OSCR Survey Results

1
OSCR Survey Results

• (Survey conducted Oct / Nov 2003)

2
Introduction

• The OSCR survey was conducted over the period
  mid-Oct to late-Nov 2003. It was run online, via
  E-mail
• The questions were chosen to give a rounded
  picture of the various aspects of OSCR
  implementation
• There were 250 respondents, roughly 18 of RGU
  staff
• Validation checks (see next slide) indicate that
  the sample is a reasonable representation of the
  RGU staff population
• The results give a comprehensive picture of OSCR
  implementation status at RGU

3
Validation checks

• Survey RGU overall
• Areas of work
• Prof / support 54 55
• Academic 31 33
• Ac Research 9 8
• Managerial 4 5
• Gender
• Female 63 56.4
• Part / full time
• Full time 89 67.6
• Supervisory
• Reviewers 25 17 (est.)

4
Overall result

• 95 of employees are currently participating in
  the OSCR process, having been through the
  objective setting process
• 50 of employees have had a mid-year review
• 32 of employees have had a full-year review
• The process is well-established, with a high of
  employees in the process. However there is a
  significant lag effect with a
  disproportionately low of employees having
  completed the 2nd and 3rd phases

5
Strengths

• There is a strong sense of alignment of personal
  job objectives with both team and school /
  department objectives
• New employees are being inducted into OSCR
  effectively (71 Agree / Strongly Agree, versus
  only 16 Disagree / Strongly Disagree)
• Overall, the OSCR process is seen as effective by
  50 of respondents, versus 26 disagreeing. This
  is an encouraging result just one year on from
  implementation

6
Development areas

• There is a significant lag effect, with only
  60 of possible total population having done
  mid-year or full-year reviews
• Improvement in communication as a result of OSCR
  (40 agree, 30 disagree) leaves significant room
  for further improvement
• For research staff, the process of regular
  quarterly review meetings is not yet well
  established only 26 agree and 55 disagree
  that the process is working effectively
• Reviewers feel that the OSCR process has helped
  to some degree to improve focus on objectives and
  development needs, but there is still significant
  improvement potential. 41 agreed and 31
  disagreed with this proposition

7
Training development

• 44 of respondents have had some form of
  development discussion with their supervisor or
  reviewer in the last 2-3 months (either as part
  of OSCR or not). This is consistent with the
  lag in completing mid-year and full-year
  OSCRs. There is significant scope to improve the
  alignment of, and focus on, personal development
  needs

8
New employees since July 2003
The OSCR process has been explained to me, and I
have had an initial objective setting meeting
with my supervisor / reviewer
An excellent result the process is clearly
being explained to new employees
9
When employees started in the process
31
24
19
14
7
5
243 responses in total. 95 of employees in the
process. Launched in Aug 2002 Cross check with Q
2 (Have you had an objective setting
meeting.... 91 said yes
10
OSCR implementation status, Dec 2003
60
57
96 (of theoretical max)
Very high of participants, but lag effect
becoming significant as process matures
11
OSCR implementation status, detail
Variable levels of sticking with it
of employees
12
Overall view of process
Taking everything into account, the OSCR
process has been effective for me in helping
clarify my work objectives and establish any
associated training and development needs
13
Alignment to team objectives
My OSCR objectives are aligned to the objectives
of my immediate work team
An excellent result strong alignment
14
Alignment to school, etc objectives
My OSCR objectives are aligned to the objectives
of my school, department, or faculty
An excellent result strong alignment
15
Researcher quarterly reviews
In addition to the OSCR process, I have regular
1/4ly reviews with my supervisor, and have had
at least one such review meeting
Significant feedback that quarterly reviews are
not yet normal practice
16
How do reviewers feel about OSCR?
I believe the OSCR process has significantly
helped to improve the focus on key objectives
and development needs of employees
Not bad, but could do better
17
Communication?
I believe the OSCR process has been effective
in improving communication
Trend is good, and undecided group may well be
more ve than ve, but room for improvement
18
Recent development conversations?
I have had a recent (last 3 months) discussion
with my supervisor / reviewer regarding my
training and development needs
19
Comments paraphrased and grouped

• There is a significant view that the process is
  much less effective where reviewers are not
  direct supervisors mainly due to a lack of
  openness, fear of non-confidentiality, and lack
  of knowledge of the individual concerned
• There is a significant view that reward should
  be more closely linked to performance
• Some employees still seem not to understand the
  process, even though they have been through at
  least one OSCR meeting with their reviewer. There
  is a continual need to reinforce the process, at
  all levels
• There was evidence that some senior employees
  are conducting OSCRs yet have not started their
  own
• There is a view that more effort needs to be
  made by reviewers to discuss training and
  development needs and to follow up effectively to
  action them where appropriate

