Overall Rating Gold
Overall Score 76.08
Liaison Leah Ceperley
Submission Date March 1, 2019
Executive Letter Download

STARS v2.1

University of Dayton
PA-12: Assessing Employee Satisfaction

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 1.00 / 1.00 Leah Ceperley
Sustainability Reporting and Assessment Specialist
Facilities Management / Hanley Sustainability Institute
"---" 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):
100

A brief description of the institution’s methodology for evaluating employee satisfaction and engagement:

In 2018, the University administered the AIM4 Community Excellence employee survey to 100% of university employees. This project examined the campus climate and campus experiences of the University of Dayton members in terms of matters of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in collaboration. The goal of this project was to identify information about how UD campus members experience the University of Dayton and to pinpoint areas that need improvement (feelings of belonging/inclusion, workplace environment, classroom environment, learning about diversity, framings of diversity, among others). The methodology for this survey: an email invitation was sent to all employees. Each employee voluntarily participated in an 18-20 minute survey. Informed consent included in the first part of the survey.

In addition, periodically a community climate survey is administered to track employee satisfaction with administration, compensation, and employment. The most recent university-wide survey on these themes was administered in 2014. Responses are anonymous and administrators from Human Resources work to present the data publicly on campus. Action steps are identified to meet the needs of the community that are not being met. Additionally, individual departments or divisions will administer employee satisfaction surveys to their staff to determine training and team building needs.


A brief description of the mechanism(s) by which the institution addresses issues raised by the evaluation (including examples from the previous three years):

For the 2018 survey, the University is working with a consultant to assess the data and findings, report back to the community through open forums, and host community working groups to find solutions to the problems identified.

For surveys related to training, team building, and satisfaction with administration, compensation, and employment, the following mechanisms are used to address issues raised by the survey: After the results are compiled, HR reports to the divisions on the results and offers opportunities for trainings or suggestions for improvement. University leadership works closely with the divisions to encourage implementation of training and changes to address issues raised in the evaluation. For example, in 2015 one department on campus showed that 1) Employees wondered how HR arrived at their wages; 2) Employees wanted more and better communication between their leaders and them; and 3) Employees wanted to know the process of promotion. The department leader contacted HR and asked for suggestions on how to address these questions. HR worked with the leader and created four training sessions. The training was conducted from February through September of the following year. Titles of the training sessions were: Job Classification Procedures (a description of the manner in which non-exempt wages are assigned at UD, Giving and Receiving Feedback, Servant Leadership (discussed the relationship between supervisor and employee and the supervisor's responsibility of serving the employee through development, support and opportunity), and Conflict Resolution/Team Collaboration.


The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
---

Additional documentation to support 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 and complete the Data Inquiry Form.