2017 UC Staff Engagement Survey Agriculture and Natural Resources

Executive Summary Agriculture and Natural Resources Sponsored by Council of UC Staff Assemblies (CUCSA) and UC Human Resources Administered by Willis Towers Watson using standard questions and analysis Repeat of 2015 survey; report includes campus-by-campus comparisons with prior UC survey and national norms Sample of non-represented Staff invited to complete survey in May 2017 64% response rate for ANR (second highest among all UC locations). 234 individuals responded. Goal for ANR Staff Assembly, HR and Leadership to identify actions we could take in key areas

How to Read Results * ⋆ Agriculture and Natural Resources Scores Differences and Colors Scores shown are the total Percent Favorable (typically the top two options). For example: Agree Tend to Agree ? Tend to Disagree Disagree Differences to norms are shown as % points. Norms may include past surveys, parent groups, industry, national or high performance benchmarks. Favorable Responses For example: Total Favorable Score Historical Parent Group Company Overall Industry Norm Employee Engagement -8* 3* 3* -10* 86 I have a good understanding of our goals. 2* 1 -9* 2* 3 84 I have a good understanding of how my job contributes to achieving our goals. ⋆ 4 10* -1 12 88 Icons (if applicable) * Statistically significant differences are indicated with asterisks and darker colors. They are meaningful differences, where we are 95% confident it did not occur by chance. The cut-off for significance varies according to the size of the groups being compared. Small groups require a bigger difference for it to be significant. When a question number is shown in red it is a priority issue. # Key driver question. ⋆ -10* -1 1 10* On some questions disagreeing is the favorable response. (N) Significantly lower vs comparison Lower, but not significant No Difference Higher, but not significant Significantly higher vs comparison

University of California Overall 2017 Overview Agriculture and Natural Resources Results vs. Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 Results vs. US National Norm 6 Out Of 8 Categories Have Improved 8 Out Of 9 Categories Are Below Most Improved Least Favorable Performance Management 5 Organizational Change -18* Career Development 4 Performance Management -11* Communication 4 Career Development -9* Most Declined Working Relationships -3 Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Engagement 71 3 1 -2 Strengths Opportunities Career Development, Performance Management, Supervision Performance Management, Supervision, Working Relationships

Strengths and Opportunities Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Strengths and Opportunities Agriculture and Natural Resources Strengths % Favorable I have a clear understanding of how my job contributes to the departmental objectives. 2 2 -1 16 90 Our strengths: We should continue to build on these. I am confident I can achieve my personal career objectives within the UC system. ⋆ 15* 1 -4 23 63 I feel my personal contributions are recognized. Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 19* University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm -1 5 67 Opportunities % Favorable I feel my campus/location does a good job matching pay to performance. 5 -11* -27* 3 20 Our opportunity areas: These are our priority areas to focus on. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your supervisor: Effectively deals with poor performers -6 -6 -16* 26a 42 There is good cooperation between my department and other departments at my campus/location. -6 -7* -8* 10 62 Note: Strengths/Opportunities are based on several factors, such as absolute scores, differences from benchmarks, and impact on engagement.

University of California Overall 2017 Categories vs. Multiple Benchmarks Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Score Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Career Development 54 4 -3 -9* Communication 68 4 -1 -3 Engagement 71 3 1 -2 Image/Brand 75 4 -1 -2 Organizational Change 32 2 2 -18* Performance Management 52 5 -5 -11* Supervision 70 -2 -5 Working Relationships 73 -3 -3 -2 Diversity & Inclusion 76 n/a 3 Wellness 60 n/a -8* n/a

Key Areas for Action – Priorities Identified by ANR Staff Assembly & HR Agriculture and Natural Resources WHAT WE COULD DO Organizational change UC-wide issue How can we improve communication and collaboration? Performance management More transparency about how the annual appraisal process works Prepare for transition to on-line process (ePerformance) in 2019 Wellness Raise awareness about existing programs Identify new initiatives: UC Walks 2018

Individual Contributor 2017 (157) Category Breakdown - Role Agriculture and Natural Resources Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234) Individual Contributor 2017 (157) Supervisor 2017 (43) Manager 2017 (24) Career Development 54 -6 14 4 Communication 68 -3 9 -2 Engagement 71 -2 7 -3 Image/Brand 75 -3 12 -7 Organizational Change 32 -1 4 -10 Performance Management 52 -3 9 -5 Supervision 70 -1 6 -3 Working Relationships 73 -2 4 1 Diversity & Inclusion 76 -4 8 1 Wellness 60 -2 4 2

Category Breakdown - Gender Agriculture and Natural Resources Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234) Female 2017 (185) Male 2017 (49) Career Development 54 -2 8 Communication 68 -3 11 Engagement 71 -1 3 Image/Brand 75 Organizational Change 32 -1 4 Performance Management 52 -3 11 Supervision 70 -2 9 Working Relationships 73 1 -4 Diversity & Inclusion 76 -2 9 Wellness 60 -3 12

