School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Summary of

School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Summary of Findings To protect the confidential and proprietary information included in this material, it may not be disclosed or provided to any third parties without the approval of Hewitt Associates LLC.

Our Agenda Today • Share SEAS results from the University-wide 2008 Staff Survey including: – Engagement scores – Drivers of engagement • Share results from the 2008 SEAS Internal Survey • Answer questions and discuss • Solicit input on possible actions February, 2009 1

University Survey Background • Harvard University core staff were invited to participate in the survey from October 22 to November 5, 2008. – 10, 888 staff were surveyed over the web; 1, 789 staff received a paper survey in one of three languages • Staff members were asked to rate their agreement with 83 statements, using a six-point scale. • Survey participants were also asked three open-ended questions. – Best thing about working at Harvard; worst thing about working at Harvard; main suggestion for improvement February, 2009 2

Survey statistics only represent the opinions of those who participated, which was 53% of SEAS staff. February, 2009 3

What does Engagement Mean? • The Hewitt survey measures employee engagement and major dimensions of the employment experience such as leadership, pay, and benefits. • Engagement measures the extent to which we are providing a workplace that attracts, retains, and motivates the talented people Harvard needs to realize its mission. February, 2009 4

Engagement Scores at-a-Glance Engagement Behaviors 2006 SEAS 2008 SEAS Say I would not hesitate to recommend Harvard 65% • to. I would not hesitate to recommend Harvard to a 70% friend seeking a friend seeking employment. Given the opportunity, I tell others great things about working here Stay It would take a lot to get me to leave Harvard I rarely think about leaving here to work somewhere else Strive I regularly go 'above and beyond' at work I do my best work every day February, 2009 2006 Harvard University 2008 Harvard University Hewitt Best Employer Benchmark 71% 80% 59% 64% 65% 77% 58% 68% 56% 66% 73% 40% 57% 48% 57% 66% 71% 80% 83% 67% 69% 80% 85% 70% 5

Engagement Scores at-a-Glance 63% 40% Serious 67% 75% * 76% Indifferent Des 30% t 66% Serious High Performance/ Hewitt Best Employer Destructive 100% 0% Harvard 2008 Engagement Score: 75% 2006 Harvard University (66%) February, 2009 2008 Harvard University (75%) 2006 SEAS (63%) * Hewitt Best Employer 2008 SEAS (67%) 6 Benchmark (76%)

Driver Impact Analysis─ Harvard University Overall Engagement: 67% Threats Current % Favorable University Reputation Harvard deserves its reputation as a great place to work Local Leadership I see strong evidence of effective local leadership Career Opportunities I know what career opportunities are available to me Resources and Processes I have the tools and resources I need to do my job well University Leadership I see strong evidence of effective leadership at the University Performance Management The performance review process has been helpful to me in understanding how well I am doing my current job. Quality of Life The balance between my work and personal commitments is right for me. February, 2009 Opportunities 67% 62% 30% 56% 47% 63% 66% 63% 7

Driver Impact Analysis─ Harvard University Overall (continued) Engagement: 67% Threats Current % Favorable Day-to-Day Work I get a sense of accomplishment from my work 73% Pay I am paid fairly for the contributions I make to Harvard’s success 54% Diversity People here are treated fairly, regardless of their age, race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability 73% Manager My manager/supervisor provides the support I need to succeed. 56% Benefits Overall, my benefits meet my (and my family’s) needs well 78% Safety This is a physically safe and secure place to work. 85% Physical Work Environment The physical work environment at my facility is appropriate for the type of work I do. 78% February, 2009 67% 69% Coworkers My relationships with coworkers are a major reason I remain working here. Opportunities 8

Engagement Drivers Impact Model This graphic categorizes the factors based on the Impact Analysis High Opportunity, High Threat High Opportunity, Low Threat 28 University Reputation Career Opportunities 22 Resources & Processes University Leadership Performance Management 15 Quality of Life Day-to-Day Work Pay Manager Diversity 8 Benefits Safety Coworkers Physical Work Environment Low Opportunity, High Threat High -45 -38 -31 Low Opportunity, Low Threat -24 -17 Threats (Negative Impact) February, 2009 9 -10 1 Low -3 Opportunities (Positive Impact) Local Leadership

Staff saw evidence of improvement in the “big three” focus areas identified in the 2006 survey: University Leadership, Pay, and Career Opportunities February, 2009 10

