Survey of Organizational Excellence

1
Survey of Organizational Excellence
2001-2002 2003-2004 2005-2006

• University of TexasPan American

2
Higher Education Excellence Survey

• Overview
• UTPA Scores
• By Dimension of Excellence
• High and Low Aspects
• Observations

3
Dimensions of Excellence
4
Response Rate

• 2001 Response Rate 37
• 489 out of 1,322 employees
• 2003 Response Rate 28
• 429 out of 1,514 employees
• 2005 Response Rate 38
• 619 out of 1,641 employees

5
Respondent Information
Gender
6
Survey Method in a Nutshell

• 84 or 86 statements related to organizational
  excellence
• Employees Responded
• Scores on each statement
• Statement scores grouped
• 5 Dimensions of Excellence scores

• Possible Responses
• Strongly Disagree
• Disagree
• Feel Neutral
• Agree
• Strongly Agree

7
Scoring Method

• Possible Responses
• Strongly Disagree
• Disagree
• Feel Neutral
• Agree
• Strongly Agree

• The mean response of individuals is the score of
  a particular statement.
• Statements are grouped into the aspects of each
  dimension.
• The mean score of the mean scores of the
  particular statements included in each aspect is
  multiplied by 100 to represent the aspect score.

Aspect Dimension Scores 100) Strongly
Disagree 200) Disagree 300) Feel Neutral 400)
Agree 500) Strongly Agree
8
2005
2003
2001
9
The Work Group Dimension
10
2005
2003
2001
11
Staff Groups

• This survey allows participants to self select an
  employee group
• For 2001 and 2003, the choices were
• Faculty
• Professional Staff
• Staff - All Other
• For 2005, the choices were
• Executive/Administrative
• Faculty
• Professional Staff
• Technical/Para Professional
• Staff All other
• For comparison on charts and tables, the 2005
  results are combined
• Executive/Administrative was combined with
  Professional Staff
• Technical/Para Professional was combined with
  Staff - All other.

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
The Accommodations Dimension
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
The Organizational Features Dimension
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
The Information Dimension
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
The Personal Dimension
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
Aspects of Dimensions of Excellence
Personal
Information
Organizational Features
Accommodations
Work Group
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
12
13
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Empowerment
Burnout
Time and Stress
Job Satisfaction
External
Availability
Internal
Strategic
Quality
Holographic
Goal Oriented
Change Oriented
Employment Development
Benefits
Physical Environment
Fair Pay
Diversity
Team Effectiveness
Fairness
Supervisor Effectiveness
351
360
347
351
363
353
314
376
379
343
357
340
340
351
366
259
344
329
334
330
346
356
344
348
354
349
319
370
375
339
356
336
341
353
364
260
345
331
334
329
350
365
350
358
361
350
318
363
371
348
351
347
357
363
374
254
355
328
339
344
304
325
302
307
325
306
264
336
336
302
299
297
314
354
342
236
312
281
306
291
282
297
275
273
305
294
262
321
327
282
296
282
300
344
331
237
308
269
291
274
326
341
324
337
345
330
302
348
352
329
325
327
359
366
361
263
343
303
326
328
372
380
364
368
380
375
336
394
401
364
378
361
358
356
383
278
363
352
349
351
368
377
362
367
369
362
329
385
392
359
368
351
350
358
386
267
365
345
349
347
360
380
357
364
367
353
327
385
367
360
361
357
362
367
389
255
364
340
345
353
369
369
366
369
380
372
335
394
394
357
381
357
345
349
369
257
358
347
343
342
365
373
371
376
370
371
348
387
388
358
378
358
358
357
367
270
353
355
347
347
360
368
366
367
368
366
325
372
370
352
364
350
346
350
366
242
352
337
339
345
36
Aspects of the Dimensions of Excellence 2005
Personal
Information
Organizational Features
Accommodations
Work Group
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
350
365
350
358
361
350
318
371
363
348
351
347
357
363
374
254
355
328
339
344
The University of Texas-Pan American
364
370
359
357
365
359
311
380
370
355
356
351
349
341
388
265
353
332
340
343
Office of the President (36)
334
350
337
344
349
336
303
361
352
334
333
332
351
367
366
257
348
310
327
331
Academic Affairs (265)
310
350
364
353
355
365
365
329
369
366
348
359
346
349
353
369
240
349
328
332
336
Business Affairs (95)
378
398
375
389
392
373
350
403
388
378
384
372
375
381
396
282
374
360
360
363
External Affairs (42)
377
387
363
374
373
360
336
387
372
372
372
368
367
358
384
248
375
356
360
372
Enrollment Student Services (97)
326
341
324
337
345
330
302
352
348
329
325
327
359
366
361
263
343
303
326
328
Faculty (178)
368
389
354
357
371
352
337
396
366
376
374
372
369
377
415
288
380
353
360
370
Executive/ Administrative (51)
358
378
358
367
366
354
324
382
368
355
358
353
361
364
381
245
359
337
341
348
Professional Staff (160)
351
347
346
359
349
357
299
350
366
333
339
320
299
339
347
230
326
311
320
319
Technical/ Para Professional Staff (39)
364
375
373
370
374
370
334
380
372
359
372
360
361
354
373
246
360
345
345
353
Staff All Other (127)
Note Executive/Administrative Professional
Staff and Technical/Para Professional Staff
All Other are all listed separately on this table.
37
Survey of ExcellenceHigher Education
SurveyObservations and Reflections
38
Aspects of the Dimensions of Excellence Summary
for UTPA

