Friday, August 15
On Friday, August 15, the committee met for the first time. At this meeting the members of the committee discussed the goal of the project and then made a commitment to work on this task every week until the task was completed.
The committee members also engaged in a lengthy discussion about how we might improve the survey. There were discussions about the purpose of the survey, the use of the data, the questions that we really need answers to, the strength and weaknesses of creating our own survey, and the overall challenges we would face in this process.
At that meeting it was agreed that we needed to bring President Marrero and Janet Pilcher into this conversation.
Friday, August 29
On Friday, August 29, the committee met with President Marrero and Janet Pilcher to discuss some of the same issues discussed by the committee members during the first meeting. At the end of meeting we were clear on the President’s goal for this survey:
Measures of Engagement (wants all questions to be actionable – all questions should lead somewhere)
1. Vision - Is the vision clearly articulated? Effectively communicated?
2. Implementation Plan – feasible? Viable? Do employees believe in it and feel engaged in the SP?
3. Value – people feel valued? Essential?
4. Connection – believe in UWG? Connected to UWG?
5. Improvement – will direction improve? Is the university moving in the right direction? Do you think this is a good direction?
1. Leadership effectiveness.
2. Communication – does it move in both directions? Is it transmitted accurately?
3. Are you provided with everything you need to be successful?
4. Does one receive feedback?
5. Am I part of the decision making process?
Concepts to be measured:
• Leadership (All levels)
• Mission/Vision/Goals/Strategic Plan
• Work life Balance
Friday, September 5
On Friday, September 5, the committee met for the third time and spent all of that time discussing general themes or primary areas for investigation, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the previous survey.
Wednesday, September 10
On Wednesday, September 10 the committee met to determine the first two steps of the process.
It was decided that two (2) subcommittees would be formed. One subcommittee was asked to begin work on a conceptual map, to include a definition of ‘employee engagement’ and the concepts that could be considered ‘drivers of engagement’ and those concepts that could be considered ‘outcomes of engagement.’ The second subcommittee was tasked with drafting new, and arranging previous, questions for the engagement survey. This committee was also asked to consider the length of the survey and whether or not it would be feasible to create (1) a main ‘engagement block’ of questions and (2) modules that could be used over time, but not necessarily with every annual survey.
Wednesday, September 17
On Wednesday, September 17 the committee met to review the work completed by the subcommittee whose task it was to create a conceptual map.
After much discussion and consider of the definition of engagement and the concepts, the work of this subcommittee was approved by the larger committee. A copy of this work can be found under ‘Work Completed.’
Wednesday, October 1
The committee first met with President Marrero and Janet Pilcher. Members of the committee reported on tasks that had been completed and work that was in progress. Following a 45-minute discussion with President Marrero and Janet Pilcher, members of the committee spent the next hour reviewing the first draft of questions for the new survey. After a review of the questions it was decided that each member of the committee would evaluate the preliminary questions according to "process" or "outcomes" and then, would link every question to the concepts found in the conceptual map.
The Engage West survey is being designed in a way that will enhance the process for everyone. Questions are being (re)designed in a series of modules that include engagement, leadership, supervision, communication, campus climate, pay and benefits, work/life balance, and mission and goals. This structure was chosen to maximize reliability and validity, while minimizing the repetition with other university surveys. The committee hopes that after a baseline is established, modules that change very little year to year can be offered on a different timeline than annually. This will also allow for modules to be added that deal with presidential, institutional, and USG system priorities in any given year without extending the survey to the point where it becomes burdensome.