Survey of Organizational Excellence: 2005

1
Survey of Organizational Excellence 2005

• Results for Lamar University
• Executive summary
• prepared by Kevin Smith, Ph.D.

2
Overview
Along with more than 75 other State agencies,
colleges universities , Lamar and the other
TSUS institutions participated in the 2005
biennial Survey of Organizational Excellence
(SOE). This was Lamars fifth time to
participate since 1998. The SOE is produced
and analyzed by The University of Texas School
of Social Work, under the coordination of Dr.
Noel Landuyt. The SOE originated with SB 1563,
76th Legislature, and then Governor George
Bushs State customer service initiative. 429
Lamar faculty and staff completed and returned
the SOE for a response rate of 35, a low rate
compared to peers.
3
Organizational Excellence
The SOE is designed to provide data that may lead
to organizational improvement. Areas of
strength and concern are identified from among
the following five dimensions of the work
environment of the State organization 1) the
work group, 2) accommodations, 3) features of
the organization, 4) information, and 5)
personal. Each dimension consists of 3-5
survey constructs each construct is composed of
specific opinion statements-84 in all. The next
5 slides describe the five work environment
dimensions.
4
Dimension 1. Work Group
The work group dimension attempts to capture
the following four constructs a) supervisor
effectiveness, b) fairness, c) team effectiveness
and d) diversity. Survey items were designed
for each construct and respondents indicated
their degree of agreement (using a
five-point Likert scale) for each item.
Twenty-two survey items were used to measure
the four work group constructs. Scores were
averaged and multiplied by 100 producing a range
from 100 (lowest) to 500 (highest). As an
example, supervisor effectiveness was captured
with statements such as We are given adequate
feedback about our performance. Strongly agree
to Strongly Disagree.
5
Dimension 2 Accommodations
The accommodations dimension consists of the
following four constructs a) fair pay, b)
physical environment, c) benefits d) employee
development. To measure these constructs,
surveys items such as People are paid fairly for
what they do were employed. Fifteen opinion
items were used to measure the accommodations
constructs.
6
Dimension 3 Organizational Features
The organizational features dimension of the
work environment includes the following five
constructs a) change orientation, b) goal
orientation, c) holographic orientation, d)
strategic orientation and d) quality
orientation. Thirty-two items measured these
constructs. As an illustration, the change
orientation construct was measured by responses
to items such as My ideas and opinions count at
work.
7
Dimension 4 Information
The information dimension of the work
environment consists of the following three
constructs a) internal, b) availability and c)
external. Sixteen items were used to measure
these constructs, such as Information and
knowledge are shared openly within this
organization.
8
Dimension 5 Personal
The final dimension of organizational
effectiveness is the perceived effect the
organization has the employee, the personal
dimension. This dimension consists of four
constructs a) job satisfaction, b) time and
stress, c) burnout and d) empowerment. Nineteen
survey items were used to measure these
constructs including We have adequate resources
to do our jobs.
9
Findings Dimensions

• Cumulative scores were calculated for each of the
  five
• dimensions and standardized on the 100-500 scale.
  
• Lamars scores were
• 2005
• Work group 358
• Accommodation 354
• Organizational
• features 375
• Information 360
• Personal 373

10
Findings Dimensions, cont.
Lamars cumulative scores for the five dimensions
exceeded (i.e., were better than) those of State
agencies of similar size and mission! Next,
consider the constructs within each dimension
11
Findings Constructs

• Lamars five highest scoring constructs were
• Strategic orientation--392
• Benefits--386
• Quality orientation--384
• External information--382
• Burnout (lack of)--379
• The five lowest scoring constructs were
• Fair pay284
• Internal information337
• Team effectiveness--343
• Fairness--358
• Supervisor effectiveness363
• How are these constructs defined?

