University of Virginia
Human Resources Restructuring Survey
REPORT OF RESULTS
Prepared by:
THE CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH
David E. Hartman. Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
Abdoulaye Diop, Ph.D.
Senior Research Analyst
Thomas M. Guterbock, Ph.D.
Director
Deborah L. Rexrode, M.A.
Research Analyst
WELDON COOPER
CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
University of Virginia
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Table of Contents
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. vii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ix
I Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
About the Survey .................................................................................................................. 1
Questionnaire................................................................................................................................. 1
Survey Administration................................................................................................................... 1
Survey Response............................................................................................................................ 2
Statistical Analysis................................................................................................................ 2
Questionnaire Scales...................................................................................................................... 2
Regression Analysis....................................................................................................................... 2
Cross-tabulation Analysis.............................................................................................................. 3
Demographic Overview................................................................................................................. 3
Weighting ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Open-ended Responses .................................................................................................................. 4
II Overall Ratings...................................................................................................................... 5
Rating the University of Virginia as a Place for Staff to work............................................. 5
Demographic Analysis................................................................................................................... 5
Rating the Current Staff Human Resources System ............................................................. 5
Demographic Analysis................................................................................................................... 6
Recommending the University of Virginia to Friends and Family as a Place to Work........ 6
Demographic Analysis................................................................................................................... 6
Awareness of the University Authority to Restructure its Human Resources System ......... 7
Sources of information about the Human Resources Restructuring .............................................. 7
Awareness of Specific Facts about the Human Resources Restructuring ............................ 8
Demographic Analysis................................................................................................................... 9
III Specific Components of the Human Resources System .................................................... 11
Part C: Performance Evaluation.......................................................................................... 11
Performance Planning Program ................................................................................................... 11
Derived Importance ..................................................................................................................... 11
Performance Evaluation Program................................................................................................ 11
Derived Importance ..................................................................................................................... 12
Demographic Analysis................................................................................................................. 12
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 13
Part D: Relative Importance of Performance Evaluation Factors....................................... 13
Open Ends.................................................................................................................................... 14
Demographic Analysis................................................................................................................. 14
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 15
Part E: Performance Management System ......................................................................... 15
Demographic Analysis................................................................................................................. 15
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 16
Part F: Your Compensation ................................................................................................ 16
Derived Importance ..................................................................................................................... 17
Demographic Analysis................................................................................................................. 17
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 18
Part G: Staff Compensation System ................................................................................... 18
Demographic Analysis................................................................................................................. 19
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 19
Center for Survey Research
i
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Part H: Relative Importance of Factors Determining a Staff Employee’s Pay................... 19
Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 20
Open Ends ................................................................................................................................... 20
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Part I: Relative Importance of Pay Determinants ............................................................... 21
Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 21
Open Ends ................................................................................................................................... 22
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Part J: Employee Leave Benefits ........................................................................................ 22
Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 23
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Part K: Staff Leave Benefits-Supervisors’ Views .............................................................. 23
Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 24
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Part L: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You .............................. 24
Derived Importance..................................................................................................................... 25
Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 27
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Part M: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees –
Supervisors’ Views ............................................................................................................. 27
Derived Importance..................................................................................................................... 28
Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 29
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Part N: University Staff and Classified Staff Systems........................................................ 30
Derived Importance..................................................................................................................... 30
Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 31
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 31
The Influence of Section Topics on Overall Ratings.......................................................... 31
Staff Overall Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 32
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Staff Supervisors Overall Evaluations ........................................................................................ 33
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 34
IV Priority Analysis ................................................................................................................ 35
Appendix A: Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Demographics............................................................................................................…B-1
Appendix C: Frequencies and Means .................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D: Comparative Means...................................................................................................... D-1
Appendix E: Crosstabulations.............................................................................................................E-1
Appendix F: Methodology .................................................................................................................. F-1
Appendix G: Open-ended Responses ................................................................................................ G-1
ii
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
List of Figures
Figure II-1: Overall rating of UVa as a place for staff to work.............................................................. 5
Figure II-2: Overall rating of the current staff human resources system................................................ 6
Figure II-3: Recommending UVa to friends and family as a place to work........................................... 6
Figure II-4: Awareness of the UVa authority to restructure its human resources system ...................... 7
Figure II-5: Employees had seen or heard any information about Human Resources Restructuring..... 8
Figure III-1: Overall Rating for Performance Evaluation .................................................................... 11
Figure III-2: Overall Rating of the Performance Evaluation Program ................................................. 12
Figure III-3: Overall Rating of Compensation ..................................................................................... 17
Figure III-4: Overall Rating of the State’s Leave Benefits .................................................................. 23
Figure III-5: Overall Factor Importance for Accepting Employment and Continuing With the
University ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure III-6: Overall Factor Importance for Attracting, Motivating and Retaining Employees of the
University ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure III-7: Potential Benefits Outweigh Complexities...................................................................... 30
Figure IV-1: Top-box Analysis ............................................................................................................ 35
Center for Survey Research
iii
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
List of Tables
Table I-1: Parts of the Questionnaire and Number of questions ............................................................ 1
Table I-2: Sequence of Survey Related Communications to Web Respondents ................................... 2
Table I-3: Sequence of Survey Related Communications to Mail-out Respondents ............................. 2
Table II-1: Sources of information about the Human Resources Restructuring .................................... 8
Table II-2: Awareness of other facts about Human Resources Restructuring ....................................... 9
Table III-1: Performance Planning Program........................................................................................ 11
Table III-2: Performance Evaluation Program..................................................................................... 12
Table III-3: Factors that should be important in Performance Evaluations ......................................... 14
Table III-4: Performance Management System ................................................................................... 15
Table III-5: Your Compensation.......................................................................................................... 17
Table III-6: Staff Compensation System ............................................................................................. 18
Table III-7: Staff Employee's Pay – Current Importance .................................................................... 20
Table III-8: Pay Determinants ............................................................................................................. 21
Table III-9: Employee Leave Benefits................................................................................................. 23
Table III-10: Staff Leave Benefits ....................................................................................................... 24
Table III-11: Relative Importance of Pay Benefits, and Work Life for You ....................................... 26
Table III-12: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for You ...................................... 26
Table III-13: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees – Supervisors’
Views ........................................................................................................................................... 29
Table III-14: Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for Employees – Supervisors’
Views ........................................................................................................................................... 29
Table III-15: University Staff and Classified Staff Systems................................................................ 31
Table III-16: Overall Derived Importance Analysis ............................................................................ 32
Table III-17: Current Staff Human Resources System ........................................................................ 32
Table III-18: University as a Place for Staff to Work.......................................................................... 32
Table III-19: Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work................... 33
Table III-20: Current Staff Human Resources System ........................................................................ 33
Table III-21: University as a Place for Staff to Work.......................................................................... 34
Table III-22: Recommend the University to My Friends and Family as a Place to Work................... 34
Table III-23: Summary of the Overall Derived Importance Analysis ................................................. 34
Table IV-1: Staff Supervisors of Staff Quality Ratings ....................................................................... 35
Table IV-2: Staff Supervisors and Staff Derived Importance Analysis............................................... 35
Table IV-3: Staff Priority Matrix ......................................................................................................... 36
iv
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Acknowledgements
The Human Resources Restructuring Survey was
funded by the University of Virginia. The
Principal Investigator for the project was Thomas
M. Guterbock, Director of the Center for Survey
Research. The Project Coordinators were David E.
Hartman, Senior Research Director and Linda
Tournade, Research Specialist with assistance
from Abdoulaye Diop, Senior Research Analyst;
and Deborah Rexrode, Research Analyst.
We thank Susan Carkeek, Vice President of
Human Resources for the University of Virginia
for her continued support of this project from its
inception. Additional valuable assistance was
provided by Alan Cohn, Director, Faculty and
Staff Employee Relations; Joni E. Louque, Faculty
and Staff Employee Relations Counselor;
Roderick F. Kelly, Director of Compensation and
Classification; and David W. Ripley, Executive
Assistant, Human Resources who comprised the
survey team as the representatives of the Human
Resources Department.
As Principal Investigator, Dr. Guterbock was
responsible for the scientific direction of the study
and oversight of the data collection, analysis, and
report phases of the project. Dr. David E.
Hartman as Project Coordinator was responsible
for the project design, questionnaire development
and oversight of the data collection, data analysis,
and report writing. Dr. Hartman served as the
point of contact with the Human Resources
Department.
Linda Tournade, Research Specialist, helped to
direct this project in the early stages of its
development. Ms. Tournade assisted in the
development of the conceptual outline and the first
draft of the questions.
Edith Fischer, Senior Lab Supervisor, provided the
initial translation of the Word document survey
into Sawtooth SensusWeb™.
Complex
programming patterns for the web were developed
by Research Analysts Gabriel Murtaugh and Kien
T. Le. John Lee Holmes, Survey Operations
Manager, formatted the final version of the web
survey, finalized the programming of the
questionnaire into the Sawtooth SensusWeb™
software, and oversaw the web hosting of the
Internet portion of the survey.
He and Ms.
Rexrode oversaw the reminder-calling phase of the
survey.
Abdoulaye Diop, Senior Research Analyst
conducted the statistical analyses. He was
assisted by Kien T. Le and Deborah Rexrode,
Research Analysts. Dr. Hartman, Dr. Diop,
Dr. Guterbock, and Ms. Rexrode jointly wrote
the report of findings including designing
graphs and charts.
The CSR staff is particularly grateful to the
employees of the University of Virginia who gave
their time to offer their candid opinions in
response to the survey questions.
The Center for Survey Research, a unit of the
Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the
University of Virginia, is responsible for any
errors in this report. Inquiries may be directed to:
Center for Survey Research, University of
Virginia, P.O. Box 400767, Charlottesville, VA
22904-4767. The Center can be reached by
telephone at 1-434-243-5222, by e-mail to
[email protected], or through the World Wide
Web at www.virginia.edu/surveys.
Deborah Rexrode, Research Assistant, helped in
the development of all survey materials including
formatting the questionnaire for both web and
mailout and managed survey packet assembly.
Kathy Coker and Debbie Zieg, Project Assistants,
entered the data for the returned paper
questionnaires and tracked returned confirmation
postcards and emails.
The development of the questionnaire was carried
out in cooperation with the Human Resources staff
of Virginia Tech, who were engaged in a parallel
survey of their university’s employees.
Center for Survey Research
vii
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
viii
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Executive Summary
The Human Resources Department of the
University of Virginia commissioned the Center
for Survey Research (CSR) at the University of
Virginia to conduct a survey of all staff, staff
supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff of
the University of Virginia. The purpose of the
survey is to develop a scientifically accurate
evaluation of the current policies and procedures
of the Human Resources system and to inform
the development of the new HR system under
restructuring.
The survey was conducted by the Internet and
by mail for those who do not have convenient
access to the Internet. Invitations to participate
in the survey were sent to 4,762 university
employees and 901 faculty supervisors of staff.
The survey was conducted between May 1, 2007
and June 18, 2007. During that time, CSR
received 2,602 completed questionnaires by the
web and 102 completed questionnaires by mail.
The final response rate is 49 percent with a
margin of error of ±1.4 percent.
Overall ratings
Asked of all respondents: Overall, how would
you rate the University as a place for staff to
work?
More than eighty-eight percent (88.1%) rated the
university as an excellent, very good, or good
place to work. The remaining 11.4 percent rated
the University as a fair or poor place to work.
Asked of all respondents: Overall, how would
you rate the current staff human resources
system?
Two-thirds of the respondents (66.6%) rated the
system as excellent, very good, or good. The
remaining one-third rated the system as fair or
poor.
Asked of staff and staff supervisors: I would
recommend the University to my friends and
family as a place to work.
Seventy-nine percent (79%) said they strongly
agree or agree with the statement. An additional
16.1 percent were neutral and the remaining 4.9
percent said they disagree or strongly disagree
with the statement.
Center for Survey Research
Awareness
Asked of all respondents: How aware are you of
the University’s authority to restructure the
human resources policies and procedures for
university staff?
Just over half of the respondents (57.2%) said
they were very aware or somewhat aware of the
authority. The remainder was slightly aware or
never heard of it.
Of those who were aware of the authority, most
learned
about
it
through
newsletter,
announcements, meetings or the UVa website on
HR restructuring.
Performance Planning Program
Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would
you rate the university’s performance planning
program?
Just over half (50.9%) rated the program as
excellent, very good, or good. The remaining
48.9 percent rated the program as fair or poor.
Performance Evaluation Program
Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would
you rate the university’s performance evaluation
program?
Just under half (45.6%) rated the evaluation
program as excellent, very good, or good. The
remaining 54.3 percent rated the evaluation
program as fair or poor.
Relative Importance of Performance
Evaluation
Staff and staff supervisors indicated that the
most important factors that should be used in
performance planning and evaluation include:
employees should know what is expected of
them; employees should be given clear goals and
objectives; and supervisors should recognize
employees’ contributions.
The factors that received the lowest ratings
include: the University recognizes my
contribution; receive regular feedback on
performance; and helps to identify skills to
develop and advance.
Performance Management System
Performance management system factors that
received the highest supervisor ratings include:
the system helps in setting expectations and the
ix
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
system helps identify skills
employees to be effective.
required
for
The factors that received the lowest supervisor
ratings include: the system helps to encourage
achievement; the system helps in motivating
employees; and the three-point scale is effective
in distinguishing various levels of performance.
Compensation
Asked of staff and staff supervisors: How would
you rate the university’s compensation program
for staff?
Less than half of the respondents (46.1%) rated
the compensation system as excellent, very
good, or good. The remaining 54 percent rated
the system as fair or poor.
The compensation factor that has the greatest
affect on the overall evaluation of compensation
is the university’s current policies and
procedures for determining staff pay.
Staff Compensation System
Supervisors were asked to evaluate the
university’s staff compensation system. In
general, the ratings were below the scale
midpoint. Areas that cause the greatest concern
include: the program’s effectiveness in retaining
and motivating employees; and a supervisor’s
ability to compensate employees relative to
organizations outside the University.
Relative Importance of Factors Determining a
Staff Employee’s Pay
All employees were asked to rate the importance
of factors that are currently used in determining
staff employees’ pay.