Local leadership got improved marks, but at 30%, still ranked quite low compared to University leadership and manager/supervisor leadership. February, 2009 11

Specifically, employees want to be better informed about what’s happening around SEAS and to see how their work fits into the bigger picture. February, 2009 12

SEAS staff would also like to see improvements in the areas of staff inclusion, resources and processes, and pay for performance. February, 2009 13

Open Ended Questions Best Thing about Working At Harvard Worst Thing about Working At Harvard Main Suggestion for Improvement February, 2009 14

Best Thing about Working At Harvard 21 SEAS staff members said the benefits were the best part of working at Harvard. “I believe that the benefits are excellent, including the non-monetary ones. ” 19 SEAS staff members said their coworkers are the reason they love working at Harvard. “I work for great faculty and the staff assistants work hard to help each other and the people they work for. ” 14 SEAS staff members said the intellectual environment is what they love best. “The energy and excitement associated with working at the best University in the world is why I work here. ” February, 2009 15

Worst Thing about Working At Harvard 15 SEAS staff members said Harvard’s bureaucracy posed the most threat to their job satisfaction. “The increasing volume of bureaucracy compared to time available to participate in scientific activities. ” 9 SEAS staff members said the faculty/staff divide bothered them the most. “Faculty are not held accountable to the same standards as staff. ” 8 SEAS staff members pointed to Harvard’s decentralization as their main frustration. “Harvard is decentralized, takes great lengths to get problems resolvedsometimes routes are circular and lengthy. ” February, 2009 16

Main Suggestion for Improvement SEAS staff members were very articulate and offered some great suggestions for improvement. These responses tended to vary more substantially then the other open-ended questions. However, the following trends emerged: 12 individuals suggested Harvard implement a pay for performance system. “More clearly link pay raises with performance reviews. ” 5 people wanted SEAS to streamline processes and procedures to “cut through red tape” “Reduce the administrative layers” February, 2009 17

SEAS 2008 Internal Survey Results February, 2009 18

SEAS 2008 Survey Background • SEAS staff were invited to participate in a SEAS specific survey during the Summer/Fall of 2008 – 103 employees participated in the survey • 51. 5% were exempt employees • 32. 2% were non-exempt employees • 16. 2% are involved directly in research support • Staff members were asked 57 questions and encouraged to write in their own feedback • Questions were written to gauge employee satisfaction with their direct supervisor(s) and with the various key departments within SEAS February, 2009 19

SEAS staff feel their skills are well suited for their jobs; however roughly half are taking advantage of training opportunities. • 88. 8% reported that their professional skill set matched their current responsibilities. • 53. 8% have participated in training offered by Harvard’s Center for Workforce Development. • 51. 9% have taken advantage of the TAP(and 7. 9% report being involved in a terminal degree program). • 86. 5% occasionally or frequently discuss training and professional development with their supervisor. • 85. 1% of staff reported that their supervisor has approved requests for training or professional development. February, 2009 20

Staff feel recognized by their supervisors and colleagues and are actively participating in their own professional development. • 71. 8% reported they met with their supervisor annually to discuss professional development. • 43. 5% reported they met with their supervisor annually to discuss job performance; 40. 6% reported they met with their supervisor more frequently. • 93. 4% reported that their supervisor recognized their work. • 90. 3% reported that their colleagues recognized their work. February, 2009 21

Staff would like to see more SEAS wide communication to facilitate community building and a sense of connection. February, 2009 22

Despite our current space crunch, over 75% of SEAS staff reported satisfaction with their physical environment and resources. • 77. 1% reported that their physical environment (e. g. office or lab and shared spaces) are appropriate for job success • 89% report that they have access to the appropriate resources (e. g. technology, materials, expertise) to do their job successfully • In the University-wide survey, 78% of employees were satisfied with their work environment, but only 47% believed they had the tools and resources to do their jobs well. February, 2009 23

Percentage of respondents who were satisfied or very satisfied with each unit listed below. Unit Responsiveness Capacity Quality of Services Administration 63% 58% 61% Facilities 71% 80% 81% Finance 63% 56% 59% IT 80% 71% 84% HR 58% 52% 59% February, 2009 24

Next Steps • • Sharing of these high-level results within SEAS staff Development of a preliminary response plan with two elements: Near-term plan to protect/sustain gains made in employee engagement over the next 6+ months. Longer-term plan to extend/improve employee engagement over the next 6 -36 months. February, 2009 25