 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 122 Views
  • Uploaded on

Archived Information This information has been archived National Partnership for Reinventing Government 1999 Employee Survey U.S. Department of Education Improvement Strategy. March 31, 2000. NPR 1999 Employee Survey Background and Purpose. Second government-wide employee survey.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' March 31, 2000' - stu


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
March 31 2000

Archived InformationThis information has been archivedNational Partnership for Reinventing Government 1999 Employee SurveyU.S. Department of EducationImprovement Strategy

March 31, 2000


Npr 1999 employee survey background and purpose
NPR 1999 Employee SurveyBackground and Purpose

  • Second government-wide employee survey.

  • Large federal government agencies will assess organizational changes, especially in relation to reinvention efforts.

  • Results to help agencies focus resources to improve operations and customer service.

  • A 32-item survey was administered in September 1999 to a random sample of 32,265 employees in 46 government agencies.

  • 12,755 surveys were returned--a 40 percent response rate.


Executive summary
Executive Summary

  • Education’s (ED) results on the 32-item survey from 1998 to 1999:

    • Three items improved by 10 percentage points or more.

    • Six items improved by 6-10 percentage points .

    • Twenty-one items were within the margin of error (+/- 6%).

    • One item was worse by 7 percentage points.

    • One item was removed from the survey.

  • Education compares favorably with Government-wide results:

    • Ten items were better than government-wide results by 10 percentage points or more.

    • One item was worse than government-wide results by 10 percentage points or more.

  • Education has targeted four issues for special action.

  • Education will use its own employee survey results to identify other areas for improvement strategies (ED survey results were received in March 2000).


Nationwide ComparisonDifferences of Ten Percentage Points or More

Do you have electronic access to information to do your job?

Teams are used to accomplish organizational goals, when appropriate.

Employees in different work units participate in cross-functional teams to accomplish work objectives.

In the past 2 years, I have been given more flexibility in how I accomplish my work.*

How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job?*

Employees are rewarded for working together in teams.

In the past 2 years, the productivity of my work unit has improved.**

My organization has made reinvention a priority.**

Recognition and rewards are based on merit.

Creativity and innovation are rewarded.**

Corrective actions are taken when employees do not meet performance standards.***

*Best predictors of job satisfaction.

**Best predictors of reinvention as a priority.

***Only survey item that Education was 10 percentage points lower than national average.

% Favorable


Department of EducationAreas of Greatest Improvement: 1998-1999Favorable Increases of 10 Percentage Points or More

Recognition and rewards are based on merit.

Employees are rewarded for working together in teams.

Management and the union(s) work cooperatively on mutual problems.

% Favorable


Department of Education1999 Least Favorable Items

% Favorable

Has your organization streamlined the process for hiring employees?

Corrective actions are taken when employees do not meet performance standards.

Has your organization simplified travel regulations?*

Is the use of Plain Language writing being emphasized in your workplace?

Employees are required to report the hours they work on a daily basis.

Are you clear about how “good performance” is defined in your organization?

*Declined seven percentage points from 1998.


Recommendations and performance eleven 1998 survey items were targeted for improvement
Recommendations and PerformanceEleven 1998 survey items were targeted for improvement

  • Three have improved by 10 percentage points or more:

    • Recognition and rewards are based on merit. (+14%)

    • Management and the union(s) work cooperatively on mutual problems. (+10%)

    • Employees are rewarded for working together in teams (for example, performance ratings, cash awards, certificates, public recognition). (+10%)

  • Three have improved by 6 - 10 percentage points:

    • Employees receive the training they need to perform their jobs (for example, on-the-job training, conferences, workshops). (+9%)

    • Are you clear about how “good performance” is defined in your organization? (+7%)

    • Creativity and innovation are rewarded. (+6%)

  • Three have improved by less than 6 percentage points:

    • There are well-defined systems for linking customers’ feedback and complaints to employees who can act on the information. (+4%)

    • Employees receive training and guidance in providing high quality customer service. (+2%)

    • Corrective actions are taken when employees do not meet performance standards. (+1%)

  • Two have declined:

    • Has your organization implemented simplified travel regulations? (-7%)

    • Has your organization streamlined the process for hiring employees? (-1%)


1999 survey action plan
1999 Survey Action Plan

  • For these department-wide, long-standing problems improvement actions will begin now:

    • Dealing with poor performing employees.

    • Streamlining the hiring process.

    • Simplifying travel management.

    • Linking customer feedback to employees who can take action on the information.

