| Overall Rating | Silver - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 50.43 |
| Liaison | YOLANDA MENDOZA CAVAZOS |
| Submission Date | Nov. 27, 2017 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas
PA-12: Assessing Employee Satisfaction
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.90 / 1.00 |
Maria Teresa
Maldonado Sada Special Projects Sustainability dept |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
Has the institution conducted a survey or other evaluation that allows for anonymous feedback to measure employee satisfaction and engagement during the previous three years?:
Yes
Percentage of employees (staff and faculty) assessed, directly or by representative sample (0-100):
90
A brief description of the institution’s methodology for evaluating employee satisfaction and engagement:
The employee satisfaction survey is applied each three years to the main campus central staff (sample). The sample is 1797 of the main central staff employees.
The Human Resources Management that depend of the Administrative Secretariat is the responsible to apply the surveys.
The survey is a 360 degrees instrument of workers’ data recollection in order to know about the behavior, the way of working, and interaction with each other. The main purpose of this survey is to facilitate the necessary elements to provide a good working environment, identify work risks, seize opportunities, improve processes, increase the productivity and personnel performance.
The methodology has four stages:
1) Survey Design: that includes which aspects to evaluate, what kind of questions and the measure scale will be used.
2) Pilot: the pilot survey is applied to 6 different secretariats.
3) Data capture and analysis: the results of the pilot is analyzed.
4) Communication: the human resources communicated the instrument and the purpose of the survey to all the campus managers.
The most important aspects to measure and to consider the University's working environment are: about the immediate boss (leadership), the workers and their working place (functions), conditions, capacitation and personal relationships.
Two scales are defined: one for the working environment and other for the performance evaluation.
In order to obtain a well working environment on the Institution, the department or office has to obtain a 8.0 or higher score.
A brief description of the mechanism(s) by which the institution addresses issues raised by the evaluation (including examples from the previous three years):
The University pretend to involve all the aspects for a good working environment in all the human resources politics.
As a result of the last survey, the working environment of the University score was 8.45, which means that the University in that year had a good working environment. 15 areas of main central campus had opportunities’ areas and another 5 had alert areas.
Optional Fields
---
Additional documentation to support the submission:
---
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
---
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.