Staff Experience Survey 2008 Philip Hopwood VC’s Equality & Diversity Forum: 2 July 2009

Contents Key Aims of the Staff Survey Key Aims of Today Key Equality & Diversity Results Summary & Conclusions

Key Aims of the Survey Find out & understand the staff perspective on working at the University With what elements of working and life at the University are staff satisfied and dissatisfied What elements of working at the University are important in motivating staff What are the key drivers that motivate/de-motivate staff – to target initiatives that may best effect satisfaction & motivation

Key Overall Elements Are staff satisfied with & motivated by their jobs? Are staff satisfied with Salford as an employer? Are staff satisfied they can influence University decisions? Are staff committed to colleagues, teams, School, Faculty or Support Division or University or all of them? How engaged are staff? What are the elements of strength and development? What are the priorities for action and the areas to focus on?

Equality & Diversity Elements Survey questionnaire requested information about the respondent including: Ethnic origin Gender Sexual orientation Faith Age Also requested information about the respondents working life such as: Experience & source of discrimination or unfair treatment Experience & source of harassment or bullying Experience of complaining to the University about discrimination, unfair treatment, harassment or bullying

Key Aims of Today Present results for Equality & Diversity and Working Life elements Ask if the results make sense: Is this type of survey the best vehicle for canvassing such views Are their any comparators What are the areas for improvement

University Level Results

Response Rates & Representativity Overall response rate = 48% (1225) Representative of whole population Partial completion with Working Life & “About You” section not completed gives rate = 56% 8% (204) did not wish to declare these sections By grouping: Non-white (14%) Non-heterosexual (6%) Non-Christian (6%), no religion (37%) Age (95%) Disability (9%) In line with UK population Double number declared in HR

Results - General For most E&D groupings the results for the general functional responses such as: Job satisfaction & motivation Salford as an employer & influencing University decisions? Commitment & engagement Elements of strength and development such as training, reward & recognition, leadership, change, etc Follow the University results within margin of error However for those who responded as disabled: Levels of satisfaction in areas affecting the person (eg job satisfaction) are 10-15% below this Up to 25% below in areas of respect

Results – Discrimination Experience of discrimination or unfair treatment in last 2 years (lower than Gus John 2005) UniversityWhiteOtherFemaleMaleAge 11%9%25%12%8%10% Hetero Non- Hetero Christian Other Faith Disability 9%35%9%21%35%

Results – Discrimination Type What type of discrimination or unfair treatment in last 2 years? Less than 1% declared non-heterosexuals responded to this question Gender: 60% of females, 48% (60%) age over 30 (50) Ethnicity: 52% of non-whites Disability:63% of declared disabled Faith: 25% of non-Christian denominations Sexual orientation: 17% of males

Results – Discrimination Source What was the source of discrimination or unfair treatment? Less than 1% declared non-heterosexuals responded to this question Management: 80% source of all discrimination 75-80% source of ethnic or gender related discrimination 90% source of faith or disability related discrimination Other Staff: 30% source of gender related discrimination 40% source of ethnic or faith related discrimination

Results – Harassment Experience of harassment or bullying in last 2 years UniversityWhiteOtherFemaleMaleAge 24% 26%25%23%24% Hetero Non- Hetero Christian Other Faith Disability 22%41%23%26%56%

Results – Harassment Type What was the source of harassment or bullying? Less than 15% of non-heterosexuals who declared they had been harassed or bullied responded to this question Management: 70% source of all harassment 70% source of gender related harassment 80% source of ethnicity and age related harassment 90% source of faith or disability related harassment Other Staff: 30% source of gender related harassment 40% source of ethnic or faith related harassment

Results – Complaints Was a complaint submitted following discrimination or harassment? Rates greater than in Gus John (2005) survey UniversityWhiteOtherFemaleMaleAge 34% 33%38%26%25% Hetero Non- Hetero Christian Other Faith Disability 34%41%31%48%45%

Results – Complaint & Resolution How did the University deal with a complaint? On average 20-25% of complaints are dealt with to the complainants satisfaction – greater than Gus John (10-20%) For ethnicity, age & disability related complaints this falls to below 20% On average 50% of complaints are not dealt with to the complainants satisfaction – same as Gus John (50%) On average 25-30% of complaints are not dealt with at all – less than Gus John (30-40%).

Summary (1) Inaction validates the survey! Leadership issue only 33% of staff & 50% of Senior Managers believe something will be done as a result of the survey Survey had good response rate (48%) – more representative than previous Gus John (11%) Not comparable with Gus John at detailed level due to inclusion of students & aggregating results to generate robustness All broad & diverse respondents deliver same key function messages around job satisfaction, commitment & engagement Majority of E&D respondents answered Working Life questions indicating discrimination & harassment However majority on non-heterosexual respondents did not answer what type nor the source of discrimination or harassment

Summary (2) The overwhelming source of discrimination or harassment was from management particularly with respect to faith & disability All broad & diverse respondents submitted complaints to the same degree However only about a third of those that felt discriminated or harassed submitted formal complaints The level of satisfaction & dis-satisfaction with complaint outcomes was broadly consistent across all broad & diverse respondents Approximately one quarter of complaints were perceived to have not been dealt with at all

Conclusions This survey is not the most appropriate method for gathering equality & diversity information because: Reluctance to complete due to possible identification Not focused on specific area Anonymity of general “tick-box” survey prevents specific issues and representations from being presented, ie issues highlighted in verbatim comments Although better than previous Gus John survey the University appears to not have a robust/slick process for dealing with specific equality & diversity complaints Although better than previous Gus John survey the level of dis- satisfaction with complaint outcome should be reviewed

Questions