The three factors receiving the highest
importance ratings are: skills and abilities; duties
and responsibilities; and performance.
abilities; duties
experience.
and
responsibilities;
and
The lowest rated factors include: regional and
national external equity; length of service; and
pay history.
Employee Leave Benefits
Staff and staff supervisors were asked: How
would you rate the state’s leave benefits?
A large majority (90.3%) indicated that the
benefits are either excellent, very good, or good.
The most important aspect of the benefit
program is that benefits are viewed as being
competitive relative to organizations outside the
university.
Staff Leave Benefits
Asked of all supervisors: How would you rate
your staff employees’ state leave benefits?
Similarly to staff, a majority of supervisors
(88.6%) indicated that the benefits are excellent,
very good, or good.
Supervisors also agree that the most important
aspect of the benefit program is its
competitiveness with organizations outside of
the university.
Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and
Work Life for You
Staff and staff supervisors indicate that leave
benefits, tuition benefits, and supervisor
relationships are the most important factors in
their decision to accept employment with the
University.
They also indicate that supervisor relationships,
job security and flexibility of work scheduling
are the most important factors in their decision
to continue employment with the University.
Lower importance ratings were given for local
external equity; pay history; and regional or
national external equity.
Relative Importance of Pay Determinants
All respondents were asked to evaluate the
importance of factors that should be used in
determining an employee’s pay level.
The four factors that received the highest
importance ratings are: performance; skills and
x
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and
Work Life for Employees
Supervisors indicate that tuition benefits,
supervisor relationships, and job security are the
most important factors for attracting employees
to the University.
Supervisors indicate that job security, supervisor
relationships, and opportunities to learn new
skills are the most important factors for retaining
employees with the University.
University Staff and Classified Staff System
Supervisors were asked if the potential benefits
of creating a new University Staff System would
outweigh the complexities of managing the two
human resources systems.
Just over half (54.7%) of the supervisors believe
that the benefits will outweigh the complexities.
Twenty-eight percent are neutral and 17.1
percent believe the complexities will outweigh
the benefits.
Priority Analysis
When overall quality ratings are considered
jointly with ratings of importance, the results
can suggest which areas should have highest
priority for restructuring.
These results point to compensation as the area
of highest priority, because it receives relatively
low quality ratings while being seen as high in
importance. In contrast, leave benefits are seen
as important, but are rated very high in quality,
suggesting little immediate need for change.
Performance evaluations rated lower in
importance, but also lower in quality.
These results along with other more specific
findings in this report suggest that respondents’
ratings of both the compensation and
performance evaluation systems would be higher
if changes were to be made that linked
compensation outcomes with performance
evaluation.
Supervisors indicate the most important aspect
of the restructuring program will be the potential
benefits of creating new university staff
compensation programs.
Center for Survey Research
xi
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
xii
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
I Introduction
Table I-1: Parts of the Questionnaire and
Number of questions
About the Survey
The Human Resources Department of the
University of Virginia commissioned the Center
for Survey Research to conduct a survey of all
staff, staff supervisors, and faculty supervisors
of staff of the University of Virginia regarding
Human Resources restructuring.
Questionnaire
Design Process
Developing
the
questionnaire
was
a
collaborative effort between the Human
Resources Staff of the University of Virginia
and Virginia Tech University and members of
the CSR research team. Once a draft of the
questionnaire was developed, a focus group was
conducted by CSR with representatives of the
employees at both universities. Input from the
focus groups was instrumental in modifying the
questionnaire before fielding the survey. Due to
the length of the survey, open-ended questions
were moved to the end of the questionnaire.
Major Sections
Excluding the sections about Job Classification
(Part A) and the Employee Demographic
information (Part P), the questionnaire is divided
into 14 parts. Table I-1 presents these parts and
the number of questions that were asked of
employees.
Survey Administration
A pilot of this survey, using the Internet, was
conducted for ten days prior to launching the
survey. Participants were selected from the
population of staff, staff supervisors, and faculty
supervisors of staff. Each respondent was given
the opportunity to make suggestions on how the
questionnaire might be improved. Advance
letters were sent to remaining employees and
non-respondents of the pilot.
Center for Survey Research
Questionnaire Parts
Number of
questions
Awareness of the University authority to
restructure its human resource system (B)
12
Performance Evaluation (C)
13
Relative Importance of Performance
Evaluation Factors (D)
Performance Management System (E)
13
Staff’s Compensation (F)
13
Supervisors on Staff Compensation (G)
10
Relative Importance of Factors
Determining a Staff Employee’s Pay (H)
13
Relative Importance of Pay Determinants
(I)
Employee Leave Benefits (J)
13
Supervisor on Staff Leave Benefits (K)
6
Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and
Work Life for You (L)
15
Relative Importance of Pay, Benefits, and
Work Life for Employees (M)
15
University Staff and Classified Staff
Systems (N)
5
Overall Ratings (O)
3
10
5
All employees with email access were provided
a web version of the survey instrument.
Anonymity was assured to all participants
through the random assignment of unique IDs
and PINs. For employees who have limited or no
access to computers, a paper version of the
questionnaire was mailed to their university
address as well as the opportunity to take the
survey online. In order to insure anonymity, a
confirmation postcard was provided that
respondents could return separately to remove
their name from the reminder list.
A series of reminders were sent to employees by
CSR to promote their participation in the survey.
Table I-2 and Table I-3 lists the sequence of
survey-related communications that were sent to
employees during the survey period.
1
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Table I-2: Sequence of Survey Related
Communications to Web Respondents
Type
Advance letter
Date
Sent to
5/1
Web
respondents
Email announcement 5/1-4
Web
respondents
Email thank
you/reminder
5/11
Web
respondents
Second email
reminder
5/21
Web
respondents
Postcard reminder
5/31
Nonrespondents
Phone call reminders
6/4-8
Nonrespondents
Close-out email
6/15
Nonrespondents
Table I-3: Sequence of Survey Related
Communications to Mail-out Respondents
Type
Date
Sent to
Mail advance letters
5/9
Mail-out
respondents
Mail survey packets
5/10
Mail-out
respondents
Thank you/reminder
postcard
5/19
Mail-out
respondents
Phone call
reminders
6/4-8
Non-respondents
Close-out postcard
6/9
Non-respondents
Survey Response
The Human Resources Department provided a
list of 5,662 employees to CSR. The list
contained the names of 901 faculty supervisors
of staff and 4,447 staff and staff supervisors with
email addresses to participate in the web version
of the survey. In addition, a list of 314 staff
without email access was utilized in mailing the
paper version of the questionnaire. CSR tracked
emails from web respondents and confirmation
postcards from paper respondents to determine
2
who would receive reminder notices and phone
calls.
Of the 2,704 employees who participated in the
survey, 102 (3.8%) chose the paper version of
the survey and 2,602 (96.2%) chose the on-line
version. Accordingly, the adjusted survey
response rate is 49 percent.
Statistical Analysis
Questionnaire Scales
Questions in each part of the questionnaire asked
employees to rate the topics by responding to a
five-point scale anchored by “Strongly Agree”
to “Strongly Disagree” or a four-point scale
anchored by “Very Important” to “Not
Important.” The scales were designed so that
higher numbers represent preferred outcomes
(e.g. 5=Strongly Agree, 1=Strongly Disagree or
4=Very Important, 1=Not Important).
Two of the three overall satisfaction questions
used five-point scales with anchors of
“Excellent”
to
“Poor.”
To
maintain
compatibility during analysis, the scales were
reversed so that high numbers represent
favorable outcomes and low numbers indicate
less favorable outcomes.
Regression Analysis
Multiple regression analysis is a statistical
method used to analyze relationships between a
set of variables known as independent variables
and a single variable known as the dependent
variable.
The objective is to use the
independent variables to predict variation in the
dependent variable.
More specifically, a
regression routine weights the independent
variables through regression analysis to insure
maximal prediction of the dependent variable
from the set of independent variables. In this
report, the summary evaluation questions from
each section of the questionnaire are used to
predict overall satisfaction. The regression
analysis produced standardized regression
coefficients or weights known as betas (β) that
can have a value of -1 to +1. The betas can be
interpreted as the relative importance of the
independent variables in predicting the
dependent variable. The significance level of the
beta coefficient is tested and reported along with
the beta coefficients. The significance level can
take on values from .000 to 1. For this report,
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
any value that is .05 or less is considered
statistically significant. That is, there is a 95
percent chance that the beta is not zero.
An overall measure of the strength of the
regression analysis is generally found in a table
footnote as an R-square, which can take on
values from 0 to 1. Larger R-squares represent
greater explanatory power for the predictors
taken as a group.
Near the end of the questionnaire, three overall
evaluation questions were asked of the
respondents.
The
questions
addressed
evaluations of the human resources system, the
university as a place to work, and whether staff
respondents would recommend the university to
friends and family as a place to work. These
overall questions serve as dependent variables in
the regression analysis.
Embedded throughout the questionnaire are ten
questions that were overall evaluations of a
particular questionnaire part. These questions
can serve as independent variables. By
regressing the overall questions mentioned in the
previous paragraph on these predictors, the
affect each item has on the overall evaluations
can be determined. This analysis is reported in
the last part of Section III of this report.
Cross-tabulation Analysis
Demographic questions were included at the end
of the questionnaire to obtain information about
the respondents who completed the survey. The
demographic information was used to evaluate
differences in ratings given by sub-populations,
such as males versus females, or those with
different level of education.
In this study, a cross-tabulation analysis relates
the demographic variables to ratings of items
throughout the questionnaire and to the overall
evaluation
ratings
as
well.
Statistical
significance tests were used to verify the
existence of satisfaction differences among
various subgroups. An independent Chi-Square
test of independence is used to test for
differences in proportions, and Gamma tests are
used to detect patterns among ordinal
demographic sub-groups. The results are
included in Appendix E.
Center for Survey Research
Demographic Overview
The survey questionnaire included demographic
questions about respondents to allow for
analysis of the data by personal and social
characteristics. Men were slightly underrepresented with only 33 percent of the
respondents compared to 67 percent female
respondents.
To report race, respondents were asked to select
from the same categories utilized on the UVa
Employment Application. The percentage of
respondents were: 87.2 percent White, 7.7
percent Black or African American (Not
Hispanic or Latino), 2.8 percent Asian (Not
Hispanic or Latino), 1.0 percent Hispanic or
Latino, .5 percent American Indian or Alaska
Native, and .9 percent described themselves as
Other (Two or more races – Not Hispanic or
Latino).
With regard to length of employment as salaried
employees of the State of Virginia, the largest
percentage, (37.7%) of respondents were
employees who have worked for the State for
more than 15 years. The second largest group,
(23.1%) were employees who have worked for
the State 8 to 15 years. Fourteen percent of
respondents have worked for the State for 2 to 4
years and 12.9 percent have worked 5 to 7 years.
Twelve percent (12%) have worked for the State
for less than 2 years.
Of the 2,704 respondents who reported their
educational level, 56 percent have earned a fouryear college degree or graduate/professional
degree. Twenty-seven percent (27%) have a
graduate degree. An additional 17.6 percent
have received some college and over 12 percent
have completed a two-year degree, technical
school degree, or trade school certification.
Fourteen percent (14%) have received a high
school education or less.
Further, the salary range with the largest
percentage (60.6%) of respondents was the
range of annual pay between $25,100 and
$50,000 or an hourly rate of $12.01 to $24.00.
Second to this group at nearly 21 percent were
those in the salary range of $50,100 to $75,000.
Approximately 12 percent of respondents have a
salary over $75,000 and less than 7 percent have
a salary less than $25,000.
3
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Nearly ninety-two percent (92%) of respondents
who supervise indicated they provide input into
performance evaluations for the people they
supervise. Almost 88 percent indicated they sign
performance evaluations as a supervisor, but less
than 20 percent sign performance evaluations as
a reviewer.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of respondents are
enrolled in the Virginia Sickness and Disability
Program (VSDP) while 17 percent are enrolled
in the State’s traditional sick leave accrual plan.
The two largest academic or administrative areas
who responded to the survey were the School of
Medicine at 23.5 percent and the College and
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at 9
percent. Respondents working under the Vice
President for Finance represent 8 percent. In
occupational areas, 37 percent of respondents
selected administrative and office support;
education and program support; academic or
fiscal support. The next largest group of
respondents (13.5%) were employed in
information technology, telecommunications,
computers,
electronics,
or
engineering
technology.
4
Weighting
Since the data reflects an under-representation of
categories in gender and race relative to the
population, statistical weighting was used to
correct
this
under-representation.
When
reporting demographic information, the data
were not weighted. The data were weighted by
gender and race for all of the analysis that
follows.
Open-ended Responses
A total of 6,550 responses were received on the
open-ended questions. Responses to open-ended
questions in Sections D, H, and I (3,430) were
coded and are discussed in those sections of the
report. The remaining responses were cleaned
and have been included in Appendix G.
Appendices A through G have been provided in
entirety as a separate report due to the quantity
of the data and the large volume of responses to
the open-ended questions.
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
II Overall Ratings
Rating the University of Virginia
as a Place for Staff to work
Overall, how would you rate the University
as a place for staff to work?
Respondents were asked to rate the University of
Virginia as a place for staff to work on a scale
from 1 to 5 where 1 means “Excellent” and 5
means “Poor.” For the purpose of statistical
analysis, the scale was reversed so that a higher
number indicates a more favorable response.
Overall, employees are well satisfied with the
University as a place to work.
Figure II-1 illustrates how participants rated the
University of Virginia as a place to work. More
than eighty-eight percent (88.1%) gave
“Excellent,” “Very good,” or “Good” ratings to
the University of Virginia as a place to work.
Ten percent (10.6%) gave a “Fair” rating and 1.3
percent gave a “Poor” rating. On the scale from
1 to 5, the mean rating for “Overall rating” is a
favorable 3.53. Refer to Table C-2 in Appendix
C for a complete distribution of responses for
this item.
