| Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 66.97 |
| Liaison | Teddy Lhoutellier |
| Submission Date | March 13, 2019 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
University of Miami
PA-12: Assessing Employee Satisfaction
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 1.00 |
Teddy
Lhoutellier Sustainability Manager Environmental Health and Safety |
"---"
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:
Engagement levels are determined based on employees’ responses to nine questions that measure their connections to the organization across three dimensions:
Rational: How well employees understand their roles and responsibilities
(the "thinking" part of the equation)
Emotional: How much passion and energy they bring to their work (the "feeling" part of the equation)
Motivational: How well they perform in their roles (the "acting" part of the equation).
Based on a statistical analysis of their responses to all nine questions, survey respondents are clustered into four groups:
Engaged: Those giving full discretionary effort, with high scores on all three dimensions
Enrolled: The partly engaged, with higher scores on the rational and motivational dimensions, but less connected emotionally
Disenchanted: The partly disengaged, with lower scores on all three components of engagement, especially the emotional connection
Disengaged: Those who have disconnected rationally, emotionally and lack motivation
A brief description of the mechanism(s) by which the institution addresses issues raised by the evaluation (including examples from the previous three years):
Action plans created by leaders were based on unit results, then implemented. Updates on action planning were submitted to their supervisors.
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.