  • Education is using its recently completed ED 2000 Employee Survey data coupled with the 1999 NPR survey data to identify additional department-wide areas for improvement actions. Further, individual ED offices will formulate their own improvement plans and will use focus groups and “tiger teams” as necessary.


Action plan for dealing with poor performing employees
Action Plan for Dealing with Poor Performing Employees

  • Benchmark best practices of Federal agencies and the private sector. May 2000.

  • In partnership with the union, implement best practices to create an environment of excellence. October 2000.

  • Provide appropriate training to employees. November 2000.

  • Provide performance management information and resources to employees: brochures, pamphlets, web resources, training opportunities, and counseling services. July-August 2000.

  • Require all managers to attend performance management training at least annually so that they can demonstrate confidence in dealing with poor performers. December 2000.

  • Require managers to assess employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities and provide feedback to employees regarding standards for good performance. Ongoing.

  • When we identify a non-performing employee, we will coordinate personnel, training, dispute resolution, and Employee Assistance Program efforts to assist in improving performance. Ongoing.


Action plan for dealing with poor performing employees cont d
Action Plan for Dealing with Poor Performing Employees (cont’d)

  • Require an Individual Development Plan for poor performing employees. Ongoing.

  • Conduct focus groups with managers to better understand why managers are not dealing with poor performing employees. Assess results and determine appropriate action. December 2000.

  • Conduct focus groups with employees (after consultation/negotiation with union) to better understand why employees believe good performance is not clearly defined and why corrective actions are not taken against poor performing employees. Assess results and, in partnership with the union, determine appropriate action. December 2000.

  • Require managers to assess poor performing employees’ performance and provide corrective feedback quarterly. November 2000.

  • Support proposed legislative changes. Ongoing.


Action plan for streamlining the hiring process
Action Plan for Streamlining the Hiring Process (cont’d)

  • Benchmark best practices of Federal agencies and the private sector. June 2000.

  • Require selecting officials to take action on “certificates of eligibles” within 30 days of receipt thereof. June 2000.

  • Implement an automated, customer accessible, personnel action tracking system that can identify bottlenecks, assess accountability, and speed up the hiring process. August 2000.

  • Revise hiring procedures to improve timeliness and customer service. Begin implementation in September 2000.

  • Automate the application process. November 2000.

  • Support proposed legislative changes to streamline the hiring process. Ongoing.


Action Plan for Simplifying Travel Management (cont’d)

  • Benchmark best practices of Federal agencies and the private sector. April 2000.

  • Select new travel management contractor. May 2000.

  • Review old contractor’s traveler satisfaction survey and prioritize customer requests for improvements. June 2000.

  • Publish revised internal travel procedures on the Chief Financial Officer’s Intranet web site. September 2000.

  • Implement an Intranet web-based travel system for processing Department of Education travel vouchers. Next 18 months.


Action Plan for Linking Customer Feedback to Employees Who Can Take Action on the Information

  • Benchmark best practices of Federal agencies and the private sector.

  • Secure customer feedback on key business processes in selected critical service areas. September 2000.

  • Distribute customer feedback data from the ED Pubs customer satisfaction surveys to managers who can improve existing products and develop new ones. ED Pubsis the department’s central resource for ordering Department of Education publications.

  • Design a process for conducting quarterly employee focus groups and labor/management meetings to identify needed improvement actions across the department.

  • Develop a real-time system to share customer comments with key managers.

  • Establish a Front Line Forum, bringing together ED’s front-line customer service staff to establish new and improved ways to share customer knowledge and feedback with other ED staff.


Statement of Commitment Can Take Action on the InformationJudith A. WinstonGeneral Counsel and Acting Under SecretaryU.S. Department of Education

Since 1993, the Department of Education has demonstrated its commitment to improving employee satisfaction and customer service by implementing many new programs, including: flexiplace, a 360-degree performance appraisal system, new work/life programs (e.g., transit benefits), improved workspace in headquarters and the regions, and electronic customer access to ED information. The quality of these initiatives is reflected in the generally-positive results of NPR’s employee survey and the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) customer satisfaction survey. In 2000, we will continue our improvement efforts by focusing work on areas identified by employees on the NPR survey as most in need of improvement: dealing with poor performing employees, streamlining the hiring process and improving travel management. With these efforts and others, I expect the satisfaction of ED employees and customers to continue to improve.

For more information, contact Jim Bradshaw in the Office of Public Affairs at

(202) 401-2310 or via email: [email protected]


ad