Figure II-1: Overall rating of UVa as a place
for staff to work
Excellent
13.6%
Very good
39.4%
Good
35.1%
Fair
10.6%
Poor
1.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Demographic Analysis
The demographic variables include gender, race,
education, salary, the number of years the
employee has worked as a salaried employee of
the State of Virginia, the state leave and
disability plan, whether or not the employee
Center for Survey Research
provides input into performance evaluations for
the people he/she supervises, and whether or not
the employee signs performance evaluations as a
supervisor or as reviewer. The demographic
variables also include the number of years the
employee has been on continuous salaried
employment with UVa and whether or not the
current period of continuous salaried
employment with UVa has started before July 1,
2006. In reviewing the results of the
demographic analyses, this report mentions only
those group differences that are statistically
significant.
Overall, faculty supervisors (3.62) and staff
supervisors (3.62) were more likely to give
higher ratings to UVa as a place to work than
were staff members (3.49). In regards to faculty,
administrative and professional employees
(3.73) were more likely to give more favorable
ratings to UVa than were teaching and research
employees (3.48). The demographic analysis
also indicates that the overall rating of UVa as a
place to work was an increasing function of the
employee’s salary. Employees with higher
salaries were more likely to give higher ratings
than were employees with lower salaries. For
example, employees with a salary of more than
$100,000 (3.69) gave significantly higher ratings
than those employees with a salary of $25,000 or
less (3.36). Employees with a salary of $75,100
to $100,000, $50,100 to $75,000, and $25,100 to
$50,000 rated UVa at 3.59, 3.57, and 3.53,
respectively.
Employees who provide input into performance
evaluations for the people they supervise (3.63)
and employees who sign performance
evaluations as supervisor (3.64) were also more
likely to give higher overall UVa ratings than
their counterparts (3.16 and 3.29, respectively).
In addition, those who have worked as salaried
employees of the State of Virginia for a period
of more than 15 years (3.64) gave significantly
higher ratings than those who worked as salaried
employees of the State of Virginia for a period
of 2 to 7 years (3.42) and 8 to 15 years (3.49).
Rating the Current Staff Human
Resources System
In addition to the overall rating of the University
of Virginia, respondents were asked to rate the
current staff human resources system. Overall,
5
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
two-thirds (66.6%) of the respondents said the
current staff human resources system was
“Excellent,” “Very good,” or “Good.” About
one-quarter (24.8%) of the respondents rated the
current staff human resources system as “fair”
and 8.6 percent rated it as “poor” (see Figure
II-2). On the five-point scale the current staff
human resources system received a 2.89 mean
rating.
Figure II-2: Overall rating of the current staff
human resources system
Excellent
3.1%
Very good
22.9%
Good
40.6%
Fair
24.8%
Poor
8.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Demographic Analysis
Unlike with the overall ratings of UVa as a place
to work, salaried staff (non-supervisor) members
(2.97) gave a significantly higher rating to the
current staff human resources system than did
faculty supervisors (2.58) and salaried staff
supervisors (2.73). In addition, ratings of the
current staff human resources were significantly
higher with employees who do not provide input
to performance evaluations (2.98) or sign
performance evaluations as a supervisor (3.01)
or as a reviewer (2.88) than with their
counterparts (2.67, 2.66, and 2.76, respectively).
With respect to education, favorable ratings of
the current staff human resources decreased with
higher levels of education. Employees with
education of high school or less (3.21) gave
significantly higher ratings than employees with
some college education (3.03), a 4-year college
degree (2.73), or a graduate professional degree
(2.67). In addition, short-tenured (less than 2
years) employees with the State of Virginia
(3.00) and long-tenured employees (more than
15 years) (2.91) were more likely to give higher
ratings as compared to employees with 8 to 15
6
years of employment with the State of Virginia
(2.76). Employees with 2 to 7 years of
employment gave a mean rating of 2.84.
Finally, staff members (non-supervisor) (2.97)
and female employees (2.95) gave higher ratings
than supervisor staff (2.66) and male employees
(2.80). With respect to race, black employees
(3.02) gave significantly higher ratings than
white employees (2.86). Employees of other
races gave a rating of 2.94.
Recommending the University
of Virginia to Friends and Family
as a Place to Work
Staff members and staff supervisors (excluding
faculty) were also asked whether or not they
would recommend the University of Virginia as
a place to work. Using a five-point scale where 5
means “Strongly Agree” and 1 means “Strongly
Disagree,” slightly more than three-quarters
(78.8%) of the staff members and staff
supervisors said that they would recommend
UVa to friends and family as a place to work
(see Figure II-3). The mean rating for this item
is evaluated at 3.95 on a five-point scale.
Figure II-3: Recommending UVa to friends
and family as a place to work
Strongly
agree
23.0%
Agree
55.8%
Neutral
16.3%
Disagree
3.0%
Strongly
disagree
1.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Demographic Analysis
As with the overall ratings of UVa as a place to
work, supervisor salaried staff (4.05), employees
who provide input into performance evaluations
for the people they supervise (4.04), and
employees who sign performance evaluations as
a supervisor (4.07) were more likely to say they
would recommend UVa to their friends or
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
family as compared to their counterparts (3.92,
3.60, and 3.65, respectively). In regards to
education, employees with high school
education or less (4.01) and some college
education (4.03) were more likely to say they
would recommend UVa to friends or family than
were employees with a 4-year college degree
(3.89) and employees with graduate or
professional degree (3.87).
Awareness of the University
Authority to Restructure its
Human Resources System
All respondents of the survey (faculty, staff
supervisors, and staff members) were asked to
rate their level of awareness of the UVa’s
authority to restructure the human resources
policies and procedures for University staff.
Figure II-4 presents employees’ responses on
this item. More than half (57.2%) of employees
said they were “very” or “somewhat” aware of
the Human Resources Restructuring, and about
one-third (31.4%) said they were slightly aware
of it. Eleven percent (11.3%) of the employees
indicated that they never heard of it before the
implementation of the survey.
Figure II-4: Awareness of the UVa authority
to restructure its human resources system
Very aware
17.9%
Somewhat
aware
39.3%
Never heard of
it before today
11.3%
0%
20%
40%
In addition, employees’ awareness of the
university’s authority to restructure the human
resources policies and procedures for the
university staff increased with the number of
years the employee has worked as a salaried
employee of the State of Virginia or has been on
a continuous salaried employment with the
University of Virginia. For example, employees
who have been working for the State of Virginia
for a period of more than 15 years (23.6%) or 8
to 15 years (19.2%) were more likely to be
aware of the Human Resources Restructuring
than were employees who worked for the State
of Virginia for a period of 2 to 7 years (11.6%)
or less than 2 years (11.9%). Awareness of the
Human Resources Restructuring and employee’s
salary follow the same pattern with employees
with higher salaries reporting more awareness
than those with low salary levels. For example,
26.8 percent of employees with a salary of more
than $100,000 said that they very aware of the
program as compared to 9.3 percent of those
employees with a salary of less than $25,000.
Awareness
of
the
Human
Resources
Restructuring also increased with the level of
education. Employees with a graduate or
professional degree (24.3%), a 4-year college
degree (16.5%), or some college education
(16.6%) were more aware of the Human
Resources Restructuring than were employees
with high school education or less (12.7%).
Employees who provide input into performance
evaluations for the people they supervise
(26.1%), or sign performance evaluations as a
supervisor (27.3%) or as a reviewer (21.2%)
were more likely to say they were very aware of
the Human Resource Restructuring than were
their counterparts (7.3%, 6.0%, and 17.4%
respectively).
31.4%
Slightly aware
(30.0%) were more aware of the restructuring
program than were teaching and research faculty
(14.6%).
60%
Demographic Analysis
Sources of information about the
Human Resources Restructuring
Overall, staff supervisors (26.9%) and faculty
supervisors (24.2%) were more likely to say that
they were very aware of the Human Resources
Restructuring than were staff members (14.3%).
The crosstabulation results also indicate that
administrative and professional faculty members
More than two-thirds (68.1%) of all survey
respondents indicated they had seen or heard
information about the Human Resources
Restructuring. About 3 out 10 (31.9%)
employees said that they had never heard or seen
Center for Survey Research
7
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
information about
Restructuring.
the
Human
Resources
Figure II-5: Employees had seen or heard any
information
about
Human
Resources
Restructuring
No
31.9%
Yes
68.1%
When asked to indicate how they had learned
about the Human Resources Restructuring, most
employees (67.3%) listed Other UVa
communications (newsletters, announcements,
meetings) as their primary source of
information, followed by the UVa website on
Human Resources Restructuring (51.8%), then
colleagues and coworkers (36.7%). See Table
II-1 for a full presentation of the sources of
information.
Table II-1: Sources of information about the
Human Resources Restructuring
Source of Information
Other communications
(newsletters,
announcements,
meetings)
UVa website on HR
restructuring
My colleagues or coworkers
The “grapevine”
News media (local
newspaper, television,
radio)
Presentation or meeting
My supervisor or
manager
University or student
newspaper (electronic
or print)
Other
Total
percent
of
responses
percent
of
cases
1,151
23.7
67.3
885
18.2
51.8
627
12.9
36.7
556
11.4
32.5
484
10.0
28.3
388
8.0
22.7
355
7.3
20.7
333
6.9
19.5
n
Awareness of Specific Facts
about the Human Resources
Restructuring
In addition to the overall awareness question,
employees were asked about their level of
awareness of specific facts related to the Human
Resources Restructuring. Table II-2 presents
employees’ responses on these items. Of all the
facts that were presented, employees were most
aware that “the university now has two human
resources systems for staff (the classified staff
system and the university staff system)” and that
“the Virginia Retirement System will not be
affected by Human Resources Restructuring.”
More than 60 percent of employees indicated
that they knew about these two facts (62.8% and
60.1% respectively). In addition, more than half
(54.6%) of employees indicated that they knew
that the current health insurance plan will not be
affected by Human Resources Restructuring.
Less than half of employees said that they were
aware of the remainder of the other facts about
the Human Resources Restructuring (Table
II-2). Of all the facts that were presented,
employees were least aware that “the current
grievance policies for all staff will not be
affected
by
the
Human
Resources
Restructuring.”
n=1,710
78
1.6
4.5
4,859
100
284.2
Note: Respondents could select more than one response.
8
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Table II-2: Awareness of other facts about
Human Resources Restructuring
I knew
that
(%)
I did not
know
that (%)
B7. The University now has two
human resources systems for staff: the
Classified staff system and the
University staff system (Employees
hired on or after 7/1/06)
62.8
37.2
B4. The Virginia Retirement System
will not be affected by Human
Resources Restructuring
60.1
39.9
B5. The current health insurance plan
will not be affected by Human
Resources Restructuring
54.6
45.4
B10. The Classified staff system’s
policies and procedures will still be
governed by the state and will not
change based on Human Resources
Restructuring
48.8
51.2
B9. The University staff system’s
policies and procedures will be
governed by the Board of Visitors and
may change under Human Resources
Restructuring
46.9
53.1
B12. Classified staff who choose to
switch to the University staff system
will not be permitted to switch back to
the Classified staff system
43.9
56.1
B11. Classified staff (employees hired
before July 1, 2006) will have a choice
to switch to the University staff system
at least every two years
43.0
57.0
B8. The two human resources systems
currently have essentially identical
policies and procedures
42.9
57.1
B6. The current grievance policies for
all staff will not be affected by Human
Resources Restructuring
41.5
58.5
Facts
Demographic Analysis
Overall, staff and faculty supervisors were more
likely to know about the other facts about the
Human Resources Restructuring than salaried
staff members who are not supervisors. In
addition, awareness of the other facts about the
Human Resources Restructuring increases with
the number of years the employee has been on a
continuous salaried employment with the
University of Virginia. The longer the period the
employee has been on a continuous salaried
employment with the UVa, the more likely
he/she is aware about the Human Resources
Center for Survey Research
Restructuring. For example, 71.1 percent of
employees with 22 years or more of continuous
salaried employment with UVa said that they
knew that the Virginia Retirement System will
not be affected by the Human Resources
Restructuring as compared to 44.7 percent of
employees who have been with UVa for a period
of 2 years or less. The crosstabulation results of
awareness about the other facts of the Human
Resources Restructuring and length of
employment with the State of Virginia follow
the same pattern.
Additionally, awareness about the other facts of
the Human Resources Restructuring increases
with the level of education and income. The
higher the employee’s level of education or
annual pay, the more likely he/she is aware of
the Human Resources Restructuring. For
example, 61.5 percent of employees with
graduate or professional degree said that they
knew that they knew that the current health plan
will not be affected by Human Resources
Restructuring compared to 46.6 percent of
employees with high school education or less.
Overall, staff supervisors and administrative and
professional staff were also more likely to say
they knew about the other facts of the Human
Resources Restructuring. For example, 51.3
percent of staff supervisors and 49.2 percent of
administrative and professional staff said that
they knew that the two human resources systems
currently have essentially the same policies and
procedures compared to 39.0 percent of nonsupervisor staff and 32.2 percent of teaching and
research faculty.
With respect to gender, female employees were
more likely to say that they knew the University
now has two human resources systems (65.6%),
the two human resources systems currently have
essentially identical policies and procedures
(45.9%), and that the classified staff who choose
to switch to the University staff system will not
be permitted to switch back to the classified
system (46.0%) compared to male employees
(58.8%, 39.5%, and 41.5%, respectively). White
employees were also more likely to know that
the Virginia Retirement System will not be
affected by Human Resources Restructuring
(62.4%) and that the University staff system’s
policies and procedures will be governed by the
Board of Visitors and may change under Human
Resources Restructuring (48.8%) compared to
9
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Black
employees
(52.3%
and
37.8%
respectively) and employees of other races
(50.5% and 38.9%, respectively).
10
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
III Specific Components of
the Human Resources
System
Part C: Performance Evaluation
(Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff)
The first specifically focused section of the
questionnaire
assessed
the
university’s
Performance Planning Program and the
Performance Evaluation Program. Survey
respondents were provided definitions of both
programs to assure that the distinctions between
the two programs were clear. The Planning
Program was defined as referring to the
processes and forms for setting goals and
expectations, including establishing learning and
development objectives. The Evaluation
Program referred to processes and forms used
for providing coaching and ongoing feedback
from supervisors and the annual evaluation
process.