• 4 Aspects of the Dimensions of Excellence have
  scored in the top 5 for all three survey years
• Quality Aspect in the Organizational Features
  Dimension
• Strategic Aspect in the Organizational Features
  Dimension
• Physical Environment Aspect in the Accommodations
  Dimension
• Burnout Aspect in the Personal Dimension
• 5 Aspects of the Dimensions Excellence have
  scored in the bottom 5 for all three survey years
• Fair Pay Aspect in the Accommodations Dimension
• Internal Aspect in the Information Dimension
• Supervisor Effectiveness Aspect in the Work Group
  Dimension
• Team Effectiveness Aspect in the Work Group
  Dimension
• Fairness Aspect in the Work Group Dimension

39
Work Group Dimension ? Supervisor Effectiveness
? Fairness ?Team Effectiveness ? Diversity

• The Work Group Dimension of Excellence has
  consistently received low scores. These aspects
  need to be a focus of remedial action.
• The Team Effectiveness Aspect and the Supervisor
  Effectiveness Aspect could be addressed through
  employee training related to team-level planning
  and implementation processes the utilization of
  participation technology.
• The Fairness Aspect and The Diversity Aspect
  could be addressed by action related the Internal
  Aspect in the Information Dimension.
• Existing objectives may need additional focus in
  effort to support the Diversity aspect i.e., such
  as Division of Presidents Objective Advance
  diversity as an asset in University Life and
  ITs Objective Increase the cultural diversity
  of the IT.

40
Accommodations Dimension ? Fair Pay ? Physical
Environment ? Benefits ? Employment Development

• The Fair Pay Aspect is consistently ranked at the
  bottom of the 20 aspects in 2001, 2003, and 2005
  by Faculty, Professional Staff, and Other Staff.
  In addition, this aspect is showing a negative
  trend. This may also be the effect reflected in
  the low scores in the Internal Aspect of
  Information Dimension.
• The Physical Environment Aspect has been ranked
  in the top 3 in 2001, 2003 and 2005.
• Faculty consistently ranked the aspects of
  Physical Environment and Benefits first and
  second respectively with Employment Development
  in the top half.
• The Aspects of Physical Environment, Benefits and
  Employment Development had an average rank of
  2.3, 6.3, 11.7 out of 20, respectively.

41
Organization Features Dimension ? Change
Oriented ? Goal Oriented ? Holographic ?
Strategic ? Quality

• The Quality Aspect and the Strategic Aspect have
  been consistently ranked in the top 5 in each
  survey. Currently, there is a slight negative
  trend to the scores of both aspects.
• The Holographic Aspect and the Change Oriented
  Aspect were scored in the bottom half with an
  average rank of 14th and 15th respectively.
  These aspects exhibit a slight positive trend.
• The Faculty trend for all 5 aspects is slightly
  positive while for Professional Staff and for
  Staff All Other the trend is slightly negative.
• The trends and scores of these Aspects might be
  addressed through the Internal Aspect of the
  Information Dimension by fostering a more
  coherent and broad understanding of the
  organizational directions and through the
  Employment Development Aspect of the
  Accommodations Dimension in the on-going employee
  training program to increase employee capability
  and readiness for change based on new information
  and ideas.

42
Information Dimension ? Internal ? Availability
? External

• The Internal Aspect of the Information Dimension
  has received very low scores by all employee
  groups and in all survey years.
• This represents a consistent near neutral or
  negative evaluation of these statements
• The right information gets to the right people at
  the right time.
• Work groups receive adequate feedback that helps
  improve their performance.
• Information and knowledge are shared openly
  within this organization.
• The exchange of information may be affecting
  aspects of other dimensions such as
• Fair Pay Aspect in the Accommodations Dimension
• Supervisor Effectiveness Aspect in the Work Group
  Dimension
• Team Effectiveness Aspect in the Work Group
  Dimension
• Fairness Aspect in the Work Group Dimension
• Focus on current objectives such as AAs Ensure
  information flow to meet stakeholders needs at
  all levels, ESSs Improve communication with
  all internal and external stakeholders, EAs
  Improve communication with the internal
  community and DoPs Improve communication with
  all constituents will assist in enhancing this
  dimension.

43
Personal Dimension ? Job Satisfaction ? Time and
Stress ? Burnout ? Empowerment

• The university and most groups in most survey
  years have ranked the aspects of this dimension
  near the middle or in the top half.
• The Faculty have tended to rank these dimension
  lower than other groups.
• In 2003, the Faculty ranked all 4 aspects
  slightly below neutral. This represented an
  average decrease of 9 below the level of the
  2001 ranks of the faculty.
• However In 2005, they ranked all 4 aspects 24 to
  41 above neutral. This represented an average
  increase of 18 above the 2003 ranks.
• Note For scoring consistency with other aspects,
  higher scores for the Burnout Aspect represent a
  lower level of perceived burnout.

44
Questions Discussion
Contact Information Leroy Philbrook Phone (956)
316-7146 This presentation is online at
http//www.oire.utpa.edu/publications/SOE_03_04_05
.ppt