Category Breakdown - Ethnicity Agriculture and Natural Resources Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234) Asian 2017 (15) Hispanic 2017 (63) White 2017 (144) Career Development 54 7 -5 Communication 68 -2 2 -1 Engagement 71 -6 5 -3 Image/Brand 75 -12 6 -2 Organizational Change 32 4 9 -4 Performance Management 52 -3 Supervision 70 -3 4 -2 Working Relationships 73 -3 9 -4 Diversity & Inclusion 76 -16 -1 3 Wellness 60 -4 6 -4

Category Breakdown - Years of Service Agriculture and Natural Resources Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234) 1 < 3 2017 (56) 3 < 5 2017 (40) 5 < 10 2017 (48) 10 < 15 2017 (30) 15 < 20 2017 (27) 20 < 25 2017 (17) Career Development 54 -1 -3 -6 -8 12 Communication 68 -2 -1 4 -12 4 2 Engagement 71 1 2 -3 -5 1 -2 Image/Brand 75 -3 3 -7 -4 5 7 Organizational Change 32 -1 -4 -1 -24* 25* Performance Management 52 -1 -2 -3 -5 3 Supervision 70 2 5 -4 -5 -6 -2 Working Relationships 73 3 -3 -12 -9 12 Diversity & Inclusion 76 6 1 -6 -5 -4 Wellness 60 7 -1 -6 3 -7 -4

Category Breakdown - Years of Service Agriculture and Natural Resources Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234) 25 < 30 2017 (12) Career Development 54 23 Communication 68 7 Engagement 71 10 Image/Brand 75 21 Organizational Change 32 24 Performance Management 52 24 Supervision 70 14 Working Relationships 73 23 Diversity & Inclusion 76 16 Wellness 60 19

Category Breakdown - Pay Range Agriculture and Natural Resources Ag and Natl Rescs 2017 (234) < 40k 2017 (60) 40k - 49k 2017 (44) 50k - 59k 2017 (42) 60k - 69k 2017 (36) 70k - 79k 2017 (21) 80k - 89k 2017 (12) Career Development 54 -3 -5 -2 5 13 Communication 68 -2 3 2 -13 7 7 Engagement 71 2 -2 -1 -3 -2 6 Image/Brand 75 -2 -7 1 4 1 8 Organizational Change 32 2 -1 -11 -10 7 Performance Management 52 -3 -6 -3 5 -1 9 Supervision 70 3 -4 -2 -2 -5 8 Working Relationships 73 -1 -4 4 1 -9 15 Diversity & Inclusion 76 1 4 3 -8 -21* 16 Wellness 60 5 -10 -6 -9 6

University of California Overall 2017 Career Development Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Career Development 4 -3 -9* 54 There are sufficient opportunities for me to receive training to improve my skills in my current job. -4 -1 -4 7 65 I believe I have the opportunity for personal development and growth within the UC system. -1 -6 -11* 11 59 My campus/location is doing a good job of planning for management succession. ⋆ 5 -1 -9* 20 31 I am confident I can achieve my personal career objectives within the UC system. ⋆ 15* 1 -4 23 63 My campus/location provides people with the necessary information and resources to manage their own careers effectively. 7 -7* -15* 28 52

University of California Overall 2017 Communication Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Communication 4 -1 -3 68 My campus/location does an excellent job of keeping employees informed about important organizational matters affecting us. ⋆ 7 -3 -4 1 66 I feel able to openly and honestly communicate my views to my supervisor and other leaders. ⋆ 1 1 -3 14 70

University of California Overall 2017 Engagement Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Engagement 3 1 -2 71 There is usually sufficient staff in my department to handle the workload. 1 1 -11* 2 45 I am satisfied with my involvement in decisions that affect my work. 9 2 -3 8 68 My work schedule allows sufficient flexibility to meet my personal/family needs. 2 10* 18 86 4 -1 -3 19 I feel motivated to go beyond my formal job responsibilities to get the job done. 84 21 I have the equipment/tools/resources I need to do my job effectively. -7 1 -1 74 I would recommend the UC system as a good place to work. 4 1 27 79 Working for the UC system inspires me to do my best work. 1 2 -1 29 74 36 At the present time, are you seriously considering leaving the UC system? 8 -1 -6* 61

University of California Overall 2017 Image/Brand Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Image/Brand 4 -1 -2 75 I am proud to be associated with the UC system. 4 3 2 6 89 My campus/location is highly regarded by its employees. 4 -4 -6* 22 61

University of California Overall 2017 Organizational Change Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Organizational Change 2 2 -18* 32 Generally, recent major organizational changes across the UC system have been: Planned well 2 4 -8* 15a 34 Generally, recent major organizational changes across the UC system have been: Explained well 2 1 -23* 15b 33 Generally, recent major organizational changes across the UC system have been: Executed well 2 2 -22* 15c 28

University of California Overall 2017 Performance Management Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Performance Management 5 -5 -11* 52 I feel my campus/location does a good job matching pay to performance. 5 -11* -27* 3 20 I feel my personal contributions are recognized. 19* -1 5 67 I think my performance on the job is evaluated fairly. -8 -4 -5 25 70