The performance evaluation section consisted of
thirteen questions designed to evaluate the
Performance Planning Program and the
Performance Evaluation Program. Two of the
questions addressed the planning program, nine
addressed the evaluation program and two were
overall ratings.
Performance Planning Program
The overall rating for performance planning was
obtained by asking respondents to rate the
planning program on a five-point scale where 5
is “Excellent” and 1 is “Poor.” The results are
shown in Figure II-1. Just over half of the
respondents (51.1%) rated the program as either
“Excellent,” “Very Good,” or “Good.” The
mean rating, as reported in Appendix D, Table
D1, is 2.51, which is below the mid-point of the
five-point scale, suggesting that respondents are
less than fully supportive of the program.
Two questions in this section, C8 and C9,
addressed specific aspects of the planning
program. C8 asks whether the planning program
helps employees identify the skills required to be
effective on their jobs and C9 asks if the
program helps identify skills needed to advance.
The mean ratings for these questions, 3.33 and
3.15 respectively, are above the mid-point on the
five-point scale, but leave room for
Center for Survey Research
improvement. The ratings given by staff and
staff supervisors are not significantly different.
See Table D-1 in Appendix D.
Figure III-1: Overall Rating for Performance
Evaluation
Excellent
1.9%
Very good
11.4%
37.8%
Good
33.8%
Fair
15.1%
Poor
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Derived Importance
By regressing the results of the two evaluation
questions on the overall rating question, it is
possible to determine the strength of the two
questions in determining the overall rating. The
standardized beta coefficients for both questions
are statistically significant indicating that both
factors have a major influence on the overall
rating of the performance planning program. See
Table III-1 for a listing of the multiple
regression outcomes.
Table III-1: Performance Planning Program
Derived Importance
No. Item
Beta
Sig
C8
Evaluation helps identify skills
needed to be effective
0.33
0.00
C9
Evaluation helps identify skills
needed to advance
0.29
0.00
Dependent variable is C12, overall rating of performance planning
program
[R sq = .598, n=2,252]
Performance Evaluation Program
The overall rating for performance evaluation
was obtained by asking respondents to rate the
Performance Evaluation Program on a five-point
scale as in the previous section.
11
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Figure III-2: Overall Rating
Performance Evaluation Program
of
the
Derived Importance
2.0%
Excellent
Very good
11.2%
32.4%
Fair
33.3%
21.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Less than half of the respondents (45.6%) gave
the evaluation program a satisfactory rating of
“excellent”, “very good”, or “good.” The results
are shown in Figure III-2. The mean rating
shown in Table D2 of Appendix D is 2.40,
which is below the mid-point on a five-scale.
The Performance Evaluation section includes
nine questions that ask for ratings on various
aspects of the Performance Evaluation Program.
The highest rating received in this section is 4.25
for “I know what is expected of me in my job.”
Another high rating is 3.76 for having the
opportunity to have input into an employee’s
performance goals. A rating of concern is the
2.79 received for whether performance makes a
difference in an employee’s pay.
Table D-2 in Appendix D lists the mean ratings
for this section and separates staff and staff
supervisors. Of the ratings for the nine
evaluation questions and the overall question,
five are significantly different for the two
groups. Staff supervisors consistently gave
higher ratings than staff.
Derived Importance
The overall rating question was regressed on the
nine questions used to rate the evaluation
program. Six of the nine questions have
significant beta coefficients (p less than .05).
The items with significant coefficients, shown in
the order of descending importance in Table
III-2, have the greatest impact on the overall
evaluation of Performance Evaluation Program.
12
No. Item
Beta
Sig
C11 Performance affects my pay
0.20
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.32
0.00
0.87
-0.02
0.33
C6
Good
Poor
Table III-2: Performance Evaluation Program
Performance reviews help me
know how to improve
C10 Recognized by my department
Performance reviews help me
know how I am doing
Clear understanding of
C3
performance
Have the opportunity to provide
C7
input in review
Know what I need to achieve
C4
high performance
C5
C1 Know what is expected of me
C2
Receive regular feedback on
performance
Dependent variable is C13, overall rating of performance evaluation
program [Adjusted R Square = .414, n =2,193]
The question having the greatest impact on the
overall rating of the evaluation program with a
beta coefficient of .20 is whether performance
makes a difference in an employee’s pay. The
next most important factor with a beta
coefficient of .18 is the issue of performance
reviews helping an employee improve in his or
her job. Other important factors include whether
performance reviews help employees know how
they are doing on their job and whether their
department recognizes them.
Demographic Analysis
The overall rating for performance planning
varied significantly by gender, annual pay rate,
length of current period of salaried employment
with the University of Virginia, the state leave
and disability plan the employee is enrolled in,
and by whether or not the employee signs
performance evaluations as a reviewer. On the
five point scale, female employees gave a
significantly higher overall rating for
performance planning (2.57) as compared to
male employees (2.46). Employees with an
annual pay of $50,000 or less (2.55) also gave a
significantly higher mean rating than employees
with an annual pay of $50,100 to $75,000 (2.42).
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Employees with an annual pay of $75,100 or
more gave a mean rating of 2.52. Employees
who have been on a continuous salaried
employment with UVa for a period of 2 years or
less (2.64) gave higher ratings than employees
with a 7-11 years (2.43) and 12-21 years (2.45)
of employment with UVa. The results also show
that employees with a Virginia sickness and
disability program were more likely to give
higher ratings for performance planning (2.54)
as compared to employees with a State
traditional sick leave plan accrual plan (2.42). In
addition, employees who sign performance
evaluations as a reviewer gave significantly
higher mean rating (2.62) than were their
counterparts (2.49).
As with performance planning, overall rating for
performance evaluation varied significantly by
gender, the state leave and disability plan the
employee is enrolled in, whether or not the
employee signs performance evaluations as a
reviewer, and by the length of continuous
salaried employment with UVa.
Female
employees (2.45), employees with Virginia
sickness and disability program (2.43), and
employees who sign performance evaluations as
reviewers (2.50) gave significantly higher mean
ratings than male employees (2.36), employees
with State traditional sick leave accrual plan
(2.28), and employees who do not sign
performance evaluations as reviewers (2.37).
Employees with a period of 2 years or less of
continuous employment with UVa (2.58) were
more likely to give higher mean rating as
compared to those employees with 3-6 years
(2.32), 12-21 years (2.30), and 22 years or more
(2.35) of continuous employment with UVa. In
addition, short-tenured employees (less than 2
years) gave significantly higher mean rating
(2.62) as compared to those employees with a
length of employment of 2-7 years (2.41), 8-15
years (2.34), or more than 15 years (2.38).
Summary
Overall, the Performance Planning Program and
the Performance Evaluation Program are viewed
as only fair by the staff and staff supervisors
who responded to the survey. For the planning
program, employees gave satisfactory ratings for
evaluations that help identify skills needed to be
effective and advance on the job.
Center for Survey Research
For the evaluation program, employees know
what is expected of them and they indicate that
they have the opportunity to provide input into
their performance goals. They are concerned,
however, about how to improve on their job and
that performance reviews are not providing
sufficient help for them to improve. A more
important concern that has a strong impact on
the overall rating of the performance evaluation
program is employees not seeing a strong link
between performance and pay.
Staff and staff supervisor generally agree on the
planning and evaluation issues. When there is a
significant difference in ratings, staff supervisors
have a more favorable view of the programs
suggesting
that
providing
performance
evaluations works better than receiving them.
Part D: Relative Importance of
Performance Evaluation Factors
(Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff)
In the Relative Importance of Performance
Evaluation section of the questionnaire, staff and
staff supervisors were asked similar items that
were presented in Part C.
In this section, however, respondents were asked
to rate how important each of the factors should
be in performance planning and performance
evaluation systems. The respondents rated the
topics on a four-point scale where 4 is “Very
Important” and 1 is “Not Important.” Table III-3
presents a list of the factors ordered by their
means.
Knowing what is expected of any employee and
having clear goals and objectives received the
highest importance ratings of 3.67 and 3.62,
respectively. The lowest rating, 3.18, was
received for having the university recognize an
employee’s contributions. In contrast, having an
employee’s department recognize his or her
contributions received a higher rating of 3.40.
Other than the university recognition rating, the
importance ratings were in a narrow range of
3.69 to 3.40, indicating a high degree of
importance for the factors in this section.
Comparative mean ratings for staff and staff
supervisors are presented in Table D-3 of
Appendix D. One factor, “Helping me identify
what skills I need to advance,” was rated
significantly more important by staff than by
13
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
staff supervisors. There were no other significant
differences in the ratings between the two
groups.
Table III-3: Factors that should be important
in Performance Evaluations
Ordered Means
No.
Item
Total
D1
Know what is expected of me
3.67
D2
D9
D5
D4
D8
D7
D3
D6
D10
D11
Receive clear goals and
objectives
Supervisor recognizes my
contribution
Know how well I am doing
Know what it takes to get high
ratings
Clear understanding of
evaluation
Helps me identify skills I need
to advance
Receive regular feedback on
performance
Helps me identify skills I need
to develop
Department recognizes my
contribution
University recognizes my
contribution
3.62
3.55
3.52
3.49
3.47
3.43
3.42
3.42
3.40
3.18
Open Ends
At the end of Part D, respondents were given the
opportunity to write additional comments about
factors that should be used in determining an
employee’s performance. Nearly 30 percent of
the 1,738 comments received refer to work
performance, such as, ability to solve problems,
completing tasks and getting work done on time.
The next highest number of mentions (24.1%)
refers to employee attitudes. Examples include
being a team player, getting along with fellow
employees, being constructive, and willingness
to collaborate with others. The third area that
received a considerable number of mentions
(12%) was about knowledge and skills.
Comments include references to academic
achievements,
training
and
professional
development.
Other
comments
include
references to attendance, and communication.
14
Demographic Analysis
On the four-point importance scale, ratings of
the performance evaluation factors varied
significantly by gender, race, education, the state
leave and disability plan, annual pay, and the
length of current period of continuous salaried
employment with the university of Virginia.
Overall, female employees were more likely to
give significantly higher mean ratings to the
performance evaluation factors as compared to
male employees. For example, females (mean
rating of 3.75) were more likely to say they
know what’s expected of them as compared to
males (3.54). With respect to race, black
employees (3.59) were more likely to say that
the factor “helping them to identify what skills
they need to develop” was very important as
compared to white employees (3.42). On the
rest of the factors, the results show no significant
differences with respect to race.
With respect to education, employees with a
high school education or less and employees
with some college were more likely to rate the
performance evaluation factors as very
important compared to employees with a 4-year
college degree, a graduate, or professional
degree. In addition, employees with a Virginia
sickness and disability program gave high
importance mean ratings to the factors
“receiving clear goals and objectives” (3.66),
“receiving regular feedback on performance”
(3.46), and “know well what I am doing” (3.55)
than employees with the State traditional sick
leave accrual plan (3.57, 3.36, and 3.48
respectively). As with the overall rating of
performance planning, employees with an
annual pay of $50,000 or less (3.27) were more
likely to give higher importance mean ratings as
compared to employees with an annual pay of
$50,100 to $75,000 (2.98) and $75,100 or more
(2.82). While employees with a continuous
employment period of 2 years or less and 3-6
years with the University of Virginia were more
likely to rate more important the factors “know
what is expected of me” and “receive clear goals
and objectives,” employees with longer
continuous salaried employment were more
likely to give significantly higher mean ratings
to the factors “department recognizes my
contribution,” and “university recognizes my
contribution.”
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Summary
General agreement was found among the staff
and staff supervisors that all of the issues
presented in this section are important for the
Performance
Planning
Programs
and
Performance Evaluation Programs. Respondents
indicated that having clear goals and objectives
and knowing what is expected of an employee
are the most important factors. Recognition by
an employee’s department apparently carries
more weight than recognition by the university.
Table III-4:
System
Performance
Management
Ordered Means
No.
Item
Total
E1
Helps in setting expectations
3.42
E7
Helps identify skills to be
effective
3.32
E8
Helps identify development
needs
3.31
E2
Helps in assessing performance
3.29
E6
Helps me give clear feedback
3.29
E10
Standards of conduct helps
address problems
3.27
E9
Provides tools to address
performance
2.98
(Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff and
Staff Supervisors)
E3
Encourages achievement
2.81
In Part E, Performance Management System,
staff supervisors and faculty supervisors of staff
were asked to evaluate the performance
management system from their point of view.
Statements representing ten different aspects of
the program were presented and the respondents
were asked to indicate the degree to which they
agree or disagree with the statements using a
five-point “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree” scale. Table III-4 presents the list of
statements ordered by their mean level of
agreement. Higher ratings are more favorable.
E5
Helps in motivating employees
2.65
E4
Three point scale distinguishes
levels
2.38
In the open-end comments, respondents placed a
great deal weight on the ability to solve
problems, completing tasks, and being a team
player.
Part E: Performance
Management System
Six of the ten statements received ratings above
3.0, which puts them in a satisfactory category.
The ability to set and communicate expectations
received the highest rating of 3.44. Four of the
statements received ratings below 3.0,
suggesting that supervisors find these aspects of
the planning and evaluation program less than
satisfactory. The lowest rating, 2.38, was given
for the three-point rating scale currently used to
distinguish various levels of performance.
Supervisors are apparently concerned about the
effectiveness of this scale which allows them to
rate
an
employee’s
performance
as
“extraordinary contributor,” “contributor,” or
“below contributor.”
Center for Survey Research
Comparative means for staff supervisors and
faculty supervisors of staff are presented in
Appendix D, Table D-4. A significant difference
is found between the two groups for seven of the
statements, with staff supervisors giving higher
ratings than faculty. Staff supervisors, tending to
be more fulltime supervisors than faculty, may
be more familiar with the performance
management system and better able to get the
result they desire.