20
Comments paraphrased and grouped - 2

• OSCR induction although the data indicates a
  relatively high level of induction into the
  process for new employees (only 15 of employees
  who have joined in the past 3 months havent had
  an initial objective setting meeting) some people
  complained that they had still not been
  introduced to OSCR. It is important to ensure all
  new employees get effective induction and an
  initial OSCR meeting in their first 3 months
• There are comments that the OSCR process is
  being used as a substitute for management,
  implying that the process is sometimes being used
  as a stand alone management tool
• Several comments indicate a perceived lack of
  flexibility in the OSCR process. This seems to be
  because objectives are being set but not updated
  regularly enough as priorities shift
• There was a comment that more effort should be
  put into developing the interpersonal skills of
  team leaders

21
Comments paraphrased and grouped - 3

• There is a view that OSCR objectives sometimes
  do not relate closely enough to a persons job
  and that this can make feedback and review less
  meaningful. This implies that more effort is
  needed to explain how OSCR objectives should tie
  directly to major job objectives. A rule of
  thumb would be for the OSCR to reflect roughly
  80 of what a person actually does
• There were comments that indicated some people
  only see their reviewer at OSCR review meetings.
  This makes it difficult to build rapport or to
  know enough about individual progress and
  performance in order to conduct a successful OSCR
  review
• There is a significant view that the OSCR
  process is not applied consistently
• Some people appear to get little feedback, or an
  opportunity to discuss their performance against
  objectives. The process at times seems to focus
  on completing the form versus open discussion
  and dealing with issues raised

22
Comments paraphrased and grouped - 4

• Some people seem to have had an objective setting
  meeting, but no follow-up meetings and no
  mid-year review meeting
• Some OSCR meetings appear to include minimal
  discussion about personal development or career
  expectations

23
The focus group

• This was set up to review the OSCR survey results
  and provided feedback on status of OSCR at RGU
  in effect validating the results
• A cross-section of RGU employees were chosen for
  the focus group
• Overall the team broadly validated the findings
  of the survey. A summary of key additional
  discussion points raised by the team appear on
  the following 2 slides

24
Themes from the focus group

• Training versus development we need to focus
  more on the overall development need (into which
  training may fit)
• We need to broaden reviewers awareness of
  developing people a more comprehensive
  approach is needed, focusing on enhancing roles
  and peoples capability, and the support /
  development they need over the longer term
• Development may be seen as a rigid process,
  with not enough flexibility around development
  for what?
• May be too current reviewer dependent not
  enough notice taken of previous OSCR (or even
  SDCR) reviews with regard to development needs
  need to have the full picture to be effective
• There is a feeling that culture is localised
  within RGU, and that this is reflected in OSCRs
  and buy-in to the process
• Higher level buy-in may be a problem in some
  areas. Reinforcement by cascading from EG
  downwards will help to improve this

25
Themes from focus group - continued

• There is a perception that not enough is overtly
  stated about how employees are valued by RGU.
  This is critical to an effective OSCR process as
  it sends a signal about the importance of people
• Some people still see objective setting as a
  meaningless process maybe because those same
  people are not encouraged to have meaningful
  objectives. Good role modelling is critical to
  success with OSCR
• The leadership development programme offers an
  opportunity to drive better overview and cascade
  of performance management influence on
  reviewers
• We may need greater customer focus, versus task
  focus, in objective setting. I.e. greater
  consideration of the needs of people impacted by
  personal objectives
• Consider group meetings / workshops for reviewers
  to share experiences and learn from each other

26
Next steps

• A concerted communication effort to ensure
  mid-year and full-year reviews are completed and
  new objectives set. In progress, initially
  through EG and SMG
• Full involvement by all senior managers. Ensuring
  a high profile of OSCR role modelling. As above
• Quality of review meetings - improvement in
  communication and feedback. New workshop
  currently being rolled out by HR
• Ensure researcher quarterly reviews are held
  regularly ongoing communication effort via
  research leaders and HR Advisors

27
Next steps - continued

• Update the web page guide on OSCR. Specifically
  add more about how versus what. More guidance
  for reviewers. To be completed shortly
• Possibly hold informal reviewer workshops
  learning from each other. To be considered
  assess need