12
Findings Constructs, cont.
According to the 2005 SOE, through the eyes of
the universitys employees, what is Lamar good
at? Strategic orientation--This construct
reflects employees thinking about how the
organization responds to external influences
that should play a role in defining the
universitys mission, vision, services, and
products. Benefits--This construct provides a
good indication of the role the benefits package
plays in attracting and retaining employees at
Lamar. It reflects comparable benefits that
employees feel exist with other organizations in
the area.
13
Findings Constructs, cont.
Quality orientation--This construct focuses
upon the degree to which quality principles,
such as customer service and continuous
improvement, are part of Lamars culture as
well as the extent to which employees feel that
they have the resources to deliver quality
services. External information--This construct
looks at how information flows into the
organization from external sources, and
conversely, how information flows from inside the
organization to external constituents.
14
Findings Constructs, cont.
Burnout--This construct refers to a feeling of
extreme mental exhaustion that negatively
impacts employees physical health and job
performance, leading to lost organizational
resources and opportunities. Lamar employees
expressed little burnout. What then are Lamars
areas of concern? Fair pay--This construct
addresses perceptions of the overall compensation
package offered by Lamar.
15
Findings Constructs, cont.
Internal Communication--This construct captures
the flow of information within the organization
from the top down, bottom up and across
divisions or departments. It addresses the
extent to which communication exchanges are open
candid. Team Effectiveness--This construct
gathers data about how effective employees think
their work group is as well as the extent to
which the organizational environment
supports cooperation among employees.
16
Findings Constructs, cont.
Supervisor Effectiveness--This construct
provides insight into the nature of the
supervisory relationships in the organization,
including the quality of communication,
leadership, thoroughness fairness Fairness--
This construct measures the extent to which
employees perceive that a level playing field
exists that judgment of performance is based
on fair, open and job-based criteria. The next
question is how have Lamars scores changed since
the 2004 and 2000 surveys?
17
Findings Change since 2004
Purplework group dimension Blueaccom-modation
dimension
Point deviations from 2004 study. Legend items
in order, left to right, top to bottom
18
Findings Change since 2004
Green Organiza-tional features dimen-sion,
yellow information dimen-sion
19
Findings Change since 2004
Red Person-al dimen-sion
20
Findings Change since 2000
Purple work group dimen-sion Blue accomm-
odation dimen-sion
21
Findings Change since 2000
Green Organiza-tional features,
yellow Informa-tion
22
Findings Change since 2000
Red Person-al dimen-sion
23
Findings Change over time

• Scores for 16 of the 20 constructs improved or
  remained the
• same compared to the 2004 survey and all 20
  dramatically
• improved compared to the 2000 study.
• Compared to last year, the constructs that showed
  the greatest
• improvement were
• Fair pay
• Good benefits
• Adequate physical work environment
• Supervisor effectiveness
• Job satisfaction

24
Findings Change over time

• Compared to 2000, the constructs that showed the
  greatest
• improvement were
• Fairness
• Supervisor effectiveness
• Empowerment
• Lack of burnout
• Diversity
• Lastly, there are specific opinion items
  comprising each construct.
• What are Lamars strengths and weakness?

25
Findings Strengths Weakness Specific Opinion
Item Strengths

• I am satisfied with sick leave (score of 4.19)
• I feel a sense of pride when I tell people I
  work for LU (4.17)
• I am satisfied with my vacation leave (4.15)
• We develop services to match the needs of those
  we serve (4.12)
• Harassment is not tolerated at my workplace
  (4.12)
• We work well with the public (4.12)

26
Findings Strengths Weakness Specific Opinion
Item Weaknesses

• Only 3 of the 84 items scored below the midpoint
  of the scale and all were pay related. They
  were
• Salaries are competitive with similar positions
  in the community or at comparable institutions
  (2.73)
• My pay keeps pace with the cost of living (2.87)
• People are paid fairly for what they do (2.93)

27
Conclusion

• Lamar faired exceptionally well in the 2005
  SOE. LUs scores
• exceeded those for other state agencies,
  including other colleges
• and universities. In addition, scores for Lamar
  were higher than
• those for agencies of similar size and mission.
  Room for
• improvement certainly exists, but Lamar should be
  pleased
• with these findings.
• Importantly, LUs scores showed significant
  and positive change
• over scores from last year and the 2000 SOE. In
  most cases, the
• improvements were dramatic.
• For more information, definitions details, go
  to
• http//www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/survey/site/in
  dex.html)