Demographic Analysis
The Performance Management questions were
asked of staff supervisors and faculty
supervisors of staff and did not include an
overall evaluation item. Salaried staff
supervisors were more likely to rate
performance management higher than faculty
supervisors of staff. On a five-point scale, staff
supervisors’
ratings
for
performance
management reflect support in areas such as
“helps in setting expectations” (3.47), “helps in
assessing performance” (3.35), “helps identify
skills to be effective” (3.40), and “helps identify
development needs” (3.37). These ratings were
15
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
significantly higher than ratings by faculty
supervisors of staff (3.34, 3.22, 3.21, and 3.24
respectively). Further, administrative and
professional faculty gave higher ratings than
teaching and research faculty.
Supervisors who said they provide input into
performance evaluations rated performance
evaluations significantly higher (2.66 to 3.33)
than supervisors who do not provide input (1.97
to 2.71). In seven out of ten of the ratings, male
supervisors were more likely to give higher
ratings (2.76 to 3.54). Supervisors with “some
college” gave higher ratings than supervisors
with 4-year college degrees and graduate or
professional degrees. Mean ratings from
supervisors with higher levels of education rated
performance management somewhat lower.
Length of employment was not a significant
factor in rating performance management.
However, blacks were more likely to say that
performance management “helps in motivating
employees” and “standards of conduct help
address problems.”
Summary
Supervisors gave the highest performance
management ratings to factors that help with
assessment, such as, identify skills, identify
development needs, and assessing performance.
The lower ratings are more about motivating
employees including encouraging achievement,
tools to address performance, and the three-point
scale.
The three-point rating scale appears to be a
major concern for supervisors, suggesting that
they do not find it to be an effective
management tool. There is also concern about
the system not being helpful for motivating
employees toward excellent performance.
There is considerable agreement about the
performance management system between staff
supervisors and faculty supervisors of staff.
When a significant difference exists, however,
staff supervisors tend to have a more favorable
opinion than faculty.
16
Part F: Your Compensation
(Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff)
In Part F, Compensation, staff and staff
supervisors were asked to rate twelve statements
about their pay. A five-point scale anchored by
“Strongly Agree” and “Strongly Disagree” was
used to record their responses. An additional
question asked for their overall rating of the
university’s compensation program. For this
question, their responses were recorded on a
five-point scale anchored by excellent and poor.
For both scales, higher ratings indicate more
favorable outcomes.
Less than half (46.1%) of the respondents gave
satisfactory ratings of “Excellent,” “Very
Good,” or “Good” for the university’s
compensation program. See (Figure III-3). The
overall mean rating for the compensation
program is 2.39, well below the mid-point of a
five-point scale. See Table C-13 in Appendix C
for a list of frequencies and means for this
section.
The highest mean rating in this section, 4.38,
was for an interest in working in a place that
provides an opportunity to get pay increase
based on performance. The second highest
rating, 3.60, indicates a willingness by
respondents to participate in a system that
resulted in lower performers being paid less than
the state increase. These results indicate
widespread
support
for
moving
the
compensation system closer to a pay-forperformance model.
Seven of the remaining ratings were below the
scale mid-point of 3.0. The lowest rating, 2.09,
indicates that the respondents disagree with the
statement, “I do not have to change jobs within
the university to get a meaningful pay increase.”
Another low rating, 2.12, indicates disagreement
with the statement that respondents pay level is
comparable with other employees in similar jobs
outside of the university.
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Figure III-3: Overall Rating of Compensation
Excellent
1.4%
Very good
Table III-5: Your Compensation
No.
F4
11.2%
F10
Good
33.5%
F6
Fair
33.4%
Poor
20.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
F1
F3
40%
Derived Importance
Table III-5 lists the derived importance of the
twelve factors in the compensation section. The
derived importance was determined by
regressing the overall evaluation of the
compensation
system
on
the
twelve
compensation items. The item having the
greatest influence on the overall evaluation of
the university’s compensation program is F4, the
effectiveness of the university’s policies and
procedures for determining staff pay. Other
items that impact the overall evaluation include
pay is comparable to pay outside the university
(F10), have to go outside the university to get a
meaningful pay increase (F6), and paid
appropriately when started (F1). The last six
items listed in the table had no significant effect
on the overall evaluation of compensation once
the other items were taken into account.
F9
F5
F7
F11
F12
F8
F2
Ordered Means
Item
Current policies for
determining pay effective
Pay is comparable to
others outside University
Do not have to go outside
University to get increase
Paid appropriately when
started
Pay increased with
responsibility
Pay is comparable to
others in University
Do not have to change
jobs to get increase
Know where to get
answers about pay
Opportunities for pay
increases based on
performance
Pay less than state for low
performance
Supervisor can provide
input into my pay
Understand how pay is
determined
Beta
Sig
0.30
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.09
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.25
0.02
0.26
0.02
0.33
0.02
0.49
Dependent variable is F13, overall rating of compensation
[Adjusted R Square = .434, n = 1,652]
Demographic Analysis
The overall ratings of the University
compensation were not significantly different
between staff and staff supervisors; however on
five of the statements, salaried staff supervisors
were more likely to give higher ratings to the
statements that “I understand how pay is
determined” (3.15), “pay increased with
responsibility” (2.88), “I know where to get
answers about pay” (3.32), “the supervisor can
provide input into staff pay” (3.42), and the
strongest rating
“pay should be less for
employees with low performance” (3.82)
compared to salaried staff (2.99, 2.72, 3.07,
3.25, and 3.51 respectively).
Employees who have been employed for 2 years
or less rated overall compensation higher (2.61)
than employees who have been employed 2 to 7
Center for Survey Research
17
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
years (2.36), 8 to 15 years (2.30), and more than
15 years (2.41). For those with a high school
education or less, mean ratings of compensation
were higher (2.51) than mean ratings of those
with college, graduate, or professional degrees
(2.44, 2.36, and 2.29 respectively).
While there was no significant difference in the
overall rating of compensation by race and
gender, on a five-point scale females rated the
following statements higher than males: “I do
not have to take a job outside of the University
to get a meaningful pay increase” (2.40), “I
know where to get answers about my pay”
(3.20), and “My pay level is comparable with
employees in similar jobs outside of the
University” (2.19). Males gave higher ratings to
the statement that pay is comparable to others in
the University (2.83). Blacks were more likely to
agree with compensation statements.
or disagree with the statements using a fivepoint scale anchored by “Strongly Agree” and
“Strongly Disagree.” Higher ratings indicate
greater agreement with the statements.
The mean ratings range from 4.39 to 2.22 as
shown in Table III-6. The highest mean, 4.39, is
for item G10, which indicates very strong
support for a compensation program that would
allow recommendations for pay increases based
on employee performance. There was agreement
from 92.6 percent of supervisors to this
statement, with only 1.4 percent disagreeing (see
table C-15 in Appendix C). The next highest
mean, 3.07, is for item G6, which suggests that
supervisors are somewhat comfortable with
answering employees’ questions about how their
pay is determined.
Table III-6: Staff Compensation System
Summary
The low overall rating for the university’s
compensation program is largely due to
respondents’ evaluation of the university’s
current policies and procedures for determining
staff pay. The evaluation of this area received a
low rating of 2.34 and is the most important
issue in this section, as determined by the
derived importance analysis. Respondents
appear concerned about the comparability of
their pay with similar jobs outside of the
university. This issue not only received a low
rating (2.12), it is second highest in importance.
Respondents also tend to believe that it is
necessary to change jobs within the university to
get a meaningful pay increase. The issue,
however, is apparently not a serious concern to
them as it is in seventh place in derived
importance, and is not significant once the other
items are taken into account.
Part G: Staff Compensation
System
Ordered Means
No.
G10
Item
Would support increases based
on performance
Total
4.39
G6
Can answer employees questions
about pay
3.07
G5
Have input in employees pay
2.86
G8
Able to compensate comparable
to other dept
2.74
G3
Department funding effective in
attracting
2.69
G7
Able to reward employees
through pay
2.68
G1
Compensation effective in
attracting and hiring
2.66
G4
Department funding effective in
motivating
2.60
G2
Compensation effective in
motivating and retaining
2.39
G9
Able to compensate comparable
to outside University
2.22
(Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff and
Staff Supervisors)
Staff supervisors and faculty supervisors of staff
were presented with the questions in Part G,
Staff Compensation System. This section
consists of ten statements about the university’s
compensation program. The respondents were
asked to indicate the degree to which they agree
18
Item G9 received the lowest mean rating in this
section, indicating that supervisors have not
been able to provide compensation that is
comparable to organizations outside of the
university.
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Eight of the ten ratings in this section fall below
the 3.0 mid-point on a five-point scale. The low
ratings indicate a certain amount of
disagreement with the statements about the
compensation system including a concern about
the compensation system being effective in
motivating and retaining employees, and
supervisors being able to reward employees
through their pay.
employees through pay” than those employed
less than 2 years. Respondents with a graduate
or professional degree were more likely to
indicate they have input in employees pay (3.02)
and reward employees through pay (2.8) than
those with only some college (2.55 and 2.51
respectively).
Faculty supervisors of staff are more
comfortable with their ability to compensate
staff than are staff supervisors. Faculty have a
higher degree of agreement than staff
supervisors with their ability to have input in
employees pay and their ability to reward
employees through pay. See Table D-6 in
Appendix D for a list of comparative means.
Female ratings of compensation as being
effective in attracting and hiring and in
motivating and retaining employees were higher
(2.82 and 2.48 respectively) than those of males
(2.56 and 2.34 respectively). Race was not a
significant factor in supervisors’ perspective on
staff compensation except that blacks gave a
higher rating (2.93) for “compensation is
effective in attracting and hiring employees”
than whites (2.64).
Demographic Analysis
Summary
All supervisors of staff were asked to evaluate
their perception of the compensation program
for staff. Mean ratings from faculty supervisors
of staff were higher for the statements, “have
input in employees pay” (3.08), “able to reward
employees through pay” (2.85), “able to
compensate comparable to other departments”
(2.86), and “able to compensate comparable to
outside the University” (2.35). Salaried staff
supervisors, on the other hand, were more likely
to say that compensation is effective in attracting
and hiring employees (2.76).
Eight of the ten ratings for the university’s
compensation system given by faculty and staff
supervisors are below the 3.0 mid-point on a
five-point scale. This indicates a certain amount
of disagreement with the program. The ratings
also suggest that supervisors do not find the
compensation system helpful in motivating,
retaining, or rewarding employees. The one high
rating received in this section addressed support
for pay increases based on performance and was
not about current compensation policies.
Supervisors who provide input into performance
evaluations were significantly more likely to say
they can answer employees’ questions about pay
(3.10) and are able to reward employees through
pay (2.70). Those who indicated that they sign
performance evaluations as a supervisor also
indicated that they are able to compensate
comparable to other departments (2.76) and can
compensate comparable to similar positions
outside the University (2.26). Mean ratings from
supervisors who indicated that they sign
performance evaluations as a reviewer indicated
they are “able to compensate comparable to
outside the University (2.41), “have input in
employees pay” (3.13), and are “able to reward
employees through pay” (2.88).
Supervisors who have been employed with the
University for more than 8 years were more
likely to indicate they “can answer employee
questions about pay” and “are able to reward
Center for Survey Research
Part H: Relative Importance of
Factors Determining a Staff
Employee’s Pay
(Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff, Staff
Supervisors, and Staff)
All respondents, staff, staff supervisors, and
faculty supervisors of staff were asked to rate
the current importance of eleven factors that are
used to determine an employees pay. The ratings
were made on a four-point scale anchored by
“Very Important” and “Not Important.” Higher
ratings indicate greater importance.
Table III-7 lists the eleven factors in order by
their mean current importance ratings. The
highest rating, 3.11, was received by factor H3,
skills and abilities. This factor was closely
followed by H4, duties and responsibilities
(3.10) and H5, performance (3.10). The factors
19
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
receiving the two lowest importance ratings are
pay history (2.58) and external equity (2.56).
Table III-7: Staff Employee's Pay – Current
Importance
Ordered Means
No.
Item
Total
H3
Skills and Abilities
3.11
H4
Duties and Responsibilities
3.10
H5
Performance
3.10
H2
Experience
3.04
H1
Education and Training
2.97
H6
Department Equity
2.88
H7
University Equity
2.83
H11
Length of Service
2.76
H8
External Equity - Local
2.69
H10
Pay History
2.59
H9
External Equity Regional/National
2.58
Table D-7 in Appendix D contains a list of
current importance mean ratings that are divided
by the three employee categories. Staff
supervisors gave higher importance ratings than
faculty to all of the twelve factors. Staff
supervisors placed more importance on
education and training, experience, skills, and
performance than staff. Staff rated length of
service higher than staff supervisors.
Demographic Analysis
Performance, equity, length of service and pay
history were consistently rated higher than other
factors across all demographics as being the
current factors for determining pay. Mean
ratings for salaried staff supervisors were higher
than staff and faculty supervisors of staff in
education and training (3.06), performance
(3.21), department equity (2.96), University
equity (2.85), external equity-local (2.74), and
external
equity-regional/national
(2.64).
20
Employees with annual salaries of $50,000 or
less also had significantly higher mean ratings
on performance (3.17), department equity (2.94),
university equity (2.91), external equity-local
(2.78), and external equity-regional/national
(2.70) than those with an annual pay over
$50,000. They also had significantly higher
mean ratings on education and training and
duties and responsibilities.
On the other hand, salaried staff were more
likely to give higher ratings to pay history and
length of service (2.62 and 2.82 respectively)
than faculty supervisors of staff (2.38 and 2.49
respectively). Supervisors who provide input
into performance evaluations, sign performance
evaluations as a supervisor, or sign performance
evaluations as a reviewer were significantly less
likely to say that pay history and length of
service are current factors in determining pay
than those who do not.
Of the eleven factors being rated, females were
significantly more likely than males to say that
duties and responsibilities, performance,
department and university equity, and length of
service were important factors in determining
pay. Blacks were more likely to perceive that
pay is currently determined by these factors.
Open Ends
At the end of this section, respondents were
provided with the opportunity to write in
comments about factors that they believe to be
important in determining a staff employee’s pay.
The respondents provided 1,090 comments.
Two categories received one-fifth of the
comments each: attitude and pay determinants.
