Stanford University
PAE-12: Employee Satisfaction Evaluation

An employee satisfaction survey was conducted in two separate implementations in 2010 with a total of 12 of Stanford’s schools and business units, with 5,200 staff members invited to take the survey. This was a pilot effort to determine the feasibility of an institution-wide survey for close to 10,000 staff members, now targeted to take place in the fall of 2013.

Stanford contracted with 3D Group of Emeryville, California, to develop the survey tool, which was deployed online using the vendor’s Internet servers. The survey was developed with input from a Steering Committee, which reviewed vendor proposals and selected a qualified vendor. The online survey was available for a two-week period, and 3,980 staff responded, an 80% response rate.

A website was developed to highlight the purpose of the survey and the timing, including a set of frequently asked questions: http://employeesurvey.stanford.edu.

Results were aggregated for each of the 12 participating schools and business units, in 11 dimensions of employee satisfaction:

• Change Management
• Commitment
• Communication
• Feedback and Coaching
• Job Compatibility
• Organizational Direction
• Professional Development
• Recognition
• Teamwork
• Supervisory Consideration
• Working Conditions

The highest rated dimension across all 12 schools and business units was commitment; the lowest rated dimension was Feedback and Coaching.

The survey included 53 rated items with a five-point Likert scale, each of which was associated with a specific dimension (document attached). Additionally, there was one open-ended question: Your opinion is important to us in the continual improvement of our organization. What one action can we take to make this a better place to work?

Reports were provided to all participating schools and business units that showed aggregate results for the organization. Managers with more than five responses from direct reports also received aggregate reports.

The primary use of the survey results was the expectation that managers in all participating schools and departments would engage their staff members in discussions to:

• Review results and discuss, using the results as a springboard to open conversation within the group.
• Identify actions to take that uphold aspects of the organization that were rated highly and strengthen aspects of the organization that were rated lower. In most cases, managers submitted action plans to their school or unit human resources officer.

University-wide, results from the 2010 survey implementations were used by leaders to:

• Develop a new “Manager as Coach” training that was delivered to several hundred managers and then incorporated as one of the sessions of a comprehensive manager development program.
• Develop a pilot “Performance Management @ Stanford” program, with 800 employees participating during the 2012 academic year; the emphasis of the program is on frequent conversations and coaching about performance, and on identifying specific experiences, education, or exposure to support employee growth and development.
• Associate performance increases on the degree to which manager action plans were carried out; this was an approach taken by Stanford’s largest school, the School of Medicine, to ensure serious attention was paid to each manager having a discussion and taking concrete actions to improve the workplace.
• Create a new communications group within Human Resources to help employees learn more about the services and resources available to them, including a health care consumer education initiative, a new Human Resources website highlighting services, and ongoing opportunities for employees to give input and feedback on university-wide employment-related services.