University of California Overall 2017 Supervision Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Supervision -2 -5 70 4 My supervisor keeps me informed about issues that affect me. -3 -2 -8* 73 9 My supervisor develops people's abilities. -5 -11* 58 Regarding suggestions for change from employees, my supervisor is usually responsive. -3 -8* 12 68 I have a clear understanding of how my job contributes to the departmental objectives. 2 2 -1 16 90 3 1 1 17 My supervisor treats me with respect. 88 My supervisor communicates effectively. -2 -6* 24 73 26a Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your supervisor: Effectively deals with poor performers -6 -6 -16* 42 26b Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your supervisor: Listens carefully to different points of view before coming to conclusions -2 1 70 Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your supervisor: Encourages new ideas and new ways of doing things -1 -4 26c 75 -1 -3 -10* 31 My supervisor does a good job of building teamwork. 64

University of California Overall 2017 Supervision Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Supervision -2 -5 70 My supervisor helps me make time to participate in training and development activities. 5 9* 34 73

University of California Overall 2017 Working Relationships Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Working Relationships -3 -3 -2 73 There is good cooperation between my department and other departments at my campus/location. -6 -7* -8* 10 62 There is good cooperation between staff in my department. 2 5 30 84

University of California Overall 2017 Diversity & Inclusion Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Diversity & Inclusion n/a 3 76 I feel that management at my campus/location supports equal opportunity for all employees, of all differences, including, but not limited to, age, gender identity, ethnicity and disability status. n/a 6* 9* 13 81 Employees at my campus/location are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their position or background. n/a -9* 33 71

University of California Overall 2017 Wellness Agriculture and Natural Resources Total Favorable Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Wellness n/a -8* n/a 60 My supervisor is supportive of my participation in health or wellness-related initiatives and programs offered at my campus/location. ⋆ n/a -11* n/a 32 61 My organization promotes an environment of physical, mental, and social well-being. ⋆ n/a -5 -12* 35 60

Sustainable Engagement Profile vs. U.S. National Norm & ANR 2015 Segmentation analysis identifies the types of engagement within the organization Highly Engaged: Those who score high on all three aspects of sustainable engagement Detached: Those who feel enabled and/or energized, but lack a sense of traditional engagement Unsupported: Those who are traditionally engaged, but lack enablement and/or energy Disengaged: Those who score low on all three aspects of sustainable engagement 2017 Engaged Enabled Energized Highly Engaged 27% Unsupported 27% Detached 21% Disengaged 25% U.S. 35% 22% 21% 2015 26% 24% 25

University of California Overall 2017 Key Drivers of Engagement Agriculture and Natural Resources Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Total Favorable Score Career Development 4 -3 -9* 54 Engagement Wellness n/a -8* n/a 60 Communication 4 -1 -3 68

University of California Overall 2017 Key Driver Items of Engagement Agriculture and Natural Resources Ag and Natl Rescs 2015 University of California Overall 2017 US National Norm Total Favorable Score Career Development: My campus/location is doing a good job of planning for management succession. 5 -1 -9* 31 Career Development: I am confident I can achieve my personal career objectives within the UC system. 15* 1 -4 63 Wellness: My supervisor is supportive of my participation in health or wellness-related initiatives and programs offered at my campus/location. n/a -11* n/a 61 Engagement Wellness: My organization promotes an environment of physical, mental, and social well-being. n/a -5 -12* 60 Communication: My campus/location does an excellent job of keeping employees informed about important organizational matters affecting us. 7 -3 -4 66 Communication: I feel able to openly and honestly communicate my views to my supervisor and other leaders. 1 1 -3 70

Group Sizes Agriculture and Natural Resources Benchmarks Ag and Natl Rescs 2015.............................................................. 174 US National Norm................................................................. 159,758 Ag and Natl Rescs 2012................................................................. 11 Universities Staff Norm............................................................ 16,527 University of California Overall 2017....................................... 10,539 Role Individual Contributor 2017.......................................................... 157 Manager 2017................................................................................ 24 Supervisor 2017............................................................................. 43 Gender Female 2017................................................................................ 185 Male 2017...................................................................................... 49 Ethnicity Asian 2017..................................................................................... 15 White 2017................................................................................... 144 Hispanic 2017................................................................................ 63 Years of Service 1 < 3 2017...................................................................................... 56 15 < 20 2017.................................................................................. 27 3 < 5 2017...................................................................................... 40 20 < 25 2017.................................................................................. 17 5 < 10 2017.................................................................................... 48 25 < 30 2017.................................................................................. 12 10 < 15 2017.................................................................................. 30 Pay Range < 40k 2017..................................................................................... 60 60k - 69k 2017............................................................................... 36 40k - 49k 2017............................................................................... 44 70k - 79k 2017............................................................................... 21 50k - 59k 2017............................................................................... 42 80k - 89k 2017............................................................................... 12