Attitude includes issues about getting along with
co-workers, dependability, dedication, and
pursuing opportunities. Pursuing opportunities is
further described by comments that refer to
being involved in innovations, improving skills
and being eager to learn. Pay determinants is
about arbitrary mandates or increases, internal
equity, similar positions should have similar pay
criteria, and pay should be equivalent to the
private sector.
Summary
The respondents as a group rate skills, abilities,
duties, responsibilities and performance as the
most important determinants of a staff
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
employee’s pay. Staff supervisors, however,
place a higher degree of importance on these
factors than do faculty and staff. Staff
emphasizes the importance of university equity,
pay history, length of service. Open-end
comments tend to focus on dependability,
pursuing opportunities and internal equity.
Part I: Relative Importance of
Pay Determinants
(Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff, Staff
Supervisors, and Staff)
Table III-8: Pay Determinants
Ordered Means
No.
Item
Total
I5
Performance
3.69
I3
Skills and Abilities
3.52
I4
Duties and Responsibilities
3.45
I2
Experience
3.43
I1
Education and Training
3.22
I8
External Equity - local
3.11
I6
Department Equity
3.09
I7
University Equity
3.05
I9
External Equity Regional/National
2.98
I11
Length of Service
2.83
I10
Pay History
2.55
Respondents were presented with the same list
of factors that were rated in the previous section,
Part H. In this section the respondents were
asked to rate the factors on how important they
believe they should be in determining an
employee’s pay level. The ratings were made on
a four-point scale anchored by “Very Important”
and “Not Important.” Higher ratings indicate
greater importance.
Table III-8 lists the eleven factors that determine
pay by importance according to their mean
ratings.
The five top importance ratings in the previous
section remain as the top five ratings in this
section, although rearranged and with higher
importance ratings. Performance rose from third
Center for Survey Research
place in the previous section to first place in
importance with a rating of 3.69, an increase
from 3.10. Skills and abilities dropped to second
place from first place, although the importance
rating increased from 3.11 to 3.52. The factors
that round out the top positions are: duties and
responsibilities; experience and education; and
training. All of these factors received substantial
increases in importance ratings over the previous
section, indicating that respondents think these
should be more important than they are thought
to be in the current system.
Pay history, length of service, external equity,
and university equity remain relatively low in
importance.
The respondent categories of staff, staff
supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff
present interesting and significant differences in
importance ratings. Table D-8 in Appendix D
lists the importance ratings for each category.
Faculty supervisors of staff gave higher
importance ratings than both staff supervisors
and staff for skills and abilities, and
performance. Staff supervisors gave higher
importance ratings than faculty to the remaining
factors except for education and training. Staff
placed somewhat greater emphasis on external
equity, pay history, and length of service.
Demographic Analysis
Employees rated how important they think these
factors “should be” in determining pay. There
were significant differences between staff, staff
supervisors, and faculty supervisors of staff.
Faculty supervisors rated “skills and abilities”
and “performance” higher than staff and staff
supervisors (3.59 and 3.82 respectively). Staff
rated “university equity” (3.08), “external
equity-local”
(3.13),
“external
equityregional/national” (3.05), “pay history” (2.65),
and “length of service” (2.96) as being more
important.
Employees with more than 15 years of
employment at the University rated “department
equity” (3.18), “university equity” (3.12), “pay
history” (2.67), and “length of service” (3.12) as
being more important factors in determining pay
than other factors compared to those who have
been employed by the University for less than
15 years. Those employed less than 2 years were
more likely to rate education and training as
21
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
being a more important factor (3.3) than those
who have been employed longer.
Respondents with graduate or professional
degrees say “education and training” (3.29),
“skills and abilities” (3.59), and “performance”
(3.77) should be more important in determining
pay; while those with some college or less say
university equity and department equity should
be more important. Those who provide input
into performance evaluations indicated that
performance should be the most important (3.75)
and those who do not provide input said that
equity, pay history and length of service should
be the most important factors.
Out of the eleven factors being rated, females
gave significantly higher ratings than males on
eight (2.6 to 3.73). Performance (3.73) was the
highest rated factor among females, and pay
history was the lowest (2.6). With regard to race,
blacks rated education and training (3.39),
department equity (3.35), university equity (3.3),
external equity-regional/national (3.18), pay
history (3.08), and length of service (3.19) as
being the factors that should determine pay.
Whites were more likely than blacks to say that
skills and abilities (3.54) and performance (3.72)
should be the most important.
Open Ends
As in the previous section, respondents were
able to comment about what they believe should
be important factors in determining an
employee’s pay level. Respondents provided
601 comments.
The greatest number of mentions was in the
category of ability and skills. This category
accounted for 33.6 percent of the comments.
Items mentioned in this area include ability to
accomplish projects, ability to learn new tasks
quickly and easily, adaptability, and ability to
communicate well with all people involved in a
project.
The next largest category, with 19.6 percent of
the mentions, is attitude. Typical mentions in
this area included being a team player, being
supportive of the department and co-workers,
and showing dedication.
Summary
The same five factors that are thought to be
important in the current determination of staff
22
employee’s pay are rated as important for factors
that should be used. A major difference is the
emphasis—importance ratings for factors that
should be used are substantially higher. This
suggests that the currently used criteria for pay
determination are seen as good, but are not
applied to the degree that they should be.
Faculty supervisors of staff emphasize skills and
abilities, and performance as the important
determinants for staff employee’s pay. For staff
supervisors,
experience,
duties
and
responsibilities, and department equity are the
important determinants. Staff respondents tend
to agree with staff supervisors, but place more
emphasis on external equity, pay history, and
length service.
The
open-end
comments
performance and cooperation.
emphasize
Part J: Employee Leave
Benefits
(Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff)
Staff and staff supervisors were asked to
evaluate four statements about their leave
benefits. A definition box was available that
defined precisely what is covered by leave
benefits. Respondents were asked to indicate the
degree to which they agree or disagree with each
of the statements by responding on a five-point
scale anchored by “Strongly Agree” and
“Strongly Disagree.” Higher rating numbers
indicate greater agreement. A fifth question was
an overall rating of the state’s leave benefits.
Respondents were asked to make their ratings on
a five-point scale anchored by “Excellent” and
“Poor.” Higher ratings indicate better overall
ratings.
Figure III-4 illustrates how participants rated the
state’s leave benefits. Ninety percent (90.3%)
gave “Excellent,” “Very good,” or “Good”
ratings to the state’s leave benefits. Eight
percent (8.6%) gave a “Fair” rating and 1.0
percent gave a “Poor” rating. On the scale from
1 to 5, the mean rating for the overall rating of
the state’s leave benefits is a favorable 3.74.
Refer to Table C-19 in Appendix C for a
complete distribution of responses for this item.
.
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Figure III-4: Overall Rating of the State’s
Leave Benefits
Demographic Analysis
22.2%
Excellent
Very good
40.3%
27.8%
Good
8.6%
Fair
Poor
1.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Table D-9 in Appendix D lists the mean ratings
for the statements and lists the mean ratings for
staff supervisors and staff separately. All of the
ratings were above the 3.0 mid-point on a fivepoint scale, indicated substantial agreement with
the statements. The highest rating, 3.86, was
received for the relative competitiveness of the
state benefits with organizations outside of the
university. The lowest rating, 3.76, was for the
flexibility of the leave benefits. Staff supervisors
tend to be in more agreement with the
statements than staff.
Table III-9 lists the derived importance of the
four statements in this section as determined by
multiple-regression analysis.
Table III-9: Employee Leave Benefits
No.
J4
J2
J3
J1
Derived Importance
Item
State paid leave benefits
are competitive
State paid leave benefits
meet my needs
State paid leave benefits
are flexible
State paid leave policies
are easy to understand
Beta
Sig
0.36
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.11
0.00
Dependent variable is J5, overall rating of employee leave benefits
[Adjusted R Square = .618, n = 1,860]
All four statements have a significant impact on
the overall rating of the employee leave benefits.
The item having the greatest influence, however,
is the competitiveness of the state benefits
relative to organizations outside of the
Center for Survey Research
university. The lowest influence is offered by
the ease of understanding the state’s leave
policies.
On the overall rating of the state’s leave
benefits, there were only three demographic
groups who significantly differed. Employees
who have been employed by the University for
more than 12 years were more likely to give
higher ratings on the state’s leave benefits.
Those with more than 15 years were the highest
with a mean rating of 3.91. The lowest mean
rating (3.62) was given by those employed less
than 2 years. Staff supervisors gave higher
ratings on leave benefits (3.84) compared to
salaried staff (3.71).
With regard to race, whites gave higher mean
ratings on the state’s leave benefits (3.81) than
blacks (3.62) or others (3.54). While all the
mean ratings of the state’s leave benefits were
above average, employees with a high school
education or less were more likely than college
graduates to indicate that the state’s leave
benefits are easy to understand (3.99) and
flexible (3.85). Staff supervisors also indicate
that the state’s leave benefits are competitive
(3.95).
Summary
Overall, the university’s leave benefits were
given very high ratings. Staff and staff
supervisors both agree that state benefits are
competitive, meet employee needs, are
sufficiently flexible, and are understandable.
Staff supervisors tend to agree with these
statements somewhat more than staff.
Part K: Staff Leave BenefitsSupervisors’ Views
(Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff and
Staff Supervisors)
Faculty supervisors of staff and staff supervisors
were asked to evaluate five statements about
staff leave benefits from the perspective of a
supervisor. A definition box was available that
defined precisely what is covered by leave
benefits. Respondents were asked to indicate the
degree to which they agree or disagree with each
of the statements by responding on a five-point
scale anchored by “Strongly Agree” and
23
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
“Strongly Disagree.” Higher ratings indicate
greater agreement. A sixth question was an
overall rating of the state’s leave benefits for
staff. Respondents were asked to make their
ratings on a five-point scale anchored by
“Excellent” and “Poor.” Higher ratings indicate
better overall ratings.
Table D-10 in Appendix D lists the mean ratings
for the statements and lists the mean ratings for
faculty supervisors of staff and staff supervisors
separately.
All of the ratings are above the 3.0 mid-point on
a five-point scale, indicating substantial
agreement with the statements. The highest
rating, 3.87, was received for the relative
competitiveness of the state benefits with
organizations outside of the university. The
lowest rating, 3.53, was for the ease of
understanding the state’s policies. Staff
supervisors are in more agreement with all of the
statements than faculty.
Table III-10 lists the derived importance of the
five factors in this section as determined by
multiple-regression analysis.
Demographic Analysis
After rating the state’s leave benefits from an
individual perspective, supervisors were asked
to rate leave benefits with regard to the staff they
supervise. On the overall rating, there were no
significant differences across demographic
groups. Staff supervisors were more likely to
rate leave benefits higher than faculty
supervisors of staff. Staff supervisors agreed that
“state paid leave policies are easy to understand”
(3.7), “meet the needs of staff in their
department” (3.89), “meet the needs of
employees” (3.92), “are flexible” (3.8), and “are
competitive” (3.95).
Employees with some college (3.94) or a 4-year
college degree (3.79) gave significantly higher
ratings for “the state’s paid leave benefits meet
the needs of their department.” Employees with
less than a college degree gave significantly
higher ratings for the statement that “the state’s
leave benefits meet the needs of employees”
(4.04). Females gave higher rating for
competitive leave benefits (3.99) compared to
males who found benefits to be fairly
competitive (3.81).
Summary
Table III-10: Staff Leave Benefits
No.
K5
K4
K3
K1
K2
Derived Importance
Item
State paid leave benefits
are competitive
State paid leave benefits
are flexible
State paid leave benefits
meet needs of employees
State paid leave policies
are easy to understand
State paid leave benefits
meet needs of department
Beta
Sig
0.42
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.38
Dependent variable is K6, overall rating of staff leave benefits
[Adjusted R Square = .600, n = 634]
Four of the five statements have a significant
impact on the supervisors’ overall rating of the
staff leave benefits. The item having the greatest
influence, as in the previous section, is the
competitiveness of the state benefits relative to
organizations outside of the university. The
lowest influence is attributed to leave benefits
meeting the needs of the department.
24
Faculty supervisors of staff and staff supervisors
both agree that state benefits are competitive,
meet employee needs, are sufficiently flexible,
and are understandable. Staff supervisors agree
with these statements somewhat more than
faculty. The greatest concern expressed by the
respondents is about the ease of understanding
the State paid leave policies.
Part L: Relative Importance of
Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for
You
(Respondents: Staff Supervisors and Staff)
In Part L of the questionnaire staff supervisors
and staff were asked to rate thirteen factors
relating to pay, benefits, and work life on the
importance they have for the respondents’
continued employment with the university. Their
responses were recorded on a four-point scale
anchored by “Very Important” and “Not
Important.” Higher ratings reflect higher
importance. The respondents were also asked to
rate two overall questions about how important
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
the factors in this section were to their decision
to accept employment with the university and
how important the factors are in their decision to
continue their employment with the university.
Their responses were recorded on the same fourpoint importance scale.
Figure III-5 graphically shows the response
percentages to the overall questions. A large
majority of the respondents (87.1%) indicated
that the listed factors in this section were very
important or important in their decision for
accepting employment with the university. An
even larger percentage (92.8%) indicated that
these factors are important for their decision for
continuing with the university.
Figure III-5: Overall Factor Importance for
Accepting Employment and Continuing With
the University
55.7%
Very
Important
48.3%
37.1%
Important
38.8%
6.4%
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important
10.6%
0.8%
rating of 2.97 and supporting the vision and
mission with a rating of 2.98.
Staff supervisors and staff generally agree on the
importance of all of the factors in this section
with two exceptions. The Virginia retirement
benefits are more important to staff supervisors
than to staff, and tuition benefits are more
important to staff than to staff supervisors.
These differences may be attributable to
differences in age between supervisors and staff.
Derived Importance
The two overall questions in Part L provide the
opportunity to conduct two derived importance
analyses: importance of factors in accepting
employment with the university and importance
of factors in continuing employment with the
university.
The first analysis addresses the importance of
the factors in Part L in accepting employment
with the university. Item L14 was regressed on
the 13 factors to determine how important the
factors were in the respondent’s decision to
accept employment with the university. Nine of
the 13 factors have a statistically significant
impact on the decision to accept employment
with the university as illustrated in Table III-11.
The relative importance of the relationship of the
factors to the overall variable is measured by the
beta coefficient and the significance level.
2.3%
0%
20%
Accept
40%
Remain
60%
Table D-11 in Appendix D lists the mean ratings
for the factors in this section and separates the
staff supervisors and staff ratings. In general, the
ratings show a high degree of importance for all
of the factors listed. The highest importance
rating, 3.76, was attributed to the importance of
health insurance. The next highest rating, 3.61,
was for the importance of the Virginia
retirement benefits.
Tuition benefits received an importance rating of
2.94. While this was the lowest rating of the
section, the rating is high enough to suggest that
respondents place a fair amount of importance
on this benefit. The same comment is true for
two other factors that received relatively low
ratings: the reputation of the university with a
Center for Survey Research
25
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Table III-11: Relative Importance of Pay
Benefits, and Work Life for You
Table III-12: Relative Importance of Pay,
Benefits, and Work Life for You
Accepting Employment with the University
Derived Importance
Derived Importance
No. Item
Beta
Sig
L11 Supervisor relationships
0.19
0.00
L1 Leave benefits
0.13
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.07
0.00
No. Item
Beta
Sig
L1
0.15
0.00
L13 Tuition benefits
0.12
0.00
L11 Supervisor relationships
0.12
0.00
L8 Job security
L8
0.10
0.00
L9
Leave benefits
Job security
Supporting the university
L12
0.08
vision, mission and values
L7 Reputation of the University 0.08
L2
Health insurance
L3
Work scheduling that
supports my lifestyle
Virginia retirement
L6
Opportunities to learn skills
L9
Opportunities for
responsibility
Opportunities for pay
L5
increases
L10 Coworker relationships
L4
0.00
0.00
Work scheduling that supports
my lifestyle
L13 Tuition benefits
Supporting the university
vision, mission and values
0.06
0.01
L12
0.05
0.02
L2 Health insurance
0.06
0.01
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.20
L3 Virginia retirement
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.37
L6 Opportunities to learn skills
0.05
0.05
-0.01
0.81
L7 Reputation of the University
0.05
0.04
-0.03
0.41
L4 Opportunities for responsibility
0.03
0.19
L5 Opportunities for pay increases
0.02
0.38
L10 Coworker relationships
-0.10
0.00
Dependent variable is L14, overall rating of factors in decision to
accept employment with the university
[Adjusted R Square = .274, n = 2,197]
The factors having the greatest impact include
leave benefits, tuition benefits, supervisor
relationships, and job security. Factors having a
relatively low impact include opportunities to
learn skills, accept new responsibilities, and
receive pay increases.
Dependent variable is L15, overall rating of factors in decision to
continue employment with the university
[Adjusted R Square = .292, n = 2,201]
The second analysis addresses the factors that
are important to the decision to continue
employment with the university. The dependent
variable for this analysis is L15, how important
are the factors in your decision to continue your
employment with the university. Table III-12
shows the results of the derived importance
analysis. Ten of the 13 factors have a
statistically significant affect on the decision to
continue employment with the university.
The factor having the highest relative affect on
the decision to stay with the university is
supervisor relationships. Other contributing
factors include leave benefits, job security, work
schedules, and tuition benefits.
26
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Other significant factors, although having less
affect on the decision to stay with the university,
are health insurance, Virginia retirement
program, opportunities to learn new skills, and
the reputation of the university.
Demographic Analysis
Employees were asked to rate thirteen factors
such as leave benefits, health insurance, job
security, coworker relationships, supervisor
relationships, tuition benefits and other relevant
factors on their relative importance for
continued employment at the university. On the
overall rating of these factors for an employee’s
decision to accept employment, there were
significant differences in annual pay, education,
race and gender. Respondents with an annual
salary of $50,000 or less were more likely to say
that overall these factors were important in their
decision to accept employment (3.39) and were
also important factors in their continued
employment with the university (3.51).
Respondents with a high school education or
less were also more likely to say that these
factors were important in accepting (3.5) and
continuing (3.59) employment with the
University than those with more education.
Females were more likely overall than males to
consider these specific factors as important to
their decision to work at the University. Blacks
indicate that these factors were important in their
decision to accept employment (.348) compared
to whites (3.34) but there was no significant
difference in race on whether these factors are
important to continued employment.
Summary
The thirteen factors listed in Part L play major
roles in respondents’ decision to accept and
continue their employment with the university.
Two analytical approaches are possible for
investigating the relative importance of the
factors in the decision for an employee to
continue employment with the university. The
first approach looks at the importance ratings
given by the respondents and reveals that health
insurance, Virginia retirement, and leave
benefits rise to the top. The second approach
uses derived importance or multiple regression
analysis and identifies supervisor relationships,
job security, and work schedules as the most
important factors.
Center for Survey Research
The first approach, factor ratings, produces a
relatively rational or cognitive assessment while
the second approach, derived importance,
produces a relatively emotional or affective
assessment. Combining the results of both
assessments is important to gain a fuller
understanding of the factors that influence the
decision to continue employment with the
university.
The decision to accept employment with the
university can be analyzed only through derived
importance because of the way the initial
question was worded for Part L. The analysis
shows a slightly different order of importance
than seen in the decision to continue
employment. In this case leave benefits and
tuition benefits rise to the top.
When comparing the ratings given by staff
supervisors and staff, a high degree of
agreement is observed. Staff supervisors,
however, place greater importance than staff on
retirement benefits and staff places greater
importance on tuition benefits than staff
supervisors.
Part M: Relative Importance of
Pay, Benefits, and Work Life for
Employees – Supervisors’
Views
(Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff and
Staff Supervisors)
In Part M of the questionnaire, faculty
supervisors of staff and staff supervisors were
presented with the same thirteen factors that
were presented to staff and staff supervisors in
Part L. They were asked to rate the importance
of the factors in attracting, motivating, and
retaining employees of the university from a
supervisor’s perspective. Their responses were
recorded on a four-point scale anchored by very
important and not important. Higher ratings
reflect higher importance. The respondents were
also asked to rate two overall questions about
how important the factors in this section were in
attracting their employees to the university and
how important the factors are in retaining their
employees with the university. Their responses
were recorded on the same four-point
importance scale.
27
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Figure III-6 graphically shows the response
percentages to the overall questions. A large
majority of the respondents (89.6%) indicated
that the listed factors in this section are “Very
Important" or “Important” in attracting
employees to the university. Nearly the same
percentage (90.4%) indicated that these factors
are important in retaining employees with the
university.
Figure III-6: Overall Factor Importance for
Attracting, Motivating and Retaining
Employees of the University
39.1%
34.9%
Very
Important
51.3%
54.7%
Important
9.3%
9.9%
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important
0.4%
0.5%
0%
Derived Importance
The two overall questions in Part M provide the
opportunity to conduct two derived importance
analyses: importance of the factors in employees
accepting employment with the university and
importance of the factors in employees
continuing employment with the university (as
seen by supervisors).
The first analysis addresses the importance of
the factors in Part M in employees accepting
employment with the university. Item M14 was
regressed on the 13 factors to determine how
important the factors were in attracting
employees to the university. Six of the 13 factors
have a statistically significant impact on the
decision to accept employment with the
university, as illustrated in Table III-13.
The factors having the greatest impact, as seen
by supervisors, include tuition benefits,
supervisor relationships, job security, and leave
benefits. Factors having a relatively low impact
include reputation of the university, supporting
the university, opportunities for pay increases,
and coworker relationships.
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Attract
Retain
Table D-12 in Appendix D lists the mean ratings
for the factors in this section and separates the
faculty supervisors of staff ratings from the staff
supervisors’ ratings. In general, the ratings show
a high degree of importance for all of the factors
listed. The highest importance rating, 3.72, was
given for the importance of health insurance.
The next highest rating, 3.54, was for
opportunities for pay increases.
The lowest importance ratings were given for
supporting the university (2.62), reputation of
the university (2.92), and opportunities for
responsibilities (2.97).
While these ratings are the lowest of the section,
they are high enough to suggest that respondents
believe they are important in attracting,
motivating, and retaining employees to the
university.
When comparing the ratings of faculty
supervisors of staff and staff supervisors, staff
supervisors tend to place a greater importance on
the factors than faculty.
28
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
Table III-13: Relative Importance of Pay,
Benefits, and Work Life for Employees –
Supervisors’ Views
Table III-14: Relative Importance of Pay,
Benefits, and Work Life for Employees –
Supervisors’ Views
Retaining Employees With the University
Attracting Employees to the University
No. Item
Beta
Sig
No. Item
Beta
Sig
M13 Tuition benefits
0.17
0.00
M8 Job security
0.17
0.00
M11 Supervisor relationships
0.16
0.00
M11 Supervisor relationships
0.10
0.04
M8 Job security
0.15
0.00
M6 Opportunities to learn skills
0.10
0.02
M1 Leave benefits
0.14
0.00
M5 Opportunities for pay increases
0.09
0.01
M6 Opportunities to learn skills
0.09
0.03
M1 Leave benefits
0.09
0.01
M3 Virginia retirement
0.08
0.04
M10 Coworker relationships
0.09
0.08
M2 Health insurance
0.05
0.15
M2 Health insurance
0.08
0.03
M4 Opportunities for responsibility
0.05
0.18
M12 Supporting the university
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.28
M13 Tuition benefits
0.06
0.07
M7 Reputation of University
0.03
0.36
M9
Work scheduling that supports my
0.06
lifestyle
0.07
M12 Supporting the university
0.03
0.40
M7 Reputation of University
0.06
0.11
M5 Opportunities for pay increases
0.03
0.40
M3 Virginia retirement
0.05
0.16
M10 Coworker relationships
0.02
0.74
M4 Opportunities for responsibility
0.01
0.72
M9
Work scheduling that supports
my lifestyle
Dependent variable is M14, overall rating of factors in attracting
employees to the university
Dependent variable is M15, overall rating of factors in retaining
employees with the university
[Adjusted R Square = .399, n = 766]
[Adjusted R Square = .383, n = 761]
The second analysis addresses the factors that
are important in retaining employees with the
university. The dependent variable for this
analysis is M15, how important are the factors in
retaining your employees with the university.
Table III-14 shows the results of the derived
importance analysis. Five of the 13 factors have
a statistically significant impact the retention of
employees with the university.
The factor that supervisors see as having the
greatest affect on retention is job security,
followed
by
supervisor
relationships,
opportunities to learn skills, opportunities for
pay increases, and leave benefits. Factors that
are relatively less important include work
schedules, reputation of the university, Virginia
retirement, and opportunities for responsibilities.
Demographic Analysis
The same factors employees rated as important
in their decision to accept employment at the
University were rated by supervisors from the
perspective of how important they may be in
attracting and retaining employees. A similar
Center for Survey Research
29
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
pattern can be seen in the mean ratings. Staff
supervisors gave higher overall importance
ratings of factors in attracting and retaining
employees (3.35 and 3.39 respectively) than
faculty supervisors of staff (3.14 and 3.21).
Respondents with an annual salary of $50,000 or
less were more likely to give higher ratings to
the overall importance factors than employees
with higher annual pay. Those with a high
school education or less gave the highest ratings
to overall importance of factors to accept (3.62)
and continue (3.67) employment. Finally,
females gave higher ratings on these overall
statements than males (3.4 and 3.54
respectively).
yet decided whether to agree or disagree and
chose the neutral alternative. This is an
encouraging result for the planned restructuring
effort.
Figure III-7: Potential Benefits Outweigh
Complexities
Strongly
Agree
17.2%
37.5%
Agree
Neutral
28.2%
Summary
Supervisors rate supervisor relationships and job
security as the key factors in attracting and
retaining employees with the university. Tuition
benefits, and leave benefits are additional factors
that supervisors believe are important in
attracting employees to the university. For
retaining employees, opportunities to learn new
skills, and opportunities for pay increases
become important.
Part N: University Staff and
Classified Staff Systems
(Respondents: Faculty Supervisors of Staff and
Staff Supervisors)
In Part N all supervisors were asked for their
opinions about working with two human
resource systems—the university staff and the
classified staff. The respondents were presented
with five statements and they were asked to
indicate the degree to which they agree or
disagree with the statements. They were able to
enter their responses on a five-point scale
anchored by “Strongly Agree” and “Strongly
Disagree.” Higher ratings indicate stronger
agreement. One of the five statements was an
overall statement asking whether the benefits of
creating a new university staff system will
outweigh the complexities of managing the two
human resource system. Figure II-1 shows the
frequency of responses graphically. Just over
half of the respondents, 54.7 percent, either
strongly agree or agree that the potential benefits
will outweigh the complexities of two human
resource systems. Twenty-eight percent have not
30
Disagree
12.2%
Strongly
Disagree
4.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Table D-13 in Appendix D lists the mean ratings
given for each of the statements. The ratings are
also separated by faculty supervisors of staff and
staff supervisors.
The ratings are in a narrow range between 3.29
and 3.67, all at a level of general agreement. The
highest rating was 3.67 for “the potential
benefits of creating new university staff
compensation programs will outweigh the
complexities of managing the two different
programs.” The lowest rating, 3.29, was
attributed to “suffering the complexities of two
programs to improve the leave benefit policies.”
Derived Importance
Item N5 “overall, the potential benefits of
creating a new university staff system will
outweigh the complexities of managing the two
human resource systems” was regressed on the
four items about specific parts of the dual
system.
All four of the statements have a statistically
significant impact on the overall rating. The
statement with the highest relative impact is
about the compensation program, and the
statement with the lowest relative impact is
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
about leave benefits. See Table III-15 for a
listing of the derived importance results.
managing two systems. Blacks were also
supportive of the benefits of new workplace
policies over the complexity of managing two
systems.
Table III-15: University Staff and Classified
Staff Systems
Summary
Derived Importance
No. Item
Beta Sig
N2
Benefits of compensation program
0.37 0.00
outweighs managing two programs
N1
Benefits of Performance Planning
0.27 0.00
outweighs managing two programs
Benefits of workplace policies
N4
outweigh managing two programs
N3
0.21 0.00
Benefits of leave benefits outweigh
0.17 0.00
managing two programs
Dependent variable is N5, overall rating of university staff and
classified staff systems
Supervisors generally agree that working with
the complexities of two human resource systems
to establish a new system is worthwhile.
Reworking the compensation program and the
performance-planning program have the greatest
impact on the overall ratings for the two-system
approach. Leave benefits has the lowest relative
impact on the overall rating.
These results reflect the ratings given to the
current systems in each area: the current
compensation system and the performance
evaluation systems were rated lower than the
current leave benefits, and it follows that
changes in these areas would be seen as best
justifying the costs of administering two systems
into the future.
[Adjusted R Square = .839, n = 677]
The Influence of Section Topics
on Overall Ratings
Demographic Analysis
Near the end of the questionnaire respondents
were asked for their ratings of three overall
questions. The questions addressed the current
human resources system, the university as a
place to work, and whether staff would
recommend the university as a place to work to
friends and family. The results of these
evaluations are presented and discussed in
Section I of this report. This section will
continue the analysis of the overall ratings by
analyzing potential determinants of those
ratings.
When asked to evaluate overall the potential
benefits of creating a new university staff
system, there were some significant differences
in demographic groups. Faculty supervisors of
staff agreed that the benefits of a new
compensation program and leave benefits
outweigh the complexities of managing two
programs. The overall mean rating was 3.6 for
faculty supervisors of staff and 3.43 for staff
supervisors, indicating that both groups gave
above-average ratings in favor of managing two
human resource programs.
Employees who have an annual salary over
$75,000 gave higher ratings in support of
managing two human resource programs;
however, the average of all categories was a
high rating of 3.69. Those who have only been
employed at the University for less than 2 years
rated overall benefits at 3.91 and the benefits of
a new compensation program at 4.01, both very
high ratings in support of managing two human
resource programs. Females indicated support
for the benefits of a new performance planning
program (3.63) and the benefits of new
workplace policies (3.44) over the complexity of
Center for Survey Research
Embedded throughout the questionnaire are ten
questions that addressed the overall evaluations
of particular questionnaire sections. Respondents
answered only the section overall questions that
were appropriate for their job category. That is,
supervisors answered only the section overall
questions that were addressed to supervisors.
The section overall questions provide the
opportunity to determine the influence of section
topics on the overall evaluations or what has
been referred to as the derived importance. This
is accomplished by regressing ratings of the
overall evaluation questions at the end of the
31
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
questionnaire on the ratings of the four section
topic questions.
For example, an analysis could address the
question of how much impact the ratings of the
performance planning system, performance
evaluation system, compensation, and leave
benefits would have on the overall evaluation of
the current staff human resources system. Table
III-16 shows how the variables are arranged for
this analysis.
Table III-16: Overall Derived Importance
Analysis
Job Classification
Dependent
Variables
Independent
Variables
Staff
O1 O2 O3
C12 C13 F13 J5
Staff Supervisors
as staff
O1 O2 O3
C12 C13 F13 J5
Staff Overall Evaluation
The following three tables show the results of
the derived importance analysis for the staff
respondents. In this analysis, the survey overall
evaluations were regressed on the section topics
that staff respondents rated, as listed in Table
III-16.
Current Staff Human Resources System
Table III-17 shows the results of the derived
importance analysis for the staff respondent
evaluations of the current staff human resources
system. The section topic that has the greatest
affect on the overall rating is performance
planning, which is followed closely by
university compensation. The items having the
lowest relative impact are state paid leave
benefits and performance evaluation.
Table III-17: Current
Resources System
Staff
Human
Staff Derived Importance Analysis
No. Item
Beta
Overall rating for performance
0.25
C12 planning
Overall rating of the University
0.24
F13 compensation
Overall rating of state paid leave
0.23
benefits
J5
C13
Overall rating for performance
evaluation
0.07
Sig
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
Dependent variable is O1, overall rating of current staff
human resources system
[Adjusted R Square = .343, n = 1,630]
University as a Place for Staff to Work
Table III-18: shows the results of the derived
importance analysis for the staff respondent
evaluations of the university as a place for staff
to work. The section topics that have the greatest
affect on the overall rating are university
compensation and state paid leave benefits. The
items having the lowest relative impact are
performance
planning
and
performance
evaluation.
Table III-18: University as a Place for Staff to
Work
Staff Derived Importance Analysis
No. Item
Beta
Overall rating of the University
F13
0.27
compensation
Overall rating of state paid leave
benefits
Overall rating for performance
C12
planning
J5
C13
Overall rating for performance
evaluation
Sig
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.12
0.00
Dependent variable is O2, overall rating of the university as a
place for staff to work
[Adjusted R Square = .334, n = 1,695]
Recommend the University to My Friends and
Family as a Place to Work
Table III-19 shows the results of the derived
importance analysis for the staff respondents’
recommendation of the university to their
friends and family as a place to work. The
32
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
section topics that have the greatest affect on the
overall rating are the university compensation
system and state paid leave benefits. Items
having the lowest relative impact include
performance
planning
and
performance
evaluation.
Table III-19: Recommend the University to
My Friends and Family as a Place to Work
Staff Derived Importance Analysis
No. Item
Beta
Overall rating of the University
F13
0.22
compensation
Overall rating of state paid leave
J5
0.19
benefits
Overall rating for performance
C12
0.14
planning
C13
Overall rating for performance
evaluation
0.08
Sig
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
Dependent variable is O3, recommend the university to my
friends and family as a place to work
[Adjusted R Square = .208, n = 1,699]
Summary
The derived importance analysis for staff
respondents show a consistency across the three
overall evaluations—the topic areas that have
the greatest impact on the overall evaluations are
the university compensation system and the state
paid leave benefits. Performance planning is
important when rating the current staff human
resources system. The section topic that has a
relatively lower influence across the three
overall evaluations is performance evaluation.
evaluation of the current staff human resources
system.
Table III-20: Current
Resources System
Staff
Human
Staff Supervisors Derived Importance Analysis
No. Item
Beta
Sig
Overall rating of the University
F13
0.25 0.00
compensation
Overall rating for performance
0.22 0.00
C13
evaluation
Overall rating of state paid leave
J5
0.19 0.00
benefits
Overall rating for performance
0.11 0.12
C12
planning
Dependent variable is O1, overall rating of current staff
human resources system
[Adjusted R Square = .321, n = 460]
The section topic having the greatest influence
on the staff supervisor’s overall evaluation is the
university compensation system followed by
performance evaluation. The two section topics
that have the lowest relative influence are leave
benefits and performance planning.
University as a Place for Staff to Work
Table III-21 presents the results of the derived
importance analysis for staff supervisors’
evaluation of the university as a place for staff to
work. The section topic having the greatest
influence on the staff supervisor’s overall
evaluation is state paid leave benefits followed
by university compensation. The topics having
the lowest impact are performance evaluation
and performance planning.
Staff Supervisors Overall
Evaluations
The next three tables show the results of the
derived importance analysis for the staff
supervisor respondents. The evaluations in this
section were made from the viewpoint of a staff
member and not a staff supervisor. In this
analysis, the survey overall evaluations were
regressed on the section topics that staff
supervisors rated as illustrated in Table III-16.
Current Staff Human Resources System
Table III-20 presents the results of the derived
importance analysis for staff supervisors’
Center for Survey Research
33
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Table III-21: University as a Place for Staff to
Work
Staff Supervisors Derived Importance Analysis
No. Item
Beta
Sig
Overall rating of state paid leave
0.35 0.00
J5
benefits
Overall rating of the University
F13
0.19 0.00
compensation
Overall rating for performance
0.15 0.03
C13
evaluation
Overall rating for performance
C12
0.10 0.13
planning
Dependent variable is O2, overall rating of the university as a
place for staff to work
[Adjusted R Square = .321, n = 363]
Recommend the University to My Friends and
Family as a Place to Work
Table III-22 presents the results of the derived
importance analysis for staff supervisors’
evaluation of recommending the university to
their friends and family as a place to work. The
section topic having the greatest influence on the
staff supervisor’s overall evaluation is the
university compensation program followed by
state paid leave benefits. The section topics with
the lowest impact are performance planning and
performance evaluation.
Table III-22: Recommend the University to
My Friends and Family as a Place to Work
Staff Supervisors Derived Importance Analysis
No. Item
Beta
Sig
Overall rating of the University
F13
0.31 0.00
compensation
Overall rating of state paid leave
J5
0.17 0.00
benefits
Overall rating for performance
C12
0.12 0.09
planning
Overall rating for performance
C13
0.07 0.35
evaluation
Dependent variable is O3, recommend the university to my
friends and family as a place to work
Summary
When rating the current staff human resources
system, staff supervisors place the greatest
importance on the university compensation
system and the performance evaluation program.
Their view changes, however, when evaluating
the university as a place to work or
recommending the university to their friends and
family. Section topics that have the greatest
relative affect on these overall evaluations are
the university compensation system and the state
paid leave benefits.
Summary for the Influence of Section Topics
on Overall Ratings
Table III-23 contains a summary of the overall
derived importance analysis. Each cell of the
matrix contains the two items that have the
greatest relative affect on the overall
evaluations.
When evaluating the current staff human
resources system, staff places an emphasis on
performance planning while staff supervisors
emphasize performance evaluation. The
university compensation system was an
important influence for both groups.
When rating the university as a place to work or
recommending the university to friends and
family as a place to work, the university
compensation system and paid leave benefits
have the greatest affect on the ratings.
Table III-23: Summary of the Overall
Derived Importance Analysis
Overall
Evaluations
Staff
Staff Supervisors
Current HR
System
Performance
planning
University
compensation
University
compensation
Performance
evaluation
University
compensation
Leave benefits
University as a
Place to Work
[Adjusted R Square = .253, n = 465]
Recommend as
a Place to Work
34
Leave benefits
University
compensation
University
compensation
University
compensation
Leave benefits
Leave benefits
University of Virginia
UVA HUMAN RESOURCES RESTRUCTURING SURVEY
The analysis so far has provided two types of
information about the four section overall
ratings discussed in the previous section,
specifically, quality rating analysis and
importance analysis. Combining the two types of
information into a priority matrix provides
guidance for determining which categories the
respondents have identified as being in the
greatest need for change.
Starting with quality analysis, the mean ratings
given to the section overall variables by staff
supervisors and staff can be interpreted as the
overall performance for a particular category.
The ordered overall section mean ratings are
shown in Table IV-1 indicating that the highest
quality rating was received by leave benefits and
the lowest by the compensation system
Table IV-1: Staff Supervisors of Staff Quality
Ratings
University as a Place for Staff to Work
No. Item
Mean
Overall rating of state paid leave
3.74
J5
benefits
Overall rating for performance
C12
2.51
planning
Overall rating for performance
2.40
C13
evaluation
Overall rating of the compensation
2.39
F13
system
The same results are seen graphically in Figure
IV-1, which charts the “top-box” percentages for
each of the section overall rating items. These
are compared in the figure with two other
overall items, HR system and UVa as a place to
work.
The figure shows that employees give high
ratings to UVa as a place to work, but
substantially lower ratings to the university’s
HR system. Of the four rated components of the
system,
performance
evaluation
and
compensation have the lowest top-box
percentages; performance planning rates a little
higher; and the top-box percentage for leave
benefits is outstandingly high at 90.3 percent.
Center for Survey Research
Figure IV-1: Top-box Analysis
100%
Excellent, Very Good, Good
IV Priority Analysis
88.1%
90.3%
80%
66.6%
60%
50.9%
45.6% 46.1%
40%
20%
0%
n
g
ts
on
ork
tem
efi
nin uatio
ati
l
en
sys e to w
lan
ns
a
b
p
e
v
R
p
e
c
rf
H
av
rf e Com
Pe
Pla
Le
Pe
The importance ranking is developed from the
derived importance analysis (regression
analysis) that was discussed earlier in this report.
Table IV-2 is a repeat of Table III-18 from the
previous sections, showing that the leave
benefits have the greatest impact of the four
overall section ratings on the respondents’
evaluation of the university as a place to work.
Table IV-2: Staff Supervisors and Staff
Derived Importance Analysis
University as a Place for Staff to Work
No. Item
Beta
Overall rating of state paid leave
J5
.27
benefits
Overall rating of the compensation
F13
.25
system
Overall rating for performance
C12
.14
planning
Overall rating for performance
C13
.12
evaluation
Combining the quality ratings and importance
rankings provides the opportunity to develop a
priority matrix. For this analysis, the
performance ratings and the importance rankings
were simply divided into two categories, high
and low, with two of the overall section ratings
in each category.
Table IV-3 shows the four overall section ratings
arrayed in a priority matrix. The cell in the upper
left corner represents high performance and high
importance. Leave benefits occupy this cell,
35
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
indicating that respondents find this aspect of the
HR system to be important and the quality high.
Table IV-3: Staff Priority Matrix
Importance
Quality Rating
High
Low
High
Overall rating
of state paid
leave benefits
(J12)
Overall rating
for performance
planning (C12)
Low
Overall rating
of the
compensation
system (F13)
Overall rating
for performance
evaluation
(C13)
In contrast, the cell in the lower left corner
represents low performance and high
importance. The compensation system occupies
this cell indicating that respondents find this
aspect of the HR systems important, but low in
quality.
The remaining two cells are relatively low in
importance, but not necessarily unimportant.
Performance planning in the upper right cell has
36
a higher performance rating than performance
evaluation in the lower right cell.
The prescription that come from this analysis
assigns first restructuring priority to the
compensation system, an aspect of the HR
system that is important to respondents, but is
perceived as performing poorly. The second
restructuring priority is assigned to performance
evaluation. While lower in importance, this
aspect of the HR system remains important to
the respondents, but is lower in performance.
Drawing on the results for specific items
reviewed above, we can infer that innovation
that would link compensation outcomes with
performance evaluation would help greatly in
improving respondents’ ratings of both the
compensation and performance systems.
Performance planning is in the third priority
position as relatively low in importance and high
in performance.
The star aspect of the HR system and one that
has the lowest restructuring priority is the leave
benefits. This HR program receives the highest
importance ratings and is perceived as the
highest performer on the four HR programs
analyzed in this section.
University of Virginia